Major development postponed in southwest WVC
Jul 30, 2018 02:26PM
● By Travis Barton
A rendering of the proposed senior housing near 5600 West and 6400 South. (West Valley City Documents)
By Travis Barton | [email protected]
A primary piece of undeveloped land, located along 5600 West and 6400 South, will face more discussion and modification after the West Valley City Council voted unanimously to continue a rezone request.
The property, currently designated for commercial, would have changed to allow for an 89-unit senior housing development. But concerns from elected officials—planning commission unanimously approved the zone change—led to the postponement.
Mayor Ron Bigelow was concerned about the lack of exactitude in the development agreement. The mayor also expressed concern about limiting the amount of commercial space along 5600 West. While the rezone was being considered for just over eight acres for senior housing, that was only part of the intended larger development of the area—43.91 acres.
The almost 44-acre project includes commercial located along 5600 West, a senior living and assisted living facility would be placed behind the commercial buildings (directly west). Behind those facilities would be two townhome developments with approximately 150 units between the two of them.
Other than the senior housing facility, all other projects are allowed in the city’s general plan without needing a rezone.
A development agreement for the entire project was also on tap for approval as well as the senior housing. It was this point that caused pause for the mayor.
Bigelow said previous developments featured overall parking numbers and interior features, neither of which was included here.
“Obviously, they [the developer] have to show they’re meeting all the requirements, but generally speaking most of these projects have exceeded those requirements which was a positive thing,” he said.
Planning Director Steve Pastorik told the city council the townhomes will undergo further review through a conditional use process where parking and interior features can be addressed.
“Without those assurances in there, I’m quite concerned and probably going to vote no,” Bigelow said. Though he did say he thought it was a “fairly decent project” and wouldn’t be opposed to further procedural review.
The rest of the council agreed that some modifications were in order. Councilwoman Karen Lang was concerned about parking plans in the townhomes while Councilman Tom Huynh was apprehensive without more security measures in place for the senior housing.
Councilman Jake Fitisemanu Jr., who represents the district where the development is being proposed, said nearby residents were uneasy about the amount of density (including three who spoke against the project at a June 17 city council meeting). He wasn’t opposed to the project, but agreed some modifications were in order.
A date to revisit the development was yet to be determined.