HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Provided Information - 8/12/2025CITY 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:August 12, 2025
RE: Zoning Map Amendment at 2157 South Lincoln Street
PLNPCM2023-00239
August 12, 2025, UPDATE
On December 12, 2023 the Council adopted an ordinance rezoning the property at 2157 South Lincoln
Street subject to the property owner entering into a development agreement with the City within one year
(December 12, 2024).
There were several delays with finalizing the development agreement by the deadline, but work on the
agreement is progressing. The applicant has requested the Council grant an extension until February 12,
2026 to finalize the development agreement. Planning staff supports the request. If the Council is
supportive of granting the extension, it may approve a resolution extending the deadline during the August
12, 2025 formal meeting.
The following information was provided for previous Council meetings. It is included
again for background purposes.
PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE
Three people spoke at the November 7, 2023 public hearing in support of the proposed zoning map
amendment. They all expressed a desire for 10-foot-wide sidewalks adjacent to the potential development.
One commenter also suggested a condition that the developer enter into a development agreement with the
City to ensure the site’s Victorian home is preserved.
The Council closed the hearing and deferred action to a future meeting.
BRIEFING UPDATE
Item Schedule:
Page | 3
During the October 3, 2023 briefing Council Members expressed general support for the proposal. A desire
to maintain park strips and trees along the Lincoln Street and Elm Avenue frontages was expressed rather
than extending the sidewalks to the curb. Planning staff stated if a condition to increase sidewalk width is
not included in the ordinance or a development agreement, sidewalk widths required under City Code
would apply.
The following information was provided for the September 5, 2023 Council briefing
and public hearing. It is included again for background purposes.
Page | 4
Area zoning map with the subject parcel outlined in blue and the project area outlined in red.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed zoning map amendment during its July 26, 2023
meeting and held a public hearing at which three people, including a representative from the Sugar House
Community Council spoke. The commenters were supportive of the proposed zoning map amendment, but
expressed concerns about parking, landscaping, and sidewalk width.
Commissioners discussed sidewalk width and whether to recommend a condition requiring minimum 10-
foot-wide sidewalks as called for in the Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan. It is
worth noting some Commissioners felt the additional width was beneficial for the area, while others
expressed concerns with loss of park strips and trees.
The Commission voted 5-2 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. As
part of its recommendation, the Commission included the above-mentioned condition to
preserve the Victorian home, and a second condition to extend the width of sidewalks
abutting the subject parcels to include the park strip area.
Page | 5
Paul said sidewalk width should be specified if the Council wants to include that.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to ask the applicant if they would be amenable to including affordable units
in the proposed development. If yes, is the Council interested in asking the applicant if they would
be willing to enter into a development agreement pertaining to affordable housing units?
2. The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the recently transmitted Affordable Housing
Incentives proposal may impact this petition or development potential on the property if the
petitioner will consider affordable units.
3. If supportive of the zoning map amendment, the Council may wish to discuss whether to require a
development agreement that preserves the Victorian home.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. A formal site plan has been submitted to
the City, but it is not within the scope of the Council’s authority to review the plans. (It is worth noting that
the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the petitioner’s design review application at the
same meeting it voted to forward a positive recommendation to the Council on the zoning map
amendment.) Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application
should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential
project.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified four key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 6-8 of
the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the
staff report.
Planning staff noted the Sugar House Master Plan future land use map designates the subject property as
“Business District Mixed-Use Neighborhood Scale.” This is consistent with the future land use map’s
designation for all other parcels on the block. It is Planning’s opinion that the requested change from RB to
CSHBD2 zoning designation is reasonable and appropriate for the location.
As shown in the map above, area zoning is predominantly CSHBD2 on the subject block and blocks to the
east and west. FB-SE, R-1/5,000, and CSHBD2 are to the south. Nearby land uses are a mix of commercial
and residential. Smith’s grocery store is immediately to the west across Lincoln Street, low- and moderate-
density residential, and a tire shop are to the north. A small office building, duplexes and high-density
housing is to the northeast. Single-family residential is across Elm Avenue to the south.
Planning found that the proposal is consistent with the CSHBD zoning district purpose statement which
says: “The purpose of the CSHBD Sugar House Business District is to promote a walkable community with
a transit oriented, mixed-use town center that can support a 24-hour population. The CSHBD provides
residential, commercial and office use opportunities, with incentives for high density residential land uses
in a manner compatible with the existing form and function of the Sugar House Master Plan and the Sugar
House Business District.”
Page | 6
Planning staff further found that the proposal meets various principles and initiatives found in the Sugar
House Master Plan (2005), Plan Salt Lake (2015), and the SLC Urban Design Element (1990).
Consideration 4 – Preservation of the Victorian Mansion
The petitioner proposes preserving the Victorian home on the subject property. As mentioned above, the
home is not in a historic district and has no protection from demolition. Planning staff noted the home
would provide an anchor for the project, and act as a buffer between the proposed development and single-
family residential to the south across Elm Avenue. Planning staff and the Planning Commission
recommended including a development agreement to preserve the home if the Council is supportive of the
proposed zoning map amendment.
The petitioner provided the following concept rendering illustrating how the Victorian home could be
incorporated into the proposed development.
Image courtesy of petitioner
ZONING COMPARISON
The following table compares building height and setback requirements for the current RB and proposed
CSHBD2 zoning districts.
RB (Current)CSHBD2 (Proposed)
Maximum Building Height 30 feet 60 feet for residential use.
30 feet for nonresidential use.
Front Setback 20% of lot depth, but need not exceed
25 feet.
No minimum yard required.
Maximum setback is 15 feet.
Page | 6
Side Setback Corner side yard: 10 feet.
Interior side yard: 6 feet; provided,
that on interior lots one yard must be
at least ten feet.
Corner side yard: no minimum yard
required. Maximum setback is 15 feet.
Interior side yard: None required.
Rear Setback 25% of lot depth, but the yard need not
exceed 30 feet.
None required.
Analysis of Factors
Attachment D (pages 67-68) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment
standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are
summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information.
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.
Complies
Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
Complies
The extent to which a proposed map amendment will
affect adjacent properties
Complies
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with the purposes and provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts which may impose additional
standards.
Not applicable
The adequacy of public facilities and services
intended to serve the subject property, including, but
not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational
facilities, police and fire protection, schools,
stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and
wastewater and refuse collection.
Complies
City Department Review
During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed concerns with the
proposal, but stated additional review and permits would be required if the property is developed.
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• April 14, 2023-Petition for zoning map amendment received by Planning Division.
• May 15, 2023-Petition assigned to Lex Traughber, Senior Planner.
o Notice mailed to the Sugar House Community Council and Sugar House Chamber of
Commerce.
Page | 7
• June 7, 2023-Petitioner presented their proposal to the Sugar House Community Council, with
Planning staff in attendance.
• June 26, 2023-Early notification mailed to property owners and tenants located within 300 feet of
the subject property boundaries.
• July 12, 2023-Property posted with signs for the July 26, 2023 Planning Commission hearing.
• July 13, 2023-Public hearing notice mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of
the subject property. Planning Commission agenda emailed to Planning listserv. Project posted to
City Planning and State websites.
• July 26, 2023-Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission voted to forward a
positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment.
• July 31, 2023-Draft ordinance sent to the City Attorney’s Office for review.
• August 3, 2023-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office.
• September 8, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office.