Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council continues review of Lotus/Spring Pines site rezoning request; public hearing planned
Summary
Murray planners and council members discussed a proposal to change the general plan and zoning at 825–865 East 4800 South from general office (GO) to RM‑25 (multi‑family high‑density); no final council vote was taken and the item will go to a public council meeting for hearing and possible tabling.
City staff and council members resumed discussion Feb. 4 about a zoning and general‑plan amendment requested for property at 825–865 East (4800 South), commonly referred to in materials as the Spring Pines/Spring office complex. Planning staffer Zachary Smallwood presented the application and answered council questions about density, buffers and process.
The applicant requests changing the future land use designation from “office” to “high‑density residential” and rezoning from GO (general office) to RM‑25 (multi‑family high density). Smallwood said the current concept envisions up to 64 units and that the applicant’s stated intent is for 64 for‑sale units; he cautioned the development could change to rentals and noted site constraints and parking would limit unit count to about 64 in typical scenarios.
Council members raised recurring concerns: neighborhood compatibility, whether a narrow parcel to the west (currently owned by the applicant) functions as a buffer that a future owner could rezone or sell, height limits and the potential that rezoning to RM‑25 could allow different owners to build other uses later. Smallwood confirmed a site strip along the creek is owned by Salt Lake City, and he said public notices had been mailed and that public comment has decreased across later application iterations.
Council members referenced a prior application for RM‑15 that was brought two years earlier and failed; Smallwood explained code limits reapplication if a rezoning is voted down (the applicant cannot reapply for one year unless they withdraw). Several council members said they preferred more direct public hearing interaction with the applicant and suggested the item be scheduled for a formal council public hearing where the applicant can respond in person. One member asked about transit access and was told there is at least one UTA route nearby.
Outcome and next steps
No formal vote or change to zoning occurred at the Committee of the Whole. Council members agreed to schedule the application for a public council meeting public hearing, allow citizens and the applicant to speak, and — if needed — continue or table the item for two weeks after that forum so members can gather more information.
Ending
Smallwood encouraged council and residents to submit questions to Community and Economic Development (CED) staff during the review period; council members asked staff to provide additional information about parking, proposed building heights and ownership/parcel configuration ahead of the public hearing.
