Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Provided Information - 4/7/2026CITY 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:April 7, 2026 RE: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 256 East 300 South PLNPCM2024-00423 BRIEFING UPDATE During the March 10, 2026 City Council briefing, Council Members expressed concerns with the proposed zoning map amendment and hotel. These included a lack of housing in the project, a lack of setbacks, and height difference between the current MU-8 and proposed D-1 zoning. Setting a precedent for the D-1 zone to continue east was also discussed. The applicant said they considered housing or other uses on the site, but those would not be financially feasible. If housing was added to the hotel, it would increase the building’s height. They also noted vacancies in other area residential buildings. The applicant said they believe proposed amenities for the hotel will be a benefit to the public. Council Members discussed the area recently being rezoned and impact of those changes has not yet been evaluated. Some Council Members believe there are other zoning options for the site. The following information was provided for the March 10, 2026 briefing. It is included again for background purposes. ISSUE AT A GLANCE The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for the parcel at 256 East 300 South in City Council District Four from its current MU-8 (Mixed-Use 8) zoning to D-1 (Central Business District). It is worth noting that the property was zoned R-MU (Residential Mixed-Use) at the time the application was submitted. That zoning was changed to MU-8 as part of the mixed-use zoning Item Schedule: Page | 2 consolidation adopted by the Council in 2025. The property is being used as a paid parking lot for area offices, retail establishments, and restaurants. The applicant’s stated objective is to construct an approximately 180-foot-tall hotel on the property. Planning staff recommended, and the Commission voted 5-2 to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council. Commissioners who were opposed to the rezone had concerns with the potential height allowed in the D-1 zone. Commissioners supporting the rezone suggested a development agreement limiting building height to the applicant’s proposed 180 feet. Although the current hotel design is 180 feet tall, the applicant proposes a maximum future building height of up to 225 feet on the property. This is the height proposed on a nearby zoning text amendment for property at 265 East 100 South near St. Mark’s Cathedral. The applicant believes it is reasonable to request the same height. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Page | 3 Area zoning map with the subject property outlined in blue. Buildings on the block are mostly apartments, offices, and commercial uses. The historic Sampson Altadena building is to the east of the subject property, and a building with primarily fitness-related businesses is immediately to the west. Buildings fronting 300 South are generally between three and ten stories and increase in height as they get closer to 200 East where zoning changes to D-1 and buildings are much taller. Both the Downtown and Central Community Master Plans indicate 200 East is where downtown transitions to urban neighborhood to the east. Current MU-8 zoning does not allow hotels or motels, and building height is limited to 45-90 feet depending on uses and building types (design review would be required for buildings taller than 75 feet). The requested D-1 zoning allows hotels and motels, and does not have a maximum building height, though there is a 100-foot minimum building height. The applicant provided a concept plan for the proposed hotel in their zoning amendment application found in Attachment B (pages 10-32) of the Planning Commission staff report. This conceptual plan has not been reviewed by Planning and may change if the property is developed. It is important to note that if the Council adopts the zoning map amendment, there is no guarantee the proposed hotel will be constructed. The property could be redeveloped with any use allowed within the D-1 zone (subject to conditions of a potential development agreement) or sold to another party. The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a Page | 4 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 Consideration 1 – General Plan Compatibility Plan Salt Lake, the Central Community Neighborhood Plan, the East Downtown Neighborhood Plan, the Downtown Plan, and Housing SLC. These are summarized below. A detailed discussion is found in Attachment E (pages 41-44) of the Planning Commission staff report. Plan Salt Lake support the rezone proposal, other initiatives in the plan, including urban design and neighborhood character, do not. Housing Salt Lake is focused on addressing housing-related issues in the city. Building a hotel on the site would not meet the goals of that plan, though if housing were developed on the site, it would. Consideration 2 – Neighborhood Concerns Zoning Comparison Parameter MU-8 (Existing)D-1 (Proposed) Building Height Residential Buildings: 45-90 feet depending on use and building type Minimum: 100 feet No Maximum Front and Corner Side Yard Rowhouses: Minimum 10 feet, maximum 20 feet. Multi-family residential/storefront/vertical mixed-use: 1. Ground floor Page | 5 occupied by residential uses: a.Minimum: 10 feet b.Maximum: 20 feet 2. Ground floor occupied by non- residential uses: a.Minimum: none, except 5 feet on North Temple and 10 feet on 400 South b.Maximum: 10 feet, except 15 feet on North Temple and 20 feet on 400 South. Interior Side Yard Rowhouses: Minimum 4 feet Multi-family residential/storefront/vertical mixed-use: No minimum except when interior side yard abuts R-1, R-2, FR, SR, FB- UN1, RMF-30/35, MU-2/3 the minimum is 10 feet. 8 feet Rear Yard Rowhouses: minimum 10 feet. When the rear yard abuts an R-1, R-2, FR, SR, FB-UN1, RMF-30, MU-2/3 along the rear lot line, the minimum is 20 feet. Multi-family residential/storefront/vertical mixed-use: minimum 20 feet. When the rear yard abuts an R-1, R-2, FR, SR, FB-UN1, RMF-30/35, MU-2/3 along the rear lot line, the minimum is 20 feet. None required If provided, must include at least one amenity found in 21A.30.020.C.1.a Analysis of Standards Attachment F (pages 45-51) 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 Page | 6 Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with and helps implement the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Does not comply Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Does not comply The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent and nearby properties due to the change in development potential and allowed uses that do not currently apply to the property. Would significantly impact nearby properties due to additional development potential. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. N/A 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. Public utility infrastructure likely insufficient for development scale in D-1 zoning. Other public facilities appear adequate. The status of existing transportation facilities, any planned changes to the transportation facilities, and the impact that the proposed amendment may have on the city’ s ability, need, and timing of future transportation improvements. Adequate public transportation facilities. The proximity of necessary amenities such as parks, open space, schools, fresh food, entertainment, cultural facilities, and the ability of current and future residents to access these amenities without having to rely on a personal vehicle. Site is accessible to listed amenities without reliance on a personal vehicle. The potential impacts to public safety resources created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. Public safety impacts can be mitigated with staffing and design meeting PD site review. The potential for displacement of people who reside in any housing that is within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. No residents would be displaced. Page | 7 The potential for displacement of any business that is located within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. Little potential for displacement of beneficial businesses. The community benefits that would result from the proposed map amendment. Proposed community benefit not proportional to requested density. City Department Review In addition to findings from the Police and Public Utilities noted above, the Housing Stability Division advised giving assurances to current nearby commercial and residential tenants that any negative construction-related impacts will be mitigated. They also recommended that the developer meet with community organizations before construction. No other responding departments or divisions expressed concerns with the proposal. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • April 11, 2024 – Petition for zoning map amendment received by Planning Division. • April 22, 2024 – Petition assigned to Aaron Barlow, Senior Planner • April 23, 2024 – o Information about the proposal was sent to the Central City Community Council to solicit public comments and start the 45-day recognized organization input and comment period. o Planning staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site, providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. • April-November 2024 – Online open house. • June – October 2024 – Planning staff worked with the applicant to improve the quality of their application material, including refining the applicant’s analysis of relevant standards, reviewing options for meeting the community benefit requirements, and addressing concerns brought up by the community. • October 31, 2024 – Planning staff posted notices on City and State websites and sent notices via the Planning listserv for the November 13, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. Public hearing notice mailed. • November 1, 2024 – Planning staff posted a public hearing notice sign on the property with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing. • November 13, 2024 – The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the request and voted 5- 2 to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. • November 2024-April 2025 – The applicant worked on updating their proposal (with support from Planning and Public Utilities staff) to include additional community benefits for City Council review. • February 4, 2025 – Ordinance requested from City Attorney’s Office. Page | 8 • February 21, 2025 – Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • May 8, 2025 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.