Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Provided Information - 5/19/2026CITY 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:May 19, 2026 RE: Zoning Map Amendment at 1726 South Jefferson Street and 1750 South Jefferson Circle (Mansell Manor) PLNPCM2025-00690 PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE One person spoke at the May 5, 2026 public hearing expressing appreciation for the Housing Authority being a good neighbor. She felt the Planning Commission’s recommendation to rezone the property to MU- 8 was arbitrary and suggested MU-5 zoning would be more appropriate for the site. The following information was provided for previous Council meetings. It is included again for background purposes. BRIEFING UPDATE During the March 10, 2026 City Council briefing, Council Members clarified that the proposed replacement units will not count toward the 15% of affordable units to meet community benefit requirements. They also asked about the Planning Commission’s recommendation to change proposed zoning from MU-5 to MU-8. Planning staff said it would provide a good transition to lower density zoning. It was noted that the applicant likely would not build higher than MU-5 allows. The Council will be briefed about a proposal from the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (HASLC) to amend the zoning map for the parcel at 1726 South Jefferson Street and a portion of the parcel at 1750 South Jefferson Circle in City Council District Five. HASLC’s stated objective is to construct a multi-family development on the properties. Twenty two-bedroom townhomes on the properties would be demolished under the proposed plan. If demolished, the applicant would be required to replace the townhomes with units at a similar rental rate and would be required to provide relocation assistance to displaced tenants. Item Schedule: Page | 2 No draft site plans have been submitted to date, though the applicant estimates 160-200 one- to three- bedroom units could be developed on the site. Exact unit count and configuration will be determined if the requested zoning map amendment is adopted by the Council. It is unknown at this point if the proposed units will be rentals or for sale. Currently the 1726 parcel is zoned MU-11 (Mixed-Use 11), and the 1750 parcel is zoned RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) as shown in the images below. The Council is being asked to consider MU-8 (Mixed-Use 8) zoning on the subject properties. (It is worth noting that if the proposal is adopted the 1750 South Jefferson Circle parcel will be split zoned with the western portion MU-8 and the eastern side RMF-35. However, HASLC submitted a preliminary subdivision application to consolidate the MU-8 properties and the RMF-35 portion would become a separate lot.) The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at its January 28, 2026 meeting and held a public hearing at which a representative of the Ballpark Community Council spoke expressing general support but noted some nearby residents expressed concerns with potential increased density. The Commission voted 3:2 recommending the Council amend the zoning map for the subject properties to MU-8 rather than the applicant’s requested MU-5. (This will be discussed in the additional information section below.) Commissioners who were opposed did not say why they objected. Included in the Planning Commission’s recommendation are the following conditions: 1. At least 15% of units on the property shall be rented or sold to those with incomes at 80% AMI or below. 2. The 15% affordable units required by Condition 1 cannot be applied toward the eligibility requirements of any future Affordable Housing Zoning Incentives applications to the City. Additional affordable housing beyond that which is provided pursuant to Conditions 1 and 2 may be eligible. 3. At least 20 units on the property shall be built with at least 2 bedrooms each. These units shall initially be rented at the same rental rate as the demolished units with no more than a 3% annual increase on the rental rate for a period of 20 years. These units cannot be counted toward the 15% required by Condition 1. 4. Tenant relocation assistance shall be provided by the property owner to the tenants displaced by the demolition of the existing residential dwelling units on the property in accordance with subsection 21A.50.050.D. 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 discuss the originally requested MU-5 zoning district and the Planning Commission’s recommended MU-8 zoning. Page | 3 Area zoning maps with subject properties outlined in red. The applicant’s original proposed rezone area is on the left, and the updated area based on the Planning Commission’s MU-8 recommendation on the right. (Note: the portion of 1790 South West Temple outlined in the left image was removed following the Planning Commission’s recommendation because that property is already zoned MU-8.) Images courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The applicant’s original proposal was to change zoning of the subject parcels to MU-5 (Mixed-Use 5). During the Commission’s discussions a suggestion was made to rezone the properties to MU-8, so they match zoning of properties to the south. The applicant is not opposed to the recommended change. It is important to note that if the zoning map amendment is adopted by the Council 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. Any conditions included with rezoning the properties will be memorialized and recorded in a development agreement that runs with the land. The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. 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 five key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 4-8 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1 – How the Proposal Helps Implement City Goals and Policies Identified in Adopted Plans Planning staff found that the proposed zoning map amendment supports several initiatives in Plan Salt Lake (2015), Central Community Master Plan (2005), and Housing SLC: 2023-2027. It has the potential to add housing density, including affordable units, in a neighborhood with existing infrastructure. Page | 4 Consideration 2 – Comparison of Zones The current RMF-35 and MU-11 zoning districts along with the proposed MU-8 district all allow a variety of housing types, though there are differences between the zones. A primary difference between the zones is allowed height. RMF-35 allows up to 35 feet, MU-8 45- 90 feet (depending on building form), and MU-11 structures can be between 45-125 feet, again depending on building form. A table comparing the three zones is included below. HASLC proposes 15% of future units in a development would be offered to those earning 80% AMI or below. Based on an estimate of 160-200 units, there would be 24-30 new affordable units. (These would be in addition to the 20 units proposed to be demolished that would need to be replaced.) Planning staff found that the community benefit meets requirements. Details of the community benefit would be recorded in a development agreement with the City. Planning staff analyzed impacts to the neighborhood based on HASLC’s original requested MU-5 zoning. They found that because the subject properties are located between MU-11 properties to the west and north, and R-1/5,000 properties to the east, MU-5 zoning would provide a transition between more intense uses and low-density residential. HASLC stated they intend to construct buildings that meet MU-5 standards so they would not have more impact on surrounding properties. However, as noted above, if the zoning amendment is approved, any structures allowed under MU-8 could be built. As discussed above, 20 affordable housing units are proposed to be demolished as part of the proposed housing development. City code calls for the demolished units to be replaced with the same number of bedrooms and rented at the same amount. There is an option for the developer to make a payment toward the City’s affordable housing fund. Tenant relocation assistance is also required which includes moving expenses, and application fees for replacement housing. If tenants move to other HASLC properties within the city relocation assistance is not required. Because HASLC proposes 15% of units in a new development as its community benefit, Planning staff recommended not allowing affordable housing incentives for those units. Additional affordable units beyond the proposed 15%, those units could utilize AHI if the qualify under City code. ZONING DISTRICT COMPARISON Attachment D to the Planning Commission staff report (page 29) includes a table comparing the existing and originally proposed MU-5 zoning districts. The following table compares existing and currently proposed MU-8 zoning districts. MU-8 (Proposed)MU-11 (Existing at 1726 S Jefferson St.) RMF-35 (Existing at 1750 S Jefferson Cir.) Building Forms -Row house -Multi-family residential, storefront and vertical mixed-use. -Row house - Multi-family residential, storefront and vertical mixed-use. -Urban house, two-family dwelling, and cottage development -Row house -Multi-family residential Page | 5 Uses Allowed Residential (building forms listed above), bar establishment, offices, clinic, restaurants, theater, among many others -Residential, adaptive reuse, governmental facility -No commercial uses (except with adaptive reuse) Height Range depends on building form 45-90 feet 45-125 feet 35 feet Front & Corner Setbacks Range depends on building form 0-20 feet 5-20 feet 10-20 feet Interior Setbacks Range depends on building form and abutting zoning district 0-10 feet 4-10 feet 4-10 feet Rear Setbacks Range depends on building form and abutting zoning district 0-20 feet 0-20 feet 10-15 feet Off-street Parking All properties lie within the Neighborhood Center context,” between ½ mile and ¾ mile from fixed rail transit Analysis of Standards Attachment E (pages 30-34) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment and community benefit 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 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 specific 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 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. Complies The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but Some City public facilities and services Page | 6 not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. may need to be upgraded. 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 (displaced tenants will qualify for relocation assistance) 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 The community benefits that would result from the proposed map amendment as identified in 21A.50.050.C 15% of units are proposed to be available to those earning 80% AMI or below. 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 properties are redeveloped. Some offsite utility improvements may need to be made which have the potential to increase development costs. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • July 21, 2025 – Petition for zoning map amendment received by Planning Division. • July 30, 2025 – Petition assigned to Cassie Younger, Senior Planner. • August 5, 2025 – o Notice sent to Midtown Business and Ballpark Community Council. o Notice sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the subject properties. Page | 7 • August 11, 2025 – 45-day notice posted on the properties by the applicant. • September 19, 2025 – 45-day comment period ended. • December 3, 2025 – Housing Authority provided details of the proposed community benefit. • January 8, 2026 – Applicant presented at Ballpark Community Council. • January 15, 2026 – o Planning Commission agenda posted to the Planning Commission website and the State of Utah Public Notice webpage. o Notice of public hearing posted on City and State websites and distributed via Planning Division listserv. • January 15, 2026 – Planning Commission public hearing notice posted on the property. • January 28, 2026 – Planning Commission public hearing. The Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation for MU-8, with conditions outlined above, to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. • February 11, 2026 – Draft ordinance sent to City Attorney’s Office. • April 2, 2026 – Planning received final ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • April 3, 2026 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.