The URL can be used to link to this page

02/09/2006 - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2006 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Thursday, February 9, 2006, at 5 : 30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love and Dave Buhler. Absent: Councilmember Soren Simonsen. Also in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Sam Guevara, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Lucille Taylor, Planning Administrative Secretary/Office Manager; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Janice Lew, Principal Planner; Cheri Coffey, Deputy Director/Zoning Administration/Preservation and Urban Design/Housing and Zoning Enforcement; Alex Ikefuna, Planning Director; Patrick Thronson, Mayor' s Communications/Public Relations Officer; Janice Jardine, Council Land Use Policy Analyst; Karen Wiley, Housing and Neighborhood Development Grant Financial Administrator; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Vicki Pacheco, Council Staff Assistant; Sarah Carroll, Preservation and Urban Design Planner; Ben Logue, Owner of La Porte Properties; Everett Joyce, Community Planning/Land Use and Transportation Planner; Richard Astle, Petitioner; and Beverly Jones, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5 : 38 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1 . 5 : 38 : 21 PM INTERVIEW NIA SHERAR PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE SISTER CITIES BOARD . View Attachments Councilmember Buhler said Ms . Sherar' s name would be forwarded to the Consent Agenda for approval . #2 . 5 : 41 : 06 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND JAMESON PROPERTIES, LLC, FOR REHABILITATION OF THE STRATFORD HOTEL APARTMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT 175 EAST 200 SOUTH. View Attachments LuAnn Clark, Gary Mumford and Ben Logue briefed the Council from the attached handouts . Councilmember Buhler said this item would be forwarded to a formal agenda for approval . #3 . 5 : 53 : 11 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN DOWNTOWN AND COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, AND A SECTION OF THE DEFINITION OF "MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING. " (PETITION NO. 400-05-32) View Attachments 06 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2006 Cheri Coffey, Sarah Carroll, Alex Ikefuna and Janice Jardine briefed the Council from the attached handouts . Councilmember Jergensen asked if the proposed ordinance could be amended since some of the Council' s previous requests had been left out and not considered. Ms . Jardine said the Planning Commission did not consider residential mixed use or mixed use zoning. She said a motion could be prepared initiating a legislative action that requested changes be made by a certain date. Councilmember Saxton asked if it would be easier for the Planning Commission to see what changes the Council wanted made to the ordinance . She said that way they would not have to consider a whole new package . Ms . Coffey said yes . She said they could hold an open house in the next few weeks . She said then it could be reconsidered by the Planning Commission. Councilmember Buhler asked if Council Members wanted to move forward with this issue . Council Members were in favor of moving the issue forward. Councilmember Buhler said the Council could adopt a legislative action at their next meeting. #4 . 6 : 06 : 27 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 516-524 SOUTH 500 EAST AND 517- 533 SOUTH DENVER STREET FROM A MODERATE/HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RMF-45) ZONING DISTRICT TO A HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY (RMF-75) ZONING DISTRICT AND REZONE APPROXIMATELY 25 FEET OF THE REAR PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 466 EAST 500 SOUTH FROM RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE (RO) TO HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY (RMF-75) ZONING DISTRICT AND AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE CENTRAL COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN. (PETITION NO. 400-05-06 ASTLE/WEBB) View Attachments Janice Lew, Janice Jardine, Alex Ikefuna, Richard Astle and Cheri Coffey briefed the Council from the attached handouts . Council Members were in favor of moving this issue forward. #5 . 6 :27 : 49 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO NON-CONFORMING USES, NON-COMPLYING STRUCTURES . (PETITION NO. 400-03-34) PART TWO View Attachments Everett Joyce, Alex Ikefuna, Cheri Coffey and Janice Jardine briefed the Council from the attached handouts . Council Member were in favor of moving this issue forward. #6 . (TENTATIVE) RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM THE ADMINISTRATION ON LEGISLATIVE ISSUES . This item was not discussed. 06 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2006 #7 . REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND 6 : 37 : 16 PM ANNOUNCEMENTS . See File M 06-5 for announcements . No report was given. The meeting adjourned at 6 : 37 p.m. Council Chair Chief Deputy City Recorder This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes for the City Council Work Session held February 9, 2006 . bj 06 - 3 Board Appointment — Sister Cities Board — Nia Sherar INTRODUCTION: Mayor Anderson is recommending that Nia Sherar, be appointed to the Salt Lake City Sister Cities Board. If appointed, Ms. Sherar will replace Anna Karina Hooper, who has resigned and her term would extend through July 3, 2006. APPLICANT INFORMATION: Nia Sherar is the Founder/Executive Director of Opportunity Fund for Developing Countries. Ms. Sherar would like to keep up on her Spanish and loves the Bolivian people; she is a doer, enthusiastic and imaginative. She is a member of the Utah Bolivia Partners and has been to Oruro, Bolivia twice. Ms. Sherar presented Mayor Anderson with a gift from the Mayor of Oruro in the Spring of 2003. With a wide and varied background ranging from analytical Senior Computer Systems Engineer to Foreign Language English Teacher to passionate humanitarian Leader she is capable of working in a fast-paced, technical environment or in the high altitude Himalayan villages with no electricity. RESPONSE DEADLINE: If you have any objection to this appointment, please let Vicki know by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, February 3, 2006. CURRENT COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD: Sister Cities Board Members must be a Salt Lake County resident and the terms last 3 years. There may be a maximum of 15 Board Members. Board members include: Rozina Bahlibi; Geoffrey Brugger; Patrick F. Carley; Hubert Chang; Snapp Erickson; Manuel Evangelista; Etsuko Oqura Freeman; Rosemary A. Holt; Bruce Kaliser; and Margaret Yee. BOARD STRUCTURE: The Sister Cities Board is created and governed in accordance with Utah law. The mission of the Sister Cities Board is to promote peace and unite local and global communities through friendship, economic opportunities and cultural and educational exchange, particularly through Salt Lake City and selected cities in other countries. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: February 7,2006 SUBJECT: Proposed Housing Trust Fund Loan to Jameson Properties for rehabilitation of Stratford Hotel AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: District 4 STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Housing and Neighborhood Development AND CONTACT PERSON: LuAnn Clark KEY ELEMENTS: On June 29,2005,a fire displaced residents of the Stratford Hotel apartments located at 175 East 200 South. La Porte Properties is proposing to purchase the vacant building and replace the former 50 single-room-occupancy units that had shared bathrooms. Rehabilitation will provide 46 new self-contained studio apartments with private bathrooms and kitchenettes. The City's Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board unanimously approved a 30-year$233,079 loan at 2.5% interest to Jameson Properties,LLC,to help finance the$4,519,000 project. Jameson Properties is a limited liability company established by La Porte Properties specifically to purchase and rehabilitate the Stratford Hotel. MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS: 1. La Porte Properties plans to construct new"affordable" studio apartments in the upper two floors of the old Stratford Hotel and to retain the commercial space on the first floor and in the basement. The$4,519,000 project is to purchase the building and rehabilitate the housing units. The purchase price is$634,000,and rehabilitation is estimated at$2,587,000. Other costs include site work,architectural,engineering,permits,interim financing,permanent financing costs,contingency and profit. La Porte Properties plan to obtain separate financing to rehabilitate the commercial space. The commercial space is currently vacant because of water damage from the fire. The Council may wish to ask representatives of the Administration whether the commercial space will be rehabilitated at about the same time as the housing units. 2. The developer is proposing a historic restoration of the exterior of the building,which was built in 1927. Grant funds are available to assist with the funding of the historic restoration according to the developer. 3. The maximum allowable rental rates of 44 units will be$375 per month. Residents must have no more than 35% of area medium income. Maximum rents of 2 units will be$268 and will target residents with 25% or less of area medium income. These area medium income rates will remain in effect for 99 years. Background checks of potential residents are required. 4. La Porte Properties is proposing to incorporate solar panels as a source of energy,which according to the loan application will reduce tenant utilities by approximately 35%. The loan application indicates that credits are available to assist with this cost. 5. The City financing request of$233,079 will be leveraged with$2,840,213 of tax credit financing,$309,468 loan from the Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund,federal and state historic grants of$1,071,268 relating to the exterior restoration,and credits of$54,000 for installing solar panels. The developer told the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board that funding from the local jurisdiction is required in order to receive the Olene Walker loan. The purchase of the building is contingent upon funding. The developer told the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board that the project would have to be withdrawn if the City's loan is not approved. 6. According to the Administration, profit and overhead of$543,000 (12% of total project cost) is within guidelines of the Utah Housing Corporation for rehabilitation of housing units. The Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board believes that the proposed budget for contingency of $154,000 could be low based on the amount of rehabilitation. Cost overruns in excess of contingency will reduce the developer's profit. 7. According to the Administration, La Porte Properties has successfully rehabilitated similar historic buildings. La Porte Properties has six other properties in Salt Lake City and four in Ogden. The developer is current on its Salt Lake City loan repayments on other projects. 8. The project supports the new housing policy statements currently being considered by the City Council for affordable housing-preservation and rehabilitation of existing housing stock,historic preservation,and downtown housing development. The project meets a policy goal of the Salt Lake Community Housing Plan of increasing the number of historic multi- family units rehabilitated. Since the project is a rental rehabilitation project,it is not subject to the Preferred Housing Criteria analysis currently being considered by the City Council for loans relating to new construction. The Stratford Hotel is zoned as D3 (Central Office District). This project is a conforming use. 9. Since this is a rehabilitation project and the building will not be replaced, the project is not required to meet current parking standards. The Council may wish to ask representatives of the Administration whether some nearby parking is available. 10. The Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board approved the loan with the condition that the City's funds will not be provided until near the end of the construction period with repayments on the loan being deferred until six months after the final release of funds so that rental income will be available for repayment of the loan. A market study by an independent consultant approved by the Utah Housing Corporation concluded that there is a market that is adequate to maintain a high occupancy at the project at the maximum-allowable rental rates. The Council may wish to ask the representative of the Administration whether the six-month deferral of loan repayments will be the Board's standard recommendation on future projects. 11. The current balance of the City's Housing Trust Fund is$2,140,165,and the balance in the RDA Housing Trust Fund is$45,805. If the$233,079 loan is approved, the balance in the City's Housing Trust Fund will be$1,917,086. OPTIONS: 1. Forward the loan request to the February 14 Council Meeting for formal consideration. 2. Request additional information. 3. Deny the loan. , . . . . . . . . . _ . . . , , •A :, '''• __ - ,_ . . . . . . lir . . ......... I 2— , -- --. I . .- _... ..1 1,,3 ..•i,. .1 % ''' ...Zs,- - - II IP--.. - 0 • I . I . atimar__ r:a I - kitviVislotks gcAety z E .vamstssows." -"Imo mommiiimmnomo E l' _ -i--, 4 I . ,..1 1 1 I I 1°' 11• i - a - •, T 11 ----- _ - - _ _ —__ _......-- -....__ .,.....__ -------------- —_— ..-"." _.....,........... -- Ilik -_----- 0 Fc ri A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE `....-.\ ' �' t\�VIA( 'vWJ.4JU '10�� ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR COUNCIL TRANSMIT AV,V' TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DA • January 27, 2006 J�II FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director SUBJECT: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a loan : is- ' :- een Salt Lake City Corporation and Jameson Properties, LLC, or e abilitation of the Stratford Hotel Apartment project located at 175 East 200 South in Salt Lake City, Utah STAFF CONTACTS: LuAnn Clark, Housing &Neighborhood Development Director, at 535-6136 or luann.clark@slcgov.com ACTION REQUIRED: Adoption of a Resolution by City Council DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Ben Logue of La Porte Properties, LLC, on behalf of Jameson Properties, LLC, is requesting a Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund rehabilitation loan in the amount of$223,079.00 at 2.5% interest to be amortized over 30 years for the purpose of converting the Stratford Hotel from single room occupancy (SRO)units to an affordable super-studio/apartment facility. The Stratford Hotel was built in 1927 and converted to SRO units on the two upper floors with commercial space on the first floor and in the basement. The building has been vacant since it was damaged by a fire in 2005. Mr. Logue intends to convert the 50 single room occupancy units to 46 affordable apartment units on the two upper floors and retain commercial space on the first floor and in the basement. The affordable housing units will be available for persons at 35% of area median income or lower for a period of 99 years. The loan requested from the Housing Trust Fund will be leveraged with low-income housing tax credit funds provided by Key Bank, Federal historic tax credits, solar credits, and the State of Utah's Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund. The City will be in second position on the loan. It is anticipated the total cost of the project will be $4,519,063. On January 12, 2006,the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board reviewed this proposal. The Board unanimously approved the request subject to the City's funds being provided near the end 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 041 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-71 05 FAX: BO 1-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM jRECYCLES PAPER of the construction period with repayments on the loan being deferred until six months after the final release of funds or no later than March 1, 2007, in order for project construction to be completed so that rental income will be available for repayment of the loan. Attached please find a copy of the staff report and the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board minutes. This project helps fulfill the City's goal of facilitating the provision of affordable housing in the Downtown area. This project also furthers the City's energy conservation goals by incorporating solar panels as a source of energy in order to conserve energy and reduce tenant utilities by approximately 35%. The current balance of the City's Housing Trust Fund is $2,140,165; approval of this loan request would leave the fund balance at $1,917,086. Housing Trust Fund Loan for the Stratford Hotel Project Page 2 of 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Resolution Staff Evaluation Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board Minutes RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. OF 2006 AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM SALT LAKE CITY'S HOUSING TRUST FUND TO JAMESON PROPERTIES, LLC FOR THE STRATFORD HOTEL APARTMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation (the City) has a Housing Trust Fund to encourage affordable and special needs housing development within the City; and WHEREAS, Jameson Properties, LLC., has applied to the City for a $223,079.00 loan at 2.5% over thirty (30) years for the purpose of rehabilitating the Stratford Hotel located at 175 East 200 South to consist of 46 apartment units on the upper two floors and commercial space on the first floor and in the basement. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. It does hereby approve Salt Lake City to enter into a loan agreement with Jameson Properties, LLC, LP for $223,079.00 at two and one-half percent (2.5%) per annum for thirty (30) years from Salt Lake City's Housing Trust Fund. 2. Jameson Properties, LLC, will use the loan funds to rehabilitate the Stratford Hotel located at 175 East 200 South in Salt Lake City, Utah. 3. Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, following approval of the City Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute the requisite loan agreement documents on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with their terms. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2006. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIR ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM SALT LA TY ATTO EY'S OFFICE BY: y Ec , DATE: / /„�51)Z?0(, CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER STAFF EVALUATION EVALUATION SALT LAKE CITY HOUSING TRUST FUND Stratford Hotel Apartments Name of Organization: La Porte Properties, LLC Name of Project: Stratford Hotel Apartments Location of Project: 175 East 200 South Project Description: The applicant is requesting a loan in order to purchase the existing hotel and convert the project into 46 affordable housing units with commercial space on the first floor and in the basement. Housing Trust Funds will only be used for the residential portion of the project. Rents for the project will be as follows: AMI Targets # of Units Unit Type Rents 35% 44 studio units $375.20 25% 2 one-bedroom units $268.00 Amount and terms requested: $223,079 at 2.5% over 30 years Is the entire project eligible for Housing Trust Fund money? No. Only the residential portion of the project is eligible. Are the funds leveraged with non-qovernment dollars? Yes SOURCES OF FUNDS - Permanent Financing: Equity LIHTC— Key Bank $2,840,213 Equity Owner 3,400 1st Mortgage SLC HTF. 223,079 2nd Mortgage OWHLF Federal 59,297 3`d Mortgage OWHLF Non-federal 250,171 Grants Federal Historic 696,699 Grants State Historic 374,569 Other Deferred Developer Fee 17,635 Other Solar Credits 54,000 TOTAL $4,519,063 USES OF FUNDS Land/Building Acquisition Costs $ 634,000 Rehabilitation/Construction Costs 2,587,057 Site Work, NE, Permit and Other Fees 269,860 Profit and Overhead 543,000 Contingency 154,000 Interim Financing Costs 181,274 Permanent Financing Costs 23,272 Soft Costs 34,600 Syndication Costs 49,000 Project Reserves 43,000 TOTAL $4,519,063 1 Does the requesting agency have sufficient cash flow to repay the loan? The loan will be repaid from rental income. Does the project have demonstrated community support? As a rehab project, community support is not required. Does the requesting agency have a track record of owning, operating and maintaining this type of housing project? Yes. An extensive list of completed projects is included in the application. Project Strengths: The project owner has successfully developed, owned and rehabilitated similar vintage historic buildings. The owner has also previously owned and managed tax credit properties. The owner currently has several loans with Salt Lake City and has met all requirements, is current on the existing loans and provides required information in a timely manner. Set-aside units include five units for persons with HIV/AIDS, five units for developmentally disabled persons, and two units for persons transitioning out of homelessness. The project meets a priority goal of the Salt Lake Community Housing Plan increasing the number of historic multi-family units rehabilitated and will remain affordable for 99 years. Rehabilitation of the units will be substantial and not merely cosmetic in nature and will extend the lifespan of this older building. The market study indicates that there is a market that is adequate to absorb these affordable units. The market study was prepared by an entity approved by the Utah Housing Corporation (UHC). Project Weaknesses: Contingency for this project appears to be low based on the amount of rehabilitation. The developer has identified, to staff, a strategy to cover any cost overruns with his developer fee. The board may wish to confirm this at the Housing Trust Fund meeting. Housing Policies and Preferred Housing Criteria for City-funded Projects This project supports the new housing policy statements currently being considered by the City Council for affordable housing, the preservation and rehabilitation of existing housing stock, historic preservation and downtown housing development. This project meets the criteria established in the new housing policies currently being considered by the City Council that multi-family units will be considered for financial 2 support if the property is rehabilitated and the income level of the residents remains unchanged. Since this project is a rental rehabilitation project, it is not subject to the Preferred Housing Criteria analysis currently being considered by the City Council. The allowable percentage for the developer fee is higher for rehab projects than fees allowed for new construction though the actual dollar amount of the developer fee is lower. Higher percentage developer fees, however, are allowed as a national standard on hard-to-develop projects, such as single-room occupancy housing, in order to encourage the preservation of existing housing stock and to mitigate some of the risk incurred by the developer. Board Options: Approve applicant's loan as requested Deny applicant's loan request 3 HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BOARD Meeting of January 12, 2006 The following board members were in attendance: Curtis Anderson, Karen Cahoon, William Dalton, Cara Lingstuyl, Kent Moore, Peter Morgan, Nancy Pace and Faina Raik. Staff members in attendance were LuAnn Clark, Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development, Sandi Marler, CD Programs Administrator, Jan Davis, Administrative Secretary and City Council staff Janice Jardine. Chairperson Kent Moore called the meeting to order at 12:12 p.m. Faina Raik motioned to approve the December 8th minutes. Nancy Pace seconded the motion. All voted "Aye." The motion passed. Consider a request by LaPorte Properties, LLC, for a loan in the amount of$223,079.00 for purchase and rehabilitation of the residential portion of the Stratford Hotel Apartments located at 175 East 200 South. The project will consist of commercial space on the first floor and in the basement with 46 affordable housing units on the second and third floors of the building. The applicant is requesting the loan at 2.5% interest over 30 years. Mr. Benjamin Logue of LaPorte Properties was present to provide details and answer questions pertaining to the project. Mr. Logue explained in detail the extensive rehabilitation involved in converting the Stratford Hotel Apartments into 46 affordable housing units with commercial space on the first floor and in the basement. Mr. Logue discussed the historic value of the property, his experience in renovating historic properties, and explained how he proposes to preserve the property as a vintage historic building to meet the goals of the Salt Lake Community Housing Plan. Mr. Logue said the rehabilitation will be substantial that will extend the lifespan of the building and be an obvious value to the neighborhood and community. Mr. Logue said that in the sources of funding, they will use State and Federal Historic Tax Credits and solar credits, as they are installing solar panels as part of the rehab. Mr. Logue said the solar will benefit the tenants by reducing their monthly utility bills. The Board was in favor for the solar panels. Mr. Logue discussed rents for the units stating that the tenants will benefit as the rents will not increase above the stated AMI over the next 99 years. Mr. Logue said that the HTF loan will be repaid from rental income. A lengthy discussion followed in regard to the total project costs. The Board inquired about the overhead funding and developer fee. Mr. Logue explained that there will be overrun costs for this kind of building as costs increase all the time, and that the project generally ends up consuming most of his developer fee. The Board asked Mr. Logue that if the requested funding is not approved would the project be able to be accomplished. Mr. Logue replied no, that the project would have to be withdrawn and explained that all of the other funding for the project had been approved. LuAnn Clark said that as part of the loan condition to receive Olene Walker funding, a match in funds from a local jurisdiction is required. Ms. Clark also explained that hard-to-develop rehab projects, developer fees are awarded at a higher percentage than those for new construction projects. Developer fee, cash flow and repayment of the loan were discussed in detail. Mr. Logue acknowledged that the project is complicated and risky but he is confident that the preservation and rehabilitation of the Stratford Hotel Apartments will benefit the City and its citizens. Karen Cahoon motioned to approve the loan request for $223,079.00 loan at 2.5% for 30 years. Cara Lingstuyl seconded the motion. A discussion of the motion included the potential need for a loan repayment deferral until rental income would be available to repay the loan. Karen Cahoon and Cara Lingstuyl accepted an amendment to the motion and the second relative to the repayment deferral. The Board unanimously approved the request subject to the City's funds being provided near the end of the construction period with repayments on the loan being deferred until six months after the final release of funds so that rental income would be available. Revisit HOME Investments Partnerships Program in order to make funding recommendations for an additional $370,000.00 that will be recaptured from program income. LuAnn Clark said that there was an additional $370,000.00 in program income available to be reallocated to the requests for HOME funds. A lengthy discussion followed on the distribution of the program income funds. Peter Morgan motioned to approve the following funding. Cara Lingstuyl seconded the motion. All voted "Aye." The motion passed. 1) Salt Lake Community Action Program application requesting $70,000 to provide tenant rental assistance and supportive services to homeless, special needs and other at-risk populations in order to transition them into permanent housing. They anticipate providing services to 150 people. Approved funding $70,000. 2) Salt Lake Community Development Corp. application requesting $175,000 to provide a loan/grant for 35 to 75 low/mod first time home buyers for down payment assistance or closing costs. Approved funding $175,000. 3) Salt Lake Community Development Corp. application requesting $125,000 for acquisition, new construction or rehabilitation of one property in order to provide affordable housing for one low or moderate income household. Approved funding $125,000. 4) Salt Lake City Housing & Neighborhood Development application requesting $570,000 for homeowner rehabilitation, First Time Home Buyer Assistance, and financial services programs. Approved funding $570,000. 5) Neighborhood Housing Services application requesting $510,000 to acquire boarded and/or vacant properties in Glendale, Poplar Grove, Fairpark, Westpointe, Rosepark, Jordan Meadows and West Capitol Hill neighborhoods and develop them into affordable housing. They anticipate providing services to 300 people. Approved funding $456,172. 6) The Road Home application requesting $75,000 to provide tenant based rental assistance and supportive services to homeless, special needs and other at-risk populations in order to transition them into permanent housing. They anticipate servicing 40 households. Approved funding $75,000. 7) TURN Community Services application requesting $3,200 for building improvements to the Wolfe Cove Home for persons with disabilities. Approved funding $3,200. 8) TURN Community Services application requesting $19,800 for building improvements to the Sugar House Duplex for persons with disabilities. Approved funding $19,800. 9) TURN Community Services application requesting $16,950 for building improvements to the Avenues Duplex for persons with disabilities. Approved funding $16,950. 10)TURN Community Services application requesting $21,800 for building improvements to the Kensington Duplex for persons with disabilities. Approved funding $21,800. 2 11)Salt Lake Housing & Neighborhood Development application requesting $129,214 for administration costs to support the HOME program (10)/0 of total HOME allocation). Approved funding $129,214. Schedule next meeting The next HTF Advisory Board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 16, 2006. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1:07 p.m. 3 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: February 7,2006 SUBJECT: Petition 400-05-32—Planning Commission—request to amend the Zoning Ordinance relating to the permitted and conditional use tables in Downtown and Commercial zoning districts and the definition of multi-family dwelling AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the ordinance is adopted the new zoning classifications will affect Council Districts citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Land Use Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community Development Department,Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Sarah Carroll,Associate Planner KEY ELEMENTS: A. An ordinance has been prepared for Council consideration. This action is intended to expand residential development opportunities by allowing stand alone multi-family residential developments as a permitted use in the Downtown and Commercial zoning districts. B. The Administration's transmittal notes: 1. The purpose of existing mixed use regulations is to assure that uses fronting on a public street had windows and a relationship to the street. 2. Because the Zoning Ordinance has design criteria in the Downtown and Commercial zoning districts that address the streetscape and pedestrian orientation,Planning staff determined that the limitations on residential development are unnecessary. 3. The current restrictions are impeding the ability to attract housing in areas where housing is desirable. 4. Generally,developers will work with the city to achieve an appropriate front building facade design. C. Currently,multi-family dwellings are restricted to above or below first-story office,retail and commercial uses or on the first story where the unit is not located adjacent to the street frontage. D. This ordinance would make stand alone multi-family uses as permitted uses in all Downtown districts. Currently, stand alone multi-family uses are a permitted use in the Downtown D-3 district and a conditional use in the D-1, D-2 and D-4 districts. E. Stand alone multi-family uses are currently not permitted in the Commercial districts except for the Commercial Sugar House Business district. F. The intent of the Downtown zoning districts is to provide use,bulk,urban design and other controls and regulations appropriate to the commercial core of the City and adjacent areas in order to enhance employment opportunities;to encourage the efficient use of land;to enhance property values;to improve the design quality of downtown areas;to create a unique downtown center which fosters the arts,entertainment, financial,office,retail and governmental activities;to provide safety and security;to encourage permitted residential uses within the downtown area; and to help implement adopted plans. (Sec.21A.30.010.A Statement of Intent) 1 G. The intent of the Commercial zoning districts is to provide controlled and compatible settings for office and , business/commerce developments,to enhance employment opportunities,to encourage the efficient use of land,to enhance property values and the tax base,to ensure high quality of design, and to help implement officially adopted master plans. (Sec. 21A.27.010.A Statement of Intent) H. The public process included an open house to obtain public input. The Administration notes only one person attended the open house and indicated support for the proposed amendment and that mixed use development opportunities should remain an option. I. The City's Redevelopment Agency,Economic Development, Fire,Police, and Public Utilities Departments and Transportation, Engineering,Building Services and Zoning Divisions have reviewed the proposed text amendment and expressed support or no objections to the proposal. Any new development proposal will be required to comply with City standards and regulations and demonstrate that there are adequate services to meet the needs of the project. J. On November 9,2005,the Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed text amendment. Comments received at the Planning Commission hearing from a member of the City Transportation Advisory Board noted support for mixed use in all areas of the City and encouraged the Commission to address the need for schools in the downtown area where residential uses are being encouraged. MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: A. The Council may wish to consider including the proposed text amendment for other mixed use zoning classifications. This would provide consistency throughout the various zoning districts and increase opportunities to attract housing development throughout the City. 1. Currently,the language that is being changed by this text amendment is included in the Permitted and Conditional Use Table for the residential zones and allowed in the following zoning districts: • Residential Mixed Use RMU • Residential Mixed Use RMU-35 • Residential Mixed Use RMU-45 • Residential Business RB (limited to a single apartment above retail/office) • Residential Office RB 2. The current permitted and conditional use table that includes the Mixed Use MU zoning classification refers to"dwelling units above first floor commercial or office"but does not reference housing on the first floor. 3. The Residential Mixed Use and Residential Office zoning classifications are applied to properties surrounding the downtown. The Mixed Use MU zoning classification is applied to properties in the West Capitol Hill area. 4. The Residential Business zoning classification is applied to small areas throughout the city such as 900 South and 900 East and 1100 East between 900 South and approximately 1750 South. As noted above, dwelling units are further limited to a single apartment above retail/office in the RB zone. • Planning staff has indicated that it may not be appropriate to allow expansion of multi family in this zone because the intent is to provide for limited commercial use opportunities within existing residential areas located along higher volume streets while preserving the attractiveness of the area for single-family residential use. • Planning staff has previously indicated that if the Council chooses to amend the language in the residential districts listed above, this should be referred back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission only considered the Downtown and Commercial zoning districts and not the Residential districts. 2 • B. In light of the discussion above regarding the residential mixed use zones, the Council may wish to discuss the following questions with Planning staff: 1. Is it correct to understand that it will be no problem for a developer to build a facility in RMU,RMU- 35,RMU-45,RO and MU that has housing on the ground floor abutting the street? 2. Is it correct to say that there will be no requirement for the building to be mixed use, since"multi-family residential' is allowed? C. In light of the Council's discussion relating to the recently adopted Transit Corridor and Commercial Sugar House Business District zoning regulations,the Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether the proposed text amendment would accommodate expanded opportunities and options that would provide maximum flexibility for a broad mix of uses such as side by side development of non- residential/residential uses—vertical as well as horizontal. • Planning staff has indicated that the Council could amend the Planning Commission recommendation and this language could be adjusted so that residential and non-residential can be side by side. • Amended tables were provided to the Council office Tuesday afternoon. It appears that non/residential/residential developments—vertical as well as horizontal—would be allowed given the amended language"mixed use developments,including residential and other uses allowed in the zoning district".Council staff will follow-up with Planning staff regarding this issue. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. Policies in the City's community master plans express support for providing a wide variety of housing choices for all income-levels, providing flexibility in meeting individual community housing needs,housing preservation,rehabilitation and replacement and accommodating mixed-use, low,medium and high density residential development. B. The City's Comprehensive Housing Plan policy statements address a variety of housing issues including quality design,architectural designs compatible with neighborhoods,public and neighborhood participation and interaction,accommodating different types and intensities of residential developments,transit-oriented development,encouraging mixed-use developments,housing preservation,rehabilitation and replacement, zoning policies and programs that preserve housing opportunities as well as business opportunities. C. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report express concepts such as maintaining a prominent sustainable city,ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards and is pedestrian friendly,convenient, and inviting,but not at the expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality. The Plans emphasize placing a high priority on maintaining and developing new affordable residential housing in attractive, friendly, safe environments. D. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image, neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. E. The Council's growth policy notes that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: 1. Is aesthetically pleasing; 2. Contributes to a livable community environment; 3. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served;and 4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. 3 CHRONOLOGY: The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed rezoning. Key dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for details. • August 24, 2005 Petition initiated by Planning Commission • September 6,2005 Petition received by Planning Dvision • October 13,2005 Planning Open House • November 9, 2005 Planning Commission hearing • November 10,2005 Ordinance requested from City Attorney's office • November 28,2005 Ordinance received from City Attorney's office cc: Sam Guevara,Rocky Fluhart,DJ Baxter,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Louis Zunguze,Brent Wilde,Alex Ikefuna,Doug Wheelwright,Cheri Coffey, Sarah Carroll,Jan Aramaki,Marge Harvey, Sylvia Jones, Lehua Weaver,Jennifer Bruno,Barry Esham,Annette Daley, Gwen Springmeyer, Dave Oka, Valda Tarbet File Location: Community Development Dept.,Planning Division,Zoning Ordinance text change, amending Downtown and Commercial districts to expand multi-family dwelling opportunities 4 EXHIBIT A AMENDED TABLE(partial table) Page 960-74 21A.26.080 Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Commercial Districts: LEGEND PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES, BY DISTRICT C = Conditional Use COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS P= Permitted Use Use CN CB CC CS1 CSHBDI CG Residential Assisted living center, large P P P Assisted living center, small P P P Mixed use developments, including residential P P P P P P and other uses allowed in the zoning district Group home, large (see section 21A.36.070 of C C this title) Group home, small (see section 21A.36.070 of P P P P P P this title) above or below first story office, retail and commercial uses or on the first story, as defined in the adopted building code where the unit is not located adjacent to the street frontage Halfway homes (see section 21A.36.110 of this C title) Living quarters for caretaker or security guard P P P P P P Multi-family residential PP P P PP Nursing home P P P Residential substance abuse treatment home, C C large (see section 21A.36.100 of this title) Residential substance abuse treatment home, C C small (see section 21A.36.100 of this title) Transitional treatment home, large (see section C C 21A.36.090 of this title) Transitional treatment home, small (see section C C 21A.36.090 of this title) Transitional victim home, large (see section C C 21A.36.080 of this title) Transitional victim home, small (see section C C 21A.36.080 of this title) EXHIBIT B AMENDED TABLE (partial table) Page 960-93 21A.30.050 Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For The Downtown Districts: LEGEND PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES, C = Conditional Use BY DISTRICT USE D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Residential Mixed use developments, including residential and other uses P P P P allowed in the zoning district Group home, large (see section 21A.36.070 of this title) C C Group home, small (see section 21A.36.070 of this title) above or P P P P below first story office, retail and commercial use or on the first story, as defined in the adopted building code where the unit is not located adjacent to the street frontage Homeless shelter C Multiple-family dwellings P P P P Residential substance abuse treatment home, large (see section C C 21A.36.100 of this title) Residential substance abuse treatment home, small (see section C C 21A.36.100 of this title) Transitional treatment home, large (see section 21A.36.090 of C C this title) Transitional treatment home, small (see section 21A.36.090 of C C this title) Transitional victim home, large (see section 21A.36.080 of this C C Transitional victim home, small (see section 21A.36.080 of this C C title) A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE .` ' �S\a�� ++ �'`I��»r� ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR BRENT B. WILDE DEPUTY DIRECTOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL �� „9- TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer . • TE: I ecember 16, 2005 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director I RE: Petition No. 400-05-32 initiated by the Planning Co Pssi z n to amend the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to permitted and conditional uses in Downtown and Commercial districts,Tables 21A.26.080 and 21A.30.050. It is also necessary to amend the definition of"multi-family dwelling," Section 21A.62.040. STAFF CONTACT: Sarah Carroll, Associate Planner, at 535-6260 or sarah.carroll@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a public hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: Petition 400-05-32 was initiated by the Planning Commission on August 24, 2005, to amend the zoning ordinance to expand multiple family dwelling opportunities in the Downtown and Commercial zoning districts. This request would amend Tables 21A.26.080 and 21A.30.050 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow multiple family dwellings as permitted uses in all Downtown and Commercial zones. The ordinance currently restricts multi- family dwellings to above or below first-story office, retail, and commercial uses, prohibiting them from being adjacent to the street. It is also necessary to amend the definition of"multi- family dwelling," Section 21A.62.040,because the current definition excludes multi-family dwellings that are attached via a common wall. Analysis: The purpose of the existing mixed use regulations that were included in the 1995 Zoning Ordinance was to assure that uses fronting a public street in Commercial and Downtown districts had windows and a relationship to the street. Because the ordinance already has requirements for percentage of glass and other design criteria in these zoning districts which address the streetscape and pedestrian orientation, Staff determined that the limitations on residential development are unnecessary, that the current restrictions are impeding the ability to 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535.7105 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM attract housing in these areas where housing is desirable, and that generally, developers will work with the City to achieve an appropriate front building façade design. The definition of"multi-family dwelling" currently excludes dwellings that are attached "via a common party wall."An example of a dwelling that is attached via a common party wall is a townhouse or row house. This type of structure should not be excluded in the Downtown and Commercial zoning districts. Master Plan Considerations: The proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments will not require any Master Plans to be amended. PUBLIC PROCESS: This petition was presented at an Open House held on October 13, 2005. Only one member of the public attended. The attendee agreed that multi-family dwellings should be allowed and requested that the option for mixed use development, with retail or commercial on the ground floor and residential on other floors remain an option. The Planning Commission heard this petition on November 9, 2005, and voted to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed zoning ordinance text amendments. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: City Code Section 21A.50.050, Standards for General Amendments. A decision to amend the text of the zoning ordinance or the zoning map is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard. However, in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment, the Planning Commission and the City Council must consider the following five factors: A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire Petition#400-05-32—Multi-Family Dwellings Page 2 of 3 protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. These standards were evaluated in the Planning Commission staff report and considered by the Planning Commission. Discussion and findings for these standards are found on pages 4-6 of the staff report in Exhibit 5B. Petition#400-05-32—Multi-Family Dwellings Page 3 of 3 Table of Contents 1. Chronology 2. Proposed Ordinance 3. City Council Hearing Notice 4. Mailing Labels 5. Planning Commission A. Public Hearing Notice and Postmark B. Planning Commissions Staff Report with Attachments Proposed Ordinance Department Comments Public Comments C. Planning Commission agenda and minutes for November 9, 2005 6. Original Petition 1. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY August 24, 2005 The Planning Commission initiated the request. September 6, 2005 The Planning Division received the petition request. September 14, 2005 Requested appropriate City Departments review and comment on the proposed amendments; routed to Transportation, Engineering, the Fire Department, Public Utilities, Police, and Building and Licensing Services. October 13, 2005 Open house held for Petition request. October 25, 2005 Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed. November 9, 2005 Planning Commission public hearing held. A motion for a positive recommendation was passed. November 10, 2005 Ordinance request sent to City Attorney. November 30, 2005 Planning Commission ratified minutes of November 9, 2005 meeting. November 28, 2005 Received ordinance from the City attorney. 2. PROPOSED ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2005 (Amending Definition of"Multi-Family Dwelling" and Making Other Amendments to Tables 21A.26.080 and 21A.30.050) AMENDING SECTION 21A.62.040, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO DEFINITIONS, AND AMENDING TABLE 21A.26.080, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, AND TABLE 21A.30.050, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-05-32. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and the local master plan as part of their deliberation. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed amendments are in the best interest of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITIONS. That Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code, entitled Definitions, shall be and hereby is, amended, in part, as follows: 21A.62.040 Definitions: Dwelling, Multi-Family: "Multi-family dwelling" means a building containing three (3) or more dwellings on a single lot. For purposes of determining whether a lot is in multiple-family dwelling use, the following considerations shall apply: A. Multiple-family dwelling uses may involve dwelling units intended to be rented and maintained under central ownership or management, or cooperative apartments, condominiums and the like. B. Any multiple-family dwelling in which dwelling units are available for rental or lease for periods of less than one month shall be considered a hotel/motel. SECTION 2. AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS. That the table, entitled Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts, which is located at Section 21A.26.080 of the Salt Lake City Code, shall be and hereby is, amended as set forth in the attached Exhibit A. SECTION 3. AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS. That the table, entitled Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for the Downtown Districts, which is located at Section 21A.30.050 of the Salt Lake City Code, shall be and hereby is, amended as set forth in the attached Exhibit B. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2005. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER 2 Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER 5811 APPROVED H; ty Art iqs,) (SEAL) Date 7�j BY Bill No. of 2005. Published: I:\Ordinance 05\Amending 21A.62.040 Definitions,and 21A.26.080 and 21A.30.050 Tables- 11-28-05 clean.doc 3 EXHIBIT A AMENDED TABLE (partial table) Page 960-74 21A.26.080 Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Commercial Districts: LEGEND PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES, BY DISTRICT COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS C = Conditional Use P= Permitted Use Use CN CB CC CS1 CSHBDI CG Residential =----- Assisted livin• center, lar•e Assisted livin• center, small Group home, large (see section 21A.36.070 of this title Group home, small (see section 21A.36.070 of P P P P P P this title) above or below first story office, retail and commercial uses or on the first story, as defined in the adopted building code where the unit is not located adjacent to the street frontage Halfway homes(see section 21A.36.110 of this -- -- C title Livin. •uarters for caretaker or securi •uard P P P P P P y t yy s €: s �E 4 �u�+ .��`�aE.,�.>..��z.,utn,.a��.,,s�.».«��t,�.,.,�.,�.��..cF- n-r,.a u�.�.�C��,...ev,.t�f,,,'�,.,.. t � ��I�_.3( ardu��cv 7w....��e,.K „E..�,�u��.�R,a�..1��„�.�wb!:'�� ,,..,�.__ Nursin• home P P P Residential substance abuse treatment home, lane see section 21A.36.100 of this title Residential substance abuse treatment home, small see section 21A.36.100 of this title Transitional treatment home, large (see section 21A.36.090 of this title Transitional treatment home, small (see section 21A.36.090 of this title Transitional victim home, large (see section 21A.36.080 of this title Transitional victim home, small (see section 21A.36.080 of this title EXHIBIT A AMENDED TABLE (partial table) Page 960-74 21A.26.080 Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Commercial Districts: LEGEND PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES, BY DISTRICT C = Conditional Use COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS P= Permitted Use Use CN CB CC CS1 CSHBDI CG Residential _-�--- Assisted living center, large Assisted livin• center, small 1 , Group home, large (see section 21A.36.070 of this title Group home, small (see section 21A.36.070 of P P P P P P this title) above or below first story office, retail and commercial uses or on the first story, as defined in the adopted building code where the unit is not located adjacent to the street frontage Halfway homes (see section 21A.36.110 of this ----- C title Livin• •uarters for caretaker or securit •uard P P P P 3 P P u t ° � � t J E �.�.�� J�� _t.aS�.�.wE�..��<w„7.,.,�s�`.2�.��.€. ..�uu�.,,.. �..:,�..,�i�a �....�„.emu Nursing home Residential substance abuse treatment home,large see section 21A.36.100 of this title Residential substance abuse treatment home,small see section 21A.36.100 of this title Transitional treatment home, large (see section 21A.36.090 of this title Transitional treatment home, small (see section 21A.36.090 of this title Transitional victim home, large (see section 21A.36.080 of this title Transitional victim home, small (see section -- 21A.36.080 of this title EXHIBIT B AMENDED TABLE (partial table) Page 960-93 21A.30.050 Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For The Downtown Districts: LEGEND PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES, C = Conditional Use BY DISTRICT USE D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Residential ---- j Grou• home, lar•a see section 21A.36.070 of this title Group home, small (see section 21A.36.070 of this title)above or P P P P below first story office, retail and commercial use or on the first story, as defined in the adopted building code where the unit is not located ad'acent to the street fronta•e Homeless shelter C Residential substance abuse treatment home, large (see section - 21A.36.100 of this title Residential substance abuse treatment home, small (see section - 21A.36.100 of this title Transitional treatment home, large (see section 21A.36.090 of this title Transitional treatment home, small (see section 21A.36.090 of C C - this title Transitional victim home, large see section 21A.36.080 of this C C Transitional victim home, small (see section 21A.36.080 of this title EXHIBIT B AMENDED TABLE (partial table) Page 960-93 21A.30.050 Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For The Downtown Districts: LEGEND PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES, C = Conditional Use BY DISTRICT USE D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Residential ---- tJ Grou• home, lar•a see section 21A.36.070 of this title Group home, small (see section 21A.36.070 of this title) above or P P P P below first story office, retail and commercial use or on the first story, as defined in the adopted building code where the unit is not located ad'acent to the street fronta•e Homeless shelter -- C - Residential substance abuse treatment home, large (see section 21A.36.100 of this title Residential substance abuse treatment home, small (see section 21A.36.100 of this title Transitional treatment home, large (see section 21A.36.090 of this title Transitional treatment home, small (see section 21A.36.090 of C C this title Transitional victim home, large see section 21A.36.080 of this Transitional victim home, small (see section 21A.36.080 of this C C title Amendment to Zoning Definitions, Section 21A.62.040 Dwelling, Multi-Family: "Multi-family dwelling" means a building containing three (3) or more dwellings, on a single lot. For purposes of determining whether a lot is in multiple-family dwelling use, the following considerations shall apply: A. Multiple-family dwelling uses may involve dwelling units intended to be rented and maintained under central ownership or management, or cooperative apartments, condominiums and the like. B. Any multiple-family dwelling in which dwelling units are available for rental or lease for periods of less than one month shall be considered a hotel/motel. Dwelling, Single-Family Attached: "Single-family attached dwelling" means a dwelling unit that is attached via a common party side wall to at least one other such dwelling and where at least three (3) such dwellings are connected together. 5B. PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report with Attachments DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Sarah Carroll, Associate Planner RE: Petition No. 400-05-32, request to amend Tables 21A.26.080 and 21A.30.050 to expand multiple family dwelling opportunities in commercial and downtown zoning districts. PETITION NUMBER: 400-05-32 APPLICANT: Salt Lake City Planning Commission STATUS OF APPLICANT: Petition Initiator PROJECT LOCATION: Commercial and Downtown Zoning Districts. This proposal is for a zoning ordinance text change that would revise the ordinance in relation to multiple family dwellings in the downtown and commercial zoning districts. The specific districts that will be affected include: D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, CN, CB, CC, CS, CSHBD, and CG, city wide. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed text change is intended to allow for greater flexibility regarding the development of multi-family dwellings in downtown and commercial zoning districts. COUNCIL DISTRICT: All Council Districts REQUESTED ACTION: A request to revise Tables 21A.26.080 and 21A.30.050 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance in order to expand opportunities for multiple family dwellings in the downtown and commercial zoning districts. PROPOSED USE(S): In commercial and downtown zones the ordinance currently allows, as a permitted use, multiple-family dwelling units above or below first story office, retail and commercial uses or where the unit is not located adjacent to the street. In several of the zones, multiple family dwellings are only allowed as conditional uses. Planning Commission Staff Report 1 Petition 400-05-32 This request would amend the tables to allow multiple-family dwellings, as permitted uses, in all downtown and commercial zones, without the restrictions stated above. The ordinance would be modified to allow pure multiple family residential structures, as a permitted use, in any of the Downtown or Commercial Zoning Districts. PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT: The proposed text amendments are shown below: 21A.26.080 Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Commercial Districts: LEGEND PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES, C =Conditional Use BY DISTRICT P =Permitted Use COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Use CN CB CC CS' CSHBD1 CG Residential Mixed use development, including P P P P P P dwelling units or ineleding multiple- family dwellings above or below first story office, retail and commercial uses or on first story, as defined in the adopted building code, where the unit is not located adjacent to the street frontage Multi-family residential P P P P P P 21A.30.050 Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For The Downtown Districts: PERMITTED AND LEGEND CONDITIONAL USES, C =Conditional Use BY DISTRICT P =Permitted Use DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS USE D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Residential Mixed use development, including dwelling units or P P P P inducting multiple-family dwellings above or below first story office, retail and commercial uses or on first story, as defined in the adopted building code, where the unit is not located adjacent to the street frontage Multiple-family dwellings C P C P P E P APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: The proposed change modifies the text associated with the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Tables 21 A.26.080 and 21A30.050. Planning Commission Staff Report 2 Petition 400-05-32 MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS: The Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan (adopted in 2000), the Futures Report and the Vision and Strategic Plan (drafted in 1993) applies to this proposed text amendment as discussed below: Housing Plan: The goal of Salt Lake City is to enhance, maintain and sustain a livable community that includes a vibrant downtown integrated with surrounding neighborhoods that offer a wide range of housing choices, mixed uses, and transit oriented design. The City Council supports housing densities and mixed uses that support use of alternative public transportation, depending on the characteristics of the area, and supports appropriate housing densities in areas where public transit and local services are conveniently available or can be provided and are accessible on foot. Futures Report: The City must continue to be aggressively committed to integrated housing solutions within downtown and other neighborhoods (p.21). Vision and Strategic Plan: Neighborhoods, Objective E: The City will include a wide variety of affordable housing opportunities in attractive, friendly neighborhoods that provide a safe environment for families. Economic Vitality, 16.0: Strengthen the attractiveness of downtown as the regional center for cultural activity, tourism, entertainment, retail, finance, professional and corporate offices. SUBJECT PROPERTY HISTORY: Not applicable. ACCESS: Not applicable. COMENTS, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS COMMENTS Comments from City Departments (Exhibit 3) and Community Council(s): • Transportation Divisions recommends approval of the proposed changes. • Public Utilities has no objections to the proposed zoning changes. • Building Services did not object to the proposed changes. All lot areas, setbacks, building height, parking requirements, etc. will remain the same. • Police expressed no opposition to the proposed text change. • Engineering did not respond to the requests for comments. • Fire did not object to this proposal. Planning Commission Staff Report 3 Petition 400-05-32 • Economic Development stated that they are highly supportive of this change as it will attract more housing units to the downtown core and will expand housing options in these zones. • Redevelopment Agency: This proposal is fine with the RDA staff. ■ Community Council(s): The Planning Division held an Open House for Community Councils and interested parties on October 12, 2005. Only City staff and one member of the public attended. Planning Division Staff did not receive any comments from any of the respective Community Councils on the proposed text change. Two comments in favor of the proposal were received, and are attached (Exhibit 4). ANALYSIS The purpose of this amendment is to revise the table of permitted and conditional uses for the downtown and commercial districts in order to increase multi-family dwelling development possibilities. The proposed text amendments would allow pure multiple- family structures, without the requirement of first story office, retail or commercial uses. The intent of the Zoning Ordinance is to classify appropriate land uses, and to consider if a specified land use promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. The proposed text amendment meets the general intent of the zones that it would affect, and does not materially harm the associated zoning districts. FINDINGS Issues that are being generated by this proposal. Since the request is a modification of the zoning text, the Planning Commission shall review the proposed text change and forward a recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission shall use the following standards: CODE CRITERIA/DISCUSSION/FINDINGS OF FACT 21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments. A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Discussion: The proposed text amendment will increase the variety of housing opportunities within the City and will strengthen the attractiveness of downtown as the regional center for cultural activity, tourism, entertainment, retail, finance, professional and corporate offices and will create increased housing density in areas that are easily accessible by alternative public transportation. Findings: The proposed text amendment is consistent with standards in the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan, the Futures Report and the Vision and Strategic Plan. Planning Commission Staff Report 4 Petition 400-05-32 B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: The intent of downtown districts is to create a unique downtown which fosters services such as: the arts, entertainment, financial, office, retail and governmental activities. Expanding residential dwelling opportunities in these districts and more readily allowing the creation of high density residential structures will allow people to live near the services that are provided. This will increase the vitality of downtown districts and the use of public transportation. The intent of commercial districts is to provide controlled and compatible settings for office and business/commerce developments, to enhance employment opportunities, to encourage the efficient use of land, to enhance property values and the tax base, and to ensure high quality design. A more intense residential base in these areas will meet the intent of the zone because an increased residential population will demand more services, create more jobs, enhance property values and increase the tax base. Findings: High density residential dwellings will be an efficient use of the land in the Downtown and Commercial Zoning Districts. The proposed text amendment will be an efficient use of the land and meets this standard. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: The proposed text amendment is intended to allow more flexibility in the development of multi-family dwellings in commercial and downtown districts. This amendment will attract more residents to the areas of the City that provide vital retail, professional and office services and will increase the livelihood of these areas. The size of each developable lot will dictate the size of possible apartment or condo buildings. Each lot where these dwellings are constructed will have to meet buffering and off-street parking requirements in order to minimize the impacts on abutting low density residential areas. The downtown and more intense commercial zones are often surrounded by similar intensive zones and land uses. Findings: The proposed text amendment will not adversely impact adjacent properties. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The proposed text amendment is not site specific, and is not associated with any overlay zoning districts. Planning Commission Staff Report 5 Petition 400-05-32 Findings: Any new development will have to comply with applicable overlay districts. The proposed text amendment meets this standard. E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. Discussion: The proposal is not site specific. All new development projects will be reviewed by the departments that regulate the city services and facilities, prior to approval. Applicable departments reviewed this request and did not oppose. Findings: All pertinent City Departments will review any request through the permit process to ensure adequacy of public facilities and services. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed zoning text amendment. Sarah Carroll Associate Planner Attachments: Exhibit 1 —Proposed Ordinance Exhibit 2 —Department Comments Exhibit 3 —Public Comments Planning Commission Staff Report 6 Petition 400-05-32 Exhibit 1 Proposed Ordinance AMENDED TABLE (partial table) Page 960-74 21A.26.080 Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Commercial Districts: LEGEND PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES, BY DISTRICT COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS C=Conditional Use P= Permitted Use Use CN CB CC CS1 CSHBDI CG Residential =----- Assisted livin• center, large P P -- P Assisted livin• center, small P P -- P Group home, large (see section 21A.36.070 of this title Group home, small (see section 21A.36.070 of P P P P P P this title) above or below first story office, retail and commercial uses or on the first story, as defined in the adopted building code where the unit is not located adjacent to the street frontage Halfway homes(see section 21A.36.110 of this ----- C title Livin• •uarters for caretaker or securi •uard P P P P P P ' !' g 4} •E 'x ' i• T•' t �< ��. � ��;:,,L 2,... '..;,1,zr3uf1a 4 ;?,!., '!;,, .wf'.�w �n.,�.{._..� ''' Fl� 6 iE-� ..a��n4 u�ar��,E� a.>u ha..w.,�.a4atx..�,,. ..,,.,..u.,.�,.w �.�ab a �� Nursin• home P P P Residential substance abuse treatment home, -- C -- C large see section 21A.36.100 of this title Residential substance abuse treatment home, -- C -- C small see section 21A.36.100 of this title Transitional treatment home, large (see section -- C -- C 21A.36.090 this title Transitionaltreatment -- C C home, small (see section -- r s6.090 of this title C -- C h Transitional victim home, large (see section -- r s6.080 of this title C -- C h Transitional victim home, small (see section -- 21 A.36.080 of this title AMENDED TABLE (partial table) Page 960-93 21A.30.050 Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For The Downtown Districts: LEGEND PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES, C = Conditional Use BY DISTRICT USE D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Residential -�-- Grou• home, lar.e see section 21A.36.070 of this title Group home, small (see section 21A.36.070 of this title)above or P P P P below first story office, retail and commercial use or on the first story, as defined in the adopted building code where the unit is not located ad'acent to the street fronta•e Homeless shelter -- C Y 0 )_...: 9 . „ Residential substance abuse treatment home, large (see section - 21A.36.100 of this title Residential substance abuse treatment home, small (see section - 21A.36.100 of this title Transitional treatment home, large (see section 21A.36.090 of this title Transitional treatment home, small (see section 21A.36.090 of this title Transitional victim home, lane see section 21A.36.080 of this Transitional victim home, small (see section 21A.36.080 of this title Amendment to Zoning Definitions, Section 21A.62.040 Dwelling, Multi-Family: "Multi-family dwelling" means a building containing three (3) or more dwellings, otherth it ' family attached `'well ings, on a single lot. For purposes of determining whether a lot is in multiple-family dwelling use, the following considerations shall apply: A. Multiple-family dwelling uses may involve dwelling units intended to be rented and maintained under central ownership or management, or cooperative apartments, condominiums and the like. B. Any multiple-family dwelling in which dwelling units are available for rental or lease for periods of less than one month shall be considered a hotel/motel. Dwelling, Single-Family Attached: "Single-family attached dwelling" means a dwelling unit that is attached via a common party side wall to at least one other such dwelling and where at least three (3) such dwellings are connected together. Exhibit 2 Department Comments Page 1 of 1 l 2—E Carroll, Sarah From: Larson, Bradley Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 1:50 PM To: Carroll, Sarah Subject: Petition 400-05-32 Sarah, The Fire Department has no objections to the above named petition. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Thank you. Brad Larson Deputy Fire Marshal Salt Lake City Fire Department 801-799-4162 office 801-550-0147 cell bradley.larson@slcgov.com 10/17/2005 Page 1 of 2 TJJINRT74T( 0'A Carroll, Sarah From: Walsh, Barry Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 10:33 AM To: Carroll, Sarah Subject: RE: Routing for Petition 400-05-32; text amendment Categories: Program/Policy October 3, 2005 Sarah Carroll, Planning Re: Petition 400-05-32, Text Amendment to expand multiple family dwelling in the downtown and commercial zones Tables 21A.26.080 and 21A.30.050. The transportation division review comments and recommendations are for approval of the proposed change in that it presents no notable impact to the public transportation corridor system. Sincerely, Barry Walsh Cc Kevin Young, P.E. Craig Smith, Engineering Brad Stewart, Utilities Larry Butcher, Permits Brad Larson, Fire File From: Carroll, Sarah Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 2:25 PM To: Butcher, Larry; Smith, Craig; Larson, Bradley; Smith, JR; Stewart, Brad; Walsh, Barry; Spangenberg, Craig Cc: Boskoff, Nancy; Campbell, Tim; Clark, Luann; Dinse, Rick; Fluhart, Rocky; Graham, Rick; Harpst, Tim; Hooton, Leroy; McFarlane, Alison; Oka, Dave; Querry, Chuck; Rutan, Ed; Zunguze, Louis Subject: Routing for Petition 400-05-32; text amendment Dear Respective Departments: Please find attached a Memorandum regarding a text amendment request: Petition No. 400-05-32, a request to expand multiple family dwelling opportunities in the downtown and commercial zoning districts. Sincerely, Sarah Carroll Associate Planner 10/3/2005 Page 1 of 1 C-3 G L I LI E S Carroll, Sarah From: Stewart, Brad Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 10:22 AM To: Carroll, Sarah Cc: Garcia, Peggy; Butcher, Larry; Larson, Bradley; Weiler, Scott Subject: RE: Routing for Petition 400-05-32; text amendment Categories: Program/Policy Sarah, Salt Lake City Public Utilities has no objection to the proposed zoning change. It should be noted, as with any new development or intensification of the use of a property,that the question of adequate water and sewer capacity cannot be answered until details of the project are known. It is likely that some developments will be required to address capacity issues both adjacent to the property and in some cases off-site. Ordinance and long standing policy require developers to pay for the cost of system improvements required to support new development. Brad From: Carroll, Sarah Sent:Thursday, September 29, 2005 2:25 PM To: Butcher, Larry; Smith, Craig; Larson, Bradley; Smith, JR; Stewart, Brad; Walsh, Barry; Spangenberg, Craig Cc: Boskoff, Nancy; Campbell,Tim; Clark, Luann; Dinse, Rick; Fluhart, Rocky; Graham, Rick; Harpst,Tim; Hooton, Leroy; McFarlane, Alison; Oka, Dave; Querry, Chuck; Rutan, Ed; Zunguze, Louis Subject: Routing for Petition 400-05-32; text amendment Dear Respective Departments: Please find attached a Memorandum regarding a text amendment request: Petition No. 400-05-32, a request to expand multiple family dwelling opportunities in the downtown and commercial zoning districts. Sincerely, Sarah Carroll Associate Planner 801-535-6260 sarah.carroll@slcgov.com 1 n/A/Inn< Page 1 of 1 I 1 ,6,7 5EUCfrE Carroll, Sarah From: Butcher, Larry Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 7:35 AM To: Carroll, Sarah Cc: Goff, Orion Subject: Petition 400-05-32/Multi-Family Dwellings In Downtown and Commercial Districts Sarah: I assume all lot areas, setbacks, building height, parking requirements, etc. will remain the same. I have no additional comments. Larry 10/10/2005 Page 1 of 1 VOLXCE 7E Carroll, Sarah From: Smith, JR Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 2:43 PM To: Carroll, Sarah Subject: RE: Routing for Petition 400-05-32; text amendment Categories: Program/Policy Sarah, I do not see any CPTED concerns with this petition request. Thanks, J.R. Smith SLCPD Community Action Team Original Message From: Carroll, Sarah Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 2:25 PM To: Butcher, Larry; Smith, Craig; Larson, Bradley; Smith, JR; Stewart, Brad; Walsh, Barry; Spangenberg, Craig Cc: Boskoff, Nancy; Campbell,Tim; Clark, Luann; Dinse, Rick; Fluhart, Rocky; Graham, Rick; Harpst, Tim; Hooton, Leroy; McFarlane, Alison; Oka, Dave; Querry, Chuck; Rutan, Ed; Zunguze, Louis Subject: Routing for Petition 400-05-32; text amendment Dear Respective Departments: Please find attached a Memorandum regarding a text amendment request: Petition No. 400-05-32, a request to expand multiple family dwelling opportunities in the downtown and commercial zoning districts. Sincerely, `jarah Carroll Associate Planner 801-535-6260 sarah.carroll@slcgov.com t fl/17/ions Page 1 of 1 E 0 M l C TV E IE LO1�P Nr Carroll, Sarah From: McFarlane, Alison Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 12:54 PM To: Carroll, Sarah Subject: RE: Routing for Petition 400-05-32; text amendment Categories: Program/Policy The economic development department works in collaboration with other city departments to attract more housing units and development into Salt Lake City, and particularly to the downtown core. The department has been instrumental in creating awareness of downtown housing for two seasons through the annual Downtown Living Tour. The text amendment for the expansion of multiple family dwelling opportunities in the downtown and commercial zoning districts is highly supported by the Economic Development Department for the expanded housing options it will encourage. From: Carroll, Sarah Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 2:25 PM To: Butcher, Larry; Smith, Craig; Larson, Bradley; Smith, JR; Stewart, Brad; Walsh, Barry; Spangenberg, Craig Cc: Boskoff, Nancy; Campbell, Tim; Clark, Luann; Dinse, Rick; Fluhart, Rocky; Graham, Rick; Harpst, Tim; Hooton, Leroy; McFarlane, Alison; Oka, Dave; Querry, Chuck; Rutan, Ed; Zunguze, Louis Subject: Routing for Petition 400-05-32; text amendment Dear Respective Departments: Please find attached a Memorandum regarding a text amendment request: Petition No. 400-05-32, a request to expand multiple family dwelling opportunities in the downtown and commercial zoning districts. Sincerely, Sarah Carroll Associate Planner 801-535-6260 sarah.carroll@slcgov.com 9/30/2005 'FDA- Page 1 of 1 From: Oka, Dave Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 3:52 PM To: Carroll, Sarah Subject: RE: Please comment ASAP This is fine with the RDA staff. - __ MEMORANDUM DATE: September 29, 2005 TO: Building Services: Larry Butcher Engineering: Craig Smith Fire: Brad Larson Police: J.R. Smith, (CPTED) Public Utilities: Brad Stewart Transportation: Barry Walsh Zoning: Craig Spangenberg FROM: Sarah Carroll, Associate Planner, Planning Division 535-6260, Sarah.carroll@slcgov.com RE: Petition#400-05-32, Text Amendment to expand multiple family dwelling opportunities in the downtown and commercial zoning districts CC: Boskoff, Campbell, Clark, Dinse, Fluhart, Graham, Harpst, Hooton, McFarlane, Oka, Querry, Rutan, Zunguze The Salt Lake City Planning Commission has initiated a petition to expand multiple family dwelling opportunities in commercial and downtown zoning districts. This request would amend Tables 21A.26.080 and 21A.30.050 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance as shown below. In downtown and commercial districts the ordinance currently restricts multiple-family dwellings unless they are above or below first story office, retail and commercial uses or where the unit is not located adjacent to the street. In some districts multiple-family dwellings are allowed as a conditional use. This petition request is to allow multiple-family dwellings without restrictions, as permitted uses, in all of the downtown and commercial zoning districts. I would appreciate receiving your written comments by October 14, 2005. If you have any questions please call me (535-6260) or send me an e-mail. Thank you. file://I:\Sarah Carroll\Zoning Amendments\400-05-32 text amend to expand multi-fam do... 12/12/2005 Exhibit 3 Public Comments Page 1 of 1 Carroll, Sarah From: Blake_Howell [blake@thebois.com] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 5:20 PM To: Carroll, Sarah Subject: Tables 21A.26.080 and 21A.30.050 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance I cannot make this meeting but wish to express my complete support if this could be passed along. I am a current downtown resident and have wished this would happen for years. Blake Howell 44 W Broadway#806 Salt Lake City,Utah 84101 p:801.359.0923 m:801.808.9573 e:blake@thebois.com September 29, 2005 NOTICE OF OPEN HOUSE The Salt Lake City Planning Commission has initiated a petition to expand multiple family dwelling opportunities in commercial and downtown zoning districts. This request would amend Tables 21A.26.080 and 21A.30.050 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. In commercial and downtown zones the ordinance currently allows, as a permitted use, multiple-family dwelling units above or below first story office, retail and commercial uses or where the unit is not located adjacent to the street. In several of the zones, multiple family dwellings are only allowed as conditional uses. This request would amend the tables to allow multiple-family dwellings, as permitted uses, in all downtown and commercial zones, without the restrictions stated above. The ordinance would be modified to allow a pure multiple family residential structure, as a permitted, use in any of the Downtown or Commercial Zoning Districts. The Planning Staff would like to receive your input regarding this proposal and invites you to a public open house: Thursday, October 13, 2005 Salt Lake City & County Building 451 South State Street Room 118 Conference Room Between the hours of 4:30 and 6:00 p.m. Since it is very difficult for us to inform all interested parties about this request, we would appreciate you discussing this matter with your neighbors and informing them of the open house. If you have any questions on this issue, please call Sarah Carroll at 801 535-6260 or email sarah.carroll@slcgov.com. 9/'10/2005 OPEN HOUSE Multi-Family Dwellings in Commercial and Downtown Zoning Districts ATTENDANCE ROLL October 13, 2005 PRINT NAME K" p ,-A tcJ-Z PRINT NAME ADDRESS 1)( 14 Htfi i r (.0 ADDRESS ZIP CODE S41 7 ZIP CODE PRINT NAME PRINT NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS ZIP CODE ZIP CODE PRINT NAME PRINT NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS ZIP CODE ZIP CODE PRINT NAME PRINT NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS ZIP CODE LIP CODE PRINT NAME PRINT NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS ZIP CODE ZIP CODE PRINT NAME PRINT NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS ZIP CODE ZIP CODE s z OPEN HOUSE COMMENTS Multi-Family Dwellings in Commercial and Downtown Zoning Districts October 13, 2005 Please provide us with the following information, so that we may contact you for further comment. Please print clearly,as this information will be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Thank you. Name 411Z- {-1A(C.ila Address UFAY K B E UJ2%T i 15Zs' s t,c_t -t 1 YO Phone `J'33-0ws( I OP, email kvt2 Please provide comments below. Fil 5 e 54111 vvt\d---t_ 4,e c-L 46 ure ve4.1 ( LA.( D1'6-e-vt,R,K 6re-QAA7 Open House Oct. 13,2005 5C. PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda and Minutes for November 9, 2005 NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, November 09, 2005, at 5:45 p.m. The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share general planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting will be open to the public. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2005. • 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 4. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA None 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Petition No. 400-05-32, a request initiated by the Planning Commission to amend the zoning ordinance to expand multiple family dwelling opportunities in the downtown and commercial zoning districts. This request would amend Tables 21A.26.080 and 21A.30.050 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow multiple family dwellings, as permitted uses, in all downtown and commercial zones and remove the restriction that these units must be above or below first story office, retail and commercial uses or not adjacent to the street. (Staff. Sarah Carroll at 535-6260 or sarah.carroll@slcgov.com) b) Petition 400-05-25, initiated by the City Council requesting to amend provisions of the Salt Lake City Code that may contribute to residential infill development that is not compatible with the surrounding development within various single and two-family residential zoning districts. The Planning Commission will consider recommending amendments to provisions of the City Code dealing with in-line additions, building height, yard requirements, garage placement and accessory building standards, lot size building coverage, definition of the term "demolition" and fines assessed for construction activity undertaken in violation of the proposed standards. (Staff: Joel Paterson, 535-6141 or joel.paterson@slcgov.com) 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, November 9, 2005 PUBLIC HEARINGS Petition No. 400-05-32, a request initiated by the Planning Commission to amend the zoning ordinance to expand multiple family dwelling opportunities in the downtown and commercial zoning districts. This request would amend Tables 21A.26.080 and 21A.30.050 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow multiple family dwellings, as permitted uses, in all downtown and commercial zones and remove the restriction that these units must be above or below first story office, retail and commercial uses or not adjacent to the street. (Staff—Sarah Carroll at 535-6260 or sarah.carrollAslcgov.com) (This item was heard at 5:57 p.m.) Ms. Carroll explained that the districts specifically affected by the text amendment are the D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, CN, CB, CC, CS, CSHBD and CG zoning districts. Multi-family dwellings are allowed in these zoning districts provided they are located above, below or behind first story retail, commercial or office space. Otherwise, multi-family dwellings are either allowed as a conditional use or not at all in most of these zoning districts. The proposed change would allow multi-family dwellings as permitted uses without the restriction of first story retail, commercial or office space. Ms. Carroll explained that Staff is also requesting modification to the definition of multi-family dwellings. The current definition defines multi-family dwellings as "the building containing three or more dwellings other than single-family attached dwellings on a single lot." Staff recommended deleting the words "other than single-family attached dwellings" so that townhouses may be included in the definition. A copy of revisions to the Staff Report was presented to each Planning Commission Member. The Commissioners did not have questions for Staff, and Chairperson Noda opened the hearing for public comment. Jim Jenkin (Member of the Transportation Advisory Board) said that he supports mixed use in all areas of the City. He encouraged the Commission to address the need for schools in the downtown area where residential uses are being encouraged. The implication from the text amendment, he believes, is that more children would be moving into the downtown area and efforts need be made to provide schools within walking distance. Receiving no further comments, Chairperson Noda closed the hearing to public comment. The Planning Commission held no further discussion on the proposed text amendment. Motion for Petition No. 400-05-32 Based on the analyses outlined in the Staff Report and the revisions to the Staff Report presented during the meeting, Commissioner De Lay moved for the Planning Commission to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed zoning text amendment. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion passed. 1 6. ORIGINAL PETITION PETITION NO. 400-05-32 PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required ,d Petition delivered to Planning 9-(61-C)5 Petition assigned to: 'Ja ra h GAIW I I ( (-9-05 GC Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date 2-- .-4) SC_ Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover 2 (`-a5 c� Chronology Property Description (marked with a post it note) ILA Affected Sidwell Numbers Included 12- ( S C- Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils 2- (-cE S C Mailing Postmark Date Verification Planning Commission Minutes <'9-05 C Planning Staff Report 12-1 j C Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is recommending. I"U-65 jC Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office "2t-05 Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. 5n,,,r0„(\Cnkytr0 Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition Date Set for City Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting August 24, 2005 application for an M1 rezone. Originally, the Planning Commission believed CN zoning would be most appropriate for the area, given the location of the property, 200 South and 1545 West, and its proximity to the Interstate at 200 South and approximately 1400 West. Accordingly, CN zoning was recommended to the City Council. The City Council reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation and key issues raised by the public at the City Council hearing. The City Council has now requested that the Planning Commission re-visit its recommendation. Mr. Zunguze stated that the Planning Office's recommendation remains the same; the CN neighborhood type of commercial development is more appropriate for that area. He said that if the Planning Commission decided to re-hear the matter, the petition would be scheduled for a hearing. If the Commissioners decided to affirm the previous recommendation, it would be reported to the City Council. The Planning Commission discussed various points, such as the property's inclusion in the quiet zone, and what studies had been done on this issue. The Planning Commission then voted to reaffirm their earlier recommendation. At 5:54 P.M. Mr. Brent Wilde stated that Mr. Zunguze is asking that the Planning Commission consider initiating a petition pertaining to multi-family dwellings in the commercial and downtown zoning districts. The ordinance of 1995 required that multi- family housing include the presence of a retail or office element on the ground floor of the building fronting the street. Mr. Wilde said the intent of the adopted 1995 ordinance was to assure that a relationship be maintained between retail or restaurant, and the pedestrian on the sidewalk. The concern was that a stand-alone apartment house may not have that relationship. He stated that Planning Commission has constantly been running into this issue as we try to accommodate multi-family dwellings in the downtown area and the time has come to change the requirement from one that requires mixed use buildings to one that allows stand-alone multiple family buildings in these zoning districts. Chairperson Chambless asked for a motion. Commissioner De Lay moved to recommend the initiation of a petition and Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. Mr. Wilde noted that a formal vote was not needed. At 5:56 P.M. Mr. Zunguze noted that the increase in institutional uses in neighborhoods, such as churches and hospitals, was creating a need for increased parking. He stated that there is not an adequate mechanism or review process in place to address the impact of the proposed expansions in the various neighborhoods. He said that often the proposals that are received entail the demolition of homes in order to expand parking lots. Through the current Conditional Use process we cannot capture all the elements and issues of the neighborhood that need to be addressed, such as quality of life and safety, when such requests for parking lot expansions are received. Mr. Zunguze would like to look at another vehicle that would capture broader aspects of what neighborhoods are, and obtain a more balanced review process. He asked that the Planning Commission move that a study be done and a petition created that could lead to ordinance changes, thus allowing the Planning Commission and staff to be more effective when they review these proposals. Chairperson Chambless asked Mr. Zunguze if this request needed to be written in the form of a formal petition. Mr. Zunguze replied that it did not. However, after study it would 2 MeI11 SA1 1 LAIU ( l l v Department of Community Development To: Planning Commissioners r From: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Di-ector► Date: August 9, 2005 CC: Brent Wilde, Community Development Deputy Director Alex Ikefuna, Planning Director File Re: New Petition Regarding Multiple Family Dwellings I respectfully request that the Planning Commission consider initiating a petition to expand multiple family dwelling opportunities in commercial and downtown zoning districts. The Zoning Ordinance currently restricts multiple family dwellings in commercial and downtown zoning districts. Multiple family dwellings are not permitted to front the public street in some zoning districts (they must be behind or above a commercial use that fronts the street) and in some districts multiple family dwellings are not permitted under any circumstances. The purpose of the existing mixed use regulations that were included in the 1995 Zoning Ordinance was to assure that uses fronting a public street in commercial and downtown districts had windows and a relationship between the front of the building and pedestrians on the street. We have determined, however, that these restrictions are impeding the ability to attract housing in these areas where housing is desirable, and that generally, developers will work with the City to achieve an appropriate front building façade design. Thank you for this consideration. 00 •rai a 0 1:1 COO O�f1 N •rl q q •rl r-i 0 • O =' b 1 7 'd 61 O Phi W N•7 • 0 u as •- 0 0" 0iN A 5 1 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: February 7,2006 SUBJECT: Petition 400-05-06—Mr.Richard Astle and Thaes Webb—request to: • Rezone property generally located at 500 South,500 East and Denver St. (440 East)from Residential Multi-Family RMF-45 and Residential Office to Residential Multi-Family RMF-75 • Amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the ordinance is adopted the rezoning and master plan amendment will affect Council District 4 STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Land Use Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community Development Department,Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Janice Lew,Principal Planner NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: Newspaper advertisement and written notification to surrounding property owners 14 days prior to the Public Hearing KEY ELEMENTS: A. An ordinance has been prepared for Council consideration to: 1. Rezone property at the following addresses from Residential Multi-Family RMF-45 and Residential Office to Residential Multi-Family RMF-75. • Approximately 516-524 South 500 East—RMF-45 to RMF-75 • Approximately 517-533 South Denver Street—RMF-45 to RMF-75 • Approximately 466 East 500 South—RO to RMF-75 (approximately 25 ft.of the rear portion of the property) 2. Amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. B. The rezoning and master plan amendment are subject to Mr.Astle and the City entering into a development agreement that would limit the maximum building height on the property to 45 feet. The RMF-75 classification is necessary to accommodate the density of the proposed development. Density will be 53 units/acre. 1. The development agreement is to be recorded against the properties and shall be binding upon all successors and assigns in the ownership or development of any portion of the property. 2. The ordinance will take effect on the date of its first publication. 3. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish the ordinance until the Planning Director certifies that the required condition has been met. C. This rezoning and master plan amendment would facilitate demolition of one residential structure(524 S. 500 E.)and construction of a 43-unit residential development. Related actions approved by the Planning Commission included a planned development conditional use and minor subdivision amendment.(Please see the Planning staff report and Planning Commission minutes for details) 1 D. The Administration's transmittal notes: ' ,. 1. The proposed residential development utilizes portions of seven parcels. The Web property(6 parcels)will be reconfigured into 3 lots. 2. Mr.Astle has a purchase contract for the undeveloped portions of Mr. Webb's property. 3. Planning staff determined that Mr. Astle's and Mr. Webb's applications would be reviewed concurrently to avoid going through a rezone process twice. 4. Rezoning the rear 25 feet or the property located at 466 East 500 South from Residential Office to RMF-75 is necessary to maintain a consistent zoning boundary for the proposed residential project. 5. Amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use map from Medium/High Density Residential (30-50 dwelling units/acre)to High Density Residential(50 or more dwelling units/acre) is necessary to accommodate the proposed development's density of 53 units/acre. 6. The proposed residential development will benefit the Central City neighborhood and the City by allowing a higher density residential development near major transit systems. 7. The proposed project will provide a distinctive type of residential development that includes a shared common area and underground parking. 8. Restricting the maximum building height to 45 ft. (through a development agreement)is consistent with the RMF-45 zoned property to the south and maintains the 3-4 story pattern of multi-family development found in the Central City community. 9. The Medium/High Density land use designation allows a density range of 30-50 dwelling units/acre. 10. A land use designation of High Density Residential is necessary because the proposed 43 dwelling units equates to 53 units/acre. E. Surrounding land uses include: 1. Office and commercial uses to the north. 2. Commercial and residential uses to the west. 3. Residential use to the east and south. F. The purpose of the High Density Multi-Family Residential RMF-75 district is to provide an environment suitable for high-density multi-family dwellings. Commercial and office types of uses are not permitted in this zone. Maximum height in the zone is 75 feet. Maximum density in the RMF-75 zone is: • 34.5 units/acre for multi-family developments with less than 15 units • 85.2 units/acre for multi-family developments over 15 units with 1 acre • 87.1 units/acre for multi-family developments over 15 units and above 1 acre G. The purpose of the Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential RMF-45 district is to provide for an environment suitable for multi-family dwellings of a moderate/high density. Commercial and office types of uses are not permitted in this zone. Maximum height in the zone is 45 feet. Maximum density in the RMF-75 zone is: • 14.5 units/acre for single-family attached dwellings • 30.5 units/acre for multi-family developments with less than 15 units • 43.2 units/acre for multi-family developments over 15 units with 1 acre • 43.0 units/acre for multi-family developments over 15 units and above 1 acre H. The purpose of the Residential Office RO district is to provide for a suitable environment for existing and future mixed use areas consisting of a combination of residential dwellings and office use. This district should encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of appropriate existing buildings and neighborhood scale. There is no maximum residential density limit in the RO district.Maximum height in the zone is 4-stories or 60 feet, whichever is less except: • Single-family or two-family dwellings maximum height is 2 1/2-stories or 30 feet, whichever is less. 2 • • Property abutting a zoning district with a greater maximum building height,the maximum height is be 6-stories or 90 feet,whichever is less. I. The public process included a presentation to the Central City Neighborhood Council and written notification of the Planning Commission hearing to surrounding property owners. The Administration's transmittal notes the Neighborhood Council was supportive of the petition and requested that the height of the project be limited to 45 feet. J. The City's Fire,Police,and Public Utilities Departments and Transportation and Engineering Divisions have reviewed the request. The development proposal will be required to comply with City standards and regulations and demonstrate that there are adequate services to meet the needs of the project. K. On November 30,2005,the Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to rezone the property and amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. In addition,the Planning Commission approved a planned development conditional use and minor subdivision amendment for the project subject to certain conditions. (Please see the Planning staff report or Planning Commission minutes for the specific conditions and details.) L. Issues discussed at the Planning Commission hearing included: 1. Whether or not the proposed rezoning would be considered spot zoning. 2. The appropriate zoning classification that would accommodate the density of the proposed project. 3. Design issues relating to height,mass,scale,buffering and architecture of the proposed development 4. Potential traffic and parking impacts on the surrounding area. 5. Potential impacts on surrounding low-density single-family structures from larger structures blocking light to smaller homes,damage from heavy excavation and construction to homes with sandstone foundations and potential to discourage reinvestment in existing single-family dwellings. 6. The lack of compatible infill standards for new residential developments in the multi-family zoning districts. MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: A. Council Members may wish to discuss whether it would be appropriate to request that the City Attorney's office prepare an ordinance that specifies the rezoning would not take place until development plans have been approved and a building permit issued. 1. In the past,Planning Commission recommendations and ordinances prepared for rezoning requests that include a proposed development contain a section that specifies that the ordinance rezoning the property would not become effective until development plans have been approved and a building permit issued. 2. This type of action has been taken to provide assurance to the community that the proposed development would occur as presented at the time of the rezoning request. B. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration whether it may be appropriate to amend the Zoning Ordinance to include a modified design review process for multi-family developments(such as the recently adopted conditional building and site design review process)that would address design and compatibility issues encountered with proposed developments in higher density residential zones. The purpose would be to ensure a consistent review process for developers that is intended to be less cumbersome and time consuming for the developer,the public and City staff. 1. A conditional use is not required for projects that meet the minimum standards in the Residential Multi-Family,Residential Office and Residential Business zoning classifications. 2. The conditional building and site design review is processed through the Planning Commission. 3 3. The conditional use process is currently used to address design and compatibility elements(such as height, mass, scale, landscaping,building materials and architectural features)and potential negative impacts on surrounding properties and neighborhoods(such as increased traffic and parking). 4. In the case of a planned development conditional use,a developer is required to meet with Planning staff and the Planning Commission Planned Development Subcommittee to discuss project and provide direction for the applicant. 5. In the recent past,the Planning Commission has held"Issues Only"hearings to review a development proposal and to identify any issues or concerns from the Planning Commission and property owners in the area. 6. Public comment provided at the Planning Commission hearing for this proposal noted the lack of compatible infill standards for new residential developments in the multi-family zoning districts. 7. Establishing this type of process would address some of the planning issues currently being considered by the State Legislature in Senate Bill 170 local government Land Use and Impact Fee Revisions sponsored by Senator Mansell. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Administration's transmittal and Planning staff report note: 1. The Central Community Master Plan(November 2005)is the adopted land-use policy document that guides new development in the area surrounding the proposed rezoning and master plan amendment. 2. The Future Land Use Map identifies this area for Medium/High Density residential uses. (As previously noted,amending the Future Land Use Map in the Central City Master Plan is part of this petition.) The Administration's paperwork notes: a. The Medium/High Density land use designation allows a density range of 30-50 dwelling units/acre. b. A land use designation of High Density Residential is necessary because the proposed 43 dwelling units equates to 53 units/acre. 3. The Transportation Master Plan recognizes the benefits of locating high density housing along major transit systems and reducing dependency on the automobile as a primary mode of transportation. 4. The East Downtown Neighborhood Plan encourages maintaining a balance of residential development that includes low,medium and high densities. 5. The land use designation on the subject property was updated to allow medium/high density multi- family residential development through the 1995 Zoning Rewrite project. B. The Central Community Master Plan residential policy statements include: 1. Based on the Future Land Use map, use residential zoning to establish and maintain a variety of housing opportunities that meet social needs and income levels of a diverse population. 2. Provide opportunities for medium-density housing in areas between the Central Business District and lower-density neighborhoods and in areas where small multi-family dwellings are compatible. 3. Promote construction of a variety of housing options that are compatible with the character of neighborhoods. 4. Encourage residential land developers to build housing that provides residential opportunities for a range of income levels, age groups and family size. 5. Encourage a mix of affordable and market-rate housing for owner occupancy throughout the Central Community. Encourage a mix of rental properties for those who cannot afford or do not choose home ownership. C. The City's Comprehensive Housing Plan policy statements address a variety of housing issues including quality design,architectural designs compatible with neighborhoods,public and neighborhood participation and interaction, accommodating different types and intensities of residential developments, transit-oriented development,encouraging mixed-use developments,housing preservation,rehabilitation 4 and replacement,zoning policies and programs that preserve housing opportunities as well as business opportunities. D. The Transportation Master Plan contains policy statements that include support of alternative forms of transportation,considering impacts on neighborhoods on at least an equal basis with impacts on transportation systems and giving all neighborhoods equal consideration in transportation decisions. E. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report express concepts such as maintaining a prominent sustainable city,ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards and is pedestrian friendly,convenient,and inviting,but not at the expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality. The Plans emphasize placing a high priority on maintaining and developing new affordable residential housing in attractive, friendly,safe environments. F. The Council's growth policy notes that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: 1. Is aesthetically pleasing; 2. Contributes to a livable community environment; 3. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served;and 4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. G. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image, neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. CHRONOLOGY: The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed rezoning and master plan amendment. Key dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for details. • March 25,2005 Webb petition submitted to Planning Division • May 26, 2005 Astle petition submitted to Planning Division • June 1,2005 Central City Neighborhood Council meeting • September 8,2005 Planning Commission Subcommittee meeting with developer to discuss project and provide direction for the applicant • November 30, 2005 Planning Commission hearing • December 5,2005 Ordinance requested from City Attorney's office and review of draft development agreement cc: Sam Guevara,Rocky Fluhart,DJ Baxter,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Louis Zunguze,Brent Wilde,Alex Ikefuna,Doug Wheelwright, Cheri Coffey,Janice Lew,Jennifer Bruno, Sylvia Jones, Gwen Springmeyer File Location: Community Development Dept.,Planning Division,Rezoning and Master Plan Amendment, Richard Astle and Thaes Webb, 516-524 South 500 East, 517-533 South Denver Street and 466 East 500 South C 5 A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE SAILI .2 aJ �T.r►gg" i,© ( ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL c TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: I s•et :r 23, 2005 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director 6`1 .C&-'AL RE: Petition No. 400-05-06: Request by Richard Astle and That We.• to rezone the property located at approximately 516-524 South 500 East Street and 517-533 South Denver Street from a Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential (RMF-45)zoning district to a High Density Multifamily(RMF-75)zoning district. The petition also includes a request to rezone approximately 25 feet(25') of the rear portion of the property located at approximately 466 East 500 South Street from Residential/Office (RO)to a High Density Multifamily(RMF-75) zoning district. Changing the zoning of the project area requires an amendment to the Future Land Use map of the Central Community Master Plan. STAFF CONTACT: Janice Lew, Principal Planner, at 535-7625 or janice.lew@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a public hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: The proposed residential development utilizes portions of seven parcels. The Webb property consists of six parcels with frontage on 500 South Street, Denver Street, and 500 East Street (see attached map). The property owner proposes to reconfigure these six parcels into three lots(colored portion of map). An office building is located on the northern part of the property located at 466 East 500 South Street(orange lot) in an RO zoning district. A rezone of the southern portion of the property is necessary to coordinate zoning boundary lines with the new location of the rear property line. Mr. Astel has the undeveloped portion of the Webb property (green and purple lots)under contract and proposes a rezone of the project area including his property at 524 South 500 East Street, in order to build a multi-unit(43 units) residential project. Planning Staff determined that the applications would be reviewed concurrently to avoid going through a rezone process twice. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 1341 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535.7105 FAX: BO1.535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM Changing the zoning of the project area requires an amendment to the Future Land Use map of the Central Community Master Plan. The subject rezone area is located in a neighborhood designated as "Medium/High Density Residential"on the Future Land Use map. This land use designation allows a density range of 30-50 dwelling units per acre. The request to rezone the subject property to RMF-75 requires a designation of"High Density Residential" as the proposed 43 dwelling units equates to 53 units per acre. City Council has final decision authority with respect to zoning map and Master Plan amendments. Planned development and preliminary minor subdivision requests were approved by the Planning Commission on November 30, 2005, subject to City Council approval of the zoning map and Master Plan amendment requests. Analysis: The proposed zoning map and Master Plan amendments will benefit the Central City neighborhood and the City as a whole by allowing a higher density residential development near major transit systems. The proposed project will provide a distinctive type of residential development that includes a shared common area and addresses parking needs in an unobtrusive manner, since much of the required parking is underground. Additionally, the petitioner has agreed to a development agreement that limits the maximum building height to 45 feet (45'). This standard is consistent with the RMF-45 zoned property to the south and maintains the three- to four-story pattern of multi-family development found in the Central City community. Thus the proposed amendments are generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Master Plan Consideration: The adopted land use policy documents that guide new development in this area are the Salt Lake City Housing Plan(1999), East Downtown Master Plan(1990), Central Community Master Plan (2005), and Transportation Master Plan(1996). The City's Master Plans have been prepared to ensure compatible land uses and promote good development. The proposed zoning amendment is supported by several policy elements of these plans as discussed in detail on pages 8-10 of the Planning Commission staff report. PUBLIC PROCESS: The proposed zoning map and Master Plan amendments were presented to the applicable Community Council and considered by the Planning Commission during a Public Hearing. A summary of the public process is described below. Community Council: The applicant and Planning Staff attended the June 1, 2005, Central City Neighborhood Council meeting. The organization supports the rezone request for the proposed project but requests that the height of the project be limited to that permitted in a RMF-45 zoning district. Planning Commission: On November 30, 2005, the Planning Commission passed a motion to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to rezone the subject property to RMF- 75 and facilitate the construction of a new multi-unit residential development based upon the Findings of Fact included in the staff report. The Planning Commission also passed a motion to Petition 400-05-06 by Richard Astle and Thaes Webb Page 2 of 3 forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council that the Future Land Use map of the 2005 Central Community Master Plan be amended to reflect the property as high density residential. These motions are conditioned upon the property owner signing a Development Agreement to be recorded on the property that the maximum building height with the rezone area may not exceed 45 feet(45'). RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Salt Lake City Code Chapter 21A.50.050 Standards for General Amendments. A decision to amend the text of the zoning ordinance or the zoning map is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard. However, in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment,the Planning Commission and City Council must consider the following five factors: 21A.50.050 Standards for General Amendments A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways,parks and recreational facilities,police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems,water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. These standards were evaluated in the Planning Commission staff report and considered by the Planning Commission. Discussion and findings for these standards are found on pages 8-11 of the staff report in Exhibit 5b (attached). Petition 400-05-06 by Richard Astle and Thaes Webb Page 3 of 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. CHRONOLOGY 2. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 4. MAILING LABELS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a. Hearing Notice and Postmark b. Staff Report c. Agenda/Minutes 6. ORIGINAL PETITION Petition 400-05-06: Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments Exhibit 1 CHRONOLOGY Petition 400-05-06: Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • March 25, 2005 Webb petition submitted to the Planning Division. • March 26, 2005 Petition assigned to Janice Lew. • May 26, 2005 Astle petition submitted to Planning Division and determined to review petitions concurrently. • June 1, 2005 Petition presented to the Central City Neighborhood Council. • June 3, 2005 A letter was sent to the petitioners requesting additional information be submitted to the Planning Division. • August 15, 2005 Petitioner submitted additional information. • September 8, 2005 Petition presented to Planning Commission Subcommittee. • September 27, 2005 A letter was sent to petitioner requesting a response to Planning Commission Subcommittee comments. • October 4, 2005 Applicant submitted response to Subcommittee comments. • November 15, 2005 Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing public hearing. • November 30, 2005 Planning Commission public hearing. • December 5, 2005 Requested that the City Attorney's Office prepare an ordinance and review draft development agreement. • December 14, 2005 Planning Commission ratified the minutes of the November 30, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Petition 400-05-06: Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments Exhibit 2 ORDINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Petition 400-05-06: Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments rr , r tiom x i I -g1 I 1 j. !,II,`=�1 _t o i - I «. '7 l7 `' p : „ CNiI I i. ' ,it is c S fi , .L •I I 4•1 I 1 I r . { ! lfti •lia :J rl� yI I I_ 1 i ne L ay BNbFll ! I I1 �Ux . ''.'";.1; .1. SCR • :t j { j:ii { S `!e f I :11 { 1 IiskAii " a `r k „,,1 lr •r rr 1 J ' E F!• �� III 1 ti'�k�98 s� idV ? r � V I, t L1L 9 _o- v t �V I t"� . �i�[' E ,i -::�'t 1 �'•i'' Al(� I "'r.. d' i 1n et , t�__ d'is4 J}! I r L " Fi 7'`' e f �- 1 rt f 111.,1 � F t r •�� 1r� F1 ,t� � rf I F�P �; ��'jii. Y :� 4�<� 4 .�t t,,�V 1,•�1. M. to iiie N t {' �9 '',;:::,i , ,,.z.1,, I t k Z�( 4 t,ffi.1 Ott? .�f I.. .. .... i 1 �T: '..- f I skl '1' -�y ` a 1. '..::'..,1.1 all . ''' `L ' 1 1 i t 0 ft 1•:.::." s': ) x 3- 1:' t, ,�t" S I 6 r S A�1„ 'K�� I �a f� �JF,,� L j �,�..� .� /,, t ` `F'� "5Pj�eN�t 4 I a y 'j' �Isy+�r e wiii lit ,,� pI E +`�: L177; N j w,_.. ti• •li .,"=� _.�' . .. . ._ ,'4-,,,gi4,_... rQl ',,.,..,.;f..7,4,_ •"�W ra �`4-, a',,at F v. tM s esr� t, _t- ,,._ y 2-- tVgSr i:: ,1 15 r��iF f �k.:,. il"7, r j s ? V�7 a f p � '( (} L e.Y .,Ee Y.11gf :4• 41VOI) !y t ;f: � dam, ;. T,, t♦ ,1'v !4 41 .�...�•� FI I S 11 '; 1 ka t -:� F,. 0� F ( r 6 I F 1 :a 1 4 #y';,I t ±I': I S T O T1 r e{J[7L1R:it ¢ 1 . A _ iki I lb .R�, F , ' It t 1 t % t T .'-! LJ r M , ::;:ii,',,..:.,-,..,.,:4?,::,,,,.: :::: i Y • ",p,, 1'' p i r x I J'p` : ) yea ry,..'' Ilir 'y ;.?tie '� i ` �A� ( O H _ b$' r ',.. Sr. � F O Rlf 4 ' ilf''''•'",•.;',-, -- I a r 1 r,--2,,,,i_ Fib Mk_ Rry I L •1 4 � 3 -1-. {�{ •1 ,i:—,,.::_''- ,,.... - •',.1' .(r if} . I b -^�I l II:', J �� r i J �• �. I ''' '''''''. .' .? i' ° I, J., T r ,1 WL ar �� > t€ 1 Pc �41 it tY . iI �?© 1 r �E., .2a ,�I �`k 441 7�7., 1L•, 7:,.. � k '- 4 '';� fY 1 � : .� t i G-9� R yc t ll ��( I gz° � Jr • t. - ��11 ff'_ '"'�1 i� , i,t:¢ 1 ;,fI� 1. r1 Imo ' I I t . r H G i • I „._.;:._:,,,j,, `-i -. J i I {V Y - ,,..1111 , ', ,� .Wr." l Y 4..?' w F, ,,,-4,3 ..4!..i,,,:,_ , ,Rmik., ,k,..< + 44 a .r?•,k ¢,e.. r, YIf `Nk ♦ z ! ,r 4� .✓,�1 �'`'2- x 54�:?r�-.: '„ __-;.,,,,,,.., f �a t'i L. :f4 4� 'j `x < -I . 'att a >i,: .:'...yt: aj x,.3,5 S) s rt, 410 r" ry ''v. 41 't^ -' $rr''• s �1 ti %S "4+ )nN' Sv 1 w:. t� ;` 3� '. � .•• F -. ej, ',c� fit• E i p -#'r y I Fkb� cb-i....�`', i •�i k' fib � B # �`v ,i �.� r l 4 ,tea. Irtr 7 � � .fit t 1a £ ''ar [yi ' ,.C'' a ''�' r'41. m®a - 1 Mf -t,S.@ F Vr t '� 1 r— t ,r-uarr �„ y yr ' _I { G _�y, i j { tarp QI t 1 � I 1 El El 1, F,t I T ),f S x � .1,1 , ■ IP P . ,:,a, r t, ® rl � --Ir' `�rtiC I'w_. < ,;i -I, 1 I- i " ( ::II a R" r rrii. 5{ I I I 0F l® 7E t� C,., 1 q yl'r )�,r !ie` R4,I4 ••• .k i� ® fl `da - 8? C I1 f�I It:� II 'jl. klr' L'mg tI C gyp f NHL I pt e t�Y , t t' 4 ' `" `C�'Ii +' 1 I �II P_ Q I .. r� I' t p I 1� t t d`/• IIIIt� s�1#x ' , —:1. ) I I ,11 k4.,,.�I II Il'"' , .!- ('gypt ar r' 44 1 t 1 11 � �6�t� � I_ - � r �rF r t t ( • • 1 F----� Yt ( 5 p 1h. �. I :i`L t 6ta:. fe`. I Z :1 . yAs la_�, I ➢G �i� �it)tll r',s t..pi�r�0 1 t • t E ' 'E �I Y+Y 2: a• t$3 -. . !�' I!-" .._II Gt trsu __._ IL,. YL_ ; ,M LI,t:4 d. '11 t. .:- t6,l-. _ .__ SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2005 (Rezoning Properties Generally Located at 466 East 500 South, 517-533 South Denver Street and 516-524 South 500 East, and Amending the Central Community Master Plan) REZONING PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED AT 466 EAST 500 SOUTH FROM RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE DISTRICT (RO) TO HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RMF-75), 517-533 SOUTH DENVER STREET FROM MODERATE/HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RMF-45)TO HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESDENTIAL DISTRICT (RMF-75) AND 516-524 SOUTH 500 EAST FROM MODERATE/HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RMF-45) TO HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESDENTIAL DISTRICT (RMF-75), AND AMENDING THE CENTRAL COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-05-06. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of their deliberations. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed amendments to the Master Plan and change of zoning for the properties generally located at 466 East 500 South, 517-533 South Denver Street and 516-524 South 500 East is appropriate for the development of the community in that area and in the best interest of the city. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. REZONING OF PROPERTIES. The properties generally located at 466 East 500 South, which are more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto, shall be and hereby are rezoned from residential/office district (RO) to high density multi-family residential district (RMF-75). That properties generally located at 517-533 South Denver Street and 516- 524 South 500 East, which are more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto, shall be and hereby are rezoned from moderate/high density multi-family residential district (RMF-45) to high density multi-family(RMF-75). SECTION 2. AMENDMENT TO ZONING MAP. The Salt Lake City Zoning Map, adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning of properties identified above. SECTION 3. AMENDMENT OF MASTER PLAN. The Central Community Master Plan, as previously adopted by the Salt Lake City Council, shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning set forth herein. SECTION 4. CONDITIONS. This Ordinance shall not become effective until a Development Agreement has been signed and recorded against the properties described on Exhibit A attached hereto. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish this Ordinance until the Salt Lake City Planning Director certifies that the conditions identified above have been met. SECTION 6. TIME. If the conditions identified above have not been satisfied within one year from the date of this ordinance, this ordinance shall become null, void and of no effect. The City Council may, for good cause, by resolution, extend the time period for satisfying the conditions identified above. 2 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2005. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt City Att rneys a Date a00 By (SEAL) Bill No. of 2005. Published: I:\Ordinance 05\Rezoning 466 East 500 South-12-21-05 clean.doc 3 Exhibit A Legal Description Petition 400-05-06 ZONING MAP AND MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS: Beginning at a point which is South 0°01'50" East 140.25 feet along the Block Line from the Northeast Corner of Lot 8, Block 23, Plat B, Salt Lake City Survey and running thence South 0°01'50" East 107.25 feet along the Block Line, thence South 89°57'37" West 165.00 feet; thence South 0°01'50" East 8.25 feet; thence South 89°57'37" West 148.50 feet to the East line of Denver Street; thence North 0°01'50" West 123.75 feet along said street; thence North 89°57'37" East 101.50 feet; thence South 0°01'50" East 8.25 feet; thence North 89°57'37" East 212.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 35,685 square feet. Affected Sidwell Numbers: 466 East 500 South— 16-06-455-037 517 S. Denver St. — 16-06-455-007 523 S. Denver St. — 16-06-455-008 533 S. Denver St. — 16-06-45-009 516 South 500 East— 16-06-455-018 520 South 500 East— 16-06-455-019 524 South 500 East— 16-06-455-020 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE ASTLE & COMPANY LC SITE SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH This Development Agreement(hereinafter also referred to as "this Agreement") is entered into as of this day of January, 2006, by and among, Astle & Company LC, a Utah limited liability company ("Astle"), and Salt Lake City Corporation, a municipality and political subdivision of the State of Utah (the " City"). RECITALS A. Astle is the owner of real property located in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Astle Property"), on which Astle proposes the development of a multi-unit(43 units) residential project. B. The City has authorized the negotiation and adoption of a development agreement under appropriate circumstances where the proposed development contains outstanding features which advance the policies, goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and contributes to capital improvements which substantially benefit the City. C. Astle is willing to limit the maximum building height on the Astle Property to forty-five feet(45') in order to promote the policies, goals and objectives of the City and address other issues as more fully set forth below. D. The City, acting pursuant to its authority under Utah Code Ann. Section 10- 9a- 101, et seq., and in furtherance of its land use policies, goals, objectives, ordinances, resolutions, and regulations has made certain determinations with respect to the proposed multi-unit residential project, and in the exercise of its legislative discretion, has elected to adopt this Development Agreement. Now,therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and consideration as more fully set forth below, Astle and the City hereby agree as follows: 1. Maximum Building Height: Notwithstanding the current or future zoning regulations pertaining to the Astle Property, the maximum building height, as defined in Title 21A. Salt Lake City Code to be established on the Astle Property shall not exceed forty-five feet (45'). 2. Reserved Legislative Powers: Nothing in this Agreement shall limit the future exercise of the police power by the City in enacting zoning, subdivision, development, transportation, environmental, open space, and related land use plans, policies, ordinances and regulations after the date of this agreement. Provided, however, that such future legislative actions shall not alter or impair the rights and obligations set forth in this Agreement. 3. Subdivision Plat Approval and Compliance with City Design and Construction Standards: Astle acknowledges and agrees that nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to relieve it from the obligation to comply with all applicable requirements of the City necessary for approval and recordation of subdivision plats for the Astle Property, including the payment of fees and compliance with all other applicable ordinances, resolutions, regulations policies and procedures of the City, including but not limited to, the City's subdivision ordinance and design and construction standards. 5. Agreement to Run With the Land: This Agreement shall be recorded against the Astle Property and shall be deemed to run with the land and shall be binding upon all successors and assigns in the ownership or development of any portion of the Astle Property. 6. Assignment: Neither this Agreement nor any of the provisions, terms or conditions hereof can be assigned to any other party, individual or entity without assigning the rights as well as the responsibilities under this Agreement and without the prior written consent of the City, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. 7. No Joint Venture, Partnership, or Third Party Rights: This Agreement does not create any joint venture, partnership, undertaking or business arrangement by or among any of the parties hereto, nor does it confer any rights or benefits to any third parties. 8. Integration: This Agreement contains the entire agreement with respect to the subject matter hereof and integrates all prior conversations, discussions or understandings of whatever kind or nature. 9. Amendments and Modifications: This Agreement may only be amended or modified by a subsequent writing duly executed by the parties hereto. 10. Severability: If any part or provision of this Agreement is determined to be unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, then such a decision shall not affect any other part or provision of this Agreement except that specific provision determined to be unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable. If any condition, covenant or other provision of this Agreement is deemed invalid due its scope or breadth, such provision shall be deemed valid to the extent of the scope or breadth permitted by law. 11. Representation Regarding Ethical Standards for City Officers and Employees and Former City Officers and Employees: Astle represents that it has not: (1) provided an illegal gift or payoff to a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee, or his or her relative or business entity; (2) retained any person to solicit or secure this Agreement upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage or contingent fee, other than bona fide employees or bona fide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business; (3) knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code; or (4) knowingly influenced, and hereby promise that they will not knowingly influence, a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee to breach any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code. 2 12. Enforcement: The City has the right to enforce this Agreement through any legal or equitable means. This Agreement entered into between parties the day and year first above written. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By Its ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECODER ASTLE& COMPANY LC By Its STATE OF UTAH ) : ss. County of Salt Lake ) On the day of , 2006, before me personally appeared and said person acknowledged to me that he/she voluntarily executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC Residing in Salt Lake County, Utah My Commission Expires: 3 Exhibit 5a PLANNING COMMISSION Original Notice and Postmark November 15, 2005 Petition 400-05-06: Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments • AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO STING In Room 326 of the City&County Building at 451 S 'uth State Street Wednesday, November 30,2005, at 5:45 p.m. The Planning Commissioners and Staff will have dinner at 5:00 p.m.,in Room 126. During the dinner,Staff may share general planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM WEDNESDAY, November 9,2005. 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR Briefing of Northwest Quadrant Master Plan Timeline and process(Everett Joyce) 4. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA—Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters(Karryn Greenleaf at 483-6769 or karryn.greenleaf(cislcgov.corn Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178 or douq.wheelwrighttaslcgov.com): a) Salt Lake City Public Utilities and Murray City conducting business in relation to the UTOPIA project—Murray City is requesting that Public Utilities issue standard utility permits to allow telecommunication lines to cross the City owned property of the Jordan and Salt Lake City and Canal,at two locations within the City of Murray, Utah.The locations are approximately 7200 South 500 East and 7500 South 500 East and the crossings are requested as part of the UTOPIA project and may be either underground or aerial in nature.The Public Utilities staff intends to approve the standard utility permits as requested. b) Draper City and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department—Draper City is requesting that Public Utilities issue standard utility permits allowing bridge structures over,and utilities under,the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal at two locations.The locations are located at 13600 South Dahle Way and 12400 South 111 West.Additional permits will be issued to each utility as separate entities.The Public Utilities staff intends to approve the bridge crossing and standard utility permits as requested. c) Wathen Construction and Salt Lake City Public Utilities—Walhen Construction is requesting the realignment of an existing waterline easement.The realignment of the waterline easement al 2400 East Oakcresl Lane is necessary to facilitate development of the property.The old easement will be vacated in exchange for a new easement alignment.This location is in Cottonwood Heights City. The Public Utilities staff intends to approve the requested easement realignment. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Petition No.400-04-52—Salt Lake City and the Utah Transit Authority(UTA)are jointly working to connect the existing terminus of the light rail line at the Delta Center,located at approximately 350 West South Temple, to the Intermodal Hub located at 300 South 600 West. The Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub will function as the central transit transfer point for commuter rail,light rail,UTA bus,Greyhound bus, Amtrak,and transit support services.The light rail connection is planned to be constructed by the Spring of 2008 to coincide with the opening of commuter rail service at the Intermodal Hub.The route of the light rail extension will be along 400 West,200 South,and 600 West. The Salt Lake City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing regarding the number and location of stations along that route with the intent of providing a recommendation to the City Council. (Staff—Doug Dansie 535-6182 or douq.dansie(cilslcgov.com) b) 1)Petition No.400-05-06—A request by Richard Astel for approval to rezone the properties located at approximately 516-524 South 500 East Street and 517-533 South Denver Street from a Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential(RMF-45)zoning district to a High Density Multifamily(RMF-75)zoning district. The applicant is also requesting approval to rezone approximately twenty-five feet(25') of the rear portion of the property located at approximately 466 East 500 South Street from a Residential/Office(RO)zoning district to the same zoning district as the Planning Commission recommends for the 516-524 South 500 East and 517-533 South Denver Street properties;preferably RMF-75. The request also includes an amendment to the future land use map of the Central Community Master Plan to identify the properties as High Density Residential rather than Medium High Density Residential. The purpose of this request is to accommodate the construction of a 43 unit multi-family residential development. (Staff—Janice Lew at 535-7625 or janice.lewna.slcgov.corn) 2)Petition No.410-748—A request by Richard Astel for planned development approval for a 43 unit multi-family housing development located at approximately 516-524 East and 517-533 South Denver Street. Included is a request to modify provisions 0f the zoning ordinance including but not limited to: a.Allowing grade changes in excess of two feet(2')to accommodate driveway entrances to a subterranean parking structure; b.Allowing multiple buildings with a shared common area over an underground parking structure on a single lot; c. Modifying minimum yard standards to allow an encroachment of the subterranean parking structure;and d. Modifying minimum yard standards such that the RMF-45 standards would be applied to the proposed development etc. The parcels are currently zoned RMF-45. (Staff—Janice Lew at 535-7625 or janice.lew(a�slcgov.com) 3)Petition No.490-05-23—Theas Webb requesting preliminary subdivision approval to reconfigure several existing parcels located at approximately 466 East 500 South Street,516-520 South 500 East Street,and 517-533 South Denver Street into three parcels to accommodate the construction of a 43 unit multi-family residential structure. The parcels are currently within the RO and RMF-45 zoning districts. (Staff—Janice Lew at 535-7625 or janice.lew(a slcgov.com) c) Petition No.400-05-08 and Petition No.400-05-09—Rowland Hall, St Mark's School requesting to amend the East Bench Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map to identify the property located at approximately 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue as Institutional rather than Open Space and to rezone the property from an Open Space to an Institutional zoning classification. This is a 13-acre portion of the Mt. Olivet Cemetery property. (Staff—Everett Joyce at 535-7930 or everett.ioyce aC2s/cgov.corn) 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Newspaper Agency Corporation 4770 S. 5600 W. orsircr CUSTOMER'S P.O.BOX 704005 atoUlfaktgrilmat Morning News COPY WEST VALLEY CITY, UTAH 84170 PROOF OF PUBLICATION FED.TAX I.D.# 87-0217663 PLANNING DIVISION P5356188L-07 11/15/05 451 SOUTH STATE STREET #406 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 T SIQN. PLANNING DIVISION p p :iii:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:•. :••►�.:.yy��yy:••��.� : :;:2::::::::::E:::f:iz:E:::r::i%::�::i>;::::::::::::''•::i:::?::i`::::i:::E:i:�:%:;:y�• �y. y�r� +��t ;, N E ......:....��hY}iNF.SiM �:::»:.:::::.:::.:.:.�::::.::r:.._:...:.>;.�:::::.:.:::::::::.�.FY .Y.'.....1r,.�.. .�F.i�..............:.......::.::::::.:. I� 1 ,.. n i �luiJ r 0B 6 I F � it k 801-535-6188 TL8202WVGN1 Comyio i. 1'14we. , e� ,tl . ,t=I ,, . ........................................................................................... .h i :; �.� f j a c � :t � Iq If iL ,' START 11 15 05 END 11 15 05 � ' '"2''t,T1f ` kill !, iIi4 1l r•.1-, �i:•:::::::....:.::..:::::::w:::;::.:.:i{:::::::::::::?:::y:.�:.v'iv:^:.�::::..:::::iiv:;:�:.�:::•ttOi}iv:{::v.:�y:.::::::::::Li:'•,::.}:>tiy'�:•:}::•i}::iS}}Si}:}:•::•i:4:4i:•�??:ti?^:•ii:i%i:; r i ` i:•:4i:;i:;:•i:<v((ry;:v'iLiii:iCiiiii:•ii:•iiiii::isti4i:•,:;:t?!;i:G::•iiY!f?i•i:L•:. ••:••. ':+�'•'•.:•isi?�':)iiii::;::v:;:yt;:•i:;'ism+:;:;iii?;:,:;:;:;v�i:`=i::isi;iiYtii:�fivif�iijii'rii:�i%i� :::::::..:........................................................... ° :7:��i. N<`•? ??i:?i'•:`•`''li��:? i;ic: .. f%ii: %?: <:%?i�?Ei:< '< �i? ,.......................................................................:........ :::...................::.....................:::::::::................ ...... .....::::::::::::....................:::::. r .:::.::..:::.::::.::.�:v:::..:::•;:::::.i v:•S.::A.::L::.T:::::::L.:�A:::K:::E::::.:.C....:I.i.s.T is i;vY��:rlfi:�:'l:is��:}��:��.}?.�:��}_��+�j4':;:�:ii�?S'�'SY:•�':::::v.<:j:L:;�+;r:;'.:L:yj�?:;:S:k::t+?X<ii::i�i::i+j�j:`:y.}.:<.'. l Il4PLANNING COMMIS � Y +tt F1{ C^48 LINES ?_ 1.00 COLUMN 2�Zl_di� 1p7acl1 z Ii {tiv }MY ii ti ' iiiiiiiM) t :iv jii i `a7IAi ` ii + .i iR a _'l4= [IQ iti (hi 91f`: �•�!-� rt t i l(1 1 1.68 _ ,dal{S ^r J•�'=t l > Li �.',`�:; IF i 2??i',;'A�i2x,.>:o:•y::•;::::•f•;:;ii?is a�f�< S:� ?%i '?��i%��' i:`• 0[I F��. a ,•.::%:r:;i :�:�:%, �T ''+•t' :::�.:1: A'y�: :::ii:::::i:::;:::i:::::::i;::�::::i:::�:::::i::ifi:::::>::;::::<::ii:;:: �y y�� .., :::::. ..:.+7:+.<ai.F.f::::7r. V•Ff :;:.>:.>:.:;.s:.:.:�:.::.:::.::;:.::.>:;.::.>:.:::.>:.>:.>::.:.:>:.>:::...:..........:.:!rt "(a7i?.:::::::::.:::::::::.::::::::::::::.:::.�:: cfi'I 7�nTtb'' ew t 5 7,6 820 mt1 .00 85.64 85.64 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION AS NEWSPAPER AGENCY CORPORATION LEGAL BOOKKEEPER, I CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED ADVERTISEMENT OF SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMIS FOR PLANNING DIVISION WAS PUBLISHED BY THE NEWSPAPER AGENCY CORPORATION, AGENT FOR THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE AND DESERET NEWS,DAILY NEWSPAPERS PRINTED IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WITH GENERAL CIRCULATION IN UTAH,AND PUBLISHED IN SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY IN THE STATE OF UTAH. PUBLISHED o START 1/15/05 END 11/15/05 Notary Public SIGNATURE -(Wir ' d°axr''. . SHERI Z.EARL " ` `143 South Main Street li I DATE 11/15/05 f�tl., SMyC City, Santah Sanitise i i• Commission Ex IreS p I .,,�• •=r May 24,2009 1 State of Utah J THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT BUT A "PROOF OF PUBLICATION" PLEASE PAY FROM BILLING STATEMENT. Exhibit 5b PLANNING COMMISSION November 30, 2005 Staff Report Petition 400-05-06: Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments DATE: November 23, 2005 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Janice Lew, Principal Planner Telephone: 801.535.7625 Email: janice.lew@slcgov.com RE: STAFF REPORT FOR THE November 30, 2005 MEETING CASE NUMBER: Zoning Map Amendment—400-05-06 Planned Development—410-748 Minor Subdivision - 490-05-23 APPLICANT/STATUS: Richard Astle, Developer Thaes Webb, Property owner PROJECT LOCATION: 466 East 500 South— 16-06-455-037 517 S. Denver St.— 16-06-455-007 523 S. Denver St.— 16-06-455-008 533 S. Denver St. — 16-06-45-009 516 South 500 East— 16-06-455-018 520 South 500 East— 16-06-455-019 524 South 500 East— 16-06-455-020 t CN RO RO e !,, ,,..,,,,1 . . 3 y . 4 „ . _, , „ , , ' '' RMF-45 - ' R 3 oq ,4ii ' gm, RMF-35 j RMF-35 OS RMF-35 RMF-30 tea e .,. Staff Report,Petitions,400-05-06,410-748 and 490-05-23 November 30,2005 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission - 1 - PROJECT/PROPERTY SIZE: .82 Acres COUNCIL DISTRICT: District 4, Council Member Nancy Saxton SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS: North—Residential/Office (RO) and Neighborhood Commercial (CN) South—Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential (RMF-45) East—Moderate Density Multifamily Residential (RMF-35) West—Residential/Office(RO) and Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential (RMF-45) SURROUNDING LAND USES: North—Office and commercial South—Residential East—Residential West—Commercial and residential REQUESTED ACTION: Property owner, Thaes Webb, is requesting preliminary minor subdivision approval to reconfigure multiple parcels under single ownership into three lots. Lot one of the proposed subdivision is currently developed as an office building with access and frontage on 500 South Street. Richard Astle, the developer, has the undeveloped portion of the Webb property under contract and is requesting a zoning change of a portion of the property located at 466 East 500 South from RO to RMF-75 and the property generally located between 517-533 S. Denver St. and 516-524 South 500 East from RMF- 45 to RMF-75. Changing the zoning of the project area requires an amendment to the Future Land Use map of the Central Community Master Plan. In addition, the developer has submitted a planned development request to modify provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. PROPOSED USE(S): The developer intends to build a multi-unit residential development(43 units) on the subject property which includes proposed Lots 2 and 3 of the Webb subdivision proposal. APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: The proposed zone change is subject to the Salt Lake City Code, Chapter 21A.50— Amendments and Special Approvals. The proposed master plan amendment is subject to the Utah Code Annotated (10-9-302)which identifies procedures for adopting and amending general plans. The proposed planned development is subject to Salt Lake City Code, Section 21.54.080—Conditional Use and Section 21.54.150—Planned Development. Finally, the proposed subdivision approval is subject to Title 20 Staff Report,Petitions,400-05-06,410-748 and 490-05-23 November 30,2005 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission -2- Subdivisions of the Salt Lake City Code and the Site Development Ordinance, Chapter 18.28. MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS: The adopted land use policy documents that guide new development in this area are the Salt Lake City Housing Plan(1999), East Downtown Master Plan(1990), Central Community Master Plan (2005), and Transportation Master Plan (1996). A description of the pertinent information in these documents is provided below under the Analysis and Findings section of this staff report. SUBJECT PROPERTY HISTORY: The bulk of the subject property is currently vacant. A residential structure located at 524 South 500 East Street will be razed. An office building is located at 466 East 500 South Street, but is not part of the Astel residential development proposal. ACCESS: The building at 466 East 500 South Street is accessible from 500 South Street. The proposed multi-unit project is accessible from Denver Street on the west side and 500 East Street on the east side. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Webb property consists of six property parcels with frontage on 500 South Street, Denver Street and 500 East Street. The property owner is proposing a minor subdivision to reconfigure the parcels into three lots. For clarification purposes, Staff notes that the property owner originally proposed a rezone of the southern portion of the property located at 466 East 500 South Street from a RO zoning district to a RMF-45 zoning district. The Planning Division considered this necessary to coordinate zoning boundary lines with the new location of the rear property line. An office building is located on the greater part of this parcel. Since the Astel rezone proposal includes the undeveloped portion of the Webb property, staff determined that the applications could be reviewed concurrently to avoid going through a rezone process twice. The developer is proposing to rezone the subject property in order to build a multi-unit residential project. The rear of the parcel located at 466 East 500 South Street is currently zoned"RO" (Residential/Office) which is intended to provide a suitable environment for existing and future mixed use areas consisting of a combination of residential dwellings and office use. The remainder of the subject property is zoned"RMF-45" (Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential) which is intended to provide an environment suitable for multi-family dwellings of a moderate/high density. The maximum building height in the RMF-45 zoning district is forty-five feet(45'), and establishes a residential density of forty-three(43) dwelling units per acre. The applicant is proposing a RMF-75 zoning district which allows for a maximum building height of seventy-five feet (75'), and establishes a residential density of eighty-five(85) dwelling units per acre. Staff Report,Petitions,400-05-06,410-748 and 490-05-23 November 30,2005 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission -3- Changing the zoning of the project area also requires an amendment to the Future Land Use map of the Central Community Master Plan. The subject rezone area is located in a neighborhood designated as "Medium/High Density Residential" on the Future Land Use map. This land use designation allows a density range of 30-50 dwelling units per acre. The request to rezone the subject property to RMF-75 would require a designation of "High Density Residential" as the proposed forty-three (43) dwelling units equates to fifty-three (53) units per acre. The subdivision, rezone, master plan amendment, and planned development applications are the first steps in the City's review process. Should the applicants receive approval for these requests, building permits would be required prior to construction. All lots comprising the residential use would then need to be consolidated into one lot before building permits could be issued. A future condominium plat may be required if individual transfer of ownership of the units is desired. The first part of this staff report focuses on the Rezone and Planned Development requests. The proposed planned development was reviewed by the Planning Commission Subcommittee on September 8, 2005. Issues discussed by the subcommittee are provided below under the Comments section of this staff report. The second part of the report focuses on the Subdivision process. COMMENTS, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 1. COMMENTS The comments received from pertinent City Departments/Divisions and the Community Council are attached to this staff report. Many of the comments will be addressed at the time of application for building permit issuance. The following is a summary of the comments and concerns received: a) Public Utilities Division: Public Utilities found the proposed project approvable if the following issues are addressed: 1. All future design and construction must conform to State, County, City and Public Utilities standards and ordinances and Salt Lake City Public Utilities General Notes. These subject properties would be serviced from six-inch water mains and eight-inch sanitary sewer mains located in the surrounding streets. Numerous water and sewer services are connected to this property. These services will be used or disconnected at the main as determined by Public Utilities. Utility and grading and drainage plans must be submitted for review and approval at the time of the proposed construction. At the time of proposed construction the water and sewer mains in the street must be blue staked and surveyed. If any of these mains are within ten-feet of the subject properties, then additional easements may be required to be dedicated to Salt Lake City Corporation for the operation, and maintenance of these mains. 2. Salt Lake City Fire Department approval is required prior to Public Utilities. All hydrant locations, fire flow requirements and access issues must be approved by the Fire Department. Staff Report,Petitions,400-05-06,410-748 and 490-05-23 November 30,2005 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission -4- 3. All environmental and wetland issues must be approved by the appropriate governing agency prior to Public Utilities approval. The developer must provide written documentation to Public Utilities showing these conditions have been met. 4. All existing and new easements must be clearly shown and described on the plat prior to final plat recordation. If a sewer lateral or water service crosses through an adjacent property, an easement for that utility must be provided. If power lines, gas lines, communication conduits, etc. exist within the property, any relocation of these utilities and related easements must be approved by Public Utilities. No buildings, structures, trees, islands, etc. may be constructed within easements dedicated to Salt Lake City Public Utilities. 5. Service connection agreements must be entered into between the developer and Public Utilities for all water, fire and sewer mains and services. The agreement will outline developer and Public Utilities' responsibilities related to construction, maintenance and warranty of these services. Prior to construction plan set approval all utility and impact fees must be paid in full. A $343 per quarter acre drainage impact fee will be assessed on the new hard surface introduced by this development. 6. The engineer for these developments will need to provide sanitary sewer calculations and fire flow data for determination if the existing water and sewer facilities are adequate to service these proposed developments or if upgrades to the existing utility infrastructure will be needed. Final property and building layouts will determine how water, fire, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage services can be designed and installed to service each portion of these proposed developments. 7. High groundwater tables are possible in this area. A geotechnical engineer must submit for review and approval a study to determine the highest expected groundwater table in these proposed properties. The study must refer to historical well records and boring logs in this area and any other pertinent information or data. No ground water will be allowed to be pumped into the City's storm drainage system from this proposed development. This will dictate that the underground parking structure be above this highest expected groundwater elevation or protected from high groundwater conditions. b) Division of Transportation: The division review comments and recommendations are as follows: 1. For the DRT review on June 8, 2005 of the proposed 43 unit apartment/condo with 84 parking stalls and the subdivision to combine lots and a rear portion of 466 E 500 S. issue with reduction of rear lot line. One issue was for parking compliance and landscape buffers to remain as needed for a legal lot function. Rough calculations indicate 14 stalls needed by Alan Michelson and 16 stalls were shown on the plan and 18 in the aerial photos. It was determined that the city needed documentation and provision for the 7' rear yard buffer to maintain legalization of the proposed lot change. StaffReport,,Petitions,400 05-06,410=748 and 490-05-23 —November 30,2005 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission -5- 2. The preliminary review of the building proposal in a RMF-75 zone required a subdivision to combine the lots to include the issue with the cross easement with the property to the south. Some items needed for PUD exceptions were front and side yard building and landscaping widths, parking setbacks and grade changes etc. 3. The transportation divisions comments was for early submittal of the parking structure drawings for review of the bldg grid spacing, driveway ramps, and various elevations, etc. We also needed public way improvement drawings showing removal of existing driveways and new driveways, sidewalks and trees. Final plans need parking dimensions, ADA stall and 5%bike parking shown with details. For the secured parking structure access notice is required on 500 E and "No parking will be allowed on Denver Street frontage. c) Salt Lake City Engineering: City Engineering review comments are as follows: 1. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, and a drive approach for the adjacent property exist in 500 East Street along the frontage of the proposed plat. The curb & gutter is badly cracked(weeds are growing in it) in many places and must be replaced. Approximately three sidewalk panels and the drive approach are cracked and must be replaced. When the drive approach is replaced, it should be engineered to raise the deep gutter so that cars doe not drag. The proposed new drive approach must be installed in conformance with APWA Std. Plan 225. Curb, gutter, sidewalk and a drive approach also exist in Denver Street along the frontage of the proposed project. The drive approach, which also acts as a sidewalk, causes the sidewalk cross slope to exceed 4% and should be replaced with a drive approach in conformance with APWA Std. Plan 215. The proposed new drive approach must be installed in conformance with APWA Std. Plan 215. 2. Prior to performing the work described above, a"Permit to Work in the Public Way"must be obtained from SLC Engineering. 3. The proposed 43 unit residential development will require more land than is shown the Webb survey. A plat is recommended to combine Parcels 2 and 3 with the property to the south of Parcel 2. The plat must conform to the requirements of the Subdivision Plat Checklist. A plat should be submitted as soon as possible to allow the SLC Surveyor to begin his review. d) Fire: The Fire Department had no objections to the proposed project if the following issues are addressed prior to finalization of the plans: 1. Due to the lack of full FD vehicle access on all sides, the Salt Lake City Fire Department will require that the project include total fire sprinkler protection and a building standpipe system, as required by the code for this occupancy type. In addition, a fire flow (water supply) analysis conducted by the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department is required to ensure an adequate water supply, and fire hydrant(s) are provided for the proposed project 2. Additional building code issues may need to be addressed, as full plans, drawings and specifications are presented for review. e) Police: The department submitted the following CPTED concerns: Staff Report,Petitions,400-05-06,410-748 and 490-05-23 November 30,2005 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission -6- 1. The garage entries should have a card key or similar type of access system due to the high probability of extensive car break-ins under the present design configuration. This also lessens the probability of access by unwanted persons through the elevator system to unit floors. 2. Shrubbery should be installed with a maximum growing height of 24-30 inches and that all planted trees have limbs capable of being trimmed at a 6-7 foot height. These CPTED concepts increase the visibility and security of the complex and its residents. f) Property Management: The department has no objections to the proposed project. g) Building Services: Building Services reviewed the proposed project as part of the Development Review Team (DRT) review held on June 8, 2005. A list of their comments is attached to this staff report. h) Planning Commission Subcommittee: The Subcommittee discussed alternative zoning designations for the subject property. The Subcommittee also expressed concerns about the compatibility of the proposed project with the low density older residential character of the existing development along Denver Street. i) Community Council: The developer and planning staff attended Central City Neighborhood Council meetings on June 1, 2005. The organization supports the rezone request for the proposed project,but requests that the height of the project be limited to that permitted in a RMF-45 zoning district. 2. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments R 9 fl � ROB RO- ' RMF 75 �a1, {' RMF 45 , . ( _ � S[�R 3f'E •1 1 4 11:11 RMF,-35 'RMF 35, OS RMF-35 RMF' 30 Staff Report,Petitions,400-05-06,410-748 and 490-05-23 November 30,2005 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission -7- Chapter 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Code The City Council has final decision authority with respect to text or zoning map amendments. Chapter 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Code, entitled "Amendments and Special Approvals" addresses changes to the text of the zoning code and associated maps. Section 21A.50.050 outlines standards the City Council should consider when making a decision regarding a rezone. The standards for general amendments are as follows: A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Discussion: A description of the pertinent policy documents is provided below. Salt Lake City Housing Plan The following City Council policies regarding housing are outlined in the plan and are relevant to the proposed development: 1. The City Council supports a citywide variety of residential housing units, including affordable housing and supports accommodating different types of developments and intensities of residential development. 2. The City Council encourages architectural designs compatible with neighborhoods that: • Make good use of and incorporate open space, even minimal amounts; • Interface well with public space; • Address parking needs in the least obtrusive manner possible; and • Are creative, aesthetically pleasing and provide attractive public spaces, such as designated common areas, community centers, childcare, resident gathering places,resident gardens, etc. The request supports the Salt Lake City Housing Plan policies in that it provides a diverse housing stock, shared common area, and it addresses parking needs in a non-obtrusive manner by placing much of the required parking underground. East Downtown Neighborhood Plan The plan identifies the majority of the site within Sub Area 6: Sumner Residential which encourages maintaining a balance of residential development that includes low, medium, and high density. The land use designation on the subject property was updated to allow medium/high density multi-family residential development at a forty-five foot(45') height as part of the 1995 zoning rewrite project (Ordinance 26, 1995). A way to maintain a consistent building height in the area, while providing high- density housing is to rezone the property to the requested high density multi- family zoning district, but limit the maximum building height permitted on the subject property through a development agreement. Limiting the maximum building height to forty five feet (45') which is consistent with the RMF-45 Staff Report,Petitions,400-05-06,410-748 and 490-05-23 November 30,2005 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission -8- zoning district would maintain the three to four story pattern of multi-family development found in the Central City community. Central Community Master Plan A new master plan for the Central Community was adopted by the City Council on November 1, 2005. The Future Land Use map of the master plan recommends medium/high density residential (30-50 dwelling units/acre) land uses for this site. Medium/high-density residential areas typically have multi-story residential structures comprising three to four stories. The following is a table showing the density potential of the subject property based upon a RMF-45 zoning designation: RMF-45 Subject Rezone Potential Number Overall Density Minimum Lot Area Size of Units Potential Area 21,000 sf for 15 units,plus 800 sf .82 acres or 43.2 dwelling for each 35,685 square 43 units units/acre additional feet dwelling unit The high-density residential land use designation of the Central Community Master Plan allows high-density residential structures including mid and high-rise townhouses, condominiums, and apartments as the dominant land use. The following is a table showing the density potential of the subject property based upon a RMF-75 zoning designation: RMF-75 Subject Rezone Potential Number Overall Density Minimum Lot Area Size of Units Potential Area 19,000 sf for 15 units,plus 350 sf .82 acres or 85.2 dwelling for each 35,685 square 63 units units/acre additional feet dwelling unit Staff is of the opinion that the proposed density of forty-three(43) dwelling units for this site (53 units per acre) is comparable to the medium/high residential density classification recommended by the Future Land Use map of the Central Community Master Plan. The request could further support the Central Community Master Plan if the Future Land Use map were amended to reflect the requested RMF-75 multi-family zoning district. Transportation Master Plan The Transportation Master Plan recognizes the benefits of locating high density housing along major transit systems. Higher density development accessible to Staff Report,Petitions,400-05-06,410-748 and 490-05-23 November 30,2005 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission -9- transit stations provides greater opportunities for ridesharing which in turn implements one of the "Guiding Principles" of the plan to reduce dependency on the automobile as primary mode of transportation. Rezoning the subject property to RMF-75 will allow higher density residential development near major bus and rail lines (University Trax Light Rail) where residences can rely less on private automobiles and take advantage of the close proximity of other modes of transportation for meeting their needs. Finding: The proposed zoning amendment is supported by several policy elements of the Salt Lake City Housing Plan, East Downtown Master Plan, Central Community Master Plan, and Transportation Master Plan. Furthermore, a development agreement limiting future development of the subject property to a maximum building height of forty-five feet (45') is consistent with the RMF-45 zoned properties to the south within this block and encourages compatible development that complements the character of the established neighborhood. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: The East Downtown neighborhood is the designated high-density neighborhood of Salt Lake City. Apartments are common on 300 South and 500 and 600 East Streets although densities generally decrease the further east one gets from the Downtown core. Development in the immediate vicinity includes a mixture of office, commercial, and residential development. The character of this residential neighborhood is consistent with that of the general pattern of development in the city. The area is defined by mostly older single-family homes and a few apartment complexes within a large city block divided by an inner- block street. The typical building height on the block is between one and two stories for low density residential buildings, although taller buildings in the area exist. The applicant has designed the project to reflect the residential character and lower scale of the residential development to the south and Denver Street streetscape. Architectural details such as porches, awnings, materials, and cornices help the proposed building relate to its context. The perceived mass of the proposed building is visually divided into small modules by stepping the wall plane. This stepped effect is also expressed in building materials, cornices and other façade treatments. Along with a similarity with the building height permitted in the area(45'), the façade variation treatment contributes to the visual continuity of the neighborhood. Although not required by the Zoning Ordinance, the seven foot (7') landscaped area on the north side of the parking area also helps to mitigate any potential negative impacts on adjacent or neighboring properties. As such, a rezone of the Staff Report,Petitions,400-05-06,410-748 and 490-05-23 November 30,2005 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission - 10- subject property to RMF-75 that includes a development agreement to limit maximum building height would be consistent with adjacent zoning and land use. Finding: The proposed multi-family residential development is harmonious with the existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: The proposed development should have a positive impact on surrounding properties. The majority of the site is undeveloped and a sensitively designed high quality housing project would increase the residential population base, enhance the character of the area, and should have a positive affect on adjacent properties. Finding: In general, the proposed rezone will not have a negative impact on adjacent properties. The applicant has agreed to a development agreement that would limit the maximum building height on the subject property to forty-five feet (45'). D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning district which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The subject property is located within the Secondary Recharge Area boundary lines. Public Utilities indicated that high groundwater tables are possible in this area and a geotechnical engineer must submit for review and approval a study to determine the highest expected groundwater table on the subject property. Finding: The Secondary Recharge Area overly zoning district does not impose any additional standards for regulating a residential use at the subject location. E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies and wastewater and refuse collection. Discussion: City divisions and departments responded with comments as noted above under the Comments section of this staff report. The applicant will be required to meet City standards for public utilities and services prior to issuance of a building permit. Finding: The subject property is in a developed area of the City. No comments were received indicating that public facilities and services are completely inadequate to support the subject property and proposed project,however there may be challenges. Staff Report,Petitions,400-05-06,410-748 and 490-05-23 November 30,2005 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission - I I - RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the comments, analysis and findings in this report, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to rezone the subject property to RMF-75 and facilitate the construction of a new multi-unit residential development. Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission favorably recommend to the City Council that the Future Land Use map of the 2005 Central Community Master Plan be amended to reflect the property as high density residential. Planning Staff's recommendation is contingent upon the following: 1. The property owner signs a Development Agreement to be recorded on the property that the maximum building height with the rezone area may not exceed forty-five feet (45'). If the Planning Commission decides to forward an unfavorable recommendation regarding the RMF-75 rezone request, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to rezone the southern portion of the property located at 466 East 500 South from a RO zoning district to a RMF-45 zoning district. This rezone would coordinate zoning boundary lines with the proposed new location of the rear property line. Planned Development To provide adequate flexibility in design and land utilization of the subject property, staff determined that it would be best to review the proposed multi-family residential development through the planned development process. This would allow the entire site to be considered as a cohesive development and treated, as such, with respect to site plan layout. The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission modify several provisions of the Zoning Ordinance including: 1. Allow grade changes in excess of two feet (2') to accommodate driveway entrances to a subterranean parking structure; 2. Allow multiple buildings with a shared common area over an underground parking structure on a single lot; 3. Modify minimum yard standards to allow an encroachment of the subterranean parking structure; and 4. Modify minimum yard standards of the RMF-75 zoning district such that the RMF-45 standards would be applied to the proposed development. Planning Commission has final decision authority with respect to the City's conditional use and planned development standards. In order to make its decision, the Commission must use the following standards. 21.54.080 Standards for Conditional Use. A. The proposed development is one of the conditional uses specifically listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff Report,Petitions,400-05-06,410-748 and 490-05-23 November 30,2005 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission - 12- Discussion: Table 21 A.54.150.E.2 allows the planned development conditional use process in the RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts for parcels greater than 20,000 square feet. The total acreage of the site for the proposed project is 35,685 square feet. Finding: The proposed development meets the minimum planned development size requirement in both the RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts. B. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this title, is compatible with, and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City Master plans. Discussion: As discussed above under General Amendment Standard A, the proposed development is consistent with and implements certain planning goals and objectives of the Salt Lake City Housing Plan, East Downtown Master Plan, Central Community Master Plan, and Transportation Master Plan. Even with the proposed modifications of zoning ordinance requirements, the proposed development is generally in harmony with the intent of the Salt Lake City Code. The ordinance modifications allow the applicant to provide higher density housing with parking in an unobtrusive manner with a shared common area. Finding: The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this title, is compatible with, and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City, including applicable City Master Plans. C. Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and not materially degrade the service level on the adjacent streets. Discussion: The proposed development has frontage on 500 East Street which is a collector street and Denver Street which is a local class street. The Transportation Division reviewed this request as part of the Development Review Team meeting on June 8, 2005. The Division of Transportation did not identify any issues that the streets are not suitable or adequate to carry anticipated traffic as a result of the proposed development. Finding: Streets are adequate to carry the demand created by the proposed development. Public way improvements, as identified by Salt Lake City Engineering Division and the Division of Transportation, (see pages 5-6 of staff report) must be addressed prior to building permit issuance. D. The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly designed. Discussion: A preliminary site plan has been reviewed by the Division of Transportation. The Division of Transportation did not identify any issues that would jeopardize the development proposal in terms of the design of the internal Staff Repor3,-Petitions-400-0:5-06,410-748 and490-05-23 November-30,2005 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission - 13- circulation system. The minimum off-street parking requirement for multi-family dwellings (Table 21A.44.060F) is two spaces for each dwelling unit containing two or more bedrooms and one space for one bedroom and efficiency dwelling. Eighty-four(84) parking spaces are required for this development and the site plan shows this number of parking spaces. The plans also show that the subterranean parking structure encroaches into the required yard area. Staff is in favor of a modification of the minimum yard requirements to allow this encroachment. The parking structure is totally underground with no visual evidence that such an encroachment exists. The Division of Transportation shall review and approve the final plans for the parking structure. Finding: The proposed development shall be properly designed for internal circulation. Final plan approval should be delegated to the Planning Director after receiving input from the Division of Transportation. E. Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development. Discussion: Public Utilities reviewed the submitted preliminary site development drawings and their comments are attached to this staff report. Prior to building permit issuance, construction plans must be approved by Public Utilities and the construction plans must conform to the City's construction standards and policies. Finding: The applicant must meet all Public Utility requirements prior to the issuance of a building permit. Existing and proposed,utilities shall be adequate for the proposed development and will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses or resources. F. Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts. Discussion: As per Chapter 21A.48 of the Zoning Ordinance, landscape buffers are required only if a property abuts a lot in a single-family or two-family residential district. The project is oriented toward land uses that are predominantly business and residential in nature. However, the site does not abut a lot in a single-family or two-family residential district, therefore buffering is not required by the Zoning Ordinance. Finding: This finding does not apply since buffering is not required along the subject property boundaries because the site does not abut a lot in a single-family or two-family residential district. G. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and compatible with surrounding areas. Staff Report,Petitions,400-05-06,410-748 and 490-05-23 November 30,2005 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission - 14- Discussion: As mentioned above under Zoning Map Amendment Standard B, the character of this neighborhood is consistent with that of the general pattern of development in the city. The area is defined by mostly older single-family homes and a few apartment complexes within a large city block divided by an inner- block street. The Planning Commission Subcommittee expressed concerns about the compatibility of the proposed development with the low density residential character of the existing development along Denver Street. Thus the proposed design takes into consideration this historic context while recognizing that the southern portion of the block is currently zoned RMF-45 with a forty-five foot (45') maximum building height development standard. Subdividing a façade into smaller portions as shown on the submitted plans minimizes its width, and should be a consistent treatment applied throughout the design of the building. The plans also show awnings, balconies and porches that have an active function and provide a benefit to the streetscape. In the Central City neighborhood, brick, stucco and painted wood are typical primary building materials. The applicant proposes to side the building with stucco and brick which are materials consistent and compatible to those used historically in the area. Findin : The architecture and building materials are consistent and compatible with the surrounding area. H. Landscaping is appropriate for the scale of the development. Discussion: Staff supports utilization of the following minimum yard requirements of the RMF-45 zoning district in this case since a forty-five foot (45')maximum building height will be maintained. Front Yard Interior Side Yard Rear Yard 8' provided no 20%of lot depth, principal building 25%of the lot Minimum Yard but need not is within 10' of a depth,but not Requirements exceed 25' building on an exceed 30' adjacent lot The preliminary plans submitted is consistent for a development of this size. No specific improvements are required within landscape yards, except that all landscape areas not planted with trees and shrubs shall be maintained in turf or other approved groundcover. Additional landscaping will be provided to buffer the surface parking lot that fronts Denver Street. Parking is generally permitted within a side yard, except when abutting a single- or two-family district. Park strips should be landscaped in conformance with the provisions of Section 21A.48. Staff Report,Petitions,400-05-06,410-748 and 490-05-23 November 30,2005 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission - 15- Finding: In this case, the minimum yard requirements of the RMF-45 zoning district is appropriate for this type of development since the forty-five foot (45') maximum building height requirement of the RMF-45 zoning district will be maintained. Landscaping is appropriate for the scale of the proposed development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the final landscape plan shall be approved by the Planning Director or designee after receiving input from the Development Review Planner. The proposed development preserves historical, architectural and environmental features of the property. Discussion: The site is not located within a historic district and there are no significant architectural features on the property. Public Utilities indicated that high groundwater tables are possible in this area and a geotechnical engineer must submit for review and approval a study to determine the highest expected groundwater table on the subject property. Any environmental and/or wetland issues must be reviewed and approved by the appropriate governing agency. Finding: There are not any historical or architectural structures on this site that require preservation. J. Operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses. Discussion: The proposed multi-family development is similar to neighboring land uses which are mostly residential. Finding: The operating and delivery hours are compatible with neighboring land uses. K. The proposed conditional use, or in the case of a planned development, the permitted and conditional uses contained therein, are compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the area or the City as a whole. Discussion: Abutting land uses include businesses and residential. The adjacent zoning is RO and RMF-45. The parcel has been vacant for a long period of time. The type of development proposed, multi-family residential is comparable to the Zoning Ordinance designations and the proposed design of the project is compatible with other multi-family structures in the immediate vicinity. Finding: The development will have a positive effect on the City by replacing existing vacant land with residential development. The proposed residential development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood surrounding and will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the area or the City as a whole. Staff Report,Petitions,400-05-06,410-748 and 490-05-23 November 30,2005 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission - 16- L. The proposed development complies with all other applicable codes and ordinances. Discussion: Approval of the planned development request will be subject to meeting all applicable City departmental requirements. Except for the zoning ordinance modifications requested by the applicant, the proposed development will comply with all other applicable codes and ordinances. Finding: The proposed development will be required to meet all applicable City, County and State Codes and Ordinances that relate to the proposed use at the subject location. 21A.54.150 Purpose Statement for Planned Developments. As stated in Section 21.54.150 of the Zoning Ordinance, a planned development is a distinct category of conditional use. Its intent is to encourage the efficient use of land and resources, while promoting greater efficiency in public and utility services and encouraging innovative planning and building of all types of development. The following purpose statements are listed in the ordinance for which the City seeks to achieve: 1. Creation of a more desirable environment than would be possible through strict application of other City land use regulations. 2. Promotion of a creative approach to the use of land and related physical facilities resulting in better design and development, including aesthetic amenities. 3. Combination and coordination of architectural styles, building forms and building relationships. 4. Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as natural topography,vegetation and geologic features, and the prevention of soil erosion. 5. Preservation of buildings,which are architecturally or historically significant or contribute to the character of the City. 6. Use of design, landscape or architectural features to create a pleasing environment. 7. Inclusion of special development amenities. 8. Elimination of blighted structures or incompatible uses through redevelopment or rehabilitation. Discussion: Applying the planned development approach to the subject property will allow for a flexible site plan that encourages an integrated design concept. This project is being reviewed as a planned development because the applicant requested modifications as outlined on page 12 of this staff report. Allowing the proposed modifications to the standards of the Zoning Ordinance will facilitate a more desirable site configuration. This design environment is Staff Report,Petitions,400-05-06,410-748 and 490-05-23 November 30,2005 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission - 17- conducive to an efficient use of the land with internal circulation connections, shared common area, and addresses parking needs in a non-obtrusive manner. The parking structure is totally underground with no visual evidence that such an encroachment exists. Additionally, the minimum yard requirements of the RMF- 45 zoning district is appropriate for this type of development since the proposed project would be required to adhere to the forty-five foot(45') maximum building height requirement of the RMF-45 zoning district. Finding: The proposed modifications to the standards of the Zoning Ordinance will provide for a more integrated residential project than generally possible through the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed development will result in a better physical layout and consistent design concept within the proposed development. The proposed project complies with objectives 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 of Section 21A.54.150 noted above. 21A.54.150.E. Other Planned Development Standards. 1. Minimum Area. A planned development proposed for any parcel or tract of land under single ownership or control shall have a minimum net lot area for each zoning district. Discussion: The proposed development consists of several lots which together total .82 acres. The minimum planned development size in both the RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts is 20,000 square feet. Finding: The proposed multi-unit residential development meets the 20,000 square foot minimum lot area requirement for planned developments located in a RMF-45 or RMF-75 zoning district. 2. Density Limitations. Residential planned developments shall not exceed the density limitations of the zoning district where the planned development is proposed. Discussion: This application includes a request to rezone the subject property preferably to RMF-75. Density limitations of the current zoning district will not be an issue if the applicant successfully obtains a rezone of the subject property. Finding: This standard is not an issue for the proposed planned development if the subject property is successfully rezoned. 3. Consideration of Reduced Width Public Street Dedication. A residential planned development application may include a request to dedicate the street to Salt Lake City for perpetual use by the public. Discussion: The proposed residential planned development does not include a request to dedicate streets. Staff Report,Petitions,400-05-06,410-748 and 490-05-23 November 30,2005 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission - 18- Findin : This standard is not an issue for the proposed planned development. 4. Perimeter Setback. The perimeter side yard and rear yard building setback shall be the greater of the required setbacks of the lot or adjoining lot unless modified by the planning commission. Discussion: A request to modify the minimum yard standards of the RMF-75 zoning district (15' interior side yard), such that the RMF-45 standards (8' interior side yard) would be applied as part of this development proposal. Staff considers the minimum yard requirements of the RMF-45 zoning district appropriate in this case since the proposed project would be required to adhere to the forty-five foot (45') maximum building height requirement of the RMF-45 zoning district as well. Finding: This standard is not an issue for the proposed planned development because the proposal includes a request to modify the required setbacks of the property. 5. Topographic Change. The planning commission may increase or decrease the side or rear yard setback where there is a topographic change between lots. Discussion: The submitted site plan shows no significant changes in topography between lots that would warrant an increase or decrease in a side or rear yard setback. Findin : This standard is not an issue for the proposed project. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the analysis and findings in this report, the Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed planned development, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planning Commission allows grade changes in excess of two feet (2') to accommodate driveway entrances to a subterranean parking structure. 2. The Planning Commission allows multiple buildings with a shared common area over an underground parking structure on a single lot. 3. The Planning Commission allows a modification to the minimum yard standards to allow an encroachment of the subterranean parking structure. 4. The Planning Commission allows a modification to the minimum yard standards of the RMF-75 zoning district such that the RMF-45 standards would be applied to the proposed development. StaffRepor�;Petitions,400=05-06,410-'748 and 490-05-23 November 30,2005 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission - 19- 5. Approval is conditioned upon compliance with departmental comments as outlined in this staff report. 6. Subdivision approval shall be obtained in conformance with Salt Lake City and State of Utah laws, ordinances, and policies. 7. If individual transfer of ownership of the residential units is desired, condominium approval must be obtained in conformance with Salt Lake City and State of Utah laws, ordinances, and policies. PRELIMINARY MINOR SUBDIVISION OVERVIEW: The Planning Director, or designee, may at an administrative hearing, approve a preliminary subdivision if it meets the requirements specified in Section 20.31.090 of the Salt Lake City Code. Planning Staff elected to refer this subdivision request to the Planning Commission along with the proposed planned development, rather than holding a separate administrative hearing. The Webb property consists of several property parcels with frontage on 500 South Street, Denver Street and 500 East Street. The property owner is proposing a minor subdivision to reconfigure the parcels into three lots. Each proposed lot has the following dimensions: Lot# Width (feet) Area (square feet) Lot 1 96.5 13,534 Lot 2 66 10,890 Lot 3 123.75 17,989 DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS: Staff routed the proposed subdivision with the planned development request; see comments, analysis and findings section of this staff report. STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL: A minor subdivision petition may be approved only if it meets the requirements specified in Section 20.20.020 of the Salt Lake City Code. The requirements are as follows: A. The general character of the surrounding area shall be well defined, and the minor subdivision shall conform to this general character; Analysis: Staff finds that the request complies with this standard because: o It supports residential base in an undeveloped portion of the community; Staff Report,Petitions,400-05-06,410-748 and 490-05-23 November 30,2005 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission -20- o A multi-family residential development is compatible with the general character of the surrounding neighborhood; and o It promotes a building design and orientation that enhances the neighborhood and its pedestrian environment. B. Lots created shall conform to the applicable requirements of the zoning ordinances of the city; Analysis: All lots will comply with the applicable requirements of the applicable zoning district unless otherwise modified by the planned development process. C. Utility easements shall be offered for dedication as necessary; Analysis: This is a condition of final plat approval. D. Water supply and sewage disposal shall be satisfactory to the city engineer. Analysis: The proposed preliminary plat has been reviewed by the pertinent City Departments as to applicable laws and regulations. All design and construction must conform to State, County, City and Public Utilities standards and ordinances. E. Public improvements shall be satisfactory to the Planning Director and City Engineer. Analysis: All plans for required public improvements must be submitted and approved prior to approval of the final plat. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant preliminary approval for the requested subdivision based on the following findings: 1. All applicable City Departments have consented to the proposed minor subdivision as long as final plans comply with applicable City codes and policies. 2. The newly created parcels will comply with all applicable zoning standards. 3. The proposed subdivision will be compatible with surrounding development. 4. The request complies with the general standards of review for a minor subdivision. 5. The minor subdivision will be in the best interest of the City. Staff Report Petitions,400-05-06,410-748 and-490-05-23 November 30,2005 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission -21 - 6. All necessary provisions for the construction of any required public improvements and utility easements shall be required prior to the building permit process and final plat approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Approval is conditioned upon compliance with departmental comments as outlined in this staff report. 2. Any future development activity associated with the properties will require that all substandard or absent public improvements be installed in accordance with the departmental comments noted in this staff report. Additionally, any future redevelopment will be subject to the requirements of the zoning ordinance. 3. Installation of public way improvements (curb, gutter and driveway approaches) as required by Salt Lake City Engineering. 4. Final subdivision approval and final plat recordation prior to the issuance of a building permit. Janice Lew Principal Planner November 23, 2005 Attachments: Exhibit 1 -Departmental Comments Exhibit 2 - Site Plan and Elevations Exhibit 3 -Context Exhibit 4 - Subdivision Plat Staff Report,Petitions,400-05-06,410-748 and 490-05-23 November 30,2005 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission -22- Exhibit 1 Departmental Comments Staff Report,Petitions,400-05-06,410-748 and 490-05-23 November 30,2005 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission RICHARD GRAHAM �►,�\ 1 1�`aJ,��VI�IW D' ROBE C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR TO: JANICE LEW, PLANNING FROM: SCOTT WEILER, P.E., ENGINEERING eZ 6Vv DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2005 SUBJECT: Theas Webb Minor Subdivision: Petition 490-05-23 Astel Master Plan Amendment and Rezone Petition: 400-05-08 Astel 43 Residential Unit PUD: Petition 410-748 466 East 500 South City Engineering review comments, dated May 23, 2005, are updated as follows: 1. It is unclear if a plat is being submitted for the minor subdivision proposal. If a plat is required, it must meet the requirements on the attached plat checklist. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, an active drive approach and a dead drive approach exist in 500 South Street along the frontage of the proposed Parcel 1. The dead drive approach must be replaced with approx. 24' of curb &gutter and landscaping as a condition of approval. Curb, gutter, sidewalk and a drive approach also exist in Denver Street along the frontage of the proposed Parcel 3. The drive approach has a steep cross slope and must be replaced with a drive approach in conformance with APWA Std. Plan 215 as part of the Astel development. Curb, gutter, sidewalk and a drive approach also exist in 500 East along the frontage of the proposed Parcel 2. The existing curb &gutter and drive approach must be replaced with curb &gutter. The cracked existing sidewalk must be replaced and the sidewalk at the proposed drive approach must be replaced with 6"thick sidewalk. Prior to performing the work described above, a"Permit to Work in the Public Way"must be obtained from SLC Engineering. 2. The proposed 43 unit residential development will require more land than is shown on the Webb survey. A plat is recommended to combine Parcels 2 and 3 with the property to the south of Parcel 2. The plat must conform to the requirements on the attached checklist. A plat should be submitted as soon as possible to allow the SLC Surveyor to begin his review. cc: Craig Smith Ken Taylor Brad Stewart Barry Walsh Vault -____--- ---------- ----_ SA.LTA-AKE_CITY MIRAElRIN1_--__-.._-349 SOUTH 200 EAST, SUITE 100, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: S01.535.7961 FAX: S01.535.6093 i eercco r Page 1 of 1 Lew, Janice From: Walsh, Barry Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 5:02 PM To: Lew, Janice Cc: Young, Kevin; Weiler, Scott; Stewart, Brad; Larson, Bradley; Michelsen, Alan Subject: Webb/Astei proj Categories: Program/Policy June 9, 2005 Janice Lew, Planning Re: Huntington Downtown Condominium proposal at 500 E 520 So to Denver St. The transportation review comment notes and recommendations are as follows; For the DRT review on June 8,2005 of the proposed 42 unit apts/condo with 84 parking stalls and the subdivision to combine lots and a rear portion of 466 E 500 So issue with reduction of rear lot line. One issue was for parking compliance and landscape buffers to remain as needed for a legal lot function. Rough calculation's indicate 14 stalls needed by Alan Michelson and 16 stalls were shown on the plan and 18 in the aerial photos. It was determined that the city needed documentation and provision for the 7' rear yard buffer to maintain legalization of the proposed lot change. The preliminary review of the building proposal in a RMF-75 zone required a subdivision to combine the lots to include the issue with the cross easement with the property to the south. Some items needed for PUD exceptions were front& side yard bldg & landscaping widths. Parking setbacks and grade change etc. The transportation divisions comments was for early submittal of the parking structure drawings for review of the bldg grid spacing, driveway ramps, and various elevation's etc. We also needed public way improvement drawings showing removal of existing driveways and new driveways, sidewalks and trees. Final plans need parking dimensions, ADA stall and 5% bike parking shown with details. For the secured parking structure access notice is required on 500 E and "No parking will be allowed on Denver Street frontage. Sincerely, Barry Walsh Cc Kevin Young, P.E. Scott Weiler, P.E. Brad Stewart, Utilities Brad Larson, Fire Alan Michelson, Permits File �iinhnnc Page 1 of 1 Lew, Janice From: Leydsman, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 2:41 PM To: Lew, Janice Subject: Rezone Classification 466 East 500 South. SLCFD#275/05 Categories: Confidential I have reviewed the proposed zoning change for this project and have no objections to the change in zoning classification. Due to lack of full FD vehicle access on all sides, the Salt Lake City Fire Department will require that this proposed project be totally fire sprinklered and provided with a building standpipe system, as required by the code for this occupancy type. In addition,we will require that a fire flow(water supply) analysis be conducted by the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department to ensure that an adequate water supply and fire hydrant(s)are provided for this proposed project. Additional building code issues, may also may need to a addressed, as full plans, drawings and specfications are presented for review. Wayne Leydsman Assistant Plans Examiner Salt Lake City Fire Dept • • 7/h/2005 Page 1 of 1 Lew, Janice From: Larson, Bradley Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 2:48 PM To: Lew, Janice Subject: Petitions 490-05-23, 400-05-08, 410-748//Webb property Janice, The Fire Department is not opposed to the above named petitions; however, a complete site plan showing the footprint of the building with relation to property lines and access roads, fire hydrants, etc., should be submitted for a preliminary evaluation prior to submittal for a building permit. There appear to be issues regarding required fire apparatus access that need to be evaluated for code compliance. Please notify the applicants of this concern and have them contact Wayne Leydsman or myself. Thank you. Brad Larson Deputy Fire Marshal Salt Lake City Fire Department 801-799-4162 office 801-550-0147 cell bradley.larson anslcgov.com Lew, Janice From: Smith, JR Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 12:54 PM To: Lew, Janice Cc: Erickson, Janell Subject: Re: 466 East 500 South Categories: Program/Policy Janice, In reviewing the supplied plans I have the following CPTED concerns: Garage entries: that these entries have a card key or similar type access system due to the high probability of extensive car break ins under the present design configuration. This also lessens the probability of access by unwanted persons through the elevator system to unit floors. Landscaping: that shrubbery be installed with a maximum growing height of 24-30 inches and that all planted trees have limbs capable of being trimmed at a 6-7 foot height. These CPTED concepts increase the visibility and security of the complex and it's residents. Thanks, J.R. Smith SLCPD Community Action Team 1 Page 1 of 2 Lew, Janice From: Snelling, Jeff Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 1:51 PM To: Lew, Janice Cc: Niermeyer, Jeff; Stewart, Brad; Garcia, Peggy; Greenleaf, Karryn Subject: Update for Astel proposal at Theas Webb property at 466 East 500 South. (43 plus units) Categories: Program/Policy Janice, The attached e-mail, sent in response to the initial Webb proposal, describes the water and sewer utilities available to service this proposed development. The engineer for these developments will need to provide sanitary sewer calculations and fire flow data for determination if the existing water and sewer facilities are adequate to service these proposed developments or if upgrades to the existing utility infrastructure will be needed. Final property and building layouts will determine how water, fire, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage services can be designed and installed to service each portion of these proposed developments. High groundwater tables are possible in this area. A geotechnical engineer must submit for review and approval a study to determine the highest expected groundwater table in these proposed properties. The study must refer to historical well records and boring logs in this area and any other pertinent information or data. No ground water will be allowed to be pumped into the City's storm drainage system from this proposed development. The will dictate that the underground parking structure be above this highest expected groundwater elevation or protected from high groundwater conditions. All other issues as outlined the attached e-mail are pertinent. Please call Jeff Snelling at 483-6889 if you have any questions or comments. From: Garcia, Peggy Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 3:37 PM To: Lew, Janice Cc: Niermeyer, Jeff; Greenleaf, Karryn; Stewart, Brad; Snelling, Jeff Subject: FW: Thaes Webb at 466 East 500 South - Proposed rezone from Residential Office (RO) to Moderate/ high Density Multifamily Residential (RMF-45) Janice, An update for clarification. Peggy Garcia Contracts Supervisor Salt Lake City Public Utilities (801) 483-6727 From: Garcia, Peggy Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 3:16 PM To: Lew, Janice Cc: Niermeyer, Jeff; Greenleaf, Karryn; Stewart, Brad; Snelling, Jeff Subject: Thaes Webb at 466 East 500 South - Proposed rezone from Residential Office (RO) to Moderate/ high Density Multifamily Residential (RMF-45) Janice, 7/(/7005 Page 2 of 2 All future design and construction must conform to State, County, City and Public Utilities standards and ordinances and Salt Lake City Public Utilities General Notes. These subject properties would be serviced from six-inch water mains and eight-inch sanitary sewer mains located in the surrounding streets. Numerous water and sewer services are connected to this property. These services will be used or disconnected at the main as determined by Public Utilities. Utility and grading and drainage plans must be submitted for review and approval at the time of the proposed construction. At the time of proposed construction it the water and sewer mains in the street must be blue staked and surveyed. If any of these mains are within ten-feet of the subject properties, then additional easements may be required to be dedicated to Salt Lake City Corporation for the'operation, and maintenance of these mains. Salt Lake City Fire Department approval is required prior to Public Utilities. All hydrant locations, fire flow requirements and access issues must be approved by the Fire Department. All environmental and wetland issues must be approved by the appropriate governing agency prior to Public Utilities approval. The developer must provide written documentation to Public Utilities showing these conditions have been met. All existing and new easements must be clearly shown and described on the plat prior to final plat recordation. If a sewer lateral or water service crosses through an adjacent property, an easement for that utility must be provided. If power lines, gas lines, communication conduits, etc. exist within this the property, any relocation of these utilities and related easements must be approved by Public Utilities. No buildings, structures, trees, islands, etc. may be constructed within easements dedicated to Salt Lake City Public Utilities. • Agreements and Fees: Service connection agreements must be entered into between the developer and Public Utilities for all water, fire-and sewer mains and services. The agreement will outline developer and Public Utilities' responsibilities related to construction, maintenance and warranty of these services. Prior to construction plan set approval all utility and impact fees must be paid in full. A $343 per quarter acre drainage impact fee will be assessed on the new hard surface introduced by this development. Public Utilities will approve this proposed rezone request and plat if all the above-mentioned issues are addressed during the time of proposed construction. If you should need further assistance with this matter, please contact Peggy Garcia at 483-6727. Peggy Garcia Contracts Supervisor Salt Lake City Public Utilities (801)483-6727 7/6/2005 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 13,2005 TO: Janice Lew,Planning Division FROM: Alan R.Michelsen,Building Services Division SUBJECT: Webb Minor Subdivision and Rezoning and the Astel Planned Development and Rezoning Proposals-466 East 500 South I have reviewed the proposal for the Webb minor subdivision and zoning map amendment for an RMF-45 or RMF-75 zoning district classification. Please note the following issues. 1) As proposed the property identified as parcel #1 would become noncomplying as to perimeter parking lot landscaping along the south property line. Currently the parking lot is located greater than 20 feet from the property line. Parking lots located less than twenty feet from a property line normally require a 7 foot landscape buffer. 2) As proposed parcel#2 meets the minimum lot area of 9,000 square feet, but lacks the required 80 linear feet of frontage as required for 3 to 14 multi-family dwellings units in the RMF45 and/or RMF-75 zones. 3) As proposed parcel#3 meets the minimum lot area of 9,000 square feet and 80 linear feet of frontage as required for 3 to14 multi-family dwellings units in the RMF45 and/or RMF-75 zones. 4) There is an error in the lot area of parcel#3. It should read 17,989 sq ft instead of 17,489 sq ft. 5) If parcels#2 and #3 are combined into one 28,879 square foot parcel it will support 24 units in the RMF-45 zone and 43 units in the RMF-75 zone. The following are zoning issues to be considered for Astel Planned Development with Rezoning to RMF-75. 1) Proposed parcels#2 and #3 will need to be combined to support 43 dwelling units. 2) Proposal does not meet the front and side yard setback or landscaping requirements. 3) Proposal shows a parking lot encroaching into a required front yard along Denver Street. 4) Site plan is not to scale. Unable to verify compliance with parking dimensions. 5) Unable to verify that the maximum building coverage is less than 60% lot area. 6) For building permit issuance a site plan is required with a minimum scale of 1"=20' showing all existing and proposed conditions including public way improvements, parkway trees and landscaping. 7) Dumpster location and solid screen enclosure is not shown. 8) Grade changes for driveways exceed two feet in the required front yards. Alan R. Michelsen Development Review Planner Building Services & Licensing (801) 535-7142 A1an,michelsen0slcgov.com ROCF:V.1. I-LLII)ART !S-�,� �, , h( l�( 3:11;&� 1V1 RO55C. ANDLh'SOIJ CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DEPARTMENT OFMANAGEMENT SERVICES MAYOR PURCHASING, CONTRACTS AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DIVISION IRS d ERSFF CE MEMORANDUM Property Management Room 225 8 June 2005 TO: Janice Lew Planning FROM: Linda Cordova *-c - Property Manager REF: Petition Submitted by Richard Astel for Multi-family Development Property Management has no objective to the above referenced petition. Thank you. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 225, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 8O 1-535-7 1 33 FAX: 801•535-6 1 90 www.ci.sLC.LIT.LES/PURCHASING.1-1TML aktRECYCLE°PAPER CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL Liberty Senior Center 251 East 700 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 AGENDA Wednesday June 1, 2005 6:00 pm Welcome 6:02 pm Police Report 6:07 pm City Council Member: District 4 - Nancy Saxton • Mayors Rep.: District 4 - Gwen Springmeyer 6:21 pm Stephanie Duer with the SLC Dept. of Public Utilities to discuss water issues 6:35 pm Planning Dept. will be in with an applicant requesting conditional use for a private club at the Stoneground bldg across from the new Library. The Applicant is the owner of Juniors tavern. This is the Applicants 2"d appearance 6:53 pm Planning Dept. will be in with an applicant requesting a portion of the property located at 466 East 500 South be rezoned from Residential/Office(RO) to Moderate High Density Multi Family Residential(RMF-45). There is also a request to reconfigure the property. Applicants name is Theas Webb Jr. 7:10 pm Chris Crowley the Director of Community Services for the County will be present to discuss parks, open space, and rec. centers. 7:29 pm Adjourn Every year the Mayor likes to attend Community Council meetings with his Entourage. He has not been invited to attend one of our CCNC meetings yet and I am wondering if you would like the Mayor and his Team to take over one of our meetings and field questions on issues facing Central City. If you are interested then please start coming up with questions and concerns that can be fielded by the Mayor or someone from his Staff and we will discuss this at the next meeting. CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL Salt Lake City, Utah Date: July 11th, 2005 To: Janice Lew - Salt Lake City Planning Dept. Re: Proposed development at approx. 466 East 500 South Central City Neighborhood Council(CCNC) has heard the Re-zone and Re-configure request proposed by Richard Astle and Mr Webb for a Condo development on the '/z block bordered by 500 and 600 South and 500 East and Denver St. In general all were in favor of supporting this project and it was reflected in a vote taken. There is one concern we have and that is the 75 foot height restriction for this re-zone to RMF-75. We have been assured by the developer that although he is seeking an RMF-75 he is only doing so for density reasons and does not want to go the max. height. We asked that a letter be drafted by the City Planning Dept stating that this project would be built to an RMF-45 height even though it may be in an RMF-75 zone and that the re-zone only apply to this project. We were told that the letter could not be drafted yet because Mr. Astle's project is bound to Mr. Webbs request. We voted for Mr. Webbs request and all were in favor. We will still be looking forward to getting that letter from the City regarding the restriction to Mr. Astle's project. We liked the parking provided for this project. We liked the general look (though this could change)of the project. Thank you Thomas Mutter Chair CCNC Planning Commission Subcommittee: The Subcommittee discussed alternative zoning designations for the subject property. The Subcommittee also expressed concerns about the compatibility of the proposed project with the low density older residential character of the existing development along Denver Street. Exhibit 2 Site Plan and Elevations Staff Report,Petitions,400-05-06,410-748 and 490-05-23 November 30,2005 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission 4Sea ©og iii IiIHIliily iiii ilililAi1, iIII IJII 7, r _ , ° ' iii .r''.''l _.-- i l .5, s..c I{a+I wax I a_ - ^__ ,ii ay aai 4aa 4 I I — — II , I 'I' AL{ ... IIl - • qfl I — — II L I 1 I {..-..' I -1- I— i f, '� \� I I I XL— awl a • la T — — :" Ib s t — ' I o , — — I i- E I 1 I I 1-L i , �� - I F — I a—\\\\\\ I_ a : \:\�l / 1 s tt I s a.,. § �a la.� w MARK a� -a,4 \ \• Ia i • r I a e v y _ a ' I I 1 I -(i I 7 IH-J)41 [-\ 1 srm- I ! , l_., 22 Sif ill - a.:, - as - _., Impfa.uns priv 21ruaalo:gle- --..—‘ -lig .77A9ZIV 17 77IH , 1-1 - • i I :',!,:7,.,! 5 , --- ',.- I'... .,.;. 1 .112,t ..,t, I ; '*. ----- f`----*-2 1 yg: g..g, , . zr. ._::. ,gygi" --i • 2;2 „.„,.._ 3.,C4,t90.90S . 1 .--- i ! 1 ' 5 - : ! I 2; - i:- t=1.:=: -, I „ 1, , ;;---.. : 1 : zrlai. HZ,7 75 1• X 2.,. /ciIiI ., 5,, I '''''' I i . 305.0 NS I . I IS SOO., ^ 1 III III I i 1 I; I ' I QY,.. • 1 I Q : , OD 99: 1 CI7f.. - P1..0.10.0N 1 DS'S,L i • kl Its1 1 1 szott 1,1„05.10•ON ,, • . ;.I1 ,- ,,,,q, I : ,4, '2.2°,,:. ..1::;;;.i 1 Z.:- - i ' - ,fl - 2,1 ' CII 1 -I IF 1 : Li 1 ; 1 ,-; . ! , k:., ;,--- 1 ,i.., -__,., . , i 51 I'ki,----"5.--5•,..-- SZTOrm.DS.taon: .13,7i115"W.7,inqa i * ' II- 41 (7'.1 f i f�r Tr.. ■L / '} 61 #71 , . .... , •.. ...,,._ ., i ..,..... . . .. . ......4 , 3„,?..,4,„1,-...-„,_:::;:. v, Y4 RY *, 4 u_ , ,_ L., ti ..„.. N .: I 7.3 a O Z Z �.: i i cc kJ ; i t ., 1 1 'I.11 r ... 1 + aA : r ,fit S.;. ,, _ '.r. , OY t U vl lJ Er- cc jr 1 1 x u.:; Z Fl i W k,, �, LU 0 y 1 IIIMMEN _1 \I 1 11111 Ai �Ii. CO � lj I CL�1 IIII1I 1� � IR l = pi 3 I= IIIF- =IF' �7 II 'VI ::I I it I�� IIIIII..,- 1�1 �� 3 �1 ¢� e(ll _ _ 3 i 11,421 II =�� I _ I I I 11111 ri1 -Iir INN EMI .1.1 I 116tl1U1''I=1 _ _ — F7_U _ r. .. ,=, . ,_., .,, _.„,..= ....„ �� I1 C�] IIIIiIiCI'Illllil!I a = I„: „._.: ,___. :_„:„.,: z., _ .,. W _ , a P ' Illllll.fllll'll i ■. =I..__I �I Illlilii!ioil.'lli _;IIIII jl I�.■ 2 H _� ``I .. .. .. IIIIIIIIIIihI �I LL1 Illi'i�1i11��14Il;llilll' �l �l �1 ll L iii� :mil � Ll _I ".: 1111 ■� ,IIIIIIIIIIIIIII . L•I lirilpillliiii 12 f E .% `�Ii�I a� �_ 1JII41CII'1I111I69�Ullil!IlllnlidllflrylI I1 1 lilI/�I I p_po,1111111,-„,iz 1�I11111111111119'(I I"-�� IIIN�l Inn iil i■� ■ .. .r �� Illl■. III! -I �.' 111:111 i .1 II I l '�I iNE_IjJIIIIIf■L, III -I m� a� J ' nI 1 I,IIII�I►IIIIII�i��l - IIIJI�I��I I�lil'111iI'�IIIII�IIII '.IIII III '� 'I■ I ICI III•ll m�, 1 ,-_II 2D mil] ' �■ „4,111'll'11111f I no on on iil 6 1 linlillitlinI I I _ _ 111it(lIIIIII�. IINlllhlllll�l�Illl II �iII1411;IIIIII III I' I �IIh1IIIIIIII� ICI P. R. �� >� III1��1111�11111��611I �11IIIIII�11f�lllill l�llillllllllll�h II �I�� I► ''' IIcor I._I I�il�;'141111dlllll''°�''I!1'lllil,Ill,l�'I I,II'l lifi�Ilfllll,(,IIIIIIIIIIIIIII • � ► } I LII'h.i■ jIi I�'I� I lip i II I � � �II19�4hIIClI III y7I� . III iillil■. 'IIENEI Illlnflll ii Il;l■ I�I ■■ ■� Om! _ii I I��IIIII M '. II III_��_ 1bill I II ■. I ._I■ I, II III 1 ii ■� 1 1 I�I!�I III ��■� I '-,�,il4jll'I'I •,I I°411;lull111lyl,,,,, ��I ..PI11111�I IIIII��III;IIIIIIIIIII IIHIIILI9!h61I l I I I IIIII lllllllll:1i 111�Illlll'14 IIIljj'II�'I IIII I:: ,. irdil •. 1:14L. � �.� ,�II!I..61j� IIIII II JIIII I��,(II�IIIIIIIiII .I- ..I EL II• III �,-11.L�I; :.'jl I■i I I�._ il�l� ■■i l�1♦ '� wwaary �ouam� �rssvaumr� • lil 11111111'I!I ' �411I iVi"Iq'i 11 l , lll�1, i li _s■ II I®III III�II11lIp11u1111 ;lilllllhll .=1NIII1 ll ■.I �� I ■� I.■�IIIIII Ijl =i 1■ II ■■ ■� .n!III Ilalll - _ I IIII---tilt.717 II,11 ■■ ■� i "II IMJIIII IIIfIglll I'IjlgHli I'I IIII IIn■a1 1■� 1 , I- 11 = III IIIIIdVllulll ll111611!IIIIIIIIIII 11166o611i,IIIII' liilllll l- l!I! 1E111 •�=■.. .■. i. I II�.1_p I��II i IIIII :jg „'■1_II IIll 11 11��1 II ��Il ° ;�9 °. _ III!Illlllulll�llllul�lllI!'1111ll 11 II��.11MI!� 19111i!�il'lllll9dillllPllll!I'lei'�II'ilalllllll�lb'lllllll'Illll�llllllllll III'lllllllllll(Il'lll s 1 L'8 I• �=,I I ■ III �=I�= =_i �.. ffhIiJJI!I ra 111111 E] E] ii ■� .. �1■i+ �:_�� =1i I._I .I L.. s I!! ! IEa � 11'IIIIIIfIIRCIII;IIl11PIIl,jll�alillllA'fiili�ill j; I ��-12 �MiW I �� 6�1 i IahIIIIIIIII,I ICI It III f'i I.. -1I ■� .1=IIIIII �,= II Jllllllilfl;lll'llllllll I Illlllllllllllll i !// lii ■1= .■ .1_� Info ..I 1.1_p II._I ;'li�liil';III�� ■� _ I■■ LL1J CL11 glI ?Ilillillilliiillitilli111111 l :Ill I� lII�L illi11il�illllllrill linninnt 'i'■�i. �=igau •.�■I I.u11,I,Il� I :: .r1-11 .. _11 ! InI Exhibit 3 Context Staff Report,Petitions,400-05-06,410-748 and 490-05-23 November 30,2005 by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission -25- `,\\ cn11' r FOR OFFICE USE ONLY rlr ` ,\\�� ,1: .,,'yam% Petition No. I/f�0—Q�' Y. .Z'z v . �` '" "\ _ J� Zoning Amendment i �"► d t � Rece tNo. A unt � =-- mrnfn ,' »r Date Received::11 "7 . . 401 _. C 1 'k,' Reviewed by Address of Subject Property Ie Ezit T , �o S 4 S'1 7— OJ3.e' G,e// . Name of Applicant 'h a Bs Weih yr'. Phone ,V o/- 3".Z.2 /oo f 1 C?,, Address of Applicant 06 457` .S®d Sit-i%c SLG 4(7- g y/// rE-mail address of Applicant ,•(... pp 'T"�S�5 �IsN. Co,•1 COY/Fax $'v/-3�.2 o Sis Applicant's Interest in Subject Property c� /,v.efe,&/Q .'F- Name of Property Owner 711 a 4-5 Gv-c, T'r- Phone go/— 3.2.7- /v o 1 `` - County Tax Parcel#(Sidwell#) /d -OL - y.c5"-037-0000 Zoning of Property IQ 0 -`^(' Existing Use of Property - 1({7r• 501. jtlo,r/Q — ceQ BR Pi/ever-7' O. 0.51/fl Alicee 3 kP. •I' ❑ Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance by amending Section: (attach map or legal description). Viz; ❑Amend the Zoning Map by reclassifying the following proPerty: t(.vgre•de ejt.Q/oar i5 t... k ;!a '. From a R (� classification to a R M F — y5 classification. '' Please include with the application:. 1.A statement of the text amendment or map amendment describing the purpose for the amendment and the exact language, boundaries and zoning district. ".,:- 2. A complete description of the proposed use of the property where appropriate. 3. Reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. 4.The names and addresses of all property owners within four-hundred fifty(450)feet of the subject parcel.The name,address and Sidwell number of each property owner must be typed or clearly printed on gummed c 4 mailing labels. Please include yourself and the appropriate Community Council Chair. The cost of first dass j postage for each address is due at time of application. Please do not provide postage stamps. sj 2 5.Legal description of the property. 6.Ten(10)copies of site plans drawn to scale. ' $s.` 7. A signed statement that the petitioner has met with and explained the proposal to the appropriate Community Council. 8. Related materials or data supporting the application as may be determined by the Zoning Administrator. t� Filing fee of$500.00 plus$100 for each acre over one acre is due at the time of application. • If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition,please contact a member of the Salt Lake City Planning staff(535-7757)prior to submitting the petition. 4144 , Sidwell maps and names of property owners are available at: '^ r n-' Salt Lake County Recorder 4` 2001 South State Street, Room N1600 ` Salt Lake City, UT 84190-1051 Telephone: (801)468-3391 File the complete application at: Salt Lake City Planning 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone:(801)535-7757 / Signature of Applicant r' ‘-'et7 �/ / or authorized agent v Title of agent 05/30/2003 May 26, 2005 TO: Salt Lake City Planning FROM: Richard Astle, Astle & Company, LC Applicant for Zoning Amendment for "Huntington Downtown", a residential condominium project. RE: Statement of the map amendment describing its purpose (to accompany the application) STATEMENT: This is an application to change the zone from RMF-45, to RMF-75. A Planned Development application is also attached. This development uses the building height and set-back requirements of the current RMF-45 zone, but raises slightly the density allowed. This is in keeping with the general plan and city policy to bring residential living to the downtown area. All parking requirements have been met. This building and project fits well into the surrounding neighborhood, and will have a positive impact on the city goals and plans to have a walkable community. This will be an upgraded project with high quality materials in and out. This project fits into the Envision Utah and New Urbanism mold. Page 1 of 1 OPEN Salt Lake City Corporation Invoice#: 062005271 Date: 5/26/2005 CED Planning Division by( 451 South State Rm 406 N (21¢ Salt Lake City UT 84111 = ,# 801-535-7757 `••� I ' „... Received From: Prepared by: Astle & Company Diana Hansen 1071 East Windsor Drive Provo, Ut 84604 801-636-3660 Description No C. Center Object Project Activity Amount Zoning Amendment to reclassify the property located at 520-524 South 500 East from a RMF-45 1 0600100 125111 - - $500.00 classification to a RMF-75 classication. Ck. #2216 TOTAL AMOUNT $500.00 PAYMENT TYPE CHECK .A�ina ell nil linc./Mrnrn rereint view asn?rec kev=339 .. 5/26/2005 n ", i,,, FOR OFFICE USE ONLY L '°,. Ae y . ' • ''V Petition No. ',If)-.h;o -"(x Zoning Amendment . —I' I►- aece�pt N Atr ti ht y t: u� 7, ,•i l`tJ n'n l i t o bate eceiv . %„.e �. Revipwed tx� i' f Address of Subject Property 5 Zt _ 5-Z .So e S zz / S -c- gri7( - Name of Applicant 4:f7`[-t✓ e t,k,A,t)Y LC-r. Phone(ZO fO & -3660 -et (' Address of Applicant /07 l E CV/NO.it.. 4(2.. . :•'AI' E-mail address of Applicant gIc420 i-S7 c,E C C?OM c.h57,A.IE 7' Cell/Fax(g0)A60 3660 4-C4)0/)22-6- r• Applicant's Interest in Subject Property 0 FV E Lo fFi2_ 17..C..6 Name of Pro Owner $o iF; PedY �7ZE= �/N�1�U`,zLC_ Phone C b36 -366a � `1 County Tax Parcel#(Sidwell#)f6 -,-'f55 -C)2D,0/9 018 ,Zoning of Property M F- '/ ' Existing Use of Property A IOt 77,4C, v7, o f/ o1 • ... . o Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance by amending Section: (attach map or legal description). `' ', ? Amend the Zoning Map by reclassifying the following property: s'Zo -S Z 5 o 6 0 -- � lam- � sa ter, crz. /2ouF .- 7S'From a �w(.F �� classification to a classification. `�ff ' Please indude with the application:. A 1.A statement of the text amendment or map amendment describing the purpose for the amendment and the exact language, boundaries and zoning district. ':)= '.>r- 2. A complete description of the proposed use of the property where appropriate. 3. Reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. ` 4.The names and addresses of all property owners within four-hundred fifty(450)feet of the subject parcel.The name,address and Sidwell number of each property owner must be typed or clearly printed on gummed 11 mailing labels. Please include yourself and the appropriate Community Council Chair. The cost of first dass postage for each address is due at time of application. Please do not provide postage stamps. 5. Legal description of the property. 6.Ten(10)copies of site plans drawn to scale. ,, 7. A signed statement that the petitioner has met with and explained the proposal to the appropriate Community l Council. I -- 8.Related materials or data supporting the application as may be determined by the Zoning Administrator. Filing fee of$500.00 plus$100 for each acre over one acre is due at the time of application. .::�° If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition,please contact a member of `-(., the Salt Lake City Planning staff(535-7757)prior to submitting the petition. - Sidwell maps and names of property owners are available at: Salt Lake County Recorder I- 2001 South State Street, Room N 1600 Salt Lake City, UT 84190-1051 Telephone: (801) 468-3391 i 31 >; File the complete application at: '^' Salt Lake City Planning 1 I 3,.Y 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone:(801)535-7757 • t: Signature of Applicant 'Ltr11'GL or authorized agent Title of a nt 05/30/2003 PETITION NO. ?`eo " .5-' 4G PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required 04/06' /6/ Petition delivered to Planning t0570705 it07(/ to: / deAl Petition assigned � IN\j/Ab5 J L Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover a1 bs J V Chronology lltb\t6 J L Property Description (marked with a post it note) 11 bS J L Affected Sidwell Numbers Included 6.-�4 r16-A--- t2At' 6 ....11. Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils IAtb\6 -11 Mailing Postmark Date Verification t o5 J L Planning Commission Minutes ' ll0k5 ..V Planning Staff Report AL*5 J� Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is,recommending. t246: Jl,- Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office ly` C J lr Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. Jay.ict .---044 Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition Date Set for City Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office Exhibit 6 ORIGINAL PETITION Petition 400-05-06: Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments Ms. Lew explained that the buffer can be provided as well as required parking, even with the loss of two parking stalls. Motion for Petition 490-05-23 Based on the analyses and findings outlined in the Staff Report, Commissioner Scott moved for the Planning Commission to grant preliminary approval for the requested subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is conditioned upon compliance with departmental comments as outlined in the staff report. 2. Any future development activity associated with the properties will require that all substandard or absent public improvements be installed in accordance with the departmental comments noted in the Staff report. Additionally, any future redevelopment will be subject to the requirements of the zoning ordinance. 3. Installation of public way improvements (curb, gutter and driveway approaches) as required by Salt Lake City Engineering. 4. Final subdivision approval and final plat recordation prior to the issuance of a building permit. Commissioner Muir seconded the motion. Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Seelig and Commissioner Forbis voted "Aye". Commissioner Chambless was opposed. Commissioner De Lay abstained from voting. Commissioner Galli and Commissioner McDonough were not present. As Chair, Chairperson Noda did not vote. The motion passed. 8 boundary issue that Mr. Webb is addressing. They entered into an easement agreement with Mr. Webb; whereby, they would own Lot 1 and Mr. Webb would own the easement should the City approve the new lot line. They are not concerned about the new boundary line itself, but they are concerned about losing two parking stalls and causing the existing parking lot to become non-complying. Mr. Hobbs further explained that the memorandum dated October 27, includes a condition of approval that would cause a dead-end approach that is required to be removed. The approach provides another parking stall at the front of their building. Mr. Hobbs said that the mere boundary change is being conditioned to the point that it eliminates three parking stalls which they purchased with the property. He is requesting that the City allow the subdivision with the existing two stalls. He believes that all adjoining property owners would not be opposed because parking is a premium in the neighborhood. He also does not see any justification for the Planning Commission to take the position that the dead-end drive approach must be removed as a condition for the change in the back of the property. Responding to Mr. Hobbs' concerns, Ms. Lew explained that Planning Staff ensures that parking requirements would be met upon review of subdivision requests. The parking lot provides 15 spaces and exceeds the minimum parking requirement. The landscape buffer is a requirement of the subdivision approval. Based on review of the plans, she found that the lot could accommodate those requirements and Staff is recommending approval based on meeting code requirements whether or not excess parking spaces would be lost. Loss of parking spaces, in this case, would need to be resolved between the two owners. The Commissioners and Mr. Hobbs discussed the situation and options. Mr. Hobbs explained that they assessed their needs and purchased the property based on their assessments. He was aware of the boundary change, but he was not aware of the conditions of approval that would cause loss of parking, and losing three parking stalls would greatly impact his office building and the neighborhood. Since the condition of a landscaped buffer actually eliminates the two stalls, Mr. Hobbs explained that the residential development provides a seven-foot buffer between the properties which is not required. A buffer would exist, but on the other side of the property line. Mr. Hobbs added that he had the lot re-striped as part of the remodeling and the great irony is that upon obtaining the building permit, he was required to provide ADA accommodations which eliminated another stall. Commissioner Diamond questioned whether or not the landscaping requirement could be satisfied if provided on the abutting property. Mr. Wheelwright explained that the buffer is required to be on the subject lot. One of the requirements for subdivision approval is that lots created must comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, Staff would insist on compliance or they could not recommend approval. Mr. Webb added that the existing parking spaces are very much needed, and he noted that the abutting commercial properties do not provide buffers. Receiving no further comments, Chairperson Noda closed the hearing to public comment. The Planning Commission discussed whether or not the request should be tabled to give the Property Owners an opportunity to resolve the parking stall issue. They further discussed denying the request based on the lot becoming non-conforming with the approval of the subdivision. 7 Based upon analyses and findings in the Staff Report, Commissioner Muir moved for the Planning Commission to recommend approval for the proposed planned development subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planning Commission allows grade changes in excess of two feet (2') to accommodate driveway entrances to a subterranean parking structure. 2. The Planning Commission allows multiple buildings with a shared common area over an underground parking structure on a single lot. 3. The Planning Commission allows a modification to the minimum yard standards to allow an encroachment of the subterranean parking structure. 4. The Planning Commission allows a modification to the minimum yard standards of the RMF-75 zoning district such that the RMF-45 standards would be applied to the proposed development. 5. Conditioned upon compliance with departmental comments as outlined in the Staff report. 6. Subdivision approval shall be obtained in conformance with Salt Lake City and State of Utah laws, ordinances and policies. 7. If individual transfer of ownership of the residential units is desired, condominium approval must be obtained in conformance with Salt Lake City and State of Utah laws, ordinances and policies. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion. Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Chambless, and Commissioner Scott voted "Aye". Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Forbis and Commissioner Seelig were opposed. Commissioner De Lay abstained from voting. Chairperson Noda broke the tie by voting "Aye". The motion passed. At 8:42 p.m., Commissioner McDonough was excused from the meeting. Petition No. 490-05-23 — Theas Webb requesting preliminary subdivision approval to reconfigure several existing parcels located at approximately 466 East 500 South Street, 516- 520 South 500 East Street, and 517-533 South Denver Street into three parcels to accommodate the construction of a 43-unit multi-family residential structure. The parcels are currently within the RO and RMF-45 zoning districts. At 9:18 p.m., Chairperson Noda introduced Petition 490-05-23 and Staff, Janice Lew. Ms. Lew explained that the Webb property consists of several parcels with frontage on 500 South, Denver Street and 500 East. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the parcels into three lots which would create a property line that would be consistent with the zoning line. Ms. Lew noted that Staff recommended approval with the findings and conditions outlined in the Staff Report. Mr. Webb explained that they owned the office building and the ground behind it. They sold the office building, which is zoned RO, and would like to include the rear 25 feet of the office building parcel into the adjoining parcels, and then rezone it the same as the new development. Lincoln Hobbs explained that he is a co-owner of the office building on Lot 1. His co-owners and he purchased the property in April or May 2005. Prior to closing, they discovered the 6 registered historic district and most buildings along the Transit Corridor are one- and two-story buildings. Just north of the Corridor are several homes that have been lovingly restored by owners who occupy them. She urged the Planning Commission to consider infill housing impact issues in these areas. Ms. Cromer noted that the City Council will vote on the Transit Corridor zoning designation on December 6, and it was forwarded to the Council without any compatibility components. Mr. Astle concluded by saying that the project is a collaborated effort with the City and they strived to find the best way to make the project work for the neighborhood. Ms. Lew added that the project has frontage on both 500 East and Denver Street and the Transportation Engineer recommended approval with the condition that no parking be allowed on Denver Street. Receiving no further comments, Chairperson Noda closed the meeting to public comment and the Commission went into executive order. The Commissioners questioned and talked through design elements. Two on-site parking stalls will be provided for each unit, and enforcement of no parking on Denver Street would be achieved through a signed agreement, street signs and ticketing. Eliminating access from Denver Street would cause a dead-end situation for the underground parking. Some Commissioners still found that the request is for spot-zoning and sets an unfavorable precedence. Motion for Petition 400-05-06 Based upon analyses and findings in the Staff Report, Commissioner Muir moved for the Planning Commission to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to rezone the subject property to an RMF-75 zoning district to facilitate the construction of a new multi-unit residential development with the recommendation that the future land use map of the 2005 Center Community Master Plan be amended to reflect the property as high density residential. Condition of Approval: 1. The Property Owner must sign a development agreement to be recorded on the property that the maximum building height with the rezone may not exceed 45 feet. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion. Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Diamond and Commissioner Scott voted "Aye"; Commissioner Forbis and Commissioner Seelig were opposed; and Commissioner De Lay abstained from voting. Commissioner Galli was not present. As Chair, Chairperson Noda did not vote. The motion passed. Motion for Petition 410-748 5 Ms. Lew added that the building has been shifted farther away from Denver Street and a seven-foot buffer and additional landscaping will be provided on the north side of the parking. Ms. Lew noted that the buffer is not required in that area. The applicants have also added cornices at different levels and changing materials which would interrupt any monolithic appearance of the façade. Flower boxes and porch elements on the Denver Street frontage have also been added which would further reduce the mass and scale of the building. Ricky Manchego, 537 South Denver Street, explained that he and his relatives, including his parents, grew up in the neighborhood and they are opposed to the project for several reasons. Denver Street is narrow and does not adequately handle the traffic that already exists on it and the parking situation for the neighborhood is a problem with every available stall on commercial properties filled throughout the entire day. Most of the dwellings in the immediate area are older, some historic, one-story homes with sandstone foundations. He and his family believe that the project is too massive overshadowing and blocking light to the smaller homes. Mr. Manchego explained that he has seen several homes demolished for massive structures and he feels the multi-unit apartments are chasing out real families who want to live in a home in the City. Mr. Manchego then noted that no one from his neighborhood was present at the meeting and he expressed concerns that the poor may be manipulated into oppression. The controversial TRAX issue came before this issue crushing any hope for anyone to speak out against massive projects in the neighborhood. Mr. Manchego added that he works with Building Craft Construction and he specializes in restoring historic homes. The remaining homes could be fixed preserving the quaint nature of the neighborhood which would be a pleasing presence in the downtown area. Rocky Manchego, 539 South Denver Street, also noted that their families have lived in the neighborhood all their lives and he too is concerned about the proposed building blocking sunlight to his home. He is also concerned that the older sandstone foundations of the homes immediately adjacent to the property may be undermined by heavy excavation and construction. Mr. Manchego agreed that traffic is a problem and he sees no solution unless the residents of the proposed building use 500 East and 500 South staying completely away from Denver Street. Steve Alder, owner of the office building located at 466 East 500 South, said that it is important the Planning Commission realizes that parking in the neighborhood is a problem and Denver Street is extremely narrow. The street may need to be widened or perhaps condemned because it will not be able to accommodate additional traffic. Mr. Alder then said that he believes increasing the density is not the intent of the Central Community Master Plan and sets an unfavorable precedence. Adding 11 more units seems to be an incremental step in changing the nature of the neighborhood and the direction of the intent. He explained patrons who come to his office building express their attractiveness to the relatively low-density neighborhood surrounding their office space. Mr. Alder said that he agrees the neighborhood needs to be improved and housing needs to be provided in the downtown area, but he does not agree that it should be super-high density. Cindy Cromer noted that the Planning Commission declined discussing compatible infill housing in multiple-unit zoning districts during discussions relating to the new Transit Corridor zoning designation, and she believes that now more then ever the issue needs to be discussed. Ms. Cromer explained that adjacent to this area is the Bryant Neighborhood which is a national 4 RMF-75 yard requirements to be consistent with the RMF-45 standards. Ms. Lew summarized that the project would be more consistent with RMF-45 standards, but simply allowing an increase in density. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the planned development with the conditions as outlined in the Staff Report. Commissioner Muir noted the Subcommittee determined that the RO zoning designation would be more appropriate for the project. The RO designation would allow the density that Mr. Astle requested and would still be consistent with the adjacent zoning designation (RO) to the north and west. The Subcommittee concluded that rezoning to RMF-75 suggested spot-zoning, and Mr. Muir questioned why Staff did not consider their recommendation. Ms. Lew explained that the RO zoning district requires a commercial component and Staff found that the RMF-75 zoning district would more appropriately accommodate the residential development. Ms. Coffey acknowledged that the RO zoning district allows a limited commercial component and if the property were rezoned RO the commercial component could be built mid-block adjacent to low density residential uses. In addition, Staff did not view the request as spot-zoning in that the Housing Plan calls for higher density residential development near light-rail stations. The project is within one block of a TRAX station. Mr. lkefuna added that the RO zoning district does not have density limitations. Mr. Astle, representing the proposed Huntington Downtown Condominiums, explained that the development does not need more than the allowances of the RMF-45 zoning district, but they needed a slightly higher density to make the project economically feasible. The RMF-45 zoning district would limit them to 32 units, and the RMF-75 would allow 43 units based on their lot area of 0.82 acres. It has been their idea from the beginning to produce a project that would enhance the concept of a walkable community in that area. Mr. Astle acknowledged that the RO zoning district was discussed at the Subcommittee meeting, but he was not under the impression that the RO zoning district would be the final decision. He said that he believes the RMF-75 rezoning accomplishes their goal and meets the spirit and general plan to create more residential neighborhoods in the Downtown area. Mr. Astle noted the single-story home adjacent to the subject property explaining that they were sensitive to surrounding development and the design reflects the residential character of the neighborhood. The condo units,would be moderately priced from $165,000 to $185,000. Commissioner Diamond noted that the Subcommittee discussed, along with density issues, blending the project with the scale of Denver Street. It appeared to him that none of their concerns and suggestions relating to scale were taken into account and the plan presented to the Commission as a whole is the same plan that was presented to the Subcommittee. Mr. Walker explained that they have visited the neighborhood several times and they submitted a streetscape plan that they thought would mitigate the scale impact on Denver Street. Noting the streetscape rendition accompanying the Staff Report, Mr. Walker explained that the parking lot has been proposed to be located on the north side of the property and the fourth story of the building on the south end has been stepped back. 3 d. Modifying minimum yard standards such that the RMF-45 standards would be applied to the proposed development etc. The parcels are currently zoned RMF-45. (Items heard at 8:26 P.M.) At 8:26 p.m., Chairperson Noda introduced Petitions 400-05-06 and 410-748 and Staff, Janice Lew. Richard Astle (Developer) and Kent Walker (Architect with WPA Architecture) were present. Ms. Lew explained that Theas Webb (property owner and applicant for Petition 490-05-23) is requesting preliminary minor subdivision approval to reconfigure multiple parcels in the area of 500 South and 500 East into three lots. Lot 1 (466 East 500 South) of the proposed subdivision is currently developed as an office building with access and frontage on 500 South. Richard Astle, the Developer, has the undeveloped portion of the Webb property (Proposed Lots 2 and 3) under contract, and he is proposing to rezone the subject property to accommodate a 43-unit residential project. The bulk of the property to be rezoned is vacant with the exception of a residential structure (524 South 500 East) that will be demolished. The office building is not part of the residential development proposal. Ms. Lew then explained that the rear portion of Lot 1 is zoned Residential Office (RO) and the remainder parcels are zoned Residential Multi-Family (RMF)-45. The RMF-45 Zone limits building heights to 45 feet and establishes a residential density of 43 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is proposing a RMF-75 zoning district which allows a maximum building height of 75 feet and establishes a residential density of 85 dwelling units per acre. Ms. Lew further explained that the rezoning from RMF-45 to RMF-75 also requires an amendment to the future land use map for the Central Community Master Plan. The proposed rezone is located in a neighborhood designated for medium/high density residential, and the proposed RMF-75 would require a designation of high density residential. Ms. Lew explained that the Planning Commission Subcommittee reviewed the proposal on September 8, 2005 and discussed alternative zoning designations for the subject property. The Subcommittee also expressed concerns about the compatibility of the proposed project with the low density residential character of the existing development along Denver Street. The Central City Neighborhood Council indicated their support of the rezone; however, they requested that the height of the project be limited to that of which is permitted in the RMF-45 zoning district. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council as the rezoning would facilitate the construction of a new multi-unit residential development. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to amend the land use map for the Central Community Master Plan. Ms. Lew noted that the favorable recommendations are contingent upon the property owner signing a development agreement to be recorded on the property that would set a maximum building height of 45 feet consistent with adjacent zoning and land uses. Referring to elevation and site plans, Ms. Lew reviewed the planned development request (Petition 410-748) explaining that the applicant is proposing a four-story structure with a subterranean parking structure. The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission allow grade changes in excess of two feet to accommodate driveway entrances to the underground parking and to allow multiple buildings with shared common area over the underground parking on a single lot. In addition, the applicant is requesting modifications to the minimum yard requirements to allow an encroachment of the subterranean parking lot, and modifications to the 2 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, November 30, 2005 Present for the Planning Commission were Laurie Noda (Chairperson), Tim Chambless, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Robert Forbis Jr., Peggy McDonough (Vice Chairperson), Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott and Jennifer Seelig. Craig Galli was unable to attend. Present from the Planning Division were Alexander Ikefuna (Planning Director), Cheri Coffey (Deputy Planning Director), Douglas Wheelwright (Deputy Planning Director), Everett Joyce (Senior Planner), Doug Dansie (Principal Planner), Janice Lew (Principal Planner), Cindy Rockwood (Acting Planning Commission Secretary) and Deborah Martin (Senior Planning Secretary). A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Noda called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Audio recordings of Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time. A field trip was held prior to the meeting. Planning Commissioners present were Chairperson Laurie Noda, Tim Chambless, Kathy Scott, Jennifer Seelig and Robert Forbis. Planning Division Staff present were Doug Dansie, Everett Joyce and Janice Lew. Petition No. 400-05-06 — A request by Richard Astle for approval to rezone the properties located at approximately 516-524 South 500 East Street and 517-533 South Denver Street from a Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential (RMF-45) zoning district to a High Density Multifamily (RMF-75) zoning district. The applicant is also requesting approval to rezone approximately twenty-five feet (25') of the rear portion of the property located at approximately 466 East 500 South Street from a Residential/Office (RO) zoning district to the same zoning district as the Planning Commission recommends for the 516-524 South 500 East and 517-533 South Denver Street properties; preferably RMF-75. The request also includes an amendment to the future land use map of the Central Community Master Plan to identify the properties as High Density Residential rather than Medium High Density Residential. The purpose of this request is to accommodate the construction of a 43-unit multi-family residential development. Petition No. 410-748 — A request by Richard Astle for planned development approval for a 43-unit multi-family housing development located at approximately 516-524 East and 517-533 South Denver Street. Included is a request to modify provisions of the zoning ordinance including but not limited to: a. Allowing grade changes in excess of two feet (2') to accommodate driveway entrances to a subterranean parking structure; b. Allowing multiple buildings with a shared common area over an underground_parking structure on a single loth c. Modifying minimum yard standards to allow an encroachment of the subterranean parking structure; and 1 NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, November 30,2005,at 5:45 p.m. The Planning Commissioners and Staff will have dinner at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner,Staff may share general planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM WEDNESDAY,November 9,2005. 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR Briefing of Northwest Quadrant Master Plan Timeline and process (Everett Joyce) 4. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA—Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters(Karryn Greenleaf at 483-6769 or karryn.greenleaf(aa,,slcoov.com; Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178 or douq.wheelwright(a�slcgov.com): a) Salt Lake City Public Utilities and Murray City conducting business in relation to the UTOPIA project—Murray City is requesting that Public Utilities issue standard utility permits to allow telecommunication lines to cross the City owned property of the Jordan and Salt Lake City and Canal,at two locations within the City of Murray, Utah.The locations are approximately 7200 South 500 East and 7500 South 500 East and the crossings are requested as part of the UTOPIA project and may be either underground or aerial in nature.The Public Utilities staff intends to approve the standard utility permits as requested. b) Draper City and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department—Draper City is requesting that Public Utilities issue standard utility permits allowing bridge structures over,and utilities under,the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal at two locations The locations are located at 13600 South Dahle Way and 12400 South 111 West.Additional permits will be issued to each utility as separate entities.The Public Utilities staff intends to approve the bridge crossing and standard utility permits as requested. c) Wathen Construction and Salt Lake City Public Utilities—Wathen Construction is requesting the realignment of an existing waterline easement.The realignment of the waterline easement at 2400 East Oakcrest Lane is necessary to facilitate development of the property. The old easement will be vacated in exchange for a new easement alignment.This location is in Cottonwood Heights City. The Public Utilities staff intends to approve the requested easement realignment. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Petition No.400-04-52—Salt Lake City and the Utah Transit Authority(UTA)are jointly working to connect the existing terminus of the light rail line at the Delta Center,located at approximately 350 West South Temple, to the Intermodal Hub located at 300 South 600 West. The Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub will function as the central transit transfer point for commuter rail, light rail, UTA bus,Greyhound bus, Amtrak,and transit support services.The light rail connection is planned to be constructed by the Spring of 2008 to coincide with the opening of commuter rail service at the Intermodal Hub.The route of the light rail extension will be along 400 West,200 South,and 600 West.The Salt Lake City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing regarding the number and location of stations along that route with the intent of providing a recommendation to the City Council. (Staff—Doug Dansie 535-6182 ordouq.dansie(a1.s/cgov.com) b) 1)Petition No.400-05-06—A request by Richard Astel for approval to rezone the properties located at approximately 516-524 South 500 East Street and 517-533 South Denver Street from a Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential(RMF-45)zoning district to a High Density Multifamily(RMF-75)zoning district. The applicant is also requesting approval to rezone approximately twenty-five feet(25') of the rear portion of the property located at approximately 466 East 500 South Street from a Residential/Office(RO)zoning district to the same zoning district as the Planning Commission recommends for the 516-524 South 500 East and 517-533 South Denver Street properties;preferably RMF-75. The request also includes an amendment to the future land use map of the Central Community Master Plan to identify the properties as High Density Residential rather than Medium High Density Residential. The purpose of this request is to accommodate the construction of a 43 unit multi-family residential development. (Staff—Janice Lew at 535-7625 or janice.lewd s/cgov.corn) 2)Petition No.410-748—A request by Richard Astel for planned development approval for a 43 unit multi-family housing development located at approximately 516-524 East and 517-533 South Denver Street. Included is a request to modify provisions of the zoning ordinance including but not limited to: a.Allowing grade changes in excess of two feet(2')to accommodate driveway entrances to a subterranean parking structure; b.Allowing multiple buildings with a shared common area over an underground parking structure on a single lot; c. Modifying minimum yard standards to allow an encroachment of the subterranean parking structure; and d. Modifying minimum yard standards such that the RMF-45 standards would be applied to the proposed development etc. The parcels are currently zoned RMF-45. (Staff—Janice Lew at 535-7625 or janice.lew(d slcgov.com) 3)Petition No.490-05-23—Theas Webb requesting preliminary subdivision approval to reconfigure several existing parcels located at approximately 466 East 500 South Street,516-520 South 500 East Street,and 517-533 South Denver Street into three parcels to accommodate the construction of a 43 unit multi-family residential structure. The parcels are currently within the RO and RMF-45 zoning districts. (Staff—Janice Lew at 535-7625 or janice.lew(adslcgov.corn) c) Petition No.400-05-08 and Petition No.400-05-09—Rowland Hall,St Mark's School requesting to amend the East Bench Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map to identify the property located at approximately 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue as Institutional rather than Open Space and to rezone the property from an Open Space to an Institutional zoning classification. This is a 13-acre portion of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery property. (Staff—Everett Joyce at 535-7930 or everett.ioyce@slcgov.com) 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Exhibit 5c PLANNING COMMISSION November 30, 2005 Agenda/Minutes Petition 400-05-06: Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: February 7, 2006 SUBJECT: Petition 400-03-34—Legislative Action sponsored by Council Member Christensen— request to reevaluate the Zoning Ordinance relating to Non-conforming use and Non-complying structure regulations AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the ordinance is adopted the Zoning Ordinance will affect Council Districts citywide and the master plan amendment will affect Council District 3 STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Land Use Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community Development Department,Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Everett Joyce, Principal Planner NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: Newspaper advertisement and written notification to surrounding property owners 14 days prior to the Public Hearing KEY ELEMENTS: A. This action would amend the Zoning Ordinance Non-conforming Use and Non-complying Structures Chapter(21A.38).An ordinance has been prepared for Council consideration. B. On April 9, 2005,the Council adopted an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance Non-conforming Use and Non-complying Structures Chapter(21A.38)to allow 100%reconstruction of structures when damaged by fire or natural causes. The council also referred the proposal for enlargement, alteration or intensification of non-conforming uses or non-complying structures back to the Planning Commission for additional refinement of the conditional use guidelines and criteria to address neighborhood impacts and concerns. Under the Planning Commission recommendation,the conditional use process will be used for enlargement(including additional parking area)or replacement of a current non-conforming use with a more intensive non-conforming use. During Council discussions it was noted that the current conditional use criteria are general in nature and would not address specific design issues for expansion or intensification. (Please see pgs. 3-8 of this staff report for additional background relating to this issue.) C. Key elements of the proposed text changes include: 1. Enlargement: allowed within the same structure or as an addition to the same structure provided the enlargement does not increase the need for additional hard surface parking than is existing on the property. 2. Re-occupation or enlargement of a structure with a more intensive non-conforming use: a. Conditional use required for: • Expansion that exceeds 50%of the original use, • Requires additional off-street parking than existing on the site, or • A more intensive non-conforming use is proposed. 1 b. Additional conditional use standards and/or site and design review standards: • Conditional Use Standards: o The condition and economic life of the building is such that near future demolition is not likely to occur o Provides reuse of buildings with architectural or historic value o Supports walk-to-work or live-work opportunities o Provides an appropriate scale of neighborhood or community level or services o Enlargement will not create any additional non-compliance with zoning standards o Enlargement and reuse would not substantially change the character of the neighborhood o Use is not in conflict with any other current local or state development standards • Site and Design Review Standards—required when a non-conforming use is located within or abuts residentially zoned property—standards are provided for building orientation, front façades, minimum first floor glass, maximum length of any blank wall,parking lot buffering and screening, screen of dumpsters and loading docks and signs. c. Limitations on Development: • No additional lot area may be added to the non-conforming property • No enlargement shall involve razing more than 50% of the building footprint • No reduction in the number of dwelling units for buildings with a mix of residential/non- residential with more than 2 dwelling units d. Damage or Partial Destruction of a Non-Complying Structure: • Allows a non-complying structure to be rebuilt if it is voluntarily demolished up to 75% of the structure. D. The purpose of the Non-conforming Use and Non-complying Structure Chapter(21A.38) is to regulate the continued existence of: 1. Principal and accessory uses established prior to April 12, 1995 that do not conform to the use regulations in the zoning districts in which such uses are located. (Non-conforming uses) 2. Buildings, structures and property improvements constructed prior to April 12, 1995 that do not comply with the applicable bulk and/or yard area regulations in the zoning districts in which such buildings or structures are located. (Non-complying structures) E. The public process included written notice of the Planning Commission hearing to all Community Council Chairs and over 1,000 owners of non-conforming properties and other interested parties. F. On August 24, 2005, the Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance text relating to enlargement, alteration, or intensification of non- conforming uses and non-complying structures. G. Issues discussed at the Planning Commission hearing included a description of the process for intensification or expansion. Staff indicated the process begins with an Administrative review and proceeds to a conditional use with the Planning Commission. H. No public comment was received at the Planning Commission hearing. 2 MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: A. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration whether the proposed text changes relating to non-conforming uses and non-complying structures are consistent with the recently adopted Compatible Residential Infill regulations in regard to process and demolition. 1. The proposal and the ordinance adopted in 2005 allows voluntary demolition and reconstruction of non-complying structures based on certain percentages of demolition, 50% in some cases and 75% in others. 2. The Compatible Residential Infill regulations defined demolition as any act or process that destroys or removes 75%or more of the exterior walls and or total floor area of a structure, improvement or object. 3. The non-conforming/non-complying regulations utilize the Zoning Administrator,Board of Adjustment and Planning Commission conditional use processes to consider expansion, additions and reconstruction. 4. The Compatible Residential Infill regulations established an Administrative Hearing or Board of Adjustment review process to consider additions and new construction. The following information was provided previously for the Council Public Hearing on April 19, 2005. It is provided again for your reference. OPTIONS AND MOTIONS: 1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance relating to Non- conforming Uses,Non-complying Structures,Special Exceptions,and Definitions and amending the Avenues Community Master Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission. (This option would implement the recommendation from the Planning Commission.) 2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt ordinance. 3. ["I move that the Council"] a. Continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. b. Refer the proposal for'enlargement,alteration or intensification' of non-complying uses or non-complying structures back to the Planning Commission for additional refinement. c. Request that the proposal be returned for Council consideration by July 1,2005. d. I further move that the Council adopt an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance relating to Non-conforming Uses and Non-complying Structures to allow 100% reconstruction of structures when damaged by fire or other natural causes,without also addressing Enlargement and/or Intensification of Use,and amend the Avenues Community Master Plan. (See attached ordinance. This option was discussed at the Council Work Session on March 15, 2005. In order to maintain continuity in the ordinance, the Attorney's office did include the section relating to enlargement/intensification as it currently exists in the Zoning Ordinance. It does not contain any of the changes regarding enlargement/intensification recommended by the Planning Commission and Planning staff. The portion underlined relates to reconstruction and is new. The enlargement/intensification section will simply remain as is until the Council considers changes after July 1) 3 WORK SESSION SUMMARY/NEW INFORMATION: A. At the March 15th Work Session,the Council discussed the proposed text changes. Council Members indicated their preference to move this item forward to a public hearing and: 1. Consider action on an ordinance that would allow total reconstruction of structures with non- conforming uses or non-complying structures if destroyed by fire or other natural causes, and 2. Defer action until July on the proposal for'enlargement, alteration or intensification'of non- conforming uses or non-complying structures to allow time for additional refinement of the guidelines/criteria used for intensification and enlargement to address neighborhood impacts and concerns. B. The Planning Director has indicated that if the Council chooses to split the proposed changes, he would like to recommend that the issue to go back to the Planning Commission. His reasoning is that since the Planning Commission will be implementing any additional standards it would help for them to be involved in development of the standards. C. Additional refinement of the guidelines/criteria used for intensification and enlargement could include but not be limited to items such as: 1. Neighborhood compatibility including consideration of: a. Building scale, size, orientation, and yard area setbacks. (For example,the potential of a property owner removing an existing building and constructing a new building that is out of scale with the neighborhood and not oriented to the street, such as a large building with a blank wall along the street frontage and entrances on the side or back of the building, or a'box car'- long, narrow multi-family structure with entrances oriented to the side.) b. Building materials and architectural features, such as roof pitch, facades, etc. (For example,the potential of a property owner removing an existing structure and constructing a new cinder block, flat-roofed structure or the'box car'type structure mentioned above.) 2. Parking and traffic impacts. (For example,replacing an existing, low-impact use with a more intense use such as a small grocery store replaced with a restaurant.) 3. Housing mitigation and protecting the residential/commercial balance in a neighborhood. (This would address the potential of losing residential uses if a property owner expands a non-residential use to occupy an entire structure or constructs a new structure for a non-residential use in place of an existing structure that contains residential and non-residential space. For example,a corner commercial building where the commercial space is located on the street frontage and the residential dwelling is located behind or above the commercial space.) 4. Define and establish parameters or limits for"intensification." The following information was provided previously for the Work Session on March 15, 2005. It is provided again for your reference. KEY ELEMENTS: A. This action would amend the Zoning Ordinance Non-conforming Use and Non-complying Structures Chapter(21A.38), Special Exceptions section(21A.52.Q)and Definitions section(21A.62.040). (Please refer to Attachment A for a comparison of current and proposed text for the Non-conforming Use and Non-complying Structures Chapter.) In addition, the Administration notes that the proposed text changes will require amending the Avenues Community Master Plan relating to non-conforming use policy. An ordinance has been prepared for Council consideration. 4 B. The proposed text changes would establish the following three-tier classification system and processes: 1. Reconstruction of structures containing legal non-conforming residential uses and residential structures that may be legally non-complying with current zoning standards would be considered through an Administrative process. 2. Reconstruction of structures with legal non-residential non-conforming uses and non-residential structures that may be legally non-complying with current zoning standards would be considered through the Board of Adjustment Special Exception process. 3. Enlargement or reoccupation of a structure with a more intensive non-conforming use would be considered through the Planning Commission Conditional Use process. C. The Legislative Action adopted by the Council requested a reevaluation of the non-conforming use and non-complying structure section of the Zoning Ordinance with a particular focus on the following: 1. Eliminate the current percentage limitations for reconstruction, improvement or expansion of non- conforming uses and non-complying structures. 2. Establish refined standards, public notification and review processes that include: a. Replacement,reconstruction, improvement or expansion of certain types of non- conforming uses and non-complying structures. b. Establish categories of non-conforming uses and non-complying structures with a different level of review and public notification depending upon the impact to the surrounding neighborhood. 3. Other options that may be identified by the Administration. D. The purpose of the Non-conforming Use and Non-complying Structure Chapter(21A.38) is to regulate the continued existence of: 3. Principal and accessory uses established prior to April 12, 1995 that do not conform to the use regulations in the zoning districts in which such uses are located. (Non-conforming uses) 4. Buildings, structures and property improvements constructed prior to April 12, 1995 that do not comply with the applicable bulk and/or yard area regulations in the zoning districts in which such buildings or structures are located. (Non-complying structures) E. The Administration's transmittal and Planning staff report note: 4. The disadvantages of the current non-conforming approach is that it does not: a. Encourage maintenance and/or reinvestment. b. Ensure marketability of the property. c. Encourage reuse of non-conforming sites. 5. The advantages of the proposed multi-tier classification approach is that it provides for: a. Reduction in the number of uses expected to be eliminated. b. Stabilizing uncertainty in future land use. c. Reuse of existing buildings and retention of desirable uses. d. Reduction in the number of properties being confronted with difficulties associated with financing, refinancing and obtaining reasonably priced insurance. 6. Until recently, financing for purchase or reinvestment in non-conforming structures was not an issue. 7. Currently, many financial institutions are requiring letters from the City that specify that a structure that contains a nonconforming use or a structure that is non-complying with current zoning standards would be allowed to be completely rebuilt if destroyed. Due to this requirement and the current zoning regulations relating to non-conforming uses and non-complying structures other non-traditional financing alternatives are required. This jeopardizes potential sales or reinvestment, limits the amount of reinvestment and minimizes improvements in the properties. 8. Mortgage loans for acquisition and major reinvestment of non-conforming properties often require higher interest rates or substantial cash down-payments. In addition, insurance companies require 5 higher premium payments. These factors affect housing affordability and reinvestment in existing housing stock. 9. Research has shown that this is a national issue, not just a local phenomenon. Nationwide cities are modifying non-conforming regulations to address financing issues caused by local zoning codes. 10. Recent trends in land use planning concepts are replacing the zoning concept of separate, distinct land uses with regulations that encourage mixed-use,transit-oriented,more compact development patterns. 11. State statutes allow continued use of non-conforming uses and non-complying structures. 12. The proposed text amendments do not completely remove the ability to eliminate non-conforming uses. For example, analysis of the lower Avenues community indicates that from 1988 to 2004 approximately 84 properties converted from 3 and 4 dwelling unit structures to single-family or duplex structures. Voluntary demolition in excess of 50%of the cost of reconstruction or changing the non- conforming use to a conforming use eliminates the non-conforming status of the property. 13. The proposed text changes related to reconstruction and expansion are similar to existing elements of zoning ordinances of various Utah cities. Most zoning ordinances allow total reconstruction or reconstruction if up to 50-60% destruction or damage occurs to a non-conforming use or non- complying structure. F. The Planning staff report included the following tables that provide a summary of the number of residential and non-residential non-conforming uses within the City. In addition,the attached map identifies the location of the non-conforming uses Nonconforming Residential Multi-Family Dwellings In Single-Family—Duplex Zoning Districts Dwelling Units per Avenues I East I Sugar Capitol Northwest I Central West SLC Structure Bench House Hill Salt Total Lake 3-4 36 3 96 39 78 256 34 542 5-9 66 20 34 16 5 74 12 227 10-19 32 26 20 25 4 23 2 132 20 plus 3 1 1 9 2 28 27 71 Multi-family 25 49 74 Condominiums 247 247 TOTAL 384 50 151 89 114 430 75 1293 Source: Comparison of Salt Lake County Assessor land use classification and existing zoning. Nonconforming Commercial, Office,and Industrial Uses In Residential Zoning Districts Type of Use Avenues East Sugar Capitol Northwest Central West SLC Bench House Hill Salt Total Lake Commercial 19 6 58 25 15 107 21 251 Office 7 9 20 36 Industrial 3 2 8 11 24 TOTAL 26 6 67 28 17 135 32 311 Source: Comparison of Salt Lake County Assessor land use classification and existing zoning. G. The public process included an open house on September 16, 2004. Notice was mailed to all Community Council Chairs, approximately 1300 owners of non-conforming properties and representatives of real estate, financial and business groups. Please refer to the Administration's transmittal for details. 6 H. The City's Police,Public Utilities and Transportation Departments/Divisions reviewed the request. Property owners will be required to comply with City development standards and current codes or regulations. It is likely that some owners will need to upgrade utilities and infrastructure to rebuild replacement facilities. I. On October 27,2005,the Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance text and amend the Avenues Master Plan. J. Issues discussed at the Planning Commission hearing included: 1. Commercial or non-residential non-conforming uses are not distributed evenly throughout the City. 2. Neighborhoods throughout the City have different characteristics and the proposed changes do not establish standards for determining compatibility with the character of the neighborhoods in which they are located. 3. People who are purchasing properties are small investors who purchase one or two properties. 4. Many property owners rely on income generated from their properties and would have no way to recover the loss if the structures are destroyed by natural disaster. 5. Lending institutions have established strict loan requirements due, in part,to Utah's high rate of loan fraud and foreclosures. For example,requiring a letter from the City that states that the structures could be rebuilt if destroyed by fire or other types of natural disasters or lending at a higher interest rate to finance or refinance loans for the property. 6. Due to current lending and insurance practices that have stricter requirements for non-conforming properties, property owners either do not or find it difficult to reinvest in the properties. MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: A. During the recent State Legislative session, S.B. 60S02—Local Land Use Development and Management Act Amendments—was passed in both the House and the Senate. This bill made several changes to the State Code relating to land use, planning and zoning. (Please see Attachment B for the changes from the bill that applies to non-conforming uses.) Key changes made to the regulation of nonconforming uses include: 1. A municipality may not prohibit the reconstruction or restoration of a non-conforming structure or terminate the non-conforming use of a structure that is involuntarily destroyed in whole or in part due to fire or other calamity. (The proposed zoning ordinance text changes would comply with this section.) 2. A municipality may prohibit the reconstruction or restoration of a non-conforming structure or terminate the non-conforming use of a structure when: a. The structure is allowed to deteriorate to the extent that renders it uninhabitable. b. Written notice is provided to the property owner noting that the structure is uninhabitable and that the nonconforming structure or use will be lost if the structure is not repaired or restored within 6months, or c. The property owner has voluntarily demolished a majority of the non-conforming structure or the building that houses the non-conforming use. 3. Burden of proof: a. The property owner shall have the burden of establishing the legal existence of a non- conforming structure or use. b. Any party claiming abandonment of a non-conforming use shall have the burden of establishing such abandonment. c. The property owner may rebut the presumption of abandonment and shall have the burden of establishing that abandonment has not occurred. 7 B. The Planning staff report notes: 1. The Executive Director of the Utah Apartment Association identified that the Association supports the zoning policy change for non-conforming rental properties. The Association has been working with the State Property Rights Ombudsman and the State Legislature to address this problem. 2. The State Ombudsman has provided an opinion that local ordinances prohibiting reconstruction without the payment of just compensation for the non-conforming use are illegal and unconstitutional. C. Council Members Christensen, Saxton and Turner recently met to discuss the proposed text changes. They have noted that there is strong support for the changes that address residential non-conforming uses/non-complying structures. However, issues have been raised through the public review process concerning potential unintended impacts or consequences relating to the proposed changes for non- residential non-conforming uses/non-complying structures. They have noted that these issues could be addressed through further refinement of the proposed changes. For example: 1. A non-residential non-conforming uses/non-complying structure that contains both a non-residential and residential use could be allowed to expand the non-residential use and eliminate the residential use. This could result in loss of the City's affordable housing stock. 2. The conditional use process is proposed for enlargement(including additional parking area)or replacement of a current non-conforming use with a more intensive non-conforming use. It has been noted that the current conditional use criteria are general in nature and would not address specific design issues for expansion or intensification. D. The Council may wish to consider the following options to address this issue: 1. Delay action on the proposed ordinance and request that the issues which have been identified relating to non-residential non-conforming uses/non-complying structures be addressed in further detail. 2. Forward this issue to a public hearing. 3. Forward this issue to a public hearing and request the City Attorney to prepare an additional ordinance that includes proposed text changes for residential non-conforming uses/non-complying structures only; express the intent to consider the residential non-conforming uses/non-complying structures at the hearing and continue the hearing for a later discussion of the non-residential non-conforming uses/non-complying structures. 4. Other options identified at the Council Work Session briefing. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Administration's transmittal and Planning staff report note: 1. Most master plans do not contain specific policy regarding non-conforming uses and non-complying structures. 2. The Capitol Hill Community Master Plan contains policy recognizing a decrease in area density as non-conforming single-family structures that contain 3 or more units are converted back to single- family use. The Plan recommends phasing out incompatible industrial uses by rezoning the properties and encouraging relocation to industrially zoned land in appropriate areas of the City. 3. The East Central Neighborhood Plan identifies encouraging compatible infill housing on lots containing non-conforming uses. 4. The Avenues Master Plan land use section provides the following information: • Policy Regarding Nonconforming Uses o The City should not grant variances to rebuild structures containing nonconforming uses. Once the structure has deteriorated, as defined in the nonconforming use ordinance(Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance), or is lost because of fire or other act of God,the property should revert to a use conforming to present zoning. • As previously noted, the ordinance prepared for Council consideration includes an amendment to the Avenues Master Plan. 8 B. The City's Comprehensive Housing Plan policy statements address a variety of housing issues including quality design, public and neighborhood participation and interaction,transit-oriented development, encouraging mixed-use developments,housing preservation, rehabilitation and replacement, zoning policies and programs that preserve housing opportunities as well as business opportunities. C. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report express concepts such as maintaining a prominent sustainable city,ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards and is pedestrian friendly, convenient, and inviting,but not at the expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality. The Plans emphasize placing a high priority on maintaining and developing new affordable residential housing in attractive, friendly, safe environments and creating attractive conditions for business expansion including retention and attraction of large and small businesses. D. The Council's growth policy notes that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: 1. Is aesthetically pleasing; 2. Contributes to a livable community environment; 3. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served; and 4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. E. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image, neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. CHRONOLOGY: The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed rezoning and master plan amendment. Key dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for details. • March 8,2004 Council adopts Legislative Action • September 16,2004 Planning sponsored Open House • October 27, 2004 Planning Commission hearing • November 2004 Ordinance received from City Attorney • March 15, 2005 City Council briefing • April 19, 2005 City Council hearing Adopted ordinance dealing with residential non-conforming uses/non- complying structures and referred enlargement, alteration or intensification section back to the Planning Commission for further refinement • May 25, 2005 Planning Commission Report of the Director—Planning Commission decision to hold a public hearing • July 13, 2005 Planning Commission hearing—continued due to lack of a quorum • August 24, 2005 Planning Commission hearing • August 25, 2005 Ordinance requested from City Attorney's office • September 7,2005 Ordinance received from City Attorney's office • September 14,2005 Planning Commission ratified Aug. 24, 20005 minutes cc: Sam Guevara, Rocky Fluhart,DJ Baxter,Alison McFarlane,Ed Butterfield,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace, Louis Zunguze,Brent Wilde, Orion Goff,Larry Butcher,Alex Ikefuna,Doug Wheelwright, Cheri 9 Coffey,Joel Paterson, Everett Joyce,Jennifer Bruno, Jan Aramaki, Marge Harvey, Sylvia Jones, Annette Daley, Barry Esham, Gwen Springmeyer File Location: Community Development Dept., Planning Division,Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment,Non- conforming uses and Non-complying structures 10 A. LOUIB ZUNGUZE ....AEt I N@ ►�ATili:�� ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERBON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR BRENT B. WILDE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OCT 1 91005 COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: October 4, 2005 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director 61-1 CcJ X' RE: Petition 400-03-34: Zoning Ordinance text amendments to Chapter 21A.38 Nonconforming Uses and Non-complying Structures STAFF CONTACT: Everett L. Joyce, Senior Planner, 535-7930 or everett.joyce@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council schedule a briefing and hold a public hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: City Council legislative action initiated Petition 400-03-34. The City Council requested that the Administration review the Nonconforming Uses and Non-complying Structures section of the Zoning Ordinance related to the current percentage limitations for reconstruction, improvement,or expansion of nonconforming uses and non-complying structures and establish refined standards, as well as public notification and review processes. After a Planning Commission hearing on October 27,2004,the Administration transmitted Petition 400-03-34 to the City Council with ordinance modifications recommended by the Planning Commission. On April 19,2005,the Salt Lake City Council adopted Ordinance 15 of 2005 amending the Zoning Ordinance relating to Chapter 38 Nonconforming Uses and Non-complying Structures. The City Council deferred action on the enlargement and/or intensification of nonconforming uses portion of the recommended text changes. The process proposed at that time for allowing intensification or enlargement of a nonconforming use was a conditional use process. The City Council referred the proposal for enlargement, alteration, or intensification of nonconforming uses back to the Planning Commission for additional refinement of the guidelines and criteria to address neighborhood impacts and concerns. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 --- _ TELEPHONE:.B01.535-7-105. FAX: B01-53-5.5005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM �� nemcco cwncn Analysis. While many nonconforming uses are part of the established area character and do not negatively affect the surrounding area, the intensification or expansion of nonconforming uses may or may not pose land use issues. The specific conditional use and site design review standards established in the proposed text provide flexibility in administering the enlargement and intensification of nonconforming uses. The proposed text provides limitations on the conditional use process to ensure that expansions or intensification of nonconforming properties do not become a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. Public Process: On June 28, 2005, Staff mailed a notice of the July 13, 2005,Planning Commission public hearing for Petition 400-03-34 to all Community Councils and over 1,000 owners of nonconforming property and interested parties. The Planning Commission, due to lack of a quorum, continued the public hearing until August 24, 2005. At that meeting, the Commission moved to approve Petition No. 400-03-34 and forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Relevant Ordinances: SLC Code Section 21A.50.050 Standards for zoning amendment Utah State Code Section 10-9a-503 Land use ordinance amendments Petition 400-03-04—Nonconforming Uses and Non-complying Structures Contents 1. Chronology 2. Proposed Ordinance 3. City Council Hearing Notice i. Notice ii. Mailing List 4. Planning Commission i. Public Hearing Notice and Postmark ii. Planning Commission agendas and minutes a) May 25, 2005 —Report of the Director b) July 13, 2005—Public Hearing (Continued no quorum) c) August 24, 2005—Public Hearing iii. Planning Commission Staff Memorandums a) July 8, 2005 b) May20, 2005 5. City Council Minutes April 19, 2005 Public Hearing for Petition 400-03-34 1 . Chronology Chronology April 19, 2005 Council members moved to refer the proposal for enlargement, alteration or intensification of non-complying uses or non-complying structures back to the Planning Commission for additional refinement. May 25, 2005 Report of the Director- Discussion regarding the enlargement and intensification of nonconforming uses. The Commission passed a motion to hold a public hearing regarding zoning text modifications for refinement of the standards and guidelines for the enlargement or intensification of nonconforming uses. June 28, 2005 Mailed notice of July 13, 2005 Planning Commission public hearing. July 13, 2005 Planning Commission public hearing. This item was continued due to lack of a quorum. August 24, 2005 Planning Commission public hearing continued and final action taken. August 25, 2005 Ordinance request sent to City Attorney. September 7, 2005 Received stamped ordinance from Attorney's Office. September 14, 2005 Planning Commission ratified the minutes of August 24, 2005. 2. Proposed Ordinance (. .r1?, SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2005 (Amending Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 A.3 8, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO NONCONFORMING USES AND NONCOMPLYING STRUCTURES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-03-34. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted legislative action requesting that the Administration review the nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures section of the zoning code relating to the current percentage limitations for reconstruction, improvement or expansion of nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures; and establish refined standards, public notification, and review processes that include: a) replacement, construction, improvement or expansion of certain types of nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures; b) establishment of categories of nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures with a different level of review and public notification depending upon the impact to the surrounding neighborhood; and c) identification of other options. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Code contains regulations regarding nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures. WHEREAS, allowing some flexibility in addressing nonconforming uses to allow property owners and investors options, not heretofore available, to reinvest or expand property in a manner that minimizes impacts on neighborhoods and supports land uses that serve the citizens as well as the community. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, has held public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission, and has taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of its deliberation. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed amendments to nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures regulations are appropriate for the development of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Chapter 21A.38, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.38.080 Moving, Enlarging Or Altering Nonconforming Uses Of Land And Structures: No nonconforming use may be moved, enlarged or altered and no nonconforming use of land may occupy additional land, except as provided in this section. A. Enlargement: A nonconforming use may not be enlarged, expanded or extended to occupy all or a part of another structure or site, that it did not occupy on the effective date of any amendment to this title that makes the use nonconforming. A nonconforming use for the purposes of this section may be extended within the same structure or as an addition to the same structure,provided the enlargement does not increase the need for additional hard surface parking than is existing on the property. 1. Reoccupation Or Enlargement Of A Structure With A More Intensive Nonconforming Use. Whenever expansion of a nonconforming use exceeds fifty percent(50%) of the original use at the time the use became nonconforming; a nonconforming use expansion requires additional off-street parking than existing on the site or a nonconforming use changes to a more intensive nonconforming use; such expansions shall only be approved as a conditional use subject to the requirements of Part V Chapter 21A.52 Conditional Uses and applicable 2 specific conditional use standards and/or site and design review standards provided in this section. a. Specific Conditional Use Standards. The Planning Commission may grant a conditional use permit for the enlargement of a structure containing a nonconforming use, provision of additional parking area for a nonconforming use or the reoccupation of a structure with a nonconforming use that is more intensive, excepting uses which are only permitted as a conditional use in the Heavy Manufacturing District (M-2) of this title located within any residential, mixed use, commercial or nonresidential zoning district, subject to consideration of the following standards: i. The condition and economic life of the building is such that near future demolition is not likely to occur; ii. The use provides reuse of buildings with architectural or historic value; iii. The use supports walk to work or live-work opportunities; iv. The use provides an appropriate scale of neighborhood or community level of services; v. The enlargement will not create any additional noncompliance with zoning standards except for building modifications for life safety concerns; vi. The enlargement and reuse of the structure would not substantially change the character of the neighborhood; and/or vii. The use is not in conflict with any other current, local or state development standards. (i.e. Floodplain Hazard Protection, Fault Line Hazards, Ground Water Source Protection, Airport Flight Path Protection, Environmental Performance Standards, and Hazardous Waste Prohibition). 3 b. Site and Design Review Standards. Whenever an expansion or intensification of a nonconforming use is located within residentially zoned property or abuts residentially zoned property the following site and design review standards shall be reviewed as part of the conditional use approval process: i. Building Orientation. The development shall orient to the street, not an interior courtyard or parking lot. The primary access shall be oriented to the pedestrian and have at least one operable building entrance that faces a public street. Residential uses shall meet the standards for Sections 21A.24.010.H Side Entry Buildings and 21A.24.010.I Front Facade Controls, ii. Facade. For nonresidential uses, street oriented facades shall maintain detailing and glass in sufficient quantities to facilitate pedestrian interest and interaction, (A) Minimum First Floor Glass: The first floor elevation facing a street of all new building additions or buildings in which the property owner is modifying the size of windows on the front façade, shall not have less than forty percent(40%) glass surfaces. All first floor glass shall be non-reflective. Display windows that are three-dimensional (3-D) and are at least two feet(2') deep are permitted and may be counted toward the forty percent(40%) glass requirement. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized by the Planning Commission as part of the conditional use site and design review procedure, if the Planning Commission finds: (1).The requirement would negatively impact the historic character of the building, (2).The requirement would negatively impact the structural stability of the building, or (3).The ground level of the building is occupied by residential uses, in which case the 40% glass requirement may be reduced to 25%. 4 (B) Maximum Length. Architectural detailing shall emphasize the pedestrian level of the building. The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the first floor level shall be fifteen feet (15'). iii. Parking Lots. Parking lots shall be appropriately screened and landscaped to minimize their impact on the neighborhood. Lightproof fencing is required adjacent to residential properties. Parking lot lighting shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into adjacent neighborhoods. The poles for parking lot lighting are limited to 16 feet in height from finished grade, iv. Screening. Dumpsters and loading docks shall be appropriately screened or located within the structure. All building equipment and service areas, including on-grade and roof mechanical equipment and transformers that are readily visible from the public right of way, shall be screened from public view. These elements shall be sited to minimize their visibility and impact, or enclosed as to appear to be an integral part of the architectural design of the building, and v. Signs. Signage for residential uses shall meet sign standards for Section 21A.46.080B Sign Regulations for Multifamily Residential Districts. Signage for nonresidential uses shall emphasize a pedestrian scale and shall meet the sign standards of Section 21A.46.090.4 Sign Type, Size and Height Standards for the CN District. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized by the Planning Commission as part of the conditional use site and design review procedure, if the Planning Commission finds that maintaining the nonconforming sign does not negatively impact the neighborhood character. 5 c. Limitations on Development. Any conditional use authorized for the reoccupation or enlargement of a structure with a more intensive use shall be limited to the following criteria: i. No additional lot area may be added to the subject nonconforming property, ii. No enlargement of a nonconforming principal structure shall involve the razing of more than fifty percent(50%) of the existing building foot print, and iii. Any nonconforming property with an existing mix of residential and nonresidential uses with more than two (2) existing dwelling units shall provide for a mixed-use development with no reduction in the number of dwelling units. B. Exterior Or Interior Remodeling Or Improvements To Structure: Exterior or interior remodeling or improvements to a structure containing a nonconforming use shall be allowed provided the improvements do not increase the parking requirement. C. Relocation Of Structure: A structure containing a nonconforming use may not be moved unless the use shall thereafter conform to the regulations of the zoning district into which the structure is moved. D. Change Of Nonconforming Nonresidential Use To Another Nonconforming Use: Upon application to the zoning administrator, a nonconforming use may be changed to another nonconforming use of the same or similar land use type as defined in part VI, chapter 21A.62 of this title. Whenever any nonconforming nonresidential use is changed to a less intensive nonconforming nonresidential use, such use shall not be changed back to a more intensive nonconforming nonresidential use. For purposes of this section, a more intensive nonresidential use is determined when the existing hard surfaced parking available on site does not provide the 6 required number of parking stalls. Whenever any nonconforming nonresidential use is changed to a conforming use, such use shall not later be changed to a nonconforming use. E. Destruction Of Structure With Nonconforming Use: No structure containing a legal nonconforming use may be reconstructed for a nonconforming use, except in the manner provided in subsections El and E2 of this section or unless required by law. Restoration of a damage or destroyed structure with a nonconforming use shall be started within one (1) year and diligently pursued to completion. Any delay in starting such restoration that is caused by government actions and without contributing fault by the owner, may, upon, application to and determination by the zoning administrator, be deducted in calculating the starting date of restoration. 1. Destruction Of Structure To The Extent Of Fifty Percent: If a structure that contains a legal nonconforming use is destroyed to the extent of fifty percent (50%) by fire or natural calamity, or is voluntarily razed, the nonconforming use may be resumed, and the structure restored. The determination of the extent of damage or destruction under this subsection, shall be determined by the building official and based on the ratio of the estimated cost of restoring the structure to its condition before the damage or destruction to the estimated cost of duplicating the entire structure as it existed prior to the damage or destruction. The estimate shall be based on the current issue of"Building Standards" published by the International Conference of Building Officials. 2. Destruction Of Structure Greater Than Fifty Percent: If a structure that contains a legal nonconforming use is destroyed, greater than fifty percent (50%), by fire or natural 7 calamity, the nonconforming use may be resumed, and the structure may be restored to accommodate the nonconforming use subject to subsections E2a and E2b of this section. a. Nonconforming Residential Uses. The zoning administrator may authorize the reconstruction and reestablishment of a legal nonconforming residential structure subject to consideration of the following: i. Compliance with all other current, local or state development standards, (e.g., Floodplain Hazard Protection, Fault Line Hazards, Ground Water Source Protection, Airport Flight Path Protection, Environmental Performance Standards, and Hazardous Waste Prohibition); and/or ii. The reconstruction will not increase the number of units. b. Nonconforming Nonresidential Uses. The Board of Adjustment may authorize as a special exception the reconstruction and reestablishment of a legal nonconforming nonresidential use structure subject to consideration of the following: i. Reconstruction plans shall be reviewed to consider the feasibility of site redesign to better meet underlying zoning district standards without a reduction in type or intensity of use of the property; ii. Compliance with all other current, local or state development standards, (e.g., Floodplain Hazard Protection, Fault Line Hazards, Ground Water Source Protection, Airport Flight Path Protection, Environmental Performance Standards, and Hazardous Waste Prohibition); iii. The reconstruction and reuse of the structure would not change the character of the neighborhood by using construction materials which did not exist previously on the building. Other building materials should not be used, unless the materials are compatible with the neighborhood; and/or 8 iv. Consideration of the enforcement history of the property regarding any continual public nuisance generated by the nonconforming use activity. 21A.38.090 Noncomplying Structures: No noncomplying structure may be moved, enlarged or altered, except in the manner provided in this section or unless required by law. A. Repair, Maintenance, Alterations And Enlargement: Any noncomplying structure may be repaired, maintained, altered or enlarged, except that no such repair, maintenance, alteration or enlargement shall either create any new noncompliance or increase the degree of the existing noncompliance of all or any part of such structure. B. Moving: A noncomplying structure shall not be moved in whole or in part, for any distance whatsoever, to any other location on the same or any other lot unless the entire structure shall thereafter conform to the regulations of the zoning district in which it is located after being moved. C. Damage Or Partial Destruction Of Noncomplying Structure. 1. Restoration: If a noncomplying structure is damaged or destroyed by fire or natural calamity, the structure may be restored, or, if a noncomplying structure is voluntarily razed to the extent of seventy-five percent(75%), the structure may be restored if restoration is started within one (1) year and diligently pursued to completion. Any delay in starting such restoration that is caused by government actions and without contributing fault by the owner, may, upon application to and determination by the zoning administrator, be deducted in calculating the starting date of restoration. 9 2. Destruction Of Noncomplying Structure With Nonconforming Use: No legal nonconforming structure containing a nonconforming use may be reconstructed, except in the manner provided in subsection C2a and C2b of this section or unless required by law. Restoration of a damaged or destroyed noncomplying structure with a nonconforming use shall be started within one (1) year and diligently pursued to completion. Any delay in starting such restoration that is caused by government actions and without contributing fault by the owner, may, upon application to and determination by the zoning administrator, be deducted in calculating the starting date of restoration. a. Destruction Of Structure To The Extent of Fifty Percent: If a noncomplying structure that contains a nonconforming use is destroyed to the extent of fifty percent (50%)by fire or natural calamity, or is voluntarily razed or destroyed by other means, the nonconforming use may be resumed, and the structure restored. The determination of the extent of damage or destruction under this subsection, shall be determined by the zoning administrator and based on the ratio of the estimated cost of restoring the structure to its condition before the damage or destruction to the estimated cost of duplicating the entire structure as it existed prior to the damage or destruction. The estimate shall be based on the current issue of"Building Standards"published by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). b. Destruction Of Structure Greater Than Fifty Percent: If a noncomplying structure that contains a legal nonconforming use is destroyed, greater than fifty percent(50%), by fire or natural calamity, the nonconforming use may be resumed, and the structure may be restored to accommodate the nonconforming use subject to subsections C2bi and C2bii of this section. 10 i. Nonconforming Residential Use: The zoning administrator may authorize the reconstruction and reestablishment of a legal noncomplying residential structure with a nonconforming residential use subject to consideration of the following: (A). Compliance with all other current, local or state development standards, (e.g., Floodplain Hazard Protection, Fault Line Hazards, Ground Water Source Protection, Airport Flight Path Protection, Environmental Performance Standards, and Hazardous Waste Prohibition); and/or (B). The reconstruction will not increase the number of units. ii. Nonconforming Nonresidential Uses. The Board of Adjustment may authorize as a special exception the reconstruction and reestablishment of a legal noncomplying structure with a nonconforming nonresidential use subject to consideration of the following: (A). Reconstruction plans shall be reviewed through the site plan review process to consider the feasibility of site redesign to better meet underlying zoning district standards without a reduction in type or intensity of use of the property; (B). Compliance with all other current, local or state development standards, (e.g.,Floodplain Hazard Protection, Fault Line Hazards, Ground Water Source Protection, Airport Flight Path Protection, Environmental Performance Standards, and Hazardous Waste Prohibition); (C). The reconstruction and reuse of the structure would not change the character of the neighborhood by using construction materials which did not exist previously on the building. Other building materials should not be used, unless the materials are compatible with the neighborhood; and/or (D). Consideration of the enforcement history of the property regarding any continual public nuisance generated by the nonconforming use activity. 11 SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2005. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Belt APPROVED AS TO FORM - • omey� orflc Date ' 11 la. . gr- ey AM, .. A . 4 (SEAL) Bill No. of 2005. Published: I:\Ordinance 05\Amending 21A.38.080 and.090 Nonconforming Uses and Structures-09-07-05 clean.doc 12 Cri5eAkS SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2005 (Amending Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21A.38, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO NONCONFORMING USES AND NONCOMPLYING STRUCTURES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-03-34. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted legislative action requesting that the Administration review the nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures section of the zoning code relating to the current percentage limitations for reconstruction, improvement or expansion of nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures; and establish refined standards, public notification, and review processes that include: a) replacement, construction, improvement or expansion of certain types of nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures; b) establishment of categories of nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures with a different level of review and public notification depending upon the impact to the surrounding neighborhood; and c) identification of other options. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Code contains regulations regarding nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures. WHEREAS, allowing some flexibility in addressing nonconforming uses to allow property owners and investors options, not heretofore available, to reinvest or expand property in a manner that minimizes impacts on neighborhoods and supports land uses that serve the citizens as well as the community. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, has held public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission, and has taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of its deliberation. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed amendments to nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures regulations are appropriate for the development of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Chapter 21A.38, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.38.080 Moving, Enlarging Or Altering Nonconforming Uses Of Land And Structures: No nonconforming use may be moved, enlarged or altered and no nonconforming use of land may occupy additional land, except as provided in this section. A. Enlargement: A nonconforming use may not be enlarged, expanded or extended to occupy all or a part of another structure or site, that it did not occupy on the effective date of any amendment to this title that makes the use nonconformingh o-f,, m '- 5. A nonconforming use for the purposes of this section may be extended within the same structure or as an addition to the same structure, provided the enlargementadditien does not increase the need for additional hard surface parking requirementthan is existing on the property. 1. Reoccupation Or Enlargement Of A Structure With A More Intensive Nonconforming Use. Whenever expansion of a nonconforming use exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the original use at the time the use became nonconforming; a nonconforming use expansion requires additional off-street parking than existing on the site or a nonconforming use changes to a more intensive nonconforming use; such expansions shall only be approved as a conditional use subject to the requirements of Part V Chapter 21A.52 Conditional Uses and applicable 2 specific conditional use standards and/or site and design review standards provided in this section. a. Specific Conditional Use Standards. The Planning Commission may grant a conditional use permit for the enlargement of a structure containing a nonconforming use,provision of additional parking area for a nonconforming use or the reoccupation of a structure with a nonconforming use that is more intensive, excepting uses which are only permitted as a conditional use in the Heavy Manufacturing District (M-2) of this title located within any residential,mixed use, commercial or nonresidential zoning district, subject to consideration of the following standards: i. The condition and economic life of the building is such that near future demolition is not likely to occur; ii. The use provides reuse of buildings with architectural or historic value; iii. The use supports walk to work or live-work opportunities; iv. The use provides an appropriate scale of neighborhood or community level of services; v. The enlargement will not create any additional noncompliance with zoning standards except for building modifications for life safety concerns; vi. The enlargement and reuse of the structure would not substantially change the character of the neighborhood; and/or vii. The use is not in conflict with any other current, local or state development standards. (i.e. Floodplain Hazard Protection, Fault Line Hazards, Ground Water Source Protection,Airport Flight Path Protection, Environmental Performance Standards, and Hazardous Waste Prohibition). 3 b. Site and Design Review Standards. Whenever an expansion or intensification of a nonconforming use is located within residentially zoned property or abuts residentially zoned property the following site and design review standards shall be reviewed as part of the conditional use approval process: i. Building Orientation. The development shall orient to the street, not an interior courtyard or parking lot. The primary access shall be oriented to the pedestrian and have at least one operable building entrance that faces a public street. Residential uses shall meet the standards for Sections 21A.24.010.H Side Entry Buildings and 21A.24.010.I Front Facade Controls, ii. Facade. For nonresidential uses, street oriented facades shall maintain detailing and glass in sufficient quantities to facilitate pedestrian interest and interaction, (A) Minimum First Floor Glass: The first floor elevation facing a street of all new building additions or buildings in which the property owner is modifying the size of windows on the front façade, shall not have less than forty percent(40%)glass surfaces. All first floor glass shall be non-reflective. Display windows that are three-dimensional (3-D) and are at least two feet (2') deep are permitted and may be counted toward the forty percent(40%) glass requirement. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized by the Planning Commission as part of the conditional use site and design review procedure, if the Planning Commission finds: (1).The requirement would negatively impact the historic character of the building, (2).The requirement would negatively impact the structural stability of the building, or (3).The ground level of the building is occupied by residential uses, in which case the 40% glass requirement may be reduced to 25%. 4 (B) Maximum Length. Architectural detailing shall emphasize the pedestrian level of the building. The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the first floor level shall be fifteen feet (15'). iii. Parking Lots. Parking lots shall be appropriately screened and landscaped to minimize their impact on the neighborhood. Lightproof fencing is required adjacent to residential properties. Parking lot lighting shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into adjacent neighborhoods. The poles for parking lot lighting are limited to 16 feet in height from finished grade, iv. Screening. Dumpsters and loading docks shall be appropriately screened or located within the structure. All building equipment and service areas, including on-grade and roof mechanical equipment and transformers that are readily visible from the public right of way, shall be screened from public view. These elements shall be sited to minimize their visibility and impact, or enclosed as to appear to be an integral part of the architectural design of the building, and v. Signs. Signage for residential uses shall meet sign standards for Section 21 A.46.080B Sign Regulations for Multifamily Residential Districts. Signage for nonresidential uses shall emphasize a pedestrian scale and shall meet the sign standards of Section 21A.46.090.4 Sign Type, Size and Height Standards for the CN District. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized by the Planning Commission as part of the conditional use site and design review procedure, if the Planning Commission finds that maintaining the nonconforming sign does not negatively impact the neighborhood character. 5 c. Limitations on Development. Any conditional use authorized for the reoccupation or enlargement of a structure with a more intensive use shall be limited to the following criteria: i. No additional lot area may be added to the subject nonconforming property, ii. No enlargement of a nonconforming principal structure shall involve the razing of more than fifty percent (50%) of the existing building foot print, and iii. Any nonconforming property with an existing mix of residential and nonresidential uses with more than two (2) existing dwelling units shall provide for a mixed-use development with no reduction in the number of dwelling units. B. Exterior Or Interior Remodeling Or Improvements To Structure: Exterior or interior remodeling or improvements to a structure containing a nonconforming use shall be allowed provided the improvements do not increase the parking requirement. C. Relocation Of Structure: A structure containing a nonconforming use may not be moved unless the use shall thereafter conform to the regulations of the zoning district into which the structure is moved. D. Change Of Nonconforming Nonresidential Use To Another Nonconforming Use: Upon application to the zoning administrator pursuant to part II, chapter 21A.12 of this title, a nonconforming use may be changed to another nonconforming use of the same or similar land use type as defined in part VI, chapter 21A.62 of this title. Whenever any nonconforming nonresidential use is changed to a less intensive nonconforming nonresidential use, such use shall not be changed back to a more intensive nonconforming nonresidential use. For purposes of this section, a more intensive A nonresidential use is determined when the existing hard surfaced parking available on site does not provide the required number of parking stallsrequiring mero 6 . Whenever any nonconforming nonresidential use is changed to a conforming use, such use shall not later be changed to a nonconforming use. E. Destruction Of Structure With Nonconforming Use: No structure containing a legal nonconforming use may be reconstructed for a nonconforming use, except in the manner provided in subsections El and E2 of this section or unless required by law. Restoration of a damage or destroyed structure with a nonconforming use shall be started within one (1)year and diligently pursued to completion. Any delay in starting such restoration that is caused by government actions and without contributing fault by the owner, may, upon, application to and determination by the zoning administrator, be deducted in calculating the starting date of restoration. 1. Destruction Of Structure To The Extent Of Fifty Percent: If a structure that contains a legal nonconforming use is destroyed to the extent of fifty percent(50%)by fire or natural calamity, or is voluntarily razed, the nonconforming use may be resumed, and the structure restored. The determination of the extent of damage or destruction under this subsection, shall be determined by the building official and based on the ratio of the estimated cost of restoring the structure to its condition before the damage or destruction to the estimated cost of duplicating the entire structure as it existed prior to the damage or destruction. The estimate shall be based on the current issue of"Building Standards"published by the International Conference of Building Officials. 2. Destruction Of Structure Greater Than Fifty Percent: If a structure that contains a legal nonconforming use is destroyed, greater than fifty percent (50%),by fire or natural 7 calamity, the nonconforming use may be resumed, and the structure may be restored to accommodate the nonconforming use subject to subsections E2a and E2b of this section. a. Nonconforming Residential Uses. The zoning administrator may authorize the reconstruction and reestablishment of a legal nonconforming residential structure subject to consideration of the following: i. Compliance with all other current, local or state development standards, (e.g., Floodplain Hazard Protection, Fault Line Hazards, Ground Water Source Protection, Airport Flight Path Protection, Environmental Performance Standards, and Hazardous Waste Prohibition); and/or ii. The reconstruction will not increase the number of units. b. Nonconforming Nonresidential Uses. The Board of Adjustment may authorize as a special exception the reconstruction and reestablishment of a legal nonconforming nonresidential use structure subject to consideration of the following: i. Reconstruction plans shall be reviewed to consider the feasibility of site redesign to better meet underlying zoning district standards without a reduction in type or intensity of use of the property; ii. Compliance with all other current, local or state development standards, (e.g.,Floodplain Hazard Protection, Fault Line Hazards, Ground Water Source Protection, Airport Flight Path Protection, Environmental Performance Standards, and Hazardous Waste Prohibition); iii. The reconstruction and reuse of the structure would not change the character of the neighborhood by using construction materials which did not exist previously on the building. Other building materials should not be used, unless the materials are compatible with the neighborhood; and/or 8 iv. Consideration of the enforcement history of the property regarding any continual public nuisance generated by the nonconforming use activity. 21A.38.090 Noncomplying Structures: No noncomplying structure may be moved, enlarged or altered, except in the manner provided in this section or unless required by law. A. Repair, Maintenance,Alterations And Enlargement: Any noncomplying structure may be repaired, maintained, altered or enlarged, except that no such repair, maintenance, alteration or enlargement shall either create any new noncompliance or increase the degree of the existing noncompliance of all or any part of such structure. B. Moving: A noncomplying structure shall not be moved in whole or in part, for any distance whatsoever, to any other location on the same or any other lot unless the entire structure shall thereafter conform to the regulations of the zoning district in which it is located after being moved. C. Damage Or Partial Destruction Of Noncomplying Structure. 1. Restoration: If a noncomplying structure is damaged or destroyed by fire or natural calamity, the structure may be restored, or, if a noncomplying structure is voluntarily razed to the extent of seventy-five percent(75%), the structure may be restored if restoration is started within one(1) year and diligently pursued to completion. Any delay in starting such restoration that is caused by government actions and without contributing fault by the owner, may, upon application to and determination by the zoning administrator, be deducted in calculating the starting date of restoration. 9 2. Destruction Of Noncomplying Structure With Nonconforming Use: No legal nonconforming structure containing a nonconforming use may be reconstructed, except in the manner provided in subsection C2a and C2b of this section or unless required by law. Restoration of a damaged or destroyed noncomplying structure with a nonconforming use shall be started within one (1) year and diligently pursued to completion. Any delay in starting such restoration that is caused by government actions and without contributing fault by the owner, may, upon application to and determination by the zoning administrator, be deducted in calculating the starting date of restoration. a. Destruction Of Structure To The Extent of Fifty Percent: If a noncomplying structure that contains a nonconforming use is destroyed to the extent of fifty percent (50%) by fire or natural calamity, or is voluntarily razed or destroyed by other means, the nonconforming use may be resumed, and the structure restored. The determination of the extent of damage or destruction under this subsection, shall be determined by the zoning administrator and based on the ratio of the estimated cost of restoring the structure to its condition before the damage or destruction to the estimated cost of duplicating the entire structure as it existed prior to the damage or destruction. The estimate shall be based on the current issue of'Building Standards" published by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). b. Destruction Of Structure Greater Than Fifty Percent: If a noncomplying structure that contains a legal nonconforming use is destroyed, greater than fifty percent (50%), by fire or natural calamity, the nonconforming use may be resumed, and the structure may be restored to accommodate the nonconforming use subject to subsections C2bi and C2bii of this section. 10 i. Nonconforming Residential Use: The zoning administrator may authorize the reconstruction and reestablishment of a legal noncomplying residential structure with a nonconforming residential use subject to consideration of the following: (A). Compliance with all other current, local or state development standards, (e.g., Floodplain Hazard Protection, Fault Line Hazards, Ground Water Source Protection, Airport Flight Path Protection, Environmental Performance Standards, and Hazardous Waste Prohibition); and/or (B). The reconstruction will not increase the number of units. ii. Nonconforming Nonresidential Uses. The Board of Adjustment may authorize as a special exception the reconstruction and reestablishment of a legal noncomplying structure with a nonconforming nonresidential use subject to consideration of the following: (A). Reconstruction plans shall be reviewed through the site plan review process to consider the feasibility of site redesign to better meet underlying zoning district standards without a reduction in type or intensity of use of the property; (B). Compliance with all other current, local or state development standards, (e.g., Floodplain Hazard Protection, Fault Line Hazards, Ground Water Source Protection, Airport Flight Path Protection, Environmental Performance Standards, and Hazardous Waste Prohibition); (C). The reconstruction and reuse of the structure would not change the character of the neighborhood by using construction materials which did not exist previously on the building. Other building materials should not be used, unless the materials are compatible with the neighborhood; and/or (D). Consideration of the enforcement history of the property regarding any continual public nuisance generated by the nonconforming use activity. 11 SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2005. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2005. Published: I:\Ordinance 05\Amending 21A.38.080 and.090 Nonconforming Uses and Structures-08-26-05 draft.doc 12 4. Planning Commission Public Hearing Notice Agendas Minutes Staff Memorandums A. LOUTS ZUNGUZE 5,�.� 111 � "'' `n ",�)_113:Q�e (�© � ROSS C. ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION CHERI COFFEY, AICP DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT, AICP NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR The Salt Lake City Council adopted Ordinance 15 of 2005 amending Chapter 38 Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures of the zoning ordinance. The text amendment allows 100% reconstruction of nonconforming and noncomplying structures when damaged by fire or other natural causes. The City Council deferred action on the portion of the nonconforming text that allows, through a conditional use process, enlargement and/or intensification of nonconforming uses. The City Council referred the proposal for enlargement, and/or intensification of nonconforming uses back to the Planning Commission for additional refinement of the ordinance guidelines and criteria to further address neighborhood impacts and concerns. The Salt Lake City Planning Commission will be reviewing the proposed ordinance standards and guidelines related to the enlargement and/or intensification of a nonconforming use. As part of the zoning text amendment process, the Planning Commission is holding a public hearing to receive comment. During the hearing, the Planning staff will present information to the Commission on the petition request. Anyone desiring to address the Planning Commission about this matter can either attend the public hearing or send in written comments prior the hearing date to the address on the bottom of this notice. Planning Commission Public Hearing Petition Number 400-03-34 Enlargement or Intensification of Nonconforming Uses DATE: July 13, 2005 TIME: Starting generally at 5:45 P.M. PLACE: ROOM 326* City and County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 * Enter the building from the east entrance. If you have any questions relating to this petition proposal,please attend the meeting or call Everett L. Joyce at 535-7930, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. We comply with ADA guidelines. Assistive listening devices and interpretive services provided upon 24-hour advance request. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 1341 1 1 TELEPHONE: 501-535-7757 FAX:1301-535-6174 WWW.SLCGOV.COM REC.c LEo PAPER Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting May 25, 2005 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, May 25, 2005 Present from the Planning Commission were Tim Chambless, Chairperson, Laurie Noda, Vice Chairperson, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Craig Galli, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR (This item was heard at 5:52 P.M.) Mr. Zunguze introduced Ms. Shirley Jensen as the new Planning Commission Secretary. He stated that the Planning Commission lost the services of Andrea Curtis to another office in the City, and was grateful that Ms. Jensen stepped "up to the plate" to take her place. Mr. Zunguze thanked the Commissioners who were present during the budget hearings at the City Council meeting. He reported that the support of the Planning Commission had a factor on how the Planning Division's budget was received. Mr. Zunguze reported on the following matters: a. Discussion of the letter sent to the Planning Commission from the City Council relative to future master plans: (This item was heard at 5:58 P.M.) b. Discussion with the Commission regarding the City Council's request for refinement to address issues raised by the City Council related to enlargement, alteration, or intensification of non-conforming uses or non- complying structures: (This item was heard at 6:00 P.M.) Mr. Zunguze stated that in April of 2005, the City Council adopted an ordinance amending the zoning ordinance relating to "Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures". He noted that the City Council adopted the amendment which allowed 100 percent reconstruction of nonconforming and noncomplying structures when damaged by fire or other natural causes, but deferred action on the enlargement and/or intensification of nonconforming uses portion of the recommended text changes previously forwarded by the Planning Commission. Mr. Zunguze suggested that the Planning Commission should decide and make a recommendation to reopen Petition No. 400-03-34 to include additional information. 1 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting May 25, 2005 Planner Everett Joyce stated that the City Council referred the proposal for enlargement, alteration, or intensification of nonconforming uses back to the Planning Commission for additional refinement of the guidelines and criteria to address neighborhood impacts and concerns, and identified the items that could be included in the ordinance criteria. He referred to his memorandum, noting that the list of identified items was included. A copy of the memorandum was filed with the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Joyce explained that the text modifications in red depicted the previously recommended text changes not adopted by the City Council, and the text modifications in blue depicted the changes in response to the City Council's request for refinement. He said that the new standards related to the intensification of nonconforming structures. Mr. Joyce discussed this matter further. Chairperson Chambless asked if there were any questions for staff. Commissioner Muir expressed concern that there was a distinction between limitations on development versus projects that have either burned or fallen down. Mr. Joyce said that the distinction was for intensification of an existing nonconforming development. He added that an existing structure could be expanded as long as there would be adequate off-street parking and would meet other City codes. Mr. Joyce stated that there were over 300 nonconforming properties in the city and several could provide neighborhood community use. He said that the City Council gave an example of intensification of a small grocery store going to a restaurant. Mr. Joyce said that the proposed text changes would allow that to happen if the owner of the property would go through a conditional use process option rather than having to rezone the property for that use. Commissioner Muir referred to No. C-1 on Page 3 of the text changes (Damage or Partial Destruction of Noncomplying Structures). He inquired why the material distinction between one who voluntarily razes a building to the extent of 75 percent, then replaces it, and someone in good faith deciding to restore a building and finding out that the building might be full of dry rot and termites, and built with unreinforced masonry, and ultimately rebuilding 95 percent of the structure. Commissioner Muir believed that the distinction would discourage people from restoring buildings. Mr. Joyce responded by saying that the current text reads 100 percent. He noted that it had always been 75 percent for fire damage and natural disaster and never a voluntary demolition. Mr. Joyce said that 75 percent threshold was always interpreted as a means to determine when demolition actually happened to a structure. He added that if it was at 100 2 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting May 25, 2005 percent, there would be no control over demolitions. Mr. Joyce said that Commissioner Muir made a good point, that cases could exceed 75 percent. He commented that the Building Services Division had recommended 75 percent. Chairperson Chambless inquired if there were any additional questions for staff. Hearing none, Chairperson Chambless stated that he would entertain a motion or further discussion. A short discussion took place among some of the Commissioners relating to the matter at hand. Motion regarding Petition No. 400-03-34, nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures. Commissioner De Lay moved that the Planning Commission accept Petition No. 400-03-34, as is. The motion died for lack of a second. The discussion continued regarding the acceptance of the original draft or to reopen the petition and have a public hearing on the matter. Second and final motion regarding Petition No. 400-03-34, nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures: Commissioner De Lay moved that the Planning Commission reopen Petition No. 400-03-34 for the benefit of a public hearing. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig unanimously voted "Aye". Chairperson Chambless did not vote. The motion passed. 3 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 2005 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, July 13, 2005 Petition No. 400-03-34 —A request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to address zoning text amendments relating to a proposed conditional use process allowing the enlargement and/or intensification of nonconforming uses. This analysis is being done at the request of the City Council, which adopted regulations relating to the reconstruction of nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures on April 19, 2005. The City Council wanted the Planning Commission to review additional refinement of the ordinance guidelines and criteria to further address neighborhood impacts and concerns relating to the enlargement and/or intensification of nonconforming uses. At 7:30 P.M., Chairperson Chambless announced that Petition No. 400-03-34 would not be heard at this meeting, but would be carried to the August 10, 2005 or August 24, 2005 meeting. He explained that the Planning Commission would lose a quorum and a quorum must be present to do official City business. Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting August 24, 2005 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, August 24, 2005 Petition No. 400-03-34, a request by Salt Lake City Council that the Planning Commission review additional refinement of the nonconforming use ordinance, looking specifically at guidelines and criteria to address neighborhood impacts and concerns relating to the enlargement and/or intensification of nonconforming uses. At 6:03 P.M. Chairperson Chambless introduced Petition No. 400-03-34 and Everett Joyce, Principal Planner. Mr. Joyce stated that this petition was first introduced to the Planning Commission in a public hearing on July 13, 2005. At that time a quorum was not present and the petition was continued to this date, August 24, 2005. Mr. Joyce said that the text changes were high-lighted in red and blue. The red text was part of the original text change recommended by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the City Council. The City Council adopted and recommended changes to the non-conforming, non-complying regulation. They specifically returned the portion on enlarging non-conforming uses. The blue text contained specific changes made in response to issues brought forward by the City Council. The memo in the packet identified key issues of the City. Mr. Joyce delineated key issues and gave further clarification of the contents of the new blue text, citing page by page, the issues and conditions as stated in the memo. Chairperson Chambless asked if a representative of a Community Council was present and if Mr. Joyce was representing the petitioner. Mr. Joyce said his response addressed the issues of the City Council. No one in the community wished to speak to this matter. Commissioner Diamond asked Mr. Joyce what that process would be and Mr. Joyce responded that it is a Conditional Use process for an intensification or expansion of non- conforming uses. It does not cover all situations. The process begins administratively when the petitioner exceeds the ordinance limits. It then goes into the Conditional Use process and comes to the Planning Commission for approval. Motion for Petition 400-03-34: Commissioner De Lay moved that the Planning Commission approve Petition No. 400-03-34, based on the analysis outlined in the staff memorandum. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Seelig, Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Diamond voted "Aye". Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Muir and Commissioner McDonough were not present. The motion passed. 1 A. LOWS ZUNGUZE S1'\ 1—(_a' lit C� �, I Q 1 ROSS C. ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT, AICP DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Everett L. Joyce, Planning Division DATE: July 8, 2005 RE: Petition 400-03-34 Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures Background: A July 13, 2005 Planning Commission agenda item includes a public hearing to address Petition 400-03-34 regarding Nonconforming Uses. Previously on the May 25, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission passed a motion to hold a public hearing regarding proposed zoning text refinements for the expansion and/or intensification of nonconforming uses. The attached memorandum previously sent to the Planning Commission for the May 25, 2005 meeting identifies the City Council concerns regarding the enlargement and or intensification of nonconforming uses. Also attached are the proposed text changes recommended by the Planning staff. Requested Action: At the July 13 public hearing the staff requests that the Planning Commission take public comment, discuss the proposed text changes, and provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding their request for text refinement related to the enlargement and or intensification of nonconforming uses. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH S41 1 1 _..._.— ItLGPH ONE:-HQr545=7/57 -FAR:SO-T=535=6-"74 ♦�i atCVoLED PAPER A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE "1.��\ I I.2.J%Ur Main ROSS C. ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR CHERI COFFEY, AICP PLANNINI3 AND ZONING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT, AICP DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Everett L. Joyce, Planning Division �.c DATE: May 20, 2005 RE: Petition 400-03-34 Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures On April 19, 2005, the Salt Lake City Council adopted Ordinance 15 of 2005 amending the Zoning Ordinance relating to Chapter 38 Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures. The text amendment allows 100% reconstruction of nonconforming and noncomplying structures when damaged by fire or other natural causes. The City Council deferred action until July 2005 on the enlargement and/or intensification of nonconforming uses portion of the recommended text changes previously forwarded by the Planning Commission. The process proposed for allowing intensification or enlargement of a nonconforming use was a conditional use process. The Planning Director recommended to the city Council that the refinement of standards for intensification and enlargement of nonconforming uses should go back to the Planning Commission. The reasoning is that since the Planning Commission will be implementing any additional standards it would be beneficial for the Planning Commission to be involved in the development of the standards. Therefore,the City Council moved to refer the proposal for enlargement, alteration or intensification of nonconforming uses back to the Planning Commission for additional refinement of the guidelines and criteria to address neighborhood impacts and concerns. The City Council staff report identified the following issues related to additional refinement of the guidelines/criteria for intensification and enlargement. The Council Staff identified items listed below that could be included in the ordinance criteria. 1. Neighborhood compatibility including consideration of: a. Building scale, size, orientation and yard area setbacks. (For example, the potential of a property owner removing an existing building and constructing a new building that is out of scale with the neighborhood and not oriented to 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 641 1 1 TELEPHONE: 001-535,7/57 FAX: 801-535-6174 WWW:ateee reeve �` RECYCLED PAP[R the street, such as a large building with a blank wall along the street frontage and entrances on the side or back of the building, or a 'box car' — long, narrow multi-family structure with entrances oriented to the side.) b. Building materials and architectural features, such as roof pitch, facades etc. (For example, the potential of a property owner removing an existing structure and constructing a new cinder block, flat roofed structure or the 'box car' type structure mentioned above.) 2. Parking and traffic impacts. (For example, replacing an existing, low-impact use with a more intensive use such as a small grocery store replaced with a restaurant.) 3. Housing mitigation and protecting the residential/commercial balance in a neighborhood. (This would address the potential of losing residential uses if a property owner expands a non-residential use to occupy an entire structure or constructs a new structure for a non-residential use in place of an existing structure that contains residential and non-residential space. For example, a corner commercial building where the commercial space is located on the street frontage and the residential dwelling is located behind or above the commercial space and the entire building converts to commercial space.) 4. Define and establish parameters or limits for"intensification." The Planning staff is requesting that the Planning Commission review the attached text modifications in response to City Council action and discuss them at the May 25th meeting. The Planning Commission should review and finalize the intensification of nonconforming uses text and forward a recommendation regarding the proposed modifications to the City Council. Attached for your review is a revised ordinance addressing concepts identified above by the City Council. The two key changes are Site and Design Review Standards and Limitations on Development. 1. The Site and Design Review Standards section applies to residentially zoned nonconforming properties or those that abut a residential zoning district. These standards provide a more detailed review and evaluation process than the general conditional use standards and include specific standards regarding intensification or enlargement of nonconforming uses. 2. The Limitations on Development section restricts expansion of nonconforming uses onto additional properties and restricts the potential loss of existing housing stock. Text modifications in red (underlined) depict previously recommended text changes not adopted by the City Council. Text modifications in blue (underlined in italics) depict changes in response to the City Council request for refinement to the enlargement and/or intensification of nonconforming uses. - 2 - In response to an issue raised by the Permits Office, staff has included refinement language relating to voluntarily razing of a noncomplying structure. (See Section 21 A.3 8.090C 1 Restoration on page 3 of the attached text changes) The previous ordinance had a 75% limit on demolition of noncomplying structures that has been modified to 100 % if the structure is damaged or destroyed by fire. The proposed text does not address voluntary demolition of a noncomplying structure. The nonconforming use section provides standards for both voluntary demolition and destruction caused by fire or other causes. To address voluntary demolition of a noncomplyling structure the Planning Staff recommends refining the text to allow reconstruction to the extent of 75% of the structure in cases of voluntary demolition. CC: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director, Brent Wilde, Deputy Director, Community Development Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director Kevin LoPiccolo, Zoning Administrator Larry Butcher, Permits Office - 3 - 21A.38.080 Moving, Enlarging Or Altering Nonconforming Uses Of Land And Structures: No nonconforming use may be moved, enlarged or altered and no nonconforming use of land may occupy additional land, except as provided in this section. A. Enlargement: A nonconforming use may not be enlarged, expanded or extended to occupy all or a part of another structure or site, that it did not occupy on the effective date of any amendment to this title that makes the use nonconforming hereef,—Apfil4-27 1995. A nonconforming use for the purposes of this section may be extended within the same structure or as an addition to the same structure,provided the addition enlargement does not increase the need for additional hard surface parking requirement than existing on the property. 1. Reoccupation Or Enlargement Of A Structure With A More Intensive Nonconforming Use. Whenever expansion of a nonconforming use exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the original use at the time the use became nonconforming; a nonconforming use expansion requires additional off-street parking than existing on the site or a nonconforming use changes to a more intensive nonconforming use; such expansions shall only be approved as a conditional use subject to the requirements of Part V Chapter 21A.52 Conditional Uses and applicable specific conditional use standards and/or site and design review standards provided in this section. a. Specific Conditional Use Standards. The Planning Commission may grant a conditional use permit for the enlargement, including additional parking area or the reoccupation of a structure with a nonconforming use that is more intensive, excepting uses which are only permitted as a conditional use in the Heavy Manufacturing District (M-2) of this title located within any residential,mixed use, commercial or nonresidential zoning district, subject to consideration of the following standards: i. The condition and economic life of the building is such that near future demolition is not likely to occur; ii. The use provides reuse of buildings with architectural or historic value; iii. The use supports walk to work or live-work opportunities; iv. The use provides an appropriate scale of neighborhood or community level of services. v. The enlargement will not create any additional noncompliance with zoning standards except for building modifications for life safety concerns; vi. The enlargement and reuse of the structure would not substantially change the character of the neighborhood; and/or vii. The use is not in conflict with any other current, local or state development standards. (i.e. Floodplain Hazard Protection, Fault Line Hazards, Ground Water Source Protection,Airport Flight Path Protection,Environmental Performance Standards, and Hazardous Waste Prohibition). b. Site and Design Review Standards. Whenever an expansion or intensification of a nonconforming use is located within residentially zoned property or is adjacent to residentially zoned property the following site and design review standards shall be reviewed as part of the conditional use approval process: i. Building Orientation. The development shall orient to the street, not an interior courtyard or parking lot. The primary access shall be oriented to the pedestrian. Provide at least one operable building entrance per elevation that faces a public street. Buildings EpJargemPnt or Tntensifi�atinn of Nonconforming Uses Page 1 that face multiple streets are only required to have one door on any street. Residential uses shall meet the standards for Sections 21A.24.010.H Side Entry Buildings and 21 A.24.010.I Front Facade Controls, ii. Facade. For nonresidential uses street oriented facades shall maintain detailing and glass in sufficient quantities to facilitate pedestrian interest and interaction, (A) Minimum First Floor Glass: The first floor elevation facing a street of all new building additions or buildings in which the property owner is modifying the size of windows on the front façade, shall not have less than forty percent(40%) glass surfaces. All first floor glass shall be non-reflective. Display windows that are three-dimensional (3-D) and are at least two feet (2') deep are permitted and may be counted toward the forty percent (40%) glass requirement. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized by the Planning Commission as conditional building and site design review, if the Planning Commission finds: (1).The requirement would negatively impact the historic character of the building, (2).The requirement would negatively impact the structural stability of the building, or (3).The ground level of the building is occupied by residential uses, in which case the 40% glass requirement may be reduced to 25%. (B) Maximum Length. Architectural detailing shall emphasize the pedestrian level of the building. The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the first floor level shall be fifteen feet(15'). iii. Parking Lots. Parking lots shall be appropriately screened and landscaped to minimize their impact on the neighborhood. Lightproof fencing is required adjacent to residential properties. Parking lot lighting shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into adjacent neighborhoods. The poles for parking lot lighting are limited to 16 feet in height and the globe must be shielded to minimize light encroachment onto adjacent residential properties, iv. Screening. Dumpsters and loading docks shall be appropriately screened or located within the structure. All building equipment and service areas, including on-grade and roof mechanical equipment and transformers that are readily visible from the public right of way, shall be screened from public view. These elements shall be sited to minimize their visibility and impact, or enclosed as to appear to be an integral part of the architectural design of the building, and v. Signs. Signage for residential uses shall meet sign standards for Section 21A.46.080B Sign Regulations for Multifamily Residential Districts. Signage for nonresidential uses shall emphasize a pedestrian scale and shall meet the sign standards of Section 21A.46.090.4 Sign Type, Size and Height Standards for the CN District. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized by the Planning Commission as conditional building and site design review, if the Planning Commission finds that maintaining the nonconforming sign does not negatively impact the neighborhood character. c. Limitations on Development. Any conditional use authorized for the reoccupation or enlargement of a structure with a more intensive use shall be limited to the following criteria: i. No additional lot area may be added to the subject nonconforming property, Enlargement or intensification of Nonconforming Uses Page 2 • ii. No nonconforming principal structure may be razed more than fifty percent (50%) of the existing building foot print, and iii. Any nonconforming property with more than two (2) existing dwelling units shall provide for a mixed-use development with no reduction in the number of dwelling units. B. Exterior Or Interior Remodeling Or Improvements To Structure: Exterior or interior remodeling or improvements to a structure containing a nonconforming use shall be allowed provided the improvements do not increase the parking requirement. C. Relocation Of Structure: A structure containing a nonconforming use may not be moved unless the use shall thereafter conform to the regulations of the zoning district into which the structure is moved. D. Change Of Nonconforming Nonresidential Use To Another Nonconforming Use: Upon application to the zoning administrator pursuant to part II, chapter 21A.12 of this titlo, a nonconforming use may be changed to another nonconforming use of the same or similar land use type as defined in part VI, chapter 21A.62 of this title. Whenever any nonconforming nonresidential use is changed to a less intensive nonconforming nonresidential use, such use shall not be changed back to a more intensive nonconforming nonresidential use. A For purposes of this section a more intensive nonresidential use is determined when the existing hard surfaced parking available on site does not provide the required number of parking stalls Whenever any nonconforming nonresidential use is changed to a conforming use, such use shall not later be changed to a nonconforming use. Enlargement or Intensification of Nonconforming Uses page 5. City Council Minutes April 19, 2005 Public Hearing Petition 400-03-34 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, Regular Session Tuesday, April 19, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING #2. RE: Accept public comment and consider amending Chapter 21A.38, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to non-conforming uses and non-complying structures, Section 21A.52.030, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to special exceptions, Section 21A.62.040, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to definitions and amending the Avenues Community Master Plan pursuant to Petition No. 400-03-34. The following spoke or submitted written comments on the proposed ordinance: Cindy Cromer, Cosette Joesten, Charles Cowley,Victoria Marion, Rod Young, Elyse White,Todd Ridgeway, and Allyn Mahoney. Comments included uneven property distribution, financing options, conditional use criteria, potential housing loss, lending institutions requiring rebuild letters, landscape buffers, disallow chain link fence, reduce vandalism/noise, and impact on property values. Councilmember Saxton moved and Councilmember Jergensen seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye. Councilmember Christensen moved and Councilmember Saxton seconded to adopt Ordinance 15 of 2005 amending the zoning ordinance relating to non-conforming uses and non-complying structures to.allow 100% reconstruction of structures when damaged by fire or other natural causes, without also addressing enlargement and/or intensification of use, and amending the Avenues Community Master Plan and further moved to refer the proposal for enlargement, alteration or intensification of non-complying uses or non-complying structures back to the Planning Commission for additional refinement and request that the proposal be returned to the Council by July 1,2005. Councilmember Christensen said the motion approved the portion of the ordinance which allowed property owners to rebuild existing structures to current size and conformity. He said even though enlargement issues were addressed by the Planning staff the Council felt there were still concerns which needed to be addressed. He said he hoped the issues could be considered in July. Councilmember Saxton said this was a difficult issue which had been debated for a long time. She said the number of non-conforming and non-complying structures varied between communities and created concerns about potential impact to residents and neighborhoods. She said she hoped neighborhood diversity would be created with different types of building structures and uses. Councilmember Saxton said the second half of the motion regarding expanding non-conforming and non-complying structures would be more difficult to address. She said she was confident City staff would present reasonable options for the Council to consider. Councilmember Jergensen said the Avenues Community Master Plan needed to be amended because it did not address both replacement and enlargement aspects. He said he felt the City was headed in the right direction. He said the proposal would strengthen the community and allow neighborhoods to retain their fabric and history. Councilmember Turner called for the question, which motion carried, all members voted aye. (0 03-5) MEMORANDUM DATE: February 14, 2006 TO: City Council Members FROM: Jennifer Bruno, Policy Analyst RE: Adopting a resolution expressing strong opposition to Senate Bill 170, and other similar legislation On January 23rd,2006,Senate Bill 170 was introduced by Senator Alma Mansell. The bill proposed broad and sweeping changes that would dramatically alter the current system of planning and land use, going in the direction of taking away community and elected officials input,putting a developer's property rights above the property rights of the neighbors and the community as a whole. This legislation has been characterized as being written by a small group of developers, with no input at all from planners,local elected officials, city governments,or concerned citizens. Because of the strong opposition to the bill that was voiced from many different sides of the issue in many arenas,the bill appears to be less popular among state legislators. However,many of the issues that were the driving force behind the bill still exist,and the initial supporters of the bill would like these issues to be addressed. The backers of SB 170 are currently working on additional legislation that would propose changes that so far are less disruptive to the community-input process,but could still potentially alter the process of land use planning in a way that would adversely affect a municipality's local authority. The Salt Lake City Council has represented that they are willing to work with the backers of SB 170 through the Utah League of Cities and Towns,to alleviate some of the problems and concerns that developers have with the municipal planning process. The Council has indicated that it will only support legislation that has been written in a collaborative way,with the desire to fix the current problems with the system without destroying the system as a whole and eliminating the public process that is so important for an urban environment like Salt Lake City. The following is a resolution,based on a draft resolution crafted by the Utah League of Cities and Towns, outlining the Council's strong opposition to any legislation that would make such sweeping changes to the planning and land use system without the input of the municipal interest. It should be noted that communities across Utah have adopted similar resolutions: 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL EXPRESSING STRONG OPPOSITION TO SENATE BILL 170,LAND USE AMENDMENTS,AND REQUESTING THAT OUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES VOTE AGAINST THIS BILL,AND ANY OTHER LEGISLATION THAT HAS NOT BEEN WRITTEN WITH A CONSIDERATION OF THE MUNICIPALITIES' INTEREST WHEREAS,in the 2005 legislative session,the Cities joined efforts with a large consortium of stake holders to make significant changes to the State's municipal and county land use code,under the sponsorship of Senator Greg Bell;and WHEREAS,those who were represented in this undertaking,mutually agreed that any subsequent changes in the land use code should be made on a consensus basis,through an undertaking by these same stake holders;and WHEREAS,on the 23`d of January,of 2006,Senate Bill 170 Land Use Amendments, was proposed for passage in this years legislative session in contradiction of the intent of the stake holders involved in the drafting of last years Land Use Bill;and WHEREAS,Senate Bill 170 has received no input in the drafting from the Cities or Counties of this State; and WHEREAS,among the many objections that may be raised the language of this bill,the following are issues in the bill,that are strongly opposed by this City and its Citizens. Senate Bill 170: 1. Takes away and disregards the opportunity for public input to the City's elected officials on a zone change,on an individual parcel of land,even though such a change may have significant effect on neighbors and adjacent landowners. Taking decision making away from elected officials and putting it in the hands of appointed staff,who do not answer to the,voters,is assuring that true local control will be lost. 2. Seriously compromises the ability of local elected officials to balance the interests of developers and neighbors in making essential land uses decisions. The reality of our City is that it is predominantly built out,leaving remaining developable parcels small and close to their neighbors. Infill development requires an especially sensitive concern for neighborhood compatibility—this is to protect the property values and property rights of the neighbors as well as the property values of an owner that wishes to develop or redevelop their property. 3. Gives the development community the ability to control the development process in our community and establishes intimidating penalties for officers and employees of the City,both criminal and civil,for failure to comply with that process. 1. Presents difficult to impossible time lines for the City's/County's consideration of a land use 5. Eliminates the City's ability to plan long term,through its General Plan, and amend this plan as the City continues to grow and evolve. A well-planned community is a strong economic engine for the City,as well as for the entire State. Salt Lake City plays an important role in providing revenues for the State,which benefit everyone. Sound planning is key to ensuring that these revenues are enhanced over the years by providing communities for people to live,work andplay. 2 6. Eliminates the City's ability to provide for the protection of surrounding property values,by imposing conditions for such protection according to the development proposal. It is important for our City to be able to continually assess the changing needs of our neighborhoods in order to preserve these property values and ensure that they grow,rather than decrease as a result of incompatible development. 7. Gives a complete presumption of validity to the decisions of experts used by the developer to validate a development request,unless rebutted by a City expert. infrastructure aluation NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the of , as follows: 1. That the Salt Lake City Council hereby expresses in the strongest terms possible,its opposition to Senate Bill 170, Land Use Amendments,Sponsored by Senator Alma Mansell. 2. That the Salt Lake City Council hereby requests that our Senators and Representatives oppose this piece of legislation, as well as any other legislation that is not drafted with some consideration and input of the municipalities, whose duty it is to protect the property rights of each of their citizens. 3. That the Salt Lake City Council encourages the supporters of Senate Bill 170 to work with the local governments to arrive at consensus-based legislation to solve the current problems that developers face when dealigg with municipalities—whether they be related to timelines, development expectations. or impact fees. DATED this 14 day of February,2006. CHAIR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER 3 2.9.06 Petition 400-05-32-request to amend the Zoning Ordinance relating to the permitted and conditional use tables in Downtown and Commercial zoning districts and the definition of multi-family dwelling A. PROPOSED text change for DOWNTOWN AND COMMERCIAL zones: Mixed use developments including residential and other uses allowed in the zoning district B. CURRENT language in the DOWNTOWN AND COMMERCIAL zones: Dwelling units, including multi-family dwellings above or below first story office, retail and commercial uses or on the first story, as defined in the uniform building code, where the unit is not located adjacent to the street frontage. C. CURRENT language for RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE zones—Not proposed to be changed with this action: Dwelling units, including multi-family dwellings above or below first story office, retail and commercial uses or on the first story, as defined in the uniform building code, where the unit is not located adjacent to the street frontage. D. CURRENT language for the MIXED USE zone—Not proposed to be changed with this action: units above 1 floor commercial or office.