Planning Commission Regular Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES JUNE 28, 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 David McEwen, Darrick Porter, Matthew Lovato 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 30 people in the audience GPZ-5-2023 Connor Sheppard 2736 and 2856 S Corporate Park Dr and 5035 W Lake Park Blvd General Plan change from Medium Density Residential and Large Lot Residential to Mixed Use and a zone change from R-1-8 and A-2 to MXD 40.4 acres Connor Sheppard with Wasatch Acquisitions & Capital, Inc. has submitted a General Plan/zone change application for three parcels totaling 40.4 acres that are located at 2736 and 2856 S Corporate Park Dr and 5035 W Lake Park Blvd. The property is currently zoned R-1-8 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 8,000 square feet) and A-2 (Agriculture, minimum lot size 2 acres) with a General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential (7 to 12 units/acre) and Large Lot Residential (2 to 3 units/acre). The proposed zone is MXD (Mixed Use) and the proposed General Plan designation is Mixed Use. Surrounding zones include A-2 (Agriculture, minimum lot size 2 acres) to the north, BRP (Business/Research Park) to the east, R-1-8 to the south, and M (Manufacturing) and R-1-8 to the west. Surrounding land uses include vacant land to the north, Lake Park Corporate Center and Monticello Academy to the east, single family homes to the south; and Neil Armstrong Academy and single family homes to the west. The property is currently vacant. Development Proposal The applicant is proposing a mixed use development that would include:  a deep-water wave generating pool or surf pool with associated amenities open to the public for a fee;  32 single family detached homes;  a 7-story, 55-unit for-sale condo/hotel building to accommodate overnight stays for customers at the surf pool;  approximately 40,000 square feet of commercial space within the hotel building to accommodate surf pool customers;  32 for-sale townhomes in a gated community;  56 for-rent townhomes;  280 stacked flat apartments;  a community clubhouse and community pool for those living on-site; and  competition style pickleball courts, a dog park, and playground available to the public. The proposed density of the 14-acre single family detached area is 2.3 units/acre. The density of the remaining 26.4 acres is 13.9 units/acre without the condo/hotel building and 16 units/acre with the condo/hotel building included. Property History A development agreement was approved with Ivory Development on the north 26.4 acres of this property as well as other properties back in 2008. The development agreement, which is included for reference, called for 69 townhomes and 89 parkside homes on the subject property. The parkside homes were intended to be alley-loaded homes on small lots. The approved density in the development agreement was 6 units/acre. Ivory Development completed development on all of the properties addressed in the development agreement except the subject property. Issues to Consider In reviewing this application, staff suggests that there are two primary questions to answer: 1. Is this the right location for a mixed use development? 2. Assuming the location is appropriate, does the quality of the project further City goals? These two questions are explored below. Is this the right location for a mixed use development? Since the MXD zone has only been used once in the City, staff believes a brief explanation of the MXD zone is warranted here. Unlike other zones, the MXD zone has very few standards spelled out in the ordinance. For example, there are no setbacks, height restrictions, or maximum building coverages. The lack of standards was intentional to allow for design flexibility for applicants who could essentially propose their own standards through a development agreement. Another unique aspect of the MXD zone is that all allowed uses within the zone, except for public utility installations, are reviewed as permitted uses and not conditional uses. That means that the site plan approval process will be handled only by staff. These unique aspects of the MXD zone make detailed development agreements for developments within the MXD zone essential in staff’s view. The points below may help the Commission answer the first question.  The proposed use for the 14-acre parcel on the south end that wraps around Monticello Academy is in line with the current General Plan designation of Large Lot Residential.  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 including rental housing as opposed to for-sale homes that are developed and sold.  With the increase in remote work resulting from the pandemic, office building vacancy within Lake Park Corporate Center has increased significantly.  The subject property is part of the larger Lake Park and Highbury developments. As  Zions Securities and later Suburban Land Reserve developed the Lake Park and Highbury areas they became a mixed use development including the following mix of uses: Land use Acres # of Housing Units Golf Course 346.4 Health Care 3.4  Hotels 6.5 Industrial 53.9 Office 178.1 Residential 87.0 Apartments 24.2 196 Single Family Detached 39.2 256 Townhomes 23.6 499 Retail 64.0 Schools 17.8 Utilities 0.7 Vacant 179.3 Waterways/Open Space 28.8 Totals 965.9 951  The property is served by UTA bus route 513 with limited service between the West Valley Central Station and the Salt Lake Central Station.  At the time this report was prepared, staff had received 6 emails from neighbors in opposition to this application. These emails are included with this report. In summary, the neighbors that sent emails prefer single family detached homes and expressed concerns about how the proposed project would impact parking, traffic, noise, property values, neighborhood turnover, views, neighborhood character, City services, crime, and infrastructure.  During the Commission’s study session on 6/21, several questions or concerns were raised. These questions/concerns, along with a response from the applicant, are listed below. o Question: Will the for-rent townhomes be short or long-term rentals? Applicant Response: All for rent product will be long term leases managed by our property management company. For sale product will have deed restrictions so they cannot be short term rentals. We don’t like short term rentals hosted on Air BNB. We’ve found that unless they are professionally managed they cause problems with the neighborhood. o Question: How will this project impact traffic? Applicant Response: Our traffic study shows that the issues currently affecting Highbury residents will have to be addressed at some time in the future. The study suggests that a traffic light and intersection at Lake Park Blvd. and Highbury Parkway be built by the year 2050. Data from the traffic study shows the new high-density community proposed will have almost no effect on the current problems. We will share the final draft of the traffic study with the city and want to engage in discussions in how to fix the current problems and sources of funds to build/upgrade current traffic infrastructure next to the property. o Question: Does the project meet parking requirements and how will event parking be handled. Applicant Response: Project is at or just below parking requirements, we’ve had conversations with Montecello academy and the owners of the offices across the street. Monticello has agreed verbally to a parking agreement, this should put us at the requirement. Event parking will be either shuttled from off site, or parked at the offices across the street or the vacant land to the north. Events happen mostly on the weekends, so the school and office buildings will be empty and the parking should be available.  o Question: Is the surf pool viable in the long-term? Applicant Response: Fortunately, surfing is predefined and has staying power. The waves our technology will create are larger and cleaner than most waves you would find in the ocean. The feasibility study shows interest from the Wasatch front in the wave pool. o Question: Is this the right location for this type of development given the neighboring single family homes? Applicant Response: We believe there is great precedent for this project. Golfing to the northeast and east (recreation), office buildings to the east, industrial to the north, commercial to the west just beyond the multifamily. The property also creates a buffer zone from the single family into high density. Park, then townhome, then multifamily. o Concern: Racing occurs on Highbury Parkway. This project has the potential to make this problem worse. Applicant Response: We want to make sure this isn’t characterized as our problem. This is a problem that exists because of poor property management at Pinnacle (in choosing tenants and enforcing community rules) and because the speed limit isn’t being enforced by the local police. We will help to resolve this issue but don’t want to be seen as the cause of it. Does the quality of the project further City goals? The applicant submitted a development agreement proposal, project narrative, and elevations of the different building types. After reviewing the applicant’s application materials, staff provided a list of comments to the applicant. To allow sufficient time to address staff comments, the applicant is requesting that this application be continued to the Planning Commission meeting on July 12th. Specific items that are still being addressed or refined include: a traffic study, parking, amenities, events, commercial uses, building renderings, development agreement provisions, public use of the linear park, unit sizes, project phasing, and fencing. Typically, staff would address in the staff report how well the proposed project meets City standards such dwelling unit sizes, exterior materials, architecture, landscaping/recreation space, and amenities. However, since the applicant is working on staff comments, staff will address these items in the next staff report assuming the Commission continues this application as requested by the applicant. Staff Alternatives: 1. Continuance. As requested by the applicant, this application should be continued until the Planning Commission meeting on July 12th.  2. Denial. The General Plan and zoning should remain as they are. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. He noted that he had received nine emails from neighboring residents in opposition of this proposal and those are included in the Planning Commission packet. Steve reviewed some concerns mentioned in those emails and mentioned that many of the residents would like to see single-family homes on the subject property. Steve stated that staff had reviewed the proposal prior to this meeting and provided the applicant with their comments. He said after reviewing staff’s comments, the applicant would like to continue this application to the July 12, 2023 public hearing. This would give them time to adjust their proposal. Nichole McCrea said she lives at 5228 W. Sandwell Dr. She stated that when she was looking to purchase her home, she was shown the future plans for Highbury, and it showed single-family homes on the subject property. Mrs. McCrea felt this would be a great place to start her family. She pointed out that approximately eight years ago a three-story apartment building was constructed near her home. Mrs. McCrea noted that along with the apartment building came theft, shooting and break-ins and the proposed development is much larger than that building. She said that she is okay with the proposed single-family homes but not the buildings that are six to seven stories high, were the residents can look directly down at our homes. She noted that a majority of the proposed town homes and apartments are rentals for passers buy who would not care about the neighborhood. Mrs. McCrea explained that her neighborhood is unique and many of her neighbors have said they would move if this were developed. She asked the Commission to deny this proposal and keep the Highbury master plan in line. Michael Dye said he resides at 5101 Sandwell Dr., across the street from the proposed development. Mr. Dye expressed that he is also opposed to this zone change. He stated that it would disrupt the neighborhood and not follow the original plans for future development. Mr. Dye enjoys the quite neighborhood where he works and lives and does not want to see this development inside the neighborhood. Michael Winn, neighboring resident, said he is also opposed to this change. He stated that his major concern is the impact on the local schools. Mr. Winn noted that he has two children who will be going to and from school. He feels the increase in density would make their commute unsafe. Mr. Winn said that he teaches at a local school and the increase in class size would be detrimental to their education. Scott Cameron said he also lives close to where this would be developed. He mentioned that he is concerned about the wave pool. He believes it is highly  speculative and will most likely fail. However, if it does succeed it will be very noisy and disturb the neighborhood. Heather Choir living at 2810S Harrow Court, expressed her concerns regarding the increase in density which Nichole McCrea had mentioned earlier in this meeting. Commissioner Woodruff asked Steve if the City had put together what the zoning is on the vacant property throughout the city. Steve said that there is an inventory on vacant properties, and he will provide that information to the Commission. Motion: Commissioner Woodruff motioned to continue GPZ-5-2023 As requested by the applicant, this application should be continued until the Planning Commission meeting on July 12th. Commissioner Wood seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Chair Fuller Yes Unanimously – GPZ-5-2023 – Continued CA-2-2023 Ken Garff Truck Center Phase II 4770 S 5600 W M Zone (12.37 acres) The applicant, Daniel Goodwin with Anderson Wahlen & Associates, on behalf of Ken Garff Automotive Group, is requesting a conditional use amendment for a truck processing center. The overall property is 36.53 acres and is zoned M, Manufacturing. The West Valley City General Plan designates this area as light manufacturing. The surrounding zoning is M to the north, west, and south. The properties to the east of 5600 West are in Kearns and include an industrial property and single unit dwellings. Other surrounding land uses include The Ridge Golf Course to the south and west, a power substation to the west and self-storage and a convenience store to the north. The property was originally approved for an office and production facility for the Newspaper Agency Corporation (C-6-2004), which includes a 205,444 sq. ft. building. The Ken Garff Automotive group now operates a truck processing center from the property. Trucks will come to the property unfinished, and they will be customized to meet buyers’ needs. The installation of lift kits, tires, wheels, and accessories will also be done. All work will be performed in the building. In June of 2021 Ken Garff received conditional use approval to operate the truck center from the existing building and parking lot on the north end of the site (C-12-2021). Then, in August of 2021, the Planning Commission granted a conditional use amendment for the second phase of the project, which was to create a large outside storage area for trucks on the south and west sides of the building (CA-6-2021). The project did not move forward, and the approval expired last August. The applicant is now ready to start the second phase of the project and is requesting the amendment for outside storage again. The expansion into the undeveloped areas of the site will impact 12.37 acres. The new truck storage areas will be paved with asphalt and will accommodate over 1,000 trucks. The area will only be used for the storage of truck inventory. There shall be no inoperable or junk vehicles stored on the property. The code requires that outside storage be screened from public view. There was also an update to the City Code that happened since the original approval, which requires that outside storage areas adjacent to high image arterial streets be screened with a 6’ tall masonry wall (7-7-119(4)). The code change does, however, give the Planning Commission the option to waive the screening requirement when changes in topography or distance of storage from rights-of-way would make the screening not effective. Both 5600 West and 4700 South are high image arterial streets. In the prior approval, due to the existing topography and distance from the street, the Planning Commission did not require any additional screening for the storage area. The Commission can waive the masonry wall requirement in this instance for the same reasons. The applicant is proposing to add an area behind the asphalt that will function as a drainage collection area and will also be landscaped with trees, shrubs, and ornamental grasses. The areas surrounding the new pavement and landscaping will be left as existing, native vegetation. All other formal landscaped areas on the property will remain, which meets the 5% minimum landscaping requirement for the M Zone. There is an area in the south-east corner of the property that is overgrown. The section within the 20’ setback from the sidewalk shall be cleaned out and formally landscaped with 50% live plant material that does not exceed 3’ in height. The native/natural vegetation beyond the 20’ setback, in all other areas of the site, shall be mowed and maintained. The applicant intends to install a berm along the edges of the site to create a buffer from the golf course. Any related issues shall be coordinated with the Parks Department. Additional signage is not proposed on the property with this application. Any future signage shall comply with Title 11 of the West Valley City Code. Staff Alternatives: Approval, subject to the resolution of any concerns raised at the public hearing as well as the following: 1. The site shall be improved per the approved plans.  2. The site is approved for outside storage of new truck inventory only. There shall be no inoperable or junk vehicles stored on the property. 3. The outside storage areas do not need to be screened by a masonry wall as outlined in 7-7-119(4). The changes in topography and distance from rights-of- way would make screening with a masonry wall ineffective. 4. The 20’ area adjacent to the sidewalk along 5600 West shall be formally landscaped with 50% live plant material that does not exceed 3’ in height. 5. All native/natural landscaped areas shall be mowed and maintained. 6. All existing formal landscaping and parking areas on the property shall be maintained and kept in good condition. 7. Future signage shall comply with Title 11 of the West Valley City Code, and a building permit shall be obtained. 8. Requirements of all affected departments and agencies shall be met. 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 there had been a change to the zoning ordinance since this application was initially approved. Brock explained that outside storage adjacent to a high-image arterial street needs to be screened by a six-foot masonry wall. However, the Commission can waive that requirement if the wall would not effectively screen the outside storage from view. Brock pointed out that if this application is approved, condition #3, outlined in the staff report, states they would not need to add the six-foot masonry wall. He said that if the Commission does not want to waive that requirement, they would need to modify that condition as part of the motion. Chair Fuller asked Brock if the applicant was planning to put up some screening between the subject property and the golf course. Brock said he believes they would be adding berm and netting, but the applicant could speak to that. Daniel Goodwin, the applicant, said they would add a berm and a thirty-foot net dividing the gulf course from this property. Motion: Commissioner Winters motioned to approve CA-2-2023 subject to the nine staff alternatives outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Wood seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Chair Fuller Yes  Unanimously – CA-2-2023 – Approved C-13-2023 High Mountain Forest Products Storage Yard 2061 W 2300 S (Printers Row) M Zone (2.51 acres) The applicant, Porter McDonough with Sage Construction Group, is requesting conditional use approval for outside storage. The overall property is 2.51 acres and is zoned M, Manufacturing. The West Valley City General Plan designates this area as light manufacturing. The surrounding zoning is M also. Manufacturing and light industrial land uses surround the property. The site was originally developed in 1971 as a machine shop and manufacturing facility (ZC 19710187). The current business supplies hardwood lumber to commercial millwork shops around the valley. They are requesting an outside storage space to store the company’s excess truck trailers. The property owner recently acquired a 0.25-acre parcel south of their existing property that used to be part of the Brighton Canal, before it was abandoned. The applicant requested to use this area behind the building for the outside storage space. The long-term goal is to do a building addition that will occupy a large portion of the area, but in the meantime the business would use the area for storage. The plan calls for clearing the vegetation and putting down and compacting road base. The area will be fenced. The applicant is also working with the Public Works Department, as there is a City storm drain project being planned through the area. Per 7-7-119, the Planning Commission evaluates screening and surfacing for outside storage uses. The proposed storage area is over 400 feet from the street. Besides the distance from the road, it is tucked behind structures and a masonry wall that is up-front. Since the area will not be used for vehicle storage, and given the distance from the public street, the proposed road base should satisfy the surfacing requirement. The total property area for the business with the additional 0.25 acre parcel is 109,336 sq. ft. Manufacturing zones require 5% landscaping. The existing landscaping along the front of the property meets the minimum landscaping requirement. There is a small area on the north-west corner of the building that needs to be cleaned up, but other than that, the landscaping is well- maintained. Since the applicant will not be adding any landscaping around the storage area, staff recommends that trees be added along the street, providing 1 tree for every 30 feet of frontage. Additional signage is not proposed on the property with this application. Any future signage shall comply with Title 11 of the West Valley City Code. Staff Alternatives: Approval, subject to the resolution of any concerns raised at the public hearing as well as the following: 1. The site shall be improved per the approved plans. 2. The site is approved for outside storage of truck trailers on compacted gravel. Vehicle storage shall not be allowed. 3. Additional screening is not required for the storage area. The existing structures on the property provide sufficient screening. 4. All existing landscaping on the property shall be maintained and kept in good condition. 5. One tree for every 30 feet of frontage shall be added to the existing landscaping along the street. 6. Future signage shall comply with Title 11 of the West Valley City Code, and a building permit shall be obtained. 7. Requirements of all affected departments and agencies shall be met. 8. 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. There was not further discussion. Motion: Commissioner Woodruff motioned to approve C-13-2023 subject to the eight conditions outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion Vote: Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Chair Fuller Yes Unanimously – C-13-2023 – Approved PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS Approval of Minutes from May 3, 2023 Study Meeting Approval of Minutes from May 10, 2023 Regular Meeting Approval of Minutes from May 17, 2023 Study Meeting Approval of Minutes from May 24, 2023 Regular Meeting Motion: Commissioner Wood motioned to approve the four sets of minutes. Commissioner Woodruff seconded the motion.  Vote: Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Chair Fuller Yes Unanimously – Meeting Minutes – Approved There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:46 pm. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Hunt, Administrative Assistant