Council Provided Information - 12/13/2022COUNCIL STAFF
REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE: December 13, 2022
RE:Master Plan and Text Amendment:
Capitol Park Cottages - 675 North F Street
PLNPC2020-00335/00334
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: Oct 18 & Dec 13, 2022
Set Date: Oct 18, 2022
Public Hearing: Nov 10, 2022
Potential Action: December 13
Public Hearing Summary and New Information
During the public hearing the Council heard comments both in support and opposition to the
proposed rezone. Most of the comments were opposed to the proposed zoning amendments.
Comments generally related to concerns about density, traffic, impacts to neighborhood character,
parking, questions about the safety of proposed retaining walls, especially for the existing
development to the north of the property and loss of open space and wildlife habitat.
The applicant and a few other individuals spoke in favor of the changes, citing the need for more
housing in the city.
The Council closed the public hearing and deferred action to a future Council meeting.
Following the public hearing Council Member Wharton asked for a motion to be drafted requiring
future development on the property adhere to the zoning ordinance pertaining to walls (City Code
21A.36.020B). This would effectively require any retaining walls to follow the design standards
identified in the draft motion below.
Page | 2
Staff worked with the Attorney’s Office and Planning staff on the following motion. This is option #4
on the motion sheet the Council will use when considering action on the zoning amendments.
I move that the Council adopt the ordinance amending the zoning of the property at 675 N. F
Street from FR-3-12,000 (Foothills Residential District) to SR-1 (Special Development Pattern
Residential District) subject to the following condition:
1. The ordinance rezoning the property at 675 N. F Street will be published and
become effective only after the property owner records a restrictive covenant
against the entire property which will require that all walls built on the property are
subject to the table in 21A.36.020B.
1. For any terrace of retaining walls, each four-foot vertical retaining wall must
be separated by a minimum of three horizontal feet.
2. The restrictive covenant will be approved by the City prior to recording and will be
enforceable by Salt Lake City Corporation.
The applicant confirmed they support including the following conditions as part of the final ordinance.
The first two were recommended by the Planning Commission, the others are requests of the Council.
This is option #3 on the motion sheet.
1. Accessory buildings shall not be allowed in rear yards located along the west-most property
line of the subject property.
2. Where the west-most property line is a rear or side property line, the second levels of any
homes located along that rear or side property line shall be setback at least 30' from the
corresponding rear or side property line.
3. Specify that the ADUs may not be used as Short-Term Rentals. (Using CCRs or another
method that you determine to be efficient and appropriate)
4. The open space area shown on draft drawings will generally be accessible to the community at
large, with rules/management to be established by the HOA (or other entity based upon the
applicant’s preference.
5. Confirming that the City building approval and permitting process will be followed to build
retaining walls on the property.
The following information was provided for the November 10 Public Hearing. It is
provided again for background purposes.
Work Session Briefing
The Council talked about the impact of increasing the density of the property on the surrounding
neighborhoods. Many of the questions included the following:
•How will the ADUs be incorporated into the project, will any be rented at an affordable rate
•Will the open space shown on the draft plans be open to the public
•Loss of existing open space and mature trees
•The lack of public transit in the area
•Density is needed in all parts of the city to help address the lack of housing supply
•How this proposed rezone fits in with the current development patterns, some expressed
concerns it does not fit in well
Page | 3
•Could the current zoning be sufficient to build more density that is also more compatible with
existing development.
•How will the city ensure the retaining walls in the proposed development, especially the walls
on the north side, be built so they will not collapse
Some Council members expressed interest in working with the developer on a potential development
agreement that could address some of the question raised above.
The applicant addressed the council, providing an overview of their plans. They detailed how they
think including the ADUs will be a benefit and that the proposal can fit in with the current
development in the area.
The public hearing is scheduled for November 10, 2022
The following information was provided for the October 18 work session briefing. It is
provided again for background purposes.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will be briefed on a proposal to amend the Avenues Community Master Plan and rezone
the property located at approximately 675 North F Street. The request includes the following
applications:
1. Master Plan Amendment: The applicant is requesting to amend the master plan designation
for the property in the Avenues Community Master Plan from "Very Low Density" to "Low
Density."
2. Zoning Map Amendment: Rezone the property from the FR-3/12,000 "Foothills Residential
District" to the SR-1 "Special Development Pattern" zoning district.
If the rezone request is approved, the property owner indicated their plans are to construct 19 single-
family homes. At least 14 of the homes would include an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). To complete
this plan, the applicant will also seek approval from the Planning Commission for a planned
Development and preliminary subdivision plat. According to the transmittal letter, these plans are still
pending consideration by the Planning Commission and require some revisions before they can be
considered.
Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission forwarded a favorable recommendation.
Planning Commission Recommended Conditions
As stated in the transmittal letter, Planning staff and the Planning Commission both recommended
two conditions of approval intended to ensure compatibility of any development on the subject
property with the 35' rear yards of the adjacent west properties.
These conditions are:
1. Accessory buildings shall not be allowed in rear yards located along the west-most property
line of the subject property.
Page | 4
2. Where the west-most property line is a rear or side property line, the second levels of any
homes located along that rear or side property line shall be setback at least 30' from the
corresponding rear or side property line.
For context, the FR-3 has a 35' rear yard requirement and does not allow buildings in the rear yard,
whereas the SR-1 zone has a percentage rear yard requirement, which can go as low as 15', and allows
accessory buildings in rear yards.
Policy Questions
•The Council may wish to ask if the applicant is supportive of the conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission and Planning Staff.
•Affordability of units/ADUs
o The Council may wish to ask the applicant if there are plans to require
any of the ADU units be rented at a more affordable rate and at what
percentage of AMI.
•Concerns about the proposed development have been raised about fire code compliance, access
for fire apparatuses, etc. Additionally, concerns have been raised about the potential impact
wildfires in the foothills may have on this development and whether those are factored into the
permit process. Typically, any development will be required to abide by fire codes which
includes minimum requirements for fire vehicle access.
o The Council may wish to ask the Administration to provide an overview
of the permitting process and how it may address these concerns.
•Concerns have been raised about the steepness of lot and the proposed retaining walls and,
how will the city ensure they will be built so they will not fail.
o The Council may wish to ask the administration to provide an overview of
the permitting process and how it may address these concerns.
•The draft plans identify some open space will be included on the south side of the property
o The Council may wish to ask what the plans are for that open space. Is it
meant to be public or private?
•The application has been in process for about two years and has some changes from the
original proposal.
o The Council may wish to ask the applicant how the current proposal has
changed from the start and how they have responded to issues raised by
the community and City staff.
Vicinity Map
Attachment A, Planning Commission Staff Report
Page | 5
Public Process
A narrative of the public process is outlined on pages 2-3 of the Transmittal Letter. The table below
provides the key dates of the petition’s process.
Page | 6
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
(Page 11 transmittal letter)
Council Public Engagement
A project website for the public to follow this issue has been posted on the Council website. It will be
updated as new information becomes available.
Key Considerations
The planning commission staff report noted six key considerations outlined on pages 9-23. Below is a
short summary of those considerations. Please see the Planning staff report for full analysis.
Page | 7
1. Consideration 1: Proposed Zone Potential Effects on Adjacent Properties
•Zoning amendment considerations include how an amendment will affect adjacent
properties
•FR-3/SR-1 zones primarily differ in density (min. lot area), lot width, and rear setbacks
• Rear setbacks and rear accessory structure allowances differ
•SR-1 zone may allow development closer to the FR-3 property, staff recommends
condition imposing 30' rear upper-level setback and rear accessory building
prohibition
•Density brings additional traffic, traffic study shows limited impact
2. Consideration 2: Zoning and Density Context
•SR-1A zone (sister to SR-1) mapped over most of the “lower” Avenues (below 13th Ave),
with identical regulations, excepting height (25' v 28') and accessory structure size
•Nearby SR-1A properties are generally not developed to their maximum allowed
density
•Property is proposed for development (in concept) and would likely develop with the
rezone at a higher density than existing surrounding properties
•The proposed density is found in the Avenues and in many places compatibly co-exists
with lower density properties
3. Consideration 3: Avenues Master Plan and Citywide Housing Policies
•Avenues Master Plan (1987) calls for “very low density” on the Future Land Use map
and supports larger lot sizes in “foothill” areas
•Avenues Master Plan text calls for “low density” development on the property
•Growing SLC (2018), the City’s current housing plan, includes citywide policies to
increase housing options and types of housing throughout the City
•Support in-fill development and modifying zoning regulations when appropriate and
where it can be compatible in scale
•Citywide policies support amendment to Avenues Master Plan and zoning given
broader City goals, changed conditions, the low level of density proposed, and its
compatibility potential
4. Consideration 4: Gentrification and Displacement
•The City is working on plans and policies to address gentrification and displacement
concerns
•Rezones are often requested for properties that consist of existing lower-income
affordable housing and so the zoning change is associated with the potential to displace
people with lower incomes
• This property is unique in being a sizeable vacant property that can accommodate infill
development without displacing any existing residents
5. Consideration 5: Proposed Development Plans
•19 total single-family home lots
•14 homes on the proposed private street will include ADUs
•Homes will include 3 covered parking stalls. 1 for ADU, 2 for single family dwelling
Page | 8
•Min. 20' depth driveways
•Avg. lot size 6,800 sq ft
•5 homes on F Street will be “custom homes” – no specific plans. May include ADUs.
• private park lot (17,432 sq ft/0.4 acre)
•Average Lot Size (Overall): 7,355 sq ft
•Density: 5.9 units per acre (Single-family units only)/10.3 units per acre (single-family
+ ADUs)
6. Consideration 6: Public Comments and Concerns
•This section focused on the concerns raised by the community, including ADUs and
Short Term Rentals, traffic impacts and accidents, affordable housing, air pollution,
adequacy of public utilities, Fire codes pertaining to access and street width, property
values, nesting bird habitat, tree protection and school enrollment/Family supportive
housing.
•Planning staff provides a response to each of these concerns in the staff memo, Pages
19-24.
Intermountain GeoEnvironmental Services, Inc.
12429 South 300 East, Suite 100, Draper, Utah 84020 ~ T: (801) 748-4044 ~ F: (801) 748-4045
Copyright 2022 IGES, Inc. 02058-205 L1.docx
December 8, 2022
Ivory Development
978 Woodoak Lane
Salt Lake City, Utah 84117
Attn: Peter Gamvroulas
IGES Project No: 02058-205
Subject: Memo Regarding Retaining Walls
Capitol Park Subdivision
Salt Lake City, Utah
Reference: IGES, 2020, Geotechnical Investigation, Capitol Park Subdivision, Capitol Park
Ave. and F Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, Project No. 02058-118, dated March 3,
2020.
Mr. Gamvroulas:
IGES has been asked to provide a memo regarding the process of retaining wall design. The
process of completing a retaining wall design starts with site reconnaissance, this includes a
geotechnical investigation, survey of the site, and grading and drainage plan development. The
site reconnaissance will provide us with the soil parameters, location and loading conditions for
the retaining walls. With this information we size either the block or geogrid as needed to
provide the minimum required factors of safety based on the current industry standard of care.
Once the retaining wall design is complete our plans are provided to the contractor that builds
the retaining wall. During construction we will provide site visits to verify that the contractor
is building the retaining wall in accordance with our design package. After construction has
been completed, we use our documentation from the site visits to compile a letter stating that
the retaining wall was built per our design package.
Closure
All recommendations in the original geotechnical report should be followed. We appreciate the
opportunity to provide you with our services. If you have any questions, please contact the
undersigned at your convenience (801) 748-4044.
Respectfully Submitted,
IGES, Inc.
Justin W. Whitmer, P.E.
Project Engineer