Estimated read time: 4-5 minutes
SALT LAKE CITY — Utah's capital city is a step closer to banning new gas stations from being constructed near any body of water after a gas station was proposed — but rejected — on the hill above the Sugar House Park pond in the past two years.
Members of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission voted unanimously last week to recommend the city adopt an ordinance requested by the Salt Lake City Mayor's Office. The Salt Lake City Council will have the final say on whether the measure goes into city code.
The zoning change would ban any above- or below-ground fuel storage tanks from being constructed within 350 feet of any river, stream, canal, pond or any other existing body of water within Salt Lake City. All new storage tanks would also have to be at least 30 feet away from any property line, while pump islands would have to be at least 25 feet from any property line, under the proposed ordinance.
There are a few other regulations included in the recommendation, such as a minimum lot size of 30,000 square feet and a requirement for new stations to include at least one electric vehicle parking space for every 10 on-site parking stalls.
The measure was crafted during the fallout of a proposed building plan that started two years ago.
Kum and Go, an Iowa-based gas and convenience store company, applied for a conditional use permit to turn an abandoned Sizzler restaurant on the northwest corner of Sugar House Park into a gas station in February 2022. The plan hit a few snags along the way before the Salt Lake City Planning Division raised concerns about the proposal last year and the planning commission voted to not recommend the plan.
A city appeals officer ultimately upheld that decision in July 2023 after Kum and Go appealed the city's actions. The company was acquired by Maverik last year and the Utah-based company is now in the process of converting all of its Utah, Colorado and Wyoming locations into Maverik stores.
The proposed ordinance was originally sent to the planning commission earlier this year, but it was tabled over concerns about the electric vehicle provision that were cleared up. However, at least some gas station owners have concerns over the proposed ordinance's existing language.
Holly Robb, director of government relations for Maverik, called the storage tank requirements near property lines "impractical, unnecessary and potentially dangerous to customers" because of space needed to monitor leaks, in a letter to Salt Lake City on March 7 included in city documents.
"If the proposed 30 feet requirement is implemented, the result would be storage tanks placed very close to fueling canopy where there is a lot of vehicle traffic," she wrote. "This is an unnecessary risk."
The company requests the language be adjusted to 10 feet from a property line; however, the city disagrees.
The city set up the 30-foot distance to avoid gas leaks from reaching neighboring properties, Martinez explained to the commission on Thursday. She added the city believes the stations should have "adequate space" even with the 30-foot requirement because of the 30,000-square-foot lot requirement, which is larger than many older sites in the city.
She wrote in a report last year, per state data, 54 out of 768 underground storage tanks inspected in 2022 had any sort of leak with an average leak of 524 gallons of fuel, indicating leaks aren't completely uncommon and can be fairly significant.
"Ten seems pretty short because the fuel tanks hold a whole lot of fuel, so I think that 30 was kind of distinction for keeping it on the subject property," she said last week.
The commission agreed with the city after some discussion over logistics.
Amy Barry, a commission member, said the city's "reasoning for 30 feet makes a lot of sense" with the leak rate context. Others noted that the Salt Lake City Council may consider shrinking the minimum distance requirement as it takes up the discussion next.
It's unclear yet when the City Council will vote on the measure. City leaders have yet to set up a tentative schedule to hold a public hearing on the matter before a formal vote.
It's also unclear what's next for the old Sizzler site. A demolition permit was filed to the city in November and some work has been done in the months since to tear down the building.
