Planning Commission Regular Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES JUNE 14, 2023 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 was 9 people in the audience GPZ-3-2023 Russell Platt 4301 West 4570 South Zone change from A to R-1-8 1.53 acres Russell Platt has submitted a General Plan/zone change application for a 1.53-acre parcel located at 4301 West 4570 South. 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, south, and west and A to the east. The property is surrounded by single unit dwellings. Development Proposal The subject property includes part of a home that was built in 1977 along with a few accessory buildings. According to the applicant, he would like to subdivide the property, along with property to the north, into four new building lots. The east portion of the property would be merged with the adjoining parcel to the east for the existing home. 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 housing standards that were in place up until July of 2021 when the City amended the zoning ordinance to comply with limitations to housing standards imposed by the State legislature. Staff Alternatives:  Approval. This application should be approved subject to a development agreement that includes the standards proposed by the applicant.  Continuance. This application should be continued for reasons determined during the public hearing.  Denial. This application should be denied. A larger lot zone like R-1-12 or RE would comply with the existing General Plan designation. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. Commissioner McEwen asked why the existing property line runs through the existing home. Steve said he is not familiar with the history of this property, but it is set up that way currently. Commissioner McEwen said wouldn’t it be easier if the applicant was to propose adjusting the property line, so it encompasses the entire development? Steve explained that if this proposal moves forward, the intent would be to join a portion of the subject property with the property to the east. Chair Fuller asked if those lots would be zoned R-1-8. Steve stated the property in question would be zoned R-1-8, but the property to the east would be zoned A. Commissioner McEwen said he doesn’t understand why they would have two different zones within the same subdivision. Steve explained that the concept plan he presented does not include engineering, so that the concept could be adjusted for drainage. He noted that the applicant could speak to that question also. Russell Platt, the applicant, said he is unsure how the previous owner could obtain a building permit to build the existing home on the boundary line. He noted that Steve Lehman, Current Planning Manager, pointed out that the proposed development is a great way to move the boundary line. Mr. Platt stated that he is excited to have the opportunity to enhance this neighborhood. Commissioner McEwen asked why they would need access to the property from the cul-de-sac and the east side. Mr. Platt explained that they are still determining how they will develop the east side of the property. He stated they would need second access if they were to develop the other side similarly. Rae Anderson said that she lives across the street from the subject property. She stated that she is concerned about the increase in residents related to the proposed subdivision. Mrs. Anderson noted that there would be a negative impact on their water and sewer. She said it would increase the amount of traffic and taxes. Commissioner Woodruff asked Steve how many additional lots would be added if this project was approved. Steve said there would be four additional lots. Commissioner Woodruff said that Mr. Platt had found a great way to utilize this property, given it is difficult to develop. Motion: Commissioner McEwen motioned to approve GPZ-3-2023. This application should be approved subject to a development agreement that includes the standards proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Woodruff seconded the motion. Vote: Chair Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes  Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Unanimously – GPZ-3-2023 – Approved GPZ-4-2023 Maria Dubon 4344 and 4358 West 3500 South General plan change from Large Lot Residential (2 to 3 units/acre) to General Commercial and zone change from A to C-2 0.7 acres Maria Dubon has submitted a General Plan/zone change application for portions of two parcels totaling 1.85 acres located at 4344 and 4358 West 3500 South. For approximately the south 240’ of the parcels, the current zoning is C-2 (General Commercial) with a General Plan designation of General Commercial. The remaining north portions are zoned A (Agriculture, minimum lot size ½ acre) with a General Plan designation of Large Lot Residential (2 to 3 units/acre). The applicant is proposing to add 0.7 acres of C-2 zoning and General Plan designation of General Commercial to the north. Half an acre of A zoning would remain at the north end of the parcels. Surrounding zones include A to the north, east, and west and C-2 to the south. Surrounding land uses include a large lot single family home to the north, a used car lot to the east, a home and commercial building to the south on the south side of 3500 South, and a boarded-up convenience store and vacant land to the west. The west parcel includes a rental home built in 1937 and the east parcel includes a home built in 1941 that was converted into a commercial building. If this application is approved, the applicant plans to demolish the existing buildings and build a new restaurant on the subject property. The restaurant development would use 1.35 acres of the 1.85-acre total area. Included with this report is a concept plan, building elevations, and a floor plan for the proposed restaurant which would include a drive-thru. If this application is approved, the requirements in Section 7-7-111 would apply to the neighboring residential property lines. These requirements include the following: “Where Fast Food Establishments with drive-up windows are located adjacent to a Residential Zone or Use, the order board, speakers, and pick-up window shall be located at least 50' from the nearest residential property line and any sound emitting from the order board, speakers, and pickup window shall not be audible from the nearest residential property line between 10 PM and 7 AM.” Section 7-2-111 requires front yard setbacks that apply to buildings and parking to be measured from the proposed right-of-way line where road widening is anticipated in the Major Street Plan. In this case, the Major Street Plan shows the future right-of-way width of this section of 3500 South to be 115’ and the existing right-of-way width is only 80’. Given the setback requirement in Section 7-2-111 and the fact that the site is being redeveloped into a higher intensity use, staff recommends that the property needed for future widening be dedicated as right-of-way and that the dedication be listed as a requirement in a development agreement. The applicant has submitted two concept plan options. The primary difference between the two is the design of the parking area north of the proposed building. In the first option, the parking lot maintains a 10’ landscaped setback along both the east and west sides as required by ordinance and utilizes angled parking stalls. The second option maintains a 5’ landscaped setback along the sides and utilizes 90-degree parking stalls. While the second option yields three more stalls and results in a more efficient use of space, the reductions to the side setbacks would require a development agreement exception. During the study session concern was raised about the limited development options for the north portion of the adjoining east property should this application be approved. Staff has included a plat map with this report, which shows the width of the adjoining lot at 61.62’. Staff discussed this concern with the applicant and she expressed a willingness to work with the adjoining owner on a shared access to facilitate future development. Staff Alternatives: 1. Approval. This application should be approved subject to a development agreement that includes a provision requiring right-of-way dedication along 3500 South in accordance with the City’s Major Street Plan and an exception that allows the parking lot landscaped setback to be reduced along the east and west sides from 10’ to 5’. 2. Approval. This application should be approved subject to a development agreement that includes a provision requiring right-of-way dedication along 3500 South in accordance with the City’s Major Street Plan. 3. Continuance. This application should be continued for reasons determined during the public hearing. 4. Denial. This application should be denied as the existing C-2 area is large enough to support a commercial use and rezoning these parcels makes developing residential on the adjoining properties, as called for in the General Plan, more challenging. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. He noted that if the Commission decides to approve this proposal, there are two options outlined in the staff report to be used as part of the motion. Commissioner Lovato pointed out that a giant billboard is depicted in one of the images. He asked if it was located on the subject property. Steve said it is hard to determine whether it is on this or the neighboring property. He mentioned that the  applicant might be able to speak to that issue. Steve said he could look into it as well. Maria Dubon, the applicant, said she has been fortunate to watch West Valley City grow and is excited about opening a restaurant here. She explained that she had worked hard on the concept plan to accommodate future development. Mrs. Dubon noted that she had discussed the billboard with her neighbor, and it should be removed this month. Commissioner Woodruff said he likes the business and the building, but he is concerned that the lots north of the subject property would become challenging to develop. Commissioner McEwen stated that he agreed with Commissioner Woodruff's comments. Chair Fuller asked Steve if he had received any calls from neighboring residents. Steve said he had one call inquiring about what was being proposed. Motion: Commissioner Lovato motioned to approve GPZ-4-2023. This application should be approved subject to a development agreement that includes a provision requiring right-of-way dedication along 3500 South in accordance with the City’s Major Street Plan and an exception that allows the parking lot landscaped setback to be reduced along the east and west sides from 10’ to 5’. Commissioner Wood seconded the motion. Vote: Chair Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner McEwen No Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Majority – GPZ-4-2023 – Approved ZT-4-2023 West Valley City A Zoning Ordinance change to Sections 7-1-103, 7-2-127, 7-7-115, and 7-11-205 to add or modify several landscaping standards relating to decorative dirt, artificial turf, and how minimum landscape percentages are calculated. The proposed changes would also reduce the allowed number of garage, basement, or yard sales from an annual maximum of four to an annual maximum of three. Over the past several months the City Council has had many discussions regarding the practices, policies, and ordinances relating to code enforcement. As a result of these discussions, the Council directed staff to make several changes to policies and ordinances that will impact code enforcement. Some of the ordinance changes requested by the Council impact Title 7 which is the City’s Zoning Ordinance. These Title 7 changes are the subject of this application and are described below. Section 7-1-103 This is the definitions section of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed change to this section adds the following term and definition: “Decorative Dirt” means an earth or earth-like substance free of weeds. Decorative Dirt does not include grass, flowers, flower beds, bushes, trees, bark, gravel, or artificial turf.” Section 7-2-127 This section addresses standards for the use of artificial turf. The proposed change would allow artificial turf to be used in all parkstrips. Artificial turf is currently prohibited in all parkstrips except wider parkstrips along Redwood Road and segments of 5600 West and 3300/3500 South. Section 7-7-115 This section addresses standards for home occupations. The proposed change would reduce the allowed number of garage, basement, or yard sales from an annual maximum of four to an annual maximum of three. Section 7-11-205 This section addresses the landscaping and irrigation standards for single unit dwelling, twin home, and two unit dwelling lots. The proposed changes to this section would: 1. require live plant material percentages to be determined by the size of the plant at full growth, not at planting, 2. allow decorative dirt as a groundcover, and 3. allow artificial turf to be counted toward all of the required live plant material. Staff Alternatives: 5. Approval. This application should be approved. 6. Continuance. This application should be continued for reasons determined during the public hearing. 7. Denial. This application should be denied. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. Commissioner McEwen asked if this application would allow the front yard to be 100% artificial turf. Steve said that is correct; they would also be required to add one tree. Commissioner Lovato pointed out that compost could be considered decorative dirt. He asked what would be regarded as decorative dirt. Steve reviewed the proposed definition. He mentioned that mulch, rock, or bark would be allowed as an acceptable groudcover, but the main idea is it would need to be weed-free. Commissioner McEwen asked how they could approve the application but not the decorative dirt. Steve explained that the Commission could approve the proposal, recommending that decorative dirt is not to be used as ground cover. Commissioner McEwen said he does not see decorative dirt qualifying as ground cover. He stated that the residents already have many complaints regarding the dirt blowing onto their property from construction sites. Commissioner McEwen noted that adding more dirt would be more problematic. He pointed out another issue would be that residents are not following the rules related to artificial turf, which would create more work for Code Enforcement. Commissioner Wood agrees with Commissioner McEwen. She stated that using decorative dirt as ground cover eventually becomes unsightly. She asked if plants would need to be added. Steve said they would still be required to add live plant material to the ground cover. Chair Fuller said that the Council is probably trying to find a way to conserve water. Commissioner Woodruff stated that if the City wants to conserve water, they will look into our density requirements and other factors outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Wood asked what would happen if they didn’t approve this application. Steve explained that it would go before the Council with their recommendation. Motion: Commissioner McEwen motioned to deny ZT-4-2023. Commissioner Wood seconded the motion. Vote: Chair Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes  Unanimously – ZT-4-2023 – Denied C-11-2023 Valvoline (NovaSource Enterprises, LLC) 2663 S. Anna Caroline Dr. C-2 zone, .72 acres The applicant, NovaSource Enterprises, LLC, representing Valvoline, is requesting conditional use approval for a quick lube auto service center at 2663 S. Anna Caroline Dr. The zoning for this property is C-2, General Commercial and the General Plan designation is General Commercial. The surrounding zone is C-2 on the north, east and south sides. The zoning to the west is RM, multi unit dwelling residential and C-1, neighborhood commercial. The surrounding uses include the WinCo shopping center to the north, American United Federal Credit Union (AUFCU) to the south, a Quick Quack Carwash to the east and the Sagegate apartment complex to the west. This property is located within the WinCo Shopping Center (C-8-2008, West Valley Pavilion Lot 101). The proposed use is a 3-bay quick lube facility located within a 2,117 square foot building. There is also a 1,651 lower level for service access and bulk oil storage tanks. The building will be constructed of hardie-board and stone-veneer with metal canopy as accent features. The building must comply with the Commercial Design Standards and the Development Agreement for the overall project requires that the east and west sides of the buildings be considered a primary façade for the requirements of the Design Guidelines for Commercial Buildings. The service bay doors are located on the north and south sides of the building, not facing the adjacent residential uses. The typical hours of operation for this use are 8:00 am – 6:00 pm, Monday – Friday, 8:00 am – 5:00 pm on Saturdays and 10:00 am – 4:00 pm on Sundays. There will be four to five employees and 15 parking spaces provided (11 required). This site was planned as a building lot so the overall shopping center has adequate parking to accommodate this use and the development of this lot. This overall shopping center has existing improvements for the primary pedestrian corridors through the center. There is an east-west connection on the north side of this lot and a north- south connection to the west. These will be maintained and landscaped accordingly with live plant material to match the existing center. There was an overall sign package that was approved for this shopping center when it was originally developed in 2008. This approval included 2 pole signs and 4 monument signs with no signage along Anna Caroline Dr. These signs are primarily located along the south (Parkway Blvd) and east frontage (5600 West) and the fourth and final monument sign was installed in an interior lot for the Quick Quack carwash. The lot layout for the center has changed so at this time Valvoline would like to request an additional monument sign for their space. The sign code would allow for an additional sign and they would propose to locate it north of their entrance on the south end of Anna Caroline Dr. in the area that is not directly adjacent to the residential development. There will also be signage on the building itself and that will be required to meet the Title 11 standards. There will be a dumpster provided for this building that will be located within a 6’ masonry enclosure that is constructed to match the building. Staff Alternatives Approval subject to any issues raised at the public hearing as well as the following conditions: 1. The building must be completed per the approved plans and be designed in accordance with the Commercial Design Standards and the Development Agreement. 2. The site shall be landscaped per the approved plans and all existing landscaping must be maintained and/or replaced if it is in poor condition. 3. An east-west and north-south pedestrian connection must be maintained to accommodate the overall pedestrian circulation through this shopping center. 4. The dumpster shall be completely screened and secured with a 6’ masonry enclosure that matches the building. 5. There may be one monument sign permitted for this use along the south entrance to the property. All signage must comply with the West Valley City Sign Ordinance. 6. Must meet 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 McEwen asked if the landscaping next to the sidewalk is more of a xeriscape. Jody said it is. She noted that the applicant would need to remove the weeds and add live plant material. Jody pointed out that the WinCo Shopping Center currently has the maximum of signage permitted. Jody said the applicant is requesting to add a monument sign just north of their access off Anna Caroline Drive. Russ Naylor stated that he is the project architect. He said that he has a plan for the monument sign, and it would meet the sign requirements. Mr. Naylor mentioned that the original plan was to have the building facing east to west, but his client wanted it facing north to south. He noted that he would need to make an adjustment to the primary facades. Mr. Naylor said that this is a great location for a Valvoline auto service center.  Commissioner Woodruff said he would be fine with adding the monument sign. Motion: Commissioner Woodruff motioned to approve C-11-2023 subject to the seven staff alternatives outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Lovato seconded the motion. Vote: Chair Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Unanimously – C-11-2023 – Approved C-12-2023 Dominion Energy – Hunter FL 10 ILI 3515 S 5700 W R-1-8 Zone (0.74 Acres) The applicant, Angela Barber, representing Dominion Energy, is requesting conditional use approval for a public utility installation. The property is zoned R-1-8 (single unit dwelling residential). The properties to the south and west are also zoned R-1-8, and the properties to the east and north are zoned C-2. Adjacent land uses include single unit dwellings to the south and west, a vacant parcel to the east, and commercial uses across 3500 South to the north. Dominion Energy recently purchased the subject parcel from UDOT. UDOT acquired the land originally for the expansion of 3500 South in conjunction with the Mountain View Corridor project. The parcel is currently vacant. Dominion Energy intends to use the site to install a pipeline intervention gadget (PIG) launcher. The PIG will be sent through the pipeline from this location to inspect the pipeline for damage or anomalies. There is one existing access to the site from 5700 West. Dominion is proposing to add one additional access from 3500 South. No buildings are being proposed for this project. There will only be above- ground piping on the property. The applicant is proposing to screen the area with an 8’ tall precast concrete wall. The area inside the wall will be graveled. Since it is a corner lot, the wall will be setback 20’ from the 3500 South and 5700 West property lines. The 20’-wide areas will be landscaped with lawn, shrubs, and trees, per Title 7 requirements. 3500 South is a High Image Arterial Street, so all landscaping along that frontage shall comply with 7-10-103. The applicant is proposing to use a tree from the table in 7-10-103(3) for areas with overhead utilities. There are no overhead utilities here, but the applicant would  like to install a smaller tree since there are large areas along the frontage with underground piping and storm drain chambers, which limits the space where the required trees can go. Since the parcel is adjacent to residential property, the applicant shall adjust the landscape plan to add one tree, spaced every 30 ft. along the south property line. Staff Alternatives:  Approval, subject to the resolution of any issues raised at the public hearing and the following conditions: 1. Approval from all applicable agencies and City Departments. 2. Fencing shall be installed per the approved plan. 3. The landscaping on the property shall meet all requirements outlined in Title 7, including:  Landscaping along the 3500 South Frontage shall meet all requirements outline in 7-10-103.  One tree spaced every 30’ shall be provided along the south property line. 4. The site shall be improved per the approved plans and in accordance with the West Valley City Municipal Code.  Continuance, to allow for the resolution of any issues raised at the public hearing. Discussion: Brock Anderson presented the application. He noted that the applicant had requested a continuance providing time for them to respond to staff comments. Brock explained that the applicant proposes a second access off 3500 South that needs to be reviewed and granted by UDOT. He pointed out that they would need to add trees to the landscaping. Brock stated that staff had asked the applicant about the areas where the proposed fence doesn’t match the property line. Commissioner Fuller asked if any noise would be associated with launching the pig. Brock said the applicant did not mention anything regarding noise; however, he will follow up with them. Commissioner Woodruff asked if the fencing would be an eight-foot precast wall. Brock said yes, and staff had also asked the applicant if they would match the other walls throughout the City. Commissioner Wood asked if the fencing would surround the subject property. Brock said that was correct. Robert Scheffer stated that he owns the property directly south of the subject property. He is concerned that this project would impact his property. Mr. Scheffer noted that someone had mentioned the existing power pole being removed, and his power is also connected to that pole, so he would like to know how he would receive his power. He said he is not against this proposal but would like to learn more about it. Mr. Scheffer asked when this would be addressed  again. Brock said it would be on the June 28th agenda, and he would give the applicant Mr. Scheffer’s contact information so they could answer his questions. Motion: Commissioner McEwen motioned to continue C-12-2023 to the June 28, 2023 public hearing. Commissioner Woodruff seconded the motion. Vote: Chair Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Unanimously – C-12-2023 – Continued There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:47 pm. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Hunt, Administrative Assistant