Salt Lake City council tentatively backs M‑1A zoning for property owners who requested Northpointe annexation

Salt Lake City council members and staff discussed whether to apply M‑1A transitional zoning as part of a city‑led annexation in the Northpointe area, and the council indicated it would move forward with zoning only for property owners who have asked for it and bring a draft adoption ordinance back at a future meeting.

The council review focused on a city‑initiated annexation area generally along 2200 West north of 2100 North up to the Davis County boundary. Nick Tarbet of council staff summarized the status and said the annexation process had been delayed while county and city records were reconciled where the Jordan River altered the boundary. "This is what we refer to as the Northpointe annexation," Tarbet said during the presentation.

Why it matters: the city has a Small Area Plan for Northpointe that recommended transitional zoning where the annexation was expected. Because the annexation timing changed, some owners now request M‑1A zoning while others prefer agricultural designation. City staff said the M‑1A zone was designed to incorporate setbacks, tree requirements and other standards for uses adjacent to residential areas.

Council members discussed options. Council member Petro said her preference was to apply M‑1A only to property owners who requested it, arguing it preserves flexibility and leverage for future developer agreements if needed. "My preference is exclusively on the requesting property owners," Petro said. Other council members noted many property owners and developers have been engaged in the area for years and said applying M‑1A to requesting owners would likely trigger rapid development activity and could help advance long‑standing requests for infrastructure such as a western bypass road.

Staff and council agreed to direct staff to prepare an annexation ordinance that applies M‑1A zoning to the parcels whose owners requested it, and to apply M‑1A for two county parcels currently zoned M‑1 to maintain consistency. The council asked staff to return the ordinance for potential adoption at a future council meeting, at which point it will also go to the lieutenant governor's office for final approval.

What the council did not do: no formal adoption took place at the work session. The council did not vote to annex parcels beyond those whose owners requested M‑1A zoning, and the record shows the decision was direction to draft and return an ordinance for a future formal meeting.

What comes next: staff will draft the annexation/transmittal materials reflecting the council's direction and present the ordinance at a future meeting for potential adoption and final state approval.

Ending: The council’s action preserves a path for property owners who requested the M‑1A zone to be annexed under that district now, while leaving space for agricultural preservation on parcels whose owners did not request the change. The item will return as an adoption item at a future council meeting.