Loading...
Entity Staff Report - 11/15/2021CITY 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:November 16, 2021 RE: Bueno Avenue Apartments Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 129 South 700 East PLNPCM2021-00047 & PLNPCM2021-00048 The Council will be briefed about an ordinance that would amend zoning of the properties at 724, 728, 732, 738, 744, 750 and 754 East Bueno Avenue from SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential District) to RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District). The applicant is also proposing to consolidate these and parcels at 129 South 700 East, and 758 East Bueno Avenue already zoned RMF-45 into one parcel. Additionally, the proposal would amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map for the properties from Medium-Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential. The property is on the block interior bordered by 100 and 200 South and between 700 and 800 East as shown in the image below. The applicant proposes constructing a 4-story apartment building with 65 1–4- bedroom apartments (192 bedrooms total). Each bedroom would be leased individually and have a private bathroom. Kitchen and living room spaces in each apartment would be shared among residents within the unit. 72 on-site parking spaces are included in the proposal. A single-story amenity and leasing building fronting on 700 East is also proposed as part of the development. According to the applicant’s proposal, “This development provides attainably priced housing with a bedroom rental to be at or near the 60% AMI Rent restriction level. This is achieved without the requirement of city, state, or federal funding, or any other type of public incentive.” Under the proposed development a six-unit multi-family building and seven single-family homes on the private, unpaved road would be removed. The homes are reportedly in poor condition as shown in the Housing Condition Report found on pages 141-183 of the Planning Commission staff report. The applicant states it is economically unfeasible to rehabilitate the homes. Item Schedule: Briefing: November 16, 2021 Set Date: November 16, 2021 Public Hearing: December 7, 2021 Potential Action: December 14, 2021 Page | 2 It should be noted the applicant stated in their application the homes will be removed regardless of the outcome of the master plan and zoning map amendments. If the proposed amendments are not approved, the applicant’s expressed plans are to construct luxury for sale townhomes on the site which would be allowed “by right” under current zoning. These proposed master plan and zoning map amendments were reviewed at the June 23, 2021 Planning Commission meeting and a public hearing was held. Several people spoke or had their comments read during the hearing. Most expressed opposition to the proposal. The Planning Commission voted to table planned development and conditional use applications associated with this proposal and may review them at a future date depending on the City Council’s decision on the master plan and zoning map amendments. The Council’s role is to determine if the proposed master plan amendment and rezone are appropriate for the interior block parcels. On June 23 the Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the Council on the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments. However, that vote was recalled at the July 14 Planning Commission meeting when it was discovered a housing mitigation loss report was not presented to the Planning Commission. Acco0rding to the Housing Mitigation ordinance, “any petition for a zoning change that would permit a nonresidential use of land, that includes within its boundaries residential dwelling units, may not be approved until a housing mitigation plan is approved by the city.” (18.97.020.A) Because existing use of the property is residential and the proposed RMF-45 zoning district would allow nonresidential land uses, the proposed amendment is subject to the housing loss mitigation process. The report found the petition amending zoning for the subject parcels from SR-3 to RMF-45 would replace lost housing stock. It further found replacement costs exceed market value of the existing homes, so no mitigation fee is required. The Community and Neighborhoods Director signed the report associated with this proposal. This proposal was reviewed again at the September 8, 2021 Planning Commission meeting and a housing mitigation report was presented. A second public hearing on the proposal was held and more than 20 people spoke or provided written comments with the majority expressing opposition. Planning staff recommended the Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. The Commission voted 3-2 to forward a negative recommendation on the master plan and zoning map amendments. Commissioners who voted to forward a negative recommendation stated the proposed rezone was not compatible with the master plan and neighborhood context. A desire for lower density development in the area was also expressed. Commissioners who voted in support of forwarding a positive recommendation to the City Council did not comment. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to discuss how impacts such as additional residents and traffic in this area would be managed. 2. The Council may wish to ask what the minimum lease period is. Will it be less than six months? 3. Does each bedroom accommodate only one individual? a. If so, how will this be monitored and enforced? Page | 3 b. Is that permitted under the Fair Housing Act? 4. The Council may wish to discuss how and if this project helps address housing demands and needs of the city and neighborhood 5. This type of project is raising concerns about the loss of naturally occurring affordable housing in favor of newer, market rate units. a. The Council may wish to ask the administration for a status report on updates to the housing loss mitigation plan. 6. The dense nature of this project raised questions about traffic flow in and out of the property as there is only one entrance/exit. Was this addressed by the Administration? 7. Did the Administration discuss potential parking issues with the proposed development given the lack of on-street parking in the area? Are the 72 on-site parking spaces adequate to serve 192 residents of the development plus visitors? Proposed Bueno Avenue Apartments Site Plan Page | 4 Vicinity zoning map with subject project area outlined in yellow. Parcels proposed to be rezoned from SR-3 to RMF-45 outlined in red. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Planning staff identified three key issues with this proposal. They are summarized below. Please see pages 11-13 for full details. Issue 1-Zoning and Master Plan Amendment There are separate planned development and conditional use applications associated with this proposal. They are dependent on the zoning and master plan amendments being approved and will be considered by the Planning Commission later if the zoning and master plan amendments are approved. As stated above, if the zoning and master plan amendments are not approved development on the site under existing zoning designations could result in development of luxury townhomes and a loss of affordable housing stock. Issue 2-Housing Mitigation As noted above, a housing loss mitigation report was reviewed by the Administration and the Community and Neighborhoods Director approved the report. No housing loss mitigation fee is required. Issue 3-Rooming House/Co-Living - Innovative Housing Development An objective of the Growing SLC Housing Plan is to “lead in the construction of innovative housing solutions.” Rooming houses/co-living buildings are new to Salt Lake City, but, according to Planning staff, is popular in many metro areas. (The Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance uses the term “rooming (boarding) house.” Co-living is an updated term and used by the applicant.) Page | 5 Development of co-living communities is largely in response to rising housing costs and need for more affordable housing options. Co-living is often targeted toward 25- to 35-year-olds who are entering the workforce and priced out of the market but is not limited to this age range. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The table below compares building height and yard requirements for the SR-3 zoning designation with RMF-45 zoning. SR-3 RMF-45 Maximum Building Height The maximum height of buildings with pitched roofs shall be: a. Twenty-eight feet (28') measured to the ridge of the roof; or b. The average height of other principal buildings on the block face. 2. The maximum height of a flat roof building shall be twenty feet (20'). The maximum building height permitted in this district is forty five feet (45'). General Yard Requirements Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. Where there are no existing buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be ten feet (10'). Where the minimum front yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. 2. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet (10'). For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required corner side yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. 3. Interior Side Yard: a. Single-family detached dwellings: Four feet (4'). b. Single-family attached and twin home dwellings: When abutting a single-family dwelling, a four foot (4') yard is required, otherwise no interior yard is required. Where a yard is provided, it shall be not less than four feet (4'). Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard: Twenty percent (20%) of lot depth, but need not exceed twenty five feet (25'). For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the existing yard. 2. Corner Side Yard: a. Single-family attached dwellings: Ten feet (10'). b. Multi-family dwellings: Twenty feet (20'). c. All other permitted and conditional uses: Twenty feet (20'). 3. Interior Side Yard: a. Single-family attached dwelling: No yard is required, however if one is provided it shall not be less than four feet (4'). b. Multi-family dwellings: The minimum yard shall be eight feet (8'); provided, that no principal building is erected within ten feet (10') of a building on an adjacent lot. c. All other permitted and conditional uses: Ten feet (10') on each side. 4. Rear Yard: The rear yard shall be twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but need not exceed thirty feet (30'). Page | 6 4. Rear Yard: Twenty percent (20%) of the lot depth but not less than fifteen feet (15') and need not exceed thirty feet (30'). MASTER PLAN CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified master plan considerations applicable to the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments which are summarized below. Please see pages 91-92 of the staff report for additional information. Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan 2018-2022 A goal to increase housing options is included in Growing SLC. The following objectives are listed: Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city. Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development. Objective 3: Lead in the construction of innovative housing solutions. Plan Salt Lake (2015) Plan Salt Lake, the citywide master plan includes policies related to providing additional housing options. Policies related to the proposed project include growth, housing, and air quality. Planning staff identified several objectives of these policies that align with the proposal such as: Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. Increase diversity of housing types for all income levels throughout the city. Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate. Promote high density residential in areas served by transit. Minimize impact of car emissions. Central Community Master Plan (2005) The subject properties are in the Bryant neighborhood and within the Central Community Master Plan area. The associated Future Land Use Map designates the SR-3 zoned parcels as “medium-density residential” and the RMF-45 parcels as “medium-high density residential.” Planning staff stated the medium-density residential designation is due to the block’s interior and existing lower density housing. Planning staff listed several residential land use goals and policies along with residential new construction policies in the Master Plan including: Reduce excessive density potential, stabilize the neighborhood, and conserve the neighborhood’s residential character. Ensure new multi-family development is carefully sited, well designed, and compatible in scale. Provide more affordable housing (owner occupied and rental). Based on the Future Land Use map use residential zoning to establish and maintain a variety of housing opportunities that meet social needs and income levels of a diverse population. Promote construction of a variety of housing options that are compatible with the character of the neighborhoods of the Central Community. Planning staff stated “Further development on this site under the current zoning and master plan designation could result in the removal of affordable housing stock, to be replaced by very high-priced housing. This would be counterproductive to the growing need of increasing attainably priced housing stock in the area. Page | 7 The requested master plan amendment would promote the redevelopment of this site and would help meet City growth and housing goals.” ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment I (pages 95-97) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Planning staff found the proposed amendment complies with all applicable standards, provided the Master Plan future land use map is amended. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for full details. PUBLIC PROCESS • March 1, 2021-Notice of the project and request for comments sent to East Central Community Council and Central City Neighborhood Council chairs. The East Central Community Council Chair submitted a letter to Planning staff expressing opposition to the proposal. • March 26, 2021-Early notification sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project area. • April 5, 2021-Project included in Planning Division online open house. • June 23, 2021-Planning Commission public hearing. The Commission tabled associated planned development and conditional use items until a City Council vote on the Master Plan and zoning map amendments. The Commission voted 4-3 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. • July 14, 2021-Planning Commission recalled vote from June 23, 2o21 meeting because a housing mitigation report was not considered prior to making recommendation to the City Council. • September 8, 2021-Planning Commission was presented a housing mitigation report. A second public hearing was held, and the Commission voted 3-2 to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the proposed Master Plan and zoning map amendments.