The URL can be used to link to this page

03/26/2024 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL REVISED AGENDA FORMAL MEETING March 26, 2024 Tuesday 7:00 PM Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas. Council Chambers 451 South State Street Room 315 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SLCCouncil.com CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Victoria Petro, Chair District 1 Chris Wharton, Vice Chair District 3 Alejandro Puy District 2 Eva Lopez Chavez District 4 Darin Mano District 5 Dan Dugan District 6 Sarah Young District 7 Generated: 08:52:35 Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES A.OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council Member Chris Wharton will conduct the formal meeting. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 4.The Council will consider adopting a joint ceremonial resolution with Mayor Mendenhall recognizing March 31, 2024 as International Transgender Day of Visibility in Salt Lake City. 5.The Council will approve the formal meeting minutes of February 6, 2024. B.PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Grant Application: Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard – Leading City Procurement Reform The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Department of Finance, Division of Purchasing and Contract Management to the Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard. If awarded, the Division of Purchasing and Contract Management and the Department of Finance would receive training and technical assistance to elevate resource procurement as a more important function of the City. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 2. Ordinance: Yalecrest - Princeton Heights Local Historic District The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning map to apply the H-Historic Overlay District, establishing the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights Local Historic District. The proposal includes 43 homes located at approximately 1323 Princeton Avenue to 1500 East along Princeton Avenue. The project is within Council District 6. Petitioner: Paula Harline.Petition No.: PLNHLC2023-00044. For more information visit tinyurl.com/HistoricDistrictsSLC. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 5, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 2, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 3. Ordinance: Rezone at Approximately 756 South Montgomery Street The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of the property located at approximately 756 South Montgomery Street from R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District) to RMF-30 (Low-Density Multi- Family Residential District). The proposal would allow the construction of a higher number of residential dwellings on this property and is intended to support appropriately scaled housing choices as recommended by the Westside Master Plan. Consideration may be given to rezoning the properties to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 2. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00607. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 5, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 2, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 4. Ordinance: Library Budget Amendment No.2 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the budget for the Library Fund for Fiscal Year 2023-24. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes over $1.3 million in additional funding for the Main Library roof renovation project. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 19, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 5, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 5. Ordinance: Rezone at 2260, 2270, and 2290 East 1300 South The Council will continue to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of properties located at 2260, 2270, and 2290 East 1300 South from R-1/7,000 (Single-Family Residential District) to CB (Community Business District). The proposal would allow for a wider range of land uses including multi-family, commercial, retail, and restaurants. Future development plans were not submitted by the applicant at this time. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 6. Petitioner: Tyler Morris, representing the property owner. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023- 00385. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 16, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 and Tuesday, March 26, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 2, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1. Ordinance: Zoning Map and General Plan Amendments at Approximately 2445 South 500 East (Woodland Commons) The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of properties located at approximately 2445 South 500 East from R-1/7,000 (Single-Family Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential). This proposal would also amend the Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. The proposed amendments would facilitate the construction of eight townhomes at this property. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 7. Petitioner: Jason Foster with Atlas Architects representing the property owner. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00538 & PLNPCM2023-00462. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 2. Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at 803, 805, 807, and 815 West Simondi Avenue and 802, 806, 810, and 814 West 300 North The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of properties located at approximately 803, 805, 807, and 815 West Simondi Avenue and 802, 806, 810, and 814 West 300 North from R1/7000 (Single-Family Residential) to RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family). The proposal would also amend the Northwest Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. The proposal would allow greater flexibility in housing types to develop these properties. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 2. Petitioner: NeighborWorks. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023- 00361 & PLNPCM2023-00499. For more information visit http://tinyurl.com/SimondiAve300NorthRezone. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 13, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 3. Resolution: Authorizing the Salt Lake County Housing Authority to Operate within Salt Lake City for The Deeply Affordable Housing Development 44 North Apartments The Council will consider adopting a resolution declaring there is a need for the Salt Lake County Housing Authority, doing business as Housing Connect, to exercise its powers within the boundaries of Salt Lake City. The Resolution would allow Housing Connect, in partnership with the nonprofit First Step House, to develop 67 apartments of one and two bedrooms as an affordable housing development at 44 and 48 North 1000 West. The rents would be affordable to tenants earning 25% - 35% of area median income or AMI. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 20, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2.Comments to the City Council. (This is a one-hour time slot for the public to comment on any City business not scheduled for a public hearing. Each person will have two minutes to talk. General comment registration closes at 7:30 p.m.) E.NEW BUSINESS: NONE. F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Legislative Action: Sugar House Business District Zoning Amendments and Transfer of Development Rights Program The Council will consider adopting a Legislative Action requesting the Administration undertake research and draft an ordinance to establish a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program that may be used for the Sugar House Business zoning districts. This program's intent would be to foster sustainable urban growth while safeguarding historical and cultural assets. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 19, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). G.CONSENT: 1. Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendments at Approximately 2760, 2800, and 2828 North 2200 West The Council will set the date of Tuesday, April 9 16, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of properties located at approximately 2760, 2800, and 2828 North 2200 West from AG-2 (Agricultural District) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing District). The proposal includes properties of approximately 14.33 acres. Plans for future development were not submitted with these applications. Consideration may be given to rezoning the properties to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 1. Petitioner: Will Channell with OCC Industrial, who is under contract for the properties. Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-00699, PLNPCM2022-00700 and PLNPCM2022-00701 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 19, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 7, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 2. Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at Approximately 1791 South and 1815 South State Street and 118 East and 120 East Coatsville Avenue The Council will set the date of Tuesday, April 9 16, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of properties located at 1791 and 1815 South State Street from CC (Corridor Commercial) to R-MU (Residential/Mixed Use), as well as amending the zoning of properties located at 118 and 120 East Coatsville Avenue from R-1/5000 (Single Family Residential) to R-MU (Residential/Mixed Use). The proposal would also amend the Central Community Future Land Use Map. The applicant's intent of these amendment requests is to accommodate a redevelopment proposal to be submitted at a later date. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 5. Petitioner: Matthew Ratelle of Colmena Group, representing the property owners. Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-00998 & PLNPCM2022-00999. For more information visit tinyurl.com/MavenStateRezone. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 19, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 16, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Set date. 3. Ordinance: Temporary Closure of 7200 West Between Interstate 80 and California Avenue The Council will set the date of Tuesday, April 2, 2024 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would temporarily close a segment of 7200 West between I-80 and California Ave to mitigate unsafe conditions. State law allows temporarily closing certain streets until the unsafe conditions are mitigated or up to two years, whichever is less. Recurring illegal dumping activity on and adjacent to the road has worsened the risk of fire and caused mitigation expenses to the City. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 2, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Set date. 4. Grant Application: Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard – Leading City Procurement Reform The Council will consider approving a grant application request from the Department of Finance, Division of Purchasing and Contract Management to Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard. If awarded, the Division of Purchasing and Contract Management and the Department of Finance would receive training and technical assistance to elevate resource procurement as a more important function of the City. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 5. Board Appointment: Business Advisory Board – Kristen Lavelett The Council will consider approving the appointment of Kristen Lavelett to the Business Advisory Board for a term ending December 25, 2028. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 26, 2024 Staff Recommendation - Approve. H.ADJOURNMENT: CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 6:00 p.m. on Monday, March 25 2024, the undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated interest. CINDY LOU TRISHMAN SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations of options discussed. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. JOINT RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING MARCH 31, 2024, AS INTERNATIONAL TRANSGENDER DAY OF VISIBILITY IN SALT LAKE CITY WHEREAS, International Transgender Day of Visibility is an annual event celebrated on March 31, serving as a moment to honor and recognize the diverse experiences of transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming individuals globally; and WHEREAS,Salt Lake City reaffirms its unwavering commitment to championing the rights, dignity, and equality of transgender and gender-diverse individuals across all communities; and WHEREAS,transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming individuals have significantly contributed to the cultural fabric of Salt Lake City and Utah, enriching our society through their activism, advocacy, and authentic self- expression; and WHEREAS,the representation of transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming individuals in various forms of media has increased, shedding light on diverse identities and highlighting substantial contributions to arts, science, education, entertainment, and various fields; and WHEREAS,amidst recent legislative efforts across the nation and Utah, targeting transgender youth, and the heartbreaking loss of individuals such as Nex Benedict, it is imperative that Salt Lake City stand in solidarity with the transgender community and actively promote inclusion, acceptance, and celebration; and WHEREAS,in light of recent legislation aimed to target and exclude transgender youth, which poses severe threats to the rights and safety of transgender and gender-diverse individuals, particularly impacting public accommodations and increasing risks for those incarcerated, affecting all transgender individuals in Utah, irrespective of age, educational attainment, criminal justice involvement, or socioeconomic status. It is crucial that we as a City come together to celebrate our transgender community; and WHEREAS,International Transgender Day of Visibility provides an opportunity for communities worldwide to acknowledge and honor the accomplishments, resilience, and leadership of transgender individuals.; and WHEREAS,transgender individuals face significant barriers related to social determinants of health, leading to economic inequity, mental health challenges, and limited healthcare access. Research by the NIH highlights that stigma, discrimination, and societal exclusion are pivotal in causing adverse health outcomes, including cardiovascular diseases, mental health issues, and reduced life expectancy, calling for comprehensive strategies to enhance their health and economic conditions; and WHEREAS,transgender individuals, especially those from BIPOC communities, encounter compounded discrimination and notable economic disparities, necessitating concerted efforts to achieve genuine inclusion and equity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor of Salt Lake City officially designates March 31, 2024, as International Transgender Day of Visibility in Salt Lake City, recognizing the importance of this day in fostering understanding, respect, and inclusivity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Salt Lake City commends the bravery and perseverance of the transgender community in their ongoing struggle for equal rights and recognition, affirming their inherent worth and dignity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Salt Lake City encourages residents to mark International Transgender Day of Visibility by engaging in educational initiatives aimed at dispelling misconceptions, eradicating discrimination, and fostering a more inclusive and supportive community for all individuals, regardless of gender identity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Salt Lake City commits to policy initiatives aimed at eliminating the gender minority pay gap, countering discrimination, and safeguarding the rights and safety of transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming individuals, with special attention to public accommodations and justice system involvement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Salt Lake City encourages participation from all community members, especially those from underrepresented groups, in the International Transgender Day of Visibility. This fosters an environment of inclusivity, raises awareness about the challenges faced by transgender individuals, and bolsters collective efforts against discrimination. Adopted this 26 day of March 2024. ________________________________ ________________________________ Erin Mendenhall Victoria Petro, Chair Salt Lake City Mayor Salt Lake City Council Member, District One _____________________________ ________________________________ Chris Wharton, Vice Chair Alejandro Puy Salt Lake City Council Member, District Three Salt Lake City Council Member, District Two ________________________________ ________________________________ Eva Lopez Chavez Darin Mano Salt Lake City Council Member, District Four Salt Lake City Council Member, District Five ________________________________ ________________________________ Dan Dugan Sarah Young Salt Lake City Council Member, District Six Salt Lake City Council Member, District Seven Page 1 Item B1 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:March 26, 2024 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ________________________________________________________________________________ The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and consider Adopting I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and consider adopting Item B-1 during tonight’s Consent Agenda. Project Timeline: Public Hearing: March 26, 2024 1 NEW GRANT APPLICATION FOR COUNCIL REVIEW 3/26/24 City Match Required? Number of FTEs Requested Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual Grant Total Grant & and FTE Amount Funding Agency Requested By 1.No. None.Leading City Procurement Reform Grant – Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard If awarded, the Division of Purchasing and Contract Management and the Department of Finance would receive training and technical assistance to elevate resource procurement as a more strategic function within the City’s contracting framework. Needs Public Hearing and approval under Consent Agenda (time sensitive) yes $0 Provides training and tech- nical assistance Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard Dept. of Finance, Division of Purchasing & Contract Manage- ment *The Administration indicates that this item is time-sensitive and needs to be approved by the City Council the same night as the Public Hearing on March 26th. Grant Application Submission NotificationMemo TO: Office of the City Council | Cindy Gust-Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Taylor Hill, Sylvia Richards, Linda Sanchez, Lehua Weaver Office of the Mayor | Rachel Otto, Megan Yuill Department of Finance | Mary Beth Thompson, Aaron Price, Sarah Behrens, Amy Dorsey, Sarah Behrens, Greg Cleary ,Adrienne Buhler Office of the City Attorney | Jaysen Oldroyd, SLCRecorder@slcgov.com CC: Department of Finance | Christopher Jennings FROM: Amy Dorsey DATE: March 6, 2024 SUBJECT: Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard | Leading City Procurement Reform FUNDING AGENCY: Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard GRANT PROGRAM: Leading City Procurement Reform REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $0 DEPARTMENT: Department of Finance | Division of Purchasing and Contract Management COLLABORATING AGENCIES: DATE SUBMITTED: None February 7,2024 SPECIFICS: Equipment/Supplies Only Technical Assistance Provides Hourly Positions Existing New Explanation: Match Required In-Kind Services and Cash GRANT DETAILS: The Division of Purchasing and Contract Management requested technical assistance to elevate resource procurement as a more strategic function central to the contracting regime of the City. If selected to participate, the Director and Deputy Director of the Division of Purchasing and Contract Management and the Deputy Director of the Department of Finance will take part in virtual and in-person intensive classroom experiences featuring case studies, simulations, and working sessions taught by faculty from the Harvard Kennedy School Government Performance Lab. Item B2 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:March 26, 2024 RE: Yalecrest – Princeton Heights Local Historic District PLNHLC2023-00044 MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (close and adopt (if the Council would like to adopt tonight)) I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance. MOTION 3 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:March 26, 2024 RE: Yalecrest – Princeton Heights Local Historic District PLNHLC2023-00044 BRIEFING UPDATE During the February 20, 2024 briefing Council Members expressed general support for the proposed local historic district (LHD), and appreciation for the community’s work on this and for understanding the importance of preservation throughout the city. A question was asked about the two vacant lots within the proposed LHD, and Planning stated they are not buildable lots. A Council Member mentioned his husband assisted residents with their efforts to establish this LHD. This was as a volunteer and there is no conflict of interest. The following information was provided for the February 20, 2024 Council briefing. It is included again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about the proposed Princeton Heights Local Historic District (LHD) in the Yalecrest neighborhood. This will update the Council on progress since its May 2, 2023 briefing on initiating the Laird Heights and Princeton Heights LHDs, the required Planning Director’s reports, and the LHD creation process. (The Council was briefed on the Laird Heights LHD February 6, 2024.) Creating an LHD amends the zoning map by applying the H-Historic Overlay District to the proposed area, which is a step that requires City Council approval. Council review, public hearing, and vote are the final steps in the process. Item Schedule: Briefing: February 20, 2024 Set Date: March 5, 2024 Public Hearing: March 26, 2024 Potential Action: April 2, 2024 Page | 2 Boundaries of the proposed Princeton Heights LHD are approximately 1323 East to 1500 East along Princeton Avenue shown in the map below. The proposed LHD boundaries include 43 parcels with homes and two vacant parcels. There are several steps to LHD creation as outlined below and in a graphic at the end of this report. LHD Creation Process •Pre-application meeting. •Initial letter mailed to all property owners within proposed district. •Application submittal. •Notice of application letter mailed. •Planning Director’s report to the City Council (May 2, 2023) •Property owner meeting seeking input from and informing owners about the process and requirements. •Open house seeking input from and informing immediate neighborhood and general public about the proposal. •Historic Landmark Commission public hearing, review, and recommendation. •Planning Commission public hearing, review, and recommendation. •Property owner ballot to determine support of LHD creation. •City Council review, public hearing, and decision. (Current step) Map of subject proposed Princeton Heights (purple), and Laird Heights (tan) Local Historic Districts. (The Council was briefed on the Laird Heights LHD February 6, 2024.) Page | 3 Existing Local Historic Districts are shown in blue. Image courtesy of the Salt Lake City Planning Division ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A 2005 Reconnaissance Level Survey of the Yalecrest National Historic District area found that 42 of 43 homes (98%) within the proposed Princeton Heights LHD were rated as contributing structures. In February 2023 Staff from the State Historic Preservation Office and Planning staff confirmed the 42 structures listed in the 2005 survey are still considered contributing. Reconnaissance Level Surveys are the most basic approach for systematically documenting and evaluating historic buildings and are based on a visual evaluation of the properties. For the creation of Local Historic Districts, the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) first reviews the proposals and forwards a recommendation to the Planning Commission. This included: •The proposed Princeton Heights LHD was reviewed at the HLC’s November 2, 2023 meeting and a public hearing was held at which eight people spoke and written comments from one person were read. All were in favor of the proposal. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. •The Planning Commission reviewed this petition at its November 8, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which 10 people spoke. All were supportive of the proposed LHD. The Planning Commission voted 5-3 to send a positive recommendation on the Princeton Heights LHD to the Council. One Commissioner who voted in opposition expressed concerns with air quality and low-density housing as a contributing factor. The other Commissioners who voted against the motion did not say why they were opposed. Following the Historic Landmark, and Planning Commission meetings, ballots required for LHD creation were mailed November 22, 2023 to all property owners within the proposed Princeton Heights LHD. Owners were given 30 days to return their ballots indicating support of, or opposition to the proposal. The City Recorder issued the Official Canvas of the Property Owner Opinion Ballot December 29, 2023, which contained the following results: Ballots in Support..........................28 Ballots Opposed...............................6 Did Not Vote ....................................8 Undeliverable/Did Not Receive.......1 Returned but Did Not Vote..............1 Returned After Due Date.................0 Total Ballots Received ..........35 of 43 Since the number of returned property owner opinion ballots (81%) exceeds the required two-thirds threshold of ballots mailed, and ballots in support (65%) represents more than 50% of the number of parcels in the proposed LHD, the City Council may designate the LHD by a simple majority vote. It should be noted that the Council is not bound by the property owners’ opinion ballot results. Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed local historic district, address questions Council Members may have and prepare for a public hearing. POLICY QUESTIONS Page | 4 1. The Council may wish to ask for more information about whether establishing a Historic District will conflict with other Citywide policies, such as the recently passed Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance, or the upcoming multi-family residential overlay. If the Historic Districts create some obstacle to increasing density throughout the City, does the Council want to discuss whether density is appropriate citywide, or whether there are exceptions? 2. In the past, the creation of Historic Districts created some contention. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether they have received any concerns or anticipate any substantive objections. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Below is a chronology for the proposed LHD with steps in the flowchart below indicated. •November 14, 2022 – Pre-application meeting. (Step 1) •December 1, 2022 – Letter sent to property owners within proposed LHD letting them know Planning was notified a property owner is interested in creating a new LHD. (Step 2) •January 22, 2023 – LHD application submitted to Planning. Property owner petition initiated. (Step 3) •February 2, 2023 – Property owners within the proposed LHD sent notice of application, and “Local Historic District Pros and Cons” information letter indicating the Planning Division received an application, including the required number of signatures to initiate the designation of a new LHD. (Step 4) •May 2, 2023 – Planning Director’s report to the City Council. The Council directed Planning staff to move forward processing the proposed new LHD. (Step 5) •August 8, 2023 – Property owners sent notice for the required neighborhood information meeting to be held June 20, 2023. (Step 6) •August 30, 2023 – Property owner meeting held at Anderson Foothill Library. Approximately 13 property owners were in attendance. (Step 6) •August 31, 2023 – Email sent to Yalecrest Neighborhood Council, East Liberty Park Community Organization, Wasatch Hollow Community Council, and KEEPYalecrest with online open house notification. (Step 6) •September 1, 2023 – Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed LHD mailed online open house notification. Open house ran from August 31 – October 15, 2023. (Step 6) •October 19, 2023 – Historic Landmark Commission public hearing notice sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed LHD. Listserv notification of the Historic Landmark Commission’s agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State websites. (Step 7) •October 26, 2023 – Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed LHD. Listserv notification of the Planning Commission agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State websites. (Step 7) Page | 5 •November 2, 2023 – Historic Landmark Commission briefing and public hearing. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. (Step 7) •November 8, 2023 – Planning Commission briefing and public hearing. The Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council on the proposed LHD. (Step 7) •November 22, 2023 – Property Owner Opinion Ballot (Support Survey) mailed to all property owners within the proposed LHD asking if they support or are opposed to the proposed LHD. Ballots were required to be returned to the City Recorder’s Office or postmarked by December 21, 2023. (Step 8) •December 29, 2023 – City Recorder’s Office released results of the survey. 28 property owners were in support, 6 were opposed, 1 ballot was undeliverable, and 8 did not vote. •January 2, 2024 – Planning staff requested ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office. •January 12, 2024 – Planning received ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office. •February 2, 2024 – Transmittal received in City Council Office. •February 20, 2024 – City Council briefing. (Public hearing anticipated to be held March 26, 2024, and a potential Council vote April 2, 2024.) (Step 9) Page | 6 LHD Designation Process Flowchart Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division Sounds li ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: 02/02/2024 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: 02/02/2024 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: February 2, 2024 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods SUBJECT: Petition PLNHLC2023-00044 Yalecrest – Princeton Heights – Local Historic District STAFF CONTACT: Lex Traughber, Senior Planner (801) 535-6184 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Historic Landmark Commission and the Planning Commission both voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for consideration. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: This petition is a request that the City Council designate a new local historic district that includes 43 homes (45 properties) located at approximately 1323 Princeton Avenue to 1500 East along Princeton Avenue. The proposed Yalecrest – Princeton Heights Local Historic District is located within the Yalecrest Neighborhood, which is generally located between 1300 East, and 1900 East, from 800 South/Sunnyside Avenue to 1300 South. The Yalecrest Neighborhood was designated as a National Register Historic District in 2007. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 rachel otto (Feb 2, 2024 10:07 MST) On January 22nd, 2023, Paula Harline submitted a petition to designate a new local historic district within the Yalecrest neighborhood of the city. The application was submitted with approximately 60% of property owner’s signatures (representing a majority ownership interest in a given lot) in the proposed district, which exceeds the required 33% necessary to initiate a petition of this nature. As required by ordinance, a report regarding the proposed district was presented to the City Council on May 2, 2023, at which time the Council instructed Planning Staff to proceed with processing the request. Protection of Historic Resources: Although the homes within the proposed district have retained a high degree of architectural integrity, some property owners fear that the existing zoning and the National Register Designation of the Yalecrest Neighborhood do not provide sufficient protection of the historic architecture found in the proposed district. They are of the opinion that local historic district designation is the appropriate tool to ensure historic resource protection and management. In 2005, Salt Lake City created the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay (YCI) district to establish standards for new construction, additions, and alterations of principal and accessory residential structures within the Yalecrest community. The goal is to encourage compatibility between new construction, additions, or alterations and the existing character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood. The standards allow for flexibility of design, while providing compatibility with existing development patterns within the Yalecrest community. Some property owners are concerned that the YCI does not include design standards that address appropriate exterior alterations in the context of maintaining the historic integrity or structures in the area. The H – Historic Preservation Overlay district that would be applied to the proposed district, if the local historic district were approved, would add an additional layer of regulation that requires design review for exterior alterations and imposes stringent regulations on demolition of contributing buildings. The Yalecrest neighborhood was designated to the National Register of Historic Places in 2007. Being listed on the National Register is an honorary designation that provides property owners with the ability to seek state and/or federal tax credits for appropriate repairs or restoration work on contributing buildings. The National Register designation provides incentives for appropriate alterations but provides no protection from demolition or additions that may not be compatible with the historic character of the area. Adopted Policy: Several Salt Lake City policy documents generally support historic preservation efforts. The Community Preservation Plan (2012) and the East Bench Master Plan (2017) specifically address preservation and the protection of architectural and character defining features found in Yalecrest. The Community Preservation Plan (2012) places a high priority on providing additional regulations to control demolitions and teardowns within the Yalecrest neighborhood. Additionally, the East Bench Master Plan (2017) also acknowledges that the Yalecrest Neighborhood contains some of the oldest structures on the East Bench within Salt Lake City and encourages communities to pursue additional overlay zoning, if it is a desire of the community. Other adopted Salt Lake City documents contain policies that support historic preservation and can be found in: • Plan Salt Lake (2015) • Creating Tomorrow Together: Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission (1998) • City Vision and Strategic Plan (1993) • Salt Lake City Urban Design Element (1990) Commission Recommendations: The Historic Landmark Commission reviewed this application on November 2, 2023, and found that it meets the local historic district designation criteria, and voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to designate Yalecrest – Princeton Heights as a local historic district. The Planning Commission considered this application on November 8, 2023, and found that the proposed Zoning Map Amendment to add the Historic Preservation Overlay district to this area also meets the general zoning amendment criteria, and therefore voted (5-3) to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to designate Yalecrest – Princeton Heights as a local historic district. Property Owner Opinion Ballot Results: On November 22, 2023, the Property Owners Opinion Ballot (Support Survey) was mailed to property owners within the proposed local historic district. Property owners were given thirty days to submit a ballot indicating whether they support or oppose the designation of the Yalecrest – Princeton Heights Local Historic District. On December 29, 2023, the City Recorder issued the Official Canvass of the Property Owner Opinion Ballot, which contained the following results: Ballots in Support ................................................. 28 Ballots Opposed… ............................................... 6 Did not Vote .......................................................... 8 Undeliverable or Did Not Receive ........................ 1 Returned but did not Vote .................................... 1 Returned After Due Date ....................................... 0 Total Ballots Returned… ..................................... 35 of 43 Since the Property Owner Opinion Ballots returned equals at least two-thirds (2/3) of the total number of returned property owner support ballots, and represents more than fifty percent (50%) of the parcels within the proposed local historic district, the City Council may designate a local historic district by a simple majority vote. It is noted that the City Council is not bound by the results of the Property Owner Opinion Ballot. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Initial Notification of Affected Property Owners: Section 21A.34.020(C)(4) requires Staff to notify affected property owners by sending a neutral informational pamphlet to each property affected by the potential application. The informational pamphlet was mailed to property owners within the proposed district on December 1, 2023. The informational pamphlet contained a description of the process to create a local historic district, as well as a list of the pros and cons of a local historic district. The pamphlet was mailed after the applicant submitted and finalized the proposed boundary for the Yalecrest – Princeton Heights Local Historic District. • Application Notification to Affected Property Owners: The application was submitted on January 22, 2023, and the subsequent Notice of Designation Application Letter was mailed to affected property owners within the proposed Yalecrest – Princeton Height Local Historic District on February 2, 2023. Property owners were sent the notice of application and “Local Historic District Pros and Cons” informational letter indicating that the Planning Division had received an application, including the required number of signatures to initiate the designation, of a new local historic district. • Planning Director Report to the City Council: Staff prepared and transmitted the Planning Director Report to the City Council. The Planning Director Report included the requirements found in 21A.32.020(C)(7)(A-F). The City Council adopted the Planning Director Report on May 2, 2023, instructing Planning Staff to move forward with the proposal. • Property Owner Meeting: On August 30, 2023, the Planning Division met with owners of property located within the proposed boundaries of the Yalecrest – Princeton Heights Local Historic District. The purpose of the meeting was to inform the property owners about the designation process and to discuss how local historic district designation would impact the property owners. The meeting included discussions regarding the process for obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness, the adopted historic preservation standards and design guidelines. There was also a discussion on common over-the-counter approvals and the process of applying for approval. Approximately 13 property owners attended this meeting. • Open House: On August 31, 2023, the Planning Division established an on-line Open House to solicit public comment regarding the proposed designation. All property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed local historic district, as well as those individuals on the Planning Division e-mail listserve were notified of the open house. An email was also sent out to the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council, East Liberty Park Community Organization, Wasatch Hollow Community Council, and KEEPYalecrest with notification of the on-line open house. • Historic Landmark Commission Meeting: On November 2, 2023, the Historic Landmark Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed Yalecrest – Princeton Heights Local Historic District. Following the public hearing, the Historic Landmark Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance to create the proposed local historic district. The agenda, minutes, and staff report of the November 2, 2023, Historic Landmark Commission meeting are bookmarked below for reference. • Planning Commission Meeting: On November 8, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed Zoning Map Amendment, which would add the H – Historic Preservation Overlay zoning district to the properties within the proposed local historic district. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted (5-3) to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the designation of the proposed local historic district. The agenda, minutes, and staff report of the November 8, 2023, Planning Commission meeting are bookmarked below for reference. • Property Owner Opinion Ballot: On November 22, 2023, the Property Owners Opinion Ballot (Support Survey) was mailed to property owners within the proposed local historic district. Property owners were given thirty days to submit a ballot indicating whether they support or oppose the designation of the Yalecrest – Princeton Heights Local Historic District. On December 29, 2023, the City Recorder issued the Official Canvass of the Property Owner Opinion Ballot (Support Survey) which proved favorable to the proposed district. Of the 35 ballots returned, 26 were in support of the proposed district, 6 were opposed, and one ballot was received but contained no vote. HISTORIC LANDMARK & PLANNING COMMISSION RECORDS: a) HLC Agenda of November 2, 2023 (Click Here) b) HLC Minutes of November 2, 2023 (Click Here) c) HLC Staff Report of November 2, 2023 (Click Here) d) PC Agenda of November 8, 2023 (Click Here) e) PC Minutes of November 8, 2023 (Click Here) f) PC Staff Report of November 8, 2023 (Click Here) SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2024 (Amending the Zoning Map to establish the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights Local Historic District) An ordinance amending the Zoning Map to establish the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights Local Historic District pursuant to Petition No. PLNHLC2023-00044. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission (“Historic Landmark Commission”) held a public hearing on November 2, 2023 on a petition submitted by Paula Harline (“Applicant”) to amend the city’s zoning map (Petition No. PLNHLC2023-00044) to apply the H Historic Preservation Overlay District to properties located on Princeton Avenue between Laird Avenue and 1500 East Street, along with properties located at 1150 South 1400 East Street and 1136 South 1500 East Street, which area shall be known as the Yalecrest- Princeton Heights Local Historic District; and WHEREAS, at its November 2, 2023 public hearing, the Historic Landmark Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) and Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 8, 2023 on said petition; and WHEREAS, at its November 8, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the City Council on said petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to apply the H Historic Preservation Overlay District to all buildings, structures and real property within the boundaries described and depicted on Exhibit “A”. The areas described and depicted on Exhibit “A” shall be known as the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights Local Historic District. 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 , 2024. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2024. Published: . Ordinance adopting Yalecrest Princeton Heights LHD APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: January 12, 2024 By: Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney Exhibit “A” YALECREST - PRINCETON HEIGHTS LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT DESCRIPTION Beginning at the Southwest Corner of Lot 26, Block 3, Normandie Heights Subdivision, as recorded in Book 'H', Page 128, Salt Lake County Recorders Office, and running thence N08°30'00"W 124.64 feet to the Northwest Corner of said Lot 26; thence N68°23'00"E 35.54 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 5, said Block 3; thence N49°12'00"E 245.77 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 9, said Block 3; thence N66°42'00"E 131.53 feet to an angle point on the north line of Lot 19, said Block 3; thence N53°42'00"E 97.62 feet to the Southwest Corner of Lot 15, said Block 3; thence N22°14'50"W 15.12 feet to the Northwest Corner of Parcel 16-09-351-019; thence N77°42'33"E 101.33 feet to the Northeast Corner of said Parcel; thence N82°27'36"E 52.82 feet to the most Westerly Corner of Lot 11, Block 5, said subdivision; thence N61°25'19"E 118.92 feet to the Northwesterly Corner of said Lot 11; thence N89°57'20"E 584.34 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 23, said Block 5; thence N00°02'40"W 62.32 feet to the Northwest Corner of Parcel 16-09-352-024; thence N87°40'47"E 120.15 feet to the Northeast Corner of said Parcel; thence S00°01'00"E 316.22 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 1, Block 2, said subdivision; thence S89°57'20"W 110.00 feet; thence S38°26'50"W 15.67 feet; thence N82°22'06"W 91.82 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 3, said Block 2; thence S89°57'20"W 523.06 feet; thence S22°40'48"W 35.66 feet; thence S30°02'16"W 52.17 feet; thence S00°01'00"E 67.18 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 13, said Block 2; thence S80°00'00"W 253.91 feet; thence S65°08'25"W 50.31 feet; thence N06°15'00"E 13.44 feet to the Northeast Corner of Lot 20, said Block 2; thence S80°00'00"W 57.80 feet to the Northwest Corner of said Lot 20; thence S13°10'18"W 128.67 feet to a point on the South Line of Laird Ave; thence along said South Line the following 3 courses: 1) Northwesterly along a 1,056.57 foot radius curve to the right 11.95 feet (chord bears N84°09'27"W 11.95 feet) to a 1,634.83 foot radius curve to the left; 2) 176.43 feet along said curve (chord bears N86°55'30"W 176.34 feet); 3) S89°59'00"W 12.52 feet; thence N00°01'00"W 64.78 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 8.712 Acres, more or less. N 6 ioo" N I i SALTLAKE CITYCORPORATION PUBLIC SERVICES SURVEYDEPARTMENT .,,9"'-- ,·-i: ' N89"57'20"E 584.34' N87"40'47"E ( N0"02'40"W 120.15' 62.32'-----.... ffi i S! ..,.o ,,,.s:S N22"14'50"W 15.12' ,d:i .t>,'l- ' "":, Q'), "' 9'1· t,1. T4i33"t. N82"27'36"E , 7,_ 3" s2.82' 0 3 "'" \\U9"'1, PRINCETON AVE S38"26'50"W 15.67'\ w N O cri ;;:; U1 ffi i S! :Jl u iii a:: 6 i'.: 0 § ;;; ,oo,'<,, .,'l- '\ .;!'-9'V·""' \_N68"23'00"E 35.54' s8o·oo·oo"w I;.\ i,..\Jt- 1'1<-\\'.\c'S'o N6"15'00"E /13.44' 2so.9\' s8o·oo·oo" w S22"40' 48"W 35.66'"- S30"02°16"W 52.17'\ _w . 0 _o r--: 0 <O 0 U1 523.06' 91.a2· 110.00' S89"57'20"W Na2·22·05"w S89"57'20"W Beginning at the Southwest Corner of Lot 26, Block 3, Normandie Heights Subdivision, as recorded in Book 'H', Page 128, Salt Lake County Recorders Office, and running thence Noa·3o'OO"W 124.64 feet to the Northwest Corner of said Lot 26; thence N68"23'00"E 35.54 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 5, said Block 3; thence N49"12'00"£ 245.77 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 9, said Block 3; thence N66"42'00"£ 131.53 feet to an angle point on the north line of Lot 19, said Block 3; thence N53"42'00"£ 97.62 feet to the Southwest Corner of Lot 15, said Block 3; thence N22"14'50"W 15.12 feet to the Northwest Corner of Parcel 16-09-351-019; thence N77"42'33"£ 101.33 feet to the Northeast Corner of said Parcel; thence N82"27'36"£ 52.82 feet to the most Westerly Corner of Lot 11, Block 5, said subdivision; thence N61"25'19"£ 118.92 feet to the Northwesterly Corner of said Lot 11; thence N89"57'20"£ 584.34 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 23, said Block 5; thence N00"02'40"W 62.32 feet to the Northwest Corner of Parcel 16-09-352-024; thence N87"40'47"£ 120.15 feet to the Northeast Corner of said Parcel; thence S00"01'00"£ 316.22 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 1, Block 2, said subdivision; thence f- (f) <( w 0 0 lf) :Jl u iii a:: z 0 u i'.: 0 § i :08- . - 57.80'1 S89"5712011W 110.00 feet; thence S38"2615011W 15.67 feet; thence N82"22'06"W 91.82 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 3, said Block 2; thence S89"57'20"W 523.06 feet; thence S22"40'48"W 35.66 feet; thence S30"02'16"W 52.17 feet; thence soo·o1'00"£ ;Ji DESCRIPTION - 1/11,'llltl 67.18 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 13, said Block 2; thence S8o·oo•oo"w 253.91 feet; thence S65"08'25"W 50.31 feet; io \_s55·08'25"w thence N06"15'00"£ 13.44 feet to the Northeast Corner of Lot 20, said Block 2; thence S80"00'00"W 57.80 feet to the z 50.31' Northwest Corner of said Lot 20; thence S13"10'18"W 128.67 feet to a point on the South Line of Laird Ave; thence along said POINT OF sc South Line the following 3 courses: 1) Northwesterly along a 1,056.57 foot radius curve to the right 11.95 feet (chord bears BEGINNING ;.,.,, Q'.;) N84"09'27"W 11.95 feet) to a 1,634.83 foot radius curve to the left; 2) 176.43 feet along said curve (chord bears N86"55'30"W 8- ro -"s',... 176.34 feet); 3) sa9·59'oo"w 12.52 feet; thence Noo·o1'oo"w 64.78 feet to the point of beginning. ;: . .r.--., {";j ' Contains 8.712 Acres, more or less. p <O 0z L=176.43', R=1634.83' LAIRD AVE S89"59'00"WJ 0=6"11'00" \_L=11.95', R=1056.57' 12.52' 6=0°38°54" ,,.•..·...j,•1•/,,, l l- .;;: 0"'7/lllP:.:· l ,,,,! T SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PUBLIC SERVICES SURVEY DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION Jl!ml!DOO",!IIIOO 501,i!CJY,UJlll III lllll\lH:1111-llr/YJ 1nlo< t. Chris Donoghue, PLS SoHLakeCfy 349Soulh21111Eas1Soite600P.0.Box 145506SoHlakeCay,ll.841154 Pll:(8111)535-7973 LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT PRINCETON HEIGHTS 1 EXHIBITS: 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST 5. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT (RECEIVED AFTER STAFF REPORT PUBLICATION) 6. OFFICIAL CANVASS RESULTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Yalecrest – Princeton Heights – Local Historic District Petition PLNHLC2023-00044 December 1, 2022 Property owners were sent a notice and a “Local Historic District Pros and Cons” informational letter indicating that the Planning Division had been notified by a property owner of interest in creating a new local historic district. January 22, 2023 Application submitted to the City by property owner, Paula Harline. February 2, 2023 Application Notification - Property owners were sent a notice of application and “Local Historic District Pros and Cons” informational letter indicating that the Planning Division had received an application, including the required number of signatures to initiate the designation of a new local historic district. May 2, 2023 Planning Director’s Report to the City Council for a new proposed local historic district. The City Council directed Planning Staff to move forward processing the proposed local historic district. August 8, 2023 Property Owner Meeting Notification – Property owners were sent a notice for the required “Neighborhood Information” meeting to be held on August 30, 2023. August 30, 2023 Property Owner Meeting held at the Anderson Foothill Library. Owners of approximately 13 properties attended the meeting. August 31, 2023 Open House Notification to Recognized Organizations – An email was sent out to the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council, East Liberty Park Community Organization, Wasatch Hollow Community Council, and KEEPYalecrest with notification of the on-line open house. September 1, 2023 Open House Notification – Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed local historic district boundaries were mailed notification of an on-line open house. The on-line Open House ran from August 31, 2023 to October 15, 2023. October 19, 2023 Notice of the Historic Landmark Commission November 2, 2023 Public Hearing mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property. Listserve notification of the Historic Lanmark Commission’s agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State websites. October 26, 2023 Notice of the Planning Commission’s November 8, 2023 Public Hearing mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property. Listserve notification of Planning Commission agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State websites. November 2, 2023 The Historic Landmark Commission heard the proposal in a public hearing and voted to forward a positive recommendation on to the City Council for consideration. November 8, 2023 The Planning Commission heard the proposal in a public hearing and voted to forward a positive recommendation on to the City Council for consideration. November 22, 2023 A “Property Owners Opinion Ballot (Support Survey)” was mailed to all property owners asking if owners were in support, or if they were opposed, to the designation. Ballots were required to be submitted to the City Recorder’s Office or postmarked by December 21, 2023. December 21, 2023 The “Property Owners Opinion Ballot (Support Survey)” period ended at 5:00 p.m. December 29, 2023 The City Recorder’s Office issued the “Official Canvass”, or official results of the support survey. 28 property owners were in support, 6 opposed, 1 undeliverable, and 8 did not vote. January 2, 2024 Planning Staff requested an ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office. January 12, 2024 Ordinance received from the City Attorney. January 12, 2024 Transmittal was submitted to the Community & Neighborhoods Office. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNHLC2023-00044 – Yalecrest – Princeton Heights – Local Historic District – Paula Harline, a property owner, submitted a petition to designate a new local historic district within the Yalecrest neighborhood of the City. The proposed boundaries of the Yalecrest – Princeton Heights Local Historic District are approximately 1323 Princeton Avenue to 1500 East along Princeton Avenue. The subject property is located in Council District 6 represented by Dan Dugan. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance on the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, please visit www.slc.gov/council. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Lex Traughber at (801) 535-6184 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at lex.traughber@slcgov.com The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNHLC2023-00044. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. ORIGINAL PETITION UPDATEf? 6/28/22 Phone/Fax: Phone/Fax: HP: Designation Received By: OFFICE USE ONLY Date Received: I Project ff: Project Name: PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION 'VqJe.Clt¼-6-Rili(Jl:(bc>)-k; LH(\ Name of Applicant (property owner): P/utiq Wi 1--/d.clioe. Address of Property Address of Applicant: Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION Planners are available for consultation prior to submitting this application. Please email historicpreservation@slcgov.com if you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application. A pre-submittal meeting for all Historic Designations should be scheduled prior to submitting this application. To request a pre-submittal meeting, please contact the planning counter by sending an email to zoning@slcgov.com. FEE No application fee is required. WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online. SIGNATURE If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. I UPDATED 6/28/22 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Project Description - Intake Review Provide a written description of the proposed local historic district, including the proposed boundaries. The description should include a discussion regarding how the proposed local historic district meets the following criteria: 1. Significance in local, regional, state or national history, architecture, engineering or culture, associated with at least one of the following: a. Events that have made a significant contribution to the important patterns of history, or b. Lives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state or nation, or c. The distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, or d. Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of Salt Lake City; and 2. Physical integrity in terms of location, design, setting, mater_:ials, workmanship, feeling and association as defined by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places; 3. The proposed local historic district is listed, or is eligible to be listed, on the National Register of Historic Places; 4. The proposed local historic district contains notable examples of elements of the City's history, development patterns or architecture. 5. The designation is generally consistent with the adopted planning policies of the City; and 6. The designation would be in the overall public interest. Photographs - Intake Review a. Historic photographs of existing building/s (contact the Salt Lake County Archives at {385) 468-0820 for historic photographs) b. Current photographs of each fa ade on building or the neighborhood requesting a boundary adjustment. c. Historic photographs of the neighborhood if available D D 3. Research Material - Intake Review a. Title search D D b. Building permits card and invoice D D c. Tax card information and photo D D d. Biographical information or obituary for any previous owners D D e. Information about the architect and/or builder 4. Landmark Sites - Intake Review Complete the designation form 5. Boundary Adjustment - Intake Review D D Signatures from each of the property owners who agree to the proposal INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED £ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. 1 □□ QD Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 1 of 24 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Project Description 1. Written Description of the Proposal 3 Significance of area in local, regional, state or national history Physical Integrity of houses in the area Commercial Properties Notable Developers, Builders, Architects Properties Recommended for National Register Level Research Significant persons in the area Distinctive characteristics of the type/period/method of construction Importance to Salt Lake City history 2. Physical Integrity 9 Contributing Status of Houses Building Dates Architectural Types in the Residential Structures Exterior Construction Materials 3. Eligibility Listing on the National Register of Historic Places 12 4. Notable examples of elements in Salt Lake City’s History 12 5. Consistent Designation Of Proposed LHD Designation With Adopted City Planning Policies 13 6. Public Interest in Proposed LHD Designation 16 B. Photographs (attached separately) 17 C. Research Materials 17 D. Landmark Sites 17 E. Boundary Adjustment 17 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 2 of 24 Page APPENDICES A. Maps 1. Normandie Heights Subdivision within Yalecrest 19 2. Princeton Heights LHD within other establish LHDs in Yalecrest Neighborhood 20 3. Expanded view of Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 21 B. Contrary Documentation in 2005 RLS and Salt Lake County Assessor 22 C. Photographs of houses in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD (Original vs.2022) 23 See photos in a separate attached document 1323 -1490 E Princeton Ave 1150 S 1400 E 1136 S 1500 E D. Research Materials (References) 24 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 3 of 24 1. Project Description Significance of area in local, regional, or state history In the mid 1800’s, Salt Lake City was platted and developed with public buildings in the center of Salt Lake City surrounded by residential lots and farmland to the south and west. The Big Field Survey in 1848 divided the land to the south of the Salt Lake City settlement (900 South today) into five and ten acre plots to be used for farming for the “mechanics and artisans” of the city.1 The Yalecrest survey area is located on the northeastern section of land that was initially set apart as Five-Acre Plat “C” of the Big Field Survey1 The land was divided into 100-acre blocks, each of which was again divided into 20 lots of 5 acres each. Yalecrest occupies Blocks 28, 29, and 30. The original blocks are bordered by the major north-south streets of the survey area: 1300, 1500, 1700 and 1900 East and the east-west streets of 900 and 1300 South. (The Utah Historic Sites Database). The area north of 2100 South was a Five-Acre Plat “A” and the area south was a Ten-Acre Plat. The majority of Yalecrest with the exception of strips along the north and west sides are part of Five Acre Plat “C”.1 Property within the area was distributed by the LDS church authorities, by lot, for use in raising crops and farming.1 Dividing the plots for land speculation was discouraged: 1875 maps of Salt Lake City show no development in the southeast section of the city beyond 1000 East or 900 South. The earliest identified residents in the Yalecrest area begin to appear in the 1870s1. Yalecrest boundaries are represented by 840 South (Sunnyside Ave) to 1300 South and 1300 East to 1900 East. The 1920s were a period of tremendous growth in Yalecrest with 22 subdivisions platted by a variety of developers. The Bowers Investment Company, a branch of the Bowers Building Company, filed the subdivision papers for Normandie Heights in 1926 with 140 lots, and its houses were built primarily from 1926-35. It is distinctive because of its picturesque rolling topography with landscaped serpentine streets, regular promotions, prominent homeowners, deep setbacks, and large irregularly shaped lots. A number of factors contributed to the Yalecrest development in the early twentieth century; 1) the population of Salt Lake City almost doubling from 1900 to 1910, 2) air pollution in the valley from coal burning furnaces led residents to seek higher elevations East of 1300 East for cleaner air to breathe for their residences recently developed by in-state and out-of-state land developers. Transportation options made the Yalecrest area easily accessible to the downtown area. The primary means of transportation in the early part of this era was the streetcar line along 1500 East.1 The streetcars serving the Yalecrest area traveled from downtown to 1300 East in front of East High, traveling East along 900 South to 1500 East, then south on 1500 East to the State Prison located at 2100 S. The former State Prison on Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 4 of 24 2100 South is the current site of Sugar House Park. 1960’s and Beyond (1960-2005) The Yalecrest neighborhood, in general, and Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD specifically, avoided the blight common in many urban residential neighborhoods during this era. There was no population pressure as the population of Salt Lake City slightly decreased during this time period.12 No major roads were built through the neighborhood although traffic increased on the border streets of 1300 South, 1300 East and Sunnyside Ave. Zoning ordinances restricted commercial building to a few spots on the major streets. While there are 51 original duplexes in Yalecrest, there are none in the proposed boundaries of Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD. The original Uintah Elementary School located on 1300 S (outside the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD boundaries) was demolished and replaced by a new structure in 1993. The attractive neighborhoods of Yalecrest have mature street trees, single-family owner-occupied, well-maintained houses with landscaped yards and continue to be a desirable residential area.1 The current practice of razing an existing small historic structure and replacing it with a residence several times the size of the original house in established neighborhoods galvanized some residents into action in the years 2000-2005. A zoning overlay ordinance called the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay ordinance was passed by the Salt Lake City Council in 2005. The purpose of the ordinance is: to encourage compatibility between new construction, additions or alterations and the existing character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood. That infill overlay zoning regulated building height, minimum front yard size, and several aspects of garages or accessory structures. Due to liberal interpretation of the current City and State demolition ordinances, houses in Yalecrest continue to be demolished above ground and replaced with out-of-size, mass and architectural incompatibility. The currently proposed SLC “Affordable Housing Incentive” (AHI) City (2022) aims to increase multifamily housing within ¼ mile of high frequency (every 15 minutes) transportation corridors. UTA has recently changed the frequency of bus route #220 on 1300 E to a 15-minute frequency. All 1300-1500 Blocks of Yalecrest are impacted by this zoning overlay. The AHI zoning overlay allows demolition of single-family housing to create new multifamily housing construction thus making historic single-family houses in the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD endangered to demolition. The listing of Yalecrest on the National Register of Historic Places does not protect against this local zoning. This application seeking a Local Historic District designation is the only current legal option to minimize demolition of historic single-family houses in this established, mature, and historic neighborhood. The proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights Local Historic District (LHD) is located on Block Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 5 of 24 30 and encompasses the following properties: 1323 E Princeton Ave on the north side of the Princeton as the West boundary, 1136 S 1500 East on the west side of 1500 E as the East boundary and all Princeton Ave properties on the north and south sides of Princeton Ave street face as the North and South boundaries, respectively. The property located at 1150 S 1400 E lies between Princeton Ave and the Harvard Heights LHD (see APPENDIX A). Thus, 43 single- family houses are contained within the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD. Physical Integrity of Houses in the Area An Architectural and Historic Reconnaissance Level Survey (RLS) of Yalecrest was conducted in 20051 by Beatrice Lufkin of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for Salt Lake City in preparation for the National Register of Historic Places application for the Yalecrest neighborhood. Much of the information in this document comes from that survey. The proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD area contains houses constructed over the time period from 1917(1475 E Princeton Ave) and extending through 1953 (1387 E Princeton Ave) in the historic era. There is a very high degree of retained historic integrity in the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD according to the 2005 RLS. The vast majority of houses (42/43) were eligible/significant and eligible contributing (97.7%): 69.8% were considered eligible and significant (A) and 27.9% were considered eligible and contributing (B). Only one house, a large 1917 Prairie School house located at 1475 East Princeton Ave, and originally built and owned by JW Phinney, was considered non-contributing (C) or 2.3%. To date, no residential properties have been demolished with new construction houses in the Princeton Heights LHD, but the contributory status of each property may have changed since the last assessment in 2005. Commercial Properties There are no commercial properties in the Princeton Heights LHD. Notable Developers, Builders, Architects The name “Princeton Ave first appears in 1908 in the Polk directory and is associated with development of that street in Normandie Heights subdivision (see Significant persons in the area section below). Normandie Heights subdivision was platted for 140 properties in 1926 by the Bowers Investment Co. Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD contains 43 single-family residences of the 140 platted parcels in the greater Normandie Heights subdivision. The builder Gaskell Romney was involved in developing Normandie Heights subdivision. He built 10 houses in the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD: 1370, 1404, 1410, 1426,1442,1445,1449, 1450 and 1458, 1465 E Princeton Ave. He was active in Utah, Idaho, California, and worked in Mexico before coming to Utah in 1921. G. Maurice Romney, his son, also did speculative building. Gaskell Romney and his wife, Amy, lived at Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 6 of 24 1442 Yalecrest and later at 1469 E Princeton Avenue. He is father to George Romney, former Governor of Michigan and presidential candidate and father to current Utah Senator Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts, former presidential candidate, and current Senator to Utah. Another building company, Bowers Building Co. built 7 houses in the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD: 1333, 1343, 1348, 1353, 1360, 1376 and 1466 E Princeton Ave. The proposed boundaries of the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD are outlined in red (APPENDIX A-1). It will join 6 other LHDs created in Yalecrest: Harvard Park, Princeton Park, Yale Plat A/Upper Harvard, Harvard Heights, Normandie Circle and Douglas Park-I, outlined in blue. Properties Recommended for National Register Level Research 1465 E Princeton Ave (built 1926). The bowed roof over French doors on an English Cottage architecture was suggested in the 2005 RLS for further research investigation. Significant Persons in the Area Yalecrest-Princeton Heights has been home to a variety of early residents who shaped the City’s development and economic base: businesspersons, educators, immigrants, widows, senators, lawyers, shopkeepers, physicians, architects, and builders, described below by street address. 1340 E Princeton Ave State Senator Paul Quayle Callister (1895-1967) and wife Mary Adeline Bramwell (1899-1984) lived in this English Cottage with their four children for 10 yrs (1939-1948). After serving in World War I, Paul Q. Callister was President of Associated Oil and Gas, renamed Premium Oil and Gas. His investors included Jack Vincent, Fred C. Staines, and the Bamberger Group. The company purchased land throughout Utah, Idaho, and Nevada to open 48 service stations. The 1940 US census lists his salary at $50,000. He was elected State Senator (R) from 1940-1944. During WWII, he started a second company, Premoco, to deal with rationed fuel supplies to maximize fuel allocations. 1345 E Princeton Ave This 1929 English Tudor and 1349 E Princeton Ave was built by well-known East Bench contractor Samuel Campbell. The James G. McDonald, Jr. family lived here for 10 yrs from 1929 to 1939. James Jr. was treasurer and vice president of J.G. McDonald’s Chocolate Company, a wholesale and retail grocery and confectionary business which was founded by his grandfather, John T. McDonald in 1863. James Jr.’s father, James Sr., took over the business at the age of 18 and in 1912 began to specialize in boxed chocolates and cocoa. They innovated the paper-wrapped candy bar. This was the beginning of a new Utah Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 7 of 24 industry on a large-scale production level. J.G. McDonald Candy Company became world-renowned and was the recipient of over forty-four gold medals and awards, including the highest international award possible, the "Grand Prix for excellence and quality." 1361 E Princeton Ave LeGrand Pollard Backman and family lived in this 1929 English Tudor for 36 years. Mr. Backman was a prominent Salt Lake City attorney and a senior partner in Backman, Clark, and Marsh Law Firm. He was a member of the Salt Lake City Board of Education for 20 years and president from 1945-56. He was also a member and president of the Utah State Board of Education for 18 years (1952-1970). 1370 E Princeton Ave Built by Gaskell Romney, this 1926 English Tudor was owned by two notable widowed women who persevered to become notable businesswomen of their own. First, after living in the house for three years, Helen Taylor became a 28 year old widow with a four-year-old daughter. She took over her husband’s (Heber C Taylor) job as part-owner of the Taylor-Richards Motor Co. Ford automobile/tractor dealership and continued living here until she remarried, about 14 years later. Second, in 1943 Georgia Papanikolas was already a widow when she moved into this house. She was born in Greece (1912) and immigrated to the United States, most likely as a “picture bride,” when she was 18 yrs old and married Emmanuel “Mike” Papinikolas, a successful businessman in Bingham, Garfield,and Magna with coal, lumber, hardware and real estate companies. She was widowed at age 39 with 7 children in Magna. Ten years later she bought 1370 E Princeton Ave with the help of her son, Gus, for $5,000 and raised 5 of her children here. Her son Nick, married Helen Zeese, who later became Utah’s premier ethnic historian and our country’s expert on Greek immigrants. 1377 E Princeton Ave This 1927 house built by Samuel Cottam is a beautiful and unusual example of a period revival Jacobethan French Tudor. In May 1928 he sold the home to William E. and Louise Day who lived there until William’s death in1947. Mr. Day moved to Salt Lake City from Ohio to become Superintendent of Physical Education for the Salt Lake City Board of Education. The entryway of this house has a fanlight transom and terra cotta surrounds in a quoin pattern (small tabs of cut stone called ‘ashlar‘, projecting into the surrounding brickwork giving it a ‘quoin’ (pronounced ‘coin’) effect. This house has a “twin” built by a different builder on 1445 E 900 S. 1404 E Princeton Ave This 1927 English Tudor was owned by William Cassidy who lived here with his wife Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 8 of 24 Florence and daughter Mary Lou for 28 yrs. William Cassidy was initially hired as a traffic manager by the family-owned Sweet Candy Co in 1915. He became Vice President of the company in 1941 and President and General Manager in 1947. He holds 2 patents. The Sweet Candy Co is the world’s largest manufacturer of salt water taffy but also manufactures 250 different candies, including their innovation, cinnamon bears. Fifteen million pounds of their products are shipped annually. The original business office and manufacturer site at 224 South and 200 West is a Salt Lake City tour stop with an historic bronze plaque. 1405 E Princeton Ave The Cowan family has lived in this 1938 English Cottage house exhibiting “random course ashlar masonry’ for 82 years. Drs. Robert Leland Cowan (1894-1976) and his son, Leland R Cowan (1924-2022) each practiced surgical oncology in SLC. The house is built using “Ashlar masonry,” the finest type of stone masonry. It uses finely tooled (dressed) sandstone or limestone in rectangular, cuboid shapes laid in a random course. Leland R. Cowan founded the Leland R Cowan Cancer Clinic in Salt Lake City. 1429 E Princeton Ave This 1926 “Cape Dutch Colonial” is a unique architectural style house called “Cape Dutch Colonial,” a modification of the Amsterdam Cape style and favored in the Western Cape of South Africa. Hugh Barker, Sr. lived here with his family for 6 yrs (1932-1939). He was one of the celebrated first airmail pilots (aerial pony express) in the 1920’s servicing mountainous areas in Idaho, Utah, and Nevada. He later became a lawyer and head of his own law firm. 1458 E Princeton Ave The 1926 English Cottage, built by Gaskell Romney, was home to Lorenzo Snow Young— the grandson of two LDS Presidents, Brigham Young and Lorenzo Snow. He lived here with his wife Ailene and children for 5 yrs (1927-32). He was a locally famous architect designing over 700 buildings over his 40 yr practice. Most notable are those listed on the National Register of Historic Places, including the University of Utah’s Kingsbury Hall on President’s Circle, and the Granite Stake Tabernacle in Idaho. He also designed the Harold B. Lee Library and Marriot Center (with Bob Fowler 1968) at Brigham Young University, the University of Utah Law and Library building, Olympus and Highland High Schools and The Daughters of the Utah Pioneers Memorial (DUP). 1475 E Princeton Ave This 1917 Prairie School architecture is a unique architecture style in the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD. Built in 1917, it was owned by Eugene W Kelly 10 yrs from 1932-1942. He was manager of a retail clothing store in SLC. Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 9 of 24 Distinctive Characteristics of the Type/Period/Method of Construction Yalecrest-Princeton Heights contains many notable examples of brick English Cottages and English Tudors from famous builders in Salt Lake City. Importance to Salt Lake City History Yalecrest-Princeton Heights might be the last block in Yalecrest that has not experienced teardowns, helping it tell the story of Salt Lake City almost a century ago. Historic houses might lack the convenience of modern homes, but living in one and knowing something of the residents who lived there before you, connects you to the neighborhood and to the City. In my house at 1340 E. Princeton, for example, I know that former residents had their wedding receptions in the living room, served in World Wars I and II, sang for events all over the neighborhood, served the community as dentist and doctor, died in childbirth, and played on the back patio with other neighborhood children. I have found their wallpaper and walk on their hardwood floors. The block where I live is a beautiful example of residential living close to downtown Salt Lake City. Every house on the block is unique and draws a constant stream of admiring dog-walkers, bikers, and runners. Street lights provide safety, and huge mature trees–Ash, Elm, Sycamore, and Norwegian Maple–create a pleasing shaded tree-lined block. Situated between 9th-and-9th and 15th-and-15th commercial areas, and with close access to I-15 and I-80, this block showcases the integrated infrastructure necessary for successful residential living: commercial neighborhood zoning districts that host grocery, pharmacy, restaurants, library, public parks, and schools within walking distance. The residents are proud of this successful planned community and wish to preserve it as an example for generations to come. Please note that this block was the site of the 6th Annual KEEPYalecrest Historic Home Walking Tour (7 October 2022) which witnessed the largest attendance of any prior walking tour. This widespread interest in and appreciation for historic houses and the persons who lived in those houses continues to build each year as many historic areas throughout the City are lost to demolition. 2. Physical Integrity The proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD is located in a mature tree-lined, rolling-hills western section of Yalecrest. Contributing Status of Houses in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD The proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD retains a very high degree of historic and physical integrity. The vast majority of houses (97.7%) are eligible/significant (29/43 = Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 10 of 24 69.8%) and eligible contributing (12/43 = 27.9%)1. There is only 1 ineligible non-contributing house, or C (1/42 or 2.3%) listed in the 2005 Reconnaissance Level Survey. The majority of houses are of architecturally notable English Cottages (37.2%) and English Tudors (30.2%) built 1920-1930’s. To our knowledge, no houses in the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD have been demolished. The number of contributing and non-contributing houses and their eligibility status on each street in the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD is tabulated below. Contributing Structure Status of Single-Family Residential Properties in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHDa,c Street Ab Bb Cb Db Xb Total Princeton Ave 28 12 1 0 0 41 1400 East 1 0 0 0 0 1 1500 East 1 0 0 0 0 1 TOTAL 30 12 1 0 0 43a % Total (69.8%) (27.9% (2.3%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (100%) ) aaccording to the 2005 RLS, there are 43 single family residential structures included in this analysis. bA= eligible significant, B= eligible/contributing, C= ineligible/noncontributing, D=out of period, X=demolished c1926 plat of Normandie Heights lists 104 properties. The Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD contains 43 of those 104 parcels, all used as single-family houses. The number of currently (2022) eligible significant (A) plus eligible contributing structures (B) may have changed due to remodeling projects that alter the street face including; windows, porches, dormers, house heights, roofing materials and/or exterior materials that have altered their contributing status. The number of contributing structures in 2022 remains to be verified by the City Planning Department / Preservation Office and Historic Landmarks Commission. Building Dates Houses in the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD were built from 1919 through 1953 in the current historic era. The majority of single-family residences in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD were built in the late 1920’s (67.4%) and 1930’s (25.6%). The distribution of houses built in different decades from 1910 to 1950’s as a function of streets with the proposed LHD are shown in the table below. Construction Yearsa of Original Single-Family Residences in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHDb Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 11 of 24 Street 1910’s 1920’s 1930’s 1940’s 1950’s Total Princeton Ave 1 29 9 1 1 41 1400 East 0 0 1 0 0 1 1500 East 0 0 1 0 0 1 TOTAL 1 29 11 1 1 43 % Total 2.3% 67.4% 25.6% 2.3% 2.3% ~100% aaccording to Salt Lake County Assessor website (www.slco.org/assessor) b1428 E Princeton Ave is listed in RLS but no house is associated with the land parcel Architectural Types Houses of the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD contain a variety of architectural style types including English Cottage (37.2%), English Tudor (30.2%), Colonial Revival (13.9%), Cape Dutch and Dutch Colonial (4.6%), Jacobethan/French Norman (4.6%), Period/other (2.3%), Prairie School (2.3%), Minimal Traditional/Ranch (4.6%). Tabulation of the house styles as a function of street within the Yalecrest-Princeton Height LHD is shown below. Architectural Types in Residential Structuresa Type Princeton Ave 1400 East 1500 East TOTAL %TOTAL English Cottage 16 0 0 16 37.2% English Tudor 13 0 0 13 30.2% Colonial Revival 5 0 1 6 13.9% Cape/Dutch Colonial 2 0 0 2 4.6% Jacobethan/French Norman 2 0 0 2 4.6% Period Revival/Other 1 0 0 1 2.3% Prairie School 1 0 0 1 2.3% Minimal Traditional 1 1 0 2 4.6% TOTAL 41 1 1 43 100% aaccording to RLS 2005. Exterior House Materials Exterior construction materials of houses in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD are primarily striated brick (58.1%), regular brick (34.9%), stucco/paster (4.7%) and stone (2.3%), with various accompanying materials including half timbering, clapboard, stucco/paster, wood and aluminum/vinyl siding. The distribution of the various exterior construction materials is tabulated below. Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 12 of 24 Exterior Construction Materials of Residential Structures in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHDa Type Princeton Ave 1400 East 1500 East Total %Total Striated Brick 7 0 1 8 +Half Timber 13 0 0 3 + Stucco/plaster 3 0 0 3 +Alum/vinyl/wo od 1 0 0 1 subtotal 24 0 1 5 58.1% Regular Brick 6 1 0 7 +Half timber 5 0 0 5 +Clapboard siding 1 0 0 1 +stucco/stone/ veneer 1 0 0 1 +Terra cotta/half timber 1 0 0 1 subtotal 14 1 0 5 34.9% Stucco/Plaste r 1 0 0 1 +B other 1 0 0 1 subtotal 2 0 0 2 4.7.% Stone 0 0 0 0 +clapboard 1 1 1 1 2.3% TOTAL 41 1 1 43 ~100% a2005 RLS assessment 3. Eligibility Listing on the National Register of Historic Places As previously stated, the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD is located within the boundary of the existing Yalecrest National Register Historic District established in 2007 (#07001168) and thus is eligible for Local Historic District designation. 4. Notable examples of elements in Salt Lake City’s History The proposed area contains a diverse collection of historically contributing architecture styles: English Cottage, English Tudor, Colonial Revival, Prairie School, Cape and Dutch Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 13 of 24 Colonial, Ranch, Jacobethan/ French Norman, and Minimal Traditional. In addition, these homes were developed, designed, built, and owned by renowned individuals who contributed to cultural, defense, business, medical, education, and legal aspects of the city, state, and country. An Intensive Level Survey was completed of Yalecrest by Beatrice Lufkin, of the Utah State Historic Office (SHPO) in 2005. Exterior and interior photographs, a title search, genealogical and other information are on file at the Utah State Preservation Office. 5. Consistent Designation Of The Proposed LHD Designation With Adopted Planning City Policies Historic Preservation Overlay 21A.34.020.A (click here for a link to the Historic Preservation Overlay zoning provisions) A. Purpose Statement: In order to contribute to the welfare, prosperity, and education of the people of Salt Lake City, the purpose of the Historic preservation overlay district is to: 1. Provide the means to protect and preserve areas of the city and individual structures and sites having historic, architectural, or cultural significance; 2. Encourage new development, redevelopment, and the subdivision of lots in historic districts that is compatible with the character of existing development of historic districts or individual landmarks; 3. Abate the destruction and demolition of historic structures; 4. Implement adopted plans of the city related to historic preservation; 5. Foster civic pride in the history of Salt Lake City; 6. Protect and enhance the attraction of the city's historic landmarks and districts for tourists and visitors; 7. Foster economic development consistent with historic preservation; and 8. Encourage social, economic, and environmental sustainability. Adopted Master Plans and City Policies Community Preservation Plan: The City Council adopted the Community Preservation Plan in October 2012. The Plan is the key strategic document that will guide Salt Lake City’s preservation efforts into the future. The purpose of the plan is to address the important goals of historic preservation and community character preservation to ensure the continued preservation of the City’s neighborhoods. The Plan provides vision and established policies that will help preserve those areas of the City that are uniquely historic and tell the story of the City’s historic past. (Click this link to view the Community Preservation Plan) Relevant Community Preservation Plan Policies Policy 3.1a: Identify historic resources in the City through the use of surveys that are consistent with the adopted State Historic Preservation Office survey criteria. Policy 3.2a: Local designation of historic resources should occur where the primary purpose is to protect the historic resources for the public interest and not where the primary purpose is something other than that such as to stabilize a neighborhood or preserve neighborhood character. Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 14 of 24 Policy 3.2b: The pursuance of new locally designated historic resources should focus on protecting the best examples of an element of the City’s history, development patterns and architecture. Local historic districts should have logical boundaries based on subdivision plats, physical and / or cultural features and significant character defining features where possible. Policy 3.2c: Protect exemplary groupings of historic properties as local historic districts. Policy 3.2d: Local designation should only occur after the City has an understanding of the degree of property owner and public support for the proposed designation. Policy 3.2e: Local designation of historic properties should only occur, after the City expends resources to inform property owners of the reasons for the proposed designation and what regulations will be included and the incentives offered for local designation. Policy 3.2h: Prior to local designation, national designation should be pursued to ensure financial incentives are in place for those historic resources that are regulated locally. Policy 3.2i: Professional reconnaissance level survey work should be completed prior to designating a local historic district because it identifies the number and type of historic resources in an area and provides the information needed when determining the appropriateness for change to a specific historic resource. Other Adopted City Policy documents addressing the role of Historic Preservation East Bench Community Master Plan (2017): (click this link to view the East Bench Master Plan) The proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Height Local Historic District is located within the area covered by the East Bench Community Master Plan. A stated goal of the Urban Design section of the plan is to “enhance the visual and aesthetic qualities and create a sense of visual unity within the community.” The Plan identifies the following elements which detract from the residential character: - Building remodeling or additions that are not compatible with the design of the original structure or neighboring homes, and - New structures that are not compatible with the design of surrounding homes. In the1987 East Bench Master Plan, Yalecrest is specifically identified for preservation. “The older Harvard-Yale area contains many buildings of architectural and historic significance. Conditions may warrant creating a conservation or historic district in this area where the city would review all new buildings, additions, or alterations for compatibility with established neighborhood character. The city is in the process of conducting a survey of the community to document sites of architectural and historic significance and to evaluate the potential for establishing a historic district.” In the 2017 version of the East Bench Master Plan, Yalecrest is noted for being the oldest historically contributing neighborhood on the East Bench and encourages residents to find a common voice to preserve it using either Local Historic Districts or Conservation Districts. Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 15 of 24 Urban Design Element (1990): The 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. The Plan includes the following concepts: -Allow individual districts to develop in response to their unique characteristics within the overall urban design scheme for the City. - Ensure that land uses make a positive contribution to neighborhood improvements and stability. - Ensure that building restoration and new construction enhance district character. - Require private development efforts to be compatible with urban design policies of the city, regardless of whether city financial assistance is provided. - Treat building height, scale, and character as significant features of a district’s image. - Ensure that features of building design such as color, detail, materials, and scale are responsive to district character, neighboring buildings and the pedestrian. Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan (2000): Provide historic preservation education to developers and property owners, including information on technical and financial assistance and incentives. City Vision and Strategic Plan (1993) - Restore and adaptively reuse historic resources. - Develop programs to enhance and preserve the City’s cultural history and character as expressed in the built environment. - Offer strong economic incentives to stop housing unit deterioration. Together: Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission (1998) - Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods. - Rehabilitate historic buildings for cultural uses wherever possible. The proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD is also currently zoned under the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay (YCIO) zoning ordinance adopted by the City in 20073. The purpose of the ordinance is to “encourage compatibility between new construction, additions, or alterations and the existing character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood.” The YCIO regulates building height, minimum front yard size, and several aspects of garages or accessory structures, but does not protect against demolitions or out-of-mass, scale and architecture character of additions or new structures. The proposed boundaries of Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD (Appendix A) represents the southeast corner in Normandie Heights subdivision and the greater Yalecrest neighborhood that is nationally recognized for its historic value (National Register of Historic Places 2007). Recognizing this resource and protecting it via a Local Historic District designation is consistent with the City's preservation goals. Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 16 of 24 6. Public Interest in the Proposed LHD Designation To date, 31/43 of the single-family homeowners within the proposed area of Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD have signed an application petition in support of opening the process to create a Local Historic District. The overall support on the application is 72%, which greatly exceeds the minimum support of 33% required by the LHD designation ordinance guidelines. Property owners at 1150 S 1400 East were contacted and do not support the local historic designation, but were included at the suggestion of the city Historic Preservation Office. Residential Support for Local Historic District Designation in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Street # Property Parcels # Signatures Supportinga % Support Princeton Ave 41a 30 73% 1400 East 1 0 0% 1500 East 1 1 100% TOTAL 43 31 72% aone signature was collected on the application signature form for property parcels that have Joint tenants (JT) and the appropriate trustee signature was obtained for Trusts on associated property parcels. Designating the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights as Local Historic District (LHD) zoning overlay would minimize the frequent teardowns and demolitions (56 permit filings over the past 27 years) that have plagued Yalecrest in recent years. In addition, the recent Affordable Housing Incentive (AHI) which allows demolition of historic houses for new multi-family housing installation within ¼ mile of high frequency bus transportation (1300 East) has concerned residents of this quiet street. Designation of Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD would maintain the historic character and mass/scale of the street face architecture while providing homeowners and district residents the only legal method to minimize demolition and dismantling of intact historic structures that result in loss of neighborhood character. These services are not offered from Salt Lake City to the National Register of Historic Place designation, nor the local City Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay (YCIO) zoning ordinance. A Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD designation would also provide the citizens of Salt Lake City and the state of Utah with an additional protected heritage resource for future generations from which to learn and appreciate the cultural and City history of notable residents and fine, well-maintained, diverse architectural examples of English Cottage, English Tudor, Cape Dutch, Dutch Colonial, Prairie, and Jacobethan French Norman architectural styles. In addition, the area will teach future urban developers/builders the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 17 of 24 value and sustainability of smaller well-built homes with quality materials that have stood the test of time (100 yrs), the successful layout design of new neighborhoods that include different housing options for singles, empty-nesters, couples, and families that include both small- and medium-sized single-family and multi-family duplexes at various prices. It will aid in the education of designing new successful neighborhoods that include such elements as sidewalks, green space, streetlights, mature shade trees, and proximity to infrastructure necessities such as libraries, grocery stores, restaurants, schools, and child care that encourage walkability and enhance safety from crime. These are the elements that have made Yalecrest a successful and highly desirable neighborhood. B. Photographs Original and current photographs of the individual homes in the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD are listed with addresses in APPENDIX C. The original photographs were downloaded from the Salt Lake County Tax Assessor site. Current photographs were collected by the Lynn Kennard Pershing, resident in Yalecrest, using an iPhone 11 camera.. C. Research Material The Reconnaissance Level Survey was completed by Salt Lake City in 2005 in preparation for the Yalecrest National Register of Historic Places designation, which was awarded in 2007. Much of the information in this document about the area’s architecture, history, builders, and building dates comes from that survey and the Salt Lake County Assessor website. Additional information is on file at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office, Family Search website, and newspaper archives (Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News). Research material used to prepare this application are listed in APPENDIX C. See (http://utahhistory.sdlhost.com/#/item/000000011019963/view/146 D. Landmark Sites Not applicable E. Boundary Adjustment: Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD is located to the immediate south of Yalecrest-Harvard Heights LHD. The new Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD is parallel to Yalecrest-Harvard Heights LHD and both traverse the 1300-1500 blocks of their respective streets, while also including 2 properties; 1150 S 1400 E and 1136 S 1500 E that lie between those streets. The boundaries of the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD containing 43 property parcels are listed below: West boundary is 1323 E Princeton Ave Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 18 of 24 East boundary is demarcated by1136 South 1500 East and 1490 E Princeton Ave North boundary contains the north side of Princeton Ave containing the odd numbered houses (1323-1475 E Princeton Ave) and 1150 E 1400 East South Boundary contains the south side of Princeton Ave with the even numbered houses of 1340-1490 E Princeton Ave. APPENDIX A-1 Original plat of Normandie Heights Subdivision July 1, 1926, Pr. Lots 2-3, Block 28 Bowers Investment Company Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 19 of 24 Bottom of Form The Normandie Subdivision lies in the southwestern most corner of. The Normandie subdivision is outlined in purple. APPENDIX A-2 All LHDs in Yalecrest Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 20 of 24 Existing Yalecrest LHDs Douglas Park-I Normandie Circle Harvard Heights Upper Harvard Yale Park Plat A Harvard Park Princeton Park Princeton Heights (proposed) outlined in red APPENDIX A-3 Expanded street map view of the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD boundary adjustment (red outline) within the East Bench Yalecrest Neighborhood Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 21 of 24 .. Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD (43 parcels) includes the following property addresses Princeton Ave (41 parcels): 1323-1490 E Princeton Ave 1500 East: 1 parcel, 1136 S 1500 East 1400 East: 1 parcel, 1150 E 1400 East APPENDIX B Contrary Documentation in RLS 2005 and Salt Lake County Assessor Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 22 of 24 1. Missing photographs: Original house photographs were not available from the State Historic Preservation Office, nor the SLCounty Assessor website (www.slco.org/assessor) a. 1348 E Princeton Ave b. 1458 E Princeton Ave c. 1466 E Princeton Ave d. 1490 E Princeton Ave 2. Inaccurate original photos on SLCounty Assessor website a. 1422 E Princeton Ave b. 1426 E Princeton Ave c. 1442 E Princeton Ave d. 1450 E Princeton Ave APPENDIX C Photographs of Princeton Heights LHD Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 23 of 24 See separate attached document 1323-1490 E Princeton Ave 1150 S 1400 East 1136 S 1500 East Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 24 of 24 APPENDIX D Research Materials (References) 1. Lufkin, Beatrice. Yalecrest Reconnaissance Level Survey 2005. Utah State Historic Preservation Office. 2. Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay. Sterling Codifier 21A.34.120. December 2005. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/getBookData.php?id=&chapter_id=49078&ke ywords=#s928586 3. Salt Lake City Community Preservation Plan. October 2012 4. Polk directories 1925-1976, State Historic Preservation Office, www.ushpo.utah.gov 5. Family Search app online 6. Salt Lake County Assessor: House information: parcel number, build date, exterior materials, original house photos, www.slco.org/assessor. 1 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Yalecrest-Princeton Heights Local Historic District embodies 43 houses total 41 houses: 1323-1490 E Princeton Ave NOTE: Code for each house: address, (contributing status): property parcel number, original date and style description. 1NA= original photo not available on SLCounty Assessor nor Salt Lake County Archives 1323 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-351-009 1937 English Cottage 2022 1333 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-351-010 1930 English Cottage 2022 1340 E Princeton (A) 16-09-353-001 2 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1938 English Cottage 2022 1343 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-351-011 1926 English Cottage 2022 1345 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-351-012 1929 English Tudor 2022 1348 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-353-002 1926 English Cottage1 2022 3 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Original photo not available 1349 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-351-013 1929 English Tudor 2022 1353 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-351-014 1928 French Norman 2022 4 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1360 E Princeton Ave (A): 16-09-353-003 1927 English Tudor 2022 1361 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-351-015 1927 English Tudor 2022 1362 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-004 1926/ 1928 English Tudor 2022 1369 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-351-016 5 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1929 English Cottage 2022 1370 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-005 1926 English Tudor 2022 1376 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-006 1926 English Cottage 2022 6 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1377 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-351-017 1927 Jacobean Revival French Norman 2022 1380 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-007 1940 Colonial Revival Neoclassical 2022 1387 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-351-018 1951 Minimal Traditional 2022 7 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1388 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-008 1926 English Cottage/Tudor 2022 1400 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-009 1937 Colonial Revival 2022 1401 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-352-012 1927 English Tudor 2022 8 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1404 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-010 1927 English Tudor 2022 1405 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-352-013 1937 English Cottage 2022 9 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1410 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-011 1927 English Cottage 2022 1411 E Princeton Ave (A). 16-09-352-014 1937 English Cottage (RLS 2005)/ Colonial Revival 2022 10 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1418 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-353-012 1928 Period Revival; Other 2022 1419 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-352-015 1936 Colonial Revival (RSL 2005)/Cape Cod 2022 1422 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-013 1927 English Tudor 2022 11 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD incorrect original photo? 1426 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-014 1927 English Tudor 2022 Incorrect original photo? 1429 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-352-016 1926 Cape Dutch Colonial Period Revival 2022 12 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1439 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-352-017 1927 Colonial Revival/English Tudor 2022 1442 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-353-015 1926 English Cottage 2022 inaccurately original photo 1445 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-352-018 1929 English Cottage 2022 13 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1449 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-352-019 1929 English Tudor 2022 1450 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-017 1928 English Cottage 2022 Inaccurate original photo? 1457 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-352-020 1926 Dutch Colonial Revival/Period Cottage 2022 14 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1458 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-018 1926 English Cottage 2022 Original photo unavailable 1465 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-352-021 1926 English Cottage/Tudor 2022 15 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1466 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-019 1929 Colonial Revival 2022 Original photo not available 1469 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-352-022 1929 English Tudor 2022 16 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1475 E Princeton Ave (C) 16-09-352-025 1917 Prairie School 2022 1490 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-060 1928 English Tudor 2022 Original photo unavailable 17 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 1 house from 1500 East 1136 S 1500 East (A) 16-09-352-024 1932 Colonial Revival 2022 4. MAILING LIST OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR own_ OWN_CITYOWNOWN_ZIP BRITTNEY NYSTROM; EDWARD P ROG (JT 1323 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 D'ARCY BENINCOSA 1333 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 SEAN M RHODES; EMILY R BUCHI (JT) 1343 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 ROBERT B MOODY; B CATHERINE MOOD 1345 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 EVE H SMITH FAMILY TRUST 03/14/1984 1349 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 ALEXANDRA OWENS 2540 E CATALINA DR COTTONW UT 84121 RALPH L FINLAYSON 1361 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 APT REV TR 1369 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 GERALD STRINGFELLOW; BARBARA STRIN1377 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 JULIAN ONTIVEROS 1387 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 KARLY GREENWOOD NIELSEN REVOCABL 1401 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 CFAM REV TR 670 OXFORD AVE VENISE CA 90291 SUSAN P AMOSS 1411 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 AEM FAM TRUST 1419 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 DANIEL EASTMAN; ANNE MARIE EASTMA 1429 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 PERRY A SLOAN III LIVING TRUST 04/19/2 1439 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1445 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 KATHLEEN ELAINE VIETORIS; CINDY LOU 1449 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 RACHAEL E KIRKWOOD 1457 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 SARIAH TORONTO; DOUGLAS ROLLINS (JT1465 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 AMY BRADSHAW YOUNG TRUST 4/29/20 1469 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 ROBERT K WOLTERS; COLEEN T WOLTERS1136 S 1500 E SALT LAKE UT 84105 JMG TRUST; JFPG TRUST 1475 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1340 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 SYCAMORE ASSET PROTECTION TRUST 081348 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 MARK ALBERT GLISSMEYER TRUST 09/13 1360 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 TIMOTHY J ERMISH FAMILY TRUST 6/20/ 1362 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 LAURENE G JOSEPH REVOCABLE TRUST 1 1370 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 DANIEL JED TORSAK; ALLYSON WHITBY T 1376 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 JENNIFER A BOWNE; JOHNNY T BOWNE ( 1380 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 GEORGE & SABRINA FAMILY LIVING TRUS 1388 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 REBECCA L WILSON; MICHAEL D ROBIS (J 1400 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 BONNIE L RANDALL 1404 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 STEFAN C PENNER 1410 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 STRONG LIVING TRUST 03/27/2023 201 S MAIN ST 1800 SALT LAKE UT 84111 WARREN MICHAEL JENSON; SARAH JAYN 1422 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1426 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 1442 PRINCETON AVENUE LLC 201 COSTA MESA ST COSTA ME CA 92627 SUZANNE J WINCHESTER 1450 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 JAMES R LEE TRUST 12/16/2019 740 PARK VIEW DR PARK CITY UT 84098 BRIAN K MILLER; REBECCA A MILLER (JT) 1466 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 BRIAN K MILLER; REBECCA A MILLER (JT) 1466 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1490 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105 5. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT (RECEIVED AFTER STAFF REPORT PUBLICATION) Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: cindy cromer To: Traughber, Lex Subject: (EXTERNAL) Fw: please forward to the Dropbox for tonight-Princeton Heights Date: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 2:52:52 PM Attachments: Scanned_from_a_Lexmark_Multifunction_Product11-08-2023-143743.pdf The attachment includes the analyses completed by developers who participated in the Mayor's task force on Affordable Housing. (The complete tables are included in the link below at Attachment G beginning on p. 92.) The analyses were completed by Chris Zarek for multiple family developments and by Josh Green for lower density development. This material was in your packet for the April 26 hearing on the Affordable Housing project. The conclusion of the Mayor's task force was that the proposed changes would be unlikely to affect neighborhoods with higher land costs. The discussion by members of the task force specifically mentioned the Yalecrest neighborhood. Professional Memo (slcdocs.com) submitted by cindy cromer for the hearing on Princeton Hts. A1TACHMENT G: Summary of Proforma and Scenario Analyses PLNPCM2019-00522 91 April 26,2023 I • 20% units @ 80% AMI, with 2 floor above max height 285 0.937S D-2 $8M / Sl96p$1/ S2Bl</door 45 122 60 12 30 16 20%units @ 80% AMI, with 3 floors above max height 315 $8M/ S196psf / 525.41</door 48 128 64 12 32 16 20%units @ 80% AMI, with 3 floors above max height, add'Ipark 300 $8M/ $196p,f / $26.61</door 48 128 64 12 32 16 Development Scenarios D-2 • Using New Downtown Building Heights standards Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80%AMI 50%AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 I I Scenarios # of Units LotSize (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80%AMI 30%AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 I ::: Market Rate Project, by right to zoning 225 I 0.9375 I D·2 I $SM/$196psf /$3S.51</door 45 120 60 Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80%AMI 30%AMI l.": Studio l BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio l BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 I Market Rate Project,same project as above 225 $BM/$196psf / $35.Sl</door 45 120 60 5%units @ 30% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 255 $BM/$196p$f / $31,31</door 48 129 64 3 7 4 5%units @ 30% AMI, with 2 floor above max height 285 0.9375 D-2 $8M / $196p$f / $2Bl</door 54 144 72 3 8 4 5% units @ 30% AMI, with 3 floors above max height 315 $8M / $196psf / SZS.41</door 59 160 79 4 8 5 5% units @ 30% AMI, with 3 floors above max height,add'I park 300 $8M / $196psf / $26.61</door 57 152 76 3 8 4 Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80%AMI 60%AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio l BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio l BR 2 BR 3 I Market Rate Project, same project as above 225 $8M / $196psf / S3S.Sl</door 45 120 60 ((. 20% units @ 80% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 255 $8M/ S196psf / $31,31</door 40 109 54 11 27 14 7 Market Rate 80%AMI . Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value 60%AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 I I 10%units @ 60% AMI, with 2 floors above max height 10%units @ 60% AMI, with 3 floors above max height 285 0.9375 315 D-2 $8M/ $196psf / $281:/door $BM/ 5196psf / 52S.41</door 51 56 137 152 68 75 6 7 15 16 8 9 10%units @ 60% AMI, with3 floors above max height, add'Ipark 300 $BM/$196psf / $26.61</door 54 144 72 6 16 8 Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80%AMI 60%AMI Studio l BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio l BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 I ;: Market Rate Project, same project as above 225 $8M / $196psf / $3S.Sl</door 45 120 60 10% units @ 80% AMI. All 2s,with 1 floor above max height 255 $8M/ $196psf / $31,lk/door 51 136 42 26 10% units @ 80% AMI. All 2s,with 2 floors above max height 285 0.9375 D·2 $8M / $196psf / $281</door 57 152 47 29 Scenarios Studio l BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio l BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 I @I LIHTC project 225 $8M / $196psf / $35.Sl</door 36 96 48 9 24 12 20% units@ 50% AMI, with 1 floors above max height 255 $8M / $196psf / $31..31</door 40 109 54 11 27 14 20% units@ 50% AMI, with 2 floors above max height 285 0.9375 D·2 $8M / Sl96p$1/ $281</door 45 122 60 12 30 16 20% units@ 50%AMI, with 3 floors above max height 315 $8M/ $196psf / $2S,41</door 50 135 66 13 33 18 20%units@ 50%AMI, with 3 floors above max height 300 $8M/ $196psf / $26.61</door 48 128 64 12 32 16 Market Rate Project, same project as above 225 $8M /S196psf / $35.51</door 45 120 60 5% units @ 60% AMI, All 2s,withl floor above max height 255 $BM/$196psf /$31,31</door 51 136 55 13 5% units @ 60% AMI, All 2s, with 2 floors above max height 285 0.9375 D-2 $BM/$196psf / $281</door 57 152 61 15 5% units @ 60%AMI, All 2s, with3 floors above max height 315 $BM/ $196psf / $25.41</door 63 168 68 16 5% units @ 60%AMI, All 2s, with3 floorsabove max, add'I park 300 $BM/ $196psf / $26.61</door 60 160 65 15 Market Rate Project, same project asabove 225 $BM/5196psf / $35.51</door 45 120 60 10%units @ 60% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 255 $BM/S196psf / 531,31</door 46 122 61 5 14 7 27 72 36 II 7 - . . ;I Scenarios #of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80%AMI 50%AMI I Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR Scenarios # of Units lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80%AMI - . - 10% units@ 60% AMI,with 1 floor above max height 165 I Scenarios # of Units lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80%AMI Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 I 0.9375 Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR I $6.3M/ S154psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 Vanous I I $6.3M / Sl54psf / $46.6k/door Development Scenarios Wood Frame (Type 111/V Construction) 4 over 1 to 5 over 1 in various zones allowing approximately 50 feet in height . Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 0.9375 I $6.3M / $154psl/ $46.6k/door 22 57 29 Vanous 5 15 7 I I $6.3M/ Sl54psf / $38.lk/door 26 70 35 7 18 9 Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80%AMI 30%AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR _ Market Rate Project, by right to zoning 135 I 0.9375 I Various I $6.3M / S154psl / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 i Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning land Value Market Rate 80%AMI 30%AMI . Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR . 0.9375 I $6.3M / SIS4psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 Vanous I S6.3M / Sl54psf / $38.!k/door 31 83 42 2 5 2 Scenarios # of Units lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80%AMI 60%AMI f Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 I I $6.3M / Sl54psl / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 0.9375 Various 5% units @ 60% AMI, All 2s, with 1 floor above max height = 165 I I I $6.3M / SIS4psf / $3!1.lk/door 33 88 35 9 m· Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80%AMI 60%AMI . Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 1; Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 I 0.9375 I S6.3M / Sl54psf / $46.6k/door 27 36 Vanous - 20% units@ 80% AMI, with 1 floor above max height I 165 I I I $6.3M / SlS4psf / $38.!k/door 27 70 35 6 18 9 I - . Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 I I S6.3M/ S154psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 0.9375 Vanous = 10%units @ 80% AMI. All 2s, with 1 floor above max height 165 I I I S6.3M / $154psf / $38.lk/door 33 88 27 17 . .,. Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value 60%AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 5% units (a) 80%AMI. All 3s. with 1 floor above max heieht 165 I 0.9375 I Vanous I S6.3M / SlS4osf/ S38.lk/door 51 123 42 13 80%AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Market Rate Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 60%AM Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR I $6.3M/ $154psf / $38.lk/door 30 79 39 3 9 - 60%AMI . Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 I Mixed Income 4%UHTC project, 20%of units@ 50% AMI 13S I 4%LIHTC 20% units @ 50% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 165 I Market Rate Project, same project asabove 135 I 5%units @ 30% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 165 I Development Scenarios RMF-35 and TSA Apartment Buildings Citizens West Citizens West 2 & 3 are 100% affordable units, 25-50% AMI for all units. *Building this many units might be limited by LIHTC Equity available per cycle. lncreas from the existing 5 floors of residential/2 floors of parking would require change of construction type to steel, would affect OCR. Scenarios #of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Average 43% AMI Studio 3 BR 4 BR OCR/ Stal LIHTC project (9%) 80 1 TSA-UN-T $1.8M 45 25 10 Same project as above, with 1 floor above max height (AHi) 97 55 30 12 * Same project as above, with 2 floors above max height (AHi) 114* 65 35 14 * Denver Apartments This is a permanent supportive housing development. It is zoned RMF-35. The scenarios below show what was built based on the existing regulations and wl existing incentives. The incentives have a requirement of no more than 25% of units less than 500 sq. ft. Some units had to be enlarged and if there was not would have fit on the site. Scenarios #of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Permanent Supportive Haus Studio= 39% AMI 1 BR= 50% AMI Project with existing zoning requirements 22 0.9 RMF-35 We don't have a current appraisal for this parcel. When the project was done, we paid $1M for land 10 LIHTC project (9%) - with allowances by incentives 53 13 Avia (The Exchange, Phase I) The Avia is 80% market rate units and 20% of units are at 50% AMI Scenarios #of Lot Size Zoning Units (acres) Market Studio 1 BR Avia (The Exchange) LIHTC project (4%) 286 1 TSA-UN-C 25 13 Same project as above, with 1 floor above max height (AHi) 326 28 15 Same project as above, with 2 floors above max height (AHi) 367 31 17 Development Scenarios Summary Single- and Two-family zoning districts #of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Unit Size For Sale Product, 80% AMI Market Rate 80%AMI Profit Market Price 80%, 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4BR Scenario #1: Lower land value/Sales price neighborhood Single-family Detached without AHi 1 0.15 R-1/7,000 $185,000 2,800 sq ft + 2 car garage 1 $ (109,043) $500,000 Duplex with AHi 2 0.15 R-1/7,000 $185,000 1,500 sq ft each 1 1 $ (35,693) $450,000 Fourplex with AHi 4 0.15 R-1/7,000 $185,000 1,000 sq ft each 2 2 $ 118,558 $350,000 (x2) $32 Townhouses with AHi 4 0.25 R-1/7,000 $300,000 1,730 sq ft+ 2 car garage 2 2 $ (75,150) $450,000 (x2) $30( Scenario #2 Higher land value/Sales price neighborhood Single-family Detached without AHi 1 0.15 R-1/7,000 $300,000 2,800 sq ft + 2 car garage 1 $134,800 $1,050,000 Duplex with AHi 2 0.15 R-1/7,000 $300,000 1,500 sq ft each 1 1 ($61,150) $600,000 Fourplex with AHi 4 0.15 R-1/7,000 $300,000 1,000 sq ft each 2 2 $81,350 $450,000 (x2) $325. Townhouses with AHi 4 0.25 R-1/7,000 $500,000 1,730 sq ft+ 2 car garage 2 2 ($7,610) $660,000 (x2) $350. Assumptions: 80% AMI max. for sale price for a 3 bed unit assumes 4-person household, $81,900 annual income, 5% interest rate, 7% down payment 80% AMI max. for sale price for a 2 bed unit assumes 3-person household, $73,750 annual income, 5% interest rate, 7% down payment 80% AMI rental rates: 1 br = $1,537, 2 br = $1,844, 3 br = $2,130, 4 br = $2,136 NOi = net operating income= annual income - annual expenses 4.5% Cap rate for all PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 1 To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner, AICP, sara.javoronok@slcgov.com, 801-535-7625 Brooke Olson, Principal Planner Date: April 26, 2023 Re: PLNPCM2019-00658 Text Amendment PROPERTY ADDRESS: City-wide PARCEL ID: N/A MASTER PLAN: Plan Salt Lake, Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan ZONING DISTRICT: Multiple REQUEST: A request by the Mayor to amend zoning requirements to incentivize and reduce barriers for affordable housing. The proposed amendments include the following if requirements for affordable units are met: • Permit administrative design review and additional building height between 1-3 stories, depending on the zone, in various zoning districts that permit multifamily housing. • Remove the Planned Development requirement for specific modifications and for development in the CS zoning districts. • Permit an additional story in the TSA Transition zoning districts and two stories in the TSA Core zoning districts. • Allow additional housing types in the CG (General Commercial), CC (Community Commercial), and CB (Community Business) zoning districts. • Allow housing on Institutional zoned land. • Remove the density requirements in the RMF zoning districts. • Allow townhouses, 3-4 unit buildings, a second detached dwelling when an existing dwelling is maintained, and cottage developments on properties that are currently zoned for single- or two-family homes. Permit twin and two-family homes in these zoning districts where they are not currently allowed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed Affordable Housing Incentives Text Amendment, with the ability to amend the adopted ordinance language as necessary to eliminate potential conflicts with other pending ordinances and ensure consistency with other code sections and references in the zoning ordinance. The content and intent of the proposed regulations will not be changed. Staff Report PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND A. ATTACHMENT A: Proposed 21A.52 Zoning Incentives Text B. ATTACHMENT B: Single- and Two-Family Zoning District Graphics C. ATTACHMENT C: Updated Affordable Housing Incentives Document D. ATTACHMENT D: Updated Affordable Housing Incentives Summary Document E. ATTACHMENT E: Public Process & Comments F. ATTACHMENT F: Analysis of Standards G. ATTACHMENT G: Summary of Proforma and Scenario Analyses H. ATTACHMENT H: Zoning Maps and Graphics Affordable Housing Incentives (AHI) are proposed for the city’s zoning code to encourage the development, construction, and preservation of housing in the city. There are two primary goals of the AHI. First, they are to help public and private dollars that go into building affordable housing create more housing units. Second, they are to create additional opportunities for property owners to provide new, affordable housing units. The AHI propose allowing for additional height, reducing parking requirements, allowing additional housing types, and providing planning process waivers or modifications. The project was initiated in 2019 to address increasing concerns regarding housing affordability and to implement Growing SLC. It was initially envisioned as an overlay district and called “Affordable Housing Overlay”. Since the proposal applies differently in various zoning districts, an “overlay” is not applicable, and the “Affordable Housing Incentives” are now the first section in a new incentives chapter. Initial outreach on the proposal included an online survey in late 2019/early 2020. From the initial survey results, staff developed a draft framework for the AHI that serves as the basis for the current proposal. This was presented online in a Story Map and staff requested additional feedback from the community in a survey. Based on this feedback, developed draft the initial AHI text amendments. Staff presented these initial draft amendments to the community in the spring of 2022 and to the Planning Commission and public at a hearing in May 2022. Following the hearing, staff worked with developers and a focus group convened by the Office of the Mayor to address and revise the draft based on the issues raised. The revisions also incorporate changes from the now adopted RMF-30 and pending Downtown Building Heights text amendments. Staff presented a revised draft to the Planning Commission for discussion on March 22, 2023 and March 29, 2023. The Historic Landmark Commission held a work session on April 6, 2023. The incentives are summarized below. Attachment A includes the full text of the draft language. Many of the incentives refer to area median income (AMI). This is the midpoint of the region's income distribution. Half of the families in the region earn more than the median and half earn less than the median. In this case, the Federal government sets the region for the Salt Lake City Metro Area, which is Salt Lake and Tooele counties. The proposal does not change other city requirements, including building codes, fire codes, or public utilities requirements. ATTACHMENTS: PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 3 Mixed-Use and Multifamily Zoning Districts Additional height and process modifications Provisions related to additional height are a key incentive in the proposal. These are specific incentives for additional height of 1 to 3 stories in zoning districts that allow for additional height in mixed-use, multifamily and attached units (there are separate incentives for the RMF zoning districts). See pages 7-8 in Attachment A or pages 14-17 in Attachment D for the specific allowances in these districts. The proposal does not modify the design standards in 21A.59 but modifies the review process to administrative design review rather than requiring a Planning Commission hearing. This would decrease the review time for these projects by approximately 50%. Planned Development process modifications The proposal would remove the requirement for a Planned Development for two types of projects. The first type of project is for buildings in the CS (Community Shopping) zoning district, which is limited to four areas of the city (see the map in Attachment H.1). Previously, this requirement was also in place for the GMU (Gateway Mixed Use) zoning district, but it is removed with the Downtown Building Heights text amendment, which is pending City Council action. The second type of project is for building lots that do not have public street frontage. This is a common request with a planned development, often associated with other requests. Removing the requirement for this process could shorten the review and process for units. Generally, requests for building lots without street frontage are approved. As properties with long, deep lots redevelop with more intensive uses, townhouses, or other forms that were not previously as common, this is a frequent request as the larger size of many lots allows for internal, private drives to access garages for townhouses, or sites where there are multiple buildings. The removal of this requirement is intended to decrease the processing time for applications and would not affect base zoning district standards. TSA modification Another component of the proposal is a change from the existing requirements in the TSA or Transit Station Area zoning districts. There are eight TSA districts, four are “core” districts and four are “transition” districts (see the map in Attachment H.2 for the location of the TSA zoning districts). The zoning district has an administrative approval process for projects if they meet a required number of points per guidelines that apply to the district. If projects meet this required number of points, they can add an additional story. The proposal would allow one additional story in the Transition districts and two additional stories in the Core districts, but only if affordable units are provided. Additional building types The proposal would allow single-family and single-family attached dwellings, which include row houses, sideways row houses, and cottage developments in the CB – Community Business, CC – Corridor Commercial, CG – General Commercial, and I - Institutional zoning districts. These districts are located across the city (see the map in Attachment H.3 for the location of the commercial zoning districts). CB generally has neighborhood-oriented businesses and related uses, including grocery stores. Concentrations of corridor commercial are located on State Street and Redwood Road. There are areas of General Commercial west of downtown, on 300 West and west of I-15. Definitions and design standards are provided for these building types with the amendments. The CB, CC, and CG zones permit multifamily development. Buildings that look like townhouses or row houses are often platted as condos and considered multifamily development. This would permit them as single-family attached housing that could be developed without a condo plat. This PROPOSED AMENDMENTS (See attachments for the full text) PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 4 could allow for additional financing opportunities for homeowners that are not necessarily an option with condo units. The institutional zoning district includes land where there are schools, hospitals, and other non- profit entities. The city’s zoning regulations do not apply to land that is owned by the state. Multifamily housing is not permitted in this zoning district. At a later date, planning staff may consider multifamily housing as a permitted use in this zoning district. Affordability requirements Projects in the mixed-use and multifamily districts would need to provide units that meet one of the following seven options listed below. The first three are those presented in May 2022: • 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; The new options with more deeply affordable and larger units are below: • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; or • 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; or • 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or • 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms. See Key Consideration #2 for additional information on the affordability level and number of units required. Middle, Single- and Two-Family Zoning Districts Residential Multifamily Districts The existing density requirements in the RMF (Residential Multifamily) zoning districts often prevent the construction of development that is the same density and type as existing surrounding development. These districts are located in various areas of the city with concentrations of them to the east of downtown. See the map in Attachment H.4. The proposed amendments incentivize affordable housing by removing these density limits or qualifying provisions if affordable units are provided. For example, in the RMF-35 zoning district the density limits require a 9,000 square foot lot for a multifamily development of 3 or more units. Then, for each additional unit above 3, an additional 3,000 square feet is needed. For example, this would require a half-acre of land for 7 units. This is often a greater amount of land than would have been required historically. This results in a smaller number of units constructed on properties. In addition, the units that are constructed are much larger than those constructed historically, which results in a higher cost per unit. The proposal would remove these density restrictions and the minimum lot width. It would not permit additional height or increased building coverage. There are additional design standards and no more than 25% of the units can be less than 500 sq. ft. The removal of the density restrictions would enable a greater number of units, likely smaller units, to be built on properties. Affordability requirement: Feedback from the surveys and other outreach indicate support for more for sale units that could be owner occupied and the proposal includes different requirements for rental and for sale units. The rental units must be at affordable at 50% or 60% AMI and have affordability requirements similar to those for Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) which is a tax credit program for the acquisition, PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 5 rehabilitation, or new construction rental housing for lower-income households. The city’s zoning requirements generally do not regulate ownership. However, with the more restrictive affordability requirements proposed, for sale units have an alternative requirement. For rental housing: • A minimum of 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 60% AMI; • A minimum of 20% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 50% AMI; or • A minimum of 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes averaging no more than 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI. For sale owner occupied units: 50% of units as affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. Single- and Two-Family Incentives The city has six single-family zoning districts, there are three R-1 districts: R-1/5,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/12,000, and three FR districts: FR-1, FR-2, and FR-3. The city has four districts that generally allow two-family or duplex homes in addition to single family homes. These are the R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3 zoning districts. The proposed amendments would permit several types of homes that are not currently permitted in all of these districts: • Two-family, twin, or duplex homes; • 3-4 unit buildings – triplexes or fourplexes; • Townhouses, or single family attached units, as sideways rowhouses or rowhouses in groups of 3-4; • A second detached dwelling when an existing dwelling is maintained; and • Cottage developments, which are single family homes in groups of two to eight that are generally arranged in a courtyard layout. One of the primary concerns raised in the public comments and the focus group meetings was that the AHI would result in the loss of existing dwellings, historic dwellings that are not locally designated, and naturally occurring affordable housing. This could result in increased gentrification. The focus group discussed several options to incentivize the preservation of existing dwellings, while also allowing for additional housing. The primary incentive recommended by the focus group is to lower the affordable unit requirement when maintaining an existing dwelling to one unit on the property and allow for a second, detached dwelling. For example, the owner of a single-family dwelling could maintain the existing house and use the AHI to construct a second, detached, new dwelling in the rear yard of the property. For additional units, an ADU could also potentially be added. One of these units must be designated as an affordable unit and meet the affordability requirements (See 21A.52.050.H.1.c.4 and Table 21A.52.050.G in Attachment A). The following would apply to properties in the single- and two-family zoning districts: • Yards: Minimum required yards/setbacks shall apply to the perimeter of the property and not to the individual principal building(s). • Parking: One parking space would be required per dwelling unit. If a property has multiple units, a minimum of one space would be required for each unit. A detached garage or carport with up to 250 sq. ft. for each unit may be provided in a single structure. • Subdivision: Lots may contain up to four units. Existing lots may be divided such that each unit is on its own lot. The new lots are exempt from minimum lot area and lot width requirements. PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 6 • Rowhouse standards: There are specific yard requirements. On street facing facades buildings cannot exceed 60 ft. in length and garages are not permitted. There is a maximum length of 15’ for blank walls. • Cottage standards: There are specific yard requirements. Individual cottages cannot be more than 850 sq. ft. Open space and personal outdoor space must be provided. • Accessory Dwelling Unit: An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is considered one unit and counts toward the number of units permitted. • No additional height or building coverage is permitted. The center lot above depicts an existing single-family home with a basement ADU, two surface parking spaces, a new, detached single-family home to the rear, and a detached two-car garage. This is on a larger, nearly 12,000 sq. ft. lot. The three structures have a total building coverage of 24%. See Attachment B for additional views and information. The center lot above depicts an existing single-family home with a second single-family dwelling to the rear. It includes one parking space per unit located on the driveway. This is on a 7,000 sq. ft. lot. This shows the maximum building coverage for the property at 40%. See Attachment B for additional information and examples. Affordability requirement: In the single- and two-family zoning districts, 50% of the additional dwelling units must be affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. If an existing dwelling is maintained, this is lowered to one of the units as affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 7 KEY CONSIDERATIONS Consideration 1: How the proposal helps implements city goals and policies identified in adopted plans. The proposal is for a zoning text amendment. The Planning Commission may make a recommendation to the City Council on this type of proposal per 21A.50.050.A. The Planning Commission may make modifications to the proposed amendments, direct staff to make changes, or forward a recommendation to the City Council. The key considerations listed below were identified through the analysis of the project: 1. Implementation of city goals and policies identified in adopted plans. 2. Affordability level and percentage of units 3. Neighborhood impacts 4. Administration and enforcement 5. Infrastructure impacts The city’s adopted plans and policies provide a basis for this proposal. This includes the citywide plan, Plan Salt Lake (2015) and Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan 2018-2022 (2017). These plans were both adopted by the City Council after extensive review by the public and city boards and commissions. The proposal is consistent with the following principles, objectives, and policies. See below for the specific items and analysis. Plan Salt Lake The proposal is consistent with several items in the Growth, Housing and Transportation & Mobility Chapters. The Growth chapter Guiding Principle, “Growing responsibly, while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around” is applicable. The proposal seeks to enable greater opportunities for people to make these choices by allowing additional housing throughout the community in different building types and sizes and by orienting greater development opportunities to areas with increased transit opportunities. It is consistent with the following initiatives: • Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors. • Encourage a mix of land uses. • Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. • Accommodate and promote an increase in the City’s population. These initiatives are applicable in that most development proposed using these incentives would be infill or redevelopment of existing properties that have existing infrastructure and amenities. The incentives include zoning districts that allow for mixed-use development and it would add additional building types to other residential districts, which could create a wider mix of housing types in these zoning districts. Additional housing constructed with the incentives would accommodate an increase in the city’s population and help to fulfill the existing gap between households and housing units in the area. In the Housing chapter, the Guiding Principle, “Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics” is applicable. The proposal would allow for additional housing types in APPROVAL PROCESS AND COMMISSION AUTHORITY PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 8 several zoning districts and specifically require that a percentage of the units are affordable for those earning 80% or less than the area median income. The proposal is also consistent with the following initiatives in the Housing Chapter: • Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low income). • Increase the number of medium density housing types and options. • Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place. • Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people oriented. • Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate. • Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. • Promote high-density residential in areas served by transit. The proposal allows for and incentivizes affordable housing units across the city by increasing the development right. It increases the housing types permitted in many districts, including commercial, single- and two-family districts. This is designed to facilitate moderate density increases in these existing neighborhoods. Amendments to the Downtown and TSA districts further enable and incentivize the development of high density residential in these areas that are served by high-frequency bus and rail transit. These moderate and high-density areas have existing infrastructure and services and, particularly in the high-density residential areas, have the potential to be people oriented. The ability to add units on properties and permit additional housing types in neighborhoods can accommodate aging in place both in homes and in neighborhoods. The proposal promotes the rehabilitation of housing stock by allowing additional units on properties. In the Transportation chapter, the proposal is consistent with the Guiding Principle, “A transportation and mobility network that is safe, accessible, reliable, affordable, and sustainable, providing real choices and connecting people with places.” The proposal incentivizes additional units in many zoning districts that are in close proximity to transit, consistent with the initiative to encourage transit-oriented development. Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan 2018-2022. The proposal is consistent with several goals, objectives, and policies in Growing SLC: • Goal 1: Reform City practices to promote a responsive, affordable, high-opportunity housing market. o Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city.  Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant transportation routes.  Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts.  Reduce parking requirements for affordable housing developments and eliminate parking requirements in transit-rich, walkable neighborhoods or when the specific demographics of a development require less parking, such as senior populations. o Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development.  1.2.1 Create an expedited processing system to increase City access for those developers constructing new affordable units. The proposal is to modify existing zoning to allow greater flexibility and opportunities for housing across the city. It encourages diversity in housing stock by allowing for additional housing types in several commercial districts and in single- and two-family zoning districts. In PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 9 single- and two-family zoning districts, this is enhanced by reducing the number of affordable units required when existing housing is maintained. It also permits the conversion or addition of units in existing structures. It decreases the parking required for additional units in single- and two- family zoning districts and for smaller projects. An element of the proposal is waiving or reducing the required Planning processes for developments. It removes the requirement for a Planned Development for many projects including those in the CS (Community Shopping) zoning district and when lots are proposed without public street frontage. These projects may not require a Planning process. Similarly, it allows for administrative Design Review for additional height when permitted or incentivized and meeting the affordability requirements. This administrative process does not modify the existing 21A.59 Design Standards, but could decrease the processing time for projects. • Goal 2: Affordable Housing: Increase Housing Opportunities and Stability for Cost- Burdened Households  2.1.2 Consider an ordinance that would require and incentivize the inclusion of affordable units in new developments. The proposal generally incentivizes rather than requires the inclusion of affordable units in developments. The modification to the TSA zoning district requires affordable units for additional height, which is not currently required. It increases the allowable height to two stories in core districts and maintains one story in the transition districts. Otherwise, the proposal incentivizes affordable units rather than require them through inclusionary provisions. State law no longer permits new inclusionary requirements. This is further detailed in Key Consideration 2. • Goal 3: Equitable & Fair Housing: Build a More Equitable City o Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity throughout all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of opportunity  Make strategic affordable housing investments in high opportunity neighborhoods.  Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages of life. The proposal allows for additional housing types in a variety of zoning districts, including commercial, single- and two-family districts. These include high opportunity neighborhoods and may increase the opportunity for owner-occupied units in these neighborhoods. The same provisions may also allow for greater opportunities for residents to remain in the same neighborhoods or elsewhere in the city throughout all stages of life by providing for additional housing types and greater opportunities for these types of developments that are often occupied by recent graduates, young families, and those that may wish to downsize. Consideration 2: Affordability level and percentage of units There has been significant comment and discussion on providing for a greater percentage of affordable units and providing a greater percentage of units that are deeply affordable. Making significant changes to the percentage of affordable units or the targeted AMI would result in projects that are not feasible. This would result in “incentives” that would not be used because they would not provide a benefit. The purpose of the AHI are to allow for a greater number of units than may otherwise be constructed. The intent of the AHI presented in May 2022 was to provide a sufficient incentive that developers of market rate housing could include affordable units in their proposals, and the AHI would allow for developers that were already constructing affordable units to add more units to their projects. PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 10 Posed as a policy question: “Can we increase the affordable housing levels by decreasing the AMI or requiring a different proportion of units?” it is important to consider that if a “gap” is created, it must be filled with a grant or subsidy, or the project cannot be built. The lower the average AMI, the lower the rent collected, and the lower the amount a bank will loan the project to get it built. As shown in the example below, as rent decreases from market rate, the cost of the development does not decrease. However, the maximum loan that a bank is willing to lend decreases, which creates a gap in financing that must be filled. The “annual cash flow” column assumes this gap is filled with equity. With the decrease in rent paid, the annual cash flow is lower and produces less favorable terms for an owner or investor. As AMI decreases, the gap increases and the annual cash flow decreases. The gap must be filled for a project to be developed and a project must have sufficient cash flow for operational expenses, maintenance, and other costs. 80 1-Bed Units Rent per Unit Development Cost Financing Annual Cash Flow Maximum Loan 35% Equity Gap Market Rate $1,841 $23,200,000 $15,912,404 $8,120,000 No gap $256,264 80% AMI $1,537 $23,200,000 $12,505,567 $8,120,000 -$2,574,433 $201,398 70% AMI $1,345 $23,200,000 $10,232,535 $8,120,000 -$4,847,465 $166,724 60% AMI $1,153 $23,200,000 $8,199,392 $8,120,000 -$6,880,608 $132,048 50% AMI $961 $23,200,000 $6,046,360 $8,120,000 -$9,033,640 $97,375 40% AMI $769 $23,200,000 $3,893,216 $8,120,000 -$11,186,784 $62,699 30% AMI $576 $23,200,000 $1,740,185 $8,120,000 -$13,339,815 $28,025 A second policy question considers the effect of 50% market rate units and 50% affordable units at 30% AMI and 50% AMI. As with the first example, there is a gap that needs to be filled with equity, and the project has a much lower cash flow than the market rate development. 80 1-Bed Units Development Cost Financing Annual Cash Flow Maximum Loan 35% Equity Gap 40 Market Rate, 40 @ 30% AMI $23,200,000 $8,826,294 $8,120,000 -$6,253,706 $142,144 40 Market Rate, 40 @ 50% AMI $23,200,000 $10,979,382 $8,120,000 -$4,100,618 $177,979 Assumptions for both examples: • Annual Cash Flow assumes that the "gap" is filled with equity • Development cost is based on $290,000 per unit • Considers reserves/operating expenses of $380,000 per year, 23% of effective gross income for Market Rate rents • Maximum Bank Loan is based on a debt coverage ratio (DCR) of 1.25, 5% interest rate, and a 30-year term • Vacancy rate is 6% • Market Rate Rent Source: CBRE 2022 Greater Salt Lake Area Multifamily Market Report, average Downtown SLC rent • Affordable rents by AMI based on 2022 HUD Income Limits, 1.5 household for a 1-bedroom apartment, 30% of income Based on the direction from the Commission and in response to public comment, staff reached out to members of the local development community, particularly those that are experienced with developing affordable housing and smaller scale developments, and asked them to test the feasibility of the proposed AHI. Staff and the developers created scenarios and proformas to show the performance of the AHI, model their feasibility, and assess how they could be modified to accommodate lower incomes and/or provide for a greater number of affordable units. See Attachment B for details. Chris Zarek of Cowboy Partners, who develops market rate and affordable housing, modeled the existing AHI, and based on the results, additional incentive options for more deeply affordable units and larger units. A model was created for a scenario in the D-2, Downtown Support, zoning district to show how the three options for AHI incentives presented in May 2022 could apply with concrete/steel construction in zoning districts that allow for greater height and steel construction. These options are as follows: PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 11 • 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; Generally, the modeling showed a sufficient return for development. However, with one additional story, the return decreased. The return increased with additional floors, and, with some incentives, was greater (See Attachment G.1). A second model and scenario demonstrate how the AHI could apply in zoning districts that allow for approximately 50’ in height (ex. FB-UN2 or TSA Transition zone). This building would have a concrete podium base with parking and wood frame construction and residential units above it. This shows the potential for a change from a 4-over-1 to a 5-over-1 building. The incentives could allow for an increase from four wood frame residential floors above the first floor of parking to five wood frame residential floors above the first floor of parking. This example shows that as buildings increase in height, there are different building code requirements, like a change from Type V to Type III construction, which provides additional fire protection, and results in higher construction costs. Additionally, depending on the type and location of the building, less parking may be provided (See Attachment G.2). Based on these scenarios, staff is not recommending an increase in the percentage of units required as affordable. To address the issue of providing more deeply affordable units, Cowboy Partners modeled additional scenarios with lower percentage of units at more deeply affordable levels, and with larger unit options. The model indicated these scenarios provided a sufficient return for development and four additional incentive options have been added to the three originally proposed. The new options are below: • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; or • 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; or • 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or • 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms. An important consideration is that the AHI allow new affordable housing developments to construct more units than are allowed with the existing zoning. Amanda Dillon of GIV Group, who develops affordable housing, prepared scenarios to show the number of units that could have been added to existing projects with the proposed AHI. See Attachment G.3 for details. A summary is as follows: • Denver Apartments (permanent supportive housing) increase from 22 to 53 units • Avia (20% of units at 50% AMI, 4% LIHTC*) increase from 286 to 367 units • Citizens West 2&3 (100% affordable, 25-50% AMI, 9% LIHTC) increase from 80 to 114 units *LIHTC = Low Income Housing Tax Credit Josh Green of Alchemy Development developed a proforma to model the additional housing types in the single- and two-family neighborhoods. The proforma included rental and ownership options in lower and higher value neighborhoods to assess how the AHI may apply in different areas of the city. See Attachment G.4 for details. In summary, for the single- and two-family zoning districts, the original proposal for the AHI may not provide sufficient profit for new development. For ownership units, the fourplex provides the PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 12 greatest return. For rental units, the townhouses or rowhouses provide the highest net operating income, but, depending on the goals of the owner, may not be sufficient. The proposed modifications also include focus group recommendations to preserve existing housing in the single- and two-family zoning districts. This modification, discussed in the following section, may increase the likelihood for profit for homeowners or developers. Alternatively, increasing the maximum AMI for ownership housing may make it more likely to be constructed and does not require a financial incentive on behalf of the city or another entity. Consideration 3: Neighborhood impacts The focus group discussed several mitigation options based on the comments from the Planning Commission and the public and came to a consensus on the following recommendations: • The removal of the proximity to transit and adjacency to arterial roads requirement for additional housing types in the single- and two-family zoning districts. This opens the AHI up to all areas of the single- and two-family zoning districts. This requirement was the subject of many public comments. The intent of the requirement was to encourage additional housing units in areas that are served by frequent transit (rail or bus service with 15-minute headways during peak periods) or are adjacent to arterial roads, which often have greater intensities of development. However, this requirement proved difficult because the location and frequency of the non-fixed bus routes has changed several times in the past few years. Additionally, some areas of the city were excluded and this raised concerns regarding the equity of the AHI and how they applied in different neighborhoods. • An emphasis on the preservation of existing housing. Members of the focus group did not want to see existing housing demolished. Many existing housing units are naturally more affordable than new housing units. This recommendation is addressed in the revisions by allowing for a second detached dwelling on a lot if the existing dwelling is maintained. As with the previous proposal, existing dwellings may be divided into multiple units provided other development standards are met. It decreases the affordability requirement when an existing dwelling is preserved from 50% of units to at least one of the units. More than two detached dwellings on a lot would require a cottage development. See the single- and two-family section above for additional information and graphics as to how this could be implemented. The graphics are also in Attachment B. • Additional design standards for new housing types in single- and two-family zoning districts. The focus group identified the design of the additional housing types and open space as potential issues. Through discussions with staff, there is additional language that requires 50% durable building materials; a building entrance with an entry porch, canopy, or awning; and an open space requirement for a yard, patio, or other outdoor area. See pages 13-14 in Attachment A for specific requirements. Consideration 4: Administration and enforcement The city anticipates that staff will be needed to administer the AHI program. The amount of staff time necessary will depend on the number of projects that use the AHI and the specific AHI adopted. There is additional language added to the AHI to allow the city to contract with a third party for administration of the incentives. Administration will need to include the following: • Preparing and recording restrictive covenant agreement. • Preparing administrative guidelines and providing general support regarding the incentives and approval process. • Reviewing of annual reports and auditing for compliance. There is additional language added detailing the requirements of these reports and allowing submittal of the copy of the report provided to Utah Housing Corporation, Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Housing PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 13 Authority of Salt Lake City, Housing Connect or other sources approved by the Department of Community and Neighborhoods to satisfy this requirement. • Noncompliance shall be cured or will result in fines or an enforcement action. This may include a lien placed on the property or revocation of the business license associated with the property. • The city may contract with another entity for reporting and compliance review. The current proposal includes additional language on reporting, compliance, and enforcement. The properties using the AHI would be required to submit an annual report and a restrictive covenant would be placed on the property. Key points include the following: • Annual Reporting and Auditing – There is additional language requiring annual reporting from the property owner. This can be through reporting for another entity or by meeting the city’s requirements. These include providing information on the dwelling units, rental rates, occupancy, and income verification. • Definitions are added and clarified for affordable housing, affordable rental unit, and affordable homeownership unit. • Enforcement – The penalties have been increased. The fine will be set annually in the Consolidated Fee Schedule and there is an additional fine that is the difference between the affordable monthly rent and the market rate rent. If fines are not paid, a lien may be placed on the property. The business license for the property may also be revoked and there are additional penalties for those whose license has been revoked. • Affordable Homeownership Unit o The city will have a first option on future sales to ensure that the housing unit remains affordable. o Owners will need to meet income requirements at the time of purchase. • Affordable Rental Unit o Through administrative requirements, unless otherwise required for the development, if a resident’s income increases to market rate, the resident will be switched to a market rate unit/rate, or, if not available, may remain in the unit. Consideration 5: Infrastructure impacts It is the responsibility of developers to provide service to new development. During the review process, infrastructure needs, like water and sewer are identified, and new or upgraded service may be required to be installed by the developer. This is typically handled during the building permit process. If a water, sewer, or storm drain line does not have adequate capacity for new housing units, a developer is required to increase the capacity. This is similar for other utilities. The city plans for future growth in various master plan documents. This includes the city’s water supply. The Public Utilities Department determines the amount of water available for all future development. Staff discussed this issue with Laura Briefer, the Public Utilities Director. The city’s most recent water supply and demand plan (2019) projects to the year 2060 and takes into consideration land use changes associated with densification, as well as land use changes in the Northwest Quadrant of the City, including the inland port and new correctional facility. The plan also takes into consideration the city’s best projections for climate change impacts to water supply and demand. The conclusion of the 2019 plan is that more water conservation is needed to meet the cumulative projected population and land use driven demands by the year 2060. Public Utilities will conduct a water supply and demand iteration this year that may explore demand factors for the needs of the Great Salt Lake and environmental flows. Recent state water rights policy changes have paved the way for the city to include environmental water needs, especially for the Great Salt Lake, as part of the long-term water supply and demand planning. At the request of planning staff, public utilities provided information on single-family residential water usage as compared with small and large multifamily dwellings for 2018-2022, as available. PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 14 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS The average monthly usage for single-family residential dwellings is between 12,000-15,000 gallons per month. Much of this is for outdoor watering and in the winter water usage is approximately 6,500-7,000 gallons per month. Large multifamily buildings have a more consistent year-round water usage per unit and there are greater hardscape impacts. For the five sample buildings planning staff requested information, a mix of high-rise and wood frame construction with a total of about 725 units, the monthly water usage averaged approximately 2,000 gallons per month, per unit. Staff also requested information on two fourplexes and a cottage court (10 units). These averaged approximately 3,000 gallons per month, per unit. Multifamily dwellings are likely to have fewer residents per unit and less outdoor watering. Multifamily dwellings have more consistent year-round usage compared to single- family properties, but overall, based on the units examined, have much lower water usage per unit when compared to a single-family home. The focus group made the following additional recommendations for future zoning/subdivision text amendments: • ADU/condo subdivisions – This would allow for the subdivision of a property with an ADU. This may be accomplished with a condo unit or otherwise dividing the property. There are financial benefits to subdividing the property and it would allow for additional ownership opportunities for ADU residents. There would not be an affordability requirement. • Modifying unit legalization – Focus group members wanted to see changes to the existing regulations for unit legalization. Generally, there was a desire to see fewer regulations, an emphasis on legalizing units that comply with fire/life safety requirements and removal of the requirement that the unit was in place before 1995. • Transfer of development rights from existing affordable properties to others – Members of the focus group wanted to see a program that allowed for the transfer of development rights from existing properties to other properties. This has the potential to preserve existing housing units where property owners do not want to make changes and allow for additional housing units where new development is desired. There are several other modifications made to the draft. They address the following items: • Changes related to the Downtown Building Heights Text Amendment o CG (General Commercial): Permit additional height and change the mapped area to the Depot District proposed with the Downtown Building Heights text amendment. o D-1 (Central Business): Clarity when administrative design review would apply. o D-2 (Downtown Support): Increase in additional height to provide greater benefit. o D-3 (Downtown Warehouse/Residential): Increase in additional height to be compatible with the increase in height proposed with the amendments. o D-4 (Downtown Secondary Central Business): Allow for administrative design review where mapped additional height is permitted. o GMU: Increase in additional height to be compatible with the increase in height proposed with the amendments. Removes the Planned Development requirement in the GMU zoning district. • Landscaping in Commercial Zoning Districts – Based on the feedback from the public, staff modified the landscaping requirement so that it can be met through an open space requirement that includes patios, courtyards, rooftop gardens, and other options. • RMU-35 and RMU-45 – Allows for additional height abutting single- and two-family zoning districts. PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 15 STAFF RECOMMENDATION NEXT STEPS • Annual reporting – There is additional language describing the annual reporting requirements. This can be satisfied with a report as required by another approved entity or by meeting the city’s requirements, which includes providing information on the dwelling units, rental rates, occupancy, and income verification. • Enforcement – Reports of noncompliance and or other violations will be investigated as necessary. The fines for noncompliance are increased. A lien may be placed on the property for fines and the business license revoked. • Removal of modifications to yards/setbacks and building coverage. This simplifies the proposal and requires development proposals to meet the yards or setbacks and building coverage of the base zoning district. • Housekeeping and clarifying language – There are housekeeping modifications and clarifying language in several sections. These are identified and noted in the draft. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the city Council for the proposed Affordable Housing Incentives Text Amendment, with the ability to amend the ordinance language as necessary to ensure consistency with other code sections and references in the zoning ordinance. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. After the recommendation is provided, staff will compile the information and transmit the proposal to City Council for a briefing, public hearing, and potential adoption. PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 16 ATTACHMENT A: Proposed 21A.52 Zoning Incentives Text 1 17 New Chapter: April 2023 Public Hearing Draft 21A.52 Zoning Incentives 21A.52.010 Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to establish zoning incentives to support achieving adopted goals within the City’s adopted plans and policy documents. 21A.52.020 Applicability: This chapter applies as indicated within each subsection. 21A.52.030 Relationship to base zoning districts and overlay zoning districts: Unless otherwise indicated in this chapter, all base zoning district or overlay zoning district standards and requirements take precedence except as indicated in this section. 21A.52.040 Approval Process: Any process required by this title shall apply to this chapter unless specifically exempt or modified within this chapter. A. The Planned Development process in 21A.55 may be modified as indicated within this chapter. B. The Design Review process in 21A.59 may be modified as indicated within this chapter. C. Developments authorized by this chapter are exempt from 21A.10.020.B.1. 21A.52.050 Affordable Housing Incentives: A. Purpose: The Affordable Housing Incentives encourage the development of affordable housing. The provisions within this section facilitate the construction of affordable housing by allowing more inclusive development than would otherwise be permitted in the base zoning districts. Housing constructed using the incentives is intended to be compatible in form with the neighborhood and provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play. B. Applicability: The provisions in this section provide optional incentives to development projects that include affordable housing units. Unless specifically stated below, all other applicable provisions in the base zoning district or overlay districts shall apply. C. Uses: Additional housing types are allowed in zones subject to compliance with this section. D. Reporting and Auditing: Property owners who use the incentives of this chapter are required to provide a report that demonstrates compliance with this section and any additional approvals associated with the use of incentives. The report shall be submitted annually by April 30th and shall be reflective of the financial status at the end of the previous calendar year. The report shall be submitted to the Director of Community and Neighborhoods or successor. 1. Annual Report and Auditing: Each property owner shall submit a report that demonstrates compliance with this chapter. a. If applicable, the property owner shall submit a copy of the annual report(s) provided to Utah Housing Corporation, Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, Housing Connect, or similar funding Underline = New text Strikethough = Text removed 2 2 source as determined by the Department of Community and Neighborhoods, or successors, confirming compliance with affordable housing conditions, including tenant income and rent rates. b. If an annual report is not submitted as required in 21A.52.050.D.1.a above, the property owner shall provide a report that includes, but is not limited to the following: (1) The property location, tax ID number, and legal description. (2) Property owner name, mailing address, and email address. (3) Information on the dwelling units and tenants of the property receiving the incentives that includes: (A) The total number of dwelling units (B) The number of bedrooms of each dwelling unit (C) The rental rate of each dwelling unit (D) Identify the dwelling units that comply with the level of affordability identified in the approval to use the incentives and a statement that the dwelling units are in compliance with the approval requirements. (E) Identify any change in occupancy to the units that are required to be affordable under this section, including a change in the number of people residing in each unit and any change in tenant. Personal data is not required to be submitted. (F) Confirm that income verification for all tenants was performed on an annual basis. (G) Identify any differences in rent between the agreed upon rental rate in the approval to use the incentives and the actual rent received for the identified affordable dwelling units. (H) Identify any instance where an affordable dwelling unit was no longer rented at the agreed upon level of affordability, the length of time the dwelling unit was not in compliance with the agreed upon level of affordability, and any remedy that was taken to address the noncompliance. 2. Review of Annual Report: The Director of Community and Neighborhoods shall review the report to determine if the report is complete. 3. Within 30 days of receipt of a complete report, the Director of Community and Neighborhoods shall provide the property owner with written notice that: a. Identifies whether the property is in compliance. b. Identify any deficiency in the information provided by the owner. c. Assesses any penalty that is due as a result of an identified noncompliance. 4. After receipt of the notice from the Director of Community and Neighborhoods that indicates noncompliance, the property owner shall: a. Shall cure the identified noncompliance within 30 days of such notice and concurrently submit an updated report of then-current operations of the property that demonstrates compliance; or b. Property owners can request an extension in writing prior to the expiration of the 30-day cure period identified above. The request shall include an explanation of the efforts to correct the non-compliance and the reason the extension is needed. The Director of Community and Neighborhoods will review and determine if the timeframe and extension are appropriate and 3 19 whether or not fines shall be stayed during any approved extension. Upon expiration of the extension granted by the Director the property owner shall submit an updated report of then-current operations of the property that demonstrates compliance. c. Pay any fine or fee that is assessed pursuant to 21A.20.040 due to any noncompliance within 14 days of achieving compliance. Any fine or fee shall be assessed from the first identified date that the property is not in compliance. d. Violations of this Chapter shall be investigated and prosecuted pursuant to 21A.20, except as set forth below in 21A.52.050.E. 5. The city may contract with another entity for review of the requirements in this section. E. Enforcement: Violations of this Chapter, or the restrictive covenant on the property as set forth in 21A.52.050.F.1, shall be investigated and prosecuted pursuant to 21A.20. The city shall have the additional remedies for violations as set forth below. 1. Lien on Property. If the property owner fails to make payment of the outstanding fines, then after 90 days or when fines reach $5,000, the division will issue a statement of outstanding fines. If the property owner fails to make payment within 14 days, then the division may certify the fines set forth in the statement to the Salt Lake County Treasurer. After entry by the Salt Lake County Treasurer, the amount entered shall have the force and effect of a valid judgment of the district court, is a lien on the property, and shall be collected by the treasurer of the county in which the property is located at the time of the payment of general taxes. Upon payment of the amount set forth in the statement, the judgment is satisfied, the lien is released from the property, and receipt shall be acknowledged upon the general tax receipt issued by the treasurer. 2. Revocation of Business License. Upon a determination of the division that the property is in violation of this Chapter the city may suspend or revoke the business license associated with the property. Any suspension or revocation of a license shall not be imposed until a hearing is first held before the Director of Community and Neighborhoods or his/her successor. The licensee shall be given at least 14 days’ notice of the time and place of the hearing, together with the nature of the charges against the licensee. The licensee may appear in person or through an officer, agent or attorney, to introduce evidence on the licensee’s behalf, and to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The Director of Community and Neighborhoods shall make a decision based upon the evidence introduced at the hearing and issue a written decision. The licensee may appeal to an appeals hearing officer and thereafter to district court pursuant to 21A.16. If the license is revoked or suspended it shall thereafter be unlawful for any person to engage in or use, or permit to be used any property for any business with respect to which the license has been suspended or revoked until a license shall be granted upon appeal or due to the property’s compliance with this Chapter. No person whose license has been revoked, and no person associated or connected with such person in the conduct of such business, shall be granted a license for the same purpose for a period of six months after the revocation has occurred. The Director may, for good cause, waive the prohibition against persons formerly associated or connected with an individual who has had a license revoked. 4 4 F. Eligibility Standards: Developments shall meet the criteria below to be eligible for the authorized incentives: 1. Restrictive Covenant Required: a. Any owner who uses the incentives of this chapter shall enter into a legally binding restrictive covenant, the form of which shall be approved by the City Attorney. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of a building using the incentives, the restrictive covenant shall be filed with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The agreement shall provide for the following, without limitation: acknowledge the use of the incentives, the nature of the approval and any conditions thereof, the affordability requirements, the terms of compliance with all applicable regulations, shall guarantee compliance for a term of 30 years, and the potential enforcement actions for any violation of the agreement. The agreement shall be recorded on the property with the Salt Lake County Recorder, guarantees that the affordability criteria will be met for at least 30 years, and is transferrable to any future owner. b. For an affordable homeownership unit, a notice of sale shall be provided to the city and the city shall have a right of first refusal to any sale of the property in accordance with a future sales price that is capped to comply with section 21A.52.050.F.2.b.2 below. 2. The affordable units shall be both income and rent/housing payment restricted. a. Income Restriction - The affordable units shall be made available only to Eligible Households that are qualifying occupants with an annual income at or below the SLC Area Median Income (“AMI”) as applicable for the given affordable unit for Salt Lake City Utah, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro FMR Area (as periodically determined by the HUD and adjusted for household size). b. Rent/Housing Payment Restriction (1) For an affordable rental unit, the monthly rent, including all required housing costs per unit, such as utilities and other charges uniformly assessed to all apartment units other than charges for optional services, shall be set forth in a written lease and shall not exceed, for the term of the lease, the maximum monthly gross rental rate published annually by the Utah Housing Corporation for affordable units located in Salt Lake City for the percentage AMI as applicable for the given affordable unit type. (2) For an affordable homeownership unit, the annualized housing payment, including mortgage principal and interest, private mortgage insurance, property taxes, condominium and/or homeowner's association fees, insurance, and parking, shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the maximum monthly income permissible for the AMI as applicable for the given 5 5 affordable unit, assuming a household size equal to the number of bedrooms in the unit plus one person. 3. Comparable units: Affordable units shall be comparable to market rate units in the development including entrance location, dispersion throughout the building or site, number of bedrooms (unless otherwise permitted), access to all amenities available to the market rate units in the development, or as set forth in the terms of the restrictive covenant. This section does not apply to units in single- and two-family zoning districts. 4. The property owner shall be ineligible for affordable housing incentives pursuant to this Chapter if the property owner or its principals, partners, or agents are under enforcement for any violation of title 11, 18, 20, or 21. G. Incentives: Developments are eligible for the incentives identified in this section. Table 21A.52.050.G establishes the affordability requirements based on the zoning district of the property. Sections 1 through 4 establish the modifications allowed within each zoning district in order to achieve the affordability incentives. To use the incentives, developments shall comply with the criteria applicable to the base zoning districts. Table 21A.52.050.G Incentive Types Types Incentive Type A. Applicable to the single- and two-family zoning districts: FR- 1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R- 1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR- 1A, and SR-3. Dwelling units shall meet the requirements for an affordable rental or homeownership unit affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. New construction: At least 50% of the provided dwelling units shall be affordable. Existing building maintained: A minimum of one of the dwelling units shall be affordable provided the existing building is maintained as required in 21A.52.050.H.1.c. Type B. Applicable to residential multifamily zoning districts: RMF- 30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 An affordable rental unit shall meet a minimum of at least one of the following affordability criteria: 1. 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 60% AMI; 2. 20% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 50% AMI; or 3. 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes averaging no more than 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI. For sale owner occupied units: An affordable homeownership unit shall provide a minimum of 50% of units affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. Type C. Applicable to zoning districts not otherwise specified. Affordable rental or homeownership units shall meet a minimum of at least one of the affordability criteria identified. Any fractional number of units required shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. 6 6 1. 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; 2. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; 3. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; 4. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; 5. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; 6. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or 7. 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms. 1. Single- and Two-Family Zoning Districts: The following housing types: twin home and two-family, three-family dwellings, four-family dwellings, row houses, sideways row houses, and cottage developments are authorized in the FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3 zoning districts provided the affordability requirements in for Type A in Table 21A.52.050.G are met. 2. RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts: The qualifying provisions for density found in the minimum lot area and lot width tables for the RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 zoning districts do not apply and in the RMF- 30 zoning district, the minimum lot size per dwelling unit does not apply, provided the affordability requirements for Type B in Table 21A.52.050.G are met. 3. Incentives in the CB Community Business, CC Corridor Commercial, CG General Commercial, and I Institutional Zoning Districts: a. The following housing types: row houses, sideways row houses, and cottage developments are authorized in zoning districts provided the affordability requirements in subsection b. are complied with; b. To be eligible for the incentives listed in this section, a development shall meet the affordability requirements for Type C in Table 21A.52.050.G. 4. The following incentives are authorized in zoning districts provided the affordability requirements for Type C in Table 21A.52.050.G are complied with: 7 7 (2) Commercial Districts: a. Administrative design review provided the noticing requirements of 21A.10.020.B and the standards in 21A.59 are met. Early engagement notice requirements to recognized organizations are not applicable. b. Additional building height as indicated in the following sections: (1) Residential districts: Zoning District Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive RMU-35 45’ with administrative Design Review, regardless of abutting use or zone. RMU-45 55’ with administrative Design Review, regardless of abutting use or zone. RB May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. Density limitations listed in the land use table do not apply. RMU May build three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. RO May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. Zoning District Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive SNB May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. CB May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. CN May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. CC 45’ with administrative Design Review; additional landscaping may be met by meeting requirements in 21A.52.050.H.3.c.5. CG May build two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. May build three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review for properties in the mapped area in Figure 21A.26.070.G. CSHBD1 105’ and two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. CSHBD2 60’ with administrative Design Review and one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. TSA- Transition May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative review. TSA-Core May build two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative review. (3) Form-based districts: Zoning District Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive FB-UN3 125’ and three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. 8 8 FB-UN2 May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-SC May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-SE May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-UN1 May build up to three stories and 30’ in height. (4) Downtown districts: Zoning District Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive D-1 Administrative Design Review is permitted when a Design Review process is required. D-2 120’ and two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. D-3 180’ and three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. D-4 120’ and three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the stories permitted with administrative Design Review. 375’ and administrative Design Review in mapped area in 21A.30.045.E.2.b. (5) Other districts: Zoning District Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive GMU 180’ and two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. MU 60’ with residential units and administrative Design Review. c. Administrative Design Review is permitted for the following: (6) Buildings in the CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 zoning district that exceed 20,000 square feet in size. (7) Buildings in the CB zoning district that exceed 7,500 gross square feet of floor area for a first-floor footprint or in excess of 15,000 gross square feet floor area. 5. Planned Developments: A Planned Development is not required when the purpose of the planned development is due to the following reasons cited below, subject to approval by other city departments. If a development proposes any modification that is not listed below, planned development approval is required. To be eligible for the incentives in this section, a development shall meet the affordability requirements for the applicable zoning district in Table 21A.52.040. a. Multiple Buildings on a Single Parcel: More than one principal building may be located on a single parcel and are allowed without having public street frontage. This allowance supersedes the restrictions of 21A.36.010.B; b. Principal buildings with frontage on a paved public alley; c. Principal buildings with frontage on a private street; d. Development located in the Community Shopping (CS) “Planned Development Review” in 21A.26.040.C. 9 9 H. Development Regulations: The following development regulations are intended to provide supplemental regulations and modify standards of the base zoning district for the purpose of making the affordable housing incentives more feasible and compatible with existing development. Base zoning standards apply unless specifically modified by this section and are in addition to modifications authorized in subsection 21A.52.050.G. If there are conflicts with design standards, the more restrictive regulation shall apply and take precedence. These standards are not allowed to be modified through the planned development process. 1. Modifications in the FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3 zoning districts: a. Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking space per unit is required. One detached garage or covered parking space, no greater than 250 sq. ft. per unit, may be provided for each unit and these structure(s) may exceed the yard and building coverage requirements for accessory structures. When covered parking is provided, the 250 sq. ft. per unit of covered parking may be combined into a single structure for each required parking stall provided. b. Yards: Minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the development and not to the individual principal buildings within the development. c. Density: (1) Lots approved through a planned development prior to the effective date of this chapter are required to go through a major modification of the planned development to use the incentives. (2) Lots may contain up to four units. Existing lots may be divided such that each unit is on its own lot. The new lots are exempt from minimum lot area and lot width requirements. (3) An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is considered one unit and counts toward the number of units permitted. (4) Arrangement of dwellings: (A) New dwelling units may be arranged in any manner within a building, as a second detached dwelling, as attached units, or a cottage development with three or more detached dwellings, within the buildings that are part of the cottage development. (B) When an existing building is maintained, new units may be added internal to the existing structure, as an addition, or as a second detached dwelling. Any addition must comply with the standards of the base zoning district; however, the addition may contain additional units. 50% of the exterior walls of the existing dwelling, including the front elevation, shall remain as exterior walls. (C) The units shall comply with this section, applicable requirements of the base zoning district, and any applicable overlay district. 10 10 2. Within the RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts the following provisions shall apply: a. Unit Mix: No more than 25% of the units in the development shall be less than 500 square feet to promote a mix of unit sizes. b. Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking space per unit is required in multifamily developments with less than 10 units. c. Yards: The minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the development and not to the individual principal buildings within the development. d. Lot width: Minimum lot width requirements do not apply. 3. In addition to applicable requirements in 1. and 2. above, the following provisions apply to the specific building types listed: a. Row house and Sideways row house (1) Perimeter yard requirements: (A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard of the base zoning district apply. (B) Side yards: A minimum of 10 feet on one side of the building and 6 feet on the other interior side yard unless a greater yard is required by the base zoning district (C) Rear yard: The rear yard of the base zoning district applies. (2) Number of Units: To qualify for incentives in the FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, and SR- 1A zoning districts there is a minimum of three and a maximum of four residential dwelling units per building. (3) Building length facing street: (A) The building length shall not exceed 60 feet or the average of the block face, whichever is less, in FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R -1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R- 2, SR-1, and SR-1A districts; (B) The building length shall not exceed 100 feet in the RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 districts; and (C) The building length shall not exceed 175 feet in other zoning districts. (4) Building entry facing street: At least one operable building entrance on the ground floor is required for each unit facing the primary street facing façade. All units adjacent to a public street shall have the primary entrance on the street facing façade of the building with an unenclosed entry porch, canopy, or awning feature. The entry feature may encroach in the front yard setback, but the encroachment shall not be closer than 5 feet from the front property line. (5) Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials 11 11 proposed to satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the structure. (6) Parking requirement and location: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking space per unit is required. All provided parking shall be located to the side of the street facing building façade, behind a principal structure that has frontage on a street, or within the principal structure subject to any other applicable provision. (7) Garage doors facing street: Garage doors are prohibited on the façade of the building that is parallel to, or located along, a public street. (8) Personal outdoor space: Each unit shall have a minimum outdoor space of 60 square feet where the minimum measurement of any side cannot be less than 6 feet. (9) Glass: The surface area of the façade of each floor facing a street must contain a minimum of 15% glass. (10) Blank wall: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, or architectural detailing at the ground floor level along any street facing façade is 15’. (11) Screening of mechanical equipment: All mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view and sited to minimize their visibility and impact. Examples of siting include on the roof, enclosed or otherwise integrated into the architectural design of the building, or in a rear or side yard area subject to yard location restrictions found in section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, “Obstructions In Required Yards” of this title. Illustration for 21A.52.050.E.3.a.1 Required Setbacks for Public Street Facing Row House 12 12 Illustration for 21A.52.050.E.3.b.1 Required Setbacks for Sideways Row House b. Cottage Development (1) Perimeter yard requirements: (A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard of the base zoning district apply. (B) Side yards: A minimum of 10 feet on one side of the property line and 6 feet on the other interior side yard, unless a greater yard is required by the base zoning district. (C) Rear yard: The rear yard of the base zoning district applies. (2) Setbacks Between Individual Cottages: All cottages shall have a minimum setback of eight feet from another cottage. (3) Area: No cottage shall have more than 850 square feet of gross floor area, excluding basement area. There is no minimum square foot requirement. (4) Building Entrance: All building entrances shall face a public street or a common open space. (5) Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the 13 13 proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the structure. (6) Open Space: A minimum of 250 square feet of common, open space is required per cottage. At least 50% of the open space shall be in a courtyard or other common, usable open space. The development shall include landscaping, walkways or other amenities intended to serve the residents of the development. (7) Personal Outdoor Space: In addition to the open space requirement in this section, a minimum of 120 square feet of private open space is required per cottage. The open space shall provide a private yard area for each cottage and will be separated with a fence, hedge, or other visual separation to distinguish the private space. (8) Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, one off-street parking space per unit is required. All provided parking shall be located to the side of a street facing building façade, behind a principal structure that has frontage on a street, or within the principal structure subject to any other applicable provision. c. In addition to applicable requirements in 21A.52.050.H above, the following provisions apply to all other buildings containing more than two residential units. If the base zone has a greater design standard requirement, that standard applies. (1) Perimeter yard requirements: (A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard setback of the base zoning district apply. (B) Side yards: For housing types not otherwise allowed in the zoning district, a minimum of 10 feet on each side property line, unless a greater setback is required for single-family homes. (C) Rear yards: The rear yard of the base zoning district applies. (2) Building entrances: The ground floor shall have a primary entrance on the street facing façade of the building with an unenclosed entry porch, canopy, or awning feature. Stairs to second floor units are not permitted on street facing elevations. (3) Glass: The surface area of the façade of each floor facing a street must contain a minimum of 15% glass. (4) Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the structure. (5) Open space: Open space area may include landscaped yards, patios, dining areas, and other similar outdoor living spaces. 14 14 All required open space areas shall be accessible to all residents or users of the building. (A) Single- and two-family zoning districts: 120 sq. ft. of open space with a minimum width of 6 ft. shall be provided for each building with a dwelling. (B) All other zoning districts: A minimum of 10% of the land area within the development shall be open space, up to 5,000 square feet. Open space may include courtyards, rooftop and terrace gardens and other similar types of open space amenities. All required open space areas shall be accessible to all residents or users of the building. d. Single- and Two-family Dwellings: No additional design standards except as identified in 21A.24. e. Unit Limits: For overall development sites with more than 125 units, no more than 50% of units shall be designated as affordable units. f. Lots without public street frontage may be created to accommodate developments without planned development approval subject to the following standards: (1) Required yards shall be applied to the overall development site not individual lots within the development. The front and corner yards of the perimeter shall be maintained as landscaped yards; (2) Lot coverage shall be calculated for the overall development not individual lots within the development; and (3) Required off street parking stalls for a unit within the development are permitted on any lot within the development. (4) The subdivision shall be finalized with a final plat and the final plat shall document that the new lot(s) has adequate access to a public street by way of easements or a shared driveway or private street; and (5) An entity, such as a homeowner association, must be established for the operation and maintenance of any common infrastructure. Documentation establishing that entity must be recorded with the final plat. Additional Language: 21A.20.040 Civil Fines A. If the violations are not corrected by the citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at twenty five dollars ($25.00) a day per violation for those properties legally used for purposes that are solely residential uses, and one hundred dollars ($100.00) a day per violation for those properties used for purposes that are not residential uses. B. Affordable housing incentives per 21A.52.050: If the violation(s) are not corrected by the citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at the rate set in the Consolidated Fee Schedule per day per violation. If the violation(s) include renting an affordable rental unit in excess of the approved rental rate then an additional monthly fine shall accrue that is the difference between the market rate of the unit and the approved rental rate that is agreed to by the applicant at the time of approval for a project using the incentives. 15 15 21A.60.020: LIST OF DEFINED TERMS: (Staff note: The following terms would be added to the list of defined terms.) AFFORDABLE HOUSING AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY DWELLING, ROW HOUSE DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT 21A.62.040: DEFINITIONS OF TERMS: (Staff note: The following definitions would be added to the definitions of terms.) AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Affordable housing shall be both income and, as applicable, rent- restricted. The affordable units shall be made available only to individuals and households that are qualifying occupants at or below the applicable percentage of the area median income for the Salt Lake City Utah, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro FMR Area the “SLC Area Median Income” or “AMI”, as periodically determined by HUD and adjusted for household size) and published by the Utah Housing Corporation, or its successor. Affordable housing units must accommodate (30% of gross income for housing costs, including utilities) at least one of the following categories: a. Extremely Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating up to 30% AMI; b. Very Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating up to greater than 30% and up to 50% AMI; or c. Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating greater than 50% and up to 80% AMI AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT: A housing development that meets the criteria in 21A.52.050 DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY: A detached building containing three dwelling units. DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY: A detached building containing four dwelling units. DWELLING, ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where the entry of each unit faces a public street. Units may be stacked vertically and/or attached horizontally. Each attached unit may be on its own lot. DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where the entry of each unit faces a side yard as opposed to the front yard. Units may be stacked vertically and/or attached horizontally. Each attached unit may be on its own lot. 16 16 DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT: A cottage development is a unified development that contains a minimum of two and a maximum of eight detached dwelling units with each unit appearing to be a small single-family dwelling with a common green or open space. Dwellings may be located on separate lots or grouped on one lot. 21A.24.050: R-1/12,000 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide for conventional single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing developments with up to four units on residential neighborhoods with lots twelve thousand (12,000) square feet in size or larger. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. 21A.24.060: R-1/7,000 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide for conventional single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing developments with up to four units on residential neighborhoods with lots not less than seven thousand (7,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. 21A.24.070: R-1/5,000 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide for conventional single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing developments with up to four units on residential neighborhoods with lots not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. 21A.24.110: R-2 SINGLE- AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-2 Single- and Two- Family Residential District is to preserve and protect for single-family dwellings the character of existing neighborhoods which exhibit a mix of predominantly single- and two-family dwellings by controlling the concentration of two-family dwelling units. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play and to promote sustainable and compatible development patterns. 21A.24.170: R-MU RESIDENTIAL/MIXED USE DISTRICT: F. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height shall not exceed seventy five feet (75'), except that nonresidential buildings and uses shall be limited by subsections F1 and F2 of this section. Buildings taller than seventy five feet (75'), up to a maximum of one hundred twenty five feet (125'), may be authorized through the design review process (chapter 21A.59 of 17 17 FIGURE 21A.24.170.F.3 this title) and provided, that the proposed height is located within the one hundred twenty five foot (125') height zone indicated in the map located in subsection F3 of this section. 1. Maximum height for nonresidential buildings: Forty five feet (45'). 2. Maximum floor area coverage of nonresidential uses in mixed use buildings of residential and nonresidential uses: Three (3) floors. 3. One hundred twenty five foot (125') height zone map for the R-MU District: (Staff note: The following use would be added to the existing tables.) 21A.33.020: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS: 18 18 Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District FR -1/ 43, 56 0 FR -2/ 21, 78 0 FR -3/ 12, 00 0 R- 1/ 12, 00 0 R- 1/ 7, 00 0 R- 1/ 5, 00 0 S R -1 S R - 2 S R - 3 R - 2 R M F- 30 R M F- 35 R M F- 45 R M F- 75 R B R - M U - 3 5 R - M U - 4 5 R - M U R O Afforda ble Housin g Develo pment P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 21A.33.030: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS: Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District CBN CG CC Affordable Housing Development P P P 21A.33.070: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS: Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District I Affordable Housing Development P 21A.26.078 … E. Development Standards: … 2. Building Height: The minimum and maximum building heights are found in table 21A.26.078E2, "Building Height Regulations", of this subsection E2. The following exceptions apply: a. The minimum building height applies to all structures that are adjacent to a public or private street. The building shall meet the minimum building height for at least fifty percent (50%) of the width of the street facing building wall. b. Projects that achieve a development score that qualifies for administrative review are eligible for an increase in height. The increase shall be limited to one story of habitable space. The height of the additional story shall be equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. This is in addition to the height authorized elsewhere in this title. Modifications to Existing Affordable Housing References: 19 19 21A.27.040: FB-SC AND FB-SE FORM BASED SPECIAL PURPOSE CORRIDOR DISTRICT: C. FB-SC Building Form Standards: Building form standards are listed in table 21A.27.040.C of this section. TABLE 21A.27.040.C FB-SC BUILDING FORM STANDARDS Permitted Building Forms Multi-Family And Storefront H Maximum building height Maximum building height in the FB-SC is 60 ft. An additional 15 ft. in height (for a total height of 75 ft.) may be permitted for residential uses if a minimum of 10% of the units are affordable housing. 21A.31.010: GENERAL PROVISIONS: … N. Affordable Housing: 1. Notwithstanding the minimum height requirements identified above, any buildings that have ten (10) or more residential units with at least twenty percent (20%) of the units as affordable shall be allowed to have a minimum building height of thirty feet (30'). 2. Affordable housing units within a market rate development shall be integrated throughout the project in an architectural manner. 21A.31.020: G-MU GATEWAY-MIXED USE DISTRICT: … I.Affordable Housing: Notwithstanding the maximum height requirements identified above, any buildings that have at least ten (10) or more residential units with at least twenty percent (20%) of the units as affordable shall be allowed a maximum building height of ninety feet (90'). The affordable units shall be integrated throughout the project in an architectural manner. 21A.55.010: PURPOSE STATEMENT: … 2. Preservation of, or enhancement to, historically significant landscapes that contribute to the character of the City and contribute to the general welfare of the City's residents. … C. Housing: Providing affordable housing or types of housing that helps achieve the City's housing goals and policies: 1. At least twenty percent (20%) of the housing must be for those with incomes that are at or below eighty percent (80%) of the area median income. Affordable housing that meets the requirements of 21A.52.050. 2. The proposal includes housing types that are not commonly found in the existing neighborhood but are of a scale that is typical to the neighborhood. 36 ATTACHMENT B: Single- and Two-Family Zoning District Graphics PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TYPES SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING 37 The City’s Planning Division is considering zoning amendments to encourage the construction of additional affordable housing. This includes adding additional housing types in many areas of the city. ADDITIONAL HOUSING TYPES The proposed amendments would add additional housing types including single-family attached (rowhouses and sideways row houses), fourplexes, triplexes, duplexes, and cottage developments in many areas of the city. This handout has examples of a sideways row house, fourplex, duplex, and what can be built by right in an R-1/7,000 zone. Scaled drawing of sideways row home consistent with proposed regulations. 4 - Unit Townhome Lot Layout Unit # 4 (1,840 SF) Units Lot Size 10,920 SF Building Height 20 FT Building Coverage 3,680 SF (34%) Front Yard Setback 20 FT Side Yard Setbacks 10 FT , 28 FT Rear Yard Setback 25 FT Open Space 7240 SF (66%) Parking 2 Car Attached Garage Per Unit (8 Stalls Total) Scaled drawing of fourplex building consistent with proposed regulations. 4 - Plex Lot Layout Unit # 4 (800 SF) Units Lot Size 7,000 SF Building Height 28 FT Building Coverage 1,600 SF (23%) Front Yard Setback 20 FT Side Yard Setbacks 10 FT , 15 FT Rear Yard Setback 61 FT Open Space 5,400 SF (77%) Parking 5 Surface Stalls AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TYPES SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING 38 Scaled drawing of duplex consistent with proposed regulations. Duplex Lot Layout Unit # 2 (800 SF) Units Lot Size 8,400 SF Building Height 16 FT Building Coverage 1,596 SF (20%) Front Yard Setback 28 FT Side Yard Setbacks 5 FT , 18 FT Rear Yard Setback 74 FT Open Space 6,804 SF (80%) Parking 2 Car Garage Scaled drawing of single-family home consistent with the existing R-1/7,000 zoning regulations. Single Family Home Developed Under Current R-1-7000 Standards Unit # 1 Unit (4632) Lot Size 7,000 Building Height 28 FT Building Coverage 2,800 SF (40%) Dwelling (2,316 SF) Detached Garage (484 SF) Front Yard Setback 20 FT Side Yard Setbacks 6 FT , 15 FT Rear Yard Setback 40 FT Open Space 3,045 SF (43%) Parking 2 Car Detached Garage ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner // sara.javoronok@slcgov.com // 801.535.7625 39 The update to the Affordable Housing Incentives adds provisions to encourage the preservation of existing housing. This includes allowing a second, detached dwelling on a property when the existing dwelling is maintained. This handout depicts several examples of this type of development. Development proposed using the affordable housing incentives must meet all other city regulations, including building, fire, and public utilities requirements. BUILDING #1 EXISTING DWELLING Includes Internal Basement ADU Option Building Height 16.5 FT Building Coverage Dwelling (1,100 SF) Front Yard Setback 36 FT Side Yard Setbacks 6 FT, 28 FT Rear Yard Setback 106 FT Parking 2 Surface Parking Stalls INTERNAL BASEMENT ADU OPTION Basement Square Footage 1,100 SF Basement Unit Parking 1 Street Parking Stall BUILDING #2 Building#1 facing public street, Building#2 behind Building#1 Building Height 16.5 FT Building Coverage Dwelling (1,178 SF) Detached Garage (550 SF) Front Yard Setback 110 FT from Front Property Line Side Yard Setbacks 6 FT, 32 FT Rear Yard Setback 25 FT Parking 2 Car Detached Garage LOT DETAILS Lot Size 11,776 SF (Width 64', Depth 184') # of Units 3 Units (2 Single-family Detached Dwelling Units & 1 Internal Basement ADU) Building Coverage 2,828 SF (24%) Open Space 6,995 SF (59%) Updated | March 2023 PRESERVATION OF EXISTING HOUSING R-1-5000 SCENARIOS 40 SCENARIO #1 SCENARIO #2 SCENARIO #3 Accessory Dwelling Unit P AHI - 2nd Single Family P Dwelling P P P 2 Car Garage: 440 sf Lot Coverage: 34% 2nd Single Family Dwelling: 600 sf Lot Coverage: 38% Accessory Dwelling Unit: 720 sf Lot Coverage: 40% Lot Size (Per Scenario): 4,800 sf Principal Dwelling (Per Scenario): 1,200 sf Min. Front Yard Setback: 20 ft Min. Rear Yard Setback: 20 ft Min. Side Yard Setback: 4 ft, 10 ft 2 Car Garage Updated | March 2023 PRESERVATION OF EXISTING HOUSING R-1-7000 SCENARIO 41 SCENARIO #1 P AHI - 2nd Single Family Dwelling P 2nd Single Family Dwelling: 1,300 sf Lot Coverage: 40% Lot Size: 7,000 sf Principal Dwelling: 1,500 sf Min. Front Yard Setback: 20 ft Min. Rear Yard Setback: 25 ft Min. Side Yard Setback: 6 ft, 10 ft 42 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner // sara.javoronok@slcgov.com // 801.535.7625 Legend Single and Two-Family Zoning Districts FR-1/43,560 FR-2/21,780 FR-3/12,000 SR-1 SR-1A SR-3 R-1/12,000 R-1/7,000 R-1/5,000 R-2 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles County of Salt Lake, Utah Geospatial Resource Center, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA SINGLE & TWO-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS 43 ATTACHMENT C: Updated Affordable Housing Incentives Document PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 44 UPDATED | MARCH 2023 SALT LAKE CITY | PLANNING DIVISION AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES PLANNING DIVISION | SLC.GOV/PLANNING | VERSION 1.1 45 [ THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ] PLANNING DIVISION | UPDATED MARCH 2023 SLC.GOV/PLANNING 46 CONTENTS 5 Introduction 6 Project Process 7 Focus Group Recommendations 9 Summary of Changes 10 Program Basics, Administration & Enforcement 12 Multi-family & Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 18 Waive Planned Development Requirement for Specific Developments 20 Allow Housing on Institutional Lands 21 Allow Additional Housing Types 22 Modify Density Limits in Residential Multi-family Zones 24 Single & Two-Family Zoning Districts 30 Next Steps 31 Appendix A: Draft Language SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING 451 S. State Street | Room 406 P.O. Box | 145480 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 - 5480 47 4 INTRODUCTION Introduction 5 48 This proposal is for affordable housing incentives. Over time, and particularly in recent years, housing in Salt Lake City has become less affordable. There are many variables affecting housing prices, including zoning regulations. The goal of the proposed amendments are to increase affordable housing throughout Salt Lake City. Where multifamily housing is permitted, the incentives are designed to encourage developers to include affordable housing in projects and allow affordable housing developers to build more housing units. The incentives also allow for small increases in housing units throughout the city. The proposed amendments would incentivize the construction of affordable housing through modifications to the zoning requirements. The following pages describe the project process, the proposed zoning regulations, the changes to them since presented to the Planning Commission in May 2022, and the next steps in the project process. For additional background and historic information on context and housing in Salt Lake City, see the Affordable Housing Document from 2022: www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Projects/ Affordable%20Housing%20Overlay/affordable_housing_12_28_21_draft_ordinance.pdf. PROJECT PROCESS 6 Project Process 49 The project was initiated in 2019 to address increasing concerns regarding housing affordability and to implement the city’s 2018 housing plan, Growing SLC. It was initially envisioned as an overlay district and called “Affordable Housing Overlay”. Since the proposal applies differently in various zoning districts, an “overlay” is not applicable, and the “Affordable Housing Incentives” are now the first section in a new incentives chapter in the city’s zoning regulations. Initial outreach on the proposal included an online survey in late 2019/early 2020. From the initial survey results, staff developed a draft framework for the incentives that serves as the basis for the current proposal. This was presented online in a StoryMap and staff requested additional feedback from the community in a survey. Based on this feedback, staff developed draft affordable housing incentives amendments to the city’s zoning regulations. Staff presented these draft amendments to the community in the winter and spring of 2022 and to the Planning Commission at a hearing in May 2022. There was a significant amount of public comment at the meeting and it is included with the staff report. The Planning Commission provided additional feedback. Staff researched options to respond to the feedback and worked with developers on scenarios and proformas. In fall 2022, the Office of the Mayor convened a focus group comprised of community members, developers, policy advisors, and housing advocates to review the incentives and respond to feedback. This revised draft addresses these comments and incorporates changes recommended by the focus group. This document further describes the draft zoning amendments and the changes that have been made to them. The text for the proposed zoning amendments that would implement these changes are located in Appendix A. Additional information is available on the project page: www.slc.gov/planning/affordable-housing. FOCUS GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS Focus Group Recommendations 7 50 AFFORDABILITY LEVEL 2022 PROPOSAL FOCUS GROUP RECOMMENDATION UPDATED PROPOSAL MIXED-USE/MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS A project is required to do one of the following: • 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms. Incentives that require a higher percentage of affordable units are unlikely to be feasible for market rate developers. Lower number of affordable units are required to provide for more deeply affordable and larger units, otherwise the incentives will not work. The affordability requirement was expanded to address size and reduce displacement as household income increases as indicated below: • 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms. • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; or • 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; or • 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or • 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms. SINGLE- AND TWO-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS 50% of units need to be affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. In the single- and two-family zoning districts the proposed incentives may not provide sufficient profit for new development. Lower the required percentage of affordable units to one when the existing dwelling is maintained. New construction: At least 50% of the provided dwelling units shall be affordable; or Existing building maintained: A minimum of one of the dwelling units shall be affordable provided the existing building is maintained. 8 Focus Group Recommendations 51 NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS 2022 PROPOSAL FOCUS GROUP RECOMMENDATION UPDATED PROPOSAL PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT To be eligible for the incentives single-family and two-family residential zoning districts, a property shall be within a ¼ mile of high frequency transit or located adjacent to arterial streets. Remove proximity to transit requirements due to frequency of non-fixed transit route changes and to improve equitable distribution of additional housing types. The proximity to transit and adjacency to arterial roads requirement for additional housing types in the single- and two-family zoning districts has been removed and no longer applies to the AHI. The incentives would apply to all areas of single- and two- family residential districts. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS • Building entrances on street facing façades. • Glass on 15% of surface area on street facing facades. • One off-street parking space required per unit. Additional development and design standards needed. • Determined that a blank wall standard wasn’t necessary. • Determined that additional parking wasn’t necessary. Additional standards added as indicated below: • Clarified location requirements for building entrances. • Added 50% durable materials requirement (fiber cement, brick, concrete, etc.) for street facing facades. • Added 120 sq. ft. open space requirement with a minimum width of 6 ft. open space requirement per unit. ENFORCEMENT 2022 PROPOSAL FOCUS GROUP RECOMMENDATION UPDATED PROPOSAL Require a restrictive covenant and annual reporting for each property. Increase city capacity to or use third party to review annual reporting. Increase city capacity for enforcement. Additional language provided on enforcement, annual reporting, and the restrictive covenant requirements. Provision to allow for third party review. INFRASTRUCTURE 2022 PROPOSAL FOCUS GROUP RECOMMENDATION UPDATED PROPOSAL Existing city requirements are for developers to pay for necessary infrastructure including water, sewer, and storm water. The city has an existing water supply and demand plan from 2019 that will be updated in 2023. It takes into consideration infill and Northwest Quadrant development. Existing plans address future water needs and emphasize system conservation. None. Development must provide necessary upgrades to city services. City plans and policies will continue to be updated and assess for adequate infrastructure. Summary of Changes 9 52 SUMMARY OF CHANGES There are a number of modifications to the draft proposal presented to the Planning Commission in May 2022. Several of the major modifications are summarized below and further described in this document. • The removal of the proximity to transit and adjacency to arterial roads requirement for additional housing types in the single- and two-family zoning districts. This opens the incentive up to all areas of the city within single- and two-family zoning districts, increasing its equity and availability. • An emphasis on the preservation of existing housing. Members of the community and focus group did not want to see existing housing demolished. Many existing housing units are naturally more affordable than new housing units. This recommendation is addressed in the revisions by allowing for a second detached dwelling on a lot if the existing dwelling is maintained. It decreases the affordability requirement when an existing dwelling is preserved from 50% of units to at least one of the units. • Additional design standards for new housing types in single- and two-family zoning districts. The focus group identified the design of the additional housing types and open space as potential issues. There is additional language that requires durable building materials, an entry feature, and open space. • Removal of provisions that allowed for reduction from some development standards. The yards and setbacks of the base zoning district apply to the perimeter of the development and may not be reduced. No increase in building coverage is permitted. • Enforcement penalties clarified. Enforcement of the incentives to ensure that units are occupied as required was a frequent comment from members of the community. Staff has detailed the annual reporting and auditing requirements and increased the fines that could apply. Noncompliance can result in a lien placed on the property for fines and revocation of the business license associated with the property. • Additional incentive options for deeply affordable and larger units. Members of the focus group had concerns regarding the proposed affordability level and percentage of units required to be affordable. Staff and members of the development community presented information on the feasibility of the existing incentive proposal and the viability of requiring more deeply affordable units and/or a greater percentage of affordable units. Options for a lower percentage of more deeply affordable and larger units are provided. • Modifications for consistency with the proposed Downtown Building Heights text amendment. The Planning Commission recommended changes to zoning districts within the downtown in August 2022 and, while these have not been adopted, staff is proposing changes to the proposal to be consistent and compatible with the proposed changes to these zoning districts. 10 Program Basics, Administration & Enforcement 53 PROGRAM BASICS, ADMINISTRATION & ENFORCEMENT GENERAL STANDARDS • Except for the single- and two-family zoning districts, there are requirements that the affordable units are comparable to market rate units. This includes the location of the entrance, dispersion of the units throughout the building or site, number of bedrooms, and access to all amenities available to the market rate units in the development. • For overall development sites with more than 125 units, no more than 50% of units shall be designated as affordable units. • The proposal does not change other city requirements, incluidng building codes, fire codes, or public utilities requirements. ADMINISTRATION & ENFORCEMENT The city anticipates that additional staff time will be needed to administer the incentives program. The amount of staff time necessary will depend on the number of projects that use the incentives, and the specific incentives adopted. Administration will include the following: • Preparing and recording a restrictive covenant agreement. • Reviewing annual reports for compliance. This will assess whether the dwelling units, owner, and occupants are in compliance with the requirements. • Projects that require annual reports to be provided to Utah Housing Corporation, Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, Housing Connect, or others may submit that report in lieu of the city reporting requirements. • Reports of noncompliance and or other violations will be investigated as necessary. A lien may be placed on the property for fines and the business license revoked. • •= ·········· ········•• -•111'1'11••·••' ■■■l'"l'l'l'■■Jl■ 1!!!!ll■•••■1 ••••• ••••• 1 ···••111'•·•· ■ 11••····· ., • ■ •• ii.... 11 54 12 Multi-family and Mixed-use Zoning 55 MULTI-FAMILY & MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS PROPOSAL Permit additional height between 1-3 stories (approximately 10’ per story), depending on the zone, in various zoning districts that permit multifamily housing. Allow for administrative Design Review when a Design Review process is required. WHAT IS CHANGING FROM MAY 2022? There are several zoning districts where the height permitted is changing from what was previously proposed. The “Proposed Maximum Height with AH Incentives” column identifies what is now proposed. The changes are identified in a footnote at the bottom of the page. The changes include the following: • Consistency with the proposed Downtown Building Heights Amendments. • Four additional options for more deeply affordable or larger units. • Modifications to encourage greater flexibility and encourage more affordable units. The simplified administrative design review process for many zoning districts remains. When a public hearing is required, the approval process can take approximately 4-6 months and an administrative design review process could shorten this process by 2-3 months. Multi-family and Mixed-use Zoning 13 56 Proposals that wanted to use this incentive would require affordable units that meet the following characteristics: The three initial options for affordable units remain: • 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms. Staff worked with market rate and affordable housing developers to test these in scenarios and proformas. Incentives that require a higher percentage of affordable units are unlikely to be feasible for market rate developers. To provide for more deeply affordable and larger units, staff, developers, and the focus group prepared the following additional options: • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; or • 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; or • 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or • 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms. WHAT IS THE GOAL? The goal of this proposal is to encourage affordable housing in projects where it may not be built otherwise and allow for projects that are already providing affordable units to provide additional units. This is proposed by permitting additional height to encourage the development of affordable housing and, in some zoning districts, by decreasing the processing time for applications without modifying the design standards and requirements. Decreasing the processing time could allow for projects to proceed that may not have otherwise and to begin construction sooner with reduced carrying costs and development timelines. The following Residential districts would allow for additional stories by right or with administrative design review for additional height with affordable units as follows: 14 Multi-family and Mixed-use Zoning 57 DISTRICT PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITH AH INCENTIVES RMU-35 35’, 45’ Design Review* 45’ with administrative Design Review* RMU-45 45’, 55’ Design Review* 55’ with administrative Design Review* RB 30’ May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. Density limitations listed in the land use table do not apply.† RMU 75’ residential 125’ in mapped area May build three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review.** RO 60’ multifamily 90’ if adjacent to a district with greater maximum height One additional story equal to the average height of the stories permitted. Footnotes - Changes from May 2022: Residential Districts * Removes prohibition of additional height for property abutting a Single-Family or Two Family Residential District. † Provides clarity on permitted units. ** Removes the mapped area and requires affordable units for additional height. *** Removes SR-3 from table. Limits to incentives for single- and two-family zoning districts. The following Commercial districts would allow for additional stories by right or with administrative design review for additional height with affordable units as follows: Multi-family and Mixed-use Zoning 15 58 DISTRICT PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITH AH INCENTIVES SNB 25’ May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. CB 30’ May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. CN 25’ May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. CC 30’ 45’ Design Review and additional landscaping equal to 10% of the additional floor 45’ with administrative Design Review* CG 60’ 90’ Design Review and additional landscaping equal to 10% of the additional floor. May build two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review*† May build three additional storeis equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building for properties in the mapped area in the Downtown Building Heights proposal.† CSHBD1 105’ for residential with structured parking and Design Review for buildings over 50’ 105’ and two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. CSHBD2 60’ for residential with Design Review over 30’ 60’ with administrative Design Review and one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. TSA Transition UC-T: 60’ UN-T: 50’ MUEC-T: 60’ SP-T: 60’ May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative review. *only allowed if affordable units are provided TSA-Core UC-C: 90’; 105’ with two sloping planes UN-C: 75’ MUEC-C: 75’ SP-C: 75’ May build two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative review. *only allowed if affordable units are provided Footnotes: Changes from May 2022: Commercial Districts * Allows for additional landscaping to be met with open space. This includes courtyards, patios, or other usable areas. † Proposed Downtown Building Heights for CG allows for 75’ & 105’ with Design Review, 150’ in new Depot District mapped area. Removes mapped area previously included with incentives and replaces with Depot District mapped area. The following Form-Based districts would allow for additional stories by right or with administrative design review with affordable units as follows: 16 Multi-family and Mixed-use Zoning 59 DISTRICT PERMITTED MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITH AH INCENTIVES FB-UN3 *pending 85’ 125’ Design Review 125’ and three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the stories permitted with administrative Design Review FB-UN2 50’ 65’ on identified corners and in mapped area One additional story equal to the average height of the stories permitted. FB-SC 60’ 75’ with 10% affordable units One additional story equal to the average height of the stories permitted. Moves affordable unit requirement to the incentives chapter. FB-SE 45’ May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-UN1 2.5 stories, 30’ May build up to three stories and 30’ in height. The two districts below would allow for additional stories by right or with administrative design review with affordable units as follows: DISTRICT PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITH AH INCENTIVES GMU 75’ flat 90’ pitched 120’ Design Review 180’ and two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review.* 45’ mixed-use and residential MU 60’ with residential and Design Review 60’ with residential units and administrative Design Review Footnotes - Changes from May 2022: GMU District * Proposed Downtown Building Heights amendments for GMU allows for a permitted height of 75’ and an increase to 180’ with Design Review. The Downtown districts would allow for additional stories by right or with administrative design review with affordable units as follows: Multi-family and Mixed-use Zoning 17 60 DISTRICT PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITH AH INCENTIVES D-1 Min. 100’ corners Mid-block 100’ or greater with Design Review Greater than 375’ with Design Review Administrative Design Review when a Design Review process is required. D-2 65’ 120’ Design Review 120’ and two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review.* D-3 75’ 90’ residential Design Review 180’ and three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review.* 75’ D-4 120’ Design Review 120’ and three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the stories permitted with administrative Design Review. 375’ and administrative review in mapped area.* Footnotes - Changes from May 2022: Downtown Districts * The proposed changes are to be consistent and compatible with Downtown Building Heights amendments that allow the following: D-1: Minimum height of 100’, with exceptions for utilities, accessory buildings, small parcels & footprints, and buildings with Design Review. Design review required for buildings greater than 200’. D-2: Increased additional stories from one to two. Permitted height remains 120’. D-3: Permitted height remains 75’, up to 180’ permitted with Design Review. D-4: Additional height permitted with administrative review in mapped area. 18 Waive Planned Development Requirements 61 WAIVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENTS PROPOSAL Permit affordable housing developments by right that would otherwise require a Planned Development. WHAT IS CHANGING FROM MAY 2022? The proposed changes are to be consistent with the Downtown Building Heights proposal, which removed the Planned Development requirement for the Gateway Mixed Use zoning district (GMU). The waiver would require affordable units as otherwise permitted in the zoning district. Proposals in the Community Shopping (CS) zoning district: • These modifications would apply to a small number of properties in the CS zone. There are 20 parcels with a total area of 64 acres. The parcels consist of the Brickyard, Foothill Village, Trolley Square, the Redwood Rd. shopping center with a Lucky grocery, and a church at the southwest corner of 400 S and 800 E. Proposals for buildings and lots that do not have street frontage: This part of the proposal would allow for the development of housing in the following locations: • Private streets • Improved public alleys • Parcels without adequate street frontage Waive Planned Development Requirements 19 62 This type of development currently requires a planned development, as buildings are normally required to face a public street. This could apply in various zoning districts. From 2015-2020, the Planning Commission reviewed approximately 80 Planned Development requests. Approximately 45% of these requests included a request for lots without street frontage. The applications also requested other items, such as reduced yard setbacks or a reduction in landscaping, but for most, it is likely that the requirement for street frontage was a primary issue. The removal of this requirement for projects that provide affordable units could potentially decrease the review time and development costs for the applicant. WHAT IS THE GOAL? Planned development proposals often ask for modifications for reduction in the required yard setback, height, or other regulations. The purpose of the review is to ensure that the resulting development is one that is enhanced compared to a proposal that would otherwise be constructed. However, all development proposals the Community Shopping (CS) zoning districts require Planned Development approval. This is also a Planned Development requirement for buildings that do not have street frontage, including those on public alleys or private streets. This planning process takes approximately 4-6 months and requires Planning Commission approval. Similar to the other proposals, this would decrease the review time for a project with affordable housing, and potentially enable additional projects that may not choose to proceed when this process is required. Proposals using these provisions would still need to meet other zoning district standards, including design standards. ALLOW HOUSING ON INSTITUTIONAL LANDS 20 Allow Housing on Institutional Lands 63 PROPOSAL Allow affordable housing on institutional lands. WHAT IS CHANGING FROM MAY 2022? The previous proposal required that 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI. The current proposal allows one of the seven options that apply to zoning districts with additional height or process waivers. These are as follows: • 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; or • 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; or • 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or • 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms. WHAT IS THE GOAL? The intent of this is to allow single-family and single-family attached housing on properties that are in the Institutional zoning district and excludes multifamily development. This district includes schools, hospitals, and non-profits. However, state owned land, including the University of Utah, is not subject to city zoning regulations. Future zoning amendments may be considered to allow multifamily housing. ALLOW ADDITIONAL HOUSING TYPES Allow Additional Housing Types 21 64 PROPOSAL Allow additional single-family dwellings, including single-family attached units (row houses and sideways row houses), or cottages in commercial zoning districts (CB Community Business, CC Corridor Commercial, CG General Commercial) to encourage the redevelopment of underutilized land. These projects would be required to meet the standards for those housing types. Permitting single-family dwellings would allow for these dwellings in a cottage development. WHAT IS CHANGING FROM MAY 2022? The previous proposal required that 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI. The current proposal allows one of the seven options that apply to zoning districts with additional height or process waivers. These are as follows: • 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or • 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; or • 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; or • 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or • 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms. WHAT IS THE GOAL? Allowing additional housing types could provide for more variety in development or redevelopment opportunity. It would also provide the opportunity to transition additional land to lower scale residential development. 22 Modify Density Limits 65 MODIFY DENSITY LIMITS IN RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY ZONES PROPOSAL Allow for additional units in RMF zoning districts when affordable housing is provided. RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY (RMF) ZONING DISTRICTS The city has four RMF zoning districts. They are located throughout the city with the greatest concentration to the east of downtown. Properties in these districts have a mix of single and multifamily uses. Many of the existing multifamily structures have density exceeding what is currently permitted in the zone. The four districts, distinguished by their height limits are listed below: • RMF-30 • RMF-35 WHAT IS THE GOAL? • RMF-45 • RMF-75 The goal is to encourage the construction of affordable multifamily housing in neighborhoods that are typically close to services and amenities and have a variety of existing housing types. Removing the density requirements could increase the number properties that may accommodate affordable units. This benefit would increase the feasibility of these developments. Modify Density Limits 23 66 WHAT IS CHANGING FROM MAY 2022? There are not changes to the affordability from the May 2022 proposal. There are additions and changes to the design standards: • Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials. • Building entrances: The ground floor shall have a primary entrance on the street facing façade of the building with an unenclosed entry porch, canopy, or awning feature. Stairs to second floor units are not permitted on street facing elevations. WHAT AFFORDABILITY IS PROPOSED? The existing proposal removed the existing qualifying provisions for density in the individual RMF zoning districts provided rental housing shall be income-restricted and rent-restricted and meet a minimum of at least one of the following affordability criteria if the following are met: • 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 60% AMI; • 20% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 50% AMI; or • 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes averaging no more than 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI. For sale owner occupied units shall provide a minimum of 50% of units affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. This is intended to allow for a greater number of smaller and more affordable units than what is currently permitted. WHAT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WOULD APPLY? The following standards would also apply: • Unit Mix: No more than 25% of the units in the development shall be less than 500 square feet to promote a mix of unit sizes. • Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking space per unit is required in multifamily developments with less than 10 units. • Yards: The minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the development and not to the individual principal buildings within the development. • Lot width: Minimum lot width requirements do not apply. • Sideways row house and row house standards: Specific yard requirements. On street facing facades buildings cannot exceed 100 feet in length and garages are not permitted. There is a maximum length of 15’ for blank walls. • No additional building coverage or height is permitted. 24 Single & Two-Family Zoning Districts 67 SINGLE & TWO-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS PROPOSAL Allow additional building types in single and two-family zoning districts with an affordable component. Affordable units need to be affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. The proposal is to allow townhouses in groups of up to four units, 3-4 unit buildings, and cottage developments on parcels that are currently zoned for single- or two-family homes. Twin and two-family homes would also be permitted in the zoning districts where they are not currently allowed. The units could be renter or owner-occupied. The appreciation on owner-occupied units would be limited and, if sold, would require the unit to remain affordable for the remainder of the required time period. The proposal does not change other city requirements, including requirements for building codes, fire codes, or public utilities requirements. SINGLE-FAMILY AND TWO-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS The city has six single-family zoning districts. These are divided into Foothills and R-1 districts. The Foothills districts are generally located on the periphery of the city and close to the Foothills. The R-1 districts are located closer to the center of the city. Most of these areas developed in the early to mid-20th century. Single & Two-Family Zoning Districts 25 68 The districts and minimum lot sizes are as follows: • FR-1/43,560 • FR-2/21,780 • FR-3/12,000 • R-1/12,000 • R-1/7,000 • R-1/5,000 Many properties in the R-1 districts were previously zoned to allow for additional uses including two, three-, and four- family buildings. There are four additional two-family districts where the current proposal applies: • R-2 • SR-1 • SR-1A • SR-3 These zoning districts allow two-family units in addition to single-family homes. This would allow for the additional housing types in these zoning districts. NEW DWELLING TYPES The proposal would allow these types of dwellings, provided the units met the affordability requirement: • Twin and Two-family Dwellings: Twin, two-family, and duplex dwellings are not currently permitted in the single-family zoning districts (FR and R-1 zones). This proposal would permit them and require them to meet the existing standards for dwellings in the single- and two-family zoning districts. • Townhouses and Row houses: These would be defined as row houses and sideways row houses similar to the recently adopted RMF-30 zoning district changes. In the single- and two-family districts, the number of attached units would be limited to four and design standards would provide greater compatibility with the existing development. • Three- and Four-family Dwellings: Small, multi-unit dwellings with up to four units would be permitted with additional design standards. These modifications are to ensure greater compatibility with the existing development. • Cottage Development: The proposal would allow cottage developments with similar design and standards to the recently adopted RMF-30 zoning district changes. Cottages are designed to look like single-family homes and would be permitted in groups of two to eight with a common green or open space. 26 Single & Two-Family Zoning Districts 69 Example of a 4-unit townhouse (sideways row house) on a nearly 11,000 square foot lot. Each unit is 1,840 sq. ft. with a two-car garage. WHAT IS CHANGING FROM MAY 2022? The focus group spent a significant amount of their discussion on the proposed incentives for the single- and two-family zoning districts. There are several changes proposed: • The removal of the proximity to transit and adjacency to arterial roads requirement for additional housing types in the single- and two-family zoning districts. This opens the incentive up to all areas in single- and two-family zoning districts. This increases its equity and availability. The intent of the requirement was to encourage additional housing units in areas that are served by frequent transit (rail or bus service with 15-minute headways during peak periods) or are adjacent to arterial roads, which often have greater intensities of development. However, this requirement proved difficult because the location and frequency of the non-fixed bus routes has changed several times in the past few years. Additionally, some areas of the city were excluded and this raised concerns regarding the equity of the incentives and how they applied in different neighborhoods. • Addition of an incentive to preserve existing housing. This incentive allows for the construction of a second detached dwelling on the property when an existing dwelling is maintained. When a dwelling is retained, the affordability requirement is lowered to one of the units on the property. When an existing unit is not maintained, 50% would be required to meet the affordability requirement. The proposed incentives may not provide a sufficient profit for development. This provides an alternative with a lower percentage of units required to be affordable. Single & Two-Family Zoning Districts 27 70 • Additional design standards requiring durable building materials, entry features, and open space. There is an existing requirement for 15% glass on street facing facades. • Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials. • Building entrances: The ground floor shall have a primary entrance on the street facing façade of the building with an unenclosed entry porch, canopy, or awning feature. Stairs to second floor units are not permitted on street facing elevations. There are separate requirements for cottage developments for entries to face the street or common open space. • Open space: Open space area may include landscaped yards, patios, dining areas, and other similar outdoor living spaces. All required open space areas shall be accessible to all residents or users of the building. 120 sq. ft. of open space with a minimum width of 6 ft. shall be provided for each building with a dwelling. There are separate open space requirements for row house and cottage developments. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS There are changes to the previous requirements. The following are new requirements: • Arrangement of Dwellings: Dwelling units may be arranged in any manner within a building, as a second detached dwelling, as attached units, or if a cottage development with three or more detached dwellings, within the buildings that are part of the cottage development. • Existing Building: When an existing building is maintained, new units may be added internal to the existing structure, as an addition, or as a second detached dwelling. There are clarifications and modifications for the following: • Yards: Minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the property and not to the individual principal building(s). • Parking: One parking space would be required per dwelling unit. If a property has multiple units, a minimum of one space would be required for each unit. A detached garage or carport with up to 250 sq. ft. for each unit may be provided in a single structure. • Subdivision: Lots may contain up to four units. Existing lots may be divided such that each unit is on its own lot. The new lots are exempt from minimum lot area and lot width requirements. • Rowhouse standards: There are specific yard requirements. On street facing facades buildings cannot exceed 60 ft. in length and garages are not permitted. There is a maximum length of 15’ for blank walls. • Cottage standards: There are specific yard requirements. Individual cottages cannot be more than 850 sq. ft. Open space and personal outdoor space must be provided. • Accessory Dwelling Unit: An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is considered one unit and counts toward the number of units permitted. • No additional building coverage or building height is permitted. 28 Single & Two-Family Zoning Districts 71 Preservation of Existing Structure: Center lot depicts an existing single-family home with a basement ADU, two surface parking spaces, detached two-car garage, and new, detached single-family home to the rear. This is on a larger nearly 12,000 sq. ft. lot. The three structures have a total building coverage of 27%. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff understands that there are concerns regarding the potential demolition of historic resources. The process for construction and demolition, including review by the Historic Landmark Commission, would not change for properties that are in local historic districts or are local landmark sites. It would be difficult for a contributing, locally designated building to be demolished for construction using the affordable housing incentives. Additions and any new structures on the property would require historic review. Demolition of a non-contributing structure and new construction would need to meet historic preservation standards and guidelines. The city’s regulations do not apply to districts or individual properties that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, but are not locally designated. The existing demolition process for these buildings would not change. Whether to redevelop a property would be up to individual property owners. Additionally, some properties that are not currently designated as local historic districts could be designated. Any new local historic district would need to meet the requirements in the city’s Historic Preservation Overlay District. 72 WHAT IS THE GOAL? The proposal would allow for some gentle increases in density in areas of the city that are predominantly occupied by single-family homes. Removal of the proximity to transit and arterial requirements open the option to all areas of the city zoned for single- and two- family dwellings and make this more equitable. The gentle increase in density that would be permitted is compatible with the historic development patterns of the city, where a mix of housing types, including duplexes and the division of a dwelling into multiple residences, previously occurred. 29 NEXT STEPS 30 Next Steps 73 ADOPTION PROCESS & IMPLEMENTATION STEP 1: Planning staff is seeking additional feedback on the proposal. Public comments were included with the May 2022 staff report. Comments received after the May 2022 public hearing are included in 2023 memos and reports. Based on the feedback, in fall 2022, the Office of the Mayor convened a focus group to review the proposal and make recommendations. Based on these discussions staff revised the proposal, and is presenting this revised document to detail the changes to the proposal. Additional comments will be included with subsequent memos and reports. STEP 2: Review revised draft zoning ordinance text amendment language. This will be reviewed by the community, the Planning Commission at a briefing, and a subsequent public hearing. The Planning Commission provides a recommendation to the City Council who will hold an additional public hearing prior to action. Language implementing the proposal will be adopted in the Zoning Ordinance. STEP 3: After adoption, interested parties consult with planning and other city staff to determine during the planning stages if the project meets the zoning and other applicable requirements. A planning process may be required. STEP 4: Development plans are reviewed to make sure they comply with the incentives and applicable regulations. This would require the typical review process as well as an additional review to ensure compliance with the incentives and a restrictive covenant placed on the property. This would be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. STEP 5: Building is constructed and after completion, a report is submitted annually to verify compliance with the requirements of affordability. APPENDIX A: DRAFT LANGUAGE Appendix A: Draft Language 31 74 DRAFT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE 75 76 ATTACHMENT D: Updated Affordable Housing Incentives Summary Document PLNPCM2019-00658 April 26, 2023 77 Proposal Summary | March 2023 AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT PROPOSAL The proposed zoning amendments would incentivize the construction of designated affordable units, lessening the burden for those that would qualify and live in these units. Residential units that wanted to use the incentives would be required to place a restrictive covenant on the property for the units to be made available to qualifying households. The proposal could apply to rental housing units and for sale units. This document summarizes the proposal. See more information at: www.slc.gov/planning/affordable-housing PROJECT OBJECTIVE The proposed amendments would incentivize the construction of affordable housing through modifications to the zoning requirements. Over time, and particularly in recent years, housing in Salt Lake City has become less affordable. There are many variables affecting housing prices, including zoning regulations. The goal of the proposed amendments are to increase affordable housing throughout Salt Lake City. Where multifamily housing is permitted, the incentives are designed to encourage developers to include affordable housing in projects and allow affordable housing developers to build more housing units. The incentives also allow for small increases in housing units throughout the city. Other recent and upcoming zoning changes further enable the construction of more housing. However, there are issues and concerns that zoning cannot address, including job wages, home prices, and, outside of these proposed amendments, the types of units constructed, and the rents charged. 78 2023 Implementation Tentative SUMMARY OF INCENTIVES Multi-family and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts • Permit additional height, between 1-3 stories (approximately 10’ per story), depending on the zone in various zoning districts that permit multifamily housing. Residential Multifamily Zoning Districts • Remove the density requirements in the RMF zoning districts, if the proposal meets the affordability requirements. • No additional height permitted. • Only 25% of the units could be 500 square feet or smaller. • Add development and design standards for rowhouse, sideways rowhouse, cottage, and other building forms. Single- and Two-family Zoning Districts • Allow additional building types in single- and two-family zoning districts provided 1-2 of the units would be affordable. • Allow townhouses in groups of up to four, 3-4 unit buildings, and cottage developments on parcels that are currently zoned for single- or two-family homes. Twin and two-family homes would also be permitted in the zoning districts where they are not currently allowed. • Add development and design standards for these dwellings. Other Incentives • Waive the Planned Development process for some proposals when affordability requirements are met. • Allow single-family and single-family attached housing on Institutional zoned land. Future zoning amendments may be considered to allow multifamily housing. • Allow additional housing types in the CG (General Commercial), CC (Community Commercial), and CB (Community Business) zoning districts to encourage the redevelopment of underutilized land. These districts permit multifamily housing, but not single-family dwellings, including single-family attached units, or cottages. SUMMARY OF CHANGES There are a number of modifications to the draft proposal presented to the Planning Commission in May 2022: • The removal of the proximity to transit and adjacency to arterial roads requirement for additional housing types in the single- and two-family zoning districts. This opens the incentive up to all areas of the city within single- and two-family zoning districts, increasing its equity and availability. • An emphasis on the preservation of existing housing. The revisions incentivize retaining an existing dwelling. The affordability requirement when an existing dwelling is preserved decreases from 50% of units to at least one of the units. • Additional design standards for new housing types in single- and two-family zoning districts. There is additional language that requires durable building materials, an entry feature, and an open space. • Enforcement penalties detailed. There are additional annual reporting requirements and an increase in the fines that could apply. Noncompliance can result in a lien placed on the property for fines and revocation of the business license associated with the property. • There are additional incentive options for more deeply affordable and larger units. These allow for a lower percentage of units to be set aside, ranging from 5-10% of units. • Modifications for consistency with the proposed Downtown Building Heights text amendment. The Planning Commission recommended changes to zoning districts within the downtown in August 2022. Pending adoption, staff is proposing changes to the proposal to be consistent and compatible with the proposed changes to these zoning districts. PROJECT TIMELINE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner | sara.javoronok@slcgov.com | 801.535.7625 PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 79 ATTACHMENT E: Public Process & Comments SEE SEPARATE ATTACHMENT E FOR ALL SUB-ATTACHMENTS Public Notice, Meetings, Comments The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposed project since the application was initiated: Online Surveys and Comment Form • December-January 2020 – Planning staff posted an initial survey seeking feedback on housing issues. Over 2,100 people responded. See complete responses in Attachment E.1. • July 2020 – Planning staff presented a draft proposal in a Story Map and sought feedback on the proposal. Nearly 300 people responded. See complete responses in Attachment E.2. • February 2022 – Planning staff posted the draft amendments and sought feedback through a comment form. Approximately 130 people responded. See complete responses in Attachment E.3. • March 2023 – Planning staff posted an updated draft of the proposed amendments and sought feedback through the comment form. Two people responded for a total of approximately 175 since February 2022. See complete responses from May 11, 2022-April 19, 2023 in Attachment E.4. Developer Discussions Planning staff met with several affordable housing developers in 2019 to discuss issues and obstacles to building affordable housing in the community and how zoning may be able to address them. Developers generally indicated that by right processes were best, there should be parking reductions especially for lowest incomes, density limits made development difficult in the RMF districts, additional height was needed in many zoning districts, and there was a preference for form-based zoning districts. Staff requested feedback from developers on the draft proposal and generally heard that the incentives would allow them to construct more units and that the incentives in the single-family zoning districts may encourage smaller developers to construct units. Recognized Community Organization Notice and Meetings • June 25, 2020 – The 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations was sent citywide. o July 20, 2020 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Sugar House Land Use and Zoning meeting (Zoom). o August 6, 2020 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Ball Park Community Council meeting (Zoom). • March 3, 2022 – The 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations was sent citywide. o March 16, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the East Bench Community Council meeting (Zoom). Members expressed concerns with loss of views, view easements, and wanted to be notified of potential projects in the neighborhood. o March 21, 2022 - Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Sugar House Land Use Committee meeting (Zoom). Members expressed concerns with additional PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 80 housing types proposed, especially in the Highland Park neighborhood, lack of parking, lack of utility capacity, loss of neighborhood character, increase in rental housing, and desire for the proposal to be implemented as a smaller, pilot program. o April 7, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Ball Park Community Council meeting (Zoom). Community members want to see more owner-occupied housing in the neighborhood, expressed concerns with additional height in the FB districts, have concerns with existing parking requirements in the FB zones, and have general parking and safety concerns. o April 13, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Jordan Meadows/Westpointe Community Council meeting (Zoom). Community members asked questions about parking and how the increased number of students and increased park usage would be addressed. o April 14, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Yalecrest Community Council meeting (Zoom). Community members asked questions about historic districts and how the proposal would affect them, required parking, accessory dwelling units, rental units, and neighborhood character. o May 4, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Greater Avenues Community Council meeting (Zoom). Community member questions included affordability levels, the Planning Commission meeting and how to submit comments if not able to attend, and the monitoring of the deed restricted properties. o March 16, 2023 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Salt Lake City Community Network meeting (Zoom). Open Houses and Virtual Events • July 9, 2020 – Facebook Live Q&A – Planning staff hosted an AMA/Q&A discussion on Facebook. It reached 4,365 people with 1,423 3-second video views and 52 comments. See Attachment E.4. • February 16, 2022 – Facebook Live Q&A – Planning staff hosted an AMA/Q&A discussion on Facebook. It reached 772 people with 401 3-second video views and 71 reactions, shares, and comments. See Attachment E.5. • April 5, 2022 – Virtual Office Hours (Zoom) – Planning staff hosted an open Zoom meeting to answer questions. There were no attendees. • April 5, 2022 – Open House (Sugar House Fire Station #3) – Planning staff hosted an open house to provide information and answer questions on the proposal. Seven people attended. • April 12, 2022 – Open House (Unity Center) – Planning staff hosted an open house to provide information and answer questions on the proposal. Three people attended. • April 14, 2022 – Virtual Office Hours (Zoom) – Planning staff hosted an open Zoom meeting to answer questions. No one attended. • April 19, 2022 – Open House (Riverside Park) – Planning staff hosted an open house to provide information and answer questions on the proposal. No one attended. • April 21, 2022 – Open House (Lindsey Gardens Park) – Planning staff hosted an open house to provide information and answer questions on the proposal. One person attended. Sign-in sheets for open houses are included in Attachment E.7. Additional Comments The Glendale Community Council submitted a letter in 2020. See Attachment E.6. The Sugar House Community Council submitted a letter on May 3, 2022. See Attachment E.7. Community members provided additional written comments that are attached to this report. For comments through May 11, 2022, see Attachment E.7 for emails and E.8 for social media PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 81 comments. Additional emails and phone calls with general questions were received and responded to by staff. For comments received through July 2022, see below for a summary of the comment themes and tenor. See Attachment E.9 for a table of the comments received through July 2022. See Attachment E.10 for all comments received May 12, 2022-April 19, 2023. Community Notification The City Council office sent a flyer to commercial and residential addresses in the city and owners that live outside of Salt Lake City. It identified housing initiatives in the city and highlighted this proposal. A total of 99,832 were sent. See Attachment E.11 for flyer and comments submitted to the Council office. Development Scenarios Staff contacted and worked with local developers in the summer and fall of 2022 to provide information on the feasibility and impact of incentives. See scenarios and proformas in Attachment G. Focus Group The Office of the Mayor convened a focus group that included 15-20 members. It was comprised of neighborhood leaders, developers, policy advisors, and housing advocates. The group reviewed and discussed topics with the most community concerns over four meetings in the fall and winter of 2022. They made several recommended changes to proposal detailed in this report. Department Comments Debbie Lyons, Sustainability I do not have comments specific to the zoning modifications noted in the most current version, however I do want to provide a couple of resources on energy efficiency as it relates to affordable housing, just as an FYI. For background, the City has adopted a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2040 through Mayor-Council joint resolution 22 of 2016. More than 75% of our carbon footprint is attributable to electricity and natural gas use in homes and businesses, so looking for all opportunities to incentivize energy efficiency is important. It’s especially important in affordable housing because utility costs can pose significant hardship for low-income residents. In case you’re not aware or familiar with them: EPA’s Energy Efficiency in Affordable Housing Guide EPA – Energy Star Program – Residential Resources for Affordable Housing The RDA’s Sustainable Development Policy should serve as a great complement for developers looking into applying for RDA funds for new housing projects. Erik Fronberg, Housing Stability Please see my comments below for the draft language of the City’s Affordable Housing Incentives ordinance. 21A.52.050.F.2.a – The language addressing household incomes at a given percentage AMI is not consistent throughout the ordinance. I recommend replacing the following from 21A.52.050.F.2.a: “Eligible Households that are qualifying occupants with an annual income at or below the SLC Area Median Income (“AMI”) as applicable for the given affordable unit for Salt Lake City Utah, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro FMR Area (as periodically determined by the HUD and adjusted for household size).” PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 82 with the clearer language from 21A.62: “households that are qualifying occupants at or below the applicable percentage of the Area Median Income (AMI) area median income for the Salt Lake City Utah, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro FMR Area Salt Lake Metro Area, (the “SLC Area Median Income” or “AMI”, as periodically determined by HUD and adjusted for household size) and published by the Utah Housing Corporation, or its successor.” 21A.52.050.F.2.b – I recommend replacing “AMI” with “percentage AMI.” 21A.52.050.H.3.e – I recommend removing this provision. I’m assuming that limiting the number of units designated as affordable in large developments is intended to promote mixed-income developments or geographic equity (not concentrate deed-restricted units in one place); however, in light of the current affordable housing crisis, the City should maximize, not limit, the number of affordable units in any development. Overall, the draft looks great! It’s clear you and your team have worked hard on incorporating the feedback you’ve received. PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 83 Summary of Public Comment Themes Since the petition was initiated in 2019, staff has received over 1,100 public comments from individual members of the public through email, the online comment form, the City Council office, Planning Commission public hearing comment cards, surveys, and social media platforms etc. This attachment outlines a summary of the Affordable Housing Incentive (AHI) public comments received since the project started in 2019 through July 2022. Staff analyzed the comments and identified 14 common themes regarding the AHI proposal which are listed in the section below. It should be noted this analysis primarily includes digitally received comments which could be easily compiled for a digital analysis. Staff reviewed each comment, documented the themes each comment referred to, and identified whether the comment voiced opposition, support, questions, recommendations, or a combination. The following sections provide a summary of the public comment analysis: Theme: Affordability Requirements This theme consists of comments related to the proposed AHI affordability requirements such as the Area Medium Income requirements and the for rent/ownership options. • Staff received a total of 146 comments regarding affordability requirements. 97 of the comments suggested recommendations, 47 voiced opposition, 3 voiced support, and 31 included questions. Theme: Lack of Infrastructure/utilities This theme consists of comments related to the City’s infrastructure, and utilities such as water supply, street capacity, and utility lines. • Staff received a total of 58 comments regarding City infrastructure and utilities. 16 of the comments suggested recommendations, 48 voiced opposition, and 5 included questions. Theme: Transportation Infrastructure This theme consists of comments related to the proposed AHI parking requirements, transportation regulations, and the City’s transportation infrastructure. • Staff received a total of 242 comments regarding transportation infrastructure. 127 comments suggested recommendations, 141 voiced opposition, 18 voiced support and 16 included questions. Theme: Density, unit type, and size This theme consists of comments related to housing typologies, densities, unit type, size, and mix. • Staff received a total of 318 comments regarding density, and unit type and size. 138 comments suggested recommendations, 121 voiced opposition, 81 voiced support and 13 included questions. Theme: Enforcement This theme consists of comments related to the AHI proposed enforcement regulations such as deed restrictions, monitoring, and enforcement methods. • Staff received 64 comments regarding enforcement. 19 of the comments suggested recommendations, 42 voiced opposition, 1 voiced support and 15 included questions. PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 84 Theme: Design and Compatibility This theme consists of comments regarding proposed AHI design standards, open space requirements, and architectural compatibility considerations. • Staff received 122 comments regarding design and compatibility. 89 of the comments suggested recommendations, 35 voiced opposition, 4 voiced support and 3 included questions. Theme: Neighborhood Impacts This theme consists of comments regarding the potential impacts the AHI could have on the City’s neighborhoods. • Staff received 308 comments regarding neighborhood impacts. 96 of the comments suggested recommendations, 215 voiced opposition, 36 voiced support and 10 included questions. Theme: Historic District This theme consists of comments regarding the AHI could have on Historic Districts and properties. • Staff received 56 comments regarding historic districts and properties. 17 of the comments suggested recommendations, 40 voiced opposition, and 10 included questions. Theme: Zoning This theme consists of comments regarding zoning regulation such as land use, and development standards. • Staff received 220 comments regarding zoning. 93 of the comments suggested recommendations, 68 voiced opposition, 63 voiced support and 27 included questions. Theme: Housing Policies This theme consists of comments regarding housing policies such as homelessness, pilot programs, ADU regulations etc. • Staff received 78 comments regarding housing policies. 34 of the comments suggested recommendations, 26 voiced opposition, 19 voiced support and 6 included questions. Theme: Outside of Project Scope This theme consists of comments related to topics outside of the scope of the AHI such as rent caps, wages, and the mandate of affordable housing construction. • Staff received 206 comments regarding topics outside of the scope of the AHI. 194 of the comments suggested recommendations, 21 voiced opposition, 2 voiced support, and 8 included questions. Theme: Public Outreach This theme consists of comments related to the AHI public outreach process and methods. • Staff received 48 comments regarding public outreach. 24 of the comments suggested recommendations, 14 voiced opposition, 3 voiced support and 15 included questions. Theme: Climate Impacts This theme consists of comments related to climate change and climate events such as wildfires and precipitation. PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 85 • Staff received 17 comments regarding climate change. 4 of the comments suggested recommendations, 9 voiced opposition, 2 voiced support and 4 included questions. Theme: General Comments This theme includes comments that generally stated opposition, support and general statements related to affordable housing. • Staff received 195 comments regarding general comments. 79 of the comments suggested recommendations, 40 voiced opposition, 24 voiced support, 22 included questions, and 46 included general statements. Theme: Multiple Themes This theme notes the number of comments that addressed multiple themes. • Staff received a total of 518 comments which addressed multiple comment themes. 86 Affordable Housing Overlay Comments - Through July 2022 Summary of Themes and Tenor Counts and Tenor Comment Themes 1- Opposed 2- Support 3-Questions 4- Recommendations X - General Comments Total Comments within Theme Affordability Requirements 47 3 31 97 146 Lack of Infrastructure/utilities 48 0 5 16 58 Transportation Infrastructure 141 18 16 127 242 Density, unit type and size 121 81 13 138 318 Enforcement 42 1 15 19 64 Design and Compatibility 35 4 3 89 122 Neighborhood Impacts 215 36 10 96 308 Historic District 40 0 10 17 56 Zoning 68 63 27 93 220 Housing Policies 26 19 6 34 78 Outside of Project Scope 21 2 8 194 206 Public Outreach 14 3 15 24 48 Climate Impacts 9 0 2 4 17 General Comments 40 24 22 79 46 195 Multiple Themes TOTAL OF 1100 COMMENTS 518 518 PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 87 ATTACHMENT F: Analysis of Standards ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS 21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the following: 1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; Plan Salt Lake Plan Salt Lake is the adopted City vision document. It establishes citywide values, principles, and initiatives that are intended to guide the decision-making process for a number of different topics, including the manner in which the City addresses growth. The following guiding principles and initiatives are related to and consistent with the proposed zoning amendments: Growth: Guiding Principle: Growing responsibly, while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around. Initiatives: • Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors. • Encourage a mix of land uses. • Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. • Accommodate and promote an increase in the City’s population. • Work with regional partners and stakeholders to address growth collaboratively. Housing Guiding Principle: Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.” Initiatives • Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low income). • Increase the number of medium density housing types and options. • Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place. • Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people oriented. • Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate. • Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. • Promote high-density residential in areas served by transit. Transportation and Mobility Guiding Principle: A transportation and mobility network that is safe, accessible, reliable, affordable, and sustainable, providing real choices and connecting people with places. PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 88 Initiatives • Create a complete circulation network and ensure convenient equitable access to a variety of transportation options by: o Having a public transit stop within 1/4 mile of all residents. • Encourage transit-oriented development (TOD). Growing SLC Growing SLC is the city’s housing plan. It outlines strategies for long-term affordability and preservation that continues to enhance neighborhoods while balancing their unique needs. It includes policies to address the city’s need for affordable housing. This proposal is consistent with several goals, objectives, and policies in Growing SLC: Goal 1: Reform City practices to promote a responsive, affordable, high-opportunity housing market. • Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city. o Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant transportation routes. o Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts. o Reduce parking requirements for affordable housing developments and eliminate parking requirements in transit-rich, walkable neighborhoods or when the specific demographics of a development require less parking, such as senior populations. • Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development. o 1.2.1 Create an expedited processing system to increase City access for those developers constructing new affordable units. Goal 2: Affordable Housing: Increase Housing Opportunities and Stability for Cost- Burdened Households o 2.1.2 Consider an ordinance that would require and incentivize the inclusion of affordable units in new developments. Goal 3: Equitable & Fair Housing: Build a More Equitable City • Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity throughout all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of opportunity o Make strategic affordable housing investments in high opportunity neighborhoods. o Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages of life. The proposed changes are consistent with City purposes, goals, and policies. See detailed responses in Key Consideration 1. 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. 21A.02.030 Purpose and Intent PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 89 The purpose of the zoning ordinance “is to promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the adopted plans of the city, and to carry out the purposes of the municipal land use development and management act, title 10, chapter 9, of the Utah Code Annotated or its successor, and other relevant statutes.” The purposes of the zoning ordinance also states the title is intended to: • Lessen congestion in the streets or roads • Classify land uses and distribute land development and utilization • Foster the City's industrial, business and residential development The proposed amendments to incentivize affordable housing meet the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance as excerpted. The proposed amendments implement the adopted master plans listed above in 1, which furthers a purpose of the zoning ordinance. 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; The proposed text amendment creates a Zoning Incentives chapter. The Affordable Housing Incentives are proposed for this chapter and additional incentives may be added. Many overlay districts apply in zoning districts affected by this proposal. This includes the following overlay districts: • 21A.34.020: H Historic Preservation Overlay District • 21A.34.030: T Transitional Overlay District • 21A.34.040: AFPP Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay District (primarily Zones C and H) • 21A.34.060: Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District • 21A.34.080: CHPA Capitol Hill Protective Area Overlay District • 21A.34.090: SSSC South State Street Corridor Overlay District • 21A.34.110: DMSC Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District • 21A.34.120: YCI Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay District • 21A.34.130: RCO Riparian Corridor Overlay District • 21A.34.150: IP Inland Port Overlay District (limited to CG properties on 5600 W) The proposed amendments would be limited by additional standards in many of these overlay zoning districts. The base and overlay districts may provide additional standards and restrictions than provided for in these incentives. Specifically, there has been discussion regarding the Historic Preservation Overlay District, Historic Landmarks, and the impact of the proposed AHI. The AHI would not change the historic standards, guidelines, or processes applicable to properties that are in local historic districts or are local landmark sites. Properties that are in National Register Historic Districts or are individually listed on the National Register are not subject to the city’s historic regulations. Units could be added to existing properties with additions or new construction. 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. The proposed text amendments support Sustainability, Equity, Growth, and Opportunity. In recent years, lack of affordable housing and increasing housing prices have become an issue in Salt Lake City, throughout the Wasatch Front and across the country. Increasing prices for rental and ownership housing, historically low number of PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 90 days on market in for sale housing, and historically low vacancy rates in rental housing indicate that additional housing is needed in Salt Lake City and beyond. This was discussed on pages 6-7 in the original Affordable Housing document from 2022. There have been changes in the market over the past year. For ownership units, prices have not continued to increase at the same rate as in previous years. However, interest rates have increased, and the monthly payment for a property of a similar value is greater than early 2022. See the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Policy Brief: Housing Prices and Affordability from February 2023 for more information. For renters, a February 2023 fact sheet from the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute on Utah’s Rental Market indicates the average apartment rent for Salt Lake County increased 37.1% from 2016-2021 while incomes increased by 18.5%. In Salt Lake County, 46% of renters are cost burdened, spending more than 30% of their income on housing, which is higher than the national average of 40%. In October 2021 Salt Lake County and partners hosted a Regional Solutions Event with Daniel Parolek, of Opticos Design, who created the concept of “Missing Middle Housing” to discuss the concept and how it could address Utah’s housing needs. “Missing Middle Housing” is “is a range of house-scale buildings with multiple units—compatible in scale and form with detached single-family homes—located in a walkable neighborhood.” (MissingMiddleHousing.com) Many aspects of the proposed text amendments permit and incentivize middle housing types and options. The County also prepared reports on housing highlighting the gap between new households and new homes, suggesting middle housing as an opportunity to fill the gap. The Kem C. Gardner Institute issued a paper in December 2020 entitled, “Housing Affordability: What Are Best Practices and Why Are They Important?” that included making changes to zoning as a best practice. It identified that zoning can “Provide a Powerful Policy Tool to Increase the Supply of Housing” and that through higher density housing or upzoning communities could add more housing and respond to changing market preferences for housing types other than single-family homes. This could also reduce spatial concentrations of moderate- and low-income households of color and provide greater economic efficiencies for households and government. It also references the initial “Affordable Housing Overlay” approach initiated with this project. The name change reflects the location of the proposed provisions in the city’s zoning code, but the substance of the proposal is similar. The differences have been outlined in the staff report and are further detailed in the specific language in Attachment A and the narrative document (Attachment D). Of the five recommendations in the March 2022 article in Planning, the magazine for the American Planning Association, entitled “5 Practical Zoning Hacks for Missing Middle Housing”, the affordable housing incentives proposal includes aspects of all five, plus includes requirements for affordable units. The five recommendations are as follows: • Reduce minimum lot size • Allow for more housing types and revisit structure sizes • Level the playing field for smaller units (more density doesn’t always mean bigger buildings) • Reduce or eliminate parking minimums • Allow missing middle housing everywhere (if possible) PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 91 ATTACHMENT G: Summary of Proforma and Scenario Analyses Development Scenarios D-2 - Using New Downtown Building Heights standards D -2 S ce n a r i o s L I H T C Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 80% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 50% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR DCR/ Stabilized Cash Flow ROC Notes LIHTC project 225 0.9375 D-2 $8M / $196psf / $35.5k/door 36 96 48 9 24 12 1.14/$577,668 4.29% 4% Tax Credits, $3M in subsidized gap debt assumed from State, County and City Sources 20% units @ 50% AMI, with 1 floors above max height 255 $8M / $196psf / $31,3k/door 40 109 54 11 27 14 1.14/$664,864 4.32% 4% Tax Credits, $3M in subsidized gap debt assumed from State, County and City Sources 20% units @ 50% AMI, with 2 floors above max height 285 $8M / $196psf / $28k/door 45 122 60 12 30 16 1.15/$753,879 4.44% 4% Tax Credits, $3M in subsidized gap debt assumed from State, County and City Sources 20% units @ 50% AMI, with 3 floors above max height 315 $8M / $196psf / $25.4k/door 50 135 66 13 33 18 1.15/$842,894 4.51% 4% Tax Credits, $3M in subsidized gap debt assumed from State, County and City Sources 20% units @ 50% AMI, with 3 floors above max height 300 $8M / $196psf / $26.6k/door 48 128 64 12 32 16 1.15/$800,763 4.40% 4% Tax Credits, $3M in subsidized gap debt assumed from State, County and City Sources M a r k e t Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 80% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 30% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR DCR/ Stabilized Cash Flow ROC Notes Market Rate Project, by right to zoning 225 0.9375 D-2 $8M / $196psf / $35.5k/door 45 120 60 1.35/$1.452M 5.04% Low Leverage (45%)/High Equity Raise, parked 1:1, LifeCo loan 5 % @ 3 0 % Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 80% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 30% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR DCR/ Stabilized Cash Flow ROC Notes Market Rate Project, same project as above 225 0.9375 D-2 $8M / $196psf / $35.5k/door 45 120 60 1.35/$1.452M 5.04% Low Leverage (45%)/High Equity Raise, parked 1:1, LifeCo loan 5% units @ 30% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 255 $8M / $196psf / $31,3k/door 48 129 64 3 7 4 1.35/$1.570M 4.86% Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..88 stalls/unit 5% units @ 30% AMI, with 2 floor above max height 285 $8M / $196psf / $28k/door 54 144 72 3 8 4 1.35/$1.749M 4.96% Same basic leverage and loan, parked .79 stalls/unit 5% units @ 30% AMI, with 3 floors above max height 315 $8M / $196psf / $25.4k/door 59 160 79 4 8 5 1.35/$1.923M 5.02% Same basic leverage and loan, parked .71 stalls/unit Same basic leverage and loan, parked 1:1 (third added level is a parking level with units at street 5% units @ 30% AMI, with 3 floors above max height, add'l park 300 $8M / $196psf / $26.6k/door 57 152 76 3 8 4 1.35/$1.841M 4.91% 5 % @ 6 0 % 2 b d s Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 80% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 60% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR DCR/ Stabilized Cash Flow ROC Notes Market Rate Project, same project as above 225 0.9375 D-2 $8M / $196psf / $35.5k/door 45 120 60 1.35/$1.452M 5.04% Low Leverage (45%)/High Equity Raise, parked 1:1, LifeCo loan 5% units @ 60% AMI, All 2s, with 1 floor above max height 255 $8M / $196psf / $31,3k/door 51 136 55 13 1.35/$1.592M 4.93% Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..88 stalls/unit 5% units @ 60% AMI, All 2s, with 2 floors above max height 285 $8M / $196psf / $28k/door 57 152 61 15 1.35/$1.769M 5.01% Same basic leverage and loan, parked .79 stalls/unit 5% units @ 60% AMI, All 2s, with 3 floors above max height 315 $8M / $196psf / $25.4k/door 63 168 68 16 1.35/$1.949M 5.09% Same basic leverage and loan, parked .71 stalls/unit 5% units @ 60% AMI, All 2s, with 3 floors above max, add'l park 300 $8M / $196psf / $26.6k/door 60 160 65 15 1.35/$1.860M 4.96% Same basic leverage and loan, parked 1:1 (third added level is a parking level with units at street 2 0 % @ 8 0 % Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 80% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 60% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR DCR/ Stabilized Cash Flow ROC Notes Market Rate Project, same project as above 225 0.9375 D-2 $8M / $196psf / $35.5k/door 45 120 60 1.35/$1.452M 5.04% Low Leverage (45%)/High Equity Raise, parked 1:1, LifeCo loan 20% units @ 80% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 255 $8M / $196psf / $31,3k/door 40 109 54 11 27 14 1.35/$1.563M 4.81% Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..88 stalls/unit 20% units @ 80% AMI, with 2 floor above max height 285 $8M / $196psf / $28k/door 45 122 60 12 30 16 1.35/$1.738M 4.89% Same basic leverage and loan, parked .79 stalls/unit 20% units @ 80% AMI, with 3 floors above max height 315 $8M / $196psf / $25.4k/door 48 128 64 12 32 16 1.35/$1.912M 4.96% Same basic leverage and loan, parked .71 stalls/unit Same basic leverage and loan, parked 1:1 (third added level is a parking level with units at street 20% units @ 80% AMI, with 3 floors above max height, add'l park 300 $8M / $196psf / $26.6k/door 48 128 64 12 32 16 1.35/$1.827M 4.84% 1 0 % @ 6 0 % Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 80% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 60% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR DCR/ Stabilized Cash Flow ROC Notes Market Rate Project, same project as above 225 0.9375 D-2 $8M / $196psf / $35.5k/door 45 120 60 1.35/$1.452M 5.04% Low Leverage (45%)/High Equity Raise, parked 1:1, LifeCo loan 10% units @ 60% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 255 $8M / $196psf / $31,3k/door 46 122 61 5 14 7 1.35/$1.565M 4.84% Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..88 stalls/unit 10% units @ 60% AMI, with 2 floors above max height 285 $8M / $196psf / $28k/door 51 137 68 6 15 8 1.35/$1.741M 4.92% Same basic leverage and loan, parked .79 stalls/unit 10% units @ 60% AMI, with 3 floors above max height 315 $8M / $196psf / $25.4k/door 56 152 75 7 16 9 1.35/$1.916M 4.99% Same basic leverage and loan, parked .71 stalls/unit 10% units @ 60% AMI, with 3 floors above max height, add'l park 300 $8M / $196psf / $26.6k/door 54 144 72 6 16 8 1.35/$1.830M 4.87% Same basic leverage and loan, parked 1:1 (third added level is a parking level with units at street 1 0 % @ 8 0 % 2 s Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 80% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 60% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR DCR/ Stabilized Cash Flow ROC Notes Market Rate Project, same project as above 225 0.9375 D-2 $8M / $196psf / $35.5k/door 45 120 60 1.35/$1.452M 5.04% Low Leverage (45%)/High Equity Raise, parked 1:1, LifeCo loan 10% units @ 80% AMI. All 2s, with 1 floor above max height 255 $8M / $196psf / $31,3k/door 51 136 42 26 1.35/$1.588M 4.91% Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..88 stalls/unit 10% units @ 80% AMI. All 2s, with 2 floors above max height 285 $8M / $196psf / $28k/door 57 152 47 29 1.35/$1.766M 4.99% Same basic leverage and loan, parked .79 stalls/unit 10% units @ 80% AMI. All 2s, with 3 floors above max height 315 $8M / $196psf / $25.4k/door 63 168 52 32 1.35/$1.945M 5.07% Same basic leverage and loan, parked .71 stalls/unit 10% units @ 80% AMI. All 2s, with 3 floors above max, add'l park 300 $8M / $196psf / $26.6k/door 60 160 50 30 1.35/$1.856M 4.94% Same basic leverage and loan, parked 1:1 (third added level is a parking level with units at street 5 % @ 8 0 % 3 s Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 80% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 60% AMI Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR DCR/ Stabilized Cash Flow ROC Notes Market Rate Project, same project as above 225 0.9375 D-2 $8M / $196psf / $35.5k/door 45 120 60 1.35/$1.452M 5.04% Low Leverage (45%)/High Equity Raise, parked 1:1, LifeCo loan 5% units @ 80% AMI. All 3s, with 1 floor above max height 255 $8M / $196psf / $31,3k/door 51 123 42 13 1.35/$1.640M 4.99% Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..88 stalls/unit 5% units @ 80% AMI. All 3s, with 2 floors above max height 285 $8M / $196psf / $28k/door 57 137 76 15 1.35/$1.825M 5.07% Same basic leverage and loan, parked .79 stalls/unit 5% units @ 80% AMI. All 3s, with 3 floors above max height 315 $8M / $196psf / $25.4k/door 63 152 84 16 1.35/$2.008M 5.15% Same basic leverage and loan, parked .71 stalls/unit 5% units @ 80% AMI. All 3s, with 3 floors above max, add'l park 300 $8M / $196psf / $26.6k/door 60 145 80 15 1.35/$1.916M 5.02% Same basic leverage and loan, parked 1:1 (third added level is a parking level with units at street *120' is max height permitted *Assume current land values *Assume current market rents for the neighborhood * I had to push the rents for this site/neighborhood to make it make sense; the rents might be appropriate given the greater height and quality inherent with a tall tower. 92 *Fill or modify headers as applicable 93 Development Scenarios Wood Frame (Type III/V Construction) 4 over 1 to 5 over 1 in various zones allowing approximately 50 feet in height W o o d F r a m e S c e n a r i o s - 4 o v e r 1 T y p e V ( 5 5 F e e t ) t o 5 o v e r 1 T y p e II I ( 6 5 F e e t ) L I H T C Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80% AMI 50% AMI DCR/ Stabilized ROC Notes Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Cash Flow Mixed Income 4% LIHTC project, 20% of units @ 50% AMI 135 0.9375 Various $6.3M / $154psf / $46.6k/door 22 57 29 5 15 7 1.11/$281,153 5.07% 4% Tax Credits, $3M in subsidized gap debt assumed from State, County and City Sources 4% LIHTC 20% units @ 50% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 165 $6.3M / $154psf / $38.1k/door 26 70 35 7 18 9 1.12/$362,344 4.90% 4% Tax Credits, $3M in subsidized gap debt assumed from State, County and City Sources M a r k e t Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80% AMI 30% AMI DCR/ Stabilized ROC Notes Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Cash Flow Market Rate Project, by right to zoning 135 0.9375 Various $6.3M / $154psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 1.35/$847,545 5.87% Low Leverage (53%)/High Equity Raise, parked .55:1, LifeCo loan 5 % @ 3 0 % Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80% AMI 30% AMI DCR/ Stabilized ROC Notes Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Cash Flow Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 0.9375 Various $6.3M / $154psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 1.35/$847,545 5.87% Low Leverage (53%)/High Equity Raise, parked .55:1, LifeCo loan 5% units @ 30% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 165 $6.3M / $154psf / $38.1k/door 31 83 42 2 5 2 1.35/$917,421 5.48% Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..45 stalls/unit 5 % @ 6 0 % 2 b d Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80% AMI 60% AMI DCR/ Stabilized ROC Notes Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Cash Flow Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 0.9375 Various $6.3M / $154psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 1.35/$847,545 5.87% Low Leverage (53%)/High Equity Raise, parked .55:1, LifeCo loan 5% units @ 60% AMI, All 2s, with 1 floor above max height 165 $6.3M / $154psf / $38.1k/door 33 88 35 9 1.35/$1.015M 5.68% Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..45 stalls/unit 2 0 % @ 8 0 % Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80% AMI 60% AMI DCR/ Stabilized ROC Notes Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Cash Flow Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 0.9375 Various $6.3M / $154psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 1.35/$847,545 5.87% Low Leverage (53%)/High Equity Raise, parked .55:1, LifeCo loan 20% units @ 80% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 165 $6.3M / $154psf / $38.1k/door 27 70 35 6 18 9 1.35/$913,021 5.42% Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..45 stalls/unit 1 0 % @ 6 0 % Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80% AMI 60% AMI DCR/ Stabilized ROC Notes Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Cash Flow Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 0.9375 Various $6.3M / $154psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 1.35/$847,545 5.87% Low Leverage (53%)/High Equity Raise, parked .55:1, LifeCo loan 10% units @ 60% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 165 $6.3M / $154psf / $38.1k/door 30 79 39 3 9 5 1.35/$1.005M 5.61% Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..45 stalls/unit 1 0 % @ 8 0 % 2 s Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80% AMI 60% AMI DCR/ Stabilized ROC Notes Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Cash Flow Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 0.9375 Various $6.3M / $154psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 1.35/$847,545 5.87% Low Leverage (53%)/High Equity Raise, parked .55:1, LifeCo loan 10% units @ 80% AMI. All 2s, with 1 floor above max height 165 $6.3M / $154psf / $38.1k/door 33 88 27 17 1.35/$1.010M 5.82% Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..45 stalls/unit 5 % @ 8 0 % 3 s Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80% AMI 60% AMI DCR/ Stabilized ROC Notes Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Cash Flow Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 0.9375 Various $6.3M / $154psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 1.35/$847,545 5.87% Low Leverage (53%)/High Equity Raise, parked .55:1, LifeCo loan 5% units @ 80% AMI. All 3s, with 1 floor above max height 165 $6.3M / $154psf / $38.1k/door 51 123 42 13 1.35/$917,421 5.48% Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..45 stalls/unit *Assume current land values *Assume current market rents for the neighborhood *Fill or modify headers as applicable 94 Development Scenarios RMF-35 and TSA Apartment Buildings Citizens West Citizens West 2 & 3 are 100% affordable units, 25-50% AMI for all units. *Building this many units might be limited by LIHTC Equity available per cycle. Increasing the height from the existing 5 floors of residential/2 floors of parking would require change of construction type to steel, would affect DCR. Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Average 43% AMI Studio 3 BR 4 BR DCR/ Stabilized Cash Flow LIHTC project (9%) 80 1 TSA-UN-T $1.8M 45 25 10 1.15 Same project as above, with 1 floor above max height (AHI) 97 55 30 12 * Same project as above, with 2 floors above max height (AHI) 114* 65 35 14 * Denver Apartments This is a permanent supportive housing development. It is zoned RMF-35. The scenarios below show what was built based on the existing regulations and what could be built with the existing incentives. The incentives have a requirement of no more than 25% of units less than 500 sq. ft. Some units had to be enlarged and if there was not this requirement, 66 units would have fit on the site. Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Permanent Supportive Housing DCR/ Stabilized Cash Flow Studio = 39% AMI 1 BR = 50% AMI Project with existing zoning requirements 22 0.9 RMF-35 We don't have a current appraisal for this parcel. When the project was done, we paid $1M for land 10 12 1.25 LIHTC project (9%) - with allowances by incentives 53 13 40 1.25 Avia (The Exchange, Phase I) The Avia is 80% market rate units and 20% of units are at 50% AMI Scenarios # of Lot Size Zoning Units (acres) Market Rate Units Affordable Units (50% AMI) Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR Avia (The Exchange) LIHTC project (4%) 286 1 TSA-UN-C 25 138 51 15 6 34 13 4 Same project as above, with 1 floor above max height (AHI) 326 28 158 58 18 7 39 14 4 Same project as above, with 2 floors above max height (AHI) 367 31 178 65 20 8 44 16 5 Attachment Development Scenarios Summary Single- and Two-family zoning districts # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Unit Size For Sale Product, 80% AMI For Rent Product Market Rate 80% AMI Profit Market Price 80% AMI Price Market Rate 80% AMI NOI Value Monthly Rent Market Monthly Rent 80% AMI 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Scenario #1: Lower land value/Sales price neighborhood Single-family Detached without AHI 1 0.15 R-1/7,000 $185,000 2,800 sq ft + 2 car garage 1 $ (109,043) $500,000 NA 1 $20,850 $463,333 $2,500 NA Duplex with AHI 2 0.15 R-1/7,000 $185,000 1,500 sq ft each 1 1 $ (35,693) $450,000 $350,000 1 1 $37,852 $841,151 $2,300 $2,130 Fourplex with AHI 4 0.15 R-1/7,000 $185,000 1,000 sq ft each 2 2 $ 118,558 $350,000 (x2) $325,000 (x2) 2 2 $48,808 $1,084,622 $1,450 (x2) $1,450 (x2) Townhouses with AHI 4 0.25 R-1/7,000 $300,000 1,730 sq ft + 2 car garage 2 2 $ (75,150) $450,000 (x2) $300,000 (x2) 2 2 $79,704 $1,771,191 $2,300 $2,130 Scenario #2 Higher land value/Sales price neighborhood Single-family Detached without AHI 1 0.15 R-1/7,000 $300,000 2,800 sq ft + 2 car garage 1 $134,800 $1,050,000 NA 1 $27,532 $611,822 $3,200 NA Duplex with AHI 2 0.15 R-1/7,000 $300,000 1,500 sq ft each 1 1 ($61,150) $600,000 $350,000 1 1 $40,956 $910,129 $2,700 $2,130 Fourplex with AHI 4 0.15 R-1/7,000 $300,000 1,000 sq ft each 2 2 $81,350 $450,000 (x2) $325,000 (x2) 2 2 $63,172 $1,403,822 $1,800 (x2) $1,800 (x2) Townhouses with AHI 4 0.25 R-1/7,000 $500,000 1,730 sq ft + 2 car garage 2 2 ($7,610) $660,000 (x2) $350,000 (x2) 2 2 $85,964 $1,910,302 $2,800 (x2) $2,130 (x2) Assumptions: 80% AMI max. for sale price for a 3 bed unit assumes 4-person household, $81,900 annual income, 5% interest rate, 7% down payment 80% AMI max. for sale price for a 2 bed unit assumes 3-person household, $73,750 annual income, 5% interest rate, 7% down payment 80% AMI rental rates: 1 br = $1,537, 2 br = $1,844, 3 br = $2,130, 4 br = $2,136 NOI = net operating income = annual income - annual expenses 4.5% Cap rate for all 95 Attachment G4 PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 96 ATTACHMENT H: Zoning Maps and Graphics Attachment H.1 CS Zoning Districts CS (Community Shopping) – Trolley Square area PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 97 CS (Community Shopping) – Brickyard PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 98 CS (Community Shopping) – Foothill Village CS (Community Shopping) – Lucky Grocery area Attachment H.2 Locations of TSA Zoning Districts PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 99 TSA (Transit Station Area) Zoning Districts – North Temple TSA (Transit Station Area) Zoning Districts – 400 South Attachment H.3 Selected Commercial Districts PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 100 Attachment H.4 Locations of RMF Zoning Districts PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023 101 Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: cindy cromer To: Traughber, Lex Subject: (EXTERNAL) Fw: comment on Princeton Heights 11/8/23 Date: Thursday, November 9, 2023 6:12:06 AM Lex-In my comments at the meeting, I omitted the paragraphs on Housing Salt Lake and Plan Salt Lake because other people had spoken about those policies. Please include these written comments in the record as you forward the transmittal. My references to the data from the Mayor's task force will continue. Sincerely, cindy c. At your meeting on September 13, you voted to send a negative recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed historic district for Laird Heights, citing the need for more housing based on Housing SLC, Thriving in Place, and Plan Salt Lake. This afternoon I sent to your Dropbox the data generated by the Mayor's task force on Affordable Housing. The finding was that additional density was unlikely in high value, low density neighborhoods such as Yalecrest. You had those data for the April 26 hearing on Affordable Housing. It is clear to me as a small-scale investor that allowing demolitions in a neighborhood such as Yalecrest will result in even larger, more expensive single-family residences which exclude even more of Salt Lake City's residents. My own view is consistent with the data generated by developers on the task force and with the demolitions which have already occurred in the Yalecrest neighborhood. In addition to the data generated by the task force, I see shortcomings of citing the planning documents used in the motion on Laird Heights. Thriving in Place (2023)is an anti-displacement plan focusing on renters. It certainly should not be used to justify the replacement of expensive housing with even more expensive housing. Housing Salt Lake (2023) in C 3 addresses needs for family housing which both Laird and Princeton Heights provide and C 4 talks about geographic equity. We have data specific to Salt Lake City indicating that the proposed changes to increase density are unlikely to work in low density, high value neighborhoods. Plan Salt Lake (2015)contains a chapter on preservation and calls for a balanced approach to preservation and redevelopment. I am hoping that the City Council will consider both the Laird and Princeton Heights proposals at the same time. That would mean that both achieved the number of favorable votes required by the State and that I wouldn't have to repeat myself regarding the relevant adopted plans and the available data on affordable housing. From: GEORGE SABRINA THEODORE To: Planning Public Comments Subject: (EXTERNAL) Leave Princeton Harvard historical district zoning alone do not change it Date: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 12:05:38 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Our city is not a one size fits all zoning. This decision to change the zoning is to benefit developers not the neighborhood. As it is there are too many cars on our narrow Princeton street. Duplexes, fourplexs will not work in our neighborhood. We do not want to live next to one either. The neighborhood would deteriorate and lose its’ historical charm. Our neighborhood with the rules and current zoning works. As a taxpayer, we feel frustrated that our petitions, our voices are not being heard. Sent from my iPhone From: Mark Glissmeyer To: Planning Public Comments; Paula Harline; Ann AA Glissmeyer Subject: (EXTERNAL) Princeton Heights LHD Date: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 4:48:26 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. We respectfully request approval of the Princeton Heights Local Historic District. We are 41-year residents on Princeton Avenue. We came to house sit for the summer of 1982 to return to the University and have chosen to stay since that time due to the beautiful architecture and tree lined streets, and especially we have stayed because of the people drawn to such an area Communities such as this one need to be preserved to continue to strengthen our city. It was a stretch for us to afford our home at the beginning but our experience living in our single family home in a stable neighborhood with many long time residents was a wonderful help while raising our four boys. Our neighbors have been the village that helped us raise our children, and they are a large reason why we stay though our sons have all launched to their own single family home communities. We love the homes on these beautiful lighted and tree-lined streets. It has been a safe neighborhood for walking to nearby excellent public schools and shops. We are the third owners of our nearly 100 year old home and our hope is to continue to enjoy and care for the one- of-a-kind unique structures found in the Princeton Local Historic District. Mark and Ann Glissmeyer Sent from my iPhone Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: Jan Hemming To: Traughber, Lex Cc: KEEPYalecrest; Paula Harline Subject: (EXTERNAL) Statement of support for Princeton Heights LHD Date: Thursday, November 2, 2023 5:15:14 PM Lex: I hope you can add my letter of support to petition PLNHLC2023-00044 — the Princeton Heights LHD — that will be heard tonight at the Historic Landmark Commission. November 2, 2023 Historic Landmark Commission and Lex Traughber: I am unable to attend the public hearing this evening for petition PLNHLC2023-00044 before the Historic Landmark Commission but wanted to declare support for designating Princeton Avenue between 1300 East and 1500 East a Local Historic District. This petition exceeds Salt Lake City’s fundamental requirements for an LHD. But is also a superior example of why cities protect and preserve unique historic properties. From every criterion, Princeton Heights belongs in an LHD. Many of these homes have stood the test of time for over 100 years, representing a rare collection of Salt Lake’s heralded past that can’t be found elsewhere. Salt Lake outlined a clear vision in Plan SLC (2015) that “preservation is an important component of community character and sense of place.” Adding that “we value neighborhood character and the defining elements that make up our neighborhoods and City. The historic development patterns, including building composition and landscaping, details, and elements all play important roles in defining the character of our places.” Historic preservation was such an essential part of this 40-year vision of Salt Lake, outlined in Plan SLC, that an entire chapter was devoted to it. Designating Princeton Heights an LHD would fulfill Plan SLC’s intent to safeguard “the best examples of the City’s historic architecture.” Generations of homeowners who have lived in Princeton Heights have nurtured these one-of- a-kind domiciles with immense respect, conservation, maintenance, honor and even a sense of awe and reverence. It is only fitting that those who hold positions of power in Salt Lake would exercise their authority to protect and preserve them. Please approve Princeton Heights as an LHD. Respectfully, Janet (Jan) Hemming Yalecrest Neighborhood Council Chair Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies 774 East 2100 South Salt Lake City UT 84106 (801) 949-4040 | kirk@kirkhuffaker.com MEMO November 7, 2023 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission; Lex Traughber, SLC Planning Division FROM: Kirk Huffaker, Principal Subject: PLNHLC2023-00044 Princeton Heights Local Historic District, Salt Lake City Before you this week is the application for Princeton Heights in Yalecrest to become a local historic district. As a preservation planner in Salt Lake City for over 25 years, I unequivocally support this application and encourage the Planning Commission to give it a favorable recommendation. Princeton Heights meets all the criteria to be locally designated, given its deep historic and architectural significance. This is one of the most intact historic districts I’ve ever seen in my professional career and a local historic district designation, which is strongly supported by the owners, will keep that character intact. To that end, this proposal is supported by statement nine of Plan Salt Lake: “As our City grows, finding the right places to preserve the character is as important as finding the right places for growth to occur." As a preservationist and city resident, I am as concerned about affordable housing as I am about preservation. However, historic preservation should not be considered an impediment to achieving historic preservation. Having directly discussed this issue today with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and numerous organizations across the country, there are creative and untried methods to integrate deeper affordability into any historic district that do not require demolition, thus preserving their historic character. Yes, Salt Lake City can have both. It’s not an either/or circumstance. The Salt Lake City historic preservation program has had more than 45 years of success, making the city’s historic neighborhoods the jewels of the city, telling its stories while providing a range of housing choices. The Princeton Heights LHD application is the next important step in that line of success that deserves the Planning Commission’s support. Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies 774 East 2100 South Salt Lake City UT 84106 (801) 949-4040 | kirk@kirkhuffaker.com Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: Emoli Kearns To: Planning Public Comments Subject: (EXTERNAL) Nov 8 meeting participation. Date: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 1:15:06 AM I will be speaking to the Planning Commission as a landmark commissioner to support the creation of the Princeton Heights Historic Overlay district. The Planning Commission cited Thriving in Place, an Anti-Displacement and Gentrification Mitigation Plan and Plan Salt Lake in their recent denial of the Laid Heights National Historic District application. I hoped to show the guiding principles from page 14 of Plan Salt Lake. Can you suggest how to best accomplish this? -Emoli Kearns GUIDING PRINCIPLES 1/ Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunity for social interaction, and services needed for the well-being of the community therein. 2/ Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around. 3/ Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics. 4/ A transportation and mobility network that is safe, accessible, reliable, affordable, and sustainable, providing real choices and connecting people with places. 5/ Air that is healthy and clean. 6/ Minimize our impact on the natural environment. 7/ Protecting the natural environment while providing access and opportunities to recreate and enjoy nature. 8/ A beautiful city that is people focused. 9/ Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past. 10/ Vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural resources that showcase the community’s long-standing commitment to a strong creative culture. 11/ Ensure access to all City amenities for all citizens while treating everyone equitably with fairness, justice, and respect. 12/ A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and fosters an environment for commerce, local business, and industry to thrive. 13/ A local government that is collaborative, responsive, and transparent. 14 SALT LAKE CITY | PLAN SALT LAKE Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: LYNN Pershing To: Traughber, Lex; Lillie, Aiden Cc: Dugan, Dan Subject: (EXTERNAL) Princeton Heights LHD PLNHLC2023-00044 online open house comments Date: Sunday, September 3, 2023 5:41:31 PM Hi Mr Traughber I went to the SLCgov website and it directed me to you for my online open house comments concerning posting my comments regarding PLNHLC2023-00044, Princeton Heights LHD My comment I strongly support local historic district designation for the proposed Yalecrest- Princeton Heights LHD, PLNHLC2023-00044. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places since 2007. It’s exquisite building structures of mainly English Cottages, English Tudors and and an unusual Cape Dutch Colonial, along with Jacobethan French Norman architecture are highly intact, having 97.7% historically contributing houses. This proposed LHD has a rich culture of property owners representing many professional areas of commerce that have shaped the City’s, state and regional development and notoriety. Designation of Yalecrest-Princeton Heights as a local historic district is consistent with the East Bench Master Plan (1987, 2017), the Community Preservation Plan (2012) and other City Historic Preservation codes aim at "preserving the historic and cultural aspects of our City to encourage social, economic and environmental sustainability and create a sense of visual unity within the community”. Lynn K. Pershing Yalecrest From: Rebecca Wilson Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. To: Planning Public Comments Subject: (EXTERNAL) Princeton Heights Local Historic District Date: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 10:31:17 AM Commssioners: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Princeton Heights Local Historic District Proposal. I believe the Planning Commission should consider that land use that preserves the integrity of neighborhoods is important to SLC residents and measures should be taken to insure that the basic character of SLC remains. Multi- unit buildings in single family neighborhoods favor developers at the expense of home buyers by : 1. increasing the price of single family homes 2. increases congestion and pollution with more density 3. destroys the original and historical architectural character of neighborhoods that will never be replaced..... lost forever 4. destroys incentives to improve and preserve existing structures 5. adds to land fill and replaced by cheaper and more expendable building materials 6. creates a never ending cycle of destruction and construction in quiet and livable neighborhoods 7. detracts from a standard of living that values open spaces for walking and playing (children) 8. may resemble California in architecture that is jumbled and confused, definitely a place that is disturbing Please recommend the Salt Lake City Council approve the proposal to create the Princeton Heights Local Historic District. Help to keep SLC unique and livable. Michael Robis 1400 Princeton Ave From: Eve Smith To: Traughber, Lex Subject: (EXTERNAL) Princeton Avenue Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 5:18:00 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. This is a public comment for the Salt Lake City Planning Commission. We are opposed to our street being zoned historic. One reason why is that we are finding window restoration to be completely unaffordable, and the few craftsmen that work on the old leaded windows don’t even e mail or call back with estimates. The historic zoning rules are way too restrictive. As much as we love our home we are strongly opposed to being forced into a historic zone. Thank you, Eve Smith 1349 Princeton Avenue. Sent from my iPhone From: To: Subject: Date: Jim & Eve Smith Planning Public Comments (EXTERNAL) Princeton historic proposal Wednesday, November 8, 2023 12:44:35 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. We live at 1349 Princeton Avenue and are opposed to becoming historic zoned. We love our old home but fear the restrictions that will come as our leaded glass windows continue to age and we won’t be able to afford the hand craftsmanship that repairs cost. This is just one example. Eve Smith Sent from my iPhone From: To: Subject: Date: GEORGE SABRINA THEODORE Planning Public Comments (EXTERNAL) Leave Princeton Harvard historical district zoning alone do not change it Wednesday, November 8, 2023 12:05:38 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Our city is not a one size fits all zoning. This decision to change the zoning is to benefit developers not the neighborhood. As it is there are too many cars on our narrow Princeton street. Duplexes, fourplexs will not work in our neighborhood. We do not want to live next to one either. The neighborhood would deteriorate and lose its’ historical charm. Our neighborhood with the rules and current zoning works. As a taxpayer, we feel frustrated that our petitions, our voices are not being heard. Sent from my iPhone From: To: Subject: Date: Rebecca Wilson Planning Public Comments (EXTERNAL) Princeton Heights Local Historic District Wednesday, November 8, 2023 10:31:17 AM Commssioners: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Princeton Heights Local Historic District Proposal. I believe the Planning Commission should consider that land use that preserves the integrity of neighborhoods is important to SLC residents and measures should be taken to insure that the basic character of SLC remains. Multi- unit buildings in single family neighborhoods favor developers at the expense of home buyers by : 1. increasing the price of single family homes 2. increases congestion and pollution with more density 3. destroys the original and historical architectural character of neighborhoods that will never be replaced..... lost forever 4. destroys incentives to improve and preserve existing structures 5. adds to land fill and replaced by cheaper and more expendable building materials 6. creates a never ending cycle of destruction and construction in quiet and livable neighborhoods 7. detracts from a standard of living that values open spaces for walking and playing (children) 8. may resemble California in architecture that is jumbled and confused, definitely a place that is disturbing Please recommend the Salt Lake City Council approve the proposal to create the Princeton Heights Local Historic District. Help to keep SLC unique and livable. Michael Robis 1400 Princeton Ave Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. 6. OFFICIAL CANVASS RESULTS Official Canvass PROPERTY OWNER PUBLIC SUPPORT SURVEY Proposed Yalecrest - Princeton Heights Local Historic District WHEREAS, a mailing was provided to all forty-three (43) area property owners on November 22, 2023 regarding the proposed Princeton Heights Local Historic District; and WHEREAS, the property owners were asked as to whether they should support or oppose designation of this area as the Princeton Heights Local Historic District, voting was allowed following November 22, 2023, thru December 22, 2023, with mail in ballots must being postmarked by December 21, 2023, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, all valid ballots accounted for, returned, and postmarked as of December 21, 2023, have now been tabulated with the following results: SUPPORT: 28 OPPOSED: 6 UNDELIVERABLE: 1 DELIVERED or POSTMARKED AFTER DEADLINE: 0 RETURNED BUT DID NOT VOTE: 1 VERIFIED and DULY CERTIFIED by the City Recorder of Salt Lake City as of the 29th day of December 2023. ATTEST: Cindy Lou Trishman Salt Lake City Recorder Item B3 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:March 26, 2024 RE: 756 South Montgomery Street Zoning Map Amendment PLNPCM2023-00706 MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (close and adopt (if the Council would like to adopt tonight)) I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance. MOTION 3 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:March 26, 2024 RE: 756 South Montgomery Street Zoning Map Amendment PLNPCM2023-00706 BRIEFING UPDATE During the February 20, 2024 briefing, a question was raised about potentially adding this property to the community land trust. Doing so would allow lower costs of homes, with the City retaining ownership of the underlying property. Staff contacted the Community and Neighborhoods Department and was told “…it is the Administration’s intent to retain ownership of the land to ensure long term affordability, ultimately selling the constructed housing units to future homeowners through the City’s CLT [community land trust] model.” The following information was provided for February 20, 2024 Council briefing. It is included again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about a proposal from the Administration to amend the zoning map for an approximately one-half acre City owned parcel at 756 South Montgomery Street in City Council District Two from its current R-1/5,000 (Single-family Residential) zoning designation to RMF-30 (Low-density Multi-family Residential). No development plan has been submitted, but Planning staff noted the property is in the Housing Stability Division’s portfolio and affordable housing would likely be developed on the site if the proposed zoning map amendment is approved by the Council. Current zoning has a maximum lot size of 5,000 square feet and requires 50 feet of street frontage. At slightly more than 22,000 square feet, the lot is nonconforming. The 119-foot street frontage would allow the lot to be divided into two lots, but at least one would be nonconforming due to the parcel’s size. The Item Schedule: Briefing: February 20, 2024 Set Date: March 5, 2024 Public Hearing: March 26, 2024 Potential Action: April 2, 2024 Page | 2 proposed RMF-30 zoning would allow up to six townhome units or eight cottage or multi-family units to be built. A mobile home park is immediately to the north of the subject property, and a legal nonconforming commercial plant nursery is across Montgomery Street to the east. Other surrounding properties are single-family residential. Except for the adjacent mobile home park, the area is zoned R-1/5,000 as shown in the zoning map below. It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposed RMF-30 zoning is an appropriate transitional zone for the area. They found that because of its location at the edge of the development pattern, neighborhood impact of slightly higher building heights and lot coverage allowance would be lower. Area zoning map with the subject property outlined in blue. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed zoning map amendment during its November 29, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which one person had his comments opposing the rezone read. The commenter said he sent an email opposing the rezone but did not receive a response. Planning staff said they were not aware of receiving the email. Planning staff recommended and the Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if they intend the proposed housing units to be for rent or for sale. If for rent, does the Administration intend to continue owning the property or sell it? Page | 3 2. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration what City goals for housing they have for potential development on the subject property such as if it will be used to advance affordability goals ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. No formal site plan has been submitted nor is it within the scope of the Council’s authority to review the plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 5-12 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1 – Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning. If the property is rezoned to RMF-30, it would be the only multi-family residential zoning in the immediate neighborhood. However, there is RMF-45 zoning immediately north of the mobile home park, and other multi-family zoned properties in the broader area. Planning staff noted the Westside Plan calls for compatible infill in the Glendale and Poplar Grove neighborhoods, with this site specifically identified as one with good potential for infill development. The property is located within the Airport Flight Path Protection overlay district Zone “H” which limits building heights. The 30-foot maximum building height allowed in RMF-30 zoning will not conflict with the overlay. Consideration 2 – Implementation of City Plans. Planning found the proposed zoning map amendment and development potential for this site are supported by various goals and initiatives related to growth and housing found in Plan Salt Lake, Housing SLC, and the Westside Plan. Consideration 3 – Comparison of R-1/5,000 and RMF-30 Zoning. The current R-1/5,000 and proposed RMF-30 zoning have similar maximum building heights. R-1/5,000 allows pitched roofs up to 28 feet and flat roofs up to 20 feet. RMF-30 has a maximum height of 30 feet. There are increased required setbacks for multi-family and row house developments to help moderate impact from the additional height. Single-family detached houses are allowed in both zones but RMF-30 zoning also allows two-family, multi- family, and row house/sideway row house development not permitted uses under the current zoning. These and other requirements are compared in the table below. In addition, the proposed RMF-30 zone has design standards including durable external building materials, minimum glass requirements, and a maximum length of external blank walls. The existing R-1/5,000 zoning does not have these requirements. ZONING COMPARISON The following table compares building height, setback, and other requirements for the current R-1/5,000 and proposed RMF-30 zoning districts. Page | 4 R-1/5,000 (Current)RMF-30 (Proposed) Maximum Building Height 28 feet for pitched roof, 20 feet for flat roof. 30 feet. Front Yard 20 feet or average of the block face. 20 feet or average of the block face. Side Yard 4 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other. Single family detached and two- family: 4 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other. Multi-family (maximum of 8 attached units): 10 feet. Row Houses (maximum of 6 attached units): 6 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other. Cottage Development: 4 feet. Rear Yard Minimum 25% of the lot depth or 20 feet, whichever is less. Minimum of 20% lot depth, need not exceed 25 feet (10 feet required for cottage developments). Parking Requirements Two spaces per dwelling unit.Two-family: Two spaces per dwelling unit. Multi-family: •Studio and one bedroom: One space per dwelling unit. •Two or more bedrooms: 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit. Row House and Sideways Row House: Two spaces per dwelling unit. Cottage Developments: One space per dwelling unit. Lot Area/Width 5,000 square feet, with minimum lot width of 50 feet. Single family detached, two- family, multi-family, row houses: 2,000 square feet. Minimum lot width requirements are not applicable. Cottage developments: 1,500 square feet. Minimum lot widths are not applicable. Analysis of Standards Attachment D (pages 24-25) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Page | 5 Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties Complies Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Complies 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, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Complies City Department Review During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed concerns with the proposal, but stated additional review and permits would be required if the property is developed. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • July 27, 2023-Petition for zoning map amendment received by Planning Division. • August 17, 2023-Petition assigned to Michael McNamee, Principal Planner. • September 13, 2023-Notice sent to Poplar Grove Community Council informing them of the petition. The community council did not provide formal comments. • September 11, 2023-Early notification notice mailed to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject properties. • November 17, 2023- o Planning Commission hearing notices posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. o Notices mailed to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject properties. • November 29, 2023- Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission voted 8-0 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. • December 20, 2023-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • February 2, 2024-Transmittal received in City Council Office. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: February 2, 2024 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Zoning Map Amendment for 756 S. Montgomery Street (PLNPCM2023-00607) STAFF CONTACT: Michael McNamee, Principal Planner (801-535-7226 or michael.mcnamee@slcgov.com) DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the proposed Zoning Map amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Mayor Erin Mendenhall initiated a petition to amend the zoning map designation of this City-owned property at 756 South Montgomery Street in July of 2023. The request is to rezone the subject property from R-1/5000 (Single-Family Residential District) to RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential District). On November 29, 2023, the Planning Commission heard the petition and forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council to amend the zoning map. If approved, it would allow for the construction of a higher number of residential dwellings on this property. The property is in the portfolio of the Housing Stability Division, who will likely seek to develop affordable housing on the site. The site is currently vacant and based on available records likely has never been developed. It was acquired by the City in 2014. rachel otto (Feb 2, 2024 10:07 MST)02/02/2024 02/02/2024 The RMF-30 zone is a residential zoning district that is intended to be a transition zone between low-density residential districts such as R-1/5000 and higher density zones. This site sits in a location that is between a mobile home park, non-conforming commercial plant nursery, and a neighborhood that is otherwise comprised of single-family homes. As such, a transitional zone makes sense here and given the location on the edge of the established development pattern the impact of a slightly more intense development will be lower. Development standards in RMF-30 Mo n t g o m e r y S t r e e t Pr o s p e c t St r e e t 800 S Indiana Avenue are similar to R-1/5000, with a slightly higher allowable building height and lot coverage allowance. RMF-30 would also introduce design standards that are not required in R-1/5000, such as requirements for a certain amount of durable building materials or glass facing the street. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Petition for the zoning map amendment was accepted by the Salt Lake Planning Division on July 27, 2023. • The petition was assigned to Michael McNamee, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing on August 17, 2023. • The petition was deemed complete on August 17, 2023. • Information concerning this petition was sent to the chair of the Poplar Grove Community Council on September 13, 2023. o The Community Council did not provide formal comments. • The surrounding property owners and residents within 300’ of the subject properties received an early notification by mail on September 11, 2023. • Public notification for the Planning Commission Hearing was mailed November 17, 2023 to all neighbors within 300’ of the zoning map amendment site. The public notice was also posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve. • The petition was heard by the Planning Commission on November 29, 2023. The Planning Commission voted 8-0 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed zoning map amendment. o There were two public comments received prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of November 29, 2023 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of November 29, 2023 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of November 29, 2023 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Ordinance 2) Project Chronology 3) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 4) Original Petition 5) Mailing List TABLE OF CONTENTS: 1. ORDINANCE 2. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING 4. ORIGINAL PETITION 5. MAILING LIST 1. ORDINANCE 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2024 (Amending the zoning map pertaining to a parcel of property located at 756 South Montgomery Street to rezone the parcel from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to a parcel of property located at 756 South Montgomery Street to rezone the parcel from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2023-00607. WHEREAS, Mayor Erin Mendenhall submitted an application to rezone a parcel of property located at 756 South Montgomery Street from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2023-00607; and WHEREAS, at its November 29, 2023 meeting, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on the application; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the parcel located at 756 South Montgomery Street (Tax ID No. 2 15-10-203-003-0000, more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, is rezoned from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District. 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 ____________, 2024. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2024 Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: _________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney December 20, 2023 3 Exhibit “A” Legal description of the property Tax ID No. 15-10-203-003-0000 LOTS 19, 20 & 21, BLK 5, EVAN'S ADD TO POPLAR GROVE. TOGETHER WITH 1/2 VACATED ALLEY ABUTTING ON S. 2. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2023-00607 July 27, 2023 Petition for the zoning map and amendment received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division. August 17, 2023 Petition assigned to Michael McNamee, Principal Planner. September 11, 2023 Staff hosted an online Open House to solicit public comments on the proposal. The Online Open House period started on September 11, 2023 and ended November 29, 2023. September 11, 2023 Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. September 13, 2023 Information about the proposal was sent to the Chair of the Poplar Grove Community Council in order to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. October 30, 2023 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. No formal comments were submitted to staff by the recognized organizations to date related to this proposal. November 16, 2023 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. November 16, 2023 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of November 29, 2023. Public hearing notice mailed. November 29, 2023 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 29, 2023. By a majority vote of 8-0, the Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00607 – 756 S. Montgomery Street Zoning Map Amendment – Mayor Mendenhall has initiated a petition to amend the zoning map for city-owned property at the above-listed address. The proposal would rezone the property from R-1/5000 (Single-Family Residential) to RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential) District. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is intended to support appropriately scaled housing choices as recommended by the Westside Master Plan. The project is within Council District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Michael McNamee at 801-535-7226 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at michael.mcnamee@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2023-00607. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. 4. ORIGINAL PETITION 5. MAILING LIST OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR own_unit OWN_CITY OWN_STATOWN_ZIP BONNEVILLE MHC LLC 18006 SKY PARK CIRCLE IRVINE CA 92614 DARNELL, SHERRIE A 748 S PROSPECT ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 WHIPPLE, JESSICA A &SRI; JT 756 S PROSPECT ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 PAMELA L SEAGER REVOCABLE TRUSSEAGER, PAMELA L; TR 1636 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 GLENN, TIMOTHY AARON; JTGLENN, BETHANY HOPE; JT 749 S PROSPECT ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 REMUND, KIRK J 1005 W WALDEN MEADOWS DR MURRAY UT 84123 SALT LAKE CITYCORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 RUBENSTEIN, ROBERT J 1622 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE COUNTY PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 MACLEOD, WILLIAM; JTPAULDING, ANNA A; JT 1616 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SANDERS, CALVIN D 1608 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 WELLMAN, FRANKIE LEE JTWELLMAN, MARY RAQUEL JT 1602 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 PALAMINO, MERTIN P &HERNANDEZ, BERTHA A; JT 1596 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 RAYMUNDO, JULIO C 2333 W JOSIE LN TAYLORSVILLE UT 84129 FONOIMOANA, HANS J; JTET AL 1582 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 COX, CASEY J 752 S CHEYENNE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 ROSENLUND, ANNETTE; TR 756 S CHEYENNE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 FRECKLETON, JOAN; TR( JF FM TRST ) 1550 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 TAPIA, FLORENCIO &HERNANDEZ, LUISA T; JT 1556 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 JOAN FRECKLETON FAM TRGATES, BETH; TR 7973 S 1300 W WEST JORDAN UT 84088 FRECKLETON, JOAN; TR(JF FAM TR) 1550 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 FRECKLETON, JOAN; TR(JF FM TR) 1550 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SUNNYSIDE 1621 A SERIES OFSUNNYSIDE RENOVATION, LLC PO BOX 58944 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84158 SANDERS, CHAD; JTSANDERS, DONNA; JT 1615 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 MYINT, KYAW THU MOE &KHAING, MOH MOH; JT 1599 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 GUTIERREZ, FABIAN 1583 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 MARTINEZ, EMILIO A 1593 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 CORNEJO, FRANCISCO J 1589 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 MCCLURE, JAREDMCCLURE, MORGAN 1609 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 ZAVALA, ARTURO G;ZAVALA, ALICIA; JT 1557 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 NGUYEN, TIFFANY HUONG 1171 W PARK PALISADE DR SOUTH JORDAN UT 84095 BODILY, CHEYENNE R 1565 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 GARCIA, JOHNNY; JTVELASQUEZ, LORI; JT 819 S MONTGOMERY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 Occupant PARCEL_ADDR NEW_UNIT CITY STATE ZIPCODE 705 S REDWOOD RD Salt Lake City UT 84104 755 S PROSPECT ST Salt Lake City UT 84104 756 S MONTGOMERY ST Salt Lake City UT 84104 1620 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 1588 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 1562 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 1550 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 761 S MONTGOMERY ST Salt Lake City UT 84104 1542 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 1621 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 1609 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 1553 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Item B4 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY24 TO: City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Senior Analyst DATE: March 26, 2024 RE: Library Budget Amendment Number Two of FY2024 MOTION 1 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action. MOTION 2 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future date. MOTION 3 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING & ADOPT I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2024 final budget of the Salt Lake City Library including the employment staffing document only for items as shown on the motion sheet. Staff note: Council Members do not need to read the individual items being approved below; they are listed for reference. -Additional Funding for the Main Library Roof Renovation Project ($157,000 from reallocating existing capital improvement project funds and $1,164,215 from the Library’s Fund Balance) MOTION 4 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT ADOPT I move that the Council close the public hearing and proceed to the next agenda item. MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238 PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ___________________________________ Date Received: ________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: ___________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: January 30, 2024 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Library Budget Amendment #2 SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT: Greg Cleary, City Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that, subsequent to a public hearing, the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2023-24 Library Fund adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: REVENUE EXPENSE LIBRARY FUND $ 0.00 $ 1,321,215.00 TOTAL $ 0.00 $ 1,321,215.00 April Patterson (Jan 30, 2024 14:40 MST) April Patterson 1-30-2024 1-30-2024 rachel otto (Jan 30,2024 14:57 MST) BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This request in the amount of $1,321,215 is made in the form of a proposed budget amendment as opposed to waiting for approval in the next fiscal year’s budget in an effort to avoid further cost increases and construction delays. As construction has progressed on the Main Library roof, a number of items have risen as critical priorities due to existing conditions not known until demolition of the roof began and material cost inflation. Crews are scheduled to complete the work authorized in the approved budget near the new fiscal year which begins July 1, 2024. In order to allow the contractor to order materials necessary to continue the work and to avoid a work stoppage, staff recommends approval of additional funding for the project to come from the Library's General Fund balance and other capital projects or operational budgets. On January 22, 2024, the Library’s Board of Directors approved the budget amendment that is now proposed to the City Council for consideration. This memorandum supplements the one presented to the Library Board, and includes information based on dialogue with the Board; however, the figures and purpose remain unchanged. Staff has identified projects and other operational budgets to fund the increase, along with use of fund balance. With the proposed increase, the Library’s General Fund balance is projected to be at $4.3 million at the end of the fiscal year, which amounts to 15% of annual revenues budgeted at $28,986,230. Additional detail can be found in the attached memo. PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing MEMO | January 29, 2023 To: Salt Lake City Council From: Noah Baskett, Executive Director – Salt Lake City Public Library Re: Budget Amendment 2 for FY2023-24 As construction has progressed on the Main Library roof, a number of items have risen as critical priorities due to existing conditions not known until demolition of the roof began and material cost inflation. Crews are scheduled to complete the work authorized in the approved budget near the new fiscal year which begins July 1, 2024. In order to allow the contractor to order materials necessary to continue the work and to avoid a work stoppage, staff recommends approval of additional funding for the project to come from the Library's General Fund balance and other capital projects or operational budgets. This request is made in the form of a proposed budget amendment as opposed to waiting for approval in the next fiscal year’s budget in an effort to avoid further cost increases and construction delays. On January 22, 2024, the Library’s Board of Directors approved the budget amendment that is now proposed to the City Council for consideration. This memorandum supplements the one presented to the Library Board, and includes information based on dialogue with the Board; however, the figures and purpose remain unchanged. The original FY24 budget included $7,325,265 for the roof renovation project. The elements below were included in the original project plan and funding request, but unable to be completed due to the cost escalation noted above: Items Cost Estimate Landscape/Irrigation 280,500 Glazing/Glass Walls 305,000 Metal Railing & Paint 300,000 Site Furnishings 25,000 Paulsen General Conditions (7%)70,385 Paulsen Bond & Insurance (2%)20,110 Paulsen Overhead & Profit (4%)40,220 Owner’s Contingency 280,000 Sub-total $1,321,215 Additional Owners Contingency (reallocation approved in Dec.)96,590 Total $1,417,805 During its December meeting, the Board approved reallocation of $96,590 to the roof project from unused funds previously designated for the Sprague branch renovation that was completed two years ago. The proposed adjustment will result in a total of $376,590 available in the owner's contingency to address unanticipated needs to see this phase of the project to completion. With the included contingency, these budget adjustments will be the final request for this portion of the roof project area over the triangle building. Proposed increase of $1,321,215 Staff has identified projects and other operational budgets to fund the increase, along with use of fund balance. With the proposed increase below, the Library’s General Fund balance is projected to be at $4.3 million at the end of the fiscal year, which amounts to 15% of annual revenues budgeted at $28,986,230. State law requires the fund balance to be maintained between 5% and 35% of annual revenues. In addition to use of the Library’s General Fund balance, the table below summarizes a handful of projects previously approved in the FY24 budget that will be modified or postponed in order to reallocate funding to the roof project. The column in blue represents the amounts by which other projects will be reduced and reallocated to the roof project: Funding Sources Account Name Description Current Budget Requested Reallocation to Roof Project Amended Budget Capital Outlay - System (40-40750) Postpone development of bilingual signage 65,000 50,000 15,000 Capital Outlay - Main (40-40721) Work portion of 1st floor remodel into facilities plan 28,000 28,000 - Furnishings - Main (40-40751) Postpone service desk replacement 14,380 14,000 380 Capital Outlay - Main (40-40721)Reduce door replacement 120,000 15,000 105,000 Capital Outlay - Main (40-40721) Reduce fire system maintenance 100,000 35,000 65,000 Capital Outlay – Foothill (40-40732) Savings from Foothill parking lighting 15,000 15,000 - Sub-total Reallocations $157,000 Fund Balance - Appropriated (10-38900) Use General Fund balance, down to 15% of annual revenue 4,253,310 1,164,215 5,417,525 Total Funding Sources $1,321,215 Expenditures – Capital Projects Account Name Description Current Budget Amount Requested Reallocation to Roof Project Amended Budget Amount Capital Outlay - Main (40-40721)Roof project $7,421,855 $1,321,215 $8,743,070 Recommended Motion: Move to approve an increase of $1,321,215 in the Library’s FY24 budget for use of the Library’s General Fund balance and reallocation from various accounts as noted, transfer of those funds to capital projects, and expenditure from the capital projects fund for the roof renovation project. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2024 (Second Amendment to the Final Budget for the Library Fund of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2023-24) An ordinance amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 28 of 2023, which adopted the final budget for the Library fund of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024. PREAMBLE On June 23, 2023, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget for the Library fund of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the Utah Code. The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget for the Library fund of Salt Lake City as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 28 of 2023. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget for the Library fund of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128, of the Utah Code. 2 SECTION 3. Certification to Utah State Auditor. The City’s Policy and Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments with the Utah State Auditor. SECTION 4. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of _______________, 2024. ________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________ Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed _________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _________ of 2024. Published: ___________________. Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form _________________________ Jaysen Oldroyd Item B5 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:March 26, 2024 RE: Zoning Map Amendment at 2260, 2270, and 2290 East 1300 South PLNPCM2023-00385 MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. (The following motions are included if the Council would like to take action this night.) MOTION 3 (close and adopt) I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance. MOTION 4 (close and reject) I move that the Council close the public hearing and reject the ordinance. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:March 26, 2024 RE: Zoning Map Amendment at 2260, 2270, and 2290 East 1300 South PLNPCM2023-00385 PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE No one spoke at the February 20, 2024 public hearing. Because the petitioner planned to provide additional information, the Council continued the hearing to a future meeting. The petitioner followed up indicating that if the zoning map amendment was approved by the Council, it is likely some portion of new dwelling units would meet the 80% area median income (AMI) threshold, but they are not open to committing to any requirement through a development agreement. If the rezone is not approved, a smaller development could be built on the parking lot area of the property under existing zoning and would be less likely to include dwelling units at the 80% AMI threshold. It is anticipated that a new tenant will occupy the currently vacant restaurant space fronting Foothill Drive, which will serve as the mixed-use portion of a new development. It is the petitioner’s belief that limited exposure and foot traffic from 2300 East would make it difficult for retail businesses in other areas of the site to succeed. The following information was provided for previous Council meetings. It is included again for background purposes. BRIEFING UPDATE Much of the January 16, 2024 briefing was focused on potential affordable housing in the proposed development. Council Members expressed a desire for affordable units either with, or separate from, the Affordable Housing Initiative. The petitioner said they hadn’t planned on including affordable units but Item Schedule: Briefing: January 16, 2024 Set Date: February 6, 2024 Public Hearing: February 20, March 26, 2024 Potential Action: April 2, 2024 Page | 2 will review possibilities to include them. Planning staff will work with the petitioner to let them know what options exist for affordable units. When asked about maintaining current zoning on the subject parcels and constructing fourplexes, the petitioner said it wouldn’t be financially feasible, and the existing homes would likely stay. Without these parcels, there is not enough space to do a development in the current parking lot. They are amenable to exploring available tools and include them as options for future development. The petitioner will discuss with the property owner and follow up once they have more information. The petitioner clarified that the subject parcels, vacant restaurant, and parking lot are under common ownership. There are plans for a new tenant to move into the restaurant space. The proposed building would utilize most of the parking lot and include 50-60 units, providing an additional housing option in an area of predominantly single-family homes. The existing gas station/fast food restaurant, and hotel are under separate ownership and not included in this proposal. The petitioner will provide more information to the Council after discussions with the property owner. The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for parcels at 2260 East, 2270 East, and 2290 East 1300 South in City Council District Six from their current R-1/7,000 (Single-family Residential) zoning designation to CB (Community Business). The petitioner has not submitted development plans for the parcels, but it is anticipated they would be developed along with adjoining property to the south for multi-family housing or a mixed-use development. The parcels are between Foothill Drive and 2300 East, as shown in the image below, and each has a single-family dwelling currently used as rental housing. Adjacent properties to the south and west are zoned CB and include a parking lot, gas station/fast food restaurant, a two-story restaurant and office building (the restaurant is currently vacant), and a three-story hotel. Properties on the north side of 1300 South are zoned R-1/12,000 and include single-family homes. A cemetery zoned OS (Open Space) is on the east side of 2300 East. The Foothill Village shopping center is on the west side of Foothill Drive and is zoned CS (Community Shopping). The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed zoning map amendment during its September 13, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which no one spoke. Planning staff recommended and the Commission voted 7-2 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. One Commissioner who voted in opposition cited concerns with what could be built on the site under the proposed zoning, and a potential loss of residential feel. She prefers moderate-density residential zoning for the parcels. The other Commissioner who voted against the motion did not state why he was opposed. Planning staff received a letter from the East Bench Community Council outlining their opposition to the proposed zoning map amendment. It is included on pages 21-24 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized here. Concerns include changes to the neighborhood and encroachment, and the proposed zoning does not follow some initiatives found in the East Bench Master Plan. In addition, Planning received email comments expressing concern with neighborhood impacts including parking, traffic, and reduced walkability. Page | 3 Area zoning map with the subject properties outlined in yellow. Aerial view looking south with the subject properties outlined in yellow. Images courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask the applicant if they plan to include any affordable housing in potential future projects on the subject sites. If yes, is the Council interested in asking the applicant Page | 4 if they would be willing to enter into a development agreement pertaining to affordable housing units? 2. The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the Affordable Housing Incentives may impact this petition or development potential on the property. 3. The Council may wish to ask if tenants of the properties will be offered relocation assistance. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. No formal site plan has been submitted to the City nor is it within the scope of the Council’s authority to review the plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 4-8 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1 – Master Plan Compatibility. Planning staff found that the proposed zoning map amendment supports several initiatives in Plan Salt Lake, East Bench Master Plan, and the Salt Lake City Housing Plan. It has the potential to increase moderate-density housing in a neighborhood with existing infrastructure. Combining the parcels with adjacent parcels already zoned CB would allow cohesive development for the block and vehicular access from a key intersection on Foothill Drive. Consideration 2 – Housing Loss Mitigation. When properties with housing units are rezoned to a zoning district that allows non-residential uses, a housing loss mitigation plan approved by the City is required. Options for mitigation are found in Chapter 18.97.030 Salt Lake City Code. They include replacement housing, a fee based on the difference between existing housing and replacement cost, and a fee where deteriorated housing exists, not caused by deliberate indifference of the landowner. In this case, the petitioner chose to enter a development agreement with the City requiring the three single-family homes to be replaced with at least the same number of dwelling units if the homes are demolished. Consideration 3 – Neighborhood Impacts. The CB zoning district is intended to provide close integration of moderately sized commercial areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods. As discussed above, the subject properties abut CB-zoned development to the south and west. Planning staff found that if additional development occurred on the CB zoned properties, the single-family homes would feel isolated and potentially out of place. Future buildings larger than 7,500 square feet within the CB zone would require additional design standards and design review approval from the Planning Commission. As shown in the zoning comparison table below, the 30-foot maximum building height in CB zoning is similar to the 28-foot maximum height under current R-1/7,000 zoning. Planning staff found that 1300 South will help buffer single-family residential properties to the north. ZONING COMPARISON The following table compares building height, setback, and other requirements for the current R-1/7,000 and proposed CB zoning districts. Page | 5 R-1/7,000 (Current)CB (Proposed) Maximum Building Height 28 feet for pitched roofs or average of block face. 20 feet for flat roofs. 20-foot maximum exterior wall height adjacent to interior side yards. 30 feet. Setbacks Front - average of buildings on block face or 20 feet where none exist. Corner side - average of buildings on block face or 20 feet where none exist. Side - 6 feet and 10 feet. Rear - 25 feet. Front - none. Sides - none. Rear- 10 feet. A maximum setback of 15 feet is required for at least 75% of the façade. Exceptions approved only through design review. Coverage/Open Space At least 60% required.All provided yards to be landscaped. Parking Two parking spaces per dwelling unit.Minimum: Studio and 1+ bedrooms: 1 space per dwelling unit. Maximum: All Contexts: Studio & 1 Bedroom: 2 spaces per dwelling unit. 2+ bedrooms: 3 spaces per dwelling unit. Lot Area/Width No minimum size or width for municipal services, open space and trails, utility lines. 12,000 square feet and 80 feet wide for places of worship less than 4 acres in size. 7,000 square feet and 50 feet wide for all other permitted uses. None Analysis of Standards Attachment E (pages 17-19) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties Complies Page | 6 Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Complies 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, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Some City public facilities and services may need to be upgraded and improved if the density changes or if land use changes to a more intense use. City Department Review During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed concerns with the proposal but stated additional review and permits would be required if the property is developed. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • May 19, 2023-Petition for zoning map amendment received by Planning Division. • June 15, 2023-Petition assigned to Eric Daems, Senior Planner. • July 3, 2023- o Notice sent to East Bench Community Council. o Early notification sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the subject properties. • July 3-August 17, 2023-Virtual open house hosted on the City’s website. • September 4, 2023-Notice signs posted on properties indicating date of the public hearing. • September 7, 2023- o Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing posted and mailed to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the subject properties. o Notice of public hearing emailed to listserv accounts. • September 13, 2023- Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission voted 7-2 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. • August 22, 2023-Ordinance requested from City Attorney’s Office. • November 16, 2023-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • November 20, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: November 8, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: 1300 South Commercial Rezone Petition PLNPCM2023-00385 STAFF CONTACT: Eric Daems, Senior Planner 801-535-7236 or eric.daems@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The City Council amend the zoning map as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Tyler Morris, the applicant representing the property owner, submitted a petition for a Zoning Map Amendment for the properties located at 2260, 2270, and 2290 E. 1300 South. The properties are currently zoned R-1-7000, which is a single-family residential zone. The petition is to rezone the properties to CB- Community Business. The CB zone allows for a wider range of land uses including multi-family, commercial, retail, and restaurants. The request did not require a master plan amendment. At this point, the applicant has not provided a development plan for the properties. However, it is anticipated they would be developed in junction with adjoining properties to the south and would be used for multi-family housing or a mixed-use development. AS rachel o//o (Nov 20, 2023 11:0у MST)11ҝ20ҝ2023 11ҝ20ҝ2023 The subject properties front along 1300 South, between Foothill Drive and 2300 East. 1300 South is a collector street where 2300 East is a local street and Foothill Drive is a State arterial street. The property currently contains three single-family homes. Each of the dwellings are currently used as housing rentals. Within proximity of the subject property, there is a mix of single-family and commercial uses. The neighborhood to the north (across 1300 South) contains single-family homes and is zoned R-1-12,000. The properties to the south and west include a single- story gas station, 2-story restaurant/office, and 3-story hotel. The commercial properties are zoned CB. The property to the east (across 2300 East) is a cemetery and is zoned OS (Open Space). The Planning Commission reviewed the request at a public hearing September 13, 2023. The Commission had some questions about final development of the property but voted (7-2) in favor of the City Council amending the zoning map as requested. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Early Notification- Notification of the proposal was sent to all property owners and tenants located within 300 feet of the subject parcels on July 3, 2023. • East Bench Community Council- Notification to the East Bench Community Council was sent on July 3, 2023. The community council did not request the applicant attend a community open house but did present a letter of opposition which is in the Planning Commission Staff Report. • City Open House- A virtual open house was hosted by the city from July 3, 2023 - August 17, 2023. • Planning Commission Public Hearing- On September 13, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed zoning map amendment. The Planning Commission voted to recommend the City Council approve the rezone. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of September 13, 2023 b) PC Minutes of September 13, 2023 c) Planning Commission Staff Report EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Hearing 3) Original Petition 4) Mailing List 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 202__ (An ordinance amending the zoning of properties located at 2260 East 1300 South, 2270 East 1300 South, and 2290 East 1300 South from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to CB Community Business District) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at 2260 East 1300 South, 2270 East 1300 South, and 2290 East 1300 South from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to CB Community Business District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023- 00385. WHEREAS, Tyler Morris (“Petitioner”) submitted an application to rezone the parcels located at 2260 East 1300 South, 2270 East 1300 South, and 2290 East 1300 South (Tax ID. Nos. 16-10-379-004-0000, 16-10-379-005-0000, and 16-10-379-006-0000) (collectively, the “Property”) from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to CB Community Business District; and WHEREAS, at its September 13, 2023 meeting, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on the application; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the city council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property, as legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to CB Community Business District. 2 SECTION 2. Condition. The zoning map amendment set forth herein is conditioned upon the owner of the Property entering into a development agreement with Salt Lake City to retain three dwelling units on the Property. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. The Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed to not publish this ordinance until the condition set forth in Section 2 is satisfied as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director or his designee. SECTION 4. Time. If the condition set forth in Section 2 has not been met within one year after adoption of this ordinance, then this ordinance shall become null and void. The city council may, for good cause shown, extend the time period for satisfying the above condition by resolution. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 20__. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 20__ Published: ______________. Ordinance rezoning 2260 E. 1300 S., 2270 E. 1300 S., and 2290 E. 1300 S. to CB APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:___________________________ By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney November 16, 2023 3 Exhibit “A” Legal description of the Property Tax ID No. 16-10-379-004-0000 326 COM N 89º53'42" W 156.5 FT FR NE COR LOT 12 BLK 15 5 AC PLAT C BIG FIELD SUR N 89º53'42" W 91.5 FT S 0º02'52" E 110 FT S 89º53'42" E 91.5 FT N 0º02'52" W 110 FT TO BEG 0.23 AC 5445-1625 5853-2576 Tax ID No. 16-10-379-005-0000 326 COM N 89º53'42" W 88 FT FR NE COR LOT 12 BLK 15 5 AC PLAT C BIG FIELD SUR N 89º53'42" W 68.5 FT S 0º02'52" E 110 FT S 89º53'42" E 68.5 FT N 0º02'52" W 110 FT TO BEG 0.17 AC 5595-1401 5681-1152 5686-282 Tax ID No. 16-10-379-006-0000 326 COM AT NE COR LOT 12 BLK 15 5 AC PLAT C BIG FIELD SUR N 89º53'42" W 88 FT S 0º02'52" E 114 FT S 89º53'42" E 96 FT N 0º02'52" W 114 FT W 8 FT TO BEG 938-41, 1197- 97 6110-2590 6116-1628 6119-0622 6129-740 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Project Chronology 1300 South Commercial Zoning Map Amendment Petition PLNPCM2023-00385 May 19, 2023 Petition received by the City June 15, 2023 Petition assigned to Eric Daems. July 3, 2023 Notice sent to East Bench Community Council. July 3, 2023 Early notification sent to property owners and tenants within 300’ of subject properties. July 3 – August 17, 2023 Virtual open house hosted on the City’s website. September 4, 2023 Notice signs posted on properties indicating date of Public Hearing. September 7, 2023 Notice of the Planning Commission Public Hearing posted and mailed to property owners and tenants within 300’ of subject properties. September 7, 2023 Notice of Public Hearing emailed to listserv accounts. September 13, 2023 Planning Commission Public Hearing held. Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the proposal. November 8, 2023 Transmittal Submitted to CAN 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00385– A request by Tyler Morris, representing the property owner, for a Zoning Map Amendment for the properties located at 2260, 2270, and 2290 E. 1300 South. 1. Zoning Map Amendment: To rezone the subject properties from R-1-7,000 (Single-Family Residential) to CB (Community Business). The CB zone allows for a wider range of land uses including multi-family, commercial, retail, and restaurants. However, a specific development proposal has not been provided at this point. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Eric Daems at 801-535-7236 or via e-mail at eric.daems@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2023-00385. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. ORIGINAL PETITION Zoning Amendment  Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance  Amend the Zoning Map OFFICE USE ONLY Received By: Date Received: Project #: Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment: PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Address of Subject Property (or Area): Name of Applicant: Address of Applicant: Cell/Fax: Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property:  Owner  Contractor  Architect  Other: Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant): Phone: formation may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City Planning Counter at zoning@slcgov.com prior to submitting the application. REQUIRED FEE Map Amendment: $1,142 filing fee, plus $121 per acre (excess of one acre), plus additional public notice fee. Text Amendment: $1,142 filing fee, plus additional public notice fee. Public noticing fees will be assessed after the application is submitted. SIGNATURE If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: SA L T L A K E C I T Y P L A N N I N G UPDATED 6/28/22 4 (2260 E, 2270 E. & 2290 E.) 1300 S. 4 TJDD Properties, LLC 05/11/2023 Updated 9/14/22 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY This is to certify that I am making an application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application will be processed under the name provided below. By signing the application, I am acknowledging that I have read and understood the instructions provided by Salt Lake City for processing this application. The documents and/or information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the documents provided are considered public records and may be made available to the public. I understand that my application will not be processed until the application is deemed complete by the assigned planner from the Planning Division. I acknowledge that a complete application includes all of the required submittal requirements and provided documents comply with all applicable requirements for the specific applications. I understand that the Planning Division will provide, in writing, a list of deficiencies that must be satisfied for this application to be complete and it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the missing or corrected information. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I understand that a staff report will be made available for my review prior to any public hearings or public meetings. This report will be on file and available at the Planning Division and posted on the Division website when it has been finalized. AFFIRMATION OF SUFFICIENT INTEREST I hereby affirm that I am the fee title owner of the below described property or that I have written authorization from the owner to pursue the described action. The following shall be provided if the name of the applicant is different than the name of the property owner: 1.If you are not the fee owner attach a copy of your authorization to pursue this action provided by the fee owner. 2.If a corporation is fee titleholder, attach copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing the action. 3.If a joint venture or partnership is the fee owner, attach a copy of agreement authorizing this action on behalf of the joint venture or partnership 4.If a Home Owner’s Association is the applicant than the representative/president must attach a notarized letter stating they have notified the owners of the proposed application. A vote should be taken prior to the submittal and a statement of the outcome provided to the City along with the statement that the vote meets the requirements set forth in the CC&Rs. Be advised that knowingly making a false, written statement to a government entity is a crime under Utah Code Chapter 76-8, Part 5. Salt Lake City will refer for prosecution any knowingly false representations made pertaining to the applicant’s interest in the property that i s the subject of this application. APPLICANT SIGNATURE Name of Applicant: Application Type: Signature: Date: FEE TITLE OWNER SIGNATURE Legal Description of Subject Property: Name of Owner: Signature: Date: Tyler Morris Zoning Amendment TJDD Properties, LLC 05/11/2023 COM N 89^53'42" W 156.5 FT FR NE COR LOT 12 BLK 15 5 AC PLATC BIG FIELD SUR N 89^53'42" W 91.5 FT S 0^02'52" E 110 FT S 89^53'42" E 91.5 FT N 0^02'52" W 110 FT TO BEG 0.23 AC 5445-1625 5853-2576 05/11/2023 St a f f R e v i e w SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1.Project Description (please electronically attach additional sheets. See Section 21A.50 for the Amendments ordinance.) A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed. WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED ______ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. UPDATED 6/28/22 4 4 4 4 4 4. MAILING LIST NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP DEE'S FOOTHILL INVESTMENTS LLC 1136 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 HUNSAKER, LILLIAN S; TR 1233 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 1304 S FOOTHILL DR Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 1309 S FOOTHILL DR Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 1310 S 2300 E Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 1313 S FOOTHILL DR Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 1345 S FOOTHILL DR Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 1400 S FOOTHILL DR Salt Lake City UT 84108 AP FOOTHILL VILLAGE, LLC 1616 CAMDEN RD #210 CHARLOTTE NC 28203 JONES, DONALD J & KRISTY W(JT) 2223 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 LEISHMAN, MERLIN R &LARRY R; TRS 2235 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2236 E LAIRD WAY Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 2241 E LAIRD WAY Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 2244 E LAIRD WAY Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 2249 E LAIRD WAY Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 2252 E LAIRD WAY Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 2253 E LAIRD WAY Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 2259 E LAIRD WAY Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 2260 E 1300 S Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 2270 E 1300 S Salt Lake City UT 84108 GOCHNOUR, RALPH L. & ROSETTA S 2289 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2290 E 1300 S Salt Lake City UT 84108 LAMPROPOULOS, FRED 2315 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 LAURA G GAYLORD LIV TRGAYLORD, LAU 2321 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 2350 E 1300 S Salt Lake City UT 84108 LARKIN MEMORIAL CORPORATION 260 E SOUTH TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TJDD PROPERTIES, LLC 348 E 6400 S #200 MURRAY UT 84107 RELIANCE BUILDING COMPANY 3591 E COVEPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 TJDD PROPERTIES, LLC 4222 S WANDER LN HOLLADAY UT 84124 FOREST CORPORATION 5330 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 GROW, JODY W; JTGROW, RICHARD F; JT 623 N CAPITOL PARK AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 DOANE, KERRY S; TR(KSD TRUST) PO BOX 581486 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84158 Signature: Email: Alejandro Sanchez (Nov 20, 2023 10:16 MST) alejandro.sanchez@slcgov.com Item C1 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:March 26, 2024 RE: 2445 South 500 East Zoning Map and General Plan Amendments PLNPCM2023-00462/00538 MOTION 1 (adopt) I move that the Council adopt the ordinance. MOTION 2 (reject) I move that the Council reject the ordinance. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:March 26, 2024 RE: 2445 South 500 East Zoning Map and General Plan Amendments PLNPCM2023-00462/00538 PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE No one spoke at the March 5, 2024 public hearing. The Council closed the hearing and deferred action to a future meeting. The following information was provided for previous Council meetings. It is included again for background purposes. BRIEFING UPDATE The Council discussed the potential to utilize new Affordable Housing Incentives to increase the number of units on the site. The petitioner said he is willing to discuss some affordable units but is not interested in redesigning the project. Council staff reached out to the petitioner for additional information but has not received a response. The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for property located at 2445 South 500 East in City Council District Seven from R-1/7,000 (single-family residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential). Additionally, the proposal would amend the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map for the approximately one-third-acre property from Low-Density Residential (5-10 dwelling units/acre) to Medium-Density Residential (8-20 dwelling units/acre). The applicant stated these amendment requests are to allow future development of eight townhomes for sale at market rate in two buildings on the subject property which is located just south of Interstate-80 at 500 East as shown in the zoning map below. Townhomes are not permitted in the R-1/7,000 zoning Item Schedule: Briefing: February 6, 2024 Set Date: February 20, 2024 Public Hearing: March 5, 2024 Potential Action: March 26, 2024 Page | 2 district. A vacant single-family home on the property was damaged by fire and has been torn down. The proposal calls for a private road through the development that would connect 500 East on the west and Warnock Avenue on the east. Some Council Members may recall a similar rezone and master plan amendment for an abutting parcel to the north at 2435 South 500 East adopted by the Council in 2022. That was phase one of the development and will include 20 for sale townhomes in five buildings. The current proposal is phase two of the development and zoning would match the RMF-35 zoning of 2435 South. These proposed amendments were reviewed by the Planning Commission at its October 25, 2023 meeting and a public hearing was held at which no one spoke. Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for both requests. In addition, a planned development for the subject site was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission, subject to the City Council adopting the zoning map and master plan amendments. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning and future land use map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask the petitioner about the range of prices the proposed units are anticipated to sell for. Area zoning map with the previously rezoned (Phase 1) and subject (Phase 2) parcels outlined in green. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and amend the future land use map. As Page | 3 noted above, a planned development was approved by the Planning Commission subject to City Council adoption of the requested zoning map and future land use map amendments. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 7-10 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. It is worth noting that considerations 1 and 2 were addressed by the planned development for this site and approved by the Planning Commission subject to Council approval of the zoning map and future land use map amendments. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1-Requested Zoning Modifications (Addressed with planned development) The subject phase two requires the following zoning modifications which are similar to those approved for phase one: •Creation of lots that would not meet dimensional zoning regulations. o Planning staff analyzed zoning conformance for the project as a single site and found it aligns with the RMF-35 purpose statement as it relates to providing a suitable site for a variety of moderate density housing types. •Lots without frontage on a public street. o The approved planned development includes a private street and sidewalks through the development to accommodate pedestrians and vehicles. •Reduced front yard setback. •Reduced rear yard setback. Consideration 2-Achievable Density (Addressed with planned development) The planned development process allows for lot area modifications provided they do not exceed the zoning district’s density limitations. The combined area of the two lots in phases one and two is 1.29 acres. That total would allow up to 37 multi-family units within RMF-35 zoning. The proposal calls for a total of 28 single-family attached units. Consideration 3-Compliance With Adopted Plans Planning staff reviewed the proposed zoning map and future land use map amendments, and the planned development to determine how they align with the Sugar House Master Plan, Housing SLC, and Plan Salt Lake. They found the proposals generally meet considerations within these plans for location of medium- density residential land use, increasing density near transit, and providing additional housing types. DEVELOPMENT COMPARISON The following table found in Attachment E (page 54 of the Planning Commission staff report) compares development standards of the R-1/7,000 and RMF-35 zoning designations. R-1/7,000 (Existing)RMF-35 (Proposed) Building Height 28 feet for pitched roofs or 20 feet for flat roofs 35 feet Front Setback Equal to the average setback on block face or 20 feet 20 feet Corner Side Yard Setback Equal to the average setback on block face or 20 feet 10 feet Page | 4 Interior Side Yard Setback, corner lot 6 feet 4 feet Interior Side Yard Setback, interior lot 6 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other side None required for single-family attached uses, but if provided not less than 4 feet. A ten-foot- wide landscape buffer is required when abutting single-family zones. Rear Setback 25 feet 25% of lot depth, not less than 20 feet but not more than 25 feet Maximum Building Coverage 40%60% Maximum Lot Size 10,500 square feet None listed Parking Two spaces/dwelling unit Two spaces/dwelling for single- family attached. One space/dwelling unit for multi-family. The following uses are not allowed in the R-1/7,000 zoning district but are permitted or conditional uses within the proposed RMF-35 zoning district. This is included in Attachment E of the Planning Commission staff report. The tables are also included here for convenience. New Permitted New Conditional Dwelling, Assisted living facility (small)Community recreation center Dwelling, multi-family Dwelling, assisted living facility (large) Dwelling, single-family (attached)Dwelling, congregate care facility (large) Dwelling, twin home and two-family Dwelling, group home (large) Dwelling, residential support (small) Change from Permitted to Not Allowed Change from Conditional to Not Allowed None None Changing from Permitted to Conditional Changing from Conditional to Permitted None Community garden Dwelling, accessory unit Dwelling, assisted living facility (limited capacity) Dwelling, congregate care facility (small) ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment D (pages 51-53) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Page | 5 Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties Complies Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Not applicable (not within any zoning overlays) 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, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Complies PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • June 13, 2023 – Applications submitted. • July 10, 2023 – Petition assigned to Planning staff. • August 3, 2023 – 45-day notice sent to Sugar House Community Council and early notice sent to surrounding neighbors and property owners. • September 18, 2023 – 45-day public comment period for recognized organizations (Sugar House Community Council) ended. • October 12, 2023 – Public hearing notice mailed, posted on City and State websites, and posted on Planning Division listserv. • October 16, 2023 – Public hearing sign posted on subject property. • October 25, 2023 – Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for both the zoning map and master plan amendments. • October 31, 2023 – Draft ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office. • November 30, 2023 – Draft ordinance received by Planning Division from the Attorney’s Office. • December 12, 2023 – Transmittal received in City Council Office. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: _________________ ________________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: _________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: December 5, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods _______________________ SUBJECT: Woodland Commons Phase 2 Zoning Map and General Plan Amendments 2445 S 500 E (PLNPCM2023-00538 & PLNPCM2023-00462) STAFF CONTACT: Trevor Ovenden, Principal Planner, 801-535-7168 or trevor.ovenden@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The City Council follows the Planning Commission’s recommendation and approve the requested Zoning Map and General Plan amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Jason Foster with Atlas Architects representing the property owner initiated the following amendment requests to facilitate the construction of 8 townhomes at approximately 2445 South 500 East: 1.General Plan Amendment (PLNPCM2023-00538) The applicant is requesting to amend the property’s future land use designation from the Sugar House Master Plan future land use map from “Low Density Residential” (5-10 units/acre) to “Medium Density Residential” (8-20 dwelling units/acre) to facilitate the Zoning Map amendment request. 2.Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2023-00462) The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from R-1/7,000 Single-family residential to RMF-35, Moderate Density Multi-Family. The zoning map amendment is necessary because townhomes are not permitted in the R-1/7,000 zone, but they are permitted in RMF-35. rachel otto (Dec 12, 2023 11:48 MST)12/12/2023 12/12/2023 For additional information regarding this proposal, please refer to the Planning Commission Staff Report. This is the second phase of the project. The first phase has already received planning approval and includes 20 townhomes at 2435 South. The City Council approved General Plan and Zoning Map amendment requests applicable to the Phase 1 property in 2022 with petitions PLNPCM2021-01041 and PLNPCM2021-01042. The area to be rezoned in this phase is approximately 0.34 acres or 14,810.4 sq ft. Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation On October 25, 2023 the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and held a public hearing. The hearing can be viewed here beginning at 2:48:17. The only topic that was discussed regarded the removal of several mature trees that is necessary for this project. The landscape plan provided by the applicant includes several new evergreen trees to replace the trees that will be removed. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval as proposed. PUBLIC PROCESS: • August 3, 2023 – The Sugar House Community Council was sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations. A letter in support of the request was received from the First Vice Chair of the Sugar House Community Council • August 3, 2023 – Residents within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. • August 21, 2023 – Applicant presented project to Sugar House Community Council. • October 16, 2023 – Public hearing notice sign posted on the property. • October 12, 2023 – Public hearing notice mailed, posted on City and State websites, and posted on Planning Division list serve. Comments from the Sugar House Community Council were received after publication of the Planning Commission staff report and can be found in Exhibit 3. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of October 25, 2023 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of October 25, 2023 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of October 25, 2023 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3) Comments Not Included With Planning Commission Staff Report 4) Mailing List 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 202__ (Amending the zoning map pertaining to a parcel of property located at 2445 South 500 East to rezone the parcel from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential to RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi- Family Residential, and amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map) An ordinance pertaining to property located at 2445 South 500 East (the “Property”), amending the zoning map from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential to RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00462; and amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00538. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on October 25, 2023, regarding applications submitted by Jason Foster of Atlas Architects to rezone the Property from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential to RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00462, and amend the Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential Ave pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00538. WHEREAS, at its October 25, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said applications. WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and 2 hereby is amended to reflect that the parcel located at 2445 South 500 East (Tax ID No. 16-19- 428-002-0000) as more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, is rezoned from R- 1/7,000 Single-Family Residential to RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential. SECTION 2. Amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map of the Sugar House Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future land use designation of the Property from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been published in accordance with Utah Code Section 10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code Section 10-3-713. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 202__. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 202__ Published: ______________. Ordinance rezoning 2445 S 500 E to RMF-35 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: _________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine Pasker, Senior City Attorney November 30, 2023 3 EXHIBIT “A” COM 507.62 FT S OF NW COR LOT 5 BLK 43 10 AC PLAT A BF SUR E 197.4 FT S 75 FT W 197.4 FT N 75 FT TO BEG 0.34 AC 6040-1821 6797-1263,1264 Tax ID No. 16-19-428-002-0000 Contains 0.34 acres, more or less. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1) PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING 3) COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF PC STAFF REPORT 4) MAILING LIST 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Project Chronology Petitions: PLNPCM2023-00538 & PLNPCM2023-00462 June 13, 2023 Application submitted July 10, 2023 Petitions assigned to staff. Staff worked with applicant to provide all necessary information and submittal materials. August 3, 2023 Staff sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations to the Sugar House Community Council. August 3, 2023 Neighbors within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. September 14, 2023 Petitions routed for Department Review Comments. September 18, 2023 The 45-day public comment period for recognized organizations ended. October 12, 2023 Public hearing notice mailed, posted on City and State websites, and posted on Planning Division list serve. October 16, 2023 Public hearing notice sign posted on the property. October 25, 2023 Planning Commission Public Hearing and recommendation. October 31, 2023 Draft ordinance requested from City Attorney’s office. November 30, 2023 Draft ordinance received from City Attorney’s office. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2023-00538 & PLNPCM2023-00462– Woodland Commons Phase 2 General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments – 2445 S 500 E Salt Lake City has received these amendment requests, specified below, from Jason Foster with Atlas Architects representing the property owner. The intent of these amendment requests is to facilitate the construction of eight townhomes at this property . The project is located within Council District 7, represented by Sarah Young. A. General Plan Amendment (Case number PLNPCM2023-00538) The applicant is requesting to amend the Sugar House Future Land Use designation of this property from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential to facilitate the Zoning Map amendment request. B. Zoning Map Amendment (Case number PLNPCM2023-00462) The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from R -1/7,000 Single-family residential to RMF-35, Moderate Density Multi-Family. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding these petitions. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in -person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Trevor Ovenden at 801-535-7168 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at trevor.ovenden@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition numbers PLNPCM2023-00538 and PLNPCM2023-00462. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. COMMENTS NOT INCLUDED WITH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT COMMENTS 2445 SOUTH 500 EAST REZONE AND TOWNHOMES Erica Oliver <erica.d.oliver35@gmail.com> 12:01 PM (7 minutes ago) to Judi.Short@gmail.com To whom it may concern, I understand that there's a plan to build additional new townhouses on the lot adjacent to the current project, but I have a few concerns about it. While I appreciate the need for growth and development, I believe it should be done in a way that preserves the unique character and charm of our neighborhood. Firstly, the dense nature of townhouses might lead to increased traffic congestion in the area. Adding an additional subset of townhomes will dramatically increase this. We already face challenges with parking, and adding more households into the mix without addressing this issue could exacerbate the problem. It's important for the developers to consider the impact their project will have on the existing infrastructure and come up with viable solutions. Finally, the potential impact on property values is a valid concern for many homeowners in the neighborhood. The addition of new townhouses could potentially lead to increased supply, which may affect property prices negatively. This could be particularly concerning for those who have invested in their homes as a long-term asset and are reliant on property appreciation for their financial future. While the idea of new townhouses can bring benefits like increased housing options, it's essential to address these concerns to ensure that the development aligns with the interests and needs of the existing community. As a homeowner I am highly opposed to adding an additional subset of townhouses on the lot of 2445 S 500 E but would be open to hearing alternative uses to add value to the current townhouse project. Sincerely, Erica Oliver 2435 S 500 E. Zoning from private family to multi-family. I think SLC needs more condos and support this change. The area is appropriate for condos though why anyone would pay 600,000+ to live right next to the freeway I don’t know. I do know 4. MAILING LIST OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR own_unit OWN_CITY OWN_STATOWN_ZIP GUENTHER, COREY &LAUREN; JT 470 E ROBERT AVE SALT LAKE UT 84115 PANDO, ERNESTO &HULENE; JT 465 E WARNOCK AVE SALT LAKE UT 84115 ADAIR, PATRICK Q 478-486 E ROBERT AVE SALT LAKE UT 84115 OLIVER, ERICA D 2446 S 500 E SALT LAKE UT 84106 BERNSTEIN, HUNTER; JTBERNSTEIN, LEONARD E; JT 2458 S 500 E SALT LAKE UT 84106 BOURDOS, EVANGELINE 2460 S 500 E SALT LAKE UT 84106 WYMAN, CAROLYN V &ROBISON, LARAINE F; JT 470 E WARNOCK AVE SALT LAKE UT 84115 MARTISKA, VLADIMIR F 2480 S 500 E SALT LAKE UT 84106 LAZALDE, GERONIMO &LAURA I; TRS 4163 S WILLIAMSBURG DR WEST VALL UT 84128 LONG, ESTHER J 2445 S 500 E SALT LAKE UT 84106 MICHAEL F HOLLAND TRET AL 1128 KAINUI DR KAILUA HI 96734 STARK, RYAN; JTSTARK, DON; JT 2467 S 500 E SALT LAKE UT 84106 SCHILD, MORGAN; JTSMITH, EMERSON; JT 529 E DIVISION LN SALT LAKE UT 84106 MARK & PATRICIA BEEKHUIZENLIVING TRUST; ET AL 535 E DIVISION LN SALT LAKE UT 84106 GRAY WILLOW, LLC 257 E 200 S SALT LAKE UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY CORP.PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE UT 84114 TUCKER, DAVID C 549 E DIVISION LN SALT LAKE UT 84106 BANCROFT, RUSSELL C 557 E DIVISION LN SALT LAKE UT 84106 CORP OF PB OF CH JC OF LDS 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST #2225 SALT LAKE UT 84150 1996 WALSH FAM TRET AL 2475 S 500 E SALT LAKE UT 84106 SANDOVAL, RAFAEL C; JTBLACK, AMANDA L; JT 2479 S 500 E SALT LAKE UT 84106 SWIDERSKI, JASON E &BARRETT, KELLY J E; JT 2487 S 500 E SALT LAKE UT 84106 PURKEY, TODD G; JTPURKEY, ANNA R; JT 2478 S PARK ST SALT LAKE UT 84106 QUESTAR GAS COMPANY(STATE TAX COMMISSION) PO BOX 27026 RICHMONDVA 23216 PATEL, RAJENDRAKUMAR &JAISWAL, NALANDABEN R; TC 2484 S PARK ST SALT LAKE UT 84106 MACOMBER, CATHERINE D 2477 S PARK ST SALT LAKE UT 84106 EARLES, EDWARD E & MARLENE 1397 W 6020 S TAYLORSVI UT 84123 Current Occupant 478 E ROBERT AVE Salt Lake C UT 84115 Current Occupant 2490 S 500 E Salt Lake C UT 84106 Current Occupant 2455 S 500 E Salt Lake C UT 84106 Current Occupant 2435 S 500 E Salt Lake C UT 84106 Current Occupant 543 E DIVISION LN Salt Lake C UT 84106 Current Occupant 531 E DIVISION LN Salt Lake C UT 84106 Current Occupant 2450 S 600 E Salt Lake C UT 84106 Current Occupant 2482 S PARK ST #NFF1 Salt Lake C UT 84106 Current Occupant 2479 S PARK ST Salt Lake C UT 84106 Item C1 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:March 26, 2024 RE: 803, 805, 807, and 815 West Simondi Avenue, and 802, 806, 810, and 814 West 300 North Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments PLNPCM2023-00499/00361 MOTION 1 (adopt) I move that the Council adopt the ordinance. MOTION 2 (reject) I move that the Council reject the ordinance. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:March 26, 2024 RE: 803, 805, 807, and 815 West Simondi Avenue, and 802, 806, 810, and 814 West 300 North Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments PLNPCM2023-00499/00361 BRIEFING UPDATE Two nearby residents spoke at the March 5, 2024 public hearing. Both expressed concerns about potential neighborhood impacts. They would like the petitioner to submit development plans before the Council votes on the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments. They encouraged the Council to take time to consider impacts before voting on the proposal. The Council closed the hearing and deferred action to a future meeting. The following information was provided for previous Council meetings. It is included again for background purposes. BRIEFING UPDATE Council Members expressed general support for the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments and appreciation for adding affordable homes to the neighborhood. They discussed potential density in the current R-1/7,000 and proposed RMF-30 zones. Planning staff said RMF-30 would allow greater density. In addition, RMF-30 zoning calls for the homes to be oriented toward the street which would help maintain a neighborhood feel. Proximity to transit was also noted as a reason RMF-30 zoning makes sense. When asked about plans for the alley, NeighborWorks stated the intent is to utilize the alley for parking access. NeighborWorks reviewed its plans for a shared equity program with the homes to be for sale, and a 99-year land lease. This would help with the goal of keeping the homes’ sales price at less than $400,000. Item Schedule: Briefing: February 13, 2024 Set Date: February 20, 2024 Public Hearing: March 5, 2024 Potential Action: March 26, 2024 Page | 2 The Council will be briefed about a proposal from NeighborWorks Salt Lake to amend the zoning map for properties at 803, 805, 807, and 815 West Simondi Avenue, and 802, 806, 810, and 814 West 300 North in Council District Two from their current R-1/7,000 (Single-Family Residential) zoning to RMF-30 (Low- Density Multi-Family Residential). In addition, the proposal calls for amending the Northwest Community Master Plan future land use designations from Low-Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. The petitioner’s stated objective is to develop low-density affordable for sale townhomes on the subject parcels, though no development proposal has been submitted. Under the current R-1/7,000 zoning a total of eight single-family homes could be constructed, with the potential for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) depending on the parcel’s size. The proposed RMF-30 zoning allows additional housing types and potential for up to 20 units on the parcels. A vacant four-plex and garage in disrepair on the 814 West 300 North parcel were demolished. The other seven parcels are vacant. An east/west public alley runs between the properties that front onto Simondi Avenue and 300 North. An alley vacation is not part of the proposal and would remain open regardless of whether the properties are rezoned. Combined, the eight parcels total slightly less than one acre, with approximately 0.49 acres north of the alley, and 0.44 acres to the south. Area zoning is primarily R-1/7,000 west of 800 West, and primarily R- 1/5,000 to the east, with some RMF-35 as shown in the area zoning map below. Page | 3 Area zoning map with the subject parcels outlined in yellow. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal during its September 13, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which two people spoke in opposition to the proposal. Both commenters cited concerns about not knowing what the potential buildings will look like. Neighborhood impacts with traffic and parking were also mentioned as was spot zoning. One commenter expressed support for NeighborWorks. The definition of spot zoning found in Chapter 21A.62.040 Salt Lake City Code is worth noting. It is “the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification materially different and inconsistent with the surrounding area and the adopted city master plan, for the sole benefit of the owner of that property and to the detriment of the rights of other property owners.” The Commission voted 6-2 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for both the zoning map and future land use map amendments. One Commissioner who voted against the proposed rezone and master plan amendment expressed concern a development under RMF- 30 might not fit well with the neighborhood. The other Commissioner who voted in opposition did not state why he voted against the proposal. In addition to the public hearing comments, Planning staff received several emails, primarily expressing opposition to the proposal. Concerns cited included neighborhood impacts from parking and traffic, spot zoning, and changes to the single-family neighborhood character. The Fairpark Community Council Chair stated those attending a meeting at which the proposal was discussed were not opposed to potential density Page | 4 but would like to know the height of the proposed homes. He also noted NeighborWorks’ commitment to the community. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning and future land use map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask what an anticipated price point is for the townhomes, and if they anticipate any of the units will be available at affordable levels. 2. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if the recently-adopted Affordable Housing Incentives ordinance has been reviewed with the petitioner to encourage the construction of affordable units. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and amending the future land use map. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of buildings, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified five key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 3-5 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1 – How the proposal helps implement City goals and policies identified in adopted plans. Planning staff reviewed Plan Salt Lake (2015) and the 1992 Northwest Community Plan. They used Plan Salt Lake as the guiding document, given that the Northwest Community Plan is more than 30 years old and much has changed in the city since then. That said, Planning noted two goals in the Northwest Community Plan that are relevant today-a desire for energy efficient land uses, and high-quality urban design. Planning found that the proposal is supported by the following initiatives found in Plan Salt Lake: •Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors. •Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. •Accommodate and promote an increase in the city’s population. •Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low income). •Increase the number of medium density housing types and options. Consideration 2 – Master Plan Amendment As discussed above, the Northwest Community Plan recommends energy efficient land uses, and high- quality urban design. Planning staff found that the proposed rezone would make more efficient use of the land by increasing density close to North Temple’s commercial corridor. In addition, RMF-30 zoning has design standards not found in the current R-1/7,000 zoning, which would enhance the neighborhood’s urban design. It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposed rezone and master plan amendments align with some goals of the Northwest Community Plan. Consideration 3 – Housing Loss Mitigation Page | 5 RMF-30 allows for some non-residential uses, so a housing loss mitigation application is required. The petitioner chose the fee-based mitigation option. The existing fourplex’s value was less than replacement value, so no fee to the housing bank is necessary. It is worth noting that an updated housing loss mitigation ordinance was recently transmitted to the Council Office and will be scheduled for a briefing in the coming weeks. Consideration 4 – Existing Alley As discussed above, the petitioner is not requesting an alley vacation, so the alley between the subject properties will remain accessible to the public. Future development will not be allowed to encroach on the alley unless an alley vacation is approved at some point. Because of this, a development on the subject parcels will need to be at least two separate buildings. Consideration 5 – Development Potential in RMF-30 The current R-1/7,000 and proposed RMF-30 zoning have similar setbacks and allowed height as shown in the table below. One significant difference is current zoning only allows single-family detached homes (potentially with accessory dwelling units) while the proposed zone allows a variety of housing types including twin homes, row houses, and multi-family buildings. In addition, RMF-30 design standards call for durable building materials, ground floor transparency, entry features, limits on blank walls, and mechanical equipment screening not required in the R-1/7,000 zone. A 10-foot landscape buffer is required when RMF-30 zoning abuts a single-family zone. In this case, the buffer would need to be placed on the development’s west side adjacent to single-family homes. ZONING COMPARISON Tables listing development standards of R-1/7,000 and RMF-30 are found on pages 5-6 of the Planning Commission staff report. Information found in the report is replicated here for convenience. Regulation Existing Zoning (R-1/7,000)Proposed Zoning (RMF-30) Building Height Pitched roof: maximum of 28 feet, Flat roof: 20 feet. Single- and two-family, multi-family, row house, sideways row house: 30 feet Cottage development: pitched roof: 23 feet, flat roof: 16 feet Tiny house: 16 feet. Front Yard Setback Minimum 20 feet, or average of the block face. Minimum 20 feet, or average of the block face. Corner Side Yard Setback Six feet Ten feet Interior Side Yard Six feet on one side, and ten feet on the other. Six feet on one side, and ten feet on the other. Rear Yard/Setback 25 feet Single- and two-family, multi-family, row house, sideways row house: Minimum of 20% of the lot depth, need not exceed 25 feet. Cottage development, tiny house: 10 feet. Minimum Lot Size 7,000 square feet.Single- and two-family, multi-family, row house, sideways row house: 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Page | 6 Cottage development, tiny house: 1,500 square feet per dwelling unit. Off-Street Parking Standards Use R-1/7,000 RMF-30 Single-Family Detached Two spaces per dwelling unit Two spaces per dwelling unit. Twin Home/Two-Family Not permitted Two spaces per dwelling unit. Single-Family Attached Not permitted Two spaces per dwelling unit. Multi-Family Not permitted Studio and one bedroom: 1 space per dwelling unit. Two+ bedrooms: 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit. Single-Family Cottage-Style Development Form Not permitted One space per dwelling unit. Analysis of Factors Attachment D (pages 13-15) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines master plan and zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Generally consistent Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Generally complies The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties. Complies Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Overlay districts are not applicable to compatibility of the proposed zone. 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, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Redevelopment of the site will require public facility upgrades. City Department Review During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed objections to the proposal, but additional comments will be provided if the proposals are approved, and the property is rezoned. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Page | 7 • May 24, 2023 – Petition for the zoning map amendment received by Planning Division. • May 25, 2023 – Petition assigned to Cassie Younger, Senior Planner. Planning staff recommended the petitioner apply for a master plan amendment in addition to the zoning map amendment. Staff held zoning map amendment petition so both petitions could be processed together. • June 26, 2023 – Master plan amendment received by Planning Division. • July 17, 2023 – o Notice sent to recognized community organizations, including the Fairpark Community Council. o Early notification sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal. • July 20, 2023 – Proposal posted for an online open house. • August 25, 2023 – Ordinance requested from the City Attorney’s Office. • August 31, 2023 – o Planning Commission public hearing notices emailed to interested parties and residents/property owners who requested notice. Agenda posted to the Planning Commission website and the State of Urah Public Notice webpage. o Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing posted on the property. • September 6, 2023 – Planning received the draft ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office. • September 13, 2023 – Petitions reviewed by the Planning Commission and a public hearing was held. The Commission voted 6-2 to forward positive recommendations to the City Council for both the zoning map and future land use map amendments. • October 14, 2023 – Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. • October 10, 2023 – Final ordinance requested from the City Attorney’s Office. • October 23, 2023 – Planning received final ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office. • October 30, 2023 – Transmittal received in City Council Office. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 30, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Zoning Map Amendment at 803, 805, 807, & 815 W Simondi Ave and 802, 806, 810, & 814 W 300 N PLNPCM2023-00361 & PLNPCM2023-00499 STAFF CONTACT: Cassie Younger, Senior Planner Cassie.younger@slcgov.com, 801-535-6211 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the requested zoning map and Master Plan amendments. BUDGET IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The proposal includes a zoning map amendment to change the zoning of the properties at approximately 803, 805, 807, & 815 W Simondi Ave and 802, 806, 810, & 814 W 300 N from R-1/7000, Single Family Residential, to RMF-30, Low Density Multi- Family Residential. They are also proposing a Master Plan Amendment to show the Future Land Use Map in the Northwest Community Plan as “Medium Density Residential” in place of “Low Density Residential”. The applicant has requested the rezone to allow greater flexibility in housing types and higher density in order to build affordable housing on these properties. The Planning Commission discussed the petition at the September 13, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing on the issue. The Commission voted (6:2) to recommend approval of the zoning map and Master Plan amendment to the City Council. The full public meeting can be viewed using this link at minute 55:30. rachel otto (Oct 30, 2023 16:46 MDT)10/30/2023 10/30/2023 For specific information regarding the proposal, please refer to the Planning Commission S taff Report. PUBLIC PROCESS: • The Planning Division provided a 45-day comment period notice to the Fairpark Community Council on July 17, 2023. The Council did not ask the applicant to present at their meeting. • Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing notice about the proposal and information on how to give public input on the project on July 17, 2023. • An online open house has been posted to the Planning Division’s webpage since July 20, 2023. • Public noticing of the Planning Commission hearing was completed on August 31, 2023. • Public comments were received prior to the Planning Commission meeting expressing concern that the applicant did not present development plans with the zoning amendment request. Planning Commission (PC) Records (Click to Access) PC Agenda for September 13, 2023 PC Minutes of September 13, 2023 PC Staff Report for September 13, 2023 EXHIBITS 1. Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Hearing 3. Petition Application 4. Mailing List 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (An ordinance amending the zoning of properties located at approximately 803, 805, 807, and 815 Simondi Avenue & 802, 806, 810, and 814 West 300 North and amending the Northwest Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at approximately 803, 805, 807, and 815 Simondi Avenue & 802, 806, 810, and 814 West 300 North from R- 1/7000 Single-Family Residential to RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00361 and amending the Northwest Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map with respect to those properties from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00499. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on September 13, 2023 to consider a petition by Neighborworks Salt Lake to rezone the parcels located at 803, 805, 807, and 815 Simondi Avenue & 802, 806, 810, and 814 West 300 North (Tax ID Nos. 08-35-258-016-0000, 08-35-258-015-0000, 08-35-258-014-0000, 08-35-258-013-0000, 08-35-404-015-0000, 08-35-404-014-0000, 08-35-404-013-0000, 08-35- 404-012-0000) (collectively, the “Property”) from R-1/7000 Single-Family Residential to RMF- 30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential, and a petition to amend the Northwest Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map with respect to the Property from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential; and WHEREAS, at its September 13, 2023, the Planning Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petitions; and 2 WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property, identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from R-1/7000 Single-Family Residential to RMF-30 Low Density Multi- Family Residential. SECTION 2. Amending the Northwest Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map within the Northwest Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future land use designation of the Property, identified in Exhibit “A” attached hereto, from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. SECTION 3. 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 ______________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 3 ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________. Ordinance rezoning 803, 805, 807, 815 Simondi Ave & 802, 806, 810 & 814 W 300 N to RMF-30 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:___________________________ By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney October 23, 2023 4 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description and Map of Property Subject to Zoning Map Amendment: Parcel Tax ID No 08-35-258-016-0000 UNIVERSITY SUB. 0525E 7 FT OF LOT 51 & ALL LOT 52 BLK 2 UNIVERSITY SUB 5341-064005693-2148 10801-7300 Parcel Tax ID No 08-35-258-015-0000 UNIVERSITY SUB. 0525E 16 FT OF LOT 50 & W 18 FT OF LOT 51 BLK 2 UNIVERSITY SUB 5341-0640 05693-2148 10801-7300 Parcel Tax ID No 08-35-258-014-0000 UNIVERSITY SUB. 0525LOT 49 & W 9 FT OF LOT 50 BLK 2 UNIVERSITY SUB 5341- 0640 05693-2148 10801-7300 Parcel Tax ID No 08-35-258-013-0000 UNIVERSITY SUB. 0525LOTS 47 & 48 BLK 2 UNIVERSITY SUB 5341-0640 05693-2148 10801-7300 Parcel Tax ID No 08-35-404-015-0000, UNIVERSITY SUB. 0525E 26 FT OF LOT 1 BLK 2 UNIVERSITY SUB 5341-0640 05693- 2148 Parcel Tax ID No 08-35-404-014-0000, UNIVERSITY SUB. 0525W 4 FT OF LOT 1 & ALL LOT 2 BLK 2 UNIVERSITY SUB 5608- 2342 05693-2148 Parcel Tax ID No 08-35-404-013-0000 UNIVERSITY SUB. 0525LOT 3 BLK 2 UNIVERSITY SUB 5341-0640 05693-2148 Parcel Tax ID No 08-35-404-012-0000 5 UNIVERSITY SUB. 0223LOTS 4 & 5 & E 8 FT OF LOT 6 BLK 2 UNIVERSITY SUB 4442- 0629 6451-1406,1408 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3. Original Petition 4. Mailing List 1) CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2023-00361 & PLNPCM2023-00499 May 24, 2023 Application for a Zoning Map Amendment was received. May 25, 2023 Petition PLNPCM2023-00361 was assigned to Cassie Younger, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing. Staff discussed the petition with the applicant and recommended they apply for a Master Plan Amendment in addition to the zoning map amendment. Staff waited for this application in order to route the two applications concurrently. June 26, 2023 Master Plan Amendment Application PLNPCM2023- 00499 was received. Staff requested some further edits in order to route application. July 17, 2023 Notice was sent to Recognized Community Organizations (RCOs) informing them of the petitions. The RCOs notified included the Fairpark Community Council. Early notification of the project was also sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal. July 20, 2023 The proposal was posted for an online open house. The proposal can still be viewed online. August 25, 2023 Ordinance request was sent to Attorney’s Office August 31, 2023 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. Planning Commission public hearing notices emailed to interested parties and residents/property owners who requested notice. Agenda posted to the Planning Commission website and the State of Utah Public Notice webpage. Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. September 6, 2023 Draft Ordinance received from Attorney’s Office September 8, 2023 September 13, 2023 October 10, 2023 October 23, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report was posted. Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed map amendment. Requested Final Ordinance from Attorney’s Office Final Ordinance received from Attorney’s Office 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00361 & PLNPCM2023-00499 Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment for the properties at approximately 803, 805, 807, & 815 W Simondi Ave, and 802, 806, 810, & 814 W 300 North. NeighborWorks, the property owner, initiated a petition for a zoning map from the current zone of R-1/7000, Single Family Residential, to RMF-30, Low Density Multi- Family Residential, to allow for greater flexibility in housing types to develop of their property. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petitions. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 pm PLACE: 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, please visit www.slc.gov/council. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Cassie Younger at 801-535-6211 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at cassie.younger@slcgov.com The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2023-00361 & PLNPCM2023-00499. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. 3) ORIGINAL PETITION Stanbridge Project Description NeighborWorks Salt Lake first began acquiring the seven Stanbridge Project properties located on 800 West Street between Simondi Avenue and 300 North Street in December 2021 with the intention of developing low density affordable housing. NeighborWorks Salt Lake has been successfully developing affordable housing since 1977. The Stanbridge Project properties are currently zoned as R1 7000, allowing the construction of only seven homes. Rezoning the Stanbridge Project properties to RMF-30 would allow the construction of up to approximately 20-plus homes. This rezoning change will require amending the Zoning Map and changes to the following parcels: • 08-35-404-012 • 08-35-404-013 • 08-35-404-014 • 08-35-404-015 • 08-35-258-013 • 08-35-258-014 • 08-35-258-015 • 08-35-258-016 Stanbridge Project Master Plan Amendment Request NeighborWorks Salt Lake (NWSL) is seeking an amendment to the Future Land Use Map on page 4 of the Northwest Community Plan from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. “The goal of the Northwest Community Plan is to improve the living and working environment in the community.” NWSL intends to help achieve this goal by converting a long-vacant, littered, and hazardous parcel of land currently zoned R1-7000 to a vibrant community of approximately 20-plus homes designed with affordability and energy efficiency in mind. Amending the Northwest Community Plan as requested would allow the development of the Stanbridge Project while not altering the existing character of that corner of the neighborhood. The Stanbridge Project is consistent with the Plan Salt Lake Guiding Principle of “access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the city . . .” It is also consistent with the Growing SLC five-year housing plan (2018-2022) goal of “increasing housing opportunities for cost-burdened households.” NWSL has been successfully developing affordable housing since 1977. NWSL first began acquiring Stanbridge Project properties in December 2021. Since that time, NWSL has had numerous conversations with current residents of the area. The neighborhood is supportive and recognizes that replacing empty lots with new, affordable, medium-density housing adds both value and vibrancy. In summary, the requested amendment to the Future Land Use Map on page 4 of the Northwest Community Plan from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for the vacant parcel making up the Stanbridge Project should be approved given that the Stanbridge Project: • Is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents; • Furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; • Is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; • Implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design; and • Is similar to other low to medium density projects that were previously approved and built in this area, establishing precedent for approving comparable requests. 4) MAILING LIST OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR OWN_CITY OWN_STATOWN_ZIP CRESPIN, FIDEL 841 W 400 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 LOZANO, ROGER &LUCILLE; JT 839 W 400 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 SPANTON, GERALD R 831 W 400 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 YANCEY, NORRENE W 827 W 400 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 KATOA, DIANA 825 W 400 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MARKINVEST ENTERPRISES, LLC 10863 S BOWDEN ST SANDY UT 84070 JOHNSON, MARY A; JTJOHNSON, DONALD; JT 813 W 400 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CADY, VICTORIA 856 W SIMONDI AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 HAER, HENRY C; JTBATTAINI, LIZA; JT 3951 BEAVER CREEK RD KAMAS UT 84036 MYERS, P R 844 W SIMONDI AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 KOWALCZIK, THOMAS 842 W SIMONDI AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 LU, JENNIFER 3434 E HEUGHS CIR HOLLADAY UT 84121 PAUGH, KARI 832 W SIMONDI AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CHAVEZ, NIKKI J &JAMES C; JT 828 W SIMONDI AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MORIYASU, MIKIO 822 W SIMONDI AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CAMPBELL, DUSTIN 816 W SIMONDI AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 RASMUSSEN, LUKE 377 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 HERRERA, ESTHER &BENNEY; JT 375 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MENDEZ, FRANK R 373 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ROGERS, HEATHER A 355 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MOLINA, ALEJANDRA G; JTALMARAZ, MARIA C; JT 865 W SIMONDI AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 GRATTAN, SHAUNA 857 W SIMONDI AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 WALBOM, CHRISTIAN 853 W SIMONDI AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 BARNES, MICHAEL M &RANAE R; JT 843 W SIMONDI AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 HUNT, MIA R 821 W SIMONDI AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 FRIZZELL, KIMBERLY; JTFRIZZELL, JESSE; JT 819 W SIMONDI AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 STEWART, DANIEL R 817 W SIMONDI AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 SALT LAKE NEIGHBORHOODHOUSING SERVICES, INC 319 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ALVES, REINALDO F; JTALVES, CLAUDIA C; JT 376 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 OBTURATION PROPERTIES, LLC 1978 E WOODSIDE DR HOLLADAY UT 84124 JOHNSON, ANDREW; JTCASTILLO, MATTHEW; JT 348 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 LOPEZ, MARTIN Z; ET AL 344 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 HOUSING ASSISTANCE MANAGEMENTENTERPRISE 1776 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 MICHAEL FRONCE TRFRONCE, MICHAEL; TR PO BOX 26702 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84126 SALT LAKE COUNTY PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 WORLDWIDE GOSPEL CHURCH 4795 S CHENTELLE DR TAYLORSVILLE UT 84129 RAISE INVESTMENTS, LLCET AL 854 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 SPIGHT, PERRY E SR; JTSPIGHT, MARGARET A; JT 846 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 DOUBLE INFINITY INVESTMENTSLLC 836 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 BASES LOADED INVESTING, LLC PO BOX 250 MESQUITE NV 89024 JOHNSON, CHRISTOPHER R 820 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 HOOKER INVESTMENTS, LLC 2694 E GRAND VIEW DR SANDY UT 84092 NGUYEN, CHAN NGOC &TRAN, TUYET-NINH THI; 6454 S HEUGHS CANYON D HOLLADAY UT 84121 YOUNG, TRENTON 850 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 Current Occupant 850 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MONTOYA, LEO; TR(LM TR) 434 ZINFANDEL CIR CLAYTON CA 94517 MONDRAGON, MERCEDES; JTPADILLA, IXCHEL P; JT 845 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 BROMAN, L. ERIC; TR(LLB IRR TR) 403 N 1300 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MAROTTA, JOSEPH 837 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 SPIGHT, PERRY E &MARGARET; JT 846 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 GUNLOCK CAPITAL LLC 5396 W 2400 S WEST VALLEY UT 84120 SPIGHT, DURAEL JTSPIGHT, JESSICA JT 821 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 SPIGHT, DURAEL JTSPIGHT, JESSICA JT 821 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 BRIDGEWATER, WYNETHA &LEE, JAKE; JT 155 N 700 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 RICHARDS, TIMOTHY 277 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 LISCOMB, CAMMY; JTCARLING, JACOB; JT 273 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 GRIFFITHS PARTNERS, LLC 1021 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 DESCHINE, BERNADETTE 257 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 320 NORTH 800 WEST, LLC 1849 MAPLE HILLS DR BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 MILLER, CHAD 772 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 FLINT, CAMILLA; JTFLINT, MERRILL; JT 768 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CHRISTENSEN, JINETTE 766 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 LUJAN, AMANDA LYNN 756 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 KENDALL, RICHARD K &MELE C; JT 776 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 BAIM, ERIC 272 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 PEREZ, CIRILO H 765 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 FRANCO, ALEJANDRA 270 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 Current Occupant 819 W 400 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 846 W SIMONDI AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 834 W SIMONDI AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 806 W SIMONDI AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 815 W SIMONDI AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 807 W SIMONDI AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 805 W SIMONDI AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 803 W SIMONDI AVE Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 356 N 800 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 330 N 800 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 350 N 800 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 862 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 822 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 818 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 814 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 810 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 806 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 802 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 849 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 841 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 833 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 831 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 824 W HOYT PL Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 819 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 267 N 800 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 829 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 320 N 800 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Item C3 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY24 TO: City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Senior Analyst DATE: March 26, 2024 RE: Resolution: Authorizing the Salt Lake County Housing Authority to Operate within Salt Lake City for The Deeply Affordable Housing Development 44 North Apartments MOTION 1 – ADOPT I move that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing the County Housing Authority to operate within Salt Lake City for the development known as the 44 North Apartments including ongoing rental assistance. MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT I move that the Council proceed to the next agenda item. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: December 12, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Resolution allowing the Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake, dba Housing Connect, to exercise its powers within the boundaries of Salt Lake City. STAFF CONTACT: Tony Milner, Director, Housing Stability Division, 801-535-6168 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution declaring a need for the Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake, dba Housing Connect, to exercise its powers within the boundaries of Salt Lake City. The Resolution would allow Housing Connect, in partnership with First Step House, to develop an affordable housing project, 44 North Apartments, located at 44 and 48 North 1000 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84116. BUDGET IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines housing authority jurisdiction as the area in which a Public Housing Authority (PHA) has authority under state and local law to administer programs. The same regulations also apply to project-based voucher programs and other housing authority activities (24 C.F.R. § 982.4(b) and 24 C.F.R. § 983.2). Housing Connect requires the authorization of the governing body of Salt Lake City to prepare, carry out, and operate projects and provide for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rachel otto (Dec 12, 2023 11:48 MST)12/12/2023 12/12/2023 rehabilitation, improvement, extension, alteration, or repair of any project within Salt Lake City boundaries (see Exhibit 1 in the Resolution). The last occurrence of the City authorizing Housing Connect to exercise its powers within the boundaries of the city was the Bodhi Apartments affordable housing project, through Resolution 8 of 2016. It is the City’s understanding that the developers, Housing Connect and First Step House, are proposing a new permanent supportive housing (PSH) complex, referred to as 44 North Apartments, located at 44 and 48 North 1000 West. The project intends to create 67 new units of deeply affordable, low barrier housing for disabled individuals experiencing homelessness and chronic homelessness. Tenants will have incomes at or below 35% Area Median Income (AMI) and will meet the criteria for disability, including behavioral health conditions. A subset of residents will be medically frail. First Step House will provide optional case management and supportive services to the residents on site. The project sits on a 0.33-acre site that has by-right, high density zoning. Unit Mix: •Total Units: 67 •1 Bed Units: 63 •2 Bed Units: 4 •Fully Accessible Units: 9 AMI Targeting: •100% Deeply Affordable Project •25% AMI Units: 5 •30% AMI Units: 55 •35% AMI Units: 7 This project aligns with the goals of the City’s Moderate Income Housing Plan, referred to as Housing SLC: 2023-2027, to increase deeply affordable housing. The 44 North Apartments would help advance the housing affordability goals of Salt Lake City and provide increased housing options to residents of the Fairpark neighborhood. Allowing Housing Connect to exercise its powers within the boundaries of the city would provide additional affordable housing options, in addition to the affordable housing resources provided by the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City. PUBLIC PROCESS: Hold a public comment opportunity to collect feedback. EXHIBITS: 1) Resolution RESOLUTION NO. ____ OF 2023 A resolution declaring there is a need for the Housing Connect to exercise its powers within the boundaries of Salt Lake City. WHEREAS, the Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake dba Housing Connect (“Housing Connect”) was created pursuant to the provisions of Title 35A, Chapter 8, Part 4, Utah Code Annotated (the “Act”); and WHEREAS, the Act authorizes Housing Connect to prepare, carry out, and operate projects and provide for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, improvement, extension, alteration or repair of any project within its area of operation; and WHEREAS, the Act provides that Housing Connect’s area of operation shall include Salt Lake City only if a resolution has been adopted by the governing body of Salt Lake City Corporation (the “City”) declaring that there is need for Housing Connect to exercise its powers within the boundaries of the City; and WHEREAS, there is a presently a need for Housing Connect to exercise its powers at a specific location also known as the 44 North Apartments located at 44 and 48 North 1000 West, Salt Lake City (the “Project”). NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby declares that there is a need for Housing Connect to exercise its powers within the boundaries of Salt Lake City for Housing Connect to prepare, carry out, and operate projects and provide for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, improvement, extension, alteration or repair of the Project, including the provision of rental assistance. Section 2. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. [Remainder of the page intentionally left blank.] Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of _____________, 2023. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By _____________________________ CHAIR Approved as to form: __________________________ Kimberly Chytraus Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: ___________________________ ATTEST: _________________________________ CITY RECORDER December 8, 2023 Item F1 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 WWW.COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Nick Tarbet, Analyst DATE:March 26, 2024 RE:Legislative Action: Sugar House Business District Zoning Amendments MOTION 1 (adopt) I move the Council initiate a legislative action starting the process for city staff to research and draft an ordinance that would create a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program for the Sugar House Business zoning districts. No need to read the following. This is provide for background purposes The Salt Lake City Council will consider adopting a legislative action requesting the Administration Research and draft an ordinance that would create a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program for the Sugar House Business zoning districts. The tool would promote sustainable urban growth while preserving historical and cultural assets. Allowing the transfer of development rights from designated sending areas to receiving areas for additional height can help strike a balance between accommodating growth and maintaining the character and scale of neighborhoods. The Council would also like staff to consider incorporating tools that accommodate growth through additional height if public spaces and improved livability standards are included in the final project design. The draft regulations would ideally facilitate the implementation of such a program, ensure that it is structured in a manner that incentivizes the preservation of historically significant and other valuable community resources. The Council would like city staff to focus on creating a TDR program for the Sugar House area first. Once that is completed, work on a TDR program that could be implemented in other parts of the city could begin. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst DATE: March 19, 2024 RE:Legislative Action: Sugar House Business District Zoning Amendments and Transfer of Development Rights Program Initiation PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: March 19, 2024 Set Date: N/A Public Hearing: N/A Potential Action: March 26, 2024 ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Salt Lake City Council will consider adopting a legislative action requesting the Administration do the following: Research and draft an ordinance that would create a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program for the Sugar House Business zoning districts. The tool would promote sustainable urban growth while preserving historical and cultural assets. Allowing the transfer of development rights from designated sending areas to receiving areas for additional height can help strike a balance between accommodating growth and maintaining the character and scale of neighborhoods. The Council would also like staff to consider incorporating tools that accommodate growth through additional height if public spaces and improved livability standards are included in the final project designs. The draft regulations would ideally facilitate the implementation of such a program, ensure that it is structured in a manner that incentivizes the preservation of historically significant and other valuable community resources. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: January 22, 2024 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Petitions PLNPCM2022-00699, PLNPCM2022-00700 and PLNPCM2022-00701 Zoning Map Amendment 2760 N., 2800 N., and 2828 N. 2200 West STAFF CONTACT: Diana Martinez, Senior Planner (801)535-7215 or diana.martinez@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follows the recommendations of the Planning Commission to approve the petitions for a zoning map amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Will Channell with OCC Industrial, representing the property owner of 2800 N. and who is under contract for the properties at approximately 2760 and 2828 N. at 2200 West, is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment to allow the development of the properties. The proposed amendment would rezone three parcels from AG-2 (Agricultural) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing). The subject properties, in total, are approximately 14.33 acres (624,216 square feet). Plans for future development were not submitted with these applications. Two of the subject parcels front along 2200 West, and the third (triangular) parcel is to the east of the other parcels. The area immediately to the north of the subject properties is zoned agricultural, however, it is under the jurisdiction of Salt Lake County. The area to the direct west is zoned BP (Business Park) and has been quickly developing over the last year with large distribution warehouses. The area immediately to the south of the subject properties is zoned AG-2 Agricultural Zoning District. In total, including the subject property, this area currently zoned AG-2 is about 67 acres. rachel otto (Jan 22, 2024 11:50 MST)01/22/2024 01/22/2024 On November 14, 2023, the North Point Small Area Plan was approved and adopted by the Salt Lake City Council. The Plan’s Vision Overview was adopted with an annexation and zoning amendment policy that states (on pg.14), “…any proposed zoning map amendment in the Transitional area will also be subject to a development agreement aimed at realizing the plan’s vision and design standards, until the area’s zoning regulations are adopted.” The application request for zoning map amendment must comply with the standards of review listed in the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Staff’s analysis shows that those standards and goals were met and had recommended approval of these petitions to the Planning Commission with a condition of approval that all three parcels will have a development agreement signed between the parcel owners and the City stating the proposed development will meet the intent of the North Point Small Area Plan and that the property owner will comply with the Development Agreement. PUBLIC PROCESS: ● Early Notification for the January 11, 2023 Meeting – o Notification of the proposal was sent to all property owners and tenants located within 300 feet of the subject parcels on August 5, 2022 o Notification of the proposal was sent to the Westpointe Community Council on August 5, 2022. A comment letter was submitted to the planning staff and is in the original staff report dated January 11, 2023. ● Planning Commission Meeting – On January 11, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed zoning map amendment. The Planning Commission voted 7-1 to table the petitions until the North Point Small Area Plan is approved and adopted by the City Council. • Early Notification for the December 13, 2023 Meeting- o November 29, 2023- Public hearing notice sign posted on the property. o December 8, 2023.- Public hearing notice mailed. Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division list serve. • Planning Commission Meeting- On December 13, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed zoning map amendment. The Planning Commission voted 6-1 (with one abstention) to send a favorable recommendation for the petitions to the City Council. PLANNING RECORDS: a) PC Agenda of January 11, 2023, meeting (Click Here) b) PC Minutes of January 11, 2023, meeting (Click Here) c) PC Staff Report of January 11, 2023, meeting (Click Here) d) PC YouTube Video of the January 11, 2023, meeting (Click Here) e) PC Agenda of December 13, 2023, meeting (Click Here) f) PC Minutes of December 13, 2023, meeting (Click Here) g) PC Staff Report of December 13, 2023, meeting (Click Here) h) PC YouTube Video of December 13, 2023, meeting (Click Here) EXHIBITS: 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITIONS 4. MAILING LIST 5. ORDINANCE TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST 5. ORDINANCE 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2022-00699 – Zoning Map Amendment Request PLNPCM2022-00700- Master Plan Amendment Request PLNPCM2022-00701- Master Plan Amendment Request approximately 2760 N., 2800 N., and 2828 N., 2200 West July 12, 2022 All three petitions for the zoning map amendment were received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division. August 1, 2022 Petition assigned to Diana Martinez, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing. August 8, 2022 Information about the proposal was sent to the Chair of the Westpointe Community Council to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. August 8, 2022 Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. September 22, 2022 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. Formal comments were submitted to staff by the recognized organizations to date related to this proposal. December 29, 2022 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. January 6, 2023 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of January 11, 2023. Public hearing notice mailed. January 11, 2023 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing January 11, 2023. By a vote of 7-1, the Planning Commission voted to table the proposed Zoning Map Amendment until the North Pointe Small Area Map is approved and adopted by the City Council. November 29, 2023 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. December 8, 2023 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of December 13, 2023. Public hearing notice mailed. December 13, 2023 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on December 13, 2023. By a vote of 6-1 (with one abstinence), the Planning Commission voted to send a favorable recommendation for the zoning map amendment petition to the City Council. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2022–00699. PLNPCM2022- 00700, and PLNPCM2022-00701 - Salt Lake City has received a request from Will Channell with OCC Industrial, who is under contract for the property, requesting a zoning map amendment to allow development of the property located at approximately 2800 N., 2880 N. and 2760 N. 2200 West. The proposed zoning amendment would rezone three parcels from AG-2 (Agricultural) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing). The subject properties, in total, are approximately 14.33 acres (624,216 square feet). Plans for future development were not submitted with these applications. The following two petitions are associated with this request: • Zoning Map Amendment- The subject properties are currently zoned AG-2 (Agricultural) and would be rezoned to M-1 (Light Manufacturing). Case Numbers PLNPCM2022-00699, PLNPCM2022-00700, and PLNPCM2022-00701. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 pm PLACE: 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, please visit www.slc.gov/council. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Diana Martinez at 801-535-7215 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at diana.martinez@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2022-00699, PLNPCM2022-00700 or PLNPCM2022-00701. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include aids and services. Please make requests at least advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST BRADLEY C AUGER; REBECCA AUGER (JT)1015 EAGLE POINTE DR NORTH SALT LAKE UT 84054 Current Occupant 2026 W 2670 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 2030 W 2670 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 DALENE J HOUCHIN; DONLEY G HOUCHIN (JT)2042 W 2670 N #NFF1 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 Current Occupant 2054 W 2670 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 2080 W 2670 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 HAMID MIRZAAKBARI 2688 N 2200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 Current Occupant 2691 N 2200 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 2704 N 2200 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 2760 N 2200 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 VT FM TR 2770 N 2200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 LATINA J RUSSELL; LATINA M HERLITZ; DESTINY D HERLITZ (JT)2790 N 2200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 Current Occupant 2800 N 2200 W Salt Lake City 84116 UT Current Occupant 2806 N 2200 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 2828 N 2200 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 JOHN L PAYNE 2848 N 2200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 KEVIN D ALLEN & ASSOCIATES INC 2861 E 7000 S COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121 ROBERT B SWANER COMPANY; ET AL 649 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 CODY D PAVELKA 6714 S CASSIDY LN #NFF1 WEST JORDAN UT 84084 BANFORD FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST 03/29/2021 7897 S 2175 E SOUTH WEBER UT 84405 LARKIN ENTERPRISES LLC; LARKIN ENTERPRISES, LLC PO BOX 1344 BOUNTIFUL UT 84011 Diana Martinez -Principal Planner PO BOX 145480 SLC UT 84114-548 Will Channell -Occ Industrial PO BOX 12437 Denver UT 80212 5. ORDINANCE 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2024 (Amending the zoning of properties located at 2760 North, 2800 North, and 2828 North 2200 West Street from AG-2 Agricultural District to M-1 Light Manufacturing District) An ordinance amending the zoning map about properties located at 2760 North, 2800 North, and 2828 North 2200 West Street from AG-2 Agricultural District to M-1 Light Manufacturing District pursuant to Petitions No. PLNPCM2022-00699, PLNPCM2022-00700 and PLNPCM2022- 00701. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on December 13, 2023, on a petition submitted by Will Channel with OCC Industrial to rezone parcels located at 2760 North 2200 West Street (Tax ID No. 08-09-476-026- 0000), 2800 North 2200 West Street (Tax ID No. 08-10-300-012-0000), and 2828 North 2200 West Street (Tax ID No.08-09-476-028-0000) (collectively, the “Properties”) from AG-2 Agricultural District to M-1 Light Manufacturing District; and WHEREAS, at its December 13, 2023, meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (the “City Council”) on said petitions; and WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Properties identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, shall be and hereby are rezoned from AG-2 Agricultural District to M-1 Light Manufacturing District. 3 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description of Properties to be Rezoned: 2760 North 2200 West Street (Tax ID No. 08-09-476-026-0000): SEC 09 TWNSHP 1N RNG 1W 1Q 0406,BEG 416.46 FT N & 333 FT E & 22.36 FT N FR SW COR OF SE 1/4,OF SE 1/4 OF SEC 9, T1N, R1W, SLB & M; E 550 FT; N 257.64,FT; W 550 FT; S 257.64 FT TO BEG. ALSO, BEG 556.46 FT N FR,SW COR OF SE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 SEC 9, T1N, R1W, SL 2800 North 2200 West Street (Tax ID No. 08-10-300-012-0000): SEC 10 TWNSHP 1N RNG 1W 1Q 1226,BEG S 89?59'57" W 90.60 FT & N 473.796 FT & E 432.125 FT & N,45?34'00" W 643.198 FT & S 89?51'55" E 114.548 FT FR NE COR,SEC 16, T1N, R1W, SLB & M; S 89?51'55" E 516.654 FT; S,20?02'53" W 326.750 FT; S 17?35'05" W 61.470 FT 2828 North 2200 West Street (Tax ID No.08-09-476-028-0000): 1218,BEG IN CEN OF A 4 RD STREET ( 2200 WEST ST ), N 930.97 FT FR,SW COR OF SE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 OF SEC 9, T1N, R1W, SLB & M; S,89?17'15" E 231.37 FT; S 89?52'05" E 528.95 FT; S 89?44'09",E 437.26 FT; S 46?26'25" E 156.46 FT; S 45?13'18" E 488.92,FT; N 89?47' ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: Victoria Petro, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT:Petitions PLNPCM2022-00699, PLNPCM2022-00700 and PLNPCM2022-00701 Zoning Map Amendment 2760 N., 2800 N., and 2828 N. 2200 West STAFF CONTACT:Diana Martinez, Senior Planner (801) 535-7215 or diana.martinez@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follows the recommendations of the Planning Commission to approve the petitions for a zoning map amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Will Channell with OCC Industrial, representing the property owner of 2800 N. and who is under contract for the properties at approximately 2760 and 2828 N. at 2200 West, is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment to allow the development of the properties. The proposed amendment would rezone three parcels from AG-2 (Agricultural) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing). The subject properties, in total, are approximately 14.33 acres (624,216 square feet). Plans for future development were not submitted with these applications. Two of the subject parcels front along 2200 West, and the third (triangular) parcel is to the east of the other parcels. The area immediately to the north of the subject properties is zoned agricultural, however, it is under the jurisdiction of Salt Lake County. The area to the direct west is zoned BP (Business Park) and has been quickly developing over the last year with large distribution warehouses. The area immediately to the south of the subject properties is zoned AG-2 Agricultural Zoning District. In total, including the subject property, this area currently zoned AG-2 is about 67 acres. On November 14, 2023, the North Point Small Area Plan was approved and adopted by the Salt Lake City Council. The Plan’s Vision Overview was adopted with an annexation and zoning amendment policy that states (on pg.14), “…any proposed zoning map amendment in the Transitional area will also be subject to a development agreement aimed at realizing the plan’s vision and design standards, until the area’s zoning regulations are adopted.” The application request for zoning map amendment must comply with the standards of review listed in the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Staff’s analysis shows that those standards and goals were met and had recommended approval of these petitions to the Planning Commission with a condition of approval that all three parcels will have a development agreement signed between the parcel owners and the City stating the proposed development will meet the intent of the North Point Small Area Plan and that the property owner will comply with the Development Agreement. PUBLIC PROCESS: ●Early Notification for the January 11, 2023 Meeting – o Notification of the proposal was sent to all property owners and tenants located within 300 feet of the subject parcels on August 5, 2022 o Notification of the proposal was sent to the Westpointe Community Council on August 5, 2022. A comment letter was submitted to the planning staff and is in the original staff report dated January 11, 2023. ●Planning Commission Meeting – On January 11, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed zoning map amendment. The Planning Commission voted 7-1 to table the petitions until the North Point Small Area Plan is approved and adopted by the City Council. •Early Notification for the December 13, 2023 Meeting- o November 29, 2023- Public hearing notice sign posted on the property. o December 8, 2023.- Public hearing notice mailed. Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division list serve. •Planning Commission Meeting- On December 13, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed zoning map amendment. The Planning Commission voted 6-2 (with one abstention) to send a favorable recommendation for the petitions to the City Council. PLANNING RECORDS: a) PC Agenda of January 11, 2023, meeting (Click Here) b) PC Minutes of January 11, 2023, meeting (Click Here) c) PC Staff Report of January 11, 2023, meeting (Click Here) d) PC YouTube Video of the January 11, 2023, meeting (Click Here) e) PC Agenda of December 13, 2023, meeting (Click Here) f) PC Minutes of December 13, 2023, meeting Click Here) g) PC Staff Report of December 13, 2023, meeting (Click Here) h) PC YouTube Video of December 13, 2023, meeting (Click Here) EXHIBITS: 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITIONS 4. MAILING LIST 5. ORDINANCE ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Salt Lake City CouncilTO: DATE: June 20, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods ________________________ SUBJECT: Maven State Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment (PLNPCM2022-00998 & PLNPCM2022-00999) STAFF CONTACT: Trevor Ovenden, Principal Planner, 801-535-7168 or trevor.ovenden@slcgov.com Meagan Booth, Principal Planner, 801-535-7213 or meagan.booth@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The City Council follows the Planning Commission’s recommendation and approve the requested Zoning Map and Master Plan amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Matthew Ratelle with the Colmena Group representing the property owner initiated the following amendment requests in anticipation of a future redevelopment project. (see table and maps on next page) The proposal includes two requests: (1) to amend the Central Community Future Land use map from Community Commercial and Low Density Residential to High Mixed Use and (2) to amend the zoning map designation from R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential) and CC (Commercial Corridor) to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use). The project area is approximately 1.37 acres or 59,677.2 square feet includes the following four properties: •1791 S State Street •1815 S State Street •118 E Coatsville Ave •120 E Coatsville Ave A formal development proposal has not been submitted at this time. More information, including the applicant’s description of the proposal can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report. Lisa Shaffer (Jun 21, 2023 11:42 MDT)06/21/2023 06/21/2023 HOUSING LOSS MITIGATION Per Chapter 18.97 of City Ordinance, any petition for a zoning change that would permit a nonresidential use of land, that includes within its boundaries residential dwelling units, may not be approved until a housing mitigation plan is approved by the city. The applicant submitted a housing loss mitigation plan, which can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report, that satisfied Housing Loss Mitigation requirements by providing replacement housing. The final plan was evaluated and approved by the Community and Neighborhoods Director, Blake Thomas, prior to the Planning Commission’s review of this petition. Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Current Future Land Use Designation Proposed Future Land Use Designation 1791 S State Street CC RMU Community Commercial High Mixed Use 1815 S State Street CC RMU Community Commercial High Mixed Use 118 E Coatsville Ave R-1/5,000 RMU Low Density Residential High Mixed Use 120 E Coatsville Ave R-1/5,000 RMU Low Density Residential High Mixed Use Existing Future land use map designations (Central Community Master Plan) Subject properties and current zoning PUBLIC PROCESS: • November 29, 2022 – Staff sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations to the Liberty Wells and Ballpark Community Council. An email in support of the request was received from the chair of the Liberty Wells Community Council. • November 30, 2022 – Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. • November 30, 2022 – The project was posted to the Online Open House webpage. • April 25, 2023 – Public hearing notice sign posted on the property • April 26, 2023 – Public hearing notice mailed. Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division list serve Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation On May 10, 2023 the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and held a public hearing. The hearing can be viewed here beginning at 1:29:07. A brief summary of the of the key topics that were discussed is as follows: • Traffic circulation and vehicular access to the site. o The applicant explained that vehicular access will not be off of State Street because of the existing bus stop in front of the site and their goal of making the central area a lively, urban space. • Impact regarding building height o Several commissioners made comments regarding the potential impact on adjacent neighbors but clarified that they support the project and believe it will be beneficial to the neighborhood. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval with the following recommended conditions: 1. A minimum 30-foot building setback shall be required from the eastern boundary of the subject site that abuts the single-family residential zoning district, regardless of the building orientation of future development. 2. At the 30-foot setback line buildings are limited to 60 feet in height. Each additional foot of building height must be stepped back an additional one foot from the 30-foot setback line. This does not apply where the building is set back 45 feet or more. 3. A 10-foot landscape buffer as defined in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance is required along the eastern boundary of the subject site that abuts the single-family residential zoning district. The landscape buffer may be located within the 30-foot building setback area and must include the following: a. A solid fence six feet in height; b. A 4’ tall shrub hedge along the entire length of the landscape buffer; and c. Shade trees planted at the rate of one tree for every 30 linear feet. 4. The existing building at 1815 S State shall be repurposed with the redevelopment of the site. 5. These conditions apply only when the abutting properties to the east are zoned single-family residential. In the event that the zoning changes on the properties to the east to a zoning district that allows building heights greater than 35 feet, these conditions no longer apply. One public comment was received after publication of the Planning Commission staff report and can be found in exhibit 4. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of May 10, 2023 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of May 10, 2023 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of May 10, 2023 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3) Comment Received After Publication of PC Staff Report 4) Mailing List 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2023 (Amending the zoning of property located at 1791 & 1815 South State Street from CC Corridor Commercial to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use, amending the zoning of property located at 118 & 120 East Coatsville Avenue from R-1/5000 Single Family Residential to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use, and amending the Central Community Future Land Use Map) An ordinance pertaining to property located at 1791 & 1815 South State Street and 118 & 120 East Coatsville Avenue, amending the zoning map from CC Corridor Commercial to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use for the properties located at 1791 & 1815 South State Street; amending the zoning map from R-1/5000 Single Family Residential to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use for the properties located at 118 & 120 East Coatsville Avenue pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00998; and amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Community Commercial to High Mixed use for the properties located at 1791 & 1815 South State Street, and from Low Density Residential to High Mixed Use for the properties located at 118 & 120 East Coatsville Avenue pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00999. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on May 10, 2023, regarding applications submitted by Matthew Ratelle of COLMAVEN, LLC to rezone the properties at 1791 & 1815 South State Street from CC Corridor Commercial to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use, to rezone the properties at 118 & 120 East Coatsville Avenue from R-1/5000 Single Family Residential to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use pursuant to petition No. PLNPCM2022-00998, and amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use map from Community Commercial to High Mixed Use at 1791 & 1815 2 South State Street, and from Low Density Residential to High Mixed Use at 118 & 120 East Coatsville Avenue pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00999. WHEREAS, at its May 10, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt lake City Council (“City Council”) on said applications; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the parcels located at 1791 & 1815 South State Street (Tax ID Nos. 16-18-306-001-0000 & 16-18-306-028-0000), as are more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, are rezoned from CC Corridor Commercial to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use, and the parcels located at 118 & 120 East Coatsville Avenue (Tax ID Nos. 16-18-306-006- 0000 & 16-18-306-007-0000), also described on Exhibit “A”, are rezoned from R-1/5000 Single Family Residential to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use. SECTION 2. Amending the Central Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map of the Central Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future land use designation of 1791 & 1815 South State Street from Community Commercial to High Mixed use, and change the future land use designation of 118 & 120 East Coatsville Avenue from Low Density Residential to High Mixed Use. SECTION 3. Conditions. Approval of this ordinance is conditioned upon the Applicant entering into a development agreement that requires the following: 3 1. A minimum 30-foot building setback shall be required from the eastern boundary of the subject site that abuts the single-family residential zoning district, regardless of the building orientation of future development. 2. At the 30-foot setback line buildings are limited to 60 feet in height. Each additional foot of building height must be stepped back an additional one foot from the 30-foot setback line. This does not apply where the building is set back 45 feet or more. 3. A 10-foot landscape buffer as defined in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance is required along the eastern boundary of the subject site that abuts the single-family residential zoning district. The landscape buffer may be located within the 30-foot building setback area and must include the following: a. A solid fence six feet in height; b. A 4’ tall shrub hedge along the entire length of the landscape buffer; and c. Shade trees planted at the rate of one tree for every 30 linear feet. 4. The existing building at 1815 S State shall be repurposed with the redevelopment of the site. 5. These conditions apply only for as long as the abutting properties to the east are zoned single-family residential. In the event that the zoning changes on the abutting properties to the east to a zoning district other than single-family residential that allows building heights greater than 35 feet, these conditions shall no longer apply. 4 SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately after it has been published in accordance with Utah Code Section 10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code Section 10-3-713. The Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the conditions set forth in Section 3 are satisfied as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director or their designee. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023 Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: _________________________________ By: __________________________ Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney June 14, 2023 5 EXHIBIT “A” Affects properties located at 1791 S State Street Tax ID No. 16-18-306-001-0000 1815 S State Street Tax ID No. 16-18-306-028-0000 118 E Coatsville Ave Tax ID No. 16-18-306-006-0000 120 E Coatsville Ave Tax ID No. 16-18-306-007-0000 Legal descriptions of property to be rezoned from CC Corridor Commercial to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use: 1791 S STATE ST/16-18-306-001-0000 BEG 33 FT E & 50 FT N FR SW COR LOT 9, BLK 5, FIVE ACRE, PLAT A, BIG FIELD SUR; E 125 FT; N 68 FT; W 125 FT; S 68 FT TO BEG. 4847-0320 5662-1847 5688-0551 6203- 0761 6490-0637 9364-4365 9755-1785 10499-8106 10794-8508 11040-6882 1815 S STATE ST/16-18-306-028-0000 BEG W 601 FT FR SE COR OF LOT 9, BLK 5, 5 AC PLAT A, BIG FIELD SUR; N 50 FT; W 125 FT; S 177.05 FT; E 245.90 FT; N 127.05 FT; W 120.90 FT TO BEG. 10618-9340 10794- 8508 Contains 1.07 acres, more or less. Legal descriptions of property to be rezoned from R-1/5000 Single Family Residential to R- MU Residential/Mixed Use: 118 E COATSVILLE AVE/16-18-306-006-0000 BEG 546 FT W FR SE COR LOT 9, BLK 5, FIVE ACRE PLAT A, BIG FIELD SUR; W 55 FT; N 118 FT; E 55 FT; S 118 FT TO BEG. 5071-0352 5644-1104 9755-1787 10499-8106 10794-8508 120 E COATSVILLE AVE/16-18-306-007-0000 BEG 491.16 FT W FR SE COR LOT 9 BLK 5 5 AC PLAT A BIG FIELD SUR N 118 FT W 54.84 FT S 118 FT E 54.84 FT TO BEG 4632-06046122-1281 9755-1789 10499-8106 10794- 8508 Contains .3 acres, more or less. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1) PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING 3) COMMENT RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF PC STAFF REPORT 4) MAILING LIST 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Project Chronology Petitions: PLNPCM2022-00998 & PLNPCM2022-00999 October 31, 2022 Applications submitted. November 17, 2022 Petition assigned to staff. November 28, 2022 Petition routed for Department Review Comments. November 29, 2022 Staff sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations to the Community Councils. November 30, 2022 Neighbors within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. November 30, 2022 The project was posted to the Online Open House webpage. January 16, 2023 The 45-day public comment period for recognized organizations ended. The online open house period ended. Staff worked with the applicant to mitigate potential impacts related to building height. Staff finalized the recommended conditions and the applicant modified their original proposal to comply with the conditions. The applicant chose to delay their hearing with the Planning Commission because of scheduling conflicts. April 25, 2023 Public hearing notice sign posted on the property April 26, 2023 Public hearing notice mailed. Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division list serve May 10, 2023 Planning Commission Public Hearing and recommendation June 1, 2023 Draft ordinance requested from City Attorney’s office. June 14, 2023 Draft ordinance received from City Attorney’s office 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2022-00998 and PLNPCM2022-00999 – Maven State Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments – Salt Lake City has received these amendment requests, specified below, from Matthew Ratelle with the Colmena Group representing the property owner. The intent of these amendment requests is to accommodate a redevelopment proposal to be submitted at a later date. The project is within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. A. Master Plan Amendment (Case number PLNPCM2022-00999) 1791 & 1815 S State Street –Amend the Central Community Master Plan’s Future Land Use designation from Community Commercial to High Mixed Use. 118 & 120 E Coatsville Ave – Amend the Central Community Master Plan’s Future Land Use designation from Low Density Residential to High Mixed Use. B. Zoning Map Amendment (Case number PLNPCM2022-00998) 1791 & 1815 S State Street – rezone from CC Commercial Corridor to R-MU Residential Mixed Use. 118 & 120 E Coatsville Ave – rezone from R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential to R-MU Residential Mixed Use. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in -person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Trevor Ovenden at 801-535-7168 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at trevor.ovenden@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition numbers PLNPCM2022-00998 and PLNPCM2022-00999. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. COMMENT NOT INCLUDED WITH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 1 Ovenden, Trevor From:Austin Whitehead <maustinwhitehead@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 11, 2023 12:12 PM To:Booth, Meagan; Ovenden, Trevor Subject:(EXTERNAL) 1815 S State St Rezone Hey Meagan and Trevor, I live on Coatsville on the block of the planned rezone. I just wanted to write to express my support for this rezone. As a neighbor, I'm very excited about the potential of those parcels. New neighbors and the commercial space will add to the community. Thanks, Austin Whitehead 704.277.6919 maustinwhitehead@gmail.com Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. 4. MAILING LIST OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR UNIT #OWN_CITY OWN_STATEOWN_ZIP EXPERT 1780 SOUTH STATE LLC 2658 E 6200 S HOLLADAY UT 84121 EXPERT 1760 SOUTH STATELLC 2658 E 6200 S HOLLADAY UT 84121 LUCY GELB; ANDREW CHARLES KARLSON (JT)62 E COATSVILLE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 TAK SANG SIU; SHAO MEI MAI (JT)817 E 4315 S MILLCREEK UT 84107 AXIOM PROPERTIES II LLC 351 W 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 MIN CHEN; XIAOYAN TIAN (JT)625 N REDWOOD RD # 2 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 O C TANNER COMPANY 1930 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 HOUSING ASSISTANCE MANAGEMENT ENTERPRISE 1776 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SCOTT J FELDMAN 130 E WILSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 ZULY CHENG 136 E WILSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 ADRIANA RUBI MCQUISTON; DANIEL J MCQUISTON (JT)142 E WILSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 RAFAEL A JR FLORES; MAEGAN FLORES (JT)152 E WILSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 FLOYD M JR GALLAGHER; DEEANN GALLAGHER (JT)1614 W GAYLAWOOD CIR TAYLORSVILLE UT 84123 YOUSUF KHANANI 6474 S MCKINLEY LN TAYLORSVILLE UT 84129 CAROL J HOPPER 121 E COATSVILLE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JANINE DONALD LIVING TRUST 04/15/2022; SHAUND D THOMAS LIVING TRU129 E COATSVILLE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 AAT SERIES LLC 6691 S AQUA VISTA CV COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121 ZHONG XIN LI 145 E COATSVILLE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 ALLYSON R ARMSTRONG; ANTHONY A AADLAND (JT)151 E COATSVILLE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 MARTIN JAMES BRIGGS; KRISTEN LYNN BROWN 3151 SOARING GULLS DR #1109 LAS VEGAS NV 89128 ZACHARY C MARTINEZ; SARAH E MARTINEZ (JT)159 E COATSVILLE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 CLIFFORD T FREEZE; SUSAN FREEZE 163 E COATSVILLE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 COLMAVEN, LLC 1201 E WILMINGTON AVE 115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 COATSVILLE HOMES, LLC 36 S STATE ST 1900 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CRAIG S COOK 3645 E CASCADE WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 JEANNE M ROBISON 134 E COATSVILLE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 LISA G ANDERSON 140 E COATSVILLE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 ZHONGXIN LI 145 E COATSVILLE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JONATHAN R JENSEN 150 E COATSVILLE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 KELELA HALAUFIA; SIAOSI K, JR HALAUFIA (JT)156 E COATSVILLE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SUSAN THI NGUYEN 160 E COATSVILLE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 CARMA BROWN 981 N 400 W AMERICAN FORK UT 84003 KELSEY E BRUBAKER 168 E COATSVILLE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 GUADALUPE B ALLGOOD; ROBBIN ALLGOOD (JT)131 E DOWNINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 DAVID S BURT 141 E DOWNINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 LAURA L FLOWER; ROBERT A BABBITT (JT)151 E DOWNINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 MICHAEL W BASS 155 E DOWNINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 CINDY DE DIOS 159 E DOWNINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 ZION'S MOTEL LLC 1009 S MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TIMOTHY REDMOND; RENEE N REDMOND (TC)122 E DOWNINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 CHRISTOPHER C BROULLIRE 128 E DOWNINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 ARIANNE GRIMES 134 E DOWNINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 MICHAEL DURHAM 44 E EXCHANGE PL SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 DEVON DARLAND; STEPHEN DARLAND (JT)144 E DOWNINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 TOMMY PIXAY SOMPHOU 146 E DOWNINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 4189 S CHARLES DR WEST VALLEY UT 84120 ANGELICA CASTRO; KATHRYN MCDANIEL (SURV)158 E DOWNINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 LOUIS-PHILIPPE CHARLES VANIER; ABIGAIL LITTLEFIELD VANIER (JT)164 E DOWNINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 TONY HUNG NGO 3460 S 1940 W WEST VALLEY UT 84119 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1833 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 LINDA HARRIS BOTT TRUST 06/18/2018 1175 E SUNSET DUNES WY DRAPER UT 84020 ZMM INVESTMENT LLC 1768 VOORHEES AVE MANHATTAN CA 90266 CURTIS NELSON 10454 S GOLDEN WILLOW DR SANDY UT 84070 Current Occupant 1780 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 1760 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 66 E COATSVILLE AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 72 E COATSVILLE AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 1792 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 1798 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 1816 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 1749 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 158 E WILSON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 1785 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 141 E COATSVILLE AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 157 E COATSVILLE AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 1791 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 118 E COATSVILLE AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 120 E COATSVILLE AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 128 E COATSVILLE AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 144 E COATSVILLE AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 166 E COATSVILLE AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 1815 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 1829 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 140 E DOWNINGTON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 152 E DOWNINGTON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 166 E DOWNINGTON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 1835 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 1834 S EDISON ST Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 1852 S EDISON ST Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 1856 S EDISON ST Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 1845 S EDISON ST Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 1849 S EDISON ST Salt Lake City UT 84115 March 26, 2024 Jorge Chamorro, Public Services Director TEMPORARY CLOSURE - 7200 W CLOSURE DETAILS Closed from April 2024 to March 2026 •Expecting some development to take place to activate the area •Early notification process not required •Property owners notified •Public Safety to retain access ADJACENT LANDOWNERS Union Pacific Railroad Kennecott (Rio Tinto) Waste Management of Utah Inc. 1 2 2 3 2 1 2 3 IMPACTS OF ILLEGAL DUMPING IMPACTS OF ILLEGAL DUMPING IMPACTS OF ILLEGAL DUMPING Jorge Chamorro Public Services Department Director jorge.chamorro@slcgov.com ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff TO: Salt Lake City Council Victoria Petro, Chair Date Received: Date Sent to Council: FROM: Jorge Chamorro, Public Services Director SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance to Close a Portion of7200 West STAFF CONTACTS: Jon Larsen, Transportation Jorge Chamorro, Public Services Department Director DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Consider and adopt the attached ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None OFFICE OF THE MAYOR March 12, 2024 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The City Council is being asked to adopt an ordinance closing a portion of 7200 West between California Ave and I-80 (see exhibit A) on, or soon after, March 15, 2024 and until March 14, 2026. In response to the increased fire danger on public and private property posed by the recurring illegal dumping activity and the costly mitigation incurred by City Departments. The ordinance states that closure will take effect upon its adoption. This portion of 7200 West runs between California Avenue, on the South end, and after the UP railroad crossing, on the North end. The road is unimproved, meaning no asphalt, concrete or curb and gutter. The area experiences frequent illegal dumping of bulky, hazardous, and large amounts of waste due to the remote location and proximity to permitted solid waste management facilities. Responding to multiple complaints received over the last year, this location has been cleared of illegally dumped waste twice in the last year, with several City Divisions and Departments involved in these efforts. The first cleanup occurred during the week of February 20'\ 2023, resulting in the removal of: 3.6 tons of tires, 15 mattresses and over 250 tons of waste, with a total cost for labor and dumping fees of $30,000. The most recent cleanup took place in the first week of December P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMA YOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 3/12/2024 3/12/2024 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 2023, when a contractor performed the work at cost to the City of $35,000. Despite that effort, waste has slowly started accumulating again. This road has been previously closed under the direction of Salt Lake City Fire Department due to hazardous conditions caused by standing ice and water. The Fire and Police Departments are supportive of this proposal. To further deter illegal dumping, potential hazards, and reduce impact of costly cleanups, the Administration is proposing to close the 7200 West between California Ave and I-80 (see exhibit A). Utah Code 72-5-105 requires that any closure may not impair the rights-of-way or easements of any property owner and the franchise rights of any public utility, and that all property owners must still have reasonable access to their property. The closure will consist of a physical barrier, swing arm gate, installed at each closure point. Keys will be provided to adjacent property owners and a Knox Box will be installed for Fire Department’s access. Union Pacific, owner of the railroad tracks within the proposed temporary closure, will retain access to their property and has provided a letter of support (see attachment 2). Rio Tinto (Kennecott), owner of multiple parcels within the proposed temporary closure, will retain access to their property and has provided a letter of support for this closure (see attachment 3). Waste Management, owner of the Mountain View Landfill with an access gate within the proposed closure has also provided a letter of support (see attachment 4). No other property owners would be impacted by this temporary closure. PUBLIC PROCESS: This temporary closure is not subject to the early notification process as per the exemption included in City Code 2.60.050C3. EXHIBITS: A. Legal Description and Map of 7200 West Closure Between California Ave (1400 S) and I-80 B. Letters of Support from Union Pacific, Rio Tinto (Kennecott) and Waste Management C. Ordinance adopting the temporary closure. 17200 WEST POWER LINE - CALIFORNIA AVE ENGINEERING DIVISION SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PUBLIC SERVICES SURVEY DEPARTMENT DESCRIPTION ”” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” EXHIBIT "A" Rio Tinto Kennecott, 4700 Daybreak Parkway, South Jordan, Utah 84009 Rio Tinto Kennecott 4700 Daybreak Parkway South Jordan, Utah 84009 Tel: (801) 204-2000 Sent via Email 09 February 2024 Public Services Department Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street, Room 135 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 RE: Temporary Closure of a Section of 7200 West To Whom It May Concern: As a representative of Kennecott Utah Copper LLC (Kennecott), owner of the parcels on both sides of the proposed road closure, I express support for the temporary road closure at 7200 West between California Ave (1400 S) and I-80 with the understanding that Kennecott will have gate access. Kennecott supports this project as a practical solution to reduce illegal dumping, encampments, and other illicit activites along the corridor. The impacts of which have spilled over onto Kennecott property. These activities are a cause for environmental and safety concerns for Kennecott’s employees, contractors, and tenants. Kennecott will remain in communication with the City project contacts during this temporary closure and will share any additional concerns if they arise. If you have questions about this letter of support, you can contact me via email at colton.norman@riotinto.com or by phone at (385) 253-0910. Sincerely, Colton Norman Principal Advisor – Land Managment Rio Tinto Kennecott UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 650 Davis Rd Salt Lake City, UT 84119 Nathan Anderson Senior Director, Public Affairs Corporate Relations P 801-212-5415 F 402-501-2301 E nanderson@up.com March 7, 2024 RE: Temporary Closure of a section of 7200 W To Whom it May Concern: Union Pacific Railroad, owner of the rail line that is crossed by 7200West in Salt Lake City, supports the proposed road closure between California Ave (1400 S) and I-80, as long as access by railroad personnel and equipment remains open. We have been assured that gates installed will be made accessible to appropriate Union Pacific personnel. We support this project for general safety and rail efficiency reasons. Illegal dumping and potential for trespassing/encampments put our employees at risk and prevent safe access to our property. This can create delays in getting crews to and from trains which impacts safe and efficient train movement and can have ramifications to the motoring public by unnecessarily blocking crossings in the area I will remain in communication with the City’s project contacts during this temporary closure and will share with them any additional concerns if they arise. If you have questions about this letter of support, you can contact me directly. Sincerely, Nathan Anderson Senior Director, Public Affairs 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ________ of 2024 (Temporarily closing a portion of 7200 West Street between California Avenue and the Southerly Boundary of Tax Parcel 14-03-300-001-0000) An ordinance temporarily closing a portion of 7200 West Street between California Avenue and the Southerly Boundary of Tax Parcel 14-03-300-001-0000, pursuant to Utah Code Section 72-5-105. WHEREAS, areas along 7200 West Street north of California Avenue and adjacent to the Union Pacific rail line that is located approximately 3/4ths of a mile north of California Avenue have been used for dangerous criminal activity, including illegally dumping debris, including hazardous materials; and WHEREAS, Utah Code Subsection 72-5-105(3) allows a municipality to temporarily close a class C road to mitigate unsafe conditions after following the procedures specified under Utah Code Subsection 72-5-105(5), which requires the city to hold a public hearing on the temporary closure and provide notice to the Utah Department of Transportation and the adjacent landowners of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the city has complied with the procedures set forth in Utah Code Subsection 72-5-105(5); and WHEREAS, the city has partnered with Salt Lake County as part of a coordinated clean up effort, which includes mitigating the unsafe conditions adjacent to the portion of 7200 West Street described herein; and WHEREAS, the abutting property owners are supportive of this temporary closure and the efforts to clean up areas adjacent to 7200 West Street; and 2 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds after holding a public hearing on this matter, that there is good cause for the temporary closure of the portion of 7200 West Street described herein to mitigate the unsafe conditions caused by illegal dumping of hazardous materials and other debris; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Temporarily Closing a City-Owned Right-of-Way. That a portion of 7200 West Street situated between California Avenue and the Southerly Boundary of Tax Parcel 14- 03-300-001-0000, and which is more particularly shown and described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, is hereby temporarily closed as a public right-of-way pursuant to Utah Code Section 72- 5-105 for the period described in Section 2 below and is declared not presently necessary or available for use as a public right-of-way during that period. SECTION 2. Temporary Closure Period; Reopening. In accordance with the planned coordinated clean-up and criminal detection and prevention activities, the portion of 7200 West Street described herein shall be closed as a public right-of-way from the effective date of this ordinance until two years thereafter or thirty (30) days after mitigation of the unsafe conditions is completed, whichever occurs first. Upon the conclusion of the temporary closure period, the mayor shall direct that the portion of 7200 West Street described in Exhibit "A" hereto shall be reopened and all obstructions to vehicular traffic removed. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its publication. 3 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of ______________, 2024. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2024 Published: ______________. Ordinance temporarily closing a portion of 7200 W_v1 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney March 11, 2024 Grant Application Submission NotificationMemo TO: Office of the City Council | Cindy Gust-Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Taylor Hill, Sylvia Richards, Linda Sanchez, Lehua Weaver Office of the Mayor | Rachel Otto, Megan Yuill Department of Finance | Mary Beth Thompson, Aaron Price, Sarah Behrens, Amy Dorsey, Sarah Behrens, Greg Cleary ,Adrienne Buhler Office of the City Attorney | Jaysen Oldroyd, SLCRecorder@slcgov.com CC: Department of Finance | Christopher Jennings FROM: Amy Dorsey DATE: March 6, 2024 SUBJECT: Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard | Leading City Procurement Reform FUNDING AGENCY: Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard GRANT PROGRAM: Leading City Procurement Reform REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $0 DEPARTMENT: Department of Finance | Division of Purchasing and Contract Management COLLABORATING AGENCIES: DATE SUBMITTED: None February 7,2024 SPECIFICS: Equipment/Supplies Only Technical Assistance Provides Hourly Positions Existing New Explanation: Match Required In-Kind Services and Cash GRANT DETAILS: The Division of Purchasing and Contract Management requested technical assistance to elevate resource procurement as a more strategic function central to the contracting regime of the City. If selected to participate, the Director and Deputy Director of the Division of Purchasing and Contract Management and the Deputy Director of the Department of Finance will take part in virtual and in-person intensive classroom experiences featuring case studies, simulations, and working sessions taught by faculty from the Harvard Kennedy School Government Performance Lab. 2 5 5 2 7 1 NEW GRANT APPLICATION FOR COUNCIL REVIEW 3/26/24 City Match Required? Number of FTEs Requested Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual Grant Total Grant & and FTE Amount Funding Agency Requested By 1.No. None.Leading City Procurement Reform Grant – Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard If awarded, the Division of Purchasing and Contract Management and the Department of Finance would receive training and technical assistance to elevate resource procurement as a more strategic function within the City’s contracting framework. Needs Public Hearing and approval under Consent Agenda (time sensitive) yes $0 Provides training and tech- nical assistance Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard Dept. of Finance, Division of Purchasing & Contract Manage- ment *The Administration indicates that this item is time-sensitive and needs to be approved by the City Council the same night as the Public Hearing on March 26th. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 3/13/2024 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 3/13/2024 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 3/13/2024 Victoria Petro, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Business Advisory Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Business Advisory Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Business Advisory Board. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 March 13, 2024 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Petro, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for the Business Advisory Board. Kristen Lavelett to be appointed for a four year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent and ending on Monday, December 25, 2028. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 3/20/2024 9:28 Riley Hewett Ceasefire and Public Comment Policy Hi, I'm calling to demand a permanent ceasefire resolution, as well as your immediate resignation along with the other City Council members. If you do not want to walk back your decision to make public comment only one hour, if you don't want to do your job, then resign. 3/20/2024 9:39 Riley Hewett City Business and Utah Tax Dollars Hi Victoria, I was at tonight's meeting and I was just wondering, when it comes to City business, how is where our local Utah tax dollars go not City business? Because our local Utah tax dollars go to funding Israel, specifically weapons in Israel, that are committing the genocide against Palestinians. So how is that not City business? How is that not only your statutory responsibility, but your moral responsibility as a human being? 3/20/2024 12:39 Spirit Lipovich-Read Public comment policy I am very alarmed by the restrictions recently passed on public comment time and in particular Victoria Petro's comment that the council did this without public announcement beforehand "Because we can". It is a sign of this state's undemocratic trajectory that this city council felt comfortable restricting the ability for public comment. It goes against our country's stated values of the people's involvement in their own government and ability to have their voices be heard. I strongly oppose this underhanded, tyrannical, cowardly policy change and hope you all will see the light and reinstate fair public comment practices. How can you, as elected officials, turn away from and try to silence the people you are meant to represent? I will remember this, as will my neighbors and there is no way we will vote for or support someone who doesn't want to hear from us. Why should we vote for someone who seeks to silence us? Shame on you, may you do everything to repair this or else know you are contributing to the death of democracy. -- Mrs. Lipovich from District 1 3/20/2024 16:41 Shasta Lawton Deep disappointment I’m deeply disappointed and disturbed by your callousness toward an issue that clearly most of your constituents support; a ceasefire resolution for Gaza. Chuck Schumer himself has called for sanctions and an end to Netanyahu’s leadership in this extraordinarily efficient and fast-moving genocide. Thousands are now starving while Israel continues to block aid, bomb, and shoot unarmed Palestinian civilians. Our tax dollars fund this abhorrent enterprise. A resolution from city council would not be meaningless or a waste of time. The more cities that do this the sooner we can stop this genocide occurring live on screen for all to see. Every push counts. Standing quietly by is complicity. Does it get in the way of plans for Olympics? Well screw the Olympics. This is genocide. Shasta Lawton 84104 3/20/2024 17:01 Jeanne Robison Phone call to City Council Jeanne Robison called to get the updated information for the construction on Coatsville and state street. and Requested a call back 3/22/2024 12:34 Kevin Bell No zoning change on Cheyenne St!!! I'm absolutely AGAINST changing the zoning in my neighborhood. Allowing this to proceed would be the first domino to gentrify and displace the community. Kevin Bell (20 year resident on Cheyenne St) 3/22/2024 16:28 Linda Timmons public comment Dear City Council, As a mother of two young children in Salt Lake City, I am deeply disappointed to learn that Upwards was not recommended for funding. This news comes as a shock, especially considering that Park City is investing over a million dollars to support working families with childcare. It's disheartening to see Salt Lake City falling behind in supporting its childcare sector, which is vital for the well-being of our children and the economic stability of our community. Upwards could have played a critical role in connecting families with quality childcare options. Now, its absence will likely leave many families struggling to find care for their children. City Council should reconsider this decision and prioritize funding for initiatives like Upwards that support efforts to better the state of childcare in our community. Thank you, Linda Timmons 3/23/2024 21:22 David Julius City I don’t see how we can host the Olympics with all this trash around our city. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 3/25/2024 12:12 Scott Ulbrich Streets in Salt Lake City Dear Councilman Dugan, I just saw a news piece about 2100 South and the work being done there. That is all well and good, but what about the terrible condition that many roads are in around Salt Lake City. For example, I live on Yalecrest Ave. Above 1800 East the pot holes and rough road are terrible. The same is true for many streets in our neighborhood. 300 South is terrible, parts of 900 South above 1300 east are bad and many others. When are these going to be addressed? Scott Ulbrich 3/25/2024 13:02 Timothy Funk Property Rezoning at approximately 756 South Montgomery Steet Public Hearing Agenda item #3 - Rezone at Approximately 756 South Montgomery Street Crossroads Urban Center an active commercial, non-profit resident business in this westside neighborhood for over 30 years strongly urges the City Council to move forward to final adoption of the rezoning of this property as stated in the public notice for today's meeting . It is believed this action will have a long lasting and positive impact on the neighborhood by producing useful and affordable residential housing options there. If you have any questions lease contact: Tim Funk, 3/25/2024 14:18 Richard Weinsoft U of U Baseball Stadium Mr. Dugan...my name is Richard Weinsoft, and I live in Murray, so no matter what you do or don't do, I can not vote for you. I think the building of a baseball facility at the U of U is a total waste of money. The "U" should buy the stadium where the AAA Bees play. Very little, if any, upgrading would be necessary. The food vendors already have kitchens and because it is off campus, they could sell beer if they choose. There is plenty of parking and close access to Trax. The BIG 12 has a rich baseball history, and there would be plenty of seating for games and other events. I could go on and on, but you get the sense of where I am coming from. I know I am not alone in my thinking. I would be honored to talk with you about my thoughts at your convenience. Thank you in advance, Richard Weinsoft 3/25/2024 14:19 Margaret R Open space suggestion Dear Councilmember Dugan, Along Sunnyside Ave., just to the west of the Pingree School, and east of the Rowland Hall soccer field there is a 1.3 acre parcel of land for sale. I'm not sure who would be interested in purchasing this land due to what type of business would be appropriate there, adjacent to two schools.I'm a bit concerned that the U of U may purchase it for the additional parking it needs for the new baseball stadium, thus just adding more pavement to our community. I'd like to propose that the city purchase the property. It seems an ideal space for a community garden. Or perhaps the city could partner with Wasatch Community Gardens to host a garden. I'm guessing WCG may not be able to afford the land outright. It's a great location (in my mind) as there are few if any options on the east side for communal gardens. Also, because it's next to schools, generally evenings and weekends are low traffic times and there should be space for parking for anyone working in the garden. This would also help preserve a bit more open space in our area. Thanks for the consideration and carrying this idea forward. Margaret Rose 3/25/2024 16:59 Ashley Nunes Public Comment Submission To the Salt Lake City City Council members: I am a daycare owner in Salt Lake City. I feel let down by our City Council after hearing the news that Upwards was not recommended for the funding they applied for. Upwards has been a key partner in supporting childcare providers like myself and ensuring that families have access to quality care for their children. It's frustrating to see Park City investing significantly in childcare support while Salt Lake City neglects to do the same. Without resources like Upwards, childcare providers and families in our city will face increased challenges in accessing and providing quality care. Please re-think your decision and put funds toward organizations and programs that enhance our community both short and long term. Support early education in Salt Lake City! Sincerely, Ashley Nunes Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 3/25/2024 22:32 Alicia Ramirez housing how are you helping us that are homeless and suffer from ptsd and anxiety and cant stay in shelters and refused a case manager to help us with any housing even though i told them that my therapist can verify that i have been in therapy for the past 2 and a half years making me chronically homeless and a domestic violence victim. i lost my housing voucher during the time gentrification started going on in my community in rosepark and unable to find affordable housing before my moving packet expired after being on housijng for 8 years and refused a hearing because i was told they were short staffed because of covid and still cant afford any of these so called affordable housing units on a fixed income on ssi benifits. these so called affordable housing units are good only if you are on housing but if your not on housing they ask thst you make almost 3 times over the amount of what the rent is leaving us out who are on disability, so i dont see how that even hellps us who are homeless and still cant find any help with housing and the waiting lists are anywhere from 2-5 years..the only people benifiting from any funding are those stayijng in shelters and have a case manager 3/26/2024 14:54 Angelica Torres public comment for city council Dear City Council, As a childcare provider who serves the families of Salt Lake City, I am disappointed by the City Council's decision not to fund Upwards. Upwards plays a crucial role in connecting families with childcare providers and supporting the childcare ecosystem in our city. It's disheartening to see our neighboring cities investing substantial resources in childcare support programming while Salt Lake City misses out on similar opportunities. Without Upwards, both childcare providers and families in our city will face continued challenges in accessing and providing quality care for children. The City Council needs to reconsider this decision and fund initiatives that strengthen our childcare sector. Sincerely, Angelica Torres 3/26/2024 14:57 Janine Bailey Sheldon Princeton Heights LHD As the owner of REDACTED and a longtime resident of the neighborhood, I support the Princeton Heights LHD. Janine Sheldon 3/26/2024 15:11 Jon Dewey Princeton Heights LHD March 25, 2024 Council Members, Regarding Princeton Heights Local Historic District designation, the efforts, time, adherence to prescribed procedures and exceeding support of the property owners is noteworthy. Just as the Laird Heights LHD garnered the Council's approval so should the current Princeton Heights application. If the Princeton Heights Local Historic District with its remarkably high number of original contributing structures cannot achieve the designation, then no other area in Salt Lake City would come close. I live in the Princeton Park Local Historic District, the second LHD adopted within Yalecrest in 2015. Since that time there have been three large remodels and a full garage replacement on our modest block demonstrating that growth and change can indeed occur within a designated area. I urge you to vote in favor of the LHD designation and the residents’ desires who support and helped usher this application through the arduous process. 3/26/2024 15:12 Lynn Kennard Pershing Princeton Heights LHD I support the designation of Princeton Heights as a local historic district Lynn K. Pershing, Ph.D. 3/26/2024 20:16 Laurel Hiatt Y'all won't let us sign up to comment after 7:30pm apparently but I want to express as a trans constituent and local healthcare worker that any statement regarding or solidarity with Trans Day of Visibility rings hollow as you silence our voices regarding a ceasefire. You are frustrated about the use of time, but you continue to waste our time by disregarding your constituents' demands. I am *tired* of having to follow up with this. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 3/26/2024 20:57 Anonymous Constituent Congratulations Your use of police and implicit threats of violence or arrest against peaceful protesters engaged in civil politics has effectively iced out your constituency who no longer feel safe or heard in the government buildings of their own city. I hope you are filled with pride, at quashing dissent and permanently harming not only your relationship with your people but your people's engagement with the democratic process and government. Who knows how many of these people will go home, feeling democracy is truly dead, and we can watch the number of voters in this country continue to descend and watch the polls on people who think this country is irredeemably corrupt and heading towards a civil war rise. Congratulations, on making the world just a bit less free.