Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Tdr topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Salt Lake City staff outline flexible transfer-of-development-rights plan to protect sensitive lands
Summary
Planning staff told the council an initial transfer-of-development-rights (TDR) framework could preserve watershed and landmark properties by shifting development potential to identified receiving zones, but stressed the program must be simple, economically viable and limited to receiving areas that can absorb growth.
Planning staff briefed the Salt Lake City Council on April 21 on how a transfer-of-development-rights program might work in the city and the trade-offs it would require.
Nick Norris, the city’s planning director, said the goal of a TDR program would be “to protect the land in the sending areas.” He told councilors the city’s model code uses a square-foot ratio—acre-for-acre or other multipliers—as the mechanism for transferring development potential from sensitive parcels to designated receiving areas.
The staff presentation outlined candidate sending areas that could benefit from protection, including watershed and riparian corridors, landmark properties and large natural areas in the northwest quadrant. Potential receiving areas include mixed-use commercial zones (MU5–MU6) where buildings are already near permitted maximums and where added height could be economically viable.
Staff warned the program must be simple and predictable to succeed. “If the TDR amount requires too much land, it’s hardly going to get used,” Norris said, adding that if receiving zones are too small the city would have to allow substantially greater heights to make transactions attractive.
The briefing described important limits: uses allowed on sending parcels do not transfer to receiving parcels (zoning remains controlling), and restrictive covenants would run with protected sending land unless the council later acts. Staff also flagged implementation risks—insufficient market interest, land valuation gaps, administrative capacity—and recommended a cautious, small pilot to test the mechanics before a citywide rollout.
Council members asked detailed questions about where the city would draw receiving-area boundaries, whether historic sites or affordable-housing properties could be eligible as sending sites, and how a formula could work for urban parcels with complex development potential. Staff said programs exist that treat landmarks and other special categories differently and suggested the city prioritize sending areas and present several receiving-area options for council review.
Next steps described by staff include refining candidate maps, testing sample transfers for economic viability, and drafting an ordinance and model code language that the council would review as part of a formal zoning process.
