Loading...
Council Provided Information - 12/5/2023CITY 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 5, 2023 RE: Zoning Map Amendment at 2157 South Lincoln Street PLNPCM2023-00239 PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE Three people spoke at the November 7, 2023 public hearing in support of the proposed zoning map amendment. They all expressed a desire for 10-foot-wide sidewalks adjacent to the potential development. One commenter also suggested a condition that the developer enter into a development agreement with the City to ensure the site’s Victorian home is preserved. 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 October 3, 2023 briefing Council Members expressed general support for the proposal. A desire to maintain park strips and trees along the Lincoln Street and Elm Avenue frontages was expressed rather than extending the sidewalks to the curb. Planning staff stated if a condition to increase sidewalk width is not included in the ordinance or a development agreement, sidewalk widths required under City Code would apply. The petitioner provided aerial renderings showing various sidewalk widths. They are included as Attachment A to this report. Item Schedule: Briefing: October 3, 2023 Set Date: October 17, 2023 Public Hearing: November 7, 2023 Potential Action: November 14, 2023 Page | 2 Appreciation was expressed for the amount of parking spaces provided in the proposal, as there are on- street parking challenges in the area. Parking for electric vehicles and bicycles was also discussed. The petitioner stated they are planning to provide at least the required spaces for both. Council Members discussed preservation of the Victorian home on the site and whether listing the property as a landmark site would be preferable to a development agreement. Planning staff stated that a certificate of appropriateness would be required for external modifications if the property was listed as a landmark site. It was also noted that a development agreement would run with the land and future owners of the property would be subject to development agreement conditions. The petitioner said he will work with the property owners on conditions for a development agreement for the Council to review. Planning staff followed up with the petitioner about this and will share the proposed conditions when they are received. The following information was provided for the September 5, 2023 Council briefing and public hearing. It is included again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for the approximately 0.7-acre parcel at 2157 South Lincoln Street in City Council District Seven from its current RB (Residential/Business District) zoning designation to C-SHBD2 (Sugar House Business District). In addition to the subject parcel, the petitioner owns parcels at 2131 South Lincoln Street and 2134, 2140, 2156, and 2160 South 1000 East which are currently zoned CSHBD2. Under the petitioner’s proposal, a 60- foot tall (maximum CSHBD2 building height) 238-unit market rate apartment complex would be constructed on the six parcels. The proposed unit mix would be 79 studios (33%), 90 1-bedroom (38%), and 69 (29%) 2-bedroom units with 240 onsite parking spaces. A Victorian home currently used as an office building is on the subject property and the petitioner proposes to retain it for use as amenity space for residents of the proposed apartment complex. It should be noted that the home is not in a local historic district and has no protection from demolition. In its recommendation to the City Council the Planning Commission included a condition that the petitioner enter into a development agreement with the City to ensure that the home is preserved. As shown in the map below, area zoning is primarily CSHBD2, with some RMF-35 (Moderate-Density Multi-family Residential) on the subject block and blocks to the east and west. Blocks to the south are a mix of FB-SE (Form-Based Special Purpose Edge) on properties fronting 2100 South, CSHBD2 for properties fronting McClelland Street, and R-1/5,000 (single-family residential) between. The S-Line streetcar and bike and pedestrian greenway is approximately ½ block to the south of the subject parcel and shown in green. Page | 3 Area zoning map with the subject parcel outlined in blue and the project area outlined in red. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed zoning map amendment during its July 26, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which three people, including a representative from the Sugar House Community Council spoke. The commenters were supportive of the proposed zoning map amendment, but expressed concerns about parking, landscaping, and sidewalk width. Commissioners discussed sidewalk width and whether to recommend a condition requiring minimum 10- foot-wide sidewalks as called for in the Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan. It is worth noting some Commissioners felt the additional width was beneficial for the area, while others expressed concerns with loss of park strips and trees. The Commission voted 5-2 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. As part of its recommendation, the Commission included the above-mentioned condition to preserve the Victorian home, and a second condition to extend the width of sidewalks abutting the subject parcels to include the park strip area. Paul said sidewalk width should be specified if the Council wants to include that. Page | 4 Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask the applicant if they would be amenable to including affordable units in the proposed development. If yes, is the Council interested in asking the applicant if they would be willing to enter into a development agreement pertaining to affordable housing units? 2. The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the recently transmitted Affordable Housing Incentives proposal may impact this petition or development potential on the property if the petitioner will consider affordable units. 3. If supportive of the zoning map amendment, the Council may wish to discuss whether to require a development agreement that preserves the Victorian home. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. A formal site plan has been submitted to the City, but it is not within the scope of the Council’s authority to review the plans. (It is worth noting that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the petitioner’s design review application at the same meeting it voted to forward a positive recommendation to the Council on the zoning map amendment.) 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 CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified four key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 6-8 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1 – Is the C-SHBD appropriate in the proposed location? Planning staff noted the Sugar House Master Plan future land use map designates the subject property as “Business District Mixed-Use Neighborhood Scale.” This is consistent with the future land use map’s designation for all other parcels on the block. It is Planning’s opinion that the requested change from RB to CSHBD2 zoning designation is reasonable and appropriate for the location. Consideration 2 – Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning As shown in the map above, area zoning is predominantly CSHBD2 on the subject block and blocks to the east and west. FB-SE, R-1/5,000, and CSHBD2 are to the south. Nearby land uses are a mix of commercial and residential. Smith’s grocery store is immediately to the west across Lincoln Street, low- and moderate- density residential, and a tire shop are to the north. A small office building, duplexes and high-density housing is to the northeast. Single-family residential is across Elm Avenue to the south. Consideration 3 – City Adopted Master Plans Planning found that the proposal is consistent with the CSHBD zoning district purpose statement which says: “The purpose of the CSHBD Sugar House Business District is to promote a walkable community with a transit oriented, mixed-use town center that can support a 24-hour population. The CSHBD provides residential, commercial and office use opportunities, with incentives for high density residential land uses in a manner compatible with the existing form and function of the Sugar House Master Plan and the Sugar House Business District.” Page | 5 Planning staff further found that the proposal meets various principles and initiatives found in the Sugar House Master Plan (2005), Plan Salt Lake (2015), and the SLC Urban Design Element (1990). Consideration 4 – Preservation of the Victorian Mansion The petitioner proposes preserving the Victorian home on the subject property. As mentioned above, the home is not in a historic district and has no protection from demolition. Planning staff noted the home would provide an anchor for the project, and act as a buffer between the proposed development and single- family residential to the south across Elm Avenue. Planning staff and the Planning Commission recommended including a development agreement to preserve the home if the Council is supportive of the proposed zoning map amendment. The petitioner provided the following concept rendering illustrating how the Victorian home could be incorporated into the proposed development. Image courtesy of petitioner ZONING COMPARISON The following table compares building height and setback requirements for the current RB and proposed CSHBD2 zoning districts. RB (Current)CSHBD2 (Proposed) Maximum Building Height 30 feet 60 feet for residential use. 30 feet for nonresidential use. Front Setback 20% of lot depth, but need not exceed 25 feet. No minimum yard required. Maximum setback is 15 feet. Side Setback Corner side yard: 10 feet.Corner side yard: no minimum yard required. Maximum setback is 15 feet. Page | 6 Interior side yard: 6 feet; provided, that on interior lots one yard must be at least ten feet. Interior side yard: None required. Rear Setback 25% of lot depth, but the yard need not exceed 30 feet. None required. Analysis of Factors Attachment D (pages 67-68) 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 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 • April 14, 2023-Petition for zoning map amendment received by Planning Division. • May 15, 2023-Petition assigned to Lex Traughber, Senior Planner. o Notice mailed to the Sugar House Community Council and Sugar House Chamber of Commerce. • June 7, 2023-Petitioner presented their proposal to the Sugar House Community Council, with Planning staff in attendance. Page | 7 • June 26, 2023-Early notification mailed to property owners and tenants located within 300 feet of the subject property boundaries. • July 12, 2023-Property posted with signs for the July 26, 2023 Planning Commission hearing. • July 13, 2023-Public hearing notice mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property. Planning Commission agenda emailed to Planning listserv. Project posted to City Planning and State websites. • July 26, 2023-Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. • July 31, 2023-Draft ordinance sent to the City Attorney’s Office for review. • August 3, 2023-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • September 8, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office.