Loading...
Council Provided Information - 8/16/2022CITY 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:August 16, 2022 RE: 2435 South 500 East Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments PLNPCM2021-01041/01042 PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE Two people spoke at the August 9, 2022 public hearing; one supportive of the proposal, and one opposed. The person in support of the proposal represented the Sugar House Community Council and expressed some continued concern with the development’s proximity to the freeway but noted positive changes to the conceptual design. She suggested other changes that could help reduce impact from the freeway. Neighbors expressed concern to her about potential for mature trees to be lost as part of a development. The commenter stated most of the large trees are on adjacent church property and likely would not be affected by the proposed development. The person who spoke against the proposed rezone and master plan amendment is opposed to increased density in this area of primarily single-family homes. He stated there will be increased pressure on water and sewer systems. He also expressed concern about additional people using the area’s narrow sidewalks. He believes the proposed development should be mixed income. The Council closed the public hearing and deferred action to a future meeting. The following information was provided for the August 9, 2022 Council public hearing. It is provided again for background purposes. At the July 19, 2022 briefing, Council Members’ questions were primarily focused on the potential development’s configuration and whether additional units could be constructed. Planning staff explained Item Schedule: Briefing: July 19, 2022 Set Date: July 19, 2022 Public Hearing: August 9, 2022 Potential Action: August 16, 2022 Page | 2 more units could be added to the site depending on the building type. The petitioner’s stated intent is to build townhomes. The lot size would accommodate up to 14 units. The petitioner addressed the Council saying he is anticipating for-sale units. A private, but publicly accessible road is planned for the north side of the property to help mitigate impact from the adjacent freeway. It should be noted a formal site plan has not been submitted to the City. If the zoning map and master plan amendments are approved by the Council configuration of the potential development could change. The following information was provided for the July 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 2435 South 500 East in City Council District Seven from R-1/7,000 (residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi- Family Residential). Additionally, the proposal would amend the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map for the approximately 0.98-acre property from Low-Density Residential (5-10 dwelling units/acre) to Medium-Density Residential (8-20 dwelling units/acre). The applicant stated these amendment requests are to allow future development of for sale townhomes on the subject property which is located just south of Interstate-80 at 500 East as shown in the zoning map below. A vacant, boarded single-family home is on the property and would be demolished under the concept plan. These proposed amendments were reviewed by the Planning Commission at its January 26, 2022 meeting and a public hearing was held. Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission voted 7-1 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for both requests. The Commissioner who voted against forwarding a positive recommendation did not indicate why she was opposed. 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 QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask the petitioner about a range of prices the proposed units are anticipated to sell for. 2. Given the subject property’s proximity to Interstate-80, the Sugar House Community Council raised the issue of freeway noise and pollution and whether there are any steps that could be taken to mitigate those impacts. The Council may wish to ask about this if that is of interest. Page | 3 Area zoning map with subject parcel outlined in blue ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and amend the future land use map. 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. KEY CONSIDERATION Planning staff identified one key consideration related to the proposal which is found on pages 2-3, and in Attachment D (pages 26-27) of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1-Existing City Plan Guidance Planning staff reviewed the proposal for compliance with the Sugar House Master Plan, Growing Salt Lake, and Plan Salt Lake. They found the proposed zoning and master plan amendments of the subject parcel generally meet the criteria and initiatives in these plans and considerations in the zoning ordinance. DEVELOPMENT COMPARISON The following table found in Attachment C (page 25 of the Planning Commission staff report) compares development standards of the RMF-35 and CG zoning designations. Page | 4 R-1/7,000 (Existing)RMF-35 (Proposed) Building Height 28 feet for pitched roofs or 20 feet for flat roofs 35 feet Front Setback Equal to the average setback on block face or 20 feet 20 feet Corner Side Yard Setback Equal to the average setback on block face or 20 feet 10 feet Interior Side Yard Setback, corner lot 6 feet 4 feet Interior Side Yard Setback, interior lot 6 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other side None required, but if provided not less than 4 feet Rear Setback 25 feet 25% of lot depth, not less than 20 feet but not more than 25 feet Maximum Building Coverage 40%60% Maximum Lot Size 10,500 square feet None listed The following uses are not allowed in the R-1/7,000 zoning district but are permitted or conditional uses within the proposed RMF-35 zoning district. This is included in Attachment C of the Planning Commission staff report. The tables are also included here for convenience. New Permitted New Conditional Dwelling, Assisted living facility (small)Community recreation center Dwelling, multi-family Dwelling, assisted living facility (large) Dwelling, single-family (attached)Dwelling, congregate care facility (large) Dwelling, twin home and two-family Dwelling, group home (large) Dwelling, residential support (small) Change from Permitted to Not Allowed Change from Conditional to Not Allowed None None Changing from Permitted to Conditional Changing from Conditional to Permitted None Community garden Dwelling, accessory unit Dwelling, assisted living facility (limited capacity) Dwelling, congregate care facility (small) Page | 5 ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment E (pages 28-29) 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. 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 Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies 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. Not applicable (not within any zoning overlays) 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 PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • October 6, 2021-Applications submitted. • October 25, 2021-Petition assigned to Caitlyn Tubbs, Principal Planner. • November 8, 2021-Notice sent to Sugar House Community Council and surrounding neighbors and property owners. • December 13, 2021-Applicant and Planning staff met with Sugar House Community Council. The community council sent a letter of support to the Planning Commission, while also expressing concerns about emissions from the freeway. The letter recommends design and filtration options be used to help mitigate freeway impacts. • January 13, 2022-Sign posted on subject property. Public hearing notice sent and posted to City website. • January 26, 2022-Planning Commission public hearing. Two people spoke at the hearing, one supportive of and one opposed to the proposal. The person expressing support also had concerns with the proposed townhomes’ proximity the freeway. She hopes measures will be taken to minimize effects of emissions from the freeway. The person opposed to the proposal felt keeping the property low density would be best for the neighborhood. She also stated losing mature trees on the property would be detrimental. The Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for both the zoning map and master plan amendments. • January 28, 2022-Draft ordinance information sent to Attorney’s Office. • March 16, 2022-Signed ordinance received by Planning Division from the Attorney’s Office. • March 29, 2022-Transmittal received in City Council Office.