Loading...
02/02/2021 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FORMAL MEETING February 2,2021 Tuesday 7:00 PM This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation. SLCCouncil.com CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Amy Fowler,Chair District 7 James Rogers,Vice Chair District 1 Andrew Johnston District 2 Chris Wharton District 3 Ana Valdemoros District 4 Darin Mano District 5 Dan Dugan District 6 Generated:13:38:59 This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Chair’s determination that conducting the City Council meeting at a physical location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the anchor location. The Salt Lake City Council Chair has determined that conducting a meeting at an anchor location under the current state of public health emergency constitutes a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may attend in person.For these reasons,the Council Meeting will not have a physical location at the City and County Building and all attendees will connect remotely. Members of the public are encouraged to participate in meetings.We want to make sure everyone interested in the City Council meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable.If you are interested in watching the City Council meetings,they are available on the following platforms: •Facebook Live:www.facebook.com/slcCouncil/ •YouTube:www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings •Web Agenda:www.slc.gov/council/agendas/ •SLCtv Channel 17 Live:www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Formal Meeting for the Public Hearings or general comment period,you may do so through the Webex platform.To learn how to connect through Webex,or if you need call-in phone options,please visit our website or call us at 801-535-7607 to learn more. As always,if you would like to provide feedback or comment,please call us or send us an email: •24-Hour comment line:801-535-7654 •council.comments@slcgov.com More info and resources can be found at:www.slc.gov/council/contact-us/ Upcoming meetings and meeting information can be found here:www.slc.gov/council/agendas/ Based on feedback we have received,we will be going back to our regular Formal Meeting format.Public hearings will be heard in the order on the agenda followed by a general comment session later in the meeting. 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 Amy Fowler will conduct the formal meetings. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. B.PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE. C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: NONE. D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2.Comments to the City Council.(Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing,as well as on any other City business.Comments are limited to two minutes.) E.NEW BUSINESS: 1.Motion:Meeting Remotely Without an Anchor Location The Council will consider a motion to ratify the determination that the Council will continue to meet remotely and without an anchor location under HB5002. 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 -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,July 7,2020;Tuesday,August 11,2020; Tuesday,September 1,2020;Tuesday,October 6,2020;Wednesday,October 28, 2020;Tuesday,November 17,2020;Tuesday,December 8,2020;Tuesday, January 5,2021;and Tuesday,February 2,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). 2.Resolution:Local Emergency Declaration Extension –COVID-19 The Council will consider adopting a resolution that would extend the Mayor’s March 10,2020 proclamation declaring a local emergency relating to COVID-19 (coronavirus).The Council’s most recent extension of the local emergency relating to COVID-19 terminates February 3,2021. 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 -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,February 2,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). 3.Resolution:Local Emergency Declaration Extension –Magnitude 5.7 Earthquake The Council will consider adopting a resolution that would extend the Mayor’s March 18,2020 proclamation declaring a local emergency relating to a magnitude 5.7 earthquake.The Council’s most recent extension of the local emergency relating to the earthquake terminates February 3,2021. 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 -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,February 2,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). 4.Resolution:Local Emergency Declaration Extension –Windstorm The Council will consider adopting a resolution that would extend the Mayor’s September 8,2020 proclamation declaring a local emergency relating to the windstorm.The Council’s most recent extension of the local emergency relating to the windstorm terminates February 3,2021. 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 -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,February 2,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. G.CONSENT: 1.Ordinance*:Zoning Amendments at Lincoln Street and 200 South The Council will set the date of Tuesday,March 2,2021 at 7 p.m.to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning map and Central Community Master Plan for properties located at 159 South Lincoln Street,949 East,955 East,959 East and 963 East 200 South.The requested rezone would change the properties from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential)to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential)zoning district.The Master Plan amendment would change the properties from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential.The proposal would allow the applicant more flexibility to develop future multi-family residential housing than what is currently allowed.Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics.Other sections of Title 21A –Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition.Petition No.:PLNPCM2019-00683 and PLNPCM2019-00684 *The Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation,therefore an ordinance has not been drafted.If the Council decides to approve the zone amendment,an ordinance would be drafted and considered for approval. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,February 2,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,February 2,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,March 2,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,March 16,2021 Staff Recommendation -Set date. 2.Ordinance:Rezone at 1301 and 1321 South State Street The Council will set the date of Tuesday,March 2,2021 at 7 p.m.to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance to rezone the properties at 1301 and 1321 South State Street.The proposal would change the properties from CC (Corridor Commercial)to FB-UN2 (Form Base Urban Neighborhood 2)and amend the table of the zoning ordinance to include additional land area eligible for additional building height.The applicant requested the rezone because the FB- UN2 zoning district better aligns with potential use of the corner lot and potential for a new mixed-use building,which would replace existing buildings on the parcels.Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics.Other sections of Title 21A –Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition.Petition No.:PLNPCM2020-00328 FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,February 2,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,February 2,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,March 2,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,March 16,2021 Staff Recommendation -Set date. 3.Ordinance:Zoning Amendments at Approximately 2903 South Highland Drive The Council will set the date of Tuesday,March 2,2021 at 7 p.m.to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the Sugar House Master Plan and Zoning Map for property at 2903 South Highland Drive.The property is currently “split zoned.”The applicant is requesting the eastern portion of the property be changed from Low Density Residential to Low Intensity – Mixed Use in the Sugar House Master Plan.The applicant is also requesting a zoning change on the eastern portion of the property from the current R-1-7000 (Single-Family Residential)to CB (Community Business)in order to match zoning on the western portion.If approved,the changes would allow for potential future development of the site.Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics.Other sections of Title 21A – Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. Petition No.:PLNPCM2020-00053/00054 FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,February 2,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,February 2,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,March 2,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,March 16,2021 Staff Recommendation -Set date. 4.Grant Holding Account Items (Batch No.4)Associated with BAM No.7 for Fiscal Year 2020-21 The Council will consider approving Grant Holding Account Items (Batch No.4) for Fiscal Year 2020-21 Associated with Budget Amendment No.7. 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 -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,February 2,2021 Staff Recommendation -Approve. 5.Board Appointment:Bicycle Advisory Committee –Rachel Manko The Council will consider approving the appointment of Rachel Manko to the Bicycle Advisory Committee for a term ending February 2,2024. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,February 2,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,February 2,2021 Staff Recommendation -Approve. 6.Board Reappointment:Business Advisory Board –Derek Deitsch The Council will consider the reappointment of Derek Deitsch to the Business Advisory Board as an ex-officio member with a term ending December 27,2021. 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 -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,February 2,2021 Staff Recommendation -Approve. H.ADJOURNMENT: CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m.on _____________________,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. 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. OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL WWW.SLCCOUNCIL.COM 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 PO BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114-5476 EMAIL: COUNCIL.COMMENTS@SLCGOV .COM February 2, 2021 As Salt Lake City Council Chair, we hereby determine that conducting the Salt Lake City Council meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the anchor location. The World Health Organization, the President of the United States, the Governor of Utah, the Salt Lake County Health Department, Salt Lake County Mayor, and the Mayor of Salt Lake City have all recognized a global pandemic exists related to the new strain of the coronavirus, SARS- CoV-2. Due to the state of emergency caused by the global pandemic, I find that conducting a meeting at an anchor location under the current state of public health emergency constitutes a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the location. Sincerely, Amy Fowler Chair, Salt Lake City Council 1 7 0 1 6 TO:City Council Members FROM: Jennifer Bruno Deputy Director DATE:February 2, 2021 Item E2 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY RE: Resolution extending a proclamation declaring a local emergency – COVID-19 MOTION 1 –EXTEND A LOCAL EMERGENCY PROCLAMATION I move that the Council adopt a resolution extending a proclamation declaring a local emergency relating to the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic, until May 5, 2021. OR MOTION 2 – DECLINE TO EXTEND A LOCAL EMERGENCY PROCLAMATION I move that the Council not adopt a resolution extending a proclamation declaring a local emergency relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. 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 RESOLUTION NO. ____ OF 2021 Extension of Proclamation Declaring a Local Emergency: COVID-19 WHEREAS, under Utah Code 53-2a-208(1)(a), the chief executive of a municipality may declare a local emergency by proclamation, which proclamation may be in effect for up to 30 days. WHEREAS, under Utah Code 53-2a-208(1)(b), any extension of the local emergency beyond the initial 30 days must be with the consent of the governing body of the municipality. WHEREAS, under Salt Lake City Code 22.03.010, the Mayor may declare a local emergency by proclamation, and the proclamation must state: (i) the nature of the local emergency; (ii) the areas of the City that are affected or threatened; and (iii) the conditions which cause d the local emergency. WHEREAS, under Salt Lake City Code 22.03.020, any renewal of a proclamation of local emergency for a period beyond 30 days must be approved by the City Council, with such approval expressed by resolution. WHEREAS, on March 10, 2020, the Mayor issued a “Proclamation Declaring a Local Emergency” in response to the global outbreak of COVID-19 (“Proclamation No. 1 of 2020”), which would expire under Utah Code and City Code on April 9, 2020. WHEREAS, on April 7, 2020, pursuant to Resolution No. R-20-5, the City Council extended the duration of the COVID-19 local emergency to May 7, 2020, and on May 5, 2020, the City Council again extended the duration of the COVID-19 local emergency to June 6, 2020, again to July 10, 2020, again to August 14, 2020, again to December 9, 2020 and again to February 3, 2021. WHEREAS, the COVID-19 outbreak continues nationwide and in Salt Lake City, and the City Council has determined that extending the duration of the local emergency for an additional 30 days is in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of Salt Lake City’s residents. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, the following: 1. The Council approves the extension of Proclamation No. 1 of 2020 declaring a local emergency due to the outbreak of COVID-19, which extension shall be from the date of this Resolution until May 5, 2021, unless later extended or terminated by subsequent resolution of the Council. 2. The Council reiterates that prior to the issuance of any proclamation exercising emergency powers under City Code 22.03.030, the Mayor shall provide written notification to the Council of: (a) the specific powers the Mayor intends to exercise; (b) the justification for exercising such powers in connection with the local emergency; and (c) the anticipated effect of the exercise of such powers, including the anticipated cost or lost revenue to the City. 3. At any Council meeting while the local emergency is still in effect, the Council may seek additional information from the Mayor, including the actual effect of the exercise of any emergency powers and the actual costs or lost revenue to the City due to such exercise of powers. 4. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this 2nd day of February, 2021. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL ___________________________________ Amy Wharton, Chair ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ________________________ Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder Approved as to form: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office __________________________ Katherine Lewis, City Attorney Katherine Lewis (Jan 28, 2021 12:55 MST) Item E3 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: Jennifer Bruno Deputy Director DATE:February 2, 2021 RE:Resolution extending a proclamation declaring a local emergency - Earthquake MOTION 1 – EXTEND A LOCAL EMERGENCY PROCLAMATION I move that the Council adopt a resolution extending a proclamation declaring a local emergency relating to a magnitude 5.7 earthquake, until May 5, 2021. MOTION 2 – DECLINE TO EXTEND A LOCAL EMERGENCY PROCLAMATION I move that the Council not adopt a resolution extending a proclamation declaring a local emergency relating to a magnitude 5.7 earthquake. 1 RESOLUTION NO. ____ OF 2021 Extension of Proclamation Declaring a Local Emergency: Magnitude 5.7 Earthquake WHEREAS, under Utah Code 53-2a-208(1)(a), the chief executive of a municipality may declare a local emergency by proclamation, which proclamation may be in effect for up to 30 days. WHEREAS, under Utah Code 53-2a-208(1)(b), any extension of the local emergency beyond the initial 30 days must be with the consent of the governing body of the municipality. WHEREAS, under Salt Lake City Code 22.03.010, the Mayor may declare a local emergency by proclamation, and the proclamation must state: (i) the nature of the local emergency; (ii) the areas of the City that are affected or threatened; and (iii) the conditions which cause d the local emergency. WHEREAS, under Salt Lake City Code 22.03.020, any renewal of a proclamation of local emergency for a period beyond 30 days must be approved by the City Council, with such approval expressed by resolution. WHEREAS, on March 18, 2020, the Mayor issued a “Proclamation Declaring a Local Emergency” in response to a magnitude 5.7 earthquake experienced in the Salt Lake Valley on March 18, 2020 (“Proclamation No. 3 of 2020”), which was extended by the Council to expire on July 6, 2020, again extended to October 9, 2020, and again extended to December 9, 2020, and again extended to February 3, 2021. WHEREAS, aftershocks and incoming property damage assessments continue in Salt Lake City, and the City Council has determined that extending the duration of the local emergency is in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of Salt Lake City’s residents. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, the following: 1. The Council approves the extension of Proclamation No. 3 of 2020 declaring a local emergency due to the magnitude 5.7 earthquake, which extension shall be from the date of this Resolution until May 5, 2021, unless later extended or terminated by subsequent resolution of the Council. 2. Prior to the issuance of any proclamation exercising emergency powers under City Code 22.03.030, the Mayor shall provide written notification to the Council of: (a) the specific powers the Mayor intends to exercise; (b) the justification for exercising such powers in connection with the local emergency; and (c) the anticipated effect of the exercise of such powers, including the anticipated cost or lost revenue to the City. 3. At any Council meeting while the local emergency is still in effect, the Council may seek additional information from the Mayor, including the actual effect of the exercise of any emergency powers and the actual costs or lost revenue to the City due to such exercise of powers. 2 4. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this 2nd day of February, 2021. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL ___________________________________ Amy Fowler, Chair ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ________________________ Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder Approved as to form: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office __________________________ Katherine Lewis, City Attorney Katherine Lewis (Jan 28, 2021 12:58 MST) Item E4 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: Jennifer Bruno Deputy Director DATE:February 2, 2021 RE:Resolution extending a proclamation declaring a local emergency: Windstorm MOTION 1 – EXTEND A LOCAL EMERGENCY PROCLAMATION I move that the Council adopt a resolution extending a proclamation declaring a local emergency relating to the Windstorm until May 5, 2021. MOTION 2 – DECLINE TO EXTEND A LOCAL EMERGENCY PROCLAMATION I move that the Council not adopt a resolution extending a proclamation declaring a local emergency relating to the Windstorm. RESOLUTION NO. ____ OF 2021 Extension of Proclamation Declaring a Local Emergency: Windstorm WHEREAS, under Utah Code 53-2a-208(1)(a), the chief executive of a municipality may declare a local emergency by proclamation, which proclamation may be in effect for up to 30 days. WHEREAS, under Utah Code 53-2a-208(1)(b), any extension of the local emergency beyond the initial 30 days must be with the consent of the governing body of the municipality. WHEREAS, under Salt Lake City Code 22.03.010, the Mayor may declare a local emergency by proclamation, and the proclamation must state: (i) the nature of the local emergency; (ii) the areas of the City that are affected or threatened; and (iii) the conditions which cause d the local emergency. WHEREAS, under Salt Lake City Code 22.03.020, any renewal of a proclamation of local emergency for a period beyond 30 days must be approved by the City Council, with such approval expressed by resolution. WHEREAS, on September 8, 2020, the Mayor issued a “Proclamation Declaring a Local Emergency” in response to hurricane-force winds that caused trees to fall throughout the City, causing property damage, power-outages and street and business closures (“Proclamation No. 15 of 2020”) WHEREAS, Proclamation No. 15 of 2020 was set to expire under Utah Code and City Code on October 8, 2020, was extended to December 9, 2020, and was extended to February 3, 2021. WHEREAS, incoming property damage assessments related to the windstorm continue in Salt Lake City, and the City Council has determined that extending the duration of the local emergency is in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of Salt Lake City’s residents. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, the following: 1. The Council approves the extension of Proclamation No. 15 of 2020 declaring a local emergency due to the hurricane-force windstorm, which extension shall be from the date of this Resolution until May 5, 2021, unless later extended or terminated by subsequent resolution of the Council. 2. Prior to the issuance of any proclamation exercising emergency powers under City Code 22.03.030, the Mayor shall provide written notification to the Council of: (a) the specific powers the Mayor intends to exercise; (b) the justification for exercising such powers in connection with the local emergency; and (c) the anticipated effect of the exercise of such powers, including the anticipated cost or lost revenue to the City. 3. At any Council meeting while the local emergency is still in effect, the Council may seek additional information from the Mayor, including the actual effect of the exercise of any emergency powers and the actual costs or lost revenue to the City due to such exercise of powers. 4. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this 2nd day of February, 2021. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL ___________________________________ Amy Fowler, Chair ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ________________________ Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder Approved as to form: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office __________________________ Katherine Lewis, City Attorney Katherine Lewis (Jan 28, 2021 13:00 MST) 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:February 2, 2021 RE: Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments for properties at 159 South Lincoln Street, 949 East, 955 East 959 East, and 963 East 200 South PLNPCM2019-00683 and PLNPCM2019-00684 The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map and Central Community Master Plan future land use map for properties located at 159 South Lincoln Street, 949 East, 955 East, 959 East, and 963 East 200 South from the current R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) zoning. The master plan amendment request is to change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for the parcels. The property owners are requesting these changes to allow more flexibility to develop future multi-family housing with greater density and height than currently allowed on the parcels under existing zoning. The subject parcels are within the Central City National Historic District (NHD) (Bryant Neighborhood). Structures on subject parcels fronting 200 South are considered contributing to the NHD. The structure at 159 South Lincoln Street is not considered contributing to the Historic District. Though several of the subject parcels are considered contributing to the NHD, there are not any City preservation regulations. NHDs are incentive based historic districts that grant financial incentives to property owners for restoration or rehabilitation of historic structures. A total of nine dwelling units are recognized by Salt Lake City within the five subject properties: 1. 159 South Lincoln Street is recognized as a single-family dwelling 2. 949 East 200 South is recognized as a duplex 3. 955 East 200 South is recognized as a triplex 4. 959 East 200 South is recognized as a single-family dwelling 5. 963 East 200 South is recognized as a duplex Item Schedule: Briefing: February 2, 2021 Set Date: February 2, 2021 Public Hearing: March 2, 2021 Potential Action: March 16, 2021 Page | 2 Images of the subject parcels are found on pages 23-36 of the Administration’s transmittal. The East Central North neighborhood (between 700 East and University Street from South Temple to 900 South) includes a mix of land uses. Surrounding properties are single-family residential, low scale multi- family residential and moderate scale multi-family residential. The Central Community Master Plan designated the subject properties as Low Density Residential to preserve existing low-density residential uses and residential character of this neighborhood. More intense land uses are generally located closer to 700 East while smaller scale and less intense residential uses are farther east toward 1000 East. Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous negative recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments. Because the Planning Commission recommended denial of the petitions an ordinance has not been provided. If the City Council approves the zoning change and master plan amendments, an ordinance will be requested from the Attorney’s Office for Council approval. Aerial image showing location of the subject properties Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments, determine if the Council supports the Planning Commission’s negative recommendation. POLICY QUESTIONS 1.The Council may wish to ask what changes, if any, were made as a result of the public process since the February 12, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. 2.Rezoning these properties to RMF-35 will substantially increase the value and allow the applicant to put more housing units on these parcels. The Council may wish to ask if any affordable units are included in the proposed development and at what percentage of AMI. Page | 3 3.Recently the Council has had policy discussions about the impacts to naturally occurring affordable housing units when properties are rezoned in order to building more, newer housing. The Council may wish to review this petition with that context in mind. a.The Council may wish to ask the Administration for an update on how soon amendments to the Housing Loss Mitigation ordinance will be started. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Five key issues were identified through Planning’s analysis of the proposed project. A summary of each is below. See pages 16-19 of the Administration’s transmittal for the complete analysis. Issue 1 - Existing Master Plan Policies for the Area and the Proposed Zoning The subject properties are located within the Central Community Master Plan adopted in 2005. The Master Plan’s Future Land Use Map designates the subject properties as Low Density Residential (1-15 dwelling units per acre). The applicant’s request is to modify the future land use designation to Medium Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units per acre). It is Planning staff’s opinion the master plan amendment generally does not align with the goals or policy statements within the Central Community Master Pan. They further stated current R-2 zoning aligns with the current designation on the future land use map at 10 dwelling units per acre. The proposed amendments would double the permitted number of dwelling units under the future land use designation and the allotment under current R-2 zoning. Issue 2 - R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) and RMF-35 (Moderate Density) Comparison The current R-2 zoning designation requires a minimum 5,000 square foot lot size for a single-family structure and 8,000 square feet for a duplex. These minimum lot requirements protect existing properties from increased density. Redevelopment under current zoning is unlikely and existing structures will likely remain. RMF-35 zoning introduces land uses not allowed under the current R-2 zoning including single-family attached and multi-family. Per unit square footage is decreased for developments under RMF-35 zoning. If approved, Planning staff believes the proposed amendments would be directly correlated to potential demolition of existing structures. Issue 3 – National Historic Districts and Historic Preservation Structures on the subject properties were constructed prior to the turn of the twentieth century and as stated above, are listed within the Central City National Historic District (NHD) (Bryant Neighborhood). NHDs are designated through the National Park Service and recognize unique architecture, character and development patterns of a specific area. Issue 4 – Public Opinion and Neighborhood Concerns Planning staff received significant public input about proposed amendments to the subject properties. Comments generally fall within one of the following four categories: 1.Current condition of the subject properties. The suggestion is neglect and deferred maintenance caused the properties to deteriorate. If the property owner doesn’t maintain existing structures, will they maintain new structures with additional dwelling units? 2.Loss of existing multi-family housing. Concern current tenants will be displaced by proposed redevelopment of the properties. Older housing stock is often more affordable than new, market rate housing. Page | 4 3.Loss of structures contributing to the National Historic District. Demolitions are not prohibited, but neighbors are concerned about losing historic structures and future redevelopment of the parcels. 4.Master Plan Changes. The Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map designates the subject properties as Low Density. Commenters stated without a compelling case to change, the Map should remain as it is. All public comments and petitions received by Planning staff are included in Attachment H (pages 75-356 of the Administration’s transmittal). Public comments received by the Council Office will be forwarded to Council Members. Issue 5 - Environmental Impact and Air Quality Planning staff found the proposed amendments are both conflicting and in line with environmental concerns and air quality impacts. If approved by the Council, density would be increased within an environment with existing infrastructure. This potential increased density is located next to rapid bus transit and within walking distance of Trax. On the other hand, the proposed amendments could result in demolition of existing housing. It is Planning staff’s opinion this potential demolition would be a loss of embodied energy and could negatively impact air quality. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment G of the Planning Commission staff report (pages 72-74 of the Administration’s transmittal) outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Planning staff found this proposal generally does not comply with three of the five applicable standards. They are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for full details. 1. 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. Finding: The proposal is not consistent with the goals and policies or specific designation on the Future Land Use Map. Master Plan Future Land Use Map amendment is not supported by policies in the master plan. 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Finding: The proposed Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments conflict with the purpose statement of the zoning ordinance. 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties. Finding: The proposed zoning and master plan amendments would negatively affect adjacent properties as a result of the increase in scale and intensity. 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning district which may impose additional standards. Finding: Future development would need to comply with applicable overlays. 5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies and wastewater and refuse collection. Finding: City services can be provided to the site. Page | 5 PUBLIC PROCESS • Notice of the project was sent to the Chair of the East Central Community Council August 9, 2019. • Planning staff attended the East Central Community Council meeting September 18, 2019. • Planning Staff hosted an Open House at the Tenth East Senior Center October 7, 2019. • The East Central Community Council (ECCC) provided a formal letter dated January 20, 2020 expressing opposition to the project. The letter is included on 79-83 of the Administration’s transmittal. • Planning Staff attended the East Liberty Park Community Organization meeting held on January 23, 2020 to answer questions about the project. • Planning Commission agenda posted to website, notice mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject properties, and notice posted on subject properties January 30, 2020. • The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on February 12, 2020. By unanimous vote, the Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation to the City Council. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Marcia L. White Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 04/30/2020 Chris Wharton, Chair FROM: Marcia L. White, Director Department of Community & Neighborhoods SUBJECT: PLNPCM2019-00683 and PLNPCM2019-00684 – Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments for 159 South Lincoln, 949 East, 955 East, 959 East, and 963 East 200 South STAFF CONTACT: Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, (801) 535-7930 DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Only RECOMMENDATION: The City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny the requested zoning map amendment from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) zoning and the Master Plan Amendment for Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for 159 South Lincoln, 949 East, 955 East, 959 East and 963 East 200 South. Since the Planning Commission recommended denial of the petitions, an Ordinance has not been provided. If the City Council wishes to approve the zone change and master plan amendments, an ordinance will be requested from the Attorney’s Office for City Council approval. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Graham Gilbert, representing the property owners, is requesting that the City amend the zoning map and associated future land use map for the properties located at 159 South Lincoln, 949 East, 955 East, 959 East and 963 East 200 South. The intent of the request is to change the zoning of the property to allow more flexibility to develop future multi-family residential housing. The following petitions are associated with this request: 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 April 30, 2020 5/8/2020 a. Master Plan Amendment – Amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential (1-15 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units per acre). Case number PLNPCM2019-00684 b. Zoning Map Amendment – The properties are currently zoned R-2 (Single and Two- Family Residential). The applicants are requesting to amend the zoning map designation from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Residential). Case Number PLNPCM2019-00683 The applications include five subject properties located at 159 South Lincoln, 949 East, 955 East, 959 East and 963 East 200 South. The subject properties are located within the Central City National Historic District (Bryant Neighborhood). With the exception of 159 South Lincoln, all of the structures are considered to be contributing to the National Historic District. In regard to the existing uses, the five subject properties have a total of nine recognized dwelling units. Salt Lake City recognizes the following uses in each building: 1. 159 South Lincoln is recognized as a single-family dwelling 2. 949 East 200 South is recognized as a duplex 3. 955 East 200 South is recognized as a triplex 4. 959 East 200 South is recognized as a single-family dwelling 5. 963 East 200 South is recognized as a duplex In regard to the requested master plan amendment, the Central Community Master Plan designated the subject properties as Low Density Residential to preserve the existing low density residential uses and the residential character of this neighborhood. Higher density housing is encouraged in East Downtown, Downtown, Gateway and Transit Station Development Zoning to decrease the pressure on established neighborhoods to meet the housing needs for the city. In addition to the master plan amendment, the applicant requested a zoning map amendment from the existing R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi- Family Residential). Exhibit 3b, Attachment D, illustrates the comparison between the R-2 and the RMF-35 zoning districts. For specific information regarding the proposal, please refer to the Planning Commission Staff Report found in Exhibit 3.B. PUBLIC PROCESS:  The applicant submitted their petition to amend the zoning map and the Central Community Master Plan on July 19, 2019.  Early notification and Recognized Community Organization Notification was sent on August 9, 2019. Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject properties received an early notification.  The East Central Community Council held a meeting on September 19, 2019.  The proposal was presented at a City Planning Division Open House on October 7, 2019. Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject properties received a notice of the Open House.  On February 12, 2020, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously forwarded a negative recommendation to the City Council to deny the proposal. The Planning Commission discussed the following points: The difference between the R-2 and the RMF-35 The role and purpose of the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map The Five Year Housing Plan Whether a case had been substantiated that the existing and current zoning was inappropriate EXHIBITS: 1)CHRONOLOGY 2)NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3)PLANNING COMMISSION – February 12, 2020 a)Mailed and Newspaper Notice b)Staff Report c)Agenda/Minutes d)Staff Presentation Slides e)Applicant Presentation Slides f)Additional Written Public Comments 4)ORIGINAL APPLICANT PETITIONS 5)MAILING LIST TABLE OF CONTENTS 1)CHRONOLOGY 2)NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3)PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 12, 2020 PUBLIC HEARING a)MAILED AND NEWSPAPER NOTICE b)STAFF REPORT c)AGENDA/MINUTES d)STAFF PRESENTATION SLIDES e)APPLICANT PRESENTATION SLIDES f)ADDITIONAL WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS 4)ORIGINAL APPLICANT PETITIONS 5)MAILING LIST 1) CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petitions: PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 July 19, 2019 Graham Gilbert, representing the property owners, submits Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment July 30, 2019 Petition assigned to Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing. August 8, 2019 Petitions routed to applicable Divisions and Departments for review. August 9, 2019 Notice sent to Recognized Community Organization (East Central Community Council) informing them of the petitions. September 18, 2019 Staff attended the East Central Community Council Meeting. Approximately 115 people were in attendance. October 7, 2019 Staff held an Open House at the East Senior Center. January 30, 2020 Planning Commission Agenda posted to website and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of subject properties. January 30, 2020 Staff posted the subject properties with a notice of a public hearing. February 12, 2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing. 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 - A request by Graham Gilbert, on behalf of the property owners, to amend the Central Community Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map for the following properties: 159 S. Lincoln St., 949 E., 955 E., 959 E., and 963 E. 200 S. The request includes an amendment to the Central Community Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential (1-15 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units per acre). The applicant is requesting to amend the Zoning Map for these properties from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential). The master plan and zoning map amendments are requested to allow more residential housing units than what is currently allowed. The subject property is located within District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. 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: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Room 315 City & County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Kelsey Lindquist at 801-535-7930 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com. 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) PLANNING COMMISSION a) Mailing Notice January 30, 2020 Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S State Street, Room 406, PO Box 145480, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5480 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Wednesday, February 12, 2020, 5:30 p.m. City and County Building 451 S State Street, Room 326 A public hearing will be held on the following matter. Comments from the Applicant, City Staff and the public will be taken . Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment for 159 S. Lincoln, 949 E .• 955 E .• 959 E .• 963 E. 200 S. -Graham Gilbert, on behalf of the property owners, is requesting to amend the Central Community Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map. The request includes an amendment to the Central Community Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential ( 1-15 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Density Residential ( 15-30 dwelling units per acre). The applicant is requesting to amend the Zoning Map for these properties from R-2 (Single and Two- Family Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential). The master plan and zoning map amendments are requested to allp_w more residential housing units than what is currently allowed. The subject property is located within District 4 , represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff Contact: Kelsey Lindquist at (801) 535-7930 or kelsey.lindquist@slcg.ov.com) Case Numbers PLNPCM2019-00683 and PLNPCM2019-00684 Salt Lake C ity Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodations no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this meeting. Accommodations may include: alternative formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids . Th is is an accessible facility. For additional meeting information, please sec www.slcgov.com or call 801-535-7757; TOO 535-6220. II US POSTAGE)) PITNEY BOWES Current Occupant 1009 E 200 S Salt Lake City UT 84102 ( . . ,,,... . ., ...,_ .... ~-,,~~ ~.-..---ZIP 84116 $ 000 500 02 m • 0001403342JAN 31 2020 I f"eTJ"'~ TO S~NO::'.F \ r l~ s L :: ;: r '=-r = N,.. ~.DD~ c: s !:~ JrA!_S ~c ~CRWAFD -........ . ,.., ... ' ... -----,..-....... .-.... "'"'" F.r L ") t:> -U \o:I -! 11. ... :l -.:> ..L -~ .J.. \ I 4770 S. 5600 W. WE ST VALLEY CITY. UTAH 84 11 8 FED.TAX l.D.# 87 -0 2 17663 801-204-6910 PROOF OF PUBLICATION CUSTOMER'S COPY I CUSTOMER AME AND ADDRESS PLANNING D IVISI ON, ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PO BOX I 45480 SALT LAKE C ITY UT 84 11 4 I ACCO UNT NAME PLANNING DIVISION , I TELEPHONE 8015357759 I PUBLICATI ON SCH EDU LE ST ART 0210 I /2020 END 0210 I /2020 I CUSTOM ER REFERENCE NUMBER PC 02 .12 Pub lic Hearing I CAPT ION I ORD ER # 0001281623 ACCOUNT NUMBER 9001394298 DATE 2131202 0 INVOICE NUMBER Notice of Public Hearing On Wednesday, February 12 , 2020 , the Salt Lake City Planning 1 SI ZE 40 LINES 2 COLUMN(S) ITI M ES I TOTAL COST 2 105.00 AFF IDAVIT OF PUBLI CATION Notice of N>llc Heamg On Wednesday, f'<>bruory 1 2 2020, 1he Soll l.ol<e City Plomlng Comnission will hold o ptbli<: hearing to con - sid<tr making re<cmnendotlons to 1he City CO<JnCil re• gordlng 1he following petitions, 1 • l.a$ia NOl> and Noster Plan Mw1dmn for 159 S. lhml. 949 E., ·955 E., 959 E., 963 E. 200 S. -Gra- ham Gilbert, on beholf of the property owners, is re- questing to amend the Central Corrmxiity Future Land Use Mop and the Zoning Mop. The request includes on amendment to the Central Corrmxiity Future Land Use Mop from Low Density ReS1dent1al ( 1-1 5 d welling 1A1its per acre) to Medi'"" Density Residential (15-30 dwell- 1ng IA1its per acre). The applicant is requesting to amend the Zoning Mop for ihitse rropertie• from R-2 (Single and Two-Fomilr, Residential to RMF-35 (Moder- ate Density Mu lli -Fam1ly Residential). The master plan and zoning mop amendments are requested to allow more residential housing 1A1its tllon wnot i• airrentl)' al- lowed. The subject property is located within District 4, r~resented by Ano Valdemoros. (Staff Contact, Ke1!se Undqvlst at (801 J 535-7930 or kel~3qui ~>,~~ P0ol'CM2019 The Pllblic hearing will begin at 5,30 p.m. in room 326 of the City C01A1ty Building, 45 1 South State Street Soll Lake Oty, VT. ' The City & County Building is an aocessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reason- able acoorrrnodotion, whidl may include allemate for- mats, Interpreters, and o'fher auxiliary aids and serv- ices. Please make requests at least two bu>iness days in advance. To make a request, please contact the Planning Off.ce at 801-535-7757, or relay service 711. 1281623 l.t'AXIJ' AS NEWSPAP ER AGENCY COM PANY. LLC dba UTAH MEDI A GROUP LEGAL BOOKER. I CERT IFY TH AT T H E ATTACHED A D VERTI SEMENT OF Notice of Public Hearing On Wednesday, February 12, 2020, the Salt Lake C ity Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider making recommendations FOR PLANNING DIVISION, WA S PUBLI SH ED BY T l-IE NEWS PAP ER AGENCY COMPANY, LLC dba UTAH MEDI A GROUP. AGENT FOR DE SERET NEWS AND T HE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE. DAILY NEWSPAP ERS PRI NTED JN T H E ENG LISH LANGUAGE WITH GENE RAL C IR CULATION IN UTAH, AND PUB LISHED IN SALT LAKE C ITY. SALT LAKE COUN TY IN T HE STATE OF UTAH . NOTICE JS ALSO PO STED ON UTA HLEGALS.COM ON T H E SAME DAY AS T H E FIR ST NEWSPAPER PUB LICATION DATE AND REMAINS ON UTAHLEGALS.COM INDEFIN ITELY. COMPLIES WITH U TA H DIGITAL SIGNATURE A CT UTAH CO DE 46-2-101: 46-3-104 . PU BLI SH ED ON Start 02/01 /2020 End 02/0 I /2020 DATE 2/3/2020 SI GNATURE ------------ STATE OF UTAH COUNTY OF ---=SA'-=L ·._r..-L'-'A-..K ... E __ SU BSC RIBED AN D SWORN TO BEFO RE M E ON THIS 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY IN THE Y EAR 2020 BY L ORAINE GUDMUNDSON. NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE 4) PLANNING COMMISSION b) Staff Report February 12, 2020 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Kelsey Lindquist (801) 535-7930 Date: February 12, 2020 Re: PLNPCM2019-00683 and PLNPCM2019-00684 Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment PROPERTY ADDRESS: 159 S. Lincoln, 949 E., 955 E., 959 E., 963 E. 200 S. PARCEL ID: 16-05-135-010-0000, 16-05-135-011-0000, 16-05-135-012-0000, 16-05-135-013-0000, 16-05-135-014-0000 MASTER PLAN: Central Community Master Plan ZONING DISTRICT: R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) REQUEST: Graham Gilbert, on behalf of the property owners, is requesting to amend the Central Community Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map for the following properties: 159 S. Lincoln, 949 E., 955 E., 959 E., 963 E. 200 S. The request includes an amendment to the Central Community Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential (1-15 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units per acre). Additionally, the applicant is requesting to amend the Zoning Map for these properties from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential). The master plan and zoning map amendments are requested to allow more residential units than what is currently allowed. All subject properties have existing residential uses ranging from a single-family home to a multi- family building. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in this staff report and the factors to consider for Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council regarding this proposal. ATTACHMENTS: A.Zoning and Future Land Use Map B.Property Photographs C.Application with Proposed Site Plan and Elevations D.Existing Conditions E.R-2 and RMF-35 Zoning Comparison F.Master Plan Analysis G.Analysis of Standards PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 1 February 12, 2020 H. Public Process and Comments I. Department Comments PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting to change the zoning and amend the Central Community Master Plan for five parcels that total .682 acres. The amendments are requested in order to construct a multi-family building with a greater density and height than the existing zoning district would permit. The applicant has submitted a development proposal to Planning Staff; however, the development proposal is not the subject of review per this request. The Planning Commission must review the master plan amendment and rezone according to the development potential allowable under the proposed master plan and zoning designations regardless of the proposed development plan. The proposal involves two requests: (1) to amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential (1-15 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units per acre) and (2) to amend the zoning map designation from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Residential). Aerial of Subject Properties PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 2 February 12, 2020 Aerial of Zoning of Surrounding Properties Existing Land Uses The subject properties are located within the East Central North Neighborhood of the Central Community Master Plan area, and is described as follows: The East Central North neighborhood is located between 700 East and University Street from South Temple to 900 South. Major high traffic streets traverse the area in both east- west and north-south directions, 700, 900 and 1300 East; 100, 400, 500, 600, 800 and 900 South. There are a wide variety of land uses from single-family dwellings to high-rise apartments, small commercial developments, office and major institutions. (Central Community Master Plan) The East Central North Neighborhood contains a variety of land uses throughout the area. The primary land uses that surround the subject properties, include the following uses: single-family residential, low scale multi-family residential and moderate scale multi-family residential. A multi- family structure is located along 200 South, as well as 1000 East. The intensity of the land uses fluctuates along 200 South. Generally, the more intense uses are located closer to the 700 East corridor with smaller scaled and less intense residential uses moving east towards 1000 East. The subject properties are located within the R-2 (Single and Two-Family) residential zoning district. The subject properties contain current residential uses and range in the number of units within each structure. In total, the five subject properties contain 9 units. The City recognizes the following uses within each structure: 1. 159 S. Lincoln is recognized as a single-family 2. 949 E. 200 S is recognized as a duplex 3. 955 E. 200 S. is recognized as a triplex 4. 959 E. 200 S. is recognized as a single-family 5. 963 E. 200 S. is recognized as a duplex PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 3 February 12, 2020 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Character of the Surrounding Area and Community The character of the surrounding area and the community includes historic and non-historic single and multi-family structures. The existing character includes structures that were constructed as single- family dwellings and later converted to multi-family, single-family structures, as well as larger scale multi-family complexes. The scale along 200 South varies from single to multi-story structures. Additionally, 200 South contains deep park strips with old growth trees and a landscaped center median that runs east to west. Lincoln Street differs in character and scale from 200 South. Lincoln Street includes low scale single family structures. Larger multi-family structures are located on the northern portion of Lincoln Street towards 100 South. Access and Transportation Network Four of the five properties are accessed from 200 South, which is currently a heavily utilized corridor to the University of Utah and to Downtown. 200 South currently contains transportation options that service the East Central North neighborhood. The subject properties are within walking distance to both fixed transit and rapid bus transit. KEY ISSUES: The key issues listed below have been identified through the analysis of the project, neighbor and community input and department review comments. 1. Existing Master Plan Policies for the Area and the Proposed Zoning 2. Comparison of R-2 (Single and Two-Family) and RMF-35 (Moderate Density) 3. National Historic Districts and Historic Preservation 4. Public Opinion and Neighborhood Concerns 5. Environmental Impact and Air Quality Issue 1 – Existing Master Plan Policies for the Area and the Proposed Zoning The subject properties are located within the Central Community Master Plan, which was adopted in 2005. The Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map designates the subject properties as Low Density Residential (1-15 dwelling units per acre). The applicant is requesting to modify the future land use designation to Medium Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units per acre). The Central Community Master Plan provides the following definitions for the existing land use designation and the proposed amendment: Existing Land Use Designation Low Density Residential (1-15 dwelling units per acre): This land use designation allows moderate sized lots (i.e. 3,000-10,000 square feet) where single-family detached homes are the dominant land use. Low-density includes single-family attached and detached dwellings as permissible on a single residential lot subject to zoning. Approximately one third of the Central Community is occupied by single-family residences on lots ranging from 3,000 to 10,000 square feet in size. Proposed Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units per acre): This land use designation allows single-family, duplexes, triplexes, four-plexes, townhouses, and apartments. Medium-density residential structures include attached dwelling units and apartment structures. This mix of residential land use is noticeable in the areas between South Temple and 800 South from 300 East to 900 East and areas between 1300 S and 1700 South from 200 West to Main Street. In addition to the definitions of the current and proposed designation, the Central Community Master Plan provides Residential Land Use Goals and Residential Land Use Policies that are PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 4 February 12, 2020 applicable to this request. Staff has included a section within this issue; however, for the full analysis of the applicable policy statements and goals found within the adopted guiding documents, please refer to Attachment F. Central Community Master Plan Residential Land Use Goals: • Ensure preservation of low-density residential neighborhoods • Encourage the creation and maintenance of a variety of housing opportunities that meet social needs and income levels of a diverse population • Ensure that new development is compatible with existing neighborhoods in terms of scale, character and density • Encourage a variety of housing types for higher density multi-family housing in appropriate areas such as East Downtown, the Central Business District, the Gateway area, and near downtown light rail stations to satisfy housing demand Central Community Master Plan Residential Land Use Policies: • RLU 1.0 Based on the Future Land Use Map, use residential zoning to establish and maintain a variety of housing opportunities that meet social needs and income levels of a diverse population. • RLU 1.1 Preserve low-density residential areas and keep them from being replaced by higher density residential and commercial uses. • RLU 1.2 Provide opportunities for medium-density housing in areas between the Central Business District and lower-density neighborhoods and in areas where small multi-family dwellings are compatible. • RLU1.6 Encourage coordination between the future land use map, zoning ordinance, and the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan. • RLU 2.0 Preserve and protect existing single-and multi-family residential dwellings within the Central Community through codes, regulations and design review. • RLU 2.1 Preserve housing stock through incentives and code enforcement by implementing the Salt Lake Community Housing. The Central Community Master Plan designated the subject properties as Low Density Residential to preserve the existing low density residential uses and residential character of this neighborhood. Higher density housing is encouraged in East Downtown, Downtown, Gateway and Transit Station Development Zoning to decrease the pressure on established neighborhoods to meet the housing needs for the City. The requested master plan amendment generally does not align with the goals or policy statements within the Central Community Master Plan. Additionally, the existing R-2 zoning designation does align with the current designation found on the future land use map at 10 dwelling units per acre. The proposed amendments would double the permitted number of units under the future land use designation and the allotment under the current R-2 zoning. As seen in the matrix, found in Attachment D, Staff acknowledges that there are some policy statements that align with the proposal. However, the majority of the applicable policy statements and goals conflict with the proposed amendments. There may be a need to further evaluate the Central Community Master Plan according to City wide goals; however, in this case, there are specific policies and goals that do not support the proposals. Issue 2 – R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) and RMF-35 (Moderate Density) Comparison Attachment D contains a summary of both zoning districts and a visualization of what could be constructed. This section focuses on the key differences between the R-2 and the RMF-35 zoning districts. Discussed below, the identified key differences between the R-2 and the RMF-35, include: the permitted land uses and density. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 5 February 12, 2020 The subject properties are currently zoned R-2. The R-2 zoning district permits single and two- family uses. The R-2 requires a minimum of 5,000 square feet for a single-family structure and 8,000 square feet for a duplex. The minimum lot area required for a development in the R-2 district protects the existing properties from increasing in density. The redevelopment under the existing zoning is unlikely and the existing properties are likely to remain. However, the RMF-35 introduces additional land uses that are not permitted within the R-2 zoning district, these include: single-family attached and multi-family. Additionally, the square footage required per unit decreases for development within the RMF-35. If approved, the proposed amendments would permit an increase from the existing 9 units to 15 units. The increase in density would be directly correlated to the potential demolition of the existing structures and the loss of the existing units. Issue 3 – National Historic Districts and Historic Preservation The subject properties were constructed prior to the turn of the century, and are listed within the Central City National Historic District (Bryant Neighborhood). All of the properties, with the exception of 159 S. Lincoln Street, are considered to be contributing structures to the National Historic District. National Historic Districts recognize the unique architecture, character and development pattern of a specific area. NHDs are designated through the National Park Service and do not have any City preservation regulations. NHDs are incentive based historic districts that grant financial incentives to property owners to restore or rehab a historic structure. Issue 4 – Public Opinion and Neighborhood Concerns The proposed amendments have garnered public interest and concern. Through the public engagement process, Staff has received a significant amount of public comments. The public comments generally express concerns over the existing condition of the subject properties. The neighborhood suggests that the subject properties have been neglected and maintenance has been deferred, which has caused the existing state of the properties. There are additional concerns that reflect the existing multi-family use. There are concerns that address the loss of existing housing and the replacement with market rate housing. The fear is that the existing tenants would be displaced by the amendments and redevelopment of the subject properties. Older housing stock is generally at a lower cost than new market rate housing. Additionally, the community has expressed concern with derailing from the adopted Central Community Master Plan. The Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map designates the subject properties as Low Density and without a compelling case, it should remain as such. Additional concerns reflect the loss of the existing structures. The neighborhood is a national historic district, which does not prohibit demolitions; however, the neighborhood is concerned by the loss of the structures and the future redevelopment of the parcels. All of the public comments and petitions can be found in Attachment F. Issue 5 – Environmental Impact and Air Quality The proposed amendments are both conflicting and in line with environmental concerns and air quality impacts. The proposed amendments, if approved, would increase density within an environment with existing infrastructure. Additionally, the increase of density is located next to rapid bus transit and within walking distance to Trax. However, the proposed amendments could result in the demolition of existing housing. The demolition of the existing structures would be a loss of existing embodied energy and could be impactful to the existing air quality. DISCUSSION: The proposed zoning and master plan amendment would facilitate the development of a multi-family residential building on the subject properties. The master plan’s general policies and objectives for this area do no support the higher density development. The master plans call for stability for the lower PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 6 February 12, 2020 density designations. The subject properties are adjacent to low density residential to the east, west and north. The proposed RMF-35 zoning district would result in a development that is not compatible in terms of height, massing and scale of the adjacent properties. As such, staff does not recommend changing the zoning or the master plan’s associated future land use map. NEXT STEPS: With a recommendation of approval or denial for the zoning and master plan amendments, the proposal will be sent to the City Council for a final decision by that body. If the zoning and master plan amendments are approved by the City Council, the properties could be developed for any use allowed in the RMF-35 zone on the properties. A list of uses allowed by the zone is located in Attachment D. Any development would need to obtain a building permit and would need to comply with the necessary zoning standards. If the zoning and master plan amendments are denied by the City Council, the properties at 159 Lincoln, 949 E. 200 S, 955 E. 200 S., 959 E. 200 S., and 963 E. 200 S. will remain R-2. With this zoning, the property could be developed for any use allowed in the R-2 zoning district. A list of the uses allowed by the zone is located in Attachment D. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 7 February 12, 2020 ATTACHMENT A: ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 8 February 12, 2020 Haxton PlLindenAve Banks CtWest CtStrongs CtMarkeaAve Laker CtBueno Ave 800 EHanover Pl Linden Ave 100 S 200 S 300 S 200 S 100 S 200 S 100 S 400 S800 E300 S 400 SIowa St300 S 400 S 1000 EDooley Ct800 E900 EMcClelland St900 EWindsor St1000 ELincoln St1000 EMenlo Ave RO RMF-35 UIPLRMF-35RMF-75 RMF-30 RMF-45 RMF-35 RMF-35 R-2 R-2SR-3 SR-3 RMF-45 R-2RMF-35 CN R-2 R-2 SR-3 SR-3 PLRMF-35 R-2RMF-30 RMF-35 CN UI RMF-35 R-2 SR-3 SR-3 R-2 RMF-30TSA-UN-T OSRMF-45 RMF-35 R-2 200 S 300 S800 E1100 EG StH StI StJ StK StL StM StN StO StP StQ StR StS St1st Ave 2nd Ave 3rd Ave 600 E1000 E1200 E900 ESouth Temple St 700 E100 S 400 S 500 S ¯Salt Lake City Planning Division, 1/29/2020 Legend Subject Property Parcels Zoning Districts OS Open Space CN Neighborhood Commercial CS Community Shopping SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential RMF-35 ModerateDensity Multi-Family Residential RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential RMF-75 High Density Multi-Family Residential RO Residential/Office TSA-UN-C Urban Neighborhood- Core TSA-UN-T Urban Neighborhood- Transition UI Urban Institutional PL Public Lands Vicinity Zoning Map 0 190 380 570 76095FeetPLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 9 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 10 February 12, 2020 ATTACHMENT B: PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPHS Photo of 949 E. 200 S. Photo of 955 E. 200 S. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 11 February 12, 2020 Photo of 959 E. 200 S. Photo of 963 E. 200 S. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 12 February 12, 2020 Perspective of 959, 955, and 949 E. 200 S. Photo of Lincoln Street Elevation of 949 E. 200 S. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 13 February 12, 2020 Photo of 159 S. Lincoln St. Photo of the Parking Lot of 949 E. 200 S. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 14 February 12, 2020 ATTACHMENT C: APPLICATION INFORMATION WITH PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 15 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 16 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 17 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 18 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 19 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 20 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 21 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 22 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 23 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068424February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068425February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 26 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 27 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 28 February 12, 2020 Applicant Response to Community’s Written Concerns Case Numbers PLNPCM2019-00683 and PLNPCM2019-00684 February 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 29 February 12, 2020 Content •Statistics of Community Response •Summary of Written Concerns •Response to Community’s Written Concerns PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 30 February 12, 2020 Statistics of Community Response •Total letters written: 35 •Unique households: 24 •11 duplicate letters or multiple letters from same household •Letters from individuals within District 4: 26 •6 letters from individuals who do not live within the District Boundaries •Letters in agreement: 2 •Both within 1 block of proposed location PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 31 February 12, 2020 Summary of Written Concerns •35 Letters expressed concerns that can be summarized to 7 issues 1.Concerns that current infrastructure will not support the additional 7 units 2.Don’t want increased density in neighborhood 3.Desire to keep existing structures 4.Concerns of affordable housing 5.Concerns of aesthetic fit in neighborhood 6.Concerns project will cause neighborhood to lose value, increase in taxes and rent 7.Concerns with current landlords managing redeveloped property •Proposal Applicant written response to those concerns can be found in following slides. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 32 February 12, 2020 1. Concerns that current infrastructure will not support the additional 7 units Concerns: 1.Concerns of impact to existing sewer, streets, and existing infrastructure with additional 7 units 2.Concerns of traffic and parking on 200 South 3.University of Utah students parking on 200 South 4.Concerns of "trash" PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 33 February 12, 2020 Response to: Concerns that current infrastructure will not support the additional 7 units •The City’s completed Design Review did not deem existing infrastructure or traffic would be significantly impacted. •Proposal gives 2-car garage spaces per unit (there is currently no garage spaces) with the exception of a 1-bedroom unit, which has a 1-car garage, and an additional 4 visitor spaces. In addition to ample parking for all residents on property, the proposal also has bike racks for residents and visitors to encourage alternative transportation. •While this proposal cannot change the behaviors of University of Utah students parking on 200 South, all tenants and their visitors will have parking space within the private property. •Each unit would have it's own garbage and recycling bin, similar to all other residents in the neighborhood. The difference is that rather than putting bins on the street, they would put it outside their garages within property. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 34 February 12, 2020 2. Don’t want increased density in neighborhood Concerns: 1.Don't want to live amongst massive large apartment building 2.This neighborhood should not be the location of increased density housing. 3.Suggestion to tear existing homes down and build duplexes or homes instead PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 35 February 12, 2020 Response to: Don’t want increased density in neighborhood •It has been stated that the City’s policy is to create more density in this area to accommodate growth. •There are already existing apartment complexes just 3 plots north, as well as, across 200 South that have been there for decades. •With City policy to increase density, thoughtful resource management is necessary which is why we are committed to focusing on energy efficient materials and appliances in this new build. As a result it will be much more energy efficient than current existing buildings. •Current R-2 zoning allows for 7 units of redevelopment. This option takes current 9-units to 7-units, eliminating (2) in City’s housing stock and without a unit designated for Affordable Housing as in the current proposal. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 36 February 12, 2020 3. Desire to keep existing structures Concerns: 1.These buildings should be sold to people who will restore and repair these homes 2.Desire to keep for sentimental reasons 3.Denial of request based on desire to extend the historic district PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 37 February 12, 2020 Response to: Desire to keep existing structures •This private property is not for sale. Additionally, Applicants looked into updating the dwellings with more family-friendly floor plans. To update to where desired, the City would require the units to meet current seismic code. A Structural Engineering Report was commissioned for all 5 buildings and the recommendation is to build new dwellings. Additionally, by building new, a more energy-efficient solution is available. •Denial of a proposal because of a hoped-for neighborhood - designation that has an unforeseen future is unreasonable. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 38 February 12, 2020 4. Concerns of affordable housing Concerns: 1.Preservation of Affordable and Equitable Housing 2.This new development will further inflate rent and housing crisis. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 39 February 12, 2020 Response to: Concerns of affordable housing •The current 9 units are not Section 8 housing. Applicants are willing to designate a brand-new 3-bedroom home as an Affordable Housing unit with approval of proposal. •Approval of proposal will further support the Housing Plan with additional housing stock (9 units to 16 units) with an additional designated affordable housing unit. If remained R-2, properties would be redeveloped to 7 market value rent units, losing (2) housing stock units. •Applicants are interested in working with Housing Authority to help existing tenants find alternative housing situations. •Contradicting the notion that new development inflates rents and exacerbates the housing crisis, Salt Lake City Planning Director, Nick Norris, says low-density and single-family zoning has been a major barrier to making housing more affordable https://www.kuer.org/post/zoning-heart-salt-lakes-affordable-housing-woes#stream/0 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 40 February 12, 2020 5. Concerns of aesthetic fit in neighborhood 1.Concern of height of proposed buildings 2.Concern that a conceptual plan has been submitted and changes will be made that will deviate significantly from what is in proposal 3.There are no backyards in town homes 4.Disagreement of spot-zoning PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 41 February 12, 2020 Response to: Concerns of aesthetic fit in neighborhood •The proposed dwellings do not exceed in height of the properties on 200S. The building will not be taller, will have more green space than existing properties, and covered parking for all tenants •Applicants have been open to comments and working with the community. Many comments have been incorporated - brick rather than stone and stucco, architectural elements, front porches along 200 south to encourage neighborhood engagement. Applicants are willing to sign development plan if approved to an RMF35 so that no major deviations are made. •While most of the block is zoned R-2, many of the buildings are non-conforming R-2. Directly adjacent to the proposed project on 1000 East are several commercial office and medical buildings. On Lincoln street, two houses away, is a large apartment complex. This request is not a significant deviation to what is already existing on the block. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 42 February 12, 2020 6. Neighborhood losing value, increases in taxes and rent with this proposal 1.Property taxes will increase 2.Rent will increase 3.Property value will decrease PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 43 February 12, 2020 Response to: Neighborhood losing value, increases in taxes and rent with this proposal •According to Movoto.com1, Salt Lake City property taxes are determined by the state’s, county’s, and city’s approved budgets divided by the total tax base to arrive at the property tax rate. From there, the property’s value is multiplied by the property tax rate for each of the taxable government functions, and not by small redevelopment projects. •Area rents are determined by supply and demand. With more supply of market-rate units, there is less indication of higher rents. •It is believed by many real estate professionals that a redeveloped property will add value than what is currently in place. 1https://www.movoto.com/foundation/property-taxes/salt-lake-city-property-tax-how-does-it-compare-to-other-major-cities/ PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 44 February 12, 2020 7. Concerns with current landlords managing redeveloped property 1.Concerns of property maintenance with redeveloped properties since current properties are not well maintained 2.Accusations of land-banking PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 45 February 12, 2020 Response to: Concerns with current landlords •Applicants are new owners that have experience in property management and will be handling the operations of the new proposed units. •A third-party professional Property Management Company will be used to screen tenants and maintain the properties. •These 5 properties were deemed uninhabitable by the City when purchased 30 years ago. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 46 February 12, 2020 ATTACHMENT D: EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject properties located at 159 S. Lincoln, 949 E., 955 E., 959 E., 963 E. 200 S. are zoned R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) zoning district. Existing Zoning and Uses in the Immediate Vicinity: East: To the east of the subject properties is a commercial structure, which is zoned R-2. A multi-unit residential structure is located to the north east of the subject properties. West: To the west of the subject properties are low scale residential structures and are zoned R-2. South: To the south of the subject properties are low scale residential structures and are zoned R-2. North: To the north of the subject properties are low scale residential structures, multi-family structure and a commercial use. The zoning includes R-2 and RMF-35. R-2 (Single and Two Family ) Minimum Lot Area: 5,000 square feet for single-family dwellings Twin Homes: 4,000 square feet per dwelling. Two-Family: 8,000 Minimum Lot Width: Single Family: 50 feet Twin Home: 25 Feet Two- Family: 50 Feet Maximum Building Height: 1. Twenty eight feet (28’) 2. Average 3. 20’ for flat roofs Minimum Yard: 1. Front Yard: Average of the front yard for all principal buildings. 2. Corner Side Yard: 10’ 3. Interior Side Yard: Twin Homes: No side yard is required along one side lot line. A ten foot side yard is required along the other. Other: 4’ and 10’ 4. Rear Yard: 25% of the lot depth, but not less than 15’ and need not exceed 25’. Building Coverage: 45% of the lot for two- family dwellings and 40% for single- family. 159 S. Lincoln Complies: 6,455 square feet Complies: 50 Feet Approximately 1 Story Front: Approximately 22’ Interior: Approximately 8’ and 0’ Rear: Approximately 60’ Approximately 25% 949 E. 200 S. Legal complying: 5,227 Legal complying: 35 Feet Approximately 2.5 Stories Front Yard: Approximately 27’ Corner: Approximately 14’ Interior: Approximately 1’ Rear: Approximately 59’ Approximately 34% 955 E. 200 S. Legal complying: 5,161 square feet Legal complying: 35 Feet Approximately 2.5 Stories Front: Approximately 26’ Interior: Approximately 1’ and 1’ Rear: Approximately 30’ Approximately 46% 959 E. 200 S. Complies: 5,227 square feet Legal complying: 35 Feet Approximately 3 Stories Front: Approximately 29’ Interior: Approximately 1’ and 1’ Approximately 25% 963 E. 200 S. Legal Noncomplyin g: 7,758 square feet Legal Noncomplyi ng: 47 Feet Approximately 1.5 Stories Front: Approximately 26’ Interior: Approximately 12’ and 1’ Rear: Approximately 60’ Approximately 22% PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 47 February 12, 2020 21A.33.020: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District R-2 RMF-35 Accessory use, except those that are otherwise specifically regulated elsewhere in this title P P Adaptive reuse of a landmark site C8 C8 Alcohol, bar establishment (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) Alcohol, brewpub (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) Alcohol, tavern (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) Animal, veterinary office Art gallery Artisan food production (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) Bed and breakfast inn Bed and breakfast manor Clinic (medical, dental) Commercial food preparation Community garden C P Community recreation center C Crematorium Daycare center, adult Daycare center, child C22 C22 Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P22 P22 Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P22 P22 Dwelling, accessory guest and servant's quarter Dwelling, accessory unit P P Dwelling, assisted living facility (large) C Dwelling, assisted living facility (limited capacity) C P Dwelling, assisted living facility (small) P Dwelling; dormitory, fraternity, sorority Dwelling, group home (large)14 C Dwelling, group home (small)15 P P Dwelling, manufactured home P P Dwelling, multi-family P Dwelling, residential support (large)16 Dwelling, residential support (small)17 C Dwelling, rooming (boarding) house Dwelling, single-family (attached) P Dwelling, single-family (detached) P P Dwelling, twin home and two-family P2 P Eleemosynary facility C C Financial institution Funeral home Governmental facility C C Home occupation P24 P24 Laboratory (medical, dental, optical) Library Mixed use development Mobile food business (operation on private property) PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 48 February 12, 2020 Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District R-2 RMF-35 Municipal service use, including City utility use and police and fire station C C Museum Nursing care facility Office, excluding medical and dental clinic and office Open space on lots less than 4 acres in size P P Park P P Parking, off site (to support nonconforming uses in a residential zone or uses in the CN or CB Zones) Parking, park and ride lot shared with existing use P P Place of worship on lots less than 4 acres in size C C Reception center Recreation (indoor) Restaurant Restaurant with drive-through facility Retail goods establishment Retail goods establishment, plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area Retail service establishment School, music conservatory School, professional and vocational School, seminary and religious institute C C Seasonal farm stand Studio, art Temporary use of closed schools and churches C23 Theater, live performance Theater, movie Urban farm P P Utility, building or structure P5 P5 Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole P5 P5 Wireless telecommunications facility (see section 21A.40.090, table 21A.40.090E of this title) Qualifying provisions: 1. A single apartment unit may be located above first floor retail/office. 2. Provided that no more than 2 two-family buildings are located adjacent to one another and no more than 3 such dwellings are located along the same block face (within subdivisions approved after April 12, 1995). 3. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 4. Reserved. 5. See subsection 21A.02.050B of this title for utility regulations. 6. Building additions on lots less than 20,000 square feet for office uses may not exceed 50 percent of the building's footprint. Building additions greater than 50 percent of the building's footprint or new office building construction are subject to a design review. 7. Subject to conformance to the provisions in section 21A.02.050 of this title. 8. Subject to conformance with the provisions of subsection 21A.24.010S of this title. 9. Subject to conformance with the provisions in section 21A.36.300, "Alcohol Related Establishments", of this title. 10. In the RB Zoning District, the total square footage, including patio space, shall not exceed 2,200 square feet in total. Total square footage will include a maximum 1,750 square feet of floor space within a business and a maximum of 450 square feet in an outdoor patio area. 11. Accessory guest or servant's quarters must be located within the buildable area on the lot. 12. Subject to conformance with the provisions of section 21A.36.150 of this title. 13. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a Single- or Two-Family Zoning District. 14. No large group home shall be located within 800 feet of another group home. 15. No small group home shall be located within 800 feet of another group home. 16. No large residential support shall be located within 800 feet of another residential support. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 49 February 12, 2020 17. No small residential support shall be located within 800 feet of another residential support. 18. Large group homes established in the RB and RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor. 19. Small group homes established in the RB and RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor. 20. Large residential support established in RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor. 21. Small residential support established in RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor. 22. Subject to section 21A.36.130 of this title. 23. Subject to section 21A.36.170 of this title. 24. Subject to section 21A.36.030 of this title. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 50 February 12, 2020 ATTACHMENT E: R-2 and RMF-35 COMPARISON The following illustrations summarize the lot and bulk standards for both the R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) and the RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family) zoning districts. Both summaries include existing examples of what could be constructed under the applicable zoning districts. For additional information on the R-2 and the RMF-35, please refer to Issue 2. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 51 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 52 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 53 February 12, 2020 ATTACHMENT F: MASTER PLAN ANALYSIS The subject properties located at 159 S. Lincoln, 949 E., 955 E., 959 E., and 963 E. 200 S. are located wtihin the Central Community Master Plan. Staff also reviewed Plan Salt Lake and the 5 Year Housing Plan to review the proposed amendments. All applicable master plan policies and goals are stated within the attached matrix. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 54 February 12, 2020 The Central Community Master Plan, Plan Salt Lake and the 5 Year Housing Plan have been analyzed against the proposed master plan amendment for 159 Lincoln, 949 E., 955 E., 959 E., and 963 E. 200 S. The analysis is reflected by the following colors: Consistent with the Master Plan Not Consistent with the Master Plan Neutral Central Community Master Plan Residential Land Use Goals Staff Analysis of Master Plan Amendment Encourage the creation and maintenance of a variety of housing opportunities that meet social needs and income levels of a diverse population.  The proposed amendments could result in the demolition of existing housing within the East Central neighborhood.  Older existing housing units are generally more affordable and attainable than new market rate housing.  The rezone and master plan amendment could allow for additional density and housing. Ensure preservation of low-density residential neighborhoods.  The proposed amendments would change the future land use and zoning to medium-density residential, which could result in the demolition of the existing low-density residential land uses. Ensure that new development is compatible with existing neighborhoods in terms of scale, character and density.  The proposed amendments could result in the demolition of existing structures that contribute to the character of the neighborhood. The proposed RMF-35 zone has limited standards that would ensure that new development is compatible with the character of the neighborhood. Community Input on Residential Land Uses Proposed Amendment Higher density housing replacing characteristic lower density structures. a. The community does not support the demolition of lower-density residences in order to build multi-family structures. Residents prefer to protect the existing residential character and prevent construction of multiple family dwellings in low-density  This proposal is in direct conflict with this statement.  The proposal would encourage the demolition of existing lower density residences by allowing medium density multi-family development.  While the proposal is not high density, it is an increase in density which would exceed 15 dwelling units per acre. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 55 February 12, 2020 neighborhoods, especially those exceeding 15 dwelling units per acre. Residential Land Use Policies Proposed Amendments RLU 1.0 Based on the Future Land Use Map, use residential zoning to establish and maintain a variety of housing opportunities that meet social needs and income levels of a diverse population.  Generally, older housing stock tends to be more affordable than new development and the existing properties provide housing to a variety of income levels.  The proposed amendments would allow for the redevelopment of the subject properties with higher density, which would displace the current residences.  However, if approved, the RMF-35 would permit more units than what is currently allowed under the R-2. RLU 1.1 Preserve low-density residential areas and keep them from being replaced by higher density residential and commercial uses.  These properties are designated as low-density. The proposal would allow for the replacement of the existing residential structures with higher density residential uses.  The Central Community Master Plan has identified many areas where medium and high density housing is appropriate. Those areas are anticipated to be redeveloped with the proposed density noted on the master plan. These properties are not anticipated to increase in density. RLU 1.2 Provide opportunities for medium - density housing in areas between the Central Business District and lower-density neighborhoods and in areas where small multi- family dwellings are compatible.  The proposed zone would be considered to be medium-density: however, there are currently areas identified in the master plan and zoning map that allow for medium density housing. RLU 1.6 Encourage coordination between the Future Land Use Map, zoning ordinance, and the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan.  Salt Lake City has adopted a new 5 Year Housing Plan, which encourages growth and additional density. The 5 Year Housing Plan is analyzed in the following pages and as evidenced, there is a non-consistent policy for the amendments.  The proposed amendments are not in coordination of the Future Land Use Map or the zoning map, which is the reason for the proposed amendments. RLU 2.0 Preserve and protect existing single- and multi-family residential dwellings within the Central Community through codes, regulations and design review.  The proposal would encourage the demolition and redevelopment of the subject property because it would allow additional density. RLU 2.1 Preserve housing stock through incentives and code enforcement by implementing the Salt Lake Community Housing Plan.  The amendment would encourage the demolition of existing housing stock. However, the proposal could add to the housing stock in the community. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 56 February 12, 2020 Historic Preservation Policies Proposed Amendments HP 1.0 Central Community gives high priority to the preservation of historic structures and development patterns.  The proposal would encourage the demolition of 4 contributing structures within the Bennion National Historic District. HP 1.2 Ensure that zoning is conducive to preservation of significant and contributing structures or properties.  The proposed zoning amendment could encourage the demolition of contributing structures on the National Register. Plan Salt Lake Plan Salt Lake City is a City wide master plan that addresses growth, housing and preservation. This master plan is broad and not property specific. Plan Salt Lake Proposed Amendments Neighborhoods/Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment opportunity for social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein.  Maintain neighborhood stability and character.  Support neighborhoods and districts in carrying out the City’s collective Vision.  Support neighborhood identity and diversity.  Support policies that provides people a choice to stay in their home and neighborhood as they grow older and household demographics change.  The amendments would encourage the demolition of structures that contribute to the neighborhood character.  The community was heavily involved in the Master Planning of the subject area. The Future Land Use Map designates the subject properties as low Density.  The structures are located within a national historic district. The community master plan is supportive of preservation of community character and the preservation of the diversity of housing.  The amendments could displace the people living within the units. Growth/Growing responsibly, while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around.  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.  The proposed development is located in an area with existing infrastructure and amenities. 200 South has recently become a rapid bus line.  The amendments could create a similar land use, as seen within the neighborhood. The community is dispersed with low and medium density residential.  The proposal is not infill. The land is not underutilized. It provides existing housing.  The amendments could accommodate the increased population. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 57 February 12, 2020  Accommodate and promote an increase in the City’s population. Housing/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. “Almost half of the total housing units in Salt Lake are single-family detached dwellings. While preserving the existing housing stock will continue to be a priority for Salt Lake City, over the next 25 years, it will be critical for us to encourage and support a diversity of new housing options and types with a range of densities throughout the City to best meet the changing population.  Ensure access to affordable housing city wide (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 serviced by transit.  The existing structures are older, which are generally more affordable.  The proposal would increase the number of medium density housing types and options through the loss of existing housing.  The new development is located within an area of the city with existing infrastructure and services.  This would be a moderate density increase within an existing neighborhood. The increase in density is not clearly appropriate. Throughout all of the analyzed plans there are both policy statements that are consistent and not consistent with the requested amendments.  The applicants have stated that the new construction would be “efficient”; however, there would be a loss of embodied energy. Rehabilitation of the existing structures is preferable.  This area is serviced by a rapid transit bus. Bus schedules are subject to change. Beautiful City/A beautiful city that is people focused.  Reinforce and preserve neighborhood and district character and a strong sense of place.  The proposed amendments would encourage the demolition and redevelopment of existing structure that add to the character of the neighborhood. The amendments would not reinforce or preserve neighborhood or district character. Preservation/Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past. 1. The amendments would encourage the demolition of the structures. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 58 February 12, 2020 1. Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. 2. Retain areas and structures of historic and architectural value. 3. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth. 2. The 5 structures are located within a National Historic District. Retention is encouraged and incentivized. 3. The structures are located within a National Historic District. National districts incentivize preservation through tax credit programs. Property owners have the ability and flexibility to alter their properties. The proposed amendments would encourage the demolition and redevelopment of existing structures. Growth is needed, but through compatible and appropriate development that is supported in the community master plans. Five Year Housing Plan Five Year Housing Plan Proposed Amendments Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city.  The proposal includes the rezone and master plan amendment of an established neighborhood. While the neighborhood could potentially contain additional density, the proposal would eliminate existing affordable and diverse housing. In summary, the analyzed adopted Master Plan documents provide some supportive, neutral and non-supportive policy statements in regard to the proposed amendments. The supportive and neutral policy statements, which are color coded above, support growth and development. However, there is a number of non-supportive policy statements that are in direct conflict with the proposed amendments. These policies address compatibility, appropriate density for specific areas of the City and preservation of existing housing stock. The lack of the majority of supporting policies is why Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 59 February 12, 2020 ATTACHMENT G: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS B. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the following: Standard Findings Rationale 1. 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; The proposal is not consistent with the goals and policies or specific designation on the Future Land Use Map. Master Plan Future Land Use Map amendment is not supported by policies in the master plan. Please see the matrix in Attachment F. The requested master plan amendment generally does not align with the goals or policy statements within the Central Community Master Plan. Additionally, the existing R-2 zoning designation does align with the current designation found on the future land use map at 10 dwelling units per acre. The proposed amendments would double the permitted number of units under the future land use designation and the allotment under the current R-2 zoning. As stated in the matrix, found in Attachment F, Staff acknowledges that there are some policy statements that align with the proposal. However, the majority of the applicable policy statements and goals conflict with the proposed amendments. There may be a need to further evaluate the Central Community Master Plan according to City wide goals; however, in this case, there are specific policies and goals that do not support the proposals. 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; The proposed Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments conflict with the purpose statement of the zoning ordinance. 21A.02.030: The purpose of this title 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. The proposal does not promote the order and welfare of the community because it is not consistent with the adopted community plan. The amendments do not implement the adopted plans of the City. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 60 February 12, 2020 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties; The proposed zoning and master plan amendments would negatively affect adjacent properties as a result of the increase in scale and intensity. As discussed in Issue 2, if the properties were to be rezoned to RMF-35, a 15 unit multi-family building could potentially be constructed. The building could reach 35 feet in height with smaller setbacks and an increased lot coverage allowance. This would decrease the amount of open space on the parcels. Additionally, the RMF-35 doesn’t require or contain any design standards or review. The lack of design standards could permit an out of context and character structure to be constructed. Attachment E contains a summary of both zoning districts and a visualization of what could be constructed. The R-2 zoning district provides more compatible setbacks, lot coverage and height limitations in relation to the existing context, which contains lower scaled residential structures. The RMF-35 designation would permit the number of dwelling units proposed by the applicant. However, there is an impactful difference between the level of development that would be allowed under the current R-2 and the RMF-35. 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning district which may impose additional standards; and Future development would need to comply with applicable overlays. Subject properties are located within the Ground Water Source Protection Overlay. Public Utilities would require additional standards for future development of the properties. 5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. City services can be provided to the site The subject property is located within a built environment where public facilities and services already exist. An increase in the number of dwelling units permitted under the RMF-35 may require upgrading the utilities and drainage systems. However, such upgrades would be required for any new larger use on the property through the building permit process. No concerns were received from other City departments regarding PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 61 February 12, 2020 the zoning amendment or the potential for additional development intensity/density on these properties. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 62 February 12, 2020 ATTACHMENT H: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS The applications were received on July 19, 2019. The applications were routed on August 8, 2019. Early notification and Recognized Community Organization Notification was sent on August 9, 2019. Staff attended the East Central Community Council on September 19, 2019. East Central Community Council counted 115 people in attendance. The following questions, concerns and items were discussed: •History of the subject properties •Concerns about neighborhood impacts. •Concerns about how many individuals live within the structures •Some individuals expressed the need for additional housing units within the neighborhood •What is the energy target of the proposed development •Parking concerns with the proximity to the University of Utah •Concerns about garbage pickup •The City should focus on protecting the R-2 •Concerns about the existing state of the structures •Questions about the current rent from the tenants •Concerns about the motivation of the proposals •Comments about increasing housing stock and should increase affordability •Concerns about the impact of RMF-35 to abutting properties Staff has also held an Open House on October 7, 2019 at the 10th East Senior Center. Staff received several comments via email and written comments, which are all attached. Additionally, a public petition was submitted, which is also attached. Staff posted the properties January 30, 2020. Planning Commission Agenda posted to web on January 30, 2020 Public hearing notices mailed on January 30, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 63 February 12, 2020 Neighborhood Meetings are held monthly on the third Thursday of the month 7-8:30 pm at Judge Memorial High School. ECC Mailing address: 606 Trolley Square Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Email: eastcentralcommunity@gmailcom On the web: www.eastcentralcc.org Via Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/EastCentralCommunityCouncil https://www.facebook.com/PorchfestSaltLake General Membership Meeting September 19, 2019, 7:00-8:30 p.m. Judge Memorial Catholic High School 650 South 1100 East, Library Agenda 7:00-7:10 Welcome & Announcements Esther Hunter – Chair, East Central Community 7:10-7:25 Police and Mayor’s Office Report Officer Bishop Tim Cosgrove, Community liaison for the Salt Lake City Mayors office  Banks Court 7:25-8:00 Community Development & Land Use Zoning Map Amendment and Master Plan Amendment R2 (Single and Two-Family Residential District) to RMF 35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) Graham Filbert on behalf of the property owners 159 S. Lincoln, 949, 955, 959, 963 East 200 South Send proposal comments to eastcentralcommunity@gmail.com & to Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning 801.535.7930 8:00-8:15 2020 CIP Application 1200 East medians – Curb, Irrigation, Trees 8:15-8:30 Your Turn – Step up to the Microphone 8:30 Adjournment Your neighborhood Representatives: Bennion: 700 -1000 East, 400 -900 South Travis Jones, 801.664.7138 Bryant: 700 - 900 East, South Temple-400 South Melinda Main, 801.651.9705 Douglas: 500-900 South, 1000-1400 East Kim Foster, 801.419.1234 University Gardens: 900- 1400 East, South Temple-500 South/S curve Esther Hunter, 801.209.3455 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 64 February 12, 2020 October 7, 2019 Dear Neighbors, Please take a few moments to take a survey regarding 5 parcels located on 200 South and also Lincoln Street in our neighborhood. We would very much like to gather your input regarding the requested master plan and zoning amendment for the properties located at 159 S. Lincoln Street and 949/955/959 and 963 East 200 South from R2 (single family and two family residential) to RMF-35 (moderate density multi-family residential). The owners of the property are seeking to rezone the property with the intent to demolish the existing structures to build new apartment townhomes for rent. If you were not able to attend the last East Central Community meeting on this topic, more information can be found on the East Central Community Facebook page or by attending an open house on the topic being held today October 7 at the 10th East Senior Center (257 South 10th East) from 5-7pm. Thank you so much for your participation and thoughtful input. Esther In behalf of the ECC Executive Board & the ECC Community Development and Land Use Committee We are interested in understanding how the local community feels about the proposed Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment from low density single and two family (R2) to medium density multifamily zoning (RMF-35) for the five lots located at 159 S. Lincoln, 949/955/959/963 E. 200 South. 1. How much do you support this change in land use? Strongly support Strongly oppose 2. Following up to the previous question, why do you feel that way? 3. Please list the extent to which this proposed change will affect adjacent properties, your property, or the ECC neighborhood. Consider all types of positive and negative impacts such as on quality of life, sunlight, privacy, property values, noise, neighborhood safety, density, smell, availability of housing options, appearance etc. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 65 February 12, 2020 4. Please state your opinion of the adequacy and impact of public facilities and services for this location such as roadways, parks/open space, refuse collection, wastewater collection, police/fire protection, etc. 5. Please list any other comments or questions about this proposal. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 66 February 12, 2020 1 January 20, 2020 Kelsey Lindquist Senior Planner Community & Neighborhoods, Planning Division Salt Lake City Corporation Regarding: Planning Petition PLNPCM2019-00683 and 00684 Zoning Map amendment and Master Plan Amendment 159 S. Lincoln, 949/955/959/963 E. 200 South Request to change R-2 zoning to RMF-35 and future land use map from low to medium density Dear Kelsey, This letter is to reaffirm the position of the East Central Community Council as opposing this petition. The ECC does not find this petition in keeping with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Central Community Master Plan, the zoning ordinance or the Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan in this location. This conclusion was reached after an extensive amount of time in working directly with the applicant on possible options that would either preserve or preserve and repair the majority of existing structures but allow added development that could potentially enhance the neighborhood area, on line surveys, door to door petitions, CDLU review comparing master plan, housing plan and other city adopted plans, ECC Land Use/ Executive Board/General Meetings, social media announcements and cottage meetings. Spot zoning is rarely smart planning. While the ECC does support appropriate development, redevelopment and the 5 year Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan (especially owner occupied workforce housing), we support this effort on the appropriate parcels already zoned or positioned for this type of density of which there are a great many parcels available in the ECC and a multitude of opportunities on the fixed transit routes. The ECC on line survey (attached) via the proprietary ECC email list of confirmed neighbors who live or own in the area garnered the largest on line response the ECC has had for an on line petition with 731 responses of which 714 were strongly opposed with 17 strongly in favor and 1 who did not answer this question. Negative impacts to adjacent properties or to the neighborhood are summarized and comments are listed. The door to door petition that the ECC previously sent to you with 198 signatures collected by Monica has increased and is being resent under a separate cover. Our understanding is that this PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 67 February 12, 2020 2 petition now carries approximately 300 signatures. The overlap between the on line survey and the door to door petition is 32. All other signatures and survey responses are unique. A master plan and the existing zoning map helps inform people as they make significant investment decisions of where to live and thrive. The impact of this type of proposed spot zoning and development is significant to the financial investment made by every home owner in this area. Spot zoning stops people from being able to trust that their investment or quality of life will be protected. The ECC and neighbors cite negative quality of life and investment impacts such as lack of design compatibility, size/height and scale of the proposed development in comparison to the homes they own, increase in traffic congestion, and problems with traffic patterns to and from the site (Lincoln is a small street onto a small street of 200 South or the major corridor to the University of Utah), lack of setback that interrupts the existing historic feature, loss of mature trees that would be required on the site that provide better air/shade/visual improvements, etc., distance buffers to adjacent neighbors, noise of all the additional units/pick-up deliveries/etc., size and locations of trash/recycling containers, increased density in an area already over built with apartment buildings and houses broken into multifamily dwellings (average density in Salt Lake is 1776 per square mile while the ECC caries 9289 per square mile without the new developments on fixed transit) parking impacts, loss of privacy, loss of light, smell, visual impact of design, property value decrease as estimated by several real estate brokers, block face/ street face/ pattern disruption on both 200 South and on Lincoln and lack of design compatibility to historic and other features in this district. The ECC is concerned with the impact on and displacement of existing tenants. Additional housing units and density does not equal affordable or workforce housing. The County lists 29 bedrooms for these five homes with tenants stating that the count of people living at this location has been 50. The proposal submitted proposes 16 luxury units which displaces affordable/workforce housing during construction and once built next to the number 2 bus route most needed for transport. One sample tenant comment from the ECC survey: “My rent is $900 plus $300 for utilities. Where will I go? I have looked and there is no housing available to me. I can’t give my name because we were told if we get involved in this cause to save our homes we will be evicted. I can’t get evicted. I have to live in this area. I have no car and depend on the bus for my job.” The ECC is fragile. Each block face matters. The ECC is a unique gem within not only Salt Lake City but unique in the US for its walkability and historic features. It includes all types of housing such as student, families, workforce, senior and assisted living with all types of buildings from cottages to historic mansions and multifamily dwellings. It has unique wide park strips, gardens and old growth trees. All types of resources are a stroll or short transit ride away from coffee shops to medical facilities; from the University of Utah to shopping Downtown or at 9th and 9th. This is a community where you can truly age in place. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 68 February 12, 2020 3 Due to its location the ECC continues to be an area highly sought after for development as it is seen as a significant profit generator. Rather than utilize parcels already zoned for higher density, many developers seek to spot zone lower cost properties, tearing into the neighborhood fabric with little regard for the impacts they bring. In this particular case, 5 properties less than 250 feet from this location already zoned RMF 45 came on the market where the proposed design could have been built without a rezone. Developers cite financial hardship and that they need to bring extra density to make a project “ pencil”, yet the day to day financial hardship brought to existing property owners who have a loss of quality of life and property value must also be considered. he ECC cannot possibly accommodate the scope of all growth needed in the city, nor all student housing for the U, without losing the very essence of what makes the ECC so unique. This very type of neighborhood, thriving, walkable, all services and housing types, aging in place that the City hopes to create is already here. We cannot continue to sacrifice the ECC. We suggest that it is especially important that all rezoning and development be carefully considered to not destroy our existing neighborhood. At the same time, neither the city nor the ECC can afford this type of property management with a complete disregard for the living conditions of the tenants and the associated impacts on the well-being and peace of the neighborhood. However, this is a matter of enforcement not of zoning. The ECC would urge you to submit a negative recommendation for this proposal as it is currently outlined. We ask that the City considers saying no to spot zoning but looks to carefully encourages the needed housing units without negatively impacting quality of life, disrupting the existing fabric and charm of our historic neighborhoods. With warm regards, Esther Hunter, Chair East Central Community Council In behalf of the East Central Community Council and Executive Board eastcentralcommunity@gmail.com www.eastcentralcc.org Comments noted on the ECC survey responses:  Loss of old growth trees. The other day they had one of the renters chopping down trees. Sections fell on the roof damaging the roof, on the sidewalk damaging the sidewalk and causing a safety hazard. Our air quality is bad. We need the trees.  If this is built I will no longer have light or air on this side of my property.  The properties they say are the average size and height of what they want to build are all non-conforming exceptions made. They are on 10th East not Lincoln. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 69 February 12, 2020 4  I have invested significant money into remodeling my home. An apartment complex across the street from me will devalue my property value.  The living conditions are really bad….rodents, black mold, curtains to divide rooms, safety and fire hazards, water and sewer leaking from the ceiling.  National historic district. Surveyed for the expansion of the City University Historic District. Surveyed as contributing. Loss of significant and large historic contributing buildings that impact the streetscape and rhythm of the district, both sides of the blockface. (Intensive level survey for expanded historic district submitted under separate cover).  I already encounter significant traffic and parking impacts onto Lincoln, 200 South with the island and number 2 bus line. There is no plan for visitor parking. If every 3 bedroom is rented to two people that’s a potential of 94 cars plus visitors.  They say families…I bet they sell. This is just to increase property value..or they break up each unit and rent by room like they are now to students. They are not following the law now in how they are renting the five houses.  The present owners should not be rewarded with a higher zone to increase their property value given how poorly they have treated these properties, the neighbors and neighborhood for more than 20 years.  I came to the meeting in full support but the more I heard from everyone I realized that if they haven’t taken care of the properties for the last 25 years, why would they take care of the new property. Back of the envelop says they would see a 128% increase in property value for negatively impacting me for the last 25 years.  Loss of green space. There's no backyards in the townhomes. These aren't places people would want to raise kids, and I'd like to see us promoting places that are family friendly and don't just cater to downtown young professionals (I say that as one myself) and/or college students.  There are low cost options for fixing foundations and other problems. We’ve all done it. All of our homes in this area are old. There is also a major tax incentive for repairs that could be used.  During the rezone of the fixed transit corridor we were promised we would not have transit bleed into our neighborhood where developers would be able to rezone and tear down the neighborhood.  I don’t trust that they are going to build what they say they are going to build. They just want to increase their property value.  Loss and displacement for low income housing with approximately 50 people affected. More density in this area does not equal affordability or workforce housing. The dissenting comments from the minority opinion:  There are weekly issues in the existing building with drug problems and crime. This has been going on for years. We have a high crime rate in this area due to the way these properties are rented and managed. A new development would clean up this situation. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 70 February 12, 2020 5  My property value is significantly decreased due to the slum nature of the way these properties are managed. I have invested a great deal of time and funds into my historic home.  I like the design. It is better than what is there now.  Luxury townhomes would increase property values and bring additional neighbors which is a plus to increase our social circle. I like living in a city that is thriving. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 71 February 12, 2020 From: Cc:east central Subject:Goals of Growing SLC – Analysis of Consistency with Map and Master Plan Amendment Applications PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 Date:Tuesday, October 15, 2019 1:21:13 PM Attachments:Growing SLC Goals and Objectives App Consistency 1.pdf Dear Kelsey, I have completed my review of the Salt Lake City Growing SLC 2018-2023 Housing Plan and the consistency or lack thereof of the Map and Master Plan Amendment Applications PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 for the properties at 159 S Lincoln Street and 949-963 E 200 S. Please add my analysis and conclusions to the docket and official set of comments submitted to the Planning Commission. I hope these will also be useful for the staff report review of the same plan. I copy my summary conclusions here for emphasis: "In summary, this reviewer has read the entire Growing SLC Plan in detail, including attachments, and working through every single goal and objective. Based on this review, the Map and Master Plan Amendment Application is entirely inconsistent with the Growing SLC Plan in every category that applies to the application in question. The emphasis of the Growing SLC Plan is 1) to preserve and enhance affordable housing and 2) promote and enhance fair and equitable housing. The application is entirely contrary to these overarching goals. This contradicts the claims made by the applicant (owner representative Graham Gilbert) at the East Central Community Council general meeting in September that the Housing Plan supported the proposal. The mere fact that Salt Lake City “has a housing crisis” does not logically support this application because the crisis is one of affordability and preservation and expansion of affordable units, not just units in general. This application, were it to be approved, would set the stage for the demolition of 5 contributing historic houses with 9 legal and affordable units, to be replaced by “luxury” apartments. See below for the summary of my full analysis. Based on this analysis, the applications should summarily be rejected with a negative vote by the Planning Commission." I hope to submit additional comments in the near future, but for now I wanted to get these to you. Sincerely, Jen Colby, M.A. Public Administration and Resident at 160 S Lincoln Street, SLC, UT 84102 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 72 February 12, 2020 1  Goals of Growing SLC –  Analysis of Consistency with Map and Master Plan Amendment Applications PLNPCM2019‐00683 & PLNPCM2019‐00684 By Jen Colby, M.A. Public Administration, and resident at 160 S Lincoln St, SLC, 84102 In order to assess whether the Map and Master Plan Amendment Applications PLNPCM2019‐00683 & PLNPCM2019‐00684 is consistent with the Growing SLC Housing Plan, I:  Downloaded the Progress Report from Dashboard found at https://www.slc.gov/hand/programs/ 10‐2‐2019  Deleted the information in the third column;  Changed the table third column title to “Is the Application Consistent? “  Completed my personal review of the application as compared to the goals and objectives of the Housing Plan. My conclusions are below. Note that all text in standard font is copied directly from the Progress Report. I have included all of the Goals and Objectives even though several of them are directed at city staff or council for action and are not directly applicable. In that case, I have noted “N/A” in the third column to indicate that the particular item does not pertain to this application, or the amendment process more generally. My own additions and notes are in italics and highlighted yellow. In summary, this reviewer has read the entire Growing SLC Plan in detail, including attachments, and working through every single goal and objective. Based on this review, the Map and Master Plan Amendment Application is entirely inconsistent with the Growing SLC Plan in every category that applies to the application in question. The emphasis of the Growing SLC Plan is 1) to preserve and enhance affordable housing and 2) promote and enhance fair and equitable housing. The application is entirely contrary to these overarching goals. This contradicts the claims made by the applicant (owner representative Graham Gilbert) at the East Central Community Council general meeting in September that the Housing Plan supported the proposal. The mere fact that Salt Lake City “has a housing crisis” does not logically support this application because the crisis is one of affordability and preservation and expansion of affordable units, not just units in general. This application, were it to be approved, would set the stage for the demolition of 5 contributing historic houses with 9 legal and affordable units, to be replaced by “luxury” apartments. See below for the summary of my full analysis. Based on this analysis, the applications should summarily be rejected with a negative vote by the Planning Commission. GROWING SLC Goals and Objectives: GOAL 1: INCREASE HOUSING OPTIONS: REFORM CITY PRACTICES TO PROMOTE A RESPONSIVE, AFFORDABLE, HIGH‐OPPORTUNITY HOUSING MARKET In order to respond to Salt Lake City’s changing demographics and the housing needs of its diverse communities, it is critical to begin to look within the City for real and responsive change that will encourage the market to develop the housing and infrastructure needed to accommodate our growing community. This goal focuses on the need to increase the diversity of housing types and opportunities in the city by seeking policy reforms that can enhance the flexibility of the land‐use code and create an efficient and predictable development process for community growth. Strategic policy decisions that integrate the transportation system, development related infrastructure, financial institutions, and data, as well as innovative design and construction methods, can break down social and economic segregation, thus building a city for everyone. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068473February 12, 2020 2  Objective 1: Review and modify land‐use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city Objective  Action  Is the Application Consistent?   1.1.1  Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant transportation routes.  N/A 1.1.2  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.  NO.  The current structures already represent diverse housing stock and the “missing middle” as described in the Plan. They have housed diverse tenant occupants over the years. Furthermore, one of the structures is a legal triplex which was established thanks to the prior unit legalization process.  The discussion of the Objective in the GROWING SLC document (p. 19) recommends reestablishing unit legalization. If that were to happen, the two current duplexes could be converted to tri‐plexes, adding 2 net units.  The two current single family structures could possibly become duplexes under current zoning, with a total of 13 units on the 5 properties under CURRENT  R2 ZONING. The application proposes to create significant negative impacts to the National Historic District neighborhood character as well as to the surrounding properties by  setting the stage to tear down these examples of diverse housing stock and replacing them with luxury apartments that, based on preliminary drawings, detract from the block face and character of the street. 1.1.3  Revise the Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance to expand its application and develop measures to promote its use.  N/A PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068474February 12, 2020 3  Objective  Action  Is the Application Consistent?   1.1.4  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.  N/A Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development. Objective  Action  Is the Application Consistent?   1.2.1  Create an expedited processing system to increase City access for those developers constructing new affordable units.  N/A Objective 3: Lead in the construction of innovative housing solutions. Objective  Action  Is the Application Consistent?   1.3.1  Lead in the development of new affordable housing types, as well as construction methods that incorporate innovative solutions to issues of form, function, and maintenance.  NO.  The current structures are all rented as affordable units according to information provided by the owners and tenants. The proposed replacement structures will be aimed at a “luxury” market with rents targeted at ~$2,000 per unit, according to information provided in various forums by the owners or family representatives. They have indicated their willingness to consider adding one “affordable” unit in the new buildings they propose, which means a net loss of 8 currently affordable units as well as the contributing historic houses they are located in. 1.3.2  Establish partnerships with housing industry leaders to construct innovative and affordable developments.  NO. The owners have not disclosed who their developer partner would be so we do not know if they would qualify as an industry leader. However, based on the information they have provided the buildings would not be either innovative nor affordable. Quite the contrary. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068475February 12, 2020 4  Objective 4: Provide residents, community advocates, business leaders, and elected officials with high‐quality data to drive decision‐making. Objective  Action  Is the Application Consistent?   1.4.1  Maintain a public‐facing set of housing metrics to provide insight into market characteristics and the performance of regulatory changes that will drive decision making.  N/A  GOAL 2: AFFORDABLE HOUSING: INCREASE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND STABILITY FOR COST‐BURDENED HOUSEHOLDS This goal is dedicated to serving and addressing the needs of those most vulnerable in our community. It is driven by a strong belief that housing stability is good for the entire city, adding income to small businesses, creating food stability for children, and allowing residents to enrich their neighborhoods. Salt Lake City needs to pursue a combination of strategies outlined in the objectives below to achieve this goal. There is no singular initiative that will resolve this crisis, it must be addressed with a range of strategies to best fit the diverse needs of our entire community. Objective 1: Prioritize the development of new affordable housing with an emphasis on households earning 40% AMI and below. Objective  Action  Is the Application Consistent?  2.1.1  Convene a Blue Ribbon Commission for affordable housing comprised of industry experts, advocates, partners, and government entities.  N/A 2.1.2  Consider an ordinance that would require and incentivize the inclusion of affordable units in new developments.  N/A 2.1.3  Offer incentives to developers of affordable housing such as land discounts and primary financing options.  N/A. However, there are existing programs that the current owners could tap to upgrade and rehabilitate the current structures and retain them as affordable units instead of requesting these amendments with the intent to tear down the structures and replace them with generic‐looking “luxury” apartment buildings. These include state historic preservation tax credits and federal tax credits.   PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068476February 12, 2020 5  Objective 2: Pursue funding for affordable housing opportunities. Objective  Action  Is the Application Consistent? 2.2.1  Propose a significant, long‐term, and sustainable funding source for the development, preservation, and stability of affordable housing.  N/A. However, there are existing programs that the current owners could tap to upgrade and rehabilitate the current structures and retain them as affordable units instead of requesting these amendments with the intent to tear down the structures and replace them with generic‐looking “luxury” apartment buildings. These include state historic preservation tax credits and federal tax credits. 2.2.2  Pursue legislative change at the state and federal level that would create opportunities for new incentives and revenue sources.  N/A  Objective 3: Stabilize very low‐income renters. Objective  Action  Is the Application Consistent?   2.3.1  Work with housing partners and government entities to create an incentivized rent assistance program.  N/A. That said, continuing to erode the net number of existing naturally affordable unit housing stock, much of which is in older and historic buildings, just increases the need for these programs and costs the city more $. 2.3.2  Work with housing partners and government entities to continue supporting and enhancing service models that meet the needs of the City ís [sic] most vulnerable households.  N/A. That said, some of the current tenants would likely qualify as most vulnerable households. For example, when asked about what they would do if they lost their leases, some of the tenants said they had nowhere to go and other rentals were far too expensive. When you are in a hole, first stop digging.  PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068477February 12, 2020 6  Objective 4: Secure and preserve long‐term affordability. Objective  Action  Is the Application Consistent?   2.4.1  Create an Affordable Housing Community Land Trust.  N/A. 2.4.2  Work with community partners and government entities to acquire hotels, multi‐family properties, and surplus land to preserve or redevelop them as affordable housing.  NO.  Instead, these properties could be acquired, rehabilitated, and maintained as public affordable housing. The two smaller single‐unit structures would be terrific as affordable owner  units, with the underlying land retained by the city but the residents buying into the structures and building equity, like the program in Burlington Vermont: https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/CEDO/Buy‐a‐Home  2.4.3  Structure renovation programs to reduce utility, energy, and maintenance costs while promoting healthy living.  NO.  The owners request the amendments with the clear intent to demolish rather than rehabilitate or renovate the existing structures.       Objective 5: Work with landlords to improve their housing stock and rent to very low‐income households earning 40% AMI and below. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068478February 12, 2020 7  Objective  Action  Is the Application Consistent?   2.5.1  Support and potentially expand incentives for landlords to rent low income households, including landlord insurance programs.  NO.  The owners request the amendments with the clear intent to demolish structures with 9 currently affordable and replace with luxury units. The current city ordinances and programs, sadly, seem to encourage this type of development proposal rather than discourage or disincentivize it. 2.5.2  Enhance neighborhood development programs to entice landlords of substandard properties to improve their rental units.  NO. The City has consistently failed to enforce its EXISTING landlord licensing, fit premise, building permitting, business licensing, property maintenance, and other current ordinances that would have helped prevent these properties from becoming so substandard in the first place. The current state of the properties is what is clearly leading to whatever small amount of support there is in the neighborhood for this proposal because some people say “anything would be better than the current situation”. This is an enforcement, not zoning problem. Landlords who rack up numerous violations should be disqualified from receiving incentives for some period of time until they are consistently operating their rental units within the law. Good landlords and rental unit owners would seem to be penalized if those who operate in a substandard fashion then receive incentives not to behave quite so badly.  Objective 6: Increase home ownership opportunities. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068479February 12, 2020 8  Objective  Action  Is the Application Consistent?   2.6.1  Increase funding, marketing, and partnerships that will lead to more affordable homeownership programs within the city's network of homeownership partners.  N/A.  The properties in question are currently rentals and the owners have indicated their intention to keep them as such. However, as noted above, the two smaller single‐unit structures would be good candidates as affordable ownership units (159 Lincoln St and 963 E 200 S). Property is fungible and the owners could decide to sell these properties and buy other parcels in an already appropriately zoned area for their desired new construction.  GOAL 3: EQUITABLE & FAIR HOUSING: BUILD A MORE EQUITABLE CITY Equity is not only about eliminating discrimination, it is also about increasing access to opportunity. One of the guiding principles of Plan Salt Lake is to create an equitable city by ensuring “access to all city amenities for all citizens while treating everyone equitably with fairness, justice, and respect.” The City will accomplish this by working to eliminate housing discrimination, strategically investing in neighborhoods that stand the most to gain, and building a city that meets needs of a diverse population. Objective 1: Eliminate incidences of housing discrimination in Salt Lake City. Objective  Action  Is the Application Consistent?   3.1.1  Utilize data and evaluation efforts developed by partner organizations about housing discrimination to meet the City's requirements under the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ruling.  N/A PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068480February 12, 2020 9  Objective  Action  Is the Application Consistent?   3.1.2  Work with partners to enhance awareness and resources around tenant rights and responsibilities.  NO.  Unfortunately, tenants have very few rights in Utah as it is, and city outreach to tenants is basically nonexistent. According to some of the current tenants, if they complained about unfit premises they were threatened with or in fact evicted. They report routinely doing their own (unpermitted) work to try to keep up the current properties, for which the owners indicate they will be compensated but then never do so.  These particular tenants have now been threatened with eviction if they speak to some of the neighborhood organizers who oppose the amendments, or if they themselves speak up. The City is utterly failing to uphold tenant rights or owner responsibilities. Further, the tenants’ fundamental federal constitutional rights of free speech, assembly, and public participation are undermined when the consequence of expressing such rights is potential eviction and loss of housing.    PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068481February 12, 2020 10  Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity throughout all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of opportunity. Objective  Action  Is the Application Consistent?   3.2.1  Align financial resources to increase opportunity in neighborhoods that score below 4.0 on the Opportunity Index's 10 point scale.  N/A 3.2.2  Make strategic affordable housing investments in high opportunity neighborhoods.  N/A. That said, continuing to erode the net number of existing naturally affordable unit housing stock, much of which is in older and historic buildings, just increases the need for these programs and costs the city more $. 3.2.3  Work with partners at the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute to produce an updated Opportunity Index assessment as a tool for guiding City investment.  N/A  Objective 3: Implement life cycle housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the city. Objective  Action  Is the Application Consistent?   3.3.1  Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages of life.  NO.  Note that the Housing Indicators page has not been updated since Q2 of 2017. https://www.slc.gov/hand/housing‐indicators/ PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068482February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 83 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 84 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 85 February 12, 2020 1 October 5, 2019 Kelsey Lindquist Senior Planner Community and Neighborhoods Planning Division Salt Lake City Corporation Regarding: Planning Petition PLNPCM2019-00683 and 00684 Zoning Map amendment and Master Plan Amendment 159 S. Lincoln, 949/955/959/963 E. 200 South Request to change R-2 zoning to RMF-35 and future land use map from low to medium density Historic Survey – Contributing structures Dear Kelsey; It has long been the intent of the ECC and the UNC to follow the adopted motion of the Planning Commission to extend the designation for the local University Historic District from the middle of 1100 East to the western side of 900 East between South Temple and 400 South. Four of the five houses in the current rezone petition are considered significant and contributing to the National Historic District and to the intended extension of the local University Historic District. Your thoughtful consideration of the importance of these structures to the history and fabric of this neighborhood is appreciated. At the time when the local University Historic District was recommended (by the Historic Landmark Commission, the Planning Commission) and created by the City Council, intensive level survey information had been gathered to the center of 1100 East however resources were limited to complete the intended work for these blocks. It was a lack of resources that delayed this effort not for the lack of significance. The local district was established to the middle of 1100 East but with an adopted motion by the Planning Commission that the district be extended as soon as the survey work could be completed. In 2006 the City Council allocated additional funding to allow this survey work to continue. Intensive level surveys were commissioned by the City to be completed by Korral Broschinsky an independent expert in the field. The intensive level surveys have been included with this letter. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 86 February 12, 2020 2 While the City historic district extension has not yet been completed, it continues to be our intended hope. Also, these structures and their history ARE listed in the Bryant/Bennion/Douglas National Historic District as unique and significant to the development of this portion of early Salt Lake. The ECC is asking that you consider this information in your review of the planned demolition of these structures. Please include this letter and its attachments in the packet provided to the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Esther Hunter Chair, East Central Community Council & University Neighborhood Council Sincerely in behalf of the Executive Board of the East Central Community Eastcentralcommunity@gmail.com PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 87 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068488February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068489February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068490February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068491February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068492February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068493February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068494February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068495February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068496February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068497February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068498February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068499February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684100February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684101February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684102February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684103February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684104February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684105February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 106 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 107 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 108 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 109 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 110 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 111 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 112 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 113 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 114 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 115 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 116 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 117 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 118 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684119February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684120February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684121February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684122February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684123February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684124February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684125February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 126 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684127February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684128February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 129 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 130 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 131 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 132 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 133 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 134 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 135 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684136February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684137February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684138February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684139February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684140February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684141February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684142February 12, 2020 University Neighborhood Historic District Expansion PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 143 February 12, 2020 Introduction Context Development Pattern Study Area District Criteria Qualifications Readiness Endangerment Support Summary PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 144 February 12, 2020 History HLC Briefing July 16, 1991 HLC Hearing August 7, 1991 Planning Commission Sept. 5, 1991 Mr. Neilson moved to approve the University Neighborhood Historical District as presented in the staff report and directed staff to start to work on the inclusion of the five additional blocks west to 1000 East. Motion carried- unanimous PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 145 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684146February 12, 2020 Expansion Request approx. 7 blocks (Complete Old Business from 1991) PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 147 February 12, 2020 Development Pattern PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 148 February 12, 2020 Plat F same Characteristics as Plat B Became a fashionable neighborhood after the University was moved to above 1300 East in 1899. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 149 February 12, 2020 Streetcar Line in 1900 on South Temple connected Downtown with the new Location of the University PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 150 February 12, 2020 University Neighborhood Historic District Significance Established NRHP - October 30, 1991 Criteria A Reflects the history of Salt Lake population growth 20,000 in 1880 to 92,000 in 1920 Demographic pattern Economic shift agriculture to industry University of Utah Relocated to current site in 1900 Area home to faculty, staff, students, professional people PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 151 February 12, 2020 Significance Established NRHP - October 30, 1991 Self-sufficient neighborhood one of the few outside the core of Salt Lake City Contained residential, commercial, public, and institutional buildings City Beautiful movement PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 152 February 12, 2020 Significance Established NRHP - October 30, 1991 Criteria B Prominent Salt Lake City Residents Many taught at the University of Utah in Medicine, Theatre Dance, Architecture, Art Science Professional contribution In the fields of business, law medicine, politics and mining PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 153 February 12, 2020 Significance Established NRHP - October 30, 1991 Criteria C Craftsmanship of design and construction materials associated with this era 1883-1941 Excellent examples of the styles popular in SLC and Utah during fist quarter of 2oth century Significant and modest examples of prominent Utah architects Represent the hallmark styles of the Progressive Era PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 154 February 12, 2020 Relevance Percentage of Resources with significance, integrity, and age requirement 4 Blocks -91% (93.3% within 1-5 Years) 3 additional Blocks- 78% However the buildings are significant PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 155 February 12, 2020 Significance Established NRHP - October 30, 1991 This neighborhood reflects three periods of growth and is unlike any other neighborhood due to its range of styles PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 156 February 12, 2020 Concentration of new types of resources not yet protected in SLC 1847-1946 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 157 February 12, 2020 Examples of Prominent Salt Lake City Residents •1006 E. 100 So. Aaron Keyser Wealthiest person in S.L. •1829-1914 owned SL Brewery and Keyser Real Estate •1030 E. 100 John Bowen Ingram Vice Pres Hoover Drug Company •1014 E. 200 So Albert and Betty Vorse Landscaped Murray City Park . Owner Utah Nursery Company •1055 E. 200 So. Aquilla Nebeker United States Marshall •1079 E. 200 So. McConaughty and Losee Owner Lumber Business •George Ran Aaron Keyser County Commissioner Salt Lake Water • 374 So. 11th E. President of Deseret Agriculture Soc May Anderson LDS Primary Assoc. General President •176 So. 11th Willim Tynsdale Assist. Surgeon of the Utah National Guard •238 So. 1000 E. Harry Staats. Owner Saratoga swimming resort •922 E. 200 So. Wm. Sampson Pres SL Meat Co. •930 E. 300 So. Broadmore Apartments •1023 E. 300 So. Robert Lewis Dean School of Mines •250 So. 1000 E. George Mateer Home •921 E. 100 So. Thomas Lewis Prominent Lawyer /Judge UU Law School •1073 E. 200 So. David Spitz Home •955 E. 100 So. Designed by Walter Ware. •918 E. 100 So Zeigler General Mngr. Granit Mt. Mining •945 E. 100 So. Stephen Covey /Covey Canal Co. House designed by David C. Hart •954 E. 100 E. First group of teachers allowed to teach Principal for 34 year. •332 So. 11the E. John Evans well known author •1023 E 3rd So. Robert Lewis Dean School of Mines •1035 E. 200 So. Dovell Grocery VP Hoover Drug Co. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 158 February 12, 2020 Readiness RLS Survey 1995 National Register Historic Places 1995 Intensive Level Survey 1998 (35) 2009 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 159 February 12, 2020 Intensive Level Survey Complete on Contributory Buildings PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 160 February 12, 2020 Documentation in Place • 235 Intensive Level Surveys from 2009 • 6 Documented site Forms • 26 Intensive Level Surveys from 1998 • Barbara Place 1 Site form 10 buildings •268 - Total PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 161 February 12, 2020 Average Survey validity 10-15 years PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 162 February 12, 2020 Contributory Buildings PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 163 February 12, 2020 University Neighborhood Design Guidelines /Criteria Already in Place PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 164 February 12, 2020 Social and Economic Data CDBG Income Eligible Area Percentage of Low and Moderate Income Households by 2000 Census Tract The Census Tract of 1910 indicates that a substantial number of residents rented their dwellings PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 165 February 12, 2020 Endangerment PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 166 February 12, 2020 Level of Endangerment (7 Block Area) 2009 Permitted Demolition in 2009 – 1 (135 South 1100 East) Demolitions without Permit – 2 (300 South Block) Other - 1 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 167 February 12, 2020 Imminent Risk PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 168 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 169 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 170 February 12, 2020 Need PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 171 February 12, 2020 Lost PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 172 February 12, 2020 Center Court & Corners PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 173 February 12, 2020 Irreplaceable PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 174 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 175 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 176 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 177 February 12, 2020 Land owner & Neighborhood Support Highlights ECCC/UNC Priority Goal 2010 1991 ECCC/Neighborhood meetings, letters, action 2006 City Council Intensive Level Funding 2003-2009 Neighborhood Educational Meetings 2006 Letter to every household 2005 Neighborhood Survey 2009 UNC/Bryant Meeting Vote 95-5% in support Upcoming ECCC General Meeting April 2010 Dissenting Concerns: Window replacement Parking pads PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 178 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684179February 12, 2020 Summary Matches the Development Pattern 91% and 78% Significance, Integrity, Age 1847-1946 Unique Concentration of Styles Prominent Salt Lake Residents many involved at the U Registered, Intensive Level Surveys Complete Design Guidelines in Place Neighborhood Survey Supports Completion of Old Business 4 or 7 blocks PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 180 February 12, 2020 University Neighborhood Historic District Expansion PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 181 February 12, 2020 From: To:Lindquist, Kelsey Subject:200 South Historic properties Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2019 4:01:40 PM Kelsey I am writing to express my concerns about the rezoning proposal that is currently on your desk for the historic homes on on 200 south between Lincoln and 1000 east. I live just down the block at 1115 East and 200 South. I bought in this neighborhood for the charm and beauty of the historic district. I bought in this neighborhood because I didn't want live amongst massive modern apartment buildings that are going up all over the city. When you visit other cities, what gives the city it's charm, it's character, it soul? The historic districts are what do that for cities. It's what visitors take the most pictures of, it's what gives this great city the warmth that it has. Do you think gateway, city creek or 400 south is what does that? No! It's the historic districts. I am not in favor of the proposal to rezone these properties in order for the property owner to tear down the 4 properties in order to build 18 units of high density housing. There is a master plan that was put in place to prevent this type of development in our historic districts. Why would we even consider an amendment to this plan and reward a private property owner who has neglected their properties? If these properties were to be sold off individually there are plenty of people out there who would jump at the opportunity to save them. The current owners say that they aren't savable. I could not disagree with them more. Why are they are unable to afford to maintain them when they have rental income that is being produced? How are they able to afford architects and lawyers to put together their proposals but can't afford to maintain these magnificent structures? I beg you to move forward with a recommendation of denial to city council on re-zoning these lots. 200 South is a treasure on the east side of salt lake city. It's the last remaining street with big beautiful trees and center medians. These have been eliminated over the years on S. Temple, 100 out and 300 south. Please do not set a precedence to other property owner who are neglecting their properties? Please do not open this can of worms? Please do not help these property owners strip our city of it's identity so they can benefit financially. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 182 February 12, 2020 I beg of you to please preserve the small yet shrinking historical district that this city has left. Thank you Eugene Whitman PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 183 February 12, 2020 From:Karla taylor To:Lindquist, Kelsey Subject:200 South Lincoln St. project Date:Friday, October 11, 2019 12:45:15 PM Hello, My name is Karla Jensen and I'm writing in support of the above project. My husband and I own the property located at 153 S. Lincoln St. I feel that this new project will aid in cleaning up the area where we have experienced undesirable traffic and curtail some of the drug activity we've witnessed. Let me know if you have questions or need any input from us. Thank you, Karla and Kevin Jensen -- Karla Q Taylor Jensen Berkshire Hathaway Home Services - Utah Properties PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 184 February 12, 2020 October 14, 2019 Tom Dickman 1784 South 800 East Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Salt Lake City Planning Commission P.O. Box 145480 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Planning Commission, This letter is about the zoning change request by the property owner of five houses, four located on 200 South: 949 East, 955 East, 959 East, and 963 East, and one at 159 Lincoln Street. Background: For several years Salt Lake has been subject to increased population pressures. This trend continues. Salt Lake is an Intermountain center of production and distribution. Many high-paid jobs, especially in the Tech and Financial sectors, attract highly educated and trained job candidates, often from states far away. It is important to note that these jobs require advanced education and extensive training. They are not open to those on the bottom of the socio-economic scale. The request for the zoning change of the properties specified above can only be understood and judged within these developed and developing economic trends. The City, the County, as well as the current candidates for Salt Lake City mayor, are well aware of these trends. Much new housing is needed. Much new housing is being constructed. A major question however rises up within the economic trends: Will they be Affordable? Affordable housing is defined as costing for rent no more than a certain percentage of tenant income. Many, even most, of the new housing being built within the City is indeed "affordable" to the tech and financial job holders, who typically make between $60,000 and $120,000/year. Those with job incomes in this range are the ones snatching up the new apartments within the city. What though of people on the middle and lower end of the scale? Quick answer: they are being driven out of the city. Some are losing housing altogether and are swelling the numbers of homeless. Most are unable to pay the $1500 to $2000+ rents for the new housing. Even if they could, there would not be enough left over to pay for transportation, utilities, food, clothing, etc. The new housing is NOT AFFORDABLE for them. The City, including the current mayoral candidates, can talk all they want about the need for affordable housing. Such talk remains talk. There is new housing, yes, but it is affordable mainly to those on the top end of the food chain. To make housing actually affordable to middle and lower income people, at least two policies need to be implemented: PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 185 February 12, 2020 ■ A legal requirement that fixes a maximum ceiling on rent for middle income earners. Such a ceiling would need to be a fixed maximum percentage of income of middle and low income residents. ■ Rent control, requiring landlords to keep rent under this percentage maximum ceiling. Some cities have instituted such policies. Salt Lake is not one of them. If, however, the City does not adopt such strict legal requirements limiting rent-as-percentage-of-middle/lower-income residents, housing will remain out of reach of many long-time City residents. The new housing will be a chimera for our most deserving citizens, a simple vote-baiting dream of politicians who use "affordable" as a catchword. These considerations directly affect the proposed zoning change on 200 South. Current tenants are paying rent in the $400 to $600/month range. This is affordable for them. If the proposed new construction housing is approved, rent would rise to the prevailing rates in the area. Existing tenants would be driven out, simply by financial pressure. New tenants would come only from the high-end sector. This is reality. The present property owner's proposal includes one unit out of sixteen defined as "affordable." There are other issues involved here: ■ Provisions from the City Community Master Plan. • Residential Land Use Goals • Residential Land Use Policies • Preservation Goals of the East Central North Neighborhood • Historic Preservation Policies • Community Preservation Plan The proposed zoning change request, and planned medium/high density construction, directly violate the above five provisions, which are already in effect. Specifics regarding such violations are contained in documents currently available to the Planning Commission, and detailed by other contributors to this planning process. More than 200 residents have signed the petition against the zoning change. In a few words: the Planning Commission, and the City can go ahead and approve the zoning change request. To do so would simply confirm the City's caving to the interests of money, property, and wealth. Caving in this way would be a slap in the face to all middle and low income residents hoping to remain in the City. Of course, if they are evicted, many of them can find space at one of the new Homeless Shelters. These new shelters are touted with as much enthusiasm as the politicians' talk about Affordable Housing. Sincerely, Tom Dickman cc: Salt Lake Tribune PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 186 February 12, 2020 Monica Hilding 155 South Lincoln Street Salt Lake City, UT 84102 August 30, 2019 I am writing to comment on the Planning Petition Information for PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019- 00684 that was sent out by Kelsey Lindquist. I took the following quote from: Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan 2018-2022(5-year Housing) … the city’s housing policy must address issues of affordability at the root cause creating long-term solutions for increasing the housing supply, expanding housing opportunities throughout the city, addressing systemic failures in the rental market, and preserving existing units. Exacerbating the housing crisis are local barriers to housing development. The removal of these barriers will not solve the housing crisis… Without well-crafted policies and additional incentives, creating greater flexibility could result in the displacement of affordable housing. This is exactly what is happening here. In exchange for one affordable housing unit, you are going to displace everyone living in 9 units in those five houses. Those tenants have signed extended leases, and a number of them lived there for years. Richard, who used to mow the lawns for all five properties for many years passed away this year. He lived in those units for more than 20 years. The lady with the red pants who collected everyone’s cans with her two terrier mixes has also passed away 5 or 6 years ago. Steve lived there for at least 20 years, also passed away, when he was confined to a mechanical wheelchair at the end, he would use it to go back and forth to the stores on 7th East. There are other tenants who have lived there more than 10 years, one more than 15 years on and off. They individually pay between $400 and $600 a month because they share units. I believe most of them would qualify as cost-burdened households. Again, quoting from 5-year Housing: Goal 1: Reform City practices to promote a responsive affordable, high-opportunity housing market. Pg. 13 Goal 2: Increase housing opportunities for cost-burdened households Objective 5: Work with landlords to improve their housing stock and rent to very low-income households earning 40%AMI and below. 2 Guiding Principles For Evaluating…Housing Developments: Pg. 15 5. Incentivize the preservation and improvement of existing affordable housing. 6. Create a net increase in affordable housing units while: PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 187 February 12, 2020 i. Avoiding displacement of existing affordable housing ii Retaining and expanding the diversity of innovative housing types It seems to me that this petition does exactly the opposite by decreasing affordable housing units for cost-burdened households. The landlords of these properties have intentionally allowed their housing stock to deteriorate over the last 30 years by doing shoddy maintenance. I don’t know if they have applied for support from the city to improve these units. 12. Enable residents’ success to maintain housing through partnerships with providers of supportive services. 16. Identify tools to increase and diversify the total housing supply 18. Include innovative parking solutions especially for projects near public transit [!] Recently the thread in the facebook page of the East Central Community Council has focused on predatory towing along 400 South businesses. The problem is that there is not enough parking provided at TRAX stations to accommodate all those who try to use public transportation. Parking on our street is already a problem because of our proximity to the bus lines, the University of Utah, and TRAX. Imagine the increased traffic and parking issues if this developer goes ahead with his plan to build additional housing units on a street that already has parking issues, especially in the winter when people parking on the street have no place else to put their cars! There are already several apartments on the street, whose tenants who park regularly on the street because there is no off street parking for their units. 3 Responding to the Crisis: Comprehensive Solutions and Policies. Goal #1 Increase Housing options: Reform city practices to promote a responsive, affordable, high-opportunity housing market… Predictive development process… This zoning was not changed in the most recent master plan. Houses all along 900 East were changed from R-2 and Multi-family to RMF-35. Most of the owners have no idea. How long ago was that? That plan allows for the densest development closest to the Trax station. That plan is probably the most recent of most of the areas in the city. In that plan, this area was left as R-2 in order to maintain a diversity of housing options. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 188 February 12, 2020 Where the Architecture business on 2nd is, there used to be a Chinese Market. I frequented it often because two of my students were related to the woman who ran the store. What an incredible job on the remodel! But that parking lot which is now locked used to be an ally way and parking lot for some of the people living in apartments on Iowa street, so more parking for residents disappeared. Many people who regularly use public transit maintain a car for use in moving heavy items, transporting their pets, picking up groceries, and a multitude of other uses. I will continue to go through the Five-Year Plan to find further reasons that the zoning on these parcels should remain. But for now, I’m sending this off and a beginning to many comments to come. Sincerely, Monica Hilding PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 189 February 12, 2020 Monica Hilding 155 South Lincoln Street SLC, UT 84102 September 5, 2019 The following excerpts taken from Central Community Master Plan are in response to Planning Petition Information for PLNPCM2019-00683 &PLNPCM2019-00684. Goals of this master plan 1. Protect and improve the quality of life for everyone living in the community, regardless of age or ability. 4. Provide opportunities for smarter and more creative development practices to better serve the community. 5. Prevent inappropriate growth in specific parts of the community. 8. Preserve historic structures and residential neighborhoods. 9. Establish recommendations for better coordination and administrative review of construction projects and city applications. A vision For the Central Community of the Future The Future Land Use map, supported through zoning regulations, serves as a guide towards creating a more livable community. Livable communities and neighborhoods A variety of residential land use supports all types of housing and the affordability of the housing stock. Preservation of the housing stock is an integral part of maintaining neighborhood character. Historic preservation preserves older structures that contribute to the culture of the community. Central Community Neighborhoods The Futures Commission created a vison of a typical neighborhood for Salt Lake City. The ideal neighborhood will: Be individual, family, elderly and youth oriented. Be diverse Promote public safety and be crime and drug free. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 190 February 12, 2020 Be well maintained. Landlords, tenants, and homeowners will share responsibility for keeping properties in good condition. Homeownership will be encouraged where possible! Have good traffic management that provides an adequate system for all modes of appropriate travel. Adequate off-street parking will be available and will meet the needs of residents and characteristics of the neighborhood. Future land use designations assist the preservation of quality neighborhoods. The Future Land Use map in this plan will, when supported through zoning regulations, serve as a guide towards creating more livable neighborhoods. Table 1 on page 4 shows that our neighborhood, East Central North has the highest population and largest number of housing units of all except Central Community. Bryant neighborhood The neighborhood also has well-preserved inner courts unlike those farther west. These small streets that penetrate the ten-acre blocks, such as Dooley and Strong courts are still lined with small cottages dating from the beginning of the twentieth century. The combination of imposing homes on the main streets and the small dwellings of the inner-block courts indicate that the population of this area has always been a mixture of the rooted and the transient and the upper- and lower-income classes. The proximity to the Central Business District and the University of Utah campus prompted early development of the area and was a major factor in the original zoning of this neighborhood for mixed residential uses and larger scale apartments. Pressure to develop or redevelop into higher densities has become one of the most significant issues confronting this area. Issues within the East Central North neighborhood Historic preservation Protect designated historic resources and National Register properties. Ensure that transit-oriented development and other development patterns are consistent with historic preservation goals. Residential Reduce excessive density potential, stabilize the neighborhood, and conserve the neighborhood’s residential character Improve zoning enforcement, including illegal conversion to apartments, yard cleanup, “slum lords,” etc. Encourage higher density housing in East Downtown, Downtown, and Gateway to decrease the pressure to meet those housing needs in this neighborhood. Ensure new multi-family development is carefully sited, well designed, and compatible in scale. Provide more affordable housing (owner occupied and rental). PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 191 February 12, 2020 Kelsey Lindquist said that our community must show that this petition does not follow the land standards designed for our neighborhood. Following are the residential land use policies that were written into Central Community Land Use Plan. These are on page 9 of the document. RLU-1.1 Preserve low-density residential areas and keep them from being replaced by higher density residential and commercial uses. RLU-1.4 Preserve the character of the inner-block courts. RLU-1.5 Use residential mixed-use zones to provide residential land uses with supportive retail, service, commercial, and small-scale offices and monitor the mix of uses to preserve the residential component. RLU- 1.6 Encourage coordination between the Future Land Use map, zoning ordinances, and the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan. RLU- 1.7 Ensure that future amendments to the zoning map or text of the zoning ordinance do not result in a significant amount of non-conforming land uses. RLU-2.1 Preserve housing stock through incentives and code enforcement by implementing the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan. RLU- 2.2 Consider opportunities for the City to purchase residential properties and market them through City housing programs. RLU-2.3 Provide improvement programs for redevelopment and rehabilitation of residential structures and neighborhoods. RLU-2.4 Assist homebuyers by marketing available government funding programs and residential rehabilitation programs, such as tax benefits for owners of structures in National Register Historic districts. RLU-2.5 Promote reduction of deterioration of residential neighborhoods through code enforcement practices. I believe that there is more than enough evidence that this neighborhood should not be the location of increased density housing. I sincerely hope that the Planning Commission declines to recommend the passage of this petition which is so contrary to the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. Sincerely, Monica Hilding PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 192 February 12, 2020 Jeff Sherlock , As someone that entered the meeting in favor of the project, I didn't leave the meeting quite as comfortable. 3 main issues bubbled up for me: 1. The existing family that owns these 5 parcels intend to own and operate the new 16 unit townhome-rental development. They have been unable to manage the existing properties over the past 30 years to the point that they are requesting to tear them down because they can't keep them up, and yet we are supposed to believe that they would maintain the new development? I'm skeptical. 2. I'm quite concerned about the incentives here for other R-2 properties. They could build 7 units if the zoning remained R-2. They could build ~16 if it's RMF-35. Back of the envelope math says that the zoning change would make the properties combined 128% more valuable (more than double the value). If this is approved, what's to stop every slightly rundown R-2 house in the neighborhood from letting it get so bad that we, as a community, are held hostage until we approve some massive zoning change. I don't think we should be rewarding property owners that can't/won't keep up their properties. 3. A lesser concern than the first two, but there's no backyards in the townhomes. These aren't places people would want to raise kids, and I'd like to see us promoting places that are family friendly and don't just cater to downtown young professionals (I say that as one myself) and/or college students. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 193 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 194 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 195 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 196 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 197 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 198 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 199 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 200 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 201 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 202 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 203 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 204 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 205 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 206 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 207 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 208 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 209 February 12, 2020 1 October 9, 2019 Kelsey Lindquist Senior Planner Community and Neighborhoods Planning Division Salt Lake City Corporation Regarding: Planning Petition PLNPCM2019-00683 and 00684 Zoning Map amendment and Master Plan Amendment 159 S. Lincoln, 949/955/959/963 E. 200 South Request to change R-2 zoning to RMF-35 and future land use map from low to medium density University Gardens Neighborhood petition Dear Kelsey; The attached petition has been submitted as feedback to the by Monica Hilding representing primarily immediate neighbors to the subject properties. It includes 20 pages, 198 signatures that were gathered from September 18 – October 7 by Monica Hilding the immediate neighbor to the subject properties. The petition is in opposition of the rezone and future land use map change. Please see the summary statements at the beginning of the petition. We are forwarding this information to you to be included both in your consideration as you determine your recommendation to the Planning Commission and ask that you include these pages in the packet given to the Commission for their review. We will continue to forward this input as it is received. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Sincerely, Esther Hunter Chair, East Central Community Council & University Neighborhood Council Sincerely in behalf of the Executive Board of the East Central Community Eastcentralcommunity@gmail.com PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 210 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 211 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 212 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 213 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 214 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 215 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 216 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 217 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 218 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 219 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 220 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 221 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 222 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 223 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 224 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 225 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 226 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 227 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 228 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 229 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 230 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 231 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 232 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 233 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 234 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 235 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 236 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 237 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 238 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 239 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 240 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 241 February 12, 2020 From:Peggy Alderman To:Lindquist, Kelsey Subject:PLNPCM2019-00683 & 00684/ map and master plan for homes at Lincoln and 200 S Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2019 7:47:19 PM Kelsey, I attended a recent Planning Commission Open House regarding a plan to develop the properties at the intersection of Lincoln and 200 S and quite frankly, as a resident of a nearby historic district , the thought of this project coming to fruition is horrifying to me. I do realize the differences in protections in a national(of which these homes are included)and a local historic district, but the fact that the possible rezoning and demolition of a swath of contributing buildings in any historic district in order to make way for a generic multi-family development should send shivers down the spine of every resident of every historic district. Where does it stop? These 5 homes are interwoven in the story of that neighborhood and should remain so. I have a number of issues with this project. The petitioners, who own all 5 homes claim that an engineering firm, who I am assuming they paid, decided that none of the homes were stable enough to withstand remodeling, however the homes are currently filled with rent paying tenants. I am having a hard time being convinced that every home has fallen into such disrepair as to be deemed so dilapidated that they need to be razed.....again.....full of tenants. There is a small home on U Street in the Avenues that was vacant for over 5 years and was rehabbed and listed recently for 650K. It just takes work and patience. I heard the owners claim that someone has been paid for the last few years to maintain the 5 properties. They also claim on their info page that the new townhomes will be maintained by a property manager. I’m not sure that given the owners past history of monitoring their 5 homes, that the neighbors can be all that confident in their ability to monitor the management of 16. I think that a new unbiased engineering study should be done on the homes. An increase in traffic was questioned, to which the spokesperson for the owners responded that the number of cars would only increase by a few. I’m not quite sure how increasing the number of households from 5 to 16 would only increase the number of vehicles by a few. There was only one one bedroom proposed, with the rest two and three bedrooms and what looked to be two car garages for those. I think that a traffic study should be done. The neighbor adjacent to the north has a solar array on her garage, which currently has no structure to the south blocking sunlight. The proposed plan would put two to three 35 foot buildings directly to the south of her garage. The artist rendering of the project conveniently had the shade pattern from the townhomes trending to the south. I have reservations about the continuing efficiency of her solar panels. I think that a shade analysis should be done. The owner’s spokesperson stated that their would be one affordable unit.....which of course leaves 15 unaffordable units. Some things that I did not hear addressed while I was there was the increase in trash, noise and light pollution, as the result of 16 households replacing 5. I don’t begrudge anyone the opportunity to create an income stream for themselves, but I don’t believe that it should come at the expense of the fabric of an entire neighborhood. I’m imploring the Commission to deny this petition. Regards, Peg. Alderman Sent from my iPad PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 242 February 12, 2020 From:Esther Hunter, ECC Chair To:Lindquist, Kelsey Subject:PLNPCM2019-00683 and 00684 Community Comment. Please include in your consideration and in the Planning Commission packet. Thank you. Esther Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2019 12:01:17 AM On Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 9:39 PM Jo Starks <> wrote: Hello Esther and east central community. I’d like to express my feelings about the zoning change that has been requested for 200 S., Lincoln Street to 10th E. I am not in favor of the proposed zone change to allow 16 units to be put at the site. The things that make it unfavorable, in my opinion; the proposed height of the new residences, The close proximity to the sidewalk to the structure, The lack of parking for visitors in an already congested area. I’d like to suggest that underground parking be suggested to the developers. The residences that are on the block that are meant to be replaced have many issues. For example yards are unkempt and not watered; trees are suffering on both sides of the sidewalk. Exteriors of the houses are run d own. I have long been familiar with the one house, “China Blue“ to be center for drug use and dealing. I would like to consider the zoning be changed to allow for less than 16, but more than nine residences. I believe the Salt Lake City planning person, Kelsey, had mentioned that there is a zone that would allow for that. Thank you for allowing my opinion to be counted. Jo starks 227 So. 1100 East SLC Ut 84102 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 243 February 12, 2020 From: To:Lindquist, Kelsey Subject:Re: PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019--00684 Date:Thursday, August 15, 2019 8:07:53 AM Hi Kelsey, I want to take a moment and let you know I got the planning petition information for the property across the street from me. I'm at 156 S. Lincoln Street. My house was built in 1896 and I am extremely passionate about the historic nature of the neighborhood we live in. The area of this proposal is 30 yards from my home. My concerns about this potential amendment would be diminishing the neighborhood historic nature, as well as parking and street concerns. In the winter Lincoln is already is last to be plowed, and adding more residents to the street would be very detrimental to this space. The homes that are being considered to be replaced for a moderate density proposal are beautiful and old and in and of themselves. To have them replaced by newer construction would be a very shortsighted idea. I urge the planning commission to think about these issues and consider that the impact of traffic and new construction, as well as losing the important character of the neighborhood would be a poor turn of events indeed. I would of be happy to discuss this in further detail. I can be reached at 801-971-2920 or at this email address. Nicole Dicou 156 S Lincoln Street SLC 84102 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 244 February 12, 2020 From: To:Lindquist, Kelsey Subject:Resident Feedback Regarding: Rezoning for 5 properties on 200 South, between Lincoln and 1000 East Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2019 9:14:16 PM Hi Kelsey, We're reaching out in opposition to the rezoning proposal for the 5 properties on 200 South, between Lincoln and 1000 East. We live with our two young boys a block East of the proposed rezoning, at 1108 East, on 200 South. We bought our home 4 years ago with the intentions of raising our young family here, the rest of our lives. We bought our home because we loved the convenience of being blocks from downtown, the University, and public transit while still being in a well established, historical area. There aren’t many neighborhoods, like ours, left in Salt Lake. If this rezoning passes, what other rezoning changes will be passed within our neighborhood in the future? If we continue to allow owners of rental properties to redevelop for high capacity dwellings, our neighborhood will be everything we avoided when we originally searched for our home in Salt Lake. We don’t want large apartment buildings in our neighborhood/next door. We want to look out our windows and see other homes and massive 100 year old trees, not 30 foot tall concrete walls. As we've seen on the current zoning and rezoning plans, it’s VERY clear that the rezoning for high capacity dwellings is creeping further and further East, along 200 South. We do not want to see that continue. We want to see preservation and appreciation for what we already have. Please consider how another rezoning will affect the future for other rezoning proposals. They will become easier and easier to pass, eventually making single family homes obsolete in this area. We all watched as Sugarhouse was bulldozed and redeveloped, destroying countless historical structures. Not only are the new structures far too large and out of character for the area, the over committed dwelling unit capacities have caused huge traffic and parking issues. Our neighborhood will not be able to physically handle rezoning after rezoning. Not only do we oppose the rezoning for higher capacity dwellings out of fear for a similar outcome from the structures, we also oppose the traffic and parking issues that are bound to accompany them if the rezoning is passed. We are already in a high traffic area, with very active bus routes. We do not wish to see that increase. Our wish for these current units is to see them fully restored and maintained. From what we understand, the current owners claim these properties are unsalvageable, thus the redevelopment. If that’s truly that case, why in the world are they currently occupied by renters? If they’re unable to allocate funds to restore them (which we've also heard has been said by the owners), how are they able to allocate funds to completely demolish and redevelop? We understand there is money to be made in rezoning/developing these units, but what’s frustrating for the residents who actually live here is, money always speaks louder than the voices of the people effected. We know we're not the only home owners in the area who are completely opposed to this. We just hope the Planning Commission and City Counsel Reps can hear and act on our united opposition. If you could please forward this on for consideration in the final decision, it would be appreciated. Thank you, Brandon & Elisabeth Bennett 1108 East 200 South PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 245 February 12, 2020 Comments on PLNPCM2019-00683 &PLNPCM2019-00684 Map and Master Plan Amendment for: 159 S. Lincoln, 949 E., 955 E., 959 E., and 963 E., 200 S. From: Sanford Meek 976 E. 200 S., SLC, UT, 84102-2431 I am opposed to the plan to re-zone these parcels from R-2 to RMF-35. The reasons are outlined below. 1. Zoning is one of the most serious issues in city planning and neighborhood preservation and livability. Any change from an R-2 designation to another must not be allowed unless there can be shown benefit to the neighborhood – the concept of Rebuttable Presumption. No evidence of a benefit has been shown in the proposal. Once an area is zoned for a higher density it cannot be re-zoned to R-2, causing a permanent change to the character of the area. People moved to the area and bought homes. Many of these homes have been restored and are still being restored to their original styles. We accept that there are medical, dental, rehabilitation, educational facilities, and even coffee shops in the neighborhood. But, enough is enough, we do not want any more large-scale apartments or buildings in our neighborhood. 2. The issues and problems with the lots can be resolved without a re-zoning. It is claimed that the structures cannot be rehabilitated. If the existing structures must be removed, it does not imply that medium density housing must be put in their place. Single family or duplex housing could be put in without changing from R-2. This has been done in other area of the neighborhood such as on 100 South between 1000 and 1100 East where new homes were built in a compatible style of the area. 3. It was claimed that the lots do not meet modern size standards. This can be fixed without re-zoning from R-2. 4. Parking and traffic is already a problem in the neighborhood, especially when the University of Utah is in session and students park in the area and take the bus to campus to avoid campus parking. No parking nor traffic study was presented at any of the meetings or open house presentations. When asked, the presenters said that there was no problem but had no evidence or study to back those claims. 5. The present owners of the properties have not been good landlords. The properties have been in disrepair for decades. They claim that this is because their parents who did the repair work are now too old to do it. This does not explain why maintenance cannot to hired as a normal cost of doing business. The owners should not be rewarded PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 246 February 12, 2020 for negligence of the property by creating a greater moneymaker for themselves. Bad behavior should not be rewarded. 6. There is virtually total opposition to the re-zoning plan from the neighbors. The city officials complain that the local city voice is not heard on issues such as the prison relocation, the new inland port facility, and other issues imposed by the state, yet, they ignore the local voice of the neighborhood and impose their rules against the wishes of the locals. This is hypocrisy at large. 7. There are several conditional use exemptions and other zoning exemptions in the area. Until the city enforces existing rules and stops giving exemptions, there should be no more changes to zoning or land use. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 247 February 12, 2020 From:Stacie L Baldwin To:Lindquist, Kelsey Subject:Saving the Blue Pearl (China Blue) House Date:Wednesday, October 9, 2019 7:38:06 PM Hello, I just wanted to have my voice be heard about not tearing down the houses in downtown Salt Lake. Those blocks close to the avenues are filled with historical houses, probably nearing 100 years old. The Blue Pearl, previously China Blue, has gone through decades of generations & generations, & has a special place in all the hearts that have been there. That house has been cleaned up, cared for, & has responsible tenants who fixed it up nicely. Besides the historical age & sentimental reasons, Salt Lake is becoming as expensive as California, no one can afford $2000 a month rent, with how very low our wages are. We need to keep low income & low rent places to live because the middle & low class will all become homeless & on the streets, just like California, then comes the rats, then comes the fleas, then comes typhus & the black plague.....just like California. California is moving here & we already cant handle the traffic with our 1 freeway. We cant make matters worse kicking out our own people to the streets to build ugly, blocking the scenery condos, that would eventually turn into ghettos anyway. All of us have done the math. It's a massive mistake to tear down those homes, just because the owner is sick of dealing with them & is greedy to be paid off by the contractors. If the owner doesnt want to deal with them anymore, than we need to find someone else to manage them & let that beautiful neighborhood of homes be left alone. Please dont tear them down, please dont ruin a historical part of town, & please dont kick out the tenants & make them homeless. They cant afford what rent costs everywhere else. Prices everywhere are insanely expensive except for low income housing places that are gang, crime & drug infested & they also have 2-3 year waiting lists which is ludicrous. No one can win, I'm speaking for myself as well, I'm stuck where I am & cant afford to move because rents increased dramatically, it's really hard to believe Utah has gone through the roof with what they are charging to keep a roof over your head. So again, please leave those houses alone. They mean the world to many, many people in many different ways. Stacie Baldwi Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 248 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684249February 12, 2020 October 14, 2019 Tom Dickman 1784 South 800 East Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Salt Lake City Planning Commission P.O. Box 145480 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Planning Commission, This letter is about the zoning change request by the property owner of five houses, four located on 200 South: 949 East, 955 East, 959 East, and 963 East, and one at 159 Lincoln Street. Background: For several years Salt Lake has been subject to increased population pressures. This trend continues. Salt Lake is an Intermountain center of production and distribution. Many high-paid jobs, especially in the Tech and Financial sectors, attract highly educated and trained job candidates, often from states far away. It is important to note that these jobs require advanced education and extensive training. They are not open to those on the bottom of the socio-economic scale. The request for the zoning change of the properties specified above can only be understood and judged within these developed and developing economic trends. The City, the County, as well as the current candidates for Salt Lake City mayor, are well aware of these trends. Much new housing is needed. Much new housing is being constructed. A major question however rises up within the economic trends: Will they be Affordable? Affordable housing is defined as costing for rent no more than a certain percentage of tenant income. Many, even most, of the new housing being built within the City is indeed "affordable" to the tech and financial job holders, who typically make between $60,000 and $120,000/year. Those with job incomes in this range are the ones snatching up the new apartments within the city. What though of people on the middle and lower end of the scale? Quick answer: they are being driven out of the city. Some are losing housing altogether and are swelling the numbers of homeless. Most are unable to pay the $1500 to $2000+ rents for the new housing. Even if they could, there would not be enough left over to pay for transportation, utilities, food, clothing, etc. The new housing is NOT AFFORDABLE for them. The City, including the current mayoral candidates, can talk all they want about the need for affordable housing. Such talk remains talk. There is new housing, yes, but it is affordable mainly to those on the top end of the food chain. To make housing actually affordable to middle and lower income people, at least two policies need to be implemented: PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 250 February 12, 2020 ■ A legal requirement that fixes a maximum ceiling on rent for middle income earners. Such a ceiling would need to be a fixed maximum percentage of income of middle and low income residents. ■ Rent control, requiring landlords to keep rent under this percentage maximum ceiling. Some cities have instituted such policies. Salt Lake is not one of them. If, however, the City does not adopt such strict legal requirements limiting rent-as-percentage-of-middle/lower-income residents, housing will remain out of reach of many long-time City residents. The new housing will be a chimera for our most deserving citizens, a simple vote-baiting dream of politicians who use "affordable" as a catchword. These considerations directly affect the proposed zoning change on 200 South. Current tenants are paying rent in the $400 to $600/month range. This is affordable for them. If the proposed new construction housing is approved, rent would rise to the prevailing rates in the area. Existing tenants would be driven out, simply by financial pressure. New tenants would come only from the high-end sector. This is reality. The present property owner's proposal includes one unit out of sixteen defined as "affordable." There are other issues involved here: ■ Provisions from the City Community Master Plan. • Residential Land Use Goals • Residential Land Use Policies • Preservation Goals of the East Central North Neighborhood • Historic Preservation Policies • Community Preservation Plan The proposed zoning change request, and planned medium/high density construction, directly violate the above five provisions, which are already in effect. Specifics regarding such violations are contained in documents currently available to the Planning Commission, and detailed by other contributors to this planning process. More than 200 residents have signed the petition against the zoning change. In a few words: the Planning Commission, and the City can go ahead and approve the zoning change request. To do so would simply confirm the City's caving to the interests of money, property, and wealth. Caving in this way would be a slap in the face to all middle and low income residents hoping to remain in the City. Of course, if they are evicted, many of them can find space at one of the new Homeless Shelters. These new shelters are touted with as much enthusiasm as the politicians' talk about Affordable Housing. Sincerely, Tom Dickman cc: Salt Lake Tribune PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 251 February 12, 2020 November 4, 2019 Tom Dickman 1784 South 800 East Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Salt Lake City Planning Commission P.O. Box 145480 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Planning Commission: This is a follow-up to my October 14 letter regarding the proposal affecting 200 South at 949, 955, 959, and 963 East, and 159 Lincoln Street. ■ These houses are inhabited. This fact sets off the current proposal from many of the new housing apartments which have been and are being built in the city. A significant number, if not the majority of the new constructions are built on lots where no one was living previously. In the case of 200 South, multiple people living in multiple houses are involved. Where will these people go if the proposal happens? The rent demanded by new apartments would be far beyond their means. This was the substance of my earlier letter. ■ The quick answer to this question is that many if not most of the current inhabitants will be driven out of the city. Some might very well up homeless. As you are aware the new homeless shelters being built by the city have a combined capacity of only 60% of the old Rio Grande Shelter. Will there be space enough? According to a recent news article, the city is hoping for "goodwill" on the part of local landlords to allow housing for people who may not have sterling rental credentials and history. This is very nice. It is very nice too that some landlords may have a soft spot in their hearts for the homeless and potentially homeless. ■ Relying on soft spots is not a viable housing strategy. Moreover -- and this is directly relevant to the 200 South proposal -- the current landlords of the 200 South property have demonstrated no softness in their hearts during their long ownership of the properties in question. As public documents from the Health Department and the City show, the landlords have dragged their feet on compliance with code and city regulations on multiple occasions. Several times they have failed-to-show for scheduled meetings with city officials. Such disrespect eats up your tax dollars and mine. Out-of-compliance problems with the houses have often taken multiple follow-ups from the city in order to assure correction. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 252 February 12, 2020 ■ And now, were the City to approve the current proposal, how could that decision be viewed as anything other than a reward to the current landlords for their foot- dragging, non-compliance, and disrespect over decades of time? Certainly the current tenants would see things in this light, as would any reasonable observer. ■ There is a question of justice involved here. Eviction of tenants is no joke to...tenants. Actual brick-and-mortar housing provisions for current tenants should be demanded as a condition of proposal approval. If the current landlords won't assure this -- as is evident by their less-than-magnanimous offer to make one out of sixteen units be "affordable housing" -- then it is incumbent on the city to assure adequate housing rather than eviction. Can the city do this? Is the city likely to do this? Not likely, given the continuing deference shown by the city toward landlords and property owners. Yet if Affordable Housing is to be more than a slogan, the city must meet this challenge, for the landlords of the 200 South properties surely won't. If the city can't do this, then the 200 South proposal should be rejected and denied. Sincerely, Tom Dickman city resident PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 253 February 12, 2020 From: To:Lindquist, Kelsey; ECCChair@gmail.com Subject:Proposed zoning change at 949 to 963 East 200 South and 159 Sooth Lincoln Date:Monday, October 28, 2019 4:18:36 PM Members of the Planning Commission, Re: PLNPCM2019-00683 and PLNPCM2019-00684 Proposed zoning change at 949 to 963 East 200 South and 159 Sooth Lincoln I am contacting you to express my opposition to the requested zoning amendment atthe above referenced addresses. I have lived a block away at 1058 East 200 Southfor approximately 40 years. I believe that this change is not consistent with the goalsand policies of the city and conflicts with the purpose statement of the zoningordinance. Density is already a problem in this area. The proposed complex will make it worse. There is also a problem with the impact this will have on the sewer, streets andexisting infrastructure. Due to the proximity of the University and the changes in thebus routes traffic and parking are a problem and keep getting worse. The addition of15 apartments of 2 and 3 bedroom units will exacerbate the already difficult situation. The fact that these property owners have let these homes degrade completely doesnot mean they should be allowed to tear the homes down and build a bigger unit toneglect. If they wanted to build and sell new homes I would feel differently. For 30years they have failed to care for these properties while nearby homeowners haveworked to improve the area and their homes. Now they want permission to buildrentals that they and the renters will neglect. I can see no reason to believe that theyor their attitude to our neighborhood has changed. This change would cause existing homes to lose value, it would increase alreadyinsane off street parking and street traffic. As it is people park all over 2nd South andtake the bus to the U. In order to park on my street I and my friends have to competewith students, Ivy house and the existing rentals. If my friends or elderly mother wantto visit there is nowhere to park. People move my full garbage cans so they can parkin front of my house and my cans do not get emptied. People block my and myneighbors shared drive when they park and leave their cars all day. Although this neighborhood has many well cared for single family residences it seemslike the City does not care about us. Spot zoning in this already high density area is adreadful idea. It will degrade the area and drive away existing, establishedhomeowners. If it is actually necessary that these historic homes be torn down thenthey should be replaced with new homes not a rental unit. This would fit in better withthis residential area. It would also lessen the impact on the infrastructure and it is farmore likely that new homeowners would care for their homes unlike these negligentlandlords. Thank you, PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 254 February 12, 2020 M. M. Hubbell1058 East 200 SouthSLC UT 84102 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 255 February 12, 2020 From: To:Lindquist, Kelsey Subject:rezoning 200 So and Lincoln Date:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 9:45:36 PM To Whom It May Concern, I am just writing to let you know my feelings about the rezoning being requested by Mike Gleeson at 200 So and Lincoln. My family, the Larsons, have owned a Dental office at 928 E 1st So. and several properties on Lincoln Street for many years. We have watched the neighborhood go up and down with a variety of different types of individuals living in different homes. Lately the neighborhood has definitely on an up swing. I have had several individuals comment that the properties owned by Mike Gleeson are the worst in the neighborhood and have struggled with frequent turnover and are barely livable. The type of people often attracted to those properties can be quite transient and sometimes questionable. We certainly had that experience when we purchased the run down apartments on Lincoln St and 100 So. next door to our dental office. I have seen several neighbors make significant effort to remodel and up grade their homes. I think that any help we can provide in upgrading the neighborhood I support. Tearing down those existing irreparable houses and building something new would be a real positive and I am pleased the Gleesons are interested in doing something. Maybe they are trying to pack to much into the space available but I do think it needs to be a win/win for the owners and neighbors . If there is a way to allow new housing structures where those dilapidated existing structures are now I would be very much in favor of it. It seems to me that some type of rezoning would be appropriate and necessary to make it work. Thanks for all you do in making our city a better place Brent A Larson DDS PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 256 February 12, 2020 From:Esther Hunter, ECC Chair To:Lindquist, Kelsey Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fwd: Against Lincoln and 2nd South zoning change. Date:Wednesday, February 5, 2020 9:32:17 AM resend ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: morgan galbraith Date: Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 7:04 PM Subject: Against Lincoln and 2nd South zoning change. To: <eastcentralcommunity@gmail.com> My name is Morgan Galbraith. I am a concerned citizen/homeowner. I reside, with my daughter, at 154 South McClellan Street, which I own. I'm concerned in regards to the rezoning of the properties on 952 10th East on 200 South. I believe that this would be detrimental not only visually but to the neighborhood as a whole because of many reasons that I myself voiced at the most recent meeting at judge high school as well as others who voiced their concerns at the meeting. The owner of the property has no long-term planning in regards to this property in appears to just want to make a quick buck, that is not what our neighborhood stands for. We are a community and having a property like this dilutes our sense of community. In summary I am against any reasoning of properties in the neighborhood, specifically in this situation. No to the rezoning of the properties on 950 East and 200 South. Thank you for all your service to the community. Morgan Galbraith APRN-C If you have any questions in regards to my stance please feel free to call me PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 257 February 12, 2020 From:Esther Hunter, ECC Chair To:Lindquist, Kelsey Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fwd: PLNPCM2019-00683 and 00684 Community Comment. Please include in your consideration and in the Planning Commission packet. Thank you. Esther Date:Wednesday, February 5, 2020 9:31:33 AM Resend from Jo Starks. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Esther Hunter, ECC Chair <eastcentralcommunity@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 12:01 AM Subject: PLNPCM2019-00683 and 00684 Community Comment. Please include in your consideration and in the Planning Commission packet. Thank you. Esther To: Lindquist, Kelsey <Kelsey.Lindquist@slcgov.com> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 9:39 PM Jo Starks wrote: Hello Esther and east central community. I’d like to express my feelings about the zoning change that has been requested for 200 S., Lincoln Street to 10th E. I am not in favor of the proposed zone change to allow 16 units to be put at the site. The things that make it unfavorable, in my opinion; the proposed height of the new residences, The close proximity to the sidewalk to the structure, The lack of parking for visitors in an already congested area. I’d like to suggest that underground parking be suggested to the developers. The residences that are on the block that are meant to be replaced have many issues. For example yards are unkempt and not watered; trees are suffering on both sides of the sidewalk. Exteriors of the houses are run d own. I have long been familiar with the one house, “China Blue“ to be center for drug use and dealing. I would like to consider the zoning be changed to allow for less than 16, but more than nine residences. I believe the Salt Lake City planning person, Kelsey, had mentioned that there is a zone that would allow for that. Thank you for allowing my opinion to be counted. Jo starks 227 So. 1100 East SLC Ut 84102 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 258 February 12, 2020 From:Esther Hunter, ECC Chair To:Lindquist, Kelsey Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fwd: zoning map amendment Date:Wednesday, February 5, 2020 9:32:45 AM resend ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Erin Ekstrom Date: Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 12:17 PM Subject: zoning map amendment To: eastcentralcommunity@gmail.com <eastcentralcommunity@gmail.com> Hello,  Thank you for hosting this great community meeting last night.  I have to admit it was my first time attending something like this, and it was a great experience.  It makes me proud to know I live in such a great neighborhood with such engaged residents.   I would like to make a formal comment against the proposed re zoning on 200 South.  Given the discussion last night, and the information presented,  I do not feel I can support the increase to RMF-35.  The current owners have not fostered any feeling of trust, good will, or membership in our community.  I do not feel confident that they will indeed hold true to their intended plan to redevelop the property in a sustainable way that is in accordance with our current neighborhood aesthetics.  I also feel, we have enough RMF-35 already zoned in our neighborhood, and that a lesser ask would be more reasonable at this time.   Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment, and I am looking forward to becoming more engaged in my community.  Kindest regards, Erin Ekstrom PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 259 February 12, 2020 1 February 3, 2020 Re: PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684, Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments at 949-963 East 200 South and 159 S. Lincoln Street From: Jen Colby, Resident, 160 S Lincoln St, Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Dear Members of the Planning Commission and Staff, I am writing to express my opposition to the request for Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments at 949-963 E 200 South and 159 S Lincoln Street in Salt Lake City by the owners and their representatives. I urge you to definitively vote NO and make a negative recommendation on this application. My husband and I have owned and occupied the property at 160 South Lincoln Street since 2002. Our house is a single-story contributing Victorian eclectic frame house with an R-2 parcel zoning. We bought it after it had been a rental property on and off for years. We knew we were buying an old house that might need a lot of work. We had no idea we were buying into a neighborhood with a patchwork of zoning that belied its lovely appearance as a historic neighborhood with many intact older buildings. We liked the diversity of the neighborhood, the proximity to the University of Utah and downtown Salt Lake City, as well as easy access to open space in City Creek and the foothills, transit service, bike lanes and so much more. Truly, this is the best location in the city in my opinion. In retrospect we got very lucky to buy in when we did. We also came to realize that many of the larger older residences in our area had been turned into 2+ unit rentals. These are interspersed with single-family owner-occupied houses, small businesses, institutional properties, and many classic Salt Lake City 12-plex 3-story walk-up apartments and condos. Unfortunately, we also live among many poorly conceived, designed, and executed inappropriate 60s and 70s era “urban renewal” midrise apartment buildings that had replaced historic buildings, degraded the fabric of the neighborhood, and are mostly well beyond their design lives as compared to our generally well-built historic properties. The comments below are my personal opinions and comments and do not represent any group or organization with which I may be affiliated. My husband will be submitting his own personal comments. I already submitted a set of comments about the consistency, or more accurately lack of consistency, of this application with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated in the 2018-2023 Growing Salt Lake City Housing Plan and incorporate those comments by reference (Amendment consideration criterion #1). PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 260 February 12, 2020 2 Here, I wish to comment on the Master Plan Amendment application itself as submitted by the representative of the applicants, Owner’s Agent Mr. Graham Gilbert, Esq., on 7/19/19. To do so, I downloaded the application from the SLC public portal, used software to complete text recognition of the PDF, and corrected any errors by comparing both copies. I then pasted the body of the application text into a new MSWord document, highlighted the quoted original text in gray, and am interspersing my comments directly following or adjacent to the sections of the application. My overarching comments to summarize my response to the applications are these: 1) The application contains numerous factual errors, misstatements misrepresentations, and takes elements of city plans and documents out of context, as noted in the following analysis. In most instances, the Owners Agent uses these errors, misrepresentations, and out of context elements to support the case for the application well beyond what is contained in the plans and other records. Therefore, these misstatements do not appear random and are not amateur errors. Rather, they tend to prejudice a non- expert reviewer or member of the public towards the assertions in the application. Of course, parties seeking an amendment will present their case in the best light they can muster. However, this application appears to go well beyond that in its attempts to persuade. It is a very weak case upon scrutiny. 2) Therefore, in my opinion, after a short review by city staff, this application should have been rejected outright as materially false and incomplete, and rejected at that point. Instead, interested members of the community are forced to spend extensive personal time at real personal cost to challenge the assertions of the applicants and attempt to share accurate information as private citizens. The staff report may well correct some or all these assertions. However, the staff report comes out so late in the process that it is not useful to interested and affected parties unrelated to the applicants or their agents. 3) I also believe that the fact that the Owner’s Agent is a land use attorney employed by a prominent local law firm implies a veiled threat. Obviously, the owners may employ any qualified person as their agent. Development and land use issues can indeed be complicated and may require legal advice and counsel. However, for a small zoning and master plan amendment, a lawyer as the agent strikes me as an odd choice at this stage of the process. It is well known that Salt Lake City Corporation leadership, both elected and appointed, tend to be risk-averse and lawsuit avoidant. This can tip the scales towards economically and socially powerful actors in our region who can afford to hire legal counsel, especially those in well-known firms. However, I am confident that the members of the Planning Commission take their oaths seriously and evaluate each case on its merits. I ask that the Planning Commission and city officials to ignore this veiled threat if indeed it comes across that way to you as members. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 261 February 12, 2020 3 4) Given that the Owner’s Agent is a land use attorney, the factual and material misstatements and misrepresentations in the application are disappointing at best. 5) Based on statements made by the Applicant at a meeting of the East Central Community Council Board last fall, the Applicant stated that the target rental range to make the financing work is ~$2,200/month per unit. According to the Zillow Rent Affordability Calculator, the monthly net income to afford this rent is $5,000/month in Utah. See https://www.zillow.com/rent-affordability-calculator/ . That is based on 33% of income for housing the standard for affordability. According to the Salary After Tax calculator for Utah, this requires a gross annual income of ~$82,000. See https://salaryaftertax.com/us . This will exacerbate the housing challenges in Salt Lake City, not help alleviate them. Worse, many of the current tenants appear to be of very low socio-economic status (SES) and some are probably highly vulnerable to falling into homelessness. I cannot fathom that any of them could afford one of the new units, even the teaser “affordable” one that has been dangled. The displacement of these tenants if this application is approved will cause real and immediate harms to them. It will also exacerbate an already under-resourced homeless, housing, and social services patchwork system in Salt Lake City and County. Most importantly, this application is inconsistent with the Central City Master Plan and Growing SLC Housing Plan in so many ways that an amendment is utterly unwarranted and should receive a negative recommendation. Salt Lake City officials should continue to defend Council-approved district master plans as they have done in the past. The goals, vision, descriptions, and residential land use policies (RLUs) are even more relevant today than when the Central Community Master Plan was approved in 2005. Real property is fungible and in Salt Lake City the current market is highly competitive and hot. Long-time owners can often get high prices and capital gains windfalls. Moreover, there are many properly zoned or underutilized properties where these owners could much more readily carry out their desired project. If this application is denied as it should be, they still have numerous options for their properties, from selling outright and to restoring the homes to redesigning a project to fit current zoning. Their current unwillingness to do so is no justification for a zoning and master plan change. Spot rezoning is a dangerous action and a poor precedent, especially under current market conditions. Please vote against this application for a zoning and master plan amendment. Sincerely, Jen Colby PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 262 February 12, 2020 4 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 263 February 12, 2020 5 Note to readers: My section-by-section analysis of the application begins here. Supplemental Information for Project Description Applicant: Chaio-ih Hui Zoning Amendment Application 1. Owner Names and Address of Subject Property (or Area): This Zoning Amendment Application applies to the parcels listed m the following table (collectively, the " Parcels"). Parcel No. Owner Address Acres “2. Project Description a. A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. The Parcels are currently located in the City's R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential Zoning District ("R-2 District"). The current zoning for the Parcels is shown on Exhibit A. The purpose of this Application is to amend the Zoning Map to include the Parcels in the RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District ("RMF-35 District"). This amendment is necessary to allow Applicant's proposed use of the Parcels, which is described below.” My Comments: The assertion that this amendment is “necessary to allow Applicant's proposed use of the Parcels” is not relevant to the Master Plan Amendment, nor a rational basis for approval. Vast volumes of case law and precedent support the legal authority of government entities to control zoning and a wide array of land use activities on private parcels at various scales. The mere fact that the owners wish to do something else with their properties that is not currently allowed in R-2 zoning is materially irrelevant. There are properly zoned parcels scattered throughout the city, including in the Central Community, which would allow for the use and development that the Applicant wishes to pursue. Real property is fungible and is bought and sold PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 264 February 12, 2020 6 in a highly developed market. The Applicant can simply purchase the necessary parcels elsewhere and pursue the project in an appropriate area. The Applicant can also either keep or sell the properties if they no longer suit them or their interests. The Amendment should not be granted because the Applicant does not wish to comply with the current zoning regulations at these parcels. The owners have the option to sell them to buyers willing to follow current zoning regulations. Alternatively, they may redesign the project to fit the current zoning. There are many options available within the current land use classification and Master Plan to permit a variety of uses. Further, the City and its representatives are under no obligation to assure the profitability of any business, residential rental or otherwise. If the owners of these parcels are unable to secure financing to complete renovations on the existing structures or complete appropriate alternatives under current zoning, they have every right and ability to sell to other entities who can do so. Quite frankly, any claim of economic hardship should apply only to real persons who are owner- occupants in non-commercial settings. “b. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. Applicant proposes to construct a multi-family project with 16 dwelling units on the Parcels. A site plan for the Parcels is attached as Exhibit A.” My Comments: As noted above, any specific project concept or proposal is simply not relevant to the Master Plan and Zoning Amendment process. The site plan conceptual sketch may be a teaser, but mostly it serves as a distraction from the criteria and issues at hand in considering this amendment. The zoning is tied to the parcels and can transfer with the properties, whether the Applicant ever actually pursues these projects. Projects can fall apart for all manner of reasons, from changes in ownership, family or corporate dynamics and priorities, financing, and many other circumstances. One of the proposals that has been floated by the Applicant and some city staff is to attach a development agreement to amendments. This is an entirely inappropriate justification for this amendment, for multiple reasons. Most broadly, it gives city officials an artificial sense of control over any projects when in fact the city has failed to track and enforce agreements in numerous cases over time. If anything, city officials should start by going back, tracking down, inspecting and enforcing all previous such agreements and clearing that docket before even considering entering into future such “agreements.” This approach is simply an unworkable, bad idea that allows applicants to dangle shiny drawings or offers without any guarantee that they will materialize. The city’s current approach of enforcement by complaint (except for parking) exacerbates the problem, forcing residents to do the work of civil enforcement. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 265 February 12, 2020 7 Additionally, the project concept sketches as submitted with the application are entirely out of character and inappropriate to the scale, massing, design, and integrity of the 900 block of 200 South and the 100 block of Lincoln Street. As proposed, these shouldn’t even be new buildings desired by city officials. They are certainly not by most neighbors and community members. The one immediate result of an amendment would result in immediately is an increase in the underlying valuation of the parcels. According to real estate professionals, each additional unit potential per parcel adds approximately $20-25,000 in base valuation. The five properties have 9 current units according to the building records and owners. With R-2 zoning and 1 parcel already unit-legalized to a tri-plex, the owners have 11 total existing and potential units as is under current zoning. Using 11 as the basis, and Amendment that would grant 5 additional units would result in an immediate financial windfall of ~$100-125,000. This is an unjustifiable “government giving” regardless of the track record of the owners in terms of property upkeep and management. In this case, given the decades of underinvestment, poor upkeep, regular lack of fit premise conditions for tenants, and apparent “demolition by neglect,” the idea that the City would reward this with a financial windfall is galling. But even if the properties were perfectly maintained, it would be inappropriate and unjustified. “c. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. The Parcels are currently located in the R-2 District. They are adjacent to properties in the RMF- 35 District. The immediately surrounding area has a wide variety of zoning districts, including the RMF-35 District; R-2 District; RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District; RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District; SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District; and UI Urban Institutional District. These zoning districts are shown on Exhibit B.” The area surrounding the parcels has a mix of different land uses, including single-family homes; small, medium, and large apartments; commercial buildings; offices; and institutional buildings (e.g., Salt Lake Regional Hospital). This mix of land uses results from approved, conditional uses and changes to land use policies over t ime. My Comments: This description of the current mix of land uses and zoning in the Central Community, specifically in the Central City Historic District (Boundary Increase), or Bryant Neighborhood is an argument AGAINST this Amendment rather than in support of it. Our area is already substantially over-zoned, as shown by ongoing efforts over the years to downzone parcels rather than up-zone them. In fact, after a lengthy process and proposals, yet another effort died at the PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 266 February 12, 2020 8 City Council inexplicably within the last decade or so. Once parcels are over-zoned, it is extremely hard to correct this, as many of us have personally experienced. In many cases, the underlying zoning exceeds the use and design of the actual structures on site. This is the case for my own home, and many of my neighbors. Honestly, as a first-time homebuyer, like many people I was utterly ignorant of zoning and did not think to look up our zoning or that of surrounding properties, not realizing how deceiving appearances can be. That said, one of the best things about living where we do is the mix of single family and duplex residences, unit-legalized residences, multi-family apartment buildings, small and large commercial, and institutional uses. Vast swaths of our city—Sugarhouse, East Bench, Upper Avenues, West Side, Federal Heights—have extensive and large blocks of consistent and contiguous zoning. We are already highly diverse in land use types here in the East Side Historic Boundary Increase area. It is the other neighborhoods of our city that need more of a mix, not ours, at this point. I wish to emphasize a key point. What appear in many cases to be single family historic residences in our area are, in fact, often unit-legalized multiplexes. These are often duplexes and triplexes but sometimes 4, 5, 6-plexes and higher. After rounds of legalizations in the past, this process has apparently been slowed to a crawl. Unit legalization is a brilliant way to effectively increase density while encouraging preservation of the historic fabric of city neighborhoods. It is one of the objective strategies explicitly mentioned in the Growing SLC Housing Plan. To date, however, there has been little or no movement on this. Unit legalization is far preferred to zoning amendments. It can be tied to maintenance of the existing structure and other actions. Zoning amendments, on the other hand, are a recipe for teardowns and escalating parcel prices beyond the reach of average homebuyers or small, local landlords who wish to restore historic properties and keep them reasonably affordable, such as our wonderful neighbors John Diamond (a former Planning Commissioner) and Lee Phillips. They purchased a run-down, fire-damaged small historic apartment building two doors down on Lincoln Street, restored it, and have a stable and loyal set of long-term working-class tenants. This is what we need to encourage. You should not reward slumlord-type management practices of owners who use demolition by neglect as a tactic while they likely maximize tax depreciations and pull out cash on the backs of low income residents (this can be very profitable, as documented in many recent books and articles about predatory practices in these United States). After that, the pattern is to look for teardowns of the properties they failed to maintain. I realize that slumlord is a harsh term, but that is used explicitly in several places in the Central Community Master Plan as what needs to be PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 267 February 12, 2020 9 enforced against. I have had a front row seat for 15+ years right across the street from these properties. I will attest to the appropriate use of the term here to the current owners, sadly. I cannot speak explicitly to their motives or reasons for their upkeep and management (or lack thereof) over the years. But the outcome has been cumulatively negative for the properties and the community. Moreover, the owners are not absentee owners. Rather, Peter and Pik Chi (PC) Hui are regularly on site, sometimes multiple times a week. They take a very active role in overseeing their properties. Therefore, they cannot claim ignorance of the situation. “The Central Community Master Plan encourages use of residential zoning to provide opportunities for medium-density housing.” My Comments: Throughout the Zoning Ordinance, Title 21A, the preferred term is “moderate density,” though “medium density” is used once as a synonym. Meanwhile, the Central Community Plan Future Land Use Map uses “medium density” so I am going to assume these terms are interchangeable. According to code definitions, low density is <15 units per acre, while moderate (medium) is <30 units per acre, moderate/high is <43 units per acre, and high is <83 units per acre. While this statement in the Application is nominally true on its face when taken broadly, this is an example of a plan element taken out of context that appears to support the Application but in fact upon closer inspection does nothing of the sort. I quote from the Central City Master Plan, pp. 5-6: “Bryant neighborhood. The Bryant neighborhood is located between 700 and 1000 East from South Temple to 400 South. The layout of the lots and the residential architecture of the Bryant neighborhood are similar to those found in the neighborhoods directly west, across 700 East in the Central City area. Both have the same 10-acre blocks and several examples of early, adobe Greek Revival architecture. It has a rich collection of many architectural styles, including handsome large homes with classical porticos and expansive porches. The neighborhood also has well-preserved inner courts unlike those farther west. These small streets that penetrate the ten-acre blocks, such as Dooley and Strong courts are still lined with small cottages dating from the beginning of the twentieth century. The combination of imposing homes on the main streets and the small dwellings of the inner-block courts indicate that the population of this area has always been a mixture of the rooted and the transient and the upper and lower income classes. The proximity to the Central Business District and the University of Utah campus prompted early development of the area and was a major factor in the original zoning of this neighborhood for mixed residential uses and larger scale apartments. Pressure to develop or redevelop into higher densities has become one of the most significant issues confronting this area. [emphasis added] … PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 268 February 12, 2020 10 Issues within the East Central North neighborhood Residential • Reduce excessive density potential, stabilize the neighborhood, and conserve the neighborhood’s residential character. [emphasis added] • Improve zoning enforcement, including illegal conversion to apartments, yard cleanup, “slum lords,” etc. • Encourage higher density housing in East Downtown, Downtown, and Gateway to decrease the pressure to meet those housing needs in this neighborhood. [emphasis added] • Ensure new multi-family development is carefully sited, well designed, and compatible in scale. [emphasis added] • Provide more affordable housing (owner occupied and rental).” “Managing future growth of the Central Community relies on successful implementation of this master plan and the small area master plans. The future land use designations described in each chapter suggest potential land use changes but encourage stability where land uses should remain unchanged. The Future Land Use map (page 2) depicts the desired general land use policy direction. Each land use chapter is linked to the Future Land Use map. Implementation of this land use policy is supported through recommended zoning ordinances that are consistent and compatible with the Future Land Use map. Areas where existing zoning does not match the land use map will need to be considered for zoning changes to be consistent with the master plan.” (p. 8) This Zoning Amendment application is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map on p. 2 which clearly shows the parcels in question as Low Density Residential (1-15 units per acre). Key Point: The assertion is false that the Central Community Master Plan “encourages” medium density zoning for these parcels. Hence the need for the amendment. It also encourages infill development designed in a manner that is compatible with the appearance of existing neighborhoods.” My Comments: Unfortunately, the project conceptual drawings do nothing of the sort. Any redevelopment should retain individual structures on each lot (at R-2, either duplexes or single family), with separate lot setbacks to be compatible with the largely intact historic fabric, feel, and pattern language of the blocks in question. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 269 February 12, 2020 11 “Similarly, the City's Housing Plan recommends increasing medium density housing types and options.” My Comments: This statement is so generic as to be utterly meaningless when applied to this specific application for amendments. At the specific parcels, it is simply false. “It recommends directing new growth towards areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people- oriented.” My Comments: Please see my analysis of the 2018-2023 Growing SLC Housing Plan. In short, the Plan does not call for overturning existing master plans to meet the goals of the Housing Plan. Did the Owner’s Agent and Applicant actually read the Housing Plan? The statement above does not appear as a listed goal or objective of the Housing Plan document. The closest to this might be: “Objective 1.1.2: 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.” [emphasis added]. This is about revising ordinances, not about approving spot rezoning amendments. It also emphasizes preserving existing structures and limiting neighborhood impacts. These amendments would do exactly the opposite if approved. The key strategies described in this Objective description is unit legalization. Indeed, one of the properties in question is a legal triplex thanks to an earlier round of legalizations. The proposed RMF30 Zoning Ordinance changes also emphasize preservation of existing residential structures in exchange for more density, not teardowns. Additionally, “existing infrastructure” is a serious issue in this area, with extremely old water, sewer, and stormwater utilities. Storm drains regularly clog and overflow downslope on 200S. This relates to the criteria in 21A.50.050 about adequacy of public facilities. That said, unfortunately, Salt Lake City officials sometimes see these types of proposals as opportunities to transfer costs to developers rather than the appropriate broader city population. Please refrain from that impulse. We voted in favor of a general tax increase for this purpose. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 270 February 12, 2020 12 “The Housing Plan also encourages development of affordable housing.” My Comments: It is puzzling as to why the Owners Agent and Applicant would bring this up, given that the proposal that they are floating along with the request for amendments would demolish and remove 9 legal units that are currently highly affordable to low SES individuals and families, and replace them with “luxury apartments.” At the East Central Community Board meeting last fall, when pressed on this issue, the Applicant stated that the target rental range to make the financing work is $2,200/month per unit. According to the Zillow Rent Affordability Calculator, the monthly NET income to afford this rent is $5,000/month in Utah. See https://www.zillow.com/rent-affordability-calculator/. That is based on 33% of income for housing the standard for “affordability.’ According to the Salary After Tax calculator for Utah, this requires a gross annual income of ~$82,000. See https://salaryaftertax.com/us My husband and I own our house free and clear now thanks to an affordable purchase price at the time, favorable mortgage rates, and some luck in our lives. Simply put, we could not afford the proposed rents at our current household income. Could you? Could most Salt Lake City employees? Teachers? Students? Worse, many of the current tenants appear to be very low SES and highly vulnerable to falling into homelessness. Some tenants are elderly, others appear to have physical limitations and disabilities. We have been given estimates of 20-40 current tenants at these properties. I cannot fathom that any of them could afford one of the new units, even the teaser “affordable” one that has been dangled. The displacement of these tenants if this application is approved will cause real and immediate harms to them. It will also exacerbate an already under-resourced homeless, housing, and social services patchwork system in Salt Lake City and County. The First Rule of Holes is Stop Digging. The city must stop digging bigger holes by facilitating the loss of natural affordable housing, both rental and owner occupied. This amendment request is utterly contrary to the goal of increasing affordable units. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 271 February 12, 2020 13 More units do not necessarily equal more affordability. This application is a prime example. Unfortunately, this simplistic narrative has taken hold during the current Wasatch front regional housing and real estate boom and its subsequent consequences. Affordability is not simply a supply problem, or a zoning problem. That argument simply plays into the hands of developers. It is also an income problem, a subsidies problem, a financing and discrimination problem, a criminal justice problem, and more. The housing market is fundamentally broken in key dimensions, just like the U.S. health insurance and medical system. Please stop breaking it further. I recommend numerous recent books, such as Evicted (http://www.evictedbook.com/ ) and Homewreckers (https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062869531/homewreckers/ ) as a place to start if you haven’t already. Unfortunately, some of our more affluent neighbors who have expressed concerns about some of the tenants and some of the ongoing behaviors at these properties that have led them to support this application in the name of “getting better neighbors” and reducing problem activities. Yes, there have been periodic complaints, and we have observed likely illicit and inappropriate activities over the years, from substance abuse and drug dealing to open burning of trash and on restricted days, fireworks, abandoned vehicles on the street, loud parties, and various things in between. Then things tend to calm down as tenants come and go and the city steps up enforcement after neighbors complain. But those are manageable social and medical problems that need to be dealt with appropriately through direct interventions rather than somehow justifying a return to the bad old days of “slum clearance” in the name of pushing out disadvantaged residents who need help. That is pure NIMBYism and rewards poor property management and lack of local social services in favor of developers and landlords. That said, when serious public safety is an issue, enforcement is necessary. On the evening of January 31, 2020, there were two episodes of gunfire on our street, with one being witnessed as a drive-by shooting directed at the back unit of 955 E 200 S. Some of my female neighbors now say they are afraid to walk on our streets, especially after dark. This is an enforcement matter and not a justification for these amendments. And is quite shocking for our generally safe and quiet area. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 272 February 12, 2020 14 “The non-historic homes on the Parcels have been converted to apartments.” My Comments: It is hard to even know where to begin with this entirely inaccurate statement, short as it is. Misleading is the kindest thing I will say. The Owner’s Agent at best uses imprecise language to characterize the historic status of the homes. At worst, he misrepresents and misleads. If he means that the homes are not individually listed on the National Register, he should so state. In common parlance, “historic” means houses of a certain age. Under National Park Service regulations, that is effectively at least 50 years old for starters. More specifically, it means buildings designated as contributory to the historic district, per State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and National Park Service guidance. The vast majority of buildings considered historic within both national and local historic districts are contributing (a professional designation made by trained staff and contractors) but not nationally registered (a voluntary listing that involves a lot more effort and cooperation of the owner(s), see https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/how-to-list-a-property.htm for details). All 5 buildings are designated as contributory as of the last inventory. The house at 159 S Lincoln St has had an unfortunate layer of siding added over the brick, but according to SHPO this is likely superficial, and the house could be restored to its proper appearance and continue as contributing. Further, these buildings are a crucial component of the larger East Side Historic District (Boundary Increase). I attach the full application for your reading pleasure. According to SHPO, each house is named based on the original occupants. The houses are:  159 S. Lincoln Street: known as the Samuel and Emma Bjorkland house; built circa 1889;  949 E. 200 South: known as the Hector and Clintona Griswold House; built 1893;  955 E. 200 South: known as the Louis and Agnes Farnsworth House; built 1893;  959 E. 200 South: known by SHPO as the Frances and John Jr. Judson House, also known locally as “China Blue” of more recent cultural significance; built circa 1897; and  963 E 200 South: known as the Roe and Nettie Frazier House; built in 1894 National Historic Districts confer vital tax credit opportunities to homeowners like us (which by the way the city does a terrible job of promoting). To qualify as a National Historic District, a substantial number of buildings within the boundaries must be contributory. The continual erosion and loss of contributory buildings could lead to de-listing and loss of tax credits in the PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 273 February 12, 2020 15 future. These 5 structures are vital to the look and feel of the district, even in their neglected state. City officials should not be making decisions to pave the way for their destruction. At a certain threshold (I have been told below 60-70% of structures on a given block, but I can’t find a formal reference), the character, fabric, and feel of a historic district starts to precipitously collapse. This is a non-linear process, like many phenomena. You can see this in action in large sections of Central Community just west of here, sadly, as well as just one half-block over on 1000 E between 100 and 200 S. This can lead to a downward spiral of disinvestment in the remaining contributing properties and loss of character. Property values are undergirded by the very historic fabric the Applicant has degraded and now proposes to rend asunder. Numerous studies show the economic value of historic preservation and restoration. As for the “have been converted to apartments” statement, as mentioned below there is some question as to whether one or more are being rented as SROs rather than separate units. Also, the house at 159 S Lincoln are described as single family, as is 963 E 200 S, so if they are being rented as apartments vs single homes it is unclear what their legal rental status might be. According to the SHPO files, the buildings at 949, 955, and 959 E were all built on spec by the same developers, who listed their occupations at “capitalists” at the time. Some things in the U.S. never change. In any case, they were originally built as rentals and it seems appropriate that they continue as such today, with the caveat that they be well-maintained as fit premises (another regulation the City systematically fails to enforce). “Existing City approvals permit 9 apartment units on the 5 parcels.” My Comments: As noted previously, the owners do potentially have the leeway to divide the two single family homes into duplexes under R2, giving them 11 units with no teardowns. There is some question as to whether the owners have been renting some or all of the properties as SROs, but that is a question of lack of enforcement of city regulation. Additionally, were they to pursue unit legalization, they could probably get 1 more unit each at 949 and 959 E. Were the city to permit it, these structures might even accommodate 4-plexes in the renovated buildings at 949, 955, and 959 (these three were actually built as rentals originally, according to SHPO records). That would give the owners 13-15 units. This is exactly the kind of density addition that is compatible with our national historic district and neighborhood fabric. In fact, it is the main pattern. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 274 February 12, 2020 16 “The present zoning does not allow Applicant to develop its proposed multi-family project on the Parcels. As a result, Applicant requests an amendment to the zoning map to include the Parcels in the RMF-35 District.” My Comments: Well, there are probably a lot of things my husband and I and our neighbors would like to do on our properties, too, but cannot under current zoning or other city, county, or state regulation and code. Our mere desire to do so does not override ordinances and adopted plans. This undermines the rule of law, consistent application of code, and fundamental fairness. I quote my very first comment for emphasis: “The mere fact that the owners wish to do something else with their properties that is not currently allowed in R-2 zoning is materially irrelevant. There are properly zoned parcels scattered throughout the city, including in the Central Community, which would allow for the use and development that the Applicant wishes to pursue. Real property is fungible, and the Applicant can simply purchase the necessary parcels elsewhere and pursue the project in an appropriate area. The Amendment should not be granted because the Applicant does not wish to comply with the current zoning regulations at these parcels. The owners have the option to sell them to buyers willing to follow current zoning regulations. Alternatively, they may redesign the project to fit the current zoning. There are many options available within the current land use classification and Master Plan to permit a variety of uses. Further, the City and its representatives are under no obligation to assure the profitability of any business, residential rental or otherwise. If the owners of these parcels are unable to secure financing to complete renovations on the existing structures or complete appropriate alternatives under current zoning, they have every right and ability to sell to other entities who can do so. Quite frankly, any claim of economic hardship should apply only to real persons who are owner- occupants in non-commercial settings.” PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 275 February 12, 2020 17 “This proposed amendment is consistent with surrounding zoning. Properties adjacent to and northeast of the Parcels are located in the RMF-35 District. Numerous other properties in the immediately surrounding neighborhood are in the RMF-35 District, or other multi-family zoning districts, like RMF-45 and RMF-30.” My Comments: This is an illogical statement with no basis in rationality. The mere fact of the existence other nearby properties with higher density zoning does not lead to the conclusion that such zoning is also appropriate at the parcels in question. It is a logical fallacy. In fact, the extensive master planning process that led to the 2005 Central Community Master plan rejected this argument when it set the Future Land Use plan to reflect parcel-by-parcel, block by block zoning. Yes, much of it is mixed zoning in this area. Arguably, many parcels remain over-zoned. Over-zoning even more parcels is simply wrong. The parcels in question are designated as low-density housing in the Future Land Use Map and should remain in their current R2 zoning. In my opinion and those of many current residents and property owners, the balance has already been tipped too far to RMF zoning as compared to reality and current uses of the existing buildings on many nearby properties. This leads to a series of negative impacts and undermines affordable housing—especially for prospective owner occupants who are getting regularly outbid by developers and investors for what from visual inspection appear to be single-family homes. Affordability must be considered for homeowners as well as renters. With the population of SLC now tipped to more than 50% renters, city policies are driving people like us out because we could no longer buy back into the city. Over-zoning our historic neighborhoods is a key component of this problem. Just because our neighborhood already has a mix of apartment buildings, it does not follow that additional ones on parcels not zoned for such use is appropriate. Quite the opposite, given that our neighborhood is already the most diverse in terms of zoning. According to census data at the time of the master plan, it is also already the densest. The city should focus development on other priority areas that are properly zoned. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 276 February 12, 2020 18 “A medium-density housing development is compatible with the existing neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood has a variety of land uses, including small, medium, and large apartment buildings.” My Comments: This is untrue. The East Side Historic District is already littered with unfortunate and aesthetically disastrous “medium-density housing development(s)” from the waves of “urban renewal” (i.e. destruction) and infill in the 1960s and 1970s. This resulted in poorly constructed, inefficient buildings, often with blank faces to the street that disrupt the otherwise interesting and pleasing historic forms and fabric of this neighborhood. Please do not make this mistake again. The unfortunate “modernist” mayhem all around us is bad enough. Don’t get me wrong, I have great fondness for certain Modernist buildings, but the current crop is pretty terrible with a few noteworthy exceptions. It is also replacing affordable, older modest homes with very expensive new buildings. But I digress. As stated earlier, just because our neighborhood already has a mix of apartment buildings, it does not follow that additional ones on parcels not zoned for such use is appropriate. As I have noted, at one level, the proposed development design is a distraction and irrelevant to the primary decision. We have unfortunate examples of what can happen, with the two teardowns on Lincoln Street that now serve as excessive, frankly unneeded parking for the commercial buildings on 1000 E, with the loss of 2 housing units that have never been replaced. The adjacent apartment complex to the north is another one. That said, since there is some chatter about the option of tying a development agreement to any approvals (despite the history of failure of this strategy by Salt Lake City), I will address the concept design as submitted by the applicants briefly here. In short, three parallel rectangular boxes running east-west across combined parcels would be a disaster to the streetscape and historic fabric of the blocks of 200 S and Lincoln St. Both have already had some degradation already, including the inappropriate commercial building at 970 E 200 South, the Madrid apartments on 200S, and the apartment building where Lori Hacking was murdered on Lincoln St. They city should do everything possible to prevent further loss of character. Losing 5 contributing structures to teardowns for generic “luxury” apartments betrays Salt Lake City’s commitment to historic preservation and neighborhoods. Further, the pattern language of these two streets is complimentary but different, with larger and more imposing, often 2-story historic residences lining this block of 200 S, while the mid-block street of Lincoln Street is comprised of mostly more modest, Victorian eclectic single story PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 277 February 12, 2020 19 houses that were built as workforce housing and remain that today, even with the egregious run- up in real estate prices in recent years as compared to the stagnation of our incomes. If any teardowns and redevelopment occur on these parcels, they should be single-family or duplexes within the bounds of existing R2 zoning. Appropriate setbacks are needed between the structures to maintain the pattern language of the 200 South block faces from 900 E to 1000 S. Of course, I would personally prefer restoration and preservation of the existing structures. But if one or more are lost, they should be replaced with appropriately designed residences that fit the neighborhood. There are good examples of this at 165 S 1100 E and 1042 E 200 S, among others. One of the more problematic elements of the project concept design is ground-level parking garages with the living units above. As is standard in our historic neighborhoods, private off- street motor vehicle storage—where it exists—is in stand-alone garage structures, some of which are alley-accessed. Incorporating ground level parking is utterly inconsistent with this National Historic District pattern language. Sadly, the city has failed to create form-based design standards for national historic districts which leads to this kind of problem. Also, it is well documented that ground-level parking deadens street life and kills neighborliness. High density housing developments that the City has permitted continue to do this in the TOD corridor and elsewhere, a terrible mistake. To allow this at the 4 properties facing 200 S would add insult to injury. As recommended by the Housing Plan, the proposed development will increase medium density housing stock in an area with existing infrastructure and close proximity to mass transit and services (e.g. medical and commercial services).” My Comments: This statement somewhat repeats and earlier claim, so I repeat my response here. Please see my analysis of the 2018-2023 Growing SLC Housing Plan. In short, the Plan does not call for overturning existing master plans to meet the goals of the Housing Plan. Did the Owner’s Agent and Applicant actually read the Housing Plan? The statement above does not appear as a listed goal or objective of the Housing Plan document. The closest to this might be: “Objective 1.1.2: 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.” [emphasis added]. This is about revising ordinances, not about approving spot rezoning amendments. It also emphasizes preserving existing structures and limiting neighborhood impacts. These amendments would do exactly the opposite if approved. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 278 February 12, 2020 20 The key strategies described in this Objective description is unit legalization. Indeed, one of the properties in question is a legal triplex thanks to an earlier round of legalizations. The proposed RMF30 Zoning Ordinance changes also emphasize preservation of existing residential structures in exchange for more density, not teardowns. Additionally, “existing infrastructure” is a serious issue in this area, with extremely old water, sewer, and stormwater utilities. Storm drains regularly clog and overflow downslope on 200S. This relates to the criteria in 21A.50.050 about adequacy of public facilities. That said, unfortunately, Salt Lake City officials sometimes see these types of proposals as opportunities to transfer costs to developers rather than the appropriate broader city population. Please refrain from that impulse. We voted in favor of a general tax increase for this purpose. In sum, this assertion in the application is not supported by the actual Growing SLC Housing Plan. This assertion is a misrepresentation of the Growing SLC Housing Plan Objectives. Further, as already repeatedly noted, there are various parcels properly zoned for medium density in appropriate locations near transit for the conceptual sketch of the possible new construction multifamily project that these owners say they wish to pursue. Rezoning these parcels is not justified. In addition, Applicant is willing to work with the City to provide one affordable housing unit in the project. My Comments: As noted above, the amendments relate to the underlying parcels themselves and any project concepts are largely irrelevant. Therefore, this offer is a distraction. Worse it is a large net loss of affordable units as previously noted. “For these reasons, Applicant requests that the Parcels be rezoned to the RMF-35 District.” My Comments: Based on the analysis of this application and the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as explained previously, this request is not consistent with these, and does not meet the standards for approval. This is a logical fallacy. The reasons do not support the request, as I have demonstrated. Therefore, the Planning Commission should vote to give a negative recommendation on this request and reject the request for a Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment as proposed. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 279 February 12, 2020 21 “d. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. This Application proposes amending the Zoning Map for Salt Lake County Parcel Nos. 16051350100000; 16051350110000; 16051350120000; 16051350130000;and 16051350140000. Additional information regarding the Parcels may be found in the table, above.” No comment. e. 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. This Application does not request amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance. No comment. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 280 February 12, 2020 NPS Form 10-900 , ^|M° No. 10024-0018 (Oct. 1990) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x1 in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of Property historic name Central City Historic District (Boundary Increase)____________________________ other name/site number Bryant Neighborhood_________________________________________________ 2. Location street& town Roughly bounded by South Temple, 400 South, 700 East and 1100 East city or town Salt Lake City ___ __ D not for publication D vicinity state Utah code UT county Salt Lake code 035 zip code 84102 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this ^ nomination D request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property E3 meets D does not meet the NationaiyRegister criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant D nationally GO staf^wide 13 lp£3jl>-{ Q See continuation sheet for additional comments.) Signature of certifying official/Title Utah Division of State History. Office of Historic Preservation Date £//«/ State or Federal agency and bureau In my opinion, the property D meets D does not meet the National Register criteria. ( Q See continuation sheet for additional comments.) Signature of certifying official/Title Date State or Federal agency and bureau 4. National Park Service Certification I hereby certify that the property is: entered in the National Register. D See continuation sheet. D determined eligible for the National Register D See continuation sheet. D determined not eligible for the National Register. D removed from the National Register. D other, (explain:) _________ PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 281 February 12, 2020 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase Name of Property 5. Classification Ownership of Property (check as many boxes as apply) Category of Property (check only one box) Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County. Utah City, County and State Number of Resources within Property (Do not include previously listed resources in the count.) ^ private D public-local D public-State D public-Federal D building(s) IEI district Qsite D structure D object Contributing 488 488 Noncontributing 176 176 buildings sites structures objects Total Name of related multiple property listing (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing.) Number of contributing resources previously listed in the National Register 6. Function or Use Historic Function (Enter categories from instructions) DOMESTIC: single dwelling DOMESTIC: multiple dwelling COMMERCIAL: business COMMERCIAL: specialty store RELIGION: religious facility EDUCATION: school Current Function (Enter categories from instructions) DOMESTIC: single dwelling____ DOMESTIC: multiple dwelling COMMERCIAL : business COMMERCIAL: specialty store RELIGIONS: religious facility EDUCATION: school HEALTH CARE: clinic, medical business & office SOCIAL: club house 7. Description Architectural Classification (Enter categories from instructions) MID-19 CENTURY LATE VICTORIAN LATE 19 AND 20 CENTURY REVIVALS__________ LATE 19TH AND EARLY 20 CENTURY AMERICAN MOVEMENTS OTHER: World War II and Post-War Era Materials (Enter categories from instructions) foundation walls roof other STONE. CONCRETE BRICK, WOOD, STUCCO, ADOBE VENEER, CONCRETE BLOCK ASPHALT, WOOD Narrative Description (Describe the historic and current condition of the property on one or more continuation sheets.) jSee continuation sheet(s) for Section No. 7 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 282 February 12, 2020 Central City Historic District. Boundary Increases Name of Property Salt Lake City. Salt Lake County. Utah City, County and State DEVELOPMENT 8. Description Applicable National Register Criteria (Mark "x" in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property for National Register listing.) [X] A Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. EH B Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. Kl C Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. D D Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Criteria Considerations (Mark "x" in all the boxes that apply.) Property is: D A owned by a religious institution or used for religious purposes. D B removed from its original location. D C a birthplace or grave. D D a cemetery. D E a reconstructed building, object, or structure. EH F a commemorative property. D G less than 50 years of age or achieved significance within the past 50 years. _____ Narrative Statement of Significance (Explain the significance of the property on one or more continuation sheets.)m 9. Major Bibliographical References Bibliography (Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form on one or more continuation sheets. Areas of Significance (enter categories from instructions) ARCHITECTURE COMMUNITY PLANNING Period of Significance 1870-1946 Significant Dates Significant Persons (Complete if Criterion B is marked above) N/A Cultural Affiliation N/A Architect/Builder Various, mostly unknown continuation sheet(s) for Section No. 8 Previous documentation on file (NPS): D preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67) has been requested D previously listed in the National Register D previously determined eligible by the National Register D designated a National Historic Landmark D recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey # _________________ D recorded by Historic American Engineering Record # ______________ Primary location of additional data: Kl State Historic Preservation Office D Other State agency D Federal agency I3 Local government D University D Other Name of repository: See continuation sheet(s) for Section No. 9 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 283 February 12, 2020 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah______ Name of Property City, County and State 10. Geographical Data Acreage of Property approximately 195 acres____________ UTM References (Place additional boundaries of the property on a continuation sheet.) A1/2 4/2/6/5/6/0 4/5/1/3/2/4/0 B 1/2 4/2/7/2/6/0 4/5/1/3/2/2/0 Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing C1/2 4/2/7/2/6/0 4/5/1/3/0/6/0 D1/2 4/2/7/5/0/0 4/5/1/3/0/4/0 Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing Verbal Boundary Description (Describe the boundaries of the property.) See continuation sheet for boundary description and more UTM references Property Tax No. various Boundary Justification (Explain why the boundaries were selected.) The boundaries enclose the most intact concentration of buildings satisfying the criteria under the areas of significance for the boundary increase and for the existing Central City Historic District. C*]See continuation sheet(s) for Section No. 10 11. Form Prepared By name/title Elizabeth Egleston Giraud, AICP______________________________________________________________ organization Salt Lake City Corporation/Planning Division____________ date March 9, 2001____________ street & number451 S. State, Room 406______________________ telephone 801/535-7128_____ city or town Salt Lake City__________________________ state UT zip code 84109 Additional Documentation Submit the following items with the completed form: Continuation Sheets Maps A USGS map (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location. A Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources. Photographs: Representative black and white photographs of the property. Additional items: (Check with the SHPO or FPO for any additional items) Property Owner name/title ______________________________________________________ street & number_________________________________ telephone____________________ city or town ________________________________ state ___zip code ____ Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain a benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 18.1 hours per response including time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this form to the Chief, Administrative Services Division, National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, DC 20013-7127; and the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reductions Projects (1024-0018), Washington, DC 20503. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 284 February 12, 2020 0MB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section No. 7 Page 1 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County County, UT Narrative Description Introduction The boundary increase to the Central City Historic District encompasses a sixteen-block area directly east of the original district, listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1996. It is referred to in this nomination as the "Bryant neighborhood," in reference to a junior high school that was established in the neighborhood in 1894, although the original building was replaced with another structure in 1980. The boundary increase consists of 661 buildings, 74 percent of which contribute to the character of the historic district. It is a neighborhood that is primarily residential with buildings similar in scale to those found in the Central City Historic District, as well as the University Neighborhood Historic District that borders the boundary increase to the east. The boundary increase forms a transition between the flat topography of Central City and the "benches" that characterize the University neighborhood. The northern and southern boundaries of the increase consist of the South Temple Historic District, associated with a tree-lined street of mixed land uses known for its historic mansions, and 400 South, a commercial strip of non-contributing buildings, respectively. South of 400 South is a neighborhood similar to Bryant, locally referred to as "Bennion/Douglas," that is also planned for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places as a second boundary increase to the Central City Historic District in 2001. Many elements of the street pattern, architecture, and landscaping features in the boundary increase are a continuation of those found in Central City. These elements include ten-acre blocks, an eclectic range of styles, and a grass median strip, referred to locally as a "parking," in the middle of 800 East and 200 South. As in Central City, the boundary increase has suffered numerous intrusions. These differ from the original district in that they are multiple-unit residential properties and institutional uses, such as a large medical clinic and professional offices, as opposed to the retail commercial development found in Central City. For the most part, however, they affect the edges of the boundary increase, leaving the rest of the neighborhood largely intact so that it reflects its association with the growth and development of Salt Lake City. Streetscapes and Landscapes Streetscapes throughout the boundary increase are dominated by the wide, numbered streets (100 South, 200 South, etc.) and ten-acre blocks characteristic of the early platted areas of Salt Lake City. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, as development pressures increased, many of the large blocks were divided by narrow streets into courts that accommodated homes on lots that were much smaller than those seen on the numbered streets. With the exception of some of the small, inner-block courts, the streets have curb and gutter, and the numbered streets have "parking strips:" landscaped areas between the sidewalk and the street. These parking strips, coupled with lawns and mature trees, provide a pleasant sense of greenery that provides relief from the boundary increase's proximity to the downtown commercial core. The boundary increase also contains a "parking," or grass median, on 800 East, similar to the parking on 600 East in Central City. In an effort to beautify the city, parkings were also established on South Temple, 700 East, 1000, 1200 East and 200 South in the first decade of the twentieth century. Today, only those on 600 East, 800 East, 1200 East and 200 South remain. Because the boundary increase is bordered on the north, south and west by wide, arterial streets, these edges have suffered the most intrusion by visually incompatible commercial and residential uses. Few extant, PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 285 February 12, 2020 OMB No. 1024-0018. NPS Form United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section No. 7 Page 2 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County County, UT contributing buildings remain on these perimeters. The western boundary, 700 East, is a six-lane vehicular corridor that was widened in 1958. The northern boundary, South Temple, is also a heavily trafficked street; it separates the boundary increase from the Avenues Historic District, characterized by its steep grade and two- and-a-half acres lots. The southern boundary consists of 400 South, which begins to curve steeply south at 1000 East to become 500 South. Created in 1936, this curve undercuts a geologic feature, the "East Bench Fault," that causes the topography of the southeast corner of the boundary increase to be very steeply pitched. Commercial uses, including family-style restaurants and hotels, dominate this thoroughfare, which is currently under construction for a light-rail line. The eastern boundary is the most intact and forms the smoothest transition to an adjoining neighborhood: the University Neighborhood Historic District. Overall, one- and two-story homes with similar setbacks and side yards form the streetscape, and provide a uniform relationship to the street. Landscaping consists of mature, deciduous trees and lawns and shrubs in front of the homes. Most front yards are not fenced, but those that are fenced by compatible materials and appear very old: wood pickets or wrought iron. The few commercial retail buildings in the increase are generally early, neighborhood grocery stores and recently constructed convenience stores. It is the medical offices and clinics, as well as the out-of-period multi-family dwellings, which most visually mar the overall integrity of the district. Architectural Styles and Types by Period Single-Family Dwellings: Initial Settlement. 1847 to 1869 Like Central City, most of the buildings in the Bryant neighborhood were constructed as single-family, residential dwellings and present a similar range of styles, types and materials. Few buildings remain from the earliest period of settlement in the boundary increase; those that do exhibit classical details, such as wide frieze boards and cornice returns, and are of masonry construction with a stucco finish. The hall/parlor plan, associated with early vernacular architecture in Utah, is most apparent in one of the earliest homes, the Francis Hughes house at 856 E. 200 S., constructed about 1868 [photograph 1]. This plan, however, lingered for several more decades, long after most of the other residences in the neighborhood were constructed in styles contemporary to the period and used nationally. For example, the hall/parlor plan was used as late as 1900 in the neighborhood at 824 Menlo Avenue, although this example has undergone many alterations [photograph 2]. Single-Family Dwellings: Transition. 1870 to 1900 Other plans associated with early architecture in Salt Lake City, such as the central passage and the cross- wing plan, are found in the Bryant neighborhood and were constructed during this period. The George Baddley house at 974 East 300 South is the only example of the central-passage plan in the boundary increase and was constructed in 1870 of plastered adobe [photograph 3]. Baddley was a potter, a distiller, and a member of the 1861 group called by Brigham Young to settle Utah's "Dixie," the southwestern corner of the state. His two wives, Eliza and Charlotte, inherited this property upon his death in 1875, but Charlotte soon moved to another house nearby and his surrounding land was divided into an interior court street, "Baddley Place," presumably to provide lots for other family members The cross-wing plan replaced the hall-parlor as the most common Utah house type after 1880; forty-one examples exist in the Bryant neighborhood. The Thomas and Mary James house at 335 S. 700 East was PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 286 February 12, 2020 OMB No. 1024-0018, NPS Form United States Department of the interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section No. 7 Page 3 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County County, UT constructed in the late 1880's; the reasons for the popularity of this style described by local architectural historians are evident in the home: The cross wing represented a departure, but not a radical departure, from the older Classical tradition, and its obvious similarity to the already established temple-form type made the transition all the more palatable.1 The original hall/parlor form of the house was constructed of adobe and stucco with little ornamentation, with the exception of the attempt to portray the wall surface as stone by scribing the surface [photographs 4-5]. The Late Victorian-style cross-wing was added about 1890, as was the covered front porch, which is embellished with turned columns and a pediment. The one-over-one, double-hung windows with segmental brick arches are additional characteristics of this late nineteenth-century building form. Other outstanding examples of the cross-wing form include the Ebenezer and Esther Miller house at 1017 E. 300 South, built about 1890, and the Jane Chander house at 315 S. 700 E., constructed about 1888 [photographs 6-7]. Hall-parlor, central passage, and cross-wing plans are generally associated with vernacular building traditions in Utah, but "high-style" examples were also constructed during this period. One of the most significant homes in the boundary increase dating from this time is the Frederick Meyer house, located at 929 E. 200 South [photograph 8]. Listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1982 and recorded by the Historic American Building Survey in 1968, it is noted as the best example of one of three major house types used to express the Italianate style in Utah: the two-story box type, as distinguished from the two-story side passageway box and the one-story cottage. The house was built in two phases: a two-story main rectangular block with a one-and-a-half story side wing (1873) and a two-story extension that spans the rear of the house (c. 1898). The fact that the first section was constructed only three years after the comparatively vernacular Baddley house indicates that the architectural development of the neighborhood during the period of significance followed very different trajectories. Other "high-style" residences in the boundary increase that date from this period include a less ornate Italianate example, the Hyrum and Ann Reeve house at 718 E. 300 S., and both imposing and modest variants of the Queen Anne style [photograph 9]. The James Freeze house at 734 E. 200 South was constructed in 1892, and displays the complex roof form, irregular massing, and exuberant use of materials associated with this style [photograph 10]. This home also illustrates the late Victorian tendency to incorporate elements of other styles: in this case, the Eastlake, as seen in the turned columns, delicate scroll-cut brackets and porch trim, and the wooden balustrade with a decorative paneled base. James Freeze, a polygamist with four wives who all lived in separate homes nearby, was a successful merchant of retail goods. He sold the house in 1901 to Dutch immigrants Wilhelmus and Frances DeGroot. Members of the DeGroot family lived in the home until 1997, when it was sold to an owner who intends to convert it into a reception center. Single-family Dwellings. Mature Community: 1900-1925 More buildings are extant from this period than any other in the district (39 percent), and of this stock most were single-family dwellings. A handful of small residences exhibiting vernacular plans, such as shot-gun, hall- parlor and the previously described cross-wing previously described were built during the earliest years of this period. For the most part, however, residential architecture from this period exhibits the range of styles that Thomas Carter and Peter Goss, Utah's Historic Architecture. 1847-1940. Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press, 1988, p. 37. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 287 February 12, 2020 0MB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section No. 7 Page 4 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County County, UT could be seen in almost every early twentieth-century neighborhood: Victorian Eclectic, Prairie, classical or colonial revivals, and after 1910, the bungalow. The largest homes in these styles are found on the numbered streets, while smaller versions can be found on the inner-block streets. Tracts of two or three identical homes are more commonly found on the inner-block streets, but are rare on the numbered streets. As in other communities in Salt Lake City, the predominant material was brick, although wood clapboard and novelty siding were also used. Wood details, such as gable-end shingles and for porch details, were frequently incorporated into the overall design. Many of the foundations are sandstone, cut with a rusticated face. The most common style from this period is the "Victorian Eclectic," a term coined in Utah that usually describes a massing of a central block with projecting wings, classical porch details, and one-over-over windows with segmental brick lintels or wide, single-light windows with a transom and other Victorian details. Most are one- or one-and-a-half stories, such as the Charles and Clara Nelson house at 334 S. 900 E., circa 1910, but two- story examples can also be found, such as the Maurice and Effie Kaighn house at 120 S. 1000 E., constructed almost a decade earlier [photographs 11-12]. Although constructed in the same style and plan, they have markedly different appearances. The extra height of the Kaighn house causes it to appear as a hipped roof structure, and the gable end of the projecting block is not as prominent. Also, the porch of the Kaighn house is characterized by a wide fascia and a shallow-pitch roof, as opposed to the dominant pediment of the porch of the Nelson house. The boundary increase also contains about twenty-four foursquare residences. The earliest examples (1892 to 1895) are one-story and have little embellishment. Several are located on inner block streets, such as Bueno, Linden and Menlo avenues. With one exception, those built after 1900 are two-story and are brick. Many have classical details, primarily seen in fascias and on porches; others have Craftsman elements and a few are heavily Neo-Classical. The Ernest Thompson house, constructed in 1902 at 955 E. 100 South and designed by architect Walter Ware, derives its Craftsman motif from the exposed brackets, the multiple-panes in the windows and the rectangular bay window in the second story [photograph 13]. Neo-classical Revival foursquare examples represent some of the most impressive homes in the district. These include the George Mateer house at 250 S. 1000 East, the George Roper house at 805 E. 300 South and the David Spitz house at 1073 E. 200 South [photographs 14-16]. The Mateer and the Roper residences were both constructed in 1909 and were designed by architect Bernard Mecklenberg. Essentially their form consists of two-and-a-half story boxes, but only the Roper residence is readily identifiable as a foursquare. The Mateer house, with its round-corner bay and wrap-around porch, and the Spitz house, with its two-story, pedimented porch, command more attention. All fall into the Neo-classical rubric through the use of modillions, dentil courses, and classically-detailed column, yet all are basic four-square forms under the ornamentation.2 Although not represented in numbers as great as the Victorian Eclectic or the foursquare, other early twentieth- century styles seen in the boundary increase supplement the diversity of architecture associated with the neighborhood's development. Arts and Crafts examples, both in Craftsman and Prairie School variants, can be found. Two examples include the John and Mary Ellen Birch house at 336 S. 1100 East, and Samuel 2 Mecklenberg also designed another house in the boundary addition: the Hyrum Newton house at 322 S. 1000 East (1910), but this is a simpler, late- Victorian example. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 288 February 12, 2020 0MB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section No. 7 Page 5 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County County, UT Sherrill house at 975 E. 100 South, designed by the architectural firm of Ware and Treganza [photographs 17- 18]. Both were constructed in 1908. The Birch house is a combination of gabled forms with wide eaves and knee brackets; the use of thickly cut wood clapboard and its low profile are in keeping with the Arts and Crafts ideal of unifying the house to the site and incorporating natural features into the design. The Sherrill residence is the only Prairie School example in the boundary increase. Sherrill was a building contractor and vice- president of Liberty Fuel, a successful coal mining company located at Liberty, Utah. While the architecture of the boundary increase is characterized by diversity, more homes (one-hundred-and- one) in the neighborhood can be classified as "bungalow" than any other type [photograph 19]. Almost all were constructed of brick, although many used brick as a wainscoting with stucco above, and almost all are one- or one-and-a-half stories [photographs 20-21]. In the Bryant neighborhood, as in other older neighborhoods in Salt Lake City, they tend to show a Prairie School influence, typified by large, plate-glass windows; broad eaves; and long, wide concrete lintels and sills. Shallow-pitched, hip roofs are ubiquitous for this style, but their profiles vary through the use of clipped gables or front-facing gables [photograph 22]. Porch columns generally consist of plain, brick supports or battered piers. A few side-gabled bungalows, such as the Viggo Madsen house at 57 S. 800 East, also can be found, but this roof form is atypical for the bungalow in this neighborhood. Single-family residences: Depression and Decline: 1925 to 1955 Bungalows in the boundary increase were constructed as early as 1906, but most of the construction dates of this type are clustered from 1910 to 1925. As their popularity waned, the bungalow was replaced by the period cottage. These were constructed of brick, generally have cross-gabled rooflines with steep pitches, and often have round-arched entryways that are exaggerated with extremely narrow, steeply pitched roofs. A few are embellished with stucco wall surfaces on entryways or gable ends and with false half-timbering. Most were constructed during a short period: 1925 to 1930, but a few were built as late as 1938. After the Depression and World War II, few single-family homes in the boundary increase were constructed. Inner-city neighborhoods like those in Central City could not compete with new suburban development. Additionally, few in-fill lots were available, and because of post-war zoning changes it was more profitable to demolish single- family structures and construct apartment buildings. Multiple-family Dwellings: Duplexes and Apartment Buildings Twenty-three duplexes were constructed during the historic period and represent four different styles. Most numerous are those constructed during the first decade of the twentieth century. These are characterized by flat roofs with heavy brick corbelling and are either one- or two-stories [photograph 23]. Their fenestration pattern consists of single-light windows with a fixed transom in the street facade, and one-over-one windows, either with segmental brick arches or wide stone lintels for secondary elevations. Most have some semblance of a porch: often this is only a landing with a minimal roof covering, although a few have porches with classical details that extend the full-length of the building. Linden Avenue and Reeves Court exhibit an exceptionally fine assembly of this type and style of duplex [photographs 24-25]. Other duplex examples include six Victorian Eclectic-style dwellings, with steeply-pitched front gables, two Tudor Revivals, and one Minimal Traditional style residence at 944-46 E. 300 S., constructed about 1940 [photograph 26-27]. The boundary increase contains 62 apartment buildings comprising 10 percent of the building stock. These buildings range in number of units from as few as four units to 114. The majority of the apartment buildings in the boundary increase were constructed after World War II, but 14 were constructed during the city's initial PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 289 February 12, 2020 OMB No. 1024-0018, NPS Form United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section No. 7 Page 6 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County County, UT apartment construction boom, lasting from 1901 to 1930. These multi-story apartment houses were a new building form for Salt Lake City and indicated the rapid urbanization the city was experiencing at the beginning of the twentieth century. This option attracted middle and upper class dwellers who were in transitional phases of their lives: unmarried young adults, newly-married or childless couples and widows, widowers and retirees. These apartment buildings were three to four stories high, were of brick construction, and relied on a variety of stylistic references, usually either Classical Revival or Tudor Revival, for differentiation. Two different types prevailed: the walk-up, in which each unit extended the full-length of the building, and the double-loaded corridor, in which a number of units opened off of a central hallway on each floor [photographs 28-29]. The walk-up was constructed before 1918, and the double-loaded corridor is associated with post-World War I development. In the boundary increase, there are seven of both types. Apartment buildings constructed after World War II generally had a small number of units (between four and eight) with interior stairwells [photograph 30]. Because the circulation system was hidden from view, and because of the low number of units, they could be made to resemble other single-family, "minimal traditional" homes of this period, in that they had hipped roofs, were constructed of brick, and had similar fenestration patterns and materials: steel sash with a large, fixed window flanked by narrow casements divided into four lights. Often they were elevated on a high foundation in order to make the most of basement units. This type persisted through the 1950's. Beginning in the early 1960s, another prototype was developed and proliferated throughout the boundary increase: the "box-car" apartment building. The original ten-acre blocks made for deep lots, and in order for developers to maximize their investment they re-oriented apartment buildings to the side, so that the street fagade was either a blank wall or had only minimal window openings for the end units. At least one, the New Broadmoor Apartments at 938 E. 300 South, has a decorative, screen- wall of concrete block on the street fagade [photograph 31]. These boxcar apartments ranged between 10 to 40 units and were two or three stories. Each apartment opened to a covered concrete slab shared by all the units on that floor. The roofs were flat or had a very shallow gabled pitch. Overall, they resembled California motels of the 1960s. Although the boxcar apartments had a deleterious effect on the streetscape, they were not as incongruous with the neighborhood's historic architectural pattern as the high-rise buildings that were erected in the late 1960s. These include the Sunset Towers, with 15 stories and 114 units at 40 S. 900 East, and the Stansbury, at 710 E. 200 South, with 76 units. Increasingly dense multi-family construction continued into the 1970s, but during this decade multi-family development took on a different form of being lower in height with a garden-style layout [photographs 32-34]. They were often constructed of brick and had a vertical orientation, achieved for the most part by using long, sliding windows placed in a recessed, vertical band of a contrasting wall material such as T-111 siding. Out of 15 that were constructed during the 1970s, only three were less than 10 units; the remaining averaged 30 units. By the mid-1980s, Salt Lake City was in the midst of an economic downturn and real estate slump, and there was little new construction in Central City during this time. Neighborhood residents' dissatisfaction with past planning decisions and development, coupled with an interest in living downtown and in historic preservation, led to zoning changes in 1985 and in 1995, when the city zoning code was re-written. These changes were enacted to protect the existing lower-density development. Commercial The few commercial buildings date from the historic period were used as neighborhood stores, and are still used for retail purposes [photograph 55]. In two instances, stores were connected to existing homes. These PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 290 February 12, 2020 OMB No. 1024-0018, NPS Form United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section No. 7 Page 7 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County County, UT prototypes exist at 908 and 916 E. 300 South, and at 818 and 816 E. 100 South [photograph 35]. The residential portions of these structures were constructed about 1895, and the commercial buildings were attached about ten years later. The majority of the commercial structures in the boundary increase are affiliated with the medical profession, due to the proximity of Salt Lake Regional Medical Center, formerly known as Holy Cross Hospital, located at 1050 E. South Temple (but not included in this nomination because almost all of the buildings are out of the historic period), and the Salt Lake Clinic, located at 333 S. 900 E. Additionally, the neighborhood is only a couple of miles away from three other hospitals. The medical buildings include offices, clinics, and rehabilitation centers [photograph 36]. Institutional There are three churches in the boundary increase: the Eleventh Ward, a neighborhood branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (951 E. 100 South), Mt. Tabor Lutheran Church (189 S. 700 East), and St. Paul's Episcopal Church (261 S. 900 East) [photograph 37]. Constructed in 1927, St. Paul's is the only contributing ecclesiastical structure in the boundary increase. It consists of a small campus and includes a Gothic Revival chapel and parsonage, both built in 1927 but designed by different architectural firms. Pope and Burton, well-known for their Prairie School domestic and religious designs, designed the chapel, and Ware and Treganza, designed the parsonage connected to the chapel. Outbuildings Outbuildings in the boundary increase consist primarily of single- and multi-car garages of frame construction [photograph 56, 57]. These are accessed from streets or alleys, and are placed behind residential structures at the rear of the lots. Carports generally accommodate the numerous apartment buildings, while the offices have surface parking lots. At this writing, none of the garages could be considered individually significant. Summary The architecture, landscape features and overall streetscapes are a continuation of those found in the original Central City Historic District, and are representative of the physical development of many decades of Salt Lake City's development, from the 1860s to 1950. Although there have been intrusions, overall the integrity of the neighborhood is high, and the trend toward commercial or large-scale multi-family development has slowed considerably during the last ten years. Almost all of the buildings are residential and were constructed as single-family dwellings; they retain their original scale, massing and materials and alterations that have marred their integrity could be reversed. The majority was built from 1870 to 1920, and portrays the multitude of architectural styles that proliferated in the United States during that time. The architecture and layout of the boundary increase reinforces its association with Salt Lake City's emergence as a city of regional importance at the beginning of the twentieth century. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 291 February 12, 2020 OMB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section No. 7 Page 8 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County County, UT Summary Statistics (Based on a February 2001 update of the 1995 reconnaissance level survey) Evaluation/Status (661 total Primary) (188 total Outbuildings) (849 total both) Construction Dates (contributing buildings only) Original Use (contributing buildings only) Architectural Styles* (contributing buildings only) Architectural Types (contributing buildings only) Contributing 74% (488 total) 61% (114 total) 71% (602 total) 1860S-1870S 1880s Non-contributing 26% (173 total: 91 altered; 82 out-of-period) 39% (74 total) 29% (247 total) 1890s 1900s 1% 3% 1910s 1920s 14% 17% Single Dwellings 18% 36% 1930s 1940S-1950 4% 7% Apartment Buildings 80%18% Commercial. Public & Religious Buildings 2% Classical Picturesoue Victorian 5% 2% Period Revival 18% Settlement-Era 2% Period Revival 5% Apart/Hotel 10% Adobe Stone 45% World War II Era 4% Victorian Bungalow 40% 22% WW Il/Earlv Ranch 1% Commercial/Public 2% Stucco/Plaster .5% 1% 15% Brick Striated Brick Concrete 67% 11%1% Bunoalow/Earlv 20 th Cent. 30% Modern Other 1% 10% Four sguare 6% Double House 7% Other 5% Wood 36% Veneer 5.5% Construction Materials* (contributing buildings only) Total exceeds 100 percent due to the number of buildings constructed in more than one style and with more than one material. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 292 February 12, 2020 0MB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section No. 8 Page 1 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT Narrative Statement of Significance The Central City Historic District Boundary Increase is significant under criteria A and C. Under criterion A it is significant for its association with the transformation of Salt Lake City from an isolated, agriculturally based community to an industrial and commercial center of regional importance. It is presented as a boundary increase to the Central City Historic District because it represents a continuation of the pattern of land use and architectural development seen within the original boundaries of the district. While this district retains the large, ten-acre blocks and wide streets that characterized the earliest planning efforts of the Mormon pioneers who settled the Salt Lake Valley, it also exhibits the inner-block development and infill associated with the city's urbanization that roughly occurred from 1880 to 1910. This urbanization resulted from a greatly expanded economy, made possible primarily because of rail access to national markets and politics. Under criterion C the district is significant for the diversity and integrity of the representative architectural types and styles. The architecture of the rapidly growing city began to reflect new prosperity and an awareness of popular styles, representing a shift from early vernacular versions of the classical revival styles that the settlers knew from the communities they left behind. As in the existing Central City Historic District, the boundary increase neighborhood thus derives its greatest significance as an illustration of the progression from an insular, communal society to a politically and economically mainstreamed American city. Initial Settlement: 1847 to 1869 The sixteen blocks included in the boundary increase encompass the northeastern corner of Central City and is part of a larger area, referred to by the same name, that is associated with the original plan of Salt Lake. Modeled loosely on L.D.S. Church founder Joseph Smith's "Plat of the City of Zion," Salt Lake City was divided into a grid pattern of ten-acre blocks, with a block in the center reserved for the temple and wide streets of 132 feet. The blocks were divided into 8 lots of 1.25 acres each, enough to accommodate a family and the agricultural needs of everyday living, such as a vegetable garden, fruit trees and a few livestock and chickens. This system was designed to establish an efficient use of land and prevent social isolation. In February 1849, the city was divided into nineteen wards, the smallest ecclesiastical unit of the L.D.S. Church. Each ward contained nine blocks, and represented not only an ecclesiastical grouping but also served social and political purposes. A bishop presided over each ward and was responsible for both the religious and secular administration of matters in their districts. The Bryant neighborhood contains portions of the historic boundaries of the Eleventh and Tenth wards.1 Shortly after their arrival in the Salt Lake valley in 1847, Mormon leaders planned to erect an eight foot high adobe wall from the Jordan River east along Ninth South Street, to about 950 East, north to approximately Fifth Avenue and westward to the river. Beyond the wall to the south was the "Big Field," an area laid out in parcels 1 The historic area of the Eleventh ward included the blocks bounded by 600 East, 900 East, South Temple to 300 South. The Tenth ward included the blocks bordered by 600 East, 900 East, 300 South and 600 South streets. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 293 February 12, 2020 0MB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section No. 8 Page 2 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT of five acres "to accommodate the mechanics and artisans."2 Much of the land within the wall was intended to be used for cropland, as the village settlement extended eastward only to 300 East. The wall was never finished as planned, but a fence of poles and adobe enclosed the entire area in the late 1850s and protected the land best suited and most convenient for crops. It also left the city with a physical demarcation between the initial layout of ten-acre blocks north of 900 South and the smaller blocks and streets associated with turn- of-the-century subdivisions in what had been the Big Field south of 900 South. Commercial and residential activity revolved around the Temple core, yet despite the intentions of Mormon leaders to concentrate settlement close to the center of the city it did not take more than a few years for residents to move east. Some families moved beyond the eastern boundary of the city wall (at about 950 East), and by 1860 scattered homes could be found as far as Thirteenth East. An 1870 bird's eye view map shows an even pattern of development for almost all of the early platted areas, including the blocks from 700 to 1000 East that are included in the boundary increase. The earliest residents in the Bryant neighborhood were, of course, Mormon immigrants, many of whom were born in the British Isles and immigrated to the United States upon converting to the L.D.S. Church. As in Central City, these residents were working-class families - painters, carpenters, and laborers. Extant homes associated with these early occupants include 856 E. 200 South, constructed for Francis Hughes, a painter; 234 S, 900 E., constructed for William Child, an upholsterer and his wife Agnes; and 847 E. 300 S., constructed for William Hawkes, a butcher, and his wife Ada [photographs 1, 38-40]. The fact that these homes are among the earliest in the boundary increase is reflected in the massing and floor plan associated with the pre-railroad era of the city's history. Both the Hughes and the Child residences are hall-parlor in plan, are one-story in height and have side-gabled rooflines. They also have the heavy fascias and cornice returns that are reminiscent of the classical styles favored by early Mormon settlers. The Hawkes home is a cross- wing plan with a roofline that is more complex than that of the hall-parlor plan, and represented a later, but still early, phase of architectural development in the boundary increase. Transition: 1870 to 1900 Brigham Young's ideal of maintaining Salt Lake City as an isolated, religious Utopia was sharply curtailed by the events of the 1870s. The coming of the transcontinental railroad in Utah in 1869, the development of mining in the state and the subsequent influx of "Gentiles" (non-Mormons) transformed the city into a commercial center with a rapidly growing population. No longer would Salt Lake residents be dependent on an agrarian way of life; the expanding economy provided them with opportunity for employment downtown and in the rail yards (west of the commercial core). In response to increasingly concentrated places of employment, Salt Lake's mass transit system advanced from mule-drawn street cars in the central business district in the early 1870's to an extensive network that transported passengers throughout the valley by 1890. Because Central City was especially well-served by the streetcar system, residents could easily travel from their homes to jobs and businesses not only in the commercial and industrial sections of town, but also to new commercial centers and neighborhoods in the south part of city. By 1891, eight routes extended eastward from Main 2 A/P Associates Planning and Research, Salt Lake City Architectural/Historical Survey: Central/Southern Survey Area, prepared for the Salt Lake City Planning Division, 1983, p. 21. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 294 February 12, 2020 0MB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section No. 8 Page 3 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT Street to 700 East. Of these eight, one route went as far as 1300 East along 100 South, one extended to 1000 East along 200 South and another traversed 400 South to University Street, curving around the bench at 1000 East. All three lines tied into the Salt Lake and Fort Douglas Railroad that could transport passengers past 2100 South.3 This availability of public transit dramatically changed land-use patterns and introduced new building types. Since residential expansion was dependent on and followed the development of public transportation systems, it resulted not only in new subdivisions in the Big Field, but created much denser development in the older Central City neighborhoods. The large lots had become obsolete because their purpose as gardens and keeping livestock had largely ceased. Early pioneer families divided up their original lots and gave or sold them to family members, and developers purchased lots and subdivided them. Narrow, interior streets divided the ten-acre blocks, small parcels carved up the large lots, and lawns and shade trees replaced gardens and orchards. By 1898, the earliest year that Sanborn maps portray the Bryant neighborhood, ten interior courts were established. This does not count the numerous private alleys that also accommodated separate parcels and homes. Most of this inner-block development was completed by 1911, however, such development also occurred in the 1920's and after World War II on one street, Barbara Place, at the southeastern corner of the boundary add ition [photograph 19]. The increase in the density of the land-use pattern was first manifested in interior-block courts and later in multi-story apartment buildings that accommodated a diverse population. Inner-block courts Dooley Court, a quiet cul-de-sac that runs north from 200 South at 825 East, is illustrative of both the physical layout of these narrow, inner-block streets and of the economically disparate population that characterized Central City [photograph 41]. It consisted of twenty-two houses (twenty-one are extant) that were constructed in two phases. Originally called "Wellington Court," it was instigated by James Harvey in 1894. He constructed fourteen cottages in 1894 that faced each other along the center of the street. Four years later he built four two-story homes along 200 South Street, an asymmetrical cottage at the head of the cul-de-sac and two additional cottages [photograph 42]. The name of the street was presumably changed when a mining investor, William J. Dooley, purchased the property in 1903.4 The remaining structures were built the following year. Census data from 1910 and 1920 indicate that professionals and managers lived in the more imposing two- story houses on 200 South, while single-story cottages on Dooley Court housed railroad workers, salesmen and clerks. The early tenants were highly migratory, and with one exception, none of the renters stayed in the cottages more than five years. These census records also indicate that all the Dooley Court residents during this period were white, were born in the United States and were first generation children of immigrants from Canada, Sweden, Holland and the British Isles. They were almost all married couples with children. Sixty percent of the residents in 1910 were children under 14; in 1920, this had increased to 78 percent. Once the homes began to become privately owned in 1939, the residents became much less mobile.5 3 APA, p. 63 4 Mary Troutman, Wellington/Dooley Court: A Practical Alternative to the American Dream, research paper, 1994, p. 5. 5 Troutman, Wellington/Dooley Court p. 8. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 295 February 12, 2020 0MB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section No. 8 Page 4 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT The scale of the homes on Dooley Court is typical of the majority of dwellings found on the interior streets: they are small, one-story structures that range from 600 to 1,000 square feet with four or five rooms. The Dooley Court homes were built on sandstone foundations, with hipped roofs and hipped front bays. Original decorative elements were minimal, consisting of the front bays, segmented arched windows, and transoms above the front doors. Although these homes had front porches, they were very plain [photograph 43]. The four eight-room homes on 200 South, however, were much more elaborate and spacious. They are two stories, and are distinguished by decorative dogtooth brick courses, and distinctive porches with turned columns, square balustrades and intricate molding on the porch frieze. They are approximately 2,000 square feet. Dooley Court offered a practical housing alternative to families who wanted to live in single-family residences but lacked the financial resources or stability needed to purchase their own homes. Housing options like those provided on Dooley Court offered pleasant cottages with modern amenities, lawns, porches and tree-lined play areas for children to migratory residents who sought living quarters that provided for easy relocation.6 Commercial Development With the exception of the medically related development that occurred beginning in the 1960's, almost all of commercial enterprises in the boundary increase were established during this thirty-year period. The 1898 Sanborn map indicates small businesses, including a handful of corner, neighborhood grocery stores, the N.R. Sen/is Candy Factory at approximately 850 E. 100 South, and the Standard Steam and Hand Laundry Co. at 145 S. Dunbar Avenue (now Lincoln Street). Larger concerns included nurseries, such as the Valley Home Greenhouse on Floral Lane (now Linden Avenue, between 1000 and 1100 East streets) and Eastern Nurseries at approximately 840 E. 300 South, owned by Edward Laker. The florists and nurserymen are not listed in city directories after 1898, and the laundry and candy factory do not appear on the 1911 Sanborn map. The most imposing commercial enterprise was the Salt Lake Brewery, established in 1871 at 1000 East and 400 South. The location for the brewery was chosen because of a natural mineral water spring found on the site. By 1911, the site included four large, Romanesque structures designed by Richard Kletting, the architect of the Utah State Capitol and was one of the three largest breweries in the state, employing three-hundred men. Prohibition was the death knell for the brewery, and although there were efforts to revive the company as the Cullen Ice and Beverage Company, this endeavor was not as profitable as the brewery, and the buildings fell into decline. The brewery's office and bottling works, located across the street (and out of this boundary increase) at 462 S. 1000 East remain, but the original site was redeveloped as the City View Apartments [photographs 48-49] after World War II.7 Extant commercial structures in the boundary district that date from the historic period consist of small, retail establishments, such as the Bryant Grocery at 702 E. 100 South, adaptively re-used as a ski store, and the Cyrus Foote Commercial building at 942-944 E. 200 South, which was constructed about 1920, and is currently a grocery store [photograph 55]. 6 Ibid, p. 6. ^ Mary Troutman, Salt Lake City Brewing Company (Office and Bottling Works), Designation Form for listing on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 296 February 12, 2020 OMB No. 1024-0018, NPS Form United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section No. 8 Page 5 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT Account of Thomas Child The reminiscences of long-time Central City resident, Thomas Battersby Child, (1888 - 1963) provides an understanding of the transition the neighborhood east of 700 East underwent during this period. Child was born in 1888 at 145 S. 700 East, in a home constructed for his great-grandmother in 1855. In 1911, he moved with his wife to a house a few blocks to the south, 452 S. 800 East, where he resided until his death in 1963. He lived amidst generations of a large immediate and extended family, and describes in detail the homes and activities of numerous neighbors. His descriptions of his family's use of their property on 700 East and of changes that occurred both architecturally and horticulturally provide a compelling look at the appearance of the neighborhood and the interactions of its residents. Child describes the progression of his family's building efforts. After living in the 1855 house for a few years, the house was sold "during the boom of the early 1890's for a good price...." His parents built a home for their family at the east end of the same lot, at the center of the block, anticipating the creation of an interior block street that failed to materialize. He states:" My father and mother thought a street would be cut north and south through the block which never worked out, much to their chagrin and embarrassment. The only entrance to the property was a driveway between the old Harrocks home and Grandpa Livingston's." Child was born just before the Salt Lake and Jordan Canal, the main source of culinary and irrigation water in the city, was submerged. In the Bryant neighborhood it ran from 400 South to 300 South between 1000 East and 900 East streets, and as boy the canal was a source of income, as he caught frogs to sell for frog legs. In his neighborhood, the canal was probably covered sometime in the mid-1890s, and he writes, "The city canal was finally all covered over... It is a great change, probably the greatest in the landscape of our neighborhood." Despite the modification in the area's appearance due to work on the canal, it is Child's accounts of the landscaping in the area that are particularly detailed. They reveal the transition that the neighborhood underwent from an agrarian landscape of irrigation ditches and stands of Lombardy Poplars, to one of streetcars and apartment buildings. He writes of his parents' home: Our yard, as was [sic] all the yards at that time, was orchards and gardens. How vividly I remember the old coal shed on the alley, sturdily built with the studs on the outside and my pigeon coop on the one end, with the Red Astrican apple tree and swing right next.7 Two beautiful evergreen trees of different variety were in the front yard with a latticework fence or grill running south from a south porch... and to a driveway going to the barn. The driveway to the barn was bordered with a row of Lombardy poplar trees, as was the front yard boundary next to the sidewalk on 700 East. The sidewalks in those days were dirt and had Locust trees planted along the irrigation ditch between the sidewalk and wagon road. The front and south side was lawn with a garden of choice perennial flowers, rose bushes and shrubs growing next to the lattice fence. Several times Child refers to his and his friends' use of the large fields near his home: "In front of our home was a big field which was used as playground by all boys of the ward...In fact, it was the trail from the school 7 Child, p. 2. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 297 February 12, 2020 0MB No. 1024-0018, NPS Form United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section No. 8 Page 6 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT and developed into a nuisance."8 Assuming that this describes the area about 1900, development had not encroached into the middle of the block, and although his home was less than a mile from Main Street, his immediate environment retained some of its early, rural appearance. The recollections Child provides, however, of his neighbors' homes, indicates that not only was the periphery of his and nearby blocks filling in with new homes, but that they were often occupied by non-Mormons. He refers frequently to friends who are non-Mormon, such as Julius Rosenblatt, the son of mining magnate Simon Rosenblatt, and Harry and Duncan Beveridge, whose father was a mining engineer. He also discusses the economic disparity that existed among the Mormon families in the area. His own parents suffered financial constraints, as indicated by his statement that "our home was never really finished until I was a boy of 17 or 18 years of age and could help my folks financially."9 Yet at a young age he perceived the affluence of fellow church member and polygamist James Perry Freeze, who supported four wives who lived on the corners of 700 East and 200 South: "Contrasting this [the economic situation of his aunts and parents], I have observed Brother James P. Freeze with a big fine house for each of his three wives operating two successful stores and a farm [photograph 10]."10 And his long description of his father's association with Francis Armstrong, a very successful businessman with a Queen Anne-style mansion at the corner of 700 East and 100 South, reveals his pride that his father, although poor, was accepted by this wealthy family. Overall, Child's recollections describe a neighborhood at the turn of the century that had absorbed residents of varying religions and economic means, all within a few decades of the settlement of a religious Utopia with communal economic goals. Mature Community, 1900-1925 By 1900, Salt Lake's economy was similar to that of any other American city of its size. It had vastly expanded beyond the cooperative venture envisioned by early Mormon leaders, and its citizens no longer had to endure a subsistence way of life. By 1900 Salt Lake City's population consisted of a blend of ethnic groups, class distinctions and religious affiliations. While the concentration of fine mansions built along South Temple Street during the first decade of this century are not found in the Bryant neighborhood, less elaborate but comfortable homes constructed by middle- and upper-class businessmen and professionals can be found throughout the boundary increase. At the same time, the number of owners who took in boarders indicates that the neighborhood housed many lower-income people as well. In the early years of the twentieth century, this part of Salt Lake City was quickly losing its early-settlement appearance. The variety of the residents' professions and business associations portray the complexity of the economy and society that Salt Lake had attained by the early part of the last century, and this complexity is reflected in the number of housing and types and styles found in the Bryant neighborhood. Prominent businessmen include Stephen M. Covey (945 E. 100 S.), whose ventures remained profitable concerns for many decades [photograph 44]. Covey built his four-square house in 1907, and although he was 8 Child, p. 15. 9 Child, p. 7. 10 Child, p. 4. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 298 February 12, 2020 OMB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section No. 8 Page 7 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT a sheep man at the time, he established enterprises in irrigation, real estate development and entertainment. His best-known business was Little America, a large combination of gas station, cafe and motel that was built on the site in the western Wyoming desert where Mr. Covey had been lost in a blizzard years before. Several affluent residents were associated with the state's booming mining industry. These include William Dooley, developer of the eponymous inner court, who had mines in Nevada and lived at 823 E. 200 South; Robert Lewis, who became Dean of the School of Mines at the University of Utah and who lived at 1023 E. 300 South, and Samuel Sherrill, vice-president of Liberty Fuel, a coal-mining concern (975 E. 100 South.) [photograph 18]. Several prominent lawyers and judges represented the legal profession in the neighborhood, including Thomas D. Lewis (921 E. 100 South.) and George Goodwin (217 S. 800 East.). Lewis lived in the neighborhood for almost fifty years, (1901 to 1949) before moving to California in 1956. In addition to his private practice, he served in the Utah State Legislature, taught at the University of Utah Law School, and served as a Third District Court judge from 1903 to 1914. Goodwin, after moving to Salt Lake in 1892 from the mid-west, where had had served as attorney general of North Dakota, established a successful law firm with Henry Van Pelt. He resided in his Bryant neighborhood home from 1900 to 1918. Many residents who either built homes or resided in the neighborhood during this period were physicians, salespeople or merchants. Perhaps the resident who played the most cosmopolitan role in the neighborhood was Fortunate Anselmo, who lived with his wife, Anna, at 164 S. 900 East [photograph 45]. Anselmo lived in this foursquare home from 1920 to 1950, and is a significant figure in the history of Utah and Wyoming for his role in the Italian community. Appointed Italian vice-consul for these states in 1915, he presided over an office responsible for processing all requests for passports, visas and other documents that required official approval of the Italian government. He also served as a representative of the Bank of Naples; in this capacity he assisted local Italians in sending money orders to relatives in the "old country." This function was of vital importance to immigrants whose families in their native countries depended on their American earnings for support. The Italian immigrants were employed in industries that necessitated a mobile population: mining, smelting and the railroad, and they had to rely stability of the services Anselmo offered. Although his consular office was located at his place of business, 249 Rio Grande Street, his home served as a location for official receptions and informal entertaining for Italian dignitaries and personalities, as well as numerous public officials who often visited the Anselmo home as guests. But not everyone in the Bryant neighborhood was prosperous and well connected. The census records of 1910 indicate that a substantial number of residents were working-class laborers and that at least half of the residents rented their dwellings. Although records indicate that the number of households who took in boarders to augment their incomes does not seem as prevalent until the late 1920s and 1930s, many households accommodated in-laws and extended family members. They also relied on teenagers who had left school in order to work. Overall, the illustration in the previous text describing Dooley Court held true for much of the neighborhood: laborers and trades people rented the small, modest homes located in the interior-block courts, while middle and upper-class residents occupied larger homes on major streets. The census record of Frank Assenberg (221 S. Iowa Street), describes many households in the Bryant neighborhood during this era. In 1910, Assenberg, who was listed as the head of the household and worked as a teamster, was 22 years old, his wife was 20, and they had an infant daughter. Assenberg' s mother-in-law, Ida Steurman, and her three children, ages 18, 14 and 12, also lived in the house. The children worked: the 18-year-old son was an elevator boy, and the daughters worked as servants in private homes. The Assenbergs and the Steurmans had immigrated to the United States from Holland in 1906. They rented their small, clapboard house on Iowa PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 299 February 12, 2020 0MB No. 1024-0018, NPS Form United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section No. 8 Page 8 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT Street, a thoroughfare located between 900 and 1000 East streets and 200 and 300 South streets [photograph 46]. Depression and Decline: 1923-1955 Beginning in the 1920s, the Bryant neighborhood and Central City began a slow and inescapable decline owing to the rise of the automobile, the attraction of new suburbs for people prosperous enough to have housing choices, and newly-enacted zoning regulations that allowed the encroachment of incompatible uses. This decline can also be attributed to the fact that Utah suffered depressed economic times much earlier than the rest of the nation because of the rapid deflation of commodity prices after World War I. The transition of the neighborhood was in part characterized by the construction of multi-family apartments and the conversion of many single-family homes into rentals, boarding houses and small apartment buildings. Accordingly, in 1927 Salt Lake City adopted its first zoning ordinance and established seven land-use zones. The fact that the Bryant neighborhood was zoned "Residential B-2," allowing apartments and hotels, as opposed to the lower- density "Residential A," which only allowed one- and two-family homes, reflected both the existing land-use patterns and the view of local government that the neighborhood could absorb higher-density land-use patterns. (The use of Residential A zones were located in the newly-built suburbs in the original Big Field). City directories demonstrate that the trend of converting single-family homes into apartments began in the early 1920s, and continued through the Depression, the war years and into the 1950s. This occurred in the homes along the numbered streets, which were generally larger than dwellings on the interior block streets and could accommodate multiple units. For example, the 1926 directory lists John Stewart, an engineer with the Utah State Road Commission, as the sole household at 176 S. 1100 East [photograph 47], By 1933, two additional separate households are listed, Omer Stewart and Haner Stewart, each married and presumably relatives. Five years later Mr. Stewart's residence housed six separate households. Out of a cursory study of 35 houses on the numbered streets that were converted into apartments, approximately half seemed to follow a similar pattern: single-family ownership in the early 1920s, single-family with a couple of boarders in the 1930s, and conversion into four or more apartments by the early 1950s. The other patterns include conversion from single-family to two-family units that did not increase in number, or the retention of single-family units until the 1950s that then exploded into five or more units. Despite the lack of infill development potential and a perception that the neighborhood was in decline, there was still residential construction in the neighborhood during this period. Three notable developments include a group of bungalows on Barbara Place, constructed in 1922; a low-density garden-style apartment complex, also on Barbara Place, constructed in 1945, and a similar development at 808 E. 300 S. that was built in 1947. Barbara Place, located in the southeast corner of the boundary increase, did not exist before 1922, as it was created to accommodate the bungalow development at the east end of the street. Originally this land had been the site of three ice ponds that belonged to the Salt Lake Brewing Company, whose facilities were located at the west end of the block. The Halloran-Judge Company developed the bungalows, which consisted of twelve one-story, brick houses, six on each side of the street. They were Prairie School in design and were valued at $3,000 [photograph 19]. Just after World War II, the west end of the street was filled in with a series of low-density apartment blocks, known as the "City View Apartments," that contrast sharply with the bungalows [photographs 48-49]. The PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 300 February 12, 2020 0MB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section No. 8 Page 9 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT apartments consist of two-story, side-gabled buildings with some red brick cladding but exhibiting mostly asbestos siding. They show a slight Colonial Revival influence because of their symmetry and six-over-six light windows. They consist of four-unit blocks with central stairwells and two units per floor. An ambitious Salt Lake businessman, Sid Eliason, developed the City View complex. Eliason was born in Snowville, Utah, in 1902 and started his career of the Brigham City (Utah) National Bank. He went on to become the head of several different companies, most of which were related to construction, and was active in civic affairs. He was also the developer of the ten-story Charleston Apartments (470 S. 1300 East) east of Barbara Place, which were constructed in 1950 and are in the University Neighborhood Historic District, listed on the National Register in 1994. The other post-war apartment development mentioned above was constructed in 1946 to 1947 by contractors Roy A. Menlove and Frank J. Miller, about whom little is known. Neither is there information on the subsequent owners, Joe and Emma Bertagnolli, who purchased the complex soon after its construction. These apartments are brick, two-stories in height and are similar in their configuration to the City View Apartments, as they consist of four-unit blocks with centrally placed entrances and stairwells [photograph 50]. This is a smaller complex, however, with 12 units as opposed to the 30 found in the City View. There is also a more formal site plan: it is laid out in an inverted "U" plan, while the City View is more amorphous as it follows steep topography. Erosion of Residential Character: 1955 to 1995 The post-war development mentioned above may have been less desirable because it was rental, but at least it did not disrupt the historic residential and low-density character of the neighborhood. Overall, however, the blight suffered by the Bryant neighborhood accelerated during the 1950s and 1960s and to a large extent was exacerbated by insensitive government policies. In the case of the Bryant neighborhood, the policy at the local level was in the form of the adoption of the Residential "R-6" zoning in November, 1955, which expanded allowed uses to include "hospitals for human beings, medical clinics, sanitariums..." Although Holy Cross Hospital (now known as Salt Lake Regional Medical Center) had been a part of the neighborhood since 1875, its facilities were primarily contained for decades on the block bordered by South Temple, 100 South, 1100 East and 1000 East. The 1955 amendment to the zoning ordinance, however, changed the complexion of the neighborhood. At least fifteen clinics, medical office buildings and nursing homes were erected between 1959 and 1975 were erected, each one necessitating the demolition of at least two or three homes. Most of the medically-related buildings were one- or two-stories, but the Salt Lake Clinic, which relocated from 115 E. South Temple in 1959 to its present site at 333 S. 900 E., is several stories and continues to grow. Because the R-6 zone also allowed private clubs and fraternal organizations, a Y.M.C.A. gymnasium and swimming complex was completed in 1965 at 737 E. 200 S., on a site adjacent to Thomas Child's family home. Efforts for Preservation Within the past fifteen years the residents of the Central City, Bryant and University neighborhoods have become increasingly active in their attempts to reverse the encroachment of non-residential uses in these areas. Those residents who live furthest east have been the most successful because zoning patterns did not encourage intense development pressure to the same extent as it did in the neighborhoods closest to the PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 301 February 12, 2020 OMB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section No. 8 Page 10 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT central business district. These neighborhoods have also become increasingly attractive to people seeking to avoid long commutes and who value the experience of living in an urban environment. Despite the unfortunate encroachment of incompatible commercial uses, the Bryant neighborhood has retained much of its earlier appearance, including many historic homes, tree-lined streets and landscaped parking strips between the streets and the sidewalks. As with Central City, the Bryant neighborhood is unique in Salt Lake, as it is one of the best-preserved residential areas where one can discern the original layout of the community and early attempts to alter this pattern in response to Salt Lake's transition from Mormon Utopia to regional capital. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 302 February 12, 2020 OMB No. 1024-0018, NPS Form United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section No.9 Page 1 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT Bibliography Bird's Eye View of Salt Lake City, Utah Territory, 1870. Chicago, II: Chicago Lithographing Company. Original on file the Maps Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Boyce, Ronald R. An Historical Geography of Greater Salt Lake City, Utah. M.S. Thesis, University of Utah, 1957. Carter, Thomas and Peter Goss. Utah's Historic Architecture, 1847-1940: a guide. Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press, 1988. Child, Thomas B., Jr. The Personal Journal of Thomas B. Child, Jr. 1963. On file at the Salt Lake City Planning Division. [Miscellaneous Historic Site Forms and Intensive Level Survey Files]. Prepared by Cory Jensen, Roger Roper, et al. Available at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office. National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form: Anselmo, Fortunato House. Prepared by Philip Notarianni, May 1979. Copy available at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office. National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form: Central City Historic District. Prepared by Christine McKenna and Lisa Miller, February 1996. Copy available at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office. National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form: Meyer, Frederick A. E., House. Prepared by Roger Roper and Deborah Temme, March 1983. Copy available at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office. National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form: Ramsey, Lewis A. House. Prepared by Korral Broschinsky, March, 1999. Copy available at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office. National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form: Historic Resources of Salt Lake City: Urban Expansion into the Early Twentieth Century, 1890's -1930's. Prepared by Roger Roper, xxx, 1989. Copy available at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office. Polk Directories, Salt Lake City, 1893-1993. Published by R.L. Polk & Co. Available at the Utah State Historical Society and the Marriott Library, University of Utah. Salt Lake City Bryant Neighborhood Reconnaissance Survey. Conducted by Cory Jensen, 1995. Copy available at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for Salt Lake City, 1889, 1898, 1911, 1950 and 1986. Available at the Utah State Historical Society and the Marriott Library, University of Utah. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 303 February 12, 2020 OMB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section No.9 Page 2 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT Troutman, Mary. Salt Lake City Brewing Company (Office and Bottling Works), Designation Form for listing on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources, 1995. Copy available at the Salt Lake City Planning Division Office. —„—————. Wellington/Dooley Court: A Practical Alternative to the American Dream. TMs, 1994. Copy available at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. United States Census of Population: 1910. Characteristics of the Assenberg, Frank, household. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 304 February 12, 2020 0MB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section No.10 Page 1 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT Verbal Boundary Description DESCRIPTION WRITTEN FROM SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY ATLAS PLATS AND OWNERSHIP RECORDS. Beginning 165 feet South and 66 feet West from the Northwest corner of Block 59, Plat "B", Salt Lake City Survey, part of the Section 5, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; thence East 2314.48 feet more or less along South line of the South Temple Historic District to the East line of Block 57 of said Plat "B", point is also 165 feet South from the Northeast corner of said Block 57; thence South 626.43 feet along East line of said Block 57 and continuing to the Northeast corner of Block 56 of said Plat "B"; thence East 862.56 feet along North line of Block 29, Plat "F" to the West line of University Neighborhood Historical District and the center line of 1100 East street; thence South 3035.8 feet along West lines of said University Neighborhood Historical District to the point 66 feet East from Southeast corner of Block 20, Plat "F"; thence West along South line of Block 20 of said Plat "F" 396 feet to the Southeast corner of Lot 2 of said Block 20; thence Northwesterly along a 329.78 foot radius curve to the right 198.51 feet; thence North 14°43'55" East 1.22 feet; thence Northwesterly along a 313.22 foot radius curve to the right 103.26 feet; thence North 32°09'24" West 39.17 feet; thence North 32°09'04" West 10.78 feet; thence Northwesterly along a 348.92 foot radius curve to the right 76.51 feet; thence South 69°35'22" West 1.12 feet; thence Northwesterly along a 329.78 foot radius curve to the right 78.71 feet to the point on South line of Fuller Avenue and the East right of way line of U.S. Highway 40; thence North along said East right of way 568.1 feet; thence West 224.05 feet; thence North 65 feet to the North line of Lot 1, Block 42, Plat "B"; thence West along a Lot line 107.25 feet; thence North 60 feet; thence East 33 feet; thence North 88.5 feet to the South line of Braddley Place; thence West along said South line 165 feet; thence North 33 feet; thence East 152.5 feet along North line of said Braddley Place; thence North 148.5 feet to the North line of Lot 7 of said Block 42; thence West 152.5 feet along said Lot 7 to the Northwest corner of said Lot 7; thence South 82.5 feet along West line of Lot 7; thence West 140 feet; thence North 82.5 feet to the North line of Lot 4 of said Block 42; thence West along Lot line 12.625 feet; thence North 165 feet to the North line of said Block 42; thence West along Block line 47.25 feet; thence South 115.5 feet; thence West 265.275 feet to the East line of Block 41; thence South along East line of Block 41, 379.5 feet; thence West 192 feet; thence South 5 feet; thence West 63.75 feet; thence South 11.5 feet; thence West 33 feet to the West line of Strongs Court; thence South 148.5 feet; thence West 41.25 feet along South line of Block 41, Plat "B" to the Southwest corner of Lot 2 of said Block 41; thence North 148.5 feet; thence West 49 feet; thence North 16.5 feet; thence West 173.25 feet; thence South 41.25 feet; thence West 107.25 feet to the West line of said Block 41; thence North along the West line 54.75 feet; thence West 249.3 feet; thence North 3 feet; thence West 16.5 feet; thence North 82.5 feet; thence East 49.5 feet; thence North 41.25 feet to the South line of Linden Avenue; thence West along said South line 187.75 feet; thence North 72°21'27" West along said South line 62.69 feet more or less to the East line of Lot 3, Block 40, Plat "B"; thence West 396 feet to the East line of the Central City Historical District and 66 feet West from West line of Block 40, Plat "B"; thence North along East line of Central City Historical District 734.31 feet; thence West 66 feet to the intersection of 700 East street right of way and North line of Markea Avenue; thence West along North line of Markea Avenue 303 feet; thence South 10 feet; thence West 27 feet; thence North 16.5 feet; thence West 165 feet; thence North 462 feet to the point 66 feet North of the North line of Block 46, Plat "B"; thence East along a line parallel to the said North Block line 561 feet; thence North 1355.45 feet more or less along East line of Central City Historical District to the point of beginning. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 305 February 12, 2020 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service OMB No. 1024-0018, NPS Form National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section No.10 Page 2 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT UTM References E 1/2 4/2/7/5/0/0 4/5/1/2/1/0/0 Zone Easting Northing G1/2 4/2/7/2/6/0 4/5/1/2/4/2/0 Zone Easting Northing I 1/2 4/2/7/0/9/0 4/5/1/2/5/4/0 Zone Easting Northing K1/2 4/2/7/0/2/0 4/5/1/2/4/0/0 Zone Easting Northing Ml/2 4/2/6/9/0/0 4/5/1/2/3/2/0 Zone Easting Northing O1/2 4/2/6/8/8/0 4/5/1/2/3/9/0 Zone Easting Northing Q1/2 4/2/6/7/2/0 4/5/1/2/4/6/0 Zone Easting Northing SI/2 4/2/6/5/4/0 4/5/1/2/7/0/0 Zone Easting Northing U1/2 4/2/6/3/8/0 4/5/1/2/8/2/0 Zone Easting Northing F1/2 4/2/7/2/6/0 4/5/1/2/1/2/0 Zone Easting Northing HI/2 4/2/7/1/0/0 4/5/1/2/4/0/0 Zone Easting Northing J 1/2 4/2/7/0/4/0 4/5/1/2/5/4/0 Zone Easting Northing LI/2 4/2/6/9/2/0 4/5/1/2/4/0/0 Zone Easting Northing N1/2 4/2/6/8/8/0 4/5/1/2/3/2/0 Zone Easting Northing P 1/2 4/2/6/7/2/0 4/5/1/2/4/0/0 Zone Easting Northing R1/2 4/2/6/5/4/0 4/5/1/2/4/6/0 Zone Easting Northing T 1/2 4/2/6/3/8/0 4/5/1/2/7/0/0 Zone Easting Northing V 1/2 4/2/6/5/4/0 4/5/1/2/8/2/0 Zone Easting Northing PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 306 February 12, 2020 0MB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section No. 10 Page 1 Central City Historic District Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT Common Label Information: 1. Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase 2. Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah 3. Photographer: Elizabeth E. Giraud 4. Date: January 2001 5. Negative on file at Utah SHPO. 6. Photograph No. 1 Francis Hughes house at 856 E. 200 South. Camera facing southeast. 6. Photograph No. 2 Residential structure at 824 E. Menlo Avenue. Camera facing east. 6. Photograph No. 3 George Baddley house at 974 E. 300 South. Camera facing southwest. 6. Photograph No. 4 Thomas and Mary James house at 335 S. 700 East. Camera facing east. 6. Photograph No. 5 Detail of stone scribing at 335 S. 700 E. Camera facing north. 6. Photograph No. 6 Ebenezer and Esther Miller house at 1017 E. 300 South. Camera facing north. 6. Photograph No. 7 Jane Chander house at 315 S. 700 East. Camera facing northeast. 6. Photograph No. 8 Frederick Meyer house at 929 E. 200 South. Camera facing north. 6. Photograph No. 9 Hyrum and Ann Reeve house at 718 E. 300 South. Camera facing south. 6. Photograph No. 10 James Freeze house at 734 E. 200 South. Camera facing southeast. 6. Photograph No. 11 Charles and Clara Nelson house at 334 S. 900 East. Camera facing northeast. 6. Photograph No. 12 Maurice and Effie Kaign house at 120 S. 1000 East. Camera facing southwest. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 307 February 12, 2020 OMB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section No. 10 Page 2 Central City Historic District Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT 6. Photograph No. 13 Ernest Thompson house at 955 E. 100 South. Camera facing northwest. 6. Photograph No. 14 George Mateer house at 250 S. 1000 East. Camera facing northwest. 6. Photograph No. 15 George Roper house at 805 E. 300 South. Camera facing north. 6. Photograph 16 David Spitz house at 1073 E. 200 South. Camera facing north. 6. Photograph 17 John and Mary Ellen Birch house at 336 S. 1100 East. Camera facing west. 6. Photograph 18 Samuel Sherrill house at 975 E. 100 South. Camera facing northeast. 6. Photograph 19 1051-1059 E. Barbara Place. Camera facing northwest. 6. Photograph 20 Brick bungalow at 338 S. 900 East. Camera facing west. 6. Photograph 21 Brick and stucco bungalow at 1023 E. 300 South. Camera facing northeast. 6. Photograph 22 Front-facing gabled bungalow at 121 S. Lincoln Street. Camera facing northeast. 6. Photograph 23 Early twentieth-century two-story duplex at 218-220 S. Iowa Street. Camera facing southwest. 6. Photograph 24 One-story duplex at 749 E. Linden Avenue. Camera facing north 6. Photograph 25 Streetscape of 739-753 E. Linden Avenue. Camera facing northwest. 6. Photograph 26 Tudor-Revival duplex at 857-859 E. 300 South. Camera facing northeast. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 308 February 12, 2020 0MB No. 1024-0018, NPS Form United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section No. 10 Page 3 Central City Historic District Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT 6. Photograph 27 Minimal Traditional style duplex at 944-946 E. 300 South. Camera facing southwest. 6. Photograph 28 Walk-up apartment building at 101 S. 800 East. Camera facing southeast. 6. Photograph 29 Double-loaded corridor apartment building at 706 E. 300 South. Camera facing southwest. 6. Photograph 30 Post World War II apartment building at 1032-1034 E. 300 South. Camera facing south. 6. Photograph 31 New Broadmoor apartments at 938 E. 300 South. Camera facing southwest. 6. Photograph 32 Sunset Towers condominiums at 40 S. 900 East. Camera facing southwest. 6. Photograph 33 Stansbury condominiums at 710 E. 200 South. Camera facing southwest. 6. Photograph 34 Shaughnessy condominiums at 253 S. 700 East. Camera facing southeast. 6. Photograph 35 816-818 E. 100 South. Camera facing southwest. 6. Photograph 36 Medical clinic at 745 E. 300 South. Camera facing northeast. 6. Photograph 37 St. Paul's Episcopal Church at 261 S. 900 East. Camera facing northeast. 6. Photograph 38 William and Agnes Child house at 234 S. 900 East. Camera facing west. 6. Photograph 39 William and Agnes Child house at 234 S. 900 East, Camera facing southeast. 6. Photograph 40 William and Ada Hawkes house at 847 E. 300 South. Camera facing north. 6. Photograph 41 West side of Dooley Court (825 East). Camera facing northwest. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 309 February 12, 2020 OMB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form United States Department of the interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section No. 10 Page 4 Central City Historic District Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT 6. Photograph 42 835 and 839 E. 200 South. Camera facing northeast 6. Photograph 43 160 S. Dooley Court. Camera facing west. 6. Photograph 44 Stephen Covey house 945 E. 100 South. Camera facing northwest. 6. Photograph 45 Fortunato and Anna Anselmo house at 164 S. 900 East. Camera facing northwest. 6. Photograph 46 Frank Assenberg house at 221 S. Iowa Street. Camera facing southeast. 6. Photograph 47 John Stewart house at 176 S. 1100 East. Camera facing west. 6. Photograph 48 1029-1033 E. Barbara Place. Camera facing west. 6. Photograph 49 1020 E. Barbara Place. Camera facing southeast. 6. Photograph 50 808 E. 300 South. Camera facing south. 6. Photograph 51 East side of Lincoln Street (945 East) between 100 and 200 South. Camera facing southeast. 6. Photograph 52 Houses from 225 to 237 S. on 900 East. Camera facing southeast. 6. Photograph 53 Residential structures from 950 to 970 E. on 100 South. Camera facing southeast. 6. Photograph 54 Streetscape of residential structures from 861 to 877 E. on 300 South. Camera facing northeast. 6. Photograph 55 Neighborhood store constructed about 1920 at 944 E. 200 South. Camera facing south. 6. Photographs 56 & 57 Representative examples of multi-car frame and concrete-block garage PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 310 February 12, 2020 in pur| 375. 1 es ext Ml 900000 FEET (CENT SUGAR HOUSE 1.8 Ml. Produced by the United States Geological Survey Control by USGS and NOS/NOAA Compiled from aerial photographs taken 1950 and by plane-table surveys 1925, 1934, and 1950 Revised from aerial photographs taken 1962. Field checked 1963 North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27). Projection: Utah Coordinate System, central zone (Lambert Conformal Conic) 10000-foot grid ticks: Utah Coordinate System, central and north zones. 1000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid ticks, zone 12, shown in blue The difference between NAD 27 and North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) for 7.5 minute intersections is given in USGS Bulletin 1875. The NAD 83 is shown by dashed corner ticks There may be private inholdings within the boundaries of the National or State reservations shown on this map Red tint indicates areas in which only landmark buildings are shown Fine red dashed lines indicate selected fence lines Certain land lines are omitted because of insuffient data 4 29 GN 0*32'I I r27l UTM GRID AND 1975 MAGI DECLINATION AT CENTEf PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 311 February 12, 2020 CENTRAL CITY HISTORIC DISTRICT (BOUNDARY INCREASE) Suit lake City, Utah PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 312 February 12, 2020 1 Arthur F. Sandack Attorney at law 925 E 200 So Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 February 5, 2020 Kelsey Lindquist Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S State Street, Room 406 P.O BOX 148580 Salt Lake City Ut 84114-5480 Kelsey.lindquist@slc.com RE: Project Name PLNPUM2019-00683& PLNPUM2019-00684 159S Lincoln, 949, 955east, 959E. and 963 East 200 S. Chiao-ih Hui (address not provided) (Listed as Applicant with Pertioner’s Attorney. Peter and PIk Chi Hui are the actual owners per Supplemental filiing.) Master Plan Petition to Amend Zoning Map and Master Plan from R2 to RMF-35 dated 7/19/19 Dear Ms. Lindquist, I am an attorney, residing and doing business at 925 E. 200 South, Salt Lake City, where I have lived since purchasing my home in February 1979, 41 years ago., I have raised 3 children here. I am strongly opposed to the Petition to Amend the Salt Lake City Central Community Master Plan (Master Plan herein.) and its Land Use map, for the following reasons. I am representing solely myself in this matter and no other person or entity. Summary of argument- I submit that the above Petition should be denied given an unfavorable recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council for the following reasons: 1. The Community is largely against it. 2. The Petition is not supported by and is contrary to the Master Plan’s overall land use goals and policies promoting low density housing in our neighborhood. 3. The Petition is not supported by the Central City Community Historical District goals and policies. 4. The Petitioner- Owner is a bad neighbor and should not profit from his wrongful, longstanding acts so detrimental to the neighborhood allowing his properties to be a blight, eyesore, and danger to by violating housing and other ordinances. 5. Granting the Petition would harm me and the residential neighborhood. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 313 February 12, 2020 2 I. The Community is largely against The Petition. The Petition is opposed by a substantial number of residents, as evidenced by Monica Hiding’s petition of sgned by some 300 neighbors, and the surveys conducted by the East Central neighborhood council demonstrating 714 of 731 people against and strongly opposed to the Petition. Such opposition is significant acceptable evidence, upon which the City Council can rely to deny the petition and to be accountable to the public. See Petersen v. Riverton City, 2010 UT 58, 243 P.3d 1261 (Utah, 2010) and Bradley v. Payson City Corp., 2001 UT App. 9, 2003 UT 16, 70 P.3d 47 (Utah 2003) (upholding City decisions not to rezone on the basis of public residential petitions and comments), in which it is stated: “¶ 11 The Petersens urge us to overrule this long line of precedent and hold that the Council was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity when it denied their rezoning request and, therefore, that the district court should have applied the substantial evidence standard in reviewing the decision. We decline to do so. The case law and statutory authority on which the Petersens rely in making this argument is inapposite because it involves municipal appeal authorities hearing requests for variances and interpreting and applying existing zoning ordinances. See, e.g., Xanthos v. Bd. of Adjustment, 685 P.2d 1032, 1034-35 (Utah 1984) (reviewing whether the board of adjustment's denial of a zoning variance was arbitrary and capricious by applying the substantial evidence standard); Brown v. Sandy City Bd. of Adjustment, 957 P.2d 207, 210-11 & n. 5 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (reviewing the Board's interpretation of a zoning ordinance). The administrative bodies in these cases have been created specifically for the purpose of applying existing ordinances and evaluating the possibility of individual variances. These tasks are not of the same character as the Petersens' request to amend an existing zoning ordinance in its entirety. Therefore, because we see no reason to depart from our precedent, we hold that the Council's denial of the Petersens' rezoning request was a legislative decision. ¶ 12 Having determined that the district court in this case was reviewing a legislative decision under the reasonably debatable standard, we must now determine whether the district court was correct in holding that the City's decision was, in fact, reasonably debatable. A municipal board's decision will meet this standard if "it is reasonably debatable that the [decision to grant or deny the new ordinance] is in the interest of the general welfare." Bradley, 2003 UT 16, ¶ 14, 70 P.3d 47 (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 13 In Bradley v. Payson City Corp., we were faced with facts very similar to the facts in this case. The plaintiffs in Bradley submitted an application to the City Council to rezone property from a low- density residential classification to a high-density classification. Id. ¶¶ 2-3. The Planning Commission recommended a denial of the application to the City Council despite a recognition that Payson City's General Plan did not prohibit the type of rezoning requested. Id. ¶¶ 3-4. At the City Council hearing to consider the application, there were a number of public comments expressing concern over the traffic implications of the proposed zoning ordinance and the ability to keep and raise horses "which might be PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 314 February 12, 2020 3 incompatible with high-density residential development." Id. ¶ 29. The City Council ultimately denied the application based in part on these public comments. See id. ¶ 5. And in the Bradley case, the court stated: ¶ 4 At the public hearing before the Planning Commission on Plaintiffs' rezone application, a petition signed by thirty-eight people was submitted by a neighborhood group that opposed the zoning change. In addition, thirteen individuals at the hearing expressed their opposition to the R-2-75 rezone. The public opposition voiced concerns over the adequacy of the area's infrastructure as well as concerns about maintaining the agricultural nature of the area, which includes using the land for raising horses. Several public comments also supported the rezone. After public comment, the Planning Commission recommended that the Payson City Council deny the R-2-75 rezone. Bradley v. Payson City Corp., 2001 UT App. 9, 2003 UT 16, 70 P.3d 47 (Utah 2003) ¶ 28 It is beyond question, however, that public hearings and citizen comments are a legitimate source of information for city council members to consider in making legislative decisions. See Harmon City, 2000 UT App 31 at ¶ 26, 997 P.2d 321 (noting that "a city may rely on the concerns of interested citizens when performing legislative functions"). In reviewing the city council's decision, we do not apply trial- like "formal rules of procedure or evidence" to evaluate the substance of public comments received by the city council. Gayland, 358 P.2d at 635. Rather, we presume that city council members will measure public comments against their own personal knowledge of the various conditions in the city that bear upon zoning decisions. See id. at 636. A city council's ultimate decision, of course, reflects legislative preferences that are entitled to a presumption of validity. Id.” Bradley v. Payson City Corp., 2001 UT App. 9, 2003 UT 16, 70 P.3d 47 (Utah 2003) “¶ 30 Furthermore, with respect to the Plaintiffs' argument that there was no evidentiary support behind public comments about increased traffic, we simply note that a city council is not required to receive advice from experts before making a legislative zoning decision. Moreover, we are not persuaded that the comments of the Plaintiffs' planning expert, Jim Wilbert, cast doubt on the reasonability of Payson City's decision. Mr. Wilbert spoke at the public hearing in favor of the zone change because it would bring affordable housing to the nearby industrial center. However, even assuming that affordable housing is an important addition to the city plan, Mr. Wilbert's comments do not directly refute the concerns raised by local business owners and other residents about the compatibility of high-density residential housing in the industrial and agricultural zones. See Bradley, 2001 UT App 9, ¶ 27, 17 P.3d 1160. The City Council's decision to give greater weight to Mr. Wilbert's opponents and deny the rezoning simply reflects the exercise of legislative policy preferences that are entirely within its discretion. (emphasis added) Bradley v. Payson City Corp., 2001 UT App. 9, 2003 UT 16, 70 P.3d 47 (Utah 2003)” …….. Due to the overwhelming opposition to this Petition, and other factors cited by myself and neighbors, a non favorable recommendation should be reported to the City Council. The feeling of the Bryant neighborhood is to retain and preserve low density housing despite the history of mixed use in this area, PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 315 February 12, 2020 4 consistent with the Master Plan which was a result of Community input on Residential land use, in regard to Future Residential land use changes, at page 9: “Future Residential land use changes: The Master Plan recognizes that the City is a living organism, subject to growth, decay, and renewal. Its intent is to ensure that change occurs in response to the needs of, and in the best interests of, the residents of the Central Community as well as the City as a whole. This section identifies areas of potential change in the land use patterns.”(Italics added) City representative listened to us in 2005 by designating Petioner’s property as low density use and they should listen to us now. II. The Petition is not supported by and is contrary to the Master Plan’s overall land use goals and policies promoting low density housing in our neighborhood. The first standard cited by the Planner in considering “A decision to amend In making a decision to amend the zoning map amendment, states the city Council should consider the following: 1. Whether a proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents.” Answer: The answer to this is decidedly No. No it is not. Petioner’s property is marked R2 for Low Density Residential on the the area Zoning map for Future Land Use Map, in yellow adjacent and across from other R2 properties on its block. it now seeks to amend to RMF-385 Moderate Density, multifamily Residential. District. The MP defines low density housing as : “Low/Medium-Density Residential 10-20 Dwelling Units/Acre (peach on map) This land use designation allows zero lot line subdivision development, single-family detached residences on small lots (i.e., 2,500- 5,000 square feet per individual lots), and townhouses.” In effect, the petitioner seeks to create a Subdivision by consolidating its lots and it should be reviewed as such and prohibited. It is also contrary to Master Plan Residential Land Use goals and policies, which provide: “Residential land use policies The Future Land Use map identifies the location of residential land use categories including Low-Density, Low/Medium-Density, Medium-Density, Medium/HighDensity, High- Density, Low-Density Residential Mixed Use, Medium-Density Residential Mixed Use and HighDensity Residential Mixed Use. Residential land use policies are organized into four main categories: Overall land use policy, policies for existing housing, policies for new construction, and policies for residential mixed use. Overall land use policy, in part is to: PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 316 February 12, 2020 5 RLU-1.1 Preserve low-density residential areas and keep them from being replaced by higher density residential and commercial uses. RLU-1.4 Preserve the character of the inner-block courts. Comment. While Lincoln street may not be an inner court block, it certainly has that character of one without its disadvantages, and it should be preserved, with its lined small affordable homes like courts Other mixed uses on the block are primarily Office buildings on the block while zoned RMF 35, they are not occupied and are quiet at night. They were primarily serving the nearby Regional Hospital but its uses have appeared to change over time. They also have their own sufficient off-street parking which Petitioner is not offering at all to its development for services, guests, special events, as it has proposed to max out the space for maximum housing density for unaffordable units. Further, See page 8 of the Master Plan referring to: Existing housing policy Preservation and rehabilitation, under the Master Plan provides through incentives and code enforcement by implementing the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan. RLU-2.1 Preserve housing stock RLU-2.2 Consider opportunities for the City to purchase residential properties and market them through City housing programs. RLU-2.3 Provide improvement programs for redevelopment and rehabilitation of residential structures and neighborhoods. RLU-2.4 Assist homebuyers by marketing available government funding programs and residential rehabilitation programs, such as tax benefits for owners of structures in National Register Historic districts. The Supplemental Petition states the proposed development is ‘as recommended by Housing Plan the proposed development will increase medium density.” This is not correct. The Housing and master Plan seeks to preserve the stock of low density housing and does not clearly prefer medium density as a priority. In regard to the Bryant area where this dispute is located in the Central Community, the Master Plan provides at page 5-6, describing the neighborhoods in the East Central North neighborhood planning area. “Bryant neighborhood. The Bryant neighborhood is located between 700 and 1000 East from South Temple to 400 South. The layout of the lots and the residential architecture of the Bryant neighborhood are similar to those found in the neighborhoods directly west, across 700 East in the Central City area. Both have the same 10-acre blocks and several examples of early, adobe Greek Revival architecture. It has a rich collection of Central City many architectural styles, including handsome large homes with classical porticos and expansive porches: … This neighborhood was listed on the National Register in 2001.” This section continues to describe “Issues within the East Central North neighborhood” at page 6. Sd follows: PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 317 February 12, 2020 6 Historic preservation • Protect designated historic resources and National Register properties. • Ensure that transit-oriented development and other development patterns are consistent with historic preservation goals. Further, the implementation statement of the goals, objectives and policies contained in the Master Plan can accomplish the following, and state: 1. Protect and improve the quality of life for everyone living in the community, regardless of age or ability. 2. Improve and support community involvement, public participation, and neighborhood activism in the Central Community. 3. Provide a basis for funding specific programs that assist housing, capital improvement programs, and public services. 4. Provide opportunities for smarter and more creative development practices to better serve the community. 5. Prevent inappropriate growth in specific parts of the community. 6. Encourage specific types of growth in designated parts of the community. 7. Establish financial incentives to support alternative modes of mobility. 8. Preserve historic structures and residential neighborhoods. 9. Establish recommendations for better coordination and administrative review of construction projects and city applications.(underlining added for emphasis) The Petition if approved is tantamount to spot zoning. While it may not be prohibited per se by the Master Plan, it is nevertheless an example of arbitrary and unreasonable designations of these parcels of property to allow its use in a manner inconsistent with the permissible uses of the Master Plan. In this area this is reasonably debatable and may be deemed illegal. While the historical mixed uses in the Bryant area, have been a challenge to it in the past, it is aperfect time now to roll back the clock and protect and promote R2 zones. in view of all the other high density uses popping up in adjacent areas of the City, which may turn sour over time due to landowner neglect when the sheen wears off the new premises. Petitioners have offered no reason to deviate from the future use plan other than to benefit themselves personally, which is all they have ever cared about. Spot zoning makes a mockery of planned zoning and is poor precedent is this area which is undergoing fast change. There should be a moratorium on unnecessary development now, considering all else that has been going on and the alternatives that exist without rezoning this neighborhood. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 318 February 12, 2020 7 III. The Petition is not supported by the Central City Community Historical District goals and policies It is against City Historic Preservation Policy and regulations and Preservation Goals of the Master Plan as set forth on the preceding page. The Plan also states: “Goals for individual districts In addition to the global goals, there are specific goals which address the different characteristics of the individual districts. The goal for the Central City Historic District is stated in Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, Central City Historic District, July 1, 1996, p. 174. “The most significant feature of this district is its overall scale and simple character of buildings as a group, as a part of the streetscape. As a result, the primary goal is to preserve the general, modest character of each block as a whole, as seen from the street. Because the overall street character is the greatest concern, more flexibility in other areas, particularly renovation details should be allowed.”see page 18. HP-1.1 Coordinate transit-oriented development corridors with historic preservation requirements. HP-1.2 Ensure that zoning is conducive to preservation of significant and contributing structures or properties. HP-1.3 Improve and expand preservation measures to protect historic development patterns such as subdivision lot layout, street patterns, neighborhood landscape features and streetscapes. HP-1.4 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 Page 18 And Education HP-5.1 Assist community organizations as resources are available to present and provide informational workshops on historic preservation and building conservation for the general public, property owners, and contractors through neighborhood community council organizations, web sites, street fairs, the Utah Heritage Foundation, the Building Permits office, and other channels of information. HP-5.2 Showcase good examples of preservation to encourage residents to participate in preservation based on the positive outcomes of the projects. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 319 February 12, 2020 8 HP-5.3 Explore joint educational efforts with governmental, community, and non-profit preservation groups Comment- To the extent loss of historic features becomes a pattern, the entire district tax incentive provisions are jeopardized for the district as a whole. The streetscape of Lincoln street on the West side is mostly single family homes and it has that characterovwrall. It would be the same on the east side were the Petition to be denied, at least in part by not approving the Petition or 159 S Lincoln, a somewhat well-preserved single-family residence., next door to Monica Hiding’s well preserved home. IV. The Petitioner- Owner is a bad neighbor and should not profit from his wrongful, longstanding acts so detrimental to the neighborhood allowing his properties to be a blight, eyesore, and danger to by violating housing and other ordinances. Petitioner has been bad neighbor, for reasons next explained. This is relevant to the decision to approve the Petition or not for a number of reasons, First it violates the Master Plan itself which recognizes: “Inadequate property maintenance and enforcement Lack of regular maintenance causes deterioration of the buildings and compromises the livability of the neighborhood. In some cases, property owners cannot afford to maintain or repair their residences and do not know about programs that could help. In other cases, the neglect is deliberate. Neglect should not be tolerated when it impacts a neighborhood’s image, its reputation, and residents’ quality of life. Property owners and managers, both resident and absentee, should be held accountable for deliberate property degradation through the enforcement of existing codes. Residents recognize that property maintenance and code enforcement represent a combination of legal, social, and moral issues difficult to address with limited administrative resources. They also see a need to educate homeowners on assistance programs” Page 9. Secondly, such actions alienate and disrupts and brings down the values of the neighborhood, which residents have to live with and may well understandably account for the public outrage against this project. As shown below they have not lived by the code in renting it otu and maintaining it. Accordingly, it impeaches their representations and comments, they cannot be trusted and, in my opinion, they have not been forthright with the neighborhood during this public review process, and their record shows why. The City Council and Planning Division should not ignore misconduct if it is by Applicant applying to amending the Master Plan and map itself. It is no answer to say well that is enforcement’s job, when clearly that job has not been done. Someone has to say no to this kind of behavior. It is the Planning Department’s job to further the goals of the City. It is unacceptable, that Applicants should be allowed to take advantage of a process they have so abused. If enforcement has not done its job. It still can. They neighborhood and their property can be improved. if we are all more vigilant. Many neighbors only approved of the project because they have given up on the City doing something about the unsightly mess they see and perceive and believe better just to tear it down and move on, but that only encourages more and more misconduct, and no lessons are learned. Property owners beware, you have PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 320 February 12, 2020 9 responsibilities to your neighbors that the city takes seriously and then maybe your can rezone. This should be the message, treat the neighborhood better. And treat your tenants better, this is clearly a city policy to be a good neighbor and maintain suitable housing. Granting the Petition will displace them. Their tenants have been curiously silent on these issues or silenced, for fear of speaking out. At one of the neighborhood meetings, a tenant spoke but refused to answer any questions regarding the occupancy rate of her building, in obvious fear of doing so, awkwardly attempting to assert the Landlord’s privacy interests. Nor did the Petitioner applicant/representative, the owner’s daughter, who has most to gain by the approval, answer that question, disingenuously claiming she did not know the numbers of occupants, and never providing that information. Nor were they aware their tenant had at the time of the neighborhood meeting, undertaken to sloppily chop a number of trees. Who does that without direction from the owner to do so? The petitioner/owner himself never appeared at any of the meetings or the Open House to support his petition and answer questions, yet his daughter suggested the problems were his making and now that he was getting too old and they were taking control to make improvements and tear down the unsafe buildings that allegedly could not be repaired because of the settling foundations ((no engineering report) a concern I and many neighbors worry about) but we have improved our homes nevertheless. They said at one point they have only owned the property about a decade while in private conversations admitted it was decades longer. It is noteworthy that the original Petition, did not contemplate any improvements on the property. That seemed to been after thought,(changed in a Supplemental Amended Filing) that no doubt would cost some money to design a building, that in all likelihood, they never intend to build, It is doubtful the family has any interest other that selling the property at an appreciated rezoned value. And getting, out. Actually, managing and maintaining housing on any scale appears to be a challenge for them to pay for. Petitioner have shown no interest or regard for this neighborhood in all the time I have lived here. The have created a blight, have visibly failed to improve their property as many others have in the area, including myself at a cost well over a $100,000. They have rented to felons and disruptive threatening individuals who have caused me problems over the years, and just recently it was reported there was drive by shooting at their building, the White house, for the first time ever in this neighborhood of which I am aware. As far back a 1999, numerous certificates of noncompliance were issued to the owner of the property by Salt Lake City. (See Attachment A.) I have seen no signs of improvements to the outside of the property, in all this time, none to the roof, such as a replacement roof which you would expect. I replaced my roof in 2019, for the 2nd time since I bought the house. At some time they painted the building in nonconforming colors, of blue, red and white, a real distraction- resulting in one which notoriously became known as the China Blue House, which was known for loud and frequent summer parties for years with live bands outside which we reported numerous times to the police for continuing to disturb the neighborhood well past midnight with noise and fighting. Elizbeth Smart was photographed at that house at a party during her captivity. In 2018 there appeared to be a half-baked effort to improve the parking landscape, two guys hurriedly spreading gravel over it and planting some bushes, which are all dead and gone now, the landscaping has never been kept up, but is uncut weeds, overgrown and junk spread out all the front lawn and in PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 321 February 12, 2020 10 the back parking area, old junk cars, a dump, attracting rodents. it’s wonder the city tolerates it, in plain sight. Unshoveled walk ways. Piles of leaves and mud on the front parking and street. I have spoken with residents and been informed that they are renting by the room, and the heating was dysfunctional during the winter of 2018-2019, ex-felons seems to have been given a preference as tenants. I believe the place is over occupied and fire hazard. In reviewing building inspection records provided me at Attachment A for 955 E 200 South, substandard deficiencies occur from March 14, 1988. Upon which a Certificate do of NonComplaince was idssued on October 5\8, 1999, On November 21. 2000 inspection numerous problems are cited as well as concerns about life, fire and safety codes that the inspector needed to be assured would be addressed. It also reflects on August 23, 2007 a detailed report of a complaint about “junk(1-/13/99)”, that eventually went to before a hearing officer for all four properties 959, 955, and 965E 200 S., who reduce the fine to $100,00 per month, dated 5/3/00. But again, on October 24, 2008 they were given a Notice of Defiiensies and a Warning Letter from the Health Department for multiple substandard conditions. Also, the Division of Housing in October 26, 2006. cited numerous work actions against, them. These people don’t learn or don’t care. On information and belief, I believe that each buildings has a similar pattern of violations and problems addressed by city inspectors over the year and other records exist, I have not had a chance to review. I can’t imagine that these continued problems are anything else but deliberate. This property has always been an eyesore as long as I have lived in the neighborhood, dilapidated and a blight fire hazard. Despite constant improvement to property and investments by good neighbors such as Howard Freed and his remarkably restored Victorian home, a real gem, directly across the street from 955 E. 200S and next door to me. The City had contributed adding and landscaped islands on 200 Sfrom 9-00 E to 1200 E, in the 1990’s and eliminating a lane of traffic on 2nd South. This neighborhood has so much potential, as an attractive corridor to the university crowned by the Park building at the University. It would be attractive and to single families, seniors and young professionals who work downtown, to invest in these building and fix them up in preference to living in a high rise and big apartment complex, with all its problems. At least two of the 5 structures are small homes on each end of the project and have good potential for being fixed up at a reasonable cost, especially with the historical tax incentives. There is no reason to rezone these two lots for all the same reasons none of them should be rezoned. The neighborhood is close the down town and many services. It is a perfect neighborhood to preserve for single families and seniors such as myself. It has excellent public transportation advantages. Based on their past history, I have no reason to trust or believe their development plan, or interest in rezoning or developing the property or numerous of their representations are reliable regarding the state of their property. They only want to rezone, to sell out, and profit further at this neighborhood’s expense. Rezoning would encourage other developers with bigger and more intrusive projects to come in, and forgo others from building single family residences. V. Rezoning would Harm My Interests As to the harm this rezoning may cause me, I submit the following in conclusion. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 322 February 12, 2020 11 1. Any project would Increase parking and traffic problems. This does not appear to have been reviewed by traffic at this time on the basis of only a proposed development. I believe it would result in congestion at the intersection of Lincoln and 200 S, where access from and to both is through a break in the islands which can be held up due to increasing traffic from and to the university and bus service, traffic trying to turn left off 200 S, or left onto 200 So, from Lincoln can bottleneck the whole street. 2. More difficulty with off street parking. This is already a big problem; I believe students from the U park on the street and bus free to the U. Traffic is backed up on 200 S there due to the single lanes and new bus service and stops. Cars attempt to make the light at 200 S speed up. It has become quite dangerous for me to exit my own driveway, cars cannot see me due to the great number of oversized vehicles parking next to it, and it is hard for me to see them. 3. It will degrade the single family residential appearance and character of the neighborhood to a marked extent on 2 streets, Lincoln street, a quiet little used street where it is safe for residents to walk away from the bustle of 200 S. 4. I fear that the destruction of petitioner’s homes if not done carefully will damage my building structures, and crack foundation and walls. I urge a condition be imposed to conduct engineering and seismic studies during and before construction of nearby properties that could be built there of the neighborhood that could be affected by any such destructions and rebuilding. I do not believe engineering has considered this risk. 5. Lighting, is one of the biggest neighborhood nuisances to me in the neighborhood, the abundance of lighting in the neighborhood, which impacts us from as much as a block away, shining g directly in our windows, all night long, which means we either cover our windows which we do not wish to do or live with it Presumably lighting for 16 more units would only increase the nuisance, significantly and perhaps created need for more street lighting on Lincoln Street itself which would increase the nuisance. 6. Impact on walkability, was described and Lincoln street. 7. More noise during the evening is projected and during construction. 8. Impact of the look and identity of the area and street scheme. 9. Protentional devaluation of my property due to higher density housing poorly maintained by absentee landlords. 10. More noise during the evening is projected. Thank you for your consideration. s/ Arthur F. Sandack PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 323 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 324 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 325 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 326 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 327 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 328 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 329 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 330 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 331 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 332 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 333 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 334 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 335 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 336 February 12, 2020 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 337 February 12, 2020 From: To:Lindquist, Kelsey Subject:(EXTERNAL) Comments on PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments at 949-963 East 200 South and 159 S. Lincoln Street Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 9:07:54 PM Hi Kelsey, Would you please add the following to the record? Thank you. Dear Planning Commissioners and City Council Members, I understand you are considering an application to change the zoning and master plan for 949- 963 E 200 S and 159 S Lincoln St. I'd like to express my disapproval of this petition. I'm a former city council representative for this district, and ride by these properties most days on my way home from work. In my current role as an editor for Building Salt Lake, I am a passionate advocate for infill development. But we don't do right by our city by granting upzones on parcels with viable (and in this case) historical properties which contribute to neighborhood character. Adding density can be done without taking out viable structures that are already providing affordable housing. "Hidden density" is what this neighborhood needs, and can be done through means like unit legalizations, ADUs, and subtle upzones (e.g. S-2 to S-3). Thanks for your service and consideration, Luke Garrott PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 338 February 12, 2020 1 February 5, 2020 Re: PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684, Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments at 949-963 East 200 South and 159 S. Lincoln Street From: Jen Colby, Resident, 160 S Lincoln St, Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Dear Members of the Planning Commission and Staff, I am writing to reiterate my opposition to the request for Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments at 949-963 E 200 South and 159 S Lincoln Street in Salt Lake City by the applicant and agent. I urge you to definitively vote NO and make a negative recommendation on this application. In another comment submittal dated February 3, 2020, I analyzed the application itself in detail. In doing so Idiscussed the federally listed Bryant Neighborhood historic district (East Side expansion). I wish to add a few more comments for the record regarding the historic preservation goals and policies of the Central Community Master plan and why this application violates them. More broadly, it is the responsibility and duty of all Salt Lake City Corporation departments and bodies to help preserve and enhance both local and national historic districts, listed and contributing properties. It is not simply the responsibility of Historic Landmarks Commission. Nor do only locally designated districts matter to the preservation goals and needs of our city. As I noted earlier, the tax credits afforded to owners of contributing structures are very important to making preservation work possible for many of us. Additionally, research studies have shown the economic value of historic districts, structures, and neighborhoods. As I noted in my earlier comments (incorporated here by reference) the application states “The non-historic homes on the Parcels have been converted to apartments” on page 4. This statement is false for several reasons. All buildings are currently within the boundaries of the Salt Lake City East Side Historic District (2001-2002 expansions). Moreover, this Historic District is situated in the northeastern edge of Salt Lake City’s Plat B, the first expansion of the city to the east that was surveyed in 1848 by the very first Mormon pioneer settlers. According to the SHPO files, “Plat B had the same characteristics of the first plat: ten-acre blocks, each containing lots of PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 339 February 12, 2020 2 1 ¼ acres. …originally each lot was allowed the construction of one house with a standard setback of 20 feet. …the semi-rural lots were subdivided into deep narrow lots and the neighborhood became more urban in character.” This character is largely retained today thanks to the preservation efforts and stewardship of many property owners over time, despite some unfortunate periods of redevelopment and so-called urban renewal. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) maintains files for each of the 5 structures. The four houses on 200 South are contributing structures based on an intensive-level survey. The house at 159 S. Lincoln Street may be non-contributing due to exterior modifications such as siding applied over the underlying brick structure and inappropriate replacement windows …”but may still have important local historical significance.” (p. 2 of the Historic Site Form). SHPO notes that the changes appear superficial and could the reversed with proper restoration and rehabilitation. Four of the five houses are designated as contributing, and the one non-contributing house could likely be restored. All these structures are indeed historic. The structures remain a crucial component of the National Historic District and should be viewed in light of their role within the fabric of this district. Both 200 South from 900 E to 1000 E and Lincoln Street from 100 South to 200 South retain a great deal of integrity despite some unfortunate teardowns and out-of-character apartment and commercial construction over the years. The block faces contain mainly free-standing single historic structures per lot, with consistent setbacks and generally well-maintained historic properties. The west side of Lincoln Street is fully intact, while the west side has lost several historic houses to a temporary parking lot for the medical buildings on 1000 E (excessive parking and not utilized by them, by the way, and temporary has been a really long time now) and an out-of-character apartment building. Therefore, that side of the street is already reaching the ~30% loss tipping point. This block face will lose 2 more structures which the Applicant says they will do if the amendments are approved. This will degrade the block face even further and arguably destroy its historic character. Likewise, other than the non-conforming commercial property that replaced a historic home on the NW corner of 200 S and 1000E, the north side of 200S in this block is intact. West of Lincoln Street, the homes and historic apartment buildings are well maintained. The houses are exquisite, and the owners have put extensive work into restoring them. Losing all 4 historic homes to the east of Lincoln St and adjacent to that nondescript commercial building would PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 340 February 12, 2020 3 permanently destroy the historic character and pattern language of the block face. This should be avoided at all costs. The Planning Commission should certainly not pave the way for such destruction. This would violate many of the goals and land use policies of the current Central Community Master Plan. The Central Community Master Plan Historic Preservation Goals (p. 18) state: “Two areas within the Central Community are the focus of new preservation efforts. The recently listed Bryant neighborhood is a National Register designation and was included as an extension of the Central City Historic District in August 2001. The Bennion/Douglas neighborhood received National Register designated in 2002. Other districts need to be surveyed to determine their eligibility for National Register status. Where Transit Oriented Development Districts are within local or national historic districts, preservation of residential neighborhoods, structures, and viable commercial buildings should be a priority. Transit Oriented Development can target specific properties, such as those along the 400 South corridor, for redevelopment that do not affect the historic character of the neighborhood. New development should occur on vacant or noncontributing sites and should be compatible with the historic district. [emphasis added] The goal is to allow higher density structures where commercial zoning exists to meet the desired population density in TOD area while eliminating demolition pressures on contributing historic structures [emphasis added]. The designation and regulation of historic districts and landmark sites provides a mechanism to preserve the unique characteristics of Central Community’s historic residential and commercial neighborhoods. Preservation of the historic areas and structures helps to maintain a pedestrian scale and strengthen the continuity of land development patterns with the City’s past. Historic Preservation goals Preserve the community’s architectural heritage, historically significant sites and historic neighborhoods. Ensure that development is compatible with the existing architectural character and scale of surrounding properties in historic districts. Goals for individual districts In addition to the global goals, there are specific goals which address the different characteristics of the individual districts.” The goal for the Central City Historic District is stated in Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, Central City Historic District, July 1, 1996, p. 174. “The most significant feature of this district is its overall scale and simple character of buildings as a group, as a part of the streetscape. As a result, the primary goal is to preserve the general, modest character of each block as a whole, as seen from the street. Because the overall street character is the greatest concern, more flexibility in other areas, particularly renovation details should be allowed.” [emphasis added] PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 341 February 12, 2020 4 Relevant specific policies that this Application and amendments would violate include: Policy HP-1.0 Central Community gives high priority to the preservation of historic structures and development patterns. HP-1.2 Ensure that zoning is conducive to preservation of significant and contributing structures or properties. HP-1.3 Improve and expand preservation measures to protect historic development patterns such as subdivision lot layout, street patterns, neighborhood landscape features and streetscapes. HP-1.4 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. Policy HP 2.0 Use building codes and regulations to support preservation. HP-3.2 Ensure building construction is compatible with existing historic structures. Additionally, the following Residential Land Use policies in the CCMP relate to preservation and would be violated by these amendments. Policy RLU 1.0 – Based on the Future Land Use Map, use residential zoning to establish and maintain a variety of housing opportunities that meet social needs and income levels of a diverse population. (p. 9) RLU-1.1 – Preserve low-density residential neighborhoods and keep them from being replaced by higher density residential and commercial uses. Policy RLU 2.0 – Preserve and Protect existing single and multi-family residential dwellings within the Central Community through codes, regulations, and design review. As we have witnessed over the years, Salt Lake City has largely failed to uphold the CCMP’s stated policy for Prevention of Deterioration (p. 10): RLU-2.5 Promote reduction of deterioration of residential neighborhoods through code enforcement practices. Its failure to do so should not lead to justification for these otherwise misguided and inappropriate proposed amendments. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 342 February 12, 2020 5 PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 343 February 12, 2020 6 Below is a brief summary from the SHPO files for each property. Full files are attached. 159 S Lincoln Street: known as the Samuel and Emma Bjorkland house; built circa 1889 by Samuel Bjorkland; 1 story crosswing Victorian Eclectic Italianate; brick; 949 E. 200 South: known as the Hector and Clintona Griswold House; built 1893 by Harvey Bacon; 2 ½ story brick residence; Victorian Eclectic, numerous brickwork decorative elements described in the SHPO file; Contributing. “The significance of the Griswold House falls within the contextual period Transition, 1870-1900 as described in the Bryant Neighborhood nomination.” (SHPO file p. 3). 955 E. 200 South: known as the Louis and Agnes Farnsworth House; built 1893; 2 ½ story brick residence; rectangular block type Victorian Eclectic with Italianate influences; original porch was removed around 1988 (the year the current owners acquired the property) and “some of the stylistic integrity has been compromised….however the Farnsworth House continues to make a contribution to the historical significance of the Bryant Neighborhood.” (SHPO file p. 2) 959 E. 200 South: known by SHPO as the Frances and John Jr. Judson House; also known locally as “China Blue” of more recent cultural significance; built circa 1897 side-passage type house, Victorian Eclectic with Shingle Style influence; some out of period alterations; contributing. 963 E 200 South: known as the Roe and Nettie Frazier House; one-story brick residence built in 1894; …” the Frazier House is an interesting example of the conversion of a typical Victorian Eclectic cottage to an English Tudor style residence. The Frazier House continues to make a contribution to the historical significance of the neighborhood.” For these reasons, as well as all the other criteria in the CCMP and other city plans that contradict these amendments, I ask that you vote no on the application and give a negative recommendation to this application. Sincerely, Jen Colby PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 344 February 12, 2020 ATTACHMENT I: DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Sustainability Comments (Vicki Bennet and Debbie Lyons): Sustainability provided comments with concerns about the zoning amendment and a neighboring property owner solar access. There is an impactful difference between the R-2 and RMF-35, in regards to solar access. Sustainability suggested that perhaps a negotiation could be reached between the two property owners that would allow for full summer solar access and partial-to-full winter access, in the case of approval of the amendments. Police Review Comments: No comments were received. Engineering Comments (Scott Weiler): No comments were received. Public Utility Comments (Jason Draper): No objection to the proposed zone change. Development of these properties will likely require additional offsite utility improvements at the developer’s expense. Fire Code Review (Greg Mikolash): Building Services finds no fire code issues with this proposed amendment. Future comments may be associated with a building permit review. Building Code Review (Greg Mikolash): Building Services finds no building code related issues with this proposed amendment. Future comments may be associated with a building permit review. Zoning Review (Greg Mikolash): Building Services finds no zoning related issues with this proposed amendment. Future comments may be associated with a building permit review. Transportation Review (Michael Barry): There are no objections to the rezone by Transportation. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 345 February 12, 2020 3) PLANNING COMMISSION c) Agenda/Minutes February 12, 2020 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA In Room 326 of the City & County Building February 12, 2020, at 5:30 p.m. (The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion) FIELD TRIP - The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. DINNER - Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m. in Room 126 of the City and County Building. During the dinner break, the Planning Commission may receive training on city planning related topics, including the role and function of the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM IN ROOM 326 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 22, 2020 REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 1. Changes to Planning Commission Policies and Procedures – The Planning Director is requesting the Planning Commission amend their rules of procedure to include Consent agenda matters. The Planning Commission may consider what types of petitions may be reviewed in a Consent agenda. This may include administrative petitions where the Planning Commission is the decision-making authority. 2. Planned Development Extension Request at approximately 563 & 567 East 600 South - Kristen Clifford, the consultant who represents the property owner, is requesting the Planning grant a one- year time extension on approval of a Planned Development at approximately 563 E. 600 S. The Commission originally granted approval for this project on March 28, 2018 and granted one extension of that approval that will expire March 28, 2020. (Staff Contact: Amy Thompson at (801) 535-7281 or amy.thompson@slcgov.com) Case number PLNSUB2017-00297 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment for 159 S. Lincoln, 949 E., 955 E., 959 E., 963 E. 200 S. - Graham Gilbert, on behalf of the property owners, is requesting to amend the Central Community Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map. The request includes an amendment to the Central Community Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential (1-15 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units per acre). The applicant is requesting to amend the Zoning Map for these properties from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential). The master plan and zoning map amendments are requested to allow more residential housing units than what is currently allowed. The subject property is located within District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff Contact: Kelsey Lindquist at (801) 535-7930 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case Numbers PLNPCM2019-00683 and PLNPCM2019-00684 4. The Revival Design Review at approximately 355 South 200 West - A request by Matt Krambule of PEG Development, representing 4th South Associates LLC and SLHB B Investors, LLC for Design Review for additional height at approximately 355 South 200 West. The proposed residential mixed- use project, to be known as the Revival, consists of 5 stories of residential units above 2.5 stories of parking, with a retail component on the ground floor. A midblock walkway will run east-west along the north property line. The proposed height of the building is 89 feet and 10 inches. In the D-3 zone, buildings located between corner properties have a permitted height of 75 feet. Buildings taller than 75 feet but less than 90 feet in may be authorized through the Design Review process. The property is zoned D-3 (Warehouse/Residential District) and is located in Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff Contact: Laura Bandara at (801) 535-6188 or laura.bandara@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00640 5. Street Vacation at approximately 800 N and Warm Springs Rd - A request for street vacation by Mark Greenwood of Granite Construction for vacation of a section of the 800 North right-of-way that is adjacent to a former overpass from 800 West over I -15 to Warm Springs Road. The approximate area of the street vacation is 1.3 acres. The subject property is located in a M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning district and is located in Council District #3 represented by Chris Wharton. (Staff Contact: Sara Javoronok at (801) 535-7625 or sara.javoronok@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00824 6. Conditional Use for an ADU at approximately 1083 S Blair - A request by Tom Candee of Brach Design on behalf of the property owner, Heather Flanders, for a detached accessory dwelling unit located at approximately 1083 S Blair Street. The ADU would have an approximately 459 square feet footprint with a 186 square foot lofted area for a total of 645 square feet. The building height would not exceed 17 feet. The subject property is located in an R-1/5,000 single family residential zoning district and is located in Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff Contact: Sara Javoronok at (801) 535-7625 or sara.javoronok@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-01051 7. Conditional Use Sacred Circle Group Recovery Home - Sacred Circle Healthcare is requesting Conditional Use approval for a new medical detoxification/recovery facility to be located on the first floor in their existing building at 660 South 200 East in the D-2 – Downtown Support zoning district. The proposed use will consist of a 14-bed in-patient facility with 24-hour supervision and security and counseling and medical services provided by a multi-disciplinary team. The facility is classified as a Dwelling - Large Group Home and is allowed as a Conditional Use in the D-2 zoning district. The property is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff Contact: David J. Gellner at (801) 535-6107 or david.gellner@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-01012 8. 700 North Zoning Map Amendment - 3 Properties - R-1/5000 to CB - Property owners Anna Tran and Hoc Van Do are requesting that the City amend the zoning map for three (3) properties located at 1616 W 700 N, 1632 W 700 N and 1640 W 700 N respectively. The properties currently contain individual single-family dwellings, one on each property. The applicants are requesting to change the zoning map designation of the properties from R-1/5000 (Single-Family Residential) to CB (Community Business) in order to consolidate the parcels and develop a commercial use on the site. No specific site development proposal has been submitted at this time. The Master Plan is not being changed. The properties are located within Council District 1, represented by James Rogers. (Staff Contact: David J. Gellner at (801) 535-6107 or david.gellner@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00923 9. 1612 West 700 North Zoning Map Amendment - R-1/5000 to CB - Salt Lake City has received a request from property owner Bethany Christensen requesting that the City amend the zoning map for her property located at 1612 W 700 N. The property currently contains an individual single-family dwelling. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning map designation of the property from R- 1/5000 (Single-Family Residential) to CB (Community Business). No specific site development proposal has been submitted at this time. The Master Plan is not being changed. The property is located within Council District 1, represented by James Rogers. (Staff Contact: David J. Gellner at (801) 535-6107 or david.gellner@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00986 The files for the above items are available in the Planning Division offices, room 406 of the City and County Building. Please contact the staff planner for information, Visit the Planning Division’s website at www.slcgov.com /planning for copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Meetings may be watched live on SLCTV Channel 17; past meetings are recorded and archived, and may be viewed at www.slctv.com. 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 Planning Office at 801-535-7757, or relay service 711. Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 12, 2020 Page 1 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City & County Building 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, February 12, 2020 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:33:15 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Adrienne Bell; Vice Chairperson Brenda Scheer; Commissioners Maurine Bachman, Amy Barry, Carolynn Hoskins, Jon Lee, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes, and Sara Urquhart. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were Molly Robinson, Planning Manager; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Amy Thompson, Senior Planner; Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner; Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner; David Gellner, Principal Planner; and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary. Field Trip A field trip was held prior to the work session. Planning Commissioners present were; Maurine Bachman, Brenda Scheer, and Sara Urquhart. Staff members in attendance were; Molly Robinson, Kelsey Lindquist, and David Gellner. • 660 S 200 E: Staff reviewed the request. Q: Change of use? A: Building code requirements for occupancy • 900 E 200 S: Staff reviewed the request. Q: Are seismic upgrades required for single family homes? Q: Why is this not a LHD? • 355 S 200 W: Staff reviewed the request. Q: Where’s the mid-block walkway? A: North side of property along ramp to Broadway lofts parking. APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 22, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 5:34:30 PM MOTION 5:34:36 PM Commissioner Bachman moved to approve the January 22, 2020, meeting minutes. Commissioner Scheer seconded the motion. Commissioners Paredes, Urquhart, Lyon, Barry, Scheer, Lee, and Bachman voted “Aye”. Commissioner Hoskins abstained from voted as she was not present during the said meeting. The motion passed 6-1. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:35:12 PM Chairperson Bell stated she had nothing to report. Vice Chairperson Scheer stated she had nothing to report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:35:20 PM Molly Robinson, Planning Manager, suggested that the Commission move the changes to planning Commission Policies and Procedures to the end of the meeting. Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 12, 2020 Page 2 5:37:14 PM Planned Development Extension Request at approximately 563 & 567 East 600 South - Kristen Clifford, the consultant who represents the property owner, is requesting the Planning grant a one-year time extension on approval of a Planned Development at approximately 563 E. 600 S. The Commission originally granted approval for this project on March 28, 2018 and granted one extension of that approval that will expire March 28, 2020. (Staff Contact: Amy Thompson at (801) 535-7281 or amy.thompson@slcgov.com) Case number PLNSUB2017-00297 Amy Thompson, Senior Planner, provided a brief overview of the request for a one-year time extension. The Commission and Staff discussed the following: • What has caused the delay MOTION 5:38:32 PM Commissioner Urquhart stated, I move to grant the one-year time extension. Commissioners Hoskins seconded the motion. Commissioners Paredes, Urquhart, Lyon, Barry, Scheer, Lee, Hoskins and Bachman voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. 5:41:04 PM Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment for 159 S. Lincoln, 949 E., 955 E., 959 E., 963 E. 200 S. - Graham Gilbert, on behalf of the property owners, is requesting to amend the Central Community Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map. The request includes an amendment to the Central Community Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential (1-15 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units per acre). The applicant is requesting to amend the Zoning Map for these properties from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi- Family Residential). The master plan and zoning map amendments are requested to allow more residential housing units than what is currently allowed. The subject property is located within District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff Contact: Kelsey Lindquist at (801) 535-7930 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case Numbers PLNPCM2019-00683 and PLNPCM2019-00684 Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council. Chia-ih-Hui, applicant, provided a presentation with further detailed information. The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following: • Whether there was a seismic report that could be provided to the Commission • Clarification on what is up for consideration • Clarification on why this site is more appropriately zoned as RMF-35 than R-2 as is now • What the height limit is for the R-2 zone is • Clarification on what can be built in the R-2 zone by right PUBLIC HEARING 6:04:16 PM Chairperson Bell opened the Public Hearing; Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 12, 2020 Page 3 Esther Hunter, Chairperson for the East Central Community Council, stated there was over 700 electronic responses from the community survey as for as impacts. She also stated that this area is significant to the neighborhood and it would have significant impact to change from the R-2. Mark Bunce – Stated his opposition of the request. He also stated that there are several people in the neighborhood that have had to make large investments for upgrades and maintenance and believes there are housing developers who are willing to purchase the homes and rehab them to a high contemporary standard in a great neighborhood like this. DeGinna Toyn – Was not present to speak but provided a comment card to state her opposition. Paul Toyn – Was not present to speak but provided a comment card to state his opposition. Monica Hilding – Stated she personally collected almost 300 signatures on a petition that is included in the staff report. She also stated her opposition. Madison Limansky – Stated her opposition of the request and stated from her prospective the owners don’t care about the safety, cleanliness, and quality of life in the neighborhood. Ann O’Connell – Did not wish to speak but provided a comment card to state her opposition. Howard Brough – Did not wish to speak but provided a comment card to state his opposition. Tom Dickman – Questioned where the current residents will go if this request is approved. Kathy Scott – Did not wish to speak but provided a comment card to state her opposition. Peg Alderman - Did not wish to speak but provided a comment card to state her opposition. Maha Barrani - Did not wish to speak but provided a comment card to state opposition. Anny Lefebrre – Stated she does not believe the proposed zoning is compatible with the neighboring properties. Stated her opposition to the request. Christy Porucznik – Stated she supports the staff recommendation and oppose the rezoning on 2nd South. Morgan Galbraith – Stated his opposition to the request. Keenan Wells – Stated his opposition to the request. Irina Zaletnaya – Read from the State Historic Preservation office files of the said structures. Melissa Hubbell – Stated her opposition of the request. She also stated parking is an issue as it is. Tim Funk – Stated that the project if approved, could mean that the loss of affordable housing and the loss of current residents. Jen Colby – Stated her opposition to the request. Rich Wilcox - Did not wish to speak but provided a comment card to state his opposition. Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 12, 2020 Page 4 Arthur Sangack – Stated his opposition to the request. John Hunt - Did not wish to speak but provided a comment card to state his opposition. Cindy Cromer – Stated owners control of multiple continuous properties is not a consideration, the central community has precipitated more neighborhood plans and small area plans than any other part of the city. She also stated that in addition to the volume and consistency of the master plan the decision of previous planning commissions and city council’s in this neighborhood should inform your own deliberations. Zachary Dussault – Stated his support of the request. Anne Beck - Did not wish to speak but provided a comment card to state her opposition. Brad Beck - Did not wish to speak but provided a comment card to state his opposition. James Wells - Did not wish to speak but provided a comment card to state his opposition. Brent Barnett – Stated his opposition of the request. He also stated that it is important that the neighborhood retain is historic character and that government incentives allow homes contributing to the character of this neighborhood a full refund of 40% of construction cost. Melinda Main – Stated that there would too much vehicle congestion in the area and shared her opposition. Scot Andrews – Stated his support and stated it will improve and stabilize the neighborhood and increase values for everyone. Keven and Karla Jensen – Stated their support in the project and believe it would have distinct advantages. Cory Cummings – Stated that this is not the solution in Salt Lake City and opposed the request. Angela Jensen – Provided some history of the property. Wayne Sander – Stated that government housing that has been abandoned can be used for the City. Seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Bell closed the Public Hearing. The Commission, Staff and Applicant further discussed the following: • Clarified the Central Community Future Land Use Map • Clarification on what the intent was with the Future Land Use Map and why certain areas show medium and high-density zoning • Discussed the goals of the 5 Year Housing Plan and how staff is prioritizing the goals • Discussed the National Historic District and the potential expansion of the University Local Historic District • Clarification on what could be built by right on the properties Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 12, 2020 Page 5 MOTION 7:09:54 PM Commissioner Lyon stated, based on the findings and analysis in the staff report, testimony, and discussion at the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny the proposed Zoning and Master Plan Amendment, PLNPCM2019-00683 and PLNPCM2019-00684, for the properties located at 159 S. Lincoln, 949 E., 955 E., 959 E., and 963 E. 200 S., proposed zoning map amendment from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) district to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) district and the requested master plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Hoskins, Lee, Scheer, Barry, Lyon, Urquhart, and Paredes voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. 7:11:53 PM The Commission took a short recess 7:18:55 PM The Revival Design Review at approximately 355 South 200 West - A request by Matt Krambule of PEG Development, representing 4th South Associates LLC and SLHB B Investors, LLC for Design Review for additional height at approximately 355 South 200 West. The proposed residential mixed-use project, to be known as the Revival, consists of 5 stories of residential units above 2.5 stories of parking, with a retail component on the ground floor. A midblock walkway will run east-west along the north property line. The proposed height of the building is 89 feet and 10 inches. In the D-3 zone, buildings located between corner properties have a permitted height of 75 feet. Buildings taller than 75 feet but less than 90 feet in may be authorized through the Design Review process. The property is zoned D-3 (Warehouse/Residential District) and is located in Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff Contact: Laura Bandara at (801) 535-6188 or laura.bandara@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00640 Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, represented Laura Bandara in her absence. Kelsey reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the petition with conditions listed in the staff report. Matt Krambule and Brian Mecham, applicants, provided a presentation with further design details. PUBLIC HEARING 7:33:10 PM Chairperson Bell opened the Public Hearing; Curt Lund – Stated his opposition of the proposal. He stated the proposal would affect his business. Vladimir Acosta – Provided a comment card in opposition of the petition but did not wish to speak. Zachary Dussault – Stated his support of the height variance, his only concern is with the number of parking spots being provided. Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Bell closed the Public Hearing. The applicants addressed the public concerns. The Commission, Staff and Applicants further discussed the following: • Whether the applicant has planned out how to minimize impact on the adjacent property 3) PLANNING COMMISSION d) Staff Presentation Slides February 12, 2020 Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 12, 2020 Planning Commission Request to amend the Central Community Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map for the properties located at 159 S. Lincoln, 949 E., 955 E., 959 E., and 963 E. 200 S. Zoning Map Amendment R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Residential) Master Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential (1-15 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units per acre) Planning Commission 949 E. 200 S. 955 E. 200 S. 959 E. 200 S. 959 and 963 E. 200 S. 963 E. 200 S. Photo of Lincoln Street Elevation of 949 E. 200 S. 159 S. Lincoln Street CJ CJ CJ CJ .. CJ CJ ~ .. .. c=J c=J C:J CJ CJ CJ C:J C:J C:J C:J .. Low Density Residential (1-1 5 dwelling tmi ts/acre) Low Medium Density Residential (10-20 dwelling Wlits /acre) * Medium Density R esidential (15-30 dwelling wuts/acre) * Mediwn High Density Residential (30-50 dwelling units/acre) High Density Residential (SO or more dwelling units/acre) Low Residential/Mixed Use (5-10 dwellng units/acre) Mediwn Residential/Mixed Use (10-50 dwelling llllits/acre) Residential/Office M ixed Use (10 -50 dwelling units/acre) High Mixed Use (50 or more dwelling units/acre) Neighborhood Commercial Conununi ty Conllllercial Central Business District Central Business District Support Regional CollUllercial/Industrial •NOTE: The l.ow-Mtdium and Medium Density Land Use designations may include nadtiple zoning designations (e.g.; a single land use designation and map color may rqiresent RMF-35 or S'R-3 classifications) Low Density Transit Oriented D evelopment (1-20 mvelling units/acre) Medium Density Transit Oriented Development (10-50 dwe lling units/acre) High D ensity Transit Oriented Development (50 or more dwelling units/acres) Open Space Institutional Gateway Master Plan Non-conforuling properties t o be evalua ted for appropriate land use designation. (Interim land use policy would be adjacent land use classi.ficatioos) Planning Commission 100 s Zo ning Districts OS Open Space g co .., 0 0 co 0 0 llO 100 s 200 s CN Neighborhood Commercial cs Community Shopping 20Ci 200 s s SR-3 Special De velopment Pattern Residential R-2 Single -and Two-Family Residential RMF-30 Low Density Mu/ti-Family Residential RMF-35 ModerateD enslty Multi-Family Residential RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential RMF-75 Hig/1 De nsity Multi-Family Residential RO Residential/Office T SA-UN-C Urban Neig/1borl10 o d-Core T SA-UN-T Urban Neig/1borl7o o d-Transition UI Urban Institutional 100 s .00 s I '10 S 100 s ;;:; w 0 .= 0 ~ C'I - 200 s 200 c; .., 0 0 Cl 100 s 200 s e Cl 0 100 s 100 s 200 s g -... 0 0 ..... 0 0 .... g Comparison of R-2 and RMF-35 R-2 (Single and Two-Family)RMF-35 (Moderate Density) Issues and Public Process •Conflict with the Adopted Standards for Amendments •Existing Master Plan Policies for the Area and the Proposal •National Historic Districts and Historic Preservation •Public Opinion and Neighborhood Concerns Public Process •Staff attended the East Central Community Council on September 19, 2019 •Open House was held on October 7, 2019 •Public comments received prior to February 5, 2020 are found within Attachment H Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council regarding PLNPCM2019-000683 and PLNPCM2019-000684. 3) PLANNING COMMISSION e) Applicant Presentation Slides February 12, 2020 Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment for 159 S Lincoln, 949 E, 955 E, 959 E, 963 E, 200 South PLNPCM2019-00683 and PLNPCM2019-00684 February 12, 2020 Content •Location•Current Structures•Explored Considerations•Proposed Plans•Evaluation Criteria•Benefits Location of Proposal 900 East 1000 East •949 East 200 South•955 East 200 South•959 East 200 South•963 East 200 South•159 South Lincoln Street Current Structures View from 200 south of structures Very little green space, room for revitalization, not in historic preservation overlay Current Structures continued 159 Lincoln Street A significant portion of Lincoln Street is Multifamily and Commercial Explored Considerations •We’ve repaired and restored 3 homes in Historic University District and The Avenues neighborhoods.•Original plan to remodel existing structures to more family-friendly floor plans with environmentally-friendly updates. •Roadblock 1: The scope of remodel would trigger the requirement to bring all structures to current seismic code, which led us to commission a Structural Engineering Report from a reputable Structural Engineer. •Roadblock 2: Recommendations from Structural Engineering Report indicated that building a new structure would be more structurally sound and more financially viable. Neighborhood Considered what would be compatible within the neighborhood Proposed Plan •From 9 –16 units•Energy efficient appliances•Energy efficient build materials•EV Chargers in garages•Bike racks•Designated Affordable Housing Unit•Working with Pacificorp Power Site Plan •16 units•3 3-bedroom/2-car garage units•Affordable housing unit•12 2-bedroom/2-car garage units•1 1-bedroom/1-car garage unit •4 visitor parking stalls •Significantly more green space •Accessibility:•Bike racks•½ block away from bus stop both EB •and WB Considerations •Brick exterior•Mansard roof•Architectural elements•Engagement with street•Ample parking•Accessibility•Sustainability•Green space•Professional Property Management Evaluation Criteria -Code 21A.50.050 1.🗸🗸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 2.🗸🗸Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance 3.🗸🗸The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties 4.🗸🗸Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards 5.🗸🗸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. (Ord. 56-14, 2014) Evaluation Criteria -Code 21A.50.050 1.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 🗸🗸•Plan Salt Lake (2015):•RMF-35: “By creating places with a diverse mix of uses, building types, connections, and transportation options, people have the choice of where they live, how they live, and how they get around. As our City grows and evolves overtime, having a diverse mix of uses in our neighborhoods citywide will become increasingly important to accommodate responsible growth and provide people with real choices.” •Medium density: “Density and compact development are important principles of sustainable growth, allowing for more affordable transportation options and creating vibrant and diverse places. Density in the appropriate locations, including near existing infrastructure, compatible development, and major transportation corridors, can help to accommodate future growth more efficiently. This type of compact development allows people to live closer to where they work, recreate, shop, and carry out their daily lives, resulting in less automobile dependency and greater mobility.” Evaluation Criteria -Code 21A.50.050 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance: 🗸🗸•The “statement of intent” for all residential districts within the City is: City Code 21A.24.010. “The residential districts are intended to provide a range of housing choices to meet the needs of Salt Lake City's citizens, to offer a balance of housing types and densities, to preserve and maintain the city's neighborhoods as safe and convenient places to live, to promote the harmonious development of residential communities, to ensure compatible infill development, and to help implement adopted plans (emphasis added).”•The purpose of the RMF-35 moderate density multi-family residential district is to provide an environment suitable for a variety of moderate density housing types, including single-family, two-family, and multi-family dwellings with a maximum height of thirty five feet (35'). Evaluation Criteria -Code 21A.50.050 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties 🗸🗸•As noted in previous slides, there are already commercial properties abutting to the proposed property, as well as significant ratio of multi-family dwellings in the immediate area.•Proposed amendment would permit 35’ dwelling, which is what 3 of 4 structures on 200 south already are.•Plan Salt Lake (2015): Compatibility of development generally refers to how a development integrates into the existing scale and character of a neighborhood.New development should be context sensitive to the surrounding development, taking into account the existing character of the neighborhood while providing opportunities for new growth and to enhance the sense of place. Evaluation Criteria -Code 21A.50.050 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards 🗸🗸•The properties are located in the Bryant National Historical District, but not in the City’s Historic Preservation Overlay District and not subject to the rules in the Overlay District. Evaluation Criteria -Code 21A.50.050 5. 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. (Ord. 56-14, 2014) 🗸🗸•All pertinent Salt Lake City Departments and Divisions have reviewed the proposal and have recommended approval as specified Benefits •Supports Plan Salt Lake’s Growth Initiatives and Housing Initiative by adding medium-density housing stock in a high-growth area•Supports Plan Salt Lake’s Housing Initiatives by designated unit for affordable housing•Supports Plan Salt Lake’s first guiding principle that Neighborhoods provide a safe environment, opportunity for social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein by revitalization of 5 adjacent properties with goals of bringing more families into the neighborhood•Impacts to walkability, neighborhood engagement, area school funding•Sustainability green building Thank You 3) PLANNING COMMISSION f) Additional Written Comments February 12, 2020     /('? / -> • ~ _.... I I 7 ,__ L-I l.I ~-I. ~ / ...., -,, / <;.. L;". I .??' v( A-t le"'_._~ .. J /..., :?' .5 .... '( o ,,,, ~c. v :_,, //, / _ /' c ' ..,.1..J • ._ .. oA/ ~~{7/ · ._S_N1 7.11 . >vJJ .,//, ~. a /q~~ -/;;/..., >.._/ ~ .t.f_ ,,,0 .......,..-I ) '(' r-r"' • ..-10---~ . 0-v Q . .,r"7V(/1./t/e •. _L ";/ / 5 /vt/ . / "' q · /~r/o</1/4?,. .z - -/ . //cf"1 c-~,"'c. l( .. 7'/?o r ///:i vC ~7·:-~ -1-7'c:>qt' s hA.., ·, / v;; /--.q /{., {~/--/ / ~ 5 <-f / ocl /' 0 be ;;----/ .'/d ::? 2 J -;// c_ ;Y«~7-7'~4./ j/c-. .. 7 ' -1 ?? r /~"'sr ._., .nt:?//;e..s .//:? /c_ ,t//l..;a~,, J>.e>~ /1' -'l~ /' /'e//a..6/ // T.~ 7/d>~ t,.C' fe I L ._. t:i .......... ' .• 7/!c?-J,k_ -j'J~ b-1"'~ .£ $1/ 7/," .,//S:S-L/ ;,,/c ()/,'.../ :».T: S L c;, ~~ f??"'/O~ ·- Attachment A Sandack Opposition Correspondence to City Planner RE: Project Name PLNPUM2019-00683& PLNPUM2019-00684 1595 Lincoln, 949, 955east, 959E. t and 963 East 200 S. Chiao-ih Hui (address not provi ded) (Listed as Applicant w ith Portioner's Attorney. Peter and Plk Chi Hui are the actual owners.) 1 Arthur F. Sandack Attorney at law 925 E 200 So Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 February 7, 2020 REVISED CORRECTED PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR RESUBMISSION AND SUBSTITION of February 5 2020, Comments to Kelsey Lindquist Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S State Street, Room 406 P.O BOX 148580 Salt Lake City Ut 84114-5480 Kelsey.lindquist@slc.com RE: Project Name PLNPUM2019-00683& PLNPUM2019-00684 159S Lincoln, 949, 955east, 959E. and 963 East 200 S. Chiao-ih Hui (address not provided) (Listed as Applicant with Petitioner’s Attorney. Peter and PIk Chi Hui are the actual owners per Supplemental filing.) Master Plan Petition to Amend Zoning Map and Master Plan from R2 to RMF-35 dated 7/19/19 Dear Ms. Lindquist, I am an attorney, residing and doing business at 925 E. 200 South, Salt Lake City, where I have lived since purchasing my home in February 1979, 41 years ago., I have raised 3 children here. I am strongly opposed to the Petition to Amend the Salt Lake City Central Community Master Plan (Master Plan or MP herein.) and its Land Use map, for the following reasons. I am representing solely myself in this matter and no other person or entity. Summary of argument- I submit that the above Petition should be denied given an unfavorable recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council for the following reasons: 1. The Community is largely against it. 2. The Petition is not supported by and is contrary to the Master Plan’s overall land use goals and policies promoting low density housing in our neighborhood. 3. The Petition is not supported by the Central City Community Historical District goals and policies. 4. The Petitioner/Owner is a bad neighbor who should not profit from his wrongful, longstanding acts detrimental to the neighborhood by allowing his properties to be a blight, eyesore, and danger and by violating housing and other ordinances and codes for decades 5. Granting the Petition would harm me and the residential neighborhood. 2 I. The Community is largely against The Petition. The Petition is opposed by a substantial number of residents, as evidenced by Monica Hilding’s petition signed by nearly 300 neighbors, and the surveys conducted by the East Central neighborhood council demonstrating 714 of 731 people against and strongly opposed to the Petition., as is the Council itself. Such opposition is significant acceptable evidence, upon which the City Council can rely to deny the petition. See Petersen v. Riverton City, 2010 UT 58, 243 P.3d 1261 (Utah, 2010) and Bradley v. Payson City Corp., 2001 UT App. 9, 2003 UT 16, 70 P.3d 47 (Utah 2003) (upholding City decisions not to rezone on the basis of public residential petitions and comments), in which it is stated: “¶ 11 The Petersens urge us to overrule this long line of precedent and hold that the Council was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity when it denied their rezoning request and, therefore, that the district court should have applied the substantial evidence standard in reviewing the decision. We decline to do so. The case law and statutory authority on which the Petersens rely in making this argument is inapposite because it involves municipal appeal authorities hearing requests for variances and interpreting and applying existing zoning ordinances. See, e.g., Xanthos v. Bd. of Adjustment, 685 P.2d 1032, 1034-35 (Utah 1984) (reviewing whether the board of adjustment's denial of a zoning variance was arbitrary and capricious by applying the substantial evidence standard); Brown v. Sandy City Bd. of Adjustment, 957 P.2d 207, 210-11 & n. 5 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (reviewing the Board's interpretation of a zoning ordinance). The administrative bodies in these cases have been created specifically for the purpose of applying existing ordinances and evaluating the possibility of individual variances. These tasks are not of the same character as the Petersens' request to amend an existing zoning ordinance in its entirety. Therefore, because we see no reason to depart from our precedent, we hold that the Council's denial of the Petersens' rezoning request was a legislative decision. ¶ 12 Having determined that the district court in this case was reviewing a legislative decision under the reasonably debatable standard, we must now determine whether the district court was correct in holding that the City's decision was, in fact, reasonably debatable. A municipal board's decision will meet this standard if "it is reasonably debatable that the [decision to grant or deny the new ordinance] is in the interest of the general welfare." Bradley, 2003 UT 16, ¶ 14, 70 P.3d 47 (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 13 In Bradley v. Payson City Corp., we were faced with facts very similar to the facts in this case. The plaintiffs in Bradley submitted an application to the City Council to rezone property from a low- density residential classification to a high-density classification. Id. ¶¶ 2-3. The Planning Commission recommended a denial of the application to the City Council despite a recognition that Payson City's General Plan did not prohibit the type of rezoning requested. Id. ¶¶ 3-4. At the City Council hearing to consider the application, there were a number of public comments expressing concern over the traffic implications of the proposed zoning ordinance and the ability to keep and raise horses "which might be incompatible with high-density residential development." Id. ¶ 29. The City Council ultimately denied the application based in part on these public comments. See id. ¶ 5. 3 And in the Bradley case, the court stated: ¶ 4 At the public hearing before the Planning Commission on Plaintiffs' rezone application, a petition signed by thirty-eight people was submitted by a neighborhood group that opposed the zoning change. In addition, thirteen individuals at the hearing expressed their opposition to the R-2-75 rezone. The public opposition voiced concerns over the adequacy of the area's infrastructure as well as concerns about maintaining the agricultural nature of the area, which includes using the land for raising horses. Several public comments also supported the rezone. After public comment, the Planning Commission recommended that the Payson City Council deny the R-2-75 rezone. Bradley v. Payson City Corp., 2001 UT App. 9, 2003 UT 16, 70 P.3d 47 (Utah 2003) ¶ 28 It is beyond question, however, that public hearings and citizen comments are a legitimate source of information for city council members to consider in making legislative decisions. See Harmon City, 2000 UT App 31 at ¶ 26, 997 P.2d 321 (noting that "a city may rely on the concerns of interested citizens when performing legislative functions"). In reviewing the city council's decision, we do not apply trial- like "formal rules of procedure or evidence" to evaluate the substance of public comments received by the city council. Gayland, 358 P.2d at 635. Rather, we presume that city council members will measure public comments against their own personal knowledge of the various conditions in the city that bear upon zoning decisions. See id. at 636. A city council's ultimate decision, of course, reflects legislative preferences that are entitled to a presumption of validity. Id.” Bradley v. Payson City Corp., 2001 UT App. 9, 2003 UT 16, 70 P.3d 47 (Utah 2003) “¶ 30 Furthermore, with respect to the Plaintiffs' argument that there was no evidentiary support behind public comments about increased traffic, we simply note that a city council is not required to receive advice from experts before making a legislative zoning decision. Moreover, we are not persuaded that the comments of the Plaintiffs' planning expert, Jim Wilbert, cast doubt on the reasonability of Payson City's decision. Mr. Wilbert spoke at the public hearing in favor of the zone change because it would bring affordable housing to the nearby industrial center. However, even assuming that affordable housing is an important addition to the city plan, Mr. Wilbert's comments do not directly refute the concerns raised by local business owners and other residents about the compatibility of high-density residential housing in the industrial and agricultural zones. See Bradley, 2001 UT App 9, ¶ 27, 17 P.3d 1160. The City Council's decision to give greater weight to Mr. Wilbert's opponents and deny the rezoning simply reflects the exercise of legislative policy preferences that are entirely within its discretion. (emphasis added) Bradley v. Payson City Corp., 2001 UT App. 9, 2003 UT 16, 70 P.3d 47 (Utah 2003)” …….. Comment. Due to the overwhelming opposition to this Petition and other factors cited by myself and neighbors, a non-favorable recommendation should be issued to the City Council and it consequentially should deny it. The feeling and desire of the Bryant neighborhood within the East Central North neighborhood planning area is to retain and preserve low density housing despite the history of mixed use in this area, consistent with the Master Plan which was a result of Community input on Residential land use, in regard to Future Residential land use changes, at page 9 states: 4 “Future Residential land use changes: The Master Plan recognizes that the City is a living organism, subject to growth, decay, and renewal. Its intent is to ensure that change occurs in response to the needs of, and in the best interests of, the residents of the Central Community as well as the City as a whole. This section identifies areas of potential change in the land use patterns.”(Italics added) City representatives listened to residents in 2005 by designating Petitioner’s property as low density use and they should listen to us now. II. The Petition is not supported by and is contrary to the Master Plan’s overall land use goals and policies promoting low density housing in our neighborhood. The first standard cited by the Planner in considering “A decision to amend in making a decision to amend the zoning map amendment, states the city Council should consider the following: 1. Whether a proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents.” Answer: The answer to this is decidedly No. No it is not consistent with the MP. Petitioner’s property is marked light yellow for Low Density Residential on the area Zoning map for Future Land Use Map, and is adjacent to and near other low density properties in the neighborhood. It now seeks to amend to RMF-385 Moderate Density, multifamily Residential. District. The MP defines low density housing as: “Low/Medium-Density Residential 10-20 Dwelling Units/Acre (peach on map) This land use designation allows zero lot line subdivision development, single-family detached residences on small lots (i.e., 2,500- 5,000 square feet per individual lots), and townhouses.” MP page 8 Low-Density Residential 1-15 Dwelling Units/Acre (light yellow on map) This land use designation allows moderate sized lots (i.e., 3,000-10,000 square feet) where single-family detached homes are the dominant land use. Low-density includes single-family attached and detached dwellings as permissible on a single residential lot subject to zoning.MP p.9 Low/Medium-Density Residential 10-20 Dwelling Units/Acre (peach on map) This land use designation allows zero lot line subdivision development, single-family detached residences on small lots (i.e., 2,500- 5,000 square feet per individual lots), and townhouses. Low/medium-density residential areas are mainly low-density neighborhoods containing a broad mix of dwelling units ranging from single family detached to single family attached dwelling units (three or more units per structure). This type of mix is established in the areas located between South Temple and 800 South from 500 East to 1300 East.” MP p.9 5 In effect, the petitioner seeks to create a Subdivision by consolidating its lots and it should be reviewed as such and prohibited. Its combined size of .682 acres on a corner lot, would have an oversized impact on the face and streetscape as single family residential neighborhood in that quadrant. It is also contrary to Master Plan Residential Land Use goals and policies, which provide at pp 9-10. “Residential land use policies The Future Land Use map identifies the location of residential land use categories including Low-Density, Low/Medium-Density, Medium-Density, Medium/HighDensity, High-Density, Low-Density Residential Mixed Use, Medium-Density Residential Mixed Use and HighDensity Residential Mixed Use. Residential land use policies are organized into four main categories: Overall land use policy, policies for existing housing, policies for new construction, and policies for residential mixed use page 9. Overall land use policy,[includes] (italics original) RLU-1.1 Preserve low-density residential areas and keep them from being replaced by higher density residential and commercial uses. RLU-1.4 Preserve the character of the inner-block courts.“ (bold added for emphasis) Comment. While Lincoln street may not per se be an inner court block, it certainly has the character of one without its disadvantages, and it should be preserved, with its lined small affordable homes like courts. Other mixed uses on the East block f Lincoln facing 1000 East R2 and Office buildings while zoned RMF 35, they are not occupied and are quiet at night. They were primarily serving the nearby Regional Hospital but its uses have appeared to change over time., as other clinic space was erected on 10th East. They also have their own sufficient sizable off-street parking lots which Petitioner is or may not be building for services, guests, special events, in order to increase the space for maximum housing density for the unaffordable units it portrays. Further, see page 8 of the Master Plan referring to: Existing housing policy Preservation and rehabilitation, under the Master Plan provides through incentives and code enforcement by implementing the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan. RLU-2.1 Preserve housing stock RLU-2.2 Consider opportunities for the City to purchase residential properties and market them through City housing programs. RLU-2.3 Provide improvement programs for redevelopment and rehabilitation of residential structures and neighborhoods. RLU-2.4 Assist homebuyers by marketing available government funding programs and residential rehabilitation programs, such as tax benefits for owners of structures in National Register Historic districts. 6 Comment. The Supplemental Petition states ‘as recommended by Housing Plan the proposed development will increase medium density.” This is not correct. The Housing and master Plan, as seen above “seeks to preserve the stock of low density housing “and in no wise clearly prefers medium density as a priority but is quite the contrary. CF Residential issues in East Central North neighborhood at p. 6, next discussed. In regard to the Bryant area where this dispute is located in the Central Community, the Master Plan provides at page 5-6, describing the neighborhoods in the East Central North neighborhood planning area. “Bryant neighborhood. The Bryant neighborhood is located between 700 and 1000 East from South Temple to 400 South. The layout of the lots and the residential architecture of the Bryant neighborhood are similar to those found in the neighborhoods directly west, across 700 East in the Central City area. Both have the same 10-acre blocks and several examples of early, adobe Greek Revival architecture. It has a rich collection of Central City many architectural styles, including handsome large homes with classical porticos and expansive porches: … This neighborhood was listed on the National Register in 2001.” I regard to the National Register, the MP continues to present “Issues within the East Central North neighborhood” (itlalics original )at page 6). as: “Historic preservation • Protect designated historic resources and National Register properties. • Ensure that transit-oriented development and other development patterns are consistent with historic preservation goals. Residential: •1Reduce excessive density potential, stabilize the neighborhood, and conserve the neighborhood’s residential character. • 2Improve zoning enforcement, including illegal conversion to apartments, yard cleanup, “slum lords,” etc. • 6Encourage higher density housing in East Downtown, Downtown, and Gateway to decrease the pressure to meet those housing needs in this neighborhood. • 8. Preserve historic structures and residential neighborhoods.” MP p.3 Contrary to Petitioner’s contention medium density Under over all point 6 medium density over low density is not to be encouraged here at all but downtown to take pressure off this area. Further, “the implementation statement of the goals, objectives and policies contained in the Master Plan can accomplish the following: 1. Protect and improve the quality of life for everyone living in the community, regardless of age or ability. 7 2. Improve and support community involvement, public participation, and neighborhood activism in the Central Community. 3. Provide a basis for funding specific programs that assist housing, capital improvement programs, and public services. 4. Provide opportunities for smarter and more creative development practices to better serve the community. 5. Prevent inappropriate growth in specific parts of the community. 6. Encourage specific types of growth in designated parts of the community. 7. Establish financial incentives to support alternative modes of mobility. 8. Preserve historic structures and residential neighborhoods. 9. Establish recommendations for better coordination and administrative review of construction projects and city applications. (underlining added for emphasis) The Petition if approved is tantamount to spot zoning. While it may not be prohibited per se by the Master Plan, it is nevertheless an example of arbitrary and unreasonable designations of these parcels of property allowing its use in a manner inconsistent with the overall Master Plan and accordingly may be deemed illegal spot zoning. While the historical mixed uses in the Bryant area, have been a challenge to it in the past, it is a perfect time now to roll back the clock and protect and promote low density housing in the area. in view of all the other high density uses popping up in adjacent areas of the City, which may turn sour over time due to landowner neglect when the sheen wears off the new premises. Petitioner has offered no compelling reason to deviate from the future use plan other than to benefit themselves personally, which is all they have ever cared about. Spot zoning makes a mockery of planned zoning and is poor precedent in the Central Community which is vulnerable to development and undergoing fast change. There should be a moratorium on unnecessary development now, considering all else that has been going on and the alternatives that exist without rezoning this neighborhood. III. The Petition is not supported by the Central City Community Historical District goals and policies As just discussed rezoning and likely demolition, is against City Historic Preservation Policy and regulations and Preservation Goals of the Master Plan as set forth on the preceding page. The Plan also describes: “Future Historic Preservation changes Two areas within the Central Community are the focus of new preservation efforts. The recently listed Bryant neighborhood is a National Register designation and was included as an extension of the Central 8 City Historic District in August 2001. The Bennion/Douglas neighborhood received National Register designated in 2002. Other districts need to be surveyed to determine their eligibility for National Register status. “Goals for individual districts In addition to the global goals, there are specific goals which address the different characteristics of the individual districts. The goal for the Central City Historic District is stated in Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, Central City Historic District, July 1, 1996, p. 174. “The most significant feature of this district is its overall scale and simple character of buildings as a group, as a part of the streetscape. As a result, the primary goal is to preserve the general, modest character of each block as a whole, as seen from the street. Because the overall street character is the greatest concern, more flexibility in other areas, particularly renovation details should be allowed.” see page 18.(italics and emphasis added) HP-1.1 Coordinate transit-oriented development corridors with historic preservation requirements. HP-1.2 Ensure that zoning is conducive to preservation of significant and contributing structures or properties. HP-1.3 Improve and expand preservation measures to protect historic development patterns such as subdivision lot layout, street patterns, neighborhood landscape features and streetscapes. HP-1.4 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 Page 18 And Education HP-5.1 Assist community organizations as resources are available to present and provide informational workshops on historic preservation and building conservation for the general public, property owners, and contractors through neighborhood community council organizations, web sites, street fairs, the Utah Heritage Foundation, the Building Permits office, and other channels of information. HP-5.2 Showcase good examples of preservation to encourage residents to participate in preservation based on the positive outcomes of the projects. HP-5.3 Explore joint educational efforts with governmental, community, and non-profit preservation groups Comment- Petitioner plans to demolish a group of homes of affordable housing in this area that was built by immigrants for immigrants who in turn were vital to building the City. Do we want to eradicate that area? To the extent loss of historic features becomes a pattern, the entire district tax incentive provisions are jeopardized for the district as a whole. The streetscape of Lincoln street on the West side is mostly single family homes and it has that character overall. It would be the same on the east side were the Petition to be denied, at least in part by not approving the Petition or 159 S Lincoln, a somewhat well-preserved single-family residence., next door to Monica Hilding’s well preserved home. 9 IV. The Petitioner/Owner is a bad neighbor who should not profit from his wrongful, longstanding acts detrimental to the neighborhood by allowing his properties to be a blight, eyesore, and danger and by violating housing and other ordinances and codes for decades Petitioner has been bad neighbor, aka Slumlord, for reasons next explained. This is relevant to the decision to approve the Petition or not for a number of reasons, First it violates the spirit of the Master Plan itself which recognizes: “Inadequate property maintenance and enforcement Lack of regular maintenance causes deterioration of the buildings and compromises the livability of the neighborhood. In some cases, property owners cannot afford to maintain or repair their residences and do not know about programs that could help. In other cases, the neglect is deliberate. Neglect should not be tolerated when it impacts a neighborhood’s image, its reputation, and residents’ quality of life. Property owners and managers, both resident and absentee, should be held accountable for deliberate property degradation through the enforcement of existing codes. Residents recognize that property maintenance and code enforcement represent a combination of legal, social, and moral issues difficult to address with limited administrative resources. They also see a need to educate homeowners on assistance programs” Page 9. Secondly, such actions alienate and have brought down the values of the neighborhood, which residents have to live with and may well understandably account for the public outrage against this project. As shown below they have not lived by the code in renting it out and maintaining it. And are repeat offenders. Accordingly, it impeaches their representations and comments, they cannot be trusted and, in my opinion, to develop the property of maintain it for that matter. Nor have not been forthright anor transparent with the neighborhood and council during this public review process, and their record shows why. The City Council and Planning Division should not ignore misconduct if it is by an Applicant seeking to amend the Master Plan and map itself. It is no answer to say well that is enforcement’s job, when clearly that course has not worked due to recalcitrance. Someone has to say no to this kind of behavior. It is the Planning Department’s job too to further the goals of the City. It is unacceptable, that Applicants should not be allowed to take advantage of a process they have so abused, If enforcement has fallen short. It still be made to work and can. The neighborhood and the City can be more vigilant. Many neighbors only approved of the project because they have given up on the City doing something about the unsightly mess they see and perceive and believe its better just to tear it down and move on, but that only encourages more and more misconduct, and no Lessons are Learned. Property owners beware, you have responsibilities to your neighbors that the city takes seriously to earn the privilege of rezoning. This should be the message, treat the neighborhood better. And treat your tenants better, this is clearly a city policy to be a good neighbor and maintain suitable housing. Granting the Petition will displace them. Their tenants have been curiously silent on these issues or silenced, for fear of speaking out. At one of the neighborhood meetings, a tenant spoke but refused to answer any questions regarding the occupancy rate of her building, in obvious fear of doing 10 so, awkwardly attempting to assert the Landlord’s privacy interests. Nor did the Petitioner applicant/representative, the owner’s daughter, who has most to gain by the approval, answer that question, disingenuously claiming she did not know the numbers of occupants, and never providing that information. It is relevant to truly appreciating what the density of the neighborhood actually is and how many people will be displaced, it cannot be brushed off so easily. They claim they reside in apartments, but evidence shows they have rented by the room, and I have been told that by a tenant. Nor was the Petitioner aware one of their renters had at the time of the neighborhood meeting, undertaken to hurriedly and sloppily chop a number of frontage trees. Who does that without direction and permission from the owner to do so? The petitioner/owner himself never appeared at any of the meetings or the Open House to support his petition and answer questions, yet his daughter suggested the problems were his making and now that he was getting too old and they were taking control to make improvements. Yet the Owner has been spotted at the premises going about his business. She and her want to put things in shape and tear down the unsafe buildings that allegedly cannot be repaired because of the settling foundations ((an engineering report was claimed to support this but never furnished.) Settling is a concern I and many neighbors have but we have improved our homes nevertheless at great cost. They said at one point they have only owned the property about a decade while in private conversations with me admitted it is decades longer. in all likelihood, they never intend to build the development. It is doubtful the family has any interest other that selling the property at an appreciated rezoned value., now and getting Dad’s este in order is more of a priority than managing and maintaining housing on any scale which appears to be a costly challenge for them. Petitioner has shown no interest or regard for this neighborhood in all the time I have lived here, so why now? The have created a blight, and have visibly failed to improve their property as many otherss have , including myself at a cost well over six figures. They have rented to felons and disruptive threatening individuals who have caused me problems over the years, and just recently it was reported there was drive by shooting at their building, the White house, for the first time ever in this neighborhood of which I am aware. As far back as 1988 numerous certificates of noncompliance were issued to the owner of the property by Salt Lake City. (See Attachment A.) I have seen no signs of improvements to the outside of the property, in all this time, none to the roof, such as a replacement roof which you would expect. I just replaced my roof in 2019, with a 50 year roof, and replaced it when I first bought the house. At some time they painted the building in nonconforming colors, of blue, red and white, a real distraction- resulting in one which notoriously became known as the China Blue House, which was notorious for loud and frequent summer parties for years with live bands outside which we reported numerous times to the police for continuing to disturb the neighborhood well past midnight with noise and fighting. Elizbeth Smart was photographed at one house at a party during her captivity in 2002. In 2018 there appeared to be a half-baked effort to improve the parking landscape on 200 S. with two guys hurriedly spreading gravel over it and planting some vegetation which are all dead and gone now, the landscaping has never been kept up, but is uncut weeds, overgrown and junk spread out all the front lawn and in the back parking area, old junk cars, a dump, attracting rodents. it’s a wonder the city tolerates it, in plain sight. Piles of leaves and mud on the front parking and street. 11 I have spoken with residents and been informed that they are renting by the room, and the heating was dysfunctional during the winter of 2018-2019, ex-felons seems to have been given a preference as tenants. I believe the place is over occupied and fire hazard. In reviewing building inspection records provided me at Attachment A for 955 E 200 South, substandard deficiencies occur from March 14, 1988. Upon which a Certificate of Non Compliance was issued. On November 21, 2000 inspection numerous problems are cited as well as concerns about life, fire and safety codes that the inspector needed to be assured would be addressed. It also reflects on August 23, 2007, a detailed report of a complaint about “junk(1-/13/99)”, that eventually went to before a hearing officer for all four properties 959, 955, and 965 E 200 S., who reduced the fine to $100,00 per month, dated 5/3/00. But again, on October 24, 2008 they were given a Notice of Deficiencies and a Warning Letter from the Health Department for multiple substandard conditions. Also, the Division of Housing in October 26, 2006. cited numerous work actions against, them. These people don’t learn or don’t care. On information and belief, I believe that each building has a similar pattern of violations and problems addressed by city inspectors over the year and other records exist, I have not had a chance to review. I can’t imagine that these continued problems are anything else but deliberate practices. This property has always been an eyesore as long as I have lived in the neighborhood, dilapidated, a blight and fire hazard. Despite constant improvement to property and investments by good neighbors such as my next door neighbor who has admirably restored his Victorian home at 929 E 200 S. , a real gem, directly across the street from 955 E. 200S. The City has contributed significantly by adding landscaped islands on 200 S from 900 E to 1200 E, in the 1early 90’s, I believe when it eliminated a lane of traffic on 2nd South. This neighborhood has so much potential, as an attractive corridor to the University crowned by the Park building overlooking it. It would be attractive to single families, seniors and young professionals who work downtown, to invest in these buildings and fix them up in preference to living in a high rise and big apartment complex, with all its problems. At least two of the 5 structures are small homes on each end of the project and have good potential for being fixed up at a reasonable cost, especially with the historical tax incentives. There is no reason to rezone these two lots for all the same reasons none of them should be rezoned. The neighborhood is close the down town and many services. It is a perfect neighborhood to preserve for single families and seniors such as myself. It has excellent public transportation advantages and easy biking. Based on their past history, I have no reason to trust or believe their development plan, or interest in rezoning or developing the property or numerous of their representations are reliable regarding the state of their property. They only want to rezone, to sell out, and profit further at this neighborhood’s expense. Rezoning would encourage other developers with bigger and more intrusive projects to come in and forgo them from building suitable single family residences. V. s Rezoning would Harm My Interests As to the harm this rezoning may cause me, I submit the following, in conclusion. 12 1. Any project would Increase parking and traffic problems. This does not appear to have been reviewed by traffic at this time on the basis of only a proposed development. I believe it would result in congestion at the intersection of Lincoln and 200 S, where access to and from both is through a break in the islands which can be held up due to increasing traffic to and from the university and bus service, i.e. traffic trying to turn left off 200 S, or left onto 200 So, from and to Lincoln can bottleneck the whole street. 2. More difficulty with off street parking. This is already a big problem; I believe students from the U park on the street and bus free to the U. Traffic is backed up on 200 S in front of my house due to the single lanes and new bus service and stops and the stop light, Cars attempt to make the light at 200 S speed up.to beat the light. It has become quite dangerous for me to exit my own driveway, cars cannot see me due to the great number of oversized vehicles parking next to it, and it is hard for me to see them. 3. It will degrade the single family residential appearance and character of the neighborhood to a marked extent on 2 streets, Lincoln street, a quiet little used street where it is safe for residents to walk away from the bustle of 200 S. 4. I fear that the destruction of Petitioner’s homes if not done carefully will damage my building structures, and crack foundation and walls. I urge a condition be imposed to conduct engineering and seismic and other appropriate studies during, before and after construction of nearby properties that could be built there of the neighborhood that could be affected by any such destructions and rebuilding. I do not believe engineering has considered this risk. 5. Lighting, is one of the biggest neighborhood nuisances to me. The abundance of lighting in the neighborhood, which impacts us from as much as a block away, shining directly in our windows, all night long, means we either cover our windows which we do not wish to do or live with it Presumably lighting for 16 more units would only increase the nuisance, significantly and perhaps create a need for more street lighting on Lincoln Street itself which would increase the nuisance. 6. Impact on walkability, was described and Lincoln street. 7. More noise during the evening is projected and during construction. 8. Impact of the look and identity of the area and street scheme. 9. Protentional devaluation of my property due to higher density housing poorly maintained by absentee landlords. Thank you for your consideration. s/ Arthur F. Sandack AUG-23-2007 ntU 02:46 PH FOUNDERS TITLE FAK HO. 8012622741 P. 02 ... -- COllMUNRY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPlll!NT Houaing and Neighborhood Development 461 South state Street. Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 I, Fosa Osazuwa. Housing and zoning Oft1car for the Cfly of Salt Lake, do hereby certify that the follOWing property does not conform to 1he housing coda provisions of salt Lake Cft.Ys Revised Ordinancee as adopted: 1. Type or Building: 2. Shat Addrass: 3. Legal Description: 4 . Sidwell Number. 5. OWner: Reaidentlel 955 east 200 Souttl, satt t.a1ca City, Utah BEG 200 FTW FR SE CCR LOT 1, BU< 561 PLAT B, SLC SUR; W 35 FT; N 147 % FT; E 35 FT; S 147 % FT TO BEG 4339-037'1 5478-1308 572A-2870 18-08--135-012 - I further certify that the violations to be corrected ant u follows: Failure to comply with Board of Ad;ustment Caa9# 701-B of March 14, 1988. A Certlflcale of Compliance and Correction ehal be fted by this olnce when all work ha been accamplilhed. STATE OF UTAH ) )st COUNTY OF SALT~ ) on this 8th day of October, 1999, personally •ppeared befora ma. Fosa Osaz:uwa, Housing and Zoning O!fteer for S!ft ~-c;tty. Ulab, Who aoknowladged that he Issued the abcMt certlftcate and =- the statements Coma1iied therein are true. ~ . . --. . . .. : . ... . . co ~ Dale: Thursday August 23, 2007 Time: 03:02 pm Detllled Requaet Report R8qH1t: "141111 JUNK: RESIDENTIAL (CEM) Service Add,_:955 E 200 8 84102·2418 Request.-: Reque11er Address: Page1 Of1 CouncH Oisbtd: 4 Phone: Input Date: Wedne9day OctOber 13, 1' lnpm Department: BH ; Input Person: Kris Neugalt Perosn Assigned: 4' Department Assigned: BH Com!nerD: (10tt3f18118) COMPLAINT ABOUT JUNK AND TOO MANY OCCUPANTS , ALSO FAILURE TO COll'l YWITH B.O.A. CABE f 'IOll TO CONVERT TO A DUPLEX. WILL 8END A CIVIL N&O ASSIGN TO l2IJ 1221KN Ac:UonT8ken (1213atW) Junk .. ir.e..-. Allobullll\1 IHU .... Dlglilly.-1. Will .. Una Fdlawup1-30-CI>. G24d (492000) MET OWNER ON PROPERTYYESTEltOAY, THE JUNK HAS NOW BEEN CLEANED UP AND ntE TEMANTSARE DOWN TOJUST3, AND THE HOUSE IS NOT BEING RENTED OUT HMA ROOMING HOUSE ANVMORI!. WILL CLOSI THE CASES ON THIS HOUSE. THE HOUSE HAS NOT MET THE BOARD 01 ADJUSTMENT REQUIAEIENTS BUT rr IS BEING ua!DA8A llNGLE FAlaY OWEWNG NOW. CL08E Til8 CASE WI.LADD UP FINES A IENDA MQUUT FOR A HEARINGTO THE OWNER. ICN (4'8QIOOO) (418r.ZOOO) Raqueet cloled bW nk8203 hm dlpaltment HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD 8ERV .• (S1212DOO) __ NCll*llllbf~Ham.lhlnl ... _. HOUSING& NEIOHBORHOOD SERV .. Wentto ...... dllcsllfourota.pioper111159 E.; 161E.88S E. lftCl 805 E. 20Q &«Ill,.,.. ID 2.4JO llStOOplrmordh . beglnnlllf .U, 1, OOID .-, StCJ0.00 per month. 11 DeUvel8d ·--Deltwred # __ Pielcup# __ Pickup# __ Leftt __ Repair# __ Status: Resolved Close Date: 05I03l2000 Stolen# __ .. ... KAREN DENTaN, P'H.D, -IU:YCltt November 21, 2000 Dear Property Owner: CDMMUNITV AND CCDNDMIC DEV&L.DP'MENT DIVIBIDN DF' HDU81N8 ANO Nll:laHB09'HDDD DIEVCl.QPMl:NT Rall& C. ANDEA8DN RE: Unit legalization of 955 East 200 South, Salt Lake City, Utah. On November 11, 2000, Salt Lake City's Housing and Neighborhood Development conducted an inspection for the property that you wish to legalize at 955 East 200 South, Salt Lake City, Utah. The following deficiencies were found and need to be remedied before I can assure that this buHding meets the minimum life, fire and safety codes. PremlH P•rklna Provide a copy of a •cross Access Agreement•. This agreement must be Recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder office. Apartment Business License required. Exterior 18.50.140.B 18.50.140.A 18.50.140.D 18.50.140.F 18.50.140.F 18.50.210A 7 Common Area 18.50.160.A. Building requires paint as per Chapter 14 of Uniform Building Code. structural maintenance required on chimney . Repair or maintain window glazing, sashes, trim and sills. House address numbers are required to be 3• high and of a contrasting color. Apartment dwelling unit identification numbers or letters are required to be 2· high and of a contrasting color. Exterior plumbing vent pipe requires repair on North side of building. Unit #A and Unit #8 are required to have entry doors, trim and hardware in good working condition. 41U 8DUTH 8TAft 8TREET, llDDM 4D•• SALT LAICE CITY, UTAH 84111 ttLEPHGNEs eat1a•'7•aa TODs ea1-aa...aa1 """* ao1·11a••1s1 .Gll. --·--·- ' lnterlortA ~ Kltcl!en 18.50.180.0 B!throom#I 18.50.190.B.2.A 18.50.150.B 18.50.180A3 eathrooml2 18.50.150.C 8edroomt3 18.50.707.A Interior& Note: Entrv/Stalrway 18.50.200.C.7 Bedroomt3 18.50.230.C.3 18.50.070.A Interior IC Living room is being used as a bedroom. Kitchen required to have a refrigerator in good working condition. Window needs to open for the purpose of providing ventilation. Floor covering requires repair. Bathroom ceiling height does not meet minimum standard e·-0· at toilet. The ceiling and walls require a clean. washable surface. Replace keyed door locks with privacy or passage type locks. Living room is being used as a bedroom. Stairs are required to have a minimum headroom clearance height of 6'-4·. Grounded type outlets are not permitted in a non-grounded electrical system, no 3 prong plugs allowed. Replace keyed door locks with privacy or passage type locks. Three rooms located in Unit #B, northeast comer may be used for storage purposes only as per our conversation November 17. 2000, this also included aH attic space. Llvlna Room/Bedroom n 18.50.200.E.4 All habitable rooms with a ceiling height less than 1·a· need 120 volt 18.50.230.C.3 18.50.070.A electrical powered smoke detectors. Grounded type outlets are not permitted in a non-grounded electrical system, no 3 prong plugs allowed . Remove hasp lock from bedroom door. If you have any questions regarding this inspection, please call me at 535-7983 Tuesday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. or between 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Sincerely, C~-:\2~--.JJ., -----:. Craig Richardson Housing/Zoning Officer/Building Inspector CR:jb Enc. Business License Application HAAB Form Addr8ss .idl . H. No loi.J ~ 87115 955 E 2008 5003978 A FL 10l12/1999 87115 955 E 200S 358 F FL 02/1811988 87115 955 E 200S 0 11117/2000 8 7115 955 E 200$ (155823 F ME 10l03l2000 7115 8 955 E 200S 155143 A BL 09/18/2000 8 7115 955 E 2008 I 152825 F ME 07l05/2000 8 7115 955 E 2008 151325 F ME 05l26l2000 8 7115 955 E 200$ 151324 F PL 05l26l2000 \.. ---. 8 7115 955 E 200$ r 150334 F ""P[ 04/rT/2000 87115 955 E 200S 150333 F ME 04/27/2000 87115 955 E 2008 150119 F ME 04/21/2000 I 87115 955 E 2008 ""--149428 F BL 03l29l2000 - 87115 955 E 2008 85462 QJBL 02if411994 87115 955 E 200$ 50104 F PL 05l01/1990 87115 955 E 200$ 44417 F EL 0Si1911989 87115 955 E 200$ 44328 F PL 0Si1811969 87115 955 E 200S 43809 F Bl 08/3111989 fta 0 Ila 0 0 gen 0 bid 0 gen 0 gen 0 gen 0 gen 0 gen 0 gen 0 bid 0 bid 0 gen 0 gen 0 gen 0 bid 0 :::::-\ ~ ' ~ 'l ""' ~ ~ \"'"~ _. ~a.. ~L-.J..... ~~~ ~" Q ·7oc. en It -~ .., £(\~ ·~ ~...lo~ Ci.F.' ~ 1' -fl\lTQ«7~ ..• ~l ..•. • • . . ~ .. ··' .· : . ;. .. ..... 1. -eM •·•O Address <f.j-~-e44;tez7f,/,,,,zt, ,Oat~ 11--,~-19.S-t . Buildin Permit No. c;l. E1ectrical Permit No. PJ~mbing Permit No . ..,t 7tp.9-.; .. 1 ~fJ Bui1ding Permit No. ;3J{t•;. J/-I ;z. -;! -I· (J • Electiical Permit No. / ~ ;'/. 71)-11-1..S'· .5b Electrical Permit No. ---................ ~.-.--· .. ~ ... ____ .__. __ SLVHD / .. 1 (. ~·~. ,/ ... \ /·, ·. / . ..... ~f"' '".:-_ ~ ~/~ Sa lt lake Valley Health Department ;c:s E.i•SI \\'Gut:<ia l: lane t:.urr;iy, .JT 84107-6 37<; phor.p 80 :-;.13 ·6600 fox &01-311·660& ~-·w ·;:.slvh ':'al!h .or r, October 24. 2008 RE: 955 East 200 South Royal Deleggc, M.P.A., L.E.H.S. • Div b i1J !l Di r H l01 Warning Letter The Salt Lake Valley Health Department has been referred to the above address for which you are the mvners of record. On October 17 & October 21 , 2008. Bruce Boggess and Greg Langfcld, Health Department inspectors. along with Craig Richardson a Salt Lake City Housing and Zoning Enforcement officer, conducted an inspection al 955 East 200 South. The following conditions were observed: 1st Level: • Bathroom c Missing window screen o Missing toilet tank lid o Floors not sealed c Light fixture in disrepair • Kitchen o Walls have holes; paint peeling o Sink faucet is loose o Sink cabinet floor has water damage o Ceiling has water damage o Cockroach residue on walls and ceiling • Common hallway o Walls , ceilings, floors were filthy 2nl1 Level: • Kitchen o Holes in the walls o Sink cabinet floor has water damage and there are holes in the wall 0 • Furnace room o Exposed wires o Intake air vent plugged • Bathroom: o Broken toilet seat o Exhaust fan falling from the ceiling o Air vent falling off wall o Ceiling has water damage o Light fixture in disrepair o Hole in wall • North bedroom o Inhabitable living space o Roaches in light fixture • West. bedroom o Ceiling has water damage o Large hole in the ceiling • Common hallway o Holes in the walls o Walls, ceilings, floors were filthy • Outside premises o Missing window pane on west side o Vents not sealed on east side; pigeon roosts o Windows and walls covered with pigeon droppings o Entry sites for rodents or vennin on the east side o Solid waste in back parking lot, including but not limited to a refrigerator, carpet, pallets, bags of garbage, and miscellaneous trash o Missing lids on the dumpster o No Dumpster company information on the dumpster You are notified that these conditions are in violation of Health Department Regulation #3 Housing and #7 General Sanitation (Health Regulations may be obtained in their entirety at www.slvhealth.org or you may contact our office): 3-4.1.2. Letting of Unfit Dwelling or Dwelling Unit Unlawful. No owner, manager, or other person shall let to another person, or permit occupancy of any dwelling or dwelling unit unless it complies with this regulation. 3-4.1 .3. Failure to Maintain Dwelling or Dwelling Unit Unlawful. No owner or manager, of any dwelling or dwelling unit shall permit interior surfaces to become soiled from accumulations of garbage, fecal matter, bodily fluid, or other infectious materials. If the affected area cannot be cleaned and restored to a sanitary condition, the Director may require the owner to repair or replace it before further habitation. 3-4. l .5. Maintenance of Common Areas. An owner or manager of a building or structure containing two or more dwelling units shall maintain the common areas of the premises in a clean and sanitary manner. .,- NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES Property Inspected: 955 East 200 South, Salt Lake City. Utah Date of Inspection: October 241 2008 Name of Inspector: Craig Richardson Case Number. HAZ2008-01594 This Notice of Deficiencies must be submitted when application for the construction and repair permits is made. A Hcensed contractor may be required to do the repairs. For addltional permit and contractor infonnltion, please caU (535-7752). ·substandard condition• means a structural, eledrical, mechanical or plumbing system condition in a residential building or dwelUng unit which violates applicable codes but with maintenance or repair can be fully safe. Prem It! 21A.40.140 Exterior V18.5Q.220.B.3.G 18.50.140.D 18.50.170.A tA&.50.220.A.3 ln1lrlor lmpectlon Untt!A Hallway 18.50.170.A 18.50.170.C 18.50.200.A 18.50.200.E.1 It is unlawful to permit the outdoor storage of Inoperable, oouaed or unRcensed ~. vehicle parts, appliances, interior furniture, discarded building materials, landscape debris; or other spent and useless Items commonly known as junk in a residential di8trict. All residential accessory storage must be In an encloaed building. AH ducts and vents shan be maJntained according to original Installation requirements. (cap miaing on vent) Broken or missing doors, door frames, windows, operating systems, and window eashes shall be rapalred or replaced. All premises shall be maintaiied clean, safe, sanitary and free from an accumulation of rubbish. Al mechanical equipment shaft be properly maintained and operated In a safe man."181'. (Install gutter spike where pigeon's nest) All premises shaD be maintained clean, safe, sanitary and free from an accumulation of rubbish. There shall be no Insect or rodent Infestation In violation of the County Health Department regulations. No hazard of fire or explosion shall be created or allowed to exist In •Y building, premises, equipment or apparatus. (Fire extlngLiahera are mfuing.) Smoke detector required In hallway or area giving accesa to rooms used for sleeping (installed • per manufacturer's in8tructiona). Batbroom {' 18.50.170A 118.50.140.D V18.50.210A.2 All premises shall be maintained clean, safe, sanitary and free from an accumulation of Rlbbish. Broken or missing doors, door framee, windows, operating systems, and window sashes 8haJI be repaired or replaced. (Window needs to be openable .) Plumbing, piping and fixtures shall have no leaks and shall be maintained In good condition. (Toilet Is loose.) Bathroom In Hallway v1i.50.150.C All walls and ceiUngs shall be maintained so that they are secure and intact. ~OA ,.. premises shall be mainlained clean, safe, aanilarY and free from an -J accumulation of rubbish. 116 18.50.170.C There shaH be no insect or rodent infestation in violation of the County Health J Department regulations. vb 18.50.150.C All walls and celllngs shaR be maintained so that they are 88CU'8 and intact. (Repair an cracks, missing plaster and repair holes.) ~50.150.C SurfaceS shan be painted or covered with an approved wallpaper or paneling. /18.50.150.E ?50.230.A vi 18.50.230.A Ba8ement v"ii.56.220A3 0a.50.220A2 v<s.50.230.F.1 ~50.200.C.1 vi8.50.200.C.6 18.50.170.A UnlttB H1llway D 18.50.200.A 'O 18.50.200.E.1 All fixtures shall be maintained in a safe and operable condition. (Kitchen cabinets require replacement at aink with a new faucet) All electrical equipment, wiring and appliances shall be used in a safe manner and installed in accordance with the electrical code in effect at the time of installation. (ventilation fan) All electrical equipment, wiring and appliances shaH be used in a safe manner and Installed in accordance with the electrical code in effect at the time of installation. (Repair refrigerator freezer door.) Al mechanical equipment shal be property maintained and operated in a safe manner. (Combustion air vent Is blocked.) AR mechanical equipment ahan be In accordance with the code In effect at the time of Installation. (Remove unused duct work.) Al electrical panels, boxes. outlets and lighting fixtures shall have proper covers . Stairs with four (4) or more risers require a handraU. Stains shall be repaired and maintained in a safe condition. All premises shall be maintained clean, safe, sanitary and free from an accumulation of rubbish. No hazard of fire or explosion shall be created or allowed to exist in any building, premises, equipment or apparatus. (Fire extinguishers me milsing.) : Smoke detector required in hallway or area giving access to rooms used for sleeping (installed as per manuractuw's instrudions). 0 18.50.170.A l> 18.50.170.C Batbrpom ./ 18.50.210A 1 "'1&5o.170.A Q18.50.170.C .150.C "1'6:50.220.A.3 Kitchen V1i.56.17o.A () 18.50.170.C 0'18.50.150.C V18.50.220A3 Furnace Room r 18.50.230.F.1 ilta.so.230.A All premises shall be maintained clean, safe, sanitary and free from · an accumulation of rubbish. . There shall be no insect or rodent inlestatlon in violation of the County Health Department regulations. All plumbing, piping and fixtll'e8 shall be in accordance with the code in effect at the time of installation. (Escutcheon is missing on shower apout.) All premisea shall be maintained clean, safe, sanitary and free from an accumulation of rubbish. There shaU be no insect or rodent infestation in violation of the County Health Department regulations. All walls and ceilings shall be maintained so that they are aecure and intact. All mechanical equipment shall be properly maintained and operated in a safe manner. (Repair and secure vent) All premises shall be maiUJned clean, safe, sanitary and free from an accumulation of rubbish. There shaU be no lnaed or rodent infestation In violation of the County Health Department regulations. AM wall and ceilings shall be rnaiitained so that they are secure and lntaQ. All mechanical equipment shal be properly maintained and operated in a safe mamer. (Secura vent behind cabinet) All electrical panels, boxes, outlets and lghting fixtures shall have proper covers. All electrical equipment, wiring and appliances shall be used In a safe manner and installed in accordance with the electrical code In effect at the time of Installation. (Clean combustion and retum ducts.) NOTE: North room Is not to be occupied! a.ctroom -Middle J.i8.50.210A2 Plumbing, piping and fixtures ahall have no leaks and shall be malntaiied in / good condition. ~.170.A Alt premises shalt be maintained clean, safe, sanitary and free from an aca.mulation of rubbish. 50.150.C AU walls and ceilings shall be maintained so that they are secure and Intact. 18.50.230.A All electrical equipment, wiring and appliances shall be used in a safe manner and Installed in accordance with the electrical code In effect at the Unite Hallway 18.50.200.E.1 time of lnataHation. -( 1 l ' ~~tel£, C,. \ 0vl L&v· \.«)')( $~C:. •t (.I\ Smoke detector required In hallway or area gMng ac:cess to rooms used for aleeplng (Installed as per manufacturer's instructions). / DIVISION OF HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICE REQUEST Thursday, September OS, 2019 INFORMATION Sidwell# Address . ... . • ~ ~ .. ~ '-. ~:· ...... -·.,'\:··.::=,'(-: .. :-· ... HAND District: -. ~ • . • , • • • •i. • • Owner Info: Status: Closed Inspector: • HAZE Comment Type Case C omment Case Comment Case Comment Case Comment Case Comment Case Comment Case Comment Case Comment Case Comment Action Result Comment In Progress Result Comment In Progress Result Comm ent In Progress Result Comment In Progress Result Comment In Progress Inspector Date Created: Created By: Complete Date: VIOLATIONS WORK ACTIONS Action Description Inspected interior for remaining de f list item of counter space. Counter has been installed and meet requirments . bs Owner has completed def li st items . OK to close Call to owner, ins pection scheduled for l/2S/07 at 12:00 pm. BS Inspection for deficiency li st conducted. All but one item remains. Requirement of four square feet of counter space. Will wait for the owner to call for a final in spection. cz Owner has not called for final inspection of remai ning deficiency list items . Follow up visit needed to final inspection, call placed to owner to finish inspection. dh Deficiency list is OOoAi complete. Still some remainin~ issues. Extens ion ~iven. cz Inspection is done on the interior. Deficiency items- holes in che floor wall and ceiling are taken care of but there is more to do. cz Outs ide is okay, inside is a mess. cz Hous ing II letter with deficiency list. cz AD 22 -PHONE CALL : Call to owner, inspection scheduled for 1/25/07 at 12:00 pm. BS AD 19 -INSPECTION: Owner has not called for final inspection of remaining defici ency list items. Follow up v isit needed to final inspection, call placed to owner to finish inspecti(Hl. dh AD 19 -INSPECTION; inspected interior for remaining de f list item of counter space. Counter bas been installed and meet requinnents. bs AD 19 -INSPECTION: Inspection for deficiency list conducted. All but one item remains. Requirement of four square feet of counter space. Will wait for the owner to call for a final inspection. CZ AD 19 -INSPECTION: Deficiency list is GO% complete. Still some remaining issues. Extension given. cz Case# HAZ2000..156070 10/26/2006 Date-Time 10/26/2006 9: 17 AM 10/26/2006 10:00 AM 10/2 6/2006 12:00 PM 10/26/2006 1 :00 PM 10/26120061:00 PM From:Judi Short To:Lindquist, Kelsey Subject:(EXTERNAL) Proposed Lincoln Street and 2nd East Development Date:Wednesday, February 12, 2020 1:43:24 PM Dear Planning Commissioners: This is a very detailed and well written staff report, I hope you have read every word. We are in a housing crunch in Salt Lake City, but that does not mean that we should tear down the wonderful old buildings in our city for the sake of a few additional units. There is plenty of available land in the city to build units. Look at the downtown empty parking lots. This property is not for sale. Of course not, because the recent owner has now sold it to a developer who wants to tear it down and expand and make a lot of money. This property is part of the Bryant Historic District, and forms the fabric of this neighborhood. If we start allowing exceptions to the huge number of Master Plans that have been written and include this neighborhood, we are undermining all the work planning and the citizens of Salt Lake City do to plan our neighborhoods. if we start with one project, there will be another one, and another one, until this neighborhood won't look like the neighborhood it is now. Do we really want that to happen? Why bother with doing a master plan at all if we are just going to ignore its recommendations. R-2 is the perfect ensity for this area. What about the 50 or so individuals who live in the existing five homes. I guarantee the rent is extremely low, and evicting them could contribute to additional homeless people. There is no plan for them to relocate. The list of people waiting for affordable housing is long, how long will it take for them to move up to the top of the list and find a placement? In the meantime, where are they to live? These are five affordable units. Are you willing to demolish these and replace them with no affordable units? There is no compelling reason to rezone these parcels. I vote no, and I recommend that you vote no as well. Page 60 and 61 give you a couple of reasons why you should vote this down. There are other reasons throughout the staff report. VOTE NO! -- Judi Short, Land Use Chair, Sugar House Community Council 801.487.7387 h 801.864.7387 c 4) ORIGINAL APPLICANT PETITION ~;~% ='·~l Master Plan Amendment D Amend the text of the Master Plan ~ Amend the Land Use Map OFFICE USE ONLY Address of Subject Property (or Area): See attached supplemental information Name of Applicant: ..... Chiao-ih Hui c/o, Graham Gilbert, Snell & Wilmer LLP Address of Applicant: 15 West South Temple, Suite 1200, Salt Lake City, UT 84070 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~! _ce_l-1/-Fa_x_:~~~~~~~~~ Applicant's Interest in Subject Property : D Owner D Contractor D Architect ~ Other: Owner's Agent Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant): See attached supplemental information E-mail of Property Owner: chiaoih@gmail.com Phone : 801 -414-8041 \ 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 call (801) 535-7700 if you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application. REQUIRED FEE \ Filing fee of $948 plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre . \ $100 for newspaper notice. \ Plus additional fee for mailed public notices. SIGNATURE \ If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: See attached signature page Updated 7 /1/17 D D D D D SUBMITIAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Project Description (please attach additional sheets .) 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 . D 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 Mailing Address: Planning Counter In Person: Planning Counter PO Box 145471 451 South State Street, Room 215 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Telephone: (801) 535-7700 INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED _x __ 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. Upd ated 7/1/17 Supplemental Information/or Project Description Applicant: Chiao-ih Hui Zoning Amendment Application 1. Owner Names and Address of Subject Property (or Area): This Zoning Amendment Application applies to the parcels li ste d m the following table (collectively, the "Parcels"). Parcel No. Owner Address Acres 16051350100000 Peter & Pik Chi Hui 159 South Lincoln Street 0.15 16051350110000 Nung-Wa Hui; Pih-Fhai 949 East 200 South 0.12 Hui; & Pik-Chi Hui 16051350120000 Pih Fhai & Pik Chi Hui 955 East 200 South 0.12 16051350130000 Hawk II; Pih-Phai Peter 959 East 200 South 0.12 Hui; & Nung-Wa Hui 16051350140000 Pik Chi & Peter Hui 963 East 200 South 0.18 2. Project Description a. A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. The Parcels are currently located in the City's R-2 Single-and Two-Family Residential Zoning District ("R-2 District"). The current zoning for the Parcels is shown on Exhibit A. The purpose of this Application is to amend the Zoning Map to include the Parcels in the RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District ("RMF-35 District"). This amendment is necessary to allow Applicant's proposed use of the Parcels, which is described below. b. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. Applicant proposes to construct a multi-family project with 16 dwelling units on the Parcels . A site pl~n for the Parcels is attached as Exhibit A. c. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. The Parcels are currently located in the R-2 District. They are adjacent to properties in the RMF- 35 District. The immediately surrounding area has a wide variety of zoning districts, including the RMF-35 District; R-2 District; RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District; RMF- 45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District; SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District; and UI Urban Institutional District. These zoning districts are shown on Exhibit B. The area surrounding the parcels has a mix of different land uses, including single-family homes; small, medium, and large apartments; commercial buildings; offices; and institutional buildings 4827-5507-9574 (e.g ., Salt Lake Regional Hospital). This mix of land uses results from approved, conditional uses and changes to land use policies over time . The Central Community Master Plan encourages use of residential zoning to provide opportunities for medium-density housing. It also encourages infill development designed in a manner that is compatible with the appearance of existing neighborhoods. Similarly, the City's Housing Plan recommends increasing medium density housing types and options. It recommends directing new growth towards areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people- oriented. The Housing Plan also encourages development of affordable housing . The non-historic homes on the Parcels have been converted to apartments . Existing City approvals permit 9 apartment units on the 5 parcels. The present zoning does not allow Applicant to develop its proposed multi-family project on the Parcels. As a result, Applicant requests an amendment to the zoning map to include the Parcels in the RMF-35 District. This proposed amendment is consistent with surrounding zoning . Properties adjacent to and northeast of the Parcels are located in the RMF-35 District. Numerous other properties in the immediately surrounding neighborhood are in the RMF-35 District, or other multi-family zoning districts, like RMF-45 and RMF-30 . A medium-density housing development is compatible with the existing neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood has a variety of land uses, including small , medium, and large apartment buildings. As recommended by the Housing Plan, the proposed development will increase medium density housing stock in an area with existing infrastructure and close proximity to mass tran sit and services (e.g. medical and commercial services). In addition, Applicant is willing to work with the City to provide one affordable housing unit in the project. For these reasons, Applicant requests that the Parcels be rezoned to the RMF-35 District. d. I s the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. This Application proposes amending the Zoning Map for Salt Lake County Parcel Nos . 16051350100000; 16051350110000; 16051350120000; 16051350130000;and 16051350140000. Additional information regarding the Parcels may be found in the table , above. e. 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. This Application does not request amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance. 4827-5507-9574 34.5' Col ,...:· J I PARCEi!: # PARCEL # PARCEL# I I 1ao513so110000 ( 16051sso120000115051350130000 I ZONE R-2 ZONE R-2 ZONE R-2 0.12ACRES 0.12ACRES 0.12~RES ~1 I~ I l'l t ~ ~ -1 I~ i ~ I I~ - I I I I L -'--' 34.5' 34.5' 200 South 3(;" n I b ~ I PARCEL# 16051350140000 ZONE A-2 0.18 ACRES I i8 .... I I --_J 47' P!lRCEL fa 1605130.02 70000 ",4RCLL ~ I 60~ lj~02BDDOD SAS£CAMP FRANCHISING LlC @ SITE PLAN : EXISTING CONDITIONS S-! ---o· 5' ro' 20· 40' Ex hibit A -Site Plan Applicant: Chiao-ih Hui Zoning Amendment Application NORTH ~ ~ . "' c :i: 0 f--. .c . 3 0 en . 0 0 N 1 .. I~ i! ~: AS-100 S R -3 .~ R MF -30 IRMFl .. -~ ~ = -5 I• , ~. RMF-35 Existi ng Commercial Use Exhibit B -Map of Surrounding Zones Applicant: Chiao-ih Hui Zoning Amendment Application UI RMF-45 Ill -z j :; .: Zoning Amendment D Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance ~ Amend the Zoning Map OFFICE USE ONLY Date Received : Project#: fJt!U ~ot -Orit;23 -3-5 PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Address of Subject Property (or Area): See attached supplemental information Name of Applicant: ...... Chiao-ih Hui c/o, Graham Gilbert, Snell & Wilmer LLP Address of Applicant: 15 West South Temple, Suite 1200, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 E-mail of Applicant: I Cell/Fa x: ----~~~~~~~-~~~~-Applicant 's Interest in Subject Property: 0 Owner 0 Contractor 0 Architect ~ Other: Owner's Agent Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant): See attached su lemental information E-mail of Property Owner: chiaoih@gmail.com Phone : 801 -414-8041 \ Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provid ed for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including profes sional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of publ ic review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION \ If you have any questions regardin g the requirements of this application, plea se contact Salt Lake City Planning Counter at (801) 535-7700 prior to submitting th e application. REQUIRED FEE \. Filing fee of $1,011 plu s $121 per acre in excess of on e acr e, \ Text amendments will be charged $100 for newspaper notice. \ Plu s additional f ee for mailed public notices . SIGNATURE \. If applicabl e, a notarize d sta teme nt of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: See attached signature page Updated 7 /1/17 SUBMITIAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Project Description (please attach additional sheets.) D EJ Describe the proposed master plan amendment. D EJ A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. D EJ Declare why the present master plan requires amending. D EJ Is the request amending the Land Use Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed . D D Is the request amending the text of the master plan? If so, please include exact languag e to be changed. WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION Mailing Address: Planning Counter In Person : Plannin g Counter PO Box 145471 451 South State Street, Room 215 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Telephone: (801) 535 -7700 IN COMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED _x __ I acknowled ge 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 app li cation unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. Updated 7 /1/17 Supplemental Information for Submittal Requirements Applicant: Chiao-ih Hui Master Plan Amendment Application 1. Owner Names and Address of Subject Property (or Area): This Master Plan Amendment Application applies to the parcels listed in the following table (collectively, the "Parcels"). Parcel No. Owner Address Acres 16051350100000 Peter & Pik Chi Hui 159 South Lincoln Street 0.15 16051350110000 Nung-Wa Hui ; Pih-Fhai 949 East 200 South 0 .12 Hui; & Pik-Chi Hui 16051350120000 Pih Fhai & Pik Chi Hui 955 East 200 South 0 .12 16051350130000 Hawk II ; Pih-Phai Peter 959 East 200 South 0.12 Hui ; & Nung-Wa Hui 16051350140000 Pik Chi & Peter Hui 963 East 200 South 0.18 2. Project Description a. Describe the proposed master plan amendment. This Application requests an amendment to the Central Community Master Plan ("Master Plan"). The Parcels are currently located in the Low Density Residential land use designation on the Master Plan's Land Use Map. The current land use designation for the Parcels is shown on Exhibit A. This Application requests an amendment to the Land Use Map to include the Parcels in the Medium Density Residential land use designation. This amendment is necessary to allow Applicant's proposed use of the Parcels, which is described below. b. A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. Applicant proposes to construct a multi-family project with 16 dwelling units on the Parcels. A site plan for the Parcels is attached as Exhibit A. c. Declare why the present master plan requires amending. The Parcels are currently located in the Low Density Residential designation. They are adjacent to properties in the Medium Density Residential designation. The immediately surrounding area has a wide variety of land use designations , including Medium Density Residential; Low Density Residential ; Low Medium Density Residential; Medium High Density Residential; Neighborhood Commercial; and Institutional. The area surrounding the parcels has a mix of different land uses, including single-family homes; 4843-3 167 -9 126 small , medium, and large apartments; commercial buildings; offices; and institutional buildings (e .g ., Salt Lake Regional Hospital). This mix ofland uses results from approved , conditional uses and changes to land use policies over time. The Master Plan supports use of residential zoning to provide opportunities for medium-density housing. It also encourages infill development designed in a manner that is compatible with the appearance of existing neighborhoods . Similarly, the City's Housing Plan recommends increasing medium density housing types and options. It recommends directing new growth towards areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people-oriented. The Housing Plan also encourages development of affordable housing. The non-historic homes on the Parcels have been converted to apartments. Existing City approvals permit 9 apartment units on the 5 Parcels. The present land use designation does not allow Applicant to develop its proposed multi-family project on the Parcels. As a re sult, Applicant requests an amendment to the Land Use Map to include the Parcels in the Medium Density Residential designation. This proposed amendment is consistent with surrounding land use designations. Properties adjacent to and northeast of the Parcels are located in the Medium Density Residential designation. Numerous other properties in the immediately surrounding neighborhood are in the Medium Density Residential designation, or other multi-family land use designations, like Medium High Density Residential or Low Medium Density Residential. A medium-density housing development is compatible with the existing neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood has a variety of land uses, including small, medium, and large apartment buildings. As recommended by the Housing Plan, the proposed development will increase medium density housing stock in an area with existing infrastructure and close proximity to mass transit and services (e.g. medical and commercial services). In addition, Applicant is willing to work with the City to provide one affordable housing unit in the project. For these reasons , Applicant requests that the Land Use Plan be amended to include the Parcels in the Medium Density Residential land use designation. d. Is the request amending the Land Use Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. This Application proposes amending the Land Use Map for Salt Lake County Parcel Nos. 16051350100000; 16051350110000; 16051350120000; 16051350130000;and 16051350140000. Additional information regarding the Parcels may be found in the table, above. e. Is the request amending the text of the master plan? If so, please include exact language to be changed. This Application does not request amendments to the text of the Master Plan. 4843-3167-9 126 -Q) ~ -V) c 0 u c ::J io I d - 11) I I 35.5' I PARCEL# PARCEL , 16051 J50090000 105.1' PARCEL# 16051350100000 0 .15ACRES LAND USE DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 34.5' -I' 34.5' .m-' 30' _r <O ,...:- :J I b . ..,,. I 16051350110000 PARCEL" I PARCEL # I 16051350120000 -16051350130000 0 ,12ACRES I 0.12ACRES PARCEL# 16051350140000 0 .18ACRES L.ANOUSE DESIGNATION: I 6 .12 ACRES LAND U,sE · DESIGNATION: I LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 36.1' LAND USE LAND USE DESIGNATION: -DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY I LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL I L I I_ -'·-34.5' 34.5' 47' PARCEL # 16051 J50270000 Exhibit A -Site Plan Applicant: Chiao-ih Hui Master Plan Amendment Application (/) c PARCEL I 16051350280000 BASECAMP FflANCHISING LL C ~ 0 I-. l .s::.. '5 . I~ 0 -~ CJ). ~u 0 l3 0 ~! N @ SITE PLAN: EXISTING CONDITIONS NORTH ~ o· s· 10· 20· 40• 200 South AS-100 5) MAILING LIST 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:February 2, 2021 RE: Zoning Map Amendments from CC to FB-UN2 for Properties at 1301 and 1321 South State Street PLNPCM2020-00328 The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for properties at 1301 and 1321 South State Street totaling approximately 1.77 acres. The subject parcels are currently zoned CC (Corridor Commercial) and the applicant is requesting a change to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2). An amendment to table 21A.27.050E2 is also requested to add this corner to other named locations eligible for increased building height. Currently Coachmans Restaurant and a two-story office building are on the subject parcels. (Photos of the parcels are found on page 28 of the Administration’s transmittal.) The applicant indicated an intent to replace the existing buildings with a new mixed-use building including ground floor commercial space and owner-occupied condominiums above at a price point attainable to a wide range of potential buyers. The FB-UN2 zone typically includes buildings up to four stories, with taller buildings allowed on some street corners. This zoning amendment requests adding this corner to others in the FB-UN2 zone that allow buildings up to 65 feet tall. The other named street corners are: West Temple at 800 or 900 South 200 West at 700, 800 or 900 South 200 West at Fayette Avenue 300 West at 800 or 900 South Item Schedule: Briefing: February 2, 2021 Set Date: February 2, 2021 Public Hearing: March 2, 2021 Potential Action: March 16, 2021 Page | 2 Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the zoning map amendment. This recommendation includes a condition that the two parcels be consolidated before the ordinance is published. Aerial image showing the subject parcels outlined in blue. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTION Is the Council supportive of the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve the zoning map and master plan amendments? ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Three key issues were identified through Planning’s analysis of the proposed project. A summary of each is below. See pages 18-24 of the Administration’s transmittal for the complete analysis. Issue 1 – CC and FB-UN2 Zoning Development Potential The subject parcels are located at a key intersection on 1300 South and State Street. State Street is an important gateway into Salt Lake City and 1300 South is a major east/west arterial street. Page | 3 CC Zoning CC zoning regulations do not encourage housing or high-density development due to height limits, high parking minimums, and deep setbacks potentially making mixed-use developments unfeasible. These setbacks also discourage a walkable pedestrian environment along State Street and when combined with typically shallow lot depths, further limit development potential. Planning staff found these factors prevented the corridor from achieving a critical mass of people, goods and services that make for the best urban areas. South State Street Corridor Overlay District The subject site is within the South State Street Corridor Overlay District which is generally aligned with the State/Main street corridor from 900 South to 2100 South. The overlay has additional requirements including maximum setback, parking setback and exempts front yard setback, with the goal of increasing pedestrian activity and walkability along the corridor. There are additional design requirements of ground floor glass, blank wall maximum and screening of equipment and service areas. Planning staff noted while the overlay district maximum setback improves feasibility of mixed-use developments as proposed, it does not overcome height limitations. FB-UN2 Zoning Zoning regulations and design guidelines greatly impact development in an area. Form-based districts provide zoning regulations focusing on the form of development, how buildings are oriented toward public spaces, scale of development and interaction of uses within the city. Planning staff included the following tables comparing the CC and FB-UN2 zones and design guidelines on pages 66-67 of the transmittal: Page | 4 Planning staff also included the following list of items provided by form-based districts in creating urban neighborhoods: 1. People oriented places; 2. Options for housing types; 3. Options in terms of shopping, dining, and fulfilling daily needs within walking distance or conveniently located near mass transit; 4. Transportation options; 5. Access to employment opportunities within walking distance or close to mass transit; 6. Appropriately scaled buildings that respect the existing character of the neighborhood; 7. Safe, accessible, and interconnected networks for people to move around in; and 8. Increased desirability as a place to work, live, play, and invest through higher quality form and design. Planning further noted the following establish an acceptable standard of quality and design in the FB-UN2 zone: Greater Building Height for Higher Density Building Frontage Ground Floor Transparency Active Ground Floors Amenity Space Pedestrian Friendly Ground Floor Residential Treatments Parking Standards & Orientation Page | 5 The following were also considered by Planning staff when comparing the existing and proposed zones: Housing/Mixed Use The Central Community Master Plan future land use map designates the subject site as “Medium Residential/Mixed Use (10-50 dwelling units/acre). The proposed FB-UN2 zone does not completely match the master plan’s “Medium Residential/Mixed Use” designation. There is not a density limitation in the FB-UN2 zone which could result in greater than 10-50 dwelling units per acre. On the other hand, the CC zone is more permissive, with lower height requirements, greater setbacks and higher parking requirements. These make construction of mixed-use developments more difficult. It is Planning staff’s opinion rezoning the subject parcels to FB-UN2 would facilitate cost-effective mixed-use buildings and better urban form. Attachment C of the Administration’s transmittal (pages 33-36) includes the Residential section of the Master Plan and Planning noted it supports changes the proposed rezone would bring. Safety Design guidelines in the FB-UN2 zoning district can provide additional active street frontages with increased “eyes on the street.” New buildings closer to the front property line could help engage sidewalk activity with visual interest and variation for pedestrians. Transparent ground floor windows and doors allow passers-by to see activity inside, and those inside can see out to the street. This may increase the perception of safety and security. Sustainability Housing at this location is close to TRAX and bus routes reducing impact on transportation needs. Planning staff found higher density housing has the potential to create compact housing types that may reduce per household water and energy use resulting in lower infrastructure demands and housing costs. Issue 2: Additional Height on Corner The FB-UN2 zone allows taller buildings that are located at identified main intersections. Additional height incentivizes development and activity at these corners while keeping a distinction between the intersection and lower buildings mid-block. As discussed above, part of the proposal is to add this corner to others allowing additional height. Planning staff noted if the Council approves the petition a text amendment would not be required since it would be a site-specific addition to the ordinance. Issue 3: Compatibility with Adjacent Properties Surrounding properties to the south, north and west fronting on State Street and 1300 South are zoned CC. They have a variety of uses including office space, retail, drive-in restaurant, a bank, and gas station/convenience store. An adjacent parcel to the east is multi-family residential and zoned RMF-45. It serves as a buffer between more intense land uses on State Street and the lower density neighborhood to the east. Both the CC and FB-UN2 zoning districts require a seven-foot landscape buffer when adjacent to residential property. In addition, FB-UN2 requires floors above 30 feet in height to be stepped back 15 feet from the building foundation at grade for elevations adjacent to a public street, trail or open space. Note: this step back does not apply to buildings with balconies on floors rising above 30 feet in height. Page | 6 ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment D of the Planning Commission staff report (pages 37-38 of the Administration’s transmittal) outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. They are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for full details. Planning staff found this proposal generally complies or is consistent with these standards. 1. 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. Finding: The proposed amendment is generally consistent with the goals and policies of the applicable master plans. 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Finding: The proposal generally furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties. Finding: The change in zoning is not anticipated to create any substantial new negative impacts that wouldn’t be anticipated with the current zoning. 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning district which may impose additional standards. Finding: The subject site is within the South State Street Corridor Overlay District. Requirements and design guidelines are similar if not stricter in the FB-UN2 zoning than the overlay and therefore will not impose additional standards. 5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies and wastewater and refuse collection. Finding: The proposal does not increase the need for improvements beyond that required by existing zoning allowances. PUBLIC PROCESS • Notice of the project was sent to Liberty Wells, Central City and Ball Park Community Councils May 18, 2020. • Notices mailed to property owners/residents within ~300 feet of the subject site June 3, 2020. • Liberty Wells Community Council online meeting June 10, 2020. o The applicant responded to questions about the number of units desired for a potential project, about how it complied with the master plan and about parking. The applicant responded that the number of units had not been confirmed at the time and that the project would provide parking according to the necessity of the project. o Planning reports response to the request was positive. • Online open house June 18, 2020. • Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing for the proposal included: o Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division list serve August 11, 2020. o Public hearing notice posted and mailed August 12, 2020. Page | 7 • Planning staff received five emails with comments on the proposal. Four were in favor and one was opposed to removing Coachmans Restaurant and gentrification of the area. These emails are included on pages 40-44 of the Administration’s transmittal. •The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and held a public hearing at its August 26, 2020 meeting. No one spoke at the hearing. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposal. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY 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: Chris Wharton, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: PLNPCM2020-00328 - 1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Katia Pace, Principal Planner, katia.pace@slcgov.com, 801-535-6354 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission to adopt the ordinance amending the zoning map for the property at 1301 and 1321 South State Street and amending Table 21A.27.050E2 of the zoning ordinance to include additional land area eligible for additional building height. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Glen Anderson, representing the property owner, is requesting a zoning map amendment to rezone the properties at 1301 and 1321 S. State Street currently zoned CC (Corridor Commercial) to FB-UN2 (Form Base Urban Neighborhood 2) and to amend Table 21A.27.050E2 of the zoning ordinance to include additional land area eligible for additional building height. The FB-UN2 generally includes buildings up to four (4) stories in height, and with taller buildings located on some street corners. This zoning amendment will also add this corner to other sites/corners in the FB-UN2 that allow buildings up to 65 feet in height. The property is currently occupied by a restaurant and a commercial building. The applicant requested the rezoning because the FB-UN2 zoning district better aligns with the potential use of 12/29/2020Lisa Shaffer (Jan 4, 2021 09:53 MST) 01/04/2021 the corner lot and the potential for a new mixed-use building (to replace the existing buildings on the parcels). An analysis of both zoning districts was done and regarding compatibility with adjacent properties, the CC zone is more permissive with development potentials and land use allowed, and the FB-UN2 zoning would allow higher density and height. The existing CC zone has very few design requirements, and the change to FB-UN2 will add additional design requirements that will help ensure better public facing building design, ensuring high-quality and pedestrian-oriented development. Regarding master plan compatibility, the proposed FB- UN2 zoning generally fits within the master plan’s designation for the property and may better promote of the master plan’s policies. For additional information regarding the two associated zones and the zoning amendment considerations, please refer to the Planning Commission Staff Report found in Exhibit 3b. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Notice of the project and request for comments was sent to the Chairs of the Liberty Wells, Central City, and Ball Park community councils on May 18, 2020. • Notices were mailed to property owners/residents within ~300 feet of the proposal on June 3, 2020. • The Liberty Wells Community Council held an online meeting on June 10, 2020 o The applicant was questioned about the number of units desired for a potential project, about how it complied with the master plan and about parking. The applicant responded that the number of units had not been confirmed at the time and that the project would provide parking according to the necessity of the project. o Response to the request was positive. • Online Open House with information about the proposal, where to get more information, and who to contact for questions and comments was published on June 18, 2020 in the Salt Lake City Planning’s website https://www.slc.gov/planning/open-houses/. • The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 26, 2020. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to change the zone from CC to FB-UN2 with the condition that the two parcels, 1301 and 1321 South State Street, be consolidated before the ordinance is published. Edison Street State Street 1300 South Public Input: • One phone call was received with a concern that the zoning amendment does not follow a comprehensive approach to zoning for the whole area. • Five emails were received. Four in favor of the rezoning and one against the removal of Coachman’s Restaurant and gentrification of the area. A copy of the emails can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report found in Exhibit 3b. EXHIBITS: 1. Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Hearing 3. Planning Commission – August 26, 2020 a. Mailed Notice b. Staff Report c. Agenda/Minutes e. Staff Presentation Slides 4. Original Petition 5. Mailing List SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2021 (Amending the zoning map pertaining to properties located at 1301 and 1321 South State Street to rezone those parcels from CC Corridor Commercial District to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2, and amending Table 21A.27.050.C of the Salt Lake City Code to include additional land area eligible for additional building height) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to properties located at 1301 and 1321 South State Street to rezone those parcels from CC Corridor Commercial District to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2, and amending Table 21A.27.050.C of the Salt Lake City Code to include additional land area eligible for additional building height pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2020-00328. WHEREAS, Glen Anderson submitted an application to rezone properties located at 1301 and 1321 South State Street from CC Corridor Commercial District to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2 and to amend Table 21A.27.050.C of the Salt Lake City Code to include additional land area eligible for additional building height pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2020-00328; and WHEREAS, at its August 26, 2020 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 said 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 parcels located at 1301 and 1321 South State Street (Tax ID Nos. 16-07-358-001-0000 and 16-07-358-008-0000), more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, are rezoned from CC Corridor Commercial District to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2. SECTION 2. Amending text of the Salt Lake City Code Table 21A.27.050.C. That Table 21A.27.050.C (Zoning: Form Based Districts: FB-UN1 and FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood District: FB-UN2 Building Form Standards) of the Salt Lake City Code, shall be and hereby is amended to read and appear as follows: TABLE 21A.27.050.C FB-UN2 BUILDING FORM STANDARDS Building Regulation Building Form Cottage Development1 Row House Multi- Family Residential Mixed Use Storefront Building height and placement: H Height 2.5 stories, 30’ maximum from established grade 4 stories with a maximum of 50’. 5 stories with a maximum of 65’ on parcels located on the corners of West Temple at 800 or 900 South, 200 West at 700, 800 or 900 South, 200 West at Fayette Avenue, 300 West at 800 or 900 South, the southeast corner of 1300 South and State Street, and in the area identified on Figure 21A.27.050C.1. All heights measured from established grade. F Front and corner side yard setback No minimum Maximum 10’ B Required build-to Minimum of 50% of street facing facade shall be built to the minimum setback line S Interior side yard 4’ setback required Minimum of 15’ along a side property line adjacent to FB-UN1 or any residential zoning district that has a maximum building height of 35’ or less, otherwise 4’ setback required Minimum of 15’ along a side property line adjacent to FB-UN1 or any residential zoning district that has a maximum building height of 35’ or less, otherwise no setback required R Rear yard Minimum of 20’ along a rear property line adjacent to FB-UN1 or any residential zoning district that has a maximum building height of 35’ or less, otherwise no setback required Minimum of 25’ along a rear property line adjacent to FB-UN1 or any residential zoning district that has a maximum building height of 35’ or less, otherwise no setback required Minimum of 20’ along a rear property line adjacent to FB-UN1 or any residential zoning district that has a maximum building height of 35’ or less U Upper level step back Buildings shall be stepped back 1 additional foot for every foot of building height above 30’ along a side or rear property line adjacent to FB-UN1 or any residential zoning district that has a maximum building height of 35’ or less, unless the building is set back from the property line 45’ or more. When a parcel in the FB-UN2 District is separated by an alley from a parcel in the FB-UN1 District, or any residential zoning district that has a maximum building height of 35’ or less, the width of the alley may be counted toward the upper level step back L Minimum lot size 4,000 sq. ft.; not to be used to calculate density 1,500 sq. ft.; not to be used to calculate density 4,000 sq. ft.; not to be used to calculate density W Minimum lot width 15’ per unit facing a street. Side orientation allowed provided building configuration standards are complied with 30’ DU Dwelling units per building form 1 per cottage Minimum of 3; no maximum No minimum or maximum BF Number of building forms per lot 1 cottage for every 1,000 sq. ft. of lot area 1 building form permitted for every 1,000 sq. ft. of lot area 1 building form permitted for every 4,000 sq. ft. of lot area Parking: Surface parking in front and corner side yards Not permitted Vehicle access If off street parking is provided, vehicle access from an alley is required when property is served by a public or private alley with access rights. Vehicle access from street is only permitted when no alley access exists. If pull through parking is required by Fire or other Code, ingress shall be from street and egress onto alley If property is less than 30’ wide, vehicle access from an alley is required when property is served by a public or private alley with access rights. If no alley access exists, only 1 vehicle access point from a street may be permitted If property is 30’ wide or more, only 1 vehicle access point from a street may be permitted. If property is served by a public or private alley, ingress shall be from street and egress onto alley unless otherwise permitted by this section Corner lots with a minimum width of 120’, may have 1 vehicle access point per street frontage. Vehicle access may be one-way or multidirectional Vehicle access width at street When a one-way vehicle drive is included in a development, no vehicle drive or curb cut may exceed 12’ in width. When a multidirectional vehicle drive is included, a curb cut may not exceed 24’ in width Vehicle access from street design standards If vehicle access is from a street, the following additional design standards shall apply: garage entry shall have a minimum 20’ setback from property line; garage entry may not exceed 50% of first floor building width; one-way garage entry may not exceed 14’ in width; multiway garage entry may not exceed 26’ in width; garage door or gate shall be constructed of durable building materials and compatible with building design Driveway location The minimum distance between curb cuts shall be 12’. Driveways shall be at least 6’ from abutting property lines for a depth of 10’ unless shared. Driveways shall be at least 12’ from property lines adjacent to a street corner or 5’ from the point of tangency of the curb return, whichever is greater. Abandoned curb cuts shall be removed and replaced with City standard curb Vehicle access and parking compliance All new drive approaches, driveways, and parking lots shall comply with form based urban neighborhood regulations, and all other applicable sections of this Code. Existing drive approaches, driveways, and parking lots shall be made compliant with form based urban neighborhood regulations upon change of use, increase in parking, or building additions greater than 25% of the footprint of the structure or 1,000 sq. ft., whichever is less Parking on separate lots Parking may be provided on an adjacent lot, or in a common area associated with the development, or within 500’ of the property. If located on an adjacent parcel or on a parcel within 500’, the proposed location of the parking shall contain a principal building and the parking shall be located behind a principal building Attached garages and carports Attached garages and carports are required to be accessed from the rear yard where the rear yard is accessible by an alley with access rights to the subject property. If there is no access to the rear yard, an attached garage may be accessed from the front or corner side yard provided that the garage door (or doors) is no wider than 50% of the front facade of the structure and the entry to the garage is set back at least 10’ from the street facing building facade and at least 20’ from a public sidewalk. Side loaded garages are permitted Note: 1. See Subsection 21A.27.020.B.1.d of this chapter for additional standards. SECTION 3. Condition. This proposed zoning map and zoning text amendment will not be published until the applicant has obtained subdivision approval to combine the subject parcels located at 1301 and 1321 South State Street (Tax ID Nos. 16-07-358-001-0000 and 16-07-358-008-0000). SECTION 4. 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 or cause it to be recorded until the condition identified in Section 3 above has been met as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Division. SECTION 5. Time. If the condition identified above has not been met within one year after adoption, this ordinance shall become null and void. The city council may, for good cause shown, by resolution, extend the time period for satisfying the condition identified above. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 2021. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2021 Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: ________________________________ By: ________________________________ Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney December 10, 2020 Exhibit “A” Legal description of the properties Tax ID No. 16-07-358-001-0000 NYE’S ADD 0804 BEG AT A PT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF A STREET WHICH IS S 0^02’11” E 40.34 FT ALG THE MONUMENT LINE OF EDISON ST & S 89^54’32” W 182.50 FT FR THE SLC MONUMENT AT 13TH SOUTH & EDISON* Tax ID No. 16-07-358-008-0000. 1217 LOT A, NYES ADDITION BLOCK 2 AMD. 1. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY April 30, 2020 Petition PLNPCM2020-00328 was received by the Planning Division. May 4, 2020 Petition assigned to Katia Pace May 18, 2020 Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chairs of the Liberty Wells, Central City, and Ball Park community councils. June 3, 2020 Early notification was sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project area. June 10, 2020 Proposal presented at the Liberty Wells Community Council online meeting. June 18, 2020 Online Open House with information about the proposal, where to get more information, and who to contact for questions and comments. August 14, 2020 Planning Commission hearing notice mailed to owners and tenants of property within 300 feet of the subject property. August 26, 2020 Planning Commission reviewed the petition and conducted a public hearing. The commission then voted to send a positive recommendation to the City Council. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2020-00328 at 1301 and 1321 S. State Street from CC to FB-UN2 Rezone and amending Table 21A.27.050E2 of the zoning ordinance to include additional land area eligible for additional building height – A request by Glen Anderson, representing the property owner, to rezone the properties at 1301 and 1321 S. State Street currently zoned CC (Corridor Commercial). The applicant is requesting to change the zoning to the FB-UN2 (Form Base Urban Neighborhood 2). This zoning amendment will also add this corner to other sites/corners in the FB-UN2 that allow buildings up to 65 feet in height. The applicant requested the rezoning because the FB- UN2 zoning district better aligns with the potential use of the corner lot and the potential for a new mixed-use building (to replace the existing buildings on the parcels). Although the applicant has requested that the property be rezoned to the FB-UN2 zone, consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The property is in Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. As part of their study, the City Council is holding two advertised public hearings to receive comments regarding the petition. During these hearings, 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 second public hearing. The hearing will be held electronically: DATE: Date #1 and Date #2 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: **This meeting will not have a physical location. **This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation. If you are interested in participating in the Public Hearing, please visit our website at www.slccouncil.com to learn how you can share your comments during the meeting. 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 Katia Pace at 385-226-8499 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at katia.pace@slcgov.com. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION A. Mailed Notice August 14, 2020 3. PLANNING COMMISSION B. Staff Report August 26, 2020 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 www.slcgov.com PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY & NEIGHORHOOD DEVELOPMENT Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Katia Pace, 801-535-6354, katia.pace@slcgov.com Date: August 26, 2020 Re: PLNPCM2020-00328 CC to FB-UN2 Rezone Zoning Map Amendment PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1301 and 1321 South State Street PARCEL ID: 16-07-358-001-0000 & 16-07-358-008-0000 MASTER PLAN: Central Community Master Plan ZONING DISTRICT: Current – Corridor Commercial (CC) Proposed – Form Base Urban Neighborhood 2 (FB-UN2) REQUEST: Glen Anderson, representing the property owner, is requesting a zoning map amendment to rezone the properties at 1301 and 1321 S. State Street currently zoned CC (Corridor Commercial). The applicant is requesting to change the zoning to FB-UN2 (Form Base Urban Neighborhood 2) and to add this site/corner to a list of other sites in the FB- UN2 that allow buildings up to 65 feet height. The property is currently occupied by a restaurant and a commercial building. The FB- UN2 generally includes buildings up to four (4) stories in height, and with taller buildings located on some street corner parcels. Development regulations are based on building type, with the overall scale, form, and orientation of buildings as the primary focus. The applicant feels that the intent of the FB- UN2 zoning district better aligns with the potential use of the corner lot and the potential for a new mixed-use building (to replace the existing buildings on the parcels). The FB-UN2 also has design standards that were created to reduce the impacts of increase height and density. Edison StreetState Street 1300 South 1 1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings listed in the staff report, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation for the rezone request to the City Council with the condition that the That the two parcels, 1301 and 1321 South State Street, be consolidated before the ordinance is published. Petition Description The property is comprised of two lots that are currently occupied by a one- story restaurant, Coachman’s, on the corner lot, and a two-story commercial building on the south lot. The lot in the corner is 0.57 acres (24,829 square feet) and the lot on the south is 1.2028 acres (52,394 square feet). The parking for both buildings is located between State Street and the front façade of the commercial building. The intent of the applicant after the rezoning is to demolish the existing buildings, combine the lots and build a mixed-use development with commercial on the ground floor and housing above. The main reason the applicant is requesting this rezoning is to have additional height and density to build a mixed-use project which would include housing that is financially attainable, and owner occupied. The applicant has provided a detailed narrative about the reasons for this request and how they believe it complies with the City’s considerations for a rezone in Attachment A. KEY ISSUES: The considerations below were identified through the analysis of the proposal and the zoning amendment consideration standards: 1. CC and FB-UN2 Zoning Development Potential 2. Additional Height on the Corner Lot 3. Compatibility with Adjacent Properties Issue 1: CC and FB-UN2 Zoning Development Potential This site is located at a key intersection of 1300 South and State Street. State Street is an important gateway to Salt Lake City and 1300 South is a major east/west arterial street. State Street was traditionally the boundary between housing and commercial/industrial areas and much of the zoning, between 900 South and 2100 South, on State Street is CC (Corridor Commercial). Staff finds that a development according to the CC zoning standards could be a missed opportunity for this corner of State Street and 1300 South. State Street 1300 South CC RMF-45 R-1/5,000 CC CC 1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment Zoning on and surrounding State Street & 1300 South The following is a comparison of zoning reequipments between the CC and the FB-UN2 zones: Zoning Standard CC Zone FB-UN2 Zone Front Setback* 15’ 25’ Max. for 35% (SSSC Overlay) 0 Minimum 10’ Maximum Corner Side Yard 15’ 0 Minimum 10’ Maximum Interior Side Yard 0 15’ adjacent to single family or FB-UN1 Rear Yard 10’ 20’ adjacent to single family or FB-UN1 Height 30’ with additional 15’ through the Design Review process 50’ or 65’ on some corner lots Lot Size (minimum) 10,000 square feet 4,000 square feet Lot Width 75’ 30’ Parking • 1 per 1br Unit • 2 per 2br Unit • 2 per 1,000 sq. ft. retail No minimum * Structures located within the CC Corridor Commercial Base Zoning District and the SSSC South State Street Corridor Overlay District are exempted from the minimum front yard setback requirement and have a maximum front yard setback 3 1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment The zones also differ in the design standards required for development, with the FB-UN2 zone having more standards that encourage pedestrian engagement and visual interest: Design Standards CC Zone South State Street Corridor FB-UN2 Zone Ground floor use Yes Ground floor use + visual interest Yes Building materials: ground floor Yes Building materials: upper floors Yes Glass: ground floor Yes Yes Building entrances Yes Yes Yes Blank wall: maximum length Yes Yes Upper floor step back Yes Balconies & Patios Yes Lighting: parking lot Yes Yes Screening of equipment and service area Yes Pedestrian Connections Yes Open Space Area Yes Building Fenestration Yes Parking Yes Parking setback Yes Yes CC Zoning The purpose of the CC zoning is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive commercial development with a local and regional market area along arterial and major collector streets. State Street is over zoned for retail and under zoned for other uses. CC zoning regulations do not encourage housing or high-density development because it limits the allowed height and requires high parking minimums and deep setbacks that can make mixed-use projects unfeasible. The setbacks discourage a walkable pedestrian environment along State Street. Lot depths are typically shallow, which, when combined with setback regulations, further limit development potential. This is a particular issue on the east side of State Street. These factors have prevented the corridor from achieving the critical mass of people, goods and services that make for the best urban areas. 4 1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment South State Street Corridor Overlay District The subject site is within the South State Street Corridor Overlay District. This area is generally aligned with the State/Main Street corridor from 900 South to 2100 South. This overlay has additional requirements: maximum setback, parking setback and it exempts front yard setback. Furthermore, there are three additional design requirements: ground floor glass, blank wall maximum and screening of equipment and service areas. The South State Street Corridor Overlay district maximum setback improves feasibility but does not overcome height limitations. FB-UN2 Zoning Zoning regulations and related design guidelines have a major impact on the types of development that occur in an area. Form based districts are intended to provide zoning regulations that focus on the form of development, the way buildings are oriented toward public spaces, the scale of development, and the interaction of uses within the city. The purpose of the form-based districts is to create urban neighborhoods that provide the following: 1. People oriented places; 2. Options for housing types; 3. Options in terms of shopping, dining, and fulfilling daily needs within walking distance or conveniently located near mass transit; 4. Transportation options; 5. Access to employment opportunities within walking distance or close to mass transit; 6. Appropriately scaled buildings that respect the existing character of the neighborhood; 7. Safe, accessible, and interconnected networks for people to move around in; and 8. Increased desirability as a place to work, live, play, and invest through higher quality form and design. Form based districts provide places for people to live, work, and play within a proximity. Regulations within form-based districts place emphasis on the built environment over land use. Design standards improve the FB-UN2 zone because they establish an acceptable standard of quality and design, such as: • Greater Building Height for Higher Density • Building Frontage • Ground Floor Transparency • Active Ground Floors • Amenity Space • Pedestrian Friendly • Ground Floor Residential Treatments • Parking Standards & Orientation The considerations below were also contemplated while comparing the existing and proposed zones: Housing/Mixed Use The Central Community Master Plan future land use map shows this site as “Medium Residential/Mixed Use (10-50 dwelling units/acre). “Medium Density Residential Mixed Use” is defined in the plan as: This land use designation allows integration of medium density residential and small business uses at ground floor levels. The intent is to increase population density to support neighborhood business uses, provide more housing units, and expand the use of common public facilities such as open space, libraries, schools, and mass transit. 5 1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment The FB-UN2 zone does not completely match the “Medium Residential/Mixed Use” designation in the master plan. This zone allows for multi-family development without a density limitation, thus potentially exceeding the noted 10-50 dwelling units an acre. However, the CC zone being a lot more permissive, with lower height requirements, higher setbacks and higher parking requirements results in building mixed-use developments a lot harder. Whereas, the rezoning to the FB-UN2 zone would facilitate cost-effective mixed-use buildings and better urban form. The Residential section of the master plan (see Attachment E) supports the changes this rezoning would bring. Safety One of the goals for the neighborhood of this site is to eliminate the problems associated with the pawnshops, prostitution, and undesirable activities on State Street. A lack of eyes on the street from evening activity and residents is partly to blame for the lack of safety. Through the required design guidelines found in the FB-UN2, the development can provide more active street frontages through increased “eyes on the street”. Locating new buildings at or near the front property line helps to engage sidewalk activity, providing visual interest and variation for pedestrians. Transparent windows and doors on the ground floor of buildings increase the liveliness of a street. Passers-by can see the action inside, and those inside can watch people and keep eyes on the street; in turn creating a higher perception of safety and security. Sustainability Housing at this site would have a low impact on transportation needs being that the site is strategically located close to TRAX and bus routes. Also, higher density has the potential to create compact housing types that could reduce per household water and energy use, reducing infrastructure demands and housing costs. Issue 2: Additional Height on Corner The FB-UN2 allows taller height for buildings that are located at identified main street intersections. The purpose for the additional height is to incentivize development and activity at these corners and keep a distinction between the mid-block areas and intersections (lower buildings). Part of this proposal is to include this site/corner with other corners that allow additional height. Reference to this site would be included to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Table 21A.27.050E2. Since this is a site-specific addition to the zoning ordinance, a text amendment will not be necessary. Specifically, the proposal would add the underlined reference: 6 1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment Table 21A.27.050E2 FB-UN2 Building Form Standards Building Regulation Building Form Building height and Placement: Cottage Development1 Row House Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use Storefront H Height 2.5 stories, 30' maximum from established grade 4 stories with a maximum of 50'. 5 stories with a maximum of 65' on parcels located on the corners of West Temple at 800 or 900 South, 200 West at 700, 800 or 900 South, 200 West at Fayette Avenue, 300 West at 800 or 900 South, the southeast corner of 1300 South and State Street and in the area identified on Figure 21A.27.050C.1. All heights measured from established grade Meanwhile the subject site includes two parcels so the site would be added to the table above after the lots are consolidated. The lot consolidation would be a condition of approval. Issue 3: Compatibility with Adjacent Properties As part of a zoning amendment request, staff is directed to analyze how adjacent properties may be affected by a change in zoning to the property. In this case, the properties adjacent to this site are: • East: is a multi-family parcel that is zoned RMF-45. • South: is the Utah State Department of Workforce and Human Services that is zoned CC. • West: Across the street there are several parcels with a variety of land uses such as retail, restaurants and a gas station that is zoned CC. And across the street, kitty corner to this site is a drive-inn restaurant that is zoned CC. • North: Across the street there is a strip mall with a bank on the corner that is zoned CC. The abutting property on the east is a multi-family residential that is zoned RMF-45 and serves as a buffer from the more intense land uses along State Street and the lower density neighborhood further east. Both CC and FB-UN2 require a 7-foot landscape buffer between a residential property. The FB-UN2 also requires that floors rising above thirty feet (30’) in height need to be stepped back fifteen (15) horizontal feet from the building foundation at grade for building elevations that are adjacent to a public street, public trail, or public open space. This step back does not apply to buildings that have balconies on floors rising above 30 feet in height. DISCUSSION: The proposal has been reviewed against the Zoning Amendment consideration criteria in Attachment F, including criteria regarding the proposed zoning’s impact and compatibility on adjacent properties, and compatibility with the associated master plan. Regarding compatibility with adjacent properties, CC zone is more permissive with development potentials and land use allowed, and the FB-UN2 zoning would allow higher density and height. The existing CC zone has very few design requirements, and the change to FB-UN2 will add additional design requirements that help ensure better public facing building design outcomes ensuring high quality, pedestrian oriented future development. Regarding master plan compatibility, the proposed FB-UN2 zoning generally fits within the master plan’s designation for the property and may better promote some of the master plan’s policies. 7 1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment Due to these considerations, staff is recommending that the Commission forward a favorable recommendation on this request to the City Council. NEXT STEPS: The Planning Commission can provide a positive or negative recommendation for the proposed map amendment. The recommendation will be sent to the City Council, who will hold a briefing and additional public hearing on the proposed zoning amendment. The City Council may make modifications to the proposal and approve or decline to approve the proposed zoning map amendment. If the zoning map amendment is approved by the City Council, the property owner could propose development and/or land uses that meet the standards of the FB-UN2 zoning for the entire property. The parcels will need to be consolidated either before the City Council approves the rezoning or if the City Council approves the rezoning before the parcels are consolidated, the ordinance would need to list a condition that it would be published upon the parcels being consolidated. ATTACHMENTS: A. Applicant’s Narrative B. Property & Vicinity Photographs C. City Master Plan Policies D. Analysis of Standards – Zoning Map Amendment E. Public Process and Comments F. Department Review Comments 8 1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment 9 We have been working with Nick Norris and Katia Pace with the Salt Lake City Planning Department over the past year to draw the information below. We have also met with the Liberty Park Neighborhood Council with members of the Ballpark Neighborhood Council present where we received an almost unanimous straw poll vote of support. Purpose of the Zoning Amendment We are requesting that parcels #16073580080000 and #16073580080000 currently zoned CC be changed to FB-UN2. FB-UN2 allows mixed use at a greater density and is more in alignment with the proposed masterplan for the State Street Corridor. FB-UN2 allows for increased building height and density to facilitate a mixed use development that reinforces the cities masterplan. Changing the zoning to FB-UN2 provides a permissible avenue to achieve increased height and density through the design review process defined within this Zone. The increased density allows more units. This will lower the costs of the units making them more affordable. This is another goal of the master plan. While the height is being increased the building mass will step back at the third floor reducing its impact on both State Street and the apartments to the east. Description of the proposed development: Create a medium density mixed use development that will reinforce the goals of the proposed State Street Master Plan. The development will consist of: Provide Street level retail. Ownership, vested interest: Provide Upper level affordable condominiums with open space. Provide opportunity to own, a condominium instead of paying rent at close to the same cost. Neighborhood awareness: Owners would be more likely than renters to monitor activities in the neighborhood. Provide onsite secured parking for owners and their guests and patrons of the onsite retail establishments. The secured parking garage will help reduce car prowls in the area. Provide Onsite storage units for residence. Reasons why present zoning is not appropriate: 10 The State Street Community Reinvestment Plan (CURRENT DRAFT) defines the site as Commercial Corridor, “CC”. This use encourages residential and commercial mid-rise construction with a mix of uses to include corner shops, small markets and housing. Midrise is typically between 4 to 11 stories. The proposed development is 5 stories. There are no height restrictions in the draft. The current Zoning of CC does not accommodate the intent of this Plan. CC Zoning height is 30 feet with a 15 foot increase to 45 feet. This does not accommodate the density this site needs to achieve to be able to provide affordable condominiums The setbacks in the CC zoning will not provide an adequate footprint to achieve the goals of this project. Narrowing the depth on the basement, first and second story will reduce the parking by almost 50%. CC Zoning encourages mixed uses within the Zoning district but not necessarily in the same development or structure. 11 1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment 12 1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment 13 1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment 14 1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment 15 1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment 16 1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment Central Community Master Plan (2005) The property is located within the Central Community Master Plan. The plan’s future land use designation for the property is discussed in Key Consideration 2 of the report. The plan’s text includes discussion about multi-family mixed-use development and includes a variety of general policies applicable to them. Those discussions and policies are included below: Residential Land Use Section The following policies from the Residential Land Use section of the Central Community Master Plan support the request for rezoning: • RLU-1.0 Based on the Future Land Use map, use residential zoning to establish and maintain a variety of housing opportunities that meet social needs and income levels of a diverse population. • RLU-1.5 Use residential mixed-use zones to provide residential land uses with supportive retail, service, commercial, and small-scale offices and monitor the mix of uses to preserve the residential component. • RLU- 2.0 Preserve and protect existing single- and multi-family residential dwellings within the Central Community through codes, regulations, and design review. • RLU-3.0 Promote construction of a variety of housing options that are compatible with the character of the neighborhoods of the Central Community. • RLU-3.1 Encourage residential land developers to build housing that provides residential opportunities for a range of income levels, age groups, and family size. • RLU-3.2 Encourage a mix of affordable and market-rate housing for owner occupancy throughout the Central Community. Encourage a mix of rental properties for those who cannot afford or do not choose home ownership. • RLU-4.0 Encourage mixed use development that provides residents with a commercial and institutional component while maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood. • RLU-4.1 Encourage the development of high-density residential and mixed-use projects in the Central Business District, East Downtown, and Gateway areas. • RLU-4.2 Support small mixed-use development on the corners of major streets that does not have significant adverse impacts on residential neighborhoods. Commercial Land Use Section Design and scale of commercial property within or adjacent to residential neighborhoods The appearance of commercial developments that are adjacent to or surrounded by residential neighborhoods is an important issue. Desirable characteristics are clean storefronts, limited signage, compatible scale and building design, and landscaping that improves and complements the neighborhood character, rather than standardized corporate model buildings and logos. To promote local businesses, regulations should be appropriate but not overly restrictive and allow some design flexibility. Mixed land use designations The plan identifies new mixed-use designations to support livable communities. Most of these mixed-use areas are located near mass transit centers and light rail stations in the higher- density and commercial-intensive neighborhoods of the Central Community. 17 1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment Urban Design Section • Policy UD-1.0 Support establishment of guidelines, and regulations for urban design to improve the quality of living in the Central Community. • UD-1.2 Support zoning regulations that provide opportunities for unique and creative urban design solutions. • UD-1.4 Administer urban design through zoning regulations where possible. Discussion: One of the key matters emphasized throughout the Central Community Master Plan is compatibility. The plan speaks repeatedly about compatibility of new residential and commercial development with existing neighborhoods. In this case, the zoning proposal is not directly adjacent to low-scale residential zoning, reducing the potential for significant negative impacts. The Master Plan also speaks to urban design requirements being put in place in the zoning to “improve the quality of living in the Central Community.” The proposed zoning includes more regulations to ensure quality urban design for larger developments versus the existing zoning. The proposed zoning will also continue to allow for mixed-use development. The zoning also implements additional design guidelines for the property as noted as an implementation measure in the plan. Plan Salt Lake (2015) The plan includes policies related to growth and housing in Salt Lake City, as well as related policies: Neighborhoods: • Create a safe and convenient place for people to carry out their daily lives. • Support neighborhood identity and diversity. • Encourage and support local businesses and neighborhood business districts. • Provide opportunities for and promotion of social interaction. Growth: • 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. Housing: • 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. • Increase diversity of housing types for all income levels throughout the city. • Increase the number of medium density housing types and options. • Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate. Air Quality: • Increase mode-share for public transit, cycling, walking, and carpooling. • Minimize impact of car emissions. • Reduce individual and citywide energy consumption. Discussion: Plan Salt Lake encourages a 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 18 1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment demographics and opportunity for social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein. These are goals that would be better met with the rezoning from CC to FB-UN2. State Street Community Reinvestment Area Plan One of the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) of Salt Lake City project areas is the State Street Project Area. The project is bounded by 2100 South and 300 South on the south and north; Interstate-15, 200 West, and West Temple on the west; and 200 East on the east. The overarching vision of the State Street Project Area is to promote a livable urban community with a strong urban design identity that preserves and enhances the integrity of its existing residential neighborhoods. Anticipated changes through redevelopment and revitalization of the Project Area (related to this project): • It is anticipated that underutilized and vacant land will be returned to productive use, thereby helping to reduce crime and improving the physical environment of the neighborhood. This CRA Plan envisions more people living, working, and shopping on State Street and in the State Street Project Area, bringing new life to the area, and taking advantage of the proximity to the downtowns of both Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake. These changes will likely result in an increase in the number of housing units in this area, and likely an increase in both the housing and commercial density in the Project Area. • Although it is anticipated that current single-family land uses will be retained, it is likely that increases in building intensity and development of underutilized/vacant land would result in increased population densities. • It is anticipated that there will be an increase in new, mixed-use infill developments that will increase building intensities overall in the project area. Buildings with multiple uses, such as ground floor retail with housing above, will increase the use and activity of the buildings and bring additional people to the project area overall. Standards to guide project area development (related to this project): • Encourage the highest aesthetic standards possible using durable materials while at the same time providing the greatest possible public value that meets current and future needs. • Support population growth and stability by providing opportunities for housing, mixed-use development, and appropriate-scale commercial development while stabilizing existing neighborhoods. • Work with Salt Lake City Planning Division to review zoning codes in the project area and potentially make changes to zoning and allowable land use to promote walkable places and to allow development to evolve with the changing market. Objective 4: Housing • High-quality housing options to provide housing stability for existing residents and establish the area as an option for increased residential capacity and live-work opportunities. Discussion: The vision of the State Street Project Area, to promote a livable urban community with a strong urban design identity that preserves and enhances the integrity of its existing residential neighborhoods is consistent with this rezoning request through higher aesthetic, with support for population growth, mixed-use development and provide the area with options for increased residential capacity. 19 1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment Life on State (Draft) In addition to the adopted master plans listed above, Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake have worked together to study improvements and development opportunities along the State Street corridor. The outcome of this study was a plan, Life on State, which has not been adopted. However, this draft formulated a vision for a better street and recommendations for zoning and other development regulations. The draft plan calls for more density along State Street and more height as well as development that better engages the sidewalk and street. Public engagement discussions during the planning process elicited positive attitudes toward higher density, mixed-use development to get more people living and working along State Street and to keep rents affordable. The proposed rezoning corresponds to that vision. 20 1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 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: Factor Finding Rationale 1. 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; The proposed amendment is generally consistent with the goals and policies of the applicable master plans. Consistency of the zone with the Central Community Master Plan is discussed under Issue 1. While the proposed zoning designation doesn’t completely align with all the aspects discussed in the Future Land Use designation for the property, it complies with its intent in supporting mixed-use development. The Central Community Master Plan encourages mixed- use development with higher density and better design guidelines to support livable communities on the corner of major streets. Plan Salt Lake promotes common policies, like neighborhoods that provide better interaction, development close to transportation, diversity of housing and more efficient use of energy. These goals will be better achieved if the zoning of the corner of 1300 South and State Street is rezoned from the CC zone to the FB- UN2. The rezoning is consistent with the vision of the State Street Project Area, by promoting higher aesthetic through additional design guidelines, with support for population growth through additional height, and mixed- use development. 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. The proposal generally furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. 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, in addition: A. Lessen congestion in the streets or roads; B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers; C. Provide adequate light and air; D. Classify land uses and distribute land development and utilization; E. Protect the tax base; F. Secure economy in governmental expenditures; G. Foster the city's industrial, business and residential development; and H. Protect the environment. 21 1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment The CC zone being a lot more permissive, with lower height requirements, higher setbacks, higher parking requirements and the lack of design standards can result in underutilized land. Whereas, the rezoning to the FB- UN2 zone would facilitate cost-effective mixed-use building and better urban form that could improve safety with active street frontage and better sustainable projects (see Issue 1 for more details). 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties; The change in zoning is not anticipated to create any substantial new negative impacts that wouldn’t be anticipated with the current zoning. Most of State Street from 900 South to the city boundary at 2100 South is zoned CC or Institutional. The current auto-oriented land uses reflect the zoning. The residential component of the FB-UN2 can provide the population to support commercial and institutional land uses. See additional discussion on Issue 3 of this report. 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards The subject site is within the South State Street Corridor Overlay District. This overlay has additional requirements: maximum setback, parking setback and it exempts front yard setback. Furthermore, there are three additional design requirements: ground floor glass, blank wall maximum and screening of equipment and service areas. The requirements and design guidelines are similar if not stricter in the FB-UN2 zoning than the overlay and therefore will not impose additional standards. 5. 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. The proposal does not increase the need for improvements beyond that required by existing zoning allowances. The site is located within a developed area of the City. The change of zoning is not likely to increase the need for roadways, parks, recreation facilities, police, fire protection, or schools. Any future development would be reviewed by the Public Utilities department and if additional water or sewer capacity is required to serve the property, the owner/developer would need to make the necessary public improvements. 22 1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment Public Notice, Meetings, and Comments The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposed project: • Project notification sent out May 18, 2020 to Liberty Wells, Central City, and Ball Park community councils. • Notices were mailed to property owners/residents within ~300 feet of the proposal on June 3, 2020 • Liberty Wells Community Council online meeting on June 10, 2020 o The applicant responded to questions about the number of units desired for a potential project, about how it complied with the master plan and about parking. The applicant responded that the number of units had not been confirmed at the time and that the project would provide parking according to the necessity of the project. o Response to the request was positive. • Online Open House June 18, 2020 • Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included: o Public hearing notice mailed on August 12, 2020 o Public hearing notice posted on August 12, 2020 o Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division list serve on August 11, 2020 Public Input: Five emails were received. Four in favor of the rezoning and one against the removal of Coachman’s Restaurant and gentrification of the area. Please see emails attached. 23 From: To:Pace, Katia Subject:(EXTERNAL) 1301 and 1321 Zoning Amendment Date:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 2:04:16 PM Hi there, I live on Coatsville just off of State Street, and fully support this zoning amendment. I think adding density and mixed-use developments will increase the walkability and safety of the neighborhood as well as add vibrancy to the State Street corridor. Thanks! Janine Donal 24 25 From: To:Pace, Katia Subject:(EXTERNAL) Public Comment in support of Petition Number: PLNPCM2020-00328 Date:Monday, June 8, 2020 9:00:56 AM Katia, I am a resident of the neighborhood, and want to express support for this rezone. I think it is great they want to make changes to this property, and even better if they utilize a ped friendly zoning code to do so. Than you, Megan, 26 From: To:Pace, Katia Subject:(EXTERNAL) Rezoning of 1300s and State Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 11:26:21 PM I am against the rezoning. Vehemently opposed. I do not want Coachmans forced out. I'd love to see some other locations along state street improved but not this gentrification and upending of wonderful establishments that may happen I am a resident of in SLC. Please note my opposition Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 27 From: To:Pace, Katia Subject:(EXTERNAL) Zone change Date:Thursday, August 20, 2020 11:09:05 AM As a member of the community, with a background in City Planning and place making I fully support the zone change request at 1301 S State and adjacent parcel. Increasing heights and creating more truly mixed use areas in the City will have many positive impacts. Greater heights adjacent to wide street has been proven to reduce traffic speeds. While the allowable heights won’t allow for the ideal traffic calming heights, (as tall as or taller than the width of the adjacent street) greater heights are still an benefit. A project here will bring additional residents to the neighborhood, creating more invested residents, as well as increasing the population base for retail in the area. State street is hugely under utilized as far as the density that it could accommodate. Kyle R Deans 84101 28 1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment Planning Staff Note: As this rezone does not substantially change the development potential of the site and no immediate development has been proposed with the application, City departments, including Forestry, Police, Building Services, Fire, Engineering, Transportation, and Public Utilities did not have issues with the rezone. 29 3. PLANNING COMMISSION C. Agenda/Minutes August 26, 2020 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA THIRD AMENDMENT This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b) August 26, 2020, at 5:30 p.m. (The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion) This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms: • YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings • SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at: • http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-08262020 Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 12, 2020 REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Rosewood Park Alley & Street Vacation - Olga Crump of the Real Estate Services Department of Salt Lake City is requesting alley and street vacations within Rosewood Park in order to consolidate the property to simplify the permitting process for future improvement projects. These streets and alleys were platted as part of the Kinney and Gourlay’s Improved Subdivision, recorded in 1887, but were never constructed. These requests were brought before the Planning Commission on January 22, 2020 seeking a recommendation for a street closure and alley vacation. The request for a street closure has been amended and is now a request for a street vacation. The property is zoned OS (Open Space) and is located within Council District 1, represented by James Rogers. (Staff contact: Chris Earl at (801) 535-7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2019-01036 & PLNPCM2019- 01037 2. West End Alley Vacation at approximately 740 West 900 South - Maximilian Coreth, property owner, is requesting to vacate a small triangular portion of the alley abutting the west side of the property at the above said address. This is not a request to vacate the entire alley. The applicant is requesting to vacate this portion of the alley in order to acquire the property to square off the southwestern corner of his property for future development. The property is zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing) and is located within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff contact: Chris Earl at (801) 535-7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00268 3. Izzy South Design Review at approximately 534 East 2100 South - Ryan McMullen, Applicant, is requesting Design Review approval for a proposed 71-unit mixed use building located at approximately 534 East 2100 South by the name of “Izzy South.” The Applicant is requesting a modification of the maximum height requirement to accommodate architectural features on the front-facing façade of the proposed building. The property is zoned CB (Community Business) and is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff Contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385) 202-4689 or caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00222 4. Gateway Storage Planned Development at approximately 134 South 700 West - Austin Lundskog, Applicant, is requesting Planned Development and Design Review approval of a proposed self-storage facility 103,500 sq. ft. in size at approximately 134 South 700 West. The property is zoned GMU (Gateway Mixed Use) and is located within Council District 4, represented by Analia Valdemoros. (Staff contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385) 202-4689 or caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00182 and PLNPCM2020-00399 5. Stanford Commons Planned Development & Preliminary Subdivision at approximately 2052 E Michigan Avenue – Jessica Sluder from Alta Development Group, LLC, representing the property owner, is requesting approval for a new residential development at the above listed address. The proposal includes demolishing the discontinued pool area on the site and subdividing the property into four (4) lots for a proposed construction of three (3) single-family attached dwellings. The proposed project is subject to the following petitions: a. Planned Development – Planned Development is requested to modify the required front yard setback, grade changes greater than four feet (4’) within a required yard and required lot area from 3,000 square feet to approximate lot area ranging between 2,000 and 2,500 square feet for the new lots. Case number PLNPCM2020-00230 b. Preliminary Subdivision – Preliminary Plat approval is needed to create four (4) new lots. Case number PLNSUB2020-00231 The property is zoned RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential) and is located within Council District 6, represented by Dan Dugan (Staff contact: Linda Mitchell at (385) 386-2763 or linda.mitchell@slcgov.com) 6. Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 1301 & 1321 South State Street - Glen Anderson, representing the property owner, is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the properties at 1301 and 1321 S. State Street currently zoned CC (Corridor Commercial) to the FB-UN2 (Form Base Urban Neighborhood 2) zoning district. This zoning amendment will also add this corner to other sites/corners in the FB-UN2 that allow buildings up to 65 feet in height. The applicant feels that the intent of the FB-UN2 zoning district better aligns with the potential use of the corner lot and the potential for a new mixed-use building (to replace the existing buildings on the parcels). The FB-UN2 also has design standards that were created to reduce the impacts of increase height and density. The properties are located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Katia Pace at (801) 535- 6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00328 POSTPONED POSTPONED 7. ADU & Special Exception at approximately 1362 South 1300 East - Dwight Yee, property owner representative, is requesting Conditional Use approval to construct a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) in the rear yard of the property located at 1362 S 1300 E. The ADU will measure 640 square feet with a height of approximately 16 1/2 feet. The applicant is also requesting Special Exception approval for grade changes and retaining walls exceeding 4 feet in height. The requested grading and retaining walls are located within the rear and side yards. The property is zoned R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman at (801) 535- 7660 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00358 & PLNPCM2020-00454 For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. Salt Lake City Planning Commission August 26, 2020 Page 1 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING This meeting was held electronically pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b) Wednesday, August 26, 2020 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:30:17 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Vice Chairperson, Brenda Scheer; Commissioners; Maurine Bachman, Amy Barry, Carolynn Hoskins, Jon Lee, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes, Sara Urquhart, and Crystal Young-Otterstrom. Chairperson Adrienne Bell was excused. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Michaela Oktay, Planning Deputy Director; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Chris Earl, Associate Planner; Katia Pace, Principal Planner; Amanda Roman, Principal Planner; and Rosa Jimenez, Administrative Secretary. Michaela Oktay, Planning Deputy Directory provided participation information for the public. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 12, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 5:32:32 PM MOTION 5:32:41 PM Commissioner Bachman moved to approve the August 12, 2020 meeting minutes. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry, Bachman, Paredes, Hoskins, Young-Otterstrom, Lee, and Lyon voted “Aye”. Commissioner Urquhart abstained from voting as she was not present for the said meeting. The motion passed 7-1. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:34:09 PM Chairperson Bell was not present for the said meeting. Vice Chairperson Scheer stated she had nothing to report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:34:17 PM Nick Norris, Planning Director, provided the commission with updates on projects that the commission has previously seen that are now up before the City Council. 5:40:09 PM Vice Chairperson Brenda Scheer read the emergency proclamation. 5:41:16 PM Rosewood Park Alley & Street Vacation - Olga Crump of the Real Estate Services Department of Salt Lake City is requesting alley and street vacations within Rosewood Park in order to consolidate the property to simplify the permitting process for future improvement projects. These streets and alleys were platted as part of the Kinney and Gourlay’s Improved Subdivision, recorded in 1887, but were never constructed. These requests were brought before the Planning Commission on January 22, 2020 seeking a recommendation for a street closure and alley vacation. The request for a s treet closure has been amended and is now a request for a street vacation. The property is zoned OS (Open Space) and is located within Council District 1, represented by James Rogers. (Staff contact: Chris Earl at (801) 535- 7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2019-01036 & PLNPCM2019-01037 Salt Lake City Planning Commission August 26, 2020 Page 2 Christopher Earl, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council with the conditions listed in the staff report. PUBLIC HEARING 5:46:07 PM Vice-Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing; seeing no one wished to speak; Vice-Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing. MOTION 5:46:51 PM Commissioner Bachman stated, based on the findings and analysis in the staff report, the policy considerations for street vacation and alley vacation, and the input received I move that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the street vacation and alley vacation proposed in PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019-01037 with the condition listed in the staff report. Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry, Bachman, Urquhart, Paredes, Hoskins, Young-Otterstrom, Lee and Lyon voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. 5:48:30 PM West End Alley Vacation at approximately 740 West 900 South - Maximilian Coreth, property owner, is requesting to vacate a small triangular portion of the alley abutting the west side of the property at the above said address. This is not a request to vacate the entire alley. The applicant is requesting to vacate this portion of the alley in order to acquire the property to square off the southwestern corner of his property for future development. The property is zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing) and is located within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff contact: Chris Earl at (801) 535-7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00268 Christopher Earl, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council with the conditions listed in the staff report. Max Coreth, representing the property owners, was available for questions. PUBLIC HEARING 5:55:24 PM Vice-Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing; seeing no one wished to speak; Vice-Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing. MOTION 5:56:58 PM Commissioner Urquhart stated, based on the findings and analysis in the staff report, the policy considerations for alley vacation, and the input received I move that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the alley vacation proposed in PLNPCM2020-00268 with the condition listed in the staff report. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry, Bachman, Urquhart, Paredes, Hoskins, Young-Otterstrom, Lee, and Lyon voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. Salt Lake City Planning Commission August 26, 2020 Page 3 5:58:36 PM Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 1301 & 1321 South State Street - Glen Anderson, representing the property owner, is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the properties at 1301 and 1321 S. State Street currently zoned CC (Corridor Commercial) to the FB-UN2 (Form Base Urban Neighborhood 2) zoning district. This zoning amendment will also add this corner to other sites/corners in the FB-UN2 that allow buildings up to 65 feet in height. The applicant feels that the intent of the FB-UN2 zoning district better aligns with the potential use of the corner lot and the p otential for a new mixed-use building (to replace the existing buildings on the parcels). The FB-UN2 also has design standards that were created to reduce the impacts of increase height and density. The properties are located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Katia Pace at (801) 535- 6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00328 Katia Pace, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. The Commission and Staff discussed the following: • Clarification of when the State Street plan, Life on State, will be adopted Glen Anderson, applicant, provided further detailed information regarding the request. PUBLIC HEARING 6:24:14 PM Vice-Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing; seeing no one wished to speak; Vice-Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing. MOTION 6:25:28 PM Commissioner Lyon stated, based on the information in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed map amendment, PLNPCM2020-00328, at 1301 and 1321 South State Street from CC to FB-UN2 with the condition listed in the staff report. Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry, Bachman, Urquhart, Paredes, Hoskins, Young-Otterstrom, Lee and Lyon voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. 6:27:46 PM ADU & Special Exception at approximately 1362 South 1300 East - Dwight Yee, property owner representative, is requesting Conditional Use approval to construct a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) in the rear yard of the property located at 1362 S 1300 E. The ADU will measure 640 square feet with a height of approximately 16 1/2 feet. The applicant is also requesting Special Exception approval for grade changes and retaining walls exceeding 4 feet in height. The requested grading and retaining walls are located within the rear and side yards. The property is zoned R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman at (801) 535-7660 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00358 & PLNPCM2020-00454 Amanda Roman, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approval with the conditions listed in the staff report. Salt Lake City Planning Commission August 26, 2020 Page 4 The Commission and Staff discussed the following: • Clarification on whether there would still be a special exception for the retaining walls if there were no ADU Dwight Yee, representative of the property owner, provided further detailed information. The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following: • Clarification on retaining wall • ADU setback clarification PUBLIC HEARING 6:49:22 PM Vice-Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing; Cynthia – Stated her opposition of the request. She also raised concern with lack of parking. Seeing no one else wished to speak; Vice-Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing. The Commission, Staff and Applicant further discussed the following: • Clarification on onsite parking • Whether the applicant can reduce the rear-yard setback to allow for more parking Discussion was made to add possible conditions to the motion. FIRST MOTION 7:16:09 PM Commissioner Bachman stated, based on the information listed in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Commission approve the request for Conditional Use for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 1362 S 1300 E, as presented in petition PLNPCM2020-00358, with the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Young-Otterstrom seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry, Bachman, Urquhart, Paredes, Hoskins, Young-Otterstrom, Lee, and Lyon voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. SECOND MOTION 7:18:09 PM Commissioner Bachman stated, based on the information listed in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Commission approve the Special Exception request for grading and retaining walls exceeding four feet (4’) in height at 1362 S 1300 E, as presented in petition PLNPCM2020-00454, with the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry, Bachman, Urquhart, Paredes, Hoskins, Young-Otterstrom, Lee, and Lyon voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:19:41 PM 3. PLANNING COMMISSION E. Staff Presentation Slides August 26, 2020 Salt Lake City Planning Commission August 26, 2020 Zoning Map Amendment @ 1301 and 1321 South State Street from: Corridor Commercial (CC) to: Form Base Urban Neighborhood 2 (FB-UN2) Applicant would like to: 1.Consolidate the two parcels 2.Remove existing buildings 3.Build a mixed-use building – owner occupied and financially attainable Recommendation: For the Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council. According to the following analysis and condition. Site: 1301 & 1321 S. State Street Edison StreetState Street1300 South Current Zoning State Street1300 South CC RMF-45R-1/5,000CC CC Key Intersection •State Street is an important gateway to Salt Lake City •1300 South is a major east/west arterial street Plans applicable to this site: Plan Salt Lake •access to a wide variety of housing types •basic human need for safety •social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the community Central Community Master Plan •urban design requirements to “improve the quality of living in the Central Community •need for safety •new mixed-use designations to support livable communities Plans applicable to this site: RDA Project Area •higher aesthetic •support for population growth •mixed-use development options for increased residential capacity Life on State (Draft) •more density along State Street •more height •development that better engages the sidewalk and street Zoning: Current Zoning: •Corridor Commercial (CC) •State Street Overlay Proposed Zoning: •Form Base Urban Neighborhood 2 (FB-UN2) •State Street Overlay Zoning Comparison CC zoning requires more setbacks, more parking and less height/density Zoning Standard CC Zone FB-UN2 Zone Front Setback*15’ 25’ Max. for 35% (SSSC Overlay) 0 Minimum 10’ Maximum Corner Side Yard 15’ 0 Minimum 10’ Maximum Interior Side Yard 0 15’ adjacent to single family or FB- UN1 Rear Yard 10’20’ adjacent to single family or FB- UN1 Height 30’ with additional 15’ through the Design Review process 50’ or 65’ on some corner lots Lot Size (minimum)10,000 square feet 4,000 square feet Lot Width 75’30’ Parking • 1 per 1br Unit • 2 per 2br Unit • 2 per 1,000 sq. ft. retail No minimum Design Standards CC Zone South State Street Corridor FB-UN2 Zone Ground floor use Yes Ground floor use + visual interest Yes Building materials: ground floor Yes Building materials: upper floors Yes Glass: ground floor Yes Yes Building entrances Yes Yes Yes Blank wall: maximum length Yes Yes Upper floor step back Yes Balconies & Patios Yes Lighting: parking lot Yes Yes Screening of equipment and service area Yes Pedestrian Connections Yes Open Space Area Yes Building Fenestration Yes Parking Yes Parking setback Yes Yes Design Guidelines Comparison FB-UN2 has more design guidelines Properties Across the Street: •Commercial •Lower Height Properties Across the Street: •Drive- through •Parking in front Properties Across the Street: •Drive- through •Parking in front Adjacent Properties: •Multi-family residential •Government office building Findings: Staff finds that development under the CC zone does not encourage the type of development the different master plans call for. Findings: The type of development in the FB- UN2 has the potential for: •Additional housing •To be more sustainable •To be safer •Better designed Building Regulation Building Form Building height and Placement: Cottage Development1 Row House Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use Storefront H Height 2.5 stories, 30' maximum from established grade 4 stories with a maximum of 50'. 5 stories with a maximum of 65' on parcels located on the corners of West Temple at 800 or 900 South, 200 West at 700, 800 or 900 South, 200 West at Fayette Avenue, 300 West at 800 or 900 South, the southeast corner of 1300 South and State Street and in the area identified on Figure 21A.27.050C.1. All heights measured from established grade Table 21A.27.050E2 FB-UN2 Building Form Standards Condition of Approval: In order to add this site to other corner sites the parcels will need to be consolidated. 4. ORIGINAL PETITION Updated 7/1/19 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: Phone: Address of Applicant: E-mail of Applicant:Cell/Fax: Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property:  Owner  Contractor  Architect  Other: Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant): E-mail of Property Owner:Phone: 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 If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City Planning Counter at (801) 535-7700 prior to submitting the application. REQUIRED FEE Map Amendment: filing fee of $1,034, plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre Text Amendment: filing fee of $1,035, plus $100 for newspaper notice. Plus additional fee for mailed public notices. SIGNATURE If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING 801-201-7718 mike@tray-tag.com 801-908-8818Glenn Anderson n glenn@gaarch.com 801-577-1020 n Updated 7/1/19 Staff Review SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1.Project Description (please attach additional sheets.) 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 Mailing Address: Planning Counter PO Box 145471 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 In Person: Planning Counter 451 South State Street, Room 215 Telephone: (801) 535-7700 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. X X X X We have been working with Nick Norris and Katia Pace with the Salt Lake City Planning Department over the past year to draw the information below. We have also met with the Liberty Park Neighborhood Council with members of the Ballpark Neighborhood Council present where we received an almost unanimous straw poll vote of support. Purpose of the Zoning Amendment We are requesting that parcels #16073580080000 and #16073580080000 currently zoned CC be changed to FB-UN2. FB-UN2 allows mixed use at a greater density and is more in alignment with the proposed masterplan for the State Street Corridor. FB-UN2 allows for increased building height and density to facilitate a mixed use development that reinforces the cities masterplan. Changing the zoning to FB-UN2 provides a permissible avenue to achieve increased height and density through the design review process defined within this Zone. The increased density allows more units. This will lower the costs of the units making them more affordable. This is another goal of the master plan. While the height is being increased the building mass will step back at the third floor reducing its impact on both State Street and the apartments to the east. Description of the proposed development: Create a medium density mixed use development that will reinforce the goals of the proposed State Street Master Plan. The development will consist of: Provide Street level retail. Ownership, vested interest: Provide Upper level affordable condominiums with open space. Provide opportunity to own, a condominium instead of paying rent at close to the same cost. Neighborhood awareness: Owners would be more likely than renters to monitor activities in the neighborhood. Provide onsite secured parking for owners and their guests and patrons of the onsite retail establishments. The secured parking garage will help reduce car prowls in the area. Provide Onsite storage units for residence. Reasons why present zoning is not appropriate: The State Street Community Reinvestment Plan (CURRENT DRAFT) defines the site as Commercial Corridor, “CC”. This use encourages residential and commercial mid-rise construction with a mix of uses to include corner shops, small markets and housing. Midrise is typically between 4 to 11 stories. The proposed development is 5 stories. There are no height restrictions in the draft. The current Zoning of CC does not accommodate the intent of this Plan. CC Zoning height is 30 feet with a 15 foot increase to 45 feet. This does not accommodate the density this site needs to achieve to be able to provide affordable condominiums The setbacks in the CC zoning will not provide an adequate footprint to achieve the goals of this project. Narrowing the depth on the basement, first and second story will reduce the parking by almost 50%. CC Zoning encourages mixed uses within the Zoning district but not necessarily in the same development or structure. 5. MAILING LIST 1314 PLAZA LLC 2256 S LAKELINE CIR SALT LAKE UT 84109 AMERICAN TOTAL CARE, LLC 150 E 1300 S SALT LAKE UT 84115 ANDREW R ADELMAN & SARA E ADE 1339 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE UT 84115 ANDY TRAN 1330 S STATE ST SALT LAKE UT 84115 ANIKA WEBB 1321 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE UT 84115 AXIOM PROPERTIES III, LLC 351 W 400 S SALT LAKE UT 84101 BROTHERS & SON RETAIL LLC 1302 S STATE ST SALT LAKE UT 84115 FIRST UTAH BANK 3826 S 2300 E SALT LAKE UT 84109 FREE WESLEYAN CHURCH OF TONGA PO BOX 27662 SALT LAKE UT 84127 GARY L PETERSON & KATHRYN A PET 1220 S STATE ST SALT LAKE UT 84111 JARED FOTSCH 154 E 1300 S SALT LAKE UT 84115 JERRY W LOCKHART 1398 N 640 W WEST BOU UT 84087 JOHN NIKOLS 1313 S STATE ST SALT LAKE UT 84115 MICHAEL DURHAM 1345 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE UT 84115 MONICA AGUILAR 1333 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE UT 84115 MORSE LAURELWOOD PROPERTIES L 223 W 700 S SALT LAKE UT 84101 NATE WADE INVESTMENT 1421 S AMBASSADOR WY SALT LAKE UT 84108 NATE WADE INVESTMENT COMPANY1207 S MAIN ST SALT LAKE UT 84111 OLIVER WHITE & DIANA WHITE 1327 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE UT 84115 SALT LAKE COUNTY PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE UT 84114 SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CRIPPLED PO BOX 31356 TAMPA FL 33631 SRI REAL ESTATE PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 95389 SOUTH JOR UT 84095 PROPERTY OWNER 917 E MILLCREEK WY SALT LAKE CUT 84106 PROPERTY OWNER 3703 W 8110 S WEST JORDUT 84088 WILLISTON SLOULIN FIELD PAD LLC; & 5670 WILSHIRE BLVD #1250 LOS ANGEL CA 90036 Current Occupant 1220 S STATE ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84111 Current Occupant 85 E 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84111 Current Occupant 1241 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84111 Current Occupant 40 E 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84115 Current Occupant 60 E 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84115 Current Occupant 1325 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115 Current Occupant 1331 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115 Current Occupant 1302 S STATE ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115 Current Occupant 1318 S STATE ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115 Current Occupant 1324 S STATE ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115 Current Occupant 1330 S STATE ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115 Current Occupant 1332 S STATE ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115 Current Occupant 1340 S STATE ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115 Current Occupant 1350 S STATE ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115 Current Occupant 1297 S STATE ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115 Current Occupant 145 E 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84115 Current Occupant 115 E 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84115 Current Occupant 1301 S STATE ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115 Current Occupant 1321 S STATE ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115 Current Occupant 1328 S EDISON ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115 Current Occupant 150 E 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84115 Current Occupant 154 E 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84115 Current Occupant 1315 S EDISON ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115 Current Occupant 1321 S EDISON ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115 Current Occupant 1327 S EDISON ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115 Current Occupant 1333 S EDISON ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115 Current Occupant 1339 S EDISON ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115 Current Occupant 1345 S EDISON ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115 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:February 2, 2021 RE: 2903 South Highland Drive Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments PLNPCM2020-00053/00054 The Council will be briefed about an ordinance to amend the Sugar House Master Plan and zoning map for the property located at approximately 2903 South Highland Drive in City Council District Seven. This property is currently “split zoned” with the western portion of the parcel zoned CB (Community Business) and the eastern portion is zoned R-1/7,000 (Single-Family Residential). The proposal would amend zoning for the eastern portion of the property (approximately 30%) from R-1/7,000 to CB, matching the parcel’s western portion. The parcel’s eastern portion is currently used as a parking lot. Nearby properties fronting Highland Drive are primarily zoned CB and those fronting Zenith Avenue to the east are R-1/7,000. The proposed master plan and zoning map amendments are intended to accommodate a future development on the entire parcel. The subject parcel is located at the northeast corner of Highland Drive, an arterial street, and Zenith Avenue, a local street, as shown in the image below. Planning staff recommended and the Salt Lake City Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation to the City Council for the master plan and zoning map amendments. Item Schedule: Briefing: February 2, 2021 Set Date: February 2, 2021 Public Hearing: March 2, 2021 Potential Action: March 16, 2021 Page | 2 Aerial view with subject property outlined in red and R-1/7,000 portion outlined in yellow Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendment, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1.The Council may wish to ask what changes, if any, were made as a result of the public process since the May 13, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. 2.Does the Council support the Planning Commission’s recommendation to adopt the proposed changes? ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The western portion of the subject property currently houses the Visual Art Institute. A small parking lot is to the south of the building. The eastern portion of the property is also currently used as a parking lot and is noncomplying with that zoning designation. The subject property is in the Clermont Subdivision Plat, created in 1910. When the site and surrounding sites were subdivided, they were all platted as residential lots. Through the years as the area developed, properties fronting on Highland Drive were rezoned to allow commercial uses. The subject property became “split-zoned” in the 1950s when the western portion was rezoned, but the eastern portion was not. Under the current split zoning, the subject property’s western portion could be developed for any permitted or conditional use within the CB zoning district. However, this would be limited to only that portion of the property. The eastern portion of the property zoned R-1/7,000 could remain as a parking lot serving potential new uses of the western portion or be developed for uses permitted within that zoning district. If the zoning remains as is, in order to develop the eastern portion of the property it would need to be subdivided. The resulting parcel would meet R-1/7,000 zoning district standards. Page | 3 Permitted uses and standards for the CB zoning district are found in Attachment G (pages 42-48) of the Administration’s transmittal. R-1/7,000 permitted uses and standards are in Attachment F (pages 37-41) of the Administration’s transmittal. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Three key considerations were identified through Planning’s analysis of the proposed project and during the Planning Commission public hearing held May 27, 2020. A summary of each is below. See pages 17-22 of the Administration’s transmittal for the complete analysis. Consideration 1: Consistency with Master Plan Policies The subject property is within the Sugar House Community Master Plan area. Included in the Master Plan are general land use policy guidelines for the community along with more specific guidelines in the Plan’s Future Land Use Map. The Sugar House Community Master Plan’s stated purpose is to provide: “Policies to help protect the stable, well-kept residential neighborhoods of Sugar House;” And policies that support the preservation of neighborhood character…” Planning staff believes the proposed Master Plan amendment maintains the Sugar House Community Master Plan’s purpose because these amendments will not alter the residential neighborhood by rezoning the property to CB since the site has not been developed as a residential lot. Planning also stated the proposed amendment will allow continuation of a well-kept residential neighborhood by allowing integration of a low intensity use to buffer the residential area with the Highland Drive arterial street. The Sugar House Master Plan addresses nonconforming properties such as the subject parcel and converting them to commercial uses. The Plan recommends exercising caution when rezoning these types of properties and “each one should be considered on its own merits, with the public and surrounding residents given the opportunity to provide input into the decision-making process.” Surrounding property owners and others in the Sugar House community were provided multiple opportunities to share feedback on this project as outlined in the Public Process section below. Comments to Planning staff primarily were focused on increased traffic on Zenith Avenue, height differences allowed with CB zoning and the adjacent single-family homes, buffering between the subject parcel and nearby homes, and potential aesthetics and green space at the proposed development. Consideration 2: Zoning Compatibility with Adjacent Properties Building Height A concern expressed by those who commented on the proposed rezone is compatibility of a commercial zoning district adjacent to a single-family neighborhood. This concern included privacy of surrounding neighbors and parking at the subject site. The CB zoning district allows a maximum building height of 30 feet. Building size and massing standards in the CB zone require developments to be consistent with building height and roof pitch of existing structures on the block face. If the Council approves the requested rezone, there is potential for an additional two feet of height than what is allowed under the current R-1/7,000 zoning. Landscape Buffer A landscape buffer is required in the CB zoning district when the property abuts a residential district. The buffer must be not less than seven feet from the property line and meet standards in the zoning code. These Page | 4 include a shade tree for each 30 linear feet of the buffer, shrubs at least four feet high at maturity along the landscape buffer length, and a fence between four and six feet high along the property line. The landscape buffer is intended to separate differences between commercial and residential uses and mitigate the impact of a more intense use. Parking Available parking at a potential townhome development was another concern expressed to Planning staff. In the R-1/7,000 zone two parking spaces are required for each dwelling unit. Multi-family uses within the CB zone require two parking spaces for each dwelling unit with two or more bedrooms and one space for one-bedroom or efficiency units. Design Review Buildings within the CB zoning district that exceed 7,500 gross square footage on the first floor or exceed 15,000 overall gross square feet are required to be reviewed through the design review process. This process allows Planning staff and the Planning Commission to review the project’s compatibility with surrounding developments for height, massing, vehicular access, landscape buffers, appropriateness of step-backs, and acceptable façade design. Planning Commission approval is required before changes are made on site if the proposed development exceeds the floor area standard for the CB zone. Current Conditions This site also has specific considerations. There is an approximately three-foot grade change between the subject property and single-family residences to the north. There is a fence approximately six feet tall on top of an approximately three-foot-tall retaining wall. This grade change reduces impact of building height differences between the existing residential and proposed commercial zoning districts. In addition, the property to the north has a rear yard approximately 47 feet deep. The property east of the subject parcel has a side yard setback of approximately six feet. If the rezone and master plan amendment are approved by the Council, the required minimum seven-foot landscape buffer would include shrubs and trees. Planning staff’s opinion is the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments will be generally compatible with adjacent properties and uses. Consideration 3: Relevance of Applicant’s Concept Drawing and Site Plan Requesting concept land use and drawings for master plan and zoning map amendments is intended to provide a general idea of what the amendments are proposed to accomplish. Though the concept plans are helpful, the developer is not required to use them if the amendments are approved. Any development would still need to meet all zoning standards including providing required off-street parking and landscape buffers between the commercial and residential districts. Whether the City Council approves or denies the proposed amendments, any development on the site will be reviewed through the building permit process ensuring standards of the applicable zoning district are met before building permits are issued. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment H of the Planning Commission staff report (pages 49-51 of the Administration’s transmittal) outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Planning staff found this proposal generally complies with applicable standards. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for full details. Page | 5 PUBLIC PROCESS • February 25, 2020 Planning staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners located within 300 feet of the project site providing notice of the project and information on how to give public input. • April 10, 2020 Planning staff mailed notice of an online public open house. Open house fact sheet posted online. • April 20, 2020 Planning staff presented to the Sugar House Community Council. Public comments were received at the online meeting. • April 24, 2020 Online public open house closes. • May 1, 2020 Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed to property owners living within 300 feet of the subject property. • May 4, 2020 Planning Commission public hearing notice posted at property. • May 13, 2020 The Planning Commission reviewed the petition and held a public hearing. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Minutes of the meeting are found on pages 70-72 of the Administration’s transmittal. Erin Mendenhall Mayor DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS BLAKE THOMAS Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: Chris Warton, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods SUBJECT: PLNPCM2020-00053/00054 -- 2903 South Highland Dr. Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments STAFF CONTACT: Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner, nannette.larsen@slcgov.com 801-535-7645 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: City Council follow the recommendations of the Planning Commission to approve the proposed Master Plan and Zoning Map amendments. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In January a representative with Axis Architects initiated a petition to amend the Sugar House Master Plan and Zoning Map. The request is for a property located at approximately 2903 South Highland Drive and would amend the eastern portion of the property from Low Density Residential to Low Intensity – Mixed Use in the Sugar House Master Plan and from R-1-7000 (Single-Family Residential) to CB (Community Business). The Planning Commission heard the petition on May 13th and forwarded a positive recommendation to City Council to amend the Sugar House Master Plan and the Zoning Map. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5460 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6269 November 2, 2020 Lisa Shaffer (Nov 9, 2020 07:36 MST) 11/09/2020 11/09/2020 The property under review is located at the corner of Highland Drive, an arterial street, and Zenith Avenue, a local street. The subject property is “split zoned” with the majority of the property within the CB (Community Business) zoning district and in the Low Intensity - Mixed Use land use designation in the Sugar House Master Plan. The eastern portion of the property, constituting approximately 54’ width and approximately 7,100 square feet is currently designated as R-1-7000 (Single-Family Residential) on the Zoning Map and Low Density Residential on the Master Plan’s Future Land Use Map. The applicant with Axis Architects is requesting an amendment on this 54’ portion of this property to match the zoning map and future land use map designation on the western portion, with a CB (Community Business) zoning district and Low Intensity – Mixed Use in the Sugar House Master Plan. Figure 1: Amendment Location Figure 2: Zoning Map Figure 3: Master Plan PUBLIC PROCESS: • The surrounding property owners within 300’ received an early notification by mail on February 25th. o Staff received multiple comments from the neighborhood which arefound in the staff report in Attachment 3b. . • Information concerning this petition was sent to the chair of the Sugar House Community Council. o The chair included the proposed amendments on their April 20th online meeting and heard public comment during this meeting. • Public Notification for the Open house was mailed to property owners and residents on April 10th. The open house was held online on the Salt Lake City’s Planning webpage and open for public comments from April 10 to April 24. o No public comments were submitted during this open house. • Public notification for the Planning Commission Hearing mailed May 1st to all neighbors within 300’ of the proposed Master Plan and Zoning Map amendment site. o There were a number of public comments received after the notices were sent. Those comments were concerned with parking, open space, and height of the potential development. • The petition was heard by the Planning Commission on May 13th. The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding this proposed alley vacation. o There were multiple public comments heard from the public during this hearing. The comments included concerns over increased traffic on Zenith Avenue, potential aesthetics of the new development, the height differences allowed, green space, and a buffer area between the different zoning districts. EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Hearing 3) Planning Commission Record a) Original Notice and Post Mark b) Planning Commission Staff Report of May 13, 2020 c) Planning Commission Agenda and Minutes of May 13, 2020 4) Petition Submitted by Applicant 5) Mailing List SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 202_ (Amending the zoning of property located at approximately 2903 South Highland Drive from R-1-7,000 Single Family Residential District to CB Commercial Business District, and amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at approximately 2903 South Highland Drive from R-1-7,000 Single Family Residential District to CB Commercial Business District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00054, and amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00053. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 13, 2020 on an application submitted by the Pierre Langue (“Applicant”) on behalf of the property owner, Highland Row, LLC, to rezone property located at 2903 South Highland Drive (Tax ID No. 16-29-236-002) (the “Property”) from R-1-7000 Single Family Residential District to CB Commercial Business District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00054, and to amend the Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map with respect to that parcel from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use – Low Intensity pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020- 00053; and WHEREAS, at its May 13, 2020 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake 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 Property identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be and hereby is rezoned from R-1-7000 Single Family Residential District to CB Commercial Business District. SECTION 2. Amending the Central 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 identified in Exhibit “A” from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use – Low Intensity. 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 ______________, 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 amending zoning and MP 2903 S Highland APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney September 21, 2020 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description of Property to be Rezoned and Subject to Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment: 2903 South Highland Drive Tax ID No. 16-29-236-002 CLERMONT SUBDIVISION. LOTS 1 TO 4 INCL & LOTS 60 BLK 1 CLERMONT SUB TOGETHER WITH 1/2 VACATED ALLEYS ABUTTING SD LOTS 6110-2016 6110-2018 6186-1370 6251-0665 8331-0551 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2903 South Highland Drive Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment Project Chronology Located at approximately 2903 S Highland Dr. PLNPCM2020-00053; 00054 January 21, 2020 Master Plan and Zoning Amendment application received by the City. January 28, 2020 Petition assigned to and received by Nannette Larsen February 27, 2020 Application deemed complete and forwarded project review to applicable City departments. February 25, 2020 Early Notification sent to neighbors located within 300’ of property February 13, 2020 The Sugar House Community Council chair notified of the petition and forwarded information. April 10, 2020 Mailer noticing online public open house sent out. Open house fact sheet is posted online. April 20, 2020 Sugar House Community Council hears petition. Public comments were heard and received during this online meeting. April 22, 2020 Public comment received through email regarding building height, setbacks, and open space. April 24, 2020 Online public open house closes. April 24, 2020 Received phone call from adjoining neighbor with concerns regarding building height and parking. May 1, 2020 Notice for Planning Commission Hearing mailed to property owners and residents within 300’ of the subject property May 8, 2020 Staff Report for Master Plan and Zoning Map amendment public hearing posted online May 4, 2020 Notice of Planning Commission Hearing posted at the property May 13, 2020 Public comment received through email regarding maintaining the property as a community gathering space and creative expression. May 13, 2020 Public comment received through email regarding density and traffic. May 13, 2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing. Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council for the Master Plan and Zoning Map amendments on the subject property. 2. NOTICE OF COUNCIL HEARING 3. PLANNING COMMISSION a. Original Notice and Postmark 3. PLANNING COMMISSION b. Staff Report, May 13, 2020 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-5357757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner, 801-535-7645 or Nannette.larsen@slcgov.com Date: May 13, 2020 Re: PLNPCM2020-00054/00053 – 2903 S. Highland Dr. Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2903 South Highland Drive PARCEL ID: 16-29-236-002 MASTER PLAN: Sugar House – Mixed Use- Low Intensity/Low Density Residential (5-10 du/acre) ZONING DISTRICT: CB/R-1-7,000 (Commercial Business/ Single Family Residential 7,000 Sq. Ft. Lots) REQUEST: Salt Lake City received a request from, Pierre Langue with Axis Architects, representing the property owner Highland Row LLC, for approval of an amendment to the Sugar House Master Plan and the zoning map for a property located at approximately 2903 South Highland Drive. The proposal would rezone the eastern portion of the property (approximately the eastern 55') from R-1-7000 (Single-Family Residential) to CB (Community Business) and would amend the Sugar House Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use – Low Intensity. The proposed Master Plan amendment to Mixed Use – Low Intensity and rezone to CB is intended to accommodate a future development on the entire property located at 2903 South Highland Drive. The subject property is presently “split-zoned” with the majority (approximately 16,600 square feet) of the property currently zoned CB (Community Business) and has a Master Plan land use designation of Mixed Use-Low Intensity. The remainder of the parcel (~7,100 square feet) presently designated as R-1-7000 (Single Family Residential) on the Zoning Map and as Low Density Residential on the Sugar House Future Land Use Map. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in this staff report, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for the proposed zoning map and master plan amendment. ATTACHMENTS: A.Applicant Submittal and Information B.Zoning Map C.Sugar House Future Land Use Map D.Concept Plans E.Site Photos 4 | Page The key considerations listed below have been identified through the analysis of the project, neighbor and community input, and department review comments. 1.Consistency with Master Plan Policies 2.Zoning Compatibility with Adjacent Properties 3.Relevance of Applicant’s Concept Drawing and Site Plan Consideration 1 – Consistency with Master Plan Policies The property under review is part of the Sugar House Community Master Plan. This plan lays out general land use policy guidelines for the community paired with more specific guidelines in the master plan’s Future Land Use Map. The stated purpose of the Sugar House Community Master Plan is to provide: •“Policies to help protect the stable, well-kept residential neighborhoods of Sugar House; •And, policies that support the preservation of neighborhood character…” The proposed amendments to the Master Plan maintains the purpose of the Sugar House Community Master plan in that the proposed amendment will not alter the residential neighborhood by rezoning the property to CB as the subject site has not been developed as a residential lot. Also, the proposed amendment will allow for the continuation of a well-kept residential neighborhood by allowing for the integration of a low-intensity use to buffer the residential area with the Highland Drive arterial street. The proposed amended future land use on the eastern portion of the lot is Low-Intensity Mixed Use. The Sugar House Master Plan defines this land use as: “Low-Intensity Mixed Use allows an integration of residential with small business uses, typically at ground floor levels. Height limits generally include one- and two- story structures. The intent is to support more walkable community development patterns located near transit lines and stops. Proposed development and land uses within the Low-Intensity Mixed Use area must be compatible with the land uses and architectural features surrounding each site.” The master plan amendment to this future land use designation is appropriate as this land use allows for, “an integration of residential with small business uses”, this limits the intensity of commercial areas along Highland Drive and requires that the architecture of the building is compatible with the built environment surrounding the site. The appropriate zoning district which meets the intent of the Low- Intensity Mixed Use land use is the CB district. The purpose of the CB (Commercial Business) zoning district is to, “provide for the close integration of moderately sized commercial areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods”. The Sugar House Master Plan addresses nonconforming properties, as the subject property is, and the process of converting them to commercial uses. It recommends that the City is cautious in rezoning these types of properties and that, “each one should be considered on its own merits, with the public and surroundings residents given the opportunity to provide input into the decision-making process”. The surrounding property owners and interested parties in the Sugar House Community were given the opportunity to voice their concerns or support of this project. The feedback City Staff received is attached to this report as Attachment J. As previously stated, it appeared the majority of the concerns expressed included building height and availability of on-street parking. These concerns are addressed in Key Consideration 2 of this report. 9 | Page due to the location of the subject site, the amendments will meet the intent of the CB zoning district by acting as a, “integration zone between moderately sized commercial areas and residential neighborhoods”. Further, the building standards of the single-family residential properties to the east are generally similar to the CB zoning district. The height, setbacks, and parking have similar restrictions, and the difference between the grading of the subject site and the properties to the north further minimize those differences. Additionally, the CB zoning district requires certain design elements, such as providing a similar roofline along to the block face, 40% ground floor glass, one building entrance per 40’ of building façade, a 15’ maximum blank wall length, and screening all mechanical equipment. NEXT STEPS: A recommendation of approval or denial by the Planning Commission will result in the proposed Master Plan and Zoning Map amendment to be sent to the City Council for a final decision. Master Plan and Zone Amendment Approval If the master plan and zone amendment is approved, the applicant will be permitted to build for any use allowed in the CB zone on the site. A list of uses allowed by the zone is included in this report as Attachment G. The developer will need to obtain a building permit for any development and will need to comply with the necessary zoning standards, including buffering where the property is adjacent to single-family zones Master Plan and Zone Amendment Denial If the master plan and zone amendment is denied, a portion of the property will remain zoned R-1- 7000, Single Family Residential. This zone allows the development to build one single-family dwelling on the property at a maximum. Or, the property could continue to be used as a parking lot or developed for other uses allowed in the R-1-7000 zone. The remaining portion of the site will still be able to be developed as the existing CB zoning allows. ATTACHMENT A: APPLICANT SUBMITTAL AND INFORMATION ATTACHMENT D: CONCEPT PLANS 3.Maximum exterior wall height adjacent to interior side yards shall be twenty feet (20') for exterior walls placed at the building setback established by the minimum required yard. Exterior wall height may increase one foot (1') (or fraction thereof) in height for each foot (or fraction thereof) of increased setback beyond the minimum required interior side yard. If an exterior wall is approved with a reduced setback through a special exception, variance or other process, the maximum allowable exterior wall height decreases by one foot (1') (or fraction thereof) for each foot (or fraction thereof) that the wall is located closer to the property line than the required side yard setback. a.Lots with cross slopes where the topography slopes, the downhill exterior wall height may be increased by one-half foot (0.5') for each one foot (1') difference between the elevation of the average grades on the uphill and downhill faces of the building. b.Exceptions: (1)Gable Walls: Walls at the end of a pitched roof may extend to a height necessary to support the roof structure except that the height of the top of the widest portion of the gable wall must conform to the maximum wall height limitation described in this section. (2)Dormer Walls: Dormer walls are exempt from the maximum exterior wall height if: (A)The width of a dormer is ten feet (10') or less; and (B)The total combined width of dormers is less than or equal to fifty percent (50%) of the length of the building facade facing the interior side yard; and (C)Dormers are spaced at least eighteen inches (18") apart. 4.Building height for initial construction of a building shall be measured as the vertical distance between the top of the roof and the established grade at any given point of building coverage. Building height for any subsequent structural modification or addition to a building shall be measured from finished grade existing at the time a building permit is requested. Building height for the R-1 districts, R-2 District and SR districts is defined and illustrated in chapter 21A.62 of this title. 5.Where buildings are stepped to accommodate the slope of terrain, each step shall have a horizontal dimension of at least twelve feet (12'). 6.a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the Planning Commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. The Planning Commission will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. b.Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. E.Minimum Yard Requirements: 1.Front Yard: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. Where there are no existing buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20'). Where the minimum front yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. For Alcohol, bar establishment (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) Alcohol, brewpub (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) Alcohol, tavern (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) Animal, veterinary office Art gallery Artisan food production (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) Bed and breakfast inn Bed and breakfast manor Clinic (medical, dental) Commercial food preparation Community garden C C C C C Community recreation center Crematorium Daycare center, adult Daycare center, child C22 C22 Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 Dwelling, accessory guest and servant's quarter P11 P11 P11 Dwelling, accessory unit C C C C C Dwelling, assisted living facility (large) Dwelling, assisted living facility (limited capacity) C C C C C Dwelling, assisted living facility (small) Dwelling; dormitory, fraternity, sorority Dwelling, group home (large)14 Dwelling, group home (small)15 P P P P P Dwelling, manufactured home P P P P P Dwelling, multi-family Dwelling, residential support (large)16 Dwelling, residential support (small)17 Dwelling, rooming (boarding) house Dwelling, single-family (attached) Dwelling, single-family (detached) P P P P P Dwelling, twin home and two-family Eleemosynary facility C C C C C Financial institution Funeral home Governmental facility C C C C C Home occupation P24 P24 P24 P24 P24 Laboratory (medical, dental, optical) Library Mixed use development Mobile food business (operation on private property) Municipal service use, including City utility use and police and fire station C C C C C Museum Nursing care facility Office, excluding medical and dental clinic and office Open space on lots less than 4 acres in size P P P P P Park P P P P P Parking, off site (to support nonconforming uses in a residential zone or uses in the CN or CB Zones) Parking, park and ride lot shared with existing use P P Place of worship on lots less than 4 acres in size C C C C C Reception center Recreation (indoor) Restaurant Restaurant with drive- through facility Retail goods establishment Retail goods establishment, plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area Retail service establishment School, music conservatory School, professional and vocational School, seminary and religious institute C C C C C Seasonal farm stand Studio, art Temporary use of closed schools and churches C23 C23 C23 C23 C23 Theater, live performance Theater, movie Urban farm P P P P P Utility, building or structure P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 Wireless telecommunications facility (see section 21A 40.090, table 21A.40.090E of this title) Qualifying provisions: 1.A single apartment unit may be located above first floor retail/office. 2.Provided that no more than 2 two-family buildings are located adjacent to one another and no more than 3 such dwellings are located along the same block face (within subdivisions approved after April 12, 1995). 3.Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 4. Reserved. 5.See subsection 21A.02.050B of this title for utility regulations. 6.Building additions on lots less than 20,000 square feet for office uses may not exceed 50 percent of the building's footprint. Building additions greater than 50 percent of the building's footprint or new office building construction are subject to a design review. 7.Subject to conformance to the provisions in section 21A.02.050 of this title. 8.Subject to conformance with the provisions of subsection 21A.24.010S of this title. 9.Subject to conformance with the provisions in section 21A.36.300, "Alcohol Related Establishments", of this title. 10.In the RB Zoning District, the total square footage, including patio space, shall not exceed 2,200 square feet in total. Total square footage will include a maximum 1,750 square feet of floor space within a business and a maximum of 450 square feet in an outdoor patio area. 11.Accessory guest or servant's quarters must be located within the buildable area on the lot. 12.Subject to conformance with the provisions of section 21A.36.150 of this title. 13.Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a Single- or Two-Family Zoning District. 14.No large group home shall be located within 800 feet of another group home. 15.No small group home shall be located within 800 feet of another group home. 16.No large residential support shall be located within 800 feet of another residential support. 17.No small residential support shall be located within 800 feet of another residential support. 18.Large group homes established in the RB and RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor. 19.Small group homes established in the RB and RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor. 20.Large residential support established in RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor. 21.Small residential support established in RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor. 22.Subject to section 21A.36.130 of this title. 23.Subject to section 21A.36.170 of this title. 24.Subject to section 21A.36.030 of this title. ATTACHMENT G: CB ZONING STANDARDS 21A.26.030: CB COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT: A.Purpose Statement: The CB Community Business District is intended to provide for the close integration of moderately sized commercial areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods. The design guidelines are intended to facilitate retail that is pedestrian in its orientation and scale, while also acknowledging the importance of transit and automobile access to the site. B.Uses: Uses in the CB Community Business District as specified in section 21A.33.030, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Commercial Districts", of this title are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.26.010 of this chapter and this section. C.Planned Development Review: Planned developments, which meet the intent of the ordinance, but not the specific design criteria outlined in the following subsections, may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of chapter 21A.55 of this title. D.Lot Size Requirements: No minimum lot area or lot width is required, however any lot exceeding four (4) acres in size shall be allowed only through the design review process (chapter 21A.59 of this title). E.Building Size Limits: Buildings in excess of seven thousand five hundred (7,500) gross square feet of floor area for a first floor footprint or in excess of fifteen thousand (15,000) gross square feet floor area overall, shall be allowed only through the design review process (chapter 21A.59 of this title). An unfinished basement used only for storage or parking shall be allowed in addition to the total square footage. In addition to the design review standards in chapter 21A.59 of this title, the Planning Commission shall also consider the following standards: 1.Compatibility: The proposed height and width of new buildings and additions shall be visually compatible with buildings found on the block face. 2.Roofline: The roof shape of a new building or addition shall be similar to roof shapes found on the block face. 3.Vehicular Access: New buildings and additions shall provide a continuous street wall of buildings with minimal breaks for vehicular access. 4.Facade Design: Facade treatments should be used to break up the mass of larger buildings so they appear to be multiple, smaller scale buildings. Varied rooflines, varied facade planes, upper story step backs, and lower building heights for portions of buildings next to less intensive zoning districts may be used to reduce the apparent size of the building. 5.Buffers: When located next to low density residential uses, the Planning Commission may require larger setbacks, landscape buffers and/or fencing than what are required by this title if the impacts of the building mass and location of the building on the site create noise, light trespass or impacts created by parking and service areas. 6.Step Backs: When abutting single-story development and/or a public street, the Planning Commission may require that any story above the ground story be stepped back from the building foundation at grade to address compatibility issues with the other buildings on the block face and/or uses. F.Minimum Yard Requirements: 1.Front Or Corner Side Yard: No minimum yard is required. If a front yard is provided, it shall comply with all provisions of this title applicable to front or corner side yards, including landscaping, fencing, and obstructions. 2.Interior Side Yard: None required. 3.Rear Yard: Ten feet (10'). 4.Buffer Yards: Any lot abutting a lot in a Residential District shall conform to the buffer yard requirements of chapter 21A.48 of this title. 5.Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B of this title. 6.Maximum Setback: A maximum setback is required for at least seventy five percent (75%) of the building facade. The maximum setback is fifteen feet (15'). Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized through the design review process, subject to the requirements of chapter 21A.59 of this title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Planning Director, in consultation with the Transportation Director, may modify this requirement if the adjacent public sidewalk is substandard and the resulting modification to the setback results in a more efficient public sidewalk. The Planning Director may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than fifty percent (50%) if the Planning Director finds the following: a.The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure or the surrounding architecture. b.The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. Appeal of administrative decision is to the Planning Commission. 7.Parking Setback: Surface parking is prohibited in a front or corner side yard. Surface parking lots within an interior side yard shall maintain a twenty foot (20') landscape setback from the front property line or be located behind the primary structure. Parking structures shall maintain a thirty five foot (35') minimum setback from a front or corner side yard property line or be located behind the primary structure. There are no minimum or maximum setback restrictions on underground parking. The Planning Director may modify or waive this requirement if the Planning Director finds the following: a.The parking is compatible with the architecture/design of the original structure or the surrounding architecture. b.The parking is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. c.The horizontal landscaping is replaced with vertical screening in the form of berms, plant materials, architectural features, fencing and/or other forms of screening. d.The landscaped setback is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood character. e.The overall project is consistent with section 21A.59.050 of this title. Appeal of administrative decision is to the Planning Commission. Clinic (medical, dental) P P P P P P Commercial food preparation P P P P P P Community correctional facility, large Community correctional facility, small C7,21 Community garden P P P P P P P Contractor's yard/office C P Crematorium C C C C Daycare center, adult P P P P P P Daycare center, child P P P P P P Daycare, nonregistered home daycare or preschool P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 Dwelling: Assisted living facility (large) P P P P Assisted living facility (small) P P P P Group home (large)17 P C C Group home (small) when located above or below first story office, retail, or commercial use, or on the first story where the unit is not located adjacent to street frontage18 P P P P P P P Living quarter for caretaker or security guard P P P P P P Manufactured home P Multi-family P P P P P P Residential support (large)19 C C Residential support (small)20 C C Rooming (boarding) house P P P P P Single-family attached P Single-family detached P Single room occupancy Twin home P Two-family P Eleemosynary facility P Equipment rental (indoor and/or outdoor) P P Farmers' market C C P P Financial institution P P P P P P Financial institution with drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 Flea market (indoor) P P P P Flea market (outdoor) P Funeral home P P P P Gas station C P P P P Government facility C C C C C C Government facility requiring special design features for security purposes P P P P P P Home occupation P23 P23 P23 P23 P23 P23 P23 Homeless resource center C25 Homeless shelter C25 Hotel/motel C P P P House museum in landmark sites (see subsection 21A.24.010S of this title) C Impound lot C12 Industrial assembly P Intermodal transit passenger hub P Laboratory (medical, dental, optical) P P P Laboratory, testing P P P Large wind energy system P P P Laundry, commercial P Library P P P P P P C Limousine service (large) P Limousine service (small) C C P Manufactured/mobile home sales and service P Mixed use development P P P P P P P13 Mobile food business (operation on private property) P P P P P P Municipal service uses, including City utility uses and police and fire stations C C C C C C Museum P P P P P P P Nursing care facility P P P Office P P P P P P P15 Office, single practitioner medical, dental, and health P Offices and reception centers in landmark sites (see subsection 21A.24.010S of this title) C Open space P P P P P P Open space on lots less than 4 acres in size P Park P P P P P P P Parking: Commercial C P P Off site C P P P P P Park and ride lot C C P P Park and ride lot shared with existing use P P P P P Place of worship on lot less than 4 acres in size P P P P P P C Radio, television station P P P P Reception center P P P P P Recreation (indoor) P P P P P P P Recreation (outdoor) C C P Recreational vehicle park (minimum 1 acre) C Recycling collection station P P P P P P Research and development facility Restaurant P P P P P P Restaurant with drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 Retail goods establishment P P P P P P P Plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area P P P P P P P With drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 Retail service establishment P P P P P P P Furniture repair shop C P P P P P With drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 Reverse vending machine P P P P P P Sales and display (outdoor) P P P P P P School: College or university P P P P P Music conservatory P P P P P Professional and vocational P P P P P Seminary and religious institute P P P P P C Seasonal farm stand P P P P P P Sexually oriented business P5 Sign painting/fabrication P Small brewery C P Solar array P Storage (outdoor) C P Storage, public (outdoor) C P Storage, self P P Store: Department P P Mass merchandising P P P Pawnshop P Specialty P P P P Superstore and hypermarket P P Warehouse club P Studio, art P P P P P P P Studio, motion picture P Taxicab facility P Theater, live performance P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 Theater, movie C P P P P Urban farm P P P P P P Utility, building or structure P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe, or pole P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 Vehicle: Auction P Automobile repair (major) P P Automobile repair (minor) C P P P P P Automobile sales/rental and service P P Automobile salvage and recycling (indoor) P Boat/recreational vehicle sales and service P P Truck repair (large) P Truck sales and rental (large) P P Vending cart, private property P Warehouse P P Welding shop P Wholesale distribution P P Wireless telecommunications facility (see section 21A.40.090, table 21A.40.090E of this title) C Qualifying provisions: 1.Development in the CS District shall be subject to planned development approval pursuant to the provisions of chapter 21A.55 of this title. Certain developments in the CSHBD Zone shall be subject to the design review process pursuant to the provisions of subsection 21A.26.060D and chapter 21A.59 of this title. 2.Subject to conformance to the provisions in subsection 21A.02.050B of this title for utility regulations. 3. When located in a building listed on the Salt Lake City register of cultural resources (see subsections 21A.24.010S and 21A.26.010K of this title). 4.Subject to Salt Lake Valley Health Department approval. 5.Pursuant to the requirements set forth in section 21A.36.140 of this title. 6.Greater than 3 ambulances at location require a conditional use. 7. A community correctional facility is considered an institutional use and any such facility located within an Airport Noise Overlay Zone is subject to the land use and sound attenuation standards for institutional uses of the applicable Airport Overlay Zone within chapter 21A.34 of this title. 8.No check cashing/payday loan business shall be located closer than 1/2 mile of other check cashing/payday loan businesses. 9.Subject to conformance to the provisions in section 21A.40.060 of this title for drive-through use regulations. 10. Subject to conformance with the provisions in section 21A.36.300, "Alcohol Related Establishments", of this title. 11. In CN and CB Zoning Districts, the total square footage, including patio space, shall not exceed 2,200 square feet in total. Total square footage will include a maximum 1,750 square feet of floor space within a business and a maximum of 450 square feet in an outdoor patio area. 12.Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a Single- or Two-Family Zoning District. 13.Residential units may be located above or below first floor retail/office. 14. In the SNB Zoning District, bed and breakfast use is only allowed in a landmark site. 15.Medical and dental offices are not allowed in the SNB Zoning District, except for single practitioner medical, dental and health offices. 16.Permitted in the CG Zoning District only when associated with an on site food service establishment. 17. No large group home shall be located within 800 feet of another group home. 18.No small group home shall be located within 800 feet of another group home. 19.No large residential support shall be located within 800 feet of another residential support. 20.No small residential support shall be located within 800 feet of another residential support. 21.Prohibited within 1/2 mile of any Residential Zoning District boundary and subject to section 21A.36.110 of this title. 22. Subject to section 21A.36.130 of this title. 23.Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to section 21A.36.030 of this title. 24.Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 25.Subject to conformance with the provisions of section 21A.36.350 of this title, the City may not prohibit construction of a homeless resource center or homeless shelter if the site is approved by and receives funding through the State Homeless Coordinating Committee, with the concurrence of the Housing and Community Development Division within the Department of Workforce Services, in accordance with section 35A-8-604 of the Utah Code. ATTACHMENT J: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS 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: PUBLIC PROCESS AND INPUT Timeline • The application was submitted on January 21, 2020. • Notice of the proposal, and request for input, was provided to the Sugar House Community Council on February 13, 2020. o The Sugar House Community Council met on April 20th, 2020 to discuss this project. o The project was posted on the Sugar House Community Council website and interested parties were welcome to comment on the project.  The comments received on their website are attached to this staff report. • The concerns expressed during the public comments period are addressed in Key Consideration 2 of this report.  An email from the Sugar House Community Council’s Land Use Chair is included in this Staff Report. • The Community Council is recommended approval with no concerns for the proposed Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments. • Early Notification mailings were sent out on February 25, 2020 to property owners and residents within 300’ of all four corners of the project site. o Emails were received by interested parties and are included in this Staff Report. • Public notice of the Planning Commission hearing was mailed to property owners and residents within 300’ of the subject site. • A public notice sign was posted on both frontages of the subject site on May 8, 2020. No further public comments were received before this report was finalized. COMMENTS 2903 HIGHLAND DRIVE Diane Miller Downhour wordpress@www.sugarhousecouncil.org via sendgrid.net From: Diane Miller Downhour Subject: 2903 Highland Drive Website Feedback UGH! Another high density housing unit in the Sugarhouse area, already flooded with high density housing. As a resident who has lived in this area for nearly 30 years I VOTE NO. Please put an END to the endless, mindless, ugly apartment/condo building that is currently oversaturating the Sugarhouse area. The traffic and congestion is unbearable. STOP turning Sugarhouse into a ghetto. From: Ben Burdett Subject: 2903 Highland Drive Website Feedback Do we really need more high priced apartments? If there were some comments about mixed use residential with some percentage of affordable housing units, I think it would be more palatable. I recognize that the future of our area is going to include a larger percentage of high density housing; but it also needs to include additional retail intermixed with affordable housing. We also need to consider green space. This appears to have no green space and no allowance for pleasant walkable areas. 2309 Highland Drive: not sure how I feel about this one. It is a really nice lot with great potential. Sue Watson Sent from my iPad Kathleen S henriod wordpress@www.sugarhousecouncil.org via sendgrid.net to me From: Kathleen S henriod Subject: 2903 Highland Drive Website Feedback NO, NO, NO, NO. I Love this neighborhood . I do not want any more development. That is why we voted not to become part of Millcreek. We want to keep our community. I will do almost anything to prevent further encroachment on our lives. NO, NO NO. Sugarhouse has been destroyed and it must stop somewhere. From:Chris Gamvroulas To:Larsen Nannette Cc:Norris Nick; Otto Rachel; Suzanne Thomas; Fowler Amy Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) 2903 South Highland Drive Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment Date:Friday, May 8, 2020 12:45:57 PM Nannette: Thanks for the follow up. Yes, you may make the email part of the public record. I’ve also attached some photos that you can share with the planning commission and city council to demonstrate the situation created by not including meaningful open space for pets within the Moda project. Of the three issues I mentioned in my email, this is, believe it or not, the most frustrating. Best, Best, Chris P. Gamvroulas Ivory Development www.ivoryhomes.com This email message and attachments (if any) are RESTRICTED, CONFIDENTIAL, may be subject to a LEGAL PRIVILEGE, and are sent in trust intended solely for the recipient to whom addressed. Unauthorized use, access, copying, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or other form of reproduction of this information is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify me by electronic message or telephone and kindly delete the message permanently from your system. Thank you 1 Larsen, Nannette From:Bruce Robertson Sent:Wednesday, May 13, 2020 5:34 PM To:Larsen, Nannette Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2020-00054 and PLNPCM2020-00053 Dear Amy Fowler and Nannette Larsen:    My name is Bruce Robertson. I am the Executive Director of the Visual Art Institute located in the building 2901/2903  South Highland Drive. We are Utah's oldest nonprofit art organization dedicated to serving youth through visual art. We  have been in this building and location for 8.5 years. It was our intention to purchase and expand the current building to  better accommodate the public and community with a beautiful, creative gathering place. We partner with many  community organizations, and serve youth and adults by providing opportunities for creative expression. In our 42 year  history we have worked with thousands of children and hundreds of adults. We offer classes in drawing, oil painting,  watercolor painting, ceramics, sculpture, digital arts, stained glass, and figure drawing to name but a few of the  offerings. We had begun to raise the funds to purchase the building to continue our mission which is to  nurture creative expression, teaches imagination and fosters artistic development through in-depth study and experimentation, inspiring individuality and confidence regardless of age or ability.  We think the community needs a safe haven for creative expression more than it needs a row of town homes along Highland Drive. The master plan for this area and business district is to give this area a real facelift and make this a community gathering space.    I just learned of this meeting or I would have reached out earlier.   I would appreciate this space not being converted to more housing.    Sincerely,    Bruce D. Robertson  Executive Director, Visual Art Institute    1 Larsen, Nannette From:Kristopher Shampeny Sent:Wednesday, May 13, 2020 5:50 PM To:Larsen, Nannette Subject:(EXTERNAL) zoning changes at 2903 S Highland Hi Nannette, you were listed as the contact during tonight’s hearing about rezoning 2903 S Highland Dr. As a resident of the neighborhood, less than 2 blocks away, I’d like to speak out against another apt/multi unit complex in the area. This is a predominantly single family, residential neighborhood and we’d like to keep it that way. One note able reason involves traffic - we live on Zenith Ave and cars frequently speed down our busy street already. Adding more density will only increase the traffic, accidents and population density. The relevant case numbers were listed as PLNPCM2020-00054 and PLNPCM2020-00053. Thank you for your consideration, Kris ‐‐   Kris Shampeny NTG Women's Assistant Coach   3. PLANNING COMMISSION c. Agenda & Minutes, May 13, 2020 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b) May 13, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. (The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion) This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms: • YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings • SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at: • http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-05132020 Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 22, 2020 REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use ADU at approximately 1020 S Lincoln Street - Andrea Palmer, property owner representative, is requesting Conditional Use approval for a detached 425 square feet accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on a property located at approximately 1020 S Lincoln Street. The property is zoned R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff Contact: Linda Mitchell at (801) 535-7751 or linda.mitchell@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-01079 2. Conditional Use ADU at approximately 1371 South 500 East - Alexis Suggs, property owner representative, is requesting Conditional Use approval for a detached 650 square foot accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on a property located at approximately 1371 South 500 East. The property is zoned R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff Contact: Linda Mitchell at (801) 535-7751 or linda.mitchell@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-01147 3. Conditional Use ADU at approximately 613 S Emery Street - Andrea Palmer, representing the property owner, is requesting Conditional Use approval for a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) at approximately 613 S Emery Street. The applicant is proposing a one-bedroom structure with a building footprint of approximately 432 square feet. The structure will be approximately 11 feet 8 inches in height and located in the rear of the lot. The property is zoned R-1/5000 Single-Family Residential and is located within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff Contact: Mayara Lima at (801) 535-7118 or mayara.lima@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00107 4. Zephyr Lofts Design Review at approximately 360 West 200 South - Micah Peters, property owner, is requesting Design Review approval for a 138-unit apartment building on a 0.73-acre lot located at approximately 360 W 200 S in the D-4 – Downtown Secondary Central Business District. The building is proposed to be eighty-five feet tall. Buildings in excess of seventy-five feet tall in the D-4 district are allowed through the Design Review process with Planning Commission approval. The subject property is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff Contact: David J. Gellner at (801) 535-6107 or david.gellner@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00067 5. Crossing at 9th Design Review at approximately 880, 876, & 866 West 200 South and 181, 175, 151, 153, & 141 South 900 West – Gary Knapp, with JZW Architects, representing the property owner, is requesting approval of modifications to the design standards to construct a new mixed-use development at 880, 876, & 866 West 200 South and 181, 175, 151, 153, & 141 South 900 West. The standards proposed to be modified include the maximum length of a street-facing facade (360' where 200' would be required) and the maximum spacing between operable building entrances (50' where 40' would be required). The project site is located in the TSA-UN-T (Transit Station Area Urban Neighborhood- Transitional) zoning district and is located within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston (Staff Contact: Eric Daems at (801) 535-7236 or eric.daems@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00015 6. Granary on 9th Planned Development at approximately 110 West 900 South – Alec Harwin of Sojourn Development SLC. LLC, is requesting Planned Development approval petition for a proposed mixed-use development at approximately 110 West 900 South. The proposal includes two separate principal buildings with a total of 19 residential units and two commercial units. The buildings will be approximately 40 feet tall. The reason for planned development review is for vehicles backing into the adjacent alley and for vehicle parking occupying more than 25 percent of the front facade length. The site is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros (Staff contact: Casey Stewart at (801) 535-6260 or casey.stewart@slcgov.com) Case number PLNSUB2019- 01033 7. Azure Place Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision at approximately 637 North 300 West, 641 North 300 West and 642 N Pugsley Street - Paul Garbett of Garbett Homes, the property owner, is requesting approval for a new residential development at 637 N 300 West, 641 N 300 West and 642 N Pugsley Street. The request is to consolidate the three parcels and subdivide the property to create 29 residential three-story townhomes. The proposed project is subject to the following applications: a. Planned Development – The Planned Development approval is needed to address the lack of street frontage and any modifications to the MU (Mixed Use) zoning regulations. Case number PLNSUB2020-00074 b. Preliminary Subdivision - A preliminary plat is necessary to consolidate the existing three parcels and create individual new lots. Case number PLNSUB2020-00073 The site is located within Council District 3, represented by Chris Wharton. (Staff Contact: Katia Pace at (801) 535 6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) 8. Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 2903 South Highland Drive - Pierre Langue with Axis Architects, representing the property owner Highland Row LLC, is requesting to amend the Sugarhouse Master Plan and the zoning map for a property located at approximately 2903 South Highland Drive. The proposal would rezone the eastern portion of the property (approximately the eastern 55') from R-1-7000 (Single-Family Residential) to CB (Community Business) and amend the Sugar House Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use – Low Intensity. The proposed master plan amendment to Mixed Use – Low Intensity and rezone to CB is intended to accommodate a future development on the entire property located at 2903 South Highland Drive. The site is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff Contact: Nannette Larsen at (801) 535-7645 or nannette.larsen@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00054 and PLNPCM2020-00053 For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public- meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. Salt Lake City Planning Commission May 13, 2020 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING This meeting was held electronically pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b) Wednesday, May 13, 2020 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:40:34 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Adrienne Bell, Vice Chairperson Brenda Scheer; Commissioners Maurine Bachman, Amy Barry, Jon Lee, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes, Sara Urquhart and Crystal Young-Otterstrom. Commissioner Carolynn Hoskins was excused. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Division Director; Molly Robinson, Planning Manager; John Anderson, Planning Manager; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Linda Mitchell, Principal Planner; Mayara Lima, Principal Planner; David Gellner, Principal Planner; Eric Daems, Senior Planner; Casey Stewart, Senior Planner; Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner; and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary. Molly Robinson, Planning Manager, provided participation options and instructions to the public. APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 22, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 5:44:11 PM MOTION 5:44:25 PM Commissioner Lyon moved to approve the April 22, 2020, meeting minutes. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Lee, Lyon, Paredes, Scheer, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:45:19 PM Chairperson Bell stated she had nothing to report. Vice Chairperson Scheer stated she had nothing to report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:45:30 PM Molly Robinson, Planning Manager, stated she had nothing to report. Salt Lake City Planning Commission May 13, 2020 9:30:30 PM Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 2903 South Highland Drive - Pierre Langue with Axis Architects, representing the property owner Highland Row LLC, is requesting to amend the Sugarhouse Master Plan and the zoning map for a property located at approximately 2903 South Highland Drive. The proposal would rezone the eastern portion of the property (approximately the eastern 55') from R-1-7000 (Single-Family Residential) to CB (Community Business) and amend the Sugar House Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use – Low Intensity. The proposed master plan amendment to Mixed Use – Low Intensity and rezone to CB is intended to accommodate a future development on the entire property located at 2903 South Highland Drive. The site is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff Contact: Nannette Larsen at (801) 535-7645 or nannette.larsen@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00054 and PLNPCM2020-00053 Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. The Commission and Staff discussed the following: •Clarification on setback Pierre Langue, applicant, provided further information and address public comments that were previously received. The Commission and Applicant discussed the following: •Rear-yard setback •CB setback requirement clarification PUBLIC HEARING 9:49:34 PM Chairperson Bell opened the Public Hearing; Judi Short, Land Use Chair for Sugar House Community Council – Stated she researched this parcel and as far as she can tell it’s never been developed, so it’s not like we are losing a house. She also suggested to the petitioner to make the buffer wider. Steve Davis – Raised concern with additional traffic and safety of his children. He also raised concern with parking. Zachary Dussault – Stated his support of the request. Christine Frank – Raised concern with traffic and height difference. Rachel Louchnor – Raised concern with added traffic, height and green space. Bruce Robertson – Provided an email comment stating his opposition of the request. Khristopher Shampeny – Provided an email comment stating his opposition of the request and his concern regarding traffic. Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Bell closed the Public Hearing. MOTION 10:06:44 PM Commissioner Lyon stated, based on the information in the staff report I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approved the proposed master plan amendment, as presented in petition PLNPCM2020-00053. Additionally, I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed zoning map amendment, as presented in PLNPCM2020-00054. Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Lee, Lyon, Paredes, Scheer, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. The following is a list of Q&A’s that were received during the meeting: Q&A Session for Planning Commission Meeting - May 13, 2020 Session number: 961164179 Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 Starting time: 5:02 PM Salt Lake City Planning Commission May 13, 2020 ________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _ Christine Franke (franke38@comcast.net) - 9:51 PM Q: It used to be a restaurant. The beefeater I suggest you do more research Priority: N/A ________________________________________________________________ Steve Davis (sadavis1978@hotmail.com) - 9:55 PM Q: tha Priority: N/A ________________________________________________________________ Steve Davis (sadavis1978@hotmail.com) - 9:56 PM Q: this street is too wide for that traffic flow nonsense Priority: N/A ________________________________________________________________ Zachary Dussault (zacharytdussault@gmail.com) - 10:00 PM Salt Lake City Planning Commission May 13, 2020 Salt Lake City Planning Commission May 13, 2020 Q: @previous commeter, drivers will drive at a speed they feel the road supports, regardless of spped limit. A narrower street provides trafic calming and make drivers hesitate. Hevily utilized on street parking also slows traffic and protects the sidewalk Priority: N/A ________________________________________________________________ Zachary Dussault (zacharytdussault@gmail.com) - 10:09 PM Q: we made it! goodnight everyone Priority: N/A The meeting adjourned at 10:11:07 PM 4. MAILING LIST 2903 South Highland Drive Mailing List CAROLYN MACFARLANE; SHELLEY MCMURDIE (JT) 2856 S 1335 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 SUSAN M DOWNS; JAMES R DOWNS (JT) 2853 S 1335 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 SHIN KU KANG; KYUNG HEE KANG (JT) 2866 S 1335 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 CHRIS P GAMVROULAS; SUZANNE P GAMVROULAS (JT) 2865 S 1335 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 JOHN G BORER 4305 S DIANA WY MILLCREEK UT 84124 JAMES MCCONKIE; LAUREL MCCONKIE (JT) 1322 E CRANDALL AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 BRENT D. POPP; LYNN M. POPP 1328 E CRANDALL AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 JUDITH PLOWDEN 1334 E CRANDALL AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 STEVEN L ANDERSON; KRISTIN ANDERSON (JT) 1340 E CRANDALL AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 ADAM HISCOCK; BONNIE MACKAY (JT) 1352 E CRANDALL AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 JENNIFER L WHITTLE; SCOTT B WHITTLE (JT) 1360 E CRANDALL AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 GREGORY A GREER 5032 FORBES AVE # 1121 PITTSBURGH PA 15213 BRYAN VOGEL; LISA VOGEL (JT) 1349 E ZENITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 ANTHONY D BLACK 1355 E ZENITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 4504 S BROCKBANK DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84124 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1865 E ORCHARD CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 NANCY J COWIE, LLC 2927 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 OLAFSSON ENTERPRISES LLC 2943 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 COLIN G ROBINSON; JEANETTA P ROBINSON (JT) 13741 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 KEITH CHAN; YURI BAE CHAN (JT) 2486 S SCENIC DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 NATHAN H GUNN; TAYLOR G GUNN (JT) 50 W BROADWAY ST # 39087 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 NICHOLAS B COOK; JENESSA E COWLEY (JT) 1354 E ZENITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 OMER PRSTE; MARINA PRSTE (JT) 1335 E HUDSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 DANIEL CROOKER; KATHRYN CROOKER (JT) 1350 E ZENITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 KRISA MCGILLIS; MITCHELL A MCGILLIS (JT) 1329 E HUDSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 WILLIAM M III FARRAR; KATHLEEN A BJORK 3704 SUNNYSIDE AVE N SEATTLE WA 98103 SCOTT D SWEATFIELD; PAOLA BRAVO (JT) 1347 E HUDSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 1272 CRANDALL LLC 267 STARLIGHT CREST DR LA CANADA CA 91011 SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOLS CREDIT UNION 3675 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 19TH CENTURY HOLDINGS LLC 2892 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2876 HIGHLAND DRIVE LLC 1961 S LA CIENEGA BLVD LOS ANGELES CA 90034 JF SUGARHOUSE, LLC 1148 W LEGACY CROSSING BL CENTERVILL E UT 84014 H FAM TRUST; SUK WAI HSU 2885 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 VIVA CORPORATION 160 S 1000 E # 320 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 SUSHI GROOVE, LLC 4564 W LENNOX DR SOUTH JORDAN UT 84009 DE LA CRUZ; AQUILES H 1269 E HUDSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 MARK W SARGENT; LOUISE M SARGENT (JT) 1275 E HUDSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 4719 S QUAIL POINT RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84124 VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS 2920 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 HIGHLAND PROFESSIONAL PLAZA, LP 2936 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 ANDREW M WALLMAN; KATHLEEN K WALLMAN (JT) 2970 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 245 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114 TEL 801-535-6403 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ____________________________ Date Received: __________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _____________ TO: Salt Lake City Council Amy Fowler, Chair DATE: January 14, 2021 FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer ________________________________ SUBJECT: CORRECTED Council Consent Agenda #4 Items Fiscal Year 2020-21 Associated with Budget Amendment #7 STAFF CONTACTS: John Vuyk, Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 DOCUMENT TYPE: Consent Agenda/Establish Grant Projects from Grant Holding Account RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the City Council consent to the transfer of these grants and donations from the holding account and establish a project budget for them. BUDGET IMPACT: Grant Holding Account ($ 424,359) New Grant Project 424,359 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The grant holding account was established to fund grants between budget amendments with the understanding that the grants would be submitted as part of the next budget opening. Items transmitted are placed on a Council Consent agenda and then formally approved during the following budget amendment. On occasion, a similar process is employed for donations to the City. Where necessary, resolutions were previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept these grants and donations. EXHIBITS: Consent Agenda Detail Consent Agenda Summary Lisa Shaffer (Jan 21, 2021 16:04 MST) 1/21/2021 1/21/2021 Fund Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs 1 State of Utah, CCJJ (Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice), Jurisdictions with Halfway Houses and Parole Violator Centers Grant Misc. Grants 248,064.00 248,064.00 One-time 0 2 Department of Workforce Services, Housing & Community Development Division, FY21 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant Program Misc. Grants 160,100.00 160,100.00 One-time 0 3 Utah Department of Health - Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (EMS)grant, FY21 Per Capita Allocation Misc. Grants 6,275.00 6,275.00 One-time 0 4 Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands, FY21 Jordan River Vegetation Improvement, 2100 South Oxbow Restoration Project Misc. Grants 9,920.00 9,920.00 One-time 0 Total of Budget Amendment Items 424,359.00 424,359.00 0 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Consent Agenda #4 Budget Amendment #7 Initiative Number/Name Section G: Council Consent Agenda - Grant Awards Section I: Council Added Items Salt Lake City FY 2020-21 Consent Agenda #4 for Budget Amendment #7 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 1 Section G: Council Consent Agenda – Grant Awards G-1: State of Utah, CCJJ (Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice), Jurisdictions with Halfway Houses and Parole Violator Centers Grant Misc. Grants $248,064 Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith/Melyn Osmond The Police Department has applied for and been awarded a $248,064 grant from the State of Utah, Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, in support of the Jurisdictions with Halfway Houses and Parole Violator Cen ters grant. This grant provides funding for law enforcement agencies that provide services directly to areas with halfway houses or parole violator centers, or both. The Police Department will use these funds for overtime efforts to include targeted enforcement operations, mental health co-responder teams, and extra patrol shifts. The department will also utilize the funding for a van for the Public Order Unit, helmet communication kits for the Motor Squad officers and maintenance/supplies for the mobile camera trailers previously funded through this grant program. A public hearing will be scheduled for this grant application. G-2: Department of Workforce Services, Housing & Community Development Division, FY21 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant Program Misc. Grants $160,100 Department: Community & Neighborhoods Prepared By: Michelle Hoon/Melyn Osmond The State Department of Workforce Services is funding $160,100 to continue efforts to mitigate the impacts of the Geraldine E. King Women's Resource Center and Gail Miller Resource Center to the Central City/Downtown and Ballpark/Liberty Wells host neighborhoods. Grant funds will be used to continue funding one City FTE to work as a Homeless Services Coordinator and continue contracting with Volunteers of America for a Homeless Outreach Caseworker. Including professional development, local mileage reimbursement, and outreach/promotional materials for community -based programming initiatives. A Public Hearing will be scheduled for the application on this grant. G-3: Utah Department of Health - Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (EMS)grant, FY21 Per Capita Allocation Misc. Grants $6,275 Department: Fire Department Prepared By: Brittany Blair/Melyn Osmond ***Additional Funding of $6,275 has been awarded to this original grant bringing the total grant award amount to $15,910** This agenda item is to increase the funding budget. The Fire Department applied for and was awarded $9,635 of grant funding from the Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services. This funding will be used towards the purchase of a 12 -lead heart monitor relating to the provision of Emergency Medical Services as funding permits. A Public Hearing was held on 4/7/20 for the grant applications on this award. Salt Lake City FY 2020-21 Consent Agenda #4 for Budget Amendment #7 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 2 G-4: Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands, FY21 Jordan River Vegetation Improvement, 2100 South Oxbow Restoration Project Misc. Grants $9,920 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Lewis Koga/Melyn Osmond Public Services Trails & Natural Land applied for and was awarded $9,920 of grant funding from the Utah Department o f Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands, FY21 Jordan River Vegetation Improvement, for the 2100 South Oxbow Restoration Project. The Trails & Natural Lands Division is preparing to initiate a multi-year restoration effort at the 2100 South Oxbow property, focused on weed control and the establishment of healthy and diverse native riparian vegetation across this 2.5 - acre site. Currently the site is a vacant field containing multiple noxious weed species which must be controlled prior to native planting efforts. Funds will be used to support a large first-year noxious species treatment by the City’s contracted weed control specialist, PMG Vegetation Control. Specifically, FFSL Vegetation Improvement funds will be used to control Russian Olive, Phragmites, Russian Knapweed, and Scotch Thistle on the property, preparing the site for subsequent restoration seeding and planting efforts. A Public Hearing will be scheduled for the grant application on this award Signature: Email: Garrett A. Danielson (Jan 21, 2021 16:07 MST) Garrett A. Danielson garett.danielson@slcgov.com 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 ______________________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Received: 12/22/2020 Date Sent to Council: 12/28/2020 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 12/22/2020 Chris Wharton, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Bicycle Advisory Committee STAFF CONTACT: Sandy Casement sandy.casement@slcgov.com Board Appointment Recommendation: Bicycle Advisory Committee DOCUMENT TYPE: RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Rachel Manko as a member of the Bicycle Advisory Committee. 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 December 22, 2020 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Dear Councilmember Wharton, Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Bicycle Advisory Committee: Rachel Manko – to be appointed for a term ending in three years starting the date of City Council advice and consent. I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Cc: File 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 ______________________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Received: 1/6/2021 Date Sent to Council: 1/6/2021 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 1/6/2021 Chris Wharton, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Reappointment Recommendation: Business Advisory Board STAFF CONTACT: DOCUMENT TYPE: Sandy Casement Sandy.Casement@slcgov.com Board Reappointment Recommendation: Business Advisory Board. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and reappoint Derek Deitsch as an ex- officio member of the 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 January 6, 2021 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Dear Councilmember Wharton, Listed below is my recommendation for membership reappointment to the Business Advisory Board. Derek Deitsch – to be reappointed for a term ending the last Monday in December, 2021. I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this reappointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Cc: File