Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLNZAD2024-00515 - 680 E 100 SPLNZAD2024-00515 – Park Lane “Retirement Apartments” Interpretation Page 1 of 4 June 18, 2024 ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION DECISION AND FINDINGS PLNZAD2024-00515 REQUEST: This is a request for an administrative interpretation regarding whether an existing use on property within the RMF-45 Moderate/High-Density Multi-Family Residential Zoning District at approximately 680 E 100 S (Parcel IDs 16-05-104-001-0000, 16-05-104-002-0000, 16-05-104- 003-0000, 16-05-104-004-0000, 16-05-104-005-0000, 16-05-104-006-0000, & 16-05-104- 007-0000) would be considered “dwelling, multi-family.” The property was granted a variance in 1986 to minimum parking requirements for the Park Lane Apartments. That variance listed the land use on the site as “retirement apartments” and required the site to comply with “the ordinance requiring 1.75 parking stalls per unit” if the use ever changed. Since then, the property has operated exclusively as senior (55+) housing. The applicant has indicated that they would like to shift the operation of the site from exclusively senior housing to traditional apartments without an age limitation for occupants. They would like to know if the change in residents constitutes a change of use and requires an increase in required on-site parking. DECISION: The Zoning administrator has determined that the existing “retirement apartments” land use, as presented in the submitted request (and established by the 1986 variance), falls within the definition of “dwelling, multi-family” found in section 21A.62 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, opening up apartment units to occupants younger than 55 would not be considered a change in use. Consequently, no additional off-street parking spaces would be required as a result of the applicant’s proposal. Furthermore, the Zoning Administrator has clarified that the condition from the 1986 variance, which required 1.75 spaces per dwelling unit, was intended to reflect the minimum parking requirements at that time. Therefore, a change in the site's use would need to meet the current minimum parking requirements (found in Table 21A.44.040-A or its successor) and not the minimum listed by the approved variance. FINDINGS: The Zoning Ordinance defines “Dwellings, Multi-family” as: DWELLING, MULTI-FAMILY: A building containing three (3) or more dwellings on a single lot. For purposes of determining whether a lot is in multiple-family dwelling use, the following considerations shall apply: A. Multiple-family dwelling uses may involve dwelling units intended to be rented and maintained under central ownership or management, or cooperative apartments, condominiums and the like. B. Any multiple-family dwelling in which dwelling units are available for rental or lease for periods of less than one month shall be considered a hotel/motel. The Zoning Administrator finds that the land use described by the applicant is a “multi-family dwelling” and that the proposed use is permitted within the RMF-45 Moderate/High-Density Residential Zoning District. The description provided by the applicant indicates that the land use consists of dwellings for rent under central management. Further, no medical services of any kind are provided, nor is state licensure required for any other use of the site. Standards for Use Interpretation Any use interpretation is subject to the below standards: A. Any use defined in chapter 21A.62 of this title, shall be interpreted as defined; PLNZAD2024-00515 – Park Lane “Retirement Apartments” Interpretation Page 2 of 4 Finding: The applicant has indicated that the Park Lane Apartments have operated as an “independent living business” (sometimes referred to as a 55+ age-restricted community) since construction in 1986. According to the applicant, the use “is not licensed by the state health department and does not provide healthcare coverage. The property is run similar to a traditional multi-family dwelling, but with add-ons of providing food, activities, and transportation [for] residents.” Within chapter 21A.62 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, listed land uses related to assisted or senior living either require a license from the State of Utah (“dwelling, group home”), provide some sort of medical care (“dwelling, assisted living”), or are temporary in nature (dwelling, congregate care). The use described by the applicant—age-restricted housing that does not provide medical care and does not require state-level licensure— appears to best fit within the definition of “dwelling, multi-family” since it is “a building containing three or more dwellings…intended to be rented and maintained under central ownership…”. B. Any use specifically listed without a "P" or "C" designated in the table of permitted and conditional uses for a district shall not be allowed in that zoning district; Finding: “Dwelling, multi-family” is specifically listed as a permitted (P) land use within the table of permitted and conditional uses in the RMF-45 zoning district (found in Table 21A.33.020). C. No use interpretation shall allow a proposed use in a district unless evidence is presented demonstrating that the proposed use will comply with the development standards established for that particular district; Finding: The proposed land use (dwelling, multi-family) will be required to comply with the development standards of the RMF-45 zoning district and any other condition placed on the site by prior approvals. This includes the 1986 variances granting a reduction in the number of required off-street parking spaces, with one exception. The original approval by the Board of Adjustment (BoA) placed a condition on the property that stipulated a change in use would need to comply with “the ordinance requiring 1.75 parking stalls per unit.” The minimum parking requirement in the ordinance has since changed. The intent of that condition was to require compliance with existing zoning regulations, not to place additional limitations on possible future development of the site. As such, the standard listed in that condition would not apply to future development or a change in use; rather, current minimum parking requirements (found in Table 21A.44.040- A or its successor) would apply. D. No use interpretation shall allow any use in a particular district unless such use is substantially similar to the uses allowed in that district and is more similar to such uses than to uses allowed in a less restrictive district; Finding: As noted above, the use as described is most similar to “dwelling, multi-family,” which is a permitted use in the RMF-45 zoning district. E. If the proposed use is most similar to a conditional use authorized in the district in which it is proposed to be located, any use interpretation allowing such use shall require that it may be approved only as a conditional use pursuant to chapter 21A.54 of this title; and Finding: Not applicable. See finding “B” above. F. No use interpretation shall permit the establishment of any use that would be inconsistent with the statement of purpose of that zoning district. Finding: The stated purpose of the RMF-45 zoning district is as follows: PLNZAD2024-00515 – Park Lane “Retirement Apartments” Interpretation Page 3 of 4 The purpose of the RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District is to provide an environment suitable for multi-family dwellings of a moderate/high density with a maximum building height of forty five feet (45'). This district is appropriate in areas where the applicable Master Plan policies recommend a density of less than forty three (43) dwelling units per acre. This district includes other uses that are typically found in a multi-family residential neighborhood of this density for the purpose of serving the neighborhood. Such uses are designed to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. Multi-family dwellings fit within the purpose (and the name) of the RMF-45 zoning district. The possible detrimental impacts (including traffic, noise, or odors) from the proposed “dwelling, multi-family” land use would not significantly differ from current impacts from the site on adjacent property. Except for the expansion of permitted occupants, the nature of the site would not substantially change with this proposal. If you have any questions regarding this interpretation, please contact Aaron Barlow at (801) 535- 6182 or by email at aaron.barlow@slcgov.com. APPEAL PROCESS: An applicant or any other person or entity adversely affected by a decision administering or interpreting this Title may appeal to the Appeals Hearing Officer. Notice of appeal shall be filed within ten (10) days of the administrative decision. The appeal shall be filed with the Planning Division and shall specify the decision appealed and the reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error. Applications for appeals are located on the Planning Division website at https://www.slc.gov/planning/applications/ along with information about how to apply and processing fees. NOTICE: Please be advised that a determination finding a particular use to be a permitted use or a conditional use shall not authorize the establishment of such use nor the development, construction, reconstruction, alteration, or moving of any building or structure. It shall merely authorize the preparation, filing, and processing of applications for any approvals and permits that may be required by the codes and ordinances of the City including, but not limited to, a zoning certificate, a building permit, and a certificate of occupancy, subdivision approval, and a site plan approval. Aaron Barlow, AICP Principal Planner CC: Nick Norris, Planning Director Michaela Oktay, Deputy Planning Director Mayara Lima, Zoning Administrator Casey Stewart, Development Review Supervisor Esther Hunter, Chair, East Central Community Council Joseph Murphy, Chair, Greater Avenues Community Council Peter Wright, Chair, Preserver Our Avenues Coalition Attachments: Vicinity map of subject property Letter from applicant Notes from Presubmittal Meeting on 4/11/2024 Posted to Web PLNZAD2024-00515 – Park Lane “Retirement Apartments” Interpretation Page 4 of 4 VICINITY MAP Date: 5/3/2024 To: Salt Lake City Planning & Zoning Administration From: Kenny Hrabar Property Address: Park Lane Apartments 680 E 100 S Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Subject: Request for Administrative Interpretation - Parking Variance for Park Lane Apartments (Case No. 119-B) We are writing to request an administrative interpretation regarding a parking variance that is currently in place for Park Lane Apartments, located at 680 E 100 S, Salt Lake City, Utah. This property is currently operated as an unlicensed independent living building (i.e., retirement apartments). The property was granted a parking variance in 1986 that is on record (Case No. 119-B). The variance contains language referencing the approved use as "retirement apartments," which we believe corresponds to "multi- family dwelling" found in the current zone (RMF-45). We would like confirmation on this point and clarification whether the reference in the parking variance to "retirement apartments" would preclude using the property as a traditional "multi-family dwelling" under the current zoning or if a zoning change would first be needed. When we obtained this property several years ago, it was operated as an independent living building, and we have continued to operate the building the same. In the senior housing industry, an independent living building (sometimes referred to as a 55+ age restricted community) is not licensed by the state health department and does not provide any healthcare coverage. The property is run similar to a traditional multi-family dwelling, but with add-ons of providing food, activities, and transportation to residents. In reviewing the supply and demand of independent living and traditional multi-family in the area, we believe that operating the property as an independent living building (i.e., retirement apartments) may not be the highest and best use for the property and would like to explore the option of operating this property as a traditional multi-family building. Believing that a zoning amendment might be necessary to allow such operational change, in a pre-submittal meeting with the Planning Division on April 11, 2024, we requested a zoning amendment from RMF-45 to the FB-UN2 zone. However, in this meeting, the Planning Division clarified that both traditional market rate apartments and retirement apartments are classified under the same current use, i.e., “multi-family dwelling." As such, switching operations to a traditional multi-family building and leasing to tenants of all ages would not require a change of use but would be a continuation of the current use. Because this would not be a change of use, the Planning Division further indicated that operating the property as a traditional multi-family building would not require a more “intense parking requirement” than what was originally permitted in 1986. For informational purposes, in 1986 the zoning code required 1.75 parking stalls per unit. The property contains 94 units. Consequently, the standard code would have required a total of 165 parking stalls. However, as noted above, the property obtained a parking variance, which allowed the property to be built with 67 current off-street parking stalls. This approval was conditioned on the property being used for "retirement apartments." If the use changed, the variance states that the standard parking requirement of 1.75 stalls per unit would be applicable. Relatedly, we note that the current code, if it were applicable, requires the property to have 98 off-street parking spaces in RMF-45 for “Multi-Family Dwelling” units. Based on our conversations with the Planning Division, we believe that the parking variance should be interpreted to allow the property to be used as a traditional multi-family building, and that the operational change from independent living/retirement apartments to traditional multi-family units should not be considered a change of use but instead a continuation of the current use. Moreover, under such interpretation, we believe that the current parking variance and allowance for 67 off-street parking stalls should continue to be valid and a stricter parking standard should not be imposed. We appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (208)-206-8552 or kenny@stellarliving.com if you require any additional information or wish to discuss this further. Sincerely, Kenny Hrabar Director of Real Estate Development Stellar Senior Living ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY MAYOR and NEIGHBORHOODS PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION P.O. BOX 145480 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 Pre-Submittal Meeting Notes Meeting Date: 4/11/2024 Pre-Submittal Team: Eric Daems, Seth Rios, Scott Browning, Rylee Hall Please note: This Pre-Submittal Meeting is provided as an advisory service and does not constitute approval of a land use application. The feedback from this meeting is provided based on the plans and information provided prior to or during the pre-submittal meeting. The provided information does not include a complete zoning or planning review. Project Name: Park Lane Senior Living Apartments Address: 680 E 100 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Applicant: Kenny Hrabar at kenny@stellarliving.com Project Description: The applicant wants to rent his apartment units to the general public. Previously, the apartments were exclusively rented to senior citizens. The applicant was under the impression that this would warrant a change of use and would require more parking. It was clarified in this meeting that this is considered a continuation of the current use, “multi-family dwellings.” The applicant would like something in writing to establish that leasing the units to tenants of all ages will not be a change of use and would not require a more intense parking requirement than what was permitted in 1986. It was determined that a rezone would not be necessary to continue the property's current use. Zone: RMF-45 (Moderate/High-Density Multi-Family Residential) zoning district Planning Process: • Administrative Interpretation (Chapter 21A.12) • Zoning Map Amendment (Chapter 21A.50.050) General Information: • Administrative interpretation standards can be found in Chapter 21A.12. • Here’s the link to the Administrative Interpretation application: • https://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Applications/Administrative%20Interpretation.pdf • Here’s the link on how to submit an application online: www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Guides/how%20to%20submit%20an%20application%20on line.pdf Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights.