Planning Commission Regular Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES 4/24/2024 at 4:00 p.m. 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/86528756733 WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS Brent Fuller, Darrick Porter, Martell Winters, Cindy Wood, Harold Woodruff, David McEwen, and Renee Layton ABSENT Mathew Levato WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF Steve Pastorik, Jody Knapp, Brock Anderson, Steve Lehman, Daniel Bush, and Margo Hoyt WEST VALLEY CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT Brandon Hill, Deputy City Attorney AUDIENCE There were 10 people in the audience GENERAL PLAN/ZONE CHANGE APPLICATIONS Application #: GPZ-1-2024 Applicant: Paul and Kareen Swenson Address: 4053 South 7200 West Request: General plan change from Large Lot Residential to Light Manufacturing and zone change from A to M Property Size: 2.96 acres Paul and Kareen Swenson have submitted a General Plan/zone change application for a 2.96-acre parcel located at 4053 South 7200 West. The property is currently zoned A (Agriculture, minimum lot size ½ acre) and the current General Plan designation is Large Lot Residential (2 to 3 units/acre). The proposed zone is M (Manufacturing) and the proposed General Plan designation is Light Manufacturing. Surrounding zones include A to the south, R-1-10 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 10,000 square feet) to the east, R-1-8 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 8,000 square feet) to the north, and R-1-7 to the west in Magna. Surrounding land uses include a City owned storage lot to the south, single unit dwellings to the north and east, and a Salt Lake County park to the west. The property includes two homes – one built in 1978 and the other built in 1982. Approximately the west 40% of the property falls within Overpressure Zone A with the remainder of the property being within Overpressure Zone B. Overpressure Zone A is the innermost circle (closest to Northrop Grumman) and prohibits residential use. Development Proposal If this application is approved, the applicants intend to develop a self-storage facility on the subject property. Included with this report is a letter from the applicants that describe how they arrived at the proposed use. In summary, the applicants indicated that self-storage was the preferred use because residential isn’t viable primarily due to Overpressure Zone A, commercial uses like retail, office, or a restaurant are unlikely in that there are no other similar businesses nearby, and most industrial uses would be problematic given the adjoining residential. In the applicants’ letter they also mention that they will not pursue other uses allowed in the M zone. The M zone requires a 20’ building setback from a residential zone, agricultural zone, or residential use. The applicant is requesting that, through a development agreement, this 20’ setback be reduced to 0’ to eliminate a 20’ space that is not visible to the public and could create a security concern for the neighboring residents. There are several self-storage facilities in the City that adjoin residential where the City’s Board of Adjustment has approved variances to waive the 20’ setback requirement due to security concerns. A development agreement can be used to accomplish the same outcome. A recent variance example is the self-storage development at 5443 South 6055 West. The buildings along the east side of the property adjacent to residential were built on the property line and are 10’ tall. The City has also submitted a General Plan/zone change application on the City-owned parcel to the south for a General Plan designation of Light Manufacturing and M zoning. If the City’s application is approved, the 20’ setback would not apply along the south property line. Staff received a phone call and visit from a resident in opposition to this application. This resident lives on the street east of the subject property and is concerned about the potential impact of the proposed project on property values and views. Staff Alternatives: 1. Approval. This application should be approved subject to a development agreement that addresses the applicants’ proposed use limitations, the requested setback reduction, and a 10’ height limitation for buildings placed along residential property lines. 2. Continuance. This application should be continued for reasons determined during the public hearing. 3. Denial. Discussion: Steve presented the application. He stated he had received an email from a resident nearby expressing concerns about the zone change and the potential of industrial use. After exchanging a few emails, the residents’ concerns seemed minimized with self-storage versus industrial use. Steve also stated in the past week he spoke with Elizabeth Borden, who is in attendance and is in opposition to the proposal and discussed two concerns she had. The first being the impact on property value and the second being her views being blocked. Chair Fuller asked the Commissioners for any questions. Commissioner McEwen asked if the City has a guarantee that the road improvements for that area will occur in three years? Steve stated the City has plans for the road improvements but has not secured funding and it is not a guarantee. Commissioner McEwen then asked if we do not require the applicant to do landscaping, what will the condition be. Steve explained the agreement is written that if the City does not do the road improvements by 2030, the landscaping would be required to be put in. Steve stated it could be written in the agreement to have the applicant put gravel in for the short term. Steve stated if the Commission feels that would be too long to wait, that can be a requirement of the application and when the City does the road construction the City will need to pay to replace any landscaping that is damaged. Commissioner McEwen added he feels the landscaping timeframe is too long and the applicant should be held to the same standard as residents. With no further questions from Commissioners, Chair Fuller asked if the applicant would like to make any comments. The applicant, Paul Swenson, 1336 South 10th East, Salt Lake City, addressed the Commissioners. He stated they will accept and do whatever the City requires for the landscaping without any issues and asked everyone to focus on the facts of the project. Mr. Swensen stated they first looked at doing large lot residential housing. When examining the property and the overpressure zone, they could only build four to six homes on this property. As they evaluated the situation, they wondered if they should leave the project or if there was anything that would benefit the area and community. Researching and looking into projects they found that Utah has the highest demand of storage units and stated with all the growth in the valley, there is a need. After researching traffic concerns and usage of storage units, the applicant found that 25% of the average clientel access their storage unit once a month with the other 75% once or twice a year, explaining the traffic impact in the area will be less than residential, commercial, or industrial. Another concern, Mr. Swenson stated, is property value. He did research and found a list of what will bring down and hurt the value of properties. He mentioned they did not find anything listing self-storage units as bringing down property value. He quoted from an article from November 2023 and quoted “the availability and quality of self-storage solutions can significantly influence property evaluation. The presence of nearby accessible self-storge options add a layer of convenience and functionality making it more attractive to potential buyers and renters”. He went on to say he has personally experienced with a property he owns, an increase in property value with a storage unit building next to the property. Mr. Swenson stated that safety and security are important to him. He discussed vacant open areas create security and safety issues. He read a statement on how they would work with the City and the neighborhood to help make it a success for everyone. Mr. Swenson asked for time afterwards to address any concerns brought up in this discussion. Chair Fuller asked if there was anyone here that would like to address this application. Elizabeth Borden, who lives at 4018 South 7105 West, is located just north of the application. She stated when she moved into the neighborhood, the City was very strict with requirements for what could and could not be used or installed for a higher-grade community built, and asked why the City would put in industrial zoning against their properties. Steve clarified that this application is not a City application but a developer’s application. Elizabeth stated the developer is asking the City to rezone to industrial and the City ordinance is very strict. She stated that putting a 10’ foot concrete wall in their community is ugly and 2-story buildings will block their western view. Elizabeth stated there is no green space other than along 7200 West and that does not apply to them for they are on the east side of the property. She asked to put in some green space. She recommended the 20’ foot clearance of the property line. She stated they have not had any issues with security in the past seven years. Steve explained the process of the Planning Commission, considering all concerns expressed and taking them into consideration. He stated the decision for a rezone has not been made. Elizabeth stated the concern of xeriscape and no vegetation. Chair Fuller explained the 20’ foot area is a security issue and with the building acting as a wall, this takes away that issue. Steve explained in most situations there is a solid fence blocking the view of the 20’ foot space and creates an enclosed space. He stated in other situations the City has allowed the building to be built on the property line so there is not a space that cannot be viewed by the public. Commissioner Woodruff asked for the clarification of the building wall size. Steve responded and clarified it will be 10’ feet. Ruth Helvy, 4028 South 7105 West, living on the northeast side of the application, mentioned her addresses in West Valley where she has lived since 1992. She discussed the road noise heard at each location just off 3500 south. Moving to Park Vista she felt they would not have any road noise off 7200 West and 4100 South, explaining there is a lot of road noise. She stated she had hoped for trees in this location. She expressed her concern about the metal concrete building proposed and the elevation of the property, stating there is no other business in the area within miles of this. She expressed concerns of the wall size with no light coming into their backyards and would not want manufacturing next to her home. Commissioner McEwen asked what kind of fence would be required if the building was not approved to be built on the property line. Steve stated the code requires a 6’ foot masonry wall with the 20’ foot setback. Commissioner McEwen asked why we would allow a 10’ foot building be built there. Steve stated the request is from the applicant. As shown in the presentation, there are examples and photos where the City has allowed storage buildings to be built on the property line next to residential. Steve explained the City does not have to approve the setback exception. If the zoning is approved, we can require the 20’ foot setback with the 6’ masonry wall in place of the building on the property line. Eddy Davis, 4019 South Brandon Court, adjoining property on the north side of the application, discussed the history, dirt, and usage of the applicant’s property. He asked for clarification regarding the usage of the buildings and whether they will be used for auto repair and maintenance. He stated that fire and explosions are one of his fears and would not want that in his neighborhood. Steve addressed Mr. Davis’s questions and confirmed the proposed application usage is for storage units and stated buildings with auto repair shops require different ventilation standards and would not be allowed. Mr. Davis stated he would not want to see a metal building and a concrete wall when looking out his windows but sometimes a wall makes good neighbors. He feels this is not a neighbor he wants. Jason Green lives in Layton at 1644 East Spring Road. He spoke of his family being early settlers, being farmers their whole lives. He stated he works with Swenson Development and he researched the community. He explained the building will not be concrete, but a nice building with climate control and fencing around the property, usually 10’ feet for security reasons. He discussed the difference between walls and bad neighbors, which one might be better and went on to explain about a development in Kaysville where houses went up around some storage buildings and the home values have gone up.  With no other comments, Mr. Swensen addressed the concerns discussed. He discussed property values and gave an example of a personal property he owned where property values increased by storage buildings. He stated his company did intense research on property values. He spoke of the research and articles that provided information about where property values increased and enhanced the neighborhoods by storage buildings and agreed with Mr. Davis regarding auto repair shops in the neighborhood. Mr. Swensen stated their research found items that bring down the values of neighborhoods. Storage units were never listed. He mentioned that maintenance does impact value and can be addressed with high standards of maintenance and landscaping. Mr. Swenson also discussed traffic, lighting, and noise. Their business does not bring in the type of traffic and noises that cause neighborhood concerns. He stated their units will be gated and locked, and customers will only have access at certain hours of the day. He asked to look at the facts of the proposal, and stated he will work with the neighbors and City. Chair Fuller closed the meeting and asked the Commissioners if they had any questions. Commissioner Winters commented on the general use of this property and the overpressure zone that makes a complex situation. There is only a small usage of this property but it does need something. Stating some pros and cons of the usage, he expressed some ideas of the 6’ foot wall and 20’ foot setback for usable space. Commissioner Wood expressed her concerns for the neighbors and the building right behind their property line. She stated they have had storage unit projects next to residential neighborhoods come through for years and has been pleasantly surprised when property that had unsightly items, weeds, and smells, are gone and a nice facility is built. Agreeing with Commissioner Winters on what to do with the space behind the wall if required the 20’ foot setback is provided, she discussed the landscaping along 7200 west and the timeframe of being installed. . Chair Fuller asked what the percentage of landscaping for this proposed plan is. Steve mentioned there is not a percentage of landscaping shown on the concept plan and stated the code requirement is 5 % of the total site. If the required landscaped area along 7200 West does not yield 5%, they would need to add additional landscaping. Code does require landscaping with trees, etc. in the 20’ feet setback of the wall if the building is not built on the property line. Commissioner Wood inquired about two story buildings. Steve stated he did not believe there are two-story storage unit buildings in the City but there are multiple outside the city. Commissioner Winters asked the distance between the proposed two-story building and the property line. Displaying the map, Steve stated he believes it to be approximately 70’ feet. The proposed building D is about 20’ feet. Steve  mentioned a disclaimer on the concept plans, we do not have engineering for storm drainage which could change the concept design plan. Commissioner McEwen discussed his concerns regarding landscaping in front. He feels it needs to be completed with the project and the 20’ foot setback be included with landscaping behind the masonry wall on the property line. He also is concerned about the buildings being metal with the heat and reflections. He stated that looking at the property surroundings, he does not feel this is the place for this type of project and suggested waiting to see what can be built in the future. Commissioner Winters asked under City code, what other options are there. Steve went over the current agricultural zoning that requires ½ acre lots for homes. He discussed the two older homes situated on the property existing since the late 70’s/early 80’s would be able to stay. Discussing the different zones, the challenge of the overpressure zone limiting housing, retail not being an option for the small lot size and low traffic, he felt this was a good use of the property. Commissioner McEwen asked if there has ever been an exception to the overlay zone. Steve commented that being a safety concern, he could not think of any exceptions being made in an overpressure zone. Steve addressed the question if there was a minimum height for commercial buildings and stated that code does not require a minimum height but from a functional standpoint, not being an expert on storage units feels 10’ feet would be close to a minimum. Commissioner Wood expressed her concerns with the landscaping and unresolved issues and questioned whether to approve the application with the subject items list being resolved or to continue this item. Commissioner Winters raised the same concerns and suggested continuing this item to ask the developer to address the concerns raised by the neighbors. Chair Fuller asked the Commissioners for a motion. Motion: Commissioner Woodruff motioned that GPZ-1-2024 be continued to the next meeting to allow commissioners to review the project, how it relates to the neighbors, the 10’ foot wall versus the 20’ foot setback, and landscaping issues. Requesting the meeting in two weeks be a decision only meeting. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion. Chair Fuller ask the commissioners to vote. Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes  Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Layton Yes Chair Fuller Yes Unanimously – GPZ-1-2024 – Continued Application #: GPZ-2-2024 Applicant: West Valley City Address: 4063 South 7200 West Request: General Plan change from Large Lot Residential to Light Manufacturing and zone change from A to M Property Size: 2.0 acres City staff has submitted a General Plan/zone change application for a 2.0-acre parcel located at 4063 South 7200 West. The property is currently zoned A (Agriculture, minimum lot size ½ acre) and the General Plan designation is Large Lot Residential (2 to 3 units/acre). The proposed zone is M (Manufacturing) and the proposed General Plan designation is Light Manufacturing. Surrounding zones include M to the south, R-1-10 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 10,000 square feet) to the east, A to the north, and R-1-7 to the west in Magna. Surrounding land uses include single family homes to the north and east, a Salt Lake County park to the west and railroad tracks and industrial property to the south. The property is owned by West Valley City, used by Public Works to store garbage cans, and used by Animal Control to house larger animals. Approximately the west 50% of the property falls within Overpressure Zone A with the remainder of the property being within Overpressure Zone B. Overpressure Zone A is the innermost circle (closest to Northrop Grumman) and prohibits residential use. Staff is proposing these changes for several reasons. First, the outside storage of garbage cans is not an allowed use in the A zone. Second, the housing of animals is still allowed in the M zone. Third, the overpressure zone does not allow residential, which is allowed in the A zone, on roughly 50% of this property. Fourth, a General Plan/zone change application was also submitted on the property directly north for a General Plan designation of Light Manufacturing and M zoning. If the application on the adjoining property is approved, the applicant intends to develop storage units on the property. If the zoning on the subject property remains A, the storage units will be required to meet a 20’ setback from the A zone and a 20’ height limitation at the minimum setback. These requirements would not apply if the subject property is zoned M. Staff Alternatives: 1. Approval. This application should be approved. 2. Continuance. This application should be continued for reasons determined during the public hearing.  3. Denial. Discussion: Steve presented the application for the City. Commissioner Woodruff inquired about this application relating to the previous application from the Swenson’s. Steve explained zoning and alignment of adjoining properties and the need to rezone this application for compliance reasons. He indicated that this application would not affect the housing of animals or outside storage uses. Chair Fuller asked if anyone would like to address this application. Ray Helvy, 4028 South 7105 West, living on the northeast side of the application, inquired about the storage of animals. Steve stated animal control has used this property, and in the past has housed larger animals for a temporary place until other housing could be found. Ray stated his neighbors live behind this property. Chair Fuller asked the Commissioners for a motion. Moton: Commissioner Woodruff motioned that GPZ-2-2024 be continued for the next meeting. Commissioner Wood seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Layton Yes Chair Fuller Yes Unanimously – GPZ-2-2024 – Continued ZONE CHANGE APPLICATIONS Application #: Z-3-2024 Applicant: West Valley City Address: 3575 South 5200 West Request: Zone change from A to R-1-10 Property Size: 0.38 City staff is requesting a zone change on 0.38 acres of a 0.93-acre parcel at 3575 South 5200 West from A (Agriculture, minimum lot size ½ acre) to R-1-10 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 10,000 square feet). Surrounding zones include A to the north and south, R-1-8 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 8,000 square feet) to the west and RM (Multiple Unit Dwelling Residential) to the east. The property is surrounded by single unit dwellings to the north and a portion of west, duplexes to the south and the remaining west portion, and the soon to be Kiowa Court Subdivision of single unit dwellings to the east. The subject property is designated as Low Density Residential (3 to 4 units/acre) in the General Plan. The City recently rezoned roughly the east half of the subject parcel to RM last year to facilitate the Kiowa Court Subdivision. The subject parcel is currently 0.93 acres; however, once the Kiowa Court Subdivision is recorded, the remaining portion of the subject parcel will be 0.38 acres, which is below the required ½ acre required in the A zone. By approving this zone change, the remaining 0.38-acre parcel will comply with the area requirements of the R-1-10 zone. Staff Alternatives  Approval. The application should be approved as it complies with the General Plan.  Continuance. Discussion: Steve presented the application for the City. Chair Fuller asked the commissioners for any questions. Commissioner McEwen inquired if the owners are notified and knew of the zone change and if it would change for them anything they are using their property for that they will not be able to use. Steve stated the owners are sent a specific notice and a general notice is sent to the neighboring addresses within 300 feet of the application’s address. He noted originally that this part of the property was small and was missed on a prior application. This is a correction for the lot that remains once the subdivision to the east records and will comply with zoning. Steve noted it would remove animal rights and he is not aware of any animal usage on the property now. Commission Woodruff asked if there was a question regarding the lot width and compliances. Steve explained it would be in compliance with the area but short on the frontage but would be ok overall. Chair Fuller closed the meeting and asked for a motion. Moton: Commissioner Winters motioned to approve Z-3-2024. Commissioner Porter seconded the motion.  Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Layton Yes Chair Fuller Yes Unanimously – Z-3-2024 – Approved CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATIONS C-5-2024 Premier Truck Group (Outside Storage) 5431 & 5477 West Lampert Lane M Zone (4.81 acres) The applicant, Premier Truck Group, is requesting conditional use approval for outside storage of heavy trucks, trailers and parts in conjunction with heavy truck service at 5431 & 5477 West Lampert Lane. This property is zoned M, manufacturing and the West Valley City General Plan designates this area as Light Manufacturing. The surrounding zone is Manufacturing on all sides. The surrounding uses are similar trucking related businesses including Sprinter, Intermountain Trailer and Freightliner. Premier Truck operates a repair facility in the building to the north of this property and wish to improve this area for customer trailer and heavy truck parking while their vehicles are being serviced. The outside storage area would be used for storage of large truck parts like hoods, bumpers and fenders. The storage lot will not be used for any tires, junk, salvage or wrecked vehicles. There will also be no customer or employee parking stalls in this area. Both lots will be completely paved with asphalt or concrete. There is existing fencing and slats will be added to the north section of the fence and along both sides of the outside storage lot to provide screening of the storage areas. Staff recommends that the screening be extended along both sides for approximately 160’, which would be to the building edge of the adjacent lot to the east. Landscaping will be completed along the frontage of Lampert Lane. There must be a minimum of 5% landscaping for the site which can all be accommodated along the frontage. This landscaping will consist of 1 tree for every 30’ of frontage as well as 50% live plant material coverage, not including tree canopies. The area will also be bermed to provide additional screening. Since this is a heavy truck and trailer storage lot only and there will be no building or standard vehicle parking lot no additional landscaping will be required within the site. Staff Alternatives: Approval, subject to the resolution of any concerns raised at the public hearing as well as the following: 1. Outside storage is only permitted in the screened areas of the site as outlined in the approved site plan. 2. Chain link and vinyl slats will be added to provide screening from public view. This shall be located along the north side of the parcel (Lampert Lane frontage) as well as along both sides of the property for 160’ or until it meets with the building on the adjacent east parcel. 3. Outside storage may include heavy truck parts like hoods, bumpers and fenders. There shall be no tires, junk, salvage or damaged trailer/truck storage. 4. The property shall not be used as a vehicle/car parking lot unless it complies with the standards in 7-9 and includes the required aisles, stalls and landscaping. 5. The entire area outside of the landscaping must be hard surfaced with asphalt or concrete. 6. Landscaping along the frontage shall be bermed and must contain a minimum of 1 tree every 30’ and as well as 50% live plant material coverage, not including tree canopies. 7. Must meet the requirements of all affected departments and agencies. 8. Subject to review upon valid complaint. Continuance, to allow for the resolution of any issues raised at the public hearing. Discussion: Jody presented the application. Chair Fuller asked the Commissioners if they had any questions. With no questions, he asked if anyone in the audience or online had any questions. With no further questions, Chair Fuller asked for a motion. Moton: Commissioner Wood moved to approve C-5-2024 subject to the items listed in the staff report. Commissioner McEwen seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Layton Yes Chair Fuller Yes  Unanimously –C–5-2024 Approved Application #: C-7-2024 Applicant: Castlewood Development Address: 2940 West 3650 South Request: Conditional use approval for a 330-unit apartment development Property Size: 3.02 acres The Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for this project on June 8, 2022. However, due to financing issues and other market conditions, the developer did not complete the conditional use approval process with staff and did not begin the project. Since conditional use permits automatically terminate within 12 months of Planning Commission approval when a building permit has not been obtained and construction of at least the foundation has not been completed, the applicant reapplied for the conditional use permit in May of 2023 and the Planning Commission granted the new approval on May 24, 2023. However, the developer has still not obtained a building permit or commenced construction. With expiration of the second conditional use approval approaching, the applicant is seeking a third approval. Castlewood Development is requesting conditional use approval to redevelop 3.02 acres at 2940 West 3650 South into a 330-unit, 2 to 7 story, Class A apartment development. The proposed unit mix for the project is 42 studio units, 201 one-bedroom units, and 87 two-bedroom units. The majority of the property (2.94 acres) is zoned CC (City Center) and the balance (0.08 acres) is zoned R-2-8 (Two Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 8,000 square feet). The entire building is within the CC zone. The property is designated as very high density residential (over 20 units/acre) or office for most of the property and promenade/plaza for the remaining north portion in the Fairbourne Station Vision, which is part of the City’s General Plan. The property is currently vacant as the office development previously on the property was demolished in 2014. According to the Public Works Department, 3650 South will be improved between 3200 West and 2700 West likely in 2025. Planned improvements include consistent curb, gutter, and sidewalk along both sides of the street as well as a left turn lane in the middle of the street. Once these improvements are made, no on-street parking will be allowed. Project Review The first section below outlines the purposes in the CC zone and how this development accomplishes these purposes. The second section addresses the main ordinance standards (it is not a comprehensive list) applicable to this development. City Center Zone Purposes The following is a list of purposes from the CC Zone (underlined) as well as a brief description of how the apartment development meets the stated purpose:  Create a recognizable center or downtown for West Valley City. At 7 stories, this apartment development will add to the unique, urban environment in Fairbourne Station.   Encourage and direct development that supports transit. High density residential development is one of the best land uses for supporting transit.  Encourage infill and redevelopment near the future transit station by City Hall. The apartment building replaces an office development demolished in 2014 and is approximately 650’ from the West Valley Central TRAX station and 400’ from the bus hub.  Reinforce the use of public transportation by locating higher-intensity development, including employment-oriented businesses and higher density residential uses, adjacent to transit stops. This project is creating higher intensity development by replacing a low intensity, 1 to 2 story office development with 330 residential units.  Encourage mixed-use development to reduce automobile dependency and roadway congestion by combining trips and locating destinations within walking and biking distances – all interconnected with transit. This is the third residential building in Fairbourne Station that will complement the hotel, medical office building, police headquarters, and professional office building.  Provide a mix of housing types, costs and densities. This project will provide a variety of studio, 1-bedroom, and 2-bedroom layouts with varying rents. At 109.3 units/acre, the proposed density of this project exceeds that of Phase 1 of the Residences at Fairbourne Station at 78.7 units/acre and of Phase 2 of the Residences at Fairbourne Station at 69.8 units/acre.  Promote architectural and site design treatments that enhance the visual appearance of development within the Zone. After a minor change, the proposed elevations meet or exceed the City’s architectural requirements. Parking The parking ordinance allows the Planning Commission to reduce the parking standard for multi- family residential from 2 spaces per unit to 1.3 spaces per unit for studio units, 1.5 spaces per unit for one-bedroom units, and 1.75 spaces per unit for two-bedroom units if the Commission finds that the reduction is not detrimental to the surrounding area and will enhance the proposed development. The CC Zone also allows a 10% reduction to parking requirements. The applicant has submitted the attached parking study in the form of a memo from Hales Engineering to support the proposed amount of parking. The table below summarizes the parking calculations for this development. Unit Type # of Units Parking Ratio Required # of Stalls Required Studio 42 1.3 55 1-Bedroom 201 1.5 301 2-Bedroom 87 1.75 152 Totals 330 508 Minus 10% City Center Zone reduction (51) Total parking required after allowed reductions 457 Total parking proposed within structure 457* Outdoor visitor stalls 3 *This number could be higher once construction drawings are finalized. Amenities For a project of this size, the ordinance requires a minimum of five amenities from the list in the ordinance with at least three of the five being major amenities. This project has six major amenities (outdoor swimming pool, courtyards, clubhouse/community room, rooftop patio, fitness room, and community game room/recreation room) and seven minor amenities (outdoor fire pit/fireplace, hot tub, building lobby, package locker system, indoor bicycle storage, electric vehicle charging stations, and outdoor covered pavilion with tables and a grill). Unit Sizes The ordinance requires a minimum of 400 square feet for studio units, 600 square feet for 1- bedroom units, and 850 square feet for 2-bedroom units. The proposed minimum unit sizes are 520 square feet for studio units, 604 square feet for 1-bedroom units, and 930 square feet for 2- bedroom units. Given the mix of unit layouts, many units will exceed these proposed minimums. Landscaping and Recreation Space The ordinance requires a minimum of 10% of the site area as landscaping and a minimum of 40% of the site area as landscaping and recreation space. The landscaping percentage for this project is 15.0% and the combined landscaping and recreation space percentage is 54.8%. Architecture After reviewing the elevations and renderings, staff noted to the applicant that the parapet along the south elevation needs more variation. The applicant has acknowledged this deficiency and will have the architect make the correction. Once this comment is addressed, the elevations and renderings will meet or exceed the City’s design standards. Other Commitments In addition to addressing the architectural comment mentioned above, the applicant has committed to the following improvements:  Fencing will be installed around all ground floor patios and will include a gate to provide residents with private outdoor space. The applicant is working to determine the fence material.  The existing chain link fence along the west side of the property shall be replaced with a 6’ vinyl fence.  The applicant will work with the City’s Parks Department to align the grade of the site with that of the adjoining park. This may require some regrading on the City’s park property, which the applicant has indicated she is willing to do along with any repair of landscaping disturbed because of the regrading.  A sidewalk connection will be provided on the east side of the property to the sidewalk running along the north side of the adjoining library property.  To avoid having pets relieve themselves on the City’s promenade park, the applicant has agreed, at the City’s Parks Department suggestion, to include a pet relief area with artificial turf, a garbage can and a plastic bag dispenser. This will hopefully help prevent damage to the sod in the park as well as constant waste pickup. The applicant also secured an easement from the adjoining condo association to the west to allow access to 3000 West. Staff Alternatives 1. Approval. This application should be approved subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant shall incorporate the items committed to, which are outlined in this report. b. All requirements in the City’s Zoning Ordinance, including the Multi-Unit Residential Design Standards, shall be met. c. Utility meters shall be placed either inside the building or on the east or west side of the building. d. As required in the City Center zone, all above ground utilities shall be relocated underground. e. The applicant shall obtain any and all necessary approvals from the City before performing any work on the City’s adjoining park. f. A vehicular connection shall be made between 3000 West and 3650 South. g. The transformers along the west side of the building shall each be screened in accordance with the landscape plan. 2. Continuance. This application should be continued for reasons determined during the public hearing. Discussion: Steve presented the application. Chair Fuller asked Commissioners for any questions. No questions were asked. Then he asked if anyone in the audience or online would like to address the application. With no further questions, Chair Fuller asked for a motion. Motion: Commissioner Porter motioned to approve C-7-2024 subject to the seven items listed in the staff report labeled a through g. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Layton Yes Chair Fuller Yes Unanimously –C–7-2024 Approved West Valley City does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, sexual orientation or disability in employment or the provision of services. If you are planning to attend this public meeting and due to a disability, need assistance in understanding or participating in the meeting, please notify the City eight or more hours in advance of the meeting. We will try to provide whatever assistance may be required. The person to contact for assistance is Kirsten Hunt, 801-963-3282.