Planning Commission Regular Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES AUGUST 23, 2023 The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chairperson Fuller in the City Council Chambers at West Valley City Hall 3600 Constitution Boulevard, West Valley City, UT 84119, and using Zoom at https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88955119737. WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS David McEwen, Brent Fuller, Mathew Lovato, Darrick Porter, Martell Winters, Cindy Wood, and Harold Woodruff ABSENT WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF Steve Pastorik, Jody Knapp, Brock Anderson, Steve Lehman, and Kirsten Hunt WEST VALLEY CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT Brandon Hill, Deputy City Attorney AUDIENCE There were 4 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 This application was continued by the Planning Commission during the public meeting on August 9, 2023. 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 explained that this application was continued from the last public hearing, and he will review it for the Commission today. The applicant, Chris Clifford, said that they requested the RM zone because it is the only zone permitting a planned unit development that would work on the subject property. He pointed out that the RM zone would allow him to request a density of 20 units/acre, but he opted to ask for five units/acre, which is a better fit for the neighborhood. Mr. Clifford noted that they have other twin home developments in Utah, which have been successful. He stated they want to develop a high-quality product to target an upscale buyer type. These are people who have money and like to spend money. Mr. Clifford explained that the proposed homes would be owner-occupied and invested in the community. Commissioner Winters asked Steve to remind him of the required square footage for a single-family home. Steve stated that for a rambler-style home, it was 2,000 square feet; however, with the change in the legislature, it is 1,000 square feet. Commissioner Winters asked if the 2,000 square feet included basements. Steve said that it is above grade. Commissioner Winters said he has thought about this proposal a lot and has no issues with this project; it looks nice. He stated that he is okay with the units being a bit smaller and that it is a twin home development, not single-family. 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 Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Chair Fuller Yes  Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen No Majority – GPZ-7-2023 – Approved C-16-2023 Shoppes at Lake Park Ph 4 (TGI CORP.) 2893 S. 5600 W. C-2 zone, 3.01 acres The applicant, TGI CORP., representing the Shoppes at Lake Park Ph 4, is requesting conditional use approval for the final phase of a shopping center at 2893 South 5600 West. The zoning for this property is C-2, General Commercial and the General Plan designation is General Commercial. The surrounding zone is C-2 on the west and south. The zoning to the north and east is RM, multi unit dwelling residential. The surrounding uses include the Shoppes at Lake Park development to the south (Burlington, Ross, Kohls and Michaels etc.) and west (retail and restaurant uses including Buffalo Wild Wings) and Highbury Apartments to the north and Highbury Townhomes to the east. This property is located within the Shoppes at Lake Park that has been developed in several phases under C-35-2003, C-5-2006 and C-15-2016. The current and final proposal is for two retail tenant spaces that will finish off the anchor building for the center. One tenant is approximately 10,000 sqft (Pad H) and the other is 42,000 sqft (Pad J). The building will be constructed of stucco with a brick veneer wainscot and column features to tie in with the original design concept for the building. This design shall also comply with the West Valley City Commercial Design Standards so staff recommends that the north façade provide relief along the wall elevation as well as the roof plane, similar to what was done along the south side of the center, to break up that façade. This site was originally planned as a building lot so there is adequate parking to accommodate this use and development. All interior parking lot landscaping will be maintained and updated per the original design concept for the interior islands (C-5-2006). There is existing landscaping in the parkstrip on the north side along Highbury Pkwy that will remain. The 20’ landscape setback on the subject property must also contain trees as outlined in the previous approvals (C- 5-2006) and the West Valley City Code (one tree every 30’ of frontage). This overall shopping center has existing improvements for the primary pedestrian corridors. There is an east-west connection out to 5600 West located by Ross and this phase will complete the north-south connection for the center out to Highbury Pkwy. There is also an existing masonry wall along the east property boundary adjacent to residential so no additional screening is required as part of this application. Only wall signage is proposed with this application and is subject to the West Valley City Sign Ordinance (Title 11). If dumpsters are provided for this building they must be located within a 6’ masonry enclosure that is constructed to match the building and meet the location requirements outlined in 7-2-118. Staff Alternatives Approval subject to any concerns raised at the public hearing as well as the following conditions: 1. The building must be completed per the approved plans and be designed in accordance with the Commercial Design Standards. This shall include some architectural relief along the elevation and roof plane on the north façade. 2. The site shall be landscaped per the approved plans and all existing landscaping must be maintained and/or replaced if it is in poor condition. This includes all interior parking lot islands and there shall be trees in the 20’ setback along Highbury Parkway planted at a ratio of one tree for every 30’ of frontage. 3. A north-south pedestrian connection to Highbury Parkway must be provided to accommodate the overall pedestrian circulation through this shopping center. 4. Dumpsters shall be completely screened and secured with a 6’ masonry enclosure that matches the building and located per 7-2-118. 5. Only wall signs were proposed with this application and those signs shall comply with the West Valley City Sign Ordinance. 6. Must meet requirements of all affected departments and agencies. 7. Subject to review upon valid complaint. Continuance, to allow for the resolutions of any issues raised at the public hearing. Discussion: Jody Knapp presented the application. Trevor Gasser, the applicant, said they are willing to meet all of the conditions Jody has addressed. He noted that he would like to discuss the unit sizes. Mr. Gasser explained that he had a tenant interested in the 42,000-square-foot building, and due to the current interest rates and construction costs, they started to falter. He stated that if the Commission could provide some flexibility with the size of the units, it would be appreciated. Mr. Gasser explained that he could rent that large building to two tenants, splitting the cost. He pointed out that everything else proposed would remain the same.  Commissioner Lovato asked Jody if permitting the unit flexibility would conflict with anything in the staff report. Jody said they would still meet all the conditions, and we are not holding them to a specific square footage requirement, so there wouldn’t be an issue. Motion: Commissioner Lovato motioned to approve C-16-2023 subject to the seven staff alternatives outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Wood seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Chair Fuller Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Unanimously – C-16-2023 – Approved C-17-2023 Mountain View Flex 5653 S 6055 W M Zone (2.64 acres) The applicant, Davis Warnock, is requesting conditional use approval for office/warehouse flex buildings with outside storage, located at 5653 S 6055 W. The property is zoned M, Manufacturing and the West Valley City General Plan designates this area as Light Manufacturing. Zoning to the north and west is M, while to the south it is R-1-8. The parcels to the east are in Kearns and are zoned for single unit dwellings. Adjacent land uses include self-storage units to the north, a precast concrete plant to the west, and single unit dwellings to the south and east. This property is the only remaining vacant parcel along 6055 West. The applicant is proposing to build four office/warehouse flex buildings, which include a total of 29 units. Each unit will be approximately 1,500 sq. ft., and will include a small office space and bathroom, with the remainder of the building open for various uses. The applicant is also proposing a small outside storage space for each unit behind the buildings. With the current configuration of the buildings, Bldg. D will not be allowed to have overhead doors in the back, or an outside storage area behind the building, as a 20’ landscaped setback is required next to residential. There will be one access point for the project from 6055 West. With the proposed layout of the project, the Fire Department requires an additional access point, but the parcel does not have enough frontage to allow two access points as outlined in Title 7, 7-9-107. The applicant is proposing to install one emergency-only vehicle access near the south end of the parcel. The access will not include a curb cut and will only be used for emergency purposes. Parking for the project is proposed along the front of the buildings, except for the areas in front of the overhead doors. Based on the current proposal and square footage of uses, there are 10 more parking spaces proposed than what the code requires. As different tenants and businesses occupy the buildings, the on-site parking will be monitored through tenant improvement permits and/or business license reviews. The applicant’s proposal includes four metal buildings. Warehouse uses are not required to meet the Commercial Design Standards (7-11-300P), but office uses are. The most emphasis on architectural design and relief shall be placed on the street-facing building elevations. These sides shall be treated as primary facades and shall meet all requirements for primary facades as outlined in 7-11-300P. The applicant is proposing to place 10’ tall CMU walls adjacent to the buildings on the street-facing facades, to act as screening for the outside storage areas. Typically, that tall of a fence would not be allowed, but in this instance, it acts as an extension of the building. The applicant should incorporate the wall into the building design, which may help in meeting the commercial design requirements. The front side elevations of the buildings shall be treated as secondary facades and meet all regulations as outlined in 7-11-300P, except for the masonry requirement. The front building elevations do not need to include 35% masonry, but should meet the building relief, design, and roof requirements as outlined in the code. The applicant is proposing small, outside storage areas behind the buildings for materials and equipment storage. The storage areas will be screened behind buildings or walls. The applicant is proposing to use gravel for surfacing, which is acceptable if vehicles are not stored there. Five percent landscaping is required for the site. The east, south, and west boundaries of the parcel require 20’ of landscaping. The east and south sides adjacent to residential shall provide 1 tree every 30’. All landscaped areas shall include 50% coverage of live plant material. This project shall continue the park strip tree plantings that have been established on the street to the north, which is one tree every 30’. The tree variety shall match what exists. The applicant is proposing to remove the berm along the east property line that had been used historically for screening next to the residential properties. A 6’ tall masonry wall is required on the east and south sides due to the adjacent residential uses. There is an existing wall along the south parcel line, and the applicant is proposing to install an 8’ tall wall along  the east property line. The applicant has not provided a sign plan for any proposed signage. All future signage needs to comply with the regulations in Title 11. 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 constructed per the approved plan. 2. There shall be no overhead garage doors on the back of Building D. 3. Access to the site shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. 4. Parking on the site shall meet the requirements of 7-9 of the West Valley City Code. 5. The side building elevations that are street-facing shall be considered primary facades and shall meet the Commercial Design Standard requirements outlined in 7-11-300P. The front building elevations shall be considered secondary facades and shall meet all regulations outlined in 7-11-300P, except masonry shall not be required. 6. All outside storage areas shall be screened from public view and shall not be located within any required landscaping or parking areas. Gravel is an acceptable material for surfacing if the storage is for materials and equipment. Vehicle storage is not allowed. 7. There shall be a minimum of 5% landscaping on the site. 20’ of landscaping shall be provided along south, east, and west property lines with 1 tree spaced every 30’ along the east and south property lines. All landscaped areas shall include 50% live plant material. 8. Street trees shall be provided every 30 feet in the park strip, and the variety shall match existing trees to the north. 9. A 6’ tall masonry wall is required along the east and south property lines. An 8’ tall wall is allowed with a building permit. 10. Signage shall comply with the West Valley City Code and a building permit shall be obtained. 11. Shall meet the requirements of all affected departments and agencies. 12. Subject to review upon valid complaint. Continuance, to allow for the resolution of any issues raised at the public hearing. Discussion: Brock Anderson presented the application. He stated that one of the issues discussed during the study session last week was there not being enough room for the required twenty feet of landscaping and the outside storage behind building D.  Brock said he discussed this with the applicant, and they would probably eliminate the outdoor storage and overhead doors in the rear of building D. Commissioner Porter asked Brock if he could present the slide depicting where the subject property meets the existing storage unit structure. He wondered if the proposed ten-foot wall would extend to that structure. Brock stated it would, but the current building is setback further than the proposed structure. Brock noted that the wall height is approximately the same height as where the proposed building design changes so that it would blend in nicely. Motion: Commissioner Woodruff motioned to approve C-17-2023 subject to the twelve staff alternatives outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Lovato seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Chair Fuller Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Unanimously – C-17-2023 – Approved PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS Approval of Minutes from June 21, 2023 Study Meeting Approval of Minutes from June 28, 2023 Regular Meeting Motion: Commissioner Wood motioned to approve the two sets of minutes. Commissioner Woodruff seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Chair Fuller Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Unanimously – Meeting Minutes – Approved There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:37 pm. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Hunt, Administrative Assistant