Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Provided Information - 3/10/2026CITY 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: Austin Kimmel DATE:March 10, 2026 RE: ORDINANCE: MASTER PLAN AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AT APPROXIMATELY 527, 537, AND 539 SOUTH 400 EAST NEW INFORMATION Topic Question Answer From Petitioner Item Schedule: Page | 2 Parking Capacity & Demand What is the parking demand at Citizen 1, and will there be adequate capacity for Citizen 2 residents? Total stalls in structure: 284 Current demand at Citizen 1 is 0.7 stalls per unit, equal to the Salt Lake City market average according to the petitioner. When fully leased, Citizen 1 will use about 199 stalls, leaving 86 vacant. Citizen 2 will be required to provide a minimum of 0.5 stalls per unit, or about 60 to 76 stalls, depending on the unit mix. Combined demand is 275 stalls, with 199 for Citizen 1 and up to 76 for Citizen 2, leaving 10 extra stalls. The petitioner feels confident in adequate capacity. Parking Fees How much do tenants pay to park in the parking structure? Open garage parking: $100/month Reserved parking: $150/month EV reserved parking: $200/month Denver Street Parking Egress & Transportation Analysis Was a transportation analysis conducted for the Denver Street parking egress? Why was Denver Street chosen given concerns about the narrow street and congestion? Initial design included egress on both Denver Street and 400 East (preferred by developer) According to the petitioner, Salt Lake City required egress to be located on Denver Street. This pattern is consistent with other nearby developments (Velo on the Boulevard, Encore), which also have main parking egress on Denver Street. According to Planning staff, an associated traffic study for the Citizen 1 planning process could not be found. The following information was provided for the February 17 work session. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will be briefed on a proposal to amend the Central Community Master Plan's future land use map and the zoning map for three parcels located at 527, 537, and 539 South 400 East in Council District Four. The proposed general plan amendment would amend the Central Community Master Plan’s future land use map from Medium-High Density Residential to High-Density Mixed-Use. The proposed zoning map amendment would rezone the property from RMF-45 (moderate/high density multifamily residential) to MU-5 (mixed use). The applicant’s stated objective is to construct an apartment building called Citizen 2 with studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units, and about 1,100 square feet of ground-floor retail along 400 East. No unit breakdown, renderings, or site plans have been submitted at this stage. The three parcels total 0.41 acres, or 17,724 square feet. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its December 10, 2025, meeting and held a public hearing, during which three people spoke. Comments included doubt about whether the ground-floor commercial space is a true community benefit, citing mixed results at other projects, a preference for for-sale units instead of Page | 3 rentals, and support from a resident of the neighboring Citizen 1 project. One commenter also raised concerns about the Thriving in Place ordinance broadly, questioning whether the community benefit standard is adequate Page | 3 given the value developers receive from upzoning. They fear developers may choose to pay the fine for noncompliance with the community benefit requirement, thereby limiting the benefit neighborhoods should receive. Planning staff recommended approval, and the Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation for the proposed general plan and zoning map amendment to the City Council. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed general plan and zoning map amendment and determine if the Council supports moving forward. The Council will then hold a public hearing and consider adopting these changes at future meetings. POLICY QUESTIONS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Page | 4 Rezoning the property from RMF-45 to MU- 5 would permit ground-floor commercial use, a one-story height increase (10 feet), and an increase in allowed density, among other changes. As shown in the image on the right, the subject property is adjacent to an existing MU-8 property and is in an area that also features MU-2, MU-6, RMF-75, and other zones. While single-family homes currently occupy the subject property, it does not abut any single-family specific zoning districts. The proposed community benefit includes about 1,100 square feet of ground floor commercial space, or 50% of the ground floor façade. Tenant relocation assistance and unit replacement will be included in the project’s eventual development agreement if the proposed changes are adopted by the Council. If the MU-5 is approved by the Council, the project would fall within the “Urban Center Context” under the City’s Off Street Parking ordinance, since it is about 1/3 mile from a TRAX station. In this context, there are no minimum parking requirements for studios, 0.5 spaces for 1-bedroom units, and 1 space for units with 2 or more bedrooms. Area zoning map with subject parcel outlined in blue. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division The applicant states residents of the anticipated project will share parking and other amenities with the existing apartment building to the north, Citizen 1, which is the same owner. If the Council adopts the zoning map amendment, there is no guarantee the proposed development will be constructed. The property could be redeveloped with any use allowed within the zone or sold to another party. The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. Because zoning 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. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONDITIONS The proposed ordinance included in the administrative transmittal requires the petitioner to enter into a development agreement with Salt Lake City that includes the following conditions: a. All three demolished residential dwelling units on the Property shall be replaced within the development with at least three 2-bedroom units in accordance with Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.50.050.E1. Page | 5 b. A minimum of 1,100 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor of a building on the Property, which commercial space shall be accessible from 400 East. c. Tenants displaced by the demolition of residential dwelling units on the Property shall be provided with tenant relocation assistance in accordance with Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.50.050.D KEY CONSIDERATIONS In its staff report to the Planning Commission, Planning staff identified three key considerations, summarized below. The complete analysis is on pages 4-12 of the report, linked in the ATTACHMENTS section below. Consideration 1 – How the Proposal Helps Implement City Goals & Policies Identified in Adopted Plans Planning staff found the proposed amendments generally align with the goals identified in adopted plans listed below, including the Central Community Master Plan, which the applicant seeks to amend. Plan Salt Lake (2015): the proposal aligns with the citywide plan in the following areas: o Neighborhoods: adding about 1,100 sq. ft. of ground-floor commercial (50% of the building’s frontage) to promote walkability and social interaction on a stretch of 400 East that currently lacks these amenities. o Growth: concentrates development near existing infrastructure, such as TRAX, bus routes, and bike lanes, and encourages mixed-use infill. o Housing: allows moderate-density housing consistent with the surrounding area, with units ranging from studios to two-bedrooms. Housing SLC (2013): the proposal contributes to the plan’s goal of entitling 10,000 new housing units in the city by increasing units at a site currently occupied by three single-family homes. Central Community Master Plan (2005): the request to amend the plan from medium-high density residential to high-density mixed-use meets the goals for transit-accessible housing and pedestrian-oriented development. The proposal also aligns with other recent development in the area, such as the 2018 approval for a master plan and zoning map amendment that resulted in the six-story project (Citizen 1) to the north. The 2018 project is under the same ownership, and this proposal is intended to complement that neighboring property. 400 South Livable Communities Project – Transit-Oriented Development (2012): the subject property is within one-third mile of the Library TRAX Station, so it is consistent with the plan’s strategy for Transition Areas by allowing mixed-use development with ground-floor commercial. Consideration 2 – Community Benefit, Unit Replacement, and Tenant Displacement Proposals Community Benefit Analysis: Section 21A.50.050.C of Salt Lake City Code requires all private property owner- initiated zoning amendments to identify community benefits that would not otherwise be provided. Planning staff identified the proposed ground-floor commercial space as meeting the requirement. Tenant Displacement and Unit Replacement: three single-family homes (two currently occupied) occupy the three subject parcels and are intended to be demolished. The applicant plans to replace the demolished units in the new development with comparable bedroom counts at the same or lower rent. Additionally, the applicant has submitted a tenant relocation plan that includes moving assistance and reimbursement for deposits and application fees, in accordance with City Code Section 21A.50.050.D. Consideration 3 – RMF-45 and MU-5 Zoning District Comparison Building Height: Increases from 45 feet (4 stories) to 55 feet (5 stories), maintaining an appropriate transition between the taller structures to the north and lower-scale development to the south. Page | 6 Permitted Density and Setbacks: The current RMF-45 zone would allow about 15 units, while the proposed MU- 5 zone has no unit maximum and instead is regulated by bulk and design standards. The setbacks under the proposed MU-5 zone are expected to support pedestrian-oriented design. Design Standards: The current RMF-45 district does not have design standards and the subject properties are not in a historic district. The proposed MU-5 zone would require durable materials, glazing and lighting standards, active ground floors, and limits on blank walls. CURRENT AND PROPOSED ZONING STANDARDS The tables below compare zoning standards for both the current and proposed zones and are found on page 11 of the Planning Commission staff report. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment D of the Planning Commission staff report outlines the following general plan amendment and zoning map amendment standards for decision-makers to consider. The standards and findings are summarized in the chart below. General Plan Amendment Factor Finding Whether the proposal is consistent with citywide policies.Complies Whether the proposal is consistent with the goals, policies, or implementation actions of the general plan, including applicable element plans. Complies Whether significant change has occurred that warrants the creation of a new plan or an update to an adopted plan. Complies Whether the goals, policies, or implementation actions of the plan to be amended have been achieved, are no longer relevant to or capable of addressing the Complies Page | 7 current issues or needs of the neighborhood or the city, or are no longer aligned with policies in citywide plans. For petitions submitted by a property owner, the extent, effectiveness, and proportionality of the public benefit proposed by the petitioner to the increase in development potential if the proposal were to be adopted by the city council. Complies 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. Complies 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. N/A The potential impacts to properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposal.Complies The potential impacts on the city to provide safe drinking water, storm water, and sewer to the property based on the additional development potential of future development. Complies The potential impacts to public safety resources created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment Complies The potential impacts to any other city service, infrastructure, or resource that may be impacted by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. Complies Zoning Map Amendment Factor Finding 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. Complies Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the applicable purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies 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. Complies 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 Page | 8 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; though the applicant will be required to provide waste- removal facilities with any development application. 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. Complies 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. Complies The potential impacts to public safety resources created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. Complies 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. Complies 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 Complies; no existing businesses on property The community benefits that would result from the proposed map amendment.Complies CITY DEPARTMENT AND DIVISION REVIEW The proposal was reviewed by the Department of Public Utilities and the Housing Stability, Transportation, and Building Services Divisions within the Community and Neighborhoods Department. Responding departments and divisions did not oppose the proposed rezone. Public Utilities and Housing Stability provided recommendations and comments to guide the petitioner as they redevelop the property. Additional details can be found on pages 30-31 of the Planning Commission staff report. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY July 11, 2025 – Application for a Zoning Map Amendment reviewed for pre-screen. July 11, 2025 – Application for a Zoning Map Amendment was accepted. July 21, 2025 – Petition PLNPCM2025-00704 for a zoning map amendment was assigned to Olivia Cvetko, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. October 1, 2025 – Petition for a Master Plan Amendment reviewed for pre-screen. Petition for a Master Plan Amendment was accepted. Petition PLNPCM2025-00984 for a Master Plan Amendment was assigned to Olivia Cvetko, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. Page | 9 Notice was sent to the East Bench Community Council Recognized Community Organization (RCO) informing them of the petitions. Early notification of the project was also sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal. The proposal was posted for an online open house. The proposal can still be viewed online. An Early Notification sign was posted on the properties by the applicant. The applicant presented their proposal at the Central City Community Council meeting November 15, 2025 – The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. November 26, 2025 – Planning Staff posted notices on City and State websites and sent notices via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting. Public hearing notices were mailed. November 24, 2025 – Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. December 4, 2025 – Planning Commission Staff Report was posted. December 10, 2025 – Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed map amendment. December 17, 2025 – Requested Final Draft of Ordinance from Attorney’s Office. January 16, 2026 – Final Draft of Ordinance received from Attorney’s Office. January 23, 2026 – Transmittal received in City Council Office ATTACHMENTS A.Planning Commission Staff Report