Planning Commission Study Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Study Session June 3, 2015 The meeting was called to order at 3:33 p.m. by Chair Barbara Thomas at 3600 Constitution Boulevard, West Valley City, Utah. WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: Harold Woodruff, Brent Fuller, Jack Matheson, Terri Mills, Clover Meaders, Barbara Thomas, and Martell Winters ABSENT: Latai Tupou WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF: Steve Pastorik, Jody Knapp, and Nichole Camac WEST VALLEY CITY ADMINISTRATION: Brandon Hill, City Attorney Planning Commission Study Session June 3, 2015 Page 2 ZONE TEXT CHANGE APPLICATIONS ZT-3-2015 PETITION BY WEST VALLEY CITY REQUESTING A ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE NEW 'A-2' AND 'RE' ZONES, ENACT LAND USE REGULATIONS WITHIN THOSE ZONES, AND ENACT REGULATIONS REGARDING THE REZONING OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY. (PLANNING AND ZONING- 801-963-3282) CONTINUED FROM THE MAY 13, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AND GENERAL PLAN/ZONE CHANGE APPLICATIONS GPZ-1-2015 PETITION BY WEST VALLEY CITY REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND REZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN WEST VALLEY CITY. A FULL LIST OF AFFECTED PROPERTIES AND PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AND ZONE CHANGES IS AVAILABLE AT HTTPS://FILESOURCE.WVC- UT.GOV/SIREPUB/PUBMTGFRAME.ASPX?MEETID=1973&DOCTYPE=A GENDA (PLANNING AND ZONING- 801-963-3282) CONTINUED FROM THE MAY 13, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Discussion: Steve Pastorik stated that ZT-3-2015 and GPZ-1-2015 have implications for the entire City and not just for individual properties. He indicated that there are some situations in public hearings where people want to debate and the Planning Commission can respond or can thank them for their input. Steve stated that staff received four letters after the May 13, 2015 public hearing regarding these applications. One was from Jim Defa who discussed the potential for loss in value. Another was received by an attorney representing the Brock family who was also concerned about value, water issues, etc. He indicated that there seems to be a misunderstanding that the City owns the property south of 6200 S that is being removed from the application. He stated that PRI owns this property and it is being removed because there was an agreement made when the City annexed the property that stated that the zoning would not be changed. Steve indicated that the attorney representing the Brock’s also felt the entire City should have been noticed since the ordinance change limits future zoning. Steve stated that the City is only required to notify property owners and residents within 300’ of specific properties where the zoning is being changed. A third letter was received by Gordon Casey who owns a piece of property on approximately 2700 W and 4500 S, across from UDOT, who has been working to develop his property but has run into difficulties with sewer lines. The applicant has stated that this was recently resolved but now Mr. Casey is unable to move forward due to the moratorium that was in place and now this active application. Jack Matheson stated that he remembers viewing concept plans on this property. Steve replied that nothing was ever formally submitted. He added that the applicant has also pointed out that there are smaller homes to the west and north, UDOT across the street, and the property is recessed which doesn’t make for a good location for higher end housing. Steve stated that the last Planning Commission Study Session June 3, 2015 Page 3 letter received was from different members of the Brock family who will be unable to divide their property to different family members if this zoning is approved. He added that they also expressed concern regarding value. Steve stated that the Brock’s suggested looking at larger pieces of property, such as 20 acres or more, to accomplish the Council’s effort. Regional housing standards were also suggested but staff feels this would be extremely difficult to accomplish. Steve provided a PowerPoint of amended charts that displayed similar information that was provided to the public at the previous public hearing. He stated that the vast majority of lot sizes in the City are 10,000 square feet or less. There are a mix of housing types and 84% of residential ground is consumed by single family. Steve stated the City’s value of owner occupied units is less than those of the County overall. Brent Fuller stated that he doesn’t see property values being linked to the quality of a home but more to the location of the home. Steve stated that in the market research that staff looked into there were, among other factors, two things at play on home costs during 2013-2014. First, home sizes reflect greatly on the cost and this includes both existing and new homes. Steve indicated that over half the homes in West Valley were built prior to the City incorporating when there were no size requirements. The second factor is there is a difference between the price per square foot between cities. He explained that even though two homes may have the same exact square footage, another City may be more expensive than West Valley. Steve stated that larger homes would result in higher value but maybe not as much as it would in other communities. He indicated that the total amount of acreage that the City is looking at rezoning has gone from 756 acres to 741 acres. Steve stated that given prior discussion on these applications, the Planning Commission may want to consider whether restrictions on future zone changes should be modified. Harold Woodruff stated that he feels smaller lots like duplexes, R-1-6, etc. should be eliminated but everything else should remain. Clover Meaders stated that she doesn’t like the idea of changing the zone on several smaller lots in the hope that a developer will someday be able to work with the individual property owners and assemble them. Clover stated that she feels the RE zone will only be successful in larger areas. Jack Matheson stated that he feels the RB zone should still be an option for people and would request that be added back into the list of potential rezones. Barbara Thomas agreed and added that if someone requests the RB zone and staff doesn’t feel it’s a good location, it can be denied. Martell Winters asked if it is safe to assume that the City Council is going to make significant changes to the ordinance whether or not the Planning Commission agrees. Steve stated that the City Manager attended a previous Planning Commission study session to emphasize that this is an important issue to the Council. He indicated that the Planning Commission is welcome to make specific revisions that the Council can review. Brent stated that some properties are narrow but deep which creates problems with frontage even though they may have the required square footage. He indicated that frontage should not rule everything. Steve replied that people have gotten variances for this Planning Commission Study Session June 3, 2015 Page 4 type of issue in the past as well as rezones. He stated that the RE zone requires a 100 foot width but the Planning Commission could suggest that this be reduced. Jack stated that cul-de-sac lots usually have too much frontage. Steve replied that there are exceptions to cul-de-sac’s already built into the code. Brent stated that he has seen 15,000-20,000 square foot lots but they are very narrow. Jack stated that flag lots are not ideal either. Harold stated that he would like to see an expanded list of zones allowed including R-1-8, R-1-10, R-1-12, and RB. Jack stated that multi-family is no longer needed. Harold replied that it’s very difficult to know whether it will be needed in the future or not which is why this proposed change is difficult. Barbara stated that she feels lots between 5600 W and the proposed Mountain View Corridor will not be desirable for estates. Harold agreed and added that he feels it’s short sighted to make a blanket statement. The entire City will constantly be going through development and re-development and will constantly be changing. Barbara stated that she agrees there should be room for that but she does feel 8,000 square foot lots should be removed from zoning. Harold stated that 10,000 and 12,000 square foot lots should be allowed without a PUD. Brent stated that he doesn’t know how far away from the Mountain View Corridor lots should be built but he feels no one will want to purchase a large expensive home and lot next to a freeway. Barbara stated that there are good quality homes currently being built in the City. Terri agreed and stated that she received a compliment from a Murray resident who noticed an improvement in West Valley’s subdivisions. Jack stated that the PUD option requires too much green space and this should be removed. Terri disagreed and stated that it is important for the community to have green space and trees for health. Jack agreed but added that water usage is a big concern. Brent stated that 15,000 square foot lots would have the same amount of green space as a PUD with 12,000 square foot lots. Steve agreed and indicated that the difference would be common space versus private space. Barbara asked if the City ever has to take care of roads for PUD projects. Steve replied this has been requested but the City has never agreed. Barbara asked if PUD’s are successful. Steve replied they are generally successful although he has heard of issues regarding HOA’s and fees, not necessarily within West Valley. Harold stated that he has had issues with HOA’s in the past and he doesn’t feel HOA’s are a good option. Jack asked why the City changed an M zone property to A. Steve replied there is only one area proposed and that is north of Lake Park Blvd. He stated that there is a significant amount of property in the City still zoned M or anticipated for industrial use that will not be effected by this application. Martell stated that manufacturing would likely not be desirable in Lake Park. Steve replied that he doesn’t believe the owner wants a manufacturing use, they are just concerned about large lot sizes and housing standards. Jack asked what the advantage of changing an A zone to an A-2 zone is. Steve replied that it is unlikely an owner would develop a 2 acre lot subdivision so they would need to apply for the RE zone and not bypass the standards proposed. Steve stated that another topic the Commission had mentioned in previous discussions is whether the housing standards being proposed should be modified. Harold stated that he feels the ordinance should specify the sizes of the homes and require 3 car garages but the rest of the standards should follow the point system Planning Commission Study Session June 3, 2015 Page 5 that was just recently approved. He stated that he feels it’s important to provide flexibility. Jack agreed. Steve stated that this is an option but added that the Council has mentioned that they are not pleased with the point system as it is written now. He stated flexibility could be granted by allowing applicants to enter a development agreement that is reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council and would allow for more housing options. Martell asked why the Council wants all masonry homes. Steve stated that they feel masonry is attractive and durable. Terri disagreed and stated that brick does not equate to quality all the time. She stated that Daybreak is an inviting community and has no brick homes. She explained that she can find many homes in any community where older brick homes have fallen into disrepair and have even been painted over. Terri added that smaller homes can be equally nice as well. Jack stated that there seems to be a big jump from the current house size to the proposed. Harold stated he is okay with the increase because these would be for estate lots. Martell asked if people will be able to speak at the public hearing on June 10th. Steve replied they can but the Planning Commission can impose time limitations if they choose. Brandon agreed but stated that he would hesitate putting a time limit on speakers. Jack Matheson stated that he feels the point system works but housing size should be upped. Steve briefly discussed the proposed housing standards and indicated that these would apply only to the RE zone but a development agreement would provide flexibility. Brent stated that he isn’t sure a larger home with a 3 car garage could fit on an 8,000 square foot lot. Jack stated that they can. Steve stated that another topic the Commission had mentioned in previous discussion is which properties should be included and which should be excluded from the zone change. He stated that the best way to do this would be to set specific perimeters such as nothing next to Mountain View Corridor or increasing the size of the properties being looked at. Brent stated that he doesn’t feel that it’s fair to change the zoning on properties that are currently R-1-8 or R-1-10 and indicated that this equals 166 acres of the proposal. Clover stated that one of the letters the Planning Commission received stated that a rezone was recently granted for MXD. Steve replied that the City initiated a zone change on this property but the Council denied it so a zoning change never took place. Terri stated the same letter indicates a piece of property was also gifted. Steve replied that this was to complete a cul-de-sac. Harold stated that the City has always given each property owner the chance for their own public hearing so that the Planning Commission and staff could have the chance to look at each property in detail and decide what the best course of action would be. He indicated that this blanket re-zone doesn’t allow an in depth look at each property and its surrounding neighborhood to decide whether or not the RE zone makes sense for the area. Harold indicated that he feels each property should be reviewed individually so that everyone can adequately be heard. Brent agreed and stated that doing a widespread change like this is difficult. Steve stated that the only way to accomplish that would likely be for the Planning Commission to recommend denial. Terri stated that this would still go to City Council and she feels it unlikely they would agree with a denial. Barbara stated that maybe if the Planning Commission attached specific reasons, the City Council could see the merit in Planning Commission Study Session June 3, 2015 Page 6 dividing properties up and looking at them individually. Steve stated that in the time it took to go through each property, some of them could be sold and developed before a new ordinance could be passed. Martell stated that he doesn’t like the idea of smaller lots with separate owners being required to assemble to develop. He also stated that he likes the idea of increasing the acreage required. Martell added that it is important to be consistent and provide specific boundaries and reasons. He indicated that limiting parcels next to commercial uses might be effective as well. Steve replied that buffers, such as a certain distance from the Mountain View Corridor, can get complicated when zoning is concerned. He stated that it could be a portion of a property which causes difficult legal descriptions. Jack stated that the City Council and the Planning Commission need to ensure they are watching for public clamor. Brent stated that if the Commission denied the application, it would still go to the City Council. He asked when this would be reviewed. Steve replied once the Planning Commission makes a recommendation, it would go to the City Council in approximately a month to allow time for proper noticing. Brent asked if this is required. Steve replied yes and added that the Council requested this application. Jack stated that a good option may be to change everything to R-1-10 except for A properties which could still be changed to A-2. He indicated that this would allow people to have residentially zoned properties and they could petition the City for zone changes when they are ready. Jack added that R-1-4, R-1-6, duplex, etc, lots could still be eliminated. Harold stated that no one would ask for the RE zone if they could build 10,000 square foot lots. Jack replied that estate type homes can still be built on 10,000 square foot lots. Terri replied that 10,000 square feet is still modestly sized. Barbara stated that another option would be to increase the required size for the rezone from 2 acres to 5 acres for the A-2 zone. Barbara stated that water usage is still a concern for larger lots. Terri replied that there will be less green space if there are larger homes. Martell stated that he likes the idea of a 5 acre minimum because it will allow applicants to develop enough lots to create a community feel for a neighborhood. Jack stated that he doesn’t like PUD’s and feels this option should be removed. Martell and Barbara agreed. Martell stated he would like to see a list of properties 5 acres or more and no assemblage required by different property owners. Terri asked if the Council wanted to leave the PUD option for landscaping maintenance along major arterials. Steve replied yes and added that it would be difficult for the City to maintain that many. If an HOA maintained it, fees by residents would be minimal. He added that the Council also likes the idea of PUD’s because they can provide for creative designs. Brent stated that A’s, A-1’s, and M’s should go to A-2 and everything else to R-1-10. He added frontage requirements should be worked with as well. Jack agreed. CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATIONS C-24-2015 PETITION BY UTOPIA REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR A UTOPIA ANTENNA AT THE MAVERIK CENTER. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 3200 S DECKER LAKE DRIVE ON 29.13 ACRES AND IS ZONED 'C-2' (GENERAL COMMERCIAL). (STAFF- JODY KNAPP AT 801- 963-3497) Planning Commission Study Session June 3, 2015 Page 7 Discussion: Jody Knapp stated that UTOPIA has an equipment shelter located behind the Maverik Center building. She indicated it is a public utility and in an overlay zone so it must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Jody stated that UTOPIA would like to expand their video services and are requesting to construct a 24 foot lattice tower with an antenna on the top. This tower will capture local television and feed it into the network. Jody indicated that existing light poles are about 25 feet tall, the area is recessed, and the access where the tower is located near is used mostly by service vehicles. She stated that UTOPIA spoke with the City’s administration who questioned them a lot on the design but ultimately decided this was structurally the best design. Brent Fuller asked how much of the City is serviced by UTOPIA. Steve replied that there is a map that shows this but generally there is a higher concentration of UTOPIA lines on the east side of the City. Jack Matheson stated that he doesn’t like UTOPIA and he feels the lattice tower is unattractive. He questioned whether this can be done stealth by adding another light pole to match those in the area. Jody replied that UTOPIA stated a light pole would not work but she will ask if there are any other options. Martell Winters stated that lattice towers can be a hazard if people try climbing them. Jody replied that the tower will be secured behind a 6 foot tall fence. C-29-2015 PETITION BY RAY HOUR REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR HOUR CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 3638 S REDWOOD ROAD ON .45 ACRES AND IS ZONED 'C- 2' (GENERAL COMMERCIAL). (STAFF- JODY KNAPP AT 801-963-3497) Discussion: Jody Knapp stated the applicant would like to construct a new building for a chiropractic clinic. She indicated that the property was done as a PUD commercial subdivision with a private road in 1998 consisting of 17 lots. She stated that it has taken time for the properties to be filled in and indicated that every new building must return to the Planning Commission for individual approval. Jody indicated that 7 feet of landscaping is required on the frontage but the applicant is proposing the normal requirement of 20 feet. She indicated parking is sufficient for the site. Jody stated that the building is stucco with rock and brick accents with reveals around the windows. She added that the east side will need a little more detail but aside from that, the building meets commercial design standards. Jody stated that the applicant will occupy the bottom floor of the building and will lease the top floor to another medical type use business. She stated that there is residential to the south of the property so the applicant will continue the masonry wall that exists from the east. Harold Woodruff asked how many square feet the building is. Jody replied it is 2,600 square feet on each floor. She added that the business is moving from an existing location on Redwood Road and will move their existing wall sign over. She stated that there are no ground signs proposed. DISCUSSION C-28-2015 REVIEW MOUNTAIN WEST TRUCK CENTER SHOP ELEVATIONS. (STAFF- JODY KNAPP AT 801-963-3497) Planning Commission Study Session June 3, 2015 Page 8 Discussion: Jody Knapp stated that this was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the May 27, 2015 Public Hearing and the Planning Commission requested a review of the shop building in a Study Session. Jody stated that the shop building will be tilt up concrete, similar to the main office building, and now meets all the requirements of the ordinance. She stated that the applicant did ask if they could remove a metal panel on the east side of the building since it is so far from the road and likely won’t be visible by the public. Terri Mills stated that she feels the metal panel should be added to the building because once the existing buildings to the south are removed, it will be visible from the freeway. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted ________________________________________ Nichole Camac, Administrative Assistant