10/20/2020 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
October 20,2020 Tuesday 2:00 PM
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City
Emergency Proclamation.
SLCCouncil.com
7:00 pm Formal Meeting
(See separate agenda)
Welcome and public meeting rules
The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters.The public is welcome to listen.Items scheduled on the
Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and /or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting based on circumstance or
availability of speakers.
Please note:Dates not identified in the FYI -Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined.Item start times and
durations are approximate and are subject to change at the Chair’s discretion.
Generated:13:36:50
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Chair’s determination
that conducting the City Council meeting at a physical location presents a
substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the anchor
location.
The Salt Lake City Council Chair has determined that conducting a meeting at an anchor
location under the current state of public health emergency constitutes a substantial risk to the
health and safety of those who may attend in person.For these reasons,the Council Meeting
will not have a physical location at the City and County Building and all attendees will connect
remotely.
Members of the public are encouraged to participate in meetings.We want to make sure
everyone interested in the City Council meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most
comfortable.If you are interested in watching the City Council meetings,they are available on
the following platforms:
•Facebook Live:www.facebook.com/slcCouncil/
•YouTube:www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
•Web Agenda:www.slc.gov/council/agendas/
•SLCtv Channel 17 Live:www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Formal Meeting for the Public Hearings or
general comment period,you may do so through the Webex platform.To learn how to connect
through Webex,or if you need call-in phone options,please visit our website or call us at
801-535-7607 to learn more.
As always,if you would like to provide feedback or comment,please call us or send us an email:
•24-Hour comment line:801-535-7654
•council.comments@slcgov.com
More info and resources can be found at:www.slc.gov/council/contact-us/
Upcoming meetings and meeting information can be found
here:www.slc.gov/council/agendas/
We welcome and encourage your comments!We have Council staff monitoring inboxes and
voicemail,as always,to receive and share your comments with Council Members.All agenda-
related and general comments received in the Council office are shared with the Council
Members and added to the public meeting record.View comments by visiting the Council
Virtual Meeting Comments page.
Work Session Items
1.Informational:Updates Relating to Mayor’s Proclamations Declaring Local
Emergencies for COVID-19,March Earthquake,Recent Protests,and
Windstorm
~2:00 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive an update from the Administration about the Mayor’s emergency declarations
relating to COVID-19 (coronavirus),the March 18th earthquake in the Salt Lake Valley and the
September 8th windstorm.As part of the update,the Council may discuss public health and other
public safety,policy and budget issues stemming from the emergency declarations.The Council may
also receive information or updates from organizations or experts related to the emergency responses
and coordination,including but not limited to earthquake damage to the City,the functioning of the
Emergency Operations Center (EOC),City response and aid,and the status of City buildings.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment -
TENTATIVE Council Action -
2.Informational:Updates on Relieving the Condition of People Experiencing
Homelessness ~2:20 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will hear updates and discuss issues pertaining to relieving the condition of people
experiencing homelessness in neighborhoods throughout Salt Lake City.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment -
TENTATIVE Council Action -
3.Informational:Updates on Racial Equity and Policing ~2:40 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will hold a discussion about recent efforts on various projects City staff are working
on related to racial equity and policing in the City.The conversation may include issues of
community concern about race,equity,and justice in relation to law enforcement policies,
procedures,budget,and ordinances.Discussion may include:
•An update or report on the newly-created Commission on Racial Equity in Policing;and
•Other project updates or discussion.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment -
TENTATIVE Council Action -
4.Informational:Rocky Mountain Power Service Briefing ~3:00 p.m.
40 min.
The Council will receive a briefing from Rocky Mountain Power representatives about power
outage response plans.Discussion will also include restoration plans when natural disasters
occur.The briefing may include plans for infrastructure improvements and other related
projects in the City.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,October 20,2020
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment -
TENTATIVE Council Action -
5.Informational:Public Lands Master Plan Update ~3:40 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive an update from the Public Services Department about community
engagement efforts and plans for the new Public Lands Master Plan.The Plan will guide the
ongoing work of the Division of Parks,Trails and Natural Lands and the Urban Forestry Division
as the City's population and density continue to increase.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,October 20,2020
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment -
TENTATIVE Council Action -
6.Tentative Break ~4:10 p.m.
20 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 -
7.Ordinance:Street Vacation Near 800 North and Warm Springs Road ~4:30 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to close a portion of 800 North Street adjacent to
I-15 and Warm Springs Road.The applicant owns the property to the north and proposes that
the vacated area will be split between the owners to the north and south.The closure will not
impact traffic or access.The subject right-of-way is no longer used as a roadway and is generally
unoccupied.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,October 20,2020
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,October 20,2020
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,December 1,2020 and Tuesday,December 8,
2020 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 8,2020
8.Informational:Eccles Theater 2021 Site Budget ~4:50 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will be briefed about the Eccles Theater (Utah Performing Arts Center,or UPAC)
Site operating budget for Fiscal Year 2020-21.The UPAC Fiscal Year operates on the Calendar
Year.This is the annual presentation of the UPAC site budget.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,October 20,2020
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment -
TENTATIVE Council Action -
9.Ordinance*:Zoning Text Amendment to Increase Building Height Limits in
a Portion of the G-MU Zone Follow-up ~5:20 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about a request to increase the building heights within
a portion of the G-MU (Gateway Mixed Use)zoning district from a current maximum of 120 feet up
to 190 feet across portions of two separate blocks located between 500 West Street and the railroad
tracks (approximately 625 West)and 200 South and 400 South.The applicant is requesting
the change for a specific development project and is not seeking to alter height limits across the
entirety of the zone.
*The Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation,therefore an ordinance was not
drafted with the original transmittal but has since been added for the Council's formal
consideration.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,January 14,2020;Tuesday,April 21,2020;Tuesday,August 11,2020;and
Tuesday,October 20,2020
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,August 11,2020
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,September 1,2020 and Tuesday,September 15,
2020 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,October 20,2020
10.Board Appointment:Historic Landmark Commission –John
Ewanowski ~5:40 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview John Ewanowski prior to considering his appointment to the
Historic Landmark Commission for a term ending October 20,2024.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,October 20,2020
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment -
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,October 20,2020
11.Board Appointment:Historic Landmark Commission –Babs DeLay ~5:45 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Babs DeLay prior to considering their appointment to the Historic
Landmark Commission for a term ending October 20,2024.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,October 20,2020
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment -
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,October 20,2020
12.Board Appointment:Historic Landmark Commission –Aiden Lillie ~5:50 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Aiden Lillie prior to considering her appointment to the Historic
Landmark Commission for a term ending October 20,2024.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,October 20,2020
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment -
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,October 20,2020
13.Board Appointment:Business Advisory Board –Kristen Lavelett ~5:55 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Kristen Lavelett prior to considering her appointment to the
Business Advisory Board for a term ending January 1,2021.Kristen has been inadvertently
serving unofficially since January 2017.The Administration would like to count this as time
served towards her term limit and make this her final term.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,October 20,2020
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment -
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,October 20,2020
Standing Items
14.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
15.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director
Report of the Executive Director,including a review of Council information items and
announcements.The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City
Council business,including but not limited to;
•TANFF III Fairpark Afterschool Program Funding Grant –Request for Additional FTE;
•Wasatch Choice Workshop;and
•Scheduling Items.
16.Tentative Closed Session
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session.A closed meeting
described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including,but not
limited to:
a.discussion of the character,professional competence,or physical or mental
health of an individual;
b.strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c.strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d.strategy sessions to discuss the purchase,exchange,or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares,if public discussion of the
transaction would:
(i)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration;or
(ii)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
e.strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property,including any form of a
water right or water shares,if:
(i)public discussion of the transaction would:
(A)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration;or
(B)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the
best possible terms;
(ii)the public body previously gave public notice that the property would
be offered for sale;and
(iii)the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body
approves the sale;
f.discussion regarding deployment of security personnel,devices,or systems;
and
g.investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged
pursuant to Utah Code §78B-1-137,and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the
pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m.on _____________________,the undersigned,duly appointed City Recorder,
does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1)posted on the Utah Public Notice Website
created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701,and (2)a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake
Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated
interest.
CINDY LOU TRISHMAN
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.
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.
System restoration following September 8,
2020 windstorm
Jeffrey Barrett
jeffrey.barrett@pacificorp.com
2
•On September 7, 2020, a significant cold front from Canada unleashed snow, damaging winds, and record
swings between low and high temperatures to Rocky Mountain Power’s Idaho, Wyoming and Utah service
territory.
•Pocatello, Idaho, dropped from 85 to 41 degrees within 3 hours.
•8-12 inches of wet snow hit the Casper, Wyoming area.
•Northern Utah sustained the most damage when 112 mph canyon wind gusts from the east uprooted
large trees damaging primary and secondary lines; much of the system that was damaged was backlot,
which impacted the assessment and restoration efforts.
•At the peak of the event, 225,077 customers were without service; 99.9% of these customers were
restored by September 14, 2020, six days after the peak of the event.
•The final customers were restored the morning of September 21, 2020; those last customers generally took
especially long to restore due to damage to their own equipment, e.g. mastheads, meter bases, etc.
•Approximately 10% of all “customers” affected by the storm (20,493) were in Salt Lake City.Keep in
mind that in this case the customer number refers to specific meters. RMP does not administer a census, and
therefore we cannot estimate of the number of individuals in SLC who were affected by an outage.
Summary
3
•After three days, storm damage in Idaho and Wyoming had been addressed and those resources were
moved into central and northern Utah to assist.
•External mutual assistance was requested and personnel from MidAmerican Energy Company, NV Energy,
and INTREN sent resources.
•A request was made though the western region mutual assistance, but regional wildfire and storm impacts
delayed mutual assistance and the request was ultimately terminated.
•A total of 1,138 individuals were assigned storm duty response.
•Fifty-five tree crews were brought in to clear 2,537 trees.
•Crews replaced approximately 193 poles and installed 55 miles of conductor.
•An Emergency Operation Center was activated September 8, 2020 through September 15, 2020.
Summary
4
Restoration
Resources
NUT / ID Internal (13 Crews)53
CUT Internal (12 Crews) 60
SUT Internal (6 Crews)22
WY Internal (4 Crews)16
MidAmerican Mutual Assistance (14 Crews)66
NV Energy Mutual Assistance (7 Crews)33
INTREN Contractor (5 Crews)29
Company Contractor (39 Crews) 156
Troubleshooter / Servicemen 53
Substation 53
Vegetation Management 245
Control Center / Dispatch 15
Field Inspectors 8
Administrative 16
Customer Service 180
Engineers 20
Estimators 14
Material / Warehouse 51
Management 30
Mechanics 4
Regional Business Managers 14
Total 1,138
5
•The September 8th windstorm was the most significant storm in terms of customer outages in recent
history and affected 32%of Rocky Mountain Power’s customers
•Total customer outage minutes were 525,809,788, which equates to approximately 3.7 years’ worth of
average outage minutes
Rocky Mountain Power electric system impact
December 25-31,
2003
November 20-22,
2010
December 1-3,
2011 April 14-16, 2015 May 19-21, 2016 September 22-24,
2016
September 7-17,
2020
Wind Storm Snow Storm Wind Storm Snow Storm Lightning Storm Thunderstorm Wind Storm
Peak Customers Out 80k 21k 69k 35k 95k 44k 225k
Total Customer Interruptions 190k 87k 84k 86k 101k 77k 382k
•193 poles
•15,768 splices
•289,478’ overhead conductor (55 miles)
•1,866 fuses
•2,620 insulators
•776 cross-arms
•187 transformers
Windstorm’s Physical Impact
6
Total Rocky Mountain Power customers out of power
7
Restoration prioritization; a utilitarian approach
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “Utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right
action is the action that produces the most good… Utilitarianism is also distinguished by impartiality and
agent-neutrality. Everyone's happiness counts the same. When one maximizes the good, it is the
good impartially considered. My good counts for no more than anyone else's good.”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/
•The restoration activities were prioritized according to the number of customers that could be restored
with a given repair; i.e. if Repair A would restore 500 customers and Repair B would restore 250,
crews would be directed to Repair A first.
•This approach was applied consistently, which is why a given crew working 2-3 hours on Day 1 may
have restored 1,000 customers, and by Day 8, the same crew working the same 2-3 hours might only
have restored a single customer.
8
Restoration prioritization; a utilitarian approach
•RMP started its restoration in SLC focused on the 16 substations and handful of associated
transmission lines that were affected –thousands of customers potentially addressed with a
given repair
•RMP then moved to distribution facilities, starting with damaged mainlines –hundreds of
customers potentially addressed with a given repair
•RMP then moved to lateral distribution lines –dozens of customers potentially addressed with a
given repair
•Finally, RMP moved to address secondary & service lines –you can count on one hand the
number of customers typically addressed with a given repair
Exceptions
•To the extent there were exceptions made to the prioritization approach described above, those
were only made in consultation with local municipalities, e.g. for water infrastructure, schools,
temporary shelters, detention facilities, etc.
9
1. Substation
2. Mainline 4. Service Drop
3. Lateral
Transmission
10
Transmission and substation restoration
Day 1: 110,506 customers restored
Idaho
Wyoming
Utah
RMP
Customers restored per 3 hour increment
11
Transmission and substation restoration
Day 1: 110,506 customers restored
Mainline restoration
Day 2: 66,651 customers restored
Idaho
Wyoming
Utah
RMP
Customers restored per 3 hour increment
12
Transmission and substation restoration
Day 1: 110,506 customers restored
Mainline restoration
Day 2: 66,651 customers restored
Lateral restoration
Day 3-5: 21,003 customers restored/day
Idaho
Wyoming
Utah
RMP
Customers restored per 3 hour increment
13
Transmission and substation restoration
Day 1: 110,506 customers restored
Mainline restoration
Day 2: 66,651 customers restored
Lateral restoration
Day 3-5: 21,003 customers restored/day Secondary and service restoration
Day 6: 9,373 customers restored
Day 7-9: 4,602 customers restored/day
Idaho
Wyoming
Utah
RMP
Customers restored per 3 hour increment
14
Post-recovery inspections
•Post-restoration circuit inspections are underway to inspect for hazards, including areas that sustained
damage but remained in-service. The focus of such inspections is on the following:
•Damaged meter bases
•Low service wires
•Broken service masts
•Damaged cross-arms
•Damaged primary wire
•Trees or branches on lines
15
Takeaways; opportunities for improvement
•Improved Estimated Restoration Time (ETR) determination and communication; improved mobile
outage application (currently in pilot stage)
•Review real-time automated text, phone and email communications platforms for engaging affected
customers
•Re-establish “Wire Watcher” program to free up police and fire departments who were overburdened
with “babysitting” downed wires thought to be energized
•Enhance critical customer list; add long-term care and detention centers; establish warming center
locations in advance
•Additional internal improvements with respect to IT systems used for tracking and displaying outages
in real-time, etc.
16
Addressing questions from Council staff
•Question: Are underground powerlines more/less difficult to restore? Pros and cons in context
of such a disaster.
•Answer: In an event in which the majority of outages are related to wind and fallen trees, etc., an area
characterized by underground distribution would have fewer outages. However, the benefit of
overhead lines is that damages are far easier to identify/assess, and repairs are considerably easier
to complete.
•Question: What infrastructure improvements is RMP considering to improve the resiliency of
the power grid?
•Answer: RMP has a capital budget each year, and prioritizes repairs of existing facilities based on an
intensive inspection and compliance regime which helps the Company most efficiently manage its
capital budget. We inspect our assets on a regular schedule, and we use condition assessments to
drive the replacement of assets to ensure system reliability. Currently, in addition to our normal
replacement program, we are undertaking a massive wildfire mitigation capital investment program, as
outlined in the Wildland Fire Protection Plan filed with the Public Service Commission in June, and
approved last week.
17
Addressing questions from Council staff
•Question: Does RMP have a plan to ensure equity among customers as it invests in
infrastructure?
•Answer: RMP applies the same design and operational guidelines across all customers it serves.
Investments are prioritized to areas with the highest need as measured against the same criteria. This
approach is compliance-driven and in no way subject to influence or bias. We witnessed in real-time
during the recent outage event how demography-blind both our capital investments and our approach
to restoration are. As described in earlier slides, restoration was prioritized based on restoring the
largest number of customers first. Consequently, certain affluent neighborhoods were among the last
to be restored. Nevertheless, it’s true that certain things which have the potential to drive outages are
beyond our control, e.g. deferred maintenance of privately owned trees, which could conceivably be
more of a problem in some areas than others.
18
Addressing questions from Council staff
•Question: Is RMP aware of service level differences between neighborhoods? Are these
differences typical among utilities? Are they defined simply by customer classes which define
a given neighborhood?
•Answer: RMP continuously monitors its system and prepares plans for maintenance and system
improvements to ensure reliable service to all customers. All neighborhoods are evaluated based on
the same set of criteria. RMP recognizes that neighborhoods have different levels of service, but those
differences are not due to differing maintenance plans or investment approaches. For example, SLC
has higher reliability due to natural redundancy associated with density, i.e. a given customer is far
less likely to be in a radial condition, and their circuit more likely to be able to be restored temporarily
from multiple adjacent circuits. Additionally, proximity to the substation by which you are served likely
means fewer linear feet of distribution facilities potentially subject to wind, ice, or branches are
between you and the “harder” transmission system. Fundamentally, each location on the system has a
unique risk/reliability profile; and the very characteristic that makes it resilient in one disaster may
make it vulnerable in another.
Rocky Mountain Power’s redevelopment
plans for its North Temple site
20
Rocky Mountain Power’s North Temple Office Site
21
•Rocky Mountain Power’s North Temple site is 105 acres, with many large
underutilized areas, e.g. large “lay down” areas, visible from I-80, which are used
for storing distribution poles and utility boxes (transformers, switchgear, etc.)
•Berkshire Hathaway Energy, RMP’s parent company, is encouraging its
constituent companies to modernize their offices –both headquarters and local
offices.
•After briefly considering relocation of its headquarters, RMP recognized the value
of its current location: adjacency to vibrant neighborhoods and transit, proximity
to downtown, an international airport, and two interstates, etc.
•RMP is interested in consolidating all its Salt Lake County employees at North
Temple: relocating its call center from WVC; potentially creating a new data
center on-site; potentially bringing in other Berkshire Hathaway Energy
employees currently located elsewhere in the valley.
•RMP plans to partner with a world-class developer to plan and implement a
mixed use community on North Temple consistent with the City’s goals for the
area.
North Temple Site Redevelopment
22
•Development of large site would occur in phases, and over many years –likely
more than a decade, especially given the current depreciable life of the Gadsby
Plant
•Gadsby is currently assumed to continue its operation through 2032; and while
this could change through our regular resource planning process, which updates
every two years, current development plan assumes the 2032 date.
•Early phases would therefore begin on the North Temple frontage, probably
moving from west to east; and only later would move south of South Temple.
•RMP has initiated a multi-step process to identify a development partner
•Request for Qualifications issued –10/1/2020
•Request for Proposals finalist selected –2/1/2021
•Construction start targeted for 2022
North Temple Site Redevelopment
23
North Temple Site Redevelopment
•Mix of development –commercial, residential, green space, transit facilities, etc.
–is still to be determined.
•RMP’s RFQ focused heavily on sustainable construction methods, particularly
focusing on the potential for an all-electric, emissions-free campus.
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: Allison Rowland
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:October 20, 2020
RE: INFORMATIONAL: PUBLIC LANDS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
The Public Services Department has developed a community engagement strategy as part of its 18-month
Public Lands Master Plan process. This Plan is designed to guide the ongoing work of the Divisions of Parks,
Trails and Natural Lands, and Urban Forestry as Salt Lake City contends with continuing population growth
and increasing density. The Council allocated $150,000 to develop this comprehensive Plan, which is
organized, as stated in the September 2 transmittal, “around the three core values of equity, stewardship and
livability.” Goals for the Plan include:
- To “communicate an ambitious, community-driven vision for the evolution of SLC’s public spaces” and
- To “address emerging trends and challenges and identify specific, transformative projects and
initiatives, while embracing the character and culture of our unique neighborhoods […].”
A consultant, Design Workshop, was hired in late 2019 to assist with this effort, looking at opportunities to
enhance service levels in existing parks, natural lands, and the urban forest, as well as new strategies for
increasing public access to other city-owned lands, including golf courses. To that end, the Plan’s community
engagement strategy has been designed to offer three “windows of opportunity” for the public to provide input.
These include options for no-contact or safe-contact engagement, like on-line open houses and the dedicated
project website, https://www.reimaginenatureslc.com/.
The Engagement Window #1, dubbed Discover SLC Outdoors ran from August 26 to October 7, and included
the following:
• At least three pop-up events in each Council District, held in parks or natural lands or near trails.
• Presentations to every Community Council, to share information about the project and inviting their
participation.
• Over 210 community groups and partners contacted to solicit their interest in collaborating on the
project.
Page | 2
• University of Utah students completed between 500 and 750 intercept surveys in public spaces, parks,
natural lands, near trails, and downtown.
• These students also collaborated on outreach to traditionally underrepresented groups through micro-
engagement focus groups.
Engagement Window #2, Imagine the Future of SLC’s Outdoors, will focus on visioning efforts, and is
scheduled for January to February, 2021. The third and final Engagement Window, in the summer of 2021, will
consist of discussions of the draft plan with stakeholders. The variety of engagement activities and methods is
designed to reach a wide and diverse audience and encourage their participation throughout the entire project.
The team also plans to regularly evaluate response rates to determine if additional outreach to
underrepresented neighborhoods or demographics is needed.
In compliance with the Council’s recently-adopted Resolution 14 of 2020, Declaring City Council Policy and
Objectives for Preparing Master Plans, the Public Services Department anticipates providing additional
updates to the City Council as the project continues to unfold. They include the following:
• Engagement Window 1 results (tentatively scheduled for January, 2021);
• Engagement Window 2 results and preliminary transformative project ideas;
• Briefing on draft plan prior to Planning Commission review;
• Final review and potential adoption;
• Implementation.
Why a Master Plan?
a. Planning Preparation
Completed Fall 2019 prior to
Resolution 14 2020 adoption
Scope of work available for review
b. Assess Existing Conditions
Inventory and Need Assessment
Completed April 2019
Previous Plans Memo
Current State Snapshot Graphics
c. Public Engagement
Public Engagement Plan, Vision
Statement and Schedule
Establish Public Engagement Metrics
d. Draft Plan
Draft plan briefing
e. Adoption
Planning Commission, Planning Staff,
Mayor and Council adoption process
f. Implementation
Project priority list
Coordination and implementation
strategy
PAST AND CURRENT STEPS FUTURE STEPS
Master Plan Process
Project Extents
Engagement by the Numbers: 7,032
Surveys 4,405
Public Survey 3,701
Stakeholder Survey 85
City Staff Survey 82
Intercept Surveys 537
Popup Events 2,320
Ice cream Social Distancing
Trailside Snacks
Trail Intercepts
Micro engagement events
Focus groups 47
17 Community Presentations 260
Community Councils
Boards and Committees
Engagement with over 200+ community stakeholders
Engagement Opportunities
Representative Participation
ETHNICITY OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS
Frequency of Use This Year Compared to previous years
2020 community survey
Preliminary Results
TOP 5 MOST IMPACTFUL ACTIONS LIST
2020 community survey
Preliminary Results
TRANSFORMATIONAL PROJECTS
2020 community survey
Next Steps
1-DISCOVER
Foundation of
Understanding
2-REIMAGINE
Visioning
Transformational
Projects
3-TRANSFORM
Draft and Final
Master Plan
August 26, 2020: Open Six-Week Community Engagement Window #1
Q1 2021: Community Engagement Window #2
Q2-3 2021: Final Community Engagement Window #3
•Analyze engagement results
•Conduct focus groups with internal and external stakeholders, next 8 weeks
•Choose preliminary transformative projects
•Research project case studies
•Develop strategies ideas list
•Conduct operations and maintenance interviews and analysis
•Present engagement results to council, January
•Develop preliminary transformational projects for feedback
•Continued targeted engagement and city department collaboration
•Initial strategy recommendations development
•Present engagement results to Council, TBA
•Sharing the draft master plan
•Focus on next steps of implementation
400 S 400 S
2100 S700 E700 ESTATE STREDWOOD RDI-15I-15I-15I-15I-80I-80
I-80I-80 I-80I-80
I-80I-80
C
I
T
Y
C
R
E
E
K
C
A
N
Y
O
N
C
I
T
Y
C
R
E
E
K
C
A
N
Y
O
N
E
M
I
G
R
A
T
I
O
N
C
A
N
Y
O
N
E
M
I
G
R
A
T
I
O
N
C
A
N
Y
O
N
P
A
R
L
E
Y
’
S
C
A
N
Y
O
N
P
A
R
L
E
Y
’
S
C
A
N
Y
O
N
M
I
L
L
C
R
E
E
K
C
A
N
Y
O
N
M
I
L
L
C
R
E
E
K
C
A
N
Y
O
NI-215I-215I-215I-215BANGETER HWYBANGETER HWY1300 EFOOTHILL
BLVD
SALT LAKE CITY
WEST VALLEY CITY SOUTH SALT LAKE
MURRAY
MILLCREEK
SLC INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT
WOODS CROSS
NORTH SALT LAKE
R
E
D
B
U
T
T
E
C
A
N
Y
O
N
R
E
D
B
U
T
T
E
C
A
N
Y
O
N
MEMORY MEMORY
GROVEGROVE
LINDSEY LINDSEY
GARDENSGARDENS
11TH AVE 11TH AVE
PARKPARK
FOOTHILLS FOOTHILLS
NATURAL NATURAL
AREAAREA
FOOTHILLS FOOTHILLS
NATURAL NATURAL
AREAAREA
WARM SPRINGS WARM SPRINGS
PARKPARK
WASHINGTON WASHINGTON
SQUARESQUARE
HERMAN HERMAN
FRANKS FRANKS
PARKPARK
SUGARHOUSE SUGARHOUSE
PARKPARK
SUNNYSIDE SUNNYSIDE
PARKPARK
FAIRMONT FAIRMONT
PARKPARK
LIBERTY PARKLIBERTY PARK
CITY CITY
CEMETARYCEMETARY
ROTARY GLEN ROTARY GLEN
PARKPARK
GLENDALE GLENDALE
PARKPARK
JORDAN JORDAN
PARKPARK
PIONEER PIONEER
PARKPARK
COTTONWOOD COTTONWOOD
PARKPARK
GLENDALE GLENDALE
GOLF COURSEGOLF COURSE
REGIONAL REGIONAL
ATHLETIC ATHLETIC
COMPLEXCOMPLEX
ROSE PARK ROSE PARK
GOLF COURSEGOLF COURSE
RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE
PARKPARK
ROSEWOOD ROSEWOOD
PARKPARK
1700 S RIVER 1700 S RIVER
PARKPARK
FOREST FOREST
DALE GOLF DALE GOLF
COURSECOURSE
BONNEVILLE BONNEVILLE
GOLF COURSEGOLF COURSE
NIBLEY GOLF NIBLEY GOLF
COURSECOURSE PARLEYS PARLEYS
HISTORIC HISTORIC
NATURE PARKNATURE PARK
State State
DNRDNR
This is The This is The
Place Place
State ParkState Park US National US National
ForestForest
US National US National
ForestForest
Bureau of Land Bureau of Land
ManagementManagement
US National US National
WildernessWilderness
US National US National
ForestForest
US National US National
ForestForest
US National US National
ForestForest
US National US National
ForestForest
State Wildlife RefugeState Wildlife Refuge
Kennecott Tailings Kennecott Tailings
PondPond
Great Salt Lake Great Salt Lake
WetlandsWetlands
Great Salt Lake Great Salt Lake
State Sovereign LandsState Sovereign Lands
US National US National
ForestForest
snapshot For more information,
and to be involved with the
SLC Public Lands Master Plan, visit:
REIMAGINENATURESLC.COM
70.7
Miles of Existing Trails
129.4
Miles of Proposed Trails
6423
Acres Foothills Natural
Area Collaborative
Management Zone
1694
Acres Natural Lands
86,500
Urban Forest Trees
3 Special Event 15 Community and 2 Regional Parks
42 Mini Parks 19 Neighborhood Parks
108 Holes of City Public Golf
121 Acre City Cemetery
1 Regional Athletic Complex (16 Outdoor Sports Fields)
Walking, jogging and hiking are top activities
in natural lands like the Fife Wetland Preserve
and the 6,423-acres of Foothills Natural Area,
canyons and foothills bordering the northern
and eastern limits of SLC. More than 70 miles
of off-street trails connect residents to parks
and natural lands.
The urban forest’s street trees are one of the
most accessible forms of nature, extending into
every neighborhood and business district in the
city, resulting in a literal canopy of shade, beauty,
socioeconomic, environment and health benefits.
Most residents live within a half mile or
10-minute walk to a local park, and that’s
important to 97% of people polled. 75% of
residents who live on the east side visit parks
at least once a month, while 60% of west-
siders visit parks once a month. Established in
1881 to be SLC’s “Central Park,” historic Liberty
Park is the most visited park in the system.
Our natural lands, urban forest and city parks help shape and define our city.
Salt Lake City Public Lands is creating a master
plan with an ambitious, community-driven vision
for the evolution of our public spaces over
the next 20 years. Based on the 2019 Needs
Assessment, the plan will identify specific,
meaningful projects and initiatives that align
with Public Lands values of STEWARDSHIP,
LIVABILITY AND EQUITY.
As appreciation for these places has increased
since COVID-19, now more than ever, public
lands contribute to our personal health,
community identity and civic ideals. It is time for
us to plan for a bright future by reimagining
these spaces together.
For more information visit:
REIMAGINENATURESLC.COM
By 2050 our temps could rise10°
leading to poorer air quality.
“There is a real opportunity - to address parks
and natural lands as essential elements for
better air quality, climate change mitigation,
energy efficiency, and environmental justice.
Parks can help improve the health of the city.”
2019 SLC Parks and Public Lands Needs Assessment
EQUITY livability STEWARDSHIP
$85,000
per year to clean up nuisance graffiti.
are anticipated to move to SLC
by 2040 which will require an
additional park space roughly
equivalent to Liberty Park.
SLC IS HOME TO OVER 196,000
people who speak 80 languages
representing a broad range of
socioeconomic backgrounds
and cultural heritages.
45%
of metro area renters are cost burdened.
The master
plan includes
community engagement windows.
The 2019 Needs Assessment will help identify priority areas.
Accessibility gaps and trail gaps
still exist in all SLC planning
areas, and east-west connections
across the city are limited.
Salt Lake City’s proposed
trails, including expansion
of the 9-line Trail, will add
another 129.4 miles to the
system, the equivalent of
adding another Jordan River
Parkway (the longest paved urban trail in the US).
SLC public lands have opportunity to increase biodiversity
by adding more natural habitat like
recent efforts at Fairmont Park Pond
and the Fife Wetland Preserve.
86%
snapshot
What Values Guide the Plan?
Three values guide how we can Reimagine
Nature together to increase biodiversity
(the richness of different kinds of plants
and animals in our public lands) while
finding new ways to connect people to
green spaces.
Equity, or including diverse voices in
the master plan process and priorities,
aligns as a citywide value emerging from
the roundtable discussion on “Geographic
Equity, Inclusion, & Belonging.” We are
committed to listening to the realities and
perceptions of access to public lands from
all sides of Salt Lake City to help guide
next steps for a more equitable future.
Livability, or maintaining SLC’s quality
of outdoor life, inspires us to provide
more services to residents as the city
grows. How can we collectively identify
outside-the-box opportunities to use
our city’s parks, golf courses, school
yards, natural areas and streetscapes to
increase public access to nature, trails,
sports fields, and public gathering places?
Stewardship, or taking care of what we
have, is investing in the renewal of our
existing city parks, urban forest, natural
areas and trails. Stewardship inspires us
to preserve habitat so plants and wildlife
can thrive and be resilient to impacts of
climate change like rising temperatures.
Potential actions could be planting 300
new trees in city golf courses or adding
butterfly gardens to city parks.
Income barriers can limit the amount of
leisure time and transportation options
people have to enjoy public lands.
of SLC population is made
up of diverse people who
identify themselves as Native
Americans, African Americans,
Hispanic, Latino, Asian or
Pacific Islander.
3 200
community
groups
have been
invited to
participate
in this
process.
30,000+
of public lands assets are in fair to poor condition.
of SLC residents who
responded to the 2017
Needs Assessment
prioritize investments to
improve existing parks,
trails and natural areas.
35%
Nearly 17% of the population is projected to be 65 or older by 2045.
City Golf courses
maintain over 1,000
acres of open
space. As the city
grows, how can golf
grow as a community
partner, serving more
of the city population?
Over the last 20 years SLC’s urban forests have been in decline.
63%
Our 86,500 trees, including 7,000 trees in city golf courses, provide a cooling of summer temps by 6°
SLC urban forest hosts 260 species of trees that support biodiversity and improve air quality.
94 ACRES
>50%
of all global species are at
risk of extinction leading to
rapid biodiversity loss.
Activating underutilized spaces with
activities such as outdoor education,
guided nature walks, wildflowers
and birding would increase park
service as the city grows.
EW
Sources: Salt Lake City Public Lands Division, 2019 Salt Lake City Parks & Public Lands Needs Assessment, American Community Survey 2014-2018, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, "Understanding Climate Change from a Global Analysis of City Analogues" by Thomas Crowther et. al.,
"Promoting and Preserving Biodiversity in the Urban Forest" by Alexis A. Alvey, "Utah Forest Facts: Trees and Climate Change" by Megan Dettenmaier et. al., "Salt Lake City Confronts Its Growing Pains" by Trevor Bach.
For more information,
and to be involved with the
SLC Public Lands Master Plan, visit:
REIMAGINENATURESLC.COM
Page 1 of 4 P.O.BOX 145470, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5470
Erin J. Mendenhall
Mayor
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
Date Received:
DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC SERVICES
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council:
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: September 1, 2020
Chris Wharton, Chair
FROM: Lorna Vogt, Director, Department of Public Services
SUBJECT: Public Lands Master Plan Update
STAFF CONTACT: Kristin Riker, Deputy Director, Public Services; Director of
Public Lands, Kristin.Riker@slcgov.com, Nancy Monteith, Public
Lands Landscape Architect, Nancy. Monteith@slcgov.com
COUNCIL SPONSOR: N/A
DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Item
RECOMMENDATION: Review
BUDGET IMPACT: N/A
INTRODUCTION – EQUITY AND PUBLIC SPACES:
“If you are looking for the true source of democracy in a society — if you are looking for
the places where equity flourishes — you will find it in the public spaces of cities. It is
there, in the streets and parks and plazas, where rich and poor meet as equals and
participate in civic life together as they do nowhere else.” Enrique Penalosa, former
Mayor of Bogata, Columbia, said this in a panel discussion in July of this year.
As Salt Lake City struggles to find equity and inclusion throughout our City, Public Lands
is embarking on a master plan that will look to finding practical guideposts for advancing
equity and cultivate greater civic trust. We’re aiming to ease the growth of our city with
public spaces that appeal to SLC residents and create welcoming spaces for everyone.
Public Lands is organizing this plan around the three core values of equity, stewardship
and livability. Well designed, maintained and well-programmed public spaces are a
benefit to everyone, regardless of race or class. Alongside education, they are another
great social equalizer, where people of diverse backgrounds and economic situations can
come together in a democratic society.
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE, ROOM 138
WWW.SLCGOV.COM
TEL:801-535-7773
Lisa Shaffer (Sep 2, 2020 13:53 MDT)
Sept 2, 2020
Sept 1, 2020
Page 2 of 4
BACKGROUND
SLC Council awarded Public Lands $150,000 in funding to develop a comprehensive
master plan for the divisions of Parks, Trails and Natural Lands, and Urban Forestry.
Current plans include the 1992 Salt Lake City Open Space Master Plan and the 2001
Parks and Recreation Recovery Action Plan. Since the development of the plans, Salt
Lake City has grown dramatically with changing demographics and increasing density,
particularly in the downtown and Sugar House neighborhoods.
The new plan will provide focus for future improvements in the city and guide the
allocation of resources from impact fees to the general fund while also informing
maintenance priorities and explore site activation. It will communicate an ambitious,
community-driven vision for the evolution of SLC’s public spaces. The Master Plan will
address emerging trends and challenges and identify specific, transformative projects
and initiatives, while embracing the character and culture of our unique neighborhoods
that will shape the future of our public lands system.
In late 2019, through a competitive bid process, Public Lands engaged a planning and
design consultant, Design Workshop, to develop the master plan. The planning process
is estimated to take 18 months with a projected completion in early fall 2021. The
consultant was briefly put on hold in March in response to COVID-19. The team
reinitiated its efforts in May with a revised the scope of work that reflects adaptions to
COVID-19 safety measures. Since May, the consultant has been reviewing existing
policies, guidelines, and plans to prepare for the first engagement window. The project
deliverables include:
• Dedicated project website and project branding
• Collateral material for public and stakeholder engagement
• State of the system report
• Strategies list and matrix
• Development of up to 10 transformative projects
• Illustrative case studies that support transformative projects and ideas
• Public Lands operations SWOT analysis
• Draft 90% plan
• Final plan
EXISTING CONDITIONS
In early 2019, Public Lands completed a comprehensive needs assessment for Parks,
Trails and Natural Lands, and Urban Forestry www.slc.gov/parks/salt-lake-city-public-
lands-needs-assessment/. The study assessed our system of assets and engaged residents
to determine current and future needs for public lands assets, programs, and
maintenance. The study identified gaps in the existing system, projected population
growth and future park needs, and identified residents’ perceptions about and priorities
for the system. The data and conclusions of this study represent the existing conditions
analysis and form the basis for a new Public Lands Master Plan. The consultant will not
only look at opportunities to enhance the level of service of our existing Public Lands
assets in parks, natural lands, and the urban forest but will also consider new strategies
for increasing public access to other city-owned lands, including golf courses.
Page 3 of 4
PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Public Lands and the City’s Civic Engagement Team will collaborate and lead the
stakeholder and public outreach throughout the project. The consultant will provide
print-ready and online-sharing-appropriate materials for public consumption
throughout the process. The consultant will lead up to six meetings associated with the
engagement. There are three windows of opportunity for the public to provide input.
• Engagement Window #1 Discover SLC Outdoors: August 26–October 7, 2020
Present a foundation of understanding to various groups to raise awareness of
opportunities and challenges to public lands. Inform public of the master plan
objectives while gathering new or ground-testing known community values
regarding public lands.
• Engagement Widow #2 Imagine the Future of SLC’s Outdoors: January–
February 2021
Convene visioning efforts with a variety of groups to understand priorities, areas
of common vision, and areas of divergent vision. Collaborate with core
stakeholders to prioritize vision elements.
• Engagement Window #3 Transforming SLC’s Outdoors: Summer 2021
Present draft plan with varied levels of input by stakeholder groups.
Engagement Window #1 Discover SLC Outdoors: August 26 – October
With social gatherings and events limited, Public Lands has collaborated with the
consultant to develop a series of engagement opportunities that are mindful of the
COVID-19 safety measures. These include opportunities for no-contact or safe-contact
engagement. The team will utilize a variety of digital and non-digital alternatives to
solicit input, including pop-up events, community council presentations, Facebook on-
line open houses, digital surveys, and a dedicated project website
https://www.reimaginenatureslc.com/ . We are also partnering with community
organizations and nonprofits to share information about the planning process.
The purpose of engagement is to let constituents know about the project and to collect
initial input on community priorities. We will share findings from the previously
completed needs assessment, provide an overview of the master-planning process, and
gather input throughout the planning process.
In each council district, Public Lands will facilitate at least three pop-up events in parks
or natural lands or near trails. Our internal engagement team will present to every
community council, sharing information about the project and inviting council
participation. Over 210 community groups and partners have been contacted to solicit
their interest in collaborating on the project.
Public Lands is also partnering with the University of Utah professor Ivis Garcia
(https://faculty.utah.edu/u6001614-IVIS_GARCIA_ZAMBRANA/hm/index.hml) and
the students in her course CMP 6430, Community Engagement in Planning, who will
conduct intercept interviews. Students plan to complete between 500 and 750 intercept
surveys in public spaces, parks, natural lands, near trails, and downtown. Public Lands
Page 4 of 4
and U of U students will also collaborate on outreach to traditionally underrepresented
groups through micro-engagement focus groups.
Through this diversity of activities and methods we hope to reach a wide and diverse
audience and encourage their participation throughout the entire project. We will
regularly evaluate response rates to determine if additional outreach to
underrepresented neighborhoods or demographics is needed.
NEXT STEPS
The first engagement window begins August 26 with the website launch, public survey,
community council presentations, and pop-up events. A full list of events will be
published on the website www.reimaginenatureslc.com.
Allison Rowland is on the core team that will meet regularly though out the planning
process. Additionally, Public Lands will provide periodic updates to the City Council,
including:
• Engagement window 1 results
• Engagement window 2 results and preliminary transformative project ideas
• Draft plan – City Council briefing on draft plan prior to planning commission
• Adoption – City Council review and adoption- planning staff context
memorandum,
• Implementation – City Council approval of project priority
REQUEST FOR SUPPORT
The planning process will be managed by Salt Lake City’s Public Lands Administration
and the planning consultant, Design Workshop. Several other City divisions and partner
organizations are supporting the effort.
We are requesting engagement and support from the Administration and the Council
both as participants in the process and by soliciting and recommending participation
from community members and groups.
CORE MASTER PLANNING TEAM
Kristin Riker, Public Services Deputy Director, Public Lands; Nancy Monteith,
Landscape Architect (PM); Lee Bollwinkel, Parks Division Director; Lewis Kogan, Trails
and Natural Lands Division Director; Tony Gliot, Urban Forestry Division Director; Nick
Norris, Planning Director; Michael Guymon, Public Utilities Stormwater Engineer;
Celina Milner, Senior Policy Advisor – Mayors Office; Allison Rowland, City Council
Staff.
Public Lands Master Plan Update LVsigned
Final Audit Report 2020-09-02
Created:2020-09-01
By:Garrett A. Danielson (Garrett.Danielson@slcgov.com)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAATZcQSC1Hb1xvZy1y7_S0QAL6lau8NKCP
"Public Lands Master Plan Update LVsigned" History
Document created by Garrett A. Danielson (Garrett.Danielson@slcgov.com)
2020-09-01 - 10:41:47 PM GMT- IP address: 204.124.13.222
Document emailed to Lisa Shaffer (lisa.shaffer@slcgov.com) for signature
2020-09-01 - 10:42:08 PM GMT
Email viewed by Lisa Shaffer (lisa.shaffer@slcgov.com)
2020-09-01 - 10:42:43 PM GMT- IP address: 166.137.163.64
Document e-signed by Lisa Shaffer (lisa.shaffer@slcgov.com)
Signature Date: 2020-09-02 - 7:53:09 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 204.124.13.222
Signed document emailed to Garrett A. Danielson (Garrett.Danielson@slcgov.com) and Lisa Shaffer
(lisa.shaffer@slcgov.com)
2020-09-02 - 7:53:09 PM GMT
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:October 20, 2020
RE: STREET VACATION NEAR 800 NORTH AND WARM SPRINGS ROAD
(PLNPCM2019-00824)
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to vacate an approximately 1.125-acre area that is part of the 800
North right-of-way near Warm Springs Road. The subject property is adjacent to a former Interstate-15 overpass
connecting 800 West to Warm Springs Road (700 West) as shown in the image below. The overpass was
removed in the mid-2000s during Interstate-15 reconstruction and this section of 800 North east of the freeway
is no longer used for vehicular travel. A portion of the roadway west of Interstate-15 was previously vacated and
redeveloped to include the Rose Park Neighborhood Center.
The applicant owns adjacent property to the north and proposes dividing the vacated area between property
owners on the north and south sides of the property. The adjacent property owner to the south agrees with this
proposal.
If the Council is supportive of the street vacation, the property will be sold to the adjacent property owners at
fair market value and proceeds from the sale would go to the Surplus Land Fund within the General Fund.
Market value as of August 2020 was approximately $225,000. The Planning Commission forwarded a
unanimous positive recommendation to the Council for the street vacation.
Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed street closure, address questions Council Members may
have and prepare for a public hearing.
POLICY QUESTION
1.Is the Council supportive of closing the subject section of 800 North?
Item Schedule:
Briefing: October 20, 2020
Set Date: October 20, 2020
Public Hearing 1: December 1, 2020
Public Hearing 2/Potential Action:
December 8, 2020
Page | 2
Aerial image showing approximate subject property outlined in red.
Yellow triangular-shaped “flares and fins” are owned by UDOT.
1999 aerial photo from the Administration’s transmittal
showing the former overpass and current parcel overlay.
Page | 3
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Attachment D of the Administration’s transmittal (pages 38-39) is an analysis of factors related to the City’s
street closure policy. A summary is provided below. For the complete analysis, please refer to the transmittal.
It is the policy of the City Council to close public streets and sell the underlying property.
The Council does not close streets when the action would deny all access to other
property.
o Finding: The proposed vacation would not deny vehicular or pedestrian access to any adjacent
properties.
The general policy when closing a street is to obtain fair market value for the land,
whether the abutting property is residential, commercial or industrial.
o Finding: The City would give up ownership of this property and obtain fair market value for
sale of the property to the applicant or other adjacent property owners.
There should be sufficient public policy reasons that justify the sale and/or closure of a
public street and it should be sufficiently demonstrated by the applicant that the sale
and/or closure of the street will accomplish the stated public policy reasons.
o Finding: The proposed right-of-way vacation is supported by Plan Salt Lake, does not conflict
with the Capitol Hill Master Plan and provides a public benefit as discussed in the Salt Lake
City Urban Design Element. It is Planning’s opinion the property is not needed for a public
purpose and the City would benefit from selling the land with proceeds going to the Surplus
Land Fund within the General Fund.
The City Council should determine whether the stated public policy reasons outweigh
alternatives to the closure of the street.
o Finding: Planning staff found two alternatives to the requested vacation:
i. maintain City ownership and require the applicant to enter into a long-term lease
agreement, or
ii. City maintains ownership of the right-of-way, which will likely remain vacant and
unused. The City would be responsible for maintaining the parcel.
City Real Estate staff noted long-term leases have greater administrative costs. A specific City
use for the right-of-way has not been identified. Since the right-of-way terminates at Interstate-
15, Planning staff stated it is unlikely the property will be needed for a public purpose. It should
be noted Public Utilities will record an easement for utility lines if the Council approves the
street vacation.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified three key considerations during analysis of the project which are summarized below.
For the complete analysis, please refer to pages 18-19 of the Administration’s transmittal.
1. Utah State Code section 10-9a-609.5 (included at the end of this memo) establishes the power for
cities to vacate streets upon the request of the governing body or a property owner. The City Council
must determine good cause exists for the vacation and neither the public interest nor any person will be
materially injured by the vacation. Planning staff found the right-of-way is not being used since the
overpass was removed. It is Planning staff’s opinion a transfer to private ownership will not be
detrimental to public interest since the City would be compensated for the property at market rate.
Page | 4
2. City Master Plans: As noted above, Planning staff does not feel the proposal conflicts with the Capitol
Hill Master Plan. Removal of the overpass is not discussed in the Plan. The Industrial Land Use section
of the Plan discourages expansion of industrial land uses within the neighborhood. Though the proposal
would be a small expansion of industrially zoned land, it is surrounded on the north, south and east by
land which is industrial, and Interstate-15 is adjacent to the west.
3. City Ownership and Use: Planning staff determined the City-owned right-of-way is dedicated for
800 North and approximately 132 feet wide. The yellow outlined triangular-shaped “flares and fins” in
the image above are owned by UDOT. As an adjacent property owner, UDOT has the option to purchase
an available right-of-way next to its property. The applicant indicated UDOT is not interested in
purchasing the property proposed for vacation. Furthermore, UDOT reportedly expressed interest in
selling its “flares and fins” adjacent to the subject property. That would be a separate transaction
between the applicant and UDOT and would not involve the City Council.
During City department review of the proposal, Public Utilities stated the right-of-way should not be
vacated citing a desire to retain the area for potential future utilities. However, Public Utilities did not
indicate how the area might be used and provided public utility easement language to preserve options
to use the right-of-way for this purpose. Planning staff believes the easement will be sufficient for future
needs and the applicant is amenable.
PUBLIC PROCESS
September 24, 2019 - A notice of the petition and request for review was emailed to the Capitol Hill and
Rose Park Community Council Chairs. No request for a meeting was received. Letters were mailed on
this date to property owners and residents within a 300-foot radius of the site. Planning staff did not
receive comments from nearby owners or residents.
October 17, 2019 – An open house was held to solicit comments on the project. Three employees of
Lifetime, located south of the right-of-way, attended and asked general questions.
February 12, 2020 - The Planning Commission held a public hearing. Lynn Wall, representing
LJRGFCO, LLC, adjacent property owner to the south, spoke expressing a desire to purchase the
southern portion of the subject property, if vacated, in order to expand its operations. The Planning
Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to vacate the
subject property.
STREET CLOSURE PROCESS
Street closure process is dictated by Section 10-9a-609.5 Utah State Code which is included below for reference.
10-9a-609.5. Petition to vacate a public street.
(1)In lieu of vacating some or all of a public street through a plat or amended plat in accordance with
Sections 10-9a-603 through 10-9a-609, a legislative body may approve a petition to vacate a public street in
accordance with this section.
(2)A petition to vacate some or all of a public street or municipal utility easement shall include:
(a)the name and address of each owner of record of land that is:
(i)adjacent to the public street or municipal utility easement between the two nearest public street
intersections; or
(ii)accessed exclusively by or within 300 feet of the public street or municipal utility easement;
(b)proof of written notice to operators of utilities located within the bounds of the public street or
municipal utility easement sought to be vacated; and
(c)the signature of each owner under Subsection (2)(a) who consents to the vacation.
Page | 5
(3)If a petition is submitted containing a request to vacate some or all of a public street or municipal utility
easement, the legislative body shall hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 10-9a-208 and
determine whether:
(a)good cause exists for the vacation; and
(b)the public interest or any person will be materially injured by the proposed vacation.
(4)The legislative body may adopt an ordinance granting a petition to vacate some or all of a public street or
municipal utility easement if the legislative body finds that:
(a)good cause exists for the vacation; and
(b)neither the public interest nor any person will be materially injured by the vacation.
(5)If the legislative body adopts an ordinance vacating some or all of a public street or municipal utility
easement, the legislative body shall ensure that one or both of the following is recorded in the office of the
recorder of the county in which the land is located:
(a)a plat reflecting the vacation; or
(b)(i)an ordinance described in Subsection (4); and
(ii)a legal description of the public street to be vacated.
(6)The action of the legislative body vacating some or all of a public street or municipal utility easement that
has been dedicated to public use:
(a)operates to the extent to which it is vacated, upon the effective date of the recorded plat or ordinance, as
a revocation of the acceptance of and the relinquishment of the municipality's fee in the vacated public
street or municipal utility easement; and
(b)may not be construed to impair:
(i)any right-of-way or easement of any parcel or lot owner; or
(ii)the rights of any public utility.
(7)(a)A municipality may submit a petition, in accordance with Subsection (2), and initiate and complete a
process to vacate some or all of a public street.
(b)If a municipality submits a petition and initiates a process under Subsection (7)(a):
(i)the legislative body shall hold a public hearing;
(ii)the petition and process may not apply to or affect a public utility easement, except to the extent:
(A)the easement is not a protected utility easement as defined in Section 54-3-27;
(B)the easement is included within the public street; and
(C)the notice to vacate the public street also contains a notice to vacate the easement; and
(iii)a recorded ordinance to vacate a public street has the same legal effect as vacating a public street
through a recorded plat or amended plat.
Request to vacate a 1.125-acre area of the 800 North right-of -way that is adjacent to a former overpass from 800 West over I-15 to Warm Springs Road.
Street VacationNear 800 North and Warm Springs Road
PLNPCM2019-00824 Recent aerial photo
Street VacationNear 800 North and Warm Springs Road
1999 aerial photo, current parcels
PLNPCM2019-00824
Street VacationNear 800 North and Warm Springs Road
PLNPCM2019-00824
Key Considerations:
1.Utah State Code –Section 10-9a-609.5
•Establishes power for cities to vacate streets
2.City Master Plans
3.City Ownership and Use
•Public Utility Easement
4.City Policy
•City would obtain fair market value for the land
Street VacationNear 800 North and Warm Springs Road
PLNPCM2019-00824
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Jennifer McGrath
Interim Director
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:
Chris Wharton, Chair
FROM: Jennifer McGrath, Interim Director Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: PLNPCM2019-00824 Street Vacation Near 800 N and Warm Springs Road
STAFF CONTACT: Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner
801-535-7625, sara.javoronok@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: Per Planning Commission’s recommendation, adopt the ordinance to
vacate a an approximately 1.125 acre area that is part of the 800 North right-of-way near Warm
Springs Road.
BUDGET IMPACT: At the time of this transmittal, Real Estate Services indicated that fair
market value for the subject area is approximately $4.58 per square foot. If the vacation is
approved by the Council and the property is sold to the applicants, approximately $224,571
would be paid into the General Fund.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This is a request by Mark Greenwood of Granite
Construction to vacate a section of the 800 North right-of-way that is adjacent to a former
overpass from 800 West over I-15 to Warm Springs Road (700 West). The overpass was closed
and removed with the reconstruction of I-15 in the mid-2000s. A portion of the roadway on the
west side of I-15 has already been vacated and redeveloped. The approximate area of the street
vacation is 1.125 acres. The applicant owns the property to the north and proposes that the
vacated area will be split between the owners to the north and south.
Jennifer McGrath (Aug 13, 2020 14:51 MDT)
08/13/2020
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: _________________August 14, 2020 Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council:___
______________________________________________________________________________
Lisa Shaffer September 21, 2020
The proposed street vacation is for a section of the 800 North right-of-way that was adjacent to a
former overpass over I-15 extending from 800 West over I-15 to Warm Springs Road. The
proposed street vacation is approximately 1.125 acres in size and measures approximately 132
feet wide and 485 feet long on the north and 410 feet on the south. The subject right-of-way is
no longer used as a roadway and is generally unoccupied.
The applicant, Granite Construction, owns approximately 19 acres of property to the north of the
subject right-of-way. LJRGFCO, LLC owns approximately 1.2 acres to the south and the offices
for Pathway Directional Boring are located on the property. The applicant anticipates using the
area for storage and is not intending to build structures on the property.
While the vacated land would not be publicly owned, Public Utilities has indicated an interest in
recording a public utility easement over the right-of-way at the time of disposition. The
applicant is amenable to this condition.
If approved by the City Council, approximately 1.125 acres would be vacated, declared surplus
property, and sold to the applicants for a fair market value. The adjacent properties are zoned M-
1.
MASTER PLAN POLICIES
The proposal’s compliance with applicable City master plans are evaluated on page 4 of the
Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit 4B).
The Capitol Hill Master Plan was last amended in 2001 and includes a paragraph on the I-15
Reconstruction. It states that Phase II, which includes the subject area, is in the process of
scoping alternatives. Thus, it does not contemplate or discuss the removal of the overpass. It
also does not specifically discuss the overpass.
The Industrial Land Use section includes a policy to discourage the expansion of industrial land
uses within the neighborhood and encourages their relocation to areas north of 900 North or
other areas of the city. While the proposal would be a small expansion of industrially zoned land
in the city, there is existing industrial zoned land to the north, south, and east, and I-15 is located
to the west.
The Salt Lake City Urban Design Element (1990) includes a section titled Streets and Elements
of Open Space, with a Policy Concept that states, “Decline to vacate streets, alleys, and other
public rights-of-way unless it is demonstrated that the vacation will result in a public benefit.”
There is a potential public benefit to allow for the expansion of a business onto property that is
currently vacant, and without the street closure, would continue to remain vacant. The property
isn’t needed for a public purpose, and the City would benefit financially from the sale of the
land—proceeds would be placed in the General Fund.
Plan Salt Lake (2015) includes a guiding principle to have “A balanced economy that produces
quality jobs and fosters an environment for commerce, local business, and industry to thrive.
This includes an initiative to “Support the growth of the industrial areas of the City,” which is
consistent with this proposal.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
•A notice of petition and request for review was emailed to the Capitol Hill and Rose Park
Community Council Chairs on September 24, 2019. No request for a meeting was
received. On this date, letters were also mailed to property owners and residents within a
300 foot radius of the site. Staff did not receive comments from nearby owners or
residents.
•October 17, 2019 – An open house was held to solicit comments on the project was held.
Three employees of Lifetime, which is located to the south of the right-of-way, attended
with general questions.
•The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 12, 2020, and voted
unanimously to forward a recommendation to vacate the subject area. Lynn Wall,
representing the property owner to the south, LTRGFCO, LLC spoke indicating that they
wished to purchase the southern portion of the vacated land and that they wanted to
expand their operations onto the property.
RELEVANT ORDINANCES:
•Utah State Code §10-9a-609.5 establishes the power for cities to vacate streets upon the
request of the governing body of a property owner.
The decision to vacate a street is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City
Council and is not controlled by any one standard. The City Council adopted a street closure
policy in 1999. These policies were evaluated in the Planning Commission Staff Report and
considered by the Planning Commission. Analysis and Findings can be found on pages 3-4 and
13-14 of the Staff Report dated February 12, 2020 (Exhibit 4B).
EXHIBITS:
1. Ordinance
2. Project Chronology
3. Notice of City Council Hearing
4. Planning Commission – February 12, 2020 Public Hearing
A)Public Hearing Notice
B) Staff Report
C)Agenda and Minutes
5.Original Petition
6.Mailing List
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Ordinance
2. Project Chronology
3. Notice of City Council Hearing
4. Planning Commission – February 12, 2020 Public Hearing
A. Mailing Notice
B. Staff Report
C. Agenda/Minutes
5. Original Petition
6. Mailing List
1. ORDINANCE
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2020
(Vacation a portion of 800 North Street adjacent to I-15 and Warm Springs Road )
An ordinance vacating a portion of 800 North Street from the east right-of-way of I-15 to
700 West Street pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00824.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on February
12, 2020, to consider the request made by Mark Greenwood of Granite Construction (the
“Applicant”) (Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00824) to vacate a portion of 800 North Street from
the east right-of-way of I-15 to 700 West Street; and
WHEREAS, at its February 12, 2020 meeting, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission
held a public hearing and voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt
Lake City Council on said application; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds after holding a public hearing on this
matter, that the city’s interest in the city-owned public right-of-way described below is not
presently necessary for use by the public and that vacating the city-owned right-of-way will not
materially injure the public interest or any person; and
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Vacating City-Owned Right-of-way. That the 800 North Street right-of-
way from the east right-of-way of I-15 to 700 West Street, which is the subject of Petition No.
PLNPCM2019-00824 and which is more particularly described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto,
hereby is vacated and declared not presently necessary or available for public use.
SECTION 2. Reservations and Disclaimers. The above vacation is expressly made
subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every
description now located on and under or over the confines of this property, and also subject to
2
the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or
rerouting said utilities, including the city’s water and sewer facilities. Said vacation is also
subject to any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 20__.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2020
Published: ______________.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: _________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney
August 10, 2020
3
Exhibit “A”
Legal description of the right of way to be vacated:
A portion of a Salt Lake City Street (800 North Street) lying and situate in the Southeast Quarter of
Section 26, Township 1 North, Range 1 West, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, Salt Lake City, Salt
Lake County, State of Utah, being more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at the found Street monument at the intersection of 700 West Street and 800 North
Street; thence North 00°00'55" West 63.92 feet along the 700 West Street monument line to the
extension of the North line of 800 North Street; thence North 89°59'32" West 64.00 feet to the
Southeast Corner of Block 107, Plat ‘C’, Salt Lake City Survey and the POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence South 00°00'55" East 131.78 feet along the West line of 700 West Street; thence North
89°59'29" West 333.03 feet along the South line of 800 North Street to the Easterly Right-of-Way
line of Interstate 15 (Project #I-15-7-26(307) Year 1965; thence North 30°36'26" West 153.12 feet
along said Easterly Right-of-Way line; thence South 89°59'32" East 410.96 feet along the North line
of 800 North Street to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Contains 49,022 square feet / 1.125 acres
2. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2019-00824
August 29, 2019 Mark Greenwood of Granite Construction submits application for
Street Closure/Vacation for the approximately 1.3 acre area of 800
North near Warm Springs Road.
September 16, 2019 Petition PLNPCM2019-00824 assigned to Sara Javoronok, Senior
Planner, for staff analysis and processing.
September 24, 2019 Email sent to Recognized Community Organizations (Capitol Hill
and Rose Park Community Councils) informing them of the
petition.
October 17, 2019 Open House held to solicit comments on the project. Three
employees of Lifetime, located to the south of the subject area,
attended with general questions.
January 31, 2020 Sign posted on property.
January 31, 2020 Planning Commission hearing notices posted on City and State
websites and Planning Division listserv. Notices also mailed out to
property owners/residents.
February 12, 2020 Planning Commission reviewed the petition and held a public
hearing. The commission voted unanimously to send a positive
recommendation to the City Council.
August 3, 2020 Legal description submitted by the applicant for the area to be
vacated.
August 4, 2020 Ordinance review requested from City Attorney’s office.
3. NOTICE OF CITY
COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2019-00824 Street Vacation near
800 North and Warm Springs Road. A request for street vacation by Mark Greenwood of
Granite Construction for vacation of a section of the 800 North right-of-way that is adjacent to a
former overpass from 800 West over I-15 to Warm Springs Road. The approximate area of the
street vacation is 1.3 acres. The subject property is located in a M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning
district and is located in Council District #3 represented by Chris Wharton.
As part of their study, the City Council is holding two advertised public hearings to receive
comments regarding the petition. During these hearings, anyone desiring to address the City
Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider
adopting the ordinance on the same night of the second public hearing. The hearing will be held
electronically:
DATE: Date #1 and Date #2
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: **This meeting will not have a physical location.
**This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency
Proclamation. If you are interested in participating in the Public Hearing, please visit our
website at https://www.slc.gov/council/ to learn how you can share your comments during
the meeting. 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, 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 via e-mail at
sara.javoronok@slcgov.com. You may review the file online at
https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/citizen, by selecting the Planning tab, and entering the petition
number PLNPCM2019-00824.
4. PLANNING COMMISSION
A. Mailing Notice
January 31, 2020
Salt Lake City Planning Division
451 S State Street, Room 406, PO Box 145480, Sa lt Lake City, Utah 84114-5480
Salt Lake City P lanning Commission Wednesday, February 12, 2020, 5:30 p.m.
City and County Building 451 S State Street, R oom 326
A public hearing will be hel d on the following matter. Comments from the Applicant, City Staff
and the public will be taken.
Street Vacation at approximately 800 N and Warm Springs Rd -A request for street vacatio n by
Mark Greenwood of Gran ite Construction for vacation of a section of the 800 North right-of-way th at is
adjacent to a former overpass from 800 West over 1-15 to Warm Springs Road . The approximate area
of the street vacation is 1.3 acres. The subject property is located in a M-1 (Light Manufacturing)
zon i ng district and is located in Council District #3 represented by Chris Wharton . (Staff Contact: Sa ra
Javoronok at (801) 535-7625 or sara .j avoronok@s lcgov .com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00824
Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodations no later than 48
ho urs in a d va nc e in order to attend this meeting. Accommodations may include: alternative formats, interpreters, a nd other auxiliary aids. This is an acces sible
facility. For additional meeting information , p lease see www.slcgov.com or call 801-535-7757; T DD 535-6220.
•
us POSTAGE)) PITNEY BOWES
(t '/ ;:....~ '5~ ~--~~~~116 $ 000.50°
0001403342JAN 31 2020
STATE ••• ··1 r·1;:.:;.L:...
Salt Lake C ity Planning Division Sara Javoronok
PO BOX 145480
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
El:::;. i i 4$5480 Ei~iOO I J 11 1I/11 1 I11/1111I11 1 I1 /1IJI•I1I•I/111 1 ,, , , I J' '1'1I'IJ 1 /1/1JI11 1
4. PLANNING COMMISSION
B. Staff Report
February 12, 2020
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-5357757 FAX 801-535-6174
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
Staf f Report
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Sara Javoronok, 801-535-7625 or sara.javoronok@slcgov.com
Date: February 12, 2020
Re: PLNPCM2019-00824 Street Vacation Near 800 North and Warm Springs Road
Street Vacation
PROPERTY ADDRESS: Near 800 North and Warm Springs Road
MASTER PLAN: Capitol Hill Master Plan
ZONING DISTRICT: M-1
REQUEST: This is a request by Mark Greenwood of Granite Construction to vacate a section of the
800 North right-of-way that is adjacent to a former overpass from 800 West over I-15 to Warm Springs
Road. The overpass was closed and removed with the reconstruction of I-15 in the mid-2000s. A
portion of the roadway on the west side of I-15 has already been vacated and redeveloped. The
approximate area of the street vacation is 1.3 acres. The applicant owns the property to the north and
proposes that the vacated area will be split between the owners to the north and south.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in this staff report, Planning staff recommends
that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to City Council for the request to
vacate this section of 800 North right-of-way from I-15 to Warm Springs Road subject to the
following condition:
1.The city shall record a public utility easement in the vacated area at the time of disposition.
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Vicinity Map
B.Property Photographs
C.Additional Applicant Information
D.Analysis of Standards
E.Public Process and Comments
F.Department Review Comments
BACKGROUND
Prior to the reconstruction of I-15 in the mid-2000s, there was an overpass for 800 West over I-15 to
Warm Springs Road (see photo on the next page). This was closed by 2006 and the overpass was
removed by 2010. The right-of-way on the west side was vacated through petitions in 2016
1
(PLNPCM2015-00462) and 2017 (PLNPCM2016-01008). Following this, the Rose Park
Neighborhood Center was constructed in 2017 at the terminus of 800 W. The right-of-way on the
east side has remained unoccupied since the removal of the overpass. City staff has determined that
the city right-of-way is limited to the approximately 132 feet of right-of-way that would have been
part of 800 North. The flares or fins that appear in the images below extend to the north and south
are UDOT property or right-of-way.
1999 aerial photo showing the former overpass with the current parcel overlay
2
Recent aerial photo showing the approximate location of street vacation.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposed street vacation is for a section of the 800 North right-of-way that was adjacent to a
former overpass over I-15 extending from 800 West over I-15 to Warm Springs Road. The proposed
street vacation is approximately 1.3 acres in size and measures approximately 132 feet wide and 475
feet long on the north and 340 feet on the south. The subject right-of-way is no longer used as a
roadway and is generally unoccupied.
The applicant, Granite Construction, owns approximately 19 acres of property to the north of the
subject right-of-way. LJRGFCO, LLC owns approximately 1.2 acres to the south and the offices for
Pathway Directional Boring are located on the property. The applicant anticipates using the area for
storage and is not intending to build structures on the property.
While the vacated land would not be publicly owned, Public Utilities has indicated an interest in
recording a public utility easement over the right-of-way at the time of disposition. The applicant is
amenable to this condition.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS:
Important considerations listed below have been identified through the analysis of the project.
1.Utah State Code: Section 10-9a-609.5 of the Utah Code Annotated establishes the power
for cities to vacate streets upon the request of the governing body or a property owner. The
City Council must determine that good cause exists for the vacation, and neither the public
3
interest nor any person will be materially injured by the vacation. Since the overpass was
removed, the right-of-way is no longer used as a roadway and has been generally unoccupied.
Staff finds that a transfer to private ownership would not be detrimental to public interest,
particularly since it would result in the applicant compensating the City for the property at
the market rate.
2.City Master Plans: The Capitol Hill Master Plan was last amended in 2001 and includes a
paragraph on the I-15 Reconstruction. It states that Phase II, which includes the subject area,
is in the process of scoping alternatives. Thus, it does not contemplate or discuss the removal
of the overpass. It also does not specifically discuss the overpass.
The Industrial Land Use section includes a policy to discourage the expansion of industrial
land uses within the neighborhood and encourages their relocation to areas north of 900
North or other areas of the city. While the proposal would be a small expansion of
industrially zoned land in the city, there is existing industrial zoned land to the north, south,
and east, and I-15 is located to the west.
The Salt Lake City Urban Design Element (1990) includes a section titled Streets and
Elements of Open Space, with a Policy Concept that states, “Decline to vacate streets, alleys,
and other public rights-of-way unless it is demonstrated that the vacation will result in a
public benefit.” There is a potential public benefit to allow for the expansion of a business
onto property that is currently vacant, and without the street closure, would continue to
remain vacant. The property isn’t needed for a public purpose, and the City would benefit
financially from the sale of the land—proceeds would be placed in the General Fund.
Plan Salt Lake (2015) includes a guiding principle to have “A balanced economy that
produces quality jobs and fosters an environment for commerce, local business, and industry
to thrive. This includes an initiative to “Support the growth of the industrial areas of the
City,” which is consistent with this proposal.
3.City Ownership and Use: Staff has determined that the city ownership of the right-of-way
is limited to the approximately 132 feet wide right-of-way dedicated for 800 North as part of
Plat C of the Big Field Survey. The flares or fins are owned by UDOT, and UDOT would have
the option to purchase the right-of-way adjacent to these portions. Staff has notified UDOT
of the proposal and has not received any comments. The applicant has indicated that they
have heard from UDOT and they have indicated that they are willing to sell the property and
do not have interest in purchasing the portion that would be vacated. The Transportation
Division has indicated that they have no interest in using the right-of-way.
Planning staff requested review of the proposed vacation from city departments and Public
Utilities has stated that the right-of-way should not be vacated expressing desire to retain the
area for future utilities. Public Utilities has not stated how the area would be used and has
provided language for a public utility easement that would preserve the ability to use the
right-of-way for this purpose. Staff believes that the required easement should be sufficient
for any future utility needs in the area. The applicant is amenable to a public utility easement.
DISCUSSION:
The proposal has been reviewed according to Utah State Code, the City Council policies regarding
street closures (Attachment D), and applicable city master plans, and staff finds that there are
citywide initiatives and policies that will be furthered with the adoption of the street vacation.
Further, the City will benefit financially from the sale of the property to the applicant.
NEXT STEPS:
With a recommendation of approval or denial of the street vacation from the Planning Commission,
the proposal will be sent to the City Council for a final decision.
4
ATTACHMENT A: VICINITY MAP
5
870 N
I-15 NB 600
N On
EB Ramp
600WGrantStGrantStDiamondRose Cir
I-
1
5
S
B
6
0
0
N
E
B
O
n
R
a
m
pI-15 SB600 N
WBOff RampOakTree CtElm Tree Pl
I-1
5
N
B
6
0
0
N
W
B
O
n
R
a
m
p
I-1
5
S
B
6
0
0
N
EB
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
715 N
I-15 NB
600 N EB
Off Ramp
Dexter StI-
1
5
N
B
6
0
0
NWB
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
600 N
Warm Springs Rd
W
a
r
m
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
R
d
I-
1
5
S
B
F
w
y
Fig Tree Pl
600 NMa
p
l
e
T
r
e
e
C
t War
m
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
R
d
I-
1
5
S
B
Fw
y
I
-
15
SB
600N O
f
f
R
amp
700 N
I-
1
5
N
B
Fw
y
I-1
5
N
B
6
0
0
N
O
n
R
a
m
p
800 W500 WI-
1
5
S
B
Fw
y
I-
1
5
S
B
1
0
0
0
N
-
9
0
0
W
O
n
R
a
m
p
U
P
R
R
C
e
n
t
e
r
Y
a
r
d
R
d
I-
1
5
N
B
F
w
y
U
P
R
R
M
a
i
n
O
n
e
R
d
557550
891
710
750
559
815
975
562
659
780
653
666
862
930
555
665
570
562
849
560
548
577
916
575
910
863
544
669
548
565
626
406
680
630
546
650
760
637
775
870
621
578
575568
558
975
974
565
955
722
535
912
902
578
640850
535 545
644
820
612
679
552
757
651
647874
753
975
629
754
620
573
608
714
638
658
630
559
745
938
500
566
875
1055
622
551 540
§¨¦15
500 N
Signora Dr
600 W500 W800 N
W
a
rm
S
p
ri
n
g
s
RdTopazDr800 WGrant St700 WChicago St1000 WMarion StU
P
R
R
M
a
i
n
O
n
e
R
d
400 N
900 N
800 N
900 W600 N
1000 N
400 WB
e
c
k
S
t
VictoryRd
§¨¦15
¯Salt Lake City Planning Division, 9/13/2019
Legend
Parcels
Vicinity Map
0 210 420 630 840105Feet6
Approximate location
of proposed street
closure
ATTACHMENT B: PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPHS
Existing Conditions – facing west towards the location of former overpass
Standing in the right-of-way and facing north
7
Standing in the right-of-way and facing southeast
Facing north – existing Granite Construction storage yard
8
Standing in the western area of the right-of-way and facing east
Standing in the western area of the right-of-way and facing west towards I-15
9
Granite Construction offices located to the north of the subject area
10
ATTACHMENT C: ADDITIONAL APPLICANT
INFORMATION
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Greenwood, Mark
Javoronok, Sara
RE: (EXTERNAL) Re: Street Closure Application
Wednesday, February 5, 2020 3:30:03 PM
Sara,
We have finally heard back from UDOT about the small triangle property that partially separates us
from the SLC street closure section we are proposing at 800 N and Warm Springs Dr. UDOT is
planning to sell us the property and they do not have interest in purchasing any portion of the street
closure section. We will pass this information along to the horizontal drilling company that owns the
property on the south side of the closure so they can also purchase the similar UDOT section of
property on their side of the closure. Do you need me to get UDOT to sign the surrounding parcel
owners document? See you next Wednesday for the planning commission meeting.
Thanks,
Mark
Mark Greenwood, PE
Utah Region Env Manager
1000 N Warm Springs Rd
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
Direct 801-526-6051
Cell 801-707-8547
From: Greenwood, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 3:26 PM
To: Javoronok, Sara <Sara.Javoronok@slcgov.com>
Cc: Klaumann, Jason
Subject: Re: (EXTERNAL) Re: Street Closure Application
Yes, February 12 still works and I am planning on being there. No word from UDOT. They are a hard
nut to crack. We will keep probing.
Thanks,
Mark
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 21, 2020, at 2:29 PM, Javoronok, Sara <Sara.Javoronok@slcgov.com> wrote:
22
ATTACHMENT D: ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In 1999, the City Council adopted a street closure policy that includes the following provisions:
1.It is the policy of the City Council to close public streets and sell the underlying
property. The Council does not close streets when the action would deny all
access to other property.
Analysis: The portion of right-of-way that the applicant has requested the City vacate
currently terminates at I-15 and no longer provides access to other roadways or properties.
Finding: The proposed vacation would not deny vehicular or pedestrian access to any
adjacent properties.
2.The general policy when closing a street is to obtain fair market value for the
land, whether the abutting property is residential, commercial or industrial.
Analysis: If approved by the City Council, the approximately 1.3 acres of right-of-way would
be sold at a fair market value to the applicant or other adjacent property owners.
Finding: The City would give up ownership of this property and obtain fair market value for
the sale of the property to the applicant or other adjacent property owners.
3.There should be sufficient public policy reasons that justify the sale and/or
closure of a public street and it should be sufficiently demonstrated by the
applicant that the sale and/or closure of the street will accomplish the stated
public policy reasons.
Analysis: As outlined in the ‘Key Considerations’ section above, the reconstruction of I-15
was in the planning stages when the Capitol Hill Master Plan (2001) was most recently
amended and does not include any specific direction on the use or disposition of the former
right-of-way. Staff finds that the request, supplemented with a public utility easement, is
consistent with public policies.
The Salt Lake City Urban Design Element (1990) indicates that the City should decline to
vacate right-of-ways unless it will result in a public benefit. There is a public benefit to the
closure since the business owner would be able to expand into the currently vacant land.
Additionally, the City would benefit financially from the sale of the property to applicant.
Plan Salt Lake supports the proposed vacation. This includes the Economy related guiding
principle to have a balanced economy as well as an initiative to support the growth of
industrial areas of the city.
Finding: The proposed right-of-way vacation is supported by Plan Salt Lake, does not
conflict with the Capitol Hill Master Plan, and, per the Salt Lake City Urban Design Element
it provides a public benefit. The property is not needed for a public purpose and the city
would benefit from the sale of the land the proceeds from which would go into the General
Fund.
4.The City Council should determine whether the stated public policy reasons
outweigh alternatives to the closure of the street.
Analysis: As an alternative to the proposal, the City and applicant could enter into a long
term lease agreement for the existing right-of-way. All maintenance of the subject property
would be by the lessee (the applicant) subject to required permits for any work. In exchange
23
for exclusive use of the subject property, the lessee (the applicants) would be required to pay
annual rent based on fair market value.
Finding: There are two alternatives to the requested vacation: 1) is that the City maintains
ownership of the approximately 1.3 acres of public right-of-way and requests that the
applicant enter into a long term lease agreement, and 2) is that the right-of-way is retained by
the city, and likely remains vacant and unused. The city would be responsible for maintaining
the parcel in perpetuity. As for the first option, real estate staff has indicated that long term
leases have greater administrative costs. A specific use by the city for this right-of-way has
not been identified. Public utilities may be located in an easement that would be recorded at
the time of disposition. Since the overpass was removed and the right-of-way terminates at I-
15, it is unlikely that it will be needed for a public purpose.
24
ATTACHMENT E: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS
Public Notice & Comments
September 24, 2019 – Notice of the project was provided to the Capitol Hill and Rose Park
Community Council Chairs. No response was received.
o On this date, letters were also mailed to property owners and residents within a 300
foot radius of the site. Staff did not receive comments from nearby owners or
residents.
October 17, 2019 – An open house was held to solicit comments on the project was held.
Three employees of Lifetime, which is located to the south of the right-of-way, attended
with general questions.
January 31, 2020 – Public hearing notices mailed for the Planning Commission meeting
/ Notice also posted on City & State web sites and emailed to Planning Division list serve.
January 31, 2020 – Public hearing notice sign posted at subject property.
At the time that this report was published, no other public comments had been received. If any are
submitted after this date, they will be forwarded to the Commission and included in the public record.
25
ATTACHMENT F: DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
Planning Notes (Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner, 801-535-7625, sara.javoronok@slcgov.com)
‐ It is city practice to divide the right-of-way in half if the property owners are interested.
‐ The right-of-way is not a community asset or surplus property.
‐ I have requested clarification on the Public Utilities comment below, but have not
received additional information.
‐ The city may consider recording a public utility easement in the right-of-way, this could
be a condition of approval and would likely be recorded at the time of disposition.
‐ UDOT owns the approximate areas shown below in yellow, contact the individuals in
their surplus property team for information. As owners of these portions, they would
have the option to purchase the right-of-way. Surplus Property Team: Deryl Davis –
or Michael Timothy –
Public Utilities (Karryn Greenleaf, Utilities Manager, 801-483-6769,
karryn.greenleaf@slcgov.com)
Here are my concerns, on a consistent basis we and other utility companies are looking to cross I-15
or other large roadways with utilities that serve the public. I would respectfully ask that we not be
hasty in vacating our rights in any roadway or property that could have future utility access uses,
there has been some indication that this roadway along with the roadway on the opposite side could
have been reserved as a utility corridor. Just because we do not have a utility currently located in an
existing roadway does not mean that we should be vacating the property and thereby causing
additional costs to City projects down the road. Closing the street to use and leasing it to an adjacent
property owner is not as much as a concern as along as there are no permanent structures or items
that require special approval to be removed and conditions can be applied to the lease to protect the
City’s interest.
I would ask that we not vacate this street as part of the street closure.
Building Services
Building Services finds no zoning related issues associated with this request.
Engineering (Matt Cassel, City Engineer, 801-535-6140, matthew.cassel@slcgov.com)
26
• There appears to be a power line across the property,
• There is a drainage ditch that crosses the property,
• I would suggest doing some borings on the property to verify what materials were used for the
ramp.
• In Shellie’s email she talks about starting the disposition of surplus property with the purchase
property to be based on current market value of the property. Per State Code, this is a vacation of a
community asset and is not surplus property. State code already dictates that the ROW, if vacated,
shall be divided down the middle with ownership to each adjacent property owner.
• I am a big believer that any ROW vacated should create a community benefit. If we just sell this land
for market price, we are not protecting these community assets.
Fire
Building Services finds no Fire Code related issues associated with this proposal.
Transportation
Transportation has no interest in using this piece of property.
27
4. PLANNING COMMISSION
C. Agenda/Minutes
February 12, 2020
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
February 12, 2020, at 5:30 p.m.
(The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion)
FIELD TRIP - The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m.
DINNER - Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m. in Room 126
of the City and County Building. During the dinner break, the Planning Commission may receive
training on city planning related topics, including the role and function of the Planning
Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM IN ROOM 326
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 22, 2020
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
1. Changes to Planning Commission Policies and Procedures – The Planning Director is requesting
the Planning Commission amend their rules of procedure to include Consent agenda matters. The
Planning Commission may consider what types of petitions may be reviewed in a Consent agenda.
This may include administrative petitions where the Planning Commission is the decision-making
authority.
2. Planned Development Extension Request at approximately 563 & 567 East 600 South - Kristen
Clifford, the consultant who represents the property owner, is requesting the Planning grant a one-
year time extension on approval of a Planned Development at approximately 563 E. 600 S. The
Commission originally granted approval for this project on March 28, 2018 and granted one extension
of that approval that will expire March 28, 2020. (Staff Contact: Amy Thompson at (801) 535-7281 or
amy.thompson@slcgov.com) Case number PLNSUB2017-00297
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment for 159 S. Lincoln, 949 E., 955 E., 959 E., 963 E. 200
S. - Graham Gilbert, on behalf of the property owners, is requesting to amend the Central Community
Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map. The request includes an amendment to the Central
Community Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential (1-15 dwelling units per acre) to
Medium Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units per acre). The applicant is requesting to amend the
Zoning Map for these properties from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate
Density Multi-Family Residential). The master plan and zoning map amendments are requested
to allow more residential housing units than what is currently allowed. The subject property is located
within District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff Contact: Kelsey Lindquist at (801) 535-7930
or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case Numbers PLNPCM2019-00683 and PLNPCM2019-00684
4. The Revival Design Review at approximately 355 South 200 West - A request by Matt Krambule
of PEG Development, representing 4th South Associates LLC and SLHB B Investors, LLC for Design
Review for additional height at approximately 355 South 200 West. The proposed residential mixed-
use project, to be known as the Revival, consists of 5 stories of residential units above 2.5 stories of
parking, with a retail component on the ground floor. A midblock walkway will run east-west along the
north property line. The proposed height of the building is 89 feet and 10 inches. In the D-3 zone,
buildings located between corner properties have a permitted height of 75 feet. Buildings taller than
75 feet but less than 90 feet in may be authorized through the Design Review process. The property
is zoned D-3 (Warehouse/Residential District) and is located in Council District 4, represented by Ana
Valdemoros. (Staff Contact: Laura Bandara at (801) 535-6188 or laura.bandara@slcgov.com) Case
number PLNPCM2019-00640
5. Street Vacation at approximately 800 N and Warm Springs Rd - A request for street vacation by
Mark Greenwood of Granite Construction for vacation of a section of the 800 North right-of-way that
is adjacent to a former overpass from 800 West over I -15 to Warm Springs Road. The approximate
area of the street vacation is 1.3 acres. The subject property is located in a M-1 (Light Manufacturing)
zoning district and is located in Council District #3 represented by Chris Wharton. (Staff Contact: Sara
Javoronok at (801) 535-7625 or sara.javoronok@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00824
6. Conditional Use for an ADU at approximately 1083 S Blair - A request by Tom Candee of Brach
Design on behalf of the property owner, Heather Flanders, for a detached accessory dwelling unit
located at approximately 1083 S Blair Street. The ADU would have an approximately 459 square feet
footprint with a 186 square foot lofted area for a total of 645 square feet. The building height would
not exceed 17 feet. The subject property is located in an R-1/5,000 single family residential zoning
district and is located in Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff Contact: Sara Javoronok
at (801) 535-7625 or sara.javoronok@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-01051
7. Conditional Use Sacred Circle Group Recovery Home - Sacred Circle Healthcare is requesting
Conditional Use approval for a new medical detoxification/recovery facility to be located on the first
floor in their existing building at 660 South 200 East in the D-2 – Downtown Support zoning district.
The proposed use will consist of a 14-bed in-patient facility with 24-hour supervision and security and
counseling and medical services provided by a multi-disciplinary team. The facility is classified as a
Dwelling - Large Group Home and is allowed as a Conditional Use in the D-2 zoning district. The
property is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff Contact: David J.
Gellner at (801) 535-6107 or david.gellner@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-01012
8. 700 North Zoning Map Amendment - 3 Properties - R-1/5000 to CB - Property owners Anna Tran
and Hoc Van Do are requesting that the City amend the zoning map for three (3) properties located
at 1616 W 700 N, 1632 W 700 N and 1640 W 700 N respectively. The properties currently contain
individual single-family dwellings, one on each property. The applicants are requesting to change the
zoning map designation of the properties from R-1/5000 (Single-Family Residential) to CB
(Community Business) in order to consolidate the parcels and develop a commercial use on the site.
No specific site development proposal has been submitted at this time. The Master Plan is not being
changed. The properties are located within Council District 1, represented by James Rogers. (Staff
Contact: David J. Gellner at (801) 535-6107 or david.gellner@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2019-00923
9. 1612 West 700 North Zoning Map Amendment - R-1/5000 to CB - Salt Lake City has received a
request from property owner Bethany Christensen requesting that the City amend the zoning map for
her property located at 1612 W 700 N. The property currently contains an individual single-family
dwelling. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning map designation of the property from R-
1/5000 (Single-Family Residential) to CB (Community Business). No specific site development
proposal has been submitted at this time. The Master Plan is not being changed. The property is
located within Council District 1, represented by James Rogers. (Staff Contact: David J. Gellner at
(801) 535-6107 or david.gellner@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00986
The files for the above items are available in the Planning Division offices, room 406 of the City and County Building. Please
contact the staff planner for information, Visit the Planning Division’s website at www.slcgov.com /planning for copies of the
Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and
minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the
Planning Commission. Planning Commission Meetings may be watched live on SLCTV Channel 17; past meetings are recorded
and archived, and may be viewed at www.slctv.com. 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 Planning
Office at 801-535-7757, or relay service 711.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 12, 2020 Page 1
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City & County Building
451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
Wednesday, February 12, 2020
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to
order at 5:33:15 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period
of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Adrienne Bell; Vice Chairperson
Brenda Scheer; Commissioners Maurine Bachman, Amy Barry, Carolynn Hoskins, Jon Lee, Matt Lyon,
Andres Paredes, and Sara Urquhart.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were Molly Robinson, Planning Manager; Paul Nielson,
Attorney; Amy Thompson, Senior Planner; Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner; Sara Javoronok, Senior
Planner; David Gellner, Principal Planner; and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary.
Field Trip
A field trip was held prior to the work session. Planning Commissioners present were; Maurine Bachman,
Brenda Scheer, and Sara Urquhart. Staff members in attendance were; Molly Robinson, Kelsey
Lindquist, and David Gellner.
• 660 S 200 E: Staff reviewed the request.
Q: Change of use?
A: Building code requirements for occupancy
• 900 E 200 S: Staff reviewed the request.
Q: Are seismic upgrades required for single family homes?
Q: Why is this not a LHD?
• 355 S 200 W: Staff reviewed the request.
Q: Where’s the mid-block walkway?
A: North side of property along ramp to Broadway lofts parking.
APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 22, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 5:34:30 PM
MOTION 5:34:36 PM
Commissioner Bachman moved to approve the January 22, 2020, meeting minutes.
Commissioner Scheer seconded the motion. Commissioners Paredes, Urquhart, Lyon, Barry,
Scheer, Lee, and Bachman voted “Aye”. Commissioner Hoskins abstained from voted as she was
not present during the said meeting. The motion passed 6-1.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:35:12 PM
Chairperson Bell stated she had nothing to report.
Vice Chairperson Scheer stated she had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:35:20 PM
Molly Robinson, Planning Manager, suggested that the Commission move the changes to planning
Commission Policies and Procedures to the end of the meeting.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 12, 2020 Page 6
• Design and material details
• Clarification on standards that would address the impacts to neighboring properties
MOTION 7:49:27 PM
Commissioner Scheer stated, based on the analysis and findings listed in the staff report,
information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning
Commission approve the Design Review request for additional height (PLNPCM2019-00640) for
the project located at approximately 355 South 200 West. The recommendation is based on the
conditions of approval listed in the staff report and final detai ls regarding the conditions of
approval are delegated to Planning Staff.
Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion. Commissioners Paredes, Urquhart, Lyon, Barry,
Scheer, Lee, Hoskins, and Bachman voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
7:50:48 PM
Street Vacation at approximately 800 N and Warm Springs Rd - A request for street vacation by Mark
Greenwood of Granite Construction for vacation of a section of the 800 North right-of-way that is adjacent
to a former overpass from 800 West over I-15 to Warm Springs Road. The approximate area of the street
vacation is 1.3 acres. The subject property is located in a M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning district and
is located in Council District #3 represented by Chris Wharton. (Staff Contact: Sara Javoronok at (801)
535-7625 or sara.javoronok@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00824
Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case
file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation
to the City Council with the condition regarding public utility easement.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Clarification on whether the applicant intends to use this portion of the street
PUBLIC HEARING 7:54:59 PM
Chairperson Bell opened the Public Hearing;
Lynn Wall, property owner to the South – stated his support of the request
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Bell closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION 7:56:19 PM
Commissioner Scheer stated, based on the information in the staff report, the information
presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission
forward a positive recommendation to City Council for the request to vacate this section of 800
North right-of-way from I-15 to Warm Springs Road subject to the following condition:
1. The city shall record a public utility easement in the vacated area at the time of disposition.
Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Hoskins, Lee, Scheer, Barry,
Lyon, Urquhart, and Paredes voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
7:57:19 PM
Conditional Use for an ADU at approximately 1083 S Blair - A request by Tom Candee of Brach
Design on behalf of the property owner, Heather Flanders, for a detached accessory dwelling unit located
5. ORIGINAL PETITION
PLNPCM2019-00824
12
~
CIJ ·:;;
CIJ cc:
~
"' .,,
D ~
D d
D D
D G
D [2J
D 0
D 0
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Please include with the application: (plea se attach additional sheet)
1. A letter explaining why you are requesting this Street Clo sure .
2. A Sidwell map showing the area of the proposed Street Closure . On the map plea se :
a. Highlight the area of the propose d Street Closure .
b. Indicate the property owners abutting the proposed Street Closure.
c. Submit one paper copy and a digital (PDF) copy of the map.
3. A written de sc ript ion with the width and length mea surements of the propose d Street Closure.
• A final leg al descri ption prepa re d by a licensed en gine e r w ill be required later.
4. The name, address and signatures of all abutting property owners who support the petition.
• You ma y u se the form attached to this applica tion or p rovide your own form with signa tu r es.
• Signatures should be from the property owners and not from the property r e nters.
\ Pl ease be aware that once th e City clo ses the street it w ill then se ll the property at fair market value to the abutting
property owners .
INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
Updated 7 /1/19
_,_,'-+-_I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be
processed . I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following item s are
included in the submittal package.
Updated 7/1/19
PETITION TO CLOSE A STREET
Name of Applicant :
C-tfcV\1le
Address of Applicant :
It ) l 'IO Al L0,lt-m. 0!'. SLL-1 UT :3 4116
Date:
-g -14 -11
As an owner of property adjacent to the street, I agree to the proposed street closure . I also understand that I have
the option to purchase the portion of the street adjacent to my prope at fa i ~ market value.
Ri ck Harris, Manager-Real Estate
Union Pac ific Railroad Co mpa ny (Rio Grande Lan d Co.), 1400 Douglas St., Omaha, NE 681 79 Au ust 28 , 20 19
Print Name Address
Print Name Address Signatur e Date
Print Name Address Signature Date
Print Name Address Signature Date
Print Name Address Signatur e Date
Pr int Name Address Signature Date
Print Name Address Signature Date
Print Name Addr ess Signature Date
Print Name Address Signature Date
Print Name Address Signature Date
Print Name Address Signa ture Date
Pri nt Name Address Signature Date
Updated 7/1/19
August 29, 2019
Salt Lake City Planning
451 South State Street, Room 215
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
GRAlllTE™
Re: Street Closure Application -Near Warm Springs Drive and 800 North.
To Whom It May Concern,
Granite Construction Company (Granite) is proposing to close a section of street owned by Salt
Lake City. The street is located along Warm Springs drive and approximately 800 north. The
street is a former over pass that crossed over 1-15 and connected Warm Springs Drive and 800
West. The over pass has been removed and the property is currently vacant. The proposed
closure is illustrated I nthe attached Sidwell Map. The approximate dimensions of the street
closure is 140 feet wide by 450 feet long.
Granite has contacted all immediately adjacent property owners including Union Pacific
Railroad Company (UP) and LJRGFCO LLC. UP has no interest in purchasing the property and
LJRGFCO LLC is interested in purchasing half of the proposed closure in conjunction with
Granite. Both property owners have signed the street closure petition (attached). Granite has
worked with Shellie Finan at Salt Lake City, to determine the correct path forward to purchase
the property. Granite's correspondence with Ms. Finan is included with this application.
The attached documents include the Salt Lake City Street Closure form , Sidwell map, signed
petition, and correspondence with Ms. Finan at Salt Lake City. Thank you for taking the time to
review this information. Please feel free to contact Mark Greenwood at 801-707-8547 with any
questions that you might have.
Regards ,
Mark Greenwood, PE
Region Environmental Manager
Granite Construction
1000 North Warm Springs Rd
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
P: (801) 526-6051
C: (801) 707-8547
E: mark.greenwood@ gcinc.com
Granite Construction
Warm Springs Parcels
0 50 100 200 Feet
N
A
Greenwood, Mark
From: Klaumann , Jason
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, August 13, 2019 9:28 AM
Greenwood, Mark
Subject: FW: City Property on Warm Springs RD
FYI
From: Finan, Shell ie <Shellie .Finan@slcgov.com>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 1:52 PM
To: Klaumann, Jason <Jason.Klaumann@gcinc.com>
Subject: RE: City Property on Warm Springs RD
Hi Jason,
I reached out to the department heads concerning property of interest and have received no objections. The only
comment made by Public Utilities was 700 West needs to remain a right of way sin ce there is a main waterline
underground. I don't think the portion you are interested in interferes with 700 West .
Like we discussed , the next step i s to reach out to Planning to begin the st reet closure application process . If approved
by Planning and City Council, t he ne xt step will be to work with Real Estate Services to begin the di spo sition of surplus
land proce ss and purchase agreement which the purcha se price will be based on the current market value of the
property.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Shellie Finan, RWA, CNE
Real Property Manage r
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-644 7
CELL38 5-321-7 143
www.S LCG OV.coM/HAND
From: Klaumann, Jason [mai lto:Jason .Klaumann@gc inc.com ]
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2019 1:08 PM
To: Finan, Shellie <She ll ie .Finan@s lcgov .com >
Subject: City Property on Warm Springs RD
Shellie,
I was thinking one thing and typed another, below should be 800 N street not 900 W. Current bridge goes over 1-15 on
900W.
Jason
1
From: Klaumann, Jason
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 11:41 AM
To: Finan, Shellie <She llie .Finan@ slcgov.com >
Subject: RE : City Property on Warm Springs RD
Shellie,
It is the old 900 west street that went over 1-15 and was abandoned . The city entered into 99 year lease with the piece
of property that was on the west side of 1-15 where the 900 west bridge landed and this is the east side property. Not
sure if that helps but maybe.
Jason
From: Finan, Shellie <She ll ie .Finan@s lcgov.com >
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 11:17 AM
To: Klaumann, Jason <Jason.Klaumann@gcinc.com >
Subject: RE: City Property on Warm Springs RD
Hi Jason!
I just wanted to let you know I haven 't forgotten about your email r eque st . I'm verifying if the City does indeed own the
property sin ce there's no parcel# assigned to the portion you 're interested in . It looks like it could be right-of-way but
not su re if it's considered a street. I'll get back to you as soon as I have more i nformation and we can d iscuss further.
Thanks,
Shellie Finan, RWA , CNE
Re al Property Manager
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND N EIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801 -535 -6447
CELL 38 5-32 1-7143
www.SLCGOV.coM/HAND
From: Klaumann, Jason [mai lto :Jason .Klaumann@gcinc .com ]
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 5 :52 PM
To: Finan , Shellie <She ll ie .Finan@slcgov.com >
Subject: City Property on Warm Springs RD
Shellie,
Would you have a time to sit down with me and look at a city owned property that borders our current property on
Warm Springs Road . I am wondering if there is a idea on this piece of property that could benefit both of us . The
property I am talking about is shown in pink in the attached map. At your convenience let me know when you would
have 30 min to discuss .
2
Thank you in advance,
Jason
Jason Klaumann
Vi ce President-Utah Region Manager
3
1000 Warm Springs Road
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Cell 801-831-6093
jason.kl a uma nn@gci n c.com
www.g ra niteconstruction.com
4
From:Greenwood, Mark
To:Javoronok, Sara
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Re: Street Closure Application
Date:Wednesday, February 5, 2020 3:30:03 PM
Sara,
We have finally heard back from UDOT about the small triangle property that partially separates us
from the SLC street closure section we are proposing at 800 N and Warm Springs Dr. UDOT is
planning to sell us the property and they do not have interest in purchasing any portion of the street
closure section. We will pass this information along to the horizontal drilling company that owns the
property on the south side of the closure so they can also purchase the similar UDOT section of
property on their side of the closure. Do you need me to get UDOT to sign the surrounding parcel
owners document? See you next Wednesday for the planning commission meeting.
Thanks,
Mark
Mark Greenwood, PE
Utah Region Env Manager
1000 N Warm Springs Rd
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
Direct 801-526-6051
Cell 801-707-8547
From: Greenwood, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 3:26 PM
To: Javoronok, Sara <Sara.Javoronok@slcgov.com>
Cc: Klaumann, Jason <Jason.Klaumann@gcinc.com>
Subject: Re: (EXTERNAL) Re: Street Closure Application
Yes, February 12 still works and I am planning on being there. No word from UDOT. They are a hard
nut to crack. We will keep probing.
Thanks,
Mark
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 21, 2020, at 2:29 PM, Javoronok, Sara <Sara.Javoronok@slcgov.com> wrote:
6. MAILING LIST
Owner(s) Attention Owner Address Owner City/State Owner Zip Code
AA ALPINE STORAGE‐SALT LAKE, LLC 74 E 500 S AMERICAN FORK UT 84003
W HUNTER PARSONS 820 N WARM SPRINGS RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
LTD. PERRY A. OLSEN FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 8949 S ALPEN WY COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY TAX DEPARTMENT PO BOX 50085 WATSONVILLE CA 95077
PAC‐SOLARA, LP 27571 GOLD DUST LN LAGUNA HILLS CA 92653
WRIGHT EFFICIENCY PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 710 N 800 W # 12 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION REAL ESTATE SERVICES PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
LJRGFCO, LLC LYNN R WALL 775 N WARM SPRINGS RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
MOWER LEASING COMPANY LLC BACKYARDS INC BLDG D‐11 PO BOX 160010 CLEARFIELD UT 84016
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION UDOT RIGHT OF WAY PO BOX 148420 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
RIO GRANDE LAND CO UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 1400 DOUGLAS ST STOP 1640 OMAHA NE 68179
RESIDENT 750 N WARM SPRINGS RD Salt Lake City 84116
RESIDENT 780 N WARM SPRINGS RD Salt Lake City 84116
RESIDENT 1055 N WARM SPRINGS RD Salt Lake City 84116
RESIDENT 760 N 900 W Salt Lake City 84116
RESIDENT 710 N 800 W Salt Lake City 84116
RESIDENT 754 N 800 W Salt Lake City 84116
RESIDENT 745 N WARM SPRINGS RD Salt Lake City 84116
RESIDENT 800 N WARM SPRINGS RD Salt Lake City 84116
RESIDENT 815 N WARM SPRINGS RD Salt Lake City 84116
JENNIFER WILSON
Mayor
ERIN LITVACK
Deputy Mayor &
Chief Administrative Officer
HOLLY YOCOM
Department Director
Community Services
MATTHEW CASTILLO
Interim Division Director
Arts & Culture
50 West 200 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
385-468-1010 - Phone
385-468-1005 – Fax
TTY: 7-1-1
MEMO FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
DATE: October 1, 2020
ITEM: UPAC Eccles Theater 2021 Site Budget
PREPARED BY: Matthew Castillo, Arts & Culture Acting Director
RE: UPAC (Eccles Theater) Site Operating Budget
REQUESTED ACTION: No action necessary – discussion item only
POLICY ITEM: Not applicable.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
• City/RDA has committed to fund any deficit from UPAC Site operations
on an annual basis for the 5-year term of the Amendment to the UPAC
Operating Agreement, ending June 2021. Eccles Theater Site Operations
deficits will be funded from the UPAC Site Operations Reserve which will
then be replenished to its initial pre-funded amount.
In July 2016, the RDA Board and City Council approved the Amendment to the
UPAC Operating Agreement to extend the role of Salt Lake County Arts & Culture
(A&C) to be the Operator for the entire building, incorporating UPAC Site as well
as UPAC Building. At that time, the Council requested the opportunity to have an
annual presentation on the UPAC Site Operations Budget for the prior and
upcoming year.
A&C developed the FY 2021 UPAC Site Operations Budget which was approved
by the UPAC board on September 24, 2020. UPAC Fiscal Year operates on the
Calendar Year. Please see attachments for budget documents and other financial
information. A&C Acting Division Director, Matthew Castillo and Eccles Theater
General Manager, Angela Vanderwell, will attend the City Council meetings to
address any questions or concerns.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Eccles Theater Site FY 2021 Budget Memo discussing the major changes
compared to the FY 2020 Approved Budget.
2) Eccles Theater Site Operations FY 2021 Budget with FY 2020 Approved
Budget, FY 2020 Actuals through August, and FY 2019 Year-End Actuals
3) Eccles Theater Site Activity Projections FY 2020
10/01/2020
UPACA/Eccles Theater
2021 Proposed Budget
Significant Budget Changes
ECCLES SITE
The focus for the 2021 Eccles Site budget proposal is to preserve a flat RDA funding level while
promoting revitalization of Site activity as we recover from the COVID-19 Pandemic. We are projecting
that full capacity performances will return starting June 1, 2021 with activity levels at 80% of historical
levels thereafter through the remainder of the year.
Expenses are budgeted at the minimum needed to provide adequate services for the events that are
planned to take place next year. We have sought strategic opportunities to reduce expenses including
redeploying employees to other County agencies during periods of low activity and leaving vacant
positions unfilled.
Based on these changes we propose an operating budget with a subsidy of $505,000, or approximately
flat compared to the 2020 approved Site subsidy. Following is a summary of significant budget changes
proposed for 2021 as compared to the 2020 approved adjusted budget.
Change in Revenue: total increase of $18,328 consisting of the following:
4,136
14,192
18,328
Increase in ticket fees due to ticket sales restoration
Increase in other event revenues (rental fees, concessions, etc) from restored activity
Change in Expense: total increase of $18,372 consisting of the following:
PERSONNEL
13,444
11,065
(2,279)
22,230 Subtotal Personnel Change
NON-PERSONNEL
32,760
16,450
23,532
7,416
(21,734)
(65,281)
3,000
(3,857) Subtotal Non-Personnel Change
18,372 Total Change in Expense
Savings from 3-month redeployment (January through March) of two Eccles employees
to Mid-Valley Performing Arts Center opening
Payroll true-up for allocation of Arts & Culture staff time
Event wages from increased activity compared to 2020 adjusted budget
Operations & IT equipment replacement funds to cover maintenance contracts and
replace failing equipment at end of lifecycle.
Insurance premium increase (split between BLDG & SITE)
Centralized service decrease from lower Site share of County overhead
Increased cleaning & maintenance expenses with Site activity restoration
Increase in utilities from higher Site space useage
Other event-related expenses from increased activity (credit card fees, contract labor,
equipment maintenance, advertising, small supplies and peripherals, etc)
Remove one-time increase for restaurant improvements
Change in Operating Subsidy Requested: total increase of $44.
ECCLES SITE OPERATING BUDGET REPORT Percent of Year Elapsed: 67%
2019 Actual
2020 Adjusted
Budget*
2020 Actual as of
08/31/2020**
2020 Budget -
Actual
2020 % Budget
Realized
2021 Requested
Budget
2021 Budget
Minus 2020
Budget
Facility & Service Ticket Fees 18,937 3,862 3,764 98 97%7,998 4,136
Cleaning, Front of House & Equip Rental 31,425 3,271 4,033 (762) 123%9,787 6,516
Local Contracts 24,270 3,500 490 3,010 14% 3,500 -
Rent, Merch and Catering 44,663 5,053 5,853 (800) 116%11,717 6,664
Restaurant Rent & Commissions 581 - - - 0%- -
Concessions 2,137 - - - 0%1,012 1,012
Federal CARES Act Reimbursements - - 1,132 (1,132) 0%- -
Total Revenue 122,013 15,686 15,273 413 97%34,014 18,328
Salary and Wages 164,656 246,283 103,011 143,272 42% 168,206 (78,077)
Budgeted Personnel Underexpend (100,307) - (100,307) 0%0 100,307
Building Maintenance & Operations 59,777 85,360 19,590 65,770 23% 70,485 (14,875)
Subscriptions, Memberships & Training 172 - - - 0%- -
Printing & Advertising 18,904 13,500 1,750 11,750 13%10,750 (2,750)
Supplies & Equipment Purchase 23,535 16,009 1,033 14,976 6%9,765 (6,244)
Credit Card Processing Fees 1,816 2,000 306 1,694 15%2,000 -
Equipment Maintenance 203 7,500 - 7,500 0%6,500 (1,000)
Utilities 89,967 84,480 39,103 45,377 46%76,230 (8,250)
Non-capital Building Improvements 27,029 65,281 65,082 199 100% - (65,281)
Professional Services & Contract Labor 18,360 2,500 1,234 1,266 49%2,000 (500)
Centralized Service 143,372 143,047 95,365 47,682 67%114,926 (28,121)
Insurance 41,216 45,300 8,650 36,650 19%52,716 7,416
Budgeted Operations Underexpend (112,747) - (112,747) 0%- 112,747
Capital Asset Purchases from Operations 1,699 22,000 21,939 61 100%25,000 3,000
Total Expenses 590,705 520,206 357,063 163,143 69%538,578 18,372
Revenue Less Expense (468,692) (504,520) (341,791) (162,729) 68%(504,564) (44)
Model Reference (460,000) (458,700)
Run date:10/1/2020
** Financial information is presented on a budget year basis and includes revenues & expenses paid, accrued, or encumbered against the applicable budget year but does not reflect expenses paid against prior year encumbrances.
* At the March 5, 2020, board meeting, the following budget adjustments are requested:
a) $41,747 decrease to "Restaurant Rent & Commissions" revenue to reflect amended restauarant operator contract;
b) $65,281 increase to "Building Maintenance & Operations" expense to reimburse restaurant operator for fixed improvements to restaurant space.
At the May 29, 2020 board meeting budget adjustments were approved to reflect the anticipated financial impacts of COVID-19. Adjustments include reduction of revenue by $130K and reduction of expenses by $241K.
1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter
8 0 0 6
0 0 0 13
0 0 0 8
8 0 0 27
6 0 0 0
0 1 1 0
0 0 0 5
6 1 1 5
14 1 1 32
0 0 0 1
0 0 2 0
0 0 2 1
0 0 2 1
4 0 0 1
2 0 0 0
6 0 0 1
6 0 0 1
Report Date: 09/22/2020
Commercial 2
Subtotal 7
Total Activities 7
Total Activities 3
Tanner Lounge - ET
Non-Performance Use
Not-for-profit 5
Not-for-profit 1
Commercial 2
Subtotal 3
Subtotal 13
Total Activities 48
McCarthey Plaza
Non-Performance Use
Non-Performance Use
Not-for-profit 6
Commercial 2
Resident 5
Commercial 13
Resident 8
Subtotal 35
Activity Report - Eccles Site
Current Bookings for Calendar Year
Regent Street Black Box
Performances
Not-for-profit 14
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: Russell Weeks
Senior Policy Analyst
DATE:October 14, 2020
RE: MOTION SHEET – ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE G-MU HEIGHT LIMITS
WITHIN A LIMITED AREA (Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00639)
I.MOTION – To Adopt an Ordinance to Increase G-MU Height Limits within
a Limited Area
I move that the Council adopt the ordinance amending Subsection 21A.31.020.E of the
Salt Lake City Code pertaining to building height in the G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District.
I further move that it is the City Council’s intent that the Administration conduct a
height study of the greater downtown area starting with the Station Center and North Temple
Street areas, followed by areas identified for transit-oriented development, and then by areas
that make up the greater downtown generally defined by the existing D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4 and
G-MU zoning districts.
The study should include:
o A review of existing incentives for allowing building heights to exceed height
limits and the potential to enact new incentives including a density bonus
program and other best practices to apply as increased height is considered for
future properties.
o A review of view corridors in existing master plans, and the effect taller
buildings may have on them.
o The compatibility of higher buildings with any affordable housing overlay zone
the Council may consider in the future.
o The effects of sunlight glare, and snow and ice hazards created by taller
buildings and the potential inclusion of minimizing those effects as part of the
design review process.
It is the City Council’s intent that the Administration prepare a timeline and a budget
for the study so the Council can consider appropriating funds for the study during the budget
process for Fiscal Year 2021-2022.
II. MOTION – To Adopt an Ordinance to increase G-MU Height Limits with
Conditions to Be Met before Publishing the Ordinance
I move that the council conditionally approve the request and not publish the
ordinance until the condition listed below has been confirmed in writing by the developer
with the understanding that this should not be seen as a precedent for future requests for
increased building height. It is the intent of the council that all future requests for additional
height or density (whether via rezoning or text amendment) be reviewed on a case by case
basis until a height study is completed, and that in each case, the City asks the petitioner to
articulate the benefits that will be provided to the City related to the increased height/density
given the value that the City would be providing to the petitioner by granting the increased
height/density. In this case, the conditional approval is subject to developer confirming in
writing the specific additional benefits to the City that are related to the additional requested
height and density. This ordinance will be published when developer has provided written
confirmation to the City’s Planning Department and City Council that these elements have
been included in the project.
I further move that it is the City Council’s intent that the Administration conduct a
height study of the greater downtown area starting with the Station Center and North Temple
Street areas, followed by areas identified for transit-oriented development, and then by areas
that make up the greater downtown generally defined by the existing D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4 and
G-MU zoning districts.
The study should include:
o A review of existing incentives for allowing building heights to exceed height
limits and the potential to enact new incentives including a density bonus
program and other best practices to apply as increased height is considered for
future properties.
o A review of view corridors in existing master plans, and the effect taller
buildings may have on them.
o The compatibility of higher buildings with any affordable housing overlay zone
the Council may consider in the future.
o The effects of sunlight glare, and snow and ice hazards created by taller
buildings and the potential inclusion of minimizing those effects as part of the
design review process.
It is the City Council’s intent that the Administration prepare a timeline and a budget
for the study so the Council can consider appropriating funds for the study during the budget
process for Fiscal Year 2021-2022.
III. To Adopt an Amended Ordinance to Increase G-MU Height Limits
within a Limited Area
I move that the Council adopt the ordinance amending Subsection 21A.31.020.E of the
Salt Lake City Code pertaining to building height in the G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District
with the following amendments: (Council Members may propose amendments with this
motion.)
I further move that it is the City Council’s intent that the Administration conduct a
height study of the greater downtown area starting with the Station Center and North Temple
Street areas, followed by areas identified for transit-oriented development, and then by areas
that make up the greater downtown generally defined by the existing D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4 and
G-MU zoning districts.
The study should include:
o A review of existing incentives for allowing building heights to exceed height
limits and the potential to enact new incentives including a density bonus
program and other best practices to apply as increased height is considered for
future properties.
o A review of view corridors in existing master plans, and the effect taller
buildings may have on them.
o The compatibility of higher buildings with any affordable housing overlay zone
the Council may consider in the future.
o The effects of sunlight glare, and snow and ice hazards created by taller
buildings and the potential inclusion of minimizing those effects as part of the
design review process.
It is the City Council’s intent that the Administration prepare a timeline and a budget
for the study so the Council can consider appropriating funds for the study during the
budget process for Fiscal Year 2021-2022.
IV. MOTION – Not adopt the proposed ordinance, and deny the land use
petition, but declare the City Council’s intent to conduct a height study
throughout the greater downtown.
I move that the Council not adopt the proposed ordinance, and deny Petition No.
PLNPCM2019-00639 pertaining to building height in the G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District.
I further move that it is the City Council’s intent that the Administration conduct a
height study of the greater downtown area starting with the Station Center and North
Temple Street areas, followed by areas identified for transit-oriented development, and
then by areas that make up the greater downtown generally defined by the existing D-1, D-
2, D-3, D-4 and G-MU zoning districts.
The study should include:
o A review of existing incentives for allowing building heights to exceed height
limits and the potential to enact new incentives including a density bonus
program and other best practices to apply as increased height is considered for
future properties.
o A review of view corridors in existing master plans, and the effect taller
buildings may have on them.
o The compatibility of higher buildings with any affordable housing overlay zone
the Council may consider in the future.
o The effects of sunlight glare, and snow and ice hazards created by taller
buildings and the potential inclusion of minimizing those effects as part of the
design review process.
It is the City Council’s intent that the Administration prepare a timeline and a budget
for the study so the Council can consider appropriating funds for the study during the
budget process for Fiscal Year 2021-2022.
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: Russell Weeks
Senior Policy Analyst
DATE:October 20, 2020 at 7:37 PM
RE: UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO
INCREASE G-MU HEIGHT LIMITS WITHIN A LIMITED AREA
UPDATED INFORMATION
This section is a follow-up to the City Council’s formal meeting October 6 in which the Council
considered a proposed zoning text amendment to increase height limits in a limited area zoned as Gateway
Mixed Use. The Council that night adopted the following motion: “I move that the Council defer action to a later
date, 20 October, to allow Council Members the opportunity to consider incentive options to include density
bonus programs, affordable housing, and open space.”1
This report includes an attachment with four motions pertaining to the proposed text amendment.
The motions include a motion to adopt the proposed amendments; a motion to adopt the proposed amendment
but not publish the ordinance until the petitioner articulates in writing the public benefits that either the project
itself will provide or public benefits agreed to with Salt Lake City; a motion to amend the proposed amendments;
and a motion not to adopt the proposed amendments and deny the original land use petition in which the
amendments were proposed. Each of the four motions also contains a second motion declaring the City Council’s
legislative intent:
a. to conduct a study of building heights throughout downtown Salt Lake City
b. to have the Administration establish a timeline and budget for the study so the Council can
consider appropriating funds for the study during Fiscal Year 2021-2022.
The motions largely are based on an April 21, 2020, work session discussion in which there appeared
to be consensus among the Council, the Planning Division, and the petitioner that any new construction in that
Item Schedule:
1st Briefing: January 14, 2020
2nd Briefing: April 21, 2020
3rd Briefing: August 3, 2020
4th Briefing: October 20, 2020
Set Date: August 3, 2020
Public Hearing: September 1,
September 15, 2020
Potential Action: October 20,
2020
Page | 2
area the petitioner proposed would be subject to the City’s design review and design review standards set out in
Salt Lake City Municipal Code 21A.59.050.
It might be noted that after the meeting the petitioner followed up with the letter attached to this
update.2
It also should be noted that at the April 21 work session two Council Members voiced concerns about
whether the proposed text amendment was the right tool to address new development in the area.
To recap, STACK Realty of Lehi has proposed to increase building heights within a geographic area
roughly bordered by 250 South, 500 West Street, 350 South, and 600 West Street. The company has leased for
99 years three and one-fourth acres of property on the northwest corner of the block bordered by 300 South,
500 West, 400 South, and 600 West streets.
The following detail from the proposed text amendment shows the parameters of where the proposed
amendment would be in effect, if adopted.
A couple things might be noted here. First, the Planning Commission forwarded a negative
recommendation to the proposed text amendment, in part based on the Planning Division staff
recommendation.
At the Planning Commission public hearing, Planning Division staff listed four critiques of the proposed
amendment:
o The proposed amendment does not meet the intention of the GM-U zoning that was adopted in
2017 or the Downtown Master Plan.
o The proposed text amendment contains no design review for buildings in the “Station Center
Core” area proposed by the petitioners.
o The proposal appears to be for an office building with no residential use or uses that might
activate the streets around the building.
Page | 3
o The proposed amendment is based only on a conceptual plan and not a more defined plan that
would help the Planning staff visualize how the company intends to develop the property.
The petitioner responded to each of the critiques in a January 8, 2020, letter attached to this report.
In addition, Planning Division staff indicated that – in this instance, for the Division, that having design
review authority on new development within the proposed area was the key issue.
In a previous email exchange with Council staff, the Planning Division noted the following:
“The newer Design Review process focusses heavily on ground floor design, even when the request is
for additional building height. The rationale for this is that large building masses can have a negative impact on
the public realm, especially from building shadows, downdrafts, and human scale (that is there is a feeling of
overwhelm from the large building mass). We also rely on the design standards of the base zoning district, in this
case the G-MU, to establish requirements for ground floor design and visual interest. The G-MU requires more
than most zoning districts: ground floor transparency (40% clear glass), active ground floor uses (italics Council
staff), architectural character and materials, and public art among other uses.”3
It should be noted that all new construction in the Gateway Mixed-Use zone also is required to go
through the planned development process.4
OTHER HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS
According to the Planning Division, City Code does not currently allow for additional height in exchange
for public amenities. The design review process has standards of approval and must be approved by the Planning
Commission “meaning it is anticipated that structures that go through the process to gain additional height will
likely be of a better design.” The Division also is exploring allowing additional height and/or density bonuses for
providing affordable housing as a part of a potential Affordable Housing Overlay, but the item is under review
and hasn’t been finalized.5
According to the Planning Division, “Many if not most commercial and mixed use zones allow for an
applicant to seek additional height generally through the Design Review process. …
What is generally not common is not applying the height allowance throughout the zone but only for a portion of
it,” and the petition was one of the Division’s concerns with the proposed text amendment.6
Here are examples from City Code either found by Council staff or suggested by Planning Division staff.
The most salient example is increased height limits in the Downtown Secondary Central Business
District (D-4) (21A.30.045). The amendment allows up to 375 feet in height in the area where the Salt Palace
Convention Center is located. The main goal was to allow for a convention center hotel on the northwest corner
of the intersection of West Temple and 200 South.
But the amendment also included a portion of Block 67 west of the Convention Center. According to The
Salt Lake Tribune, “The Block 67 development, which The Ritchie Group is calling The West Quarter, would
include more than 650 residential units, two hotels, an office tower, retail outlets, a tree-lined street cutting
through the block and an underground parking garage with more than 1,000 stalls. The city has already
approved zoning changes on the 6.45-acre site that could allow some of those buildings to rise as high as any in
Utah’s capital for what would be a massive presence on the skyline. The development also would have the effect,
according to city planners, of pushing some of downtown’s new building height farther west, with the potential
to sway more pedestrian traffic toward The Gateway and Vivint Smart Home Arena.7
Page | 4
Other examples of allowing increased building heights are included in the zoning ordinance.
Residential Mixed Use District in east downtown – Building heights up to 125 feet are allowed in an area
of the east downtown with design review. Standard building heights in most areas zoned RMU are a maximum
of 75 feet. (Please see figure 21A.24.170.F.3 below.)
Page | 5
D-2 DOWNTOWN SUPPORT DISTRICT 21A.30.030:
D. Maximum Building Height: The maximum permitted building height shall not exceed one hundred twenty
feet (120') subject to the following review process: Buildings over sixty five feet (65') in height are subject to
design review according to the requirements of chapter 21A.59 of this title.
According to a September 30, 2020, article in Building Salt Lake:
“In a decision to significantly impact south Downtown and the State Street corridor, the Salt Lake City
Planning Commission will decide on the first phase of the “Sears Block” development, a mixed-use market-rate
residential project named “The Jetty.”
“The developers, the Colmena Group and Kimball Investments, have proposed a building that measures
a height of 131 feet 10 inches to the top of the elevator core, the pinnacle of the structure (p.99, Planning Staff
Memo). The D-2 height maximum is 120 ft. …
“In materials submitted to the city, the developers argue that the building’s design successfully
neutralizes the negative effects on the pedestrian environment of their building’s proposed length and height.”
SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT ZONES 21A.26.060
Maximum Height: Maximum height limits vary, depending upon location and land use. The following
regulations shall apply for each area within the CSHBD Zone:
1. CSHBD1:
a. The maximum building height in the CSHBD1 Zone shall not exceed thirty feet (30') for those buildings
used exclusively for nonresidential purposes.
b. Additional building square footage may be obtained up to a maximum building height of one hundred
five feet (105'); however, for each additional floor of nonresidential use above thirty feet (30'), one floor of
residential use is required.
c. The residential component may be transferred off site to another property within the CSHBD Zoning
District in accordance with the provisions of subsection I of this section. If the required residential component is
transferred off site, the maximum nonresidential building height allowed shall be seventy five feet (75'). Any
building with a height in excess of seventy five feet (75') shall be subject to the requirements of subsection G1d of
this section.
d. Maximum building height may be obtained to one hundred five feet (105') for any building subject to at
least ninety percent (90%) of all parking for said building being provided as structured parking, and in the case
of a nonresidential building, the developer shall provide off site residential development that is equal to or
greater than the square footage of the nonresidential building that exceeds thirty feet (30') in height.
CSHBD2:
a. The maximum building height in the CSHBD2 Zone shall not exceed thirty feet (30') for those buildings
used exclusively for nonresidential purposes.
b. Additional square footage may be obtained up to a maximum building height of sixty feet (60');
however, for each additional floor of nonresidential use above thirty feet (30'), one floor of residential use is
required.
c. The residential component may be transferred off site to another property within the CSHBD Zoning
District in accordance with the provisions of subsection I of this section. If the residential component is
transferred "off site", the maximum nonresidential building height allowed shall be forty five feet (45').
c. Buildings used exclusively for residential purposes may be built to a maximum height of sixty
feet (60').
FB-SC Special Purpose Corridor Core Sub-district (21A.27.040)
The FB-SC Special Purpose Corridor Core Sub-district is a corridor near the S-Line street car. It contains
the most intensive level of development in the vicinity of special purpose corridors. Buildings are generally six
(6) to seven (7) stories in height and are supported by multiple street types so that pedestrians, bicyclists and
drivers have access to the properties within the area. Development standards are based on building type.
The maximum building height in the FB-SC is 60 feet. An additional 15 feet in height (for a total height
of 75 feet) may be permitted for residential uses if a minimum of 10 percent of the units are affordable housing.
Page | 6
DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES
During discussions among Council Members, the idea of awarding increased building height in
exchange for one or more public benefits has been part of the conversations. Development incentives include
practices such as density bonuses, expedited permitting, and fee waivers or reductions:8
Perhaps most pertinent are density bonuses, “a zoning tool that that permits developers to build more
housing units, taller buildings, or more floor space than normally allowed, in exchange for provision of a defined
public benefit, such as a specified number or percentage of affordable units included in the development.”9
Many cities throughout the United States have development incentives. Some of the Salt Lake City
Zoning Ordinance listed above contain density bonuses
Information below this sentence has appeared in previous City Council staff reports.
This section is a follow-up to the City Council’s September 15 and September 1 public hearings on the
proposed text amendment to increase building height limits within a limited area zoned as Gateway Mixed-Use.
The proposed ordinance is based on a petition by STACK Realty of Lehi to increase building height
limits in a part of the zoned area. It should be noted that the Salt Lake City Planning Commission unanimously
adopted a motion to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council at its October 23, 2019, meeting. It
might be noted that the Planning Commission adopted the motion after a public hearing on the proposal. No one
from the public spoke either for or against the proposal at the Planning Commission hearing.10
The City Council’s public hearing September 15, 2020, drew two speakers to the proposed
amendments. One speaker spoke in favor of the amendments. The other speaker said the proposed amendments
should include using affordable housing as an incentive for allowing more building height. Both speakers also
submitted email comments voicing their positions.
The September 1 public hearing drew one speaker to the issue and one email. The speaker and the
email supported the proposed ordinance.
Council staff has prepared a motion sheet for the Council’s formal consideration October 6 of the
proposed amendments. The motions are based on the City Council’s options to approve, deny or amend the
proposed ordinances based on land-use petitions:
2.) Adopt the proposed ordinance and adopt essentially two legislative intents:
a. to conduct a study of building heights throughout downtown Salt Lake City
b. to have the Administration establish a timeline and budget for the study so the Council can
consider appropriating funds for the study during Fiscal Year 2021-2022.
3.) Adopt the proposed ordinance with amendments proposed by Council Members (Staff has not received
any proposed amendments as of this writing) and adopt the legislative intents described in the first
option.
4.) Do not adopt the proposed ordinance; deny the original land-use petition by STACK Realty; and adopt
the legislative intents described in the first option.
RECAP
STACK Realty has proposed to increase building heights within a geographic area roughly bordered by
250 South, 500 West Street, 350 South, and 600 West Street. The company
has leased for 99 years three and one-fourth acres of property on the northwest corner of the block bordered by
300 South, 500 West, 400 South, and 600 West streets.
After an April 21, 2020, work session discussion there was consensus among the Council, the Planning Division,
and the petitioner that any new construction in that area would be subject to the City’s design review and design
review standards set out in Salt Lake City Municipal Code 21A.59.050.
Page | 7
The proposed ordinance in the City Council meeting packets for September 15 is based on those two
points.
Part of an August 11 City Council work session discussion involved questions of making sure that new
structures in the proposed area contribute to the activity of the streets and sidewalks within the proposed area.
One reason for that is 300 South Street between the Utah Transit Authority Central Station area on the west and
the Rio Grande railway station on the east long has been viewed as a “festival street” for public events.
In email exchanges with Council staff, the Planning Division noted the following:
“The newer Design Review process focusses heavily on ground floor design, even when the request is
for additional building height. The rationale for this is that large building masses can have a negative impact on
the public realm, especially from building shadows, downdrafts, and human scale (that is there is a feeling of
overwhelm from the large building mass). We also rely on the design standards of the base zoning district, in this
case the G-MU, to establish requirements for ground floor design and visual interest. The G-MU requires more
than most zoning districts: ground floor transparency (40% clear glass), active ground floor uses (italics Council
staff), architectural character and materials, and public art among other uses.”11
It also should be noted that if the City Council adopts the proposed text amendment, new construction
within the proposed area would require the Planning Commission to review the design of projects for
compliance with design standards, and all new construction in the Gateway Mixed-Use zone also is required to
go through the planned development process.12
Report for August 11, 2020, Work Session
This is a follow-up to an April 21, 2020, City Council briefing and discussion about a proposed private-
sector petition to increase height limits within a limited area zoned as Gateway Mixed-Use. The briefing was the
Council’s second pertaining to this issue. The first briefing occurred on January 14, 2020.
Staff has prepared two draft motions for Council consideration. Staff also has included a “set date” for
a public hearing on the Council’s consent agenda. If the Council determines at the briefing to move ahead with
the motions, it would set dates of September 1 and September 15 when it adopts the consent agenda. It has been
the Council’s practice since moving to digital meetings to hold a public hearing over two meetings to make sure
people have enough time to comment.
The second of the two motions omits the following language originally discussed at the April 21 meeting:
“A determination of whether a separate land use for technology or digital campuses should be included in the
City Code regulating land use.” After reviewing the draft motion, Planning Division Director Nick Norris
indicated that the Division already is working on the issue with the Economic Development Department, and it
doesn’t need to be part of the height study.13
The proposed motion also includes the following language: It is the City Council’s intent that a timeline
and a budget for the study be established within six months of the adoption of this motion so the Council can
consider appropriating funds for the study during Fiscal Year 2021-2022.
It should be noted that the City Council office on July 15 received an informational transmittal titled
Strategy for Reallocating Planning Staff Resources from the Administration. The proposed strategy includes
the following language:
Address Downtown Building Heights Issues: Relatively low building heights are hampering
growth; Building heights do not relate to building code requirements or construction types; Building heights do
not support TOD around central station; design review process lacks standards to address key environmental
impacts.
Page | 8
Solutions: Update building heights to match city goals for downtown development; align heights
with construction types in the building code; increase allowed building heights where appropriate; add
standards to address environmental impacts.
Staff resource: Team of 2-3 people working approximately 8 hours per week on the project. Tasks:
Match building heights to construction types in building code, draft design review standards for environmental
impact, authorize staff review of building height in the design review; identify appropriate building heights in
the downtown zones; add buffering requirements when necessary.
Time: 1-2 months for research and study, two-three months to draft proposal (with the technical
advisory committee), 1-2 months for engagement, 1-2 months for Planning Commission process.
Two questions for City Council consideration:
o Does the language in the Strategy for Reallocating Planning Staff Resources meet the timeline
and budget intent language above it in the staff report?
o When would the Division start the process to address downtown building heights?
RECAP
Stack Real Estate of Lehi, Utah, has leased for 99 years three and one-fourth acres of property on the
northwest corner of the block bordered by 300 South, 500 West, 400 South, and 600 West streets.
The company’s petition essentially proposes three things that would apply in an area roughly bordered
by 250 South, 500 West Street, 350 South, and 600 West Street.
o A minimum 100-foot height on corner buildings within the area.
o A maximum 190-foot height on corner buildings within the area.
o A maximum 100-foot height limit in mid-block areas, although taller buildings could be
authorized through a design review process.14
The G-MU zone already has a minimum building height of 45 feet. One exception is the 200 South
Street corridor where the minimum building height is 25 feet. The zone sets the maximum building height at 75
feet except for buildings with “non-flat” roofs. The allowed height limit for those buildings in 90 feet. In
addition, a building may be allowed to reach 120 feet “through the (City’s) design review process.”15
At the end of the April 21 discussion, the Council determined to hold open Stack Realty’s petition
while City Council staff, and Planning Division staff and the Attorney’s Office prepared an ordinance for the
Council’s formal consideration.
Motions prepared by Council staff and reviewed by the Planning Division and the Attorney’s Office are
attached to this follow-up report.
The first motion consists of two things:
o Adoption of language originally written by the petitioner in a proposed ordinance to increase
building heights (described above) within the geographic area proposed by the petitioner.
o A requirement that new construction of buildings within the geographic area be subject to
design review and design review standards set out in Salt Lake City Municipal Code
21A.59.050.
The second motion declares the City Council’s intent to:
1.) Request Mayor Erin Mendenhall’s Administration to initiate a study of building heights in the greater
downtown, starting with the Station Center and North Temple Street areas, followed by areas identified for
transit-oriented development, and then by areas that make up the greater downtown generally defined
by the existing D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4 and G-MU zoning districts.
Page | 9
2.) Include in the study or in a separate study if necessary:
o A review of existing incentives for allowing building heights to exceed height limits and the
potential to enact new incentives.
o A review of view corridors in existing master plans, and the effect taller buildings may have on
them.
o The compatibility of higher buildings with any affordable housing overlay zone the Council may
consider in the future.
o The effects of sunlight glare, and snow and ice hazards created by taller buildings and the
potential inclusion of minimizing those effects as part of the design review process.
3.) Set a six-month deadline for the Council to receive a timeline and budget from the date the City Council
adopts the motion, so the Council can consider appropriating funds for the downtown height study
during Fiscal Year 2021-2022.
The motions are based on Council staff notes of the City Council’s discussion April 21, a Council staff
review of a video recording of the April 21 meeting, and Planning Division responses to a Council staff summary
of a May 4, 2020, meeting that involved Council staff, the Planning Division, and the Attorney’s Office. (Please
see Attachment)
To review:
o The Planning Commission at its October 23, 2019, meeting adopted a motion to forward a
negative recommendation to the City Council about the proposed text amendment.
o The City Council can approve, reject, or amend proposed text amendments.
o Amending the proposed text amendment submitted by the petitioner would not require the
Planning Commission to review the City Council’s amendment because any amendment by the
Council would affect only land uses within the original petition to change the text.
o There was some uncertainty expressed at the April 21, 2020, briefing session about adopting a
proposed text amendment for a specific area where existing zoning regulations affecting a larger
area already are in place. However,
The City Council on April 21 appeared to concur that the area east of the Utah Transit
Authority’s Central Station has remained undeveloped since the City Council first
adopted the Gateway District Land Use and Development Master Plan on August 11,
1998.1
Concerns voiced by two City Council Members on whether the proposed text
amendment was the right tool to address new development in the area were, perhaps,
balanced by Planning Division administrators saying that – with design review included
in the proposed amendment – the amendment would be a first step toward a larger
study of building heights in the greater downtown.
The petitioners concurred with the Planning Division’s observation in an April 27 letter
to the City Council Chair and Council Members. The letter said in part, “To actively
market the site and bring another large tenant into the heart of the project, STACK
would prefer to proceed with our current petition, subject to the design review process.
We agree with your staff and council that a broader study of height and density within
1 Language from Page 12 of the 1998 plan might be worth noting: “The potential development of an intermodal
station along 600 West and 200 South would provide an opportunity for transit oriented development (TOD) in
which community needs and services are combined with those of commuters to benefit the neighborhood as well as
the transit system. 300 South Street between the intermodal station and the Rio Grande Depot should develop as a
pedestrian oriented plaza and street and make a visual and physical connection with the Depot.”
Page | 10
the quarter mile ring around the Intermodal Hub specifically will only confirm a
SMART community strategy.”16 (Please see attachment.)
Council Members also voiced interest in addressing denser, higher development in the
Station Center area, the North Temple area, and Mayor Mendenhall’s proposal for a
linear technological or digital campus south of the Station Center area. They also
discussed the appropriate place for incentives to encourage more green space in the
downtown, the potential for an affordable housing overlay zone, and the preservation of
view corridors in the City.
Council Members and Planning Division staff also discussed the need for taller
buildings throughout the greater downtown as the City’s population growth presses
against the City’s boundaries.
Planning Division administrators also voiced concerns about receiving enough clarity
from the Council to help the Division understand how much staff and time should be
devoted to the height study and whether an outside consultant should perform the
study. They estimated that a study would take nine to twelve months after funds for the
study were made available.
Other Pertinent Points
City Code 21A.59.020.B.1 says, in part: “Planning Commission Review: The following types of
applications shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission …: 1. When required in the specific zoning district.”
If The City Council adopts the proposed text amendment, new construction within the proposed area would
require the Planning Commission to review the projects’ design for compliance with design standards.
All new construction in the Gateway Mixed-Use zone also is required to go through the planned
development process. According to the Planning Division, “While it is not a great practice to require two
different processes, we do run design review and planned development processes concurrently. The Division
hopes to eliminate the requirement for planned development review in the future and include triggers for design
review, similar to what exists in the sugar house business district.”17
Report for April 21, 2020, Work Session
This is a follow-up to a January 14, 2020, City Council briefing and discussion pertaining to a
proposed zoning text amendment to increase height limits within a limited area zoned as Gateway Mixed-Use.
At the City Council’s direction staffs from the Council office, Planning Division and Redevelopment Agency met
February 6, 2020, to discuss where to proceed with the proposal. The item was scheduled for a second briefing
at the Council’s March 17 work session. However, because of issues related to the Covid-19 emergency the
discussion was one of the issues pulled from the agenda that day.
Policy Analyst Ben Luedtke contributed to this report.
Staff has attached three slides from a PowerPoint presentation to the Utah Transit Authority Board of
Trustees meeting on March 25, 2020, and two PowerPoint presentations from the January 14 Council briefing.
One presentation is from the Planning Division. The other is from the petitioner.
To recap, Stack Real Estate of Lehi, Utah, has leased for 99 years three and one-fourth acres of
property in an area roughly bordered by 250 South, 500 West Street, 350 South, and 600 West Street. The
company proposed a text amendment that would increase height restrictions from 120 feet to 190 feet for
buildings on the corners of blocks in the area. It also would set minimum heights of 100 feet for buildings in the
middle of the block within the area. The area is contained within a larger area bordered by 200 South, 500 West,
400 South, and 600 West streets. The larger area contains a significant amount of property managed by the Salt
Lake City Redevelopment Agency.
Page | 11
The Planning Division staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a negative
recommendation to the City Council pertaining to the proposed amendment, and the Planning Commission
unanimously adopted a motion to forward a negative recommendation at its October 23, 2019, meeting.
Because the City Council by law must act on land-use petitions, the Council held a briefing on January
14. After the briefing, the Council said it would like to have a follow-up briefing by the Planning Division on how
the proposed project would intersect with transit nodes such as the Station Center intermodal hub. The briefing
would include:
The effect of taller buildings in the proposed area on the rest of the downtown.
How can taller buildings around transit areas relate to the downtown core (D-1) heights?
Is there room for buildings on corners in the G-MU zones to be allowed to be higher?
What is the typical process for addressing requests for building heights taller than an ordinance allows?
What should applicants requesting taller building heights be willing to do to get the higher limits?
Reduced to its most basic form, the City Council appears to have two policy options:
1. Keep things as they are or change them.
2. Focus only on the original proposed text amendment or refocus on an area larger than the one
in the proposed text amendment.
NEW INFORMATION
Since the February 6, 2020, meeting involving the various staffs, several items germane to the
discussion have occurred:
o Redevelopment Agency staff notified Council staff that the agency “has ended all former
partnerships with entities for development of certain Station Center sites. We have no existing
commitments to anyone in the development area. We are moving forward with the intent to
market all of the properties to a master developer or team of developers through a RFQ/RFP
process.”18
o Council staff learned at a February 21, 2020, meeting on a different topic that the Utah
Department of Heritage and Arts would remain in the Rio Grande Railroad depot for another
two to three years depending on state funds appropriated to build a new building on another
site. The Department also probably would retain a presence in the older building even after a
new structure is built.
o The Rio Grande depot was damaged in the March 18, 2020, earthquake, but repairs already are
under way to stabilize the building. Once the building is stabilized, engineers can determine the
full extent of damage, according to Jill Love, director of the Utah Department of Heritage and
Arts. No timetable for when the building will reopen is available.
o The Utah Transit Authority Board of Trustees heard a preliminary proposal at its March 25,
2020, meeting to move the agency’s headquarters to the Central Station on 600 West Street.
The plan was presented as part of the Board’s review of the March 18 earthquake’s effect on its
headquarters building at 669 200 South. The preliminary proposal is based on “a currently
proposed zoning change,” Paul Drake, UTA senior manager for Real Estate and Transit Oriented
Development, told the Board. Mr. Drake said the proposal also is based on the Salt Lake Central
Station Area Plan that the City Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors adopted in November
Page | 12
2018, and the UTA Board adopted in March 2019. (Please see attached graphics from a UTA
PowerPoint presentation.)
It also should be noted that several high-level visions and potential developments touch on the area in
question including:
o 400 South TRAX extension
o 400 West streetcar/TRAX extension
o UTA transit oriented development site (attached map)
o RDA Station Center development
o Future uses of the Rio Grande Depot starting with a potential State-funded study of the Depot’s
mechanical and electrical systems and structure.
o Continued interest by The Downtown Alliance for a permanent public market in or near the Rio
Grande Depot.
o Green loops encircling downtown from 900 South to 200 East to South/North Temple to 500
West
o Increasing the number of mid-block walkways in the Depot District (over two dozen identified
in City plans)
o Urban Research Park-like area concentrated in the Depot District and south of 500 South
Street.
PLANNING DIVISION OBSERVATIONS
The Planning Division informational transmittal reviews issues raised in the February 6 meeting,
raises concerns about the potential effects of increasing building heights in the Station Center area, and provides
potential steps forward to address the text amendment petition.
The transmittal contains three potential ways to address the proposed text amendment:
o Include design review in the amendment. The item appears to be a key concern about the
petition. The current ordinance allows building heights to rise to 120 feet, but requires buildings
rising above 75 feet to undergo City design review. The proposed text amendment does not
include language requiring design review. According to the Planning Division transmittal, “The
design review process contains specific standards related to height that could address some of
the issues in this report,” and requiring buildings over a certain height to undergo design review
“would enable the Planning Commission to evaluate the impacts of height.”
o Allow non-residential buildings to be taller. The transmittal notes that state law appears to
tolerate designating different heights for different kinds of buildings. However, one potential
downside to that is allowing increased height might lead to the demolition of older buildings in
areas zoned G-MU because of a building site’s increased potential for development, according to
the transmittal.
o Create a “height map,” a kind of overlay zone that allows increased building heights within a
specific zoning district. According to the City Attorney’s Office, an overlay zone would have to be
created, designated as an overlay district, and added to City Code Chapter 21A.34, titled Overlay
Districts. Adopting an overlay district essentially would require returning to the Planning
Commission, including the full early notification process, according to the Attorney’s Office.
It also should be noted that if the City Council determined to expand the area beyond the original
petition’s proposed borders, doing so would require returning to the Planning Commission, including the full
early notification process, according to the Attorney’s Office.
According to the transmittal, parcels zoned for tall buildings in the Central Business District “is
nearing capacity due to the pace of recent development” and other factors. The transmittal says the Planning
Page | 13
Division supports a larger downtown – D1 – area, and increased building heights in the downtown area. The
policies are based on existing master plans, including Plan Salt Lake (the citywide master plan) and the
Downtown Master Plan.
However, the transmittal identifies two potential downsides to enacting increased building heights.
First, the Planning Division is working on an affordable housing overlay zone. The zone includes “some
incentive, typically additional development potential” in exchange for increased heights. Second, the potential
use of transfers of development rights – using height in exchange for preserving historical buildings – might
help preserve Salt Lake City’s historical fabric. In both cases, allowing increased building heights through
ordinance text amendments might diminish the effectiveness of both incentives.
POLICY QUESTIONS
o Should the City Council adopt the amendment as proposed or revise it to encompass a larger
area bordered by 200 South, 500 West, 400 South, and 600 West streets? Again, it should be
noted that any expansion of area beyond the area in the original petition would require
another Planning Commission review.
o The Council may wish to consider the timing of the text amendment and potential revisions to
the proposed amendment and the Redevelopment Agency’s plans to market properties it
manages in the Station Center area.
o The Council may wish to discuss whether a broader or narrower scope for potential next steps is
preferred such as looking at heights in all downtown zones, only G-MU zones or only the two-
block Station Center area. An exact scope could guide the Administration’s work on a potential
overlay zone or height study.
o The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how much parking should be allowed
in transit areas.
o The Council may wish to request information on remaining developable sites in the downtown,
especially the D1 zone which allows the tallest buildings in the city.
Report for January 14, 2020 Work Session
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Goal of the briefing: To discuss a proposal to increase height restrictions within a limited area
of an area zoned for gateway mixed uses.
o A company sought a zoning text amendment to increase height restrictions in an area zoned as
Gateway Mixed-Use east of the Central Point intermodal hub. The proposed area for the new
height restrictions is roughly bordered by 250 South, 500 West Street, 350 South, and 600 West
Street.
o The proposed text amendment would have increased height restrictions in that area from 120
feet – with City design review – to 190 feet for buildings on corners. It also would have set
minimum heights of 100 feet for buildings in the middle of the block within the area.
o The area is contained in a larger area bordered by 200 South, 500 West, 400 South, and 600
West streets. The Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency manages a significant amount of
property within the larger area, and the RDA Board has approved about $19.3 million in funding
for projects there. (Please see attachments Nos. 2 and 3.)
Page | 14
o The Planning Commission at its October 23, 2019, meeting adopted a motion to forward a
negative recommendation to the City Council about the proposed text amendment. It cited
concerns that the proposed amendment does not meet the intention of the GM-U zoning that
was adopted in 2017 or the Downtown Master Plan. (Please see Page 4 for more discussion
about the Planning Division staff report.)
o In a discussion between the petitioner and City Council staff and in a letter, the petitioner
indicated that the original petition could be a first step toward making the area around the
Central Station intermodal hub a truly transit oriented development, but an area roughly within
a quarter-mile of the Central Station should be considered for denser transit oriented
development. (Please See Attachment No. 4.)
o The petitioner’s suggestion of expanding the area around the Central Station appears to
comport with the Salt Lake Central Station Area Plan that the City Council, acting as the RDA
Board of Directors, adopted in November 2018, and that the UTA Board of Trustees adopted in
March 2019.
o The City Council adopted the current gateway mixed use zoning on November 21, 2017. Part of
the reason for adopting the zoning was to meet goals for the area contained in The Downtown
Plan that the City Council adopted May 24, 2016.
o Redevelopment Agency staff supports increasing maximum building height limits within the
larger area bordered by 200 South, 500 West, 400 South, and 600 West streets, but does not
support increasing minimum building heights.19
The City Council appears to have three options:
1. Schedule a public hearing about the proposed petition and then formally consider whether to
deny or approve the petition.
2. If the Council ultimately denies the petition, work with the petitioner and other interested
parties to review whether denser and taller zoning designations other than Gateway Mixed-Use
zoning should be employed.
3. Consider sending the petition application back to the Planning Commission to review increasing
the area to include 200 South, 500 West, 400 South, and 600 West streets as part of a Gateway
Mixed-Use “transit oriented development” overlay zone. The Commission then would make a
formal recommendation to the City Council.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. Does the current petition warrant further City Council consideration?
2. The stated purpose of Gateway Mixed-Use zoning is: “To implement the objectives of the adopted
gateway development master plan and encourage the mixture of residential, commercial and assembly
uses within an urban neighborhood atmosphere. … Development in this district is intended to create an
urban neighborhood that provides employment and economic development opportunities that are
oriented toward the pedestrian with a strong emphasis on a safe and attractive streetscape. The
standards are intended to achieve established objectives for urban and historic design, pedestrian
amenities and land use regulation.” Would increasing maximum height restrictions alter the purpose of
Gateway Mixed-Use zoning in the area under consideration?
3. The Downtown Master Plan identifies the Depot District Area, of which the blocks under consideration
are a part, as mid-rise transit oriented development.20 Would increasing maximum height limits meet
the standard of mid-rise development?
Page | 15
4. How would changing current height limits affect projects within the borders of 200 South, 500 West,
400 South, and 600 West streets?
5. Would allowing increased height limits in the Station Center area detract from long-held City policy to
maintain the Central Business District as the visually dominant center of the city?
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Stack Real Estate of Lehi, Utah, has leased for 99 years three and one-fourth acres of property on the
northwest corner of the block bordered by 300 South, 500 West, 400 South, and 600 West streets. The company
has developed or is developing large-scale office buildings in Lehi, Thanksgiving Point, Traverse Mountain,
Sandy, and South Jordan.
The property on the City block is as a Gateway Mixed-Use area. The company on July 10, 2019,
submitted a proposed text amendment to increase the G-MU zoning height restrictions in an area roughly
bordered by 250 South, 500 West Street, 350 South, and 600 West Street. The plan was submitted through
Architectural Nexus, the company’s architect.
The property also is located in a Redevelopment Agency project area, but the agency has not received
any applications for assistance from Stack Real Estate and has no current plans to participate in the development of
the company’s project.21
On October 23, 2019, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission unanimously adopted a motion to
forward a negative recommendation to the City Council pertaining to the petition. The Planning Division had
recommended that the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation. The Commission voted after
a public hearing at which no-one spoke. The Commission also received no written public comment on the issue.
The City Council by law must act on all land-use petitions. In this case, the Council has two options:
Stack Real Estate’s petition essentially proposes three things in the area roughly bordered by 250
South, 500 West Street, 350 South, and 600 West Street.
o A minimum 100-foot height on corner buildings within the area.
o A maximum 190-foot height on corner buildings within the area.
o A maximum 100-foot height limit in mid-block areas, although taller buildings could be
authorized through a design review process.22
The G-MU zone already has a minimum building height of 45 feet. One exception is 200 South Street
corridor where the minimum building height is 25 feet. The zone sets the maximum building height at 75 feet
except for buildings with “non-flat” roofs. The allowed height limit for those buildings in 90 feet. In addition, a
building may be allowed to reach 120 feet “through the (City’s) design review process.”23
At the Planning Commission public hearing, Planning Division staff listed four critiques of the proposed
amendment:
o The proposed amendment does not meet the intention of the GM-U zoning that was adopted in
2017 or the Downtown Master Plan.
o The proposed text amendment contains no design review for buildings in the “Station Center
Core” area proposed by the petitioners.
o The proposal appears to be for an office building with no residential use or uses that might
activate the streets around the building.
o The proposed amendment is based only on a conceptual plan and not a more defined plan that
would help the Planning staff visualize how the company intends to develop the property.
Page | 16
It should be noted that Stack Real Estate and Architectural Nexus have responded to each of the
critiques in the letter attached to the Council staff report. (Attachment No. 4.)
The Planning Division staff and Planning Commission also have acknowledged that the proposed text
amendment meets some goals in City plans. According to the Administration transmittal:
This proposed zoning text amendment could provide some positive benefits to the subject area
as illustrated by certain elements of Plan Salt Lake that could be viewed to support the increase in
height. The plan broadly supports objectives such as growth, economic development, proximity to
transit options, on a city-wide basis which could be well served by taller buildings. Additionally, there
is an ever increasing demand for housing across Salt Lake City which could potentially be addressed
by taller residential buildings.24
Speaking to the Planning Commission, City Planner Mr. Lee said the main concerns the Planning
Division had involved:
What would be the standards of review for the project if the City adopted the proposed text
amendment?
It appeared that Stack Real Estate had a concept in mind but no concrete plan.25
Planning Commissioner Weston Clark said the City’s decision to locate an intermodal hub along 600
West Street was a decision to increase density in the area. Other commissioners noted that the Gateway Mixed-
Use ordinance increased density but also guided the character of an area that would complement but not
compete with the Central Business District. In addition, the commissioners said they sympathized with the
proposal to increase the height of structures immediately east of the Salt Lake Central intermodal hub, but the
October 23 public hearing was not the forum where the ultimate decision should be made.26
In brief discussions and emails with City Council staff, the Planning Division and Redevelopment
Agency made the following points:
o There is some merit in the idea of higher buildings in the area east of the Central Station
intermodal hub, but two questions remain: Is the area in the proposed text amendment the right
place for higher structures, and might the entire area bordered by 200 South, 500 West, 400
South, and 600 West streets be designated for higher structures?
o A minimum height requirement beyond what already exists in the G-MU zoning would
adversely affect projects on property under RDA management.
According to an email from the Redevelopment Agency:
“RDA Staff would encourage the Council to consider maintaining the existing minimum
building height requirements in the G-MU zone and increasing the maximum permitted building
height. A human-scaled pedestrian environment could be maintained by requiring/encouraging
building setbacks once a certain height is reached. … The RDA would encourage the Council to
reconsider the proposed boundary for the increased height. It is not apparent how the boundary
was chosen, and the RDA owns vacant properties to the immediate north and south that could
benefit from an increased height allowance. It may make sense for the Council to explore the
feasibility of permitting additional building height (therefore, density) in more parts of the G-MU
zone, especially areas closer to I-15 and the Intermodal Hub.”27
Zoning and Plans
The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 64 of 2017 on November 21, 2017, that changed zoning in the
area bordered by 300 South, 500 West, 400 South, and 600 West streets from general commercial and
Page | 17
downtown/warehouse residential district to gateway mixed-use. The goal of the zone change was to “facilitate
the development of Station Center, a Redevelopment Agency (RDA) project area located in the same general
area.”28
The purpose of zoning an area for gateway mixed-use is:
To implement the objectives of the adopted gateway development master plan and encourage
the mixture of residential, commercial and assembly uses within an urban neighborhood
atmosphere. The 200 South corridor is intended to encourage commercial development on an
urban scale and the 500 West corridor is intended to be a primary residential corridor from North
Temple to 400 South. Development in this district is intended to create an urban neighborhood that
provides employment and economic development opportunities that are oriented toward the
pedestrian with a strong emphasis on a safe and attractive streetscape. The standards are intended
to achieve established objectives for urban and historic design, pedestrian amenities and land use
regulation.29
It might be noted that the G-MU ordinance contains the following section: “All new construction of
principal buildings, uses, or additions that increase the floor area and/or parking requirement by twenty five
percent (25%) in the G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District may be approved only as a planned development in
conformance with the provisions of chapter 21A.55 of this title.”
The purpose statement of chapter 21A.55 (Planned Developments) says in part:
A planned development is intended to encourage the efficient use of land and resources,
promoting greater efficiency in public and utility services and encouraging innovation in the
planning and building of all types of development. Further, a planned development implements
the purpose statement of the zoning district in which the project is located, utilizing an alternative
approach to the design of the property and related physical facilities. A planned development
incorporates special development characteristics that help to achieve City goals identified in
adopted Master Plans and that provide an overall benefit to the community as determined by the
planned development objectives.
A planned development will result in a more enhanced product than would be achievable
through strict application of land use regulations, while enabling the development to be
compatible with adjacent and nearby land developments.
In other words, the City can exercise at least some kind of design control over projects in areas zoned
as gateway mixed-use.
Some concerns about increasing building heights beyond the maximum 120 feet in the Station Center
area involve the stated goals in various master plans and other plans about preserving the preeminence of the
Central Business District. Making the Central Business District visually, commercially, and culturally the most
predominant area of downtown at least since the 1962 Second Century Plan.
The 1988 Salt Lake Regional Urban Design Assistance Team study said boundaries for the Central
Business District “need to be defined and reinforced. Sixth South should define the southern boundary. Eastern
migration of high-density core commercial uses, like office buildings, should not continue beyond 200 East.”30
The Salt Lake City Urban Design Element, a document central to subsequent City master plans,
identified Salt Lake City as having “a distinctive urban form created by a concentrated business core surrounded
by low-rise auxiliary commercial activities.”31 Other concepts in the Element included “encourage the future
expansion of the Commercial Core into the West Downtown area” and to “emphasize commercial and high
density housing in the West Downtown area with a special warehouse conservation district in conjunction
between the Commercial Core and Triad.”32
Page | 18
The more recent Salt Lake Central Station Area Plan adopted by the Redevelopment Agency Board of
Directors and the Utah Transit Authority Board of Trustees depicts the area around Central Station as a dense
development with at least one high-rise structure on UTA property. Please see attached pages.) If fully
implemented, the plan might influence how the area east of the station is developed.
1 Video, City Council meeting, October 6, 2020.
2 Letter to City Council Chair Chris Wharton; Andrew Bybee and Nathan Ricks, April 27, 2020.
3 Email, Molly Robinson, August 17, 2020,
4 City Code 21A.59.020.B.1 and email, Nick Norris, May 14, 2020.
5 Email, John Anderson, October 12, 2020.
6 Email, John Anderson, October 12, 2020.
7 The Salt Lake Tribune, December 28, 2020.
8 Home for All, website, San Mateo County, California.
9 Puget Sound Regional Council website.
10 Video, Planning Commission meeting, October 23, 2019.
11 Email, Molly Robinson, August 17, 2020,
12 City Code 21A.59.020.B.1 and email, Nick Norris, May 14, 2020.
13 Email, Nick Norris, August 3, 2020
14 Attachment No. 5, Planning Commission Staff Report, Christopher Lee, October 17, 2019, Pages 32-33.
15 City Code, 21A.31.020: G-MU Gateway Mixed-Use District, Section D.E and D.E.1.
16 Letter to City Council Chair Chris Wharton, Andrew Bybee, Nathan Ricks, April 27, 2020.
17 Email, Nick Norris, May 14, 2020.
18 Email, Ashley Ogden, March 6, 2020.
19 Email, Cara Lindsley, January 7, 2020.
20 Downtown Master Plan, Page 12.
21 Email, Cara Lindsley, January 7, 2020.
22 Attachment No. 5, Planning Commission Staff Report, Christopher Lee, October 17, 2019, Pages 32-33.
23 City Code, 21A.31.020: G-MU Gateway Mixed-Use District, Section D.E and D.E.1.
24 Transmittal, November 21, 2019, Christopher Lee, Page 3.
25 Video, Planning Commission meeting, October 23, 2019, 52:44 to 54:00.
26 Video, Planning Commission meeting, October 23, 2019, 50:00 to 55:00.
27 Email, Cara Lindsley, January 7, 2020.
28 Salt Lake City Council meeting minutes, November 17, 2017, 7:33:59 p.m.
29 21A.31.020.A.
30 Salt Lake R/UDAT Our Future by Design, 1988, Page 14.
31 Salt Lake City Urban Design Element, Harvey Boyd, 1990, Page 5.
32 Urban Design Element, Page 9.
2801 N. Thanksgiving Way,
Suite 100
Lehi, UT 84043
801.768.0500 GÏ;=
801.602.5916 EG:AD=
April 27, 2020
Mr. Chris Wharton, Chair
Salt Lake City Council
451 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Council Chair Wharton and other members of the Council and Staff:
Thank you for the dialogue and feedback you shared with us on Tuesday, April 21. Hearing your
perspective on increasing the building heights within the quarter-mile ring around the
Intermodal Hub was encouraging. At STACK, our mission is to build people up by building
S.M.A.R.T. communities. By definition, a SMART community is Sustainable, Mixed-Use,
Attractive, Realistic, and Transit-oriented. Given your forward-thinking mindset, we are
confident that we can partner with you to build a SMART community that attracts quality
businesses and residents to Station Center.
To actively market the site and bring another large tenant into the heart of the project, STACK
would prefer to proceed with our current petition, subject to the design review process. We
agree with your staff and council that a broader study of height and density within the quarter-
mile ring around the Intermodal Hub specifically will only confirm a SMART community
strategy.
Please know of our commitment to the Station Center neighborhood and willingness to work
collaboratively with you moving forward.
Sincerely,
Andrew Bybee , Owner Nathan Ricks, Owner
STACK Real Estate STACK Real Estate
CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson
Jennifer Bruno
Nick Tarbet
Lehua Weaver
Tracey Fletcher
Russell Weeks
1
January 8, 2020
Mr. Russell Weeks
City Council Senior Policy Analyst
Salt Lake City
Dear Russell:
We appreciate your efforts in working with our application for additional height for the GMU
District Station Center Area. The identity of this as the Gateway District is recognized by the City’s
Master Plan and the Gateway Specific Plan. As it has become the “Station Center” Hub for the City, even
more importance should now be brought to this district. In addressing your queries, we offer the
following comments (in bold text):
Is it correct to say STACK Real Estate has a 99-year lease on 3 ¼ acres of property on the
northwest corner of the block bordered by 300 South, 500 West, 400 South and 600 West streets?
This is correct.
Looking at the diagrams in the Planning Division report, is it correct to say that the area of the
Station Center Core would be bordered roughly by 250 South, 500 West Street, 350 South, and the UTA
railroad tracks?
This correctly describes our application; however, with the more scrutiny that we give this
area, we have become convinced that the Station Center Core would be better described by drawing a
quarter mile radius around the intermodal hub, and actually enlarging the area described by our
application.
Nathan Ricks at the Planning Commission public hearing said the existing zone allows 12-story
buildings, and that Stack Real Estate wants to build a 12-story building. (To be more explanatory of
what was said at the Public Hearing, a 12-story limit would not necessarily be the limit to what the
Amendment should address.) Why then does the proposed amendment seek a 190-foot height limit
versus the 120-foot limit – with design review – that already exists? Are the roughly 14-foot high floors
contemplated in the proposed amendment higher than the floors contemplated in the existing
ordinance?
Yes – it is basically the difference between commercial floor-to-floor dimensions and
residential floor-to-floor dimensions. Normal residential floor-to-floor dimensions are 10’ (sometimes
in the current market even 11’ or more). Normal commercial office floor-to-floor dimensions are 14’
to 15’, and the Ground Floor is normally 20’ allowing for Lobby statements and Ground Floor
Commercial Storefront development. And, it is important for this area, that architectural character be
established with some form of enhanced roof statement. So, it follows that 190’ would allow this to
be accomplished. We would also welcome the opportunity to have an open discussion with the City
Council as we ask ourselves if this height restriction serves the needs of Salt Lake City now and into
the future? Around the world areas that are adjacent to Transit Stations are densifying significantly.
We think Utah’s linear urban geography lends itself even more strongly to serious dense urban
development around TOD locations. We look forward to sharing successful examples of areas around
2
the Country where Transit Oriented Development is flourishing due to the ability to increase the
density and intensity of use in the immediate area of the station.
What uses are contemplated on the first two stories that appear to face 300 South that also
appear to mask the parking structure in the height diagram?
The uses would be planned to be ground floor commercial shops and restaurants along with
office and residential Lobby spaces with outdoor active spaces including dining, plaza, public art and
the like – taking advantage of the festival street liveliness. When we say “planned”, we actually need
to reinforce the idea that in order to create the vibrant district that has been contemplated, these
types of uses are essential. How many vehicles is the parking structure projected to hold? At least 1
stall per residential unit and 3 stalls per 1,000 sf of usable commercial office space would be provided.
All of this with the caveat that a parking analysis should be provided that proves out the parking
densities in advance – this is a Transit Oriented District.
Is Stack Real Estate’s intention to build an office building first and residential buildings later on
the property?
The development will be market driven. In order to attract serious tenants, we need to have
an office building (shovel ready) meaning we have all the necessary zoning and approvals
accomplished and can literally pull a building permit. This will allow us as developers to hit the
required delivery timelines.
Four critiques the Planning Division staff made of the proposed amendment were:
The proposed amendment is based only on a conceptual plan and not a more defined plan
that would help the Planning staff to visualize how the company intends to develop the property.
We need to work in partnership with the City Council & RDA to create viable TOD plans for
development. We need a working partnership with the City to create real plans. We have already
been talking to the RDA and SLC Planning about this and are ready to share a conceptual SUPER
BLOCK concept plan with the City Council.
The proposed text amendment contains no design review for buildings in the Station Center
Core area.
We believe that the Design Review requirements of the SLC Ordinance (Chapter 21A.59)
should be included as part of this text amendment.
The building appears to be strictly for office use with no residential use or uses that might
activate the streets around the building.
The intent is to establish a mix of uses as outlined by the underlying GMU Ordinance -
establishing a core of higher density and intensity and identity and height. To promote the success of
a 24/7 vibrancy, the Uses need to include: Employment – High Tech Office Residential – Medium to
high density rental and/or for sale housing Commerce – Ground floor Retail and Restaurant and
Entertainment Venues Open Space – Plaza and Park spaces creating a flexible environment for both
active and passive use by the public.
3
The proposed amendment does not meet the intention of the GM-U zoning that was adopted
in 2017 or the Downtown Master Plan.
We respectfully disagree. We do not believe that the intent of the Land Development Codes,
Master Plans, and Specific Plans is to ignore the importance to the City of this District. These
documents do intentionally tell us:
“As a visual and welcoming gateway to the City from the regional highway system and the
Salt Lake City International Airport; as an orientation point and initial image of downtown for visitors
arriving by car or transit as they pass through a new mixed-use urban district.”
We believe that it is important to recognize the need have a different view of what the
Gateway District can and should become. We look forward to sharing with the City Council examples
of where this has happened as a huge benefit to other cities, such as the Denver area that has been
developed to the west of Union Station. This area consists of 20 – 40 story office buildings, Urban
high-rise apartments, abundant restaurants, retail, services on ground floors. Billions of dollars of
Property Value have been created in this area and the City has benefitted by visionary thinking.
Once again, we appreciate your efforts in working with us and look forward to the City Council
Briefing next week.
Sincerely,
Nathan Ricks, Owner Douglas A. Thimm, AIA, Senior Principal
STACK Real Estate Architectural Nexus
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2020
(An ordinance amending Subsection 21A.31.020.E of the Salt Lake City Code
pertaining to building height in the G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District)
An ordinance amending Subsection 21A.31.020.E of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to
Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00639 pertaining to building height in the G-MU Gateway-Mixed
Use District.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on October
23, 2019 to consider a petition submitted by Doug Thimm on behalf of STACK Real Estate
(“Applicant”) (Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00639) to amend Subsection 21A.31.020.E (Zoning:
Gateway Districts: G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District: Building Height) of the Salt Lake City
Code to modify regulations pertaining to building height in the G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use
District; and
WHEREAS, at its October 23, 2019 meeting, the planning commission voted to forward
a negative recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said petition; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the planning commission’s recommendation, 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 text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.31.020.E. That
Subsection 21A.31.020.E of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Gateway Districts: G-MU
Gateway-Mixed Use District: Building Height) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as
follows:
2
E. Building Height: The minimum building height shall be forty five feet (45’) and the 200
South Street corridor shall have a minimum height of twenty five feet (25’). The
maximum building height shall not exceed seventy five feet (75’) except buildings with
nonflat roofs (e.g., pitched, shed, mansard, gabled or hipped roofs) may be allowed, up to
a maximum of ninety feet (90’) (subject to subsection I of this section). The additional
building height may incorporate habitable space.
1. Design Review: A modification to the minimum building height or to the maximum
building height (up to 120 feet) provisions of this section may be granted through the
design review process, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures
of Chapter 21A.59 of this title, and subject to compliance to the applicable master
plan.
2. Height Exceptions: Spires, tower, or decorative noninhabitable elements shall have a
maximum height of ninety feet (90’) and with design review approval may exceed the
maximum height, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures
of Chapter 21A.59 of this title.
3. Additional height may be allowed as specified below:
a. Additional Permitted Height Location: Additional height is permitted in the area
shown on the following illustration:
3
b. Height Regulations: No corner building shall be less than one hundred feet (100’)
nor more than one hundred ninety feet (190’) in height. Any building exceeding
one hundred twenty feet (120’) must be approved through the design review
process. The minimum one hundred foot (100’) high portion of the building shall
be located not farther than five feet (5’) from the lot line along front and corner lot
lines.
c. The operation of uses within the building, including accessory parking facilities,
shall comply with the adopted traffic demand management guidelines
administered by the city traffic engineer.
Additional standards for certain height modifications:
(1) The first one hundred feet (100’) of height shall not be set back from the street
front more than five feet (5’) except that setbacks above the first fifty feet
(50’) may be approved through the design review process.
(2) Modifying the height will achieve the preservation of a landmark site or
contributing structure in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District.
(3) Modifying the height will allow interim service commercial uses to support
the downtown community.
d. Special Controls Over Mid-Block Areas Shown on the Illustration in Subsection
E.3.a:
(1) Intent: Special controls shall apply to land located at the middle of blocks in the
illustration shown in Subsection E.3.a herein. Such controls are needed to
establish coordinated levels of development intensity and to promote better
pedestrian and vehicular circulation.
(2) Height Regulations: No building shall be more than one hundred feet (100’) in
height; provided, that taller buildings may be authorized through the design
review process, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
4
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________,
2020.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2020.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance amending GMU height regulations
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:_________________________________
By: __________________________________
Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney
August 25, 2020
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
TO: Salt Lake City Council
Charlie Luke, Chair
DateReceived: //~
Date sent to Council: 'iCq
DATE: ( f-J.f-19
SUBJECT: Zoning Text Amendment to Increase G-MU Height Limits within a Limited Area
STAFF CONTACT: Christopher Lee , P1incipal Planner, 801-535-7706, chris.lee @slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council follow the recommendation from the Planning
Commission and deny zoning text amendment petition PLNPCM2019-00639 to increase the
building heights within a pmtion of the G-MU zoning district from a current maximum of 120 ' up
to 190 ' across po1tions of two separate blocks located between 500 West and the railroad tracks
(approximately 625 West) and 200 South and 400 South.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The location of the subject parcels, which the applicant refers
to as "Station Center Core " is illustrated on the following map. The majority of the subject parcels
are owned by Salt Lake City and are within a Redevelopment Agency (RDA) project area. The
applicant has discussed this project with the RDA and has desires to move fmward with a
development within the project area. While located within the G-MU zone, the applicant is not
seeking to alter height limits across the entirety of the zone, but only within the specific area
illustrated on the area map.
The G-MU zone cmTently allows for building heights of 75 ' but heights of90 ' can be approved if
the buildings do not have flat roofs or have more than 10 units , and at least 20% of said units are
designated as affordable housing. Even taller buildings can be approved via the Design Review
process with maximum heights of 120 '. The applicant proposes to allow for up to 190 ' of height
for buildings located on street comers which is defined as those prope1ties that are within 100 feet
of a street corner. Midblock sections, which are further than 100 feet from a street corner, would
be allowed a maximum height of 100’ feet with the ability to petition for additional height via the
Design Review process. The total area of the parcels proposed for this text amendment on the two
blocks not owned by UTA is approximately 10 acres.
This proposed zoning text amendment could provide some positive benefits to the subject area as
illustrated by certain elements of Plan Salt Lake that could be viewed to support the increase in
height. The plan broadly supports objectives such as growth, economic development, proximity to
transit options, on a city-wide basis which could be well served by taller buildings. Additionally,
there is an ever increasing demand for housing across Salt Lake City which could potentially be
addressed by taller residential buildings.
However, the specific development goals in adopted master plan documents do not support the
requested height increase. The Downtown Master Plan features this area as a catalytic project for
the area featuring 300 South as a “festival street” with green space and pocket parks throughout
the area between buildings that are only between 6-12 stories tall. To facilitate that vision, the
street right-of-way has already been narrowed to 85’ and the G-MU zone was recently adopted to
allow for buildings that would create a human scaled environment that encourages pedestrian use.
Additionally, the downtown urban form has been established in the city’s adopted Urban Design
Element with the greatest building heights located in the downtown core which then decrease to
the south and the west in a roughly pyramidal form. Given other zoning districts located between
the subject area and the downtown core with significantly lower maximum heights than those
proposed, the petition does not conform to that overarching design concept.
Given these discrepancies between the guiding documents and the proposed zoning text
amendment, Planning Staff recommends that the City Council follow the recommendation of
denial from the Planning Commission.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
• Notice of Application to the Downtown Community Council and the Downtown
Alliance
A notice of application was sent to the Downtown Community Council Chairperson,
Thomas Merrill, and the Executive Director of the Downtown Alliance, Dee Brewer, on
August 27, 2019. The Community Council was given 45 days to respond with any
concerns or request staff to meet with them and discuss the proposed text amendment.
There was no response or comments from either group.
• Notice of Application to Building Owners and Residents
An early notice of application was sent to owners and residents within a 300’ radius of
the subject parcels on September 9, 2019 to let them know about the submitted petition.
• Notice of the Planning Commission Public Hearing
Notices of the October 23, 2019 public hearing were mailed and posted on October 11,
2019.
• Planning Commission Public Hearing
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the zoning text amendment
petition. The discussion during the Planning Commission hearing focused primarily on
the following:
o The stance of the RDA regarding this proposal;
o The heights of the tallest buildings in the downtown area;
o Why the applicant needed more than 120’ in building height;
o Why the applicant felt he met the standards for the text amendment;
o Why the applicant was seeking a change in only a limited area.
• Public Input:
o No public comments were received prior to the Planning Commission public
hearing nor were any comments offered at the hearing itself.
EXHIBITS:
1. Project Chronology
2. Notice of City Council Hearing
3. Planning Commission Public Hearing
a) Mailing Notice
b) Newspaper Notice
c) Staff Report
d) Agenda and Minutes
4. Original Petition
5. Additional Materials
6. Mailing List
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
A) MAILING NOTICE
B) NEWSPAPER NOTICE
C) STAFF REPORT
D) AGENDA AND MINUTES
4. ORIGINAL PETITION
5. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
6. MAILING LIST
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
PETITION: PLNPCM2019-00639
July 10, 2019 Petition for zoning text amendment was received by the Planning
Division.
July 18, 2019 Petition was assigned to Christopher Lee, Principal Planner, for staff
analysis and processing.
July 26, 2019 The Zoning Administrator (Joel Paterson) and Christopher Lee met
with the applicant and developer. They said that they may be
submitting other applications and wanted to wait to process them
together. The applicant was also informed that the initial application
was incomplete.
August 26, 2019 Having previously determined that the applicant was not going to
submit related petitions, updated submission documents were
received and departmental review of the application was initiated.
August 27, 2019 Information about the project was sent to the Downtown
Community Council Chairperson, Thomas Merrill, and the
Executive Director of the Downtown Alliance, Dee Brewer, in order
to solicit public comments and start the 45-day recognized
organization input and comment period.
September 9, 2019 Early notification letters were sent to owners and residents within a
300’ radius of the subject parcels.
October 11, 2019 Public notice was posted on City and State websites, and sent via
the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting. Public
hearing notice mailed.
October 23, 2019 Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission
reviewed the petition, conducted a public hearing, and voted to
forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the
proposed zoning text amendment.
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2019-00639: Zoning Text
Amendment to Increase Building Height Limits in a Portion of the G-MU Zone – Doug
Thimm, on behalf of STACK Real Estate, has submitted a Zoning Text Amendment petition to
increase the maximum height of buildings within a portion of the G-MU zoning district. The G-
Mu zone currently allows for building heights of 75 feet with heights of up to 120 feet when
approved through the Design Review process. The applicant proposes to increase maximum
heights up to 190 feet for buildings located on street corners and 100 feet for midblock sections
in the area located between 500 West and the railroad tracks (approximately 625 West) and
approximately 250 South and 350 South. The purposed of the request is to accommodate a large-
scale development within the area. The subject parcels are located in Council District 4,
represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff Contact: Chris Lee at 801.535.7706
or chris.lee@slcgov.com). Case number: PLNPCM2019-00639
As part of its 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:
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Room 315
City & County Building
451 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call
Chris Lee at 801-535-7706 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday or via e-mail at chris.lee@slcgov.com
The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests
for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this hearing.
Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. For
questions, requests, or additional information, please contact the Planning Division at (801) 535-
7757; TDD (801) 535-6021.
3A. PLANNING COMMISSION MAILING NOTICE
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION
~ ..... 1~ . .,\ 451 S STATE STREET ROOM 406
{:~ ~~: PO BOX 145480
'~ p~·~I SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114-5480 .... _;,...
U.S. POSTAGE ))PITNEY BOWES
~~-:_!:'5F
ZIP 84116 $ 000 500
02 rn •
00014034420CT 1 1 2019
STATE MAIL 10/1S/20i ·3
Salt Lake City Planning Division Chris Lee
PO BOX 145480
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
'1111 ·• jl jlj I ii 1•1\1111Il1Ii1ll111lJI1I11Ilj1I11 i1ll ll 11Ijj1 1II111
Salt Lake City Planning Division
451 S State Street, Room 406, PO Box 145480, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5480
Salt Lake City Planning Co~mission Wednesday, October 23, 2019, 5:30 p.m.
City and County Building 451 S State Street, Room 326
A public hearing will be held on the following matter. Comments from the Applicant, City Staff
and the public will be taken.
Text Amendment for Increased Height Limits in part of the G-MU Zone -A zoning text amendment
petit ion from Doug Thimm, on behalf of STACK Real Estate, to increase the maximum height of
buildings within a portion of the G-MU zoning district. The G-MU zone currently allows for building
heights of 75 feet but heights of up to 120 feet can be approved through the Design Review process.
The applicant proposes to increase maximum heights. up to 19 0 feet for build ing s located on street
corners and 100 feet for mid block sections in the area located between 500 West and the railroad
tracks (approximately 625 West) and approximately 250 South and 350 South . The purpose of the
request is to accommodate a large-scale development within the subject area . (Staff Contact:
Christopher Lee at (801) 535-77 06 or christopher.lee@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-
00639
S a lt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA g uidelines. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accom modations no later than 48
hours in advance in order to attend this meeting. Accommod ati ons may include: alternative formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an acce ssible
fac ility. For additional mee ting in fo rmation, please see www.slcgov.com or call 801 -535-7757; TDD 535-6220.
3B. PLANNING COMMISSION NEWSPAPER NOTICE
4770 s. 5600 w.
WEST VALLEY CITY. UT AH 84 I 18
FED.TAX l.D.# 87-02 I 7663
801-204-6910
Nollo9 of Plbllc Heartv mm11•0n Wednesday, October 23, 2019, Ille Salt Lake City I Plaming Comnissioo will hold a public hearing to con-
sider making reconmendatioos to Ille City Council re-
1 garding Ille following petitioos' l)eseret News
PROOF OF PUBLICATION CUSTOMER 'S COPY
I CUSTOMER NAME AND ADDRESS
PLANNING DIVI S ION,
ACCOUNTS PAY AB LE
PO BOX 1454 80
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84 11 4
I ACCOUNT NAME
PLANNING DIVISION ,
I T E LEPHONE
80 15357759
I PUBLICATION SCHEDULE
START 10/12/201 9 EN D 10/12/201 9
I CUSTOMER REFERENCE NUMBER
Planning Commission 10/23/19
I C A PTION
ACCOUNT N UMBER
9001 3 94298
DATE
10/14/201 9
I ORDER# INVOI C E NUMBER
0001270072
Notice of Public Hearing On Wednesday, October 23 , 2019, the Salt Lake City Planning C
S IZE
8 3 LINES 2 COLUMN(S)
I T IMES I TOTAL COST
2 212 .50
1. Tm Amenctrwlt for lncnaled ~ Limns _, ~rt I
of W. G-NV Zone -A zooing text amendment petrtioo
from DouQ Thinm, oo behalf of STACX Real Estate, to
increase 1fle rnaxirrun height of buildings within a por-
tion of the G-MU zoning district. The G-MU zooe rur-
rently allows for building heights of 7 5 feet but
hel!1'ts of up to l 20 feet can be approved 1tirough Ille
Design Review process. The oppliccnt prfur,ses to in-
=t':d ~x=t heO:.~rs~~g ~zg =~ fo~ ~~~g:~
sections In Ille area located between 500 West and Ille
r~~~~te~ra~;O (~~o~~~Jb ~-~t)puand seagf ~ requesl is to accorrrnodate a lar~-scale ~elop
ment wiltiin Ille subfect a rea. (Staff Contact, Christo-
pher Lee at (801) 535-7706 or d!ffi!Opher.lee@slcgov
.com) C... runber PIH'CM2019.:oo639 ..
2. Medlc:tlal Oniabls Text ·~ -A text amend-
ment to amend section(s) of Title 21 A (Zoning) of Ille
Salt Lake City Code to establish re~ulations, in ac:cord-
~'\f;'.,;/~, r':'~~i::~~ ~~~ib~f,;., T~ci~
cannabis. Related provisions of title 21 A may a lso be
emended as part of 1tiis petition as necessary. The
changes would apply citywide. (Staff contact, Lex
Traughber at (801) 535-61 84 or lex.tra ughber@
slcgov.com) cme runber PLMl.C2019~
3. .,..._ Pane-I °"'9r1ay Zalhl Map and Text
~ • Bryoo Prince, represenfing Ivory Develop-
ment, is requesting to rezooe property located at op.
proximately 2691 N 2200 West. The pr~rty is rur-
rently zooed Business Park \BP). The applicant is pro-
posing to add a new over ay zooe to !tie property,
wh;di would add additional development regulations to
~/';,°b'~i~1/"'afi~~~'2' ~la~~!, a~~.{;~~~~
~~i~1~:r~'.'1~r,::;;-.,os~ ~ufi~lrfg"~i~i~i?,
lim it vehicle ao:ess from 2200 West, and add environ-
mental protections related to fX1lential bird and water
quality impacts. The purpose of the requested rezooe
and text amendment is to oocomnodote a future "Re-
search Parl<11 development involving businesses and in-
dustries related or similar to those in the existing "Re-
seardi Park" located next to Ille University of Utah.
The proposal inc ludes two petitions:
a. PIH'CM2019-00677 -Text amendment to adopt
the proposed 118usiness Park-I" overlay zone ordinance
as a new overlay zone in Ille City Zoning Code (Title
21A).
b. PIM'CM2018--00656 -Map amendment to map Ille
proposed "Business Park-I" overlay zone over the
property on the official City zoning map.
Related provisions of Title 21 A-Zoning may also be
amended as part of 1tiis petition. The property is locat-
ed wiltiin Council District l represented by James Rog-
ers. (Staff Contact: Daniel Edleverria at (801 ) 535-
7165 or daniel.edleverria@slcgov.com)
The ~lie hearing will begin al 5,30 p.m. in room 326
~It Lak~i't;~,~ Building, 451 Sou1ti State Street,
--------------------------------------------The City & County Building is an ao:essible facil ity. People with disabilities may make requests for reasoo-
AFFIDAV I.,., OF PUBLICATION able accorrrnodatioo, which may include alternate for-., mats, interpreters, and olher auxiliary a ids and serv-
~!~~~'fo ~~er~':"s~':i l~'/!~:;o~~~apj~~
AS NEWSPAPER AGENCY COMPANY, LLC dba UTAH MEDJA GROUP LEGAL BOOKER, 1 C ning_()fJice at 801-53~57, or rela y service 71 1. . 1 'Z70072 IA'AXLP
ADVERTISEMENT OF Notice of Public Hearing O n W ednesday , Oct o ber 23 , 2019, the S alt L a ke Cit y P lann ing L o 111 1111ssiu11 w 111 u u iu .. """""
hearing to consider m akin g recommen dations t FOR PLANNING DIVISION, WAS PUBLISHED BY THE NEWSPAPER AGENCY COM PANY,
LLC dba UTAH MEDIA GROUP, AGENT FOR DESERET NEWS AND THE SALT LAKE TRIB UNE, DAILY NEWSPAPERS PRINTED IN THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE WITH GENERAL C IRCULATION IN UTAH, AND PUBLIS HE D IN SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY IN THE
STATE OF UTAH. NOTICE IS ALSO POSTED ON UTAHLEGALS.COM ON THE SAME DAY AS THE FIRST NEWSPAPER PUB LI CATION
DAT E AND REM A INS ON UTAHLEGALS.COM INDEFINITELY. COMPLIES WITH UTAH DIGITAL S IGNATURE ACT UTAH COD E 46-2-10 1;
46-3-1 04.
10112/2019 En d 10/12/201 9
DATE 10/14 /20 19
STATE OF UTAH
COUNTYOF __ S~AL~T~L~A~K=E~-
SUBSCRlBED AND SWORN TO B EFORE ME ON TH IS
BY L ORAINE GUDMUNDSON.
SIGNATURE ------------
14TH DAY OF OCTOBER
JAE LEVI
NOTARY PUBLIC ·STATE OF UTAH
My Comm. Exp 05/29/2022
Commission # 700606
IN T HE YEAR 2019
NOT A RY PUBLI C S IG NATU RE
3C. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
October 17, 2019
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Christopher Lee, Principal Planner, 801-535-7706, christopher.lee@slcgov.com
Date: October 17, 2019
Re: PLNPCM2019-00639: Zoning Text Amendment to Increase G-MU Zone Height Limits
Zoning Text Amendment
PROPERTY ADDRESS: Sections of the blocks located between 500 West and the railroad tracks
(approximately 625 West) and 200 South and 400 South
PARCEL ID NUMBERS: 15-01-151-009, 15-01-151-010, 15-01-151-011, 15-01-151-012, 15-01-151-013, 15-01-
151-014, 15-01-152-012, 15-01-152-013, 15-01-152-014, 15-01-152-021, 15-01-152-024, 15-01-152-025, 15-01-153-
004, 15-01-153-005, 15-01-153-006, 15-01-153-009, 15-01-153-010, 15-01-153-011, 15-01-302-018, 15-01-302-
019, 15-01-302-020, 15-01-109-006-2000 (partial), 15-01-153-012 (partial)
MASTER PLAN: Downtown
ZONING DISTRICT: G-MU (Gateway Mixed Use)
REQUEST: The Salt Lake City Planning Division has received a zoning text amendment petition
from Doug Thimm, on behalf of STACK Real Estate, to increase the maximum height of
buildings within a portion of the G-MU zoning district from a current maximum of 120’
up to 190’ across portions of two separate blocks located between 500 West and the
railroad tracks (approximately 625 West) and 200 South and 400 South
RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a
recommendation of denial to the City Council for the proposed text amendment because the
request does not meet the standards of review.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Zoning Map
B. Area Photographs
C. Application and Additional Materials
D. Analysis of Standards
E. Public Process
F. Department Review Comments
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Overview
The location of the subject parcels, which the applicant refers to as “Station Center Core” is illustrated
on the following map (see Attachment A for the zoning map). The majority of the subject parcels are
owned by Salt Lake City and are within a Redevelopment Agency (RDA) project area. The applicant
has discussed this project with the RDA and has desires to move forward with a development within
1
the project area. While located within the G-MU zone, the applicant is not seeking to alter height limits
across the entirety of the zone, but only within the specific area illustrated below:
2
The G-MU zone currently allows for building heights of 75’ but heights of 90’ can be approved if the
buildings do not have flat roofs or have more than 10 units, and at least 20% of said units are designated
as affordable housing. Even higher buildings can be approved via the Design Review process with
maximum heights of 120’. The applicant proposes to allow for up to 190’ of height for buildings located
on street corners which is defined as those properties that are within 100 feet of a street corner.
Midblock sections, which are further than 100 feet from a street corner, would be allowed a maximum
height of 100’ feet with the ability to petition for additional height via the Design Review process. The
total area of the parcels proposed for this text amendment on the two blocks not owned by UTA is
approximately 10 acres.
Existing Uses within the Immediate Vicinity of the Subject Area
North: Historic buildings, Artspace, and some businesses on 200 South
South: Vacant parcels and older warehouse building types
East: Rio Grande Station building
West: UTA Intermodal Hub
Development Objective of the Petitioner
As has been stated previously, the applicant has had discussions and inquiries with the RDA regarding
potential development in the area. No specific plans for development have been submitted. However,
via discussions between the applicant and Planning Staff, as well as the minimal drawings submitted
in the original application (Attachment C), it appears that the developer is seeking additional height for
building(s) that would have an emphasis on office uses but could also include mixed-use elements such
as residences and commercial space.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS:
The key considerations listed below have been identified through analysis of the project, community
input, and department review comments.
1. Guiding Documents (Plan Salt Lake, and the Downtown Master Plan)
2. G-MU Zoning Map Amendment (2017)
3. 300 South Street Narrowing (2014)
4. Development Potential (Existing versus Proposed Standards)
Consideration 1 – Guiding Documents
Guiding documents are crucial to consider when considering text amendments that would
substantially alter the G-MU standards within the subject area. Two distinct master plans are most
pertinent to this petition: Plan Salt Lake and the Downtown Master Plan. Plan Salt Lake serves as the
overarching planning document for the entire City focusing on broad priorities and goals. In contrast,
the Downtown Master Plan has a specific focus on the neighborhood and provides finer detail
regarding the future of the specific subject area. Taken together, they provide a dynamic vision for
future development and provide crucial guidance for changes such as this proposed text amendment.
Plan Salt Lake
The objective of the petition is to increase the height within this section of the G-MU zone so that
buildings up to a maximum of 190’ in height (minimum of 100’) could be placed on corner lots while
those within mid-block areas could be up to a maximum of 100’ with increased height allowed via the
Design Review process. The applicant has not provided detailed information regarding a
comprehensive plan for the area but has mentioned that it would include a mix of uses such as
commercial office, retail, housing, and open space. The G-MU zone is a varied zone allowing for a
multitude of various uses. Most types of housing, along with retail, office, restaurants, entertainment,
recreation, etc. are permitted outright or through the conditional use process. The variety of permitted
and conditional uses in the zoning district and their impacts, both positive and negative, should be
considered when considering the proposed height increase. Ultimately, a height increase would have
3
direct impacts upon neighborhood uses including density, view corridors, and the pedestrian
experience at street level.
Plan Salt Lake contains various sections and initiatives that speak to broad issues that could be
impacted by an increase to the maximum building height standard in this zoning district. The following
sections focusing on Neighborhoods, Growth, and Housing, Transportation and Mobility, and
Beautiful City are particularly pertinent:
Neighborhoods:
3. Create a safe and convenient place for people to carry out their daily lives.
4. Support neighborhood identity and diversity.
8. Encourage and support local businesses and neighborhood business districts.
12. Support west side business nodes.
Growth:
1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as
transit and transportation corridors.
3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
6. Accommodate and promote an increase in the City’s population.
8. Provide access to opportunities for a healthy lifestyle (including parks, trails,
recreation, and healthy food).
Housing:
2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have
the potential to be people-oriented.
5. Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where
appropriate.
7. Promote high density residential in areas served by transit.
Transportation and Mobility:
2. Prioritize connecting residents to neighborhood, community, regional, and
recreation nodes by improved routes for walking, biking, and transit.
4. Reduce automobile dependency and single occupancy vehicle trips.
7. Encourage transit-oriented development (TOD).
Beautiful City:
2. Identify and establish standards for key gateways into the City.
3. Identify, preserve, and enhance view corridors and vistas, including views of
natural lands around and within the City.
7. Reinforce and preserve neighborhood and district character and a strong sense of
place.
Many of these initiatives support the proposed petition, especially those associated with Growth,
Housing, and Transportation and Mobility. Allowing for taller structures on vacant and
underutilized parcels within the subject area brimming with transportation options due to the
proximity to Central Station, could potentially allow for a tremendous increase in the number of
residential units. If that were to happen, along with development of commercial and employment
opportunities, the neighborhood could become more diverse and vibrant.
However, that is largely dependent upon the uses that a developer chooses to incorporate into any
potential project. As stated previously, the G-MU zone allows for a diversity of uses but that also
creates the risk that area development may focus on only one or two uses while ignoring others. For
example, if the vast majority of tall buildings were designed as office towers with very few other uses,
the area could become more of a work destination lacking full time residents and associated
4
commercial enterprises that foment viable neighborhoods. This outcome would not fully implement
the plan because Plan Salt Lake emphasizes the development of mixed-use and walkable
environments that allow people to live, work, recreate, and shop within comprehensive and dynamic
neighborhoods. That directive is illustrated even more clearly in the area specific Downtown Master
Plan in the following section.
Downtown Master Plan
Urban Design Element
The Downtown Master Plan was adopted in (2016) and provides a comprehensive vision of the
entire downtown area along with specifics within each neighborhood. It builds upon previous
plans and guiding documents such as Creating an Urban Neighborhood – Gateway District
Land Use & Development Master Plan and the Urban Design Element to layout the overarching
design of downtown Salt Lake City in a section called Urban Design Framework. Elements within
that section that are pertinent to this petition include the following:
URBAN FORM is the Physical Shape of the city
Urban form entails everything from the arrangement of the street network to the height of
the buildings. The foundation of downtown’s URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK urban form
is the Plat of Zion with its very regular and large grid system. This large grid system also
happens to be one of downtown’s most unique and identifiable characteristics, especially to
out of state visitors or transplants. The 3D structure of downtown is a two-sided pyramidal
form with the highest points in the Central Business District. Building height gradually steps
down to the south and west. Downtown transitions more abruptly along North Temple and
200 East, creating clear demarcation between the commercial center and adjacent
residential neighborhoods to the north and east and easing intensity of development there.
Downtown has a two-sided pyramidal urban form with the tallest buildings in the
Central Business District
The featured graphic along with the verbiage stating that, “The 3D structure of downtown is a two-
sided pyramidal form with the highest points in the Central Business District. Building height
gradually steps down to the south and west”, provides guidance in regards to this petition. It
establishes that “building height gradually steps down to the south and west” of the Central Business
District. It should be a smooth and gradual transition without abrupt changes to building heights
that would dramatically alter that flow from taller buildings in the Central Business District to
shorter buildings located to the west and south within the greater downtown area.
As illustrated on the zoning map (Attachment A), both the D-3 (Downtown Warehouse/Residential)
and D-4 (Downtown Secondary Central Business) districts lie between the subject area and the
downtown core. In regards to height, the D-3 zone allows for 75’ tall buildings. Heights up to 90’ can
be granted “provided the additional height is supported by the applicable master plan, the overall
5
square footage of the buildings is greater than fifty percent (50%) residential use, and subject to the
requirements of chapter 21A.59 of this title.”
The maximum height in the D-4 zoning district is also 75’ which can be increased up to 120’ through
the Design Review process. However, there is one area within the zone that is bounded by South
Temple, West Temple, 200 South, and 200 West Streets, as well as the corner of the block
northwest of the intersection of 200 West and 200 South, which allows for buildings with maximum
heights of up to 375’. The following map illustrates that specific area, as well as the absolute
maximum heights for each of the zoning districts mentioned including the 190’ maximum height
proposed for the subject area.
An analysis of the map illustrates that the proposed height adjustment within the subject area would
not conform to the “two-sided pyramidal urban form with the tallest buildings in the Central
Business District” that is stipulated within the Downtown Master Plan. The proposed maximum
height of 190’ would more than double the maximum height of the D-3 zone located immediately
adjacent to the east. Like the rest of the G-MU zone directly to the north and east, the D-4 zone has
a maximum height of only 120’. With buildings potentially 100’ taller than those in the D-3 and zone
and 70’ higher than those in the D-4 zone and the remainder of the G-MU zone, the proposed height
increase would not fully implement this provision of the master plan.
Another element within the Downtown Master Plan relevant to this proposal regards views and
viewsheds. The master plan states the following:
VIEWS & VIEWSHEDS Connect People to Place
6
Views to the mountains and view corridors to iconic buildings in and around the downtown
are an important component to the structure and image of the downtown. There are several
view corridors that should continue to be protected:
• 300 South to the Rio Grande Depot
Although the plan identifies several viewsheds, the 300 South to the Rio Grande Depot viewshed is
the only one listed in this report as it is pertinent to this application. The Rio Grande Depot itself is
approximately 65’-75’ tall so if maximum building heights were increased to 190’ as proposed, they
could be significantly taller than the depot. Looking east along 300 South from the intersection at
600 West, the majority of the building would still be visible but the sides may be cropped.
Conversely, the views of the east side of the depot from 400 West would not be directly impacted by
taller structures behind the depot but they could diminish the architectural prominence of the depot
itself.
Building scale and massing is also addressed in the downtown areas south and west of the Central
Business District. The text reads as follows:
BUILDING SCALE & MASSING Define the Character and Image of the Public Realm
…A more refined skyline with interesting roof tops and stepped massing of structures is
encouraged rather than “benching” with rectangular towers with flat roofs. West and south
of the Central Business District is encouraged to be six to twelve stories. Building height and
massing is also determined by the character of each district (see Districts chapter).
The plan states that this area, which is southwest of the Central Business District, encourages
structures that are between six to twelve stories. With no specifics on height for an individual story
provided, this is somewhat subjective seeing that the heights of most stories range between 10’-12’
but can be taller where extra height is featured in the design. For example, the pedestrian level story
of many structures are often much taller to invite the public into more expansive and inviting spaces
such as hotel and office lobbies, commercial establishments, and restaurants. For the ease of
calculation, if 10’ is utilized for the height of an average story, a six story structure would be 60’ tall
and a 12 story would be 120’ tall. If 12’ is the average story height, those measurements would be 72’
and 144’. The maximum height allowed by the current G-MU zoning of 90’ is exactly in the middle
of the 10’ standard range and on the lower end of the 12’ standard. The proposed 190’ height
maximum would exceed both of those calculations.
District Initiatives and Catalytic Projects
Another section of the Downtown Master Plan called District Initiatives & Catalytic Projects
focuses on ten districts within the downtown area. The subject area of this petition is located within
the Depot District. The Depot District section presents several initiatives across several categories.
Those most pertinent to this petition include the following:
Provides Housing Choice
• Utilize interior streets and walkways for townhouse development to activate interior
of blocks while keeping main streets commercial.
• Encourage development of/create incentives for housing for families with children,
as part of identifiable neighborhood areas, in ground-oriented or low-rise dense
developments and close to open space, schools, childcare centers, community facilities
and other amenities designed for children; and smaller suites should be in towers
and/or in spaces above busy commercial areas.
Prosperous
• Utilize interior streets and walkways for townhouse development to activate interior
of blocks while keeping main streets commercial.
7
Walkable
• Consider economic development tools for small neighborhood retail (i.e. coffee shops,
book stores, bodegas, small grocery stores).
This area of Salt Lake City located between the UTA Intermodal Hub and the historic Rio Grande
Station has been a planning focus for years. The desire to enhance an area dominated by vacant lots
and uses that tend towards activities such as warehouses, industrial, shipping, to more lively and
inviting uses such as multi-family residential, commercial, restaurants, and office has been
fomenting for years and only increased with the placement of the Central Station at the intersection
of 600 West and 300 South.
If the project area is developed appropriately, it could create another vibrant neighborhood within
the greater downtown area. 300 South between the Central Station and the Rio Grande Station
could become a thoroughfare of active uses for multiple forms of transportation with an emphasis
on pedestrians and cyclists connecting with public transit. Ideas for it to be a “festival” street with
wholesale, residential, and office uses have been emphasized for many years as demonstrated by
master plans and specific actions which will be discussed in more depth in the following sections.
The subject area has been identified as the focus of the Catalytic Project: Hub Implementation
Strategy featured in the Depot District section of the Downtown Master Plan. It serves to
specifically address the subject area and lays out the type of development that meets the objectives
of the governing master plans. The following two graphics are taken directly from the Downtown
Master Plan and establish the overall development objectives for the subject area. The reader
should note that the second graphic only features development on RDA owned properties, but other
adjacent properties are included in the proposed text amendment. It is anticipated that those
properties would develop in a similar manner.
8
The Catalytic Project plan contains several elements that are not amenable to the building heights
proposed by the applicant including breaking the area down into smaller blocks with extensive green
space and pocket parks, the transformation of 300 South to a festival street by reducing the width of
the thoroughfare (see Consideration 3), and buildings that are 6-12 stories in height. A dispersed
building layout with ample green space with an emphasis on the reduced width “festival street”, would
not function well with buildings that are nearly 200’ tall as it depends upon appropriately scaled
buildings that create space on the pedestrian level that is comfortable and inviting. When exceptionally
tall buildings are out of scale in comparison to the roadways and sidewalks below them, they are not
considered to be designed on the “human scale” and can greatly diminish pedestrian activities in such
areas.
Consideration 2 –Zoning Map Amendment to G-MU (2017)
In 2017 a Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2016-00583) requested by Mayor Jackie Biskupski was
approved by the City Council. It amended the zoning within the subject area from D-3 (Downtown
Warehouse/Residential) and CG (General Commercial) to the current G-MU. The reason for the
change was to facilitate the development of RDA owned property as stated in the staff report:
This amendment will facilitate the development of Station Center, the RDA project located in
the same general area. The proposed redevelopment will include a mix of commercial and
residential uses. The subject properties have a mix of commercial and light-industrial uses
and some vacant land, presently.
The staff report also laid out the reasons that the G-MU zone was selected as the best option to facilitate
development as envisioned within the applicable master plans, it states that:
9
… the G-MU zone is intended to implement aspects of the adopted Gateway Master Plan. This
is a zoning district that has been successfully used on adjacent blocks for redevelopment
projects akin to, though surely distinct from, what has been proposed by Salt Lake City’s
Redevelopment Agency on the subject sites. The adjacent development that has been executed
under the G-MU zoning has existed comfortably alongside a range of other urban zoning
districts.
* The Gateway Master Plan mentioned in the above quote was incorporated into, and
superseded by, the Downtown Master Plan.
This zoning map amendment is relevant to consider in regards to this petition because it was approved
only two years ago and none of the development goals for the area have shifted since then. Not only
RDA properties, but many parcels adjacent to those properties were included and significant
consideration was given to provide zoning that would allow for the type of development envisioned by
the guiding documents and the RDA. During that process, if building heights beyond 90’ were deemed
appropriate and necessary, it likely would have been addressed by recommending that a zone that
allowed for greater height was proposed.
Consideration 3 – 300 South Street Narrowing (2014)
A partial street closure on each side of 300 South between 500 West and 600 West was approved by
the City Council in 2014, via petition PLNPCM2013-00882 which was initiated by the RDA. The street
closure was a mechanism to reduce the width of the right of way as explained in this excerpt of the staff
report:
The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake (RDA), represented by BreAnne McConkie, is
requesting that the City approve a partial street closure to reduce the width of 300 South
between 500 and 600 West. The right-of-way would be reduced from approximately 132' to
85' in width, creating approximately 31,000 square feet of new parceled property along the
street. The purpose of the proposal is to reduce the street width to a more pedestrian scale and
encourage the use of 300 South as a festival street as part of the RDA’s redevelopment plans
for the area.
The referenced festival street was proposed in the Gateway Master Plan which was then incorporated
into and superseded by the Downtown Master Plan. This petition was filed as the first step to
implement that vision via the RDA preferred development plan. The application went on to state that:
The proposed street closure is located in the area addressed by the Gateway District Land
Use and Development Master Plan (Attachment D), adopted in 1998. That plan provided the
following policy related to the proposed street closure:
The potential development of an intermodal station along 600 West and 200 South
would provide an opportunity for Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in which
community needs and services are combined with those of commuters to benefit the
neighborhood as well as the transit system. 300 South Street between the intermodal
station and the Rio Grande Depot should develop as a pedestrian oriented plaza and
street and make a visual and physical connection to the Depot.
In respect to this policy, the proposal by the RDA is to narrow the street in order to make the
street width more pedestrian in scale. The reduction of the right-of-way would allow
buildings to be developed closer to the street, which can create a sense of enclosure and
thereby make the street more comfortable and inviting for pedestrians to use. Contemporary
urban design theory suggests that the ideal minimum building height to street width ratio for
a downtown area is 1:1, or 1 foot of height for every 1 foot of right-of-way width. This ratio is
the approximate level at which pedestrians tend to feel most comfortable walking in a built
10
environment. The current zoning and long-range plan for the area suggest a maximum
height of 75’ for development in the area, with some allowance for additional height through
a review process. A street width reduction would bring the development potential for the area
more in line with this ideal enclosure ratio.
The partial street closure to create a narrowed roadway for a festival street on 300 South has been
referenced in guiding documents for many years culminating in the Downtown Master Plan. As
mentioned in the previous citation, the proposed building heights along that narrowed street have also
been carefully considered. Planning Staff mentions that the ideal ratio of street width to building height
for a pedestrian oriented festival street would be a 1:1 ratio. Current G-MU zoning with a height of 90’
(maximum of 120’ via Design Review approval) would create a ratio that conforms to the established
plan for the area. Allowing for additional height along 300 South would not implement this
development goal.
Consideration 4 – Development Potential (Proposed versus Existing Standards)
The applicant has submitted specific language for the changes that they propose. The full application
that they submitted, along with subsequent materials can be found in Attachment C. The language that
they are proposing to alter is also presented here to contextualize it and to highlight how the changes
would alter the zoning standards. As illustrated in the following text, the applicant has utilized text
from the G-MU (21A.31.020) section of the SLC Zoning Code (non bolded) along with their proposed
changes (bolded).
E. Building Height: The minimum building height shall be forty five feet (45') and the 200
South Street corridor shall have a minimum height of twenty five feet (25'). The maximum
building height shall not exceed seventy five feet (75') except buildings with non-flat roofs
(e.g., pitched, shed, mansard, gabled or hipped roofs) may be allowed, up to a maximum of
ninety feet (90') (subject to subsection I of this section). The additional building height may
incorporate habitable space.
1. Conditional Building and Site Design Review: A modification to the minimum
building height or to the maximum building height (up to 120 feet) provisions of this
section may be granted through the conditional building and site design review
process, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of chapter
21A.59 of this title, and subject to compliance to the applicable master plan.
2. Height Exceptions: Spires, tower, or decorative noninhabitable elements shall
have a maximum height of ninety feet (90') and with conditional building and site
design review approval may exceed the maximum height, subject to conformance
with the standards and procedures of chapter 21A.59 of this title
3. Additional height may be allowed as specified below:
a. Additional Permitted Height Location: Additional height is
permitted in the area described by: The Accompanying “Station
Center Core Diagram”.
b. Height Regulations: No corner building shall be less than one
hundred feet (100') nor more than one hundred ninety feet
(190') in height. The minimum one hundred foot (100') high
portion of the building shall be located not farther than five
feet (5') from the lot line along front and corner lot lines.
c. The operation of uses within the building, including accessory
parking facilities, shall comply with the adopted traffic
11
demand management guidelines administered by the city
traffic engineer.
Additional Standards For Certain Height Modifications:
(1) The first one hundred feet (100') of height shall not be set
back from the street front more than five feet (5') except
that setbacks above the first fifty feet (50') may be
approved through the conditional building and site design
review process.
(2) Modifying the height will achieve the preservation of a
landmark site or contributing structure in an H historic
preservation overlay district.
(3) Modifying the height will allow interim service
commercial uses to support the downtown community.
d. Special Controls Over Mid-Block Areas:
(1) Intent: Special controls shall apply to land located at the
middle of blocks. Such controls are needed to establish
coordinated levels of development intensity and to
promote better pedestrian and vehicular circulation.
(2) Height Regulations: No building shall be more than one
hundred feet (100') in height; provided, that taller
buildings may be authorized through the Design Review
process, subject to the requirements of chapter 21A.59 of
this title.
Based upon the submitted text, the following tables lay out the standards for the existing G-MU zoning
standards compared to the proposed changes.
Current G-MU Development Standards (21A.31.020)
LOT
WIDTH
LOT
AREA
FRONT
YARD
CORNER
SIDE
YARD
REAR
YARD
SIDE
YARDS
HEIGHT
None
required
None
required
No
minimum.
A
minimum
of 25% of
the length
of the
building
shall be set
back not
farther
than 5’
from the
street right
of way.
No
minimum.
A
minimum
of 25% of
the length
of the
building
shall be set
back not
farther
than 5’
from the
street right
of way.
No
minimum
No
minimum
Minimum:
45’ except for 200 S
corridor where it is 25’
Maximum:
90’ for non-flat roofs
120’ via design review
12
Proposed Changes to the G-MU Development Standards within the Subject Area
LOT
WIDTH
LOT
AREA
FRONT
YARD
CORNER
SIDE
YARD
REAR
YARD
SIDE
YARDS
HEIGHT SETBACKS
None
required
None
required
No
minimum.
A
minimum
of 25% of
the length
of the
building
shall be set
back not
farther
than 5’
from the
street right
of way.
No
minimum.
A
minimum
of 25% of
the length
of the
building
shall be set
back not
farther
than 5’
from the
street right
of way.
No
minimum
No
minimum
Minimum:
corner building: 100’
Midblock building: not
mentioned in
application.
Maximum:
corner building: 190’
Midblock building:
100’.
Application states that
taller buildings may be
approved through
design review but
provides no maximum.
First 100’ of
height shall
not be setback
more than 5’.
Setbacks
above 50’ may
be approved
via design
review
process.
Besides language disallowing more than 5’ setbacks for the initial 100’ of height, except via design
review above 50’, the proposed text change does not significantly alter any of the G-MU standards
other than height. As indicated in the table, the minimum height would be 100’ for corner buildings
with no mention of height minimums for midblock buildings. Maximum heights for corners would be
190’ and 100’ for midblocks, with additional midblock height via design review.
DISCUSSION:
This proposed zoning text amendment could provide some positive benefits to the subject area as
illustrated by certain elements of Plan Salt Lake that could be viewed to support the increase in height.
The plan broadly supports objectives such as growth, economic development, proximity to transit
options, on a city-wide basis which could be well served by taller buildings. Additionally, there is an
ever increasing demand for housing across Salt Lake City which could potentially be addressed by taller
residential buildings.
However, the specific development goals for this area are well documented and do not seem to support
the requested height increase. The Downtown Master Plan features this area as a catalytic project for
the area featuring 300 South as a “festival street” with green space and pocket parks throughout the
area between buildings that are only between 6-12 stories tall. To facilitate that vision, the street has
already been narrowed to 85’ and the G-MU zone was recently adopted to allow for buildings that
would create a human scaled environment that encourages pedestrian use.
Additionally, the downtown urban form has been established with the greatest building heights located
in the downtown core which then decrease to the south and the west in a roughly pyramidal form.
Given other zoning districts located between the subject area and the downtown core with significantly
lower maximum heights than those proposed, the petition does not conform to that overarching design
concept.
13
Given these discrepancies between the guiding documents and the proposed zoning text amendment,
Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of denial to the
City Council.
NEXT STEPS:
Regardless of the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the proposed zoning text change
allowing for additional height in the subject area of the G-MU zone will be sent to the City Council for
a final decision. The City Council may approve, deny, or modify the petition.
If the zoning text change amendment is approved, the subject properties will be delineated within the
text of the G-MU zoning district. Any specific proposals for future development would need to comply
with the updated G-MU zoning regulations, be approved, and have appropriate permits issued.
If the proposal is approved with modifications, any future development would have to comply with the
applicable zoning regulations or any conditions placed on the property by the City Council.
If the zoning map amendment is denied, the properties will remain zoned G-MU (Gateway Mixed Use)
and any potential development would need to meet the existing standards of that zoning district.
14
ATTACHMENT A: ZONING MAP
15
ATTACHMENT B: AREA PHOTOGRAPHS
16
Looking West towards the Central Station Intermodal Hub
Looking north from the 300 South 600 West Intersection
17
Looking northeast from the 300 South and near 600 West
Looking east towards the Rio Grande Station
18
Looking northeast across the southeast corner parcel at 600 West and 300 South
Looking east across along southeast corner parcel at 600 West and 300 South
19
Looking South across a midblock area along 300 South
Building on the northwest corner of 300 South and 500 West
20
Looking northwest corner of 300 South and 500 West with ArtSpace in the background
Looking west along 300 South from approximately 300 West
21
ATTACHMENT C: APPLICATION & OTHER MATERIALS
22
23
24
25
7/10/2019 1 of 8
Project Description:
Gateway District Zone Text Amendment
July 10, 2019
Background:
The development of the Gateway District includes over 600 acres of land located
between Interstate 15 on the west, 300 West on the east, North Temple on the north
and 1000 South on the south end. In terms of the “Gateway” to Salt Lake City, this
district has long been regarded as that in terms of the Transportation Corridor into the
City, as the Gateway Specific Plan rightly points out:
“As a visual and welcoming gateway to the City form the regional highway
system and the Salt Lake City International Airport; as an orientation point and
initial image of downtown for visitors arriving by car or transit as they pass
through a new mixed-use urban district”.
Compliance with Salt Lake City Policy Directives:
The City recognized the importance of the area in its Gateway Specific Plan, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Council on August 11, 1998. The City’s Downtown plan, adopted
on May 24, 2016, also underlines the importance of the “Depot District” as part of the
logical extension of Salt Lake City’s downtown experience. The roots of the district are
embedded in the industrial character and uses. Both the Gateway Specific Plan and the
Downtown plan recognize the evolving nature of the district as a mixed-use
neighborhood that is thought of as the Gateway to Salt Lake City and the Wasatch
Front.
As the “initial image” of Salt Lake City’s downtown expression, the extension of a
downtown statement is essential. The image of a “downtown” place also includes the
ability for development to be attracted that is worthy of being the expression of
downtown in terms of the type of businesses and the stature of a downtown statement.
With the heart of Salt Lake City’s downtown core being the State Street and Main Street
area as defined by the D1 Central Business District zoning, which is characterized by
strongly anchored block corners with buildings as much as 375 feet tall and mid-block
area buildings as tall as 100 feet.
The Downtown Zoning of the D1 Zone establishes:
The intent of the amendment would be to follow the established strategy of Salt
Lake City’s downtown zoning. That being to anchor the corners of intersecting
streets with taller buildings and reduce the height at midblock developments. The
Downtown Zoning of the D1 Zone states:
“Organization of District Regulations: In addition to regulations that apply
to the D-1 Central Business District as a whole, three (3) sets of
regulations are contained in this district that apply to specific geographical
areas:
26
7/10/2019 2 of 8
Special Controls Over Block Corners: These regulations apply only
to properties within a specified distance from street intersections,
as established in subsection E of this section. No corner building
shall be less than one hundred feet (100') nor more than three
hundred seventy-five feet (375') in height.
Special Controls Over Mid-Block Areas: These regulations apply
only to the intervening property between block corner properties, as
established in subsection F of this section. No building shall be
more than one hundred feet (100') in height.
Special Controls Over The Main Street Retail Core: These
regulations apply only to the Main Street retail core area, as
established in subsection G of this section. The regulations
governing block corners and mid-block areas also apply to the Main
Street retail core.”
The G-MU Zoning District currently allows heights of up to 120 feet. This has served
well in the development of much of the district over the past 20-ish years; however, in
order to honor the extension of Salt Lake City’s Downtown District as outlined by the
Gateway Specific Plan, additional height for the Core of the Station Center subdistrict
should be strongly considered.
Purpose:
As new development is considered in the Gateway District the underlying G-MU Zoning
should be carefully examined in light of the continuing effort that has been expended to
provide a basis for development of the district. In recent years, the City has had the
foresight to consolidate much of the land ownership in the immediate area of the
Intermodal Hub through the Redevelopment Agency. As this has happened, Salt Lake
City, including City Planning and the RDA, have established the Station Center
Development Area as a subdistrict, due to the proximity to our City’s intermodal hub and
also with its exposure as the true Salt Lake City Gateway from the west. In so doing,
the establishment of 300 South (Festival Street) now has become the center of the
district establishing a District Core with a higher relative intensity and a mixture of uses.
Essentially, Festival Street has become its own subdistrict within the G-MU. In order to
achieve the critical mass of the area, a strategic understanding of bringing this to life
also includes the ability to intensify this core area in the creation of a vibrant extension
of Downtown Salt Lake City. To this end, we propose an increase to the building height
limitations to facilitate the Goals and Aspirations of both the Gateway Specific Plan and
the Downtown Plan. The stated goals include:
Create a positive and clear identity of Salt Lake City and the Gateway District
Create a sense of place for the District that celebrates and supports
“Neighborhoods”, each with a distinct character and personality.
Encourage development that strengthens and compliments the Central Business
District.
Create a hierarchy of streets and open spaces that provide structure and
framework for the development of neighborhoods.
27
7/10/2019 3 of 8
Encourage a mix of uses with diversity in jobs, residents, and visitors that
balances neighborhood needs, has a vital street life and character, and results in
a thriving local economy.
Encourage excellence in design of public infrastructure opportunities such as the
public transportation systems, and streetscapes that are elegant and fitting of a
Gateway.
Look to traditional patterns of development in Salt Lake City as examples of the
kind of blocks and streets that encourage and support urban neighborhood
development.
Require excellence in design through urban design standards that preserve
views and vistas, create pedestrian friendly and attractive streets, establish a
district character, and create landmarks and signature structures in architecture
and infrastructure.
This G-MU Amendment suggests that a similar philosophy to the D1 Central Business
District be adopted for the Station Center Development area further defining the area of
the 300 South/Festival Street as a core area of the G-MU District, with additional
building height defining the block corners. It is important that the Station Center Core
does not compete with the heart of downtown in terms of prominence, so this
Amendment provides for building heights at the corners of up to 190 feet and mid-block
building heights of up to 100 feet. Rather than changing building heights within the
entire district, and similar to recent modifications to the D4 Secondary Business District,
this amendment proposes a limited area of scope be included as depicted by the
accompanying exhibits.
Surrounding Zoning:
Salt Lake City Building Height Requirements:
21A.30.020: D-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT:
6. Height Regulations: No corner building shall be less than one hundred
feet (100') nor more than three hundred seventy-five feet (375') in
height. The minimum one hundred foot (100') high portion of the building
shall be located not farther than five feet (5') from the lot line along front
and corner lot lines. Buildings higher than three hundred seventy-five
feet (375') may be allowed in accordance with the provisions of
subsections E6a and E6b of this section.
a. Conditions For Taller Corner Buildings: Corner buildings may exceed
the three hundred seventy-five foot (375') height limit provided they
conform to the following requirements:
(1) To minimize excessive building mass at higher elevations and
preserve scenic views, some or all of the building mass over the three
hundred seventy five foot (375') height level shall be subject to
additional setback, as determined appropriate through the conditional
building and site design review process.
28
7/10/2019 4 of 8
(2) Not less than one percent (1%) of the building construction budget
shall be used for enhanced amenities, including art visible to the public,
enhanced design elements of the exterior of the building or exterior
spaces available to the public for cultural or recreational activities. The
property owner shall not be required to exceed one hundred thousand
dollars ($100,000.00) in required amenities.
(3) The operation of uses within the building, including accessory parking
facilities, shall comply with the adopted traffic demand management
guidelines administered by the city traffic engineer.
b. Additional Standards For Certain Height Modifications:
(1) The first one hundred feet (100') of height shall not be set back from
the street front more than five feet (5') except that setbacks above the
first fifty feet (50') may be approved through the conditional building and
site design review process.
(2) Modifying the height will achieve the preservation of a landmark site or
contributing structure in an H historic preservation overlay district.
(3) Modifying the height will allow interim service commercial uses to
support the downtown community.
c. Conditional Building And Site Design Approval: A modification to the
height regulations in subsection E6a of this section may be granted
through the conditional building and site design review process, subject
to conformance with the standards and procedures of chapter 21A.59 of
this title.
F. Special Controls Over Mid-Block Areas:
1. Intent: Special controls shall apply to land located at the middle of
blocks. Such controls are needed to establish coordinated levels of
development intensity and to promote better pedestrian and vehicular
circulation.
2. Area Of Applicability: The controls established under this subsection
shall apply to:
a. Buildings constructed after April 12, 1995; and
b. All intervening land between block corner properties, as established in
subsection E2 of this section.
29
7/10/2019 5 of 8
3. Height Regulations: No building shall be more than one hundred feet
(100') in height; provided, that taller buildings may be authorized
through the conditional building and site design review process, subject
to the requirements of chapter 21A.59 of this title.
21A.30.030: D-2 DOWNTOWN SUPPORT DISTRICT:
Maximum Building Height: No building shall exceed sixty five feet (65').
Buildings taller than sixty five feet (65') but less than one hundred twenty
feet (120') may be authorized through the conditional building and site
design process, subject to the requirements of chapter 21A.59 of this title.
21A.30.040: D-3 DOWNTOWN WAREHOUSE/RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:
Maximum Building Height: No building shall exceed seventy five feet (75').
Buildings taller than seventy five feet (75') but less than ninety feet (90')
may be authorized through the conditional building and site design review
process, provided the additional height is supported by the applicable
master plan, the overall square footage of the buildings is greater than fifty
percent (50%) residential use, and subject to the requirements of chapter
21A.59 of this title.
21A.30.045: D-4 DOWNTOWN SECONDARY CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT:
Maximum Building Height: No building shall exceed seventy five feet (75').
Buildings taller than seventy five feet (75') but less than one hundred
twenty feet (120') may be authorized through the conditional building and
site design review process, subject to the requirements of chapter 21A.59
of this title. Additional height may be allowed as specified below:
a. Additional Permitted Height Location: Additional height greater than one
hundred twenty feet (120') but not more than three hundred seventy five
feet (375') in height is permitted in the area bounded by:
(1) The centerlines of South Temple, West Temple, 200 South, and 200
West Streets; and
(2) Beginning at the Southeast Corner of Block 67, Plat 'A', Salt Lake City
Survey, and running thence along the south line of said Block 67,
N89°54'02"W 283.86 feet; thence N00°04'50"E 38.59 feet; thence
N10°46'51"W 238.70 feet; thence N24°45'15"W 62.98 feet; thence
S89°54'02"E 355.45 feet to the east line of said Block 67; thence along
said east line S00°06'35"W 330.14 feet to the point of beginning.
Contains 102,339 square feet, or 2.349 acres, more or less
21A.26.070: CG GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT:
30
7/10/2019 6 of 8
Maximum Height: No building shall exceed sixty feet (60'). Buildings
higher than sixty feet (60') may be allowed in accordance with the
provisions of subsections F1 and F3 of this section.
1. Procedure For Modification: A modification to the height regulations in
this subsection F may be granted through the conditional building and site
design review process in conformance with the provisions of chapter
21A.59 of this title. In evaluating an application submitted pursuant to this
section, the Planning Commission or in the case of an administrative
approval the Planning Director or designee, shall find that the increased
height will result in improved site layout and amenities.
2. Landscaping: If additional floors are approved, increased landscaping
shall be provided over and above that which is normally required for
landscape yards, landscape buffer yards, and parking lot perimeter and
interior landscaping. The amount of increased landscaping shall be equal
to ten percent (10%) of the area of the additional floors.
3. Maximum Additional Height: Additional height shall be limited to thirty
feet (30'). (Ord. 66-13,2013: Ord. 15-13, 2013: Ord. 12-11, 2011: Ord. 61-
09 § 18, 2009: Ord. 3-01 § 2, 2001: Ord.35-99 § 27, 1999: Ord. 26-95
§2(13-6), 1995)
Existing G-MU Zoning Text:
E. Building Height: The minimum building height shall be forty five feet (45') and
the 200 South Street corridor shall have a minimum height of twenty five feet
(25'). The maximum building height shall not exceed seventy five feet (75')
except buildings with non-flat roofs (e.g., pitched, shed, mansard, gabled or
hipped roofs) may be allowed, up to a maximum of ninety feet (90') (subject to
subsection I of this section). The additional building height may incorporate
habitable space.
1. Conditional Building and Site Design Review: A modification to the
minimum building height or to the maximum building height (up to 120
feet) provisions of this section may be granted through the conditional
building and site design review process, subject to conformance with the
standards and procedures of chapter 21A.59 of this title, and subject to
compliance to the applicable master plan.
2. Height Exceptions: Spires, tower, or decorative noninhabitable
elements shall have a maximum height of ninety feet (90') and with
conditional building and site design review approval may exceed the
maximum height, subject to conformance with the standards and
procedures of chapter 21A.59 of this title
31
7/10/2019 7 of 8
Proposed G-MU Zoning Text:
E. Building Height: The minimum building height shall be forty five feet (45') and
the 200 South Street corridor shall have a minimum height of twenty five feet
(25'). The maximum building height shall not exceed seventy five feet (75')
except buildings with non-flat roofs (e.g., pitched, shed, mansard, gabled or
hipped roofs) may be allowed, up to a maximum of ninety feet (90') (subject to
subsection I of this section). The additional building height may incorporate
habitable space.
1. Conditional Building and Site Design Review: A modification to the
minimum building height or to the maximum building height (up to 120
feet) provisions of this section may be granted through the conditional
building and site design review process, subject to conformance with the
standards and procedures of chapter 21A.59 of this title, and subject to
compliance to the applicable master plan.
2. Height Exceptions: Spires, tower, or decorative noninhabitable
elements shall have a maximum height of ninety feet (90') and with
conditional building and site design review approval may exceed the
maximum height, subject to conformance with the standards and
procedures of chapter 21A.59 of this title
3. Additional height may be allowed as specified below:
a. Additional Permitted Height Location: Additional height is
permitted in the area described by: The Accompanying
“Station Center Core Diagram”.
b. Height Regulations: No corner building shall be less than
one hundred feet (100') nor more than one hundred ninety
feet (190') in height. The minimum one hundred foot (100')
high portion of the building shall be located not farther than
five feet (5') from the lot line along front and corner lot lines.
c. The operation of uses within the building, including
accessory parking facilities, shall comply with the adopted
traffic demand management guidelines administered by the
city traffic engineer.
Additional Standards For Certain Height Modifications:
(1) The first one hundred feet (100') of height shall not be
set back from the street front more than five feet (5')
except that setbacks above the first fifty feet (50') may
be approved through the conditional building and site
design review process.
(2) Modifying the height will achieve the preservation of a
landmark site or contributing structure in an H historic
preservation overlay district.
32
7/10/2019 8 of 8
(3) Modifying the height will allow interim service
commercial uses to support the downtown community.
d. Special Controls Over Mid-Block Areas:
(1) Intent: Special controls shall apply to land located at
the middle of blocks. Such controls are needed to
establish coordinated levels of development intensity
and to promote better pedestrian and vehicular
circulation.
(2) Height Regulations: No building shall be more than
one hundred feet (100') in height; provided, that taller
buildings may be authorized through the Design
Review process, subject to the requirements of chapter
21A.59 of this title.
33
PIONEER PARK
400 S
300 S
200 S
100 S
S TEMPLE
N TEMPLE
I15
400 W500 W600 WI15
I80
VIADUCT
GMU
120’
D-4
120’D-4
375’
D-3
90’
CG
90’
D-2
120’
D-1
375’
LEGEND
D-1 = ZONING DISTRICT
375’ = MAX BUILDING HEIGHT (FT)
STATION
CENTER CORE
190’
GATEWAY MIXED USE - SURROUNDING ZONING 07.10.2019
34
300 S 400 W500 W600 WPROPOSED ZONE
FOR ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
STATION CENTER CORE DIAGRAM 07.10.2019
35
LEVEL 010' - 0"
LEVEL 01M10' - 0"
LEVEL 0220' - 0"
LEVEL 0334' - 0"
LEVEL 0448' - 0"
LEVEL 0562' - 0"
LEVEL 0676' - 0"
LEVEL 0790' - 0"
LEVEL 08104' - 0"
LEVEL 09118' - 0"
LEVEL 10132' - 0"
LEVEL 11146' - 0"
LEVEL 12160' - 0"
T/O ROOF190' - 0"
STATION CENTER CORE - HEIGHT DIAGRAM 07.10.2019
PARKING STRUCTURE
W/ ROOF TERRACE
(2 STORIES)
OFFICE TOWER
(12 STORIES)
190 FEET T/O ROOF HEIGHT
36
1 of 9
Project Description:
Gateway District Zone Text Amendment
August 23, 2019
Background:
The development of the Gateway District includes over 600 acres of land located
between Interstate 15 on the west, 300 West on the east, North Temple on the north
and 1000 South on the south end. In terms of the “Gateway” to Salt Lake City, this
district has long been regarded as that in terms of the Transportation Corridor into the
City, as the Gateway Specific Plan rightly points out:
“As a visual and welcoming gateway to the City from the regional highway
system and the Salt Lake City International Airport; as an orientation point and
initial image of downtown for visitors arriving by car or transit as they pass
through a new mixed-use urban district”.
Compliance with Salt Lake City Policy Directives:
The City recognized the importance of the area in its Gateway Specific Plan, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Council on August 11, 1998. This was further reinforced in the
document ‘Creating an Urban Neighborhood’, also adopted on August 1998. The City’s
Downtown Plan, adopted on May 24, 2016, also underlines the importance of the
“Depot District” as part of the logical extension of Salt Lake City’s downtown experience.
The roots of the district are embedded in the industrial character and uses. The
‘Creating and Urban Neighborhood’ document, the Gateway Specific Plan, and the
Downtown plan all recognize the evolving nature of the district as a mixed-use
neighborhood that is thought of as the Gateway to Salt Lake City and the Wasatch
Front.
The Creating an Urban Neighborhood document outlines Implementation Issues, which
include a strong recommendation to “work with designers and developers of the
intermodal station facility so that it provides a strong terminus to 300 south Street and
reinforces the connection between the station and the depot.” It remains important to
provide the level of emphasis to create an active urban environment on the 300 South
“Festival Street” corridor thus establishing the strong terminus that is outlined in the
Urban Neighborhood narrative. In order to accomplish this, there is a need to recognize
the type of development that will allow this to become a reality. The Urban
Neighborhood plan outlines the type of development that is to be encouraged. This
includes development such as offices, which entails working with the developers of
office space and creating a strong and vibrant district. To this end, it is also important to
consider the impact of employment opportunities, and the City’s recognition of
establishing this as a complete neighborhood includes the development of the
workplace along with other services. In order to accomplish this, it is essential to bring
the type of development, which can include some taller buildings to emphasize the
importance of the area in establishing this district, which has taken some time to take
place.
37
2 of 9
The City’s Downtown Plan provides for an Urban Design Framework and establishes
that “Urban design has a significant impact on the image of downtown by shaping its
urban form, distinguishing the character of districts and framing and detailing the public
realm.” The Plan describes the “Urban Form” as being the shape of the city. In terms
of height, the Plan indicates that “The 3D structure of downtown is a two-sided
pyramidal form with the highest points in the central Business District. Building height
gradually steps down to the south and west”, and provides this diagram as an
illustration:
This proposal recognizes the importance of maintaining a plan and the Downtown
Plan’s establishment of a massing profile for Salt Lake City can be maintained, while
also recognizing the need for a moderate amount of additional height in the Gateway
District – allowing a maximum building height of 190’. The emphasis on the Central
Business District is maintained, while the emphasis of creating a strong Gateway
District Hub is maintained in a similar fashion:
Zone Height change with extended two-sided pyramidal urban form with
the tallest buildings in the Central Business District
Additionally, the recognition of the “Gateway” that is outlined by the City’s Plans
includes the need to determine that a moderate amount of additional height in the
Gateway District does not diminish the view of downtown Salt Lake City from the 400
South Gateway Entrance. This remains important and remains intact when the
proposed additional height is allowed:
Line of sight from 400 South Gateway towards the downtown Central
Business District.
38
3 of 9
As the “initial image” of Salt Lake City’s downtown expression, the extension of a
downtown statement is essential. The image of a “downtown” place also includes the
ability for development to be attracted that is worthy of being the expression of an
extended downtown in terms of the type of businesses and the stature of a downtown
statement. With the heart of Salt Lake City’s downtown core being the State Street and
Main Street area as defined by the D1 Central Business District zoning, which is
characterized by strongly anchored block corners with buildings as much as 375 feet tall
and mid-block area buildings as tall as 100 feet.
The Downtown Zoning of the D1 Zone establishes:
The intent of the amendment would be to follow the established strategy of Salt
Lake City’s downtown zoning. That being to anchor the corners of intersecting
streets with taller buildings and reduce the height at midblock developments. The
Downtown Zoning of the D1 Zone states:
“Organization of District Regulations: In addition to regulations that apply
to the D-1 Central Business District as a whole, three (3) sets of
regulations are contained in this district that apply to specific geographical
areas:
• Special Controls Over Block Corners: These regulations apply only
to properties within a specified distance from street intersections,
as established in subsection E of this section. No corner building
shall be less than one hundred feet (100') nor more than three
hundred seventy-five feet (375') in height.
• Special Controls Over Mid-Block Areas: These regulations apply
only to the intervening property between block corner properties, as
established in subsection F of this section. No building shall be
more than one hundred feet (100') in height.
• Special Controls Over The Main Street Retail Core: These
regulations apply only to the Main Street retail core area, as
established in subsection G of this section. The regulations
governing block corners and mid-block areas also apply to the Main
Street retail core.”
The G-MU Zoning District currently allows heights of up to 120 feet. This has served
well in the development of much of the district over the past 20-ish years; however, in
order to honor the extension of Salt Lake City’s Downtown District as outlined by the
Gateway Specific Plan, additional height for the Core of the Station Center subdistrict
should be strongly considered.
Purpose:
As new development is considered in the Gateway District the underlying G-MU Zoning
should be carefully examined in light of the continuing effort that has been expended to
provide a basis for development of the district. In recent years, the City has had the
foresight to consolidate much of the land ownership in the immediate area of the
39
4 of 9
Intermodal Hub through the Redevelopment Agency. As this has happened, Salt Lake
City, including City Planning and the RDA, have established the Station Center
Development Area as a subdistrict, due to the proximity to our City’s intermodal hub and
also with its exposure as the true Salt Lake City Gateway from the west. In so doing,
the establishment of 300 South (Festival Street) now has become the center of the
district establishing a District Core with a higher relative intensity and a mixture of uses.
Essentially, Festival Street has become its own subdistrict within the G-MU. In order to
achieve the critical mass of the area, a strategic understanding of bringing this to life
also includes the ability to intensify this core area in the creation of a vibrant extension
of Downtown Salt Lake City. To this end, we propose an increase to the building height
limitations to facilitate the Goals and Aspirations of both the Gateway Specific Plan and
the Downtown Plan. The stated goals include:
• Create a positive and clear identity of Salt Lake City and the Gateway District
• Create a sense of place for the District that celebrates and supports
“Neighborhoods”, each with a distinct character and personality.
• Encourage development that strengthens and compliments the Central Business
District.
• Create a hierarchy of streets and open spaces that provide structure and
framework for the development of neighborhoods.
• Encourage a mix of uses with diversity in jobs, residents, and visitors that
balances neighborhood needs, has a vital street life and character, and results in
a thriving local economy.
• Encourage excellence in design of public infrastructure opportunities such as the
public transportation systems, and streetscapes that are elegant and fitting of a
Gateway.
• Look to traditional patterns of development in Salt Lake City as examples of the
kind of blocks and streets that encourage and support urban neighborhood
development.
• Require excellence in design through urban design standards that preserve
views and vistas, create pedestrian friendly and attractive streets, establish a
district character, and create landmarks and signature structures in architecture
and infrastructure.
This G-MU Amendment suggests that a similar philosophy to the D1 Central Business
District be adopted for the Station Center Development area further defining the area of
the 300 South/Festival Street as a core area of the G-MU District, with additional
building height defining the block corners. It is important that the Station Center Core
does not compete with the heart of downtown in terms of prominence, so this
Amendment provides for building heights at the corners of up to 190 feet and mid-block
building heights of up to 100 feet. Rather than changing building heights within the
entire district, and similar to recent modifications to the D4 Secondary Business District,
this amendment proposes a limited area of scope be included as depicted by the
accompanying exhibits.
40
5 of 9
Surrounding Zoning:
Salt Lake City Building Height Requirements:
21A.30.020: D-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT:
6. Height Regulations: No corner building shall be less than one hundred
feet (100') nor more than three hundred seventy-five feet (375') in
height. The minimum one hundred foot (100') high portion of the building
shall be located not farther than five feet (5') from the lot line along front
and corner lot lines. Buildings higher than three hundred seventy-five
feet (375') may be allowed in accordance with the provisions of
subsections E6a and E6b of this section.
a. Conditions For Taller Corner Buildings: Corner buildings may exceed
the three hundred seventy-five foot (375') height limit provided they
conform to the following requirements:
(1) To minimize excessive building mass at higher elevations and
preserve scenic views, some or all of the building mass over the three
hundred seventy five foot (375') height level shall be subject to
additional setback, as determined appropriate through the conditional
building and site design review process.
(2) Not less than one percent (1%) of the building construction budget
shall be used for enhanced amenities, including art visible to the public,
enhanced design elements of the exterior of the building or exterior
spaces available to the public for cultural or recreational activities. The
property owner shall not be required to exceed one hundred thousand
dollars ($100,000.00) in required amenities.
(3) The operation of uses within the building, including accessory parking
facilities, shall comply with the adopted traffic demand management
guidelines administered by the city traffic engineer.
b. Additional Standards For Certain Height Modifications:
(1) The first one hundred feet (100') of height shall not be set back from
the street front more than five feet (5') except that setbacks above the
first fifty feet (50') may be approved through the conditional building and
site design review process.
(2) Modifying the height will achieve the preservation of a landmark site or
contributing structure in an H historic preservation overlay district.
(3) Modifying the height will allow interim service commercial uses to
support the downtown community.
41
6 of 9
c. Conditional Building And Site Design Approval: A modification to the
height regulations in subsection E6a of this section may be granted
through the conditional building and site design review process, subject
to conformance with the standards and procedures of chapter 21A.59 of
this title.
F. Special Controls Over Mid-Block Areas:
1. Intent: Special controls shall apply to land located at the middle of
blocks. Such controls are needed to establish coordinated levels of
development intensity and to promote better pedestrian and vehicular
circulation.
2. Area Of Applicability: The controls established under this subsection
shall apply to:
a. Buildings constructed after April 12, 1995; and
b. All intervening land between block corner properties, as established in
subsection E2 of this section.
3. Height Regulations: No building shall be more than one hundred feet
(100') in height; provided, that taller buildings may be authorized
through the conditional building and site design review process, subject
to the requirements of chapter 21A.59 of this title.
21A.30.030: D-2 DOWNTOWN SUPPORT DISTRICT:
Maximum Building Height: No building shall exceed sixty five feet (65').
Buildings taller than sixty five feet (65') but less than one hundred twenty
feet (120') may be authorized through the conditional building and site
design process, subject to the requirements of chapter 21A.59 of this title.
21A.30.040: D-3 DOWNTOWN WAREHOUSE/RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:
Maximum Building Height: No building shall exceed seventy five feet (75').
Buildings taller than seventy five feet (75') but less than ninety feet (90')
may be authorized through the conditional building and site design review
process, provided the additional height is supported by the applicable
master plan, the overall square footage of the buildings is greater than fifty
percent (50%) residential use, and subject to the requirements of chapter
21A.59 of this title.
21A.30.045: D-4 DOWNTOWN SECONDARY CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT:
42
7 of 9
Maximum Building Height: No building shall exceed seventy five feet (75').
Buildings taller than seventy five feet (75') but less than one hundred
twenty feet (120') may be authorized through the conditional building and
site design review process, subject to the requirements of chapter 21A.59
of this title. Additional height may be allowed as specified below:
a. Additional Permitted Height Location: Additional height greater than one
hundred twenty feet (120') but not more than three hundred seventy five
feet (375') in height is permitted in the area bounded by:
(1) The centerlines of South Temple, West Temple, 200 South, and 200
West Streets; and
(2) Beginning at the Southeast Corner of Block 67, Plat 'A', Salt Lake City
Survey, and running thence along the south line of said Block 67,
N89°54'02"W 283.86 feet; thence N00°04'50"E 38.59 feet; thence
N10°46'51"W 238.70 feet; thence N24°45'15"W 62.98 feet; thence
S89°54'02"E 355.45 feet to the east line of said Block 67; thence along
said east line S00°06'35"W 330.14 feet to the point of beginning.
Contains 102,339 square feet, or 2.349 acres, more or less
21A.26.070: CG GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT:
Maximum Height: No building shall exceed sixty feet (60'). Buildings
higher than sixty feet (60') may be allowed in accordance with the
provisions of subsections F1 and F3 of this section.
1. Procedure For Modification: A modification to the height regulations in
this subsection F may be granted through the conditional building and site
design review process in conformance with the provisions of chapter
21A.59 of this title. In evaluating an application submitted pursuant to this
section, the Planning Commission or in the case of an administrative
approval the Planning Director or designee, shall find that the increased
height will result in improved site layout and amenities.
2. Landscaping: If additional floors are approved, increased landscaping
shall be provided over and above that which is normally required for
landscape yards, landscape buffer yards, and parking lot perimeter and
interior landscaping. The amount of increased landscaping shall be equal
to ten percent (10%) of the area of the additional floors.
3. Maximum Additional Height: Additional height shall be limited to thirty
feet (30'). (Ord. 66-13,2013: Ord. 15-13, 2013: Ord. 12-11, 2011: Ord. 61-
09 § 18, 2009: Ord. 3-01 § 2, 2001: Ord.35-99 § 27, 1999: Ord. 26-95
§2(13-6), 1995)
43
8 of 9
Existing G-MU Zoning Text:
E. Building Height: The minimum building height shall be forty five feet (45') and
the 200 South Street corridor shall have a minimum height of twenty five feet
(25'). The maximum building height shall not exceed seventy five feet (75')
except buildings with non-flat roofs (e.g., pitched, shed, mansard, gabled or
hipped roofs) may be allowed, up to a maximum of ninety feet (90') (subject to
subsection I of this section). The additional building height may incorporate
habitable space.
1. Conditional Building and Site Design Review: A modification to the
minimum building height or to the maximum building height (up to 120
feet) provisions of this section may be granted through the conditional
building and site design review process, subject to conformance with the
standards and procedures of chapter 21A.59 of this title, and subject to
compliance to the applicable master plan.
2. Height Exceptions: Spires, tower, or decorative noninhabitable
elements shall have a maximum height of ninety feet (90') and with
conditional building and site design review approval may exceed the
maximum height, subject to conformance with the standards and
procedures of chapter 21A.59 of this title
Proposed G-MU Zoning Text:
E. Building Height: The minimum building height shall be forty five feet (45') and
the 200 South Street corridor shall have a minimum height of twenty five feet
(25'). The maximum building height shall not exceed seventy five feet (75')
except buildings with non-flat roofs (e.g., pitched, shed, mansard, gabled or
hipped roofs) may be allowed, up to a maximum of ninety feet (90') (subject to
subsection I of this section). The additional building height may incorporate
habitable space.
1. Conditional Building and Site Design Review: A modification to the
minimum building height or to the maximum building height (up to 120
feet) provisions of this section may be granted through the conditional
building and site design review process, subject to conformance with the
standards and procedures of chapter 21A.59 of this title, and subject to
compliance to the applicable master plan.
2. Height Exceptions: Spires, tower, or decorative noninhabitable
elements shall have a maximum height of ninety feet (90') and with
conditional building and site design review approval may exceed the
maximum height, subject to conformance with the standards and
procedures of chapter 21A.59 of this title
3. Additional height may be allowed as specified below:
a. Additional Permitted Height Location: Additional height is
permitted in the area described by: The Accompanying
“Station Center Core Diagram”.
44
9 of 9
b. Height Regulations: No corner building shall be less than
one hundred feet (100') nor more than one hundred ninety
feet (190') in height. The minimum one hundred foot (100')
high portion of the building shall be located not farther than
five feet (5') from the lot line along front and corner lot lines.
c. The operation of uses within the building, including
accessory parking facilities, shall comply with the adopted
traffic demand management guidelines administered by the
city traffic engineer.
Additional Standards For Certain Height Modifications:
(1) The first one hundred feet (100') of height shall not be
set back from the street front more than five feet (5')
except that setbacks above the first fifty feet (50') may
be approved through the conditional building and site
design review process.
(2) Modifying the height will achieve the preservation of a
landmark site or contributing structure in an H historic
preservation overlay district.
(3) Modifying the height will allow interim service
commercial uses to support the downtown community.
d. Special Controls Over Mid-Block Areas:
(1) Intent: Special controls shall apply to land located at
the middle of blocks. Such controls are needed to
establish coordinated levels of development intensity
and to promote better pedestrian and vehicular
circulation.
(2) Height Regulations: No building shall be more than
one hundred feet (100') in height; provided, that taller
buildings may be authorized through the Design
Review process, subject to the requirements of chapter
21A.59 of this title.
45
ATTACHMENT D: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS
21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a
matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one
standard. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the
following:
Factor Finding Rationale
1. Whether a proposed
text amendment is
consistent with the
purposes, goals,
objectives, and policies
of the City as stated
through its various
adopted planning
documents;
Does not
Comply
Please see the Key Considerations
regarding applicable master plan
policies and goals. As discussed, staff
finds that the proposed zoning
amendment is not consistent with the
purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of
The Downtown Master Plan and Plan
Salt Lake.
2. Whether a proposed
text amendment
furthers the specific
purpose statements of
the zoning ordinance;
Does not
Complies
The purpose statement of the G-MU
zoning district states that it,
…is intended to implement the objectives
of the adopted gateway development
master plan and encourage the mixture
of residential, commercial and
assembly uses within an urban
neighborhood atmosphere. The 200
South corridor is intended to encourage
commercial development on an urban
scale and the 500 West corridor is
intended to be a primary residential
corridor from North Temple to 400
South. Development in this district is
intended to create an urban
neighborhood that provides
employment and economic
development opportunities that are
oriented toward the pedestrian with a
strong emphasis on a safe and
attractive streetscape. The standards
are intended to achieve established
objectives for urban and historic design,
pedestrian amenities and land use
regulation.
The subject area of this petition is located
between the train tracks at the intermodal
hub and 500 West and approximately 250
South and 350 South. The proposed
height change does not seem to conform
46
to the purpose statement for the zone in
that the proposed height increase would
diminish development that is oriented
toward the pedestrian. It would also
detract from the safe and attractive
streetscape that is key to converting 300
South to a lively and inviting “festival
street”.
3. Whether a proposed text
amendment is consistent
with the purposes and
provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts which
may impose additional
standards; and
Complies The property is not located within an
overlay zoning district that imposes
additional standards.
4. The extent to which a
proposed map amendment
implements best current,
professional practices of
urban planning and design.
Does not
Comply
The petition for additional height is not,
in and of itself, an inappropriate
request. Often, additional height is
wholly appropriate; particularly in a city
such as Salt Lake City which is growing
rapidly and struggling to meet housing
needs. However, in this specific area,
extensive planning that implements the
best current and professional practices
of urban planning and design has
already been done to foster a
neighborhood that is oriented to the
pedestrian scale. In fact, not only
professional planning, but specific
action has been taken (zoning change to
G-MU and 300 S Street narrowing) to
achieve the development objectives.
47
ATTACHMENT E: PUBLIC PROCESS
Notice of Application to the Downtown Community Council and Downtown Alliance:
A notice of application was sent to the Downtown Community Council Chairperson, Thomas Merrill,
and the Executive Director of the Downtown Alliance, Dee Brewer, on August 27, 2019. The
Community Council was given 45 days to respond with any concerns or request staff to meet with
them and discuss the proposed text amendment. There was no response or comments from either
group.
Notice of Application to Building Owners and Residents:
An early notice of application was sent to owners and residents of buildings within a 300’ radius of
the subject parcels on September 9, 2019 to let them know about the submitted petition.
Notice of the Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Notice of the public hearing scheduled for October 23, 2019 were mailed and posted on October 11,
2019.
Public Input:
No public input was received.
48
ATTACHMENT F: DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
Redevelopment Agency (Cara Lindsley)
The RDA does have some existing agreements and potential developments that are in progress that
could be impacted by requiring additional height in the area. We would look to Planning and the
policymakers about the appropriate heights in the area, so we don’t have any comments on maximum
heights. However, if additional height is allowed, we would ask to remove the required minimum
because we are seeing challenges with meeting the parking demands of these developments and
imposing a minimum height requirement may add parking-related costs to the projects. Additionally,
a minimum height requirement could necessitate a different construction type than what is used for
building heights currently allowed in the G-MU zone, creating additional financial barriers that might
make these projects infeasible.
Engineering (Scott Weiler)
I believe the current right-of-way width of 300 South between 500 West and 600 West will be
requested to be narrowed by the RDA as part of the Station Center development. Provided that the
effects of that action are understood by SLC Planning, Engineering has no objections to the proposed
zoning amendment regarding building heights.
Transportation (Michael Barry)
No issues with height from Transportation.
Zoning
No comments received
Building
No comments received
Public Utilities
No comments received.
Fire
No comments received.
49
3D. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA & MINUTES
October 23, 2019
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
October 23, 2019, at 5:30 p.m.
(The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion)
FIELD TRIP - The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m.
DINNER - Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m.
in Room 126 of the City and County Building. During the dinner break, the Planning
Commission may receive training on city planning related topics, including the role
and function of the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM IN ROOM 326
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 9, 2019
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Home Replacement at approximately 828 W Duluth Avenue - Bill Whitaker, property
owner, is requesting a Conditional Use to demolish the existing single-family residential
structure and build a new single-family residential structure on the property located at 828 W
Duluth Avenue in a manufacturing zoning district. The subject property is in the M-2 Heavy
Manufacturing zoning district and located within Council District 3, represented by Chris
Wharton. (Staff contact: Chris Earl at (801) 535-7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com) Case
number PLNPCM2019-00552
2. Text Amendment for Increased Height Limits in part of the G-MU Zone - A zoning text
amendment petition from Doug Thimm, on behalf of STACK Real Estate, to increase the
maximum height of buildings within a portion of the G-MU zoning district. The G-MU zone
currently allows for building heights of 75 feet but heights of up to 120 feet can be approved
through the Design Review process. The applicant proposes to increase maximum heights
up to 190 feet for buildings located on street corners and 100 feet for midblock sections in the
area located between 500 West and the railroad tracks (approximately 625 West) and
approximately 250 South and 350 South. The purpose of the request is to accommodate a
large-scale development within the subject area. (Staff Contact: Christopher Lee at (801) 535-
7706 or christopher.lee@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00639
3. Medicinal Cannabis Text Amendment - A text amendment to amend section(s) of Title 21A
(Zoning) of the Salt Lake City Code to establish regulations, in accordance with recently
adopted State law, concerning the cultivation, production, and distribution of medicinal
cannabis. Related provisions of title 21A may also be amended as part of this petition as
necessary. The changes would apply citywide. (Staff contact: Lex Traughber at (801) 535-
6184 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com) Case number PLNHLC2019-00678
4. Business Park-I Overlay Zoning Map and Text Amendment - Bryon Prince, representing
Ivory Development, is requesting to rezone property located at approximately 2691 N 2200
West. The property is currently zoned Business Park (BP). The applicant is proposing to add
a new overlay zone to the property, which would add additional development regulations to
the property. The overlay regulations are proposed to add additional allowed uses, allow
required open space to be distributed across the property, require additional buffering,
increase the building height limit, limit vehicle access from 2200 West, and add environmental
protections related to potential bird and water quality impacts. The purpose of the requested
rezone and text amendment is to accommodate a future “Research Park” development
involving businesses and industries related or similar to those in the existing “Research Park”
located next to the University of Utah. The proposal includes two petitions:
a. PLNPCM2019-00677 – Text amendment to adopt the proposed “Business Park-I”
overlay zone ordinance as a new overlay zone in the City Zoning Code (Title 21A).
b. PLNPCM2018-00856 – Map amendment to map the proposed “Business Park-I”
overlay zone over the property on the official City zoning map.
Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. The
property is located within Council District 1, represented by James Rogers. (Staff Contact:
Daniel Echeverria at (801) 535-7165 or daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com)
The files for the above items are available in the Planning Division offices, room 406 of the City and County Building.
Please contact the staff planner for information, Visit the Planning Division’s website at www.slcgov.com /planning for
copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior
to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly
scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Meetings may be watched live on SLCTV
Channel 17; past meetings are recorded and archived and may be viewed at www.slctv.com. 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 Planning Office at 801 -535-7757, or relay service
711.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission October 23, 2019 Page 1
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City & County Building
451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to
order at 5:34:17 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period
of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Vice Chairperson Brenda Scheer; Commissioners
Maurine Bachman, Amy Barry, Weston Clark, Carolynn Hoskins, Jon Lee, and Darin Mano. Chairperson
Adrienne Bell; Commissioners Andres Paredes and Sara Urquhart were excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were Wayne Mills, Planning Manager; Paul Nielson,
Attorney; Chris Earl, Associate Planner; Chris Lee, Principal Planner; Lex Traughber, Senior Planner;
Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner; and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary.
Field Trip
A field trip was held prior to the work session. Planning Commissioners present were: Maurine Bachman,
Carolynn Hoskins, and Jon Lee. Staff members in attendance were Wayne Mills, Chris Earl, and Chris
Lee.
• 828 W Duluth Ave - Staff summarized proposal and explained that replacement of homes in
this zone requires conditional use
• Text Amendment for Increased Height Limits in part of the G-MU Zone – Staff
summarized proposal.
APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 9, 2019, MEETING MINUTES. 5:34:35 PM
MOTION 5:34:39 PM
Commissioner Clark moved to approve the October 9, 2019 minutes. Commission Bachman
seconded the motion. Commissioners Lyon, Mano, Barry, Hoskins, Bachman, Clark, and Lee
voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:35:10 PM
Chairperson Bell was not present.
Vice Chairperson Scheer stated she had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:35:12 PM
Wayne Mills, Planning Manager, stated he had nothing to report.
5:48:32 PM
Text Amendment for Increased Height Limits in part of the G-MU Zone - A zoning text amendment
petition from Doug Thimm, on behalf of STACK Real Estate, to increase the maximum height of buildings
within a portion of the G-MU zoning district. The G-MU zone currently allows for building heights of 75
feet but heights of up to 120 feet can be approved through the Design Review process. The applicant
proposes to increase maximum heights up to 190 feet for buildings located on street corners and 100
feet for midblock sections in the area located between 500 West and the railroad tracks (approximately
Salt Lake City Planning Commission October 23, 2019 Page 2
625 West) and approximately 250 South and 350 South. The purpose of the request is to accommodate
a large-scale development within the subject area. (Staff Contact: Christopher Lee at (801) 535-7706 or
christopher.lee@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00639
Chris Lee, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case
file). He stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation
to the City Council.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Clarification as to what the RDA’s take on the matter is
• Clarification as to what is currently the highest building in downtown Salt Lake
Doug Thimm, Arch Nexus; Andrew Bybee, STACK Real Estate; and Nathan Ricks, STACK Real Estate,
provided further details regarding the proposed project.
The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following:
• Clarification on need for height over 120 feet
• Clarification on why applicants feel they meet the requirements
• How much of the property is currently owned by the applicant?
• Clarification as to why the applicant is not requesting an entire zone versus just partial
PUBLIC HEARING 6:18:30 PM
Vice Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing; seeing no one wished to speak; Vice Chairperson
Scheer closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission and Staff further discussed the following:
• Whether there are mixed use requirements in the zone
MOTION 6:28:07 PM
Commissioner Lyon stated, based on the findings listed in the staff report, the information
presented, and input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission
forward a negative recommendation to the City Council in regard to the zoning text amendment
to increase height limits for a portion of the G-MU zone (petition PLNPCM2019-00639.
Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion.
Further discussion was made regarding the motion.
Commissioners Lee, Clark, Bachman, Hoskins, Barry, Mano, and Lyon voted “Aye”. The motion
passed unanimously.
4. ORIGINAL PETITION
Zoning Amendment
[!] Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance D Amend the Zoning Map
OFFICE USE ONLY
l Name or Section/s of Zoning A ~~ndrper.rt : ..J-'
l'Vl.J.l::l,(f: ( ( ct.J<. (
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
Address of Subject Property (or Area):
Per Accompanying Legal Description
Name of Applicant :
Doug Thimm
Address of Applicant: 2505 East Parleys Way
Salt Lake City . Utah 84109
E-mail of Applicant:
dthimm@archnexus.com
Applicant's Interest in Subject Property:
0 Owner D Contractor [!] Architect
Phone:
(801) 924-5045
Cell/Fax:
(801) 699-7507
D Other:
Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant): Nathan Ricks , STACK Real Estate
E-mail of Property Owner:
nathan@stackwithus.com
Phone :
(801) 231 -0066
\. Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate
information is provided for staff analysis . All information required for staff analysis will be copied and
made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public
review by any i nterested party.
AVAILABLE CONSULTATION
\. If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City
Planning Counter at (801} 535-7700 prior to submitting the application.
REQUIRED FEE
~ Map Amendment: filing fee of $1,034, plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre
\... Text Amendment: filing fee of $1,035, plus $100 for newspaper notice.
\... Plus add itional fee for mailed public notices .
SIGNATURE
\... If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required .
Signature of Owner or Agent:
Doug Thimm , AIA, LEED AB BD+C
Arc hitectural Nex us
Date :
July 10, 2019
Upd at ed 7 /l/19
D
D
D
D
D
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Project Description (plea se attach additional sheets.)
A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment.
A description of the propo sed use of the property being rezoned .
Li st the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area .
Is the request amendin g the Zoning Map?
If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed .
Is the request amending the text of the Zon ing Ordinance?
If so , plea se include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed .
WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION
Mailing Address : Planning Counter In Person : Planning Counter
PO Box 145471 451 South State Street, Room 215
Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Telephone : (801) 535 -7700
INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
X I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requi res the item s above to be submitted before my application can be processed . I
understand t hat Pl anning w i ll not accept my application unl ess all of the following items are included in the
submittal package .
Upd at ed 7 /1/19
ARCH ' NE X US
July 10, 2019
Mr. Joel Paterson , Zoning Administrator
Salt Lake City Planning Department
451 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Re: Gateway District (G-MU)
Zone Text Amendment Application
Dear Joel:
ARCHITECTU RAL NEXUS , Inc
archnexus.co m
SALT LAKE CITY
2505 East Parleys W ay
Sa lt Lake City, Utah 841 09
T 801 .924 .5000
SACRAMENTO
930 R Street
Sacramento. California 95811
T 91 6.443.591 1
As we have recently discussed, on behalf of STACK Real Estate, we are formally submitting the accompanying application for a
Zone Text Amendment to the Gateway District (G-MU). We appreciate the time that you have spent with us and look forward to
expediting the next steps of this process. Accompanying this submission are the following documents: our application, our
Project Description , and associated Exhibits . As we have mentioned, we have been working closely with the adjacent property
owners and the RDA (Danny Walz and Cara Lindsley), who are aware of the intentions of this proposed Amendment and its
benefits to the Distri ct. Of note, we are working on a development named the "Nicco Block" on the so uthwest corne r of 300
South and 600 West. In the next week or so , we will be submitting our application for Sit e Pl an Review and Design Review fo r
that site. As needed , we will be happy to sha re the conceptual informatio n fo r the "Nicco Block" with you , upon your request.
For your convenience , we have provided a thumb drive containing pdf files of all parts of this submittal along with a word
document file of the Proje ct Desc ription . Please let us know if you have any questions or comments, and once again, Thank You
for all of your efforts.
Sincerely,
Doug Thimm , AIA, LEED AB BD+C
Architectural Nexu s
AN EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY Page 1of1
7/10/2019 1 of 8
Project Description:
Gateway District Zone Text Amendment
July 10, 2019
Background:
The development of the Gateway District includes over 600 acres of land located
between Interstate 15 on the west, 300 West on the east, North Temple on the north
and 1000 South on the south end. In terms of the “Gateway” to Salt Lake City, this
district has long been regarded as that in terms of the Transportation Corridor into the
City, as the Gateway Specific Plan rightly points out:
“As a visual and welcoming gateway to the City form the regional highway
system and the Salt Lake City International Airport; as an orientation point and
initial image of downtown for visitors arriving by car or transit as they pass
through a new mixed-use urban district”.
Compliance with Salt Lake City Policy Directives:
The City recognized the importance of the area in its Gateway Specific Plan, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Council on August 11, 1998. The City’s Downtown plan, adopted
on May 24, 2016, also underlines the importance of the “Depot District” as part of the
logical extension of Salt Lake City’s downtown experience. The roots of the district are
embedded in the industrial character and uses. Both the Gateway Specific Plan and the
Downtown plan recognize the evolving nature of the district as a mixed-use
neighborhood that is thought of as the Gateway to Salt Lake City and the Wasatch
Front.
As the “initial image” of Salt Lake City’s downtown expression, the extension of a
downtown statement is essential. The image of a “downtown” place also includes the
ability for development to be attracted that is worthy of being the expression of
downtown in terms of the type of businesses and the stature of a downtown statement.
With the heart of Salt Lake City’s downtown core being the State Street and Main Street
area as defined by the D1 Central Business District zoning, which is characterized by
strongly anchored block corners with buildings as much as 375 feet tall and mid-block
area buildings as tall as 100 feet.
The Downtown Zoning of the D1 Zone establishes:
The intent of the amendment would be to follow the established strategy of Salt
Lake City’s downtown zoning. That being to anchor the corners of intersecting
streets with taller buildings and reduce the height at midblock developments. The
Downtown Zoning of the D1 Zone states:
“Organization of District Regulations: In addition to regulations that apply
to the D-1 Central Business District as a whole, three (3) sets of
regulations are contained in this district that apply to specific geographical
areas:
7/10/2019 2 of 8
Special Controls Over Block Corners: These regulations apply only
to properties within a specified distance from street intersections,
as established in subsection E of this section. No corner building
shall be less than one hundred feet (100') nor more than three
hundred seventy-five feet (375') in height.
Special Controls Over Mid-Block Areas: These regulations apply
only to the intervening property between block corner properties, as
established in subsection F of this section. No building shall be
more than one hundred feet (100') in height.
Special Controls Over The Main Street Retail Core: These
regulations apply only to the Main Street retail core area, as
established in subsection G of this section. The regulations
governing block corners and mid-block areas also apply to the Main
Street retail core.”
The G-MU Zoning District currently allows heights of up to 120 feet. This has served
well in the development of much of the district over the past 20-ish years; however, in
order to honor the extension of Salt Lake City’s Downtown District as outlined by the
Gateway Specific Plan, additional height for the Core of the Station Center subdistrict
should be strongly considered.
Purpose:
As new development is considered in the Gateway District the underlying G-MU Zoning
should be carefully examined in light of the continuing effort that has been expended to
provide a basis for development of the district. In recent years, the City has had the
foresight to consolidate much of the land ownership in the immediate area of the
Intermodal Hub through the Redevelopment Agency. As this has happened, Salt Lake
City, including City Planning and the RDA, have established the Station Center
Development Area as a subdistrict, due to the proximity to our City’s intermodal hub and
also with its exposure as the true Salt Lake City Gateway from the west. In so doing,
the establishment of 300 South (Festival Street) now has become the center of the
district establishing a District Core with a higher relative intensity and a mixture of uses.
Essentially, Festival Street has become its own subdistrict within the G-MU. In order to
achieve the critical mass of the area, a strategic understanding of bringing this to life
also includes the ability to intensify this core area in the creation of a vibrant extension
of Downtown Salt Lake City. To this end, we propose an increase to the building height
limitations to facilitate the Goals and Aspirations of both the Gateway Specific Plan and
the Downtown Plan. The stated goals include:
Create a positive and clear identity of Salt Lake City and the Gateway District
Create a sense of place for the District that celebrates and supports
“Neighborhoods”, each with a distinct character and personality.
Encourage development that strengthens and compliments the Central Business
District.
Create a hierarchy of streets and open spaces that provide structure and
framework for the development of neighborhoods.
7/10/2019 3 of 8
Encourage a mix of uses with diversity in jobs, residents, and visitors that
balances neighborhood needs, has a vital street life and character, and results in
a thriving local economy.
Encourage excellence in design of public infrastructure opportunities such as the
public transportation systems, and streetscapes that are elegant and fitting of a
Gateway.
Look to traditional patterns of development in Salt Lake City as examples of the
kind of blocks and streets that encourage and support urban neighborhood
development.
Require excellence in design through urban design standards that preserve
views and vistas, create pedestrian friendly and attractive streets, establish a
district character, and create landmarks and signature structures in architecture
and infrastructure.
This G-MU Amendment suggests that a similar philosophy to the D1 Central Business
District be adopted for the Station Center Development area further defining the area of
the 300 South/Festival Street as a core area of the G-MU District, with additional
building height defining the block corners. It is important that the Station Center Core
does not compete with the heart of downtown in terms of prominence, so this
Amendment provides for building heights at the corners of up to 190 feet and mid-block
building heights of up to 100 feet. Rather than changing building heights within the
entire district, and similar to recent modifications to the D4 Secondary Business District,
this amendment proposes a limited area of scope be included as depicted by the
accompanying exhibits.
Surrounding Zoning:
Salt Lake City Building Height Requirements:
21A.30.020: D-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT:
6. Height Regulations: No corner building shall be less than one hundred
feet (100') nor more than three hundred seventy-five feet (375') in
height. The minimum one hundred foot (100') high portion of the building
shall be located not farther than five feet (5') from the lot line along front
and corner lot lines. Buildings higher than three hundred seventy-five
feet (375') may be allowed in accordance with the provisions of
subsections E6a and E6b of this section.
a. Conditions For Taller Corner Buildings: Corner buildings may exceed
the three hundred seventy-five foot (375') height limit provided they
conform to the following requirements:
(1) To minimize excessive building mass at higher elevations and
preserve scenic views, some or all of the building mass over the three
hundred seventy five foot (375') height level shall be subject to
additional setback, as determined appropriate through the conditional
building and site design review process.
7/10/2019 4 of 8
(2) Not less than one percent (1%) of the building construction budget
shall be used for enhanced amenities, including art visible to the public,
enhanced design elements of the exterior of the building or exterior
spaces available to the public for cultural or recreational activities. The
property owner shall not be required to exceed one hundred thousand
dollars ($100,000.00) in required amenities.
(3) The operation of uses within the building, including accessory parking
facilities, shall comply with the adopted traffic demand management
guidelines administered by the city traffic engineer.
b. Additional Standards For Certain Height Modifications:
(1) The first one hundred feet (100') of height shall not be set back from
the street front more than five feet (5') except that setbacks above the
first fifty feet (50') may be approved through the conditional building and
site design review process.
(2) Modifying the height will achieve the preservation of a landmark site or
contributing structure in an H historic preservation overlay district.
(3) Modifying the height will allow interim service commercial uses to
support the downtown community.
c. Conditional Building And Site Design Approval: A modification to the
height regulations in subsection E6a of this section may be granted
through the conditional building and site design review process, subject
to conformance with the standards and procedures of chapter 21A.59 of
this title.
F. Special Controls Over Mid-Block Areas:
1. Intent: Special controls shall apply to land located at the middle of
blocks. Such controls are needed to establish coordinated levels of
development intensity and to promote better pedestrian and vehicular
circulation.
2. Area Of Applicability: The controls established under this subsection
shall apply to:
a. Buildings constructed after April 12, 1995; and
b. All intervening land between block corner properties, as established in
subsection E2 of this section.
7/10/2019 5 of 8
3. Height Regulations: No building shall be more than one hundred feet
(100') in height; provided, that taller buildings may be authorized
through the conditional building and site design review process, subject
to the requirements of chapter 21A.59 of this title.
21A.30.030: D-2 DOWNTOWN SUPPORT DISTRICT:
Maximum Building Height: No building shall exceed sixty five feet (65').
Buildings taller than sixty five feet (65') but less than one hundred twenty
feet (120') may be authorized through the conditional building and site
design process, subject to the requirements of chapter 21A.59 of this title.
21A.30.040: D-3 DOWNTOWN WAREHOUSE/RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:
Maximum Building Height: No building shall exceed seventy five feet (75').
Buildings taller than seventy five feet (75') but less than ninety feet (90')
may be authorized through the conditional building and site design review
process, provided the additional height is supported by the applicable
master plan, the overall square footage of the buildings is greater than fifty
percent (50%) residential use, and subject to the requirements of chapter
21A.59 of this title.
21A.30.045: D-4 DOWNTOWN SECONDARY CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT:
Maximum Building Height: No building shall exceed seventy five feet (75').
Buildings taller than seventy five feet (75') but less than one hundred
twenty feet (120') may be authorized through the conditional building and
site design review process, subject to the requirements of chapter 21A.59
of this title. Additional height may be allowed as specified below:
a. Additional Permitted Height Location: Additional height greater than one
hundred twenty feet (120') but not more than three hundred seventy five
feet (375') in height is permitted in the area bounded by:
(1) The centerlines of South Temple, West Temple, 200 South, and 200
West Streets; and
(2) Beginning at the Southeast Corner of Block 67, Plat 'A', Salt Lake City
Survey, and running thence along the south line of said Block 67,
N89°54'02"W 283.86 feet; thence N00°04'50"E 38.59 feet; thence
N10°46'51"W 238.70 feet; thence N24°45'15"W 62.98 feet; thence
S89°54'02"E 355.45 feet to the east line of said Block 67; thence along
said east line S00°06'35"W 330.14 feet to the point of beginning.
Contains 102,339 square feet, or 2.349 acres, more or less
21A.26.070: CG GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT:
7/10/2019 6 of 8
Maximum Height: No building shall exceed sixty feet (60'). Buildings
higher than sixty feet (60') may be allowed in accordance with the
provisions of subsections F1 and F3 of this section.
1. Procedure For Modification: A modification to the height regulations in
this subsection F may be granted through the conditional building and site
design review process in conformance with the provisions of chapter
21A.59 of this title. In evaluating an application submitted pursuant to this
section, the Planning Commission or in the case of an administrative
approval the Planning Director or designee, shall find that the increased
height will result in improved site layout and amenities.
2. Landscaping: If additional floors are approved, increased landscaping
shall be provided over and above that which is normally required for
landscape yards, landscape buffer yards, and parking lot perimeter and
interior landscaping. The amount of increased landscaping shall be equal
to ten percent (10%) of the area of the additional floors.
3. Maximum Additional Height: Additional height shall be limited to thirty
feet (30'). (Ord. 66-13,2013: Ord. 15-13, 2013: Ord. 12-11, 2011: Ord. 61-
09 § 18, 2009: Ord. 3-01 § 2, 2001: Ord.35-99 § 27, 1999: Ord. 26-95
§2(13-6), 1995)
Existing G-MU Zoning Text:
E. Building Height: The minimum building height shall be forty five feet (45') and
the 200 South Street corridor shall have a minimum height of twenty five feet
(25'). The maximum building height shall not exceed seventy five feet (75')
except buildings with non-flat roofs (e.g., pitched, shed, mansard, gabled or
hipped roofs) may be allowed, up to a maximum of ninety feet (90') (subject to
subsection I of this section). The additional building height may incorporate
habitable space.
1. Conditional Building and Site Design Review: A modification to the
minimum building height or to the maximum building height (up to 120
feet) provisions of this section may be granted through the conditional
building and site design review process, subject to conformance with the
standards and procedures of chapter 21A.59 of this title, and subject to
compliance to the applicable master plan.
2. Height Exceptions: Spires, tower, or decorative noninhabitable
elements shall have a maximum height of ninety feet (90') and with
conditional building and site design review approval may exceed the
maximum height, subject to conformance with the standards and
procedures of chapter 21A.59 of this title
7/10/2019 7 of 8
Proposed G-MU Zoning Text:
E. Building Height: The minimum building height shall be forty five feet (45') and
the 200 South Street corridor shall have a minimum height of twenty five feet
(25'). The maximum building height shall not exceed seventy five feet (75')
except buildings with non-flat roofs (e.g., pitched, shed, mansard, gabled or
hipped roofs) may be allowed, up to a maximum of ninety feet (90') (subject to
subsection I of this section). The additional building height may incorporate
habitable space.
1. Conditional Building and Site Design Review: A modification to the
minimum building height or to the maximum building height (up to 120
feet) provisions of this section may be granted through the conditional
building and site design review process, subject to conformance with the
standards and procedures of chapter 21A.59 of this title, and subject to
compliance to the applicable master plan.
2. Height Exceptions: Spires, tower, or decorative noninhabitable
elements shall have a maximum height of ninety feet (90') and with
conditional building and site design review approval may exceed the
maximum height, subject to conformance with the standards and
procedures of chapter 21A.59 of this title
3. Additional height may be allowed as specified below:
a. Additional Permitted Height Location: Additional height is
permitted in the area described by: The Accompanying
“Station Center Core Diagram”.
b. Height Regulations: No corner building shall be less than
one hundred feet (100') nor more than one hundred ninety
feet (190') in height. The minimum one hundred foot (100')
high portion of the building shall be located not farther than
five feet (5') from the lot line along front and corner lot lines.
c. The operation of uses within the building, including
accessory parking facilities, shall comply with the adopted
traffic demand management guidelines administered by the
city traffic engineer.
Additional Standards For Certain Height Modifications:
(1) The first one hundred feet (100') of height shall not be
set back from the street front more than five feet (5')
except that setbacks above the first fifty feet (50') may
be approved through the conditional building and site
design review process.
(2) Modifying the height will achieve the preservation of a
landmark site or contributing structure in an H historic
preservation overlay district.
7/10/2019 8 of 8
(3) Modifying the height will allow interim service
commercial uses to support the downtown community.
d. Special Controls Over Mid-Block Areas:
(1) Intent: Special controls shall apply to land located at
the middle of blocks. Such controls are needed to
establish coordinated levels of development intensity
and to promote better pedestrian and vehicular
circulation.
(2) Height Regulations: No building shall be more than
one hundred feet (100') in height; provided, that taller
buildings may be authorized through the Design
Review process, subject to the requirements of chapter
21A.59 of this title.
PIONEER PARK
400 S
300 S
200 S
100 S
S TEMPLE
N TEMPLE
I15
400 W500 W600 WI15
I80
VIADUCT
GMU
120’
D-4
120’D-4
375’
D-3
90’
CG
90’
D-2
120’
D-1
375’
LEGEND
D-1 = ZONING DISTRICT
375’ = MAX BUILDING HEIGHT (FT)
STATION
CENTER CORE
190’
GATEWAY MIXED USE - SURROUNDING ZONING 07.10.2019
300 S 400 W500 W600 WPROPOSED ZONE
FOR ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
STATION CENTER CORE DIAGRAM 07.10.2019
LEVEL 010' - 0"
LEVEL 01M10' - 0"
LEVEL 0220' - 0"
LEVEL 0334' - 0"
LEVEL 0448' - 0"
LEVEL 0562' - 0"
LEVEL 0676' - 0"
LEVEL 0790' - 0"
LEVEL 08104' - 0"
LEVEL 09118' - 0"
LEVEL 10132' - 0"
LEVEL 11146' - 0"
LEVEL 12160' - 0"
T/O ROOF190' - 0"
STATION CENTER CORE - HEIGHT DIAGRAM 07.10.2019
PARKING STRUCTURE
W/ ROOF TERRACE
(2 STORIES)
OFFICE TOWER
(12 STORIES)
190 FEET T/O ROOF HEIGHT
5. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
1 of 9
Project Description:
Gateway District Zone Text Amendment
August 23, 2019
Background:
The development of the Gateway District includes over 600 acres of land located
between Interstate 15 on the west, 300 West on the east, North Temple on the north
and 1000 South on the south end. In terms of the “Gateway” to Salt Lake City, this
district has long been regarded as that in terms of the Transportation Corridor into the
City, as the Gateway Specific Plan rightly points out:
“As a visual and welcoming gateway to the City from the regional highway
system and the Salt Lake City International Airport; as an orientation point and
initial image of downtown for visitors arriving by car or transit as they pass
through a new mixed-use urban district”.
Compliance with Salt Lake City Policy Directives:
The City recognized the importance of the area in its Gateway Specific Plan, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Council on August 11, 1998. This was further reinforced in the
document ‘Creating an Urban Neighborhood’, also adopted on August 1998. The City’s
Downtown Plan, adopted on May 24, 2016, also underlines the importance of the
“Depot District” as part of the logical extension of Salt Lake City’s downtown experience.
The roots of the district are embedded in the industrial character and uses. The
‘Creating and Urban Neighborhood’ document, the Gateway Specific Plan, and the
Downtown plan all recognize the evolving nature of the district as a mixed-use
neighborhood that is thought of as the Gateway to Salt Lake City and the Wasatch
Front.
The Creating an Urban Neighborhood document outlines Implementation Issues, which
include a strong recommendation to “work with designers and developers of the
intermodal station facility so that it provides a strong terminus to 300 south Street and
reinforces the connection between the station and the depot.” It remains important to
provide the level of emphasis to create an active urban environment on the 300 South
“Festival Street” corridor thus establishing the strong terminus that is outlined in the
Urban Neighborhood narrative. In order to accomplish this, there is a need to recognize
the type of development that will allow this to become a reality. The Urban
Neighborhood plan outlines the type of development that is to be encouraged. This
includes development such as offices, which entails working with the developers of
office space and creating a strong and vibrant district. To this end, it is also important to
consider the impact of employment opportunities, and the City’s recognition of
establishing this as a complete neighborhood includes the development of the
workplace along with other services. In order to accomplish this, it is essential to bring
the type of development, which can include some taller buildings to emphasize the
importance of the area in establishing this district, which has taken some time to take
place.
2 of 9
The City’s Downtown Plan provides for an Urban Design Framework and establishes
that “Urban design has a significant impact on the image of downtown by shaping its
urban form, distinguishing the character of districts and framing and detailing the public
realm.” The Plan describes the “Urban Form” as being the shape of the city. In terms
of height, the Plan indicates that “The 3D structure of downtown is a two-sided
pyramidal form with the highest points in the central Business District. Building height
gradually steps down to the south and west”, and provides this diagram as an
illustration:
This proposal recognizes the importance of maintaining a plan and the Downtown
Plan’s establishment of a massing profile for Salt Lake City can be maintained, while
also recognizing the need for a moderate amount of additional height in the Gateway
District – allowing a maximum building height of 190’. The emphasis on the Central
Business District is maintained, while the emphasis of creating a strong Gateway
District Hub is maintained in a similar fashion:
Zone Height change with extended two-sided pyramidal urban form with
the tallest buildings in the Central Business District
Additionally, the recognition of the “Gateway” that is outlined by the City’s Plans
includes the need to determine that a moderate amount of additional height in the
Gateway District does not diminish the view of downtown Salt Lake City from the 400
South Gateway Entrance. This remains important and remains intact when the
proposed additional height is allowed:
Line of sight from 400 South Gateway towards the downtown Central
Business District.
3 of 9
As the “initial image” of Salt Lake City’s downtown expression, the extension of a
downtown statement is essential. The image of a “downtown” place also includes the
ability for development to be attracted that is worthy of being the expression of an
extended downtown in terms of the type of businesses and the stature of a downtown
statement. With the heart of Salt Lake City’s downtown core being the State Street and
Main Street area as defined by the D1 Central Business District zoning, which is
characterized by strongly anchored block corners with buildings as much as 375 feet tall
and mid-block area buildings as tall as 100 feet.
The Downtown Zoning of the D1 Zone establishes:
The intent of the amendment would be to follow the established strategy of Salt
Lake City’s downtown zoning. That being to anchor the corners of intersecting
streets with taller buildings and reduce the height at midblock developments. The
Downtown Zoning of the D1 Zone states:
“Organization of District Regulations: In addition to regulations that apply
to the D-1 Central Business District as a whole, three (3) sets of
regulations are contained in this district that apply to specific geographical
areas:
• Special Controls Over Block Corners: These regulations apply only
to properties within a specified distance from street intersections,
as established in subsection E of this section. No corner building
shall be less than one hundred feet (100') nor more than three
hundred seventy-five feet (375') in height.
• Special Controls Over Mid-Block Areas: These regulations apply
only to the intervening property between block corner properties, as
established in subsection F of this section. No building shall be
more than one hundred feet (100') in height.
• Special Controls Over The Main Street Retail Core: These
regulations apply only to the Main Street retail core area, as
established in subsection G of this section. The regulations
governing block corners and mid-block areas also apply to the Main
Street retail core.”
The G-MU Zoning District currently allows heights of up to 120 feet. This has served
well in the development of much of the district over the past 20-ish years; however, in
order to honor the extension of Salt Lake City’s Downtown District as outlined by the
Gateway Specific Plan, additional height for the Core of the Station Center subdistrict
should be strongly considered.
Purpose:
As new development is considered in the Gateway District the underlying G-MU Zoning
should be carefully examined in light of the continuing effort that has been expended to
provide a basis for development of the district. In recent years, the City has had the
foresight to consolidate much of the land ownership in the immediate area of the
4 of 9
Intermodal Hub through the Redevelopment Agency. As this has happened, Salt Lake
City, including City Planning and the RDA, have established the Station Center
Development Area as a subdistrict, due to the proximity to our City’s intermodal hub and
also with its exposure as the true Salt Lake City Gateway from the west. In so doing,
the establishment of 300 South (Festival Street) now has become the center of the
district establishing a District Core with a higher relative intensity and a mixture of uses.
Essentially, Festival Street has become its own subdistrict within the G-MU. In order to
achieve the critical mass of the area, a strategic understanding of bringing this to life
also includes the ability to intensify this core area in the creation of a vibrant extension
of Downtown Salt Lake City. To this end, we propose an increase to the building height
limitations to facilitate the Goals and Aspirations of both the Gateway Specific Plan and
the Downtown Plan. The stated goals include:
• Create a positive and clear identity of Salt Lake City and the Gateway District
• Create a sense of place for the District that celebrates and supports
“Neighborhoods”, each with a distinct character and personality.
• Encourage development that strengthens and compliments the Central Business
District.
• Create a hierarchy of streets and open spaces that provide structure and
framework for the development of neighborhoods.
• Encourage a mix of uses with diversity in jobs, residents, and visitors that
balances neighborhood needs, has a vital street life and character, and results in
a thriving local economy.
• Encourage excellence in design of public infrastructure opportunities such as the
public transportation systems, and streetscapes that are elegant and fitting of a
Gateway.
• Look to traditional patterns of development in Salt Lake City as examples of the
kind of blocks and streets that encourage and support urban neighborhood
development.
• Require excellence in design through urban design standards that preserve
views and vistas, create pedestrian friendly and attractive streets, establish a
district character, and create landmarks and signature structures in architecture
and infrastructure.
This G-MU Amendment suggests that a similar philosophy to the D1 Central Business
District be adopted for the Station Center Development area further defining the area of
the 300 South/Festival Street as a core area of the G-MU District, with additional
building height defining the block corners. It is important that the Station Center Core
does not compete with the heart of downtown in terms of prominence, so this
Amendment provides for building heights at the corners of up to 190 feet and mid-block
building heights of up to 100 feet. Rather than changing building heights within the
entire district, and similar to recent modifications to the D4 Secondary Business District,
this amendment proposes a limited area of scope be included as depicted by the
accompanying exhibits.
5 of 9
Surrounding Zoning:
Salt Lake City Building Height Requirements:
21A.30.020: D-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT:
6. Height Regulations: No corner building shall be less than one hundred
feet (100') nor more than three hundred seventy-five feet (375') in
height. The minimum one hundred foot (100') high portion of the building
shall be located not farther than five feet (5') from the lot line along front
and corner lot lines. Buildings higher than three hundred seventy-five
feet (375') may be allowed in accordance with the provisions of
subsections E6a and E6b of this section.
a. Conditions For Taller Corner Buildings: Corner buildings may exceed
the three hundred seventy-five foot (375') height limit provided they
conform to the following requirements:
(1) To minimize excessive building mass at higher elevations and
preserve scenic views, some or all of the building mass over the three
hundred seventy five foot (375') height level shall be subject to
additional setback, as determined appropriate through the conditional
building and site design review process.
(2) Not less than one percent (1%) of the building construction budget
shall be used for enhanced amenities, including art visible to the public,
enhanced design elements of the exterior of the building or exterior
spaces available to the public for cultural or recreational activities. The
property owner shall not be required to exceed one hundred thousand
dollars ($100,000.00) in required amenities.
(3) The operation of uses within the building, including accessory parking
facilities, shall comply with the adopted traffic demand management
guidelines administered by the city traffic engineer.
b. Additional Standards For Certain Height Modifications:
(1) The first one hundred feet (100') of height shall not be set back from
the street front more than five feet (5') except that setbacks above the
first fifty feet (50') may be approved through the conditional building and
site design review process.
(2) Modifying the height will achieve the preservation of a landmark site or
contributing structure in an H historic preservation overlay district.
(3) Modifying the height will allow interim service commercial uses to
support the downtown community.
6 of 9
c. Conditional Building And Site Design Approval: A modification to the
height regulations in subsection E6a of this section may be granted
through the conditional building and site design review process, subject
to conformance with the standards and procedures of chapter 21A.59 of
this title.
F. Special Controls Over Mid-Block Areas:
1. Intent: Special controls shall apply to land located at the middle of
blocks. Such controls are needed to establish coordinated levels of
development intensity and to promote better pedestrian and vehicular
circulation.
2. Area Of Applicability: The controls established under this subsection
shall apply to:
a. Buildings constructed after April 12, 1995; and
b. All intervening land between block corner properties, as established in
subsection E2 of this section.
3. Height Regulations: No building shall be more than one hundred feet
(100') in height; provided, that taller buildings may be authorized
through the conditional building and site design review process, subject
to the requirements of chapter 21A.59 of this title.
21A.30.030: D-2 DOWNTOWN SUPPORT DISTRICT:
Maximum Building Height: No building shall exceed sixty five feet (65').
Buildings taller than sixty five feet (65') but less than one hundred twenty
feet (120') may be authorized through the conditional building and site
design process, subject to the requirements of chapter 21A.59 of this title.
21A.30.040: D-3 DOWNTOWN WAREHOUSE/RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:
Maximum Building Height: No building shall exceed seventy five feet (75').
Buildings taller than seventy five feet (75') but less than ninety feet (90')
may be authorized through the conditional building and site design review
process, provided the additional height is supported by the applicable
master plan, the overall square footage of the buildings is greater than fifty
percent (50%) residential use, and subject to the requirements of chapter
21A.59 of this title.
21A.30.045: D-4 DOWNTOWN SECONDARY CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT:
7 of 9
Maximum Building Height: No building shall exceed seventy five feet (75').
Buildings taller than seventy five feet (75') but less than one hundred
twenty feet (120') may be authorized through the conditional building and
site design review process, subject to the requirements of chapter 21A.59
of this title. Additional height may be allowed as specified below:
a. Additional Permitted Height Location: Additional height greater than one
hundred twenty feet (120') but not more than three hundred seventy five
feet (375') in height is permitted in the area bounded by:
(1) The centerlines of South Temple, West Temple, 200 South, and 200
West Streets; and
(2) Beginning at the Southeast Corner of Block 67, Plat 'A', Salt Lake City
Survey, and running thence along the south line of said Block 67,
N89°54'02"W 283.86 feet; thence N00°04'50"E 38.59 feet; thence
N10°46'51"W 238.70 feet; thence N24°45'15"W 62.98 feet; thence
S89°54'02"E 355.45 feet to the east line of said Block 67; thence along
said east line S00°06'35"W 330.14 feet to the point of beginning.
Contains 102,339 square feet, or 2.349 acres, more or less
21A.26.070: CG GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT:
Maximum Height: No building shall exceed sixty feet (60'). Buildings
higher than sixty feet (60') may be allowed in accordance with the
provisions of subsections F1 and F3 of this section.
1. Procedure For Modification: A modification to the height regulations in
this subsection F may be granted through the conditional building and site
design review process in conformance with the provisions of chapter
21A.59 of this title. In evaluating an application submitted pursuant to this
section, the Planning Commission or in the case of an administrative
approval the Planning Director or designee, shall find that the increased
height will result in improved site layout and amenities.
2. Landscaping: If additional floors are approved, increased landscaping
shall be provided over and above that which is normally required for
landscape yards, landscape buffer yards, and parking lot perimeter and
interior landscaping. The amount of increased landscaping shall be equal
to ten percent (10%) of the area of the additional floors.
3. Maximum Additional Height: Additional height shall be limited to thirty
feet (30'). (Ord. 66-13,2013: Ord. 15-13, 2013: Ord. 12-11, 2011: Ord. 61-
09 § 18, 2009: Ord. 3-01 § 2, 2001: Ord.35-99 § 27, 1999: Ord. 26-95
§2(13-6), 1995)
8 of 9
Existing G-MU Zoning Text:
E. Building Height: The minimum building height shall be forty five feet (45') and
the 200 South Street corridor shall have a minimum height of twenty five feet
(25'). The maximum building height shall not exceed seventy five feet (75')
except buildings with non-flat roofs (e.g., pitched, shed, mansard, gabled or
hipped roofs) may be allowed, up to a maximum of ninety feet (90') (subject to
subsection I of this section). The additional building height may incorporate
habitable space.
1. Conditional Building and Site Design Review: A modification to the
minimum building height or to the maximum building height (up to 120
feet) provisions of this section may be granted through the conditional
building and site design review process, subject to conformance with the
standards and procedures of chapter 21A.59 of this title, and subject to
compliance to the applicable master plan.
2. Height Exceptions: Spires, tower, or decorative noninhabitable
elements shall have a maximum height of ninety feet (90') and with
conditional building and site design review approval may exceed the
maximum height, subject to conformance with the standards and
procedures of chapter 21A.59 of this title
Proposed G-MU Zoning Text:
E. Building Height: The minimum building height shall be forty five feet (45') and
the 200 South Street corridor shall have a minimum height of twenty five feet
(25'). The maximum building height shall not exceed seventy five feet (75')
except buildings with non-flat roofs (e.g., pitched, shed, mansard, gabled or
hipped roofs) may be allowed, up to a maximum of ninety feet (90') (subject to
subsection I of this section). The additional building height may incorporate
habitable space.
1. Conditional Building and Site Design Review: A modification to the
minimum building height or to the maximum building height (up to 120
feet) provisions of this section may be granted through the conditional
building and site design review process, subject to conformance with the
standards and procedures of chapter 21A.59 of this title, and subject to
compliance to the applicable master plan.
2. Height Exceptions: Spires, tower, or decorative noninhabitable
elements shall have a maximum height of ninety feet (90') and with
conditional building and site design review approval may exceed the
maximum height, subject to conformance with the standards and
procedures of chapter 21A.59 of this title
3. Additional height may be allowed as specified below:
a. Additional Permitted Height Location: Additional height is
permitted in the area described by: The Accompanying
“Station Center Core Diagram”.
9 of 9
b. Height Regulations: No corner building shall be less than
one hundred feet (100') nor more than one hundred ninety
feet (190') in height. The minimum one hundred foot (100')
high portion of the building shall be located not farther than
five feet (5') from the lot line along front and corner lot lines.
c. The operation of uses within the building, including
accessory parking facilities, shall comply with the adopted
traffic demand management guidelines administered by the
city traffic engineer.
Additional Standards For Certain Height Modifications:
(1) The first one hundred feet (100') of height shall not be
set back from the street front more than five feet (5')
except that setbacks above the first fifty feet (50') may
be approved through the conditional building and site
design review process.
(2) Modifying the height will achieve the preservation of a
landmark site or contributing structure in an H historic
preservation overlay district.
(3) Modifying the height will allow interim service
commercial uses to support the downtown community.
d. Special Controls Over Mid-Block Areas:
(1) Intent: Special controls shall apply to land located at
the middle of blocks. Such controls are needed to
establish coordinated levels of development intensity
and to promote better pedestrian and vehicular
circulation.
(2) Height Regulations: No building shall be more than
one hundred feet (100') in height; provided, that taller
buildings may be authorized through the Design
Review process, subject to the requirements of chapter
21A.59 of this title.
6. MAILING LIST
Name Address1 Address2
GREYHOUND LINES INC PO BOX 52427 ATLANTA, GA 30355
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY
1400 DOUGLAS ST STOP 1640 OMAHA, NE 68179-
WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD CO;
ET AL
1400 DOUGLAS ST STOP 1640 OMAHA, NE 68179
UNION PACIFIC RAIL ROAD
COMPANY
1400 DOUGLAS ST STOP 1640 OMAHA, NE 68179-1640
D & R G W RAILROAD 1400 DOUGLAS ST STOP 1640 OMAHA, NE 68173-1640
216 DEVELOPMENT, LLC 801 N 500 W BOUNTIFUL, UT 84010
217 DEVELOPMENT LLC 801 N 500 W BOUNTIFUL, UT 84010
HART, RICHARD D 2030 S 750 E BOUNTIFUL, UT 84010
JACKLAND INVESTMENT, INC 4568 S HIGHLAND DR #290 MILLCREEK, UT 84117-4237
SIXTH SOUTH & SIXTH WEST, LC 5288 S COMMERCE DR MURRAY, UT 84107-4712
ARTSPACE CITY CENTER, LLC 150 E VINE ST MURRAY, UT 84107-4831
BAILEY, GREG R & JONI K; TRS 639 MOUNTAIN VIEW CIR NORTH SALT LAKE, UT 84054
YEUNG, JACKIE 563 W 200 S SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101-1116
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY 669 W 200 S SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101-1004
BRIDGE PROJECTS, LLC 230 S 500 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101-1129
BAHAJI PROPERTY, LLC 435 S 600 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101-1001
UTAH PAPER BOX COMPANY 920 S 700 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84104-1501
CENTRAL STATION APARTMENTS,
LLC
423 W BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101-1102
ZEBRA INVESTMENTS, LC 1335 S COLONIAL CIR SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108-2202
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5460
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT
LAKE CITY
PO BOX 145518 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5518
REDEVLOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT
LAKE CITY
PO BOX 145518 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5518
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT
LAKE CITY,
PO BOX 145518 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5518
NICHOLAS & CO PO BOX 45005 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84145-0005
358 OFFICE PLAZA ASSOCIATES,
LLC
358 S RIO GRANDE ST SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101-1106
TJT COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE LLC 190 E ROUNDTOFT DR SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103-2224
GIANELO, MARILYNN W; ET AL 81 S SKYCREST LN SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108-1604
3333-3335 SOUTH STATE, LC; ET AL 156 E SOUTHSANDRUN RD SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103
WIFCO LC 1947 E ST MARYS DR SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108-2245
STATE OF UTAH DIV OF FAC
CONSTR & MGMT
450 N STATE ST #4110 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114
STATE OF UTAH, DIVISION O F 450 N STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103
STATE OF UTAH, THE 450 N STATE OFFICE BLDG SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114
POLLOCK ENTERPRISES LLC 363 E TWELFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103-2849
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY 669 WEST 200 SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101
PAWL-UP, LLC 955 N 1300 W ST GEORGE, UT 84770
501 DENS, LLC 17830 W VALLEY HIGH WAY TUKWILA, WA 98188
Resident 559 W 200 S Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Resident 555 W 200 S Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1116
Resident 543 W 200 S Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1116
Resident 549 W 200 S Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1116
Resident 245 S 600 W Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1010
Resident 502 W 300 S Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1118
Resident 502 W 300 S #BLDG 2 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1118
Resident 210 S RIO GRANDE ST Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1104
Resident 220 S RIO GRANDE ST Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1104
Resident 570 W 400 S Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1109
Resident 550 W 400 S Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1109
Resident 420 S 500 W Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1110
Resident 404 S 500 W Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2208
Resident 428 S 500 W #TEMP Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Resident 503 W 400 S Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1110
Resident 360 S RIO GRANDE ST Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1106
Resident 565 S 600 W Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1002
Resident 651 W 600 S Salt Lake City, UT 84104-1015
Resident 569 W 600 S Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Resident 619 S 600 W Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1013
Resident 625 S 600 W Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Resident 675 W 600 S Salt Lake City, UT 84104-1015
Resident 270 S RIO GRANDE ST Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1104
Resident 300 S RIO GRANDE ST Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1106
Resident 320 S RIO GRANDE ST Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1106
Resident 346 S RIO GRANDE ST Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Resident 310 S 500 W Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1130
Resident 423 S 600 W Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1001
Resident 463 S 600 W Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1001
Resident 463 S 600 W #BLDG 3 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1001
Resident 463 S 600 W #BLDG 4 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1001
Resident 463 S 600 W #BLDG 5 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1001
Resident 463 S 600 W #BLDG 6 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1001
Resident 463 S 600 W #BLDG 7 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1001
Resident 219 S 600 W Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1116
Resident 577 W 200 S Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1116
Resident 579 W 200 S Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1116
Resident 551 S 600 W Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2214
Resident 553 S 600 W Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1002
Resident 555 S 600 W Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1002
Resident 565 W 200 S Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1116
Resident 575 W 200 S Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Resident 561 W 200 S Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1116
Resident 421 S 700 W Salt Lake City, UT 84104
Resident 435 S 700 W Salt Lake City, UT 84104-1087
Resident 648 W 600 S Salt Lake City, UT 84104-1014
Resident 511 W 200 S Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Resident 549 W 500 S Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2207
Resident 549 W 500 S #BLDG 2 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2207
Resident 535 W 300 S Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1119
Resident 616 W 200 S Salt Lake City, UT 84104-1003
Resident 540 W 400 S Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1109
Resident 300 S 600 W Salt Lake City, UT 00000
Resident 333 S 600 W Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1012
Resident 346 S 500 W Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1130
Salt Lake City Planning Division
Chris Lee
PO BOX 145480 Salt Lake City, UT 84114
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
and NEIGHBORHOODS
Marcia L. White
Director
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
achel Otto, Chief of Staff
TO: Salt Lake City Council
Chris Wharton, Chair
Date Received: 3 ·4 -~oo<..o
Date sent to Council: 'J· 1·7..010
DATE:
Tia . White , Director Department of Community & Neighborhoods
SUBJECT: PLNPCM2019-00639 GMU Building Height Proposal and relationship to
Downtown Master Plan
STAFF CONTACT: Nick Norris , Planning Director , 801-535-6173
DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Only
RECOMMENDATION: None at this time
BUDGET IMP ACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On January 14, 2020 the City Council held a work session
regarding PLNPCM2019-00639 which is a request to allow additional building height in portions
of the GMU zone. The council provided the direction for the council staff to convene a meeting
with council staff, the Plmming Division, and the Redevelopment Agency to discuss the adopted
master plans that are applicable to the area and the impacts that increasing the height may have
on future development , the master plan, and other zoning related issues.. That meeting was held
on February 6, 2020. At the meeting, the Planning Division and the RDA shared the same
opinion that increasing building heights should be done on a comprehensive basis , particularly
when the Downtown Master Plan suggests building heights that are less than the proposed height
of this private petition.
The following discussion provides a brief description of the issues discussed at the February 6,
2020 meeting as well as concerns that the Planning Division has with the proposed approach .
The intent is to provide the City Council with as much background information as possible
before deciding on the proposal. The Planning Division recognizes and agrees with the applicant
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404
P 0 BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY , UTAH 84114-5486
WWW.SLC.GOV
TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535 .6005
and the RDA that the building heights in the downtown area need to change to accommodate
growth.
• The need to accommodate growth where transit is reliable, frequent, and accessible; and
• That the Planning Division and RDA agree that height should be considered in a more
comprehensive approach and recognize that making changes could require a large
allocation of staff resources.
The following discussion provides a brief description of the potential issues with each of the
above items as well as concerns that the Planning Division has with the proposed approach. The
intent is to provide the City Council with as much background information as possible before
making a decision on the proposal.
February 6, 2020 Meeting Discussion of Issues
Applicants Presentation: the presentation made by the applicant during the January 14,
2020 City Council briefing had not been seen by the Planning Commission or staff of the
Planning Division. It is unknown if it is consistent with the adopted policies of the City
found in the Downtown Master Plan for this reason.
The need to expand the central business district: The central business district is nearing
capacity due to the pace of recent development, the presence of historic buildings, land
banking, and the difficulties in developing underutilized parcels. This is not a negative,
but not expanding the central business district will have a negative impact on downtown
and the vision of the Downtown Master Plan will not be able to be achieved. This is
relevant to the heights in the GMU zone because as the D1 zone expands, the
development gap is reduced and the “pyramid concept” in the Downtown Master Plan
becomes steeper. As the heights increase, they should increase in an incremental manner
across the entirety of the area within the Downtown Plan.
The impacts of building height: The Planning Division does support increasing building
heights in the downtown area. Increasing heights is necessary to help the city achieve a
development, economic, social, and housing goals and is necessary to leverage property
values to maintain property tax revenue.
However, the height of buildings does create impacts on adjacent properties as well as
public spaces. Taller buildings create micro-climates that can reduce access to sunlight,
create wind patterns that impact the sidewalk, create issues with falling snow or ice, and
may produce glare that increases the ambient heat near the building. These impacts need
to be considered when designing new buildings. The city does not have regulations that
address these issues. This proposal would not include a design review process which
means there would be no oversight of these issues in the design of the building.
Reducing sunlight has multiple effects, including blocking one property from being able
to receive direct sunlight which could reduce the ability for that property to utilize solar
energy, grow trees and plants, or utilize passive energy designs. The building could also
project long shadows in the winter that could reach the sidewalk on the opposite side of
the street, creating icing issues for pedestrians and within the travel lanes on the street.
There are some benefits to shadows from buildings, including reducing the heat felt on
the sidewalk during warmer months. Shadows can also lower the energy costs required
to cool the interiors of buildings.
A tall building deflects winds in different directions. When wind hits the face of building,
that wind is forced up, down, or around the building. When there are other tall buildings
in the area, the wind is directed up or down. Moving air will travel in the direction of
least resistance, which is typically down because the air moving above the building
blocks the lower air from moving up. This results in the wind moving towards the ground
until it hits the ground, where it then moves horizontally. This is evident when you walk
past tall buildings, particularly at intersections and feel wind. Buildings can be designed
to reduce this impact by including various step backs, weather protection like awnings, or
building intrusions to deflect the wind before it hits the ground.
Tall buildings do collect snow and ice. The One Utah Center frequently blocks entrances
and portions of the sidewalk to reduce the risk of large amounts of snow sliding onto
people on the sidewalk from the sloped roofs. Modern glass buildings build up ice on the
outsides of the building because the material does not retain heat and modern
construction prevents heat from escaping through the glass. Once the outside of the
building warms up from air temperature increases, the ice falls from the building. These
issues should be accounted for in the design of the building because they are direct
impacts to the health and safety of the public. Our zoning code does not include design
standards to address these issues without going through the design review process, but the
design review process does not include review standards to address all of the impacts.
Growth near transit. Plan Salt Lake provides guidance on where and how the city should
grow. One of the key guiding principles related to this is growing in areas that have the
existing infrastructure to support future growth. Plan Salt Lake was in the adoption
process at the same time as the Downtown Master Plan. The guiding principles of Plan
Salt Lake were incorporated into the Downtown Plan through specific policies and action
items. Growth around transit is a necessary part of the Downtown Plan and is necessary
to help the city achieve adopted goals and policies. Growth has to be accommodated in
comprehensive ways to ensure that the needs and impacts are addressed.
The Planning Division supports increasing the building heights in this area. This
proposal however does not provide the city with the ability to address growth in a way
that mitigates the impact so that the growth is an overall benefit to the public. Millions of
tax dollars have been invested in the and it is appropriate for the city to review
development in an appropriate manner to protect the public investment in the area so that
growth provides an overall benefit to the community by implementing the city’s adopted
master plans.
Planning Division Concerns with the proposed approach
Consistency with Utah State Code. Utah Code 10-9a-505 (2) states “the legislative body
shall endure that the regulations are uniform for each class or kind of buildings
throughout each zoning district, but the regulations in one zone may differ from those in
other zones.” This has been interpreted by the Planning Division to mean that regulations
within the same zoning district are applied equally. When it comes to building height,
that means that unless the zoning district creates different types of buildings, that the
same height regulations be applied to all buildings.
There are ways to allow additional building height in the same zoning district. This can
be achieved by defining specific types or class of buildings (such as what is done in the
form-based codes in the city), creating additional zoning districts, creating overlay
districts, or by creating sub-districts. This proposal would create a height map within the
GMU zone. There is some concern that this proposal violates 10-9a-505, even though
there are some zoning districts in the city that use the same approach (such as the height
map in the RMU zoning district or the D-4 height overlay).
Height and the relationship to affordable housing: Taller buildings are necessary to
achieve the goals of the city in the downtown area. In urban areas, height is also one of
the largest incentive cities can use to achieve other goals. The Planning Division is
currently working on an affordable housing overlay. The overlay would provide some
incentive, typically additional development potential, in exchange for providing a certain
level of affordable housing. Increasing building heights reduces the effectiveness of an
overlay such as this because it increases the development potential “by-right.” When this
increase in development potential is greater than what the current market can provide, the
overlay becomes ineffective. Outside of the Central Business District, the building
heights are low enough that the market may support additional building height through an
affordable housing overlay.
Height and relationship to historic preservation
Preserving historic buildings is a stated goal of several adopted plans of the city,
including Plan Salt Lake, The City Preservation Plan, and the Downtown Master Plan.
Development potential has a direct impact on historic buildings and promotes the
demolition of historic buildings when the market demand is high. Increasing building
height increases the development potential of a property and promotes redevelopment.
Downtown buildings that are not otherwise protected by being a designated local
landmark or in a local historic district are at threat of demolition when the development
potential and the economy are strong.
On this issue there are often competing and somewhat paradoxical approaches:
increasing the development potential of the downtown area by expanding the Central
Business District while at the same time finding a way to promote preservation. One tool
that could be beneficial to help address this is the transfer of development rights.
The pressure to demolish and redevelop parcels with older buildings will continue to
grow provided the economy is strong. One of the tools that can be used to help protect
historic buildings and promote growth is transfer of development rights. This tool allows
the unrealized development potential of a parcel to be transferred to another parcel in
order to protect something of value, in this case historic buildings. This allows the
property owner to sell that right to be applied elsewhere. However, for this to work the
development demand on the receiving parcel must exceed the existing development right.
Increasing the heights may make such a program ineffective. This tool also requires
certain administrative oversight to regulate the long term development rights through a
“bank” that tracks which parcels have transferred their rights and which parcels received
those rights.
The issue of building height demonstrates the intricate nature of regulating building heights, how
quickly development pressures can change and why master plans are considered guiding
documents. Within the last few years, there have been several instances where proposals for
additional building height have been scaled down or a change not supported. The first was with
the changes to the TSA zoning district and the building heights in the Urban Core area of the
TSA zone. This was discussed during the public process and there was no support to increase
the heights. This area where the additional height was being considered was adjacent to the
GMU zone on the north side of North Temple. The second location was along 400 South east of
200 East (adjacent to a D1 zone) to 400 East. Both times the policies of the applicable master
plans were followed and the height maintained as is. The height issue was again raised during
the approval process for the Exchange Project, located at 400 South and 300 East. The developer
stated that their building would have been taller if the zoning would have allowed more height.
This example provides some guidance regarding the ability of an affordable housing overlay to
grant additional building height when affordable units are provided.
Recently there have been two requests to increase the height in the D-4 zone, which is adjacent
to the D-1 zone and located between South Temple and 200 South and West Temple and 300
West.
• Convention Center Hotel: Despite bordering the D1 zone and having D1 zoning extend as
far west as 300 West (along South Temple), the height was limited to 375 feet and only in
the area between West Temple and 200 West and South Temple to 200 South.
• Block 67: The developers of Block 67 later made a request to increase the building height
in the D-4 zone for a portion of their project located on the corner of 200 South and 200
West –extending the convention center overlay farther west. That proposal was scaled
down to a portion of a specific parcel instead of the full request to be consistent with a
view corridor found in the Urban Design Element. This is a relevant example because
the same view corridor extends through the central station area and is one of the reasons
why the heights were established.
These examples are pointed out to help provide some recent history and context on requests to
modify building height requirements that were viewed differently than the current proposal. The
Downtown Master Plan supports increasing building heights in the Downtown area and the
recent development pressures have provided better understanding of the development needs and
constrains related to building heights in most of the downtown area. But there are mixed
messages being sent regarding when the height recommendations in adopted master plans are to
be followed or not followed. The Planning Division does agree with others who have said that
the view corridor is no longer relevant because the public views are or could be blocked by
buildings built to the existing height in the GMU zone. Furthermore, the Planning Division does
not support policies that promote private views over development needs of the city or views that
are only visible from a vehicle travelling on an interstate. The most prominent public view that
is elevated in this area is from the 400 South bridge. This bridge includes sidewalks and
provides an elevated view towards the central business district. The top of the bridge is
approximately 35 feet above the ground. The adjacent parcels to the north are zoned GMU and
D3. Both zones have a permitted building height up to 75 feet in height, with additional height
authorized through the design review process. The current zoning regulations would permit
buildings to block the views of the historic buildings in the Central Business District from this
vantage point.
Moving Forward
The pending proposal before the city council could be improved to address at least some of the
issues identified above and the council has the authority to do so. Specifically, requiring
buildings over a certain height to go through the design review process would enable the
Planning Commission to evaluate the impacts of height. The design review process contains
specific standards related to height that could address some of the issues in this report:
o Modulating taller buildings to establish steps in the building facades;
o Minimize shallow impacts, and
o Including features that serve as wind breaks above the first floor of the building.
o The design of the roof and cornice lines to complement surrounding buildings and
build a cohesive pattern with the rest of the building.
The proposal eliminates design review for additional height for the area in question.
The uniformity law is a more challenging component to overcome. The simplest path forward
would be to allow nonresidential buildings to be taller. This creates a different standard for two
different types of buildings. However, it would ultimately lead to the demolition of most of the
older building stock in the GMU zone because it would increase the development potential. This
area is in a national historic district and city policies support preserving historic buildings in
national historic districts.
The Planning Division does believe that there is an argument to be made that a height map
within a specific zoning district could be interpreted to be a form of an overlay because it applies
different regulations to a specific geographic area for a specific purpose and the city has a history
of utilizing a similar approach. The City Attorney’s Office may not support this argument.
PUBLIC PROCESS: See the previous transmittal on this petition.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Received: 9/28/2020
Date Sent to Council: 9/28/2020
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 9/28/2020
Chris Wharton, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Historic Landmark Commission
STAFF CONTACT: Sandy Casement
sandy.casement@slcgov.com
Board Appointment Recommendation:
Historic Landmark Commission
DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint John Ewanowski
as a member of the Historic Landmark Commission.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
September 28, 2020
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Wharton,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Historic Landmark Commission:
John Ewanowski – to be appointed for a term ending in four years starting the date of City Council advice and
consent.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Received: 10/5/2020
Date Sent to Council: 10/5/2020
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 10/5/2020
Chris Wharton, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Historic Landmark Commission
STAFF CONTACT: Sandy Casement
sandy.casement@slcgov.com
Board Appointment Recommendation:
Historic Landmark Commission
DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Babs DeLay as a
member of the Historic Landmark Commission.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
October 5, 2020
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Wharton,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Historic Landmark Commission:
Babs DeLay – to be appointed for a term ending in four years starting the date of City Council advice and
consent.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Received: 9/28/2020
Date Sent to Council: 9/28/2020
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 9/28/2020
Chris Wharton, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Historic Landmark Commission
STAFF CONTACT: Sandy Casement
sandy.casement@slcgov.com
Board Appointment Recommendation:
Historic Landmark Commission
DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Aiden Lillie as a
member of the Historic Landmark Commission.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
September 28, 2020
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Wharton,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Historic Landmark Commission:
Aiden Lillie – to be appointed for a term ending in four years starting the date of City Council advice and
consent.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Received: 10/6/2020
Date Sent to Council: 10/6/2020
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 10/6/2020
Chris Wharton, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Business Advisory Board
STAFF CONTACT:
DOCUMENT TYPE:
Sandy Casement
Sandy.Casement@slcgov.com
Board Appointment Recommendation: Business Advisory Board.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Kristen Lavelett as an ex-
officio member of the Business Advisory Board.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
October 6, 2020
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Wharton,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership reappointment to the Business Advisory Board.
Kristen Lavelett – to be appointed for a term ending January 1, 2021. Kristen had been inadvertently serving unofficially since January 2017. The Administration would like to count this as time served towards her term limit and make this her final term.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
REVISED City Council Announcements
October 20, 2020
NEW - Information Needed by Council Staff
A. Council/School Board Leadership Meeting Scheduled for Friday,
October 23
Mayor Mendenhall has been invited to join this meeting. The School Board is in
the process of gathering their agenda topics and once received, Council staff will
share those topics with you.
Please let Council staff know if you have any other topics to add to the agenda
items below:
Discuss more about the RDA project areas, funding, how the property tax
increment splits and come up with a plan for further discussion regarding
project areas.
5G cell towers on school properties
Model where all teaching is remote with computer labs at schools, staff
with paraprofessionals, open for kids who need to come in for internet
connection and help.
For Your Information
A. TANF III (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) Fairpark
Afterschool Program funding grant – Request for Additional FTE
(Full-time Employee)
In March 2020, when the Council was originally notified of this grant application,
the Administration requested one new FTE position. Recently, it was discovered
that the grant needs a total of two FTE’s. The Council Chair and Vice-Chair
wanted to alert Council Members of this change.
This grant appears in the Administration’s Grant Holding Transmittal which
will be considered under the Oct. 20th Consent Agenda.
PLEASE SEE NEXT PAGE
B. Wasatch Choice Workshop - November 16
The Wasatch Front Regional Council is holding a series of digital workshops for
elected and appointed municipal officials to give their views on how best to
address the Wasatch Choice 2050 Plan during the pandemic. The 2050 Plan is a
regional plan adopted by the WFRC to address transportation, land-use and
housing issues along the Wasatch Front to the year 2050.
The workshop available for Salt Lake City officials to attend is November 16
from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. The meeting will be held via Zoom.
Council staff plans to ask Regional Council staff to email each Council
Member separate invitations to the workshop.