Planning Commission Regular Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 2022 The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Vice Chair Lovato 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 Brent Fuller and Martell Winters 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 13 people in the audience SMI-7-2022 West Valley Land Holdings Subdivision – Amending a portion of Parcel A Fairbourne Station Phase 1 Subdivision 3560 South Constitution Boulevard CC Zone 3 Lots 3 Acres BACKGROUND: The West Valley City Redevelopment Agency is requesting preliminary approval for the WVLH Subdivision. The subdivision consists of 3 lots on 3 acres and will dedicate a portion of Lehman Avenue. The subdivision is located at 3560 South Constitution Boulevard and is zoned CC (City Center). ISSUES: The proposed subdivision is being requested in order to consolidate old property lines, establish 3 new lots for the public safety building, future commercial uses and a parking lot. The subdivision will also dedicate a portion of Lehman Avenue and amend a portion of Parcel A in the Fairbourne Station Phase 1 Subdivision. Access to the subdivision will be gained from Constitution Boulevard, Lehman Avenue and Market Street. A new access easement will be created from Lehman Avenue going north to the office tower. This easement will be located on lots 1, 2 and 3 and will be in favor of West Valley Office Holdings, LLC to provide vehicular access from Lehman Avenue to the office tower. The subdivision is located in the City Center Zone. All development proposals within the subdivision have or will require Planning Commission review. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the WVLH Subdivision subject to a resolution of staff and agency comments. 2. Continue the application for reasons determined during the Planning Commission meeting. Discussion: Steve Lehman presented the application. There was no further discussion. Motion: Commissioner Woodruff motioned to approve SMI-7-2022 subject to a resolution of staff and agency comments.  Commissioner Porter seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Unanimously – SMI-7-2022 - Approved SA-3-2022 Moreno Subdivision – Amending lots 15-17 Block 2 East Magna Plat A 7055 West Gates Avenue M Zone 1 Lot BACKGROUND Erik Moreno is requesting preliminary approval for the Moreno Subdivision. This application will also amend lots 15, 16 and 17 Block 2 East Magna Plat A. The subdivision will consist of 1 lot on 1.3 acres, is located at 7055 West Gates Avenue and is zoned M. ISSUES: The subdivision is being proposed to consolidate and reconfigure the existing 3 lots into 1 lot for a new commercial/manufacturing development. The 3 lots the proposed subdivision will be amending are lots 15, 16, and 17 of the East Magna Plat A Subdivision. The consolidation is a requirement of the conditional use application approved by the Planning Commission in January 2022. Access will be gained from Gates Avenue. Full dedication exists along Gates Avenue, but formal improvements are lacking. As part of the site plan for the pending development, the applicant will be required to install curb, gutter and sidewalk. Bonding for these improvements will be handled with the Conditional Use application. Because this application is a commercial subdivision, and as the Planning Commission has already reviewed the conditional use application, staff and agency comments have already been addressed. The subdivision plat will contain easements and other information applicable to the division of property. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the Moreno Subdivision and the amendment to lots 15-17 of the East Magna Plat A Subdivision 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. There was no further discussion. Motion: Commissioner Porter motioned to approve SA-3-2022 subject to a resolution of staff and agency comments. Commissioner Wood seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Unanimously – SA-3-2022 - Approved C-16-2022 Golden Star Stucco & Plaster, LLC 3751 West 4400 South R-1-8 Zone (.18 Acres) The applicant, Hilario Figueroa, representing Golden Star Stucco & Plaster, LLC, is requesting conditional use approval for a major home occupation for storage of a larger vehicle for property located at 3751 West 4400 South. The zoning for this area is R-1-8, (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 8,000 square feet). The West Valley City General Plan designates this area as Low Density Residential. The surrounding zone is R-1-8 on all sides and the surrounding uses include residential. A business license was submitted for this property in February 2022. The applicant indicated that there were several vehicles and trailers used for the business and that they were stored off site. However, when the site review was conducted the vehicles and some additional equipment and material was found being stored at the property. At that time the home occupation standards were discussed, the applicant has removed the violations from the property and has decided to pursue conditional use approval for storage of one of the larger trucks. (2003 Chevrolet C34 Flatbed Truck). That process is outlined in 7-7-115:  The maximum size of a vehicle used in association with a Home Occupation shall be equivalent to a one-ton pickup truck. If a Conditional Use Permit is obtained and the vehicle is screened and parked on private property, a larger commercial vehicle may be used if it is not a Heavy Truck. A “Heavy Truck” means concrete transport trucks, dump trucks, garbage trucks, log carriers, mobile cranes, refrigerator trucks, tractor trucks, tank trucks, and similar vehicles. No other vehicles, trailers or equipment will be stored on site. This property is a corner lot and there is an existing parking pad on the west side that will accommodate the flat bed truck. The area is partially fenced so additional screening will be required as part of this application. The applicant has indicated that a vinyl fence will be added to the north side of the pad. The gate area also needs screening. Staff recommends that the gate openings be covered with vinyl slats that match the additional fencing be added. All fencing materials must meet the City Code and be intended as fencing materials. No fabric, plywood or metal may be used as fencing. In order to accommodate the clear view requirements the gate must be relocated further north or swing in to the site and not out into the sidewalk and roadway. Staff Alternatives: Approval, subject to the resolution of any concerns raised at the public hearing as well as the following conditions: 1. The property shall be used for storage of one vehicle in association with the Home Occupation. That vehicle is a larger flat bed pickup truck and can not be a Heavy Truck as outlined in the City Code. 2. The truck must be parked on the subject property on a hard surfaced pad and screened as outlined in the staff report. 3. Additional fencing must be added to the north side of the pad as well as the gate. The fencing shall be vinyl or stucco to match the existing fencing. The gate screen shall also be vinyl or a similar material. No metal, plywood or fabric mesh shall be used. 4. There shall be no additional outside storage at this site. 5. Must maintain the required clear views by either relocating the access gate further north or having it open in to the site and not out into the sidewalk and roadway. 6. This use is subject to review upon a valid complaint. Continuance, to allow for the resolutions of any issues raised at the public hearing and to allow time for the applicant to submit more detailed information. Discussion: Jody Knapp presented the application. Hilario Figueroa, the applicant, said it would be too costly for him to change the gate to open in instead of out. He noted that it has always opened out and he would like to keep it that way. Chair Lovato asked Jody if there was a clear view requirement causing the need for the gate to open into the property. Jody said that was correct. She explained that the subject property is a corner lot, making things more challenging. Jody noted that in this case, two ordinances seem to conflict. She stated that a commercial use requires the gate to be screened, but the screening would disrupt the clear view. Mr. Figueroa asked if it was possible to add some screening allowing you to see through it, but it would disrupt the view of the truck in his driveway. Commissioner McEwen said he remembers past applications that screening was not required. He feels the gate is impressive as it is and asked if it is possible not to screen the gate. Jody pointed out that if the Commission thinks the gate blocks the view of the truck enough as it is currently, they could add that as a condition. She asked if the Commission intends to recommend that additional fencing be added to the north side. Commissioner Wood said that she would be okay making that recommendation. Robert Gene Smith said he is the property owner to the south of the subject property. He stated that he does not have any issues with this proposal. Mr. Smith explained that Mr. Figueroa is a great neighbor and has always kept a well- maintained yard. Mr. Smith said he would appreciate the Commission helping Mr. Figueroa to keep his work truck on his property. He stated that other large vehicles in the neighborhood are much more visible than Mr. Figueroa’s. Mr. Smith pointed out that in a year and a half, UDOT would be removing the homes to the west and south of the subject property, possibly making the screening less of an issue. Dennis Jones, a neighbor, said Mr. Figueroa keeps his yard clean and well maintained. He said he is here to support his neighbor and is in favor of this application. Motion: Commissioner Wood motioned to approve C-16-2022 subject to the six staff alternatives including two modifications, the gate would not require screening and can open out. Commissioner McEwen seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes  Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Unanimously – C-16-2022 - Approved CA-4-2022 Valley Collision Outside Storage 2738 S Constitution Blvd M Zone (1.74 acres) Valley Collision, located at 2738 S Constitution Blvd, is requesting conditional use approval for outside storage of vehicles on the property. The property is zoned M, Manufacturing, and the West Valley City General Plan designates this area as light manufacturing. Zoning to the north is M, zoning to the west and south is R-1-8, and zoning to the east is RMH, residential mobile home. Adjacent land uses include light industrial businesses to the north, a Rocky Mountain Power corridor to the west and south, and a mobile home park to the east. Valley Collision recently started to operate from the subject property. They are an autobody repair and painting business. There was a business previously on the property that also did collision repair, C-46-1997, but that approval did not allow for any outside storage on the property. There is one area on the north side of the building that was approved for the storage of vehicles during the day, but the conditional use approval did not allow outside storage. The applicant would like to use this area to the north, as well as a large portion of the existing parking lot on the south end for vehicle storage. Per 7-7-119, outside storage areas are to be screened from public view. The applicant has installed a chain link fence with slats along the southern area of the existing parking lot that they would like to use for storage. The area on the north side of the building was previously fenced with chain link and slats. All areas of the site where vehicle storage will occur was previously paved with asphalt. The property has frontage on Constitution Blvd, one of the City’s high image arterial streets. The site currently has the 20’ required landscaped setback along the frontage and street trees. Some additional trees were also recently planted as part of a business license review of the property. All landscaped areas shall be maintained. The original conditional use approval for the site required 40 parking stalls for one building, and an additional building was to be built later. A site plan included with that original approval showed both buildings and indicated there would be 59 total parking stalls on the site. There are currently 48 parking stalls. With the two outside storage areas proposed on the property, 22 customer and employee parking stalls will remain. The applicant has indicated that in the building there is 2,000 sq. ft. of office, 4,000 sq. ft. of storage, and 14,000 sf of production space, which includes 12 auto body bays and 6 paint bays. He also indicated that the highest employment shift currently has 10 employees, but 15 or 16 employees would be ideal. The applicant also said that they typically have up to three customers on the site at one time to drop off or pick-up vehicles. West Valley City code requires 3 customer and employee parking spaces for each service bay. The parking code requirement is also 1 stall per 250 sq. ft. of office area and 1 stall per 2,000 sq. ft. of storage. Based on the City code, the building square footage, and number of service baysin the building, the parking requirement for the site is 64 parking stalls. For reference, staff has provided parking numbers for similar auto-related uses from ITE’s Parking Generation Manual:  Tire Store: 2.85 stalls/1,000 SF Monday – Friday and 4.17 stalls/1,000 SF on Saturday  Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop: 5.07 stalls/1,000 SF Monday – Friday  Auto Parts and Service Center: 1.69 stalls/1,000 SF Monday – Friday and 1.07 stalls/1,000 SF on Saturday Going from 64 stalls to 22 is quite a reduction from what is required in the City Code. During the study meeting some of the Planning Commission members seemed hesitant to allow such a reduction. There are already on-street parking issues in front of the business. Some of the stalls in the fenced areas could be treated as somewhat of a flex space, where employees park in stalls during the day and at night the stalls are used for vehicle storage. Staff has provided three different parking stall requirement options in the approval. An option for continuance is also included which could allow the applicant to provide more information or a parking study justifying the request to the Planning Commission. Staff Alternatives: Approval, subject to the resolution of any concerns raised at the public hearing as well as the following: 1. All outside storage areas shall be screened from public view using chain link fencing with slats and shall be paved with asphalt of concrete. 2. Landscaping on the property shall be maintained. 3. Parking on the property shall meet one of the following requirements: a. All 7-9 requirements shall be met, which includes providing enough parking for 3 stalls per service bay, 1 stall per 250 sq. ft. of office space, and 1 stall per 2,000 sq. ft. of storage space. In the current proposal there are 18 service bays, but some of these service bays could be removed from the building, which would reduce the total amount of parking required. b. Parking on the property can be reduced from the requirements of 7-9, but there shall be at least 36 customer and employee parking stalls provided on the property, or 2 stalls per service bay. No additional stall shall be required for the office and storage areas of the building. c. Parking on the property can be reduced from the requirements of 7-9, but there shall be a minimum of 22 parking stalls provided on the  property. 4. All requirements of any affected department or agency must be met, including but not limited to Granger Hunter Improvement District, WVC Public Works, WVC Building Inspections and WVC Fire Department. 5. Subject to review upon valid complaint. Continuance, to allow the applicant more time to provide additional information justifying their request for a parking reduction on the site. Discussion: Brock Anderson said that the applicant sent an email to him today requesting this application be continued until the October 12, 2022 public hearing. Motion: Commissioner McEwen motioned to continue CA-4-2022 to the October 12, 2022 public hearing. Commissioner Porter seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Unanimously – CA-4-2022 - Continued C-19-2022 Kum & Go 6383 W 3500 S C-2 Zone (1.25 acres) The applicant, Galloway & Company, is requesting conditional use approval for a convenience store with fuel sales, which will be located on two parcels at 6337 W 3500 S. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and the West Valley City General Plan designates this area as Neighborhood Commercial. Zoning to the north is Agriculture, west is C-1 and R-1-8, and zoning to the south and east is R-1-8. The surrounding uses include single unit dwelling and two-unit dwelling residential to the north, south, east, and west, as well as another convenience store with fuel sales to the west. The applicant is proposing to redevelop the property for this project. The existing building is currently occupied by South Fork Hardware. The applicant is proposing to scrape the site and construct a new 5,620 sq. ft. building for a convenience store as well as install a new fuel canopy. The property has three street frontages. Access to the site will be from 3500 South and 6400 West. UDOT will need to approve the 3500 South access. Public Works has determined that only one access will be allowed from 6400 West. There will be no access to the property from Meander Ave. Based on the building square footage, 22 parking stalls are required. Due to the street frontages, a 20’ landscape setback is required along the north, south and west sides of the property. A 10’ setback is required on the entire east property line adjacent to the residential zone. The building and parking cannot encroach into the required setbacks. A 6’ tall masonry wall as outlined in 7-6-303(5) is required along the entire eastern boundary as well. 3500 South is one of the City’s high image arterial streets, so the landscaping within the 20’ setback along this street must meet the standards in 7-10-103. Landscaping along the other two frontages should include one tree for every 30 feet of frontage and have at least 50% live plant material. One tree placed every 60 feet is required adjacent to the residential uses along the east property line and should also include at least 50% live plant material. Twenty percent landscaping is required throughout the site. The building shall meet all the Commercial Design Standards outlined in 7-11-300P. Exterior materials will be primarily fiber cement panels with some metal accents. The fuel canopy also needs to include the same architectural elements that were used on the building, as outlined in 7-11-312. Typically this is accomplished by adding a wainscot that matches the building materials to the base of the fuel canopy posts. 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. All required setbacks from public rights-of-way and residential zones shall be met. 3. Parking on the site shall meet the requirements of 7-9. 4. A 6’ tall masonry wall as required in 7-6-303(5) shall be provided. 5. There shall be 20% landscaping on the site and shall also meet the following requirements: a. The frontage along 3500 South shall meet the Standards for Landscaping Along High-Image Arterial Streets found in 7-10-103. b. One tree shall be provided for every 30 feet of frontage along 6400 West and Meander Avenue. c. All landscaped areas shall include 50% live plant material. 6. The building shall meet all the Commercial Design Standards outlined in 7- 11- 300P. The fuel canopy shall also include similar architectural details as the building. 7. Signage shall comply with the West Valley City Code. 8. All requirements of any affected department or agency must be met, including but not limited to Granger Hunter Improvement District, WVC Public Works, WVC Building Inspections and WVC Fire Department.  9. 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. Christen Michaelson with Galloway & Company said he had nothing to add to Brock’s presentation. He stated that he is excited to develop a store in West Valley City. Mr. Michaelson explained that the Kum & Go is a high-end convenience store and fueling station, similar to a Maverik. He noted that it is a family-owned business with four hundred locations. Commissioner Wood asked Mr. Michaelson where Kum & Go is headquartered. He said out of Des Moines, Iowa. Motion: Commissioner Woodruff motioned to approve C-19-2022 subject to the nine staff alternatives. Commissioner Porter seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Unanimously – C-19-2022 - Approved C-20-2022 Sage Valley Townhomes 1854 W 4100 S RM Zone (1.54 acres) Grey Garza is requesting conditional use approval to construct townhomes at 1854 W 4100 S. The property is zoned RM (Multiple Unit Dwelling Residential) and is designated as very high density residential in the City’s General Plan. The project will include 18 units. Background In April of 2018 the site received RM zoning approval, which included a development agreement. The development agreement, which is included, was later amended by the City Council. This project is located on the west side of the Sage Valley Apartments. The apartment project received conditional use approval in November of 2019. The east tower of the project is nearing completion. Some existing buildings were demolished on the south end of the subject project area, but a majority of the site has remained undeveloped since K-Mart developed the property originally. Project Review The proposal includes 18, 3-story townhome units, divided between four buildings. There will be two 5-unit buildings and two four-unit buildings. Access to the property will be from the apartment project parking lot on the north and south ends of the parcel. On the west side of the property is a commercial property as well as single unit dwellings. Existing multi-unit dwelling residential borders the north edge. Buildings The units are required to be at least 2,400 sq. ft. of finished floor area per the Development Agreement. The floor plans reviewed by the Planning Commission in the Study Meeting under the initial proposal did not meet the minimum square footage requirement. The applicant has since updated the plans and the unit sizes now vary between 2,424 sq. ft. and 2,451 sq. ft. per unit. The building’s exterior includes brick, fiber cement siding, stucco, and metal panels. The building elevations need to comply with all materials, building relief, building design, window treatments, and roof treatments outlined in 7-11-400 of the City Code. Staff recommends adding a band between the 2nd and 3rd floors, as was shown in the Development Agreement elevations. The building is currently lacking one window treatment on the Primary Façade. The Planning Commission has the discretion to determine if any other treatment meets the intent of section 7-11-408. All units will include individual patio and balcony spaces on all three floors. The applicant is proposing to include roof-top decks on the end units of each building. Due to the existing single unit dwelling residential units that are adjacent to the property, staff recommends that a railing is provided to block access to the portion of the roof that extends on the west side of the door for the building in the north-west corner. Landscaping There will be 5’ of landscaping along the west and north edge of the property. A 6’ masonry wall will also be installed along these edges. All other areas of the site around the buildings will be landscaped. Landscaped areas need to include at least 50% live plant material. Amenities The townhomes will share amenities with the apartment project. The amenity area is located adjacent to the townhomes on the east edge of the parcel. Amenities will include a swimming pool, hot tub, basketball court, and a tot lot. Parking Each unit will have a 20’x20’ garage. At the time the property was rezoned, townhomes only required two parking spaces per unit, however it appeared that many of the units would have driveways. Most of the proposed driveways from the application submittal were only between 10 and 15 feet deep, which would not accommodate a car to park in front of the garage. The apartment project also provided 8 more parking stalls than were required in their conditional use proposal, so some of those stalls could be shared with the townhomes. Staff recommends that the applicant try to add additional parking spaces for the project on the townhome parcel. At the time this staff report was written the applicant was still working on modifying the site plan to accommodate for the larger unit sizes as well as adding additional parking. Staff Alternatives: Approval, subject to the resolution of any concerns raised at the public hearing as well as the following: 1. The applicant shall meet all provisions in the development agreement. 2. Roof-top decks on the building in the north-west corner of the site shall not extend across the full roof. A railing shall be installed on the west side of the door that exits the building to prevent full use of the roof-top area. 3. The building elevations shall comply with the following requirements: a. All materials, building relief, building design, and roof treatments outlined in 7- 11-400 of the City Code shall be met. b. A band shall be added along the same line as the patios between the 2nd and 3rd stories as was shown in Exhibit I of the Development Agreement. c. The window treatments as proposed on the primary façade are sufficient. 4. All landscaping shall include at least 50% live plant material. 5. Additional surface parking stalls shall be provided on the townhome parcel. 6. All requirements of any affected department or agency must be met, including but not limited to Granger Hunter Improvement District, WVC Public Works, WVC Building Inspections and WVC Fire Department. Continuance, for reasons determined during the public hearing. Discussion: Brock Anderson presented the application. He reviewed this application's conditions which are outlined in the staff report. Mark Garza said they would like to keep the windows as they are proposed. He said adding a window treatment would remove the overall aesthetic they wanted for this project. Commissioner McEwen asked how far the proposed northwest building is from the property line. Brock said it is approximately 33-35 feet from the property line. Commissioner McEwen asked if they were meeting the setback requirements considering the height of the building and if they had initially proposed a three- story building. Brock said they are meeting the setback requirements, and they did initially propose a three-story structure. Nick Galieti said that his house is just west of the subject property, and the future residents would be able to see into his property. He asked if there is any stipulation on the height of the trees that will run along the west side of the subject property. Brock explained that there is a requirement for the caliper of the trees, but he does not believe there is one for the tree height. He asked Mr. Galieti if he was asking  because he would like taller trees. Mr. Galieti said that would be nice to offer some privacy, but he is more asking so he will know what to expect. Mr. Garza said that Brock did a great job restricting how far forward they could build. He stated that it would be hard to find a tree as tall as the proposed townhomes, and even if they could reach that height, they would require time to mature. Mr. Garza is open to discussing other privacy options. Nick Galieti noted that there is a canal/ditch running between the subject property and the residential properties. He explained that there issues currently with vagrants and others camping out along the canal pathway. Mr. Galieti stated that adding a six-foot masonry wall would create a screened area for them to litter, bathe in the canal and participate in illegal activities. He explained that the residents use that for irrigation water, raising health and safety concerns. Nick stated that the ditch is located on his property and asked if there would be a way to cover the canal and block access. James Davis stated that he manages the ditch and is concerned that he will not be able to access it easily with the addition of the six-foot masonry wall. He explained that he needed room to keep the ditch maintained. Mr. Davis also is concerned about the privacy of the adjacent residential area. Vice Chair Lovato said the ditch appears to be outside of the subject property according to the map. Brock said that was correct. Vice Chair Lovato asked if the concern was the screening provided by the masonry wall. Brock said he believes so; however, the wall is a requirement of the development agreement. Commissioner Wood asked if the building would be considered three- or four-story including the roof-top patio. Brock stated that there would be three stories of livable space. He noted that if the Commission is concerned about this being a four-story building as opposed to a three-story, it could be discussed at this time. Brock pointed out that the roof-top amenities are not a requirement. Debbie S said she is the ditch's watermaster and voiced her concerns regarding ditch maintenance and the placement of the masonry wall. Commissioner Woodruff asked Brandon Hill, Deputy City Attorney, what recourse the City has where the ditch is not located on the subject property. Brandon said that the concerns mentioned are valid and should be addressed, but they are outside the scope of this application. Commissioner McEwen asked if there was an opening in the northwest corner of the cinder block wall giving access to the ditch. Motion: Commissioner Woodruff motioned to open public comment. Commissioner Wood seconded the motion.  Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Unanimously – Open Public Comment – Approved James Davis stated that the ditch had three access points, and he pointed them out on the map. Commissioner Woodruff said he is okay with leaving the windows as proposed. Commissioner McEwen asked if removing the rooftop patios from the northwest building would be possible. He said that would eliminate the privacy issue. Motion: Commissioner Porter motioned to open public comment. Commissioner Woodruff seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Unanimously – Open Public Comment – Approved Mark Garza said he would be okay with removing the roof-top amenities on that building. Commissioner Woodruff said he is sympathetic to the ditch issues; however, Brandon clarified that we could not require anything outside the subject property. Motion: Commissioner Woodruff motioned to approve C-20-2022 subject to the six staff alternatives with the modification to alternative #2 to state the roof-top patios be removed from the building in the northwest corner of the site. Commissioner Porter seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes  Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Unanimously – C-20-2022 – Approved M-6-2022 McDonald’s Landscaping Exception 3497 S 5600 W C-2 Zone (1.09 Acres) The property owner at 3497 S 5600 W is requesting modifications to the requirements of Section 7-10- 103 of Title 7, Standards For Landscaping Along High-Image Arterial Streets. 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. Both streets are 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 at the intersection shifted the sidewalk on the site, leaving about 13’ of landscaping along 3500 South, and just under 20’ of landscaping along 5600 West. The code requires a minimum of a 20’ landscape buffer adjacent to the sidewalk. The Planning Commission can grant a modification to the 20’ landscaped buffer requirement as outlined in 7-10-104. There are currently 46 parking stalls on the site. Based on the building square footage, 6510 sq. ft., and the number of employees on the highest employment shift, 18, City Code requires 74 parking spaces. Removing additional parking stalls to accommodate more landscaping on the site would only make the parking situation more non-conforming. Due to this, the property owner is requesting that the size of both landscape buffers be allowed to remain as they are. They have agreed 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. Staff Alternatives Approval. Twenty feet of landscaping is not required directly adjacent to the sidewalk, but the following landscaping regulations shall be met on the site as described below. 1. 1 tree shall be required 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. Continuance, to allow for the resolutions of any issues raised at the public hearing. Discussion: Brock Anderson presented the application. There was no further discussion. Motion: Commissioner Porter motioned to approve M-6-2022 subject to the three staff alternatives. Commissioner Wood seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Unanimously – M-6-2022 - Approved M-7-2022 Tunex Landscaping Exception 3549 S 5600 W C-2-Zone (0.38 acres) The property owner of 3549 S 5600 W 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 14’ 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 59’ from the edge of the 14’ landscape buffer. Currently there are two parking stalls in front, including an ADA stall, which leaves 41’ between the parking and the building. The code requires a 24’ drive aisle and there should also be a 5’ sidewalk in front of the building. There is technically enough room to shift the landscaping to the east to meet the full 20’ requirement, however there are two service bay doors on the front of the building. Moving the landscaping and parking would cut into the maneuvering room in front of the bay doors. Most of the parking for the business is behind the building. There are two additional service bays on the east side of the building. With four service bays in the business, the site is required to have 12 parking stalls. There are currently 18 parking stalls on the subject parcel. Regardless of whether the landscape buffer along the frontage is increased or not, the area 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 the Planning Commission feels that it’s reasonable to not require the full 20’ of landscaping next to the sidewalk, there is a large existing landscaped area to the north of the parking lot in the front where additional trees and landscaping could be added. The other landscaping on the site should also meet the approval from the original landscape plan or shall conform to current code requirements. 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 landscaped area north of the front parking lot shall include 50% live plant material and two trees. 5. The landscaping on the remainder of the site shall meet the requirements of the original landscape plan or shall conform to current code requirements, which is 50% live plant material and required trees as outlined in 7-9-112. 6. 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. Scott Huntsman, the property owner, said that he has been operating out of this location for over twenty years. He stated that he is aware of how horrible the landscaping looks currently and wants to improve it. Mr. Huntsman noted that he received a letter stating he was in violation of the twenty foot buffer. He explained  that when the road was widened the landscape buffer was reduced in width, making it less than twenty feet. Mr. Huntsman pointed out that the road construction also cut off their irrigation water making it challenging to keep the landscaping well maintained. He said that he would not be opposed to adding artificial turf or xeriscaping. Mr. Huntsman explained that the keeping all parking stalls is crucial to the business. Commissioner Woodruff asked Mr. Huntsman if they have a separate water meter from the business next door. He said that they do for piping the water inside and that it is the irrigation water that was cut off. Commissioner Woodruff stated that he likes the solution Brock has presented. Motion: Commissioner Woodruff motioned to approve M-7-2022 subject to the six staff alternatives. Commissioner Wood seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Unanimously –M-7-2022 – Approved PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS Approval of Minutes from July 20, 2022 Study Meeting Approval of Minutes from July 27, 2022 Regular Meeting Discussion: Commissioner McEwen pointed out that Commissioner Woodruff and himself were not at the July 27, 2022 Regular Meeting so there would not be enough Commissioners to motion on those minutes. Motion: Commissioner Wood motioned to approve the minutes from the July 20, 2022 Study Meeting. Commissioner McEwen seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes  Commissioner Woodruff Yes Unanimously – July 20, 2022 Meeting Minutes – Approved There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:37 pm. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Hunt, Administrative Assistant