Council Provided Information - 7/18/2023CITY 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:July 18, 2023
RE: 1782 South 1600 East Zoning Map and Future Land Use Map Amendments
PLNPCM2022-01138/-01139
The Council will be briefed about a proposed zoning map amendment for the property located at 1782
South 1600 East in City Council District Seven, from its current R-1/7,000 (single-family residential)
designation to SR-3 (special development pattern residential). The proposal also calls for amending the
Sugar House Community Master Plan future land use map from low density residential to medium density
residential. The petitioner’s stated objective is to construct a small custom or modular home for himself on
the irregularly shaped lot.
The surrounding zoning is R-1/7,000 except for the green shaded City-owned Blaine Preserve Natural Area
shown in the zoning map below. SR-3 zoning is used within the interior portion of the block for a variety of
housing types in scale with the area development character. This zoning designation was requested due to
reduced lot width requirements and side yard setbacks. It is not typically found in this area of the city.
Planning staff noted the following: “The subject property is an illegal lot created through a nonapproved
subdivision. This means that a prior property owner recorded deeds subdividing the property without
ensuring the property met the zoning requirements for a subdivision and without a subdivision
amendment.” (Planning Commission staff report, page 2)
A 2020 administrative interpretation by the City Planning Division determined the property did not meet
requirements to be considered a legal complying lot. The petitioner appealed that decision to the City Land
Use Appeals Hearing Officer who upheld the administrative interpretation. The petitioner is now seeking to
amend the zoning and future land use maps to potentially construct a home on the property.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: July 18, 2023
Set Date: June 6, 2023
Public Hearing: July 18, 2023
Potential Action: August 8, 2023
Page | 2
The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at its March 22, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing
at which twelve people spoke. Nine people, including a representative of the Sugar House Community
Council, expressed opposition to the proposal, and three people were supportive.
Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission voted 6-5 to forward a negative
recommendation to the Council. Commissioners who were opposed to the proposal and shared why they
voted to send a negative recommendation cited the property being an illegal lot and inappropriately sized
to construct a home. Because the Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation, no
ordinance was included with the Administration’s transmittal. The Council Chair and Vice-Chair asked
staff to request an ordinance from the Attorney’s Office which is included in the meeting materials.
Planning staff also noted that the requested amendments do not legalize the subdivision of the subject
property, nor make the property a buildable lot. If the zoning and future land use map requests are
approved by the Council, the petitioner would need planned development, preliminary subdivision, and
final plat approval for the lot to be buildable prior to applying for permits to construct a house.
The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and the accompanying future land use
map amendment. No formal site plan has been submitted to the City nor is it within the scope of the
Council’s role to review the plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any
rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not
simply based on a potential project.
Area zoning map with the subject property outlined in blue.
Note-the green shaded area is the City-owned Blaine Preserve Natural Area.
Page | 3
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map and text amendments, determine if the Council
supports moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.The Council may wish to weigh the need for additional housing against changing the zoning
designation to a zone with very different development standards from existing area zoning.
2.Does the Council think a development agreement limiting the number of dwelling units on the
property to one would help ease neighbors’ concerns?
3.The Council may wish to ask the petitioner if residents who use the property to access their garages
will be able to continue if the subject parcel is developed. If so, will that be through an easement?
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 4-8 of
the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the
staff report.
Consideration 1-How the proposal helps implement City goals and policies identified in
adopted plans.
The subject property is within the Sugar House Community Master Plan area which designates the
properties in this neighborhood as low density residential. The plan calls for medium density residential to
generally be located near collector streets, mixed-use/higher density neighborhoods and near
neighborhood commercial zoning and business districts.
Planning staff noted the property is referred to as a flag lot by the petitioner, but it does not comply with
zoning regulations associated with flag lots. Sugar House Community Master Plan policy statements
associated with flag lots do not support this amendment.
It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposal generally does not align with goals or policy statements
within the Sugar House Community Master Plan. They found the current R-1/7,000 zoning aligns with the
future land use map.
Plan Salt Lake includes initiatives and goals to increase housing units. However, Planning noted the
proposed amendments include developing an illegally subdivided parcel in an existing neighborhood. This
would promote a dwelling unit on property that functions as a rear yard and has challenging access.
Planning staff found the initiatives and goals in Plan Salt Lake do not support the proposed amendments.
Consideration 2-Comparison of R-1/7,000 and SR-3
The table below compares the current R-1/7,000 and proposed SR-3 zoning. Primary differences include
reduced lot sizes, and allowing single-family attached, twin homes, and two-family dwellings in SR-3. In
addition, Planning staff found developing the subject property under current zoning is not permitted due to
its configuration, access, lot width and the legality issues noted above.
Based on the lot size and reduced square footage requirements under the proposed SR-3 zoning, Planning
staff believes three dwelling units could be built on the property. However, Planning believes it would be
difficult to fit more than one single-family dwelling on the property, which is the property owner’s stated
intention. Potential density on the lot would be dependent on a subdivision and planned development to
approve the illegal lot.
Page | 4
R-1/7,000 SR-3
Building Height 28 feet for pitched roofs
20 feet for flat roofs
28 feet for pitched roofs
20 feet for flat roofs
Average height of other buildings
Front Setback Average of block face Average of block face
If no block face exists, 10 feet
Side Setback
Corner Setback
6 feet and 10 feet
6 feet
Single-family detached: 4 feet
Single-family attached: 4 feet
when abutting a single-family
detached zone, otherwise no yard
required.
Rear Setback 25 feet 20% of the lot depth but not less
than 15 feet, no more than 30
feet.
Lot Minimums 7,000 square feet Single-family detached:
2,000 square feet;
Single-family attached:
1,500 square feet;
Two-family: 3,000 square feet.
Lot Width 50 feet Single-family detached
-Interior lots: 30 feet
-Corner lots: 40 feet
Single-family attached
-Interior lots: 22 feet
-Corner lots: 32 feet
Two-family
-Interior lots: 44 feet
-Corner lots: 54 feet
Maximum Building Coverage 40%Single-family detached: 60%
Single-family attached: 70%
Consideration 3-Spot Zoning
It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposed zoning and future map amendments are generally
considered spot zoning. The requested SR-3 zoning differs significantly from the existing and established
single-family residential zoning district.
Analysis of Factors
Attachment F (pages 51-53) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards
that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal.
Page | 5
Zoning Map Amendments
Factor Finding
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of
the city as stated through its various adopted
planning documents.
The proposal is not consistent with
Plan Salt Lake or the Sugar House
Plan.
Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
General Purpose and Intent of the
Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed amendments
generally support or has no
appreciable on the general
purpose and intent of the zoning
ordinance.
Zoning District Purpose
The proposed map amendment
would allow for medium density
development, which would not be
compatible with the existing scale
of the neighborhood. The
properties within this
neighborhood primarily consist of
R-1/7,000 zoning.
The property owner is requesting
development rights on a portion of
the property that was illegally
subdivided. The amendments are
to accommodate a single-family
dwelling and to legalize the
subdivision. Staff believes that
these amendments would be to
relieve a hardship and would
grant special privileges to this
property owner. There has not
been substantial change in public
policy that would warrant the
requested amendments.
The extent to which a proposed map amendment will
affect adjacent properties
The proposed SR-3 zone will
impose different development
regulations than the R-1/7,000
district.
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with the purposes and provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts which may impose additional
standards.
The map amendment doesn’t
conflict with any overlays that
affect the property.
The adequacy of public facilities and services
intended to serve the subject property, including, but
not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational
facilities, police and fire protection, schools,
stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and
wastewater and refuse collection.
The City’s public facilities and
services have adequate capacity to
serve the additional dwellings that
would be allowed with this rezone.
City Department Review
During City review of the petitions, other than Planning staff’s recommendation to deny the proposals, no
Page | 6
responding departments or divisions expressed objections to the proposal, but provided, or stated they
would provide, comments that are applicable if the property is developed.
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• December 5, 2022-Petitions submitted.
• January 30, 2023-Zoning map amendment petitions assigned to Liz Hart.
• February 24, 2023-
o Routed for review.
o Notice sent to Sugar House Community Council, and Downtown Alliance.
o Notice sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal.
• April 17, 2023- Applicant and Planning staff attended the Sugar House Community Council Land
Use Committee meeting.
• April 26, 2023-Planning Commission public hearing. The Commission forwarded a negative
recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments,
so no ordinance was included with the Administration’s transmittal. (As noted above, the City
Council Chair and Vice-Chair requested an ordinance, which is included in the meeting
paperwork.)
• May 11, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office.
1782
South
1600 East
Zoning Map and Master Plan
Amendment
Applicant: Blaine Properties LLC
•Property is classified as two
independent parcels by Salt
Lake County
•Property is classified as a
single lot per Salt Lake City
Planning
•Application is limited to the
parcel with the “flag”
configurement
•Currently zoned as R-1-7000
•Requesting SR-3 Zone
Portion of Progress Heights Second Addition Plat contrasted with current site condition.
“In-fill ordinances provide both property owners and developers with options to
increase the number of units on particular parcels through out the city…”
…Missing Middle Housing types are those that current zoning practices have
either dramatically reduced or eliminated altogether…
“Apart from traditional in-fill ordinances, responding to the
unusual age, form, and shape, of housing stock, should be
addressed and leveraged to add incremental density” pg. 19
“Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land” pg. 19
“Increase the number of medium density housing types and options” pg. 21
“Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where
appropriate” pg. 21
“It will be critical for us to encourage and support a diversity of
new housing options and types with a range of densities
throughout the City to best meet the changing population”
pg. 21
PLNPCM2022-01138 & PLNPCM2022-01139
1782 S 1600 E MAP AND PLAN AMENDMENT
Property Location:
1782 S 1600 E
Prior Applications:
Administrative Interpretation (2020) &
Appeal (2020). The outcome of these
applications was that the property is not a
legal buildable lot. The property is
considered to part of 1572 E Blaine Ave.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
PROPERTY HISTORY
1572 E Blaine Avenue View of the Drive Access of 1782 S 1600 E
Looking East from 1782 S 1600 E Looking South from 1782 S 1600 E
The applicant is seeking to amend the
zoning map from R-1/7000 (Single-
Family Residential) to SR-3 (Special
Development Pattern Residential)
zoning district.
The amendment is sought to
accommodate a single-family
detached dwelling.
SR-3 was identified as the desired
district due to reduced lot width
requirements and setbacks.
PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
R-1/7000 SR-3
Building
Height
28’ for pitched
roofs
20’ for flat
roofs
28’ for pitched roofs
20’ for flat roofs or average height of other buildings
Front Setback Average of
block face
Average of block face.
If no block face exists, 10’.
Side Setback
Corner Side
Setback
6’ and 10’
6’
Single-family detached: 4’
Single-family attached: 4’ when abutting a sfd, otherwise no
yard required
Rear Setback 25’20% of lot depth but not less than 15’ no more than 30’
Lot
Minimums
7,000 square
feet
SFD: 2,000 square feet
SFA: 1,500 square feet
Two-family: 3,000 square feet
Lot Width 50’SFD: 30’ (Interior) or 40’ (corner)
SFA: 22’ (Interior) or 32’ (corner)
TF: 44’ (Interior) or 54’ (corner)
Building
Coverage
40%SFD: 60%
SFA: 70%
ZONING DISTRICT COMPARISON
Land Use Changes:
Dwelling, single-family attached
Dwelling, twin home and two-family
The applicant is
requesting to amend
the Sugar House
Future Land Use Map
from Low Density
Residential (5-10
dwelling units per
acre) to Medium
Density Residential (8-
20 dwelling units per
acre).
The proposed plan
amendment matches
the density allowance
for SR-3.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT
Sugar House Plan
Applicable policies for low density residential:
•Support and enhance the dominant, single-family character of the existing low-density residential
neighborhoods.
•Maintain the unique character of older, predominantly low-density neighborhoods.
•Prohibit the expansion of non-residential land uses into areas of primarily low-density dwelling units.
Applicable location criteria for medium density residential:
•Proximity to arterial or collector streets;
•Proximity to higher density residential areas, mixed-use areas, neighborhood commercial nodes or the
urban town center of the Business District;
•Proximity to existing and proposed parks and open space;
•Prohibit the expansion of non-residential land use into areas of medium density residential.
Applicable policies for medium density residential:
•Encourage new medium density housing opportunities in appropriate locations in Sugar House.
•Encourage a variety of densities in the medium density range while ensuring the design o these projects
is compatible with surrounding residential structures.
•Continue to prohibit the development of the “box car” design of multi-family dwellings.
•Encourage street patterns that connect with other streets.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Plan Salt Lake
Applicable Policies: Neighborhoods, Growth and Housing.
Growing SLC
Applicable Policy: Increase Housing Options
Summary: As noted in the staff report, the proposed amendments generally do not align with the
established and adopted plans, policies and goals. The neighborhood is well-established with R-1/7000
zoning. The property does not meet the intent of the location parameters for medium density classification
in the Sugar House Future Land Use Map. Ultimately, the amendments are sought to legalize an illegal
subdivision for the purposes of development. These goals do not align with the identified policy statements
or objectives.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
QUESTIONS