Document Millcreek_doc_57f90afb7d

Millcreek City Hall 3330 South 1300 East Millcreek, Utah 84106 millcreek.us Planning & Zoning (801) 214-2700 [EMAIL REDACTED] ZT-23-010 City Council Staff Report (1st Reading) Meeting Date: 10/9/2023 Applicant: Staff Re: Village Center Special District Enabling Ordinance Prepared By: Francis Lilly, Planning Director / Assistant City Manager Robert May, Long Range Planning Manager Scope of Decision: Discretionary. This is a legislative matter, to be decided by the Millcreek City Council upon receiving a recommendation from the Community Council(s) and the Millcreek Planning Commission. REQUEST AND SYNOPSIS Summary As part of our comprehensive zoning code update, and in response to preliminary inquiries about development in Millcreek, staff is preparing a new zone for consideration by the Community Councils, Planning Commission, and City Council: a Village Center Special District zone (VCSD). A VCSD is a vehicle to write specific zone standards for each of the various village centers described in the Millcreek General Plan, in a way that ensures a master-planned development with consistent design standards. A VCSD allows for customized zoning requirements in order to permit flexibility and initiative in site development, while also providing an opportunity to establish design standards and use requirements ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: Village Center Special District Ordinance ZT-23-010 that are more detailed and more responsive to the needs of each village center, and any surrounding uses. What is a Village Center? The Village Center is a future land use map designation found in the Millcreek General Plan. The general guidelines for a Village Center are as follows: Millcreek has several naturally occurring village centers and a host of other potential village center locations, each with its own identity and distinct elements anchoring it all together. The General Plan suggests focusing growth in a Citywide network of centers that provide healthy, equitable and sustainable access to services and housing and preserve the City’s character and sense of place. The General Plan describes Village Centers as “smaller centers that include a mixture of neighborhood scale commercial and residential buildings. Buildings should be designed to be compatible with the character of existing buildings within the center. A main focus for the Village Center is to encourage access to, from and within the center by pedestrians and bicyclists. The village centers should be designed in such a fashion that the preferred modes of transportation to and from the centers are walking, bicycling, and public transit. Village Center Example Image, Millcreek Together General Plan, Vibrant Gathering Places, pg. 53 ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: Village Center Special District Ordinance ZT-23-010 Where are These Village Centers Located? There are three village centers designated in light blue on the Future Land Use Map: ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: Village Center Special District Ordinance ZT-23-010 The 2300 East and 3300 South Village Center straddles the Canyon Rim and East Mill Creek community districts and is currently a collection of active commercial uses, including JoAnn, Down East Outfitters, Maria’s Mexican Grill, Goldfish Swim School, and several other active restaurants and small retail and service establishments. According to the General Plan, “A focus should be made on attracting uses that are complementary such as small restaurants and cafes (similar to Roots Café and Maria’s Restaurant) and provide for a unique identity to this neighborhood. There is also a relatively high amount of vacant or underutilized property that presents opportunities for redevelopment, such as adaptive re-use, second stories in appropriate locations, and farmers’ markets. Extra parking is also needed to support development in the area.” We have not received significant interest in redevelopment in the 2300 East and 3300 South Village Center, although we note that some of the commercial development is nearing the end of its useful life. It is likely that we will receive a proposal of some kind within the life of the General Plan, and a Village Center Special District ordinance could give us the tools to craft a specific solution that provides for redevelopment while preserving some of the unique characteristics and retail emphasis of this area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: Village Center Special District Ordinance ZT-23-010 The Olympus Hills Village Center is anchored by the Olympus Hills Shopping Center and includes a large vacant parcel to the west of the shopping Center, between Wasatch Boulevard and I-215. It is located entirely within the Mount Olympus community district. The General Plan states that “Olympus Hills’ local assets include an established business area, strategic proximity to local and regional assets and destinations in the mountains, a unique and dynamic history, and prime scenic views. View retention to the west across the Salt Lake Valley and to the east, of the magnificent peaks of the Wasatch should remain a significant development principle as this village center evolves. Together, these assets create an extraordinary opportunity for positive transformation in the Olympus Hills area. Tying together the two sides of Wasatch Boulevard and expanding retail and hospitality uses could be a focus. The owner of the vacant property has approached Millcreek with various development proposals for the property, most recently a mixed-use center that includes a high-end car dealership on the south side of the property, and public space and mixed use and commercial development on the north side of the property. A VCSD could help pull a variety of commercial uses together into a cohesive master planned development that also creates an opportunity for a significant enhancement to Wasatch Boulevard, including better pedestrian and cyclist amenities, which the General Plan calls out in the Village Center concept. ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: Village Center Special District Ordinance ZT-23-010 The Murray Holladay / 4500 South Village Center is located at Highland Drive and 4500 South, opposite the site of the former Cottonwood Mall in Holladay. It has long featured an active commercial strip center and a variety of multifamily and commercial uses to the west and north. The property owners recently acquired a former gas station on the site and are expanding the pad site to include additional restaurants with drive- throughs. The General Plan describes this potential village center as one that provides “small scale commercial and amenities for nearby residents. Intended to complement the future development of the Cottonwood Mall site across the street from the village area and should harness its unique location next to the Big Cottonwood Regional Park, the Holladay Lions Recreation Center, and Senior Center. While no entity has approached us on wholesale redevelopment of the corner, we believe that the redevelopment of the Cottonwood Mall site will create new opportunities in this Village Center. Much of it is currently zoned commercial, but if a developer approached Millcreek with a unique idea for the future, a VCSD zone could be a vehicle to establish parameters and support a unique project that would not be supported in the existing commercial zones. ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: Village Center Special District Ordinance ZT-23-010 Other Potential Village Centers The General Plan specifically calls out three possible study areas for village centers: “Several areas have been identified as future centers to study. The St. Marks Hospital area of 3900 South and 900 to 1300 East has existing office and small-scale retail uses and has potential to provide a center for surrounding residential areas. The Canyon Rim area that includes Smith’s Marketplace and REI has potential for redevelopment and reconfiguration of parking to support a center for surrounding residential areas, as well as a major commercial and office. The presence of a number of outdoor related shops and businesses in that area, and its proximity to the mountains, canyons, and trails, the center could be billed as an “outdoor district”.” • 3900 South and 1300 East (St. Marks Hospital area) • 3900 South and 900 East (Iceberg) • Canyon Rim Shopping (Smith’s Marketplace and REI) • 4500 South and 900 East (Smiths Marketplace) • 2300 East and 2800 South (Near roundabout and Eggs in the City) Why not just use a Commercial Zone? What Would a Village Center Special District Accomplish? It is not uncommon for cities to craft special zoning districts to accomplish centers and define the manner in which significant redevelopment occurs. The Holladay Town Center, Downtown South Salt Lake, New park in Kimball Junction, the Draper Peaks Commercial Center and IKEA/Furniture Row, and Millcreek’s own City Center/Millcreek Common area are all examples of special zoning districts that incorporate specific design standards and unique use regulations that typically are not found in base commercial zones. Special Districts allow cities and developers to create distinct centers based on particular uses, unique materials, special limits on signage, quality public spaces, and one-of-a-kind streetscapes. ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: Village Center Special District Ordinance ZT-23-010 For example, the Holladay Village Center is generally well-received in the region. The first two phases of their Village Center is approximately 10 acres, including upgraded public streets and a public gathering space that is approximately 0.6 acres in size. The Village Center includes a mix of uses, including residential, and a traditionally auto-oriented use in the form of a supermarket. This is a good example of how a variety of uses – even traditionally auto-oriented ones - can be tied together in a common theme and in a manner that establishes a center. Creating the Holladay Village center required a new approach to land use regulations, as the traditional commercial zones in the area had height and setback requirements and parking ratios that would not allow for the creation of the Holladay Village Center. How can we ensure that produce good quality development? We do not recommend for small, infill sites. In order to make sure that the development proposals are meaningful, we are contemplating a minimum development size of 5 acres before qualifying for a rezone to a VCSD. In addition, we will propose a robust public process beyond what is typically required for a rezone or a general plan amendment, including a neighborhood meeting prior to application, a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council, followed by a community council meeting, a planning commission meeting, before receiving final approval or denial by the City Council. As part of a VCSD application, we would require a narrative discussing unique design elements and materials, proposed limitations on heights and uses, a schematic site plan that would be adopted as part of the rezone, as well as a traffic study, if required by staff. This way, the community will have a good understanding of what the project will look like, and what its impact will be, before the City Council makes a final determination on adopting a VCSD. ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: Village Center Special District Ordinance ZT-23-010 STAFF FINDINGS AND GENERAL PLAN STRATEGIES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ADOPTION OF VCSD ENABLING ORDINANCE ZT-23-010 Staff Findings 1. Allows for each village center to harness its own unique traits and be planned individually, ensuring that its distinctive features are maintained. 2. Helps create purposeful development in a designated area, ensuring that resources and attention are dedicated to creating vibrant gathering areas. 3. Can provide incentives and regulations that encourage entrepreneurship and the establishment of unique, locally owned shops and restaurants, as well as broadening our tax base and creating high quality jobs. 4. Promotes an enhanced community involvement process, allowing residents to have a say in the design and development of their gathering areas. 5. Helps allocate meaningful public open spaces, green spaces, including cultural and artistic spaces, adding vibrancy to the village center and community. General Plan Considerations Economic Development Strategy 1.5: Target, create, and promote incentives for businesses that foster growth and retention of jobs offering wages higher than the county average. Economic Development Strategy 2.5: Support efforts to attract, expand and retain large, medium, and small businesses that offer high quality jobs, generate local tax revenue and/or provide needed goods or services to residents. Vibrant Gathering Places Strategy 9.3: Encourage the development or redevelopment of vacant and under- utilized properties in centers and along major corridors by using a combination of incentives, rezoning, and creative design solutions. Vibrant Gathering Places Strategy 1.3: Promote development that enhances and improves views of the Wasatch Mountains and other significant view areas. Vibrant Gathering Places Strategy 4.8: Evaluate development applications in and around urban centers with particular attention to their contribution to the integration and mixing of uses, orientation to the public realm and their support of connections. Vibrant Gathering Places Strategy 7.4: Create an Olympus Hills Village Center Plan and coordinate with UDOT, UTA property owners, and stakeholders with specific focus on how Wasatch Boulevard is designed to cohesively join the two sides of the center. Great Connections Strategy 1.1B: Encourage a well-connected system of streets, sidewalks, bike facilities, and off-system trails for new developments and redevelopment areas. Open Space Strategy 3.1: Acquire or protect additional properties to preserve Conservation Open Space areas ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: Village Center Special District Ordinance ZT-23-010 Open Space Strategy 4.2: Identify park components that need to be updated or replaced and develop a schedule, budget, and methodology to complete improvements. Open Space Strategy 5.2: Consider park development impact fees and other financial tools to offset the cost of providing needed parks and facilities associated with new development. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At a public hearing held on September 20, 2023, the Millcreek Planning Commission unanimously recommended adoption of the proposed Village Center Special District Enabling Ordinance ZT-23-010 to the City Council based on the details in the staff report and the findings identified by staff. As a condition of their recommendation, the Planning Commission included the following changes to be made: 1. Adding to the purpose language a mix of retail, commercial, office or business uses, directly from the General Plan; 2. Require language that enforces subsequent phases as part of a development agreement with remedies if they do not occur; 3. Increase the noticing distance to a quarter mile; 4. Remove the “sole discretion” language from the city; 5. Require a percentage of green space or enhanced landscaping; 6. Decrease the minimum acreage required for a VCSD from 4 to 3 acres; and 7. Include in the purpose section of the proposed VCSD language from the General Plan that has to do with the intended purpose to, “serve residents of the surrounding neighborhood.” STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending adoption of the proposed Village Center Special District Enabling Ordinance ZT-23- 010, based on feedback collected from the Community Councils and the Planning Commission and the findings and general plan considerations identified by staff. COMMUNITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Millcreek Community Council. Recommended approval of the proposed Village Center Special District Ordinance with the condition that visiting the community council be added to the pre-application process 19.62.040. Voted 8-1 Canyon Rim Citizens Association. Recommended approval of the proposed Village Center Special District Ordinance and eagerly look forward to discussing a Village Center Special District proposal in their community. Voted 6-0 East Millcreek Community Council. Recommended approval of the proposed Village Center Special District Ordinance. Voted 6-0 Mount Olympus Community Council. ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: Village Center Special District Ordinance ZT-23-010 Recommended approval of the proposed Village Center Special District Ordinance with the condition to lower the minimum district size to 3 acres and add a notification requirement extending parameters to one mile. Voted 10-1 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 1. Draft Village Center Special District Ordinance. 2. September 20th Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Including proposed amendments) ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 SECTION 19.02.160 IS HEREBY AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: 19.02.160 Public Notices A. Required Notice. The land use authority shall schedule and hold any required public hearing or public meeting according to the provisions of this code and state statute. Public notices for land use decisions not described in this section shall be given in accordance with state statute. The city shall provide notice of the date, place, and time of public hearings or public meetings with the planning commission, and city council, if applicable, within the timeframes established by this section, or as provided by state statute or city ordinance. 1. Mailed Notices. The applicant shall bear the cost of mailing notices. Notice shall be provided by first class mail by the city to property owners and affected entities as established below: a. Conditional Use Permits. Notice shall be mailed at least seven days prior to the community council public meeting to any property owners within a three-hundred-foot radius of the property lines of the property on which the conditional use is proposed. b. Subdivision Approvals and Amendments to Subdivision Plats. Notice shall be given in accordance with state statute UCA 10- 9a.608(1)(c). Additional notices shall be mailed at least ten days prior to the public hearing to any property owners within a three- hundred-foot radius of the boundary of the proposed subdivision plat amendment. For an amendment to a recorded subdivision that involves the alteration or removal of an easement, private right-of-way, condition, limitation, or special requirement, only those persons or entities who have a direct interest in, or who will be directly affected by the proposed change (including the applicant) must be notified of any pending action. c. Zoning Map Amendments. Notice shall be mailed at least seven days prior to the community council public meeting to any property owners within a six-hundred-foot radius of the boundary of the proposed zoning or future land use map amendment. d. Zoning Map Amendments for the Adoption and Amendments of Village Center Special Districts. Notice shall be mailed at least seven days prior to the community council public meeting to any property owners within a one-thousand-three-hundred-twenty foot radius of the boundary of the proposed Village Center Special District. General Plan/Future Land Use Map Amendments. Notice shall be mailed at least seven days prior to the ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 community council public meeting to any property owners within a six- hundred-foot radius of the boundary of the future land use map amendment. e. General Plan/Future Land Use Map Amendments. Notice shall be mailed at least seven days prior to the community council public meeting to any property owners within a six-hundred-foot radius of the boundary of the future land use map amendment. 2. Publication of Notices. Notices shall be published by the following methods, unless otherwise provided for by state statute. a. Mailed notices shall be prepared and mailed by city staff and paid for by the applicant. b. Public notices shall be published on the city's website and on the state's public notice website at least ten days prior to a public hearing, and at least seven days prior to a public meeting. c. A hard copy of any public notice issued by the land use authority shall be posted at city hall at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to a public hearing or a public meeting. 3. Posting on Site. Notification signage shall be posted on the property or land for which a conditional use permit, right-of-way vacation, subdivision plat approval, amendment to a subdivision plat, or zoning or future land use map amendment is considered, at least five days prior to the first public meeting on the matter. Notice shall be posted by the City and shall be clearly visible from the right-of-way. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 Chapter 19.62 – Village Center Special Districts 19.62.010 – Purpose of Provisions. Village Centers are established in the General Plan as smaller centers that include a mixture of neighborhood scale commercial and residential buildings. Buildings should be designed to be compatible with the character of existing buildings within the center. A main focus for the Village Center is to encourage access to, from and within the center by pedestrians and bicyclists. Village Centers should be designed in such a fashion that the preferred modes of transportation to and from the centers are walking, bicycling, and public transit. The purpose of Village Center Special District (VCSD) Zones is to advance the goals and objectives of the Millcreek General Plan to develop Village Centers consisting of master planned, architecturally designed development, with a goal to support village and urban activity centers that allow for people to live, work, shop and play in compact areas. Village Centers must contain a mix of retail commercial, office, and residential uses connected by functional open space and green space. The provisions of this chapter allow for customized zoning requirements in order to permit flexibility and initiative in site development, while adhering to the General Plan framework for Village Centers. 19.62.020 – Applicability and Area Requirements A. Considerations for Establishing a VCSD. It is the intent of Millcreek to restrict the establishment of a VCSD zone to site specific locations which facilitate the creation of Village Centers as defined in the future land use map. B. Minimum District Size. Each VCSD shall be a minimum of 3 contiguous acres in size. C. Minimum Open Space Requirements. Each VCSD shall include publicly accessible open spaces totaling at least 15,000 square feet or 6 percent of the area of the VCSD, whichever is greater. A VCSD may include multiple open spaces, but no single open space shall be less than 8,000 square feet in area. 19.62.30 – Other Zoning Regulations. The use and development of property within a VCSD zone is also subject to other applicable chapters in the zoning ordinance including but not limited to: Off-Street Parking MKZ 19.80, Water Efficient Landscaping MKZ 19.77, Signs MKZ 19.82, Flood Plains MKZ 19.74, and Geologic Hazards MKZ 19.75. 19.62.040 – Pre-Application Process A. Preapplication Meeting. Prior to submitting a complete application, an applicant shall hold a pre-application meeting with representatives of the City. B. Neighborhood Meeting. At least one week prior to submitting a complete application, an applicant shall conduct a neighborhood meeting in accordance with MKZ 19.02.150 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 C. Community Council Meeting. Prior to submitting a complete application and after conducting a neighborhood meeting, an applicant shall schedule with the applicable Community Council a meeting to discuss the proposed application and plans. D. Joint Work Session of the Planning Commission and City Council. Prior to submitting a complete application and after conducting a neighborhood and community council meeting, an applicant shall schedule with the City a joint work session of the Planning Commission and City Council. The purpose of the joint work session will be to discuss the proposed project and potential development agreement in conceptual detail. A Joint Work Session of the Planning Commission and City Council must be held prior to the first noticed Community Council meeting held on the application. 19.62.050 – Application for a VCSD Designation A. Submittal. To establish a VCSD Zone, an application shall be submitted for a text and zoning map amendment as provided in MKZ 19.02.130. The following materials shall be included: 1. Application, Narrative, and Studies. An application and associated fees shall be submitted and reviewed by staff for completeness. An incomplete application, as determined by staff, will be returned to the applicant and not be processed until all information required by the Millcreek Code of Ordinances is provided. The City will provide a list of application requirements. The initial application will generally consist of concept plans with the following minimum requirements: a. The applicant’s name, address, telephone number, email address, and interest in the property. b. The property owner’s name, address, email address, and telephone number, if different than the applicant, and an affidavit from the property owner consenting to the filing of the application. c. A property survey, legal description, property boundaries, right-of-way center lines, utility access, topographical information indicating original ground surface as defined by MKZ 19.04.095, and recorded easements. The survey shall also include the street addresses and legal descriptions of the subject properties. d. The current zoning classification, zoning district boundaries, and present use of the subject property. e. A written explanation of the project that describes the thematic elements of the project, the placemaking concepts, one or more signature features, ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 design and materials, potential users, the project’s relationship to the goals for Village Centers in the General Plan, and other details that will provide reasons that the development will create a long term benefit to the City and proposed techniques to mitigate any anticipated detrimental effects. f. A preliminary traffic study conducted by a qualified traffic consultant in the state of Utah that defines potential traffic generation, the integration of the new development with the adjacent street corridors, traffic capacity/level of service issues on adjacent roads and intersections and suggests mitigation solutions for anticipated traffic congestion problems. The traffic study may also address parking demands, if the applicant believes that the standards found in the Parking Chapter are inappropriate. Traffic and parking studies shall be commissioned by the City and paid for by the applicant. g. A site-specific geologic hazard study and report conducted by a qualified engineer in the state of Utah, if required by MKZ 19.75. h. Other information the City may deem necessary, as described on the application form, for proper review and analysis of an application and its potential detrimental effects. 2. Proposed Zone Text. A proposed zone text, which shall include: a. Proposed Permitted and Conditional Uses b. Use limitations c. Proposed development standards, including: Land use standards establishing mix of land use types, location, and density; Lot standards establishing requirements for lot area and dimensions; Building setback standards from the following shall be included: front, rear, side/interior, right-of-way line, and setbacks from parks, open space, and plazas, if applicable. Design standards addressing building height, building orientation, common and private open space, required and prohibited materials, ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 protection of viewsheds and natural resources, architectural design; Landscaping and buffering standards; and Sign standards and limitations. d. Any exhibits are required by the city. 3. Schematic Site Plan and Exhibits. A Schematic Site Plan and Exhibits, which shall include: a. Location of proposed uses; b. Height, location, and bulk of buildings; c. Location, arrangement, and configuration of open space and building setbacks; d. Location and design of off-street parking areas; e. Location of nearest fire hydrants; f. Location, design, and size of all access points, service access, driveways, and internal circulation; g. Location and size of all pedestrian walkways and paths; h. Number, size, height, and location of all signs; i. Location, type, height, of all outdoor lighting, including details on luminance and lighting operational times; and j. Details on colors and materials. 4. Phased Development Agreements. An application for a multi-phase village center special district may be submitted subject to a phasing plan, whereby future phases are not required to submit a schematic site plan and exhibits. Phasing plans must be submitted concurrently with the land use application. Phased developments must include 5 or more acres. The entirety of a proposed village center special district may be rezoned subject to a phasing plan; however each future phase is subject to a development agreement that is approved by the City through the same procedure used for a zoning map amendment. Preliminary ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 phasing plans are subject to the following standards: a. All phases must be stand-alone. No proposed phase can be dependent on the completion of subsequent phases to be consistent with any required approvals and/or conditions, including, but not limited to: the looping of roads and utilities; the provision of fire flow; and the mitigation of transportation, recreation and/or public services impacts. Landscaping, required open space, and parking improvement must be provided within each phase as required. b. Each phase must include a land area of two acres or greater. c. Phase one of development must include a Schematic Site Plan and Exhibits. d. Each phase including subsequent phases must be accompanied with a development agreement approved by the City. e. Subsequent phases must include a narrative description or table which describes each phase and its associated improvements. f. Any standard established in the adoption of a VCSD zone, including but not limited to allowed uses, building heights, materials, and residential densities, may be further limited by a development agreement for future phases. g. Phasing plan timelines must be approved by the City. 19.62.060 - Adoption and Amendment of a VCSD A. Initial Review. In considering an application for a VCSD zone, the proposed zone text and zoning map amendments may be modified by the city to meet the intent and requirements of this Chapter and may include regulations and standards other than those proposed by the petitioner. B. Review of Reasonably Anticipated Detrimental Effects. Staff will assess the application to determine if any potential detrimental effects require mitigation to include the list of potential issues and standards in MKZ 19.84, that may need to be addressed and mitigated. C. City Council Review and Required Findings. Submittal of an application for the VCSD zone does not guarantee the application will be approved. A zoning map ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 amendment may be approved only if the city council, after receiving a recommendation from the planning commission, finds that the proposed VCSD zone and the associated schematic site plan: 1. Does not conflict with any applicable policy and guidance of the General Plan; 2. Will allow integrated planning and design of the site and, on the whole, better development than would be possible under the strict application of the city’s zoning ordinances; 3. Does not adversely impact existing public utilities, including but not limited to power, gas, telecommunications, storm water, culinary water, or sanitary sewer. D. Map Designation. If a VCSD application is approved, each VCSD zone shall be given a unique name following the designation "XXXX-VCSD" and shall be independent of any other VCSD zone. E. Amendments. Amendments to a VCSD zone, including modifications to a Schematic Site Plan, shall be obtained by following the same procedure required for the original approval. F. Development Agreement. In adopting a VCSD, a development agreement shall be required. “Development Agreement" means an agreement negotiated and entered into by the City with a property owner and/or developer, pursuant to a proposed development within the City. The Agreement must: specify and describe the proposed development through text including any requests for modifications of the ordinance requirements, site plans and elevations detail the amenities and other benefits being provided to the City and its residents utilize a development agreement form approved by the City. The Development Agreement shall run with the land and be binding on all successors and assigns of the property owner or developer; however, each Development Agreement shall include a clause that allows the City to re-zone the property and withdraw from the Development Agreement if the Development Agreement is not recorded within two years of execution of the Agreement. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 19.62A – Olympus Hills West Village Center Special District 19.62A.010 – Purpose The Olympus Hills West Village Center Special District contains approximately 8 acres of land located between I-215 and Wasatch Boulevard, from 3900 South to the I-215 offramp at approximately 4100 South Wasatch Boulevard. The Olympus Hills West VCSD will include any land that the Utah Department of Transportation may surplus as part of a reconfiguration of the 3900 South interchange. The Olympus Hills West VCSD is intended to promote a mixed-use village center district, including a new car dealership, restaurant and neighborhood retail and service uses. The Olympus Hills West-VCSD will feature architecturally compatible buildings, retail and restaurant uses flanking a public plaza, and an updated Wasatch Boulevard Streetscape. The Olympus Hills West-VCSD will be designed to further the goals for village centers identified in the Millcreek General Plan, to include a height transition requirement with the shortest buildings on the south side of the project in order to protect critical viewsheds and an updated Wasatch Boulevard Streetscape to enhance safety and utility for pedestrians and cyclists. The boundaries of the Olympus Hills West-VCSD are indicated in Exhibit A and shall be designated on the Millcreek Zoning Map. ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 19.62A.020 – Permitted and Conditional Uses and Use Limitations Table 19.62A-1: Olympus Hills West-VCSD Permitted and Conditional Uses lists permitted and conditional uses for the commercial zoning districts. indicates that a use is permitted. "DA" indicates that a use is subject to a phased development agreement. Any use listed “DA” may be further limited or eliminated by a development agreement in a future phase. The absence of the use from the table indicates that use is neither a permitted use nor a conditional use within that zoning district. USE Specific Use Standards and Limitations Automobile Sales or Leasing P Must be on a site at least 4 acres in area. Vehicle sales inventories must include new vehicles. Sales of moving trucks, watercraft, mobile homes, travel trailers, campers, and other recreational vehicles prohibited. Vehicle sales inventories must include hybrid or electric vehicles. Automobile Repair P Must be an accessory use to automobile sales and leasing. Automobile service and repair must be conducted inside a building. Office Uses DA See MKZ 19.04. Approval of this use in a subsequent phase is subject to a development agreement. Restaurant DA Drive-through uses are prohibited. Approval of this use in a subsequent phase is subject to a development agreement. Neighborhood Retail Uses DA See MKZ 19.04. Drive-through uses are prohibited. Approval of this use in a subsequent phase is subject to a development agreement. Neighborhood Service Uses DA See MKZ 19.04. Drive-through uses are prohibited. Approval of this use in a subsequent phase is subject to a development agreement. Residential Condominiums or PUDs DA Condominiums or PUDs may be approved as part of a mixed use development. Condominiums are subject to MKZ 18.30, and Planned Unit Developments are subject to MKZ 19.78. Approval of this use in a subsequent phase is subject to a development agreement. Mixed Use DA Mixed use developments may include residential uses, but must include office, restaurant, neighborhood retail, or neighborhood service uses on the ground floor of a mixed use building. Maximum density of residential units allowed determined by development standards. Approval of this use in a subsequent phase is subject to a development agreement. Prohibited uses include: A. Sales of retail tobacco as a principal use. ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 B. Non-Depository Financial Institutions. C. Secondhand Stores. D. Self-storage facilities of all types, including mini-storage units, neighborhood storage and temperature controlled storage facilities. 19.62A.030 – Development Standards A. Automobile Sales. The primary commercial use in the Olympus Hills West-VCSD shall be the sales and leasing of new automobiles. Automobile Sales shall be located in the southernmost four acres of the Olympus Hills West-VCSD and shall be configured as shown on the site plan located in the Exhibit B. 1. All buildings including accessory structures shall incorporate a similar architectural theme as depicted in Exhibit C and shall be predominantly metal panel and glass. Design elements shall be used to add interest on all visible sides of buildings. 2. All building facades facing Wasatch Boulevard shall consist of at least 10 percent glass. Stucco is prohibited on any façade. 3. One auto dealership building that shall not exceed 46,000 square feet in footprint that includes office spaces, service area and bays, and auto display areas. The auto dealership building shall include a showroom that does not exceed 20,000 square feet in area. 4. The minimum setback as measured from the Wasatch Boulevard right-of-way shall be no less than 25 feet. All other setbacks are described in the Exhibit B. 5. The showroom portion of the building shall be no taller than 36 feet as measured from the final engineered grade of the grading and drainage plan. 6. The service portion of the dealership building shall be no taller than 28 feet as measured from the final engineered grade of the grading and drainage plan. 7. Maximum lot coverage shall not exceed 30% of the site. 8. Vehicle displays. No car displays shall block minimum required clear vision areas at driveway intersections or block lanes for public safety, egress or fire access. No vehicles may be displayed on elevated pedestals. 9. Security For Display Vehicles. To the extent deemed necessary by individual dealers, curb walls no higher than sixteen inches closely spaced concrete bollards, berms, low security fencing and rails may be used. Design must be compatible with project theme and architectural detailing in other parts of the site. ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 10. Parts Storage Areas. Parts storage areas shall be provided within buildings. 11. Storage for lithium-ion batteries must be stored outside the main building and shall meet and obtain Unified Fire Approval Standards. 12. Staff recommendation: Deliveries of vehicle sales inventory and other goods associated with the dealership and service operation shall occur on the dealership property. Delivery of vehicle sales inventory and other goods associated with the dealership and service operation is prohibited in any public right-of-way. 13. Access and Internal Circulation. a. Driveway Access: Except where otherwise required for compliance with applicable codes and for fire lanes, driveways shall be a minimum of twenty-four feet (24') wide and all drives shall have a minimum 12.5- foot radius. b. Service Area Access: Service areas shall have sufficient stacking lanes on site to stack a minimum of one vehicle per service lane. Stacking lanes shall not block flow of traffic or fire access lanes. 14. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view, either by enclosure or parapet wall. 15. Dumpsters shall be enclosed within a decorative masonry enclosure designed to be compatible with overall project building and fence materials. 16. No portion of the site devoted to automobile sales may be sold or leased for any other purpose. B. Village Retail, Restaurant, and Plaza. Village Retail and Restaurant uses will function as a buffer and transition between the automobile sales use and a multifamily or office use, and are subject to a development agreement. Standards in this section may be further limited pursuant to MKZ 19.62.050 Village retail and restaurant uses shall be either a predominant feature along Wasatch Boulevard or shall flank a public plaza located between the automobile sales use and the multifamily use. A public plaza must be at least 10,000 square feet in area. Public Plazas shall follow the applicable design standards as set forth in MKZ 19.73.070(O). 1. Except as provided below, village retail and restaurants shall follow the applicable building design standards as set forth in MKZ 19.73.070 2. Village retail may be located on the ground floor of a multifamily building. Retail and restaurant uses combined must be a minimum of 3,000 square feet in area, and restaurant uses shall be at least 1,500 square feet in area. 3. Retail spaces shall be a minimum of 30 feet in depth as measured perpendicular to the right-of-way or plaza. ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 4. Transparent windows or doors are required for at least 50 percent of the retail frontage. 5. Restaurant uses adjacent to public plaza must include at least 300 sf of outdoor seating area. Seating area may be within public plaza area. 6. No portion of the site devoted to village retail, restaurant, or plaza uses may be sold or leased for any other purpose. C. Multifamily and Office. Multifamily and Office uses are allowed on a portion of the property as part of a mixed use development, within 700 feet of the south right-of-way line of 3900 South. Multifamily and office uses are subject to a development agreement. Standards in this section may be further limited pursuant to MKZ 19.62.050 Multifamily uses in the Olympus Hills West VCSD Multifamily development shall be constructed in a manner that facilitates conversion to a residential condominium in the future. Any approval of a Planned Unit Development or Condominium will require review of a site plan by the Millcreek Planning Commission. 1. Except as provided below, multifamily and office buildings shall follow the applicable building design standards as set forth in MKZ 19.73.070 2. Planning Commission Recommendation: Maximum building height shall not exceed 35 feet as measured from original ground surface at the northeast corner of Parcel 2 as depicted in Exhibit A. MApplicant’s Requested Alternative: Maximum building height shall not exceed 42 feet as measured from original ground surface at the northeast corner of Parcel 2 as depicted in Exhibit A. 3. The following features may exceed the maximum building height but in no case be over 7 feet from the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or the highest gable of a pitched roof. a. Elevators, stairways, ventilating fans, or similar equipment required to operate and maintain the building. b. No space above the height limit shall be allowed for the purpose of providing additional habitable floor space. 4. Buildings shall not exceed 200 feet in length. 5. Façade articulation. All buildings shall be designed with the following articulation: a. Visual breaks along the street-facing façade such as horizontal articulation in the plane of the façade by at least 2 feet. b. Change in height at the top of the building by at least 3 feet for every 50 feet of façade length. c. Changes in materials, color, texture or pattern for greater than 50% of the building facade. ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 d. Indentations/recesses at least 3 feet in depth along the street facing facades at 50-foot intervals. e. Building greater than 200 feet in length shall include indentations/recesses of at least 6 feet in depth along the street facing facades at 50-foot intervals. 6. Setbacks. With the exception of the Public Plaza area, the following minimum setbacks shall apply: a. Wasatch Boulevard right-of-way line shall be 20 feet. b. 3900 South right-of-way line shall be 15 feet. c. All interior and side property lines shall be 10 feet. d. Rear property line shall be 10 feet. 7. Windows shall constitute at least 50 percent of first floor street-facing facades, and 25 percent of all upper story facades. 8. Residential amenities shall include the following: a. Terrace Open Space of at least 100 square feet/per unit. b. Shared Public Plaza c. Indoor Amenities approved by the Planning Director or designee. 9. No portion of the site devoted to multifamily or office uses may be sold or leased for any other purpose. D. Building Materials and Color. Building materials and color are limited to the materials and colors described below. 1. Permitted primary materials for street facing facades, including facades facing plaza area include architectural metal panel, glass, carbonized wood, brick or stone, mass timber or other durable natural wood siding. 2. Permitted accent materials include any permitted primary material; board-formed concrete; corrugated metal panels or siding; and weathered steel panels or siding. 3. Building materials such as integrally colored concrete masonry and architectural tile may be used for facades that do not face a street or plaza. 4. The use of stucco or EIFS is prohibited as use as a material. 5. Materials and colors used for the Automobile Sales building and accessory structures shall be substantially as depicted in the Exhibit. 6. Materials and colors for the village retail and office or multifamily buildings shall be substantially as depicted in Exhibit D. E. Fencing. 1. Fencing is required to screen any utilities or vehicle service or inventory areas. 2. Excluding frontages along vehicle service inventory areas, no fencing of any kind will be allowed along Wasatch Boulevard or 3900 South frontage. 3. Permitted materials for fencing include pre-cast masonry, stone, or weathering steel. ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 F. Lighting. 1. The applicant must submit a photometric plan for review which indicates the type and location of lights in relation to the development and designed for pedestrian safety. 2. Direct lighting shall not exceed the boundaries of the premises. 3. Lighting fixtures shall be oriented to focus light within the property lines and shall not cause light spillage onto adjacent properties, interfering with the lawful use and enjoyment of those properties. 4. Fixture height shall not exceed 25 feet. 5. All interior streets and parking lots including travel lanes shall be dark sky compliant and shall be designed to achieve appropriate illumination levels for safety and security while minimizing light pollution. 6. Glare Control: Fixtures shall be designed and installed to minimize direct glare into adjacent properties, roadways, and pedestrian areas. 7. Shielding: All outdoor lighting fixtures shall be shielded or directed in a way that prevents light spillage beyond the property boundaries and reduces 8. Timers and Sensors: All outdoor lighting shall be equipped with timers, motion sensors, or other automated control mechanisms that allow for dimming 9. Lighting Measurement and Boundary Limitations. For the purposes of this chapter, “Average Foot Candle” is the unit of measurement representing the amount of light falling on a surface from a standard candle placed one foot away over a specified area. a. Average Foot Candle measurement shall be taken at ground level from the outside boundaries of the premises. b. The maximum allowed “Average Foot Candle” shall not exceed 0.2 as measured from the outside boundaries of the premises. c. Operational Requirements. The following operational requirements shall apply: a. Parking Lot Area Lighting: Dimmed to 50% at 9:00pm to 6am. b. Building Facade Lighting: Dimmed to 50% at 9:00pm to 6am. G. Landscaping 1. Landscaping of parking lots and required buffers shall follow the requirements of MKZ 19.77. 2. Landscaping shall incorporate plant species that are native or endemic to northern Utah. 3. Turf grass is limited to 25% of overall landscaping and shall not be installed along any streetscape. 4. The Planning Director or designee can reduce planter bed widths and up to 25% to accommodate unusual circumstances. 5. Landscaping shall be installed substantially as depicted in the Exhibit E. ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 H. Wasatch Boulevard Streetscape 1. Street Trees. The project shall include a consistent species of trees, planted every 30 feet on center. Trees shall be planted at a minimum of 3-inch caliper. a. Species of street trees shall be determined Millcreek. 2. Wasatch Boulevard streetscape shall be installed substantially as depicted in the Exhibit E. 3. Streetlights. The project shall include street lighting as approved by the City Engineer. I. Signs 1. Automobile Sales a. Ground Signs. The automobile sales use may be allowed one ground sign, not to exceed eight 32 sf in area and feet in height. b. Wall signs. The automobile sales use may be allowed up to one sign on the east and west facades, each sign not to exceed 132 sf in area. Wall signs must consist of logos or individual pan channel letters. c. The design and locations of the signs shall be substantially as depicted in the Exhibit F. 2. Village Retail and Restaurant a. Wall signs. Each retail or restaurant use may be allowed up to one wall sign, unless the use occupies a building corner, in which case the use may be allowed one wall sign per façade. Wall signs shall not exceed 32 sf in area. 3. Mixed Use a. Wall signs. Multifamily use may be allowed up to one wall sign per façade that faces either a street or I-215. Wall signs shall not exceed 32 sf in area. 4. General Requirements. a. Wall signs must consist of logos or individual pan channel letters. b. Any sign not expressly listed in this section is prohibited. c. Temporary signage is prohibited. 19.62A.040 Minimum Lot Size and Land Lease Size Except for residential and commercial condominiums, the minimum lot size for any development or any land lease in the Olympus Hills West VCSD shall be 1.5 acres. ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 19.62A.050 Exhibits A. Legal Description and Property Survey A parcel of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian. Said parcel of land being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Westerly Right-of-Way line of Wasatch Boulevard, said point also being South 0°14'55” West 277.04 feet and West 49.91 feet from the Northeast Corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; and running thence along said Westerly Right-of-Way line the following two courses: South 00°13'44" West 300.33 feet; Southerly 367.96 feet along the arc of a 1,859.86 foot radius curve to the right (center bears North 89°35'22" West and the chord bears South 06°04'42" West 367.36 feet with a central angle of 11°20'08"); thence South 89°38'15" West 23.00 feet; thence Southerly 60.96 feet along the arc of a 1,847.86 foot radius curve to the right (center bears North 76°54'39" West and the chord bears South 14°02'03" West 60.96 feet with a central angle of 01°53'25"); thence West 187.44 feet; thence North 02°10'03" East 426.62 feet; thence North 00°13'44" East 298.59 feet; thence East 248.00 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 174,241 Square Feet or 4.000 Acres. (Phase 1) A parcel of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian. Said parcel of land being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Westerly Right-of-Way line of Wasatch Boulevard, said point also being South 0°14'55” West 277.04 feet and West 49.91 feet from the Northeast Corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; and running thence West 248.00 feet; thence North 00°13'44" East 357.04 feet to the Southerly Right-of-Way line of Interstate-215; thence along said Southerly Right-of-Way line the following two courses:(1) East 118.16 feet;(2) North 72°53'50" East 136.01 feet to the Westerly Right-of-Way line of Wasatch Boulevard; thence South 00°13'44" West 397.04 feet along said Westerly Right-of-Way line to the point of beginning. Contains 91,143 Square Feet or 2.092 Acres. (Phase 2) ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 B. Automobile Sales Site Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 C. Automobile Sales Building Materials ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 D. Multifamily/Mixed Use Building Materials ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 E. Landscaping ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 F. Signs ---PAGE BREAK--- Minutes of the Millcreek Planning Commission September 20, 2023 5:00 p.m. Regular Meeting The Planning Commission of Millcreek, Utah, met in a regular public meeting on Wednesday, September 20, 2023, at City Hall, located at 3330 S. 1300 Millcreek, UT 84106. The meeting was conducted electronically and live streamed via the City’s website with an option for online public comment. PRESENT: Commissioners City Staff Shawn LaMar, Chair Elyse Sullivan, City Recorder Victoria Reid, Vice Chair Francis Lilly, Planning & Zoning Director Steven Anderson Robert May, Long Range Planning Manager David Hulsberg Carlos Estudillo, Planner Christian Larsen Ryan Bagshaw, Dev. Review Coordinator Nils Per Lofgren (excused) Jake Green, Planning Engineer (electronic) Diane Soule Kurt Hansen, Facilities Director Dwayne Vance Brad Sanderson, Current Planning Manager Ian Wright (excused) Attendees: Rick Kramer (electronic), Trevor Arthur (electronic), Jennifer Smithey (electronic), Mitch Pierce (electronic), Josh Gibbons (electronic), Nancy Carlson-Gotts, Peter Staks, Richard Dunn, Stephanie Buehner, Jim Siirola, Jeff Charlotte Copinga, Jemina Keller, Heather Hadley, David McKnight, Brett Hadley, Anna Clare Shepherd, Earl Shepherd, Tom Stephens, Craig Weir, Barb Barnes, Vince Coley, David Shapiro, John Melville, Elmer Anderson, Ivana Moore, Ford Hauber, AJ Shaffer, Bob Babcock, Deborah Luker, Mary Bowman, Michael Skorney, Jan Cameron, Shonnie Hays, Steve Pohlmen, Susan Pohlmen, Helene Cuomo, Jonny Mecham, Abbey Tyler, Andrew Greeves, Scott Howell, Glenn Boschetto, Bryan McRae, Kris Shiozaki, Karianne Prince, Lori Decker, Danee Young, Teri Dibble, LeeAnn Hansen, Mark Edwards, Chuck Pruitt, Joe Sandall, Page Tyler, Ben Lowry, Thomas Wadsworth, Joe Sandall, Goddard, Chris Zarek, Michael Maledon, Gavin Pierce REGULAR MEETING – 5:00 p.m. TIME COMMENCED – 5:05 p.m. Chair LaMar called the meeting to order and read a statement describing the duties of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Larsen moved to consider items 1.3 and 1.4 first. Commissioner Hulsberg seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. Chair LaMar voted yes, Commissioner Reid voted yes, Commissioner Anderson voted yes, Commissioner Hulsberg voted yes, Commissioner Larsen voted yes, Commissioner Soule voted yes, and Commissioner Vance voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20 September 2023 Page 2 of 17 1. Public Hearings 1.3 Consideration of SD-22-013, Request to Convert 7 Attached Two-Family Buildings into 14 Individual Units through a Condominium Subdivision Plat Location: 4321 S 500 E Applicant: AJ Shaffer Planner: Brad Sanderson Brad Sanderson said the site consisted of seven twin homes built in the 1970s. The 14 units were referred to as Maplegardens. The proposal was to subdivide the property into a condominium plat for the purpose of creating common area and individual unit ownership. Only minor improvements would be made to the property, parking lot resurfacing and restriping, updated landscaping, and new sidewalks, curb, and gutter. He showed the commission the proposed plat. The public utility easements and other cross access easements would be recorded via the subdivision plat and there would be dedication along 500 East per the Millcreek Transportation Plan. The required inspections had been conducted and the Millcreek Building Department and Unified Fire Authority recommended approval of the application. Sanderson acknowledged a few phone calls and an email from the public he had received on the project. An encroachment agreement was needed for the existing fence on 500 E. and staff would work that out with the applicant. Staff recommended approval of the application. Chair LaMar asked if the fire access removed guest parking in the northeast corner. Sanderson said the parking would be restriped to accommodate. The applicant declined to add further comment. Chair LaMar opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Chair LaMar closed the public hearing. Commissioner Larsen expressed appreciation for owner occupancy. Commissioner Larsen moved that the Planning Commission approve SD-22-013, Request to Convert 7 Attached Two-Family Buildings into 14 Individual Units through a Condominium Subdivision Plat at 4321 S 500 E. Commissioner Vance seconded with the clarification that the motion was based on findings and conclusions as presented in the staff report. Commissioner Larsen accepted the amendment. Chair LaMar called for the vote. Chair LaMar voted yes, Commissioner Reid voted yes, Commissioner Anderson voted yes, Commissioner Hulsberg voted yes, Commissioner Larsen voted yes, Commissioner Soule voted yes, and Commissioner Vance voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. 1.4 Consideration of EX-23-002, Request for an Exception to Install Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Location: 3345 S Oakwood Street Applicants: Summer and Andrew Greaves Planner: Francis Lilly Francis Lilly, presenting on behalf of Sean Murray, said the Greaves were building a home on Oakwood Street in the R-1-8 Zone. The property was also in the Evergreen Historic District, which is a district listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Millcreek code ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20 September 2023 Page 3 of 17 provides that sidewalk, curb, and gutter shall be installed with any new development, however, there is a provision for exceptions to those standards. Those exceptions/deferrals are approved by the mayor upon receiving recommendations from the planning commission and Millcreek Public Works Director. Lilly showed pictures of the existing street without any improvements and the site plan for the proposed house. The new home was designed to be compatible with the historic character of the neighborhood. Lilly said the Public Works Director noted there had been requests for sidewalks in the neighborhood, and the road was in poor condition and lack of sidewalk would continue to deteriorate the road. He did not recommend granting a deferral. The East Mill Creek Community Council did recommend a sidewalk exception. The Historic Preservation Commission recommended the sidewalk exception or deferral be granted. Lilly said typically the mayor requests a sidewalk deferral instead of an exception, which means that the agreement would be recorded on title and the property owner at the time would be required to install sidewalk if the city requested it. The advantage is that the drainage issues could be remedied if needed. The applicant declined to add further comment. Chair LaMar opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Chair LaMar closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vance said the deferral agreement was a good idea. Commissioner Soule agreed. Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend EX-23-002, request for an exception to install curb, gutter, and sidewalk on Oakwood Street, that we recommend the mayor approve a deferral agreement. Commissioner Larsen seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. Chair LaMar voted yes, Commissioner Reid voted yes, Commissioner Anderson voted yes, Commissioner Hulsberg voted yes, Commissioner Larsen voted yes, Commissioner Soule voted yes, and Commissioner Vance voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. 1.1 Consideration of ZT-23-010, Request for a Village Center Special District (VCSD) Enabling Ordinance Planner: Robert May Robert May said as part of the zoning code update, staff was preparing a Village Center Special District (VCSD) Zone. A VCSD is a vehicle to write specific zone standards for each of the various village centers described in the Millcreek General Plan in a way that ensures a master-planned development with consistent design standards. This zone would allow staff to implement use requirements that are more detailed and more responsive to the needs of each village center, require specific design standards, and customize zoning requirements. He highlighted identified village centers in the General Plan as being on Murray Holladay Road and 4500 South, 2300 E. and 3300 and Olympus Hills. Other potential village centers included 3900 S. and 1300 3900 S. and 900 Canyon Rim Shopping area, 4500 S. and 900 4500 S. and Highland Drive, and 2300 E. and 2800 S. He rhetorically asked why the city would not just use a commercial zone and what the VCSD would accomplish. May ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20 September 2023 Page 4 of 17 answered that the VCSD allows the city to define the manner in which significant redevelopment occurs; create distinct centers based on particular uses, unique materials, special limits on signage, quality public spaces, and one of a kind streetscapes; incorporate specific design standards and use regulations that typically are not found in base commercial zones; and aggressively pursue high quality development design and view preservation in village centers. Lilly illustrated how future phase development agreements would work within a VCSD Zone with an image of a framed pole barn. The framing included labels such as building heights, allowed uses, community input and community council and planning commission recommendations, project narrative, public spaces and streetscapes, and required materials. Inside the building framework was a box for future phase development agreements. Some of the village centers are very large, so it was unlikely that all of it would redevelop at the same time. The VCSD allows the community council, planning commission, and city council discretion. The VCSD gives policy guidance on future phases. Lilly said the Holladay Town Center, new park in Kimball Junction, Draper Peaks, and Millcreek’s city center were examples of village centers with a special zoning district. May rhetorically asked, “How can we ensure that produce quality development?” The answers included a minimum development size of 4 acres and public open space before qualifying for a rezone to a VCSD. Requiring a narrative discussing unique design elements, proposed limitations on heights and uses, and a schematic site plan that would be adopted as part of the rezone, as well as a traffic study. Applying a development agreement and future development agreements for phased projects. Proposing public processes beyond what is typically required for a rezone or a General Plan amendment. He then asked if the General Plan supported the VCSD concept. He said strategies 9.5, 1.4, and 3.2 did. May reported that staff found the proposed VCSD ordinance allows for each village center to harness its own unique traits and be planned individually, ensuring that its distinctive features are maintained; helps create purposeful development in a designated area, ensuring that resources and attention are dedicated to creating vibrant gathering areas; can provide incentives and regulations that encourage entrepreneurship and the establishment of unique, locally-owned shops and restaurants, as well as broadening the city’s tax base and creating high quality jobs; promotes an enhanced community involvement process, allowing residents to have a say in the design and development of their gathering areas; and helps allocate meaningful public open spaces, green spaces, including cultural and artistic spaces, and adding vibrancy to the village center and community. May reviewed the community council recommendations. The Millcreek Community Council recommended approval of the zone with the condition that visiting the community council be added to the pre-application process. The Canyon Rim Citizens Association and East Mill Creek Community Council recommended approval of the zone. The Mt. Olympus Community Council recommended approval of the zone with the condition to lower the minimum district size to 3 acres and add a notification requirement extending parameters to 1 mile. Staff recommended approval of the proposed zone based on the findings in the staff report and presentation. ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20 September 2023 Page 5 of 17 Commissioner Vance asked about the minimum size of 4 acres and what the three identified village centers consisted of. He worried about spot zoning. May said Olympus Hills was 14 acres, Canyon Rim was 16 acres, and Murray Holladay was about 20 acres. Commissioner Vance asked about the potential village center sizes. May said about 1 or 2 acres according to the General Plan, but he was unsure. Commissioner Vance worried that those centers were not large enough to qualify for the zone. He asked where 4 acres came from. May said it was originally 5. Commissioner Soule asked why Mt. Olympus Community Council recommended 3 acres. May did not know, but thought it was to not eliminate smaller developments. Commissioner Soule wondered why the city would limit potential village centers since there were smaller ones listed. She asked about the commercial zoning in other potential village centers with respect to billboards. Lilly said commercial zoning in the Olympus Hills area would be unique because it fronted a highway. Commissioner Soule communicated that each village center district could do their own thing with their own community councils. Lilly confirmed. Chair LaMar asked what the current noticing requirements were. May said 600 feet for rezones and 300 feet for subdivisions. Lilly said most cities did not notice more than 600 feet. The purpose of the public notice is to ascertain proximate neighborhood impacts for traffic. Those noticed are arguably most affected by the changes. Commissioner Reid said the village center objective was to serve the local neighborhood, so a larger notice may make sense. Commissioner Vance was concerned with the size of spot zoning for a single use. He said the village center implies more than a single use and wondered how the code covered that. May said the intent was to get something the community wants. Lilly said staff could change the text in the purpose statement to include a mix of uses. Kumar Shah, Mt. Olympus Community Council, said Millcreek’s vision statement states, “…community where residents and businesses are empowered to respectfully engage and interact with each other…” He said he was not in attendance at the September 11th Mt. Olympus Community Council meeting, but he heard it was chaotic and hurtful things were said. He said we should be getting along with each other, and he apologized to Millcreek staff and David Baird. Chair LaMar opened the public hearing. Jemina Keller expressed favor for the application. Tom Stephens said the reason for the Mt. Olympus Community Council recommendation to extend the radius of the public notice was that with a particular application only 150(ish) residences were notified. Helene Cuomo would like to see a guarantee in writing that there will be green space in the zone. Bob Babcock expressed favor for the application. He appreciated that the community councils were involved in the approval process. Page Tyler said she was fatigued from the noise and dust in Mt. Olympus and asked when construction would be completed. Lilly gave her his business card to follow up. ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20 September 2023 Page 6 of 17 Scott Howell supported the concept. He said factual, not contentious, conversations should be had. He said Murray City had benefited from Larry H. Miller car dealerships. There was a housing crisis in the state of Utah, so multifamily housing was needed. He gave an unsupported figure of how much revenue the city would receive from the Porsche dealership (next application). Elyse Sullivan read a comment received online from Jamie Allyn. “I recently learned that the draft ZT-23-010 enabling ordinance has been offered to the Planning Commission in amended form from the draft that was presented to the East Millcreek Community Council. Significantly, 19.62.050(A)(4) Phased Development Agreements was not included in the draft for which the Community Council deliberated and issued a positive recommendation. This language modifies the requirements of 19.62.050(A)(3) Schematic Site Plans and Exhibits, weakening the ordinance from my perspective. Questions: 1. Should the altered nature of the draft nullify or temper the recommendation that was issued? 2. If the language was added in response to voiced opposition (procedural and otherwise) to the ZM-23-004 specific VCSD rezone, isn't this a case of the tail wagging the dog? Would the city have sought to change the language if ZT-23-010 was a stand-alone proposition undertaken prior to any site- specific influences?” Ben Lowry said his involvement in the Canyon Rim community council was in part to help the area find its identity. The VCSD gives identity. It was hard to create identity before the city incorporated. He supported VCSD because it provided identity in different parts of the city. Each area deserved thoughtful, collaborative, and equitable design. Glenn Boschetto said he received notification of this meeting on social media and felt the 600 radii should be extended. Earl Shepherd asked if staff would have sole discretion in the VCSD. He did not feel anyone should have sole discretion in the village planning. A resident who preferred not to be named said the community needed to have input on projects. She felt a restaurant with a liquor license was better than a Best Buy. Jan Cameron felt the VCSD should serve the local neighborhood and the community should get what it wants. She asked how the community provided input. Craig Weir expressed concern about the lack of sidewalks near the Olympus Hills Shopping Center for all the surrounding schools. He thought village centers should include a space for youth to spend time. Douglas, a Canyon Rim resident, asked if there would be separate meetings for the individual village center proposals. Chair LaMar said yes. Commissioner Reid said this application would apply to all village centers and any project within a village center would have a separate application. Chair LaMar closed the public hearing. ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20 September 2023 Page 7 of 17 Chair LaMar asked if anything built would be required to install sidewalk, curb, and gutter. May confirmed. Chair LaMar said the city notified the public of projects in the Millcreek electronic newsletter, website, and social media, in addition to the public mailers. Lilly said the sole discretion was a legal term in regard to the development agreement being approved by the city council. He said getting an application to the city council required a robust public process. Chair LaMar asked about a construction timeline brought up in public comment. May did not know where the referenced construction dust was coming from. Chair LaMar asked about the open space issue raised in public comment. May said each village center required gathering areas. Commissioner Reid felt the purpose section of the proposed code was not strong enough, there should be language from the General Plan. She asked if economics was considered a purpose of the village center. Lilly said yes, it was an objective in the General Plan. Commissioner Reid wanted a way for economics to be evaluated. She asked about second phases not needing a schematic site plan, developments being 5 or more acres needing to be changed, and each phase being able to stand on its own without reliance on subsequent phases. She felt the next application violated the stand-alone phase component in accomplishing gathering and open spaces. She felt mailed notifications radii should be extended. May said when future phases were developed, it would require schematics then, not necessarily when the first phase was approved. Commissioner Hulsberg read that “landscaping and parking improvement must be provided in each phase as required…” Lilly said that was the intent, each phase would have the required site improvements not necessarily the full mix of uses. Commissioner Reid said if phase two was never built, how the objectives would be achieved. Lilly said a development agreement would include the entire property, including future phases that describes the developer’s commitment to act on future phases in a reasonable timeframe and allows the city to downzone for failure to do so. Chair LaMar suggested striking “sole discretion” of the city from the development agreement section of the proposed code. Commissioner Soule said green space should not be concrete and asked about forcing a minimum percentage of green space. She asked about drive- throughs being prohibited when there already were some in the Mt. Olympus Shopping Center. Lilly said the village center would not extend to the east side of Wasatch Blvd. May said there would be legal non-conforming uses in other potential village centers. The presumption is that the use will be replaced as it redevelops, not get rid of the drive-throughs all at once. Commissioner Larsen agreed on bulking up the purpose language with the General Plan and a mix of uses, and a percentage of green space or enhanced landscaping for smaller sites, and he was okay with 3-4 acres site sizes. He said increasing the noticing distance would be beneficial, but 1 mile was too large and would prefer to see a ¼ or ½ mile radius. He supported the village center concept and the ordinance. Chair LaMar brought up needing a remedy for future phases if they were not completed. Commissioner Reid asked about schematics for phase 2. Chair LaMar said there would be a schematic when it was ready to be developed. Commissioner Larsen pointed out that was how the city center developed. The development agreements would require subsequent phases to occur. Commissioner Larsen moved to recommend adoption of the proposed VCSD ordinance ZT-23-010 to the city council based on the details in the staff report and the findings identified by staff with the following changes or additions: adding to the purpose language a mix of retail, commercial, office or business uses, directly from the General Plan, ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20 September 2023 Page 8 of 17 requiring language that enforces subsequent phases as part of a development agreement with remedies if they do not occur, increase the noticing distance to a quarter mile, remove the “sole discretion” language from the city, require percentage of green space or enhanced landscaping, and decrease the minimum acreage from 4 to 3 acres. Commissioner Reid requested the purpose section include the language from the General Plan that has to do with the intended purpose to, “serve residents of the surrounding neighborhood.” Commissioner Larsen accepted the amendment to the motion. Commissioner Hulsberg seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. Chair LaMar voted yes, Commissioner Reid voted yes, Commissioner Anderson voted yes, Commissioner Hulsberg voted yes, Commissioner Larsen voted yes, Commissioner Soule voted yes, and Commissioner Vance voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Vance recommended adoption but without the changes of required percentage of green space, removing the terms “sole discretion,” or changing the site minimum to 3 acres. The commission took a break from 6:52-7:02pm. 1.2 Consideration of ZM-23-004, Rezone Request from R-1-8 to VCSD to Accommodate a Mixed Use Center Including a High-End Car Dealership and Public Space/Mixed Use with Commercial Location: 3942, 3944, 4072, 4074 S Wasatch Boulevard Applicant: Mile High 901, LLC Planner: Robert May Francis Lilly said a potential village center application had been received by the group that owns the Porsche dealership in Salt Lake City. They were seeking to rezone property located at approximately 4074 South Wasatch Boulevard from an R-1-8 Zone to a Village Center Special District (VCSD) to accommodate a mixed-use center that would include a high-end car dealership on the south side of the property and a mixed-use commercial development with public open space on the north side of the property. The village center site would be the Mt. Olympus Village Center which would include the Mt. Olympus Shopping Center and be bisected by Wasatch Blvd. He showed an image and described the site characteristics of the area. The east side had a 14-acre shopping center with 8 commercial street accesses, then a 100-foot right-of-way five-lane cross section of Wasatch Blvd. with a soft shoulder and unimproved west side, and then I-215. There were 10,000 daily vehicle trips, 4,000 daily bicycle trips, a bus hub, freeway access, and intense peak demands due to Skyline High School and freeway commutes on Wasatch Blvd. Lilly said the subject property is approximately 8 acres wedged between an arterial road and an interstate highway, west of the Olympus Hills Shopping Center. The UDOT on-ramp property to the north of the property was currently un-zoned. In the unknown future, UDOT hoped to decommission the ramp and add a new ramp to the south of the subject property. That probably would not happen until the bridge to 4500 S. was replaced. The subject site property owner has the right of first refusal to purchase the ramp property (2 acres) when UDOT sells it. The rezone request was split into 3 phases. The first phase would be the southern 4 acres for the Porsche dealership. Phase 2 was north of the dealership, and would have mixed use, and come back to the city through a public process with the VCSD framework and a development agreement. Lilly said it made sense to include phase 3 because of the right of first refusal, and it would follow the same approval process. A future phased development agreement may be more constrained than the VCSD Zone. He said multiple ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20 September 2023 Page 9 of 17 developers had attempted to propose numerous other uses on the site that did not fit the village center plan within the General Plan. Lilly showed the site schematic for the proposed dealership which included a 55,000 square foot building, 64,000 square foot parking structure, and 338 onsite parking stalls which included inventory and display spaces. May said this use included auto sales and service bays. Lilly showed an elevation of the building, 35 feet tall, and an image of what the building would look like on the site. He said there would be no inflatable gorillas or signs for advertising. He showed a rendering of what the building would look like from Apollo Drive. The developer attempted to minimally impact the view from the eastern neighborhood of Wasatch Blvd. Lilly said the phase 2 concept was updated based on feedback from the community council meetings. The concept now included parking below grade, a publicly accessible plaza, pocket park, and/or public square, office and neighborhood commercial (preferably a coffee shop or restaurant lining the plaza and anchoring the development), small-scale residential integrated into the mixed use building, and building heights averaging 35-45 feet, all of which would be subject to a phase 2 development agreement with an enhanced community engagement process. Phase 3 would be regulated under these same standards. He said there was a material palette, catered to the request of a member of the Mt. Olympus Community Council, which reflected similar material to that of the Utah Natural History Museum. Lilly said the proposed uses and limitations were similar to other zones. The Olympus Hills West Village Center Special District proposes multifamily and commercial retail and office, and restaurants that are distinct and inviting to a village center. This village center would include a high-end automobile dealership with specific design standards and limitations. He showed the code requirements for development standards. The lighting in the proposal exceeds the Millcreek code standards and modeled the strict requirements of the Palm Springs Porsche dealership. The only sign allowed would be illustrated in the development agreement exhibit. The goal for phase 2, is that if you can see over Macey’s, you can see over the development to the west. The benchmark height would be measured from the existing grade of Wasatch Blvd. He noted the subject site dips below Wasatch Blvd towards I-215. May showed the commission the conceptual landscape plan which included 44 deciduous trees, 24 evergreen trees, and 11 ornamental trees. The Wasatch Blvd. Master Plan provided the breakdown for the right-of-way which included a multi-use path, park strip, and bike lane. This would be approximately 1,500 feet along the frontage of the site. He said a trip generation study had been conducted with the land uses that were calculated based on assumptions from previous site plans prior to the Porsche dealership and mixed-use conditions. Approximately 10,000 square feet of retail was assumed, office use was 21,000 square feet, and remaining residential was assumed on previous site plans which equated to approximately 80 units. The trip generation for the Porsche lot was based on counts from the Littleton, Colorado Porsche location, which has approximately the same square footage as the proposed Millcreek location. Counts were taken at the access points during the morning (8-10am) and evening peak hours (4-6pm). The counted rates were approximately 60% less than the rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for the land use “automobile sales (new),” which was approximately the same ratio found from previous counts at a ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20 September 2023 Page 10 of 17 Porche/Audi dealership in Lehi, Utah. The trip generation for the dealership was 570 daily trips, 36 morning peak hour trips, and 50 evening peak hour trips. The trip generation for the mixed use was 1,070 daily trips, 88 morning peak hour trips, and 129 evening peak hour trips. The traffic engineer’s recommendations were provided in the staff report. He noted that the proposed Porsche dealership did not warrant a traffic signal at the central access until the 2-acre mixed-use development (phase 2) was implemented. Another note to consider was that the traffic signal at the central access and south access point would improve the level of service at those intersections where it currently fails. He said after the community council meeting, staff had the engineer revise some projections. Lilly went over fiscal considerations and pie charts. He said the General Plan calls out essential open space and quality of life goals that cost money. The city’s property tax receipts make up 32% of the city’s FY 2023-24 budget. Public safety alone costs $15.7 million. He noted every dollar of property tax received from Millcreek property owners solely paid for law enforcement. The city relies on sales tax, grants, and fees for everything else the city needs or wants to do. Adding to and diversifying the sales tax base (which is also a stated General Plan strategy) would help the city meet its needs and wants without the need of tax increases. Staff had a fiduciary obligation to the taxpayer to give significant revenue generating uses due consideration. Lilly said many other centers around the country had some form of large format, auto- oriented uses at their peripheries. The pedestrian amenities in the middle made the village center work. The village center in the General Plan primary uses included retail, commercial, business and office uses intended to serve the residents of the surrounding neighborhoods. The secondary uses included townhomes, small-scale multi-family apartment or condominiums, hospitality, restaurants, offices, health services, as well as plazas, squares, pocket parks, and other community gathering places. The density included building heights ranging from 1-4 stories. General Plan considerations for this application included Economic Development Strategy 1.5 and 2.5, Vibrant Gathering Places Strategy 1.3, 4.8, 7.4, and 9.3, Great Connections Strategy 1.1B, and Open Space Strategy 3.1, 4.2, and 5.2. He noted that the city had shared use path funding for Wasatch Blvd. that could be used elsewhere since the developer would install the section along their property. Lilly said staff had received feedback on rezoning the property to commercial. He said state law would automatically entitle a digital billboard along I-215 if the city zoned the property commercial. Merely zoning to commercial would not give the city control over billboards. The General Plan calls for medium to high density residential uses as part of a village center. This is a policy that has already been vetted by the community, and was adopted by the City Council in 2018. Auto sales can be a part of a village center, provided there is quality design, and other uses (retail, restaurant, residential, office) in the mix. This approach gives the city the most leverage as a community over a challenging piece of land. Lilly said his role was to balance competing goals and navigate finding the best fit for traffic sensitivity, building height sensitivity, viewshed protection, cyclist and pedestrian safety, preference for commercial uses, placemaking, ongoing fiscal needs, and the future interchange. He reported the East Millcreek Community Council recommended the rezone as presented. The Mt. Olympus Community Council recommended denial of the rezone with the rationale that a small area plan should be prepared prior to considering the application. Lilly ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20 September 2023 Page 11 of 17 noted that the Mt. Olympus Community Council did not allow the applicant to present their project and respond to questions at their meeting held on September 11, 2023. By doing so, the community council denied the applicant due process and the opportunity to clarify misconceptions. Lilly said staff found that a village center inclusive of a high-end car dealership was a best fit for a challenging piece of property, provided that the VCSD ordinance text creates sufficient guardrails and that a development agreement is adopted for the development of future phases. The application: • Appropriately responds to the acute traffic constraints on Wasatch Boulevard, because it is a commercial use that generates little traffic compared to other possible uses including hotels, movie theaters, entertainment venues, offices, etc. • Protects viewsheds and provides for building heights, because the Porsche building itself is no taller than 35’ in height, and the mixed-use Phase 2 portion would be no taller than 45’ in height. In both cases, these heights are below the roof deck of the Macey’s – which means that anyone who can see over Macey’s can also see over this project. Furthermore, we deliberately arranged the building site to protect the viewshed from Apollo Drive. This is a recommendation of the General Plan. • Provides for significant commercial investment, rather than simply accommodating high-density residential housing. The Village Center concept in the General Plan calls for a mix of uses, and not just a high-density residential development. • Provides for placemaking opportunities in the form of a small open space lined by restaurant and office uses. The Village Center concept in the general plan calls for this. • Promotes cyclist and pedestrian safety by creating a new grade-separated shared use side path. The General Plan calls for this type of improvement, as does the Wasatch Boulevard Corridor Study. The developer will pay for this improvement out of their pocket, which allows Millcreek taxpayer dollars to be leveraged elsewhere. • Enhances and diversifies Millcreek’s tax base, providing opportunities for the city to meet other urgent community needs without further burdening Millcreek taxpayers. • Acknowledges the fundamental reality of Wasatch Boulevard and the likely relocation of a highway onramp to the south side of the property. Wasatch Drive will always be a busy five-lane arterial road, and the property will always be between Wasatch Drive and an Interstate Highway. • Avoids the unpleasant situation of a potential digital off premise sign along I-215. If the city just zoned this area as commercial, or if the city just had commercial uses in this piece of land, it is highly likely that a billboard company would remove existing signs in Millcreek, and replace them with a sign along I-215. The State effectively prohibits cities from stopping billboards to be placed in commercial zones along interstate highways, and it also allows them to be digitized. For those reasons, staff recommended the commission grant approval of the proposed rezone. Commissioner Reid asked if the trail, bike lanes, and landscaping for phase 2 would be installed immediately. Lilly said yes. Chair LaMar asked about the potential traffic light on Wasatch Blvd. and obtaining permission from UDOT. May said Wasatch Blvd. was a city road. Chair LaMar asked about the multifamily location. Lilly said the housing would be restricted to the northern portion of the property. Commissioner Reid asked how long the ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20 September 2023 Page 12 of 17 Porsche building would be. May said 330 feet. Commissioner Reid asked about requiring more street facing façade windows. She asked about cohesively joining the east and west sides of the village center. Lilly said it may include a future but that was an expensive prospect beyond the scope of any one developer. That could be discussed during the phase 2 design phase. He did not see a crossing happening before the Olympus Hills Shopping Center redeveloped or a traffic light was installed. Commissioner Anderson asked if the developer would be required to build the traffic signal. May said yes. He pointed out a tunnel access would be better for pedestrian access than a Commissioner Soule said the public had visited the application with a neighborhood meeting and community council meetings whereas the planning commission was visiting this application for the first time that night. Commissioner Larsen corrected her that there was a noticed joint planning commission/city council meeting in July where this application was preliminarily presented, and she did not attend. Commissioner Hulsberg asked if phase 1 and 2 would be the same developer. Michael Maledon, representing Mile High 901 as the applicant, was seeking to master plan the entire 8 acres. They had experience developing dealerships, so they would select a partner to develop the other acreage. He said he invited a potential partner, Cowboy Partners, to the meeting. The VCSD framework would guide phases 2 and 3. Phase 1 would include a beautifully architected generation 5 facility, significant streetscape improvements, and a central gathering place for the community. Gavin Pierce, Mile High 901, said Porsche Palm Springs had a room on the second floor available to the community and this site would include something similar. Chris Zarek, Cowboy Partners, said there was not a site plan for phase 2. He had discussed with potential tenants what was important in creating a village center that reflects the neighborhood. He said the open space and residential use would be part of activating the space. They would design a site that was compelling. Maledon said with phase 2 and 3, there would be a commitment to consistent/proactive community involvement review and there would be the feel of a village center. A third-party master planning consultant would be used for phases 2 and 3. He was not opposed to the lighting and signage constraints for the site. Commissioner Reid asked about a realistic timeline for phase 2. Maledon said soon, he was not opposed to remedies included in the development agreement requiring a reasonable timetable. He said within two years. Tom Stephens, Mt. Olympus Community Council, said there was no such thing as due process for community council meetings since it was not a court of law. The recommendation was due to lack of a master plan for the entire site. He said what was presented during the community council meeting was substantially different than what was presented to the commission. Chair LaMar opened the public hearing. Chair LaMar acknowledged the commission had received numerous emails on the matter. ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20 September 2023 Page 13 of 17 Jemina Keller asked the commission to consider that the mailed public notice only went to 129 houses, the applicant revised the plans to include a subterranean floor on the day of the Mt. Olympus Community Council meeting, and the Mt. Olympus Community Council voted against this application with 10-1 no’s (not 8-3 in the presentation). She said this was the only village center in Mt. Olympus. She urged the commission to vote no on the application because it was incompatible with the VCSD. This was the city’s first chance to build a VCSD and she felt a car dealership did not belong in it. She said the applicant had a secondary back up location to relocate to if the dealership did not come to Millcreek. She said this was the last piece of property in Mt. Olympus and the city should create a legacy with it. Jonathan Mecham said Porsche was not standard. He had never stopped on the west side of Wasatch Blvd., but this would create a viable opportunity to do so. The land was empty and odd. The developer would install a sidewalk and create a viable space, and they had a future plan for more. Peter Staks said nobody considered a car dealership as part of a village. He had never seen a car dealership in a neighborhood village/commercial center, it did not fit. Phase 2 would fit the village concept. He said zoning goes with the land, not the property owner or brand. Thomas Wadsworth said based on the amended VCSD language, the use needed to benefit the neighborhood. This was good economics for Millcreek, but the impact was on the neighborhood. He recommended limiting the VCSD to just the 4-acre car dealership site, not the entire 8-acre site since the uses in the other phases were unknown. David Shapiro said the application was premature since the VCSD was not yet approved by the city council. He said staff only acknowledged phase 1 benefits, and once phase 2 was built the traffic impacts would be realized. He said the city was creating a new ordinance to avoid billboards. He said the village was not being planned for yet, just the economic benefit. He felt consideration was premature because phase 2 was unknown. Ben Lowry said the design for the property was creative and there were benefits to the sidewalk and trees. He was skeptical about the remaining two acres being a successful village parcel. He did not know how residential would pencil with only a 45-foot building height. He said the car dealership was better than what currently existed. He was hesitant to give full control to a dealership and did not want to cut the city short on the remaining property. Jeff said he had seen the Porsche dealership in Palm Springs, and it included an understated style and tasteful lighting. The potential benefits for the dealership would include substantial tax revenue to pay for city improvements, the dealership would include a minimal building height to maintain the current view for the residences to the east, bring an iconic luxury brand to the area, bring additional business and visibility to the Olympus Hills Shopping Center, provide landscaping and maintained open space, and have minimal traffic impact. He supported the application. Shonnie Hays respected private property rights but felt neighborhoods mattered. She did not feel the project met the village center definition of what was in the General Plan. She did not feel the dealership met the criteria and the design criteria was without regard for the existing ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20 September 2023 Page 14 of 17 neighborhood and what the neighborhood wanted. She recommended the commission deny the application. Glenn Boschetto said this was a commercial enterprise and not a village center even though he was in favor of the dealership. He felt there needed to be public space included in phase 1 because the two acres of phase 2 was not enough. Vince Coley said the village center did not work with a dealership. He felt the location could be better used for something else. He felt the application process had been done behind closed doors. He worried about racing test drives through the neighborhoods. Bob Babcock was impressed by the staff presentation. He appreciated tying the entire property together under the VCSD in a package deal. The economic benefit to the city was appreciated. He was in favor of the concept and the balancing needs. He requested that Francis Lilly re-present the application to the Mt. Olympus Community Council. Kris Shiozaki was in favor of the dealership. He said the existing property had been sitting for a long time and could keep sitting vacant for a long time. Anna Clare Shepherd thought a village center would be wonderful, and the west and east sides should have a shared concept. She felt a car dealership was industrial and heavy commercial and a village center should be light commercial. She said 4 story residential was high for the area. She wanted the neighborhood more involved in the approval process. Joe Sandall said not everyone in the area was notified about the application. He said people did not see a dealership as being beneficial to creating a sense of community. He felt the commission was being pushed to make a decision when the whole community had not given input. He was against the application. John Melville appreciated Commissioner Soule’s comments about green space. The community invested in the water wheel park to the north of 3900 S. on Wasatch Blvd. He said the northern part of the park was supposed to have a second phase, but it was never completed. He felt the entire project should be completed at the same time. He encouraged Millcreek to complete the park on Wasatch Blvd. Stephanie Buehner supported the dealership. She appreciated the variety it brought to the community. The developers were catering to the public whereas other developers may not. She felt Porsche was a community partner. Scott Howell said whatever the revenue the dealership brought in was more than the dirt that was there now. He appreciated the applicants being community partners. He wanted the commission to vote for the good and future of Millcreek. Jan Cameron said the Porsche building was attractive and well thought out but felt this location was not the right fit for it. The desire for a neighborhood village was strong and the dealership did not fit. She did not feel a late-night meeting was the best place for community input. ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20 September 2023 Page 15 of 17 Bryan McRae said the student pedestrian traffic from Skyline High School had increased with the inclusion of 9th graders to the school. He wanted that considered with phase 2 as students would be walking (not driving) to the site for lunch. Goddard agreed with the other comments that this proposal was not a village type setting. She noted her husband had a Porsche, but the dealership did not belong on the proposed site. She wanted something thoughtful and tasteful to be built on the site. Chair LaMar read an emailed comment from Scott Clark (see attached). He noted he had received emails to the planning commission with 10 in opposition of the application and 14 in favor of it. Elyse Sullivan summarized online public comments from the city’s website and emails received during the meeting from Kate Johnson, Kyle Taft, Stan Pugsley, Dave Randle, Kira McNally, Rebecca Johnson, Bowen McNally, and Teresa Stringham. Francis Lilly summarized emails from Katie Eccles and family. Chair LaMar closed the public hearing. Maledon said the developer was committed to providing open space through phase 2. He was not prepared to answer how much tax revenue would be generated ($78 million had been used in public comment without any standing). Commissioner Vance said this was a perfect example of how reasonable minds could be presented with the same set of facts and come to different conclusions. There was no proposal that would be unanimously accepted by the community. He noted that this was privately owned property, not owned by the city, and the developer was willing to work with the city. He felt the project was a good compromise and the rezone was the appropriate tool. Commissioner Larsen said of the comments he had received; the majority were in favor of the application (33-27). He said the concerns were about the use for the village center and there was not enough green space, but that was not compelling enough. The dealership was not a stereotypical use for a village center but felt the use was a perfect fit for the site. Commissioner Hulsberg said he was impressed by the building height because anything else on the site would block views. The parcel is in between two onramps to an interstate, which is bounded by a 5-lane road, making it the ideal location for the car dealership use. He was impressed that the applicant changed the proposal in the positive in response to what the community asked for. He asked himself how long the lot had been empty, and the answer was as long as anyone could remember. The applicant would take care of the property as a luxury dealership. Commissioner Soule asked if Cowboy Partners was a local company. Zarek confirmed. Commissioner Soule asked if there was a timeframe for phase 2. Zarek said they would go through the VCSD framework process in code, entitlement process, and design process, so at a minimum a year. Commissioner Soule asked about green space on top of the parking. Maledon said the green space would be around the perimeter. Commissioner Soule wondered what differed between the East Millcreek Community Council and Mt. Olympus Community Council meetings and recommendations. Commissioner Soule supported development on the site. She acknowledged traffic on ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20 September 2023 Page 16 of 17 Wasatch Blvd being dangerous for cyclists and recommended food trucks in the parking lot for the high schoolers. Commissioner Reid was pleased with the reduced building height. Lilly said the elevation was included so as to not overtop the Macey’s. Commissioner Soule said height would need to be considered for sound as well as views. Chair LaMar suggested existing point on grade from the northeast corner of the parcel could be the starting point. Commissioner Reid asked for suggestions on connections to the neighborhood on the east side. She was concerned about not having a schematic for phase 2. Lilly said a public engagement plan could be put into the development agreement to scope for phase 2. Commissioner Anderson felt the dealership was in a good location with interstate access but did not fit a village center. Chair LaMar said developers had to be willing to construct what the community wanted. He said this use would protect views and provide minimal traffic. The tax benefit was important but not the deciding factor for him. He was confident there would be good public input for phase 2. Chair LaMar noted the commission had discussed building height and a public engagement plan (timeline and quarter mile notification) as part of the development agreement. Commissioner Anderson noted state law noticing requirements used to only be a 300-foot radius for rezones. Commissioner Reid moved to recommend to the city council to approve ZM-23-004, including and considering the findings in the staff report, with the following conditions: 1) the development agreement include a public engagement plan that includes timelines for phase 2 planning, and also notifies the neighborhood that lives within a ¼ mile of the project; and 2) that the heights for phase 2 be benchmarked at 35 feet at the northeast corner of phase 2 property. Commissioner Larsen seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. Chair LaMar voted yes, Commissioner Reid voted yes, Commissioner Anderson voted yes, Commissioner Hulsberg voted yes, Commissioner Larsen voted yes, Commissioner Soule voted yes, and Commissioner Vance voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. 2. Commission Business 2.1 Approval of August 16, 2023 Regular Meeting Minutes Chair LaMar moved to approve the August minutes as provided by staff. Commissioner Vance seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. Chair LaMar voted yes, Commissioner Reid voted yes, Commissioner Anderson voted yes, Commissioner Hulsberg voted yes, Commissioner Larsen voted yes, Commissioner Soule voted yes, and Commissioner Vance voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. 2.2 Updates from the Planning and Zoning Director Francis Lilly invited the commissioners to become an APA member and/or attend an upcoming state planning conference. He said the city was putting together a sidewalk and trails master plan selection committee. Commissioner Soule volunteered to join the committee. 5. Calendar of Upcoming Meetings • City Council Mtg. 9/25/23, 7:00 p.m. • Mt. Olympus Community Council Mtg., 10/2/23, 6:00 p.m. • Millcreek Community Council Mtg., 10/3/23, 6:30 p.m. • Canyon Rim Citizens Association Mtg., 10/4/23, 7:00 p.m. ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20 September 2023 Page 17 of 17 • East Mill Creek Community Council Mtg., 10/5/23, 6:30 p.m. • City Council Mtg. 10/9/23, 7:00 p.m. • Historic Preservation Commission Mtg., 10/12/23, 6:00 p.m. • Planning Commission Mtg., 10/18/23, 5:00 p.m. ADJOURNED: Chair LaMar moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:01 p.m. Commissioner Anderson seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. Chair LaMar voted yes, Commissioner Reid voted yes, Commissioner Anderson voted yes, Commissioner Hulsberg voted yes, Commissioner Larsen voted yes, Commissioner Soule voted yes, and Commissioner Vance voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVED: Date Shawn LaMar, Chair Attest: Elyse Sullivan, City Recorder ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek City Hall 3330 South 1300 East Millcreek, Utah 84106 millcreek.us Planning & Zoning (801) 214-2700 [EMAIL REDACTED] ZT-23-010 Planning Commission Staff Report Meeting Date: 9/20/2023 Applicant: Staff Re: Village Center Special District Enabling Ordinance Prepared By: Francis Lilly, Planning Director / Assistant City Manager Robert May, Long Range Planning Manager Scope of Decision: Discretionary. This is a legislative matter, to be decided by the Millcreek City Council upon receiving a recommendation from the Community Council(s) and the Millcreek Planning Commission. REQUEST AND SYNOPSIS Summary As part of our comprehensive zoning code update, and in response to preliminary inquiries about development in Millcreek, staff is preparing a new zone for consideration by the Community Councils, Planning Commission, and City Council: a Village Center Special District zone (VCSD). A VCSD is a vehicle to write specific zone standards for each of the various village centers described in the Millcreek General Plan, in a way that ensures a master-planned development with consistent design standards. A VCSD allows for customized zoning requirements in order to permit flexibility and initiative in site development, while also providing an opportunity to establish design standards and use requirements that are more detailed and more responsive to the needs of each village center, and any surrounding uses. ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: Village Center Special District Ordinance ZT-23-010 What is a Village Center? The Village Center is a future land use map designation found in the Millcreek General Plan. The general guidelines for a Village Center are as follows: Millcreek has several naturally occurring village centers and a host of other potential village center locations, each with its own identity and distinct elements anchoring it all together. The General Plan suggests focusing growth in a Citywide network of centers that provide healthy, equitable and sustainable access to services and housing and preserve the City’s character and sense of place. The General Plan describes Village Centers as “smaller centers that include a mixture of neighborhood scale commercial and residential buildings. Buildings should be designed to be compatible with the character of existing buildings within the center. A main focus for the Village Center is to encourage access to, from and within the center by pedestrians and bicyclists. The village centers should be designed in such a fashion that the preferred modes of transportation to and from the centers are walking, bicycling, and public transit. Village Center Example Image, Millcreek Together General Plan, Vibrant Gathering Places, pg. 53 ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: Village Center Special District Ordinance ZT-23-010 Where are These Village Centers Located? There are three village centers designated in light blue on the Future Land Use Map: ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: Village Center Special District Ordinance ZT-23-010 The 2300 East and 3300 South Village Center straddles the Canyon Rim and East Mill Creek community districts and is currently a collection of active commercial uses, including JoAnn, Down East Outfitters, Maria’s Mexican Grill, Goldfish Swim School, and several other active restaurants and small retail and service establishments. According to the General Plan, “A focus should be made on attracting uses that are complementary such as small restaurants and cafes (similar to Roots Café and Maria’s Restaurant) and provide for a unique identity to this neighborhood. There is also a relatively high amount of vacant or underutilized property that presents opportunities for redevelopment, such as adaptive re-use, second stories in appropriate locations, and farmers’ markets. Extra parking is also needed to support development in the area.” We have not received significant interest in redevelopment in the 2300 East and 3300 South Village Center, although we note that some of the commercial development is nearing the end of its useful life. It is likely that we will receive a proposal of some kind within the life of the General Plan, and a Village Center Special District ordinance could give us the tools to craft a specific solution that provides for redevelopment while preserving some of the unique characteristics and retail emphasis of this area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: Village Center Special District Ordinance ZT-23-010 The Olympus Hills Village Center is anchored by the Olympus Hills Shopping Center and includes a large vacant parcel to the west of the shopping Center, between Wasatch Boulevard and I-215. It is located entirely within the Mount Olympus community district. The General Plan states that “Olympus Hills’ local assets include an established business area, strategic proximity to local and regional assets and destinations in the mountains, a unique and dynamic history, and prime scenic views. View retention to the west across the Salt Lake Valley and to the east, of the magnificent peaks of the Wasatch should remain a significant development principle as this village center evolves. Together, these assets create an extraordinary opportunity for positive transformation in the Olympus Hills area. Tying together the two sides of Wasatch Boulevard and expanding retail and hospitality uses could be a focus. The owner of the vacant property has approached Millcreek with various development proposals for the property, most recently a mixed-use center that includes a high-end car dealership on the south side of the property, and public space and mixed use and commercial development on the north side of the property. A VCSD could help pull a variety of commercial uses together into a cohesive master planned development that also creates an opportunity for a significant enhancement to Wasatch Boulevard, including better pedestrian and cyclist amenities, which the General Plan calls out in the Village Center concept. ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: Village Center Special District Ordinance ZT-23-010 The Murray Holladay / 4500 South Village Center is located at Highland Drive and 4500 South, opposite the site of the former Cottonwood Mall in Holladay. It has long featured an active commercial strip center and a variety of multifamily and commercial uses to the west and north. The property owners recently acquired a former gas station on the site and are expanding the pad site to include additional restaurants with drive- throughs. The General Plan describes this potential village center as one that provides “small scale commercial and amenities for nearby residents. Intended to complement the future development of the Cottonwood Mall site across the street from the village area and should harness its unique location next to the Big Cottonwood Regional Park, the Holladay Lions Recreation Center, and Senior Center. While no entity has approached us on wholesale redevelopment of the corner, we believe that the redevelopment of the Cottonwood Mall site will create new opportunities in this Village Center. Much of it is currently zoned commercial, but if a developer approached Millcreek with a unique idea for the future, a VCSD zone could be a vehicle to establish parameters and support a unique project that would not be supported in the existing commercial zones. ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: Village Center Special District Ordinance ZT-23-010 Other Potential Village Centers The General Plan specifically calls out three possible study areas for village centers: “Several areas have been identified as future centers to study. The St. Marks Hospital area of 3900 South and 900 to 1300 East has existing office and small-scale retail uses and has potential to provide a center for surrounding residential areas. The Canyon Rim area that includes Smith’s Marketplace and REI has potential for redevelopment and reconfiguration of parking to support a center for surrounding residential areas, as well as a major commercial and office. The presence of a number of outdoor related shops and businesses in that area, and its proximity to the mountains, canyons, and trails, the center could be billed as an “outdoor district”.” • 3900 South and 1300 East (St. Marks Hospital area) • 3900 South and 900 East (Iceberg) • Canyon Rim Shopping (Smith’s Marketplace and REI) • 4500 South and 900 East (Smiths Marketplace) • 2300 East and 2800 South (Near roundabout and Eggs in the City) Why not just use a Commercial Zone? What Would a Village Center Special District Accomplish? It is not uncommon for cities to craft special zoning districts to accomplish centers and define the manner in which significant redevelopment occurs. The Holladay Town Center, Downtown South Salt Lake, New park in Kimball Junction, the Draper Peaks Commercial Center and IKEA/Furniture Row, and Millcreek’s own City Center/Millcreek Common area are all examples of special zoning districts that incorporate specific design standards and unique use regulations that typically are not found in base commercial zones. Special Districts allow cities and developers to create distinct centers based on particular uses, unique materials, special limits on signage, quality public spaces, and one-of-a-kind streetscapes. ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: Village Center Special District Ordinance ZT-23-010 For example, the Holladay Village Center is generally well-received in the region. The first two phases of their Village Center is approximately 10 acres, including upgraded public streets and a public gathering space that is approximately 0.6 acres in size. The Village Center includes a mix of uses, including residential, and a traditionally auto-oriented use in the form of a supermarket. This is a good example of how a variety of uses – even traditionally auto-oriented ones - can be tied together in a common theme and in a manner that establishes a center. Creating the Holladay Village center required a new approach to land use regulations, as the traditional commercial zones in the area had height and setback requirements and parking ratios that would not allow for the creation of the Holladay Village Center. How can we ensure that produce good quality development? We do not recommend for small, infill sites. In order to make sure that the development proposals are meaningful, we are contemplating a minimum development size of 5 acres before qualifying for a rezone to a VCSD. In addition, we will propose a robust public process beyond what is typically required for a rezone or a general plan amendment, including a neighborhood meeting prior to application, a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council, followed by a community council meeting, a planning commission meeting, before receiving final approval or denial by the City Council. As part of a VCSD application, we would require a narrative discussing unique design elements and materials, proposed limitations on heights and uses, a schematic site plan that would be adopted as part of the rezone, as well as a traffic study, if required by staff. This way, the community will have a good understanding of what the project will look like, and what its impact will be, before the City Council makes a final determination on ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: Village Center Special District Ordinance ZT-23-010 adopting a VCSD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends granting a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Village Center Special District Ordinance based on the findings in the staff report. COMMUNITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Millcreek Community Council. Recommended approval of the proposed Village Center Special District Ordinance with the condition that visiting the community council be added to the pre-application process 19.62.040. Voted 8-1 Canyon Rim Citizens Association. Recommended approval of the proposed Village Center Special District Ordinance and eagerly look forward to discussing a Village Center Special District proposal in their community. Voted 6-0 East Millcreek Community Council. Recommended approval of the proposed Village Center Special District Ordinance. Voted 6-0 Mount Olympus Community Council. Recommended approval of the proposed Village Center Special District Ordinance with the condition to lower the minimum district size to 3 acres and add a notification requirement extending parameters to one mile. Voted 10-1 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 1. Draft Village Center Special District Ordinance. 2. Millcreek Together General Plan.