Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Provided Information - 10/7/2025 COUNCILSTAFFREPORT CITY COUNCILof SALT LAKE CITYTO:City Council MembersFROM:Brian FullmerPolicy AnalystDATE:October 7, 2025RE:Text Amendment: Changes to Zoning Incentives for Building Preservation/Adaptive Reuse PLNPCM2025-00039BRIEFING UPDATEDuring the August 19, 2025 briefing Council Members expressed general support for the proposal. In response to questions, Planning staff clarified there would not be substantive changes to what is allowed when utilizing the building preservation and adaptive reuse incentives. Proposed changes would streamline the process by allowing administrative review. Planning also clarified an intent of the changes would require retaining structures that qualified for the incentives if there is new construction on the site.Planning provided examples of projects in the city that used the incentives. They noted there is not a limit to the number of times a one-yeartime extension could be requested but each request would be evaluated on its merits.The following information was provided for previous meetings. It is included again for background purposes.ISSUE AT A GLANCEThe Council will be briefed about aproposed text amendment from the Administration related tobuilding preservation incentives and adaptive reuse. The Council adopted an ordinance in July 2024 that provides optional benefits for development projects that preserve eligible buildings. Since that time, through several building preservation incentive applications and questions from potential applicants, Planning staff identified some parts of the ordinance that would benefit from clarification and modifications, so the ordinance works as intended. The proposed changes are discussed in the additional information section below.The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at its April 23, 2025 meeting and held a public hearing at which one person spoke expressing general support for the proposed text amendment. TheCommission voted 5-0 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.Goal of the briefing:Review the proposed text amendment and determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal.POLICY QUESTIONThe Council may wish to ask if there are any changes to the proposed text amendment resulting from adoption of the Mixed-Use consolidation ordinance.ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONThere are two categories of incentives available through the building preservation incentives and adaptive reuse ordinance:“A” Incentives (Adaptive Reuse for Additional Uses in Eligible Buildings) allow land uses not typically permitted so buildings can be redeveloped for economically viable uses. Examples include local landmark sites, buildings on the National Register of Historic Places, and buildings that were constructed as schools, churches, or hospitals.“B” Incentives (Preservation of a Principal Building) allow flexibility with specific zoning regulations and streamlines the planning process when keeping or using an eligible building. The incentives can also be applied to new construction within the same development.Planning staff identified five issues and proposes the ordinance changes outlined below:Expand scope of modifications that can be reviewed administratively for building preservation incentive applications.Issue:Changes eligible to be reviewed administratively were inadvertently limited to additional building height for building preservation incentives projects. Affordable housing incentives can be reviewed administratively for both height and design standards modifications, but review of incentives for building preservation other than height must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. If an application requests additional building height it is reviewed by the Planning Director for compliance with all design review standards. However, if the application also requests changes to design standards such as glass percentage or building entrance spacing, the Planning Commission must review those modifications for compliance with only standards related to the proposed modifications, even though the project was already reviewed for all standards during the height review. This duplication of effort can add several months to the approval process.Proposed Change:Allow administrative design review for any request that requires design review approval. Update Design Standard for Garage Doors Facing a Street.Issue: Current design standards prohibit garage doors on a street facing façade. This works for some developments such as townhomes, but it can be a barrier for others such as multi-family, mixed-use, or commercial buildings with structured parking and limited parking access from the property’s side or rear. This, coupled with preserving existing buildings, poses significant challenges.Proposed Change: Garage door standard applies only to single-family attached dwellings.Authorizes Modifications to Maximum Yard RequirementsIssue:Currently, the ordinance allows administrative authorization to modify minimum yard requirements. However, when using preservation/adaptive building reuse incentives, some flexibility in the maximum yard requirements is needed.Proposed Change: Allow modifications to the maximum yard requirements in zones that have them.Clarifies Restrictive Covenant RequirementsIssue: The ordinance currently requires preservation incentives to remain in place for a minimum of 30 years but only for new buildings on the site.Proposed Chage: Apply the 30-year requirement for all new development, such as additions to an existing building, even if the incentives aren’t applied to a new building on the site.Allow a Time Extension Request for Preliminary ApprovalsIssue: Preliminary approvals of incentive applications are valid for one year unless building plans are submitted to Building Services. If plans are not submitted within one year, the preliminary approval will expire, requiring the applicant to reapply for preliminary approval.Proposed Change: Allow the Planning Director to grant a one-year extension, provided there has not been any change to the proposed project. This will eliminate applicant resubmittals, saving staff time and delays caused by redundant review.KEY CONSIDERATIONPlanning staff identified one key consideration related to the proposal, found on pages4-8of the Planning Commission staff report, andbriefly summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the Planning staff report.Consideration 1 – How the Proposal Helps Implement City Goals & Policies Identified in Adopted Plans:It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposed text amendment aligns with many principles and concepts found in Plan Salt Lake, Housing SLC, Sustainable Salt Lake, Climate Positive 2040, the Salt Lake City Community Preservation Plan, and Thriving in Place, as well as several neighborhood plans.ANALYSIS OF STANDARDSAttachment B (pages13-15)of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning text amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal.The standards and findings are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information.FactorFindingWhether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents.CompliesWhether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.CompliesWhether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards.Base and overlay zoning district standards take precedence over the proposed incentives.The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design.CompliesThe impact that the proposed text amendment may have on city resources necessary to carry out the provisions and processes required by this title.Proposal is intended to streamline the application process and likely won’t increase impact on City resources.The community benefits that would result from the proposed text amendment, as identified in 21A.50.050.C.Only applicable to privately initiated amendments. (Mayor Mendenhall initiated this text amendment.)PROJECT CHRONOLOGY January 14, 2025–Petition initiated by Mayor Erin Mendenhall. February 13, 2025 – Notice sent to all registered recognized organizations in the city, beginning 45-day comment period. Proposal posted to the Planning Division online open house page. April 11, 2025 –Planning Commission public hearing notice posted on the Utah Public Notice website and at the following public libraries: Main, Glendale, and Sprague. April 23, 2025 – Planning Commission briefing and public hearing. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. April 29, 2025 – Ordinance requested from the Attorney’s Office. June 2, 2025 – Ordinance received from the Attorney’s Office. July 3, 2025 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.