Loading...
Council Provided Information - 12/12/2023CITY 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:December 12, 2023 RE: Zoning Map Amendment at 1380 South 900 West, and 1361 and 1376 South 1000 West PLNPCM2023-00172 PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE Two people spoke and one person provided written comments at the December 5, 2023 public hearing. All expressed opposition to the proposed rezone. Concerns included parking and traffic impacts, potential safety issues for students walking to school, and multi-family residential doesn’t fit the neighborhood identity. The written comments were emailed to Council Members. The Council closed the hearing and deferred action to a future meeting. The following information was provided for previous Council meetings. It is included again for background purposes. BRIEFING UPDATE During the November 14, 2023 briefing, a Council Member noted a desire for the homes to be environmentally sound and asked whether the proposed townhomes are anticipated to use both natural gas and electricity, or just electricity. The petitioner stated they intend to use both. The Council confirmed the townhomes are proposed to include four bedrooms and are anticipated to be for sale units. When asked about a projected price point, the petitioner stated it is difficult to anticipate due to the timeframe until completion, but stated they could be in the mid-400s. The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for parcels at 1380 South 900 West, and 1361 South and 1376 South 1000 West in Council District Two from their current R-1/7,000 (single- Item Schedule: Briefing: November 7, 2023 Set Date: November 14, 2023 Public Hearing: December 5, 2023 Potential Action: December 12, 2023 Page | 2 family residential) zoning to RMF-30 (low density multi-family residential). The 1380 South 900 West parcel is owned by the petitioner, and their stated intent for the proposed rezone is to construct for sale 4- bedroom townhomes on that parcel. The other parcels are adjacent to the 1380 South property and are under separate ownership. That owner asked to be included in the zoning map amendment request to enable flexibility for potential development on those parcels. The subject parcels run east/west in the middle of the block bounded by California Avenue, 900 West, 1400 South, and 1000 West as shown in the image below. The 900 West parcel is slightly less than one acre and includes a vacant single-family dwelling that is proposed to be demolished as part of the planned townhome development. (During the Planning Commission briefing the petitioner stated the house was deemed uninhabitable due to a fire in the basement.) The 1000 West parcels total approximately 0.4 acres. Area zoning is exclusively R-1/7,000 on the subject block and that is the dominant zoning west of 900 West shown in the area zoning map below. Riley Elementary School and the Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center are directly across 900 West from the subject property. Existing R-1/7,000 zoning limits development to primarily single-family dwellings. RMF-30 allows various small scale multi-family housing types that include townhomes as proposed by the petitioner. RMF-30 also allows up to 30 feet height as opposed to 28 feet allowed in R-1/7,000 zoning. Smaller lot sizes are allowed in RMF-30 (1,500-2,000 square feet for residential, depending on use), while R-1/7,000 has a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet. Planning staff noted that the Westside Master Plan calls for greater density on this block (even beyond what the RMF-30 zoning district permits), which was a factor in their positive recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed zoning map amendment during its August 23, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which two people who were unable to attend the meeting had their comments read. Both commenters were opposed to the proposed rezone and cited concerns with additional traffic and parking, potential for increased crime, a loss of privacy, and gentrification. The Commission voted 7-0 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. Page | 3 Vicinity map with the subject parcel outlined in red. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division Page | 4 Area zoning map with the subject property outlined in blue. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask the petitioner about an anticipated price point for the homes. 2. It is requested that Planning staff notify the petitioner of any new applicable options for a potential development at this location if the Council adopts the Affordable Housing Incentives ordinance. 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 or desired use, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 4-6 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1 – Master Plan Compatibility. Planning staff found that the proposed zoning map amendment generally aligns with the Westside Master Plan, Plan Salt Lake, and Housing Salt Lake. The proposal adds density near the California Avenue/900 West Community Node, adds infill to an existing neighborhood and corridor, expands housing options, and increases homeownership opportunities. Page | 5 Consideration 2 – Housing Loss Mitigation Because the proposal calls for demolishing an existing home at 1380 West 900 South, and the requested zoning would permit nonresidential use of the land, a housing loss mitigation report is required. Because the estimated cost to replace the existing house is greater than its market value, the mitigation fee would be a negative number. Therefore, a fee is not required. Consideration 3 – Neighborhood Concerns Planning staff received comments from area property owners who expressed concern about the proposed rezone. These concerns were primarily about privacy, parking, and neighborhood character. Privacy Comments related to privacy concerns were about development on the site affecting adjacent residents’ private enjoyment of their yards, noise, and trash from future residents. As noted above, allowed building heights are similar between the current R-1/7,000 (28 feet), and proposed RMF-30 (30 feet). In addition, ten-foot landscape buffers are required along a property line adjacent to single-family districts. Building forms for townhomes are limited to six dwelling units per building. It is Planning staff’s opinion that these will mitigate potential privacy issues associated with new development. Parking and Traffic New development at the subject site would be required to meet relevant parking requirements. Under the proposed RMF-30 zoning, single-family attached dwellings are required to have at least two parking spaces, which is the same as in the current R-1/7,000 zoning district. Planning staff analyzed the intersection of California Avenue and 900 West and anticipates density and traffic will increase in the coming years. Both streets are arterials, and most traffic is from outside the area. Neighborhood Character Neighbors expressed concern about potential impact to the neighborhood’s character if the property is rezoned. They feel that new development will disrupt their neighborhood identity. Planning staff is confident that design standards in RMF-30 will achieve the goal of maintaining neighborhood character while allowing additional housing on an underutilized lot. ZONING COMPARISON The following table comparing building height, setback, and lot requirements for the current R-1/7,000 and proposed RMF-30 zoning districts is found in Attachment D (page16) of the Planning Commission staff report. It is replicated here for convenience. R-1/7,000 (Current)RMF-30 (Proposed) Maximum Building Height Pitched roof: 28 feet Flat roof: 20 feet Varying Heights Single- & two-family: 30 feet. Row Houses: 30 feet. Cottage development: 23 feet (pitched roof) 16 feet (flat roof). Tiny House: 16 feet. Nonresidential & multi-family: 30 feet. Front and Corner Yard Setback 20 feet or average of block face.Front Yard: 20 feet or average of block face. Page | 6 Corner Side Yard: 10 feet. Interior Side Setback Corner lots: 6 feet Interior lots: 6 feet on one side 10 feet on the other Single- & two-family: 4 feet & 10 feet Row Houses: 4 feet. Sideways row house: 6 feet & 10 feet. Cottage development: 4 feet. Tiny House: 4 feet. Nonresidential: 30 feet. Multi-family: 10 feet. Rear Setback 35 feet Cottage development and tiny house: 10 feet. All others: 20% of lot depth, 25 feet max. Minimum Lot Width 50 feet None Maximum Lot Width Limited by maximum lot size.110 feet, including combination of multiple lots. Minimum Lot Size 7,000 square feet Cottage development and tiny house:1,500 square feet per unit. Non-residential: 5,000 square feet per building. All other uses: 2,000 square feet per unit. Open Space, Landscape Yards, and Landscape Buffers Front and corner side yards must include landscape yard according to 21A.48. 10-foot landscape buffer if abutting single- or two-family zoning district. Front and corner side yards must include landscape yard according to 21A.48. Analysis of Factors Attachment F (pages 21-22 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. Generally consistent Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Generally complies The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties Generally 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 Page | 7 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 City Department Review During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed concerns with the proposal, but stated additional review and permits would be required if the property is developed. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • March 3, 2023 - Petition for zoning map amendment received by Planning Division from Trille Property Solutions. • April 4, 2023 - Petition assigned to Planning staff. • April 4-May 1, 2023 – Planning staff worked with petitioner to remedy application deficiencies. • May 3, 2023 – Early notification of the proposal sent to neighbors within 300 feet of the site. • July 28, 2023 – Sale of property and transfer of application from Trille Properties (original petitioner) to TAG SLC LLC (current petitioner) confirmed by Planning staff. • August 10, 2023 – Public hearing notice mailed. Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. • August 11, 2023 – Public hearing notice sign posted on the property. • August 23, 2023 – Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. • September 4, 2023 – Ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office. • September 26, 2023 – Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • October 9, 2023 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.