Planning Commission Regular Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2023 The meeting was called to order at 4:00 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 David McEwen, Brent Fuller, Mathew Lovato, Darrick Porter, Martell Winters, Cindy Wood, and Harold Woodruff ABSENT Darrick Porter and Harold Woodruff 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 GP-2-2023 West Valley City Amend the Major Street Plan to 1) remove 2400/2365 S. between 3200 W. and 2700 W., 2) add 2210 S. as a 66' right-of-way between 3200 W. and Arnold Way (2940 W), which includes an extension of 2210 S. to Arnold Way, 3) add Arnold Way (2940 W) as a 66' right-of-way between 2100 S. and 2210 S., and 4) add 2180 S. as a 66' right-of-way between Arnold Way and 2700 W. At the request of the West Valley City Public Works Department, Planning and Zoning staff is requesting an amendment to the West Valley City General Plan to update the City’s Major Street Plan. The Major Street Plan defines street alignments and right-of-way widths for existing and proposed major streets within the City and is referenced several times in the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The Plan is used to guide Municipal street projects and improvements, determine setbacks along major streets that have yet to be widened and identify streets needing right-of- way dedication as part of a subdivision. Purpose: An additional east-west roadway between 3200 West and Constitution Blvd (2700 West) has been needed to help mitigate some of the transportation issues and reduce the amount of traffic and congestion at the intersection of 3200 West and the South Frontage Road. It is likely that in the future it will be necessary to pull southbound left turns out of the frontage road and the 3200 West intersection so this connection would be the new route. The four Major Street Plan changes are described below. 1) Remove 2400/2365 South between 3200 West and 2700 West A roadway from the existing "T" Intersection on Constitution Blvd and 2365 South to the existing "T" Intersection of 3200 West and 2400 S Street was the preferred location. However, construction in that area makes that alignment no longer feasible. 2) Add 2210 South as a 66' right-of-way between 3200 West and Arnold Way (2940 West), which includes an extension of 2210 South to Arnold Way The current right-of-way width for 2210 South is 50’. This is the smallest existing right-of-way but already has the pavement width for a 66’ right-of-way, which is 41’. 3) Add Arnold Way (2940 West) as a 66' right-of-way between 2100 South and 2210 South The current right-of-way width for Arnold Way (2940 West) is 60’. The existing pavement width in this section is 35’. 4) Add 2180 South as a 66' right-of-way between Arnold Way and 2700 West. The current right-of-way width for 2180 South is 60’. The existing pavement width in this section is 35’. Typically, the responsibility to install curb, gutter, sidewalk, and streetlight improvements would fall to the adjoining owner in one of three instances. First, there is new construction on a vacant adjoining parcel. Second, the estimated construction costs for substantial modifications to an existing site or structure exceed $50,000. Second, the City has a delay agreement in place on the subject property and the City calls for the improvements to be installed. Staff Alternatives: 1. Approval of the General Plan change. 2. Continuance, for reasons determined during the public hearing. 3. Denial. Discussion: Jody Knapp presented the application. She reviewed the four changes to the Major Street Plan proposed by West Valley City's Public Works Department. Jody pointed out that three things would trigger the need for improvements: new construction on a vacant parcel, modifications to an existing structure exceeding $50,000 in cost, or a delay agreement in place that the City calls in. She noted that the adjacent property owner would be responsible for improvements such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and streetlights. Laura Decker said she owns Airstream of Utah, located at 2210 South, which currently ends in a cul-de-sac. She noted that punching 2210 South through to Arnolds Way, extending to 3200 West, would create traffic safety issues. Mrs. Decker stated that trucks come and go from her business and the increase in truck traffic would be dangerous. She pointed out that the City would need to acquire some of her property to extend 2210 South, and she wonders how the City plans to reimburse her for that land. Mrs. Decker stated it would make more sense if the City used 3140 West as a connection, not 2210 South. She also noted that the City had her put in the required landscaping, and the modifications to the Major Street Plan would need it to be removed, and that seems counterproductive. Jody explained that 3140 West is too close to the 3200 West and 2100 South intersection to relieve traffic congestion. She noted that this is just a plan if this area were to change or develop, so there are no plans for construction at this time. Mrs. Decker said that she feels it is unfair for her to be responsible for the required improvements if they result from the City's Major Street Plan. Jody noted that she would only be liable for enhancements if she modified her business, triggering one of the three items mentioned earlier.  Commissioner Winters said that he appreciates Mrs. Decker's concerns. However, he understands the importance of street connections within the City, especially in the Light Industrial areas. Motion: Commissioner Winters motioned to approve GP-2-2023. Commissioner Wood seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Chair Fuller Yes Unanimously – GP-2-2023 – Approved Z-4-2023 Jake Thomas 3776 South 3600 West Zone Change from A to R-1-8 0.73 acres Jake Thomas has requested a zone change on two parcels totaling 0.73 acres at 3776 South 3600 West from A (Agriculture, minimum lot size ½ acre) to R-1-8 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 8,000 square feet). Surrounding zones include R-1-8 to the east, south, west and a portion of the north with A on the remaining north portion. The property is surrounded by single unit dwellings. The subject property is designated as Low Density Residential (3 to 4 units/acre) in the General Plan. Development Proposal The subject parcel to the east includes a home that was built in 1956. The subject west parcel includes two sheds. According to the applicant who represents the property owner, the owner would like to reconfigure these two parcels so that the west parcel becomes a buildable flag lot. The existing home would remain on the east lot and a new home would be built on the west flag lot. The applicant has submitted a concept plan, which shows the east lot of 14,448 square feet and the west lot of 13,750 square feet (excluding the driveway out to 3600 West). The minimum lot size for a flag lot in the R-1-8 zone is 12,000 square feet. Development Agreement A development agreement is required for this project. Section 7-11-213 of the West Valley City Zoning Ordinance states: “All new Subdivisions involving a rezone of property, or a PUD, shall participate in a Development Agreement that addresses housing size, quality, exterior finish materials, Streetscapes, Landscaping, etc.” For the development agreement, the applicant is proposing to use the same standards that were in place up until July of 2022. These standards are attached for reference. Code Violations The City recently received a complaint about code violations on the subject property. After inspecting the property, the City verified that there are code violations on the property and has sent the property owner a courtesy notice to make the owner aware of the violations. A copy of the courtesy notice is included with this report. Two of the violations are that a substantial addition was made in 2017 to the back of the house without a building permit and in violation of setback requirements. The property is currently owned by Raul Albarran Leyva and Hugo Albarran Leyva. The property was deeded to Hugo Albarran Leyva and Hector Albarran Leyva in 2016. So, one of the current owners of the property owned the property at the time the offending addition was constructed. Given the significance of the violations and the time and effort needed to resolve them, staff does not recommend allowing the owner to build a new home on the proposed flag lot until the code violations are resolved. Given the current problems with the site, if the Commission is not supportive of the zone change, they can simply deny the application. However, if the Commission is supportive of the zone change but shares staff’s concern about issuing a permit before the code violations are resolved, staff recommends that the development agreement include a provision that requires all code violations to be resolved prior to the issuance of a building permit for the new home. After speaking with the applicant about the outstanding code violations, he asked that the City grant approval of the zone change and use the development agreement to require resolution of the violations before a permit for the new home is issued. Staff Alternatives:  Approval. The application should be approved. The recommendation for approval is made subject to a development agreement that includes the standards proposed by the applicant plus the following provision: o All code violations on both properties must be resolved prior to a building permit being issued for a new home on the proposed new flag lot.  Continuance.  Denial. The zone change should not be approved given the outstanding code violations. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. He noted that during last week’s meeting, there was a question about who owned the property when they built the addition and who owns it now. Steve explained that there are currently two owners; one became an owner in 2016 after the offending addition was added. Steve stated that if the Commission approves this application, staff recommends a development agreement containing the housing standards proposed by the applicant, along with a provision stating all existing issues need to be resolved before the applicant is issued a building permit. Steve pointed out that the Commission also has the option to deny this application. He explained that when a zone change request is denied, it does not go directly to the City Council; the applicant would need to appeal to the Council. Steve stated that if the applicant would like to reapply and request the same zone, they would need to wait one year from the denial date. Judy Rohner said she lives north of the subject property at 3762 South 3600 West. She stated that she doesn’t have any issue with changing the zone. However, she has a big problem with the applicant getting a building permit before all of the issues with the property are resolved. She noted that the applicant had a license for a landscaping business, which expired in February 2020, and for a cleaning business, which passed in August 2022. Commissioners Winters and Wood agree that the violations must be resolved before issuing a building permit. Commissioner McEwen said that if this application were approved, the applicant might see that as a green light to start building. He said he would be okay with denying this proposal, giving them a year to deal with the existing issues. Commissioner Wood asked Steve how closely this situation would be monitored. She wants to ensure construction doesn’t start before the permit is issued. Steve said they would keep a close eye on this property, ensuring the violations were resolved. He noted that if they do start construction without a permit, there are several different options the City could take; one would be issuing a stop work order. Steve noted that the applicant wouldn’t be approved to run power out to the proposed home without a permit. Commissioner Winters said that he feels more comfortable approving this application, knowing they could not turn on the power. Most likely, no one would occupy the home without power. Motion: Commissioner Wood motioned to approve Z-4-2023. The recommendation for approval is made subject to a development agreement that includes the standards proposed by the applicant plus the following provision:   All code violations on both properties must be resolved prior to a building permit being issued for a new home on the proposed new flag lot. Commissioner McEwen seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Chair Fuller Yes Unanimously – Z-4-2023 – Approved PUD-2-2023 – Mountain View Micro Flex PUD 5718 West 3500 South LI Zone 59 Units 5.3 Acres BACKGROUND: Shivam Shah is requesting preliminary approval for the Mountain View Micro Flex PUD. The proposed application will convert interior office/warehouse spaces into 59 individual commercial condominium units. The building is presently under construction. ISSUES: The existing parcel is 5.3 acres in size. City staff approved a permitted use application for this project in December 2022. As part of that review, all aspects of development including site plan review, landscaping and commercial design standards were reviewed and approved. Building construction is currently underway. The proposed application before the Planning Commission is to create condominium units as opposed to individual suites or office/warehouse spaces originally approved by the City. The numbers of condominium units is equal to those approved by the permitted use application. Unit sizes range from 820 square feet to 2,560 square feet. As mentioned previously, these spaces can be used for a variety of businesses commensurate with the LI zone. Commercial and Industrial condominiums are not uncommon. According to the applicant, there are a variety of benefits associated with doing a commercial condominium project.  For the property owner, it is primarily the ability to sell units as opposed to leasing them. For business owners it is the ability to predict occupancy costs without having to renegotiate their lease every few years. There is also a sense of pride in ownership that can help keep the entire project viable because of the interest each owner has in wanting the overall project to succeed. For these reasons, the applicant is proposing the condominium concept. A question was raised during the study session about the west side of the building and overhead doors facing the Mountain View Corridor. Staff has attached a copy of the development agreement that limits the door percentage to 35%. The agreement also addresses design elements for the LI zone which were reviewed and approved as part of the permitted use application. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the Mountain View Micro Flex PUD subject to a resolution of staff concerns. 2. Continue the application for reasons determined in the Planning Commission meeting. Discussion: Brock Anderson presented the application for Steve Lehman. Greg Wilson, the applicant, said the staff did a fantastic job and were wonderful to work with. He didn’t have anything to add to the report. Commissioner Winters said this is a difficult property to develop, and he is grateful that the applicant has found a use that will work well in that location. Motion: Commissioner Winters motioned to approve PUD-2-2023 subject to a resolution of staff concerns. Vote: Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Chair Fuller Yes Unanimously – PUD-2-2023 – Approved PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS Approval of Minutes from September 5, 2023 Study Meeting Approval of Minutes from September 12, 2023 Regular Meeting  Motion: Commissioner McEwen motioned to approve the minutes from September 5, 2023 and September 12, 2023. Commissioner Wood seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Chair Fuller Yes Unanimously –Meeting Minutes – Approved There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:34 pm. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Hunt, Administrative Assistant