HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/20/2026 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
FORMAL MEETING
January 20, 2026 Tuesday 7:00 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 tinyurl.com/SLCCouncilMeetings.
Council Chambers
451 South State Street, Room 315
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Alejandro Puy, Chair
District 2
Erika Carlsen, Vice Chair
District 5
Victoria Petro
District 1
Chris Wharton
District 3
Eva Lopez Chavez
District 4
Dan Dugan
District 6
Sarah Young
District 7
Generated: 10:13:28
Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet
determined.
WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES
A.OPENING CEREMONY:
1.Council Member Alejandro Puy will conduct the formal meeting.
2.Pledge of Allegiance.
3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules.
4.The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of May 13, 2025, as
well as the formal meeting minutes of November 25, 2025.
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Public Hearing: Creation of The Silo Park Public Infrastructure District
The Council will accept public comment for a required public hearing as a step in the
process that would create the Silos Park Public Infrastructure District (PID) at
approximately 470 West 600 South. As provided in the petition, the proposed district
would assist with financing the construction of public infrastructure related to
development, including construction and maintenance of a right-of-way (a curb, a gutter,
a sidewalk, a street, a road, a water line, a sewage line, a storm drain, an electricity line, a
communications line, a natural gas line, or street lighting). The public hearing allows for
input on whether the requested service is needed and if the service should be provided by
the City, County, or the proposed district, and all other matters relating to the proposed
district. The decision on the creation of the PID will not be made on January 20, 2026.
Future briefings and a resolution will be necessary before a final decision is
made. Petitioner: Joseph McKay, representing Olympus QOZB, LLC, Silos South
Apartments Building 3, LLC, Silos Midblock QOZB, LLC, and Silos South Apartments,
LLC.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, January 20, 2026 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS:
1. Ordinance: Consolidated Fee Schedule Corrections – Public Utilities
The Council will consider adopting an ordinance amending the Salt Lake City
Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS). During the budget process for fiscal year 2025-26, the
CFS was updated with several changes. After the schedule was approved and adopted by
the Council, Departments noticed errors and omissions that needed to be corrected. The
changes include adding the Title "Fire Lines" and the Description "Per Inch" to one of the
rate tables in the CFS for Public Utilities.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 16, 2025, Tuesday, October 14, 2025, Tuesday,
November 25, 2025, and Tuesday, December 2, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, December 9, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, January 13, 2026 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
D.COMMENTS:
1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council.
2.Comments to the City Council. (This is a one-hour time slot for the public to
comment on any City business not scheduled for a public hearing. Each person
will have two minutes to talk. General comment registration closes at 7:30 p.m.)
E.NEW BUSINESS:
NONE.
F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
NONE.
G.CONSENT:
1. Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 265 East 100 South
The Council will set the date of Tuesday, February 3, 2026 at 7 p.m. to accept public
comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning for the
property at approximately 265 East 100 South from MU-8 (Mixed-Use 8) to D-1 (Central
Business District). The proposal would enable redevelopment of the site with a mixed-use
development including ground floor retail and residential units on the upper floors.
Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with
similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 4. Petitioner: Dave Hunter of
Silverado Development, LLC, representing the property owners, Raven One, LLC.
Petition No.: PLNPCM2024-01377.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 3, 2026 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 17, 2026
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
2. Ordinance: Zoning Administration Text Amendment
The Council will set the date of Tuesday, February 3, 2026 at 7 p.m. to accept public
comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend multiple sections of
Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to clarify and update provisions related to the
administration of the zoning code. The proposal would primarily align the code with
established processes, current practices, and recently adopted state laws. The proposal
does not modify how the Planning Division administers the zoning code but is intended
to strengthen the legal standing, support staff in code implementation, and enhance
transparency. Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-00164.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 3, 2026 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 17, 2026
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
3. Board Appointment: Business Advisory Board – Kandi Tesen
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Kandi Tesen, resident of District
4, to the Business Advisory Board for a term ending December 31, 2029.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
4. Board Appointment: Business Advisory Board – Mazhar Kathi
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Mazhar Kathi, resident of
District 1, to the Business Advisory Board for a term ending December 31, 2029.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
5. Board Reappointment: Business Advisory Board – Scott Lyttle
The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Scott Lyttle, resident of
District 7, to the Business Advisory Committee for a term ending December 31, 2029.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
6. Board Reappointment: Mosquito Abatement District – Amanda Barth
The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Amanda Barth, resident of
District 7, to the Mosquito Abatement District Board for a term ending December 27,
2029.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
H.ADJOURNMENT:
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 15, 2026, 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.
PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Tuesday, May 13, 2025.
The following Council Members were present:
Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva
Lopez Chavez
Present Legislative leadership:
Jennifer Bruno – Executive Director, Lehua Weaver – Deputy Director, Nick Tarbet – Deputy
Director
Present Administrative leadership:
Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff, Jill Love – Chief Administrative Officer
Present City Staff:
Mark Kittrell – City Attorney, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder, Stephanie Elliott –
Minutes & Records Clerk, Ben Luedtke – Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Mary Beth Thompson
– Chief Financial Officer, Allison Rowland – Public Policy Analyst, Jorge Chamorro – Public
Services Director, Sylvia Richards – Public Policy Analyst, Nancy Bean – Fleet Division Director,
Brian Butler – Airport Chief Financial Officer, Bill Wyatt – Executive Director of Airports, Tom
Millar – Planning & Design Division Director, Marina Scott – City Treasurer, Greg Cleary – City
Budget Director
The meeting was called to order at 1:02 pm
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 13, 2025
1
Work Session Items
Click Here for the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26.
1.Informational: Economic Forecasting Presentation ~ 1:00 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a presentation from Natalie Gochnour, Director of the Kem C.
Gardner Policy Institute, on current economic forecasts, including trends and conditions
that relate to the upcoming fiscal year budget deliberations.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 13, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
The Council will now convene as the CRA Board. The Work Session
will resume immediately following the 1:45 PM Community
Reinvestment Agency Meeting.
Summary:
Natalie Gochnour, Director of the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, discussed
population fluctuations with the Council, highlighting factors such as family growth and
the transfer of out-of-state inmates to Utah prisons. Concerns were addressed regarding
unemployment, inflation, and the potential recession, emphasizing the need for stronger
public education, healthcare, and family support. The importance of fostering a diverse
economy that accommodates changing tourism demands, distributing housing vouchers
equitably, and strengthening collaboration between the state and city to support
economic growth was also presented.
Motion:
Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Dugan to
adjourn as the City Council and meet as the Community Reinvestment Board
(CRA) for the CRA meeting.
AYE: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah
Young, Eva Lopez Chavez
Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass
2.Resolution: Issuance of Airport Revenue Bonds, Series
2025 ~ 3:30 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a parameters resolution authorizing the issuance
and sale of not more than $700 million aggregate principal amount of one or more series
of Airport Revenue Bonds, series 2025, for the purpose of financing and refinancing
certain Capital Improvements to the Salt Lake City International Airport. The Council's
action includes authorizing the execution of a supplemental indenture, a bond purchase
agreement, and other documents as required.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 13, 2025
2
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 13, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 3, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 1, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 3, 2025
Council Members reconvened as the CRA Board prior to this item to address the
Consent Agenda (Item E), which had been inadvertently omitted during the earlier
portion of the CRA meeting. The motion related to the Consent Agenda can be viewed in
the May 13, 2025, Work Session video at timestamp 00:45:18. A motion to adjourn as
the CRA Board and reconvene as the City Council was made by Director Mano and
seconded by Director Lopez Chavez.
Summary:
Nick Tarbet, Bill Wyatt, and Brian Butler provided a briefing to the Council, discussed
staffing challenges at the Salt Lake City (SLC) Airport’s Air Traffic Control due to federal
workforce shortages and the growing demand, the nearby Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) SLC Center critical role in maintaining flight safety and
managing regional air traffic from Mexico to Canada, rising interest rate impacts on
borrowing costs, bond purchasing strategies, refinancing of airport bonds timeline, and
new concourse bond requests.
Motion:
Moved by Council Member Mano, seconded by Council Member Dugan to
reconvene as the CRA Board to approve the Consent Agenda.
AYE: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah
Young, Eva Lopez Chavez
Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass
3.Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget: Administration’s Overview ~ 3:50 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive an overview from the Administration of the Mayor’s
Recommended Budget for Salt Lake City 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 - Tuesday, May 13, 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
Summary:
Greg Cleary presented the budget and discussed with the Council the Funding Our
Future's total fund balance percentage of 13% from the General Fund balance, as well as
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 13, 2025
3
the Economic Development Department's reductions in Main Street Promenade and
Construction Mitigation Grants.
4.Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget: Council Staff Overview ~ 4:20 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive an overview from Council Staff of the Mayor’s Recommended
Budget for Salt Lake City 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 - Tuesday, May 13, 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
Summary:
Jennifer Bruno presented the proposed budget information for Council Staff and
discussed the building permit registration fees with the Council. Mary Beth Thompson
provided information concerning the building permit downturn, noting that
submissions created a flat income stream for the city.
5.Dinner Break ~ 5:05 p.m.
30 min.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment -
TENTATIVE Council Action -
6.Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget: Fleet Fund ~ 5:35 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Fleet Fund budget for Fiscal Year
2025-26, which provides vehicles, fuel, and vehicle maintenance and repair services for
all City departments.
For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY26.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 13, 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.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 13, 2025
4
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
Summary:
Sylvia Richards, Jorge Charmorro, and Nancy Bean presented the Fleet Fund Budget and
discussed with the Council the frequency of fleet preparation and maintenance, the rising
time and cost of repairing aging equipment enhancing the request for new vehicles for
the Police Department, the potential savings of leasing compared to purchasing, one-time
funding needed for Full-Time Employee fleet vehicles, and how the proposed budget
would address a backlog of unmet needs through consolidated funding.
7.General Obligation Bond for Parks, Trails, and Open Space –
First Issuance Update and Second Issuance Funding Request ~ 6:05 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive an update on projects funded by the first issuance of the General
Obligation Bond for Parks, Trails, and Open Space (Series 2022), as well as considering
the Administration’s request for the second issuance (Series 2025). The second issuance
would fund nearly $35 million in new projects, such as the next stage of Glendale Park,
and new investments in Allen Park, the Jordan River Corridor, and smaller parks, trails
and open space projects in each Council district. These funds would also update salary
amounts from early 2023 for bond-specific personnel to reflect inflation since that time.
Voters authorized a bond of up to $85 million in 2022 to be dedicated to acquiring,
improving, renovating and upgrading parks, trails, open space and related amenities.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 13, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Summary:
Allison Rowland and Tom Millar presented the funding request and discussed with the
Council the bond approval timeline, phases of funding, and the use of remaining funds
for future construction projects. They explained that construction was contracted out
rather than handled by city staff to ensure more accurate budgeting and reduce reliance
on seasonal, city-employed construction workers.
Council Requests:
Council Member Young requested a follow-up on the public bond progress chart with
new graphics to better visualize progress for the public, and that safety issue-related
requests be prioritized for completion before other bond projects are approved.
Council Member Puy requested a consolidated list of questions from the Council
Members for staff to review and answer before further discussion.
8.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 13, 2025
5
Council Member Mano left during this item.
Summary:
Lehua Weaver and Jennifer Bruno presented the Communication Budget, discussed draft
policy language still in place pending future discussion, state code governing public
official communications, and the purpose, limitations, and tracking of Council
communication funds. They reviewed key points from the straw poll handout, including
district-specific communication needs, guidance on funding outside communication
efforts, requests from local community councils, and cost-saving measures like non-
profit postage rates. The Council also discussed policies related to events and gatherings,
including booth rentals, tabling, sponsorship thresholds, and restrictions on donations
for community projects, with an emphasis on the appropriate use of funds for public
engagement rather than personal initiatives.
Straw Polls:
Support for Council Members using council budget funds for all communication efforts
except for promotional material. Support was unanimous, with Council Member Mano
absent.
Support for no limits on City Council Fund Balance used for communication efforts
and materials generated by the city. Support was unanimous, with Council Member
Mano absent.
Support for not limiting funds used by Council Members for direct city, council, and
community initiative communication efforts, or credit for sponsorship from the council.
Support was unanimous, with Council Member Mano absent.
Support to limit fund contributions to 10% of the Council Member District's total fund, to
community events if the event does not include credit to the city council sponsorship, or
opportunities for council members to participate in events. Support was unanimous, with
Council Member Mano absent.
Support to not allow donations to non-profits from the City Council Members'
communications budget. All Council Members voted against this item, with Council
Member Mano absent.
Council Requests:
Council Member Young requested that additional information be included in the policy
handbook regarding election procedures, timing, and processes, as well as information
for procedures for Council Members entering off-cycle election years.
Council Members concluded the conversation after the events section and requested to
review the budget later once items have been clarified.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 13, 2025
6
9.Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget: Finance Department Written Briefing
-
The Council will receive a written briefing about the proposed Finance Department
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 - Tuesday, May 13, 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
Written briefing only, no discussion was held.
10.Ordinance: Library Budget Amendment No.2 for
Fiscal Year 2024-25 Written Briefing
-
The Council will receive a written briefing about an ordinance that would amend the
budget for the Library Fund for Fiscal Year 2024-25. Budget amendments happen
several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed
project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes required
annual true-ups of property tax increments that go to the Utah Inland Port Authority,
Convention Center Hotel, and the Community Reinvestment Agency of Salt Lake City.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 13, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 6, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 20, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 20, 2025
Written briefing only, no discussion was held.
Standing Items
11.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair -
-
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
Item not held.
12.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director -
-
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 13, 2025
7
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 scheduling items.
Item not held.
13.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.
Item not held.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 13, 2025
8
Meeting adjourned at 8:05 pm
Minutes Approved:
_______________________________
City Council Chair – Chris Wharton
_______________________________
City Recorder – Keith Reynolds
Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at https://data.slc.gov by selecting City Council
Meeting Information) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments
submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may
not remain active indefinitely.
This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City
Council Work Session meeting held Tuesday, May 13, 2025 and is not intended to serve as a full
transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-
4-203.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 13, 2025
9
PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Formal Session on Tuesday, November 25,
2025.
The following Council Members were present:
Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro, Eva
Lopez Chavez
Present Legislative Leadership:
Jennifer Bruno – Executive Director, Lehua Weaver – Deputy Director, Nick Tarbet – Deputy
Director
Present Administrative Leadership:
Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff, Jill Love – Chief Administrative Officer,
Lindsey Nikola – Deputy Chief of Staff, Megan Yuill – Deputy Chief Administrative Officer
Present City Staff:
Mark Kittrell – City Attorney, Keith Reynolds – City Recorder, Caitlin Carlino – Minutes &
Records Clerk, Matthew Brown – Deputy City Recorder, Taylor Hill – District Liaison/Policy
Specialist, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, November 25, 2025
1
A.OPENING CEREMONY:
1.Council Member Sarah Young will conduct the formal meeting.
2.Pledge of Allegiance.
3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules.
4.The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of July 8, 2025, as well as the
formal meeting minutes for September 2, 2025.
Motion:
Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Lopez Chavez
to approve the work session meeting minutes of July 8, 2025, as well as the
formal meeting minutes for September 2, 2025.
AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva
Lopez Chavez
ABSENT: Victoria Petro
Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass
5.The Council will consider adopting a joint ceremonial resolution with Mayor Mendenhall
declaring November as Native American Heritage Month in Salt Lake City.
Summary:
Council Member Mano read the joint resolution which noted the establishment of Salt
Lake City on historically Indigenous lands, described the positive economic and cultural
impact of Native American community, and declared the City’s commitment to promoting
justice and shared prosperity for all.
Sky Woods-Billy (Student representative for the University of Utah Center for Native
Excellence and Tribal Engagement) accepted the resolution and spoke in appreciation of
their cultural roots, the events held on University campus which expanded knowledge
on Native American culture, and the positive work and resources that the City provided to
foster further tribal engagement and awareness.
Council Remarks:
Council Member Wharton took a moment of personal privilege to describe their recent
attendance at a blessings ceremony hosted by members of the Ute Ouray Reservation.
The Council Member explained that the experience had given them a new appreciation
for water and natural resources.
Council Member Petro arrived during this item.
Motion:
Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Lopez
Chavez to adopt Joint Resolution 39 of 2025 declaring November as Native
American Heritage Month in Salt Lake City.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, November 25, 2025
2
AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva
Lopez Chavez
ABSENT: Victoria Petro
Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS:
NONE.
C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS:
NONE.
D.COMMENTS:
1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council.
Summary:
In recognition of Thanksgiving, Council Member Young invited all Council Members to
share something for which they were grateful related to Salt Lake City.
• Council Member Mano expressed appreciation for the City’s efforts to recognize
Pride flags as part of an official City flag and for the designation of Harvey Milk
Boulevard, noting the significance of both to his identity as a gay person and as an
architect with a deep connection to City design.
• Council Member Lopez Chavez expressed gratitude for the Emergency Loan Fund
and for the small business owners who had taken significant risks to pursue their
goals, acknowledging the role Salt Lake City had played in supporting those efforts.
• Council Member Wharton expressed appreciation for the opportunity to elevate
Salt Lake City and positively challenge visitors’ assumptions during the recent
National League of Cities Summit and thanked the Administration for hosting a
successful conference.
• Council Member Puy expressed pride in Salt Lake City, noting that the National
League of Cities conference showcased the City’s strengths and served as a
reminder of its beauty, cleanliness, and overall quality, and thanked City Staff and
the Administration for organizing the event.
• Council Member Petro reflected on the humbling nature of campaigning, noted her
work as Director of the Utah Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, expressed gratitude
for City professionals who often receive criticism from residents, and thanked the
Mayor for consistently seeking common ground to serve the community.
• Council Member Dugan expressed gratitude to City employees for their time and
dedication serving residents and for being part of the team.
• Council Member Young expressed gratitude to first responders for their expertise
and dedication to keeping residents safe, acknowledged the recent passing of
several employees, and thanked the Mayor for collaborating toward a better future.
Mayor Mendenhall then expressed appreciation for working with Council Members and
staff, recognized specific departments, and observed that although employees may earn
higher wages in the private sector, she had found meaning and inspiration in their
choosing to serve the public.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, November 25, 2025
3
2.Comments to the City Council. (This is a one-hour time slot for the public to
comment on any City business not scheduled for a public hearing. Each person
will have two minutes to talk. General comment registration closes at 7:30 p.m.)
Public Comments:
Cindy Cromer spoke in general support of the upcoming Residential Multi-Family
(RMF) rezone with the exception of section 21A, noting possible conflicts for historic
districts.
Ben Engel spoke regarding the license plate reader cameras, recommending the Council
not select a company based on popularity alone, urged mindfulness of
technology/government overreach, and encouraged inter-agency cooperation.
MJ Powell expressed appreciation to Council Members, Mayor Mendenhall and
Staff for their service to residents and gratitude for first responders, recognizing former
Chief Mike Brown for guiding the City through pivotal moments.
E.NEW BUSINESS:
NONE.
F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
NONE.
G.CONSENT:
1. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act Public Hearing for Sky Harbour
Hangar Development
The Council will set the date of Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 7 p.m. to accept public
comment on the Sky Harbour hangar development on the east side of the Salt Lake City
International Airport that consists of the development of an aircraft storage facility
situated on 8.4 acres and will include four box hangars. The project would be funded
through a tax-exempt private activity bond (PAB) issued by the Public Finance Authority
of Wisconsin. The development entails no financial liability for Salt Lake City, but Federal
regulations for tax-exempt PABs require the Council to hold what is known as a TEFRA
(Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) public hearing on this proposal. No other
Council action is required.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, November 25, 2025
4
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, December 2, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 25, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
2. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.3 for Fiscal Year 2025-26
The Council will set the date for Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 7 p.m. to accept public
comment and consider an ordinance amending the final budget of Salt Lake City,
including the employment staffing document for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget. Budget
amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets,
including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment
includes three grants. The first grant would fund license plate reader cameras on major
roads to enhance public safety and reduce crime. The second grant would fund the
removal of hazardous vegetation from the Jordan River riverbed, banks, and canopy. The
third grant would fund expenses relating to homeless shelters, including salary and
benefits for existing police officers to maintain public safety in areas surrounding
shelters.
For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY26.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, December 2, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 25, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 9, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
3. Resolution: Valley Behavioral Health Public Benefit Analysis
The Council will set the date of Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 7 p.m. to accept public
comment and consider authorizing the release of Salt Lake City’s reversionary interest in
the property currently owned by Valley Behavioral Health at 107 South 800 West. The
release would allow for the development of Saltair Lofts, a 68-unit permanent supportive
housing project. It would also be executed in exchange for a 50 year Restrictive Use
Agreement preserving certain public benefits most notably, including helping to ensure
all units are affordable permanent supportive housing for formerly homeless individuals.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, November 25, 2025
5
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, December 2, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 25, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 9, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
4. Board Appointment: Community Development and Capital Improvement
Programs Advisory Board – Parviz Faiz
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Parviz Faiz, resident of District
3, to the Community Development and Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board
for a term ending June 5, 2028.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, November 25, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 25, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, November 25, 2025
6
Motion:
Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Mano to
approve the Consent Agenda.
AYE: Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez
Chavez, Victoria Petro
Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass
H.ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, November 25, 2025
7
Meeting adjourned at 7:31 p.m.
Minutes Approved:
_______________________________
City Council Chair – Chris Wharton
_______________________________
City Recorder – Keith Reynolds
Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at https://data.slc.gov by selecting City Council
Meeting Information) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments
submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may
not remain active indefinitely.
This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City
Council Formal meeting held Tuesday, November 25, 2025 and is not intended to serve as a full
transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-
4-203.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, November 25, 2025
8
Item B1
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
PUBLIC HEARING
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Jennifer Bruno & Kate Werrett, Budget and Policy Analysts
DATE:January 20, 2026
RE: Silo Park Public Infrastructure District Creation
MOTION 1 – CLOSE & DEFER ACTION
I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future meeting.
MOTION 2 – CONTINUE HEARING
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting.
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: Jennifer Bruno & Kate Werrett
Budget & Policy Analysts
DATE:January 20, 2026
RE:Silo Park Public Infrastructure District Creation Petition
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
On November 24, 2025, the Administration received the attached petition requesting the creation of the Silo
Park Public Infrastructure District (Silos PID). The petition area is located at approximately 470 West 600
South. The attached certification acknowledges receipt of the petition and confirms that it complies with the
requirements outlined in Utah Code section 17D-4.
The proposed district would assist with financing the construction of public infrastructure related to
development, including construction and maintenance of a right-of-way (a curb, a gutter, a sidewalk, a street, a
road, a water line, a sewage line, a storm drain, an electricity line, a communications line, a natural gas line, or
street lighting).
The petitioners include: Joseph McKay, representing Olympus QOZB, LLC; Silos South Apartments Building 3,
LLC; Silos Midblock QOZB, LLC; and Silos South Apartments, LLC.
Utah Code, section 17D-4, outlines the creation, governance, and powers of a public infrastructure district.
According to the statute the city must hold a public hearing at the start of the process. A decision on the creation
of the PID will not be made on January 20. More discussions will be held before a final decision is requested.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Petition Requesting the Creation of Silo Park Public Infrastructure District
2. Certification of Petition Requesting the Creation of Silo Park Public Infrastructure District
3. Utah Code, Section 17D-4
Project Timeline:
Set Date: January 13, 2026
Briefing: January 20, 2026
Public Hearing: January 20, 2026
Potential Action: To be determined
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
01/15/2026
Date Sent to Council:
01/15/2026
From:
Department *
Attorney
Employee Name:
Trishman, Cindy Lou
E-mail
Cindy.Trishman@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
01/15/2026
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
01/15/2026
Subject:
Silo Park Public Infrastructure District (Creation, Public Hearing)
Additional Staff Contact:
Keith Reynolds, Allison Parks
Presenters/Staff Table
Cindy Lou Trishman, Allison Parks
Document Type
Information Item
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Recommendation:
Schedule and hold the scheduled public hearing as a required, formal step in the Public Infrastructure District process.
Background/Discussion
Joseph McKay, representing Olympus QOZB, LLC, Silos South Apartments Building 3, LLC, Silos Midblock QOZB, LLC, and Silos South Apartments, LLC submitted a petition requesting the creation of a Public Infrastructure District at approximately 470 West 600 South. The petition has been certified complete and the City Council is required to hold a public hearing pursuant to 17B-1-210. As described in the petition, the proposed district would assist with financing the construction of public infrastructure related to development, including construction and maintenance of a right-of-way (a curb, a gutter, a sidewalk, a street, a road, a water line, a sewage line, a storm drain, an electricity line, a communications line, a natural gas line, or street lighting). The public hearing allows for input on whether the requested service is needed and if the service should be provided by the City, County, or the proposed district, and all other matters relating to the proposed district. The Council has not yet set a date to take formal action for consideration of the approval for the proposed district.Early advertising was arranged and the Public Hearing is set for January 20, 2026.
Public Hearing
Is there a City or State statutory requirement to hold a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
The City Council reserves the option to hold and notice for a public hearing pursuant to their practices for public engagement.
Does the City have a general practice to hold a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
This page has intentionally been left blank
KEITH REYNOLDS
CERTIFICATION VIA EMAIL
D ecember 29, 2025
Salt Lake City Council
Chris Wharton, Co un ci l Ch air
PO Box 1455476
Salt Lake City, UT 84111-5476
chris. wharton@slc.gov
Jos eph McKay
2170 South McClelland Street
Suite 100
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
(801) 582 -31 88
jmckay@loweprop.com
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF UTAH,
City and County of Salt Lake,
Salt Lak e County Council
Dea Theodore , Council Chair
2001 South State St. Ste N2-200
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
DHTheodore@saltlakecounty.gov
CITY RECORDER
This document serves to certify the "Petition Reque sting the Creation of a Silo Park Public
Infra structure District in the City of Salt Lake City, Utah" submitted on November 24, 2025, by
the owners of Olympus QOZB , LLC, Silos South Apartments Building 3, Silos Midblock QOZB,
LLC , and Silos South Apartments , LLC .
I, Keith Reynolds , City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah, do hereby certify that the petition
complies with all applicable requirement s .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF , I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of sa·
this 29'" day of December 2025. 4 ~
S)'Y R or er,S L ~
The City Recorder 's office has attached the Petition Requesting the Creation of a Silo Pa
Public Infrastructure District in the city of Salt Lake City , Utah. Pursuant to l 7B-l-2 l 0, the
Lake City Council has confirmed a public hearing will be held on January 20 , 2026. If you have
any questions , please contact the City Recorder 's office.
LOCATION : 451 SOUTH STATE STREET , ROOM 415 , SALT LAKE CITY , UTAH 84111
MAILING ADDRESS: PO BOX 145515, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5515
TELEPHONE: 801-535-7671 FAX : 801-535-7681
PETITION REQUESTING THE CREATION OF
SILO PARK PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE DISTRICT
IN THE CITY OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Keith Reynolds
Salt Lake City Recorder
451 South State Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
801-535-7671
keith.reynolds @ slc.gov
November 24, 2025
The undersigned (the "Petitioners") hereby request that the City of Salt Lake City , Utah
(the "City") create a public infrastructure district (the "District") pursuant to the Special District
Act , Title 17B , Chapter 1, Utah Code Annotated 1953 and the Public Infrastructure District Act,
Title 17D , Chapter 4, Utah Code Annotated 1953 ( collectively , the "Acts"). The Petitioners
request the formation of the District in order to assist in the financing of public infrastructure to
service and benefit the proposed area within the District.
I. Petitioners
Petitioner / Owner:
Olympus QOZB , LLC
386 West 500 South, Suite 100
Salt Lake City , UT 84101
Parcel Nos: 15013760110000, 15013760140000 , 15013810010000
Petitioner / Owner:
Silos South Apartments Building 3 , LLC
36 South State Street, Suite 1400
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Parcel No: 15013770320000
Petitioner / Owner:
Silos Midblock QOZB , LLC
2170 South McClelland Street, Suite 100
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Parcel No : 15013770240000
Petitioner / Owner:
Silos South Apartments , LLC
2170 South McClelland Street, Suite 100
Salt Lake City , UT 84106
Parcel Nos: 15013770330000 , 15013770270000 , 15013770290000
Contact Sponsor :
Joseph McKay
2170 South McClelland Street, Suite 100
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
801-582-3188
The Petitioners represent 100% of the surface property owners within the proposed District
boundaries. There are no registered voters residing within the proposed District boundaries.
II. Proposed District Boundaries
The Petitioners request that the initial District boundaries include the real property
described and depicted on the map attached as Exhibit A (the "District Boundaries").
III. Requested Service
The Petitioners request the District be created for the purpose of financing the construction
of public infrastructure relating to the Development, as permitted under the Acts; to service and
benefit the District and annexation area, as shall be further described in the governing document
relating to the District. Additionally, the Petitioners request the District be created for the
construction and maintenance of a right-of-way , including : a curb; a gutter; a sidewalk; a street; a
road; a water line; a sewage line; storm drain; an electricity line; a communications line; a natural
gas line; or street lighting.
IV. Board of Trustees
The Petitioners hereby waive the residency requirement of Section 17D-4-202 of the Acts
and propose that the Board of Trustees for the District be initially composed of seven (7) members
appointed by the City Council who are agents, or officers of the property owners , as follows:
Trustee 1: Jeremy Keele
Trustee 2: Kristian Peterson
Trustee 3: Brandon Blaser
Trustee 4: Jonathan Hardy
Trustee 5: Alex Lowe
Trustee 6: Ben Lowe
Trustee 7: Joseph McKay
V. Petitioners Representations
The Petitioners hereby represent and warrant that:
(a) Those signing on behalf of the Petitioners are authorized to do so;
(b) The Petitioners are the owner of the real property included within the District
Boundaries;
( c) This Petition is signed by 100% of the surface property owners of real property
within the District Boundaries;
( d) There are no registered voters residing within the District Boundaries; and
( e) The proposed Trustees listed above are registered voters at their primary
residence and are either a property owner or the agent or officer of a property owner.
VI. Petitioners Consent
The Petitioners hereby consent to:
(a) Joseph McKay serving as the Contact Sponsor for the Petitioners;
(b) The creation of the public infrastructure district within the District Boundaries;
( c) A waiver of the residency requirement for members of the Board of Trustees of
the District as permitted under Section 17D-4-202(3)(a) of the Acts;
( d) A waiver of the entirety of the protest period described in Section l ?B-1-213 of
the Acts, pursuant to Section 17D-4-201 (2)(b) of the Acts;
(e) The recording of a notice as required under Section 17B-1-215(2)(a) and 17D-1-
209(1)(a) of the Acts, which will apply to all real property within the District Boundaries;
(f) The District levying a property tax of up to 0.015 per dollar of taxable value of
taxable property within the District Boundaries, specifically including the properties of
the Petitioners; and
(g) The issuance by the District of bonds repayable through tax increment, property
taxes and/or assessments.
VII. Electronic Means; Counterparts
This Petition may be circulated by electronic means and executed in several counterparts,
including by electronic signature, all or any of which may be treated for all purposes as an original
and shall constitute and be one and the same document.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the Petitioners have executed this Petition as of the date
indicated above.
STATE OF )
ss :
COUN T Y OF l
On thi s \'Jin clay of [0...GL_], 2025, person all y ap p ea re d before m e
l)ro.nJo(\ f>\ClSU , whose identity is pe rso nally known to me (or proven on the basis o f
satisfacto 1y ev idence ) a nd who by me dul y sworn did say that h e is th e AL,\\novizttl Si50U of
Olympus QOZB , LLC , th at he was du ly aut horized by sa id company to sign thi s P e tit10n , and
th at he acknowledged to me that said com pan y executed the same for the uses an d purposes
se t fo rth herein .
STEVEN EUGENE BOSWEli
Notary Public -Stale of lJtah
Commission # 737990
My Commission Expires
July 3, 2028
Silos South Apartments Building 3, LLC
By:
Its:
STATE OF lA,~h )
ss:
COUNTY OF .9t I} 1..A/a,,)_
On this \ 5 day of [fil:_], 2025, personally appeare d b efore me S hu:i 8-o j me§Vhose identity is personally known to me (or proven on the basis o f
satisfactory evidence) and who by me duly sworn did say that he is the Ctutthoriz,eJ ~'jS-~
Silos South Apaitments Building 3, LLC , tha t he was duly a uth orized by said cmnpany to
sign th is Petition , and that he acknow ledged to me that said company executed the same fo r
the uses and purposes set fo 1th here in .
SHERI HOLMES
Notary Public • State of Utah
Commission# 738101
My Commission Expires On
07/1212028
~~ j
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF (;{-huh )
ss:
COUN T Y OF ~vt f 1-[fl_ ~e,,
Silos Midblocc?d-
B y: ,4,t/4-~ 4'1.>€
It s: Av::ct:ti),t. 1yfP ~/QJbf'I-
~••, SHERIHOLMES
"
7
~ Notary Public· State of Utah
, ; Commission# 738101
J My Commission Expires On
07/12/2028
On thi s J 5 day of [ Olr ], 2025, personally appeared before me
She,n" @/ m~ whose ident ity is personally known to me (or proven on the basi s o f
sa ti sfactory ev id ence) and w h o by me duly sworn did say that he is th ~U¼on'zed 5(j:f1-e6f
S ilo s Midblock QOZB , LLC, that he was du l y a u thorized by said company to sign this
Petition, and that he acknow l e dged to me that sa id compa ny execut ed the same for the uses
an d purposes set fo11h h erein.
~~
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF u{f-tt\ti )
ss:
coUNTY OF ~a If-u./4.e,.
Silos South Am
B y: ___ ____JCl}ui;"'l---"'4 x:.::..__---=u~,(,.,)"'-'C=-------
I ts: __ _,A(!!"lr--"--'-11t-'-'-"()C..:.t2.--_,__,1 :z._'-"5:"'--"Q'--_,.,_.5'--",w1.2a"IJi'l)..,,.'-""'-Jt--::=-----
;,,.,•""' SHERI HOLMES ~ \ Notary Public -Stat.e of Uta h
• ~ Comm issio n # 73810 1
'.'l My Commiss ion Expires On
07/1 2/2028
On this IG day of [OLt-J, 2025, pe rsonally appeared before me
Shui mvmes ' whose identity is personally known to me (or proven on the basis o f
satisfactory evidence ) and who by me duly sworn did say that he is the a£;f tf,p rizeJ S'f_g /1 ,t~f
Silos South Apartments, LLC, that he was duly authori zed by said company to sign this
Pet ition , and that be acknowledged to me that said company executed the same for the uses
and purposes set forth herein.
~~
N OTARY PUBLIC
Exhibit A
Initial District Boundaiie s
Legal Descriptions
District
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN LOTS 1-3 , AND 5-8 OF BLOCK 29 , PLAT A , SALT
LAKE CITY SURVEY , SAID PARCEL ALSO BEING LOCATED IN SILOS
CONDOMINIUMS PLAT , ON FILE AND OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE SALT
LAKE COUNTY RECORDER IN BOOK 2004P , AT PAGE 151 , SAID PARCEL ALSO
BEING LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP l
SOUTH , RANGE l WEST , SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN , SAID PARCEL BEING
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK , SAID POINT ALSO
BEING SOUTH 89 °57'22 " WEST 64 .27 FEET AND SOUTH 0°02'38" EAST 72 .03 FEET
FROM A BRASS CAP MONUMENT LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF 400 WEST
AND 500 SOUTH STREETS , AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 0°09'26 " WEST ALONG
THE EAST LINE OF SAID BLOCK 200.62 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A 262 .04
FOOT-RADIUS-NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT ; THENCE ALONG THE ARC
OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 132.16 FEET , THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
28 °53'49", CHORD BEARS SOUTH 52 °30'44" WEST 130.76 FEET ; THENCE NORTH
24 °45'49" WEST 3.08 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 65 °14'09 " WEST 6.18 FEET ; THENCE
SOUTH 3.03 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A 262 .04 FOOT-NON-TANGENT
RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT ; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A
DISTANCE OF 56.83 FEET , THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12 °25'36", CHORD
BEARS SOUTH 74 °48'14" WEST 56 .72 FEET ; THENCE SOUTH 0°09'26" WEST 32.62
FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 7 OF SAID BLOCK ; THENCE NORTH 89 °52'27"
EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 165 .13 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
LOT 7 ; THENCE ALONG THE PERIMETER OF SAID BLOCK THE FOLLOWING THREE
(3) COURSES: 1) SOUTH 0°09'26 " WEST 330.15 FEET , 2) SOUTH 89 °52'45" WEST 660 .35
FEET, 3) NORTH 0°09'27" EAST 330.09 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 3
OF SAID BLOCK; THENCE NORTH 89 °52'27" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
LOT 3 A DISTANCE OF 330.18 FEET ; THENCE NORTH 0 °09'26 " EAST 165.06 FEET ;
THENCE SOUTH 89 °52'18 " WEST 330 .17 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
SILOS CONDOMINIUM PLAT ; THENCE ALONG THE PERIMITER OF SAID
SUBDIVSION PLAT THE FOLLOWING FOUR (4) COURSES: 1) NORTH 0°09'27" EAST
69.24 FEET , 2) NORTH 78 °48'32 " EAST 76.74 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A
474 .28 FOOT RADIUS TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT , 3) THENCE ALONG THE
ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 90.46 FEET , THROUGH A CENTRAL CURVE
OF 10°55'40", CHORD BEARS NORTH 84 °16'24" EAST 90.32 FEET , 4) NORTH 0 °09'27"
EAST 72.27 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION , SAID POINT
ALSO BEING ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK; THENCE NORTH 89 °52'10 " EAST
ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION AND A PORTION OF THE NORTH
LINE OF SAID BLOCK 495.26 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINS 357 ,006 SQ. FT. OR 8.20 ACRES
60
0
S
O
U
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
(P
A
V
E
D
P
U
B
L
I
C
R
I
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
)
MO
N
U
M
E
N
T
NO
T
F
O
U
N
D
S
8
9
°
5
9
'
0
1
"
W
6
6
.
2
4
'
60.00'
BO
X
5
0
0
A
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
S
,
L
L
C
15
-
0
1
-
3
7
7
-
0
1
2
BASIS OF BEARING N 0°01'01" W 752.22'
500 WEST STREET
(A PAVED PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, WIDTH VARIES)
50
0
S
O
U
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
(A
P
A
V
E
D
P
U
B
L
I
C
R
I
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
)
47
1
W
,
L
L
C
15
-
0
1
-
3
7
6
-
0
0
4
67
.
6
5
'
73.03'
73.00'
RI
B
B
O
N
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
,
L
L
C
15
-
0
1
-
3
7
7
-
0
0
1
64
.
2
4
'
S 0°02'38" E 72.03'
EL
I
Z
A
B
E
T
H
B
R
A
D
L
E
Y
&
MA
R
W
I
L
S
O
N
15
-
0
1
-
3
7
7
-
0
1
4
64
.
2
7
'
N
8
9
°
5
7
'
5
4
"
E
7
9
2
.
2
2
'
(
N
8
9
°
5
7
'
3
7
"
E
7
9
1
.
8
8
4
'
)
N
8
9
°
5
7
'
2
2
"
E
7
9
2
.
2
3
'
(
N
8
9
°
5
7
'
4
0
"
E
7
9
1
.
8
9
1
'
)
N 0°01'01" W
40.00'
P
A
R
C
E
L
2
PA
R
C
E
L
5
PA
R
C
E
L
3
SI
L
O
C
O
N
D
O
M
I
N
I
U
M
S
BO
O
K
2
0
2
4
P
P
A
G
E
1
5
1
PA
R
C
E
L
6
PA
R
C
E
L
4
PA
R
C
E
L
1
S 0°00'59" E 792.35' (792.045')
(PAVED PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY)
400 WEST STREET
PO
I
N
T
O
F
B
E
G
I
N
N
I
N
G
O
F
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
A
R
C
E
L
6
NO
R
T
H
E
A
S
T
C
O
R
N
E
R
O
F
L
O
T
6
,
BL
O
C
K
2
9
,
P
L
A
T
"
A
"
,
S
A
L
T
L
A
K
E
CI
T
Y
S
U
R
V
E
Y
,
P
O
I
N
T
O
F
B
E
G
I
N
N
I
N
G
OV
E
R
A
L
L
P
A
R
C
E
L
SO
U
T
H
E
A
S
T
C
O
R
N
E
R
O
F
L
O
T
1
,
BL
O
C
K
2
9
,
P
L
A
T
"
A
"
S
A
L
T
L
A
K
E
CI
T
Y
S
U
R
V
E
Y
60.00'
SO
U
T
H
E
A
S
T
C
O
R
N
E
R
LO
T
7
,
B
L
O
C
K
2
9
,
PL
A
T
"
A
"
,
S
A
L
T
L
A
K
E
CI
T
Y
S
U
R
V
E
Y
,
FO
U
N
D
M
O
N
U
M
E
N
T
FO
U
N
D
M
O
N
U
M
E
N
T
FO
U
N
D
M
O
N
U
M
E
N
T
65
.
6
4
'
59.03'
NO
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
C
O
R
N
E
R
LO
T
3
,
B
L
O
C
K
2
9
,
PL
A
T
"
A
"
,
S
A
L
T
L
A
K
E
CI
T
Y
S
U
R
V
E
Y
SO
U
T
H
W
E
S
T
C
O
R
N
E
R
L
O
T
2
,
B
L
O
C
K
2
9
,
PL
A
T
"
A
"
,
S
A
L
T
L
A
K
E
C
I
T
Y
S
U
R
V
E
Y
PA
R
C
E
L
8
S 0°09'26" W 200.62'
Δ=
2
8
°
5
3
'
4
9
"
R=
2
6
2
.
0
4
'
L=
1
3
2
.
1
6
'
CB
=
S
5
2
°
3
0
'
4
4
"
W
C=
1
3
0
.
7
6
'
N
2
4
°
4
5
'
4
9
"
W
3
.
0
8
'
S
6
5
°
1
4
'
0
9
"
W
6
.
1
8
'
SO
U
T
H
3
.
0
3
'
Δ=
1
2
°
2
5
'
3
6
"
R=
2
6
2
.
0
4
'
L=
5
6
.
8
3
'
CB
=
S
7
4
°
4
8
'
1
4
"
W
C=
5
6
.
7
2
'
S
0
°
0
9
'
2
6
"
W
3
2
.
6
2
'
N
8
9
°
5
2
'
2
7
"
E
1
6
5
.
1
3
'
S 0°09'26" W 330.15'
S
8
9
°
5
2
'
4
5
"
W
6
6
0
.
3
5
'
N 0°09'27" E 330.09'
N
8
9
°
5
2
'
2
7
"
E
3
3
0
.
1
8
'
N 0°09'26" E 165.06'
S
8
9
°
5
2
'
1
8
"
W
3
3
0
.
1
7
'
N
0
°
0
9
'
2
7
"
E
6
9
.
2
4
'
N
7
8
°
4
8
'
3
2
"
E
7
6
.
7
4
'
Δ=
1
0
°
5
5
'
4
0
"
R=
4
7
4
.
2
8
'
L=
9
0
.
4
6
'
CB
=
N
8
4
°
1
6
'
2
4
"
E
C=
9
0
.
3
2
'
N
0
°
0
9
'
2
7
"
E
7
2
.
2
7
'
N
8
9
°
5
2
'
1
0
"
E
4
9
5
.
2
6
'
OV
E
R
A
L
L
P
A
R
C
E
L
C
O
N
T
A
I
N
S
35
7
,
0
0
6
S
Q
U
A
R
E
F
E
E
T
8.
2
0
0
A
C
R
E
S
OL
Y
M
P
U
S
Q
O
Z
B
L
L
C
15
-
0
1
-
3
7
6
-
0
1
1
OL
Y
M
P
U
S
Q
O
Z
B
L
L
C
15
-
0
1
-
3
7
6
-
0
1
4
SI
L
O
S
M
I
D
B
L
O
C
K
Q
O
Z
B
L
L
C
15
-
0
1
-
3
7
7
-
0
2
4
SI
L
O
S
S
O
U
T
H
A
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
S
,
L
L
C
15
-
0
1
-
3
7
7
-
0
3
3
SI
L
O
S
S
O
U
T
H
A
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
S
,
L
L
C
15
-
0
1
-
3
7
7
-
0
2
7
SI
L
O
S
S
O
U
T
H
A
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
S
,
L
L
C
15
-
0
1
-
3
7
7
-
0
2
9
SI
L
O
S
S
O
U
T
H
A
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
S
,
L
L
C
15
-
0
1
-
3
7
7
-
0
3
2
SC
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
NO
R
T
H
40
'
0
20
'
4
0
'
80
'
12
0
'
70
0
S
O
U
T
H
60
0
S
O
U
T
H
50
0
S
O
U
T
H
300 WEST
GALE ST
400 WEST
500 WEST
600 WEST
7TH WEST
INTERS
T
A
T
E
1
5
SI
T
E
LE
G
E
N
D
SU
B
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
RI
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
L
I
N
E
LO
T
L
I
N
E
MO
N
U
M
E
N
T
L
I
N
E
/
C
E
N
T
E
R
L
I
N
E
O
F
R
O
A
D
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
CA
D
F
I
L
E
:
DR
A
W
N
B
Y
:
CH
E
C
K
E
D
B
Y
:
REVISIONS
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
CA
L
C
B
Y
:
FI
E
L
D
C
R
E
W
:
DA
T
E
:
SILOS
470 WEST 600 SOUTHSALT LAKE CITY, UTAHLOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, S.L.B. & M.
22
5
2
1
22
5
2
1
O
V
E
R
A
L
L
2
0
2
5
EA
M
EA
M
DB
D
8-
2
9
-
2
0
2
5
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
PA
R
C
E
L
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
1
O
F
1
1 11-21-25 CITY COMMENTS
VI
C
I
N
I
T
Y
M
A
P
SC
A
L
E
:
N
.
T
.
S
.
A
P
A
R
C
E
L
O
F
L
A
N
D
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
I
N
L
O
T
S
1
-
3
,
A
N
D
5
-
8
O
F
B
L
O
C
K
2
9
,
P
L
A
T
A
,
S
A
L
T
L
A
K
E
C
I
T
Y
S
U
R
V
E
Y
,
S
A
I
D
PA
R
C
E
L
A
L
S
O
B
E
I
N
G
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
I
N
S
I
L
O
S
C
O
N
D
O
M
I
N
I
U
M
S
P
L
A
T
,
O
N
F
I
L
E
A
N
D
O
F
R
E
C
O
R
D
I
N
T
H
E
O
F
F
I
C
E
O
F
TH
E
S
A
L
T
L
A
K
E
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
E
C
O
R
D
E
R
I
N
B
O
O
K
2
0
0
4
P
,
A
T
P
A
G
E
1
5
1
,
S
A
I
D
P
A
R
C
E
L
A
L
S
O
B
E
I
N
G
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
I
N
T
H
E
SO
U
T
H
W
E
S
T
Q
U
A
R
T
E
R
O
F
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
1
,
T
O
W
N
S
H
I
P
1
S
O
U
T
H
,
R
A
N
G
E
1
W
E
S
T
,
S
A
L
T
L
A
K
E
B
A
S
E
A
N
D
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
,
SA
I
D
P
A
R
C
E
L
B
E
I
N
G
M
O
R
E
P
A
R
T
I
C
U
L
A
R
L
Y
D
E
S
C
R
I
B
E
D
A
S
F
O
L
L
O
W
S
:
BE
G
I
N
N
I
N
G
A
T
T
H
E
N
O
R
T
H
E
A
S
T
C
O
R
N
E
R
O
F
S
A
I
D
B
L
O
C
K
,
S
A
I
D
P
O
I
N
T
A
L
S
O
B
E
I
N
G
S
O
U
T
H
8
9
°
5
7
'
2
2
”
W
E
S
T
6
4
.
2
7
FE
E
T
A
N
D
S
O
U
T
H
0
°
0
2
'
3
8
"
E
A
S
T
7
2
.
0
3
F
E
E
T
F
R
O
M
A
B
R
A
S
S
C
A
P
M
O
N
U
M
E
N
T
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
A
T
T
H
E
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
OF
4
0
0
W
E
S
T
A
N
D
5
0
0
S
O
U
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
,
A
N
D
R
U
N
N
I
N
G
T
H
E
N
C
E
S
O
U
T
H
0
°
0
9
'
2
6
”
W
E
S
T
A
L
O
N
G
T
H
E
E
A
S
T
L
I
N
E
OF
S
A
I
D
B
L
O
C
K
2
0
0
.
6
2
F
E
E
T
T
O
A
P
O
I
N
T
O
N
T
H
E
A
R
C
O
F
A
2
6
2
.
0
4
F
O
O
T
-
R
A
D
I
U
S
-
N
O
N
-
T
A
N
G
E
N
T
C
U
R
V
E
T
O
T
H
E
RI
G
H
T
;
T
H
E
N
C
E
A
L
O
N
G
T
H
E
A
R
C
O
F
S
A
I
D
C
U
R
V
E
A
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
O
F
1
3
2
.
1
6
F
E
E
T
,
T
H
R
O
U
G
H
A
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
A
N
G
L
E
O
F
28
°
5
3
'
4
9
”
,
C
H
O
R
D
B
E
A
R
S
S
O
U
T
H
5
2
°
3
0
'
4
4
”
W
E
S
T
1
3
0
.
7
6
F
E
E
T
;
T
H
E
N
C
E
N
O
R
T
H
2
4
°
4
5
'
4
9
”
W
E
S
T
3
.
0
8
F
E
E
T
;
TH
E
N
C
E
S
O
U
T
H
6
5
°
1
4
'
0
9
”
W
E
S
T
6
.
1
8
F
E
E
T
;
T
H
E
N
C
E
S
O
U
T
H
3
.
0
3
F
E
E
T
T
O
A
P
O
I
N
T
O
N
T
H
E
A
R
C
O
F
A
2
6
2
.
0
4
FO
O
T
-
N
O
N
-
T
A
N
G
E
N
T
-
R
A
D
I
U
S
C
U
R
V
E
T
O
T
H
E
R
I
G
H
T
;
T
H
E
N
C
E
A
L
O
N
G
T
H
E
A
R
C
O
F
S
A
I
D
C
U
R
V
E
A
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
O
F
56
.
8
3
F
E
E
T
,
T
H
R
O
U
G
H
A
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
A
N
G
L
E
O
F
1
2
°
2
5
'
3
6
”
,
C
H
O
R
D
B
E
A
R
S
S
O
U
T
H
7
4
°
4
8
'
1
4
”
W
E
S
T
5
6
.
7
2
F
E
E
T
;
TH
E
N
C
E
S
O
U
T
H
0
°
0
9
'
2
6
”
W
E
S
T
3
2
.
6
2
F
E
E
T
T
O
T
H
E
S
O
U
T
H
L
I
N
E
O
F
L
O
T
7
O
F
S
A
I
D
B
L
O
C
K
;
T
H
E
N
C
E
N
O
R
T
H
89
°
5
2
'
2
7
”
E
A
S
T
A
L
O
N
G
S
A
I
D
S
O
U
T
H
L
I
N
E
1
6
5
.
1
3
F
E
E
T
T
O
T
H
E
S
O
U
T
H
E
A
S
T
C
O
R
N
E
R
O
F
S
A
I
D
L
O
T
7
;
T
H
E
N
C
E
AL
O
N
G
T
H
E
P
E
R
I
M
E
T
E
R
O
F
S
A
I
D
B
L
O
C
K
T
H
E
F
O
L
L
O
W
I
N
G
T
H
R
E
E
(
3
)
C
O
U
R
S
E
S
:
1
)
S
O
U
T
H
0
°
0
9
'
2
6
”
W
E
S
T
3
3
0
.
1
5
FE
E
T
,
2
)
S
O
U
T
H
8
9
°
5
2
'
4
5
”
W
E
S
T
6
6
0
.
3
5
F
E
E
T
,
3
)
N
O
R
T
H
0
°
0
9
'
2
7
”
E
A
S
T
3
3
0
.
0
9
F
E
E
T
T
O
T
H
E
N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
CO
R
N
E
R
O
F
L
O
T
3
O
F
S
A
I
D
B
L
O
C
K
;
T
H
E
N
C
E
N
O
R
T
H
8
9
°
5
2
'
2
7
”
E
A
S
T
A
L
O
N
G
T
H
E
N
O
R
T
H
L
I
N
E
O
F
S
A
I
D
L
O
T
3
A
DI
S
T
A
N
C
E
O
F
3
3
0
.
1
8
F
E
E
T
;
T
H
E
N
C
E
N
O
R
T
H
0
°
0
9
'
2
6
”
E
A
S
T
1
6
5
.
0
6
F
E
E
T
;
T
H
E
N
C
E
S
O
U
T
H
8
9
°
5
2
'
1
8
”
W
E
S
T
3
3
0
.
1
7
FE
E
T
T
O
T
H
E
S
O
U
T
H
W
E
S
T
C
O
R
N
E
R
O
F
S
A
I
D
S
I
L
O
S
C
O
N
D
O
M
I
N
I
U
M
P
L
A
T
;
T
H
E
N
C
E
A
L
O
N
G
T
H
E
P
E
R
I
M
I
T
E
R
O
F
SA
I
D
S
U
B
D
I
V
S
I
O
N
P
L
A
T
T
H
E
F
O
L
L
O
W
I
N
G
F
O
U
R
(
4
)
C
O
U
R
S
E
S
:
1
)
N
O
R
T
H
0
°
0
9
'
2
7
”
E
A
S
T
6
9
.
2
4
F
E
E
T
,
2
)
N
O
R
T
H
78
°
4
8
'
3
2
”
E
A
S
T
7
6
.
7
4
F
E
E
T
T
O
A
P
O
I
N
T
O
N
T
H
E
A
R
C
O
F
A
4
7
4
.
2
8
F
O
O
T
R
A
D
I
U
S
T
A
N
G
E
N
T
C
U
R
V
E
T
O
T
H
E
R
I
G
H
T
,
3)
T
H
E
N
C
E
A
L
O
N
G
T
H
E
A
R
C
O
F
S
A
I
D
C
U
R
V
E
A
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
O
F
9
0
.
4
6
F
E
E
T
,
T
H
R
O
U
G
H
A
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
C
U
R
V
E
O
F
10
°
5
5
'
4
0
”
,
C
H
O
R
D
B
E
A
R
S
N
O
R
T
H
8
4
°
1
6
'
2
4
”
E
A
S
T
9
0
.
3
2
F
E
E
T
,
4
)
N
O
R
T
H
0
°
0
9
'
2
7
”
E
A
S
T
7
2
.
2
7
F
E
E
T
T
O
T
H
E
NO
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
C
O
R
N
E
R
O
F
S
A
I
D
S
U
B
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
,
S
A
I
D
P
O
I
N
T
A
L
S
O
B
E
I
N
G
O
N
T
H
E
N
O
R
T
H
L
I
N
E
O
F
S
A
I
D
B
L
O
C
K
;
TH
E
N
C
E
N
O
R
T
H
8
9
°
5
2
'
1
0
”
E
A
S
T
A
L
O
N
G
T
H
E
N
O
R
T
H
L
I
N
E
O
F
S
A
I
D
S
U
B
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
A
N
D
A
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
N
O
R
T
H
LI
N
E
O
F
S
A
I
D
B
L
O
C
K
4
9
5
.
2
6
F
E
E
T
T
O
T
H
E
P
O
I
N
T
O
F
B
E
G
I
N
N
I
N
G
.
CO
N
T
A
I
N
S
3
5
7
,
0
0
6
S
Q
.
F
T
.
O
R
8
.
2
0
A
C
R
E
S
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
-
-
-
-
-
I I I
rf--4 ,-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------,s:--------~
-\ 1~ -1
'
I
'
I
'
I
I ---... _/
'
I
'
I
'
I
'
I
'
I
• • \ • •
\ • •
\ • •
• • i v L ____ L
l
'
I
'
I
'
I
' -~
11--■■-■■-------------■■-■■_J
I
L
I
I
• • I • •
I • • I •
I • •
I • •
I • •
. •
L----,~lo-■■-■■-■■-■■-■■-■■-■■-■■-■■-■■-■■-■■-■■-■■-■■-■•---'~,------
\ ----,
I
-------------=--=j I
'
I
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---.U-___________________ -,J
I i
'
I
'
I
~--~yl --- ----- ---- ---- ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- ---- - - - - - -~ - - - ----~ - --1
~ -~ " \
I ~
\. --
\
y
I\
-... -
I
'
I
I • •
I
8610 South Sandy Parkway, Suite 200 Sandy, Utah 84070 801.255.7700 mcneilengineering.com
Civil Engineering • Consulting & Landscape Architecture
Structural Engineering • Land Surveying & HDS
-
-
-
-
-
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT ON Tuesday, January 20, 2026, a public hearing
will be held at 7:00 p.m. by the Salt Lake City Council to accept public
comment on the Silos Park Public Infrastructure District, at approximately
470 West 600 South. The proposed district would assist with financing the
construction of public infrastructure related to development, including
construction and maintenance of a right-of-way (a curb, a gutter, a
sidewalk, a street, a road, a water line, a sewage line, a storm drain, an
electricity line, a communications line, a natural gas line, or street
lighting). The public hearing allows for input on whether the requested
service is needed and if the service should be provided by the City,
County, or the proposed district, and all other matters relating to the
proposed district. The Council has not yet set a date to take formal
action to approve the proposed district. Petitioner: Joseph McKay,
representing Olympus QOZB, LLC, Silos South Apartments Building 3, LLC,
Silos Midblock QOZB, LLC, and Silos South Apartments, LLC.
All persons interested and present will be given an opportunity to be
heard in this matter. 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 Hall, located at 451 South State Street, Room 315,
Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including electronic
connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/agendas or call
801-535-7600.
Additional information regarding proposed resolution and boundaries,
including full petition can be obtained by contacting the City Recorder’s
office in person at the City Hall Room 415, by phone (801) 535-7671, or by
email slcrecorder@slc.gov
Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-hour comment line at 801-
535-7654 or emailing council.comments@slc.gov. All comments received
through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public
record. The City Hall 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 to the City Council Office at least two business days
in advance.
Published: January 5, 2026, Utah Public Notice Website (UPNW) & City
Recorder’s Website
PLEASE KEEP POSTED UNTIL: JANUARY 20, 2026
This page has intentionally been left blank
Item C1
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
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Austin Kimmel
Public Policy Analyst
DATE:January 20, 2026
RE: MOTION SHEET - CONSOLIDATED FEE SCHEDULE (CFS) CORRECTION - MISSING
TITLE AND DESCRIPTION
MOTION 1 – ADOPT ORDINANCE
I move that the Council adopt the ordinance amending fees and fee information in the Salt
Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule related to certain fire line fees and implement the full
FY26 fire line fee structure upon adoption as presented in the updated rate table. The
Council also supports the Department of Public Utilities crediting customers for the “per
inch” multiplier portion of fire line fees paid from July 1, 2025, through the date of adoption
of this ordinance.
MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT
I move that the Council not adopt the ordinance, and proceed to the next agenda item.
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: Austin Kimmel
DATE:January 20, 2026
RE: CONSOLIDATED FEE SCHEDULE (CFS) CORRECTION - MISSING TITLE AND
DESCRIPTION
NEW INFORMATION – JANUARY 20, 2026
The following information was provided for the January 13 council meeting. It is provided
again for background purposes.
NEW INFORMATION – JANUARY 13, 2026
UPDATED Item Schedule:
Page | 2
The Council requested that customers be credited for the “per inch” portion of fire line fees paid from July 1,
2025, until the corrected CFS language is adopted. The base fee would remain as written in the CFS table since it
was adopted as part of the FY26 budget. The per-inch multiplier portion would be credited back to customers.
The Council also requested that once the corrected CFS language is adopted, the full FY26 fee be implemented.
The following information was provided for the December 2, 2025 council meeting. It is
provided again for background purposes.
NEW INFORMATION – DECEMBER 2, 2025
Compliance with State Law for fee setting – the lack of proper labeling on the CFS means that the
fee should not have been charged as of July 1. Staff recommendation: credit customers who paid the
increased fee between July 1 and present. (Please note: financial impact info below.)
Steepness of the increase – the steep one-step increase caused surprise to customers, especially
when combined with other rate changes. If the Council does not wish to approve the one-time FY26
increase, it could consider a two- or three-step schedule to phase in the increase. (Please note: financial
impact info below.)
Proper Labeling – the CFS missed key words to indicate the fee is charged per inch. Staff
recommendation: accept the proposed edits to ensure proper labeling on the CFS.
Fee Compliance Issue (#1): Council staff learned that the missing “Per Inch” description from the
Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS), which prompted the administration’s initial correction request, represents a
more significant issue than originally understood. Utah Code Section 10-8-22 requires municipal water rates to
be set legislatively by ordinance with uniform notice and opportunity for public participation.
before Public Utilities charges the fee and that Public Utilities provide
credits for fees paid by customers from the beginning of FY26 up to the adoption date. The increased fire line
fees have been charged to 3,453 customer accounts with fire service lines since July 1, 2025.
Corrected Financial Impact (Related to #1 and #2): During the November 25 briefing, Public Utilities
corrected an earlier revenue estimate. Rather than a $740,237 annual shortfall if the fire line fee increase is not
implemented, the actual shortfall would be approximately $1.7 million annually. If the Council approves the
corrected CFS language and requests credited fees for the six-month period from July 1 through December 2025
(the soonest the Council could adopt the corrected CFS language at this time), it is assumed that approximately
$850,000 would be credited to customers.
Page | 3
Phase-In Options (#2): As requested by Council Members, Public Utilities has analyzed two phase-in
implementation scenarios to mitigate immediate customer impacts:
Two-Year Phase-In: Public Utilities would charge 75% of the FY26 rate in year one, then increase by
56% in year two to reach the full rate.
Three-Year Phase-In: Public Utilities would charge 50% of the FY26 rate in year one, then increase by
80% in year two, and by 95% in year three to reach the full rate.
Council Direction Requested: In summary, Staff is seeking Council direction on two items:
The following information was provided for the November 25, 2025 council meeting. It is
provided again for background purposes.
NEW INFORMATION – NOVEMBER 25, 2025
Page | 4
17.16.520: UNMETERED FIRE PROTECTION PIPES PERMITTED WHEN:
Pipes to be used only in case of fire will be allowed within buildings on the following conditions:
A. Applicant must petition the city in writing for permission to install any unmetered or metered
fire protection pipe system, and all installation and connection costs and charges in connection
therewith shall be paid by the applicant.
B. Except for the water source connection, such fire pipes must be entirely unconnected with any
other system and must not serve any other function.
C. Fire hose connections must contain adequate seals or other measures acceptable to the director
of public utilities, so that they can only be used for fighting fires.
D. All nonmetered fire system connections to the city water system shall be subject to a charge as
determined by the public utilities director. (Prior code § 49-6-41)
The following information was provided for the October 14, 2025 council meeting. It is
provided again for background purposes.
NEW INFORMATION – OCTOBER 14, 2025
Following the Council's September 16 written briefing, questions about the fire line fees were raised by Council
Members and members of the public. As a result of these questions, it was determined that a public briefing
should be scheduled to provide additional information about the fees.
A fire service line is a dedicated water line that supplies water to fire sprinklers or private fire hydrants, separate
from regular water service. Fire service lines are common in multi-family residential properties or townhomes
with shared infrastructure.
According to Public Utilities, the fees it charges for fire lines have not increased in at least 64 years. As part of
the Public Utilities FY26 budget, the fee for fire lines increased to match the actual cost of service associated
with the lines based on an analysis conducted during Public Utilities' 2024 Comprehensive Water, Wastewater,
and Stormwater Rate Study. As a correction to the BACKGROUND section below, Public Utilities staff have
recently become aware of records indicating fire line fees have been in place since at least 1961, rather than the
1981 date referenced.
During the budget process, Public Utilities' engagement materials focused on principal fees and rates that apply
to most customers, rather than its miscellaneous fees, such as fire line charges, which affect a limited number of
properties. While the fire line fees were noticed in the FY26 Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS), they were not
specifically highlighted in public outreach materials due to their narrow applicability. The Council's October 14
briefing provides an opportunity to learn more about the specific fee for fire lines.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Department of Public Utilities recommends the Council approve a correction to the City’s Consolidated Fee
Schedule (CFS), adding the missing title “Fire Lines” and the description “Per Inch” to a rate table in the
WATER section of the CFS. These labels were inadvertently omitted from the published FY 2025-26 CFS despite
being included in the original budget proposal.
BACKGROUND
According to the Administration, fire line fees are established in City Ordinance 17.16.520 and have been in
place since at least 1981. The fees are charged per inch of connection size. If not updated, the CFS schedule with
the missing title and description may lead to customer confusion about what the fees cover.
Currently, Public Utilities is charging the approved FY26 rates as adopted by the City Council. The City
Attorney's Office has confirmed this practice is allowable and notes the correction could have been handled as a
"scrivener's error." However, since both the title and application description were omitted, the department is
seeking formal Council approval.
Page | 5
FINANCIAL IMPACT
If the update is not approved, Public Utilities states they may have to revert to the FY25 CFS section with the
former rates for Fire Lines. If the FY25 schedule is used, Public Utilities estimates a $740,237 difference in
revenue that was budgeted for and set to collect per the FY26 rates. Since the department is currently collecting
on the FY26 rates as explained above, there is currently no budget shortfall.
REDLINED CFS SCHEDULE
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of ____ 2026
(Amendments to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule Related to Fire Line Fees)
An ordinance amending fees and fee information in the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee
Schedule related to certain fire line fees.
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011 the City Council adopted Ordinances 2011-23, 2011-24
and 2011-25 to authorize and create the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule has since been amended from
time to time; and
WHEREAS, it is now proposed that the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule be
amended to include, eliminate, or otherwise modify fees and fee information regarding certain
fire lines as shown in the attached Exhibit “A”; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a hearing regarding this proposed ordinance that
amends the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule on January 13, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds (i) the fees set forth in Exhibit A are necessary,
reasonable, and equitable in relation to regulatory and service costs incurred by the City; and (ii)
adoption of this ordinance reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the
citizens of Salt Lake City.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. That the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be, and hereby is,
amended in pertinent part as set forth in the attached Exhibit “A”.
SECTION 2. That a revised copy of the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule that
reflects the amendments set forth in the attached Exhibit “A” shall be published on the official
Salt Lake City website.
SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall become effective upon publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this __ day of _________, 2026.
______________________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
_________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________.
Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed.
_______________________________________
MAYOR
_________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _______ of 2026.
Published: __________________
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
By: __/s/ Jaysen Oldroyd
Jaysen Oldroyd, Senior City
Attorney
Date: ___Jan 13, 2026
WATER
For questions regarding Water fees contact: 801.483.6900
Service Fee
Monthly Service Fee
Size of connection Monthly Amount
City County
5/8 inch - 3/4 inch $22.48 $30.35 17.16.670
1 inch $28.57 $38.57 17.16.670
1 1/2 inch $43.66 $58.94 17.16.670
2 inch $61.85 $83.50 17.16.670
3 inch $110.40 $149.04 17.16.670
4 inch $164.95 $222.68 17.16.670
6 inch $316.43 $427.18 17.16.670
8 inch $498.28 $672.68 17.16.670
10 inch $710.49 $959.16 17.16.670
12 inch $1,036.26 $1,398.95 17.16.670
Fire Hydrant $399.49 $539.31 17.16.590
Low Income Abatement: Customer who are granted abatement for taxes
on their dwelling shall be granted a five dollar fifty cent ($5.50) abatement of the minimum monthly charge.
Fire Lines
Size of connection Monthly Amount Per Inch of the Size of the Connection to the Main
City County
2 inch $0.84 per inch $1.13 per inch 17.16.520
3 inch $1.68 per inch $2.27 per inch 17.16.520
4 inch $2.62 per inch $3.54 per inch 17.16.520
6 inch $5.23 per inch $7.06 per inch 17.16.520
8 inch $8.38 per inch $11.31 per inch 17.16.520
10 inch $12.04 per inch $16.25 per inch 17.16.520
12 inch $17.67 per inch $23.85 per inch 17.16.520
Water Meter Rates
Account Type Amount Used Volumetric Rate
City County
Single family residence
Block 1:
0-5 hundred
cubic feet
$2.84 $3.83
Block 2:
6-10 hundred
cubic feet (except as
increased for Urban
Vegetable Gardens)
$3.49 $4.71
Block 3:
11-40 hundred
cubic feet
$4.46 $6.02
Block 4:
>40 hundred
cubic feet
$4.92 $6.64
Duplex residence / or Single
residence with Accessory Dwelling
Unit
Block 1:
0-10 hundred
cubic feet
$2.84 $3.83
Block 2:
11-20 hundred
cubic feet
$3.49 $4.71
Block 3:
21-80 hundred
cubic feet
$4.46 $6.02
Block 4:
>80 hundred
cubic feet
$4.92 $6.64
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 48
EXHIBIT A
Triplex residence
Block 1:
0-15 hundred
cubic feet
$2.84 $3.83
Block 2:
16-30 hundred
cubic feet
$3.49 $4.71
Block 3:
31-120 hundred
cubic feet
$4.46 $6.02
Block 4:
>120 hundred
cubic feet
$4.92 $6.64
City Rates County Rates
Summer Rate
(April - October)
Winter Rate
(November - March)
Summer Rate
(April - October)
Winter Rate
(November - March)
Multi-Family Residential 3.35 $2.18 $4.52 $2.94
Commercial and Non-Residential 3.53 $2.18 $4.77 $2.94
Note:
Customers with defective plumbing or unexplained deceases in usage of more than 25 percent may be adjusted back to a prior AWC, or be
assigned the class average by meter size. In cases where class average is not available or is not reasonable, the Director may use other
consumption information specific to such account to determine AWC.
The amount used is referred to as a block or tier rate.
Account Type Amount Used Volumetric Rate
Irrigation
City County
100 Cubic feet to
target budget $2.93 $3.96
Over target budget Up to
300% of target budget $4.09 $5.52
Over 300% of
target budget $4.30 $5.81
Note:
"Irrigation account" means an account established for applying water for irrigation and landscaping only, as determined by the Public Utilities
Director or designee.
"Target budget" means the estimated amount of water consumed per acre, as established by the Public Utilities Director or designee each year
for customer based on factors including, but not limited to, evapotranspiration, and considering efficient water practices. A different target
budget is established for each month of the irrigation season.
Account Type Amount Used Rate (Summer)Flat Rate (Winter)
Secondary Irrigation
Per Acre
Foot Per ccf Per Acre Foot Per ccf
0 Cubic feet to
target budget $285.32 $0.66
Over target budget Up to
300% of target budget $653.04 $1.50 $285.32 $0.66
Over 300% of
target budget $1,096.76 $2.52
Note:
"Secondary Irrigation account" means an account established for applying water for irrigation and landscaping secondary to the culinary water
system for select municipal parks and golf courses only, as determined by the Public Utilities Director or her designee.
"Target budget" means the estimated amount of water consumed per acre, as established by the Public Utilities Director or designee each year
for customer based on factors including, but not limited to, evapotranspiration, and considering efficient water practices. A different target
budget is established for each month of the irrigation season.
Miscellaneous Fees City County
Urban Vegetable Garden Credit Adjustment Credit per
ordinance NA Based on garden size 17.16.685
Deposit for water - residential $75 $75 17.16.380
Deposit for water - business $100 $100 Retail, warehouse, offices 17.16.380
Deposit for water - small restaurants $150 $150 17.16.380
Deposit for water - Laundromats, large restaurants $300 $300 17.16.380
Deposit for water - car washes $600 $600 17.16.380
Meter Test Fee - 5/8" to 1"$145 17.16.050
Meter Test Fee - 1 1/2" to 2"$290 17.16.050
Meter Test Fee - larger than 2"Actual costs 17.16.050
Water turn on - turn off $30 17.16.660
Illegal turn on fee $80 $80 17.16.660
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 49
Bankruptcy deposit
Highest two monthly bills over
the previous 12 months
period
17.16.660
Charges for water Minimum charges apply See Section 17.16.590 17.16.590
Damage to padlock, inline lock or lock out sleeve Actual costs 17.16.050
Deposit for fire hydrant meter $1,000 $100 not refundable 17.16.050
Opt-out of Advance Metering Infrastructure (AMI) -monthly fee $40 17.16.050
Rain Barrel Actual Costs Plus sales tax
Grass Seed Actual Costs Plus sales tax
Unauthorized meter, hydrant, or utility access
First incident $500 17.16.810
Subsequent incidents previous charge + $500 17.16.810
Plumber or Contractor First incident $1,000 17.16.110
Plumber or Contractor Subsequent incidents previous charge +$500 17.16.110
Construction Water - Fill-up at Department on Public Utilities $50 Includes 4 fill-ups at Public Utilities shops
Canyon water surplus sales (for contracts that are not tied to the rate established by the average MWDSLS rate paid by SLC)
Contract volume 800 gallons per day $415.65 per year or current
MWDSLS rate 17.04.030
Contract volume 400 gallons per day $207.83 per year or current
MWDSLS rate 17.04.030
Water Connection Fees - Contact 801.483.6727 17.16.040
Classification Dwelling Meter Size
City
Connection
Fee**
County
Connection
Fee**
Meter Hardware &
Installation Fee*
Residential
Single family 3/4 inch $1,871.00 $1,952.00 *See Note - actual cost
Single family 1 inch $3,297.00 $3,494.00 *See Note - actual cost
Duplex 1 inch $2,234.00 $2,432.00 *See Note - actual cost
Triplex 1 inch $2,371.00 $2,492.00 *See Note - actual cost
Fourplex 1 inch $3,401.00 $3,580.00 *See Note - actual cost
Commercial/Industrial Culinary Meter
3/4 inch $2,000.00 $2,125.00 *See Note - actual cost
1 inch $3,830.00 $4,213.00 *See Note - actual cost
1.5 inch $7,584.00 $8,322.00 *See Note - actual cost
2 inch $11,776.00 $12,834.00 *See Note - actual cost
3 inch $23,678.00 $25,838.00 *See Note - actual cost
4 inch $27,359.00 $27,359.00 *See Note - actual cost
6 inch $54,718.00 $54,718.00 *See Note - actual cost
8 inch $87,549.00 $87,549.00 *See Note - actual cost
* Cost includes actual hardware cost, meter construction costs, labor costs, and one inspection. Price will be provided upon request.
**Meters not listed will be charged at actual hardware cost, inspection fees, and applicable resource and impact fees.
***For meters 4-inches and larger a water resource fee shall be added. The fee is based on the ratio of the projected usage (gpd) as determined by the AWWA
M-22 method to the equivalent residential unit amount of 449 gpd multiplied by $106.
Fire Service Connection Charges *** Contact number 801.483.6727
Detector check - Fee listed does not include hardware and meter. Any hardware and meter to be charged at actual cost.
6-inch Price upon request Not allowed for new development or redevelopment - replacement only.17.16.050
8-inch $3,334.20 17.16.050
10-inch $5,272.02 17.16.050
Fire Lines -Fee listed does not include hardware and meter. Any hardware and meter to be charged at actual cost.
2-inch $355.00 17.16.050
4-inch $355.00 17.16.050
6-inch $601.00 17.16.050
8-inch $819.00 17.16.050
10-inch $1,091.00 17.16.050
12-inch $1,309.00 17.16.050
Water Inspection Fees ***Contact number 801.483.6727
New hydrant inspection $135.00 Per each inspection 17.16.050
New hydrant inspection - Long $240.00 Per each inspection 17.16.050
Water inspection fees $110.00 New installation, repair, service, or terminate (kill) inspection;
Per each inspection or trip 17.16.050
Relocation of hydrant inspection $220.00 Includes move and terminate 17.16.050
Relocation of water meter inspection $220.00 Includes move and terminate 17.16.050
Water Used During Construction
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 50
Residential Metered Rates 17.16.350
Commercial Metered rates 17.16.350
Other Water Utility Fees
Water Pressure Test (Flow Test) for Water Mains under 12"$455.00 Per Test 17.16.050
Water Pressure Test (Flow Test) for water mains greater than 12:$800.00 Per Test 17.16.050
Kills - Meters under 3"$55.00 17.16.050
Kills - Meters 3" or larger $160.00 17.16.050
Inspect Auto Fire Sprinklers less than 2"$136.00 Per Inspection 17.16.040
Inspect Auto Fire Sprinklers 2" or greater $369.00 Per Inspection 17.16.040
Plan Review Fee - Less than 1 acre $216.00 Per Review 17.16.050
Plan Review Fee - Tenant Remodel/Residential Remodel $39.00 Per Review 17.16.050
Plan Review Fee - 1 - 5 acres $1,060.00 Per Review 17.16.350
Plan Review Fee - Greater than 5 acres $2,124.00 Per Review 17.16.050
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 51
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1
No. of ____ 2026 2
3
(Amendments to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule Related to Fire Line Fees) 4
5
An ordinance amending fees and fee information in the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee 6
Schedule related to certain fire line fees. 7
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011 the City Council adopted Ordinances 2011-23, 2011-24 8
and 2011-25 to authorize and create the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule; and 9
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule has since been amended from 10
time to time; and 11
WHEREAS, it is now proposed that the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule be 12
amended to include, eliminate, or otherwise modify fees and fee information regarding certain 13
fire lines as shown in the attached Exhibit “A”; and 14
WHEREAS, the City Council held a hearing regarding this proposed ordinance that 15
amends the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule on ________________; and 16
WHEREAS, the City Council finds (i) the fees set forth in Exhibit A are necessary, 17
reasonable, and equitable in relation to regulatory and service costs incurred by the City; and (ii) 18
adoption of this ordinance reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the 19
citizens of Salt Lake City. 20
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 21
SECTION 1. That the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be, and hereby is, 22
amended in pertinent part as set forth in the attached Exhibit “A”. 23
SECTION 2. That a revised copy of the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule that 24
reflects the amendments set forth in the attached Exhibit “A” shall be published on the official 25
Salt Lake City website. 26
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall become effective upon publication. 27
28
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this __ day of _________, 2026. 29
30
31
______________________________________ 32
CHAIRPERSON 33
ATTEST: 34
35
36
_________________________ 37
CITY RECORDER 38
39
40
Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________. 41
42
Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed. 43
44
45
46
_______________________________________ 47
MAYOR 48
49
50
_________________________ 51
CITY RECORDER 52
53
54
(SEAL) 55
56
Bill No. _______ of 2026. 57
Published: __________________ 58
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
By: ___________________________
Jaysen Oldroyd
Date: ______________________
WATER
For questions regarding Water fees contact: 801.483.6900
Service Fee
Monthly Service Fee
Size of connection Monthly Amount
City County
5/8 inch - 3/4 inch $22.48 $30.35 17.16.670
1 inch $28.57 $38.57 17.16.670
1 1/2 inch $43.66 $58.94 17.16.670
2 inch $61.85 $83.50 17.16.670
3 inch $110.40 $149.04 17.16.670
4 inch $164.95 $222.68 17.16.670
6 inch $316.43 $427.18 17.16.670
8 inch $498.28 $672.68 17.16.670
10 inch $710.49 $959.16 17.16.670
12 inch $1,036.26 $1,398.95 17.16.670
Fire Hydrant $399.49 $539.31 17.16.590
Low Income Abatement: Customer who are granted abatement for taxes
on their dwelling shall be granted a five dollar fifty cent ($5.50) abatement of the minimum monthly charge.
Fire Lines
Size of connection Monthly Amount Per Inch of the Size of the Connection to the Main
City County
2 inch $0.84 per inch $1.13 per inch 17.16.520
3 inch $1.68 per inch $2.27 per inch 17.16.520
4 inch $2.62 per inch $3.54 per inch 17.16.520
6 inch $5.23 per inch $7.06 per inch 17.16.520
8 inch $8.38 per inch $11.31 per inch 17.16.520
10 inch $12.04 per inch $16.25 per inch 17.16.520
12 inch $17.67 per inch $23.85 per inch 17.16.520
Water Meter Rates
Account Type Amount Used Volumetric Rate
City County
Single family residence
Block 1:
0-5 hundred
cubic feet
$2.84 $3.83
Block 2:
6-10 hundred
cubic feet (except as
increased for Urban
Vegetable Gardens)
$3.49 $4.71
Block 3:
11-40 hundred
cubic feet
$4.46 $6.02
Block 4:
>40 hundred
cubic feet
$4.92 $6.64
Duplex residence / or Single
residence with Accessory Dwelling
Unit
Block 1:
0-10 hundred
cubic feet
$2.84 $3.83
Block 2:
11-20 hundred
cubic feet
$3.49 $4.71
Block 3:
21-80 hundred
cubic feet
$4.46 $6.02
Block 4:
>80 hundred
cubic feet
$4.92 $6.64
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 48
EXHIBIT A
Triplex residence
Block 1:
0-15 hundred
cubic feet
$2.84 $3.83
Block 2:
16-30 hundred
cubic feet
$3.49 $4.71
Block 3:
31-120 hundred
cubic feet
$4.46 $6.02
Block 4:
>120 hundred
cubic feet
$4.92 $6.64
City Rates County Rates
Summer Rate
(April - October)
Winter Rate
(November - March)
Summer Rate
(April - October)
Winter Rate
(November - March)
Multi-Family Residential 3.35 $2.18 $4.52 $2.94
Commercial and Non-Residential 3.53 $2.18 $4.77 $2.94
Note:
Customers with defective plumbing or unexplained deceases in usage of more than 25 percent may be adjusted back to a prior AWC, or be
assigned the class average by meter size. In cases where class average is not available or is not reasonable, the Director may use other
consumption information specific to such account to determine AWC.
The amount used is referred to as a block or tier rate.
Account Type Amount Used Volumetric Rate
Irrigation
City County
100 Cubic feet to
target budget $2.93 $3.96
Over target budget Up to
300% of target budget $4.09 $5.52
Over 300% of
target budget $4.30 $5.81
Note:
"Irrigation account" means an account established for applying water for irrigation and landscaping only, as determined by the Public Utilities
Director or designee.
"Target budget" means the estimated amount of water consumed per acre, as established by the Public Utilities Director or designee each year
for customer based on factors including, but not limited to, evapotranspiration, and considering efficient water practices. A different target
budget is established for each month of the irrigation season.
Account Type Amount Used Rate (Summer)Flat Rate (Winter)
Secondary Irrigation
Per Acre
Foot Per ccf Per Acre Foot Per ccf
0 Cubic feet to
target budget $285.32 $0.66
Over target budget Up to
300% of target budget $653.04 $1.50 $285.32 $0.66
Over 300% of
target budget $1,096.76 $2.52
Note:
"Secondary Irrigation account" means an account established for applying water for irrigation and landscaping secondary to the culinary water
system for select municipal parks and golf courses only, as determined by the Public Utilities Director or her designee.
"Target budget" means the estimated amount of water consumed per acre, as established by the Public Utilities Director or designee each year
for customer based on factors including, but not limited to, evapotranspiration, and considering efficient water practices. A different target
budget is established for each month of the irrigation season.
Miscellaneous Fees City County
Urban Vegetable Garden Credit Adjustment Credit per
ordinance NA Based on garden size 17.16.685
Deposit for water - residential $75 $75 17.16.380
Deposit for water - business $100 $100 Retail, warehouse, offices 17.16.380
Deposit for water - small restaurants $150 $150 17.16.380
Deposit for water - Laundromats, large restaurants $300 $300 17.16.380
Deposit for water - car washes $600 $600 17.16.380
Meter Test Fee - 5/8" to 1"$145 17.16.050
Meter Test Fee - 1 1/2" to 2"$290 17.16.050
Meter Test Fee - larger than 2"Actual costs 17.16.050
Water turn on - turn off $30 17.16.660
Illegal turn on fee $80 $80 17.16.660
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 49
Bankruptcy deposit
Highest two monthly bills over
the previous 12 months
period
17.16.660
Charges for water Minimum charges apply See Section 17.16.590 17.16.590
Damage to padlock, inline lock or lock out sleeve Actual costs 17.16.050
Deposit for fire hydrant meter $1,000 $100 not refundable 17.16.050
Opt-out of Advance Metering Infrastructure (AMI) -monthly fee $40 17.16.050
Rain Barrel Actual Costs Plus sales tax
Grass Seed Actual Costs Plus sales tax
Unauthorized meter, hydrant, or utility access
First incident $500 17.16.810
Subsequent incidents previous charge + $500 17.16.810
Plumber or Contractor First incident $1,000 17.16.110
Plumber or Contractor Subsequent incidents previous charge +$500 17.16.110
Construction Water - Fill-up at Department on Public Utilities $50 Includes 4 fill-ups at Public Utilities shops
Canyon water surplus sales (for contracts that are not tied to the rate established by the average MWDSLS rate paid by SLC)
Contract volume 800 gallons per day $415.65 per year or current
MWDSLS rate 17.04.030
Contract volume 400 gallons per day $207.83 per year or current
MWDSLS rate 17.04.030
Water Connection Fees - Contact 801.483.6727 17.16.040
Classification Dwelling Meter Size
City
Connection
Fee**
County
Connection
Fee**
Meter Hardware &
Installation Fee*
Residential
Single family 3/4 inch $1,871.00 $1,952.00 *See Note - actual cost
Single family 1 inch $3,297.00 $3,494.00 *See Note - actual cost
Duplex 1 inch $2,234.00 $2,432.00 *See Note - actual cost
Triplex 1 inch $2,371.00 $2,492.00 *See Note - actual cost
Fourplex 1 inch $3,401.00 $3,580.00 *See Note - actual cost
Commercial/Industrial Culinary Meter
3/4 inch $2,000.00 $2,125.00 *See Note - actual cost
1 inch $3,830.00 $4,213.00 *See Note - actual cost
1.5 inch $7,584.00 $8,322.00 *See Note - actual cost
2 inch $11,776.00 $12,834.00 *See Note - actual cost
3 inch $23,678.00 $25,838.00 *See Note - actual cost
4 inch $27,359.00 $27,359.00 *See Note - actual cost
6 inch $54,718.00 $54,718.00 *See Note - actual cost
8 inch $87,549.00 $87,549.00 *See Note - actual cost
* Cost includes actual hardware cost, meter construction costs, labor costs, and one inspection. Price will be provided upon request.
**Meters not listed will be charged at actual hardware cost, inspection fees, and applicable resource and impact fees.
***For meters 4-inches and larger a water resource fee shall be added. The fee is based on the ratio of the projected usage (gpd) as determined by the AWWA
M-22 method to the equivalent residential unit amount of 449 gpd multiplied by $106.
Fire Service Connection Charges *** Contact number 801.483.6727
Detector check - Fee listed does not include hardware and meter. Any hardware and meter to be charged at actual cost.
6-inch Price upon request Not allowed for new development or redevelopment - replacement only.17.16.050
8-inch $3,334.20 17.16.050
10-inch $5,272.02 17.16.050
Fire Lines -Fee listed does not include hardware and meter. Any hardware and meter to be charged at actual cost.
2-inch $355.00 17.16.050
4-inch $355.00 17.16.050
6-inch $601.00 17.16.050
8-inch $819.00 17.16.050
10-inch $1,091.00 17.16.050
12-inch $1,309.00 17.16.050
Water Inspection Fees ***Contact number 801.483.6727
New hydrant inspection $135.00 Per each inspection 17.16.050
New hydrant inspection - Long $240.00 Per each inspection 17.16.050
Water inspection fees $110.00 New installation, repair, service, or terminate (kill) inspection;
Per each inspection or trip 17.16.050
Relocation of hydrant inspection $220.00 Includes move and terminate 17.16.050
Relocation of water meter inspection $220.00 Includes move and terminate 17.16.050
Water Used During Construction
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 50
Residential Metered Rates 17.16.350
Commercial Metered rates 17.16.350
Other Water Utility Fees
Water Pressure Test (Flow Test) for Water Mains under 12"$455.00 Per Test 17.16.050
Water Pressure Test (Flow Test) for water mains greater than 12:$800.00 Per Test 17.16.050
Kills - Meters under 3"$55.00 17.16.050
Kills - Meters 3" or larger $160.00 17.16.050
Inspect Auto Fire Sprinklers less than 2"$136.00 Per Inspection 17.16.040
Inspect Auto Fire Sprinklers 2" or greater $369.00 Per Inspection 17.16.040
Plan Review Fee - Less than 1 acre $216.00 Per Review 17.16.050
Plan Review Fee - Tenant Remodel/Residential Remodel $39.00 Per Review 17.16.050
Plan Review Fee - 1 - 5 acres $1,060.00 Per Review 17.16.350
Plan Review Fee - Greater than 5 acres $2,124.00 Per Review 17.16.050
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 51
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
08/28/2025
Date Sent to Council:
09/03/2025
From:
Department *
Public Utilities
Employee Name:
Jorgensen, Jacob
E-mail
jacob.jorgensen@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
08/28/2025
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
09/02/2025
Subject:
CFS Correction - Missing Title and Description
Additional Staff Contact:
Lisa Tarufelli - Lisa.Tarufelli@slc.govBriefer, Laura - Laura.Briefer@slc.gov
Presenters/Staff Table
Lisa Tarufelli - Lisa.Tarufelli@slc.govBriefer, Laura - Laura.Briefer@slc.govJacob Jorgensen - jacob.jorgensen@slc.gov
Document Type
Ordinance
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Budget Impact:
Approximately $740,237 in uncollected revenue that was budgeted for and rates set to collect.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve adding the Title "Fire Lines" and the Description "Per Inch" which was inadvertently left off of one of the rate tables in the CFS. The title "fire lines" was included in the original submission to the City Council and the rates are being applied the same as they have been historically, which is per inch size of the connection since 1981. This was updated as part of the comprehensive rate study for Water.
Background/Discussion
These rates were presented as part of the rate study to City Council and the public and published as part of the update rates for Public Utilities. The fee for fire lines is contained in Ordinance 17.16.520 and has been established since at least 1981 (last date of record that we've been able to confirm) and has always been charged per inch size of the connection.since t change the way the rate is applied and the rate study simply updated the cost of service to establish the new rate amount.
The rate table itself is published in the CFS, however, without the title and description customers are unaware that it applies to fire lines. This is what we would like to have corrected to avoid any confusion from the customers and correct this error in the published CFS.
I have included as attachments the updated redlined CFS and the final rates published from the Water Rate Study.
Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
This was presented as part of the rate study to City Council and the public and published as part of the update rates for Public Utilities. The fee for fire lines is contained in Ordinance 17.16.520 and has been established since at least 1981 (last date of record that we've been able to confirm). Legal has reviewed this and the rate is allowable and part of this correction could have been done using "scrivener's error" since the title "Fire Lines" was in the redlined CFS. However, since the description was left off of how the rate is applied, we are correcting both parts through this process of City Council approval of a CFS change.
This page has intentionally been left blank
WATER
For questions regarding Water fees contact: 801.483.6900
Service Fee
Monthly Service Fee
Size of connection Monthly Amount
City County
5/8 inch - 3/4 inch $22.48 $30.35 17.16.670
1 inch $28.57 $38.57 17.16.670
1 1/2 inch $43.66 $58.94 17.16.670
2 inch $61.85 $83.50 17.16.670
3 inch $110.40 $149.04 17.16.670
4 inch $164.95 $222.68 17.16.670
6 inch $316.43 $427.18 17.16.670
8 inch $498.28 $672.68 17.16.670
10 inch $710.49 $959.16 17.16.670
12 inch $1,036.26 $1,398.95 17.16.670
Fire Hydrant $399.49 $539.31 17.16.590
Low Income Abatement: Customer who are granted abatement for taxes
on their dwelling shall be granted a five dollar fifty cent ($5.50) abatement of the minimum monthly charge.
Fire Lines
Size of connection Monthly Amount per inch
City County
2 inch $0.84 $1.13 17.16.520
3 inch $1.68 $2.27 17.16.520
4 inch $2.62 $3.54 17.16.520
6 inch $5.23 $7.06 17.16.520
8 inch $8.38 $11.31 17.16.520
10 inch $12.04 $16.25 17.16.520
12 inch $17.67 $23.85 17.16.520
Water Meter Rates
Account Type Amount Used Volumetric Rate
City County
Single family residence
Block 1:
0-5 hundred
cubic feet
$2.84 $3.83
Block 2:
6-10 hundred
cubic feet (except as
increased for Urban
Vegetable Gardens)
$3.49 $4.71
Block 3:
11-40 hundred
cubic feet
$4.46 $6.02
Block 4:
>40 hundred
cubic feet
$4.92 $6.64
Duplex residence / or Single
residence with Accessory Dwelling
Unit
Block 1:
0-10 hundred
cubic feet
$2.84 $3.83
Block 2:
11-20 hundred
cubic feet
$3.49 $4.71
Block 3:
21-80 hundred
cubic feet
$4.46 $6.02
Block 4:
>80 hundred
cubic feet
$4.92 $6.64
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 48
EXHIBIT A
Triplex residence
Block 1:
0-15 hundred
cubic feet
$2.84 $3.83
Block 2:
16-30 hundred
cubic feet
$3.49 $4.71
Block 3:
31-120 hundred
cubic feet
$4.46 $6.02
Block 4:
>120 hundred
cubic feet
$4.92 $6.64
City Rates County Rates
Summer Rate
(April - October)
Winter Rate
(November - March)
Summer Rate
(April - October)
Winter Rate
(November - March)
Multi-Family Residential 3.35 $2.18 $4.52 $2.94
Commercial and Non-Residential 3.53 $2.18 $4.77 $2.94
Note:
Customers with defective plumbing or unexplained deceases in usage of more than 25 percent may be adjusted back to a prior AWC, or be
assigned the class average by meter size. In cases where class average is not available or is not reasonable, the Director may use other
consumption information specific to such account to determine AWC.
The amount used is referred to as a block or tier rate.
Account Type Amount Used Volumetric Rate
Irrigation
City County
100 Cubic feet to
target budget $2.93 $3.96
Over target budget Up to
300% of target budget $4.09 $5.52
Over 300% of
target budget $4.30 $5.81
Note:
"Irrigation account" means an account established for applying water for irrigation and landscaping only, as determined by the Public Utilities
Director or designee.
"Target budget" means the estimated amount of water consumed per acre, as established by the Public Utilities Director or designee each year
for customer based on factors including, but not limited to, evapotranspiration, and considering efficient water practices. A different target
budget is established for each month of the irrigation season.
Account Type Amount Used Rate (Summer)Flat Rate (Winter)
Secondary Irrigation
Per Acre
Foot Per ccf Per Acre Foot Per ccf
0 Cubic feet to
target budget $285.32 $0.66
Over target budget Up to
300% of target budget $653.04 $1.50 $285.32 $0.66
Over 300% of
target budget $1,096.76 $2.52
Note:
"Secondary Irrigation account" means an account established for applying water for irrigation and landscaping secondary to the culinary water
system for select municipal parks and golf courses only, as determined by the Public Utilities Director or her designee.
"Target budget" means the estimated amount of water consumed per acre, as established by the Public Utilities Director or designee each year
for customer based on factors including, but not limited to, evapotranspiration, and considering efficient water practices. A different target
budget is established for each month of the irrigation season.
Miscellaneous Fees City County
Urban Vegetable Garden Credit Adjustment Credit per
ordinance NA Based on garden size 17.16.685
Deposit for water - residential $75 $75 17.16.380
Deposit for water - business $100 $100 Retail, warehouse, offices 17.16.380
Deposit for water - small restaurants $150 $150 17.16.380
Deposit for water - Laundromats, large restaurants $300 $300 17.16.380
Deposit for water - car washes $600 $600 17.16.380
Meter Test Fee - 5/8" to 1"$145 17.16.050
Meter Test Fee - 1 1/2" to 2"$290 17.16.050
Meter Test Fee - larger than 2"Actual costs 17.16.050
Water turn on - turn off $30 17.16.660
Illegal turn on fee $80 $80 17.16.660
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 49
Bankruptcy deposit
Highest two monthly bills over
the previous 12 months
period
17.16.660
Charges for water Minimum charges apply See Section 17.16.590 17.16.590
Damage to padlock, inline lock or lock out sleeve Actual costs 17.16.050
Deposit for fire hydrant meter $1,000 $100 not refundable 17.16.050
Opt-out of Advance Metering Infrastructure (AMI) -monthly fee $40 17.16.050
Rain Barrel Actual Costs Plus sales tax
Grass Seed Actual Costs Plus sales tax
Unauthorized meter, hydrant, or utility access
First incident $500 17.16.810
Subsequent incidents previous charge + $500 17.16.810
Plumber or Contractor First incident $1,000 17.16.110
Plumber or Contractor Subsequent incidents previous charge +$500 17.16.110
Construction Water - Fill-up at Department on Public Utilities $50 Includes 4 fill-ups at Public Utilities shops
Canyon water surplus sales (for contracts that are not tied to the rate established by the average MWDSLS rate paid by SLC)
Contract volume 800 gallons per day $415.65 per year or current
MWDSLS rate 17.04.030
Contract volume 400 gallons per day $207.83 per year or current
MWDSLS rate 17.04.030
Water Connection Fees - Contact 801.483.6727 17.16.040
Classification Dwelling Meter Size
City
Connection
Fee**
County
Connection
Fee**
Meter Hardware &
Installation Fee*
Residential
Single family 3/4 inch $1,871.00 $1,952.00 *See Note - actual cost
Single family 1 inch $3,297.00 $3,494.00 *See Note - actual cost
Duplex 1 inch $2,234.00 $2,432.00 *See Note - actual cost
Triplex 1 inch $2,371.00 $2,492.00 *See Note - actual cost
Fourplex 1 inch $3,401.00 $3,580.00 *See Note - actual cost
Commercial/Industrial Culinary Meter
3/4 inch $2,000.00 $2,125.00 *See Note - actual cost
1 inch $3,830.00 $4,213.00 *See Note - actual cost
1.5 inch $7,584.00 $8,322.00 *See Note - actual cost
2 inch $11,776.00 $12,834.00 *See Note - actual cost
3 inch $23,678.00 $25,838.00 *See Note - actual cost
4 inch $27,359.00 $27,359.00 *See Note - actual cost
6 inch $54,718.00 $54,718.00 *See Note - actual cost
8 inch $87,549.00 $87,549.00 *See Note - actual cost
* Cost includes actual hardware cost, meter construction costs, labor costs, and one inspection. Price will be provided upon request.
**Meters not listed will be charged at actual hardware cost, inspection fees, and applicable resource and impact fees.
***For meters 4-inches and larger a water resource fee shall be added. The fee is based on the ratio of the projected usage (gpd) as determined by the AWWA
M-22 method to the equivalent residential unit amount of 449 gpd multiplied by $106.
Fire Service Connection Charges *** Contact number 801.483.6727
Detector check - Fee listed does not include hardware and meter. Any hardware and meter to be charged at actual cost.
6-inch Price upon request Not allowed for new development or redevelopment - replacement only.17.16.050
8-inch $3,334.20 17.16.050
10-inch $5,272.02 17.16.050
Fire Lines -Fee listed does not include hardware and meter. Any hardware and meter to be charged at actual cost.
2-inch $355.00 17.16.050
4-inch $355.00 17.16.050
6-inch $601.00 17.16.050
8-inch $819.00 17.16.050
10-inch $1,091.00 17.16.050
12-inch $1,309.00 17.16.050
Water Inspection Fees ***Contact number 801.483.6727
New hydrant inspection $135.00 Per each inspection 17.16.050
New hydrant inspection - Long $240.00 Per each inspection 17.16.050
Water inspection fees $110.00 New installation, repair, service, or terminate (kill) inspection;
Per each inspection or trip 17.16.050
Relocation of hydrant inspection $220.00 Includes move and terminate 17.16.050
Relocation of water meter inspection $220.00 Includes move and terminate 17.16.050
Water Used During Construction
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 50
Residential Metered Rates 17.16.350
Commercial Metered rates 17.16.350
Other Water Utility Fees
Water Pressure Test (Flow Test) for Water Mains under 12"$455.00 Per Test 17.16.050
Water Pressure Test (Flow Test) for water mains greater than 12:$800.00 Per Test 17.16.050
Kills - Meters under 3"$55.00 17.16.050
Kills - Meters 3" or larger $160.00 17.16.050
Inspect Auto Fire Sprinklers less than 2"$136.00 Per Inspection 17.16.040
Inspect Auto Fire Sprinklers 2" or greater $369.00 Per Inspection 17.16.040
Plan Review Fee - Less than 1 acre $216.00 Per Review 17.16.050
Plan Review Fee - Tenant Remodel/Residential Remodel $39.00 Per Review 17.16.050
Plan Review Fee - 1 - 5 acres $1,060.00 Per Review 17.16.350
Plan Review Fee - Greater than 5 acres $2,124.00 Per Review 17.16.050
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 51
This page has intentionally been left blank
Fixed Rate
All Customers
5/8" - 3/4"$22.48
1"$28.57
1.5"$43.66
2"$61.85
3"$110.40
4"$164.95
6"$316.43
8"$498.28
10"$710.49
12"$1,036.26
Fire Lines per inch
2"$0.84
3"$1.68
4"$2.62
6"$5.23
8"$8.38
10"$12.04
12"$17.67
Volumetric Rates
Residential (Up to 3 units, tier thresholds x unit)
Block 1 (0-5 CCF)$2.84
$3.49
$4.46
$4.92
Non-Residential
Summer $3.53
Winter $2.18
Multi-Family (4 or more units)
Summer $3.35
Winter $2.18
Irrigation
Up to target budget $2.93
$4.09
Over 300% of target $4.30
County Rates - Monthly
Fixed Rate
All Customers
5/8" - 3/4"$30.35
1"$38.57
1.5"$58.94
2"$83.50
3"$149.04
4"$222.69
6"$427.18
8"$672.67
10"$959.16
12"$1,398.95
Fire Lines per inch
2"$1.13
3"$2.27
4"$3.54
6"$7.06
8"$11.31
10"$16.25
12"$23.85
Volumetric Rates
Residential (Up to 3 units, tier thresholds x unit)
Block 1 (0-5 CCF)$3.83
$4.71
$6.02
$6.64
Non-Residential
Summer $4.77
Winter $2.94
Multi-Family (4 or more units)
Summer $4.52
Winter $2.94
Irrigation
Up to target budget $3.96
$5.52
$5.81
This page has intentionally been left blank
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of ____ 2025
(Amendments to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule Related to Fire Line Fees)
An ordinance amending fees and fee information in the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee
Schedule related to certain fire line fees.
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011 the City Council adopted Ordinances 2011-23, 2011-24
and 2011-25 to authorize and create the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule has since been amended from
time to time; and
WHEREAS, it is now proposed that the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule be
amended to include, eliminate, or otherwise modify fees and fee information regarding certain
fire lines as shown in the attached Exhibit “A”; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds (i) the fees set forth in Exhibit A are necessary,
reasonable, and equitable in relation to regulatory and service costs incurred by the City; and (ii)
adoption of this ordinance reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the
citizens of Salt Lake City.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. That the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be, and hereby is,
amended in pertinent part as set forth in the attached Exhibit “A”.
SECTION 2. That a revised copy of the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule that
reflects the amendments set forth in the attached Exhibit “A” shall be published on the official
Salt Lake City website.
SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall become effective upon publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this __ day of _________, 2025.
______________________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
_________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________.
Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed.
_______________________________________
MAYOR
_________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _______ of 2025.
Published: __________________
Approved As To Form
By: ___________________________
Jaysen Oldroyd
Date: _______9/3/2025___________
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 REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:January 20, 2026
RE: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 265 East 100 South
PLNPCM2024-01377
ISSUE AT A GLANCE
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for an approximately 2.19-acre
parcel at 265 East 100 South in Council District Four from its current MU-8 (mixed-use) zoning to D-1
(Central Business District). Staff note: when the application was received the property was in the R-MU
zoning district but is now zoned MU-8 because of the mixed-use zoning consolidation adopted in 2025.
The applicant’s stated objective is to construct a large mixed-use development with ground floor retail
space, residential units above, and underground parking with a targeted ratio of one space per unit. D-1
zoning allows additional uses and height beyond the maximum 90 feet under MU-8.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its October 22, 2025 meeting and held a public hearing
at which nine people spoke, mostly opposing the proposed rezone. Concerns included parking, changes in
neighborhood character, potential property tax increases, and impacts to the St. Mark’s Cathedral and
pantry. One person spoke in support of the proposal citing the need for more housing in the city. Planning
staff recommended, and the Commission voted 7-1 to forward a positive recommendation to
the City Council with the following conditions:
Building height is limited to 225 feet.
The property owner will work with commercial tenants to mitigate displacement.
The Commissioner who voted against the motion did not state why she was opposed.
The applicant was amenable to the above conditions.
Item Schedule:
Page | 2
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to ask the applicant if there will be an additional charge for resident use of
the parking garage.
2. The Council may wish to discuss expanding the D-1 zone to the east.
Area zoning map with subject parcel outlined.
St. Mark’s Cathedral location indicated with red star.
Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
As shown above, the subject property is located at the transition from D-1 to the west, and MU-8 to the
east. Land uses on the block face are a mix of commercial, multi-family, St. Mark’s Cathedral, and
Hildegarde’s Pantry. Uses shift to primarily multi-family housing east of 300 East.
Conceptual drawings were submitted by the applicant and are included on pages 9-29 of the
Administration’s transmittal. Proposed community benefits include:
20% of housing units will be affordable for those earning 80% AMI or below. These will include
one- and two-bedroom units, with one-bedroom units being prioritized. The units will be in
locations that do not distinguish them from market-rate units.
More than 8% of units will be three-bedroom family sized.
Page | 3
2,000 square foot restaurant, and 1,000 square foot coffee shop space for local organizations.
Leasing incentive programs for the spaces, potentially with flexible lease terms or graduated rent
structures, tenant improvement allowances for first-time commercial tenants, and/or reduced
initial rent periods are anticipated.
A private 35,000 square foot publicly accessible courtyard plaza with mid-block walkway.
It is important to note that if the zoning map amendment is adopted by the Council there is no guarantee
the proposed development will be constructed. The property could be redeveloped with any use allowed
within the zone or sold to another party.
The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. Because zoning of a property can outlast
the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of
that property, not simply based on a potential project.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 3-10 of
the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the
staff report.
Consideration 1 – How the Proposal Helps Implement City Goals and Policies Identified in
Adopted Plans.
Planning staff found that the proposed zoning map amendment generally aligns with principles and goals
found in Plan Salt Lake (2015), Housing SLC (2023), Thriving in Place (2023), Central Community Plan
(2005), East Downtown Plan (1990), and Downtown Plan (2016). Planning also noted that they did not
request a master plan amendment because the proposal is generally consistent with the future land use
element found in the Central Community Plan’s high mixed-use designation of 50+ dwelling units per
acre.
Consideration 2 – Proposed Community Benefit
As discussed above, the proposal includes 20% of the units, comprised primarily of one-bedroom and some
two-bedroom, which will be affordable for those earning 80% AMI. Additionally, the proposal calls for
more than 8% of units to be three-bedroom family sized. Finally, plaza, restaurant and coffee shop space
are included in the proposal, with potential leasing incentive programs for the commercial spaces.
Consideration 3 – Compatibility with Nearby Properties
As shown in the image above, the subject property and those surrounding it are zoned MU-8. They were
changed from R-MU as part of the 2025 mixed-use zoning consolidation. Both the current MU-8 and
proposed D-1 zoning would allow the type of use anticipated for the property, though there are notable
differences discussed below.
MU-8 zoning is intended for areas with mid-rise buildings, generally eight stories high or less. Maximum
height in this zone is 90 feet, with design review required for buildings taller than 75 feet. D-1 zoning has a
minimum building height of 100 feet and does not have a maximum height (though, as noted above, the
Planning Commission recommended a 225-foot height limit for this property). Design review is required
for buildings in the D-1 zone that are taller than 200 feet. D-1 zoning is typically located in areas with more
intense uses found downtown. This zoning has additional permitted and conditional uses than MU-8. A
table comparing the two zones is found on pages 52-57 of the Planning Commission staff report.
The tables below compare zoning and design standards for both the current and proposed zones. They are
Page | 4
also found on pages 51-52 of the Planning Commission staff report.
CURRENT AND PROPOSED ZONING STANDARDS (21A.25.060 and 21A.30.020)
REGULATION MU-8 (existing)D-1 (proposed)
Building Height
Minimum Front
Setback
Maximum Front
Setback
Corner Side Setback
Interior Side Setback
Rear Setback
Open Space,
Landscape Yards, and
Landscape Buffers
CURRENT AND PROPOSED DESIGN STANDARDS (21A.37.050 AND 21A.37.060)
REGULATION MU-8 (existing)D-1 (proposed)
Ground Floor Use %
Building Materials:
ground floor
Building Materials:
upper floors
Glass: ground floor
Glass: upper floors
Page | 5
Reflective Glass 0%None of the ground floor may have
reflective glass. Upper floors may
have no more than 50% reflective
glass.
Building Entrances Spaces between entries cannot
exceed 40 feet.
Spaces between entries cannot
exceed 40 feet.
Blank Wall Maximum
Length
15 feet 20 feet
Street Facing Façade
Maximum Length
200 feet 150 feet
Upper Floor Step
Back – Upper-Level
Front
N/A 10 feet
Upper Floor Step
Back: Landmark Site
This requirement is intended to
promote a transition in scale
between new buildings and lower
scale historic buildings. It applies to
properties abutting local landmark
sites that include buildings less than
50 feet in height. This does not apply
when a right-of-way separates the
properties. New buildings shall be
designed so that no portion of the
building within 25 feet of the
abutting property line is taller than
the height of a 45-degree angular
plane extending from the top of the
landmark building toward the new
building.
This requirement is intended to
promote a transition in scale
between new buildings and lower
scale historic buildings. It applies to
properties abutting local landmark
sites that include buildings less than
50 feet in height. This does not
apply when a right-of-way separates
the properties. New buildings shall
be designed so that no portion of the
building within 25 feet of the
abutting property line is taller than
the height of a 45-degree angular
plane extending from the top of the
landmark building toward the new
building.
Lighting: exterior Yes N/A
Lighting: parking lot Yes N/A
Screening of
Mechanical
Equipment
Yes Yes
Screening of Service
Areas
Yes Yes
Parking Garages or
Structures
Yes Yes
Public Improvements Yes Yes
Analysis of Standards
Attachment E (pages 58-61) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards
that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized
Page | 6
below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information.
Factor Finding
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with and helps implement the purposes, goals,
objectives, and policies of the city as stated through
its various adopted planning documents.
Complies
Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
Complies
The extent to which a proposed map amendment will
affect adjacent and nearby properties due to the
change in development potential and allowed uses
that do not currently apply to the property.
Complies
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with the purposes and provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts which may impose additional
standards.
N/A
The adequacy of public facilities and services
intended to serve the subject property, including, but
not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational
facilities, police and fire protection, schools,
stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and
wastewater and refuse collection.
Complies, though
some utility and
drainage systems
may need upgrades.
The status of existing transportation facilities, any
planned changes to the transportation facilities, and
the impact that the proposed amendment may have
on the city’ s ability, need, and timing of future
transportation improvements.
Complies, though a
traffic impact study
will be required at the
design review or
building permit stage.
The proximity of necessary amenities such as parks,
open space, schools, fresh food, entertainment,
cultural facilities, and the ability of current and
future residents to access these amenities without
having to rely on a personal vehicle.
Complies
The potential impacts to public safety resources
created by the increase in development potential that
may result from the proposed amendment.
Complies
The potential for displacement of people who reside
in any housing that is within the boundary of the
proposed amendment and the plan offered by the
petitioner to mitigate displacement.
Complies (no existing
housing on property)
Page | 7
The potential for displacement of any business that is
located within the boundary of the proposed
amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to
mitigate displacement.
Complies
The community benefits that would result from the
proposed map amendment.
Complies
City Department Review
Responding departments and divisions did not express opposition to the proposed rezone though some
noted additional discussions will happen to outline requirements if the property is redeveloped.
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• December 2, 2024 – Application for a zoning map amendment reviewed for pre-screen.
• January 15, 2025 – Application accepted.
• September 9, 2024 – Petition assigned to Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner
• October 22, 2024 –
o Information about the proposal was sent to the Central City Community Council to solicit
public comments and start the 45-day recognized organization input and comment period.
o Planning staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and
property owners living within 300 feet of the project site, providing information about the
proposal and how to give public input on the project.
o Proposal posted for an online open house.
• March 12, 2025 – Early notification sign posted on the property by the applicant.
• April 2, 2025 – Applicant presented at Central City Community Council meeting.
• April 21, 2025 – 45-day public comment period for recognized organizations ended.
• October 9, 2025 – Planning staff posted notices on City and State websites and sent notices via the
Planning listserv for the April 9, 2025 Planning Commission meeting. Public hearing notice
mailed.
• October 10, 2025 – The applicant posted a public hearing notice sign on the property with project
information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing.
• October 22, 2025 – The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the request and voted 7-1
to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map
amendment.
• October 23, 2025 – Ordinance requested from City Attorney’s Office.
• November 21, 2025 – Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office.
• December 8, 2025 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
City Council –January 20, 2026
PLNPCM2024-01377 –Zoning Map Amendment
THE 265 –265 E 100 S
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
OVERVIEW
Zoning District: MU-8 (Mixed Use 8)
General Plan: Central Community
Property Size: 95,350 sq. ft. (2.19 acres)
Land Use Designation: High Mixed Use
(50+ du/ac)
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
PROJECT REQUEST
Zoning Map Amendment
•Change from MU-8 (Mixed Use 8) to D-1
(Central Business) zoning district
•Zoning consolidation changed the existing zone
from R-MU to MU-8
•Applicant anticipates a mixed use building
Planning Commission:
Voted 7-1 to forward a recommendation of
approval for the request.
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
•Implementation of city goals and policies
identified in adopted plans
•Proposed community benefits
Affordable housing units
Family sized units
Commercial space for local businesses and
organizations
•Compatibility with nearby properties
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
11/24/2025
Date Sent to Council:
12/08/2025
From:
Department *
Community and Neighborhood
Employee Name:
Javoronok, Sara
E-mail
sara.javoronok@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
12/02/2025
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
12/05/2025
Subject:
Zoning Map Amendment - 265 E 100 S
Additional Staff Contact:
Sara Javoronok, sara.javoronok@slc.gov
Presenters/Staff Table
Sara Javoronok, sara.javoronok@slc.govJohn Anderson, john.anderson@slc.gov
Document Type
Ordinance
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission recommends that the city council adopt this request as recommended by staff.
Background/Discussion
See first attachment for Background/Discussion
Public Hearing
Is there a City or State statutory requirement to hold a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
The City Council reserves the option to hold and notice for a public hearing pursuant to their practices for public engagement.
Does the City have a general practice to hold a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
Early Notification – On March 7 2025, the Central City Community Council and Downtown Alliance were sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations. Staff and the applicant attended the April 2, 2025, community council meeting. A notice of the pr oposal was mailed to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the property. An online open house has been posted on the Planning Division’s website since March 7, 2025.
Planning Commission Meeting – The petition was heard by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on October 22, 2025. The Planning Commission voted 7-1 to forward a recommendation of approval for the request, with the following conditions of approval: 1)The building height is limited to 225’.2)The property owner will work with commercial tenants to mitigate displacement. The full public meeting can be viewed using this link starting at 1:04:55.
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:
Dave Hunter of Silverado Development, LLC, representing the property owners, Raven One, LLC, is
requesting a Zoning Map Amendment for the property at approximately 265 E ast 100 South. The proposal
is for a map amendment from MU-8 (Mixed Use 8) to D-1 (Central Business) zoning district. This zoning
district allows for greater building height and a wider range of uses than permitted in the MU-8 zoning
district. It would enable redevelopment of the site with a mixed-use development including ground floor
retail and residential units on the upper floors. The property is approximately 2.19 acres or 95,350 sq. ft.
The land use designation for the property is High Mixed Use (50+ dwelling units per acre). It is in the
Central Community Master Plan area, just to the east of the Downtown Plan area.
Current zoning map with subject property outlined in yellow
The application was submitted in December 2024 and determined complete in February 2025. This was
prior to the adoption of the MU zoning consolidation which went into effect October 8, 2025. This changed
the existing zoning of the subject property, and the applicant’s request, from R-MU (Residential/Mixed Use) to MU-8. Staff and the applicant discussed the change and other potential zoning districts during the
MU Zoning Consolidation project, and the applicant chose to continue with the proposal for a zoning
amendment to D-1.
The applicant’s submittal includes renderings for a proposed mixed-use building. The rendering shows a
U-shaped building with a high-rise tower to the east that is connected to a lower, podium construction
building. The building could have approximately 420 units and 24,000 square feet of commercial and
amenity space on the first two levels.
The applicant detailed the proposed community benefit from the initial submittal and worked with staff to
develop the proposal, which would be implemented with a development agreement with the map
amendment. The applicant is proposing the following community benefits:
1) Affordable housing units: The applicant will provide 20% of the units to those earning at or below
80% AMI. The units will be designed and placed in locations that will not distinguish them from the market-rate units. The applicant has indicated that 1-bedroom units will be prioritized and 2-
bedroom units will also be included.
2) Family sized units: The applicant identified that the current proposal has 3-bedroom units for over
8% of the units.
3) Commercial space for local businesses and organizations: The current proposal has a 2,000 square
foot restaurant space and a 1,000 square foot coffee shop. The applicant anticipates leasing
incentive programs, potentially including the following: flexible lease terms or graduated rent
structures, tenant improvement allowances for first-time commercial tenants, and/or reduced initial
rent periods.
The specifics of the Community Benefit requirements need to be determined with the preparation of the
development agreement.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
• Early Notification – On March 7 2025, the Central City Community Council and Downtown
Alliance were sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations. Staff and
the applicant attended the April 2, 2025, community council meeting. A notice of the proposal was
mailed to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the property. An online open house
has been posted on the Planning Division’s website since March 7, 2025.
• Planning Commission Meeting – The petition was heard by the Planning Commission at a public
hearing on October 22, 2025. The Planning Commission voted 7-1 to forward a recommendation
of approval for the request, with the following conditions of approval:
1) The building height is limited to 225’. 2) The property owner will work with commercial tenants to mitigate displacement.
The full public meeting can be viewed using this link starting at 1:04:55.
Planning Commission (PC) Records
a) PC Agenda of October 22, 2025
b) PC Minutes of October 22, 2025
c) Planning Commission Staff Report of October 22, 2025
EXHIBITS:
1. Project Chronology
2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3. Original Petition
4. Mailing List
5. Ordinance
This page has intentionally been left blank
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
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
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2024-01377
December 2, 2024 Application for a Zoning Map Amendment reviewed for pre-screen.
January 15, 2025 Application for a Zoning Map Amendment was accepted.
January 22, 2025 Petition PLNPCM2024-01377 was assigned to Sara Javoronok, Senior
Planner, for staff analysis and processing.
March 7, 2025 Notice was sent to the Central City Community Council Recognized
Community Organization (RCO) and Downtown Alliance informing them of the petition. Early notification of the project was also sent to
property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal. The
proposal was posted for an online open house. The proposal can still be
viewed online.
March 12, 2025 An Early Notification sign was posted on the property by the applicant.
April 2, 2025 The applicant presented their proposal at the Central City Community
Council meeting
April 21, 2025 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended.
October 9, 2025 Planning Staff posted notices on City and State websites and sent notices
via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting. Public
hearing notices were mailed.
October 10, 2025 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the
Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property
by the applicant.
October 17, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report was posted.
October 22, 2025 Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a recommendation
to the City Council to approve the proposed map amendment.
October 23, 2025 Requested Final Draft of Ordinance from Attorney’s Office
November 21, 2025 Final Draft of Ordinance received from Attorney’s Office
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
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2024-01377 – The 265. Salt Lake City
has received a request from Dave Hunter of Silverado Development, LLC, representing the property
owners, Raven One, LLC, requesting a Zoning Map Amendment for the property at approximately 265
East 100 South. The proposal is for a map amendment from MU-8 (Mixed Use 8) to D-1 (Central
Business) zoning district. This zoning district allows for greater building height and a wider range of
uses than permitted in the MU-8 zoning district. It would enable redevelopment of the site with a
mixed-use development including ground floor retail and residential units on the upper floors. The
property is approximately 2.19 acres or 95,350 sq. ft.
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments
regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning
this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held:
DATE:
PLACE: Electronic and in-person options.
451 South State Street, 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 WebEx
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@slcgov.com. 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 Sara
Javoronok at 801-535-7625 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or
by e-mail at sara.javoronok@slc.gov. The application details can be accessed at
https://www.slc.gov/planning/2025/03/11/openhouse2025-01377/.
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.
methodstudio
265 East 100 South
REZONING APPLICATION
A PROPOSAL TO RE-ZONE THE 265 E 100 S PARCEL
FROM RM-P TO D-1
10/01/24
100
s
300
E
Parcel number: 16-06-127-027-0000
table of context + parcel information
PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED OPEN SPACE
PART OF DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN
BUILDING EXPLORATION
PARTICIPATE IN DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENTS
INCREASE FOOT TRAFFIC IN DOWNTOWN
LIVE NEAR WORK AND DOWNTOWN AMENITIES
REPLACE SURFACE PARKING AND LOW-DENSITY OFFICE
SPACE WITH DENSE MIXED-USE OCCUPANCIES
!,7BE7F EGE7F EFG! ,G G
,GBE7F EG EF!7BG
GBE7F EG !7! FEG! ,G
,GBE7F EGE7F EF7 G G G "G #$% G& '()*+G- ). *G/% 0 1% 2G- )3 ) 45 + G- "3 ) 4 2G +*3 ) 4 2G- "3 ) 46 2G +*3 ) 48 %2G ) 3 ) 4- ) G- "3 ) 40 G 2G9G3 G- "G- GBE7F EG:!;E7F! G EF!78 G<+ G.6 ) G=62% ">G.8 G<+ G9G6 ) G=62% ">G. !7! FEG?7!@!F7
ACCGDF
ZONING - current zoning plan
SITESITE
SITE
R-MU
R-MU
R-MU
R-MU
D-1
D-1
D-1
RO RO
I
II
I
RMF-35
RMF-35
RMF-75
PA
R
T
O
F
D
O
W
N
T
O
W
N
M
A
S
T
E
R
P
L
A
N
100 S
300
E
400
E
200 S
NN
R-MU ADJACENT TO D-1
PA
R
T
O
F
D
O
W
N
T
O
W
N
M
A
S
T
E
R
P
L
A
N
ZONING - current city improvement proposals
TO CONTRIBUTE MIXED-INCOME LIVING SPACE AND RETAIL TO A DOWNTOWN WALKABLE LOCATION.
“A VERTICAL NEIGHBORHOOD”
SITESITE
TEMPLE SQUARE
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
GREEN
L
O
O
P
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
PROPOSED NEW B
I
K
E
P
A
T
H
PROPOSED NEW
B
I
K
E
P
A
T
H
100 S
SOUTH TEMPLE
300
E
400
E
200 S
GREEN LOOP EXPANSIONDOWNTOWN DISTRICTS BICYCLE NETWORK EXPANSION
ST
A
T
E
40
0
E
20
0
E
30
0
E
40
0
E
50
0
E
30
0
E
20
0
E
ST
A
T
E
S
T
MA
I
N
S
T
SITE
C i t y C r e e k
C e n t e r
6
0
0
E
P r o t e c t e d b i k e l a n e s
P e d e s t r i a n w a l k s
N E W P e d e s t r i a n w a l k s U T A B u s s t o p
U T A T r a x l i n e
U T A f u t u r e l i g h t r a i l l i n e
T
R
A
X
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
N
G a l l i v a n
C e n t e r
L D S T e m p l e
PA
R
T
O
F
D
O
W
N
T
O
W
N
M
A
S
T
E
R
P
L
A
N
ZONING - TRANSIT AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
South Temple
100 S
200 S
300 S
C h u r c h
G r o c e r y S t o r e
R e s t a u r a n t s / B a r s
T h e a t e r / E n t e r t a i n m e n t
H e a l t h c a r e
5 min walk
ST
A
T
E
S
T
MA
I
N
S
T
30
0
E
40
0
E
50
0
E
MAP KEY
F U T U R E P R O P O S E D L I G H T R A I L
20
0
E
GR
E
E
N
L
O
O
P
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
ZONING -
SITE
C i t y C r e e k
C e n t e r
N
G a l l i v a n
C e n t e r
L D S T e m p l e
South Temple
100 S
200 S
300 SST
A
T
E
S
T
MA
I
N
S
T
30
0
E
40
0
E
50
0
E
H o u s i n g O f f i c e E n t e r t a i n m e n t
MAP KEY
5 min walk
PA
R
T
O
F
D
O
W
N
T
O
W
N
M
A
S
T
E
R
P
L
A
N
T
R
A
X
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
F U T U R E P R O P O S E D L I G H T R A I L
GR
E
E
N
L
O
O
P
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
20
0
E
EXTEND THE D-1 ZONE EAST TO ALLOW GREATED RESIDENTIAL DESNITY AND
WALKABLE RETAIL ADJACENT TO DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENTS.
PA
R
T
O
F
D
O
W
N
T
O
W
N
M
A
S
T
E
R
P
L
A
N
CURRENT ZONING - R-MU PROPOSED ZONING - D1
Max hight 75’ (95’ with design review)120’ minimum height for tower
Internal courtyard private over top parking structure - possible 30,000 sqft of
courtyard space, over private parking structure. Publicly accessible green space and mid-block walk way
250 Units possible if courtyard is made publicly accessible.Approximately 500 units in several floor plan configurations
Opportunity for subsidized/for sale units - mixed income
Greening of street side of building.Greening of street side of building and publicly-accessible courtyard park
First floor amenities - engaging street corner for max density
Street-level dining and retail in building - possible units facing street Street-level retail and dining open to publicly assessable plaza
Increased density next to downtown core area
Multiple size retail opportunity along street side
First 2 floors amenities - concentrated at corner of lot
ZONING - density comparison
100 s 100 s
300
E
300
E
PA
R
T
O
F
D
O
W
N
T
O
W
N
M
A
S
T
E
R
P
L
A
N
ZONING - PRECEDENTS
Hollywood & Gower - case study - LA
Via Verde - New York
senior center - san fransico
PUBLIC CORNER ACTIVATION
PUBLIC ELEVATED PLAZA ARCHITECTURAL INTEREST
STREET ACTIVATION
100 s
300 E
Wilson Tower- Austin, TX
PA
R
T
O
F
D
O
W
N
T
O
W
N
M
A
S
T
E
R
P
L
A
N
ZONING - circulation flow
N
100 s
30
0
E
car drop off
ca
r
d
r
o
p
o
f
f
SE
R
V
I
C
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
Bike rack
Bike rack
Bike rack
Bike rack
future light rail line
bike access
pedestrian/building access
Street cove for drop off + parking
Pedestrian integration - building set back to
liven up corner and create view points
Potential public art opportunity
Integration of street and plaza
Multiple bike rack/tune up
locations throughout site
Pedestrian site access
Building elevation diversity
Architectural interest
integrated with retail space
UNDERGROUND PARKING
CAR SHARE DROP OF ZONE
STREET CORNER INTEGRATION
BIKE AMENITY
BUILDING PASSAGE
PA
R
T
O
F
D
O
W
N
T
O
W
N
M
A
S
T
E
R
P
L
A
N
ZONING - circulation flow
100 s
300 E
Replacing 175 current surface parking stalls
Targeted ratio of 1:1 - for underground
parking garage
Single car port entrance to reduce street
conjunction
10,000 sqft of private fitness space
Street engagement with people presence
Outdoor/Indoor retail space and dining
Local business presence
Internal plaza activation
1,000 sqft retail space
Building & Local area bike amenity
support
FITNESS CENTER
RETAIL/RESTAURANT SPACE
LIGHT RETAIL SPACE
SHARED BIKE/SPORT
PA
R
T
O
F
D
O
W
N
T
O
W
N
M
A
S
T
E
R
P
L
A
N
ZONING - site AMENITIES
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
E
X
P
L
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
ZONING - site amenities
diagram KEY
Residential Commercial Support
2 BRD - PREMIUM 3 BRD Public access amenities Parking garage
Public Plaza2 BRD -1 BRD Tower access amenities
100 s
300 E
2 b r
u n i t s
2 b r
u n i t s
1 b r
u n i t s1 b r
u n i t s
2 b r
p r e m i u m
u n i t s
f a c i n g
m o u n t a i n
v i e w s
TOWER ACCESS FITNESS CENTER
ROOF TOP AMENITY
RESTAURANT/CAFE
UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE
WHOLE SITE CONNECTION
PUBLIC PLAZA SPACE
MIXED INCOME UNITS
SHARED BIKE/SPORTS FACILITY
3 b r
2 b r
2 b r
1 b r
Replacing 175 current surface parking stalls
Pedestrian connectivity through whole site
Mid-block walkways through the property
Diversification of units types for rent/sale
Variation of unit floor plan types
Targeted ratio of 1:1 - for underground
parking garage
ZONING - Greenery context map PE
D
E
S
T
R
I
A
N
-
O
R
I
E
N
T
E
D
O
P
E
N
S
P
A
C
E
100 S
ST
A
T
E
MA
I
N
200 S
S TEMPLE
30
0
E
40
0
E
50
0
E
60
0
E
SITE
SITE
NN
100 S
SOUTH TEMPLE
300
E
400
E
200 S
5 min walk
PARKING GARAGE
PUBLIC GREEN SPACE
GREEN PLANTINGS
PARKING SURFACE LOT
GREEN
L
O
O
P
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
GR
E
E
N
L
O
O
P
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
20
0
E
building context - plaza plan PE
D
E
S
T
R
I
A
N
-
O
R
I
E
N
T
E
D
O
P
E
N
S
P
A
C
E
PEDESTRIAN APPROACH STAIRS
OUTDOOR RESTAURANT PATIO
TREE LINE PLAZA
APARTMENT PATIO
MIYAWAKI FOREST PATH
OUTDOOR RETAIL PATIO
RETAIL PATIO
ENGAGEMENT STREET CORNER
GREEN ROOFS
BIKE ROOM STATION
ROOF TOP PATIO
OUTDOOR RETAIL PATIO
N100 s
30
0
E
plaza - greenery PE
D
E
S
T
R
I
A
N
-
O
R
I
E
N
T
E
D
O
P
E
N
S
P
A
C
E
Elevated aproach to ease access
Directional shading
Introducing bio-diversity to urban
environment
Cooling and greenery of area
Viewing platform
Internal residential views into courtyard
Internal residential views into courtyard
Privacy and green view from units
Reduction of heat island effect
Tree planters for selective shading
Potential diversification of seating
Potential diversification of seating
Greenifications of street side of building Privacy withing viewing units
PEDESTRIAN APPROACH STAIRS
LINEAR TREE PLAZA
MIYAWAKI FOREST PATH
GREEN ROOFS
plaza - light activation PE
D
E
S
T
R
I
A
N
-
O
R
I
E
N
T
E
D
O
P
E
N
S
P
A
C
E
2,000 sqft of outdoor retail/restaurant space
Street liveliness
Privacy and gathering spaces
Privacy and gathering spaces for
residence
Connectivity through plaza
Connection to retail space
Diversity of unit types - connection
Multi-point entryways onto site
Reduction of heat island effect
OUTDOOR ENGAGEMENT PATIOS
OUTDOOR NOOKS
OUTDOOR UNIT PATIOS
MID-BLOCK WALKWAY
Statement of Purpose and Justification for Proposed Zoning Change
The requested zoning change seeks to achieve a higher and better use of the property by aligning its
development potential with the city’s vision for a vibrant, interconnected, and dynamic downtown
Salt Lake City. The proposed zoning will enable:
1. Improved Utilization of the Property
By transitioning from the current zoning to a designation that supports denser, mixed-use
development, the property will be utilized in a way that maximizes its value and relevance within the
urban fabric of downtown.
2. Support for Downtown Improvements
The zone change will enable the property to better align with and contribute to ongoing downtown
improvements, fostering a cohesive environment that supports the city’s economic and community
goals. Some of the initiatives that the approval of the rezoning request will align with the Salt Lake
City’s initiatives:
I. Green Loop Initiatives – adding density and placemaking to the fabric of
downtown, to increase the success rate utilization of the proposed green loop.
Integrated and emphasis on bike accessibility though design.
II. Sustainability - building design incorporates and emphasizes the use of
sustainable practices. From integrated plaza, green roofs, building orientation to
capture views and energy.
III. Livability – support the cities ongoing efforts to provide opportunity for affordable
housing. Close proximity to downtown and public transit (UTA trax, protected bike
lanes, and growing bus system) encourages walkability as well as access to
surrounding amenities without having to rely on a personal vehicle.
3. Increased Foot Traffic
Denser mixed-use development will attract more residents, workers, and visitors to the area,
increasing foot traffic and contributing to a more vibrant, active downtown. The proposed building
program would create an additional destination place in the fabric of downtown.
I. Privately owned – publicly accessed courtyard plaza – the proposed approximate
35,000sqft plaza as the connecting design aspect for the project, would create a
destination and an opportunity for “third space” for the residents of the building as
well as downtown patrons.
II. Commercial space availability for variety of scales – the proposed design
integrated different scales of commercial space, to be able to accommodate
different program types and need of the residence as well as the city.
III. Permeable street level design – Building proposal designed in a fashion that
invigorate and maximizes the corner of the block, drawing attention to the
commercial space strategically placed. Multiple options of entrances are designed
throughout the building to encourage circulation and enjoyment.
4. Opportunities for Downtown Living and Amenities
The change will promote living near work and downtown amenities, offering opportunities for
residents to enjoy walkable access to jobs, retail, cultural attractions, and public spaces, further
supporting the city’s livability goals. With intentional design of different density of units, allowing for
a wider variety of family types to occupy the building.
I. Variety of Unit size types – With the projected growth of the downtown, the building
design anticipates the density, and family size needs of a growing population. A variety
of bedroom units plans proposed in the design to accommodate people of different
professions and needs.
II. Opportunity for affordable housing – a portion of the building is designed for an
opportunity to be allocated for affordable housing.
III. Residencial amenity support – Intentions residential amenity spaces designed to
support meet ups, and natural opportunities to create community. Main residential
tower designed in a way to maximize views, both from the residence that would occupy
the building, as well the neighbors.
5. Replacement of Underutilized Land Uses
The zoning change will facilitate the replacement of surface parking lots accommodating a
maximum of 175 cars and low-density office spaces with a thoughtfully designed, dense, mixed-
use development. This shift will enhance land use efficiency, provide new housing and commercial
opportunities, and contribute to the overall economic vitality of the area.
The current existing office building on the site is underutilized, with the occupancy rate of 54%.
Additionally, about 72.7% (69,300 SF) of the total site (2.19 Acreage) is utilized by paved surface
parking to support the office building. With the conversion of zoning to D1, allowing for the
proposed building design, the design intent would utilize the full allotted footprint of the site.
Please refer to the info below for additional proposed design:
RESIDENCIAL BUIDLING BREAKDOWN – combined 491,400 SQFT (421 units total)
Lower residential buildings – 149,400 sqft (166 units total)
Floor plate 1-5: 26,000 sqft
Floor plate 6-7: 9,700 sqft
o 110 - 1bdr/studio units
o 17 - 1bdr units
o 39 - 2bdr units
Hi-rise tower – 342,000 sqft (255 units total)
Floor plate 1-19: 18,000 sqft
o 17 - 1bdr/studio units
o 119 - 1bdr units
o 85 - 2bdr units
o 34 - 3bdr units
AMENITY BUILDING BREAKDOWN - combined 59,000 SQFT
Commercial sqft – 24,000sqft
• 2,000 sqft- restaurant + patio
• 1,000 sqft - bike storage + amenity
• 1,000 sqft – coffee shop
• 10,000 sqft – fitness center (residence use)
• 10,000 sqft – rooftop amenity (residence use)
Plaza sqft – 35,000sqft
• Replacing 175 existing parking stalls
• Underground parking garage with parking goal of 1:1
In summary, the proposed zoning change aligns with the city’s broader objectives of enhancing the
downtown area and supports a sustainable and thriving urban environment.
Community Benefits Narrative for Zoning Amendment
Project Overview: The 265 located at 265 East 100 South Salt Lake City, proposes a zoning
amendment to transition from the current zoning designation to a higher-density, mixed-use zoning
district. This zoning change is intended to maximize the property’s development potential and align
with Salt Lake City’s broader vision of a vibrant, interconnected, and sustainable downtown. The
development seeks to replace underutilized land and surface parking lots with a dynamic, mixed-
use building that includes residential units, commercial space, and public amenities.
Proposed Community Benefits:
The proposed zoning amendment includes significant community benefits that are in alignment
with the city’s goals for a sustainable, vibrant downtown. These benefits will be formalized through
a development agreement to ensure compliance and accountability.
1. Affordable Housing: A central community benefit of this zoning amendment is the inclusion of
affordable housing within the development. A portion of the residential units will be designated as
affordable, offering opportunities for households at or below the area median income. This benefit
goes above and beyond the existing zoning requirements, ensuring that the increase in
development rights supports the city’s housing needs. The affordable housing component will be
formalized through a development agreement, which will specify the number of units and their
affordability levels.
Additionally, the development will include a mix of unit sizes, including family-sized 3-bedroom
units, to address the diverse housing needs of the community. These family-sized units will help
accommodate larger households and provide much-needed housing for families in downtown Salt
Lake City.
2. Family-Sized Units: The project will incorporate a variety of unit sizes, with 34 three-bedroom
units included in the design. This variety is intended to meet the growing demand for housing
suitable for families in downtown, where such units are scarce. The inclusion of family-sized units
will enhance the livability of the area and contribute to the city’s goal of providing housing options
for people at different life stages.
3. Commercial Space for Local Businesses: The development will include 24,000 square feet of
commercial space, designed to accommodate a variety of local businesses and charitable
organizations. This commercial space will provide opportunities for small businesses to thrive,
contributing to the economic vitality of the downtown area. The commercial spaces will be
designed with flexibility in mind, offering different scales to suit a wide range of business types,
from restaurants and cafes to retail and service-oriented businesses.
In particular, the 2,000-square-foot restaurant space, 1,000-square-foot coffee shop, and 10,000-
square-foot fitness center will create spaces that serve both residents of the development and the
broader downtown community. Additionally, the inclusion of bike storage facilities in the
commercial space aligns with the city’s efforts to promote bike-friendly infrastructure.
4. Public Open Space: A major feature of the development is the inclusion of a 35,000-square-foot
publicly accessible courtyard plaza. This space will function as a “third space” for the residents of
the building and for the public, providing a place to relax, socialize, and enjoy the outdoors. The
plaza will replace existing surface parking and be designed to encourage pedestrian movement,
with connections to other parts of downtown. The space will be integrated into the development’s
design, making it a focal point for the community and increasing foot traffic in the area.
5. Increased Density and Sustainable Design: The proposed development will increase the
density of the site while promoting sustainable urban design. The project will include green roofs,
energy-efficient building materials, and an orientation designed to maximize views and natural
light. These features support the city’s sustainability goals and contribute to creating an
environmentally responsible development.
Furthermore, the mixed-use nature of the project promotes urban livability by providing residential,
commercial, and public spaces within close proximity. This design encourages walkability and
reduces the need for personal vehicles, aligning with the city ’s objectives to create a more
sustainable and connected downtown environment.
6. Public Infrastructure and Foot Traffic: The development will contribute to the overall livability of
downtown by increasing foot traffic and supporting the city’s Green Loop initiatives. The building
will be designed to integrate with the city’s green infrastructure, including bike accessibilit y and
sustainable urban features. The increase in density will attract more residents, workers, and visitors
to the area, further contributing to the vitality of downtown.
The integration of diverse commercial space and a permeable street-level design will also create a
welcoming and active environment. By providing multiple entrances, encouraging circulation, and
strategically locating commercial spaces, the development will foster a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly
atmosphere that contributes to the area’s character and accessibility.
7. Replacement of Underutilized Land Uses: The requested zoning change will facilitate the
replacement of an underutilized office building and surface parking lots with a dense, mixed-use
development that includes 421 residential units, a variety of commercial spaces, and public
amenities. This will efficiently utilize the land, providing much-needed housing, services, and
community spaces. Currently, approximately 72.7% (69,300 square feet) of the site is used for
surface parking, which is inefficient and not in alignment with the city’s goals for downtown
development.
The rezoning will allow for the full utilization of the property’s footprint, creating an environment that
fosters residential and economic growth. The development is designed to meet the needs of both
the existing population and the growing downtown community.
Conclusion: The proposed zoning amendment for The 265 aligns with Salt Lake City’s vision for a
vibrant, sustainable, and interconnected downtown. The development will provide a range of
community benefits, including affordable housing, family-sized units, commercial space for local
businesses, and a publicly accessible plaza. The project will also contribute to the city’s
sustainability and livability goals, enhancing the downtown environment for both residents and
visitors. These benefits will be formalized in a development agreement and will be subject to public
input, ensuring transparency and accountability.
Community Benefits Narrative for Zoning Amendment
Project Overview: The 265 located at 265 East 100 South Salt Lake City, proposes a zoning
amendment to change the current zoning designation to a higher-density, mixed-use zoning district.
This zoning change is intended to maximize the property’s development potential and align with
Salt Lake City’s broader vision of a vibrant, interconnected, and sustainable downtown. The
development seeks to replace underutilized land and surface parking lots with a dynamic, mixed-
use building that includes residential units, commercial space, and public amenities. Although Salt
Lake City code 21A.50.050.C. requires a petition for a rezone to identify “a” community benefit that
will result from the project, we feel confident that we have designed the project in a way to provide
at least seven (7) benefits to the community. We are committed to working with Salt Lake to further
the goals the city has laid out through this project.
Proposed Community Benefits:
The proposed zoning amendment includes significant community benefits that align with the city’s
goals for a sustainable, vibrant downtown. These benefits will be formalized through a development
agreement to ensure compliance and accountability.
1. Affordable Housing: A central community benefit of this zoning amendment is the inclusion of
affordable housing within the development. In alignment with Salt Lake City’s housing and equity
goals, the project will restrict 20% of the total residential units to households earning at or below
80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). This represents a significant commitment to inclusive urban
development and goes above and beyond existing zoning requirements.
By providing housing opportunities at the 80% AMI level, the development supports the creation of
a mixed-income community that includes residents across a variety of income levels, such as
essential workers, early-career professionals, service industry employees, and seniors on fixed
incomes. These groups are vital to the day-to-day life of a thriving downtown, yet often face limited
access to high-quality housing in central neighborhoods.
Affordable units will be designed and distributed to be indistinguishable from market-rate units,
ensuring a seamless integration that supports community cohesion and dignity for all residents.
The units will be delivered in a mix of layouts, prioritizing 1-bedroom units where feasible to
maximize efficient use of space and maintain financial sustainability. Any remaining affordable
units will be drawn from the development’s supply of 2-bedroom apartments, offering further
diversity in housing options.
The inclusion of affordability at this scale not only helps address the city’s critical housing needs,
but also contributes to the long-term success and vibrancy of downtown Salt Lake City. When
people of varying income levels can live close to where they work, shop, and access services, it
reduces commuter traffic, supports small businesses, and enhances neighborhood stability.
Affordable housing is essential infrastructure that fosters a more dynamic and resilient urban core.
This affordability commitment will be formalized through a binding development agreement with
Salt Lake City. The agreement will outline the number of units, income qualifications, long-term
affordability requirements, and compliance procedures to ensure the benefit is meaningful and
lasting.
In addition to the affordability provisions, the development includes a range of unit sizes, including
family-oriented 3-bedroom units to address the diverse housing needs of the community. By
offering both affordable and market-rate units in a variety of layouts, the project advances the city’s
vision for a livable, inclusive, and sustainable downtown.
2. Family -Sized Units: The project will incorporate a variety of unit sizes. The current concept has
over 8% of the total units comprising three-bedroom units. This variety is intended to meet the
growing demand for housing suitable for families downtown, where such units are scarce. The
inclusion of family-sized units will enhance the livability of the area and contribute to the city’s goal
of providing housing options for people at different life stages.
3. Commercial Space for Local Businesses and Organizations:
As part of its commitment to supporting the local economy and enhancing access to essential
services, the development will include 24,000 square feet of commercial space, with a portion of
that space specifically designated for lease by local businesses and charitable or community-
based organizations.
The commercial space is intentionally designed with a variety of layouts and square footages to
accommodate a local business. This includes:
• A 2,000-square -foot restaurant space
• A 1,000-square -foot coffee shop
These uses will serve both building residents and the broader public, creating a more vibrant,
walkable downtown. In addition to reserving the space above for local businesses the remainder of
leased space in the project will prioritize leasing opportunities for locally owned businesses,
nonprofits, and community-serving organizations, particularly those that align with Salt Lake City’s
values around equity, sustainability, and inclusion.
To support this goal, the development team is exploring leasing incentive programs, which may
include:
• Flexible lease terms or graduated rent structures for qualifying nonprofits or small local
enterprises
• Tenant improvement allowances or build-out support for first-time commercial tenants
• Reduced initial rent periods to assist with startup costs or relocation expenses
These programs are intended to lower the barrier to entry for mission -driven organizations and
small businesses that might otherwise be priced out of downtown locations. The developer will
also coordinate outreach efforts during the lease-up period to actively engage local business
associations and nonprofit networks, ensuring these groups are aware of available opportunities.
Finally, the commercial space will incorporate street-level visibility, outdoor activation, and
amenities like bike storage to enhance access, foot traffic, and long-term tenant success. By
making dedicated space available and implementing supportive leasing strategies, the
development advances the City’s goal of fostering a thriving, inclusive, and locally connected
downtown economy.
4. Public Open Space: A major feature of the development is the inclusion of a 35,000-square-foot
publicly accessible courtyard plaza. This space will function as a “third space” for the residents of
the building and for the public, providing a place to relax, socialize, and enjoy the outdoors. The
plaza will replace existing surface parking and be designed to encourage pedestrian movement,
with connections to other parts of downtown. The space will be integrated into the development’s
design, making it a focal point for the community and increasing foot traffic in the area.
5. Increased Density and Sustainable Design: The proposed development will increase the
density of the site while promoting sustainable urban design. The project will include green roofs,
energy-efficient building materials, and an orientation designed to maximize views and natural
light. These features support the city’s sustainability goals and contribute to creating an
environmentally responsible development.
Furthermore, the mixed-use nature of the project promotes urban livability by providing residential,
commercial, and public spaces within close proximity. This design encourages walkability and
reduces the need for personal vehicles, aligning with the city ’s objectives to create a more
sustainable and connected downtown environment.
6. Public Infrastructure and Foot Traffic: The development will contribute to the overall livability of
downtown by increasing foot traffic and supporting the city’s Green Loop initiatives. The building
will be designed to integrate with the city’s green infrastructure, including bike accessibilit y and
sustainable urban features. The increase in density will attract more residents, workers, and visitors
to the area, further contributing to the vitality of downtown.
The integration of diverse commercial space and a permeable street-level design will also create a
welcoming and active environment. By providing multiple entrances, encouraging circulation, and
strategically locating commercial spaces, the development will foster a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly
atmosphere that contributes to the area’s character and accessibility.
7. Replacement of Underutilized Land Uses: The requested zoning change will facilitate the
replacement of an underutilized office building and surface parking lots with a dense, mixed-use
development that includes 421 residential units, a variety of commercial spaces, and public
amenities. This will efficiently utilize the land, providing much-needed housing, services, and
community spaces. Currently, approximately 72.7% (69,300 square feet) of the site is used for
surface parking, which is inefficient and not in alignment with the city’s goals for downtown
development.
The rezoning will allow for the full utilization of the property’s footprint, creating an environment that
fosters residential and economic growth. The development is designed to meet the needs of both
the existing population and the growing downtown community.
Conclusion: The proposed zoning amendment for “The 265” aligns with Salt Lake City’s vision for a
vibrant, sustainable, and interconnected downtown. The development will provide a range of
community benefits, including affordable housing, family-sized units, commercial space for local
businesses, and a publicly accessible plaza. The project will also contribute to the city’s
sustainability and livability goals, enhancing the downtown environment for both residents and
visitors. These benefits will be formalized in a development agreement and will be subject to public
input, ensuring transparency and accountability.
FULL_NAME ADDR unit CITY STATE ZIP
BOYER 101 LC OYER 101 LC 101 S 200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
257 EAST SALT LAKE LLC LT LAKE LLC 101 YGNACIO VALLEY RD WALNUT CREEK CA 94596
LUAN C BUI LUAN C BUI 108 W 2ND ST LOS ANGELES CA 90012
Current Occupant 109 S 300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
KENNETH WILLIAM RICHINS IAM RICHINS 1122 N 100 W OREM UT 84057
Current Occupant 115 S 300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 120 S 300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
DANIEL DRYSDALE EL DRYSDALE 141 E 200 S BOUNTIFUL UT 84010
Current Occupant 15 S 300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
CARLEY & SANDRA MITCHELL LIVING TRUST 8/2/2014 ST 8/2/2014 1651 INTERLACHEN RD #281E SEAL BEACH CA 90740
Current Occupant 200 E SOUTH TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
UTAH FIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION REDIT UNION 200 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST #300 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
DONALD A HUDSON; KATHLEEN A DEFOSTER (JT) FOSTER (JT)218 N D ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
HOLLYWOOD C6 LLC WOOD C6 LLC 2191 E MILLSTREAM AVE MILLCREEK UT 84109
LOTUS BV BY CITYLINE, LLC TYLINE, LLC 2194 SNAKE RIVER PKWY IDAHO FALLS ID 83402
KILMARNOCK PROPERTIES, LLC ERTIES, LLC 223 W 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
Current Occupant 230 E SOUTH TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
PRICE-SOUTH TEMPLE COMPANY PLE COMPANY 230 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
SJD 312 EAST LLC; PRICE 312 EAST, LLC 2 EAST, LLC 230 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 231 E 100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 234 E 100 S A6 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 234 E 100 S B4 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 234 E 100 S B5 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 234 E 100 S B6 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 234 E 100 S B8 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 234 E 100 S C1 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 234 E 100 S C2 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 234 E 100 S C5 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 234 E 100 S C6 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 234 E 100 S D1 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 234 E 100 S D4 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 234 E 100 S D6 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 234 E 100 S D7 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 234 E 100 S D8 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 234 E 100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
CAYDEN A NELSON EN A NELSON 234 E 100 S B1 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
MIRIAM MCFERRIN AM MCFERRIN 234 E 100 S B7 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
MAYA V GUTIERREZ; BRIAN GUTIERREZ (JT) IERREZ (JT)234 E 100 S C3 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
CAMERON GLEN HOWLETT LEN HOWLETT 234 E 100 S C7 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
EMILIE DAVIS MILIE DAVIS 234 E 100 S C8 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
SCOTT EDWARDS OTT EDWARDS 234 E 100 S # A1 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
ALAN BARTA ALAN BARTA 234 E 100 S # A2 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
BRENT HUFF BRENT HUFF 234 E 100 S # A3 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
LIZ JONES LIZ JONES 234 E 100 S # A4 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
TAMI LYN TINGEY; GARY CYRUS TINGEY (JT) TINGEY (JT)234 E 100 S # A5 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
BENJAMIN T SR ENGEL T SR ENGEL 234 E 100 S # A7 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
DEREK KIRBY DEREK KIRBY 234 E 100 S # B2 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
RYAN H PAINTER N H PAINTER 234 E 100 S # B3 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
BARBARA BARTON; KENNETH BARTON (JT) BARTON (JT)234 E 100 S # C4 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
SKT FAM TR SKT FAM TR 234 E 100 S # D2 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
SHAWN T CHIDESTER T CHIDESTER 234 E 100 S # D3 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
CHRISTOPHER ALLISON HER ALLISON 234 E 100 S # D5 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 238 E 100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 242 E 100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 242 E SOUTH TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 248 E 100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 25 S 300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 250 E SOUTH TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 260 E SOUTH TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
LARKIN MORTUARY IN MORTUARY 260 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 262 E 100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 265 E 100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
GLOBAL CONSULTING INTERNATIONAL INC ATIONAL INC 270 E 100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 278 E 100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
PAULINE REDEVELOPMENT LLC; LONE PEAK EQUITY 1 LLC QUITY 1 LLC 2819 E LAKESIDE DR EAGLE MOUNTAIN UT 84005
Current Occupant 309 E 100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
PRESTON ROBERT WILLIAMS; ASHLEY WILLIAMS (JT) LLIAMS (JT)310 W 73RD ST APT PHB NEW YORK NY 10023
Current Occupant 312 E SOUTH TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
1ST SOUTH HOLLYWOOD LLC LLYWOOD LLC 329 S LAKER CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
BV LOTUS REPUBLIC II, LLC LIC II, LLC 338 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
248 EAST 100 SOUTH, LLC SOUTH, LLC 351 W 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
Current Occupant 44 S 300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 51 S 300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 53 S 300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
KESTREL HOLDINGS, LLC LDINGS, LLC 5705 EMIGRATION CANYON RD EMIGRATN CYN UT 84108
PROVIDENCE PLACE HOLDINGS LP HOLDINGS LP 595 S RIVERWOODS PKWY LOGAN UT 84321
1 SLC, LLC 1 SLC, LLC 6170 N PARK LN # 26 PARK CITY UT 84098
234 EAST PROPERTY TRUST 12/13/2017 12/13/2017 620 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
LINCOLN ARMS, LLC N ARMS, LLC 650 S 500 W # 104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
KENT DIEBOLT ENT DIEBOLT 70 JOHNES ST NEWBURGH NY 12550
CORPORATION OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN UTAH RCH IN UTAH 75 S 200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
HOLLY HUFF HOLLY HUFF 815 N LAFAYETTE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
BUNGALOW CONDOMINIUMS, INC INIUMS, INC 818 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
HOLLYWOOD CONDOMINIUMS COMMON AREA MASTER CARD MASTER CARD PO BOX 171014 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117
RAVEN ONE LLC VEN ONE LLC PO BOX 4902 JACKSON WY 83001
BV LOTUS 300 EAST, LLC 0 EAST, LLC PO BOX 51298 IDAHO FALLS ID 83405
SEJ ASSET MANAGEMENT & INVESTMENT COMPANY ENT COMPANY PO BOX 711 DALLAS TX 75221
Sara Javoronok, Planning Division PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
Joe Brown, Silverado Development LLC 1510 E 840 N OREM UT 84097
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 202__
(An ordinance amending the zoning of property located at 265 East 100 South Street from MU-8
Mixed Use 8 District to D-1 Central Business District)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at 265 East 100
South Street (“Property”) from MU-8 (Mixed Use 8) District to D-1 (Central Business) District
pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2024-01377.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a
public hearing on October 22, 2025 to consider a petition by Joe Brown and Dave Hunter of
Silverado Development, LLC, representing the property owner, Raven One, LLC, to rezone the
parcel located at 265 East 100 South (Tax ID No. 16-06-127-027-0000) from MU-8 (Mixed Use
8) District to D-1 (Central Business) District; and
WHEREAS, at its October 22, 2025, meeting the Planning Commission voted in favor of
transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said
petition; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that
adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and
hereby is amended to reflect that the Property, identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, shall be
and hereby is rezoned from MU-8 (Mixed Use 8) District to D-1 (Central Business) District.
SECTION 2. Condition. This map amendment is conditioned upon the owner of the
Property entering into a development agreement with Salt Lake City that (1) will limit the height
2
of any building on the Property to 225’, and (2) will require the property owner to work with
commercial tenants to mitigate displacement.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication. The Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed to not publish this ordinance until the
condition set forth in Section 2 pertaining to entering into and recording a development
agreement is satisfied as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director or his designee.
SECTION 4. Time. If the condition set forth in Section 2 has not been met within one year after
adoption, this ordinance shall become null and void. Prior to such one year period, the City
Council may, for good cause shown, extend the time period for satisfying the above condition by
resolution.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________,
202__.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 202__.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance rezoning 265 East 100 South to D-1
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:___11/21/2025_____________________
By: ___________________________________
Courtney Lords, Senior City Attorney
3
EXHIBIT “A”
Legal Description of Property to be Rezoned:
Beginning at the southeast corner of Lot 1, Block 73, Plat A, Salt Lake City Survey, and running thence
South 89°58'28” West along the south line of said Lot 1 a distance of 285.38 feet; thence North 00°02'02"
West 330.14 feet to the north line of Lot 8 of said Block 73; thence North 89°58'27" East along said north
line 120.30 feet; thence North 00°02'10" West 8.25 feet; thence North 89°58'27" East 165.05 feet to east
line of said Block 73; thence South 00°02'18" East along said east line 338.39 feet to the point of
beginning.
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 REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:January 20, 2026
RE: Zoning Administration Text Amendment
PLNPCM2025-00164
The Council will be briefed about a text amendment requested by the Planning Division and initiated by
Mayor Mendenhall to amend sections of the zoning code. The proposed amendments would align City code
with current practices and processes, and changes to State code.
Proposed changes are in the following three main categories:
Updating the zoning review process to align with current practice.
Clarifying provisions related to code interpretation.
General code cleanup and updates.
The changes are intended to strengthen legal standing, support City staff in their code implementation, and
provide additional transparency. They would not change how Planning administers the zoning code.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its May 28, 2025 meeting and held a public hearing at
which no one spoke. The Commission forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation to the
Council on the proposed amendments.
After the Planning Commission’s recommendation, Planning staff identified an error on the table of
permitted and conditional uses for manufacturing districts. “Adaptive reuse of a landmark site” was
intentionally deleted from the table as part of the building preservation incentives ordinance. The use was
unintentionally added back to the table shortly after when the “distribution center” use was added. The
change corrects the table.
Item Schedule:
Page | 2
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendment and determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
As noted above, the proposed amendments are primarily found in three main categories which are
summarized below. Additional information can be found on pages 2-3 of the Planning Commission staff
report.
Currently City code calls for procedures that are outdated and don’t reflect current processes. The proposed
changes will align with how the City departments operate and they will meet State statutes. These include:
Eliminating the zoning certificate process. Current simultaneous review processes and digital
records render zoning certificates obsolete.
Replace outdated site plan review process with current practice of zoning review during building
permit, business license, or planning applications. Submittal requirements are updated to comply
with state code.
Remove Development Review Team as a decision-making body. The DRT serves an advisory role
though it is referenced incorrectly in sections of City code. Proposed changes match current
practices of an appropriate staff member or division as the decision maker.
Clarification of zoning authority. The changes would update code language to match the existing
practice of the Planning Director’s role in administrating the code. This includes delegating review
and decision-making authority to the zoning administrator and Planning staff.
Review of appeals chapter. This change would clarify what decisions are under the purview of the
appeals hearing officer and the appeal periods.
Proposed changes provide clarity for more consistent application of the code.
Clarifying the administrative interpretation process to clarify who can apply, as well as the effects
and limitations of a decision.
Adding provisions for unlisted uses. State law requires adding references to the process of
petitioning to approve unlisted uses.
Clarifying the determination of nonconformity process. This is intended to determine whether uses,
structures or lots that do not comply with current standards are legal. Clarifies application
requirements and standards.
Reorganizing standards related to abandonment of nonconformity. Clarifies that standards are
allowed to apply to both use and structures so it is consistent with State code.
Adjusting definitions and standards. Minor corrections to standards for noncomplying lots, uses
and structures for consistency and alignment with intent.
Proposed changes include minor updates, corrections, and removes obsolete provisions.
Replace outdated “lot and bulk” term with current “development standards” that includes all
development standards for site or building development.
List design standards as a type of zoning regulation. Will be included in the introductory portion of
City code. Also clarifies that the Historic Landmark Commission has authority to modify design
standards for properties in the historic preservation overlay.
Update home occupation standards. A business license exemption for home occupations that do
not create an impact was added to State law in 2017. The proposed change brings City code into
compliance and has been the practice since State law was changed.
Page | 3
Adjust recently adopted language to clarify intent. Minor adjustments to provisions that allow
rooftop amenities to exceed building height and to the definition of “attached garage.”
Delete obsolete districts, land uses and provisions.
o Deletes AG-20 zoning district because it is not a mapped or active zoning district.
o Deletes Character Conservation District-none have been proposed or created since this was
added in 2013.
o Removes references to special exception process which no longer exists.
o Lists seasonal farm stands as a temporary allowed use in non-residential zones.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified two key considerations related to the proposal, found on pages 3-4 of the Planning
Commission staff report, and briefly summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the Planning
staff report.
Consideration 1 – Compliance with State Law
The Planning Commission has authority to make recommendations to the City Council on proposed
changes to City code, and the Council has the authority to adopt, amend, or reject these recommendations.
However, some of the proposed changes are mandated by State law as discussed above and are beyond the
City’s authority to modify.
Proposed updates are intended to help clarify processes for applicants and City staff and ensure compliance
with State law.
Consideration 2 – Changes to the Zoning Approval Process
Proposed changes to the zoning review and approval process mirror what the City has done for several
years. Planning noted that modifications to the proposed process would require coordination with various
City departments and review to ensure that the changes comply with State law. City software limitations
may also be constrained by City software systems.
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment B (page 53) 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
The extent to which a proposed text amendment
implements best current, professional practices of urban
planning and design.
Complies
Page | 4
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• February 19, 2025 – Mayor Mendenhall initiated petition.
• February 19, 2025 – Petition assigned to Mayara Lima, Zoning Administrator.
• March 10, 2025 – Notice emailed to recognized organizations citywide.
• March 11, 2025 – Proposed code changes posted to the Planning Division’s webpage as an online
open house.
• May 16, 2025 – Planning Commission public hearing notices posted on City and State websites
and at the City library.
• May 28, 2025 – Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. A unanimous positive
recommendation was forwarded to the City Council.
• June 12, 2025 – Ordinance requested from the Attorney’s Office.
• December 10, 2025 – Ordinance received from the Attorney’s Office.
• December 22, 2025 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
Planning Commission –May 28, 2025
PLNPCM2025-00164
ZONING
ADMINISTRATION TEXT
AMENDMENT
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
SUMMARY
CLARIFY AND UPDATE PROVISIONS
•Multiple sections of Title 21A –Zoning
•Clarify land use authorities
•Updates zoning review processes to reflect current/best practices
•Improves code administration
•Updates references, section numbers, and “cleans up” zoning code
•Eliminates unused sections of code
•Updates to align with state code requirements
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
CLARIFY LAND USE AUTHORITIES
Proposal: Changes to 21A.06.06
Replaces “planning official” with “planning director” to match
definitions.
Reflects how authority is delegated (matches reality):
Zoning Administrator
•Interpret code
•Administrative decisions
•Zoning reviews
•Planning Staff
•They do the work that Planning Director and Zoning
Administrator rely on;
•Interpreting the code and zoning reviews delegated to staff
currently.
Existing Code
21A.06.060: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Primary responsibility for administering and enforcing this title
shall be delegated to the planning official. Except as otherwise
specifically provided in this title, the Director may designate a
staff person or staff persons in the division to carry out these
responsibilities. The staff person(s) to whom such
administrative and enforcement functions are assigned shall be
referred to in this title as the "Zoning Administrator".
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
Align with current/best practice
•Simplifying the zoning certificate process
•Changes site plan review to zoning review in Chapter 58
•Removal of the Development Review Team as a process
UPDATE ZONING REVIEW PROCESSES
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
Proposed Code: What actually happens
Zoning Review and Approval occurs:
•During land use application (if required); or
•During building permit review
•Zoning Certificate only issued if no other
permit is required by code.
ZONING APPROVAL PROCESS
Zoning Certificate Process (currently in code)
Land Use application
↓
1st zoning review
↓
Zoning Certificate Application
↓
2nd zoning Review
↓
Building Permit Application
↓
3rd zoning review
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
ZONING REVIEW PROCESS
1.Compliance with state law
(submittal requirements)
2.Reflects modern practice
(electronic plans vs paper plans)
3.Addresses what site plan
approval means/when it occurs
4.Moves zoning certificate to this
section
5. Establishes zoning verification
process.
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
ELIMINATING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
TEAM FROM CODE
DRT identified as a land use authority, but has no approval authority in code.
DRT process replaced by zoning review process
Does not eliminate the “development review team” meetings for applicants.
•There is no need to codify the ability to meet with applicants
•Purpose: for applicants to understand what codes apply and what they
need to do to obtain various permits.
•Also identifies obvious code issues (fire access, utility access, zoning
issues)
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
•Administrative interpretation process
•Provisions for unlisted uses Determination of
nonconformity process*
•Standards related to abandonment of nonconformity*
•Adjust definitions and standards related to
noncomplying structures/nonconforming uses
* Updates required to be consistent/compliant with state code
IMPROVES CODE ADMINISTRATION
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
CLARIFIES BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION
AND DETERMINATION
Administrative Interpretation
Interprets code to specific situation
•Is a land use allowed?
•How a standard applies?
Used to address land uses that are not
defined or in land use tables (state code
requirement).
Administrative Determinations
Decides nonconforming land uses and
noncomplying structures:
•Nonconforming use: a use that was legally
allowed and established but is no longer
allowed by zoning.
•Noncomplying structure: a building that
was built legally but no longer complies
with existing rules because the rules
changed.
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
STANDARDS RELATED ABANDONMENT OF
NONCONFORMING USE
Relocated in 21A.38 to where it makes more
sense.
Standard for amortizing nonconforming use
updated to match state code.
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES/NONCOMPLYING
BUILDINGS STANDARDS
Clarifies additions not further extending into
noncomplying setbacks
Noncomplying Lots
•Clarifies how a noncomplying lot can be
legalized
•SFD allowed in all residential zones
•Any use allowed in the zone
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
General code cleanup and update
•Replace “lot and bulk” with “development standards”
•List design standards as a type of zoning regulation
•Update home occupation standards (to comply with state
code changes)
•Adjust recently adopted language to clarify intent
•Delete obsolete districts, land uses and provisions
EXAMPLES OF “CODE CLEAN UP”
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
EXAMPLES OF ADDING CLARITY
Adjust language to clarify intent
Amending note 2 of table 21A.36.020C
2. Amenities shall be setback at least 5 feet from all property lines.
Physical separation, such as a fence or railing, shall be provided to
delineate the rooftop amenity area, but the amenity may not
enclosed with walls or include a roof.
Amending definition of attached garage
GARAGE, ATTACHED: A garage that is attached to the principal
building by a common wall or is connected to the principal building
by a roof that has a width of more than five feet (5') or more. An
attached garage shall be considered part of the principal building.
Delete obsolete provisions
Amending subsection 21A.36.250.J.1
1. Landscaping and screening of rRecycling collection stations
shall be screened from public view by a fence or wall, unless
when exempt by other provisions of this title. provided in a
manner that improves their appearance without obscuring
their visibility. Landscaping and screening requirements shall
be established on a case by case basis as part of the site plan
review process pursuant to chapter 21A.58 of this title. In
districts where site plan review is not required, no landscaping
or screening will be required.
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
DELETING UNUSED CHAPTERS
21A.32.056 AG-20 Agricultural District
•District is not mapped anywhere in the city
21A.35 Character Conservation Districts
•Added to code in 2012, but has never been used.
•Overlays can accomplish the same thing.
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
Planning Commission recommended adopting the proposal.
RECOMMENDATION
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
Mayara Lima
Mayara.lima@slc.gov
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
12/15/2025
Date Sent to Council:
12/19/2025
From:
Department *
Community and Neighborhood
Employee Name:
Norris, Nick
E-mail
Nick.Norris@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
12/16/2025
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
12/19/2025
Subject:
Zoning Administration Text Amendment
Additional Staff Contact:Presenters/Staff Table
Document Type
Ordinance
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Recommendation:
Adopt the ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Background/Discussion
See first attachment for Background/Discussion
Public Hearing
Is there a City or State statutory requirement to hold a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
The City Council reserves the option to hold and notice for a public hearing pursuant to their practices for public engagement.
Does the City have a general practice to hold a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Provide your perspective on the value of recommending a public hearing
We have public hearings on these matters.
Public Process
(In memo)
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 Mayor Erin Mendenhall at the request of the
Planning Division, proposes amendments to multiple sections of Title 21A – Zoning. This text
amendment focuses on updating the zoning ordinance to reflect current practices, fix inconsistencies, and
incorporate changes required by state law.
Many existing processes, such as the zoning certificate requirement and sequential departmental reviews,
are outdated and no longer align with how zoning approvals are currently administered. The amendment
eliminates obsolete steps, updates definitions, clarifies roles, and incorporates simultaneous, digital
review processes that are already in practice. It also addresses legal requirements for reviewing unlisted
uses, limits imposed on site plan requirements for residential projects, and clarifies appeals and
interpretation procedures.
The proposed changes generally fall into three main categories:
(1) Updating the zoning review process to align with current practice, which includes modifying
the zoning certificate process, clarification of zoning authority, and removal of the Development
Review Team (DRT) as a decision-making body;
a. A zoning certificate is issued when an application does not otherwise require another
approval (such as a business license or building permit) as a method to document zoning
approval. An approved building permit, business license, conditional use, design review,
or planned development application carry the same legal weight as a zoning certificate, so
a zoning certificate is unnecessary. It is necessary when there is no other application
required, such as construction of a shed under 200 square feet, which does not require a
building permit.
b. The zoning code often uses the term “zoning administrator” as a decision-making body,
but the definition of zoning administrator says that the administrator is the planning
director. The code also uses both the planning director and zoning administrator
interchangeably. This set of changes does not change who has authority, it simply makes
the use of the term more consistent.
c. The DRT is listed as an approval authority in the code but does not have any decision-
making authority in administering the zoning code. That authority is designated to the
Planning Director, or the director’s DRT. Chapter 21A.58 includes sections about what
the DRT does. However, the DRT has functioned differently from what the code says for
many years, primarily because zoning reviews and all other land use applications routed
for review by other departments are done electronically. This set of changes removes the
DRT from the code and recognizes the current practice of how applications are reviewed.
The practive of applicants being able to schedule informational meetings to review
developments remains, but it is not necessary to codify.
(2) Clarifying provisions related to code interpretation, which includes updates to the
administrative interpretation process, determination of nonconformity, and provisions for unlisted
uses;
a. This set of changes updates the code to better match current practices and matches state
code regarding the process of administering Title 21A Zoning.
b. The processes for administering the code as it applies to nonconforming uses and
noncomplying buildings and lots are being updated to match existing practice for
determining the legal status of both, clarifying when a nonconforming use or structure is
considered abandoned, and updates the process for amortizing nonconforming uses to
match state code references. The city has not amortized a nonconforming use in the past,
which essentially means giving a nonconforming use a set amount of time before it must
cease. This only applies to uses that are no longer allowed but is not applicable to uses
that routinely create nuisances. Under state code, the city must adopt a formula for
amortizing a nonconforming use and adopt it into code. Salt Lake City has not created a
formula to accomplish this, so the existing process is proposed to be removed because it
likely does not comply with Utah Code.
(3) General code cleanup and updates to address ambiguities in definitions, standards, and
procedures, such as replacing outdated terms like “lot and bulk,” deleting obsolete districts and
land uses, and adjusting standards to ensure consistency with state code.
a. This group of changes is mostly a clean up of the zoning code. It deletes the AG-20
zoning district and all references to this chapter, which is not mapped anywhere in the
city and no longer necessary. It also removes the Character Conservation District chapter
from the code, which has never been used and is not necessary to update zoning
standards.
b. This section clarifies how some standards are applied, such as in the Foothill Residential
zoning districts where taller retaining walls may be needed to ensure access to legally
existing lots.
c. Multiple definitions are being updated to be more clear, and unnecessary definitions are
being deleted.
These updates improve transparency, ensure legal standing, and more clearly communicate when and how
zoning approvals are granted.
CONSIDERATIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL
The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the proposed text amendment and unanimously
forwarded a positive recommendation of approval to the City Council. After such recommendations, staff
identified the following for council consideration:
• Remove the land use “Adaptive reuse of a landmark site” from 21A.33.040 Table Of Permitted
And Conditional Uses For Manufacturing Districts. The use was deleted by ordinance 56 of 2024,
which adopted the building preservation incentives. The use was shortly after added back to the
table due to an error by ordinance 60 of 2024, which was meant to only introduce the use
“Distribution Center” to the table. The change would be merely a correction.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
Community Council Notice: A notice of application was sent to all recognized community organizations
on March 10, 2025, per City Code Chapter 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage. The
recognized organizations were given 45 days to respond with any concerns or to request staff to meet with
them and discuss the proposed zoning amendment. The 45-day public engagement period ended on April
25, 2025.
Public Open House: An online open house is being held since March 11, 2025. No public comment was
received.
Planning Commission Meeting: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 28, 2025. The
Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to City Council on the proposed amendment.
Planning Commission (PC) Records
a) PC Agenda of May 28, 2025
b) PC Minutes of May 28, 2025
c) PC Staff Report of May 28, 2025
EXHIBITS:
1) Ordinance
2) Project Chronology
3) Notice of City Council Public Hearing
4) Original Petition
This page has intentionally been left blank
1. ORDINANCE
1
Project Title: Zoning Administration Text Amendment
Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-00164
Version: Transmitted
Date Prepared: 5/9/2025
Planning Commission Action: Recommended 5/28/2025
This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments (for summary purposes only):
Makes changes to code references associated with the amended sections, including in Title 2, 18
and 21A.
Lists design standards as a type of regulation in the zoning code (21A.04.010).
Authorizes HLC to modify any design standards (21A.06.050)
Deletes obsolete special exception language in 21A.06.030.
Modifies Zoning Administrator authority to Planning Director and adds section about designees
(21A.06.060).
Removes Development Review Team (DRT) as a decision-making body (21A.06.070) and
amends several sections to give authority to more appropriate staff or division.
Deletes chapter 21A.08 - Zoning Certificate and moves relevant standards to 21A.58.
Clarifies the administrative interpretations process, including who can apply, the decision’s effect
and its limitations (21A.12).
Amends 21A.12, 21A.16, 21A.33.010.C and 21A.50 to comply with state code regulations
regarding use classification request.
Makes changes to appeals chapter title and authority (21A.16) to include all types of decisions
under the appeals hearing officer purview and clarifies appeal periods.
Amends 21A.24.010.P.9 to allow modifications to grade changes when necessary to provide
driveway access.
Deletes 21A.32.056 - AG-20 Agricultural District because district is not in the zoning map and
thus regulations do not apply.
Deletes Chapter 21A.35 - Character Conservation Districts because no district has been created
and thus regulations have not been used since chapter was added to the code in 2012.
Clarifies how development standards apply for new uses and buildings on noncomplying lots
(21A.36.020.A).
Amends 21A.36.030.E to exempt from business license home occupations that do not create
impacts, as required by state law.
Reorganizes standards related to abandonment of nonconformity as to apply to both use and
structures (21A.38.020).
Amends 21A.38 to clarify noncomplying structure, noncomplying lots and the application
requirements to determine nonconformity.
Clarifying seasonal farm stand is permitted as a temporary use in Chapter 21A.42 and increasing
maximum period from 120 to 180 days. Maximum period for farmers’ market also increased to
180 days to match.
Updates chapter 21A.58 to replace obsolete site plan review process with current practice of
zoning review and approval process during building permit and business license.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: ___________________________
By: ____________________________
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney
December 10, 2025
2
Makes technical changes to several sections in Title 21A that simplifies, clarifies or makes
language more consistent.
Amends definitions in section 21A.62.040 associated with the other amended sections.
Underlined text is new; text with strikethrough is proposed to be deleted. Modifications made as part of
the Planning Commission recommendation are highlighted in yellow. All other text is existing with no
proposed change.
1. Amends Subsection 2.58.037.A.5 as follows: 1
5. Site plans, as required pursuant to section Chapter 21A.58.060 of this Code; 2
2. Amends Subsection 18.12.050.A as follows: 3
A. Powers and Duties of Fines Hearing Officer: The fines hearing officer, appointed pursuant to 4
Section Chapter 21A.06.090, may hear and decide appeals of civil fines and abatement costs 5
imposed pursuant to this title. As set forth in this section, the fines hearing officer may affirm 6
civil fines, reduce civil fines, and approve civil fine payment schedules. The fines hearing officer 7
may affirm or reduce an abatement statement of costs and may approve abatement cost payment 8
schedules. 9
3. Amends Subsection 21A.04.010.C as follows: 10
C. Types Of Regulations In This Title: The following types of regulations are contained in this title: 11
1. Land Use Regulations: Land use regulations for each base zoning district specify land 12
uses permitted as of right, or allowed after obtaining conditional use approval. The 13
regulations include special requirements applicable to specific uses. Land use regulations for 14
all districts appear in part III of this title. Land use regulations may be modified by overlay 15
districts also found in part III of this title, or by procedures in part V, "Amendments And 16
Special Approvals", of this title. 17
2. Development Standards: Development standards for each zoning district include fixed 18
dimensional standards and performance standards. Fixed dimensional standards are numerical 19
maximum or minimum conditions which govern the development on a site. These standards 20
are intended to promote uniformity of development in terms of the dimensions being 21
controlled. Performance standards establish certain criteria which must be met on a site, but 22
allow flexibility as to how those criteria can be met. 23
Development standards control the height, size, location and other particular aspects of 24
structures and uses on sites intended for development. These standards also prescribe off-25
street parking, landscaping and buffering requirements between districts and between certain 26
potentially incompatible uses. Development standards for each zoning district appear in part 27
III of this title. Development standards for base zoning districts may be modified by overlay 28
districts which are found in part III of this title, or through procedures in part V, 29
"Amendments And Special Approvals", of this title. The development standards in part III of 30
this title are supplemented by additional development standards in part IV of this title. The 31
development standards in part IV of this title also include sign regulations applicable to the 32
zoning districts. 33
3
3. Design Standards: Design standards are dimensional and performance standards that 34
promote the district’s intended aesthetics and construction quality. These design standards are 35
located in part III and part IV of this title. The standards may be modified through procedures 36
in part V, "Amendments and Special Approvals", of this title. Part V of this title may also 37
require additional design standards to comply with the special approval goals and purposes. 38
3. 4. Administration: Administration includes creation of, and allocation of powers and 39
duties to, decision making bodies and officials, requirements for zoning certificates, general 40
application and public hearing procedures for administrative interpretations, appeals of 41
administrative decisions and variances. These administrative regulations appear in part II of 42
this title. 43
4. 5. Enforcement: Enforcement contains the remedies available to the City to enforce this 44
title. These regulations appear in part II of this title or may be included in other sections to 45
address violations of specific chapters. 46
4. Amends Section 21A.06.010 as follows: 47
21A.06.010: SUMMARY OF AUTHORITY 48
The City decision making bodies and officials described in this chapter, without limitation upon such 49
authority as each may possess by law, have responsibility for implementing and administering this title in 50
the manner described in sections 21A.06.020 through 21A.06.090 of this chapter. Other City departments 51
also have specific responsibilities related to this title and are identified in the appropriate sections. 52
5. Deletes Subsection 21A.06.030.C.8 as follows: 53
8. Authorize special exceptions to the terms of this title pursuant to the procedures and standards 54
set forth in chapter 21A.52, "Special Exceptions", of this title. 55
6. Amends Subsection 21A.06.040.B as follows: 56
B. Jurisdiction and Authority: The appeals hearing officer shall have the following powers and duties in 57
connection with the implementation of this title: 58
1. Hear and decide appeals from any administrative of decisions made by the zoning administrator in 59
the administration or the enforcement of this title pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in 60
Chapter 21A.16, "Appeals of Administrative Decisions", of this title; 61
2. Authorize variances from the terms of this title pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth 62
in Chapter 21A.18, "Variances", of this title; 63
3. Hear and decide terminations of a nonconforming use by amortization pursuant to the procedures 64
and standards set forth in Chapter 21A.38; and appeals of any decision made by the historic landmark 65
commission, or the planning director in the case of administrative decisions, pursuant to the procedures 66
and standards set forth in Section 21A.34.020, "H Historic Preservation Overlay District", of this title; 67
4. Hear and decide any other matter involving application, administration or enforcement where 68
specifically authorized by a provision of this code. appeals from decisions made by the planning 69
commission concerning subdivisions or subdivision amendments pursuant to the procedures and 70
standards set forth in title 20, "Subdivisions and Condominiums", of this code; and 71
4
5. Hear and decide appeals from administrative decisions made by the planning commission pursuant 72
to the procedures and standards set forth in this title. 73
7. Amends Subsection 21A.06.050.C.6.f as follows: 74
f. Any mModifications to bulk and lot regulations development and design standards, except 75
density and off-street parking, of the underlying zoning district where it is found that the 76
proposal complies with the applicable standards identified in Section 21A.34.020 and is 77
compatible consistent with the surrounding historic structures purpose of the H Historic 78
Preservation Overlay District; 79
8. Amends Section 21A.06.060 as follows: 80
21A.06.060: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR: 81
Primary responsibility for administering and enforcing this title shall be delegated to the planning official 82
director. The planning director has the responsibility to process any application required by this title and 83
make administrative decisions as authorized by this title. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this 84
title, the The Ddirector may designate a staff person or staff persons in the division to carry out these 85
responsibilities as follow: The staff person(s) to whom such administrative and enforcement functions are 86
assigned shall be referred to in this title as the "Zoning Administrator". 87
A. Zoning Administrator: The zoning administrator shall be responsible for interpreting the 88
provisions of this title and of any rule or regulation issued pursuant to it. The zoning 89
administrator shall be responsible for zoning reviews and approvals and for administrative 90
decisions as specifically authorized by this title. 91
B. Planning Staff: The planning director or zoning administrator may delegate to staff the processing 92
of applications and issuing of administrative decisions. 93
9. Deleting Sections 21A.06.070 and 080 and renumbering existing Section 21A.06.090 to 94
21A.06.070 with no other changes to the “Fines Hearing Officer” section. 95
21A.06.070: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM (DRT): 96
The development review team shall consist of a designated representative from all City departments 97
and/or divisions involved in the development review/approval process, including, but not limited to, the 98
Department of Community and Neighborhoods, the Department of Public Services, the Police 99
Department, the Fire Department and the Department of Public Utilities, and shall be responsible for 100
advising the Zoning Administrator in the Zoning Administrator's administration of the site plan review 101
process pursuant to the provisions of chapter 21A.58 of this title. 102
21A.06.080: RESERVED. 103
21A.06.090: FINES HEARING OFFICER: 104
10. Deleting Chapter 21A.08 and reserving as follows: 105
CHAPTER 21A.08 - ZONING CERTIFICATE RESERVED 106
SECTION: 107
21A.08.010: Purpose Statement Applicability 108
5
21A.08.020: Authority To Issue Zoning Certificate 109
21A.08.030: Zoning Certificate Requirement 110
21A.08.040: Application For Zoning Certificate 111
21A.08.050: Waiver Of Requirements 112
21A.08.060: Revocation Of Zoning Certificate 113
114
21A.08.010: PURPOSE STATEMENT: 115
The zoning certificate serves two (2) general purposes. First, it provides a means to document the review 116
of plans for conformance with this title. Second, because the certificate must be filed along with all other 117
applications submitted in connection with a specific development proposal, it provides an ongoing record 118
of actions taken with respect to the authorized use of a particular parcel or site. Because the certificate 119
serves as a vehicle for routine plan review by the zoning administrator prior to special reviews by other 120
decision making bodies, it avoids needless special reviews of incomplete plans. 121
21A.08.020: AUTHORITY TO ISSUE ZONING CERTIFICATE: 122
The zoning administrator shall have authority to issue zoning certificates, but only in accordance with the 123
provisions of this chapter. 124
21A.08.030: ZONING CERTIFICATE REQUIREMENT: 125
Except as otherwise expressly required herein upon April 12, 1995, a zoning certificate shall be required 126
for the following: 127
A. Building Permit: Any new principal building development activity requiring a building permit. 128
B. Change Of Land Use Type: Any change of land use type. 129
C. Increased Parking Or Landscaping Requirements: Any modification to a property or development 130
that requires an increase in parking or landscaping requirements. 131
21A.08.040: APPLICATION FOR ZONING CERTIFICATE: 132
Application for a zoning certificate may be made only by the owner of the property or building or the 133
property owner's authorized agent for which the zoning certificate is sought. The application shall be 134
made to the zoning administrator on a form or forms provided by the office of the zoning administrator. A 135
record of all zoning certificates issued shall be kept on file in the office of the zoning administrator. 136
A. Application Requirements For Building Permits Or Change In Land Use Type: Each application for 137
a zoning certificate for any new principal building permit, an increased parking requirement, an increased 138
landscaping requirement or change of land use type shall be accompanied by the following: 139
1. A statement describing: 140
a. The type of structure containing the use, if any, 141
b. The exact nature of the most recent use of such structure or lot, 142
c. The exact nature of the proposed use of the structure or lot, and 143
6
d. The number of off street parking and loading spaces currently provided on the zoning lot; 144
2. A site plan, drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, including: 145
a. The topography, actual shape and dimensions of the lots to be built upon or used, 146
b. The exact size and location on the lot of the existing and proposed buildings, structures, and 147
accessory buildings, 148
c. The existing and intended use of each building or part of a building, 149
d. The number of dwelling units the building is designed to accommodate, 150
e. The number and location of off street parking stalls to be provided, 151
f. The location and design of loading docks and facilities, and 152
g. Such other information with regard to the lot and neighboring lots as may be necessary for the 153
enforcement of this title. (Ord. 62-09 § 10, 2009) 154
21A.08.050: WAIVER OF REQUIREMENTS: 155
The zoning administrator shall waive any or all of the submittal requirements of section 21A.08.040 of 156
this chapter, if information necessary to create a zoning certificate exists in existing city records 157
including, but not limited to, building permit, business licensing, appeals hearing officer records, and 158
board of adjustment records. (Ord. 8-12, 2012) 159
21A.08.060: REVOCATION OF ZONING CERTIFICATE: 160
A. Authority: A zoning certificate may be revoked by the zoning administrator in accordance with the 161
provisions of this section, if the recipient of the certificate fails to develop or maintain the property in 162
accordance with the plans submitted, the requirements of this title, or any additional requirements 163
lawfully imposed in connection with the issuance of the zoning certificate. 164
B. Notice: Before a zoning certificate may be revoked, written notice of the decision to revoke shall be 165
given to the certificate holder. The notice shall inform the certificate holder of the grounds for the 166
revocation and advise the certificate holder that the revocation shall be effective thirty (30) days from the 167
date of the notice unless before the revocation date, the certificate holder either: 1) demonstrates to the 168
satisfaction of the zoning administrator compliance with the requirements of the zoning certificate; or 2) 169
files an appeal of the zoning administrator's decision to revoke pursuant to subsection D of this section. 170
C. Effect Of Revocation: No person may continue to make use of land or buildings in the manner 171
authorized by any zoning certificate after such certificate has been revoked in accordance with this 172
section. 173
D. Appeal: Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the zoning administrator to revoke a 174
zoning certificate may appeal to the appeals hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of chapter 175
21A.16 of this title. 176
11. Amends Section 21A.12.030 as follows: 177
21A.12.030: PERSONS ENTITLED TO SEEK INTERPRETATIONS: 178
7
Applications for interpretations may shall be filed only by a the property owner having need for an 179
interpretation or by the property owner's authorized agent. The request for interpretation shall be specific 180
to provisions of this title as it applies to the property. 181
12. Amends Section 21A.12.050 as follows: 182
21A.12.050: STANDARDS FOR USE INTERPRETATIONS: 183
A use interpretation determines whether a land use not listed in chapter 21A.33 is substantially similar to 184
a listed use and therefore subject to the same regulations. The following standards shall govern the zoning 185
administrator, and the appeals hearing officer on appeals from the zoning administrator, in issuing use 186
interpretations: 187
A. Any use defined in chapter 21A.62 of this title, shall be interpreted as defined; 188
B. Any use specifically listed without a "P" or "C" designated in the table of permitted and 189
conditional uses for a district shall not be allowed in that zoning district; 190
C. No use interpretation shall allow a proposed use in a district unless evidence is presented 191
demonstrating that tThe proposed use, if allowed, will shall comply with the development 192
standards established for that particular district; 193
D. No A use interpretation shall only allow any use in a particular district unless such a proposed use 194
is that is substantially similar to the uses allowed in that district and is more similar to such uses 195
than to uses allowed in a less restrictive prohibited in the district; 196
E. If the proposed use is most similar to a conditional use authorized in the district in which it is 197
proposed to be located, any use interpretation allowing such use shall require that it may be 198
approved only as a conditional use pursuant to chapter 21A.54 of this title; and 199
F. No use interpretation shall permit the establishment of any use that would be inconsistent with the 200
statement of purpose of that zoning district.; and 201
G. A proposed use that is not similar to a listed use may be approved only as a zoning amendment 202
pursuant to Chapter 21A.50 of this title. 203
13. Amends Section 21A.12.060 as follows: 204
21A.12.060: EFFECT OF USE INTERPRETATIONS: 205
A use An administrative interpretation finding a particular use to be a permitted use or a conditional use 206
shall not authorize the establishment of such a use nor the development, construction, reconstruction, 207
alteration or moving of any building or structure. It shall merely authorize the preparation, filing, and 208
processing of applications for any approvals and permits that may be required by the codes and 209
ordinances of the city including, but not limited to, a zoning certificate, a building permit, a certificate of 210
occupancy, subdivision approval, and site plan approval. respond to the specific interpretation request 211
submitted with respect to the application of this title to a particular property. An interpretation is not 212
binding absent the approval of separate land use application coupled with other detrimental reliance 213
associated therewith in a manner consistent with the terms of the interpretation. 214
14. Amends Section 21A.12.070 as follows: 215
21A.12.070: LIMITATIONS ON USE INTERPRETATIONS: 216
8
A use An administrative interpretation finding a particular use to be a permitted use or a conditional use 217
in a particular district shall be specific to the situation being interpreted and deemed to authorize only that 218
particular use in the district and such use interpretation shall not be deemed to authorize any other 219
allegedly similar use or situation for which a separate use interpretation has not been issued. 220
15. Amends the name of Chapter 21A.16 with no other revisions to the chapter (except as specifically 221
noted below): 222
CHAPTER 21A.16 223
APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS 224
16. Amends Subsection 21A.16.010.A as follows: 225
A. Title 21A Appeals, Applications and Determinations: As described in section 21A.06.040 of this 226
title, tThe appeals hearing officer shall hear and decide or make determinations regarding appeals 227
of: 228
1. Appeals alleging an error in any aAdministrative decisions made by the zoning administrator, 229
the planning commission or the historic landmark commission involving the application, 230
administration, enforcement or compliance with Title 21A of this titlecode; 231
2. Appeals from dDecisions made by the planning commission concerning subdivisions or 232
subdivision amendments pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 20 of this 233
code; 234
3. Decisions made by the historic landmark commission pursuant to the procedures and standards 235
set forth in Section 21A.34.020; Applications for variances as per chapter 21A.18 of this title; 236
4. Decisions made by the planning commission pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth 237
in this title; The existence, expansion or modification of nonconforming uses and noncomplying 238
structures pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in chapter 21A.38, "Nonconforming 239
Uses and Noncomplying Structures", of this title; and 240
5. Any other matter involving application, administration or enforcement of this code where 241
specifically authorized by a provision of this code. 242
17. Amends Subsection 21A.16.030.C as follows: 243
C. Time for Filing an Appeal: The deadlines for filing a complete application for appeal are: 244
1. Administrative decisions made by the zoning administrator or planning director: ten (10) 245
days; 246
2. Planning commission decisions: ten (10) days; 247
3. Historic landmark commission or administrative decisions authorized in 21A.34.020: thirty 248
(30) days for appeals filed by the applicant, ten (10) days for appeals filed by any other party 249
entitled to appeal.; 250
4. City council decisions regarding unlisted land uses: ten (10) days. 251
9
18. Adds Subsection 21A.16.030.I.3 as follows: 252
3. An appeal of a city council decision regarding an unlisted land use shall be based on the record 253
made below. 254
a. No new evidence shall be heard by the appeals hearing officer unless such evidence was 255
improperly excluded from consideration below. 256
b. The appeals hearing officer shall presume that the decision of the city council is valid, 257
provided the decision was made in compliance with the procedures set forth in 21A.50, 258
and shall uphold the decision of the city council if it is reasonably debatable that the city 259
council’s decision is consistent with the purpose and standards of this title. 260
19. Amends Section 21A.18.090 as follows: 261
21A.18.090: EFFECT OF GRANTING A VARIANCE: 262
The granting of a variance shall not authorize the establishment or extension of any use, nor the 263
development, construction, reconstruction, alteration or moving of any building or structure but shall 264
merely authorize the preparation, filing and processing of applications for any permits and approval that 265
may be required by the regulations of the city, including, but not limited to, a zoning certificate, a 266
building permit, a certificate of occupancy, subdivision approval, and site plan approval. 267
20. Amends Subsection 21A.20.080.A as follows: 268
A. Powers And Duties Of Fines Hearing Officer: The Fines Hearing Officer, appointed pursuant to 269
section 21A.06.09070 of this title, may hear and decide appeals of civil fines imposed pursuant to 270
this chapter. As set forth in this section, the Fines Hearing Officer may reduce civil fines and 271
approve civil fine payment schedules. 272
21. Deletes the following rows in Subsection 21A.22.010 as follows, with no other changes to the 273
table: 274
Section Reference District Name
E. Special Purpose Districts:
21A.32.056 AG-20 Agricultural District
G. Character Conservation Districts:
21A.35.010 Purpose
22. Deletes Subsection 21A.24.010.B and reserving, as follows: 275
B. Site Plan Review: In certain districts, permitted uses and conditional uses have the potential for 276
adverse impacts if located and laid out without careful planning. Such impacts may interfere with 277
the use and enjoyment of adjacent property and uses. Site plan review is a process designed to 278
address such adverse impacts and minimize them where possible. Site plan review is not required 279
for single-family, two-family and twin home dwellings unless they are approved as a conditional 280
use. All other uses shall be subject to the site plan review regulations contained in chapter 21A.58 281
of this title. Reserved 282
10
23. Amends Subsection 21A.24.010.J as follows: 283
J. Basement Structures: All dwellings must shall have at least one full story aboveground. 284
Residential structures built into a hillside with may have less than all elevations exposed when 285
constrained by the slope of the site may be approved through the site plan review process. 286
24. Amends Subsection 21A.24.010.P.9 as follows: 287
9. Roads And Driveways: To ensure that private roads and driveways minimize impact on the 288
natural landscape, plans for the design and improvement of roads and driveways shall be 289
subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and Fire Department as a condition of 290
building permit issuance. Design standards and guidelines for private roads and driveways 291
shall include the following: 292
a. Driveways which serve more than one parcel are encouraged as a method of reducing 293
unnecessary grading, paving, and site disturbance. The drive approach for driveways 294
which serve more than one parcel shall not exceed the standard widths for drive 295
approaches as specified by the Salt Lake City Transportation Division. 296
b. Driveway approaches shall not be located within six feet (6') of any side property line. 297
The zoning administrator Exceptions may be considered by the development review 298
team, approve exceptions based on the driveway slope and dimension, slope of the 299
roadway or lot, location of existing drive approaches serving abutting properties, and 300
proposed uses. 301
(1) Driveway approaches shall maintain a twelve foot (12') separation from another 302
drive approach. Drive approaches shall be located ten feet (10') from a corner 303
property line or five feet (5') from the termination of a corner curb radius, whichever 304
is greater. Drive approaches located along a designated right turn lane shall maintain 305
a fifty foot (50') setback from the termination of a corner curb radius. The zoning 306
administrator Exceptions to those requirements may be approved by the development 307
review team exceptions to this requirement. 308
c. A driveway shall not exceed sixteen percent (16%) average slope with standard vertical 309
curve transitions from the property line to a legal parking space. 310
(1) The cross slope of driveways should may not exceed four percent (4%). 311
d. Driveway approaches shall maintain a five foot (5') offset from power poles, fire 312
hydrants, trees or any other roadside hazards. The zoning administrator Exceptions to 313
those requirements may be approved by the development review team exceptions to this 314
requirement. 315
e. Sight obstructions along driveways shall maintain a ten foot (10') wide by ten foot (10') 316
deep sight distance triangle as noted in section 21A.62.050, figure 21A.62.050I of this 317
title. Obstructions in the required sight distance triangle shall generally not exceed thirty 318
inches (30") in height. The zoning administrator Exceptions may be approved by the 319
development review team exceptions based upon location and type of material. 320
f. The zoning administrator may approve grade changes that exceed the limitations in 321
21A.24.010.P.6 when necessary to accommodate a driveway that provides access to legal 322
parcels or legal parking areas. 323
11
25. Amends Subsection 21A.24.010.P.10.a as follows: 324
a. Site Plan Submittal: As a part of the site plan zoning review process, a fencing plan shall 325
be submitted which shall show: 326
(1) Any specific subdivision approval conditions regarding fencing; 327
(2) Material specifications and illustrations necessary to determine compliance with 328
specific subdivision approval limitations and the standards of this section. 329
26. Amends Subsection 21A.24.120.E.7 as follows: 330
7. Any density bonus granted will shall be documented through a zoning certificate in 331
accordance in Chapter 21A.08. The zoning certificate will be issued by the Building Services 332
Division once the bonus unit has passed its final building inspection. The certificate will 333
indicate that this unit was established through the preservation of the existing structure on the 334
site. restrictive covenant, the form of which shall be approved by the city attorney. The 335
restrictive covenant shall be recorded on the property with the Salt Lake County Recorder 336
prior to final inspection of the bonus units. The restrictive covenant shall run with the land 337
and shall provide for the following, without limitation: 338
a. Indicate that bonus dwelling units were established by retaining existing structures on a 339
site. 340
b. Guarantee that the building(s) containing the unit(s) used to qualify for the bonus units 341
shall not be demolished unless the associated bonus units are also demolished; and 342
c. Establish that the terms of the restrictive covenant are enforceable by the city or, pursuant 343
to Utah Code Section 10-9a-802 (or its successor), any adversely affected party, and that 344
in any such enforcement action the court shall award the prevailing party its attorneys' 345
fees. 346
27. Deletes Subsection 21A.25.010.J and reserving, as follows: 347
J. Site Plan Review: In certain districts, permitted uses and conditional uses have the potential for 348
adverse impacts if located and laid out without careful planning. Such impacts may interfere with 349
the use and enjoyment of adjacent property and uses. Site plan review is a process designed to 350
address such adverse impacts and minimize them where possible. Site plan review is required for 351
all conditional uses, and all permitted uses except single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings, 352
and twin homes. All uses in these districts shall be subject to the site plan review regulations 353
contained in chapter 21A.58 of this title. Reserved 354
28. Deletes Subsection 21A.32.010.B and reserving, as follows: 355
B. Site Plan Review: In certain districts, permitted uses and conditional uses have the potential for 356
adverse impacts if located and laid out without careful planning. Such impacts may interfere with 357
the use and enjoyment of adjacent property and uses. Site plan review is a process designed to 358
address such adverse impacts and minimize them where possible. Site plan review of 359
development proposals is required in the RP, BP, FP, PL, PL-2, I, UI, MH and MU districts. All 360
uses in these districts shall be subject to the site plan review regulations contained in chapter 361
21A.58 of this title. Reserved 362
12
29. Amends Subsection 21A.32.020.G as follows: 363
G. Attached Buildings On Separate Lots: Buildings on separate lots of record that are attached by a 364
common wall along the interior side lot line may be permitted, subject to the site plan review 365
approval pursuant to the provisions of chapter 21A.58 of this title when the lots are part of a 366
single development. Where such buildings are authorized, the requirement for interior side yards 367
in subsection F3 of this section shall be waived. 368
30. Amends Subsection 21A.32.020.H.3 as follows: 369
3. Interior Side Yard: Eight feet (8'). Where a common access drive serves two (2) adjacent lots 370
and extends along the side lot line to parking facilities in the rear of the lot, this landscape 371
yard may be reduced or eliminated if the reduction or elimination is compensated for by 372
increasing another landscape yard, subject to site plan review approval. 373
31. Amends Subsection 21A.32.030.I.2 as follows: 374
2. Outdoor Storage: Accessory outdoor storage shall be screened with a solid fence and 375
approved through the site plan review process. 376
32. Amends Subsection 21A.32.040.I.1 as follows: 377
1. Site Plan Submittal: As a part of the site plan zoning review process, a fencing plan shall be 378
submitted which shall show: 379
a. Any specific subdivision approval conditions regarding fencing; 380
b. Material specifications and illustrations necessary to determine compliance with specific 381
subdivision approval limitations and the standards of this section. 382
33. Amends Subsection 21A.32.080.I as follows: 383
I. Traffic And Parking Impact: The traffic and parking characteristics of institutional uses can have a 384
significant impact on the nearby residential neighborhoods. To ensure that these characteristics do 385
not impair the safety or enjoyment of property in nearby areas, a traffic and parking study shall be 386
submitted to the City in conjunction with the site plan review provisions of this title whenever a 387
new use, an expansion of an existing use, or an expansion of the mapped district is proposed. 388
New institutional uses or expansions/intensifications of existing institutional uses shall not be 389
permitted unless the traffic and parking study provides clear and convincing evidence that no 390
significant impacts will occur. The Zoning Administrator may, upon recommendation of the 391
Transportation Director development review team, waive the requirement for a traffic and 392
parking study if site conditions clearly indicate that no impact would result from the proposed 393
development. 394
34. Amends Subsection 21A.32.090.K as follows: 395
K. Traffic And Parking Impact: The traffic and parking characteristics of institutional uses can have 396
a significant impact on the nearby residential neighborhoods. To ensure that these characteristics 397
do not impair the safety or enjoyment of property in nearby areas, a traffic and parking study shall 398
be submitted to the City in conjunction with the site plan review provisions of this title whenever 399
a new use, any additional parking is provided or required for an expansion of an existing use, or 400
for any an expansion of a mapped district is proposed. Unless the traffic and parking study 401
13
provides clear and convincing evidence that no significant impacts will occur, the application 402
shall be denied. The Zoning Administrator may, upon recommendation of the Transportation 403
Director development review team, waive the requirement for a traffic and parking study if site 404
conditions clearly indicate that no impact would result from the proposed development. 405
35. Deletes Section 21A.32.056 as follows: 406
21A.32.056: AG-20 AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT: 407
A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the AG-20 Agricultural District is to preserve and protect 408
agricultural uses, on lots not less than twenty (20) acres, in suitable portions of Salt Lake City. These 409
regulations are also designed to minimize conflicts between agricultural and nonagricultural uses. 410
This district is appropriate in areas of the City where the applicable master plans support this type of 411
land use. 412
B. Uses: Uses in the AG-20 Agricultural District as specified in section 21A.33.070, "Table Of 413
Permitted And Conditional Uses For Special Purpose Districts", of this title are permitted subject to 414
the general provisions set forth in section 21A.32.010 of this chapter and this section. 415
C. Minimum Lot Area And Lot Width: 416
Land Use Minimum Lot
Area
Minimum Lot
Width
Agricultural uses 20 acres 500 feet
Kennels, public and private 5 acres 220 feet
Natural open space and conservation areas, public and
private
No minimum No minimum
Pet cemetery 2 acres 150 feet
Public pedestrian pathways, trails and greenways No minimum No minimum
Public/private utility wires, lines, pipes and poles No minimum No minimum
Utility substations and buildings 5,000 square feet 50 feet
Other permitted or conditional uses as listed in section
21A.33.070 of this title
20 acres 500 feet
417
D. Maximum Building Height: Building height shall be limited to forty five feet (45'). Building 418
heights in excess of forty five feet (45') but not more than sixty five feet (65') may be approved 419
through the design review process provided that the additional height is compatible with adjacent 420
properties and does not conflict with the Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay Zone. 421
E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 422
1. Front Yard: Fifty feet (50'). 423
2. Corner Side Yard: Fifty feet (50'). 424
14
3. Interior Side Yard: None required. 425
4. Rear Yard: None required. 426
5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located 427
in required yard areas subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B of this title. 428
F. Required Landscape Yards: None required. 429
G. Restrictions On Agricultural Uses: In addition to the applicable foregoing regulations, agricultural 430
uses shall comply with the following requirements: 431
1. No feeding, grazing, or sheltering of livestock and poultry, whether within penned enclosures or 432
within enclosed buildings, shall be permitted within fifty feet (50') of an existing single- family 433
dwelling on an adjacent lot. 434
36. Amends Subsection 21A.32.110.K.2 as follows: 435
2. The configuration of the entrance road connecting the park to a public street shall be approved 436
by the Transportation Director subject to site plan review. 437
37. Amends Subsection 21A.32.140.E.4.c as follows: 438
b. Expansions of Existing Uses: No commercial or industrial land use shall expand to an 439
extent that increases its daily potable water consumption or use to exceed an annual 440
average of two hundred thousand (200,000) gallons of potable water per day. 441
Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection 21A.38.040.HE, an existing land use 442
that exceeds the water use threshold may not expand if the expansion will result in a 443
net increase in water consumption or use. The use and consumption limit is based on 444
the total use from all water meters that serve the land use. 445
38. Adds Subsection 21A.33.010.C.1 as follows: 446
1. Unlisted uses: A land use not listed in this chapter may be found to be substantially similar to 447
a listed use and therefore subject to the same regulations through a use interpretation, 448
pursuant to the standards in 21A.12. 449
39. Deletes Subsection 21A.33.010.D.2 as follows: 450
2. Reserved. 451
40. Amends Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1.b as follows: 452
b. Expansions of Existing Uses: No commercial or industrial land use shall expand to an 453
extent that increases its daily potable water consumption or use to exceed an annual 454
average of two hundred thousand (200,000) gallons of potable water per day. 455
Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection 21A.38.040.HE, an existing land use 456
that exceeds the water use threshold may not expand if the expansion will result in a 457
net increase in water consumption or use. The use and consumption limit is based on 458
the total use from all water meters that serve the land use. 459
15
41. Deletes the “AG-20” column in Section 21A.33.070 as follows, with no other changes to the 460
table: 461
Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District
AG-20
Accessory use, except
those that are otherwise
specifically regulated
elsewhere in this title
P
Adaptive reuse for
additional uses in eligible
buildings
Affordable housing
incentives development
Agricultural use P
Air cargo terminals and
package delivery facility
Airport
Alcohol:
Brewpub (2,500 square
feet or less in floor area)
Brewpub (more than
2,500 square feet in
floor area)
Ambulance service
(indoor)
Ambulance service
(outdoor)
Amphitheater, informal
Animal:
Kennel on
lots of 5
acres or
lar e
P8
Pet
cemeter P4
Stable
(private) P
Stable
(public) P
Veterinary
office
Antenna, communication
tower P
Antenna, communication
tower exceeding the
16
maximum building height
in the zone
Art gallery
Artisan food production
Bed and breakfast
Bio-medical facility
Botanical garden
Brewery, small
Cannabis production
establishment P
Cemetery
Clinic (medical, dental)
Commercial food
preparation
Community garden P
Convent/monastery
Data center
Daycare center, adult
Daycare center, child
Dwelling:
Accessory unit P
Assisted living facility
(large)
Assisted living facility
(limited capacity)
Assisted living facility
(small)
Congregate care facility
(large)
Congregate care facility
(small)
Group home (small)
Living quarters for
caretaker or security
guard
Manufactured home
Mobile home
Multi-family
Single-family
(detached)
Exhibition hall
17
Extractive industry
Fairground
Financial institution
Financial institution with
drive-through facility
Gas station
Golf course
Heliport
Home occupation P17
Hospital, including
accessory lodging facility
Hotel/motel
Hunting club, duck
Industrial assembly
Jail
Jewelry fabrication
Laboratory, medical related
Large wind energy system C
Library
Light manufacturing
Manufacturing, concrete or
asphalt
Mixed use development
Mobile food business
(operation on private
property)
Municipal service uses,
including City utility uses
and police and fire stations
P
Museum
Nursing care facility
Office
Open space P
Park P
Parking:
Commercial
Off site
Off site (to support uses
in an OS or NOS
Zoning District)
Park and ride lot
18
Park and ride lot shared
with existing use
Performing arts production
facility
Pharmacy
Place of worship
Radio, television station
Reception center
Recreation (indoor,
outdoor)
Research and development
facility
Restaurant
Restaurant with drive-
through facility
Retail (goods or services)
School:
College or university
K - 12 private
K - 12 public
Music conservatory
Professional and
vocational
Seminary and religious
institute
Short term rental
Solar array
Stadium
Storage, accessory
(outdoor)
Studio, art
Technology facility
Theater, live performance
Theater, movie
Transportation terminal,
including bus, rail and
trucking
Urban farm P
Utility, building or
structure P1
19
Vehicle, automobile rental
agency
Vending cart, private
property
Vending cart, public
property
Warehouse
Wholesale distribution
Zoological park
42. Amends footnote 6 to the table in Section 21A.33.070 as follows: 462
6. Radio station equipment and antennas shall be required to go through the site plan review process to 463
ensure that the color, design and location of all proposed equipment and antennas are screened or 464
integrated into the architecture of the project and are compatible with surrounding uses. 465
43. Deletes Subsection 21A.34.010.B and reserving, as follows: 466
B. Site Plan Review: Permitted uses and conditional uses in the Overlay Districts have the potential 467
for adverse impacts if located and laid out on lots without careful planning. Such impacts may 468
interfere with the use and enjoyment of adjacent property and uses. Site plan review is a process 469
designed to address such adverse impacts and minimize them where possible. Site plan review of 470
development proposals is required in the T Transitional Overlay District, the LC Lowland 471
Conservancy Overlay District, and the LO Landfill Overlay District. All uses in these districts 472
shall be subject to the site plan review regulations contained in chapter 21A.58 of this title. 473
Reserved 474
44. Amends Subsection 21A.34.040.FF.7 as follows: 475
7. Plan Approval: All landscape plans shall be coordinated with the city's departments and 476
divisions development review team (DRT) and planning division, for review and comment on 477
compliance with city ordinances and these performance standards. The planning director and 478
director of airports shall jointly approve final landscaping plans for any airport parking lot. 479
45. Amends Subsection 21A.34.120.E.2 as follows: 480
2. Noncomplying Detached Garages: An existing noncomplying detached garage located in the 481
rear yard may be rebuilt or expanded at its existing location to a maximum size of four 482
hundred forty (440) square feet subject to the approval of the development review team 483
(DRT) zoning administrator. 484
46. Amends Subsection 21A.34.150.D.1 as follows: 485
1. Permitted Uses: Permitted uses located in the IP Inland Port Overlay District shall be subject 486
to the site plan review requirements found in chapter 21A.58 of this title. 487
47. Deletes Chapter 21A.35 as follows: 488
CHAPTER 21A.35 489
CHARACTER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 490
20
SECTION: 491
21A.35.010: Purpose 492
21A.35.020: Applicability 493
21A.35.030: General Provisions 494
21A.35.040: Petition Initiation For A Character Conservation District 495
21A.35.050: Planning Director Report To The City Council 496
21A.35.060: District Plan And Design Standards Formulation And Review 497
21A.35.070: Character Conservation District Plan And Design Standards Ordinance Review 498
21A.35.080: Character Conservation District Standards 499
21A.35.090: Adjustment Or Repeal Of A Character Conservation District 500
501
21A.35.010: PURPOSE: 502
The city recognizes the substantial aesthetic, environmental and economic importance of its 503
neighborhoods and commercial districts. The purpose of this chapter is to establish policies, regulations 504
and standards to protect neighborhood character and to ensure that development in a character 505
conservation district is compatible and enhances the quality and character of Salt Lake City. The intent of 506
this chapter is to promote the general welfare of the public of the city through the protection, 507
conservation, preservation, enhancement, perpetuation and use of structures, sites and areas that are 508
characteristic to each of the unique areas of Salt Lake City. 509
A. Specific purposes of character conservation districts for residential neighborhoods and commercial 510
districts are as follows: 511
1. To protect and strengthen desirable and unique physical features, design characteristics, and 512
recognized identity and charm. 513
2. To promote and provide for economic revitalization. 514
3. To protect and enhance the livability of the city. 515
4. To reduce conflict and prevent blighting caused by incompatible and insensitive development and 516
to promote new compatible development. 517
5. To stabilize property values. 518
6. To provide residents and property owners with a planning tool for future development. 519
7. To promote and retain affordable housing. 520
8. To encourage and strengthen civic pride. 521
522
21A.35.020: APPLICABILITY: 523
The regulations set forth in this chapter shall apply to properties located within the boundaries designated 524
as a character conservation district on the Salt Lake City zoning map. In the case of conflict between the 525
21
character conservation district standards and other requirements contained in other chapters of the zoning 526
ordinance, the standards of the character conservation district shall prevail. 527
528
21A.35.030: GENERAL PROVISIONS: 529
A. Establishment By Ordinance: Each character conservation district must be established by a separate 530
character conservation district ordinance. The city council shall approve a character conservation district 531
ordinance in accordance with this chapter. 532
B. Special Review Procedure: If the planning director determines that, due to the sensitivity of the 533
area, or due to the nature of the proposed regulations for the area, a special administrative procedure 534
needs to be established for the review of proposed work in a character conservation district, such a 535
procedure may be incorporated into the character conservation district ordinance before it is approved by 536
the city council. 537
C. Administrative Review Of Projects Subject To Adopted Character Conservation District Standards: 538
Following administrative review of an application subject to the standards of an adopted character 539
conservation district, staff shall approve, conditionally approve or refer the application to the historic 540
landmark commission for consideration. 541
542
21A.35.040: PETITION INITIATION FOR A CHARACTER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: 543
A. An application for a character conservation district feasibility study may be filed with the planning 544
director on an application form furnished by the planning division. The following are those who are 545
authorized to submit an application: 546
1. The mayor; 547
2. A majority of the city council; or 548
3. Property owners with fifteen percent (15%) support of the property owners within the proposed 549
district. A property owner or owners would have six (6) months to collect signatures and submit an 550
application to the city. The six (6) month time period begins when the first signature is obtained. There is 551
no fee for the application. 552
B. An application for a character conservation district prepared by the proposed district area or their 553
authorized agent must include the following: 554
1. Property Owners: A list of the names, site address and mailing address of all property owners in 555
the area of request. 556
2. Organizations: A list of all neighborhood associations or other organizations representing the 557
interests of property owners in the area of request. This list should include information as to the number 558
of members and the officers' names, mailing addresses, and phone numbers. 559
3. Justification: A statement of justification. This statement should: 560
a. Identify the factors which make the area of request eligible for character conservation district 561
classification as per the determination of eligibility in this chapter; and 562
b. Explain in detail how and why such a classification would be in the best interest of the city as a 563
whole. 564
22
4. Character Defining Features: A written description of the character defining features of the area as 565
seen from the public right of way. Character defining features may include, but are not limited to, 566
architecture or architectural features, mass and scale of buildings, streetscape, building orientation, 567
landscaping, types of signs, sidewalk improvements, public art, or other items that contribute to the 568
overall character of the area. Photographs of the area to be considered as a character conservation district 569
should also be included for reference. 570
5. Fees: No application fee will be required for a petition initiated for the designation of a character 571
conservation district. 572
573
21A.35.050: PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL: 574
A. When a petition for the creation of a character conservation district is initiated in accordance with 575
this chapter, the planning director shall determine the eligibility of the area for character conservation 576
district classification in accordance with this section. 577
B. The planning director's determination of eligibility must be based on a consideration of the 578
standards in this subsection. The boundaries or designated area for a character conservation district shall 579
satisfy all of the following criteria: 580
1. The area must contain at least one "block face" (as defined in this title) for all character 581
conservation districts proposed in residential zoning districts. 582
2. Commercial areas should contain one block face when feasible and must contain all properties 583
located at the intersecting corners of streets that are proposed to be included in the character conservation 584
district boundary. 585
3. The area must be either "stable" or "stabilizing" as those terms are defined in this title. 586
4. The area must contain significant "character defining features" as defined in this title. 587
5. The area must have a distinctive atmosphere or character which can be identified and conserved 588
by protecting or enhancing its character defining features. 589
C. If the planning director upon the advice of the historic landmark commission determines that the 590
area is not eligible for character conservation district classification, the planning director shall notify the 591
applicant of this fact in writing. Notice shall be mailed to the address shown on the application. The 592
decision of the planning director that an area is not eligible for character conservation district 593
classification may be appealed in accordance with chapter 21A.16 of this title. 594
D. An appeal under this chapter is made in accordance with chapter 21A.16 of this title. The request 595
must be filed within ten (10) days of the date written notice is given to the applicant of the planning 596
director's decision. In considering the appeal, the sole issue shall be whether or not the planning director 597
erred in their determination of eligibility, and, in this connection, the commission shall consider the same 598
standards that were required to be considered by the planning director in making their determination. 599
E. If it is determined by the final appeal authority that the area is not eligible for character conservation 600
district classification, no further applications for character conservation district classification may be 601
considered for the area of request for one year from the date of its decision. 602
F. If the planning director determines that the area is eligible for character conservation district 603
classification, the planning director shall submit a report based on the following considerations to the city 604
council: 605
23
1. The estimated financial cost of creating the character conservation district standards; 606
2. Evaluation to determine if there is sufficient funding and staff resources available to allow the 607
planning division to develop standards, complete the public process and provide ongoing administration 608
of the new character conservation district if approved by the city council. If sufficient funding is not 609
available, the report shall include a proposed budget. 610
611
21A.35.060: DISTRICT PLAN AND DESIGN STANDARDS FORMULATION AND REVIEW: 612
A. If the area is determined to be eligible for character conservation district classification pursuant to 613
this chapter, the planning director shall schedule a public meeting for the purpose of informing property 614
owners in the proposed district of the nature of the pending request. The planning director shall send 615
mailed notice of the time and place of the meeting in accordance with chapter 21A.10 of this title. 616
B. The planning division shall prepare a draft district plan and design standards for the proposed 617
district based on the information and character defining features found in the feasibility study with input 618
from owners and residents of the proposed character conservation district. 619
C. The draft district plan and design standards must include at a minimum (or note the inapplicability), 620
the following elements governing the physical characteristics and features of all property (public or 621
private) within the proposed character conservation district: 622
1. Building height and number of stories. 623
2. Building size and massing. 624
3. Lot size and lot coverage. 625
4. Front and side yard setbacks. 626
5. Roof line and pitch. 627
6. Parking and hardscape covering. 628
D. In addition, the draft district plan and design standards may include, but are not limited to, the 629
following elements: 630
1. Building orientation. 631
2. General site planning (primary or accessory structures). 632
3. Density. 633
4. Demolition. 634
5. Floor area ratio. 635
6. Signage. 636
7. Garage (residential or commercial) entrance location. 637
8. Entrance and street lighting. 638
9. Driveway, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks. 639
10. Utility boxes and trash receptacles. 640
11. Street furniture. 641
24
12. Building relocation. 642
13. Right of way designs that exceed current city standards. 643
E. Once the draft plan and design standards are developed, public hearings before the historic 644
landmark commission and the planning commission will be scheduled to receive public comment 645
regarding the plan. The planning director shall send written notice of the public hearing in accordance 646
with chapter 21A.10 of this title. 647
648
21A.35.070: CHARACTER CONSERVATION DISTRICT PLAN AND DESIGN STANDARDS 649
ORDINANCE REVIEW: 650
A. Staff Report: A staff report evaluating the application for establishment of the character 651
conservation district shall be prepared by the planning division. 652
B. Public Hearing By Historic Landmark Commission: The historic landmark commission shall 653
schedule and hold a public hearing on the application in accordance with the standards and procedures for 654
conduct of the public hearing set forth in chapter 21A.10 of this title. 655
C. Historic Landmark Commission Recommendation: Following the public hearing, the historic 656
landmark commission shall recommend approval or denial of the proposed amendment or the approval of 657
some modification of the amendment and shall then submit its recommendation to the planning 658
commission and city council. 659
D. Public Hearing By Planning Commission: The planning commission shall schedule and hold a 660
public hearing on the application in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the 661
public hearing set forth in chapter 21A.10 of this title. 662
E. Planning Commission Recommendation: Following the public hearing, the planning commission 663
shall recommend approval or denial of the proposed amendment or the approval of some modification of 664
the amendment and shall then submit its recommendation to the city council. 665
F. Determination; Level Of Public Support: 666
1. Following the completion of the historic landmark commission and planning commission public 667
hearings, the planning division will deliver a public support ballot to all property owners of record within 668
the boundary of the proposed character conservation district. 669
2. Property owners of record will have thirty (30) days from the postmark date of the public support 670
ballot to submit a response to the planning division indicating the property owner's support or nonsupport 671
of the proposed character conservation district. 672
3. A certified letter shall be mailed to all property owners within the proposed character conservation 673
district whose public support ballot has not been received by the planning division within fifteen (15) 674
days from the original postmark date. This follow up letter will encourage the property owners to submit a 675
public support ballot prior to the thirty (30) day deadline date set by the mailing of the first public support 676
ballot. 677
4. There shall be one vote per property and the results of the vote shall be based on the number of 678
votes received. A vote to abstain shall not be counted as a vote received. 679
25
G. Notification Of Public Support: Following the determination of the level of support, the planning 680
division will send notice of the results to all property owners within the proposed character conservation 681
district. 682
H. Public Hearing By City Council: The city council shall schedule and hold a public hearing to 683
consider the proposed amendment in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the 684
public hearing set forth in chapter 21A.10 of this title. 685
I. City Council Action: At the public hearing, the city council may adopt the proposed creation of a 686
character conservation district, adopt the proposed character conservation district with modifications, or 687
deny the proposed character conservation district. However, no additional land may be added to the 688
boundaries of the character conservation district, without new notice and hearing. 689
J. Designation Of Character Conservation District: 690
1. If the number of ballots received in support exceed the number of ballots in opposition, the city 691
council may designate a character conservation district by simply majority vote. 692
2. If the number of ballots received in support do not exceed the number of ballots received in 693
opposition, the city council may only designate a character conservation district by a super majority (2/3) 694
vote. 695
K. Amendments To District Boundaries Or Standards: Amendments to the character conservation 696
district boundaries or standards shall be processed in the same manner as a new application according to 697
the process in the chapter. 698
699
21A.35.080: CHARACTER CONSERVATION DISTRICT STANDARDS: 700
A decision to create a character conservation district is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of 701
the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. 702
A. In making its decision concerning creation of a character conservation district, the city council 703
should consider the following factors: 704
1. The proposed character conservation district is an established area with shared distinguishing 705
characteristics, which may include architecture, geography, development, services, and interests. 706
2. The proposed character conservation district is a logical neighborhood unit with a closely settled 707
development pattern on similar sized parcels. 708
709
21A.35.090: ADJUSTMENT OR REPEAL OF A CHARACTER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: 710
The procedure to repeal or adjust the boundaries of a character conservation district shall be the same as 711
that outlined for the designation of a character conservation district. 712
48. Amends Subsection 21A.36.010.B.2 as follows: 713
2. Lots in the RP, BP, M-1, M-2, M-1A, AG, AG-2, AG-5, AG-20, A, OS, NOS, and EI 714
Districts may have multiple buildings on a single lot regardless of street frontage and subject 715
to meeting all other zoning regulations. 716
26
49. Amends the name of Section 21A.36.020 with no other changes to the section except as 717
specifically noted below: 718
21A.36.020: CONFORMANCE WITH LOT AND BULK CONTROLS DEVELOPMENT 719
STANDARDS: 720
50. Amends Subsection 21A.36.020.A as follows: 721
A. Conformance With District Requirements: No structure or lot shall be developed, used or 722
occupied unless it meets the lot area, lot width, yards, building height, and other New 723
development shall comply with the requirements established in the applicable district regulations, 724
except where specifically established otherwise elsewhere in this title. The following exceptions 725
shall apply to noncomplying lots: 726
1. In residential districts: A single-family dwelling shall be permitted on noncomplying lots in all 727
residential districts. 728
In any residential district, on a lot legally established prior to April 12, 1995, a single-family 729
dwelling may be erected regardless of the size of the lot, subject to complying with all yard area 730
requirements of the R-1/5,000 District. 731
2. Legal conforming In nonresidential districts: Noncomplying lots in nonresidential districts 732
shall be approved for any permitted use or conditional use allowed in the zoning district. 733
51. Amends note 2 of table 21A.36.020C as follows: 734
2. Amenities shall be setback at least 5 feet from all property lines. Physical separation, such as a fence 735
or railing, shall be provided to delineate the rooftop amenity area, but the amenity may not enclosed with 736
walls or include a roof. 737
52. Amends Subsection 21A.36.030.E as follows: 738
E. License Required: It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or association to engage in a 739
"home occupation" as defined in Chapter 21A.62 of this title without first obtaining a license 740
pursuant to the provisions of Title 5, Chapter 5.02 of this code. 741
1. Exception: A license is not required if the zoning administrator determines that the impact of 742
the home occupation does not exceed the impact of the primary residential use. The 743
determination shall be based on the information provided to satisfy the standards of this 744
section and compliance with the standards alone shall not be construed as not creating 745
impacts. 746
2. Compliance with Standards: Prior to issuance of said license, the standards set forth in this 747
section must be satisfied and all applicable fees shall be paid. 748
3. License Expiration: All home occupation business licenses shall be valid for one year, and 749
may be renewed annually. 750
53. Amends Subsection 21A.36.140.E as follows: 751
E. Application For Sexually Oriented Business Conditional Site Plan Review: Applications for 752
conditional site plan review may be obtained from the City license authority and should be 753
returned to the same when completed. The application for a conditional site plan review shall be 754
27
filed with the City license authority on the same day that the application for a sexually oriented 755
business license, if applicable, is filed with the license authority. The application for a conditional 756
site plan review shall include the items listed in section 21A.58.060 of this title. 757
54. Amends Subsection 21A.36.140.F.7 as follows: 758
7. Modifications May Be Required: The Planning Commission may require modifications to a 759
proposed sexually oriented business conditional site plan as it relates to traffic and parking, 760
site layout, environmental protection, landscaping, and signage in order to achieve the 761
objectives set forth in section 21A.58.040 of this title. 762
55. Amends Subsection 21A.36.190.B as follows: 763
B. Basement Structures: All dwellings must shall have at least one full story aboveground. 764
Residential structures built into a hillside with may have less than all elevations exposed when 765
constrained by the slope of the site may be approved through the site plan review process. 766
56. Amends Subsection 21A.36.250.J.1 as follows: 767
1. Landscaping and screening of rRecycling collection stations shall be screened from public 768
view by a fence or wall, unless when exempt by other provisions of this title. provided in a 769
manner that improves their appearance without obscuring their visibility. Landscaping and 770
screening requirements shall be established on a case by case basis as part of the site plan 771
review process pursuant to chapter 21A.58 of this title. In districts where site plan review is 772
not required, no landscaping or screening will be required. 773
57. Amends Subsection 21A.36.360.A as follows: 774
A. The shared housing use shall be subject to the same lot and bulk requirements development 775
standards as the multi-family dwelling use, but not the density requirements of the underlying 776
zone. 777
58. Deletes Section 21A.37.030 and reserving, as follows: 778
21A.37.030: SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: Reserved 779
All applications that are subject to site plan review as indicated in chapter 21A.58 of this title shall 780
address as part of their submittal drawings all applicable design standards identified in this chapter, in 781
addition to all other applicable regulations. 782
59. Amends Subsection 21A.38.010.A.2 as follows: 783
2. Noncomplying structures and improvements include legally constructed principal and 784
accessory buildings, structures and property improvements, that do not comply with the 785
applicable bulk and/or yard area regulations development and design standards of this title 786
such as setbacks and parking in the zoning districts in which the buildings or structures are 787
located. 788
60. Amends Section 21A.38.020 as follows: 789
21A.38.020: AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE: 790
28
Except as provided in this chapter, a A nonconforming use, noncomplying structure, noncomplying lot or 791
legal conforming dwelling may continue unaffected by any change in ownership, except when the 792
nonconformity is determined to have been abandoned. 793
A. Abandonment of nonconforming use or noncomplying structure: 794
1. Abandonment of a nonconforming use of land may be presumed when: 795
(a) The primary structure associated with the nonconforming use has been voluntarily 796
demolished without prior written agreement with the municipality regarding an extension of the 797
nonconforming use; 798
(b) The use has been discontinued for a minimum of one year; or 799
(c) The primary structure associated with the nonconforming use remains vacant for a period of 800
one year. 801
2. Abandonment of a noncomplying structure may be presumed when: 802
(a) A noncomplying structure is allowed to deteriorate to a condition that the structure is 803
rendered uninhabitable as determined by the building official and is not repaired or restored within one 804
year after written notice to the property owner that the structure is uninhabitable; or 805
(b) A property owner or authorized representative voluntarily demolishes the noncomplying 806
structure. 807
b. Calculation of Period of Discontinuance: Any period of discontinuance caused by government 808
actions, without any contributing fault by the nonconforming user, shall not be considered in calculating 809
the length of discontinuance. 810
c. Termination Of Legal Nonconforming Status: A nonconforming use or noncomplying structure 811
that has been abandoned shall be terminated and will have lost legal nonconforming status. 812
3. Presumption Of Abandonment: Any party claiming that a nonconforming use has been abandoned 813
shall have the burden of establishing the abandonment. An abandonment claim shall be made as an appeal 814
to a decision, pursuant to chapter 21A.16, unless requested by the planning director, in which case shall 815
be processed as an administrative determination. 816
4. Rebuttal of Presumption of Abandonment: A property owner may rebut the presumption of 817
abandonment, and shall have the burden of establishing that the claimed abandonment has not in fact 818
occurred. 819
B. Termination Of A Nonconforming Use By Amortization: A nonconforming use may be terminated 820
by amortization in accordance with the municipal land use, development, and management act, title 10, 821
chapter 20, or its successor. 822
61. Amends Section 21A.38.025 as follows: 823
21A.38.025: PROCEDURES ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION: 824
A. Persons Entitled to Seek Determinations: An application shall only be filed by the property owner or 825
by the property owner's authorized agent. The planning director may also request a determination of 826
abandonment for any property within the city as part of the duties of administering this title. 827
29
B. Application: An application for an administrative interpretation determination relating to a 828
noncomplying lot, or noncomplying structure or an application for determination of a nonconforming use 829
of this title shall be filed on a form provided by the zoning administrator and shall contain at least the 830
following information: 831
1. Provisions: The specific provision or provisions of this title for which an interpretation or a 832
determination is sought; 833
2. Facts: The facts of the specific situation giving rise to the request for an interpretation or a 834
determination; 835
3. Interpretation Determination: The precise interpretation or determination claimed by the applicant 836
to be correct; 837
4. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City 838
consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all fees established for 839
providing the public notice required by chapter 21A.10 of this title. 840
5. Notification To Recognized Organizations: The city shall send notice by e-mail or other form 841
chosen by the planning director to any recognized community organization in which the subject property 842
is located notifying the recognized community organization that an administrative interpretation or 843
determination of nonconforming use has been made. 844
C. Burden Of Proof: The applicant has the burden of proving that the determination claimed is 845
correct. Building permits, business licenses, historical photographs and similar documentation 846
may be considered as evidence establishing the status. 847
D. Notification to property owner: The zoning administrator shall send notice to the property owner 848
when a claim of abandonment is made by the planning director while administering this title. 849
E. Determination: The Zoning Administrator shall determine the legal status of properties based 850
upon the evidence submitted and information available pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. 851
B. F. Action On Application: The Zoning Administrator shall send the Zoning Administrator's written 852
interpretation or determination to the applicant stating any specific precedent or other reasons, or analysis 853
upon which the interpretation or determination is based. The zoning administrator shall also send a copy 854
of the determination to the property owner for abandonment determinations filed by planning director. 855
C. Records: A record of decisions on all applications for interpretations or determinations of this title 856
shall be kept on file in the Office of the Zoning Administrator. 857
D. G. Appeal: Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the Zoning Administrator 858
interpreting or making a determination regarding a provision of this title may appeal to the Appeals 859
Hearing Officer in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. 860
62. Deletes Subsections 21A.38.040.E, F, G and renumbering (no changes made to language in 861
subsection H other than numbering): 862
E. Determination Of Nonconforming Use Status: 863
1. Burden Of Owner To Establish Legality Of Nonconforming Use: The burden of establishing that 864
any nonconforming use lawfully exists under the provisions of this title shall, in all cases, be the owner's 865
30
burden and not the City's. Building permits, business licenses and similar documentation may be 866
considered as evidence establishing the legality of use. 867
2. Determination Of Nonconforming Status: The Zoning Administrator shall determine the 868
nonconforming use status of properties based upon the evidence submitted and information available 869
pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. 870
F. Abandonment Of Nonconforming Use: 871
1. Termination Of Nonconforming Use: A nonconforming use of land or of a structure that is 872
abandoned shall not thereafter be reestablished or resumed. Any subsequent use or occupancy of the 873
structure or site must conform with the regulations for the district in which it is located. 874
a. Presumption Of Abandonment: Abandonment may be presumed to have occurred if: 875
(1) A majority of the primary structure associated with the nonconforming use has been 876
voluntarily demolished without prior written agreement with the municipality regarding an extension of 877
the nonconforming use; 878
(2) The use has been discontinued for a minimum of one year; or 879
(3) The primary structure associated with the nonconforming use remains vacant for a period of 880
one year. 881
b. Calculation Of Period Of Discontinuance: Any period of such discontinuance caused by 882
government actions, without any contributing fault by the nonconforming user, shall not be considered in 883
calculating the length of discontinuance pursuant to this subsection F1. 884
c. Termination Of Legal Nonconforming Status: A nonconforming use that has been abandoned 885
shall be terminated and will have lost legal nonconforming status. 886
2. Presumption Of Abandonment: Any party claiming that a nonconforming use has been abandoned 887
shall have the burden of establishing the abandonment. 888
3. Rebuttal Of Presumption Of Abandonment: A property owner may rebut the presumption of 889
abandonment under subsection F1a of this section, and shall have the burden of establishing that any 890
claimed abandonment under subsection F1a of this section has not in fact occurred. 891
G. Termination Of A Nonconforming Use By Amortization: The appeals hearing officer may require 892
the termination of a nonconforming use, except billboards, under any plan providing a formula 893
establishing a reasonable time period during which the owner can recover or amortize the amount of the 894
owner's investment in the nonconforming use, if any, as determined by the zoning administrator. The 895
appeals hearing officer may initiate a review for amortization of nonconforming uses upon a petition filed 896
by the mayor or city council, in accordance with the following standards and procedures and consistent 897
with the municipal land use, development, and management act, title 10, chapter 9a, of the Utah code and 898
shall mail written notice to the owner and occupant of the property: 899
1. Initiation Of Termination Procedure: Appeals hearing officer review of a use determined to be 900
nonconforming pursuant to the provisions of this section, for the purpose of establishing an amortization 901
plan for termination of the use, shall first require a report from the zoning administrator to the appeals 902
hearing officer. The zoning administrator's report shall determine the legality of the nonconforming use, 903
provide a history of the site and outline the standards for determining an amortization period. 904
31
2. Notice To Nonconforming User: Upon receipt of the report of the zoning administrator 905
recommending the establishment of an amortization plan for a nonconforming use, the appeals hearing 906
officer shall mail the report and plan to the owner and occupant(s) of the nonconforming use, giving 907
notice of the appeals hearing officer's intent to hold a hearing to consider the request in accordance with 908
the standards and procedures set forth in chapter 21A.10 of this title. 909
3. Appeals Hearing Officer Review: The appeals hearing officer shall hold a noticed hearing within a 910
reasonable time, following the procedures established in chapter 21A.10 of this title, on the request for 911
amortization of the nonconforming use. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the appeals hearing officer 912
shall determine whether the nonconforming use should be amortized within a definite period of time. 913
4. Standards For Determining Amortization Period: The appeals hearing officer shall determine the 914
appropriate amortization period upon the consideration of evidence presented by the zoning administrator 915
and the owner of the nonconformingly used property that is sufficient to make findings regarding the 916
following factors: 917
a. The general character of the area surrounding the nonconforming use; 918
b. The zoning classification and use(s) of nearby property; 919
c. The extent to which property values are adversely affected by the nonconforming use; 920
d. The owner's actual amount of investment in the property on the effective date of 921
nonconformance, less any investment required by other applicable laws and regulations; 922
e. The amount of financial loss, if any, that would be suffered by the owner upon termination of the 923
use; and 924
f. The extent to which the amortization period will further the public health, safety and welfare. 925
5. Appeal: Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the appeals hearing officer may file a 926
petition for review of the decision with the district court within thirty (30) days after the decision is 927
rendered. 928
H. Modifications to Nonconforming Uses: 929
63. Amends Subsection 21A.38.050.B.1.c(1) as follows: 930
(1) Single story additions are permitted to follow the existing setback line provided the 931
following standards are complied with: 932
i. The addition does not further reduce the existing side yard setback and complies 933
with all other applicable requirements of Title 21A. 934
i.ii The exterior wall height of the addition is equal to or less than the exterior wall 935
height of the existing building. When a cross slope exists along the exterior wall, 936
the interior floor to ceiling height of the addition shall match the interior floor to 937
ceiling height of the existing building. 938
ii.iii. The addition may extend the noncomplying exterior wall of the building up to 939
twenty percent (20%) of the length of the existing wall. This shall be a one-time 940
addition and no further additions are permitted. 941
32
64. Amends Subsection 21A.38.050.B.1.d as follows: 942
d. Rear Yards: A principal building noncomplying to rear yard setbacks may be expanded 943
provided the addition does not further reduce expansion follows an existing 944
noncomplying building wall and does not result in a decrease of the existing rear yard 945
setback and complies with all other applicable requirements of Title 21A. side and corner 946
side yard setbacks of the underlying zoning district. If the building does not comply with 947
the existing side or corner side yard setback, the expansion shall be permitted to extend to 948
the side or corner side yard setback of the underlying zone. 949
65. Amends Section 21A.38.060 as follows: 950
21A.38.060: NONCOMPLYING LOTS: 951
A. Legally established lots: A lot that was legally established but no longer complies with the lot 952
regulations of this title due to a subsequent amendment shall be considered a noncomplying lot. 953
B. Lots not approved by the city: 954
1. An existing lot that does not comply with the standards of this title and that was not approved 955
by the city may be considered a noncomplying lot if: 956
a. The lot was created before April 12, 1995, and it is determined that the lot complied with 957
the minimum zoning requirements at the time it was created; or 958
b. The lot was created by court order; 959
2 Lots not recognized as noncomplying lots may only be developed or gain legal status if 960
returned to a configuration previously authorized by the city, combined with other lots to 961
create a conforming lot or approved as part of a Planned Development. 962
C. Modifications to noncomplying lots: Noncomplying lots may be modified or combined with other 963
lots when the resulting lot maintains or reduces its degree of noncompliance. 964
D. Creation of Noncomplying Lots: 965
1. Noncomplying lots may be created when expressly authorized by other sections of this title. 966
2. The Planning Director may approve through a subdivision the creation of a noncomplying lot 967
to Subdividing Lots Containing Two or More Separate Principal Buildings: Lots that contain 968
two or more separate two or more principal buildings on a single parcel may be subdivided 969
and to place each structure on a separate lot. Said subdivision is subject to the following 970
provisions: 971
A. a. The properties shall be subdivided by recording of a plat. 972
B. b. The proposed lots are exempt from the minimum lot area, lot width, lot coverage, 973
and street frontage requirements of the underlying zoning district; 974
C. c. The proposed setbacks shall be reviewed and approved by the planning director after 975
consultation with applicable city departments; 976
D. d. The proposed subdivision plat shall identify the front, corner side, interior side, and 977
rear yards for the purpose of future development. 978
33
E. e. Parking may be located anywhere within the proposed subdivision except front yards 979
(unless already existing) and shall not be reduced below the existing off-street parking 980
F. f. All lots that are part of the subdivision must include adequate access to a public 981
street. Adequate access shall include pedestrian walkways and when off-street parking is 982
required, vehicle access and parking. 983
G. g. All necessary easements for access and utilities are shown on the plat. A note shall 984
be added to indicate responsibility for maintenance of shared access and utilities. 985
H. h. All other applicable regulations of the Salt Lake City Code shall apply. 986
A lot that is noncomplying as to lot area or lot frontage that was in legal existence on the effective date of 987
any amendment to this title that makes the existing lot noncomplying shall be considered a legal 988
complying lot and is subject to the regulations of this title. Any noncomplying lot not approved by the 989
city that was created prior to January 13, 1950, may be approved as a legal noncomplying lot subject to 990
the lot meeting minimum zoning requirements at the time the lot was created and documented through an 991
updated zoning certificate for the property. 992
Any noncomplying lot not approved by the city that was created on or between January 13, 1950 to April 993
12, 1995, may be approved as a legal noncomplying lot subject to the lot meeting minimum zoning and 994
subdivision requirements at the time the lot was created and documented through an updated zoning 995
certificate for the property. 996
Noncomplying lots may be combined to create a conforming lot or more conforming lot subject to any 997
maximum lot size standards of the zoning district in which the lot is located. 998
66. Amends Subsection 21A.40.120.E.5.d as follows: 999
d. Alternative Design Solutions. To provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys, 1000
the zoning administrator, in consulting with the Transportation director development 1001
review team, may require alternative design solutions, including, but not restricted to, 1002
requiring increased fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns 1003
created by the location of buildings, grade change or other preexisting conditions. 1004
67. Amends Subsection 21A.42.060.F as follows: 1005
F. Revocation Of Permit: A temporary use permit may be revoked by the Zoning Administrator 1006
pursuant to the procedures of section 21A.08.060 of this title, if any of the standards and 1007
conditions imposed pursuant to such permit, are violated. 1008
68. Amends Subsection 21A.42.070.B as follows: 1009
B. Bulk And Yard Regulations Development standards: Except as expressly provided otherwise in 1010
sections 21A.42.080 and 21A.42.090 of this chapter, every temporary use shall comply with the 1011
bulk and yard requirements development standards of the district in which the temporary use is 1012
located with the exception of landscaping requirements. Bulk and yard regulations can be 1013
adjusted by the The Zoning Administrator may allow modifications based on the nature of the 1014
temporary use and the character of the adjacent and surrounding area. 1015
34
69. Amends Subsection 21A.42.080.D as follows: 1016
D. Seasonal Farm Stands, Temporary Food Service And or Other Small Scale Temporary Uses: 1017
Temporary food service and other small scale temporary Such uses are permitted for a maximum 1018
of one hundred twenty (120) 180 days each calendar year. Such facilities shall be less than two 1019
hundred (200) square feet and shall not interfere with pedestrian access to other businesses on the 1020
site. Food trucks and trailers are subject to chapter 21A.36 of this title if on private property or 1021
title 5, chapter 5.69 of this Code if on public property. 1022
70. Amends Subsection 21A.42.080.E as follows: 1023
E. Farmers' Markets: Farmers' markets shall be limited to a maximum of one hundred twenty (120) 1024
180 days each calendar year. 1025
71. Amends Subsection 21A.46.120.C as follows (with no revisions to the table in said subsection 1026
aside from the title thereof): 1027
C. Sign Regulations For The AG, AG-2, and AG-5, And AG-20 Districts: 1028
1. Purpose: Signage in the AG, AG-2, and AG-5 and AG-20 districts should be limited to 1029
signage appropriate for single-family residential and agricultural uses. 1030
2. Applicability: Regulations in subsection C3 of this section shall apply to all lots within the 1031
AG, AG-2, and AG-5 and AG-20 districts. 1032
3. Sign Type, Size And Height Standards: 1033
1034
STANDARDS FOR THE AG, AG-2, AND AG-5 AND AG-20 DISTRICTS 1035
72. Amends Subsection 21A.46.125.B.1 as follows: 1036
1. An application for designation of vintage sign status as well as for the reinstatement of, 1037
modifications to, or relocation of a vintage sign shall be processed in accordance with the 1038
procedures set forth in chapter 21A.058 and section 21A.46.030 as well as the following: 1039
73. Adds Subsection 21A.50.040.I.1 as follows: 1040
1. Decision regarding a new land use: A zoning amendment proposing to allow an unlisted use 1041
shall be decided within 12 months from filing of a complete application. In the case of denial, 1042
the decision shall include a written description of the reasons for denial. 1043
74. Amends Section 21A.50.070 as follows: 1044
Any party adversely affected by the decision of the City Council may, within thirty (30) days after such 1045
decision, file an appeal to the District Court pursuant to the Municipal Land Use Development and 1046
Management Act, section 10-9a-801, of the Utah Code Annotated., except that: 1047
A. For decisions regarding an unlisted land use, the applicant of the amendment request may appeal 1048
to the appeals hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. 1049
75. Amends Subsection 21A.51.030.B.1.a as follows: 1050
a. Parties Entitled to Submit Application: Any owner of property proposed for a landmark 1051
site, the mayor or the city council, by majority vote, may initiate a petition to consider the 1052
designation of a landmark site. When initiated by an owner, the application shall be 1053
approved by all property owners representing interest in the lot or parcel. 1054
35
76. Amends Subsection 21A.52.040.A.5 as follows: 1055
5. The location of all existing and proposed buildings and structures, accessory and principal, 1056
showing the number of stories and height, dwelling type, if applicable, major elevations and 1057
the total square footage of the floor area by proposed use and any additional information 1058
required for site plan review set forth in Chapter 21A.58; 1059
77. Amends Subsection 21A.54.060.A.6 as follows: 1060
6. Site plans, as required pursuant to section 21A.58.060 of this title; 1061
78. Amends Subsection 21A.55.040.A.4 as follows: 1062
4. Plans, as required pursuant to section 21A.58.060 of this title, with the exception of the 1063
number of copies required; 1064
79. Deletes the following row in Table 21A.55.060 as follows with no other revisions to the table: 1065
District Minimum Planned
Development Area
Special purpose districts:
AG-20 Agricultural District 40 acres
80. Amends Subsection 21A.55.100.B as follows: 1066
B. Minor Modifications: The Planning Director may authorize minor modifications to the approved 1067
development plan pursuant to the provisions for modifications to an approved site plan as set 1068
forth in chapter 21A.58 of this title, when such modifications appear necessary in light of 1069
technical or engineering considerations. Such mMinor modifications shall be limited to the 1070
following elements necessary in light of technical or engineering considerations or those that 1071
comply with the standards of the underlying zone, including: 1072
1. Adjusting the distance as shown on the approved development plan between any one structure 1073
or group of structures, and any other structure or group of structures, or any vehicular 1074
circulation element or any boundary of the site; 1075
2. Adjusting the location of any open space; 1076
3. Adjusting any final grade; 1077
4. Altering the types of landscaping elements and their arrangement within the required 1078
landscaping buffer area; 1079
5. Signs; 1080
6. Relocation or construction of accessory structures; or 1081
7. Additions and modifications which comply with the lot and bulk requirements standards of 1082
the underlying zone and do not affect the planned development approval. 1083
81. Amends Chapter 21A.58 as follows: 1084
CHAPTER 21A.58 ZONING SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL 1085
36
SECTION: 1086
21A.58.010: Purpose Statement 1087
21A.58.020: Authority Applicability 1088
21A.58.030: Scope Of Application Authority 1089
21A.58.040: Scope Of Modifications Authorized Zoning Approval 1090
21A.58.050: Development Review Team (DRT) Zoning Verification 1091
21A.58.060: Application Zoning Review Submittal Requirements 1092
21A.58.070: Standards For Site Plan Review Appeal 1093
21A.58.080: Procedures For Site Plan Review 1094
21A.58.090: Sketch Plan Review 1095
1096
21A.58.010: PURPOSE STATEMENT: 1097
The purpose of this chapter is to establish when zoning review and approval is required. Zoning review is 1098
intended to ensure a proposed development complies with the standards of this Title. Zoning approval 1099
documents the review and authorizes development pursuant to following all other permits or approvals 1100
required by the city. 1101
The intent of these site plan review regulations is to promote the safe and efficient use of land, to 1102
contribute to an orderly and harmonious appearance in the City and to further enhance the value of 1103
property. This process is intended to supplement the review and administrative procedures which are 1104
carried out under this title or other City ordinances and regulations. The site plan review process is 1105
intended to help ensure that newly developed properties and redeveloped properties are compatible with 1106
adjacent development and that traffic, public safety, overcrowding, and environmental problems are 1107
minimized to the greatest extent possible. More specifically, the purpose of the site plan review process is 1108
to provide for a review of: 1109
A. A project's compatibility with its environment and with other land uses and buildings existing in the 1110
surrounding area; 1111
B. The quantity, quality, utility, size and type of a project's required open space area and proposed 1112
landscaping improvements; 1113
C. The ability of a project's traffic circulation system to provide for the convenient and safe internal 1114
and external movement of vehicles and pedestrians; 1115
D. The quantity, quality, utility and type of a project's required community facilities; and 1116
E. The location and adequacy of a project's provision for drainage and utilities. 1117
21A.58.020: AUTHORITY: APPLICABILITY: 1118
A. Zoning review and approval is required prior to: 1119
1. final approval of any application required by this title; 1120
37
2. modifications that affect a previously approved development plan; 1121
3. approval of a permit for a change of land use type or a development, as defined in 21A.62.040, 1122
that requires compliance with the provisions of this title; or 1123
4. issuance of a business license involving a change of land use type or requiring site 1124
modifications to comply with this title. 1125
B. Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, all land and structures shall be used, built and 1126
operated in conformity with this title. 1127
Site plan review shall be required pursuant to the provisions of this chapter for uses as specified in section 1128
21A.58.030 of this chapter before zoning certificates, building permits or certificates of occupancy may 1129
be issued. 1130
A. The Zoning Administrator shall approve site plans upon consideration of all comments received 1131
from City departments. The Zoning Administrator shall be assisted in administering the site plan 1132
review process by the development review team (DRT). 1133
B. The Zoning Administrator may waive the requirements for site plan review for additions to 1134
existing buildings, structures, or uses if, in the Zoning Administrator's opinion, such additions do 1135
not substantially impact adjacent properties. 1136
21A.58.030: SCOPE OF APPLICATION: AUTHORITY: 1137
A. The Zoning Administrator shall perform the zoning review and issue zoning approvals. The 1138
Zoning Administrator may request or consider comments received from City departments in the 1139
review process. 1140
B. The Zoning Administrator may waive the requirements for zoning review and approval for 1141
changes that do not substantially affect a site or development plan do not substantially impact 1142
adjacent properties. 1143
A. Permitted Uses: Site plan review approval shall be required for approval of all permitted uses other 1144
than detached single- family and two-family/twin home dwellings as a condition to receiving a zoning 1145
certificate if that permitted use involves the following: 1146
1. Development of a new principal building; 1147
2. Change of land use type; 1148
3. An increased parking requirement; 1149
4. An increased landscaping requirement; or 1150
5. Development activities identified in various sections of this title that are specifically subject to site 1151
plan review. 1152
B. Conditional Uses: Site plan review shall be required for all conditional uses in all zoning districts. 1153
C. Accessory Uses: Site plan review shall not be required for accessory uses and structures (as defined 1154
in chapter 21A.40, "Accessory Uses, Buildings And Structures", of this title). Such uses shall be reviewed 1155
38
in conjunction with the review of principal buildings when such accessory structures are proposed to be 1156
approved at the same time as the principal building. 1157
21A.58.040: SCOPE OF MODIFICATIONS AUTHORIZED: ZONING APPROVAL: 1158
A. Zoning approval shall be granted as follows: 1159
1. Permit or business license: The zoning administrator shall perform zoning review of all 1160
permits or business licenses listed in 21A.58.010. The permit or license shall only be issued 1161
after receiving zoning approval. 1162
2. Certificate of appropriateness or record of decision: A certificate of appropriateness or record 1163
of decision shall also document a zoning approval whenever a building permit or business 1164
license is not required. 1165
3. Zoning certificate: The zoning administrator may issue a zoning certificate to document an 1166
approval whenever a building permit or business license is not required, or when the 1167
certificate will facilitate the record of actions taken with respect to the authorized use of a 1168
particular parcel or site. 1169
4. Zoning Verification: An applicant may request zoning approval through a zoning verification, 1170
as authorized by this chapter. 1171
B. An exemption from a building permit, business license or certificate shall not be construed as an 1172
exemption to the standards of this title. 1173
The authority of the zoning administrator through the site plan review process to require modification of a 1174
proposed site plan shall be limited to the following elements in order to achieve the objectives set forth 1175
below: 1176
A. Traffic And Parking: 1177
1. Minimizing dangerous traffic movements. 1178
2. Promoting the smooth and efficient flow of traffic in accordance with standards in the "Institute 1179
Of Traffic Engineers' Transportation And Traffic Engineering Handbook", and other local sources of 1180
authority as adopted by resolution. 1181
3. Optimizing the efficient use of parking facilities through provisions for adequate interior 1182
circulation, parking stalls and travel aisles. 1183
B. Site Layout: 1184
1. Promoting compatibility with adjacent and nearby properties. 1185
2. Preserving and protecting valuable natural features and amenities to the greatest extent practical. 1186
3. Promoting the efficient provision of public services. 1187
C. Environmental Protection: 1188
1. Preserving existing healthy and long lived trees wherever economically feasible. 1189
39
2. Designing drainage facilities to promote the use and preservation of natural watercourse and 1190
patterns of drainage. 1191
3. Minimizing alterations to existing topography. 1192
4. Protecting important views and vistas as identified in adopted plans. 1193
D. Landscaping: 1194
1. Promoting the use of plant material compatible with the climate of the region and microclimate 1195
conditions on the site. 1196
2. Ensuring that plant material can be maintained for long term health and continued growth. 1197
3. Maximizing water and energy conservation through the appropriate use of plant materials. 1198
4. Ensuring that the arrangement of required landscaping produces the optimal visual effect. 1199
E. Signage: 1200
1. Ensuring that the location, size and orientation of signage do not impair the visibility of or distract 1201
motorists. 1202
2. Ensuring that the location, size and orientation of signage minimize obstructions and hazards to 1203
pedestrians. 1204
21A.58.050: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM (DRT): ZONING VERIFICATION 1205
A. A zoning verification is a type of administrative interpretation that confirms the zoning 1206
designation of a specific property. It also informs an applicant of the present use of a property and 1207
if the use and structures on site conform with zoning standards. 1208
B. An applicant may request a zoning verification to document the present condition of a specific 1209
property or to obtain zoning review and approval whenever a zoning review is not required. 1210
C. Application: 1211
1. Parties Entitled to Submit Application: An application for a zoning verification shall be made 1212
by the owner of the property or the property owner's authorized agent. 1213
2. Submittal Requirements: The application shall contain all the applicable items for review in 1214
accordance with this chapter. 1215
3. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees for an administrative 1216
interpretation shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 1217
The zoning administrator shall be assisted in conducting site plan review by the development review team 1218
(DRT). 1219
A. Membership: The development review team shall consist of a designated representative from each 1220
of the city departments or department divisions, as necessary, including, but not limited to, the following: 1221
1. Department of community and neighborhoods; 1222
2. Department of public services; 1223
40
3. Police department; 1224
4. Fire department; 1225
5. Department of public utilities. 1226
B. Coordination Of Review: The zoning administrator, or the zoning administrator's designee, shall 1227
serve as the chair of the development review team and shall coordinate its review of proposals. 1228
21A.58.060: APPLICATION ZONING REVIEW SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: 1229
A. Plans submitted for zoning review and approval shall contain enough information to demonstrate 1230
compliance with the requirements of this title. All plans shall indicate the street address and tax 1231
parcel number of the property associated with the proposal. 1232
B. Upon receipt of a zoning review request, the Zoning Administrator shall make a determination of 1233
the necessary documentation. The list of missing documentation shall be submitted to the 1234
applicant in writing. 1235
C. A site plan is required for any development proposing or requiring changes to the site. All site 1236
plans submitted for review shall be drawn to scale, include a north arrow and legend, and contain 1237
the minimum information outlined below. 1238
1. Residential development: A site plan for the review of a development that is exclusively 1239
residential shall contain: 1240
a. Lot size and dimensions; 1241
b. Setbacks and overhangs for setbacks; 1242
c. Easements; 1243
d. Property lines; 1244
e. Topographical details, if the slope of the lot is greater than 10%; 1245
f. Retaining walls; 1246
g. Hard surface areas; 1247
h. Curb and gutter elevations as indicated in the subdivision documents; 1248
i. Existing and proposed utilities, including water meter and sewer lateral location, sewer, and 1249
subsurface drainage facilities; 1250
j. Street names; 1251
k. Driveway locations; 1252
l. Defensible space provisions and elevations, if required by the Utah Wildland Urban 1253
Interface Code adopted under Section 15A-2-103; 1254
m. The location of the nearest hydrant; 1255
n. A tabulation of the total number of dwelling units in the project and the overall project 1256
density in dwelling units per gross acre; and 1257
41
o. Any other items specifically listed for an application authorized by this title. 1258
2. Nonresidential or mixed use development: A site plan for the review of a nonresidential or 1259
mixed use development shall contain: 1260
a. The street address and tax parcel number; 1261
b. Indication of the present use of the subject property; 1262
c. A vicinity map with north arrow and scale; 1263
d. The boundaries of the subject property, all existing property lines, setback lines, existing 1264
streets, buildings, watercourses, waterways or lakes, wetlands, and other existing physical 1265
features in or adjoining the project; 1266
e. Topographic survey, showing the elevation of streets, alleys, buildings, structures, 1267
watercourses and their names. The topography shall be shown by adequate spot 1268
elevations. Elevations of the top of bank and toe of slope, slope ratio of fill, and limits of 1269
fill, including access, shall be indicated; 1270
f. Significant topographical or physical features of the site, including existing trees; 1271
g. The location and dimensions of existing and proposed streets, alleys, parking and loading 1272
areas, outdoor lighting systems, sidewalks, curbs and gutters and all curb cuts; 1273
h. The location and dimensions of existing and proposed buildings and structures, accessory 1274
and principal. The number of stories and height, use and the total square footage of the 1275
floor area by proposed use shall be indicated for all buildings; 1276
i. The location, height, type and material of all fences and walls; 1277
j. The proposed nature and manner of grading of the site, including proposed treatment of 1278
slopes in excess of ten percent (10%) to prevent soil erosion and excessive runoff; 1279
k. The location of dumpsters or other outdoor trash receptacles; 1280
l. The location and dimensions of proposed recreation areas, open spaces and other required 1281
amenities and improvements; 1282
m. A tabulation of the total number of acres in the project and the percentage and acreage 1283
thereof proposed to be allocated to off street parking, open space, parks and other 1284
reservations; 1285
n. A tabulation of the total number of dwelling units in the project and the overall project 1286
density in dwelling units per gross acre, if project contains a residential component; 1287
o. The proposed and required off street parking and loading areas, including parking and 1288
access for persons with disabilities; 1289
p. Proposed landscaping; and 1290
q. Any other items specifically listed for an application authorized by this title. 1291
42
D. The zoning administrator may require additional plans necessary to show compliance with 1292
standards. Required plans may include other architectural drawings, such as floor and roof plans, 1293
elevations, sections, or details. 1294
E. Plans shall identify that the proposed development complies with the subdivision standards found 1295
in Chapter 20.26 of the city code, unless otherwise exempt by other titles of this code. 1296
F. The Zoning Administrator may waive any of the above listed requirements upon making a 1297
determination that such requirements are unnecessary due to the scope and nature of the proposed 1298
development. 1299
Each application for site plan review shall include six (6) copies of a site plan, drawn to a scale of twenty 1300
feet (20') to the inch or such other scale as the zoning administrator shall deem appropriate. Plans shall be 1301
submitted with every application for site plan approval and shall contain the following information: 1302
A. The applicant's name, address, telephone number and interest in the property; 1303
B. The owner's name, address and telephone number, if different than the applicant, and the owner's 1304
signed consent to the filing of the application; 1305
C. The street address, tax parcel number and legal description of the subject property; 1306
D. The zoning classification, zoning district boundaries and present use of the subject property; 1307
E. A vicinity map with north arrow, scale and date, indicating the zoning classifications and current 1308
uses of properties within eighty five feet (85') of the subject property (exclusive of intervening streets and 1309
alleys); 1310
F. The proposed title of the project and the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the architect, 1311
landscape architect, planner or engineer on the project, and a signature panel for zoning administrator 1312
approval; 1313
G. The boundaries of the subject property, all existing property lines, setback lines, existing streets, 1314
buildings, watercourses, waterways or lakes, wetlands, and other existing physical features in or adjoining 1315
the project; 1316
H. Topographic survey, showing the elevation of streets, alleys, buildings, structures, watercourses and 1317
their names. The topography shall be shown by adequate spot elevations. The finished grade for the entire 1318
site shall be shown as well as the first floor elevation of all buildings. Additionally, on all site plans the 1319
following information must be provided: 1320
1. Significant topographical or physical features of the site, including existing trees; 1321
2. The elevation of the curb (if existing or proposed) in front of each lot shall be indicated; and 1322
3. Elevations of the top of bank and toe of slope, slope ratio of fill, and limits of fill, including 1323
access, shall be indicated; 1324
I. The location and size of sanitary and storm sewers, water, gas, telephone, electric and other utility 1325
lines, culverts and other underground structures in or affecting the project, including existing and 1326
proposed facilities and easements for these facilities. In the case of city owned utilities, such information 1327
shall be provided to the applicant by the department of community and neighborhoods and/or department 1328
of public utilities; 1329
43
J. The location, dimensions and character of construction of proposed streets, alleys, loading areas 1330
(including numbers of parking and loading spaces), outdoor lighting systems, storm drainage and sanitary 1331
facilities, sidewalks, curbs and gutters and all curb cuts. Where necessary to meet the purposes and intent 1332
of this chapter, such information shall be provided for the site. Additional area may also be required to be 1333
shown to indicate connections or proposed connections to major utilities; 1334
K. The location of all proposed buildings and structures, accessory and principal, showing the number 1335
of stories and height, dwelling type, if applicable, major elevations and the total square footage of the 1336
floor area by proposed use; 1337
L. The location, height, type and material of all fences and walls; 1338
M. The location, character, size, height and orientation of proposed signs, as proposed to be erected in 1339
accordance with chapter 21A.46 of this title, and elevations of buildings showing signs to be placed on 1340
exterior walls. Signs which are approved in accordance with this chapter shall be considered a part of the 1341
approved site plan; 1342
N. The proposed nature and manner of grading of the site, including proposed treatment of slopes in 1343
excess of ten percent (10%) to prevent soil erosion and excessive runoff; 1344
O. The location of dumpsters or other outdoor trash receptacles; 1345
P. The location and dimensions of proposed recreation areas, open spaces and other required amenities 1346
and improvements; 1347
Q. A tabulation of the total number of acres in the project and the percentage and acreage thereof 1348
proposed to be allocated to off street parking, open space, parks and other reservations; 1349
R. A tabulation of the total number of dwelling units in the project and the overall project density in 1350
dwelling units per gross acre (for residential projects); 1351
S. The proposed and required off street parking and loading areas, including parking and access for 1352
persons with disabilities, as specified in the Utah Adopted Building Code; and 1353
T. Landscape plans subject to the standards contained in chapter 21A.48 of this title. 1354
The Zoning Administrator may waive any of the above listed requirements upon making a determination 1355
that such requirements are unnecessary due to the scope and nature of the proposed development. 1356
21A.58.070: STANDARDS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: APPEAL: 1357
Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the zoning administrator may appeal to the appeals 1358
hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 21A.16 of this title. 1359
In addition to standards provided in other sections of this title for specific types of approval, the following 1360
standards shall be applied to all applications for site plan review: 1361
A. Lighting: All developments shall provide adequate lighting so as to assure safety and security. 1362
Lighting installations shall not have an adverse impact on traffic safety or on the surrounding area. Light 1363
sources shall be shielded, and shall not shine onto adjacent properties. 1364
B. Stormwater Drainage: Provisions for storm surface drainage shall be in accordance with the design 1365
standards of the Department of Public Utilities indicating location, size, types and grades of sewers, 1366
drainage structures, ditches, and connection to existing drainage system. Disposition of storm or natural 1367
44
waters both on and off the site shall be provided in such a manner as not to have a detrimental effect on 1368
the property of others or the public right-of-way. 1369
C. Utilities: Provision of hookups to public utilities shall be the responsibility of the applicant and 1370
connections shall be installed in accordance with the standards of the Department of Public Utilities. All 1371
connections shall be shown on the site plan. 1372
D. Public Safety: The Salt Lake Valley Health Department shall be invited to review all site plans for 1373
treatment of bulk trash disposal. The Police Department and the Fire Department shall review all site 1374
plans to determine adequacy of access and other aspects of public safety. 1375
E. General Plan Conformity: The Planning Division shall review site plans for all applications for 1376
conditional uses (including planned developments) and design reviews with reference to adopted plans 1377
and the conformity of the site plans with the objectives and policies of the adopted plans. 1378
21A.58.080: PROCEDURES FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: 1379
A. Preapplication Conference: Before filing an application for approval of a site plan, landscape plan 1380
and other applicable plans, the applicant is encouraged to confer with the DRT regarding the general 1381
proposal. Such action does not require formal application fees, or filing of a site plan, or landscape plan 1382
and is not to be construed as an application for formal approval. No representation made by the Zoning 1383
Administrator, the DRT or other City departments during such conference shall be binding upon the City 1384
with respect to an application subsequently submitted. 1385
B. Fees: Every site plan application shall be accompanied by the fee shown on the Salt Lake City 1386
consolidated fee schedule. 1387
C. Submission Of Final Site Plan, Landscape Plan And Other Plans; Review And Approval: 1388
1. DRT Review: After the site plan, landscape plan, other applicable plans and related materials and 1389
fees have been submitted pursuant to section 21A.58.060 of this chapter, and the application has been 1390
determined by the Zoning Administrator to be complete pursuant to section 21A.10.010 of this title, the 1391
application shall be reviewed and processed through the development review team (DRT) in coordination 1392
with the appropriate city departments. If the plan is approved, the zoning administrator shall certify 1393
approval on the site plan and state the conditions of such approval, if any. If the plan is disapproved, the 1394
zoning administrator shall indicate reasons in writing to the applicant. 1395
2. Appeal Of Zoning Administrator Decision: Any person adversely affected by a final decision of 1396
the zoning administrator on a site plan may appeal to the appeals hearing officer in accordance with the 1397
provisions of chapter 21A.16 of this title. 1398
3. Certification By Zoning Administrator: The decisions of the zoning administrator approving the 1399
application shall be noted on all copies of the site plan, landscape plan and other applicable plans to be 1400
retained in the record, including any changes or conditions required as part of the site plan approval. One 1401
such copy shall be returned to the applicant, and others retained as required for records or further action 1402
by the zoning administrator or other affected agencies of the city. 1403
4. Building Permits: Building permits shall be issued in accordance with approved plans. A copy of 1404
the approved site plan shall be retained in the records of the office of the division of building services and 1405
licensing and all building and occupancy permits shall conform to the provisions of the approved site 1406
plans. 1407
45
5. Amendments Or Modifications To Approved Site Plans: Amendments or modifications to 1408
approved site plans and/or landscape plans must be submitted to the zoning administrator. Such 1409
modifications shall be submitted in accordance with the procedures and requirements of this chapter and 1410
shall be distributed to the appropriate departments for review. The zoning administrator may waive this 1411
requirement if the zoning administrator determines that such modification of the original site plan and/or 1412
landscape plan has no significant impact upon the original proposal and still remains in conformance with 1413
zoning standards and regulations. 1414
6. Time Limit On Approval: Approval of the site plan, landscape plan and other applicable plans 1415
shall be void unless a building permit has been issued or complete building plans have been submitted to 1416
the division of building services and licensing one year from the date of approval. The planning director 1417
may grant an extension of a site plan approval for up to one additional year when the applicant is able to 1418
demonstrate no change in circumstance that would result in an unmitigated impact. Extension requests 1419
must be submitted to the planning director in writing prior to the expiration of the site plan approval. 1420
7. Stop Work Order: A stop work order may be put on the project if any improvements required are 1421
not consistent with the approved site plan, landscape plan or other applicable plans. 1422
8. Maintenance Guarantee: When any improvement is to be accepted for dedication, maintenance or 1423
operation by the city, the applicant shall be required to provide financial security (acceptable to the city 1424
attorney) in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the total construction costs of the project to cover the 1425
costs of any defects which may occur in such improvements within two (2) years after the date of 1426
acceptance by the city. The director of community and neighborhoods or director of public utilities or 1427
other city official shall be responsible for determining when such financial security shall be required. 1428
21A.58.090: SKETCH PLAN REVIEW: 1429
The development review administrator or designee may accept a sketch plan and other documentation 1430
prior to the formal submittal of plans for building permit review to determine the required standard for 1431
front or corner side yard; building height and wall height for a principal structure, width and placement of 1432
attached garages; and the location, building height and footprint of accessory structures. The sketch plan 1433
review process may be utilized for properties located in the FR, R-1, R-2 and SR districts. The submittal 1434
shall incorporate sufficient documentation for the development review administrator or designee to 1435
determine the zoning standards that will be applicable to developing the specific site. This preliminary 1436
zoning review intends to provide information and guidance to the project designer and is not to be 1437
construed as an application or approval of site or building plans. Subsequent building permit applications 1438
must comply with all applicable Salt Lake City development requirements. 1439
82. Amends Subsection 21A.59.030.B.1 as follows: 1440
1. All of the application information required for site plan review as identified in Chapter 1441
21A.58 of this title. 1442
83. Amends the following definitions in Section 21A.62.040 as follows: 1443
a. CHARACTER CONSERVATION DISTRICT FEASIBILITY STUDY: A study conducted by 1444
the proposed district area or their authorized agent to determine whether or not a particular area of the 1445
City is eligible for Character Conservation District classification. The study is typically a summary report 1446
or white paper developed for the proposed Character Conservation District and there is no specific format. 1447
46
b. DEVELOPMENT: The carrying out of any building activity, the making of any material change 1448
in the use or appearance of any structure or land, or the dividing of land into parcels by any person. The 1449
following activities or uses shall also be taken for the purposes of these regulations to involve 1450
"development": 1451
A. The construction of any principal building or structure; A new or modified landscape plan; 1452
B. Increase in the intensity of use of land, such as an increase in the number of dwelling units or an 1453
increase in nonresidential use intensity that requires additional parking; 1454
C. Alteration of a shore or bank of a pond, river, stream, lake or other waterway; 1455
D. Commencement of drilling (except to obtain soil samples), the driving of piles, or excavation on a 1456
parcel of land; 1457
E. Demolition or relocation of a structure; 1458
F. Clearing of land as an adjunct of construction, including clearing or removal of vegetation and 1459
including any significant disturbance of vegetation or soil manipulation; and 1460
G. Deposit of refuse, solid or liquid waste, or fill on a parcel of land. 1461
The following operations or uses shall not be taken for the purpose of these regulations to involve 1462
"development": 1463
A. Work by a highway or road agency or railroad company for the maintenance of a road or railroad 1464
track, if the work is carried out on land within the boundaries of the right-of-way; 1465
B. Utility installations as stated in Subsection 21A.02.050B of this title; 1466
C. Landscaping for residential uses; Minor repairs or maintenance of existing structures which do not 1467
alter approved plans; and 1468
D. Work involving the maintenance of existing landscaped areas and existing rights-of-way such as 1469
setbacks and other planting areas. 1470
c. DISTRICT PLAN AND DESIGN STANDARDS: Proposed design standards and provides for 1471
review of site plans in Character Conservation Districts, to ensure that the character and distinctive 1472
features of these districts are maintained and reinforced by new construction. 1473
d. GARAGE, ATTACHED: A garage that is attached to the principal building by a common wall or 1474
is connected to the principal building by a roof that has a width of more than five feet (5') or more. An 1475
attached garage shall be considered part of the principal building. 1476
e. NONCOMPLYING LOT: A parcel of land which was legally established on the effective date of 1477
any amendment to this title that made the lot noncomplying that has less lot area, frontage or dimensions 1478
than required in the district in which it is located. that does not conform to the regulations of this title but 1479
was legally established prior to an amendment of this title or is recognized to be in legal existence 1480
according to the provisions of Chapter 21A.38. 1481
f. NONCOMPLYING STRUCTURE: Buildings, and structures or property improvements that 1482
serve complying land uses which were legally established on the effective date of any amendment to this 1483
title that makes the structure not comply with the applicable yard area, height and/or bulk regulations of 1484
this title or is recognized to be in legal existence according to the provisions of Chapter 21A.38. 1485
47
g. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW: A preliminary review process administered by the development 1486
review administrator or designee for the purpose of determining the required standard for front or corner 1487
side yard; building height and wall height, width and placement of attached garages; and the location, 1488
building height and footprint of accessory structures prior to the formal submittal of plans to obtain a 1489
building permit. 1490
h. STABILIZING: The area is expected to become stable through continued reinvestment, 1491
maintenance, or remodeling. 1492
i. STABLE: The area is expected to remain substantially the same with continued maintenance of 1493
the property. While some changes in structures, land uses, and densities may occur, all such changes are 1494
expected to be compatible with surrounding development and in accordance with the adopted master plan 1495
policies and adopted zoning regulations. Other items that can determine the stability of an area include, 1496
but are not limited to, the following: property values, number of demolition or building permits issued. 1497
84. Effective Date. This ordinance, if passed, shall be effective on the date of its first publication. 1498
1499
[end] 1500
2. CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2025-00164
processing and research.
an online open house.
at city library.
to City Council.
Planning Division.
3. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2025-00164 – Zoning Administration Text
Amendment – Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated a petition for a zoning text amendment to clarify and
update provisions related to the administration of the zoning code. These changes are primarily a cleanup to
align the code with established processes, current practices, and recently adopted state laws. The proposal
does not modify how the planning division administers the zoning code. It is intended to strengthen legal
standing, support staff in code implementation, and enhance transparency.
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:
TIME: 7:00 pm
PLACE: Electronic and in-person options.
451 South State Street, Room 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@slcgov.com. 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 Nicholas
Norris at 801-535-6173 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-
mail at nick.norris@slc.gov. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by
selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2025-00164.
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@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711.
This page has intentionally been left blank
SALT LAKE CITY BOARD MEMBER TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date:
12/29/2025
Date Sent To Council:
12/30/2025
From:
Otto, Rachel
Subject: Board appointment Recommendation: Business Advisory Board
Recommendation:
The Administration recommends the Council approve the appointment of Kandi Tesen to the Business Advisory Board for a 4 year term
starting on the date of City Council advice and consent and ending on the last Monday in December.
Kandi Tesen currently lives in District 4.
Approved:*
Otto, Rachel
DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ERIN MENDENHALL
MAYOR DIRECTOR
TO: Mayor Mendenhall
FROM: Will Wright, Salt Lake City Economic Development
RE: Business Advisory Board Appointment Recommendation
Dear Mayor Mendenhall:
The Department of Economic Development (DED) would like to recommend Kandi Tesen, owner of Eats
Bakery in downtown Salt Lake City, for a voting position on the Business Advisory Board., Kandi is Co-
Owner of Eats Bakery in District 4 (D4), a U.S. Army veteran having served for twenty years, an EDLF
recipient, entrepreneur, and member of the Utah Black Chamber.
Kandi’s unique background of service and entrepreneurship will be a welcome addition to the Business
Advisory Board. Kandi is willing to give her time and talents to the Business Advisory Board and lend her
voice to issues impacting the business and entrepreneurial communities.
DED strongly supports Kandi’s application to the Business Advisory Board as a voting member
representing D4. Please find attached her resume and application. Feel free to reach out if you have any
further questions.
Sincerely,
Will Wright
Business Development Project Manager
Liaison to the Business Advisory Board
Salt Lake City Department of Economic Development
801-535-7936
william.wright@slcgov.com
SALT LAKE CITY BOARD MEMBER TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date:
12/29/2025
Date Sent To Council:
12/30/2025
From:
Otto, Rachel
Subject: Board appointment Recommendation: Business Advisory Board
Recommendation:
The Administration recommends the Council approve the appointment of Mazhar Kathi to the Business Advisory Board for a 4 year term
starting on the date of City Council advice and consent and ending on the last Monday in December.
Mazhar Kathi currently lives in District 1.
Approved:*
Otto, Rachel
DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ERIN MENDENHALL
MAYOR DIRECTOR
TO: Mayor Mendenhall
FROM: Will Wright, Salt Lake City Economic Development
RE: Business Advisory Board Appointment Recommendation
Dear Mayor Mendenhall:
The Department of Economic Development would like to recommend Mazhar Kathi, Owner & Founder of
The Catalyst Business Development Consulting, as a District 1 representative on the Business Advisory
Board.
Mazhar has a twenty-plus year track record as a serial entrepreneur with a background in marketing and
technology. Additionally, Mazhar has been working in the business development field for the past five
years. He has managed and coordinated a recent charity drive to provide winter coats and blankets to the
unhoused on the City’s west side and is currently a member of the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce and
Visit Salt Lake.
Mazhar is willing to give his time and talents to the Business Advisory Board and lend his voice to issues
impacting the business, entrepreneurial, and west side communities.
We strongly support Mazhar’s application to the Business Advisory Board as a D1 representative. Please
find attached his resume and application. Feel free to reach out if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Will Wright
Business Development Project Manager
Liaison to the Business Advisory Board
Salt Lake City Department of Economic Development
801-535-7936
william.wright@slcgov.com
DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ERIN MENDENHALL
MAYOR DIRECTOR
TO: Mayor Mendenhall
FROM: Will Wright, Salt Lake City Economic Development
RE: Business Advisory Board Appointment Recommendation
Dear Mayor Mendenhall:
The Department of Economic Development (DED) would like to recommend Scott Lyttle, Owner of Tea
Zaanti in Sugar House and District 7 (D7), for reappointment of a voting position on the Business Advisory
Board.
Scott has served as a passionate advocate for Sugar House and the City the last four years on the Business
Advisory Board and as Chair in 2025. Prior to opening Tea Zaanti in 2017, Scott excelled as Deputy
Director of Tracy Aviary and Executive Director of Bike Utah. Scott’s experience and passion have been a
key driver of the BAB’s mission and work, and his continued contribution will be welcomed in his second
term on the BAB.
Scott is willing to give his time and talents to the Business Advisory Board and lend his voice to issues
impacting the business community, Sugar House, and Salt Lake City.
DED strongly supports Scott’s application to the Business Advisory Board as a voting member representing
D7. Please find attached his resume and application. Feel free to reach out if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Will Wright
Business Development Project Manager
Liaison to the Business Advisory Board
Salt Lake City Department of Economic Development
801-535-7936
william.wright@slcgov.com
SALT LAKE CITY BOARD MEMBER TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date:
12/29/2025
Date Sent To Council:
12/30/2025
From:
Otto, Rachel
Subject: Board reappointment Recommendation: Business Advisory Board
Recommendation:
The Administration recommends the Council approve the reappointment of Scott Lyttle to the Business Advisory Board for a 4 year term
starting on the date of City Council advice and consent and ending on the last Monday in December.
Scott Lyttle currently lives in District 7.
Approved:*
Otto, Rachel
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
1/14/2026 9:20 Anonymous Constituent Voicemail to City Council I am calling about the renaming of a 900 South in SLC. I am against it. I do not live in SLC I live right outside but I
think it is not right that it would be changed. We visit 900 South for dinners and I would say leave it alone. Do not
change it. The people in that area do not want it changed, it is their area and I think it would cause a lot of
problems. The conservative view tries to limit what is going on in that area. Thank you very much. Bye.
1/14/2026 9:23 Anonymous Constituent Voicemail to City Council Hello, I live on 900 South I would not want to live on Charlie Kirk Blvd - No I would never live on that street. I would
prefer to live on Harvey Milk Blvd. Please stand behind Harvey Milk Blvd. and stand with our neighbors. We never
feel representative in the legislature or DC but we have our dignity. Please let us stay on 900 south as unchanged.
It may not be glamours but it has dignity.
1/14/2026 11:04 Anonymous Constituent Phone call to City Council I find the behavior of ICE to be morally abhorrent and feel it would be in the best interest of the public for ICE to be
dismantled.
1/14/2026 12:39 Alex Ward Evidence for Tonight’s Meeting / SLCPU Zoning
Misclassification
Dear Council Member Puy, I am writing to provide you with a Memo of Opposition and technical exhibits regarding
the Salt Lake City Public Utilities (SLCPU) project currently slated to begin this month at 1020 W. Pierpont Avenue.
I will be attending tonight’s Council meeting to speak on this matter, but I wanted to ensure you had the technical
context beforehand, as this project involves what we believe is a significant zoning misclassification. Specifically,
our research reveals that the City is permitting an active industrial bio-chemical wastewater treatment reactor as
a simple "building or structure." This allows the Department to bypass the proper zoning reviews and
environmental buffers required for such a facility—despite the fact that this reactor is being placed within 75 feet
of single-family residences. While we appreciate the brief pause SLCPU granted, their recent actions suggest the
"public engagement" process is largely performative. SLCPU claims to be listening to our concerns by holding
another community meeting this Thursday; however, their most recent communication proves otherwise by
stating that the project is still scheduled to commence this month. A one-to-two-week delay is a hollow gesture
that is insufficient to address the identified procedural gaps. Most notably, there has been no time for necessary
neighborhood or environmental impact modeling—such as odor or noise studies—and we still have not received a
response to our formal GRAMA request regarding this project. We are requesting that the Council support a formal
stay until a proper land-use review is conducted for a facility of this industrial scale and proximity. I have attached
the Memo for your review and will have physical copies for the Council at tonight’s meeting. Thank you for your
time and for your representation of our community. Sincerely, Alex Ward
1/14/2026 13:09 Anonymous Constituent Council Meeting Comment Please remember, you are supposed to represent the people you serve- ICE out of Utah.
1/14/2026 13:11 Anonymous Constituent Council Meeting Comment It's absolutely disgusting for a so called Christian-state to cheer on and uphold these anti-Christian actions. You
hid behind religion because you can control and manipulate. You all know this treatment is wrong. You're sell-outs
for the biggest phony. I hope you can show how empty your money when everything else runs out.
1/14/2026 13:18 Anonymous Constituent Council Meeting Comment Dear council members, My move to Salt Lake was welcomed by the distressing kidnapping of a woman by ICE at
the SLC airport. I ask for: - The divestment and blocking of funds to federal immigration enforcement - A resolution
for the abolition of ICE. - Require judicial warrants before any city facilities, records, or municipal resources are
accessed. - Mandate public reporting by city depts on interactions with federal immigration authorities. Protect us.
Be good.
1/14/2026 13:19 Anonymous Constituent Council Meeting Comment ICE is a rogue agency that is kidnapping, trafficking, and killing Americans. It must end- they must be abolished. As
a trans person of color, I live in terror every day from this fascist violence. Do everything in your power to protect
us.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
1/14/2026 13:22 Anonymous Constituent Council Meeting Comment ICE should be abolished. It is a n overly violent organization with a horrible goal. It is unchecked and out of control.
The fact that a murderer gets off free because it is a "federal organization" is appalling. It shouldn't exist in the first
place. Our country was founded on immigration and we have no more rights and than they do to this land. This
"free" land. The government should be mandated to report to the public on its actions. The people need to be
aware of what is happening for a democracy to function. Especially in cases with organizations like ICE where
citizens and immigrants alike are being murdered and treated like animals.
1/14/2026 13:24 Anonymous Constituent Council Meeting Comment The Salt Lake Legislature has the power to make a clearer stance against ICE. These are not our community
values, An uncontrolled, unregulated, and legally immune group is dangerous and unconstitutional. Establish
sanctuary policies, prevent police-ice transfers, and take a stance when due process is not maintained.
1/14/2026 13:25 Anonymous Constituent Council Meeting Comment ICE NEEDS TO BE OUT OF UTAH! They use the same tactics and training as Israel military. They think because they
are wearing masks they can get away with anything. They are racially profiling people and taking American
citizens. They are shooting people after giving unclear instructions. They use unnecessary force and do what they
want. There is no illegal immigration on stolen land. What about love thy neighbor?
1/14/2026 13:29 Anonymous Constituent Council Meeting Comment Erin Mendenhall, What are you doing here? Renee was murdered 6 days ago. Chicago, New York, Philadelphia,
Minneapolis, and San Francisco have adopted some form of policy limiting cooperation with ICE or at lease
SPOKEN about it. US Citizens are getting murdered US Citizens are being enslaved US Citizens are being raped in
camps funded by my money. Now is not the time for indecisiveness. Now is not the time to worry about a goddamn
street name. Worry about your people. Do something.
1/14/2026 13:31 Anonymous Constituent Council Meeting Comment As a resident of Salt Lake, I'm concerned that Mayer Mendenhall hasn't made comment on how SLC PD is
cooperating with ICE. Direction on how ICE is being allowed to go door to door or needs to be addressed, we need
the Mayor to give direction on our police force to make sure ICE is following the law and being held accountable,
so that there is no misunderstanding that residents of Salt Lake still have rights. As your constituent, I'm
concerned with how ICE is allowed to function the way things are going. A statement on Salt Lake's stance needs
to be known.
1/14/2026 13:34 Anonymous Constituent Council Meeting Comment Regardless of its creators' intentions or stated mission, ICE has become an institution of injustice, violence, and
bigotry. The opinion of the general public (your constituents) has for a long time and ever increasingly reflects that
truth, and no amount of reprimand will sufficiently change what ICE is and has become. The only solution is to
strip these monsters of their power, to punish them for all of the killing and the destruction of families, homes,
livelihoods, and communities that they have made into their aim and their goal. The people do not want them here.
The people will not welcome them here. The people will resist them and speak out against them until ICE is a force
for justice, or it is no more.
1/14/2026 13:39 Anonymous Constituent Council Meeting Comment Salt Lake City has the power and duty to further protect its people from the horror and danger of ICE. ICE taking
people from their communities to be sent to inhumane and dangerous prisons and camps is clearly an extreme
danger to our communities. The city must resist this by: * Requiring judicial warrants before resources are
accessed. * Pass a resolution calling for the abolition of ICE * Mandate public reporting in interactions with
federal agents * Provide educational resources and partner with human rights authorities. * FUnd community
advisory bodies that monitor residents rights * Ensure no city funds, staff, facilities, are used for federal
immigration enforcement, including refusing all 287 [g].
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
1/14/2026 13:41 Anonymous Constituent Council Meeting Comment The bare minimum we demand of our city officials: - Ensure no city funds, staff, or facilities are used for federal
immigration enforcement. - Pass a resolution calling for the abolition of ICE. - Provide public education and
partner with immigration rights organization to inform us of our legal protections. - Mandate public reporting by
city departments on interactions with federal immigration authorities. - Support community advisory bodies that
monitor the protection of constitutional rights.
1/14/2026 13:44 Anonymous Constituent Council Meeting Comment Utah is my home and a flowering bed for strong families, diverse though, and caring hearts. The rising tide of
fascism and hatred under the Trump administration cannot take hold here. I wish Salt Lake City can remain a
sanctuary city. We must have public reporting on interactions with federal agencies. As I am involved in tonight's
council meeting, I hope SLC will fund community advisory bodies that monitor resident's rights. Utah should not
participate in tearing families apart! Let's refuse all future 287 [G] sign-ons.
1/14/2026 13:46 Anonymous Constituent Council Meeting Comment Rest in peace Renee Good and everyone else harmed by ICE this year and last. Please refuse voluntary
cooperation with ICE in Salt Lake City. I live in SLC and I do not wat ICE here. They are a harmful organization and
they are hurting and violation people who have done nothing wrong. Even if someone overstayed their visa or does
not have one, it is only a misdemeanor and they do still have rights as a human being. ICE only adds fear and
trauma and harm to our community. They are the ones who are not law abiding.
1/14/2026 13:50 Anonymous Constituent Council Meeting Comment What will the SLC Government protect Utahs from ICE? ICE needs to be kept out of our communities and a fascist
threat and our fellow homes and neighbor to be kept safe.
1/14/2026 13:52 Anonymous Constituent Council Meeting Comment I ask the City Council to refuse voluntary cooperation with federal enforcement. Silence or inaction makes our city
complicit. The council and mayor have the power to refuse city funds and stuff to be used for federal immigration
enforcement. The aggression and violence against immigrants is unacceptable and has no place here in Salt Lake
City. I beg- Keep ICE out of Utah. Thank you
1/14/2026 13:54 Anonymous Constituent Council Meeting Comment Rest in peace Renee Good! I'm writing to express my deep sorrow that we lost a human being whose rights were
violated. As a fellow citizen, I no longer feel safe after witnessing how she was murdered. I ask you to please
protect our people and work to keep our community together.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
1/14/2026 14:30 Tj Young 1/2 Council Meeting Comment RE: 3 opportunities for SLC Council and SLC Mayor to better protect constitutional and human rights Executive
Summary As our immigrant communities face increased fear and uncertainty, we have both the capability and the
responsibility to further protect the constitutional and human rights of SLC businesses and residents. This
memorandum outlines two key ways in which SLCPD can help decrease the fear in the community and increase
the possibility of their rights being respected during and after encounters with federal ICE, HSI or equivalent
agents. I also share Aurora, Colorado's latest resolution (see pp364) opposing unlawful and overreaching federal
immigration enforcement actions as an example for Salt Lake City Council members to consider. In these
unprecedented times, it is imperative to both serve the community and—wherever possible—preserve
democracy, the rule of law, and individual rights. Background & Methodology Much like the late January 2025 ICE
incident where an ICE agent signed a false statement accusing a gentleman of trying to side-swipe his car and hit
him, I have knowledge of multiple individuals who have more recently been threatened with similar false Federal
charges. While I understand the limited role a local police department can occupy when Federal agents are on
scene, I believe there are at least two areas where more can be done, in addition to the current verification of
Federal agents that SLCPD can provide if someone calls 911 when masked, armed men refuse to identify
themselves. Recommendation: Assigning a case number/opening an investigation In instances like the January
2025 Millcreek one where Federal agents are suspected or proven to have lied, targeted individuals need access
to security cam footage from nearby businesses or homes to prove their innocence. Most businesses will only
release this footage if requested by a police department. Whether assigning a case number, opening an
investigation, or simply giving the targeted individual a business card to share with their lawyer, SLCPD can—by
facilitating and acquiring security cam footage—increase transparency, verify or debunk the claims of Federal ICE
agents, and ensure targeted residents and business owners are treated with respect according to the rule of law.
Recommendation: Timing and thoroughness of verification SLCPD is already able to reduce fear in the community
by responding to 911 calls where federal agents refuse to show identification or warrants, making it impossible for
targeted individuals to know if they’re being legally detained or unlawfully assaulted and kidnapped. While they
cannot interfere with a federal agent, they should help document when those federal agents violate the
Constitutional rights of Salt Lake City residents. Witnessing and documenting ICE encounters has been shown to
increase the likelihood that rights will be respected, whether or not anyone is detained. The average ICE encounter
lasts less than 10-15 minutes.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
1/14/2026 14:30 Tj Young 2/2 CONTINUED!! Council Meeting Comment With the existing local precedent that at least one ICE agent has lied in a sworn statement and endangered the
rights of a US Citizen, the need for volunteer or legal observers to be on scene in real time is paramount. As local
volunteers learn of active ICE encounters, we quickly rush to the scene to legally observe and document ICE
activity to preserve the rights of targeted individuals without interfering with federal agents. Anything that
increases the time it takes for an ICE incident to be completed improves the chances that a volunteer observer
can arrive on scene to remind the targeted individual of their Constitutional rights, contact their legal
representation, and legally document the encounter for rights violations. It would be helpful to know how SLCPD
verifies the legitimacy of federal agents, how thorough the verification process is, and how long it takes, on
average. Recommendation: SLC Council resolution opposing unlawful and overreaching federal immigration
enforcement actions I respectfully request the SLC Council consider an urgent resolution similar to one shared by
Aurora, CO (see pp364) denouncing the recent, illegal escalation by federal ICE agents and officials. These
escalations have further eroded our democracy, violated Constitutional rights, and needlessly taken the life of
Renee Nicole Good, among others. Conclusion I appreciate the sensitivity of this matter and the position SLCPD
and SLC elected officials are in, given the volatility and complexity of today’s political environment. This matter is
fundamentally about preserving the individual and Constitutional rights of SLC businesses and residents—part of
the sworn duty of public servants. I believe the recommendations are simple, low-cost, and have the potential to
improve the lives of all SLC residents across the board. Thank you for your time and consideration. I am happy to
speak further about any of these ideas at your convenience.
1/14/2026 14:31 Bernie Hart Council Comment Good Morning, It took me 30 seconds to find out that the per capita homeless rate in Florida is almost as high as in
California and New York. 30 Seconds. Hmm. It seems that Miami's reduction in homelessness had no impact on
the number of homeless in Florida. Could it be that the really expensive enhanced policing as a solution just
moved the street sleepers away from the beaches in Miami and not out of homelessness? Even with all the
frustration I have experienced with the City, County, and State with how you all dealt with homelessness, deep
down I had a belief that you all cared, and all I had to do was say what I had to say the right way. Not any longer.
You folks just don't care enough to move beyond the bullshit. Bernie
1/14/2026 14:35 J. Lee Burke Clark and Christine Ivory parcel on 3300 N Councilman Dugan, I strongly urge you to vote AGAINST rezoning the parcel of land currently owned by the Clark
and Christine Ivory Foundation on 3300 N. in Salt Lake City. As an advocate of the Great Salt Lake because of it’s
importance in regulation of our local weather and air quality as well as it’s (and the surrounding wetlands')
importance as critical habitat for a large number of species, I bemoan the constant, and seemingly relentless loss
of wetlands surrounding the lake. Please vote NO to any resolution that would rezone that parcel to industrial use /
development. Surely we can find better options than a mosquito infested playa under the flight path to the airport
to support the unfortunate people in our community who find themselves without shelter. “We" (our legislature -
against our city’s will) have already created enough disturbance by dedication of much critical habitat in the city’s
northwest sector to the “Inland Port”- where multiple already built warehouses stand empty or only minimally
used. Again, please vote NO to rezoning the parcel of land on 3300 No. currently owned by the Clark and Christine
Ivory Foundation! J. Lee Burke
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
1/15/2026 15:56 Hilary Jacobs Please vote against the MU-8 rezone adjacent to
Sugar House Park **Attachment 1 - 4 pages
Dear Salt Lake City Council Representatives, You have already received the attached letter, written by a
consortium of Community Councils and others, asking you to deny the request from the Magnus Hotel
Management to rezone the property adjacent to Sugar House Park, to build a 90 foot high hotel on the property. I
support the attached letter and ask that you please vote against this request. There are too numerous reasons why
this request is detrimental to, and disrespectful of, what Salt Lake City is known for. A hotel in this unique open
space location would be a blight not only on the view shed but also on Sugar House Park and the neighborhood in
general. This rezone would permit the building of a monster hotel that would detract from one of the most beloved
of the City's parks, and precipitate turning this unique space into a generic paved interstate highway pull off. Sugar
House is not a generic piece of pavement and should not be considered or treated as such. Salt Lake City is known
as a uniquely beautiful city in a uniquely beautiful setting with beautiful unobstructed views across the valley.
Please do not approve this rezone that will result in terrible consequences, now and into the future. Thank you,
Hilary Jacobs, District 3
1/15/2026 17:00 Michael Scott Green Phone call to City Council A Free storage for the homeless on the corner of 500 West and 300 South is closing earlier than 7pm, leaving the
homeless without their belongings. Michael is upset that when he showed up 15 minutes before 7pm, the building
was already closed and couldn't retrieve his belonging.
1/16/2026 11:01 Josh Stewart Anderson Foothill Library Re-construction Dan, Happy New Year! Looking forward to more great things in Salt Lake this year. At some point in the relatively
near future, it sounded like the Salt Lake library system wanted to rebuild the Anderson Foothill Library. Are you as
a city councilperson part of the process or could you help in the process for selecting architects or the design style
of that library? When the library gets rebuilt, I believe that most people in the neighborhood would want it to fit
stylistically in the neighborhood. Yalecrest has very traditional style homes and even new construction in the area
also follows very traditional looks as well. Libraries like the Sprague library, which is a collegiate gothic style
building, have been loved and appreciated for years in Sugar House. That type of classy style would also fit well in
Yalecrest. A cutting edge modern design, which is typical of new libraries on the Wasatch, would not be a good fit
there. Also, it is important to find architects very skilled with experience in designing traditional style buildings,
because it is an expertise not all architects have. Do you have any recommendations on how to direct the future
design and shape the process so an excellent traditional style library is built there? Thanks, Josh Stewart Architect
1/16/2026 11:03 Richard Mingo Please Oppose Rezoning of Northpoint Wetlands Council Member Dugan, I’m writing as a District 6 resident to urge you to oppose the proposed rezoning of 80
acres of designated Natural Open Space in the Northpoint community to industrial use. The City’s recently
adopted Northpoint Small Area Plan, created through years of community engagement, clearly identifies this land
as protected Natural Open Space. Changing that designation now would undermine the planning process and
permanently eliminate one of the last large wetland playas in the area. At a time when the Great Salt Lake is
shrinking, these wetlands are essential. They support more than 170 bird species, protect adjacent duck clubs
and habitat, and provide ecological functions that cannot be replaced once lost. Industrial upzoning would also
bring increased diesel traffic, air pollution, contaminated runoff, noise, and light impacts to an area the City has
already identified as environmentally fragile. I respectfully ask you to uphold the adopted plan and oppose this
rezoning request. Thank you for your service and for considering the long‑term health of our community and the
Great Salt Lake. Sincerely, Richard Mingo
Sugar House Hotel Letter
December 22, 2025
Sent via email to Dan Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Victoria Petro, Eva Lopez
Chavez, Sarah Young, Erika Carlsen.
Dear Dan:
Several community councils and leaders wanted to share their views about the
proposed hotel in the Sugar House Park. This letter represents those opinions. Two
councils are in your district, one is in Eva’s and one is in Chris’. Others are very
interested in adding their names — but because of travel and other obstacles — won’t
do so until January. In this letter we reference Judi Short, Lands Use and Zoning Chair
in Sugar House. She has reviewed the letter and the attributions.
It’s being sent during a very busy holiday season, but we hope you and your Council
colleagues will have time to look it over before the project comes before the full City
Council in 2026.
We wish you and your council colleagues a very Happy Holiday season.
Here are our concerns:
1.Water, flood and environmental impacts. In her presentation before the Planning
Commission, Sugar House Land Use and Zoning Chair Judi Short raised significant
concerns about water, flooding and environmental impacts that could be exacerbated by
the new hotel.
She referenced the earthen dam under the underground parking lot – which will
hold 180 cars. Construction near the dam could place additional burden on this
environmental feature and negatively affect groundwater or be compromised
during a critical climate event, flood event or during an exceptional rain event.
The “draw” or underpass below 1300 East that connects the west and east sides
of Sugar House would be a collector point for hundreds and thousands of gallons
of water, in a heavy rain or extreme climate event. The great flood of 2017 was
so fierce, over five feet of water surged from Sugar House Park into Sprague
Library two miles away– damaging the library basement and costing $1.5-$2
million in repairs. More flooding events in 2023 closed the park. Impacts from
climate change are real.
As Judi Short indicated, there have not been reviews of potential flooding, excess
water or environmental impacts by Salt Lake Flood Control or the State Dam
Engineer. These are critical informational pieces. We urge the project be halted
until they are conducted and properly reviewed. Even the Public Utilities
Department made a specific requirement in their report that a Technical Drainage
Study be conducted, and additional stormwater treatment management be added
because of the environmental sensitivity to Parley’s Creek and the Sugar House
Park.
Attachment 1 - Page 1
A D6 Community Council leader skilled in city zoning codes and development
made an important observation. If the MU3 zone is preserved — which would
prevent the hotel and the underground garage — this technically “solves” many
of the environmental issues the hotel might trigger because a 180- car
underground garage does not “pencil” for buildings constructed in the MU3 zone.
2.We dispute the developer’s claim that a rezone of the property to MU-8 –
allowing buildings up to 90 feet -- is the only pathway to “an economically viable
project.” This is purely speculative and somewhat self-serving. There are countless
developments that could be placed on the property within the existing MU-3 zone –
which prioritizes neighborhood-scale commercial. There are dozens of commercial
examples across the street or throughout the Sugar House business district. Hotels are
not permitted in a MU-3 zone, which the Council just designated for this property in July,
when new citywide codes were approved. It may be prudent to go back and re-analyze
why MU-3 is the best zone for this property.
3.Wasatch mountain views; Sugar House District Design
Guidelines. Preservation of mountain views is not only codified in the Sugar House
District Design Guidelines but is one of the essential features of the new Ballpark Next
project just approved by the Salt Lake City Council on December 9, 2025. The Council
voted unanimously to ensure the Ballpark development would be “thoughtfully sculpted
to ensure the majestic views of the Wasatch Mountains remain preserved.” What is
ethically correct for the Ballpark should also be ethically correct for Sugar House.
4. Salt Lake and Sugar House do not have a hotel capacity problem . In late
October, the Rocky Mountain Lodging Report announced that Salt Lake’s motel and
hotel occupancy rate for 2025 is 70.3% -- a 30% cushion. The developer claims this
project would fill a “gap in the hotel market” yet two motels operate within two-tenths of
a mile from this location supplying 232 rooms. Adding this 145-room hotel would create
377 rooms within yards of each other. Three more motels are in proximity on Foothill
Drive representing another 640 rooms. The bed count alone for these 5 existing
properties is over 1,000. We believe no current “gap” exists.
5.Harmful traffic impacts. The roadways that border the proposed hotel – 1300
East and 2100 South – are major arteries travelled daily by tens of thousands of
cars. UDOT statistics show more than 50,000 cars exit daily off I-80 onto 1300 East just
below the hotel property. And traffic volumes along 2100 South are always about 25,000
daily. They are critical access and egress points to a vast freeway system as well as to
Salt Lake City. Both are currently rated “F” for failure.
Placing a 145-room hotel at one of the busiest corners in the city will exacerbate
traffic conditions creating more delays and congestion. Even the Hales
Engineering study acknowledged increased morning and evening congestion. To
alleviate the backup, engineers proposed an additional turn lane on 1300 East to
relieve traffic entering I-80 East. But that too is problematical since there are only
3 southbound lanes on 1300 East from 2100 South. At this very location, there is
Attachment 1 - Page 2
already a traffic “choke point” where cars are turning to enter I-80 – going west or
east from 1300 East.
Real-time traffic data that formed the basis of the Hales Engineering study was
only collected during one day in January 2025. Is this sufficient? January is the
coldest month of the year and less travelled than warmer-weather months. UDOT
Director Carlos Braceras, in testimony before the State Legislative Transportation
Committee in late October, said UDOT needs 3 years of data to make the best
evaluation of a roadway.
Hotel guests may not be using their own personal vehicles– but they will still be
arriving, departing and moving around town or throughout the state in cars. A
business traveler rushing to meetings, a family or friend trying to connect with
locals, a person in town for a special concert or sporting event, or a vacationer
hoping to hit the ski slopes, check out Temple Square or gaze at the Great Salt
Lake is unlikely to hop on a bicycle or take the bus to reach these
destinations. We do not believe the engineering study has taken this adequately
into account and is primarily focused on hotel guests being dropped off when
they arrive or picked up when they leave.
The developers are pitching the new hotel as a restaurant destination because of
the rooftop eatery – so additional guests in vehicles would be arriving and leaving
the hotel during mealtimes. This is addressed in the study, but not adequately.
6.Preserving the “crown jewel” of Salt Lake City’s parks. The most critical
question before the city should be the preservation and future vitality of Sugar House
Park. It has been an oasis of relaxation, recreation, and retreat from the impacts of a
burgeoning urban center with explosive growth.
During the public hearing on October 22, arguments were made that this corner lot at
2100 South and 1300 East was just an extension of the Sugar House Central business
district. Sugar House Community Council representatives in attendance said that had
never been an acknowledged in their planned documents. In other words, 1300 East
had always been the business boundary.
Advancement of the business district eastward will bring additional pressure to the park.
Rezoning will likely invite more upzones along the park’s northern border where low-rise
commercial enterprises and residential homes currently exist, opening the way for
higher buildings and more density. Salt Lake City has built more new housing in the
past few years – tens of thousands of apartments – than at any time since World War II.
Open spaces like Sugar House Park represent an essential antidote to the pressures of
modern urbanity, offering balance and the serenity of nature. A reminder: On the park’s
east end, Highland High’s new remodel will center the school at the edge of 2100
South.
7.Environmental Erosion. Sugar House Park is a haven for migrating birds and an
important causeway for Parley’s Creek. It is an important habitat for geese, ducks,
seagulls and other species. While Salt Lake is experiencing hotter and hotter summers,
the Park is a vital sanctuary and buffer against the corrosive "heat island" effect. If built,
Attachment 1 - Page 3
a hotel will only contribute to the park’s environmental erosion – adding heat, auto
exhaust, solar glare, artificial lights, and noise.
Respectfully,
Yalecrest Neighborhood Council Board
East Bench Community Council Board
East Central Community Council
Esther Hunter, chair, and board members Debbie Fedor and Gwen Crist.
Greater Avenues Community Council
Jim Jenkins, Land Use Committee
Attachment 1 - Page 4
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
1/16/2026 11:05 Jeff Meyers Dangerous e-bike behavior Dear SLCPD Motor Unit, I am writing to request increased patrol or enforcement in my neighborhood regarding a
recurring and dangerous traffic safety issue. Children of different ages have been racing mini-motorcycles, micro-
bikes, and high-speed e-bikes through our residential streets. My primary concern is the immediate risk of a
collision, as these vehicles are low to the ground, difficult for drivers to see, and are being operated in a reckless
manner. Specific violations observed: Excessive Speeds: Operating well above the residential limit. Traffic Sign
Violations: Failing to stop at stop signs or yield at intersections. Illegal Vehicle Use: Use of non-street-legal micro-
motorcycles on public roadways. Endangerment: Riders are often weaving through traffic without helmets or
safety gear. Also in the dark! Location & Timing: Primary Areas: 1900 east and St. Mary’s drive Peak Times:
Weekdays between 3:30 PM – 6:00 PM and Saturday afternoons As a resident on the East Bench, I am deeply
concerned that the combination of our neighborhood’s topography and the high speed of these low-profile bikes
will result in a tragedy. Many of us are worried about the liability and trauma of an accidental collision because
these riders are nearly invisible until too late? Could you please schedule a patrol or a speed enforcement
presence in this area during the peak times mentioned above? Thank you for your time and for keeping our
community safe. I will copy this email to my city council member. Sincerely, Jeff Myers
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
1/16/2026 13:31 James Miska Great Salt Lake wetlands To the Salt Lake City Council, My name is James Miska, and I am a local resident, homeowner, and small business
owner in the tourism industry, here in Salt Lake City. I am writing because I am against the proposal of upzoning of
80 acres of Great Salt Lake wetlands in the Northpoint area. The land is now zoned as agricultural, and in previous
planning documents, the city has said the land should be preserved as open space and wetlands. Therefore, the
city should deny the proposal to upzone it, plain and simple. The issue is on its way to making it to your agenda for
a future City Council meeting, so I wanted to get this comment in writing to you now. As you may be aware, on Jan.
14th, 2026, the SLC Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the proposals in question (PLNPCM2025-
00613 and PLNPCM2025-00614). I request that you allon City Council unanimously act in accordance with this
clear opinion of the Planning Commission as concerns this matter. At a time when the Great Salt Lake is shrinking
before our eyes, this rezoning would permanently erase approximately 80 acres of irreplaceable wetland
playa—lands that quietly sustain the lake, shelter wildlife, and protect our communities. These wetlands are not
empty or expendable. They are living, breathing parts of the Great Salt Lake ecosystem, and once they are gone,
they are gone forever. The proposed rezoning would destroy one of the last large remaining wetland playas in the
Northpoint area, harming adjacent wetlands and duck clubs and bringing increased diesel truck traffic, air
pollution, contaminated runoff, noise, and light pollution. These impacts would further burden surrounding
communities and an area the City has already identified as environmentally fragile. The City’s recently adopted
Northpoint Small Area Plan reflects years of community engagement and clearly designates this land as Natural
Open Space, intended to remain undeveloped. The Plan identifies wetlands and sensitive lands as least suitable
for development and directs industrial uses away from environmentally constrained areas. I am also deeply
concerned by the incomplete public input process. The initial 45-day Public Input Notice described this request
only as a rezoning from AG-2 to M-1 and failed to disclose that the property is designated as Natural Open Space
and wetlands in the adopted General Plan—or that amending the General Plan would be required. This critical
information was later included in the Planning Commission notice, confirming that it is material. The omission
denied the public a meaningful opportunity to provide informed input. Approving these proposals would reflect
poorly on the institution of our local government. For all these reasons, please deny the proposals PLNPCM2025-
00613 and PLNPCM2025-00614 I would like a response to this message. Thank you, James Miska
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
1/20/2026 10:43 Katie Nielsen Voicemail to City Council Hi, my name is Katie Nielsen and I live onREDACTED. I go down 10th North to go on, get onto the freeway and you
guys paved, the city paved just the lanes and not the median and not the sides of the road on 10th West and
there's this big bump at the end of, I think it's Catherine Street, between Catherine Street and 1400 North, it's on
10th West and it's a vent or something to the sewer line or something, but it's a big freaking hole and everybody
drives around it and it's kind of a safety issue because everybody drives around it because it's such a big dip and
was calling to see if they could actually fix that since they didn't fix much of the road anyway, but it would be nice if
you could fix that part because it's really annoying and it's going to be a bigger problem when it's slippery, so, and
it's really annoying. Did I mention that? Anyway, could you see about getting that fixed? My number is 801-541-
4199 and, you know, things that you guys do to the West Side would never go over on the East Side, so why do you
think that we don't deserve to have better roads and better things over here? We pay taxes, we have people that
make a lot of money over here too, you know, our houses are worth a lot, our cars are worth a lot, just like every
place, and we shouldn't have to be put up with getting bumped hard every time we drive down a damn road, and so
please fix it. Call me if you want to, if you don't have the, you know, can't figure out where it is, all you got to do is
drive down, you know, 10th North going East and you'll hit it, you know, run right over, just hit your head on the
ceiling of your car if you're going very fast. Anyway, it's really frustrating that you did such a crap job of the road and
such a half-assed job of the road, but at least you could fix the damn bumps so that they weren't falling in, you
know, six or eight inches just to go over a vent. That's pure freaking laziness and we shouldn't be treated like that
and you should take care of our roads the same as you do on the East Side. I'm tired of the East Side favoritism, it's
bullshit. We all pay taxes and it's all, you know, a large percentage and the rich people don't pay fucking taxes, so
it'd be nice if you actually took care of the roads on the people that do pay taxes. Okay, thanks. - transferred to Khai
for follow-up.
1/20/2026 11:32 Addison Hunter District 3 - Foothills Trails Leash Law Enforcement Hi, I am a resident of District 3 and frequent user of the Foothills trail system. I am writing to say I am HUGELY
supportive of enforcing leash laws on the trails. I have had multiple uncomfortable encounters with large off leash
dogs rushing me and owners not even acknowledging it. Additionally I often see off leash dogs off trail and in
restoration areas. To protect the trail system and its users, I am very glad to hear the city is taking steps to enforce
the law in this area. Best, Addison Hunter
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
1/20/2026 13:05 Alex Ward SLCDPU’s planned January 12th construction of a
30-foot industrial reactor vessel grave concerns regarding the SLCDPU’s planned January 12th construction of a 30-foot industrial reactor vessel
("BioTower") at 1020 W Pierpont Ave (Permit BLD2025-02186). According to the City’s own engineering
specifications, this is not a standard utility structure, but a high-capacity industrial system designed for
continuous 24/7 processing. We have formally requested an Executive Stay from the Mayor’s office to ensure this
project does not proceed while the Council is in the middle of finalizing Petitions PLNPCM2024-01352 and
PLNPCM2024-01357. We ask the Council to consider the following three points: 1. Legislative Clarification: We
urge you to ensure that these pending petitions include explicit language prohibiting "BioTowers" and similar
installations in residential zones. Clarifying these standards now will provide much-needed certainty for both the
city and its residents, ensuring that industrial processes are never again proposed for placement in a residential
backyard. 2. Geographic Inequity: This would be the first industrial BioTower ever sited in a residential
neighborhood in Salt Lake City. The only other existing BioTowers are in strictly industrial areas on the West Side.
Despite holding 60% of the city’s population, the East Side remains entirely BioTower-free. 3. Environmental
Health: According to the EPA’s EJScreen tool, Poplar Grove already ranks in the 96th percentile for Diesel
Particulate Matter (soot) and the 99th percentile nationally for proximity to hazardous waste facilities. Placing an
industrial chemical exhaust system ~80 feet from residential front doors is an undue cumulative burden on a
is out of the country and will not be attending today’s meeting. While he has been aware of this situation since
December 22nd, his current absence during this critical window means we must look to the full Council to provide
the legislative oversight needed to protect our community. We invite you to join us at 1020 W Pierpont Ave today at
4:00 PM. We want to give you the opportunity to see, firsthand, just how extreme the proximity of this industrial
reactor vessel will be to the front doors of our families' homes. Thank you for your time and for protecting the
integrity of the Council’s legislative work. Sincerely, Alex Ward on behalf of the Poplar Grove Residents
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
1/20/2026 13:06 Troy Saltiel 1/2 Comments on parking requirements,
transportation safety, CIP despite representing only a small portion of our neighborhood! I wanted to reach out with some follow up thoughts
following my question on transportation safety. I'm happy to chat sometime on any of the topics if you'd like.
Minimum Parking Requirements This is a tough subject, because the wording and understanding for the public is
very important. The city requires a minimum amount of off-street parking everywhere except within a set short
distance of TRAX. These mandates require a significant expense to construction, degrade our environment by
converting green space to pavement, and add driveways, which leads to decreased safety and ironically, a
reduction in on-street parking (no parking in front of or within 5 ft of a driveway). For these reasons, I believe the
city should not require off-street parking city-wide. To be clear, this only impacts the city requirement for off-street
parking, developers can still choose to build parking, and are often forced to through financing (see the 144 South
Apartments project). I just want to have the choice to, say, have a garden instead of a parking spot (mind you I'd be
forced to have one and pay for it even though I don't own a car!) Many consider new townhomes to be ugly, and
that is in no small part because they're surrounded by parking access, and costs are driven up by 1/3 of the
building being a garage. It also bothers me that the wonderful housing I see in our older neighborhoods would be
illegal to build today. Reform here needs to be focused on removing the requirement, not "removing parking", as
many are already confused from previous efforts as well as misinformation that the city is physically removing
parking. Safety I'm glad to hear that you support safety measures. These measures impact everyone. While there's
a lot of focus on vulnerable road users, drivers really benefit the most by these measures which reduce crashes
and crash severity. I think there is a silent majority out there that would much rather drive safely, but feel
pressured by other drivers to drive more aggressively, or the street design promotes bad driving behavior. Safety is
inevitably linked to on-street parking, and unfortunately, everyone wants to park in front of their destination and
experience parking pressures everyday such that this desire overpowers the more infrequent but much more
impactful safety needs. I think there is in part a cultural shift here needed - it's okay not to park in front of your
destination if you don't need to, and that streets that are meant to move people (traffic streets) should prioritize
the safe movement of people before considering on-street parking. Redesignating a shoulder on a traffic street for
a bike lane when there's more parking around the corner should be a no-brainer. In a lot of cases we have the
space to have both, but that usually requires longer-term, more expensive projects. Central Ninth is a good
example that shows that even though most of the street space is still dedicated to cars (two lanes, two diagonal
parking lanes, and central walkway access to parking), people still demand more parking.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
1/20/2026 13:06 Troy Saltiel 2/2 CONTINUED!! Comments on parking
requirements, transportation safety, CIP solution is to guide drivers to existing lots and garages instead of everyone competing for limited on street parking,
not because they need it but because there's a lack of awareness of other options. This way we can redirect our
efforts to saving lives instead of battling over a parking spot. With that said, we can make other improvements that
don't touch parking, like protected intersections, better lighting, traffic calming, and etc. I also want to note
terminology here as well, particularly around the topic of traffic calming - I think saying "slowing traffic" is not the
move, instead "stopping speeders" should resonate better when speaking with residents. Slowing traffic implies
it's difficult to go significantly over the speed limit - and that's what traffic calming does! CIP Applications - I
brought up a CIP application for 700 South in Salt Lake City, but I have also submitted an application in your
district, for improved crossings on 1700 South. The application targets currently unsignalized intersections along
the street that are designated neighborhood byways in the city's master plan. As someone who frequently gets
around by bike in the city, 1700 South is one of the most obvious gaps in safe infrastructure, and this application is
a great start to at least make it easier to cross the street. Improvements would include curb extensions and
flashing beacons, though we don't focus on traffic calming along 1700 South due to 2025's SB195 bill, which
scrutinizes traffic calming on non-residential streets. I would, however, love to see future efforts to make 1700
South safer. Note that city transportation had an opportunity to update the paint striping recently but it got caught
up in the SB195 debacle last year, and I hope that's revisited. I'll also add that between my two CIP applications,
with the public, because they typically remove little if any parking and focus on streets that only residents live on,
so there's no worry about needing to perform traffic studies. The city is slowly chipping away at a network of
neighborhood byways, but they're currently only funded by one-off opportunities like CIPs, thus it's vital to fund
work each year. Thank you for taking the time to read my comments! Troy
watching the extreme and deadly tactics used by ICE, and am very concerned about similar tactics being used in
Utah, in SLC, and in my district. I imagine this has been discussed by the Council already, but I urge you to do all
that you can to ensure the protection of everyone against ICE - it seems clear that ICE will continue to commit
with the Council to help protect Utahn's rights, please let me know. Democracy is an active process, and I am
happy to participate in any way that might be useful. Thank you, -- Caz Novak Pronouns: he/his/him
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
1/20/2026 13:14 Tiffany Young Fwd: JLL info on proposed ice detention site Info from other proposed sites about broker seen on signage at the proposed SLC mega detention site. I’m sharing
it with media, mayors and a few legislators. The person who compiled it was unaware JLL is also the listed SLC
proposed site broker (or firm or whatever). JLL is a commercial real estate firm that listed at least five of the
properties on ICE’s leaked spreadsheet. ICE reportedly intends to use those five JLL-listed industrial
warehouses—amounting to more than three million square feet—to detain 14,500 people. The five JLL-listed
properties are in Byhalia, MS; Hagerstown, MD; Ashland, VA; Roxbury, NJ; and Tremont, PA. One of the properties
is, in JLL’s words (https://perma.cc/JVJ7-YMXU), a “master-planned industrial park” in Byhalia. On January 16,
2026, ICE officials conducted a site visit (https://perma.cc/4QHQ-6ZDZ) to the JLL-listed warehouse. This is not
JLL’s first time dealing with Donald Trump. After the January 6 insurrection, JLL cut ties (https://perma.cc/Y2AZ-
QTZY) with the Trump Organization, backing out of selling the Trump International Hotel. That decision tracked
with JLL’s touting itself (https://perma.cc/C4HM-97RR) as being “recognized as one of the World’s most ethical
companies.” As JLL’s CEO and Board Chairman put the point (https://perma.cc/7SPT-BEJZ), “At JLL, ethics is in
everything we do.” Hopefully so. After the site visit, JLL did not respond to media (https://perma.cc/J55L-5S3P)
requests (https://perma.cc/E4AV-SQDU) for comment. So it remains unclear whether JLL knew that the Trump
administration intends to use JLL-listed warehouses to detain 14,500 humans. But JLL knows now. It is publicly
reported (https://www.fox13memphis.com/news/group-gathers-at-byhalia-warehouse-listed-as-possible-ice-
facility/article_f328d967-be04-4ae3-a518-6459effe2b15.html) that ICE intends to convert the 798,000-square-
foot warehouse into an 8,500-bed detention “mega center” in Byhalia (whose population is about 1,500).
1/20/2026 13:15 Kateryna Brower URGENT: Opposition to Parleys Canyon To the Salt Lake County Council and Regulatory Officials, I am writing to you as a concerned resident of the
Highland Park neighborhood and a parent of two young children. I am formally voicing my opposition to the
proposed gravel pit in Parleys Canyon. Living in Highland Park, we are acutely aware of how Parleys Canyon acts
as a funnel for air into the valley. My primary concern is the health of my children. It is well-documented that
children are more vulnerable to the effects of poor air quality because their lungs are still developing and they
breathe more rapidly than adults. We already face too many days where I have to keep my kids indoors because
the air is unsafe. Adding a massive new source of dust and particulate matter at the mouth of the canyon is a
direct threat to their long-term respiratory health. I should not have to worry that my children’s "outside time" is
increasing their risk for future health complications. Furthermore, the increased heavy truck traffic on I-80 near
our neighborhood raises significant safety and noise concerns. I urge you to uphold the county's mining
ordinances and protect the families of Salt Lake City. Please deny all permits for the Parleys Canyon quarry.
Sincerely, Kateryna Brower 84106
1/20/2026 13:16 Scott Nish ICE Detention Facility Despicable the city does not support federal law enforcement! Clearly they support the global migrant invasion
and millions of illegals democrats encouraged to unlawfully enter our country and prey on Americans !!! Scott
Nish
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
1/20/2026 13:45 Alyssa Cronin Jamison Thank you for leadership and support on
community safety and immigrant dignity thank you for your leadership and public statements supporting community safety, human rights, and thoughtful
oversight regarding the discussions around a proposed federal immigration enforcement facility in our region. This
is a frightening and uncertain time in our country for many people, and I appreciate your willingness to ensure that
any changes to land use or public safety resources go through proper local review and that community concerns
are seriously considered. I live in Utah County and believe strongly that Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County
deserve careful, transparent decision-making that protects all residents, including immigrant families and
neighbors. I support the actions you have taken to uphold due process, civic values, and community trust. I also
want to share that I am deeply concerned about the impact ICE operations and detention facilities have on
believe expanded detention or enforcement activity aligns with the values of dignity, due process, and care that
many Utah residents hold. While I understand that immigration enforcement is a federal matter, I do not support
the expansion of ICE presence or detention infrastructure in our region. I strongly encourage the City and County
to continue using every lawful local tool available — including zoning authority, permitting processes, and policy
decisions — to limit cooperation, prevent harm, and protect community trust. I appreciate our leaders who are
willing to question whether federal enforcement actions truly serve the safety and health of our local community,
and who prioritize transparency, accountability, and human dignity. Thank you again for your service. Sincerely,
Alyssa Cronin Jamison Provo, Utah
Comment on Zoning Map Amendment: 265 East
100 South **Attachement 2 - 2 pages
Dear Council Members, On behalf of the Central City Neighborhood Council (CCNC), please find attached, our
letter regarding the proposed Zoning Map Amendment for the property at approximately 265 East 100 South. In
short, CCNC urges the Council to consider rezoning the site to MU-11 rather than D-1. MU-11 provides a more
appropriate transition between the downtown D-1 core and the surrounding MU-8 Central City north, east, and
south neighborhoods and more closely aligns with the new zoning map recently implemented by the Planning
Division and City Council. If the Council determines an upzone is appropriate, CCNC believes it should be paired
with clear, enforceable community benefits recorded through a development agreement or deed restriction. At a
minimum, we recommend: • 20% of housing units with three or more bedrooms • 50% of units offered for-sale as
condominiums • At least two parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail • A minimum of 5,000 square feet of
on the adjacent Episcopal Church buildings, which are designated local historic landmarks. In particular, we
recommend requirements to maintain the effectiveness of the church’s solar energy system and to prevent
damage to the church’s foundation and structural integrity during construction. Thank you for your time and
consideration. We appreciate the opportunity to share neighborhood input on this important matter and are
available if there are any questions. Sincerely, Jenny Starley, CCNC Vice-Chair Sent on behalf of: Travis Starley
Central City Neighborhood Council Land Use Committee Lead The Central City Neighborhood Council
Jenny Starley, Vice-Chair: Anne Ruth Isaacson, Secretary: Ben Engel, Treasurer: Seth Brown, Board Member At-
Large
January 18, 2026
Salt Lake City Council
451 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
RE: Zoning Map Amendment – 265 East 100 South
Case Number: PLNPCM2024-01377
Dear Chair Puy and Members of the City Council,
On behalf of the Central City Neighborhood Council (CCNC), we submit the following
recommendations regarding the proposed Zoning Map Amendment for the property at
approximately 265 East 100 South, scheduled for City Council briefing on January 20, 2026,
with a public hearing on February 3, 2026, and tentative Council action on February 17, 2026.
The applicant is requesting a rezone from MU-8 (Mixed-Use 8) to D-1 (Central Business District)
to enable a high-rise mixed-use development. While CCNC recognizes this site’s location at the
edge of downtown and supports redevelopment in principle, we do not support a rezone to
D-1 at this location.
Instead, CCNC urges the City Council to consider rezoning the property to MU-11, which
provides a more appropriate transition between the downtown D-1 core to the west and the
MU-8 Central City neighborhoods to the north, east, and south. This approach is more
consistent with the City’s recently adopted mixed-use zoning consolidation and the intent to
create graduated transitions in scale and intensity, rather than extending downtown zoning
deeper into established neighborhoods.
As documented in the Planning Commission record, the Commission held a public hearing on
October 22, 2025, where the majority of speakers opposed the proposed D-1 rezone.
Concerns included parking impacts, neighborhood character, potential property tax increases,
and risks to St. Mark’s Cathedral and related community services. Only one speaker expressed
support, citing the need for additional housing. Despite these concerns, the Planning
Commission voted 7-1 to forward a recommendation of approval with conditions limiting height
to 225 feet and requiring efforts to mitigate commercial displacement.
CCNC also notes staff’s reminder that rezoning does not guarantee the proposed project will be
built. Zoning decisions often outlast individual proposals, and the property could be redeveloped
with any permitted use or sold. For this reason, any upzone should be evaluated based on its
long-term zoning impacts, not solely on conceptual plans.
Attachment 2 - Page 1
Central City Neighborhood Council (CCNC)
If the Council proceeds with an upzone, CCNC believes increased development potential must
be paired with clear, enforceable, and recorded community benefits, ideally through a deed
restriction. At a minimum, CCNC recommends the following:
Community Benefits (recorded and enforceable):
●At least 20% of residential units with three or more bedrooms to support families and
long-term residents
●A minimum of 50% of units offered for-sale as condominiums to expand ownership
opportunities and limit speculation
●At least 5,000 square feet of active, publicly accessible ground-floor retail
●Two parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail to reduce spillover impacts on
nearby residential streets
Design and Construction Considerations:
●Protection of the Episcopal Church’s solar energy system, including minimizing shading
and performance loss
●Construction methods and monitoring sufficient to protect the church’s foundation and
structural integrity, recognizing its historic and community significance
In summary, CCNC supports thoughtful growth that aligns with adopted plans, respects
neighborhood context, and delivers clear public benefit. A rezone to MU-11, rather than D-1,
offers a balanced and policy-consistent path forward. Without this approach and
enforceable commitments, CCNC does not support the requested D-1 rezone.
Thank you for your consideration and the opportunity to provide input on this important
neighborhood matter.
Sincerely,
Travis Starley
Travis Starley, Land Use Committee Lead: tgstarley@gmail.com
Central City Neighborhood Council (CCNC)
As fully supported by all CCNC Board Members:
Austin Taylor, Chair: 12tayloaush@gmail.com
Jenny Starley, Vice-Chair: jstarleyccnc@gmail.com
Anne Ruth Isaacson, Secretary: anneruthisaacson@gmail.com
Ben Engel, Treasurer: engel.ben@gmail.com
Seth Brown, Board Member At-Large: sthbrown4@gmail.com
centralcityslc.wordpress.com/ccnc/ | CentralCityCouncil@gmail.com 2
Attachment 2 - Page 2
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
1/20/2026 13:48 Bernie Hart Finding a better way Good Morning, I'm having a hard time getting my head around all this. Salt Lake City has been using ICE like tactics
to harass and bully the chronically homeless in Salt Lake City for years. Salt Lake County has spent hundreds of
millions of dollars on policing, harassing, and jailing the mentally ill and addicted in our community. Is there a real
difference between inventing excuses for arresting and detaining the homeless over and over again and what ICE
is doing? Or having elected officials approve and fund creative ways of driving people we are uncomfortable with
out of our community. You don't belong here. Is that the message we are sending people in the community who
are only struggling to find a way to deal with the shit the world has thrown at them? It's time we started searching
for solutions to the problems we have created. Yes ... we are the problem. We turn to the police only because we
do not have a viable alternative. So, can we find more compassionate and effective ways of dealing with these
problems? Join us one morning, answers are what we are about. Bernie Hart Understanding Us Salt Lake City
easy job you have. We were heartened to hear that the SLC Planning Commission voted unanimously to not
upzone the 80 acres playa wetlands in the Northpoint community. I would ask you to also vote the same on our
Districts behalf. As we grapple with the worst air quality in the nation now is certainly not the time to be depleting
what few wetlands we still have. Thank you Eva, keep up the good work. Patrick Watson and Joy Emory District 4
Opposition to ICE Expansion Lake City to express my deep alarm regarding the escalating federal immigration enforcement actions across the
country and their direct impact on our local community. The recent news of a proposed 7,500-bed ICE detention
facility in a West-side warehouse is unconscionable. Furthermore, the tragic killing of Renee Good by immigration
officers in Minnesota serves as a harrowing reminder of the dangers posed by aggressive, unchecked federal
enforcement. We cannot allow our city to become a hub for such operations or a place where our neighbors live in
constant fear. While I appreciate the public concerns already raised by Mayor Mendenhall regarding infrastructure
and the vocal opposition from members of the Council, I am imploring you to use every ounce of your executive
and legislative authority to go further: • Enforce Land-Use and Zoning Barriers: I urge you to utilize the city’s land-
use authority and regulatory review processes to block the conversion of any local property into a federal
detention or processing center. • Codify "Sensitive Climate" Protections: Please support and advocate for
measures like SB136 (the "ICE Out" bill) to ensure that city-owned spaces, libraries, and health centers remain
safe zones where federal agents are restricted from enforcement. • Strengthen Non-Cooperation Policies: Ensure
that the Salt Lake City Police Department maintains a strict wall between local law enforcement and federal
immigration actions, particularly regarding the use of city resources or the honoring of civil detainers without a
congressional delegation to halt the expansion of detention facilities and investigate the conduct of agents
involved in recent violent incidents. Salt Lake City has a proud history of being a welcoming place for those
seeking a better life. I'm a transplant from Pittsburgh, PA and have loved living in this city as a young professional
and now am raising daughters who will soon be of school-age. Community safety is paramount for all - especially
for our children and those who don't have the means or access to protect themselves. We must ensure that
"stability, compassion, and respect" are not just words, but the lived reality for every resident, regardless of their
status. I look forward to seeing the Council take formal action on these matters in your upcoming sessions.
Sincerely, Alyssa DiLoreto / District 6
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
1/20/2026 18:56 Hilary Jacobs Save Our Foothills Stewardship Vision document
with maps **Attachment 3 - 7 pages
Hello Council Representatives, Attached you will find the most updated version of the Save Our Foothills
Stewardship Framework that we promised we would email to you at the conclusion of our meetings. This version
includes the Landownership map as well as all the other maps that we shared with you. Please let me know you
have any questions. And thank you again for your interest in this stewardship vision and management framework
for the Salt Lake City Foothills. Best, Hilary Jacobs Dan Schellinig Save Our Foothills
page 1 SAVE OUR FOOTHILLS info@slcfoothills.org www.slcfoothills.org
A Stewardship Framework
for the Salt Lake City Foothills
Save Our Foothills
January 2026
Save Our Foothills has prepared a comprehensive stewardship framework for the Salt Lake City
Foothills—our local wilderness. Having historically provided essential resources such as water, wood,
stone, and wildlife habitat, the foothills also provide opportunities for recreation, relaxation and reflection.
Increasingly, the foothills are being recognized as a unique and irreplaceable public treasure for our
expanding and diversifying community.
There is a growing awareness that the foothills themselves continue to be profoundly impacted by human
activities on the landscapes, presenting challenges for contemporary stewardship. Save Our Foothills
has prepared a Land Use and Recreation Management Map to provide a framework that invites diverse
recreation while sustainably protecting the ecologically complex natural lands. This creates a buffer between
the bustling city and the more remote foothills ecosystems.
As part of our vision we have identified six distinct areas on our Land Use and Recreation Management
Map, designating varying degrees of recreational access and habitat protection. Recreational opportunities
for all user groups are concentrated near the urban/natural lands boundary, providing equitable access.
The framework ensures that recreational activities farther from the urban-foothills boundary will be
less intrusive. In short, by allowing for respectful and responsible recreation in the Foothills today, this
stewardship vision safeguards ecosystem integrity into the future.
As part of our stewardship vision we have defined six distinct area types within the Salt Lake City Foothills.
These include:
1.Multi- or Shared-Use Areas
2.Pedestrian Only Areas
3.Mountain Bike Use Only Areas
4.Habitat Conservation Areas
5.Currently/Permanently Protected Areas
a.City Creek Canyon Watershed Management Area and Natural Preserve
b.Red Butte Canyon Research Natural Area
6.Established Use/Alternative Use Areas
1.Multi- or Shared-Use: These areas welcome a wide spectrum of non-motorized vehicle use, including
hiking, biking, dog walking, bird watching, horseback riding, picnicking, etc. Except where otherwise
specified this includes all areas along the edge of the City downslope from the existing Bonneville
Shoreline Trail (BST), which defines the uppermost extent of this area.
2.Pedestrian Only: Areas above the Bonneville Shoreline Trail are reserved for pedestrian use only except
where otherwise specified.
Exceptions include:
a. The 19th Avenue downhill mountain bike trail
b. City Creek Peak road
c. Lost Lad downhill mountain bike trail
Attachment 3 - Page 1
page 2 SAVE OUR FOOTHILLS info@slcfoothills.org www.slcfoothills.org
3.Mountain Bike Use Only: This area includes already established dedicated mountain bike parks and
trails. While several of these parks and trails continue to be user built, the altering or changing of any
trails henceforth should be under the auspices of Salt Lake City Public Lands.
4. Habitat Conservation Areas: Habitat Conservation Areas (HCA) sustain greater biodiversity
by providing a higher degree of protection for wildlife habitats and corridors, restricting habitat
fragmentation, and minimizing impacts of human activities. Particularly sensitive or relatively
undisturbed areas warrant prioritizing HCA protections.
5.Currently Protected Areas: These areas have established environmental and recreational regulations
in place to protect ecosystem integrity.
a. City Creek Canyon Watershed Management Area and Natural Preserve:
This area is a vital Salt Lake City watershed and is managed to protect water access, water
quality, and water delivery systems. This area should be studied to determine if it is an
“Ancestral Forest Garden” of the Ute People, and co-managed as such if appropriate. (An
Ancestral Forest Garden is a food production and land management system based on the
traditional ecological knowledge of Indigenous and historical cultures.)
b. Red Butte Canyon Research Natural Area: This area is closed to public access to
protect and study the biodiversity of this ecosystem.
6.Established or Alternative Use: This category includes existing structures, parks, or protected areas
(UMNH, Red Butte Garden, This Is The Place, Bonneville Shoreline Preserve) that are currently adjacent
to or on the Foothills natural lands, or areas warranting specialized designation such as nature trails.
Additional considerations for land use management and stewardship include:
• Indigenous Perspective/Input
• Dog Walking Opportunities/Management
• Adaptive Recreation/ADA Accommodation
• Old Growth Forest Conservation/Protection
• Educational Opportunities/18th Ave Meadow Nature Trail
Attachment 3 - Page 2
page 3 SAVE OUR FOOTHILLS info@slcfoothills.org www.slcfoothills.org
Figure 1. Proposed Land Use and Recreation Management
Map for the Salt Lake City Foothills
Attachment 3 - Page 3
page 4 SAVE OUR FOOTHILLS info@slcfoothills.org www.slcfoothills.org
Figure 2. Detail of Proposed Land Use and Recreation Management Map
for the Salt Lake City Foothills showing the East City Creek & Upper Avenues FOSZ,
and the Perry’s Hollow, Twin Peaks & Dry Creek FOSZ.
Attachment 3 - Page 4
page 5 SAVE OUR FOOTHILLS info@slcfoothills.org www.slcfoothills.org
Figure 3. Proposed Land Use and Recreation Management Map
for the Salt Lake City Foothills showing “Habitat Study Areas” defined by
Alta Planning and Design as part of the 2020 Salt Lake City Foothills Trail Plan.
Note the overlap between the “Habitat Study Areas” defined by Alta Planning and Design,
and the “Proposed Habitat Conservation” and “Proposed Pedestrian Only”
areas identified by Save Our Foothills.
Attachment 3 - Page 5
page 6 SAVE OUR FOOTHILLS info@slcfoothills.org www.slcfoothills.org
Figure 4. Proposed Land Use and Recreation Management Map
for the Salt Lake City Foothills showing cliff areas, where trails cannot be built,
and steep slopes where trails would be difficult to build and/or unsustainable.
Attachment 3 - Page 6
page 7 SAVE OUR FOOTHILLS info@slcfoothills.org www.slcfoothills.org
Figure 5. Land Ownership Map for the Salt Lake City Foothills
with Foothill Open Space Zones (FOSZ)
Attachment 3 - Page 7