Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/14/2025 - Meeting Minutes (2) SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City & County Building 451 South State Street, Room 326 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Wednesday, May 14, 2025 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at approximately 5:45 p.m. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. These minutes are a summary of the meeting and not a verbatim transcript. A video recording of the meeting is available at www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chair Aimee Burrows, Vice-Chair Landon Kraczek, Commissioners Amy Barry, Bree Scheer, Mike Christensen. Commissioners Richard Leverett and Brian Scott were absent from the meeting. Commissioner McCall Christensen is on leave. Staff members present at the meeting were: Deputy Director Michaela Bell, Planning Manager Krissy Gilmore, Senior City Attorney Courtney Lords, Senior Planner Cassie Younger, Senior Planner Aaron Barlow, and Administrative Assistant Bonnie Whaley. Chair Aimee Burrows called the meeting to order. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR The Chair reported that the Vice-Chair Landon Kraczek graduated with a Masters in City and Metropolitan Planning with an emphasis on Urban Design. The Vice-Chair had nothing to report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR Deputy Director Michaela Bell announced her name change and asked to be addressed as such. She also reported that the Mixed Use Consolidation had a hearing with City Council on May 6th and they continued the public hearing. OPEN FORUM No one wished to speak. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Planned Development at Approximately 1518 S Main Street - Ryan Mackowiak of AE Urbia, representing the property owner, is requesting a Planned Development for the properties at 1518, 1530, 1540, 1546 S. Main Street, and 1515 S. Richards Street, located in the FB-UN2 zone. They are proposing a mixed-use development with 241 residential units and 1,137 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor. They are requesting relief from the following zoning requirements: street- facing facades over 200 feet, all street-facing units requiring balconies, and the following modifications for Richards Street only: Entryway every 75', Ground floor transparency of 60% between 2' and 8' above grade of sidewalk, 70% of facade shall be durable materials, and required build-to of 50% of the facade to the minimum (0') setback line. This item was originally scheduled on the September 13, 2023, Planning Commission agenda but was postponed. This project is located in District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff Contact: Cassie Younger at 801-535-6211 or cassie.younger@slc.gov) Case Number: PLNPCM2023-00245 2. Approval of the Pending Meeting Minutes – No meeting minutes were available to consider. Public Hearing • Amy Hawkins - represented the Ballpark Community Council - Discussed ownership opportunities and stated that they wish to see more of that in the neighborhood. She cited mention of ownership in the application but this resulted in rentals, not ownership. Wanted community benefits to perhaps mandate that, not owner occupation everywhere but require some ownership in targeted neighborhoods. • Planning Manager Krissy Gilmore read an email into the record re: a previous zoning change approved for the Planned Development subject #2 on this agenda. Seeing that no one else wished to speak, Chair Burrows closed the public hearing. Consent Agenda Motion #1: Commissioner Barry motioned to move item #1 off of the consent agenda to the regular agenda. Commissioner Scheer seconded the motion. Vote to move item #1 off the consent agenda: • Yes: Christensen, Scheer, Barry, Burrows yes to meeting minutes • No: Krazek The motion passed. Consent Agenda Motion #2: Commissioner Chistensen motioned to approve the minutes. Commissioner Barry seconded the motion. Vote: • Yes: Christensen, Scheer, Barry • Abstain: Krazek, Burrows The motion passed. Senior Planner Cassie Younger provided a staff report with a presentation including details of the development agreement. Discussion: • Richards street which is NOT a city road nor built as one. • Ballpark Plan was approved before this was submitted. • Discussed timelines of zoning changes and how this is a Planned Development instead of a Design Review. • If an applicant says they will have home ownership opportunities, there has to be objective met in a planned development or a development agreement stipulation. Just mentioning alone in an application narrative isn’t enough. The staff report is clear that the building is going to be for rent. • Trees on Richard Street. The applicant has no purview on those trees. • Discussed site plan and being bound to that. Conditions stand and must be tied to a standard of approval. • Discussed the length of the building. How they asked for relief under the Planned Development because that was the process in place at the time of application. Now the process is a Design Review, because the code has changed since the application submission. If the applicant wanted a building longer than 200 feet today, the design review process is specified to request and be granted relief. • Staff discussed some amendments with the PC that haven’t been passed by the City Council yet. Setting a max on building length. Commissioner Barry made a motion to deny the planned development because evidence hasn’t been presented that demonstrates that the proposal complies with the following standards for building length exceeding 200 feet, and we have PD standards A & C which talk about exceptions aren’t creating an enhanced product over strict application of the zone, and we find those in standards A & C. The Commission and staff discussed the options if the project was denied. They have an option to appeal or submit another application. There was also a discussion to table or to give the applicant some guidance if it were tabled. Commissioner Krazek moved to approve the Planned Development as recommended by Staff. Commissioner Christiansen seconded the motion. Yes: Krazek, Scheer, Christensen No: Barry, Burrows The item was approved. The Commission made mention that they would like to discuss and review building length and massing at another meeting in open forum. 3. Continuation of RMF-35 & RMF-45 Multi-Family Zoning District Merger Text and Map Amendment – Continuation of a tabled item from the March 12, 2025, Planning Commission meeting. Mayor Erin Mendenhall initiated a petition proposing to update the RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi- Family Residential) and RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential) Districts. This proposal is meant to remove barriers to housing development and enable the development of compatible infill housing within the City's moderate-density neighborhoods. The proposed amendments introduce design standards for new development, reduce lot size requirements, remove lot width minimums, permit multiple primary structures per lot, and offer a density bonus for preserving existing structures. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning will also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact: Aaron Barlow at 801-535-6182 or aaron.barlow@slc.gov) Case Number: PLNPCM2024-01388 Senior Planner Aaron Barlow presented the staff report and recommendation. East Central Community materials were provided in hard copy to the Commissioner. Staff discussed: Challenges to try and parce out parcel by parcel which should be zoned RMF-35 or 45. Clarified bonus units and that they need restrictive covenants. Staff went over public comments from both supporters and opponents. Identified impacts that have been reduced with this modified proposal. Staff also went over timeline for the text amendment. Staff’s recommendation was to forward a recommendation of approval to the city council. Rezone 23 identified properties from RMF-35 to RMF-45. Chair Burrow opened up the Public Hearing. Esther Hunter for ECC: Confirmation by staff that the ECC letter was sent to the commission and uploaded. Neighborhood has everything the City wants, a variety of housing types. Discussed their analysis. Judi Short for Sugarhouse. Like design standards. Prefers high quality materials. Reducing lot size requirements may be a good thing and make lots more useful. Setbacks could be an issue. Setbacks could be larger so they allow windows. Incentives for keeping units is a good thing, helps with keeping naturally affordable housing. 1 space per unit is good. Doesn’t like the administrative approval. Jeff Bair-for Liberty Wells. Project intended to encourage infill. Discussed sideways houses. Shouldn’t be allowed in mature neighborhoods. Cited a spot zoning example. Spot zoning is a concern. They want gentle density, no huge buildings in the middle of homes. Cindy Cromer-This is less bad than the first iteration. Many buildings build prior to zoning. Setbacks an issue. Discussed her properties. Lynn Swartz-Didn’t find the staff report publishing date reasonable to digest. Bonus units are troubling. No requirement for affordable housing. Cooper Peters-supports the merger project. Population growing. We need density here, this change isn’t enough. LDS hospital will likely be revitalized and we should be thinking about that. More dynamic zoning changes should be made like this from Planning. Mohid Kahpali-Supports this cause it is a smart tool. Neighborhoods need missing middle and impossible now to build. Neighbors want to build in the city. Seniors can also stay in neighborhoods. Urges PC to move this forward. The more hearings the more opportunities for people to try and stop this proposal. Mary McConnaughy - email read into the record. Jenny Starley - Represents CCNC. Email read into the record. Evon Martinez - email read into the record. Chair Burrows closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Senior Planner Barlow responded to several comments and provided clarification for understanding. Discussed the Historic Landmark Commission approvals, ADA, inspectors. 4 stories allows for units that actually are feasible to build and may allow more family size housing. Staff and the Commission discussed: How this really allows an increase in property rights, now one can build another unit or more, and there are some varieties of housing types that are allowed. Increasing property rights includes having options on a property like isn’t all tied to increases in height. The motion passed. Meeting ended at approximately 6:42 PM. For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public- meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.