Planning Commission Regular Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES JULY 26, 2023 The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m. by Vice Chair Lovato in the City Council Chambers at West Valley City Hall 3600 Constitution Boulevard, West Valley City, UT 84119, and using Zoom at https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88955119737 WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS Brent Fuller, Mathew Lovato, David McEwen, Darrick Porter, Harold Woodruff, Cindy Wood, and Martell Winters ABSENT Brent Fuller WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF Jody Knapp, Steve Lehman, Brock Anderson, and Kirsten Hunt WEST VALLEY CITY ADMINISTRATION Brandon Hill, Assistant City Attorney GPZ-5-2023 Connor Sheppard 2736 and 2856 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 This application was continued at the applicant’s request during the Planning Commission meeting on June 28th and on July 12th. 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 in a gated community;  a 6-story, 53-unit (down from 55 under original proposal) for-sale condo/hotel building to accommodate overnight stays for customers at the surf pool;  30,960 square feet of commercial space (retail, office, fitness, restaurant, and cafe) 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, community pool, and pickleball courts for those living on-site; and  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 15.9 units/acre when including the condo/hotel building. Originally, the applicant was planning to hold pickleball tournaments on-site. The applicant has since decided to no longer hold pickleball tournaments. For the surf pool, the applicant sees the potential for very limited events reviewed by the City as a temporary use permit. Temporary use permits are limited to four per year, with a maximum term of four days per permit. Parking and other zoning requirements would be reviewed as part of a temporary use request. The MXD zone would not allow the surf pool to be used regularly as an outdoor event venue. The original concept plan had the pickleball courts and community pool located 15’ from the property line along Redbridge Way. In the latest concept plan, the pickleball courts and community pool have been moved so that they are now 24’ and 140’ respectively from the property line along Redbridge Way. 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 pursued 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 meet or exceed City standards? 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 our 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, 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 emails from 23 residents, 40 form letters, and a petition signed by 42 residents who oppose this application. These emails, form letters, and petition are included with this report. In summary, those who oppose this application 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. The applicant provided preliminary responses to these questions/concerns and these responses were provided in the staff report for 6/28. The applicant offered the following updated responses on 7/3. o Question: Will the for-rent townhomes be short or long-term rentals? Applicant Response: Our For-Rent Townhomes are created to be long-term rentals for maximum benefit to the community and project. These long-term rentals will be professionally managed by an industry leader in the Utah market, Wasatch Property Management. o Question: How will this project impact traffic? Applicant Response: An independent third-party traffic study conducted by a licensed traffic engineer states no additional mitigation efforts are required due to the proposed development. The traffic study states specifically studied traffic patterns with the proposed development now in 2023, 2028, and 2050 and concluded no additional infrastructure requirements other than what has been recommended by the city and what is currently in place. We will continue to proactively work with the city to better understand the traffic concerns and addressed them through creating solutions for traffic flow in our planning. o Question: Does the project meet parking requirements and how will event parking be handled. Applicant Response: Our parking requirements for the project are  accommodated at 2.58 stalls per unit. We are proactively working with nearby property owners to address parking needs required for events, if any. The current parking count for residential and commercial uses adequately addresses parking needs for the proposed development. o Question: Is the surf pool viable in the long-term? Applicant Response: Surf Pools have been around for over a decade with increased locations opening throughout the world. The need and desire for viable surf parks has only increased in the past 10 years with more interest in the surf community and sport as a whole due to the inclusion of surfing as an official Olympic event. These more premium attractions bring visitors from around the world who enjoy active lifestyle and outdoor activities. Prior to executing on the proposed development, we conducted a third- party feasibility study to gauge immediate and long-term interest in the project. The conclusion of the study was that this need is underserved both regionally and nationally, thus lending to the long-term viability of the project. Not only does the surf park address a national and international interest, it also addresses a local need that is currently being served by out-of-state locations. The technology we have acquired for this project allows us to bring leading innovation which is highly sought after to this space. o Question: Is this the right location for this type of development given the neighboring single family homes? Applicant Response: This location not only supports the use of adjacent retail and businesses, but also maximizes the use of traffic main traffic arteries through the Mountain View corridor, Bangerter Highway and Interstate 15. These established traffic corridors allow for the maintenance of private access and lifestyle needs of the local residents. The proximity to the Salt Lake International Airport and other local attractions also lends to the viability of this location. The project also creates a much needed “buffer zone” between the transition of residential to industrial in the area. o Concern: Racing occurs on Highbury Parkway. This project has the potential to make this problem worse. Applicant Response: The current plans support more active use of Lake Park Blvd which will naturally reduce the racing that is currently seen today. With the low traffic flow in the area currently it is conducive to promoting the use of racing. We feel strongly that regular use and traffic will greatly reduce the draw to race in this area.  During the Commission’s public hearing on 6/28, the Commission requested information on the zoning of remaining vacant land within the City. This information is provided in the table below. Remaining Remaining Vacant Vacant Land Land Zone (Acres) % of Total Zone (Acres) % of Total A 237.8 12.9% R-1-7 9.9 0.5% A-1 104.8 5.7% R-1-8 60.8 3.3% A-2 228.3 12.4% R-1-10 61.2 3.3% BRP 49.4 2.7% R-1-12 1.7 0.1% C-1 1.7 0.1% R-2-8 0.8 0.0%  C-2 91.7 5.0% R-4 0.3 0.0% CC 2.9 0.2% RB 1.4 0.1% LI 19.4 1.1% RE 11.2 0.6% M 907 49.4% RM 45.1 2.5% R-1-6 2 0.1% Total 1837.4  The applicant submitted a traffic impact study, which is included with this report, on 7/3. This traffic impact study was forwarded to Public Works for their review. In summary, the study evaluates, among other things, the performance of 7 existing intersections for 2023, 2028, and 2050 traffic conditions with and without the proposed project and provides recommended mitigation measures. According to the study, in both 2023 and 2028, all 7 intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service with and without the proposed project. By 2050, 6 of the 7 intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service with and without the proposed project. The one intersection that fails without the proposed project is 4800 West (Corporate Park Drive)/Lake Park Blvd. However, if the recommended mitigations of improved signal timing at 3100 South/4800 West and a new traffic signal at 4800 West (Corporate Park Drive)/Lake Park Blvd. are implemented, this intersection would operate at a level of service B, which is acceptable.  During the Commission’s study meeting on 7/19, concern was expressed about project phasing. The applicant has since provided a phasing plan which is included with this report. Does the quality of the project meet or exceed City standards? Staff compared the applicant’s proposal with City standards. The content that follows is a summary of staff’s findings. At the time this report was prepared, the applicant was still refining the development agreement proposal. Staff will provide an update to the Commission on 7/26. Parking During the meetings held on this application so far, there has been much discussion about parking. This section is intended to provide an evaluation of the proposal’s parking against the City’s parking standards. The single family detached home portion of the development was not included in the parking analysis as this portion, which is gated, will need to be self-parked. There are two tables below – Required Parking and Shared Parking. The Required Parking Table lists the required parking for the different uses when considered independently. For the surf pool, the applicant has indicated that person capacity would limited to 100 people, which would include those in the water and those in the pool deck area adjoining the surf pool. Since the City does not have a clear parking ratio for a surf pool, staff conservatively assigned a ratio of 1 parking stall for every 2 persons. This analysis shows a parking need of 1,177 stalls for the overall project. Required Parking Table Residential Unit Type # of Stalls/ Required Ordinance Requirement Units Unit Stalls Studio Apartment 20 1.3 26 1.3 spaces per unit  1-Bdrm Apartment 72 1.5 108 1.5 spaces per unit 2-Bdrm Apartment/Condo 206 1.75 361 1.75 spaces per unit 3-Bdrm Apartment/Condo 35 2 70 2 spaces per unit Townhomes 88 4.75 418 4.75 spaces per unit Residential Totals 421 983 Commercial Use Building Stalls/ Required Ordinance Requirement Area 1,000 Stalls (Sq. Ft.) SF Retail 6,890 4 28 1 stall/250 SF Office 12,900 4 52 1 stall/250 SF Fitness 5,170 5 0* 1 stall/200 SF 1 stall/100 SF plus employee Restaurant and Cafe 6,000 10 65 parking Commercial Totals 30,960 144 Recreation Use Capacity Required Notes Stalls Surf Pool - Pool Area 100 50 1 space per each 2 persons** Recreation Totals 50 Overall Total 1,177 *This use is for residents only. **Staff used a more conservative (more parking) ratio than the ordinance requirement for a swimming pool since this use is not a typical swimming pool and capacity is being capped by the applicant. The Shared Parking Table applies the parking reductions allowed in Section 7-9-105 of the Zoning Ordinance which, depending upon the use mix, allows for a reduction in the overall amount of parking required due to varying peak parking demand times for different land uses. As seen in the Shared Parking Table, the peak parking demand timeframe for this proposal is weekday evenings. Since residential uses don’t reach their peak parking demand timeframe until late at night when businesses are closed, the business uses can use a limited number of the residential parking during the day. Shared Parking Table Use Required Weekday Weekend Nightime Parking 6AM- 6PM- 6AM- 6PM- 12AM- 6PM 12AM 6PM 12AM 6AM Office 52 52 5 5 3 3 Medical Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 Manufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retail 28 22 25 28 19 1  Hotel/Motel (Rooms) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Restaurant 65 42 65 52 65 33 Theater/Entertainment (Seats) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Meeting Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multi-Family Residential (Units) 983 737 884 796 884 983 Fitness 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recreation 50 50 50 50 50 0 Totals 1,177 903 1,029 931 1,021 1,019 Stalls Provided 1,188 Based upon the applicant’s description of the various proposed uses, staff’s view is that the proposal would meet the City’s parking requirements. Dwelling Unit Sizes The City’s ordinances require the following minimum dwelling unit sizes depending on the type of housing: Dwelling Unit Type Minimum Dwelling Unit Type Minimum Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit Size (Sq. Ft.) Size (Sq. Ft.) Studio Apt./Condo 400 1-Bdrm Townhome 800 1-Bdrm Apt./Condo 600 2-Bdrm Townhome 1,100 2-Bdrm Apt./Condo 850 3-Bdrm Townhome 1,400 3-Bdrm Apt./Condo 1,100 4-Bdrm Townhome 1,700 4-Bdrm Apt./Condo 1,300 Single Family Detached 1,000* *State Code prohibits cities from requiring a single family detached home to be more than 1,000 sq. ft. However, developers have proposed larger areas by development agreement. For the 32 single family homes, the applicant has proposed a mix of sizes ranging from 3,750 to 4,800 square feet. Staff has asked for clarification as to whether these sizes would include or exclude basements. At the time this report was prepared, staff did not have proposed minimum unit sizes for the townhomes, condos, or apartments. Exterior Materials The ordinance states the following concerning exterior materials for multi-unit residential: “All multi-unit residential Building exteriors shall be brick, stucco, stone, tile, metal panels or fiber cement siding. With the exception of brick or stone which may be used on the entire Building exterior, no single material shall comprise more than 60 percent of a Building’s exterior. Where stucco, tile, metal panels or fiber cement siding are used, at least 20 percent of the Building’s exterior shall be brick or stone. Wood and vinyl may be used as trim, soffits and/or accent materials only.” The proposed materials for the apartments are primarily stucco and brick with limited use of faux wood trim. The exteriors of the for-rent townhomes are stucco, fiber cement siding, brick, and faux wood trim. The for-sale townhome exteriors are stone, brick, and metal panels. No materials were specified for the single family detached homes. Based on a preliminary review by staff, the apartment buildings look to be under the required 20% brick. For commercial buildings, the ordinance states: “(1) No more than 50% of any exterior wall of a Commercial Building exterior can be metal except as provided in (3) below. (2) At least 50% of the Primary Façade of any Commercial Building must be masonry. All other Façades of the Building must be 35% masonry. For the purposes of this section, masonry shall include stucco, stone, brick and concrete block. Unfinished or gray concrete block is excluded. (3) Commercial Buildings that exceed the Building relief, Building design and roof treatment minimum standards listed below by at least one treatment per section may use more than 50% metal or less than required masonry.” Given the commercial uses within the hotel/condo building, the commercial design standards seem most appropriate for this building. The exterior of the condo/hotel building is a combination of different metal panels/siding and a synthetic wood siding. While the building does not meet the masonry requirement, the City can, by development agreement, grant an exception to this requirement, especially given the unique design of the building. Architecture Based on a preliminary review of the proposed building architecture by staff, the following issues were identified:  The apartment buildings do not include at least one parking space within a garage for each dwelling unit (Section 7-11-404). The applicant is requesting an exception to this standard.  The for-sale townhomes appear to be short on the required relief treatments from Section 7-11-407.  The for-sale townhomes don’t include a variation in the parapet wall height as required in Section 7-11-411. Landscaping/Recreation Space The Zoning Ordinance requires developments with a density under 20 units/acre to have at least 50% of the site as landscaping and recreation space. The applicant indicated that this percentage will be provided before the public hearing on 7/26. Project Amenities The Zoning Ordinance includes a list of amenities that developers can choose from for units stacked on top of each other, like apartments, and a list for units that are attached to the side of each other, like townhomes. The apartment portion requires five amenities and the townhome portion requires three amenities. According to the applicant, the on-site amenities will be shared among all residents. The following amenities from the ordinance are proposed: Amenity Apartments Condos For-Sale For-Rent Townhomes Townhomes Outdoor swimming Yes Yes Yes Yes pool  Clubhouse Yes Yes Yes Yes Fitness room Yes Yes Yes Yes Tot Lot/playground Yes Yes Yes Yes Outdoor sport court Yes Yes Yes Yes Walking/exercise Yes Yes Yes Yes trail Rooftop patios No No Yes No Hot tub Yes Yes Yes Yes Streets The applicant is proposing private streets to serve the single family detached homes and the for- sale townhomes. The City’s subdivision ordinance prohibits private streets; however, Section 9- 4-105, which applies to planned unit developments (PUDs), states: “In instances of severe topography, security requirements or other special circumstances which make dedication or development to City standards impractical or undesirable, the City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, may allow development of streets to special standards specifically approved as part of the final development plan.” Setbacks To allow for design flexibility, the MXD zone does not have established setbacks. The applicant is proposing 12’ front setbacks for the apartment buildings along the perimeter of the property. Since front setbacks within Highbury are generally 20’, staff would recommend a front setback of 20’. Development Agreement Proposal As pointed out earlier, the applicant has indicated that an updated development agreement proposal will be submitted prior to the Planning Commission meeting on 7/26. Staff anticipates that the updated proposal will address:  minimum unit sizes for all housing types,  design standards for the single family detached homes,  how the linear parkway will be made available to the public,  the minimum landscaping and recreation space percentage, and  management standards for the rental product. Staff Alternatives 1. Approval. Assuming the updated development agreement proposal is submitted, this application should be approved subject to a development agreement that includes the commitments from the applicant and the following additional recommended standards: a. All buildings shall be setback at least 20’ from the property line along Lake Park Blvd. and Corporate Park Dr. b. An 8 foot-tall, solid barrier shall be installed between the pickleball courts and the adjoining streets of Redbridge Way and Sandwell Dr. This 8 foot-tall barrier can be accomplished through a change in elevation, a masonry wall, or a combination of the two.  c. The apartment elevations shall be modified to provide the required 20% brick. d. The for-sale townhome elevations shall be modified to provide the required relief and roof treatments. 2. Continuance. This application should be continued as more work is needed to refine the development agreement standards. 3. Denial. The General Plan and zoning should remain as they are. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. He explained the applicant had modified their concept plan since the last meeting and had moved the wave pool and pickleball court further away from the street and single-family homes. Also, they would not hold any pickleball tournaments; the court would be for residents only. Steve noted that the development agreement would incorporate the phases of development and then reviewed what would be developed during each step. He said that the staff report has an overview of the parking, proposed unit sizes, and building materials, and they are meeting those requirements. Steve reviewed the staff alternatives that would apply if this application was approved. Connor Sheppard, the applicant, said this project would provide a diverse mix of residential properties. He reviewed the amenities and stated that they would cater to the many needs of its future residents. Mr. Sheppard said that, in speaking with, the Granite School District, they had mentioned a decrease in class numbers, and this project would help increase the student population. He noted that where the surf pool amenity would be new to Utah, the school would have the opportunity to develop surf teams. Connor presented a video that provided information about the pool. Commissioner Wood asked how long they believed it would take to develop this project, start to finish. Connor Sheppard said two years. Jackson Sheppard, representing the applicant, said that most of the phasing would be done concurrently, and they would hopefully begin construction in the Spring of next year to be completed in 18 to 24 months. Commissioner Wood asked if Wasatch would be building the single-family homes. Jackson stated that they would not be building single-family homes and have been in contact with different builders. He noted that Wasatch might be part of selling the houses. Commissioner Wood pointed out that the applicant said the dog park would be open to the public. She asked who that would be. Jackson said that anyone within the development could use the park. Matt McPherson, residing at 2943 S Sefton Dr., said that the original owners, in 2008, sold a beautiful master plan developed in partnership with Ivory Homes and West Valley City when looking to purchase his home in the Highbury Development. He noted that in the beginning, they saw some of the original plans start to develop, but most of them have changed. Mr. McPherson stated that this looks like a great project, but there are better locations for the development. He pointed out the adverse effects the existing townhome development has introduced to the neighborhood. Mr. McPherson believes that those who do not live in this neighborhood should not have the right to approve this proposal. Darin Blanchard, residing at 2809 S. Brixham Way, pointed out that the applicant said they would meet parking standards. He asked if the Pinnacle Apartments also said they would meet those standards because if they did, the standards need to be modified. There were many parking issues due to the Pinnacle Apartments. Mr. Blanchard said even the bike lane had been replaced by parking for residents of Pinnacle. He pointed out that the amenities offered would not benefit the neighborhood, only those living within the proposed development. Mr. Blanchard stated that the wave pool video only portrayed one person using it at a time, but the applicant said twelve people could use it simultaneously. He asked what the actual number would be. Steve explained that the Pinnacle Apartments were charging for parking, which caused issues with overflow. He noted that since then, the ordinance has changed, and an operator can't charge a separate fee for parking which should prevent the overflow of parking. Starling Shell, a neighboring resident, said she has four children who walk to school. She stated that there is a long line of cars during school pick-up and drop, lasting for a couple of hours. Mrs. Shell noted that she is already concerned about her children making it home safely due to the traffic, and this development would make the situation worse. She stated that she works for the neighborhood recreation center, and many residents go there. They already have pickleball courts. Gary Nelson, a neighboring resident, said that the proposed development is not to benefit the residents; it is all about money. He noted that the applicant mentioned the townhomes would be priced at 800,000 dollars, but they did not include the typical add-ons that would drastically increase the price. Mr. Nelson said that the applicant mentioned speaking with Granite School District, and there would be little to no impact on the schools; however, this project would definitely have a negative effect on the schools. He feels the development would decrease property values in the neighborhood. Mr. Nelson noted that the area residents were promised that this property would be developed as single-family homes. He pointed out that the Pinnacle development was originally going to be a retirement home and ended up being an apartment building, which resulted in speeding and other disruptive activities. Mr. Nelson asked the Commission to uphold the original promise of a single-family home development. He pointed out that the residents put the Commission members into office, and they can take them out. He feels the community should have the final say on how the neighborhood develops, and it should meet their standards. Mr. Nelson mentioned that the neighborhood had been promised a Jr. High School and a High School, which has yet to be developed. He stated that there is room to the north to build something like what is being proposed. Mr. Nelson noted that more is needed to ensure this will develop as proposed. Commissioner Woodruff pointed out that they are not elected officials; we are volunteers, and all live in West Valley City. Therefore, he is not concerned about being voted out. Commissioner Woodruff explained that they must meet the City's laws and ordinances. Commissioner McEwen asked Steve who owns the subject property. Steve said there have been different owners over the years, but Wasatch currently holds it. Commissioner McEwen noted many of the residents had mentioned promises of plans given to them by Highbury, so he wanted to clarify who owns the property. Chair Lovato noted that the Commission cannot consider schools as part of this application. Steve said that was correct. Dusty France, who resides at 2857 S. Bexley Coury, said she is concerned about Wasatch hiring builders outside their company to build the single-family homes. She pointed out that people will not use the wave pool during the cooler months, which isn't beneficial. Theodore Espirito said he lives at 5022 W Maidstone Court. He pointed out that a recreation center in the neighborhood has pickleball courts, which are only sometimes used. He feels they are optional as part of this development. Mr. Espirito said it would also negatively impact the City if members stopped paying for their membership at the recreation center. Sa Saafi, residing at 2833 S Brixham Way, said she moved here from California and loved her community. However, she is considering moving back to California because of the overflow parking and people parking in front of her home. Dolly Dotie said she is the Property Manager of the commercial properties located at 4987 Lake Park Blvd. She wanted to point out that when looking to rent out her property, telling the future tenant that there would be a wave pool next door would keep them from renting. Richard Snapp, residing at 2810 S Harrow Court., said that the construction for an extensive development is much more intrusive than single-family projects. He noted that loud noises and dust will come from the subject property while it is being developed. Mr. Snapp stated that people are losing jobs and increasing housing prices, so he is concerned that we would be left with an unsuccessful project. He pointed out that Raging Waters failed and ended up an eyesore, and he doesn't think anyone would want to live next to it. Councilman William Whetstone asked Steve if he could provide the ratio of owner-occupied homes versus rentals for the entire development. He wondered if there was a plan for what would happen if the wave pool failed because he was concerned that it would be removed and replaced by more multi-family housing. Steve said he does not have the ratio, but he can provide the breakdown of units. He explained that the for-sale homes consist of 32 single-family homes, 32 townhomes, and 53 condos, and the rentals would consist of 56 townhomes and 280 apartments. Steve noted that the wave pool is part of the development agreement for this project. If it were to fail, the owner would need to request an amendment to the agreement before City Council. Hope Espirito said she lives at 5022 W Maidstone Court. She mentioned that many parents had mentioned wanting to live in this neighborhood when picking up their kids from school. Mrs. Espirito pointed out that there is a market for single-family homes. Chair Lovato closed public comment. Steve noted that he would like to respond to some of the concerns mentioned in this meeting. He stated that the City ordinance does not prohibit short-term rentals. However, the applicant did say they would only allow long-term rentals. Steve pointed out that the master HOA is a private organization, and the City would not be involved in regulating that. He said the issue with the applicant not joining the master HOA would be addressed by the two private parties involved. Steve explained that the concern about the applicant not developing the proposed single-family homes would be addressed as part of the development agreement. So, they would be held to that plan. Commissioner McEwen asked if there was a previous development agreement for the subject property. Steve explained that in 2008 there was a proposal from Ivory Development that did get approved. He presented the concept plan and explained what was covered by the development agreement. He said the City could amend a development agreement, which is being proposed as part of the application. Commissioner Winters asked Steve if a traffic study had been provided. Steve said the applicant provided a traffic study with current and future data. He explained that the study includes seven intersections in the immediate area. Steve stated that the study shows the intersections running at acceptable levels until the year 2050 when one intersection could require signaling. Commissioner McEwen pointed out that the applicant had mentioned speaking with Steve Hogan with the Granite School District. He asked the applicant what  Steve's position was. They said Steve is the Planning and Boundaries Director. Commissioner McEwen asked if he were the one who said there wouldn't be an impact on the schools. Mr. Sheppard said yes and stated that Mr. Hogan also mentioned the student population is decreasing, so this development would help increase the number of students. Commissioner McEwen noted that Mr. Hogan's contact information can be found online for any resident who wants to speak with him. Mr. Sheppard said the residents have issues with the current state of the neighborhood, which directly reflects the existing HOA. He stated they would not want to join the HOA if it would limit their ability to enhance the community. Mr. Sheppard stated that they would be paying for the wave pool in cash where no one would finance it, and they plan to keep it in operation. He noted they are happy to commit to this as part of the development agreement. Brandon Hill, Deputy City Attorney, pointed out that there has been a lot of discussion about school capacity and service rates. He said that state law does not permit the Planning Commission to consider that when making a recommendation to the Council. Commissioner Woodruff explained that before West Valley was a city, there were thousands of single-family homes, many of which were developed poorly. He said that staff had provided information about the land currently vacant in the City and what that property is zoned. He noted that there are 11 acres to be developed with RE zoning. Commissioner Woodruff stated that the R-1-8 lots are becoming fewer he believes the City should try to hang onto that property. He mentioned that the subdivision in the subject area is excellent, and the homes are significant. Commissioner Woodruff feels the subject property should be developed as R-1-8 property, and If he were to make a motion, it would be to deny this proposal. Commissioner Winters said he would love to see this development elsewhere in the City and would be happy to help find a better location. However, he feels the R-1-8 zone would be a better addition to this neighborhood. Commissioner Wood explained that she lives close to Highbury and the other Commissioners live within the City, and they care about what happens within the City. She would like the subject property to develop as an R-1-8 property but believes this is an excellent project for a different location. Motion: Commissioner Woodruff motioned to deny GPZ-5-2023. The General Plan and zoning should remain as they are. Commissioner Wood seconded the motion.  Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen No Vice Chair Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Majority – GPZ-5-2023 – Denied GPZ-6-2023 Mountain High Real Estate Advisors, Inc. 3831 South 2700 West General plan change from Community Use to General Commercial and zone change from R-1-8 to C-2 2.92 acres Mountain High Real Estate Advisors, Inc. has submitted a General Plan/zone change application for two parcels totaling 2.92 acres located at 3831 South 2700 West. The current zoning is R-1-8 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 8,000 square feet) with a General Plan designation of Community Use. The applicant is requesting a rezone to C-2 (General Commercial) and a General Plan change to General Commercial. Surrounding zones include C-2 to the north and R-1-8 to the west, south, and east. Surrounding land uses include commercial to the north; single family homes to the east and south; fourplexes, a duplex, and a single family home to the west. The property is currently developed as the First Baptist Church of Granger. If this application is approved, the applicant plans to demolish the existing church and build a new fast-food restaurant with a drive-thru and a retail building. A concept plan is included with this report. 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.” The ordinance will also require a 6’ tall masonry wall to be installed along the east and south sides due to the adjoining residential. Along 2700 West between 3500 South and 4100 South there are street trees in the most of the parkstrips. Along the frontage of the mall, street trees were required in the parkstrip by development agreement. Along the west side of 2700 West between 3650 South and 4100 South, the City installed street trees in the parkstrip as part of a road improvement project. A similar project with street trees will be done soon on the east side of 2700 West between 4100 South and the south edge of the subject property. For consistency, staff recommends that street trees be required by development agreement within the 2700 West parkstrip of the subject property. Staff Alternatives: 1. Approval. This application should be approved subject to a development agreement that street trees to be planted in the parkstrip along 2700 West. The tree type and spacing shall match what was done on the west side of the road. 2. Approval. This application should be approved. 3. Continuance. This application should be continued for reasons determined during the public hearing. 4. Denial. This application should be denied. The current General Plan designation and zoning should remain as they are. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. Several years ago, he pointed out that the City did a project and added a pre-cast wall, trees, and lighting along the west side of 2700 West. Steve noted that the City has plans to do the same along the east side from 4100 South to the south side of the subject property. Steve reviewed the conditions that would apply if this proposal were approved. Ian Galanis explained that he is with Mountain High Real Estate Advisors, Inc., and here on behalf of the First Baptist Church of West Valley. He said the applicant would like to move the church to another location in West Valley City and develop the subject property to help maintain it. Mr. Galanis stated that Mountain High Real Estate Advisors are helping them find another place for the Church within West Valley City. Cory Bantock stated that the subject property is directly behind his home. He wanted to ensure that the applicant was not proposing an apartment building. Steve explained that the property would not be zoned for residential use; it would be a commercial use. Mr. Bantock asked if there would be a wall. Steve said they would be required to add a six-foot masonry wall along the east and south sides of the property. Wesly Burt said he owns the home just south of the subject property. He asked if the proposed building would have multiple stories. Steve explained that the commercial zone would allow a multi-story structure, but the applicant proposes a single-story. Janna White, the neighboring resident, said that she has seen semi-trucks try to cut through her neighborhood, and she is concerned about the frequency of that happening as the area develops. She asked if they could route traffic away from her community. Stella Quintana also expressed concern with the increase in traffic and asked if the City has plans to widen 3800 South. Steve stated that he is unaware of any plans to widen the street. However, the Public Works Department commented that the applicant must align their access with the one across the street. Tracy Ford said he lives behind the subject property and requested an eight-foot wall be added instead of a six-foot fence. He does not want noise and light pollution from the drive-thru during the early morning and late night hours. Steve noted that the ordinance requires a six-foot wall. However, if the zone change is approved, the Commission could add a taller fence to the development agreement. Steve explained what is outlined in the code regarding fast-food restaurants with a drive-up window. Commissioner Woodruff said the concept plan is a bit awkward, but he has difficulty considering a different use for this property. Commissioners McEwen, Wood, and Winters also stated that they do not like the layout of the concept plan. Commissioner Winters asked Steve if there would be a development agreement as part of the zone change. Steve explained that it is not a requirement for commercial use, but the staff suggests one for adding trees to the park strip. Commissioner Winters asked if the Commission should continue this application to provide time for the applicant to adjust the site plan. Steve explained that this application is for changing the zone of the subject property only, and the concept plan would likely change when reviewed by our Engineering Department. Commissioner Winters asked when this proposal moves on to City Council, do they see a finished plan? Steve stated that they see the same concept plan that was presented today. Commissioner Winters said okay, so neither the Commission nor the Council can see the finished development plans. Steve said the use would be permitted, so that is correct. Commissioner Winters asked if adding conditions to the development agreement would be appropriate. Steve asked Brandon Hill, City Attorney, and Brandon said that would be just fine. Commissioner McEwen said he does not favor adding trees to the park strip where they don’t thrive in that location. He is in favor of the eight-foot wall.  Commissioner McEwen mentioned that he has trouble changing the zoning of a property and not knowing exactly how it would develop, just if the use is permitted. He is in favor of the eight-foot wall. However, he does feel adding trees to the park strip is needed where they don’t thrive in that location. Commissioner Wood said she has seen many existing restaurants like the one being proposed throughout the City, and she has seen this concept work. She is also in favor of an eight-foot wall. Motion: Commissioner Woodruff motioned to approve GPZ-6-2023 staff alternative #1 with the following additions to the development agreement: 1. The masonry wall be 8 feet instead of 6 feet. 2. Incorporating some type of safety measure to the site plan for customers who would need to cross the drive-thru traffic to enter the restaurant. 3. The trees added to the park strip count toward the landscaping requirement. 4. Any structure would only be one story. Commissioner Wood seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Vice Chair Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Unanimously – GPZ-6-2023 – Approved SMI-4-2023 4700 South Industrial Park Subdivision 6180 West 4700 South M Zone 5 Lots 20 acres BACKGROUND: Ken Milne is requesting preliminary plat approval for the 4700 South Industrial Park Subdivision. The subdivision is located on vacant land south of the Denver Rio Grande rail line and north of 4700 South. It extends from 6000 West to 6400 West. Properties north of the rail line are zoned residential while property to the south of 4700 South are zoned manufacturing. STAFF/AGENCY CONCERNS: Fire Department:  Fire hydrants to be installed in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code. Access and turnaround proposals regarding new buildings shall meet all fire codes. 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 align or provide the necessary spacing for new access points on 4700 South.  Will need to coordinate existing utility poles and potential relocation along 4700 South and 6400 West. ISSUES: The proposed application is being requested to create a 5 lot subdivision in the manufacturing zone. The property consists of 20 acres and it is anticipated that the project will be platted in two phases. Staff understands that the property on the corner of 4700 South 6400 West also, known as lot 1 will be sold to Granger Hunter Improvement District for their future needs. Lots will range in size from 2.6 to 6 acres. Access will be gained from 4700 South and possibly 6400 West depending upon GHID plans. There is a small .30 acre remnant parcel owned by UDOT at the southeast corner of the subdivision. The applicant has petitioned UDOT to purchase this piece and is presently going through UDOT’s acquisition process. The developer believes that while the parcel has little utility for the overall development, it would be nice to landscape or finish the property to compliment his overall project. 4700 South is presently dedicated to a 66-foot right-of-way. The City’s major street plan indicates that this road will be an 80-foot right-of-way. Therefore, the developer will dedicate an additional 7 feet on the north side of 4700 South as part of this project. Standard street improvements will be made including, curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lights. The developer has met with the City’s Engineering Division and has an understanding as to the acceptable locations for new drive approaches which are coordinated with access points on the south side of 4700 South. As mentioned previously, the location of this project is immediately south of the Denver Rio Grande rail line. The developer will be required to install a 6-foot chain link fence as outlined in City ordinance. At a future date, staff will review either conditional and/or permitted use applications. At that time, staff and agency comments will be more thoroughly addressed as part of the site plan review process. The subdivision plat will contain easements, dedication and other information applicable to the division of property. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the 4700 South Industrial Park Subdivision subject to a resolution of staff and agency comments. 2. Continue the application to allow the developer an opportunity to address the Planning Commissions concerns. Discussion: Ken Milne, the applicant, said he is still determining what will be developed on the property. He explained that subdividing into smaller lots makes the property more marketable. Mr. Milne noted that Granger Hunter wants to use lot #1 for an underground water tank. He stated that he would return to the Commission for a conditional use permit if needed. Paul Curtis, a neighboring resident, said that the people in his neighborhood enjoy the fact that this property provides a buffer between the Frito-Lay building. He said he wants something other than heavy manufacturing on the subject property. Mr. Curtis is okay with the flex/office space Mr. Mile had spoken of. Jarod Sid, the neighboring resident, is concerned about potential noise and light pollution late at night. He wanted to know if there would be a way to mitigate those issues. Commissioner Lovato said that this meeting is for subdividing the property, and those issues would not be handled in this forum. Mr. Sid asked if restrictions could be added to the subdivision plat. Steve explained that the subdivision plat is for dividing the property. He explained that Mr. Sid’s concerns would be addressed within the zoning ordinance and when the property developes.  Commissioner Winters asked Steve if he would address the lighting situation, where a manufacturing zone would be adjacent to a residential area. Steve stated that the city would require a photometric plan to be submitted, and this plan would show any impact the lighting would have on the neighboring properties. Motion: Commissioner McEwen motioned to approve SMI-4-2023 the 4700 South Industrial Park Subdivision subject to a resolution of staff and agency comments. Commissioner Porter seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Vice Chair Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Unanimously – SMI-4-2023 – Approved SA-5-2023 Garden Stream Manor Subdivision – Amending Lot 55 Higate Hamlet No. 4 Subdivision 3689 South 6400 West .71 Acres BACKGROUND: Spencer Petersen is requesting preliminary approval for the Garden Stream Manor Subdivision. The subdivision will also amend lot 55 Higate Hamlet No. 4 Subdivision. The subject property is bordered on the north, east and south by existing residential housing and 6400 West to the west. STAFF/AGENCY COMMENTS: There are no staff and agency comments as no new development will occur with this application. ISSUES: Mr. Petersen is requesting approval to adjust the mutual property line between his parcel and the properties to the north. The primary reason for this adjustment is that Mr. Petersen’s home is located on the common property line and he would like to create a setback from the properties to the north. Mr. Petersen’s parcel and the parcel directly north are not in a recorded subdivision. The property owner to the northeast is located on lot 55 of the Higate Hamlet Subdivision. Typically, a request as minor as adjusting a property line used to be handled by staff. However, State Law now requires any modification to a recorded lot be done by plat amendment. The common property line separating these properties will be moved a minimum distance of 6.5 feet on the Higate Hamlet lot and a maximum distance of 10 feet on the parcel to the north. The two parcels, and the one recorded lot will continue to meet City ordinances regarding frontage and lot area requirements. There is an irrigation easement that is noted on the recorded lot. Staff is unsure whether this easement continues through the parcels out to 6400 West. However, staff will recommend that if an easement does exist, as researched by the applicant, that it be noted on the new subdivision plat. Mr. Petersen will need to coordinate this with the irrigation company. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approval of the Garden Stream Manor Subdivision and an amendment to lot 55 Higate Hamlet No. 4 Subdivision subject to a resolution of staff and agency recommendations. 2. Continuation, to address issues raised during the public hearing. Discussion: Steve Lehman presented the application. He noted that there is an irrigation easement that goes through lot 55 but does not extend to 6400 West. Steve said he would advise the applicant to contact the ditch company and ensure an irrigation easement for that canal portion is in place. Spencer Petterson, the applicant, stated that he has been coordinating with the Water Master and has added castle rocks along the side of the canal. Motion: Commissioner Wood motioned to approve SA-5-2023 the Garden Stream Manor Subdivision and an amendment to lot 55 Higate Hamlet No. 4 Subdivision subject to a resolution of staff and agency recommendations. Commissioner Porter seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Vice Chair Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Unanimously – SA-5-2023 – Approved