Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Landscaping Ordinance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council reviews draft text amendment to allow non‑turf landscaping on ‘high‑image’ commercial corridors

West Valley City Council · May 14, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Planning staff proposed a text amendment to Chapter 7.10 to allow a third landscaping alternative for high‑image arterials: 75% live plant coverage (excluding tree canopy), two mineral ground covers, and 25% plants in 5‑gallon size, giving property owners an option other than lawn or artificial turf.

Planning and zoning staff presented a text amendment to Chapter 7.10 of the city zoning code that would add an alternative to the existing lawn or artificial turf requirement for front‑setback buffers on high‑image arterial streets.

Jody Knapp told the council the ordinance originally dates to 1984 and has been recodified over time; the current code requires 50% lawn or artificial turf in the buffer. The proposed third alternative would require 75% live plant material coverage (not counting tree canopy), a mix of deciduous and evergreen plants, and at least two mineral ground covers. Knapp said 25% of plants in the planting area would need to be 5‑gallon containers to ensure more mature plantings on installation.

Knapp said staff surveyed other cities and found no directly comparable requirements; Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District guidance informed parts of the proposal, emphasizing water‑wise plantings rather than eliminating all vegetation. Council members asked about exceptions for existing developed sites, circular residential driveways that might conflict with the 50% rule, and large commercial lots such as trucking yards; Knapp said triggers exist in the code to require compliance for older sites when substantial changes occur and confirmed the new text is intended for commercial properties on the named corridors, not for single‑family residential lots.

Council members noted a nonconforming Jack in the Box installation and asked whether it would be required to retrofit; staff said the site is being addressed and would need corrections to meet code. Knapp acknowledged this is a complicated code area with a long history and recommended additional time to finalize standards.

Next steps: staff will continue refining the text and return to the council and planning commission as needed; the council indicated separate follow‑up on residential standards in forthcoming meetings.