Loading...
Council Provided Information - 3/8/2022CITY 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:April 19, 2022 RE: Intermountain Wood West Temple Rezone and Master Plan Amendment (1948/1950 South West Temple) PLNPCM2021-00291/292 The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for property located at 1950 South West Temple, and a portion of the property located at 1948 South West Temple within the Ballpark neighborhood in City Council District Five. Combined, the parcels total approximately 4.25 acres. The 1948 South West Temple property is “split-zoned” between RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) and CG (General Commercial) zoning designations as shown in the area zoning map below. The entirety of 1950 South West Temple is zoned RMF-35. Additionally, the proposal would amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map for the properties from Medium-Density Residential to Medium Residential/Mixed Use. Intermountain Wood Products has been located on the subject parcels for many years. The requests are included in efforts to expand storage space and construct a new office building with uniform zoning on the properties, which would be consolidated. Existing RMF-35 zoning would not allow the proposed expansion or office uses. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at its August 11, 2021 meeting. The applicant spoke during the meeting and stated they are amenable to a development agreement that limits building height on the property to 35 feet, and to consolidate the parcels. Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council with the following recommendations: Approval is conditioned on consolidating the parcels into one. Item Schedule: Briefing: April 19, 2022 Set Date: April 19, 2022 Public Hearing: May 3, 2022 Potential Action: May 17, 2022 Page | 2 The petitioner and City enter a development agreement to limit the height of any future development and approve the final site plan for the rezoned parcel. (It should be noted the City Council does not approve site plans for parcels.) Area zoning map with subject properties outlined in red and yellow Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning and future land use map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTION 1. The Council may wish to discuss if height limitations and other requirements such as consolidating the two parcels might be included in a development agreement. 2. Because this property is located in the State Street project area, the Council may wish to discuss with the Administration if this is consistent with planning and redevelopment efforts in the area, or if aspects of the development agreement could anticipate adjacent redevelopment to ensure compatibility. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. No formal site plan has been submitted to the City nor is it within the scope of the Council’s authority to review the plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. Page | 3 Planning staff identified four key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 3-5 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1-Zoning compatibility with Adjacent Properties Properties fronting on West Temple in this area are predominantly zoned residential. As shown in the area zoning map above, properties on the east side of West Temple are zoned R-1/5000; adjacent properties to the north are also R-1/5000. A parcel at the northeast corner of the subject property is zoned RMF-35 and is used for multi-family residential. These residential uses exist within a larger commercial and industrial area of the city. Okland Construction Company is adjacent to the south and the property is used for the company’s offices, as well as material and equipment storage. This parcel was rezoned in 2017 from a split zoning of RMF-35 to CG, very similar to conditions on the subject property. Okland built new offices closer to West Temple on the rezoned property. Intermountain Wood is limited in its options for locating offices much like Okland Construction was before its property was rezoned. While CG zoning could allow more intense uses than RMF-35, the applicant’s expressed intent is to construct a new office on the property. Planning staff noted uses allowed in the CG zoning district have existed on most of the property for many years. Consideration 2-Change in Zoning to CG (General Commercial) for the Entire Parcel The petitioner requested the zoning change to CG for uniformity and to expand existing office space. The RMF-35 portion is less than 15% of the 4.24 acres combined parcels’ total. Existing split-zoning requires the current (or future) property owner to be subject to different land use and building regulations. Requirements for setbacks, open space, and others may be different for one part of the property than another. This makes development on the property more difficult than with uniform zoning. Consideration 3-Master Plan and Current Zoning Considerations The Central Community Master Plan designates the front portion of the property as “Medium Density Residential” and the remainder of the property “Medium Residential/Mixed Use.” Planning staff stated The master plan supports a business-friendly environment that limits planning and zoning restrictions to those instance that provide clear and substantial benefits to residents (Central Community Master Plan, 2005 – Vision – Vital and Sustainable Commerce – Page 3). Given the overall commercial and industrial character of the area and the majority of the property already being zoned CG, no substantial benefits would be provided to neighboring residents through a denial of the changes to the master plan and zoning map amendment. Approximately 85% of the combined properties has been zoned CG since 1995, and it is Planning’s opinion a change to the remaining portion would do little to change the overall character and area impact of the site. Consideration 4-Consideration of Alternate Zoning Districts Planning staff considered several potential alternate zoning districts (R-MU, R-MU-35, R-MU-45 (Residential Mixed-Use), MU (Mixed Use), RO (Residential Office), and CB (Community Business). Each would allow expansion of the office and parking, while limiting building height and some more impactful uses allowed in the CG zone. However, other limitations such as reduced non-residential building height, extra process steps required to build an office building, or additional residential building height were Page | 4 mentioned. Planning staff noted changing the zoning district to something other than the requested CG would perpetuate the property’s split-zoning and make development more cumbersome due to dissimilar standards and requirements on different portions of the property. Planning does not recommend an alternate zoning designation than the requested CG. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The following table compares some development standards of the RMF-35 and CG zoning designations. Zoning Max. Building Height Lot Coverage Front Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Landscape Yards RMF-35 35 feet 45-60% depending on land use. 20 feet 25% of lot depth or 20 feet, and need not exceed 25 feet. Corner side: 10 feet Interior: 4 feet to 10 feet depending on use. Front and corner required. On multifamily, one interior side yard required. CG 60 feet Allowed up to 30 feet higher (90 feet total) through design review process. No maximum specified. 10 feet 10 feet Corner side: 10 feet Interior: none Landscape yard of 10 feet required on front and corner side yards. Additional landscaping required if height is going above 60 feet. Where a lot in CG abuts a lot in the residential district, a landscape buffer of 15 feet is required. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment E (pages 20-22) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines master plan and 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. Master Plan Amendments State law requires municipalities to have a master plan but does not include criteria for master plan amendments, nor does the City. However, Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.02.040 – Effect of Adopted Master Plans of General Plans addresses the issue in this way: Page | 5 All master plans or general plans adopted by the planning commission and city council for the city, or for an area of the city, shall serve as an advisory guide for land use decisions. Amendments to the text of this title or zoning map should be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the applicable adopted master plan or general plan of Salt Lake City. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(1-4), 1995) Planning staff found in this instance the master plan is being amended to provide consistency between the Central Community Master Plan and the subject property’s zoning designation. The request is to allow rezoning the property to a zoning district which will permit office expansion. Zoning Map Amendments 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. Complies with master plan policy statements and other documents and policies adopted by the City. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. This has been considered and the proposal furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties The map amendment will facilitate additional development in the area, specifically expansion of the existing office building. While this may create additional impacts on neighboring properties, those impacts will be reviewed in relation to any specific future development proposal. 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. The City has the ability to provide services to the subject property. The infrastructure may need to be upgraded at the owner’s expense in order to meet specific City requirements. Page | 6 PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • March 30, 2021-Applications submitted. • April 7, 2021-Petition assigned to David Gellner, Principal Planner. • April 14, 2021-Notification sent to the Ballpark Community Council to solicit public comments and start the 45-day recognized organization input and comment period. • April 14, 2021-Early notification sent to property owners and residents within 300’ of the subject parcel. • April 14, 2021-Online open house to solicit public comments on the proposal. • May 6, 2021-Planning staff attended online Ballpark Community Council • June 1, 2021-45-day public comment period for recognized organizations ended. No formal comments on the proposal were submitted to Planning staff by the recognized organizations as of that date. • July 29, 2021-Property posted with signs for the August 11, 2021 Planning Commission hearing. Listserv notification of Planning Commission agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State websites. • August 11, 2021-Planning Commission public hearing. One person spoke stating the neighborhood strongly supports a height limit for structures on the property. The Commission voted unanimously in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation for both proposals to the City Council with the following conditions: o Consolidating parcels owned by the applicant o The applicant and City enter a development agreement to limit height of future development and approve the final site plan for the rezoned lot • September 21, 2021-Sent to Attorney’s Office. • January 12, 2022-verified legal description received from applicant and verified by City Surveyor. • February 16, 2022-Finalized transmittal verified by Attorney’s Office. • March 8, 2022-Transmittal received by City Council Office. 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: David J. Gellner, AICP, Senior Planner; 385-226-3860; david.gellner@slcgov.com Date: August 11, 2021 Re: Master Plan Amendment (PLNPCM2021-00292) Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2021-00291) Master Plan & Zoning Map Amendments PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1948 and 1950 South West Temple PARCEL ID: 15-13-478-035 and 15-13-478-031 MASTER PLAN: Central Community Master Plan ZONING DISTRICT: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential and CG (General Commercial) REQUEST: The requests are part of an effort to expand the existing Intermountain Wood Products operation to meet company needs and to have uniform zoning on their properties which would be consolidated. This project requires the following applications: 1. Master Plan Amendment (PLNPCM2021-00292) - The associated future land use map in the Central Community Master Plan currently designates the subject portion of the properties as "Medium Density Residential" while the remainder of the property is designated as "Medium Residential/Mixed Use." The petitioner is requesting to amend the future land use map so that the entire property is designated as "Medium Residential/Mixed Use". 2. Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2021-00291) - The main property is currently split-zoned between RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) and GC (General Commercial) zoning on the west portion while the smaller parcel along South West Temple is fully zoned RMF-35. The petitioner is requesting to amend the zoning map designations for the properties or portions that are zoned RMF-35 to GC. This would make the zoning of the consolidated parcel uniform. The Planning Commission’s role in this application is to provide a recommendation to the City Council, who will make the final decision on the requested zoning map and master plan amendments. ⚫ Page 2 RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the information presented in the staff report, and the analysis and findings of fact, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed master plan amendment and zoning map amendments as requested. ATTACHMENTS: A. Future Land Use Map B. Applicant Information C. Existing Condition & Site Photos D. Master Plans and Zoning E. Analysis of Standards F. Public Process and Comments G. Department Comments VICINITY MAP PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reason for Request These requests are part of an overall effort to expand storage space on the property and build a new office in order to meet company needs. The property is currently split-zoned between the GC – General Commercial and RMF-35 – Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential zoning districts. In their narrative, the applicant references the Okland Construction property immediately to the south that went through a similar rezoning several years ago in order to build a new office on the portion of their property closest to South West Temple. ⚫ Page 3 The applicant has indicated a similar desire to build office space on the eastern portion of their property closer to South West Temple. The total property parcel at 1948 South West Temple is approximately 3.93 acres or 171,200 square feet in size while the smaller parcel at 1950 South West Temple is approximately 0.311 acres or 13,550 square feet in size. The eastern portion of the larger parcel (approx. 0.311 acres/13,500 SF or 8%) is zoned RMF-35 while the rest of the property (92% - 3.62 acres/157,650SF) is zoned CG. The smaller parcel at 1950 South West Temple is zoned entirely RMF-35. The RMF-35 zoning district would not allow the proposed expansion as it does not allow office uses. The intent of the proposal is to rezone the smaller eastern portion of the property and adjacent smaller parcel from the current RMF-35 zoning to GC to make the parcel zoning uniform which would allow for the changes. The project is located within the boundaries of the Ballpark Community which lies within the Central Community Master Plan area. The petitioner is requesting to amend the future land use map so that the entire property is designated as "Medium Residential/Mixed Use". This project requires both a Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment. The applicant’s narrative explaining the rationale for the zoning map amendment request and conceptual plans can be found in Attachment B of this report. KEY CONSIDERATIONS: The key considerations associated with this proposal are: 1. Change in Zoning and Compatibility with Adjacent Properties 2. Change to CG Zoning for the Entire Parcel 3. Master Plan and Current Zoning Considerations 4. Consideration of Alternate Zoning Districts Key considerations are discussed further in the following paragraphs and were identified through the analysis of the project (Attachment D) and department review comments (Attachment F). Consideration 1: Zoning Compatibility with Adjacent Properties Properties along West Temple are predominantly zoned residential along the street face. On the east side of the street near the project area the zoning is R-1/5000 (Single-family Residential). To the north of the project area, lies Macarthur Avenue, a street of single-family residential development that is also zoned R-1/5000. To the south and west the properties are zoned CG and have been developed for a variety of commercial and light industrial uses. On the north-east corner of the subject property is a single parcel zoned RMF-35 that has been developed for multi-family uses. This property fronts on South West Temple. While the CG zoning district potentially allows more intense uses, the applicant has expressed a desire to build a new office on the property which would be allowed and supported by the CG zoning. It is also notable that the use has already existed on the majority of the property for a long time. This issue is analyzed in more detail in Attachment E: Analysis of Standards. Consideration 2: Change in Zoning to CG (General Commercial) for the Entire Parcel The applicant asked for a zone change to the CG – General Commercial zoning district in order to uniformly zone the parcel and accommodate an expansion to the existing office use. The portion of the parcel that is zoned RMF-35 together with the addition parcel zoned RMF-35 represents approximately 14.7% of the entire area of the combined parcels. This equates to approximately 0.622 acres/27,000 square feet of the total combined 4.24 acres/184,700 square foot parcel area. The current split-zoning of the property requires that ⚫ Page 4 redevelopment of the parcel for the current owner (or for a different owner in the future) would be subject to different land use and building regulations and may have different requirements for things such as open space and maximum street setback on one portion of the property compared to the other. This makes future development of the parcel more cumbersome through the imposition of non-uniform zoning and building rules on the property. Zoning the entire parcel uniformly CG would eliminate this issue. Consideration 3: Master Plan and Current Zoning Considerations The associated future land use map in the Central Community Master Plan currently designates the front portion of the property as "Medium Density Residential" while the remainder of the property is designated as "Medium Residential/Mixed Use." The petitioner is requesting to amend the future land use map so that the entire property is designated as "Medium Residential/Mixed Use". This change would apply to approximately 23% of the total 2.4 acre parcel. The master plan supports a business-friendly environment that limits planning and zoning restrictions to those instance that provide clear and substantial benefits to residents (Central Community Master Plan, 2005 – Vision – Vital and Sustainable Commerce – Page 3). Given the overall commercial and industrial character of the area and the majority of the property already being zoned CG, no substantial benefits would be provided to neighboring residents through a denial of the changes to the master plan and zoning map amendment. Staff is recommending approval of the change to the future land use map in the Master Plan to designate the property as Medium Residential/Mixed Use from the current Medium Density Residential designation. A change to CG zoning from the current RMF-35 would allow additional commercial and light industrial uses on the subject portion of the parcel that are not currently allowed. As the majority (85%) of the total combined parcel area already allows for mixed use and many more impactful commercial uses through the CG zoning district than the current zone. Changing to the CG zone to allow for the office expansion will likely do very little to change the overall character of the site. The majority of the site is already zoned CG and has been zoned CG since 1995. Rezoning the remaining property to CG would not create new impacts to the area because most of the property is already zoned CG. Staff is recommending approval of the zone change from the RMF-35 to the CG zoning district for both the portion of the CG property and the additional parcel. Consideration 4: Consideration of Alternate Zoning Districts Planning Staff considered and analyzed different zoning districts for the subject portion of the property in lieu of a change to the requested CG zoning district. A number of mixed use and other zones would allow for the expansion of the office and parking, while limiting the maximum building height and limiting some of the potentially more impactful uses allowed under the CG zoning. The other districts considered included the R- MU, R-MU-35 and R-MU-45 (Residential/Mixed Use), the MU - Mixed Use, the RO- Residential Office, and, the CB – Community Business zoning districts. While each of these districts would allow for an office on the subject portion of the property, there were notable limitations on the maximum building height allowed for non-residential buildings (limited to 20-feet in the R-MU-35/45), additional process steps required for building an office (Planning Commission approval) or they allowed additional residential building height (up to 75-feet in the R-MU zone). More notable was that a change to a district other than CG would also perpetuate the issues associated with the current split-zoning of the property. Split-zoning makes future development of the property cumbersome through the imposition of different standards and requirements on different portions of the property. For these reasons and the issues identified in the Key Issues and Analysis of Standards sections of this report, a change to an alternate zoning district in lieu of the original request is not being recommended by staff. ⚫ Page 5 DISCUSSION: The applicant has proposed to rezone a portion of their main property and an adjacent parcel from RMF-35 to GC in order to allow an expansion to their office space on the site. While the applicant has expressed a desire to expand the existing business and office, consideration must be given toward a future scenario where the entire property could be redeveloped under the CG zoning designation if the property were to be sold. The GC zoning district allows a mix of land uses including retail sales and services, entertainment, offices, heavy commercial and low intensity manufacturing and warehouse uses. It is generally located along major arterials. Some of the uses allowed in the CG zoning district may be potentially impactful to surrounding properties due to their nature and the more intense scale of activities that take place through regular operational noise, odors from operations, increased traffic for deliveries and shipping of goods, and impacts from customer traffic. However, the overall area is not low density residential in nature, and the residential component exists within a larger commercial and industrial area of the city. This area includes a number of heavy commercial/industrial uses. The property immediately to the south of this site is used for the office and some operations of Okland Construction. Their own use includes material and equipment storage that is more intense than the envisioned office uses on the subject area of the property. The Okland site was rezoned in 2017 from a split zoning of RMF-35 to CG that was very similar to the conditions on the subject property. Upon rezoning, Okland constructed a new office closer to South West Temple on the rezoned portion of their property. The Intermountain Wood property has essentially the same limitations as was present on the adjacent property and the owners have expressed a desire to rezone for similar reasons and construct new office closer to South West Temple in order to meet company needs. Given the nature of the site and that the majority of the property already allows more impactful uses in the CG zone to take place, changing the front of the property and additional parcel to uniformly zone it and allow for the office expansion will do little to change the overall character of the site and will not substantially increase current or potential impacts. NEXT STEPS: The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration as part of the final decision on these petitions. If ultimately approved, the applicant may proceed with the submission of plans for the project. If ultimately denied, the applicant would still be eligible to develop the properties in accordance with the respective zoning regulations for each existing zoning. ⚫ Page 6 ATTACHMENT A: Zoning Map and Future Land Use Map ⚫ Page 7 ⚫ Page 8 ATTACHMENT B: Applicant Information The narrative and other exhibits found on the following pages were submitted by the applicant in relation to the requested zoning map and master plan changes. ⚫ Page 9 ATTACHMENT C: Existing Conditions & Site Photographs This proposal involves two parcels, the larger one which is approximately 3.93 acres in size and a smaller adjacent parcel of approximately 0.311 acres. The larger parcel is currently split-zoned between GC and RMF-35 zoning while the smaller parcel is entirely zoned RMF-35. On the larger parcel, approximately 92% of the parcel is already zoned CG while the remaining 8% is zoned RMF-35. Adjacent land uses and zoning include: North: Single-family residential development on MacArthur Avenue – zoned R-1/5000 (Single- family Residential). South: Zoned CG (General Commercial). This property has been developed for commercial purposes and houses the offices and some operations of Okland Construction. East: On the east side of South West Temple properties are zoned R-1/5000 (Single-family Residential) and have been developed as single-family homes. To the immediate east of the subject property on the same side of South West Temple is a single parcel zoned RMF-35 that has been developed for multi-family housing. West: To the west of the subject property, properties are zoned CG (General Commercial) and have been developed for a variety of commercial and industrial uses. The overall development pattern of the area is not strictly a residential neighborhood, but is a mix of commercial, industrial and residential uses based on the existing development and uses. While there is some residential development, it exists within a larger area that is generally not predominantly residential in nature. This is illustrated on the Zoning Map and Future Land Use Map in Attachment A of this report. View looking east toward SW Temple from subject property ⚫ Page 10 View from SW Temple looking west toward subject properties – offices of Okland Construction on neighboring property to south in view. View of SW Temple looking south along property frontage ⚫ Page 11 Existing development and current office on the CG zoned portion of the property at 1948 South West Temple View toward SW Temple along existing driveway with small neighboring multi-family development abutting ⚫ Page 12 ATTACHMENT D: MASTER PLANS & ZONING PLAN SALT LAKE ELEMENTS & CONSIDERATIONS Plan Salt Lake (December 2015) outlines an overall vision of sustainable growth and development in the city. This includes the development of a diverse mix of uses which is essential to accommodate responsible growth. At the same time, compatibility, that is how new development fits into the scale and character of existing neighborhoods is an important consideration. New development should be sensitive to the context of surrounding development while also providing opportunities for new growth. Guiding Principles specifically outlined in Plan Salt Lake include the following: • Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around. • A beautiful city that is people focused. • A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and foster an environment for commerce, local business, and industry to thrive. The proposed zoning map amendment and overall project will help to implement the vision contained in Plan Salt Lake and are supported by the policies and strategies in that document cited above. CENTRAL COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS The subject area is discussed in the Central Community Master Plan (CCMP - 2005). More specifically, it is located with the People’s Freeway Neighborhood Planning Area, a district characterized by a mixture of low- density residential, and major manufacturing and commercial uses. The location of I-15 and railway lines through the area supports many commercial and industrial uses. The future land use map in the CCMP shows the subject area of the parcel as being medium density residential which allows for 15-30 dwelling units per acre. This corresponds to the current RMF-35 zoning. The map also shows the west part of the property as medium residential/mixed use which would allow for 10-50 dwelling units per acre. This corresponds to the majority of the property which is currently zoned CG. The CCMP includes this vision statement related to vital and sustainable commerce: Limiting planning and zoning restrictions on businesses to those instances that provide clear and substantial benefits to residents to sustain a business-friendly environment. The residential land use policies in the CCMP include RLU 1.5 which speaks to using residential mixed use zones to support commercial and small-scale office uses while monitoring the mix of uses to preserve the residential component. The Commercial Land Use policies in the CCMP (CLU-4.0 – Ensure commercial land uses are compatible with neighboring properties) include items relating to ensuring that commercial land development does not disrupt existing low-density residential neighborhoods and to the preservation of viable residential structures that contribute to the fabric and character of the neighborhood. In this case, the overall area is not low-density residential in character but rather part of a larger overall commercial and industrial area. The master plan recognizes the mix of manufacturing and commercial uses that predominate in the area while also including some low-density residential uses. This pattern is expected to continue. The project is in alignment with the predicted future land uses in the area as reflected in the master plan. ⚫ Page 13 ZONING COMPARISON SUMMARY Existing Zoning – RMF-35 – Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential 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, including 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 of less than thirty (30) dwelling units per acre. This district includes 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 neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. The RMF-35 zoning district allows for multi-family, single-family and twin-home development but prohibits retail and office uses as defined in Chapter 21A.33.020. RMF-35 Development Standards (21A.24.130) MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT LOT COVERAGE FRONT YARD REAR YARD SIDE YARD LANDSCAPE YARDS 35-feet 45-60% depending on land use 20-feet 25% of lot depth or 20 feet and need not exceed 25-feet Corner side: 10 feet Interior: 4 feet to 10 feet depending on use. Front and corner required. On multifamily, one interior side yard required. Proposed Zoning – CG – General Commercial Zoning District Purpose Statement: The purpose of the CG General Commercial District is to provide an environment for a variety of commercial uses, some of which involve the outdoor display/storage of merchandise or materials. This district provides economic development opportunities through a mix of land uses, including retail sales and services, entertainment, office, residential, heavy commercial and low intensities of manufacturing and warehouse uses. This district is appropriate in locations where supported by applicable master plans and along major arterials. Safe, convenient and inviting connections that provide access to businesses from public sidewalks, bike paths and streets are necessary. Access should follow a hierarchy that places the pedestrian first, bicycle second and automobile third. The standards are intended to create a safe and aesthetically pleasing commercial environment for all users. The CG zoning district allows for a wide variety of commercial uses including warehouses, outdoor storage, food production and larger scale retail operations among other uses as defined in Chapter 21A.33.030. ⚫ Page 14 CG Development Standards (21A.24.070) MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT LOT COVERAGE FRONT YARD REAR YARD SIDE YARD LANDSCAPE YARDS 60 feet. Allowed to go up to 30 feet higher (to 90 feet) through Design Review process. No maximum specified. 10-feet 10-feet Corner side: 10 feet Interior: None Landscape yard of 10-feet required on front and corner side yards. Additional landscaping required if height is going above 60-feet. Where a lot in CG abuts a lot in the residential district, a landscape buffer of 15-feet is required. ⚫ Page 15 ATTACHMENT E: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS State Law, Utah Code Annotated, Title 10 Chapter 9a, requires that all municipalities have a master plan. However, there is no specific criteria relating to master plan amendments. The City does not have specific criteria relating to master plan amendments. However, City Code Section 21A.02.040 – Effect of Adopted Master Plans or General Plans addresses this issue in the following way: All master plans or general plans adopted by the planning commission and city council for the city, or for an area of the city, shall serve as an advisory guide for land use decisions. Amendments to the text of this title or zoning map should be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the applicable adopted master plan or general plan of Salt Lake City. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(1- 4), 1995) In this case, the master plan is being amended in order to provide consistency between the Central Community Master Plan and the zoning designation of the subject property. This request facilitates a rezoning of the property to a district that will allow the office expansion on the subject property. State Law does include a required process in relation to a public hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission in relation to a master plan amendment. The required process and noticing requirements have been met. ⚫ Page 16 ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS 21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the following: Factor Finding Rationale 1. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; Complies with Master Plan policy statements and other documents and policies adopted by the City. The Central Community Master Plan (CCMP) speaks to limiting planning and zoning restrictions on businesses to those instances that provide clear and substantial benefits to residents to sustain a business- friendly environment. Consideration must be given in regard to the appropriateness of the CG zoning district and the potential impacts it may have for this area if the CG zoning were to be expanded. Staff believes that based on the existing land uses and the adopted master plan, that rezoning the front of the parcel to CG as requested is appropriate for the following reasons: • The property is located within a larger commercial and industrial of the city that accommodates a number of heavy commercial and industrial uses. The area is not solely residential in nature. • The majority of the property is already zoned CG. The split- zoning on the property makes future development cumbersome through the imposition of different standards and requirements on different portions of the property. • Since the majority of the property allows for CG uses, changing the front of the property to uniformly zone it and allow for the office expansion will do little to change the overall character of the site and will not substantially increase current or potential impacts. A change to the CG zoning district is supported by the proposed amendments to the master plan. 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. This has been considered and the proposal furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. The proposed zone change from RMF-35 to CG would support the specific purposes of the zoning ordinance. The change would help protect the tax base (E.) while helping to support the city’s business development (G.) The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the adopted plans of the city, and, in addition: A. Lessen congestion in the streets or roads; B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers; C. Provide adequate light and air; D. Classify land uses and distribute land development and utilization; E. Protect the tax base; F. Secure economy in governmental expenditures; G. Foster the city's industrial, business and residential development; and H. Protect the environment. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(1-3), 1995) ⚫ Page 17 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties; The map amendment will facilitate additional development in the area, specifically expansion of the existing office building. While this may create additional impacts on neighboring properties, those impacts will be reviewed in relation to any specific future development proposal. The proposed GC zoning district would allow a mix of land uses including heavy commercial and low intensity manufacturing and warehouse uses along with residential uses. Some of the uses allowed in the CG zoning district may be potentially impactful to surrounding uses due to their nature and the more intense scale of activities that take place through regular operational noise, odors from operations, increased traffic for deliveries and shipping of goods, and impacts from customer traffic. It should be noted that the area is not low density residential in nature and that the use has already existed on the majority of the property for a long time and that the community and neighboring property owners have expressed support for the proposal to rezone the property and allow an expansion of the existing office building. 4. 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 property is not located within an overlay zoning district that imposes additional standards. 5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. The city has the ability to provide services to the subject property. The infrastructure may need to be upgraded at the owner’s expense in order to meet specific City requirements. The proposed development of the subject properties was reviewed by the various city departments tasked with administering public facilities and services, and the Public Utilities Department identified some issues that are outlined in Attachment G: Department Comments that relate to the water, sewer and storm water connections and infrastructure on the site. If the rezone is approved, the proposal will need to comply with the applicable requirements. Public Utilities and other departments will also be asked to review any specific development proposals submitted at that time. ⚫ Page 18 ATTACHMENT F: 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: • Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chair of the Ball Park Community Council on April 14, 2021. • Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners located within 300 feet of the project site on April 14, 2021 providing notice about the project and information on how to give public input on the project. • Staff hosted an online Open House to solicit public comments on the proposal. The Online Open House period started on April 14, 2021 and ended on June 1, 2021. • Staff and the applicant attended an online meeting of the Ball Park on May 6, 2021. • The 45-day recognized organization comment period expired on June 1, 2021. Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included: • Public hearing notice mailed on: July 29, 2021 • Public hearing notice sign posted on property: July 29, 2021 • Public notice posted on City & State websites and Planning Division list serve: July 29, 2021 Public Input: As of the date of this staff report, the following comments were submitted in regard to the proposed changes. • Steven Miles – via email 04/30/2021: I live near Intermountain Wood. I am worried about more noise at night from them if they are expanded. • George Chapman – via email 5/11/2021: I am against the proposal since there is no guarantee that the rezone will not negatively impact the single family homes on the street. The potential negative impacts are increased traffic going into or parking on the street and there is a proposal to remove parking on West Temple for the cycle track in 2024. In addition, the rezone would allow monster class heights and without a limit of 40 feet, the rezone is inappropriate for the adjacent single family home areas. Adjacent properties should not have a large increase in zoning or height. That is why there is supposed to be a gradual rise in height from single family areas. The nearby Okland building works since the parking lot is more convenient than parking on the street and the building and entrance is set up so that neighbors are not impacted. I believe that the neighbors, if and when they understand the potential negative impact of this proposal, will be against it without a significant guarantee that the building height and design will not impact the street and neighbors. • Jana Kelsch – phone call approximately 07-13-2021 Had questions about the process and what was being planned as well as the general impact of changes. ⚫ Page 19 At the Ball Park CC meeting of May 6, 2021, several attendees expressed concern about the potential maximum height of any new development on the property and suggested that City Council consider a maximum height limit if the zoning were to be changed. Councilman Darin Mano was in attendance at the Ball Park CC meeting and suggested that such a height limit could be accommodated through a development agreement. A development agreement is a City Council matter and decision and not under the purview of the Planning Commission. It is mentioned here for the purposes of documenting the public input and comments made at the Ball Park CC meeting of May 6, 2021. ⚫ Page 20 ATTACHMENT G: Department Comments CITY DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Engineering: No objections. Sustainability No objections from Sustainability. Transportation No comments provided. Fire No comments provided. Public Utilities No concerns. Further review at the Building Permit and upgrades may be needed depending on the type of construction.