Entity Staff Report - 7/21/2021CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:July 20, 2021
RE: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 860 & 868 East 3rd Avenue
CN and SR-1A to R-MU-35 PLNPCM2020-00703
PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
Three people spoke at the July 13 public hearing. The applicant and their architect spoke in favor of the
rezone. A resident who lives near the property expressed general support and asked what will happen with
the historic home. Staff will follow up with the resident letting them know the applicant expressed a desire
to retain the home.
The Council closed the public hearing and deferred action to a future meeting.
The following information was provided for the July 13, 2021 public hearing. It is
provided again for background purposes.
BRIEFING UPDATE
At the June 15 Council briefing, a Council Member asked why the parcel with the home is proposed for
rezoning. Planning staff stated a portion of the rear yard could be recaptured for use in the development
site. Another question was raised about setbacks in a historic district. Planning noted setbacks are
determined by zoning districts, but the Historic Landmark Commission could increase or decrease
setbacks. When asked about potential for commercial uses, Planning staff said that is possible under the
proposed zoning. A Council Member expressed appreciation for work the developer did working with the
community and former owner of the gas station.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: June 15, 2021
Set Date: June 8, 2021
Public Hearing: July 13, 2021
Potential Action: July 20, 2021
Page | 2
The following information was provided for the June 15, 2021 Council briefing. It is
provided again for background purposes.
The Council will be briefed about an ordinance to amend the zoning map for properties located at
approximately 860 and 868 East 3rd Avenue from their respective zoning designations of CN
(Neighborhood Commercial) and SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential) to R-MU-35
(Residential/Mixed Use). The applicant would like to develop multi-family housing on the lots and
submitted a conceptual redevelopment plan for the properties (found on pages 27-37 of the
Administration’s transmittal). It should be noted the plan is only conceptual and the rezone request is not
associated with a specific project at this point.
The subject properties are within the Avenues Local Historic District and include two structures. A gas
station/auto repair business is located at 860 East 3rd Avenue. This building was constructed in 1962 and is
listed as noncontributing to the historic district. A single-family dwelling was built in 1892 and is listed as a
contributing structure to the historic district. Any demolition, new construction or exterior modifications
would require a Certificate of Appropriateness issued administratively or through Historic Landmark
Commission approval depending on the extent of modifications.
Under the conceptual plan, the two lots would be combined, the gas station/auto repair shop would be
demolished, and the single-family dwelling would be preserved. Six for sale, three story attached
townhomes with two car garages are proposed in the plan.
Planning staff noted rezoning the properties has potential to lose a commercial node in the neighborhood
resulting in reduced services. They recommended to the Planning Commission that the rezone be
conditioned on inclusion of a commercial component on the corner. The Planning Commission found the
condition was not appropriate. The Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council
for the proposed rezone.
Page | 3
Aerial image of subject properties outlined in red.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendment, determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTION
Is the Council supportive of the proposed rezone?
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
As shown on the map below, properties surrounding the subject parcels are almost exclusively zoned SR-1A
with some RMF-35 and RMF-45 (Moderate Density and Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential)
zoning to the south and southwest, closer to South Temple.
Page | 4
Zoning map with subject parcels outlined in red.
(Salt Lake City Cemetery is green area at upper right.)
Attachment E of the Planning Commission staff report (pages 42-45 of the Administration’s transmittal)
includes tables outlining existing conditions and development standards, and land use comparison for the
existing SR-1A and CN zoning designations and the proposed R-MU-35 zoning.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Three key considerations were identified through Planning’s analysis of the proposed project, neighbor and
community input, and department reviews. A summary of each is below. See pages 18-21 of the
Administration’s transmittal for the complete analysis.
Consideration 1: Development Plans and Rezone Request
Rezone requests do not need to be associated with specific projects and are not typically conditioned on
one. As mentioned above, the applicant provided a conceptual plan for the properties to indicate their
intentions. Planning staff noted the development could change as the design progresses or due to
unforeseen circumstances. Therefore, the rezone request should be considered on its own merits.
According to Planning staff, the proposed R-MU-35 zoning has potential to result in more density within
the combined properties than is currently attainable. Lot consolidation and single zoning designation
would allow for easier siting of a new building and provide an additional 10’ in permitted height (35’ vs.
current 25’). It is Planning’s opinion increased development potential resulting from the proposed rezone
should not increase potential negative impacts to adjacent properties and the neighborhood.
Page | 5
The proposed R-MU-35 zoning designation would require a 10’ landscape buffer on the south and east
property lines. The corner parcel’s current CN zoning requires a minimum 7’ buffer and the existing
structures are noncomplying. The increased buffer requirement could minimize impacts of the potential
rezone to neighboring properties.
Although the Avenues Master Plan discourages increased density in the neighborhood, the plan was
adopted in 1987 when there was less focus on building form. In the Planning Commission staff report it
states “Recent planning best practices show that building form has more impact in neighborhood character
than density itself, and that density can support community’s livability, walkability and promote the
efficient use of resources.” More recent master plans including Plan Salt Lake and the City’s Housing Plan,
Growing SLC encourage density in areas that can accommodate it. Planning staff’s understanding is the
Avenues Master Plan’s overall goal is to promote and protect compatible development rather than strictly
limit housing units. More information can be found in Attachment D of the Planning Commission staff
report (pages 39-41 of the Administration’s transmittal).
Regardless of whether the City Council votes to rezone the subject properties, the Historic Landmark
Commission would review scale, size, and form of new structures as well as potential modifications to
existing buildings to determine if they are appropriate for the historic district.
Increased density is often correlated with additional parking demand and traffic. The proposed zone
requires one parking stall per dwelling unit, which would be required in a new development. As noted
above, the conceptual plan includes a two-car garage for each townhome (though what is eventually built
may be different from the concept plan). Planning staff stated parking requirements for the proposed
zoning designation are appropriate for the area.
Consideration 2: Loss of Commercial Use in a Neighborhood Zone
Planning staff research indicates 868 East 3rd Avenue has been used for commercial use for more than a
century. A 1911 Sanborn map shows a store at this location, and a Sanborn map as well as an aerial
photograph from the 1950’s show a store and dwelling on this parcel. Permit records suggest the store and
dwelling were demolished prior to the 1962 service station construction.
Although the Avenues Master Plan is a main guiding document for the neighborhood, it was adopted in
1987, which is earlier than most current master plans. Planning staff noted this should be taken into
account when considering neighborhood and citywide goals. The plan has some relevancy since the area
has not changed significantly. The Avenues Master Plan recommends commercial uses in some
neighborhood nodes where long-established businesses are located.
Planning staff stated commercial uses of an appropriate scale for the neighborhood could be desirable and
serve community needs. They suggested the corner property’s existing commercial zoning provides an
opportunity for residents’ needs, support walkability and a more livable community.
Planning noted that under the proposed mixed-use zone both residential and commercial uses are allowed.
This would allow for strictly commercial or residential development or mixed-use. Planning pointed out a
distinction between R-MU-35 and CN in which the latter requires a commercial component in order to
construct a residential development.
Planning staff recommended the rezone be conditioned on future development containing a commercial
component on the corner property. As mentioned above, the Planning Commission did not include this
condition in its recommendation to the City Council.
Page | 6
Consideration 3: Expansion of nonresidential uses into residential area
As discussed above, the proposed R-MU-35 zoning allows for both residential and commercial uses without
requiring mixed-use. This would allow the 860 East 3rd Avenue property to be developed as multi-family
residential. There is also the potential for non-residential use at 868 East 3rd Avenue, which could result in
expanding commercial uses into a long-established residential area. Planning staff pointed out the 868
East 3rd Avenue structure’s contributing status to the local historic district provides some assurance. It
would be difficult to demolish the building or use it in a way that would not preserve its integrity.
Conversion to a different use would likely require improvements to comply with current code. Exterior
modifications would require a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Chapter 18.97 Salt Lake City Code requires a housing mitigation plan for property rezones permitting non-
residential uses on a parcel with housing units. The chapter does not contemplate situations where no
residential building is anticipated to be demolished, but the difference between housing value and
replacement cost was assessed for the existing dwelling unit at 868 East 3rd Avenue. This is included in
Attachment H of the Planning Commission staff report (pages 50-62 of the Administration’s transmittal).
The report determined the applicant is not responsible for mitigating the housing loss resulting from this
proposed rezone.
ZONING DISTRICT COMPARISON
Attachment E of the Planning Commission staff report (pages 42-45 of the Administration’s
transmittal) includes a table listing existing conditions and development standards. A land use
comparison table is included as well. A summary of existing and proposed zoning designations is
included below. Please see the transmittal for additional information.
Development
Standard
CN
Existing Zoning 860
East 3rd Ave.
SR-1A
Existing Zoning 868
East 3rd Ave.
R-MU-35
(Proposed)
Lot Area 16,500 sq ft max.5,000 sq ft min 5,000 sq ft minimum
for conditional use
Maximum Height 25’23’20’ non-residential
35’ residential
*see specific
provisions below
table
Front Yard Setback 15’ minimum,
25’ maximum for
65% of façade
Average of front
yards of buildings on
block face
5’ minimum,
15’ maximum
Rear Yard Setback 10’25% of lot depth,
15’ minimum,
30’ maximum
25% of lot depth, but
need not exceed 30’
Side Yard Setback None 4’ and 10’Corner-5’ minimum,
15’ maximum.
Interior-none unless
abutting single- or
two-family
residential. Then 10’
Page | 7
min. and 1’ for every
1’ greater than 25’
Maximum Building
Coverage
None beyond setback
requirements
40%None beyond open
space requirement
Open Space None None 20%
Landscape Buffer 7’ if abutting
residential district
None 10’ if abutting
single/two-family
residential
* E. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height shall not exceed thirty five feet (35'), except
that nonresidential buildings and uses shall be limited by subsections E1, E2, E3 and E4 of this section.
Buildings taller than thirty five feet (35'), up to a maximum of forty five feet (45'), may be authorized through the
design review process (chapter 21A.59 of this title); and provided that the proposed height is supported by the
applicable master plan.
1. Maximum height for nonresidential buildings: Twenty feet (20').
2. Nonresidential uses are only permitted on the ground floor of any structure.
3. Nonresidential uses in landmark sites are exempt from the maximum height for nonresidential buildings
and the maximum floor area coverage limitations.
4. For any property abutting a Single-Family or Two-Family Residential District, the maximum height is
limited to thirty five feet (35') and may not be increased through any process
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment F of the Planning Commission staff report (pages 46-47 of the Administration’s transmittal)
outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal.
Planning staff found this proposal complies with applicable standards with the aforementioned condition
of maintaining commercial use at the corner 860 East 3rd Avenue property. As noted previously, the
Planning Commission did not include this condition in its recommendation to the Council. Please see the
Planning Commission staff report for full details.
PUBLIC PROCESS
• October 16, 2020 Notice sent to the Greater Avenues Community Council requesting comments.
The community council chair did not ask Planning staff to present at the meeting. No public
comments were provided by the community council.
• Early notice was sent October 30, 2020 to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the
subject properties.
• Planning Commission public hearing notice was posted on the property November 19, 2020.
Public hearing notices mailed to nearby residents and property owners November 20, 2020 and
posted to City and State websites on this date.
• The Planning Commission held a public hearing December 2, 2020. Four people expressed
opposition to the proposed rezone or shared concerns with parking and traffic. The Planning
Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed rezone.
• Planning staff received two additional comments on the proposed rezone. A neighboring property
owner called to express opposition citing concerns of impact to the neighborhood from increased
density and traffic. The other comment was provided by email and was supportive of the proposal.
The email is included on page 49 of the Administration’s transmittal.
• This proposed project was presented to the Historic Landmark Commission January 7, 2021. The
commission was generally supportive of the proposal.
Page | 8
• As of the writing of this report, Council staff has not received comments on the proposed rezone.
Any comments received will be forwarded to the Council.