HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/10/2025 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
June 10, 2025 Tuesday 3:30 PM
Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in
person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas.
Council Work Room
451 South State Street, Room 326
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
3:30 PM Work Session
Or immediately following the 2:00 PM
Community Reinvestment Agency Meeting
7:00 pm Formal Meeting
Room 315
(See separate agenda)
Welcome and public meeting rules
In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter
the City & County Building through the main east entrance.
The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items
scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the
Meeting based on circumstance or availability of speakers.
The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items
will have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork.
Generated: 11:31:18
Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start
times and durations are approximate and are subject to change.
Work Session Items
Click Here for the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26.
1.Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget: Unresolved Issues Follow-up ~ 3:30 p.m.
60 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about unresolved issues relating to the
proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26.
For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY26.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Thursday, May 29, 2025; Tuesday, June 3, 2025; Thursday, June 5, 2025; and
Tuesday, June 10, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 20, 2025 and Tuesday, June 3,
2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
2.Ordinance: Design Review Standards Amendment ~ 4:30 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend Chapter 21A.59 of
the Salt Lake City Code relating to Design Review. The proposal would clarify when each
section applies to a project, ensure code language clearly communicates the standard’s
intent, and delete duplicative standards from the chapter. The proposal would also
introduce new design standards to further the purpose of the design review process.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 10, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, July 1, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, August 12, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 19, 2025
3.Informational: Naming The Northeast Baseball Field at
Riverside Park as The Neil Draper Field ~ 4:50 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would rename the northeast
baseball field at Riverside Park as the Neil Draper Field. Mr. Draper was an engaged
member of the community and business owner who passed away in March 2025. His
dedication and contributions to Rose Park Baseball had a positive impact on many in the
area.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 10, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 8, 2025
4.Board Appointment: Airport Board – Jonathan Freedman ~ 5:05 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Jonathan Freedman prior to considering appointment to the
Airport Board for a term ending June 10, 2029.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 10, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 10, 2025
Standing Items
5.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair -
-
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
6.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director -
-
Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and
announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to
City Council business, including but not limited to:
•Artwork Deaccession; and
•Scheduling Items.
7.Tentative Closed Session -
-
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described
under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to:
a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health
of an individual;
b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the
transaction would:
(i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water
right or water shares, if:
(i) public discussion of the transaction would:
(A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
(ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and
(iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body
approves the sale;
f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to
Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements
of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m. on _____________________, the undersigned, duly appointed City
Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public
Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided
to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any
others who have indicated interest.
KEITH REYNOLDS
SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER
Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but
not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations
of options discussed.
The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for
reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary
aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request,
please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slc.gov, 801-535-7600, or relay service
711.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
www.slc.gov/council
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY26
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Jennifer Bruno, Lehua Weaver, Austin Kimmel, Kate Werrett
Allison Rowland, Sylvia Richards, and Michael Sanders
DATE: June 10, 2025
RE:UNRESOLVED BUDGET ISSUES – Follow-up on Council Questions
NEW INFORMATION
directing any additional funds to
fund balance. Any use of these funds could be discussed at a future date and/or budget amendment
in FY 26.
adding $10,000 to the Non-Departmental budget to
facilitate the University of Utah purchasing more air quality monitors on the west side of Salt Lake
City.
o $352,245 – Additional Public Lands Maintenance. This would be in addition to the $195,573
already proposed. Staff has requested additional information from Public Lands regarding
what this additional level of investment will achieve.
o $352,245 – Add to CIP Project #5, street reconstruction 2026 which increases this project total
to $4.7 million
Project Timeline:
Briefing: June 3, 2025
Budget Hearing: June 3, 2025
Potential Action: June 10 or 12
2
Revised legislative intents can be found in a separate staff report, as it will have its own briefing.
The following information was provided for the June 2, 2025 work session. It is provided again for reference.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Staff has kept a list of items that one or more Council Members have raised as potential changes to the Mayor’s
Recommended Budget, or items that might need further Council discussion. It should be noted that this is a
staff-generated draft, reflecting Council questions and discussions as of the date of its printing. It may be
updated prior to the work session discussion, and Council Members may have changes or corrections to
individual items, and Council Members may add items.
If a budget impact is apparent (revenue, FTE and/or expense changes), that amount has been listed, or noted as
“to be determined.” Depending on Council feedback, adjustments can be made to the overall key changes
document, so that the Council can track the net effect of these decisions on the overall budget.
Changes to the budget may cause it to be out of balance (increase or decrease expenses and revenues). As these
changes occur, the Council would need to identify offsetting revenue enhancements or expense reductions to
bring the budget back in balance. Staff can research and provide other revenue generation or expense cutting
options if the Council is interested. Once initial Council interest in various items can be determined, staff will
have a live tracking of additions to or subtractions from the Mayor’s Recommended Budget, to ensure the final
budget adopted by the Council on June 10 or 12 is balanced.
(Note: this list is not comprehensive – please let staff know if there are other items to add)
Follow-up Items
1.Items to consider adding to the budget. Some Council Members have expressed interest in
adding/adjusting the following items to the budget (some amounts are placeholders). Because exact
revenue numbers will not be known at the time of the main unresolved issues discussion, Council
Members may wish to discuss how to prioritize these or other additional items, should extra revenue
become available:
a.Construction Mitigation funding – Some Council Members have expressed concern that
$350,000 isn’t enough to cover likely needs for construction mitigation grants for small
business. $970,000 was allocated in FY 25 between the annual and budget amendments. The
Administration indicates that they expect construction to slow, and will approach the Council in
a budget amendment if needed.
b.Public Lands/Park Maintenance – Some Council Members continue to receive reports
from constituents regarding maintenance of City parks and public lands. The FY 26 budget adds
$231,750 from the General Fund and $478,579 from Funding our Future to address additional
parks maintenance, along with $259,102 for personnel, for a total of $969,431. Some Council
Members have expressed interest in an increase beyond this level.
c.Street maintenance – Some Council Members have expressed interest in funding street
maintenance beyond what is recommended in the FY 26 budget, based on the long lead time for
roads to be repaired in the City.
d.Fleet replacement funds – One Council Member has expressed interest in funding Fleet
replacement at a level greater than what is recommended in the FY 26 budget, based on
recommended replacement levels.
e.Justice Court/Prosecutor’s Office/Legal Defender Association workload issues –
Some Council Members have expressed an interest in addressing a request from the Legal
Defender Association (LDA) to address workload issues. The Administration notes that
addressing one aspect of the system would likely require an adjustment to the other two areas of
the system, with a potential of $1.7 million in costs.
f.Art in all Districts – in conjunction with Budget Amendment #5, the Council included a
legislative intent indicating support for adding $14,000 ($2,000 per district) to the Arts Council
3
budget in Community and Neighborhoods, for the purpose of establishing a process to create art pieces,
potentially by leveraging private spaces or contributions. Key changes will reflect this $14,000 addition
to the CAN budget. Conversations with the Administration on how they can implement this idea are
ongoing, as initially concerns have been raised about staff bandwidth to create a new program.
g.Air/Chemical Monitors – One Council Member has proposed the following allocations for
monitors:
i.$5,000 – allocated in Non-Departmental to send to the University of Utah to purchase
additional air quality monitors for the West Side.
ii.$10,000 – allocated to Emergency Management within the Fire Department budget to
evaluate and acquire hazardous chemical monitors for the groundwater/soil, specifically
to track hazardous chemicals used by manufacturing businesses west of Redwood Road.
h.Fund Balance – One Council Member has expressed an interest in directing any additional
potential revenue to fund balance, to prepare for the year ahead, as well as helping to reduce the
likely property tax increase for the FY 27 budget. The FY 26 proposed budget would take fund
balance to 12.96% (not including funds not spent by departments in FY 25). For discussion
purposes:
i. If departments drop $4 million to fund balance at the conclusion of FY 25, that would
increase the fund balance to 13.74%. Note: Departments typically drop between $4 and
$6 million to fund balance in total, each year, although there have been outlier years
where they have dropped significantly more.
ii. Approximately $5.1 million would be needed to increase fund balance by 1%.
iii. For every $1 million added to fund balance, it increases the percentage by 0.2%
i.Historic street signs update – Council Staff is inquiring with the Administration regarding
the historic signs/street markers, originally funded by the Council in FY 24. If the funds have
not yet been encumbered, the Council could choose to re-allocate those funds, as they will lapse
to fund balance if not spent.
2.Evaluate All New Positions – in recent fiscal years, some Council Members expressed an interest in
considering all proposed new FTEs in more detail, potentially straw polling each. FY 26 includes
significantly fewer new FTEs, and are all located in the Public Services budget, totaling $620,028:
Clean City Team – 3 FTEs - $218,000, $25,000 operating budget
Right of Way Services Team (North Temple) 2 FTEs - $253,028, $124,000 operating budget
3.Existing Programs – the Council may wish to discuss whether to reduce or eliminate any existing
programs offered by the City.
4.Follow-up questions – Staff has been providing Council Members with follow up information
relating to questions raised at department briefings. Those have been shared with Council Members in
email as staff has received them, and several are still pending. Please let staff know about any questions
that arise.
5.Funding options - Staff has identified the following potential funding sources for Council
discussion/consideration, potentially to address some of the above ideas:
a. Potential additional revenue (pending information from Tax Commission and follow up from
the Administration – due by June 8 per state law)
i. Actual New Growth
ii. Actual Judgement Levy
b. Fund balances available – Previously the City had a policy of maintaining a minimum of 10%
fund balance. In FY 19 the Council established a policy goal of 13%, although that goal is not
legally binding. Based on the FY 26 proposed budget, there is $15.1 million above the 10%
threshold (not including potential funds dropped to fund balance by departments at the end of
FY 25 ). Note this is one-time in nature and to the extent it funds ongoing ideas, this would increase the
structural deficit for FY 27.
5
c. Update line-item label for retirement payouts to also be eligible for parental leave or other
initiatives. (Currently that line item is not fully spent each year and Departments have largely
absorbed retirement costs. This is risk if the City experiences faster-than-expected retirements).
d. Consider re-appropriating funds that would otherwise drop to fund balance within a
department (funds that are not likely to be spent for FY 25). Note: this would need to happen in
an August/September budget amendment rather than as part of balancing the annual budget.
The Council could indicate intent with these funds so that the Administration has advance
feedback.
e. Increase property tax for the General Fund (Note: the proposed FY 26 budget does not include a
General Fund tax increase. Because it includes a judgement levy, a truth in taxation hearing is
required and has been advertised).
f. Adopt a more aggressive forecast for Sales Tax revenue (not necessarily recommended due to
the volatility of this line item and economic uncertainty).
g. Adopt additional cost justified fee increases.
h. Evaluate compensation levels for non-represented employees (reduce Mayor’s COLA
recommendation). Each 1% is approximately $2.9 million in the General Fund. The proposed
budget includes a 4% COLA for all non-represented employees.
6.Budget “clean up” items – these are items that either the Staff or Administration have flagged as
potential corrections to the budget to ensure expectations are met:
a. Sports-Entertainment District budget clarification – The Finance Department has been working
with the Convention Center Public Infrastructure District as it relates to the timing of transfer of
funds. It will be suggesting clarifications to the “Other Funds” key changes document to reflect
the timing of payments from both the 0.5% Sports Entertainment Convention and Cultural
District tax as well as the “5th 5th” transportation sales tax implemented by Salt Lake County, of
which 76% is required to be transferred to the Sports Entertainment Convention and Cultural
District.
b. Transfer to the Arts Council – if approved, the transfer to the Arts Council should increase by
$25,000 for increased Twilight Concert costs. Key changes will be corrected to reflect that
transfer from Non-Departmental instead of CAN.
c. Staff will continue to work with the Administration to address any other clean up items
identified in either the Key Changes or staffing document.
Potential Legislative Intents –
Updated information – the Council will be having a stand-alone discussion on legislative intents at
the Thursday, June 5th work session meeting. Please reference that staff report for an updated version
of each legislative intent.
Potential Conditional Appropriations
1.Continued Contingency for All Funding Our Future -- Sales Tax Funds (this has been
adopted each year since the City implemented the sales tax). The Council approves Funding
Our Future sales tax revenue appropriations with the following conditions:
a. Expenditure of Funding Our Future Sales Tax Funds. Funding our Future funds may not be
expended unless the department or division expending the funds complies with:
5
i. Utah Fiscal Procedures Act
ii. The City’s Procurement Code and Rules
iii. Written verification from the City Attorney and City Finance Director that proper
legal and financial procedures have been followed.
b. Other Funding Our Future Budget Contingencies:
i. The Administration providing a written semiannual spending, implementation and
outcomes report on each of the critical need areas.
ii. Tracking funding for Fleet provided through the Funding our Future tax separately
to ensure it is spent only on public safety (police, fire, dispatch).
iii. The Administration spending funds in the critical need areas as adopted in the
attached key changes spreadsheet.
iv. The Administration bringing back to the Council any proposed adjustments to the
adopted budget in a budget amendment for re-appropriation before changes are made.
v. The Administration maintaining and regularly updating a publicly available
dashboard reflecting revenues received and actual uses.
vi. In FY21 and all future funding requests, providing a label denoting which line items
are funded with this Funding Our Future sales tax funds.
vii. For all positions added, the Administration shall submit an annual written review
along with the Mayor’s Recommended Budget to ensure that each position continues to serve
the critical need areas and, if a Council work session briefing is scheduled, provide a
presentation of the report.
Budget Glossary (not all terms are necessarily in
this report)
American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees - AFSCME
Budget Amendment - BA
Capital Improvement Program – CIP
Community and Neighborhoods – CAN
Community Land Trust – CLT
Economic Development Corporation of Utah -
EDCU
Funding Our Future - FoF
Frequent Transit Network – FTN
Fiscal Year – FY
Request for Proposal - RFP
DRAFT FY26 Foothills Trail System Budget Contingency
Conditional appropriation regarding expenditures for foothill trails. Only the maintenance of
existing trails in the Foothills Trail System will be permitted, and other funding will be placed on hold with the
following contingencies:
1. Current maintenance, defined as ***** will occur as scheduled by the department.
2. Rehabilitation projects, defined as ***** can occur as scheduled, contingent upon:
a. updated signage content and public information to educate about the difference between
maintenance and rehabilitation work or new trail alignments and cuts;
b. establishment and gathering of the Working Group no later than October 15, 2025, to improve
coordination and awareness of the City’s trail plans and active work;
c. if any rehabilitation projects are performed this summer before the Working Group is established,
the Department of Public Lands shall provide notice to the Foothill stakeholder list to share
information before work begins.
3. In addition to the conditions listed above, other non-maintenance funding for new trail projects will
be on hold contingent upon:
a. execution of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with foothills stakeholder groups who
own property where trails exist and conduct work on the foothill trails within City boundaries;
b. review by the Foothills Working Group of the implementation plans for new trail construction or
decommissioning;
c.identification of adjustments to the Foothills Trail System Plan, or additional engagement as
warranted;
d.the Council’s authorization to move forward after the Council evaluates the results of the process
above.
Existing and new funds for new trail projects will be on hold, but may be released incrementally by the Council
as information about adherence to best practices and progress on community feedback is received.
This contingency would replace previous Foothill Trails Budget Contingencies from prior fiscal years.
CITY 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:June 10, 2025
RE: Standards for Design Review Text Amendment
PLNPCM2024-00294
The Council will be briefed about a Planning Commission-initiated text amendment for the design review
standards found in City code. Proposed changes would clarify when existing standards apply, ensure
language in City code achieves the standards’ intent, and deletes standards from the design review chapter
found elsewhere in the zoning ordinance.
Additional changes would eliminate the design standard related to building modulation (using a series of
horizontal and vertical emphases on larger buildings to reduce visual width or height). The Commission
felt this standard frequently resulted in over articulated designs and does not achieve the desired quality
design.
The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at its March 27, June 26, and August 28, 2024 meetings.
A public hearing was held on August 28, 2024 at which no one spoke, and the Commission voted
unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendment and determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTION
1. The Administration recommends requiring window openings to be recessed three inches to add
dimensionality to building facades. The Council may want to discuss the balance between the City’s
priority of affordable housing and potentially increased building costs from including this
fenestration which may result in higher selling or rental prices.
Item Schedule:
Page | 2
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Design reviews allow limited changes to design standards with a goal of ensuring larger developments that
significantly impact the city, achieve their desired outcomes and benefit the community. Ensuring
developments are compatible with the surrounding area and mitigating impacts they could have on
existing infrastructure and public spaces are addressed during the design review.
According to the transmittal, the proposed amendment’s primary goal is to create human-centered,
walkable communities. An additional goal is to improve clarity for applicants and consistency from
Planning staff during the review process. The amendment is designed to ensure new projects meet current
and future needs as well as contribute to the City’s long-term goals.
Planning staff evaluated each standard’s intent and reviewed previous approvals to determine the
effectiveness of current code language in desired results. Public and commission comments were also
considered when drafting the proposed text amendment.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified two key considerations related to the proposal, found on pages 3-10 of the August
28, 2024, Planning Commission staff report, and briefly summarized below. For the complete analysis,
please see the Planning staff report.
Consideration 1 – Proposed Ordinance Changes:
Planning’s proposal amends City code Chapter 21A.59-Design Review. Three sections in this chapter,
outlined below, would be affected. Additionally, the proposal includes new standards that apply to all
projects requiring design review approval. The proposed changes are listed below.
Design Review Process (21A.59.030) – Streetscape study requirement (New)
A streetscape study requirement to show how a proposed building integrates with the existing block face.
This would be used to compare new buildings with existing development patterns.
Design Review Standards Applicability (21A.59.045.A)
Clarifies each design review standard in this section, except for Subsection E (applicable when a building
exceeds allowed street facing façade length), and Subsection G (applicable for buildings seeking additional
height). These subsections are discussed below.
Standards for Design Review (21A.59.050)
Deletes repetitive standards found elsewhere in the zoning ordinance. Clarifies existing language to ensure
standards are applied and reviewed consistently. The following subsections are most affected by the
proposal.
Subsection C: Pedestrian Interest
Active ground floor uses are to be located near public sidewalks.
Street facing facades to provide maximum transparency. Ground floor windows cannot be
covered or blocked to prevent looking into the building.
Commercial buildings are to have traditional storefront elements. Buildings with ground floor
residential uses are to have a unit entrance with entry feature.
Buildings on corner lots are to include a publicly accessible, transparent, and unobstructed
corner entrance.
If provided, outdoor uses should be located sidewalks or midblock walkway.
Page | 3
Subsection D: Building Massing
Proposal calls for eliminating the building modulation standard. The Planning Commission felt
the standard did not result in high quality designs.
Additional standards related to building mass, scale, and other design features found elsewhere
in City code have been relocated to this chapter and the language has been modified for clarity.
A requirement to recess windows three inches is being proposed to add dimensionality to
building facades as was recently added to new construction in local historic districts. (Buildings
fully clad in glass are exempt.)
o The Council may want to discuss the balance between potentially increased costs of an
enhanced building design with a desire for affordable housing in the city.
Subsection E: Street Facing Façade Length
Currently, building length can be increased without limit through design review process.
Proposal limits building length increase to a maximum of 25% through design review.
Under the proposal ground floor requirements cannot be reduced through design review.
Some uses including schools, stadiums, libraries, convention centers, schools, theaters, and other
similar uses determined by the zoning administrator are exempt from the building length limit.
Subsection G: Additional Building Height
The following are proposed for deletion:
Stepback standards - these are regulated in the design standards chapter.
Cornices and Rooflines - these have been prescriptive and difficult to administer.
Building modulation - could limit development rights if a building must be stepped up or down
from a shorter building on a neighboring property.
Shadow study for buildings seeking additional height - due to climate change, shaded outdoor
spaces are increasingly seen as beneficial.
Subsections B, F, H, I, J, and K
These subsections with standards related to building orientation, publicly accessible spaces, parking,
screening of service areas, lighting, and streetscape improvements have minor suggested changes to
improve clarity, and reduce redundancy if standards are required elsewhere in the ordinance. A final
review may still be required during the building permit process.
The following standards are proposed to be added to the ordinance:
Move a requirement for a distinct base on buildings taller than three stories to Subsection D,
which focuses on massing.
New standard requiring buildings adjacent to a landmark site to include a horizontal element
that aligns with a corresponding element of the historic building.
Consideration 2 – How the Proposal Helps Implement City Goals & Policies Identified in
Adopted Plans:
Planning staff believes the proposed changes align with principles and concepts found in Plan Salt Lake,
and the Urban Design Element to enhance compatibility, quality, and pedestrian-oriented design features
in new developments.
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Page | 5
Attachment C (pages 27-29) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning text 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 text 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 text amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
Complies
Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with
the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay
zoning districts which may impose additional standards.
Complies
(Local historic district
preservation standards
would supersede those
in the design review
chapter.)
The extent to which a proposed text amendment
implements best current, professional practices of urban
planning and design.
Complies
The impact that the proposed text amendment may have
on city resources necessary to carry out the provisions
and processes required by this title.
Proposal is intended to
reduce review times and
not increase impact on
City resources.
The impact that the proposed text amendment may have
on other properties that would be subject to the proposal
and properties adjacent to subject properties.
Standards are intended
to reduce impacts to
adjacent properties
through high quality
design, street level
engagement, and
infrastructure upgrades.
The community benefits that would result from the
proposed text amendment, as identified in 21A.50.050.C.
Enhanced design review
benefits the community
with higher quality
design
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
o 45-day comment period begins.
o Notice sent to all registered community organizations.
• July 5, 2024 – Initial information posted to the City’s online open house webpage.
Page | 6
• July 18, 2024 – Planning staff presented the proposal to the Liberty Wells Community Council.
• July 20, 2024 – Planning staff provided a write-up about the proposal for the Greater Avenues
Community Council’s August 2024 newsletter.
• August 8, 2024 – Planning staff presented the proposal to the East Liberty Park Community
Council.
• August 15, 2024 – Public hearing notice posted to City and State websites.
• August 16, 2024 – Public hearing notice posted at the Main Library, Chapman, and Sprague
branch libraries.
• August 28, 2024 – Planning Commission briefing and public hearing. The Commission voted
unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
• October 23, 2024 – Ordinance requested from the Attorney’s Office.
• March 12, 2025 – Ordinance received from the Attorney’s Office.
• May 15, 2025 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
City Council – June 10, 2025
PLNPCM2024-00294
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT//
21A.59 DESIGN REVIEW
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
PURPOSE & GOALS OF THE AMENDMENT
1. Clarify the applicability of each Design Review standard
2. Ensure the language of each standard meets the intent
of the subsection
3. Delete standards that are required elsewhere in the
Zoning Ordinance and reorganize
4. Add design review standards that further the purpose of
the design review process
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
CLARIFYING APPLICABILITY
COMPLIANCE REQUIRED FOR ALL PROJECTS
GOING THROUGH THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
•Standard A: Purpose of Design Review
•Standard B: Orientation of Development
•Standard C: Pedestrian Interest
•Standard D: Building Massing
•Standard E: Additional Building Length
•Standard F: Public Spaces
•Standard G: Additional Building Height
•Standard H: Circulation
•Standard I: Screening
•Standard J: Lighting
•Standard K: Streetscape Improvements
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
STANDARD C: PEDESTRIAN INTEREST
INTENT OF PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS: The intent of this section is to increase ground floor
pedestrian interest and street activation.
NEW PROPOSED STANDARDS
•If the ground floor contains residential uses, each primary building entrance and
individual unit entrance shall include a defined entry feature.
•For buildings on corner lots, a publicly accessible, transparent, and unobstructed corner
entrance must be included. If a building is located on a lot with more than one corner only
one corner entrance would need to be provided.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
STANDARD D: BUILDING MASSING
INTENT OF PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS: Reduce the perceived mass and bulk of buildings by using
human-scaled proportions and fenestration patterns and utilizing secondary architectural elements
that are contextual and compatible with existing development patterns.
NEW PROPOSED STANDARDS
•Building Base: Buildings taller than 50 feet, the height of the base shall be at least 20 feet. For
buildings taller than 100 feet, the minimum base height should be three stories or be
consistent with the existing street wall.
•Windows: Window openings shall be recessed by a minimum of 3 inches. This is also a
standard for new construction in Local Historic Districts.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
STANDARD D: BUILDING MASSING
PROPOSED CODE LANGUAGE
Building masses shall be divided into heights and proportions that minimize the perceived mass of the
structure and relate to human scale by demonstrating compliance with the following standards:
1.Relate building scale and massing to the size and scale of the surrounding buildings and context of
the site, such as alignments with existing foundation lines, established cornice heights, building
massing, stepbacks and vertical emphasis;
2.For buildings with more than three stories, compose the design of a building with a distinct base to
create a sense of human scale orientation. For buildings taller than 50 feet, the height of the base
shall be at least 20 feet. For buildings taller than 100 feet, the minimum base height should be
three stories or be consistent with the existing street wall.
3.Include secondary architectural elements such as balconies, porches, vertical bays, belt courses,
fenestration or window reveals; and
4.Reflect the scale and solid (wall) to void (window/door openings) ratio of the established character
of the neighborhood or that which is desired in the general plan. Windows shall have a consistent
spacing pattern and alignment. Unless the building is clad in all glass, window openings shall be
recessed by a minimum of 3 inches.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
STANDARD E: ADDITIONAL STREET
FACING FAÇADE LENGTH
INTENT OF PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS: The goal of the new standards is to maintain pedestrian-
oriented design, which is often sacrificed when building facades are too long and when active ground
floor uses are eliminated. Additional design standards have also been included to break up long
facades, make buildings appear smaller through proportional massing, and ensure transparency and
engagement at the ground level.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
STANDARD E: ADDITIONAL STREET
FACING FAÇADE LENGTH
NEW PROPOSED STANDARDS
•Maximum Building Length:
•Building length may only be increased by up to 25% of the prescribed maximum building length.
•Buildings undergoing design review for additional length are ineligible for reductions in the base zones
ground floor use requirements.
•When a zone doesn’t prescribe a ground floor use, at least 75% of the ground floor must include active
uses.
•Visual Interest: Buildings must include significant changes in wall plane at least 2 ft. deep, massing changes,
or a distinguished roofline.
•Exempt Land Uses: Utility buildings and structures (other than the offices for utility providers), stadiums/arenas,
libraries, convention centers, places of worship, government offices, public and private schools, universities, movie
theaters, live performance theaters, and other similar general assembly land uses as determined by the zoning
administrator.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
STANDARD E: ADDITIONAL STREET
FACING FAÇADE LENGTH
PROPOSED CODE LANGUAGE
This subsection is only applicable to buildings requesting additional street facing building façade length. Street facing building facades shall
contribute to the character of the neighborhood, reinforce the established street wall, promote ground-level activation, create a sense of
enclosure, and be designed to minimize negative impacts on the streetscape. The street facing building façade may only be increased up to
25% of the allowed maximum in Section 21A.37.060, subject to the following standards:
1.Reductions to the ground floor use requirement of the underlying zoning district, as specified in Section 21A.37.060, are not
permitted. For zoning districts without a designated ground floor use requirement, a minimum of 75% of the ground floor shall
contain qualifying active uses as defined in Section 21A.37.050.A.
2.Building facades that exceed the maximum street facing façade length shall be designed to reduce the perceived length of the façade
and provide visual interest, by including elements such as:
a.Significant changes in wall plane measuring at least 2 feet;
b.Massing changes; or
c.Distinguished roof lines.
3. The following land use are exempt from the maximum increase of 25% of building façade and the reduction in ground floor use
provision above: utility buildings and structures (other than the offices for utility providers), stadiums/arenas, libraries, convention
centers, places of worship, government offices, public and private schools, universities, movie theaters, live performance theaters, and
other similar general assembly land uses as determined by the zoning administrator.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
Convention centers & schools are examples of exempt land uses
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
STANDARD G: ADDITIONAL BUILDING
HEIGHT
INTENT OF PROPOSED MODIFICATION: This section addresses the standards for projects seeking
additional building height as authorized in the underlying zoning district.
PROPOSED STANDARDS
•Potential wind and snow impacts must be addressed, which is currently required.
•All roof-top mechanical equipment must be screened from public view.
•Building abutting a Landmark Site must feature at least one horizontal element on the street facing façade
that aligns with a corresponding element of the historic building.
•Base, belt course, cornice, etc.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
STANDARD G: ADDITIONAL BUILDING
HEIGHT
This subsection is only applicable to buildings requesting additional building height, as authorized in
the underlying zoning district. Building height shall be modified to relate to human scale and minimize
negative impacts by demonstrating compliance with the following standards:
1.Design tall buildings to minimize wind impacts on primary building entrances, parks and open
space, and public and private-outdoor amenity areas. Design elements may include a wind break
above the first level of the building, recessed entryways or vestibules, or canopies;
2.Design and orient buildings to present snow, ice, or water from falling directly onto a public
sidewalk, public space, neighboring property, or directly onto the walkway leading to the building
entrance;
3.Roof-top mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view; and
4.Buildings abutting a landmark site shall feature at least one horizontal element on the street facing
façade (base, belt course, frieze, cornice) that aligns with a corresponding element of the historic
building. The alignment shall foster visual continuity and respect the historic context.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
OTHER MODIFICATIONS
•New requirement for a streetscape study to be submitted with all Design Review petitions.
•Children’s amenity space in the form of playgrounds, splash pads, or other similar feature was added as
an option for public space elements.
•Screening standards match the language in Chapter 21A.37 Design Standards.
•Standards regulated elsewhere in the zoning ordinance were deleted (waste and recycling, signage, street
lighting, and street trees).
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
QUESTIONS
AND COMMENTS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
Amanda Roman // Urban Designer
amanda.roman@slc.gov
801-535-7660
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
STANDARD E: ADDITIONAL STREET
FACING FAÇADE LENGTH
DESIGN REVIEW PETITIONS
•15 buildings have been approved for additional building length since 2019
10 within a TSA district – max building length of 200’
4 within the D -2 district – max building length of 200’
1 within the D-1 district – max building length of 150’
•5 of the approvals also included reductions in the ground floor use requirement
(if reviewed under current code, additional projects would not meet the use requirements in 21A.37)
•9 buildings exceeded 300’ in length
•Only one building exceeded 100’ in height (the property was sold and will not be developed as
approved)
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
•The Planning Commission initiated a petition for a text amendment
that would make changes to section 21A.59.050 Standards for Design
Review.
•Specially, the Commission requested to delete standard
21A.59.050.D.2, which states:
“Modulate the design of a larger building using a series of vertical or
horizontal emphases to equate with the scale (heights and widths) of
the buildings in the context and reduce the visual width or height.”
ORIGINAL REQUEST
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
05/06/2025
Date Sent to Council:
05/15/2025
From:
Department *
Community and Neighborhood
Employee Name:
Lindquist, Kelsey
E-mail
Kelsey.Lindquist@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
05/07/2025
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
05/14/2025
Subject:
PLNPCM2024-00294 Design Review Standards Amendment
Additional Staff Contact:
Amanda Roman amanda.roman@slc.gov
Presenters/Staff Table
Kelsey Lindquist kelesy.lindquist@slc.govAmanda Roman amanda.roman@slc.gov
Document Type
Ordinance
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Recommendation:
Follow the recommendation from Planning Commission and adopt the proposed amendment.
Background/Discussion
See first attachment for Background/Discussion
Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
Included in background section.
This page has intentionally been left blank
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Tammy Hunsaker
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This petition, initiated by the Planning Commission on
November 8, 2023, seeks a text amendment to Chapter 21A.59 Design Review. The purpose of
the amendment is to clarify when each section applies to a project, ensure the code language
clearly communicates the intent of the standard, and delete duplicative standards from the
chapter. It also introduces new design standards to enhance the effectiveness of the review
process, promoting high-quality design outcomes.
The Design Review process allows for minor modifications to the design standards in Chapter
21A.37 and ensures that larger developments align with the city’s goals. It assesses compatibility
with surroundings, addresses impacts on public infrastructure, and supports the city’s long-term
vision and resilience while balancing the cost of implementing the standards to avoid hindering
affordable development.
The proposed modifications primarily focus on standards for pedestrian interest, building
massing, street facing façade length, and building height. Other subsections (B, F, H, I, J, and K)
were revised for clarity without significant changes to their standards. The four subsections with
the most modifications are summarized below.
Proposed Amendments to the Standards for Design Review – Section 21A.59.050
Subsection C: Pedestrian Interest – The intent of this section is to increase ground floor
pedestrian interest and street activation.
• Locate ground floor uses near public sidewalks and provide maximum transparency on
street facing facades.
• Buildings with commercial uses shall be designed using traditional storefront elements,
while buildings with residential uses on the ground floor must include an entrance with a
defined entry feature.
• New Standard: For buildings on corner lots, a publicly accessible, transparent, and
unobstructed corner entrance must be included. If a building is located on a lot with more
than one corner only one corner entrance would need to be provided.
Subsection D: Massing – The intent of the subsection is to reduce the perceived mass and bulk
of buildings by using human-scale proportions and fenestration patterns and utilizing secondary
architectural elements that are contextual and compatible with existing development pattern.
• Building scale and massing must relate to existing buildings by aligning design elements
such as foundation lines, cornices, and general massing. Buildings taller than three stories
shall include a distinct base.
• New Standard: Fenestration should align with the established pattern of the neighborhood
and emphasize human-scale proportions. A newly proposed standard requires that unless
a building is fully clad in glass, window openings must be recessed by three inches.
The 3-inch reveal requirement was initially adopted for new construction in local historic
districts. While it enhances aesthetic quality by adding shadow lines to a flat façade, it is
important to note that this standard could increase construction costs, potentially leading
to higher purchase or rental rates. Given that providing affordable housing is a top
priority for Salt Lake City, this aspect must be carefully considered.
Subsection E: Street Facing Façade Length – The goal of the new standards is to maintain
pedestrian-oriented design, which is often sacrificed when building facades are too long and
when active ground floor uses are eliminated. Additional design standards have also been
included to break up long facades, make buildings appear smaller through proportional massing,
and ensure transparency and engagement at the ground level.
• New Standard: The proposal allows up to a 25% increase of the prescribed maximum
building length in Section 21A.37.060. Most zones currently allow for building lengths of
150 or 200 feet by right, so this change allows for more length but not in an unlimited
manner.
• New Standard: For buildings exceeding the maximum street facing façade length, the
ground floor use requirements in Chapter 21A.37 cannot be reduced via the design review
process. In zones without a ground floor use requirement, at least 75% of the ground floor
must include active uses as defined in Chapter 21A.37.050. This standard ensures that long
buildings prioritize and contribute to street activity, rather than using the extra building
length for parking, utilities, or private amenity space.
• New Standard: Staff recommend exempting certain land uses from the maximum street
facing façade length and ground floor use requirements due to their unique building
forms. The exempt uses include utility buildings (excluding utility provider offices),
stadiums/arenas, libraries, convention centers, places of worship, government offices,
schools (public and private), universities, movie theaters, live performance theaters, and
other similar general assembly uses as determined by the zoning administrator.
Subsection G: Additional Building Height – This section addresses the standards for projects
seeking additional building height as authorized in the underlying zoning district.
• New Standard: Buildings adjacent to a Landmark Site must include a horizontal element
that aligns with a corresponding element of the historic building.
The following standards are proposed to be deleted from the subsection:
• Upper Level Building Stepbacks: These standards are redundant, as stepbacks are
covered under Chapter 21A.37 Design Standards.
• Cornices and Rooflines: These standards were very prescriptive, have proven difficult to
administer, and have not ensured cohesive integration with overall building form.
Additionally, requiring green roofs is not feasible for all buildings.
•Building Modulation: This standard may restrict development rights by necessitating
adjustments based on neighboring structures.
•Shadow Study: The requirement for a shadow study for taller buildings is proposed for
deletion, as shaded outdoor spaces may be increasingly valued in the context of climate
change, potentially outweighing shadow concerns.
PUBLIC PROCESS: The Planning Commission held briefings on March 27, 2024, and June 26,
2024. A public hearing was held on August 28, 2024. The public hearing was advertised as
required by Utah Code and City Ordinance. The proposed text amendment went through a more
extensive public engagement process. A description of that process and public input can be
found in the original petitions associated with the text amendment.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council adopt the ordinance.
Planning Commission (PC) Records (Click to Access Records)
a)Planning Commission Briefing Staff Report of March 27, 2024
b)Planning Commission Briefing Staff Report of June 26, 2024
c)PC Agenda of August 28, 2024
d)PC Minutes of August 28, 2024
e)Planning Commission Staff Report of August 28, 2024
EXHIBITS:
1)Ordinance
2)Project Chronology
3)Notice of City Council Public Hearing
This page has intentionally been left blank
V1 1
Project Title: Text Amendment to Chapter 21A.59 Design
Review
Petition No.: PLNPCM2024-00294
Version: 1
Date Prepared: March 12, 2025
Planning Commission Action: Recommended 8/28/2024
This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments (for summary purposes only):
Adds design review submittal requirements
Reorganizes the design review standards and clarifies when each subsection is applicable
Adds new standards for design review to better meet the intent of the design review process
Deletes standards regulated elsewhere in City code
Makes technical changes
Underlined text is new; text with strikethrough is proposed to be deleted. All other text is existing with no
proposed change.
1
1. Amending Subsection 21A.59.030.B as follows: 2
3
B. Complete Application: The design review application is considered complete when it includes all 4
of the following: 5
1. All of the application information required for site plan review as identified in Chapter 6
21A.58 of this title. 7
2. Photos showing the facades of adjacent abutting development, trees on the site, general 8
streetscape character, and views to and from the site. 9
3. Streetscape study that illustrates how the building integrates with the block face. The study 10
shall include the building height, height of the ground floor or building base, street facing 11
façade length, front yard setback, and location of vehicular entrances of existing buildings. If 12
the proposed building is located on a corner lot, the analysis shall incorporate both block 13
faces. 14
3 4. Demonstration of compliance with the purpose of the individual zoning district in written 15
narrative and graphic images. 16
4 5. Demonstration of compliance with the purpose of the applicable design standards of the 17
individual zoning district in written narrative, graphic images, and relevant calculations. 18
5 6. Demonstration of compliance with the applicable design review objectives (Section 19
21A.59.060 of this chapter) in written narrative, graphics, images, and relevant calculations. 20
6 7. The zoning administrator may waive a submittal requirement if it is not necessary in order to 21
determine if a request for a modification to a design standard complies with the standards of 22
review. 23
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: ___________________________
By: ____________________________
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney
March 12, 2025
V1 2
2. Amending Subsection 21A.59.045.A as follows: 24
25
A. Design Review applications shall be reviewed for compliance with the design review standards of 26
Section 21A.59.050 as follows: 27
1. General Modification Requests: Applications to modify a design standard in Chapter 21A.37, 28
or other zoning standard specifically authorized for modification through design review, shall 29
be reviewed for compliance with all the design review standards, with the following 30
exceptions: that are directly related to the purpose of the associated regulation requested for 31
modification. 32
a. Subsection 21A.59.050.E is only applicable for modifications to a street facing façade 33
length regulation; 34
b. Subsection 21A.59.050.G is only applicable for additional building height; and 35
c. A standard in Section 21A.59.050 may be considered met when the proposal complies 36
with a corresponding design standard in Chapter 21A.37 and both standards align in 37
purpose and intent. 38
2. Additional Height or Square Footage Requests: Applications required to go through design 39
review due to a height or square footage regulation shall be reviewed for compliance with all 40
design review standards. 41
3. Transit Station Area Requests: For properties in a Transit Station Area District, applications 42
required to go through design review due to not meeting the minimum points for administrative 43
approval shall be reviewed for compliance with all design review standards. 44
4. All Other Requests: Any application not covered by Subsections 1 through 3 above, shall be 45
subject to review for compliance with all design review standards. 46
3. Amending section 21A.59.050 as follows: 47
48
21A.59.050 STANDARDS FOR DESIGN REVIEW 49
50
A. Any new development shall comply with the intent of the purpose statement of the zoning district 51
and specific design regulations found within the zoning district in which the project is located as 52
well as the city's adopted "urban design element" and adopted master general plan policies and 53
design guidelines governing the specific area of the proposed development. 54
55
B. Development shall be primarily oriented to the sidewalk, not an interior courtyard or parking lot. 56
by including: 57
1. Primary entrances shall that face the public sidewalk (secondary entrances can face a parking 58
lot).; 59
2. Building(s) shall be sited located close to the public sidewalk, following and responding to 60
the desired development patterns of the immediate vicinity neighborhood.; and 61
3. Parking shall be located within, behind, or to the side of buildings. 62
63
C. Building facades shall include detailing and glass in sufficient quantities to facilitate pedestrian 64
interest and interaction by including: . 65
1. Locate aActive ground floor uses at or near close to the public sidewalk.; 66
V1 3
2. Maximum ize transparency of the street facing facades. by prohibiting covering the g Ground 67
floor glass with shall not have reflective treatments, be covered by interior walls or opaque 68
signage, and or use other similar features that prevent passers-by from seeing inside of the 69
building for non-residential uses.; 70
3. Use or reinterpret tTraditional storefront elements like such as sign bands, clerestory glazing, 71
articulation, and architectural detail at window transitions on the ground floor. If the ground 72
floor contains residential uses, each primary building entrance and individual unit entrance 73
shall include a defined entry feature; 74
4. Buildings located on corner lots shall incorporate architectural features that emphasize the 75
building's corner, including a prominent building entrance that is publicly accessible, 76
transparent, and unobstructed; and 77
45. Locate o Outdoor dining patios, courtyards, plazas, habitable landscaped yards, and open 78
spaces, if provided, should be situated so that they have a direct visual connection to the 79
street or midblock walkway. and outdoor spaces. 80
81
D. Large b Building masses shall be divided into heights and sizes proportions that minimize the 82
perceived mass of the structure and relate to human scale by demonstrating compliance with the 83
following standards: . 84
1. Relate building scale and massing to the size and scale of existing and anticipated buildings 85
the surrounding buildings, and context of the site, such as alignments with existing 86
foundation lines, established cornice heights, building massing, stepbacks and vertical 87
emphasis; 88
2. Modulate the design of a larger building using a series of vertical or horizontal emphases to 89
equate with the scale (heights and widths) of the buildings in the context and reduce the 90
visual width or height. For buildings with more than three stories, compose the design of a 91
building with a distinct base to create a sense of human scale orientation. For buildings taller 92
than 50 feet, the height of the base shall be at least 20 feet. For buildings taller than 100 feet, 93
the minimum base height should be three stories or be consistent with the existing street wall; 94
3. Include secondary architectural elements such as balconies, porches, vertical bays, belt 95
courses, fenestration and or window reveals.; and 96
4. Reflect the scale and solid-to-void solid (wall) to void (window/door openings) ratio of 97
windows and doors of the established character of the neighborhood or that which is desired 98
in the master general plan. Windows shall have a consistent spacing pattern and alignment. 99
Unless the building is clad in all glass, window openings shall be recessed by a minimum of 3 100
inches. 101
102
E. Building facades that exceed a combined contiguous building length of two hundred feet (200') 103
shall include: 104
1. Changes in vertical plane (breaks in façade) 105
2. Material changes; 106
3. Massing changes; 107
4. A minimum of eighty percent (80%) of the ground floor must be used for active, publicly 108
accessible uses. Active uses are those that promote an active pedestrian environment through 109
inclusion of uses that capture the attention of a passer-by. This includes retail establishments, 110
retail services, civic spaces (theaters, museums, etc), restaurants, bars, art and craft studios, 111
V1 4
and other uses determined to be substantially similar by the planning director and/or 112
commission; and 113
5. Stepback must be a minimum of ten feet (10') from the base of the building. This allows the 114
base to be the primary defining element for the site and the adjacent public realm, reducing 115
wind impacts, and opening sky views. 116
The maximum height of the base of a proposed building should be equal to the width of the right 117
of way if allowed in the zoning district to provide sufficient enclosure for the street without 118
overwhelming the street. The minimum height of the base must be at least two stories. 119
A building over two hundred feet (200') in width shall include necessary separation from 120
property lines to minimize the impact of shadows and development rights of adjacent properties. 121
E. This subsection is only applicable to buildings requesting additional street facing building façade 122
length. Street facing building facades shall contribute to the character of the neighborhood, 123
reinforce the established street wall, promote ground-level activation, create a sense of enclosure, 124
and be designed to minimize negative impacts on the streetscape. The street facing building 125
façade may only be increased up to 25% of the allowed maximum in Section 21A.37.060, subject 126
to the following standards: 127
1. Reductions to the ground floor use requirement of the underlying zoning district, as specified 128
in Section 21A.37.060, are not permitted. For zoning districts without a designated ground 129
floor use requirement, a minimum of 75% of the ground floor shall contain qualifying active 130
uses as defined in Section 21A.37.050.A. 131
2. Building facades that exceed the maximum street facing façade length shall be designed to 132
reduce the perceived length of the façade and provide visual interest, by including elements 133
such as: 134
a. Significant changes in wall plane measuring at least 2 feet; 135
b. Massing changes; or 136
c. Distinguished roof lines. 137
138
3. The following land use are exempt from the maximum increase of 25% of building façade 139
and the reduction in ground floor use provision above: utility buildings and structures (other 140
than the offices for utility providers), stadiums/arenas, libraries, convention centers, places of 141
worship, government offices, public and private schools, universities, movie theaters, live 142
performance theaters, and other similar general assembly land uses as determined by the 143
zoning administrator. 144
F. If provided, privately-owned public publicly accessible outdoor spaces shall include at least three 145
of the six seven following elements: 146
1. At least one sitting space for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet shall be included in the 147
plaza. Seating shall be a minimum of sixteen inches (16") inches in height and thirty inches 148
(30") inches in width. Ledge benches shall have a minimum depth of 30 inches thirty inches 149
(30"); 150
2. A mixture of areas that provide seasonal shade Seasonal shade in the form of permanent 151
shade structures, pergolas, or overhanging building elements such as canopies that enhance 152
comfort and usability of the space; 153
3. Trees in proportion to the space at a minimum of one tree per eight hundred (800) square 154
feet. At the time of planting, deciduous trees shall have a minimum trunk size of 1.5 inches in 155
caliper, while evergreen trees shall have a minimum size of 5 feet in height at least two 156
inches (2") 2 inch caliper when planted; 157
V1 5
4. Water features or public art; 158
5. Outdoor dining areas; and 159
6. Children’s amenity space in the form of playgrounds, splash pads, or other similar features; or 160
6 7. Other amenities not listed above that provide a public benefit. 161
G. Building height shall be modified to relate to human scale and minimize negative impacts. In the 162
downtown and in the CSHBD Sugar House Business District, building height shall contribute to a 163
distinctive city skyline. 164
1. Human scale: 165
a. Utilize stepbacks to design a building that relates to the height and scale of adjacent and 166
nearby buildings, or where identified, goals for future scale defined in adopted master 167
plans. 168
b. The minimum stepback for any building located in a zoning district that does not contain 169
an upper level stepback provision shall be ten feet (10'). This stepback is only required 170
for applications requesting additional height when authorized in the underlying zoning 171
district. The stepback shall be applied to the first full floor of the building that is seeking 172
the request for additional height. 173
c. For buildings more than three stories or buildings with vertical mixed use, compose 174
the design of a building with distinct base, to reduce the sense of apparent height. 175
2. Negative impacts: All buildings seeking additional height as authorized in the underlying 176
zoning district shall be subject to the following standards: 177
a. Modulate taller buildings vertically and horizontally so that it steps up or down to its 178
neighbors. 179
b. Minimize shadow impacts of building height on the public realm and semi-public spaces 180
by varying building massing. Demonstrate impact from shadows due to building height 181
for the portions of the building that are subject to the request for additional height. 182
c. Modify tall buildings to minimize wind impacts on public and private spaces, such as the 183
inclusion of a wind break above the first level of the building. 184
d. Design and orient to prevent snow, ice, or water from falling directly onto a public 185
sidewalk, public space, neighboring property, or directly onto the walkway leading to the 186
building entrance. 187
3. Cornices and rooflines: 188
a. Cohesiveness: Shape and define rooflines to be cohesive with the building's overall form 189
and composition. The roofline and architectural detailing, including cornices, shall be 190
complimentary to the structure's scale, material, color, and form and create a change in 191
plane of at least six inches (6"), a change in material, utilizing at least one visible sloping 192
plan along a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the roofline on building elevations facing 193
a street, or a change in material orientation to define the roof line of the building. 194
b. Green Roof and Roof Deck: Include a green roof and/or accessible roof deck to support a 195
more visually compelling roof landscape and reduce solar gain, air pollution, and the 196
amount of water entering the stormwater system. 197
V1 6
198
G. This subsection is only applicable to buildings requesting additional building height, as 199
authorized in the underlying zoning district. Building height shall be modified to relate to human 200
scale and minimize negative impacts by demonstrating compliance with the following standards: 201
1. Design tall buildings to minimize wind impacts on primary building entrances, parks and 202
open space, and public and private outdoor amenity areas. Design elements may include a 203
wind break above the first level of the building, recessed entryways or vestibules, or 204
canopies; 205
2. Design and orient buildings to prevent snow, ice, or water from falling directly onto a public 206
sidewalk, public space, neighboring property, or directly onto the walkway leading to the 207
building entrance; 208
3. Roof-top mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view; and 209
4. Buildings abutting a landmark site shall feature at least one horizontal element on the street 210
facing façade (base, belt course, frieze, cornice) that aligns with a corresponding element of 211
the historic building. The alignment shall foster visual continuity and respect the historic 212
context. 213
214
H. Parking and on site circulation shall be provided with an emphasis on making safe pedestrian 215
connections to the sidewalk, transit facilities, or midblock walkway. Parking is encouraged to be 216
behind the principal building and away from pedestrian walkways. Parking lots and structures 217
shall be setback a minimum of twenty-five 25 feet (25') from required midblock pedestrian access 218
locations or as required in the underlying zoning district if the underlying zoning requires a larger 219
setback. 220
I. Waste and recycling containers, mechanical equipment, storage areas, and loading facilities shall 221
be fully screened from public view and, for buildings with only one street-facing frontage, are 222
prohibited from being located along street-facing facades. They shall incorporate building 223
materials and detailing compatible with the building being served and shall be co-located with 224
driveways unless prohibited by the presence of a street tree, public infrastructure, or public 225
facility within the right of way. Service uses may be located within the structure. (See 226
Subsection 21A.37.050.K of this title.) 227
I. Screening of Service Areas: Service areas, loading facilities, refuse containers, utility meters, and 228
similar areas shall be fully screened from public view or located along a side yard. All screening 229
enclosures viewable from the street shall be either incorporated into the building architecture or 230
shall incorporate building materials and detailing compatible with the building being served. 231
J. Signage shall emphasize the pedestrian/mass transit orientation. 232
1. Define specific spaces for signage that are integral to building design, such as commercial 233
sign bands framed by a material change, columns for blade signs, or other clearly articulated band 234
on the face of the building. 235
2. Coordinate signage locations with appropriate lighting, awnings, and other projections. 236
3. Coordinate sign location with landscaping to avoid conflicts. 237
K J. Site and building Llighting shall support pedestrian comfort and safety, neighborhood image, 238
and dark sky goals. 239
V1 7
1. Provide street lights as indicated in the Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan. 240
2. Outdoor lighting should be designed for low-level illumination and to minimize glare and light 241
trespass onto adjacent abutting properties and uplighting directly to the sky. 242
3 2. Coordinate lighting with architecture, signage, and pedestrian circulation to accentuate 243
significant building features, improve sign legibility, and support pedestrian comfort and 244
safety. 245
L K. Streetscape improvements shall be provided as follows: 246
1. One street tree chosen from the street tree list consistent with the city's urban forestry 247
guidelines and, with the approval of the city's urban forester, shall be placed for every thirty feet 248
(30') of property frontage on a street. Existing street trees removed as the result of a development 249
project shall be replaced by the developer with trees approved by the city's urban forester. 250
2 1. Hardscape (paving material) Impervious surfaces shall be utilized to differentiate privately-251
owned public spaces from public spaces. Hardscape for All paving for public sidewalks shall 252
follow applicable design standards. Permitted materials for privately-owned public spaces shall 253
meet the following standards: 254
a. Use materials that are durable (withstand wear, pressure, damage), require a minimum of 255
maintenance, and are easily repairable or replaceable should damage or defacement 256
occur. 257
b. Where practical, as in lower-traffic areas, use materials that allow rainwater to infiltrate 258
into the ground and recharge the water table. 259
c. Limit contribution to urban heat island effect by limiting use of dark materials and 260
incorporating materials with a high Solar-Reflective Index (SRI). 261
d. Utilize materials and designs that have an identifiable relationship to the character of the 262
site, the neighborhood, or Salt Lake City. 263
e. Use materials (like textured ground surfaces) and features (like ramps and seating at key 264
resting points) to support access and comfort for people of all abilities. 265
f. Asphalt shall be limited to vehicle drive aisles. 266
267
This page has intentionally been left blank
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2024-00294
November 18, 2023 The Salt Lake City Planning Commission initiated a petition to
make amendments to Chapter 21A.59 Design Review
March 14, 2024 The petition was assigned to Amanda Roman, Urban Designer.
March 27, 2024 Staff held a briefing with the Planning Commission.
June 26, 2024 A second briefing was held with the Planning Commission.
July 2, 2024 45-day public comment period was held between July 2, 2024 and
August 19, 2024. The Recognized Community Organization notice
was sent to all registered community organizations.
July 5, 2024 Initial information posted to the city’s online open house webpage.
July 18, 2024 Staff presented the proposal to the Liberty Wells Community
Council.
July 20, 2024 Staff provide a write-up regarding the proposal for the Greater
Avenues Community Council’s August 2024 newsletter.
August 8, 2024 Staff presented the proposal to the East Liberty Park Community
Council.
August 15, 2024 Public hearing notice was posted to city and state websites.
August 16, 2024 A notice of the hearing was posted at the SLC Main Library, the
Chapman Branch in Poplar Grove, and the Sprague Branch in
Sugar House.
August 22, 2024 Staff report for Planning Commission hearing posted to Planning’s
website.
August 28, 2024 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 7:0 to
forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
September 11, 2024 The Planning Commission minutes from the August 28, 2024
public hearing were approved.
October 23, 2024 Final ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office.
March 12, 2025 Final ordinance received from the Attorney’s Office.
May 6, 2025 Transmitted to CAN Administration.
This page has intentionally been left blank
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2024-00294 Text Amendment to Chapter
21A.59 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission initiated a petition for a Text
Amendment at the November 8, 2023, Planning Commission meeting that would make changes to
Chapter 21A.59 Design Review of city code. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify when each
section applies to a project, ensure the code language clearly communicates the intent of the standard, and
delete duplicative standards from the chapter. Additionally, the proposal introduces new design standards
to further the purpose of the design review process.
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments
regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this
issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same
night of the public hearing.
DATE: TBD
TIME:
PLACE: Electronic and in-person options.
451 South State Street, Roon 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing an in-person
opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located
at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including
Zoom connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings.
Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or
sending an email to council.comments@slc.gov. All comments received through any source
are shared with the Council and added to the public record.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Amanda
Roman at 801-535-7660 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-
mail at amanda.roman@slc.gov. The application details can be accessed at
https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number
PLNPCM2024-00294.
The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for
reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and
services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact
the City Council Office at council.comments@slc.gov, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711.
This page has intentionally been left blank
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Amanda Roman, Urban Designer
801-535-7660 or Amanda.Roman@slcgov.com
Date: August 28, 2024
Re: Text Amendment to Chapter 21A.59 Design Review – PLNPCM2024-00294
Text Amendment
PROPERTY ADDRESS: Citywide
ADOPTED CITY PLANS: Plan Salt Lake, The Urban Design Element
REQUEST
This is a petition initiated by the Planning Commission on November 8, 2023, for a text amendment that
would make changes to Chapter 21A.59 Design Review. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify when
each section applies to a project, ensure the code language clearly communicates the intent of the
standard, and delete duplicative standards from the chapter. Additionally, the proposal introduces new
design standards to further the purpose of the design review process, ensuring high quality design
outcomes and making the review process more effective and straightforward. The overall goal is to support
better project outcomes and facilitate a clearer application of design standards.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A: Proposed Ordinance
ATTACHMENT B: Planning Commission Minutes Initiating the Petition
ATTACHMENT C: Analysis of Standards – Standards for General Amendments
ATTACHMENT D: Public Process & Comments
ATTACHMENT E: Department Review Comments
PLNPCM2024-00294 1 August 28, 2024
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The purpose of the Design Review process is to allow for minor modifications to applicable design
standards and ensure high quality outcomes for larger developments that have a significant impact on the
city. This review process verifies that new developments are compatible with their surroundings, impacts
to public infrastructure and public spaces are addressed, and that new development supports the goals
and initiatives outlined in adopted city plans.
The proposed amendments to the Design Review standards are driven by the overarching goal of
designing our communities to be human-centered, walkable, and adaptable. The amendment also aims to
improve clarity and consistency within the City’s review process. Providing clear guidance to applicants
and establishing a consistent review framework for our planning staff, we seek to foster better-designed
developments that positively contribute to the urban fabric of Salt Lake City.
During the Planning Division’s internal review, Staff analyzed the intent of each standard and reviewed
prior approvals to see how these standards had been applied in an effort to determine how effective the
current code language is at creating the desired outcome. Staff also considered the general comments
received from the public and Planning Commission over the years. As the city continues to develop, and
land becomes less available, it is more imperative than ever to review each proposal for long-term
compatibility and integration into the existing urban fabric. This includes evaluating how new
developments contribute to the overall quality of the built environment, support the city's growth
sustainably, and enhance the livability of neighborhoods. The aim is to ensure that new projects not only
meet immediate needs but also contribute positively to the city’s long-term vision and resilience. In
addition to meeting the aforementioned goals, the City must balance the cost of implementing design
standards so the standards do not become a barrier to affordable and accessible development.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The initial request for amending Chapter 21A.59 Design Review, initiated by the Planning Commission on
November 8, 2023, focused on removing Standard 21A.59.050.D.2. that required modulation of larger
buildings using vertical or horizontal emphases to match the scale of surrounding buildings, aiming to
reduce the visual impact of height and width. The consensus was that this standard often led to over
articulated designs that did not consistently produce high quality outcomes. In addition, the Commission
included in the initiation some flexibility to review other standards for the purpose of clarifying the
applicability of the standards of review.
Planning provided briefings on the proposed changes to the Planning Commission on March 27 and June
26, 2024. During the March briefing the Planning Commission was provided with an overview of the
purpose behind the proposed amendment, shown examples of buildings that were approved through the
design review process, and asked to provide feedback on the proposed language.
Based on Commission feedback, Planning staff made modifications to the code and returned in June for
a second briefing. The June briefing focused on the three subsections with the most substantial changes:
building massing and projects seeking additional building length or additional building height. The
application of these three sections of code has the most influence on how a building is designed for human
scale and street level activation and provides parameters that ultimately shape the development pattern
of the city.
PLNPCM2024-00294 2 August 28, 2024
The 45-day public engagement process began after the second briefing. During this time staff met with
two community councils and provided additional information to the recognized organizations who
responded to the engagement notice.
APPROVAL PROCESS AND COMMISSION AUTHORITY
Zoning Text Amendments
Zoning text amendments proposals are reviewed against a set of considerations from the Zoning
Ordinance. The considerations are listed in Attachment C. Planning Staff is required by ordinance to
analyze proposed zoning map amendments against existing adopted City policies and other related
adopted City regulations. The decision to adopt the proposed text amendment is ultimately up to the
discretion of the City Council.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
The below considerations were identified through the analysis of the proposal and the zoning amendment
standards:
1. Proposed Ordinance Changes
2. How the Proposal Helps Implement City Goals & Policies Identified in Adopted Plans
Consideration 1: Proposed Ordinance Changes
The proposed ordinance would amend Chapter 21A.59 Design Review. The three sections being amended
include: Design Review Process, Design Review Standards Applicability, and the Standards for Design
Review. In addition to clarifying the language and removing duplicative standards, the proposal includes
new standards that will apply to all projects that require design review approval. The complete ordinance
can be reviewed in Attachment A and a summary of the changes within each section is provided below.
Design Review Process (21A.59.030) – Streetscape Study submittal requirement
A new submittal requirement has been added that requires a streetscape study to illustrate how a proposed
building integrates with the existing block face. Buildings on corner lots must provide a study of both block
faces. The study must include building height, the height of the ground floor or building base, street facing
façade length, front yard setbacks, and the location of vehicular entrances of all existing buildings. The
new requirement will be used to compare a proposal with the prevailing pattern of development in the
neighborhood where it’s located. This will help ensure it’s responsive to the context of its specific location.
Design Review Standards Applicability (21A.59.045.A)
This section clarifies that each Standard of Design Review in 21A.59.050 applies to all projects seeking
design review approval, with the exceptions of Subsections E and G.
Subsection E is only applicable when a building exceeds the street facing façade length allowed by
underlying zoning district, and Subsection G is only applicable for buildings seeking additional height.
Additionally, proposals that comply with a design standard in Chapter 21A.37 (Design Standards), where
the purpose and intent align with a standard in Section 21A.59.050 (Standards of Design Review), will be
considered compliant with the corresponding design review standard. For example, if a project meets the
PLNPCM2024-00294 3 August 28, 2024
ground floor use, glazing, building entrances, and blank wall requirements in Chapter 21A.37, it is
reasonable to agree that Subsection C (pedestrian interest) of the design review standards has also been
met.
Standards for Design Review (21A.59.050)
The proposal modifies the existing design review standards by deleting repetitive standards regulated
elsewhere in the zoning ordinance and clarifying existing language to ensure the standards are applied
and reviewed in a consistent manner.
The four sections with the most modifications are detailed below. These include standards related to
pedestrian interest, building massing, street facing façade length, and building height. The remaining
sections, B, F, H, I, J and K, were revised for clarity, but the standards were not significantly modified.
Subsection C: Pedestrian Interest
Staff is proposing minor changes for clarity and to address the overall intent of the section, which is to
increase ground floor pedestrian interest and street activation.
•Active ground floor uses shall be located near public sidewalks.
•Street facing facades shall provide maximum transparency, and ground floor windows cannot be
covered by interior walls, opaque signage, or other features that block people from seeing inside
the building.
•Buildings with commercial uses shall be designed with traditional storefront elements, while
buildings with residential uses on the ground floor must include a unit entrance with a defined
entry feature.
•Corner Lot Activation: For buildings on corner lots, a publicly accessible, transparent, and
unobstructed corner entrance must be included. This feature enhances connectivity between
intersecting streets and encourages street activation. Corner entrances serve as focal points,
visually segmenting the building and reducing the perception of its overall length.
•When provided, outdoor uses should be located near the sidewalk or a midblock walkway.
Subsection D: Building Massing
As requested by the Planning Commission, staff has deleted standard 21A.59.050.D.2:
“Modulate the design of a larger building using a series of vertical or horizontal emphases to
equate with the scale (heights and widths) of the buildings in the context and reduce the visual
width or height.”
This standard was intended to ensure large buildings don’t overwhelm their surroundings by using design
elements, such as vertical columns or horizontal banding, to reduce the perceived height or width. The
Planning Commission came to the consensus that the application of this standard, in addition to use of a
variety of materials, has resulted in the over articulation of building facades and does not produce high
quality design.
PLNPCM2024-00294 4 August 28, 2024
Standards located in other sections relating to building mass, scale, and secondary design features have
been relocated to this section and the general language has been modified for clarity. The intent of these
standards is to reduce the perceived mass and bulk of buildings by using human-scale proportions and
fenestration patterns and utilizing secondary architectural elements that are contextual and compatible
with existing development pattern.
•Building Scale and Massing: Building scale and massing must relate to existing buildings by
aligning design elements such as foundation lines, cornices, and general massing. Buildings taller
than three stories shall include a distinct base.
•Secondary Architectural Elements: Buildings shall include secondary architectural elements, such
as balconies, porches, belt courses, and window reveals.
•Fenestration Patterns: Fenestration should align with the established pattern of the neighborhood
and emphasize human-scale proportions. A newly proposed standard requires that unless a
building is fully clad in glass, window openings must be recessed by three inches. The purpose of
this standard is to add depth and dimensionality to large facades.
The 3-inch reveal requirement was initially adopted for new construction in local historic districts.
While it enhances aesthetic quality by adding shadow lines to a flat facade, it is important to note
that this standard could increase construction costs, potentially leading to higher purchase or
rental rates. Given that providing affordable housing is a top priority for Salt Lake City, this aspect
must be carefully considered. As specified in the proposal, all glass buildings cannot meet this
requirement based on construction type and lack of solid-to-void patterns.
If this prescriptive requirement is not supported, staff would like the Planning Commission to
consider if this standard has been addressed through other design review standards that break up
large, flat building expanses. The goal is to find a balance that maintains high quality design while
also supporting affordability in the city’s housing market.
Subsection E: Street Facing Façade Length
These standards apply to buildings that exceed the street facing façade length specified in Section
21A.37.060 (this code section dictates the maximum façade length for new buildings in each zoning
district). The main updates include establishing a maximum façade length for all buildings regardless of
zoning district and prohibiting reductions to the required amount of active ground floor uses for buildings
approved for additional length. The goal of the new standards is to maintain pedestrian-oriented design,
which is often sacrificed when building facades are too long and when active ground floor uses are
eliminated. Additional design standards have also been included to break up long facades, make buildings
appear smaller through proportional massing, and ensure transparency and engagement at the ground
level. Projects seeking additional building length will be required to meet the active ground floor use
requirement and demonstrate compliance with the visual interest standards within Subsection E.
•Maximum Façade Length: The proposed amendment allows up to a 25% increase of the prescribed
maximum building length in Section 21A.37.060. Previously, if a project obtained design review
approval, there was no limit to building length. By establishing a maximum, this standard ensures
that buildings do not become excessively long, which can dominate the streetscape, and reduce
connectivity and pedestrian comfort. Most zones currently allow for building lengths of 150 or 200
feet by right, so this change allows for more length but not in an unlimited manner. Staff is
PLNPCM2024-00294 5 August 28, 2024
proposing this limit based on a review of past design review approvals, best practices in urban
design, and feedback from the public and Planning Commission regarding the impacts of long
buildings on the streetscape.
Known for its exceptionally wide streets (132 feet) and large blocks (660 feet), Salt Lake City faces
challenges related to pedestrian comfort, walkability, and connectivity due to long block faces. If
the base zone allows 200 feet, or up to 250 feet with design review approval, the building will still
cover over one-third of a 660-foot-long block face. Limiting building length is intended to create a
more fine-grained urban fabric and a pedestrian friendly environment by both visually and
physically breaking up the city’s large blocks. Staff acknowledges that this new regulation will
prompt developers to reexamine their typical building designs but believes that the proposed
changes will positively influence the city’s urban form and contribute to a more vibrant and
accessible streetscape.
•Active Ground Floor Uses: For buildings exceeding the maximum street facing façade length, the
ground floor use requirements in Chapter 21A.37 cannot be reduced via the design review process.
In zones without a ground floor use requirement, at least 75% of the ground floor must include
active uses as defined in Chapter 21A.37.050. This standard ensures that long buildings prioritize
and contribute to street activity, rather than using the extra building length for parking, utilities,
or private amenity space.
•Visual Interest: The other standards within Subsection E require buildings to provide meaningful
breaks in the façade, massing changes or a distinguished roofline. Changes in plane and massing
create a sense of depth and help mitigate the perception of length and varied roof lines add visual
interest to the building’s silhouette.
•Specific Land Use Exemptions: Staff is recommending exempting specific land uses from having
to adhere to the maximum street facing façade length and ground floor use requirements due to
their unique building forms. The exempt uses are as follows: utility buildings and structures (other
than the offices for utility providers), stadiums/arenas, libraries, convention centers, places of
worship, government offices, public and private schools, universities, movie theaters, live
performance theaters, and other similar general assembly land uses as determined by the zoning
administrator.
Convention centers & schools are examples of exempt land uses
PLNPCM2024-00294 6 August 28, 2024
While design standards and review processes are crucial for ensuring compatible development,
these specialized land uses require flexibility in design to fulfill their specific functions effectively.
Thus, exempting them from certain design guidelines allows for the creation of spaces that best
serve their intended purposes.
Subsection G: Additional Building Height
Subsection G addresses the standards for projects seeking additional building height as authorized in the
underlying zoning district. This section originally covered aspects related to human scale, negative
impacts, cornices, and rooflines. Staff are proposing to remove redundant and subjective standards and
have added a standard for buildings abutting Landmark Sites.
Proposed Deletions:
•Stepbacks: The standards related to building stepbacks are proposed for deletion because
stepbacks are already regulated under Chapter 21A.37 Design Standards.
•Cornices and Rooflines: Standards concerning cornices and rooflines are also proposed for
removal, as they were very prescriptive and have proven difficult to administer. The cornice
standard has not successfully ensured that rooflines integrate cohesively with the building's overall
form and composition and while staff fully supports the utilization of green infrastructure,
requiring green roofs is not achievable on every building.
•Building Modulation: This standard is proposed for deletion because it may limit development
rights if a building must be stepped up or down from a shorter structure on a neighboring property.
•Shadow Study: The requirement for a shadow study for buildings seeking additional height is
proposed for deletion. Given the evolving impacts of climate change, shaded outdoor spaces are
increasingly seen as beneficial, which may outweigh concerns about shadow impacts.
Updated Standards:
•The requirement for buildings over three stories to have a distinct base has been relocated to
Subsection D, which focuses on massing.
•A new standard is proposed requiring buildings adjacent to a Landmark Site to include a horizontal
element that aligns with a corresponding element of the historic building.
Subsections B, F, H, I, J and K
The remaining standards have been slightly modified for clarity. These sections include standards on
building orientation, publicly accessible spaces, parking, screening of service areas, lighting, and
streetscape improvements. The clarifications will aid staff with the administration of these sections and
reduce redundancy when standards are required elsewhere in the ordinance. Applicants must provide
staff with plans detailed enough to demonstrate compliance, although a final review may still be required
during the building permit process.
PLNPCM2024-00294 7 August 28, 2024
Consideration 2: How the Proposal Helps Implement City Goals & Policies Identified in
Adopted Plans
Plan Salt Lake Elements and Considerations
Plan Salt Lake (2015) outlines an overall vision of sustainable growth and development in the city. As the
city experiences additional growth, decision makers are focusing on placemaking, connectivity and
circulation, providing a diverse mix of uses, compatibility of new developments, maximizing public
investments, and green building. The plan includes 13 guiding principles to help Salt Lake City realize its
collective vision.
Guiding Principles outlined in Plan Salt Lake that would relate to the proposal include the following:
1)Neighborhoods / Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunities for social
interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein.
•Maintain neighborhood stability and character.
•Support neighborhoods and districts in carrying out the City’s collective vision.
•Create a safe and convenient place for people to carry out their daily lives.
•Promote accessible neighborhood services and amenities.
•Encourage and support local businesses and neighborhood business districts.
•Provide opportunities for and promotion of social interaction.
•Improve the usefulness of public rights-of-way as usable public space.
2)Growth / Growing responsibly, while providing people with choices about where they live, how
they live, and how they get around.
•Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit
and transportation corridors.
•Encourage a mix of land uses.
•Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
•Reduce consumption of natural resources, including water.
•Accommodate and promote an increase in the City’s population.
•Provide access to opportunities for a healthy lifestyle (including parks, trails, recreation, and
healthy food).
3)Housing / Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the city,
providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.
•Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low incomes).
•Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
•Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place.
•Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential
to be people-oriented.
PLNPCM2024-00294 8 August 28, 2024
•Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate.
•Promote high density residential in areas served by transit.
8)Beautiful City/ A beautiful city that is people focused.
•Reinforce downtown as the visually dominant center of the City through the use of design
standards and guidelines.
•Identify and establish standards for key gateways into the City.
•Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure that:
o Is people-focused;
o Responds to its surrounding context and enhances the public realm;
o Reflects our diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage; and
o Is sustainable, using high quality materials and building standards.
•Promote and expand the City’s street lighting program throughout the City.
•Reinforce and preserve neighborhood and district character and a strong sense of place.
•Promote increased connectivity through mid-block connections.
•Protect, maintain, and expand the City’s urban forest, including the provision of adequate space
and infrastructure for street trees to thrive.
•Create opportunities to connect with nature in urban areas.
•Reinforce the development of a connected green network of urban open spaces and forest that
accommodates active transportation and provides contact with nature.
Urban Design Element (1990)
The City’s adopted Urban Design Element is outdated in terms of regulating land uses, specifically in the
Downtown area, but the overall policy concepts still hold true and can be applied to new development
nearly 25 years later. The plan emphasizes the role of all development in establishing the city’s urban form
and outlines certain urban design characteristics that help shape the character of each district or
neighborhood. The policy concepts below are in line with the proposed update to the design review
standards in 21A.59.050.
Desirable Development Characteristics
•Establish a maximum building width, with no building exceeding 250 feet in the commercial core
and 200 feet in other areas of the city.
•Establish the maximum building height at 198 feet, with increased height allowances when a
developer can effectively address a districts development character.
•Develop a pedestrian network in the Downtown area using existing sidewalks and interior block
easements to tie into an urban open space network.
•All mechanical and building equipment, including on the roof-top, should be enclosed and
screened so as to appear to be an integral part of the architectural design of the building.
PLNPCM2024-00294 9 August 28, 2024
Neighborhood Conservation
•Allow individual districts to develop in response to their unique characteristics within the overall
urban design scheme for the city.
•Strive to make building restoration and new construction enhance district character, not detract
from it.
•Ensure that land uses make a positive contribution to neighborhood improvement and usability.
•Require private development efforts to be compatible with urban design policies of the city
regardless of whether city financial assistance is provided.
Height, Scale, and Character of Buildings
•Treat building height, scale, and character as significant features of a district’s image.
•Ensure that features of building design such as color, detail, materials and scale are responsive to
district character, neighboring buildings, and the pedestrian.
•Maintain a pedestrian-oriented environment at the ground floor of all buildings.
•Address parking needs at a district level rather than on an individual building basis.
Urban Open Space & Streets
•Require all new developments (public and private) to contribute to the City’s open space needs.
•Decline to vacate streets, alleys, and other public right-of-way unless it is demonstrated that the
vacation will result in a public benefit.
•Use street spaces, patterns, and rhythms to unify the image of the district.
•Stress the importance of street tree conservation and replanting in street right-of-way
construction.
•Emphasize street-level activity as the first priority when developing pedestrian-oriented open
space and circulation networks.
Urban Spaces & Pedestrian Experience
•Encourage private development of open space features.
•Emphasize street-level open space first, inner block pedestrian networks second.
Consideration 2 Discussion: The proposed changes to the Design Review standards align with Plan
Salt Lake’s goals by enhancing compatibility, quality, and pedestrian-oriented design features in new
developments. These amendments ensure that projects integrate with their surroundings and support the
creation of walkable, human-centered communities. By improving the clarity and consistency of the
review process, the changes support the city’s objectives of providing diverse housing options, vibrant
neighborhoods with small scale retail options, and sustainable growth. The amendments also align with
the Urban Design Element policies by regulating building length, height, and scale, which contribute to a
neighborhood’s overall character and imageability. They promote consistency in design, respect for
neighborhood character, and enhance ground level activation. By evaluating how new projects contribute
to long-term urban fabric, enhance livability, and meet both immediate and future needs, the changes
seek to uphold Plan Salt Lake's principles of responsible growth, neighborhood stability, and a beautiful,
people-focused city.
PLNPCM2024-00294 10 August 28, 2024
DISCUSSION
In response to the concerns about achieving higher quality design and the need to address the City’s rapid
growth and development pressures, Planning staff completed a comprehensive review of the design review
standards in Section 21A.59.050. This review assessed how these standards were applied, their
effectiveness in fulfilling the intent of the design review process, and their alignment with the broader
goals of livability and quality design amid increasing development.
Following the initial review, staff held two briefings with the Planning Commission to gather feedback and
refine the proposal. The proposal removes redundant standards, clarifies existing language, and
introduces new standards that better support the design review objectives. While most sections have
undergone minimal changes, larger updates have been made to the standards related to massing, building
length, and building height. These updates aim to enhance development outcomes by supporting the city's
growth, fostering a more engaging and active pedestrian experience, and increasing overall livability.
NEXT STEPS
The Planning Commission can provide a positive or negative recommendation for the proposed zoning
text amendment. The recommendation will be sent to the City Council, who will hold a briefing and
additional public hearing on the proposed amendment prior to making a decision on whether to adopt the
zoning text amendment.
PLNPCM2024-00294 11 August 28, 2024
PLNPCM2024-00294 12 August 28, 2024
V3
Project Title: Text Amendment to Chapter 21A.59 Design
Review
Petition No.: PLNPCM2024-00294
Version: Planning Commission Draft
Date Prepared: August 20, 2024
Recommended by Planning Commission: [Yes/No]
This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments (for summary purposes only):
•Amends sections 21A.59.030, 21A.59.045, and 21A.59.050
•Makes technical changes
•Deletes standards regulated elsewhere in code
•Adds Design Review submittal requirements
•Reorganizes the standards and clarifies when each subsection is applicable
•Adds new standards for design review to better meet the intent of the design review process
Underlined text is new; text with strikethrough is proposed to be deleted. All other text is existing with no
proposed change.
1
Section 1: Amending section 21A.59.030: 2
3
21A.59.030 DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS 4
B.Complete Application: The design review application is considered complete when it includes all5
of the following:6
1.All of the application information required for site plan review as identified in Chapter7
21A.58 of this title.8
2. Photos showing the facades of adjacent abutting development, trees on the site, general9
streetscape character, and views to and from the site.10
3.Streetscape study that illustrates how the building integrates with the block face. The study11
shall include the building height, height of the ground floor or building base, street facing12
façade length, front yard setback, and location of vehicular entrances of existing buildings. If13
the proposed building is located on a corner lot, the analysis shall incorporate both block14
faces.15
3 4. Demonstration of compliance with the purpose of the individual zoning district in written 16
narrative and graphic images. 17
4 5. Demonstration of compliance with the purpose of the applicable design standards of the 18
individual zoning district in written narrative, graphic images, and relevant calculations. 19
5 6. Demonstration of compliance with the applicable design review objectives (Section 20
21A.59.060 of this chapter) in written narrative, graphics, images, and relevant calculations. 21
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: ___________________________
By: ____________________________
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney
PLNPCM2024-00294 13 August 28, 2024
V3
6 7. The zoning administrator may waive a submittal requirement if it is not necessary in order to 22
determine if a request for a modification to a design standard complies with the standards of 23
review. 24
Section 2: Amending section 21A.59.045.A: 25
26
21A.59.045.A DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS APPLICABILITY 27
A.Design Review applications shall be reviewed for compliance with the design review standards of28
Section 21A.59.050 as follows:29
1. General Modification Requests: Applications to modify a design standard in Chapter 21A.37,30
or other zoning standard specifically authorized for modification through design review, shall31
be reviewed for compliance with all the design review standards, with the following32
exceptions: that are directly related to the purpose of the associated regulation requested for33
modification.34
a.Subsection E is only applicable for modifications to a street facing façade length35
regulation; 36
b. Subsection G is only applicable for additional building height; and37
c.A standard in Section 21A.59.050 may be considered met when the proposal complies38
with a corresponding design standard in Chapter 21A.37 and both standards align in 39
purpose and intent. 40
2. Additional Height or Square Footage Requests: Applications required to go through design41
review due to a height or square footage regulation shall be reviewed for compliance with all42
design review standards.43
3. Transit Station Area Requests: For properties in a Transit Station Area District, applications44
required to go through design review due to not meeting the minimum points for administrative45
approval shall be reviewed for compliance with all design review standards.46
4. All Other Requests: Any application not covered by Subsections 1 through 3 above, shall be47
subject to review for compliance with all design review standards.48
Section 3: Amending section 21A.59.050: 49
50
21A.59.050 STANDARDS FOR DESIGN REVIEW 51
A.Any new development shall comply with the intent of the purpose statement of the zoning district52
and specific design regulations found within the zoning district in which the project is located as53
well as the city's adopted "urban design element" and adopted master general plan policies and54
design guidelines governing the specific area of the proposed development.55
56
B.Development shall be primarily oriented to the sidewalk, not an interior courtyard or parking lot.57
by including:58
1.Primary entrances shall that face the public sidewalk (secondary entrances can face a parking59
lot);60
2.Building(s) shall be sited located close to the public sidewalk, following and responding to61
the desired development patterns of the immediate vicinity neighborhood; and62
3.Parking shall be located within, behind, or to the side of buildings.63
64
PLNPCM2024-00294 14 August 28, 2024
V3
C.Building facades shall include detailing and glass in sufficient quantities to facilitate pedestrian 65
interest and interaction by including: .66
1.Locate aActive ground floor uses at or near close to the public sidewalk;67
2.Maximum ize transparency of the street facing facades. by prohibiting covering the g Ground68
floor glass with shall not have reflective treatments, be covered by interior walls or opaque69
signage, and or use other similar features that prevent passers-by from seeing inside of the70
building for non-residential uses;71
3.Use or reinterpret tTraditional storefront elements like such as sign bands, clerestory glazing,72
articulation, and architectural detail at window transitions on the ground floor. If the ground73
floor contains residential uses, each primary building entrance and individual unit entrance74
shall include a defined entry feature;75
4.Buildings located on corner lots shall incorporate architectural features that emphasize the76
building's corner, including a prominent building entrance that is publicly accessible,77
transparent, and unobstructed; and78
5.Locate o Outdoor dining patios, courtyards, plazas, habitable landscaped yards, and open79
spaces, if provided, should be situated so that they have a direct visual connection to the80
street or midblock walkway. and outdoor spaces.81
82
D.Large b Building masses shall be divided into heights and sizes proportions that minimize the83
perceived mass of the structure and relate to human scale by demonstrating compliance with the84
following standards: . 85
1.Relate building scale and massing to the size and scale of existing and anticipated buildings86
the surrounding buildings, and context of the site, such as alignments with existing foundation87
lines, established cornice heights, building massing, stepbacks and vertical emphasis;88
2.Modulate the design of a larger building using a series of vertical or horizontal emphases to89
equate with the scale (heights and widths) of the buildings in the context and reduce the visual90
width or height. For buildings with more than three stories, compose the design of a building91
with a distinct base to create a sense of human scale orientation. For buildings taller than 50 feet,92
the height of the base shall be at least 20 feet. For buildings taller than 100 feet, the minimum 93
base height should be three stories or be consistent with the existing street wall; 94
3. Include secondary architectural elements such as balconies, porches, vertical bays, belt95
courses, fenestration and window reveals; and96
4.Reflect the scale and solid-to-void solid (wall) to void (window/door openings) ratio of97
windows and doors of the established character of the neighborhood or that which is desired in98
the master general plan. Windows shall have a consistent spacing pattern and alignment. Unless99
the building is clad in all glass, window openings shall be recessed by a minimum of 3 inches to100
add depth and dimensionality to the building façade. 101
102
E.Building facades that exceed a combined contiguous building length of two hundred feet (200')103
shall include:104
1.Changes in vertical plane (breaks in façade)105
2.Material changes;106
3.Massing changes;107
PLNPCM2024-00294 15 August 28, 2024
V3
4. A minimum of eighty percent (80%) of the ground floor must be used for active, publicly108
accessible uses. Active uses are those that promote an active pedestrian environment through109
inclusion of uses that capture the attention of a passer-by. This includes retail establishments,110
retail services, civic spaces (theaters, museums, etc), restaurants, bars, art and craft studios, and111
other uses determined to be substantially similar by the planning director and/or commission; and112
5. Stepback must be a minimum of ten feet (10') from the base of the building. This allows the113
base to be the primary defining element for the site and the adjacent public realm, reducing wind114
impacts, and opening sky views.115
The maximum height of the base of a proposed building should be equal to the width of the right 116
of way if allowed in the zoning district to provide sufficient enclosure for the street without 117
overwhelming the street. The minimum height of the base must be at least two stories. 118
A building over two hundred feet (200') in width shall include necessary separation from 119
property lines to minimize the impact of shadows and development rights of adjacent properties. 120
E.This subsection is only applicable to buildings requesting additional street facing building façade121
length. Street facing building facades shall contribute to the character of the neighborhood,122
reinforce the established street wall, promote ground-level activation, create a sense of enclosure,123
and be designed to minimize negative impacts on the streetscape. The street facing building124
façade may only be increased up to 25% of the allowed maximum in Section 21A.37.060, subject125
to the following standards: 126
1. Reductions to the ground floor use requirement of the underlying zoning district, as specified127
in Section 21A.37.060, are not permitted. For zoning districts without a designated ground 128
floor use requirement, a minimum of 75% of the ground floor shall contain qualifying active 129
uses as defined in Section 21A.37.050.A. 130
2.Building facades that exceed the maximum street facing façade length shall be designed to131
reduce the perceived length of the façade and provide visual interest, by including elements132
such as:133
a.Significant changes in wall plane measuring at least 2 feet;134
b.Massing changes; or135
c.Distinguished roof lines.136
137
3.The following land use are exempt from the maximum increase of 25% of building façade138
and the reduction in ground floor use provision above: utility buildings and structures (other 139
than the offices for utility providers), stadiums/arenas, libraries, convention centers, places of 140
worship, government offices, public and private schools, universities, movie theaters, live 141
performance theaters, and other similar general assembly land uses as determined by the 142
zoning administrator. 143
F.If provided, privately-owned public publicly accessible outdoor spaces shall include at least three144
of the six following elements:145
1.At least one sitting space for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet shall be included in the146
plaza. Seating shall be a minimum of sixteen inches (16") inches in height and thirty inches147
(30") inches in width. Ledge benches shall have a minimum depth of 30 inches thirty inches148
(30");149
2.A mixture of areas that provide seasonal shade Seasonal shade in the form of permanent150
shade structures, pergolas, or overhanging building elements such as canopies that enhance151
comfort and usability of the space;152
PLNPCM2024-00294 16 August 28, 2024
V3
3. Trees in proportion to the space at a minimum of one tree per eight hundred (800) square 153
feet. At the time of planting, deciduous trees shall have a minimum trunk size of 1.5 inches in 154
caliper, while evergreen trees shall have a minimum size of 5 feet in height; at least two 155
inches (2") 2 inch caliper when planted; 156
4. Water features or public art; 157
5. Outdoor dining areas; and 158
6. Children’s amenity space in the form of playgrounds, splash pads, or other similar features; or 159
6 7. Other amenities not listed above that provide a public benefit. 160
G. Building height shall be modified to relate to human scale and minimize negative impacts. In the 161
downtown and in the CSHBD Sugar House Business District, building height shall contribute to a 162
distinctive city skyline. 163
1. Human scale: 164
a. Utilize stepbacks to design a building that relates to the height and scale of adjacent and 165
nearby buildings, or where identified, goals for future scale defined in adopted master 166
general plans. 167
b. The minimum stepback for any building located in a zoning district that does not contain 168
an upper level stepback provision shall be ten feet (10'). This stepback is only required 169
for applications requesting additional height of more than 10% the maximum height 170
when authorized in the underlying zoning district. The stepback shall be applied to the 171
first full floor of the building that is seeking the request for additional height. 172
c. For buildings more than three stories or buildings with vertical mixed use, compose 173
the design of a building with distinct base, to reduce the sense of apparent height. 174
2. Cornices and rooflines: 175
a. Cohesiveness: Shape and define rooflines to be cohesive with the building's overall form 176
and composition. The roofline and architectural detailing, including cornices, shall be 177
complimentary to the structure's scale, material, color, and form and create a change in 178
plane of at least six inches (6"), a change in material, utilizing at least one visible sloping 179
plan along a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the roofline on building elevations facing 180
a street, or a change in material orientation to define the roof line of the building. 181
b. Green Roof and Roof Deck: Include a green roof and/or accessible roof deck to support a 182
more visually compelling roof landscape and reduce solar gain, air pollution, and the 183
amount of water entering the stormwater system. 184
3. Negative impacts: All buildings seeking additional height as authorized in the underlying 185
zoning district shall be subject to the following standards: 186
a. Modulate taller buildings vertically and horizontally so that it steps up or down to its 187
neighbors. 188
b. Minimize shadow impacts of building height on the public realm and semi-public spaces 189
by varying building massing. Demonstrate impact from shadows due to building height 190
for the portions of the building that are subject to the request for additional height. 191
c. Modify tall buildings to minimize wind impacts on public and private spaces, such as the 192
inclusion of a wind break above the first level of the building. 193
PLNPCM2024-00294 17 August 28, 2024
V3
d. Design and orient buildings to prevent snow, ice, or water from falling directly onto a194
public sidewalk, public space, neighboring property, or directly onto the walkway leading195
to the building entrance.196
G.This subsection is only applicable to buildings requesting additional building height, as197
authorized in the underlying zoning district. Building height shall be modified to relate to human 198
scale and minimize negative impacts by demonstrating compliance with the following standards: 199
1.Design tall buildings to minimize wind impacts on primary building entrances, parks and200
open space, and public and private outdoor amenity areas. Design elements may include a 201
wind break above the first level of the building, recessed entryways or vestibules, or 202
canopies; 203
2. Design and orient buildings to prevent snow, ice, or water from falling directly onto a public204
sidewalk, public space, neighboring property, or directly onto the walkway leading to the 205
building entrance; 206
3. Roof-top mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view; and207
4. Buildings abutting a Landmark Site shall feature at least one horizontal element on the street208
facing façade (base, belt course, frieze, cornice) that aligns with a corresponding element of 209
the historic building. The alignment shall foster visual continuity and respect the historic 210
context. 211
212
H.Parking and on site circulation shall be provided with an emphasis on making safe pedestrian213
connections to the sidewalk, transit facilities, or midblock walkway. Parking is encouraged to be214
behind the principal building and away from pedestrian walkways. 1. Parking lots and structures215
shall be setback a minimum of twenty-five 25 feet (25') from required midblock pedestrian access216
locations or as required in the underlying zoning district if the underlying zoning requires a larger217
setback.218
I.Waste and recycling containers, mechanical equipment, storage areas, and loading docks shall be219
fully screened from public view and, for buildings with only one street-facing frontage, are220
prohibited from being located along street-facing facades. They shall incorporate building221
materials and detailing compatible with the building being served and shall be co-located with222
driveways unless prohibited by the presence of a street tree, public infrastructure, or public223
facility within the right of way. Service uses may be located within the structure. (See224
Subsection 21A.37.050.K of this title.)225
I.Screening of Service Areas: Service areas, loading docks, refuse containers, utility meters, and226
similar areas shall be fully screened from public view or located along a side yard. All screening 227
enclosures viewable from the street shall be either incorporated into the building architecture or 228
shall incorporate building materials and detailing compatible with the building being served. 229
J.Signage shall emphasize the pedestrian/mass transit orientation.230
1.Define specific spaces for signage that are integral to building design, such as commercial231
sign bands framed by a material change, columns for blade signs, or other clearly articulated band232
on the face of the building.233
2. Coordinate signage locations with appropriate lighting, awnings, and other projections.234
3.Coordinate sign location with landscaping to avoid conflicts.235
PLNPCM2024-00294 18 August 28, 2024
V3
K J. Site and building Llighting shall support pedestrian comfort and safety, neighborhood image, 236
and dark sky goals. 237
1. Provide street lights as indicated in the Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan. 238
2 1. Outdoor lighting should be designed for low-level illumination and to minimize glare and 239
light trespass onto adjacent abutting properties and uplighting directly to the sky. 240
3 2. Coordinate lighting with architecture, signage, and pedestrian circulation to accentuate 241
significant building features, improve sign legibility, and support pedestrian comfort and 242
safety. 243
L K. Streetscape improvements shall be provided as follows: 244
1. One street tree chosen from the street tree list consistent with the city's urban forestry 245
guidelines and, with the approval of the city's urban forester, shall be placed for every thirty feet 246
(30') of property frontage on a street. Existing street trees removed as the result of a development 247
project shall be replaced by the developer with trees approved by the city's urban forester. 248
2 1. Hardscape (paving material) Impervious surfaces shall be utilized to differentiate privately-249
owned public spaces from public spaces. Hardscape for All paving for public sidewalks shall 250
follow applicable design standards. Permitted materials for privately-owned public spaces shall 251
meet the following standards: 252
a. Use materials that are durable (withstand wear, pressure, damage), require a minimum of 253
maintenance, and are easily repairable or replaceable should damage or defacement 254
occur. 255
b. Where practical, as in lower-traffic areas, use materials that allow rainwater to infiltrate 256
into the ground and recharge the water table. 257
c. Limit contribution to urban heat island effect by limiting use of dark materials and 258
incorporating materials with a high Solar-Reflective Index (SRI). 259
d. Utilize materials and designs that have an identifiable relationship to the character of the 260
site, the neighborhood, or Salt Lake City. 261
e. Use materials (like textured ground surfaces) and features (like ramps and seating at key 262
resting points) to support access and comfort for people of all abilities. 263
f. Asphalt shall be limited to vehicle drive aisles. 264
265
PLNPCM2024-00294 19 August 28, 2024
PLNPCM2024-00294 20 August 28, 2024
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City & County Building
451 South State Street, Room 315
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Wednesday, November 8, 2023
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to
order at approximately 5:30 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 https://www.youtube.com/c/SLCLiveMeetings.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chair Mike Christensen, Vice Chair Andra Ghent
and Commissioners, Aimee Burrows, Bree Scheer, Rich Tuttle, Carlos Santos-Rivera, Turner Bitton, and
Amy Barry. Commissioner Anaya Gayle was excused from the meeting.
Staff members present at the meeting were: Planning Director Nick Norris, Planning Manager Amy
Thompson, Planning Manager Mayara Lima, Senior City Attorney Paul Nielson, Transportation Planner
III Joe Taylor, Senior Planner Lex Traughber, Senior Planner Krissy Gilmore, and Administrative
Assistants David Schupick.
Chair Mike Christensen shared the opening statement.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
The Chair stated that he had nothing to report.
The Vice Chair stated that she had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Planning Director Nick Norris stated updates of items that were brought to City Council.
OPEN FORUM
Commissioner Ghent brought up concerns for parking minimums and how some cities have stopped this
practice of parking minimums. Commissioner Barry stated that some developments have had no parking
minimums and they have not resulted in reduced market rental rates. She states that there must be more
to the formula that is missing. Commissioner Scheer stated that she would like to give the new parking
ordinance more time to see the results. Commissioner Burrows stated that there are other ways to reduce
rental rates besides just parking, such as a variety of housing options. Nick Norris stated that staff’s
approach to code changes is to analyze them and then make changes where needed and parking
minimums would not be a current priority.
OTHER BUSINESS
Petition Initiation - The Planning Commission will discuss a potential petition initiation related to design
review standards in 21A.59. The Commission may vote to initiate a zoning text amendment. This request
was presented by a member of the Planning Commission.
Planning Director Nick Norris elaborated on what the design standard 21A.59 includes and what
options the Commission has. Commissioner Barry stated concerns with removal of parts of the code.
MOTION
Commissioner Scheer stated, “I move that the Planning Commission ask the Planning
Division look into the design standards 21A.59 that deal with the mass of the building and
bring back to the Commission a proposal that modifies those standards so that we do not get
an over articulation of the façade.”
PLNPCM2024-00294 21 August 28, 2024
Commissioner Barry seconded the motion. Commissioners Scheer, Burrows, Barry, Bitton,
Tuttle, Christensen, Santos-Rivera, and Ghent voted “yes”. The motion passed unanimously.
REGULAR AGENDA
1.Yalecrest - Princeton Heights Local Historic District - Paula Harline, a property owner in the
proposed local historic district, has submitted a petition to designate a new local historic district within
the Yalecrest neighborhood of the City. The proposed boundaries of the Princeton Heights Local
Historic District are approximately 1323 Princeton Avenue to 1500 East along Princeton Avenue. The
request is before the Planning Commission because the local historic district designation process
requires the Commission to hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to the City Council
which has final decision-making authority on this type of request, a zoning map amendment. The
proposed district is located in City Council District 6 represented by Dan Dugan. (Staff Contact: Lex
Traughber at 801-535-6184 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com) Case number: PLNHLC2023-00044
Senior Planner Lex Traughber reviewed the petition as outlined in the staff report. The applicants
gave a formal presentation. They provided visuals as well as additional details on the project.
Commissioner Scheer asked if trees in a historic district would be protected. Amy Thompson stated
that removal of a tree would need permit that would be reviewed by the Historic Landmark
Commission.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chair Mike Christensen opened the public hearing.
Jan Hemming stated their support for the project.
Ralf Finlayson stated their support for the project.
Susan Michael stated their support for the project.
Emma Kerns stated their support for the project.
Vergina Lee stated their support for the project.
Lynn Pershing stated their support for the project.
Cindy Cromer stated their support for the project.
Ceria Toronto stated their support for the project.
Jessica Guen stated their support for the project.
David Neilson stated their support for the project.
Seeing no one else wished to speak, Chair Mike Christensen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Ghent stated concerns with air quality and how low density contributes to it.
Commissioner Santos-Rivera stated preserving neighborhoods could benefit a more sustainable
growth for Salt Lake City. Commissioner Barry stated that the applicant has met all the requirements
placed for the process. She also mentioned that it is important to approach density in places where it
makes sense. Commissioner Scheer stated that it is important to mention that this neighborhood
remained throughout history due to historic redlining and had access to loans that other
neighborhoods did not. Commissioner Burrows stated that local historic districts are part of the plans
for the future of Salt Lake City and this application meets all the requirements for a local historic
district.
MOTION
Commissioner Barry stated, “Based on the information presented and discussion, I move that
the Commission forward a recommendation to adopt this Zoning Map Amendment to the City
Council. Whereas, Yalecrest neighborhood embodies the spirit of these guiding principles, as
PLNPCM2024-00294 22 August 28, 2024
it is not only a vibrant community but also a historical treasure that has contributed
significantly to the cultural and architectural heritage of Salt Lake City. Whereas the proposal
to designate Yalecrest as a historic district aligns with Principle 9, aiming to maintain places
that provide a foundation for the City to affirm its past, acknowledging the historical
significance and architectural beauty of this neighborhood. Whereas it aligns with Principle
10, where it celebrates and preserves the artistic and cultural resources, the showcase the
community’s commitment to a strong creative culture. Whereas it is committed to creating a
beautiful, people-focused urban environment as envisioned in Principle 8. This designation
will help preserve the neighborhoods unique character, enhance the community’s well-being,
and contribute to a vibrant and people-focused city that values its history, environment, and
cultural heritage.”
Commissioner Scheer seconded the motion. Commissioners Scheer, Burrows, Barry,
Christensen, and Santos-Rivera voted “yes”. Commissioners Bitton, Tuttle, and Ghent voted
“no”. The motion passed.
2.Plan Update for Citywide Transportation Plan (Formally Transportation Master Plan) - The
Transportation Division has updated the 1996 Transportation Master Plan to reflect current
Transportation Planning practice and provide The City with a governing document for all decisions
and projects occurring within and relating to The City's Right of Way. The Plan update is not a list of
projects. It establishes core values for the Right of Way provided by the community and outlines
policies and programs to ensure Transportation Projects reflect these values. The Transportation
Division is seeking Commission Recommendation to City Council for adoption of the updated Plan.
The draft plan can be found here: https://www.slc.gov/transportation/plans-studies/tmp/ (Staff
Contact: Joe Taylor at 801-535-6679 or joe.taylor@slcgov.com)
Transportation Planner III Joe Taylor reviewed the petition as outlined in the staff report.
Commissioner Ghent stated concerns for crossing of state-owned streets and the desire for
overpasses for safety. Joe Taylor stated that he cannot speak for UDOT, but his division tries to be
good partners with them. Commissioner Bitton asked if there could be more strategy with public
engagement with UDOT. Commissioner Scheer asked if federal funding is given to UDOT. Joe Taylor
stated that that is correct. Commissioner Barry stated that people drive to the design to the road and
not the sign next to the road. She stated that she does not see that articulated in the plan. She also
stated that she would like to see more information to empower people to advocate for safter roads.
Commissioner Santos-Rivera stated concerns for the public engagement not reaching enough of the
population. He also stated desire for more behavioral campaigns as a strategy to help spread
awareness of driving safety. Commissioner Ghent stated that the problem is with infrastructure and
state-owned streets. She also stated that Salt Lake City is funding more of UTA than other reginal
partners.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chair Mike Christensen opened the public hearing.
Cindy Cromer stated their desire for more enforcement within the city and concerns for safety with
construction projects.
Seeing no one else wished to speak, Chair Mike Christensen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Burrows asked if this project would replace the 1993 Transportation Master Plan. Joe
Taylor stated that that is correct. Commissioner Christensen stated that since he moved to Salt Lake
City, he has always felt a divide between the West and East side and is excited about an opportunity
to minimize that divide.
MOTION
PLNPCM2024-00294 23 August 28, 2024
Commissioner Bitton stated, “Based on the information presented and discussion, I move that
the Commission forward a positive recommendation to adopt Connect SLC – Citywide
Transportation Plan to the City Council. With an additional recommendation that Section 1.3
be amended to read, Strategy 1.3 facilitates long term dialogue between the City, the local
community, and other reginal partners. For Strategy 2.1 to establish a vision zero action plan,
to further engage with the community to raise pedestrian safety and awareness about
potential collision in the streets in Salt Lake City.”
Commissioner Santos-Rivera seconded the motion. Commissioners Scheer, Burrows, Barry,
Bitton, Tuttle, Christensen, Santos-Rivera, and Ghent voted “yes”. The motion passed
unanimously.
3.General Plan and Zoning Amendments (Community Benefit Ordinance) - The Planning Division
is considering updates to portions of the Land Use Code to implement priority policies in Thriving in
Place to mitigate involuntary displacement due to development pressure. The updates include the
creation of a new Title 19 General Plans and amendments to Title 21A.50 Amendments. The
identified policy goals for the Planning Division include establishing a community benefit policy for
general plan and zoning amendments; the creation of a tenant relocation assistance program;
replacement housing requirements for demolitions associated with requested amendments; and new
standards for consideration when analyzing a zoning or general plan amendment that consider
impacts from potential displacement. With this update, Title 18.97 Mitigation of Residential Housing
Loss will be deleted and replaced with the community benefit policy in Title 19 General Plans and
Title 21A.50 Amendments. Title 18.64.050 Residential Demolition Provisions will be amended to
include provisions to ensure the replacement of housing units that have a similar rent and unit size if
housing is demolished. (Staff Contact: Krissy Gilmore at 801-535-7780 or
Kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) Case number: PLNPCM2023-00535
Senior Planner Krissy Gilmore reviewed the petition as outlined in the staff report.
Senior Planner Krissy Gilmore reviewed the petition as outlined in the staff report.
Commissioner Ghent stated concerns with the tenant relocation assistance not being inflation
adjusted. Krissy Gilmore stated that once adopted it will be looked at throughout the years to adjust
as needed. Commissioner Scheer stated concerns that this might have a reverse impact and
discourage people from developing more dense housing. Commissioner Ghent stated that in overall
development deal, it would not have a large impact. Commissioner Bitton asked if any part of this
petition would apply to a commercial tenant. Krissy Gilmore stated that the relocation portion only
applies to residential tenants. Commissioner Ghent asked for what the legal definition of family sized
housing is. Nick Norris stated that currently they do not have one but could add one, however
generally it is referred to as a dwelling that has at least three bedrooms. Commissioner Scheer asked
if this proposal would add additional considerations for a zoning change. Krissy Gilmore stated that
that is correct, there would be more considerations such as community benefit and public input on
that benefit.
Commissioner Barry stated concerns that the Planning Commission relies on the department reviews,
but the department is not seeing the comments from the public of their concerns. Krissy Gilmore
stated the comments brought in during the public review period are shared with the divisions.
Commissioner Scheer also stated concerns with trying to judge a community benefit if the Planning
Commission is not aware of what is going to be on the property. Commissioner Ghent shared
concerns that were stated and asked for a definition of affordable. Nick Norris stated that the
application requirements are going to require more detail from the petitioner. He also stated that the
definition of affordable was intentionally left out to leave room for the applicant to make the argument
that what they are doing is affordable with proportion to their request.
PLNPCM2024-00294 24 August 28, 2024
PUBLIC HEARING
Chair Mike Christensen opened the public hearing.
Judi Short stated concerns for the definition of affordable not being laid out. She also stated concerns
about development agreements not being enforced.
Lynn Schwarz stated concerns with the project.
Rebecca Davis stated supported the inclusion of preserving wildlife and historic spaces in the
community benefit section.
Cindy Cromer stated concerns with the project.
Seeing no one else wished to speak, Chair Mike Christensen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Ghent stated concerns with the extent to changes to the process of rezones.
Commissioner Bitton stated that he would like to see the community benefit for local business
expanded to include charitable organizations.
Commissioner Ghent had to leave the meeting due to prior obligations.
MOTION
Commissioner Scheer stated, “Based on the information presented and discussion, I move
that the Commission forward a recommendation to adopt this text amendment to the City
Council with minor changes to change “fees” to “payment” and to section 19.06.070C which
is a list of community benefits under 1B to include charitable organizations.”
Commissioner Bitton seconded the motion. Commissioners Scheer, Burrows, Barry, Bitton,
Tuttle, Christensen, and Santos-Rivera voted “yes”. The motion passed unanimously.
WORK SESSION
1.Work Without a COA Briefing - Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated a petition for a zoning text
amendment to Chapter 21A.34 to address unlawful construction and demolition activities in local
historic districts and to landmark sites. This proposed text amendment is intended to add enforcement
tools to prevent and counter potential violations in the local historic districts and to local historic
landmark sites; establish a clear process to remedy alterations or demolition that occur without
approval; and create standards that require that if a contributing historic structure is demolished
without city permits, it shall be reconstructed as it was prior to the unlawful demolition. This briefing
is intended to introduce the proposed changes to the Commission in anticipation of a future public
hearing. (Staff Contact: Amy Thompson at 801-535-7728 or amy.thompson@slcgov.com) Case
number: PLNPCM2023-00336
Planning Manager Mayara Lima reviewed the petition as outlined in the staff report. Commissioner
Tuttle asked if there was any statistical evidence as to which enforcement options tended to be the
most effective in protecting buildings. Mayara Lima stated that Cities tailor their methods to what is
allowed, restricting data like that to be collected. Commissioner Barry stated preference for
reconstruction. The Planning Commission discussed the variety of compliance tools and their
effectiveness.
Commissioner Scheer stated concerns that this could encourage people who own historic homes to
demolish them and rebuild them in the same outer appearance to be more cost effective.
Commissioner Bitton asked how they came to 25 years for the certificate of noncompliance. Amy
Thompson stated that they can look more into the timeline. Commissioner Burrows asked clarifying
PLNPCM2024-00294 25 August 28, 2024
questions on contributing structures. She also stated a desire for civil enforcement to have more
funding to support the need. Nick Norris stated that the City Council is currently in the process of
increasing their funding.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:54 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.
PLNPCM2024-00294 26 August 28, 2024
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general
amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not
controlled by any one standard. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City
Council should consider the following:
1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning
documents.
The proposed text amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies within Plan
Salt Lake and the Urban Design Element. Plan Salt Lake creates a framework for growth,
while focusing on sustainability and livability. Plan Salt Lake has eight sustainable growth
concepts that are being fulfilled by this amendment: placemaking, diverse mix of uses,
connectivity and circulation, density, compatibility, maximizing public investments,
responsive and resilient development, and green building.
The Urban Design Element defines urban design objectives for the city and illustrates a
process for making decisions regarding the city’s future character. Urban design determines
how individual parts of the city, especially the public realm, interact to create its image. A
person’s perception of a city is determined by land use, development scale, and open space
arrangements.
The design review process is intended to allow for modifications to the base zone or a zoning
district’s design standards in order to support more efficient and innovative development. The
design review process ensures new development is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood and increases livability for both existing and future residents. The standards are
being amended to create a more consistent and clear review process and in response to the
City’s evolving development patterns. The proposed modifications, specifically those
regarding additional building length and additional building height, are intended to increase
density by promoting taller not wider buildings, support a diverse mix of uses by disallowing a
reduction in active ground floor uses in return for additional building length, support
placemaking and compatibility with pedestrian friendly design, publicly accessible amenities,
and active streetscapes.
2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose
statements of the zoning ordinance.
21A.02.030 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the zoning ordinance is “to promote the health, safety, morals, convenience,
order, prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to
implement the adopted plans of the city, and to carry out the purposes of the municipal land
use development and management act, title 10, chapter 9, of the Utah Code Annotated or its
successor, and other relevant statutes.”
PLNPCM2024-00294 27 August 28, 2024
The purposes of the zoning ordinance also states the title is intended to:
A.Lessen congestion in the streets or roads;
B.Secure safety from fire and other dangers;
C.Provide adequate light and air;
D.Classify land uses and distribute land development and utilization;
E.Protect the tax base;
F.Secure economy in governmental expenditures;
G.Foster the City's industrial, business and residential development; and
H.Protect the environment.
The proposed amendments to the design review chapter meet the purpose and intent of the
zoning ordinance. The proposed amendments implement the adopted general plans as
discussed in Consideration 2, which furthers the purposes of the zoning ordinance.
The design review process is a method to facilitate efficient and high-quality business and
residential development in the city (standard G).
Higher density development reduces congestion (standard A) and helps protect the
environment (standard H) by locating housing and commercial uses near transit, reducing the
need for single-occupancy vehicle trips.
21A.50.010 Purpose Statement
“The purpose of this chapter is to provide standards and procedures for making amendments
to the text of this title and to the zoning map. This amendment process is not intended to relieve
particular hardships nor to confer special privileges or rights upon any person, but only to
make adjustments necessary in light of changed conditions or changes in public policy.”
This proposal is consistent with the general purpose of making amendments to the code’s text
in response to changing development conditions and public policy. Salt Lake has recently
implemented new plans, initiatives, and incentives to increase housing and mixed-use
development options throughout the city.
The city has adopted affordable housing and adaptive reuse incentives, mandated public
benefits for all rezone petitions, and is consolidating commercial and mixed-use zones into
form-based zones with increased design standards.
Additionally, the Mayor is championing initiatives to improve walkability, connectivity, and
expand the City’s urban forest. She has also highlighted the need for family-sized housing within
the Downtown core and increased public amenities to enhance livability. The design review
process complements these citywide plans by supporting infill and redevelopment that is both
compatible and of high quality.
PLNPCM2024-00294 28 August 28, 2024
3.Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and
provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose
additional standards.
The proposed text amendment does not conflict with any overlay regulations, but the base and
overlay districts may provide additional standards and restrictions than provided for in the
design review chapter. If a project falls within a local historic district, the preservation
standards of approval would supersede the requirements in the design review chapter, with
approval granted by the Historic Landmark Commission.
4.The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current,
professional practices of urban planning and design.
The proposed text amendment aligns with best current professional practices in urban planning
and design by supporting the Planning Division’s initiatives on Sustainability, Equity, Growth,
and Opportunity. As Salt Lake City faces ongoing growth and increasing pressure for infill
development and redevelopment, implementing these updated design review standards
becomes crucial. The amendment provides clear expectations for both private developers and
city staff, streamlining the review process by removing redundant standards and clarifying their
applicability. The updated design criteria address key aspects such as massing, façade length,
and building height, which are essential for managing the impacts of large developments. By
introducing these changes, the amendment fosters a holistic design approach that considers the
broader neighborhood context rather than focusing solely on individual sites. This approach
supports the city’s overall growth and enhances its imageability and livability, ensuring new
developments are well-integrated into their surroundings and contribute positively to the urban
environment.
5.The impact that the proposed text amendment may have on city resources
necessary to carry out the provisions and processes required by this title.
The proposed text amendment is not expected to pose an additional impact on city resources.
The updated language is intended to reduce review times by clarifying when a standard is
applicable, rather than reviewing each development on a case-by-case basis.
6.The impact that the proposed text amendment may have on other properties
that would be subject to the proposal and properties adjacent to subject
properties.
The proposed text amendment is intended to ensure large developments are compatible with
the context of the vicinity. The standards aim to reduce impacts to adjacent properties through
high quality design, street level engagement, and infrastructure upgrades.
7.The community benefits that would result from the proposed text
amendment, as identified in 21A.50.050.C.
This proposal benefits the community by enhancing the Design Review process in response to
rapid growth and the need for higher quality design. Every building contributes to the overall
urban form and livability of the city, and these changes will promote more engaging and
pedestrian-friendly developments, ensuring that new projects contribute positively to the city's
long-term vision.
PLNPCM2024-00294 29 August 28, 2024
Public Notice, Meetings, Comments
The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input
opportunities, related to the proposed project:
•The Planning Division provided a 45-day comment period (July 2, 2024 – August 19,
2024) notice to each of the city’s Recognized Community Organizations.
o Staff presented to the Liberty Wells Community Council on July 18, 2024
o Staff presented to the East Liberty Park Community Council on August 8, 2024
o Staff provided a write-up for the Greater Avenues Community Council’s August
2024 newsletter
•An online open house was posted to the Planning Division’s webpage on July 9, 2024.
Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included:
•Public hearing notices mailed on August 15, 2024
•Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division list serve on
August 15, 2024
•Public hearing notices posted on August 16, 2024. Staff posted the notice at the SLC
Main Library, the Chapman Branch in Poplar Grove, and the Sprague Branch in Sugar
House.
Planning Commission Briefings:
•March 27, 2024
o Planning Commission Memo
•June 26, 2024:
o Planning Commission Memo
Public Input
At the time of the staff report being published, Planning staff received no public comments
regarding the proposal.
PLNPCM2024-00294 30 August 28, 2024
This proposal was reviewed by the following departments. Any requirement identified by a City
Department is required to be complied with.
Building: Comments provided by Steven Collett on 7/8/24
No specific Building Code comments in regard to the proposed amendments.
All construction within the corporate limits of Salt Lake City shall be per the State of Utah
adopted construction codes and to include any state or local amendments to those codes. RE:
Title 15A State Construction and Fire Codes Act
Engineering: Comments provided by Scott Weiler on 7/8/24
No objections. The only comment I have is relative to the reference to asphalt. We don’t allow
asphalt to be installed in a park strip, and rarely do we allow asphalt to be used as a drive
approach. The situations when we do allow asphalt to be used as a drive approach are typically
when there is no curb & gutter in the street and in order to access the private property asphalt
needs to be installed from the existing edge of asphalt pavement to the front property line.
Fire: Comments provided by Douglas Bateman on 7/22/24
No specific Code Fire comments in regard to the proposed amendments.
All construction within the corporate limits of Salt Lake City shall be per the State of Utah
adopted construction codes and to include any state or local amendments to those codes. RE:
Title 15A State Construction and Fire Codes Act.
Police:
No comments.
Transportation: Comments provided by Jean Carver on 7/17/24
No comments.
Public Utilities: Comments provided by Kristeen Beitel on 7/15/24
No comments.
PLNPCM2024-00294 31 August 28, 2024
This page has intentionally been left blank
CITY 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 MEMO
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:June 10, 2025
RE: Proposal to Name Northeast Baseball Field at Riverside Park as the Neil Draper Field
This is a proposal from the Administration to name the northeast baseball field at Riverside Park as the
Neil Draper Field. Mr. Draper was an engaged member of the community and business owner who passed
away in March 2025. His dedication and contributions to Rose Park Baseball had a positive impact on
many in the area.
Salt Lake City Code Chapter 3.65 addresses naming of City assets. Any City owned structure or land of any
acreage is considered a major City asset. Assets such as park benches, trees, bicycle racks, etc. in public
spaces are minor assets.
The Mayor may name minor City assets without City Council input. Major asset naming requests require
the Mayor to provide a minimum of 15 business days’ notice to the Council prior to initiating a naming
process. If the Council does not notify the Mayor within the 15 day period that it wishes to use a legislative
process, she may proceed as if the asset is minor.
If the Council is supportive of processing the naming request as a legislative action item, staff will notify
the Mayor’s Office. A vote to adopt a resolution to name the baseball field will be scheduled for a future
formal meeting.
STRAW POLL
Is the Council supportive of scheduling the naming the northeast baseball field at Riverside Park as the
Neil Draper Field on a July agenda?
Item Schedule:
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
06/02/2025
Date Sent to Council:
06/02/2025
From:
Department *
Public Lands
Employee Name:
Tyler Murdock
E-mail
tyler.murdock@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
06/02/2025
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
06/02/2025
Subject:
Transmittal of Proposed Naming Recommendations for Major City Assets
Additional Staff Contact:
Kim ShelleyTyler Murdock Ashlyn Larsen Maria Romero
Presenters/Staff Table
Kim Shelley Tyler Murdock Ashlyn Larsen
Document Type
Information Item
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Recommendation:
As part of our commitment to creating a city environment that reflects our cultural andhistorical identity, and forward-looking vision, we are submitting a proposed name for amajor public asset. This selection aims to honor community leaders, highlight local history,and strengthen our collective sense of identity.The 2022 Parks Master Plan outlined the following strategy associated with creating morewelcoming parks within Salt Lake City.Action 1.3 D Work with community partners to rename some parks with names moremeaningful to the community, including indigenous names for places, names thatcelebrate community leaders, and similar approaches.This transmittal formally requests naming the northeast city baseball field in Riverside Park as the Neil Draper Field in honor of Neil Draper, who passed away in March2025. Mr. Draper was a dedicated local business owner and an engaged communitymember whose contributions, particularly through Rose Park Baseball, left a meaningfulmark on the neighborhood.His strong ties to the community and his role in supporting local youth sports make him aworthy candidate for this recognition. We respectfully request that this proposal bereviewed in accordance with the City's naming policies.The PL Department recommends naming the northeast field at Riverside Park Neil DraperField. City Code Chapter 3.65 addresses naming city assets. Section 3.65.020B classi fies cityassets as either minor or major. The mayor is responsible for naming minor assets, whichare handled through a letter to the Public Lands Department files. Major assets, including landregardless of acreage, require Council approval.
Background/Discussion
See first attachment for Background/Discussion
Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
N/A
This page has intentionally been left blank
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS
MAYOR KIM SHELLEY
DIRECTOR
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION WWW.SLC.GOV/PARKS
1965 WEST 500 SOUTH TEL: 801-972-7800
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84104 PAGE 1 OF 20
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
____________________________ Date Received: _______________
Jill Love, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: June 2, 2025
Chris Wharton, Chair
FROM: Kim Shelley, Director
Department of Public Lands (PL)
SUBJECT: Transmittal of Proposed Naming Recommendations for Major City Assets
STAFF CONTACTS: Kim Shelley, kim.shelley@slc.gov
Tyler Murdock, tyler.murdock@slc.gov
Ashlyn Larsen, ashlyn.larsen@slc.gov
DOCUMENT TYPE: Informational Item
RECOMMENDATION: Approve naming the northeast baseball field at Riverside Park
as the Neil Draper Field.
BUDGET IMPACT: NO
TRANSMITTAL INTRODUCTION
As part of our commitment to creating a city environment that reflects our cultural and
historical identity, and forward-looking vision, we are submitting a proposed name for a
major public asset. This selection aims to honor community leaders, highlight local history,
and strengthen our collective sense of identity.
The 2022 Parks Master Plan outlined the following strategy associated with creating more
welcoming parks within Salt Lake City.
Action 1.3 D Work with community partners to rename some parks with names more
meaningful to the community, including indigenous names for places, names that
celebrate community leaders, and similar approaches.
This transmittal formally requests naming the northeast city baseball field in Riverside
“GENERAL OBLIGATION (GO) BOND FOR PARKS, TRAILS, & OPEN SPACE – 1ST TRANCHE UPDATE AND 2ND TRANCHE FUNDING REQUEST”
Public Lands’ April 2025 Transmittal to City Council
APR 21, 2025
PAGE 2 OF 2
Park as the Neil Draper Field in honor of Neil Draper, who passed away in March
2025. Mr. Draper was a dedicated local business owner and an engaged community
member whose contributions, particularly through Rose Park Baseball, left a meaningful
mark on the neighborhood.
His strong ties to the community and his role in supporting local youth sports make him a
worthy candidate for this recognition. We respectfully request that this proposal be
reviewed in accordance with the City's naming policies.
The PL Department recommends naming the northeast field at Riverside Park Neil Draper
Field. City Code Chapter 3.65 addresses naming city assets. Section 3.65.020B classifies city
assets as either minor or major. The mayor is responsible for naming minor assets, which
are handled through a letter to the Public Lands Department files. Major assets, including land
regardless of acreage, require Council approval.
This page has intentionally been left blank
This page has intentionally been left blank
SALT LAKE CITY BOARD MEMBER APPOINTMENT
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date:
06/03/2025
Date Sent To Council:
06/03/2025
From:
Otto, Rachel
Subject: Board Appointment Recommendation: Airport Board
Recommendation:
The Administration recommends the Council approve the appointment of Jonathan Freedman to the Airport Board for a 4 year term starting
on the date of City Council advice and consent .
Approved:*
Otto, Rachel
City Council Announcements
For Your Information:
A.Notification Deaccession of 200 West Cycle Track Planters
The Mayor approved the recommendation from the Salt Lake Art Design Board
to remove the following artworks from the City’s public art collection:
a. The 200 West Planters by artists John Riddle and Paul Heath.
The recommendation is based on multiple programmatic priorities:
1. The work of art requires excessive or unreasonable maintenance on an
ongoing basis, exceeding the maintenance requirements anticipated at the
time of accession;
2. The artwork has been damaged or has deteriorated and the cost of repair is
disproportionate to the aesthetic, monetary, and/ or cultural value of the
object as determined by Salt Lake City Arts Council staff, the Art Design
Board, or by an expert;
3. The condition of the artwork is in such a deteriorated state that restoration
would prove either unfeasible, impractical or would render the work
essentially false.
An informational transmittal was received in the Council Office on May 29, 2025
satisfying the 45-day advance notice requirement in City Code before an artwork
in the City’s collection may be removed.
History: John Riddle and Paul Heath created the collection of 27 painted
concrete planters originally installed in 2013 along 200 West between North
Temple and 700 South, A 2020 Maintenance and Condition Assessment of our
permanent collection identified the artwork as Priority 2 – Moderate Action due
to peeling paint, early corrosion, and structural issues. Six planters exhibited
severe cracks, abrasions, and chipped concrete or tile, posing potential safety
concerns. As a result, the Public Art Program recommended their deaccession,
and they were removed from the collection in early 2023.
Photos of the artwork attached:
Before:
After vandalism 2024: