The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/09/2021 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL and LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY of SALT LAKE CITY FORMAL MEETING AGENDA November 9,2021 Tuesday 7:00 PM This Meeting Will be an Electronic Meeting Pursuant to the Chair’s Determination. SLCCouncil.com CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Amy Fowler,Chair District 7 Chris Wharton,Vice Chair District 3 District 1 Dennis Faris District 2 Ana Valdemoros District 4 Darin Mano District 5 Dan Dugan District 6 Generated:09:50:04 This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Chair’s determination. As Salt Lake City Council Chair,I hereby determine that conducting the Salt Lake City Council meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present. Members of the public are encouraged to participate in meetings.We want to make sure everyone interested in the City Council meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable.If you are interested in watching the City Council meetings,they are available on the following platforms: •Facebook Live:www.facebook.com/slcCouncil/ •YouTube:www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings •Web Agenda:www.slc.gov/council/agendas/ •SLCtv Channel 17 Live:www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Formal Meeting for the Public Hearings or general comment period,you may do so through the Webex platform.To learn how to connect through Webex,or if you need call-in phone options,please visit our website or call us at 801-535-7607 to learn more. As always,if you would like to provide feedback or comment,please call us or send us an email: •24-Hour comment line:801-535-7654 •council.comments@slcgov.com More info and resources can be found at:www.slc.gov/council/contact-us/ Upcoming meetings and meeting information can be found here:www.slc.gov/council/agendas/ LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY of SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH MEETING Please note:Dates not identified in the FYI -Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES A.OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council/Board Member Amy Fowler will conduct the formal meeting. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 4.The Board will approve the Local Building Authority (LBA)meeting minutes of Tuesday,May 5,2020;Tuesday,June 2,2020;and Tuesday,June 9,2020. B.CONSENT: 1.Ordinance:Local Building Authority Budget Amendment No.1 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 The Board will set the date of Tuesday,November 16,2021 at 7 p.m.to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending the final budget for the Local Building Authority (LBA)of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2021-22, including the Capital Projects Fund. The LBA’s Capital Projects Fund for Fiscal Year 2021-22 only includes the bond debt services for the Glendale and Marmalade Libraries.(Other Capital projects throughout the City are included in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget.)The LBA is a financing tool for cities and government entities,like libraries,to bond for capital projects at better interest rates.Capital projects are big projects like parks, public buildings,and street projects. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -n/a Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 9,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,November 16,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 7,2021 Staff Recommendation -Set date. C.ADJOURNMENT: SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING Please note:Dates not identified in the FYI -Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. D.OPENING CEREMONY: 1.The Council will consider adopting a joint ceremonial resolution with Mayor Mendenhall condemning hate crimes committed against Asian-American and Pacific Islanders. 2.Introduction of YouthCity Government Students E.PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1.Ordinance:University Ivory House Zoning Map Amendment The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning map pertaining to a portion of property at 1780 East South Campus Drive from I (Institutional)District to R-MU (Residential/Mixed Use)District.The property currently contains an institute building for the LDS Church near the University of Utah Campus.The zoning map amendment is requested to accommodate a student housing development.The specific design includes a multi-building development with approximately 536 student housing units.Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics.Petition No.:PLNPCM2021-00313 FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,October 5,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,October 5,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,November 9,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). 2.Ordinance:Technology Related Land Use Text Amendments The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend various sections of the Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to tech related land uses.This proposal was initiated by Mayor Erin Mendenhall to promote the development of the technology related industry in the City.The proposal updates the zoning code and does the following: •Adds Biomedical,Technology Facility,and Data Center as defined terms in the zoning code and adds the uses to the land use tables as permitted uses in specific zoning districts identified in the draft ordinance. •Adds a qualifying provision as a footnote to the land use tables related to Biomedical uses that would prohibit uses that produce hazardous waste from being located within ½mile of a residential use. •Modifies and merges several defined land uses into one use called “Laboratory,related”and updates the land use tables as indicated in the draft ordinance. •Updates the defined land use “research and development facility”so the definition reflects the nature of the use and expands where the use is allowed in the land use tables of the zoning code. The proposal impacts zoning districts citywide and impacts multiple sections of Title 21A Zoning.Related provisions of Title 21A may also be amended as part of this petition.Petition No.:PLNPCM2021-00511 FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,October 5,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,October 5,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,November 9,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). 3.Resolution:Public Benefits Analysis and Recommendation -Digital Donation Program The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting a resolution that would authorize the donation of certain City computers to benefit disadvantaged communities and low-moderate income families through a Digital Donation Program.The Information Management Services (IMS)is proposing the City donate surplus computers to community organizations that serve Salt Lake City’s low-income families and individuals via an open application process.The organization will then disseminate the refurbished computers to its clients,carry out an initial digital literacy screening and/or training,and provide information and resources on internet access. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,October 12,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,October 19,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,November 9,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). F.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1.Ordinance:Street Vacation near 538 East 14th Avenue The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would partially vacate a portion of 14th Avenue adjacent to a property located at 538 East 14th Avenue.The purpose of the partial vacation is to reconcile the location of fencing and landscaping within the park strip.The partial vacation will not impact vehicular traffic or pedestrian access to the street or sidewalk.Petition No.: PLNPCM2018-00561 FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,September 21,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,September 21,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,October 19,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,November 9,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). 2.Ordinance:Text Amendment Eliminating the Special Exception Process from the Zoning Ordinance The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance.A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures.The purpose of this proposal is to amend the zoning ordinance related to special exceptions to accomplish the following: •Simplify the zoning ordinance by updating regulations and eliminating special exceptions; •Reallocate staff resources away from processing land use applications that favor individual properties and towards updating zoning codes to align with adopted master plans; •Increase predictability and reduce neighbor conflicts that are created by requests for exceptions to the zoning regulations; There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted,permitted,or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance.Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts.Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division,the Planning Commission,or Historic Landmark Commission.Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning and Title 14 may be amended as part of this petition.Petition No.:PLNPCM2020-00606 FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,July 20,2021 and Tuesday,September 21,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,July 20,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,August 17,2021 at 6 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,November 9,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). G.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2.Comments to the City Council.(Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing,as well as on any other City business.Comments are limited to two minutes.) H.NEW BUSINESS: 1.TENTATIVE–Resolution:Appointing a Member of the Salt Lake City Council,District One Vacancy The Council will consider adopting a resolution appointing a new member of the Salt Lake City Council to fill the term until January 3,2022 of the vacated office representing District One and administration of the Oath of Office. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 9,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,November 9,2021 Staff Recommendation -Suspend the rules and consider motions. 2.Motion:Meeting Remotely Without an Anchor Location The Council will consider a motion to ratify the Chair’s determination to continue meeting remotely and without an anchor location due to the health and safety of the people who may be in attendance. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -n/a Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,November 9,2021 Staff Recommendation -Suspend the rules and consider motions. 3.Resolution:Annexation at approximately Rose Park Lane and 2350 North (Hunter Stables) The Council will consider accepting the Hunter Stables annexation application and petition located at approximately Rose Park Lane and 2350 North.The City Council has 14 days from the date of receipt by the Recorder’s office to accept or deny the Petition,which includes the application.If no action is taken within the 14-day window,the Petition will be considered accepted.Accepting the Petition is not approval of the annexation request.Acceptance begins the next step in the annexation process which includes notices sent to property owners,a protest period and the final consideration by the Council.The designation of the zoning of the property will be considered throughout the process and defined in the ordinance considered by the Council.The Council has the option to request Planning Commission review the petition in their public meeting,and forward a recommendation on the proposed annexation and zoning.Petition No.: PLNPCM2021-01124 FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 9,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,November 9,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). I.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. J.CONSENT: 1.Ordinance:Budget Amendment No.4 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 The Council will set the date of Tuesday,November 16,2021 at 7 p.m.to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the final budget of Salt Lake City,including the employment staffing document,for Fiscal Year 2021-22.Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets,including proposed project additions and modifications.This amendment includes creating a new Community Health Access Team or CHAT program,creating a new park ranger pilot program,several items to spend American Rescue Plan Act or ARPA funds including a new Westside perpetual housing fund,one-time community grants for non-profits and businesses,and additional funding for the Community Commitment Program, among other items. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 9,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 9,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,November 16,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 7,2021 Staff Recommendation -Set date. 2.Board Appointment:Parks,Natural Lands,Urban Forestry and Trails (PNUT)Advisory Board –Nathan Manuel The Council will consider approving the appointment of Nathan Manuel to the PNUT Board for a term ending November 9,2024. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 9,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,November 9,2021 Staff Recommendation -Approve. 3.Board Appointment:Parks,Natural Lands,Urban Forestry and Trails (PNUT)Advisory Board –Clayton Scrivner The Council will consider approving the appointment of Clayton Scrivner to the PNUT Board for a term ending November 9,2024. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 9,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,November 9,2021 Staff Recommendation -Approve. K.ADJOURNMENT: CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m.on _____________________,the undersigned,duly appointed City Recorder,does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1)posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701,and (2)a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated interest. CINDY LOU TRISHMAN SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda,including but not limited to adoption,rejection,amendment,addition of conditions and variations of options discussed. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation,which may include alternate formats,interpreters,and other auxiliary aids and services.Please make requests at least two business days in advance.To make a request,please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com,801-535-7600,or relay service 711. MINUTES OF THE LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2020 20 - 1 The Board of Directors of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah, met on Tuesday, May 5, 2020 in an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b). The following Board Directors were present: Chris Wharton Analia Valdemoros James Rogers Amy Fowler Andrew Johnston Daniel Dugan Darin Mano Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Executive Director; Jennifer Bruno, Council Executive Deputy Director; Erin Mendenhall, Mayor; Rachel Otto, Mayor’s Chief of Staff; Katherine Lewis, City Attorney; Cindy Lou Trishman, Council Administrative Assistant; Scott Crandall, Deputy City Recorder; and DeeDee Robinson, Deputy City Recorder participated electronically. Director Wharton presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. OPENING CEREMONY #1. 7:05:20 PM Pledge of Allegiance (A moment of silence was held while the American Flag/Anthem was displayed on the video screen) #2. 7:06:14 PM Welcome and Review of Standards of Conduct. Note: Opening Ceremonies were held as part of the May 5, 2020 combined Local Building Authority, Redevelopment Agency, and City Council Formal agenda. UNFINISHED BUSINESS #1. 7:07:52 PM Approving a resolution adopting the tentative budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2020-21. Director Rogers moved and Director Fowler seconded to adopt Resolution 1 of 2020, which motion carried, all directors voted aye (roll call). (B 20-6) MINUTES OF THE LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2020 20 - 2 CONSENT 7:09:12 PM Director Rogers moved and Director Fowler seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda, which motion carried, all directors voted aye (roll call). #1. Confirming the dates of Tuesday, May 19, 2020 and Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. to accept public comment and consider approving a resolution adopting the final budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2020-21. 7:10:12 PM Director Mano moved and Director Johnston seconded to adjourn as the Local Building Authority, which motion carried, all directors voted aye (roll call). (B 20-6) The meeting adjourned at 7:11 p.m. ______________________________ President ______________________________ Secretary This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript as additional discussion may have been held; please refer to the audio or video for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203(2)(b). This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the Salt Lake City Local Building Authority meeting held May 5, 2020. dr MINUTES OF THE LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2020 20 - 1 The Board of Directors of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah, met on Tuesday, June 2, 2020 in an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b). The following Board Directors were present electronically: Andrew Johnston James Rogers Daniel Dugan Amy Fowler Darin Mano Chris Wharton Analia Valdemoros Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Jennifer Bruno, Council Executive Deputy Director; Erin Mendenhall, Mayor; Rachel Otto, Mayor’s Chief of Staff; Katherine Lewis, City Attorney; DeeDee Robinson, Deputy City Recorder; and Scott Crandall, Deputy City Recorder; were also present electronically. Director Wharton presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 7:11 p.m. OPENING CEREMONY #1. 7:11:44 PM Pledge of Allegiance (A moment of silence was held while the American Flag/Anthem was displayed on the video screen) #2. 7:13:06 PM Welcome and Review of Standards of Conduct. #3. 7:20:00 PM Director Fowler moved and Director Johnston seconded to approve the Local Building Authority meeting minutes of Tuesday, May 19, 2020, which motion carried, all directors voted aye (roll call). View Minutes Note: Opening Ceremonies were held as part of the June 2, 2020 combined Local Building Authority, Redevelopment Agency, and City Council Formal agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS #1. 7:20:44 PM Continue accepting public comment and consider approving a resolution adopting the final budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2020-2021. View Attachments There were no public comments. MINUTES OF THE LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2020 20 - 2 Director Rogers moved and Director Mano seconded to close the public hearing and refer the item to a future meeting for action, which motion carried, all directors voted aye (roll call). (B 20-6) Director Johnston moved and Director Valdemoros seconded to adjourn as the Local Building Authority and reconvene as the Redevelopment Agency Board, which motion carried, all directors voted aye (roll call). The meeting adjourned at 7:23 p.m. ______________________________ President ______________________________ Secretary This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript as additional discussion may have been held; please refer to the audio or video for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203(2)(b). This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the Salt Lake City Local Building Authority meeting held June 2, 2020. sc MINUTES OF THE LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 2020 20 - 1 The Board of Directors of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah, met on Tuesday, June 9, 2020 in an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b). The following Board Directors were present electronically: Andrew Johnston James Rogers Daniel Dugan Amy Fowler Darin Mano Chris Wharton Analia Valdemoros Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Executive Director; Jennifer Bruno, Council Executive Deputy Director; Rachel Otto, Mayor’s Chief of Staff; Katherine Lewis, City Attorney; Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder; and Scott Crandall, Deputy City Recorder; were also present electronically. Director Wharton presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. OPENING CEREMONY #1. 7:06:48 PM Pledge of Allegiance (A moment of silence was held while the American Flag/Anthem was displayed on the video screen) #2. 7:07:34 PM Welcome and Review of Standards of Conduct. Note: Opening Ceremonies were held as part of the June 9, 2020 combined Local Building Authority, Redevelopment Agency, and City Council Formal agenda. POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS #1. 7:09:46 PM Approving a resolution adopting the final budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2020-2021. View Attachments Director Johnston moved and Director Fowler seconded to approve Resolution 2 of 2020, adopting the Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 of the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority, which motion carried, all directors voted aye except Director Rogers, who was absent for the vote (roll call). (B 20-6) Director Mano moved and Director Johnston seconded to adjourn as the Local Building Authority and reconvene as the Redevelopment Agency MINUTES OF THE LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 2020 20 - 2 Board, which motion carried, all directors voted aye except Director Rogers, who was absent for the vote (roll call). The meeting adjourned at 7:12 p.m. ______________________________ President ______________________________ Secretary This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript as additional discussion may have been held; please refer to the audio or video for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203(2)(b). This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the Salt Lake City Local Building Authority meeting held June 9, 2020. sc DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238 PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL ___________________________________ Date Received: ________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 29, 2021 Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: LBA Budget Amendment #1 - Revised SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT: John Vuyk, Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Resolution RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that, subsequent to a public hearing, the Local Building Authority adopt the following amendments to the FY 2021-22 adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: REVENUE EXPENSE LBA $ 10,500,000.00 $ 10,500,000.00 TOTAL $ 10,500.000.00 $ 10,500,000.00 Lisa Shaffer (Oct 31, 2021 12:55 MDT) BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Local Building Authority Bonds, Series 2013A, were issued in June 2013 to fund the construction of the Glendale Library. Local Building Authority Bonds, Series 2014A, were issued in March 2014 to fund the construction of the Marmalade Library. Both bonds are being refunded with the Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Series 2021A. This amendment creates the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds, as well as, the expenditure budget for the payoff of the refunded bonds. A summary spreadsheet document, outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the LBA Board. The budget opening is separated in eight different categories: A. New Budget Items B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources C. Grants for New Staff Resources D. Housekeeping Items E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F. Donations G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I. Council Added Items PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing Resolution No. ____ of 2021 (Amending the Final Budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2021-2022) A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 3 of the Local Building authority of Salt Lake City, Utah which Adopted the Final Budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority for the remainder of the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2021 and Ending June 30, 2022. PREAMBLE On June 16, 2021, the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah (the “Building Authority”), adopted the final budget of the Building Authority effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022, in accordance with the requirements of the Fiscal Procedures for the Local Districts Act, Utah Code Title 17B, Chapter 1, Part 6. Mary Beth Thompson, as the Budget Officer of the Building Authority (the “Budget Officer”), prepared and filed with the Secretary of the Building Authority a proposed amendment to said duly adopted budget, a copy of which is attached hereto, for consideration by the Board of Directors of the Building Authority and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget have been accomplished. Be it resolved by the Board of Directors of the Local Building Authority of Salt Like City, Utah, as follows: 1. The purpose of this resolution is to amend the final budget for the capital projects fund of the Building Authority for fiscal year 2021-2022. All conditions precedent to the amendment of the final budget have been accomplished, including the holding of a public hearing regarding the budget amendment as required by Utah Code Sections 17B-1-621 and 17B-1-622. 2.The budget amendment attached hereto and made a part of this resolution shall be, and the same hereby is adopted and incorporated into the budget for the capital projects fund of the Building Authority for the remainder of the fiscal year 2021-2022, in accordance with the Fiscal Procedures for Local Districts Act, Utah Code Title 17B, Chapter 1, Part 6. 3. The Budget Officer is hereby authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budge amendment in the office of the Secretary of the Building Authority, City and County Building, 451 South State Street, Room 415, Salt Lake City, Utah. Said budget amendment shall be available to the public for inspection during regular business hours. 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its approval and adoption. Passed by the Board of Directors of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ________ day of __________________________, 2021. ___________________________________ PRESIDENT ATTEST: ________________________________ SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ Boyd Ferguson, Senior City Attorney Boyd Ferguson 10/29/21 Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs 1 Sales Tax Series 2021A Refunding of LBA Bonds LBA 10,500,000.00 10,500,000.00 - - One-time - - Total of Budget Amendment Items 10,500,000.00 10,500,000.00 - - - Total by Fund Class, Budget Amendment #2: Local Business Authority LBA 10,500,000.00 10,500,000.00 - - - - - - Total of Budget Amendment Items 10,500,000.00 10,500,000.00 - - - Fiscal Year 2021-22 Local Building Authority - Budget Amendment #1 Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed Section I: Council Added Items Section A: New Items Section D: Housekeeping Section F: Donations Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources 1 Fiscal Year 2021-22 Local Building Authority - Budget Amendment #1 Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only FY 2021-22 Budget, Including Budget Amendments FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total ^^ Total Through BA#5 ^^ Local Building Authority 2,220,925.00 10,500,000.00 12,720,925.00 Total of Budget Amendment Items 2,220,925 10,500,000.00 - - - - 12,720,925.00 Budget Manager Analyst, City Council Contingent Appropriation 2 Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 1 Section A: New Items Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section D: Housekeeping D-1: Sales Tax Series 2021A Refunding of LBA Bonds GF $10,500,000.00 Department: Finance Department Prepared By: Brandon Bagley, Marina Scott For Questions Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson, Marina Scott, Brandon Bagley, John Vuyk Local Building Authority Bonds, Series 2013A, were issued in June 2013 to fund the construction of the Glendale Library. Local Building Authority Bonds, Series 2014A, were issued in March 2014 to fund the construction of the Marmalade Library. Both bonds are being refunded with the Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Series 2021A. This amendment creates the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds, as well as, the expenditure budget for the payoff of the refunded bonds.. Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources Section F: Donations Section G: Consent Agenda Section I: Council Added Items JOINT RESOLUTION CONDEMNING HATE CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST ASIAN-AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDERS WHEREAS,following the spread of COVID–19 in 2020, there has been a dramatic increase in hate crimes and violence against Asian-American and Pacific Islanders; and WHEREAS,between March 19, 2020, and December 31, 2020, 2,808 firsthand accounts of anti-Asian and Pacific Islander hate crimes occurred throughout the United States; and WHEREAS,during this timeframe, race has been cited as the primary motivation in 90 percent of reported incidents; and WHEREAS,Asian-American and Pacific Islander-owned businesses have been the top targets within this period, comprising roughly 38 percent of discrimination incidents; and WHEREAS,during this time, Asian-American and Pacific Islander youth under 20 years old make up roughly 14 percent of hate crime victims; and WHEREAS,also during these nine months, Asian-American and Pacific Islanders over 60 years old make up around 7.5 percent of hate crime victims. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Salt Lake City Council and Mayor stand united in condemning and denouncing any and all anti-Asian and Pacific Islander sentiment in any form including all manifestations of expressions of racism, and anti-Asian and Pacific Islander or ethnic intolerance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Salt Lake City Council and Mayor call on Local, State and Federal law enforcement officials to investigate all reports of Asian-American and Pacific Islander hate crimes and threats and to work to improve the reporting of these crimes to hold the perpetrators accountable and bring the perpetrators to justice. Adopted this _____ day of November 2021 ________________________ _________________________ Erin Mendenhall Amy Fowler, Chair Salt Lake City Mayor Salt Lake City Council Member, District Seven _________________________ ____________________________ Chris Wharton, Vice Chair Dennis Faris Salt Lake City Council Member, District Three Salt Lake City Council Member, District Two __________________________ ____________________________ Ana Valdemoros Darin Mano Salt Lake City Council Member, District Four Salt Lake City Council Member, District Five ___________________________ Dan Dugan Salt Lake City Council Member, District Six Item E1 CITY 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 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 9, 2021 RE: University Ivory House Zoning Map Amendment PLNPCM2021-00313 MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY 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:November 9, 2021 RE: University Ivory House Zoning Map Amendment PLNPCM2021-00313 BRIEFING UPDATE At the October 5 briefing Council Members expressed general support for the proposal. Questions about the how buildings are sited on the property and why the City has jurisdiction were asked. The applicant stated the proposed building configuration helps create a secure common area. Planning staff stated the property is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so is under City jurisdiction. The following information was provided for the October 5, 2021 Council briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about an ordinance to amend the zoning map for property located at 1780 South Campus Drive from its current Institutional (I) designation to Residential/Mixed Use (R-MU), to accommodate proposed student housing. The approximately 5.4-acre parcel was recently subdivided from a larger parcel owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Church still owns the subject parcel and would enter into a long-term lease for the development if the rezone is approved. The proposed development would include four buildings with approximately 536 student housing units. If the rezone is approved by the Council, an existing institute building associated with the University of Utah would be demolished and replaced with the student housing buildings. Item Schedule: Briefing: October 5, 2021 Set Date: October 5, 2021 Public Hearing: November 9, 2021 Potential Action: November 16, 2021 Page | 2 A site development, including planned development and design review, was approved by the Planning Commission conditioned on City Council approval of the zoning map amendment. The Commission forwarded a unanimous favorable recommendation to the City Council for the zoning map amendment. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendment, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to discuss how neighborhood impacts on issues such as traffic are managed and whether this proposal is designed to take advantage of on-campus transit options. Planning staff notes that locating student housing on campus may help alleviate some traffic along adjacent streets. 2.Is the Council supportive of the proposed zoning map amendment? Vicinity zoning map with subject parcel outlined in red. Blue shaded parcels are zoned Institutional, and checked parcels are zoned Research Park. Green shaded parcel (Steiner Aquatic Center) is zoned Open Space. (Image courtesy Salt Lake City Planning) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The table below provided by City Planning compares key standards and uses in the Institutional and Residential/Mixed Use zoning districts. Building height and setbacks in the R-MU zoning district allow for larger scaled buildings than in the I zoning district. Under the development plan similar scaled buildings and where they are sited would be comparable to what is allowed under the I zoning district. The key difference in the development plan under the proposed R-MU and current I zoning district is the intended use. Multi-family residential is not a permitted land use in the I zoning district. The development proposal includes increased front yard setbacks to preserve mature landscaping. Page | 3 MASTER PLAN CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified the East Bench Master Plan and Plan Salt Lake as City plans applicable to this proposed project. A summary of the findings is included below. Please refer to pages 8-9 of the Planning Commission staff report for the full discussion. East Bench Master Plan (2017) The East Bench Master Plan and associated East Bench Future Land Use Map identify the subject property along with the University of Utah campus and Research Park as a Regional Activity Center. The following description is included in the plan: The Regional Activity Center is a regional hub for education, research, employment, and entertainment. Future uses support this function and future growth is a coordinated effort between the City, the surrounding neighborhoods, and the activity center facilities that balances State regional needs with the livability of adjacent neighborhoods. Page | 4 Growth of regional destinations is addressed in the master plan. While growth is seen as a positive contribution to the region, strain on the community is acknowledged. The plan calls for creative solutions accommodate housing, services, and transportation needs related to growth. The following guideline for the University of Utah is included in the master plan: The University of Utah is a State of Utah facility and is not required to comply with local (City) plans or ordinances; however, it has a strong influence on the character of the East Bench community. Due to the close proximity of the campus, the East Bench is a prime housing location for students and the majority of traffic along Foothill Drive is traveling to and from the University of Utah and Research Park. There is a strong desire within the East Bench Community to closely integrate future growth of the University with City planning efforts in an effort to manage impacts to the nearby residential neighborhoods. Plan Salt Lake (2015) Plan Salt Lake outlines the vision of sustainable growth and development in the city including a diverse mix of uses essential to accommodate responsible growth. The plan notes compatibility with existing neighborhoods is vital. New development should be sensitive and consistent with surrounding development. Guiding principles from Plan Salt Lake include: Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunity for social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein. Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around. Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics. A beautiful city that is people focused. Planning staff found the requested zoning map amendment supports identified policy statements and guidelines in the East Bench Master Plan and Plan Salt Lake. Planning also noted if approved, the resulting large student housing project would be located on campus where it is most needed and would relieve some traffic pressure of student commuters on Foothill Drive. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment E (pages 25-26) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Planning staff found proposed amendment complies with all applicable standards. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for full details. PUBLIC PROCESS • May 12, 2021-Notification sent to the University of Utah Planning Department for review. • May 17, 2021-Planning staff hosted an online open house to solicit public comments on the proposal. The open house period began May 17, 2021 and ended June 28, 2021. • July 14, 2021-Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of Planning Commission public hearing posted on the subject site. Page | 5 • July 15, 2021-Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning Division list serve for the July 28, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. Public hearing notice mailed. • July 28, 2021-Planning Commission public hearing. Two people spoke at the hearing expressing support for the project. One of the commenters also expressed concern the applicant is not maximizing density on the parcel by meeting current height limitation or seeking approval for additional height. The applicant responded saying they have an option to add density in the existing parking area in the future. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: September 10, 2021 Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: University Ivory House Zoning Map Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com (385) 226-7227 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve an Ordinance to amend the zoning map for the subject property, changing it from I (Institutional) to R-MU (Residential/Mixed Use). BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Project representative, Ashley Hadfield, is requesting that the City amend the zoning map for one property located at 1780 East South Campus Drive. The property currently contains a chapel for the Church of Latter-Day Saints for the University of Utah Campus. The zoning map amendment is requested to accommodate a student housing development. A specific site development, including a planned development and design review, was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission with the condition that the City Council approve the zoning map amendment. The specific design includes a multi-building development with approximately 536 student housing units. The change is consistent with the policies in the East Bench Master Plan. Planning Staff’s analysis of the proposed zoning map amendment, as well as details of the proposed future development are found in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Planning Commission Record – c). Lisa Shaffer (Sep 14, 2021 12:03 MDT) 09/14/2021 09/14/2021 The subject property is highlighted on the zoning map/aerial photo below. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners located within 300 feet of the project site on May 10, 2021, providing notice about the project and information on how to give public input on the project. • Staff hosted an online Open House to solicit public comments on the proposal. The online Open House period started on May 17, 2021 and ended on June 28, 2021. • Notification was provided to the University of Utah Campus Planning on May 13, 2021. • One public comment was submitted, in relation to this proposal, which can be found in in the Planning Commission Staff Report, (Planning Commission Record – c). • A Planning Commission Public Hearing was held on July 28, 2021. By a unanimous vote, the Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of July 28, 2021 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of July 28, 2021 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of July 28, 2021 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3. Original Petition 4. Mailing List SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2021 (Amending the zoning map pertaining to a portion of property located at 1780 East South Campus Drive from I Institutional District to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to a portion of property located at 1780 East South Campus Drive to rezone the portion of the parcel from I Institutional District to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00313. WHEREAS, Ashley Hadfield on behalf of the property owner, the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, submitted an application to rezone a portion of the property located at 1780 East South Campus Drive, as more particularly described in Exhibit A, P I institutional District to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00313 WHEREAS, in addition to the underlying I institutional District the property is further zoned with overlay zoning designations of Groundwater Source Protection Overlay ; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 28, 2021 on the petition, had a discussion, and voted to forward a positive recommendation of approval to rezone the Property from I institutional District to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00313; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance to amend the Salt Lake City zoning map to change the underlying zoning as set forth herein ; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to retain the overlay designation of the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay and nothing contained herein should be construed to remove that existing designation. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property and incorporated by reference shall be and hereby is rezoned from I Institutional District to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been published in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-713. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2021. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2021. Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Hannah Vickery,Senior City Attorney 9/9/2021 Legal Description of Property to be Rezoned TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3. Original Petition 4. Mailing List 1. Project Chronology PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PETITION: PLNPCM2021-00313 – Ivory University House 1780 East South Campus Drive April 2, 2021 Petition for the zoning map amendment received by Salt Lake City Planning Commission. April 8, 2021 Petition assigned to Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner. May 12, 2021 Notification sent to University of Utah Planning Department for review. May 17, 2021 Staff hosted an online Open House to solicit public comments on the proposal. The online Open House period started on May 17, 2021 and ended on June 28, 2021. July 15, 2021 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the July 28, 2021, Planning Commission. Public hearing notice mailed. July 14, 2021 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of Planning Commission public hearing posted on the subject property. July 28, 2021 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on July 28, 2021. The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2021-00313 – Zoning Map Amendment at 1780 East South Campus Drive – Ashely Hadfield, property owner representative is requesting that the City amend the zoning map for one property located at 1780 East South Campus Drive. The property at 1780 East South Campus Drive currently contains an institute building for the LDS Church on the University of Utah Campus. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning map designation of the property from I (Institutional) to R-MU (Residential/Mixed Use), in order to construct a student housing development. The Master Plan is not being changed. The property is located within Council District 6, represented by Dan Dugan. (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist at (385) 226-7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com ) As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held electronically: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No.2 of 2020(2)(b). Please visit https://www.slc.gov/council/news/featured-news/virtually-attend-city- council-meetings/ to learn how you can share your comments live during electronic City Council meetings. If you would like to provide feedback or comment, via email or phone, please contact us at: 801-535-7654 (24- Hour comment line) or by email at: council.comments@slcgov.com . If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Kelsey Lindquist at 385-226-7227 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711.(P 19-19) 3. Original Petition EXHIBIT A SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. PURPOSE FOR THE AMENDMENT IN QUESTION: • Acreage: 5.4 acres • Address: South Campus Drive & Mario Capecchi Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 (the “Property”) • Current Zoning: Institutional • Proposed Zoning: Residential Mixed Use (RMU) 2. A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY BEING REZONED: The Property is currently in Salt Lake City. The intention is to subdivide a portion of a parcel land and make the subdivided parcel the subject of the rezone, Planned Development, Design Review, and build an integrated student housing project with mixed-use amenities. The requested rezone will facilitate the development of this project and will tie in infrastructure improvements intended for the area to facilitate development. The conceptual site plan, attached hereto as Exhibit B, contemplates, among other things for both the Property: • 4 buildings (5 & 4 stories – less than 75’ in height); • Up to 152 units per building (346 sq. ft. minimum); • Total density of 536 units; • Building coverage of 27.26%; • 211 parking spaces; • Parking coverage of 27.18%; and • Landscaping coverage of 28.54%. 3. REASONS WHY THE PRESENT ZONING MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA: • The Property is adjoined by the following zoning districts: • North: Institutional (South Campus Drive) • East: Institutional (Mario Capecchi Drive) • South: Institutional (Research Road) • West: Institutional • The Property is located within the Regional Activity Center in the East Bench Master Plan (adopted 2/2017). The East Bench Master Plan highlights the importance of “Connecting People to Places” and the “Growth of Regional Destinations.” As the University of Utah continues to grow, it is critical to provide students a place to live that is proximate to campus. Ivory University House plans to help fulfill the East Bench Master Plan by providing an off-campus solution helps “Connect People to Places.” The East Bench Master Plan also highlights the importance of preserving open space and existing trees on properties. Ivory University House intends to preserve and enhance open space and existing trees on the Property and in accordance with the Salt Lake City Urban Forestry. • A rezone of the Property would support student housing in the area that already exists in the current zone of Institutional. The existing University of Utah campus and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Institute provides an adjacent, complimentary use. Student residential housing will involve efficient use of the Property and coordinate well with existing and planned public infrastructure. • A rezone of the Property will support nearby developments, including, without limitation, the University of Utah, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Institute, and will provide infrastructure improvements for the area to facilitate development. We have been in contact with the Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City Public Utilities, The University of Utah, and others with respect to constructing and/or contributing to: (i) new water and sewer lines (ii) and connecting walkways to nearby Trax that will reduce traffic congestion on South Campus Drive and Mario Capecchi Drive during events and school commutes. 4. PARCEL NUMBERS TO BE CHANGED: • Property: Parcel Id. No. 16-04-400-011-0000; from Institutional to RMU • The entire Parcel ID number listed above contains 30.92 acres of land currently owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Of this 30.92-acre site, a proposed lot of 5.40 acres will be created in the Northeast corner. This 5.40-acre lot is being proposed for a zoning ordinance change from Institutional to RMU. The remaining 25.52 acres of land will remain as Institutional. A subdivision plat will be proposed and submitted with this rezoning package. EXHIBIT B SITE PLAN [See Attached] 4. Mailing List OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR own_unit OWN_CITY OWN_STATOWN_ZIP UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 125 S STATE ST # 8100 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84138 UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 505 S WAKARA WY # 210 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 STATE OF UTAH 675 E 500 S # 500 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 505 S WAKARA WY # 210 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 CORP OF PB OF THE CH OF JC OF LDS 50 E NORTH TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 MOUNTAIN STATES TEL & TEL CO PO BOX 2599 OLATHE KS 66063 UNIVERSITY OF UTAH RESEARCH FOUNDATION 505 S WAKARA WY # 210 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 505 S WAKARA WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 CORP OF PB OF CH JC OF LDS 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST #2225 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 125 S STATE ST # 8100 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84138 Current Occupant 295 S MARIO CAPECCHI DR Salt Lake City UT 84113 Current Occupant 101 S WASATCH DR Salt Lake City UT 84112 Current Occupant 595 S GUARDSMAN WAY Salt Lake City UT 84108 Current Occupant 1875 E SOUTH CAMPUS DR Salt Lake City UT 84112 Current Occupant 525 S FOOTHILL DR Salt Lake City UT 84113 Current Occupant 500 S MARIO CAPECCHI DR #NFF1 Salt Lake City UT 84113 Current Occupant 555 S FOOTHILL DR Salt Lake City UT 84113 Current Occupant 1780 E SOUTH CAMPUS DR Salt Lake City UT 84113 Current Occupant 500 S FOOTHILL DR Salt Lake City UT 84108 Item E2 CITY 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 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO: City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet Policy Analyst DATE: November 9, 2021 RE: Text Amendment: Technology Related Land Use Text Amendments PLNPCM2021-00511 MOTION 1 I move the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future meeting. MOTION 2 I move the Council continue the public hearing to a future meeting. MOTION 3 I move the Council close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance. MOTION 4 I move the Council close the public hearing and reject the ordinance. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst DATE: November 9, 2021 RE: Text amendment: Technology Related Land Use Text Amendments PLNPCM2021-00511 PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing October 5, 2021 Set Date: October 5, 2021 Public Hearing: Nov 9, 2021 Potential Action: Nov 16, 2021 Work Session Briefing The Council did not raise significant questions or concerns about the text amendment during the briefing. The public hearing was scheduled for November 9, 2021. The following information was provided for the October 5 work session briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will hold a briefing on the proposed Bio-medical, Technology Facility, Medical Laboratory, Research and Development Facility, and Data Center Zoning Text Amendment. The proposed amendment, initiated by Mayor Erin Mendenhall, would add Biomedical Uses, Data Centers and Technology Uses to the zoning code and modify definitions and the land use tables for medical related laboratories and research and development facilities. The proposal updates the zoning code and does the following: Adds Biomedical, Technology Facility, and Data Center as defined terms in the zoning code and adds the uses to the land use tables as permitted uses in certain zoning districts. Page | 2 Adds a qualifying provision as a footnote to the land use tables related to Biomedical uses that would prohibit uses that produce hazardous waste from being located within ½ mile of a residential use. Modifies and merges several defined land-uses into one use called “Laboratory, medical related” and updates the land use tables. Updates the defined land use “research and development facility” so the definition reflects the nature of the use and expands where the use is allowed in the land use tables. The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The following section provides the definition for the new and amended land uses. Maps of where each use will be allowed citywide are included in the Planning Commission staff report, pages 1-6. Each of the uses would be classified as permitted in the land use tables. Included along with the map of where each use would be permitted in the Planning Commission staff report is an explanation of why it is appropriate for these to be permitted uses instead of conditional. In general, Planning staff found these types of uses produce similar impacts to uses that are already permitted in the zoning districts. Biomedical Land Uses: (Pages 1-2 Planning Commission Staff Report) Proposed definition: An establishment that performs research and development in the field of medicine and produces biologic, biomedical, or pharmaceutical products. A bio-medical facility is not a hospital, health care facility, medical incinerator, or medical office. Technology Facility (Pages 3-4 Planning Commission Staff Report) Proposed definition: An establishment that is engaged in research, development, production, service, or related functions that uses technology to produce, deliver, or maintain data, information, equipment, computers, or related accessories or services to others. A technology facility is not a bio-medical facility or a research and development facility Laboratory, Medical Related (Pages 4-5 Planning Commission Staff Report) Proposed Definition: An establishment that performs research and analysis of medical tests and biologic samples collected for the purpose of medical diagnosis. A medical related laboratory is not a bio-medical facility. Research and Development Facilities (Page 5-6 Planning Commission Staff Report) Proposed Definition: An establishment comprised of one or more structures used primarily for applied and developmental research conducted entirely indoors. The use may include testing to determine the physical qualities of already manufactured materials or materials used in the manufacturing of a prototype. Research and development facility is not a bio-medical facility or light manufacturing. Data Center (permitted in the M1, M2 and BP zoning districts) Proposed Definition: An establishment that centralizes information technology operations and equipment for the purposes of storing, processing, and disseminating data and applications. The Planning commission staff report notes concerns about the amount of water usage of Data Centers. Planning staff noted they are currently processing a text amendment that would prohibit Page | 3 land uses that consume more than 300,000 gallons of water per day. This may effectively result in data centers not being built in the city if the Council were to adopt that text amendment. o The Planning Commission forwarded a favorable recommendation on September 22 for the Significant Water Consuming Land Uses Text Amendment. PUBLIC PROCESS Online Storyboard and survey posted on Planning Division o Survey was accessible from May 21, 2021 to July 31, 2021. Notice sent to all recognized organizations o Downtown and Sugar House Community councils requested presentations The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 25, 2021 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 2021 2 3 (An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A 4 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to tech related land uses) 5 6 An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining 7 to tech related land uses pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00511. 8 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”) held a 9 public hearing on August 25, 2021 to consider a proposal initiated by Mayor Erin Mendenhall to 10 amend the Salt Lake City Code to more specifically identify tech related land uses and allow tech 11 related uses in more areas of the City; and 12 WHEREAS, at its August 25, 2021 hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor of 13 forwarding a positive recommendation of approval to the Salt Lake City Council (the “City 14 Council”) to adopt changes to the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to tech related land uses; and 15 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council desires to modify its land use regulations as 16 provided herein; and 17 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds, after holding a public hearing on this 18 matter, that adopting this ordinance promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the 19 citizens of the City. 20 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 21 SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.020. That Section 22 21A.33.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 23 Conditional Uses for Residential Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to remove the complete 24 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT row titled “Laboratory (medical, dental, optical)” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for 25 Residential Districts. 26 SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.020. That Section 27 21A.33.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 28 Conditional Uses for Residential Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to add three new rows to 29 the table for separate use categories titled, “Laboratory, medical related,” “Research and development 30 facility,” and ‘Technology facility” to the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential 31 Districts, which use category shall be inserted into that table in alphabetical order and shall read and 32 appear in that table as follows: 33 FR- 1/4356 0 FR- 2/2178 0 FR- 3/1200 0 R- 1/1200 0 R- 1/700 0 R- 1/5 000 SR -1 SR -2 SR -3 R 2 RMF -30 RMF -35 R M F- 45 RMF -75 R B R- MU- 35 R- M U- 45 R- M U R O Laborat ory, medical related P P P P P 34 35 36 FR- 1/43 560 FR- 2/21 780 FR- 3/12 000 R- 1/12 000 R- 1/7 000 R- 1/5 000 S R -1 S R -2 S R -3 R 2 R M F- 30 R M F- 35 R M F- 45 R M F- 75 R B R- M U- 35 R- M U- 45 R - M U R O Resear ch and develo pment facility P P FR- 1/4 356 0 FR- 2/2 178 0 FR- 3/12 000 R- 1/12 000 R- 1/7 00 0 R- 1/5 00 0 S R -1 S R - 2 S R - 3 R 2 R M F- 30 R M F- 35 R M F- 45 R M F- 75 R B R- M U - 35 R- M U - 4 5 R - M U R O Tech nolog y facilit y P P P P LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 37 SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That Section 38 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 39 Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to remove three 40 complete rows titled “Laboratory (medical, dental, optical),” “Laboratory, testing,” and “Research 41 and development facility" in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts. 42 SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That Section 43 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 44 Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to add four new rows to 45 the table for separate use categories titled, “Bio-medical facility,” “Technology facility,” “Laboratory, 46 medical related,” and “Research and development facility” to the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses 47 for Commercial Districts, which use categories shall be inserted into that table in alphabetical order and 48 shall read and appear in that table as follows: 49 50 CN CB CS CC CSHBD CG SNB Bio-medical facility P22 P22 P22 P22 51 CN CB CS CC CSHBD CG SNB Technology facility P P P P 52 53 CN CB CS CC CSHBD CG SNB Laboratory, medical related P P P P P 54 CN CB CS CC CSHBD CG SNB Research and development facility P P P P 55 SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That the 56 “Qualifying Provisions:” of Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use 57 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be and hereby is 58 amended to add an additional qualifying provision “22,” which shall appear immediately succeeding 59 qualifying provision “21,” as follows: 60 22. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or 61 radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative 62 rules. 63 SECTION 6. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.035. That Section 64 21A.33.035 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 65 Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to remove four 66 complete rows titled “Laboratory (medical, dental, optical),” “Laboratory, testing,” and “Research 67 facility (medical)” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts. 68 SECTION 7. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.035. That Section 69 21A.33.035 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 70 Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to add 71 three new rows to the table for separate use categories titled, “Bio-medical facility,” “Technology 72 Facility,” “Laboratory, medical related,” to the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Transit 73 Station Area Districts Districts, which rows shall be inserted into that table in alphabetical order by use 74 category and shall read and appear in that table as follows: 75 TSA UC TSA UN TSA MUEC TSA SP Core Transition Core Transition Core Transition Core Transition Bio- medical facility P11 P11 P11 P11 76 TSA UC TSA UN TSA MUEC TSA SP Core Transition Core Transition Core Transition Core Transition Technology facility P P P P P P P P 77 78 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT TSA UC TSA UN TSA MUEC TSA SP Core Transition Core Transition Core Transition Core Transition Laboratory, medical related P P P P P P P P 79 SECTION 8. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.035. That the 80 “Qualifying Provisions:” of Section 21A.33.035 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use 81 Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Transit Station Districts) shall be and hereby is 82 amended to add an additional qualifying provision “11,” which shall appear immediately succeeding 83 provision “10,” as follows: 84 11. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive 85 waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 86 SECTION 9. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.040. That Section 87 21A.33.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 88 Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to remove two 89 complete rows titled “Laboratory (medical, dental, optical)” and “Laboratory, testing,” in the Table 90 of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts. 91 SECTION 10. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.040. That Section 92 21A.33.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 93 Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to add four new rows 94 to the table for separate use categories titled, “Bio-medical facility,” “Technology Facility,” “Laboratory, 95 medical related,” and “Research and development facility” to the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses 96 for Manufacturing Districts, which rows shall be inserted into that table in alphabetical order by use 97 category and shall read and appear in that table as follows: 98 M-1 M-2 Bio-medical facility P18 P18 99 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT M-1 M-2 Technology facility P 100 101 M-1 M-2 Laboratory, medical related P P 102 M-1 M-2 Research and development facility P P 103 SECTION 11. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.040. That the 104 “Qualifying Provisions:” of Section 21A.33.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use 105 Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts) shall be and hereby is 106 amended to add an additional qualifying provision “18,” which shall appear immediately succeeding 107 provision “17,” as follows: 108 18. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or 109 radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative 110 rules. 111 SECTION 12. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.050. That Section 112 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 113 Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to remove the complete 114 row titled “Laboratory (medical, dental, optical)” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for 115 Downtown Districts. 116 SECTION 13. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.050. That Section 117 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 118 Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to add four new rows to 119 the table for separate use categories titled, “Bio-medical facility,” “Technology facility,” “Laboratory, 120 medical related,” and “Research and development facility” to the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses 121 M-1 M-2 Data center P LEGISLATIVE DRAFT for Downtown Districts, which rows shall be inserted into that table in alphabetical order by use category 122 and shall read and appear in that table as follows: 123 D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Bio-medical facility P17 P17 P17 P17 124 D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Technology facility P P P P 125 D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Laboratory, medical related P P P P 126 D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Research and development facility P P P P 127 SECTION 14. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.050. That the 128 “Qualifying Provisions:” of Section 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use 129 Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts) shall be and hereby is 130 amended to add an additional qualifying provision “17,” which shall appear immediately succeeding 131 qualifying provision “16,” as follows: 132 17. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or 133 radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative 134 rules. 135 SECTION 15. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.060. That Section 136 21A.33.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 137 Conditional Uses for the Gateway District) shall be and hereby is amended to remove the complete 138 row titled “Laboratory (medical, dental, optical)” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for 139 the Gateway District. 140 SECTION 16. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.060. That Section 141 21A.33.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 142 Conditional Uses for the Gateway District) shall be and hereby is amended to add four new rows to 143 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT the table for separate use categories titled, “Bio-medical facility,” “Technology Facility,” “Laboratory, 144 medical related,” and “Research and development facility” to the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses 145 for the Gateway District, which rows shall be inserted into that table in alphabetical order by use category 146 and shall read and appear in that table as follows: 147 GMU Bio-medical facility P8 148 GMU Technology facility P 149 GMU Laboratory, medical related P 150 GMU Research and development facility P 151 SECTION 17. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.060. That the 152 “Qualifying Provisions:” of Section 21A.33.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use 153 Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for the Gateway District) shall be and hereby is 154 amended to add an additional qualifying provision “8,” which shall appear immediately succeeding 155 qualifying provision “7,” as follows: 156 8. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive 157 waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 158 SECTION 18. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.070. That Section 159 21A.33.070 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 160 Conditional Uses for the Special Purpose Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to remove three 161 complete rows titled “Dental laboratory/research facility,” “Research facility (medical),” and 162 “Research and development facility” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for the Special 163 Purpose Districts. 164 165 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SECTION 19. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.070. That 166 Section 21A.33.070 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted 167 and Conditional Uses for the Special Purpose Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to add 168 four new rows to the table for separate use categories titled, “Bio-medical facility,” “Technology 169 facility,” “Laboratory, medical related,” and “Research and development facility” to the Table of 170 Permitted and Conditional Uses for the Special Purpose Districts, which rows shall be inserted into 171 that table in alphabetical order by use category and shall read and appear in that table as follows: 172 RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG- 20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH E I MU Bio- medical facility P23 P23 P23 P23 173 174 175 R P BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH EI MU Technology facility P P P P 176 RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH EI MU Data center P 177 178 RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH EI MU Laboratory , medical related P P P P P 179 RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH EI MU Research and developme nt facility P P P P P 180 SECTION 20. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.070. That the 181 “Qualifying Provisions:” of Section 21A.33.070 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use 182 Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for the Special Purpose Districts) shall be and 183 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT hereby is amended to add an additional qualifying provision “23,” which shall appear immediately 184 succeeding qualifying provision “22,” as follows: 185 23. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or 186 radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative 187 rules. 188 SECTION 21. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.080. That Section 189 21A.33.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 190 Conditional Uses in Form Based Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to remove three complete 191 rows titled “Laboratory (medical, dental, optical)” and “Research Facility (medical/dental),” and 192 “Research and development facility” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses in Form Based 193 Districts. 194 SECTION 22. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.080. That Section 195 21A.33.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 196 Conditional Uses for the in Form Based Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to add four new 197 rows to the table for separate use categories titled, “Bio-medical facility,” “Technology facility,” 198 “Laboratory, medical related,” and “Research and development facility” to the Table of Permitted and 199 Conditional Uses in Form Based Districts, which rows shall be inserted into that table in alphabetical 200 order by use category and shall read and appear in that table as follows: 201 202 FB-UN1 FB-UN2 FB-SC FB-SE Bio-medical facility P4 P4 203 FB-UN1 FB-UN2 FB-SC FB-SE Technology facility P P P 204 FB-UN1 FB-UN2 FB-SC FB-SE Laboratory, medical related P P P 205 FB-UN1 FB-UN2 FB-SC FB-SE Research and development facility P P P 206 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SECTION 23. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.080. That the 207 “Qualifying Provisions:” of Section 21A.33.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use 208 Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses on Form Based Districts) shall be and hereby is 209 amended to add an additional qualifying provision “4,” which shall appear immediately succeeding 210 qualifying provision “3,” as follows: 211 4. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive 212 waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 213 SECTION 24. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020. That Section 214 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms) shall be and 215 hereby is amended to remove “Dental laboratory/research facility,” “Laboratory, medical, dental, 216 optical,” “Laboratory, testing,” “Research facility, medical,” and “Research facility, medical/dental” 217 from the “List of Terms.” 218 SECTION 25. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020. That Section 219 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms) shall be and 220 hereby is amended to add the following additional terms, which shall be inserted into the “List of 221 Terms” in alphabetical order: 222 Bio-medical facility. 223 Laboratory, medical related. 224 Technology facility 225 SECTION 26. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.040. That Section 226 21A.60.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: Definitions of Terms) shall be and 227 hereby is amended to remove the following definitions from the list of “Definitions of Terms” as 228 follows: 229 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT DENTAL LABORATORY/RESEARCH FACILITY: A laboratory used for research, development 230 and processing of on or off site orders, limited to medical and dental testing and precision 231 fabrication of dental articles worn by patients. 232 LABORATORY, MEDICAL, DENTAL, OPTICAL: A laboratory processing on or off site orders 233 limited to medical testing and precision fabrication of dental/optical articles worn by patients. 234 LABORATORY, TESTING: A use engaged in determining the physical qualities of construction, 235 medical or manufactured materials. This use does not include research laboratories 236 RESEARCH FACILITY, MEDICAL: A structure or group of structures used primarily for applied 237 and developmental research, where product testing is an integral part of the operation 238 and goods or products may be manufactured as necessary for testing, evaluation, and test 239 marketing. 240 241 RESEARCH FACILITY, MEDICAL/DENTAL: A structure or group of structures used primarily 242 for applied and developmental medical and dental research, where product testing is an 243 integral part of the operation and goods or products may be manufactured as necessary for 244 testing, evaluation, and test marketing. 245 SECTION 27. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.040. That Section 246 21A.60.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: Definitions of Terms) shall be and 247 hereby is amended to modify the definition of “Research and development facility,” which shall read 248 and appear as follows: 249 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITY: An establishment comprised of one or more 250 structures used primarily for applied and developmental research conducted entirely indoors. 251 The use may include testing to determine the physical qualities of already manufactured 252 materials or materials used in the manufacturing of a prototype. Research and development 253 facility is not a bio-medical facility or light manufacturing. 254 SECTION 28. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.040. That Section 255 21A.60.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: Definitions of Terms) shall be and 256 hereby is amended to add the following additional definitions, which shall be inserted into the 257 “Definitions of Terms” in alphabetical order: 258 BIO-MEDICAL FACILITY: An establishment that performs research and development in the 259 field of medicine and produces biologic, biomedical, or pharmaceutical products. A bio-medical 260 facility is not a hospital, health care facility, medical incinerator, or medical office. 261 262 DATA CENTER: An establishment that centralizes information technology operations and 263 equipment for the purposes of storing, processing, and disseminating data and applications. 264 265 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT LABORATORY, MEDICAL RELATED: An establishment that performs research and analysis of 266 medical tests and biologic samples collected for the purpose of medical diagnosis. A medical 267 related laboratory is not a bio-medical facility. 268 269 TECHNOLOGY FACILITY: An establishment that is engaged in research, development, 270 production, service, or related functions that uses technology to produce, deliver, or maintain 271 data, information, equipment, computers, or related accessories or services to others. A 272 technology facility is not a bio-medical facility or a research and development facility. 273 SECTION 29. Effective Date. This Ordinance take effect immediately after it has been 274 published in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code 275 §10-3-713. 276 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of 277 ______________, 2021. 278 ______________________________ 279 CHAIRPERSON 280 281 ATTEST: 282 283 ______________________________ 284 CITY RECORDER 285 286 287 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 288 289 290 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 291 292 ______________________________ 293 MAYOR 294 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 295 ______________________________ 296 CITY RECORDER 297 298 (SEAL) 299 300 Bill No. ________ of 2021. 301 Published: ______________. 302 303 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: _________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Hannah Vickery, Senior City Attorney By: ___________________________________ Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney 10/29/21 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 2021 2 3 (An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A 4 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to tech related land uses) 5 6 An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining 7 to tech related land uses pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00511. 8 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”) held a 9 public hearing on August 25, 2021 to consider a proposal initiated by Mayor Erin Mendenhall to 10 amend the Salt Lake City Code to more specifically identify tech related land uses and allow tech 11 related uses in more areas of the City; and 12 WHEREAS, at its August 25, 2021 hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor of 13 forwarding a positive recommendation of approval to the Salt Lake City Council (the “City 14 Council”) to adopt changes to the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to tech related land uses; and 15 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council desires to modify its land use regulations as 16 provided herein; and 17 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds, after holding a public hearing on this 18 matter, that adopting this ordinance promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the 19 citizens of the City. 20 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 21 SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.020. That Section 22 21A.33.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 23 Conditional Uses for Residential Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to remove the complete 24 row titled “Laboratory (medical, dental, optical)” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for 25 Residential Districts. 26 SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.020. That Section 27 21A.33.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 28 Conditional Uses for Residential Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to add three new rows to 29 the table for separate use categories titled, “Laboratory, medical related,” “Research and development 30 facility,” and ‘Technology facility” to the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential 31 Districts, which use category shall be inserted into that table in alphabetical order and shall read and 32 appear in that table as follows: 33 FR- 1/4356 0 FR- 2/2178 0 FR- 3/1200 0 R- 1/1200 0 R- 1/700 0 R- 1/5 000 SR -1 SR -2 SR -3 R 2 RMF -30 RMF -35 R M F- 45 RMF -75 R B R- MU- 35 R- M U- 45 R- M U R O Laborat ory, medical related P P P P P 34 35 36 FR- 1/43 560 FR- 2/21 780 FR- 3/12 000 R- 1/12 000 R- 1/7 000 R- 1/5 000 S R -1 S R -2 S R -3 R 2 R M F- 30 R M F- 35 R M F- 45 R M F- 75 R B R- M U- 35 R- M U- 45 R - M U R O Resear ch and develo pment facility P P FR- 1/4 356 0 FR- 2/2 178 0 FR- 3/12 000 R- 1/12 000 R- 1/7 00 0 R- 1/5 00 0 S R -1 S R - 2 S R - 3 R 2 R M F- 30 R M F- 35 R M F- 45 R M F- 75 R B R- M U - 35 R- M U - 4 5 R - M U R O Tech nolog y facilit y P P P P 37 SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That Section 38 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 39 Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to remove three 40 complete rows titled “Laboratory (medical, dental, optical),” “Laboratory, testing,” and “Research 41 and development facility" in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts. 42 SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That Section 43 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 44 Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to add four new rows to 45 the table for separate use categories titled, “Bio-medical facility,” “Technology facility,” “Laboratory, 46 medical related,” and “Research and development facility” to the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses 47 for Commercial Districts, which use categories shall be inserted into that table in alphabetical order and 48 shall read and appear in that table as follows: 49 50 CN CB CS CC CSHBD CG SNB Bio-medical facility P22 P22 P22 P22 51 CN CB CS CC CSHBD CG SNB Technology facility P P P P 52 53 CN CB CS CC CSHBD CG SNB Laboratory, medical related P P P P P 54 CN CB CS CC CSHBD CG SNB Research and development facility P P P P 55 SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That the 56 “Qualifying Provisions:” of Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use 57 Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be and hereby is 58 amended to add an additional qualifying provision “22,” which shall appear immediately succeeding 59 qualifying provision “21,” as follows: 60 22. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or 61 radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative 62 rules. 63 SECTION 6. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.035. That Section 64 21A.33.035 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 65 Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to remove four 66 complete rows titled “Laboratory (medical, dental, optical),” “Laboratory, testing,” and “Research 67 facility (medical)” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts. 68 SECTION 7. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.035. That Section 69 21A.33.035 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 70 Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to add 71 three new rows to the table for separate use categories titled, “Bio-medical facility,” “Technology 72 Facility,” “Laboratory, medical related,” to the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Transit 73 Station Area Districts Districts, which rows shall be inserted into that table in alphabetical order by use 74 category and shall read and appear in that table as follows: 75 TSA UC TSA UN TSA MUEC TSA SP Core Transition Core Transition Core Transition Core Transition Bio- medical facility P11 P11 P11 P11 76 TSA UC TSA UN TSA MUEC TSA SP Core Transition Core Transition Core Transition Core Transition Technology facility P P P P P P P P 77 78 TSA UC TSA UN TSA MUEC TSA SP Core Transition Core Transition Core Transition Core Transition Laboratory, medical related P P P P P P P P 79 SECTION 8. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.035. That the 80 “Qualifying Provisions:” of Section 21A.33.035 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use 81 Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Transit Station Districts) shall be and hereby is 82 amended to add an additional qualifying provision “11,” which shall appear immediately succeeding 83 provision “10,” as follows: 84 11. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive 85 waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 86 SECTION 9. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.040. That Section 87 21A.33.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 88 Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to remove two 89 complete rows titled “Laboratory (medical, dental, optical)” and “Laboratory, testing,” in the Table 90 of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts. 91 SECTION 10. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.040. That Section 92 21A.33.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 93 Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to add four new rows 94 to the table for separate use categories titled, “Bio-medical facility,” “Technology Facility,” “Laboratory, 95 medical related,” and “Research and development facility” to the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses 96 for Manufacturing Districts, which rows shall be inserted into that table in alphabetical order by use 97 category and shall read and appear in that table as follows: 98 M-1 M-2 Bio-medical facility P18 P18 99 M-1 M-2 Technology facility P 100 101 M-1 M-2 Laboratory, medical related P P 102 M-1 M-2 Research and development facility P P 103 SECTION 11. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.040. That the 104 “Qualifying Provisions:” of Section 21A.33.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use 105 Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts) shall be and hereby is 106 amended to add an additional qualifying provision “18,” which shall appear immediately succeeding 107 provision “17,” as follows: 108 18. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or 109 radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative 110 rules. 111 SECTION 12. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.050. That Section 112 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 113 Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to remove the complete 114 row titled “Laboratory (medical, dental, optical)” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for 115 Downtown Districts. 116 SECTION 13. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.050. That Section 117 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 118 Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to add four new rows to 119 the table for separate use categories titled, “Bio-medical facility,” “Technology facility,” “Laboratory, 120 medical related,” and “Research and development facility” to the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses 121 M-1 M-2 Data center P for Downtown Districts, which rows shall be inserted into that table in alphabetical order by use category 122 and shall read and appear in that table as follows: 123 D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Bio-medical facility P17 P17 P17 P17 124 D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Technology facility P P P P 125 D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Laboratory, medical related P P P P 126 D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Research and development facility P P P P 127 SECTION 14. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.050. That the 128 “Qualifying Provisions:” of Section 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use 129 Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts) shall be and hereby is 130 amended to add an additional qualifying provision “17,” which shall appear immediately succeeding 131 qualifying provision “16,” as follows: 132 17. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or 133 radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative 134 rules. 135 SECTION 15. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.060. That Section 136 21A.33.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 137 Conditional Uses for the Gateway District) shall be and hereby is amended to remove the complete 138 row titled “Laboratory (medical, dental, optical)” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for 139 the Gateway District. 140 SECTION 16. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.060. That Section 141 21A.33.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 142 Conditional Uses for the Gateway District) shall be and hereby is amended to add four new rows to 143 the table for separate use categories titled, “Bio-medical facility,” “Technology Facility,” “Laboratory, 144 medical related,” and “Research and development facility” to the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses 145 for the Gateway District, which rows shall be inserted into that table in alphabetical order by use category 146 and shall read and appear in that table as follows: 147 GMU Bio-medical facility P8 148 GMU Technology facility P 149 GMU Laboratory, medical related P 150 GMU Research and development facility P 151 SECTION 17. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.060. That the 152 “Qualifying Provisions:” of Section 21A.33.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use 153 Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for the Gateway District) shall be and hereby is 154 amended to add an additional qualifying provision “8,” which shall appear immediately succeeding 155 qualifying provision “7,” as follows: 156 8. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive 157 waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 158 SECTION 18. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.070. That Section 159 21A.33.070 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 160 Conditional Uses for the Special Purpose Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to remove three 161 complete rows titled “Dental laboratory/research facility,” “Research facility (medical),” and 162 “Research and development facility” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for the Special 163 Purpose Districts. 164 165 SECTION 19. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.070. That 166 Section 21A.33.070 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted 167 and Conditional Uses for the Special Purpose Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to add 168 four new rows to the table for separate use categories titled, “Bio-medical facility,” “Technology 169 facility,” “Laboratory, medical related,” and “Research and development facility” to the Table of 170 Permitted and Conditional Uses for the Special Purpose Districts, which rows shall be inserted into 171 that table in alphabetical order by use category and shall read and appear in that table as follows: 172 RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG- 20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH E I MU Bio- medical facility P23 P23 P23 P23 173 174 175 R P BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH EI MU Technology facility P P P P 176 RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH EI MU Data center P 177 178 RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH EI MU Laboratory , medical related P P P P P 179 RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH EI MU Research and developme nt facility P P P P P 180 SECTION 20. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.070. That the 181 “Qualifying Provisions:” of Section 21A.33.070 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use 182 Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for the Special Purpose Districts) shall be and 183 hereby is amended to add an additional qualifying provision “23,” which shall appear immediately 184 succeeding qualifying provision “22,” as follows: 185 23. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or 186 radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative 187 rules. 188 SECTION 21. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.080. That Section 189 21A.33.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 190 Conditional Uses in Form Based Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to remove three complete 191 rows titled “Laboratory (medical, dental, optical)” and “Research Facility (medical/dental),” and 192 “Research and development facility” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses in Form Based 193 Districts. 194 SECTION 22. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.080. That Section 195 21A.33.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 196 Conditional Uses for the in Form Based Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to add four new 197 rows to the table for separate use categories titled, “Bio-medical facility,” “Technology facility,” 198 “Laboratory, medical related,” and “Research and development facility” to the Table of Permitted and 199 Conditional Uses in Form Based Districts, which rows shall be inserted into that table in alphabetical 200 order by use category and shall read and appear in that table as follows: 201 202 FB-UN1 FB-UN2 FB-SC FB-SE Bio-medical facility P4 P4 203 FB-UN1 FB-UN2 FB-SC FB-SE Technology facility P P P 204 FB-UN1 FB-UN2 FB-SC FB-SE Laboratory, medical related P P P 205 FB-UN1 FB-UN2 FB-SC FB-SE Research and development facility P P P 206 SECTION 23. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.080. That the 207 “Qualifying Provisions:” of Section 21A.33.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use 208 Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses on Form Based Districts) shall be and hereby is 209 amended to add an additional qualifying provision “4,” which shall appear immediately succeeding 210 qualifying provision “3,” as follows: 211 4. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive 212 waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 213 SECTION 24. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020. That Section 214 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms) shall be and 215 hereby is amended to remove “Dental laboratory/research facility,” “Laboratory, medical, dental, 216 optical,” “Laboratory, testing,” “Research facility, medical,” and “Research facility, medical/dental” 217 from the “List of Terms.” 218 SECTION 25. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020. That Section 219 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms) shall be and 220 hereby is amended to add the following additional terms, which shall be inserted into the “List of 221 Terms” in alphabetical order: 222 Bio-medical facility. 223 Laboratory, medical related. 224 Technology facility 225 SECTION 26. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.040. That Section 226 21A.60.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: Definitions of Terms) shall be and 227 hereby is amended to remove the following definitions from the list of “Definitions of Terms” as 228 follows: 229 DENTAL LABORATORY/RESEARCH FACILITY: A laboratory used for research, development 230 and processing of on or off site orders, limited to medical and dental testing and precision 231 fabrication of dental articles worn by patients. 232 LABORATORY, MEDICAL, DENTAL, OPTICAL: A laboratory processing on or off site orders 233 limited to medical testing and precision fabrication of dental/optical articles worn by patients. 234 LABORATORY, TESTING: A use engaged in determining the physical qualities of construction, 235 medical or manufactured materials. This use does not include research laboratories 236 RESEARCH FACILITY, MEDICAL: A structure or group of structures used primarily for applied 237 and developmental research, where product testing is an integral part of the operation 238 and goods or products may be manufactured as necessary for testing, evaluation, and test 239 marketing. 240 241 RESEARCH FACILITY, MEDICAL/DENTAL: A structure or group of structures used primarily 242 for applied and developmental medical and dental research, where product testing is an 243 integral part of the operation and goods or products may be manufactured as necessary for 244 testing, evaluation, and test marketing. 245 SECTION 27. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.040. That Section 246 21A.60.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: Definitions of Terms) shall be and 247 hereby is amended to modify the definition of “Research and development facility,” which shall read 248 and appear as follows: 249 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITY: An establishment comprised of one or more 250 structures used primarily for applied and developmental research conducted entirely indoors. 251 The use may include testing to determine the physical qualities of already manufactured 252 materials or materials used in the manufacturing of a prototype. Research and development 253 facility is not a bio-medical facility or light manufacturing. 254 SECTION 28. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.040. That Section 255 21A.60.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: Definitions of Terms) shall be and 256 hereby is amended to add the following additional definitions, which shall be inserted into the 257 “Definitions of Terms” in alphabetical order: 258 BIO-MEDICAL FACILITY: An establishment that performs research and development in the 259 field of medicine and produces biologic, biomedical, or pharmaceutical products. A bio-medical 260 facility is not a hospital, health care facility, medical incinerator, or medical office. 261 262 DATA CENTER: An establishment that centralizes information technology operations and 263 equipment for the purposes of storing, processing, and disseminating data and applications. 264 265 LABORATORY, MEDICAL RELATED: An establishment that performs research and analysis of 266 medical tests and biologic samples collected for the purpose of medical diagnosis. A medical 267 related laboratory is not a bio-medical facility. 268 269 TECHNOLOGY FACILITY: An establishment that is engaged in research, development, 270 production, service, or related functions that uses technology to produce, deliver, or maintain 271 data, information, equipment, computers, or related accessories or services to others. A 272 technology facility is not a bio-medical facility or a research and development facility. 273 SECTION 29. Effective Date. This Ordinance take effect immediately after it has been 274 published in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code 275 §10-3-713. 276 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of 277 ______________, 2021. 278 ______________________________ 279 CHAIRPERSON 280 281 ATTEST: 282 283 ______________________________ 284 CITY RECORDER 285 286 287 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 288 289 290 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 291 292 ______________________________ 293 MAYOR 294 295 ______________________________ 296 CITY RECORDER 297 298 (SEAL) 299 300 Bill No. ________ of 2021. 301 Published: ______________. 302 303 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: _________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Hannah Vickery, Senior City Attorney By: ___________________________________ Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: PLNPCM2021-00511 Technology Related Land Use Text Amendments STAFF CONTACT: Nick Norris, Planning Director nick.norris@slcgov.com or 801-641-1728 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the proposal as recommended by the Planning Commission.. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This proposal was initiated by Mayor Erin Mendenhall to promote the development of the technology related industry in the City. The proposal updates the zoning code and does the following: Adds Biomedical, Technology Facility, and Data Center as defined terms in the zoning code and adds the uses to the land use tables as permitted uses in specific zoning districts identified in the draft ordinance. Adds a qualifying provision as a footnote to the land use tables related to Biomedical uses that would prohibit uses that produce hazardous waste from being located within ½ mile of a residential use. Modifies and merges several defined land uses into one use called “Laboratory, related” and updates the land use tables as indicated in the draft ordinance. Updates the defined land use “research and development facility” so the definition reflects the nature of the use and expands where the use is allowed in the land use tables of the zoning code. September 10, 2021 Lisa Shaffer (Sep 28, 2021 15:20 MDT) 09/28/2021 09/28/2021 This proposal was initiated to help achieve several goals found in adopted planning documents of the city as well as identified in the Mayor’s 2021 Plan. The overall goal was to expand where tech related land uses could be in the city, specifically capitalizing on the biomedical uses that are created due to the proximity of the University of Utah. The full set of goals found in adopted plans can be found in the Planning Commission staff report. The changes were proposed because the uses are not defined in the code currently. This creates uncertainty for tech related uses and forces most of the uses into the industrial areas of the city. This results in the need for administrative interpretations that take time and staff resources, often for uses that are not more impactful than other similar uses already allowed in the underlying zoning districts. Time is important for perspective businesses looking to locate in the city. The proposed definitions are intended to be “general definitions” which are defined in the code as definitions that are intended to be applied broadly and to address a wide range of potential land uses. This proposal helps address that uncertainty and makes the code more predictable. Adding the proposed uses to mixed use zoning districts is based on the goals of multiple community plans to create more mixed-use neighborhoods throughout the city and provide jobs near where people live. Further research of other communities has found that there is a growing desire for tech related companies to be in places that are close to housing, restaurants, entertainment, transit, and cultural amenities. These factors were used to help identify where the uses were appropriate. The impacts of the potential uses were considered in determining the zoning districts where the uses would be acceptable. Few technology related land uses create impacts that are different than most general office uses. Some biomedical uses do produce hazardous waste. The proposal includes a provision that would prohibit biomedical uses that produce hazardous waste from being located within ½ mile of a residential use. Data Centers also could have a negative impact on mixed use areas where street engagement is important to promote vitality and walkability. Dat centers tend to have low numbers of employees and are in buildings with limited windows and entrances. This proposal only allows the use in the M-1, M-2, and BP zoning districts because the nature of those areas do not include creating more walkable and engaging pedestrian areas due to the large footprints of the buildings and the nature of the land use. The Salt Lake City Department of Sustainability provided a recommendation to the Planning Commission asking that all bio-medical uses provide either an air quality permit or an exemption from permit requirements from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division. This was recommended to help the city have a better idea of the level of emissions from bio-medical uses. The Zoning Ordinance already includes environmental performance requirements for air quality. The code requires applicants to provide copies of any required approval. However, it is difficult during the zoning review to know if a permit is required because it requires extensive knowledge of the air quality requirements adopted by the State of Utah. Requiring evidence does make administering the code and verifying compliance with the standard easier. The proposal also included updating medical laboratory related definitions. The code contains multiple variations of this use, which has created some confusion and difficulty in administering the code. This change was included in this proposal because some of the medical lab definitions blurred the lines with the biomedical definition, so more distinction was added to avoid confusion and make it easier to administer the code. The research and development land use are proposed to be updated because the use tends to not produce impacts that are different than most office uses. This is an existing land use definition in the code, but it was updated to better reflect the nature of the use and how the use has evolved over time. PUBLIC PROCESS: The Planning Division created an online storyboard to explain the proposal and provide a survey about the proposed uses. A link to the story map can be found here: HERE. The information and link are posted to the Planning Division Open House page and included in the notice to recognized organizations. Notice of the proposal was sent to all registered recognized organizations in the City. Two organizations requested a presentation on the proposal: The Downtown Alliance and the Sugar House Community Council. A summary of the input received can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report. The survey was accessible from May 21, 2021 to July 31, 2021. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 25, 2021. Notice of the public hearing was sent to all registered recognized organizations and Trolley Square Associated (who requested notice of all zoning changes specifically effecting property the entity owns), was posted on the Planning Commission Agenda page, the State of Utah Public Notice page, and was emailed to the Planning Division email list. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed text changes. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda for August 25, 2021 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of May 26, 2021 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report for August 25, 2021 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Chronology 2) City Council Public Hearing Notice 3) Petition Initiation 4) Mailing Labels LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 2021 2 3 (An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A 4 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to tech related land uses) 5 6 An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining 7 to tech related land uses pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00511. 8 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission 9 public hearing on August 25, 2021 to consider a proposal initiated by Mayor Erin Mendenhall to 10 amend the Salt Lake City Code to more specifically identify tech related land uses and allow tech 11 related uses in more areas of the City; and 12 WHEREAS, at its August 25, 2021 hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor of 13 forwarding a positive recommendation of approval to the Salt Lake City Council 14 to adopt changes to the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to tech related land uses; and 15 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council desires to modify its land use regulations as 16 provided herein; and 17 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds, after holding a public hearing on this 18 matter, that adopting this ordinance promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the 19 citizens of the City. 20 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 21 SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.020. That Section 22 21A.33.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 23 Conditional Uses for Residential Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to remove the complete 24 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Laboratory (medical, dental, optical)25 Residential Districts. 26 FR- 1/435 60 FR- 2/217 80 FR- 3/120 00 R- 1/120 00 R- 1/70 00 R- 1/50 00 S R- 1 S R- 2 S R- 3 R 2 RM F- 30 RM F- 35 RM F- 45 RM F- 75 R B R- M U- 35 R- M U- 45 R- M U R O Laborat ory (medica l, dental, optical) P P P P P 27 SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.020. That Section 28 21A.33.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 29 Conditional Uses for Residential Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to add three new rows to 30 development 31 f f32 Districts, which use category shall be inserted into that table in alphabetical order and shall read and 33 appear in that table as follows: 34 FR- 1/4356 0 FR- 2/2178 0 FR- 3/1200 0 R- 1/1200 0 R- 1/700 0 R- 1/5 000 SR -1 SR -2 SR -3 R 2 RMF -30 RMF -35 R M F- 45 RMF -75 R B R- MU- 35 R- M U- 45 R- M U R O Laborat ory, medical related P P P P P 35 36 37 38 39 FR- 1/43 560 FR- 2/21 780 FR- 3/12 000 R- 1/12 000 R- 1/7 000 R- 1/5 000 S R -1 S R -2 S R -3 R 2 R M F- 30 R M F- 35 R M F- 45 R M F- 75 R B R- M U- 35 R- M U- 45 R - M U R O Resear ch and develo pment facility P P LEGISLATIVE DRAFT FR- 1/4 356 0 FR- 2/2 178 0 FR- 3/12 000 R- 1/12 000 R- 1/7 00 0 R- 1/5 00 0 S R -1 S R - 2 S R - 3 R 2 R M F- 30 R M F- 35 R M F- 45 R M F- 75 R B R- M U - 35 R- M U - 4 5 R - M U R O Tech nolog y facilit y P P P P 40 SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That Section 41 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 42 Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to remove two complete 43 rows Laboratory (medical, dental, optical) and testing in the Table of 44 Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts. 45 CN CB CS CC CSHBD CG SNB Laboratory (medical, dental, optical) P P P P P Laboratory, testing P P P 46 SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That Section 47 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 48 Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to add four new rows to 49 the table for separate use categories titled, -medica f 50 development f to the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses 51 for Commercial Districts, which use categories shall be inserted into that table in alphabetical order and 52 shall read and appear in that table as follows: 53 54 CN CB CS CC CSHBD CG SNB Bio-medical facility P22 P22 P22 P22 55 CN CB CS CC CSHBD CG SNB LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Technology facility P P P P 56 57 CN CB CS CC CSHBD CG SNB Laboratory, medical related P P P P P 58 CN CB CS CC CSHBD CG SNB Research and development facility P P P P 59 SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That the 60 P Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use 61 Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be and hereby is 62 ,which shall appear immediately succeeding 63 qualifying provision 21, as follows: 64 22. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or 65 radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative 66 rules. 67 SECTION 6. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.035. That Section 68 21A.33.035 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 69 Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to remove four 70 complete rows Laboratory (medical, dental, optical),testing, 71 facility (medical) in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts. 72 TSA UC TSA UN TSA MUEC TSA SP Core Transition Core Transition Core Transition Core Transition Laboratory (medical, dental, optical) P P P P P P P P Laboratory, testing P P P P 73 TSA UC TSA UN TSA MUEC TSA SP Core Transition Core Transition Core Transition Core Transition LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Research facility (medical) P P P P P P P P 74 SECTION 7. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.035. That Section 75 21A.33.035 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 76 Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to add 77 three new rows to the table for separate use categories titled, -78 Facil to the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Transit 79 Station Area Districts Districts, which rows shall be inserted into that table in alphabetical order by use 80 category and shall read and appear in that table as follows: 81 TSA UC TSA UN TSA MUEC TSA SP Core Transition Core Transition Core Transition Core Transition Bio- medical facility P11 P11 P11 P11 82 TSA UC TSA UN TSA MUEC TSA SP Core Transition Core Transition Core Transition Core Transition Technology facility P P P P P P P P 83 TSA UC TSA UN TSA MUEC TSA SP Core Transition Core Transition Core Transition Core Transition Laboratory, medical related P P P P P P P P 84 SECTION 8. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.035. That the 85 Section 21A.33.035 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use 86 Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Transit Station Districts) shall be and hereby is 87 88 provision 10, as follows: 89 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 11. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive 90 waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 91 SECTION 9. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.040. That Section 92 21A.33.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 93 Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to remove two 94 complete rows Laboratory (medical, dental, optical)t in the Table 95 of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts. 96 M-1 M-2 Laboratory (medical, dental, optical) P P Laboratory, testing P P 97 SECTION 10. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.040. That Section 98 21A.33.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 99 Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to add four new rows 100 to the table for separate use categories titled, - 101 development f to the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses 102 for Manufacturing Districts, which rows shall be inserted into that table in alphabetical order by use 103 category and shall read and appear in that table as follows: 104 M-1 M-2 Bio-medical facility P18 P18 105 M-1 M-2 Technology facility P 106 107 M-1 M-2 Laboratory, medical related P P 108 M-1 M-2 M-1 M-2 Data center P LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Research and development facility P P 109 SECTION 11. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.040. That the 110 Section 21A.33.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use 111 Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts) shall be and hereby is 112 113 provision 17, as follows: 114 18. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or 115 radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative 116 rules. 117 SECTION 12. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.050. That Section 118 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 119 Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to remove the complete 120 row Laboratory (medical, dental, optical)ble of Permitted and Conditional Uses for 121 Downtown Districts. 122 D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Laboratory (medical, dental, optical) P P P P 123 SECTION 13. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.050. That Section 124 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 125 Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to add four new rows to 126 the table for separate use categories titled, -f 127 development f to the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses 128 for Downtown Districts, which rows shall be inserted into that table in alphabetical order by use category 129 and shall read and appear in that table as follows: 130 D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Bio-medical facility P17 P17 P17 P17 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 131 D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Technology facility P P P P 132 D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Laboratory, medical related P P P P 133 D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Research and development facility P P P P 134 SECTION 14. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.050. That the 135 Section 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use 136 Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts) shall be and hereby is 137 138 qualifying provision 16, as follows: 139 17. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or 140 radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative 141 rules. 142 SECTION 15. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.060. That Section 143 21A.33.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 144 Conditional Uses for the Gateway District) shall be and hereby is amended to remove the complete 145 row Laboratory (medical, dental, optical)146 the Gateway District. 147 GMU Laboratory (medical, dental, optical) P 148 SECTION 16. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.060. That Section 149 21A.33.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 150 Conditional Uses for the Gateway District) shall be and hereby is amended to add four new rows to 151 the table for separate use categories titled, - 152 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT me development f to the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses 153 for the Gateway District, which rows shall be inserted into that table in alphabetical order by use category 154 and shall read and appear in that table as follows: 155 GMU Bio-medical facility P8 156 GMU Technology facility P 157 GMU Laboratory, medical related P 158 GMU Research and development facility P 159 SECTION 17. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.060. That the 160 Section 21A.33.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use 161 Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for the Gateway District) shall be and hereby is162 hall appear immediately succeeding 163 qualifying provision 7, as follows: 164 8. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive165 waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 166 SECTION 18. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.070. That Section 167 21A.33.070 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 168 Conditional Uses for the Special Purpose Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to remove three 169 complete rows Dental laboratory/research facility,facility (medical), and 170 in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for the Special 171 Purpose Districts. 172 R P BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH EI MU Dental laboratory/ P P C C LEGISLATIVE DRAFT research facility 173 RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH EI MU Research and developme nt facility P P P P C Research facility (medical) P P P P 174 SECTION 19. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.070. That 175 Section 21A.33.070 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted 176 and Conditional Uses for the Special Purpose Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to add 177 four new rows to the table for separate use categories titled, io-178 f development f to the Table of 179 Permitted and Conditional Uses for the Special Purpose Districts, which rows shall be inserted into 180 that table in alphabetical order by use category and shall read and appear in that table as follows: 181 RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG- 20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH E I MU Bio- medical facility P23 P23 P23 P23 182 183 184 R P BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH EI MU Technology facility P P P P 185 RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH EI MU Data center P 186 187 RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH EI MU LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Laboratory , medical related P P P P P 188 RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH EI MU Research and developme nt facility P P P P P 189 SECTION 20. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.070. That the 190 Section 21A.33.070 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use 191 Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for the Special Purpose Districts) shall be and 192 hereby is 193 succeeding qualifying provision 22, as follows: 194 23. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or 195 radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative 196 rules. 197 SECTION 21. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.080. That Section 198 21A.33.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 199 Conditional Uses in Form Based Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to remove three complete 200 rows Laboratory (medical, dental, optical)(medical/dental), and 201 in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses in Form Based 202 Districts. 203 FB-UN1 FB-UN2 FB-UN3 FB-SC FB-SE Laboratory (medical, dental, optical) P P P P 204 FB-UN1 FB-UN2 FB-UN3 FB-SC FB-SE Research and development facility P P P Research Facility, (medical/dental) P P P P 205 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SECTION 22. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.080. That Section 206 21A.33.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 207 Conditional Uses for the in Form Based Districts) shall be and hereby is amended to add four new 208 rows to the table for separate use categories titled, -f 209 development f to the Table of Permitted and 210 Conditional Uses in Form Based Districts, which rows shall be inserted into that table in alphabetical 211 order by use category and shall read and appear in that table as follows: 212 213 FB-UN1 FB-UN2 FB-UN3 FB-SC FB-SE Bio-medical facility P4 P4 P4 214 FB-UN1 FB-UN2 FB-UN3 FB-SC FB-SE Technology facility P P P P 215 FB-UN1 FB-UN2 FB-UN3 FB-SC FB-SE Laboratory, medical related P P P P 216 FB-UN1 FB-UN2 FB-UN3 FB-SC FB-SE Research and development facility P P P P 217 SECTION 23. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.080. That the 218 Section 21A.33.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use 219 Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses on Form Based Districts) shall be and hereby is 220 all appear immediately succeeding 221 222 4. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive223 waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 224 SECTION 24. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020. That Section 225 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms) shall be and 226 hereby is amend227 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 228 229 Dental laboratory/research facility 230 Laboratory, medical, dental, optical 231 Laboratory, testing 232 Research facility, medical 233 Research facility, medical/dental 234 SECTION 25. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020. That Section 235 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms) shall be and 236 hereby is amend237 in alphabetical order: 238 Bio-medical facility. 239 Laboratory, medical related. 240 Technology facility 241 SECTION 26. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.040. That Section 242 21A.60.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: Definitions of Terms) shall be and 243 hereby is amended to remove the following definitions from the list of as 244 follows: 245 DENTAL LABORATORY/RESEARCH FACILITY: A laboratory used for research, development 246 and processing of on or off site orders, limited to medical and dental testing and precision 247 fabrication of dental articles worn by patients. 248 LABORATORY, MEDICAL, DENTAL, OPTICAL: A laboratory processing on or off site orders 249 limited to medical testing and precision fabrication of dental/optical articles worn by patients. 250 LABORATORY, TESTING: A use engaged in determining the physical qualities of construction, 251 medical or manufactured materials. This use does not include research laboratories 252 RESEARCH FACILITY, MEDICAL: A structure or group of structures used primarily for applied 253 and developmental research, where product testing is an integral part of the operation 254 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT and goods or products may be manufactured as necessary for testing, evaluation, and test 255 marketing.256 257 RESEARCH FACILITY, MEDICAL/DENTAL: A structure or group of structures used primarily 258 for applied and developmental medical and dental research, where product testing is an 259 integral part of the operation and goods or products may be manufactured as necessary for 260 testing, evaluation, and test marketing. 261 SECTION 27. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.040. That Section 262 21A.60.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: Definitions of Terms) shall be and 263 hereby is amend264 and appear as follows: 265 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITY: An establishment comprised of one or more A 266 structure or group of structures used primarily for applied and developmental research 267 conducted entirely indoors. where product testing is an integral part of the operation and goods 268 or products may be manufactured as necessary for testing, evaluation, and test marketing. The 269 use may include testing to determine the physical qualities of already manufactured materials or 270 materials used in the manufacturing of a prototype. Research and development facility is not a 271 bio-medical facility or light manufacturing. 272 SECTION 28. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.040. That Section 273 21A.60.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: Definitions of Terms) shall be and 274 hereby is amended to add the following additional definitions, which shall be inserted into the 275 in alphabetical order: 276 BIO-MEDICAL FACILITY: An establishment that performs research and development in the 277 field of medicine and produces biologic, biomedical, or pharmaceutical products. A bio-medical 278 facility is not a hospital, health care facility, medical incinerator, or medical office. 279 280 DATA CENTER: An establishment that centralizes information technology operations and 281 equipment for the purposes of storing, processing, and disseminating data and applications. 282 283 LABORATORY, MEDICAL RELATED: An establishment that performs research and analysis of 284 medical tests and biologic samples collected for the purpose of medical diagnosis. A medical 285 related laboratory is not a bio-medical facility. 286 287 TECHNOLOGY FACILITY: An establishment that is engaged in research, development, 288 production, service, or related functions that uses technology to produce, deliver, or maintain 289 data, information, equipment, computers, or related accessories or services to others. A 290 technology facility is not a bio-medical facility or a research and development facility 291 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SECTION 29. Effective Date. This Ordinance take effect immediately after it has been 292 published in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code 293 §10-3-713. 294 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of 295 ______________, 2021. 296 ______________________________ 297 CHAIRPERSON 298 299 ATTEST: 300 301 ______________________________ 302 CITY RECORDER 303 304 305 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 306 307 308 _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 309 310 311 ______________________________ 312 MAYOR 313 314 ______________________________ 315 CITY RECORDER 316 317 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (SEAL)318 319 Bill No. ________ of 2021.320 Published: ______________.321 322 APPROVED AS TO FORM Date: _________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Hannah Vickery, Senior City Attorney 8/30/2020 ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: PLNPCM2021-00511 Technology Related Land Use Text Amendments STAFF CONTACT: Nick Norris, Planning Director nick.norris@slcgov.com or 801-641-1728 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the proposal as recommended by the Planning Commission.. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This proposal was initiated by Mayor Erin Mendenhall to promote the development of the technology related industry in the City. The proposal updates the zoning code and does the following:  Adds Biomedical, Technology Facility, and Data Center as defined terms in the zoning code and adds the uses to the land use tables as permitted uses in specific zoning districts identified in the draft ordinance.  Adds a qualifying provision as a footnote to the land use tables related to Biomedical uses that would prohibit uses that produce hazardous waste from being located within ½ mile of a residential use.  Modifies and merges several defined land uses into one use called “Laboratory, related” and updates the land use tables as indicated in the draft ordinance.  Updates the defined land use “research and development facility” so the definition reflects the nature of the use and expands where the use is allowed in the land use tables of the zoning code. This proposal was initiated to help achieve several goals found in adopted planning documents of the city as well as identified in the Mayor’s 2021 Plan. The overall goal was to expand where tech related land uses could be in the city, specifically capitalizing on the biomedical uses that are created due to the proximity of the University of Utah. The full set of goals found in adopted plans can be found in the Planning Commission staff report. The changes were proposed because the uses are not defined in the code currently. This creates uncertainty for tech related uses and forces most of the uses into the industrial areas of the city. This results in the need for administrative interpretations that take time and staff resources, often for uses that are not more impactful than other similar uses already allowed in the underlying zoning districts. Time is important for perspective businesses looking to locate in the city. The proposed definitions are intended to be “general definitions” which are defined in the code as definitions that are intended to be applied broadly and to address a wide range of potential land uses. This proposal helps address that uncertainty and makes the code more predictable. Adding the proposed uses to mixed use zoning districts is based on the goals of multiple community plans to create more mixed-use neighborhoods throughout the city and provide jobs near where people live. Further research of other communities has found that there is a growing desire for tech related companies to be in places that are close to housing, restaurants, entertainment, transit, and cultural amenities. These factors were used to help identify where the uses were appropriate. The impacts of the potential uses were considered in determining the zoning districts where the uses would be acceptable. Few technology related land uses create impacts that are different than most general office uses. Some biomedical uses do produce hazardous waste. The proposal includes a provision that would prohibit biomedical uses that produce hazardous waste from being located within ½ mile of a residential use. Data Centers also could have a negative impact on mixed use areas where street engagement is important to promote vitality and walkability. Dat centers tend to have low numbers of employees and are in buildings with limited windows and entrances. This proposal only allows the use in the M-1, M-2, and BP zoning districts because the nature of those areas do not include creating more walkable and engaging pedestrian areas due to the large footprints of the buildings and the nature of the land use. The Salt Lake City Department of Sustainability provided a recommendation to the Planning Commission asking that all bio-medical uses provide either an air quality permit or an exemption from permit requirements from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division. This was recommended to help the city have a better idea of the level of emissions from bio-medical uses. The Zoning Ordinance already includes environmental performance requirements for air quality. The code requires applicants to provide copies of any required approval. However, it is difficult during the zoning review to know if a permit is required because it requires extensive knowledge of the air quality requirements adopted by the State of Utah. Requiring evidence does make administering the code and verifying compliance with the standard easier. The proposal also included updating medical laboratory related definitions. The code contains multiple variations of this use, which has created some confusion and difficulty in administering the code. This change was included in this proposal because some of the medical lab definitions blurred the lines with the biomedical definition, so more distinction was added to avoid confusion and make it easier to administer the code. The research and development land use are proposed to be updated because the use tends to not produce impacts that are different than most office uses. This is an existing land use definition in the code, but it was updated to better reflect the nature of the use and how the use has evolved over time. PUBLIC PROCESS: The Planning Division created an online storyboard to explain the proposal and provide a survey about the proposed uses. A link to the story map can be found here: HERE. The information and link are posted to the Planning Division Open House page and included in the notice to recognized organizations. Notice of the proposal was sent to all registered recognized organizations in the City. Two organizations requested a presentation on the proposal: The Downtown Alliance and the Sugar House Community Council. A summary of the input received can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report. The survey was accessible from May 21, 2021 to July 31, 2021. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 25, 2021. Notice of the public hearing was sent to all registered recognized organizations and Trolley Square Associated (who requested notice of all zoning changes specifically effecting property the entity owns), was posted on the Planning Commission Agenda page, the State of Utah Public Notice page, and was emailed to the Planning Division email list. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed text changes. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda for August 25, 2021 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of May 26, 2021 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report for August 25, 2021 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Chronology 2) City Council Public Hearing Notice 3) Petition Initiation 4) Mailing Labels 1. CHRONOLOGY Chronology Petition Initiated May 12, 2021 Online Survey Opened May 21, 2021 Online engagement information posted May 24, 2021 45-day notice sent to recognized organizations May 25, 2021 Proposal routed for department review May 26, 2021 Downtown Alliance presentation June 30, 2021 Sugar House Community council presentation July 21, 2021 Engagement period ends July 31, 2021 Planning Commission agenda Published August 12, 2021 Planning Commission notice sent August 12, 2021 Planning Commission staff report posted August 19, 2021 Planning Commission public hearing August 25, 2021 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2021-00511 Bio-medical, Technology Facility, Medical Laboratory, Research and Development Facility, and Data Center Zoning Text Amendment, initiated by Mayor Erin Mendenhall, that would add the proposed land uses to the land use tables and definitions of each land use to the zoning code. The proposal impacts zoning districts citywide and impacts multiple sections of Title 21A Zoning. Related provisions of Title 21A may also be amended as part of this petition. Information on this proposal can be found in the staff report prepared for the Planning Commission that can be found here: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/08.August/PLNPCM2 021-00511%20PC%20Staff%20report%20final.pdf As part of their study, the City Council will hold an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held electronically: DATE: Date #1 and Date #2 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: **This meeting will not have a physical location. **This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation. If you are interested in participating in the Public Hearing, please visit our website at https://www.slc.gov/council/ to learn how you can share your comments during the meeting. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24- Hour comment line at (801)535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal, please call Nick Norris at 801-641- 1728 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at nick.norris@slcgov.com. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. ORIGINAL PETITION SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLC.GOV PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Erin Mendenhall Cc: Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer; Blake Thomas, Department of Community and Neighborhoods Director; Ben Kolendar, Economic Development Director; Michaela Oktay, Deputy Planning Director From: Nick Norris, Planning Director Date: April 30, 2021 Re: Initiating a zoning amendment to implement the tech corridor goal in the Mayor’s 2021 Plan. The Planning Division would like to request that a zoning text amendment be initiated to update the zoning code to support the implementation of the City’s adopted policies related to economic development and the 2021 Plan goals of advancing Tech Lake City and expanding the life science industry in Salt Lake City. The Department of Community and Neighborhoods has been working with the Economic Development Department to identify the current barriers in the zoning code to accomplish this goal. We are now ready to start a public process to remove these barriers. The proposal would include adding new tech related land use definitions to the code, updating existing definitions, and adding the new uses to the tables of permitted and conditional uses in appropriate zoning districts. The desired result is to make it quick, easy, and less time consuming for tech related land uses to be established, expanded, and contribute to the overall goals of the city. The process will include an engagement process led by the Department of Economic Development that includes the community, industry stakeholders, and other interested parties. Through the Health Care Innovation Blueprint Initiative, Clark Cahoon will be convening the Physical Capital (Real Estate & Infrastructure) subcommittee led by Danny Walz and the Regulatory & City Led Efforts subcommittee led by Blake Thomas to bring together stakeholders in the business community across the city to get feedback on the proposed zoning changes. The Planning Division will help coordinate outreach through the city’s Recognized Organizations. After the proposal is vetted through the engagement process, the proposal will be presented to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and transmitted to the City Council. The anticipated timeline is approximately 60 days for the public engagement process and 30 days for the Planning Commission. The timeline is subject to available workloads of staff participating on the project, planning commission agenda process, and if any unforeseen issues arise as part of the engagement process. The proposal includes adding general definitions for at least the following uses: • Bio-Medical: research, diagnostic, laboratories, manufacture of biologic, biomedical, pharmaceutical products. • Technology Facility: research, development, production, service, and related functions that use technology to produce, deliver, or maintain data, information, equipment, computers and related accessories, or services to other entities and the public. l Page 2 The proposal will update other related land use definitions in the code by modifying or consolidating other defined uses that are more specific and which may create unforeseen barriers in the future. The new and updated land use definitions will be added to the land use tables so they are permitted uses in zoning districts that have the following characteristics: • Allow a broad mix of residential, commercial, and entertainment uses to support employees. • In industrial areas when the use includes manufacturing and distribution. • Near transit lines. • In areas of the city that are more walkable. This memo includes a signature block to initiate the petition if that is the decided course of action. If the decided course of action is to not initiate the application, the signature block can remain blank. Please notify the Planning Division when the memo is signed or if the decision is made to not initiate the petition. Please contact me at ext. 6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com if you have any questions. Thank you. Concurrence to initiate the zoning text amendment petition as noted above. _____________________________________ ______________ Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Date May 12, 2021 4. MAILING LABELS OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR OWN_CITY OWN_STATE OWN_ZIP Douglas F White 630 East South Temple Slat Lake City UT 84102‐1102 Item E3 CITY 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 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members DATE:November 9, 2021 RE: Resolution: Public Benefit Analysis – Digital Donation Program MOTION 1 (Close) I move that the City Council close the public hearing and refer the item to November 16th for action. MOTION 2 (Close & Adopt) I move that the City Council close the public hearing and adopt a resolution authorizing the donation of certain City computers to benefit low- and moderate-income families through a Digital Donation Program. MOTION 3 (Close & Not adopt) I move that the City Council close the public hearing and not adopt the resolution. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES Aaron Bentley, Chief Information Officer P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date Sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 9/15/2021 Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Aaron Bentley Chief Information Officer Information Management Services SUBJECT: Digital Donation Program STAFF CONTACTS: Nole Walkingshaw, Chief Innovation Officer, nole.walkingshaw@slcgov.com Kim Thomas, Youth & Family Director, kim.thomas@slcgov.com Sandy Pho Casement, Senior Innovation Consultant, sandy.casement@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Public Benefits Analysis and Recommendation RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that a public hearing be held on the matter of the Public Benefits Analysis and that the Council consider adopting a resolution approving the donation of 18 surplus computers, keyboards and mice the City no longer intends to use to families and individuals who currently utilize Youth & Family services. BUDGET IMPACT: The proposed action will not materially impact the City budget – See the attached cost analysis. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Digital Equity Policy of Salt Lake City was adopted on September 1, 2020 to address the imbalances related to digital equity. One of the policy’s targeted action items called for increasing digital access via reliable and affordable devices. The SLC Innovation Team in IMS has developed an equipment donation program that addresses this very need. Every year, the City ends up with about 300-500 surplus computers (laptops and desktops). Currently IMS sells these devices to TNT Auction every year at a net loss when taking staff time into consideration. (See attached cost analysis). Instead of selling its surplus computers, IMS is proposing ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES Aaron Bentley, Chief Information Officer P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 the City donate them to community organizations that serve Salt Lake City’s low-income families and individuals via an open application process. The organization will then disseminate the refurbished computers to its clients, carry out an initial digital literacy screening and/or training, and provide information and resources on internet access. We are currently working with Youth & Family Services (Y&F) on a pilot program to donate 18 Y&F surplus computers, keyboards and mice to families and individuals who currently utilize their services. Computers, keyboards and mice will also go to a community organization that serves Salt Lake City’s low-income families and individuals. The organization will then disseminate the refurbished equipment to its clients. Y&F has the necessary staff and community connections to deploy this program immediately. Once all computers are disbursed, the Innovation team will work with Y&F to review and refine their processes and community engagement strategy. Lessons learned here will be used to inform IMS’ larger donation program, which would be done on a biannual basis through an internal, streamlined process the Innovation Team will develop. By providing computers and resources on broadband access to low-income communities, the proposed Digital Donation program will benefit the residents of Salt Lake City by: helping bridge the technology gap in disadvantaged communities, increase digital literacy, improve student achievement, and reduce the city’s electronic waste output. According to the 2018 American Community Survey 1 (ACS), 13.3 percent of households in Salt Lake City do not have internet access and 5.4 percent do not own a desktop or laptop. About 12 percent of households rely solely on a cellular data plan to stay connected. In the City’s Westside neighborhoods of Rose Park, Poplar Grove and Glendale, a larger proportion of its residents lack home internet connections, especially among its lower-income and elderly populations. Roughly 22 percent of Westside households lack any broadband subscription of any kind with about 13.3 percent relying solely on mobile data plans to access the web. More than half (55 percent) of the households with no broadband access of any kind had annual incomes below $35,000. Nearly one- third of the Westside’s 65+ residents either lived in households with a computer of some kind but no broadband connection, or with no computer at all. The pandemic brought this divide into sharp focus as families struggled to coordinate online education for the first time, find COVID-19 testing sites, and apply for jobs and/or government benefits in 2020. Mental health issues were exacerbated as lockdowns crept on for months and physical social contact was restricted. Again, the Westside bore the brunt of the pandemic as it quickly became one of Salt Lake City’s most severe COVID-19 hotspots 2. With 13 percent of 1 U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates: t.ly/G88Q. 2 Sean P. Means and Nate Carlisle, “Salt Lake County identifies the areas hit hardest by the coronavirus, as Utah reports four more deaths,” Salt Lake Tribune, 2020 April 20. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES Aaron Bentley, Chief Information Officer P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 Westside households living below the poverty line and nearly 14 percent receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, connecting these residents to resources was vital but proved difficult as many of the services residents relied on either shutdown completely (i.e., public access computer labs) or went virtual (i.e., schools). The proposed Digital Donation program will help bridge this technology gap in Salt Lake City’s disadvantaged communities by providing refurbished computers to low-income families and individuals. And because internet access is necessary for many essential activities such as searching for jobs, civic participation, signing up for public benefits, tele-working/-health, and banking, the program will also provide resources on how to access low-cost internet, thus ensuring recipients are fully connected. As recipients learn computer skills, they will become more confident with new technologies and will be better connected to vital services, friends, and family. Therefore, providing digital equipment and resources on internet access to low-income communities will enhance the health, moral well-being, peace and comfort of these residents of Salt Lake City. Bridging this technology gap will also increase digital literacy and improve student achievements in Salt Lake City. A recent study by Michigan State University 3 found that students who do not have access to the Internet from home or rely solely on cellular data perform lower on a range of metrics, including homework completion and grade point average (half a letter grade lower). The study found that 64 percent of students in grades 8-11 who do not have home internet access “often or sometimes” fail to complete homework assignments. The study also found that students with no home broadband access were less likely to participate in educational activities such as checking grades, collaborating with peers, researching assignment topics or seeking help from teachers/peers outside of school hours. Digital literacy and skills can be taught formally in schools but competency is more likely developed through frequency of use and online activities that can only be accomplished with a personal device and home internet access. These skills contribute to broader abilities such as work efficiency, effective communication and critical thinking. The Digital Donation program advances the City’s priorities related to education and economic development by equipping Salt Lake City’s children and their families with the skills needed to succeed in a technology-focused economy, such as Tech Lake City. Lastly, consistent with Salt Lake City’s commitment to protecting its natural systems, this program embraces a resource management approach that emphasizes reducing waste creation and reuse whenever possible. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), electronic waste or e-waste is the fastest growing municipal waste stream in America. E-waste refers to electronic products nearing the end of their “useful life”. Laptops, however, can be reused and refurbished. By refurbishing and donating the City’s surplus devices, we will not only help bridge the digital divide 3 Hampton, K. N., Fernandez, L., Robertson, C. T., & Bauer, J. M. Broadband and Student Performance Gaps. James H. and Mary B. Quello Center, Michigan State University. https://doi.org/10.25335/BZGY-3V91 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES Aaron Bentley, Chief Information Officer P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 but reduce Salt Lake City’s electronic waste output and enhance the health and comfort of its residents. TNT AuctionsREVENUE42979.00 43070.00 43160.00 43252.00 Total 43344.00 43435.00 43525.00 43617.00 Total 43709.00 43800.00 43891.00 43983.00 TotalRevenue Public Auction11574.004936.5036.003195.0019741.501822.506547.501395.00922.5010687.502655.002520.000.002520.007695.00Number of Machines Sold378.00 183.00 2.00 176.00 739.00 162.00 191.00 43.00 39.00 435.00 94.00 96.00 54.00 244.00Dollar per Machine30.62 26.98 18.00 18.15 26.71 11.25 34.28 32.44 23.65 24.57 28.24 26.25 0.00 46.67 31.54COSTFixedStorage5.90 5.78 10.28Total of Finance Cost/machine600.34 0.27 1.22 1.34 0.56 0.55 0.97disposition ( Monti)600.37 0.31 1.38 1.52 0.63 0.62 1.10Employee Time To Pick up and Register Machine22.50 22.50 22.50 22.50 22.50 22.50 22.50 22.50 22.50 22.50 22.50 22.50Total Cost to Prepare per machine16.23 16.23 16.23 16.23 16.93 16.81 18.83 19.09 17.42 17.39 16.23 18.30Software Cost to Wipe Machine4.99 4.99 4.99 4.99 4.99 4.99 4.99 4.99Employee Time to WipeMachine and Inventory Per Machine20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00Total Cost to Wipe per machine14.42 14.42 14.42 14.42 19.42 19.42 19.42 19.42 19.42 19.42 19.42 19.42Cost per unit soldEmployee Time for Auction Pick Up & Reconciliaiton (mins) costs600.37 0.31 1.40 1.54 0.64 0.63 1.11Cost per machine0.27 0.23 1.01 1.11 0.46 0.45 0.80Reconciliation costs300.19 0.16 0.70 0.77 0.32 0.31 0.56Cost for Reconciliation per machine0.16 0.33 30.00 0.34 0.18 0.31 1.40 1.54 0.64 0.63 1.11Total time per machine (mins)42.66 42.83 72.50 42.84200.8343.06 42.81 43.90 44.04173.8043.14 43.13 43.61129.87Average Salary for Employee per hour43.27$ 43.27 avg fully loaded costPer Minute 0.72$ 0.72TOTALSTotal $ Spent per machine30.77 30.89 52.29 30.9036.2142.49 42.35 48.24 49.0245.5344.12 44.04 46.6944.95NET Revenue per machine‐0.15‐3.91‐34.29‐12.74‐12.77‐31.24‐8.07‐15.80‐25.36‐20.12‐15.87‐17.79‐0.02‐11.23Ashley 7995547.45Monti 9997259.33Jared 8832852.42Andrew23.0443.27387FY19FY18 Number of Computers Dollars Sold‐ Com 20‐Jun 20 517.5 19 382.5 3 315 3 360 3 315 6 630 54 2520 46.66667 19‐Dec 16 450 16 450 6 360 25 405 26 450 490 3 315 96 2520 26.25 19‐Sep 26 360 25 360 16 405 3 180 3 180 3 315 3 270 390 4 135 4 180 4 180 94 2655 28.24468 19‐Jun 3 180 5 135 3 67.5 2 112.5 18 270 8 157.5 39 922.5 23.65385 19‐Mar 29 450 4 382.5 3 247.5 4 112.5 3 202.5 43 1395 32.44186 RESOLUTION NO. _____ OF 2021 (Authorizing the Donation of Certain City Computers to Benefit Disadvantaged Communities and Low-Moderate Income Families Through a Digital Donation Program) WHEREAS, the donation of computers for which Salt Lake City (“City”) has no ongoing need through the City’s digital donation program advances the educational and digital equity goals that the City supports; and WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 10-8-2(1)(a)(v) allows public entities to authorize the donation of City property to nonprofit entities after a public hearing; and WHEREAS, though Utah Code Section 10-8-2 does not require a study for such nonmonetary assistance, in this case the Salt Lake City Department of Finance has performed a cost analysis related to the costs associated with disposition of City computers that have reached end-of-life status (“Analysis”); and WHEREAS, the City Council has, following the giving of not less than fourteen (14) days public notice, conducted a public hearing relating to the foregoing, in satisfaction of the requirements of Utah Code Section 10-8-2; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the proposal provided by the City’s Information Management Department (“IMS”) to donate 18 surplus City computers, including any corresponding, keyboards, mice, or other peripheral accessories that are used with such computers; has reviewed the Analysis provided in connection with the IMS proposal, and has fully considered all comments made during the public hearing; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1.The City Council hereby finds and determines that, for all the reasons set forth in the IMS Proposal and the accompanying Analysis, the donation of the identified computers and peripheral accessories through the City’s Digital Donation Program is appropriate under these circumstances. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of _________, 2021. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: ______________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office ______________________________ Jaysen Oldroyd, Senior City Attorney Date: ______________________ 9/21/2021 2 ____________________________ CITY RECORDER Item F1 CITY 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 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 9, 2021 RE: ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION OF H STREET ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY AT 538 EAST 14TH AVENUE (PLNPCM2018-00561) MOTION 1 (adopt) I move that the Council adopt the ordinance MOTION 2 (defer action) I move that the Council defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 3 (reject) I move that the Council reject the ordinance. CITY 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:November 9, 2021 RE: ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION OF H STREET ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY AT 538 EAST 14TH AVENUE (PLNPCM2018-00561) PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE There were no comments at the October 19, 2021 public hearing. The Council closed the hearing and deferred action to a future meeting. The following information was provided for the September 7, 2021 Council briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. BRIEFING UPDATE Council discussion at the September 21, 2021 briefing was primarily about clarification on where property lines are on the block face and why not extend the vacation between 13th and 14th Avenue. Planning staff stated property owners would be charged for any vacated City property and reiterated this request is due to an expired no-cost lease. To align with State statute, the City now charges for exclusive use of City property. The following information was provided for the September 21, 2021 Council briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will be briefed about a proposal to vacate the public right-of-way (park strip) on the H Street side adjacent to the home located at 538 East 14th Avenue. Item Schedule: Briefing: September 21, 2021 Set Date: September 21, 2021 Public Hearing: October 19, 2021 Potential Action: November 9, 2021 Page | 2 In 2006 applicants Justin and Jodi Miller received a revocable permit from the City allowing them to replace a fence encroaching into the public right-of-way on the east side of their lot. At the time, these permits were no cost and for a ten-year period. When the permit expired the applicants learned the City changed its policy regarding exclusive use of City property to align with State statute and is now charging for this use. The applicants were offered terms to lease the City right-of-way. Rather than enter into a lease agreement, the applicants are requesting the City vacate the subject right-of-way and sell it to them at fair market value. The applicants originally submitted an application to purchase an area measuring 22.5’ by 50’ (1125 square feet) which is enclosed by their fence as shown in the image below. During City department reviews, the Engineering and Transportation divisions advised against selling land that would preclude the City from installing a sidewalk in the park strip on the east side of the applicants’ property at some point in the future. Both divisions would support the vacation if six feet measured from the back of the curb was reserved for this potential future use. This would result in an area 16.5’ x 50’ (825 square feet) being vacated (also shown in the image below). The applicants agreed and reduced the area they are requesting to be vacated. During the April 10, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Lyon made a motion adding a request that the City Council and staff explore the possibility of vacating the original area requested (1,125 square feet versus 825 square feet) and placing an easement over the area where the City may, at some point, construct a sidewalk on the west side of H Street. This would allow the applicants to retain their existing fence and landscaping until the City chose to add a sidewalk. Commissioner Lyon stated the Commission would also support the request to vacate a revised area of 825 square feet. Council staff checked with the Attorney’s Office about placing an easement over the potential sidewalk area. They indicated that, while unusual, the Council could include an easement on the property reserving the right to build a sidewalk at some point in the future as a condition of vacation. Under such an agreement, the existing fence and landscaping could remain in place until the City chose to install a sidewalk in this location. However, the Attorney’s Office recommended the Council not impose the condition. They stated the easement would create a right to public to use and the public would have the right to conduct First Amendment expressive activities behind the property owners’ fence. As owners of the property, the applicants would pay taxes on the subject property if approved by the Council. An email outlining the Attorney’s Office concerns is included as attachment A to this memo. If either the 825 or 1,125 square foot vacation is approved by the City Council, the applicants would purchase the land at fair market value. The Planning Commission was supportive of either the 825 or 1,125 square foot closure area depending on the Council’s decision whether to include an easement for a potential future sidewalk. The Commission forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation to the City Council. Page | 3 Current encroachment area outlined in yellow. Proposed boundary shown in red. Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed street closure, address questions Council Members may have and prepare for a public hearing. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Is the Council supportive of closing the subject section (park strip) of H Street? 2. If so, does the Council support closing the larger, 1,125 square foot or smaller 825 square foot area? ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Attachment D of the Administration’s transmittal (pages 25-26) is an analysis of factors related to the City’s street closure policy. A summary is provided below. For the complete analysis, please refer to the transmittal. It is the policy of the City Council to close public streets and sell the underlying property. The Council does not close streets when the action would deny all access to other property. o Finding: The proposed vacation would not deny vehicular or pedestrian access to any adjacent properties. The general policy when closing a street is to obtain fair market value for the land, whether the abutting property is residential, commercial or industrial. o Finding: The City would give up ownership of this property and obtain fair market value for sale of the property to the applicant. Page | 4 There should be sufficient public policy reason that justify the sale and/or closure of a public street and it should be sufficiently demonstrated by the applicant that the sale and/or closure of the street will accomplish the stated public policy reasons. o Finding: The proposed right-of-way vacation does not conflict with the Avenues Master Plan, but does not result in a direct public benefit as outlined in the Salt Lake City Urban Design Element. However, the Administration stated the property isn’t needed for a public purpose and the City will benefit from the land sale, proceeds from which will go to the General Fund. The City Council should determine whether the stated public policy reasons outweigh alternatives to the closure of the street. o Finding: Alternatives to the requested vacation maintain City ownership and require the applicant to enter into a lease agreement for the encroachment, or relocate the existing fence and landscaping in the park strip area. Planning staff found the right-or-way is very wide in this portion of the upper Avenues, which does not experience significant traffic volume. They suggest it is unlikely this portion of H Street will ever need to be widened. In addition, the City would reserve a 6 foot section in the event a sidewalk is constructed at some point. Aerial images show improvements encroached into this area for at least 20 years. The City now has an opportunity to benefit financially from this occupation. PUBLIC PROCESS A notice of the petition and request for review was emailed to the Greater Avenues Community Council Chair August 10, 2018. No response was received. Letters were mailed to nearby property owners and tenants August 10, 2018. One inquiry was received by Planning staff, but no comment was provided. The Planning Commission held a public hearing April 10, 2019. No public comments were provided at the hearing. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation for the street closure, with a suggested option to sell the full, originally requested area as noted above. STREET CLOSURE PROCESS Street closure process is dictated by Section 10-9a-609.5 Utah State Code which is included below for reference. 10-9a-609.5. Petition to vacate a public street. (1)In lieu of vacating some or all of a public street through a plat or amended plat in accordance with Sections 10-9a-603 through 10-9a-609, a legislative body may approve a petition to vacate a public street in accordance with this section. (2)A petition to vacate some or all of a public street or municipal utility easement shall include: (a)the name and address of each owner of record of land that is: (i)adjacent to the public street or municipal utility easement between the two nearest public street intersections; or (ii)accessed exclusively by or within 300 feet of the public street or municipal utility easement; (b)proof of written notice to operators of utilities located within the bounds of the public street or municipal utility easement sought to be vacated; and (c)the signature of each owner under Subsection (2)(a) who consents to the vacation. (3)If a petition is submitted containing a request to vacate some or all of a public street or municipal utility easement, the legislative body shall hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 10-9a-208 and determine whether: (a)good cause exists for the vacation; and (b)the public interest or any person will be materially injured by the proposed vacation. (4)The legislative body may adopt an ordinance granting a petition to vacate some or all of a public street or municipal utility easement if the legislative body finds that: (a)good cause exists for the vacation; and Page | 5 (b)neither the public interest nor any person will be materially injured by the vacation. (5)If the legislative body adopts an ordinance vacating some or all of a public street or municipal utility easement, the legislative body shall ensure that one or both of the following is recorded in the office of the recorder of the county in which the land is located: (a)a plat reflecting the vacation; or (b)(i)an ordinance described in Subsection (4); and (ii)a legal description of the public street to be vacated. (6)The action of the legislative body vacating some or all of a public street or municipal utility easement that has been dedicated to public use: (a)operates to the extent to which it is vacated, upon the effective date of the recorded plat or ordinance, as a revocation of the acceptance of and the relinquishment of the municipality's fee in the vacated public street or municipal utility easement; and (b)may not be construed to impair: (i)any right-of-way or easement of any lot owner; or (ii)the rights of any public utility. (7)(a)A municipality may submit a petition, in accordance with Subsection (2), and initiate and complete a process to vacate some or all of a public street. (b)If a municipality submits a petition and initiates a process under Subsection (7)(a): (i)the legislative body shall hold a public hearing; (ii)the petition and process may not apply to or affect a public utility easement, except to the extent: (A)the easement is not a protected utility easement as defined in Section 54-3-27; (B)the easement is included within the public street; and (C)the notice to vacate the public street also contains a notice to vacate the easement; and (iii)a recorded ordinance to vacate a public street has the same legal effect as vacating a public street through a recorded plat or amended plat. Attachment A From: Nielson, Paul Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2021 4:08 PM To: Fullmer, Brian <Brian.Fullmer@slcgov.com>; Crump, Olga <olga.crump@slcgov.com>; Garback, Robert <Robert.Garback@slcgov.com> Cc: Rip, Daniel <Daniel.Rip@slcgov.com>; Finan, Shellie <Shellie.Finan@slcgov.com> Subject: RE: 538 East 14th Avenue Apologies to all for my office letting this get stale. In conversations I had with an attorney in my office who formerly represented Real Estate Services, we agreed that the suggestion made by a planning commission member to vacate the portion of the street and have the city retain an access easement behind the fence would be problematic. A public access easement would not only create the right to use by the public, but also would be an area where the public would have the right to conduct First Amendment expressive activities. You can imagine how problematic it would be if members of the public claimed they were being deprived of a right to engage in First Amendment activities in an area behind a fence. While I recognize that the planning commission member who suggested the idea of conditioning the partial street vacation on the city receiving a public access easement was trying to offer a helpful solution, I would strongly recommend that the council not impose that condition if it Page | 6 were to approve the partial street vacation for the concerns expressed herein regarding potential impingement of First Amendment rights. Thanks. Paul C. Nielson Senior City Attorney 801.535.7216 IMPORTANT: E-mail from the City Attorney's Office is likely to contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. The use, distribution, transmittal or re-transmittal of any such communication is prohibited without the express approval of the City Attorney or a Deputy City Attorney in writing or by e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. JACQUELINE M. BISKUPSKI Mayor DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS PLANNING DIVISION CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Salt Lake City Council Charli e Luke, Chair Date Received: ~ k 4£7(1 Date sent to Council: 474 2 ~ ~er DATE: April 29 , 2019 FROM: Jennifer McGrath, Interim Director Department of Community & Neighborhoods ~=~E::!::: Street Vacation near 538 E. 14'" A venue STAFF CONTACT : Ashley Scarff, Principal Planner 801-535-7660, as hle y.scarffC£7),slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Per Planning Commission's recommendation, adopt the ordinance to vacate a portion of Ci t y-o wned right-of-way near 538 E. 14th Avenue. BUDGET IMP ACT: At the time of this transmittal , Real Estate Services indicated that fair market va lue for the subj ect area is approximately $28.23 per square foot. If the vacation i s ap proved by the Council and the prope1iy is sold to the applicants, approximately $23,289.75 - $31,758.75 would be paid into the General Fund. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Justin and Jodi Miller, owners of 538 E. 14th Avenue, are requesting that Salt Lake City vacates a portion of public right-of-way (park strip) that abuts their property. In 2006, the applicants received a Revocable Permit from the City that allowed them to rep lace an existing fence that encroached into the right-of-way on the east side of their lot. The permit was good for ten ( 10) years and there were no costs associated with it. When the permit expired, the applicants found that the City had changed the policy related to encroachment s onto public property , and would now charge them to lease the right -of-way. Instead of entering a lease agreeme nt , the applicants chose to request that the City vacate and sell the area of en croachment. Ex isting improvements (6-foot fence , landscaping) currently occupy an area that measure s 22.5 feet wide by 50 feet long , or 1,125 square feet. When Planning Staff 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 P .0. Box 145480, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 14-5 480 WWW .SLCGOV .COM TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 80 1-535-6174 routed the proposal out for review by City Divisions, Engineering and Transportation both suggested that they could support the vacation if 6 feet (6’) of width was reserved for a potential future sidewalk. The applicants agreed to amend their request to accommodate those comments, resulting in a revised area that measures 16.5 feet wide by 50 feet long, or 825 square feet. This would require them to remove all fencing and landscaping that falls within 6’ of the back of the curb on H Street. At the Planning Commission meeting on April 10th, 2019, Commissioner Lyon made a motion to make a positive recommendation to Council to approve the street vacation. He added a request that Council and Staff explore the option of vacating the entire area of encroachment (1,125 square feet versus 825 square feet), and placing an easement over the area where the City would like to reserve the right to build a sidewalk in the future. Under this scenario, the existing fencing and landscaping could remain in place until the City chose to add a sidewalk along the west side of H Street. Commissioner Lyon indicated that if this easement option was found to be unfeasible, the Commission supported the original requested vacation area of 825 square feet. If approved by the City Council, 825 – 1,125 square feet of the park strip would be vacated, declared surplus property, and sold to the applicants for a fair market value. The subject property and adjacent lots are zoned SR-1A Special Development Pattern Residential District with the exception of Kay Rees Park to the north, a City-owned park that is zoned FR-3 Foothills Residential District. MASTER PLAN POLICIES The proposal’s compliance with applicable City master plans are evaluated on page 3 of the Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit 4B). The Avenues Master Plan (1987) does not include any specific policies related to street vacations or the sale of City-owned property to private property owners, but a section on Bicycle Paths and Pedestrian Circulation identifies all of H Street as a potential urban trail corridor. Staff finds that the amended request to allow for the potential future construction of a sidewalk on the west side of H Street is in accordance with objectives outlined in the Master Plan. The Salt Lake City Urban Design Element (1990) includes a section titled Street as Elements of Open Space, with a Policy Concept that states, “Decline to vacate streets, alleys, and other public right-of-way unless it is demonstrated that the vacation will result in a public benefit.” Though this proposal does not violate public policies, it does not have a stated public benefit. However, the property isn’t needed for a public purpose, and the City would benefit financially from the sale of the land—proceeds would be placed in the General Fund. PUBLIC PROCESS: • A notice of petition and request for review was emailed to the Greater Avenues Community Council Chair on August 10th, 2018. No response was received. • Letters were mailed to nearby property owners and tenants on August 10th, 2018. One inquiry was received, but no comment was provided. • The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 10th, 2019, and voted unanimously to forward a recommendation to vacate the subject area. No public comments were provided at the hearing. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: • Utah State Code §10-9a-609.5 establishes the power for cities to vacate streets upon the request of the governing body of a property owner. The decision to vacate a street is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard. The City Council adopted a street closure policy in 1999. These policies were evaluated in the Planning Commission Staff Report and considered by the Planning Commission. Analysis and Findings can be found on pages 2-3 and 9-10 of the Staff Report dated April 10th, 2019 (Exhibit 4B). EXHIBITS: 1. Ordinance 2. Project Chronology 3. Notice of City Council Hearing 4. Planning Commission – April 10th, 2019 Public Hearing A) Public Hearing Notice B) Staff Report C) Agenda and Minutes 5. Original Petition TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. ORDINANCE 2. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 4. PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 10, 2019 PUBLIC HEARING A. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE B. STAFF REPORT C. AGENDA AND MINUTES 5. ORIGINAL PETITION 1. ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of2019 (Partial street vacation of the public right-of-way on 14th Avenue adjacent to the property located at 538 East 14th Avenue) An ordinance partially vacating the public right-of-way on 14th Avenue adjacent to the property located at 538 East 14th Avenue pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2018-00561. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake C ity Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 10, 2019, to consider the request made by the a djacent parcel property owners, Justin and Jodi Miller (the "Applicants") (Petition No. PLNPCM2018-00561) to partially vacate a portion of 14th Avenue where it borders the Applicants' property located at 538 East 14th Avenue; and WHEREAS, at its April 10 , 2019 hearing, the planning commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation on said petition to the Salt Lake City Council; and WHEREAS , the city council finds after holding a public hearing on this matter, that the city 's interest in the portion of city-owned public right-of-way described below is not presently necessary for u se by the public and that vacating a portion of that city-owned right-of-way will not materially injure the public interest or any person; and NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the city council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Vacating City-Owned Right-of-Way. That a portion of 14th A venue adjacent to property located at 538 East 14th Avenue, which is the subject of Petition No. PLNPCM2018-00561, and which is more particularly described in E xhibit "A " attached hereto , hereby is vacated and declared not presently necessary or available for public use. SECTION 2. Reservations and Disclaimers. The above vacation is expressly made subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of this property, and also subject to the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities, including the city 's water and sewer facilities. Said vacation is also subject to any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. Passed by the City Counci l of Salt Lake City, Utah this ___ day of ______ , 2019. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on __________ _ Mayor's Action: ___ Approved . Vetoed. CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No . of2019. ---- Published: ------- --- MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office ::"~''.. Allison Parks, Assistant City Attorney EXHIBIT "A" Legal description of property to be vacated on 14th A venue adjacent to a comer property located at 538 East 14th Avenue Beginning at a point on a fence line which is South 115. 00 feet from the Northeast Corner of Lot 4 , Block 190, Plat 'D', Salt Lake City Survey, and running thence East 16.50 feet along said fence line; thence South 50.00 feet to said fence line; thence West 16.50 feet along said fence line ; thence North 50.00 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 825 square feet, or 0.019 acres, more or less. 2. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2018-00561 August 1, 2018 Petition PLNPCM2018-00561 assigned to Ashley Scarff, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. August 10, 2018 Email sent to Recognized Community Organizations informing them of the petition. August 10, 2018 Letters sent to nearby property owners and tenants informing them of the petition. March 27, 2019 Planning Commission hearing notices posted on City and State websites and Planning Division list serve. March 29, 2018 Public hearing notice sign posted on property. April 10, 2019 Planning Commission reviewed the petition and held a public hearing. The commission voted unanimously to send a positive recommendation to the City Council. April 24, 2019 Ordinance requested from City Attorney’s office. April 29, 2019 Transmittal was sent to the CAN Acting Director for review. 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2018-00561 Street Vacation – A request by Justin and Jodi Miller for the vacation of a portion of public right-of-way that abuts their property at 538 E. 14th Avenue. The purpose of the vacation is to reconcile the location of fencing and landscaping within the park strip. If approved by the City Council, approximately 825 – 1,125 square feet of the park strip would be vacated, declared surplus property, and sold to the applicants for a fair market value. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Room 315 City & County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Ashley Scarff at 801-535-7660 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at ashley.scarff@slcgov.com. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535- 7600, or relay service 711. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION A. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S State Street, Room 406, PO Box 145480, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5480 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Wednesday, April 10, 2019, 5:30 p.m. City and County Building 451 S State Street, Room 326 A public hearing will be held on the following matter. Comments from the Applicant, City Staff and the public will be taken. Street Vacation at 538 E. 14th Avenue -A request by Justin and Jodi Miller for the vacation of a portion of public right-of-way that abuts their property at 538 E. 14th Avenue . The purpose of the vacation is to reconcile the location of fencing and landscaping within the park strip. If approved by the City Council, approximately 850 square feet of the park strip would be vacated, declared surplus property, _and sold to the applicants for a fair market value. The subject property is zoned SR-1 A (Special Development Pattern Res idential District) and is located in Counci l District 3, represented by Chris Wharton. (Staff Contact: Ashley Scarff at (801) 535-7660 or Ashley.scarff@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2018-00561 · Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodations no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this meeting. Accommodations may include: alternative formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. T his is an accessible facility. For additional meeting information, please see www.s lcgov.com or call 801-535-7757; TDD 535-6220. RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED us POSTAGE))PtTNEYBOWES ~-,,~~ --.------ZIP 84116 $ 000 500 02 rn • 0001403373MAR 28 2019 Salt Lake City Planning Divis ion Ashle y Scarff PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5460 I ' II i' I jl 111 j ti i I I ti ii 1 I j l 11 j j 1 j j r I' j 1 i 'I " rl 1 I j I l I l J j .Ji j II j 111 j 4. PLANNING COMMISSION B. STAFF REPORT SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-5357757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Ashley Scarff, (801) 535-7660 or ashley.scarff@slcgov.com Date: April 10th, 2019 Re: PLNPCM2018-00561: Street Vacation (park strip) near 14th Avenue & H Street Street Vacation PROPERTY ADDRESS: 538 E. 14th Avenue (address of applicant) MASTER PLAN: Avenues Master Plan ZONING DISTRICT: SR-1A Special Development Pattern Residential District REQUEST: Justin and Jodi Miller, owners of 538 E. 14th Avenue, are requesting that Salt Lake City vacates a portion of public right-of-way (park strip) that abuts their property. In 2006, the applicants received a Revocable Permit from the City that allowed them to replace a fence that encroached into the right-of-way on the east side of their lot—the permitted encroachment was cost-free and good for ten (10) years. When the permit expired, the applicants found that the City had changed the policy related to encroachments onto public property, and would now charge them to lease the right-of-way. Instead of entering a lease agreement, the applicants chose to request that the City vacate and sell the area of encroachment. If approved by the City Council, approximately 850 square feet of the park strip would be vacated, declared surplus property, and sold to the applicants for a fair market value. The subject property and adjacent lots are zoned SR-1A Special Development Pattern Residential District with the exception of Kay Rees Park to the north, a City-owned park that is zoned FR-3 Foothills Residential District. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in this staff report, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forwards a positive recommendation to City Council for the request to vacate this portion of right-of-way adjacent to 538 E. 14th Avenue. ATTACHMENTS: A.Context Maps B.Site Photographs C.Application Materials D.Analysis of Standards E.Public Process and Comments F.Department Review Comments 1 BACKGROUND In the submitted narrative (Attachment C), the applicants claim that in 2004 when they purchased their home at 538 E. 14th Avenue there was a chain-link fence installed near the southeast corner of the lot. In 2006, they applied for a building permit to replace the chain-link fence with a cedar fence. It was at this time that they learned that the fenced-off area in their yard included a portion of City-owned right-of-way. They were directed to apply for, and were granted, a Revocable Permit to legalize the encroachment. The permit was good for a ten (10) year period and there were no costs associated with it. In the spring of 2018, City Real Estate Services staff realized that the Millers’ Revocable Permit had expired, and notified them that they needed to renew it. By this time, the City had changed their policy, and had begun to charge residents to lease portions of the right- of-way for encroachments. The Millers chose to request that the City vacate and sell them the portion of right-of-way that they occupy, rather than enter a lease agreement for it. SCOPE OF REQUEST: The applicants are requesting the vacation of a portion of park strip that abuts their property at 538 E. 14th Avenue. Existing improvements (6-foot fence, landscaping) currently occupy an area that measures approximately 23 feet wide by 50 feet long, or about 1,150 square feet. When Planning Staff routed the proposal out for review by City Divisions, Engineering and Transportation both suggested that they could support the vacation if 6 feet (6’) of width was reserved for a potential future sidewalk. The applicants agreed to amend their request to accommodate those comments, resulting in an area that measures approximately 17 feet wide by 50 feet long, or about 850 square feet. If the vacation is approved by the City Council and the City sells the property, the applicants would need to remove all fencing and landscaping that falls within 6’ of the back of curb on H Street. On this section of H Street, the right-of-way is approximately 84 feet wide, measured from front property line to front property line (the street itself is approximately 32 feet wide). There is a nearly continuous sidewalk on the east side of H Street for many blocks, but almost no sidewalks present on the west side of the street. The area is not part of a subdivision. If approved by Council, the applicant will be required to pay fair market value for the land. At the time that this report was published, Salt Lake City’s Real Estate Services Division (part of Housing and Neighborhood Development) estimated that 850 square feet of City-owned property would cost $23,995.50 ($28.23/sf). KEY CONSIDERATIONS: Important considerations listed below have been identified through the analysis of the project. 1.Utah State Code: Section 10-9a-609.5 of the Utah Code Annotated establishes the power for cities to vacate streets upon the request of the governing body or a property owner. The City Council must determine that good cause exists for the vacation, and neither the public interest nor any person will be materially injured by the vacation. Aerial imagery shows that Current area of encroachment Proposed edge of vacation (approx.) 50 ft. 17 ft. 6 ft. H St. 2 encroachments consisting of accessory structures and fencing have existed in this portion of right-of-way since at least 1999. Owners of 538 E. 14th Avenue have been utilizing this area that is fenced off from public use for at least 20 years, and Staff finds that a transfer to private ownership would not be detrimental to public interest, especially since it would result in the applicant compensating the City for the property at a market rate. 2.City Council Policies: In 1999, the City Council adopted a street closure policy, which applies to street vacations. See Attachment D. 3.City Master Plans: The Avenues Master Plan (1987) does not include any specific policies or action items related to street vacations or the sale of City-owned property to private property owners. A section on Bicycle Paths and Pedestrian Circulation identifies all of H Street as a potential urban trail corridor, which the plan describes as bicycle paths and/or pedestrian trails that provide access to schools, parks, and open space amenities in the community, as well as major nearby destinations like the State Capitol, downtown, and Ensign Peak. The plan states that these corridors should receive priority for sidewalk installation or improvement. Currently, much of the east side of H Street contains sidewalks, while not many exist on the west side of the street. Even so, the applicants have agreed to amend the original vacation request to accommodate a potential future sidewalk on the west side of H Street—Staff finds that the amended request supports this section of the Avenues Master Plan. The Salt Lake City Urban Design Element (1990) includes a section titled Street as Elements of Open Space, with a Policy Concept that states, “Decline to vacate streets, alleys, and other public right-of-way unless it is demonstrated that the vacation will result in a public benefit.” Though this proposal does not violate public policies, it does not have a stated public benefit. However, the property isn’t needed for a public purpose, and the City would benefit financially from the sale of the land—proceeds would be placed in the General Fund. DISCUSSION: The proposal has been reviewed according to Utah State Code, the City Council policies regarding street closures (Attachment D), and applicable city master plans, and staff finds that although there are no public policies that will be explicitly accomplished with the partial street vacation, it does not violate any public policies. Further, the city will benefit financially from the sale of the property to the applicant. NEXT STEPS: With a recommendation of approval or denial of the street vacation from the Planning Commission, the proposal will be sent to the City Council for a final decision by that body. 3 ATTACHMENT A: CONTEXT MAP H St. 14th Ave. Kay Rees Park Applicants’ property 4 ATTACHMENT B: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS View of subject area from the north—if vacation is approved, applicants would need to remove all encroachments that fall within 6 feet of the back of curb. View of subject area from the south 5 ATTACHMENT C: APPLICATION MATERIALS 6 7 8 ATTACHMENT D: ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS In 1999, the City Council adopted a street closure policy that includes the following provisions: 1.It is the policy of the City Council to close public streets and sell the underlying property. The Council does not close streets when the action would deny all access to other property. Analysis: The portion of right-of-way that the applicants have requested the City vacate does not contain any vehicular access ways—it is a part of the park strip that has been surrounded by a 6-foot fence for at least 10 years. Finding: The proposed vacation would not deny vehicular or pedestrian access to any adjacent properties. 2.The general policy when closing a street is to obtain fair market value for the land, whether the abutting property is residential, commercial or industrial. Analysis: If approved by the City Council, approximately 850 square feet of right- of-way would be declared surplus and sold at a fair market value to the applicant. Finding: The City would give up ownership of this property and obtain fair market value for the sale of the property to the applicant. 3.There should be sufficient public policy reasons that justify the sale and/or closure of a public street and it should be sufficiently demonstrated by the applicant that the sale and/or closure of the street will accomplish the stated public policy reasons. Analysis: As outlined in the ‘Key Considerations’ section above, the Avenues Master Plan (1987) does not include any specific policy direction when it comes to the vacation of City-owned right-of-ways. However, H Street is identified as a potential urban trail corridor, meant to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian connections throughout the community. Staff finds that the amended request, which provides adequate space for the City to construct a sidewalk in the future, supports this section of the Master Plan. The Salt Lake City Urban Design Element (1990) indicates that the City should decline to vacate right-of-ways unless it will result in a public benefit. While there is no direct public benefit that would be gained, the City would benefit financially from the sale of the property to applicant. Finding: The proposed right-of-way vacation does not conflict with the Avenues Master Plan but does not result in a direct public benefit per the Salt Lake City Urban Design Element. However, the property isn’t needed for a public purpose and the city would benefit from the sale of the land the proceeds from which would go into the General Fund. 4.The City Council should determine whether the stated public policy reasons outweigh alternatives to the closure of the street. Analysis: As an alternative to the proposal, the City and applicant could enter into 9 a lease agreement for the land occupied by and enclosed by the fencing and landscaping. All maintenance of the subject property would be by the lessee (the applicants) subject to required permits for any work. In exchange for exclusive use of the subject property, the lessee (the applicants) would be required to pay annual rent based on fair market value. A second alternative is for the applicants to remove the fencing and landscaping from the public right-of-way. This would involve re-locating the fence so that it is entirely on private property, and landscaping the park strip in a way that complies with the Zoning Ordinance. Finding: Alternatives to the requested vacation maintain City ownership of the 850 sf portion of public right-of-way and require the applicant to either enter into a lease agreement for the encroachment or re-locate the fence and landscape the park strip. From a Planning perspective, Staff finds that the right-of-way is very wide in this portion of the upper Avenues, which doesn’t experience a lot of vehicular traffic. For these reasons, it is highly unlikely that this portion of H Street will ever need to be widened. In addition, 6 feet (6’) of width would be reserved in case the City ever decides to construct a sidewalk on the west side of the street. Aerial imagery shows that there have been improvements that encroach into/prevent access to the public right-of-way in this area for 20+ years, and the City now has an opportunity to benefit financially from this occupation. 10 ATTACHMENT E: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS Public Notice & Comments •August 10, 2018 – Notice of the project was provided to the Greater Avenues Community Council Chair. No response was received. o On this date, letters were also mailed to property owners and residents within a 300 foot radius of the site. One neighbor called with general questions about the street vacation process, but he did not provide any comments. •March 27, 2019 – Public hearing notices mailed for the Planning Commission meeting / Notice also posted on City & State web sites and emailed to Planning Division list serve •March 29, 2019 – Public hearing notice sign posted at subject property At the time that this report was published, no other public comments had been received. If any are submitted after this date, they will be forwarded to the Commission and included in the public record. 11 ATTACHMENT F: DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS Real Estate Services: The only comment RES has is the fee. Since this process takes a while to complete, we will be selling the land at current market value at time of disposition. Right now the 850 sq. ft. of land has an approximate value of $28.23 per sq. ft. compared to 2017 at $25.02. Engineering / Transportation: Both of these Divisions commented that they would advise against selling land that would preclude ever having a public sidewalk run in the park strip to the east of the subject property. Both were comfortable with the vacation if 6 feet (6’), measured from the back of curb, was reserved for this purpose. The applicant agreed to reduce the requested area to be vacated by a 6’ width. Public Utilities: Planning Staff asked Public Utilities the feasibility of vacating the entire length of park strip on the east side of the subject property vs. only vacating the current area of encroachment. They indicated that the entire length of park strip cannot be vacated due to the existence of a water main that runs through the corner (can be seen in exhibit to right). Public Utilities has no concerns with vacating the 850 sf of area described in this staff report. Zoning: No comments received. Fire: No comments received. 12 4. PLANNING COMMISSION C. AGENDA AND MINUTES SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA In Room 326 of the City & County Building April 10, 2019, at 5:30 p.m. (The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion) FIELD TRIP - The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. DINNER - Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners a nd Staff at 5:00 p.m. in Room 126 of the City and County Building. During the dinner break, the Planning Commission may receive training on city planning related topics, including the role and function of the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM IN ROOM 326 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 27, 2019 REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Street Vacation at 538 E. 14th Avenue – A request by Justin and Jodi Miller for the vacation of a portion of public right-of-way that abuts their property at 538 E. 14th Avenue. The purpose of the vacation is to reconcile the location of fencing and landscaping within the park strip. If approved by the City Council, approximately 850 square feet of the park strip would be vacated, declared surplus property, and sold to the applicants for a fair market value. The subject property is zoned SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential District) and is located in Council District 3, represented by Chris Wharton. (Staff Contact: Ashley Scarff at (801) 535-7660 or Ashley.scarff@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2018-00561 2. Conditional Use for a Group Home at 661 E 100 S - A request by The Other Side Academy to operate a large group home at the above listed address. The site would be part of The Academy’s campus located adjacent to the subject property, and would accommodate administrative and educational functions, as well as sleeping rooms for 164 individuals within the existing building. The subject property is located in the RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential) zoning district within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: Mayara Lima at 801-535-7118 or mayara.lima@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00104 The files for the above items are available in the Planning Division offices, room 406 of the City and County Building. Please contact the staff planner for information, Visit the Planning Division’s website at www.slcgov.com /planning for copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the m eeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Meetings may be watched live on SLCTV Channel 17; past meetings are recorded and archived, and may be viewed at www.slctv.com. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the Planning Office at 801-535-7757, or relay service 711. Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 10, 2019 Page 1 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City & County Building 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, April 10, 2019 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:32:06 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Maurine Bachman, Vice Chairperson Sara Urquhart; Commissioners Amy Barry, Adrienne Bell, Weston Clark, Carolynn Hoskins, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes, Clark Ruttinger. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were Nick Norris, Planning Director; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Ashley Scarff, Principal Planner; Mayara Lima, Principal Planner and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary. Field Trip A field trip was held prior to the work session. Planning Commissioners present were: Maurine Bachman, Carolynn Hoskins, Clark Ruttinger and Sara Urquhart. Staff members in attendance were Nick Norris, Ashley Scarff and Mayara Lima. • 661 East 100 South – Staff gave an overview of the proposal. Q: Any exterior changes? A: No • 538 East 14th Avenue – Staff gave an overview of the proposal. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 27, 2019, MEETING MINUTES. 5:33:20 PM MOTION 5:33:30 PM Commissioner Lyon moved to approve the March 27, 2019, meeting minutes. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Commissioners Lyon, Paredes, Ruttinger, Urquhart, Clark, Bell, Hoskins, Scheer and Barry voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:34:02 PM Chairperson Bachman stated she had nothing to report. Vice Chairperson Urquhart stated she had nothing to report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:34:13 PM Nick Norris, Planning Director, informed the commission regarding the City Council adopting the changes of the Design Review ordinance. Nick clarified what makes a project eligible and what the process is for the new ordinance changes. He also informed the commission regarding UTA replacing the track on 400 South and Main Street along with future projects. Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 10, 2019 Page 2 5:43:13 PM Street Vacation at 538 E. 14th Avenue – A request by Justin and Jodi Miller for the vacation of a portion of public right-of-way that abuts their property at 538 E. 14th Avenue. The purpose of the vacation is to reconcile the location of fencing and landscaping within the park strip. If approved by the City Council, approximately 850 square feet of the park strip would be vacated, declared surplus property, and sold to the applicants for a fair market value. The subject property is zoned SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential District) and is located in Council District 3, represented by Chris Wharton. (Staff Contact: Ashley Scarff at (801) 535-7660 or Ashley.scarff@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2018-00561 Ashley Scarff, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. The Commission and Staff discussed the following: • The City’s current policy on revocable permits and encroachments Justin and Jodi Miller, Applicants, reviewed the history of the property and were available for questions. PUBLIC HEARING 5:51:33 PM Chairperson Bachman opened the Public Hearing; seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Bachman closed the Public Hearing. The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following: • Whether there is a time limit to remove existing encroachments • Clarification on which City division is responsible for monitoring the situation • Discussion was made regarding the existing park strip • Likelihood of adding a sidewalk on the west side of H Street in future • The possibility of adding an easement over the vacated area to reserve the City’s right to construct a sidewalk in the future MOTION 6:00:24 PM Commissioner Lyon stated, based on the information in the staff report, public testimony, and discussion by the Planning Commission, I move that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve PLNPCM2018-00561 Street Vacation at 538 East 14th Avenue and with this recommendation that staff, and the City Council explore using an easement as an option. Staff asked Commissioner Lyon for clarification on the easement request. He indicated that he would like staff and Council to consider the option of vacating the entire current area of encroachment but placing an easement over the area that is wide enough to accommodate the construction of a sidewalk, if the City chooses to do so in the future. Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 10, 2019 Page 3 Commissioner Scheer seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry, Scheer, Hoskins, Bell, Clark, Urquhart, Ruttinger, Paredes and Lyon. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Lyon stated that the Commission is fine with the request as originally proposed without the use of an easement, but would like the option to be explored. 6:02:34 PM Conditional Use for a Group Home at 661 E 100 S - A request by The Other Side Academy to operate a large group home at the above listed address. The site would be part of The Academy’s campus located adjacent to the subject property, and would accommodate administrative and educational functions, as we ll as sleeping rooms for 164 individuals within the existing building. The subject property is located in the RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential) zoning district within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: Mayara Lima at 801-535-7118 or mayara.lima@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00104 Mayara Lima, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposal with the conditions listed in the staff report. The Commission and Staff discussed the following: • Whether there is a limited number of occupants in the ordinance • Clarification on a large group home definition • Number of people that are currently being accommodated on campus Tim Stay, Representative of The Other Side Academy, reviewed the history, design details, and purpose of the Academy. The Commission and Applicant discussed the following: • Clarification on properties that will be part of the Academy • Staff roles and supervision of residents • Restrictions of travel for residents • Residents average ages • Current number of beds in existing space • Percentage of Residents that graduate from the program • Whether any of the rooms are handicap accessible • Discussion was made whether there are violent residents PUBLIC HEARING 6:31:35 PM Chairperson Bachman opened the Public Hearing; Cindy Cromer – Provided history on the surrounding neighborhood. Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 10, 2019 Page 4 Clay Josewski – Stated he is currently a resident and that the academy has given him a second chance at life. Andrew Lewis – Stated he is a resident at the academy and that it has changed his life and given him hope to a better future. Dave Durocher, Managing Director of The Other Side Academy – Provided information regarding how residents opt to join the program. Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Bachman closed the Public Hearing. The Commission and Applicant further discussed the following: • Whether mentoring in a consolidated campus will be beneficial causing less impact on the community • Cross accountability between the residents • Outdoor spaces for resident use • Whether there are smoking areas designated for residnets • Clarification on history of law enforcement and fire department issues The Commission and Staff discussed the following: • Knowledge of Mansonian Apartments and the future of the property • Clarification on reasoning for waiving the 800 feet separation MOTION 6:45:37 PM Commissioner Bell stated, based on the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Commission approve the request for Conditional Use for a Large Group Home at 661 East 100 South, as presented in petition PLNPCM2019-00104, with the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Barry seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry, Scheer, Hoskins, Bell, Clark, Urquhart, Ruttinger, Paredes and Lyon voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:47:52 PM. 5. ORIGINAL PETITION June 18, 2018 Planning Department 451 South State Street Room 215 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 To whom it may concern, We are applying for a Street Closure on th e East border of our residence located at 538 E 14 '~ Ave . When we purchased this house, in 2004, a chain -link fence was already installed in the South East corner of our lot. We elected to replace that with a cedar fence in 2007 and obtained a permit to do so . At the time of application, we learned that the fence was on city property, and so we obtained a free 10-year lease for the portion of city property ins ide the fence, approximately 1000 sqft. At the end of this lease, Augu st 2017, we received a letter from the city that the lease was no longer free , and was in fact now going to cost fa i r-market value; at the time of this letter, roughly $25,000. For a variety of reasons, we believe the best option for us is to apply to purchase this property from the city, via a Street Closure. There are no utilities buried in this area, and no sidewalk. Thi s land has been clos ed from public use for fifty plus years. We appreciate your time in looking over our applicati on and look forward in moving forward in the process. If you have any question you can contact Justin or Jodi at Sincerely, C{sr 1.,c {\rlG~\__, Justin and Jodi Mille r Item F2 CITY 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 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO: City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet Policy Analyst DATE: November 9, 2021 RE: Text amendment: Eliminating the Special Exception Process PLNPCM2020-00606 MOTION 1 I move the council adopt the ordinance, including the changes included in the updated ordinance and outlined in the November 9 Council Staff report. MOTION 2 I move the Council reject the ordinance. MOTION 3 I move the Council defer action to a future meeting. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst DATE: November 9, 2021 RE: Text Amendment: Eliminating the Special Exception Process PLNPCM2020-00606 PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing 1: July 20, 2021 Briefing 2: Sept 21, 2021 Set Date: July 20, 2021 Public Hearing: Aug, 17 2021 Potential Action: Nov 9, 2021 Follow-up Briefing Summary (September 21) During the September 21 follow-up briefing, the Council directed staff to include the following changes in the final draft of the ordinance: Daycare as an administrative conditional use (page 10, legislative version) Verizon’s suggestions (pages 27-28, legislative version) Live music prohibited between 10:00PM-7:00AM within 660 ft of a residential zoning district (page 22, legislative version) As the Attorney’s Office was incorporating these changes, they noted a few other minor housekeeping edits and included those in the final daft. Those changes include: o In Section 12, removed a reference to special exceptions and updated Subsection D.3 for clarity. o Updated the language in Section 26 amending 21A.40.050.C, subsections C.2.a and C.2.b. for clarity. o Language in the prior version amended sections of the Parking chapter that were drafted in anticipation of the off-street parking regulations being adopted Page | 2 Since that has not been adopted yet Sections 36-40 were updated to reflect necessary changes to current regulations and updated the numbering for the sections formerly numbered 37-42. The Council will consider adopting the ordinance with the changes outlined above on November 9. The Council also discussed concerns raised by two residents who feel the ordinance does not mitigate impact to residents next to CN/outdoor dining. During the briefing, Planning staff clarified that outdoor dining is permitted within the buildable area of a property. The special exception process is used if someone wants to add outdoor dining in the side and rear yard setbacks. Under the proposed changes, outdoor dining would be allowed in the side or rear yard if it is at least 10 feet from a side or rear property line when next to residential district that doesn’t allow food serving uses. Planning staff reviewed with the Council the following potential options related to the concerns: No changes Increase landscape buffer to match the 10’ setback Increase the setback for outdoor dining Require a conditional use when in a side or rear yard next to residential zoning district Limit the size of outdoor dining area in a side or rear yard The Council discussed the concerns and noted that none of the options really mitigate the concerns raised by residents and that the only way to mitigate them would be to not allow outdoor dining next to residential. Ultimately, the Council is weighing if the benefits of outdoor dining are desirable even though there will be an impact to residents who live next to these uses. The Council did not direct staff to include any of the options above in the final draft. The following information was provided for the September 21 follow-up briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. Public Hearing Briefing Three people spoke during the public hearing. Two expressed concerns on how these changes to the outdoor dining special exception process would significantly impact their homes for the worse. They asked the council to hold off on taking action and take time to consider making improvements that will help mitigate the impact of outdoor dining on adjacent, residential properties. Additionally, representatives from Verizon Wireless also made comments. They refereed to a letter they sent earlier to Council Members that included redlined comments to the proposed ordinance specific to ground mounted utility boxes. Page | 3 The Council closed the public hearing and asked Planning staff to research and come back with potential recommendations that would include options to mitigate the impact of outdoors dining adjacent to residential zones and to review the comments made by Verizon representatives. Outdoor Dining Changes Attachment A is the Planning Division memo, which outlines how outdoor dining is currently regulated, a summary of the proposed regulations, the methodology that went into analyzing the proposed regulations, and the options the Council may want to consider. Pages 4-9 of the memo provides the details on each of the following options: 1. Leave the proposed standard as is. 2. Increase the landscape buffer to match the 10-foot setback in zoning districts where the required landscape buffer is less than 10 feet. 3. Increase the setback for outdoor dining. 4. Require a conditional use when outdoor dining in a side or rear yard is adjacent to a residential zoning district that doesn’t otherwise allow food serving establishments. 5. Limit the size of the outdoor dining area in a side or rear yard. During the work session briefing, the Council may wish to discuss these options with the Planning staff and then decide how to proceed. The public hearing was closed, so a continued public hearing is not required. Verizon Wireless Suggestions Attachment B is the letter submitted by Verizon Wireless. They said their comments are intended to provide clarity on two issues: 1. identifying which types of property/parcels each section applies to, and 2. ensuring “wireless services” and “other telecommunications services” are covered within the scope of Subsection 3 since wireless providers and others are not regulated utilities The suggestions can be seen as track change in attachment B. Planning staff and the Attorney’s office reviewed Verizon’s suggestions are do not oppose them. If the Council is supportive of including the changes provided in Attachment B into the final draft of the ordinance, a straw poll can be taken to direct staff to include them. The following information was provided for the August 17 public hearing. It is provided again for background purposes. Work Session Briefing During the work session briefing Planning staff noted the current draft ordinance included a few typos that needed to be correct. They sent an updated ordinance that made these corrections. 1. Outdoor dining additional parking requirements Page | 4 Should say it is considered an expansion of the use. Previously said “is not” (Line 725-727 of Legislative Daft) 2. Accessory building height in multifamily zones Should say max of 21’ for a pitched roof. Previously said 15’. (Line 636 of Legislative Daft) Additionally, a constituent reached out to Council Member Mano and Council staff to express his concerns about the impact of outdoor dining on his home. He said the constant noise from an adjacent restaurant has significantly impacted his home for the worse. He wants the City to keep the special exception process for outdoor dining so residents impacted by potential outdoor dining have a process that enables them to let the City know when that type of use will have a negative impact on adjacent properties and mitigate it or potentially deny it. The draft ordinance would permit outdoor dining with qualifying provisions intended to reduce the impact when next to residential zoning districts, including a setback from the shared property line and time limitations for outdoor music. The constituent is aware of this and believes it is not enough. He requested a meeting with Council Member Mano and Planning staff to go over his concerns. At the time this memo was written, the meeting was still being set up. Staff recommends that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting in case potential amendments to the draft ordinance come out of that meeting. The following information was provided for the July 20 work session briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will be briefed on a proposal to that would remove the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. The purpose of this proposal is to amend the zoning ordinance related to special exceptions to accomplish the following: Simplify the zoning ordinance by updating regulations and eliminating special exceptions Reallocate staff resources away from processing land use applications that favor individual properties and toward updating overall zoning codes to align with adopted master plans Increase predictability and reduce neighbor conflicts that are created by requests for exceptions to the zoning regulations for single parcels A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. Common examples of special exceptions include requests for exceptions to the maximum height requirements for buildings and fences, additions to existing buildings that do not comply with current setback requirements, grade changes over four feet in height, legalization of dwelling units when there is no record of the unit be permitted, and modifications to building bulk requirements in historic districts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission depending on location/designation of the property. The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council. Page | 5 Policy Questions 1. The Council may wish to ask if this change will enable planning staff to process other initiatives more quickly, and how this staff time would be coordinated with the positions added in the FY 22 budget process. 2. Given the breadth of these changes and City-wide nature, the Council may wish to discuss with planning staff how public feedback was sought and incorporated, and whether additional public process is concluded. Public Process The proposed text amendment went through the required public process outlined in City Code See pages 2-3 of the transmittal letter for details. Early engagement period ran from August 13 to October 10, 2020 o The public information document was posted on the Planning Division website o Notice sent to all recognized organizations, AIA Utah, and the Planning Divisions email list Planning Commission held a work session on September 30, 2020 Historic Landmark Commission virtual public hearing on November 5, 2020 o HLC adopted a motion recommended that the City Council adopt the proposal Planning Commission virtual public hearing on November 18, 2020 o PC unanimously adopted a motion recommending that the City Council adopt the proposal During the public process, Planning staff reached out to the Utah chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and Rocky Mountain Power (RMP), in addition to all recognized organizations. RMP provided suggestions to the proposal. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Definition (21A.52.020): A "special exception" is an activity or use incidental to or in addition to the principal use(s) permitted in a zoning district or an adjustment to a fixed dimension standard permitted as exceptions to the requirements of this title of less potential impact than a conditional use but which requires a careful review of such factors as location, design, configuration and/or impacts to determine the desirability of authorizing its establishment on any given site. Purpose Statement (21A.52.010): The planning commission or historic landmark commission may delegate its authority as necessary to the planning director to make a determination regarding special exceptions. The planning director may approve the special exceptions authorized by this title in accordance with the procedures and standards set out in this chapter and other regulations applicable to the district in which the subject property is located. Budget /Staffing Impact Pages 2-3 of the transmittal letter outlines the budgetary and staffing impact of the proposed amendments. Below are some of the key info taken from that section. If adopted, revenue from application fees would decrease approximately $43,000.00 o application fee of ($265) x average number of applications submitted annual (156) Approximately 150 applications for special exceptions are received each calendar year. The application fee is $265.00. Page | 6 Eliminating this process would result in significant staff time savings. See calculation summary in the following two sections: Typical Special Exception Process o The processing time for a typical special exception is about17 hours. The cost to process the applications is determined primarily by the hours of staff needed. the cost to the city is between approximately $460.00 and $575.00 depending on the classification of the planner processing the application. The application fee covers between 48-57% of the cost. Special Exception that Requires Planning Commission or Historic Landmark Commission Review o Average processing time for special exceptions that require approval by the Planning Commission or Historic Landmark Commission is approximately 52 hours. Staff hour cost is between $1,370.00 and $1,765.00 which is 5-6.6 times the application fee. The application fee only covers between 15% and 52% of the cost to process which means that the rest of the cost is subsidized by the city. Summary of Proposed Changes Currently there are 42 special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each of them being either deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. The list below uses a color code to easily identify the proposed changes for each item. Process to be Permitted (see items in the list below in blue) Most special exceptions do not generate public input and either require no conditions of approval or require consistent conditions of approval regardless of the property location. The special exceptions that fall into this category will be allowed by right and some of them will have specific qualifying provisions Processes Proposed to be Eliminated (see items in the list below in red) These exceptions are being eliminated because they make up the bulk of denied special exceptions requests, there are other processes to address the exception already in the zoning ordinance, or due to the high level of controversy that are generated by the exceptions. Proposed Changes that Generated Public Input (see items in the list below in green) The Planning Division identified some special exceptions that have generated public input during the process, as potentially impactful and the Planning Commission asked for more detailed information those items. See pages 23-25 Planning Commission Staff report for full discussion on these items: Historic Landmark Commission would retain authority to make modifications to dimensional requirements through existing processes in 21A.34.020 Historic Preservation Overlay District. Ground mounted utility boxes will be required to be on private property when serving individual developments. Accessory building heights would be able to increase slightly up to a district specific maximum with increased setbacks. Page | 7 Outdoor dining would be permitted with qualifying provisions intended to reduce the impact when next to residential zoning districts, including a setback from the shared property line and time limitations for outdoor music. Front yard parking would be allowed for residential uses only when no other yard is accessible for parking and there is no option for an attached garage. Inline additions would be allowed to follow existing building lines in front and rear yards. In side yards, an inline addition would be allowed to extend an existing wall that doesn’t met setbacks up to 25% of the length of the wall. In commercial zoning districts, building height would be allowed to be increased by up to 10% if the lot is sloped, the increased height is not creating an additional habitable, upper level to the building, and at least 50% of the building complies with the height requirement. Zoning districts where vintage signs can be used as art are expanding to include the following zoning districts: CSHBD-2, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB-SC, FB-SE, and TSA. Vintage signs as art is already authorized in the D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, G-MU, and CSHBD1 zoning districts. The following is a simple summary of the proposed changes. The change for each item is identified as either; deleted/no longer authorized, permitted with some qualifying provisions, or permitted/authorized through a different process. (Attachment A of the November 18, 2020 staff report for the Planning Commission) 1. Additional Accessory structure height: increased height (up to 75% of the principal structure) allowed with increase in setbacks 2. Accessory structures on double frontage lots: standards added to match location of accessory buildings of the block. 3. Additional height for fences: removed exception process, sets maximum heights. 4. Additional building height in commercial districts: deleted special exception; standards added to allow 10% increase on sloping lots. 5. Additional height in foothill districts: deleted special exception 6. Additional height in R-1, R-2, SR districts: deleted special exception 7. Alternative to off street parking: deleted 8. Barbed wire fences: standards added, restricted to industrial and agricultural zones and for land uses that require added security, such as public utility facilities. 9. Conditional home occupations: deleted. This was changed several years ago to permitted but was not deleted from the special exception chapter. 10. Dividing exiting lots with existing detached dwellings: allowed through the subdivision process with standards added. 11. Front yard parking: Standards added to allow front yard parking in very limited instances. 12. Grade changes over 4 feet: will become permitted with a step between retaining walls necessary to retain the grade change. 13. Ground mounted AC units, pool equipment, etc. within 4 feet of side or rear property line: standards updated to allow equipment in additional situations when there is no impact, or the equipment is screened. 14. Hobby shop, art studio, exercise room in accessory buildings: deleted, will become permitted. 15. Inline additions: permitted to match the existing building setback in front and rear yards; allowed in a limited manner in side yards. 16. Home day care: will become permitted or conditional based on Utah Code requirements for number of kids. 17. Outdoor dining in required yard: will be permitted with specific standards for setbacks, noise, etc. when next to residential zone. 18. Razor wire fencing: limited to industrial and agricultural zones and some uses that require a high level of security. Page | 8 19. Replacement of noncomplying building or portion of a noncomplying building: allowed by right within the noncomplying chapter of the zoning ordinance. 20. Underground encroachments: permitted in the encroachment table with standards. 21. Window mounted AC units: deleted special exception, will be permitted. 22. Vehicle and equipment storage in CG, M1, M2, EI: permitted with specific standards for water quality and to reduce mud, dirt, gravel being carried onto public streets. 23. Ground mounted utility boxes: prohibited in the public right of way unless the box serves a broader area than just a private development and with specific standards; location requirements on private property added. Size limitations deleted. 24. Unit legalizations: will be addressed as a determination of nonconforming use in chapter 21A.38. Standards related to continuing use maintained. Other standards that require update to parking standards deleted. 25. Vintage signs: Changed to permitted with existing standards in the ordinance, expanded where a vintage sign could be used as public art. 26. Additional height for lights at sports fields: changed to permitted with screening of light trespass, increased setback from residential uses. 27. Recreation equipment height in OS zone: capped at 60 feet in height with no exceptions. 28. Public utility buildings in OS zone: will be allowed to exceed building height for critical public utility infrastructure. Does not include office buildings. 29. Fence and wall height over 6 feet for homeless resource centers: Planning Commission will be given the authority to approve taller fences for buffering purposes. 30. Enlargement of structure with noncomplying use: allowed by right provided the addition complies with zoning requirements. 31. Horizontal inline additions: permitted to match existing portions of buildings that do not meet setback when the addition is in the front or rear yards, with limited application in side yards. 32. Alteration to an existing SFD [single family dwelling] when the use is not allowed: alterations will be permitted. 33. Amateur HAM radio antennae over 75 feet in height: special exception deleted. 34. Electrical equipment for cell towers: will need to be in a side or rear yard with specific setback and screening requirements. 35. Electrical security fences: permitted with updated qualifying provisions. 36. Covered ADA ramps: deleted, will be addressed through a reasonable accommodation authorized under federal laws. 37. Ground mounted utility boxes over a certain size in the right of way: will be deleted and required to be located on private property when serving individual developments. 38. Front yard parking for SFD when side or rear yard not accessible: deleted and will be allowed in very limited instances. 39. Parking exceeding the maximum: deleted. Will be addressed through proposed changes to parking ordinance. 40. Alternative parking requirements: deleted. Will be addressed through proposed changes to parking ordinance. 41. Commercial signs in historic districts: delete special exception requirement; will be authorized through existing processes in the Historic Preservation Overlay. 42. HLC bulk modifications: delete special exception requirement: will be authorized through existing processes in the Historic Preservation Overlay. 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2021 (An ordinance amending various sections of the Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to eliminate special exceptions from that title) An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00606 to eliminate special exceptions from the city’s zoning ordinances. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 18, 2020 to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Erin Mendenhall (Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00606) to amend portions of Chapters 21A.06 (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials); 21A.24 (Zoning: Residential Districts); 21A.26 (Zoning: Commercial Districts); 21A.32 (Zoning: Special Purpose Districts); 21A.34 (Zoning: Overlay Districts); 21A.36 (Zoning: General Provisions); 21A.38 (Zoning: Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures); 21A.40 (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures); 21A.44 (Zoning: Off Street Parking, Mobility and Loading); 21A.46 (Zoning: Signs) 21A.52 (Zoning : Special Exceptions); 21A.60 (Zoning: Defined Terms); and 21A.62 (Zoning: Definitions) of the Salt Lake City Code to modify regulations pertaining to off street parking; and WHEREAS, at its November 18, 2020 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 2 SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.06.050.C.6 as follows: 6. Review and approve or deny certain modifications to dimensional standards for properties located within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District. This authority is also granted to the planning director or designee for applications within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District that are eligible for administrative approval by the planning director or zoning administrator. The certain modifications to zoning district specific development standards are listed as follows and are in addition to any modification authorized elsewhere in this title: a. Building wall height; b. Accessory structure wall height; c. Accessory structure square footage; d. Fence height; e. Overall building and accessory structure height; f. Signs pursuant to Section 21A.46.070 of this title; and g. Any modification to bulk and lot regulations, except density, of the underlying zoning district where it is found that the proposal complies with the applicable standards identified in Section 21A.34.020 and is compatible with the surrounding historic structures. SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.010.P.2 as follows: 2. Repealed. SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.010.P.6 (Grade Changes) as follows: 6. Grade Changes: No grading shall be permitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. The grade of any lot shall not be altered above or below established grade more than 4 feet at any point for the construction of any structure or improvement except: a. Within the buildable area. Proposals to modify established grade more than 6 feet shall be permitted for the construction of below grade portions of structures, egress windows, and building entrances. Grade change transition areas between a yard area and the buildable area shall be within the buildable area; b. Within the side and rear yard areas, grade changes greater than 4feet are permitted provided: 3 (1) The grade change is supported by retaining walls. (2) No individual retaining wall exceeds 6 feet in height. c. Within the required front and corner side yards, grade changes up to 6 feet in height are permitted provided: (1) The grade change is necessary for driveways accessing legally located parking areas; and (2) The grade changes are supported by retaining walls. SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.050.D.6 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.060.D.6 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.070.D.6 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.080.D.6 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 6. Additional Building Height: 4 Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.100.D.6 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 9. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.110.D.6 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 10. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.26.010.J (Modifications to Maximum Height) as follows: J. Modifications to Maximum Height: The maximum height of buildings in commercial zoning districts may be increased up to 10% on any building face due to the natural topography of the site pursuant to the following standards: 1. At least 50% of the building complies with the maximum height of the underlying zoning district; 2. The modification allows the upper floor of a building to be level with the portion of the building that complies with the maximum building height of the zone without the 10% modification; and 3. The height of the ground floor is at least 12 feet in height measured from finished floor to finished ceiling height. SECTION 11. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.32.100.D.3 as follows: 5 3. Recreation equipment heights are permitted to a height not to exceed 80 feet when needed due to the nature of the equipment or for the use to operate safely, such as fences surrounding golf course driving ranges. SECTION 12. Amending to the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.32.100.D as follows: D. Maximum Building and Recreation Equipment Height: 1. Lots 4 acres or less: Building height shall be limited to 35 feet; provided that for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet, each required yard and landscaped yard shall be increased one foot. 2. Lots greater than 4 acres: Building heights in excess of 35 feet but not more than 45 feet may be permitted provided, that for each foot of height over 35 feet, each required yard and landscaped yard shall be increased one foot. Building heights in excess of 45 feet up to 60 feet may be approved through the design review process and that for each foot of height over 35 feet, each required yard and landscaped yard shall be increased one foot. 3. Recreation equipment heights are permitted to a height not to exceed 80 feet when needed due to the nature of the equipment or for the use to operate safely, such as fences surrounding golf course driving ranges. 4. Heights for buildings or structures for the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department that are not specifically exempt in Section 21A.02.050 of this title, are exempt from the height restrictions in this zoning district provided the building or structure is deemed by the director of the public utilities department as critical infrastructure necessary to provide specific utility needs to the public. SECTION 13. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.32.100.H (Lighting) as follows: H. Lighting: All uses and developments that provide lighting shall ensure that lighting installations comply with the following standards: 1. Lighting is installed in a manner and location that will not have an adverse impact on the natural environment when placed in areas with wildlife habitat, traffic safety or on surrounding properties and uses; 2. Light sources shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into adjacent properties and have cutoffs to protect the view of the night sky; and 3. Light poles for outdoor uses, such as sports fields, amphitheaters, and other similar uses may be permitted up to 70 feet in height provided the lights are located a minimum of 30 feet from a residential use and directed to reduce light trespass onto neighboring properties. 6 SECTION 14. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.34.120.G (Special Exception for Garages) as follows: G. Garages Built into Hillsides in Front or Corner Side Yards: A garage built into a hillside and located forward of the front line of the building may be allowed subject to the following standards: 1. The rear and side yards cannot be reasonably accessed for the purpose of parking. 2. Because of the topography of the lot it is impossible to construct a garage and satisfy the standards of the YCI. 3. The ceiling elevation of the garage is below the elevation of the first or main floor of the house. 4. The garage meets all applicable yard requirements. SECTION 15. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection Table 21A.36.020.B (Obstructions in Required Yards) as follows (only the identified rows and columns in the table are amended): TABLE 21A.36.020B OBSTRUCTIONS IN REQUIRED YARDS1 Type of Structure or Use Obstruction Front and Corner Side Yards Side Yard Rear Yard Below grade encroachments underground obstructions when there is no exterior evidence of the underground structure other than entrances and required venting provided there are no conflicts with any easements or publicly owned infrastructure or utilities. X X X Changes of established grade of 4 feet or less except for the FP and FR Districts which shall be subject to the provisions of Subsection 21A.24.010.P of this title. (All grade changes located on a property line shall be supported by a retaining wall.) Grade changes greater than 4 feet in height provided the grade change includes a retaining wall, a horizontal step that is a minimum of 3 feet in depth is provided for every 4 vertical feet of retaining wall. X X X Laundry drying equipment (clothesline and poles) X X X 7 Window mounted refrigerated air conditioners and evaporative “swamp” coolers located at least 2 feet from the property line. X X X Notes: 1. “X” denotes where obstructions are allowed. 2. Reserved. 3. The accessory structure shall be located wholly behind the primary structure on the property. SECTION 16. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.36.130 (Child Daycare) as follows: 21A.36.130: CHILD DAYCARE: Child daycare shall be permitted pursuant to the following provisions: A. Nonregistered Home Daycare: Nonregistered home daycare, limited to no more than two (2) children, excluding the provider’s own children, is permitted in the home of the care provider as set forth in Chapter 21A.33, “Land Use Tables”, of this title and within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings within commercial and nonresidential districts excluding M-1 and M-2 Districts. A business revenue license or home occupation special exception approval shall not be required. B. Registered Home Daycare or Registered Home Preschool: A registered home daycare or registered home preschool as defined in chapter 21A.62 of this title, may be allowed as an accessory use as set forth in Chapter 21A.33, “Land Use Tables”, of this title and within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings within commercial and nonresidential districts excluding M-1 and M-2 Districts as a conditional use pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 21A.54 of this title. Registered home day cares shall be considered an administrative conditional use under Section 21A.54.155 and be eligible for administrative approval under that section. Registered home day cares under this section are exempt from the noticing requirements in Section 2.60.050 or its successor. The permittee shall also obtain appropriate licensing where applicable from the State pursuant to the Utah Code. 1. Permit; Application: An application for a residential home daycare or preschool must be submitted to the zoning administrator. As a part of the application, the applicant must submit the following documentation: a. The number of children and employees; both total for the day and the expected maximum number to be on the premises at any given time; b. The hours and days of operation; and c. Proof of appropriate licensing from the State, where applicable, or basis upon which exemption therefrom is claimed. 8 2. Standards: All residential home daycare or preschools shall be subject to the standards set forth in Chapter 21A.54 of this title and subject to the following specific standards: a. The applicant resides at the home in which the business will be conducted; b. At no time shall the applicant provide home daycare or home preschool services for a group of children exceeding the maximum specified for such facility; c. The outdoor play area for the home daycare or home preschool shall be located in the rear or side yards of the home for the protection and safety of the children and for the protection of the neighborhood; d. The use of the home for the services of providing childcare shall be clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling for residential purposes and shall not change the character of the home or the neighborhood; e. The care and supervision of the children shall be conducted in a manner which is not a public nuisance to the neighborhood; f. There shall be no advertising of such occupation, business or service, no window or other signs or displays; g. No employees other than persons lawfully living in the dwelling; h. No play or yard equipment located in the front yard; and i. It is unlawful for any person to engage in a “registered home daycare or registered home preschool” as defined in Section 21A.62.040 of this title without first obtaining a license pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 5.04 of this code. Prior to issuance of said license, the criteria set forth in this title must be satisfied and all applicable fees shall be paid. All home occupation business licenses shall be valid for one year, and may be renewed annually, provided there have been no reported violations, subject to Subsection 21A.36.030.I of this chapter. C. Child Daycare Center: 1. Conditional Use Standards for Child Daycare Centers: A child daycare center may be allowed as a conditional use pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 21A.54 of this title and the requirements and provisions of this subsection. a. Site Requirements: (1) Minimum Lot Size: Twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. (2) Location Requirements: The child daycare use shall be addressed on and oriented to an arterial street as shown on the City’s major street plan. (3) Rear Yard Playground Equipment: All outside playground equipment shall be located only in the rear yard. (4) Landscape Buffering: Any outside area where children are allowed must be fenced with a solid fence at least six feet (6’) high. At least ten feet (10’) from the fence to the interior portion of the property shall be landscaped in such a way that the area cannot be used by the patrons. 9 b. Signage: Signs are limited to either one nonilluminated low profile identification sign, or one “flat sign” as defined in Chapter 21A.46 of this title. The size of the sign shall be determined as part of the conditional use approval. c. Prohibitions: (1) Residential Demolition: No existing building containing a residential dwelling unit may be demolished to allow for the construction of a new conditional use facility for child daycare under this section. (2) Residential Conversion: The conversion of any existing residential structure or a conditional use allowed under this section shall not permit any major exterior or interior alterations of the building to be made which render the building substantially incompatible with the return to its use as a residence. (3) No Variances: The planning commission shall not approve a childcare conditional use pursuant to this section if the appeals hearing officer would be required to grant a variance from any zoning condition. (4) Six Hundred Feet Proximity: No conditional use allowed under this section may be within six hundred feet (600’) on the same street frontage as another conditional use allowed under this section. d. Application: The application for a child daycare center shall include, in addition to application submission requirements of Chapter 21A.54 of this title, the following information: (1) The number of children, employees, staff or volunteers; both total for the day and the expected maximum number to be on the premises at any given time; (2) The hours and days of operation; (3) The proposed signage; and (4) The number, location and dimensions of any dropoff or pick up areas for either private transportation or public transportation. e. Standards: Standards for approval shall include, in addition to standards of Chapter 21A.54 of this title, the following: (1)Specific Standards for Child Daycare Conditional Uses: (A) The lot is of sufficient size to accommodate all required parking in the side and rear yards, or to the rear of the required landscaped setback in the front yard; (B) The dropoff and pick up area is designed in a manner that vehicles do not back into a public street or the stacking or queuing of vehicles will not interrupt traffic flow on the public street; and (C) The signage is appropriate for the area. SECTION 17. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.36.350.A.3.c.(3) as follows: 10 (3) A decorative masonry wall that is a minimum of 6 feet high shall be provided along all interior side and rear lot lines and that complies with all required site distance triangles at driveways and walkways. Walls in excess of 6 feet may be required as a condition of approval of a conditional use if it determines a taller wall is necessary to mitigate a detrimental impact created by the homeless resource center or homeless shelter; SECTION 18. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.38.040.H.2 (Enlargement of a Structure With a Nonconforming Use) as follows: 2. Enlargement of a Nonconforming Use: Enlargement of a legal nonconforming use are limited to a one time expansion of up to 25% of the gross floor area, or 1,000 gross square feet, whichever is less and subject to the site being able to provide required off street parking that complies with any applicable parking requirement of this title. An approved expansion shall be documented through an updated zoning certificate for the property. Any expansion to the nonconforming use beyond these limits is not permitted. The expansion shall be limited to a one-time expansion after April 12, 1995, the effective date of this title. Any expansion granted as a special exception after April 12, 1995 shall be considered as fulfilling the one-time expansion. SECTION 19. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.38.050.B (Enlargement) as follows: B. Enlargement: A noncomplying structure may be enlarged if such enlargement and its location comply with the standards of the zoning district in which it is located or as provided in this section. 1. Noncomplying as to Setbacks. a. Front Yard: A principal building with a front yard setback that is less than the minimum required may be enlarged provided the addition does not further reduce the existing front yard setback and complies with all other applicable requirements of Title 21A. b. Corner Side Yards: A principal building with a corner side yard setback that is less than the minimum required may be enlarged provided the addition does not further reduce the existing corner side yard setback and complies with all other applicable requirements of Title 21A. c. Interior Side Yards: Additions to a principal structure with noncomplying side yard setback(s) are permitted as follows: (1) Single story additions are permitted to follow the existing setback line provided the following standards are complied with: 11 i. The exterior wall height of the addition is equal to or less than the exterior wall height of the existing building. When a cross slope exists along the exterior wall, the interior floor to ceiling height of the addition shall match the interior floor to ceiling height of the existing building. ii. The addition may extend the noncomplying exterior wall of the building up to 20% of the length of the existing wall. This shall be a one-time addition and no further additions are permitted. (2) Two story or greater additions shall comply with the side yard setback requirement(s) and maximum wall height as specified in the underlying zone. (3) In determining if a side yard is noncomplying, the narrower of the two side yards shall be interpreted to be the narrower side yard required in the underlying zoning district. (4) All other provisions of the underlying zoning district and any applicable overlay zoning district shall apply. d. Rear Yards: A principal building noncomplying to rear yard setbacks may be expanded provided the expansion follows an existing noncomplying building wall and does not result in a decrease of the existing rear yard setback and complies with side and corner side yard setbacks of the underlying zoning district. If the building does not comply with the existing side or corner side yard setback, the expansion shall be permitted to extend to the side or corner side yard setback of the underlying zone. 2. Noncomplying as to Height: A principal structure that exceeds the maximum height of the underlying zoning district may be expanded at the existing height of the building provided the setbacks of the underlying zoning district are complied with. SECTION 20. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.38.050.F (Replacement or Reconstruction of a Noncomplying Structure) as follows: F. The replacement or reconstruction of any existing noncomplying portion of a principal structure or full replacement of a noncomplying accessory structure is permitted provided the replacement is in the same location or in a location that reduces the degree of noncompliance and is of substantially the same dimension. Enlarging a full replacement of a noncomplying accessory structure is permitted provided the enlarged section complies with all setback, height, maximum square feet, and lot or yard coverage requirements. SECTION 21. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.38.060 (Noncomplying Lots) as follows: 12 21A.38.060: NONCOMPLYING LOTS: Subdividing Lots Containing Two or More Separate Principal Buildings: Lots that contain two or more separate principal buildings on a single parcel may be subdivided to place each structure on a separate lot subject to the following provisions: A. The properties shall be subdivided by recording of a plat. B. The proposed lots are exempt from the minimum lot area, lot width, lot coverage, and street frontage requirements of the underlying zoning district; C. The proposed setbacks shall be reviewed and approved by the planning director after consultation with applicable city departments; D. The proposed subdivision plat shall identify the front, corner side, interior side, and rear yards for the purpose of future development. E. Parking may be located anywhere within the proposed subdivision except front yards (unless already existing) and shall not be reduced below the existing off-street parking F. All lots that are part of the subdivision must include adequate access to a public street. Adequate access shall include pedestrian walkways and when off-street parking is required, vehicle access and parking. G. All necessary easements for access and utilities are shown on the plat. A note shall be added to indicate responsibility for maintenance of shared access and utilities. H. All other applicable regulations of the Salt Lake City Code shall apply. A lot that is noncomplying as to lot area or lot frontage that was in legal existence on the effective date of any amendment to this title that makes the existing lot noncomplying shall be considered a legal complying lot and is subject to the regulations of this title. Any noncomplying lot not approved by the city that was created prior to January 13, 1950, may be approved as a legal noncomplying lot subject to the lot meeting minimum zoning requirements at the time the lot was created and documented through an updated zoning certificate for the property. Any noncomplying lot not approved by the city that was created on or between January 13, 1950 to April 12, 1995, may be approved as a legal noncomplying lot subject to the lot meeting minimum zoning and subdivision requirements at the time the lot was created and documented through an updated zoning certificate for the property. Noncomplying lots may be combined to create a conforming lot or more conforming lot subject to any maximum lot size standards of the zoning district in which the lot is located. SECTION 22. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.38.070 (Legal Conforming Single-Family Detached Dwelling, Two-Family Dwellings, and Twin Homes) as follows: 13 Any legally existing single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling, or twin home shall be considered legal conforming. Legal conforming status shall authorize replacement of the single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling, or twin home structure to the extent of the original footprint. A. Alterations, Additions or Extensions or Replacement Structures Greater Than the Original Footprint: In zoning districts which do not allow detached single-family dwelling units, two-family dwelling units or twin homes, any alterations, extensions/additions or the replacement of the structure may exceed the original footprint by 25% of the existing structure subject to the following standards: 1. Any alterations, extensions/additions or the replacement structure shall not project into a required yard beyond any encroachment established by the structure being replaced. 2. All replacement structures in nonresidential zones are subject to the provisions of Section 21A.36.190, “Residential Building Standards for Legal Conforming Single- Family Detached Dwellings, Two-Family Dwellings and Twin Homes in Nonresidential Zoning Districts”, of this title. B. Off Street Parking: When replacing a legal conforming single- family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling or twin home, the number of new parking stalls provided shall be equal to or more than the number of parking stalls being replaced. The maximum number of outdoor parking stalls shall be 4 parking stalls per dwelling unit SECTION 23. Adopting a new Section 21A.38.075 (Unit Legalizations) to the text of the Salt Lake City Code as follows: 21A.38.075: UNIT LEGALIZATIONS: A. Purpose: The purpose of this subsection is to implement the existing Salt Lake City community housing plan by providing a process that gives owners of property with one or more excess dwelling units not recognized by the city an opportunity to legalize such units based on the standards set forth in this section. The intent is to maintain existing housing stock in a safe manner that contributes to the vitality and sustainability of neighborhoods within the city. B. Review Standards: A dwelling unit that is proposed to be legalized pursuant to this section shall comply with the following standards: 1. The dwelling unit existed prior to April 12, 1995. In order to determine whether a dwelling unit was in existence prior to April 12, 1995, the unit owner shall provide documentation thereof which may include any of the following: 14 a. Copies of lease or rental agreements, lease or rent payments, or other similar documentation showing a transaction between the unit owner and tenants; b. Evidence indicating that prior to April 12, 1995, the city issued a building permit, business license, zoning certificate, or other permit relating to the dwelling unit in question; c. Utility records indicating existence of a dwelling unit; d. Historic surveys recognized by the planning director as being performed by a trained professional in historic preservation; e. Notarized affidavits from a previous owner, tenant, or neighbor; f. Polk, Cole, or phone directories that indicate existence of the dwelling unit (but not necessarily that the unit was occupied); or g. Any other documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public record which indicates the existence of the excess unit prior to April 12, 1995. 2. The excess unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling unit since April 12, 1995. In order to determine if a unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling unit, the following may be considered: a. Evidence listed in Subsection B.1 of this section indicates that the unit has been occupied at least once every 5 calendar years; b. Evidence that the unit was marketed for occupancy if the unit was unoccupied for more than 5 consecutive years; c. If evidence of maintaining a separate dwelling unit as required by Subsection B.1 of this section cannot be established, documentation of construction upgrades may be provided in lieu thereof. d. Any documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public record which provides evidence that the unit was referenced as a separate dwelling unit at least once every 5 years. C. Conditions of Approval: Any approved unit legalization shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The unit owner shall allow the city’s building official or designee to inspect the dwelling unit to determine whether the unit substantially complies with basic life safety requirements as provided in Chapter 18.50, “Existing Residential Housing”, of this code. 2. All required corrections indicated during the inspection process must be completed within 1 year unless granted an extension by the building official. D. Application: A determination of non-conforming use application, provided by the zoning administrator, shall be required to legalize unrecognized dwelling units. 15 SECTION 24. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.040 “Use Limitations” as follows: 21A.40.040: USE LIMITATIONS: In addition to the applicable use limitations of the district regulations, no accessory use shall be permitted unless it complies with the restrictions set forth below: A. An accessory use shall be incidental and subordinate to the principal use or structure in area, extent and purpose; B. An accessory use, building or structure shall be under the same ownership or control as the principal use or structure, and shall be, except as otherwise expressly authorized by the provisions of this title, located on the same lot as the principal use or structure; C. No accessory use shall be established or constructed before the principal use is in operation or the structure is under construction in accordance with these regulations; D. No commercial sign, except as expressly authorized by this chapter or by the provisions of Chapter 21A.46 of this title, shall be maintained in connection with an accessory use or structure. E. An accessory use shall be permitted if it is routinely and customarily associated with the principal use and not otherwise prohibited by this title. For residential uses, this includes accessory uses that are customarily associated with a dwelling, such as home office, outdoor living space, pool houses, storage, personal use, hobbies, and other similar uses but does not include short term rentals or other uses not allowed in the zoning district. SECTION 25. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.050.A as follows: A. Location of Accessory Buildings in Required Yards: 1. Front Yards: Accessory buildings are prohibited in any required front yard and shall be set back at least as far as the principal building when the principal building exceeds the required front yard setback. Notwithstanding the foregoing, hoop houses and cold frame structures up to 24 inches in height may be placed in a front yard. 2. Corner Lots: No accessory building on a corner lot shall be closer to the street than the distance required for corner side yards. At no time, however, shall an accessory building be closer than 20 feet to a public sidewalk or public pedestrianway and the accessory building shall be set back at least as far as the principal building. Notwithstanding the foregoing, hoop houses and cold frame structures up to 24 inches in height may be placed in a corner side yard. 3. Side Yards: Accessory buildings are prohibited in any required interior side yard; however, hoop houses, greenhouses, and cold frame structures associated solely with 16 growing food and/or plants are allowed in an interior side yard but no closer than one foot to the corresponding lot line. If an addition to residential buildings results in an existing accessory building being located in a side yard, the existing accessory building shall be permitted to remain, subject to maintaining a 4 foot separation from the side of the accessory building to the side of the residential building, as required in Subsection A.4.b of this section. 4. Rear Yards: Location of accessory buildings in a rear yard shall be as follows: a. In residential districts, no accessory building shall be closer than one foot to a side or rear lot line except when sharing a common wall with an accessory building on an adjacent lot. In nonresidential districts, buildings may be built to side or rear lot lines in rear yards, provided the building complies with all applicable requirements of the adopted building code. b. No portion of the accessory building shall be built closer than 4 feet to any portion of the principal building; excluding cold frames associated solely with growing food and/or plants. c. Garages on 2 or more properties that are intended to provide accessory building use for the primary occupants of the properties, in which the garage is located, may be constructed in the rear yards, as a single structure subject to compliance with adopted building code regulations and the size limits for accessory buildings on each property as indicated herein. 5. Accessory or Principal Lot: No portion of an accessory building on either an accessory or principal lot may be built closer than 10 feet to any portion of a principal residential building on an adjacent lot when that adjacent lot is in a residential zoning district; excluding hoop houses, greenhouses, and cold frames associated solely with growing food and/or plants. 6. Double Frontage Lots: Accessory structures and buildings located on a property where both the front and rear yards have frontage on a street may be located in a front yard provided the accessory building or structure: a. Is located in a provided yard that is directly opposite the front yard where the primary entrance to the principal building is located; b. Is in a location that is consistent with other accessory building locations on the block; c. Complies with any clear view triangle requirements of this title; and d. Complies with all other accessory building and structure requirements of this title. SECTION 26. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.050.C (Maximum Height of Accessory Structures) as follows: C. Maximum Height of Accessory Buildings/Structures: 17 1. Accessory to Residential Uses in the FP District, RMF Districts, RB, R-MU Districts, SNB and the RO District: The height of accessory buildings/structures in residential districts are measured from established grade to the highest point of the accessory building and shall conform to the following: a. The height of accessory structures with flat roofs shall not exceed 12 feet. The height of flat roof structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of the principal structure, not to exceed 15 feet provided the setbacks increases one foot for every one foot of building height above 12 feet. b. The height of accessory structures with pitched roofs shall not exceed 17 feet measured to the midpoint of the roof. The height of pitched roof structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of the principal structure, not exceed 21 feet provided the setbacks increase one foot for every one foot of structure height above 17 feet. 2. Accessory to Residential Uses in the FR, R-1 Districts, R-2 District and SR Districts: The height of accessory buildings/structures in the FR districts, R-1 districts, R-2 district and SR districts are measured from established grade to the highest point of the accessory structure and shall conform to the following: a. The height of accessory structures with flat roofs shall not exceed 12 feet, except that in the SR-1A zoning district the height of accessory structures with flat roofs shall not exceed 9 feet. The height of flat roof accessory structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of the principal structure, not to exceed an additional 3 feet except in the SR-1A zoning district where up to an additional 2 feet may be permitted provided the setbacks are increased one foot for every one foot of additional building height. b. The height of accessory structures with pitched roofs shall not exceed 17 feet at any given point of building coverage. In the SR-1A zoning district the height of accessory structures with pitched roofs shall not exceed 14 feet. The height of pitched roof accessory structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of the principal structure, not to exceed an additional 4 feet except in the SR-1A zoning district where up to an additional 3 feet may be permitted provided the setbacks are increased one foot for every one foot of building height. SECTION 27. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.065 (Outdoor Dining) as follows: 21A.40.065: OUTDOOR DINING: “Outdoor dining”, as defined in Chapter 21A.62 of this title, shall be allowed in any zoning district where restaurant and retail uses are allowed and for any nonconforming food serving land use subject to the provisions of this section: 18 A. Where allowed: 1. Within the buildable lot area; 2. Within a required or provided front or corner side yard; 3. Within a required side yard provided: the outdoor dining is setback a minimum of 10 feet when adjacent to a residential zoning district that does not permit restaurants or retail uses. Properties separated by an alley are not considered adjacent for the purpose of this section. 4. Within a required rear yard provided the outdoor dining is setback a minimum of 10 feet when adjacent to a residential zoning district that does not permit restaurants or retail uses. Properties separated by an alley are not considered adjacent for the purpose of this section. 5. Within a public right of way or an adjacent public property subject to all applicable lease agreements, applicable regulations, and the outdoor dining design guidelines. B. All outdoor dining shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. All applicable requirements of Chapter 21A.48 and Section 21A.36.020 of this title are met. 2. All required business, health and other regulatory licenses for the outdoor dining have been secured. 3. A detailed site plan demonstrating the following: a. All the proposed outdoor dining activities will be conducted on private property owned or otherwise controlled by the applicant and that none of the activities will occur on any publicly owned rights-of-way unless separate approval for the use of any such public rights-of-way has been obtained from the city; b. The main entry has a control point as required by state liquor laws. 4. The proposed outdoor dining complies with all conditions pertaining to any existing variances, conditional uses or other approvals granted for property. 5. Live music will not be performed, nor loudspeakers played in the outdoor dining area unless the decibel level is within conformance with the Salt Lake City noise control ordinance, Chapter 9.28 of this code. Live music and loudspeakers are prohibited outside between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am when the property is within a radius of 660 feet of a residential zoning district found in Chapter 21A.24 of this code. 6. Outdoor dining shall be considered an expansion of the use for the purpose of determining if additional parking is required as stated in Chapter 21A.44 (Parking). 7. Smoking shall be prohibited within the outdoor dining area and within 25 feet of the outdoor dining area. 19 SECTION 28. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.090.D (Amateur Radio Facilities With Surface Area Exceeding Ten Square Feet) as follows: D. Amateur Radio Facilities With Surface Area Exceeding 10 Square Feet: Any antenna and antenna support having a combined surface area greater than 10 square feet or having any single dimension exceeding 12 feet that is capable of transmitting as well as receiving signals and is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission as an amateur radio facility shall be permitted as an accessory use, but only in compliance with the regulations set forth below: 1. Number Limited: No more than one such antenna or antenna support structure with a surface area greater than 10 square feet or any single dimension exceeding 12 feet may be located on any lot. 2. Height Limited: No such antenna and its support structure shall, if ground mounted, exceed 75 feet in height or, if attached to a building pursuant to Subsection D.3 of this section, the height therein specified. 3. Attachment to Buildings Limited: No such antenna or its support structure shall be attached to a principal or accessory structure unless all of the following conditions are satisfied: a. Height: The antenna and its support structure shall not extend more than 20 feet above the highest point of the building on which it is mounted. b. Mounting: The antenna and its support structure shall not be attached to or mounted upon any building appurtenance, such as a chimney. The antenna and its support structure shall not be mounted or attached to the front or corner side of any principal building facing a street, including any portion of the building roof facing any street. The antenna and its support structure shall be designed to withstand a wind force of 80 miles per hour without the use of supporting guywires. c. Grounding: The antenna and its support structure shall be bonded to a grounding rod. SECTION 29. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.090.E.3.b (Electrical Equipment Located on Private Property) as follows: b. Electrical Equipment Located on Private Property: Electrical equipment shall be subject to the following standards: (1) Located in a rear yard, interior side yard, or within the building area of the lot. 20 (2) If located in a zoning district without a require front or corner side yard setback, the equipment shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from the front or corner side yard property line. (3) Located a minimum of 4 feet from a side or rear property line unless located in an enclosed structure or a vault where the equipment will not be visible. (4) If the equipment is located next to a public trail, park, open space, or other public space other than a street, the equipment shall be screened by a masonry wall or solid fence so the equipment is not visible. (5) The electrical equipment and any structure associated with the electrical equipment is subject to the maximum lot coverage of the underlying zoning district. SECTION 30. Amending Section 21A.40.100 (Mechanical Equipment) to the text of Salt Lake City Code as follows: 21A.40.100: LOCATION OF MECHNICAL EQUIPMENT: All mechanical equipment shall be located as follows: A. Front and Corner Side Yards and Double Frontage Lots: Only allowed if located within 4 feet of the principal building and screened by vegetation, a solid wall or fence so the equipment is not visible and at least 10 feet from the front and corner side yard property lines. B. Side Yards: At least 4 feet from a side property line. If the equipment is adjacent to a driveway, parking stall, or accessory structure on an adjacent parcel, the setback may be reduced to 2 feet. C. Rear Yards: at least 4 feet from a rear property line. If the equipment is adjacent to a driveway, parking stall, or accessory structure on an adjacent parcel, the setback may be reduced to two feet. D. Prohibited Areas: in addition to the yard requirements above, mechanical equipment is prohibited to be located on the roof of an accessory structure, with the exception of exhaust fans and mechanical vents serving the accessory building in which case the fans or vents shall be at least 10 feet from a property line. SECTION 31. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.I (Barbed Wire Fences) as follows: I. Barbed Wire Fences: Permitted Use: Barbed wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the following instances: 21 1. AG, AG-2, AG-5, AG-20, A, CG, M-1, and M-2 districts and to secure critical infrastructure located in any other zoning district not listed subject to the following requirements. Critical infrastructure includes sites that are necessary to protect the facility or site for the purpose of public health and safety. Barbed wire is also permitted to secure construction sites and sites where construction is pending provided it is removed once construction is complete. 2. Barbed wire fences shall be subject to the following provisions: a. Not allowed in a provided or required front yard. b. The barbed wire is permitted to exceed the maximum fence height. c. No strand of barbed wire shall be permitted less than 7 feet in height above the ground except for agricultural purposes provided the barbed wire is vertically aligned. d. No more than 3 strands of barbed wire are permitted. e. The barbed wire strands shall not slant outward from the fence more than 60 degrees from a vertical line. f. All barbed wire shall be setback a minimum of 3 feet from public property. g. The barbed wire is not located along a property line shared with a residential use when the subject property is in a CG zoning district. SECTION 32. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.J (Razor Wire Fences) as follows: J. Razor Wire Fences: Razor wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the M-1, M-2 and EI zoning districts and to secure critical infrastructure structures and sites located in any other zoning district subject to the following requirements. Critical infrastructure includes sites that are necessary to protect the facility or site for the purpose of public health and safety. 1. Razor wire is not allowed in a provided or required front or corner side yard. 2. Razor wire is permitted to exceed the maximum fence height to a height necessary to reasonably secure the site. 3. No strand of razor wire shall be permitted on a fence that is less than 7 feet high. Razor wire coils shall not exceed 18 inches in diameter and must slant inward from the fence to which the razor wire is being attached. 4. All razor wire shall be setback a minimum of 3 feet from public property in zoning districts that do not have a minimum setback. SECTION 33. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.L (Electric Security Fences) as follows: 22 L. Electric Security Fences: 1. Permitted Use: Electric security fences are allowed as a permitted use in the M-1 and M-2 zones. Electric security fences on parcels or lots that abut a residential zone are prohibited. 2. Location Requirements: Electric security fences shall not be allowed in required front yard setbacks or on frontages adjacent to residentially zoned properties. 3. Compliance With Adopted Building Codes: Electric security fences shall be constructed or installed in conformance with all applicable construction codes. 4. Perimeter Fence or Wall: No electric security fence shall be installed or used unless it is fully enclosed by a nonelectrical fence or wall that is not less than 6 feet in height. There shall be at least one foot of spacing between the electric security fence and the perimeter fence or wall. 5. Staging Area: All entries to a site shall have a buffer area that allows on site staging prior to passing the perimeter barrier. The site shall be large enough to accommodate a vehicle completely outside of the public right of way. 6. Height: Electric security fences shall have a maximum height of 10 feet. 7. Warning Signs: Electric security fences shall be clearly identified with warning signs that read: “Warning-Electric Fence” at intervals of not greater than 60 feet. Signs shall comply with requirements in Chapter 21A.46, “Signs”, of this title. 8. Security Box: Electric security fences shall have a small, wall mounted safe or box that holds building keys for police, firefighters and EMTs to retrieve in emergencies. SECTION 34. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.130 (Access for Persons with Disabilities) as follows: 21A.40.130: ACCESS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES: Building permits for an uncovered vertical wheelchair lift, or for an uncovered access ramp, for persons with disabilities, under 4 feet in height, or any other form of uncovered access, for persons with disabilities, under 4 feet in height, that encroaches into required yard areas, may be approved by the zoning administrator as a permitted accessory structure. Covered ramps or other access structures for persons with disabilities that encroach into required yard areas, shall be considered as a reasonable accommodation under applicable federal regulations. SECTION 35. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.160 (Ground Mounted Utility Boxes) as follows: 21A.40.160: GROUND MOUNTED UTILITY BOXES: 23 A. Purpose: Utility infrastructure provides a necessary service to the community. The regulations of this section are intended to allow for ground mounted utility boxes while reducing the negative impacts they may create. B. Compliance With Regulations Required: All ground mounted utility boxes shall be subject to the regulations of this section and any applicable requirement in Title 21A, unless exempted within Section 21A.02.050 of this title and any applicable adopted code and regulation. The location and access for maintenance of all required utility infrastructure is subject to approval by the utility provider and complying with all applicable adopted codes and regulations. No construction shall be undertaken without the applicable city permits and public way permits. C. Location: Ground mounted utility boxes shall be located as required by this section. 1. Private Property or Parcel. On the subject parcel or an adjacent parcel when part of new construction or as an addition to an existing building that requires additional utility service subject to the following standards: a. Rear and Side Yards: the ground mounted utility box shall be located a minimum of one foot from a side or rear property line. b. Front and Corner Side Yards: The ground mounted utility box shall be located within 5 feet of the building façade when located in required or provided front or corner side yard and at least one foot from a front or corner side yard property line. Utility boxes in a front or corner side yard shall be screened by a wall, fence, or hedge of at least equal height not to exceed the maximum height for a wall or fence allowed in the applicable yard. c. Ground mounted utility box(es) may be placed in a required landscaped yard if screened by a wall, fence or hedge of at least equal height not to exceed the maximum height for a wall or fence allowed in the applicable yard. d. If proposed on an adjacent parcel, an easement shall be provided for the utility boxes and associated equipment along with consent from the owner of the adjacent parcel. 2. Public Right of Way – Single Property or Parcel. In a public right of way if each of the following criteria are satisfied: a. There is an existing building on the subject property that is located in a manner that prohibits the placement of required utility infrastructure on the property; b. There is no existing front yard, corner side yard, interior side yard, or rear yard of sufficient size to accommodate ground mounted utility box(es) and access for maintenance, as required by the utility provider, of the box(es) within the yard. A right of way may be used to accommodate necessary working space; c. There is not an alley adjacent to the subject property that provides sufficient access as required by the utility provider to a yard of sufficient size to 24 accommodate ground mounted utility box(es). If the alley is not a public alley, necessary permissions and easements must be provided; d. The existing utilities are not being relocated to support an expansion of the use or building or for any new use or accessory use on the property; e. The ground mounted utility box will not negatively impact any existing or planned public improvement within the right of way; f. The ground mounted utility box is located at least 10 feet away from any tree in the right of way; g. The ground mounted utility box(es) comply with all requirements of Chapter 14.32 or its successor; and h. The applicant has provided to the city and the utility provider the dimensions and space requirements necessary for the utility needs, as determined by the utility provider, of the proposed development. 3. Public Right of Way – Broader Neighborhood. In a public right of way when the ground mounted utility box is necessary to provide utility service, wireless service, or other telecommunications service to the broader neighborhood, the location is consistent with any legal agreement between the utility provider and the city, and the proposed utility box complies with all applicable regulations. 4. Public Right of Way – Permit Issuance. The city engineer may issue a permit for the installation of a ground mounted utility box in the public right of way in accordance with standards set forth in this section and Title 14, Chapter 14.32 of this code. D. Materials: All ground mounted utility boxes shall consist of high quality material such as stainless steel or other durable painted or colored material. The finish shall be a neutral color such as dark or light green, beige or gray or color similar to utility boxes within the vicinity and coated with a graffiti resistant treatment. E. Post installation Obligations: All ground mounted utility boxes and any related screening materials shall remain the service provider’s responsibility to keep in a state of good visual quality and repair. 1. Franchise Agreements: Permitted and installed ground mounted utility boxes shall also comply with all conditions as set forth in the service provider’s/owner’s franchise agreement with the city. If the terms of any franchise agreement conflict with the provisions of this title, the ordinance regulations shall prevail and govern. 2. Discontinued Use: If the service provider/owner of a ground mounted utility box in the public right of way discontinues the use or has no defined need for said box, it is that service provider’s/owner’s sole responsibility to remove the box and all associated conduit and wiring at its own expense in compliance with all engineering division requirements. 3. Required Contact Information: A service provider shall place a permanent notice on the box containing the service provider’s name and telephone number for the purpose of notification in the event of graffiti or damages to the equipment. 4. Maintenance: A service provider shall be solely responsible for maintaining ground mounted utility box sites in reasonably good repair in a clean, safe and level condition. “Level condition” shall mean not tilting greater than 15° from plumb. A 25 service provider shall repair any damage to a ground mounted utility box within 72 hours after discovering or being notified of such damage to a box. SECTION 36. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.44.020.F.9 (Vehicles and Equipment Storage) as follows: 9. Vehicle and Equipment Storage Without Hard Surfacing: Vehicle and equipment storage without hard surfacing shall be allowed if the following requirements are met: a. The property is located in a CG, M-1, M-2, or EI zoning district b. The lot is used for long term vehicle storage, not for regular parking and/or maneuvering. c. The storage areas are not located within any required front yard or corner side yard. d. The storage area surface is compacted with 6 inches of road base or other similar material with dust control measures in place. e. A mechanism, such as a wash bay, gravel guard, or rumble strip is used to remove mud, sand, dirt, and gravel from the vehicle with a minimum of 50 feet of paved driveway between the mechanism and a public street. The mechanism used is subject to approval by the transportation director or designee provided it is a commonly used device that is effective at removing debris from vehicle tires. SECTION 37. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.44.020.G (Parking for Low Density Residential Districts) as follows: G. Parking for Low Density Residential Districts: The following regulations shall apply to single-family detached, single-family attached and two-family dwellings in the FP, FR- 1/43,560, FR-2/21,700, FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, SR-1, SR-3 and R-2 districts: 1. Parking spaces satisfying the requirements of section 21A.44.030 of this chapter shall be located only in an interior side yard or a rear yard. 2. The provisions of parking spaces elsewhere on the lot shall conform to the other applicable requirements of this chapter. Requirements for garages shall be as specified in Chapter 21A.40 of this title. 3. No park strip shall be used for parking. 4. A maximum of four outdoor parking spaces shall be permitted per lot. Recreational vehicle parking, where permitted, shall be included in this maximum. 26 SECTION 38. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.44.030.H.2 (Table of District Specific Maximum Parking Allowance) qualifying provision 2 as follows: 2. The maximum parking requirement does not apply to parking structures or garages that serve multiple lots, parcels, uses, or structures that provide off site parking. SECTION 39. Deleting the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.44.040.D (Other Eligible Alternatives). Subsection 21A.44.040.D (Other Eligible Alternatives) is deleted in its entirety. SECTION 40. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.44.060.B: (Front Yard Parking) as follows: B. Front Yard Parking: Parking in a required front yard shall be permitted subject to the following requirements: 1. The lot contains an existing residential building. 2. No other off-street parking exists on the site. 3. No provided side yard is greater than 8 feet. If greater than 8 feet, no tree over 6 inches in caliper is present in the side yard that would necessitate the removal of the tree to locate a parking stall in the side yard or rear yard. 4. The rear yard is not accessible through a side yard in as provided in Subsection B.3 and does not have frontage on a public street or public alley and the property does not have access rights across an adjacent private street or alley. 5. The front yard parking complies with the following standards: a. The front yard parking is limited to no wider than 10 feet in width and is a minimum depth of 20 feet. b. The front yard parking is accessed by an approved drive approach. c. The location of the front yard parking is placed within 10 feet of a side lot line or for corner properties, may also be within 10 feet of a rear lot line and is consistent with the location of other driveways on the block face. 27 SECTION 41. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.46.070.V (Historic District Signs) as follows: 21A.46.070.V Historic District Signs: The historic landmark commission may authorize, as a minor alteration modification to an existing sign or the size or placement of a new sign in a historic district or on a landmark site, including placement of a sign type not allowed in the underlying zone, if the applicant can demonstrate that the location, size and/or design of the proposed sign is compatible with the design period or theme of the historic structure or district and/or will cause less physical damage to the historically significant structure. If a sign in a local historic district or on a landmark site has been designated a vintage sign as per Section 21A.46.125 of this chapter, the modifications allowed in that section may be authorized by the historic landmark commission subject to the appropriate standards of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 42. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 21A.46.125 (Vintage Signs) as follows: A. The purpose of this section is to promote the retention, restoration, reuse, and reinstatement of nonconforming signs that represent important elements of Salt Lake City’s heritage and enhance the character of a corridor, neighborhood, or the community at large. B. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of this title: 1. An application for designation of vintage sign status as well as for the reinstatement of, modifications to, or relocation of a vintage sign shall be processed in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.08 and Section 21A.46.030 as well as the following: Application: In addition to the general application requirements for a sign, an application for vintage sign designation or modification shall require: a. Detailed drawings and/or photographs of the sign in its current condition, if currently existing; b. Written narrative and supporting documentation demonstrating how the sign meets the applicable criteria; c. Detailed drawings of any modifications or reinstatement being sought; d. Detailed drawings of any relocation being sought; and e. Historic drawings and/or photographs of the sign. 2. The zoning administrator shall designate an existing sign as a vintage sign if the sign: 28 a. Was not placed as part of a Localized Alternative Signage Overlay District and has not been granted flexibility from the base zoning through a planned development agreement or by the historic landmark commission; b. Is not a billboard as defined in Section 21A.46.020 of this chapter; c. Retains its original design character, or that character will be reestablished or restored, based on historic evidence such as drawings or photographs; and, d. Meets at least 4 of the following criteria: (1) The sign was specifically designed for a business, institution, or other establishment on the subject site; (2) The sign bears a unique emblem, logo, or another graphic specific to the city, or region; (3) The sign exhibits specific characteristics that enhance the streetscape or identity of a neighborhood; (4) The sign is or was characteristic of a specific historic period; (5) The sign is or was integral to the design or identity of the site or building where the sign is located; or (6) The sign represents an example of craftsmanship in the application of lighting technique, use of materials, or design. 3. A designated vintage sign may: a. Be relocated within its current site. b. Be modified to account for changing uses within its current site. These modifications shall be in the same style as the design of the original sign including: (1) Shape and form, (2) Size, (3) Typography, (4) Illustrative elements, (5) Use of color, (6) Character of illumination, and (7) Character of animation. c. Be restored or recreated, and reinstated on its original site. d. Be relocated to a new site for use as a piece of public art, provided that the original design and character of the sign is retained, or will be restored, and it advertises a business no longer in operation. Vintage signs may only be relocated for use as public art to sites in the following districts: D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, G-MU, CSHBD1, CSHBD2, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB-SC, FB-SE, TSA. e. Be relocated and reinstalled on the business’s new site, should the business with which it is associated move, provided that the business’s new location is within the same contiguous zoning district as the original location. 4. Once designated, a vintage sign is exempt from the calculation of allowed signage on a site. 29 SECTION 43. Deleting Chapter 21A.52 Special Exceptions of the Salt Lake City Code. Chapter 21A.52 (Special Exceptions) is deleted in its entirety. SECTION 44. Amending the text of the Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020 (List of Defined Terms) by adding the following term in alphabetical order: Ground mounted utility box. SECTION 45. Adding the following definition in alphabetical order in alphabetical order to Section 21A.62.040 (Definition of Terms) of the Salt Lake City Code as follows: Ground mounted utility boxes: shall mean such equipment and facilities, including pedestals, boxes, cabinets, meters or other ground mounted facilities and associated equipment that extend over 6 inches above ground level used for the transmission or distribution of utilities. SECTION 46. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2021. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ 30 CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2021. Published: ______________. Ordinance deleting special exceptions (final) 10.12.21 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney October 14, 2021 1 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 2 No. _____ of 2021 3 4 (An ordinance amending various sections of the Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code 5 to eliminate special exceptions from that title) 6 7 An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant 8 to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00606 to eliminate special exceptions from the city’s zoning 9 ordinances. 10 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on 11 November 18, 2020 to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Erin Mendenhall (Petition No. 12 PLNPCM2020-00606) to amend portions of Chapters 21A.06 (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies 13 and Officials); 21A.24 (Zoning: Residential Districts); 21A.26 (Zoning: Commercial Districts); 14 21A.32 (Zoning: Special Purpose Districts); 21A.34 (Zoning: Overlay Districts); 21A.36 15 (Zoning: General Provisions); 21A.38 (Zoning: Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying 16 Structures); 21A.40 (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures); 21A.44 (Zoning: Off 17 Street Parking, Mobility and Loading); 21A.46 (Zoning: Signs) 21A.52 (Zoning : Special 18 Exceptions); 21A.60 (Zoning: Defined Terms); and 21A.62 (Zoning: Definitions) of the Salt 19 Lake City Code to modify regulations pertaining to off street parking; and 20 WHEREAS, at its November 18, 2020 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor 21 of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said petition; and 22 WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that 23 adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. 24 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 25 2 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 26 SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.06.050.C.6 as 27 follows: 28 6. Review and approve or deny certain special exceptions modifications to dimensional 29 standards for properties located within an H hHistoric pPreservation oOverlay dDistrict. 30 This authority is also granted to the planning director or designee for applications within 31 the H Historic Preservation Overlay District that are eligible for administrative approval 32 by the planning director or zoning administrator. The certain special exceptions 33 modifications to zoning district specific development standards are listed as follows and 34 are in addition to any modification authorized elsewhere in this title: 35 36 a. Building wall height; 37 b. Accessory structure wall height; 38 c. Accessory structure square footage; 39 d. Fence height; 40 e. Overall building and accessory structure height; 41 f. Signs pursuant to sSection 21A.46.070 of this title; and 42 g. Any modification to bulk and lot regulations, except density, of the underlying zoning 43 district where it is found that the underlying zoning would not be compatible with the 44 historic district and/or landmark site proposal complies with the applicable standards 45 identified in Section 21A.34.020 and is compatible with the surrounding historic 46 structures. 47 48 SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.010.P.2 as 49 follows: 50 2. Repealed.Height Special Exception: The Planning Commission, as a special exception to 51 the height regulations of the applicable district, may approve a permit to exceed the 52 maximum building height but shall not have the authority to grant additional stories. To 53 grant a height special exception the Planning Commission must find the proposed plan: 54 55 a. Is a design better suited to the site than can be achieved by strict compliance to these 56 regulations; and 57 b. Satisfies the following criteria: 58 59 (1) The topography of the lot presents difficulties for construction when the foothill 60 height limitations are applied, 61 (2) The structure has been designed for the topographic conditions existing on the 62 particular lot, and 63 (3) The impact of additional height on neighboring properties has been identified and 64 reasonably mitigated. 65 3 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 66 c. In making these considerations the Planning Commission can consider the size of the 67 lot upon which the structure is proposed. 68 d. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to submit sufficient data to persuade the 69 Planning Commission that the criteria have been satisfied. 70 e. The Planning Commission may deny an application for a height special exception if: 71 (1) The architectural plans submitted are designed for structures on level, or nearly 72 level, ground, and the design is transposed to hillside lots requiring support 73 foundations such that the structure exceeds the height limits of these regulations; 74 (2) The additional height can be reduced by modifying the design of the structure 75 through the use of stepping or terracing or by altering the placement of the 76 structure on the lot; 77 (3) The additional height will substantially impair the views from adjacent lots, and 78 the impairment can be avoided by modification; or 79 (4) The proposal is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. 80 81 82 SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.010.P.6 83 (Grade Changes) as follows: 84 6. Grade Changes: No grading shall be permitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. 85 The grade of any lot shall not be altered above or below established grade more than 86 four4 feet (4’) at any point for the construction of any structure or improvement except: 87 88 a. Within the buildable area. Proposals to modify established grade more than 6 six feet 89 (6’) shall be reviewed as a special exception subject to the standards in chapter 90 21A.52 of this title shall be permitted for the construction of below grade portions of 91 structures, egress windows, and building entrances. Grade change transition areas 92 between a yard area and the buildable area shall be within the buildable area; 93 b. Within the front, corner side, side and rear yard areas, proposals to modify established 94 grade more grade changes greater than 4four feet (4’) shall be reviewed as a special 95 exception subject to the standards found in chapter 21A.52 of this title are permitted 96 provided: and 97 98 (1) The grade change is supported by retaining walls. 99 (2) No individual retaining wall exceeds 6 feet in height. 100 101 c. As necessary to construct driveway access from the street to the garage or parking 102 area grade changes and/or retaining walls up to six feet (6’) from the established 103 grade shall be reviewed as a special exception subject to the standards in chapter 104 21A.52 of this title Within the required front and corner side yards, grade changes up 105 to 6 feet in height are permitted provided: 106 107 (1) The grade change is necessary for driveways accessing legally located parking 108 areas; and 109 (2) The grade changes are supported by retaining walls. 4 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 110 111 SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.050.D.6 112 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 113 6. a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, additional 114 building height may be granted as a special exception by the Planning Commission 115 subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title and if the 116 proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. 117 The Planning Commission will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request 118 pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 119 b. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for 120 properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the 121 Hhistoric Llandmarks Ccommission which may grant such requests subject to the 122 provisions of sSection 21A.34.020 of this title. 123 124 SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.060.D.6 125 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 126 6. a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, additional 127 building height may be granted as a special exception by the Planning Commission 128 subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title and if the 129 proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. 130 The Planning Commission will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request 131 pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 132 b. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for 133 properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the 134 Hhistoric Llandmarks Ccommission which may grant such requests subject to the 135 provisions of sSection 21A.34.020 of this title. 136 137 138 SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.070.D.6 139 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 140 6. a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, additional 141 building height may be granted as a special exception by the Planning Commission 142 subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title and if the 143 proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. 144 The Planning Commission will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request 145 pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 146 b. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for 147 properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the 5 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 148 Hhistoric Llandmarks Ccommission which may grant such requests subject to the 149 provisions of sSection 21A.34.020 of this title. 150 151 152 SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.080.D.6 153 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 154 6. Additional Building Height: 155 156 a. For properties outside of the H historic preservation overlay district, additional 157 building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning commission 158 subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title and if the 159 proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block 160 face. The planning commission will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the 161 request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 162 b. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for 163 properties located in an H hHistoric pPreservation oOverlay dDistrict shall be 164 reviewed by the historic landmarks commission which may grant such requests 165 subject to the provisions of sSection 21A.34.020 of this title. 166 167 168 SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.100.D.6 169 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 170 6. 171 a. For properties outside of the H historic preservation overlay district, additional 172 building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning commission 173 subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title and if the 174 proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block 175 face. The planning commission will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the 176 request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 177 b. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for 178 properties located in an H hHistoric pPreservation oOverlay dDistrict shall be 179 reviewed by the historic landmarks commission which may grant such requests 180 subject to the provisions of sSection 21A.34.020 of this title. 181 182 SECTION 9. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.110.D.6 183 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 184 6. 185 a. For properties outside of the H historic preservation overlay district, additional 186 building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning commission 6 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 187 subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title and if the 188 proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block 189 face. The planning commission will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the 190 request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 191 b. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for 192 properties located in an H hHistoric pPreservation oOverlay dDistrict shall be 193 reviewed by the historic landmarks commission which may grant such requests 194 subject to the provisions of sSection 21A.34.020 of this title. 195 196 SECTION 10. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.26.010.J 197 (Modifications to Maximum Height) as follows: 198 J. Modifications Tto Maximum Height: The maximum height of buildings in commercial 199 zoning districts may be increased up to 10% on any building face Additions to the 200 maximum height due to the natural topography of the site may be approved pursuant to 201 the following procedures and standards: 202 203 1. At least 50% of the building complies with the maximum height of the underlying 204 zoning district; 205 2. The modification allows the upper floor of a building to be level with the portion of 206 the building that complies with the maximum building height of the zone without the 207 10% modification; and 208 3. The height of the ground floor is at least 12 feet in height measured from finished 209 floor to finished ceiling height. 210 211 1. Modifications Of Ten Percent Or Less Of Maximum Height: 212 213 a. The Planning Commission may approve, as a special exception, additional height 214 not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the maximum height pursuant to the standards 215 and procedures of chapter 21A.52 of this title. Specific conditions for approval are 216 found in chapter 21A.52 of this title. 217 218 2. Modifications Of More Than Ten Percent Of Maximum Height: 219 220 a. Design Review: Through design review for properties on a sloping lot in 221 Commercial Zoning Districts, pursuant to chapter 21A.59 of this title, the 222 Planning Commission, or in the case of an administrative approval the Planning 223 Director or designee, may allow additional building height of more than ten 224 percent (10%) of the maximum height, but not more than one additional story, if 225 the first floor of the building exceeds twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. The 226 additional story shall not be exposed on more than fifty percent (50%) of the total 227 building elevations. 228 229 7 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 230 SECTION 11. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.32.100.D.3 as 231 follows: 232 3. Recreation equipment heights or heights for buildings or structures for the Salt Lake City 233 Public Utilities Department that are not specifically exempt in section 21A.02.050 of this 234 title, in excess of sixty feet (60’) may be approved through the Special Exception process. 235 are permitted to a height not to exceed 80 feet when needed due to the nature of the 236 equipment or for the use to operate safely, such as fences surrounding golf course driving 237 ranges. 238 239 240 SECTION 12. Amending to the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.32.100.D as 241 follows: 242 D. Maximum Building Aand Recreation Equipment Height: 243 244 1. Lots four (4) acres or less: Building height shall be limited to thirty five 35 feet (35’); 245 provided that for each foot of height in excess of twenty 20 feet (20’), each required 246 yard and landscaped yard shall be increased one foot (1’). 247 2. Lots greater than four (4) acres: Building heights in excess of thirty five 35 feet (35’) 248 but not more than forty five 45 feet (45’) may be permitted provided, that for each 249 foot of height over thirty five 35 feet (35’), each required yard and landscaped yard 250 shall be increased one foot (1’). Building heights in excess of forty five 45 feet (45’) 251 up to sixty 60 feet (60’) may be approved through the design review process and that 252 for each foot of height over thirty five 35 feet (35’), each required yard and 253 landscaped yard shall be increased one foot (1’). 254 3. Recreation equipment heights or heights for buildings or structures for the Salt Lake 255 City Public Utilities Department that are not specifically exempt in 256 section 21A.02.050 of this title, in excess of sixty feet (60’) may be approved 257 through the Special Exception process are permitted to a height not to exceed 80 feet 258 when needed due to the nature of the equipment or for the use to operate safely, such 259 as fences surrounding golf course driving ranges. 260 4.Heights for buildings or structures for the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department 261 that are not specifically exempt in Section 21A.02.050 of this title, are exempt from 262 the height restrictions in this zoning district provided the building or structure is 263 deemed by the director of the public utilities department as critical infrastructure 264 necessary to provide specific utility needs to the public. 265 266 267 SECTION 13. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.32.100.H 268 (Lighting) as follows: 8 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 269 H. Lighting: All uses and developments that provide lighting shall ensure that lighting 270 installations do not have an adverse impact on traffic safety or on surrounding properties 271 and uses. Light sources shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into 272 adjacent properties and have cutoffs to protect the view of the night sky comply with the 273 following standards: 274 275 1. Lighting is installed in a manner and location that will not have an adverse impact on 276 the natural environment when placed in areas with wildlife habitat, traffic safety or on 277 surrounding properties and uses; 278 2. Light sources shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into adjacent 279 properties and have cutoffs to protect the view of the night sky; and 280 3. Light poles for outdoor uses, such as sports fields, amphitheaters, and other similar 281 uses may be permitted up to 70 feet in height provided the lights are located a 282 minimum of 30 feet from a residential use and directed to reduce light trespass onto 283 neighboring properties. 284 285 SECTION 14. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.34.120.G 286 (Special Exception for Garages) as follows: 287 G. Special Exception For Garages Built into Hillsides in Front or Corner Side Yards: A 288 garage built into a hillside and located forward of the front line of the building may be 289 allowed as a special exception granted by the planning commission, subject to the 290 following standards: 291 292 1. The rear and side yards cannot be reasonably accessed for the purpose of parking. 293 2. Because of the topography of the lot it is impossible to construct a garage and satisfy 294 the standards of the YCI. 295 3. The ceiling elevation of the garage is below the elevation of the first or main floor of 296 the house. 297 4. The garage meets all applicable yard requirements. 298 299 SECTION 15. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection Table 21A.36.020.B 300 (Obstructions in Required Yards) as follows (only the identified rows and columns in the table 301 are amended): 302 TABLE 21A.36.020B 303 OBSTRUCTIONS IN REQUIRED YARDS1 304 Type Oof Structure Oor Use Obstruction Front Aand Corner Side Yard Rear Yard 9 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Side Yards Below grade encroachments underground obstructions when there is no exterior evidence of the underground structure other than entrances and required venting provided there are no conflicts with any easements or publicly owned infrastructure or utilities. 2 X X X Central air conditioning systems, heating, ventilating, pool and filtering equipment, the outside elements shall be located not less than 4 feet from a lot line..Structures less than 4 feet from the property line shall be reviewed as a special exception according to the provisions of section 21A.52.030 of this title X X Changes of established grade of 4 feet or less except for the FP and FR Districts which shall be subject to the provisions of sSubsection 21A.24.010.P of this title. (All grade changes located on a property line shall be supported by a retaining wall.) For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, Changes of established grade greater than 4 feet are special exceptions subject to the standards and factors in chapter 21A.52 of this title Grade changes greater than 4 feet in height provided the grade change includes a retaining wall, a horizontal step that is a minimum of 3 feet in depth is provided for every 4 vertical feet of retaining wall. X X X Laundry drying equipment (clothesline and poles)X X X Window mounted refrigerated air conditioners and evaporative “swamp” coolers located at least 2 feet from the property line. Window mounted refrigerated air conditioner units and “swamp” coolers less than 2 feet from the property line shall be reviewed as a special exception according to the provisions of section 21A.52.030 of this title X X X 305 Notes: 306 1. ”X” denotes where obstructions are allowed. 307 2. Below grade encroachments (encroachments which are completely below grade where the surface 308 grade remains intact and where the below grade encroachment is not visible from the surface) into 309 required yards shall be treated as a special exception in accordance with the procedures set forth in 310 chapter 21A.52 of this title. Reserved. 311 3. The accessory structure shall be located wholly behind the primary structure on the property. 312 313 314 SECTION 16. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.36.130 as follows: 315 21A.36.130: CHILD DAYCARE: 316 Child daycare shall be permitted pursuant to the following provisions: 317 318 A. Nonregistered Home Daycare: Nonregistered home daycare, limited to no more than 319 two (2) children, excluding the provider’s own children, is permitted in the home of the 320 care provider as set forth in cChapter 21A.33, “Land Use Tables”, of this title and within 10 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 321 legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings within commercial 322 and nonresidential districts excluding M-1 and M-2 Districts. A business revenue license 323 or home occupation special exception approval shall not be required. 324 325 B. Registered Home Daycare Oor Registered Home Preschool: A registered home daycare 326 or registered home preschool as defined in chapter 21A.62 of this title, may be allowed as 327 an accessory use as set forth in cChapter 21A.33, “Land Use Tables”, of this title and 328 within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings within 329 commercial and nonresidential districts excluding M-1 and M-2 Districts as a home 330 occupation special exception conditional use pursuant to the provisions of cChapter 331 21A.5254 of this title. Registered home day cares shall be considered an administrative 332 conditional use under Section 21A.54.155 and be eligible for administrative approval 333 under that section. Registered home day cares under this section are exempt from the 334 noticing requirements in Section 2.60.050 or its successor. The permittee shall also obtain 335 appropriate licensing where applicable from the State pursuant to the Utah Code. 336 337 1. Permit; Application: An application for a residential home daycare or preschool must 338 be submitted to the Zzoning Aadministrator. As a part of the application, the 339 applicant must submit the following documentation: 340 a. The number of children and employees; both total for the day and the expected 341 maximum number to be on the premises at any given time; 342 b. The hours and days of operation; and 343 c. Proof of appropriate licensing from the State, where applicable, or basis upon 344 which exemption therefrom is claimed. 345 346 2. Standards: All residential home daycare or preschools shall be subject to the 347 standards set forth in cChapter 21A.52 54of this title and subject to the following 348 specific standards: 349 350 a. The applicant resides at the home in which the business will be conducted; 351 b. At no time shall the applicant provide home daycare or home preschool services 352 for a group of children exceeding the maximum specified for such facility; 353 c. The outdoor play area for the home daycare or home preschool shall be located in 354 the rear or side yards of the home for the protection and safety of the children and 355 for the protection of the neighborhood; 356 d. The use of the home for the services of providing childcare shall be clearly 357 incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling for residential purposes and 358 shall not change the character of the home or the neighborhood; 359 e. The care and supervision of the children shall be conducted in a manner which is 360 not a public nuisance to the neighborhood; 361 f. There shall be no advertising of such occupation, business or service, no window 362 or other signs or displays; 363 g. No employees other than persons lawfully living in the dwelling; 364 h. No use of any accessory dwellings for daycare purposes; 365 i. No play or yard equipment located in the front yard; and 11 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 366 ji. It is unlawful for any person to engage in a “registered home daycare or registered 367 home preschool” as defined in sSection 21A.62.040 of this title without first 368 obtaining a license pursuant to the provisions of title 5, cChapter 5.04 of this 369 Ccode. Prior to issuance of said license, the criteria set forth in this title must be 370 satisfied and all applicable fees shall be paid. All home occupation business 371 licenses shall be valid for one year, and may be renewed annually, provided there 372 have been no reported violations, subject to sSubsection 21A.36.030.I of this 373 chapter. 374 375 C. Child Daycare Center: 376 377 1. Conditional Use Standards Ffor Child Daycare Centers: A child daycare center may 378 be allowed as a conditional use pursuant to the provisions of cChapter 21A.54 of this 379 title and the requirements and provisions of this subsection. 380 381 a. Site Requirements: 382 (1) Minimum Lot Size: Twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. 383 (2) Location Requirements: The child daycare use shall be addressed on and 384 oriented to an arterial street as shown on the City’s major street plan. 385 (3) Rear Yard Playground Equipment: All outside playground equipment shall 386 be located only in the rear yard. 387 (4) Landscape Buffering: Any outside area where children are allowed must be 388 fenced with a solid fence at least six feet (6’) high. At least ten feet (10’) from 389 the fence to the interior portion of the property shall be landscaped in such a 390 way that the area cannot be used by the patrons. 391 b. Signage: Signs are limited to either one nonilluminated low profile identification 392 sign, or one “flat sign” as defined in cChapter 21A.46 of this title. The size of the 393 sign shall be determined as part of the conditional use approval. 394 c. Prohibitions: 395 (1) Residential Demolition: No existing building containing a residential 396 dwelling unit may be demolished to allow for the construction of a new 397 conditional use facility for child daycare under this section. 398 (2) Residential Conversion: The conversion of any existing residential structure 399 or a conditional use allowed under this section shall not permit any major 400 exterior or interior alterations of the building to be made which render the 401 building substantially incompatible with the return to its use as a residence. 402 (3) No Variances: The Pplanning Ccommission shall not approve a childcare 403 conditional use pursuant to this section if the Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer 404 would be required to grant a variance from any zoning condition. 405 (4) Six Hundred Feet Proximity: No conditional use allowed under this section 406 may be within six hundred feet (600’) on the same street frontage as another 407 conditional use allowed under this section. 408 d. Application: The application for a child daycare center shall include, in addition 409 to application submission requirements of cChapter 21A.54 of this title, the 410 following information: 12 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 411 (1) The number of children, employees, staff or volunteers; both total for the day 412 and the expected maximum number to be on the premises at any given time; 413 (2) The hours and days of operation; 414 (3) The proposed signage; and 415 (4) The number, location and dimensions of any dropoff or pick up areas for 416 either private transportation or public transportation. 417 e. Standards: Standards for approval shall include, in addition to standards 418 of cChapter 21A.54 of this title, the following: 419 (1) Specific Standards Ffor Child Daycare Conditional Uses: 420 (A) The lot is of sufficient size to accommodate all required parking in the 421 side and rear yards, or to the rear of the required landscaped setback in the 422 front yard; 423 (B) The dropoff and pick up area is designed in a manner that vehicles do not 424 back into a public street or the stacking or queuing of vehicles will not 425 interrupt traffic flow on the public street; and 426 (C) The signage is appropriate for the area. 427 428 SECTION 17. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 429 21A.36.350.A.3.c.(3) as follows: 430 (3) A decorative masonry wall that is a minimum of six6 feet (6’) high shall be provided 431 along all interior side and rear lot lines and that complies with all required site distance 432 triangles at driveways and walkways. Walls in excess of 6six feet (6’) may be approved 433 by the Planning Commission as a special exception required as a condition of approval of 434 a conditional use if it determines a taller wall is necessary to mitigate a detrimental 435 impact created by the homeless resource center or homeless shelter; 436 437 SECTION 18. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.38.040.H.2 438 (Enlargement of a Structure With a Nonconforming Use) as follows: 439 2. Enlargement Oof A Structure With Aa Nonconforming Use: Alterations or modifications 440 to a portion of a structure with Enlargement of a legal nonconforming use may be 441 approved by special exception, subject to the provisions of chapter 21A.52 of this title, 442 are limited to a one time expansion of up to if the floor area does not increase by more 443 than twenty five percent (25%) of the gross floor area, or one thousand (1,000) gross 444 square feet, whichever is less and subject to the site being able to provide required off 445 street parking that complies with any applicable parking requirement of this title. within 446 the limits of existing legal hard surfaced parking areas on the site. An approved 447 expansion shall be documented through an updated zoning certificate for the property. 448 Any expansion to the nonconforming use portion of a structure beyond these limits is not 449 permitted. The expansion shall be limited to a one-time expansion after April 12, 1995, 13 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 450 the effective date of this title. Any expansion granted as a special exception after April 451 12, 1995 shall be considered as fulfilling the one-time expansion. 452 453 SECTION 19. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.38.050.B 454 (Enlargement) as follows: 455 B. Enlargement: A noncomplying structure may be enlarged if such enlargement and its 456 location comply with the standards of the zoning district in which it is located or as 457 provided in this section. Horizontal in line additions or extensions to existing 458 noncomplying building portions are considered not creating a new nonconformance and 459 are subject to special exception standards and approval of subsection 21A.52.030A15 of 460 this title. Vertical in line additions or extensions to existing noncomplying building 461 portions are considered creating a new nonconformance and are not permitted. 462 1. Noncomplying as to Setbacks. 463 a. Front Yard: A principal building with a front yard setback that is less than the 464 minimum required may be enlarged provided the addition does not further reduce 465 the existing front yard setback and complies with all other applicable 466 requirements of Title 21A. 467 b. Corner Side Yards: A principal building with a corner side yard setback that is 468 less than the minimum required may be enlarged provided the addition does not 469 further reduce the existing corner side yard setback and complies with all other 470 applicable requirements of Title 21A. 471 c. Interior Side Yards: Additions to a principal structure with noncomplying side 472 yard setback(s) are permitted as follows: 473 474 (1) Single story additions are permitted to follow the existing setback line 475 provided the following standards are complied with: 476 477 i. The exterior wall height of the addition is equal to or less than the exterior 478 wall height of the existing building. When a cross slope exists along the 479 exterior wall, the interior floor to ceiling height of the addition shall match 480 the interior floor to ceiling height of the existing building. 481 ii. The addition may extend the noncomplying exterior wall of the building 482 up to 20% of the length of the existing wall. This shall be a one-time 483 addition and no further additions are permitted. 484 485 (2) Two story or greater additions shall comply with the side yard setback 486 requirement(s) and maximum wall height as specified in the underlying zone. 487 (3) In determining if a side yard is noncomplying, the narrower of the two side 488 yards shall be interpreted to be the narrower side yard required in the 489 underlying zoning district. 14 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 490 (4) All other provisions of the underlying zoning district and any applicable 491 overlay zoning district shall apply. 492 493 d. Rear Yards: A principal building noncomplying to rear yard setbacks may be 494 expanded provided the expansion follows an existing noncomplying building wall 495 and does not result in a decrease of the existing rear yard setback and complies 496 with side and corner side yard setbacks of the underlying zoning district. If the 497 building does not comply with the existing side or corner side yard setback, the 498 expansion shall be permitted to extend to the side or corner side yard setback of 499 the underlying zone. 500 2. Noncomplying as to Height: A principal structure that exceeds the maximum height 501 of the underlying zoning district may be expanded at the existing height of the 502 building provided the setbacks of the underlying zoning district are complied with. 503 504 SECTION 20. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.38.050.F 505 (Replacement or Reconstruction of a Noncomplying Structure) as follows: 506 F. The replacement or reconstruction of any existing noncomplying portion of a principal 507 structure or full replacement of a noncomplying accessory structure is subject to the 508 special exception standards of subsection 21A.52.030A19 of this title permitted provided 509 the replacement is in the same location or in a location that reduces the degree of 510 noncompliance and is of substantially the same dimension. Enlarging a full replacement 511 of a noncomplying accessory structure is permitted provided the enlarged section 512 complies with all setback, height, maximum square feet, and lot or yard coverage 513 requirements. 514 515 SECTION 21. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.38.060 516 (Noncomplying Lots) as follows: 517 21A.38.060: NONCOMPLYING LOTS: 518 Subdividing Lots Containing Two or More Separate Principal Buildings: Lots that contain 519 two or more separate principal buildings on a single parcel may be subdivided to place each 520 structure on a separate lot subject to the following provisions: 521 522 A. The properties shall be subdivided by recording of a plat. 523 B. The proposed lots are exempt from the minimum lot area, lot width, lot coverage, and 524 street frontage requirements of the underlying zoning district; 525 C. The proposed setbacks shall be reviewed and approved by the planning director after 526 consultation with applicable city departments; 15 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 527 D. The proposed subdivision plat shall identify the front, corner side, interior side, and 528 rear yards for the purpose of future development. 529 E. Parking may be located anywhere within the proposed subdivision except front yards 530 (unless already existing) and shall not be reduced below the existing off-street 531 parking 532 F. All lots that are part of the subdivision must include adequate access to a public 533 street. Adequate access shall include pedestrian walkways and when off-street 534 parking is required, vehicle access and parking. 535 G. All necessary easements for access and utilities are shown on the plat. A note shall 536 be added to indicate responsibility for maintenance of shared access and utilities. 537 H. All other applicable regulations of the Salt Lake City Code shall apply. 538 539 A lot that is noncomplying as to lot area or lot frontage that was in legal existence on the 540 effective date of any amendment to this title that makes the existing lot noncomplying shall 541 be considered a legal complying lot and is subject to the regulations of this title. Any 542 noncomplying lot not approved by the city that was created prior to January 13, 1950, may be 543 approved as a legal noncomplying lot subject to the lot meeting minimum zoning 544 requirements at the time the lot was created and documented through an updated zoning 545 certificate for the property. 546 547 Any noncomplying lot not approved by the city that was created on or between January 13, 548 1950 to April 12, 1995, may be approved as a legal noncomplying lot subject to the lot 549 meeting minimum zoning and subdivision requirements at the time the lot was created and 550 documented through an updated zoning certificate for the property. 551 552 Noncomplying lots may be combined to create a conforming lot or more conforming lot 553 subject to any maximum lot size standards of the zoning district in which the lot is located. 554 555 SECTION 22. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.38.070 (Legal 556 Conforming Single-Family Detached Dwelling, Two-Family Dwellings, and Twin Homes) as 557 follows: 558 Any legally existing single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling, or twin home 559 located in a zoning district that does not allow these uses shall be considered legal 560 conforming. Legal conforming status shall authorize replacement of the single-family 561 detached dwelling, two-family dwelling, or twin home structure to the extent of the original 562 footprint. 563 564 A. Alterations, Additions Oor Extensions Oor Replacement Structures Greater Than Tthe 565 Original Footprint: In zoning districts other than M-1 and M-2, which do not allow 566 detached single-family dwelling units, two-family dwelling units or twin homes, any 567 alterations, extensions/additions or the replacement of the structure may exceed the 16 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 568 original footprint by twenty five percent (25%) of the existing structure subject to the 569 following standards: 570 571 1. Any alterations, extensions/additions or the replacement structure shall not project 572 into a required yard beyond any encroachment established by the structure being 573 replaced. 574 2. Any alterations, additions or extensions beyond the original footprint which are 575 noncomplying are subject to special exception standards of subsection 576 21A.52.030A15 of this title. 577 3. All replacement structures in nonresidential zones are subject to the provisions of 578 sSection 21A.36.190, “Residential Building Standards Ffor Legal Conforming 579 Single-Family Detached Dwellings, Two-Family Dwellings Aand Twin Homes Iin 580 Nonresidential Zoning Districts”, of this title. 581 582 Any alterations, additions or extensions or replacement structures which exceed 583 twenty five percent (25%) of the original footprint, or alterations, additions or 584 extensions or replacement of a single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling 585 or twin home in an M-1 or M-2 zoning district may be allowed as a conditional use 586 subject to the provisions of chapter 21A.54 of this title. 587 588 B. Off Street Parking: When replacing a legal conforming single- family detached dwelling, 589 two-family dwelling or twin home, the number of new parking stalls provided shall be 590 equal to or more than the number of parking stalls being replaced. The maximum number 591 of outdoor parking stalls shall be four (4) parking stalls per dwelling unit 592 593 SECTION 23. Adopting a new Section 21A.38.075 (Unit Legalizations) to the text of the 594 Salt Lake City Code as follows: 595 21A.38.075: UNIT LEGALIZATIONS: 596 A. Purpose: The purpose of this subsection is to implement the existing Salt Lake City 597 community housing plan by providing a process that gives owners of property with one 598 or more excess dwelling units not recognized by the city an opportunity to legalize such 599 units based on the standards set forth in this section. The intent is to maintain existing 600 housing stock in a safe manner that contributes to the vitality and sustainability of 601 neighborhoods within the city. 602 B. Review Standards: A dwelling unit that is proposed to be legalized pursuant to this 603 section shall comply with the following standards: 604 605 1. The dwelling unit existed prior to April 12, 1995. In order to determine whether a 606 dwelling unit was in existence prior to April 12, 1995, the unit owner shall provide 607 documentation thereof which may include any of the following: 608 17 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 609 a. Copies of lease or rental agreements, lease or rent payments, or other similar 610 documentation showing a transaction between the unit owner and tenants; 611 b. Evidence indicating that prior to April 12, 1995, the city issued a building permit, 612 business license, zoning certificate, or other permit relating to the dwelling unit in 613 question; 614 c. Utility records indicating existence of a dwelling unit; 615 d. Historic surveys recognized by the planning director as being performed by a 616 trained professional in historic preservation; 617 e. Notarized affidavits from a previous owner, tenant, or neighbor; 618 f. Polk, Cole, or phone directories that indicate existence of the dwelling unit (but 619 not necessarily that the unit was occupied); or 620 g. Any other documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public record 621 which indicates the existence of the excess unit prior to April 12, 1995. 622 623 2. The excess unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling unit since April 12, 1995. 624 In order to determine if a unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling unit, the 625 following may be considered: 626 627 a. Evidence listed in Subsection B.1 of this section indicates that the unit has 628 been occupied at least once every 5 calendar years; 629 b. Evidence that the unit was marketed for occupancy if the unit was unoccupied 630 for more than 5 consecutive years; 631 c. If evidence of maintaining a separate dwelling unit as required by Subsection 632 B.1 of this section cannot be established, documentation of construction 633 upgrades may be provided in lieu thereof. 634 d. Any documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public record 635 which provides evidence that the unit was referenced as a separate dwelling 636 unit at least once every 5 years. 637 638 C. Conditions of Approval: Any approved unit legalization shall be subject to the following 639 conditions: 640 641 1. The unit owner shall allow the city’s building official or designee to inspect the 642 dwelling unit to determine whether the unit substantially complies with basic life 643 safety requirements as provided in Chapter 18.50, “Existing Residential Housing”, of 644 this code. 645 2. All required corrections indicated during the inspection process must be completed 646 within 1 year unless granted an extension by the building official. 647 648 D. Application: A determination of non-conforming use application, provided by the zoning 649 administrator, shall be required to legalize unrecognized dwelling units. 650 651 18 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 652 SECTION 24. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.040 “Use 653 Limitations” as follows: 654 21A.40.040: USE LIMITATIONS: 655 656 In addition to the applicable use limitations of the district regulations, no accessory use, 657 building or structure shall be permitted unless it complies with the restrictions set forth 658 below: 659 660 A. An accessory use, building or structure shall be incidental and subordinate to the 661 principal use or structure in area, extent and purpose; 662 B. An accessory use, building or structure shall be under the same ownership or control 663 as the principal use or structure, and shall be, except as otherwise expressly 664 authorized by the provisions of this title, located on the same lot as the principal use 665 or structure; 666 C. No accessory use, building or structure shall be established or constructed before the 667 principal use is in operation or the structure is under construction in accordance with 668 these regulations; and 669 D. No commercial sign, except as expressly authorized by this chapter or by the 670 provisions of cChapter 21A.46 of this title, shall be maintained in connection with an 671 accessory use or structure. 672 E. An accessory use shall be permitted if it is routinely and customarily associated with 673 the principal use and not otherwise prohibited by this title. For residential uses, this 674 includes accessory uses that are customarily associated with a dwelling, such as home 675 office, outdoor living space, pool houses, storage, personal use, hobbies, and other 676 similar uses but does not include short term rentals or other uses not allowed in the 677 zoning district. 678 679 680 SECTION 25. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.050.A as 681 follows: 682 A. Location Oof Accessory Buildings Iin Required Yards: 683 1. Front Yards: Accessory buildings are prohibited in any required front yard and shall 684 be set back at least as far as the principal building when the principal building 685 exceeds the required front yard setback. Notwithstanding the foregoing, hoop houses 686 and cold frame structures up to twenty four 24 inches (24”) in height may be placed 687 in a front yard. 688 2. Corner Lots: No accessory building on a corner lot shall be closer to the street than 689 the distance required for corner side yards. At no time, however, shall an accessory 690 building be closer than twenty 20 feet (20’) to a public sidewalk or public 691 pedestrianway and the accessory building shall be set back at least as far as the 692 principal building. Notwithstanding the foregoing, hoop houses and cold frame 19 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 693 structures up to twenty four 24 inches (24”) in height may be placed in a corner side 694 yard. 695 3. Side Yards: Accessory buildings are prohibited in any required interior side yard; 696 however, hoop houses, greenhouses, and cold frame structures associated solely with 697 growing food and/or plants are allowed in an interior side yard but no closer than one 698 foot (1’) to the corresponding lot line. If an addition to residential buildings results in 699 an existing accessory building being located in a side yard, the existing accessory 700 building shall be permitted to remain, subject to maintaining a four 4 foot (4’) 701 separation from the side of the accessory building to the side of the residential 702 building, as required in sSubsection A.4.b of this section. 703 704 4. Rear Yards: Location of accessory buildings in a rear yard shall be as follows: 705 706 a. In residential districts, no accessory building shall be closer than one foot (1’) to a 707 side or rear lot line except when sharing a common wall with an accessory 708 building on an adjacent lot. In nonresidential districts, buildings may be built to 709 side or rear lot lines in rear yards, provided the building complies with all 710 applicable requirements of the adopted building code. 711 b. No portion of the accessory building shall be built closer than four 4 feet (4’) to 712 any portion of the principal building; excluding cold frames associated solely with 713 growing food and/or plants. 714 c. Garages on 2 or more properties that are intended to provide accessory building 715 use for the primary occupants of the properties, in which the garage is located, 716 may be constructed in the rear yards, as a single structure subject to compliance 717 with adopted building code regulations and the size limits for accessory buildings 718 on each property as indicated herein. 719 720 5. Accessory Oor Principal Lot: No portion of an accessory building on either an 721 accessory or principal lot may be built closer than ten10 feet (10’) to any portion of a 722 principal residential building on an adjacent lot when that adjacent lot is in a 723 residential zoning district; excluding hoop houses, greenhouses, and cold frames 724 associated solely with growing food and/or plants. 725 726 6. Double Frontage Lots: Accessory structures and buildings located on a property 727 where both the front and rear yards have frontage on a street may be located in a front 728 yard provided the accessory building or structure: 729 a. Is located in a provided yard that is directly opposite the front yard where the 730 primary entrance to the principal building is located; 731 b. Is in a location that is consistent with other accessory building locations on the 732 block; 733 c. Complies with any clear view triangle requirements of this title; and 734 d. Complies with all other accessory building and structure requirements of this title. 735 20 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 736 SECTION 26. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.050.C 737 (Maximum Height of Accessory Structures) as follows: 738 C. Maximum Height Oof Accessory Buildings/Structures: 739 740 1. Accessory Tto Residential Uses Iin Tthe FP District, RMF Districts, RB, R-MU 741 Districts, SNB Aand Tthe RO District: The height of accessory buildings/structures in 742 residential districts are measured from established grade to the highest point of the 743 accessory building and shall conform to the following: 744 745 a. The height of accessory buildings structures with flat roofs shall not exceed 746 twelve12 feet (12’). The height of flat roof structures may be increased up to 75% 747 of the height of the principal structure, not to exceed 15 feet provided the setbacks 748 increases one foot for every one foot of building height above 12 feet. 749 b. The height of accessory buildings structures with pitched roofs shall not exceed 750 17 seventeen feet (17’) measured to the midpoint of the roof. The height of 751 pitched roof structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of the principal 752 structure, not exceed 21 feet provided the setbacks increase one foot for every one 753 foot of structure height above 17 feet. ; and 754 c. Accessory buildings with greater building height may be approved as a special 755 exception, pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 756 757 2. Accessory Tto Residential Uses Iin Tthe FR, R-1 Districts, R-2 District Aand SR 758 Districts: The height of accessory buildings/structures in the FR districts, R-1 759 districts, R-2 district and SR districts are measured from established grade to the 760 highest point of the accessory structure and shall conform to the following: 761 762 a. The height of accessory buildings structures with flat roofs shall not exceed 763 twelve 12 feet, (12’); nine feet (9’) measured from established grade except that in 764 the SR-1A zoning district the height of accessory structures with flat roofs shall 765 not exceed 9 feet. The height of flat roof accessory structures may be increased up 766 to 75% of the height of the principal structure, not to exceed an additional 3 feet 767 except in the SR-1A zoning district where up to an additional 2 feet may be 768 permitted provided the setbacks are increased one foot for every one foot of 769 additional building height. 770 b. The height of accessory buildings structures with pitched roofs shall not exceed 771 seventeen17 feet (17’) measured as the vertical distance between the top of the 772 roof and the established grade at any given point of building coverage. In the SR- 773 1A zoning district the height of accessory buildings structures with pitched roofs 774 shall not exceed 14fourteen feet (14’). The height of pitched roof accessory 775 structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of the principal structure, not 776 to exceed an additional 4 feet except in the SR-1A zoning district where up to an 777 additional 3 feet may be permitted provided the setbacks are increased one foot 778 for every one foot of building height.; and 779 21 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 780 c. Accessory buildings with greater building height may be approved as a special 781 exception, pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title, if the proposed accessory 782 building is in keeping with other accessory buildings on the block face. 783 784 SECTION 27. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.065 (Outdoor 785 Dining) as follows: 786 21A.40.065: OUTDOOR DINING: 787 788 “Outdoor dining”, as defined in cChapter 21A.62 of this title, shall be allowed within the 789 buildable lot area, in all in any zoning districts where such restaurant and retail uses are 790 allowed, as either a permitted or conditional use. Outdoor dining in the public way shall be 791 permitted subject to all City requirements. and for any nonconforming food serving land use 792 subject to the provisions of this section: 793 794 A. Where allowed: 795 796 1. Within the buildable lot area; 797 2. Within a required or provided front or corner side yard; 798 3. Within a required side yard provided: the outdoor dining is setback a minimum of 799 10 feet when adjacent to a residential zoning district that does not permit 800 restaurants or retail uses. Properties separated by an alley are not considered 801 adjacent for the purpose of this section. 802 4. Within a required rear yard provided the outdoor dining is setback a minimum of 803 10 feet when adjacent to a residential zoning district that does not permit 804 restaurants or retail uses. Properties separated by an alley are not considered 805 adjacent for the purpose of this section. 806 5. Within a public right of way or an adjacent public property subject to all 807 applicable lease agreements, applicable regulations, and the outdoor dining design 808 guidelines. 809 810 B. Outdoor dining is allowed within the required landscaped yard or buffer area, in 811 commercial and manufacturing zoning districts where such uses are allowed. Outdoor 812 dining is allowed in the RB, CN, MU, R-MU, RMU-35 and the RMU-45 Zones and 813 for nonconforming restaurants and similar uses that serve food or drinks through the 814 provisions of the special exception process (see chapter 21A.52 of this title). All 815 outdoor dining shall be subject to the following conditions: 816 817 A1.All applicable requirements of cChapter 21A.48 and sSection 21A.36.020 of this 818 title are met. 819 B2.All required business, health and other regulatory licenses for the outdoor dining 820 have been secured. 22 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 821 C3.A detailed site plan demonstrating the following: 822 823 1a. All the proposed outdoor dining activities will be conducted on private 824 property owned or otherwise controlled by the applicant and that none of the 825 activities will occur on any publicly owned rights-of-way unless separate 826 approval for the use of any such public rights-of-way has been obtained from 827 the Ccity; 828 2. The location of any paving, landscaping, planters, fencing, canopies, 829 umbrellas or other table covers or barriers surrounding the area; 830 3. The proposed outdoor dining will not impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic; 831 and 832 4b. The main entry has a control point as required by Sstate liquor laws. 833 834 D4.The proposed outdoor dining complies with all conditions pertaining to any 835 existing variances, conditional uses or other approvals granted for property. 836 E5.Live music will not be performed, nor loudspeakers played in the outdoor dining 837 area unless the decibel level is within conformance with the Salt Lake City noise 838 control ordinance, title 9, cChapter 9.28 of this Ccode. Live music and 839 loudspeakers are prohibited outside between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am 840 when the property is adjacent to within a radius of 660 feet of a residential zoning 841 district found in Chapter 21A.24 of this code. 842 F6.No additional parking is required unless the total outdoor dining area ever exceeds 843 five hundred (500) square feet. Parking for outdoor dining areas in excess of five 844 hundred (500) square feet is required at a ratio of two (2) spaces per one thousand 845 (1,000) square feet of outdoor dining area. No additional parking is required in the 846 D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, TSA, or G-MU Zone. Outdoor dining shall be considered an 847 expansion of the use for the purpose of determining if additional parking is 848 required as stated in Chapter 21A.44 (Parking). 849 G7.Smoking shall be prohibited within the outdoor dining area and within twenty 850 five25 feet (25’) of the outdoor dining area. 851 H. The proposed outdoor dining complies with the environmental performance 852 standards as stated in section 21A.36.180 of this title. 853 I. Outdoor dining shall be located in areas where such use is likely to have the least 854 adverse impacts on adjacent properties. 855 856 SECTION 28. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.090.D 857 (Amateur Radio Facilities With Surface Area Exceeding Ten Square Feet) as follows: 858 D. Amateur Radio Facilities With Surface Area Exceeding Ten 10 Square Feet: Any antenna 859 and antenna support having a combined surface area greater than ten (10) square feet or 860 having any single dimension exceeding twelve 12 feet (12’) that is capable of 861 transmitting as well as receiving signals and is licensed by the Federal Communications 862 Commission as an amateur radio facility shall be permitted as an accessory use, but only 863 in compliance with the regulations set forth below: 23 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 864 865 1. Number Limited: No more than one such antenna or antenna support structure with a 866 surface area greater than ten (10) square feet or any single dimension exceeding 867 twelve12 feet (12’) may be located on any lot. 868 2. Height Limited: No such antenna and its support structure shall, if ground mounted, 869 exceed seventy five75 feet (75’) in height or, if attached to a building pursuant to 870 sSubsection D.3 of this section, the height therein specified. 871 3. Attachment Tto Buildings Limited: No such antenna or its support structure shall be 872 attached to a principal or accessory structure unless all of the following conditions are 873 satisfied: 874 875 a. Height: The antenna and its support structure shall not extend more than twenty 876 20 feet (20’) above the highest point of the building on which it is mounted. 877 b. Mounting: The antenna and its support structure shall not be attached to or 878 mounted upon any building appurtenance, such as a chimney. The antenna and its 879 support structure shall not be mounted or attached to the front or corner side of 880 any principal building facing a street, including any portion of the building roof 881 facing any street. The antenna and its support structure shall be designed to 882 withstand a wind force of eighty (80) miles per hour without the use of supporting 883 guywires. 884 c. Grounding: The antenna and its support structure shall be bonded to a grounding 885 rod. 886 d. Other Standards: The antenna and its support structure shall satisfy such other 887 design and construction standards as the Zoning Administrator determines are 888 necessary to ensure safe construction and maintenance of the antenna and its 889 support structure. 890 e. Special Exception For Increased Height: Any person desiring to erect an amateur 891 (“ham”) radio antenna in excess of seventy five feet (75’) shall file an application 892 for a special exception with the Zoning Administrator pursuant to chapter 21A.52 893 of this title. In addition to the other application regulations, the application shall 894 specify the details and dimensions of the proposed antenna and its supporting 895 structures and shall further specify why the applicant contends that such a design 896 and height are necessary to accommodate reasonably amateur radio 897 communication. The Zoning Administrator shall approve the proposed design and 898 height unless the Zoning Administrator finds that a different design and height 899 which is less violative of the City’s demonstrated health, safety or aesthetic 900 considerations also accommodates reasonably amateur radio communication and, 901 further, that the alternative design and height are the minimum practicable 902 regulation necessary to accomplish the City’s actual and demonstrated legitimate 903 purposes. The burden of proving the acceptability of the alternative design shall 904 be on the City. 905 906 SECTION 29. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.090.E.3.b 907 (Electrical Equipment Located on Private Property) as follows: 24 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 908 b. Electrical Equipment Located Oon Private Property: Electrical equipment shall be subject 909 to the following standards: located in the rear yard, interior side yard, or within the 910 buildable area on a given parcel. In the case of a parcel with an existing building, the 911 electrical equipment shall not be located between the front and/or corner street facing 912 building facades of the building and the street. 913 914 Electrical equipment located in a residential zoning district, shall not exceed a width of 915 four feet (4’), a depth of three feet (3’), or a height of four feet (4’) to be considered a 916 permitted use if located outside of an enclosed building. Electrical equipment exceeding 917 these dimensions shall be located inside of an enclosed building. 918 919 Electrical equipment located in all other CN, PL, PL-2, CB, I or OS Zoning Districts 920 shall not exceed a width of six feet (6’), a depth of three feet (3’), or a height of six feet 921 (6’) to be considered a permitted use if located outside of an enclosed building. Electrical 922 equipment exceeding these dimensions shall be located inside of an enclosed building. 923 924 Electrical equipment exceeding the dimensions listed above shall be reviewed 925 administratively as a special exception per chapter 21A.52 of this title. 926 927 The electrical equipment and any necessary building shall be subject to the maximum lot 928 coverage requirements in the underlying zoning district. 929 (1) Located in a rear yard, interior side yard, or within the building area of the lot. 930 (2) If located in a zoning district without a require front or corner side yard setback, the 931 equipment shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from the front or corner side yard 932 property line. 933 (3) Located a minimum of 4 feet from a side or rear property line unless located in an 934 enclosed structure or a vault where the equipment will not be visible. 935 (4) If the equipment is located next to a public trail, park, open space, or other public 936 space other than a street, the equipment shall be screened by a masonry wall or solid 937 fence so the equipment is not visible. 938 (5) The electrical equipment and any structure associated with the electrical equipment is 939 subject to the maximum lot coverage of the underlying zoning district. 940 941 SECTION 30. Amending Section 21A.40.100 (Mechanical Equipment) to the text of 942 Salt Lake City Code as follows: 943 21A.40.100: RESERVED: LOCATION OF MECHNICAL EQUIPMENT: 944 945 All mechanical equipment shall be located as follows: 946 A. Front and Corner Side Yards and Double Frontage Lots: Only allowed if located 947 within 4 feet of the principal building and screened by vegetation, a solid wall or 948 fence so the equipment is not visible and at least 10 feet from the front and corner 949 side yard property lines. 25 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 950 B. Side Yards: At least 4 feet from a side property line. If the equipment is adjacent to a 951 driveway, parking stall, or accessory structure on an adjacent parcel, the setback may 952 be reduced to 2 feet. 953 C. Rear Yards: at least 4 feet from a rear property line. If the equipment is adjacent to a 954 driveway, parking stall, or accessory structure on an adjacent parcel, the setback may 955 be reduced to two feet. 956 D. Prohibited Areas: in addition to the yard requirements above, mechanical equipment 957 is prohibited to be located on the roof of an accessory structure, with the exception of 958 exhaust fans and mechanical vents serving the accessory building in which case the 959 fans or vents shall be at least 10 feet from a property line. 960 961 SECTION 31. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.I 962 (Barbed Wire Fences) as follows: 963 I. Barbed Wire Fences: 964 965 1. Permitted Use: Barbed wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the following 966 instances: 967 968 1. AG, AG-2, AG-5, AG-20, A, CG, M-1, and M-2 and D-2 districts and to secure 969 critical infrastructure located in any other zoning district not listed subject to the 970 following requirements. Critical infrastructure includes sites that are necessary to 971 protect the facility or site for the purpose of public health and safety. Barbed wire is 972 also permitted to secure construction sites and sites where construction is pending 973 provided it is removed once construction is complete. 974 2. Barbed wire fences shall be subject to the following provisions: 975 976 a. Not allowed in a provided or required front yard. 977 b. The barbed wire is permitted to exceed the maximum fence height. 978 c. No strand of barbed wire shall be permitted less than 7 feet in height above the 979 ground except for agricultural purposes provided the barbed wire is vertically 980 aligned. 981 d. No more than 3 strands of barbed wire are permitted. 982 e. The barbed wire strands shall not slant outward from the fence more than 60 983 degrees from a vertical line. 984 f. All barbed wire shall be setback a minimum of 3 feet from public property. 985 g. The barbed wire is not located along a property line shared with a residential use 986 when the subject property is in a CG zoning district. 987 2. Special Exception: Barbed wire fencing may be approved for nonresidential uses as a 988 special exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title, in all zoning districts except 989 for those listed above as permitted uses. The planning commission may approve as 990 special exceptions, the placement of barbed wire fences, for security reasons, or for 26 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 991 the keeping out of animals around nonresidential properties, transformer stations, 992 microwave stations, construction sites or other similar publicly necessary or 993 dangerous sites, provided the requested fence is not in any residential district and is 994 not on or near the property line of a lot which is occupied as a place of residence. 995 3. Location Requirements: Barbed wire fencing shall not be allowed in required front 996 yard setbacks nor along frontages on streets defined as gateway streets in Salt Lake 997 City’s adopted urban design element master plan. 998 4. Special Design Regulations: No strand of barbed wire shall be permitted less than six 999 feet (6’) high. No more than three (3) strands of barbed wire are permitted. The 1000 barbed wire strands shall not slant outward from the fence more than sixty degrees 1001 (60°) from a vertical line. No barbed wire strand shall project over public property. If 1002 the barbed wire proposed slants outward over adjoining private property the applicant 1003 must submit written consent from adjoining property owner agreeing to such a 1004 projection over the property line. 1005 5. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission may approve, as a 1006 special exception, the building permit for a barbed wire fence if it is found that the 1007 applicant has shown that the fence is reasonably necessary for security in that it 1008 protects people from dangerous sites and conditions such as transformer stations, 1009 microwave stations or construction sites. 1010 1011 SECTION 32. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.J 1012 (Razor Wire Fences) as follows: 1013 J. Razor Wire Fences: 1014 1015 Razor wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the M-1, M-2 and EI zoning districts 1016 and to secure critical infrastructure structures and sites located in any other zoning district 1017 subject to the following requirements. Critical infrastructure includes sites that are 1018 necessary to protect the facility or site for the purpose of public health and safety. 1019 1020 1. Special Exception: Razor wire fencing may be approved for nonresidential uses as a 1021 special exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title, in the A, CG, D-2, M-1 and 1022 M-2 zoning districts. The planning commission may approve as a special exception 1023 the placement of razor wire fences, for security reasons, around commercial or 1024 industrial uses, transformer stations, microwave stations, or other similar public 1025 necessity or dangerous sites; provided, that the requested fence is not on the property 1026 line of a lot which is occupied as a place of residence. Razor wire is not allowed in a 1027 provided or required front or corner side yard. 1028 2. Location Requirements: Razor wire fencing shall not be allowed in required front or 1029 corner side yard setback Razor wire is permitted to exceed the maximum fence height 1030 to a height necessary to reasonably secure the site. 1031 3. Special Design Regulations: No strand of razor wire shall be permitted on a fence that 1032 is less than seven7 feet (7’) high. Razor wire coils shall not exceed eighteen18 inches 27 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1033 (18”) in diameter and must slant inward from the fence to which the razor wire is 1034 being attached. 1035 4. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission may approve razor 1036 wire fencing if the commission finds that the applicant has shown that razor wire is 1037 necessary for the security of the property in question. All razor wire shall be setback a 1038 minimum of 3 feet from public property in zoning districts that do not have a 1039 minimum setback. 1040 1041 SECTION 33. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.L 1042 (Electric Security Fences) as follows: 1043 L. Electric Security Fences: 1044 1045 1. Permitted Use: Electric security fences are allowed as a permitted use in the M-1 and 1046 M-2 zones. Electric security fences on parcels or lots that abut a residential zone are 1047 prohibited. 1048 2. Special Exception: Electric security fences on parcels or lots adjacent to a commercial 1049 zone may be approved as a special exception pursuant to the requirements in chapter 1050 21A.52 of this title. 1051 23. Location Requirements: Electric security fences shall not be allowed in required front 1052 yard setbacks or on frontages adjacent to residentially zoned properties. 1053 34. Compliance With Adopted Building Codes: Electric security fences shall be 1054 constructed or installed in conformance with all applicable construction codes. 1055 45. Perimeter Fence Oor Wall: No electric security fence shall be installed or used unless 1056 it is fully enclosed by a nonelectrical fence or wall that is not less than six6 feet (6’) 1057 in height. There shall be at least one foot (1’) of spacing between the electric security 1058 fence and the perimeter fence or wall. 1059 56. Staging Area: All entries to a site shall have a buffer area that allows on site staging 1060 prior to passing the perimeter barrier. The site shall be large enough to accommodate 1061 a vehicle completely outside of the public right of way. 1062 67. Height: Electric security fences shall have a maximum height of ten10 feet (10’). 1063 78. Warning Signs: Electric security fences shall be clearly identified with warning signs 1064 that read: “Warning-Electric Fence” at intervals of not greater than sixty60 feet (60’). 1065 Signs shall comply with requirements in cChapter 21A.46, “Signs”, of this title. 1066 89. Security Box: Electric security fences shall have a small, wall mounted safe or box 1067 that holds building keys for police, firefighters and EMTs to retrieve in emergencies. 1068 1069 1070 SECTION 34. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.130 (Access 1071 for Persons with Disabilities) as follows: 1072 21A.40.130: ACCESS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES: 1073 28 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1074 Building permits for an uncovered vertical wheelchair lift, or for an uncovered access ramp, 1075 for persons with disabilities, under four 4 feet (4’) in height, or any other form of uncovered 1076 access, for persons with disabilities, under four 4 feet (4’) in height, that encroaches into 1077 required yard areas, may be approved by the Zzoning Aadministrator as a permitted 1078 accessory structure. Covered ramps or other access structures for persons with disabilities 1079 that encroach into required yard areas, shall be considered as a reasonable accommodation 1080 under applicable federal regulations approved, pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 1081 Application for a special exception for an access structure for persons with disabilities shall 1082 not require the payment of any application fees. 1083 1084 SECTION 35. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.160 (Ground 1085 Mounted Utility Boxes) as follows: 1086 21A.40.160: GROUND MOUNTED UTILITY BOXES: 1087 1088 A. Purpose: Utility infrastructure provides a necessary service to the community. The 1089 regulations of this section are intended to allow for ground mounted utility boxes while 1090 reducing the negative impacts they may create. Of concern are the location, size and 1091 concentration of ground mounted utility boxes. The placement of ground mounted utility 1092 boxes should consider the location priority order below: 1093 1094 1. In a location not readily visible from a street. 1095 2. Along an alley when the utility box will not impede or reduce the functional width of 1096 the alley. In an alley located along the rear of adjacent properties. 1097 3. In a nonresidential location that may be visible from a street. 1098 4. In the park strip of a nonresidential property. 1099 5. In the park strip of a residential property. 1100 1101 B. Compliance With Regulations Required: All ground mounted utility boxes shall be 1102 subject to the regulations of this section and any applicable requirement in Title 21A, 1103 unless exempted within sSection 21A.02.050 of this title and any applicable adopted code 1104 and regulation. The location and access for maintenance of all required utility 1105 infrastructure is subject to approval by the utility provider and complying with all 1106 applicable adopted codes and regulations. No construction shall be undertaken without 1107 the applicable city permits and public way permits. 1108 C. Definition: “Ground mounted utility boxes” shall mean such equipment and facilities, 1109 including pedestals, boxes, vaults, cabinets, meters or other ground mounted facilities and 1110 associated equipment that extend over six inches (6”) above ground level used for the 1111 transmission or distribution of utilities. 1112 DC. Location: Ground mounted utility boxes shall be located as required by this section. Any 1113 ground mounted utility box shall not be located within one foot (1’) of any sidewalk or 1114 eighteen inches (18”) from the face of a control curb or obstruct any required sight 1115 distance triangles for driveways and intersections. 1116 29 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1117 1.Private Property or Parcel. On the subject parcel or an adjacent parcel when part of 1118 new construction or as an addition to an existing building that requires additional 1119 utility service subject to the following standards: 1120 1121 a. Rear and Side Yards: the ground mounted utility box shall be located a minimum 1122 of one foot from a side or rear property line. 1123 b. Front and Corner Side Yards: The ground mounted utility box shall be located 1124 within 5 feet of the building façade when located in required or provided front or 1125 corner side yard and at least one foot from a front or corner side yard property 1126 line. Utility boxes in a front or corner side yard shall be screened by a wall, fence, 1127 or hedge of at least equal height not to exceed the maximum height for a wall or 1128 fence allowed in the applicable yard. 1129 c. Ground mounted utility box(es) may be placed in a required landscaped yard if 1130 screened by a wall, fence or hedge of at least equal height not to exceed the 1131 maximum height for a wall or fence allowed in the applicable yard. 1132 d. If proposed on an adjacent parcel, an easement shall be provided for the utility 1133 boxes and associated equipment along with consent from the owner of the 1134 adjacent parcel. 1135 1136 2.Public Right of Way – Single Property or Parcel. In a public right of way if each of 1137 the following criteria are satisfied: 1138 1139 a. There is an existing building on the subject property that is located in a manner 1140 that prohibits the placement of required utility infrastructure on the property; 1141 b. There is no existing front yard, corner side yard, interior side yard, or rear yard of 1142 sufficient size to accommodate ground mounted utility box(es) and access for 1143 maintenance, as required by the utility provider, of the box(es) within the yard. A 1144 right of way may be used to accommodate necessary working space; 1145 c. There is not an alley adjacent to the subject property that provides sufficient 1146 access as required by the utility provider to a yard of sufficient size to 1147 accommodate ground mounted utility box(es). If the alley is not a public alley, 1148 necessary permissions and easements must be provided; 1149 d. The existing utilities are not being relocated to support an expansion of the use or 1150 building or for any new use or accessory use on the property; 1151 e. The ground mounted utility box will not negatively impact any existing or 1152 planned public improvement within the right of way; 1153 f. The ground mounted utility box is located at least 10 feet away from any tree in 1154 the right of way; 1155 g. The ground mounted utility box(es) comply with all requirements of Chapter 1156 14.32 or its successor; and 1157 h. The applicant has provided to the city and the utility provider the dimensions and 1158 space requirements necessary for the utility needs, as determined by the utility 1159 provider, of the proposed development. 1160 1161 3.Public Right of Way – Broader Neighborhood. In a public right of way when the 1162 ground mounted utility box is necessary to provide utility service, wireless service, or 30 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1163 other telecommunications service to the broader neighborhood, the location is 1164 consistent with any legal agreement between the utility provider and the city, and the 1165 proposed utility box complies with all applicable regulations. 1166 4.Public Right of Way – Permit Issuance. The city engineer may issue a permit for the 1167 installation of a ground mounted utility box in the public right of way in accordance 1168 with standards set forth in this section and Title 14, Chapter 14.32 of this code. 1169 E. Allowed Ground Mounted Utility Boxes: Ground mounted utility boxes proposed as 1170 follows shall be allowed in all zoning districts subject to subsection D of this section. 1171 1172 1. Private Property: On private property with permission of the property owner or 1173 representative at one of the following locations 1174 1175 a. Below grade utility boxes that do not extend greater than six inches (6”) above 1176 ground level. 1177 b. Within the buildable area of a lot, rear yard or side yard. 1178 c. Behind required front and corner side yards or within five feet (5’) of a building 1179 when front and corner side yards are not required. 1180 d. Within a utility easement subject to easement restrictions. 1181 e. Within a right of way when the location does not interfere with circulation 1182 functions of the right of way and subject to subsection E1c of this section. 1183 1184 2. Public Right Of Way: The city engineer may issue a permit for the installation of a 1185 ground mounted utility box in the public right of way in accordance with standards 1186 set forth in this section and title 14, chapter 14.32 of this code. 1187 1188 a. Below grade utility boxes that do not extend greater than six inches (6”) above 1189 ground level 1190 b. A ground mounted utility box installed in a park strip or behind the sidewalk in 1191 the public way meeting the following criteria: 1192 1193 (1) A ground mounted utility box not exceeding a height of three feet (3’) and a 1194 footprint of four (4) square feet, or a box not exceeding two feet (2’) in height 1195 and a footprint of eight (8) square feet. 1196 (2) The pad for a ground mounted utility box shall not extend more than six 1197 inches (6”) beyond the footprint of the box. 1198 (3) A ground mounted utility box in a residential zoning district is located within 1199 fifteen feet (15’) of the interior lot line of an adjacent property. 1200 (4) Excluding manufacturing, business park and general commercial zoning 1201 districts no more than three (3) ground mounted utility boxes, excluding 1202 exempt utility boxes, shall be allowed within a six hundred sixty foot (660’) 1203 segment of street right of way, unless approved as a special exception. 1204 (5) Any small ground mounted utility box that is less than sixty percent (60%) of 1205 the allowed size in subsection E2b(1) of this section shall be exempt from the 1206 special exception requirement of subsection E2b(4) of this section. 1207 31 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1208 c. A ground mounted utility box installed in a public alley that does not interfere 1209 with the circulation function of the alley. 1210 1211 F. Special Exception: Proposed ground mounted utility boxes not specifically addressed in 1212 subsection E of this section or that do not meet the standards of subsection E of this 1213 section may be approved as a special exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title 1214 and the following requirements: 1215 1216 1. Application: A special exception application shall be made on a form prepared by the 1217 planning director or designee and submitted to the planning division, that includes 1218 required information and the following additional information: 1219 1220 a. Described plan of the proposed ground mounted utility box: 1221 1222 (1) Dimensions of box and footing/platform detail. 1223 (2) Location of contact information on the box. 1224 (3) Description of cabinet materials and finish treatment. 1225 1226 b. A location analysis which identifies other sites considered as alternatives within 1227 five hundred feet (500’) of the proposed location. The applicant shall provide a 1228 written explanation why the alternatives considered were either unavailable, or 1229 technologically or reasonably infeasible. 1230 1231 2. General Standards And Considerations For Special Exception Review Of Ground 1232 Mounted Utility Boxes: No special exception application for a ground mounted utility 1233 box shall be approved unless the planning director or the planning director’s designee 1234 determines that the ground mounted utility box satisfies the applicable standards 1235 related to size, spacing and/or location of the following criteria: 1236 1237 a. Evidence that the existing ground mounted utility box location and/or size are 1238 within a pattern that allowing an additional or larger ground mounted utility box 1239 will not create a significant impact on the character of the area. 1240 b. Evidence submitted that shows another location is not practical to service the 1241 subject area. 1242 c. Sufficiently demonstrates the reason that the larger cabinet is necessary. 1243 d. Demonstrates that the subject block face location is the only feasible location for 1244 the ground mounted utility box based on technical or physical constraints. 1245 e. Ground mounted utility boxes are spaced in such a manner as to limit the visual 1246 impact of the box when viewed from the street or an adjacent property. 1247 f. The location will not obstruct access to other installed utility facilities. 1248 g. The additional cabinet is compatible in design and size with the existing ground 1249 mounted utility boxes in the area. 1250 1251 GD. Materials: All ground mounted utility boxes shall consist of high quality material such 1252 as stainless steel or other durable painted or colored material. The finish shall be a neutral 32 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1253 color such as dark or light green, beige or gray or color similar to utility boxes within the 1254 vicinity and coated with a graffiti resistant treatment. 1255 HE. Post installation Obligations: All ground mounted utility boxes and any related screening 1256 materials shall remain the service provider’s responsibility to keep in a state of good 1257 visual quality and repair. 1258 1259 1. Franchise Agreements: Permitted and installed ground mounted utility boxes shall 1260 also comply with all conditions as set forth in the service provider’s/owner’s 1261 franchise agreement with the city. If the terms of any franchise agreement conflict 1262 with the provisions of this title, the ordinance regulations shall prevail and govern. 1263 2. Discontinued Use: If the service provider/owner of a ground mounted utility box in 1264 the public right of way discontinues the use or has no defined need for said box, it is 1265 that service provider’s/owner’s sole responsibility to remove the box and all 1266 associated conduit and wiring at its own expense in compliance with all engineering 1267 division requirements. 1268 3. Required Contact Information: A service provider shall place a permanent notice on 1269 the box containing the service provider’s name and telephone number for the purpose 1270 of notification in the event of graffiti or damages to the equipment. 1271 4. Maintenance: A service provider shall be solely responsible for maintaining ground 1272 mounted utility box sites in reasonably good repair in a clean, safe and level 1273 condition. “Level condition” shall mean not tilting greater than fifteen degrees (15°) 1274 from plumb. A service provider shall repair any damage to a ground mounted utility 1275 box within seventy two (72) hours after discovering or being notified of such damage 1276 to a box. 1277 1278 I. Other City Permits: Additional city permits may be required. 1279 1280 1. Permits: No construction shall be undertaken without the applicable city permits and 1281 public way permits. 1282 2. Certificate Of Appropriateness: Any ground mounted utility box located within an 1283 area subject to section 21A.34.020, “H Historic Preservation Overlay District”, of this 1284 title must obtain a certificate of appropriateness before the box may be installed. 1285 1286 SECTION 36. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.44.020.F.9 1287 (Vehicles and Equipment Storage) as follows: 1288 9. Vehicle Aand Equipment Storage Without Hard Surfacing: In CG, M-1, M-2 and EI 1289 zoning districts, vVehicle and equipment storage without hard surfacing may shall be 1290 allowed as a special exception provided if the following requirements are met: 1291 a. The lot is used for long term vehicle storage, not for regular parking and/or 1292 maneuvering. The property is located in a CG, M-1, M-2, or EI zoning district 33 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1293 b. The vehicles stored are large and/or on tracks that could destroy normal hard 1294 surfacing. The lot is used for long term vehicle storage, not for regular parking and/or 1295 maneuvering. 1296 c. The parking surface is compacted with six inches (6”) of road base and other 1297 semihard material with long lasting dust control chemical applied annually. The 1298 storage areas are not located within any required front yard or corner side yard. 1299 d. A hard surfaced wash bay is installed to wash wheels to prevent tracking of mud and 1300 sand onto the public way. The storage area surface is compacted with 6 inches of road 1301 base or other similar material with dust control measures in place. 1302 e. A minimum of fifty feet (50’) paved driveway from the public street property line is 1303 provided. A mechanism, such as a wash bay, gravel guard, or rumble strip is used to 1304 remove mud, sand, dirt, and gravel from the vehicle with a minimum of 50 feet of 1305 paved driveway between the mechanism and a public street. The mechanism used is 1306 subject to approval by the transportation director or designee provided it is a 1307 commonly used device that is effective at removing debris from vehicle tires. 1308 f. City transportation director’s approval. 1309 1310 SECTION 37. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.44.020.G 1311 (Parking for Low Density Residential Districts) as follows: 1312 G. Parking Ffor Low Density Residential Districts: The following regulations shall apply to 1313 single-family detached, single-family attached and two-family dwellings in the FP, FR- 1314 1/43,560, FR-2/21,700, FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, SR-1, SR-3 and 1315 R-2 districts: 1316 1. Parking spaces satisfying the requirements of section 21A.44.030 of this chapter shall 1317 be located only in an interior side yard or a rear yard unless approved as a special 1318 exception in accordance with subsection 21A.44.060B of this chapter. 1319 2. The provisions of parking spaces elsewhere on the lot shall conform to the other 1320 applicable requirements of this chapter. Requirements for garages shall be as 1321 specified in cChapter 21A.40 of this title. 1322 3. No park strip shall be used for parking. 1323 4. A maximum of four (4) outdoor parking spaces shall be permitted per lot. 1324 Recreational vehicle parking, where permitted, shall be included in this maximum. 1325 1326 SECTION 38. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.44.030.H.2 1327 (Table of District Specific Maximum Parking Allowance) qualifying provision 2 as follows: 34 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1328 2. Parking in excess of the maximum allowed may be granted as a special exception subject 1329 to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title. The maximum parking 1330 requirement does not apply to parking structures or garages that serve multiple lots, 1331 parcels, or uses, or structures that provide off site parking. 1332 1333 SECTION 39. Deleting the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.44.040.D (Other 1334 Eligible Alternatives) as follows: 1335 D. Other Eligible Alternatives: Any alternative to off street parking spaces not outlined in 1336 this section may be considered. Such alternatives shall be processed as special exceptions 1337 in accordance with the provisions of chapter 21A.52 of this title and as follows: 1338 1. Application: In addition to the materials required by chapter 21A.52 of this title, the 1339 applicant for an alternative parking requirement must also submit: 1340 a. A written statement specifying the alternative parking requirement requested and 1341 the rationale supporting the application; 1342 b. A professionally prepared parking study for alternative parking requirements 1343 requested for unique nonresidential uses and intensified parking reuse; and 1344 c. A site plan of the entire alternative parking property drawn to scale at a minimum 1345 of one inch equals thirty feet (1” = 30’) showing the proposed parking plan. 1346 2. Notice And Hearing: As a special exception, all requests for alternative parking 1347 requirements shall require a public notice and a public hearing in conformance with 1348 the requirements of chapter 21A.10 of this title. 1349 3. City Internal Review: 1350 a. The zoning administrator shall obtain comments regarding the application from all 1351 interested city departments or divisions. 1352 b. The city transportation director may, if it is determined that the proposal may 1353 have an adverse material impact on traffic, require the applicant to submit a 1354 professionally prepared traffic impact study prior to the hearing on the 1355 application. 1356 c. The city transportation director may require a professionally prepared parking 1357 study, where deemed appropriate, for applications for unique residential 1358 populations and single room occupancy residential uses. 1359 4. General Standards And Considerations For Alternative Parking Requirements: 1360 Requests for alternative parking requirements shall be granted in accordance with the 1361 standards and considerations for special exceptions in section 21A.52.060 of this title. 35 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1362 In addition, an application for an alternative parking requirement shall be granted 1363 only if the following findings are determined: 1364 a. That the proposed parking plan will satisfy the anticipated parking demand for the 1365 use, up to the maximum number specified in section 21A.44.030, table 1366 21A.44.030 of this chapter; 1367 b. That the proposed parking plan will be at least as effective in maintaining traffic 1368 circulation patterns and promoting quality urban design as would strict 1369 compliance with the otherwise applicable off street parking standards; 1370 c. That the proposed parking plan does not have a materially adverse impact on 1371 adjacent or neighboring properties; 1372 d. That the proposed parking plan includes mitigation strategies for any potential 1373 impact on adjacent or neighboring properties; and 1374 e. That the proposed alternative parking requirement is consistent with applicable 1375 city master plans and is in the best interest of the city. 1376 1377 SECTION 40. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.44.060.B: (Front 1378 Yard Parking) as follows: 1379 B. Front Yard Parking: For any zoning district, if front yard parking is prohibited in table 1380 21A.44.060 of this section, it may be allowed as a special exception when the rear or side 1381 yards cannot be accessed and it is not feasible to build an attached garage that conforms 1382 to yard area and setback requirements, subject to the following conditions Parking in a 1383 required front yard shall be permitted subject to the following requirements: 1384 1. The hard surfaced parking area be limited to nine feet (9’) wide by twenty feet (20’) 1385 deep a.The lot contains an existing residential building. 1386 2. A minimum twenty foot (20’) setback from the front of the dwelling to the front 1387 property line exists so that vehicles will not project into the public right of way; 1388 andNo other off-street parking exists on the site. 1389 3. Parking on the hard surfaced area is restricted to passenger vehicles only. No 1390 provided side yard is greater than 8 feet. If greater than 8 feet, no tree over 6 inches in 1391 caliper is present in the side yard that would necessitate the removal of the tree to 1392 locate a parking stall in the side yard or rear yard. 1393 4. The rear yard is not accessible through a side yard in as provided in Subsection B.3 1394 and does not have frontage on a public street or public alley and the property does not 1395 have access rights across an adjacent private street or alley. 36 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1396 5. The front yard parking complies with the following standards: 1397 a. The front yard parking is limited to no wider than 10 feet in width and is a 1398 minimum depth of 20 feet. 1399 1400 b. The front yard parking is accessed by an approved drive approach. 1401 1402 c. The location of the front yard parking is placed within 10 feet of a side lot line or 1403 for corner properties, may also be within 10 feet of a rear lot line and is consistent 1404 with the location of other driveways on the block face. 1405 1406 SECTION 41. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.46.070.V 1407 (Historic District Signs) as follows: 1408 21A.46.070.V Historic District Signs: The Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission may 1409 authorize, as a minor alteration special exception, modification to an existing sign or the 1410 size or placement of a new sign in a historic district or on a landmark site, including 1411 placement of a sign type not allowed in the underlying zone, if the applicant can 1412 demonstrate that the location, size and/or design of the proposed sign is compatible with 1413 the design period or theme of the historic structure or district and/or will cause less 1414 physical damage to the historically significant structure. If a sign in a local historic 1415 district or on a landmark site has been designated a vintage sign as per sSection 1416 21A.46.125 of this chapter, the modifications allowed in that section may be authorized 1417 by the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission subject to the appropriate standards of sSection 1418 21A.34.020 of this title. 1419 1420 SECTION 42. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 21A.46.125 (Vintage 1421 Signs) as follows: 1422 A. The purpose of this section is to promote the retention, restoration, reuse, and 1423 reinstatement of nonconforming signs that represent important elements of Salt Lake 1424 City’s heritage and enhance the character of a corridor, neighborhood, or the community 1425 at large. 1426 B. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of this title: 1427 1428 1. An application for designation of vintage sign status as well as for the reinstatement 1429 of, modifications to, or relocation of a vintage sign shall be processed in accordance 1430 with the procedures for a special exception, as per chapter 21A.52 of this title set 1431 forth in Chapter 21A.08 and Section 21A.46.030 as well as the following: 1432 37 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1433 a. Application: In addition to the general application requirements for a special 1434 exceptionsign, an application for vintage sign designation or modification shall 1435 require: 1436 1437 (1)a. Detailed drawings and/or photographs of the sign in its current condition, 1438 if currently existing; 1439 (2)b. Written narrative and supporting documentation demonstrating how the 1440 sign meets the applicable criteria; 1441 (3)c. Detailed drawings of any modifications or reinstatement being sought; 1442 (4)d. Detailed drawings of any relocation being sought; and 1443 (5)e. Historic drawings and/or photographs of the sign. 1444 1445 2. The Zzoning Aadministrator shall designate an existing sign as a vintage sign if the 1446 sign: 1447 1448 a. Was not placed as part of a Localized Alternative Signage Overlay District and 1449 has not been granted flexibility from the base zoning through a planned 1450 development agreement or by the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission; 1451 b. Is not a billboard as defined in sSection 21A.46.020 of this chapter; 1452 c. Retains its original design character, or that character will be reestablished or 1453 restored, based on historic evidence such as drawings or photographs; and, 1454 d. Meets at least four (4) of the following criteria: 1455 1456 (1) The sign was specifically designed for a business, institution, or other 1457 establishment on the subject site; 1458 (2) The sign bears a unique emblem, logo, or another graphic specific to the 1459 Ccity, or region; 1460 (3) The sign exhibits specific characteristics that enhance the streetscape or 1461 identity of a neighborhood; 1462 (4) The sign is or was characteristic of a specific historic period; 1463 (5) The sign is or was integral to the design or identity of the site or building 1464 where the sign is located; or, 1465 (6) The sign represents an example of craftsmanship in the application of lighting 1466 technique, use of materials, or design. 1467 1468 3. A designated vintage sign may, by special exception: 1469 1470 a. Be relocated within its current site. 1471 b. Be modified to account for changing uses within its current site. These 1472 modifications shall be in the same style as the design of the original sign 1473 including: 1474 (1) Shape and form, 1475 (2) Size, 1476 (3) Typography, 1477 (4) Illustrative elements, 1478 (5) Use of color, 38 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1479 (6) Character of illumination, and 1480 (7) Character of animation. 1481 1482 c. Be restored or recreated, and reinstated on its original site. 1483 d. Be relocated to a new site for use as a piece of public art, provided that the 1484 original design and character of the sign is retained, or will be restored, and it 1485 advertises a business no longer in operation. Vintage signs may only be relocated 1486 for use as public art to sites in the following districts: D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, G-MU, 1487 CSHBD1, CSHBD2, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB-SC, FB-SE, TSA. 1488 e. Be relocated and reinstalled on the business’s new site, should the business with 1489 which it is associated move, provided that the business’s new location is within 1490 the same contiguous zoning district as the original location. 1491 1492 4. Once designated, a vintage sign is exempt from the calculation of allowed signage on 1493 a site. 1494 1495 SECTION 43. Deleting Chapter 21A.52 Special Exceptions of the Salt Lake City Code 1496 Chapter as follows: 1497 CHAPTER 21A.52 1498 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 1499 1500 SECTION: 1501 21A.52.010: Purpose Statement 1502 21A.52.020: Definition 1503 21A.52.030: Special Exceptions Authorized 1504 21A.52.040: Procedure 1505 21A.52.050: Coordinated Review And Approval Of Applications 1506 21A.52.060: General Standards And Considerations For Special Exceptions 1507 21A.52.070: Conditions On Special Exceptions 1508 21A.52.080: Relation Of Special Exception 1509 21A.52.090: Amendments To Special Exceptions 1510 21A.52.100: Extensions Of Time 1511 21A.52.110: Authority To Inspect 1512 21A.52.120: Appeal Of Decision 1513 21A.52.130: Revocation Of Special Exceptions 1514 21A.52.140: Effect On Denial Of Special Exception 1515 1516 1517 21A.52.010: PURPOSE STATEMENT: 1518 The planning commission or historic landmark commission may delegate its authority as 1519 necessary to the planning director to make a determination regarding special exceptions. The 1520 planning director may approve the special exceptions authorized by this title in accordance 39 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1521 with the procedures and standards set out in this chapter and other regulations applicable to 1522 the district in which the subject property is located. 1523 1524 1525 21A.52.020: DEFINITION: 1526 1527 A “special exception” is an activity or use incidental to or in addition to the principal use(s) 1528 permitted in a zoning district or an adjustment to a fixed dimension standard permitted as 1529 exceptions to the requirements of this title of less potential impact than a conditional use but 1530 which requires a careful review of such factors as location, design, configuration and/or 1531 impacts to determine the desirability of authorizing its establishment on any given site. 1532 1533 1534 21A.52.030: SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AUTHORIZED: 1535 1536 A. In addition to any other special exceptions authorized elsewhere in this title, the 1537 following special exceptions are authorized under the provisions of this title: 1538 1539 1. Accessory building height, including wall height, in excess of the permitted height 1540 provided: 1541 1542 a. The extra height is for architectural purposes only, such as a steep roof to match 1543 existing primary structure or neighborhood character. 1544 b. The extra height is to be used for storage of household goods or truss webbing 1545 and not to create a second level. 1546 c. No windows are located in the roof or on the second level unless it is a design 1547 feature only. 1548 d. No commercial use is made of the structure or residential use unless it complies 1549 with the accessory dwelling unit regulations in this title. 1550 1551 2. Accessory structures in the front yard of double frontage lots, which do not have any 1552 rear yard provided: 1553 1554 a. The required sight visibility triangle shall be maintained at all times. 1555 b. The structure meets all other size and height limits governed by the zoning 1556 ordinance. 1557 1558 3. Additional height for fences, walls or similar structures may be granted to exceed the 1559 height limits established for fences and walls in chapter 21A.40 of this title if it is 1560 determined that there will be no negative impacts upon the established character of 1561 the affected neighborhood and streetscape, maintenance of public and private views, 1562 and matters of public safety. Approval of fences, walls and other similar structures 40 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1563 may be granted under the following circumstances subject to compliance with other 1564 applicable requirements: 1565 1566 a. Exceeding the allowable height limits; provided, that the fence, wall or structure 1567 is constructed of wrought iron, tubular steel or other similar material, and that the 1568 open, spatial and nonstructural area of the fence, wall or other similar structure 1569 constitutes at least eighty percent (80%) of its total area; 1570 b. Exceeding the allowable height limits on any corner lot; unless the city’s traffic 1571 engineer determines that permitting the additional height would cause an unsafe 1572 traffic condition; 1573 c. Incorporation of ornamental features or architectural embellishments which 1574 extend above the allowable height limits; 1575 d. Exceeding the allowable height limits, when erected around schools and approved 1576 recreational uses which require special height considerations; 1577 e. Exceeding the allowable height limits, in cases where it is determined that a 1578 negative impact occurs because of levels of noise, pollution, light or other 1579 encroachments on the rights to privacy, safety, security and aesthetics; 1580 f. Keeping within the character of the neighborhood and urban design of the city; 1581 g. Avoiding a walled-in effect in the front yard of any property in a residential 1582 district where the clear character of the neighborhood in front yard areas is one of 1583 open spaces from property to property; or 1584 h. Posing a safety hazard when there is a driveway on the petitioner’s property or 1585 neighbor’s property adjacent to the proposed fence, wall or similar structure. 1586 1587 4. Additional building height in commercial districts are subject to the standards 1588 in chapter 21A.26 of this title. 1589 5. Additional foothills building height, including wall height, shall comply with the 1590 standards in chapter 21A.24 of this title. 1591 6. Additional residential building height, including wall height, in the R-1 districts, R-2 1592 districts and SR districts shall comply with the standards in chapter 21A.24 of this 1593 title. 1594 7. Any alternative to off street parking not listed in chapter 21A.44 of this title intended 1595 to meet the number of required off street parking spaces. 1596 8. Barbed wire fences may be approved subject to the regulations of chapter 21A.40 of 1597 this title. 1598 9. Conditional home occupations subject to the regulations and conditions of chapter 1599 21A.36 of this title. 1600 10. Dividing existing lots containing two (2) or more separate residential structures into 1601 separate lots that would not meet lot size, frontage width or setbacks provided: 1602 1603 a. The residential structures for the proposed lot split already exist and were 1604 constructed legally. 1605 b. The planning director agrees and is willing to approve a subdivision application. 41 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1606 c. Required parking equal to the parking requirement that existed at the time that 1607 each dwelling unit was constructed. 1608 1609 11. Use of the front yard for required parking when the rear or side yards cannot be 1610 accessed and it is not feasible to build an attached garage that conforms to yard area 1611 and setback requirements, subject to the standards found in chapter 21A.44 of this 1612 title. 1613 12. Grade changes and retaining walls are subject to the regulations and standards 1614 of chapter 21A.36 of this title. 1615 13. Ground mounted central air conditioning compressors or systems, heating, 1616 ventilating, pool and filtering equipment located in required side and rear yards 1617 within four feet (4’) of the property line. The mechanical equipment shall comply 1618 with applicable Salt Lake County health department noise standards. 1619 14. Hobby shop, art studio, exercise room or a dressing room adjacent to a swimming 1620 pool, or other similar uses in an accessory structure, subject to the following 1621 conditions: 1622 1623 a. The height of the accessory structure shall not exceed the height limit established 1624 by the underlying zoning district unless a special exception allowing additional 1625 height is allowed. 1626 b. If an accessory building is located within ten feet (10’) of a property line, no 1627 windows shall be allowed in the walls adjacent to the property lines. 1628 c. If the accessory building is detached, it must be located in the rear yard. 1629 d. The total covered area for an accessory building shall not exceed fifty percent 1630 (50%) of the building footprint of the principal structure, subject to all accessory 1631 building size limitations. 1632 1633 15. In line additions to existing residential or commercial buildings, which are 1634 noncomplying as to yard area or height regulations provided: 1635 1636 a. The addition follows the existing building line and does not create any new 1637 noncompliance. 1638 b. No additional dwelling units are added to the structure. 1639 c. The addition is a legitimate architectural addition with rooflines and exterior 1640 materials designed to be compatible with the original structure. 1641 1642 16. Operation of registered home daycare or registered home preschool facility in 1643 residential districts subject to the standards of chapter 21A.36 of this title. 1644 17. Outdoor dining in required front, rear and side yards subject to the regulations and 1645 standards of chapter 21A.40 of this title. 1646 18. Razor wire fencing may be approved subject to the regulations and standards 1647 in chapter 21A.40 of this title. 42 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1648 19. Replacement or reconstruction of any existing noncomplying segment of a residential 1649 or commercial structure or full replacement of a noncomplying accessory structure 1650 provided: 1651 1652 a. The owner documents that the new construction does not encroach farther into 1653 any required rear yard than the structure being replaced. 1654 b. The addition or replacement is compatible in design, size and architectural style 1655 with the remaining or previous structure. 1656 1657 20. Underground building encroachments into the front, side, rear and corner side yard 1658 setbacks provided the addition is totally underground and there is no visual evidence 1659 that such an encroachment exists. 1660 21. Window mounted refrigerated air conditioner and evaporative swamp coolers located 1661 in required front, corner, side and rear yards within two feet (2’) of a property line 1662 shall comply with applicable Salt Lake County health department noise standards. 1663 22. Vehicle and equipment storage without hard surfacing in the CG, M-1, M-2 or EI 1664 districts, subject to the standards in chapter 21A.44 of this title. 1665 23. Ground mounted utility boxes may be approved subject to the regulations and 1666 standards of section 21A.40.160 of this title. 1667 24. Legalization of excess dwelling units may be granted subject to the following 1668 requirements and standards: 1669 1670 a. Purpose: The purpose of this subsection is to implement the existing Salt Lake 1671 City community housing plan. This plan emphasizes maintaining existing housing 1672 stock in a safe manner that contributes to the vitality and sustainability of 1673 neighborhoods within the city. This subsection provides a process that gives 1674 owners of property with one or more excess dwelling units not recognized by the 1675 city an opportunity to legalize such units based on the standards set forth in this 1676 subsection. 1677 b. Review Standards: A dwelling unit that is proposed to be legalized pursuant to 1678 this subsection shall comply with the following standards. 1679 1680 (1) The dwelling unit existed prior to April 12, 1995. In order to determine 1681 whether a dwelling unit was in existence prior to April 12, 1995, the unit 1682 owner shall provide documentation thereof which may include any of the 1683 following: 1684 1685 (A) Copies of lease or rental agreements, lease or rent payments, or other 1686 similar documentation showing a transaction between the unit owner and 1687 tenants; 1688 (B)Evidence indicating that prior to April 12, 1995, the city issued a building 1689 permit, business license, zoning certificate, or other permit relating to the 1690 dwelling unit in question; 43 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1691 (C)Utility records indicating existence of a dwelling unit; 1692 (D)Historic surveys recognized by the Planning Director as being performed 1693 by a trained professional in historic preservation; 1694 (E) Notarized affidavits from a previous owner, tenant, or neighbor; 1695 (F) Polk, Cole, or phone directories that indicate existence of the dwelling unit 1696 (but not necessarily that the unit was occupied); and 1697 (G)Any other documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public 1698 record which indicates the existence of the excess unit prior to April 12, 1699 1995. 1700 1701 (2) The excess unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling unit since April 1702 12, 1995. In order to determine if a unit has been maintained as a separate 1703 dwelling unit, the following may be considered: 1704 1705 (A)Evidence listed in subsection A24b(1) of this section indicates that the unit 1706 has been occupied at least once every five (5) calendar years; 1707 (B)Evidence that the unit was marketed for occupancy if the unit was 1708 unoccupied for more than five (5) consecutive years; 1709 (C)If evidence of maintaining a separate dwelling unit as required by 1710 subsections A24b(2)(A) and A24b(2)(B) of this section cannot be 1711 established, documentation of construction upgrades may be provided in 1712 lieu thereof. 1713 (D)Any documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public record 1714 which provides evidence that the unit was referenced as a separate 1715 dwelling unit at least once every five (5) years. 1716 1717 (3) The property where the dwelling unit is located: 1718 1719 (A)Can accommodate on site parking as required by this title, or 1720 (B)Is located within a one-fourth (1/4) mile radius of a fixed rail transit stop or 1721 bus stop in service at the time of legalization. 1722 1723 (4) Any active zoning violations occurring on the property must be resolved 1724 except for those related to excess units. 1725 1726 c. Conditions Of Approval: Any approved unit legalization shall be subject to the 1727 following conditions: 1728 1729 (1) The unit owner shall apply for a business license, when required, within 1730 fourteen (14) days of special exception approval. 1731 (2) The unit owner shall allow the City’s building official or designee to inspect 1732 the dwelling unit to determine whether the unit substantially complies with 1733 basic life safety requirements as provided in title 18, chapter 18.50, “Existing 44 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1734 Residential Housing”, of this Code. Such inspection shall occur within ninety 1735 (90) days of special exception approval or as mutually agreed by the unit 1736 owner and the City. 1737 (3) All required corrections indicated during the inspection process must be 1738 completed within one year unless granted an extension by the Zoning 1739 Administrator. 1740 1741 d. Application: In addition to the application requirements in this chapter, an 1742 applicant shall submit documentation showing compliance with the standards set 1743 forth in subsection A24b of this section. 1744 1745 25. Designation, modification, relocation, or reinstatement of a vintage sign as 1746 per chapter 21A.46 of this title. 1747 26. Additional height for sports related light poles such as light poles for ballparks, 1748 stadiums, soccer fields, golf driving ranges and sport fields or where sports lights are 1749 located closer than thirty feet (30’) from adjacent residential structures. 1750 1751 1752 21A.52.040: PROCEDURE: 1753 1754 A. An application for a special exception shall be processed in accordance with the 1755 following procedures: 1756 1757 1. Application: An application may be made by the owner of the subject property or the 1758 owner’s authorized agent to the Planning Director on a form or forms provided by the 1759 Planning Director, which shall include at least the following information, unless 1760 deemed unnecessary by the Planning Director: 1761 1762 a. The applicant’s name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and interest in 1763 the subject property; 1764 b. The owner’s name, address and telephone number, if different than the applicant, 1765 and the owner’s signed consent to the filing of the application; 1766 c. The street address and legal description of the subject property; 1767 d. The Salt Lake County property tax number; 1768 e. The proposed title of the project and the names, addresses and telephone numbers 1769 of the architect, landscape architect, planner or engineer on the project; 1770 f. A complete description of the proposed special exception; 1771 g. A plan or drawing drawn to a scale of one inch equals twenty feet (1” = 20’) or 1772 larger which includes the following information: 1773 1774 (1) Actual dimensions of the lot, 1775 (2) Exact sizes and location of all existing and proposed buildings or other 1776 structures, 45 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1777 (3) Driveways, 1778 (4) Parking spaces, 1779 (5) Safety curbs, 1780 (6) Landscaping, 1781 (7) Location of trash receptacles, and 1782 (8) Drainage features; 1783 1784 h. Traffic impact analysis; 1785 i. Such other and further information or documentation as the planning director may 1786 deem necessary or appropriate for a full and proper consideration and disposition 1787 of the particular application. 1788 1789 2. Determination Of Completeness: Upon receipt of an application for a special 1790 exception, the planning director shall make a determination of completeness pursuant 1791 to chapter 21A.10 of this title, and that the applicant has submitted all of the 1792 information necessary to satisfy the notification requirements of chapter 21A.10 of 1793 this title. 1794 3. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the Salt 1795 Lake City consolidated fee schedule. Where applicable, the applicant shall also be 1796 responsible for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice 1797 required by chapter 21A.10 of this title. 1798 4. Notice: A notice of application for a special exception shall be provided in 1799 accordance with chapter 21A.10 of this title. 1800 5. Approval Process: The approval process for a special exception as listed in this title is 1801 a two (2) tiered process as follows: 1802 1803 a. Review And Decision By The Planning Director: On the basis of written findings 1804 of fact, the planning director or the planning director’s designee shall either 1805 approve, deny or conditionally approve an application for a special exception 1806 based on the standards in this chapter. The decision of the planning director shall 1807 become effective at the time the decision is made. 1808 b. Referral Of Application By Planning Director To Planning Commission: The 1809 planning director or the planning director’s designee may refer any application to 1810 the planning commission due to the complexity of the application, the 1811 significance in change to the property or the surrounding area. 1812 1813 1814 21A.52.050: COORDINATED REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS: 1815 1816 Whenever an application for a special exception requires a variance, the applicant shall 1817 indicate that fact on the application and shall first file a variance application with the appeals 1818 hearing officer. The special exception shall then be reviewed after a public hearing by the 1819 appeals hearing officer on the variance request. 46 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1820 1821 1822 21A.52.060: GENERAL STANDARDS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR SPECIAL 1823 EXCEPTIONS: 1824 1825 No application for a special exception shall be approved unless the planning commission, 1826 historic landmark commission, or the planning director determines that the proposed special 1827 exception is appropriate in the location proposed based upon its consideration of the general 1828 standards set forth below and, where applicable, the specific conditions for certain special 1829 exceptions. 1830 1831 A. Compliance With Zoning Ordinance And District Purposes: The proposed use and 1832 development will be in harmony with the general and specific purposes for which this 1833 title was enacted and for which the regulations of the district were established. 1834 B. No Substantial Impairment Of Property Value: The proposed use and development will 1835 not substantially diminish or impair the value of the property within the neighborhood in 1836 which it is located. 1837 C. No Undue Adverse Impact: The proposed use and development will not have a material 1838 adverse effect upon the character of the area or the public health, safety and general 1839 welfare. 1840 D. Compatible With Surrounding Development: The proposed special exception will be 1841 constructed, arranged and operated so as to be compatible with the use and development 1842 of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable district regulations. 1843 E. No Destruction Of Significant Features: The proposed use and development will not 1844 result in the destruction, loss or damage of natural, scenic or historic features of 1845 significant importance. 1846 F. No Material Pollution Of Environment: The proposed use and development will not 1847 cause material air, water, soil or noise pollution or other types of pollution. 1848 G. Compliance With Standards: The proposed use and development complies with all 1849 additional standards imposed on it pursuant to this chapter. 1850 1851 1852 21A.52.070: CONDITIONS ON SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: 1853 1854 Conditions and limitations necessary or appropriate to prevent or minimize adverse effects 1855 upon other property and improvements in the vicinity of the special exception or upon public 1856 facilities and services may be imposed on each application. These conditions may include, 1857 but are not limited to, conditions concerning use, construction, operation, character, location, 1858 landscaping, screening and other matters relating to the purposes and objectives of this title. 1859 Such conditions shall be expressly set forth in the approval record of the special exception. 1860 1861 1862 21A.52.080: RELATION OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION: 47 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1863 1864 A special exception shall be deemed to relate to, and be for the benefit of, the use and lot in 1865 question rather than the owner or operator of such use or lot. 1866 1867 1868 21A.52.090: AMENDMENTS TO SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: 1869 1870 A special exception may be amended, varied or altered only pursuant to the procedures and 1871 subject to the standards and limitations provided in this chapter for its original approval. 1872 1873 1874 21A.52.100: EXTENSIONS OF TIME: 1875 1876 Subject to an extension of time granted upon application to the planning director, no special 1877 exception shall be valid for a period longer than one year unless a building permit is issued or 1878 complete building plans have been submitted to the division of building services and 1879 licensing within that period. The planning director may grant an extension of a special 1880 exception for up to one additional year when the applicant is able to demonstrate no change 1881 in circumstance that would result in an unmitigated impact. Extension requests must be 1882 submitted to the planning director in writing prior to the expiration of the exception. 1883 1884 1885 21A.52.110: AUTHORITY TO INSPECT: 1886 1887 The planning director or their designee shall have the authority to inspect all properties for 1888 compliance with special exception conditions as often as necessary to assure continued 1889 compliance. 1890 1891 1892 21A.52.120: APPEAL OF DECISION: 1893 1894 A. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning director may appeal the decision to the 1895 planning commission pursuant to the provisions in chapter 21A.16 of this title. 1896 B. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning commission on an application for a 1897 special exception may file an appeal to the appeals hearing officer within ten (10) days of 1898 the date of the decision. The filing of the appeal shall not stay the decision of the 1899 planning commission pending the outcome of the appeal, unless the planning commission 1900 takes specific action to stay a decision. 1901 1902 1903 21A.52.130: REVOCATION OF SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: 1904 48 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1905 Violation of any such condition or limitation shall be a violation of this title and shall 1906 constitute grounds for revocation of the special exception. If the planning director determines 1907 that the conditions of a special exception or other applicable provisions of this title are not 1908 met, the planning director may initiate action to revoke a special exception. 1909 1910 A. Notice: Notice of a hearing by the planning commission to consider revocation shall be 1911 given pursuant to the requirements of chapter 21A.10 of this title. The notice shall inform 1912 the holder of the special exception of the grounds for the revocation and set a hearing 1913 date. 1914 B. Public Hearing: The scheduled hearing shall conform to the requirements of chapter 1915 21A.10 of this title. 1916 C. Planning Commission Decision: Following the hearing, the planning commission shall 1917 decide whether or not to revoke the special exception in accordance with the findings and 1918 decisions in chapter 21A.10 of this title. 1919 1920 1921 21A.52.140: EFFECT ON DENIAL OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION: 1922 1923 No application for a special exception shall be considered by the planning commission or the 1924 planning commission’s designee within one year of a final decision upon a prior application 1925 covering substantially the same subject on substantially the same property if the prior 1926 application was denied and not appealed. 1927 1928 SECTION 44. Amending the text of the Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020 (List of 1929 Defined Terms) by adding the following term in alphabetical order: 1930 Ground mounted utility box. 1931 1932 1933 SECTION 45. Adding the following definition in alphabetical order in alphabetical order 1934 to Section 21A.62.040 (Definition of Terms) of the Salt Lake City Code as follows: 1935 Ground mounted utility boxes: shall mean such equipment and facilities, including pedestals, 1936 boxes, cabinets, meters or other ground mounted facilities and associated equipment that 1937 extend over 6 inches above ground level used for the transmission or distribution of utilities. 1938 1939 SECTION 46. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 1940 first publication. 49 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1941 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 1942 2021. 1943 ______________________________ 1944 CHAIRPERSON 1945 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 1946 1947 ______________________________ 1948 CITY RECORDER 1949 1950 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 1951 1952 1953 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 1954 1955 ______________________________ 1956 MAYOR 1957 ______________________________ 1958 CITY RECORDER 1959 (SEAL) 1960 1961 Bill No. ________ of 2021. 1962 Published: ______________. 19631964 Ordinance deleting special exceptions (legislative) 10.12.21 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: PLNPCM2020-00606 Text amendment eliminating the special exception process from Title 21A. STAFF CONTACT: Nick Norris, Planning Director, 801-641-1728 or nick.norris@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the proposal as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: If adopted, revenue from application fees would decrease approximately $43,000.00 (application fee of ($265) x average number of applications submitted annual (156)) BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The purpose of this proposal is to amend the zoning ordinance related to special exceptions to accomplish the following: Simplify the zoning ordinance by updating regulations and eliminating special exceptions; Reallocate staff resources away from processing land use applications that favor individual properties and towards updating zoning codes to align with adopted master plans; Increase predictability and reduce neighbor conflicts that are created by requests for exceptions to the zoning regulations; This proposal would eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance and make changes to multiple sections of the zoning ordinance to address each of the 42 authorized 1 March 18, 2021 Lisa Shaffer (Mar 23, 2021 12:47 MDT) 03/23/2021 03/23/2021 special exceptions. Each of the authorized special exceptions would be addressed in one of the following ways: Prohibited and no longer authorized; Permitted by right, some with qualifying provisions; Permitted through a different process within the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor change to a dimensional requirement or to approve accessory or ancillary uses on a property. Common examples of special exceptions include requests for exceptions to the maximum height requirements for buildings and fences, additions to existing buildings that do not comply with current setback requirements, grade changes over four feet in height, legalization of dwelling units when there is no record of the unit be permitted, and modifications to building bulk requirements in historic districts. The Planning Division receives approximately 150 applications for special exceptions each calendar year. The application fee is currently $265.00. The cost to process the applications is determined primarily by the hours of staff needed. The average processing time is about 17 hours and includes application intake, review for completeness, preparing public notices, routing for departmental review, reviewing the proposal to verify that applicable standards and other zoning regulations are complied with, explaining the proposals to neighbors who receive notice, determining if the proposal impacts neighbors and if so applying conditions to reduce those impacts, and producing decision letters. Some special exceptions require approval by the Planning Commission or Historic Landmark Commission. Additional tasks are required that include preparing staff reports, scheduling and noticing public hearings, and preparing for presentations for the public hearing. The level of public engagement increases because public hearing notices are mailed to a broader segment of the neighborhood. Special exceptions that are reviewed by one of the commissions require approximately 52 staff hours. Based on this information, the cost to the city to process a typical special exception application that is approved by staff is between approximately $460.00 and $575.00 depending on the classification of the planner processing the application. The application fee covers between 48- 57% of the cost. If the special exception is required to go to a commission for approval, the staff hour cost increases to between $1,370.00 and $1,765.00 which is 5-6.6 times the application fee. The application fee only covers between 15% and 52% of the cost to process which means that the rest of the cost is subsidized by the city. There are some exceptions that will be prohibited by this proposal. These exceptions are being eliminated because the make up the bulk of denied special exceptions, there are other processes to address the exception already in the zoning ordinance, or due to the high level of controversy that are generated by the exceptions. The following is a short list of exceptions that will no longer be allowed: Additional height for dwellings in residential districts unless the block face already has buildings that exceed the current height limit or the property is located in a historic district; Additional height for fences, including in the front yard. Changes to fence height regulations were initiated by the City Council in 2019. This is being processed separately because fence height regulations impact every single parcel of land in the city; 2 Ground mounted utility boxes in rights of way unless the box serves the broader neighborhood or community; Grade changes and retaining walls over six feet in height that are not broken up by a horizontal step. This change was also initiated by the City Council in 2016 after a very tall retaining wall was built in the upper Federal Heights neighborhood. Most special exceptions do not generate public input and either require no conditions of approval or require consistent conditions of approval regardless of the property location. The special exceptions that fall into this category will be allowed by right and some of them will have specific qualifying provisions. These are detailed in the Planning Commission staff report from November 18, 2020 (Attachment 3.a.iii). There are some special exceptions that have generated public input during the process, that the Planning Division identified as potentially impactful, that the Planning Commission asked for more detailed information, or that have generated enforcement actions by the city. These special exceptions are summarized in detail in the Planning Commission staff reports, but briefly discussed here for reference: Historic Landmark Commission would retain authority to make modifications to dimensional requirements through existing processes in 21A.34.020 Historic Preservation Overlay District. Ground mounted utility boxes will be required to be on private property when serving individual developments. Accessory building heights would be able to increase slightly up to a district specific maximum with increased setbacks. Outdoor dining would be permitted with qualifying provisions intended to reduce the impact when next to residential zoning districts, including a setback from the shared property line and time limitations for outdoor music. Front yard parking would be allowed for residential uses only when no other yard is accessible for parking and there is no option for an attached garage. Inline additions would be allowed to follow existing building lines in front and rear yards. In side yards, an inline addition would be allowed to extend an existing wall that doesn’t met setbacks up to 25% of the length of the wall. In commercial zoning districts, building height would be allowed to be increased by up to 10% if the lot is sloped, the increased height is not creating an additional habitable, upper level to the building, and at least 50% of the building complies with the height requirement. Zoning districts where vintage signs can be used as art are expanding to include the following zoning districts: CSHBD-2, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB-SC, FB-SE, and TSA. Vintage signs as art is already authorized in the D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, G-MU, and CSHBD1 zoning districts. PUBLIC PROCESS: The proposed changes went through an early engagement process that included notice to all recognized organizations, notice to AIA Utah, and notice to the Planning Divisions email list. The official early engagement period started on August 13 and ended on October 10, 2020. The public information document on this topic that was posted on the 3 Planning Division website was accessed by 147 individuals during this period. Comments were submitted from the Sugar House Community Council and four individuals. After the early engagement period several changes were made to the proposal in response to the comments. These changes included expanding the zoning districts where vintage signs could be placed as public art, modifying the inline addition regulations to allow minor extensions to buildings walls that do not meet current side yard setback requirements, and changes to the location of mechanical equipment when next to driveways, parking areas, or accessory buildings. As part of the public review process the Planning Division also reviewed zoning complaints to determine what types of issues are commonly associated with complaints related to special exceptions. The most common complaint was associated with mechanical equipment and outdoor dining. The outdoor dining regulations were modified to include a 10-foot setback when adjacent to a residential zone and hours that music could be played outdoors. Changes to the mechanical equipment regulations include prohibiting equipment from being placed on the roofs of accessory buildings and requiring screening when locating in a front or corner side yard. The Planning Commission held a work session on September 30, 2020 to review the proposal and provide input. The meeting was held virtually and broadcast on the City’s YouTube channel, Channel 17 and through the WebEx platform. During the work session, the PC directed the Planning Division to address the following issues: 1. Front yard parking when there are no other options for off street parking on the site; 2. Extra building height in commercial districts on sloping lots; 3. Inline additions within noncomplying side yards; 4. Ground mounted utility boxes; and 5. Accessory structure building height. The proposal was modified to address the issues. Front yard parking would be allowed in very limited situations with specific dimensional requirements; maximum building height in commercial zoning districts would be allowed up to a 10% increase in building height on sloping lots and the extra height does not result in the creation of an additional story; inline additions were limited in scale; ground mounted utility boxes were prohibited in rights of way when serving only a private development; and up to a 25% increase in accessory building height was allowed with an equal increase in setback. The Historic Landmarks Commission held a virtual public hearing on the proposal on November 5, 2020. The meeting was broadcast on the City’s YouTube channel and Channel 17 and available through the WebEx platform. The public was able to submit comments during the meeting to a public comment email address that was monitored by staff during the meeting. One person spoke during the public hearing and discussed the importance that the proposal maintains the authority of the HLC to modify lot and bulk modifications within local historic districts and for landmark sites. The HLC adopted a motion recommended that the City Council adopt the proposal. The Planning Commission held a virtual public hearing on November 18, 2020. The meeting was broadcast on the City’s YouTube channel and Channel 17 and available through the WebEx platform. The public was able to submit comments during the meeting to a public comment 4 email address that was monitored by staff during the meeting. Two people spoke during the public hearing, one person in favor of the proposal for streamlining approval processes and the resulting reallocation of staff resources to other city planning needs. Another person discussed the impact of making more things permitted and the loss of notice associated with that. It should be noted that notice is only sent to adjacent property owners/occupants and to property owners directly across the street. Nearly of all special exception requests are approved by staff after the noticing period ends. The special exceptions that generate the most opposition and are make up the bulk of denials include requests for extra height for single family homes and over height fences. These two options are being deleted as part of this proposal and would no longer be allowed. After discussing these issues, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted a motion recommending that the City Council adopt the proposal. It should be noted that this petition has no direct mailing list because the text amendment does not directly impact specific properties, no property owners or stakeholders indicated that they would like to receive notice regarding the changes, and no entities have requested direct notice related to special exceptions. EXHIBITS: 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3. Planning Commission Meetings A. November 18, 2020 Public Hearing i. Agenda and Minutes ii. Hearing Notice iii. Staff Report B. September 30, 2020 Work Session i. Agenda and Minutes ii. Staff Report 4. Historic Landmark Commission Meeting November 5, 2020 A. Agenda and Minutes B. Staff Report 5. Original Petition 5 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2021 (An ordinance amending various sections of the Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to eliminate special exceptions from that title) An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00606 to eliminate special exceptions from the city’s zoning ordinances. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 18, 2020 to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Erin Mendenhall (Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00606) to amend portions of Chapters 21A.06 (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials); 21A.24 (Zoning: Residential Districts); 21A.26 (Zoning: Commercial Districts); 21A.32 (Zoning: Special Purpose Districts); 21A.34 (Zoning: Overlay Districts); 21A.36 (Zoning: General Provisions); 21A.38 (Zoning: Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures); 21A.40 (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures); 21A.44 (Zoning: Off Street Parking, Mobility and Loading); 21A.46 (Zoning: Signs) 21A.52 (Zoning : Special Exceptions); 21A.60 (Zoning: Defined Terms); and 21A.62 (Zoning: Definitions) of the Salt Lake City Code to modify regulations pertaining to off street parking; and WHEREAS, at its November 18, 2020 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 2 SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.06.050.C.6 as follows: 6. Review and approve or deny certain modifications to dimensional standards for properties located within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District. This authority is also granted to the planning director or designee for applications within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District that are eligible for administrative approval by the planning director or zoning administrator. The certain modifications to zoning district specific development standards are listed as follows and are in addition to any modification authorized elsewhere in this title: a. Building wall height; b. Accessory structure wall height; c. Accessory structure square footage; d. Fence height; e. Overall building and accessory structure height; f. Signs pursuant to Section 21A.46.070 of this title; and g. Any modification to bulk and lot regulations, except density, of the underlying zoning district where it is found that the proposal complies with the applicable standards identified in Section 21A.34.020 and is compatible with the surrounding historic structures. SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.010.P.2 as follows: 2. Repealed. SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.010.P.6 (Grade Changes) as follows: 6. Grade Changes: No grading shall be permitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. The grade of any lot shall not be altered above or below established grade more than 4 feet at any point for the construction of any structure or improvement except: a. Within the buildable area. Proposals to modify established grade more than 6 feet shall be permitted for the construction of below grade portions of structures, egress windows, and building entrances. Grade change transition areas between a yard area and the buildable area shall be within the buildable area; b. Within the side and rear yard areas, grade changes greater than 4 feet are permitted provided: 3 (1) The grade change is supported by retaining walls. (2) No individual retaining wall exceeds 6 feet in height. c. Within the required front and corner side yards, grade changes up to 6 feet in height are permitted provided: (1) The grade change is necessary for driveways accessing legally located parking areas; and (2) The grade changes are supported by retaining walls. SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.050.D.6 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.060.D.6 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.070.D.6 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.080.D.6 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 6. Additional Building Height: Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay 4 District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.100.D.6 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 9. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.110.D.6 (Maximum Building Height) as follows: 6. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the historic landmark commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 10. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.26.010.J (Modifications to Maximum Height) as follows: J. Modifications to Maximum Height: The maximum height of buildings in commercial zoning districts may be increased up to 10% on any building face due to the natural topography of the site pursuant to the following standards: 1. At least 50% of the building complies with the maximum height of the underlying zoning district; 2. The modification allows the upper floor of a building to be level with the portion of the building that complies with the maximum building height of the zone without the 10% modification; and 3. The height of the ground floor is at least 12 feet in height measured from finished floor to finished ceiling height. SECTION 11. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.32.100.D.3 as follows: 5 3. Recreation equipment heights are permitted to a height not to exceed 80 feet when needed due to the nature of the equipment or for the use to operate safely, such as fences surrounding golf course driving ranges. SECTION 12. Amending to the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.32.100.D as follows: D. Maximum Building and Recreation Equipment Height: 1. Lots 4 acres or less: Building height shall be limited to 35 feet; provided that for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet, each required yard and landscaped yard shall be increased one foot. 2. Lots greater than 4 acres: Building heights in excess of 35 feet but not more than 45 feet may be permitted provided, that for each foot of height over 35 feet, each required yard and landscaped yard shall be increased one foot. Building heights in excess of 45 feet up to 60 feet may be approved through the design review process and that for each foot of height over 35 feet, each required yard and landscaped yard shall be increased one foot. 3. Recreation equipment heights or heights for buildings or structures for the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department that are not specifically exempt in Section 21A.02.050 of this title, in excess of 60 feet may be approved through the special exception process. 4. Heights for buildings or structures for the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department that are not specifically exempt in Section 21A.02.050 of this title, are exempt from the height restrictions in this zoning district provided the building or structure is deemed by the director of the public utilities department as critical infrastructure necessary to provide specific utility needs to the public. SECTION 13. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.32.100.H (Lighting) as follows: H. Lighting: All uses and developments that provide lighting shall ensure that lighting installations comply with the following standards: 1. Lighting is installed in a manner and location that will not have an adverse impact on the natural environment when placed in areas with wildlife habitat, traffic safety or on surrounding properties and uses; 2. Light sources shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into adjacent properties and have cutoffs to protect the view of the night sky; and 3. Light poles for outdoor uses, such as sports fields, amphitheaters, and other similar uses may be permitted up to 70 feet in height provided the lights are located a 6 minimum of 30 feet from a residential use and directed to reduce light trespass onto neighboring properties. SECTION 14. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.34.120.G (Special Exception for Garages) as follows: G. Garages Built into Hillsides in Front or Corner Side Yards: A garage built into a hillside and located forward of the front line of the building may be allowed subject to the following standards: 1. The rear and side yards cannot be reasonably accessed for the purpose of parking. 2. Because of the topography of the lot it is impossible to construct a garage and satisfy the standards of the YCI. 3. The ceiling elevation of the garage is below the elevation of the first or main floor of the house. 4. The garage meets all applicable yard requirements. SECTION 15. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection Table 21A.36.020.B (Obstructions in Required Yards) as follows (only the identified rows and columns in the table are amended): TABLE 21A.36.020B OBSTRUCTIONS IN REQUIRED YARDS1 Type Oof Structure Oor Use Obstruction Front and Corner Side Yards Side Yard Rear Yard Below grade encroachments underground obstructions when there is no exterior evidence of the underground structure other than entrances and required venting provided there are no conflicts with any easements or publicly owned infrastructure or utilities. X X X Changes of established grade of 4 feet or less except for the FP and FR Districts which shall be subject to the provisions of Subsection 21A.24.010.P of this title. (All grade changes located on a property line shall be supported by a retaining wall.) Grade changes greater than 4 feet in height provided the grade change includes a retaining wall, a horizontal step that is a minimum of 3 feet in depth is provided for every 4 vertical feet of retaining wall. X X X 7 Laundry drying equipment (clothesline and poles) X X X Window mounted refrigerated air conditioners and evaporative “swamp” coolers located at least 2 feet from the property line. X X X Notes: 1. ”X” denotes where obstructions are allowed. 2. Reserved. 3. The accessory structure shall be located wholly behind the primary structure on the property. SECTION 16. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.36.350.A.3.c.(3) as follows: (3) A decorative masonry wall that is a minimum of 6 feet high shall be provided along all interior side and rear lot lines and that complies with all required site distance triangles at driveways and walkways. Walls in excess of 6 feet may be required as a condition of approval of a conditional use if it determines a taller wall is necessary to mitigate a detrimental impact created by the homeless resource center or homeless shelter; SECTION 17. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.38.040.H.2 (Enlargement of a Structure With a Nonconforming Use) as follows: 2. Enlargement of a Nonconforming Use: Enlargement of a legal nonconforming use are limited to a one time expansion of up to 25% of the gross floor area, or 1,000 gross square feet, whichever is less and subject to the site being able to provide required off street parking that complies with any applicable parking requirement of this title. An approved expansion shall be documented through an updated zoning certificate for the property. Any expansion to the nonconforming use beyond these limits is not permitted. The expansion shall be limited to a one-time expansion after April 12, 1995, the effective date of this title. Any expansion granted as a special exception after April 12, 1995 shall be considered as fulfilling the one-time expansion. SECTION 18. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.38.050.B (Enlargement) as follows: B. Enlargement: A noncomplying structure may be enlarged if such enlargement and its location comply with the standards of the zoning district in which it is located or as provided in this section. 1. Noncomplying as to setbacks. 8 a. Front yard: A principal building with a front yard setback that is less than the minimum required may be enlarged provided the addition does not further reduce the existing front yard setback and complies with all other applicable requirements of Title 21A. b. Corner side yards: A principal building with a corner side yard setback that is less than the minimum required may be enlarged provided the addition does not further reduce the existing corner side yard setback and complies with all other applicable requirements of Title 21A. c. Interior side yards: Additions to a principal structure with noncomplying side yard setback(s) are permitted as follows: (1) Single story additions are permitted to follow the existing setback line provided the following standards are complied with: i. The exterior wall height of the addition is equal to or less than the exterior wall height of the existing building. When a cross slope exists along the exterior wall, the interior floor to ceiling height of the addition shall match the interior floor to ceiling height of the existing building. ii. The addition may extend the noncomplying exterior wall of the building up to 20% of the length of the existing wall. This shall be a one-time addition and no further additions are permitted. (2) Two story or greater additions shall comply with the side yard setback requirement(s) and maximum wall height as specified in the underlying zone. (3) In determining if a side yard is noncomplying, the narrower of the two side yards shall be interpreted to be the narrower side yard required in the underlying zoning district. (4) All other provisions of the underlying zoning district and any applicable overlay zoning district shall apply. d. Rear yards. A principal building noncomplying to rear yard setbacks may be expanded provided the expansion follows an existing noncomplying building wall and does not result in a decrease of the existing rear yard setback and complies with side and corner side yard setbacks of the underlying zoning district. If the building does not comply with the existing side or corner side yard setback, the expansion shall be permitted to extend to the side or corner side yard setback of the underlying zone. 2. Noncomplying as to Height: A principal structure that exceeds the maximum height of the underlying zoning district may be expanded at the existing height of the building provided the setbacks of the underlying zoning district are complied with. 9 SECTION 19. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.38.050.F (Replacement or Reconstruction of a Noncomplying Structure) as follows: F. The replacement or reconstruction of any existing noncomplying portion of a principal structure or full replacement of a noncomplying accessory structure is permitted provided the replacement is in the same location or in a location that reduces the degree of noncompliance and is of substantially the same dimension. Enlarging a full replacement of a noncomplying accessory structure is permitted provided the enlarged section complies with all setback, height, maximum square feet, and lot or yard coverage requirements. SECTION 20. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.38.060 (Noncomplying Lots) as follows: 21A.38.060: NONCOMPLYING LOTS: Subdividing Lots Containing Two or More Separate Principal Buildings: Lots that contain two or more separate principal buildings on a single parcel may be subdivided to place each structure on a separate lot subject to the following provisions: A. The properties shall be subdivided by recording of a plat. B. The proposed lots are exempt from the minimum lot area, lot width, lot coverage, and street frontage requirements of the underlying zoning district; C. The proposed setbacks shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director after consultation with applicable city departments; D. The proposed subdivision plat shall identify the front, corner side, interior side, and rear yards for the purpose of future development. E. Parking may be located anywhere within the proposed subdivision except front yards (unless already existing) and shall not be reduced below the existing off-street parking F. All lots that are part of the subdivision must include adequate access to a public street. Adequate access shall include pedestrian walkways and when off-street parking is required, vehicle access and parking. G. All necessary easements for access and utilities are shown on the plat. A note shall be added to indicate responsibility for maintenance of shared access and utilities. H. All other applicable regulations of the Salt Lake City Code shall apply. A lot that is noncomplying as to lot area or lot frontage that was in legal existence on the effective date of any amendment to this title that makes the existing lot noncomplying shall be considered a legal complying lot and is subject to the regulations of this title. Any noncomplying lot not approved by the city that was created prior to January 13, 1950, may be approved as a legal noncomplying lot subject to the lot meeting minimum zoning 10 requirements at the time the lot was created and documented through an updated zoning certificate for the property. Any noncomplying lot not approved by the city that was created on or between January 13, 1950 to April 12, 1995, may be approved as a legal noncomplying lot subject to the lot meeting minimum zoning and subdivision requirements at the time the lot was created and documented through an updated zoning certificate for the property. Noncomplying lots may be combined to create a conforming lot or more conforming lot subject to any maximum lot size standards of the zoning district in which the lot is located. SECTION 21. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.38.070 (Legal Conforming Single-Family Detached Dwelling, Two-Family Dwellings, and Twin Homes) as follows: Any legally existing single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling, or twin home shall be considered legal conforming. Legal conforming status shall authorize replacement of the single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling, or twin home structure to the extent of the original footprint. A. Alterations, Additions or Extensions or Replacement Structures Greater Than the Original Footprint: In zoning districts which do not allow detached single-family dwelling units, two-family dwelling units or twin homes, any alterations, extensions/additions or the replacement of the structure may exceed the original footprint by 25% of the existing structure subject to the following standards: 1. Any alterations, extensions/additions or the replacement structure shall not project into a required yard beyond any encroachment established by the structure being replaced. 2. All replacement structures in nonresidential zones are subject to the provisions of Section 21A.36.190, “Residential Building Standards for Legal Conforming Single- Family Detached Dwellings, Two-Family Dwellings and Twin Homes in Nonresidential Zoning Districts”, of this title. B. Off Street Parking: When replacing a legal conforming single- family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling or twin home, the number of new parking stalls provided shall be equal to or more than the number of parking stalls being replaced. The maximum number of outdoor parking stalls shall be 4 parking stalls per dwelling unit SECTION 22. Adopting a new Section 21A.38.075 (Unit Legalizations) to the text of the Salt Lake City Code as follows: 11 21A.38.075: UNIT LEGALIZATIONS: A. Purpose: The purpose of this subsection is to implement the existing Salt Lake City community housing plan by providing a process that gives owners of property with one or more excess dwelling units not recognized by the city an opportunity to legalize such units based on the standards set forth in this section. The intent is to maintain existing housing stock in a safe manner that contributes to the vitality and sustainability of neighborhoods within the city. B. Review Standards: A dwelling unit that is proposed to be legalized pursuant to this section shall comply with the following standards: 1. The dwelling unit existed prior to April 12, 1995. In order to determine whether a dwelling unit was in existence prior to April 12, 1995, the unit owner shall provide documentation thereof which may include any of the following: a. Copies of lease or rental agreements, lease or rent payments, or other similar documentation showing a transaction between the unit owner and tenants; b. Evidence indicating that prior to April 12, 1995, the city issued a building permit, business license, zoning certificate, or other permit relating to the dwelling unit in question; c. Utility records indicating existence of a dwelling unit; d. Historic surveys recognized by the planning director as being performed by a trained professional in historic preservation; e. Notarized affidavits from a previous owner, tenant, or neighbor; f. Polk, Cole, or phone directories that indicate existence of the dwelling unit (but not necessarily that the unit was occupied); or g. Any other documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public record which indicates the existence of the excess unit prior to April 12, 1995. 2. The excess unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling unit since April 12, 1995. In order to determine if a unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling unit, the following may be considered: a. Evidence listed in Subsection B.1 of this section indicates that the unit has been occupied at least once every 5 calendar years; b. Evidence that the unit was marketed for occupancy if the unit was unoccupied for more than 5 consecutive years; c. If evidence of maintaining a separate dwelling unit as required by Subsection B.1 of this section cannot be established, documentation of construction upgrades may be provided in lieu thereof. d. Any documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public record which provides evidence that the unit was referenced as a separate dwelling unit at least once every 5 years. 12 C. Conditions of Approval: Any approved unit legalization shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The unit owner shall allow the city’s building official or designee to inspect the dwelling unit to determine whether the unit substantially complies with basic life safety requirements as provided in Title 18, Chapter 18.50, “Existing Residential Housing”, of this code. 2. All required corrections indicated during the inspection process must be completed within 1 year unless granted an extension by the Building Official. D. Application: A determination of non-conforming use application, provided by the zoning administrator, shall be required to legalize unrecognized dwelling units. SECTION 23. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.040 “Use Limitations” as follows: 21A.40.040: USE LIMITATIONS: In addition to the applicable use limitations of the district regulations, no accessory use shall be permitted unless it complies with the restrictions set forth below: A. An accessory use shall be incidental and subordinate to the principal use or structure in area, extent and purpose; B. An accessory use, building or structure shall be under the same ownership or control as the principal use or structure, and shall be, except as otherwise expressly authorized by the provisions of this title, located on the same lot as the principal use or structure; C. No accessory use shall be established or constructed before the principal use is in operation or the structure is under construction in accordance with these regulations; D. No commercial sign, except as expressly authorized by this chapter or by the provisions of Chapter 21A.46 of this title, shall be maintained in connection with an accessory use or structure. E. An accessory use shall be permitted if it is routinely and customarily associated with the principal use and not otherwise prohibited by this title. For residential uses, this includes accessory uses that are customarily associated with a dwelling, such as home office, outdoor living space, pool houses, storage, personal use, hobbies, and other similar uses but does not include short term rentals or other uses not allowed in the zoning district. SECTION 24. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.050.A as follows: 13 A. Location of Accessory Buildings in Required Yards: 1. Front Yards: Accessory buildings are prohibited in any required front yard and shall be set back at least as far as the principal building when the principal building exceeds the required front yard setback. Notwithstanding the foregoing, hoop houses and cold frame structures up to 24 inches in height may be placed in a front yard. 2. Corner Lots: No accessory building on a corner lot shall be closer to the street than the distance required for corner side yards. At no time, however, shall an accessory building be closer than 20 feet to a public sidewalk or public pedestrianway and the accessory building shall be set back at least as far as the principal building. Notwithstanding the foregoing, hoop houses and cold frame structures up to 24 inches in height may be placed in a corner side yard. 3. Side Yards: Accessory buildings are prohibited in any required interior side yard; however, hoop houses, greenhouses, and cold frame structures associated solely with growing food and/or plants are allowed in an interior side yard but no closer than one foot to the corresponding lot line. If an addition to residential buildings results in an existing accessory building being located in a side yard, the existing accessory building shall be permitted to remain, subject to maintaining a 4 foot separation from the side of the accessory building to the side of the residential building, as required in Subsection A.4.b of this section. 4. Rear Yards: Location of accessory buildings in a rear yard shall be as follows: a. In residential districts, no accessory building shall be closer than one foot to a side or rear lot line except when sharing a common wall with an accessory building on an adjacent lot. In nonresidential districts, buildings may be built to side or rear lot lines in rear yards, provided the building complies with all applicable requirements of the adopted building code. b. No portion of the accessory building shall be built closer than 4 feet to any portion of the principal building; excluding cold frames associated solely with growing food and/or plants. c. Garages on 2 or more properties that are intended to provide accessory building use for the primary occupants of the properties, in which the garage is located, may be constructed in the rear yards, as a single structure subject to compliance with adopted building code regulations and the size limits for accessory buildings on each property as indicated herein. 5. Accessory or Principal Lot: No portion of an accessory building on either an accessory or principal lot may be built closer than 10 feet to any portion of a principal residential building on an adjacent lot when that adjacent lot is in a residential zoning district; excluding hoop houses, greenhouses, and cold frames associated solely with growing food and/or plants. 6. Double Frontage Lots: Accessory structures and buildings located on a property where both the front and rear yards have frontage on a street may be located in a front yard provided the accessory building or structure: 14 a. Is located in a provided yard that is directly opposite the front yard where the primary entrance to the principal building is located; b. Is in a location that is consistent with other accessory building locations on the block; c. Complies with any clear view triangle requirements of this title; and d. Complies with all other accessory building and structure requirements of this title. SECTION 25. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.050.C (Maximum Height of Accessory Structures) as follows: C. Maximum Height of Accessory Buildings/Structures: 1. Accessory to Residential Uses in the FP District, RMF Districts, RB, R-MU Districts, SNB and the RO District: The height of accessory buildings/structures in residential districts are measured from established grade to the highest point of the accessory building and shall conform to the following: a. The height of accessory structures with flat roofs shall not exceed 12 feet. The height of flat roof structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of the principal structure, not to exceed 15 feet provided the setbacks increases one foot for every one foot of building height above 12 feet. b. The height of accessory structures with pitched roofs shall not exceed 17 feet measured to the midpoint of the roof. The height of pitched roof structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of the principal structure, not exceed 15 feet provided the setbacks increase one foot for every one foot of structure height above 17 feet. 2. Accessory to Residential Uses in the FR, R-1 Districts, R-2 District and SR Districts: The height of accessory buildings/structures in the FR districts, R-1 districts, R-2 district and SR districts are measured from established grade to the highest point of the accessory structure and shall conform to the following: a. The height of accessory structures with flat roofs shall not exceed 12 feet; 9 feet in the SR-1A zoning district. The height of flat roof structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of the principal structure, not to exceed 15 feet or 11 feet in the SR-1A zoning district provided the setbacks are increased one foot for every one foot of building height above 12 feet or 9 feet in the SR-1A zoning district. b. The height of accessory structures with pitched roofs shall not exceed 17 feet at any given point of building coverage. In the SR-1A zoning district the height of accessory structures with pitched roofs shall not exceed 14 feet. The height of pitched roof structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of the principal structure, not to exceed 21 feet or 15 feet in the SR-1A zoning district provided 15 the setbacks are increased one foot for every one foot of building height above 17 feet or 15 feet in the SR-1A zoning district. SECTION 26. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.065 (Outdoor Dining) as follows: 21A.40.065: OUTDOOR DINING: “Outdoor dining”, as defined in Chapter 21A.62 of this title, shall be allowed in any zoning districts where restaurant and retail uses are allowed subject to the provisions of this section: A. Where allowed: 1. Within the buildable lot area; 2. Within a required or provided front or corner side yard; 3. Within a required side yard provided: the outdoor dining is setback a minimum of 10 feet when adjacent to a residential zoning district that does not permit restaurants or retail uses. Properties separated by an alley are not considered adjacent for the purpose of this section. 4. Within a required rear yard provided the outdoor dining is setback a minimum of 10 feet when adjacent to a residential zoning district that does not permit restaurants or retail uses. Properties separated by an alley are not considered adjacent for the purpose of this section. 5. Within a public right of way or an adjacent public property subject to all applicable lease agreements, applicable regulations, and the outdoor dining design guidelines. B. All outdoor dining shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. All applicable requirements of Chapter 21A.48 and Section 21A.36.020 of this title are met. 2. All required business, health and other regulatory licenses for the outdoor dining have been secured. 3. A detailed site plan demonstrating the following: a. All the proposed outdoor dining activities will be conducted on private property owned or otherwise controlled by the applicant and that none of the activities will occur on any publicly owned rights-of-way unless separate approval for the use of any such public rights-of-way has been obtained from the city; b. The main entry has a control point as required by state liquor laws. 4. The proposed outdoor dining complies with all conditions pertaining to any existing variances, conditional uses or other approvals granted for property. 16 5. Live music will not be performed, nor loudspeakers played in the outdoor dining area unless the decibel level is within conformance with the Salt Lake City noise control ordinance, Title 9, Chapter 9.28 of this code. Live music and loudspeakers are prohibited outside between the hours of 9:00 pm and 9:00 am when the property is adjacent to a residential zoning district. 6. Outdoor dining shall be by considered an expansion of the use for the purpose of determining if additional parking is required as stated in Chapter 21A.44 (Parking). 7. Smoking shall be prohibited within the outdoor dining area and within 25 feet of the outdoor dining area. SECTION 27. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.090.D (Amateur Radio Facilities With Surface Area Exceeding Ten Square Feet) as follows: D. Amateur Radio Facilities With Surface Area Exceeding 10 Square Feet: Any antenna and antenna support having a combined surface area greater than 10 square feet or having any single dimension exceeding 12 feet that is capable of transmitting as well as receiving signals and is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission as an amateur radio facility shall be permitted as an accessory use, but only in compliance with the regulations set forth below: 1. Number Limited: No more than one such antenna or antenna support structure with a surface area greater than 10 square feet or any single dimension exceeding 12 feet may be located on any lot. 2. Height Limited: No such antenna and its support structure shall, if ground mounted, exceed 75 feet in height or, if attached to a building pursuant to Subsection D.3 of this section, the height therein specified. 3. Attachment to Buildings Limited: No such antenna or its support structure shall be attached to a principal or accessory structure unless all of the following conditions are satisfied: a. Height: The antenna and its support structure shall not extend more than 20 feet above the highest point of the building on which it is mounted. b. Mounting: The antenna and its support structure shall not be attached to or mounted upon any building appurtenance, such as a chimney. The antenna and its support structure shall not be mounted or attached to the front or corner side of any principal building facing a street, including any portion of the building roof facing any street. The antenna and its support structure shall be designed to withstand a wind force of 80 miles per hour without the use of supporting guywires. c. Grounding: The antenna and its support structure shall be bonded to a grounding rod. 17 SECTION 28. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.090.E.3.b (Electrical Equipment Located on Private Property) as follows: b. Electrical Equipment Located on Private Property: Electrical equipment shall be subject to the following standards: (1) Located in a rear yard, interior side yard, or within the building area of the lot. (2) If located in a zoning district without a require front or corner side yard setback, the equipment shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from the front or corner side yard property line. (3) Located a minimum of 4 feet from a side or rear property line unless located in an enclosed structure or a vault where the equipment will not be visible. (4) If the equipment is located next to a public trail, park, open space, or other public space other than a street, the equipment shall be screened by a masonry wall or solid fence so the equipment is not visible. (5) The electrical equipment and any structure associated with the electrical equipment is subject to the maximum lot coverage of the underlying zoning district. SECTION 29. Amending Section 21A.40.100 (Mechanical Equipment) to the text of Salt Lake City Code as follows: 21A.40.100: LOCATION OF MECHNICAL EQUIPMENT: All mechanical equipment shall be located as follows: A. Front and Corner Side Yards and Double Frontage Lots: Only allowed if located within 4 feet of the principal building and screened by vegetation, a solid wall or fence so the equipment is not visible and at least 10 feet from the front and corner side yard property lines. B. Side Yards: At least 4 feet from a side property line. If the equipment is adjacent to a driveway, parking stall, or accessory structure on an adjacent parcel, the setback may be reduced to 2 feet. C. Rear Yards: at least 4 feet from a rear property line. If the equipment is adjacent to a driveway, parking stall, or accessory structure on an adjacent parcel, the setback may be reduced to two feet. D. Prohibited Areas: in addition to the yard requirements above, mechanical equipment is prohibited to be located on the roof of an accessory structure, with the exception of exhaust fans and mechanical vents serving the accessory building in which case the fans or vents shall be at least 10 feet from a property line. 18 SECTION 30. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.I (Barbed Wire Fences) as follows: I. Barbed Wire Fences: Permitted Use: Barbed wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the following instances: 1. AG, AG-2, AG-5, AG-20, A, CG, M-1, and M-2 districts and to secure critical infrastructure located in any other zoning district not listed subject to the following requirements. Critical infrastructure includes sites that are necessary to protect the facility or site for the purpose of public health and safety. Barbed wire is also permitted to secure construction sites and sites where construction is pending provided it is removed once construction is complete. 2. Barbed wire fences shall be subject to the following provisions: a. Not allowed in a provided or required front yard. b. The barbed wire is permitted to exceed the maximum fence height. c. No strand of barbed wire shall be permitted less than 7 feet in height above the ground except for agricultural purposes provided the barbed wire is vertically aligned. d. No more than 3 strands of barbed wire are permitted. e. The barbed wire strands shall not slant outward from the fence more than 60 degrees from a vertical line. f. All barbed wire shall be setback a minimum of 3 feet from public property. g. The barbed wire is not located along a property line shared with a residential use when the subject property is in a CG zoning district. SECTION 31. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.J (Razor Wire Fences) as follows: J. Razor Wire Fences: Razor wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the M-1, M-2 and EI zoning districts and to secure critical infrastructure structures and sites located in any other zoning district subject to the following requirements. Critical infrastructure includes sites that are necessary to protect the facility or site for the purpose of public health and safety. 1. Razor wire is not allowed in a provided or required front or corner side yard. 2. Razor wire is permitted to exceed the maximum fence height to a height necessary to reasonably secure the site. 19 3. No strand of razor wire shall be permitted on a fence that is less than 7 feet high. Razor wire coils shall not exceed 18 inches in diameter and must slant inward from the fence to which the razor wire is being attached. 4. All razor wire shall be setback a minimum of 3 feet from public property in zoning districts that do not have a minimum setback. SECTION 32. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.L (Electric Security Fences) as follows: L. Electric Security Fences: 1. Permitted Use: Electric security fences are allowed as a permitted use in the M-1 and M-2 zones. Electric security fences on parcels or lots that abut a residential zone are prohibited. 2. Location Requirements: Electric security fences shall not be allowed in required front yard setbacks or on frontages adjacent to residentially zoned properties. 3. Compliance With Adopted Building Codes: Electric security fences shall be constructed or installed in conformance with all applicable construction codes. 4. Perimeter Fence or Wall: No electric security fence shall be installed or used unless it is fully enclosed by a nonelectrical fence or wall that is not less than 6 feet in height. There shall be at least one foot of spacing between the electric security fence and the perimeter fence or wall. 5. Staging Area: All entries to a site shall have a buffer area that allows on site staging prior to passing the perimeter barrier. The site shall be large enough to accommodate a vehicle completely outside of the public right of way. 6. Height: Electric security fences shall have a maximum height of 10 feet. 7. Warning Signs: Electric security fences shall be clearly identified with warning signs that read: “Warning-Electric Fence” at intervals of not greater than 60 feet. Signs shall comply with requirements in Chapter 21A.46, “Signs”, of this title. 8. Security Box: Electric security fences shall have a small, wall mounted safe or box that holds building keys for police, firefighters and EMTs to retrieve in emergencies. SECTION 33. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.130 (Access for Persons with Disabilities) as follows: 21A.40.130: ACCESS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES: Building permits for an uncovered vertical wheelchair lift, or for an uncovered access ramp, for persons with disabilities, under 4 feet in height, or any other form of uncovered access, for persons with disabilities, under 4 feet in height, that encroaches into required yard areas, may be approved by the zoning administrator as a permitted accessory structure. Covered ramps or other access structures for persons with disabilities that encroach into required yard 20 areas, shall be considered as a reasonable accommodation under applicable federal regulations. SECTION 34. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.160 (Ground Mounted Utility Boxes) as follows: 21A.40.160: GROUND MOUNTED UTILITY BOXES: A. Purpose: Utility infrastructure provides a necessary service to the community. The regulations of this section are intended to allow for ground mounted utility boxes while reducing the negative impacts they may create. B. Compliance With Regulations Required: All ground mounted utility boxes shall be subject to the regulations of this section and any applicable requirement in Title 21A, unless exempted within Section 21A.02.050 of this title and any applicable adopted code and regulation. The location and access for maintenance of all required utility infrastructure is subject to approval by the utility provider and complying with all applicable adopted codes and regulations. No construction shall be undertaken without the applicable city permits and public way permits. C. Location: Ground mounted utility boxes shall be located as required by this section. 1. On the subject parcel or an adjacent parcel when part of new construction or as an addition to an existing building that requires additional utility service subject to the following standards: a. Rear and Side Yards: the ground mounted utility box shall be located a minimum of one foot from a side or rear property line. b. Front and Corner Side Yards: The ground mounted utility box shall be located within 5 feet of the building façade when located in required or provided front or corner side yard and at least one foot from a front or corner side yard property line. Utility boxes in a front or corner side yard shall be screened by a wall, fence, or hedge of at least equal height not to exceed the maximum height for a wall or fence allowed in the applicable yard. c. Ground mounted utility box(es) may be placed in a required landscaped yard if screened by a wall, fence or hedge of at least equal height not to exceed the maximum height for a wall or fence allowed in the applicable yard. d. If proposed on an adjacent parcel, an easement shall be provided for the utility boxes and associated equipment along with consent from the owner of the adjacent parcel. 2. In a public right of way if each of the following criteria are satisfied: a. There is an existing building on the subject property that is located in a manner that prohibits the placement of required utility infrastructure on the property; 21 b. There is no existing front yard, corner side yard, interior side yard, or rear yard of sufficient size to accommodate ground mounted utility box(es) and access for maintenance, as required by the utility provider, of the box(es) within the yard. A right of way may be used to accommodate necessary working space; c. There is not an alley adjacent to the subject property that provides sufficient access as required by the utility provider to a yard of sufficient size to accommodate ground mounted utility box(es). If the alley is not a public alley, necessary permissions and easements must be provided; d. The existing utilities are not being relocated to support an expansion of the use or building or for any new use or accessory use on the property; e. The ground mounted utility box will not negatively impact any existing or planned public improvement within the right of way; f. The ground mounted utility box is located at least 10 feet away from any tree in the right of way; g. The ground mounted utility box(es) comply with all requirements of Chapter 14.32 or its successor; and h. The applicant has provided to the city and the utility provider the dimensions and space requirements necessary for the utility needs, as determined by the utility provider, of the proposed development. 3. In a public right of way when the ground mounted utility box is necessary to provide utility service to the broader neighborhood, the location is consistent with any legal agreement between the utility provider and the city, and the proposed utility box complies with all applicable regulations. 4. The city engineer may issue a permit for the installation of a ground mounted utility box in the public right of way in accordance with standards set forth in this section and Title 14, Chapter 14.32 of this code. D. Materials: All ground mounted utility boxes shall consist of high quality material such as stainless steel or other durable painted or colored material. The finish shall be a neutral color such as dark or light green, beige or gray or color similar to utility boxes within the vicinity and coated with a graffiti resistant treatment. E. Post installation Obligations: All ground mounted utility boxes and any related screening materials shall remain the service provider’s responsibility to keep in a state of good visual quality and repair. 1. Franchise Agreements: Permitted and installed ground mounted utility boxes shall also comply with all conditions as set forth in the service provider’s/owner’s franchise agreement with the city. If the terms of any franchise agreement conflict with the provisions of this title, the ordinance regulations shall prevail and govern. 2. Discontinued Use: If the service provider/owner of a ground mounted utility box in the public right of way discontinues the use or has no defined need for said box, it is that service provider’s/owner’s sole responsibility to remove the box and all associated conduit and wiring at its own expense in compliance with all engineering division requirements. 22 3. Required Contact Information: A service provider shall place a permanent notice on the box containing the service provider’s name and telephone number for the purpose of notification in the event of graffiti or damages to the equipment. 4. Maintenance: A service provider shall be solely responsible for maintaining ground mounted utility box sites in reasonably good repair in a clean, safe and level condition. “Level condition” shall mean not tilting greater than 15° from plumb. A service provider shall repair any damage to a ground mounted utility box within 72 hours after discovering or being notified of such damage to a box. SECTION 35. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.44.090 Modification to Parking Areas as follows: 21A.44.090: MODIFICATIONS TO PARKING AREAS: Applicants requesting development permits or approvals may request adjustments to the standards and requirements in this Chapter 21A.44: Off Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading, and the city may approve adjustments to those standards, as described below. A. Authority to Approve Modifications: The planning director or transportation director may approve the following types of modifications provided that the Director determines that the adjustment will not create adverse impacts on pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicle safety and that the adjustment is required due to the nature of the site and the surrounding context (such as shape, topography, utilities, or access point constraints) and that the need for the adjustment has not been created by the actions of the applicant. B. Authorized Modifications: 1. Modification to dimensions or geometries of parking, loading, or stacking space, aisles, or maneuvering areas otherwise required by this chapter, other City regulations, or the Off Street Parking Standards Manual; provided that those modifications are consistent with federal and state laws regarding persons with disabilities, including but not limited to the Americans with Disabilities Act. 2. Modifications to bicycle parking or loading berth location or design standards. 3. Front Yard Parking: a. The lot contains an existing residential building. b. No other off-street parking exists on the site. c. No provided side yard is greater than 8 feet. If greater than 8 feet, no tree over 6 inches in caliper is present in the side yard that would necessitate the removal of the tree to locate a parking stall in the side yard or rear yard. d. The rear yard does not have frontage on a public street or public alley and the property does not have access rights across an adjacent private street or alley. e. The front yard parking complies with the following standards: 23 (1) The front yard parking is limited to no wider than 10 feet in width and is a minimum depth of 20 feet. (2) The front yard parking is accessed by an approved drive approach. (3) The location of the front yard parking is placed within 10 feet of a side lot line or for corner properties, may also be within 10 feet of a rear lot line and is consistent with the location of other driveways on the block face. (1) Parking is restricted to passenger vehicles only. 4. Vehicle and Equipment Storage Without Hard Surfacing: a. The property is located in a CG, M-1, M-2, or EI zoning district b. The lot is used for long term vehicle storage, not for regular parking and/or maneuvering. b. The storage areas are not located within any required front yard or corner side yard. c. The storage area surface is compacted with 6 inches of road base or other similar material with dust control measures in place. d. A mechanism, such as a wash bay, gravel guard, or rumble strip is used to remove mud, sand, dirt, and gravel from the vehicle with a minimum of 50 feet of paved driveway between the mechanism and a public street. The mechanism used is subject to approval by the Transportation Director or designee provided it is a commonly used device that is effective at removing debris from vehicle tires. SECTION 36. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.46.070.V (Historic District Signs) as follows: 21A.46.070.V Historic District Signs: The historic landmark commission may authorize, as a minor alteration modification to an existing sign or the size or placement of a new sign in a historic district or on a landmark site, including placement of a sign type not allowed in the underlying zone, if the applicant can demonstrate that the location, size and/or design of the proposed sign is compatible with the design period or theme of the historic structure or district and/or will cause less physical damage to the historically significant structure. If a sign in a local historic district or on a landmark site has been designated a vintage sign as per Section 21A.46.125 of this chapter, the modifications allowed in that section may be authorized by the historic landmark commission subject to the appropriate standards of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. 24 SECTION 37. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 21A.46.125 (Vintage Signs) as follows: A. The purpose of this section is to promote the retention, restoration, reuse, and reinstatement of nonconforming signs that represent important elements of Salt Lake City’s heritage and enhance the character of a corridor, neighborhood, or the community at large. B. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of this title: 1. An application for designation of vintage sign status as well as for the reinstatement of, modifications to, or relocation of a vintage sign shall be processed in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.08 and Section 21A.46.030 as well as the following: Application: In addition to the general application requirements for a sign, an application for vintage sign designation or modification shall require: (a) Detailed drawings and/or photographs of the sign in its current condition, if currently existing; (b) Written narrative and supporting documentation demonstrating how the sign meets the applicable criteria; (c) Detailed drawings of any modifications or reinstatement being sought; (d) Detailed drawings of any relocation being sought; and (e) Historic drawings and/or photographs of the sign. 2. The zoning administrator shall designate an existing sign as a vintage sign if the sign: a. Was not placed as part of a Localized Alternative Signage Overlay District and has not been granted flexibility from the base zoning through a planned development agreement or by the historic landmark commission; b. Is not a billboard as defined in Section 21A.46.020 of this chapter; c. Retains its original design character, or that character will be reestablished or restored, based on historic evidence such as drawings or photographs; and d. Meets at least 4 of the following criteria: (1) The sign was specifically designed for a business, institution, or other establishment on the subject site; (2) The sign bears a unique emblem, logo, or another graphic specific to the city, or region; (3) The sign exhibits specific characteristics that enhance the streetscape or identity of a neighborhood; (4) The sign is or was characteristic of a specific historic period; (5) The sign is or was integral to the design or identity of the site or building where the sign is located; or 25 (6) The sign represents an example of craftsmanship in the application of lighting technique, use of materials, or design. 3. A designated vintage sign may: a. Be relocated within its current site. b. Be modified to account for changing uses within its current site. These modifications shall be in the same style as the design of the original sign including: (1) Shape and form, (2) Size, (3) Typography, (4) Illustrative elements, (5) Use of color, (6) Character of illumination, and (7) Character of animation. c. Be restored or recreated, and reinstated on its original site. d. Be relocated to a new site for use as a piece of public art, provided that the original design and character of the sign is retained, or will be restored, and it advertises a business no longer in operation. Vintage signs may only be relocated for use as public art to sites in the following districts: D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, G-MU, CSHBD1, CSHBD2, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB-SC, FB-SE, TSA. e. Be relocated and reinstalled on the business’s new site, should the business with which it is associated move, provided that the business’s new location is within the same contiguous zoning district as the original location. 4. Once designated, a vintage sign is exempt from the calculation of allowed signage on a site. SECTION 38. Deleting Chapter 21A.52 Special Exceptions of the Salt Lake City Code Chapter. Chapter 21A.52 (Special Exceptions) is deleted in its entirety. SECTION 39. Amending the text of the Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020 (List of Defined Terms) by adding the following term in alphabetical order: Ground mounted utility box. SECTION 40. Adding the following definition in alphabetical order to Section 21A.62.040 (Definition of Terms) of the Salt Lake City Code as follows: 26 Ground mounted utility boxes: shall mean such equipment and facilities, including pedestals, boxes, cabinets, meters or other ground mounted facilities and associated equipment that extend over 6 inches above ground level used for the transmission or distribution of utilities. SECTION 41. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2021. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2021. Published: ______________. Ordinance deleting special exceptions from city code(legislative) APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: _________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney March9, 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS A. NOVEMBER 18, 2020 PUBLIC HEARING i. AGENDA AND MINUTES ii. HEARING NOTICE iii. STAFF REPORT B. SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 WORK SESSION i. STAFF REPORT ii. MINUTES 4. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 5, 2020 A. AGENDA AND MINUTES B. STAFF REPORT 5. ORIGINAL PETITION 6 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 7 Petition: PLNPCM2020-00606 August 5, 2020 The mayor initiated a petition to remove the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. August 5, 2020 Petition PLNPCM2018-00606 assigned to Nick Norris, Planning Director, for staff analysis and processing. August 11, 2020 Petition routed to each City Department and Division for review and comment. August 13, 2020 Early engagement period started by sending an email containing preliminary information sent to all Community Council Chairs informing them of the proposed text amendments, and that Planning Commission and City Council meetings would be scheduled in the future. August 13, 2020 Public information posted to the Planning Division website explaining the proposal and containing proposed text of code changes. August 14, 2020 Email notice of the digital open house sent to the Planning Division list- serve. This email is sent every two weeks with each item that is in the public engagement phase. September 17, 2020 Email sent to American Institute of Architects Utah Chapter with information on the proposal and seeking input from the architecture community. September 21. 2020 Presentation to the Sugar House Land Use Committee. September 30, 2020 Planning Commission work session to discuss proposal October 5, 2020 Planning Division internal review and drafting of recommendations from Planning Commission October 23, 2020 Public notice for November 5, 2020 HLC meeting sent to Division list serve, posted on city website, and posted on Utah Public Meeting website. October 24, 2020 Public hearing notice posted in newspaper October 29, 2020 Ground Mounted Utility Box discussion with City Departments and Rocky Mountain Power November 5, 2020 Public Hearing with the Historic Landmark Commission. HLC recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed changes. 8 November 6, 2020 Public hearing notice for November 18, 2020 Planning Commission public hearing published in newspaper, posted on the Planning Division website and on the State of Utah Public Meeting website, and emailed to Planning Division list serve. November 18, 2020 Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and conducted a public hearing. The Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed changes. December 7, 2020 Transmittal forwarded to Community and Neighborhood Department. 9 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 10 The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2020-00606 Special Exception Text Amendments - A request by Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning and Title 14 may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. As part of their study, the City Council is holding two advertised public hearings to receive comments regarding the petition. During these hearings, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance on the same night of the second public hearing. The hearing will be held electronically: DATE: Date #1 and Date #2 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: **This meeting will not have a physical location. **This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation. If you are interested in participating in the Public Hearing, please visit our website at https://www.slc.gov/council/ to learn how you can share your comments during the meeting. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801)535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Nick Norris at 801-641-1728 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at nick.norris@slcgov.com People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 11 3A. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING – NOVEMBER 18, 2020 i. AGENDA AND MINUTES 12 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AMENDED AGENDA This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation November 18, 2020, at 5:30 p.m. (The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion) This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms:  YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings  SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at:  http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-11182020 Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 1. Consideration of a Stay of Decision - On October 28, 2020 the Planning Commission approved a special exception for additional building height to add a second story to existing home located at approximately 1400 East Federal Way; Case number PLNPCM2020- 00465. That decision has been appealed. City ordinance 21A.52.120.B authorizes the Planning Commission to consider whether to stay the decision that is being appealed. A stay prevents the city from taking any further action regarding the application, including issuing building permits, performing inspections, or finalizing inspections, until a decision is reached by the appeals hearing officer. A stay does not prohibit the applicant from performing work on the subject property that does not require a permit or for work related to a permit that has already been issued. If a stay is not granted, the city would be obligated to issue permits, perform inspections and approve permits. The property owner proceeds at their own risk pending a decision on the appeal. (Staff contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385) 315-8115 or caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) CONSENT AGENDA 2. Kensington Tower Time Extension Request – Steve Brown, project representative, is requesting a one-year time extension of approval for the Kensington Tower Design Review. The applicant has indicated that additional time is needed due to delays related to the current COVID-19 pandemic. Design Review was approved by the Planning Commission on November 13, 2019 for a 448-foot-tall multi-family residential tower. The subject property is 13 located at approximately 75 E. 200 S., in the D-1 (Central Business District) within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: John Anderson at (385) 226-6479 or john.anderson@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00786 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 28, 2020 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use ADU at approximately 2321 S Windsor St - Andrea Palmer with Modal, representing the property owner, is seeking Conditional Use approval for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) in a detached structure at approximately 2321 S Windsor Street. The ADU will be located in the Southeast corner of the rear yard of the subject property. The ADU will measure approximately 561 square feet and will measure a height of approximately 11 feet 7 inches. The subject property is located in the R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential zoning district and is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff contact: Chris Earl at (801) 535-7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00512 2. East Liberty Tap House Conditional Use for a Bar at approximately 850 East 900 South - Caroline & Josh Stewart, the property owners, are requesting Conditional Use approval for a bar establishment to be located at 850 E 900 S. The space is currently occupied by the East Liberty Tap House and the bar establishment will retain the same name and ownership. The applicants are proposing to change the existing tavern/restaurant license and approval at this location to a bar establishment which requires a new Conditional Use approval. A Bar is allowed as a Conditional Use in the CB – Community Business zoning district subject to certain size limitations. An area that previously functioned as a private dining room will be incorporated into the bar's space for patrons. The building's exterior, parking and other aspects are not being modified through this request. The subject property is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano (Staff contact: David J. Gellner at (385) 226- 3860 or david.gellner@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00558 3. Emeril Townhomes Planned Development, Design Review and Preliminary Subdivision at approximately 833 W Emeril Avenue - Jarod Hall, representing the property owner, is requesting approval for a new townhome development at 833 Emeril Avenue. The project will replace one single family residence on a single lot with 12 single family attached townhomes. The total site is 0.27 acres. The proposed project is subject to the following applications: a. Planned Development: The Planned Development is needed to address the lack of street frontage and modifications to the TSA zoning regulations. Case number PLNPCM2020-00288 b. Design Review: The development requires Design Review approval as the development did not receive enough points through the TSA development review process for administrative (staff level) approval. Case number PLNPCM2020-00289 c. Preliminary Subdivision: The development also involves a preliminary plat to create the individual new townhome lots. Case number PLNSUB2020-00347 The subject property is located within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff contact: Katia Pace at (801) 535- 6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) 4. Deleting Special Exceptions from the Zoning Ordinance and Associated Ordinance Changes - Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting 14 amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning and Title 14 may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Nick Norris at (801) 535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-0606 For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. 15 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation Wednesday, November 18, 2020 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:30:26 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson, Brenda Scheer; Vice Chairperson, Amy Barry; Commissioners Maurine Bachman, Adrienne Bell, Carolynn Hoskins, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes, Sara Urquhart, and Crystal Young-Otterstrom. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Wayne Mills, Planning Manager; John Anderson, Planning Manager; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Caitlyn Miller, Principal Planner; Chris Earl, Associate Planner; David Gellner, Principal Planner; Katia Pace, Principal Planner; and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary. Chairperson Brenda Scheer read the emergency proclamation for conducting a virtual meeting. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:31:35 PM Chairperson Scheer stated that it is her and Amy Barry’s first time serving as Chair and Vice- Chair and asked the public for their patience while they settle into their new roles. Vice Chairperson Barry stated she had nothing to report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:32:08 PM Wayne Mills, Planning Manager, provided the public with instructions on how to join and participate during the meeting. 6:41:48 PM Deleting Special Exceptions from the Zoning Ordinance and Associated Ordinance Changes - Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A- Zoning and Title 14 may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. ( 16 Staff contact: Nick Norris at (801) 535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-0606 Nick Norris, Planning Director, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). The Commission and Staff discussed the following:  Clarification on whether extra height for buildings is allowed if the primary structure is nonconforming in height  Clarification on nonconforming structures PUBLIC HEARING 7:04:10 PM Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing; Cindy Cromer – Stated she mentioned to the Historic Landmark Commission the issue of lack of public notice once the changes are approved. She also stated that over time uses associated with special exceptions have changed dramatically; an example is outdoor dining. Zachary Dussault – Stated his support of the request. Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing. Nick Norris, Planning Director, provided information on notices that are provided to the public. The Commission and Staff further discussed the following:  Whether public comments received by staff are sent to City Council  Clarification on whether the neighborhood will still receive notices if the petition is approved  Clarification on the number of special exceptions in the zoning ordinance that are being changed  Clarification on how the proposed changes affect daycares MOTION 7:17:02 PM Commissioner Bell stated, based on the information in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed text amendment, PLNPCM2020-00606 Special Exception Text Amendment. Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion. Commissioners Young-Otterstrom, Urquhart, Paredes, Lyon, Hoskins, Bell, Barry and Bachman voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:20:37 PM 17 3A. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING – NOVEMBER 18 2020 ii. NEWSPAPER NOTICE 18 19 3A. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING – NOVEMBER 18, 2020 iii. STAFF REPORT 20 PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY & NEIGHORHOOD DEVELOPMENT Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Nick Norris, 801-535-6173, nick.norris@slcgov.com Date: November 18, 2020 Re: PLNPCM2020-00606 Special Exception Changes Text Amendment Zoning Text Amendment REQUEST: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility in administering the regulation and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings listed in the staff report, the Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation for the text amendment request to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: A. Quick guide of changes to each special exception B. Proposed Text Amendment C. Analysis of Zoning Amendment Factors D. Public Outreach Summary E. Department Review Summary 21 Petition Description The special exception code changes project is a proposal to eliminate the special exception process from the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. There are more than 40 authorized exceptions in the zoning ordinance. This proposal would result in one of the following actions for each authorized special exception: • Prohibit exceptions that are routinely denied; • Permit exceptions with additional standards for those exceptions that are routinely approved; or • Move specific exceptions to other processes already authorized in the ordinance. The number of special exception applications have grown from 37 in 2011 to 149 in 2019. The increase is directing staff resources away from addressing citywide growth-related issues and instead focusing staff resources towards individual developments. Special exceptions required the equivalent of almost two full time employees to process the applications in 2019. This accounts for about 10% of the total workload. Special exceptions have grown in scope and level of controversy. Without any real cap on the scope of an exception, the requested exceptions are asking for larger modifications. This is increasing the amount of staff required to respond to inquiries, answer questions, negotiate with the applicant, and decide on each application. Proposed Changes The number of changes to remove special exceptions from the ordinance are extensive. The Planning Commission was briefed on those changes during a September 30, 2020 work session. A quick guide to the changes can be found in Attachment A. The proposed text changes can be found in Attachment B. Applicable Review Processes and Standards Review Processes: Zoning Text Amendment Zoning text amendments are reviewed against four considerations, pertaining to whether proposed code is consistent with adopted City planning documents, furthers the purposes of the zoning ordinance, are consistent with other overlay zoning codes, and the extent they implement best professional practices. Those considerations are addressed in Attachment C. The primary focus of this text amendment is addressing best professional practices in managing growth by implementing the following practices: • removing processes that are preventing staff resources from being allocated to growth related issues, • modernizing the zoning ordinance by removing outdated regulations and processes (such as special exceptions that are rarely, if ever, applied for), What is a special exception? A special exception is a minor modification to a dimensional standard or accessory use with minimal impact to adjacent properties. 22 • removing regulations that restrict property rights and that do not reflect current trends in how property is used for accessory and ancillary land uses, and • removing regulations that are not necessary to protect and further the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhoods located in the city. City Code amendments are ultimately up to the discretion of the City Council and are not controlled by any one standard. Community Input Public Outreach is summarized in Attachment D and includes who was noticed, when the notice was sent, presentation and meetings held, and submitted comments. Below is a discussion of the key issues identified by the community, how the comments relate to the proposal, and how the comments were reflected in the proposed update. The following issues were identified through the public engagement process as of October 31, 2020: 1. Outdoor Dining The Department of Community and Neighborhoods have had several recent complaints about outdoor dining and the impact to adjacent and nearby neighbors. The primary complaints involve noise, proximity to property lines, and businesses not obtaining special exception approvals. The proposed changes would allow outdoor dining as a permitted use to a restaurant, coffee shop, or other food serving business. The proposal maintains some existing standards and adds some new standards: • A ten-foot setback for outdoor dining when located next to a residential zoning district (new); • Limits amplified and live music to decibel levels required by the Salt Lake County Health Department and places hours that music can be played outdoors when the business is adjacent to a residential zoning district. 2. Fence Heights and buffering Changes to fence height are being processed as a separate application and those comments related to this special exception have been included and analyzed in that project. 3. Discrepancy with Special Exception Approvals The Planning Division did hear from a resident of the East Bench Neighborhood regarding special exception approvals. The resident indicated that the process was used to create inequities in property rights, with some property owners benefiting from the process and then using the public process to deny other nearby property owners of the same benefits. The Planning Division has heard similar complaints from applicants and the process does create the potential for an applicant to gain approval if the neighbors are favorable towards a proposal and be denied or have a more rigorous approval process if the neighbors are not in favor. Special exceptions are an administrative process because the PC is the approval authority. The PC does have discretion in the process because the current standards are subjective, and applicants are not being denied a property right because the applicant typically has the option to comply with the zoning requirements without the need for a special exception. No changes were necessary from this comment. 4. Noncomplying Issues 23 Public comment was received identifying that many properties in the city likely have some level of noncompliance due to the age of the building and changing zoning regulations. The comment indicated that noncomplying issues should be resolved easily and retain property rights. There are changes to chapter 21A.38, which regulates nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures that accomplish this by simplifying the regulations and reducing the need to submit land use applications. 5. Front yard Parking The Sugar House Community Council indicated that they do not support allowing front yard parking. This is highlighted here because the Planning Commission indicated that it should be allowed under narrow circumstances. The Planning Division has prepared a draft proposal that follows the input of the Planning Commission and is discussed under the “Planning Commission Recommendations” section. 6. Unit Legalizations The comments received regarding unit legalizations focused on the need for the definition of a unit to be applied more uniformly and updated if needed. This is separate from this proposal. The comment including inconsistent application of the definition to include things such as water heaters. The zoning definition of a dwelling unit is: A building or portion thereof, which is designated for residential purposes of a family for occupancy on a monthly basis and which is a self-contained unit with kitchen and bathroom facilities. The term "dwelling" excludes living space within hotels, bed and breakfast establishments, apartment hotels, boarding houses and lodging houses. It should be noted that this definition is being changed slightly as part of the Shared Housing (formerly known as SROs) zoning amendment. The changes address a shared housing unit not being fully self-contained. No changes were made to this proposal in response to this comment. 7. Vintage Signs A comment was received about vintage signs and that they should be allowed in the CSHBD 2 (Sugar House Business District) zone. A vintage sign is a historic sign that adds some distinctive nature to a neighborhood. Vintage signs can be relocated within the same zoning district, be moved with a business if it relocates, and are allowed to be used as public art in some zoning districts. This comment is in reference to the use of vintage signs as public art. The ordinance currently restricts this to the Downtown zones, Gateway Mixed Use, and Sugar House Business District 1 zoning districts. The comment from the Sugar House Community Council is related to adding CSHBD2 to the allowed zones where vintage signs could be relocated as public art. The Planning Division used this suggestion to update the proposal to add this zoning district and other similar zoning districts: FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB-SC, FB-SE, and TSA. It may be worth considering if vintage signs create an impact in any commercial or mixed-use zoning district and allow them in those districts as well. 8. Inline Additions A comment was received about the need to maintain inline additions as an option to provide flexibility when designing additions that fit in with the characteristics of the built environment. This is a true statement. This issue was also identified by the Planning Commission with a 24 recommendation to find a way to maintain inline additions in the side yard. Options are discussed in the next section of this report. Inline additions within side yards do create new impacts that the adjacent property owner may not have anticipated. The impacts often cited by the public when reviewing an inline addition within a side yard include privacy and shadowing. Privacy impacts include how windows are aligned with windows on neighboring properties and expanding the living space so that adjacent rear yards are less secluded. Issues associated with shadowing are identified when the proximity of the addition starts to shade a portion of a neighboring yard that was not previously in the shade. Trees and fences also create shading issues, fences are shorter than building walls and tree heights are not regulated by city ordinances. The remaining processes in the zoning ordinance do not contain similar flexibility or do not contain standards that help determine if an inline addition within a side yard is appropriate. The closest process is the design review process. That process does not contain specific standards about inline additions and would require some standards be added in order to be a useful tool for inline additions. 9. HVAC Locations and Setbacks HVAC equipment is generally required to be at least 4 feet from a property line and are not allowed to be in a required front yard setback. An average of 11 applications per year are made requesting to locate HVAC equipment within four feet of a property line or within a required front yard. In response to this comment, the proposal was modified to add flexibility, such as allowing the equipment in a front yard if it is located within 4 feet of the building, at least 10 feet from the front property line, and screened. There was a public comment that suggested that mechanical equipment may be appropriate if it was within 4 feet of a property line and adjacent to a driveway on a neighboring property. This was added as an allowed encroachment when next to a driveway, parking area, or an accessory building provided a 2-foot setback is maintained to allow future maintenance without the need to use adjacent property to access the equipment. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: The following section outlines the recommended changes made by the Planning Commission during the work session held on September 30, 2020. 1. Inline Additions An inline addition is an addition to an existing building where the building does not meet the minimum setback requirements. Inline additions have become a popular application for additions to homes. Most inline additions are requested for older homes that were built at a time when building setbacks, mostly side yards, were related to the height of the structure. If a structure was relatively low in height, such as a small cottage or bungalow, it could have smaller side yards. Buildings built prior to zoning also have setbacks that are noncomplying. The Planning Commission supported allowing inline additions to buildings that already encroach into a required front or rear yard. The proposal presented by the Planning Division did not allow inline additions in noncomplying side yards that did not comply with current side yard setbacks. This means that any new addition would be required to meet the setbacks. The Commission requested that the Division consider options for inline additions in 25 noncomplying side yards and suggested limited those additions to single story in height or rethinking how building height is measured. The Division created a proposal that would allow an inline addition within a noncomplying side yard provided: • The addition is limited to a single story; • The addition maintains the exterior wall height (or lower) of the existing building; • The addition can extend the existing noncomplying exterior wall no more than 20% in length. These provisions provide some flexibility in the regulations and reduce the potential impacts to neighbors. The proposal would allow the extension “by-right” and there would be no public process for meeting the provisions. An additional suggestion was to allow an addition to extend a noncomplying wall by up to 50% of the existing wall, but no more than 16 feet, which would be enough to accommodate an additional room within the building. The Commission can decide which option is best upon considering impacts and the need to be flexibility and allow for growth within existing buildings to better accommodate changing housing needs. The HLC would retain the ability to modify setbacks within historic districts, which cover significant portions of the city. The provisions for inline additions would not apply to properties within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District because the H Overlay already has standards and processes to address additions with noncomplying setbacks. 2. Front Yard Parking The Planning Commission recommended that front yard parking be allowed provided there are no other alternatives for off-street parking on the property. The Planning Division has added standards that: • Only permits front yard parking when the property has no other off-street parking; • Limits front yard parking to residential uses; • The front or rear yard are not accessible due to the width of a side yard, lack of a side yard, or lack of a wide enough rear yard for corner properties; and • Adds dimensional standards to ensure that the front yard parking does not impact the sidewalk or bike lanes. 3. Additional Height for Accessory Structures The primary concern raised by the Planning Commission involved how high an accessory building could be if the principal structure was more than two stories in height. Standards were added that: • Limited the increase to no more than 25% of the permitted height and restricts the height to no more than 75% of the height of the principal structure; • Requires an increased setback of one foot for every one foot in additional height. Several issues were identified by Planning staff regarding extra height and the likelihood for it to promote second story use in accessory buildings. The existing special exception for extra height in accessory buildings limited the extra height to storage purposes and did not allow windows to face a neighboring yard. The use of the secondary story requires a separate special 26 exception under the current code. However, with the proposed changes, second story use would be permitted. 4. Commercial Building Height The Planning Commission discussed that there could be some benefit for allowing extra height on sloping lots in commercial zoning districts. The concerns raised were mainly focused on buildings with wide frontages and the impact extra height would have. The ability to obtain extra height, up to 10%, was added as a permitted increase provided that at least 50% of the building volume complies with the height, the height allows for the top story to have level floors without internal stepping, and the ground floor has a minimum height of twelve feet. 5. Ground Mounted Utility Boxes The recommendation from the City is to prohibit ground mounted utility boxes in public rights of way when the utility box is only serving private development. The reason for this change is because the private development benefits from placing the boxes in the rights of way because doing so does not require space on private property for private infrastructure. However, this creates long term planning issues for the City because those boxes will never be able to be moved out of the right of way if the City desires or needs to make changes to the rights of way. Examples include planting trees, expanding underground infrastructure (such as water pipes, storm drainage, or sewer lines), widening sidewalks, adding grade separate bike lanes, managing curb space, and other public uses within the ROW. This section was modified to require utility provider approval for location and access to utility boxes, setbacks from property line of one foot, and multiple requirements for locating a box in the ROW (each requirement must be satisfied) only when the box is necessary for neighborhood wide service and when an existing building on the property is being reused and there is no other location on the subject property. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: The Historic Landmark Commission held a public hearing on the proposed changes on November 5, 2020. There was one public comment in support of the proposed changes as it retains the HLC ability to make modifications to lot and bulk requirements but simplifies the process to do so. The HLC passed a motion unanimously recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed changes. DISCUSSION: The proposed code updates have been reviewed against the Zoning Amendment consideration criteria in Attachment C. The proposed code changes implement best practices by ensuring the code is up to date, does not conflict with other applicable State or City Code, and complies with the City’s zoning purposes by ensuring that City ordinances can be legally administered and enforced. Due to these considerations, staff is recommending that the Commission forward a favorable recommendation on this request to the City Council. NEXT STEPS: 27 The Planning Commission can provide a positive or negative recommendation for the proposed text amendments. The recommendation will be sent to the City Council, who will hold a briefing and additional public hearing(s) on the proposed text amendments amendment. The City Council may make modifications to the proposal and approve or decline to approve the proposed zoning text amendments. If the text amendments are approved by the City Council, appeals would be subject to the new City ordinance standards. The Planning Commission may also recommend a modified version of the proposal. This would be advisable if the commission identifies potential issues with any aspect of the proposal. Instances where this may happen include: • The commission wants to add a standard or modify a proposed regulation; • The commission wants to delete a standard or requirement within the proposal; • The commission wants additional information about any aspect of the proposal. There may be situations where the Planning Commission makes a request and the Planning Division is not able to provide information regarding that request. An example of this may be a request for a significant amount of research or data that the Division does not have the capability to provide. 28 This is a simple summary of the proposed changes. Please refer to the draft code in Attachment B for all proposed changes. Additional Accessory structure height: increased height (up to 75% of the principal structure) allowed with increase in setbacks Accessory structures on double frontage lots: standards added to match location of accessory buildings of the block. Additional height for fences: removed exception process, sets maximum heights. Additional building height in commercial districts: deleted special exception; standards added to allow 10% increase on sloping lots. Additional height in foothill districts: deleted special exception Additional height in R-1, R-2, SR districts: deleted special exception Alternative to off street parking: deleted Barbed wire fences: standards added, restricted to industrial and agricultural zones and for land uses that require added security, such as public utility facilities. Conditional home occupations: deleted. This was changed several years ago to permitted but was not deleted from the special exception chapter. Dividing exiting lots with existing detached dwellings: allowed through the subdivision process with standards added. Front yard parking: Standards added to allow front yard parking in very limited instances. Grade changes over 4 feet: will become permitted with a step between retaining walls necessary to retain the grade change. Ground mounted AC units, pool equipment, etc. within 4 feet of side or rear property line: standards updated to allow equipment in additional situations when there is no impact or the equipment is screened. Hobby shop, art studio, exercise room in accessory buildings: deleted, will become permitted. Inline additions: permitted to match the existing building setback in front and rear yards; allowed in a limited manner in side yards. Home day care: will become permitted or conditional based on Utah Code requirements for number of kids. Outdoor dining in required yard: will be permitted with specific standards for setbacks, noise, etc. when next to residential zone. Razor wire fencing: limited to industrial and agricultural zones and some uses that require a high level of security. Replacement of noncomplying building or portion of a noncomplying building: allowed by right within the noncomplying chapter of the zoning ordinance. Underground encroachments: permitted in the encroachment table with standards. 29 Window mounted AC units: deleted special exception, will be permitted. Vehicle and equipment storage in CG, M1, M2, EI: permitted with specific standards for water quality and to reduce mud, dirt, gravel being carried onto public streets. Ground mounted utility boxes: prohibited in the public right of way unless the box serves a broader area than just a private development and with specific standards; location requirements on private property added. Size limitations deleted. Unit legalizations: will be addressed as a determination of nonconforming use in chapter 21A.38. Standards related to continuing use maintained. Other standards that require update to parking standards deleted. Vintage signs: Changed to permitted with existing standards in the ordinance, expanded where a vintage sign could be used as public art. Additional height for lights at sports fields: changed to permitted with screening of light trespass, increased setback from residential uses. Recreation equipment height in OS zone: capped at 60 feet in height with no exceptions. Public utility buildings in OS zone: will be allowed to exceed building height for critical public utility infrastructure. Does not include office buildings. Fence and wall height over 6 feet for homeless resource centers: Planning Commission will be given the authority to approve taller fences for buffering purposes. Enlargement of structure with noncomplying use: allowed by right provided the addition complies with zoning requirements. Horizontal inline additions: permitted to match existing portions of buildings that do not meet setback when the addition is in the front or rear yards, with limited application in side yards. Alteration to an existing SFD when the use is not allowed: alterations will be permitted. Amateur HAM radio antennae over 75 feet in height: special exception deleted. Electrical equipment for cell towers: will need to be in a side or rear yard with specific setback and screening requirements. Electrical security fences: deleted and will become nonpermitted. Covered ADA ramps: deleted, will be addressed through a reasonable accommodation authorized under federal laws. Ground mounted utility boxes over a certain size in the right of way: will be deleted and required to be located on private property when serving individual developments. Front yard parking for SFD when side or rear yard not accessible: deleted and will be allowed in very limited instances. Parking exceeding the maximum: deleted. Will be addressed through proposed changes to parking ordinance. Alternative parking requirements: deleted. Will be addressed through proposed changes to parking ordinance. 30 Commercial signs in historic districts: delete special exception requirement; will be authorized through existing processes in the Historic Preservation Overlay. HLC bulk modifications: delete special exception requirement: will be authorized through existing processes in the Historic Preservation Overlay. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 Special Exception Text Amendment Public hearing notice for the HLC meeting was sent through the Division email list on mailed on October 22, 2020 Public hearing notice published to newspaper October 24, 2020 Public notice posted on City and State websites on October 22, 2020 No formal requests to receive notice of the proposed text amendment were received prior to the noticing deadline of this public hearing. 72 From:John Blankevoort To:Norris, Nick Subject:(EXTERNAL) Special Exceptions Date:Thursday, August 13, 2020 6:46:34 PM Attachments:EBCC 6-17-2020 meeting.pdf Hello Nick I totally agree with your premise on the new special exception process changes, frankly the city is already overwhelmed with frivolous requests on a number of subjects. I also have some further recommendations and would to participate to help you to evaluate the wider problem. We have several District chairpersons ( District 5, 6 etc) that are stoking the fire with these notices of special exceptions. I would think this is driving more people to call into the zoning and planning office, only to stymie the process and become actual obstacles for your Dept. Please find attached meeting minutes June 17, 2020. Item 7, brought up the subject of a neighbor in Indian Hills subdivision and his special exception for building a home and height limits. The neighbor and architect already had engaged with zoning and planning and they had already gone through and contacted each of the abutting neighbors to work through the issue. Our chairperson (Aimee Burrows) decided to 'follow through' with the process as if to say she was the street captain on zoning and planning. I told her it was a frivolous use of our time. The neighbor is already following the protocols then we should not allow our District Chairs to muddy up your depts. time by making more work. I propose to you that zoning and planning does not need anymore 'help; from local District Council meetings and that a statement should be mentioned in your new process changes to not encourage creating anymore duplicate work for special exceptions. And although we all have the right to public information, it is not the charter of local meetings to drive special exception agenda. We need to be more efficient, don't you agree? Best John 73 From:Ann Robinson To:Norris, Nick; Annie V. Schwemmer Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Special Exception Changes Date:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:56:57 PM Well, these situations were handled previously by special exceptions because each circumstance is unique. By eliminating special exceptions, you are now trying to make rules that cover all possibilities—probably not possible. Let us think about this a bit and get back to you. Ann Robinson, AIA Principal // Renovation Design Group 824 SOUTH 400 WEST | SUITE B123 | SALT LAKE CITY | UTAH | 84101 O.801.533.5331 | M. 801.230.2080 RenovationDesignGroup.com | Facebook Fans | Houzz Portfolio From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:48 PM To: Annie V. Schwemmer Cc: Ann Robinson Subject: RE: (EXTERNAL) Special Exception Changes Thanks Annie, these are helpful comments. Do you have some ideas on how we can accommodate these issues within the proposal? NICK NORRIS Director Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 CELL 801-641-1728 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING From: Annie V. Schwemmer Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:33 PM To: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Cc: Ann Robinson Subject: (EXTERNAL) Special Exception Changes Hi Nick- We’ve reviewed the proposed special exception changes and since we do so many renovations/additions in SLC we have the following comments: 74 Garages Built into Hillsides in Front or Corner Side Yards: It seems there will be very few of these that would not also need to project into a front yard setback. Central Air Condensers: There are many side yards that can accommodate a condenser without causing undue hardship on the neighbor (for instance, a 4’ side yard adjacent to a neighbor’s driveway) and there should be a way for these to be allowed. Corner side yards: We think in-line additions need to be allowed in side yard setbacks to avoid awkward interior spaces & rooflines. Noncomplying as to height: We think rear additions should be allowed to match the height of the existing roofline even if the existing structure is noncomplying. This change will create odd looking rooflines and will preclude 2nd stories on rear additions if the lower roofline makes the upper level ceiling lower than 7’ high. Thanks- Annie Annie V. Schwemmer, AIA Principal // Renovation Design Group 824 SOUTH 400 WEST | SUITE B123 | SALT LAKE CITY | UTAH | 84101 O. 801.533.5331 | M. 801.560.7171 RenovationDesignGroup.com | Facebook Fans | Houzz Portfolio 75 76 77 From:Kyle Deans To:Norris, Nick Subject:(EXTERNAL) Special Exceptions Date:Monday, November 9, 2020 3:09:19 PM Nick, If the exceptions have been addressed in each of their specific sections of zoning code I fully support deleting the Special Exceptions from the code. Kyle R Deans Salt Lake City Resident 78 Special Exception Text Amendment Planning Staff Note: This proposal was routed to the City Departments and Divisions for review on August 11, 2020. In addition, follow up meetings were held on September 30, 2020 and October 29, 2020 with Engineering, Real Estate Services,Building Services and Rocky Mountain Power to discuss ground mounted utility boxes and how to address them. Below are submitted comments from each Department or Division and a summary of associated meetings. Airports: no comments received. Building Services (zoning review): Indicated that they thought this would be time saver for staff and would be helpful. They provided specific changes to the following sections of the proposal: o Edit suggestions regarding Table 21A.36.020.B Obstructions in yards; o Support addressing grade changes and retaining walls as it removes vagueness in doing related zoning reviews. o Requested that the expansions of nonconforming uses be limited to a one-time request to avoid repeated requests over time. o Regarding noncomplying lots, add provision about complying with all applicable provisions so that it includes building and fire codes. o Remove some of the standards for unit legalizations that deal with past zoning violations. Past violations that are unrelated to the existence of a dwelling unit should not be a factor in determining if the unit can be recognized as a legal dwelling unit. o Concerns with letting any accessory use go into an accessory building. Is a welding shop appropriate in a shed, for example? Building Services (civil enforcement): no comments provided. Economic Development: inquired about eliminating the ability to seek additional building height in commercial districts. Planning staff provided the department with the number of applications received requesting additional height in commercial districts and information on other processes available to seek additional height. The Division also mentioned that there will be a future analysis of building heights in commercial districts to align with building code requirements, promote more housing, and encourage improved street engagement. Comments were provided by Roberta Reichgelt. Engineering: Engineering is concerned with prohibiting all utility boxes in the ROW. This puts the burden on Engineering to make decisions about the aesthetics of utility boxes when they are mostly focused on the engineering and impact to physical infrastructure, such as sidewalks, curb, and gutter. Finance: no comments received. This was routed to Finance due to the impact on revenue from special exception application fees. It is anticipated that Planning Division revenue will decrease by $40,000 to $45,000 per year. 79 Special Exception Text Amendment  Fire Department: no comments provided.  Housing and Neighborhood Development: no comments provided.  Information Management Services (IMS): no comments provided. Deleting special exceptions will require deactivating the application in the Accela system.  Mayor’s Office: The Mayor was briefed on the concept before the petition was initiated. The Mayor asked that the project include a comprehensive approach and that changes be considered to maintain flexibility while limiting impacts.  Police Department: no comments provided.  Public Services: o Parks and Public Lands: Parks and Public Lands provided comments relating to fence height around outdoor recreation facilities and light poles associated with sports fields. o Golf Division: provided comments regarding fence heights around golf course driving ranges. o the Salt Lake Regional Sports Complex provided input on the height and setbacks of athletic field lighting.  Public Utilities: Public Utilities provided comments about exempting some necessary infrastructure and utility buildings from height requirements in the OS Zoning District, asking if the riparian and lowland overlay zoning districts still apply, clarifying that underground encroachments are on private property only, and ensuring that antennae height would allow the necessary infrastructure to monitor utility facilities. Comments provided by Jason Draper.  Redevelopment Agency: The RDA indicated that they supported the changes because they will help to streamline the building permit review process and provide more predictability for property owners. Comments provided by Lauren Parisi.  Sustainability: no comments provided.  Transportation: Indicated that they had no suggested changes. Comment provided by Michael Barry.  Urban Forestry: no comments provided. 80 3B. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION – SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 i. AGENDA AND MINUTES 81 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation September 30, 2020, at 1:00 p.m. (The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion) This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms:  YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings  SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating or provide general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at:  http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-09302020 Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 1:00 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 26, 2020 REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR WORK SESSIONS: No public comment will be heard 1. 800 South & State Street Design Review at approximately 754 S. State St. – Aabir Malik, an applicant with Colmena Group, is requesting Design Review approval to develop a portion of the former Sears property into an 11-story, 120 foot tall, mixed-use development consisting of ground floor retail and 360 multi-family residential units in upper floors. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to allow for additional building height, modification to the spacing of building entrances and to exceed the maximum street facing facade length. The project site is located in the D-2 (Downtown Support) zoning district and is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros (Staff Contact: Nannette Larsen at (801) 535-7645 or nannette.larsen@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00439 2. Deleting Special Exceptions from the Zoning Ordinance & Associated Ordinance Changes - Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. 82 The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. This briefing is intended to introduce the changes to the Commission in anticipation of a future public hearing. (Staff contact: Nick Norris at (801) 535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-6060 For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. 83 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation Wednesday, September 30, 2020 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 1:00:43 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson, Adrienne Bell; Vice Chairperson, Brenda Scheer; Commissioners, Maurine Bachman, Amy Barry, Carolynn Hoskins, Jon Lee, Matt Lyon, Sara Urquhart, and Crystal Young-Otterstrom. Commissioner Andres Paredes was excused. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Wayne Mills, Planning Manager; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner; and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 26, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 1:00:59 PM MOTION 1:01:09 PM Commissioner Scheer, moved to approve the August 26,2020 meeting minutes. Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Lyon, Scheer, Barry, Urquhart, Bachman and Bell voted “Aye”. Commissioner Lee abstained from voting as he was not present for the said meeting. The motion passed 6-1. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 1:02:04 PM Chairperson Bell stated she had nothing to report. Vice Chairperson Scheer stated she had nothing to report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 1:02:18 PM Nick Norris, Planning Director, thanked the Commission for attending the meeting for work session items. 2:25:25 PM Deleting Special Exceptions from the Zoning Ordinance & Associated Ordinance Changes – Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and 84 structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. This briefing is intended to introduce the changes to the Commission in anticipation of a future public hearing. (Staff contact: Nick Norris at (801) 535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-6060 Nick Norris, Planning Director, briefed the commission with an overview of the proposal and seek input on 5 key issues with the proposal. The Commission and Staff discussed the following:  Front yard parking: proposal is to eliminate. a. Have an issue with eliminating it. b. May impact more modest neighborhoods than wealthier neighborhoods. Some westside neighborhoods have narrow lots where side/rear cannot be accessed. It is not just the avenues or capitol hill. c. Reality is that even if someone has a driveway that leads to a garage, they park in the portion of the driveway in the front yard. If that is allowed, how is this any different in terms of seeing cars parking in the front yard area? d. Would like to see a proposal to allow it with some standards (dimensions, materials, location within front yard) e. If the block face has driveways, it should be allowed. f. Consider standards about parking slab being located closer to the side property line so it is similar to other driveways and not going directly into the middle of the lot.  Commercial Building height a. Is this an issue that is created by how building height is measured in commercial districts? i. For example, if the height is averaged on one slope, how does that translate to the next building face? One side gets the benefit of the slope, but the other doesn’t so in effect it is a meaningless. b. Try to figure out how to allow this when it isn’t adding an additional story of habitable space. Like if the front yard is fine, but the property slopes towards the back, can the rear of the building be level with the street facing façade? c. Can it be based on the length of the lot? Really wide lots may have to have some sort of stepping.  Ground Mounted utility boxes a. Support removing them from the ROW or private developments. b. Understands the need for flexibility with underground power requirements and the tradeoff with some utility boxes.  Accessory building height a. Concerns with just allowing an accessory building up to 75% of the height of the principal structure. What if the principal building is 35 feet tall, should the accessory building be allowed to be almost as tall as the maximum principal building of 28 feet? i. Consider an “up to height” as part of the increased height. 85 b. Concerned with the use of second stories on accessory buildings.  Inline additions a. Want to find a way to allow them inside yards. i. Can we allow a single-story addition to follow the existing setback line, but require a second story to comply with current step backs? b. OK with the front and rear yard proposals. Next Steps:  Engagement period ends on Oct 11th. Will see if there are any additional issues and address them when this comes back to the PC  Will work on addressing the key issues above and work solutions into the proposal.  Targeting November PC meeting for a public hearing due to workloads but would like to transmit by end of December. The meeting adjourned at 3:05:03 PM 86 3B. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION – SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 ii. STAFF REPORT 87 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 www.slcgov.com PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY & NEIGHORHOOD DEVELOPMENT Staff Report To : Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Nick Norris, 801-535-6173, nick.norris@slcgov.com Date: September 25, 2020 (publication) Re: PLNPCM2020-00606 Special Exception Changes Text Amendment Zoning Text Amendment REQUEST: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. RECOMMENDATION: This is a briefing only. The purpose of the briefing is to introduce the Planning Commission to the proposal, the purpose of the project, identify key issues, and answer questions. ATTACHMENTS: A. Public Information Guide Petition Description The special exception code changes project is a proposal to eliminate the special exception process from the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. There are more than 40 authorized exceptions in the zoning ordinance. This proposal would result in one of the following actions for each authorized special exception:  Prohibit exceptions that are routinely denied; 88 Special Exception Text Amendment  Permit exceptions with additional standards for those exceptions that are routinely approved; or  Move specific exceptions to other processes already authorized in the ordinance. The number of special exception applications have grown from 37 in 2011 to 149 in 2019. The increase is directing staff resources away from addressing citywide growth-related issues and instead focusing staff resources towards individual developments. Special exceptions required the equivalent of almost two full time employees to process the applications in 2019. This accounts for about 10% of the total workload. Special exceptions have grown in scope and level of controversy. Without any real cap on the scope of an exception, the requested exceptions are asking for larger modifications. This is increasing the amount of staff required to respond to inquiries, answer questions, negotiate with the applicant, and decide each application. Proposed Changes and Most Frequently Applied for Special Exceptions The number of changes to remove special exceptions from the ordinance are extensive. The key changes are discussed below and based on the most frequently applied for exceptions. The chart shows the number of applications received in the last three years for each type of special exception. Unit Legalizations: Regulations will be relocated to the nonconforming chapter because this is recognized an existing use that has been in existence prior to the current zoning regulations. Replacing Non-Complying Building or building segment: regulations will be moved to noncomplying section because these are legally existing structures that retain certain noncomplying status rights. Home Day Care: This will be addressed through another text amendments that will make home day cares permitted or conditional uses based on the number of children cared for. Hobby Shops: These will become permitted uses in accessory buildings. Type of Special Exception # of applications Unit Legalizations 32 Replace Noncomplying Building 37 Home Day Care 37 Hobby Shop 42 Grade Changes 43 Mechanical Equipment in Required Yard 44 Additional Height Accessory Building 47 HLC Bulk Modification 51 Inline Additions 97 Fence Height 104 What is a special exception? A special exception is a minor modification to a dimensional standard or accessory use with minimal impact to adjacent properties. Top ten most applied for special exceptions for the past three years 89 Special Exception Text Amendment Grade Changes: specific regulations will be added to reduce the size of retaining walls necessary to retain the associated grade changes. The retaining walls will be required to be stepped based on the base zoning districts. Mechanical equipment in required yards: Will be permitted with setback and screening requirements added to reduce negative impacts. Additional Accessory Building Height. The permitted height will remain at seventeen feet for most residential districts (SR-1 and SR-1A have different height requirements). However, the height may be increased up to 75% of the height of principal building for an equal increase to side yard and rear yard setbacks. HLC Bulk Modifications: the authority of the Historic Landmark Commission would remain and authorized through the required process in the overlay zoning district for new construction and additions. Currently two different applications are required. This would reduce the need for a redundant application. Staff authority would be expanded to allow for similar allowances for minor modification applications. Inline Additions: additions to a side yard where the building does not comply with the minimum requirement would be prohibited. Additions in a front or rear yard would be allowed when a portion of the building already encroaches into a required front or rear yard. This is because front yard and rear yard setbacks are larger than side yard setbacks and do not create the same impacts to neighboring properties. Fence Height: this would be deleted. Specific maximum heights would be added. The HLC and PC will retain the ability to approve taller fences to mitigate a negative impact associated with a land use application. (this is being processed as a separate text amendment). Other changes can be found in Attachment A as a quick summary of what would happen to each special exception. The proposed text changes can be found in Attachment B. Review Processes: Zoning Text Amendment Zoning text amendments are reviewed against four considerations, pertaining to whether proposed code is consistent with adopted City planning documents, furthers the purposes of the zoning ordinance, are consistent with other overlay zoning codes, and the extent they implement best professional practices. These factors will be fully analyzed in the final staff report prepared for the public hearing. The primary focus of this text amendment is addressing best professional practices in managing growth by implementing the following practices:  removing processes that are preventing staff resources from being allocated to growth related issues,  modernizing the zoning ordinance by removing outdated regulations and processes (such as special exceptions that are rarely, if ever, applied for), 90 Special Exception Text Amendment  removing regulations that restrict property rights, do not create unexpected impacts, and that do not reflect current trends in how property is used for accessory and ancillary land uses, and  removing regulations that are not necessary to protect and further the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhoods located in the city. City Code amendments are ultimately up to the discretion of the City Council and are not controlled by any one standard. Community Input The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposal that have been received as of Friday, September 25, 2002:  Early notification/online Open House notices e-mailed out August 13, 2020. o Notices were e-mailed to all recognized community organizations (community councils) per City Code 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage  One community council (Sugar House) requested that staff attend and present the changes to their Land Use and Zoning Committee  On September 21, 2020 staff attended the meeting over video conference, reviewed the proposal, and answered questions. The discussion included the following key subjects: o The application fee and the degree to which an application is subsidized. o The ability of the decision makers to require additional fence height to address impacts between incompatible land uses, including when apartment buildings are next to single family. o Whether or not the ability to modify bulk requirements, such as setbacks, building heights, etc. would apply to historic buildings that not located within an existing historic district.  No other formal input has been received from any community councils.  One email has been received from a resident of the East Bench Community. The text from that email is copied below. The actual email will be provided as part of the staff report for the public hearing on this item. Hello Nick I totally agree with your premise on the new special exception process changes, frankly the city is already overwhelmed with frivolous requests on a number of subjects. I also have some further recommendations and would to participate to help you to evaluate the wider problem. 91 Special Exception Text Amendment We have several District chairpersons ( District 5, 6 etc) that are stoking the fire with these notices of special exceptions. I would think this is driving more people to call into the zoning and planning office, only to stymie the process and become actual obstacles for your Dept. Please find attached meeting minutes June 17, 2020. Item 7, brought up the subject of a neighbor in Indian Hills subdivision and his special exception for building a home and height limits. The neighbor and architect already had engaged with zoning and planning and they had already gone through and contacted each of the abutting neighbors to work through the issue. Our chairperson (Aimee Burrows) decided to 'follow through' with the process as if to say she was the street captain on zoning and planning. I told her it was a frivolous use of our time. The neighbor is already following the protocols then we should not allow our District Chairs to muddy up your depts. time by making more work. I propose to you that zoning and planning does not need anymore 'help; from local District Council meetings and that a statement should be mentioned in your new process changes to not encourage creating anymore duplicate work for special exceptions. And although we all have the right to public information, it is not the charter of local meetings to drive special exception agenda. We need to be more efficient, don't you agree? o The American Institute of Architects Utah Chapter was notified of the proposed amendments on September 17, 2020. The Planning Division asked for their help in notifying the local architecture community. No response has been provided. o Information on the online open house posted to the Planning Division website was posted on August 13, 2020. The information was emailed out to the Planning Division list-serve every other week from August 14, 2020 through the October 11, 2020 early engagement period. Website analytics as of September 22, 2020 indicate 135 people have accessed the public information on the Planning Division website concerning this item. Changes That are Most Likely to be Controversial: Most of the changes associated with this proposal are minor in nature. However, some of the changes require more study and input before they can be adequately addressed and may be controversial. It is possible that additional challenges are identified before the public hearing. The known issues are discussed below: 1. Inline Additions Proposed Change:  Remove the special exception process from the ordinance and require inline additions to comply with existing side yard setbacks but allow inline additions in front and rear yards when a portion of the building already encroaches into the front or rear yard. An inline addition is an addition to an existing building where the building does not meet the minimum setback requirements. Inline additions have become a popular application for additions to homes. Most inline additions are requested for older homes that were built at a 92 Special Exception Text Amendment time when building setbacks, mostly side yards, were related to the height of the structure. If a structure was relatively low in height, such as a small cottage or bungalow, it could have smaller side yards. Buildings built prior to zoning also have setbacks that are noncomplying. This proposal would require additions to comply with existing side yard setbacks. This is being proposed to reduce the impacts that additions to noncomplying buildings have on adjacent properties. While a property owner clearly knows how close the existing building is to their property, an addition that increases that impact may not be expected. The proposal would allow inline additions in the rear and front yards when a portion of the building already encroaches into a required yard but would not be allowed to encroach further into a required yard. This is because in most cases the front and rear yards are larger, and the impacts are already reduced. 2. Extra Height in Commercial Districts This special exception is proposed to be deleted. However, recent development proposals have indicated that the rules for measuring height may be problematic on sloping lots. Prior to a final recommendation, the Planning Division will consider practical ways to address this so that property owners do not have to go through a process to address issues with sloping lots. 3. Ground Mounted Utility Boxes in Rights of Way. City staff from Planning, Transportation, and Engineering are proposing eliminating above grade ground mounted utility boxes from being in the rights of way when the utility boxes are only serving a private development. The purpose for this is that the equipment and infrastructure necessary for development should be provided on the private property associated with that development. When utility boxes are in the rights of way, it impacts the future use of the rights of way and limits the city’s ability to make changes, such as planting more trees, building protected bike lanes, widening sidewalks, and providing utility upgrades. 4. Bulk Modifications within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District The ability of the Historic Landmark Commission to make modifications to setbacks, building heights, and other dimensional requirements helps new development fit into the historic development patterns of local historic districts. This authority is proposed to be authorized trough the existing processes required for changes to historic properties instead of requiring a second application and process. Staff is also considering expanding this authority to the planning staff for minor alterations that are approved at a staff level. This would allow staff to make some modifications in situations where someone is restoring a historic structure to its original condition when the current ordinance prohibits it or when additions to historic buildings require some modification to reduce the impact to the historic structure. DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS RECEIVED AS OF 9/24/2020: Planning Staff Note: This proposal was routed to the City Departments and Divisions for review on August 11, 2020. In addition, a follow up meeting is scheduled for September 30, 2020 with Engineering and Building Services to discuss ground mounted utility boxes and how to address them. Below are submitted comments from each Department or Division and a summary of associated meetings.  Airports: no comments received. 93 Special Exception Text Amendment  Building Services (zoning review): Indicated that they thought this would be time saver for staff and would be helpful. They provided specific changes to the following sections of the proposal:  Building Services (civil enforcement): no comments received  Economic Development: inquired about eliminating the ability to seek additional building height in commercial districts. Planning staff provided the department with the number of applications received requesting additional height in commercial districts and information on other processes available to seek additional height. The Division also mentioned that there will be a future analysis of building heights in commercial districts to align with building code requirements, promote more housing, and encourage improved street engagement. Comments were provided by Roberta Reichgelt.  Engineering: no comments received; however, a specific meeting is scheduled for September 30, 2020 to discuss.  Finance: no comments received. This was routed to Finance due to the impact on revenue from special exception application fees. It is anticipated that Planning Division revenue will decrease by $40,000 to $45,000 per year.  Fire Department: no comments provided.  Housing and Neighborhood Development: no comments provided.  Information Management Services (IMS): no comments provided. Deleting special exceptions will require deactivating the application in the Accela system.  Mayor’s Office: The Mayor was briefed on the concept before the petition was initiated. The Mayor asked that the project include a comprehensive approach and that changes be considered to maintain flexibility while limiting impacts.  Parks and Public Lands: no comments provided  Police Department: no comments provided.  Public Services: no comments provided  Public Utilities: no comments provided  Redevelopment Agency: The RDA indicated that they supported the changes because they will help to streamline the building permit review process and provide more predictability for property owners. Comments provided by Lauren Parisi.  Sustainability: no comments provided.  Transportation: Indicated that they had no suggested changes. Comment provided by Michael Barry.  Urban Forestry: no comments provided 94 Special Exception Text Amendment NEXT STEPS: The public comment period for this item runs through October 11, 2020. After the public comment period ends, the Planning Division will review the comment received (both internal and external) and make modifications to the proposal as needed. Due to Planning Commission workloads, this item is not likely to be scheduled for a public hearing until November 18, 2020. Please note that this is the third Wednesday of November. The meeting date has been changes to accommodate Veterans Day on November 11, 2020. It is possible that this item may be scheduled for a public hearing on October 28, 2020 depending on how many private development applications are ready to be heard on that date. That date already has two other city text amendments that are time sensitive. The goal is to have a recommendation and transmit this change to the City Council by the end of the calendar year. 95 Special Exception Text Amendment 96 4. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING – NOVEMBER 5, 2020 A. AGENDA AND MINUTES 97 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation November 5, 2020, at 5:30 p.m. (The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion) This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Chair’s determination that conducting the Historic Landmark Commission Meeting at a physical location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the anchor location. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Historic Landmark Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Historic Landmark Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms:  YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings  SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comments, email; historiclandmarks.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at:  http://tiny.cc/slc-hlc-11052020 Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM Approval of Minutes for October 1, 2020 Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Director’s Report Public Comments - The Commission will hear public comments not pertaining to items listed on the agenda. Public Hearings 1. Fisher Mansion Carriage House Chemical Coating at approximately 1206 West 200 South - CRSA, on behalf of Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands, is requesting a Major Alteration to the Carriage House associated with the Fisher Mansion. The applicant is requesting approval to administer an anti-graffiti coating to the exterior of the Fisher Mansion Carriage House located at 1206 W. 200 S. The anti-graffiti coating is associated with the approved adaptive reuse of the carriage house as a River Recreation and Community Engagement Hub. The subject property is located at 1206 W. 200 S., which is designated as a Salt Lake City Landmark Site. Both structures, the mansion and the carriage house, are listed as contributing to the landmark site. The subject property is located within the I (Institutional) zoning district and within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff Contact: Kelsey Lindquist at (385) 226-7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case number PLNHLC2020-00509 98 2. Harvard Avenue Landscape Alterations at approximately 1362 E Harvard Avenue - Dean Anesi, Landscape Designer, on behalf of the property owners, Joan Hammond, and Joe Dick, is requesting approval from the City for site grading, landscaping, and a 20” high, stone veneer wall installed in the front yard without a Certificate of Appropriateness at the above-listed address. This type of project must be reviewed as a minor alteration to a property in a historic district. The house is a contributing building within the SLC Harvard Heights Historic District and is zoned R-1-7,000 Single-Family Residential District. The subject property is within Council District 6, represented by Dan Dugan. (Staff contact: Nelson Knight at (801) 535-7758 or nelson.knight@slcgov.com) Case number PLNHLC2020-00692 3. Special Exception Text Changes - Deleting Special Exceptions from the Zoning Ordinance and Associated Ordinance Changes. Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The ability to make exceptions to bulk and lot dimensional requirements in local historic districts will be retained through the processes outlined in 21A.34.020 of the City Code. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Nick Norris at (801) 535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-0606 Other Business Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson elections The next regular meeting of the Commission is scheduled for Thursday, December 3, 2020, unless a special meeting is scheduled prior to that date. For Historic Landmark Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission. Appeal of Historic Landmark Commission Decision Anyone who is an “adversely affected party” as defined by Utah Code Section 10-9a-103, may appeal a decision of the Historic Landmark Commission by filing a written appeal with the appeals hearing officer within ten (10) calendar days following the date on which a record of decision is issued. The applicant may object to the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission by filing a written appeal with the appeals hearing officer within thirty (30) calendar days following the date on which a record of decision is issued 99 SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation Thursday, November 5, 2020 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:30:27 PM. Audio recordings of the Historic Landmark Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. Present for the Historic Landmark Commission meeting were: Chairperson Kenton Peters; Vice Chairperson Robert Hyde; Commissioners Babs De Lay, John Ewanowski, Aiden Lillie, Victoria Petro-Eschler, David Richardson, and Michael Vela. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Michaela Oktay, Planning Deputy Director; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner; and Nelson Knight, Senior Planner. Chairperson Peters read the declaration to hold an electronic meeting without an anchor site. APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 1, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 5:35:51 PM MOTION 5:35:57 PM Commissioner Richardson moved to approve the October 1, 2020 meeting minutes. Commissioner Petro-Eschler seconded the motion. The three new commissioners abstained from voting. Commissioners Hyde, Richardson, Petro-Eschler, and Vela voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:37:18 PM Chairperson Peters welcomed our three new commissioners! Vice Chairperson Hyde stated he had nothing to report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:38:17 PM Michaela Oktay let the commission know that we can make badges for HLC members to wear so if they visit a site they can show official credentials. Marlene will send out an email and each commissioner can contact HR to have one made. Public Comment- Chair Peters asked if there were any members of the public who wanted to provide public comments. There were no responses from the public. Director Norris showed a presentation how to “raise the hand” on webex, he also went through all the ways the public can alert the commission and staff how to participate. 7:46:31 PM Special Exception Text Changes - Deleting Special Exceptions from the Zoning Ordinance and Associated Ordinance Changes. Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A 100 special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The ability to make exceptions to bulk and lot dimensional requirements in local historic districts will be retained through the processes outlined in 21A.34.020 of the City Code. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Nick Norris at (801) 535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-0606 Nick Norris, Planning Director, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). The Commission and Staff discussed the following:  Retention of HLC authority when it pertains to special exceptions  The importance of addressing the multiple special exceptions authorized and fixing the code  Overall a valuable and well thought out amendment. PUBLIC HEARING 8:11:00 PM Chairperson Peters opened the Public Hearing; Cindy Cromer – Stated that the importance of the special exceptions authorized by the HLC. She mentioned projects of different use and magnitude that were only possible since the institution of HLC authorization of special exceptions. A well done project. Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Peters closed the Public Hearing. The Commission made the following comments:  All for simplifying the process. All HLC authorities are maintained, simplified and a step in the right direction.  Supportive of all the changes, a great idea. MOTION 8:14:33 PM Commissioner Hyde stated, based on the information in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Historic Landmark Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed text amendment, PLNPCM2020-00606 Special Exception Text Amendment. Commissioner Richardson seconded the motion. Commissioners Lillie, DeLay, Richardson, Ewanowski, Vela, Petro-Eschler, and Hyde voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. 101 4. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING – NOVEMBER 5, 2020 B. STAFF REPORT 102 PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY & NEIGHORHOOD DEVELOPMENT Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission From: Nick Norris, 801-535-6173, nick.norris@slcgov.com Date: October 29, 2020 (publication) Re: PLNPCM2020-00606 Special Exception Changes Text Amendment Zoning Text Amendment REQUEST: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, at the request of the Planning Division, is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding special exceptions. The proposal would delete and eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. A special exception is a minor alteration of a dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures. There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. The proposal addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted, permitted, or authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance. Some special exceptions that will become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts. Special exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division, the Planning Commission, or Historic Landmark Commission. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. RECOMMENDATION: Briefing and public hearing only. This proposal involves multiple chapters of the code and changes regulations that apply city wide. The purpose of the briefing is to inform the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) on the proposal and the process to date, specifically in regards to how the changes impact the authority of the HLC and the Planning Division when reviewing certificates of appropriateness proposals within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Although not required, the HLC may make a recommendation on the proposal. The recommendation would be provided to the Planning Commission and forwarded to the City Council for consideration. ATTACHMENTS: A. Quick guide of changes to each special exception B. Proposed Text Amendment 103 C. Analysis of Zoning Amendment Factors D. Public Outreach Summary E. Department Review Summary Petition Description The special exception code changes project is a proposal to eliminate the special exception process from the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. There are more than 40 authorized exceptions in the zoning ordinance. This proposal would result in one of the following actions for each authorized special exception: • Prohibit exceptions that are routinely denied; • Permit exceptions with additional standards for those exceptions that are routinely approved; or • Move specific exceptions to other processes already authorized in the ordinance. For the purposes of the HLC, the major change proposed result in moving special exceptions under the certificate of appropriateness process. The number of special exception applications have grown from 37 in 2011 to 149 in 2019. The increase is directing staff resources away from addressing citywide growth-related issues and instead focusing staff resources towards individual developments. Special exceptions required the equivalent of almost two full time employees to process the applications in 2019. This accounts for about 10% of the total workload. Special exceptions have grown in scope and level of controversy, particularly outside of the H Overlay. Without any real cap on the scope of an exception, the requested exceptions are asking for larger modifications. This is increasing the amount of staff required to respond to inquiries, answer questions, negotiate with the applicant, and decide on each application. Proposed Changes The number of changes to remove special exceptions from the ordinance are extensive. The Planning Commission was briefed on those changes during a September 30, 2020 work session. A quick guide to the changes can be found in Attachment A. The proposed text changes can be found in Attachment B. The most impactful change that impacts the HLC involves the authority of the HLC to address bulk modifications. The HLC currently has the authority to approve bulk modifications as a special exception. This includes building height, setbacks, lot coverages, and any other regulation that deals with the placement of a building or structure on property located within the H Historic Preservation Overlay Zoning District. This authority includes the ability of staff to address bulk modifications to accessory buildings and structures and other proposals listed as minor alterations. This has proven to be a beneficial tool for the HLC because it has What is a special exception? A special exception is a minor modification to a dimensional standard or accessory use with minimal impact to adjacent properties. 104 provided flexibility in acknowledging that most historic buildings and development patterns within local historic districts were established prior to zoning. It has allowed the HLC to focus on design review standards with the overarching goal of preserving the integrity of a building, site and the established historic context. It has provided a mechanism to develop some lots within the city that were previously unbuildable and to design new construction on those lots with buildings that fit into the historic context. This proposal maintains that authority but eliminates the need to require a separate special exception application and process. The process to approve modification of lot and bulk standards would be now be retained through the existing Certificate of Appropriateness processes outlined in 21A.34.020. The benefits of this change include: • property owners would only need one type of application instead of the two currently required; • decisions would be based on the applicable standards in 21A.34.020 (alteration, new construction) and the general standards for special exception would not be needed; • Review time for staff is reduced due to the reduced analysis necessary with elimination of the special exception standards; and • Staff reports become shorter without the need for additional process review, motions, etc. The proposed changes include changing the authority section so that the surrounding context is more applicable than the current ordinance requires. The current ordinance says that the HLC can only approve a special exception if it is found that the underlying zoning district is incompatible with the historic district or landmark site. That wording is being changed to focus on the proposal complying with the applicable certificate of appropriateness standards and being compatible with the surrounding historic structures. Planning staff would be specifically granted the authority to approve modifications for those things listed in the ordinance as minor alterations. Those items listed include: 1. Minor alteration of or addition to a landmark site or contributing site, building, and/or structure; 2. Substantial alteration of or addition to a noncontributing site; 3. Partial demolition of either a landmark site or a contributing principal building or structure; 4. Demolition of an accessory building or structure; 5. Demolition of a noncontributing building or structure; and 6. Installation of solar energy collection systems pursuant to section 21A.40.190 of this title. This would most likely be used for proposals that fall into items one and two. The HLC would retain the authority to approve modifications for new construction and major alterations. The Planning Division would retain the ability to refer a matter to the HLC for decision if there is a question about the level of compliance with standards. 105 It is conceivable that any of the proposed changes within this proposal could impact properties within historic districts. However, the H Overlay District takes precedence over any other base zoning district requirement or general provision within the ordinance. Properties within the H Historic Overlay District may also be impacted by other proposed changes. Those key changes are discussed within the “Community Input” and “Key Code Changes” sections of this report. The provisions and processes within the H Overlay District would not be impacted by the changes and all exterior modifications of a property subject to the H Overlay would maintain some review process. Applicable Review Processes and Standards Review Processes: Zoning Text Amendment Zoning text amendments are reviewed against four considerations, pertaining to whether proposed code is consistent with adopted City planning documents, furthers the purposes of the zoning ordinance, are consistent with other overlay zoning codes, and the extent they implement best professional practices. This staff report focuses on the factors that are directly related to the HLC and the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and can be found in Attachment C. The primary focus of this text amendment is addressing best professional practices in managing growth by implementing the following practices: • removing processes that are preventing staff resources from being allocated to growth related issues, • modernizing the zoning ordinance by removing outdated regulations and processes (such as special exceptions that rarely, if ever, applied for), • removing regulations that restrict property rights and that do not reflect current trends in how property is used for accessory and ancillary land uses, and • removing regulations that are not necessary to protect and further the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhoods located in the city. City Code amendments are ultimately up to the discretion of the City Council and are not controlled by any one standard. Community Input Public Outreach is summarized in Attachment D and includes who was noticed, when the notice was sent, presentation and meetings held, and submitted comments. Below is a discussion of the key issues identified by the community, how the comments relate to the proposal, and how the comments were reflected in the proposed update. The following issues have been identified through the public engagement process (as of October 29, 2020): 1. Outdoor Dining The Department of Community and Neighborhoods have had several recent complaints about outdoor dining and the impact to adjacent and nearby neighbors. The primary complaints involve noise, proximity to property lines, and businesses not obtaining special exception approvals. The proposed changes would allow outdoor dining as a permitted use to a restaurant, 106 coffee shop, or other food serving business. The proposal maintains some existing standards and adds some new standards: • A ten -foot setback for outdoor dining when located next to a residential zoning district (new); • Limits amplified and live music to decibel levels required by the Salt Lake County Health Department 2. Fence Heights and buffering Changes to fence height are being processed as a separate application and those comments related to this special exception have been included and analyzed in that project. 3. Discrepancy with Special Exception Approvals The Planning Division did hear from a resident of the East Bench Neighborhood regarding special exception approvals. The resident indicated that the process was used to create inequities in property rights, with some property owners benefiting from the process and then using the public process to deny other nearby property owners of the same benefits. The Planning Division has heard similar complaints from applicants and the process does create the potential for an applicant to gain approval if the neighbors are favorable towards a proposal and be denied or have a more rigorous approval process if the neighbors are not in favor. There is some risk that this creates unequal treatment and application of the special exception process and standards. 4. Noncomplying Issues Public comment was received identifying that many properties in the city likely have some level of noncompliance due to the age of the building and changing zoning regulations. The comment indicated that noncomplying issues should be resolved easily and retain property rights. 5. Front yard Parking The Sugar House Community Council indicated that they do not support allowing front yard parking. This is highlighted here because the Planning Commission indicated that it should be allowed under narrow circumstances and the Planning Division has prepared a draft proposal that follows the input of the Planning Commission. 6. Unit Legalizations The comments received regarding unit legalizations focused on the need for the definition of a unit to be applied more uniformly and updated if needed. This is separate from this proposal. The comment including inconsistent application of the definition to include things such as water heaters. However, that is not within the definition within the zoning ordinance and cannot be used to determine if a unit is self-contained. The zoning definition of a dwelling unit is: A building or portion thereof, which is designated for residential purposes of a family for occupancy on a monthly basis and which is a self-contained unit with kitchen and bathroom facilities. The term "dwelling" excludes living space within hotels, bed and breakfast establishments, apartment hotels, boarding houses and lodging houses. It should be noted that this definition is being changed slightly as part of the Shared Housing (formerly known as SROs) zoning amendment. The changes address a shared housing unit not being fully self-contained. 107 7. Vintage Signs A comment was received about vintage signs and that they should be allowed in the CSHBD 2 (Sugar House Business District) zone. A vintage sign is a historic sign that adds some distinctive nature to a neighborhood. Vintage signs can be relocated within the same zoning district, to be moved with a business if it relocates, and are allowed to be used as public art in some zoning districts. This comment is in reference to the use of vintage signs as public art. The ordinance currently restricts this to the Downtown zones, Gateway Mixed Use, and Sugar House Business District 1 zoning districts. The comment from the Sugar House Community Council is related to adding CSHBD2 to the allowed zones where vintage signs could be relocated as public art. The Planning Division updated the proposal to add this zoning district and other similar zoning districts: FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB-SC, FB-SE, TSA. It may be worth considering if vintage signs create an impact in any commercial or mixed-use zoning district and allow them in those districts as well. KEY CODE CHANGES: Most of the changes associated with this proposal are minor in nature. However, some of the changes may have broader implications and deserve to be discussed in more detail. The following specific issues were discussed by the Planning Commission during a work session and are included as information for the Historic Landmark Commission. 1. Inline Additions An inline addition is an addition to an existing building where the building does not meet the minimum setback requirements. Inline additions have become a popular application for additions to homes. Most inline additions are requested for older homes that were built at a time when building setbacks, mostly side yards, were related to the height of the structure. If a structure was relatively low in height, such as a small cottage or bungalow, it could have smaller side yards. Buildings built prior to zoning also have setbacks that are noncomplying. The HLC would retain the ability to approve appropriately designed inline additions. However, outside of the H Overlay additions would be required to comply with existing side yard setbacks. This is being proposed to reduce the impacts that additions to noncomplying buildings have on adjacent properties. While a property owner clearly knows how close the existing building is to their property, an addition that increases that impact may not be expected. The proposal would allow inline additions in the rear and front yards when a portion of the building already encroaches into a required yard but would not be allowed to encroach further into a required yard. This is because in most cases the front and rear yards are larger than side yards and the impacts are already reduced. The Planning Commission supported allowing inline additions to buildings that already encroach into a required front or rear yard. The proposal presented by the Planning Division did not allow inline additions in noncomplying side yards that did not comply with current side yard setbacks. This means that any new addition would be required to meet the setbacks. The Commission requested that the Division consider options for inline additions in noncomplying side yards and suggested limited those additions to single story in height or rethinking how building height is measured. 108 After reviewing these options, the Planning Division is of the opinion that trying to accommodate in line additions as suggested may trigger unintended consequences. The issues identified by Planning Staff include: • Limiting an inline addition to a single story: this required defining what a single story is, how it is measured, and how it interacts with the rest of the structure. For example, an addition could add a single story that had a larger floor to ceiling height than the existing structure, but still be considered a single story. The addition could potentially be a 28-foot-tall space and have the same impacts that a two-story structure may have. • Establishing a new method to measure height for single story additions may create unintended consequences to other structures and would require greater analysis. There are tens of thousands single family structures in the city that were build prior to the current side yard setbacks. Understanding the impact that such a change would have to those properties and the adjacent properties is a challenging task that would require significant staff research that is not currently available. The HLC would retain the ability to modify setbacks, building height and other mass related regulations within historic districts. Maintaining this authority creates a benefit for properties within the H Overlay and is a relatively small, but effective, carrot for creating local historic districts. 2. Front Yard Parking The Planning Commission recommended that front yard parking be allowed provided there are no other alternatives for off-street parking on the property. The Planning Division has added standards that: • Only permits front yard parking when the property has no other off-street parking; • Limits front yard parking to residential uses; • The front or rear yard are not accessible due to the width of a side yard, lack of a side yard, or lack of a wide enough rear yard for corner properties; and • Adds dimensional standards to ensure that the front yard parking does not impact the sidewalk or bike lanes. Front Yard parking is currently an authorized special exception, including in the H Overlay. The applicable approval processes in the overlay would apply to any request for front yard parking. Front yard parking would be considered a minor alteration in most circumstances because it would be proposed on properties that were developed prior to parking requirements being added to the Zoning Ordinance and new construction must comply with current parking requirements, including location of the parking. 3. Additional Height for Accessory Structures The primary concern raised by the Planning Commission involved how high an accessory building could be if the principal structure was more than two stories in height. Standards were added that: • Limited the increase to no more than 25% of the permitted height and restricts the height to no more than 75% of the height of the principal structure; • Requires an increased setback of one foot for every one foot in additional height. 109 Several issues were identified by Planning staff regarding extra height and the likelihood for it to promote second story use in accessory buildings. The existing special exception for extra height in accessory buildings limited the extra height to storage purposes and did not allow windows to face a neighboring yard. The use of the secondary story requires a separate special exception under the current code. However, with the proposed changes, second story use would be permitted. The HLC already has the authority within the H Overlay to approve additional height for accessory structures. This proposal does put some parameters around that additional height that are not currently within the ordinance. However, the HLC would have the authority to modify the height further on a case by case basis. 4. Commercial Building Height The Planning Commission discussed that there could be some benefit for allowing extra height on sloping lots in commercial zoning districts. The concerns raised were mainly focused on buildings with wide frontages and the impact extra height would have. The ability to obtain extra height, up to 10%, was added as a permitted increase provided that at least 50% of the building volume complies with the height, the height allows for the top story to have level floors without internal stepping, and the ground floor has a minimum height of twelve feet. The HLC is currently granted this authority through the general modification to bulk requirements within the code. As this typically applies to new construction, it would more than likely be reviewed by the Commission and not at the staff level. It is possible however that additions to commercial buildings that are within the H Overlay may be eligible for staff review. 5. Ground Mounted Utility Boxes The recommendation from the City is to prohibit ground mounted utility boxes in public rights of way when the utility box is only serving private development. The reason for this change is because the private development benefits from placing the boxes in the rights of way because doing so does not require space on private property for private infrastructure. However, this creates long term planning issues for the City because those boxes will never be able to be moved out of the right of way if the City desires or needs to make changes to the rights of way. Examples of city actions that may be impacted by allowing utility boxes to be placed in the rights of way include planting trees, expanding underground infrastructure (such as water pipes, storm drainage, or sewer lines), widening sidewalks, adding grade separate bike lanes, managing curb space, and other public uses within the ROW. The proposed prohibition would eliminate the ability for utility boxes within historic districts to be placed in the public rights of way when the box is only serving a private development. Utility boxes that serve the broader neighborhood would still be allowed provided they comply with the size requirements in the code. It is possible that a utility box could be proposed in excess of the size requirements because the size requirements are considered bulk regulations. 110 NEXT STEPS: There are a few issues that remain unresolved and some modifications may be made after the HLC public hearing. Those issues involve the key code changes discussed by the Planning Commission. An additional issue that has been identified is additional building height in the Foothill Zoning Districts. There are no local districts mapped within the Foothill Zoning Districts. The relatively steep slopes and large grade changes across individual properties make it difficult to build a new building are make additions to existing homes and comply with the height requirements. This may be addressed by allowing minority percentage of the building to exceed the height, like the proposal in commercial districts. The HLC may provide a positive or negative recommendation for the proposed text amendments. The recommendation will be sent to the Planning Commission and City Council, who will hold a briefing and additional public hearing(s) on the proposed text amendments amendment. The City Council may make modifications to the proposal and approve or decline to approve the proposed zoning text amendments. If the text amendments are approved by the City Council, appeals would be subject to the new City ordinance standards. The HLC may also recommend a modified version of the proposal. This would be advisable if the commission identifies potential issues with any aspect of the proposal. Instances where this may happen include: • The commission wants to add a standard or modify a proposed regulation; • The commission wants to delete a standard or requirement within the proposal; • The commission wants additional information about any aspect of the proposal. There may be situations where the HLC makes a request and the Planning Division is not able to provide information regarding that request. An example of this may be a request for a significant amount of research or data that the Division does not have the capability to provide. 111 This is a simple summary of the proposed changes. Please refer to the draft code in Attachment B for all proposed changes. Additional Accessory structure height: increased height (up to 75% of the principal structure) allowed with increase in setbacks Accessory structures on double frontage lots: standards added to match location of accessory buildings of the block. Additional height for fences: removed exception process, sets maximum heights. Additional building height in commercial districts: deleted special exception; will rely on processes in base zoning district. Additional height in foothill districts: deleted special exception Additional height in R-1, R-2, SR districts: deleted special exception Alternative to off street parking: deleted Barbed wire fences: standards added, restricted to industrial and agricultural zones and for land uses that require added security, such as public utility facilities. Conditional home occupations: deleted. This was changed several years ago to permitted but was not deleted from the special exception chapter. Dividing exiting lots with existing detached dwellings: allowed through the subdivision process with standards added. Front yard parking: deleted Grade changes over 4 feet: will become permitted with a step between retaining walls necessary to retain the grade change. Ground mounted AC units, pool equipment, etc. within 4 feet of side or rear property line: deleted. Will be required to meet standards in code without exceptions. Hobby shop, art studio, exercise room in accessory buildings: deleted, will become permitted. Inline additions: permitted to match the existing building setback in front and rear yards; prohibited when buildings don’t comply with side yard setbacks. Home day care: will become permitted or conditional based on Utah Code requirements for number of kids. Outdoor dining in required yard: will be permitted with specific standards for setbacks, noise, etc. when next to residential zone. Razor wire fencing: limited to industrial and agricultural zones and some uses that require a high level of security. Replacement of noncomplying building or portion of a noncomplying building: allowed by right within the noncomplying chapter of the zoning ordinance. Underground encroachments: permitted in the encroachment table with standards. 112 Window mounted AC units: deleted special exception, will be permitted. Vehicle and equipment storage in CG, M1, M2, EI: permitted with specific standards for water quality and to reduce mud, dirt, gravel being carried onto public streets. Ground mounted utility boxes: permitted in the public right of way if under a certain size and if the box serves a broader area than just a private development and with specific standards. Unit legalizations: will be addressed as a determination of nonconforming use in chapter 21A.38. Standards related to continuing use maintained. Other standards that require update to parking standards deleted. Vintage signs: Changed to permitted with existing standards in the ordinance, expanded where a vintage sign could be used as public art. Additional height for lights at sports fields: changed to permitted with screening of light trespass, increased setback from residential uses. Recreation equipment height in OS zone: capped at 60 feet in height with no exceptions. Public utility buildings in OS zone: will be allowed to exceed building height for critical public utility infrastructure. Does not include office buildings. Fence and wall height over 6 feet for homeless resource centers: Planning Commission will be given the authority to approve taller fences for buffering purposes. Enlargement of structure with noncomplying use: allowed by right provided the addition complies with zoning requirements. Horizontal inline additions: permitted to match existing portions of buildings that do not meet setback when the addition is in the front or rear yards, but prohibited in side yards. Alteration to an existing SFD when the use is not allowed: alterations will be permitted. Amateur HAM radio antennae over 75 feet in height: special exception deleted. Electrical equipment for cell towers: will need to be in a side or rear yard with specific setback and screening requirements. Electrical security fences: deleted and will become nonpermitted. Covered ADA ramps: deleted, will be addressed through a reasonable accommodation authorized under federal laws. Ground mounted utility boxes over a certain size in the right of way: will be deleted and required to be located on private property when serving individual developments. Front yard parking for SFD when side or rear yard not accessible: deleted and will no longer be allowed. Parking exceeding the maximum: deleted. Will be addressed through proposed changes to parking ordinance. Alternative parking requirements: deleted. Will be addressed through proposed changes to parking ordinance. Commercial signs in historic districts: delete special exception requirement; will be authorized through existing processes in the Historic Preservation Overlay. 113 HLC bulk modifications: delete special exception requirement: will be authorized through existing processes in the Historic Preservation Overlay. 114 Special Exception Text Amendment 115 Special Exception Code Changes (Current as of 10/26/2020) This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments to Title 21A. Zoning: • Amends section 21A.06.050 C 6 • Deletes section 21A.24.010 P 2 • Amends section 21A.24.010 P 6 • Amends section 21A.24.050.D.6.a • Amends section 21A.24.060.D.6.a • Amends sections 21A.24.070.D.6.a • Amends section 21A.24.080.D.6.a • Amends section 21A.24.100.D.6.a • Amends section 21A.24.110.D.6.a • Amends section 21A.26.010.J • Amends section 21A.32.100.D.3 • Amends section 21A.32.100.D.4 • Amends section 21A.32.100 H • Amends section 21A.34.120.G • Amends section Table 21A.36.020.B • Amends section 21A.36.350.A.3 • Amends section 21A.38.040.H.2 • Amends section 21A.38.050.A • Amends section 21A.38.050.G • Amends section 21A.38.060 • Amends section 21A.38.070 • Adds new section 21A.38.075 • Amends section 21A.40.040 • Amends section 21A.40.050.A.6 • Amends section 21A.40.050.C • Amends section 21A.40.065 • Amends section 21A.40.090.D • Amends section 21A.40.090.E.3.b • Adds new section 21A.40.100 Mechanical Equipment • Amends section 21A.40.120.I Barbed Wire Fences • Amends section 21A.40.120.J Razor Wire Fences • Amends section 21A.40.120.L Electric Security Fences • Amends section 21A.40.130 Access for Persons with Disabilities • Amends section 21A.40.160 Ground mounted Utility Boxes • Amends section 21A.44.090 Parking Modifications (this is the proposed parking chapter, not the current parking chapter) • Amends section 21A.46.070.V Historic District signs • Amends section 21A.46.125 Vintage signs • Deletes chapter 21A.52 Special Exceptions • Makes technical changes • Makes changes to references associated with the amended sections 116 Underlined text is new; text with strikethrough is proposed to be deleted. All other text is existing with no proposed change. Amending 21A.06.050.C.6 1 6. Review and approve or deny certain special exceptions modifications to dimensional 2 standards for properties located within an H historic preservation overlay district. This 3 authority is also granted to the planning director or designee for applications within the 4 H Historic preservation overlay district that are eligible for administrative approval by 5 the planning director or zoning administrator. The certain special exceptions 6 modifications to zoning district specific development standards are listed as follows and 7 are in addition to any modification authorized elsewhere in this title: 8 a. Building wall height; 9 b. Accessory structure wall height; 10 c. Accessory structure square footage; 11 d. Fence height; 12 e. Overall building and accessory structure height; 13 f. Signs pursuant to section 21A.46.070 of this title; and 14 g. Any modification to bulk and lot regulations, except density, of the underlying 15 zoning district where it is found that the underlying zoning would not be compatible 16 with the historic district and/or landmark site proposal complies with the applicable 17 standards identified in 21A.34.020 and is compatible with the surrounding historic 18 structures. 19 20 Delete section 21A.24.010.P.2 (eliminating additional height in foothill zones) 21 21A.24.010.P.2 22 Height Special Exception: The Planning Commission, as a special exception to the height 23 regulations of the applicable district, may approve a permit to exceed the maximum 24 building height but shall not have the authority to grant additional stories. To grant a 25 height special exception the Planning Commission must find the proposed plan: 26 a. Is a design better suited to the site than can be achieved by strict compliance to 27 these regulations; and 28 b. Satisfies the following criteria: 29 (1) The topography of the lot presents difficulties for construction when the 30 foothill height limitations are applied, 31 (2) The structure has been designed for the topographic conditions existing on 32 the particular lot, and 33 (3) The impact of additional height on neighboring properties has been identified 34 and reasonably mitigated. 35 c. In making these considerations the Planning Commission can consider the size 36 of the lot upon which the structure is proposed. 37 d. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to submit sufficient data to persuade 38 the Planning Commission that the criteria have been satisfied. 39 e. The Planning Commission may deny an application for a height special 40 exception if: 41 117 (1) The architectural plans submitted are designed for structures on level, or 42 nearly level, ground, and the design is transposed to hillside lots requiring support 43 foundations such that the structure exceeds the height limits of these regulations; 44 (2) The additional height can be reduced by modifying the design of the structure 45 through the use of stepping or terracing or by altering the placement of the structure on 46 the lot; 47 (3) The additional height will substantially impair the views from adjacent lots, 48 and the impairment can be avoided by modification; or 49 (4) The proposal is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. 50 Repealed 51 Amending 21A.24.010 P 6 (modifying grade change requirements in foothill zones) 52 6. Grade Changes: No grading shall be permitted prior to the issuance of a building 53 permit. The grade of any lot shall not be altered above or below established grade 54 more than four4 feet (4') at any point for the construction of any structure or 55 improvement except: 56 a. Within the buildable area. Proposals to modify established grade more than 6 six 57 feet (6') shall be reviewed as a special exception subject to the standards in 58 chapter 21A.52 of this title shall be permitted for the construction of below grade 59 portions of structures, egress windows, and building entrances. Grade change 60 transition areas between a yard area and the buildable area shall be within the 61 buildable area; 62 b. Within the front, corner side, side and rear yard areas, proposals to modify 63 established grade more grade changes greater than 4four feet (4') shall be 64 reviewed as a special exception subject to the standards found in chapter 21A.52 65 of this title are permitted provided: and 66 (1) The grade change is supported by retaining walls. 67 (2) No individual retaining wall exceeds 6 feet in height. 68 69 c. As necessary to construct driveway access from the street to the garage or 70 parking area grade changes and/or retaining walls up to six feet (6') from the 71 established grade shall be reviewed as a special exception subject to the standards 72 in chapter 21A.52 of this title Within the front and corner side yards, grade 73 changes up to 6 feet in height are permitted provided: 74 (1) The grade change is necessary for driveways accessing legally located parking 75 areas 76 (2) The grade changes are supported by retaining walls. 77 Delete reference to special exception for extra height in R-1, R-2, and SR districts 78 21A.24.050.D.6.a: 79 6. a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, 80 additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the Planning 81 Commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this 82 title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development 83 pattern on the block face. The Planning Commission will approve, approve with 84 conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 85 118 b. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height 86 for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be 87 reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests 88 subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 89 21A.24.060.D.6.a 90 6. a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, 91 additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the Planning 92 Commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this 93 title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development 94 pattern on the block face. The Planning Commission will approve, approve with 95 conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 96 b. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height 97 for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be 98 reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests 99 subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 100 21A.24.070.D.6.a 101 6. a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, 102 additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the Planning 103 Commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this 104 title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development 105 pattern on the block face. The Planning Commission will approve, approve with 106 conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 107 b. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height 108 for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be 109 reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests 110 subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 111 21A.24.080.D.6.a 112 6. Additional Building Height: 113 a. For properties outside of the H historic preservation overlay district, 114 additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning 115 commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this 116 title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development 117 pattern on the block face. The planning commission will approve, approve with 118 conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 119 b. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building 120 height for properties located in an H historic preservation overlay district shall be 121 reviewed by the historic landmarks commission which may grant such requests 122 subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 123 21A.24.100.D.6.a 124 6. Additional Building Height: 125 a. For properties outside of the H historic preservation overlay district, 126 additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning 127 commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this 128 title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development 129 pattern on the block face. The planning commission will approve, approve with 130 conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 131 b. Additional Principal Building Height:: Requests for additional building 132 height for properties located in an H historic preservation overlay district shall be 133 119 reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests 134 subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 135 21A.24.110.D.6.a 136 6. a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, 137 additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the Planning 138 Commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this 139 title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development 140 pattern on the block face. The Planning Commission will approve, approve with 141 conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 142 b. Additional Principal Building Height: Requests for additional building height 143 for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be 144 reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests 145 subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 146 Delete special exception for extra height in all commercial zoning districts in 21A.26.010 J 147 21A.26.010 J: 148 J. Modifications To Maximum Height: The maximum height of buildings in 149 commercial zoning districts may be increased up to 10% on any building face 150 Additions to the maximum height due to the natural topography of the site may 151 be approved pursuant to the following procedures and standards: 152 1. At least 50% of the building complies with the maximum height of the 153 underlying zoning district; 154 2. The modification allows the upper floor of a building to be level with the 155 portion of the building that complies with the maximum building height 156 of the zone without the 10% modification; and 157 3. The height of the ground floor is at least 12 feet in height measured from 158 finished floor to finished ceiling height. 159 1. Modifications Of Ten Percent Or Less Of Maximum Height: 160 a. The Planning Commission may approve, as a special exception, additional 161 height not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the maximum height pursuant to the 162 standards and procedures of chapter 21A.52 of this title. Specific conditions for 163 approval are found in chapter 21A.52 of this title. 164 2. Modifications Of More Than Ten Percent Of Maximum Height: 165 a. Design Review: Through design review for properties on a sloping lot in 166 Commercial Zoning Districts, pursuant to chapter 21A.59 of this title, the 167 Planning Commission, or in the case of an administrative approval the Planning 168 Director or designee, may allow additional building height of more than ten 169 percent (10%) of the maximum height, but not more than one additional story, if 170 the first floor of the building exceeds twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. The 171 additional story shall not be exposed on more than fifty percent (50%) of the 172 total building elevations. 173 Changes to 21A.32.100 D 3 and D 4 deleting special exception for recreation equipment height 174 and heights for public utility buildings in the OS Open Space zoning district 175 3. Recreation equipment heights or heights for buildings or structures for the Salt Lake 176 City Public Utilities Department that are not specifically exempt in section 177 21A.02.050 of this title, in excess of sixty feet (60') may be approved through the 178 120 Special Exception process. are permitted to a height not to exceed 80 feet when 179 needed due to the nature of the equipment or for the use to operate safely, such as 180 fences surrounding golf course driving ranges. 181 4. Heights for buildings or structures for the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department 182 that are not specifically exempt in section 21A.02.050 of this title, are exempt from 183 the height restrictions in this zoning district provided the building or structure is 184 deemed by the director of the public utilities department as critical infrastructure 185 necessary to provide specific utility needs to the public. 186 Changes to 21A.32.100 H additional height for sports related light poles in the OS zone. 187 H. Lighting: All uses and developments that provide lighting shall ensure that lighting 188 installations comply with the following standards 189 1. Lighting is installed in a manner and location that will do not have an adverse 190 impact on the natural environment when placed in areas with wildlife habitat, 191 traffic safety or on surrounding properties and uses. 192 2. Light sources shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into 193 adjacent properties and have cutoffs to protect the view of the night sky. 194 3. Light poles for outdoor uses, such as sports fields, amphitheaters, and other 195 similar uses may be permitted to exceed the maximum heights up to 70 feet 196 in height provided the lights are located a minimum of 30 feet from a 197 residential use and directed to reduce light trespass onto neighboring 198 properties. 199 200 Changes to 21A.34.120 Garages located in hillsides in the YCI Yalecrest Compatible Infill 201 Overlay 202 G. Special Exception For Garages Built into Hillsides in Front or Corner Side Yards: A 203 garage built into a hillside and located forward of the front line of the building may 204 be allowed as a special exception granted by the planning commission, subject to the 205 following standards: 206 1. The rear and side yards cannot be reasonably accessed for the purpose of 207 parking. 208 2. Because of the topography of the lot it is impossible to construct a garage and 209 satisfy the standards of the YCI. 210 3. The ceiling elevation of the garage is below the elevation of the first or main 211 floor of the house. 212 4. The garage meets all applicable yard requirements. 213 Changes to Table 21A.36.020 B Obstructions in Required yards 214 TABLE 21A.36.020B 215 OBSTRUCTIONS IN REQUIRED YARDS1 216 217 121 Type Of Structure Or Use Obstruction Front And Corner Side Yards Side Yard Rear Yard Below grade encroachments underground obstructions when there is no exterior evidence of the underground structure other than entrances and required venting provided there are no conflicts with any easements or publicly owned infrastructure or utilities. 2 X X X Central air conditioning systems, heating, ventilating, pool and filtering equipment, the outside elements shall be located not less than 4 feet from a lot line..Structures less than 4 feet from the property line shall be reviewed as a special exception according to the provisions of section 21A.52.030 of this title X X Changes of established grade for commercial or industrial uses in zones, where conditionally or otherwise permitted, the grade is changed to accommodate site retention or detention requirements X X X Changes of established grade of 4 feet or less except for the FP and FR Districts which shall be subject to the provisions of subsection 21A.24.010P of this title. (All grade changes located on a property line shall be supported by a retaining wall.) For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, Changes of established grade greater than 4 feet are special exceptions subject to the standards and factors in chapter 21A.52 of this title Grade changes greater than 4 feet in height provided the grade change includes a retaining wall, a horizontal step that is a minimum of 3 feet in depth is provided for every 4 vertical feet of retaining wall. X X X Laundry drying equipment (clothesline and poles) X X X Window mounted refrigerated air conditioners and evaporative "swamp" coolers located at least 2 feet from the property line. Window mounted refrigerated air conditioner units and "swamp" coolers less than 2 feet from the property line shall be reviewed as a special exception according to the provisions of section 21A.52.030 of this title X X X Notes: 218 1. "X" denotes where obstructions are allowed. 219 2. Below grade encroachments (encroachments which are completely below grade where the 220 surface grade remains intact and where the below grade encroachment is not visible from the 221 surface) into required yards shall be treated as a special exception in accordance with the 222 procedures set forth in chapter 21A.52 of this title. reserved 223 3. The accessory structure shall be located wholly behind the primary structure on the 224 property. 225 226 Changes to 21A.36.350 A 3: fence and wall height associated with homeless resource center 227 122 21A.36.350.A.3. A decorative masonry wall that is a minimum of six6 feet (6') high shall 228 be provided along all interior side and rear lot lines and that complies with all required 229 site distance triangles at driveways and walkways. Walls in excess of 6six feet (6') may be 230 approved by the Planning Commission as a special exception required as a condition of 231 approval of a conditional use if it determines a taller wall is necessary to mitigate a 232 detrimental impact created by the homeless resource center or homeless shelter; 233 Changes to 21A.38.040 H 2 enlarging a structure with a legal non-conforming use 234 21A.38.040.H.2 235 2. Enlargement Of A Structure With A Nonconforming Use: Alterations or modifications 236 to a portion of a structure with Enlargement of a legal nonconforming use may be 237 approved by special exception, subject to the provisions of chapter 21A.52 of this title, 238 are limited to a one time expansion of up to if the floor area for the nonconforming use 239 does not increase by more than twenty five 25 percent (25%) of the gross floor area, or 240 one thousand (1,000) gross square feet, whichever is less and subject to the site being 241 able to provide required off street parking that complies with any applicable parking 242 requirement of this title. within the limits of existing legal hard surfaced parking areas 243 on the site. An approved expansion shall be documented through an updated zoning 244 certificate for the property. Any expansion to the nonconforming use portion of a 245 structure beyond these limits is not permitted. The expansion shall be limited to a one-246 time expansion after April 12, 1995, the effective date of this title. Any expansion granted 247 as a special exception after April 12, 1995 shall be considered as fulfilling the one-time 248 expansion. 249 Changes to 21A.38.050 A Noncomplying structures and inline additions 250 A. Enlargement: A noncomplying structure may be enlarged if such enlargement and its 251 location comply with the standards of the zoning district in which it is located or as 252 provided in this section. Horizontal in line additions or extensions to existing 253 noncomplying building portions are considered not creating a new nonconformance 254 and are subject to special exception standards and approval of subsection 255 21A.52.030A15 of this title. Vertical in line additions or extensions to existing 256 noncomplying building portions are considered creating a new nonconformance and 257 are not permitted. 258 1. Noncomplying as to setbacks 259 a. Front yard: A principal building with a front yard setback that is less than the 260 minimum required may be enlarged provided the addition does not further 261 reduce the existing front yard setback and complies with all other applicable 262 requirements of Title 21A. 263 b. Corner side yards: A principal building with a corner side yard setback that is 264 less than the minimum required may be enlarged provided the addition does 265 not further reduce the existing corner side yard setback and complies with all 266 other applicable requirements of Title 21A. 267 c. Interior side yards: Any addition to a principal structure with a 268 noncomplying setback is permitted provided the addition complies with the 269 minimum side yard setback requirement and maximum wall height as 270 specified in the underlying zone. In determining if a side yard is 271 123 noncomplying, the narrower of the two side yards shall be interpreted to be 272 the narrower side yard required in the underlying zoning district. 273 274 d. Rear yards. A principal building noncomplying to rear yard setbacks may be 275 expanded provided the expansion follows an existing noncomplying building 276 wall and does not result in a decrease of the existing rear yard setback and 277 complies with side and corner side yard setbacks of the underlying zoning 278 district. If the building does not comply with the existing side or corner side 279 yard setback, the expansion shall be permitted to extend to the side or corner 280 side yard setback of the underlying zone. 281 2. Noncomplying as to height: A principal structure that exceeds the maximum 282 height of the underlying zoning district may be expanded at the existing height of 283 the building provided the setbacks of the underlying zoning district are complied 284 with. If the existing setbacks of the structure are noncomplying, then an 285 expansion of the building shall comply with the height and applicable setback 286 requirements of the underlying zoning district. 287 Changes to 21A.38.050 G replacement/reconstruction of a noncomplying structure 288 The replacement or reconstruction of any existing noncomplying portion of a principal 289 structure or full replacement of a noncomplying accessory structure is subject to the 290 special exception standards of subsection 21A.52.030A19 of this title permitted provided 291 the replacement is in the same location or in a location that reduces the degree of 292 noncompliance and is of substantially the same dimension. Enlarging a full replacement 293 of a noncomplying accessory structure is permitted provided the enlarged section 294 complies with all setback, height, maximum square feet, and lot or yard coverage 295 requirements. 296 Changes to 21A.38.060 Noncomplying lots: adding paragraph A addressing subdividing a lot 297 with two or more principal buildings. 298 A. Subdividing Lots containing two or more separate principal buildings. Lots that 299 contain two or more separate principal buildings on a single parcel may be subdivided to 300 place each structure on a separate lot subject to the following provisions 301 1. The properties shall be subdivided by recording of a plat. 302 2. The proposed lots are exempt from the minimum lot area, lot width, lot coverage, 303 and street frontage requirements of the underlying zoning district; 304 3. The proposed setbacks shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director 305 after consultation with applicable city departments; 306 4. The proposed subdivision plat shall identify the front, corner side, interior side, 307 and rear yards for the purpose of future development. 308 5. Parking may be located anywhere within the proposed subdivision except front 309 yards (unless already existing) and shall not be reduced below the existing off-310 street parking 311 6. All lots that are part of the subdivision must include adequate access to a public 312 street. Adequate access shall include pedestrian walkways and when off-street 313 parking is required, vehicle access and parking. 314 124 7. All necessary easements for access and utilities are shown on the plat. A note 315 shall be added to indicate responsibility for maintenance of shared access and 316 utilities. 317 8. All other applicable regulations of the Salt Lake City Code shall apply. 318 Changes to 21A.38.070 Legal conforming single-family detached dwelling, tw0-family dwelling, 319 and twin home. 320 Any legally existing single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling, or twin home 321 located in a zoning district that does not allow these uses shall be considered legal 322 conforming. Legal conforming status shall authorize replacement of the single-family 323 detached dwelling, two-family dwelling, or twin home structure to the extent of the 324 original footprint. 325 326 A. Alterations, Additions Or Extensions Or Replacement Structures Greater Than 327 The Original Footprint: In zoning districts other than M-1 and M-2, which do 328 not allow detached single-family dwelling units, two-family dwelling units or 329 twin homes, any alterations, extensions/additions or the replacement of the 330 structure may exceed the original footprint by twenty five25 percent (25%) of the 331 existing structure subject to the following standards: 332 1. Any alterations, extensions/additions or the replacement structure shall not 333 project into a required yard beyond any encroachment established by the 334 structure being replaced. 335 2. Any alterations, additions or extensions beyond the original footprint which 336 are noncomplying are subject to special exception standards of subsection 337 21A.52.030A15 of this title. 338 3. All replacement structures in nonresidential zones are subject to the 339 provisions of section 21A.36.190, "Residential Building Standards For Legal 340 Conforming Single-Family Detached Dwellings, Two-Family Dwellings And 341 Twin Homes In Nonresidential Zoning Districts", of this title. 342 343 Any alterations, additions or extensions or replacement structures which exceed twenty 344 five percent (25%) of the original footprint, or alterations, additions or extensions or 345 replacement of a single-family detached dwelling, two-family dwelling or twin home in 346 an M-1 or M-2 zoning district may be allowed as a conditional use subject to the 347 provisions of chapter 21A.54 of this title. 348 Adding new section 21A.38.075 Unit Legalizations: relocated from special exception chapter. 349 A. Purpose: The purpose of this subsection is to implement the existing Salt Lake City 350 community housing plan by providing a process that gives owners of property with one 351 or more excess dwelling units not recognized by the city an opportunity to legalize such 352 units based on the standards set forth in this section. The intent is to maintain existing 353 housing stock in a safe manner that contributes to the vitality and sustainability of 354 neighborhoods within the city. 355 B. Review Standards: A dwelling unit that is proposed to be legalized pursuant to this 356 section shall comply with the following standards. 357 358 125 1. The dwelling unit existed prior to April 12, 1995. In order to determine whether 359 a dwelling unit was in existence prior to April 12, 1995, the unit owner shall 360 provide documentation thereof which may include any of the following: 361 a. Copies of lease or rental agreements, lease or rent payments, or other similar 362 documentation showing a transaction between the unit owner and tenants; 363 b. Evidence indicating that prior to April 12, 1995, the city issued a building 364 permit, business license, zoning certificate, or other permit relating to the 365 dwelling unit in question; 366 c. Utility records indicating existence of a dwelling unit; 367 d. Historic surveys recognized by the Planning Director as being performed by a 368 trained professional in historic preservation; 369 e. Notarized affidavits from a previous owner, tenant, or neighbor; 370 f. Polk, Cole, or phone directories that indicate existence of the dwelling unit 371 (but not necessarily that the unit was occupied); or 372 g. Any other documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public 373 record which indicates the existence of the excess unit prior to April 12, 1995. 374 2. The excess unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling unit since April 12, 375 1995. In order to determine if a unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling 376 unit, the following may be considered: 377 a. Evidence listed in subsection B.1 of this section indicates that the unit has 378 been occupied at least once every 5 calendar years; 379 b. Evidence that the unit was marketed for occupancy if the unit was unoccupied 380 for more than 5 consecutive years; 381 c. If evidence of maintaining a separate dwelling unit as required by subsections 382 B.1 of this section cannot be established, documentation of construction 383 upgrades may be provided in lieu thereof. 384 d. Any documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public record 385 which provides evidence that the unit was referenced as a separate dwelling 386 unit at least once every 5 years. 387 3. The property where the dwelling unit is located: 388 a. Can accommodate on-site parking as required by this title, or 389 b. Is located within a one-fourth (1/4) mile radius of a fixed rail transit stop or 390 bus stop in service at the time of legalization. 391 4. Any active zoning violations occurring on the property must be resolved except 392 for those related to excess units. 393 C. Conditions Of Approval: Any approved unit legalization shall be subject to the following 394 conditions: 395 1. The unit owner shall allow the City's building official or designee to inspect the 396 dwelling unit to determine whether the unit substantially complies with basic life 397 safety requirements as provided in title 18, chapter 18.50, "Existing Residential 398 Housing", of this Code. 399 2. All required corrections indicated during the inspection process must be 400 completed within 1 year unless granted an extension by the Building Official. 401 3. If a business license is required by Title 5 of the Salt Lake City Code of ordinance, 402 the unit owner shall apply for a business license, when required, within fourteen 403 (14) days ofany correction required by this section being completed and approved 404 by the City Building Official.. 405 406 126 D. Application: A determination of non-conforming use application, provided by the Zoning 407 Administer, shall be required to legalize unrecognized dwelling units. A notice of 408 application shall be sent to property owners and occupants as required by chapter 409 21A.10. The purpose of the notice is to allow neighbors to submit evidence regarding the 410 existence of the dwelling unit and the length of time that the unit has been in existence. 411 Changes to 21A.40.040 Use limitations: clarifies accessory uses. 412 21A.40.040: USE LIMITATIONS: 413 In addition to the applicable use limitations of the district regulations, no accessory use, 414 building or structure shall be permitted unless it complies with the restrictions set forth 415 below: 416 A. An accessory use, building or structure shall be incidental and subordinate to the 417 principal use or structure in area, extent and purpose; 418 B. An accessory use, building or structure shall be under the same ownership or 419 control as the principal use or structure, and shall be, except as otherwise expressly 420 authorized by the provisions of this title, located on the same lot as the principal 421 use or structure; 422 C. No accessory use, building or structure shall be established or constructed before 423 the principal use is in operation or the structure is under construction in 424 accordance with these regulations; and 425 D. No commercial sign, except as expressly authorized by this chapter or by the 426 provisions of chapter 21A.46 of this title, shall be maintained in connection with an 427 accessory use or structure. 428 E. An accessory use shall be permitted if it is routinely and customarily associated with 429 the principal use and not otherwise prohibited by this Title. For residential uses, 430 this includes accessory uses that are customarily associated with a dwelling, such as 431 home office, outdoor living space, pool houses, storage, personal use, hobbies, and 432 other similar uses but does not include short term rentals or other uses not allowed 433 in the zoning district. 434 435 Changes to 21A.40.050 A 6 accessory structures on double frontage lots. Clarifies where 436 accessory structures can be located on lots that have two front yards (a street along the front 437 yard and back yard) 438 21A.40.050 A 6: Double Frontage lots: Accessory structures and buildings located on a 439 property where both the front and rear yards have frontage on a street may be located in 440 a front yard provided the accessory building or structure: 441 a. Is located in a provided yard that is directly opposite the front yard where the 442 primary entrance to the principal building is located; 443 b. Is in a location that is consistent with other accessory building locations on the 444 block; 445 c. Complies with any clear view triangle requirements of this Title; and 446 d. Complies with all other accessory building and structure requirements of this 447 title. 448 449 Changes to 21A.40.050 C Maximum height of accessory structures. Changes how accessory 450 buildings are measured for height and increases the allowed height up to 75% of the principal 451 structure if the setbacks are increased. 452 127 C. Maximum Height Of Accessory Buildings/Structures: 453 1. Accessory To Residential Uses In The FP District, RMF Districts, RB, R-MU 454 Districts, SNB And The RO District: The height of accessory buildings/structures 455 in residential districts are measured from established grade to the highest point of 456 the accessory building and shall conform to the following: 457 a. The height of accessory buildings structures with flat roofs shall not exceed 458 twelve12 feet (12'). The height of flat roof structures may be increased up to 459 75% of the height of the principal structure, not to exceed 15 feet provided 460 the setbacks increases 1 foot for every one 1 foot of building height above 12 461 feet. 462 b. The height of accessory buildings structures with pitched roofs shall not 463 exceed 17 seventeen feet (17') measured to the midpoint of the roof. The 464 height of pitched roof structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of 465 the principal structure, not exceed 15 feet provided the setbacks increase 1 466 foot for every 1 foot of structure height above 17 feet. ; and 467 c. Accessory buildings with greater building height may be approved as a 468 special exception, pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. 469 2. Accessory To Residential Uses In The FR, R-1 Districts, R-2 District And SR 470 Districts: The height of accessory buildings/structures in the FR districts, R-1 471 districts, R-2 district and SR districts are measured from established grade to the 472 highest point of the accessory structure and shall conform to the following: 473 a. The height of accessory buildings structures with flat roofs shall not exceed twelve 474 12 feet (12'); nine9 feet (9') measured from established grade in the SR-1A 475 zoning district. The height of flat roof structures may be increased up to 75% 476 of the height of the principal structure, not to exceed 15 feet or 11 feet in the 477 SR-1A zoning district provided the setbacks are increased 1 foot for every one 478 1 foot of building height above 12 feet or 9 feet in the SR-1A zoning district. 479 b. The height of accessory buildings structures with pitched roofs shall not 480 exceed seventeen17 feet (17') measured as the vertical distance between the 481 top of the roof and the established grade at any given point of building 482 coverage. In the SR-1A zoning district the height of accessory buildings 483 structures with pitched roofs shall not exceed 14fourteen feet (14'). The 484 height of pitched roof structures may be increased up to 75% of the height of 485 the principal structure, not to exceed 21 feet or 15 feet in the SR-1A zoning 486 district provided the setbacks are increased 1 foot for every 1 foot of building 487 height above 17 feet or 15 feet in the SR-1A zoning district.; and 488 c. Accessory buildings with greater building height may be approved as a 489 special exception, pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title, if the proposed 490 accessory building is in keeping with other accessory buildings on the block 491 face. 492 493 128 Changes to 21A.40.065 Outdoor Dining. Outdoor dining changed to permitted with clarified 494 standards related to noise, setbacks, and location. 495 21A.4o.065 Outdoor Dining 496 "Outdoor dining", as defined in chapter 21A.62 of this title, shall be allowed in any 497 zoning district where restaurant and retail uses are allowed and for any noncomplying 498 restaurant or retail use subject to the provisions of this section: 499 A. Where allowed: 500 A. Within the buildable lot area, Outdoor dining in the public way shall be 501 permitted subject to all City requirements. 502 B. Within a required or provided front or corner side yard; 503 C. Within a required side yard provided: the outdoor dining is setback a 504 minimum of 10 feet when adjacent to a residential zoning district that does 505 not permit restaurants or retail uses. Properties separated by an alley are not 506 considered adjacent for the purpose of this section. 507 D. Within a required rear yard provided the outdoor dining is setback a 508 minimum of 10 feet when adjacent to a residential zoning district that does 509 not permit restaurants or retail uses. Properties separated by an alley are not 510 considered adjacent for the purpose of this section. 511 E. Within a public right of way or an adjacent public property subject to all 512 applicable lease agreements, applicable regulations, and the outdoor dining 513 design guidelines. 514 B. Outdoor dining is allowed within the required landscaped yard or buffer area, in 515 commercial and manufacturing zoning districts where such uses are allowed. 516 Outdoor dining is allowed in the RB, CN, MU, R-MU, RMU-35 and the RMU-45 517 Zones and for nonconforming restaurants and similar uses that serve food or 518 drinks through the provisions of the special exception process (see chapter 519 21A.52 of this title). All outdoor dining shall be subject to the following 520 conditions: 521 1. All applicable requirements of chapter 21A.48 and section 21A.36.020 of this 522 title are met. 523 2. All required business, health and other regulatory licenses for the outdoor 524 dining have been secured. 525 3. All the proposed outdoor dining activities will be conducted on private 526 property owned or otherwise controlled by the applicant and that none of 527 the activities will occur on any publicly owned rights-of-way unless separate 528 approval for the use of any such public rights-of-way has been obtained 529 from the City. 530 b. The location of any paving, landscaping, planters, fencing, canopies, 531 umbrellas or other table covers or barriers surrounding the area; 532 c. The proposed outdoor dining will not impede pedestrian or vehicular 533 traffic; and 534 4d. The main entry has a control point as required by State liquor laws. 535 5e. The proposed outdoor dining complies with all conditions pertaining to 536 any existing variances, conditional uses or other approvals granted for 537 property. 538 6f. Live music will not be performed nor loudspeakers played in the outdoor 539 dining area unless the decibel level is within conformance with the Salt 540 Lake City noise control ordinance, title 9, chapter 9.28 of this Code. Live 541 129 music and loudspeakers are prohibited outside between the hours of 9:00 542 pm and 9:00 am when the property is adjacent to a residential zoning 543 district. 544 7g. No additional parking is required unless the total outdoor dining area 545 ever exceeds five hundred (500) square feet. Parking for outdoor dining 546 areas in excess of five hundred (500) square feet is required at a ratio of 547 two (2) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet of outdoor dining 548 area. No additional parking is required in the D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, TSA, or 549 G-MU Zone. Outdoor dining shall be by considered an expansion of an 550 use for the purpose of determining if additional parking is required as 551 stated in Chapter 21A.44 Parking. 552 8. Smoking shall be prohibited within the outdoor dining area and within 553 twenty five25 feet (25') of the outdoor dining area. 554 ii. H. The proposed outdoor dining complies with the 555 environmental performance standards as stated in 556 section 21A.36.180 of this title. 557 iii. i. Outdoor dining shall be located in areas where 558 such use is likely to have the least adverse impacts on 559 adjacent properties. 560 561 Changes to 21A.40.090 D Amateur radio facilities with surface area exceeding 10 square feet. 562 Removes the special exception process for extra height. 563 21A.40.090 D: Amateur Radio Facilities with Surface Area Exceeding 10 Square Feet 564 Amateur Radio Facilities With Surface Area Exceeding 10 Square Feet: Any antenna and 565 antenna support having a combined surface area greater than ten (10) square feet or 566 having any single dimension exceeding twelve 12 feet (12') that is capable of transmitting 567 as well as receiving signals and is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission 568 as an amateur radio facility shall be permitted as an accessory use, but only in 569 compliance with the regulations set forth below: 570 1. Number Limited: No more than one such antenna or antenna support structure with 571 a surface area greater than ten (10) square feet or any single dimension exceeding 572 twelve12 feet (12') may be located on any lot. 573 2. Height Limited: No such antenna and its support structure shall, if ground mounted, 574 exceed seventy five75 feet (75') in height or, if attached to a building pursuant to 575 subsection D3 of this section, the height therein specified. 576 3. Attachment To Buildings Limited: No such antenna or its support structure shall be 577 attached to a principal or accessory structure unless all of the following conditions 578 are satisfied: 579 a. Height: The antenna and its support structure shall not extend more than twenty 580 20 feet (20') above the highest point of the building on which it is mounted. 581 b. Mounting: The antenna and its support structure shall not be attached to or 582 mounted upon any building appurtenance, such as a chimney. The antenna and 583 its support structure shall not be mounted or attached to the front or corner side 584 of any principal building facing a street, including any portion of the building 585 roof facing any street. The antenna and its support structure shall be designed to 586 withstand a wind force of eighty (80) miles per hour without the use of 587 supporting guywires. 588 130 c. Grounding: The antenna and its support structure shall be bonded to a grounding 589 rod. 590 d. Other Standards: The antenna and its support structure shall satisfy such other 591 design and construction standards as the Zoning Administrator determines are 592 necessary to ensure safe construction and maintenance of the antenna and its 593 support structure. 594 e. Special Exception For Increased Height: Any person desiring to erect an amateur 595 ("ham") radio antenna in excess of seventy five feet (75') shall file an application 596 for a special exception with the Zoning Administrator pursuant to chapter 21A.52 597 of this title. In addition to the other application regulations, the application shall 598 specify the details and dimensions of the proposed antenna and its supporting 599 structures and shall further specify why the applicant contends that such a design 600 and height are necessary to accommodate reasonably amateur radio 601 communication. The Zoning Administrator shall approve the proposed design 602 and height unless the Zoning Administrator finds that a different design and 603 height which is less violative of the City's demonstrated health, safety or aesthetic 604 considerations also accommodates reasonably amateur radio communication 605 and, further, that the alternative design and height are the minimum practicable 606 regulation necessary to accomplish the City's actual and demonstrated legitimate 607 purposes. The burden of proving the acceptability of the alternative design shall 608 be on the City. 609 610 Changes to 21A.40.090 E 3 b electrical equipment exceeding the permitted size for cell towers. 611 Requires electrical equipment to be located on private property and prohibits the equipment 612 from being located between the street facing façade and the street. 613 21A.40.090.E.3.b Electrical Equipment Located On Private Property: Electrical 614 equipment shall be subject to the following standards: located in the rear yard, interior 615 side yard, or within the buildable area on a given parcel. In the case of a parcel with an 616 existing building, the electrical equipment shall not be located between the front and/or 617 corner street facing building facades of the building and the street. 618 619 Electrical equipment located in a residential zoning district, shall not exceed a width of 620 four feet (4'), a depth of three feet (3'), or a height of four feet (4') to be considered a 621 permitted use if located outside of an enclosed building. Electrical equipment exceeding 622 these dimensions shall be located inside of an enclosed building. 623 624 Electrical equipment located in all other CN, PL, PL-2, CB, I or OS Zoning Districts shall 625 not exceed a width of six feet (6'), a depth of three feet (3'), or a height of six feet (6') to 626 be considered a permitted use if located outside of an enclosed building. Electrical 627 equipment exceeding these dimensions shall be located inside of an enclosed building. 628 . 629 630 Electrical equipment exceeding the dimensions listed above shall be reviewed 631 administratively as a special exception per chapter 21A.52 of this title. 632 633 The electrical equipment and any necessary building shall be subject to the maximum lot 634 coverage requirements in the underlying zoning district. 635 i. Located in a rear yard, interior side yard, or within the building area of the lot. 636 131 ii. If located in a zoning district without a require front or corner side yard setback, the 637 equipment shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from the front or corner side yard 638 property line. 639 iii. Located a minimum of 4 feet from a side or rear property line unless located in an 640 enclosed structure or a vault where the equipment will not be visible. 641 iv. If the equipment is located next to a public trail, park, open space, or other public 642 space other than a street, the equipment shall be screened by a masonry wall or solid 643 fence so the equipment is not visible. 644 v. The electrical equipment and any structure associated with the electrical equipment is 645 subject to the maximum lot coverage of the underlying zoning district. 646 647 Adding new section 21A.40.100 Mechanical equipment. Requires mechanical equipment to be 648 located on private property subject to specific standards. 649 21A.40.100 Location of Mechanical Equipment: All mechanical equipment shall be 650 located as follows 651 A. Front and corner side yards and double frontage lots: Only allowed if located within 652 4 feet of the principal building and screened by vegetation, a solid wall or fence so the 653 equipment is not visible and at least 10 feet from the front and corner side yard 654 property lines. 655 B. Side yards: At least 4 feet from a side property line. 656 C. Rear yards: at least 4 feet from a rear property line. 657 D. Prohibited areas: in addition to the yard requirements above, mechanical equipment 658 is prohibited to be located on the roof of an accessory structure, with the exception of 659 exhaust fans and mechanical vents serving the accessory building in which case the 660 fans or vents shall be at least 10 feet from a property line. 661 662 Changes to 21A.40.120 I Barbed wire fences: removes special exception requirements and adds 663 standards to address impacts. 664 I. Barbed Wire Fences: 665 1. Permitted Use: Barbed wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the following 666 instances: 667 a. AG, AG-2, AG-5, AG-20, A, CG, M-1, and M-2 and D-2 districts and to secure 668 critical infrastructure located in any other zoning district not listed subject to the 669 following requirements. Critical infrastructure includes sites that are necessary 670 to protect the facility or site for the purpose of public health and safety. Barbed 671 wire is also permitted to secure construction sites and sites where construction 672 is pending provided it is removed once construction is complete. 673 b. Barbed wire fences shall be subject to the following provisions: 674 (1) Not allowed in a provided or required front yard. 675 (2) The barbed wire is permitted to exceed the maximum fence height. 676 (3) No strand of barbed wire shall be permitted less than 7 feet in height above 677 the ground except for agricultural purposes provided the barbed wire is 678 vertically aligned. 679 (4) No more than 3 strands of barbed wire are permitted. 680 (5) The barbed wire strands shall not slant outward from the fence more than 681 60 degrees from a vertical line. 682 (6) All barbed wire shall be setback a minimum of 3 feet from public property. 683 132 (7) The barbed wire is not located along a property line shared with a 684 residential use when the subject property is located in a CG zoning district. 685 2. Special Exception: Barbed wire fencing may be approved for 686 nonresidential uses as a special exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of 687 this title, in all zoning districts except for those listed above as permitted 688 uses. The planning commission may approve as special exceptions, the 689 placement of barbed wire fences, for security reasons, or for the keeping 690 out of animals around nonresidential properties, transformer stations, 691 microwave stations, construction sites or other similar publicly 692 necessary or dangerous sites, provided the requested fence is not in any 693 residential district and is not on or near the property line of a lot which is 694 occupied as a place of residence. 695 3. Location Requirements: Barbed wire fencing shall not be allowed in 696 required front yard setbacks nor along frontages on streets defined as 697 gateway streets in Salt Lake City's adopted urban design element master 698 plan. 699 4. Special Design Regulations: No strand of barbed wire shall be 700 permitted less than six feet (6') high. No more than three (3) strands of 701 barbed wire are permitted. The barbed wire strands shall not slant 702 outward from the fence more than sixty degrees (60°) from a vertical 703 line. No barbed wire strand shall project over public property. If the 704 barbed wire proposed slants outward over adjoining private property the 705 applicant must submit written consent from adjoining property owner 706 agreeing to such a projection over the property line. 707 5. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission may 708 approve, as a special exception, the building permit for a barbed wire 709 fence if it is found that the applicant has shown that the fence is 710 reasonably necessary for security in that it protects people from 711 dangerous sites and conditions such as transformer stations, microwave 712 stations or construction sites. 713 714 Changes to 21A.40.120 J Razor wire fencing: removes special exception requirements and adds 715 standards to address impacts. 716 J. Razor Wire Fences: Razor wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the M-1, M-2 717 and EI zoning and D-2 districts and to secure critical infrastructure structures and 718 sites located in any other zoning district not listed subject to the following 719 requirements. Critical infrastructure includes sites that are necessary to protect the 720 facility or site for the purpose of public health and safety. 721 1. Special Exception: Razor wire fencing may be approved for nonresidential uses as 722 a special exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title, in the A, CG, D-2, M-1 723 and M-2 zoning districts. The planning commission may approve as a special 724 exception the placement of razor wire fences, for security reasons, around 725 commercial or industrial uses, transformer stations, microwave stations, or other 726 similar public necessity or dangerous sites; provided, that the requested fence is 727 not on the property line of a lot which is occupied as a place of residence. Not 728 allowed in a provided or required front or corner side yard. 729 133 2. Location Requirements: Razor wire fencing shall not be allowed in required front 730 or corner side yard setback The razor wire is permitted to exceed the maximum 731 fence height to a height necessary to reasonably secure the site. 732 3. Special Design Regulations: No strand of razor wire shall be permitted on a fence 733 that is less than seven7 feet (7') high. Razor wire coils shall not exceed eighteen18 734 inches (18") in diameter and must slant inward from the fence to which the razor 735 wire is being attached. 736 4. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission may approve 737 razor wire fencing if the commission finds that the applicant has shown that razor 738 wire is necessary for the security of the property in questionAll razor wire shall be 739 setback a minimum of three (3) feet from public property in zoning districts that 740 do not have a minimum setback. 741 742 Changes to 21A.40.120 L Electric security fencing: removes special exception requirements and 743 adds standards to address impacts. 744 L. Electric Security Fences: 745 1. Permitted Use: Electric security fences are allowed as a permitted use in the M-1 746 and M-2 zones. Electric security fences on parcels or lots that abut a residential zone are 747 prohibited. 748 2. Special Exception: Electric security fences on parcels or lots adjacent to a 749 commercial zone may be approved as a special exception pursuant to the requirements 750 in chapter 21A.52 of this title. 751 23. Location Requirements: Electric security fences shall not be allowed in required 752 front yard setbacks or on frontages adjacent to residentially zoned properties. 753 34. Compliance With Adopted Building Codes: Electric security fences shall be 754 constructed or installed in conformance with all applicable construction codes. 755 45. Perimeter Fence Or Wall: No electric security fence shall be installed or used 756 unless it is fully enclosed by a nonelectrical fence or wall that is not less than six6 feet 757 (6') in height. There shall be at least one1 foot (1') of spacing between the electric security 758 fence and the perimeter fence or wall. 759 56. Staging Area: All entries to a site shall have a buffer area that allows on site 760 staging prior to passing the perimeter barrier. The site shall be large enough to 761 accommodate a vehicle completely outside of the public right of way. 762 67. Height: Electric security fences shall have a maximum height of ten10 feet (10'). 763 78. Warning Signs: Electric security fences shall be clearly identified with warning 764 signs that read: "Warning-Electric Fence" at intervals of not greater than sixty60 feet 765 (60'). Signs shall comply with requirements in chapter 21A.46, "Signs", of this title. 766 89. Security Box: Electric security fences shall have a small, wall mounted safe or 767 box that holds building keys for police, firefighters and EMTs to retrieve in emergencies. 768 769 Changes to 21A.40.130 Access for persons with disabilities. Removes the special exception 770 process and allows staff level decisions based on federal regulations. 771 21A.40.130 Access for persons with disabilities: building permits for an uncovered 772 vertical wheelchair lift, or for an uncovered access ramp, for persons with disabilities, 773 under four 4 feet (4') in height, or any other form of uncovered access, for persons with 774 disabilities, under four feet4 (4') in height, that encroaches into required yard areas, may 775 be approved by the Zoning Administrator as a permitted accessory structure. Covered 776 ramps or other access structures for persons with disabilities that encroach into required 777 134 yard areas, shall be considered as a reasonable accommodation under applicable federal 778 regulations. approved, pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. Application for a special 779 exception for an access structure for persons with disabilities shall not require the 780 payment of any application fees. 781 782 Changes to 21A.40.160 Ground mounted utility boxes: removes the ability to locate these in the 783 right of way when it exceeds a certain size and prohibits the ability to place utility boxes in the 784 right of way when the box only serves a single development. (this section may be see additional 785 changes) 786 21A.40.160E2: The city engineer may issue a permit for the installation of a ground 787 mounted utility box in the public right of way in accordance with standards set forth in 788 this section and title 14, chapter 14.32 of this code. 789 a. Below grade utility boxes that do not extend greater than six6 inches (6") above 790 ground level. 791 b. A ground mounted utility box installed in a park strip or behind the sidewalk in 792 the public way meeting the following criteria: 793 (1) A ground mounted utility box not exceeding a height of three3 feet (3') and 794 a footprint of four (4) square feet, or a box not exceeding two2 feet (2') in 795 height and a footprint of eight (8) square feet. 796 (2) The pad for a ground mounted utility box shall not extend more than six6 797 inches (6") beyond the footprint of the box. 798 (3) A ground mounted utility box in a residential zoning district is located 799 within fifteen15 feet of the interior lot line of an adjacent property. 800 (4) Excluding manufacturing, business park and general commercial zoning 801 districts no more than three (3) ground mounted utility boxes, excluding 802 exempt utility boxes, shall be allowed within a six hundred sixty foot (660') 803 foot segment of street right of way, unless approved as a special exception. 804 (5) Any small ground mounted utility box that is less than sixty percent (60%) 805 of the allowed size in subsection E2b(1) of this section shall be exempt from 806 the special exception requirement of subsection E2b(4) of this section. The 807 dimensional requirements of this section do not apply to the equipment 808 necessary for placing electrical service under ground. 809 c. A ground mounted utility box installed in a public alley that does not interfere 810 with the circulation function of the alley. 811 d. Ground mounted utility boxes that only serve a single development or parcel 812 are prohibited in a public right of way. 813 21A.40.160 F: delete 814 F. Special Exception: Proposed ground mounted utility boxes not specifically 815 addressed in subsection E of this section or that do not meet the standards of 816 subsection E of this section may be approved as a special exception pursuant to 817 chapter 21A.52 of this title and the following requirements: 818 1. Application: A special exception application shall be made on a form 819 prepared by the planning director or designee and submitted to the 820 planning division, that includes required information and the following 821 additional information: 822 a. Described plan of the proposed ground mounted utility box: 823 135 (1) Dimensions of box and footing/platform detail. 824 (2) Location of contact information on the box. 825 (3) Description of cabinet materials and finish treatment. 826 b. A location analysis which identifies other sites considered as 827 alternatives within five hundred feet (500') of the proposed location. 828 The applicant shall provide a written explanation why the 829 alternatives considered were either unavailable, or technologically or 830 reasonably infeasible. 831 2. General Standards And Considerations For Special Exception Review Of 832 Ground Mounted Utility Boxes: No special exception application for a 833 ground mounted utility box shall be approved unless the planning 834 director or the planning director's designee determines that the ground 835 mounted utility box satisfies the applicable standards related to size, 836 spacing and/or location of the following criteria: 837 a. Evidence that the existing ground mounted utility box location 838 and/or size are within a pattern that allowing an additional or larger 839 ground mounted utility box will not create a significant impact on the 840 character of the area. 841 b. Evidence submitted that shows another location is not practical to 842 service the subject area. 843 c. Sufficiently demonstrates the reason that the larger cabinet is 844 necessary. 845 d. Demonstrates that the subject block face location is the only feasible 846 location for the ground mounted utility box based on technical or 847 physical constraints. 848 e. Ground mounted utility boxes are spaced in such a manner as to limit 849 the visual impact of the box when viewed from the street or an 850 adjacent property. 851 f. The location will not obstruct access to other installed utility facilities. 852 g. The additional cabinet is compatible in design and size with the 853 existing ground mounted utility boxes in the area. 854 855 Amending 21A.44.090 (proposed chapter) 856 21A.44.090 MODIFICATIONS TO PARKING AREAS 857 Applicants requesting development permits or approvals may request adjustments to the 858 standards and requirements in this Chapter 21A.44: Off Street Parking, Mobility, and 859 Loading, and the City may approve adjustments to those standards, as described below. 860 A. Administrative ModificationsAuthority to Approve Modifications 861 The Planning Director or Transportation Director may approve the following types of 862 modifications without requiring approval of a Special Exception, provided that the Director 863 determines that the adjustment will not create adverse impacts on pedestrian, bicycle, or 864 vehicle safety and that the adjustment is required due to the nature of the site and the 865 surrounding context to accommodate an unusual site feature (such as shape, topography, 866 utilities, or access point constraints) and that the need for the adjustment has not been 867 created by the actions of the applicant. 868 136 869 B. Authorized Modifications 870 1. Modification to dimensions or geometries of parking, loading, or stacking space, aisles, 871 or maneuvering areas otherwise required by this chapter, other City regulations, or the 872 Off Street Parking Standards Manual; provided that those modifications are consistent 873 with federal and state laws regarding persons with disabilities, including but not 874 limited to the Americans with Disabilities Act. 875 2. Modifications to bicycle parking or loading berth location or design standards. 876 B. Special Exceptions 877 The following types of exceptions may be approved through the Special Exception process in 878 section 21A.52.040, provided that the application meets the criteria for approval of a Special 879 Exception in section 21A.52.060 in addition to the standards provided in this section. 880 3. Exceptions PermittedFront Yard Parking 881 a. The lot contains an existing residential building. 882 b. No other off-street parking exists on the site. 883 c. No provided side yard is greater than 8 feet. If greater than 8 feet, no tree over 6 884 inches in caliper is present in the side yard that would necessitate the removal of the 885 tree to locate a parking stall in the side yard or rear yard. 886 d. The rear yard does not have frontage on a public street or public alley and the 887 property does not have access rights across an adjacent private street or alley. 888 e. The front yard parking complies with the following standards: 889 (1) The front yard parking is limited to no wider than 10 feet in width and is a 890 minimum depth of 20 feet. 891 (2) The front yard parking is accessed by an approved drive approach. 892 (3) The location of the front yard parking is placed within 10 feet of a side lot line or 893 for corner properties, may also be within 10 feet of a rear lot line and is 894 consistent with the location of other driveways on the block face. 895 a. Front Yard Parking Exception 896 For any zoning district, if front yard parking is prohibited in Table 21A.44.060-A: 897 Parking Location and Setback Requirements, it may be allowed if all of the 898 following conditions are met: 899 (1) The rear or side yards cannot be reasonably accessed by vehicles, specifically; 900 (a) Clearance for a driveway could not be provided in the side yard on either 901 side of the building that is free from obstructions that cannot reasonably 902 be avoided, such as utilities, window-wells, a specimen tree, a direct 903 elevation change of three feet (3') or greater, or retaining walls three feet 904 (3') high or greater; and 905 (b) There is not a right-of-way or alley adjacent to the property with 906 established rights for access, where: 907 a. The travel distance to the property line is less than one hundred feet 908 (100') from an improved street and the right-of-way or alley has at 909 least a minimum twelve foot (12') clearance that is, or could be paved; 910 or 911 137 b. The travel distance to the property line is more than one hundred feet 912 (100') from an improved street and the right-of-way or alley has an 913 existing minimum twelve foot (12') wide paved surface. 914 (2) It is not feasible to build an attached garage that conforms to yard area and 915 setback requirements; 916 (3) Parking is limited to an area that is surfaced in compliance with the Off Street 917 Parking Standards Manual; 918 (4) The parking area is limited to nine feet (9') wide by twenty feet (20') deep; 919 (5) Vehicles using the parking area will not project across any sidewalk or into the 920 public right-of-way; and 921 (6) Parking is restricted to passenger vehicles only. 922 4. Vehicle and Equipment Storage Without Hard Surfacing 923 a. The property is located in a CG, M-1, M-2, or EI zoning district 924 b. The lot is used for long term vehicle storage, not for regular parking and/or 925 maneuvering. 926 b. The storage areas are not located within any required front yard or corner side 927 yard. 928 c. The storage area surface is compacted with 6 inches of road base or other similar 929 material with dust control measures in place. 930 d. A mechanism, such as a wash bay, gravel guard, or rumble strip is used to remove 931 mud, sand, dirt, and gravel from the vehicle with a minimum of 50 feet of paved 932 driveway between the mechanism and a public street. The mechanism used is 933 subject to approval by the Transportation Director or designee provided it is a 934 commonly used device that is effective at removing debris from vehicle tires. 935 a. Vehicle and Equipment Storage Surfacing Exception 936 Vehicle and equipment storage without hard surfacing may be permitted in the CG, 937 M-1, M-2 and EI zoning districts provided that: 938 (1) The lot is used for long-term vehicle storage, not for regular parking and/or 939 maneuvering; 940 (2) The vehicles or equipment stored are large and/or are built on tracks that 941 could destroy normal hard surfacing; 942 (3) The parking surface is compacted with six inches (6") of road base and other 943 semi-hard material with long lasting dust control chemical applied annually; 944 (4) A hard-surfaced cleaning station is installed to prevent tracking of mud and 945 sand onto the public right-of-way; and 946 (5) Any vehicles or equipment that contain oil are stored with pans, drains, or 947 other means to ensure that any leaking oil will not enter the soil. 948 949 950 21A.46.070 V Historic District signs: removes the special exception and allows the existing 951 processes to modify sign dimensions in historic districts to be reviewed as a minor alteration. 952 21A.46.070V Historic District Signs: The Historic Landmark Commission may authorize, 953 as a minor alteration special exception, modification to an existing sign or the size or 954 placement of a new sign in a historic district or on a landmark site, including placement 955 of a sign type not allowed in the underlying zone, if the applicant can demonstrate that 956 the location, size and/or design of the proposed sign is compatible with the design period 957 138 or theme of the historic structure or district and/or will cause less physical damage to the 958 historically significant structure. If a sign in a local historic district or on a landmark site 959 has been designated a vintage sign as per section 21A.46.125 of this chapter, the 960 modifications allowed in that section may be authorized by the Historic Landmark 961 Commission subject to the appropriate standards of section 21A.34.020 of this title. 962 963 21A.46.125 Vintage signs: removes the special exception process and establishes the zoning 964 certificate as the process to approve vintage signs. 965 The purpose of this section is to promote the retention, restoration, reuse, and 966 reinstatement of nonconforming signs that represent important elements of Salt 967 Lake City's heritage and enhance the character of a corridor, neighborhood, or the 968 community at large. 969 B. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of this title: 970 1. An application for designation of vintage sign status as well as for the 971 reinstatement of, modifications to, or relocation of a vintage sign shall be 972 processed through the zoning certificate process in accordance with the 973 procedures for a special exception, as per chapter 21A.52 of this title21A.46.030: 974 a. Application: In addition to the general application requirements for a special 975 exceptionsign, an application for vintage sign designation or modification shall 976 require: 977 (1) Detailed drawings and/or photographs of the sign in its current condition, 978 if currently existing; 979 (2) Written narrative and supporting documentation demonstrating how the 980 sign meets the applicable criteria; 981 (3) Detailed drawings of any modifications or reinstatement being sought; 982 (4) Detailed drawings of any relocation being sought; and 983 (5) Historic drawings and/or photographs of the sign. 984 2. The Zoning Administrator shall designate an existing sign as a vintage sign if the 985 sign: 986 a. Was not placed as part of a Localized Alternative Signage Overlay District and 987 has not been granted flexibility from the base zoning through a planned 988 development agreement or by the Historic Landmark Commission; 989 b. Is not a billboard as defined in section 21A.46.020 of this chapter; 990 c. Retains its original design character, or that character will be reestablished or 991 restored, based on historic evidence such as drawings or photographs; and, 992 d. Meets at least four (4) of the following criteria: 993 (1) The sign was specifically designed for a business, institution, or other 994 establishment on the subject site; 995 (2) The sign bears a unique emblem, logo, or another graphic specific to the 996 City, or region; 997 (3) The sign exhibits specific characteristics that enhance the streetscape or 998 identity of a neighborhood; 999 (4) The sign is or was characteristic of a specific historic period; 1000 (5) The sign is or was integral to the design or identity of the site or building 1001 where the sign is located; or, 1002 (6) The sign represents an example of craftsmanship in the application of 1003 lighting technique, use of materials, or design. 1004 3. A designated vintage sign may, by special exception: 1005 139 a. Be relocated within its current site. 1006 b. Be modified to account for changing uses within its current site. These 1007 modifications shall be in the same style as the design of the original sign 1008 including: 1009 (1) Shape and form 1010 (2) Size, 1011 (3) Typography, 1012 (4) Illustrative elements, 1013 (5) Use of color, 1014 (6) Character of illumination, and 1015 (7) Character of animation. 1016 c. Be restored or recreated, and reinstated on its original site. 1017 d. Be relocated to a new site for use as a piece of public art, provided that the 1018 original design and character of the sign is retained, or will be restored, and it 1019 advertises a business no longer in operation. Vintage signs may only be 1020 relocated for use as public art to sites in the following districts: D-1, D-2, D-3, 1021 D-4, G-MU, CSHBD1, CSHBD2, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, FB-SC, FB-SE, TSA. 1022 e. Be relocated and reinstalled on the business's new site, should the business 1023 with which it is associated move, provided that the business's new location is 1024 within the same contiguous zoning district as the original location. 1025 4. Once designated, a vintage sign is exempt from the calculation of allowed signage 1026 on a site. 1027 1028 140 Special Exception Text Amendment ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. In deciding to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the following: CONSIDERATION FINDING RATIONALE 1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents; The proposed amendments are generally consistent with the goals and policies the City’s plans. The Salt Lake City Preservation Plan includes statements regarding how zoning impacts the preservation of property and that flexibility is necessary to ensure changes do not negatively impact the public benefit of historic districts. (Please see action pg. III-22 Action 2 of the Preservation Plan) This concept is expanded in more detail with specific policies related to regulations in policies 3.3a through 3.3h. A link to the plan can be found here: http://www.slcdocs.com/historicpreservation/Poli cy/presplan.pdf 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; The proposal generally furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance by ensuring their enforcement and administration. The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to “promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the adopted plans of the City, and carry out the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Development and Management Act (State Code). The proposed amendments reduce conflicts between City and State Code, better allowing enforcement and administration of the City’s zoning ordinance. The proposed changes maintain conformity with the general purpose statements of the zoning ordinance and ensure that the code can be legally administered and enforced to further those ordinance purposes. 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and The proposal is consistent with and does not impact the enforceability of any existing appeal process references in any zoning overlays. The purpose of the H Overlay District includes the following statement: Encourage new development, redevelopment and the subdivision of lots in Historic Districts that is compatible with the character of existing development of Historic Districts or individual landmarks;”. This proposal helps achieve this purpose by providing the HLC the authority to consider modifications within the overlay for the purpose of ensuring compatibility with the surrounding historic buildings. 4. The extent to which a proposed text The proposed changes This proposal removes red tape in the approval process and provides a benefit for property owners within the H 141 Special Exception Text Amendment amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. eliminate legal conflicts, improve enforceability and administration of City Code, and so implement best professional practices. Overlay by allowing for flexibility for appropriate changes to properties within the Overlay. The proposal reduces staff time necessary to review proposals, reduces the time spent by the HLC in considering changes, and allows for a more streamlined approval process. The benefits lead to a more efficient use of city resources at a reduced expense to the property owner. 142 Special Exception Text Amendment Public Notice, Meetings, Comments The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposal:  Early notification/online Open House notices e-mailed out August 13, 2020. o Notices were e-mailed to all recognized community organizations (community councils) per City Code 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage  One community council (Sugar House) requested that staff attend and present the changes to their Land Use and Zoning Committee  On September 21, 2020 staff attended the meeting over video conference, reviewed the proposal, and answered questions. The discussion included the following key subjects: o The application fee and the degree to which an application is subsidized. o The ability of the decision makers to require additional fence height to address impacts between incompatible land uses, including when apartment buildings are next to single family. o Whether or not the ability to modify bulk requirements, such as setbacks, building heights, etc. would apply to historic buildings that not located within an existing historic district. o The Sugar House Community Council submitted a forma response in response to the proposal.  No formal input was received from other community councils.  Emails were submitted by a resident of the East Bench neighborhood that was generally in support of the proposal. o The American Institute of Architects Utah Chapter was notified of the proposed amendments on September 17, 2020. The Planning Division asked for their help in notifying the local architecture community. No response was provided from AIA. However, comments were received via email from a local architecture firm. That email was not in support of the changes primarily due to the removal of flexibility that special exceptions may provide. o Information on the online open house posted to the Planning Division website was posted on August 13, 2020. The information was emailed out to the Planning Division list-serve every other week from August 14, 2020 through the October 11, 2020 early engagement period. Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included: 143 Special Exception Text Amendment  Public hearing notice for the HLC meeting was sent through the Division email list on mailed on October 22, 2020  Public hearing notice published to newspaper October 24, 2020  Public notice posted on City and State websites on October 22, 2020  No formal requests to receive notice of the proposed text amendment were received prior to the noticing deadline of this public hearing. 144 From:John Blankevoort To:Norris, Nick Subject:(EXTERNAL) Special Exceptions Date:Thursday, August 13, 2020 6:46:34 PM Attachments:EBCC 6-17-2020 meeting.pdf Hello Nick I totally agree with your premise on the new special exception process changes, frankly the city is already overwhelmed with frivolous requests on a number of subjects. I also have some further recommendations and would to participate to help you to evaluate the wider problem. We have several District chairpersons ( District 5, 6 etc) that are stoking the fire with these notices of special exceptions. I would think this is driving more people to call into the zoning and planning office, only to stymie the process and become actual obstacles for your Dept. Please find attached meeting minutes June 17, 2020. Item 7, brought up the subject of a neighbor in Indian Hills subdivision and his special exception for building a home and height limits. The neighbor and architect already had engaged with zoning and planning and they had already gone through and contacted each of the abutting neighbors to work through the issue. Our chairperson (Aimee Burrows) decided to 'follow through' with the process as if to say she was the street captain on zoning and planning. I told her it was a frivolous use of our time. The neighbor is already following the protocols then we should not allow our District Chairs to muddy up your depts. time by making more work. I propose to you that zoning and planning does not need anymore 'help; from local District Council meetings and that a statement should be mentioned in your new process changes to not encourage creating anymore duplicate work for special exceptions. And although we all have the right to public information, it is not the charter of local meetings to drive special exception agenda. We need to be more efficient, don't you agree? Best John 145 From:Ann Robinson To:Norris, Nick; Annie V. Schwemmer Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Special Exception Changes Date:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:56:57 PM Well, these situations were handled previously by special exceptions because each circumstance is unique. By eliminating special exceptions, you are now trying to make rules that cover all possibilities—probably not possible. Let us think about this a bit and get back to you. Ann Robinson, AIA Principal // Renovation Design Group 824 SOUTH 400 WEST | SUITE B123 | SALT LAKE CITY | UTAH | 84101 O. 801.533.5331 | M. 801.230.2080 RenovationDesignGroup.com | Facebook Fans | Houzz Portfolio From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:48 PM To: Annie V. Schwemmer <annie@rdgslc.com> Cc: Ann Robinson <ann@rdgslc.com> Subject: RE: (EXTERNAL) Special Exception Changes Thanks Annie, these are helpful comments. Do you have some ideas on how we can accommodate these issues within the proposal? NICK NORRIS Director Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 CELL 801-641-1728 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING From: Annie V. Schwemmer <annie@rdgslc.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:33 PM To: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Cc: Ann Robinson <ann@rdgslc.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Special Exception Changes Hi Nick- We’ve reviewed the proposed special exception changes and since we do so many renovations/additions in SLC we have the following comments: 146 Garages Built into Hillsides in Front or Corner Side Yards: It seems there will be very few of these that would not also need to project into a front yard setback. Central Air Condensers: There are many side yards that can accommodate a condenser without causing undue hardship on the neighbor (for instance, a 4’ side yard adjacent to a neighbor’s driveway) and there should be a way for these to be allowed. Corner side yards: We think in-line additions need to be allowed in side yard setbacks to avoid awkward interior spaces & rooflines. Noncomplying as to height: We think rear additions should be allowed to match the height of the existing roofline even if the existing structure is noncomplying. This change will create odd looking rooflines and will preclude 2nd stories on rear additions if the lower roofline makes the upper level ceiling lower than 7’ high. Thanks- Annie Annie V. Schwemmer, AIA Principal // Renovation Design Group 824 SOUTH 400 WEST | SUITE B123 | SALT LAKE CITY | UTAH | 84101 O. 801.533.5331 | M. 801.560.7171 RenovationDesignGroup.com | Facebook Fans | Houzz Portfolio 147 148 149 Special Exception Text Amendment Planning Staff Note: This proposal was routed to the City Departments and Divisions for review on August 11, 2020. In addition, a follow up meeting was held on September 30, 2020 with Engineering and Building Services to discuss ground mounted utility boxes and how to address them. Below are submitted comments from each Department or Division and a summary of associated meetings.  Airports: no comments received.  Building Services (zoning review): Indicated that they thought this would be time saver for staff and would be helpful. They provided specific changes to the following sections of the proposal: o Edit suggestions regarding Table 21A.36.020.B Obstructions in yards; o Support addressing grade changes and retaining walls as it removes vagueness in doing related zoning reviews. o Requested that the expansions of nonconforming uses be limited to a one-time request to avoid repeated requests over time. o Regarding noncomplying lots, add provision about complying with all applicable provisions so that it includes building and fire codes. o Remove some of the standards for unit legalizations that deal with past zoning violations. Past violations that are unrelated to the existence of a dwelling unit should not be a factor in determining if the unit can be recognized as a legal dwelling unit. o Concerns with letting any accessory use go into an accessory building. Is a welding shop appropriate in a shed, for example?  Building Services (civil enforcement): no comments provided.  Economic Development: inquired about eliminating the ability to seek additional building height in commercial districts. Planning staff provided the department with the number of applications received requesting additional height in commercial districts and information on other processes available to seek additional height. The Division also mentioned that there will be a future analysis of building heights in commercial districts to align with building code requirements, promote more housing, and encourage improved street engagement. Comments were provided by Roberta Reichgelt.  Engineering: Engineering is concerned with prohibiting all utility boxes in the ROW. This puts the burden on Engineering to make decisions about the aesthetics of utility boxes when they are mostly focused on the engineering and impact to physical infrastructure, such as sidewalks, curb, and gutter.  Finance: no comments received. This was routed to Finance due to the impact on revenue from special exception application fees. It is anticipated that Planning Division revenue will decrease by $40,000 to $45,000 per year. 150 Special Exception Text Amendment  Fire Department: no comments provided.  Housing and Neighborhood Development: no comments provided.  Information Management Services (IMS): no comments provided. Deleting special exceptions will require deactivating the application in the Accela system.  Mayor’s Office: The Mayor was briefed on the concept before the petition was initiated. The Mayor asked that the project include a comprehensive approach and that changes be considered to maintain flexibility while limiting impacts.  Police Department: no comments provided.  Public Services: o Parks and Public Lands: Parks and Public Lands provided comments relating to fence height around outdoor recreation facilities and light poles associated with sports fields. o Golf Division: provided comments regarding fence heights around golf course driving ranges. o the Salt Lake Regional Sports Complex provided input on the height and setbacks of athletic field lighting.  Public Utilities: Public Utilities provided comments about exempting some necessary infrastructure and utility buildings from height requirements in the OS Zoning District, asking if the riparian and lowland overlay zoning districts still apply, clarifying that underground encroachments are on private property only, and ensuring that antennae height would allow the necessary infrastructure to monitor utility facilities. Comments provided by Jason Draper.  Redevelopment Agency: The RDA indicated that they supported the changes because they will help to streamline the building permit review process and provide more predictability for property owners. Comments provided by Lauren Parisi.  Sustainability: no comments provided.  Transportation: Indicated that they had no suggested changes. Comment provided by Michael Barry.  Urban Forestry: no comments provided. 151 From:Reichgelt, Roberta To:Norris, Nick Subject:RE: Special Exception Text Amendment Date:Monday, August 31, 2020 3:02:32 PM Got it. Thanks From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 2:22 PM To: Reichgelt, Roberta <Roberta.Reichgelt@slcgov.com> Subject: RE: Special Exception Text Amendment This type of special exception says that it has to be approved by the Planning Commission. The PC processing time for special exceptions is historically around 45 days. We don’t have an application for additional height in a commercial district that hasn’t also required design review or planned development due to some other requested modification. So we don’t have any data on how long this specific special exception would normally take. NICK NORRIS Planning Director PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING From: Reichgelt, Roberta <Roberta.Reichgelt@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 2:07 PM To: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Subject: RE: Special Exception Text Amendment Thanks, is the special exception process generally shorter than a planned development? So this different would be that it might take the applicant longer in the future? From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 1:29 PM To: Reichgelt, Roberta <Roberta.Reichgelt@slcgov.com> Subject: RE: Special Exception Text Amendment Not common. We have had two requests in the last three years and only one other in the previous 10. Most are already in the planned development or design review process anyways and address height in those processes. This option is mostly used in zoning districts that don’t have the extra height option through the design review process. ICK ORRIS 152 N N Planning Director PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING From: Reichgelt, Roberta <Roberta.Reichgelt@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 1:01 PM To: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Subject: FW: Special Exception Text Amendment Hi Nick, Could you help me understand if this is a common request? I have followed planned development process on height requests that are much larger than this. How did the special exception process for this type of request come to be and why was it not able to be approved through the Design Review? You can call me if it’s easier than responding via email: 385-214-9628. Thanks, Roberta Special Exceptions in 21A.26 Commercial Zoning DistrictsZoning ordinance section 21A.26.010 Paragraph J authorizes a special exception for additional height if the additional height is less than 10% of the maximum allowed in the specific zone. For example, in the CB zone the maximum height is thirty feet. A special exception could approve up to three feet. This has resulted in three different ways for extra height to be granted: Through the planned development process (limited to a maximum of five feet); Through the design review process (including when allowed under the base zoning and in cases where the lot is sloping, which is almost every lot); and Through the special exception process. The proposal would be to delete this paragraph so that the extra height is authorized only through the planned development process or when allowed by the base zoning district through the design review process. From: Kolendar, Ben <Ben.Kolendar@slcgov.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 9:59 AM To: Reichgelt, Roberta <Roberta.Reichgelt@slcgov.com>; Wright, William <William.Wright@slcgov.com> Cc: Makowski, Peter <Peter.Makowski@slcgov.com> Subject: FW: Special Exception Text Amendment 153 From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 8:44 AM To: Mikolash, Gregory <gregory.mikolash@slcgov.com>; Padilla, Antonio <Antonio.Padilla@slcgov.com>; Young, Kevin <Kevin.Young@slcgov.com>; Weiler, Scott <scott.weiler@slcgov.com>; Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@slcgov.com>; Eggertsen-Goff, Lani <Lani.Eggertsen-goff@slcgov.com>; Nielson, Paul <paul.nielson@slcgov.com>; Gliot, Tony <Tony.Gliot@slcgov.com>; Paulsen, Paul <paul.paulsen@slcgov.com>; Lyons, Debbie <debbie.lyons@slcgov.com>; Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com> Cc: Bennett, Vicki <vicki.bennett@slcgov.com>; Bentley, Aaron <aaron.bentley@slcgov.com>; Briefer, Laura <Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com>; Brown, Mike <Mike.Brown@slcgov.com>; Burnette, Lisa <Lisa.Burnette@slcgov.com>; Kolendar, Ben <Ben.Kolendar@slcgov.com>; Lewis, Katherine <Katherine.Lewis@slcgov.com>; Lieb, Karl <Karl.Lieb@slcgov.com>; Lofgreen, Pamela <Pamela.Lofgreen@slcgov.com>; Preece, Curtis <Curtis.Preece@slcgov.com>; Thompson, Mary Beth <MaryBeth.Thompson@slcgov.com>; Vogt, Lorna <Lorna.Vogt@slcgov.com>; Walz, Danny <Danny.Walz@slcgov.com>; Wyatt, Bill <Bill.Wyatt@slcgov.com>; Mcgrath, Jennifer <Jennifer.Mcgrath@slcgov.com>; Shaffer, Lisa <Lisa.Shaffer@slcgov.com> Subject: Special Exception Text Amendment Attached is information regarding a change to the zoning ordinance that would eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. The document explains what would happen with each authorized special exception. There are 42 different special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. Each special exception would fall into one of the following categories: The exception would become “by-right” without special approval required. An example would be using an accessory building on a residential property as a hobby shop. The exception would be allowed with specific qualifying provisions. An example would be grade changes and retaining walls over four feet in height. The exception will be specifically prohibited and would have to comply with the existing standards in the ordinance. An example would be an inline addition to a building that does not meet existing setbacks. The addition would have to comply with the required setbacks. There are some special exceptions that may directly impact your Department or Division or that we would like to receive input on. Here is a partial list: Building Services: Most of these changes will impact zoning reviews. Public Utilities: Specific exceptions listed in the OS zone for public utility buildings/structures over the maximum height would be exempt from the height regulations instead of requiring a special exception. Parks and Public Lands: the exception of over-height outdoor recreation equipment/structures and play field lighting would be eliminated and replaced with maximum heights for these structures. Engineering: the special exception authorizing ground mounted utility boxes over a certain size in the ROW would be eliminated. Utility boxes that serve a private development would be required to be located on private property. Civil Enforcement: the option to bring a property into compliance through a special exception will be eliminated. 154 HAND: the unit legalization process would become a determination of nonconforming use process. Finance: this will have an impact on Division revenue. Special exceptions generate approximately $40,000 annually in application fees. Please review the attached document and provide comments by September 11, 2020. The process includes a 45 day early engagement period with the community and a public hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission. It is anticipated that these steps will be complete by late October. The transmittal and City Council process will follow. Comments can be emailed to me or entered directly into Accela under the file number: PLNPCM2020-00606. You can choose to add your comments to the attached document that has been provided in word format to make it easy to add comments and propose changes. I have included Dept. Directors as an FYI so they can decide if a response is necessary. Please share any concerns with your Department or Division and provide as comprehensive of a list of comments/issues as possible. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask. Thank you for your time! NICK NORRIS Planning Director PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING 155 From:Draper, Jason To:Norris, Nick; Briefer, Laura Subject:RE: Special Exception Text Amendment Date:Monday, October 5, 2020 11:23:59 AM Sounds good We just want to make sure that we don’t run into problems with antennae height for SCADA systems and other communications. It seems that these changes are specific to amateur and private property, but just want to make sure we are able to at least have review available for these antennae. Thanks! Jason Draper, PE, CFM Development Review Manager - Floodplain Administrator Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 11:15 AM To: Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@slcgov.com>; Briefer, Laura <Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com> Subject: RE: Special Exception Text Amendment Thanks Jason, a few questions The riparian, lowland, and any other flood zone requirements would still apply and not be impacted by these changes. They would be reviewed during building permit review. The underground encroachments in this instance apply to private property. Wasn’t sure if that was made clear in the info provided or if there are other issues that Public Utilities has. There are a couple of sections that address antennae tower height. Can you clarify which section that comment is referring to? None of the public utilities facility on West Temple is zoned OS. NICK NORRIS Planning Director PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING From: Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 10:28 AM To: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com>; Briefer, Laura <Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com> Subject: RE: Special Exception Text Amendment 156 I have a couple of comments: Replacement of noncomplying building must meet riparian and flood zone requirements. Changes of established grade of 4 feet or less – must meet provisions of the flood hazard and riparian overlay and lowland conservancy overlay zones Underground encroachments – We would rather see this as not permitted or at least need to establish the encroachment table before this goes away. Public Utility buildings in OS Zone: I think this looks good – no office buildings in OS Ground mounted utility boxes – support this action. I’m a little concerned with a 60 ft max for an antenna tower and no mechanism to present a case for anything taller. Some years ago there was a discussion to zone the 1530 South West Temple Park as OS. We may need the property for future expansion of our campus. Do you know if any of our campus is currently OS? Thanks! Jason Draper, PE, CFM Development Review Manager - Floodplain Administrator Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 8:47 AM To: Briefer, Laura <Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com>; Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@slcgov.com> Subject: FW: Special Exception Text Amendment Wanted to follow up with these proposed zoning changes that may impact public utilities. I haven’t received any comments yet, so wanted to do a final check to see if there are potential issues. The biggest changes for public utilities are the changes exempt public utility structures from the height requirements in the OS zone (pg 11 of the attached) and permits taller fences when necessary to secure critical infrastructure and facilities (pg 26-27). We hope to take this to the PC on November 18th for a recommendation. The other change that you may want to know about it is prohibiting ground mounted utility boxes in the ROW when they are only serving a private development. The change would require those to be on private property. Let me know if you have any concerns with the changes. NICK NORRIS Planning Director PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING 157 From: Norris, Nick Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 8:44 AM To: Mikolash, Gregory <gregory.mikolash@slcgov.com>; Padilla, Antonio <Antonio.Padilla@slcgov.com>; Young, Kevin <Kevin.Young@slcgov.com>; Weiler, Scott <scott.weiler@slcgov.com>; Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@slcgov.com>; Eggertsen-Goff, Lani <Lani.Eggertsen-Goff@slcgov.com>; Nielson, Paul <paul.nielson@slcgov.com>; Gliot, Tony <Tony.Gliot@slcgov.com>; Paulsen, Paul <paul.paulsen@slcgov.com>; Lyons, Debbie <debbie.lyons@slcgov.com>; Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com> Cc: Bennett, Vicki <vicki.bennett@slcgov.com>; Bentley, Aaron <aaron.bentley@slcgov.com>; Briefer, Laura <Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com>; Brown, Mike <Mike.Brown@slcgov.com>; Burnette, Lisa <Lisa.Burnette@slcgov.com>; Kolendar, Ben <Ben.Kolendar@slcgov.com>; Lewis, Katherine <Katherine.Lewis@slcgov.com>; Lieb, Karl <Karl.Lieb@slcgov.com>; Lofgreen, Pamela <pamela.lofgreen@slcgov.com>; Preece, Curtis <Curtis.Preece@slcgov.com>; Thompson, Mary Beth <MaryBeth.Thompson@slcgov.com>; Vogt, Lorna <Lorna.Vogt@slcgov.com>; Walz, Danny <Danny.Walz@slcgov.com>; Wyatt, Bill <Bill.Wyatt@slcgov.com>; Mcgrath, Jennifer <jennifer.mcgrath@slcgov.com>; Shaffer, Lisa <Lisa.Shaffer@slcgov.com> Subject: Special Exception Text Amendment Attached is information regarding a change to the zoning ordinance that would eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. The document explains what would happen with each authorized special exception. There are 42 different special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. Each special exception would fall into one of the following categories: The exception would become “by-right” without special approval required. An example would be using an accessory building on a residential property as a hobby shop. The exception would be allowed with specific qualifying provisions. An example would be grade changes and retaining walls over four feet in height. The exception will be specifically prohibited and would have to comply with the existing standards in the ordinance. An example would be an inline addition to a building that does not meet existing setbacks. The addition would have to comply with the required setbacks. There are some special exceptions that may directly impact your Department or Division or that we would like to receive input on. Here is a partial list: Building Services: Most of these changes will impact zoning reviews. Public Utilities: Specific exceptions listed in the OS zone for public utility buildings/structures over the maximum height would be exempt from the height regulations instead of requiring a special exception. Parks and Public Lands: the exception of over-height outdoor recreation equipment/structures and play field lighting would be eliminated and replaced with maximum heights for these structures. Engineering: the special exception authorizing ground mounted utility boxes over a certain size in the ROW would be eliminated. Utility boxes that serve a private development would be required to be located on private property. Civil Enforcement: the option to bring a property into compliance through a special exception will be eliminated. HAND: the unit legalization process would become a determination of nonconforming use 158 process. Finance: this will have an impact on Division revenue. Special exceptions generate approximately $40,000 annually in application fees. Please review the attached document and provide comments by September 11, 2020. The process includes a 45 day early engagement period with the community and a public hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission. It is anticipated that these steps will be complete by late October. The transmittal and City Council process will follow. Comments can be emailed to me or entered directly into Accela under the file number: PLNPCM2020-00606. You can choose to add your comments to the attached document that has been provided in word format to make it easy to add comments and propose changes. I have included Dept. Directors as an FYI so they can decide if a response is necessary. Please share any concerns with your Department or Division and provide as comprehensive of a list of comments/issues as possible. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask. Thank you for your time! NICK NORRIS Planning Director PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING 159 From:Barry, Michael To:Norris, Nick Cc:Young, Kevin; Larsen, Jonathan; Larson, Kurt Subject:RE: Special Exception Text Amendment Date:Monday, August 31, 2020 1:23:56 PM Nick, I do not have any suggested changes. Thanks. MICHAEL BARRY, P.E. Transportation Engineer TRANSPORTATION DIVISION COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7147 From: Young, Kevin <Kevin.Young@slcgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 10:22 AM To: Larsen, Jonathan <jon.larsen@slcgov.com>; Larson, Kurt <Kurt.Larson@slcgov.com>; Barry, Michael <Michael.Barry@slcgov.com> Subject: FW: Special Exception Text Amendment FYI If you have any comments or input, please provide them by September 11. KEVIN J. YOUNG, P.E. Deputy Director TRANSPORTATION DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7108 From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 8:44 AM To: Mikolash, Gregory <gregory.mikolash@slcgov.com>; Padilla, Antonio <Antonio.Padilla@slcgov.com>; Young, Kevin <Kevin.Young@slcgov.com>; Weiler, Scott <scott.weiler@slcgov.com>; Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@slcgov.com>; Eggertsen-Goff, Lani <Lani.Eggertsen-goff@slcgov.com>; Nielson, Paul <paul.nielson@slcgov.com>; Gliot, Tony <Tony.Gliot@slcgov.com>; Paulsen, Paul <paul.paulsen@slcgov.com>; Lyons, Debbie <debbie.lyons@slcgov.com>; Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com> Cc: Bennett, Vicki <vicki.bennett@slcgov.com>; Bentley, Aaron <aaron.bentley@slcgov.com>; Briefer, Laura <Laura.Briefer@slcgov.com>; Brown, Mike <Mike.Brown@slcgov.com>; Burnette, Lisa <Lisa.Burnette@slcgov.com>; Kolendar, Ben <Ben.Kolendar@slcgov.com>; Lewis, Katherine <Katherine.Lewis@slcgov.com>; Lieb, Karl <Karl.Lieb@slcgov.com>; Lofgreen, Pamela <Pamela.Lofgreen@slcgov.com>; Preece, Curtis <Curtis.Preece@slcgov.com>; Thompson, Mary Beth 160 <MaryBeth.Thompson@slcgov.com>; Vogt, Lorna <Lorna.Vogt@slcgov.com>; Walz, Danny <Danny.Walz@slcgov.com>; Wyatt, Bill <Bill.Wyatt@slcgov.com>; Mcgrath, Jennifer <Jennifer.Mcgrath@slcgov.com>; Shaffer, Lisa <Lisa.Shaffer@slcgov.com> Subject: Special Exception Text Amendment Attached is information regarding a change to the zoning ordinance that would eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. The document explains what would happen with each authorized special exception. There are 42 different special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. Each special exception would fall into one of the following categories: The exception would become “by-right” without special approval required. An example would be using an accessory building on a residential property as a hobby shop. The exception would be allowed with specific qualifying provisions. An example would be grade changes and retaining walls over four feet in height. The exception will be specifically prohibited and would have to comply with the existing standards in the ordinance. An example would be an inline addition to a building that does not meet existing setbacks. The addition would have to comply with the required setbacks. There are some special exceptions that may directly impact your Department or Division or that we would like to receive input on. Here is a partial list: Building Services: Most of these changes will impact zoning reviews. Public Utilities: Specific exceptions listed in the OS zone for public utility buildings/structures over the maximum height would be exempt from the height regulations instead of requiring a special exception. Parks and Public Lands: the exception of over-height outdoor recreation equipment/structures and play field lighting would be eliminated and replaced with maximum heights for these structures. Engineering: the special exception authorizing ground mounted utility boxes over a certain size in the ROW would be eliminated. Utility boxes that serve a private development would be required to be located on private property. Civil Enforcement: the option to bring a property into compliance through a special exception will be eliminated. HAND: the unit legalization process would become a determination of nonconforming use process. Finance: this will have an impact on Division revenue. Special exceptions generate approximately $40,000 annually in application fees. Please review the attached document and provide comments by September 11, 2020. The process includes a 45 day early engagement period with the community and a public hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission. It is anticipated that these steps will be complete by late October. The transmittal and City Council process will follow. Comments can be emailed to me or entered directly into Accela under the file number: PLNPCM2020-00606. You can choose to add your comments to the attached document that has been provided in word format to make it easy to add comments and propose changes. I have included Dept. Directors as an FYI so they can decide if a response is necessary. Please share any concerns with your Department or Division and provide as comprehensive of a list of comments/issues as possible. If you have any questions, please 161 don’t hesitate to ask. Thank you for your time! NICK NORRIS Planning Director PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING 162 From:Laughlin, Chris To:Norris, Nick Cc:Bollwinkel, Lee Subject:RE: text changes impacted OS zone Date:Tuesday, October 6, 2020 8:45:44 AM Hey Nick, Hope we’re not too late. I just spoke with Bruce Brown in engineering and he said the poles are 70 ft. tall for our field lights. 30 ft sounds good for property distance. Chris Laughlin | RAC Program Manager From: Kogan, Lewis Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 8:57 AM To: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com>; Riker, Kristin <Kristin.Riker@slcgov.com>; Bollwinkel, Lee <lee.bollwinkel@slcgov.com>; Laughlin, Chris <Chris.Laughlin@slcgov.com> Subject: RE: text changes impacted OS zone Importance: High Nick, my sincere apologies, I must have missed your first email and it got lost in my inbox. I am going to defer to the experts here: Lee, Chris, can you please review Nick’s questions below at your earliest convenience, and let him know how the proposed changes to ordinance would impact lighting and recreational equipment heights, particularly for the Regional Athletic Complex? Thanks! Lewis From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 8:39 AM To: Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com>; Riker, Kristin <Kristin.Riker@slcgov.com> Subject: RE: text changes impacted OS zone Wanted to follow up on this to see if you have any input. NICK NORRIS Planning Director PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com 163 WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING From: Norris, Nick Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 9:57 AM To: Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com> Subject: text changes impacted OS zone Lewis, We are working on a massive text change that will eliminate special exceptions from the zoning ordinance. There are two specific special exceptions that could impact parks and recreational facilities in the OS open space zone. The first impacts recreational equipment in excess of 60 feet. Right now a special exception could be granted to exceed that height. This was put in to provide flexibility for hogle zoo who wanted to add a ropes course to the zoo and they were not sure how tall the poles were going to be. It also allows for things like driving range fences to be up to 60 feet tall. Can you let us know if limiting the height to 60 feet is going to cause problems or if there is any structure that exceeds 60 feet currently? I don’t know how tall driving range fences are. The second addresses light poles for recreational facilities. The code allows a special exception for these to be taller when located within thirty feet of an adjacent residential structure. The current code allows the lights to be 60 feet in height. Taller lights would trigger the special exception cited above as well as if the light is within 30 feet of dwelling. There are screening requirements as well to reduce light pollution. We are proposing to allow these up to 80 feet in height, but are trying to figure out how far away they should be from the property line. Can you give us an idea of how tall these lights tend to be and how far from property lines they should be? We would like to publish public info on this in the next week or so. If that is not enough time, let me know how much time you need so we can figure something out. Thanks. NICK NORRIS Planning Director PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING 164 From:Kammeyer, Matt To:Norris, Nick; Kogan, Lewis Subject:RE: text changes impacted OS zone Date:Tuesday, October 6, 2020 2:38:34 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Nick and Lewis, I’m responding directly to you in relation to Kristin’s question about driving range fence heights. Driving range fences typically fall within the 60 to 80 foot range. The Top Golf range fence is upward of 125 feet. Let me know if I can provide more info. MATT KAMMEYER Director, Golf Program GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-485-7823 FAX 801-466-6705 WWW.SLC-GOLF.COM WWW.SLCGOV.COM From: Riker, Kristin <Kristin.Riker@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 1:23 PM To: Kammeyer, Matt <Matt.Kammeyer@slcgov.com> Subject: FW: text changes impacted OS zone Hi Matt- Hope you all had a great event today. I apologize I missed it, thank you for asking me! I’m tied to being close to my mom right now as she is not healthy and needs a lot of care. Anyhow, please see Nick’s email below. Can you tell me how tall driving range fences are? KRISTIN RIKER Public Services Deputy Director; Public Lands Salt Lake City Public Lands Divisions Parks, Trails & Natural Lands, Urban Forestry CELL 801-514-0205 TEL 801-972-7804 FAX 801-972-7847 165 From: Norris, Nick <Nick.Norris@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 8:39 AM To: Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com>; Riker, Kristin <Kristin.Riker@slcgov.com> Subject: RE: text changes impacted OS zone Wanted to follow up on this to see if you have any input. NICK NORRIS Planning Director PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING From: Norris, Nick Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 9:57 AM To: Kogan, Lewis <Lewis.Kogan@slcgov.com> Subject: text changes impacted OS zone Lewis, We are working on a massive text change that will eliminate special exceptions from the zoning ordinance. There are two specific special exceptions that could impact parks and recreational facilities in the OS open space zone. The first impacts recreational equipment in excess of 60 feet. Right now a special exception could be granted to exceed that height. This was put in to provide flexibility for hogle zoo who wanted to add a ropes course to the zoo and they were not sure how tall the poles were going to be. It also allows for things like driving range fences to be up to 60 feet tall. Can you let us know if limiting the height to 60 feet is going to cause problems or if there is any structure that exceeds 60 feet currently? I don’t know how tall driving range fences are. The second addresses light poles for recreational facilities. The code allows a special exception for these to be taller when located within thirty feet of an adjacent residential structure. The current code allows the lights to be 60 feet in height. Taller lights would trigger the special exception cited above as well as if the light is within 30 feet of dwelling. There are screening requirements as well to reduce light pollution. We are proposing to allow these up to 80 feet in height, but are trying to 166 figure out how far away they should be from the property line. Can you give us an idea of how tall these lights tend to be and how far from property lines they should be? We would like to publish public info on this in the next week or so. If that is not enough time, let me know how much time you need so we can figure something out. Thanks. NICK NORRIS Planning Director PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6173 Email nick.norris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING 167 From:Parisi, Lauren To:Norris, Nick Subject:Special Exception Text Amendment Date:Tuesday, September 8, 2020 5:15:00 PM Hi Nick, Danny had asked if I could review the special exception text amendment information you sent over and, upon review, the RDA fully supports the proposed texts amendments as they are. These amendments will help to streamline the building permit review process and provide more predictability for property owners. We commend your team’s great work. Thanks, LAUREN PARISI Project Manager REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7242 WWW.SLCRDA.COM Attached is information regarding a change to the zoning ordinance that would eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. The document explains what would happen with each authorized special exception. There are 42 different special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance. Each special exception would fall into one of the following categories: The exception would become “by-right” without special approval required. An example would be using an accessory building on a residential property as a hobby shop. The exception would be allowed with specific qualifying provisions. An example would be grade changes and retaining walls over four feet in height. The exception will be specifically prohibited and would have to comply with the existing standards in the ordinance. An example would be an inline addition to a building that does not meet existing setbacks. The addition would have to comply with the required setbacks. There are some special exceptions that may directly impact your Department or Division or that we would like to receive input on. Here is a partial list: Building Services: Most of these changes will impact zoning reviews. Public Utilities: Specific exceptions listed in the OS zone for public utility buildings/structures over the maximum height would be exempt from the height regulations instead of requiring a special exception. Parks and Public Lands: the exception of over-height outdoor recreation equipment/structures and play field lighting would be eliminated and replaced with maximum heights for these structures. Engineering: the special exception authorizing ground mounted utility boxes over a certain size in the ROW would be eliminated. Utility boxes that serve a private development would be required to be located on private property. Civil Enforcement: the option to bring a property into compliance through a special exception 168 will be eliminated. HAND: the unit legalization process would become a determination of nonconforming use process. Finance: this will have an impact on Division revenue. Special exceptions generate approximately $40,000 annually in application fees. Please review the attached document and provide comments by September 11, 2020. The process includes a 45 day early engagement period with the community and a public hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission. It is anticipated that these steps will be complete by late October. The transmittal and City Council process will follow. Comments can be emailed to me or entered directly into Accela under the file number: PLNPCM2020-00606. You can choose to add your comments to the attached document that has been provided in word format to make it easy to add comments and propose changes. I have included Dept. Directors as an FYI so they can decide if a response is necessary. Please share any concerns with your Department or Division and provide as comprehensive of a list of comments/issues as possible. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask. Thank you for your time! 169 5. ORIGINAL PETITION 170 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLC.GOV PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Erin Mendenhall Cc: Lisa Shaeffer, Chief Administrative Officer; Jennifer McGrath, Deputy Director Department of Community and Neighborhoods; From: Nick Norris, Planning Director Date: August 4, 2020 Re: Zoning amendment related to the special exception process in Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21A.52 The Planning Division would like to request that a zoning text amendment be initiated to eliminate the special exception process from the zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance authorizes more than 40 exceptions to the zoning ordinance through this process. An average of 150 applications are submitted each calendar year, generating approximately 3,000 hours of staff time and about 8% of the total workload in the Division. The purpose of the change is to reallocate staff hours to better respond to the city-wide needs that are created by growth, align the zoning ordinance with city goals, and restore the long range land use planning function of the city. One of the reasons for the proposal is partly due to the allocated resources for the Planning Division which does not support the workload of land use applications that are authorized or required by the zoning ordinance. Eliminating this process helps delay the need for additional staffing in the Planning Division. Exceptions would fit into one of the following categories: • Deleted from the ordinance and no longer allowed. This is for those exceptions where an application has not been submitted in several years, relatively few applications have been received or where applications are routinely denied. • Allowed by right in the ordinance. This is for those exceptions that are routinely approved with little or no public input, that match changing trends in how property is used, or do not create impacts that are greater than permitted activities. • Allowed through an existing process. This is for those exceptions where the zoning ordinance already has an established process and the special exception application is redundant, when the exception is used to determine legal status of a use or structure, or when another process may be more appropriate. A public process will be conducted to gauge public input on the proposed changes. It is possible that the public input received could change the direction or outcomes of the proposal. Due to the inability to hold community meetings in person, all engagement will be performed virtually. All recognized organizations will be notified of the proposal and staff will be made available to provide an overview of the proposal and answer questions that the community may have. This proposal will impact the development community and builders, architects, and developers will be included in the engagement process. The Planning Division typically provides a memo to the Mayor to sign to initiate a zoning amendment. The memo explains the issue, provides a brief description of the process, and the resources required. For this potential proposal, the process would follow the typical engagement processes that include notification of all community councils and a 45-day comment period. Following the 45-day comment period the Planning Division would prepare for a public hearing with the Planning Commission. After the Planning Commission makes a recommendation, the matter is transmitted to the City Council for a decision. 171 l Page 2 This memo includes a signature block to initiate the petition if that is the decided course of action. If the decided course of action is to not initiate the application, the signature block can remain blank. Please notify the Planning Division when the memo is signed or if the decision is made to not initiate the petition. Please contact me at ext. 6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com if you have any questions. Thank you. Concurrence to initiate the zoning text amendment petition as noted above. _____________________________________ Erin Mendenhall, Mayor _____________ Date August 5, 2020 172 RESOLUTION NO. ___ OF 2021 Appointing ___________ as a Member of the Salt Lake City Council to Fill the Unexpired Term of the Vacated Office Representing District 1 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council, on November 9, 2021, met in an open and public Council meeting for the purpose of interviewing applicants to fill the midterm vacancy on the City Council representing District 1; and WHEREAS, after fully and appropriately considering and interviewing all interested applicants, the Council desires to appoint ______________ as a member of the Salt Lake City Council representing District 1 until the date a successor is duly elected, qualified and sworn into office. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, that _____________ is hereby appointed, pursuant to Utah Code section 20A-1-510, to fill a partial term of the office vacated by James Rogers in Council District 1, effective upon completion of the Oath of Office. The City Recorder is authorized and directed to administer the oath of office electronically and, after the oath is administered, ______________ will fully participate as a member of the City Council. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ___ day of November 2021. _________________________ City Council Chair Approved as to Form ___________________ __________________________ City Recorder Boyd Ferguson Senior City Attorney RESOLUTION_Vacancy Final Audit Report 2021-11-04 Created:2021-11-04 By:Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAA4UyLwa_Lb2-EMdL26OMIWHdRomVGXSAf "RESOLUTION_Vacancy" History Document created by Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com) 2021-11-04 - 9:25:23 PM GMT Document emailed to Boyd Ferguson (boyd.ferguson@slcgov.com) for signature 2021-11-04 - 9:25:44 PM GMT Email viewed by Boyd Ferguson (boyd.ferguson@slcgov.com) 2021-11-04 - 10:09:28 PM GMT Document e-signed by Boyd Ferguson (boyd.ferguson@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2021-11-04 - 10:13:48 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2021-11-04 - 10:13:48 PM GMT 1 Shafer, Lauren From:Michelle Blue <MBlue@slco.org> Sent:Friday, October 29, 2021 12:01 PM To:Stewart, Thais; Shafer, Lauren Cc:Trishman, Cindy Lou Subject:(EXTERNAL) RE: SLC District One Vacancy - Jahn P. Curran Hello, Jahn Curran is a qualified candidate for Salt Lake City Council District 1. This person is an active registered voter. This individual also meets residency requirements as they registered to vote in the city at least 12 months ago, have voted in the city’s elections for at least 12 months, and they currently reside in Council District 1. Best, Michelle Blue Administration/Finance Manager Salt Lake County Clerk MBlue@slco.org 385-468-7425 SLCo Clerk Website From: Stewart, Thais <Thais.Stewart@slcgov.com> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 11:02 AM To: Michelle Blue <MBlue@slco.org>; Shafer, Lauren <Lauren.Shafer@slcgov.com> Cc: Trishman, Cindy Lou <Cindy.Trishman@slcgov.com> Subject: SLC District One Vacancy - Jahn P. Curran Good Morning, Please verify if the applicant is an active registered voter within Salt Lake City, and if possible, the date they registered in the district and/or their voter history to determine the 12 month residency requirement (SLC District One). Please reply all to this email. Thank you for all your help! Thais Stewart Deputy Recorder Operations Recorder’s Office Salt Lake City Corporation 801-535-6225 www.slcgov.com 1 Shafer, Lauren From:Michelle Blue <MBlue@slco.org> Sent:Wednesday, October 13, 2021 8:11 AM To:Shafer, Lauren Subject:(EXTERNAL) RE: D1 Vacancy - Richard Barnes Hi Lauren, Richard David Macpherson Barnes is a qualified candidate for Salt Lake City Council District 1. This person is an active registered voter. This individual also meets residency requirements as they registered to vote in the city at least 12 months ago, have voted in the city’s elections for at least 12 months, and they currently reside in Council District 1. Best, Michelle Blue Administration/Finance Manager Salt Lake County Clerk MBlue@slco.org 385-468-7425 SLCo Clerk Website From: Shafer, Lauren <Lauren.Shafer@slcgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 2:30 PM To: Michelle Blue <MBlue@slco.org> Subject: D1 Vacancy - Richard Barnes Hi Michelle, Please verify if the applicant is an active registered voter within Salt Lake City, and if possible, the date they registered in the district and/or their voter history to determine the 12 month residency requirement (SLC District One). Thank you for all your help! Best, Lauren LAUREN SHAFER Deputy City Recorder Elections RECORDER’S OFFICE SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 801-535-6221 www.slcgov.com 1 Shafer, Lauren From:Michelle Blue <MBlue@slco.org> Sent:Friday, October 22, 2021 2:41 PM To:Shafer, Lauren Subject:(EXTERNAL) RE: D1 Vacancy - Blake Perez Hi Lauren! Blake Perez is a qualified candidate for Salt Lake City Council District 1. This person is an active registered voter. This individual also meets residency requirements as they registered to vote in the city at least 12 months ago, have voted in the city’s elections for at least 12 months, and they currently reside in Council District 1. Best, Michelle Blue Administration/Finance Manager Salt Lake County Clerk MBlue@slco.org 385-468-7425 SLCo Clerk Website From: Shafer, Lauren <Lauren.Shafer@slcgov.com> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2021 2:30 PM To: Michelle Blue <MBlue@slco.org> Subject: D1 Vacancy - Blake Perez Hi Michelle, Please verify if the applicant is an active registered voter within Salt Lake City, and if possible, the date they registered in the district and/or their voter history to determine the 12 month residency requirement (SLC District One). Thank you for all your help! Best, Lauren LAUREN SHAFER Deputy City Recorder Elections RECORDER’S OFFICE SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 801-535-6221 www.slcgov.com 1 Shafer, Lauren From:Michelle Blue <MBlue@slco.org> Sent:Friday, October 29, 2021 12:05 PM To:Stewart, Thais; Shafer, Lauren Cc:Trishman, Cindy Lou Subject:(EXTERNAL) RE: SLC District One Vacancy - Victoria Petro-Eschler Hello, Victoria Petro-Eschler is a qualified candidate for Salt Lake City Council District 1. This person is an active registered voter. This individual also meets residency requirements as they registered to vote in the city at least 12 months ago, have voted in the city’s elections for at least 12 months, and they currently reside in Council District 1. Best, Michelle Blue Administration/Finance Manager Salt Lake County Clerk MBlue@slco.org 385-468-7425 SLCo Clerk Website From: Stewart, Thais <Thais.Stewart@slcgov.com> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 10:52 AM To: Michelle Blue <MBlue@slco.org>; Shafer, Lauren <Lauren.Shafer@slcgov.com> Cc: Trishman, Cindy Lou <Cindy.Trishman@slcgov.com> Subject: SLC District One Vacancy - Victoria Petro-Eschler Good Morning, Please verify if the applicant is an active registered voter within Salt Lake City, and if possible, the date they registered in the district and/or their voter history to determine the 12 month residency requirement (SLC District One). Please reply all to this email. Thank you for all your help! Thais Stewart Deputy Recorder Operations Recorder’s Office Salt Lake City Corporation 801-535-6225 www.slcgov.com Sincerely, November 9, 2021 As Salt Lake City Council Chair, I hereby determine that conducting the Salt Lake City Council meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the anchor location. Due to an increase in COVID-19 cases and updated mask requirements, I find that conducting a meeting at the anchor location under the current local emergency constitutes a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the location. Amy Fowler Chair, Salt Lake City Council OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL WWW.SLCCOUNCIL.COM 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 PO BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114-5476 EMAIL: COUNCIL.COMMENTS@SLCGOV.COM Item H3 CITY 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 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO: City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet Policy Analyst DATE: November 9, 2021 RE: Annexation: 2350 North Rose Park Lane PLNPCM2021-01124 MOTION 1 I move the Council accept a petition to annex a parcel of land at 2350 north rose park lane for further consideration. MOTION 2 I move the Council deny a petition to annex a parcel of land at 2350 north rose park lane for further consideration. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst DATE: November 9, 2021 RE:Annexation: 2350 North Rose Park Lane PLNPCM2021-01124 PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: Nov 9, 2021 Set Date: Public Hearing: Potential Action: Nov 9, 2021 ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing about the Hunter Stables annexation application and petition located at approximately Rose Park Lane and 2350 North. The City Council has 14 days from the date of receipt by the Recorder’s office to accept or deny the Petition, which includes the application. If no action is taken within the 14-day window, the Petition will be considered accepted. Accepting the Petition is not approval of the annexation request. Acceptance begins the next step in the annexation process which includes notices sent to property owners, a protest period and the final consideration by the Council. The designation of the zoning of the property will be considered throughout the process and defined in the ordinance considered by the Council. The Council has the option to request Planning Commission review in their public meeting, with a request for a recommendation on the proposed annexation and zoning. See next page for policy questions. Page | 2 POLICY QUESTIONS The Council may wish to ask the Administration what happens with the petition if the Council denies it acceptance. If accepted, does the Council wish to request the Planning Commission review the petition as part of the public process and forward a recommendation to the City Council? If accepted, does the Council wish to request the Planning Staff review and forward options for appropriate zoning districts for the Council to consider? ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: PLNPCM2021-01124 Hunter Stables Annexation located at approximately STAFF CONTACT: Nick Norris, Planning Director (nick.norris@slcgov.com or 801-535-6173) DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: That the Council accept the annexation application by adopting the resolution. If accepted, it means that the City will process the Annexation proposal and return to the City Council for a final decision as prescribed by Utah Code. BUDGET IMPACT: None at this time. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On September 23, 2021 the Notice of Intent to Annex was received by the City Recorder’s office. Following the receipt of the County’s certification of mailing (as required by State Code 10-2-403(2)) on October 27, 2021, the City Recorder’s office provided the Petition to the applicant. Upon receipt of the Petition on November 1, 2021, the County was notified by the petitioner and notice was provided via email to the City Council of the completed Petition submission. The Planning Division assigned PLNPCM2021-01124 to this application and the fee was paid. The City Council is now tasked to determine if they accept the Petition by resolution or deny by motion within the 14-day window from the date of the notice. For this reason, the Council has provided the option to transmit the information and Petition speedily. If no action is taken within the 14-day window, the Petition will be considered accepted. November 4, 2021 Lisa Shaffer (Nov 4, 2021 10:57 MDT) 11/04/2021 11/04/2021 If the Council accepts the Petition a 30-day period of noticing begins, and a Certification of Petition requirements met is completed. Upon Certification, within 10 days the Recorder’s office on behalf of the Council will mail a notice to each owner of real property locating within the proposed annexation area and post physical notices, post notice on the Utah Public Meeting Site, post on the website, and mail written notice to each affected entity. At this stage, protests may be submitted regarding the annexation. If protests are filed, the City Recorder will coordinate with appropriate entities and provide a written update to the City Council. Upon resolving protests, or if no protests are filed, the City Council is required to hold a public hearing. Prior to the public hearing, the Planning Division will provide a transmittal with the proposed ordinance to annex the property with a proposed zoning. Adopting the zoning of the property is done as part of the annexation process and is not subject to the typical zoning process outlined in Utah Code or in City Ordinance. The rationale behind that is that the city cannot apply zoning outside of the city boundaries and State Code requires all land within the City to be zoned and therefore the zoning is adopted at the same time as the annexation is approved. State Code also does not require a recommendation from the Planning Commission on annexations or on the proposed zoning associated with annexed land. However, the City Council has the discretion to ask the Planning Commission for a recommendation. The annexation process is not subject to the 45-day public notice required by City Code. Due to noticing requirements outlined in Utah Code, applying the 45-day notice period may result in the City Council not being able to comply with the timing requirements for annexations in State Code. The Petition includes a desired zoning designation of RMF-75. This zoning district would allow buildings up to 75 feet in height. According to the annexation Petition, the land to be annexed includes 17.21 acres of land. In the RMF-75 zoning district density is calculated at 500 square feet per unit for properties over one acre in size. This could result in as many as 1,499 housing units on the property. The zoning will be further analyzed if the Council accepts the petition. PUBLIC PROCESS: Notices required to be completed through the Annexation process has been completed. EXHIBITS: 1) Resolution 2) Annexation Application Materials RESOLUTION NO. ________ OF 2021 ACCEPTING A PETITION TO ANNEX A PARCEL OF LAND AT 2350 NORTH ROSE PARK LANE FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE SECTION 10-2-405 WHEREAS, on November 1, 2021, JAW Development, LLC (“Petitioner”) submitted a petition (Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01124) to annex into Salt Lake City approximately 17 acres of land located at 2350 North Rose Park Lane in unincorporated Salt Lake County (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Property is contiguous to the corporate limits of Salt Lake City and is identified as an expansion area described as “Study Area 1 - West Airport” in the city’s annexation policy plan titled, “A MASTER ANNEXATION POLICY DECLARATION for Salt Lake City, Utah” adopted in 1979 and as shown on the map accompanying that plan titled, “SALT LAKE CITY Annexation Policy Declaration Proposed Future Boundaries”; and WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 10-2-405 provides that a municipal legislative body may, within 14 days of receiving an annexation petition, accept an annexation petition for further consideration or deny it; and WHEREAS, accepting an annexation petition for further consideration pursuant to Section 10-2-405 does not constitute final approval of the annexation by the municipal legislative body and does not establish whether any particular zoning designation may be appropriate for potentially annexed land; and WHEREAS, because the Property is within Salt Lake City’s expansion area in its 1979 annexation policy plan and because the Property is congruous to Salt Lake City corporate limits, the Salt Lake City Council finds that it should accept the subject annexation petition for further consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: That Petitioner’s petition to annex approximately 17 acres into Salt Lake City is hereby accepted by the Salt Lake City Council for further consideration as provided by Utah Code Section 10-2-405. DATED this ______ day of ________________, 2021. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of ________________, 2021. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By:___________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Resolution accepting Hunter Stables annexation petition APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney 1. Resolution 2. Annexation Application Materials ΔΔΔ3/21/19March 21, 2019 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget TO:City Council Members FROM: Jennifer Bruno, Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards, Allison Rowland, and Kira Luke Budget and Policy Analysts DATE:November 9, 2021 RE: Budget Amendment Number Four FY2022 ________________________________________________________________________________ Budget Amendment Number Four includes forty-one proposed amendments and requested changes to thirteen funds. Total expenditures coming from Fund Balance are $2,884,735, and the Administration is requesting straw polls for two items which are found in Section A (New Budget Items). Additionally, the Council may wish to note that the Administration is proposing to add twenty-two ongoing FTE’s paid with one-time grant funding. If all the items are adopted as proposed, then Fund Balance would be $502,894 below the 13% minimum target established by the Council in FY 20. Fund Balance would however remain $3 million above 12%. American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Proposed Spending Items There are several proposed items that would spend nearly $14.5 million of American Rescue Plan Act or ARPA funding. This is one-time funding from the Federal Government for the City to respond to pandemic-related impacts and address recovery needs including revenue loss replacement and employee compensation. Many of the proposed ARPA-funded items would use one-time funding for one-time uses. However, a few items like the park ranger pilot program and expanded Community Commitment Program would add new full-time employees (FTEs) which create new ongoing costs. This is in addition to ongoing costs (FTEs/programs) paid for with ARPA dollars in the F22 budget, totaling approximately $22.3 million. These would add to the General Fund’s growing structural budget deficit in future fiscal years. It’s important to note that approving the items as proposed would also set in motion the need to spend ARPA dollars in FY23 (or use another funding source or identify budget cuts) to cover some of the new ongoing costs particularly new FTEs and ongoing police overtime. The Administration’s transmittal includes a summary spreadsheet showing how the City’s entire $85 million ARPA award has been used to-date, items proposed in this budget amendment and potential uses in FY23 and FY24. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how the City’s FY23 and FY24 annual budgets could be impacted by ARPA-funded items proposed in this budget amendment plus the $22.3 million of ongoing expenses in the FY22 annual budget paid for with one-time ARPA funding. Sales Tax Update (See Attachment 1) This attachment shows the confirmed sales tax revenues through the end of FY21. The data table shows sales tax in FY21 was $7.4 million higher than FY20 particularly the months of February through June. June was the highest sales tax revenue month on record for the City. The wholesale trade increased, and the biggest decline remains accommodation and food services. Inflation could also be a contributing factor to greater sales tax receipts. Project Timeline: Set Date: Nov. 9, 2021 1st Briefing: Nov. 9, 2021 2nd Briefing: Nov. 16, 2021 Public Hearing: Nov. 16, 2021 3rd Briefing: December 7, 2021 (if needed) Potential Action: December 7, 2021 Page | 2 Revenue for FY 2021-22 Budget Adjustments Because the fiscal year just started the Fiscal Year 2022 projections are at budget. The following chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for fiscal year 2022. Updated revenue projections are expected to be available for the next budget amendment and after the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is completed. Page | 3 Fund Balance Update The Administration is recommending to go below the 13% minimum target established by the Council in FY 20. This means the Fund Balance would be $502,894 below the target. Fund Balance would however remain $3 million above 12%. Previously the City has been advised that downward trends in fund balance percentage could have the potential to impact the City’s bond rating (needed to get desirable interest rates), and the previous minimum threshold was identified at 10%. Updated Fund Balance projections are expected to be available for the next budget amendment and after the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is completed. Impact Fees Update The Administration provided a summary of impact fee tracking, details on refunding amounts and dates and lists of unfinished projects with impact fee funding. The information is current as of October 29, 2021. An update since the information was transmitted is that the four police impact fee refunds listed for July through October in FY22 are not needed based on the adopted annual budget. As a result, the City is on-track with impact fee budgeting to have no refunds during all FY22. The Administration reports work is nearing completion to update the fire and parks sections of the impact fee plan. The transportation section was updated last year. Eligible projects for police impact fees are being identified. Page | 4 Type Unallocated Cash “Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring Impact Fees Fire $1,487,183 More than a year away - Parks $8,948,216 More than a year away - Police $415,503 More than a year away - Transportation $6,101,644 More than a year away - Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract $1,583,500 ARPA Holding Account Update In the FY22 annual budget, the Council placed $1,583,500 into a holding account from 10 items proposed by the Administration. The Administration indicates that the holding account items are no longer being recommended. During deliberations in May and June the 10 items were determined to not be eligible for ARPA funding under the U.S. Treasury’s ARPA guidance. The holding account was created to give the Administration time for exploring whether any of the 10 items could be modified to be ARPA eligible. The Council could act in this budget amendment to free these dollars. Section A: New Items (note: to expedite the processing of this staff report, staff has included the Administration’s descriptions from the transmittal for some of these items) A-1: Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance Costs ($128,888 from General Fund Balance and $294,820 from Enterprise Funds) The City has carried both excess liability and cyber security insurance since Fiscal Year 17 (FY17) and has not yet had to use either. However, premiums for each rose significantly higher than budgeted in the current fiscal year. Excess liability The Administration shared the following definition of excess liability insurance: Excess liability insurance covers judgments and claim settlements in excess of the City's $1,000,000 self-insured retention. While most claims against the City are subject to judgment limitations under the Governmental Immunity Act, federal claims, such as civil rights and employment claims, are not. The Administration attributes the increase to claims in the past year that met thresholds the City is required to report to the City’s insurance carrier. Cyber security The Administration shared the following definition of cyber security insurance: Cyber insurance covers third-party liability resulting from security breaches. It also covers data recovery, data breach response and crisis management, cyber-extortion, and ransomware. In recent years, the City has funded upgraded security resources, including more advanced systems and more cybersecurity training for City staff. The FY22 budget for the IMS Department also included $50,000 for an audit of the City’s current network security. Requests in future budgets are likely to continue including hardware and software upgrades that will improve security, as the City works to keep up with rapidly-advancing technology and increasing threats. Although these investments ultimately reduce the need to use the insurance, trade publications for the municipal information technology sector report a large increase in cyberattacks across the board, leading to higher premiums throughout the industry. Policy Question: The Council could confirm with the City Attorney's office whether an executive session on deployment of security and/or pending litigation could allow the Council to learn about any current claims and the City’s security profile. A-2: Department of Air Quality Lawnmower Exchange ($250,000 from General Fund Balance) The Utah Department of Air Quality (UDAQ) administers an annual gas-powered lawnmower and yard equipment exchange in order to reduce criteria pollutants in the areas of the Wasatch Front that are in non-attainment with the Clean Air Act air quality standards. Because the Wasatch Front is on track for attainment of wintertime PM2.5, Page | 5 UDAQ is not running a snowblower exchange this year. Instead, they are focusing on programs to reduce summertime ozone pollution, for which the Wasatch Front is out of attainment. UDAQ has $900,000 set aside to continue the exchanges for the foreseeable future. The size of the lawnmower exchange varies each year depending on the size of financial contributions from partners. UDAQ typically contributes between $300,000 and $400,000. The Sustainability Department is proposing a budget amendment of $250,000 from General Fund Balance to partner with UDAQ in FY22 on a gas-powered lawnmower exchange. This would facilitate exchanges for approximately 1,000 Salt Lake City residents. Salt Lake City participated in 2021, spending nearly $161,000 which helped 582 residents participate. In total, 509 gas powered mowers were exchanged (the remaining participants bought new mowers without exchanging an old one). This is the equivalent of removing 4.02 tons of pollution from the airshed each year. A majority of residents also opted to participate in the City’s Call 2 Haul program to have their gas mower picked up curbside and recycled by Salt Lake City Waste and Recycling. The Administration proposes continuing this program in FY 22 (spring 2022). The goal will be to increase participation from 582 to 1,000 with a continued focus on our Westside neighborhoods. The Administration anticipates greater awareness and uptake of the program in the coming year due to increased familiarity with the program, and plans to work with UDAQ on earlier, targeted outreach given the lessons learned from spring 2021. UDAQ anticipates the program logistics will change in FY 22 to facilitate easier participation and lower administrative burden. In particular, they are hoping to develop a phone app that participants will use to sign up and upload any required receipts. UDAQ is also envisioning the next program will offer a promotional discount code to be used toward the purchase of electric lawn equipment and an app would also help separate Salt Lake City residents from other participating Wasatch Front residents. This will reduce confusion as to who is eligible for curbside pickup of their old mowers. The Administration also indicates that they also hope the app will help keep the exchange open longer for Salt Lake City residents instead of opening, closing it, and opening it again while UDAQ verifies addresses. While the exact amount of the discounts have yet to be determined, the Sustainability Department proposes using $250,000 in City General Funds to facilitate approximately 1,000 gas-powered mower exchanges. This budget amendment would also fund temporary staffing expenses to assist with running curbside collection of old mowers through Call 2 Haul. This benefit was very popular last year and helped make this program more equitable to those who might not have the ability to haul their own mower to a metal recycler. Policy Questions: Expanding Program Beyond Lawnmowers – Council Members recently expressed interest in expanding this exchange to include other common gas-powered yard maintenance equipment like leaf blowers, chainsaws, trimmers, etc. The Council may wish to ask the Administration what would be necessary to expand the exchange program along these lines? Sustainability Funding Contributions – The Council may wish to ask if the Sustainability Department’s refuse, energy, or environment dollars could be available to contribute to this program? Context with the Annual budget – Given that this program is proposed to be funded with General Fund dollars, the Council could ask that it be included in the annual budget in future years. A-3: COVID Safe Building Improvements ($844,000 from General Fund Balance; $131,000 goes to IMS Fund) The Public Services Department identified several recommended building improvements to provide a safer environment protecting against the spread of disease. Consultants, health officials and current employees collaborated to identify these changes. The total cost is estimated at $844,000 and includes the following: - $250,000 for improved indoor air quality by upgrading existing HVAC systems to better capture airborne particles and contaminants using needlepoint devices - $165,000 for enhanced janitorial cleaning five days a week for the rest of the fiscal year. The cleaning schedule would adjust to COVID case counts and feedback from the public and employees Page | 6 - $131,000 for teleconferencing and meeting equipment for virtual and hybrid public meetings. This equipment and training would be available to the Mayor’s Office, Council Office and the City’s two dozen boards and commissions - $100,000 for reconfiguring cubicle office spaces - $100,000 for various personal protective equipment (PPE) and cleaning supplies including facemasks, hand sanitizer, disposable gloves, etc. - $44,000 for new chairs, tables, reconfigurations and small digital signs in meeting rooms (potentially including Room 138, Cannon Room and others) - $17,000 for one seasonal employee working 40 hours/week for six months except holidays to assist with visitors to the City & County Building - $16,000 for new chairs in the Committee of the Whole room - $10,000 for a public noticing digital sign within the ADA entrance at the City & County Building and at Plaza 349 - $6,000 for desks and chairs to create two check-in areas: one on the first floor between elevators, a second near the east entrance o CBI guards would cover the check-in desk as part of the City’s existing contract o Procedures are being developed for this new function - $5,000 for appointment management software at the entrance of the building which allows IDing and monitoring building occupancy Policy Questions: Equipment for Hybrid Meetings – The Council may wish to ask the Administration what virtual and hybrid meeting equipment and training would be made available to the City’s two dozen boards and commissions. The Council may also wish to ask if the Administration has looked into providing hybrid meeting training to community councils. Public Access to City & County Building – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if a policy is being developed to govern public access during the pandemic to the City & County Building and how the public would make appointments on the new management software. Currently some departments report offering limited hours for walk-in visitors and other departments are scheduling appointments. Public Notice Digital Signs – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if public noticing digital signs are also needed at the Main Library and the Public Safety Building so the same information is available at multiple locations across the Civic Campus. Many notices are currently posted on doors with paper. Other Funding Sources for this Project – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if ARPA dollars could be used for these expenses (note: this is not recommended for ARPA dollar use by the Administration). A-4: Pulled prior to Submission A-5: Community Health Access Team (CHAT) Program Vehicles ($150,000 from $2 Million Holding Account; $150,000 goes to Fleet Fund) *straw poll requested* Note this item is related to items A-10 and C-1 In the FY22 annual budget, the Council created a holding account with just over $2 million from “Funding our Future” public safety dollars, for diversifying public safety civilian response models. This item is requesting $150,000 which would be the first use of that holding account. Note that the Council carried over into FY22 a separate almost $2.3 million holding account originally created in FY21 for implementing recommendations from the Racial Equity in Policing Commission, the Council’s audit of the Police Department, and the public. The $150,000 would purchase three new hybrid Ford Explorer SUVs to accommodate increased program staffing. Two of the vehicles will be used by CHAT staff and the third by the Medical Division in the Fire Department supporting the program. The estimated cost per vehicle is $50,000 including fuel, upgrades, and maintenance. The CHAT program currently has one vehicle for two paramedics responding as a team. The program is overseen by a captain. Item A-10 proposes transferring three social worker FTEs from the Police Department to the Fire Department. This staffing increase and corresponding vehicle increase would allow the CHAT program to operate Page | 7 two separate teams. The social workers in the CHAT Program would operate out of the Public Safety Building rather than the Community Connections Center. The Administration stated the CHAT Program would operate independent of the Social Worker Program. The paramedic would assess a subject’s medical condition and the social worker would assess their psychological condition. The Fire Department responds to approximately 24,000 medical assessment calls annually. If the CHAT program provides better response options to this frequent call type, then the Fire Department may seek to further expand the program in the future. The Fire Department and 911 Department presented the expanded CHAT program proposal to the REP Commission in September which was supportive of this proposal. An expanded CHAT program with the added skillsets of social workers would respond to calls related to mental health and homelessness. Some call types are ineligible for CHAT program response including when a weapon is present or there are threats of violence. This has the potential to divert some calls away from a law enforcement response so police officers could address other calls for service. The Administration stated the CHAT program responds to calls for service that (1) do not meet the criteria for emergency service or (2) do not benefit from the scope of training provided to paramedics and EMTs Policy Questions: Identifying and Tracking Calls for Service Diversions from Police to CHAT Program – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if there are plans to track calls for service diverted from a police officer response to the CHAT program or other alternative response models. The information could help measure the success and demand for the City’s civilian response models. The Council may also wish to ask how the 911 Department identifies calls for service that are good candidates for diversion. The City’s alternative response options include the CHAT program, Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) and the Social Worker Program (potentially a new Park Ranger program and police civilian responder program too). Equity in Access to Medical and Mental Health Services – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how an expanded CHAT program could improve access to medical and mental health services, especially in communities that historically have disproportionately less access. Aligning Operating Hours to Mental Health Crisis Call Times – The Council’s operational audit of the Police Department recommended social worker program and Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) hours change to include evenings. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if an expanded CHAT program would have operating hours in the evening. The auditors provided the below graphics showing most mental health-related calls occur in the evening which is outside the CIT program’s operating hours. Mental Health-related Calls for Service by Hour of the Day Page | 8 Straw Poll Request: Does the Council wish to hold a straw poll for this item? The Administration has requested a straw poll given the significant delays in receiving vehicle orders during pandemic-related supply shortages. A-6: Non-Represented Employees’ Job Salary Survey ($75,000 from General Fund Balance) *straw poll requested* This request is intended for consultative services to be provided by a qualified third-party consultant or firm to conduct a compensation survey to assess, evaluate and compare the overall pay structure, including actual base pay and other job elements, of Salt Lake City’s non-represented employees to other public and private sector entities with whom the City competes for talent. The recommended survey project includes data collection, analysis, and the development and presentation of a report with recommendations for the City’s Department of Human Resources, Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC), and elected officials to consider. The survey will be conducted with a primary focus on cash compensation and rely on the same caliber and methodology as surveys previously completed for the City's public safety and AFSCME-covered employee groups (as completed by Mercer in early 2019 and 2020, respectively). Straw Poll Request: Does the Council wish to hold a straw poll for this item? The Administration has requested a straw poll to allow additional time for selecting a consultant, allowing the CCAC to review at a special meeting in the spring, and so that results might be available to inform the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for FY2023. A-7: Sugar House Special Assessment Area Analysis (SAA) ($60,000 from General Fund Balance) In June, the Sugar House Community Council wrote a letter to the Economic Development Department requesting the City explore an SAA for economic promotion in the business district. The only existing economic promotion SAA in the City is for the Downtown. Utah Code defines eligible economic promotion activities as “sponsoring festivals and markets, promoting business investment or activities, helping to coordinate public and private actions, and developing and issuing publications designed to improve the economic well-being of the commercial area.” (Utah Code 11-42-102 Section 19) The $60,000 of funding would allow the Department to hire consultants and bond counsel to determine specific rates and revenue estimates, impacted parcels, cost per property owner, legal description of the boundaries and draft the notice of intent to designate. There is a potential for the assessment to reimburse the General Fund for those upfront costs. Page | 9 There is some flexibility in what method is used to measure the assessment such as property frontage, property area, taxable value or a combination of these. The Council would need to adopt a resolution designating the rates, budgets, allowable uses and boundaries. An RFP would be issued to accept bids of interested organizations. The Sugar House Chamber may submit a bid. A letter would also be sent to all impacted property owners notifying them of the SAA process. An SAA requires support from at least 61% of property owners (not tenants / businesses leasing space) and periodic approval such as every three years for the Downtown SAA. Policy Questions: SAA Activities – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration what activities the new SAA would provide. For example, would an ambassador program be paid for like in the Downtown, North Temple, and Central Ninth/Ballpark areas? SAA Reimburse General Fund Balance – The Council may wish to request the Administration include reimbursement of the General Fund Balance for upfront costs be included in the SAA analysis. SAA Boundaries – The Council may wish to discuss whether to support the potential boundaries or if adjustments should be considered. For example, should the residential neighborhood north and south of Simpson Avenue be included when the SAA is focused on commercial areas and economic promotion? Council staff created the below map to show the potential boundaries. Note: once notices are sent it is very expensive to change boundaries, and may cause additional delays. Context with Annual Budget - Given that this is a new proposal to be funded with General Fund dollars, the Council could ask that it be evaluated in the context of the annual budget rather than a budget amendment. Approximate Potential Boundaries for Sugar House SAA 700 East; Interstate 80; 1300 East; Hollywood Avenue with extension north on 1100 East to Ramona Ave to 1200 East Page | 10 A-8: Sorenson Impact Center Social Investment Study – Phase 2 Funding – ($150,000 from General Fund Balance) The Administration is requesting $150,000 from General Fund balance to continue the contract with the Sorenson Impact Center to work on Phase 2 of a Social Impact Investment study. A separate agenda item and staff report is planned for the larger scope of this topic. The Council may discuss adding the following principles/conditions in considering allocating the funding for the phase 2 work (note: this may change given the discussion during that agenda item): - The Council allocates $150,000 in Budget Amendment #4, for the Sorenson Impact Center to continue work on this potential program, with the understanding that: o The goal of the program is generational change, and in order to do that it must be ongoing beyond the initial investment term. o The City’s investment will not supplant existing programs and funding, and that assurances are obtained from partner agencies that this understanding will continue for the duration of any program created with this seed money. o The Sorenson Impact Center engage the totality of groups that provide these services and conduct transparent evaluation processes to determine which partners are best positioned to deliver this long-term generational change. o There be strict and transparent metrics to show goals are reached, particularly that the opportunity index score is improving in areas where it currently lags. A-9: Pulled prior to Submission A-10: Community Health Access Team (CHAT) Program Personnel Transfer (Budget Neutral) Note this item is related to items A-5 and C-1 This item would transfer three FTEs from the Police Department to the Fire Department including two social workers and one case manager that is a licensed clinical social worker. See A-5 for the full write-up. A-11: Rose Park Golf Course Water & Energy Efficiency Grant (Matching Funds) ($1,800,000 from the Golf Fund) *straw poll requested* The Departments of Public Lands and Public Utilities are working together on a grant application to help fund installation of an updated landscape irrigation system and other water conservation measures at Rose Park Golf Course. The grant is sponsored by the federal Bureau of Reclamation and would total $1,889,371. Salt Lake City’s match for the grant would consist of the following: Cash Staff Labor Contracted Services Department of Public Lands | Golf Division $1,800,000 $61,023 $0 Department of Public Utilities $0 $21,348 $7,000 Subtotal $1,800,000 $82,371 $7,000 Total City Cost-Share $1,889,371 The resulting $3,778,742 would be used to replace the existing irrigation system with new equipment, including high-efficiency nozzles that allow the watering levels to match turf type. In addition, some areas of fairway grass, which requires a lot of water, will be removed and re-seeded with drought-tolerant grasses, and the square footage of out-of-bounds rough areas will increase. The Golf Division estimates that Rose Park’s total irrigated areas can be reduced by 25% this way without impacting play, leading to significant water savings and furthering the goal of this grant funding. Note that these changes are distinct from those begun in 2015, under a contract with Siemens, in which a process was developed and implemented to draw secondary water from the Jordan River. That work included a new storage vault, pump system and some existing head upgrades, while this grant and the City’s match would fund the irrigation system itself, as well as the turf changes. In response to a Council staff question about the potential to access Bureau of Reclamation funds for similar projects at the City’s other courses, the Golf Division identified two limits: Page | 11 1.the challenges the Division faces with setting aside large amounts for matching funds; and 2.the level of competition for these grants. They believe that Rose Park is a particularly attractive candidate for these funds because of the potential to shift such a large share of fairway turf to be drought tolerant. The three other courses the Division reports as needing irrigation system replacements are Mountain Dell, Nibley and Forest Dale. Bonneville and Glendale were upgraded as part of the 2015 Siemens contract. Straw Poll Request: Does the Council wish to hold a straw poll for this item? The Administration has requested a straw poll given the timing of the expected grant award and when the City would need to confirm acceptance if the application is successful. A-12: Public Lands Park Ranger Pilot Program ($1,577,291 from General Fund Balance; $195,720 goes to Fleet Fund; $69,247 from ARPA) Note: this item is related to items C-1, E-3 and E-4 The Administration is proposing creation of a pilot program with 19 new FTEs in the Public Lands Department including two sergeants, 16 rangers and one support position. The total annual cost for a sergeant is estimated at $138,787 and for a ranger is estimated at $111,400. Job descriptions for the two positions were pending at the time of publishing this staff report. The Administration stated 12 rangers would be needed at a minimum to launch this new pilot program. The 19 FTEs are being recommended for a larger program. The program would operate from 8am to midnight seven days a week. The Administration states the rangers may serve as law enforcement officers. However, rangers would be unarmed and unlike police officers would not be Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) certified. Rangers would operate out of existing City facilities in parks including the soon to be redeveloped Fisher Mansion Carriage House and possibly temporary trailers. Rangers would focus on the Jordan River Trail, Pioneer Park, Liberty Park, and Fairmont Park. Rangers are not expected to operate in the Foothills or outlying natural areas. The total annual cost is estimated at $2,350,983. The request before the Council is for a half year funding of $1,175,491 and $401,800 of one-time costs including three trucks and two light response vehicles. The total cost for the remainder of FY22 is estimated at $1,577,291. The nearly $1.6 million cost in FY22 is proposed to be paid for from General Fund Balance. This item also proposes a reimbursement to Fund Balance for salary restorations resulting from the FY21 hiring freeze. ARPA dollars would provide $1,508,044 to Fund Balance as flexible General Fund dollars available for any use. This is the maximum salary restoration amount allowed under U.S. Treasury guidance. The remaining gap of $69,247 would come directly from ARPA for eligible supplies and services such as homeless outreach. The salary restoration using ARPA dollars in FY23 is estimated at $1,545,746 which creates a funding gap of $805,237 compared to the program’s annual cost. Creation of this new ongoing pilot program and the limited available use of one-time ARPA dollars means the structural deficit in the annual budget could be larger in FY23. The Public Lands Department (formerly Parks Division within Public Services Department) previously paid for police officer overtime in parks. The table below summarizes these costs from recent fiscal years. Fiscal Year Police Officer Overtime Cost Notes FY2018 $63,226 Overtime was paid over a four month period FY2019 $226,569 Overtime was paid over a seven month period FY2020 $23,835 Prolonged reduced staffing of police officers resulted in significantly reduced overtime in parks FY2021 $9,738 Prolonged reduced staffing of police officers resulted in significantly reduced overtime in parks FY2022 $0 Private security firm used to lock park restrooms at night and provide park security patrols The pilot program’s purpose and goals include: - Serving as law enforcement officers in parks (not POST-certified like police officers) Page | 12 - Providing services and information to park users - Assisting with homeless outreach efforts - Making people feel welcome and safe in parks - Deterring inappropriate activity - Gaining voluntary compliance of park codes and rules - Reducing the number of annual vandalism incidents and associated costs for repair/replacement Policy Questions: Effectiveness of Civilian Rangers Addressing Criminal Issues in Parks – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration the limits of civilian park rangers addressing criminal issues in parks and when rangers would need to rely on a police officer response. The Administration states the rangers may serve as law enforcement officers but would not be POST-certified like police officers. The Council may also wish to ask the Administration how park rangers would coordinate with the Police Department’s parks bike squad. Private Security Guards in Parks – The Public Lands Department currently hires private security guards to lock restrooms in parks and provide security patrols. The Council may wish to ask the Administration for the pros and cons of creating a park ranger program instead of continuing the current practice of hiring private security guards. Identifying and Tracking Calls for Service Diversions from Police to CHAT Program – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if there are plans to track calls for service diverted from a police officer response to park rangers or other alternative response models. The information could help measure the success and demand for the City’s civilian response models. The Council may also wish to ask how the 911 Department identifies calls for service that are good candidates for diversion. The City’s alternative response options include the CHAT program, Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) and the Social Worker Program (potentially this new Park Ranger program and police civilian responder program too). Growing Structural Deficit for FY23 Budget – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to provide a mid-year briefing on the estimated structural deficit for FY23 and how ARPA funding this fiscal year creates ongoing costs that could need ARPA funding next fiscal year. Request REP Commission Review – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to present the park ranger proposal to the REP Commission and share feedback and recommendations. Training and Equipment for Park Rangers – The Council may wish to ask the Administration what training and equipment would be provided to park rangers. The rangers would not have firearms. Reviewing Staffing Level – The Council may wish to ask the Administration when and how the pilot program’s staffing level will be reviewed to determine if fewer or more positions are warranted to meet the level of community need. A-13: WITHDRAWN BY THE ADMINISTRATION Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section (None) Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section C-1: ARPA Funding – Public Safety and Homeless Outreach – Public Lands Park Ranger Program ($1,064,368 – Miscellaneous Grants) (See Items A-12, E-3 and E-4.) Note: this item is related to items A-12, E-3 and E-4. See item A-12 for the full write-up. This item is an accounting step for transferring funding to the General Fund. C-2: Community Commitment Program Rapid Intervention Team ($164,750 from ARPA) Note: this item is related to items E-5, E-6 and E-8 The Administration is requesting the Council approve three new FTEs to work in the Waste & Recycling Division of the Sustainability Department. The employees would provide a new City cleaning team working with Advantage Page | 13 Services and the Homeless Engagement and Response Team coordinator in CAN. Sometimes employees in the Public Services and Sustainability departments are diverted from regular duties to assist the Community Commitment Program and Health Department. The titles and job descriptions for the three new FTEs were pending at the time of publishing this staff report. The total annual estimated cost per FTE is $87,600 which would be $262,800 for a full fiscal year. This item is requesting $164,750 to provide seven and a half months of funding in FY22. The three FTEs would be listed on the grant-funded section of the staffing document. As with the park ranger program in earlier items, these new FTEs could add to the structural budget deficit by using one-time funding for a new ongoing cost. Policy Questions: Three New FTEs Sunsetting with ARPA – The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether the three new FTEs would sunset with ARPA funding availability. Staffing Level and Community Need – the Council may wish to discuss with the Administration if the three additional FTEs would meet the level of need in the community and maximize the City’s partnership with the County Health Department. CAN Supervising Sustainability Employees – The Council may wish to ask why the three new employees would be in the Waste & Recycling Division of Sustainability but be coordinated by a supervisor in CAN? Section D: Housekeeping D-1: Economic Development Loan Fund Move Housing ($100,000 – Housing and $100,000 – General Fund) Last March, in Budget Amendment #7 of FY21, the Administration requested, and the Council approved, a $100,000 appropriation to the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) to assist restaurants and bars by offering funding to expand outdoor dining as an aid to pandemic recovery. The Department of Economic Development (DED) stated at that time that its intent in using the EDLF was to ensure that funding would not lapse due to delays caused by the processes of program development and identification of recipients. As it turned out, DED did not distribute any of these funds because “forgivable loans are not permitted under the EDLF Loan guidelines.” Now the Department is requesting the funds be moved from EDLF to a separate account so that these funds may be distributed as grants, rather than loans. If the Council chooses to do so, DED would transmit a resolution for consideration to set the guidelines for the proposed Outdoor Business Activity Grant Program. The program would provide up to $5,000 for outdoor dining/retail costs or $10,000 for costs incurred in hosting an “Open Streets” event. The Department noted in the BA #7 discussions that they would prioritize areas of the City using “social justice datasets,” and reach out directly to businesses located within these areas, as well as work with the diverse Chambers of Commerce, Community Councils, and other community partners. Since that time, the City’s Chief Equity Officer has been named and is working on frameworks and measurements to be implemented Citywide. In the meantime, the Chief Equity Officer provided DED the GARE (Government Alliance on Race and Equity) Racial Equity Toolkit, and DED is using that framework in all new project creation, including this project. Policy Question: Would the Council like to consider its support for this program now or after more specific guidelines are proposed by the Department? If these funds stay in the EDLF they will not drop to fund balance. D-2: Increase Grant Fund ($0.00 – Miscellaneous Grants) The annual budget proposed funding from the American Recovery Plan Act (ARPA) for revenue replacement. During budget adoption, the expense was adjusted based on updated grant guidelines. This increased the expense side of the grant fund, but recognition of the revenue was not included. This request adjusts the revenue side to recognize the revenue side of the transaction in the Grant Fund. This proposal will bring the Fund into balance in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Page | 14 D-3: Premium Holiday – Other Funds (Refuse, Golf, Fleet and IMs) ($0.00 – Miscellaneous Grants) The Premium Holiday was submitted with the budget with the transfer from the Insurance Fund, but the transfer into other funds was not included. This amendment is to balance the inter-fund transfers. D-4: GPS Housekeeping ($74,600 – General Fund and Fleet Fund) For FY22 there is an accounting change to put the GPS fees for vehicles in the Fleet budget. We missed the piece to move the current budgets over to Fleet. Public Services has a budget of $39,203; Public Lands has a budget of $26,797; and CAN has a budget $8,600 that we need to move to Fleet. D-5: Signage FTE Correction ($51,847 – General Fund) In the Mayor's Recommended Budget, an FTE for Signage for the Planning & Ecological Services Division was initially approved, but later reduced. However, the funding was again inadvertently reduced at the Council level, thus doubling the reduction. This housekeeping request is to replace the funding that was inadvertently cut from the Signage budget. D-6: General Obligation Series 2021A Bonds ($23,400,000 – CIP Fund, and $200,000 – Debt Service) In November 2018, voters authorized the issuance of up to $87 million in general obligation bonds to fund street construction. The General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A will be issued in November 2021 as the third issuance of the authorization. This amendment creates the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds and the expenditure budget to pay for construction of the street projects associated with the bonds. It also creates expenditure budget to pay the costs of issuance for the bonds. Bond proceeds will be allocated to five project cost centers in Fund 83 and one cost center in Fund 81 for the costs of issuance associated with the bond. Two cost centers will receive $6,000,000 each for the 200 South Phase 1 & 2 (400 W to 900 E) projects. A third cost center will receive $6,800,000 for the 1100 East (900 S to Warnock Ave) project. The fourth cost center will receive $1,600,000 for the 300 North (300 W to 1000 W) project. The fifth cost center will receive $3,000,000 for local streets. The proceeds to pay the costs of issuance associated with the bonds will be deposited to the debt service cost center in Fund 81. D-7: Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds Series 2021A ($10,665,000, $10,400,000 and $4,900,000 – Debt Service) Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A, were issued in June 2012 for the purpose of replacing the North Temple Viaduct and improving North Temple Boulevard. Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B, were issued in November 2013 for the purpose of financing a portion of the costs of the Sugarhouse Streetcar and paying for the portion of various improvements to create a "greenway" within the corridor. The Series 2012A and 2013B bonds are being refunded with the Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A. This budget amendment will create the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds and the expenditure budget to pay off the old bonds and to pay the costs of issuance for the bonds. Two Local Building Authority bonds will also be refunded by the Series 2021A bonds. This budget amendment creates the budget for the transfer to the LBA to pay those off. A separate LBA budget amendment is being submitted to create budget for paying off those bonds. D-8: Budget Carry Forward ($1,175,000 – General Fund) In the General Fund there were several budgets that did not have encumbrances at the close of fiscal year 2021 the Administration would request Council approval to roll budget for the projects into fiscal year 2022. The budgets requested are listed below: CC CC Name OC OC Description Amount 0900503 Demographer Contract 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $50,000.00 0900925 Financial Risk Assessment 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $100,000.00 0900930 Gentrification Mitigation Study 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $100,000.00 0900705 Washington DC Contract 2324 Special Consultant $75,000.00 0900513 NW Northpoint Plan Airport 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $50,000.00 0900508 Home to Transit Program 2590 Other Expenses $800,000.00 TOTAL $1,175,000.00 Page | 15 Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources E-1: COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant Program – New Water Reclamation Facility: Influent Pump Station and Force Mains (Water and Sewer Infrastructure) ($2 million from ARPA) See Attachment 2 for the grant memo and Council staff report The Mayor‘s Administration has submitted a grant application requesting funding of $10 million from the State of Utah to help fund the construction of the new Influent Pump Station force mains, (a sub-project of the Water Reclamation Facility), and replace the existing pump station and force mains which are at the end of their service life. This budget amendment item proposes to set aside $2 million in ARPA funds for the required match. The Council may wish to note that as part of the grant application, the City has committed a $40 million dollar match for the grant to increase the competitiveness of the application. According to the Administration, the source of the match includes the Department of Public Utilities planned utility revenue bond issuances, and the secured loan through the Federal Water Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act. E-2: Winter Shelter Support ($1 million from ARPA) This item would provide $1 million of flexible funding for emergency winter shelter support potentially including shelter operations. The funding is for winter shelter anywhere in Salt Lake County. U.S. Treasury guidance allows municipalities to spend outside of city limits and/or pool ARPA funding for regional projects and programs for eligible activities subject to compliance with reporting requirements and showing a benefit is being received for City residents proportionate to the ARPA funding amount. Policy Questions Funding Winter Shelter Outside or Inside City Limits – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if the funding would go to a winter shelter outside or inside of city limits. Hotel/Motel Voucher Flexibility – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if the funding could be used for hotel/motel vouchers instead of costs related to a winter shelter. E-3: Public Safety and Homeless Outreach – Salary Restoration – Public Lands Park Ranger Program (See Items A-12, C-1, and E-4) ($443,677 from ARPA) Note: this item is related to items A-12, C-1, and E-4. See item A-12 for the full write-up. This item is an accounting step for transferring funding to the General Fund. E-4: Public Safety and Homeless Outreach – Public Lands Park Rangers (See Item A-12, C-1 and E-3) ($69,244 from ARPA) Note: this item is related to items A-12, C-1 and E-3. See item A-12 for the full write-up. This item is an accounting step for using ARPA to directly fund eligible homeless outreach services and supplies in the new program. E-5: Community Commitment Program Rapid Intervention Team Vehicles ($160,500 from ARPA) Note: this item is related to items C-2, E-6 and E-8. See the other items for additional info. This item would purchase two F-350 pickup trucks and a trailer to be used by the three new employees in Waste and Recycling as part of the expanded Community Commitment Program. E-6: Community Commitment Program Additional Police Support ($1,505,920 from ARPA) Note: this item is related to items C-2, E-6 and E-8 The Administration is requesting $1,505,920 of funding for the Police Department to provide staffing to support the homeless encampment cleanup and camp re-establishment stabilization as requested by the Salt Lake County Health Department. Police officers working extra overtime shifts will provide security to ensure the cleanups can proceed in an environment that will be safe for all involved. Staffing numbers will vary depending on the size, number of cleanups and the location. Activity # days Officers # hours Rate Amount Requested Major Cleanups 14 40 10 $65 $364,000 Minor Cleanups*and area stabilization 122 24 6 $65 $1,141,920 Total Requested $1,505,920 *previously utilized on-duty resources that are no longer available Page | 16 It’s important to note that these overtime shifts are voluntary and there is no guarantee all shifts will be filled. Prior overtime shifts for the Community Commitment Program were approximately 75% filled. As of the October 2, the Police Department had spent $859,460 of the $1,741,890 overtime budget which is 49% of the available budget. If this trend continues, then the Police Department would be projected to go over the available overtime budget around mid-fiscal year. The Council increased the ongoing overtime budget by $650,000 as part of the FY22 annual budget. Policy Questions: Total Cost of the Community Commitment Program – The Council may wish to ask the Administration what is the total cost of the Community Commitment Program if Budget Amendment #4 is approved as requested? This information was requested and was pending at the time of publishing this staff report. Area Stabilization Examples – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for examples of area stabilization outside of immediate cleanup sites. E-7: Pulled prior to Submission to allow for the completion of Phase 2 of the Social Impact Investment. E-8: Community Commitment Program Rapid Intervention Team Cleaning by Advantage Services ($57,000 from ARPA) Note: this item is related to items C-2, E-5, and E-6 This item would provide $57,000 of additional funding for Advantage Services to conduct cleaning services related to the Community Commitment Program. Policy Questions: Public and/or Private Property Cleaning – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if Advantage Services cleaning is limited to publicly owned property or if private property is ever eligible. Quintuple Funding Next Fiscal Year – The Administration indicates the use of ARPA for cleaning by Advantage Services is expected to increase five-fold from $57,000 to $290,000 in FY23. The Council may wish to ask why the increase is planned and what changes to the cleaning services could the public expect. E-9: ARPA Westside Community Initiative (Perpetual Housing Fund) ($4 million from ARPA going to a New Holding Account in the Grant Fund) See Attachment 3 for the September 14 transmittal with the proposed framework. The Administration is requesting $4 million from ARPA to seed a perpetual housing fund dedicated to the Westside of the City defined as west of Interstate 15. The dedicated housing funds from the Inland Port Authority Jurisdictional Boundary would provide an ongoing revenue stream. The RDA Board received an initial briefing on this concept at the September 14 meeting. RDA staff are refining the draft policy and will return to the Board for a follow up discussion in the coming months. The Council could wait to appropriate the $4 million or place it into a holding account until the policy is adopted by the RDA Board. The draft program goals include: - Develop land with a long-term approach to continuously serve a community-defined purpose (could use a ground-lease approach) - Create opportunities for revenue generation while balancing the implementation of public benefits (revenue would be reinvested back into the fund) - Assist the Westside in mitigating gentrification and displacement (the City’s ongoing study to mitigate gentrification could inform the program policy) - Give lower income households the opportunity to build wealth through ownership (similar to a community land trust model aka a shared-equity model) - Engage community members in development decisions - Leverage resources for other neighborhood development purposes (such as subsidizing deeply affordable housing, commercial space, public infrastructure and art) - Collaborate with other partners to broaden the pool of funding and expertise Page | 17 - Carry out efforts with a collective impact approach (including measurable results to report back to the RDA Board and the public) E-10: Nonprofit and Business Assistance Community Grants ($4 million from ARPA going to a New Account in the Grant Fund) The Administration is proposing $4 million for new one-time community grants split into two separate offerings: $2 million for business assistance managed by the Economic Development Department (EDD) and $2 million for nonprofit assistance managed by the Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) Department. The grants must be used for eligible activities under the U.S. Treasury’s ARPA guidance and meet Federal reporting, compliance and spending deadlines. Meeting these requirements could create a significant workload for the City’s Finance Department and Attorney’s Office. For example, some potential categories are narrowly eligible only for evidence based programs and practices which must have published research supporting interventions producing desired outcomes. The Treasury is also expected to issue updated final guidance in the coming months. An ad-hoc committee, or two (unclear at time of publishing this report), would be created to review applications, question applicants, and have delegated final funding authority from the Council to make funding awards. The committee(s) would include staff from the two departments managing the grants (EDD and CAN), Mayor’s Office, Council Office, and a to be determined number of volunteers from several City boards and commissions. The two departments report a request for proposals would be issued with a one-month window for applicants to submit proposals. Then the committee(s) would score and rank applications over two weeks and make final decisions. Funding would be distributed the following month. Policy Questions: Delegation of Authority for Deciding Funding Awards – The Council may wish to discuss whether to delegate authority to the ad-hoc committee(s) or use another approach. For example, the Council could elect to use the established process the City has for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), annual grants like CDBG from the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Department, and one-time CARES Act relief grants. Under the existing process, the CDCIP Board reviews applications submitted during the open and competitive process, asks questions of applicants at public meetings, then provides funding recommendations to the Mayor who provides a second set of funding recommendations, next the Council deliberates the proposed recommendations, holds a public hearing and makes final funding awards. Equity Considerations – The Council may wish to discuss whether funding should have equity considerations built-in to the framework. For example, during the pandemic Council Members discussed the following categories in other grant programs: businesses in and nonprofits serving the Westside, women-owned and/or minority-owned businesses, nonprofits serving low-income residents, programs bridging the digital divide, food insecurity, increasing access to medical services and vaccines, etc. Applicant Assistance – The Council may wish to ask the departments what community assistance resources will be available for interested organizations to fill out applications? For example, where will in-person computer labs be publicly accessible, in what languages will the applications and instructions be available, who is the single-point of contact for each of the two grant programs, how will potential applicants learn about the opportunity, etc. Framework for the Grants – The Council may wish to ask the departments to return with proposed details of a grants framework such as the CIP and CDBG processes. This could include information like recommended grant program categories, funding minimums and/or maximums, required application information, and public engagement steps. Section F: Donations (None) Section G: Council Consent Agenda Page | 18 G-1: Police Department Asset Forfeiture Grant ($1,500 – Miscellaneous Grants) The Salt Lake City Police Department applied for and received a $1,500 grant award from the State of Utah, Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), under the State Asset Forfeiture Grant (SAFG) program. The SAFG program funds crime prevention and law enforcement activities within specific guidelines. CCJJ developed the SAFG program as a means of evaluating and distributing state forfeiture funds. The funds will be used for confidential informant funds to enhance investigations in narcotics-related cases. A public hearing was held 9/7/21 for this grant application. G-2: Utah Department of Health – Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Grant, FY22 Per Capita Allocation ($10,250 – Miscellaneous Grants) The Fire Department applied for and was awarded $10,250 of grant funding from the Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services. This funding will be used towards the purchase of a 12-Lead Cardiac Monitor and medical supplies relating to the provision of Emergency Medical Services as funding permits. A Public Hearing was held on 2/16/21 for the grant applications on this award. G-3: State of Utah, CCJJ (Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice), Jurisdictions with Halfway Houses and Parole Violator Center Grant, Law Enforcement Services Account (LESA) The Police Department has applied for and been awarded a $295,570 grant from the State of Utah, Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, in support of the Jurisdictions with Halfway Houses and Parole Violator Centers grant. This grant provides funding for law enforcement agencies that provide services directly to areas with halfway houses or parole violator centers, or both. The Police Department will use these funds for law enforcement overtime related to reducing criminal activity including targeted enforcement operations, increased patrol response, and responding to mental health calls for service. The Department will also utilize funds for case transcription services, six overt camera units and maintenance/repairs/supplies for units in the Department's camera program. A public hearing was held 9/7/21 for this grant application. G-4: Utah State Office for Victims of Crime, 2021-23 VOCA Victims of Crime Act Grant ($364,162 – Miscellaneous Grants) The Police Department applied for and received a $364,162.48 grant from the State of Utah, Office for Victims of Crime under the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) program, to be used for the continuation of the Victim Advocate Program. These funds will be used to pay for salary and fringe for 4 existing full-time Victim Advocate positions and all of the part-time Victim Advocate positions. This grant also covers the costs for Rita, the program's facility dog. Additionally, there are supplies for the program, emergency funds for assisting victims, and training for Advocate staff. No match is required by the funding agency. VOCA funds cover local and national conferences and trainings needed to meet statutory training requirements for the Victim Advocates. It also provides and emergency fund that can be used when no other victim funding options are available - these funds can be used for food, clothing, shelter, transportation and 911 phones for victims of violent crime. Additionally, it provides for supplies such as Victim Advocate brochures, Traumatic Death Handbooks, cell phone costs, etc. A $109,938.89 match is required which will be satisfied by the salary and benefits of City funded Victim Advocates and the Program Coordinator. In-kind matching funds are provided by the student interns/volunteers that participate in the Victim Advocate Program. A Public Hearing was held 9/7/21 on this grant application. G-5: Department of Workforce Services, Housing & Community Development Division, FY22 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant Program ($370,735 – Miscellaneous Grants) The Community and Neighborhoods Dept. applied for and received State Department of Workforce Services funding of $370,735 to continue efforts to encourage businesses, residents, Homeless Resource Center (HRC) operators and guests to participate in constructive community engagement opportunities and encourage service-based interventions in order to successfully integrate the HRCs into the fabric of their host neighborhoods and ensure the safety of those neighborhoods. The SLC Mitigation team currently consists of a SLC Community Engagement Coordinator, VOA Business and Community Liaison, and VOA Outreach Case Manager. This application requests to continue the current team and expand the team to include an additional VOA Business and Community Liaison, additional VOA Outreach Case Manager, and a VOA Outreach Peer Support Specialist, and three new positions as part of the City's existing Page | 19 Downtown Ambassador program - tailored to the areas surrounding the HRCs (King, Miller, and Youth). A Public Hearing was held on October 5, 2021. G-6: Utah State Department of Public Safety – 2021 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) ($42,500 – Miscellaneous Grants) The Emergency Management Services Division received a $42,500 FY2021 EMPG grant from the State of Utah, Department of Public Safety. This grant is awarded on an annual basis to jurisdictions to help offset costs of planning and updating emergency preparedness plans, conduct emergency preparedness exercises and produce materials and other media for public educational outreach and training pertaining to emergency preparedness. SLC's population increases from 180,000 to an estimated 310,000 each workday. Should a disaster occur during the workday, employees become a part of the SLC emergency response, but are not trained to assist themselves or others. These funds will offset costs in providing National Incident Management System (NIMS) training to SLC staff with emergency response responsibilities during a disaster or other significant event. The funds will be used to fund community preparedness activities, purchase training materials, supplies and equipment including books, brochures, handouts, etc. The grant requires a 50% match which will be satisfied with the Community Preparedness Coordinator's time and budgeted for within Emergency Management’s general fund. A public hearing will be held for this grant application. G-7: Cities of Service, Johns Hopkins, Justice for the Jordan Grant – Love your Block – ($100,000 – Miscellaneous Grants) The office of the Mayor applied for and received $100,000 in grant funding for the Justice for the Jordan, Love your Block grant. The grant provides: 1. $60,000 to hire a Love your Block Fellow for 2 years. 2. $40,000 to distribute to the community as mini grants 3. The City is also required to engage 2 AmeriCorps VISTA volunteers, one each year of the grant. 4. The City also receives technical assistance from Cities of Service The Cities of Service Love Your Block program connects mayor’s offices with community residents to revitalize their neighborhoods one block at a time. Typically, cities implementing Love Your Block invite community groups to identify priority projects and award mini-grants to support volunteer-fueled solutions that the community can implement. The City identifies a problem and then engages with volunteers within the neighborhoods of focus and engages them early in the project design phase as well as implementation and evaluation. The City identified the neighborhoods adjacent to the Jordan River in Glendale (census tract 1026, 1027.01, and 1028.01) as the target area. A public hearing was held October 5, 2021. G-8: Utah State Office for Victims of Crime, Violence Against Women Act, Domestic Violence Victim Advocate The City Prosecutors office applied for and received a $101,039 grant from the State of Utah, Office for Victims of Crime under the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) program, to be used for the Violence Against Women’s Act to fund Salt Lake City Prosecutor Domestic Violence Victim Advocate. The Prosecutor’s Office is requesting a Victim Advocate to assist and support victims of domestic violence as their cases move to the prosecution and adjudication phases. The services include information, education and advocacy through the case and prosecution, assistance with victim impact statements, support and accompaniment to court and meetings with investigators and prosecutors. The Victim Advocate assists in post release safety planning, preparation for court appearances, and jail release agreements. Until this year, Salt Lake County District Attorney Victim Services has provided this support for victims whose cases are adjudicate in Salt Lake City Justice Court. Funding cutbacks required the county to reassign the advocates to County prosecutions. Salt Lake City is applying for this new city position to fill the gap in services. The match is $12,630 each fiscal year, for a total of $25,260 for the two-year performance period of the grant. The match is met with cash available in the Office of the Attorney’s budget. A Public Hearing was held 6/15/21 on this grant application. Page | 20 Section I: Council Added Items I-1: Council Office Reclassifications and Amending FY22 Appointed Pay Plan The table below summarizes the reclassifications of six FTE appointed positions in the Council Office. Vacancy savings will cover the cost difference for the current fiscal year. Old Title / Grade New Title / Grade Communications Director / 31x Public Engagement & Communications Specialist III / 31x Public Engagement & Communications Specialist I / 26x Public Engagement & Communications Specialist II / 28x Public Policy Analyst II / 31x Senior Public Policy Analyst / 33x Public Policy Analyst II / 31x Senior Public Policy Analyst / 33x Associate Deputy Director / 37x Deputy Director / 39x Senior Public Policy Analyst / 33x Legislative & Policy Manager / 37x ATTACHMENTS 1. Sales Tax Update and Chart 2. COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant Program – New Water Reclamation Facility: Influent Pump Station and Force Mains (Memo from Administration and Council staff report) 3. Westside Communities Initiative RDA Transmittal from September 14 ACRONYMS ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act AFSCME – American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees ARPA – American Rescue Plan Act CAN – Community and Neighborhoods Department CCAC – Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee CCJJ – Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice CCP – Community Commitment Program CDBG – Community Development Block Grant CHAT – Community Health Access Team CIP – Capital Improvement Program CIT – Crisis Intervention Team EDLF – Economic Development Loan Fund EMPG – Emergency Management Performance Grant EMT – Emergency Medical Technician FTE – Full Time Equivalent Position FY – Fiscal Year GARE – Government Alliance on Race and Equity HRC – Homeless Resource Center HUD – United States Housing and Urban Development Department HVAC – Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning PPE – Personal Protective Equipment RDA – Redevelopment Agency REP – Racial Equity in Policing Commission SAA – Special Assessment Area TBD – To Be Determined UDAQ – Utah Department of Air Quality VISTA – Volunteers in Service to America VOCA – Victims of Crime Act 1Subject:FW: Sales Tax Update Through FY 2021These are the Actuals of the 1% Sales Tax Through FY 2021. The last half of the year was big especially in the last quarter averaging 33.8% higher than the previous year. There are inflationary factors that play into this as well. The last 3 quarters have shown record highs, when you adjust the revenue by cpi the last month of June was the still the highest month on record. 1% sales tax revenue received, not adjusted for inflation Month of Sale 2019 2020 diff 20‐19 % Change 2021 diff 21‐20 %Change Note July 5,166,159 5,509,305 343,146 6.6% 5,506,282 (3,023) ‐0.1% August 5,494,943 5,453,557 (41,386) ‐0.8% 5,363,921 (89,636) ‐1.6% September 5,990,942 5,979,661 (11,281) ‐0.2% 6,506,479 526,818 8.8% October 4,966,702 5,463,847 497,146 10.0% 5,190,694 (273,154) ‐5.0% November 5,186,889 5,461,007 274,119 5.3% 5,880,648 419,640 7.7% December 6,321,763 6,883,312 561,549 8.9% 7,020,529 137,217 2.0% January 4,901,735 5,697,416 795,681 16.2% 5,255,105 (442,311) ‐7.8% February 4,925,841 4,468,260 (457,581) ‐9.3% 5,280,150 811,890 18.2% March 5,739,003 5,980,157 241,154 4.2% 7,133,537 1,153,380 19.3% April 4,743,045 4,607,410 (135,635) ‐2.9% 6,304,088 1,696,678 36.8% May 5,480,257 4,834,144 (646,112) ‐11.8% 6,319,024 1,484,880 30.7% June 5,980,148 5,986,060 5,912 0.1% 8,017,577 2,031,517 33.9% Total 64,897,427 66,324,138 1,426,711 73,778,034 7,453,896 Accommodation and Food Services is still slow because of the pandemic. 2020 to 2021 ‐ Sale Tax Actuals 2020 2021 Sector Name sales_credit Diff FY Y/Y % Ch % of Total sales_credit Diff FY Y/Y % Ch % of Total Retail Trade 37,076,952 1,471,251 4% 41.4% 36,696,900 (380,052) ‐1% 42.4% Wholesale Trade 11,887,403 523,932 5% 13.3% 12,281,114 393,711 3% 14.2% Accommodation and Food Services 10,358,167 (2,386,736) ‐19% 11.6% 7,629,468 (2,728,698) ‐26% 8.8% Manufacturing 5,846,937 496,178 9% 6.5% 5,755,063 (91,874) ‐2% 6.7% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 4,261,171 (610,243) ‐13% 4.8% 3,810,664 (450,508) ‐11% 4.4% Attachment 1 - Sales Tax Revenues Update through End of Fiscal Year 2021 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY www.slccouncil.com/city-budget TO: City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Budget Analyst DATE: November 16, 2021 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT APPLICATION SUBMISSION PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: Not required. Set Date: Not required. Public Hearing: Nov. 16, 2021 Potential Action: TBD _________________________________________________________________ ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Administration has submitted seven grant applications. In an effort to ensure that the City Council, Council staff and the public has adequate opportunity to see and comment on them, the grant application notifications will be included in the Council meeting agendas under Public Hearings. There won’t be a set date since this is not a required hearing. 2. New Water Reclamation Facility: Influent Pump Station and Force Mains – COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant Program Purpose/Goal of the Grant: If awarded, the grant monies will be used to help fund the construction of the new Influent Pump Station Force Mains, (a sub-project of the Water Reclamation Facility), and replace the existing pump station and force mains that are at the end of their service life. Grant Amount: $10 million dollars Requested by: Department of Public Utilities Funding Agency: Utah’s Governor’s Office for Policy and Budget in conjunction with Utah Division of Water Quality Match Requirement: $40 million dollars – Sources: The Department of Public Utilities planned utility revenue bond issuances, and the secured loan through the Federal Water Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act. The City committed a $40 million dollar match for this project to increase the competitiveness of the application. Note: There is a request in Budget Amendment #4 to set aside $2 million in miscellaneous grant funds towards the $40 million required match. Staff Recommendation: Please refer to motion sheet. Grant Application Submission Notification Memo TO: Jennifer Bruno, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson CC: Sarah Behrens, Laura Briefer, Jaysen Oldroyd, Melyn Osmond, Sylvia Richards, Linda Sanchez, Recorders (All), Jordan Smith, Jesse Stewart, Lehua Weaver FROM: Elizabeth Gerhart eg DATE: September 17, 2021 SUBJECT: COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant Program – New Water Reclamation Facility: Influent Pump Station and Force Mains FUNDING AGENCY: Utah Governor’s Office for Policy & Budget GRANT PROGRAM: COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant Program REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $10,000,000 DEPARTMENT: Department of Public Utilities COLLABORATING AGENCIES: Utah Division of Water Quality DATE SUBMITTED: September 15, 2021 SPECIFICS: □ Equipment/Supplies Only □ Technical Assistance □ Provides FTE □ Existing □ New □ Overtime □ Requires Funding After Grant Explanation: □ Match Required □ In-Kind and □ Cash GRANT DETAILS:  Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities requested $10,000,000 for the New Water Reclamation Facility: Influent Pump Station and Force Mains project.  The Influent Pump Station and Force Mains is a sub-project of the new Water Reclamation Facility and replaces the existing pump station and force mains that are at the end of their service life.  Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities committed a $40 million match for the influent pump station and force mains construction from its planned utility revenue bond issuances and from the secured loan through federal Water Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act for the new Water Reclamation Facility to increase the competitiveness of the application. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 118 WWW.SLC.GOV · WWW.SLCRDA.COM P.O. BOX 145518, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5518 TEL 801-535-7240 · FAX 801-535-7245 MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL Executive Director DANNY WALZ Director REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY STAFF MEMO DATE: August 26, 2021 PREPARED BY: Tammy Hunsaker RE: Westside Community Initiative – Initial Briefing REQUESTED ACTION: Briefing on the framework for a new program intended to utilize Inland Port Housing Funds to advance development activities on the City’s Westside. POLICY ITEM: Affordable housing; 9 Line and North Temple project area development. BUDGET IMPACTS: Inland Port Housing Funds. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Earlier this year, the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (“RDA”) directed staff to develop a proposed program for the utilization of funds received by the RDA from the Inland Port Authority. These funds are received pursuant to Utah Code Title 11-58 Utah Inland Port Authority Act, which provides that a portion of tax differential generated within Inland Port Authority Jurisdictional Land shall be paid to the RDA to be utilized for housing. As such, RDA staff is working to develop a new program, tentatively called the Westside Community Initiative (“WCI”). While the proposed WCI is based on community land trust and cooperative-style housing development, it is broader in nature to carry out other project types for a collective impact. As proposed, the WCI shall facilitate the implementation of transformative housing and mixed-use projects with a focus on affordable homeownership as a way of building community cohesion and personal wealth. The geographic scope of the initiative is proposed to be the City’s Westside defined as west of I-15. The RDA’s 9 Line and North Temple project areas are included in this larger geographic area. Affordable and mixed-income housing projects will be leveraged with additional public benefits including neighborhood services, economic opportunity, and transit-oriented development. By taking a long-term approach to development projects, the WCI will balance the implementation of public benefits with the ability to generate revenue to be reinvested back into the community. Inland Port Housing Funds are required to be utilized for the purposes outlined in Utah 17C - Community Reinvestment Agency Act, section 17-C-1-412 – Use of Housing Allocation, which generally limits eligible activities to the development and preservation of housing targeted to households at or below 80% of the area median income (“AMI”). Under the statute, funds can be utilized to implement mixed-income projects, mixed-use projects, and related improvements. As such, funds can be leveraged as part of housing projects for a broad array of other public benefits, including infrastructure improvements, economic development, sustainable building practices, and the redevelopment of undesirable land uses. While the primary source of revenue for the initiative is anticipated to be Inland Port Housing Funds, the Board would be able to allocate other revenue sources to the WCI. In addition, the RDA would actively work to acquire outside funding sources and resources to collaborate on projects and activities. This could broaden the eligible uses of funding dedicated to the WCI. This memorandum includes initial information on the proposed framework for the WCI , including the budget and policy structure, goals, and activities. RDA staff will incorporate the Board’s feedback as specific details of the initiative are developed for the Board’s consideration at a future date. ANALYSIS & ISSUES: Additional details on the proposed framework of the WCI are as follows: I. Budget & Policy Structure: To implement the WCI, the following efforts would need to be carried out by the Board: 1. Update the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy, resolution R-4-2021, to earmark the Inland Port Housing Funds for the WCI and to allow for allocations from other revenue sources. This would be a minor change to the existing policy. 2. Create a new policy for the WCI that establishes the purpose, goals, activities, metrics, and reporting requirements for the initiative. If the Board is supportive, this policy would be based on the information contained herein. While the WCI policy would identify the purposes, goals, and activities of the initiative, projects would be administered pursuant to existing RDA programs and tools. Additionally, a new policy would be developed for a Shared Equity Development program. Programs and tools the WCI would be administered pursuant to are as follows: • RDA Loan Program Policy: Resolution R-37-2016 • Tax Increment Reimbursement Program Policy: Resolution R-9-2017 • RDA Real Property Disposition Policy: Resolution R-6-2021 • Housing Development Loan Program: Resolution R-7-2021 • Shared Equity Housing Program: Resolution Forthcoming Refer to Attachment A for a chart depicting the proposed structure of the WCI. II. Goals: The goals for the WCI are proposed as follows: • Develop Land with a Long-Term Approach to Continuously Serve a Community- Defined Purpose WCI will take a long-term approach to land development and community building so that the RDA may retain the fee ownership to and a reversionary interest in the property. By ground leasing to development partners, the RDA will provide an opportunity to receive revenue generation to serve other public benefits. • Create Opportunities for Revenue Generation while Balancing the Implementation of Public Benefits WCI will strive to balance the development of property with the incorporation of public benefits. Benefits such as affordable housing and below-market commercial space which generate limited or no cash flow would potentially be subsidized with land uses that generate positive cash flow. Revenue generated by projects and received by the RDA will then be reinvested back into the WCI with the goal of furthering shared prosperity. • Assist the Westside in Mitigating Gentrification and Displacement WCI will acquire land with the goal of holding it for the community in perpetuity, thereby removing land from the speculative market so that it serves low and moderate -income residents in perpetuity. Housing will remain affordable even as neighborhood change occurs and gentrification pressures mount, which protects families from displacement. • Give Lower Income Households the Opportunity to Build Wealth Through Ownership WCI will create opportunities for families to buy homes at affordable prices by focusing on a shared-equity model. A shared equity model offers an alternative form of ownership that provides benefits traditional markets cannot, such as long-term housing affordability and the ability for low and moderate-income families to build equity. When families decide to sell, they will receive their portion of the appreciation but the RDA remains as the land owner and is in the position to continue to sell the home at a below-market price, making it affordable to another family of limited means. Keeping the home affordable, from family to family, will benefit future generations by acting as a steppingstone for low-income families to go from renting to building wealth. • Engage Community Members in Development Decisions The RDA will involve the community in the planning and goals regarding long term land use and housing development. This can translate into residents actively involved in creating positive change within their communities and projects that reflect the value of its residents. The result will be projects that incorporate a shared mission and vision with the community. • Leverage Resources for Other Neighborhood Development Purposes Revenues acquired through ground leases or partnerships could contribute to other purposes, including subsidizing deeply affordable housing, below-market commercial space, infrastructure, public art, etc. • Collaborate with Other Partners to Broaden the Pool of Funding and Expertise The RDA would actively work to acquire outside funding sources and professional resources by bringing together financial institutions, the private sector, nonprofits, public officials, other government agencies, researchers, and practitioners to collaborate on community and economic development activities. • Carry Out Efforts with a “Collective Impact” Approach The RDA will continuously evaluate how projects work together to address common goals through a “collective impact” approach that produces measurable results. These measurable results will be tracked and reported on to promote data-driven and outcome-based decisions. III. Activities: The activities of the WCI are proposed as follows: • Strategic Acquisitions Strategic property acquisitions that may include distressed properties characterized by high crime rates, properties that are located at target locations, and other opportunities that align with the City’s objectives and meet predefined policy priorities. Properties will be redeveloped as elevated real estate development projects that have profound impacts on people, particularly low-income and vulnerable populations, in order to uplift others, create economic opportunities, improve health outcomes, and influence the physical and socioeconomic landscape of Salt Lake City. • Shared Equity Models of Development o Land Trust Development The RDA will retain ownership of land and provide for the sale or rental of housing to lower-income households. To make certain would-be homeowners and renters benefit from the arrangement for years to come, the resale prices and rents of the housing will be capped, maintaining affordability for the next family. o Multifamily Cooperative Housing Development The RDA will facilitate the development of cooperative housing projects to provide a framework for homeownership by bringing people together to own the building in which they live. A housing cooperative or "co-op" is a type of residential housing option that is a corporation whereby the owners do not own their units outright. Instead, each resident is a shareholder in the corporation based in part on the relative size of the unit that they live in. The co-op housing model provides low-income households with a way to accumulate personal wealth, through equity accumulation and mortgage interest deductions. • Residential and Mixed-Use Rental Housing Development The RDA will facilitate the development of rental mixed-income and mixed-use projects that are part of a larger coordinated effort to co-locate housing with the services and resources to increase a person’s likelihood for upward mobility. • Other Public Benefits While it is anticipated that the WCI will focus on affordable housing due to certain funding source restrictions, there is opportunity to leverage housing projects with broader public benefits. Furthermore, there is opportunity to broaden the WCI’s funding sources, with both internal and external sources, to expand the eligible activities funded through the WCI. Other public benefits could include infrastructure improvements (both street and green infrastructure), housing for a broad array of AMIs, job creation, small-business development, street activation, publicly visible art, historic preservation, adaptive reuse, neighborhood services, among others. IV. Next Steps RDA staff will incorporate the Board’s feedback on the information contained herein and will return to the Board with the following: 1. Revisions to the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy, resolution R-4-2021, to earmark Inland Port Funds for the WCI. The policy will also be revised to allow for allocations of other sources of revenue to the initiative. 2. A new policy resolution for the WCI that establishes the purpose, goals, activities, metrics, and reporting requirements for the initiative. 3. A new policy for a Shared Equity Housing Development program that provides for homeownership by bringing people together to own the building in which they live while the land is owned by the RDA, or another entity, to preserve affordability in perpetuity. PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: • May 2021 – The RDA Board directed RDA staff to develop a proposed program for a community land trust type program for the City’s Westside that utilizes Inland Port funds. ATTACHMENTS: • A – Westside Community Initiative: Proposed Framework Chart WESTSIDE COMMUNITY INITIATIVE (WCI) PROPOSED FRAMEWORK Note: The Initiative’s activities shall be administered pursuant to the following policies: RDA Loan Program Policy: Resolution R-37-2016 Tax Increment Reimbursement Program Policy: Resolution R-9-2017 RDA Real Property Disposition Policy: Resolution R-6-2021 Housing Development Loan Program: Resolution R-7-2021 Shared Equity Housing Program: Resolution Forthcoming • Develop Land with a Long-Term Approach to Continuously Serve a Community-Deﬁned Purpose • Create Opportunities for Revenue Generation while Balancing the Implementation of Public Beneﬁts • Assist the Westside in Mitigating Gentriﬁcation and Displacement • Give Lower Income Households the Opportunity to Build Wealth Through Ownership • Engage Community Members in Development Decisions • Leverage Resources for Other Neighborhood Development Purposes • Collaborate with Other Partners to Broaden the Pool of Funding and Expertise • Carry Out Efforts with a “Collective Impact” Approach GOALS PURPOSE The implementation of transformative housing and mixed-use projects with a focus on homeownership and affordability as a way of building community cohesion and personal wealth. Housing projects will be leveraged with additional public benets including neighborhood services, economic opportunities, and transit-oriented development. A Westside Community Initiative policy will be created that identies the purpose, goals, and activities of the initiative. Projects will align with the intent of the WCI and will be administered through RDA programs and polices. INLAND PORT HOUSING DIFFERENTIAL OTHER SOURCES ALLOCATED BY BOARD WCI REVENUE WCI HOUSING FUND FUNDING SOURCES (revenues) ACTIVITIES (expenses) STRATEGIC ACQUISITION SHARED EQUITY DEVELOPMENT OTHER PUBLIC BENEFITS RESIDENTIAL & MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT Note: The RDA Housing Allocation Funds policy, resolution R-4-2021, will be updated to provide for the earmarking of Inland Port Housing Funds, WCI revenue, and other funds as determined by the BOD for the WCI. As the Policy currently stands, there is a NWQ Housing Fund that receives Inland Port Housing revenue. This fund would be renamed to the WCI Housing Fund. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238 PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ___________________________________ Date Received: ________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 25, 2021 Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Budget Amendment #4 - Revised SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT: John Vuyk, Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that, subsequent to a public hearing, the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2021-22 adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: REVENUE EXPENSE GENERAL FUND $ 1,772,794.00 $ 4,657,529.00 WATER FUND 0.00 18,118.00 SEWER FUND 0.00 7,941.00 STORM WATER FUND 0.00 2,278.00 AIRPORT FUND 0.00 39,790.00 REFUSE FUND 24,907.00 4,109.00 GOLF FUND 14,310.00 1,802,257.00 FLEET FUND 438,905.00 423,258.00 IMS FUND 161,380.00 135,492.00 MISCELLANEOUS GRANT FUND 17,497,861.48 15,751,215.48 DEBT SERVICE FUND 26,165,000.00 26,165,000.00 CIP FUND 23,400,000.00 23,400,000.00 RISK FUND 212,897.00 212,897.00 TOTAL $ 69,688,054.48 $ 72,619,884.48 Lisa Shaffer (Oct 25, 2021 17:23 MDT) BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Revenue for FY 2021-22 Budget Adjustments Because the fiscal year just started the Fiscal Year 2022 projections are at budget. The following chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for fiscal year 2022. Projections for fiscal year 2021 are coming in better than expected, more detail will be shared as the audit progresses. Given the available information fund balance would be projected as follows: With the current use of fund balance from this budget amendment fund balance drops to 12.86%. FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL Beginning Fund Balance 6,625,050 82,617,126 89,242,176 7,018,483 50,124,619 57,143,102 Budgeted Change in Fund Balance 2,924,682 (7,810,302) (4,885,620) (4,759,137) (19,471,917) (24,231,054) Prior Year Encumbrances (3,733,743) (6,165,453) (9,899,196) - - - Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 5,815,989 68,641,371 74,457,360 2,259,346 30,652,702 32,912,048 Beginning Fund Balance Percent 16.62%23.32%22.61%5.60%9.64%9.18% Year End CAFR Adjustments Revenue Changes - - - - - - Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) - (5,676,583) (5,676,583) 5,759,137 7,652,037 13,411,174 Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 5,815,989 62,964,788 68,780,777 8,018,483 38,304,739 46,323,222 Final Fund Balance Percent 16.62%21.39%20.88%19.87%12.05%12.93% Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - BA#1 Expense Adjustment - - - - 5,138,235 5,138,235 BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - - - 490,847 490,847 BA#2 Expense Adjustment - (288,488) (288,488) - (986,298) (986,298) BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (6,239,940) (6,239,940) (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (2,000,000) BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - - - - 1,772,794 1,772,794 BA#4 Expense Adjustment - - - - (4,657,529) (4,657,529) BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - (242,788) (242,788) - - - BA#5 Expense Adjustment - (2,783,685) (2,783,685) - - - BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - BA#6 Expense Adjustment - (63,673) (63,673) - - - BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - 540,744 540,744 - - - BA#7 Expense Adjustment - (6,582,824) (6,582,824) - - - BA#8 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - BA#8 Expense Adjustment (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (2,000,000) - - - BA#9 Revenue Adjustment - 439,809 439,809 - - - BA#9 Expense Adjustment - 362,532 1,555,532 - - - Change in Revenue 2,202,494 3,018,144 5,220,638 - - - Fund Balance Budgeted Increase - - - - - - - - Adjusted Fund Balance 7,018,483 50,124,619 58,336,102 7,018,483 39,062,788 46,081,271 Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 20.05%17.03%17.71%17.39%12.28%12.86% Projected Revenue 35,000,000 294,345,168 329,345,168 40,359,137 317,980,599 358,339,736 2021 Projection 2022 Projection The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $69,688,054.48 of revenue and expense of $72,619,884.48. The amendment proposes changes in thirteen funds, with $2,884,735.00 from the General Fund fund balance. The proposal includes forty-one initiatives for Council review. Including the addition of 22 FTEs in the General Fund supported by grant funding. A summary spreadsheet document, outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council. The revision corrects numbering issues in section E of the Detail Document. The budget opening is separated in eight different categories: A. New Budget Items B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources C. Grants for New Staff Resources D. Housekeeping Items E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F. Donations G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I. Council Added Items PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2021 Fourth amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 In June of 2021, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the Utah Code. The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing document as provided above, have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2021. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning 2 July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128 of the Utah Code. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2021. ________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________ Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed _________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _________ of 2021. Published: ___________________. Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form Senior City Attorney Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs 1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance Costs Risk 212,897.00 212,897.00 - - One-time - 1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance Costs GF 128,888.00 - - One-time - 1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance Costs Water 18,118.00 - - One-time - 1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance Costs Sewer 7,941.00 - - One-time - 1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance Costs Storm Water 2,278.00 - - One-time - 1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance Costs Airport 39,790.00 - - One-time - 1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance Costs Refuse 4,109.00 - - One-time - 1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance Costs Golf 2,257.00 - - One-time - 1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance Costs Fleet 2,938.00 - - One-time - 1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance Costs IMS 4,492.00 - - One-time - 2 Department of Air Quality Lawnmower Exchange GF - 250,000.00 - - One-time - 3 COVID Safe Building Improvements GF - 844,000.00 - - One-time - 3 COVID Safe Building Improvements IMS 131,000.00 131,000.00 - - One-time - 4 Pulled Prior to Submission - - - - 5 Community Health Access Team Vehicles GF - 150,000.00 - - One-time - 5 Community Health Access Team Vehicles Fleet 150,000.00 150,000.00 - - One-time - 6 Non Represented Employee Job Salary Survey GF - 75,000.00 - - One-time - 7 Sugar House SAA GF - 60,000.00 - - One-time - 8 Sorenson Impact Center Social Investment GF - 150,000.00 - - One-time - 9 Pulled Prior to Submission - - - - - 10 Community Health Access Team (CHAT) FTE Transfer GF - - - - Ongoing - 11 Rose Park Golf Course Water & Energy Efficiency Grant (Matching Funds) Golf - 1,800,000.00 - - One-time - Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed Section A: New Items 1 Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs (Continued) 12 ARPA Funding -Housing & Homelessness - Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park Ranger program (see Item C-1 & E-3 & E-4) GF 1,064,368.00 1,064,368.00 - - Ongoing 19.00 12 ARPA Funding -Housing & Homelessness - Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park Ranger program (see Item C-1 & E-3 & E-4) GF 443,676.00 443,676.00 - - One-time - 12 ARPA Funding -Housing & Homelessness - Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park Ranger program (see Item C-1 & E-3 & E-4) Fleet 195,720.00 195,720.00 - - One-time - 13 ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness - CCP Rapid Intervention Teams (See Item C- 2 & E-5) GF 164,750.00 164,750.00 - - Ongoing 3.00 1 ARPA Funding -Housing & Homelessness - Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park Ranger program (See Item A-12 & E-3 & E4) Misc Grants 1,064,368.00 1,064,368.00 - - Ongoing - 2 ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness - CCP Rapid Intervention Team (See Item A- 13 & E-5) Misc Grants 164,750.00 164,750.00 - - Ongoing - Council Approved Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Administration Proposed Section A: New Items 2 Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs 1 Economic Development Loan Fund Move Housing - (100,000.00) - - One-time - 1 Economic Development Loan Fund Move Housing 100,000.00 - - One-time - 1 Economic Development Loan Fund Move GF 100,000.00 100,000.00 - - One-time - 2 Increase Grant Fund Misc Grants 1,746,646.00 - - - Ongoing - 3 Premium Holiday - Other Funds Refuse 24,907.00 - - - One-time 3 Premium Holiday - Other Funds Golf 14,310.00 - - - One-time 3 Premium Holiday - Other Funds Fleet 18,585.00 - - - One-time 3 Premium Holiday - Other Funds IMS 30,380.00 - - - One-time 4 GPS Housekeeping GF - (74,600.00) - - One-time - 4 GPS Housekeeping GF - 74,600.00 - - One-time - 4 GPS Housekeeping Fleet 74,600.00 74,600.00 - - One-time - 5 Signage FTE Correction GF - 51,847.00 - - Ongoing - 6 General Obligation Series 2021A Bonds CIP 23,400,000.00 23,400,000.00 - - One-time - 6 General Obligation Series 2021A Bonds Debt Service 200,000.00 200,000.00 - - One-time - 7 Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A Debt Service 10,665,000.00 10,665,000.00 - - One-time - 7 Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A Debt Service 10,400,000.00 10,400,000.00 - - One-time - 7 Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A Debt Service 4,900,000.00 4,900,000.00 - - One-time - 8 Budget Carry Forward GF - 1,175,000.00 One-time - Council Approved Section D: Housekeeping Administration Proposed 3 Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs 1 ARPA Funding - Water and Sewer Infrastructure Projects Misc Grants 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 - - One-time - 2 ARPA Funding - Housing & Homelessness - Winter Shelter Support Misc Grants 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 - - One-time - 3 ARPA Funding - Housing & Homelessness - Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park Ranger program (See Item A-12, C-1 & E4) Misc Grants 443,676.00 443,676.00 - - Ongoing - 4 ARPA Funding - Housing & Homelessness - Public Lands Park Ranger program (See Item A-12, C-1 & E-3) Misc Grants 69,244.00 69,244.00 - - Ongoing - 5 ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness – CCP Rapid Intervention Team (See Item A-13 & C-2) Misc Grants 160,500.00 160,500.00 - - One-time - 6 ARPA Funding - Housing & Homelessness - CCP Rapid Intervention Team (Police Support) Misc Grants 1,505,920.00 1,505,920.00 - - One-time - 7 Pulled Prior to Submission to allow for the completion of phase 2 of the Social Impact Investment Misc Grants - - - - - 8 ARPA Funding - Housing and Homelessness - HEART Rapid Intervention Team (Advantage Services) Misc Grants 57,000.00 57,000.00 - - One-time - 9 ARPA Funding – Building the lifeboat with Urban Land Fund Misc Grants 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 - - One-time - 10 ARPA Funding – Community Grants Misc Grants 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 - - One-time - - Section F: Donations Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources Administration Proposed Council Approved 4 Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs Consent Agenda #2 1 Police Department State Asset Forfeiture Grant Misc Grants 1,500.00 1,500.00 - - One-time - 2 Utah Department of Health - Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (EMS)grant, FY22 Per Capita Allocation Misc Grants 10,250.00 10,250.00 - - One-time - 3 State of Utah, CCJJ (Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice), Jurisdictions with Halfway Houses and Parole Violator Centers Grant, Law Enforcement Services Account (LESA) Misc Grants 295,571.00 295,571.00 - - One-time - 4 Utah State Office for Victims of Crime, 2021- 2023 VOCA Victims of Crime Act Grant Misc Grants 364,162.48 364,162.48 - - One-time - 5 Department of Workforce Services, Housing & Community Development Division, FY22 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant Program Misc Grants 370,735.00 370,735.00 - - One-time - 6 Utah State Department of Public Safety - 2021 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Misc Grants 42,500.00 42,500.00 - - One-time - 7 Cities of Service, Johns Hopkins, Justice for the Jordan Grant, Love Your Block Misc Grants 100,000.00 100,000.00 - - One-time - 8 Utah State Office for Victims of Crime, Violence Against Women Act, Domestic Violence Victim Advocate Misc Grants 101,039.00 101,039.00 - - One-time - Total of Budget Amendment Items 69,688,054.48 72,619,884.48 - - 22.00 Administration Proposed Council Approved Section I: Council Added Items Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards 5 Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs Total by Fund Class, Budget Amendment #4: General Fund GF 1,772,794.00 4,657,529.00 - - 22.00 Water Fund Water - 18,118.00 - - - Sewer Fund Sewer - 7,941.00 - - - Storm Water Fund Storm Water - 2,278.00 - - - Airport Fund Airport - 39,790.00 - - - Refuse Fund Refuse 24,907.00 4,109.00 - - - Golf Fund Golf 14,310.00 1,802,257.00 - - - Fleet Fund Fleet 438,905.00 423,258.00 - - - IMS Fund IMS 161,380.00 135,492.00 - - - Miscellaneous Grants Fund Misc Grants 17,497,861.48 15,751,215.48 - - - Housing Fund Housing - - - - - Debt Service Fund Debt Service 26,165,000.00 26,165,000.00 - - - CIP Fund CIP 23,400,000.00 23,400,000.00 Risk Fund Risk 212,897.00 212,897.00 - - - - - - Total of Budget Amendment Items 69,688,054.48 72,619,884.48 - - 22.00 Administration Proposed Council Approved 6 Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only FY 2021-22 Budget, Including Budget Amendments FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total ^^ Total Through BA#5 ^^ General Fund (FC 10)367,582,070 (5,138,235.00) 986,298.00 2,000,000.00 4,657,529.00 370,087,662.00 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)2,033,573 2,033,573.00 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,550,000 1,550,000.00 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,699,663 7,098.00 5,706,761.00 Water Fund (FC 51)127,365,555 460,716.00 18,118.00 127,844,389.00 Sewer Fund (FC 52)268,213,796 221,826.00 7,941.00 268,443,563.00 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)19,201,013 19,705.00 2,278.00 19,222,996.00 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)706,792,500 1,350,949.00 39,790.00 708,183,239.00 Refuse Fund (FC 57)24,713,505 36,538.00 4,109.00 24,754,152.00 Golf Fund (FC 59)9,697,417 19,649.00 88,749.00 1,802,257.00 11,608,072.00 E-911 Fund (FC 60)4,056,856 4,056,856.00 Fleet Fund (FC 61)28,090,576 18,999.00 112,646.00 423,258.00 28,645,479.00 IMS Fund (FC 65)24,302,487 219,193.00 135,492.00 24,657,172.00 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69) 5,307,142 5,307,142.00 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,341,332 5,341,332.00 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)18,684,617 10,427,551.76 1,522,743.00 15,751,215.48 46,386,127.24 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)273,797 273,797.00 Donation Fund (FC 77)2,752,565 2,752,565.00 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)16,121,000 - 16,121,000.00 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)31,850,423 26,165,000.00 58,015,423.00 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)29,503,216 (150,753.00) 23,400,000.00 52,752,463.00 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)2,933,913 24,843.00 2,958,756.00 Risk Fund (FC 87)52,939,489 19,705.00 212,897.00 53,172,091.00 Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,755,009,505 7,688,537.76 2,559,683.00 2,000,000.00 72,619,884.48 - 1,839,877,610.24 Budget Manager Analyst, City Council Contingent Appropriation 7 Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 1 Section A: New Items A-1: Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance Costs Risk $212,897.00 GF $128,888.00 Water $18,118.00 Sewer $7,941.00 Storm Water $2,278.00 Airport $39,790.00 Refuse $4,109.00 Golf $2,257.00 Fleet $2,938.00 IMS $4,492.00 Department: Attorney - Risk Prepared By: Tamra Turpin For Questions Please Include: Tamra Turpin, Sandee Moore, Katherine Lewis, Aaron Bentley (1) The cost of excess liability insurance increased significantly for FY22 – more than a 65% increase in premium cost over the previous policy period. The bulk of this is driven by recent claim development. Last year’s premium was $267,278. The renewal premium cost is $443,112.54. We had projected a 15% increase and the actual cost is more than we could cover with our allocated budget. The City’s insurance brokers were able to arrange for us to pay the premium in two installments with the second half ($221,556.27) being due by 1/1/2022 to give us time to request a budget amendment. (2) The cost of cyber liability insurance also increased significantly for FY22 -- 320%. Last year’s premium was $45,490. The renewal premium cost is $190,887.60. Although we had projected an increase, the actual cost is far more than we could have anticipated. There are a number of reasons for this; particularly the fact that public agencies are becoming frequent targets, and the number and cost of claim payouts have increased exponentially. After conferring with the City's Chief Information Officer and City Attorney, it was agreed that allowing the City's cyber coverage to lapse would be too risky. The City’s insurance brokers were able to arrange a 45-day extension and then a 90-day premium payment deferral in order to get a budget amendment in place. The cost will be allocated to all funds as shown in the amendment. A-2: Department of Air Quality Lawnmower Exchange GF $250,000.00 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Gregg Evans For Questions Please Include: Debbie Lyons, Sophia Nicholas, Gregg Evans The Utah Department of Air Quality (UDAQ) administers an annual gas-powered lawnmower and yard equipment exchange in order to reduce criteria pollutants in the areas of the Wasatch Front that are in non-attainment with the Clean Air Act air quality standards. Because the Wasatch Front is on track for attainment of wintertime PM2.5, UDAQ is not running a snowblower exchange this year. Instead, they are focusing on programs to reduce summertime ozone pollution, for which the Wasatch Front is out of attainment . UDAQ has $900,000 set aside to continue the exchanges for the foreseeable future. The size of the lawnmower exchange varies each year depending on the size of financial contributions from partners. Typically, UDAQ contributes between $300,000 and $400,000 per exchange. Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 2 The Sustainability Department is proposing a budget amendment of $250,000 General Funds to partner with UDAQ in FY22 on a gas-powered lawnmower exchange. This would facilitate exchanges for approximately 1,000 Salt Lake City residents Salt Lake City participated in 2021, spending nearly $161,000 which helped 582 residents participate. In total, 509 gas - powered mowers were exchanged (the remaining participants bought new mowers without exchanging an old one). This is the equivalent of removing 4.02 tons of pollution from the airshed each year. A majority of residents also opted to participate in our Call 2 Haul program to have their gas mower picked up curbside and recycled by Salt Lake City Waste and Recycling. The Administration proposes continuing this program in FY 22 (spring 2022). The goal will be to increase participation from 582 to 1,000 with a continued focus on our Westside neighborhoods. The Administration anticipates greater awareness and uptake of the program in the comin g year due to increased familiarity with the program, and plans to work with UDAQ on earlier, targeted outreach given the lessons learned from spring 2021. UDAQ anticipates the program logistics will change in FY 22 to facilitate easier participation and lower administrative burden. In particular, they are hoping to develop a phone app that participants will use to sign up and upload any required receipts. UDAQ is also envisioning the next program will offer a promotional discount code to be used towar d the purchase of electric lawn equipment and an app would also help separate Salt Lake City residents from other participating Wasatch Front residents. This will reduce confusion as to who is eligible for curbside pickup of their old mowers. We also hope the app will help us keep the exchange open for longer for Salt Lake City residents instead of opening, closing it, and opening i t again while UDAQ verifies addresses. While the exact amount of the discounts have yet to be determined, the Sustainability D epartment proposes using $250,000 in City General Funds to facilitate approximately 1,000 gas-powered mower exchanges. This budget amendment would also fund temporary staffing expenses to assist with running curbside collection of old mowers through Call 2 Haul. This benefit was very popular last year and helped make this program more equitable to those who might not have the ability to haul their own mower to a metal recycler. A-3: COVID Safe Building Improvements GF $844,000.00 IMS $131,000.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente For Questions Please Include: Lorna Vogt, Dawn Valente At the beginning of the year, and in anticipation of the reopening of the City and County Building, the Public Services Department identified a series of critical improvements to minimize the spread of diseases such as COVID -19. Following recommendations from hired consultants (see attached COVID annex) as well as health officials, changes include a multi - level approach to keeping building occupants safe, from controlled access through a check-in desk and appointment management software, to improved indoor air quality. The Department has been informed previously that the following list of items are likely eligible to be covered under ARPA: * Needlepoint Devices. When installed in the air handling system of a building, indoor air quality improves reducing airborne contaminants $250,000 (CCB) * Open and Public Meeting Rooms: Redesign public meeting rooms for spacing and cleaning considerations. This i ncludes replacing chairs for disinfecting purposes. $60,000 * Lobby Appointment management software to be installed at the entrance to the building, allowing for IDing and occupancy control. $5,000 * Entrance furniture. Desk and chairs to be installed at the entrance to the building, creating a check-in area $6,000 * Noticing Board outside of the City & County and Plaza 349 Buildings: Due to State noticing adjustments and the building access being limited, public notices are not addressing the community in the various accessible options (walking public, visitors to the building, etc.). Hybrid meetings and other noticing requirements are required to be completed and are currently being posted on the doors that are frequently accessed. $10,000 * Staffing Entrance. Customer service-oriented staff, under seasonal status, to welcome and direct visitors to the building. $17,000 Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 3 * Enhanced Janitorial. Adjusting the cleaning schedule of all areas of the building from 3 to 5 days a week. (9 months) $165,000 * Cubicle Pieces. To accommodate office reconfigurations. $100,000 * COVID Supplies/PPE. These supplies are being made available throughout buildings, including facemasks, hand sanitizer and disposable gloves. $100,000 * Teleconference and Recording Meeting Equipment. Required to accommodate virtual and hybrid public meetings, and training/orientation including those for Mayor's Board & Commissions, and City Council. $131,000 $844,000 TOTAL A-4: Pulled Prior to Submission A-5: Community Health Access Team Vehicles GF $150,000.00 Fleet $150,000.00 Department: Fire/Public Services Prepared By: John Vuyk For Questions Please Include: Karl Lieb, Chris Milne, Clint Rasmussen, Lorna Vogt, Nancy Bean, Dawn Valente Community Health Access Team, CHAT (formerly known as the Community Healthcare Paramedic Team) was initially established in 2013, comprised of one SLCFD paramedic. It quickly grew to include a SLCFD Captain and then another paramedic. The two Paramedics responded as a team to patients that were identified by fire EMS crews as: (1) not meeting the criteria for emergency service, or (2) not benefitting from the scope of training provided to fire department Paramedics and EMTs. The CHAT initiative proposes adding two (2) social workers to increase the team’s scope and the ability of the team to address the overall needs of their patients particularly pertaining to the challenges of mental health and homelessness. Currently, the Community Heath team operates with one vehicle. The addition of two social workers will create the need for two vehicles as two teams will be operating simultaneously. This budget amendment will allow the fire department to replace the current vehicle, a larger inefficient Chevy Tahoe with a fuel-efficient hybrid Ford Explorer. Additionally, a second vehicle of the same kind will be purchased for the additional team. The third purchased fuel -efficient hybrid Ford Explorer will replace an additional Chevy Tahoe in the Medical Division which will be used to support the CHAT initiative immediately and provide for the anticipated rapid expansion of the CHAT program. The three hybrid Ford Explorers will need to be outfitted with graphics, radios, tablets, etc. The $50,000 cost pe r vehicle is the fully loaded cost. Cost of Vehicle 42,500 127,500 Make ready 2,500 7,500 GPS 316 948 Fuel 2,950 8,850 Maintenance 1,734 5,202 TOTAL 50,000 150,000 A-6: Non-Represented Employees' Job Salary Survey GF $75,000.00 Department: Human Resources Prepared By: David Salazar For Questions Please Include: Debra Alexander, David Salazar, John Vuyk This request is intended for consultative services to be provided by a qualified third -party consultant or firm to conduct a compensation survey to assess, evaluate and compare the overall pay structure, including actual base pay and other job elements, of SLC’s non-represented employees to other public and private sector entities with whom the city competes for talent. The recommended survey project includes data collection, analysis, and the development and presentation of a report with recommendations for the City’s Department of Human Resources, Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC), and elected officials to consider. The survey will be conducted with a primary focus on cash compensation and rely Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 4 on the same caliber and methodology as surveys previously completed for the City's public safety and AFSCME-covered employee groups (as completed by Mercer in early 2019 and 2020, respectively). A-7: Sugar House SAA GF $60,000.00 Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Ben Kolendar For Questions Please Include: Ben Kolendar The City received a request from the Sugar House Community Council regarding the creation of an economic promotion special assessment area (SAA) for the Sugar House for roughly west/east boundaries of 700 East to 1300 East and north/south of Hollywood Avenue (possibly extending north on 1100 East to Ramona Avenue to include supporters in that area) to I-80. The Department of Economic Development would run the Initial phases of the assessment and present considerations to Council prior to formal action. The funding request will provide consulting services for shape files, tax revenue estimates. The funding will also provide bond counsel for the language in the draft notice of Intent to designate. A-8: Sorenson Impact Center Social Investment GF $150,000.00 Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Ben Kolendar For Questions Please Include: Ben Kolendar The Administration would like to request $150,000 for the completion of Phase II of the Sorenson Social Impact investment project. A-9: Pulled Prior to Submission A-10: Community Health Access Team (CHAT) Personnel Transfer GF $0.00 Department: Fire Development Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen For Questions Please Include: Karl Lieb, Clint Rasmussen CHAT (formerly known as the Community Healthcare Paramedic Team) was initially established in 2013, comprised of one SLCFD paramedic. It quickly grew to include a SLCFD Captain and then another paramedic. The two Paramedics responded as a team to patients that were identified by fire EMS crews as: (1) not meeting the criteria for emergency service, or (2) not benefitting from the scope of training provided to fire department Paramedics and EMTs. The CHAT initiative proposes transferring two (2) social workers and one (1) case manager (LCSW) from the Police Department to increase the team’s scope and the ability of the team to address the overall needs of their patients particularly pertaining to the challenges of mental health and homelessness. This amendment would transfer three (3) PCNs from the Police Department to the Fire Department and adjust the staffing document. The funding for these positions remains in Non-Departmental. A-11: Rose Park Golf Course Water & Energy Efficiency Grant (Matching Funds) Golf $1,800,000.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Bryce Lindeman Dawn Valente For Questions Please Include: Kristen Riker, Bryce Lindeman, Dawn Valente, Laura Briefer The Administration is recommending recognizing $1.8 million in Golf revenue as matching funds for a potential grant. The grant funds and cash match will be used for the installation of water conservation landscape irrigation measures for the Rose Park Golf Course. The existing simple grid irrigation system will be replaced with a head-to-head system with high efficiency nozzles that enable watering to match turf type. Turf removal will reduce square footage of high -water fairway grass types and increase square footage of out of bounds rough areas re -seeded with low water grass types. The project is a shared priority for the City's Department of Public Utilities and Department of Public Lands. Department of Public Utilities is the project lead for the grant application. Any additional match committed at the time of application Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 5 that is over and above $1.8 million requested in this budget amendment will be in the form of the cash value of the dedication of effort by existing full-time position(s) in the Department of Public Utilities and/or Department of Public Lands to the project. A-12: ARPA Funding -Public Safety and Homelessness Outreach - Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park Ranger program (see Item C-1, E-3 & E-4) GF $1,064,368.00 GF $443,676.00 Fleet $195,720.00 Department: Mayor’s Office & Public Lands Prepared By: John Vuyk For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, Kristen Riker, John Vuyk Over the past few years, Public Lands has experienced a dramatic increase of individuals experiencing homelessness using the parks for overnight camping. This vulnerable population also attracts an increase in people who prey upon them and impact other park users with drug use, drug sales, and other crime. Public Lands employees have found themselves in the middle of this extremely complex community crisis, without training or resources to work in this new environment. Public Lands relies on the SLCPD to enforce camping and anti-loitering ordinances, to assist in clearing areas so staff can complete their duties, and to respond to calls for public safety in parks. However, SLCPD has city-wide responsibilities and is not always available for non-urgent park safety needs. SLC Public Lands is proposing a Park Ranger program to maximize public safety, protect park resources, and to provide services and information to park visitors. Park rangers may serve as law enforcement officers, environmental experts, interpreter of cultural and historical points of interest or a combination of the three. This proposal is intended to meet the following program success indicators:  Making people feel welcome and safe in our parks  Deterring inappropriate activity  Gaining voluntary compliance of park codes and rules  Reducing the number of annual vandalism incidents  Reducing annual costs to repair/replace damaged landscape & infrastructure The Mayor is proposing to allocate $5.1 million toward a Public Lands Park Ranger program. Funding for the program will be partially supported through the use of eligible salary restoration dollars. The program will help ensure park safety, including homeless outreach in the parks. The Program will include the addition of nineteen employees in the Public Lands Department. The positions are two Park Ranger Sergeants, sixteen Park Ranger Officers and one support person. The projected annual cost for personnel including uniforms, training and operational costs is $2,350,983. The amendment proposes to add these positions on January 1 at a cost of $1,175,491 for the current fiscal year. The proposed funding will also support one-time costs to implement the program of $401,800, including the purchase of three trucks and two light response vehicles. Funding for personnel and ongoing costs will be transferred to the General Fund while funding for the vehicles will be transferred to Fleet. This funding will be established through a capture of funding for salary restoration from the current fiscal year. A-13: ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness - Salary Restoration – CCP Rapid Intervention Team – (See Item C-2 & E-5) GF $164,750.00 Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson and John Vuyk Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 6 In September 2020, Mayor Mendenhall launched the Community Commitment Program through the Homeless Engagement and Response Team. The CCP prioritizes outreach to indi viduals experiencing homelessness while also emphasizing the need to keep public spaces safe, clean, and accessible to all. The first phase of the CCP was a 12 -week enhanced neighborhood cleaning program based on neighborhood hot spots reported in CitySour ced via the SLC Mobile app. The second phase, which has transitioned into an ongoing partnership with Salt Lake County and over a dozen service providers, focused on intensive encampment outreach of varying lengths of time depending on the size and other characteristics of camps. After approximately 9 months of this second phase, the City and our partners have been in a maintenance stage, during which the City has fewer large encampments but is still attempting to handle the nearly 6,000 CitySourced reports over this past year. This figure is triple the number of complaints reported in the app in years past. To more effectively and rapidly address these complaints from residents and businesses, the Mayor is proposing the creation of a Rapid Intervention Team coordinated through HEART. The HEART coordinator (via a position that was funded by the Council in the FY23 budget) will ensure that complaints are responded to with the appropriate level of outreach through the SLCPD’s CCC or VOA, SLCPD officers to standby if necessary, as well as a City cleaning team working with Advantage Services. By having a dedicated team to respond, Public Services and Waste & Recycling employees will not be pulled away from their regular duties, as they are currently when the Cou nty Health Department requires camp abatement support. The Public Services and Waste and Recycling employees will also be available to respond to illegal dumping complaints throughout the City. The program will add three FTE’s for the Rapid Intervention Team. These employees will be covered in part the first year. This funding will be established through a capture of funding for salary restoration from the current fiscal year. Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources C-1: ARPA Funding – Public Safety and Homeless Outreach – Public Lands Park Ranger program (See Item A-12, E-3 & E-4) Misc Grants $1,064,368.00 Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk Over the past few years, Public Lands has experienced a dramatic increase of individuals experiencing homelessness using the parks for overnight camping. This vulnerable population also attracts an increas e in people who prey upon them and impact other park users with drug use, drug sales, and other crime. Public Lands employees have found themselves in the middle of this extremely complex community crisis, without training or resources to work in this new environment. Public Lands relies on the SLCPD to enforce camping and anti-loitering ordinances, to assist in clearing areas so staff can complete their duties, and to respond to calls for public safety in parks. However, SLCPD has city -wide responsibilities and is not always available for non-urgent park safety needs. SLC Public Lands is proposing a Park Ranger program to maximize public safety, protect park resources, and to provide services and information to park visitors. Park rangers may serve as law enforcement officers, environmental experts, interpreter of cultural and historical points of interest or a combination of the three. This proposal is intended to meet th e following program success indicators:  Making people feel welcome and safe in our parks  Deterring inappropriate activity  Gaining voluntary compliance of park codes and rules  Reducing the number of annual vandalism incidents  Reducing annual costs to repair/replace damaged landscape & infrastructure • Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 7 The Mayor is proposing to allocate $5.1 million toward a Public Lands Park Ranger program. Funding for the program will be partially supported through the use of eligible salary restoration dollars. The program will help ensure park safety, including homeless outreach in the parks. The Program will include the addition of nineteen employees in the Public Lands Department. The positions are two Park Ranger Sergeants, sixteen Park Ranger Officers and one support person. The projected annual cost for personnel including uniforms, training and operational costs is $2,350,983. The amen dment proposes to add these positions on January 1 at a cost of $1,175,491 for the current fiscal year. The proposed funding will also support one-time costs to implement the program of $401,800, including the purchase of three trucks and one light response vehicle. Funding for personnel and ongoing costs will be transferred to the General Fund while funding for the vehicles will be transferred to Fleet. This funding will be established through a capture of funding for salary restoration from the current and future fiscal years. C-2: ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness– CCP Rapid Intervention Team (See Item A-13 & E-5) Misc Grants $164,750.00 Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk In September 2020, Mayor Mendenhall launched the Community Commitment Program through the Homeless Engagement and Response Team. The CCP prioritizes outreach to individuals experiencing homelessness while also emphasizing the need to keep public spaces saf e, clean, and accessible to all. The first phase of the CCP was a 12-week enhanced neighborhood cleaning program based on neighborhood hot spots reported in CitySourced via the SLC Mobile app. The second phase, which has transitioned into an ongoing partne rship with Salt Lake County and over a dozen service providers, focused on intensive encampment outreach of varying lengths of time depending on the size and other characteristics of camps. After approximately 9 months of this second phase, the City and ou r partners have been in a maintenance stage, during which the City has fewer large encampments but is still attempting to handle the nearly 6,000 CitySourced reports over this past year. This figure is triple the number of complaints reported in the app in years past. To more effectively and rapidly address these complaints from residents and businesses, the Mayor is proposing the creation of a Rapid Intervention Team coordinated through HEART. The HEART coordinator (via a position that was funded by the Council in the FY23 budget) will ensure that complaints are responded to with the appropriate level of outreach through the SLCPD’s CCC or VOA, SLCPD officers to standby if necessary, as well as a City cleaning team working with Advantage Services. By having a dedicated team to respond, Public Services and Waste & Recycling employees will not be pulled away from their regular duties, as they are currently when the County Health Department requires camp abatement support. The Public Services and Waste and Recycling employees will also be available to respond to illegal dumping complaints throughout the City. The program will add three FTE’s for the Rapid Intervention Team. These employees will be covered in part the first year. Section D: Housekeeping D-1: Economic Development Loan Fund Move Housing -$100,000.00 Housing $100,000.00 GF $100,000.00 Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Jolynn Walz / Randy Hillier For Questions Please Include: Ben Kolendar, Loreno Riffo Jensen, Jolynn Walz, Randy Hillier Under Budget Amendment #7 of FY 2021, $100,000 was appropriated to the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) within the Housing Fund (FC78) to provide funding for outdoor dining activities and events in the form of forgivable lo ans. The purpose of these loans is to assist restaurants and bars recover from the financial effects of the pandemic by offering funding to expand outdoor dining. Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 8 After further examination of the EDLF guidelines, DED was unable to provide forgivable loans . DED has determined that a traditional grant program is the best way to distribute these funds to businesses and is proposing the $100,000 be moved to a separate account, allowing DED to administer the grant program. D-2: Increase Grant Fund Misc Grants $0.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk For Questions Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk The annual budget proposed funding from the American Recovery Plan Act (ARPA) for revenue replacement. During budget adoption, the expense was adjusted based on updated grant guidelines. This increased the expense side of the grant fund, but recognition of the revenue was not included. This request adjusts the revenue side to recognize the revenue side of the transaction in the Grant Fund. This proposal will bring the Fund into balance in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. D-3: Premium Holiday – Other Funds Refuse $0.00 Golf $0.00 Fleet $0.00 IMS $0.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk For Questions Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk The Premium Holiday was submitted with the budget with the transfer from the Insurance Fund, but the transfer into other funds was not included. This amendment is to balance the inter-fund transfers. D-4: GPS Housekeeping GF -$74,600.00 GF $74,600.00 Fleet $74,600.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente For Questions Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk, Dawn Valente For FY22 there is an accounting change to put the GPS fees for vehicles in the Fleet budget. We missed the piece to move the current budgets over to Fleet. Public Services has a budget of $39,203; Public Lands has a budget of $26,797; and CAN has a budget $8,600 that we need to move to Fleet. D-5: Signage FTE Correction GF $51,847.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente For Questions Please Include: Lorna Vogt, Dawn Valente, John Vuyk In the Mayor's Recommended Budget, an FTE for Signage for the Planning & Ecological Services Division was initially approved, but later reduced . However, the funding was again inadvertently reduced at the Council level, thus doubling the reduction. This housekeeping request is to replace the funding that was inadvertently cut from the Signage budget. Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 9 D-6: General Obligation Series 2021A Bonds CIP $23,400,000.00 Debt Service $200,000.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Brandon Bagley / Marina Scott For Questions Please Include: Brandon Bagley, Marina Scott, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk In November 2018, voters authorized the issuance of up to $87 million in general obligation bonds to fund street construction. The General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A will be issued in November 2021 as the third issuance of the authorization. This amendment creates the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds and the expenditure budget to pay for construction of the street projects associated with the bonds. It also creates expenditure budget to pay the costs of issuance for the bonds. Bond proceeds will be allocated to five project cost centers in Fund 83 and one cost center in Fund 81 for the costs of issuance associated with the bond. Two cost centers will receive $6,000,000 each for the 200 South Phase 1 & 2 (400 W to 900 E) projects. A third cost center will receive $6,800,000 for the 1100 East (900 S to Warnock Ave) project. The fourth cost center will receive $1,600,000 for the 300 North (300 W to 1000 W) project. The fifth cost ce nter will receive $3,000,000 for local streets. The proceeds to pay the costs of issuance associated with the bonds will be deposited to the debt service cost center in Fund 81. D-7: Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A Debt Service $10,665,000.00 Debt Service $10,400,000.00 Debt Service $4,900,000.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Brandon Bagley / Marina Scott For Questions Please Include: Brandon Bagley, Marina Scott, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A, were issued in June 2012 for the purpose of replacing the North Temple Viaduct and improving North Temple Boulevard. Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B, were issued in November 2013 for the purpose of financing a portion of the costs of the Sugarhouse Streetcar and paying for the portion of various improvements to create a "greenway" within the corridor. The Series 2012A and 2013B bonds are being refunded with the Sales Tax Refunding Revenu e Bonds, Series 2021A. This budget amendment will create the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds and the expenditure budget to pay off the old bonds and to pay the costs of issuance for the bonds. Two Local Building Authority bonds will also b e refunded by the Series 2021A bonds. This budget amendment creates the budget for the transfer to the LBA to pay those off. A separate budget amendment for the LBA is being submitted to create budget for the payoff of those bonds. D-8: Budget Carry Forward GF $1,175,000.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk For Questions Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk, Teresa Beckstrand In the General Fund there were a number of budgets that did not have encumbrances at the close of fiscal year 2021 the Administration would request Council approval to roll budget for the projects into fiscal year 2022. The budgets requested are listed below: CC CC Name OC OC Description Amount 0900503 Demographer Contract 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $50,000.00 0900925 Financial Risk Assessment 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $100,000.00 0900930 Gentrification Mitigation Study 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $100,000.00 0900705 Washington DC Contract 2324 Special Consultant $75,000.00 0900513 NW Northpoint Plan Airport 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $50,000.00 0900508 Home to Transit Program 2590 Other Expenses $800,000.00 TOTAL $1,175,000.00 Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 10 Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources E-1: ARPA Funding – Water and Sewer Infrastructure Projects Misc Grants $2,000,000.00 Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Laura Briefer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk The Mayor proposes to set aside $2 million for required matching funding as we prepare to apply for State funds for water and sewer infrastructure projects. E-2: ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness –Winter Shelter Support Misc Grants $1,000,000.00 Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk Mayor Mendenhall is proposing that the Council set aside approximately $1 million of the City’s Rescue Plan allocation for emergency shelter needs. Such funds could be used to assist the shelter operator with operations costs or go toward other expenses such as public safety or neighborhood mitigation. E-3: ARPA Funding – Public Safety and Homeless Outreach – Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park Ranger program (See Item A-12, C-1 & E-4) Misc Grants $443,677.00 Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk Over the past few years, Public Lands has experienced a dramatic increase of individuals experiencing homelessness using the parks for overnight camping. This vulnerable population also attracts an increase in people who prey upon them and impact other park users with drug use, drug sales, and other crime. Public Lands employees have found themselves in the middle of this extremely complex community crisis, without training or resources to work in this new environment. Public Lands relies on the SLCPD to enforce camping and anti-loitering ordinances, to assist in clearing areas so staff can complete their duties, and to respond to calls for public safety in parks. However, SLCPD has city -wide responsibilities and is not always available for non-urgent park safety needs. SLC Public Lands is proposing a Park Ranger program to maximize public safety, protect park resources, and to provide services and information to park visitors. Park rangers may serve as law enforcement officers, environmental experts, interpreter of cultural and historical points of interest or a combination of the three. This proposal is intended to meet t he following program success indicators:  Making people feel welcome and safe in our parks  Deterring inappropriate activity  Gaining voluntary compliance of park codes and rules  Reducing the number of annual vandalism incidents  Reducing annual costs to repair/replace damaged landscape & infrastructure The Mayor is proposing to allocate $5.1 million toward a Public Lands Park Ranger program. Funding for the program will be partially supported through the use of eligible salary restoration dollars. The program will help ensure park safety, including homeless outreach in the parks. The Program will include the addition of nineteen employees in the Public Lands Department. The positions are two Park Ranger Sergeants, sixteen Park Ranger Officers and one support person. The projected annual cost for personnel including Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 11 uniforms, training and operational costs is $2,350,983. The amendment proposes to add these positions on January 1 at a cost of $1,175,491 for the current fiscal year. The proposed funding will also support one-time costs to implement the program of $401,800, including the purchase of three trucks and one light response vehicle. Funding for personnel and ongoing costs will be transferred to the General Fund while funding for the vehicles will be transferred to Fleet. This funding will be established through a capture of funding for salary restoration from the curren t fiscal year. E-4: ARPA Funding – Public Safety and Homeless Outreach – Public Lands Park Rangers (See Item A12, C-1 & E3) Misc Grants $69,244.00 Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk Over the past few years, Public Lands has experienced a dramatic increase of individuals experiencing homelessness using the parks for overnight camping. This vulnerable population also attracts an increase in people who prey upon them and impact other park users with drug use, drug sales, and other crime. Public Lands employees have found themselves in the middle of this extremely complex community crisis, without training or resources to work in this new environment. Public Lands relies on the SLCPD to enforce camping and anti-loitering ordinances, to assist in clearing areas so staff can complete their duties, and to respond to calls for public safety in parks. However, SLCPD has city -wide responsibilities and is not always available for non-urgent park safety needs. SLC Public Lands is proposing a Park Ranger program to maximize public safety, protect park resources, and to provide services and information to park visitors. Park rangers may serve as law enforcement officers, environmental experts, interpreter of cultural and historical points of interest or a combination of the three. This proposal is intended to meet t he following program success indicators:  Making people feel welcome and safe in our parks  Deterring inappropriate activity  Gaining voluntary compliance of park codes and rules  Reducing the number of annual vandalism incidents  Reducing annual costs to repair/replace damaged landscape & infrastructure The Mayor is proposing to allocate $5.1 million toward a Public Lands Park Ranger program. Funding for the program will be partially supported through the use of eligible salary restoration dollars. The program will help ensure park safety, including homeless outreach in the parks. The Program will include the addition of nineteen empl oyees in the Public Lands Department. The positions are two Park Ranger Sergeants, sixteen Park Ranger Officers and one support person. The projected annual cost for personnel including uniforms, training and operational costs is $2,350,983. The amendment proposes to add these positions on January 1 at a cost of $1,175,491 for the current fiscal year. The proposed funding will also support one-time costs to implement the program of $401,800, including the purchase of three trucks and one light response vehicle. Funding for personnel and ongoing costs will be transferred to the General Fund while funding for the vehicles will be transferred to Fleet. This funding will be a direct charge to the ARPA grant.. E-5: ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness – CCP Rapid Intervention Team (See Item A-13 & C-2) Misc Grants $160,500.00 Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 12 In September 2020, Mayor Mendenhall launched the Community Commitment Program through the Homeless Engagement and Response Team. The CCP prioritizes outreach to individuals experiencing homelessness while also emphasizing the need to keep public spaces saf e, clean, and accessible to all. The first phase of the CCP was a 12-week enhanced neighborhood cleaning program based on neighborhood hot spots reported in CitySourced via the SLC Mobile app. The second phase, which has transitioned into an ongoing partne rship with Salt Lake County and over a dozen service providers, focused on intensive encampment outreach of varying lengths of time depending on the size and other characteristics of camps. After approximately 9 months of this second phase, the City and ou r partners have been in a maintenance stage, during which the City has fewer large encampments but is still attempting to handle the nearly 6,000 CitySourced reports over this past year. This figure is triple the number of complaints reported in the app in years past. To more effectively and rapidly address these complaints from residents and businesses, the Mayor is proposing the creation of a Rapid Intervention Team coordinated through HEART. The HEART coordinator (via a position that was funded by the Council in the FY23 budget) will ensure that complaints are responded to with the appropriate level of outreach through the SLCPD’s CCC or VOA, SLCPD officers to standby if necessary, as well as a City cleaning team working with Advantage Services. By having a dedicated team to respond, Public Services and Waste & Recycling employees will not be pulled away from their regular duties, as they are currently when the County Health Department requires camp abatement support. The Public Services and Waste and Recycling employees will also be available to respond to illegal dumping complaints throughout the City. The program will add three FTE’s for the Rapid Intervention Team. These employees will be covered in part the first year. This funding will be established through a capture of funding for salary restoration from the current fiscal year. E-6: ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness – CCP Rapid Intervention Team (Police Support) Misc Grants $1,505,920.00 Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk The Administration is requesting $1,505,920 of funding, to provide funding for Clean Neighborhoods Teams for the Police Department to provide staffing to support the homeless encampment cleanup and camp re -establishment stabilization as requested by the Salt Lake County Health Department. Police of ficers working extra overtime shifts will provide security to ensure the cleanups can proceed in an environment that will be safe for all involved. Staffing numbers will vary depending on the size, number of cleanups and the location. Activity # days Officers # hours Rate Amount Requested Major Cleanups 14 40 10 $65 $364,000 Minor Cleanups* 122 24 6 $65 $1,141,920 And area stabilization Total Requested $1,505,920 *previously utilized on-duty resources that are no longer available E-7: Pulled Prior to Submission to allow for the completion of phase 2 of the Social Impact Investment In Budget Amendment 4, Mayor Mendenhall proposes to allocate $150,000 in General Fund money to complete Phase 2 of this study (Item A-9). Mayor Mendenhall further proposes that the City Council hold approximately $10 million of the City’s Rescue Plan appropriation until the completion of Phase 2, when the City and Sorenson Impact Center have fully completed a recommendation on the financial structure of the investment, including but not limited to the contributions of private investors and the long-term financial viability of these programs. Because Rescue Plan funds need not be spent until the end of 2024, Mayor respectfully requests that the Council leave a portion of the City’s funds un -allocated until the completion of Phase 2, which is anticipated to t ake 6-9 months, at which point the Administration and Council can make an informed decision on seed funding for this initiative. During this time, the Administration will also be working with Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 13 potential investment partners with the ultimate goal of funding a $100 million social impact project on the two interventions Sorenson has identified as the most impactful to the long -term economic health of City residents. E-8: ARPA Funding – CCP HEART Rapid Intervention Team Misc Grants $57,000.00 Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk, Michelle Hoon To more effectively and rapidly address these complaints from residents and businesses, the Mayor is proposing the creation of a Rapid Intervention Team coordinated through HEART. The HEART coordinator (via a position that was funded by the Council in the FY23 budget) will ensure that complaints are responded to with the appropriate level of outreach through the SLCPD’s CCC or VOA, SLCPD officers to standby if necessary, as well as a City cleaning team working with Advantage Services. By having a dedicated team to respond, Public Services and Waste & Recycling employees will not be pulled away from their regular duties, as they are currently when the County Health Department requires camp abatement support. The Public Services and Waste and Recycling employees will also be available to respond to illegal dumping complaints throughout the City. Work will be coordinated with Advantage Services. The program will be monitored for the first six months to evaluate the effectiveness of the service. E-9: ARPA Funding – Westside Community Initiative Misc Grants $4,000,000.00 Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Ben Kolendar, Danny Walz, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk As a function of utilizing the tax differential collected by the Inland Port Authority and allocated to the RDA for affordabl e housing, the RDA Board has endorsed the creation of an Urban Land Fund in order to develop and secure perpetual housing affordability on the City’s west side. Under the direction of the RDA, the fund would look to maximize opportunities for affordability in both rental housing and home ownership as well as limited commercial uses within mixed use developments. RDA staff is currently working on potential options for the structure of the land fund. This process includes the evaluation of opportunities for community wealth building and cooperative housing models within a perpetual housing fund. The allocation of this funding source is intended to offset the impacts on the west side from the Inland Port development. The opportunity of this program is to strengthen the commun ity by providing a mechanism to help reverse the historical impacts of disinvestment and inequality on the residents in this area of the City. Mayor Mendenhall proposes the allocation of $4 million in seed funds for implementing the policy proposals that emerge from the current study, including the following goals:  Develop Land with a Long-Term Approach to Continuously Serve a Community-Defined Purpose WCI will take a long-term approach to land development and community building so that the RDA may retain the fee ownership to and a reversionary interest in the property. By ground leasing to development partners, the RDA will provide an opportunity to receive revenue generation to serve other public benefits.  Create Opportunities for Revenue Generation while Balancing the Implementation of Public Benefits WCI will strive to balance the development of property with the incorporation of public benefits. Benefits such as affordable housing and below-market commercial space which generate limited or no cash flow would potentially be subsidized with land uses that generate positive cash flow. Revenue generated by projects and received by the RDA will then be reinvested back into the WCI with the goal of furthering shared prosperity.  Assist the Westside in Mitigating Gentrification and Displacement WCI will acquire land with the goal of holding it for the community in perpetuity, thereby removing land from the speculative market so that it serves low and moderate-income residents in perpetuity. Housing will remain affordable even as neighborhood change occurs and gentrification pressures mount, which protects families from displacement. Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 14  Give Lower Income Households the Opportunity to Build Wealth Through Ownership WCI will create opportunities for families to buy homes at affordable prices by focusing on a shared-equity model. A shared equity model offers an alternative form of ownership that provides benefits traditional markets cannot, such as long-term housing affordability and the ability for low and moderate -income families to build equity. When families decide to sell, they will receive their portion of the appreciation but the RDA remains as the land owner and is in the position to continue to sell the home at a below-market price, making it affordable to another family of limited means. Keeping the home affordable, from family to family, will benefit future generations by acting as a steppingstone for low-income families to go from renting to building wealth.  Engage Community Members in Development Decisions The RDA will involve the community in the planning and goals regarding long term land use and housing development. This can translate into residents actively involved in creating positive change within their communities and projects that reflect the value of its residents. The result will be projects that incorporate a shared mission and vision with the community.  Leverage Resources for Other Neighborhood Development Purposes Revenues acquired through ground leases or partnerships could contribute to othe r purposes, including subsidizing deeply affordable housing, below-market commercial space, infrastructure, public art, etc.  Collaborate with Other Partners to Broaden the Pool of Funding and Expertise The RDA would actively work to acquire outside funding sources and professional resources by bringing together financial institutions, the private sector, nonprofits, public officials, other government agencies, researchers, and practitioners to collaborate on community and economic development activities.  Carry Out Efforts with a “Collective Impact” Approach The RDA will continuously evaluate how projects work together to address common goals through a “collective impact” approach that produces measurable results. These measurable results will be tracked and reported on to promote data-driven and outcome-based decisions. E-10: ARPA Funding – Community Grants Misc Grants $4,000,000.00 Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Ben Kolendar, Blake Thomas, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk Community grants Mayor Mendenhall proposes an allocation of $ 4 million toward community grants. These grants will give community organizations and local businesses the opportunity to propose to the City what COVID -related problems they are trying to solve City staff and volunteers from relevant City boards and commissions would select grantees at the conclusion of an open solicitation process. The Administration proposes to split these grant funds into two categories, with half of the allocation going to Economic Development and half to Community and Neighborhoods. These departments will scope the challenge facing residents and businesses, and launch two solicitations seeking proposals on the COVID -related problem that the applicant desires to address under the following broad categories: o CAN grants -- Nonprofit support (to be further refined by CAN): This could include programs like retraining of displaced workers, nonprofit legal services for eviction assistance, expanded educational opportunities, resources to mitigate the digital divide, access to healthcare for underserved populations, mental health assistance, etc. o DED grants -- Business assistance (to be further refined by DED): This could include grants for businesses not included in other government programs during the pandemic, especially small and local businesses, and support for artist/artisan businesses. Section F: Donations Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 15 Section G: Consent Agenda Consent Agenda #2 G-1: Police Department Asset Forfeiture Grant Misc. Grants $1,500.00 Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Melyn Osmond For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Jordan Smith, Shellie Dietrich The Salt Lake City Police Department applied for and received a $1,500 grant award from the State of Utah, Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), under the State Asset For feiture Grant (SAFG) program. The SAFG program funds crime prevention and law enforcement activities within specific guidelines. CCJJ developed the SAFG program as a means of evaluating and distributing state forfeiture funds. The funds will be used for confidential informant funds to enhance investigations in narcotics-related cases. A public hearing was held 9/7/21 for this grant application. G-2: Utah Department of Health - Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (EMS)grant, FY22 Per Capita Allocation Misc. Grants $10,250.00 Department: Emergency Management Prepared By: Brittany Blair/ Melyn Osmond For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Clint Rasmussen, Brittany Blair The Fire Department applied for and was awarded $10,250 of grant funding from the Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services. This funding will be used towards the purchase of a 12 -Lead Cardiac Monitor and medical supplies relating to the provision of Emergency Medical Services as funding permits. A Public Hearing was held on 2/16/21 for the grant applications on this award. G-3: State of Utah, CCJJ (Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice), Jurisdictions with Halfway Houses and Parole Violator Centers Grant, Law Enforcement Services Account (LESA) Misc. Grants $295,571.00 Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Melyn Osmond For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Clint Rasmussen, Brittany Blair The Police Department has applied for and been awarded a $295,570 grant from the State of Utah, Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, in support of the Jurisdictions with Halfway Houses and Parole Violator Centers grant. This grant provides funding for law enforcement agencies that provide services directly to areas with halfwa y houses or parole violator centers, or both. The Police Department will use these funds for law enforcement overtime related to reducing criminal activity including targeted enforcement operations, increased patrol response, and responding to mental health calls for service. The Department will also utilize funds for case transcription services, six overt camera units and maintenance/repairs/supplies for units in the Department's camera program. A public hearing was held 9/7/21 for this grant application. G-4: Utah State Office for Victims of Crime, 2021-2023 VOCA Victims of Crime Act Grant Misc. Grants $364,162.48 Department: Police Department Prepared By: Wendy Isom/ Melyn Osmond For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Wendy Isom, Jordan Smith, Shellie Dietrich Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 16 The Police Department applied for and received a $364,162.48 grant from the State of Utah, Office for Victims of Crime under the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) program, to be used for the continuation of the Victim Advocate Program. These funds will be used to pay for salary and fringe for 4 existing full-time Victim Advocate positions and all of the part-time Victim Advocate positions. This grant also covers the costs for Rita, the program's facility dog. Additionally, there are supplies for the program, emergency funds for assisting victims, and training for Advocate staff. No match is required by the funding agency. VOCA funds cover local and national conferences and trainings needed to meet statutory training requirements for the Victim Advocates. It also provides and emergency fund that can be used when no other victim funding options are available - these funds can be used for food, clothing, shelter, transportation and 911 phones for victims of violent crime. Additionally, it provides for supplies such as Victim Advocate brochures, Traumatic Death Handbooks, cell phone costs, etc. A $109,938.89 match is required which will be satisfied by the salary and benefits of City funded Victim Advocates and the Program Coordinator. In-kind matching funds are provided by the student interns/volunteers that participate in the Victim Advocate Program. A Public Hearing was held 9/7/21 on this grant application. G-5: Department of Workforce Services, Housing & Community Development Division, FY22 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant Program Misc. Grants $370,735.00 Department: Community and Neighborhoods Prepared By: Michelle Hoon / Melyn Osmond For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Michelle Hoon, Brent Beck The Community and Neighborhoods Dept. applied for and received State Department of Workforce Services funding of $370,735 to continue efforts to encourage businesses, residents, Homeless Resource Center (HRC) operators and guests to participate in constructive community engagement opportunities and encourage service-based interventions in order to successfully integrate the HRCs into the fabric of their host neighborhoods and ensure the safety of those neighborhoods. The SLC Mitigation team currently consists of a SLC Community Engagement Coordinator, VOA Business and Community Liaison, and VOA Outreach Case Manager. This application requests to continue the current team and expand the team to include an additional VOA Business and Community Liaison, additional VOA Outreach Case Manager, and a VOA Outreach Peer Support Specialist, and three new positions as part of the City's existing Downtown Ambassador program - tailored to the areas surrounding the HRCs (King, Miller, and Youth). A Public Hearing will be scheduled for the application on this grant. G-6: Utah State Department of Public Safety - 2021 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Misc. Grants $42,500.00 Department: Emergency Management Services Prepared By: Audrey Pierce / Melyn Osmond For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Audrey Pierce, Clint Rasmussen The Emergency Management Services Division received a $42,500 FY2021 EMPG grant from the State of Utah, Department of Public Safety. This grant is awarded on an annual basis to ju risdictions to help offset costs of planning and updating emergency preparedness plans, conduct emergency preparedness exercises and produce materials and other media for public educational outreach and training pertaining to emergency preparedness. SLC's population increases from 180,000 to an estimated 310,000 each workday. Should a disaster occur during the workday, employees become a part of the SLC emergency response, but are not trained to assist themselves or others. These funds will offset costs in providing National Incident Management System (NIMS) training to SLC staff with Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 17 emergency response responsibilities during a disaster or other significant event. The funds will be used to fund community preparedness activities, purchase training materials, supplies and equipment including books, brochures, handouts, etc. The grant requires a 50% match which will be satisfied with the Community Preparedness Coordinator's time and budgeted for within Emergency Managements general fund. A public hearing will be held for this grant application. G-7: Cities of Service, Johns Hopkins, Justice for the Jordan Grant, Love Your Block Misc. Grants $100,000.00 Department: Office of the Mayor Prepared By: Hailey Leek / Melyn Osmond For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Hailey Leek The office of the Mayor applied for and received $100,000 in grant funding for the Justice for the Jordan, Love your Block grant. The grant provides: 1. $60,000 to hire a Love your Block Fellow for 2 years. 2. $40,000 to distribute to the community as mini grants 3. The City is also required to engage 2 AmeriCorps VISTA volunteers, one each year of the grant. 4. The City also receives technical assistance from Cities of Service The Cities of Service Love Your Block program connects mayor’s offices with community residents to revitalize their neighborhoods one block at a time. Typically, cities implementing Love Your Block invite community groups to identify priority projects and award mini-grants to support volunteer-fueled solutions that the community can implement. The City identifies a problem and then engages with volunteers within the neighborhoods of focus and engages them early in the project design phase as well as implementation and evaluation. The City identified the neighborhoods adjacent to the Jordan River in Glendale (census tract 1026, 1027.01, & 1028.01) as the target area. A public hearing will be held for this grant application. G-8: Utah State Office for Victims of Crime, Violence Against Women Act, Domestic Violence Victim Advocate Misc. Grants $101,039.00 Department: Attorney’s Office Prepared By: Scott Fisher / Melyn Osmond For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Katherine Lewis, Scott Fisher The City Prosecutors office applied for and received a $101,039 grant from the State of Utah, Office for Victims of Crime under the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) program, to be used for the Violence Against Women’s Act to fund Salt Lake City Prosecutor Domestic Violence Victim Advocate. The Prosecutor’s Office is requesting a Victim Advocate to assist and support victims of domestic violence as their cases move to the prosecution and adjudication phases. The services include information, education and advocacy through the case and prosecution, assistance with victim impact statements, support and accompaniment to court and meetings with investigators and prosecutors. The Victim Advocate assist in post release safety planning, preparation for court appearances, and jail release agreements. Until this year, Salt Lake County District Attorney Victim Services has provided this support for victims whose cases are adjudicate in Salt Lake City Justice Court. Funding cutbacks required the county to reassign the advocates to County prosecutions. Salt Lake City is applying for this new city position to fill the gap in services. The match is $12,630 each fiscal year, for a total of $25,260 for the two-year performance period of the grant. The match is met with cash available in the Office of the Attorney’s budget. A Public Hearing was held 6/15/21 on this grant application Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 18 Section I: Council Added Items FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 TOTAL Taking Care of the City: Revenue Loss (Based on Calendar Year Calculations)11,432,646$ 34,372,399$ -$ 45,805,045$ 1 Salary: Bonus 1,193,000$ 1,193,000$ Salary: Police Retention and Recruitment 7,798,233$ 7,798,233$ Council Adopted ARP Allocation - Special Projects Assistant for Community Commitment Program (CAN)93,829$ 93,829$ - Youth & Family Community and Program Manager (from BA#2) (CAN)90,633$ 90,633$ - Youth & Family COVID Programming Continuation (CAN)711,350$ 711,350$ - Economic Development Strategic Plan (Economic Development)50,000$ 50,000$ - Economic Development Staff (Economic Development)290,000$ 290,000$ - Grant Administrator (Finance)101,020$ 101,020$ - Grant Manager (Finance)95,000$ 95,000$ - Apprenticeship Program (All Departments)1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ - MRT Expansion [6 Months] (Fire)136,762$ 136,762$ - MRT Expansion [One-Time $46,700] (Fire)46,700$ 46,700$ Water and Sewer Infrastructure 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ Council Added BA2 - Annex Building Renovation for Odyssey House 500,000$ 500,000$ Homelessness and Public Safety: the City's Greatest Current Need Clean Neighborhoods teams 1,505,920$ 1,505,920$ Public Lands Park Rangers (from Salary Restoration)1,508,044$ 1,545,746$ 792,195$ 3,845,985$ 2 Public Lands Park Rangers (One-time directly from ARPA funding)69,247$ CCP clean-up 325,250$ 329,500$ 164,750$ 819,500$ HEART 57,000$ 290,000$ 290,000$ 637,000$ Advantage Services Contract -$ Emergency Shelter Set Aside 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ Building Community Resilience Social Impact Investment 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$ 3 Urban Land Fund 4,000,000$ 4,000,000$ Community Grants Community Grants 4,000,000$ 4,000,000$ TOTAL 1,193,000$ 36,811,634$ 46,537,645$ 1,246,945$ 85,719,977$ Amount of Distibution 85,411,572$ Salt Lake City ARPA Budgeted Funding FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 TOTAL Salt Lake City ARPA Budgeted Funding Items listed in Blue are new proposals. 1 Projected Amount. This funding is not allocated to projects, creates flexible spending dollars. Revenue Loss Dollars can potentially cover all or a portion of these expenses in FY2023 and FY2024 Police Retention and Recruitment (Salary Enhancements)7,993,189$ 4,096,509$ 12,089,698$ Special Projects Assistant for Community Commitment Program (CAN)96,175$ 49,290$ 145,464$ Youth & Family Community and Program Manager (from BA#2) (CAN)92,899$ 47,611$ 140,509$ Youth & Family COVID Programming Continuation (CAN)729,134$ 373,681$ 1,102,815$ Economic Development Strategic Plan (Economic Development)51,250$ 26,266$ 77,516$ Economic Development Staff (Economic Development)297,250$ 152,341$ 449,591$ Grant Administrator (Finance)103,546$ 53,067$ 156,613$ Grant Manager (Finance)97,375$ 49,905$ 147,280$ Apprenticeship Program (All Departments)1,025,000$ 525,313$ 1,550,313$ MRT Expansion [6 Months] (Fire)140,181$ 71,843$ 212,024$ Park Ranger Program 805,237$ 383,297$ 1,188,534$ Fiscal Year 2022 One-Time Revenues ARPA Revenue Loss 11,432,646$ 11,432,646$ One Time Use of General Fund Balance 15,335,334$ 15,335,334$ One Time Use of General Fund Balance (FOF)2,129,483$ 2,129,483$ 46,157,818$ 2 Park Ranger Program Annual Costs 1,175,491$ 2,350,983$ 1,175,492$ One-Time Costs 401,800$ TOTAL 1,577,291$ 2,350,983$ 1,175,492$ Available Salary Restoration Funding 1,508,044$ 1,545,746$ 792,195$ Difference (Another Funding Source is needed, possibly revenue loss)(805,237)$ (383,297)$ 3 Social Impact Investment Focus will be on two specific interventions -- early childhood education and workforce training -- that will increase residents’ access to opportunity and economic mobility. Request to hold allocation of approximately $10 mil until the completion of Phase 2. Can be adjusted based on actual spending. Impact Fees ‐ Summary Confidential Data pulled 7/27/2021 Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area Area Cost Center UnAllocated Cash Notes: Impact fee - Police 8484001 525,991$ A Impact fee - Fire 8484002 1,084,253$ B Impact fee - Parks 8484003 9,384,420$ C Impact fee - Streets 8484005 5,571,233$ D 16,565,896$ Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month 202007 (Jul2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202008 (Aug2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202009 (Sep2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202010 (Oct2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202011 (Nov2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202012 (Dec2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202101 (Jan2021)2021Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202102 (Feb2021)2021Q3 16,273$ -$ -$ -$ 16,273$ 202103 (Mar2021)2021Q3 16,105$ -$ -$ -$ 16,105$ 202104 (Apr2021)2021Q4 1,836$ -$ -$ -$ 1,836$ 202105 (May2021)2021Q4 14,542$ -$ -$ -$ 14,542$ 202106 (Jun2021)2021Q4 30,017$ -$ -$ -$ 30,017$ Current Month 202107 (Jul2021)2022Q1 10,107$ -$ -$ -$ 10,107$ 202108 (Aug2021)2022Q1 6,804$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 6,804$ 202109 (Sep2021)2022Q1 5,554$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 5,554$ 202110 (Oct2021)2022Q2 3,106$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 3,106$ 202111 (Nov2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202112 (Dec2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202201 (Jan2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202202 (Feb2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202203 (Mar2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202204 (Apr2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202205 (May2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202206 (Jun2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 118$ -$ -$ -$ 118$ 202305 (May2023)2023Q4 469$ -$ -$ -$ 469$ 202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 276$ -$ -$ -$ 276$ Total, Currently Expiring through June 2021 78,774$ -$ -$ -$ 78,774$ Notes ^1 FY 2023Calendar Month 7/27/21: We are currently in a refund situation. We will refund $15k in the next 3 months without offsetting expendituresFiscal Year 2021FY 2022Fiscal Quarter E = A + B + C + D Police Fire Parks Streets Total Impact Fees Confidential Data pulled 7/27/2021 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC Police Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Police Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Police Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Police Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Police Allocation Remaining Appropriation Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$ Police'sConsultant'sContract 8419205 5,520$ 3,507$ 1,955$ 58$ Police Impact Fee Refunds 8421102 438,897$ -$ -$ 438,897$ Police Refunds 8418013 539,687$ -$ 69,291$ 470,396$ A PolicePrecinctLandAquisition 8419011 1,410,243$ 239,836$ -$ 1,170,407$ Grand Total 2,440,385$ 289,381$ 71,246$ 2,079,759$ Fire Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Fire refunds 8416007 82,831$ -$ -$ 82,831$ Fire Station #14 8415001 6,650$ 6,083$ 567$ -$ Fire Station #14 8416006 52,040$ -$ 7,428$ 44,612$ Fire Station #3 8415002 1,568$ -$ -$ 1,568$ Fire Station #3 8416009 1,050$ 96$ 485$ 469$ Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$ Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$ Study for Fire House #3 8413001 15,700$ -$ -$ 15,700$ B FireTrainingCenter 8419012 46,550$ -$ 46,550$ -$ Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 10,965$ 4,883$ 6,024$ 58$ FY20 FireTrainingFac. 8420431 66,546$ -$ 10,516$ 56,031$ Fire Station #3 Debt Service 8421200 541,106$ -$ 541,106$ -$ Fire Station #14 Debt Service 8421201 339,172$ -$ 339,172$ -$ Grand Total 1,164,177$ 11,063$ 951,846$ 201,268$ Parks Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$ JR Boat Ram 8420144 125,605$ 15,561$ 110,044$ -$ Three Creeks Confluence 8419101 173,017$ -$ 173,017$ -$ Cnty #2 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420426 515,245$ 88$ 515,157$ -$ Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 7,643$ 4,815$ 2,786$ 42$ Folsom Trail/City Creek Daylig 8417010 766$ -$ 620$ 146$ Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 24,056$ 23,000$ 526$ 530$ C Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 16,087$ -$ 14,977$ 1,110$ Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 11,856$ -$ 10,287$ 1,570$ 9line park 8416005 86,322$ 19,702$ 64,364$ 2,256$ Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$ Warm Springs Off Leash 8420132 27,000$ 15,811$ 6,589$ 4,600$ Fairmont Park Lighting Impr 8418004 50,356$ 43,597$ 605$ 6,155$ FY Parks and Public Lands Compreh 8417008 7,500$ -$ -$ 7,500$ Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 27,478$ 4,328$ 14,683$ 8,467$ Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 15,939$ -$ 6,589$ 9,350$ ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 10,830$ -$ -$ 10,830$ Park refunds 8416008 11,796$ -$ -$ 11,796$ IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 350,000$ 1,905$ 291,986$ 56,109$ Parks Impact Fees 8418015 102,256$ -$ 875$ 101,381$ UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 200,000$ 22,524$ 64,916$ 112,560$ FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 727,000$ 574,709$ 4,080$ 148,211$ 9Line Orchard 8420136 195,045$ -$ -$ 195,045$ Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 225,000$ -$ 753$ 224,247$ Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ -$ 275,000$ Bridge to Backman 8418005 350,250$ 10,285$ 59,974$ 279,990$ Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$ Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 400,000$ 7,790$ 11,523$ 380,688$ Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 431,000$ -$ -$ 431,000$ Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 490,830$ -$ 1,142$ 489,688$ Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 540,732$ 1,883$ 16,843$ 522,007$ Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,145,394$ 34,222$ 50,965$ 1,060,208$ Fisher Carriage House 8420130 1,098,764$ -$ -$ 1,098,764$ Pioneer Park 8419150 3,442,199$ 229,022$ 98,295$ 3,114,882$ Grand Total 11,415,591$ 1,009,242$ 1,521,594$ 8,884,756$ Streets Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values 9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 152,500$ 152,500$ -$ -$ IF Roundabout 2000 E Parleys 8420122 455,000$ -$ 455,000$ -$ Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$ 500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 41,027$ 32,718$ 8,309$ -$ Transportation Safety Imp 8418007 147,912$ -$ 147,912$ -$ 500 to 700 S 8418016 575,000$ 96,637$ 478,363$ -$ Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ 13,000$ -$ -$ 700 South Reconstruction 8414001 310,032$ -$ 310,032$ -$ D 700 South Reconstruction 8415004 1,157,506$ 2,449$ 1,155,057$ -$ LifeOnState Imp Fee 8419009 124,605$ -$ 124,605$ -$ Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 22,360$ -$ 20,916$ 1,444$ Gladiola Street 8406001 16,544$ 13,865$ 435$ 2,244$ Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 210,752$ 87,472$ 115,100$ 8,180$ Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 39,176$ 17,442$ 9,360$ 12,374$ Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 125,000$ -$ 89,608$ 35,392$ Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 250,000$ 20,697$ 191,220$ 38,083$ 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$ Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$ Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 200,000$ -$ -$ 200,000$ TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 375,000$ -$ 72,947$ 302,053$ IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$ Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 2,858,090$ 1,469,774$ 607,870$ 780,446$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8419008 251,316$ -$ 29,628$ 221,688$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8420105 300,000$ 300,000$ -$ -$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 875,000$ -$ -$ 875,000$ Grand Total 9,292,247$ 2,206,554$ 3,816,363$ 3,269,330$ Total 24,312,401$ 3,516,240$ 6,361,049$ 14,435,112$ E = A + B + C + D TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE 9,384,420$ 5,571,233$ 16,565,896$ 8484002 8484003 8484005 525,991$ $1,084,253 8484001 UnAllocated Budget Amount ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 9/16/2021 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 9/16/2021 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 9/16/2021 Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forest and Trails Advisory Board STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan jessi.eagan@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forest and Trails Advisory Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Nathan Manuel as a member of the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forest and Trails Advisory Board. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 September 16, 2021 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Dear Councilmember Fowler, Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forest and Trails Advisory Board. Nathan Manuel - to be appointed for a three year term starting from the date of City Council advice and consent. I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Cc: File ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 10/19/2021 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 10/19/2021 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 10/19/2021 Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Parks, Natural Lands, Trails, and Urban Forestry Advisory Board. STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan jessi.eagan@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Parks, Natural Lands, Trails, and Urban Forestry Advisory Board. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Clayton Scrivner as a member of the Parks, Natural Lands, Trails, and Urban Forestry Advisory Board. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 October 19, 2021 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Dear Councilmember Fowler, Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Parks, Natural Lands, Trails, and Urban Forestry Advisory Board. Clayton Scrivner - to be appointed for a three year term starting from the date of City Council advice and consent. I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Cc: File