Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Provided Information - 8/19/2025CITY 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 19, 2025 RE: Standards for Design Review Text Amendment PLNPCM2024-00294 PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE No one spoke at the public hearing about this item. The Council closed the hearing and deferred action to a future meeting. The following information was provided for previous meetings. It is included again for background purposes. BRIEFING UPDATE During the July 1, 2025 briefing Council Members discussed the proposal requiring windows to be recessed three inches from a building’s façade. Planning staff stated the window reveal would be required for all new construction that goes through the design review process. Some Council Members suggested exempting developments with a percentage of affordable units from this requirement which could potentially reduce construction costs and rents. Planning staff discussed the proposal to allow a maximum 25% building length increase beyond what is allowed in the base zoning district for projects going through the design review process. This would result in a maximum building length of 250 feet. Council Members discussed allowing additional building length for projects that incorporate affordable housing. Currently, there is not a maximum building length in City code. As discussed below, schools, stadiums, libraries, convention centers, schools, theaters, and other similar uses would be exempt from the proposed maximum building length. Planning recommended not allowing Item Schedule: Page | 2 reductions in ground floor active use and pedestrian interest requirements if building length is increased beyond what is allowed in the base zoning. Updated Recommendations See Attachment A to read their full analysis. Receives design review approval, Maintains active ground floor use requirements, and Meets affordable housing incentive levels outlined in City code. Staff note: The Council may want to continue the August 12, 2025 public hearing and schedule a follow- up briefing for Planning staff to discuss the updated recommendations. the Commission voted unanimously 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 QUESTION Page | 3 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Design reviews allow limited changes to design standards with a goal of ensuring larger developments that significantly impact the city, achieve their desired outcomes and benefit the community. Ensuring developments are compatible with the surrounding area and mitigating impacts they could have on existing infrastructure and public spaces are addressed during the design review. According to the transmittal, the proposed amendment’s primary goal is to create human-centered, walkable communities. An additional goal is to improve clarity for applicants and consistency from Planning staff during the review process. The amendment is designed to ensure new projects meet current and future needs as well as contribute to the City’s long-term goals. Planning staff evaluated each standard’s intent and reviewed previous approvals to determine the effectiveness of current code language in desired results. Public and commission comments were also considered when drafting the proposed text amendment. Planning staff identified two key considerations related to the proposal, found on pages 3-10 of the August 28, 2024, Planning Commission staff report, and briefly summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the Planning staff report. Consideration 1 – Proposed Ordinance Changes: Planning’s proposal amends City code Chapter 21A.59-Design Review. Three sections in this chapter, outlined below, would be affected. Additionally, the proposal includes new standards that apply to all projects requiring design review approval. The proposed changes are listed below. Design Review Process (21A.59.030) – Streetscape study requirement (New) A streetscape study requirement to show how a proposed building integrates with the existing block face. This would be used to compare new buildings with existing development patterns. Design Review Standards Applicability (21A.59.045.A) Clarifies each design review standard in this section, except for Subsection E (applicable when a building exceeds allowed street facing façade length), and Subsection G (applicable for buildings seeking additional height). These subsections are discussed below. Standards for Design Review (21A.59.050) Deletes repetitive standards found elsewhere in the zoning ordinance. Clarifies existing language to ensure standards are applied and reviewed consistently. The following subsections are most affected by the proposal. Subsection C: Pedestrian Interest Active ground floor uses are to be located near public sidewalks. Street facing facades to provide maximum transparency. Ground floor windows cannot be covered or blocked to prevent looking into the building. Commercial buildings are to have traditional storefront elements. Buildings with ground floor residential uses are to have a unit entrance with entry feature. Buildings on corner lots are to include a publicly accessible, transparent, and unobstructed corner entrance. If provided, outdoor uses should be located sidewalks or midblock walkway. Page | 4 Subsection D: Building Massing Proposal calls for eliminating the building modulation standard. The Planning Commission felt the standard did not result in high quality designs. Additional standards related to building mass, scale, and other design features found elsewhere in City code have been relocated to this chapter and the language has been modified for clarity. A requirement to recess windows three inches is being proposed to add dimensionality to building facades as was recently added to new construction in local historic districts. (Buildings fully clad in glass are exempt.) o The Council may want to discuss the balance between potentially increased costs of an enhanced building design with a desire for affordable housing in the city. Subsection E: Street Facing Façade Length Currently, building length can be increased without limit through design review process. Proposal limits building length increase to a maximum of 25% through design review. Under the proposal ground floor requirements cannot be reduced through design review. Some uses including schools, stadiums, libraries, convention centers, schools, theaters, and other similar uses determined by the zoning administrator are exempt from the building length limit. Subsection G: Additional Building Height The following are proposed for deletion: Stepback standards - these are regulated in the design standards chapter. Cornices and Rooflines - these have been prescriptive and difficult to administer. Building modulation - could limit development rights if a building must be stepped up or down from a shorter building on a neighboring property. Shadow study for buildings seeking additional height - due to climate change, shaded outdoor spaces are increasingly seen as beneficial. Subsections B, F, H, I, J, and K These subsections with standards related to building orientation, publicly accessible spaces, parking, screening of service areas, lighting, and streetscape improvements have minor suggested changes to improve clarity, and reduce redundancy if standards are required elsewhere in the ordinance. A final review may still be required during the building permit process. The following standards are proposed to be added to the ordinance: Move a requirement for a distinct base on buildings taller than three stories to Subsection D, which focuses on massing. New standard requiring buildings adjacent to a landmark site to include a horizontal element that aligns with a corresponding element of the historic building. Consideration 2 – How the Proposal Helps Implement City Goals & Policies Identified in Adopted Plans: Planning staff believes the proposed changes align with principles and concepts found in Plan Salt Lake, and the Urban Design Element to enhance compatibility, quality, and pedestrian-oriented design features in new developments. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment C (pages 27-29) 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. Page | 5 Factor Finding Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Complies (Local historic district preservation standards would supersede those in the design review chapter.) The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. Complies The 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 reduce review times and not increase impact on City resources. The impact that the proposed text amendment may have on other properties that would be subject to the proposal and properties adjacent to subject properties. Standards are intended to reduce impacts to adjacent properties through high quality design, street level engagement, and infrastructure upgrades. The community benefits that would result from the proposed text amendment, as identified in 21A.50.050.C. Enhanced design review benefits the community with higher quality design PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • November 18, 2023 – Planning Commission initiated petition to amend design review chapter. • March 14, 2024 – Petition assigned to Amanda Roman, Urban Designer. • March 27, 2024 – Planning Commission briefing. • June 26, 2024 – Second Planning Commission briefing. • July 2, 2024 – o 45-day comment period begins. o Notice sent to all registered community organizations. • July 5, 2024 – Initial information posted to the City’s online open house webpage. • July 18, 2024 – Planning staff presented the proposal to the Liberty Wells Community Council. Page | 6 • July 20, 2024 – Planning staff provided a write-up about the proposal for the Greater Avenues Community Council’s August 2024 newsletter. • August 8, 2024 – Planning staff presented the proposal to the East Liberty Park Community Council. • August 15, 2024 – Public hearing notice posted to City and State websites. • August 16, 2024 – Public hearing notice posted at the Main Library, Chapman, and Sprague branch libraries. • August 28, 2024 – Planning Commission briefing and public hearing. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. • October 23, 2024 – Ordinance requested from the Attorney’s Office. • March 12, 2025 – Ordinance received from the Attorney’s Office. • May 15, 2025 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.