Planning Commission Regular Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 27, 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 David McEwen and Harold Woodruff WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF Steve Pastorik, Steve Lehman, Brock Anderson, and Kirsten Hunt WEST VALLEY CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT Brandon Hill, Deputy City Attorney AUDIENCE There were 5 people in the audience GPZ-6-2022 Mountain America Credit Union 2531 S Redwood Road General plan change from Residential Office to General Commercial and zone change from R-1-6 to C-2 0.85 acres Kristine Johanos with Mountain America Credit Union has submitted a General Plan/zone change application for a 0.85 acre parcel located at 2531 S Redwood Road. The property is currently zoned R-1-6 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 6,000 square feet) with a General Plan designation of Residential Office. The proposed zone is C-2 (General Commercial) and the proposed General Plan designation is General Commercial. Surrounding zones include C-2 to the north, R-1-6 to the south and east, and RM (Multiple Unit Dwelling Residential) to the west. The property is surrounded by an accounting office to the north, a home and a church to the east, a duplex to the south, and fourplexes to the west on the west side of Redwood Road. The property includes a home on the south end of the property that was built in 1942. If this application is approved, the applicant plans to build a Mountain America Credit Union branch on the subject property. The existing home 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 part of the review of General Plan/zone change applications, staff sends the concept plan to Public Works for any initial feedback. The following are comments received by Public Works:  The curb returns installed by UDOT at the southeast corner of Warnock Avenue and Redwood Road at the northeast corner Stratford Avenue and Redwood Road are in the wrong locations and will need to be reconstructed.  The Redwood Road Overlay Zone streetscape will be required and a Public Sidewalk, Lighting and Utility Easement will be required.  Improvements will be required along the frontages of Stratford and Warnock.  We do have a storm drain on the east side of the lot that they can drain to. However, our map shows it as a corrugated metal pipe and it will likely be in poor condition. We'd like them to replace that pipe with reinforced concrete pipe per current city standards. If they already have to relocate the pipe for the trees and other landscaping requirements it would be at their cost. We'd also need to look at any required easements if relocated to the west. If relocation isn't required for the trees and other landscaping requirements, we can reimburse them for the storm drain pipe replacement in it's current location. Staff Alternatives: 1. Approval. This application should be approved.  2. Continuance. This application should be continued for reasons determined during the public hearing. 3. Denial. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. He reviewed the preliminary comments from the Public Works Department regarding the concept plan submitted by the applicant for the Commission. Steve noted that during the pre-meeting, the Commission asked about the possibility of changing the zone to C-1 and not the requested C-2 zone. He said that a financial institution is permitted within the C-1 zone. However, the landscaping requirement is greater for the C-1 zone. Steve mentioned that the code allows for a 10% landscape reduction for the subject property where it has been affected by the Redwood Road streetscape. Chair Fuller asked Steve if he knew the percentage of landscaping depicted in the proposed concept plan. Steve stated that the 15% requirement is displayed on the concept plan but it does not show the proposed percentage. Commissioner Winters asked if the Commission were to approve this proposal, what would the next step be? Steve explained that this would be permitted use, and it would be reviewed by staff. Commissioner Winters asked if the Commission were to approve the C-1 zone and the applicant can’t meet the landscape requirement for that zone, but they could meet the requirement for the C-2 zone, would they need to request a variance from the Board of Adjustment? Steve said that is correct and noted that with the additional 10% reduction permitted by code, the landscape requirement for the C-1 zone would be 18%, and for the C-2 zone, it would be 13%. Chair Fuller asked if the applicant wanted to comment. Brooke Bean, with Sanders Architects, said she was attending via zoom and would answer any questions. Commissioner Winters reviewed why the Commission had asked about the C-1 zone instead of the C-2 zone requested for Mrs. Bean. He asked Brooke if she had any concerns with them approving the C-1 zone. Mrs. Bean said that she would need to calculate the exact landscaping percentage to see if they can meet what is required within the C-1 zone. She explained that they had requested the C-2 zone because that zone already existed in the area, but she understands why the Commission is considering the C-1 zone. Robert Hicks, the subject property owner, said that he has owned this property for forty-five years and has looked into many different uses for this lot. He feels the Credit Union would be the best option, and it would help clean up the area. Mr.  Hicks mentioned that the City’s streetscapes are a massive waste of water. He would like the City to consider a streetscape more suited for a desert. Commissioner Winters said he does not believe the streetscape should be live plant material. He asked Steve if artificial turf could be used instead. Steve reviewed what is permitted regarding artificial turf. Commissioner Winters asked Steve what the cleanest way would be to approve the C-1 zone and permit the landscape requirement of the C-2 zone. Steve explained that the Commission could approve the C-2 zone and limit the use to what is allowed in the C-1 zone through a development agreement. Motion: Commissioner Winters motioned to approve GPZ-6-2022 with the modification of limiting the uses to what is allowed in the C-1 zone. Commissioner Lovato seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Chairperson Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Unanimous – GPZ-6-2022 - Approved SMI-5-2022 Colin Subdivision 2781 West 4100 South R-1-8 2 Lots .63 Acres BACKGROUND Mr. Evy Colin is requesting preliminary plat approval for the Colin Subdivision. The subdivision is bordered on the east, south and west by existing single-family development being known as the Shorland Phase 5, 4 and 1 Subdivisions respectively. The north side of this property is adjacent to 4100 South. 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. Recommend circular drive or other method to prevent backing onto 4100 South. Soils report will be required. Public Improvements will be required to connect with new improvements to the east and transition to older improvements at the western boundary of the subdivision. Building Inspections: Follow recommendations outlined in the soils report. ISSUES: Mr. Colin is proposing a new subdivision consisting of 2 lots on .63 acres. This property was not included in the adjacent subdivisions to the east, south or west but is zoned R-1-8 and eligible to be subdivided. The proposed subdivision is adjacent to 4100 South which will be providing access to both lots. This right-of-way is classified as a major arterial street. As such, the following language in City Code requires the following: On Lots with available access only onto an Arterial, a circular drive or some other type of vehicular maneuvering area shall be provided to enable vehicles to enter traffic moving forward rather than backing. The minimum depth of such Lots shall be 120 feet and the minimum width shall be 85 feet. These lots are of sufficient width (95 feet) and depth (143 feet) to accommodate this requirement. A note will be placed on the plat to notify potential builders that the condition above will be required for each lot that they provide a mechanism for a vehicle to front 4100 South as opposed to backing onto said street. This will be addressed at such time a building permit is requested. Both lots meet and exceed frontage and area requirements of the R-1-8 zone. Each lot is 13,585 square feet in size. The property does sit down in elevation from the existing top back of curb at 4100 South. Topography for lot 1 is approximately 6-7 feet lower than the curb elevation and flattens out on the east end to 1-2 feet lower in elevation. Builders of new homes will need to coordinate water and sewer connections with Granger Hunter and site plans for future homes will need to show driveway accommodations with the existing slope. It is likely that a walkout basement on the west lot could be accommodated with the slope of the property. As with all new subdivision development, there is a concern with the potential of ground water impacts. The adjacent subdivisions are too old to provide any useable information on groundwater. And since this property sits below the existing right-of-way along 4100 South, staff will require a soils report to be submitted for review. The report will simply need to indicate the presence of any ground water and recommendations for footing depth if ground water is encountered. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: A. Grant preliminary approval for the Colin Subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. That compliance be made with Granger Hunter Improvement District regarding water line extensions, sewer connections and fire protection. This review will need to consider elevations that currently exist on the property. 2. That the subdivision name be approved by Salt Lake County. 3. That the developer provide a soils report. The report simply needs to identify any existence of ground water. If ground water is encountered, the lowest floor slab shall be 3-feet above the water elevation. 4. That the developer resolve all staff and agency concerns addressed in this report as well as other matters associated with utilizes etc. 5. That the developer install public improvements along 4100 South including curb, gutter, parkstrip and sidewalk. The connections of these improvement shall correspond with existing improvements on both the east and west boundaries. 6. That a circular driveway or other alternative shall be provided at the building permit process that demonstrates vehicles will front 4100 South as opposed to backing out on to 4100 South. 7. That future site plans consider the existing slope when laying out home placement. This matter will be addressed with Engineering and Planning at the building permit process. B. Continuance to allow the developer an opportunity to address issues raised during the public hearing. Discussion: Steve Lehman presented the application. Gilles Michey Jr., a resident of West Valley City, asked if the application is only to subdivide the property. Commissioner Fuller said that is correct, they are proposing to subdivide the property for single-family homes. Motion: Commissioner Lovato motioned to approve SMI-5-2022 subject to the seven staff alternatives outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Wood seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Chairperson Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Unanimous – SMI-5-2022 – Approved SD-2-2022 4100 South U-111 Street Dedication 4100 South 8400 West 1.7 acres BACKGROUND: Korey Kinder with DR Horton, representing Magna Township, is requesting consideration to dedicate a potion of 4100 South west of U-111. The proposed dedication is necessary to provide access to a future project within SL County to be known as Little Valley. ISSUES: Property west of U-111 at this location, the majority of which is located in Salt Lake County, Magna Township, is undergoing a major transformation with a variety of land uses on the west bench of the Salt Lake Valley. A critical component to the success of this development is gaining access from 4100 South west of U-111. Discussions about this access have been ongoing between the City and developer for quite some time. The initial proposed alignment did not meet specifications of West Valley City. The intersection at 4100 South and U-111 was off-set at an angle heading southwest due to the location of a private property owner to the north. It is staffs understanding that the portion of property that prevented the correct alignment has been negotiated and resolved with that property owner, thus allowing a correct intersection alignment at this location. There are going to be two subdivision plats: One for that portion lying within the boundaries of West Valley City and the other plat for that portion lying within the boundaries of Magna Township. The portion within West Valley City occupies an area of approximately 1.7 acres. There are a few engineering concerns with regards to section lines and proposed half widths, but those will be resolved as future reviews take place. In summary, this application dedicates right-of-way located in the City’s boundary west of U- 111 for a future project in Magna Township. Construction of said right-of-way will need to comply with City standards and reviews of the City’s Engineering Division. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approval of the 4100 South U-111 dedication plat, subject to approval from the West Valley City Engineering Division. 2. Continuation, to address issues raised during the public hearing. Discussion: Steve Lehman presented the application. Korey Kinder with DR Horton said that they have been working with the City for a while, and he feels the straight- through alignment is the best option. He stated that the curved road is in the process of being vacated, and the T intersection is dedicated. Motion: Commissioner Wood motioned to approve SD-2-2022 subject to approval from the West Valley City Engineering Division. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Chairperson Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Unanimous – SD-2-2022 – Approved M-3-2022 Arby’s Landscaping Exception 3535 S 5600 W C-2 Zone (1.07 Acres) The property owner is requesting modifications to the requirements of Section 7-10-103 of Title 7, Landscaping Standards Applicable to All High-Image Arterials. This property is one of many that was impacted by UDOT’s widening of the intersection at 3500 South and 5600 West, in connection with the Mountain View Corridor project. 5600 West is subject to the regulations outlined in section 7-10 of the West Valley City Municipal Code, which defines landscaping standards for properties that have frontage on high-image arterial streets. The right-of-way improvements shifted everything to the east on this site, so some of the landscaping adjacent to the sidewalk was eliminated. The code requires a minimum of a 20’ landscape buffer adjacent to the sidewalk, but there is currently only about a 12’ to 13’ buffer remaining. The Planning Commission can grant a modification to the 20’ landscaped buffer requirement as outlined in 7- 10-104. The building on the property is over 65’ from the new property line. Currently there is a drive aisle that is next to the diminished landscape buffer, and then there is an additional 30’ of landscaping in front of the building. While the drive aisle could potentially be shifted to the east to accommodate for the required 20’ of landscaping next to the sidewalk, it would just be relocating landscaping from one area to another. Staff believes that the layout of the site should remain as is, but that the landscaping should be modified to meet all other requirements of 7-10- 103. These requirements include installing one tree for every 30’ of frontage, 50% lawn or artificial turf and 50% live plant material in the remaining areas. If lawn is used, the code requires any areas containing lawn be at least 8’ wide. The existing sidewalk that leads to the building should also be connected to the public sidewalk. A landscape plan needs to be submitted to staff for review before any work is completed. Staff Alternatives Approval. Twenty feet of landscaping is not required directly adjacent to the sidewalk, but the following modifications shall be made to the site as described below. 1. 1 tree shall be added for every 30’ of frontage and selected from the table in 7-10- 103(3). 2. At least 50% of the landscaped area shall be grass or artificial turf that meets the standards in 7- 2-127. 3. All remaining areas between the sidewalk and the building shall be landscaped with at least 50% live plant material. 4. The existing sidewalk that goes to the building shall be extended to connect to the public sidewalk. 5. A landscape plan shall be submitted to staff for review and approval before any landscaping installation is done. Denial. All 7-10-103 requirements shall be met, including the required 20’ of landscaping next to the sidewalk. Discussion: Brock Anderson presented the application. There was no further discussion. Motion: Commissioner Winters motioned to approve M-3-2022 subject to the five staff alternatives. Commissioner Wood seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Chairperson Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Unanimous – M-3-2022 - Approved M-4-2022 Kraig McGee Landscaping Exception 3535 S 5600 W C-2 Zone (0.49 Acres) The applicant is requesting modifications to the requirements of Section 7-10-103 of Title 7, Landscaping Standards Applicable to All High-Image Arterials. The code requires a minimum of a 20’-wide landscape buffer adjacent to the sidewalk with specific tree and plant material requirements. The Planning Commission can grant a modification to the 20’ landscaped buffer requirement if the property owner can demonstrate that compliance would necessitate “elimination of improvements required by other ordinances which could not be relocated elsewhere on the site” (7-10-104(1)(b)). 3500 South was widened several years ago, which made the landscaping along the frontage of this property non-conforming to the code regulations. At the time, however, there was no requirement in the code for replacing landscape buffers when they were reduced in size. The landscaping requirement is being triggered now by a tenant improvement permit that was submitted to the City, which has a valuation of over $50,000. The applicant is requesting an exception to the 20’ requirement based on the location of the building and the parking. The applicant provided a site plan and parking analysis as part of their application. The building is only 8’ from the edge of the sidewalk and the edge of the parking lot is 9’ from the sidewalk. The applicant has indicated that there will be 5,250 sf of retail floor area and 1,162 sf or warehouse area. Based on the parking requirements of 7-9-104 the site needs 21 parking stalls. There are currently 22 parking stalls provided. Staff is supportive of the landscaping exception in front of the building but recommends that the Planning Commission still require the full 20’ of landscaping next to the parking lot. First, the site could technically lose one stall and still comply with the code. However, staff believes it wouldn’t even be necessary to remove a stall. The striping for the ADA stall could simply be relocated to the south side of the stall and there would be no loss of parking spaces. Second, having the full 20’ of landscaping would provide a better buffer for cars entering and exiting the site. Also, once the site to the east is required to put in the full 20’ buffer it would provide consistent landscaping along the frontages of both sites. The code also requires 50% grass or artificial turf within the landscape buffer, 1 tree for every 30’ of frontage, and 50% live plant material in the remaining areas. Lawn is not allowed in areas less than 8’ wide, so the area in front of the building needs to be landscaped with at least 50% live plant material. At least 50% of the landscaped area in front of the parking shall be lawn or artificial turf. The remaining area needs at least 50% live plant material. Three trees are required in the buffer. A landscape plans needs to be submitted for staff review to verify code compliance. There are other landscaping issues on the site that will be addressed through building permit and business license reviews. Staff Alternatives Option 1 Approval. The size of the landscaped area in front of the building may remain as-is, however, the full 20’ of landscaping shall be installed next to the parking lot. The landscaping shall also comply with the following requirements of 7-10-103: 1. At least 50% of the landscaped area adjacent to the parking shall be grass or artificial turf that meets the standards in 7-2-127. Grass is not required in front of the building. 2. 1 tree is required for every 30’ of frontage. Any existing trees may count towards this requirement and any new trees shall be selected from the table in 7-10-103(3). 3. All other areas shall be landscaped with at least 50% live plant material. 4. A landscape plan shall be submitted to staff for review and approval before any landscaping installation is done. Option 2 Approval. The size of the landscaped areas along the frontage may remain as-is, however, the landscaping shall also comply with the following requirements of 7-10- 103:  1. The landscaped area adjacent to the parking shall either be entirely grass or shall be artificial turf that meets the standards in 7-2-127 and covers 50% of the buffer area. Grass is not required in front of the building. 2. 1 tree is required for every 30’ of frontage. Any existing trees may count towards this requirement and any new trees shall be selected from the table in 7-10-103(3). 3. All other areas shall be landscaped with at least 50% live plant material. 4. A landscape plan shall be submitted to staff for review and approval before any landscaping installation is done. Option 3 Denial. The site shall meet all requirements of 7-10-103. Discussion: Brock Anderson presented the application. He pointed out that the staff report includes two options for approval. Commissioner Wood said she is concerned about requiring the twenty feet of landscaping for this proposal where the property to the east isn’t meeting that requirement. She feels it would look better for both properties to have uniform landscaping. Brock explained that the property to the east, the buffet, has not submitted anything to trigger the landscape requirement. However, he feels they will need to meet the requirement in the future. Commissioner Wood stated that she is more comfortable requiring the landscape buffer if it will be uniform in the future. Jake Bankhead, the Property Manager, addressed the Commission. He stated that according to the recent land surveys, the lot line to the east ends just behind the parking stalls. Mr. Bankhead said the buffet owns part of the landscape buffer next to the ADA parking stall. He asked how they would proceed with the improvements where they do not own the entire landscape buffer. Mr. Bankhead said he would like to know when they would be required to install the required landscaping. Brock said that he is just learning about the lot line placement. He noted that the lines depicted in the aerial image are not 100% accurate, so he would need to evaluate it further. Mr. Bankhead said he could provide the survey for Brock to review. Brock noted that the subject property and two of the adjacent lots have the same property owner. He explained that the parcel outlined in red in the aerial is the subject property, but all three properties would be involved.  Brock explained that the timing of the improvements would be in conjunction with the tenant improvement permit. Mr. Bankhead requested that the Commission approve option 2, where the lot line and landscape buffer require further evaluation. He feels adding the landscaping at the same time as the property to the east would be the best option. Chair Fuller asked if the property was irrigated. Mr. Bankhead believes there are drip lines servicing the trees. Commissioner Winters asked how the Commission should proceed if they would like to request a delay agreement to have the improvements for the subject property and the property to the east happen simultaneously. Brock said that a delay agreement would need to be approved by the City Council. He asked Brandon Hill, Deputy City Attorney if the possibility of a delay agreement would affect how the Commission would approve this proposal. Brandon stated that the Commission would approve the proposal and recommend to the Council a delay agreement for the improvements to coincide with the property to the east. He explained that if the Council approved the delay agreement, it would suspend the requirement until then. Chair Fuller asked Brandon if this application would automatically go to the Council with their recommendation. Brandon explained that it would not automatically go to the Council, and the delay agreement would need to be submitted by staff. He suggested that the Commission approve option one and request that staff submits a delay agreement to the Council for approval. Motion: Commissioner Winters motioned to approve M-4-2022 option 1, with the recommendation that staff submit a delay agreement to the Council for the landscape improvements to coincide with the property to the east. Commissioner Wood seconded the motion. Vote: Chairperson Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes  Unanimous – M-4-2022 - Approved There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Hunt, Administrative Assistant