The URL can be used to link to this page

07/11/2006 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JULY 11, 2006 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, July 11, 2006, at 5 : 30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Dave Buhler, and Soren Simonsen. Absent: Councilmember Jill Remington Love. Also in Attendance : Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; Sam Guevara, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Rusty Vetter, Appointed Senior City Attorney; Larry Spendlove, Senior City Attorney; Chris Burbank, Chief of Police; Dennis McKone, Assistant Fire Chief; Janice Jardine, Council Land Use Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Constituent Liaison; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; LuAnn Clark, HAND Director; Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director; Sarah Carroll, Principal Planner; Doug Wheelwright, Planning Deputy Director; Kevin LoPiccolo, Zoning Administrator; Cheri Coffey, Planning Deputy Director; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; Sandi Marler, Community Development Program Specialist; Nancy Boskoff, Arts Council Executive Director, Kevin Keating, Wasatch Advantage Group LLC; and Chris Meeker, Chief Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5 : 33 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1 . 5:33: 07 PM INTERVIEW MARY WOODHEAD PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Councilmember Buhler said Ms . Woodhead' s name would be forwarded to the consent agenda. #2 . 5 : 44 :24 PM INTERVIEW KAREN WILEY PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE SISTER CITY BOARD . Councilmember Buhler said Ms . Wiley' s name would be forwarded to the consent agenda. #3 . 5 : 45 : 30 PM INTERVIEW JEANETTE SAWAYA PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE ARTS COUNCIL Councilmember Buhler said Ms . Sawaya' s name would be forwarded to the consent agenda. 06 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JULY 11 , 2006 #4 . 5 : 48 : 00 PM REVIEW THE ORDINANCE ON TAKE HOME VEHICLES IN KEEPING WITH THE JUNE 15, 2006 BUDGET ADOPTION. (ITEM F-1) See Attachments Lehua Weaver, Steve Fawcett and Chief Burbank briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Chief Burbank referred to Page 2 of the draft ordinance . He said the wording "paying directly to Salt Lake City" should be removed. He said this would allow more flexibility in collection of fees and could be interpreted better. Councilmember Buhler said his recommendation was to adopt the version as recommended by the Chief with the understanding that the administration would find the mechanism for this to take place . #5 . 5:58 : 11 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CAPITOL HILL ZONING MAP FOR PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF 300 WEST STREET BETWEEN 500 AND 600 NORTH STREETS FROM A VARIETY OF ZONING DESIGNATIONS TO RESIDENTIAL/MIXED USE (R-MU) ZONING AND AMENDING THE CAPITOL HILL COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP. (PETITION NO. 400-05-04 HOWA) See Attachments Janice Jardine, Sarah Carroll, Alexander Ikefuna, Doug Wheelwright and Cheri Coffey briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Buhler said the issue would be moved forward. #6 . 6: 13: 44 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A LOAN APPLICATION OF THE HOUSING TRUST FUND TO WASATCH ADVANTAGE GROUP, LLC FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVIDENCE PLACE APARTMENT PROJECT TO BE LOCATED Al 309 EAST 100 SOUTH. See Attachments LuAnn Clark, Kevin Keating, Sandi Marler and Gary Mumford briefed the Council with attached handouts . Ms . Clark said the location was new and for a 125 units . She said costs had increased for large family units . Mr. Keating said costs had gone up and the project would not be feasible without the City' s partnership. Councilmember Buhler said the item would be forwarded to the August agenda. #7 . 6:42 :41 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CENTRAL COMMUNITY ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF THE PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 857 EAST 100 SOUTH, 70 SOUTH, 900 EAST AND 58 SOUTH 900 EAST AND AMENDING THE CENTRAL COMMUNITY MASTER FUTURE LAND USE MAP. (PETITION NO. 400-05-43 HENDERSON) See Attachments Cheri Coffey, Janice Jardine, Rusty Vetter and Alex Ikefuna briefed the Council with the attached handouts . 06 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JULY 11, 2006 Councilmember Saxton said she had talked with Planning Commission members who were troubled and frustrated when they made recommendations to the City Council and the recommendations were not followed. Councilmember Buhler said the conclusion of the Planning Commission was not supported by finding of fact and they did not follow the Planning staffs recommendation. Councilmember Jergensen said in several instances decisions had been made where findings and decisions were not consistent . He said a mechanism should be found for the Planning Commission to state the difference with the findings . He asked for the status of the request to Planning staff to craft language regarding height and density bonus . Ms . Coffey said Wayne Mills was currently working on the language and it was a priority. Mr. Ikefuna said it would come to Council in the early fall . Councilmember Saxton asked Planning for futuristic proposals for zoning so when a proposal came in there would be a base zone established. She said then conditions could be allowed that fit the Master Plan. She asked for a way to work with developers to keep within the Master Plan and current zoning. Councilmember Christensen said he was concerned with setting precedence of changing zoning. He asked Mr. Vetter to look at the issue . #8 . 7 : 31 : 11 PM (HELD IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS) RECEIVE A REPORT FROM THE COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REGARDING THE SALT LAKE CITY FLAG DESIGN. See Attachments Mayor Anderson and Council Members Christensen and Turner briefed the Council with the attached handout. They presented a picture of the flag the subcommittee had chosen. Councilmember Buhler recommended a public hearing in September. #9 . ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRATEGY SESSIONS TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE PUBLIC BODY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, AND TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION; PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 52-4-4 , 52-4-5 (1) (a) (iii) and 52-4-5 (1) (a) (iv) , AND ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. §78-24-8 . No Executive Session was held. #10 . 7 : 42 : 15 PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS . See File M 06-5 for announcements . 06 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JULY 11, 2006 The meeting adjourned at 7 : 44 p .m. Council Chair Chief Deputy City Recorder This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes for the City Council Work Session held July 11, 2006 . cm 06 - 4 -7 < < I106, w5 Board Appointment — Sister Cities Board — Karen Wiley INTRODUCTION: Mayor Anderson is recommending that Karen Wiley, be appointed to the Salt Lake City Sister Cities Board. If appointed, Ms. Wiley will serve a term extending through July 2, 2009 and will replace Bruce Kaliser, whose term has expired. APPLICANT INFORMATION: Ms. Wiley is the Community Development Coordinator for Salt Lake County and has worked with Sister Cities during her past years with Salt Lake City Corporation. She would like to continue her involvement on the Sister Cities Board to further these relationships. Ms. Wiley is on the Board of Directors for the Salt Lake City Credit Union and Committee Chair for the Executive Community Department of Health Treatment and Care. RESPONSE DEADLINE: If you have any objection to this appointment, please let Vicki know by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 20, 2006. CURRENT COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD: Sister Cities Board Members must be a Salt Lake County resident and the terms last 3 years. There may be a maximum of 15 Board Members. Board members include: Geoffrey Brugger; Patrick F. Carley; Hubert Chang; Anne Erickson; Manuel Evangelista; Etsuko Oqura Freeman; Rosemary A. Holt; Bruce Kaliser; Nia Sherar and Margaret Yee. BOARD STRUCTURE: The Sister Cities Board is created and governed in accordance with Utah law. The mission of the Sister Cities Board is to promote peace and unite local and global communities through friendship, economic opportunities and cultural and educational exchange, particularly through Salt Lake City and selected cities in other countries. C BOARD APPOINTMENT -ARTS COUNCIL-JEANETTE SAWAYA INTRODUCTION: Mayor Anderson is recommending Jeanette Sawaya, a resident of District 6 be appointed to the Arts Council. If elected Ms. Sawaya will serve a term extending through July 1, 2009. Ms. Sawaya will replace James Moreno who has resigned. Mayor Anderson is also recommending Joan Fairbanks Reynolds to be re-appointed for a term extending through July 1, 2009. APPLICANT INFORMATION: Ms. Sawaya is a Teacher/Dance Instructor at Judge Memorial Catholic High School and appreciates the volume and accessibility to the arts in the City. She feels that the arts are extremely important to the community and its growth to foster understanding and appreciation for all people. RESPONSE DEADLINE: If you have any objection to these appointments, please let Vicki know by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 20, 2006. CURRENT COMPOSITION OF ARTS COUNCIL: There is no City residency requirement for members of the Arts Council. c Current members include David Asman, District 7; Olga Benedict, District 1; Candice Colby, District 2; Tim Dolan, District 5; Helene Fairchild, District 4; Marisol Garza, District 1; Paul Heath, District 1; John Johnson, District 3; Michael Mack, District 5; Maralee Oleson, District 1; Derek Thomas Payne, District 7; Joan Fairbanks Reynolds, District 7; John Thompson, District 5; Edie Trimmer, District 2; and Jo-Ann Wong, District 6. BOARD STRUCTURE: The fifteen members Arts Council is the City's advisory board in all matters pertaining to the arts and cultural development of the city. Its primary objectives are to promote and encourage public art programs; further the development and public awareness of and interest in the fine and performing arts; provide for the assessment of the artistic needs of the community; provide the means for the development of a comprehensive citywide plan to encourage and strengthen artistic and cultural resources; develop programs in the arts which seek to introduce visual and performing arts to city residents who have previously not participated in such activities; encourage existing organizations to develop new ways of reaching the community; and provide a forum of communication between representatives of the community and the City Council. C SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: July 11, 2006 SUBJECT: Final Ordinance Amendments for Take-Home Car program STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver CC: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, DJ Baxter, Chief Charles Querry, Chief Chris Burbank,Rick Graham, Kevin Bergstrom, Lamont Nelson, Ed Rutan, Boyd Ferguson The Attorney's Office has drafted the attached proposed ordinance incorporating the Council's decisions regarding changes to the Take-home vehicle program. As outlined in the Council's motion on June 15,these changes include: ■ With regard to Personal Use: o off-duty use is available for public safety officers living within Salt Lake City for use within Salt Lake City. o off-duty use within Salt Lake City is available for public safety officers while already in the City on official business. (One may not drive into the City in order to conduct personal business.) o limited personal use is allowed outside of the City for non-City residents incidental to and from their commute home. o Amount of personal use should be a reasonable amount so as to not accumulate excessive miles on the vehicle. A definition of reasonable personal use will be established by department policies. A report of usage and mileage will be provided by Fleet Management to Department Directors on a monthly basis so that directors can monitor usage and determine a reasonable accumulation of miles. • With regard to use of vehicles for secondary employment,vehicles will continue to be allowed for this use,but a fuel surcharge in the amount of$3.00 per shift will be assessed to those employers effective October 1, 2006. • With regard to the fee schedule for bi-weekly payments by employees: o the fee schedule will be adopted by ordinance rather than by adopted by the Mayor or Mayor's designee. C o the fee schedule is: Within BiWkly CITY $ - \k • 5- $ 8.00 15 $ 24.00 47,514160 25 $ 40.00 35 $ 56.00 45 $ 56.00 o the fee schedule will be re-evaluated each year in conjunction with the annual budget. ■ With regard to the distance an employee may live from the City: o no longer measured from"the corporate limits of SLC", but from I-80 and Redwood Road o Employees living farther than 35 miles from I-80 and Redwood Road would not be eligible for a take-home vehicle. o 35 road and highway miles - "established by evidence generated by any commonly available internet or computer software program that estimates distances using driving directions." o add an appeal process for employees disagreeing with the distance calculation. This will be administered by the employee's department director or designee and established in departmental policy. The appeal criteria would require some documentation of the discrepancy from the employee, action taken by the department, and records would need to be kept and available for audit. o Those officers farther away than 35 miles as of August 1,2006 will be grandfathered for a period of 5-years at which time they will no longer be eligible for a take-home vehicle. For the first two years, their bi-weekly payment will equal the maximum charge for those within 35 miles. In year three, the maximum charge will increase by 20%, in year four it will increase by an additional 20%, and in the fifth and final year, it will increase by an additional 20%. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (City-Owned Motor Vehicles) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.54 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE,RELATING TO CITY-OWNED MOTOR VEHICLES. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. That Chapter 2.54 of the Salt Lake City Code,relating to city- owned motor vehicles be,and the same hereby is, amended as follows: 2.54.020 Designation Of Ownership-Insignia Required: All motor vehicles owned and operated by the city shall,haveainted-in a conspicuous place on both sides of the vehicle, display an identification mark designating the vehicle as the property of the city, ' following languag "Property of Sait T Cit " under conditions and as required by Section 41-1a-407title 41,chapter 7 of the Utah cCode or its successor The-designation , Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require such a display on any vehicle; exempt from such requirements under state law-te-be-sepainted. 2.54.030 Use Policy And Restrictions: A. Except as provided in subsection(b),Nno motor vehicle owned by the city may be taken home by any city employee except under the following circumstances: 1. Authorization to regularly take home a city-owned vehicle is granted by the department director and approved by the chief administrative officer or his or her designee based on a demonstrated need for such vehicle to be taken home to serve the public interest; or 2. Due to an isolated incident of use when,because of the lateness of the hour or other peculiar circumstances, it is impractical or impossible to return such vehicle to city custody at the end of a duty shift. B. Authorization to regularly take home a city-owned vehicle may be granted to a full-time employee for a "demonstrated need" based on at least one of the following criteria: 1. The employee has been designated as the director of a city department; 2. The vehicle is assigned to a sworn and certified law enforcement officer of the Salt Lake City police department or an employee of the Salt Lake City Fire Department(in either case, a"public safety officer"),pursuant to their department's take home car program requirements. Specifically, For public safety officers who live within Salt Lake City, eoff-duty use of the vehicle is available within Salt Lake City.umestµcted while withinwithin-the-Salt-L-ake-Ceunty-laeundaries:--3-ind-tKtiog For public safety officers who live outside Salt Lake City, (a) off-duty use of the vehicle is available only while the officer is already within Salt Lake City on official city business, and (b) limited personal use of the vehicle is allowed outside Salt Lake City only when incidental to the officer's commute to or from his or her residence. tTravel to and from approved secondary employment in a city vehicle is prohibited unless the secondary employer, beginning October 1, 2006, pays directly to Salt Lake City a fuel surcharge of$3.00 per work shift of the employee.; The amount of personal use shall be established by police department or fire department policy, as the case may be, and shall be a reasonable amount that, as described in that policy, shall not accumulate excessive miles on the vehicle. Fleet management shall provide to the police chief and the fire chief a monthly report detailing usage and mileage of city vehicles, thus enabling the police chief and the fire chief to monitor vehicle usage and to determine what constitutes a reasonable accumulation of miles on vehicles. 3. The full time employee must respond to at least five (5) emergency situations or callbacks to work per month; 4. The nature of the employee's work requires immediate response to emergency situations, regardless of frequency,that require the use of specific safety or emergency equipment that cannot be reasonably carried in the employee's personal vehicle. C. 1. Employees who have a demonstrated need as set forth in subsection B of this section;may use city-owned motor vehicles on a voluntary basis to travel to and from their homes only with the knowledge and consent of the appropriate department head, and only if such employees make hi-weekly payments to the city for such use according to the following a written fee schedule: adopted by the mayor or mayor's designee. Such fee schedule shall include a policy favoring those employees who live within the city. The fee required shall be no greater than the total actual costs incurred by the city for such voluntary use, including depreciation and capital costs. Distance (in miles) from the Intersection of Bi-Weekly Payment 1-80 and Redwood Road Public Safety Employees who Live in the $0 City Employees (other than Public Safety $0 Employees)who Live in the City 5 or less $8.00 10 or less $16.00 15 or less $24.00 20 or less $32.00 25 or less $40.00 2 30 or less $48.00 35 or less $56.00 More than 35 $56.00 The city council shall re-evaluate the fee schedule each year in conjunction with its adoption of the annual city budget. For employees whose use of vehicles is grandfathered pursuant to subsection(D),the bi-weekly fee shall increase by 20 percent in the third year of the grandfather period,by an additional 20 percent in the fourth year of the grandfather period, and by an additional 20 percent in the fifth year of the grandfather period. 2. The mayor shall, by written policy, set forth liability insurance coverage to such employees,which coverage shall be not less than two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00)per incident, shall cover bodily injury, death,and property damage and shall be in addition to that required by Utah Code Annotated-sections 31A-22-304 and 63-30d-80229.5. D. Except as otherwise provided in this subsectiontUunder no circumstances shall a city-owned vehicle be authorized for take-home use for an employee who resides farther than thirty-five (35)miles from the intersection of I-80 and Redwood Roadeererate , regardless of the department in which the employee is employed. Public safety officers qualifying for a take-home vehicle as of August 1,2006 will be grandfathered from this limitation for a period of five(5)years beginning August I, 2006. E. Except as provided in subsection(B)(2),Uunder no circumstances shall a city vehicle be used for any purpose other than city business,to promote a city interest,or for any use ether-than-authorized by the mayor or the mayor's designee. F. The distance of an employee's residence from the intersection of I-80 and Redwood Road may be established by evidence generated by any commonly available internst or computer software program that estimates distances using driving directions. An employee who disagrees with the determination of the city regarding that distance calculation may appeal that determination to the employee's department head or the department head's designee,pursuant to a process established by departmental policy. Any department'spolicy shall require the employee to (1)provide documentation supporting any disagreement with the distance determination of the city, and(2) describe any action taken by the department regarding the matter. The department shall maintain records regarding the appeal and shall make those records available for audit purposes. 2.54.040 Maintenance And Upkeep: A. It shall be the duty and responsibility of the driver or operator of a city vehicle to see that it is properly serviced,maintained,and cleaned. This includes,but is not limited to, having the appropriate servicing performed on the vehicleequipment at all designated intervals as set forth by the department:fad iuistrµ ser ieesPublic Services Department. A sticker will be affixed to the vehicle in a conspicuous place indicating time of usage and service due for the vehicle. 3 B. If the driver or operator of the city vehicle fails to have the vehicle properly serviced or maintained as prescribed by the Public Services Department within ten(10) working days or two hundred(200) miles of the required service or maintenance time,i-tsuch failure may result in loss of use of the vehicle to the user or department as well as possible disciplinary action. 2.54.050 Accident Involvement Or Damage-Reporting Requirements: A. In the event If a city vehicle is involved in an accident or is otherwise damaged, the police department and Public Services Department must be notified immediately. A written report shall be prepared by the driver or operator of such vehicle relating to the accident and/or damage on forms prescribed by the Public Services Departmentdirector of^a inistrative s and forwarded to the administrativeewicd epa mentPublic Services Department. Additional copies shall be made available to all departments requiring a copy of such report. B. If the driver or operator of the city vehicle fails to submit the report to the Public Services Departmentdireetter of admini stt�rative ser ' h', er a within a . V JVl Yl\r\:.) reasonable period of time, the city department which has been assigned the vehicle may lose the use of it, and the driver or operator may be subject to disciplinary action. C. In the event any person is injured in an accident involving the operation of a city vehicle, the driver or operator of the vehicle must notify the city attorney and risk manager must be notifea 2.54.060 Violation-Penalty: Any violation of provisions of this chapter shall be grounds for suspension or dismissal from employment, but shall not be considered a criminal offense. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. 4 • Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah this day of , 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR C CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: I:\Ordinance 06\Amending 2.54 city-owned motor vehicles 6-27-06.doc C 5 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: July 7,2006 SUBJECT: Petition 400-05-40—HOWA Capital,LLC—request to: • Rezone properties generally located on the east and west sides of 300 West between 500 and 600 North from a variety of zoning classifications to Residential/Mixed Use RMU • Amend the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the ordinance is adopted the rezoning and master plan amendment will affect Council District 3 STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Land Use Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community Development Department,Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Sara Carroll,Principal Planner NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: Newspaper advertisement and written notification to surrounding property owners 14 days prior to the Public Hearing Due to the Council's summer meeting schedule and the approaching expiration of a 6-month extension of the exclusive negotiation period with the Redevelopment Agency approved in January 2006, Council staff has identified the following schedule should the Council choose to move this item forward to a public hearing after the briefing from the Administration. RDA staff indicated to Council staff that they anticipate a development agreement,purchase and sale term documents or another extension to be presented at the August RDA Board meeting. (The Administration's transmittal was received in the Council office on June 26,2006.) • July 11 Council briefing • July 11 Set hearing date • August 8 Council hearing KEY ELEMENTS: A. An ordinance has been prepared for Council consideration to: 1. Rezone properties generally located on the east and west sides of 300 West between 500 and 600 North from Special Development Pattern Residential SR-I,Community Shopping CS, Moderate/High Density Multi-family Residential RMF-45,Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential RMF-35, and Mixed Use MU to Residential/Mixed Use RMU. (Please see the attached map for reference.) 2. Amend the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map designation for the properties on the east side of 300 West from general commercial to high density mixed use land uses. B. The rezoning and master plan amendment would facilitate a mixed-use planned development that includes residential,retail and office uses. The Administration's transmittal notes: 1 4 1. On May 30,2006,following additional due diligence work on the site,representatives of the developer contacted Planning staff to discuss proposed changes to the approved Planned Development site plan.The changes were driven by a geotechnical report which identified high ground water levels.The high ground water levels result in poor soil quality for foundation loading and would be cost prohibitive for site and structure de-watering, as well as require a change in the foundation design. De-watering and foundation design changes to address the poor soil quality would result in construction costs potentially exceeding$45,000 per stall in the underground parking structures. 2. The revised plan includes: 9 town homes, 85 residential condominiums, 11,000 sq. ft., for a grocery store, 39,315 sq. ft. of retail space,and 14,820 sq. ft. of office space.The changes also include the addition of a pedestrian walkway through the town homes 3. Because the proposed project is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District,the plan requires a review by the Historic Landmark Commission.The Landmark Commission review was completed on June 7,2006. 4. Given the magnitude of the changes,the revised plan will also require another review by the Planning Commission.The Planning Commission review is tentatively scheduled for July 12,2006. 5. The Planning Division has determined that the revisions to the Planned Development site plan have enhanced features, such as the addition of pedestrian walkway,which will add to the quality of life in the West Capitol Hill Community. 6. The Planning Division sees no reason to delay the transmittal relative to the rezone request because the proposed development will still occur under the approved Residential/Mixed Use RMU zoning. 7. Amending the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan Future Land Use map designating the properties on the east side of 300 West from General Commercial to High Density Mixed Use land uses is necessary to provide consistency with the proposed Residential/Mixed Use zoning designation and the proposed mixed-use planned development. C. The Planning staff report notes surrounding land uses include the following zoning classifications and existing land uses. (Please see attached map for details). Surrounding Zoning Classification Surrounding existing land uses North Mixed Use "MU",Moderate Density Multi-Family Service garage,convenience store, single "RMF-35",and Special Development Pattern family homes Residential "SR-1" South Family"RMF-35" and,Community Special Convenience store, service garage, single Development Pattern Residential "SR-1",Moderate family homes,church Density Multi Shopping "CS" East Special Development Pattern Residential "SR-1" Apartment complex, single family homes and Moderate/High Density Multi-family Residential "RMF-45" West Special Development Pattern Residential "SR-1" Single family homes and Moderate Density Multi-Family"RMF-35" D. The purpose of the Residential/Mixed Use RMU zoning district is to implement the objectives of the adopted East Downtown Master Plan through district regulations that reinforce the residential character of the area and encourage the development of areas as high density residential urban neighborhoods containing supportive retail, service commercial and small scale office uses. Maximum height for mixed-use buildings in the zone is 75 feet or 125 ft.through the conditional use process. Maximum height for non-residential buildings is 3-stories or 45 ft.whichever is less. Maximum floor area for nonresidential uses in mixed-use buildings is limited to 3 floors. Minimum open space required is not less than 20%of the lot area. 2 V E. The public process included a presentation of the rezoning request and development proposal to the Capitol Hill Community Council and written notification of the Planning Commission hearing to surrounding property owners.The Administration's transmittal and Planning staff report note there was general support for the project by members of the Community Council but also a concern relating to the proposed height for some of the buildings. F. On December 16,2005,January 18 and March 29,2006,the rezoning request and development proposal was evaluated by the Planning Commission Planned Development Subcommittee. The meetings were attended by the developer and representatives of the Planning Commission,Historic Landmark Commission,RDA and Planning staff. G. The City's Fire,Police,and Public Utilities Departments and Transportation and Engineering Divisions have reviewed the request. The development proposal will be required to comply with City standards and regulations and demonstrate that there are adequate services to meet the needs of the project. H. On April 26,2006,the Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to rezone the properties and amend the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map.Issues discussed at the Planning Commission hearing focused primarily on the design elements of the proposed development.In addition,the Planning Commission approved: 1. A planned development conditional use subject to several conditions and waivers to the Zoning Ordinance with the direction to staff to modify other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance if necessary to implement the development plans approved by the Planning Commission. 2. Preliminary condominium and subdivision plats subject to specific conditions. MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: A. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration the rationale for applying the Residential/Mixed Use RMU zoning classification on the properties rather the Mixed Use MU zoning classification. (Due to time constraints in preparing this staff report,Council staff is unable to provide a detailed analysis of the differences and similarities of these two zoning classifications.) 1. The Residential/Mixed Use RMU zoning classification was created during the 1995 Zoning Rewrite project for application to properties in the East Downtown planning area. 2. Creation of the Residential/Mixed Use RMU zoning classification and application to properties in the East Downtown planning area is identified as a specific implementation action item in the adopted East Downtown Master Plan. 3. Language in the Zoning Ordinance, Sec.21A.24.17 Residential/Mixed Use District RMU,refers specifically to the adopted East Downtown Master Plan. For example: a. Sec.21A.24.17.A.Purpose Statement. The purpose of the Residential/Mixed Use RMU zoning district is to implement the objectives of the adopted East Downtown Master Plan through district regulations that reinforce the residential character of the area and encourage the development of areas as high density residential urban neighborhoods containing supportive retail,service commercial and small scale office uses. b. Sec.21A.24.17.E.Maximum Building Height. The maximum building height shall not exceed 75 ft.,except that nonresidential buildings and uses shall be limited by subsections El and E2 of this section. Buildings taller than 75 ft.,up to a maximum of 125 ft.,may be authorized as a conditional use,subject to the requirements of part V,Chapter 21A.54,of this title; and provided that the proposed conditional use is located within the 125 ft. height zone of the height map of the East Downtown Master Plan. 4. The Mixed Use MU zoning classification was created and applied to properties in the West CapitolHill area shortly after the Council adopted the updated Capitol Hill Master Plan in 1999. 3 S 5. Creation of the Mixed Use MU zoning classification and application to properties in the West Capitol Hill planning area is identified as a specific implementation action item in the adopted Capitol Hill Master Plan. 6. The Capitol Hill Master Plan is not specifically mentioned in the text of the Mixed Use MU.zoning district regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. 7. One option the Council may wish to consider is to request that the Administration process a petition to update the language in the RMU zoning district and remove reference the East Downtown Master Plan. This would allow the RMU zoning classification to be used citywide and eliminate any confusion that may be caused by reference to the East Downtown Master Plan. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Capitol Hill Community Master Plan(1999)is the adopted land-use policy document that guides new development in the area surrounding the proposed rezoning and master plan amendment.The Future Land Use Map identifies this area for High Density Mixed Use and General Commercial land uses. (As previously noted,amending the Future Land Use Map in the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan is part of this petition.) B. The Planning staff report notes a section of the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan focuses specifically on commercial development and implementation of a neighborhood shopping node in the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood,on 300 West, and states the following: 1. Commercial: a. The lack of neighborhood oriented retail services is a major concern voiced by citizens of the community during the public input process of the development of this master plan. b. As identified in the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood Plan(1996),the best location for commercial retail venture to service the residents of the community is 300 West. With commercial and mixed use zoning districts in place,a neighborhood scale commercial nucleus should be developed along the 300 West corridor. Steps should be taken to entice new retail services to this area as well as providing incentives for existing businesses to upgrade their properties. In addition,the mixed use zoning districts will provide opportunities for additional commercial or commercial/residential land uses to develop.A primary goal is to encourage community oriented businesses that will provide a high level of visual quality and proper maintenance. 2. Neighborhood Shopping Node: a. The West Capitol Hill Neighborhood Plan encourages neighborhood shops to locate on the east side of 300 West Street between 500-600 North Streets to provide a nucleus of neighborhood oriented commercial uses for the Capitol Hill Community.The neighborhood shopping node should be developed with sensitivity to the historic architecture of the neighborhood.Retail uses built to front the property line are typical.Height of one or two stories is compatible.Uses which are appropriate in the shopping node include a small grocery or drug store,neighborhood oriented retail,restaurants,and services and/or mixed use development with commercial uses on the ground floor and residential uses above or below the ground floor. b. The shopping node should be designed in a way to minimize impacts to the existing historic neighborhood to the east including orienting the commercial development to 300 West, limiting delivery and principal accesses to 300 West,prohibiting access, for the commercial uses, from Arctic Court, strongly encouraging the reuse of existing historic structures,and providing adequate buffering between the commercial and residential land uses.The feasibility of creating a mixed use development with residential on the top floor should also be analyzed. The shopping 4 center will hopefully become a catalyst for to encourage more neighborhood retail oriented commercial reinvestment. 3. Policies: a. If an appropriate commercial or mixed use development is proposed for the commercial node at 500 North and 1300 West,which requires additional property,the western properties along Arctic Court may be rezoned to commercial shopping. b. Development of the commercial node mixed use area should include the following design features to ensure compatibility with the residential development to the east: o Orientation of the commercial development to 300 West o Deliveries and principal access to the commercial development from 300 West o Prohibiting access for commercial uses from Arctic Court o Strongly encouraging the reuse of existing historic structures within the new commercial development o Providing adequate buffering of residential properties to the east o Prohibiting access to the commercial use within 150 feet of Arctic Court. c. Ensure new commercial development along 300 West is sensitive to pedestrian oriented access and is sensitive to the historic character of the neighborhood. d. Encourage community oriented businesses that will provide a high level of visual quality and property maintenance. 4. Action Items: a. Encourage nonconforming retail commercial uses to relocate to the neighborhood shopping node where appropriate. b. Provide a commercial retail nucleus and/or mixed use area for the Capitol Hill Community on the east side of 300 West between 500 and 600 North. c. Take proactive steps to entice new retail services into appropriate segments of this area. C. The Administration's transmittal notes the City Redevelopment Agency designated the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood a redevelopment target area in 1996. Since that time,the focus of the RDA has been to revitalize the West Capitol Hill area and particularly to facilitate a new neighborhood commercial development on the east side of 300 West between 500 and 600 North.The RDA focused on this area with the intent of creating a mixed use,commercial/residential node that would revitalize and stabilize the area,allow for private reinvestment and provide a comprehensive approach to achieve the goals outlined in the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan. D. The City's Comprehensive Housing Plan policy statements address a variety of housing issues including quality design,architectural designs compatible with neighborhoods,public and neighborhood participation and interaction,accommodating different types and intensities of residential developments, transit-oriented development,encouraging mixed-income and mixed-use developments,housing preservation,rehabilitation and replacement,zoning policies and programs that preserve housing opportunities as well as business opportunities. E. The Transportation Master Plan contains policy statements that include support of alternative forms of transportation, considering impacts on neighborhoods on at least an equal basis with impacts on transportation systems and giving all neighborhoods equal consideration in transportation decisions. The Plan recognizes the benefits of locating high density housing along major transit systems and reducing dependency on the automobile as a primary mode of transportation. F. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report express concepts such as maintaining a prominent sustainable city,ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards and is pedestrian friendly,convenient,and inviting,but not at the expense of minimizing environmental 5 stewardship or neighborhood vitality. The Plans emphasize placing a high priority on maintaining and developing new affordable residential housing in attractive, friendly, safe environments. G. The Council's growth policy notes that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: 1. Is aesthetically pleasing; 2. Contributes to a livable community environment; 3. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served; and 4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. H. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image, neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. CHRONOLOGY: The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed rezoning and master plan amendment. Key dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for details. • November 18, 2005 Rezoning and development requests initiated • November 21,2005 Petition received in Planning Division • January 18,2006 Capitol Hill Community Council presentation • December 16,2005,January 18&March 29, 2006 Planning Commission Planned Development Subcommittee meetings • April 26,2006 Planning Commission hearing • April 28,2006 Ordinance requested from City Attorney's office • May 19,2006 Ordinance received from City Attorney's office cc: Sam Guevara,Rocky Fluhart,DJ Baxter,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Melanie Reif,Dave Oka,Valda Tarbet,Mack McDonald,Louis Zunguze,Brent Wilde,Alex Ikefuna,Doug Wheelwright,Cheri Coffey, Sarah Carroll,Jennifer Bruno,Marge Harvey, Gwen Springmeyer File Location: Community Development Dept.,Planning Division,Rezoning and Master Plan Amendment, HOWA Capital LLC,properties located on the east and west sides of 300 West between 500 and 600 North 6 lirointini ad . ?""--'-- Sit giosil, 11, 0 : so •4144 f , * ik I Z (/) . Ill Eini.' 1 .11110. _ a IP CNI I i 6 , Celt pri . . . , ,,,,, , am :0 IP K4 ri i.„....... i _IF 0 silk. 1 .ir ummel . " I ' . lima ta) t E jail .c1) a) ,... 1 • 4 41•1111, z 0 -.,-,... ..,,A._, _,, - •_ ' , _ L.--:- 0 exilft. r r 006 , 1 ._ , .. 0, Ams,..._ ..... Elam I -.1. 11 lob 170 .... . ........ A-- ........... LC) C'el 1 . LII 1 , ; 10 . le lei*I l*.. Ce , is I c . Um • 1 . . % I , 14 L2 Me 40 .I' re • 6 .•-. -• • 1 41 ' 6, I pf kilo. . s - 1 II 'l . DEO DOD 001 I a i ...fa .14- win 0E130000 13ki . Illr' 9000000000 .... ,. • - El PEI 000E10 ODOM I im 0 0 . 00000o0000011 _ za. ..0 0 1.2, i c• - uomigillipil .. - .nr-• te ' C IIPIre I 0 I 1.1..,r T - *- XL ....... wil , maii irirr- it 4.- ... - 2 I 1 ... a . i Petition 400-05-43 —Mr. Blake Henderson—request to: • Rezone property generally located at 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East and 58 South 900 East from Residential Multi-Family RMF-35 to Residential Multi-Family RMF-45 , 416 • Amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map Petition 400-05-40—HOWA Capital, LLC—request to: • Rezone properties generally located on the east and west sides of 300 West between 500 and 600 North from a variety of zoning classifications to Residential/Mixed Use RMU ' \ 1 • Amend the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map/ Sr mi. ...._ ., . .. _ „,.,_ , 1 P . Am. , ce--e. ,, • IP] . _ r IIIIIIIIIIIIOC° WO -,. —_ • , III ct, . .. 4, lijr f .,., NI. . l . _ ... - .. _ . ,.... ., . .. ., .. .., ... 44t LL, io 31 _ SW o ' lam Aoki , • . . Ce ,• CO ,ir-t ..41 Z 1 1 LO Z CO AO - . "74 ' - LI"I 0 0 .16 IMF MOOS - . , In -. • I .,,,,,N 9 .. ... -... - . ' • , 0 I _____ N,A ift... 41,01 , I Le IS A31SOIld 0 JUN 2 g 7nrr • ` T� i A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE I!. �_\1�gig( `='„0©,y��o��'�1110 ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR 'RENT B. WILDE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL / k7 TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: June 1 , 2006 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director RE: Petition#400-05-40 by HOWA Capital is a request to amend e Capitol Hill Master Plan and Zoning Map for properties generally located on the east and west sides of 300 West Street between 500 and 600 North Streets from a variety of zoning designations to Residential/Mixed Use(R-MU) zoning STAFF CONTACTS: Sarah Carroll, Principal Planner, at 535-6260 or sarah.carroll@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a'briefing and schedule a Public Hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: Petition 400-05-40, initiated by HOWA Capital, is a request to rezone the properties generally located on the east and west sides of 300 West Street between 500 and 600 North Streets from a variety of zoning designations to Residential Mixed Use(R-MU)zoning in order to facilitate the construction of a mixed use development that will include residential,retail and office uses for the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood. The current zoning on the subject property includes: Special Development Pattern Residential (SR-1), Community Shopping(CS), Moderate/High Density Multi-family Residential (RMF-45), Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential (RMF-35), and Mixed Use (MU) zoning. The applicant is requesting to rezone the entire property to Residential Mixed Use (R-MU). Applications for the requested rezone, planned development, subdivision,and preliminary condominium were heard by the Planning Commission during a Public Hearing on April 26, 2006. At that time, the Planning Commission approved all of the above noted requests. The major highlights of the Planned Development Site Plan that was approved by the Planning Commission included two levels of underground parking under the north and south mixed use buildings, 11 town homes, 77 residential condominiums, 15, 000 sq. ft. for a grocery store, 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7 1 05 FAX: 801-535.6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM n 'i` accrcco v<aew 39,075 square feet of additional retail space, and 14,820 sq. ft. of office space to be completed in three phases. However, on May 30, 2006, following additional due diligence work on the site, representatives of the developer contacted City Planning Staff to discuss proposed changes to the approved Planned Development Site Plan. These changes were driven by a geotechnical report which identified high ground water levels. The high ground water levels result in poor soil quality for foundation loading and would be cost prohibitive for site and structure de-watering, as well as require a change in the foundation design. De-watering and foundation design changes to address the poor soil quality would result in parking stall construction costs potentially exceeding $45,000 per stall in the underground parking structures. The revised plan includes: 9 town homes, 85 residential condominiums, 11,000 sq.ft, for a grocery store, 39,315 sq.ft of retail space, and 14,820 sq.ft of office space. The changes also include the addition of a pedestrian walkway through the town homes (refer to attached letter and revised site plan, Exhibit 6). Because the proposed project is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District, the plan requires a review by the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC). The review by HLC was completed on June 7, 2006. Given the magnitude of the changes,the revised plan will also require another review by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission review is tentatively set for July 12, 2006. The Planning Division has determined that the revisions to the Planned Development Site Plan have enhanced features, such as the addition of pedestrian walkway, which will add to the quality of life in the West Capitol Hill Community. As such, the Planning Division sees no reason to delay the transmittal relative to the rezone request; as all of the proposed development will still occur under the approved Residential Mixed Use (R-MU) zoning. Analysis: The Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency (RDA) designated the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood as a redevelopment target area in 1996. Since that time, the focus of the RDA has been to revitalize the West Capitol Hill area and particularly to facilitate a new neighborhood commercial development on the east side of 300 West Street between 500 and 600 North Streets. The RDA focused on this area with the intent of creating a mixed use, commercial/residential node that would revitalize and stabilize the area and allow for private reinvestment. The RDA selected HOWA Capital to develop the subject property due to HOWA Capital's comprehensive approach to the goals for this area, as outlined in the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan. Master Plan Considerations: The Capitol Hill Community Future Land Use Map designates the west side of the subject property for"High Density Mixed Use" and designates the east side of the subject property for"General Commercial"use. The Master Plan will need to be amended so that both the east and west sides of the subject property reflect"High Density Mixed Use" designations. Notice of the requested zoning and Master Plan amendments were published in the newspaper on April 12, 2006, meeting State Code noticing requirements. Petition 400-05-40—Howa Capital Rezone Page 2 of 3 PUBLIC PROCESS: The request for rezone, along with the development proposal,was evaluated at the Planning Commission Planned Development Subcommittee Meeting on December 16, 2005; January 18, 2006; and March 29, 2006 (see Exhibit 5D for meeting notes). The meetings were attended by representatives of the Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, RDA Staff, and Planning Division Staff. The rezone request and the development proposal were presented to the Capitol Hill Community Council on January 18, 2006. Members of the Community Council were generally in support of the project. At the April 26, 2006, meeting following a Public Hearing the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the requested Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments (Petition No. 400-05-40) by the City Council. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance Section 21A.50 - Amendments Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Maps are authorized under Section 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, as detailed in Section 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."It does, however, list five standards which should be analyzed prior to rezoning property (Section 21A.50.050 A-E). The five standards are discussed in detail starting on page 4 of the Planning Commission Staff Report (see Attachment 5B). Utah Code Title 10, Chapter 9a- Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management Sections 10-9a-204 and -205 regulate the requirements for noticing a general plan amendment and land use ordinance amendment. Petition 400-05-40—Howa Capital Rezone Page 3 of 3 Table of Contents 1. Chronology 2. Proposed Ordinance 3. City Council Hearing Notice 4. Mailing Labels 5. Planning Commission A. Public Hearing Notice and Postmark for the April 26, 2006 Planning Commission meeting B. Planning Commissions Staff Report with Attachments Site Plan, Elevations and Floor Plans Department/Division Comments Community Council Comments Newspaper Legal Notices, Published on April 12, 2006 C. Planning Commission agenda and minutes for April 26, 2006 D. Planned Development Subcommittee Notes for December 16, 2005, January 18, 2006 and March 29, 2006 6. Letter and Revised Site Plan from Howa Capitol, dated June 2, 2006 7. Original Petition 1. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY November 18, 2005 The applicant initiated a request for a zoning amendment. November 21, 2005 The Planning Division received the petition request. December 16, 2006 Project reviewed by the Planned Development Subcommittee. The meeting was attended by representatives of the Planning Commission, Historic Landmarks Commission, Redevelopment Agency Staff and Planning Division Staff. January 18, 2006 Project reviewed again, by the Planned Development Subcommittee, to address comments made on December 16, 2006. The meeting was attended by representatives of the Planning Commission, Historic Landmarks Commission,Redevelopment Agency Staff and Planning Division Staff. January 18, 2006 Rezone and development proposal presented to the Capitol Hill Community Council. March 29, 2006 Project reviewed again, by the Planned Development Subcommittee, due to changes to the project. The meeting was attended by representatives of the Planning Commission, Historic Landmarks Commission, Redevelopment Agency Staff and Planning Division Staff. April 11, 2006 Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed. April 12, 2006 Legal notice regarding Zoning Map and Master Plan amendment published in the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News. April 26, 2006 Planning Commission public hearing held. The Planning Commission approved the Planned Development, Subdivision and Preliminary Phase 1 Condo requests. They also forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the rezone request. April 28, 2006 Ordinance request sent to City Attorney. May 10, 2006 Planning Commission ratified minutes of April 26, 2006 meeting. May 19, 2006 Received ordinance from the City attorney. May 24, 2006 Submitted transmittal to the Community Development office for review. June 2, 2006 Received notice of revisions to the site plan from Howa Capital. June 14, 2006 Submitted revised transmittal to the Community Development office. 2. PROPOSED ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Rezoning Properties on the East and West Sides of 300 West Street, Between 500 North Street and 600 North Street, and Amending the Capitol Hill Master Plan) REZONING PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF 300 WEST STREET, BETWEEN 500 NORTH STREET AND 600 NORTH STREET, FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE ZONING DESIGNATIONS, INCLUDING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (SR-1), COMMUNITY SHOPPING DISTRICT (CS), MODERATE/HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RMF-45), MODERATE DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RMF-35), AND MIXED USE DISTRICT (MU), TO RESIDENTIAL/MIXED USE DISTRICT (R-MU), AND AMENDING THE CAPITOL HILL MASTER PLAN, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-05-40. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of their deliberations. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed amendments to the Master Plan and change of zoning for the properties generally located on the East and West sides of 300 West Street, between 500 North Street and 600 North Street, is appropriate for the development of the community in that area and in the best interest of the city. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. REZONING OF PROPERTIES. The properties generally located on the East and West sides of 300 West Street, between 500 North Street and 600 North Street, which are more particularly described on Exhibit"A" attached hereto and identified therein as the "East Parcel"and "West Parcel," shall be and hereby are rezoned from their respective zoning designations, including: 1) Special Development Pattern Residential District (SR-1), 2) Community Shopping District (CS), 3) Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District (RMF-45), 4) Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District (RMF-35), and 5) Mixed Use District (MU), to Residential/Mixed Use District (R-MU). SECTION 2. AMENDMENT TO ZONING MAP. The Salt Lake City Zoning Map, adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning of properties identified above. SECTION 3. AMENDMENT OF MASTER PLAN. The Capitol Hill Master Plan, as previously adopted by the Salt Lake City Council, shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning set forth herein and shall be further amended to reflect "high density mixed use" rather than "general commercial" for the properties located on the East side of 300 West Street, between 500 North Street and 600 North Street, which are more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and identified therein as the "East Parcel." SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: 2 CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Salt City n ^ U nc�� tfj',;c: Date o�-o[ L By (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: 1:\Ordinance 06\Rezoning East and West Sides of 300 West,Between 500 North Street and 600 North Street-05-12-06 clean.doc 3 3. CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is currently reviewing Petition No. 400-05-40, initiated by Howa Capital and the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency, requesting a Zoning Map and Master Plan amendment in order to rezone the property generally located along the east and west sides of 300 West Street,between 500 and 600 North Streets from a variety of zoning designations to Residential Mixed Use (R-MU) zoning in order to facilitate the construction of a mixed use development that will include town homes, condominiums, retail and office space. Current zoning of the subject property includes: Special Development Pattern Residential (SR-1), Community Shopping(CS),Moderate/High Density Multi-family Residential (RMF-45), Moderate Density Multi-Family(RMF-35) and Mixed Use (MU) zoning. This request involves amending the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map for the east side of the project area. The Master Plan currently designates the east side of the project area for"General Commercial" use and will need to be amended to reflect"High Density Mixed Use."The west side of the project area is already designated for "High Density Mixed Use." As part of the Zoning Map and Master Plan amendment process the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding this petition request. During this hearing, the Planning staff may present information on the petition and 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: City Council Chambers City and County Building 451 South State Street, Room 315 Salt Lake City, Utah If you have any questions relating to this proposal, please attend the meeting or call Sarah Carroll at 535-6260 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Salt Lake City complies with ADA guidelines. Assistive listening devices and interpretive services will be provided upon a 24-hour advance request. Exhibit"A" Boundary Descriptions Approximate Location: Both Sides of 300 West Street, between 500 and 600 North Streets Affected Sidwell Numbers: East side: 08-36-205-001, -005, -006, -007, -008, -010, -012, -019, -020, -021, -022, -026, -027, -028, -031, -033, -035 West side: 08-36-204-019, -020, -022, -027, -028, -029, -030, -032 EAST PARCEL BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 4, BLOCK 132, PLAT A, SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 00°01'28" EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 132, 660.24 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5 OF SAID BLOCK 132; THENCE NORTH 89°59'33" EAST ALONG THE NORTHERIY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 132, 201.92 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°01'15" WEST 177.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°59'33" WEST 37.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE SOUTH 00°O1'15" WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE 70.14 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°59'33" EAST 20.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°01'15" WEST 82.50 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 3 OF SAID BLOCK 132; THENCE NORTH 89°59'59" EAST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE 144.94 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTH 00°01'02" WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, 330.16 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTH 89°59'35" WEST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 132, 329.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS: 171,579 SQ.FT. OR 3.939 ACRES WEST PARCEL BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER BLOCK 133, PLAT A, SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 00°02'52" WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 133, 521.82 FEET TO A POINT SOUTH 00°02'52" WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE 26.64 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 8 OF SAID BLOCK 133; THENCE NORTH 89°54'03" WEST 131.66; THENCE NORTH 00°02'45" EAST 155.06 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°53'28"WEST 16.83 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°02'45" EAST 73.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°53'28" EAST 16.83 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°02'45" EAST 146.80 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°53'11" WEST 16.52 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°02'45" EAST 40.35 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°53'11" EAST 16.32 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°02'45" EAST 106.33 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 133; THENCE SOUTH 89°52'54" EAST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE 131.68 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS: 70,604 SQ.FT. OR 1.621 ACRES 5C-- 11110(c, 5A. PLANNING COMMISSION Public Hearing Notice and Postmark for the April 26, 2006 meeting NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. i AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City&County Building at 4.51 South State Street Wednesday,April 26,2006, at 5:45 p.m. nner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m.,in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share general planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday,April 12,2006. 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR a. University of Utah Student Presentation—Downtown Land Use Analysis 4. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Petition 490-05-64—The Northeast Avenues Subdivision,a request by Pinnacle Building Group for a minor subdivision to create a new five-lot residential subdivision located at approximately 465 North"K"Street in an SR-1 (Special Development Residential)Zoning District in Council District Three.(Staff—Jackie Gasparik at 535-6354 orjackie.gasparik(oislcgov.com.) ii&n,l Pi ,r g 4 r45 .7, to �, j eG.:?� k Sz 1 4 - �n.r it W VT!,: t tit ` ,,, 10 r ,,i :- .,:',\;:.- ki 411:1'1.: :',..3,:j :1,1,:..„, 3,�, .ir,, mac ! ifir"r. t- Of $�> qt: 5 vkt i 7. b. A request by the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency/Howa Capital for approval to develop a residential mixed-use project with approximately 88 dwelling units and approximately 67,295 square feet of retail office.The property is approximately located on the east and west sides of 300 West Street between 500 and 600 North Streets. a. Petition No.400-05-40—A request by Howa Capital to amend the Capitol Hill Community Zoning Map to rezone the property currently zoned SR-1,CS,RMF-45,RMF-35 and MU to Residential Mixed Use(R-MU).The project also requires amending the future land use map of the Capitol Hill Community Mater Plan to identify the properties as high-density,mixed-use rather than general commercial.(Staff—Sarah Carroll at 535-62601 or sarah,carroll(a�sIcgov.com.) b. Petition 410-06-09—Conditional Use,Planned Development c. Petition 480-06-04—Preliminary Condominium Approval d. Petition 490-06-19—Preliminary Subdivision Approval (Staff—Ray McCandless at 535-6282 or ray.mccandtess(r�slcgov.com.) II: RMF 35 - .- i try _r'f .Yy '.M E RMF 35J' ;. I ' t t+ I r F - y 1-1 T t CS RMF 45 r SR.1l �''' ' i • ,E 1 `a l' S� m RMF35 la 1 ,i7 i ' r SR1 �_ �ti ' �` i 1� SR1, I1 r ./ R 1r CB c- ti f z i. , f :-RMF 35 - fL 1�.,.. 6. OTHER BUSINESS a. Downtown Master Plan Update The next scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be May 10,2006. This Information can be accessed at www.slcgov.com/CED/planning. Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this meeting.Accommodations may include alternate formats,interpreters,and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. For questions, requests,or additional information,please contact the Planning Office at(801)535-7757 or TDD(801)535-6021. v1119 fia-) '' " f -I-195 ORRIN3II 3O aaI.LONI 30V1Sod Sn #T:r• erke. 1,11V8 woJj paliely y} 900Z/ll/I70 06E 00$ * q EL910991H910 , : " ? L[1'AD 2181t[eS lawns ale1S tpnoS iS6 uols!AKI 2uiaueld,Cli3 a)Ie-f IIeS 1. Fill out registration card and indicate If you wish to speak and which agenda item you will address. 2. After the staff and petitioner presentations,hearings will be opened for public comment. Community Councils will present their comments at the beginning of the hearing. 3. In order to be considerate of everyone attending the meeting,public comments are limited to 3 minutes per person per item. A spokesperson who has been asked by a group to summarize their concerns will be allowed 5 minutes to speak. Written comments are welcome and will be provided to the Planning Commission in advance of tfle:i!leeting III they are submitted to the.Planning Division.prior to noon the day before the meeting. Written comments should be sent to: Salt Lake City Planning Director 451 South State Street,Room 406 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 - 4_ Speakers will be called by the Chair. 5. Please state your name and your affiliation to the petition or whom you represent at the beginning of your comments. 6. Speakers should address their comments to the Chair. Planning Commission members may have questions for the speaker. Speakers may not debate with othenmeeting attendees. 7. Speakers should focus their comments on the agenda Item. Extraneous and repetitive comments shouldbe avoided. 8. After those registered have spoken,the Chair will Invite other comments. Prior speakers may be allowed to supplement their previous comments at this time. 9. After the hearing Is dosed,the discussion will be limited among Planning Commissioners and Staff. Under unique circumstances,the Planning Commission may choose to reopen the hearing to obtain additional Information. 10. Salt Lake City Corporation compiles with all ADA guidelines. If you are planning to attend the public meeting and,due to a disability,need assistance In understanding or participating in the meeting, please notify the City 48 hours In advance of the meeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance may be required. Please call 535-7757 for assistance. nth9 `Zvai—n ' 7'-15 Oh .#4, �I-S '5 1517 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City&County Building 451 South State Street,Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday,April 26,2006 Present for the Planning Commission were Peggy McDonough (Vice Chairperson), Tim Chambless, Babs De Lay, Robert Forbis Jr., Kathy Scott, Jennifer Seelig, and Matthew Wirthlin. Commissioner Diamond arrived at 6:09 p.m. Present from the Planning Division were Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director; Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director; Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor; Sarah Carroll, Principal Planner; Jackie Gasparik, Principal Planner; Clark Labrum, Associate Planner; Ray McCandless, Principal Planner; and Cindy Rockwood, Planning Commission Secretary. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Vice Chairperson McDonough called the meeting to order at 5:46 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Audio recordings of Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time. A field trip was held prior to the meeting. Planning Commissioners present were Tim Chambless, Robert Forbis Jr., Peggy McDonough, Kathy Scott, Jennifer Seelig, and Matthew Wirthlin. Planning Division Staff present were Doug Wheelwright, Cheri Coffey, Sarah Carroll, Jackie Gasparik, Ray McCandless, and Clark Labrum. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA • Vice Chairperson McDonough noted that there were no items to be discussed. PUBLIC HEARINGS A request by the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency/Howa Capital for approval to develop a residential mixed-use project with approximately 88 dwellings and approximately 67,295 square feet of retail office.The property is approximately located on the east and west sides of 300 West Street between 500 and 600 North Streets. a. Petition No.400-05-40—A request by Howa Capital to amend the Capitol Hill Community Zoning Map to rezone the property currently zoned SR-1,CS, RMF-45. RMF-35 and MU to Residential Mixed Use(R-MU).The project also requires amending the future land use map of the Capitol Hill Community Mater Plan to identify the properties as high-density, mixed-use rather than general commercial. b. Petition 410-06-09—Conditional Use, Planned Development c. Petition 480-06-04—Preliminary Condominium Approval d. Petition 490-06-19—Preliminary Subdivision Approval (This item was heard at 7:03 p.m.) Commissioner De Lay disclosed that she had met with the applicants regarding the comparable sales in the neighborhoods, and stated that she felt capable to discuss the request without bias. The Commissioners agreed that Commissioner De Lay could hear the case fairly. Mr. Ikefuna also noted that Commissioner Muir would not be representing the Commission due to his relationship with the development. Vice Chairperson McDonough recognized Sarah Carroll; Principal Planner and Ray McCandless; Principal Planner as Staff representatives. Vice Chairperson McDonough also noted that the petitions would be heard and voted upon as an all-inclusive matter. 1 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City&County Building 451 South State Street,Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday,April 26, 2006 Present for the Planning Commission were Peggy McDonough (Vice Chairperson), Tim Chambless, Babs De Lay, Robert Forbis Jr., Kathy Scott, Jennifer Seelig, and Matthew Wirthlin. Commissioner Diamond arrived at 6:09 p.m. Present from the Planning Division were Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director; Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director; Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor; Sarah Carroll, Principal Planner; Jackie Gasparik, Principal Planner; Clark Labrum, Associate Planner; Ray McCandless, Principal Planner; and Cindy Rockwood, Planning Commission Secretary. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Vice Chairperson McDonough called the meeting to order at 5:46 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Audio recordings of Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time. A field trip was held prior to the meeting. Planning Commissioners present were Tim Chambless, Robert Forbis Jr., Peggy McDonough, Kathy Scott, Jennifer Seelig, and Matthew Wirthlin. Planning Division Staff present were Doug Wheelwright, Cheri Coffey, Sarah Carroll, Jackie Gasparik, Ray McCandless, and Clark Labrum. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA Vice Chairperson McDonough noted that there were no items to be discussed. PUBLIC HEARINGS A request by the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency/Howa Capital for approval to develop a residential mixed-use project with approximately 88 dwellings and approximately 67,295 square feet of retail office.The property is approximately located on the east and west sides of 300 West Street between 500 and 600 North Streets. a. Petition No.400-05-40—A request by Howa Capital to amend the Capitol Hill Community Zoning Map to rezone the property currently zoned SR-1, CS, RMF-45, RMF-35 and MU to Residential Mixed Use(R-MU).The project also requires amending the future land use map of the Capitol Hill Community Mater Plan to identify the properties as high-density,mixed-use rather than general commercial. b. Petition 410-06-09—Conditional Use, Planned Development c. Petition 480-06-04—Preliminary Condominium Approval d. Petition 490-06-19-Preliminary Subdivision Approval (This item was heard at 7:03 p.m.) Commissioner De Lay disclosed that she had met with the applicants regarding the comparable sales in the neighborhoods, and stated that she felt capable to discuss the request without bias. The Commissioners agreed that Commissioner De Lay could hear the case fairly. Mr. Ikefuna also noted that Commissioner Muir would not be representing the Commission due to his relationship with the development. Vice Chairperson McDonough recognized Sarah Carroll; Principal Planner and Ray McCandless; Principal Planner as Staff representatives. Vice Chairperson McDonough also noted that the petitions would be heard and voted upon as an all-inclusive matter. 1 Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 26, 2006 C. Reduction in the required 1st floor glass requirement from 40%to approximately 28°A)on the 600 North building elevation. iii) Proposed Lot 3-Grocery Store I Retail Space A. No modifications are required. iv) Proposed Lot 4—Building D A. Reducing the required setback for a parking structure in a corner side yard from 45 feet to approximately 20 feet. B. Reducing the 20% open space requirement to approximately 17%. v) Proposed Lot 5—Townhouses(7 units) A. Reducing the required rear yard setback from 30 feet to approximately 22 feet. B. Reducing the required 10 foot yard buffer on the east property line to 0 feet. C. Reducing the required 40% 1st floor glass requirement to approximately 23%. vi) Proposed Lot 6—Townhouses(4 units) A. Increasing the maximum front yard setback from 15 feet to approximately 19 feet. B. Reducing the required rear yard setback from 30 feet to approximately 12 feet. C. Reducing the required 10 foot yard buffer on the east property line to 0 feet. D. Reducing the required 40% 1st floor glass requirement to approximately 5%. E. Waiver of the lot frontage on a public street requirement(Section 21A.36.010C. Frontage of Lot On Public Street). b. Conditional use approval of the proposed off-site parking and office space. c. Deferral of the architectural review of buildings on the east side of 300 West Street to Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission. d. All outdoor lighting should be directed downward and designed to not adversely affect any adjoining property. e. Limiting the delivery hours of all commercial businesses from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., limiting the grocery store hours from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and allowing the restaurants and coffee shop will be open until midnight or as approved by the Planning Director. f. The proposed development must meet all applicable City, County, State and Federal requirements. g. Providing significant landscaping including trees along in the 15' 0"wide area on east side of Building A where it abuts the SR-1 zoned property as approved by the Planning Director. h. Park strip landscaping as required by the Zoning Ordinance should be installed instead of 100% pavers as shown on the site plan. i. Any encroachments into the public way will need to be approved by the Salt Lake City Property Management Division. j. Conditional use approval of the second floor office space on the north building on Lot 1 k. Providing a screening fence along the property zoned SR-1 as approved by the Planning Director. I. Approval of the tree selection and planting plans in the public way by the City Urban Forester. m. Planning Director approval of the final landscaping plans and number of parking spaces. n. Approval of the proposed rezoning and master plan amendment(Petition 400-05-40). 3 Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 26, 2006 2) Preliminary Condominium approval of Building D on Lot two and the townhouses on lots five and six subject to: a. Recordation of the necessary condominium plats and supporting documentation. b. Meeting all applicable City Departmental and State Code requirements specific to condominium approval. 3) Preliminary Subdivision approval of the proposed six-lot minor subdivision as modified by the Planning Commission subject to: a. Recordation of a final subdivision plat including necessary cross-access easements and utility easement dedications. b. Meeting all City Departmental requirements including resolving any sewer, water and storm drainage issues with the Public Utilities Department. c. Implementation of an Owners Association that addresses the maintenance of driveways, sidewalks, entry features, utilities etc. Commissioner Scott requested further background information relating to condition 1) a) i) B)which states, reduction of the required 10 foot landscaped buffer from 10 feet to approximately 4 feet along the west property line. Mr. McCandless noted that the four feet request is only along a portion of the west property line, and overall the 10 foot buffer is being met. Commissioner Scott also requested further information regarding the underground parking. Mr. McCandless stated that there will be two access points with two areas of underground parking for resident access. Commissioner Scott also requested the reasoning behind condition 1)a) ii) C)which states, a reduction in the required first floor glass requirement from 40 percent to approximately 28 percent on the 600 North building elevation. Mr. McCandless noted that the requirement is requested to be waived because of the design of the building; as it is affected by the slope of the property. Discussion commenced between the Commissioners regarding some of the design concepts of the proposed development, but it was determined that much of the design could change. It was noted that the design changed several times during subcommittee meeting as a result of the requests of the Commissioners and the community. Commissioner Scott requested clarification regarding the access to the townhomes. She stated that it seems Arctic Court will be an option, but asked whether or not it would be an option for the retail space. She also noted concern regarding the amount of public usage on Arctic Court, considering it is a private street. Mr. McCandless clarified that an exit/entry way on 300 West is the location the public is anticipated to use for retail access. He stated that a ramp will be accessible between the residential and commercial areas, but will not be the main access area. Ms. Carroll stated also that the access from Arctic Court is particularly for fire access. Mr.Wheelwright stated that there will be a certain level of upgrade for the west side of Arctic Court, and it is not considered the main access to the townhomes. Discussion commenced regarding the parking options on 300 West. It was determined that 300 West is a State road, but Kevin Young, Transportation Division, stated that meters may be placed along the road for parking purposes. Mr.Wheelwright requested further information from Staff regarding the hours of retail and grocery shops. Commissioners and Staff discussed the limitations of the hours and concluded to eliminate the condition listed 1) e., and allow existing regulation determine the hours of the businesses. 4 Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 26, 2006 Dru Damico, Director of Development for Howe Capital, provided a brief summary of the project, pictures of the subject property, and a previous rendering of the proposed development. He noted that the rendering is considerably different than the proposal presented to the Commission at this time. Mr. Damico stated that maintaining the historical context, providing a shop/live location, creating an anchor, and the creation of a civic identity were key points in the design of the market-driven development. He noted that members of the community were active participants in the development process. Mr. Damico stated that the request for continuous hardscape along 300 West is to increase the ease of pedestrian access and outside dining usage. Aaron Hansen, architect for the project, requested that the building heights for Building A& D be modified to 60 feet, or five stories high, which is different than the height shown in the submitted site plans. Mr. Damico requested that the road between the townhomes, become a City street with Public Utilities running through it. He anticipates that the road will become a City street, but the details have not been finalized at this time. Prescott Muir, architect for the project, stated that the plan does state that the road is presently a private road, but research will be conducted with the City to identify cost benefit to the City of transferring it to the City at a later date. Ms. Coffey clarified that if the intent of the applicant is to deed the privately developed street to the City, at a later date, specific requirements would have to be met. Mr. Muir stated, in response to a question from Commissioner Chambless, that security and lighting is a concern for the development because of the concerns of the community. He stated that the lighting will be shielded, but well lit. Mr. Damico added that the underground parking would be secure and well lit. Commissioner Seelig expressed appreciation to the petitioner for their recognition of the surrounding area, by creating an appropriate and appealing design. Discussion commenced between the Commissioners regarding the exterior design and the surrounding area. Mr. Muir noted that the subject property exists at a lower slope when compared to the surrounding area, and as a result, facilitates the development to reach the desired capacity for residential and retail development. Vice Chairperson McDonough commented regarding Building A and the setback when compared to the neighborhood. She requested the applicant consider staggering the eastern side of the building to create a graceful transition from the neighborhood to the commercial development. She stated that the north end of the proposed project does not seem to transition well into the neighborhood. Vice Chairperson McDonough stated that her concern was in regards to the urban pattern of the neighborhood, and a sympathetic transition to the project. Mr. Damico stated that the request would be considered, but would require a complete redesign of the building. He stated that the neighboring single-family dwelling is a two-story home, and it is almost equal in height to the apartment complex. He stated that because of the slope of the area, an increase of 15'is in height elevation is provided. Commissioner Diamond requested further elevation drawings regarding the west side of Buildings H, J, and K. Mr. McCandless provided copies of the elevations to the Commissioners. Commissioner Diamond stated that he disagreed with Commissioner Seelig regarding the west transition to Pugsley Street, and requested additional setback for some of the buildings. Discussion commenced regarding the maximum height for proposed Lot 1, Buildings H, J, and K. Mr. Muir commented that the height requested is two-stories; approximately 30 feet. Commissioner De Lay noted that the setback of the buildings is 30 feet from the rear yard of the homes on Pugsley Street, with an additional buffer from the rear yard of the homes. Mr. Damico stated that the residents of Pugsley Street have contacted him asking if the development will further increase their property values. 5 Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 26, 2006 Commissioner Scott requested clarification for the west side of the buildings with the 30 foot setback requirement for Lot 1, Buildings H, J, and K will consist of 6 feet of landscape and 24 feet of pavement. Commissioner Scott referenced the Staff Report and the waivers requested. Ms. Carroll and Mr. McCandless clarified the information that referenced the 30 foot setback as one that is from the front property line for surface parking lots located in the interior side yard. It was stated that the rear setback is 30 feet, or 25 percent of the lot depth, and that the project complies with the requirement. (Staff provided the following information for clarification regarding the setback concerns: For parking lots between Buildings H, J, and K in proposed Lot 1: A reduction in the required landscape setback for surface parking lots located in the interior side yards from 30 feet to 6 feet from the front property line.) Commissioner Chambless requested greenery on the rooftops of the taller buildings to help create a cooler, aesthetically pleasing view. Mr. Damico stated that the development will be addressing the rooftop, as all of the buildings will be U.S. Green Building certified. He stated that the rooftops will be"white roofs". At 8:07 p.m., Vice Chairperson McDonough opened the hearing to Community Council members. Nephi Kemmethmueller, 328 West 600 North, a Trustee member of the Capitol Hill Community Council stated support for the proposed development. He stated that 98 percent of the neighborhood has been supportive. He also noted that the single-family dwelling neighboring the apartment complex is a two- story home, with a roof pitch of about 8:12 and a height of 30-33'feet to the ridge. Peter Von Sivers, Capitol Hill Community Council Chair, stated that the Community Council is supportive of the proposed development for two reasons: 1. Recognition and adaptation to the fragility of the neighborhood by the developers; and 2. Provision of an anchor to the growing community. He provided a brief background of the area and the proposed developments. Mr. Von Sivers also noted that the diversity of the neighborhood has been increasing, and appreciated the new residential opportunities. He also stated that the request of the neighborhood is to have a grocery store of a medium- small scale responding to the needs of young, diverse professionals. Vice Chairperson McDonough requested comments from the public. Erlinda Davis, 270 Quince Street, was a former resident of the immediate neighborhood and stated her support for the proposed development. She stated that revitalization of the neighborhood has been a long-term goal. She stated that trees might be a good buffer between the Pugsley Street homes and the rear of the buildings. Polly Hart, Vice Chair Capitol Hill Community Council, expressed appreciation to Howa Development for investing in the neighborhood, and to Mr. Damico for the effort he has taken to develop the project along with the community. She stated that the community is eager for the project to proceed. Mack McDonald, Project Manager for the Redevelopment Agency(RDA), presented a brief background of the project area. He stated that numerous developers had approached the agency with proposed developments, but the proposals have not been conducive to the neighborhood and the goals of the RDA. He complimented Howa for their recognition of the proposed commercial and residential development and for meeting the goals of the RDA. Commissioner Diamond requested additional information regarding any development agreements. Mr. McDonald stated that Howa would be the main developer, but fine lines have not been drawn regarding the possibility of other developers. He noted that it would be his request to have Howa be the exclusive developer. 6 Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 26, 2006 Mr. Damico concluded his presentation and made three final comments. 1. The height variation between the homes on Pugsley Street and Buildings H, J, and K is approximately 10 feet. 2. The setback concern from Vice Chairperson McDonough will be considered; if economically feasible. 3. The elevations of the buildings proposed for the property on the west side of 300 West were presented to the Commissioners. At 8:33 p.m., Vice Chairperson McDonough closed the Public Hearing and the Planning Commission entered Executive Session. Commissioner De Lay stated her appreciation for the immense community effort exerted in relation to the subject property. She noted that the RDA has been striving to build something to benefit the community, and the project proposed seems to work for the community. Commissioner Diamond requested further information from Staff regarding the planned development, and the fact that the project is located on both sides of a State highway. Mr.Wheelwright stated that there were not any special considerations required because of this fact. Commissioner Scott desired to clarify some of the conditions, namely the condition regarding the 100 percent landscape for the park strip requirement and the condition relating to the hours of the stores. Discussion commenced between the Commissioners and Staff regarding the hour requirements. It was determined that the hours should be regulated by existing ordinances; therefore, striking condition 1)e. entirely. At 8:39 p.m., Vice Chairperson McDonough recognized Council member Nancy Saxton in attendance. Vice Chairperson McDonough stated that condition 1) h. relating to the 100 percent park strip landscaping be withdrawn. She stated that the project is an urban project, with retail facing the edge of the street. She stated that if a parking strip edge was required, less dining space will be provided. Mr. Damico was asked to clarify the desire of the developer relating to the landscape proposal. He stated that the desire is to have a South Temple, 300 West sense of a neighborhood. He stated that requiring continuous grass eliminates the option for a hardscape surface for outside dining and pedestrian walking paths. Commissioner Chambless stated support for the development and mentioned that with this development further growth is bound to occur. Commissioner Diamond stated that he agreed with the 100 percent requirement for park strip landscaping because of the vehicular traffic and the cooling effect landscaping can provide. Commissioner Wirthlin requested comments from Staff regarding their reasoning for the condition. Mr. McCandless stated that the requirement was added for consistency with the existing park strip ordinance. A straw vote was taken for the option of striking condition 1) h., with only two votes to withdraw; the option failed. Commissioner Scott requested that a condition be added to the four foot wide area on the west side of building K on proposed Lot 1 to require trees. She noted that the condition denotes landscaping, but is not detailed enough to include trees. Mr. Damico stated that trees will be located between Pugsley and the buildings on proposed lot 1. Ms. Coffey stated that the zoning ordinance requires a certain number of trees as a buffer to the area. Regarding Petition No.400-05-40 concerning the zoning for the east and west side of 300 West Street between 500 and 600 North, based on the findings of fact identified in the Staff Report,the 7 Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 26, 2006 testimony and conversation during the Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Seelig made a motion to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments to identify the subject property as Residential Mixed Use(R-MU)Zoning.Commissioner Wirthlin seconded the motion.All voted"Ave". The motion passed. Regarding Petitions No.410-06-09(Planned Development),480-06-04(Preliminary Condominium Approval), and 490-06-19 (Preliminary Subdivision Approval), Commissioner Scott made a motion that the Planning Commission approve the petitions in view of the findings,staff analysis, and testimony presented at the meeting,and in accordance with the conditions listed below, withdrawing condition 1)e. Commissioner Scott also included in the motion that the maximum height for Buildings A& D be approved at 60 feet or five stories.Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion.All voted "Aye".The motion passed with the following conditions: 1) Conditional Use!Planned Development approval subject to: a. Granting the following waivers to the Zoning Ordinance with the direction to Staff to modify other provisions of the zoning ordinance if necessary to implement the development plans as approved by the Planning Commission: i) Proposed Lot 1 -Buildings I-I,J and K A. Reduction in the required landscaped setback for the interior side yard setback from 30 feet to approximately 6 feet on the east side of the lots between the buildings. B. Reduction of the required 10 foot landscaped buffer from 10 feet to approximately 4 feet along the west property line. C. Reduction of the required perimeter landscaping from 7 feet to approximately 1 foot along the south property line. ii) Proposed Lot 2-Building A and parking lot for the grocery store A. Modifying the rear yard buffer from 10 feet to the varying dimensions as shown on the east property line. B. Reducing the perimeter landscaping requirement around the parking lot to the varying dimensions shown on the proposed site plan. C. Reduction in the required 1st floor glass requirement from 40%to approximately 28%on the 600 North building elevation. iii) Proposed Lot 3-Grocery Store/Retail Space A. No modifications are required. iv) Proposed Lot 4—Building D A. Reducing the required setback for a parking structure in a corner side yard from 45 feet to approximately 20 feet. B. Reducing the 20% open space requirement to approximately 17%. v) Proposed Lot 5—Townhouses(7 units) A. Reducing the required rear yard setback from 30 feet to approximately 22 feet. B. Reducing the required 10 foot yard buffer on the east property line to 0 feet. C. Reducing the required 40% 1st floor glass requirement to approximately 23%. vi) Proposed Lot 6—Townhouses(4 units) A. Increasing the maximum front yard setback from 15 feet to approximately 19 feet. B. Reducing the required rear yard setback from 30 feet to approximately 12 feet. 8 Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 26, 2006 • C. Reducing the required 10 foot yard buffer on the east property line to 0 feet. D. Reducing the required 40% 1st floor glass requirement to approximately 5%. E. Waiver of the lot frontage on a public street requirement(Section 21A.36.010C. Frontage of Lot On Public Street). b. Conditional use approval of the proposed off-site parking and office space. c. Deferral of the architectural review of buildings on the east side of 300 West Street to Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission. d. All outdoor lighting should be directed downward and designed to not adversely affect any adjoining property. c. Limiting tho delivery hours of all limiting the grocery store hours from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and allowing the restaurants nning Director. f. The proposed development must meet all applicable City, County, State and Federal requirements. g. Providing significant landscaping including trees along in the 15'0"wide area on east side of Building A where it abuts the SR-1 zoned property as approved by the Planning Director. h. Park strip landscaping as required by the Zoning Ordinance should be installed instead of 100% pavers as shown on the site plan. i. Any encroachments into the public way will need to be approved by the Salt Lake City Property Management Division. j. Conditional use approval of the second floor office space on the north building on Lot 1 k. Providing a screening fence along the property zoned SR-1 as approved by the Planning Director. I. Approval of the tree selection and planting plans in the public way by the City Urban Forester. m. Planning Director approval of the final landscaping plans and number of parking spaces. n. Approval of the proposed rezoning and master plan amendment(Petition 400-05-40). 2) Preliminary Condominium approval of Building D on Lot two and the townhouses on lots five and six subject to: a. Recordation of the necessary condominium plats and supporting documentation. b. Meeting all applicable City Departmental and State Code requirements specific to condominium approval. 3) Preliminary Subdivision approval of the proposed six-lot minor subdivision as modified by the Planning Commission subject to: a. Recordation of a final subdivision plat including necessary cross-access easements and utility easement dedications. b. Meeting all City Departmental requirements including resolving any sewer, water and storm drainage issues with the Public Utilities Department. c. Implementation of an Owners Association that addresses the maintenance of driveways, sidewalks, entry features, utilities etc. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There were no items of unfinished business to be heard. The meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m. 9 5B. PLANNING COMMISSION Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments DATE: April 5, 2006 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Sarah Carroll, Principal Planner RE: Staff Report for the April 26,2006 Planning Commission Meeting: Petition No. 400-OS-40, by Howa Capital, a request to amend the Zoning Map and Master Plan for property located along both sides of 300 West between 500 North and 600 North (approximate). CASE NUMBER: 400-05-40: Request to amend the zoning map and master plan APPLICANT: Property Owner: Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency Applicant: Howa Capital STATUS OF APPLICANT: Developer PROJECT LOCATION: The East and West Sides of 300 West Street Between 500 and 600 North (approximate) MU �lRMF 35 .e ,r P� �g Y3 f fi (� -5 M � Tys . w�.✓ .. . tc 3. , ,f ...14.1 .aw '�! is RMF„„13 ' air. , 6 'fir i MU , , : I► ty ;RMF 45 '1. y a � " ' RMF-35r�nn 's " 1 .y . ` 4 ,( '.", %,.1 -°-:':CR°-'z ! Q41ti.E '.fie' ", ti, ,. � SR1 , t SR 1 ss r 4 a ?'. 5 d CB t4,7; - ' rw g ..ii: Tr,,,,,.„,„_, :1 ,. ,. i - , , .. .:. :..�._ m ..._., RMF 35 Staff Report,Petition Number 400 05 40 April 26,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 1 PROJECT/PROPERTY SIZE: Approximately 5.98 acres COUNCIL DISTRICT: District 3, Councilmember Eric Jergensen REQUESTED ACTION: Howa Capital is requesting to rezone the property located on the east and west side of 300 West, between 500 North and 600 North from a variety of zoning designations to Residential/Mixed Use (R-MU) zoning in order to facilitate the construction of a mixed use development that will include office, retail and residential uses. The current zoning on the subject property includes: Special Development Pattern Residential (SR-1), Community Shopping (CS), Moderate/High Density Multi-family Residential (RMF-45), Moderate Density Multi-Family (RMF-35) and Mixed Use (MU) zoning. The Capitol Hill Master Plan designates the West side of the project area for"High Density Mixed Use" and designates the East side of the project area for "General Commercial." The Master Plan will need to be amended to reflect"High Density Mixed Use" rather than "General Commercial" for the east side of the project area. PROPOSED USE(S): Mixed Use - Retail/Office/ Residential APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: The proposed zone change is subject to the Salt Lake City Code, Chapter 21A.50, Amendments and Special Approvals. The proposed master plan amendment is subject to the Utah Code Annotated (10-9a-204) which identifies procedures for adopting and amending general plans. The following will also be considered in evaluating this request: • The Capitol Hill Zoning Map (1995) • The Capitol Hill Community Master Plan (1999) • The Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan (2000) • The Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission, Creating Tomorrow Together, (1998) • The City Vision and Strategic Plan for Salt Lake City, (1993) SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS: North - Mixed Use "MU", Moderate Density Multi-Family "RMF-35", and Special Development Pattern Residential "SR-1" South - Special Development Pattern Residential "SR-1", Moderate Density Multi-Family "RMF-35" and, Community Shopping "CS" East - Special Development Pattern Residential "SR-1" and Moderate/High Density Multi- family Residential "RMF-45" Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-40 April 26,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 2 West - Special Development Pattern Residential "SR-1" and Moderate Density Multi-Family "RMF-35" SURROUNDING LAND USES: North -Service garage, convenience store, single family homes South-Convenience store, service garage, single family homes, church East-Apartment complex, single family homes West- Single family homes MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS: The Capitol Hill Master Plan was adopted November 9, 1999. The Capitol Hill Community Future Land Use Map designates the west side of the subject property for "High Density Mixed Use" and designates the east side of the subject property for "General Commercial" use. The Master Plan will need to be amended so that both the east and west sides of the subject property reflect"High Density Mixed Use." HISTORY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: The Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency designated the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood as a redevelopment target area in 1996. Since that time, the focus of the Redevelopment Agency has been to revitalize the area specifically located on the east side of 300 West Street between 500-600 North using urban design methods to create an attractive commercial node that would eliminate the 300 West Street barrier of residential and commercial land uses in a controlled approach. The Redevelopment Agency focused on this area with the intent of creating a mixed use, commercial/residential node that would revitalize and stabilize the area and allow for private reinvestment. The development proposal is being evaluated through the Planned Development, Subdivision and Condominium processes and was reviewed at the Planning Commission Planned Development Subcommittee Meeting on December 16, 2005, January 18, 2006 and March 29, 2006. The meetings were attended by representatives of the Planning Commission, Historic Landmarks Commission, Redevelopment Agency Staff and Planning Division Staff ACCESS: Access to the property is provided from 500 North Street, Arctic Court (Private Street) 600 North and 300 West Streets. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subject property consists of eight parcels on the west side of 300 West Street and 17 parcels on the east side of 300 West Street. (West side: 08-36-204-019, -020, -022, -027, -028, -029, -030, -032, East side: 08-36-205-001, -005, -006, -007, -008, -010, -012, - 019, -020, -021, -022, -026, -027, -028, -031, -033, -035). The project area currently contains several different zoning designations, including SR-1, CS, RMF-45, RMF-35 Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-40 April 26,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 3 and MU zoning. The applicant would like to unify the zoning and is requesting R-MU zoning to accommodate the proposed development which is a mixed use project that will incorporate office, retail and residential uses. For residential and mixed use developments the R-MU zone allows a maximum building height of 75 feet as a permitted use or up to 125 feet as a conditional use. For nonresidential uses, 45 feet or 3 stories (whichever is less) is a permitted use. The proposed buildings range in height from approximately 22 feet tall to approximately 57.5 feet tall. COMMENTS, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS COMMENTS Comments from pertinent City departments/divisions and the Community Council have been attached and are summarized below (Exhibits 2 and 3). • Public Utilities: Public Utilities has no objections to the proposed rezoning. • Permits Office (Building Services and Licensing): Building Services had no objections to the proposed rezoning. Landscape buffers will be required between the R-MU and single or two family residential districts. New office buildings are subject to the conditional use process, per 21A.24.190 footnote#9. • Transportation: The Division of Transportation recommends approval of the rezone and notes the following: Any revisions to access circulation or road side elements on 300 West and 600 North (west of 300 West) will require UDOT approval and any revisions to 500 North and 600 North (east of 300 West) will require Salt Lake City Transportation Division approval. • Police Department: The Police Department does not see any problems with the requested rezone and notes that the Capitol Hill community is anxious to have something in place on those vacant lots. • Engineering: Salt Lake City Engineering has no objections to the proposed rezone. • Fire Department: The Fire Department has no objections to the proposed rezone. • Community Council: The request for rezone and the proposed development were presented at the Capitol Hill Community Council meeting on January 18, 2006. Those in attendance generally expressed acceptance of the proposal and excitement about the revitalization of this area (see exhibit 3). Those few who were opposed were concerned with the height of the proposed structures. GENERAL ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The Planning Commission must make a determination on whether or not they will transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to rezone the subject property as requested (thereby creating zoning map and master plan amendments) based on the Analysis and Findings as related to the standards for general amendments. The Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 21A.50.050, Standards for general amendments, states: 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 Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-40 April 26,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 4 controlled by any one standard. However, in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment, the city council should consider the following factors: A. Whether the proposed amender ient,1 ,consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives,and policies of the dopted general,plan of Salt Lake:City. Discussion: There are several sources to consider in reviewing the purposes, goals objectives,and policies for this area: • The Capitol Hill Zoning Map (1995) • The Capitol Hill Community Master Plan(1999) • The Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan (2000) • The Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission, Creating Tomorrow Together, (1998) • The City Vision and Strategic Plan for Salt Lake City, (1993) Capitol Hill Zoning Map: This request involves amending the zoning map to unify the zoning for the project area. The existing zoning consists of several different zones including: Special Development Pattern Residential (SR-1), Community Shopping (CS), Moderate/High Density Multi-family Residential (RMF-45), Moderate Density Multi- Family (RMF-35) and Mixed Use (MU) zoning. The requested Residential/Mixed Use (R-MU) zoning would allow the entire project to be developed under one zoning classification and will allow for a variety of uses including office, commercial and residential. Capitol Hill Community Master Plan: A section of this Master Plan focuses specifically on commercial development and implementation of a neighborhood shopping node in the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood, on 300 West, and states the following: Commercial: The lack of neighborhood oriented retail services is a major concern voiced by citizens of the community during the public input process of the development of this master plan. As identified in the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood Plan(1996), the best location for commercial retail venture to service the residents of the community is 300 West. With commercial and mixed use zoning districts in place, a neighborhood scale commercial nucleus should be developed along the 300 West corridor. Steps should be taken to entice new retail services to this area as well as providing incentives for existing businesses to upgrade their properties. In addition, the mixed use zoning districts will provide opportunities for additional commercial or commercial/residential land uses to develop. A primary goal is to encourage community oriented businesses that will provide a high level of visual quality and proper maintenance. Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-40 April 26,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 5 Neighborhood Shopping Node: The West Capitol Hill Neighborhood Plan encourages neighborhood shops to locate on the east side of 300 West Street between 500-600 North Streets to provide a nucleus of neighborhood oriented commercial uses for the Capitol Hill Community. The neighborhood shopping node should be developed with sensitivity to the historic architecture of the neighborhood. Retail uses built to front the property line are typical. Height of one or two stories is compatible. Uses which are appropriate in the shopping node include a small grocery or drug store, neighborhood oriented retail, restaurants, and services and/or mixed use development with commercial uses on the ground floor and residential uses above or below the ground floor. The shopping node should be designed in a way to minimize impacts to the existing historic neighborhood to the east including orienting the commercial development to 300 West, limiting delivery and principal accesses to 300 West, prohibiting access, for the commercial uses, from Arctic Court, strongly encouraging the reuse of existing historic structures, and providing adequate buffering between the commercial and residential land uses. The feasibility of creating a mixed use development with residential on the top floor should also be analyzed. The shopping center will hopefully become a catalyst for to encourage more neighborhood retail oriented commercial reinvestment. Policies: • If an appropriate commercial or mixed use development is proposed for the commercial node at 500 North and 1300 West, which requires additional property, the western properties along Arctic Court may be rezoned to commercial shopping. • Development of the commercial node mixed use area should include the following design features to ensure compatibility with the residential development to the east: o Orientation of the commercial development to 300 West o Deliveries and principal access to the commercial development from 300 West o Prohibiting access for commercial uses from Arctic Court o Strongly encouraging the reuse of existing historic structures within the new commercial development o Providing adequate buffering of residential properties to the east o Prohibiting access to the commercial use within 150 feet of Arctic Court. • Ensure new commercial development along 300 West is sensitive to pedestrian oriented access and is sensitive to the historic character of the neighborhood. • Encourage community oriented businesses that will provide a high level of visual quality and property maintenance. Staff Report, Petition Number 400-05-40 April 26,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 6 Action Items: • Encourage nonconforming retail commercial uses to relocate to the neighborhood shopping node where appropriate. • Provide a commercial retail nucleus and/or mixed use area for the Capitol Hill Community on the east side of 300 West between 500 and 600 North. • Take proactive steps to entice new retail services into appropriate segments of this area. Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan: The goal of this Plan is to enhance, maintain and sustain a livable community that includes a vibrant downtown integrated with surrounding neighborhoods that offer a wide range of housing choices, mixed uses, and transit oriented design. This Plan focuses on concepts for creating a wide variety of housing types across the City and encouraging mixed use and mixed income housing. In regards to mixed use development this plan states that the City Council supports mixed use projects that achieve vibrant, safe, integrated, walkable neighborhoods through a diverse mix of uses. Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission: In its Executive summary this report states that "Salt Lake City Neighborhoods are diverse, exciting, safe, well maintained, and supportive of families and young people. Vibrant neighborhoods are fundamental to the health and vitality of the city and citizens, business owners, and local government each have a role to play in creating and sustaining ideal neighborhoods." City Vision and Strategic Plan: Three objectives of this plan are outlined below: • The City will include a wide variety of affordable housing opportunities in attractive, friendly neighborhoods that provide a safe environment for families. • The City will sustain world class businesses that capitalize on its geographic and labor market competitive advantages and offer a wide variety of career path choices for its residents. • The City will recognize and protect neighborhood identity through neighborhood involvement in plans and public and private investment. Finding: The Capital Hill Master Plan specifically addresses the development of a neighborhood shopping node on 300 West, between 500 North and 600 North. In reviewing the goals of the Master Plan and the project that is being proposed for this location it is evident that the goals of the Master Plan are coming to fruition. Rezoning the project area will result in an encompassing recognition of the Master Plan goals. Staff finds that the requested rezone is appropriate for this location and would enhance the goals of the Plans and Reports discussed above. 'V their l ° *oif **ark 41, 16**w><al * W,t01 tq Qf st altg 4Mba i i he i x ap ty.. . .. Discussion: The subject property is surrounded by a variety of uses such as service stations, convenience stores, and single family residences. The subject property was Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-40 April 26,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 7 identified by the Master Plan as an area that should be revitalized with community oriented businesses that will provide a high level of visual quality and proper maintenance. The proposed development is not yet typical of the surrounding area but will become the catalyst for development of similar projects along 300 West. Finding: Staff finds that the Capitol Hill Master Plan identifies this area for a neighborhood commercial node that will provide retail services, as requested by the community, which have been lacking in this area. Community members have reviewed the proposed development and many have stated that the surrounding neighborhoods will greatly benefit from the proposed mixed use node. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: At the Community Council meeting there was overwhelming support for the project. However, those few who did not support the project were concerned about the height of the proposed structures. In order to address concerns about height, the project architect has provided building elevations along with elevations of existing surrounding buildings so that the proposed structures could be reviewed in context. The subcommittee members reviewed the proposed structures in relation to surrounding properties and the width of 300 West and discussed the effect of the proposed height on the surrounding properties. The majority of the subcommittee members agreed that the height was appropriate for the location. Finding: Staff finds that the proposed amendment will positively affect adjacent properties as it will allow for a mixed use neighborhood shopping node, as outlined in the Master Plan. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts,which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The east side of the subject project area is located within the Capital Hill Historic District. All new construction in the Capital Hill Historic District is subject to design review by the Historic Landmark Commission. Finding: Staff finds that all new construction in the Capital Hill Historic District is subject to design review by the Historic Landmark Commission. E. The,adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject roe ,IneandIng gbut not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities;police and fire protection,schools,storm water drainage systems, water supplies,and waste water and refuse collection. Discussion: Staff requested comments from City Departments/Divisions; including Transportation, Engineering, the Fire Department, Public Utilities, Police, and Building Staff Report,Petition Number 400-05-40 April 26,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 8 Services. These departments/divisions did not have any objections to the proposed zoning amendment. The proposed development must comply with City regulations. Findings: Staff finds that public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property must meet all City regulations upon further development. MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT: The Capitol Hill Community Future Land Use Map designates the west side of the subject property for"High Density Mixed Use" and designates the east side of the subject property for "General Commercial" use. The Master Plan specifically discusses a neighborhood shopping node on the east side of 300 West, between 500 North and 600 North and encourages a mixed use development with retail on the ground level and residential units above. The proposed development will comply with the goals outlined in the Master Plan. The Capitol Hill Community Future Land Use Map will need to be amended to reflect"High Density Mixed Use,"rather than"General Commercial," for the east side of the project area. State Law, Section 10-9a-204,Notice of Public Hearings and Public Meetings to Consider General Plan or Modifications, outlines the criteria for noticing an amendment. A notice for the Master Plan amendment was published in the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News on April 12, 2006 (Exhibit 4). A notice was also mailed to affected property owners and posted, meeting State Law requirements for Master Plan amendments. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the Findings of Fact identified in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council, to approve the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments, to identify the subject property as Residential/Mixed Use (R-MU) zoning. Sarah Carroll, Associate Planner 535-6260 or sarah.carroll@slcgov.com Exhibits: 1. Site Plan, Elevations and Floor Plans 2. Department/Division Comments 3. Community Council Comments 4. Newspaper Legal Notices, Published on April 12, 2006 Staff Report, Petition Number 400-05-40 April 26,2006 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 9 Exhibit 1 Site Plan, Elevations and Floor Plans e z If i a IiiiiiP a d a a I L , ----- R se --- sl_oca o r zo to 4a �ano�auaar o 11 ., 11 11. i 1 BB „rci „,.,. �� _ to ,21.11 ] lh OS'LLl Y,SI10.00 S I w �r1- 1 I -- li li r}I � �sze-rs,loo , i J.: xl r I ., I II e A IIr8 , �>raL y sreo.00$ � .�* *t IMin f I e, , m l II ,;- Ibp it, t I i it' .1aa I I I A _', O1 - If Q aqlILOaA c� I l0 I OI� RI ° p Ide __iiF' Io� I ,' y 01____ii,_ m a I M i 1,r, ( .'1,.. ----.11 IL i__:_{,.., , 7. I o II P I 3 U3a1s 1S3M 4o4 — 0 0 0 z I 3, _ g 1 m T 1e,7: '''' L.;Itil!tp.. , 1 1 I I ''• .4:ss 1 ; 1oea a e �i '''Io1 p I SE'M.1 91,ry Z000X I L 90'SSI 3,91,Z0.00 NT �: • I I.$1,20.00 N I m- I_ m o x I j II II au li \ IL. ' .--...-• 1 ,- I , III 51:1-:-Eill -I 6.. Elul a 1-,• it 15:-II _4 [ :g •• y, mi =I\ .tig ,. lIf■'41„ '� bm , :. _ ti) I•_ F..) — li�'.; —N x?F I } M.... ;'_.�. I ail.•i'�i; .1 Y.1; 4�'�I. ',gin ^' . r111—Milail 44 6�C:�:: pi..t1.�_! 1. Ii ., r�� 0 fil:11111 �Ie ' 3 �� '''t , tn� li,/4[) -)�a o a, v ill !i:.!i m J� m �` 3I� g. o rci ,1�.. a o I - g g Is 7.. kil -s.s,) Z = Now 1.1` 1 . o Z _. ( fig f ;II ii , , Ill iiii II 1111111 c. 1 ' .,c;'1_:',;3.---3"--.7.53,..-;"...1,^e'; 'KV 1____L____L4' 1 H I, 'L ' .. i '''.:,;','!:.;.-;-..-;: :•,,,.,...*:r.,-..i..-!:,,,...:, ,,,,,,,,..,..,4,,,, ,,,,,. , . ,,,,,-*---41Lt c- ::•'''?'",ific.A.,.. ..,4;;;3. .1-.7.': r•--;;;:-.73177'1 ; '23 .3:*/;;:;',4;;,,,V;#34i,,t ,,;;;3-33'3't;';,;;,'.;.:33,: C13 IT m.05-- --;- • / 1 --- : ------------------- 3oo\--.7-1Es, -- ___------_ --- -7-71--- i . -------_____ ''''----- --7. - ------ ,. ' ,.11''' .';''':...7;:,2i44:7 • 1, f I; 1 ,. 1 .'• - '. --4, 'i.:::., 'l., .,--', ``i.''',....,-1., . _ 1- '-',,'Ael ' P7 v ' ' 1, >--- . ---::''--„, \ ,.._6. 1 , lir Ii.( --- ..-- -<1--'- • - ,. • , 6. viD'CST ' -,-- 11-'—'-' ' -""-- 1• ' 1 1 t-',144 ' I' -- I: . --/_. ,coc ,Ilmr- - ' ' 'I I I \ I' \I • 4"'''''''' I 1 --' 1,- ' ' - .,1', - _,; cc,c, i , ,._J.i____', • ,,L ,1 ; \ irr,_.1-‘,3,,,ri.;a21 ; ...• . - it:2F-Le.-.2•N-74,9 1 , _ 4 , . ' r--- - i'el "' . ' ' •-- -.11Eai i r-- 1 I f, ... . 'Hirh... .. ,. • 11 \. I 5 . •— ; ;, _ ----;-- ;!. --;--- 1--- ; --1---4-- - \ , ; . \ ; \ . ; \ 1 \ 1 \ ; 1 ; • ;;,) __---_—_------------ 20__LIgg '`33--.-------------___—____--------- 3 33 3 ;IiN i ii 11 I in',.illi 1 li! 1 V11 iiiiiii '16 : A III 7 ; , 1 4 ;''''-' !..-,.., 112311R It : .1 • 1,: ill villi III 1!.1 11 li -!:!ill n 113 ., , .,i. 1 1 ,, .1 It 0 ir ill HI ^ it t , 1- i , ,•• — -:. • , 1 I I, 1, ' I \ I i i \ 3 11 ; \ 1 \ ii 8 t.1 i - II i , I i I Bc-., , I i i ,, , 5 ; ri 0 a _____._......................_.. 133Mn� ----_-_----' --_ _--- �� . --- '---__---- ` ' / ' / / / / / s / / ' . ' --------- it ' - - - - � 'L ---- ------ � / /^l n� ----' ^ ' ! r� - ---'-'��'�'�-� u � ' / ' . /' 6o III I I , 300 WEST V — _ __r__,--, ' >8gI Io�—� o ..,,,, , __ I'- \tt- ii� I v II 1 , , , g �.. ,� ,\T, e\ \ ,, II ' �— �pM ;3 m :,,,,,,,, ,,,, i ^ I� �, gt- , is 1 Li�.n :D_„„ ,,,,..,- "4--i-i ‘\ , , g ,! , , LJ__ _ „,,, 1 , . . I _ , , ,•.„, .. .,. _ _ -,,-,.. __ c,, ,,,,-.-• • . . ,.„.. , , - , ..a _ , � � A�l� „o,,, f A 'i I sim I ; € \ I I1 200 WEST 1i 4 _ ill 15 (A7 4, t� a2i a y F -'---- 153M OOL -Y i I s e.< I p.o<, oa — s r I I ej i ti II ab i __________ I , t it' °' '� i °I _ i. I A ik -- , �I 4 -, r l y lJpy f� , ,-- iiI y j P ' � � ig � r o G �� _£ qg fit I i '.4' �I 1S3M OOf ` °4_t_._...-__________ r---- _ ._ --- — _ I I, I I I I I I I 5D. PLANNING COMMISSION Planned Development Subcommittee Notes for December 16, 2005, January 18, 2006 and March 29, 2006 Planned Development Subcommittee Meeting December 16, 2005 Attendees: Planning Commission: Laurie Noda, Jennifer Seelig, Babs De Lay, and Peggy McDonough Redevelopment Agency: Mack McDonald and Valda Tarbet Historic Landmark Commission: Pete Ashdown and David Fitzsimmons HOWA: Dru Domico, Rick Howa, Zack Howa, and J.R. Howa Internet Properties: Vasilios Priskos Prescott Muir Architects: Prescott Muir and Lisa Arnett Planning Division Staff: Cheri Coffey, Kevin LoPiccolo, Elizabeth Giraud, and Sarah Carroll Background and Project Location: The project is located on both sides of 300 West between 500 and 600 North. The east side of 300 West is located in the historic district, and the west side is not. The Project is within the Capitol Hill Redevelopment Agency (RDA) target area. The RDA purchased the property to implement the goals of the adopted master plan that identify the area for a commercial node. The RDA received approval from the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC)to demolish several buildings on the East side of 300 West to better market the site. One building remains, "The Store" at 242 West 500 North. An economic hardship must be proved to demolish the structure. Seven buildings will be constructed on the proposed site. Building A will be a retail grocery store with residential condos above. Building B & C will be live/work units. The project in summary: • 15' retaining wall to the east edge of parking lot. • Project should comply with historical guidelines and be sensitive to theme of the neighborhood. Color scheme of the brick and architecture was created with West High School specifically in mind. Additional colors have been selected to reflect the color of the Marmalade District, using a contemporary color palate. • Roof of the building on the east side of the development will be slightly taller than the east neighboring apartment building. • West side of the street setbacks were dictated by property line. • Property density has been selected to justify the expense of underground parking. • Townhouse and condo/apartment parking will be accommodated by a courtyard paved with asphalt in the center of the development and underground parking beneath parts of the development. Access to townhouse parking will be from Arctic Court. Parking • A total of 404 stalls will be developed, broken down as follows: • 188 stalls provided for the Commercial West Side: on site 134 stalls and off site 54 stalls • 80 stalls provided off site for the Commercial East Side • 27 residential units/35 stalls for building A • 39 residential units/73 stalls for building D • 17 residential units/34 stalls Square footage • Total property area 226,794. • Project consists of 227,030 s.f. of developed construction broken down as follows: • Commercial 65,510 s.f. • Residential: 155,416.s.f. • Plaza and Landscaped area: 58,764 s.f. Building usage • Project consists of 7 buildings, used as follows: • 83 residential units (buildings A, D, and F) • 2 commercial sites • 7 residential dwellings 2 story in height (condos). • 2 main buildings of 3 to-3.1/2 stories oriented to 300 West. Concerns expressed by Planning Commission, Landmarks, and others: Overall, the group was favorable to the project, but did express four concerns: • Too much asphalt • Future wall on the west side of development. Did not want the neighbors west of the development adjacent to a blank wall or building. • Height incompatible with the neighborhood. • The setbacks on the west side of the street are too shallow next to a busy street, although the development scheme encourages pedestrian activity. Ms. Coffey explained the process that would proceed: The building known as "The Store" on 500 North would go through an economic hardship process with the HLC. She confirmed with the developer that they would be bringing in the economic hardship application soon. She also explained that the application for the rezoning would go through the Planning Commission. Follow up: • Planning Staff requested a visual representation of the streetscape showing existing buildings with the proposed new buildings to help commissioners to determine the compatibility of the neighborhood including Arctic Court, 200 West, and the corners of 500 and 600 North reflecting the height of buildings. • A decision was made by Planning Division to hold another subcommittee meeting at the first of the year(2006). Planned Development Subcommittee Meeting January 18, 2006 451 South State Street Room 126 Attendees: Planning Commission: Laurie Noda, Peggy McDonough, Babs De Lay, and Tim Chambless. Redevelopment Agency: Mack McDonald Historic Landmark Commission: Paula Carl HOWA: Dru Domico Prescott Muir Architects: Prescott Muir and Lisa Arnett Planning Division Staff: Alex Ikefuna, Cheri Coffey, Doug Wheelwright, and Sarah Carroll. Background and Project Location: The project was presented before the Subcommittee on December 16, 2006. At the previous meeting four concerns were stated by the Subcommittee: 1) Too much asphalt 2) A blank building wall on the west side of the development, causing the neighbors to be adjacent to it. 3) Incompatible height with the neighborhood. 4) Although the development encourages pedestrian activity, the setbacks on the west side of the street are too shallow next to a busy street. Planning Staff had requested a visual representation of the streetscape showing existing buildings with the proposed new buildings to help commissioners determine the compatibility of the neighborhood including Arctic Court, 200 West, and the corners of 500 and 600 North reflecting the height of buildings. Presentation in summary: Mr. Muir displayed renderings of the streetscapes. The developer addressed the four concerns as follows: Issue#1 : Asphalt was reduced by additional landscaping in the parking lot for the grocery store. Issue#2 & 3) The neighbors to the west of the development will not see a blank building wall. The building has been reduced from four stories to two stories, bringing the building within the ordinance height. The building wall will be constructed with brick relieved by windows and other architectural elements. All rooftops will be LEED certified. Issue #4) Setbacks have been increased to accommodate safe pedestrian traffic. Ms. Coffey explained that the Historic Landmark Commission would deal with the economic hardship issue and the Planning Commission would deal with the planned development and the rezoning. Mr. Ikefuna asked if further information was needed to complete the economic hardship application. Responding, Mr. McDonald stated that he believed there was nothing further to delay pursuing an economic hardship permit and that his department would file the application for economic hardship. He hoped that the project could go through the process at the same time as the project was presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Ikefuna encouraged Mr. McDonald to get started on the application for the economic hardship so that the project would have no further delays. Mr. McDonald agreed to do so. Follow up: Mr. Wheelwright agreed to send a written description of the economic hardship application process to Ms. De Lay. Planned Development Subcommittee Meeting March 29, 2006 451 South State Street Room 126 Attendees: Planning Commission: Laurie Noda, Peggy McDonough, Babs De Lay, and Tim Chambless. Redevelopment Agency: Mack McDonald Historic Landmark Commission: Paula Carl, Peter Ashdown HOWA: Dru Domico, Dallis Nordstrom Prescott Muir Architects: Prescott Muir, Aaron Hansen Planning Division Staff: Cheri Coffey, Doug Wheelwright, Ray McCandless, Kevin LoPiccolo, Sarah Carroll. Background and Project Location: The project was presented before the Subcommittee on December 16, 2005 and on January 18, 2006. The developer has made several modifications to the plans after consulting with an urban developer who recommended that the store be located in the center of the block and that the town homes off of arctic court be reduced to two levels rather than three levels. Presentation in summary including changes to project: Grocery store site has been moved from the North end of the block to the center of the block. Surface parking will be provided for the grocery store. Underground parking will be provided for the residential condominiums at the north and south ends of the project. Surface parking will be provided for all retail spaces. There will still be a Plaza near the Phase 1 retail and condominiums. The grocery store will be approximately 15,000 sq. ft (this is small for a grocery store). Underground parking will be provided for the condominiums: Parking for the residential condos on the corner of 300 West and 600 North will be underground and will be accessed from 600 North. Parking for the residential condos on the corner of 300 West and 500 North will be accessed from 500 North. Entrance to residential will be from 600 North, 500 North and Arctic Court. Entrance to retail/commercial will be from 300 West and 500 North. There may be a commercial gym on the main floor Building D, phase 1. The number of town homes has been reduced from 21 to 11 and they will be two stories rather than three stories. Access to the town homes will be from Arctic Court and they can enter the commercial project area from the new street that is being proposed.The west side of the project does not need to be included in the Planned Development if it does not vary from the zoning ordinance requirements. The buildings on the west side of the project will be the last phase and will be approximately two stories or 30 feet in height. Comments: Ms. De Lay requested status on the Economic Hardship process. Ms. Coffey explained the economic hardship application process for the building called "The Store". The Economic Hardship Application will be presented to HLC on April 5, 2006 to select an ECONOMIC HARDSHIP PANEL representative. Demolition of the store will be decided upon at a later meeting. If the Historic Landmarks Commission approves demolition of the store, the design of the entire project will be reviewed. The Economic Hardship panel will actually review it sometime in April and then go back to Landmark Commission in May. The project is scheduled to go before the Planning Commission to consider the following applications: rezone, planned development, subdivision, and preliminary condominium (for phase 1) on April 26, 2006. The elevations are well within the height limits. The rezone request is to rezone the property from RMF-35, RMF-45, CS, MU and SR-1 zoning to R-MU zoning so that the entire project can be developed under one zoning classification. The developer will create several different lots that will delineate phases of the development. Concerns stated: • Limited parking for retail space. • Neighbor to the East, along 600 North, has been boxed in and will lose view. Mr. Ashdown asked if the neighbor had been consulted regarding the impact of this project on their property. Ms. Coffey explained that the homeowner would be notified along with the public when the public hearing agenda is sent out. Mr. Ashdown asked the developer to make contact with the property owner and explain the impact on their property. • Developer expressed concern with the RDA proposal which requires naming tenants. He states that the size of retail space is difficult to determine at this point, because it is based on the approval of the future tenant and the RDA. The tenants who would commit want to know what the square footage they are leasing is before making a commitment. • Mr. Ashdown expressed a concern that the development might have elevations incompatible with the neighborhood. Follow up: A suggestion was made by Mr. Ashdown that the development on the northeast side could be setback an additional 20 feet to reduce the proximity to the single family home. He acknowledged that the suggested setback is not required by the ordinance. Ms. Coffey stated that the setbacks are within ordinance and if the project was required to have a greater setback, it would no longer be compatible with goals for this project. He further suggested that the developer could approach the homeowner and propose that HOWA cover the cost of updating the façade of the house to the east of the development to match the proposed development. Mr. Ashdown requested a height evaluation of other homes/buildings in the area so that he could compare elevations. He wanted to know if there are other buildings that are similar in height, and where there are located. 6. LETTER AND REVISED SITE PLAN FROM HOWA CAPITOL, DATED JUNE 2, 2006 HOWA June 2. 2006 Alex Ikefuna. Planning Director Salt Lake City 451 South State Street Room 406 Salt Lake City. Utah 84111 VIA FACSIMILE 801 535.6174 Re: Marmalade project.300 West between 500— 600 North Dear Mr Ikefuna. I am writing this letter in response to changes that HOWA has been forced to make to the design of Marmalade since we went before the Planning Commission on April 26. 2006. We are scheduled to go to the Landmarks Commission for design review on June 7. 2006. and understand that we may have to return to the Planning Commission due to the changes Although we previously ordered a soils report. we were unable to retain someone who could complete the job for us until April 13. 2006. On that date we received the results of a geotechnical study completed by Bill Gorden of Gordon Spiker Huber Geotechnical Consultants. The following quotes are a couple significant items that required us to change the design_ "conventional spread and continuous wall foundations underlain by granular structural fill are unsuitable to support these higher loaded footings because of excessive settlement, 'it is GSH's recommendation that "the five to six level structures be established upon a continuous mat or the underlying soils improved with Geopiersit In addition to the enhanced footings_ an area drain would need to be installed along the west property perimeter, and footing and chimney drains would need to be installed along building perimeters Our original estimate anticipated some de-watering(footing drains) of the site and some non- engineered fill (2 feet). However, our estimate did not anticipate the quantity of water on-site. the poor quality of the soil, and the settlement potential Even the Geotech was amazed, and found that calculating the settlement with 4 feet of engineered fill we were pulling an unacceptable settlement level of 1 inch HOWA did not anticipate that we would need to wrap the entire site in a blanket of free draining gravel. both under and around foundations. in place of engineered fill Up until the report was issued we intended to use soldier piles and lamming. But due to the results of the report Staker recommended a sheet pile because the soils on site—a clay layer existing on top of a sand layer—could cause the laggirxg to fail ( ') NTFA :TOr _ • (.c, N CTc; U TI ^1 . ANAr, cr: C • Urw PFr? e 171Z-4 ?DMA 511—! Mt—UE—l00 NOI1Dfl 1SNOD YMOH—woad wdZZ:IO 90—Z0-90 From the date the report was issued HOWA. McNeil Engineering. Dunn and Associates. and Prescott Muir worked around the clock to design a project that took into consideration the results of the soils report During that time we were able determine that the cost of underground parking for the residential buildings made the project unfeasible. At that point. the design team went back to the drawing board to explore alternative designs that would make an economically feasible project In order to have an economically viable project HOWA raised the parking structures a half-level above ground because it eliminates the shoring, mitigates the de-watering and creates a more efficient parking structure The above-ground parking structures force a change to the Development Plan submitted on March 20. 2006 to Salt Lake City•Planning &Zoning The following changes have been made (Please see attached Site Plan (06 01.06) and Development Summary for specific details of the changes) • Reorientation of Building A with structured parking with a roof top plaza for residents on the parking structure • Reoriented commercial surface parking. • Moved and aligned 600 North access approximately 75 feet east • Created an additional buffer between neighboring residential on 600 North and Building A • Changed the potential grocery site from 1 to 2 stories because we want to retain the height if a grocer does not locate here and chooses the West side of the street. If there is a grocer in that site the building will remain l story • Added an additional landscaped plaza • Building D parking structure raised above grade two levels with residential roof top plaza. • • Moved 500 North access road 39.5 feet east HOWA's expectation is to be under construction in early September. whatever the City can do to help us meet that goal will be appreciated. it is my understanding that these are the next steps 1 Landmarks review and approval of the Design on June 7. 2006 2 PUD Changes submitted to the Planning Commission either for special session, or during the scheduled meeting the end of June. a. Included in this is a potential Master plan amendment for Arctic Court 3. The Re-Zone will continue to move forward to the City Council Please contact me with any questions or concerns We appreciate all of your continued support and work on making Marmalade a reality Si cere Dru Damico PR-1 Z0/20-d 911-1 Z69P—ZZE-100 DNI NOl10I181SNO3 VMOH—woad wdEZ:10 90—ZO-90 `c TvEto O- O N o§ U S d N - o O T- r,N • E o m 1S9M OOL � 1 �,� ru >. a ��.�s. a.� �n sb ianoo o_ua`� l ®= ids F F =® �� ®I I./ e �■, �• ®� 1 t m'.-.'w. IF'.. - - 1111.111.10:1 1=111W ,-,: I ' � it] t ce / - �d pF ;e o - > ki'' I z's j i - eE 7 l la 1 I n �' ' r . °` ��4 n i t m z 'Nu/ I >) "1„,,2 :%--' � K� &- li=i t� __� rid' 1,,,) ek-, 4,^ /�' - ry a2. « u a au .,., so: o.n 1S3M 00£ v i+.t o LL. _._ Y R -0 "_;,1g G R R R RtRa (nip _c _ _ ' HII h�" I I I` 1 R , PP I �� 1--4,—, L 1 1 --- y I e SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: j;zly 7,2006 SUBJECT: Proposed Housing Trust Fund Loan to Wasatch Advantage Group for construction of the Providence Place Apartments 309 East 100 South AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: District 4 STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Housing and Neighborhood Development AND CONTACT PERSON: LuAnn Clark KEY ELEMENTS: On April 19,2005,the City Council approved a 40-year$850,000 loan at an interest rate of 2.45% for the City Plaza Apartment project on 200 East that was to provide 200 affordable units for households with income at 60% of area median income or less. There were some delays between the loan request and approval because the city was drafting a new loan policy. Shortly after the loan was approved,the developer determined that the site was no longer available. After months of looking for a similar site,one of the original partners of the City Plaza project along with additional partners/investors acquired land at 309 East 100 South and requested a similar loan for a project to be known as the Providence Place Apartments. The Providence Place Apartments will consist of 125 rental units comprised of 30 two bedroom/two bath units (rent$767),69 one-bedroom/one bath units (rent$641),and 26 studio units with one bath (rent$604). Rents will be restricted and targeted to households at 60% of the area median income or lower. The Administration's transmittal points out that rents are in line with the independent market study. The$14,000,000 project will remain affordable for 51 years. The City's loan will be leveraged with$8,100,000 of private activity bonds issued by the Utah Housing Corporation and$4,983,000 of tax credits. The permanent financing will reimburse the partners for the cost of the land and predevelopment costs. The average cost per unit is$114,200. The project will include 125 covered parking spaces in a tiered parking structure and an outdoor plaza and/or roof garden. All units will be handicap accessible. The project will include the following amenities: controlled access,on-site management office,club room/computer resource center/library, and fitness room. The units will have walk-in closets, dishwashers,and clothes washers and dryers. The project provides additional affordable housing units in the downtown area and increases the property tax base for the City. The local economy benefits with the use of local contractors and architects as well as from the increase in the number of city residents. A letter from the Central City Neighborhood Council dated May 3,2006 states that there was general support for this project. 1 MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS: 1. Loan amount-The developers requested the same loan amount as the City Plaza Apartment project of$850,000. Even though the project will be for 125 units rather than the 200 units proposed for the City Plaza Project,the high cost of land and construction costs have significantly increased since the time of the City Plaza project. The Housing Trust Fund Board set a guideline in March 2004 of a maximum loan of$300,000. The Board apparently recognized the value of this project and recommended a loan of$500,000. Mayor Anderson forwarded a proposal for a$600,000 loan. Mr. Kevin Keating,representing Wasatch Advantage Group, told council staff that a condition of the private activity bond allocation was obtaining an$850,000 loan from the city's housing trust fund. The applicant indicates that the project may not be financially feasible without the higher city loan. 2. Interest rate-The developers requested the same interest rate (2.45%) as approved for the City Plaza Apartment loan approved in 2005 (but not issued). Interest rates on the city's pooled investments have increased since that time to 4.77% in May 2006. The Housing Trust Fund Board generally recommends loans at slightly greater than the City's.average pooled investment earnings rate unless the project provides housing for the very low income residents,seniors, and disabled or special needs residents. The Board recommended an interest rate of 5%. Mayor Anderson forwarded a proposal for a loan at 4.65% (approximate average earnings rate for May 2006). Mr. Kevin Keating told Council staff that this Merest rate greatly reduces the incentive for the project since the permanent financing is only a little higher at about 5.5%,and indicated that the project may not be feasible at this higher interest rate. Mr. Keating noted the following additional information: "Lower the interest rate the lower the debt service. This increases cash flow for sizing the permanent loan.Since the senior mortgage is sized based on how much net cash flow is available,the lower monthly debt service allows us to borrow more from the senior lender. To maximize our senior loan amount we have assumed a 2.45% interest rate on the Housing Trust Fund loan." 3. Loan period-The developers requested the same loan period (40 years) as approved for the City Plaza loan. The Housing Trust Fund Board typically recommends 30-year loans. The Board forwarded a recommendation for a 30-year loan for the Providence Place Apartment project. Mr. Kevin Keating told Council staff that the higher debt service of a 30-year loan may result in an unfeasible project. Mr. Keating noted the following additional information: "Here again, a longer amortization period means the loan pays off over a longer period of time and as a result the monthly debt service amount is lower. Since the senior mortgage is sized based on how much net cash flow is available, the lower monthly debt service allows us to borrow more from the senior lender. We have assumed a 40 year amortization period on the Housing Trust Fund loan to help fill the financing gap in the project numbers." 2 4. Loan repayments based on available cash flow-The debt coverage ratio for this project is below the standard of 1.15 used by the Utah Housing Corporation on tax credit and bond projects. In order to bring the ratio up,the developers are requesting that the loan be a cash- flow loan where payments would be made to the city only if there is sufficient net operating income available for repayment. The developers' intent is to make the payments as scheduled. A loan based on available cash flow will allow for sufficient debt coverage ratio to obtain sufficient permanent financing. The Housing Trust Fund Board did not recommend that the loan be based on available cash flows. Mr. Kevin Keating told council staff that the intent is to make'the payments as scheduled. He indicates that he has advised the senior lender that the Housing Trust Fund loan will be a"hard loan with hard debt service payments required to repay the loan." He indicates that the senior lender will underwrite accordingly. 5. Preference for mixed-income projects-The housing policy currently being considered includes a preference for mixed-income projects. This project will be entirely for those at 60% of area median income or less. The draft housing policy also contains a preference for the number of affordable units to exceed the number of market rate units only if the median income of the area is 60% or above. The average median income for this area is lower than 60%. 6. Deferred developer fee-The deferred developer fee is$342,790,which is less than the amount allowed by the Utah Housing Corporation for tax credit financing. The deferred developer fee gets paid out of net operating income from project operations in lieu of receiving net operating income (or net profits) from operations. The developers are not earning both net operating income and deferred developer fees;its one or the other. Conversely,that means that if the project is paying off the deferred developer fee,it has no net profits available to distribute to the developers from current operations. According to Mr. Kevin Keating, the sole benefit of converting net operating income to a deferred developer fee is that developer fee expense is an eligible expense and therefore includable in determining a projects eligible basis. The eligible basis is in turn used to compute the amount of tax credits that the project is eligible to receive. 7. Balance in Trust Fund-The current balance in the Housing Trust Fund is$2,767,000. 8. Impact fee waiver-The developer will be eligible for an impact fee waiver of$162,500. The traditional source for funding these waivers is from fund balance,which is already most likely below 10% of general fund revenue. 9. All or nothing- Mr. Kevin Keating told council staff that in order to make the project feasible the city's loan must be$850,000 at 2.45% for 40 years. He said that the project probably won't go forward without the requested city loan amount and terms. The Council may wish to ask the developers to provide a written response as to whether there are any options to make the project feasible at the loan amount and terms recommended by the Mayor. 3 In April 2005,Council members made the following observations when discussing the proposed loan for the City Plaza project,for which one of the partners was Mr. Kevin Keating. Statements in favor of loan: .i• Thousands of more housing units are needed in ihe City • The downtown area needs more housing • The City Plaza project will help fill mid-level housing needs • The group consisting of 60% of AMI was missing from the City's core downtown area; the City has both high-end and low-end housing but lacks housing similar to what was being proposed • For-profit entities play a pivotal role • The goal of thousands of housing units is reachable with the City's willingness to participate collaboratively with developers Statements against$850,000 loan: • The loan is in excess of the Housing Trust Fund Board's$300,000 maximum policy; the Housing Trust Fund has limited resources • The Council has a long standing policy to not loan money on projects where 100% of units have income limitations • 60% of AMI is the most difficult market because of direct competition with existing at- market properties;the potential for vacancies may be high • For-profit developers are in direct competition with existing non-profit entities 4io are trying to provide housing for residents with lower levels of income • The loan is against the draft housing policy • The loan is inconsistent with previous loans OPTIONS: 1. Forward the loan request as proposed by the Mayor to a future Council Meeting for formal consideration($600,000;30-year term;4.65%). 2. By straw poll determine whether there is support for the loan amount and terms requested by the developers ($850,000;40 year term;2.65%). 3. Determine whether there is support for the Board's recommended loan amount and terms ($500,000;30-year term;5%) or for some other loan amount and terms. 4. Request additional information such as the possibility for the project to be feasible under the loan amount and terms recommended by the Mayor. 5. Deny the loan. A representative of the Wasatch Advantage Group will be at the Council work session in case there are questions that the Council would like to speak directly to the developers. Representatives are also available to meet with individual Council Members at your convenience to provide more information and respond to questions. 4 JUN 2 g 2006 A. LOUTS ZUNGUZE S.,�,�.`` ! (t A\ `a�mix ix OHM j� D�e' 'IOO� E .I �ac��wtis ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMI 27 TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer' DATE: J ne 23, 2006 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Directo SUBJECT: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a Housing st and loan agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC, for the construction of the Providence Place Apartment Project to be located at 309 East 100 South. STAFF CONTACTS: LuAnn Clark, Housing &Neighborhood Development Director, at 535-6136 or luann.clark@slcgov.com ACTION REQUIRED: City Council adoption of the resolution DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: Kevin Keating, on behalf of Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC, is requesting a loan in the amount of$850,000.00 from the Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund for construction of the Providence Place Apartment Project to be located at 309 East 100 South in Salt Lake City. They are requesting these funds at an annual interest rate of 2.45%to be amortized over 40 years with interest only for the first 24 months of the loan during the construction and lease-up phase of the project. The project is proposed to consist of 125 rental units that will be rent restricted and targeted to households at 60%of the area median income or lower. The building will contain 30 two bedroom/two bath units, 69 one-bedroom/one bath units, and 26 studio units with one bath. The units will remain affordable for 51 years. The City would be in third position on the loan. It is anticipated the total cost of the project will be $14,275,867. Analysis: Housing and Neighborhood Development staff prepared a staff evaluation for the Housing Trust Fund Board regarding the application submitted for funding. The evaluation contains information on the project's weaknesses and strengths and compliance with statutory regulations and housing plan goals and priorities. The project was also reviewed by Dave Miner, President 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801.S35.7105 FAX: 801-535.600S WWW.SLCGOV.COM If t= nceve co vnaec of Municipal Bond Consulting, Inc., because of Staffs limited experience with projects funded with private activity bonds. His review has been incorporated into Staffs evaluation. The key issues are listed below: • The project would provide 125 additional units of affordable housing in the City that would remain affordable for 51 years. The proposed loan would be leveraged with low- income housing tax credits and a private activity bond. • The project meets priority goals of the existing Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan to increase the City's housing stock,particularly by increasing the number of affordable housing units. (Please note that this is not the housing plan currently being discussed by the City Council. An analysis of the project and the new proposed housing plan is included on page four of the Staff evaluation—Attachment B.) • The project would be located near the Downtown area in proximity to mass transit and retail and commercial services. • The project did receive a letter of support from the Central City Community Council. • The Debt Coverage Ratio (DCR) for this project is below the standard DRC of 1.15. This standard is used by the Utah Housing Corporation on all tax credit and bond projects. The initial pro forma submitted with the application indicated that the DRC is 1.15. The pro forma did not include the repayment of the City's loan or repayment of the applicant's deferred developer fee. The applicant subsequently provided a new pro forma the date of the Housing Trust Fund meeting showing the DCR of 1.053 after calculating repayment of the City's loan and the deferred developer fee. • The applicant is requesting that the City's loan be a cash flow loan where payments would be made to the City only if there is sufficient net operating income available for repayment. The applicant needs this so they can meet the DRC of 1.15 for their other lenders. A loan guarantee will be provided by the project partners for the construction loan. • The developer's equity investment is only the deferred developer fee. There is no developer equity in the permanent financing of the project. • The loan is nearly three times the amount of the loan guideline of$300,000 established by the Housing Trust Fund Board in March of 2004. • The applicant is requesting an interest rate of 2.45%. As part of the annual budget process, the City Council adopts a resolution accepting a study performed in compliance with Utah Code Section 10-8-2 approving the Housing Trust Fund appropriation and establishing loan criteria. The resolution outlines as a tangible benefit that in many cases the interest on loans will exceed the interest rate the City earned on its pooled investment. Without the tangible benefit the intangible benefits need to be higher. The City's average interest rate for fiscal year 2005 was 2.42%. Most loans the Housing Trust Fund Board Housing Trust Fund Loan for the Providence Place Project Page 2 of 4 recommended were within that range. One exception was the loan for the Milestone Apartment project that received a 1% interest rate because it provided a higher than normal intangible benefit to the City because it preserved housing for very low income residents, many of whom are seniors, disabled or have special needs. The average AMI of the tenants of the Milestone is 32%. Interest rates have been increasing and the rate the City received on its pooled investments for April 2006 is 4.60%with an average rate of 4.37% since January 2006. • The applicant is requesting they be given a 40 year term. The only 40 year amortization terms the City has previously approved were required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development on Section 8 projects that were done in order to retain and rehabilitate existing affordable housing stock and prevent its conversion to market rate housing. The entire Staff evaluation on this project is attached(see Attachment B). An analysis of how this project meets new policies currently being considered by the City Council is included on page four of the Staff evaluation. The developer will be eligible for an impact fee waiver in the amount of$162,500. The current balance of the Housing Trust Fund is$2,767,086. Approval of this loan would leave the fund balance at$2,267,086. Recommendations: A. Housing Trust Fund Board and Recommendation Following an extensive review and discussion on the key issues relevant to this project, the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board unanimously recommended approval of a loan for $500,000.00 at 5% annual interest over 30 years,recognizing that Salt Lake City will be in a junior lien position and that any guarantees on the loan need to be resolved by Staff and the appropriate attorneys. The Board recommended the loan be hard debt and not a cash flow loan. As directed by the Board, Housing&Neighborhood Development Division Staff checked with Dave Miner and the City Attorney's Office regarding a guarantee because of the concerns raised by the applicant. Mr. Miner is of the opinion that the City cannot require this guarantee. Mr. Miner recommended that if a cash flow loan is given, the following language should be included in the loan documents to protect the City's interest in this project as follows: 1. The note would become due upon a refinance before the owner could take money out; 2. The note would become due upon sale of the property, including a partnership interest sale in excess of 50%; and 3. A clear definition of which project expenses could be paid by cash flow ahead of City loan repayments which would limit the distributions to the partners to reasonable management fees. Housing Trust Fund Loan for the Providence Place Project Page 3 of 4 The City could require that the City loan be paid before the developer takes out the developer fee. B. Mayor's Recommendation Mayor Anderson reviewed the applicant's request and the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board's recommendation on May 30, 2006. Mayor Anderson recommended the loan request be approved for$600,000 at 4.65%annual interest amortized over 30 years as hard debt and not as a cash flow loan. The applicant has submitted a letter regarding the impact that the loan recommendation from the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board would have on their project (see Attachment D). PUBLIC PROCESS: This loan request was reviewed by the Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board on May 9, 2006. The minutes from the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board meeting are included as Attachment C of this document. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Chapter 2.80 of the Salt Lake City Code: Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board Resolution#47 of 2005: Housing Trust Fund Appropriations and Loan Criteria Housing Trust Fund Loan for the Providence Place Project Page 4 of 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Attachment A: Resolution Attachment B: Staff Evaluation•of the Providence Place Apartment Project Attachment C: May 9, 2006 Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board Minutes Attachment D: Impact Letter from Applicant Attachment E: Loan Application ATTACHMENT A Resolution RESOLUTION NO. OF 2006 AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM SALT LAKE CITY'S HOUSING TRUST FUND TO WASATCH ADVANTAGE GROUP, LLC FOR THE PROVIDENCE PLACE APARTMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation (the City) has a Housing Trust Fund to encourage affordable and special needs housing development within the City; and WHEREAS, Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC, has applied to the City for a loan from the City's Housing Trust Fund in order to construct the Providence Place Apartment Project to be located at 309 East 100 South in Salt Lake City that will consist of 125 affordable rental housing units for residents at 60% of the City's area median income or lower. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. It does hereby approve Salt Lake City to enter into a loan agreement with Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC, for$600,000.00, with the appropriate guarantees, at four and sixty-five one hundredths percent (4.65%) per annum for thirty (30) years from Salt Lake City's Housing Trust Fund. 2. Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC, will use the loan funds to construct the Providence Place Apartment project at 309 East 100 South in Salt Lake City, Utah. 3. Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, following approval of the City Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute the requisite loan agreement documents on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with their terms. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2006. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIR ATTEST: APPROVED A O SALT LAKE Y FICE BY: DATE: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ATTACHMENT B Staff Evaluation EVALUATION SALT LAKE CITY HOUSING TRUST FUND Name of Organization: Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC Name of Project: Providence Place Apartments Location of Project: 309 East 100 South Project Description: The project is proposed to consist of 125 apartment units that will be rent restricted and targeted to households at 60% of area median income or lower. The building will contain 30 two-bedroom/two-bath units, 69 one-bedroom/one-bath units and 26 studios with one bathroom. One parking stall will be set aside for each apartment unit. All units will be handicapped accessible. AMI Targets: Rents: 60% - 26 studio/one-bath units $604 60% - 69 one-bedroom/one-bath units $641 60% - 30 two bedroom/two-bath units $767 Amount and terms requested: $850,000.00 at 2.45% interest over 40 years Interest only is requested for the first 24 months during the construction and lease-up period. Is the entire project eligible for Housing Trust Fund money? Yes Are the funds leveraged with non-government dollars? Yes SOURCES OF FUNDS — Construction Financing: Source Amount Construction Loan Calif. Bank & Trust $ 7,151,575 Predevelopment Loan Alliant Capital 4,983,077 Equity— General Partner General Partners 1,291,215 Gap Financing SLC HTF 850,000 TOTAL: $14,275,867 SOURCES OF FUNDS - Permanent Financing: Equity LIHTC—Alliant Capital $ 4,983,077 Equity Deferred Developer Fee 342,790 1st Mortgage Private Activity Bond 8,100,000 2nd Mortgage SLC HTF Loan 850,000 TOTAL $14,275,867 1 USES OF FUNDS Land/Building Acquisition Costs $ 952,781 Site Work 352,583 Construction Costs 8,934,349 Construction Contingency 434,237 Architectural/Engineering Fees 388,000 Gen. Contractor & Developer Profit & Overhead 1,715,500 Interim Financing Expenses 422,896 Permanent Financing Expenses 325,197 Soft Costs (Survey, Market Study, Environmentals, etc.) 279,086 Syndication Costs 207,906 Project Reserves 263,331 TOTAL $14,275,867 Cost per unit: $114,207 per unit Does the requesting agency have sufficient cash flow to repay the loan? Repayment of the loan will come from the project's net operating income; therefore, the net operating income must be sufficient to support all of the project's debt. The Board may want to clarify the intent of the developer to repay this loan. The applicant refers to the possibility of needing this loan to be a cash flow loan wherein payments would only be made if net operating income is available. It has always been the Administration's policy not to support cash flow loans without extenuating circumstances. Those circumstances might include projects that provided housing to 1) clients at very, very low- incomes (30% AMI or lower), 2) clients with special needs, 3) clients transitioning out of homelessness, or 4) clients living with HIV/AIDS. The Administration has limited staff resources to properly audit cash flow loans to ensure all available funds are returned to the City. Staff is only aware of four cash flow loans approved by the City during the past 20 years: 1) the Milestone Apartment project (HTF funds) which is a Section 8 preservation project that would have resulted in a loss of 141 existing affordable housing units and was required by HUD (the primary lender) to be a cash flow, non-federal funds loan, 2) the Valor House project (CDBG funds) that provides housing to homeless veterans, 3) the Lowell Senior Apartment project (HOME and Renter Rehab funds) for very low-income senior citizens, and 4) the Hartland Apartment project (HDAG funds) that was approved twenty years ago consisting of 300 units, of which, 120 have been rent restricted for low-income residents. The Hartland project has been a continual challenge for the City to monitor and from which no payments have been provided by the developer/owner during the project's 20-year history. Only one of the above projects was funded through the Housing Trust Fund. The City has not experienced the requirement suggested by the applicant that the senior lender will require this loan to be a cash flow loan, with the exception mentioned above on the Milestone project. The City subordinates on superior loans which provides the security that senior lenders usually require. 2 Does the protect have demonstrated community support? The applicant has requested a letter of support from the Central City Community Council since this is a new construction project. The letter of support provided in the application was for a different project. Does the requesting agency have a track record of owning, operating and maintaining this type of housing project? The applicant has provided a list of local projects owned, operated and/or maintained by several of his partners. The applicant, however, does not have a loan history with Salt Lake City. Private Activity Bond Projects Because staff has limited experience on private activity bond projects, we requested Dave Miner, President of Municipal Bond Consulting, Inc., to review the bond portion of this project. Information from Mr. Miner's report has been incorporated into this evaluation. Project Strengths: The project would provide 125 additional units of affordable housing in the City. Project rents are in line with the market study. The market study supports the construction of this project. The market study was completed by an appraiser on Utah Housing Corporation's list of approved appraisers The project meets priority goals of the existing Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan to increase the City's housing stock, particularly by increasing the number of affordable housing units. The project will remain affordable for 51 years. The project would be located near the downtown area in proximity to mass transit, retail and commercial services. Project Weaknesses: The applicant is requesting an annual interest rate of 2.45% over 40 years. Interest rates are climbing and the Board needs to look at increasing the interest rates on all Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund loans. One of the criteria outlined in the Resolution that authorizes the yearly appropriation for the Housing Trust Fund states that the interest charged on City loans should exceed the interest the City earns on its pooled investments. The rate of interest on the City's pooled investments for the last six months averages out at 3.86%. The interest earned in March 2006 was 4.42%. 4.5% is the minimum interest rate the Board should approve at this time for those projects that offer a significant, intangible benefit to the City. 5% is a more appropriate interest rate for projects that do not provide a higher than normal, intangible benefit to the City. Intangible benefits include providing housing to very low-to low-income residents, seniors, and disabled or special needs residents. The only forty-year amortization periods the Board has previously approved, other than the one for the City Plaza project, were required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development on Section 8 projects that were done in order to retain and rehabilitate existing affordable housing stock and prevent its conversion to market rate housing. 3 Debt coverage ratio for this project is low. The standard ratio is 1.15. The DCR for this project is 1.15 with no repayment of the City's loan or the deferred developer's fee reflected in the proforma. Therefore, the DCR would not meet the standard ratio if repayments for our loan and deferred developer fees were included in that ratio. The Board may wish to have the applicant clarify these issues. Construction casualty insurance of$150,000, listed in the bond portion of the application, appears to be excessive. Operating expenses and the applicant's estimate of the property tax liability appear to be on the low side which may significantly, negatively impact operating income if the actual numbers are higher than estimated. The applicant used 0.86% as the estimated tax rate and it should be closer to 1.45% or higher. The Board may wish to have the applicant clarify this issue. The applicant is requesting nearly three times the amount of the loan cap previously established by the Housing Trust Fund Board. The $850,000 to previously approved for the City Plaza project that the applicant refers to in the application, was for an entirely different proposal for 200 units at a different street address and consisting of a different group of investors/partners. No set aside units have been included in the project for any special populations such as persons living with HIV/AIDS, developmentally disabled persons or those transitioning out of homelessness. Most of the 30-40 unit projects that utilize HTF funding include 4-6 set aside units that also provide more tax credit points for the applicant. Contingency has been calculated at 4%. This figure may be too low considering the rapidly escalating construction costs of the recent past. Developer's equity investment is only the deferred developer fee. There is no developer equity in the permanent financing of the project. A loan guarantee on this project has been/will be provided on the primary loan by the project partners but was not offered to the City. A loan guarantee would eliminate the concerns a cash flow loan creates. Though one has been requested, no letter of support from the Central City Community Council has been provided. The project previously reviewed by the CCCC was the City Plaza project, not this project. Housing Policies and Preferred Housing Criteria for City-funded Projects This project meets the following new housing policies currently being considered by the City Council: Creation of a variety of city-wide residential housing units, including affordable housing Proximity to mass transit, retail and commercial services Housing units that are consistent with the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act New housing development within the Downtown area Per unit construction costs are within the industry standards Provision of adequate off-street parking 4 Property acquisition was at or below market value Developer fees are consistent with criteria adopted by the Utah Housing Corporation This project is NOT consistent with the following new housing policies/preferred criteria currently being considered by the City Council for projects requesting City funding: The preference for mixed-income projects. This project is not a mixed-income project. The applicant states that 100% of the units will be provided for those at 60% of area median income or less. However, the project will not cash flow if rents are actually collected at a rate lower than 60%. A preference for the number of affordable units to exceed the percentage of market rate units if the project is located in an area with a median income of 60% or above the City's AMI. 100% of the proposed units will be for those at 60% AMI. The AMI for this area is lower than 60%. A preference that developer ownership will continue for a minimum of seven years. The developer"anticipates" having a continuing role in the project throughout the compliance period but has not committed to do so. No design information was presented that would allow for the evaluation of how design features would fit in with policies and preferences being considered by the City Council at this time. Board Options 1. Table the matter and request amended financial documents assuring repayment of the City's loan and adequate operating income. 2. Approve the request at 5% over thirty years with either a balloon payment or rate adjustment in the 17th or 18th year of the loan to a market rate for a subordinate real estate loan if the project is cash flowing adequately. This would ensure the City would not be subsidizing the project unnecessarily after 15 years of rent appreciation. The City should also require the same guarantee that exists on the primary loan. 3. Approve the request at a lower loan amount with an amended amortization period of 30 years at 5% interest with interest only for the first 24 months. The City should also require the same guarantee that exists on the primary loan. 4. Approve the request for the requested loan amount with an amended amortization period of 30 years at 5% interest with interest only for the first 24 months. The City should also require the same guarantee that exists on the primary loan. 5. Approve the request as presented for $850,000 at 2.45% over 40 years. The City should also require the same guarantee that exists on the primary loan. 6. Deny the request 5 ATTACHMENT C May 11 , 2006 Minutes HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BOARD Meeting of May 11, 2006 The following board members were in attendance: Curtis Anderson, Karen Cahoon, Cara Lingstuyl, Kent Moore, Peter Morgan, Nancy Pace, and Faina Raik. Staff members in attendance were LuAnn Clark, Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development, Sandra Marler, CD Programs Administrator, City Council staff Janice Jardine and Jan Davis, Administrative Secretary. Chairperson Kent Moore called the meeting to order at 12:29 p.m. Cara Lingstuyl motioned to approve the March 16th minutes. Faina Raik seconded the motion. All voted "Aye." The motion passed. Consider a request from Kevin Keating, representing Wasatch Advantage Group, for a loan in the amount of$850,000 at 2.45% interest over 40 years to construct the Providence Place Apartment project to be located at 309 East 100 South. The project is proposed to consist of 125 apartment units that will be rent restricted and targeted to households at 60% of area median income or lower. The building will contain 30 two-bedroom/two-bath units, 69 one-bedroom/one-bath units and 26 studios with one bathroom. Mr. Kevin Keating representing Wasatch Advantage Group introduced Mr. Kip Sheppard, Mr. Jeff Nielson and Mr. Tony Hladek, managing members for the Providence Place Apartment project. Mr. Keating presented an overview of the project and answered the Board's questions pertaining to the project. He further explained that Wasatch Advantage Group would use the HTF monies for construction posts, land acquisition and provide permanent gap financing to make this project financially feasible Mr. Keating provided a detailed description of the project outlining the amenities and how the building design will complement the downtown neighborhood. Ms. Sandra Marler commented that Mr. Keating had submitted a current community council letter of support. Mr. Keating said the property site is in the downtown area near the proposed site for the City Plaza project that was presented to the Board a couple of years ago. Mr. Keating said that the property will be purchased from The Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese. Mr. Keating stated that due to a smaller parcel, this project will contain 75 less units than the City Plaza project, but they are requesting the same $850,000 due to higher construction costs. Mr. Keating remarked that the market study supports the construction of the project and the project will help meet the goals of the existing Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan. Mr. Keating explained that the senior lenders would require this loan to be a cash flow loan but said he believed the project would have sufficient operating revenues to meet the payments on a timely basis A discussion followed between the Board, staff, Mr. Keating and Mr. Sheppard in regard to guaranteeing repayment of the loan, security of the loan, and loan documents so that the project partners, the City and the tax credit investors would be comfortable. Mr. Keating said that the property secures the loan and that during construction they would be providing a construction completion guarantee for the senior lender. If an issue of nonpayment arises due to insufficient cash flow, the agreement would be to carryover the shortfall at simple interest to the next year. Mr. Keating further explained that if there was a shortfall, and the property foreclosed, the equity in the property would satisfy the loan. The Board asked for clarification pertaining to the debt coverage ratio. Mr. Keating explained that the 1.15 DCR is debt service before payment to the City and the developer. Mr. Sheppard confirmed that the partners would be guaranteeing the construction loan. Ms. Clark stated that Mr. Dave Miner, of Municipal Bond Consulting, recommended that the HTF loan have the same guarantee as the other lenders. Ms. Clark said the Board would like to be assured that the City will be repaid on this loan. Mr. Sheppard said they want to demonstrate their desire to pay back the funds but it could eliminate their ability to obtain tax credits if the loan is guaranteed. A lengthy discussion followed regarding tax credit laws, tax credit investors and debt coverage ratio. Mr. Sheppard said they would be willing to commit to a guarantee, in writing, for the HTF loan that all available cash flow be available to pay the subordinate debt. Peter Morgan moved to approve a loan in the amount of$500,000 for the Providence Place Apartment project at 5% annual interest over 30 years recognizing that Salt Lake City will be in a junior lien position and that the issues relative to any guarantees on the loan be resolved by the staff and the appropriate attorneys. Cara Lingstuyl seconded the motion. All voted "Aye." The motion passed. HTF Update by Luann Clark Ms. Clark said that there is a potential preservation project coming up which is the New Grand Hotel and that the meeting will probably be scheduled within the next couple of months. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1:47 p.m. 2 LIHTC PROFORMA Providence Place Apartments IF1.°MAP',W ;®,Pip,; ' Units Ann.Incr. Per Mo. Yr:1 _ [: :: Yr;•2 .: :Yr,3 :Yr,•4 . •Yr,5 Affordable Units 125 3.00% 82,943 995,316 1,025,175 1,055,931 1,087,609 1,120,237 Market Rate Units 0 2.50% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Income 45 1.25% 5,625 67,500 68,344 69,198 70,063 70,939 Federal Operating Subsidies 0.63% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vacancy Rate 7.0% (6,200) (74,397) (76,546) (78,759) (81,037) (83,382) TOTAL OPERATING INCOME 82,368 988,419 1,016,973 1,046,370 1,076,635 1,107,793 Ann.incr. _ TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $ 2,999 3% 31,243 374,917 386,165 397,749 409,682 421,972 NET INCOME FROM OPERATIONS 51,125 613,502 630,808 648,620 666,953 685,821 Capitol Replacement $ 250 2,604 31,250 31,250 31,250 31,250 31,250 CUMULATIVE RESERVES 31,250 62,500 93,750 125,000 156,250 NET CASH FLOW FROM PROJECT 48,521 582,252 599,558 617,370 635,703 654,571 Principal Amort. Rate Term Mo.Pay. Annual Pay 7,450,032 420 5.450% 420 39,764 477,170 477,170 477,170 477,170 477,170 850,000 480 2.450% 480 2,780 33,357 33,357 33,357 33,357 33,357 - 0 360 0.000% 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 360 0.000% 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 342,790 120 4.500% 120 3,553 42,631 42,631 42,631 42,631 42,631 0 360 0.000% 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 360 0.000% 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 360 0.000% 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 360 0.000% 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DEBT SERVICE EXPENSE 46,096 553,158 553,158 553,158 553,158 553,158 4:0AMO ATIO A IA `Y 141 Per Mo. Yt...1::.. Yr 2 :: ::: Yr;:3; Yr: . 4:..:. : Yr.5 Income Available to service LIENS 48,521 582,252 599,558 617,370 635,703 654,571 Debt Service Expense FIRST Mtge 39,764 477,170 477,170 477,170 477,170 477,170 NOI after First Mtge 8,757 105,082 122,389 140,201 158,533 177,401 COVERAGE RATIO ON FIRST LIEN MTGE 1.22 1.22 1.26 1.29 1.33 1.37 Subordinate Loans: SLC HTF 2,780 33,357 33,357 33,357 33,357 33,357 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deferred Developer's Fee 3,553 42,631 42,631 42,631 42,631 42,631 Local Funds 0 0 0 0 0 0 Local Funds 0 0 0 0 0 0 Local Funds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OWHLF HOME Funds 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal: Subordinate Mortgages 6,332 75,988 75,988 75,988 75,988 75,988 Debt Service All Mtge 46,096 553,158 553,158 553,158 553,158 553,158 Before Tax NI 2,425 29,094 46,401 64,213 82,545 101,413 COVERAGE RATIO ON ALL LOANS 1.053 1.05 1.08 1.12 1.15 1.18 CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL Liberty Senior Center 251 East 700 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Date: May 3rd, 2006 To: Jeff Nielson Re: Proposed 125 unit apartment complex at 309 E. 100 S. Central City Neighborhood Council(CCNC) has heard the proposal by Wasatch Advantage Group regarding a 125 unit apartment complex. There was general support for this project with many people complimenting the size and look of the complex. We look forward to this addition to our Community. Thank you Thomas Mutter Chair CCNC ATTACHMENT D Applicant's Impact Letter WASATCH ADVANTAGE GROUP,LLC 12553 Eagle Run Dr. Omaha,NE 68164 Telephone: (402)504-1942 Facsimile: 9402)504-1966 Email: kkeating@netwasatch.coin May 19,2006 Luann Clark,Director Salt Lake City Corporation Housing&Neighborhood Development 451 So. State St.,Room 406 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Re: Housing Trust Fund Loan Application for Providence Place Apartments (f.k.a. City Plana Apartments)309 East 100 South, Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Dear Luann, We first want to thank you,your staff and the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board("Advisory Board")for considering our Housing Trust Fund loan application. As you know,the Advisory Board convened on May 11th to consider our loan request for the proposed construction of a 125 unit affordable housing development at 309 East 100 South(hereinafter referred to as the"Project"or "Providence Place Apartments"). After significant discussion regarding the merits of this Project, the Advisory Board concluded the Providence Place Apartments was worthy of the City's financial support and passed a motion to approve a$500,000 loan to the Project. We are very appreciative of the Advisory Board's action in support of the proposed development. However, after careful review of the loan terms proposed by the Advisory Board,we became concerned about how these loan terms would affect our overall project financing_ Our original loan application requested an $850,000 loan with a 40 year term,40 year amortization period and 2.45 percent interest rate. These were the same loan terms previously approved by the Advisory Board, Mayor Anderson's office and the Salt Lake City Council for the original City Plaza Apartments project in 2005. The Advisory Board's motion to recommend approval of only$500,000 leaves us with a$350,000 funding gap. The only way to fund the gap is to borrow more from the senior lender at a higher interest rate. In addition,the Advisory Board's motion approving the loan reduced the loan amortization period from 40 to 30 years and increased the interest rate from 2.45 percent to a 5.0 percent interest rate. Together,the higher senior loan amount,the reduced amortization period and increased interest rate significantly increases the annual debt service payments required and reduces the available cash flow to below an acceptable 1.15 debt coverage ratio. Without additional help from the City this project may not be financially feasible. To keep the development moving forward, we respectfully request your assistance in bringing our concerns to the Mayor and the City Council and requesting,on our behalf,that they consider approving the $850,000 loan with our original loan terms. If the interest rate of 2.45 percent is not achievable due to increased costs of borrowing to the City,then we ask that the interest rate on the loan not be any higher than necessary and, in any event,not higher then the cost of funds to the City. We are committed to developing decent, safe,and affordable apartment communities. With the City Council's approval of this final aspect of our project financing we hope to start preparing the construction site within the next few weeks. The lack of affordable housing in downtown Salt Lake has been well documented in the City's own housing needs analysis. The 125 affordable apartment units proposed for the Providence Place Apartments will help the City satisfy its affordable housing needs and will benefit all the citizens of Salt Lake by addressing a very real affordable housing problem within the city. We are grateful for your continued assistance with regard to this loan application and look forward to partnering with the City to address the need for quality affordable housing downtown. Thank you again for your time and consideration of this request. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any additional questions concerning any aspect of our proposed development or in connection with the loan application. You can reach me at(402) 504-1942 or by email at kkeating@netwasatch.com. Sincerely, k Kevin M.Keating Vice President Acquisitions& General Counsel ATTACHMENT E Loan Application FUNDING APPLICATION SALT LAKE CITY HOUSING TRUST FUND Cover Sheet Project Name: PROVIDENCE PLACE APARTMENTS Applicant/Sponsor/Organization: Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC, a Utah limited liability company and its successors and assigns Mailing Address: Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC C/O Kevin M. Keating 12553 Eagle Run Dr. Omaha, NE 68164 Contact Person: Kevin Keating Phone Number: 402-504-1942 Fax Number: 402-504-1066 E-mail: kkeating©netwasatch.com Federal Employee Identification Number: To be applied for upon organization of operating entity. Project Name: Providence Place Apartments Project Location: 309 East 100 South, near Salt Lake City's Central Business District. Amount Requested: $850,000 This is the same amount previously awarded to the City Plaza Apartments project by the Housing Trust Fund advisory committee and approved by Mayor Anderson and the City Council. For business reasons the original site was sold and the project was relocated to 309 East 100 South. The requested loan amount represents $6,800 per unit. On a per unit basis this is significantly less than loan amounts approved by the City in support of many other affordable housing developments. Terms Requested: Construction/Permanent Gap Financing, 40 year term, 40 year amortization at 2.45% interest. Interest only for first 24 months (i.e. during construction & lease-up period). Please contact Sandi Marler at 535-7269 if you have questions or need assistance completing this application. The application is typed in Microsoft Word and is available on disc. Project Description Part I 1. Describe the scope of the project(how many total units, how many affordable units, type of project, etc.). Please address how your project will be accessible/visit-able. Please attach site plan, floor plan, and elevation of your project, if available. The Providence Place Apartments project will include 125 apartment units, 125 parking spaces in a tiered parking structure and an outdoor plaza and/or roof garden. All 125 apartment units will be rent restricted and targeted to households at 60% or below of Salt Lake County's area median income (AMI). The apartment building will contain 30 two-bedroom/two-bath units, 69 one-bedroom/one-bath units, and 26 studios with one bath. There will be one parking stall set aside for each apartment unit. There are also metered parking stalls on 300 East and 100 South streets. All units will be handicap accessible and comply with federal, state and local housing laws. The Developer's current plans include the following amenities: Project Based Amenities: • Controlled access • On-Site Management Office • Covered Parking • Club Room/Computer Resource Center/Library • Fitness Room Unit Based Amenities: • Balcony (Some Units) and/or Terrace Roof Garden • Dishwasher/disposal • Washer/dryer • Walk-in Closets The building design will take into consideration and complement the residential/commercial nature or this transitional downtown neighborhood. 2 2. Does the project conform to the City's Master Plans for the area? Please indicate which master plan(s). Briefly restate the master plan objectives the project will meet. Yes, the project conforms to the Salt Lake City Five-Year Consolidated Plan for 2000-2005 and the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan Development. The Project was designed to accomplish several goals set forth in the Salt Lake City Five-Year Consolidated Plan. First, it will achieve the goal of benefiting primarily low-to-moderate income citizens. Because the residents of this neighborhood are primarily low-to-moderate income individuals and families, the Project will provide much needed affordable housing to those residents. It will also increase the availability of newer, higher quality housing units in an area that currently holds the distinction of having a disproportionately high number of substandard quality units in its housing inventory. Having newer, higher quality units available with affordable rents will put pressure on owners of older neighboring rental properties to reinvest in their properties. In order to remain competitive owners of older properties in the area will have a real economic incentive to reinvest cash-flow back into their properties to make them more attractive and marketable. As owners of competing rental properties reinvest in their properties, the City will benefit by the increased property values, increased tax revenues and greater sense of community pride as older projects and neighborhoods are rehabilitated and repopulated. The Community Housing Plan Development stated that the goal of Salt Lake City was to enhance, maintain and sustain a livable community that includes a vibrant downtown integrated with surrounding neighborhoods that offer a wide range of housing choices, mixed uses, and transit-oriented design. According to data cited in the Community Housing Plan Development (data provided by Equimark Properties Inc., Greater Salt Lake Multifamily Report, January 2000) 45% of the renters in the Salt Lake City metropolitan statistical area are unable to afford Fair Market Rents based on their income. Furthermore, the Central City district is identified as having a disproportionately high number of substandard units in its housing inventory. According to its own "Affordable Housing Needs Analysis" Salt Lake City has a tremendous need for more affordable housing to be developed within the boundaries of Salt Lake City. The Providence Place Apartments project addresses these issues and accomplishes several of the objectives set forth in the Salt Lake City Community Housing Development Plan. Restated below are the objectives, identified in the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan that this Project is designed to address: • the creation of a variety of housing types across the City; • the development of mixed use and mixed income housing; • the creation of affordable and transitional housing; • the use of innovative funding mechanisms for the development of affordable housing; 3 • architectural designs that are compatible with the neighborhood, incorporate open space, interface with public spaces, address parking issues and are aesthetically pleasing. The Providence Place Apartments will generate positive social and economic benefits throughout the Salt Lake City community through job creation, community building, and by facilitating business vitality by bringing more consumers to the downtown business district. The project is within walking distance of nearly 2 million square feet of retail located in the Central Business District. Tenants will enjoy excellent proximity to mass transportation (UTA and TRAX). A TRAX station is located two blocks west of the site on Main Street and the UTA bus line stops within the block on 100 East. This will allow tenants easy access to their employment and other city destinations in a reliable and environmentally friendly manner using existing transit resources. The apartment building and enclosed parking facility will be designed to be aesthetically pleasing and compatible with neighboring buildings. The high price of land and increased cost of construction associated with building below-grade parking and a high density mid-rise apartment building are obstacles that would make this project financially unfeasible as market rate housing. However, utilizing an innovative combination of funding sources including a Salt Lake City loan, bond financing, low income housing tax credits and deferred developer fees, the development team has assembled the sources of funds needed to bridge the financing gap. • 3. What is the property zoned? The subject property is zoned "R-MU". The R-MU zoning designation allows for the type of multifamily residential development being proposed. 4. All new construction projects will need to be reviewed by the appropriate Community Council. Please provide a copy of the Community Council's response to the review of your project. Letters of support are attached as Exhibit A. 5. Please include a breakdown of the number of units that will be provided for the various percentages of area median income (i.e., how many units for those at 80%, 50%AMI, etc.), along with a list of the rents that will be charged to each group. Unit Type Total Number of AMI Target Monthly Base SRO/Studio Bathrooms Units Rent Per Unit Studio 1 26 60% $604 1 1 69 60% $641 2 2 30 60% $767 4 6. How will the project be accomplished if the Salt Lake City Trust Fund is unable to fund this request? Due to the high cost of land and mid-rise construction design, some form of financial assistance will be required to make this project financially feasible. 7. How do you intend to use funds provided by Salt Lake City Corporation? The funds will be used to fund construction costs, land acquisition and to provide permanent gap financing for the project. Project Funding Part II 1. Please list the sources of all funds as of the date of the application. If this is a tax credit project, please provide one complete copy of the tax credit application. Sources of Funding/Construction: Source Amount Const Loan California Bank&Trust $ 7,151,575 Predevelopment Loan Alliant Capital $ 4,983,077 Equity-General Partner General Partners $ 1,291,215 Loan Salt Lake City/HTF $ 850,000 Total Sources $14,275,867 Sources of Funding/Post Construction: Source Amount Equity LIHTC Equity-Alliant Capital $ 4,983,077 Equity-General Partner General Partners- Deferred Fees $ 342,790 1st Mortgage Private Activity Bond-CB&T $ 8,100,000 2nd Mortgage Salt Lake City HTF Loan $ 850,000 Total Sources $14,275,867 'la. Ratio of Salt Lake City Trust Funding to total funding: Approximately 5.95% 2. Please list the uses of all funds for the proposed project, being as specific as possible. The total of Uses of Funds should equal the total project cost. 5 Uses: Land Cost $ 952,781 Site Work $ 352,583 Construction Cost $ 8,934,349 Construction Contingency $ 434,237 Architectural & Engineering $ 388,000 General Contractor& Developer Profit &Overhead $ 1,715,500 Interim Financing Expense $ 422,896 Permanent Financing Expenses $ 325,197 Soft Costs (Survey, Mkt. Study, Environmental, etc.) $ 279,086 Syndication Costs $ 207,906 Project Reserves $ 263,331 Total Uses $14,275,867 3. What will be the value of the project at the time of completion? A professional valuation has not yet been completed. Using a cost based valuation method we estimate a project value of$14,000,000. If an income based valuation method were utilized the value would be considerably less due to the rent restrictions imposed by the land use restriction agreement. 4. Please attach sales or operating projections for the project for the first five years after completion. Please list below the assumptions made to prepare the operating projection. Please show revenue and expense categories in as much detail as possible. Assumptions: The 1st year revenue and expense projections assume the project is leased and stabilized on January 1 of the 1st year of operation. Also assumed is a project vacancy rate of 7% annually, project revenues increase 3% annually and project operating expenses increase 3% annually. For detailed operating expense and revenue projections, please see attached Exhibit B. 5. What is the source of repayment of the funds? Net Cash Flow from Project Operations. 6. What type of security is being offered to the City? A security interest in land and improvements to the extent allowed by senior funding sources. 7. Please list all other governmental grants, loans, tax credits, licenses, etc., necessary for this project to proceed. Please include information on the status of all funding required for the completion of this project. 6 Private Activity Bonds ("PAB")($ 8,100,000) bond issuance at approximately 5.25% interest rate, which rate includes credit enhancement). A private activity bond application was submitted to the Utah Department of Community and Economic Development on March 20, 2006. It is anticipated that we will receive notification of a volume cap award from the PAB review board on April 12, 2006. California Bank &Trust has expressed an interest in purchasing the private activity bond following issuance. Low Income Housing Tax Credits (estimated $4,983,077). Following a technical review, Projects funded with PAB's generally receive an allocation of LIHTC's based on a percentage of the projects eligible basis. The LIHTC/PAB application is currently under consideration by Utah Housing Corporation. Alliant Capital has provided a letter of intent to purchase the tax credits. Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund ($850,000 loan, 40 year term, 2.45% interest, interest only during construction and lease-up to stabilized occupancy). These are the same loan terms previously awarded to the City Plaza Apartments project by the Housing Trust Fund advisory committee and approved by Mayor Anderson and the City Council in 2005. Salt Lake City, Planning Division, Demolition Permit. Application has not been submitted. Salt Lake City, Planning Division, Building Permit. Application has not been submitted. 8. Please describe the purchase terms under which the applicant will/has acquire(d) the property. How much of the purchase price will be paid with equity provided by the applicant? By others? The applicant will acquire the real property from The Corporation Of The Episcopal Church In Utah for a purchase price of$925,281. The purchase price will be paid from owner's equity and proceeds derived from the sale of the low income housing tax credits. 9. If an appraisal of the property has been obtained, please attach a copy. Please see the attached Exhibit C. 10. Please state the number of years you will maintain this property as affordable. This property will remain rent restricted for 51 years pursuant to the terms of the land use restriction agreement (LURA) to be recorded by Utah Housing Corporation. 7 Applicant Information Part III 1. Please check each of the following which is true for the Applicant (a) The Applicant is an individual doing business under his/her own name. X _(b) The Applicant has the status indicated below and is organized or to be organized under the laws of Utah A corporation A nonprofit or charitable institution or corporation A partnership known as or to be known as: A business association or joint venture known as or to be known as: A Federal, State or local government or instrumentality thereof Individual known as: Social Security Number of Individual: X Other (explain): a Utah limited liability company. 2. If the Applicant is not an individual or a government agency, give date of organization: The operating entity will be a to-be-formed limited liability company authorized to do business in Utah. The applicant Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC is a Utah limited liability company formed on November 4, 2004. 3. Please provide a list of the officers, director or trustees, board of trustees or board of directors, or partners of the applicant's organization. The operating company that will own and operate the project has not yet been organized. A new special purpose limited liability company (the "Operating Company") will be organized as the ownership entity for the Providence Place 8 Apartments. It is anticipated that Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC (or its assigns), will be the managing member of the new Operating Company. Kevin Keating, Kipling Sheppard, Dell Loy Hansen, Jeff Nielson, and Tony Hladek are members in Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC. 4. Who will manage the property once it has been acquired? Wasatch Premier Properties, LLC a Utah limited liability company will provide the local on-site property management and compliance monitoring of the proposed project. Kevin Keating will provide management over-sight with respect to IRC Section 42 compliance matters. Wasatch Premier Properties, LLC currently manages other affordable properties in Utah, including the Palladio Apartments at 200 West 300 North in Salt Lake and the Springwood Apartments in Bountiful, Utah, along with a portfolio of over 10,000 market rate units across the western half of the united states. Please see development team resumes attached hereto as Exhibit D. 5. Please provide a brief description of your organization. Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC has put together a development team that includes Kipling S. Sheppard, company president and industry veteran in affordable housing, Dell Loy Hansen, real estate developer and financial partner, and Kevin Keating, an attorney and development specialist in affordable housing. Tony Hladek, VP of Development for Wasatch Advantage Group, will head up the project management for Providence Place. In addition, Architectural Nexus, a Salt Lake based architectural firm has been engaged as the architect for the project and discussions have been initiated with Ingenuity Builders, Inc. as the general contractor for the project. 6. Who will be responsible for this project? Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC (or its assigns). Kevin Keating, Kip Sheppard, Jeff Nielson, Dell Loy Hansen, and Troy Hladek are each members in Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC. Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC will be the managing member in the to-be-created managing member (the "Managing Member") of the new Operating Company. The Managing Member will be responsible for the day to day operations of the project. 7. Please provide examples of experience your organization has with this type of project. Development Team resumes are attached hereto as Exhibit D. 9 Current Ownership Information Part IV 1. Who is the current owner of the property? The Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Utah is the Seller. 2. Who is the current manager of the property? Stephen Hutchinson, Chancellor, currently manages the property for the Diocese. 3. Please provide a list of the officers, director or trustees, board of trustees or board of directors, or partners of the organization that currently owns the property. Officers: See below Directors or Trustees: Mr. George Gibson, President The Rev. Stan W.Ver Straten, Vice President Mr. Mark LeTourneau, Secretary The Rev. Adam S. Linton Ms. Patricia Vidiella The Rev. Susan Wiltsey Certification I, Kevin Keating, certify that this Applicant Disclosure of Ownership and Control is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. fir,:, m I Name: Kevin M- ating Title: Vice President, Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC Address: 12553 Eagle Run Dr. Omaha, NE 68164 Date: March 24, 2006 io • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: July 7,2006 SUBJECT: Petition 400-05-43—Mr.Blake Henderson—request to: • Rezone property generally located at 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East and 58 South 900 East from Residential Multi- Family RMF-35 to Residential Multi-Family RMF-45 • Amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the ordinance is adopted the rezoning and master plan amendment will affect Council District 4 STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Land Use Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community Development Department,Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Doug Dansie,Principal Planner NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: Newspaper advertisement and written notification to surrounding property owners 14 days prior to the Public Hearing A. Due to the Council's summer meeting schedule and a request from the petitioner for a hearing as quickly as possible due to the length of time they have been in the process,Council staff has identified the following schedule should the Council choose to move this item forward to a public hearing after the briefmg from the Administration. (The Administration's transmittal was received in the Council office on July 3,2006.) • July 11 Council briefing • July 11 Set hearing date • August 8 Council hearing B. The Planning Commission has recommended denial of this petition,but did not specifically address the five standards/factors for zoning map and text amendments as is required by City Ordinance. The Planning staff recommended approval to the Commission and did make specific findings,which are included in the Administration's staff report and on pages 3 and 4 of this report. C. For ease of reference,the following items have been brought forward from the Administration's paperwork and attached at the end of this staff report. • Attachment 1 -the March 8th Planning Commission minutes for the public hearing have been brought forward and attached at the end of this staff report. • Attachment 3—Letters and minutes relating to accusations irregularities in the process • Attachment 2 is a memo from the Planning Director that was provided early in May to Council Members relating to the appropriateness of amending master plans. C 1 KEY ELEMENTS: A. An ordinance has been prepared for Council consideration to: 1. Rezone property at 857 East 100 South,70 South 900 East and 58 South 900 East from Moderate Density Residential Multi-Family RMF-35 to Moderate/High Density Residential Multi-Family RMF-45. 2. Amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map designation for the properties from medium density residential to medium-high density residential land uses. B. The rezoning and master plan amendment would facilitate demolition of a non-conforming medical office and two low-density, single-family residential structures and construction of a 46-unit condominium residential development in a single building with underground parking. (Please see the Planning staff report and Planning Commission minutes for details)The Administration's transmittal and Planning staff report note: 1. The applicant is requesting a higher density zoning classification based on: a. Adjacent development that is similar in scale. b. The replacement of an existing non-conforming medical building(demolition costs)increases the cost of the land. c. The cost of underground parking must be absorbed by the project. 2. Amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use map from Medium Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units/acre)to Medium/High Density Residential(30-50 dwelling units/acre)is necessary to accommodate the proposed development's density of 43 units/acre. 3. The proposed development will comply with the requirements of the RMF-45 zoning district and will be an over-the-counter permitted use. C. The Planning staff report notes surrounding land uses include the following zoning classifications and existing land uses. (Please see attached map for details). 1. North—High Density Residential RMF-75 and Moderate Density Multi-Family RMF-35—non- conforming medical clinic and 14-story(approximate)high density apartment building 2. South—Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential RMF-35 (across 100 South)—3-story medium- density apartment building 3. West—Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential RMF-45—4-story residential condominium building 4. East—Low Density Multi-Family RMF-30(across 900 East)—Single-family and multi-family residential,retail and institutional uses D. The purpose of the Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential RMF-35 district is to provide an environment suitable for a variety of moderate density housing types,including multi-family dwellings. Commercial and office types of uses are not permitted in this zone. Maximum height in the zone is 35 feet. Maximum density in the RMF-35 zone is: • 14.5 units/acre for single-family attached dwellings • 21.8 units/acre for multi-family developments with less than 15 units • 29.6 units/acre for multi-family developments over 15 units with 1 acre • 29.0 units/acre for multi-family developments over 15 units and above 1 acre E. The purpose of the Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential RMF-45 district is to provide for an environment suitable for multi-family dwellings of a moderate/high density. Commercial and office types of uses are not permitted in this zone. Maximum height in the zone is 45 feet.Maximum density in the RMF-45 zone is: • 14.5 units/acre for single-family attached dwellings 2 • 30.5 units/acre for multi-family developments with less than 15 units • 43.2 units/acre for multi-family developments over 15 units with 1 acre • 43.0 units/acre for multi-family developments over 15 units and above 1 acre F. The public process included a presentation to the East Central Community,Council and written notification of the Planning Commission hearing to surrounding property owners. 1. The Administration's transmittal and Planning staff report note the petitioner attended Community Council meetings on October 19,2005 and February 15,2006. There was general support for the project but also a concern that the rezone would set a precedent for increased zoning density which would encourage other demolitions in the area.The Community Council discussed design concepts to insure neighborhood compatibility. (A copy of the October Community Council minutes is included in the Planning staff report—Exhibit 4). 2. At the March 8,2006 Planning Commission hearing,Ms.Chris Johnson,Chair of the East Central Community Council noted the following information.(Please see the Planning Commission minutes, Attachment 1, and item J,pg.4,of this staff report-Issues discussed at the Planning Commission hearing-for additional details.) a. She represented a 10 of 11 vote in opposition to the proposed development. b. The petitioner had been respectful and cooperative to the requests and concerns of the community. c. The Community Council would be supportive of the development if it was feasible in the RMF- 35 zone. G. The City's Fire,Police,and Public Utilities Departments and Transportation and Engineering Divisions have reviewed the request. The development proposal will be required to comply with City standards and regulations and demonstrate that there are adequate services to meet the needs of the project. H. The Planning staff report provides the following findings for the Zoning Ordinance Section 21A.50.050- Standards for General Amendments.The standards were evaluated in the Planning staff report and considered by the Planning Commission. (Discussion and findings for these standards are found on pages 5-7 of the Planning staff report.) 1. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals,objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Findings: The zoning amendment is generally consistent with master plan policies of eliminating non-conforming uses and accommodating a variety of housing types. However,to accommodate this specific development,it will require amendment of the Central Community Master Plan to change the map for this site from medium density residential to medium/high density residential. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Findings:The proposed amendments would allow for multi-family dwellings that are similar in scale to adjacent land uses and the amendments are harmonious with existing development. 3. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Findings: The zone change will not adversely affect adjacent property. Adjacent zoning has allowed structures of similar or greater scale and intensity. The zone change will allow the replacement of a non-conforming medical office building with condominium uses that are more in keeping with the residential character of the neighborhood and potential for future elimination of another non-conforming medical office for future housing development. 3 4. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Findings: The location is within the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay district. The proposed condominium project must satisfy all requirements of the Overlay district. (Please note,the property is located within the Bryant National Historic District but has not been designated as a City Historic District. The Historic Preservation Overlay zoning classification is not applicable.) 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 waste water and refuse collection. Findings:The proposed condominium project will not negatively affect the existing public services in the area. The project must meet all City Codes and regulations prior to the issuance of a building permit. • RECOMMENDATION(Planning staff): In light of the comments, analysis and findings noted above,Planning staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation the City Council to approve an ordinance to: o Amend the Central Community Master Plan regarding the properties located at 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East and 58 South 900 East from a land use classification of medium density housing to medium-high density housing. o Amend the zoning map to rezone the properties located at 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East and 58 South 900 East from the zoning classification RMF-35 to RMF-45. I. On March 8,2006,the Planning Commission voted,based on the comments, analysis and findings,to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council to rezone the property and amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. The Administration's transmittal letter notes that the Planning Commission decision was based upon the fact that the Central Community Master Plan had just recently been adopted identifying the specific site to be medium density on the Future Land Use Map and that there is other RMF-45 land available in the area to develop. (Please see Attachment 1 -Planning Commission minutes for additional details.) J. Issues discussed at the Planning Commission hearing(summarized below)included: 1. The proposed rezoning would be considered spot zoning. 2. The proposed rezoning could potentially set precedence for additional rezoning of other properties with higher density zoning classifications and encourage other demolitions in the area. 3. Other properties near the proposed location are currently zoned RMF-45 and those properties should be considered for the proposed development. 4. Inconsistency with the recently adopted Central Community Master Plan. 5. Design issues relating to the proposed development including elevation, grade change,height,mass, scale and neighborhood character compatibility. 6. Potential traffic,parking,entrance/exit location and noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. 7. The potential for crime in the underground parking area. 8. The proposed demolition of 2 historic homes. 9. The length of time the petitioner has owned the property,the age of the medical building,the proposed square footage and pricing of the project. 10. Financial viability should not be considered as an appropriate reason for a zone change. 4 11. Concern regarding the lack of tools or options available to develop the project and address compatibility,in lieu of rezoning the property, such as use of a density bonus,development agreement or the planned development conditional use process. MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: A. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration the following items that have emerged during the process for this petition. 1. If it may be appropriate to request that the Planning Commission identify specific findings as part of the motion when they differ from those provided in the Planning staff report,given changes to the Utah Code Land Use Development Management Act that were considered this year and adopted last year by the State Legislature. a. The motion provided in the Planning Commission minutes states, "Based on the comments, analysis and findings,Commissioner Scott made a motion to deny the request to amend the Central City Master Plan to City Council and to also forward a recommendation to City Council to deny the rezoning at the subject property". b. The Administration's transmittal letter notes that the Planning Commission decision was based upon the fact that the Central Community Master Plan had just recently been adopted identifying the specific site to be medium density on the Future Land Use Map and that there is other RMF-45 land available in the area to develop. c. The Planning Commission minutes reflect additional items summarized below.(Please see Attachment 1 -Planning Commission minutes-for specific statements and additional details.) • Additional comments made by Commissioners after closing the public hearing including those noted in the transmittal letter. For example: o RMF-45 should be located along the 700 East corridor. o The proposed rezone is a spot zone request. o The area surrounding the subject property includes various zones. o The entire area is in a unique situation and should be considered individually. • A list of opposition points made by the East Central Community Council Chair and members of the public. • Several statements made by the petitioner and the project architect responding to concerns and issues,benefits of the proposed project to the community,steps taken and time invested in working with Community Council members to respond to their issues. 2. When is it appropriate to consider amending adopted master plans? In a memo to Council Member Jergensen, dated May 10,2006,the Planning Director provided information relating to the Planning Division's opinion on the appropriateness of amending a master plan. (Please see the attached memo for reference-Attachment 2 This memo was also provided to all Council Members.Planning staff indicated to Council staff that the memo was shared with the Planning Commission.) The memo notes: a. The appropriateness of amending a master plan is affected by various factors such as time, map inconsistencies,specific policy analysis,new development patterns and new city-wide policies. b. The need to amend a master plan is usually discovered during the analysis of a specific proposal. c. Through specific analysis of a project and after reviewing all of the applicable adopted policies,the decision makers can determine whether it is appropriate to amend policies of a master plan. 5 d. Because the policy is usually not the matter of conflict,rather where the policies are applied geographically is the point of conflict;the Future Land Use Map is usually the portion of the master plan that is proposed for amendments. 3. The Council may wish to request more information from the Planning Division on the issues considered at the Planning Commission in relation to this petition,and whether the Administration provides information to the Commission to assure that they are fully aware of the policy issues relating to the projects,and that the scope of the Planning Commission's role is clear for each project considered. For example: a. "The proposed rezoning would be considered spot zoning." Does the Planning staff agree that this proposed rezoning could be considered spot zoning? Was information or clarification provided to the Planning Commission? Could a lack of response on this assertion for the record leave the City open to legal questions? b. "The length of time the petitioner has owned the property,the age of the medical building, the proposed square footage and pricing of the project." When issues of this nature are raised is the role of the Planning Commission clarified,or does the Planning Commission consider these issues as part of their deliberations? c. "The potential for crime in the underground parking area." The City's master plans have encouraged underground parking whenever possible,while also recognizing the need to address crime prevention through environmental design. Since specific findings were not made, it is not clear whether the inclusion of an underground parking garage(in keeping with the concepts of the master plan)was a factor in the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of this petition. 4. The Administration's transmittal notes: a. Due to various written correspondence relating to this request,the Planning Commission addressed the issue three times after their decision on March 8,2006. The issues outlined in the correspondence included concerns regarding process,which were raised by the applicant, and a formal request to re-hear the petition in a public forum in response to those concerns. (Please see Attachment 3—Letters and minutes relating to accusations of irregularities in the process—and the Administration's transmittal letter pg.4 for details.) b. The correspondence is summarized as follows: • Applicant's letter,dated March 15,2006,raising claims of irregularities in the process and possible ex parte communications between a Commissioner and members of the East Central Community Council. • Planning Director's letter,dated March 23,2006,to applicant responding to the applicant's claims. • At the March 22,2006 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Scott also responded to the allegations. • At the April 12,2006 Planning Commission meeting, in response to a request from the Community Development Department for the Planning Commission to rehear the matter,the Commission voted to reaffirm their decision to recommend denial of the rezoning and master plan amendment. • At the April 26,2006 Planning Commission meeting, in response to a letter from the applicant requesting the Planning Commission rehear the matter,the Commission voted again to reaffirm their decision to recommend denial of the rezoning and master plan amendment. • At the June 14,2006 Planning Commission meeting,the Commissioners specifically addressed allegations made by the applicant. o The Commission found that no evidence supports the applicant's accusations put forth in letters to the Community Development and Planning Directors regarding 6 comments made during the Planning Commission meeting and between Planning Staff. o They further stated that the basis for allegations relating to conversations held between Commissioner Scott and members of the East Central Community Council and/or any other member of the Planning Commission were unfounded and without merit. o Chairperson Noda stated that Commissioner Scott had already stated in the record that she did not have any conversations with outside parties regarding the petition, nor attended any field trips other than the Planning Commission field trip that is regularly scheduled. o When the applicant requested time to address the Commission,the Commission voted to not take testimony from the applicant. 5. The timeframe identified by the Planning Division for processing amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to provide options or tools for facilitating new development or redevelopment projects in lieu of rezoning properties. a. At the Planning Commission hearing,Commissioners expressed concern regarding the lack of tools or options available to develop the project and address compatibility,in lieu of rezoning the property, such as use of a density bonus,development agreement or the planned development conditional use process. b. Planning staff indicated that in October of 2005 a petition was initiated by the Commission to review the requirements of density for Planned Developments. Planning staff also noted that on March 7,2006,the Council imitated a Legislative Action requesting the Planning staff review the same item of concern. Planning staff stated that the petition will be given new priority by the Planning staff. c. On March 7,2006,as part of the Council action adopting the non-conforming uses and non- complying structures Zoning Ordinance text amendment,the Council adopted a motion initiating a Legislative Action requesting that the Administration(Planning Commission and Planning staff)address additional design considerations regarding expansion,enlargement or voluntary demolition for such uses and structures.Key elements the Council requested the Administration to review within the next six months include: • Additional design considerations including,but not limited to: o Height o Historic preservation o Density o Neighborhood compatibility • Ensure that the standards are consistent for voluntary demolition,the conditional site design review process and the conditional use process. d. On March 7, 2006,as part of the Council action rezoning property located at 500 South, 500 East and Denver Street(Richard Astle and Thaes Webb,petitioners),the Council adopted a motion initiating a Legislative Action requesting that the Administration reevaluate the Residential Multi-Family RMF zoning districts relating to height,density and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods and identify options that would include,but not be limited to,modification of the Planned Development regulations,density bonus and affordable housing incentives,and neighborhood compatibility standards. (This was in response to the Council's discussion of the need in this situation to use a development agreement restricting height in order to allow for the desired density in addition to rezoning the property.) 7 MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Central Community Master Plan(November 2005)is the adopted land-use policy document that guides new development in the area surrounding the proposed rezoning and master plan amendment.The Future Land Use Map identifies this area for Medium Density residential uses. (As previously noted, amending the Future Land Use Map in the Central Community Master Plan is part of this petition.) The Administration's transmittal and Planning staff report note: 1. The Central Community Master Plan identifies the subject properties as medium density residential. 2. The adjacent properties are identified as medium-high and high density residential. 3. The Central Community Master Plan encourages the elimination of non-conforming uses in residential zones if they are replaced by residential uses. (page 32) B. The City's Comprehensive Housing Plan policy statements address a variety of housing issues including quality design, architectural designs compatible with neighborhoods,public and neighborhood participation and interaction,accommodating different types and intensities of residential developments, transit-oriented development,encouraging mixed-income and mixed-use developments,housing preservation,rehabilitation and replacement,zoning policies and programs that preserve housing opportunities as well as business opportunities. C. The Transportation Master Plan contains policy statements that include support of alternative forms of transportation,considering impacts on neighborhoods on at least an equal basis with impacts on transportation systems and giving all neighborhoods equal consideration in transportation decisions. The Plan recognizes the benefits of locating high density housing along major transit systems and reducing dependency on the automobile as a primary mode of transportation. D. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report express concepts such as maintaining a prominent sustainable city,ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards and is pedestrian friendly, convenient, and inviting,but not at the expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality. The Plans emphasize placing a high priority on maintaining and developing new affordable residential housing in attractive,friendly, safe environments. E. The Council's growth policy notes that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: 1. Is aesthetically pleasing; 2. Contributes to a livable community environment; 3. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served; and 4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. F. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image, neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. CHRONOLOGY: The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed rezoning and master plan amendment. Key dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for details. • Oct. 19,2005&Feb. 15,2006 East Central City Community Council meetings • December 13,2005 Petition submitted to Planning Division • March 8,2006 Planning Commission hearing • March 14,2006 Ordinance requested from City Attorney's office 8 • March 24,2006 Ordinance received from City Attorney's office • March 22,April 12,April 26 and June 14,2006 Planning Commission review and response to,claims of process irregularities and ex parte communication cc: Sam Guevara,Rocky Fluhart,DJ�Baxter,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Melanie Reif,Louis Zunguze,Brent Wilde,Alex Ikefuna,Doug Wheelwright, Cheri Coffey,Doug Dansie,Jennifer Bruno, Sylvia Richards,Gwen Springmeyer File Location: Community Development Dept.,Planning Division,Rezoning and Master Plan Amendment, Blake Henderson, 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East and 58 South 900 East C 9 . ill J PUGSLEY ST 2 . . ... riv...."Ill 1 1 ,v_....e , 66. 1 Fr 1 1 1 1 . . .. ,, E , . . ..• ,.. ....0_ ... .. . , . 300 W o •. -‘ • . . . ... 1 o o i , . , .. . , .... .,. . _ . . . .... . - il -_. . .... . . X kie -.a Li. ,), . Ali .iiii . •,.. . .. -71 I . ... - - IC CT -- 1171 1 ...._ ,.. -. . . . i....._. .,.._-• - • - ,,t . ... .. .. .. .al .,., , -. 4 ,., , . : _. . , 1 ..,,, •., . i . .L.. ._ : . .. ., _ . . ..., ....,... __ _........, ,i _ .._ , . .. .... 1 „ , .. .,... ._._ , . . . . ... ...__A .... _....., ..,. ., _.- . iiii F si„........ ,,. ATTACHMENT 1 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City&County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, March 8, 2006 Present for the Planning Commission were Laurie Noda (Chairperson), Tim Chambless, John Diamond, Robert Forbis Jr., Peggy McDonough (Vice Chairperson), Kathy Scott, Jennifer Seelig and Prescott Muir. Craig Galli and Babs De Lay were excused from the meeting. Present from the Planning Division were Alexander lkefuna, Planning Director; Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director; Doug Dansie, Principal Planner; Wayne Mills, Senior Planner; and Cindy Rockwood, Senior Planning Secretary. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Noda called the meeting to order at 5:46 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Audio recordings of Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time. A field trip was held prior to the meeting. Planning Commissioners present were Tim Chambless, Kathy Scott, Prescott Muir, and Robert Forbis Jr. Planning Division Staff present was Doug Dansie. PUBLIC HEARINGS Petition 400-05-43 —A request by Blake Henderson to amend the zoning map to change the parcels of land located at approximately 857 East 100 South_70 South 900 East and 58 South 900 East from RMF- 35 to RMF-45 to build a new multi-family housing development. This proposal will require an amendment to the Central Community Master Plan to identify the properties as medium-high density residential rather than medium density residential. (This item was heard at 6:02 p.m.) Chairperson Noda recognized Staff member Doug Dansie presenting the petition. Mr. Dansie introduced the petition as a rezone of the area generally located on the northwest corner of 900 East and 100 South. The property is south of the Sunset Tower Apartments and east of the Market Street Condominiums. The site is presently zoned RMF-35 and is presently occupied by a non- conforming medical office building. The property slopes to the south. Two homes are located on each side of the medical building. The applicant is proposing to demolish all three structures and build a condominium complex. The complex would be three-and four-stories tall. The taller portions will be located towards the northeastern portion of the site, with the three-story on the southwestern portion. The new building meets all criteria of the RMF-45 zoning requirements. Mr. Dansie stated that the Planning Commission is considering the request for a zoning change. If the zoning is approved, a permit would be issued for the building as there are no conditional or planned development requirements for the proposed building. All parking for the development will be underground. If RMF-45 zoning is approved, the site plan found in the Staff Report meets all ordinance requirements. It was noted that the proposed development would be lower than the existing Market Street Condominiums. The ground units in the proposed development would have street access and are responsive to the street. The subject property is located in a National Historic District, but not the City Historic District. At present, the medical office building is not eligible for the register; although the homes are. The proposal has been routed to all applicable City departments and no objections were raised regarding the zoning change. Mr. Dansie mentioned that the site plan has been recently altered due to request from the fire department and its requirement for accessibility to all areas of the building; therefore, the driveway has been realigned to enter on the side of the proposed development. The zoning change proposed would require an amendment to the Central Community Master Plan. The Land Use and the Zoning Map coincide with another, but carry some varying characteristics. There is not always a direct correlation between the exact zone and the land use; therefore, more than one Zoning classification ran fit into a Land Use category. The Land Use surrounding the proposed property is a mixture of high, medium-high, medium, and low-medium density. Mr. Dansie noted that previous Land Use maps for other master plans had been completed with a broad-brush, generalized style, not defining exact parcels of Land Use. The Central City Master Plan was completed with a computer and is parcel based, therefore providing distinction. The subject property is identified as medium-density housing. Staff recommends the Planning Commission amend the Central Community Master Plan regarding the properties at 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East, and 58 South 900 East from a Land Use classification of medium density to medium-high density housing classification and.change the zoning from RMF-35 to RMF-45. Commissioner McDonough requested information regarding the elevation of the properties and the variation presented on the maps. Commissioner McDonough noted a significant grade change on the 900 East elevation map illustrating a retaining effect on the north of the property, resulting in a lower sidewalk and landscape. Mr. Dansie stated that the elevation maps are the same, but due to the superimposition of the photographs, the trees are actually concealing the design. Mr. Dansie agreed that there is a grade change in the northern area of the property resulting in a flattened sidewalk and landscape. Commissioner Scott noted two corrections in the Staff Report on page 5 with regards to the specific location of the subject property to the neighboring properties. Mr. Dansie agreed and stated that the subject property is not immediately adjacent to a high-density property. At 6:18 p.m., Chairperson Noda recognized the applicant, Mr. Blake Henderson. Mr. Blake Henderson introduced himself and Mr. Neil Henderson (senior) as a partner in the project. The applicant distributed a handout to the Commissioners reflecting the proposed project and the necessity of a rezone. Mr. Henderson stated that the project is not financially viable within an RMF-35 zone and the renovation of the existing buildings is also not financially viable, resulting in a rezone as the only option. Mr. Henderson stated that the subject property is bordered by an RMF-45, and is one lot removed from an RMF-75. The building presently on the subject property is a non-conforming medical office building. The proposed project is a full residential condominium project for purchase and would provide a more pleasing view to the area. Mr. Henderson stated that he has met with the East Central Community Council numerous times and has felt support and cooperation in working with the community to provide a feasible structure for the area. The Community Council has expressed concern regarding the size of the building; although, the design and concept of the building has been supported. One of the major concerns of the Community Council is the possibility of a precedent being set by the proposed rezone, but it is required to place the structure on the site and to provide a benefit to the community. In response to Commissioner McDonough's questions regarding the elevation and the grade change, Mr. Henderson stated that the building has been lowered in order to maintain a lower height. The building will remain a forty-four foot high building on the 900 East side, but the existing grade will be altered. Commissioner McDonough requested clarification on the actual grade change creating a steeper slope to the building. Commissioner McDonough noted concern for the difference between the sidewalk and the first level of the building in the northeast area of the building. Commissioner McDonough noted that the first-level site plan does not detail the entry doors from below grade and the connection to the sidewalk. Guillaune Belgique, Project Architect, stated that the grade change would be approximately five to six feet given the proposed site plan, but that alterations may occur once the project has reached the finalizing stages. He noted that the property will have twenty-five feet from the property line for the landscaping to slope to the appropriate level. Mr. Henderson noted that the reasoning in lowering the building height was to create a greater visual aspect from the 900 East view and was in response to a request from the community council. It was also noted that parking is below grade with accessible entry above the parking level as well as from the interior. Commissioner Diamond requested the limitations of"cut and fill"on the site. Mr. Wheelwright stated that there are implications, but a grade change may be conducted for up to two feet on the property. If it is outside of the two-foot range, the proposal must appear before the Board of Adjustment. Commissioner Chambless asked a few questions regarding the period of time the Hendersons have owned the property, the age of the medical building, and the proposed plan of the square footage and pricing of the property. Commissioner Chambless also noted that the units would not likely be used by students of the university or the elderly commuting to the downtown area. Mr. Henderson stated that the property had been obtained in December 2005 and the medical office building was built approximately in the 1940s or 1950s. He stated that the square footage of the units will range between 1500-1800 sq. ft., with a penthouse on the fourth level with approximately 3700 sq. ft. The price projected is in the high $300,000 to$500,000 range and would be owned, not rented. Commissioner Diamond requested further information relating to the financial inability to provide 46 units in a duplex manner. He noted that the applicant is given the right to appear before the Planning Commission and present a plan that will bring a greater return to a property, but consideration should be given to engage the ground-level units. Commissioner Diamond asked if the applicant had been given the option to complete this project as a Planned Unit Development(PUD) and if they had reached the requirements. Mr. Henderson stated that the Salt Lake City code would not allow the density requested in an RMF-35 zone. In an RMF-35 zone the density could have reached 32 units, but would not be allowed more than 33 units because of the size and height requirements. Mr. Dansie responded to the question regarding the PUD option, by stating that the site does not contain multiple buildings. By definition, a Planned Development process cannot be used to increase the density above the base zone. Commissioner Muir clarified that the petition placed before the Commission is for a rezone. Mr. Ikefuna agreed and stated that the Planning Commission can recommend conditions wherein the property could comply in building the proposed design. At 6:44 p.m., Chairperson Noda opened the Public Hearing and requested any comments from Community Council Chairs or public. Chris Johnson, Chair of the East Central Community Council Chair spoke. Ms. Johnson noted her concerns about the project(as listed below). She was representing a 10 of 11 vote in opposition to the proposed development. Ms. Johnson also stated that the Hendersons have been respectful and cooperative to the requests and concerns of the community. The Community Council would be supportive of the development if it was feasible in an RMF-35 zone. Ms. Johnson also requested a possible form of better communication between the Planning Division and the Community Councils. The following members of the public spoke in opposition to the petition: Arla Funk, Cindy Cromer, Ester Hunter; Chair of the University Neighborhood Council, Michael Molteni, and Wendell Duncan. (Handouts were distributed to the Commissioners by some of the representatives.) The opposition points made by the East Central Community Council Chair and members of the public are listed as follows: • Zoning the property an RMF-45 is a spot zoning technique and could result in further upzoning • Setting a precedent for allowable zone changes • Inconsistency with the recently adopted Central Community Master Plan • Financial viability is perceived differently by each individual and should not be considered as an appropriate reason for a zone change • Inconsistency in the City's Master Plan • RMF-45 zoning can be found in the 400 South area and should be considered by the developer • A home zoned R-2 is located '/ block to the east of the subject property • One-to three and one-half story buildings are in the vicinity; not larger buildings that do not fit. • The continuous mass of the proposed property will change the character of a key intersection • Demolishing of two historic homes • After-hour noise becoming amplified • Placement of HVAC and AC units • Amplification of crime in the underground parking area • Location of entrance/exit • Insufficient number of parking spaces for owners and visitors Ms. Cromer noted that density is not as great of concern as character compatibility. She also noted that the neighborhood is anticipating the addition of two group homes within the former Bryner Clinic building (RMF-45) and has not had any complaints regarding the change of use. Ms. Cromer also stated that the City Ordinance Code should be reviewed because of the considerable changes in the recent history and the density. A suggestion was to consider density bonuses be included within the City code. At a point during the comments from the public, Mr. Ikefuna clarified that the Central Community Master Plan encouraged the elimination of non-conforming buildings if the area is replaced with a residential use. At 7:28 p.m., Mr. Henderson was given the opportunity to respond to some of the concerns that were stated. Some of the concerns noted were building code concerns and will be addressed as progression is made with the project. Density is not the strongest concern among the opposition, but rather the precedent this rezone could establish in the area. Developers will continue to come and request for a rezone but this project is a benefit to the community and will reduce crime. The project is an upscale addition to the community, but an addition of this type cannot be completed in a RMF-35. Perhaps another type of building could be developed, but it will not be as complimentary to the community. The base is to rezone the property to an RMF-45 in order to complement the property. Mr. Henderson Sr., stated that excellent dialogue has been conducted between community council and the developers. In his view, the community councils are highly concerned with the possibility of setting a precedent, when in fact the planning staff is not trusted to make decisions when considering the best interest of the City. Mr. Dansie was given some time to respond to any further questions of the Commissioners. Commissioner McDonough requested the height of the RMF-35 apartment building on 100 South and 900 East on the south side of the street. Mr. Dansie stated that the first floor was slightly elevated and could be 33-35 feet, but he was unable to give the exact height. Commissioner Muir requested information on the advisement an applicant receives in relation to the presentation given to the Community Councils. Commissioner Muir noted that the proposed project either carried an approval or disapproval for the Planning Commission unless a development agreement was to be developed. He was also concerned that the possibility of a Planned Unit Development(PUD) should have been considered for this applicant, rather than a complete rezone request. Mr. Dansie stated that the City Ordinance requires the applicant to present the petition to the Community Council. Legally, the applicants are only required to present the proposed project to the council and utilize the time spent with the community council as an information gathering situation. The attorney's have discouraged the use of development agreements with the issue of a rezone because of the possible bias for specific projects. The attorney's have requested that the Land Use be considered as the main guideline. Mr. Dansie also noted that this specific project could not be a PUD because of the requirements of a PUD. Commissioner Muir stated concern about the lack of ability the Division has to allow asmechanism to find greater compatibility between the 29- and 46-unit development, rather than the option of a rezone. Mr.Wheelwright stated that in October of 2005 a petition was initiated by the Planning Commission to review the requirements of density for a Planned Unit Development. The City Council seconded the petition initiation and passed a Legislative Initiative on March 7, 2006, requesting the Planning Staff review the same item of concern. The petition will be given new priority by the Planning Staff. Mr. Ikefuna stated that comments and concerns have been noted that the decision regarding this proposed development might set a precedent in the area. He stated that this thought was not entirely supported because of the location of the subject property located near to an RMF-45 and an RMF-75. At 7:44 p.m., Chairperson Noda closed the Public Hearing and the Commission went into Executive Session. Commissioner Scott stated in response to Mr. Ikefuna's comment that the area surrounding the subject property includes various zones; although there is an RMF-45, it was an existing zone when the master plan was created. She noted the Land Use for the area is medium density and would not recommend the alteration of a recently adopted master plan. Commissioner Scott also stated that the proposed rezone is a spot zone request, and other properties near to the proposed location are zoned RMF-45 and that those properties should be considered for the development requested. Chairperson Noda stated that the surrounding area of the subject property is a various point of zoning, but RMF-45 should be located along the 700 East corridor. She agreed with the statement of spot zoning and expressed concern with the surrounding vicinity of two-story buildings. Chairperson Noda stated that the option of demolishing the medical building would be beneficial to the surrounding neighborhoods, and noted appreciation to the developer and the cooperation exhibited with the community council. Commissioner McDonough stated that a relevant point of opposition was that RMF-45 zoning is available further west on 700 East. She stated that her points made regarding the slope were in relation to the awkward site of the property and not the massing and scale, rather the massing and scale provide a compatible building for the area. The overall question lies in spot zoning and future opportunities. Commissioner Muir noted that the entire area is in a unique situation and should be considered individually. He stated that the demolition of the medical office building could be a problem for developers. Commissioner Muir continued to state that the RMF-45, if issued, should be shifted to the corner area of the block. He also noted that his participation in the development of the East Central Community Master Plan will lead to his vote against the proposed development. Motion for Petition 400-05-43—Based on the comments, analysis and findings,Commissioner Scott made a motion to deny the request to amend the Central City Master Plan to City Council and to also forward a recommendation to City Council to deny the rezoning at the subject property.The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chambless. All voted "Aye".The motion passed. Commissioner Seelig requested information on how the public receives information when it is requested at a Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Ikefuna responded that Staff will ensure to send the appropriate material to the member of the public. Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. Cindy Rockwood, Senior Planning Secretary ATTACHMENT 2 MEMORANDUM (WOO* 451 South State Street, Room 406 ' ' f Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 (801) 535-7757 Planning and Zoning Division Department of Community Development TO: Councilmember Eric Jergensen FROM: Alex Ikefitna, Planning Director DATE: May 10, 2006 CC: City Council Members Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director Brent Wilde, Deputy Community Development Director Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director Cindy Gust-Jenson, City Council Executive Director Janice Jardine, Public Policy Analyst SUBJECT: Appropriateness of Amending Master Plans As per your request,the Planning Division is submitting this memorandum regarding the Division's opinion on the appropriateness of amending a master plan. The general definition of a master plan is: "The plan is the official statement of a municipal legislative body which sets forth its major policies concerning desirable future physical development; the published general plan document must include a single-unified general physical design of the community, and it must attempt to clarib,the relationships between physical-development policies and social and economic goals. " A master plan serves many purposes: (1) to describe and identify the community character, (2) to clearly identify the future direction of the community, (3)to describe the compatible components of new development, (4) to identify community problems and propose solutions, (5)to identify strategies for maintaining community attributes and strengths. Master Plans most often contain the above information in two components: Text and Future Land Use Map. The main tool used by cities to implement the policies of a master plan is a zoning ordinance. This tool regulates land use and lot and bulk requirements. 1 Creation, Adoption and Development The process for the creation and adoption of a master plan allows opportunity for public input in an advisory capacity and eventual adoption by the legislative body. In Salt Lake City, public input is obtained in four ways: (1) general public issue identification meetings, (2) an Advisory Committee for the Master Plan project, (3) community council review, and (4) public hearings. Policies to implement new planning concepts, address issues raised by the community, and identify implementation efforts are the main focus in the development of the master plan; therefore, the most specific focus is on the Text component of the master plan. The development of the Future Land Use Map is generally based on the existing land use, existing zoning, and new policies that may affect a certain area(such as a new Transit Oriented Development corridor). Therefore, the Future Land Use Map is a generalized map in which the Planning Division does not scrutinize each parcel, but instead consists of a general idea where major changes to physical development in the community are envisioned to occur. Prioritization of Plan Development and Update Process Master Plans are long-range policy documents requiring many years to develop. Although there is a general idea of a plan's lifespan, (generally 10-20 years),the priorities for updating or rewriting master plans is based on development pressures for a geographic area, age of the plan,the overriding public need, and whether funding has been allocated. Therefore, some plans are not updated as frequently as others. An example of this varied timeline update concept, would be the update to the Downtown Master Plan(adopted in 1995)prior to the update of the Avenues or East Bench Master Plans(adopted in 1987). The Downtown Master Plan has been affected by development pressures, and requires consideration of the greater public need and the planning policies needing to be addressed in the Downtown area. In the Avenues or East Bench communities, many items requiring consideration may be addressed through zoning ordinance changes. Appropriateness of Amending a Master Plan The appropriateness of amending a master plan is affected by various factors. 1. Time The number of years between the master plan's adoption and update request can vary. There may be various new, city-wide policies that are adopted prior to the update of a community master plan which would conflict with older community master plan policies. An example of this is the non-conforming/ non-complying ordinance that was adopted to help property owners refinance their properties. This project required amending the Avenues Community Master Plan (adopted in 1987)which contains specific language that discourages the City from allowing these types of structures to be rebuilt. 2. Map Inconsistencies A project may be suggested that would implement various policies found within the Text of a master plan, but that may not be consistent with the Future Land Use Map for the specific property. An example of this is the Richard Astell rezoning request at approximately 520 South 500 East. In this project, it was found that the project would implement various master plan policies(both city-wide and in the Central Community Master Plan)by providing more housing near a light rail station as well as provide a variety of housing types and densities in the neighborhood. The decision makers found that the location was appropriate for higher-density residential development because of its location within a 1/4 mile of a light rail transit line on 400 South and the adjacency to higher-density zoning. 3. Specific Policy Analysis During the zoning implementation phase of a master planning process, it may be appropriate to amend a master plan after conducting a more thorough analysis of a specific policy and obtaining input from the affected property owners (who are usually not very involved in the development phase of the master plan). An example of this is the amendments to the Sugar House Community Master Plan which were required as part of the implementation of zoning changes that were identified in the plan. 2 4. New Development Patterns Addressing new development patterns in an area that is governed by an older master plan is another scenario of when it may be appropriate to amend a master plan policy. An example of this is the amendments to the Northwest Community Master Plan (adopted in 1990) in 2004 to identify an area (700 North Redwood Road) as commercial rather than residential because the center of the neighborhood had shifted. 5. New City-wide Policies Implementing various city-wide planning policies, identified in city-wide planning documents,may require amending a community master plan's Future Land Use Map if it is inconsistent with the map but the project would implement city-wide goals. An example of this includes proposals to allow higher- density housing development along North Temple Street in anticipation of the development of a light rail transit corridor on this street. The need to amend a master plan is usually discovered during the analysis of a specific proposal. Therefore, through specific analysis of a project and after reviewing all of the applicable adopted policies,the decision makers can determine whether it is appropriate to amend policies of a master plan. Because the policy is usually not the matter of conflict,rather where the policies are applied geographically is the point of conflict, the Future Land Use Map is usually the portion of the master plan that is proposed for amendments. Coordination of Planning Documents during Review In an effort to try and minimize conflicts between community master plan policies and city-wide policies,the City has agreed to a new process for master plan development. In the past,the main citizen input source during the development of a master plan was the affected community council. Although the community council still plays a large role in the development of new master plans,the City has found that it is in the interest of the public if broad and diverse citizen input is obtained. The Planning Commission, as the City's leading planning body, is now the lead group in the development of master plans and is heavily involved in the planning process. The involvement by the Planning Commission ensures that the planning policies in any one community master plan are consistent with city-wide goals. It also assures that the master plan is not narrowly focused on one area that would preclude city-wide planning policies from being implemented. Process to Amend a Master Plan The State Enabling Legislation; Land Use Development Management Act, identifies the process that must be followed in amending a master plan. The City's process,which meets the State requirements, includes: (1) presentation of the matter before the affected community council for input, and(2)mailing notification of the public hearings (both the Planning Commission and City Council) to owners of property within 300 feet of the subject property and publishing notification in a newspaper of general circulation fourteen days prior to the public hearings. Community Councils,business groups, and other interested parties are included in the mailed notification of the public hearings. If you have any questions or comments,please contact me at 535-7226 or at alexander.ikefuna@slcgov.com. The Planning Staff is also willing to meet with you or any of the Council members to discuss the information included in this memorandum. Thank You 3 ATTACHMENT 3 d. Letters and minutes relating to accusations of irregularities in the process 1 " Date: March 15, 2006 To: Louis Zuuze,Planning Director From: Blake Henderson Applicant/Land Owner Case#: 400-05043 CC: Alex Ikefuna, Planning Administration Director Doug Dansie, Principle Planner Subject: Rezoning application for 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East and 58 South 900 East, from RMF35 to RMF45 reviewed at the March 8, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting. Dear Sir, On March 8th our application for a rezoning of our property on the northwest corner of 100 South and 900 East was heard by the Planning Commission. The application was submitted by the Planning Department with a strong positive recommendation. Our application will be forwarded to the City Council with a negative recommendation by the Planning Commission. This letter is sent to request a review of the above matter because there appears to have been some irregularities in the review process, before the meeting took place, and as a result during the meeting itself. The Irregularities: During preparation for this meeting we asked the Planning Department staff if it was appropriate to ask for pre-meetings with some of the Planning Commissioners to thoroughly explain our rezoning request and its importance to our project. We were advised against this by staff. They said it was politically incorrect and that it put the said Commissioners in a difficult position in judging the application on its merits. We happily took staff's recommendation. We later(just prior to the meeting) heard from the Community Counciltunt } that Cindy Chromer and or Arla Funk had met with certain Commissioners before the meeting and had successfully lobbied to have our application rejected or at the very least recommended to a subcommittee. It is our belief that at least Commissioner Kathy Scott met with the Community Council and road around the neighborhood in their car while being lobbied to support their case. This commissioner during the meeting single handedly directed the arguments in favor of the Communities Councils position and formed and proposed the motion for the"negative recommendation". I do not know the degree of inappropriateness of the above Commissioners actions but I am absolutely certain that we did not have equal access to the Commissioners and it appears the outcome of the meeting supports the boast of the four Community Council members present that the out come was a 'done deal' before the meeting started. We do not believe that we should argue the merits or our project and our application in this letter but we strongly request to have our application reheard by the Commissioners, (with Commissioner Kathy Scott excusing herself from the proceedings). Respectfully ilenderson P.S. below are additional comments that may be of interest to you with respect to the above. • The Community Council advised us to take a path that they would orchestrate that would allow us to go around the current zones, code and process by negotiating with certain planning staff, building department, inspectors and politicians to sign off on our project as designed for RMF45 but to be built in a RMF35. Our position to the Community Council is that we would follow the standard protocol and advise of planning staff and go to a hearing by the planning commission for a formal re-zone. • When we told the Community Council we were not willing to postpone our scheduled hearing, they requested a meeting with Planning Commissioners and were very vocal in an attempt to lobby against our re-zone. I became aware of this meeting through a phone call with Esther Hunter on March 8th. She told me that she was concerned because they were going to oppose our re-zone because of the precedent it might set when in fact they liked the project and that it was not a matter of this projects height or density. She further stated that the Community Council were not too concerned because Cindy Chromer and or Arla Funk had an agreement with one or more of the planning commission that the re-zone request would be recommended to go to a sub-committee if not denied all together. • This "deal" became even more apparent when during the hearing Planning Commissioner Kathy Scott brought up that while riding around 71 East with Community Council members that they pointed out many building opportunities for a RMF45 projects. As the hearing proceeded to comments from the Planning Commission Kathy Scott was the second Commissioner to speak and then tried to move directly to a denial for the rezone well before other Commissioners had expressed their thoughts. Commissioner Scott's motion was delayed until all Commissioners had their turn. . • We are confident that this deal was made between Aria Funk, Cindy Chromer and Kathy Scott and possibly one other Commission member. I was told by Esther Hunter that they were not to concerned going into the hearing because this deal was struck • Community Council urged us to postpone the hearing so they could work with un- named people in the Planning Dept. and Building Dept. to get this project approved and built, `essentially as is' but still called a RMF35 zone. • We told the Community Council we were not comfortable with this because we do not understand the process and did not want to take the risk of building a project so far out of code and zone that it could get shut down at any moment. The Community Council has repeatedly expressed that we need to trust them that they have ways of getting this done by"just going over the counter and involving only the right people. • I asked for more detail but Esther was not willing to share more but commented "that this is a process you stay very quiet about" • The Community Council have said many times that they likes and want this particular project including its height and density but they do not trust the Planning Dept. staff to give bad projects a negative recommendation if they allow this project to set a precedent. They just do not want to set a precedent for a RMF35 to RMF45 re-zone even though this project is surrounded by building greater than 35 feet high. • The Community Council was very successful in leading everyone to believe that the block we are on is primarily RMF35 and R-2. This is not necessarily accurate much of our block is Zoned RMF 35, 45, 75 and R-2 and the great majority of the buildings are built larger than RMF 35 or our non-conforming. (I consider our block to run between S. Temple and 100S& 900E and 800E) Our proposed project adds to the residential community's character. March 23,2006 Mr.Blake Henderson Blake Henderson 417 Centennial Circle Park City UT 84060 Re: Letter dated March 15,2006 Dear Mr. Henderson: I have received your letter regarding the action and discussion of the Planning Commission with relation to Petition#400-05-043 on March 8, 2006. I have reviewed your claims and concerns, and thoughtfully considered the discussion points relating to the specific activity of Commissioner Scott. In reviewing the minutes and discussion that occurred during the Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Kathy Scott stated her opinion in relation to the specific project and was not swayed by a specific agenda. During the meeting both Cindy Cromer and Ester Hunter discussed driving up and down the surrounding area to compile a study about zoning concerns. Commissioner Scott also stated her presence in a vehicle driving up and down 700 East in reference to the Planning Commission Field Trip. This routine field trip occurs prior to every Planning Commission meeting to allow the Commissioners time with Planners to openly discuss and visually grasp the effects of their decision. It is my opinion the ride around the neighborhood you were referring to was actually the routine field trip by the Commissioners. I appreciate your respect for the advice of the Planning Staff;however, after reviewing your letter and concerns, and after investigation and thoughtful consideration of the facts and discussion points relating to the specific activity of Commissioner Scott, it is my opinion that Commissioner Scott was not reacting to a lobbied conversation or agreement.It is also my opinion that Commissioner Scott did not act inappropriately regarding your petition. Therefore, I find your claims unfounded and, granted that fact, would not recommend your request for a rehearing be granted. Thank you for your interest in residential development in Salt Lake City. Sincerely, Alex Ikefuna Planning Division Director cc: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director Doug Dansie, Principal Planner e. Letters and Minutes relating to a request to rehear the case at the April 12, 2006 meeting. Lori Noda Planning Commission Chair Office of the Attorney General 160 East 300 South Salt Lake City, UT 84114 March 30, 2006 Re: Petition#400-05-24 by Harrison Apartments LLC, to rezone the property at 713 East Harrison Avenue from R-1 5000 to RMF-35 to facilitate the construction of six town homes Dear Lori, During the course of preparing the City Council transmittal for the above referenced petition, it become apparent from reading the minutes that the Planning Commission was supportive of the proposed development but preferred using the planned development process for approving the project rather than a rezoning. A paragraph on page 3 of the minutes seems to summarize the Planning Commission sentiment. This paragraph states: Commissioner McDonough addressed the concern that in the future this same scenario might be presented as a Planned Unit Development and possibly be approved. (This would occur only if the Planned Unit Development process was amended.) She raised concern in relation to the manner in which the project is being approved. Given future development,her concern was that approval of this petition could set an unwanted precedent for spot rezoning,rather than using the more effective tool of the Planned Development Process for unique sites within larger overall zones. City ordinances do not allow the use of the planned development regulations to address this issue or approve a project of this type in this zoning district. Furthermore, there is no indication in the minutes that the Planning Commission understood this or that Planning Staff clearly explained to the Commission that the planned development process is not an option for this type of request. The resulting record sends a mixed and confusing message to the City Council. As the means of avoiding further confusion or risking that the City Council might refer the petition back to the Planning Commission for clarification, I recommend that the Planning Commission consider scheduling a second hearing to consider this petition. If you have any concerns about rehearing this petition or any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. I can be reached at 535-7105 or via e-mail at brent.wilde@slcgov.com. Sincerel y, Brent Wilde Community Development Deputy Director cc: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director Alex Ikefuna, Planning Director Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director Salt Lake City Planning Commission March 22, 2006 required surrounding the signs; clarification of the attended sign standards to allow portable signs to be placed within 25 feet of the front door or a window. Mr. Paterson stated that the Public Utilities Division requested a modification to allow the City to request the removal or relocation of the portable sign to accommodate construction in the right-of-way. • • Mr. Paterson stated the Business Advisory Committee had reviewed the proposals and recommended approval. He also noted that an Open House hac',been held where business owners from the Downtown area attended to request the continued use of portable signs. Mr. Paterson stated that Staff is recommending the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Chairperson Noda requested comments from the public. No comments were received. The Planning Commission entered Executive Session. Commissioner McDonough requested further information regarding the use of portable signs in the Research Park area, and the terms of block face and intersections in relation to the area. Mr. Paterson stated that the standards in the Ordinance do allow portable signs in Research Park which is zoned Research Park(RP)Zoning District. He noted that the definition for block face found in the Ordinance is applicable for the Research Park area. Commissioner Chambless requested further information regarding the liability of the City in relation to the temporary signs. Mr. Paterson stated that to the best of his knowledge there had not been any liability issues with portable signs. He also noted that with the exception of portable signs, signs in the public right-of-way are generally prohibited. Other types of signs that encroach into the right-of-way, such as marquee signs, require insurance. Based on the analysis and findings presented in the Staff Report and discussion, Commissioner McDonough made a motion for the Planning Commission to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the amendments portrayed in the Portable Signs Provisions, Section 21A.46.055 of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Forbis seconded the motion. All voted "Aye".The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (This item was heard at 7:38 p.m.) Commissioner Scott referenced the prior Planning Commission meeting and a motion she made, to inform the Planning Commission that the petitioner, in the form of a letter, made specific allegations that she had made a deal with Community Councils and participated in illicit van rides. She stated that the allegations were unfounded and questioned her integrity and that of the Planning Commission's decision. Commissioner Scott was outraged and disappointed in relation to the situation and felt it appropriate to share this information with the Planning Commission. Mr.Wheelwright noted that Cindy Rockwood has been appointed to the Planning Commission Secretary and Sarah Carroll has been promoted to the Principal Planner position. He also noted that two Associate Planner positions remain open. Mr. lkefuna stated that the Division is working towards obtaining an additional Principal Planner position in the new bu9fget. Meeting was adjourned at 7:40).m., Ciridy Rockwo d, dnning(COnriiission Secretary 10 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, April 12, 2006 Present for the Planning Commission were Laurie Noda (Chairperson), Tim Chambless, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Robc-r1 Forbis Jr., Peggy McDonough (Vice Chairperson), Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Craig Galli was excused from the meeting. Present from the Planning Division were Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director; Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director; Joel Paterson, Planning Programs • Supervisor; Kevin LoPiccolo, Zoning Administrator; Sarah Carroll, Principal Planner; Marilynn Lewis, Principal Planner; Ray McCandless, Principal Planner; and Cindy Rockwood, Planning Commission Secretary. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Noda called the meeting to order at 5:49 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Audio recordings of Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time. A field trip was held prior to the meeting. Planning Commissioners present were Tim Chambless, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Planning Division Staff present were Doug Wheelwright, Sarah Carroll, and Marilynn Lewis. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, March 22, 2006. (This item was heard at 5:49 p.m.) Commissioner Scott moved to approve the March 22, 2006 minutes. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion. Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Forbis, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Muir and Commissioner Scott voted "Aye". Commissioner Seelig abstained. The motion passed. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR (This item was heard at 5:50 p.m.) Chairperson Noda raised the attention of the Commissioners to a letter received from Brent Wilde, Community Development Deputy Director regarding the Harrison Apartment Rezone Petition No. 400-05- 24. Discussion commenced regarding the previous decision of the Commission, and the determination was that the minutes clearly stated the desired result of the Planning Commission; a Planned Unit Development proposal would have been supported by the Planning Commission had it been an option for the applicant, rather than a rezone request. As a result of this finding, the Planning Commission initiated a petition to review the requirements of Planned Unit Development proposals. Commissioner De Lay noted that clarity was the strongest concern and suggested a recall and re- evaluation of the Petition. At 5:54 p.m., Commissioner McDonough made a motion to reaffirm the decision of the Planning Commission in relation to Petition #400-05-24 to state that the unfavorable recommendation was based on the rezoning and master plan amendment standards. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion. Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Forbis, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Scott, and Commissioner Seelig voted "Aye". Commissioner De Lay and Commissioner Chambless were opposed. Commissioner Muir abstained. 1 f. Letter and minutes relating to a request to rehear the case at the April 26, 2006 meeting. To: Alex Ikefuna, Plt'rining Director April 25, 2006 Cc: Louis Zunguze, Brent Wilde Attachment: Letter to Louis Zunguze, dated March 15, 2006 Subj: March 8 Planning Commission mtg. —Henderson Project, Case 400-05043 Dear Alex, We are writing to you at the suggestion of Brent Wilde. You were present at the above meeting and have probably heard about our complaints concerning the outcome of that meeting. The problem is outlined in the attached letter to Mr. Louis Zunguze. After a meeting with Louis and Brent, they suggested that the issue was best handled internally within the Planning Commission. The outcome of that meeting, according to Mr. Wilde, is that the Planning Commission is"not inclined to reconsider" hearing our case again or to re-evaluate the initial recommendation on our petition for rezoning. We were not given any reasoning behind the current position, which leads us to the following assumptions about the thought process: • Who are we (the Henderson's) to challenge the authority of, or the correctness of, the Planning Commission's initial decision on this matter? • The implications of our contention of irregularities, in the conduct of particular Planning Commission members, is something that the Planning Commission does not want to deal with, and in the absence of absolute proof, they would like it to just go away. • The words "not inclined to reconsider" imply closing the door three quarters of way and waiting to see what our response is while hoping we simply accept the current position and move on The current position, in our opinion, is not in the best interest of the Planning Commission, the Planning Department, or the City for the following reasons. When this project goes before the City Council, we have to make a strong argument to overcome the negative recommendation by the Planning Commission. Our extensive lobbying efforts, personal contacts with council members and strong advocacy from local neighbor property owners will put a dark cloud over the Planning Commission's recommendation by: • Thoroughly exposing the considerable circumstantial evidence(recorded phone conversations, notes on personal conversations, actual comments during the Planning Commission meeting, and Planning Dept. staff comments) regarding the behavior of the East Central Community Council (Chris Johnson, Cindy Cromer, Arla Funk, Ester Hunter) prior to the March 8th meeting that showed they used their personal influence with certain Planning Commission members to further their position. We do not have absolute proof but any reasonable person would be concerned based on the evidence we do have. • • Pointing out that,the primary reason for rejecting our petition, was the Planning Commission reluctance to make any change of the zoning map, regardless of the merits of the project, because that would set a precedent that the Planning Commission would have to live with in the future. It is our understanding that the Planning Commission is suppose to review each project individually and make decisions based on merit and support of the City's Master Plan, not based on their fear of setting a precedence. • Little note was made that by so deciding, in fact, the Planning Commission has set a much worse precedent; namely, that the Planning Commission would not consider changes to the City Zoning Map, regardless of merit, and the best interest of the City Master Plan. • Because we could not anticipate the reason for the Planning Commission's position on our project, prior to the meeting March 8th, we were not prepared to demonstrate that the City Master Plan is significantly reinforced by our request for a rezone to RMF-45.(removal of non-conforming building, home ownership, density increase and underground parking). The other financially viable RMF-35 alternatives are far less desirable and would entail us leaving the existing ugly façade of the medical office building and its parking in place; and building on top of and around it a for rental product with lower density and surface parking. • The East Central Community Council (by their self proclaimed declaration) has essentially taken over all land use strategy and planning decision making for their area. Their influence and contacts have superseded Planning Department staff planning efforts and others' interpretation of the City Master Plan. Our point is that if we go to the next step, (the city council hearing)without a more thorough review of the present situation, the grey cloud over the Planning Commission recommendation will only grow much darker, it will not blow away. We recognize that if the Planning Commission does offer us a chance for a rehearing of our petition we will be walking into a meeting with a potential hostile attitude toward us. We can only hope that the professionalism of the majority of the commissioners will prevail and a thorough review of the proposal based on its merits strongly supporting the City Master Plan will carry the day, and that alternative current zoning(RMF-35) project results in a major sub optimization of a one-time opportunity. Please give our appeal serious consideration. We stand ready to meet with you and discuss any of the above at your convenience. Sincr`y, derson 435 65 3544 office 435 901 2321 cell 417 Centennial Circle Park City, UT 84060 Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 26, 2006 Mr. Ikefuna clarified that the Planning Commission is a recommending body for the City Council. He noted that a development agreement was created between Rowland Hall, the City, and Mt. Olivet, to further encourage the approval. He also stated that the Federal Government, in this instance, will still have to decide the reversionary clause issue. Letter from Blake Henderson The Commission discussed the letter from applicant, Blake Henderson, formerly requesting the Commissioner rehear his request for a rezoning of the property at approximately 900 East 100 South. Vice Chairperson McDc,, ;jyt: �.,;,ested a decision from the Planning Commission for a possible rehearing. Commissioner De Lay noted the number of letters received in the recent past from applicants who have received an unfavorable recommendation from the Commission to the City Council. She requested clarification of the formal process. Mr. Ikefuna confirmed that when a petition receives an unfavorable recommendation, an applicant can request a rehearing or the applicant can file an appeal. The Commission can either reopen the case, or reaffirm their position. Based on that decision, the Commission either rehears the case or the case is forwarded to the City Council. If the petitioner disagrees with the decision made by the City Council the petitioner may choose to progress to court action. Commissioner Scott addressed the concerns of the letter, as she had been noted by name in the letter. She also cited the minutes from the March 22, 2006 meeting relating to her brief statement regarding the first letter from the applicant. She proposed to make a motion regarding the status of a rehearing for Petition 400-05-043_ Commissioner Scott made a motion regarding the Henderson Project Case, 400-05-043, heard at the March 8 Planning Commission meeting, that the Planning Commission reaffirm the recommendation made at that meeting; a recommendation to deny a rezone request from RMF-35 to RMF-45. The previous motion was withdrawn, due to the request of the applicant for the Commission to "rehear" the petition. Commissioner Scott made a motion to deny rehearing Petition No. 400-05-043. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion. Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Forbis, Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Seelig, and Commissioner Wirthlin voted "Aye". The motion to deny passed. Handicapped Parking—Paul Rolly Article Commissioner Seelig raised the attention of the Commissioners regarding a recent article by Paul Rolly of the Salt Lake Tribune stating that the Planning Commission had"passed a rule" relating to the handicapped parking accessibility to the Downtown area. She noted that Mr. Ikefuna had been informed and related the correct information to Mr. Rolly, wherein he corrected the mistake. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR (This item was heard at 6:05 p.m.) Utah League of Cities &Towns: Summary of 2006 Legislation on Land Use Mr. Ikefuna referenced the 2006 Summary of Legislation on Land Use and proposed the Commission schedule time to listen to the Deputy City Attorney, Lynn Pace, present the changes that may have implication on the Commission. It was noted that the presentation will be brief and contained, as best as possible, to fifteen minutes. The Commission agreed to have Lynn Pace review the 2006 Legislation at a future date. Mr. Ikefuna stated that a member of the Attorney's office will appear on an "as needed basis" upon the request of the Commission or Planning Staff to the Planning Commission meetings. 2 g. Minutes of Planning Commission review of the allegations at the June 14, 2006 meeting SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City& County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, June 14, 2006 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR (This item was heard at 9:23 p.m.) Petition 400-05-043— Blake Henderson Chairperson Noda introduced a memorandum with attached letters to the Commissioners regarding Petition 400-05-043, which was originally heard by the Com " sion on March 8, 2006. The information was presented before the Commission to complete t te,e.process for the petition due to the multiple requests for a re-hearing made by the scant. The Commissioners reviewed the letters and discussed the alW atio t were set forth in the letters, particularly the letter dated April 25 directed to Alex ke a, Plank Director with copies sent to Louis Zunguze, Community Development Directs o'") B nt Wilde,, uty Community Development Director. Chairperson Noda requested Commissioners ad he specific allegations addressed in the letter. Commissioner McDonough requested clarification reg-4))i• t - er in which the Commission was addressing the issue in the past meetin : en the item has been raised. Mr. Ikefuna stated that the response of the Planning Commissi•'S' R •revious meetings was the 9r1consideration of re-hearing the petition or r 'a the decisio 1, °`Commission, rather than addressing the allegations and ensuring due ro e stated th `s 'e transmittal to City Council did not contain any indication that thc omm os . a••'essed the allegations and therefore, the Commission i ing asked to a r the a ,e ns at this time. Mr. Ikefuna also stated that he had invest y i f� atter himserconductes,Y,Th interview with Commissioner Scott, and reviewed t - udio reS/41A ing of the meeting discussions and concluded that there was no merit to the alle• He rais =the attention Cif the Commission to a letter that was sent in response to the allegation m h to but unfortunatelya copy was not sent to the Commissioners Chairperson Noda sta 'that b � pon the allegations that the Hendersons have made, no evidencsupports their " ment e•-rding comments made during the Planning Cores ` ., meeting and een P-1 ` g Staff. The basis for allegations relating to conversa e held between mmis-, ner Scott and members of the East Central Community Council ancf• .. y other me r of the Planning Commission were unfounded and without merit. Chairperson ®ilcluded ttf Commissioner Scott had already stated in the record that she did not have any conk:�intions h outside parties regarding the petition, nor attend any field trips other than the Planhf ission field trip that is regularly scheduled. Commissioner Scott a itionally stated her support in the findings that the allegations were without basis and noted that the allegations were false and insulting, and compromised the integrity of the Planning Commission. She noted that this was the fourth time in which the petition has been brought before the Commission. (March 8—Original presentation, March 22, April 12, and April 26, and June 14, 2006, Discussion regarding re-hearing and allegations.) Commissioner Scott stated that an apology from Mr. Henderson would be accepted at any time. She also addressed the allegation that she had steamrolled a decision on the petition and noted that the Commissioners rarely allow that to happen. Chairperson Noda stated that the Planning Commission finds no merit to the allegations made in the letter sent on April 25, 2006, by the applicant. Mr. Henderson requested a moment to comment to the Commission. He noted that he had been called to attend the meeting at a late notice and had not requested it. Mr. Ikefuna asked if the Commission wanted to entertain a comment from the applicant. A vote was taken by the Commission as to whether or not they wanted to hear from the applicant. It was determined that they did not want to hear from the applicant. '' Mr. Henderson expressed frustration to the Commission, due to the fact that he waited to be heard for four hours and was requested to attend the meeting, but was not given the opportunity to address the Commission. Chairperson Noda again stated that the position of the Planning Corn i in terms of the letter is that there was no basis, based upon the evidence that was in the cord at the time, for the allegations that were made by Mr. Henderson. Mr. Henderson left the meeting. Chairperson De Lay raised the question on the invitat of Mr. Henderson to a eeting. Mr. Ikefuna stated that Mr. Henderson had been r d to a d in order to wi ecs the discussion of the issue by the Planning Commission a n at it was revi- ed fully and fairly. Commissioner Forbis requested that the ' -t,,.ents and trans be submitted to the City Attorney, due to the seriousness of the all f �1�40,due process. /Jested that they be submitted to protect Commissioner Scott a `Q" `e ; .1,. Commis . Mr. Ikefuna clarified that the uments had b )�iewe:`�v�' uis Zunguze, Community Development Director, a � uld be subm ,-d to Lynn '.:ce, Deputy City Attorney. yej e •ro A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE ..�AR�C\a�J �i �1 �.I� �`�.��►��`,0 � ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR BRENT B. WILDE DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL /e W6 TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer 1 • - 19, 2006 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director RE: Petition 400-05-43 by Blake Henderson requesting an amendment to the Central Community Zoning Map to change the zoning of the parcels of land located at approximately 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East, and 58 South 900 East from Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential (RMF-35)to Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential (RMF-45). This requires an amendment to the Central Community Master Plan to change the future land use map designation of the site from medium density residential to medium-high density residential. STAFF CONTACTS: Doug Dansie, Principal Planner, at 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council schedule a briefing and a Public Hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: Petition 400-05-43 was initiated by Blake Henderson, land owner, requesting an amendment to the Central Community Zoning Map to change the zoning of the parcels of land located at approximately 857 East 100 South, 70 South 900 East and 58 South 900 East from RMF-35 to RMF-45. This also requires an amendment to the Central Community Master Plan to change the Future Land Use Map designation of the site from medium density residential to medium-high density residential. Analysis: The request is to rezone the property to RMF-45 to allow higher density and building height than the current RMF-35 zoning. The proposed project includes the demolition of a non-conforming medical office and two low-density residential structures to enable the construction of a single building with 46 residential condominium units. All parking is proposed to be underground. The developer has asked for the higher density designation for several reasons: adjacent development is similar in scale,the replacement(demolition costs) of an existing medical 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-7105 FAX: SO1.535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM � Reerc�co v�vcn building with a residential building increases the cost of the land, and the cost of underground parking must be absorbed by the project. The proposed development meets all the requirements of the RMF-45 Zoning District and will be an over-the-counter permitted use. Therefore, if the zoning change is approved, no separate conditional use or planned development approval is required. The RMF-45 Zoning District allows buildings of up to 45 feet(45') in height. The density allowed for a one acre parcel is one unit per 1,000 square feet of lot area. There are 46,609 square feet of lot area. Most portions of the building are below 45 feet (45'); no portion exceeds 45 feet(45'). Staff recommended approval of the project based upon the fact that the project replaced a non-conforming land use with new housing and would provide underground parking, consistent with the master plan, and adjacent land uses are generally medium/high or high density housing or non-conforming uses. Master Plan Considerations: The Central Community Master Plan identifies the subject properties as medium density residential. The adjacent properties are identified as medium- high and high density residential. In addition,the Central Community Master Plan encourages the elimination of non-conforming uses in residential zones if they are replaced by residential uses (page 32). The 2000 Community Housing Plan encourages higher residential density when amenities, such as underground parking, are included. PUBLIC PROCESS: The petitioner attended the East Central Community Council meeting on October 19, 2005, and also on February 15, 2006. There was general support for the project but also a concern that the rezone would set a precedent for increased zoning density which would encourage other demolitions in the area. The Community Council discussed design concepts to insure neighborhood compatibility. A copy of the October minutes is included in the staff report (Exhibit 4). Property owners were notified(notices mailed on 2/21/05) and a notice in a newspaper of general circulation(Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune)was published at least 14 days in advance of the public hearing(published on 2/22/06). On March 8, 2006,the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and voted to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council regarding the amendment of the Central Community Master Plan and zoning map based upon the fact that the Central Community Master Plan had just recently been adopted identifying the specific site to be medium density on the Future Land Use Map and that there is other RMF-45 land available in the area to develop. Due to various written correspdndence relating to this request, the Planning Commission addressed the issue three times after their decision on March 8, 2006. The issues outlined in the correspondence included concerns regarding process,which were raised by the applicant, Petition 400-05-43:Petition by B.Henderson for Amendment to the Central City Master Plan&Zoning Map Page 2 of 4 and a formal request to re-hear the petition in a public forum in response to those concerns; The correspondence and Planning Commission actions are summarized as follows: 1. The applicant, Blake Henderson, sent a letter raising claims of irregularities of the process to Mr. Louis Zunguze. In a letter dated March 23,2006, Planning Director Alex Ikefuna responded to the accusations and at the March 22, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Scott also responded to the accusations. (Please see attachment 4d.) 2. At its April 12, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, in response to a letter from Mr. Brent Wilde, Deputy Community Development Director requesting the Planning Commission rehear the matter,the Commission voted to reaffirm their decision to recommend denial of the rezoning and master plan amendments(Please see attachment 4e). 3. At its April 26,2006 Planning Commission meeting, in response to a letter from the applicant Blake Henderson requesting the Planning Commission rehear the matter,the Commission voted again to reaffirm their decision to recommend denial of the rezoning and master plan amendments(Please see attachment 4f) 4. At its June 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, in response to a request by the Planning Director,the Commission formally reviewed the claims made by Mr. Henderson that were set forth in his letter of April 25,2006. The Planning Commission specifically addressed the allegations made by the applicant. The Commission found that no evidence supports the applicant's accusations put forth in letters to Mr. Louis Zunguze and Mr. Alex Ikefuna regarding comments made during the Planning Commission meeting and between Planning Staff. They further stated that the basis for the allegations relating to conversations held between Commissioner Scott and members of the East Central Community Council and/or any other member of the Planning Commission were unfounded and without merit. Chairperson Noda stated that Commissioner Scott had already stated in the record that she did not have any conversations with outside parties regarding the petition, nor attended any field trips other than the Planning Commission field trip that is regularly scheduled(Please see attachment 4g). The Planning Director also investigated the applicant's concerns and claims of ex parte communication and thoughtfully considered the discussion points of the Planning Commission meeting held on March 8, 2006,relating to the specific activity of the commissioner in question, and found that the claims were without merit. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Maps are authorized under Section 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, as detailed in Section 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." It does, Petition 400-05-43:Petition by B.Henderson for Amendment to the Central City Master Plan&Zoning Map Page 3 of 4 however, list five standards which should be analyzed prior to rezoning property (Section 21A.50.050 A-E). The five standards are discussed in detail starting on page 5 of the Planning Commission Staff Report(see Attachment 4b). The Utah Code Annotated (10-9-302) identifies the procedures for adopting and amending general plans. The Code identifies an adoption process that mandates a 14-day notification requirement including a notice in a newspaper of general circulation. As noted above, this requirement was met. Petition 400-05-43:Petition by B.Henderson for Amendment to the Central City Master Plan&Zoning Map Page 4 of 4 CONTENTS 1. Chronology 2. Proposed Ordinance 3. City Council Public Hearing a. Notice b. Mailing List 4. Planning Commission Hearing a. Original Notice and Postmark b. Staff Report: March 8, 2006 c. Minutes: March 8, 2006 d. Letters and minutes relating to accusations of irregularities in the process e. Letter and minutes relating to a request to rehear the case at the April 12, 2006 meeting f. Letter and minutes relating to a request to rehear the case at the April 26, 2006 meeting g. Minutes of Planning Commission review of the allegations at the June 14, 2006 meeting 5. Original Petition 1. Chronology Chronology December 13, 2005 Petition 400-05-43 submitted by property owner. October 19, 2005 The petitioner attended the East Central Community Council. Jan.13 —Feb. 4, 2006 Requested department input. February 15, 2006 The petitioner attended the East Central Community Council. February 21, 2006 Notices mailed. February 22, 2006 Notice printed in both major daily newspapers. March 8, 2006 The Planning Commission voted to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council regarding the amendments to the Central Community Master Plan and the Central Community Zoning Map. March 14, 2006 An ordinance was requested from the City Attorney. March 22, 2006 The Planning Commission discussed accusations or irregularities of the process raised by the applicant. March 24, 2006 An ordinance was received from the City Attorney. April 12, 2006 The Planning Commission reaffirmed its March 8, 2006 decision to recommend denial of the project. April 26, 2006 The Planning Commission again reaffirmed its March 8, 2006 decision to recommend denial of the project. June 14, 2006 Planning Commission formally discussed the allegation by Blake Henderson and found there was no merit to the claims. 2. Proposed Ordinance SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Rezoning Property Generally Located at 100 South 900 East and Amending the Central Community Master Plan) REZONING PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 100 SOUTH 900 EAST FROM MODERATE DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RMF-35) TO MODERATE/HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RMF-45), AND AMENDING THE CENTRAL COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-05-43. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of their deliberations. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed amendments to the Master Plan and change of zoning for the property generally located at 100 South 900 East is appropriate for the development of the community in that area and in the best interest of the city. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. REZONING OF PROPERTY. The property generally located at 100 South 900 East,which is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto, shall be and hereby are rezoned from moderate density multi-family district (RMF-35) to moderate/high density multi-family district (RMF-45). SECTION 2. AMENDMENT TO ZONING MAP. The Salt Lake City Zoning Map, adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning of property identified above. SECTION 3. AMENDMENT OF MASTER PLAN. The Central Community Master Plan, as previously adopted by the Salt Lake City Council, shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning set forth herein. SECTION 4. 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 , 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR • CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TOr FORM Salt lake C ttor eys Of`ic Date By (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. 2 Published: 1:\Ordinance 06\Rezoning 100 South 900 East-03-21-06 draft.doc 3 Attachment A PARCEL A(58 SOUTH 900 EAST): PARCEL 1: BEGINNING 4 FEET NORTH FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 8, BLOCK 58,PLAT"B", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY; AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 37.25 FEET THENCE WEST 330 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 37.25 FEET; THENCE EAST 330 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 2: BEGINNING 119.75 FEET SOUTH FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 8, BLOCK 58, PLAT "B", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY; AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 4 FEET; THENCE WEST 330 FEET; THENCE NORTH 4 FEET;THENCE EAST 330 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. LESS AND EXCEPTING FROM PARCEL 1 AND 2 THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTION: PART OF LOT 8, BLOCK 58, PLAT "B", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND BEING LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 5,TOWNSHIP I SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT 169.00 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, SAID BLOCK 58, PLAT"B" AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 41.25 FEET;THENCE EAST 107.25 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 41.25 FEET;THENCE WEST 107.25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL B(70 SOUTH 900 EAST): BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 58, PLAT"B", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING SOUTH 89°58'22" WEST 64.35 FEET AND NORTH 00°01'05" WEST 63.58 FEET FROM THE MONUMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF 900 EAST AND 100 SOUTH STREETS; RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 89°58'28" WEST 165.0 FEET;THENCE NORTH 00°01'02" WEST 169.0 FEET;THENCE NORTH 89°58'28" EAST 165.0 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 00°01'02" EAST 169.0 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL C(857 EAST 100 SOUTH): COMMENCING 10 RODS(165 FEET)WEST OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 58, PLAT"B", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY; AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 10 RODS (165 FEET); THENCE WEST 3 1/2 RODS(57.75 FEET); THENCE SOUTH 10 RODS (165 FEET);THENCE EAST 3 1/2 RODS (57.75)TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT OVER PARCEL C(S.L. COUNTY ENTRY NO. 2563412, BK. 3400, PG. 129; RECORDED AUGUST 22, 1973, IN FAVOR OF MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, A COLORADO CORPORATION): A SIX FOOT(6') EASEMENT, 3 FEET EITHER SIDE OF A BURIED TELEPHONE CABLE ACROSS THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: COMMENCING 6 1/2 RODS (107.25 FEET)EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 58, PLAT"B", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY; THENCE EAST 3 1/2 RODS(57.75 FEET);NORTH 10 RODS(165 FEET); WEST 3 1/2 RODS(57.75 FEET); SOUTH 10 RODS(165 FEET)TO THE BEGINNING. PARCEL D(865 EAST 100 SOUTH): BEGINNING 169 FEET NORTH AND 165 FEET WEST OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT I, BLOCK 58, PLAT"B", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY; THENCE SOUTH 4 FEET; THENCE WEST 57.75 FEET;THENCE NORTH 4 FEET;THENCE EAST 57.75 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Sidwell Numbers: 16-05-126-051, 16-05-126-040, 16-05-126-045, 16-05- 126-063 Approximately 1.07 Acres 4. Planning Commission a. Original Notice and Postmark b. Staff Report: March 8, 2006 c. Minutes: March 8, 2006 d. Letters and minutes relating to accusations of irregularities in the process e. Letter and minutes relating to a request to rehear the case at the April 12, 2006 meeting f. Letter and minutes relating to a request to rehear the case at the April 26, 2006 meeting. g. Minutes of Planning Commission review of the allegations at the June 14, 2006 meeting a. Original Notice and Postmark SOrtZ tO oa x rm00 ON zt1, f HlI H i ivrlcl`dW 0000EZ0017)9091, :) 9NINV]H V AO AMIMON ttt178 lfl 'APD 11eS v u ter...he, 9017 .w J 'laaJls a1e1S 41no�+ tSYt, ry +r•.�.,y�. . r J,• S 666ti8 woajpaliew ° . i #° A.1elanas UOISS!WW03 6ufuueld 900Z/IZiZO r� #.��+OP +t' , uolslnlo 6ufuueld Ap3 a4el iies 1. Ftl ' ', ',t et, �' dtt�atp it you wish to speak and which agenda item you will address. EL910996H r the ir.n. °pi9er r�latj,n 3anngs will be opened for public comment. Community ount r will pre5'e''llS err comments at the beginning of the hearing. �RttrmiMrt(er to be considerate of everyone attending the meeting,public comments are limited tomin3. In utes 3 per person per item. As> ,e,r,.person who has been asked by a group to summarize their concerns will be allowed 5 minutes 10 speak. Written comments are welcome and will be provided to the Planning Commission in advance of the meeting if they are submitted to the Planning Division prior to noon the day before the meeting. Written comments should be sent to: Sall Lake City Planning Director 451 South Slate Street,Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 4. Speakers will be called by the Chair. 5. Please stale your name and your affiliation to the petition or whom you represent at the beginning of your comments. 6. Speakers should address their comments to the Chair. Planning Commission members nray have questions for the speaker. Speakers may not debate with other meeting attendees. 7. Speakers should locus their comments on the agenda item. Extraneous and repetitive comments should be avoided. 8. After those registered have spoken,the Chair will invite other comments. Prior speakers may be allowed to supplement their previous comments at this lime 9. After the healing is closed•the discussion will be limited among Planning Commissioners and Stall. Under "irons" unique circumstances,the Planning Commission may choose to reopen the hearing to obtain additional information. 10. Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. It you are planning to attend the public meeting and,due to a disability,need assistance in understanding or participating in the meeting,please notify the Planning Oliice 48 hours in advance of the meeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance may be required. Please call 535-7757 for assistance. ��rrr�'rrr,jrrrrrrr� rrrllriJrr��trrfr�rrrrr ��trrr,rr'rr�rr�' rj�t�•� f�'.t,� tIrt v,kItt