Planning Commission Regular Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES 06/12/2024 at 4:00 p.m. 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/86528756733 WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS Martell Winters, Mathew Lovato, Cindy Wood, Harold Woodruff, and David McEwen ABSENT Brent Fuller, Renee Layton, Darrick Porter WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF Steve Pastorik, Jody Knapp, Brock Anderson, Steve Lehman, and Julie Davis WEST VALLEY CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT Brandon Hill, Deputy City Attorney AUDIENCE There were about 250 people in the audience and online. ZONE TEXT CHANGE APPLICATIONS Application #: ZT-6-2024 Applicant: West Valley City Request: An ordinance text change to amend Sections 11-2-109, 11-4-110, and 11-5-103 of the sign ordinance to remove the regulation exemption for noncommercial banner signs, to prohibit signs containing content which is not protected by the U.S. Constitution or the Utah Constitution, and to modify several standards for temporary on-premises signs. City staff, as directed by the City Council, is proposing an ordinance text change to amend Sections 11-2-109 and 11-4-110 of the sign ordinance to remove the regulation exemption for noncommercial banner signs and to prohibit signs containing content which is not protected by the U.S. Constitution or the Utah Constitution. The staff is also proposing to modify several standards for temporary on-premises signs in Section 11-5-103. Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 1 of 29 The first change relates to noncommercial banner signs. The current code in Section 11-2-109 exempts noncommercial banner signs from meeting any signage regulations. The proposed change will remove this exemption so that noncommercial banner signs must meet the same sign regulations that commercial banner signs are required to meet. As a point of information, Section 11-1-103 already allows for any noncommercial message to be substituted for a commercial message on any sign type permitted by the code. The second change adds another item to the list of prohibited signs in 11-4-110. Signage containing content which is not protected by the United State Constitution, or the Utah Constitution will be prohibited. Such content would have to be quite sexually explicit in nature or be something that incites violence or makes specific threats against an individual to not be protected under either constitution. The first two changes are being proposed at the request of the City Council. The other proposed changes to Section 11-5-103, dealing with temporary on-premises signs, are being suggested by City staff. These changes will remove formatting inconsistencies between different temporary sign types in the code and will also modify several standards for temporary signage. The following summarizes the changes proposed to Section 11-5-103 for temporary on-premises signs: • Currently the code specifies that only one temporary sign type is allowed for a given establishment. This language will be removed since it is regulated by individual temporary sign types. • Formatting for the number of road widening construction signs will be changed to be consistent with other sign types. • An establishment will only be allowed to have one banner sign on the property, whether that sign is acting as the primary wall sign or not. Language will also be removed about sign placement on the building. Finally, the requirement to allow for tenant spaces larger than 150 linear feet to have a banner sign equal to 10 percent of the building façade was removed. • A line will be added to allow for an establishment to have one other temporary sign, in addition to an inflatable sign. • A size restriction of 16 sq. ft. for temporary noncommercial signs will apply to this sign type in all zones. Currently there is no size restriction in non-residential zones. • Formatting for the number of property signs will be changed to be consistent with other sign types. • A line will be added to allow for an establishment to have one other temporary sign, in addition to a vehicle sign. Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 2 of 29  • The current code allows for 50% coverage of all windows of the building on a given elevation, regardless of the number of stories in a building. The proposed change will modify this regulation so that window signage can only be calculated based on 50 percent coverage of the first story window area and specifies that the signage shall be located on the first story of the building as well. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approval. The ordinance should be approved as proposed by staff. 2. Continuance. 3. Denial. DISCUSSION: Brock presented. Section 11-5-103 previously crossed out “30% coverage of windows”, now it is no longer striked out. There were no questions or public comments. MOTION: Commissioner McEwen moved to approve. Commissioner Winters seconded. Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Vice Chairperson Lovato Yes VOTE: ZT-6-2024 Passed Unanimously. Application #: ZT-7-2024 Applicant: West Valley City Request: A zone text change to amend Section 7-5-101 of the zoning ordinance to allow zone change applications to the R-1-7, R-1-8, R-1-10, and R-1-12 zones for properties that meet certain conditions. City staff is proposing a zone text change to amend Section 7-5-101 of the zoning ordinance to allow zone change applications to the R-1-7, R-1-8, R-1-10, and R-1-12 zones for properties that meet the following conditions: • the property is developed as residential with a density of at least two dwelling units/acre, • the property has access and frontage on a street with a planned right-of-way width of at least 66 feet as indicated on the Major Street Plan, and • the property does not have the off-site improvements of curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the street frontage. Back in 2015, the City passed Ordinance 15-34 that included the following language: “Property within City limits may be amended or rezoned to the R-1-7, R-1-8, R-1-10, or R-1-12 zones if Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 3 of 29 the property is less than two acres in area as of the effective date of this ordinance.” At the time, the intent was, given the limited amount of remaining vacant land, to steer single family residential development to the RE (Residential Estate) zone which requires an average lot size of 15,000 square feet and a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet. To this end, the City downzoned vacant properties of two acres or more to one of the A (Agricultural) zones. Staff believes that the City did not anticipate the potential need to rezone developed property to the R-1-7, R-1-8, R-1-10, or R-1-12 zones. Two examples are provided below. First, the property at 4342 South 4000 West, which is the subject property of Z-4-2024, is developed as one single family home and a mobile home park without curb, gutter, and sidewalk along 4000 West and is zoned R-4 (Four Unit Dwelling Residential). Staff were recently contacted about this property and its redevelopment potential. While the R-4 zone does not allow mobile home parks (the current mobile home park is nonconforming), this zone does allow duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and apartments. Since this property is surrounded by R-1-8 zoning and mostly single-family homes, staff is recommending a rezone to R-1-8 that would: • keep the mobile home park as a nonconforming use, • comply with the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential (3 to 4 units/acre), • allow the property to redevelop as single-family homes and get improvements along 4000 West, and • prohibit duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and apartments. Second, staff has had several conversations with the family that owns the properties at 3814 and 3876 South 6000 West that are zoned A (Agriculture, minimum lot size ½ acre). Between the two properties which have no curb, gutter, and sidewalk along 6000 West, there are 15 single family rental homes and 2 duplexes, totaling 19 rental dwelling units. These units are aging and in need of repairs and the family is exploring options, including redevelopment, for the properties. Given the rental income the family receives from the existing units, redevelopment of the property under the current zone or the RE zone is unlikely. The subject ordinance change would, in the staff’s view, provide a path for the redevelopment of this property to single-family homes that are much nicer than what is on the property now. Staff submits that the proposed change will: • maintain the Council’s original intent to steer vacant property planned for residential use to the RE zone, • restrict, through the proposed conditions, the possibility of zone changes to zones that allow lots smaller than 15,000 square feet, • prohibit uses that, in staff’s view, would not be appropriate given the surrounding uses, • facilitate the construction of off-site improvements through redevelopment, and Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 4 of 29  • allow developed, aging, residential properties to redevelop into something better than what exists. As a reminder, if this proposed change is approved, all zone change requests are still legislative decisions. In other words, even if a property a property meets the conditions proposed by this change, the City is not obligated to approve a zone change on such property. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approval. The ordinance should be approved as proposed by staff. 2. Continuance. 3. Denial. DISCUSSION: Steve P. presented. There were no questions or public comments. MOTION: Commissioner Wood motioned to approve. Commissioner Woodruff seconded. Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Vice Chairperson Lovato Yes VOTE: ZT-7-2024 Unanimously Approved GENERAL PLAN/ZONE CHANGE APPLICATIONS Application #: GPZ-3-2024 Applicant: Home by CW Urban Address: 5990 West 3500 South Request: General Plan change from Large Lot Residential to Small Lot Residential and a zone change from A to R-1-8 Home by C.W. Urban has submitted a General Plan/zone change application for all of one parcel and a portion of two parcels totaling 3.08 acres located at 5990 West 3500 South. The western most parcel is zoned R-1-8 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 8,000 square feet) and the other two parcels are zoned A (Agriculture, minimum lot size ½ acre). The General Plan designation on all of the subject property is Large Lot Residential (2 to 3 units/acre). The proposed zone for the 1.59-acre property currently zoned A is R-1-8. The proposed General Plan designation is Small Lot Residential (4 to 7 units/acre). Surrounding zones include R-1-8 and R-1-10 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 10,000 square feet) to the north, R-1-8 to the west, R-1-8 and A to the south, and R-1-10 and A to the east. Except for a dog grooming business to the south, the property is surrounded by single unit dwellings. Staff received an email from a nearby resident with concerns about construction traffic and Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 5 of 29 parking. This email, along with the staff’s response, is included with this report. The narrow parcel in the middle of the subject property is owned by the City. The parcel serves a storm water function which can be relocated within the project. If this application is approved, the City would need to surplus this property and sell it to the developer for the project to move forward. Development Proposal As shown in the attached concept plan, the applicant is proposing to develop a 15-lot (the original concept included 16 lots) planned unit development (PUD) of single unit dwellings. The proposed density is 4.9 units/acre. The concept plan shows lots that are at least 50 feet wide and range in size from 4,743 square feet to 11,129 square feet with the average being 5,985 square feet. The concept also shows two common area parcels totaling 9,111 square feet. All streets are public as required by the City’s ordinance. Included with this report is a letter from the applicant that describes and provides support for this application. All the homes would be two-story plans that are 35-feet wide with finished floor area above grade ranging between 1,968 to 2,542 square feet. All homes would include unfinished basements. Side setbacks would be 10 feet on the garage side, allowing for additional parking to the side of the house, and 5 feet on the opposite side. Other project features proposed include developer installed, water-wise landscaping, an entry feature, and a tot lot for the common area. Development Agreement Section 7-11-213 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.” The applicant submitted a development agreement proposal that was based on the original concept submittal. However, after working with staff on revisions to the proposal, staff recommends the following development agreement revisions and additions if the Commission is supportive of this application.  The maximum number of lots shall be 15.  Side yard setbacks shall be 10 feet on the garage side and 5 feet on the opposite side.  The developer shall provide at least 11 paved parking spaces by installing a 10’ x 18’ concrete pad in the 10’ side yard adjacent to the garage of at least 11 lots. The concrete pad in the 10’ side yard shall be connected to and accessible from the driveway through concrete.  All homes shall be constructed substantially like the renderings and elevations for the Century I, II, and III plans or the alternative elevations described below with the following exception. The exception is that the width of the front of the house excluding the garage shall be at least 15 feet.  Side elevations of homes adjacent to a street shall meet the standards in Table 2 of Subsection 3b of Section 7-11-211 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance.  The developer may submit alternative elevations for the three home plans. The alternative elevations shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission before a building permit is issued for a home with an alternative elevation. Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 6 of 29   The minimum square footage of finished, above-ground, habitable floor space for all homes shall be 1,968 square feet.  All homes shall include an unfinished basement.  At least 20% of the front façade of each home shall be brick or stone.  All homes shall include the following features: low flow plumbing fixtures, LED light bulbs and fixtures, 2 x 6 exterior framing, and 96% efficient furnaces.  The minimum width of all lots shall be 50 feet.  The developer shall install landscaping in the front yard of all lots. In addition, the developer shall install landscaping on corner lots in all areas between the sidewalk and the side of the house between the front property line and the rear property line which are visible from the public right-of-way. The standards in Section 7-11-205 and Subsection 2h of Section 7-6-210.5 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance shall apply to all developer installed yard landscaping.  An entry feature shall be included. The details of the entry feature shall be determined during the subdivision review process.  The City shall hold the building permit for the last home until the landscaping and amenities in the common area parcels are installed.  A tot lot shall be included on one of the common area parcels. 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 revisions 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 the property at this location. DISCUSSION: Steve P. presented. Chase Freebairn, representing Home by CW. Urban, 3451 N. Redhill Way, Layton, Utah. He plans on providing nice front yard landscaping to make up for the smaller lots. Commissioner Woodruff asks Chase whom he sees as their target audience for this development. Chase says they sell homes to anybody but thinks it will be young families and older people looking to downsize and stay in their community. Commissioner Winters asks if Chase (Edge Homes) is good with the additional information Steve read through. Chase says they are and wants to build nice traditional homes. Cael Crosby, 3221 Beavers St., Salt Lake City, appreciates that they're using the waterwise landscape program that was launched last year to save us all water and help protect our natural environment as well as keep Utah sustainable. Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 7 of 29 Jeffrey Taylor, 5968 W 3500 S. His property is directly east of the development property. His concern is what is going to be done with the irrigation ditch that runs through the middle and also the tiny little narrow strip of land. There's an attaching system in the back of the property on the north end that handles overflow from the irrigation water that comes down from the canal up near 4100 South. He had an overflow event about a week ago and wants to know whether the irrigation will be buried or stay above ground. His second concern is his old barn at the back of his lot is close to the property line. James Longstaff, 2285 East 10095 South, Sandy, points out that the median home price is $500,000 and requires an income of $130,000 a year, which is way above the median income in Utah. Why don't we have more denser housing? Jorge Jimenez, 3616 W. Larry Circle, West Valley City, asks if there are plans for affordable housing with this development, or other developments moving forward in West Valley City? Steve responds that West Valley City, as well as every city in Utah, is required by the State to have a moderate-income housing plan. There are several strategies the City is required to use to implement those developments. Jorge asks how many homes the State requires and if West Valley City goes above that standard. Steve says he doesn’t know the exact number but knows the City exceeds the number required. Jorge asks how the City decides which developments are part of the modern or low-income developments. Steve responds that the City doesn’t build housing but responds to applications from developers that want to build housing. Jorge feels his question wasn’t answered and asks for clarification on how many State-required, low-income homes are approved by the City. Steve says the question is not relevant to this application, and Vice Chairperson Lovato agrees. Public comments are closed. Chase comes to the podium to answer questions. They have every intention of trying to resolve the irrigation ditch. They may have to reroute it to a storm drain line, or to the City storm drain easement and/or any irrigation line. The Engineers will account and solve for that. To address James’ concerns about housing costs and needs, Chase feels that they are building to the needs of the market and don’t have control over higher costs of building. MOTION: Commissioner Woodruff motioned to approve GPZ-3-2024 subject to the conditions in the staff report. Commissioner McEwen seconded. Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Vice Chairperson Lovato Yes VOTE: GPZ-3-2024 Unanimously Approved Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 8 of 29 Application #: GPZ-4-2024 Applicant: Edge Homes Address: 3688 South Redwood Road Request: General Plan change from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential and zone change from C-2 to RM Edge Homes has submitted a General Plan/zone change application for 9 parcels totaling 26.26 acres located at 3688 South Redwood Road. The property is currently zoned C-2 (General Commercial) with a General Plan designation of General Commercial. The proposed zone is RM (Multiple Unit Dwelling Residential) and the proposed General Plan designation is Medium Density Residential (7 to 12 units/acre). Surrounding zones include C-2 and RM to the north and south; C-2, RMH (Residential Mobile Home), and RM to the east; and R-1-8 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 8,000 sq. ft.) and A (Agriculture, minimum lot size ½ acre) to the west. The attached map shows the surrounding land uses. The subject property is the Redwood Drive-In Theatre which opened in 1948. The property also functions as a Swap meet on weekends. The property falls within the South Redwood RDA. The applicant is proposing a residential development with 308 for sale dwelling units with three different housing types. The proposed density of the project is 11.7 units/acre. The three housing types are 250 2-story townhomes with four different building designs, 40 3-story condos, and 18 single family homes. Additional details on each housing type are provided below. All townhomes and single-family homes will have a two-car garage and the condos will have a one- car garage. The attached concept plan and application materials from the applicant provide details on and support for the proposed project. In reviewing this application, staff suggests that there are two primary questions to answer: 1. Is this the right location for a residential development of this type and density? 2. Assuming the location is appropriate, does the quality of the project further City goals? These two questions are explored below. Is this the right location for a residential development of this type and density? 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 Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 9 of 29  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. This application meets the first condition in that the property is over 20,000 square feet, includes structures proposed to be redeveloped and has a proposed density below 20 units/acre. For the second condition, the subject property has access and frontage on Redwood Road, which has a planned right-of-way width of over 100’. On the third condition, the applicant’s development agreement standards are addressed later in this report. For the fourth condition, a traffic impact study was submitted by the applicant and is included with this report. In summary, the traffic impact study recommended that a dedicated southbound right-turn lane be constructed on 1950 West at 3800 South to improve the intersection’s level of service (LOS). While the property is eligible for RM zoning, the City may still deny requests for RM zoning. The points below may help the Commission answer the first question.  The subject property is surrounded by a mix of residential uses including townhomes to the north and east, mobile homes to the east, apartments to the south, and single-family homes to the west.  Granger Elementary School is located to the west across the street on 1950 West.  Between 3500 South and 4100 South, over half of the property that accesses Redwood Road is residential.  Both 3800 South and 1950 West are predominantly residential streets. Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 10 of 29   Redwood Road is currently a 7-lane arterial street that is serviced by UTA bus route 217.  Average annual daily traffic (AADT) on this segment of Redwood Road was 35,000 in 2022. A 7-lane arterial can handle a traffic volume of 40,000 at a level of service (LOS) C and 46,000 at a LOS D. At the time this report was submitted, staff had received hundreds of comments via email, voicemail, text, letter, and petition in opposition to this application. The emails and texts are included with this report as a single PDF file. The petition and letter are also included. For the Commission’s benefit, the bullet points that follow are the staff’s attempt to summarize the points raised in the comments.  The swapmeet houses many local vendors. These vendors make their living from selling affordable merchandise every weekend. Removing the drive-in and Swap meet would take away their source of income and eliminate a unique and local shopping opportunity.  The Redwood Drive-In Theatre is a community icon/landmark and one of the few remaining drive-in theaters in Utah.  Both the drive-in and Swap meet are good for the local economy in that they provide jobs and tax revenue.  The drive-in is nostalgic and provides an inexpensive opportunity for family entertainment.  There’s not a suitable site for another Swap meet elsewhere in the City.  The area doesn’t need more high-density housing. There are other more appropriate locations for residential development. Staff believe it is important to point out that, if this application is denied, the property owner could choose to redevelop the property into one or more commercial uses allowed under the C-2 zone without rezoning the property. Does the quality of the project further City goals? The City’s General Plan includes the goal to “promote higher quality multi-family residential in appropriate locations.” To this end, the City’s Multi-Unit Residential Design Standards were amended in 2020, 2021, and 2022 to raise the bar on standards for unit sizes, exterior materials, architecture, amenities, landscaping, recreation space, and parking. The current City code requires requests for the RM zone to be accompanied with a development agreement proposal that addresses dwelling unit sizes, exterior materials, architecture, landscaping and project amenities. Each of these items is addressed below. Dwelling Unit Sizes Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 11 of 29 The table below lists unit size information for each different housing unit type. As outlined in the table, all proposed units exceed the required minimum unit sizes. For single unit dwellings, the City has used development agreements to require sizes that are significantly larger than what is in the City’s ordinance, which is limited by State code. Unit Type Proposed Proposed Total # of # of Minimum Finished Unfinished Area Bedrooms Bathrooms Finished Floor Basement (Sq. Ft.) Area Area Area (Sq. Required Above Ft.) by Grade (Sq. Ordinance Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) Single Unit 1,322 - 1,020 - 2,650 - 2-5 2-3 1,000 Detached* 2,591 1,428 3,810 Front Load 1,595 685 2,280 3 3 1,400 Townhome (Inner Unit) Front Load 1,618 703 2,321 3 3 1,400 Townhome (Outer Unit) Rear Load 1,705 731 2,436 3 3 1,400 Townhome (Inner Unit) Rear Load 1,647 734 2,381 3 3 1,400 Townhome (Outer Unit) Front Condo 1,352 0 1,352 3 2 1,100 Rear Condo 1,243 0 1,243 3 2 1,100 *The numbers vary depending upon the plan. While the single unit detached plans all exceed the 1,000 sq. ft. ordinance minimum, staff would recommend a minimum finished floor area above grade of 1,400 sq. ft. to be closer to the townhome sizes and closer to the minimum size established in other development agreements. Exterior Materials For materials, the City’s Multi-Unit Residential Design Standards state: All multi-unit residential Building exteriors shall be brick, stucco, EIFS, stone, ceramic tile, faux wood composites, architectural metal panels/siding that is used only as a veneer and not as structural sheeting or sheathing, or fiber cement siding. With the exception of brick or stone which may be used on the entire Building exterior, no single material shall comprise more than 60 percent of a Building’s Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 12 of 29 exterior. Where stucco, EIFS, ceramic tile, faux wood composites, architectural metal panels/siding or fiber cement siding are used, at least 20 percent of the Building’s exterior shall be brick or stone. Corrugated metal and metal panels/siding with exposed fasteners are prohibited on Building exteriors. Wood and vinyl may be used as trim, soffits and/or accent materials only.” For single unit dwellings, the City’s ordinance no longer specifies required exterior materials as required in State code. On all product types, the applicant is proposing a mix of brick, stone, composite siding, and stucco, which are allowed materials. A flyer on the composite siding, referred to as LP Smartside, is included with this report. The condos and the front load townhomes will meet the required 20 percent brick or stone. While the rear load townhomes will have at least 11 percent brick or stone, these elevations will include two types of composite siding (with one type being more expensive than stone) and will exceed the City’s design standards on other features like roof treatments. Architecture Based on a preliminary review of the proposed buildings against the City’s architectural standards, several issues/questions were identified that were relayed to the applicant. The applicant addressed most of these by making several revisions and is requesting the following two exceptions.  The ordinance requires a patio or balcony of at least 60 sq. ft. for each townhome and condo unit. The applicant is proposing that two out of the ten units in each condo building would not have a patio or balcony. Of the eight units that would have a patio or balcony, four would be less than 60 square feet.  Section 7-11-408 requires at least 25% of the primary façade (front) to be fenestration (windows). The applicant is requesting an exception to this standard for the frontload townhome units. If this application is approved, a more thorough review will be conducted by staff on the elevations submitted for a building permit. In addition to the exterior features, the applicant has committed to several interior features, such as tankless water heaters, on all housing types. Landscaping The ordinance addressing landscaping and recreation space requires a total of 50% landscaping and recreation space for developments with a density under 20 dwelling units/acre. According to the applicant, the proposal meets this requirement. Project Amenities Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 13 of 29 For a project of this size, the ordinance requires five amenities. The proposed project includes the following six amenities from the ordinance: swimming pool, clubhouse, fitness room, tot lot, sport court, and outdoor covered pavilion with picnic table. The developer has also committed to include a trail corridor that bisects the site internally from west to east to provide walking access to the amenities area. Other Considerations Parking The table below compares the applicant’s proposed parking with the standards in the City’s ordinance. Unit Types Required Proposed 18’ Deep 18’ Deep Parking Parking Garage Garage Driveway Driveway Stalls Stalls Sizes Sizes Required Provided Required Provided (Excluding (Excluding Driveway) Driveway) Single Family Homes 3-car* 2-car Yes Yes 2.75 2.5** Townhomes 2-car 2-car Yes Yes 2.75 2.5 Condos 1-car 1-car No Yes 2 1.5 *A 2-car garage is allowed when there is a 20-foot side yard setback adjacent to the garage and either the 2-car garage is side loaded or the basement of the dwelling with at least a three-quarter basement is finished. **For some house plans, there will be enough space on the lot to have a 10’ setback on the garage side of the house which would allow for an additional parking space to the side of the garage. The applicant’s development agreement proposal includes several reasons as to why, in some instances, the proposed parking is less than the standards in the ordinance. First, the condo units will have driveways that are deep enough to park in. While these driveways don’t count toward the minimum required parking, residents will park in them. Second, on-street parking is available on 3800 South and 1950 West and will be available on the streets within the development which will all be public. Based on preliminary feedback from Public Works, they are recommending that on-street parking within the development be prohibited for snow removal and garbage collection. Planning Commission Study Session Questions During the Planning Commission study meeting on 6/4, the Commission asked staff several questions that needed follow up. Below are the questions and answers.  What would the density of the project be if the single-family home portion of the project was removed? The current proposed density of the project is 11.7 units/acre (308 Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 14 of 29  units/26.26 acres). If the single-family home portion was removed, the project density would be 12.0 units/acre (290 units/24.08 acres).  What are the City’s standards for garage dimensions? For single family homes, Section 7- 11-207 states: “The minimum interior dimensions of a garage shall be 20 feet by 30 feet for a three-car garage and 20 feet by 20 feet for a two-car garage.” For townhomes, Section 7-11-404 states: “Townhomes shall have a two-car garage with minimum interior dimensions of 20 feet by 20 feet for each Dwelling Unit. The 20 feet by 20 feet interior garage space shall be clear of obstructions such as stairs, water heaters, or structural appendages like columns.”  What is the address of the condos developed by Edge Homes in Herriman? The condos are located between Black Locust Way and Cannavale Lane in the Herriman Town Center. As an example, the address of a specific condo building within the development is 5208 West Cannavale Ln. Fencing The existing chain link fence along the north side of the property includes wooden slats that are in need of replacement. The developer has committed to replacing the existing fence with a 6- foot vinyl fence. The developer has also committed to install either a 4-foot wrought iron fence or 4-foot split rail fence along the east and south sides of the development. Completion of Improvements The City has had significant challenges with developers of townhome projects finishing all of the required improvements. Staff recommends that the development agreement include a provision that allows the City to withhold the building permits on the last 30 dwelling units until all of the requirement improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, street paving, ADA ramps, survey monuments, streetlights, amenities, landscaping, etc.) are installed. Improvements along 3800 South As mentioned earlier, the traffic study recommended that a dedicated southbound right-turn lane be constructed on 1950 West at 3800 South to improve the intersection’s level of service (LOS). To accommodate this turn lane, staff recommends that sufficient right-of-way be dedicated to the City. In addition, the Public Works Department is recommending that the integral sidewalk along 3800 South be replaced with a 5-foot park strip and a 5-foot sidewalk to meet current City standards and provide a buffer between pedestrians and roadway traffic. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approval. This General Plan/zone change application should be approved subject to a development agreement that incorporates the standards proposed by the applicant with the following additions recommended by staff: Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 15 of 29  a) The project shall meet all the requirements of the Redwood Road Streetscape found in Part 2 of Chapter 7-10 of the Zoning Ordinance along the entire Redwood Road frontage. b) The minimum finished floor area above grade for single unit dwellings shall be 1,400 square feet. c) The City may hold the building permits for the last 30 dwelling units until all of the required improvements are installed. d) The developer shall dedicate to the City sufficient right-of-way along 1950 West to accommodate a southbound right-turn lane onto 3800 South. The exact amount of right-of-way dedication shall be determined during the subdivision review process. e) The developer shall replace the integral sidewalk along 3800 South with a 5-foot parkstrip and a 5-foot sidewalk. 2. Approval. This application should be approved subject to the recommendations under Approval option 1 plus the following requirement: With the exception of allowing the single- family homes to have a 2-car garage, all other parking requirements in the City’s ordinance shall be met. 3. Continuance. This application should be continued for reasons determined during the public hearing. 4. Denial. This application should be denied. The C-2 zoning should remain. DISCUSSION: Steve P. started by reading the letter from the property owner. He addressed many misconceptions among the public about the development. Steve and Vice Chairperson Lovato reiterated that they are not the ones who are making the decision to sell the property. Commissioner Woodruff asked what is in the General Plan for future multi-family homes. He feels the ratios of zoning lean towards commercial. Commissioner Winters asks Steve for clarification on parking in the development. Commissioner McEwen would prefer there not be park strip put in on 3800 S. Steve Maddox, the builder, lives at 13702 South 200 West in Draper, Utah, addresses the Commission about his good experience with Planning and Zoning. He sees the demographic for this development as empty nesters and new families. He is keenly aware of the buying market and what amenities buyers want. Commissioner Woodruff asks what makes this development stand out. Mr. Maddox feels architecture, amenities and HOA. Commissioner Winters asks about less parking and road width. Mr. Maddox feels street width restricts speeding in the community, and this community provides more on-street parking than other communities. Public comments were as follows: Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 16 of 29 Esther press, 3601 South 2200 West feels the City is too crowded as the police took 2 hours to get to her home. Oliver Via, 1374 South Docus Lane, wants the Swap meet to stay so people can make a living there. Erica Zaga, 5870 South Sanford Drive, would like the City to purchase the property to keep the Swap meet going. Laura Thackery, 2200 West, and 3560 South of 27 years, in District 1. In District 1 there are 14 complexes of apartments. Over 6,000 cars a day drive past her house. Adding all these apartments/condos/houses is going to increase her traffic from 6,000 to over 10,000 cars. She’s the one that initiated with the City to put up a speed sign limit sign to 30 mph. Cars already park on the sidewalk so she must walk her dog in the street. She also doesn’t have a single park in her District. She also feels developers don’t follow through on their development plan, like when the old Kmart lot had apartments built on them. Delane Cronen Board, 1559 West Windview Lane in South Jordan. She owns the property the car lot is on. She has many concerns about more crime coming to the area and how this rezoning will affect her property as it’s her livelihood. Joey Dominguez, 4331 West 4065 South, did the math for Swap meet spot rentals. It’s $42 per spot. There are 150 spots on the edge, 300 in the middle, plus they do 100 in the overflow. That's 550 spots. That’s $23,000 just on one Sunday. That’s $92,000 a year for Sundays. Maya Dominguez, 4331 West and 4865 South, would like the property to remain commercial so their community can continue to meet for business and social needs. Chris Jensen, 617 North 200 West, Salt Lake City, is an architectural historian. He thinks the Drive-in should be deemed as historic and it meets the 50-year requirement. It is a cultural landscape because of the diverse groups it brings together to celebrate, commune and shop. It is a community gathering place that supports the financial and physical wellbeing of this community. There is no other place like this in Utah that offers this diversity and cultural experience. Salt Lake City has a cultural celebration at City Hall once a year. West Valley City can have that every weekend. It is a cultural landscape and a heritage landmark for West Valley City. Changing this zoning would cause us to lose a piece of Utah's history that cannot be replaced. It would also do irreparable harm to the communities that rely upon it, which would eventually have a domino effect on all of West Valley City. Jesse Fernandez, 1594 West 400 South, Glendale, UT. Is a serial entrepreneur and artist based out of the Redwood Drive-In and Swap meet. His company, West Temple Media, is an arts and entertainment company, specializing in business-to-business commissions and intellectual property portfolio management. He started his business with his co-founder to help support Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 17 of 29 themselves through the pandemic, eventually winning a business grant. This led them to find a place where they could learn about business and putting theory to practice at the Redwood Drive-In and Swap meet. Since then, they have successfully worked with SLC corporations and nonprofits to work internationally by importing goods and exporting our services. Last year they were able to paint murals for 10 different businesses, schools and community spaces. In Mexico this year we are preparing to work with the Utah World Trade Center to paint a mural on the World Trade Center in Cadet City, Mexico. Jesse said, “Although we may be seen as vendors, it is important for us to be recognized as more than that, we are entrepreneurs. The Redwood Road Swap meet hosts over 500 entrepreneurs in this outdoor business incubator, where we can come build our minimal vial products, tester market, where we are hoping to get into, build our brands customer by customer, and give us a place to learn how to expand our business until we are ready to go into our own brick and mortars. I call on the West Valley City Council, the Minority Business Development Agency, and our Latino leaders and Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity to help us preserve West Valley City's dynamic entrepreneur ecosystem and see the opportunity we have in keeping this space and helping the entrepreneurs who are there at the [Swap meet] to achieve their goals together for Utah to become the premier startup state. If you decide to make this recommendation to rezone, we are working backwards and being counterproductive to our local economy. This is a community decision, and I am proud to have this many people here opposing this rezoning. I urge you all to recommend to the City Council to vote no on the rezoning of this property and land.” Danny M., 1436 West 3100 South West Valley City, is a student at the University of Utah. He conducted a study on campus and in his community. He passed out a graph that shows people in the lower AMI percentiles of 30%, 50% and 80%. His claim is that this will displace these people. The reality is that there are groups of people in our society who are systematically oppressed and are more likely to have less income with what is affordable, for one group may not be affordable for another. There is an exclusionary and economic disparity towards diverse racial groups. The elderly, children and people with disabilities. The Swap meet resembles the opportunity for people to increase their economic status and decrease the wealth gaps in our society. Removing the Swap meet equals the exact opposite. Ezika Medina, 5085 W. Cherry View Drive, West Valley City, wishes, “we could be humble enough to touch ground on some places and really see what we got going on over there before we get rid of it… It's not just like one of these other places you guys crossed out. We got people living here like this is home to us like we come every weekend just to feed our families like this is home to us. We've been here our whole life like. How come we gotta lose it so quick? I feel like we should have better solutions and be more humble to the people of the City”. Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 18 of 29 Tricio Salgado, 833 N. Sir Michael Drive, Salt Lake City, believes that the invitation of these housing units will not benefit the families in the area, but push them out, and further displace them. His recommendation is to deny the request of Edge Homes to rezone the area, allow the drive-in theater to stay as a landmark and allow the community time to discuss with the owners what can be done to preserve the drive-in and Swap meet. Jasmine Correa, 786 West 525 South, Tremonton, mentioned that the Better Business Bureau has tons of complaints with Edge Homes and how they construct. If they don't give a crap about Draper, which has a better social economy, what makes the City think they're going to care about West Valley? Juan Pastillas, 6249 W. Sara Circle, wants the Swap meet to stay so children can learn the value of hard work and stay out of gangs. Jason 7466 S 6670 W, West Jordan, is an entrepreneur, just like his father who came to this country in 1995. They wouldn’t have been able to grow their businesses and buy a home without the Swap meet. Rezoning the Redwood Drive-In Swap meet would displace numerous small businesses and contradict the City's goals of promoting entrepreneurship, cultural diversity, and historic preservation. His family’s success story is a testament to the opportunities this space provides. Pachuco Laotaro, 300 N. Redwood, the Rose Park neighborhood. He feels there's not a shortage of a housing. There is a shortage of affordable housing because greedy developers are building luxury housing that nobody in this community can afford. Keeping the Swap meet supports housing because people earn an income to pay rent and to make house payments. Alan Miranda, 784 E. Saddle Road, Grantsville, People from all around Utah come here from Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada. The Swapmeet is more than just a commercial zone. It is West Valley culture, if not Utah culture. It provides economy, recreation, opportunity, family, home, and hope. James Longstaff, 2285 East 10095 South, Sandy. He proposes loosening the zoning restrictions to allow condos to be built taller. This would allow space for the Swap meet and more housing. Also, rerouting the Midvalley Connector bus line to bring more business to the Swap meet. Jay Reyes, 1457 Neville Court, feels rezoning will betray a lot of people and townhomes are a mockery of home ownership. Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 19 of 29 Jose Zamora, 3385 S. Meadowlark Drive, West Valley City, feels it would be difficult and impossible to find another place like this to help young entrepreneurs and younger generations start their own business, which is essentially the dream of many people. Dalia Salome, 2717 West Chatford Court, says, “This is the community, not this guy. This guy is not the community. He is a developer. All he cares about is money. We are working class people. It is not easy for us to skip out on whatever we have to do in the evening to be able to keep running this rat race that we are in to stay afloat. Building luxury townhomes is not helping this community despite what developers will tell you. We've seen what happens when developers come into communities of color. We've seen it in Harlem. We've seen it in Newark. We've seen it in Oakland. We've seen it nationwide, and we are watching it happen here in Utah”. Matteo Rella's, 1535 S. Bravo Street, Glendale, quotes the City’s mission statement: “West Valley strives to be a city where residents, business and government work together to build an attractive, safe, healthy, diverse, and creative community, where people are proud to live, work. shop, play, and learn.’ This action only stands for progress. It is progress without unity, it is progress without pride. This is progress for profit, progress without people.” Stealthia, 4066 S. Powder Rich Drive, West Valley, says the City is lacking places for their community to gather. Karina Samora, 2900 West Lehman, “These are my family. I don't have family. I came from Texas, and they are my family.” Cassie Zamotica. 2900 W. Lehman Avenue, West Valley City, is an educated Latino woman with a master’s degree, who is starting her doctoral education in the fall. She works for a very large and well-respected employer in the Salt Lake Valley that employs over 34,000 people and her family could not afford the lowest priced condos. She feels this would be an active act of hostile gentrification in our community. Bianca, 3954 S. Kings Estate Drive, quotes highlights from the General Plan. “West Valley City should promote the health and wellbeing of its residents through social, recreational, cultural, artistic opportunities, entertainment programs and venues, as well as support for cultural expression through art, performance and concerts, and make this accessible to all citizens in the community.” Gabriel Delo, 4650 South, West Valley, brings attention to the track record of Edge Homes like the houses in Draper. The City of Draper had to step in to mediate the situation, so why would the City of West Valley want to deal with the potential fallout of dealing with such a developer? Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 20 of 29 Misty, 1861 Bill Chale Avenue, 84116, echoes all the voices and wants the Commissioners to support the people that don’t want the rezoning to happen. Alicia Loona, 3290 S. Katherine Drive, Magna, used to live in Rose Park until it wasn't affordable anymore, and had to move further west. She would like to know the cost of the HOA. Christian Gutierrez, 6345 W. Federal Lane, West Valley City, started the online petition and gathered over 15,000 signatures. He would like to ask the Commission to give them an opportunity and time to figure out a plan where the community can either buy the land, make it a nonprofit or have some type of plan. Beto Conejo, 9690 South 300 West, Sandy, read a letter from Utah State Legislature, signed by Luz Escamilla, Senate Minority Leader, Utah Senate District 10 and Angela Romero House Minority Leader, Utah House District 25. Carson Lindorf, 3513 S. Lydia Ann Lane, West Valley would like the City to buy the subject property and designate it a public historical landmark. Cindy Garcia. My address is 3737 West and 4000 South, West Valley City. During the pandemic a lot of businesses had to shut down and had so much merchandise left. During that time, they were able to go to the Swap meet to make money to pay rent. It is the only place where a person who is struggling financially can sell what they can. The merchandise and food in the Swap meet are affordable and keep our family fed. Thomas Moreno, 3737 S 4000 West, is a longtime seller and wants to know where she will sell her stuff if the Swap meet is shut down. The City is the law, and they can help them. Christoval Ballegas, 3853 South 5600 West, made a point that so many people took off work to be here and engage in the decision. He would like the Commission to recommend to the Council to invest in the property to keep the City landmark and invest in the future residents. George Avery, 2235 E Carriage Lane #17, Holladay, Utah, asks if there have been any studies done to see if the infrastructure can handle the influx of people? Michelle Decampo, 5132 West 8620 South, thinks the future should be towards a walkable city instead of focusing so much on commercial. She would also like the City to purchase the property. Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 21 of 29 Graciela Morales Bivo, 3134 Stanton Drive, West Valley City, feels neither the landowner nor the construction company are taking the citizens into account. The Swap meet is an opportunity to not rely on the government. Antonio Hussein, 1555 W. Lane Corps, Provo sees the Swap meet as an incubator for young entrepreneurs. Kimberly Heimsoth, 2659 South 8550 West, Magna, researched Edge Homes and pointed out that Edge Home felt the evacuations were unnecessary. Had Draper City not cared like Edge Homes, those residents would have perished in the landslide. But this isn't Edge Homes’ only mistake. There are an overwhelming number of other allegedly well-built homes that buyers have complained about. The homes have large cracks, flooded basements from badly built pipes, flooded stairs separating from walls, black mold growing in walls. The engineer of these houses told future buyers to ask for the geotechnical investigation report and other geotechnical engineers reports before you buy the home. Jordan Reid, 134 West Elita Place, Salt Lake City, asks how rezoning to residential will affect Granger High School with its overcrowding if more students are coming to this potential new development. She looked up West Valley City's budget 2023 to 2024, and thought there were really a lot of good points that the City is trying to help with that now seem to be contradicted by rezoning such a huge attraction. Olivia Juarez, 1464 East Brian Avenue, Salt Lake City, said there are several neighborhood zones directly surrounding the drive in/Swap meet that are at high poverty, or at risk of high poverty, according to 2023 US Census data. She encourages the Commission to prioritize any potential housing projects that really prioritize any potential housing projects that consider providing public housing and other pathways to affordable housing for owners and renters, as well as land trusts that can keep the land in the City's ownership for posterity and potentially provide affordable pathways to ownership. Mauda Sanchez, 4136 S. Long Valley Drive, West Valley, wanted to remind people that it's insulting to have to come up to these spaces and pour your heart into these comments and realize that the City will never do what it is that we need for us to get ahead or even try to survive. MOTION: Commissioner McEwen motioned to approve GPZ-4-2024, Commissioner Wood seconded. VOTE: Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 22 of 29  Commissioner Woodruff No Commissioner Winters No Vice Chairperson Lovato No APPROVE GPZ-4-2024 – FAIL Commissioner Winters motioned to continue GPZ-4-2024 to the July 10, 2024 study meeting. Commissioner Woodruff seconded the motion. VOTE: Commissioner McEwen No Commissioner Wood No Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Vice Chairperson Lovato Yes CONTINUE GPZ-4-2024 to July 10, 2024 meeting – FAIL Commissioner Winters motioned to continue GPZ-4-2024 to June 26, 2024, Commissioner Woodruff seconded the motion. Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Vice Chairperson Lovato Yes CONTINUE GPZ-4-2024 - UNANIMOUS Application #: Z-4-2024 Applicant: West Valley City Address: 4342 South 4000 West Request: Zone change from R-4 to R-1-8 City staff are requesting a zone change on two parcels totaling 3.35 acres at 4342 South 4000 West from R-4 (Four Unit Dwelling Residential) to R-1-8 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 8,000 square feet). The property is surrounded by R-1-8 zoning. Adjoining land uses include a mobile home park to the north and single-family homes to the south, east, and west. The property currently includes one single family home and a 15-pad mobile home park approved before the City’s incorporation. The subject property is designated as Low Density Residential (3 to 4 units/acre) in the General Plan. Staff has submitted a zone text change (ZT-7-2024) that would allow zone change requests to the R-1-7, R-1-8, R-1-10, and R-1-12 zones for properties that meet the following conditions: • the property is developed as residential with a density of at least two dwelling units/acre, Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 23 of 29  • the property has access and frontage on a street with a planned right-of-way width of at least 66 feet as indicated on the Major Street Plan, and • the property does not have the off-site improvements of curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the street frontage. If application ZT-7-2024 is approved, the subject property would be eligible for the R-1-8 zone because the property is developed as residential with a density over two dwelling units/acre, the property has access and frontage on 4000 West, which has planned right-of-way width of 80’ in the Major Street Plan, and the property does not have curb, gutter and sidewalk along 4000 West. Staff were recently contacted about this property and its redevelopment potential. While the R-4 zone does not allow mobile home parks (the current mobile home park is nonconforming), this zone does allow duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and apartments. Since this property is surrounded by R-1-8 zoning and mostly single-family homes, staff is recommending a rezone to R-1-8 that would: • keep the mobile home park as a nonconforming use, • comply with the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential (3 to 4 units/acre), • allow the property to redevelop as single-family homes and get improvements along 4000 West, and • prohibit duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and apartments. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approval. The application should be approved as it complies with the General Plan. 2. Continuance. 3. Denial. Since ZT-7-2024 was denied, this property is not eligible for the R-1-8 zone. DISCUSSION: Steve P. presented. There we no questions or public comments. MOTION: Commissioner Winters motioned to approve Z-4-2024, Commissioner Wood seconded. Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Vice Chairperson Lovato Yes VOTE: Z-4-2024 UNAMIOUSLY APPROVED Application #: SA-1-2024 Applicant: Business Village Condominiums Amended Address: 2722 South Redwood Road Request: M Zone Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 24 of 29 BACKGROUND: Tanner Webster is requesting a plat amendment for the Business Village Condominiums. More specifically, this application will vacate and amend buildings B, C and D of the existing subdivision and will establish building G as part of the amended subdivision. ISSUES: The original condominium plat was approved by the City in 1998. That plat consisted of 6 pad sites on 2.4 acres of property. To date, 3 of the 6 buildings have been constructed. Due to a lack of interest in these remaining pad sites, the applicant has submitted an application to vacate these sites and re-plat the area with one larger pad site and one building instead of 3 buildings. The intended use for the new building will be a mixture of commercial and retail uses. Therefore, the applicant will be submitting a conditional use application with the Planning Commission at a later date. It is anticipated that the applicant will apply for a shopping center which allows for retail along with other commercial businesses. If the amended plat is approved, the applicant will be required to submit a conditional use application for the modified site. Building requirements, parking and landscaping will be evaluated as part of that process. An existing 30-foot right-of-way and fire easement is located west of the newly proposed building. Said right-of-way will be maintained as will all other easements and requirements of the original subdivision. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the amended Business Village Condominium plat subject to a resolution of staff concerns. 2. Continue the application based on comments or concerns from the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION: Steve L. presented. Tanner Webster made a comment that neighbors are glad to see the property developed to remove the vagrants. No public comments. MOTION: Commissioner McEwen motioned to approve SA-1-2024, Commissioner Winters seconded. Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Vice Chairperson Lovato Yes VOTE: SA-1-2024 UNAMIOUSLY APPROVED Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 25 of 29 CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATIONS Application #: C-9-2024 Applicant: Midwest Motor Express (MME) Address: 5175 West 2100 South Request: M Zone (51.81 Acres Total/Project Area 7.60 Acres) The applicant, Midwest Motor Express (MME), is requesting conditional use approval for a trucking facility located at 5175 West 2100 South. The zoning for this area is M, manufacturing. The West Valley City General Plan designates this area as light manufacturing. The surrounding zone is manufacturing on all sides. The surrounding uses include similar freight/trucking uses with Wheeler Machinery to the east. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a new facility on the existing Swift Trucking property. The entire site is currently paved, and the building will be a single-story, pre- engineered metal building that is approximately 31,000 SF. There will be approximately 8,000 SF of office with 56 dock high truck doors. An expansion to this south area was completed in 2014 (C-22-14) and there was also the addition of a fuel station in 2015 (C-30-15). At that time 2400 South did not extend all the way to the east connecting to 4800 West. Based on the updated improvements in this areas and current City Code additional right-of-way requirements will be required at this time (§7-2-117). That includes sidewalk and streetlights. The landscaping along this frontage has also deteriorated and will need to be redone to meet City Code, as well as setting back the 6’ tall fencing out of the 20’ setback. The entire north frontage along the 2100 S Frontage Road is required to comply with the 7-10 landscaping standards which have been completed and maintained but will also be reviewed for the 7-2-117 right-of-way requirements. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approval, subject to the resolution of any concerns raised at the public hearing as well as the following conditions: a) The property discussed in this application shall be improved per the approved site plan including hard surfacing and landscaping. b) The site landscaping shall be maintained and free of weeds. c) All parking and maneuvering areas must have the required lighting as outlined in 7-9- 113. d) The overall minimum required landscaping for the site is 5%. The north frontage shall be designed in accordance with the Landscaping Standards for High Image Arterials (7-10). Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 26 of 29  e) All requirements of affected departments and agencies must be met, including but not limited to WVC Public Works and section 7-2-117. f) This use is subject to review upon a valid complaint. 2. Continuance, to allow for the resolution of any issues raised at the public hearing and to allow time for the applicant to submit more detailed information on the project. DISCUSSION: Jody presented. Brian, representing the Applicant, is available for questions. Commissioner McEwen asks if there is a maintenance crew for the grounds, Brian says there is. No other questions or public comments. MOTION: Commissioner Wood motioned to approve C-9-2024 subject to the six conditions, Commissioner McEwen seconded. Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Vice Chairperson Lovato Yes VOTE: C-9-2024 UNAMIOUSLY APPROVED Application #: CA-4-2024 Applicant: CDS Development (LongHorn Steakhouse) Address: 3031 South 5600 West Request: C-2 zone, 1.43 acres The applicant, CDS Development, is requesting conditional use amendment approval for a LongHorn Steakhouse restaurant at 3031 South 5600 West. The zoning for this property is C-2, General Commercial and the General Plan designation is General Commercial. This property is also located within the 5600 West Overlay Zone. The surrounding zone is C-2, general commercial on all sides. The surrounding uses include the Kohls shopping center to the east, Chilis restaurant to the south and Starbucks/retail uses to the north. The site is located within the existing Kohls shopping center parking lot, currently Lot 4 of the Shoppes at Lake Park Subdivision. This center has been developed under several phases including applications C-35-2003, C-5-2006 and C-15-2016 and C-16-2023. The building is proposed to be a 5,780 SF restaurant with sit down dine-in service of 182 seats. The facade will be constructed of a variety of products including stucco and stone and must comply with the Commercial Design Standards. There is also a dumpster enclosure and housekeeping type area on the northeast corner of this building. This area must be enclosed behind a masonry screen wall that matches the building per 7-2-118. Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 27 of 29 For landscaping, the existing perimeter streetscape will be maintained, and the interior islands will be modified to accommodate the restaurant footprint. There is adequate parking to accommodate this use and development within the existing center due to shared parking agreements. Lastly, there must also be some internal pedestrian connections provided as well. Signage for this use is proposed on the walls of the building as well as a monument sign. An overall sign master plan was part of the original center approval, so they are requesting an additional monument sign at this time for this project. There are currently 3 pole signs and a mixture of multi-tenant and single tenant monument signs for the center. his would be a single tenant sign and does comply with the City Code. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approval, subject to any issues raised at the public hearing as well as the following conditions: The building must be completed per the approved plans and be designed in accordance with the Commercial Design Standards. a) The dumpster and housekeeping area shall be completely screened and secured with a 6’ masonry enclosure that matches the building and located per 7-2-118. b) The site shall be landscaped per the approved plans including maintaining the existing 5600 West frontage per the 7-10 requirements. c) Required pedestrian connections shall be provided. d) There must be adequate parking for the proposed use. 6. One monument sign may be constructed for this project and all signage must comply with the West Valley City Sign Ordinance. 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. Celeste, representing CDS Development, had nothing to add. No questions or public comments. MOTION: Commissioner Winters motioned to approve CA-4-2024 subject to the eight conditions, Commissioner Woodruff seconded. Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Vice Chairperson Lovato Yes VOTE: CA-4-2024 UNAMIOUSLY APPROVED Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 28 of 29 Commissioner Woodruff motioned to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 8:26pm Respectfully Submitted, Julie Davis Julie Davis, Admin Assistant 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 Julie Davis, 801-963-3306. Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes June 12, 2024 Page 29 of 29