Transmittal - 1/28/2022Erin Mendenhall DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: January 27, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: PLNPCM2020-00393/00394 – 1583 East Stratford Avenue Master Plan & Zoning
Map Amendments
STAFF CONTACT: Nannette Larsen, Senior Planner, nannette.larsen@slcgov.com
801-535-7645
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous decision
recommending denial of the proposed amendments. The applicant has modified his request
agreeing to enter into a development agreement to retain the existing residential uses. Staff
recommends that the Council consider this request with the proposed modifications.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Spring of 2020 the applicant, Erin Hoffman, representing the
property owner Stratford Investment Properties initiated a petition to amend the Master Plan’s
Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map. The request is for a property located at approximately
1583 East Stratford Avenue, the site is presently used as a residential condominium complex. The
petition would amend the property from Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Business
on the Sugar House Future Land Use Map and amend the zoning map from RMF-35 (Moderate
Density Multi-Family Residential) to CN (Neighborhood Commercial). Planning Staff
recommended that the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to City Council
at the time. The Planning Commission heard the petition on March 24 of 2021 where they
forwarded a recommendation to deny the proposal to City Council.
Lisa Shaffer (Jan 28, 2022 14:52 MST)01/28/2022
01/28/2022
After the Planning Commission public hearing the applicant worked with Staff to amend the
proposal to better conform to the Sugar House Master Plan and the City-wide Plan Salt Lake. The
applicant amended their proposal after a number of meetings with city staff.
Initially, the applicant was proposing to remove the 6-residential units on the site and convert the
building to an office use. The CN district permits both residential and office uses as by right.
Because there was concerns about losing naturally occurring affordable housing in a
predominantly single-family neighborhood, there were also concerns regarding diversity of
housing in the neighborhood. Presently there are a limited number of multi-family houses in the
area (only 17- residential units) that losing 6- residential units sufficiently reduces housing choices
in the neighborhood.
After the Planning Commission
public hearing the applicant
worked with staff on changes to
the proposal to amend the
Master Plan and Zoning Map.
The applicant agreed to keeping
the 6-residential units on site
through a condition of approval
of the proposed amendments.
The updated proposal would
include an additional office
building on the site with the 6-
residential units that will
remain. The proposed mixed-
use development of the site will
likely be designed so that it is
permitted by right in the
proposed CN district.
The subject property is located
on a corner site, fronting along
two streets of Stratford Avenue
and Glenmare Street. The site is
within the Highland Park Place
A subdivision in 1909 as a residential site. While there was no zoning designation in Salt Lake City
at the time, the parcel layout in this subdivision was for a residential type of development. At the
time the site was developed it was within the B-3 district, which permitted all types of housing,
retail shops, and retail services. In 1995, during the complete rewrite of the zoning ordinance and
zoning map, the subject site was rezoned to RMF-35 which was based on its existing use of multi-
family residential.
The current multi-family structure was developed in 1985 as an apartment building. In 2009 the
apartment building was converted to a condominium through the Glenmore Condominium
subdivision. This subdivision created 6-residential units, each approximately 850 square feet in
area. Since its construction it appears these residential uses have been occupied since.
If the master plan amendment and zoning map amendment is approved the property owner would
be allowed to fully redevelop the site in accordance with the CN (Neighborhood Commercial)
zoning district standards and permitted land uses.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
• Information concerning this petition was sent to the chair of the Sugar House Community
Council on June 5, 2020.
o The Sugar House Community Council met on the proposed amendment on June
20, 2020 through a Zoom meeting.
Some of the comments included: housing being removed, office not useful
to neighborhood, traffic and parking concerns, current enforcement issues,
affordable housing, liked the live/work type of neighborhood.
• The surrounding property owners within 300’ received an early notification by mail on
June 20, 2020.
• Public notification for the Planning Commission Hearing was mailed March 11, 2021 to
all neighbors within 300’ of the Zoning Map amendment site.
• Public notification for the Planning Commission hearing was posted in the newspaper,
March 11, 2021.
• The property was posted March 12, 2021 noticing the Planning Commission.
• The petition was heard by the Planning Commission on March 24, 2021. The Planning
Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation to deny the proposed
amendments to the City Council.
Planning Commission (PC) Records:
a) PC Agenda of March 24, 2021 (Click to Access)
b) PC Minutes of March 24, 2021 (Click to Access)
c) Planning Commission Staff Report of March 24, 2021 (Click to Access Report)
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2022
(Amending the zoning of property located at approximately 1583 East Stratford Avenue
from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to CN Neighborhood
Commercial District, and amending the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at approximately
1583 East Stratford Avenue from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District
to CN Neighborhood Commercial District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00393, and
amending the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map pursuant to Petition No.
PLNPCM2020-00394.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 24,
2021 on an application submitted by Erin Hoffman (“Applicant”) on behalf of the property
owner, Stratford Investment Properties, LLC, to rezone property located at 1583 East Stratford
Avenue (Tax ID Nos. 16-21-332-001, 16-21-332-002, 16-21-332-003, 16-21-332-004, 16-21-
332-005, 16-21-332-006, and 16-21-332-007) (the “Property”) from RMF-35 Moderate Density
Multi-Family Residential District to CN Neighborhood Commercial District pursuant to Petition
No. PLNPCM2020-00393, and to amend the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map
with respect to those parcels from Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Business
pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00394; and
WHEREAS, at its March 24, 2021 meeting, the planning commission voted to forward a
negative recommendation on these petitions to the Salt Lake City Council; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the planning commission’s recommendation, following a
public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in
the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and
hereby is amended to reflect that the Property identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be
and hereby is rezoned from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to CN
Neighborhood Commercial District.
SECTION 2. Amending the Sugar House Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map of
the Sugar House Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future land use
designation of the Property identified in Exhibit “A” from Medium Density Residential to
Neighborhood Business.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________,
2022.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2022.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance amending zoning and MP 1583 E Stratford Ave
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney
December 29, 2021
EXHIBIT “A”
Legal Description of Property to be Rezoned
and Subject to Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment:
1583 East Stratford Avenue
Tax ID No. 16-21-332-007
ALL OF LOTS 799 TO 802, HIGHLAND PARK PL A SUB & THE S 1/2 OF VACATED
ALLEY TO THE N. MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEG AT SW COR
OF LOT 802, HIGHLAND PARK PL A SUB; N 0̊ 01'00" W 131.12 FT; S 89̊ 52'13" E 102.09
FT; S 0̊ 01'00" E 131.12 FT; N 89̊ 52'13" W 102.09 FT TO BEG. 0.31 AC. LESS UNITS. (BEING
THE COMMON AREA FOR GLENMARE CONDO). 9739-8636
Tax ID No. 16-21-332-006
UNIT 6, GLENMARE CONDO. 9739-8636
Tax ID No. 16-21-332-005
GLENMARE CONDO 1S 0313 UNIT 5, GLENMARE CONDO. 9739-8636
Tax ID No. 16-21-332-004
GLENMARE CONDO 1S 0313 UNIT 4, GLENMARE CONDO. 9739-8636
Tax ID No. 16-21-332-003
GLENMARE CONDO 1S 0313 UNIT 3, GLENMARE CONDO. 9739-8636
Tax ID No. 16-21-332-002
GLENMARE CONDO 1S 0313 UNIT 2, GLENMARE CONDO. 9739-8636
Tax ID No. 16-21-332-001
GLENMARE CONDO 1S 0313 UNIT 1, GLENMARE CONDO. 9739-8636
EXHIBITS:
1) Project Chronology
2) Notice of City Council Hearing
3) Mailing List
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
1583 East Stratford Avenue Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment
Project Chronology
Located at approximately 1583 East Stratford Avenue
PLNPCM2020-00393/00394
May 19, 2020 Zoning Amendment application received by the City.
May 20, 2020 Master Plan Amendment application received by the City.
May 21, 2020 Petition assigned to and received by Nannette Larsen.
June 4, 2020 Housing Mitigation application requested
June 5, 2020 Notice of the amendments was provided to the Sugar House
Community Council.
July 21, 2020 Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments routed for review
August 3, 2020 A number of public comments received through email from the
Sugar House Community Council
July 14, 2020 Email received regarding concerns site was being used as an
office.
July 20, 2020 Housing Mitigation application received by the City.
March 16, 2021 Public comment received through email regarding concerns over
the amendments
March 17, 2021 Public comment received through email regarding concerns over
the amendments
July 20, 2020 Sugar House Community Council meets on requested
amendments
August 3, 2020 Sugar House Community Council submitted letter to Planning
Commission through email.
August 11, 2020 Staff recommendation of denial is discussed with applicant.
Discussed additional items needed before item is presented to
Planning Commission.
September 14, 2020 Planning staff met with applicant to discuss the recommendation
to Planning Commission on retaining the 6-residential units.
October 15, 2020 Email sent to applicant asking how to proceed with the proposal.
October 22, 2020 Email received from applicant asking how to proceed to the
Planning Commission.
October 26, 2020 Voicemail and Email sent explaining needed item to proceed to
Planning Commission. Explained housing mitigation calculation
and expectations.
November 8, 2020 Public Comment received through email regarding concerns over
the amendments.
November 9, 2020 Received email from applicant stating they are working on
updated information
February 11, 2021 Received email from applicant concerning Housing Mitigation
calculations. I confirmed their understanding of those calculations
are correct.
February 16, 2021 Received some updated information from applicant and a request
to proceed to the Planning Commission with the established
recommendation of denial.
February 24, 2021 Staff sent email asking for full information initially requested, and
confirmed updated information.
February 25, 2021 Received information needed in full from applicant.
March 1, 2021 Staff emailed applicant the date of the scheduled Planning
Commission hearing.
March 11, 2021 Newspaper notice posted
March 12, 2021 Property posted
March 16, 2021 Received supplemental letter from applicant to present to Planning
Commission
March 19, 2021 Public comment received through email regarding concerns over
the amendments
March 22, 2021 Staff report posted online and emailed to applicant.
March 22, 2021 Public comment received through email regarding concerns over
the amendments
March 24, 2021 Planning Commission recommended unanimously that City
Council deny the proposed amendments.
April 1, 2021 Received email from applicant with questions on next steps.
April 13, 2021 Met with applicants and discussed next steps, applicant stated
they will let me know when they are ready to proceed forward to
City Council.
June 15, 2021 Met with consultant to the applicant and explained next steps and
possible amendments to the application.
October 28, 2021 Applicant requested a Pre-submittal meeting with Staff. Discussed
steps forward and possible zoning districts for a mixed-use
development.
November 18, 2021 Updated application submitted by email requested mixed-use
redevelopment with a development agreement to maintain 6-
residential units.
2. NOTICE OF COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2020-00393 & PLNPCM2020-
00394 1583 East Stratford Avenue Master Plan & Zoning Map Amendment – Salt Lake
City received a request from Erin Hoffman with Stratford Investment Properties, the property
owner, to amend the Sugar House Master Plan and the zoning map for a property located at
approximately 1583 East Stratford Ave. The proposal would rezone the entire property from
RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) to CN (Neighborhood Commercial) and
amend the Sugar House Future Land Use Map from Medium Density Residential to
Neighborhood Business. The proposed amendment to the Master Plan & Zoning Map is intended
to accommodate an office and residential uses on the site. The subject property is zoned RMF-35
(Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) and is located in Council District 7, represented by
Amy Fowler. (Staff contact: Nannette Larsen, 801-535-7645) Case Number: PLNPCM2020-
00393/00394.
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive
comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City
Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held:
DATE:
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Room 315
City & County Building
451 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call
Nannette Larsen at 801-535-7645 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday or via e-mail at nannette.larsen@slcgov.com.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours
in advance in order to attend this hearing. 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 Division at (801) 535-7757; TDD (801) 535-
6021.
3. MAILING LIST
1583 East Stratford Avenue
Mailing List
STRATFORD 1588 LLC 1408 E STRATFORD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
MARLO D BANFORD 1495 E 3000 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
CAMERON HOLT; EMILY HOLT (JT) 1502 S WASATCH DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108
Current Occupant 1550 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1555 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
WILSON-DEVERAUX LC
1555 E STRATFORD AVE,
#100 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
PKS TR 1556 E STRATFORD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
Current Occupant 1560 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1560 E STRATFORD AVE, #1 Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1560 E STRATFORD AVE, #2 Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1560 E STRATFORD AVE, #3 Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1560 E STRATFORD AVE, #4 Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1560 E STRATFORD AVE, #5 Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1560 E STRATFORD AVE, #6 Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1560 E STRATFORD AVE, #7 Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1560 E STRATFORD AVE, #8 Salt Lake City UT 84106
STRATFORD INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC 1567 E STRATFORD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
Current Occupant 1571 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
STRATFORD, LLC 1582 E BRIDLEBROOK CIR HOLLADAY UT 84117
Current Occupant 1583 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1583 E STRATFORD AVE, #1 Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1583 E STRATFORD AVE, #2 Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1583 E STRATFORD AVE, #3 Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1583 E STRATFORD AVE, #4 Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1583 E STRATFORD AVE, #5 Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1583 E STRATFORD AVE, #6 Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1586 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1588 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1592 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1595 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
JLO PROPERTIES, LLC 1596 E STRATFORD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
Current Occupant 1597 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1599 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
JOSLIN CHRISTENSEN 1602 E STRATFORD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
Current Occupant 1603 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
ALYSSA SCHRACK 1608 E STRATFORD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
Current Occupant 1629 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1632 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1635 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1636 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
RHETT EVANS 1857 E HARVARD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108
EINAR W SWENSEN (JT) 1946 E ATKIN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
EAST STRATFORD CONDOMINIUM
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 2053C TUSTIN AVE COSTA MESA CA 92627
REESE CONDOMINIUM COMMON AREA
MASTER CARD 224 E ENSIGN VISTA DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
RBC LIV TRUST 2265 E FARDOWN AVE HOLLADAY UT 84121
RED BRICK AVE INC 2319 S FOOTHILL DR # 160 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109
KEVIN F & DEBRA D KAVANAGH TRUST
03/15/2007 24235 VALLEY ST NEWHALL CA 91321
Current Occupant 2521 S GLENMARE ST Salt Lake City UT 84106
BRADY MCKAY DUNCAN; JULIE NITA DUNCAN
(JT) 2522 S GLENMARE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
JAMES F OGDEN 2522 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
RIO-DEAN CROCETTI MARTIN 2525 S GLENMARE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
MICHELLE RASMUSSEN 2526 S GLENMARE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
CHRISTINA STEELE; NATHAN STEELE (JT) 2526 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
Current Occupant 2527 S FILMORE ST Salt Lake City UT 84106
MIHO A UJIIE 2527 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
Current Occupant 2533 S FILMORE ST Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 2533 S GLENMARE ST Salt Lake City UT 84106
ZACHARY S DURFEE; MICHAEL D MADSEN;
YVONNE C MADSEN (JT) 2533 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
BNK TRUST 2534 S GLENMARE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
J SHANE MATHER; JEANNE J MATHER (JT) 2534 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
Current Occupant 2539 S FILMORE ST Salt Lake City UT 84106
AARON CROWDER 2539 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
DEBBIE YORK; THOMAS YORK 2540 S GLENMARE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
DEBRA G GRIFFITHS 2540 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
ANN M KRUEGER 2541 S GLENMARE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
MND FAM TRUST 2545 S FILMORE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
KORI A WETSEL 2545 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
KAYLEY MILLER; STEPHEN D MILLER (JT) 2546 S GLENMARE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
DANIELLE B PROBST; GERALD G PROBST
(JT) 2546 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
DEBRA A MAYO 2549 S GLENMARE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
DOUGLASS R & KATHRYN B HUNTER FAMILY
TRUST 11/16/2016 2551 S FILMORE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
KRISTA TODD; ANNA E DEMOTT (JT) 2551 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
CARRIE B MILLER 2552 S GLENMARE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 2552 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
SCOTT C SNOW; KARALEE SNOW (JT) 2579 E SAGE WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109
Current Occupant 2611 S FILMORE ST Salt Lake City UT 84106
MICHAEL & LYNDA PATRICK FAMILY TRUST
08/30/2018 2617 S FILMORE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
MARIAN DECKER 2624 S GLENMARE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
Current Occupant 2625 S GLENMARE ST Salt Lake City UT 84106
SERGIO COPPA; ELISABETH COPPA (JT) 2625 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
MARIE L BLACK 2626 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
SYDNEY STONER; ERIK KISH-TRIER (JT) 2628 S GLENMARE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
Current Occupant 2629 S GLENMARE ST Salt Lake City UT 84106
JENNIFER JONES; DEREK ROCHE (JT) 2630 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
BRIGHT HORIZONTAL REALTY LLC 2632 E ROBIDOUX RD SANDY UT 84093
SJC MANAGEMENT LLC 3336 E OAK HOLLOW CIR
COTTONWOOD
HTS UT 84093
GIAN J SEXSMITH; CORINNE D SEXSMITH (JT) 3480 S 3650 E MILLCREEK UT 84109
L FAM TRUST 3546 E BROCKBANK DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84124
ECHC HOLDINGS LLC 3793 E PARKVIEW DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84124
DAVE E RANDLE 4480 S ADONIS DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84124
JEFFREY D EISENBERG 4563 S PEACH ST HOLLADAY UT 84117
CHRISTOPHER CANNON; SUNITA CANNON
(JT) 5405 236TH AVE NE REDMOND WA 98053
COOLEY FILMORE LLC 6863 S BELLA VISTA DR
COTTONWOOD
HTS UT 84121
MATTHEW M COWLEY; JON COWLEY (JT)
7858 S PHEASANT WOOD
DR
COTTONWOOD
HTS UT 84093
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-5357757 FAX 801-535-6174
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner, 801-535-7645 or nannette.larsen@slcgov.com
Date: March 24, 2021
Re: PLNPCM2020-00393/00394 – 1583 East Stratford Avenue Master Plan and Zoning Map
Amendments
Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1583 East Stratford Avenue
PARCEL ID: 1621332001, 1621332002, 1621332003, 1621332004, 1621332005, 1621332006, 1621332007
MASTER PLAN: Sugar House – Medium Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential)
REQUEST: Salt Lake City received a request from Erin Hoffman with Stratford Investment
Properties, the property owner, to amend the Sugar House Master Plan and the zoning
map for a property located at approximately 1583 East Stratford Ave. The proposal would
rezone the entire property from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) to
CN (Neighborhood Commercial) and amend the Sugar House Future Land Use Map from
Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Business.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in this staff report, Planning Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they deny the proposed
zoning map and master plan amendment.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Applicant Submittal and Information
B. Zoning Map
C. Sugar House Future Land Use Map
D. Site Photos
E. Analysis of Amendment Standards
F. RMF-35 Zoning Standards
G. CN Zoning Standards
H. Department Comments
I. Public Process and Comments
3 | Page
The current multi-family structure was developed in 1985 as an apartment building. In 2009 the
apartment building was converted to a condominium through the Glenmore Condominium
subdivision. This subdivision created 6 residential units, each approximately 850 square feet in area.
Since its construction it appears these residential uses have been occupied since.
The current configuration of the site is similar to other multi-family residential structures constructed
at that time in the city. The building is setback an approximate of 27’ from the south and west property
lines. This area is landscaped and maintained by the property owner. Parking is permitted and located
behind the structure towards the rear of the site. This parking lot includes both covered and uncovered
stalls and has accessibility from Glenmare street to the west. The height of the building is approximately
25’.
In July of 2020 the site came under enforcement for internal construction in the structure without a
building permit. The work being conducted was to combine two residential condominiums into one, a
stop work order was issued and the construction on the site ceased until a building permit was
obtained.
The subject property fronts on Stratford Avenue to the south and Glenmare Avenue to the west. Both
Stratford and Glenmare Avenues are listed as local streets in Salt Lake City’s Transportation Master
Plan. Local streets provide access to private property to a few number of cars and at low level speeds.
The uses around these local streets are generally directed to lower frequency of trips and are directed
toward the local neighborhood.
The subject sites are surrounded by single family residential houses at a small scale, generally these
houses were built in the 1940s. At the intersection of Glenmare and Stratford is a historic commercial
node that is well-known in the community. This commercial node includes 7 properties and is occupied
by offices, restaurants, financial institutions, and retail shops. Similar commercial nodes are generally
located on corner lots. Residential multi-family sites are also located within this commercial node, the
sites located on the south west corner of Glenmare and Stratford houses a 6-unit condominium and is
zoned RMF-35. To the immediate east of the subject site is also a multi-family 3-unit condominium
and is designated RMF-35. The multi-family structures near this intersection have a similar site layout
with approximately 20’ landscaped yards with parking located in or behind the structure.
The nearest bus line is a north/south line located on 1700 East, approximately two-blocks to the east,
this bus runs every half hour. The other transit line is another bus route on 1300 East, another half
hour bus frequency.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS:
The key considerations listed below have been identified through the analysis of the project, neighbor
and community input, and department review comments.
1.Compatibility with Master Plans
2.Urban Resiliency
3.RMF-35 and CN Zoning District Comparison and Zoning Compatibility with Adjacent
Properties
4 | Page
Consideration 1 – Compatibility with Master Plan Policies
Sugar House Master Plan
The site under review for the Master Plan Future Land Use Map amendment is within the Sugar House
Master Plan. This site is presently designated Medium Density Residential. Medium Density
Residential allow areas to accommodate for a mix of low-rise housing types – these housing types
include four-plex units, garden apartments, townhouses, and live/work units. The density of this
designation is between 10 and 20 dwelling units per acre. The Medium Density Residential future land
use has a location criteria that includes:
• “Proximity to arterial or collector streets;
• Proximity to higher design residential areas, mixed-use areas, neighborhood
commercial nodes or the urban town center of the Business District;
• Proximity to existing and proposed parks and open space;
• Prohibit the expansion of non-residential land uses into areas of medium-density
residential.”
The site’s location and use meet the intent and location criteria of the Medium Density Residential
future land use type in that the existing structure located at 1583 E Stratford meets the building height
and garden type of apartment development, it is also located within a commercial node at Stratford
and Glenmare avenues.
These location criteria state that expansion of non-residential land uses into areas of medium-density
residential is discouraged, and that it is recommended that these spaces remain residential in some
form.
The purpose of the Neighborhood Business designation is to provide an area for services, products and
attraction on a small scale and within close proximity to residential neighborhoods. This land use
designation allows for both residential and small business uses.
Within the Sugar House Master Plan is language that identifies the Stratford/Glenmare intersection as
a commercial node in the Stratford neighborhood. The intent of the commercial node is to allow
adjacent neighborhoods access to services that are within walking distance. It is stated that these
Neighborhood Commercial areas, “may consist of four corner sites or isolated parcels”, and the
“businesses range from grocery stores to restaurants”.
It doesn’t appear that the intent of the commercial node in the Stratford neighborhood, located at the
intersection of Stratford Avenue and Glenmare Avenue, is met with the proposed amendment to the
Sugar House Future Land Use Map from Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Business. The
intent of this commercial node is to allow residents access to services that are within walking distance.
Because the amendments would result in the conversion of residences to office space rather than
services it would not further the purpose of the Stratford commercial node.
While the Stratford/Glenmare is identified as a commercial node in the Sugar House Master Plan, it
identifies this commercial node as consisting of 4 corner sites or isolated parcels. The existing Future
Land Use Map presently identifies isolated parcels on 2 corner properties of the Stratford/Glenmare
intersection, therefore the intent of the mater plan commercial node is currently being met.
5 | Page
Housing, particularly affordable housing, is addressed in the Sugar House Master Plan as well. The
Master Plan encourages increasing opportunities for affordable housing, it also promotes, “Developing
and implementing programs that encourage the provision of affordable housing”. The proposed
amendments do not meet the goals of the Sugar House Master Plan as it removes housing that is
considered to be more affordable from the City’s housing stock. Further, the propose amendments also
would remove naturally occurring affordable housing in an area with an already limited number of
affordable
housing units.
The
configuration
of the site
allows for
naturally
occurring
affordable
housing, in
that the units
encompass
approximately
900 square
feet and the
structure is
over 30-years
old. This is one
of the few
places in this
area of the
Sugar House
Master Plan
where
naturally occurring affordable housing is available, this site is generally surrounded by single-family
housing on privately owned lots, as shown in figure 2.
The Sugar House Master Plan emphasizes the importance of a diversified approach to affordable
housing in the community, stating that it is important that affordable housing is evenly distributed
through the community and city-wide.
Maintaining the City’s housing stock is addressed in the City’s Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance that
was codified in 2012. Housing Loss Mitigation application and calculation is attached to this report as
Attachment A. The housing mitigation ordinance goes into effect when a proposal includes the removal
of housing within Salt Lake City boundaries. This application is administratively approved by the
Director of Community and Neighborhoods and is calculated as the difference between the assessor’s
estimate of the building value and the price to replace the building.
Growing SLC
Growing SLC is a city-wide plan aimed at establishing housing goals and objectives in addressing issues
related in Salt Lake City’s growing population and ensure access to affordable housing. The goals within
this city-wide plan include “increasing housing opportunities for cost-burdened households” in the
City. This includes housing opportunities in neighborhoods that do not have many choices available
for cost-burdened families as well as established affordable spaces. The proposed amendments go
Figure 2: Surrounding Zoning Map
6 | Page
against this stated goal that was approved by City Council, by converting the building from residential
to office the affordable units are removed from the city housing stock.
Another objective within Growing SLC is to implement life cycle housing in each neighborhood in the
city. Life cycle housing is ensuring that housing types are available for different life stages in each
neighborhood throughout the City. Life cycle housing requires that a diversity of housing types are
provided in each neighborhood. The proposed amendments do not meet this objective as it further
reduces multi-family housing in a neighborhood that almost exclusively single-family residential.
Plan Salt Lake
Finally, Plan Salt Lake, another city-wide plan intended to provide guidance outlines initiatives to
support the guide the growth and changes as they occur in the City. Plan Salt Lake, in addition to the
Sugar House Master Plan, also has goals relating to providing differing housing types throughout the
city.
“Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low
income).”
“Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City,
providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing
demographics.”
The proposed amendments to the Sugar House Master Plan to facilitate the removal of 6 residential
units do not meet the purpose or intent of the Sugar House Master Plan, nor do the amendments meet
the initiatives of Plan Salt Lake. The existing multi-family residential units at 1583 E Stratford are one
of the very few multi-family uses available in the neighborhood that is mostly single-family. The intent
of the Master Plan at the intersection of Stratford and Glenmare is to provide an area for services or
retail within walking distance of the surrounding residential neighborhood. The conversion of
residential to office would reduce this environment as office types of uses generally are not limited to
the community but rather service a larger area and would encourage commuting into a residential
neighborhood.
Consideration 2 – Urban Resiliency and Diversity of Housing
Another significant consideration for any proposed Master Plan or Zoning map amendment is whether
the proposed amendments furthers the resiliency of the community. One attribute of resilient places is
a diversity of housing. One study, funded by the National Science Foundation, found that allowing for a
diversity of housing types promotes stability in the community as shifts in the market impact
affordability of housing, providing a mix of housing ensures that housing will remain available and
maintained within the community.
The American Planning Association in their Policy Guide on Housing notes that a diversity of housing
in neighborhoods also helps assure the viability of communities as it allows for housing of all life phases,
many different income types, and different lifestyles. Encouraging housing for all life phases allows
residents the chance to remain within their community and near people with whom they are familiar as
their need for housing changes. Diversity in housing also allows for different income types so that as
trends in the market fluctuate housing demand is more stable in the community.
Attainable and affordable housing is essential to preserve as demand for housing in these communities
increases. Ensuring that there is attainable or affordable housing options in every community allows
low-income households the opportunity to live in areas that are established or developing towards
9 | Page
While neither zoning district landscape standards are presently being met, the site is able to be updated
so that it is in complying whether the proposed amendments to the master plan or zoning map are
approved or denied.
Use
The applicant is proposing to convert the existing multi-family residential structure to office. The RMF-
35 district permits residential multi-family as a permitted use, residential multi-family is not permitted
in the CN district however. Office is allowed in the CN district as well as mixed use development
(commercial/residential). Because RMF-35 is a residential district, generally only residential or uses
related to residential are permitted in this district. CN allows a greater range of uses that are oriented
to the surrounding residential uses.
DISCUSSION:
It is necessary that the purpose and goals of the Sugar House Master Plan are shown to be met prior to
any amendment to the master plan and zoning map. It is also necessary that a rezone of the site
complies with the requirements of the proposed zoning district.
It was found during the review of the Key Considerations of the proposed amendments that the
conversion from multi-family residential to office is contrary to the intended purpose and goals of Salt
Lake City’s master plan and large area plans. The intent of the Medium Density Residential designation
and the commercial node near the intersection of Stratford and Glenmare Avenues are presently being
met and the requested amendment would disrupt this. Further, it was found that reducing the available
housing types in this Sugar House community would diminish the resilient nature of this area and
reduce the number of affordable residential units within the City.
Finally, approval of the Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments would create a noncompliance that
is not already existing on the site. The maximum setback in the CN district is 25’, the structure exceeds
this by 2’ at 27’ front and corner side yard setback. The RMF-35 does not limit the maximum setback
so keeping the subject property within the RMF-35 zoning district would allow the site to stay in
compliance.
While the proposed amendments to the Master Plan and Zoning Map may bring additional jobs into
the City, the goals, initiatives, and purpose of the Sugar House Master Plan and the city-wide plan, Plan
Salt Lake, have been found are not being met.
NEXT STEPS:
A recommendation of approval or denial by the Planning Commission will result in the proposed
Master Plan and Zoning Map amendment to be sent to the City Council for a final decision.
Master Plan and Zone Amendment Approval
If the master plan and zone amendments are approved, the applicant will be permitted to build or
operate any use allowed in the CN, Neighborhood Commercial, zone on the site. A list of uses allowed
in the zone is included in this report as Attachment G. The developer will need to obtain a building
permit or business license for any new development or new business and will need to comply with all
applicable zoning standards. Also, prior to the elimination the Housing Loss Mitigation Report will
need to be approved and the corresponding fees paid to the City.
10 | Page
Master Plan and Zone Amendment Denial
If the master plan and zone amendments are denied, the property will remain zoned RMF-35,
Moderate Density Residential. This zone allows the continued use of residential, whether that is
residential rental units or individually owned.
11 | Page
ATTACHMENT A: APPLICANT SUBMITTAL AND INFORMATION
1
106139586.1 0069070-00003
MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
APPLICATION ATTACHMENT
1583 East Stratford Ave
1. Describe the proposed master plan amendment.
We are the owners of the property located at 1583 East Stratford Ave, SLC, UT 84106 (the
“Property). We intend to convert the building on the Property from a residential condominium
six-plex building into a commercial office building. We are therefore applying to change the
Land Use Map in the Sugar House Master Plan to identify the Property as Neighborhood
Business. This is a much better use of the Property given its location and the use of the
neighboring properties, and fits well with recent development in Sugarhouse to create a livable
walking community.
2. A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment.
Our plan is to maintain the structure currently on the Property but upgrade and convert the
building to be used as an office space. We would take the old, run-down building that has
collected a junkyard behind it and make it into something the community and city could be proud
of. This would include exterior improvements to the aesthetics of the building (paint,
landscaping, and structural repair) as well as reconfiguring and upgrading the interior of the
existing structure to meet building codes and exceed environmental and efficiency standards.
This requires the Land Use Map to change the use of the Property to Neighborhood Business.
3. Declare why the present master plan requires amending.
This Property is an ideal location for commercial use, as currently outlined in the master plan.
The properties to the east, west, and south of the Property are currently identified as
Neighborhood Business. The Property is located on the corner of a prominent 4-way intersection.
It is a better and higher use of the Property to identify it as Neighborhood Business.
The Sugar House Master Plan specifically calls out this intersection as an ideal location for
Neighborhood Commercial use:
“Neighborhood Commercial areas may consist of four corner sites or isolated parcels. The
businesses range from grocery stores to restaurants. Some neighborhood business centers
identified in the land use plan are at 2100 South and 2100 East, Stratford Avenue and
Glenmare Street, 2700 South and 2000 East, and portions of 2300 East and Parley's Way. The
community supports a Citywide effort to revise and strengthen the Neighborhood Commercial
zoning district.” Sugar House Master Plan, Pg. 6.
Changing this Property to Neighborhood Business on the Land Use Map unifies the use of the
intersection and is supported in the area’s master plan. Recent development in Sugarhouse has
established a unified neighborhood that includes offices, shopping, restaurants, and an upgraded
2
106139586.1 0069070-00003
trail system within a residential area to encourage social gatherings and reduce transportation
impact. Many of the employees at the existing adjacent businesses walk or ride bikes to work,
reducing vehicular traffic and environmental impact. Offering additional walkable office space
reduces after-hours neighborhood noise and impact and adds an attractive, efficient, and
environmentally friendly building to a revitalized and thriving area.
The added commercial space, while a small addition to a growing area, would offer patronage of
the adjacent shops, restaurants, and salons, ensuring the intersection’s small business success for
years to come.
4. Is the request amending the Land Use Map?
If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed.
16213320010000, 16213320020000, 16213320030000, 16213320040000, 16213320050000,
16213320060000, and 16213320070000
1
106139585.1 0069070-00003
ZONING AMENDMENT
APPLICATION ATTACHMENT
1583 East Stratford Ave
1. A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment.
We are the owners of the property located at 1583 East Stratford Ave, SLC, UT 84106 (the
“Property). We intend to convert the building on the Property from a residential six-plex
condominium building into a commercial office building. We are therefore applying to change
the zoning of the Property from Moderate Density Multifamily Residential (“RMF-35”) to
Neighborhood Commercial (“CN”). This is a much better use of the Property given its location
and the use of the neighboring properties, and fits well with recent development in Sugarhouse to
create a livable walking community.
2. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned.
Our plan is to maintain the structure currently on the Property but upgrade and convert the
building to be used as an office space. We would take the old, run-down building that has
collected a junkyard behind it and make it into something the community and city could be proud
of. This would include exterior improvements to the aesthetics of the building (paint,
landscaping, and structural repair) as well as reconfiguring and upgrading the interior of the
existing structure to meet building codes and exceed environmental and efficiency standards..
This requires the zoning on the Property to be changed to CN.
3. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area.
This Property is an ideal location for commercial use, as currently outlined in the master plan.
The properties to the east, west, and south of the Property are currently zoned CN. Changing the
zoning of the Property to CN would be more in line with the uses of the neighboring properties
and create a centralized neighborhood commercial location.
The Sugar House Master Plan specifically calls out this intersection as an ideal location for CN
zoning:
“Neighborhood Commercial areas may consist of four corner sites or isolated parcels. The
businesses range from grocery stores to restaurants. Some neighborhood business centers
identified in the land use plan are at 2100 South and 2100 East, Stratford Avenue and
Glenmare Street, 2700 South and 2000 East, and portions of 2300 East and Parley's Way. The
community supports a Citywide effort to revise and strengthen the Neighborhood Commercial
zoning district.” Sugar House Master Plan, Pg. 6.
Changing this Property to Neighborhood Commercial zoning unifies the use of the intersection
and is supported in the neighborhood’s master plan. Recent development in Sugarhouse has
2
106139585.1 0069070-00003
established a unified neighborhood that includes offices, shopping, restaurants, and an upgraded
trail system within a residential area to encourage social gatherings and reduce transportation
impact. Many of the employees at the existing adjacent businesses walk or ride bikes to work,
reducing vehicular traffic and environmental impact. Offering additional walkable office space
reduces after-hours neighborhood noise and impact and adds an attractive, efficient, and
environmentally friendly building to a revitalized and thriving area.
The added commercial space, while a small addition to a growing area, would offer patronage of
the adjacent shops, restaurants, and salons, ensuring the intersection’s small business success for
years to come.
4. Is the request amending the Zoning Map?
If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed.
16213320010000, 16213320020000, 16213320030000, 16213320040000, 16213320050000,
16213320060000, and 16213320070000
Salt Lake City Planning Division
March 16, 2021
Page 2
110057061.1 0069070-00003
is identified as a neighborhood business center. Moreover, the Master Plan states that “The
Stratford Avenue and Glenmare Street neighborhood shopping node is an example of a center
that is underutilized.”
2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the
zoning ordinance.
The “zoning ordinance” refers to Title 21A of the Code. The overall purpose of the zoning
ordinance is “to promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of
the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the adopted plans of the City,
and to carry out the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Development and Management Act.”
Code § 21A.02.030. The purpose of the CN Zone is “to provide for small scale, low intensity
commercial uses that can be located within and serve residential neighborhoods.” Code
§ 21A.26.020. But for other commercial uses on the same intersection, as further described
below, the Property is within a residential neighborhood and is ideally positioned to provide just
such small scale, low intensity commercial use. The conversion of the existing residential units
to commercial offices would have the same intensity of use as previously existed, but would
provide walkable office space for the neighborhood. Commercial use of the Property would also
promote convenience for local residents and would help establish and support this intersection as
a thriving commercial node.
3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties.
Both the northwest and southeast corners of this intersection are already within the CN Zone and
used for commercial purposes. The property to the east is also within the CN Zone. Rezoning
the Property to the CN Zone would draw additional local residents to those existing businesses
and would offer patronage to those businesses from individuals working at the Property. This
would also provide walkable office space for the neighborhood. Allowing commercial use on
the Property would promote this intersection as a viable neighborhood commercial center.
4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions
of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards.
There are no applicable overlay zoning districts.
5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property,
including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire
protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse
collection.
The existing building will undergo some updates and improvements, but the structure, and need
for public facilities and services, will remain the same.
Analysis of these five items demonstrates that the Property is appropriate for the CN Zone. We
therefore respectfully request that the Applications be approved.
13 | Page
ATTACHMENT C: SUGAR HOUSE FUTURE LAND USE MAP
14 | Page
ATTACHMENT D: SITE PHOTOS
View of Site, looking north/east on Stratford Avenue
View of Site, looking east on Glenmare Avenue
15 | Page
View of Site, looking south/west on Denver Street.
View of Site, looking south/east on Glenmare Avenue
ATTACHMENT F: RMF-35 ZONING STANDARDS
21A.24.130: RMF-35 MODERATE DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:
A.Purpose Statement: The purpose of the RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family
Residential District is to provide an environment suitable for a variety of moderate
density housing types, incl uding single-family, two-family, and multi-family dwellings
with a maximum height of thirty five feet (35 '). This district is appropriate in areas
where the applicable Master Plan policies recommend a density ofless than thirty
(30)dwelling units per acre. This district incl udes other uses that are typically found
in a multi-family residential neighborhood of this density for the purpose of serving
the neighborhood. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and
intensity of the ne ighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide
for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and comp atible
development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood.
B.Uses: Uses in the RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District, as
specified in section 21A.33.020. "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For
Residential Districts", of this title, are permitted subject to the general provisions set
forth in section 21 A 24 010 of this chapter and this section.
C.Minimum Lot Area And Lot Widtl1: The minimum lot areas and lot widths
required in this district are as follows:
Land Use Minim1un Lot Area Mininnun Lot Width
Multi-family dwellings (3 through n units) 9,000 square feet' 8ofeet
Multi-family dwellings (12 or more units) 26,000 square feetl 8ofeet
Municipal se1vice uses, including City No minimum No minimum utility uses and police and fire stations
Natural open sp ace and conse 1vation Nomininmm No minimum areas, public and private
Places of worship less than 4 acres in size 12,000 square feet 14ofeet
Public pedest1ian pathways, trails and No mininmm No minin1um greenways
Public/private utility transmission wi res, No minimum No minin1um lines, pipes and poles
Single-family attaclied dwellings (3 or 3,000 square feet per unit Inte1ior: 22 feet more) Corner: 32 feet
Single-family detached dwellings 5,000 square feet 5ofeet
Twin home dwellings 4,000 square feet per unit 25 feet
Two-family dwellings 8,000 square feet 50 feet
Utility substations and buildings 5,000 square feet 5ofeet
Other permitted or conditiona l uses as 5,000 square feet 5ofeet listed in section 21.A.33.020 of this title
181 Page
19 | Page
Qualifying provisions: 1. 9,000 square feet for 3 units, plus 2,000 square feet for each additional dwelling unit up to and including 11 units. 26,000 square feet for 12 units, plus 1,000 square feet for each additional dwelling unit up to 1 acre. For developments greater than 1 acre, 1,500 square feet for each dwelling unit is required. D. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height permitted in this district is thirty five feet (35'). E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard: Twenty feet (20'). 2. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet (10'). 3. Interior Side Yard: a. Single-family detached and two-family dwellings: (1) Interior lots: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. (2) Corner lots: Four feet (4'). b. Single-family attached: No yard is required, however, if one is provided it shall not be less than four feet (4'). c. Twin home dwelling: No yard is required along one side lot line while a ten foot (10') yard is required on the other. d. Multi-family dwellings: (1) Interior lots: Side yard shall be at least ten feet (10'). e. All other permitted and conditional uses: Ten feet (10') on each side. 4. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but not less than twenty feet (20') and need not exceed twenty five feet (25'). 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Required Yards", of this title. 6. Existing Yards: For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building unless the proposed yard encroachment is to accommodate additional units. New principal buildings must conform to current yard area requirements, unless the new principal two-family dwelling or twin home has legal conforming status as outlined in section 21A.38.070 of this title. F. Required Landscape Yards: The front yard, corner side and, for interior multi-family lots, one of the interior side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards. G. Maximum Building Coverage: 1. Single-Family Detached: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed forty five percent (45%) of the lot area. 2. Single-Family Attached Dwellings: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the lot area. 3. Two-Family And Twin Home Dwellings: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot area. 4. Multi-Family Dwellings: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the lot area. 5. Existing Dwellings: For dwellings existing on April 12, 1995, the coverage of such existing buildings shall be considered legally conforming. 6. Nonresidential Land Uses: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the lot area.
20 | Page
ATTACHMENT G: CN ZONING STANDARDS
21A.26.020: CN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT: A.Purpose Statement: The CN Neighborhood Commercial District is intended to provide for small scale, low intensity commercial uses that can be located within and serve residential neighborhoods. This district is appropriate in areas where supported by applicable master plans and along local streets that are served by multiple transportation modes, such as pedestrian, bicycle, transit and automobiles. The standards for the district are intended to reinforce the historic scale and ambiance of traditional neighborhood retail that is oriented toward the pedestrian while ensuring adequate transit and automobile access. Uses are restricted in size to promote local orientation and to limit adverse impacts on nearby residential areas. B.Uses: Uses in the CN Neighborhood Commercial District as specified in section 21A.33.030, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Commercial Districts", of this title, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.26.010 of this chapter and this section. C.Planned Development Review: Planned developments, which meet the intent of the ordinance, but not the specific design criteria outlined in the following subsections, may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of chapter 21A.55 of this title. D.Lot Size Requirements: No minimum lot area or lot width is required. No lot shall be larger than sixteen thousand five hundred (16,500) square feet. E.Maximum District Size: The total area of a contiguously mapped CN District shall not exceed ninety thousand (90,000) square feet, excluding all land in public rights-of-way. F.Minimum Yard Requirements:1.Front Or Corner Side Yard: A fifteen foot (15') minimum front or corner side yard shall be required. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as design review, subject to the requirements of chapter 21A.59 of this title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. 2.Interior Side Yard: None required.3.Rear Yard: Ten feet (10').4.Buffer Yards: Any lot abutting a lot in a Residential District shall conform to the buffer yard requirements of chapter 21A.48 of this title. 5.Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B of this title. 6.Maximum Setback: A maximum setback is required for at least sixty five percent (65%) of the building facade. The maximum setback is twenty five feet (25'). Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized through the design review process, subject to the requirements of chapter 21A.59 of this title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Planning Director, in consultation with the Transportation Director, may modify this requirement if the adjacent public sidewalk
21 | Page
is substandard and the resulting modification to the setback results in a more efficient public sidewalk. The Planning Director may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than fifty percent (50%) if the Planning Director finds the following: a.The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure or the surrounding architecture. b.The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. Appeal of administrative decision is to the Planning Commission. 7.Parking Setback: Surface parking lots within an interior side yard shall maintain a thirty foot (30') landscape setback from the front property line or be located behind the primary structure. Parking structures shall maintain a forty five foot (45') minimum setback from a front or corner side yard property line or be located behind the primary structure. There are no minimum or maximum setback restrictions on underground parking. The Planning Director may modify or waive this requirement if the Planning Director finds the following: a.The parking is compatible with the architecture/design of the original structure or the surrounding architecture. b.The parking is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. c.The horizontal landscaping is replaced with vertical screening in the form of berms, plant materials, architectural features, fencing and/or other forms of screening. d.The landscaped setback is consistent with the surrounding neighborhoodcharacter. e.The overall project is consistent with section 21A.59.050 of this title.Appeal of administrative decision is to the Planning Commission. G.Landscape Yard Requirements: Front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards. Subject to site plan review approval, part or all of the landscape yard may be a patio or plaza, conforming to the requirements of section 21A.48.090 of this title. H.Maximum Height: Twenty five feet (25'). (Ord. 14-19, 2019: Ord. 12-17, 2017)
23 | Page
ATTACHMENT I: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS
Public Notice, Meetings, Comments
The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related
to the proposed project:
PUBLIC PROCESS AND INPUT
Timeline
• The application for a rezone was submitted on May 19, 2020.
• The application for a master plan amendment was submitted on May 20, 2020.
• Notice of the proposal, and request for input, was provided to the Sugar House Community
Council on June 5, 2020.
o The Sugar House Community Council met and discussed the proposed amendments on
July 20, 2020 through a Zoom Meeting.
Some of the comments included: housing being removed, office no useful to
neighborhood, traffic and parking concerns, current enforcement issues,
affordable housing, liked the live/work type of neighborhood.
• Early Notification mailings were sent out on July 20, 2020 to property owners and residents within
300’ of all four corners of the project site.
• Public notice of the Planning Commission hearing was mailed to property owners and residents
within 300’ of the subject site.
• A public notice sign was posted on both frontages of the subject site on March 11, 2021.
• Public comments were received through email before the writing of this report. They are attached
to this report.
From:Judi Short
To:Larsen, Nannette
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fwd: 1583 E Stratford Avenue
Date:Monday, August 3, 2020 1:30:34 PM
I just got this, so it isn't in what I sent you yesterday, thought I would start a second COMMENTS document and see
if we get more.
I thought I would send this to you now, since it is one of the few that thinks the rezone is a good idea. udi
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: David Fernandez
Date: Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 3:32 PM
Subject: 1583 E Stratford Avenue
To:
From: David Fernandez <2685 S Hartford>
Subject: 1583 Stratford Ave
Message Body:
I virtually attended the Sugar House Council meeting on the property located at 1583 Stratford
Ave on 7/20/20. I strongly approve of changing the zoning to CN (Neighborhood
Commercial) to allow the owner to convert the existing building to additional office space.
The Joint Orthography is exactly the business that fits in this neighborhood. A small low
impact, non-obtrusive business that employees highly educated and community oriented
personnel. They have been part of this community for quite some time. With the recent
Covid-19 stay at home order it has demonstrated that the amount of personnel parking in the
area was reduced. Upgrading the existing horrible apartment complex even a little will
enhance the neighborhood and provide them even more business parking. It was suggested
during the meeting that a variance be granted for the upgrade to prevent the owner from
flipping the property without another chance to bring it before the City Council. However,
since the Sugar House Master Plan does not allow this type of variance, I support the change
of zoning to neighborhood commercial. Even though the owners and the Sugar House Council
may not have followed all the codes and regulations according to Hoyle, in the end I trust the
owner’s to do the right thing rather than any legislation, enforcement, punitive actions, or
codes.
--
This e-mail was sent from a contact form on Sugar House Community Council
(https://www.sugarhousecouncil.org)
--
Judi Short
1
Larsen, Nannette
From:Debbie Mayo
Sent:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 2:48 PM
To:Larsen, Nannette
Cc:Tim Krueger; Brenda Koga; Judi Short
Subject:(EXTERNAL) 83 East Stratford Ave conversion of residential property to commercial with a request to
rezone to CN APN: 16-21-332-001 thru 007; PLNPCM2020-00393; PLNPCM2020-00394
Hello Nanette,
I have been copied on all the emails that have been going around about the above rezone at 1583 E. Stratford. I would
like to make a comment to be included in your report to the Planning Commission. I live at 2549 S. Glenmare St. and
share a property line with this apartment building. I have serious concerns about this lot getting rezoned to
commercial. The owners of this property have already built a new large multistory building on their property across the
street on the opposite corner of Stratford and Glenmare. This building went right up to the property line of the home next
door to it and has completely blocked that home off. That homeowner looks from both her home and her yard into this
commercial building. I am afraid that if the apartment building is rezoned commercial, the same thing will happen to
me. When I bought my home 20 years ago, the apartment building was already there and they have been fine neighbors
for the most part and no bother. If there was a commercial business on that property, I would never have purchased my
home. This is a residential neighborhood with with a few small businesses on that intersection. They are neighborhood
friendly businesses, a hair salon, a small restaurant and so on. Things that are a good and useful addition to a
neighborhood. Total Joint Orthopedics is not a good and useful addition to our neighborhood. They are a design,
manufacturing and sales business that has no business being in a residential neighborhood. No one in our neighborhood
is able to utilize their products or services.
Since Erin Hoffman has made this application for the rezone, she has proven time and again to disregard the entire
process. Construction started almost immediately and has continued to the point where now they have moved in and are
occupying the 2 lower units (which have now been combined into one) of the apartment building. All of this was despite
not having a work permit, despite have a work stop order placed and despite not having a business license or this zoning
change in place. I have documented this process and have sent photos to Judi Short, Amy Fowler and Les Koch. At one
point I went over and spoke with the man who did most of the construction work. He told me the 2 lower units were being
remodeled to be one large 4 bedroom/4 bathroom apartment. As I glanced around this was obviously not the case at the
time and I was quite surprised he would tell me that. It is definitely not the case today. I took a photo this morning that
clearly shows it is not an apartment and that it is being moved into as a business.
Another of my concerns is that if the zoning change is approved, Erin will evict the tenants on the upper floors and covert
the entire building into an expansion of Total Joint Orthopedics. I have actually had the thought that she might do that
whether she gets the zoning change approved or not as she seems to think rules do not apply to her.
Sugarhouse is being overrun with new apartment buildings these days. I should think it is not the best use of land to
convert an existing apartment building into office and manufacturing space, especially in a residential
neighborhood. There is not enough parking space to support this building being converted totally to a business. Currently
there are parking issues with the existing Total Joint Orthopedics. They don't begin to have enough parking space for all
their employees and they park all up and down the adjacent residential streets. If they continue to grow their business,
they will have more commercial trucks coming on our streets as well. There are a lot of kids in this neighborhood that play
in front yards. They frequently run over to friend's houses so increased truck traffic would be a danger to them. Again, I
can't say enough that this type of business does not belong in a residential neighborhood.
I would encourage the Planning Commission members to please deny this application for a zoning change.
I am planning on attending the Planning Commission meeting on March 24th..
Regards,
1
Larsen, Nannette
From:Larsen, Nannette
Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 1:54 PM
To:'Judi Short'
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Fwd: 1583 E Stratford Avenue
Thank you Judi,
I will be sure to include all of these comments in my report to the Planning Commission.
Best,
Nan
From: Judi Short <judi.short@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 1:30 PM
To: Larsen, Nannette <Nannette.Larsen@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Fwd: 1583 E Stratford Avenue
I just got this, so it isn't in what I sent you yesterday, thought I would start a second COMMENTS document
and see if we get more.
I thought I would send this to you now, since it is one of the few that thinks the rezone is a good idea. udi
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: David Fernandez
Date: Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 3:32 PM
Subject: 1583 E Stratford Avenue
To:
From: David Fernandez ><2685 S Hartford>
Subject: 1583 Stratford Ave
Message Body:
I virtually attended the Sugar House Council meeting on the property located at 1583 Stratford Ave on 7/20/20. I
strongly approve of changing the zoning to CN (Neighborhood Commercial) to allow the owner to convert the existing
building to additional office space. The Joint Orthography is exactly the business that fits in this neighborhood. A small
low impact, non‐obtrusive business that employees highly educated and community oriented personnel. They have
been part of this community for quite some time. With the recent Covid‐19 stay at home order it has demonstrated that
the amount of personnel parking in the area was reduced. Upgrading the existing horrible apartment complex even a
little will enhance the neighborhood and provide them even more business parking. It was suggested during the meeting
that a variance be granted for the upgrade to prevent the owner from flipping the property without another chance to
bring it before the City Council. However, since the Sugar House Master Plan does not allow this type of variance, I
support the change of zoning to neighborhood commercial. Even though the owners and the Sugar House Council may
not have followed all the codes and regulations according to Hoyle, in the end I trust the owner’s to do the right thing
rather than any legislation, enforcement, punitive actions, or codes.
‐‐
This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Sugar House Community Council (https://www.sugarhousecouncil.org)
2
‐‐
Judi Short