Planning Commission Regular Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES AUGUST 9, 2023 The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chairperson Woodruff in the Multipurpose Room 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 Brent Fuller, Mathew Lovato, Cindy Wood 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 7 people in the audience GPZ-7-2023 Chris Clifford 5143 W 3500 S General Plan change from Mixed Use and Large Lot Residential to Small Lot Residential and a zone change from A to RM 4.34 acres Chris Clifford has submitted a General Plan/zone change application for three parcels totaling 4.34 acres located at 5143 W 3500 S. The property is currently zoned A (Agriculture, minimum lot size ½ acre) with a General Plan designation of Mixed Use for approximately the north 230’ and Large Lot Residential (2 to 3 units/acre) for the rest of the property. At this location, the Mixed Use designation includes Office and High Density Residential (12 to 20 units/acre). The proposed zone is RM (Multiple Unit Dwelling Residential) and the proposed General Plan designation is Small Lot Residential (4 to 7 units/acre). Surrounding zones include A to the south, west, and a portion of the east and R-1-8 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 8,000 square feet) to the north and the remaining east portion. Surrounding land uses include single family homes to the north, south, and east and single family homes and a six-plex to the west. The north parcel includes a home that, according to the Salt Lake County Assessor, was built in 1900. The two parcels to the south are vacant. At the time this report was prepared, staff had received one email from an adjoining neighbor who is opposed to this application. The email is included with this report. Development Proposal As shown in the attached concept plan and rendering, the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing home and develop a 21-unit planned unit development (PUD) of twin homes and one single unit dwelling. The proposed density is 4.8 units/acre. The streets would be public and utilize the 44’ right-of-way allowed in Section 7-13-705 for planned unit developments (PUDs) with attached units. The Fire and Public Works Departments will require a cul-de-sac at the south end of the property. In addition, the City’s ordinance requires 4.75 parking spaces for single unit dwellings and twin homes dwellings. The applicant is aware of both of these requirements. Previous Application Last year, Mr. Clifford submitted a General Plan/zone change application on the same three parcels along with an additional parcel to the south. The General Plan request was the same (Small Lot Residential); however, the zoning requested was RS (Residential Sustainability). A table comparing this previous proposal with the current proposal is below. Previous Application Current Application Requested Zone RS RM Project Area 5.87 acres 4.34 acres # of Parcels 4 3  # of Units 36 21 Density 6.1 units/acre 4.8 units/acre Street Type Private Public Proposed Unit Type Single Unit Detached Twin Home Proposed Unit Sizes 1,560 sq. ft. for ramblers 1,650 sq. ft. for ramblers 2,400 sq. ft. for two-story 2,400 sq. ft. for two-story The Planning Commission recommended approval of the previous application on 2/9/2022; however, the City Council denied the application on 4/12/2022. One of the objections to the application was the use of private streets. A copy of the City Council meeting minutes from 4/12/2022 is included with this report. The City Council later prohibited the use of private streets by passing Ordinance 22-29 on 7/27/2022. In reviewing this application, staff suggests that there are two primary questions to answer: 1. Is this the right location for a twin home development? 2. Does the quality of the project further City goals? These two questions are explored below. Question 1: Is this the right location for a twin home development? RM Zone Conditions According to the City’s zoning ordinance, zone changes to the RM zone can only be considered by the City if the following four conditions are met: 1. For properties without existing Structures which are proposed to be developed, the property must be a minimum of one acre and the Density must not exceed 12 units per acre. For properties with existing Structures proposed to be redeveloped, the property must be a minimum of 20,000 square feet and the Density must not exceed 20 units per acre. For properties that are west of Redwood Road and within one-half mile of the West Valley Central light rail station, the Decker Lake light rail station or the Redwood Junction light rail station, the Density may exceed 20 units per acre; 2. The property shall meet any one of the following four requirements: (i) have access and Frontage on a Street with a planned Right-of-way width of at least 80 feet (for properties under two acres) or 100 feet (for properties two acres or larger) as indicated on the Major Street Plan; (ii) be adjacent to existing multifamily residential development on two sides; or (iii) be located west of Redwood Road and within one-half mile of the West Valley Central light rail station, the Decker Lake light rail station, or the Redwood Junction light rail station; or (iv) if the property is vacant, was vacant as of January 19, 2021, will be an exempt housing development under 24 CFR 100.304 or successor regulation with a density no greater than seven units per acre, and have access and Frontage on a Street with a planned Right-of-way width of at least 80 feet; 3. A Development Agreement must be proposed with the zone change application that addresses Dwelling Unit sizes, exterior materials, architecture, Landscaping, and project  Amenities; and 4. A traffic impact study prepared by a registered traffic engineer is required for projects with 100 or more Dwelling Units. On the first and second conditions, the property has access and frontage onto 3500 South, which has a planned right-of-way width of 115’. On the third condition, the applicant’s development agreement standards are addressed later in this report. The fourth condition does not apply because the project is under 100 units. Current General Plan Designation and Neighboring Zoning In the General Plan, the north 1.5 acres of the subject property includes the option of High Density Residential, which has a density range of 12 to 20 units/acre. The remaining 2.8 acres of the subject property is designated as Large Lot Residential, which has a density range of 2 to 3 units/acre. The table below summarizes the number of units anticipated in the General Plan at the low and high ends of the density ranges for the subject property. General Plan Designation and Number of Acres Number of Units at Low Number of Units at Density Range End of the Density High End of the Density Range Range High Density Residential 1.5 18 30 (12 to 20 units/acre) Large Lot Residential 2.8 5.6 8.4 (2 to 3 units/acre) Totals 4.3 23.6 38.4 In summary, for a project to comply with the existing General Plan designation, the number of units would range from 24 to 38. At 21 units, the proposed project falls below this range with the density spread out over the entire site instead of being mostly concentrated along 3500 South as the existing General Plan recommends. As pointed out earlier, zoning in the surrounding neighborhoods is R-1-8. Typical density within the R-1-8 zone is around 4.2 units/acre. The proposed density of the project of 4.8 units/acre is closer to the typical density within the R-1-7 zone. Question 2: Does the quality of the project further City goals? As mentioned earlier, the proposed density of this project is somewhat higher than the density in the surrounding neighborhoods. For PUDs, the City’s ordinance allows for a density increase; however, any increase in density must be compensated by increased amenities and improved design which are proportional to the density increase. The sections that follow address dwelling unit size, exterior building features, and amenities. Dwelling Unit Sizes The City’s ordinance sets the minimum size for single unit dwellings, twin homes, and two unit dwellings at 1,000 square feet. This ordinance amount is limited by State law unless a development agreement requires a larger amount. The applicant is proposing a 1,650 square foot minimum area for rambler units and a 2,400 square foot minimum for two-story unit. All units would include basements. For comparison, the City’s ordinance sets the minimum size for a three-bedroom townhome at 1,400 square feet. Exterior Building Features The applicant is proposing the following exterior building design features:  primarily fiber cement siding exteriors with 10 to 20% of the exteriors as brick or stone,  a minimum roof pitch of 6:12, and  variations in designs and setbacks. Amenities The applicant is proposing the following project amenities:  a pavilion placed in the common area,  a playground, and  a walkway around the perimeter of the property. Staff Suggestions In addition to the standards proposed by the applicant, staff recommends these additional standards along with a revision to the applicant’s standards.  Number of units: The number of units shall be no more than 21.  Fencing: Perimeter fencing along the west, south, and east sides shall be 6’ tall vinyl. The perimeter fence along the north side shall be 6’ tall, pre-cast concrete in the same color and pattern used by the City along 4100 South. An entry feature shall also be included along 3500 South. A 5’ wide area of landscaping shall be included between the sidewalk and precast concrete wall along 3500 South.  Architecture: At least one alternative front elevation shall be developed and built for at least 6 of the proposed units. The alternative front elevation shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission during the subdivision plat review. Brick or stone shall be used on at least 20% of the exterior of all homes. There shall be at least a one- foot setback difference between twin home units within the same building.  Right-of-way dedication: 17.5’ shall be dedicated along the entire frontage of 3500 South.  The right-of-way width for the extension of Kiowa Way shall be 54’ to accommodate parkstrip and sidewalk on both sides of the street. Staff Alternatives: 1. Approval. This application should be approved subject to a development agreement that includes the standards proposed by the applicant along with the additions and revision recommended by staff in this report.  2. Continuance. 3. Denial. Given the Large Lot Residential designation in the General Plan, the RE zone is more appropriate for most of the property at this location. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. Chair Woodruff pointed out that there is not enough room for future residents to park in front of their homes. Steve said that there would be enough room. He explained that the ordinance states that a development like the one proposed needs at least an eighteen-foot setback. He believes the applicant is proposing twenty feet. Chris Clifford, the applicant, said that his first proposal was denied by City Council primarily because of the proposed private streets. He explained that with this proposal, there would be public streets. Mr. Clifford noted they are requesting to change the zone to RM because that zone gives them the flexibility to attain the goal of this project. He stated that they did not want a high-density development; the original proposal was for single-family homes. Mr. Clifford noted that single- family homes would not work, so they used the same product and abutted them, making twin homes. He explained that this multigenerational development, with a strong HOA, would create a tight-knit community. Chair Woodruff asked Mr. Clifford if this would be the right location for a twin home development? Mr. Clifford stated that the size and configuration of the development is what makes it fit in this location. He said that these buildings are single-family plans that we turned into twin homes. Mr. Clifford mentioned that it might be possible to split a couple of twin homes and incorporate a couple single- family homes. Chair Woodruff asked if the quality of the project meets the City’s goals. Mr. Clifford explained that as stated in the development agreement these buildings would have more amenities than required and high quality structures. He said this project would help increase property values. Commissioner Winters stated that he feels this is a good location for the development and he likes that it is smaller and low-density. Motion: Commissioner Winters motioned to approve GPZ-7-2023. This application should be approved subject to a development agreement that includes the standards proposed by the applicant along with the additions and revision recommended by staff in this report. Commissioner Porter seconded the motion.  Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes Chair Woodruff Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Chair McEwen No Motion does not carry. Discussion: Commissioner McEwen feels there are better locations for the project than this one. He pointed out that most townhome developments become eye sores over time, and the buildings are much larger than the adjacent single-family homes. Commissioner Winters mentioned that he felt better about this proposal when he found out twin homes are sold as separate units to individual owners instead of rented out like a duplex. Chris Clifford stated that the intent of this development is to have a fully invested community. He noted that there would be strict rules if one were to rent one of these units. Mr. Clifford explained that no long-term or overnight rentals would be permitted, and not all units could be rented. Commissioner Winters noted that a strong HOA would help maintain the property well. Steve Pastorik suggested that the Commission continue this application where only four Commissioners are present. Second Motion: Commissioner Porter motioned to continue GPZ-7-2023 to the August 23rd public hearing. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes Chair Woodruff Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Chair McEwen Yes Unanimously – GPZ-7-2023 – Continued SMI-1-2023 Advanced RV Subdivision 4581 West 3500 South C-2 Zone 2 Lots 4.81 Acres BACKGROUND Dave Lloret is requesting preliminary plat approval for the Advanced RV Subdivision. The subject property is located at 4581 West 3500 South and is bordered on the east by a small parcel zoned C-2, and the Lofts on 3500, a new planned residential community. Property to the south is zoned residential and property to the west is zoned C-2. Mr. Lloret would like to divide the existing parcel to create an additional lot in the southwest corner of the property. He will retain ownership of the smaller .75 acre piece and has an interested buyer looking to purchase the balance of the property, approximately 4 acres, for a future commercial use. Access to the new lot would be gained by an access easement recorded as part of the plat. The other access points from 3500 South will remain in effect as they are currently being used. The applicant has coordinated the subdivision with UDOT and as no new or additional improvements are needed, has received approval from UDOT. As these properties further develop, conditional and/or permitted use applications will likely be required in the future. Owners of these properties will work with staff for those applications. Staff did inquire as to whether the existing buildings would remain on the .75 acre piece and that answer was yes. Due to this application being a commercial subdivision, staff and agency comments will be better addressed during the conditional and/or permitted use applications. The subdivision plat will contain easements and other information applicable to the division of property, but does not address site design issues typically found in commercial developments. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the Advanced RV Subdivision subject to a resolution of staff and agency concerns. 2. Continue the application in order for the developer to address the Planning Commissions concerns. Discussion:  Dave Lloret, the applicant, said he had operated his business from this location for approximately thirty years, and he would like to downsize. He would use the smaller lot, 0.81 acres, to run his business on a smaller scale. Mr. Lloret stated that the larger lot would be used for a car dealership, which is similar to his RV dealership that is currently operating there. Commissioner Winters asked Mr. Lloret if an existing fence separated his property into the two proposed lots. Dave said there isn’t a fence on his property, but there is one separating his property from the karate dojo next door. Commissioner Winters asked if the access would be the same. Mr. Lloret said yes, it would not change. Motion: Commissioner Porter motioned to approve SMI-1-2023 the Advanced RV Subdivision subject to a resolution of staff and agency concerns. Commissioner McEwen seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes Chair Woodruff Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Chair McEwen Yes Unanimously – SMI-1-2023 – Approved PUD-1-2023 Towns at 2351 2351 South Redwood Road RM Zone 24 units 1.84 Acres BACKGROUND Mr. Russ Platt, representing the property owner, is requesting preliminary approval for a residential development to be known as The Towns at 2351. The subject property was rezoned in 2021 from the C-2 zone to the RM Zone. The subject property is bordered on the north by existing residential housing, the east by property owned by Granger Hunter Improvement District and Red Oaks PUD and the south by the Red Oaks PUD. STAFF/AGENCY COMMENTS: Public Works Department:  Authorization required of ditch/water users for any abandonment, relocation, piping or any other modifications to existing ditches or irrigation structures.  Contact Salt Lake County Auditor’s Office for approval of street names and subdivision names.  UDOT approval required for access on Redwood Road.  Redwood Road Streetscape required along the frontage of this project.  Revisions to plat required. Utility Companies:  Standard Utility Easements required. Granger Hunter Improvement District:  Project is subject to all GHID requirements and design standards. Fire Department:  Proposed fire hydrant locations need to be shown on subdivision plat.  Project shall meet all provisions of Fire Code relating to this type of development. Building Division:  Will require a soils report. ISSUES: Project Overview: The Towns at 2351 will be a residential community consisting of 24 units on 1.84 acres. This equates to an overall density of 13 units per acre. A development agreement was reviewed and approved during the rezoning of this property. Proposed townhomes will be 3 story units. Per the development agreement, there are to be 3 different unit types with the smallest being 2059 square feet and the largest being 2,534 square feet. Each unit will have a two-car garage accessed from a private road system.  The architecture for this project is using modern elements. The materials will be stone, cement board and stucco. Units will include a roof top patio and two of the three unit types will be provided with a deck off the living area. Each unit will also have a fenced entry courtyard. The developer is suggesting that two color schemes be used for this project. The colored variations will need to be substantial enough so that one color does not dominate the project. Final colors for this project will be reviewed at final plat review. All townhome units will have a two-car garage and driveway for parking. The development agreement does require an additional 10 guest spaces for a parking ratio of 4.4 spaces per unit. Setbacks for this project are per the site plan. Other matters related to this project: Access: Access to the subdivision will be gained from Redwood Road and then an internal private street and drive court network. The preliminary plat indicates that the street width for private rights-of-ways will be 26 feet of pavement with a modified curb and gutter system for drainage. Sidewalk is planned on one side of the street, but the project has an internal sidewalk network as well. The internal design of the subdivision provides ample access and turnaround capabilities for fire needs. While the main road is 26 feet of asphalt, the drive courts will be 24 feet in width. Building Setbacks and Height Requirements: As mentioned previously, setbacks for this project are illustrated on the site plan. Staff is comfortable with the setbacks which are: For buildings facing Redwood Road, the side setback is to be 10 feet. For other buildings along the north property line the setback shall be 15 feet and the south setback line adjacent to Red Oaks will be 25 feet. Landscaping: While landscaping is generally addressed at the final plat stage, staff would like to mention a few things at this point in the review process. The overall open space comprises an area equal to 50% of the project site. Roof top patios are included in this calculation. Staff will review a formal landscape plan at final plat. The developer did extend the sidewalk system so the ability to walk around the community is available. A question was raised during the study session as to whether the sidewalk needed to be extended to the south property line. Staff believes this would be redundant as the sidewalk is located within 20 feet of that area along the rear of those units backing on to the open space. The ability to walk around the community exists with the proposed walkways.  The developer will be required to install the Redwood Road Streetscape across the entire frontage of the project. The site plan accounts for the correct spacing for the parkstrip, sidewalk and lighting. Mr. Platt is familiar with this standard as he installed these improvements at Cobalt Landing on Redwood Road. Amenities: Per the development agreement, a playground, picnic area and dog run will be provided. While the walking path mentioned previously is not required, it does add an additional amenity for this development. Entry Feature: The project will require an entry feature. There is ample room at the entrance to this project to locate something to identify the community. Staff will work with the applicant as the project moves forward regarding plans for the sign. Lighting: The project site will require internal street lights. In addition to the street lights, there will need to be lighting within and around the open space areas. Staff will recommend that a lighting plan be submitted at final plat. Soils Report: As with all residential development, a soils report will be required. Although basements are not planned, the report will be used by the Building Inspections Division for construction recommendations and the report will also help with construction of the private street. Basements are not planned for this project. Storm Drainage: Due to the limited area of this project, storm water will be collected in an underground stormtech system. This system will collect storm water generated from the site and is proposed to be located under the guest parking areas. Management and maintenance of this system will be the responsibility of the HOA. The City Engineering Division is reviewing the system to ensure the capacity being proposed will work for the site. Garbage Collection: The development has been designed with a private street and drive court pattern. This will allow all residents to have their own garbage can. Dumpsters will not be needed in this project. The developer will need to coordinate garbage collection with a private agency for collection. Fencing: The development agreement calls for a vinyl fence to be located along the north and south property lines. The east line is already fenced with vinyl fencing. During the study session, the Planning Commission inquired as to options for different materials, i.e., composite fencing. Staff discussed this with Mr. Platt and he was going to research some options to see if the property owner is willing to modify the fencing requirement as approved. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: A. Grant preliminary approval for the Towns at 2351 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the developer resolve all staff and agency concerns. 2. That the Planned Unit Development be subject to the multiple family design standards outlined in the City ordinance, and the development agreement negotiated during the rezoning process. 3. That a soils report be prepared prior to the final plat review. 4. That the developer provide an overall landscape plan to be reviewed at final plat. Said landscaping plan shall provide measures to ensure water conservation techniques will be used in accordance with City ordinances. 5. That all requirements of the West Valley City Fire Department be satisfied including turning radius and hammerhead configurations. 6. That the developer resolve any issues regarding irrigation ditches and irrigation water that may be in use. 7. That compliance be made with Granger Hunter Improvement District, i.e., water line extensions, connections, water rights and fire protection. 8. That the subdivision name and street names be approved by the Salt Lake County Auditor’s Office. 9. That building setbacks and height be in accordance with the site plan reviewed by the Planning Commission and in conjunction with the development agreement. 10. That lighting be provided throughout the entire development. Said lighting will be reviewed during the final plat. 11. That the developer coordinate access into the development with the Utah Department of Transportation and that the Redwood Road streetscape be installed across the frontage of the project.  12. That the developer provide plans for an entry feature at final plat. B. Continuation, in order for the developer to address issues raised during the public hearing. Discussion: Steve Lehman presented the application. Commissioner McEwen said that where the walking path does not connect in the southeast corner, he is concerned that residents would make their own path through the landscaping or need to walk through traffic. He asked Steve if it would be considered an amenity if it doesn’t connect. Steve explained that it is an overall walking system and pointed out the path just north of the amenity area. He stated that staff felt it would take away from the open space if more concrete was added south of the amenities. Commissioner McEwen said he would respectfully disagree. Russell Platt, the applicant, said he is excited to finish this project and clean-up the property. He noted that he is open to adding a fence that would be stouter than they vinyl one proposed. Mr. Platt stated that he will work with Steve to find another material and that can be added to the development agreement. Motion: Commissioner McEwen motioned to approve PUD-1-2023 subject to the twelve staff alternatives outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Porter seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes Chair Woodruff Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Chair McEwen Yes Unanimously –PUD-1-2023 – Approved There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:44 pm. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Hunt, Administrative Assistant