Planning Commission Regular Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 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 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 4 people in the audience GPZ-7-2022 Wasatch Commercial Developers 4890-5090 West Lake Park Blvd. General plan change from Large Lot Residential to Business Park and zone change from A and A-2 to B/RP 39.5 acres Wasatch Commercial Developers has submitted a General Plan/zone change application for five parcels totaling 39.5 acres located at 4890-5090 West Lake Park Blvd. The property is currently zoned A (Agriculture, minimum lot size ½ acre) and A-2 (Agriculture, minimum lot size 2 acres) with a General Plan designation of Large Lot Residential (2 to 3 units/acre). The proposed zone is B/RP (Business/Research Park) and the proposed General Plan designation is Business Park. The current General Plan also shows the need for a park in this general area. Surrounding zones include M (Manufacturing) to the north, east, west, and a portion of the south and R-1-8 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 8,000 square feet) for the remaining south portion. To the west, the M zone only covers the adjoining waterway. The property west of the waterway is zoned A-2. Surrounding land uses include the Riter Canal and the Lake Park Commerce Center industrial development to the north, the Stonebridge Golf Course to the east, the Lake Park Corporate Center office development and vacant land entitled for residential to the south, and a waterway and vacant land to the west. The property is currently vacant. Proposed Development If this application is approved, the applicant plans to build a biomedical research and development campus of 7 buildings totaling approximately 580,000 square feet (690,000 square feet when including the mezzanines) of industrial/office flex space. Included with this report is a concept plan and building renderings for the property along with a letter from the applicant that supports this application. General Plan and Zoning History Back in 2015, the subject property was included in a City initiated General Plan/zone change that involved 741 acres in various locations throughout the City. With one exception of Non-Retail Commercial, the General Plan was changed on all 741 acres to Large Lot Residential and the zoning was changed to either A or A-2. At the same time, the City also increased its housing standards for single unit dwellings and created the RE (Residential Estate) zone. The Council was concerned about the shrinking amount of available land for residential development and the lack of higher end housing in the City. These changes were made to encourage larger homes on larger lots. The previous zoning on the subject property was M. At the time, the proximity of the golf course; the Highbury amenities like trails and waterways; the nearby services like the Instacare, Target, restaurants, etc.; the existing nearby mix of residential; and the canal buffer were reasons for the residential designation. The relatively large area of the property also created an opportunity for a good sized RE zone subdivision. In 2018, the City also amended the Major Street Plan to remove a planned extension of Corporate Park Drive between Lake Park Blvd. and 2400 South which would have bisected the subject property. At the time, the City did not want truck traffic driving through what was planned as a residential development. Reference Information The basic question for this application is should the property be residential as proposed in the City’s General Plan or should it be developed as proposed by the applicant. To help the Commission evaluate this proposal, this report provides information on anticipated traffic, taxable value, employment, zoning regulations, and transit for the Commission’s reference. Traffic While not required for a General Plan/zone change, the applicant submitted the attached traffic impact study for the proposed development. According to this study, the proposed development is anticipated to generate approximately 6,432 weekday daily trips, including 600 trips in the morning peak hour, and 570 trips in the evening peak hour. The study also indicates that nearby intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service upon completion of the proposed project and that no traffic mitigations would be needed. For comparison, a large lot residential development would result in roughly 100 units and would generate 1,000 daily trips. According to the City’s Public Works Department, the Monticello Academy located at 2782 South Corporate Park Drive does create a surge in traffic and on-street parking during drop-off and pick-up times. Taxable Value Taxable value is the assessed value of property the County Assessor uses to calculate property tax. In the case of residential property, taxable value is set at 55% of assessed value. In the case of commercial property, taxable value is set at 100% of assessed value. According to the applicant, the taxable value of the proposed biomedical project is estimated at $160 million. Using the average taxable value of homes in the Newton Farm Subdivision for reference, the taxable value of a large lot residential development would be about $42 million. Employment/Population According to the applicant, an estimated 1,500 to 2,100 persons would be employed at the proposed biomedical campus. These employees would earn an average of $65,000 per year with salary and wages ranging from $60,000 - $200,000 per year. In contrast, a large lot residential development would result in about 100 homes with an estimated population of 380 persons.  Zoning Regulations The requested B/RP zone is different from the M zone found on adjoining properties in several ways. First, the B/RP zone is more restrictive than the M zone when it comes to allowed land uses. For example, the B/RP zone prohibits uses like heavy truck sales and service, heavy industrial, outside storage, self-storage facilities, towing and impound yards, truck transfer companies, and vehicle recycling facilities while the M zone allows these uses. For reference, a copy of the commercial and manufacturing zone use table is included with this report. Second, the B/RP zone requires a minimum of 15% landscaping coverage while the M zone only requires 5%. Third, the front setback is 30’ in the B/RP zone and 20’ in the M zone. Transit Access Lake Park Blvd. is served by UTA bus route 513 which offers very limited weekday service in the early morning and late afternoon terminating at the Fairbourne Station bus hub to the south and the Salt Lake Central Station to the north. The Wasatch Front Regional Council’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) includes a future bus route that would begin at 5600 West and Lake Park Blvd., travel east along Lake Park Blvd. and Parkway Blvd. to Redwood Road, and eventually end at the Central Pointe TRAX station on 2100 South between 300 West and West Temple. Other Potential Considerations In addition to the points raised above, there are other potential considerations that the Commission may want to weigh when evaluating this application. These other potential considerations are addressed below. Opportunity Zone Designation In 2018, the State designated the area between SR-201 and 3100 South and from 5600 West and 3600 West as an Opportunity Zone. The Opportunity Zone Program is a federal program designed to incentivize capital investment through tax incentives offered to investors that hold their investments with the greatest benefit going to those investors who hold their investment for 10 or more years. Hence, developers have an added incentive within this area to build and hold commercial development as opposed to homes that are developed and sold. Nearby Biomedical Uses There are two biomedical uses either under construction or planned within Lake Park. Nusano, a manufacturer of radioisotopes, is currently under construction at 4061 West Parkway Blvd. The applicant is also currently working with a medical manufacturing company on the parcel at 2778 South Leadership Ct. in Lake Park that specializes in the design, development, and manufacturing of medical ultrasonic components. Prohibition on Private Streets As the Commission may recall, the City recently amended the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit private streets. If this application is approved, this prohibition could potentially affect the layout of the development. Buffering from Industrial Uses The new industrial buildings to the north of the subject property are separated from the subject property by the Riter Canal, landscaping on the north bank of the canal, a 6’ tall masonry wall, additional landscaping north of the masonry wall, and parking (not truck parking). The setback of these industrial buildings from the north property line of the subject property varies from about 120’ to 260’. In addition, there are no truck loading docks along the south side of any of the industrial buildings. Undeveloped Land within Lake Park Corporate Center Within Lake Park Corporate Center there are approximately 53 acres of undeveloped land that could potentially be developed as biomedical uses. In addition, the large parking lots within Lake Park are currently underutilized given the increase in remote work. Should this trend continue, there may be potential for additional infill development within Lake Park. During the study session, the Commission asked if the applicant had considered acquiring the remaining vacant property within the Lake Park Corporate Center. Staff contacted the applicant and learned that they did reach out to the owners of the remaining vacant properties to acquire them. However, these owners were either not interested in selling or not willing to sell at a price that was acceptable to the applicant. Bridges There were two bridges installed to connect the north and west sides of the subject property with the adjoining properties across the waterways. If this application is approved, these bridges may no longer be needed. Assurance of Biomedical Use While the B/RP zone requested by the applicant is more restrictive than the M zone that exists on some of the neighboring properties, the B/RP zone still allows uses like general light industrial and warehousing that aren’t related to biomedical uses. There are potentially several benefits to the City of a biomedical campus over just general warehousing and/or general light industrial. These include significantly less semi-truck traffic, higher paying jobs, a higher taxable value, and synergy with other biomedical uses. However, if this application is approved without a development agreement commitment for biomedical uses, the property could be developed as just general light industrial/warehouse. Architecture The applicant included renderings of the proposed buildings in the application. These renderings show large window areas, large roof overhangs, and other features. If this application is approved, staff recommends a development agreement that incorporates these renderings. Industrial Development in the Larger Area The applicant provided a map, which is included with this report, that highlights industrial  development that has occurred in the larger vicinity since 2015 when the subject property was zoned A and A-2. Future Residential Development Nearby The vacant property to the south of the subject property includes a development agreement that entitled the ground for 69 townhomes and 89 small lot single unit dwellings. School District Property Staff contacted Granite School District to see what their latest plans are for the parcel west of the subject property. The District intends to continue holding this property and monitor student generation rates. Development Agreement If the Commission is supportive of this application, staff recommends a development agreement to address two of the issues raised earlier in this report. First, to ensure that the project is not a distribution warehouse development, staff recommends that the overall project be limited to a total of 18 semi-truck docks and that a minimum of 40% of the total building area be used for office, research space, lab space, and clean rooms with the balance being manufacturing and storage space. For reference, a typical distribution warehouse facility with the same building area would have around 90 semi-truck docks. Also, staff generally sees about 20% of large tilt-up concrete buildings used as office with the balance being warehousing or other industrial uses. Second, staff recommends that the renderings submitted by the applicant be included in the development agreement as a standard for the architecture. In addition, staff also recommends that the development agreement make clear the City’s commercial design standards would apply to this development, meaning further architectural enhancements may be required. 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. This application should be denied as residential development is more appropriate at this location. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. He stated that the applicant had provided a traffic study showing that the traffic would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service once this project is completed. Steve noted that he had included information about taxable values of the proposed use compared to a residential use in the staff report. Steve explained that the subject property is designated an opportunity zone. He stated that this is a State designated federal program put in place to incentivize capital investment. Steve noted that the Commission had inquired about the possibility of this project being developed on vacant land in Lake Park instead of the subject property. He explained that the applicant did reach out to the landowners of the vacant property, and they were either not interested or could not agree on a price. Steve noted that if this project is approved, the Commission could include a walking path along the waterway as an additional amenity. John Dahlstrom and Craig Martin, representing Wasatch Commercial Developers, addressed the Commission. Mr. Dahlstrom stated that they feel West Valley City is a great place to do business. He explained that this project would create a magnet for biomedical research in the subject area. He stated that the company called Nusano, which is currently constructing a facility in Lake Park, is studying a cancer treatment using radioisotopes, and due to the half-life of the treatment, it is vital to keep the manufacturers of that product close to the campus. Mr. Dahlstrom said there are several parties interested in becoming part of this project. He believes the proposed campus would be an excellent fit for this location and aligns with the City’s goals. Mr. Dahlstrom pointed out the proposed campus would create new job opportunities. Many people working in the biomedical field would be relocating to West Valley City for work. Commissioner Woodruff asked what the length of the buildings fronting Lake Park Blvd. would be. Craig Martin said the facilities are just over one thousand feet long. Mr. Dahlstrom explained that they are proposing tilt-up buildings, but they would be finishing the buildings differently. He said they would put window walls on the south end of the buildings, roll-up doors, and a two-story effect on the north and south of the building. Commissioner Winters asked if any of the standards outlined within the development agreement concern them. Mr. Dahlstrom said that they had reviewed the development agreement with Steve and are amenable to all standards. Commissioner Wood asked the applicant if they had been in contact with potential tenants. Mr. Dahlstrom said they have contacted potential tenants and anticipate more than one tenant would occupy a building. Commissioner Wood asked Steve if there would be enough parking for the employees onsite. Steve said if this project is approved, staff would determine the required parking stalls by the mix of uses. Mr. Dahlstrom stated that the parking in the concept plan exceeds the required parking. Commissioner Woodruff said he has no issues with the proposed use. However, he feels the buildings are substantial, and the renderings do not depict the actual size of the buildings.  Commissioner Woodruff stated that he is having difficulty seeing how the proposed buildings would enhance the area more than the existing structures already do. Commissioner Wood said the renderings look great, but she is still concerned about the buildings having the appearance of a warehouse. She is also concerned about the potential for vacant buildings. Commissioner Winters feels the jobs that will come with this project are better than most of the current positions in the City. He stated that the proposed business would bring more technically minded people into West Valley City. Commissioner Fuller asked Steve if he could show the images of the renderings again. After reviewing the photos, he agreed that it is hard to determine the length of the building. Commissioner Lovato is concerned about the noise but feels the renderings look great. Commissioner Wood said the applicant mentioned a large number of jobs would come with the project; however, she feels that people from outside the City would fill those positions. Commissioner Woodruff asked Steve if he could show the map provided by the applicant once more. He pointed out the larger buildings surrounding the subject property and stated that the proposed buildings would dwarf those structures. Motion: Commissioner Winters motioned to approved GPZ-7-2022 subject to a development agreement that incorporates the standards recommended in this report. Commissioner Porter seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood No Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Woodruff No Commissioner Winters Yes Chair Fuller Yes Majority – GPZ-7-2022 – Approved GPZ-8-2022 Bryan and Chantel Bradford 3816 South 3200 West Zone change from A to R-1-8 0.69 acres Bryan and Chantel Bradford have submitted a General Plan/zone change application for two parcels totaling 0.69 acres located at 3816 South 3200 West. The applicants reside at the subject property. The property is currently zoned A (Agriculture, minimum lot size ½ acre) with a General Plan designation of Large Lot Residential (2 to 3 units/acre). The proposed zone is R-1-8 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 8,000 sq. ft.) and the proposed General Plan designation is Low Density Residential (3 to 4 units/acre). As a reminder, City ordinance only allows zone changes to R-1-8 on properties less than 2 acres. Surrounding zones include R-1-8 to the north and east and A to the south and west. The property is surrounded by single unit dwellings except for one duplex on the east side of 3200 West. Development Proposal The subject property includes a home that was built in 1941. According to the applicants, they would like to subdivide the property into three lots, keep the existing home on one of the lots, and build two new homes on the other two lots. The applicants have also indicated that they plan to move the current detached garage closer to the existing home and improve the appearance of the structure. In addition to the relocated garage, they plan to add a new driveway with the ability to park 4 cars in the driveway. 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 along with a few additional standards included by the applicant. 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:  There are weeds growing between the curb and the sidewalk and between the stamped concrete parkstrip and the sidewalk.  The existing garage is in poor condition, doesn’t meet current setbacks, and would no longer be on the same lot as the existing home.  The existing chain link fence along the front and side of the property is damaged.  The landscaping on the property is in poor condition and in need of maintenance and/or replacement.  The exterior of the existing home is mostly a grey colored brick that is discolored in some areas.   If the property is subdivided as proposed, the rear (west side of house) setback for the existing home would technically be around 12’. Normally, the rear yard setback in the R- 1-8 zone is 20’; however, for homes with a two-car garage built prior to July 8, 1986, the rear yard setback may be reduced to 15’.  It appeared from the exterior of the home that only window mounted A/C units were available for cooling. 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 two new homes shall follow the standards proposed by the applicant. o All weeds within the right-of-way and behind the curb shall be removed. o The existing detached, two-car garage shall be demolished and replaced with a new garage placed on the lot with the existing home in a location that meets the City’s setback requirements. o The existing chain link fence shall be removed, repaired, or replaced. o All dead and weedy landscaping shall be replaced with landscaping that complies with City standards. o The brick and wood portions of the exterior of the existing home shall be painted. o The rear yard setback for the existing home may be reduced to a minimum of 10’. o The window mounted A/C units in the existing home shall be replaced with central A/C.  Continuance.  Denial. A larger lot zone like R-1-12 or RE would comply with the existing General Plan designation and allow the two existing lots to be reconfigured to allow one new building lot. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. He stated that if this proposal is approved, staff recommends a development agreement that would include the applicant's standards for the two new homes to be built on the property and staff’s recommendations. Chantel Bradford, the applicant, said she had talked in depth with Steve about what they would like to develop and what would be allowed on the subject property. Commissioner Fuller asked Mrs. Bradford if she had any concerns with the access to the property being on 3200 West, where it is a highly trafficked road. Mrs. Bradford said they would be adding a driveway with enough room to safely turn around so they wouldn't need to back onto 3200 West. Commissioner Winters asked if she had any issues with the staff recommendations that are part of the development agreement. Mrs. Bradford said she didn't have any problems with the recommendations. She explained that they would modify the  existing home so the outside would blend in with the two new proposed homes. Mrs. Bradford stated they would also attach the garage to the existing home. Motion: Commissioner Lovato motioned to approve GPZ-8-2022 subject to the standards outlined in the development agreement. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Chair Fuller Yes Unanimously – GPZ-8-2022 – Approved SMI-8-2022 ARA Industrial Center Subdivision – Phase 4 2351 South 6505 West M Zone 2 Lots 48 Acres BACKGROND: Corbin Bennion representing Natomas Meadows LLC, is requesting preliminary approval for the 4th phase of the ARA Industrial Center Subdivision. The subject property is located immediately to the east of phase 3 and south of the SR 201 South Frontage road. The proposed subdivision also encompasses the eastern portion of the old Rocky Mountain Raceway and consists of 48 acres. ISSUES: The proposed subdivision will create lots 401 and 402 in the 4th phase of the ARA Industrial Center. The subject property is currently vacant and encompasses property that was used for the old Rocky Mountain Raceway. Lot 401 will be 30 acres in size while lot 402 will be 18 acres in size. Proposed buildings will be 515,000 and 321,000 square feet respectively. Access will be gained from SR-201, 6505 West and Beagley Road. SR-201 will be improved with sidewalk and landscaping similar to phase 3. 6505 West was dedicated and improved as part of phase 3, and Beagley Road which was also recently dedicated and improved. Improvements to the parkstrips and on site areas will be addressed during the conditional use. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the 4th phase of the ARA Industrial Center Subdivision subject to a resolution of staff and agency issues. 2. Continue the application in order for the developer to address the Planning Commissions concerns. Discussion: Steve Lehman presented the application. Commissioner Winters asked if all buildings constructed during the first three phases were leased out. Steve said he doesn’t know the answer to that question, but believes the applicant would not move on to the final phase if there were substantial vacancy within the existing structures. Motion: Commissioner Porter motioned to approve SMI-8-2022 subject to the two staff alternatives. Commissioner Lovato seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Chair Fuller Yes Unanimously – SMI-8-2022 – Approved PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS Approval of Minutes from July 27, 2022 Regular Meeting (Continued from the September 14, 2022 public hearing) Approval of Minutes from August 3, 2022 Study Meeting Approval of Minutes from August 10, 2022 Regular Meeting Motion: Commissioner Lovato motioned to approve the minutes from July 27, 2022, August 3, 2022, and August 10, 2022. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes  Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Chair Fuller Yes Unanimously – Meeting Minutes – Approved There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:57 pm. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Hunt, Administrative Assistant