Planning Commission Regular Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 2022 The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chairperson Fuller in the City Council Chambers at West Valley City Hall 3600 Constitution Boulevard, West Valley City, UT 84119, and using Zoom at https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88955119737. WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS David McEwen, Brent Fuller, Mathew Lovato, Darrick Porter, Martell Winters, Cindy Wood, and Harold Woodruff ABSENT WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF Steve Pastorik, Jody Knapp, Brock Anderson, Steve Lehman, and Kirsten Hunt WEST VALLEY CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT Brandon Hill, Deputy City Attorney AUDIENCE There were 7 people in the audience Chair Fuller explained that there is a slight adjustment to today’s agenda. Application ZT-5-2022 will be presented after application Z-11-2022. ZT-6-2022 West Valley City An ordinance change to add restrictions on the use of lawn in landscaping At the request of the City Council, City staff is proposing an ordinance amendment to add restrictions on the use of lawn in new residential development. Earlier this year the State legislature appropriated $5 million for a statewide grass removal rebate program as part of HB 121. Applicants may receive up to $1 per square foot for replacing lawn with drought-resistant landscaping. This program will be launched in the spring of 2023 through the website UtahWaterSavers.com. According to the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District, this new program can be combined with existing lawn replacement programs so that applicants can receive up to $2 per square foot for replacing lawn. To be eligible for the program, a project must be located within a county or municipality with the following lawn limitations on new residential development:  No lawn on parking strips or areas less than eight feet in width in new residential development.  No more than 35% of the front and side yard landscaped area in new residential development is lawn. The City Council wants to adopt these standards so that property owners within the City will be eligible for the new lawn replacement funds. While the City already has a regulation prohibiting lawn in parking strips and areas less than eight feet in width, this standard only applies to developer installed landscaping. There are three locations within the City where lawn or artificial turf are required in at least 50% of the 15 foot wide parking strip space. These three locations are along Redwood Road, 3500 South between Redwood Road and the Jordan River and 5600 West between 2100 South and 3100 South. If this ordinance is approved, artificial turf would be required for new residential projects in these locations. Staff Alternatives: 1. Approval. The ordinance should be approved as proposed by staff. 2. Continuance. 3. Denial. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. There was no further discussion.  Motion: Commissioner Woodruff motioned to approve ZT-6-2022 as proposed by staff. Commissioner Lovato seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Chairperson Fuller Yes Unanimously – ZT-6-2022– Approved ZT-7-2022 Cabco 5600 LLC An amendment to Section 7-14-404 of the zoning ordinance to change the location of the restrictions on automotive sales, automobile service, and automotive parts sales from between 2455 South and 3100 South to between the Riter Canal and 3100 South Bob Furstenau with Cabco 5600 LLC has requested an ordinance amendment to change the location of the restrictions in the 5600 West Overlay Zone on automotive sales, automobile service, and automotive parts sales from between 2455 South and 3100 South to between the Riter Canal and 3100 South. While the 5600 West Overlay Zone extends from SR-201 to 3100 South, the restrictions on automotive sales, automobile service, and automotive parts sales only apply between 2455 South and 3100 South. Mr. Furstenau owns the property directly north of the Riter Canal on the west side of 5600 West. His property is currently impacted by the 5600 West Overlay Zone restriction on automotive uses and would like the option of pursuing an automotive use. Mr. Furstenau provided the following justification for the proposed change: “The Riter Canal is a natural boundary between the retail section south of the canal versus the industrial/manufacturing uses north of the canal. There are approximately 87 existing retail/restaurant/service businesses south of the Riter Canal that meet the requirements of the retail overlay zone. There are 5 existing businesses north of the canal none of which are retail.” In support of his justification, Mr. Furstenau provided a list of businesses located north of the Riter Canal and businesses located south of the Riter Canal. He also provided a map of the area that shows the location of many of the businesses on the list. The list and map are included with this report. The 5600 West Overlay Zone, which covers 250’ of property on both sides of 5600 West, was first adopted in 2004. At the time of adoption, much of this portion of 5600 West was undeveloped. In staff’s view, the Overlay Zone has been important tool in shaping the development that has occurred along this section of 5600 West. With that said, staff tends to agree with the applicant that the Riter Canal seems to be a good transition between retail/commercial uses to the south and industrial/manufacturing uses to the north. In staff’s view, automotive sales, automobile service, and automotive parts sales would not be out of place with the industrial/manufacturing uses located north of the Riter Canal. Staff Alternatives: 1. Approval. This application should be approved as proposed by the applicant. 2. Continuance. This application should be continued for reasons determined during the public hearing. 3. Denial. The 5600 West Overlay Zone should remain as it is. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. Bob Furstenau, the applicant, said that the Ritter Canal is a natural boundary between retail/commercial uses to the south and industrial/manufacturing uses to the north. Mr. Furstenau noted that most businesses north of the Ritter Canal offer automotive services. He said this would mean those businesses are not meeting the requirements of the 5600 West Overlay Zone. He stated that he does not see this ordinance change negatively impacting any of the area's businesses. Mr. Furstenau pointed out that leasing his properties within the 5600 West Overlay Zone has been challenging due to the associated restrictions. He explained that he has owned the lot in the back for seven years and has yet to receive an offer. Mr. Furstenau stated that there had been interest in the adjacent property. However, it is surrounded by industrial uses, so anyone interested in using the property for retail looks elsewhere, believing a retail use would not be permitted. He would like the automotive restrictions associated with the 5600 West Overlay zone to move from between 2455 South and 3100 South to 3100 South and the Riter Canal. Mr. Furstenau said that would help with leasing his property. Fred Cox explained that he helped to rezone a property within the subject area to general commercial for a dentist's office. He asked if this proposal would remove or place more restrictions on the subject property. If this proposal is approved, Mr. Cox wants to ensure that the dentist's office will still be permitted to operate at its current location. Steve explained that the underlying zone, in this case, C-2 (General Commercial), would remain the same, and this proposal would remove  restrictions between 2455 South and the Riter Canal. Therefore, the dentist's office could stay and continue to operate at its current location. Motion: Commissioner Lovato motioned to approve ZT-7-2022 as proposed by the applicant. Commissioner McEwen seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Chairperson Fuller Yes Unanimously – ZT-7-2022– Approved Z-11-2022 West Valley City Lake Park Corporate Centre Zone change from M to BRP 384.8 acres West Valley City has submitted a zone change application for 384.8 acres of property located within the Lake Park Corporate Centre. The current zone is M (Manufacturing) and the proposed zone is BRP (Business/Research Park). The current General Plan designation is Business Park. Of the 384.8 acres proposed for rezoning, 240.1 acres are part of the Stonebridge golf course and are owned by the City. Staff is proposing this zone change for several reasons that are underlined and covered below. The General Plan designation within Lake Park Corporate Centre for the areas outside of the golf course is Business Park. The General Plan includes the following description for the Business Park designation: “Business Park areas on the General Plan Map illustrate the districts where very large office uses are grouped together and surrounded by open space, which provides a better transition to nearby residential neighborhoods.” In staff’s view, the BRP zone is more closely aligned with the Business Park description in the General Plan in that the BRP zone is much more restrictive with land use than the M zone and requires a higher percentage (15%) of landscaping than the M zone (5%). As examples of these use restrictions, the BRP 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. A portion of the Lake Park Corporate Centre is already zoned BRP. Of the 580 acres within Lake Park Corporate Centre, 195 acres (34%) is already zoned BRP. Excluding the golf course parcels owned by the City, there are 7 parcels that are partially zoned M and partially zoned BRP. This creates confusion for lenders and developers when trying to finance and construct a project. The Lake Park Corporate Centre is largely developed as an office park. Most of the uses within Lake Park are large office buildings. Examples of businesses within Lake Park include Deseret First Credit Union Corporate Office, Discover Financial Services, Intermountain Health Care, Rocky Mountain Power, and Utah Housing Corporation. Suburban Land Reserve (SLR) is no longer involved in the governing board of Lake Park Corporate Centre. The master declaration of easements, covenants, and restrictions for Lake Park Corporate Centre includes the following language: “All Parcels shall be used exclusively for commercial purposes primarily as offices, but shall include uses which are an integral part of the business of the Owner or Occupany of a Parcel and which are located in Buildings constructed as required by the Design Standards and used in a manner consistent with Declarant’s intention that the Project be developed and used as a corporate business center. Subject to applicable zoning ordinances, commercial use shall specifically include governmental, professional or business offices, banks or financial institutions, research and development facilities, retail sales, hotels and medical facilities. So long as Declarant shall remain a Class “C” Member, Declarant shall, in its discretion, determine if an intended use is an appropriate use within a corporate business center. At such time as Declarant shall cease to be a Class “C” Member, the Board shall, in its discretion, determine if an intended use is an appropriate use within a corporate business center.” SLR was the successor of the original declarant of Beneficial Development Company. However, now that SLR has recently sold its remaining land holdings within Lake Park, decisions about the appropriateness of uses within Lake Park as well as potential changes to the use restrictions in the master declaration are now up to the board that is comprised of the landowners. The Council recently rezoned a parcel within Lake Park that was partially zoned M to BRP. At the request of the property owner, the City Council rezoned the property at 4625 W Lake Park Blvd. from M to BRP in June of 2022. There is significantly more land within the City zoned M than BRP. There are over 8,000 acres of property within the City zoned M; however, there are only 295 acres of property zoned BRP. In staff’s view, there are plenty of opportunities to develop the  uses that are allowed in the M zone but not the BRP zone in areas outside of Lake Park Corporate Centre and retain the atmosphere that exists in Lake Park. Only one of the 12 landowners that would be affected by this application expressed concerns about the change. During the discussion on the zone change application mentioned above, the Council asked staff to explore the possibility of rezoning the M zoned portions of Lake Park to BRP. Staff sent letters to all 12 property owners of the 18 parcels whose zoning is all M or partially M to solicit input on the possibility of a rezone to BRP. Two of the owners responded and only one of those had objections to BRP zoning. The opposing entity, Lake Park Project, LLC owns the Home 2 Suites and the two adjoining vacant parcels. Taylor Keys with Lake Park Project, LLC provided the following concerns about this application: “The primary concerns from M to BRP would be the following: 1. Brew Restaurant/liquor retailer - currently permitted in M not permitted in BRP. We are not sure what type of restaurant we’d attract once second hotel is completed, want our options open. 2. Event center indoor/outdoor - currently permitted in M not permitted in BRP. If hotel had an event center component to it we would not want to lose this option. 3. Fast Food establishment w/ Drive thru - currently permitted in M not permitted in BRP. There are many restaurants that want a drive-up capability to serve clients.” Mr. Keys suggested two options for addressing his concerns. The first option would be to exclude the three parcels owned by Lake Park Project, LLC from the zone change. The second would be to amend the BRP zone to allow for the uses he would like to retain. If the Commission agrees with the concerns raised by Mr. Keys, staff would not recommend the first option he recommended because many other industrial uses would still be allowed if the M zone was retained. However, staff is not opposed to the second option with one exception – outdoor event centers should not be allowed in the BRP zone. For reference, an outdoor event center is defined in the Zoning Ordinance as “an outdoor stadium, arena, amphitheater, or similar venue that hosts sporting events, Concerts, theatrical performances, rodeos, or similar outdoor events”. Staff Alternatives: 1. Approval. 2. Continuance. This application should be continued for reasons determined during the public hearing. 3. Denial. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. He explained that the property owner of Home 2 Suites and two adjacent parcels within the Lake Park Corporate Center expressed concerns regarding this proposal. Steve noted that his concerns are outlined in the staff report. He stated that if the Commission is sympathetic to his concerns, there are two ways to address them. One option proposed by the applicant would be to exclude his parcels from the rezoning. However, staff does not recommend this option. Another option, Steve explained, would be to address these concerns as part of the subsequent application on this agenda. Fred Cox, an architect, said he has a client who owns ten acres within the subject area. He stated that the landowner would like to build a medical device facility in that area. Mr. Cox explained that this property currently has both BRP and M zoning. His concern is that if the lot is rezoned to M, the percentage of his client's property used for industrial/warehouse purposes will change, and they would need to close their business. Commissioner McEwen asked Steve what would happen if currently a property is zoned M and BRP. Could this proposal negatively impact the business? Steve explained that a parcel with mixed zoning situations like the one Mr. Cox presented gets complicated. He noted that one of the reasons behind this proposal is to eliminate the lots that currently have split zoning. Motion: Commissioner Porter motioned to approve Z-11-2022. Commissioner Woodruff seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Chairperson Fuller Yes Unanimously – Z-11-2022 – Approved ZT-5-2022 West Valley City An ordinance change to amend Sections 7-6-301 and 7-6-308 of the Zoning ordinance by adding use restrictions and design standards to the BRP zone. City staff is proposing an ordinance amendment to Sections 7-6-301 and 7-6-308 of the zoning ordinance by adding use restrictions and design standards to the BRP (Business/Research Park) zone. The proposed use restrictions would limit the amount of warehousing in the BRP zone to 60% of all buildings on a lot. The restrictions would also limit the amount of light industrial to 60% of all buildings on a lot. The proposed design standards would prohibit overhead doors from facing high-image arterial streets and require warehouses in the BRP zone to meet the commercial design standards. There are currently four zones that allow both light industrial and warehousing – BRP, C-3 (Transitional Commercial), LI (Light Industrial), and M (Manufacturing). The table below lists the current acreage of each of these zones. Altogether, these zones make up 43% of property (excluding roads) in the City. In the zoning ordinance, the use “light industrial” is broadly defined as: “the indoor manufacturing, predominantly from previously prepared materials, of finished products or parts, including processing, fabrication, assembly, treatment, and packaging of such products, and incidental storage, sales and distribution of such products, which does not produce noise, odors, vibration, hazardous waste materials, or particulate that will disturb or endanger neighboring properties”. Zone BRP C-3 LI M Acreage 295.1 27.2 76.7 8,082.2 Staff is forwarding the proposed use restrictions for two reasons. First, the two main areas of the City with BRP zoning – Lake Park Corporate Centre and Metro Business Park – are predominantly office uses. The proposed use restrictions will help prevent these areas from becoming predominantly industrial. Second, given the large amount of property zoned to allow industrial uses, there are plenty of opportunities for exclusively industrial use. Adding more use restrictions to the BRP zone will further differentiate it from other zones. For reference, a copy of the commercial and manufacturing zones use table is included with this report. As seen in this table, the BRP zone is already generally more restrictive on land use than the C-3, LI, and M zones. In addition, the BRP zone’s required landscaping percentage of 15% is higher than the 10% in the LI zone and the 5% in the M zone. The proposed design standards are intended to improve aesthetics within the BRP zone by facing overhead doors away from main streets and by requiring buildings that are strictly warehouses to still meet the commercial design standards. Staff Alternatives: 1. Approval. The ordinance should be approved as proposed by staff.  2. Continuance. 3. Denial. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. He explained that the property owner's concerns mentioned in the previous application could be addressed as part of this application. Fred Cox said that he did not catch the adjustment to the agenda, and his comments regarding ZT-7-2022, should have been part of this application. Commissioner McEwen said that a Fast Food establishment with a drive-thru should be permitted where they are in high demand, and a brewery would be a benefit in this location. He noted that he would be open to an indoor event center. Commissioner Lovato said he has worked in Lake Park for twenty-four years and doesn't see a drive-thru or outdoor event center as a good fit for this location. He is okay with permitting the brewery. Motion: Commissioner McEwen motioned to approve ZT-5-2022 as proposed by staff and permitting the following uses Brew Restaurants/liquor retailers, indoor Event Centers, and Fast Food establishments w/ Drive-Thru. Commissioner Porter seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Lovato No Commissioner Porter Yes Chairperson Fuller Yes Majority – ZT-5-2022- Approved SMI-10-2022 PSB Investments Subdivision 3909 South 2200 West R-1-8 Zone 2 Lots .60 Acres BACKGROUND John Baird is requesting preliminary plat approval for a two lot subdivision. The subject property is located at 3909 South 2200 West and was recently rezoned from the A zone to the R- 1-8 zone. An existing dwelling occupies the front portion of the property and will remain as part of the subdivision. STAFF/AGENCY CONCERNS: Fire Department:  Fire hydrant to be located within 250 feet of the rear dwelling. 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:  Authorization required of ditch/water users for any abandonment, relocation, piping or any other modifications to existing ditches or irrigation structures.  Revisions to plat are required.  Drainage issues need to be addressed.  Soils report required for new home, or WVC Building Official determination.  Dedication and public improvements required along 2200 West. Building Inspections:  A soils report should be done to determine the basement depth of the new dwelling. However, a soils report may be replaced by a determination of the West Valley City Building Official as to the lowest floor slab if sufficient field information would allow such a determination to be made. ISSUES: The applicant is proposing a flag lot subdivision consisting of 2 lots. Lot 1 will be approximately 8,350 square feet while lot 2 will be approximately 12,003 square feet which  excludes the stem portion to the new lot. All frontage and area requirements relating to both lots will be satisfied as part of the R-1-8 zone. It should be pointed out that the frontage for lot 101 is 79 feet where 80 feet is required. However, the 1 foot reduction was granted as part of the development agreement. Access to the subdivision will be gained from 2200 West. All public improvements such as curb, gutter, sidewalk and parkstrip will be required. The applicant will also be dedicating a half width of 33 feet. The applicant is proposing to use a single drive approach to the new lot. The driveway location for the existing single family dwelling will remain but will be replaced as a requirement of the development agreement. A new water and sewer line will need to be installed for lot 2. The applicant and/or builder will need to coordinate these improvements with GHID and City Engineering Division when these lines are to be installed. The existing dwelling will remain on what will become lot 1. During the rezoning process, the applicant agreed to certain improvements to the existing structure. The wood portions of the exterior will be repainted and all landscaping will be replaced per city standards. The old detached garage will be removed and a new two car garage will be constructed for the existing dwelling. As with all new subdivision development, there is a concern with the potential of ground water impacts. A soils report is needed to determine water table depth. However, if the Engineering Division and Building Official find that sufficient field information is available to determine whether a basement could be constructed, that would be another option in lieu of the soils report. If the Building Official is not comfortable making this assessment, then a soils report would be required. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: A. Approval of the PSB Subdivision subject to a resolution of the items outlined in the staff report. B. Continuation to address issues raised during the public hearing. Discussion: Steve Lehman presented the application. He noted that there needs to be more information regarding the groundwater in the subject property's location. Steve explained that the applicant could provide a soil report, or the Building Official could determine if enough information is available during a site visit to provide a basement elevation. Mark Williams stated that he is the property owner of the property south of the subject property. He asked Steve if the applicant intends to remove the existing garage. Steve said the existing garage needs to be removed to create the new lot.  Mr. Williams said that the applicant did have his land surveyed, and the fence running between their properties is not on the property line in a few locations. Steve explained that the applicant must provide a survey record as part of the review process, and Mr. Williams would need to remedy any issues regarding the property line at this time. Commissioner McEwen noted that when improvements are being added along the subject property, it might be a good time for the City to continue those improvements to Cucumber Vine. He said that students walk along 2200 West to the Taylorsville Elementary School. Motion: Commissioner Winters motioned to approve SMI-10-2022 subject to a resolution of the items outlined in the staff report. Commissioner McEwen seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Chairperson Fuller Yes Unanimously – SMI-10-2022 – Approved SMI-11-2022 Day Estates Subdivision 3789 South 5200 West R-1-8 Zone 7 Lots 1.9 Acres BACKGROUND Ken Milne is requesting minor subdivision approval for the Day Estates Subdivision. The property was rezoned recently from the A zone to the R-1-8 zone. As part of the rezone, a development agreement was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. STAFF/AGENCY CONCERNS: Fire Department:   Fire hydrants to be installed in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code. 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:  Authorization required of ditch/water users for any abandonment, relocation, piping or any other modifications to existing ditches or irrigation structures.  Revisions to plat are required.  Will need to coordinate future curb cuts for access to new lots.  Soils report will be required.  Will need to resolve some boundary matters relating to existing fences along abutting properties.  Additional dedication of approximately 5.25 feet to be dedicated along the east side of 5200 West. Building Inspections:  Soils report will be required. ISSUES:  Mr. Milne is requesting minor subdivision approval for the Day Estates Subdivision. The subdivision will consist of 7 lots on approximately 1.9 acres. This equates to an overall density of 3.5 units per acre. Lot sizes range from 8,003 square feet to 17,134 square feet. During the rezoning of this property, the Planning Commission and City Council granted an exception to the frontage requirements of those lots fronting 5200 West. This approval granted a reduction of 10 feet for each of those 4 lots.  Access to the subdivision will be gained from 5200 West. Curb, gutter, sidewalk and parkstrip are existing. New drive approached for all lots will need to be coordinated with the Engineering Division as building takes place. There are three flag lots within the subdivision. The flag on the north will gain access via a single stem to that lot while the other two flag lots will share a common access easement.  The existing dwelling is anticipated to stay. The developer has expressed interest in fixing up the structure and has hinted about using some of the architectural features from this home on newer homes. This will be coordinated with the architect and new owners which may or may not be feasible.  The subject property has likely been irrigated in the past. There is an existing irritation box at the southwest corner of the property. The developer will need to coordinate any irrigation systems that may be part of this property or that may flow through this property with the irrigation company or ditch master along with the Engineering Division.  The applicant will be required to submit a soils report prior to a review by the City Council. The report will need to be reviewed by the City Building Official and City Engineer.  The property does have an abundance of trees. Staff has discussed this issue with the developer in the past and was informed that many of these would need to be removed for new construction. Mr. Milne also pointed out that many are not of a desirable species. Staff would simply ask that as this project moves forward that desirable trees be preserved where possible.  The new subdivision is bordered on 3 sides by existing residential housing. There are a few places where existing fences do not line up with property lines. Mr. Milne is aware of this issue has been coordinating this matter with a few residents already. He has communicated with staff that he will resolve the fencing issues with adjacent land owners. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: A. Grant preliminary subdivision approval for the Day Estates 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. 2. That the subdivision name be approved by Salt Lake County. 3. That an appropriate ground water and soils investigation be made by a certified engineer. Said report shall be completed prior to City Council approval. 4. That all future curb cuts and access points in and along 5200 West be coordinated with the City Engineering Division. 5. That all matters pertaining to any existing irrigation system be addressed with the City Engineering Division and water users as outlined in the analysis.  6. That the developer resolve all staff and agency concerns. 7. That this subdivision comply with all provisions of the development agreement. 8. That the developer preserve any desirable trees where possible. 9. That the developer resolve any fencing matters on the north, east and south sides of the property. B. Continuation to address issues raised during the public hearing. Discussion: Steve Lehman presented the application. He said that he had received a call from an adjacent property owner regarding the existing fence between his property, and the subject is not on the property line. Steve pointed out the many trees on the subject property and explained that staff had recommended the developer keep as many as possible. Ken Milne, the applicant, said the soil report and percolation test had been done, and he should have the result of the soil report in about a week. Mr. Milne stated that he intends to put a fence surrounding the proposed project at the property line. He noted that he would pay for adjusting or removing the existing fence. Mr. Milne said that he is excited about the proposed project. He noted that it would have similar architecture to the Newton Farms development. Commissioner Wood said she lives across the street from the subject property and is excited to see the area cleaned up and developed. Motion: Commissioner Wood motioned to approve SMI-11-2022 subject to the nine staff alternatives listed in the staff report. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Chairperson Fuller Yes Unanimously – SMI-11-2022 – Approved C-25-2022 Delco Western (Warehouse/Storage) 2559 S. Decker Lake Lane M Zone (1.72 acres) The applicant, Delco Western, is requesting a conditional use for a storage warehouse at 2559 S. Decker Lake Lane. This property is zoned M, manufacturing and the West Valley City General Plan designates this area as commercial/light manufacturing. The surrounding zone is M to the south and west and RM, Multi-Unit Residential, to the north and east. The surrounding uses include light industrial/outside storage to the south (Prinoth Printing and Specialty Steel), a Charter School to the west, Redwood Elementary to the east and residential 4-plexes (Lakepark) to the North. This site is currently used for outside storage of well and water equipment supplies for the applicant, Delco Western. They would like to construct a metal warehouse building to relocate some materials and equipment from the outside yard to a more secure and weather proof facility. Therefore, they wish to construct a 5,000 sqft metal warehouse building. The building is not visible from the public right-of-way and will be painted to match the existing building. The remaining area will be maintained with gravel as it is currently and will continue to be used to store some materials and equipment. This additional building space is less than 30% of the overall floor area so it does not trigger any additional landscaping requirements at this time. The other portions of the site and landscaping will be improved per the original plans. The fencing around this area will be replaced with a more durable 6’ tall heavy duty chain link fence. The Police Department was contacted, as well as the Principal from Redwood Elementary, and due to the area and adjacent neighbors/uses it has been recommended to not do a masonry wall. This modification also complies with City Code since the adjacent area is designated as commercial/light industrial in the general plan.Therefore, staff is supportive of this alternative fencing material. There will be no barbed wire or slats so visibility will remain. Staff Alternatives: Approval, subject to the resolution of any concerns raised at the public hearing as well as the following: 1. The approved use for this application is warehouse storage. 2. The metal building shall be painted to match the existing building. 3. Fencing shall be repaired and replaced to 6’ tall heavy duty chain link. No additional screening is required (i.e.,slats or masonry) and there shall be no barbed wire. 4. The remaining outside storage area must be surfaced with gravel and shall be  maintained free of weeds. 5. The site and landscaping must be improved per the original plans. 6. Must meet the requirements of all affected departments and agencies. 7. Subject to review upon valid complaint. Continuance, to allow for the resolutions of any issues raised at the public hearing. Discussion: Jody Knapp presented the application. Commissioner Fuller asked Jody if she had said the police would like the screening to be open. Jody said that was correct. Commissioner Fuller asked if condition #3 says that slats would be added to the fence. Jody clarified that no additional screening is required. Brian Adams, the applicant, said Jody had covered everything in her presentation, but if there were any questions, he would be happy to answer them. There were no questions for Mr. Adams. Motion: Commissioner Lovato motioned to approve C-25-2022 subject to the seven staff alternatives listed in the staff report. Commissioner Porter seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Chairperson Fuller Yes Unanimously – C-25-2022 – Approved C-26-2022 Full Service Storage, LLC 2222 W 2300 S (Printers Row) M Zone (4.41 acres) Full Service Storage, LLC is requesting conditional use approval for outside storage of recreation vehicles, boats, trailers, and automobiles. They are also requesting a modification to the 7-10- 103 high image arterial landscaping requirements. The property is zoned M, Manufacturing, and the West Valley City General Plan designates this area as light manufacturing. The surrounding zoning is also M. Adjacent land uses are office and light industrial. North of the property is UDOT-owned right-of-way for the I-215 and SR-201 freeways. The existing structure on the property was constructed in 1977, ZC 19760178, as an office building, and has been used that way until recently. Last month a building permit application for a tenant improvement was submitted to the City, B22-02729, with a valuation of $600,000. The applicant intends to convert the two-story, 118,180 sf office building into a two-level storage area for high-end RV’s, boats, trailers, and cars. The permit valuation triggered a review of the 7-10-103 high image arterial landscaping standards required along the north property line. During discussions with the applicant about the landscaping staff also discovered that the proposal also includes outside storage of small to midsized boats and RV’s on the property. This is a change of use and requires conditional use approval. The existing site is mostly landscaped, besides the north edge of the property, and is completely paved with asphalt, as it formerly served as the parking lot for the building. The applicant intends to divide the existing parking lot into 3 different areas. The parking lot on the south side of the building will be used as an after-hours drop-off location. It will be fenced and gated. The applicant previously installed a fence on the property that does not meet the 20’ minimum setback requirement from the sidewalk for a fence of that height. The fence will be relocated to the edge of the drop-off area. Vehicles that are dropped-off in this area cannot remain there for more than 24 hours, or it would be considered an outside storage area and require screening. The area on the east side of the building, towards the south end, will continue to be used as employee and customer parking. About 46 parking stalls will remain and the applicant anticipates there will only be two to three full-time employees at the building at one time. The business offers valet service to their customers, so the majority of clientele will not visit the property. The applicant expects three to four customers coming to the site on any given day. The remainder of the parking lot will be fenced off for the outside storage area, which also wraps around to the north side of the building. Per 7-7-119, outside storage areas are to be screened from public view and appropriately surfaced. The entire area is paved with asphalt. The applicant is proposing to add slats to the chain link fence, which will help screen the storage area from the south side of the property. The existing building will also provide screening from 2300 South. The applicant is proposing to screen the north edge of the property through landscaping, which also needs to be installed to meet the 7-10-103 requirements. The adjacent ramp for the freeway is quite a bit higher than the subject property, so installing a fence or adding slats to the existing fence would not accomplish much. Staff recommends that evergreen shrubs/trees that grow over 6’ in height be used to provide a solid barrier. The property does not currently meet the 7-10-103 requirements for landscaping along high image arterial streets along the north edge of the site. The original landscape plan for the building showed some trees along that property line, but there is currently no landscaping there now. The code requires 20’ of formal landscaping, with one tree provided for every 30’ of frontage, and 50% lawn, with the remaining area to have 50% live plant material. The applicant is requesting a modification to this requirement, as outlined in 7-10-104. There is currently nearly 20-feet of area from the edge of the parking lot to the existing fence running along the right-of-way line. However, there is a drainage ditch that occupies a large portion of this area. The applicant is requesting to provide formal landscaping in the 4 to 8 foot area between the edge of asphalt and the ditch. The applicant is willing to install the 12 trees required by the code, and also install 50% live plant material. The area is too narrow to require lawn. The applicant’s proposal included lower-growing shrubs and ornamental grasses. Staff recommends that the applicant install the 12 required trees and that in all other areas evergreen shrubs/trees that grow over 6’ in height be used. Doing this will meet the 50% live plant material requirement, as well as provide better screening for the outside storage area. The other existing landscaped areas are well-maintained. The original landscape plan for the site showed four trees in the front landscaped area between the sidewalk and the parking lot. The applicant needs to add two trees back in this area. The original plan also showed trees along the west side of the building. Those have since been removed. There is no requirement in the current code for trees adjacent to a building that is next to another commercial property, so staff recommends that the additional trees be placed in the north-west corner of the site to further help screen the storage area. There should also be 50% live plant material, not including tree canopies, in this landscaped area. The applicant has not provided plans for signage on the property. The base of an existing monument sign is located near the sidewalk. The applicant can try to get a new permit using the existing base, or it should be removed. Any wall signage on the building also requires a permit and should meet the Title 11 requirements. No signage is allowed on fencing. The valuation of the project also requires a review by our Public Works Department for the 2300 South right-of-way improvements. The applicant has also been in contact with the Fire Department concerning fire access on the site. Coordination for these issues, as well as any other issues should be handled with the appropriate departments/agencies. Staff Alternatives: Approval, subject to the resolution of any concerns raised at the public hearing as well as the following: 1. Outside storage shall be allowed as indicated on the site plan. Slats shall be added to the fencing on the south side of the outside storage area. Screening on the north side will be accomplished through landscaping. Trees as required in 7-10-103 will be installed, and the remaining area shall be planted with evergreen shrubs/trees that grow taller than 6’ in height. 2. Vehicles shall not be parked/stored in any areas not specified as outside storage for periods longer than 24 hours. 3. Surfacing of the outside storage area shall be asphalt or concrete and shall  be maintained. 4. Landscaping for the area along the north property line shall meet one of the following: a. The area between the edge of the asphalt and the drainage ditch shall be formally landscaped with 12 trees as required in 7-10-103 and the remaining area shall be planted with evergreen shrubs/trees. 20’ of formal landscaping and 50% lawn is not required. b. The frontage shall meet all requirements of 7-10-103, including 20’ of formal landscaping and 50% lawn. Evergreen shrubs/trees shall also be required as indicated above. 5. Per the original landscape plan, two trees shall also be added to the landscaped area between the sidewalk and the parking lot. All landscaped areas shall be maintained. 6. The chain link fencing along the front of the property shall comply with the 20’ setback requirement in the code. 7. All signage on the property shall mee the requirements of the West Valley City Sign Code, Title 11. 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. He noted that staff alternative 4 has two options and asked the Commission to specify their choice during the motion. Bart Hunt, representing the landlord, said he works for New Concept Construction. He pointed out where the box culvert and Rocky Mountain Power's easement are located on the subject property. Mr. Hunt said the landlord isn't opposed to adding trees but would not like them added in those two locations. He mentioned an alternative place for the trees. Motion: Commissioner Woodruff motioned to approve C-26-2022 with staff alternative 4 option a. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Chairperson Fuller Yes  Unanimously – C-26-2022 – Approved. PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS Approval of Minutes from October 5, 2022 Study Meeting Approval of Minutes from October 12, 2022 Regular Meeting Approval of Minutes from October 19, 2022 Study Meeting Approval of Minutes from October 26, 2022 Regular Meeting Motion: Commissioner McEwen motioned to approve the four sets of minutes. Commissioner Woodruff seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Chairperson Fuller Yes Unanimously – Meeting Minutes - Approved There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:14 pm. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Hunt, Administrative Assistant