Loading...
Council Provided Information - 5/17/2022CITY 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:May 17, 2022 RE: Intermountain Wood West Temple Rezone and Master Plan Amendment (1948/1950 South West Temple) PLNPCM2021-00291/00292 PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE One person spoke at the May 3, 2022 public hearing and expressed opposition to the proposal citing concerns about potential increased traffic and noise resulting from the zoning change. The Council closed the hearing and deferred action to a future date. Staff was directed to work with the petitioner and City Attorney’s Office to prepare an agreement limiting building height on the property to 35 feet. The petitioner is supportive of the height limit. The following information was provided for the April 19, 2022 Council briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. BRIEFING UPDATE At the April 19, 2022 briefing, a Council Member confirmed with the applicant they are amenable to entering a development agreement with the City to limit building height to 35 feet. Another Council Member requested the Council continue to consider projects in RDA areas align with goals and policies of the areas. (The subject parcels are within the State Street RDA Project area.) In response to a Council Member’s question about setback requirements in the CG zoning district, Planning staff stated a 15 foot landscape buffer is required where CG properties abut residential zones. The subject property line that abuts a residential area is already developed, so this requirement would only apply if the property were redeveloped at some point. (A table of RMF-35 and CG development standards is included in this report.) Item Schedule: Briefing: April 19, 2022 Set Date: April 19, 2022 Public Hearing: May 3, 2022 Potential Action: May 17, 2022 Page | 2 The applicant spoke saying they believe the new office building will not impact area residents more than current business activities. Planning staff clarified the subject properties are not within the South State Street Overlay. The following information was provided for the April 19, 2022 Council briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. 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. 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.) Page | 3 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. 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 Page | 4 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 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 Page | 5 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: 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. Page | 6 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. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Page | 7 • 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.