Loading...
Council Provided Information - 1/28/2022CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:February 15, 2022 RE: 1583 East Stratford Avenue Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments PLNPCM2020-00393 & PLNPCM2020-00394 The Council will be briefed about an ordinance that would amend zoning of the parcel at approximately 1583 East Stratford Avenue from its current RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-family) zoning designation to CN (Neighborhood Commercial). The proposal would also amend the Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map for the properties from “Medium Density Residential” to “Neighborhood Business.” The applicant originally proposed changing use of the site on the northeast corner of Stratford Avenue and Glenmare Street from residential condominiums to office use. It should be noted the subject property is under the same ownership as the parcel immediately west across Glenmare Street, which is also used for offices and, if the proposal is approved, would extend its business campus to the subject property. Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous negative recommendation to the City Council for the proposed amendments. Eight people spoke at the March 24, 2021 Planning Commission public hearing. All were opposed to the rezone request. Concerns cited include a loss of naturally occurring affordable housing units in a neighborhood largely comprised of single-family homes, reducing already limited multi-family housing units (Planning staff found 17 multi-family housing units in the area), the proposed business use doesn’t serve the neighborhood, additional traffic and parking, and construction without permits converting two of the residential condominiums into one commercial unit. Following the Planning Commission’s negative recommendation, the applicant worked with Planning staff to amend their request and agreed to keep six residential units on site through a condition of approval. The updated proposal includes constructing a building on the property for office use north of the existing Item Schedule: Briefing: February 15, 2022 Set Date: February 15, 2022 Public Hearing: March 1, 2022 Potential Action: March 22, 2022 Page | 2 building or demolishing the existing condominium structure and replacing it with a new mixed-use building. It is unclear if a new building north of the current condominium structure, of sufficient size for offices, would meet setback and buffer requirements. Mixed-use including offices and residential units are allowed “by right” under the proposed CN zoning designation. Mixed-use developments are not allowed within the existing RMF-35 zoning designation. Aerial image with subject property outlined in red. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask if any of the potential new housing units will be affordable. If so, at what percentage of AMI and for how long? 2. The Council may wish to ask if the applicant plans to assist current tenants with relocation. 3. Is the Council supportive of the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments? ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The current structure was developed in 1985 as an apartment building. At that time, it was in the B-3 zoning district which allowed all types of housing, retail shops, and retail services. During the 1995 citywide zoning ordinance and zoning map update the subject property was rezoned to RMF-35 based on its use as multi-family residential. The subject parcel is in a small commercial node well-known in the community. This node includes offices, restaurants, and retail shops. Other multi-family residential housing in the area includes a three-unit condominium building adjacent to the east of the subject property, and a six-unit condominium building located on the southwest corner of Stratford Avenue and Glenmare Street. Parcels in the commercial node are zoned either RMF-35 or CN as shown in the area zoning map below. Page | 3 Area zoning map with subject parcel outlined in red. Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 3-9 of the Planning Commission staff report. They are summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1-Compatibility with Master Plan Policies Planning staff noted the subject property meets the intent and location criteria of the Medium Density Residential future land use map in the Sugar House Master Plan, as the current building meets the building height and garden type of apartment development. However, it is Planning’s opinion the original proposed use as office space is not consistent with the future land use map because it would not provide desired residential services within walking distance. Eliminating residential in favor of increasing office space rather than services would not further the neighborhood commercial node. Growing SLC, the city-wide plan, includes goals to address issues resulting from the city’s growing population and ensure access to affordable housing. One of the Plan’s goals is to “increase housing opportunities for cost burdened households.” It includes housing opportunities in neighborhoods without many choices for cost burdened families. Planning staff believes the proposed amendments do not align with the goals of Growing SLC. Plan Salt Lake, another city-wide plan also includes goals for providing a variety of housing types throughout the city which include: “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.” Page | 4 Consideration 2-Urban Resiliency and Diversity of Housing Planning staff noted an attribute of resilient places is a diversity of housing. They referenced a National Science Foundation study that found diverse housing types promotes stability in the community and market changes have an impact on affordable housing. An American Planning Association Policy Guide on Housing was also mentioned by Planning staff. It notes housing diversity in neighborhoods helps assure community viability by allowing for housing throughout life phases, different income levels, and different lifestyles. These help lead to more stable housing demand in communities through market changes. Planning staff found the existing condominiums are naturally occurring affordable housing. It is unknown if housing units in a new building would be affordable or market rate. Consideration 3-CN District Compatibility and RMF-35/CN Zoning District Comparison The CN District purpose statement says: 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. The table below compares standards for the RMF-35 and CN zoning designations. It might be noted the existing building setbacks are 27’ from the front and corner side yard property lines. If the property is rezoned to CN it would result in the existing structure being in non-compliance with setback requirements. That said, a new structure could be built in compliance with setbacks. Zone Max. Building Height Front Yard Min.Front Yard Max. Side/Corner Side Yard Minimums Rear Yard RMF-35 35’20’No Maximum 4’/10’20’-25’ CN 25’15’25’Same as Front Yard 10’ The existing RMF-35 zoning district requires a 10’ landscape buffer when adjacent to a single-family residential district. The subject parcel requires a buffer on the north and east property lines. Planning staff stated it appears the requirement is not currently being met. In the proposed CN zoning designation, a 7’ landscape buffer is required when abutting residential districts. If the proposed amendments are approved, landscape buffers would be required on the north and east property lines. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment C (pages 27-28) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Page | 5 Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Does not comply Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Does not comply The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties Complies Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Complies The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Complies PUBLIC PROCESS • June 5, 2020-Information about petition sent to the Sugar House Community Council. • June 20, 2020-Sugar House Community Council meeting discussion. Comments included concerns about loss of housing/affordable housing, traffic and parking, offices not useful to the neighborhood, current enforcement issues, liked live/work type of neighborhood. • June 20, 2020-Early notification mailed to property owners within 300’ of the subject parcel. • March 11, 2021-Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed to neighbors within 300’ of the zoning map amendment site. • March 11, 2021-Planning Commission public hearing newspaper notice. • March 12, 2021-Planning Commission notice posted on property. • March 24, 2021-Planning Commission public hearing. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council.