The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/07/2021 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL and LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY of SALT LAKE CITY FORMAL MEETING AGENDA December 7,2021 Tuesday 7:00 PM Council Chambers 451 South State Street Room 326 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 SLCCouncil.com CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Amy Fowler,Chair District 7 Chris Wharton,Vice Chair District 3 Victoria Petro-Eschler District 1 Dennis Faris District 2 Ana Valdemoros District 4 Darin Mano District 5 Dan Dugan District 6 Generated:15:07:03 The Council has returned to a hybrid meeting approach.Hybrid Council meetings allow people to join online through Webex or in person at the City &County Building. Public Comments:The public can give comments to the Council during their 7 p.m.formal meetings online through Webex and in-person in Room 326 of the City and County Building.For more information,including Webex connection information,please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings.(A phone line will also be available for people whose only option is to call in.) What to Expect:The hybrid format allows in-person participation and remains mindful of existing COVID-19 protocols and gathering limits.A maximum of 24 people,including Council members and City staff,will be permitted in a meeting room.If the capacity has been reached in the primary meeting room,overflow space will be provided.Social distancing will be maintained. Per an executive order signed by Mayor Mendenhall,face coverings are required for vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals inside Salt Lake City facilities. Please note:Dates not identified in the FYI -Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES A.LBA OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council/Board Member Amy Fowler will conduct the formal meeting. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. B.LBA POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1.Ordinance:Local Building Authority Budget Amendment No.1 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 The Board will 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 -Refer to motion sheet(s). C.LBA 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 approve the work session and formal meeting minutes of Tuesday, November 9,2021 and Tuesday,November 16,2021. E.PUBLIC HEARINGS: Items E1 –E7 will be heard as one public hearing 1.Grant Application:Granary District Flood Plain Mitigation and Re- mapping –COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Department of Public Utilities to the Utah Governor’s Office for Policy &Budget.If awarded,this grant would fund the Granary District Flood Plain Mitigation and Re-mapping project.The project proposes infrastructure improvements to the City’stormwater system to mitigate the flood risk for at least 1,182 properties that are partially or completely within the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA)designated 750-acre Flood Hazard Area. 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 -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a Staff Recommendation -Close and refer to future consent agenda. 2.Grant Application:New Water Reclamation Facility:Influent Pump Station and Force Mains –COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant Program The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Department of Public Utilities to the Utah Governor’s Office for Policy &Budget.If awarded,this grant would fund 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. 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 -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a Staff Recommendation -Close and refer to future consent agenda. 3.Grant Application:Point Hotel –COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant Program The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Office of the Mayor to the Utah Governor’s Office for Policy &Budget.If awarded, this grant would fund the Point Hotel project.The project proposes to change the ownership and repurpose the use of the existing Airport Inn from a traditional hotel to approximately 100 units of extended stay housing units for adults over 55 years of age and veterans experiencing or at risk of homelessness. 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 -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a Staff Recommendation -Close and refer to future consent agenda. 4.Grant Application:Foothills Natural Area &Bonneville Shoreline Trailhead Infrastructure Improvements Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Department of Public Lands to the Utah Office of Outdoor Recreation.If awarded, this grant would fund the Foothills Natural Area &Bonneville Shoreline Trailhead Infrastructure Improvements.The project proposes to construct five public access trailheads along the stretch of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail that runs through the Salt Lake City foothills between Emigration Canyon and Davis County. 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 -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a Staff Recommendation -Close and refer to future consent agenda. 5.Grant Application:Utah Railroad Safety Grant 2021 The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Department of Public Services to the Utah Department of Transportation.If awarded,this grant would fund safety improvements to the Union Pacific Railroad crossing at 4900 West 700 South.Salt Lake City Division of Engineering and Union Pacific Railroad are collaborating to implement the safety upgrades proposed for this funding. 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 -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a Staff Recommendation -Close and refer to future consent agenda. 6.Grant Application:800 East Neighborhood Byway (1300 South to 1700 South)–Fiscal Year 2022 Region Two Transportation Alternative Program Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Community and Neighborhoods Department to the Utah Department of Transportation.If awarded,this grant would fund the 800 East Neighborhood Byway.The project proposes the construction of pedestrian and bicycle-activated crossings,traffic circles,bulb-out curb extensions,and neighborhood byway signage on 800 East from 1300 South to 1700 South. 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 -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a Staff Recommendation -Close and refer to future consent agenda. 7.Grant Application:Solar Energy Innovation Network Round 3 Multi- Stakeholder Team –Driving Resilient and Economic Commercial Solar and Storage in Underserved Communities Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Department of Sustainability to the National Renewal Energy Laboratory.If awarded,this grant would fund Driving Resilient and Economic Commercial Solar and Storage in Underserved Communities.The project aims to increase use of commercial solar and/or storage in underserved communities through involvement from trusted stakeholders,community listening sessions,three to five solar and storage benefit case studies,and culturally relevant outreach tools and resources that address solar market barriers. 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 -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a Staff Recommendation -Close and refer to future consent agenda. 8.Ordinance:Significant Water Consuming Land Uses Text Amendment The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning ordinance related to limit the amount of City culinary water that commercial and industrial land uses can utilize.The zoning amendment would implement a 300,000-gallon a day limit for commercial and industrial land uses.The limit affects multiple zones and multiple land uses citywide.The ordinance also amends and clarifies the definitions of related land use terms currently there is a 6-month temporary ordinance (“pending ordinance” or moratorium)in effect that mirrors the proposed water use restrictions in the ordinance but will expire on January 4,2022.Petition No.:PLNPCM2021-00635 FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 14,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). 9.Ordinance:Master Plan Amendment and Rezone at 129 South 700 East and 758 East Bueno Avenue The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of properties at 724,728,732,738,744,750 and 754 East Bueno Avenue from SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential District)to RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District).The applicant is proposing to amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map for the aforementioned properties from Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential.The project proposes to consolidate 10 parcels and replace the existing structures with two buildings:a single-story amenity building fronting 700 East and a 4-story rooming (boarding)house on the interior of the site.The rooming house would consist of 65 units ranging from 1 bedroom to 4-bedroom units.Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics.Petition No.: PLNPCM2021-00048 and PLNPCM2021-00047 FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 14,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). 10.Ordinance:Rezone at Redwood Road and Indiana Avenue The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of the properties at approximately 835 South Redwood Road and 1668 West Indiana Avenue from R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District)to R-MU-45 (Residential/Mixed Use District).The property at 1668 W Indiana currently contains an individual single-family dwelling while the other property is vacant.No specific site development proposal has been submitted at this time.The change is consistent with changes identified in the Westside Master Plan which identified the intersection of Redwood and Indiana as the location of a future Community Node.The Master Plan is not being changed. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics.Petition No.:PLNPCM2021-00249 FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,December 7,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 14,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). 11.Ordinance:Allowing Commercial Uses on Rooftops which Exceed 2 Stories The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the FB-SE (Form Based Special Purpose Corridor Edge Subdistrict) zoning district to allow for rooftop commercial uses above the second story, subject to meeting a height of 30-feet.The proposed amendment affects section 21A.27.040.D FB-SE Building Form Standards.All properties,citywide,in the FB-SE (Form Based Special Purpose Corridor Edge Subdistrict)would be impacted.The FB-SE zone currently limits commercial or nonresidential uses to first two stories and a height of 30 feet.Related provisions of Title 21A Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition.Petition No.:PLNPCM2021-00431 FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 14,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). 12.Ordinance:Alley Vacation at 1200 Block of Kensington and Bryan Avenues The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would vacate a portion of City-owned alley situated in the 1200 block of East Kensington and Bryan Avenues that runs east to west from 1300 East to the McClelland Trail.The intent of the request is to incorporate the unused alley into the adjacent properties.Petition No.:PLNPCM2021-00413 FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,December 7,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 14,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). 13.Ordinance:Columbus Street Alley Vacation North of Victory Road The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would vacate a portion of City-owned alley situated adjacent to properties at 583, 585,589 and 595 North Columbus Street;and;590 North Victory Road.The proposal is to vacate this remaining alley segment and incorporate the vacant land into the neighboring properties.The total area of the proposed vacation is approximately 2750 square feet.Petition No.:PLNPCM2020-00564 FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,December 7,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 14,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). 14.Resolution:City Consent to Subleases at The Leonardo The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting a resolution that would authorize subleases arrangements at The Leonardo.Consent may be given if the sublease fulfills a public purpose,complies with the purpose of the outstanding bonds,and has a direct relationship to The Leonardo’s mission and programming plan. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,December 7,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 14,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). 15.Ordinance:Sugar House Business District Design Standards Zoning Text Amendment The Council will continue to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would incorporate design guidelines from the Sugar House Master Plan into the Sugar House Business District zone.The Sugar House Business District is generally located between 900 East and 1300 East and from 1900 South to I-80.Design guidelines include regulations on such things as building facade design,spacing of doorways,glass transparency,and public way improvements.Related provisions of the City Code may also be amended as part of this petition. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,February 4,2020 and Tuesday,March 17,2020 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,February 4,2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,March 3,2020 and Tuesday, December 7,2021 TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 7,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). F.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1.Ordinance:Rezone at 1945 South 1300 East The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of property at 1945 South 1300 East from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District)to RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential).The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is intended to accommodate a new multifamily residential development.Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics.Petition No.:PLNPCM2020-01022 FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,October 19,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,October 19,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,November 16,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 7,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). 2.Ordinance:Budget Amendment No.4 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 The Council will 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;Tuesday,November 16,2021;and Tuesday, December 7,2021 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 -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 –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,December 7,2021 Staff Recommendation -Suspend the rules and consider motions. I.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1.Ordinance:EPA Revisions to Sewer Regulations The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend City Code relating to the City’s Sewer Pretreatment Program,known as the Pretreatment Affirmative Defense Provision.The amendments do not change the City’s regulatory practice or procedures,but are housekeeping in nature to ensure City Code language is consistent with technical federal requirements.Additional Division of Water Quality (DWQ)public engagement will occur prior to final Council consideration.No impacts are anticipated to users of the system as a result of these changes. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 7,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). J.CONSENT: 1.Grant Holding Account Items (Batch No.3)Associated with BAM No.5 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 The Council will consider approving Grant Holding Account Item (Batch No.3)for Fiscal Year 2021-22 Associated with Budget Amendment No.5. 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,December 7,2021 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. 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. TO:LBA Board Members FROM: Ben Luedtke & Sylvia Richards, Budget & Policy Analysts DATE:November 16, 2021 Item B1 MOTION SHEET LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY of SALT LAKE CITY RE:MOTION SHEET – ADOPTION -- LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY FY22 BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 1 MOTION 1 – ADOPT I move that the Board adopt a resolution amending the final Budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22 of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah. D-1: Sales Tax Series 2021A Refunding of LBA Bonds – $10,500,000 (Council staff note: The Council previously approved the bond refinancing for the Glendale and Marmalade Libraries, and this is the final follow up step to pay off the old bonds.) MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT I move that the Board not adopt the resolution and move on to the next item. 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 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 PENDING MINUTES –NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,met in Work Session on Tuesday,November 9,2021in an Electronic Meeting,pursuant to the Chair’s determination. The following Council Members were present: Darin Mano,Dennis Faris,Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Chris Wharton,Daniel Dugan Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Executive Director;Jennifer Bruno,Deputy Director;Lehua Weaver,Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall;Rachel Otto,Chief of Staff;Lisa Shaffer,Chief Administrative Officer Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis –City Attorney,Ben Luedtke –Senior Public Policy Analyst,Nick Tarbet –Senior Public Policy Analyst,Cindy Lou Trishman –City Recorder,Sam Owen –Public Policy Analyst, Andrew Johnston –Director of Homelessness Policy and Outreach,Ben Kolendar –Economic Development Director,Chief Mike Brown –Police Chief,Mary Beth Thompson –Chief Financial Officer,Taylor Hill –City Council Staff,Michelle Barney –Minutes &Records Clerk,Allison Rowland –Council Staff,Lindsey Nikola –Mayor's Office Staff,Paul Nielson –Senior City Attorney,Nick Norris –Planning Director,Felicity Henderson –Council Staff,Hannah Vickery –Senior City Attorney,Beatrix Sieger –Council Staff,Sophia Nicholas –Sustainability Deputy Director Full Meeting Audio Meeting Packet Material Councilmember Fowler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 2:00 pm Work Session Items MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 1 1.Informational:Updates from the Administration ~2:00 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive an update from the Administration on major items or projects, including but not limited to: •COVID-19,the March 2020 Earthquake,and the September 2020 Windstorm; •Updates on relieving the condition of people experiencing homelessness; •Police Department work,projects,and staffing,etc.;and •Other projects or updates. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a Minutes: Rachel Otto reviewed the COVID 19 statistics for the state,including clinic times and dates. Andrew Johnston reviewed current homelessness statistics in the City,shelter occupancy,outreach,cleaning and abatement,and the role of the State Homeless Coalition in helping with homelessness throughout the state.He stated the Coalition was currently looking for additional locations for over flow beds. Chief Mike Brown reviewed the crime control plan,goals for the department,the importance of hiring officers and the incentives new hires were receiving to entice them to the department.He reviewed the expansion of the vehicle take home policy (60 miles),the Community Reestablishment Program,the Violent Crimes Task Force,the Police Civilian Response Team,Call Diversion,the Online Reporting program,the Business Community Engagement Officer,and the October response times for the department. The Council and Staff discussed the consideration of the allotted budget for the development and adequate hiring for qualified individuals for the Civil Response Team. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 2 2.Informational:Updates on Racial Equity and Policing ~2:30 p.m. 15 min. The Council will hold a discussion about recent efforts on various projects City staff are working on related to racial equity and policing in the City.The conversation may include issues of community concern about race,equity,and justice in relation to law enforcement policies,procedures,budget,and ordinances.Discussion may include: •An update or report on the Commission on Racial Equity in Policing;and •Other project updates or discussion. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a Minutes: Item not held. 3.Informational:American Rescue Plan Act Funding Proposal ~2:45 p.m. 45 min. The Council will receive a briefing about the proposal of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)funding.The ARPA funding proposal focuses on ensuring the recovery and revitalization of the City,and prepare for equitable response for future waves of the disease. The administration proposes to launch this funding with specific branding and a community- facing dashboard for accountability,similar to the Funding Our Future initiative. 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 -n/a Minutes: Mayor Mendenhall reviewed the purpose of the American Rescue Plan Act program,Park Ranger program,Community Grants,West Side Community Land Initiative,Rapid Intervention Team and the Revenue Loss and Salary Restoration proposals. The Council and Mayor discussed future funding for the Park Ranger program,the Community Grant pool,and funding for Affordable Housing. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 3 4.Informational:Sorenson Impact Center Social Investment Study and Recommendations Follow-up ~3:30 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about the Sorenson Impact Center Social Investment study and recommendations.This requests the approval of $150,000 for Phase II and $10m from American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)in a restricted account contingent upon delivery of Phase II and approval to release the funds with a goal of driving equitable economic development in Salt Lake City. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,October 19,2021 and Tuesday,November 9,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a Minutes: Jennifer Bruno reviewed the request and the conditions for funding,including the allowance of $150,000 from the general fund for the allowance of continued work by the investment study to resolve the questions from the Council prior to the allocation from the American Rescue Plan Act Funding.She included that discussion from Council Members included the desire to have on the record an assurance that investment of the partners would not be impacted,noting that the conditions are included in the associated staff report. Ben Kolendar and Rachel Otto provided comments on the proposal. Janis Dubno,Sorenson Impact Center,noted there will be tracking measurements for the outcome included in the investment study,and the development of a sustainability plan is critical to the funding strategy,in addition to other potential partnerships through philanthropic and social impact investors who are provided metrics on the results. Council and Staff discussed the Salt Lake City’s involvement and why other Cities were not investing in the program,operation,funding,measurements of generational impact, examples of similar programs the Council could review,investment payout metrics and funding,the advantages of the proposed program model and possible partnerships for the early childhood development program. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 4 5.Tentative Break ~3:50 p.m. 20 min. 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 -n/a Minutes: New Council Staff and Interns were introduced. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 5 6.Ordinance:Budget Amendment No.4 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 ~4:10 p.m. 75 min. The Council will receive a briefing about 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 Minutes: Ben Luedtke,Mary Beth Thompson and Sophia Nicholas reviewed the following: •Public comment period for the proposal •Sales tax revenue for the end of Fiscal Year 2021 •ARPA Holding Account •A-1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance Costs •A-2:Department of Air Quality Lawnmower Exchange •A-3:COVID-19 Safe Building Improvements •A-5:Community Health Access Team Program Vehicles •A-6:Non-Represented Employees’Job Salary Survey •A-7:Sugar House Special Assessment Area Analysis •A-8:Sorenson Impact Center Social Investment Study-Phase II Funding •A-10:Community Health Access Team (CHAT)Program Personnel Transfer •A-11:Rose Park Golf Course Water and Energy Efficiency Grant •A-12:Public Lands Park Ranger Pilot Program The Council and Staff discussed the projected sales tax revenue for Fiscal Year 2022 budget,the Air Quality Exchange program,access to the City and County Building,Community Health Access Team (CHAT),the Sugarhouse Special Assessment area, and the Rose Park Golf Course Water and Energy Efficiency Grant. Unanimous Straw Polls to approve the following items: •A-5:Community Health Access Team Program Vehicles •A-6:Non-Represented Employees’Job Salary Survey •A-10:Community Health Access Team (CHAT)Program Personnel Transfer •A-11:Rose Park Golf Course Water and Energy Efficiency Grant Due to time constraints,item A-12 would be discussed at the November 16 meeting. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 6 7.Resolution:Master Lease Agreement -JP Morgan Chase Bank ~5:25 p.m. 10 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a resolution that would authorize the approval of a Municipal Master Lease Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and JP Morgan Chase Bank,N.A.regarding vehicle leasing and purchasing services.The City may enter into lease agreements up to $7M,not to exceed an aggregate of $35M over the five-year term of the agreement. 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 16,2021 Minutes: Ben Luedtke and Mary Beth Thompson reviewed the lease of the JP Morgan Chase Bank building. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 7 8.Resolution:Annexation at approximately Rose Park Lane and 2350 North (Hunter Stables)~5:35 p.m. 20 min. 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 the petition in their public meeting,and forward a recommendation on the proposed annexation and zoning. 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 Minutes: Nick Tarbet reviewed the proposed annexation at approximately Rose Park Lane and 2350 North (Hunter Stables). The Council and Staff discussed utility services and zoning regulations. Jason Boal,representing the applicant,reviewed the purpose of the annexation and how it would benefit the property. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 8 9.Board Appointment:Parks,Natural Lands,Urban Forestry and Trails (PNUT)Advisory Board –Clayton Scrivner ~6:00 p.m. 5 min. The Council will interview Clayton Scrivner prior to considering appointment 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 Minutes: Interview was held.Councilmember Fowler said Clayton Scrivner’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 10.Board Appointment:Parks,Natural Lands,Urban Forestry and Trails (PNUT)Advisory Board –Nathan Manuel ~5:55 p.m. 5 min. The Council will interview Nathan Manuel prior to considering appointment 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 Minutes: Interview was held.Councilmember Fowler said Nathan Manuel’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 9 11.Council District One Vacancy Applicant Interviews ~6:05 p.m. 25 min. The Council will interview applicants for the vacant Council District One seat.Each applicant will have up to five minutes to speak to the Council on topics of their choice. 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 Minutes: Due to a scheduling conflict,the Council heard from Richard Barnes at 2:30 p.m. Richard Barnes provided personal experience and background information,and reasoning as to why he felt he would serve well as a member of the City Council. Remaining interviews began at 6:00 p.m. Blake Perez reviewed his campaign positions,thanked the staff and personnel who helped with his campaign,and requested his name be removed from the list of applicants.He expressed his desire to see better housing,homeless services,air quality and equality in District One. Jahn Curran thanked the Council for their service. Victoria Petro-Eschler stated it was great that the Council had hard data to base their decision to fill the vacancy,and said she was eager to start working with the City Council. Council Members conducted a straw poll vote with a unanimous selection to appoint Victoria Petro-Eschler as the new District One Councilmember. Councilmember Fowler stated a resolution representing the straw poll vote would be presented during the formal meeting. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 10 Standing Items 12.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair; •New Staff and Intern Introductions. Minutes: Staff and intern introductions were made during the break. 13.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director Report of the Executive Director,including a review of Council information items and announcements.The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business,including but not limited to scheduling items. Minutes: A.Council School Board Leadership Meeting The Council/School Board leadership is scheduled to meet on Friday,November 19, 2021. Please let Council staff know if you have any topics you wish to have on the agenda for leadership to discuss.Redistricting is a topic that has been suggested by Council staff. No discussion was held. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 11 14.Tentative Closed Session The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session.A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including,but not limited to: a.discussion of the character,professional competence,or physical or mental health of an individual; b.strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c.strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d.strategy sessions to discuss the purchase,exchange,or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares,if public discussion of the transaction would: (i)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e.strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property,including any form of a water right or water shares,if: (i)public discussion of the transaction would: (A)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration;or (B)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii)the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale;and (iii)the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; f.discussion regarding deployment of security personnel,devices,or systems;and g.investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code §78B-1-137,and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. Minutes: Closed session began at 6:32 p.m. Council Members in attendance:Ana Valdemoros,Chris Wharton,Dan Dugan,Darin Mano,Dennis Faris,Amy Fowler. City Staff Present:Allison Rowland,Andrew Johnston,Ben Luedtke,Cindy Gust- Jenson,Erin Mendenhall,Felicity Henderson,Hannah Vickery,Jennifer Bruno,Katherine Lewis,Lehua Weaver,Lindsey Nikola,Lisa Shaffer,Nick Tarbet,Paul Nielson,Rachel Otto,Sam Owen,Cindy Lou Trishman,Taylor Hill,Beatrix Sieger,and Nick Norris. Councilmember Wharton moved,and Councilmember Dugan seconded to exit the closed session.A roll call vote was held,all present voted Aye.(Valdemoros,Mano,Dugan,Faris, Wharton,Fowler) MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 12 Closed Session ended at 7:18 pm Motion: Moved by Councilmember Wharton,seconded by Councilmember Dugan to enter into Closed Session for attorney-client matters pursuant to Utah Code 78B-1-137, for the advice of Counsel. AYE:Darin Mano,Dennis Faris,Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Chris Wharton,Daniel Dugan Final Result:6 –0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 13 Meeting adjourned at 7:18 p.m. Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair _______________________________ City Recorder This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript as other items may have been discussed; 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 City Council Work Session meeting held Tuesday,November 9,2021. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 14 PENDING MINUTES –NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,met in Formal Session on Tuesday,November 9,2021 in an Electronic Meeting,pursuant to the Chair’s determination. The following Council Members were present: Dennis Faris,Daniel Dugan,Darin Mano,Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Chris Wharton Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Executive Director;Jennifer Bruno,Deputy Director;Lehua Weaver,Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall;Rachel Otto,Chief of Staff;Lisa Shaffer,Chief Administrative Officer Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis –City Attorney,Cindy Lou Trishman –City Recorder,DeeDee Robinson –Minutes and Records Clerk,John Rand –SLCTV,Allison Rowland –Public Policy Analyst, Brian Fullmer –Constituent Liaison,Policy Analyst,Cindy Gust-Jenson –Executive Director, Nick Tarbet –Senior Public Policy Analyst,Michelle Barney –Minutes &Records Clerk,Taylor Hill –Attendee Full Meeting Audio Meeting Packet Material Public Comments received October 20,2021 to October 26,2021 Councilmember Fowler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 7:19 p.m. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 1 A.LBA OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council/Board Member Amy Fowler will conduct the formal meeting. Minutes: Councilmember Fowler welcomed attendees and detailed the remote meeting format. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. Minutes: A moment of silence was held while the American Flag &Pledge were displayed. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. Minutes: Council/Board Member Fowler presented the rules of decorum. 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. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Wharton,seconded by Councilmember Dugan to approve the meeting minutes of Tuesday,May 5 2020; Tuesday,June 2,2020;and Tuesday,June 9,2020. AYE:Dennis Faris,Daniel Dugan,Darin Mano,Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Chris Wharton Final Result:6 –0 Pass B.LBA CONSENT: MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 2 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. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Wharton,seconded by Councilmember Dugan to approve the Consent Agenda. AYE:Dennis Faris,Daniel Dugan,Darin Mano,Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Chris Wharton Final Result:6 –0 C.LBA ADJOURNMENT: Minutes: The LBA meeting adjourned at:7:19 p.m. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 3 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. Minutes: Councilmember Mano read the resolution Koii Lauritsen,resolution requester,provided background on the development of the resolution. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Mano,seconded by Councilmember Wharton to approve Resolution 40 of 2021,condemning hate crimes committed against Asian-American and Pacific Islanders. AYE:Dennis Faris,Daniel Dugan,Darin Mano,Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Chris Wharton Final Result:6 –0 Pass 2 Introduction of YouthCity Government Students Minutes: Councilmember Fowler welcomed the YouthCity Government Students. Samatha Escalante,Youth City Government Advisor,gave a brief overview of the program and asked each student to introduce themselves. YouthCity Government students Cate Love,Daffodile Buchert,Diya Oomen,Amira Baayd,Sophie Ayers-Harris,Lydia May and Mia Lou Feldman introduced themselves. E.PUBLIC HEARINGS: MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 4 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). Minutes: Brian Fullmer introduced the project. Lori McDonald,Scott Bates and Heidi Woodbury spoke in support of the project and the addition of more student housing. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan,seconded by Councilmember Faris to close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. AYE:Dennis Faris,Daniel Dugan,Darin Mano,Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Chris Wharton Final Result:6 –0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 5 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). Minutes: Nick Tarbet introduced the Ordinance. There was no public comment. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan,seconded by Councilmember Faris to close the public hearing and defer action to future meeting. AYE:Dennis Faris,Daniel Dugan,Darin Mano,Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Chris Wharton Final Result:6 –0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 6 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). Minutes: Jennifer Bruno introduced the item. There was no public comment. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan,seconded by Councilmember Faris to close the public hearing and adopt Resolution 41 of 2021,authorizing the donation of certain City computers to benefit low-and moderate-income families through a Digital Donation Program. AYE:Dennis Faris,Daniel Dugan,Darin Mano,Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Chris Wharton Final Result:6 –0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 7 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). Motion: Moved by Councilmember Wharton,seconded by Councilmember Mano to adopt Ordinance 63 of 2021,partially vacating a portion of 14th Avenue adjacent to a property located at 538 East 14th Avenue. AYE:Dennis Faris,Daniel Dugan,Darin Mano,Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Chris Wharton Final Result:6 –0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 8 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). Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan,seconded by Councilmember Wharton to adopt Ordinance 64 of 2021,including the changes included in the updated ordinance and outlined in the November 9 Council Staff report. AYE:Dennis Faris,Daniel Dugan,Darin Mano,Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Chris Wharton Final Result:6 –0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 9 G.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. Minutes: There were no questions. 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.) Minutes: George Chapman stated there should be funding for child care,libraries,deescalation training for police,and affordable housing. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 10 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. Minutes: Councilmember Fowler introduced Victoria Petro-Eschler. Cindy Lou Trishman,City Recorder,swore in Victoria Petro-Eschler as the new Councilmember for District One. Councilmember Victoria Petro-Eschler thanked voters,family,and election staff for their support. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Wharton,seconded by Councilmember Valdemoros to adoption Resolution 42 of 2021,appointing Victoria Petro- Eschler,as the 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. AYE:Dennis Faris,Daniel Dugan,Darin Mano,Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Chris Wharton Final Result:6 –0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 11 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. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Mano,seconded by Councilmember Dugan to ratify the Chair’s determination. Councilmember Petro-Eschler voted Aye AYE:Dennis Faris,Daniel Dugan,Darin Mano,Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Chris Wharton Final Result:6 –0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 12 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). Motion: Moved by Councilmember Mano,seconded by Councilmember Faris to adopt Resolution 43 of 2021 to accept a petition to annex a parcel of land at 2350 North Rose Park Lane for further consideration. Councilmember Petro-Eschler voted Aye AYE:Dennis Faris,Daniel Dugan,Darin Mano,Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Chris Wharton Final Result:6 –0 Pass I.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 13 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. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 14 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. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Mano,seconded by Councilmember Wharton to approve the Consent Agenda.Council Member Petro-Eschler voted aye. AYE:Dennis Faris,Daniel Dugan,Darin Mano,Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Chris Wharton Final Result:6 –0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 15 K.ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 8:01 p.m. Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair _______________________________ City Recorder This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript as other items may have been discussed;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 City Council Formal meeting held Tuesday,November 9,2021. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 9,2021 16 PENDING MINUTES –NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,met in Work Session on Tuesday,November 16,2021 in an Electronic Meeting pursuant to the Chair’s determination. The following Council Members were present: Darin Mano,Dennis Faris,Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Chris Wharton,Daniel Dugan,Victoria Petro-Eschler Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Executive Director;Jennifer Bruno,Deputy Director;Lehua Weaver,Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall;Rachel Otto,Chief of Staff;Lisa Shaffer,Chief Administrative Officer Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis –City Attorney,Ben Luedtke –Senior Public Policy Analyst,Brian Fullmer –Constituent Liaison,Policy Analyst,Nick Tarbet –Senior Public Policy Analyst,Cindy Lou Trishman –City Recorder,Andrew Johnston –Director of Homelessness Policy and Outreach,Katia Pace –Principal Planner,Michelle Barney –Minutes &Records Clerk,Moana Uluave-hafoka –Office of the Mayor,Kaletta Lynch –Office of the Mayor,Daniel Echeverria –Senior Planner,Jesse Stewart –Public Utilities Deputy Director ,Amy Thompson –Planning Manager Full Meeting Audio Meeting Packet Material Councilmember Amy Fowler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 1 Work Session Items 1.Resolutions:Designating the Central Business Improvement Assessment Area and to Appoint a Board of Equalization Written Briefing The Council will receive a written briefing about two resolutions:one designating an assessment area to be known as the Salt Lake City,Utah Central Business Improvement Assessment Area No.DA- CBIA22,as described in the Notice of Intention to Designate Assessment Area,to proceed with the implementation of the economic promotion activities;and the other appointing a Board of Equalization to hear and consider objections and corrections to proposed assessments and any arguments from persons claiming to be aggrieved;setting dates for when the Board of Equalization will meet;and authorizing and directing the City Recorder to provide a Notice of Assessment and Board of Equalization Hearings. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,July 13,2021 and Tuesday,November 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,July 20,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,September 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Minutes: Written briefing. 2.Ordinance:EPA Revisions to Sewer Regulations Written Briefing The Council will receive a written briefing on amendments to City Code relating to the City’s Sewer Pretreatment Program,known as the Pretreatment Affirmative Defense Provision.The amendments do not change the City’s regulatory practice or procedures,but are housekeeping in nature to ensure City Code language is consistent with technical federal requirements. Additional Division of Water Quality (DWQ)public engagement will occur prior to final Council consideration.No impacts are anticipated to users of the system as a result of these changes. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 7,2021 Minutes: Written briefing. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 2 3.Informational:Updates from the Administration ~2:00 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive an update from the Administration on major items or projects,including but not limited to: •COVID-19,the March 2020 Earthquake,and the September 2020 Windstorm; •Updates on relieving the condition of people experiencing homelessness; •Police Department work,projects,and staffing,etc.;and •Other projects or updates. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a Minutes: Mayor Mendenhall reviewed the COVID 19 statistics for Salt Lake City. Andrew Johnston reviewed the statistics of people experiencing homelessness in Salt Lake City,outreach events,scheduled cleaning and abatement activities,the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget Rescue Plan grant funding,the Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation grant funding recommendation for FY23 and the Salt Lake County emergency shelter needs versus the deeply affordable housing needs. Mayor Mendenhall reviewed the work being done by through the legislature,and the possibilities for moving people out of homelessness. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 3 4.Informational:Updates on Racial Equity and Policing ~2:30 p.m. 15 min. The Council will hold a discussion about recent efforts on various projects City staff are working on related to racial equity and policing in the City.The conversation may include issues of community concern about race,equity,and justice in relation to law enforcement policies, procedures,budget,and ordinances.Discussion may include: •An update or report on the Commission on Racial Equity in Policing;and •Other project updates or discussion. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a Minutes: Moana Uluave-Hafoka reviewed the appointments to the Commission on Racial Equity in Policing,meeting dates,and the two open youth positions on the committee. Kaletta Lynch welcomed Ashley Lichtle as the ADA coordinator for the Mayor’s Office and gave an overview of Ashley’s background.Kaletta reviewed the members and goals for the new City Language Accessibility Task Force. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 4 5.Ordinance:Significant Water Consuming Land Uses Zoning Text Amendment ~2:45 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would limit the amount of City culinary water that commercial and industrial land uses can utilize.The zoning amendment would implement a 300,000-gallon a day limit for commercial and industrial land uses.The limit affects multiple zones and multiple land uses citywide.The ordinance also amends and clarifies the definitions of related land use terms currently there is a 6-month temporary ordinance in effect that mirrors the proposed water use restrictions in the ordinance,but will expire on January 4,2022. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD Minutes: Daniel Echeverria reviewed the proposed Zoning Text Amendment for Significant Water Consuming Land Uses. Jesse Stewart spoke to the 300,000 usage cap outlined in the proposal. The Council and Staff discussed grandfathering of current businesses,land uses that use an excess of 300,000 gallons of water a day,inviting the Northwest Quadrant and the University of Utah to join the conservation program,and regulation of the program. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 5 6.Ordinance:Rezone at Redwood Road and Indiana Avenue ~3:05 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of the properties at approximately 835 South Redwood Road and 1668 West Indiana Avenue from R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District)to R-MU-45 (Residential/Mixed Use District).The property at 1668 W Indiana currently contains an individual single-family dwelling while the other property is vacant.No specific site development proposal has been submitted at this time.The change is consistent with changes identified in the Westside Master Plan which identified the intersection of Redwood and Indiana as the location of a future Community Node. The Master Plan is not being changed.Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD Minutes: This item was moved to a future meeting. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 6 7.Ordinance:Allowing Commercial Uses on Rooftops which Exceed 2 Stories ~3:20 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the FB-SE (Form Based Special Purpose Corridor Edge Subdistrict)zoning district to allow for rooftop commercial uses above the second story,subject to meeting a height of 30-feet.The proposed amendment affects section 21A.27.040.D FB-SE Building Form Standards.All properties,citywide,in the FB-SE (Form Based Special Purpose Corridor Edge Subdistrict)would be impacted.The FB-SE zone currently limits commercial or nonresidential uses to first two stories and a height of 30 feet. Related provisions of Title 21A Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD Minutes: Amy Thompson reviewed the proposed Zoning Text Amendment for the FB-SE Zone. The Council and Staff discussed uses allowed in the zone,the current height limit,where the zoning was located throughout the City,and the timeline for the proposal. Paxton Guymon,applicant’s attorney,reviewed the request and presented what the proposal would bring to the City. Bill Grodnik,applicant,stated only a few buildings in the City could host rooftop dining and the proposed change would benefit businesses. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 7 8.Ordinance:Master Plan Amendment and Rezone at 129 South 700 East and 758 East Bueno Avenue ~3:35 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of properties at 724,728,732,738,744,750 and 754 East Bueno Avenue from SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential District)to RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District).The applicant is proposing to amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map for the aforementioned properties from Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential.The project proposes to consolidate 10 parcels and replace the existing structures with two buildings:a single-story amenity building fronting 700 East and a 4-story rooming (boarding) house on the interior of the site.The rooming house would consist of 65 units ranging from 1 bedroom to 4-bedroom units.Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 14,2021 Minutes: Brian Fullmer and Katia Pace reviewed the proposal for the Master Plan Amendment and Rezone at 129 South 700 East and 758 East Bueno Avenue. The Council and Staff discussed:street maintenance,the Planning Commission’s vote, rehousing of the existing residents,the SRO ordinance (Single Residency Occupancy),boarding house regulations,parking,traffic flow and regulation to prevent short term rentals in the development. Kevin Perry,applicant,reviewed the proposal and the benefit it would be to the area. 9.Tentative Break ~3:55 p.m. 20 min. 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 -n/a MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 8 10.Ordinance:Alley Vacation at 1200 Block of Kensington and Bryan Avenues ~4:15 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would vacate a portion of City-owned alley situated in the 1200 block of East Kensington and Bryan Avenues that runs east to west from 1300 East to the McClelland Trail.The intent of the request is to incorporate the unused alley into the adjacent properties. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 14,2021 Minutes: This item was moved to a future meeting. 11.Ordinance:Columbus Street Alley Vacation North of Victory Road ~4:30 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would vacate a portion of City-owned alley situated adjacent to properties at 583,585,589 and 595 North Columbus Street;and 590 North Victory Road.The proposal is to vacate this remaining alley segment and incorporate the vacant land into the neighboring properties.The total area of the proposed vacation is approximately 2750 square feet. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 14,2021 Minutes: This item was moved to a future meeting. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 9 12.Ordinance:Budget Amendment No.4 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 Follow-up ~4:45 p.m. 40 min The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about 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 and Tuesday,November 16,2021 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 Minutes: Ben Luedtke reviewed the need for a resolution for the Rose Park Golf Course Grant application. The Council and Staff discussed the following items outlined in the proposal: •E-1 New Water Reclamation Facility •E-5 Community Commitment Program Rapid Intervention Team Vehicles which will work with the request in C-2 for three new full time employees to work in the Waste and Recycling Division •E-6 Community Commitment Program Additional Police Support •E-8 Community Commitment Program Rapid Intervention Team Cleaning by Advantage Services •E-9 and E-10 ARPA Westside Community Initiative and Nonprofit and Business Assistance Community Grants •E-2 Winter Shelter Support MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 10 13.Informational:Health Care Innovation Blueprint ~5:25 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing on A Blueprint for Growing Salt Lake City’s Health Care Innovation Economy,a document produced by the Gardener Institute at the request of the City’s Department of Economic Development.The Blueprint lays out a rationale and strategy for the Department to provide targeted support to businesses in the health care innovation sector and to encourage students to pursue careers in this sector through internships and other opportunities.The briefing will serve as a kind of mid-project review with the Council for the Department,which has requested feedback from the Council. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a Minutes: This item was moved to a future meeting. 14.Resolution:Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds,Community Capital Improvement Projects (Series 2021A and 2021B)Follow-up ~5:55 p.m. 40 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about a resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of up to $58 million for a tax exempt bond and a taxable bond that would fund several community capital improvement projects;giving authority to certain officers to approve the final terms and provisions of the sale within parameters set forth in the resolution;and providing for related matters. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,September 14,2021 and Tuesday,November 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD Minutes: This item was moved to a future meeting. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 11 15.Board Appointment:Art Design Advisory Board –Angela Dean ~6:35 p.m. 5 min. The Council will interview Angela Dean prior to considering appointment to the Art Design Advisory Board for a term ending November 16,2024. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Minutes: Angela Dean was interviewed for the Art Design Advisory Board. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 12 16.Ordinance:Enacting Temporary Zoning Regulations TENTATIVE The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would enact temporary zoning regulations authorizing temporary overflow homeless shelter use at approximately 1659 West North Temple Street. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Minutes: Katherine Lewis gave an overview of the temporary land use process. Councilmember Fowler reviewed the timeline of the process,including reasoning of a public hearing not being scheduled. Nick Tarbet reviewed the potential conditions to consider for the proposed temporary zoning. Laurie Hopkins,Shelter the Homeless,reviewed options for staffing the shelter. Council and Staff discussed the reasoning for the temporary use,how to ensure the shelter would not become permanent,staffing,security,fencing,the impact to the surrounding area, onsite medical services,additional beds,funding,how the City would be notified if the additional beds were needed and language in the proposed motions. The following unanimous straw polls were held: •Support for the language for staffing of 1 staff to 25 clients during peak activity •Support for security services not being counted toward the total staffing of the facility •Support for changing the language to include additional law enforcement agencies non- SLC agencies A straw poll to remove the requirement of 24/7 onsite medical clinic was supported with six votes.Councilmember Valdemoros did not express support. Mayor Mendenhall reviewed the timeline for the request and the need to allocate the funding for the emergency shelter. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 13 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 14 Standing Items 17.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. Minutes: Due to time constraints,this item was not addressed. 18.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director Report of the Executive Director,including a review of Council information items and announcements.The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business,including but not limited to scheduling items. Minutes: A.Reminder -Council School Board Leadership Meeting The Council/School Board leadership is scheduled to meet on Friday,November 19, 2021. Ø Please let Council staff know if you have any topics you wish to have on the agenda for leadership to discuss.Redistricting is a topic that has been suggested by Council staff. Minutes: Due to time constraints,this item was not addressed. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 15 19.Tentative Closed Session The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session.A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including,but not limited to: a.discussion of the character,professional competence,or physical or mental health of an individual; b.strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c.strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d.strategy sessions to discuss the purchase,exchange,or lease of real property,including any form of a water right or water shares,if public discussion of the transaction would: (i)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration;or (ii)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e.strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property,including any form of a water right or water shares,if: (i)public discussion of the transaction would: (A)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration;or (B)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii)the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale;and (iii)the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; f.discussion regarding deployment of security personnel,devices,or systems;and g.investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code §78B-1-137,and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. Minutes: Item not held. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 16 Meeting adjourned at 6:21 pm Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair _______________________________ City Recorder This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript as other items may have been discussed; 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 City Council Work Session meeting held Tuesday,November 16,2021. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 17 PENDING MINUTES –NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,met in Formal Session on Tuesday,November 16,2021 in an Electronic Meeting,pursuant to the Chair’s determination. The following Council Members were present: Victoria Petro-Eschler,Amy Fowler,Dennis Faris,Chris Wharton,Ana Valdemoros,Darin Mano,Daniel Dugan Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Executive Director;Jennifer Bruno,Deputy Director;Lehua Weaver,Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall;Rachel Otto,Chief of Staff;Lisa Shaffer,Chief Administrative Officer Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis –City Attorney,Cindy Lou Trishman –City Recorder,John Rand –SLCTV, Ben Luedtke –Senior Public Policy Analyst,Brian Fullmer –Constituent Liaison,Policy Analyst,Nick Tarbet –Senior Public Policy Analyst,Sylvia Richards –Public Policy Analyst, Michelle Barney –Minutes &Records Clerk Full Meeting Audio Meeting Packet Material Councilmember Fowler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 1 A.LBA OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council/Board Member Amy Fowler will conduct the formal meeting. Minutes: Councilmember Fowler welcomed attendees and began the meeting;she also announced that beginning December 7,2021 the City Council would be hosting hybrid meetings to conduct business. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. Minutes: A moment of silence was held while the American Flag &Pledge were displayed. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. Minutes: Council/Board Member Fowler presented the rules of decorum. B.LBA PUBLIC HEARINGS: MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 2 1 Ordinance:Local Building Authority Budget Amendment No.1 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 The Board will 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 -Refer to motion sheet(s). Minutes: Ben Luedtke reviewed the proposal for Local Building Authority,Budget Amendment No.1 George Chapman commented on the potential use of the bond process for pocket libraries and parks. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan,seconded by Councilmember Faris to close the Public Hearing and refer the item to another meeting. AYE:Victoria Petro-Eschler,Amy Fowler,Dennis Faris,Chris Wharton,Ana Valdemoros, Darin Mano,Daniel Dugan Final Result:7 –0 Pass C.LBA ADJOURNMENT: Minutes: The LBA meeting adjourned at:7:11pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 3 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 recognizing December 1st as World AIDS Day in Salt Lake City. Minutes: Councilmember Fowler read the resolution. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Mano,seconded by Councilmember Wharton to adopt Joint Ceremonial Resolution 44 of 2021 recognizing December 1 as World AIDS Day in Salt Lake City AYE:Victoria Petro-Eschler,Amy Fowler,Dennis Faris,Chris Wharton,Ana Valdemoros, Darin Mano,Daniel Dugan Final Result:7 –0 Pass 2 The Council will consider adopting a joint ceremonial resolution with Mayor Mendenhall declaring November 20th as Transgender Day of Remembrance in Salt Lake City. Minutes: Councilmember Wharton read the resolution. Candice Metzler,Executive Director of Transgender Education Advocates of Utah,gave the history of the Resolution and expressed the importance to host a the day of remembrance. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Mano,seconded by Councilmember Wharton to adopt Joint Ceremonial Resolution 45 of 2021 declaring November 20 as Transgender Day of Remembrance. AYE:Victoria Petro-Eschler,Amy Fowler,Dennis Faris,Chris Wharton,Ana Valdemoros, Darin Mano,Daniel Dugan Final Result:7 –0 Pass E.PUBLIC HEARINGS: MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 4 1.Grant Application:2022 State of Utah Asset Forfeiture Grant – Competitive Program The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Police Department to the State of Utah,Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice.If awarded,this grant would fund an overt pole camera kit,narcan nasal spray,and drug prevention resource cards for the police department. 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 -Tuesday,November 16,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a Staff Recommendation -Close and refer to future consent agenda. Minutes: Sylvia Richards presented the State of Utah Asset Forfeiture Grant. There was no public comment. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan,seconded by Councilmember Faris to close the Public Hearing and refer Item E-1 to a future Concent Agenda for action. AYE:Victoria Petro-Eschler,Amy Fowler,Dennis Faris,Chris Wharton,Ana Valdemoros, Darin Mano,Daniel Dugan Final Result:7 –0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 5 2.Ordinance:Rezone at 1945 South 1300 East The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of property at 1945 South 1300 East from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District)to RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential).The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is intended to accommodate a new multifamily residential development. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics.Petition No.:PLNPCM2020-01022 FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,October 19,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,October 19,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,November 16,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 7,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). Minutes: Brian Fullmer presented the proposal for a Rezone at 1945 South 1300 East. Ervin Stankevitz,Cindy Cromer,Mitchell Rudd,George Chapman, Judi Short,and Scott Cruze spoke in opposition;in summary they stated neighbors were in opposition,the property was in disrepair,proposed zoning was not appropriate,additional units would not benefit the area,housing should be affordable (not market rate),and the proposed change would increase traffic issues. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Mano,seconded by Councilmember Dugan to close the Public Hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. AYE:Victoria Petro-Eschler,Amy Fowler,Dennis Faris,Chris Wharton,Ana Valdemoros, Darin Mano,Daniel Dugan Final Result:7 –0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 6 3.Ordinance:Budget Amendment No.4 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 The Council will 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 -Refer to motion sheet(s). Minutes: Ben Luedtke reviewed Budget Amendment No.4 for Fiscal Year 2021-22. George Chapman commented on police services and park maintenance. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Wharton,seconded by Councilmember Faris to close the public hearing,and adopt Ordinance 65 of 2021 Budget Amendment Part One to the FY2021-22 as listed on the Motion Sheet (excluding item G-5) and further move the Council approve Resolution 46 of 2021 authorizing the grant application for the WaterSMART Reclamation for water and energy efficiency grants for Fiscal Year 2022. Discussion ensued regarding clarification to the motion with reference to the motion sheet. AYE:Victoria Petro-Eschler,Amy Fowler,Dennis Faris,Chris Wharton,Ana Valdemoros, Darin Mano,Daniel Dugan Final Result:7 –0 Pass Motion: Moved by Councilmember Mano,seconded by Councilmember Dugan to MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 7 adopt Item G-5 for Budget Amendment Part One,Ordinance 65 of 2021. AYE:Victoria Petro-Eschler,Amy Fowler,Chris Wharton,Ana Valdemoros,Darin Mano, Daniel Dugan RECUSED:Dennis Faris Final Result:6 –0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 8 F.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1.Ordinance:University Ivory House Zoning Map Amendment The Council will 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). Motion: Moved by Councilmember Mano,seconded by Councilmember Dugan to adopt Ordinance 66 of 2021 for the University Ivory House Zoning Map Amendment. AYE:Victoria Petro-Eschler,Amy Fowler,Dennis Faris,Chris Wharton,Ana Valdemoros,Darin Mano,Daniel Dugan Final Result:7 –0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 9 2.Ordinance:Technology Related Land Use Text Amendments The Council will 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). Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan,seconded by Councilmember Faris to adopt Ordinance 67 of 2021 Amending the City Code regarding MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 10 Technology Related Land Use Text Amendments. AYE:Victoria Petro-Eschler,Amy Fowler,Dennis Faris,Chris Wharton,Ana Valdemoros,Darin Mano,Daniel Dugan Final Result:7 –0 Pass G.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. Minutes: No business related questions were asked. 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.) Minutes: Sarah Balland spoke to the positive reaction regarding the Community Fridge program. Shae Klinghoffer and George Chapman spoke to issues regarding short term rentals and the need for active City enforcement of the zoning regulations. Nigel Swaby,Keiko Jones,Alejandro Puy,Lucy Cardenas,Peter Corroon and George Chapman spoke in opposition to the emergency overflow homeless shelter proposed on North Temple and Redwood Road.Comments included concern for the adjoining restaurant,mitigation for businesses in the area,need for additional support to shoulder the burden of housing the homeless, consideration of use of drug dogs in shelters,and more mitigation for the impact of the proposed overflow shelter location. Jean Hill thanked the City and neighborhood for supporting the overflow shelter. She stated they looked forward to working with the neighbors if the shelter was approved. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 11 H.NEW BUSINESS: 1.Ordinance:Enacting Temporary Zoning Regulations The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would enact temporary zoning regulations authorizing temporary overflow homeless shelter use at approximately 1659 West North Temple Street. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Staff Recommendation -Suspend the rules and consider motions. Minutes: Councilmember Petro-Eschler read a statement regarding the negative affects the overflow shelter would have on the North Temple area,reviewed the current issues in the area,the need to stop housing difficulties on the westside,concerns the shelter would not be temporary,the treatment the westside of Salt Lake received when issues with homelessness had come up in recent years,and a plea to the City Council to make better decisions for the westside community. Councilmember Wharton agreed with public sentiments and expressed the difficulty to vote for the proposal however,the need for a homeless shelter was the real issue.He stated he did not like the process,but people could not freeze on the streets of the City.He added the City stepped up every year because they saw the value in saving lives.He said the public was heard (not being ignored)and the contingencies put in place by the ordinance would help mitigation issues and in the end it was a life and death decision. Councilmember Valdemoros read from a statement regarding the amount of time the Council has spent working to resolve homelessness issues in the City,stating she found it insulting the providers would not approach other cities to help with the homeless population.She added the lack of support from other cities pushed Salt Lake City into a corner and it suggested the City did not have the same economic issues.Further,she stated the issue at hand was not fair to Salt Lake City,the mitigations were not enough and MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 12 she struggled to support the proposal.She asked the Council to find a way to shift the responsibility to other cities and counties throughout the state and not put Salt Lake City in the same position next year. Councilmember Mano stated he agreed the placement was difficult,but the need outweighed the negative.He stated he was prepared to support the location of the shelter but not to fund the shelter as it should be funded on a state level.Councilmember Mano stated City funds should be used to mitigate the effects on businesses and enforcement for policing the shelter. Councilmember Faris reviewed an article from the Deseret News in 1996 regarding a winter overflow shelter and stated the issue had been ongoing for decades and a viable solution was needed.He stated progress had been made in the last three years,but not enough,recalling the meetings he attended with westside residents to assist with homeless issues in that area.Further,he expressed concern about the emergency calls in the general area,and the consideration of 24-hour policing to lessen the number of calls to the temporary shelter.He concluded that due to the lives that were on the line,he had to support the motion. Councilmember Dugan stated it was a hard decision that impacted everyone in the City,but the Council worked from the heart and needed to take care of these individuals. He added that Salt Lake City needed to be a leader on how to help the homeless in the state and approve the motion. Councilmember Fowler recognized Mayor Mendenhall,inviting her to share her thoughts prior to the vote. Mayor Mendenhall thanked the Council for allowing her to speak.She agreed it was the responsibility of every City/County in the state to help with housing the homeless.She explained when she proposed the moratorium for homeless shelters she left the temporary use open just in case an issue such as this arose and reviewed how the shelter location was chosen.She expressed frustration with the lack of support from surrounding cities, counties,and the state in assisting with housing the homeless;however,because there was no where for these individuals to be out of the weather,she was thankful for the City Council stepping up to save lives.She reviewed the request,the unfair advantage Salt Lake was given when the site was chosen,the mitigation funding the City would receive,and the importance to not be in the same position in 12 months. Councilmember Fowler stated she agreed with the comments from the City Council and reviewed her statements from three years ago regarding the need to ensure the City was not put in the same position to bear the burden of housing the homeless.She stated it felt like the City’s compassion was taken advantage of.She reviewed the reason a public hearing was not held,the discussion that was held regarding the shelter,and the work being done in the background to try and mitigate the impacts.Further,she stated it was not taken lightly,reviewed her experiences working with the homeless,and how she could not imagine not having a warm place to stay.She called on other counties,cities,and the state to step up and show their compassion as well,and thanked the Council for their hard MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 13 work,recognizing the Council’s reaction showed what an emotional toll the decision was taking on them individually. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan,seconded by Councilmember Wharton to adopt Ordinance 68 of 2021 enacting temporary zoning regulations authorizing a temporary overflow homeless shelter use at approximately 1659 West North Temple Street,subject to a restriction that the temporary certificate of occupancy is not issued until: ·A perimeter fence around the building is completed;also ·The security and operations plan has been submitted to the City I further move the Salt Lake City Police Department work with other law enforcement agencies to develop a collaborative plan to provide public safety services in the area surrounding the temporary shelter. I further move that,to the extent possible,the Administration utilize the resources of the Salt Lake City Economic Development Department to work with businesses in the immediate area to help mitigate the impact to them from the temporary shelter. I further move the Council initiate a legislative action asking the Administration review and come back with recommendations for prohibiting temporary shelters until other jurisdictions in Salt Lake County permit them. AYE:Amy Fowler,Dennis Faris,Chris Wharton,Darin Mano,Daniel Dugan NAY:Victoria Petro-Eschler,Ana Valdemoros Final Result:5 –2 Pass I.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 14 1.Resolutions:Designating the Central Business Improvement Assessment Area and to Appoint a Board of Equalization The Council will consider adopting two resolutions:one designating an assessment area to be known as the Salt Lake City,Utah Central Business Improvement Assessment Area No.DA-CBIA22,as described in the Notice of Intention to Designate Assessment Area,to proceed with the implementation of the economic promotion activities;and the other appointing a Board of Equalization to hear and consider objections and corrections to proposed assessments and any arguments from persons claiming to be aggrieved;setting dates for when the Board of Equalization will meet;and authorizing and directing the City Recorder to provide a Notice of Assessment and Board of Equalization Hearings. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,July 13,2021 and Tuesday,November 16,2021 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 15 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,July 20,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,September 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). Minutes: Cindy Lou Trishman read the following statement: The City Recorder’s office was open to receive protests during the outlined period and received one protest.The percentage of commercial taxable properties that protested was 0.02%. As the sum total of protests does not account for more than 40%of the commercial taxable property or 40%of the property owner’s total linear footage,the City Council may proceed with the designation of the Central Business Improvement Area if so determined. In addition to this information,The Recorder’s office has coordinated with necessary parties to update the motion for the creation of the Board of Equalization Motion to include the appointment of specific City Council staff to attend on behalf of the Council if Council Members are unavailable at the designated Board of Equalization meetings listed in the resolution. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan,seconded by Councilmember Mano to adopt Resolution 47 of 2021 designating an assessment area to be known as the Salt Lake City,Utah Central Business Improvement Assessment Area No. DA-CBIA-22,as described in the Notice of Intention to Designate Assessment Area (the “Notice of Intention”);Authorizing City Officials to proceed with the implementation of the economic promotion activities as described in the Notice of Intention;and related matters. and adopt Resolution 48 of 2021 appointing a Board of Equalization for the Salt Lake City,Utah Central Business Improvement Assessment Area No.DA- CBIA-22,including the appointment of Jennifer Bruno,Ben Luedtke,or Nick Tarbet as Council representatives as needed;setting the dates for the Board of Equalization to hear and consider objections and corrections to any proposed assessments,and any arguments from persons claiming to be aggrieved;authorizing the City Recorder to publish and mail a Notice of Assessment and Board of Equalization Hearings;and related matters. AYE:Victoria Petro-Eschler,Amy Fowler,Dennis Faris,Chris Wharton,Ana Valdemoros, Darin Mano,Daniel Dugan Final Result:7 –0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 16 2.Resolution:Master Lease Agreement -JP Morgan Chase Bank The Council will consider adopting a resolution that would authorize the approval of a Municipal Master Lease Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and JP Morgan Chase Bank,N.A.regarding vehicle leasing and purchasing services. The City may enter into lease agreements up to $7M,not to exceed an aggregate of $35M over the five-year term of the agreement. 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 16,2021 Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan,seconded by Councilmember Mano to approve Resolution 49 of 2021 authorizing a master lease agreement between the City and JP Morgan Chase Bank for vehicle leasing and purchasing services. AYE:Victoria Petro-Eschler,Amy Fowler,Dennis Faris,Chris Wharton,Ana Valdemoros, Darin Mano,Daniel Dugan Final Result:7 –0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 17 J.CONSENT: 1.Ordinance:Significant Water Consuming Land Uses Zoning Text Amendment The Council will set the date of Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m.to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning ordinance related to limit the amount of City culinary water that commercial and industrial land uses can utilize.The zoning amendment would implement a 300,000-gallon a day limit for commercial and industrial land uses.The limit affects multiple zones and multiple land uses citywide.The ordinance also amends and clarifies the definitions of related land use terms currently there is a 6-month temporary ordinance (“pending ordinance”or moratorium)in effect that mirrors the proposed water use restrictions in the ordinance,but will expire on January 4, 2022.Petition No.:PLNPCM2021-00635 FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD Staff Recommendation -Set date. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 18 2.Ordinance:Master Plan Amendment and Rezone at 129 South 700 East and 758 East Bueno Avenue The Council will set the date of Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m.to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of properties at 724,728,732,738,744,750 and 754 East Bueno Avenue from SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential District)to RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District).The applicant is proposing to amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map for the aforementioned properties from Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential.The project proposes to consolidate 10 parcels and replace the existing structures with two buildings:a single-story amenity building fronting 700 East and a 4-story rooming (boarding)house on the interior of the site.The rooming house would consist of 65 units ranging from 1 bedroom to 4-bedroom units.Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics.Petition No.:PLNPCM2021-00048 and PLNPCM2021-00047 FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 14,2021 Staff Recommendation -Set date. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 19 3.Ordinance:Rezone at Redwood Road and Indiana Avenue The Council will set the date of Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m.to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of the properties at approximately 835 South Redwood Road and 1668 West Indiana Avenue from R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District)to R-MU-45 (Residential/Mixed Use District).The property at 1668 W Indiana currently contains an individual single-family dwelling while the other property is vacant. No specific site development proposal has been submitted at this time.The change is consistent with changes identified in the Westside Master Plan which identified the intersection of Redwood and Indiana as the location of a future Community Node.The Master Plan is not being changed.Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No.:PLNPCM2021-00249 FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD Staff Recommendation -Set date. 4.Ordinance:Alley Vacation at 1200 Block of Kensington and Bryan Avenues The Council will set the date of Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m.to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would vacate a portion of City-owned alley situated in the 1200 block of East Kensington and Bryan Avenues that runs east to west from 1300 East to the McClelland Trail.The intent of the request is to incorporate the unused alley into the adjacent properties. Petition No.:PLNPCM2021-00413 FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 14,2021 Staff Recommendation -Set date. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 20 5.Ordinance:Columbus Street Alley Vacation North of Victory Road The Council will set the date of Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m.to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would vacate a portion of City-owned alley situated adjacent to properties at 583,585,589 and 595 North Columbus Street;and 590 North Victory Road.The proposal is to vacate this remaining alley segment and incorporate the vacant land into the neighboring properties.The total area of the proposed vacation is approximately 2750 square feet.Petition No.:PLNPCM2020-00564 FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 14,2021 Staff Recommendation -Set date. 6.Ordinance:Allowing Commercial Uses on Rooftops which Exceed 2 Stories The Council will set the date of Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m.to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the FB-SE (Form Based Special Purpose Corridor Edge Subdistrict)zoning district to allow for rooftop commercial uses above the second story,subject to meeting a height of 30-feet.The proposed amendment affects section 21A.27.040.D FB-SE Building Form Standards.All properties,citywide,in the FB-SE (Form Based Special Purpose Corridor Edge Subdistrict)would be impacted.The FB-SE zone currently limits commercial or nonresidential uses to first two stories and a height of 30 feet.Related provisions of Title 21A Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition.Petition No.:PLNPCM2021-00431 FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD Staff Recommendation -Set date. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 21 7.Motion:Set date -City Consent to Sublease at The Leonardo The Council will set the date of Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment and consider approving sublease arrangements at The Leonardo, so long as sublease arrangements comply with the purpose of the outstanding bonds,use of the property,provide for collaboration on programs,enhance the mission and operations of The Leonardo. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD Staff Recommendation -Set date. 8.Board Appointment:Art Design Advisory Board –Angela Dean The Council will consider approving the appointment of Angela Dean to the Art Design Advisory Board for a term ending November 16,2024. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,November 16,2021 Staff Recommendation -Approve. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan,seconded by Councilmember Wharton to approve the Consent Agenda for November 16,2021. AYE:Victoria Petro-Eschler,Amy Fowler,Dennis Faris,Chris Wharton,Ana Valdemoros, Darin Mano,Daniel Dugan Final Result:7 –0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 22 K.ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Moved by Councilmember Wharton,seconded by Councilmember Dugan to to adjourn. AYE:Victoria Petro-Eschler,Amy Fowler,Dennis Faris,Chris Wharton,Ana Valdemoros,Darin Mano, Daniel Dugan Final Result:7 –0 Pass Meeting adjourned at 8:56 pm Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair _______________________________ City Recorder This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript as other items may have been discussed;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 City Council Formal meeting held Tuesday,November 16,2021. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday,November 16,2021 23 Item E1-E7 Page 1 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:December 7, 2021 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items E-1 through E-7 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: Public Hearing: Dec. 7, 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:December 7, 2021 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT APPLICATION SUBMISSION PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: Not required. Set Date: Not required. Public Hearing: Dec. 7, 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. 1.Granary District Flood Plain Mitigation and Re-mapping – COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant Program Purpose/Goal of the Grant: If awarded, the grant monies will be used to fund the Granary District Flood Plain Mitigation and Re-Mapping project, which will propose infrastructure improvements to the City’s stormwater system to mitigate the flood risk for at least 1,182 properties that are partially or completely within the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) designated 750-acre Flood Hazard Area. The transmittal indicates that the FEMA Flood Zone Area is concentrated in the Granary District and along the adjacent stretch of the Jordan River. Salt Lake County Flood Control will permit the project and oversee compliance with local laws and regulations. Grant Amount: $11,450,000 Requested by: Department of Public Utilities Funding Agency: Utah Governor’s Office for Policy and Budget, in collaboration with the Salt Lake County Public Works, Flood Control Match Requirement: $2,000,000 – Sources: The City has identified $2 million from the Page | 2 first portion of its American Rescue Act State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds to direct toward the project to increase the competitiveness of the application. Questions from Council staff and responses from the Administration: a.Could you please provide the boundaries of the area that would be eligible for flood mitigation improvements? This is a large scale capital project encompassing 5700 acres, 1,182 parcels, and is bounded to the north and south by 600 South and 2100 South, and to the west and east by the Jordan River and 1400 East. A project area map is included in the grant application and could be provided if helpful. The capital improvements are needed in order to remap the flood hazard area. b.How does remapping FEMA’s flood hazard area benefit the City and residents? For example, would a property owner be removed from the flood hazard area so they are not required to have flood insurance? The FEMA flood hazard rating limits the types of development that can happen within hazard areas, therefore placing limits and additional requirements on new housing and other initiatives important for the City and its residents. This would also avert flooding risk and reduce the flood insurance requirement. Another benefit of the project would be water quality improvement in the Jordan River, an important public health and regulatory benefit to the City and its residents. 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 – Granary District Flood Plain Mitigation and Re- Mapping FUNDING AGENCY: Utah Governor’s Office for Policy & Budget GRANT PROGRAM: COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant Program REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $11,450,000 DEPARTMENT: Department of Public Utilities COLLABORATING AGENCIES: Salt Lake County Public Works – Flood Control 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 $11,450,000 for the Granary District Flood Plain Mitigation and Re-Mapping project.  The project propose infrastructure improvements to the City’ stormwater system to mitigate the flood risk for at least 1,182 properties that are partially or completely within the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) designated 750-acre Flood Hazard Area.  The FEMA Flood Zone Area is concentrated in the Granary District and along the adjacent stretch of the Jordan River.  Salt Lake County Flood Control will permit the project and oversee compliance with local laws and regulations  Salt Lake City identified $2 million from the first tranche of its American Rescue Plan Act State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds that it is prepared to direct toward the project to increase the competitiveness of the application. Item E1-E7 Page 1 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:December 7, 2021 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items E-1 through E-7 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: Public Hearing: Dec. 7, 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:December 7, 2021 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT APPLICATION SUBMISSION PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: Not required. Set Date: Not required. Public Hearing: Dec. 7, 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, which is a sub-project of the Water Reclamation Facility, and replaces 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. Questions: Page | 2 a.If available, please provide a current list showing the planned utility revenue bond money uses/totals to date. The total utility revenue bonding planned for the Water Reclamation Facility is $363 million. The Series 2020 Bond included $106 million for this project and the current available balance of construction funds is $37 million. The balance of bonding is anticipated to be issued as follows: FY2022 $123 million, FY2023 $88 million, and FY2024 $46 million. This project specific bonding is part of Public Utilities overall long term debt plan anticipating the issuance of revenue bonds of approximately $503 million over the next seven years to fund Public Utilities capital improvement program. b.Does this project use all of the Federal Water Infrastructure Financing & Innovation Act funding or is there additional funding available for other related projects? The federal WIFIA funding is a low interest loan that has already been secured, is project specific, and may only be used on the new Water Reclamation Facility. Public Utilities has been evaluating the readiness of other water, sewer, and stormwater capital projects for potential future WIFIA applications, including master plan projects and aging infrastructure rehabilitation. We have several projects in design that would likely be ripe for additional WIFIA loans in the next one to two years. Public Utilities is also very interested in pursuing additional grant funding for future projects to reduce the burden of long term debt to the City and its residents – some of this funding may be available in the future as part of the federal infrastructure investment bills. 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. Item E1-E7 Page 1 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:December 7, 2021 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items E-1 through E-7 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: Public Hearing: Dec. 7, 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:December 7, 2021 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT APPLICATION SUBMISSION PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: Not required. Set Date: Not required. Public Hearing: Dec. 7, 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. 3.Point Hotel – COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant Program Purpose/Goal of the Grant: If awarded, the grant monies will be used to assist with the change of use for the existing Airport Inn Hotel to the Point Hotel, which will be 100 units of extended stay for adults over 55 years of age and veterans experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Friends of Switchpoint, a 501c(3) non-profit will own and operate the Point Hotel. Grant Amount: $3,000,000 Requested by: Office of the Mayor Funding Agency: Utah Governor’s Office for Policy and Budget Match Requirement: $2,250,000 The City committed this amount for the project to increase the competitiveness of the application. Sources: $2 million from the City’s General Fund approved in Budget Amendment No. 8 FY2020-21, and $250,000 from Friends of Switchpoint for renovation and remodeling of the facility. Question: If this grant is awarded, then is the Airport Inn purchase and renovation fully funded? If not, what would be the remaining funding gap? Page | 2 Switchpoint reports that if the full grant is awarded, they will still have a remaining funding gap of $1 million. They have already submitted other private funding requests and would continue to work to fill the gap through private fundraising. 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, Andrew Johnston, Jaysen Oldroyd, Melyn Osmond, Recorders (All), Sylvia Richards, Linda Sanchez, Jordan Smith, Lehua Weaver FROM: Elizabeth Gerhart eg DATE: September 17, 2021 SUBJECT: COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant Program – Point Hotel FUNDING AGENCY: Utah Governor’s Office for Policy & Budget GRANT PROGRAM: COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant Program REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $3,000,000 DEPARTMENT: Office of the Mayor COLLABORATING AGENCIES: Friends of Switchpoint 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:  The Mayor’s Office requested $3,000,000 for the Point Hotel project.  The project proposes to change the ownership and repurposes the use of the existing Airport Inn from a traditional hotel to approximately 100 units of extended stay housing for adults over 55 years of age and veterans experiencing or at risk of homelessness.  The 501c(3) non-profit, Friends of Switchpoint, will own and operate the Point Hotel.  Salt Lake City committed a $2,250,000 match for the project to increase the competitiveness of the application. The sources of the match funds are: − $2,000,000 from Salt Lake City General Fund approved in Budget Amendment No 8. FY2020-2021 − $250,000 from the Friends of Switchpoint for renovation and remodeling to the facility Item E1-E7 Page 1 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:December 7, 2021 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items E-1 through E-7 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: Public Hearing: Dec. 7, 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: December 7, 2021 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT APPLICATION SUBMISSION PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: Not required. Set Date: Not required. Public Hearing: Dec. 7, 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. 4.Foothills Natural Area & Bonneville Shoreline Trailhead Infrastructure Improvements Purpose/Goal of the Grant: If awarded, the grant monies will be used to fund infrastructure improvements at the Foothills Natural Area and Bonneville Shoreline Trailhead. The proposal includes the construction of five public access trailheads at the following locations: 1) Bonneville Boulevard near City Creek Canyon and Utah State Capitol, 2) Emigration Canyon near This Is The Place Heritage Park, 3) Popperton Park near the University of Utah, and 4) 18th Avenue in the upper Avenues neighborhood, and 5) Victory Road northwest of the Utah State Capitol. Grant Amount: $1,304,682 Requested by: Department of Public Lands Funding Agency: Utah Office of Outdoor Recreation, Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity, in collaboration with Utah State Parks Match Requirement: $1,304,682 – Source: Parks Impact Fees adopted in FY2022 Capital Improvement Program for the Foothills Trailhead Development Phase II. Page | 2 Note: The Administration indicates that if the grant request is not selected for funding, then the Department of Public Lands will expense the $1,304,680 adopted in the FY2022 Capital Improvement Program for the Foothills Trailhead Development Phase II to construct the Bonneville Boulevard and Emigration Canyon trailheads (the first two trailheads listed above). 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, Jaysen Oldroyd, Melyn Osmond, Sylvia Richards, Kristen Riker, Linda Sanchez, SLCRecorder, Jordan Smith, Lehua Weaver FROM: Elizabeth Gerhart eg DATE: September 17, 2021 SUBJECT: Foothills Natural Area & Bonneville Shoreline Trailhead Infrastructure Improvements FUNDING AGENCY: Utah Office of Outdoor Recreation | Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity GRANT PROGRAM: Bonneville Shoreline Trail Grant REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $1,304,682 DEPARTMENT: Department of Public Lands COLLABORATING AGENCIES: Utah State Parks DATE SUBMITTED: August 30, 2021 SPECIFICS: □ Equipment/Supplies Only □ Technical Assistance □ Provides FTE □ Existing □ New □ Overtime □ Requires Funding After Grant Explanation:  Match Required $1,304,682 □ In-Kind and  Cash GRANT DETAILS:  Salt Lake City Department of Public Lands requested $1,304,682 for the Foothills Natural Area & Bonneville Shoreline Trailhead Infrastructure Improvements.  The project proposes to construct five public access trailheads along the stretch of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail that runs through the Salt Lake City foothills between Emigration Canyon and Davis County.  Proposed trailhead locations are: 1) Bonneville Boulevard near City Creek Canyon and Utah State Capitol, 2) Emigration Canyon near This Is The Place Heritage Park, 3) Popperton Park near the University of Utah, 4) 18th Avenue in the upper Avenues neighborhood, and 5) Victory Road northwest of the Utah State Capitol.  The $1,304,680 matching funds is from parks impact fees adopted in FY 2022 Capital Improvement Program for the Foothills Trailhead Development Phase II.  If the grant request is not selected for funding, then the Department of Public Lands will expense the $1,304,680 adopted in the FY2022 Capital Improvement Program for the Foothills Trailhead Development Phase II to construct the Bonneville Boulevard and Emigration Canyon trailheads. Item E1-E7 Page 1 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:December 7, 2021 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items E-1 through E-7 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: Public Hearing: Dec. 7, 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:December 7, 2021 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT APPLICATION SUBMISSION PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: Not required. Set Date: Not required. Public Hearing: Dec. 7, 2021 Potential Action: TBD Council Sponsor: No sponsor / Budget item _________________________________________________________________ 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. 5.Utah Railroad Safety Grant 2021 Round 2 Purpose/Goal of the Grant: If awarded, the grant monies will be used to fund safety improvements to the Union Pacific railroad crossing at 4900 West and 700 South. The Salt Lake City Division of Engineering and Union Pacific Railroad are collaborating on the upgrades. To date, $139,750 is secured for the project; $53,000 from FY2020 CIP, and $86,750 from Round 1 of the 2021 Utah Railroad Safety Grant. Grant Amount: $260,250 Requested by: Department of Public Services, Division of Engineering Funding Agency: Utah Department of Transportation Match Requirement: - 0 – Questions a.What is the total cost of the project? Please identify any additional funding sources. Total cost is estimated at $3.5 million for the last section of 700 South. Safety grant funds, Impact Fees and Class C funds are anticipated to be used for this last section. Page | 2 b.Is a new bridge at approximately 4900 West from 500 South to 700 South still part of the City’s plans for the intersection? If yes, how does this project and the new bridge relate? | A viaduct bridge is no longer being considered. With the creation of the Inland Port, the previous administration determined they should be responsible for the viaduct costs. Staff has worked with Union Pacific to come to an approved crossing of 700 South across their tracks. In the last year, Union Pacific has finally given the City the approval to modify and construct an at grade crossing, which is where these funds will be used. 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, Matt Cassel, Jaysen Oldroyd, Melyn Osmond, Sylvia Richards, Linda Sanchez, Recorders (All), Jordan Smith, Lorna Vogt, Lehua Weaver FROM: Elizabeth Gerhart eg DATE: September 17, 2021 SUBJECT: Utah Railroad Safety Grant 2021 Round 2 FUNDING AGENCY: Utah Department of Transportation GRANT PROGRAM: Utah Railroad Safety Grant 2021 Round 2 REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $260,250 DEPARTMENT: Department of Public Services | Division of Engineering COLLABORATING AGENCIES: Union Pacific Railroad DATE SUBMITTED: August 25, 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 Division of Engineering requested $260,250 for safety improvements to the Union Pacific Railroad crossing at 4900 West 700 South.  Salt Lake City Division of Engineering and Union Pacific Railroad are collaborating to implement the safety upgrades proposed for this funding.  To date, $139,750 is secured for the project; $53,000 through Capital Improvement Program FY 2020 and $86,750 awarded in the Utah Railroad Safety Grants 2021 Round 1. Item E1-E7 Page 1 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:December 7, 2021 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items E-1 through E-7 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: Public Hearing: Dec. 7, 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:December 7, 2021 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT APPLICATION SUBMISSION PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: Not required. Set Date: Not required. Public Hearing: Dec. 7, 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. 6.800 East Neighborhood Byway (1300 South to 1700 South) – FY2022 Region Two Transportation Alternative Program Grant Purpose/Goal of the Grant: If awarded, the grant monies will be used to fund the construction of pedestrian and bicycle-activated crossings, traffic circles, bulb-out curb extensions and neighborhood byway-branded signage on 800 East from 1300 South to 1700 South. Grant Amount: $100,000 Requested by: Department of Community & Neighborhoods, Division of Transportation Funding Agency: Utah Department of Transportation Match Requirement: $171,000 – Source: FY2021-22 Adopted Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funding for Neighborhood Byways Question There’s a neighborhood byway on 600 East from South Temple to 2700 South. Why is another neighborhood byway on 800 East needed two blocks away from the existing one? When people are walking or biking, they are particularly sensitive to out of direction travel, Page | 2 especially if they have to cross a busy street, such as 700 East. This is why the Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan calls for a well-connected grid of byways, bike lanes, and trails. 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, Orion Goff, Jon Larsen, Jaysen Oldroyd, Melyn Osmond, Recorders (All), Sylvia Richards, Linda Sanchez, Jordan Smith, Blake Thomas, Lehua Weaver FROM: Elizabeth Gerhart eg DATE: September 17, 2021 SUBJECT: Region Two Transportation Alternative Program FY 2022 – 800 East Neighborhood Byway FUNDING AGENCY: Utah Department of Transportation GRANT PROGRAM: Region Two Transportation Alternative Program FY 2022 REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $100,000 DEPARTMENT: Department of Community & Neighborhoods | Division of Transportation COLLABORATING AGENCIES: None DATE SUBMITTED: September 13, 2021 SPECIFICS: □ Equipment/Supplies Only □ Technical Assistance □ Provides FTE □ Existing □ New □ Overtime □ Requires Funding After Grant Explanation:  Match Required $171,000 □ In-Kind and  Cash GRANT DETAILS:  Salt Lake City Division of Transportation requested $100,000 for the 800 East Neighborhood Byway.  The project proposes the construction of pedestrian and bicycle-activated crossings, traffic circles, bulb-out curb extensions, and neighborhood byway-branded signage on 800 East from 1300 South to 1700 South.  The Division of Transportation committed a $171,000 match sourced from the adopted Capital Improvement Program FY 2021-2022 for Neighborhood Byways. Item E1-E7 Page 1 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:December 7, 2021 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items E-1 through E-7 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: Public Hearing: Dec. 7, 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:December 7, 2021 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT APPLICATION SUBMISSION PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: Not required. Set Date: Not required. Public Hearing: Dec. 7, 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. 7. Solar Energy Innovation Network Round 3 Multi-Stakeholder Team – Driving Resilient and Economic Commercial Solar and Storage in Underserved Communities Grant Purpose/Goal of the Grant: If awarded, the grant monies will be used to support efforts to increase acceptance and use of commercial solar and/or storage in underserved communities through involvement from stakeholders, community listening sessions, three to five solar and storage benefit case studies, and culturally relevant outreach tools and resources that address solar market barriers. Grant Amount: $166,979 Requested by: Department of Sustainability Funding Agency: Centro Civico Mexicano, Intermountain Healthcare, McKinstry, Rocky Mountain Power, Suazo Business Center, Utah Black Chamber, Utah Clean Energy, Utah Division of Multicultural Affairs, Utah Office of Energy Development, and Zion’s Bank Match Requirement: - 0 - The Administration indicates that funds will be allocated as follows: Page | 2 Travel $3,582 Three trips to Golden, Colorado for Team Lead (Senior Energy & Climate Program Manager) to participate in SEIN-hosted cohort peer exchange working sessions and symposium.Contractual $163,397 Subrecipient contract to facilitate stakeholder convenings, guide case study assessments, and develop solar/storage resources, outreach materials, and deliverables.Total $166,979 Questions a.On which areas/neighborhoods of the City will this effort focus? Poplar Grove, Rio Grande/Downtown, and Rose Park neighborhoods in Salt Lake City. b.Do the case studies mean three to five property owners would receive solar panels and storage batteries? Could you please elaborate on what outcomes the case studies will produce? No, the case studies are not solar panels and batteries; rather the case studies will be assessments of projected bill savings, payback, and resilience benefits of solar and storage for three to five commercial entities that are representative of the target community; for example, businesses could include a small grocery store, warehouse, office, and community center. If an assessed organization wants to proceed with solar and/or a battery, the project team would help assist the organization with completing solar/storage incentive applications. Assessment results and tools for completing an evaluation of the economic and resilience benefits of commercial solar and resources that address community-identified needs will be published on Utah Clean Energy’s “Energy Hub” website in Spanish and English. 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, Debbie Lyons, Jaysen Oldroyd, Melyn Osmond, Sylvia Richards, Linda Sanchez, Recorders (All), Jordan Smith, Lehua Weaver FROM: Elizabeth Gerhart eg DATE: October 6, 2021 SUBJECT: Solar Energy Innovation Network Round 3 Multi-Stakeholder Team – Driving Resilient and Economic Commercial Solar and Storage in Underserved Communities FUNDING AGENCY: National Renewal Energy Laboratory GRANT PROGRAM: Solar Energy Innovation Network (SEIN) Round 3 Multi-Stakeholder Team REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $166,979 DEPARTMENT: Department of Sustainability COLLABORATING AGENCIES: Centro Civico Mexicano, Intermountain Healthcare, McKinstry, Rocky Mountain Power, Suazo Business Center, Utah Black Chamber, Utah Clean Energy, Utah Division of Multicultural Affairs, Utah Office of Energy Development, Zion’s Bank DATE SUBMITTED: September 30, 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:  Department of Sustainability requested $166,979 for Driving Resilient and Economic Commercial Solar and Storage in Underserved Communities.  The project aims to increase uptake of commercial solar and/or storage in underserved communities through involvement from trusted stakeholders, community listening sessions, three to five solar and storage benefit case studies, and culturally relevant outreach tools and resources that address solar PV market barriers.  The requested grant funds are allocated as follows. Travel $3,582 Three trips to Golden, Colorado for Team Lead (Senior Energy & Climate Program Manager) to participate in SEIN-hosted cohort peer exchange workings sessions and symposium. Contractual $163,397 Subrecipient contract to facilitate stakeholder convenings, guide case study assessments, and develop solar/storage resources, outreach materials, and deliverables. Total $166,979 Item E8 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:December 7, 2021 RE: Text Amendment: Significant Water Consuming Land Uses PLNPCM2021-00638 MOTION 1 – close and defer I move the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 – continue I move the council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. MOTION 3 – close and adopt I move the Council close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance. MOTION 4 – close and reject I move the Council close the public hearing and reject the ordinance. … See the next page for more motions. MOTION 5 - close and adopt with changes Council Members would choose one of the following maximum daily limits I move the Council close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance with the following change to the final draft: Any new commercial or industrial land use that consumes or uses more than an annual average of [200,000 / 175,000] gallons of potable water per day is prohibited. I further move the Council initiate a legislative action requesting the Administration review and research potential amendments to the City’s water conservation policies and come back to the Council with recommendations for ordinance changes. Potential polices could include but would not be limited to: additional zoning amendments, rate structure changes, or review of supply/demand studies to evaluate conservation needs. I further move the Council initiate a legislative intent, requesting the Administration work with the parties under the existing development agreements in the NWQ to commit to adhering to this water use restriction ordinance because the City believes it is a safety code that is required to meet legitimate concerns regarding public health, safety, and welfare. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst DATE: December 7, 2021 RE:Text Amendment: Significant Water Consuming Land Uses PLNPCM2021-00638 PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: November 16, 2021 Set Date: November 16, 2021 Public Hearing: Dec 7, 2021 Potential Action: Dec 7 or 14 2021 Work Session Briefing The Council asked questions about how the limit of 300,000 gallons per day was chosen and if it would be possible to lower per day usage to something else such as to 200,00, 175,000 or 150,000 gallons per day. Administrative Staff responded they felt the 300,000 gallons per day was an achievable balance that is in line with the city’s long-term supply and demand studies. However, other policies could also be considered that would encourage saving water. The Administration also noted that currently, only 5 land use types in the city use more than 200,000 gallons per day. Council Member Dugan asked staff to include an option in the adopting motion sheet for the Council to consider lowering the allowed per day usage to either 200,000, 175,000 or 150,000 gallons per day. Another question was raised about the zoning changes applying to the NWQ development agreement properties. Since those properties are under a development agreement that vests them in 2018 zoning ordinance, the proposed changes will not apply to those properties. Some Council Members have expressed interested to work with the property owners to hopefully include these zoning amendments in that area. Page | 2 With these conversations in mind, staff included some addition legislative intents to the motion sheet the Council may consider. 1. Request the Administration review and research potential water conservation policies and come back to the Council with recommendations for ordinances changes. Potential polices could include but would not be limited to: additional zoning amendments, rate structure changes, or review of supply/demand studies to evaluate conservation needs. This review would go beyond the City’s planning role into its other functions. 2. Request the Administration work with the parties under the existing development agreements in the NWQ to commit to adhering to this water use restriction ordinance because the City believes it is a safety code that is required to meet legitimate concerns regarding public health, safety, and welfare. The public hearing was scheduled for December 7, 2021. The following information was provided for the November 16 work session briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would limit the amount of City culinary water that commercial and industrial land uses can utilize. The zoning amendment would implement a 300,000- gallon a day limit for commercial and industrial land uses. The limit affects multiple zones and multiple land uses citywide. The ordinance also amends and clarifies the definitions of related land use terms. This petition was initiated by the Mayor on June 6, 2021. On July 8, the City imposed temporary zoning regulations that prohibited new or expanding land uses that use more than 300,000 gallons per day. This was done through the “pending ordinance” rule, established by Utah Code (10-9a-509), which allows prohibiting certain uses for 180 days. The pending ordinance expires on January 4, 2022. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the proposal on September 22, 2021 and voted to forward a unanimous positive recommendation to the City Council. POLICY QUESTIONS The Council may wish to request the administration discuss in depth how they determined the 300,00 gallons per day limit was appropriate and if a lower the maximum allowable usage per day was considered. The staff report notes that most of the properties in the northwest quadrant, north of I-80 would be exempt from this change because the development agreement between the property owners and the City vests them in 2018 zoning ordinance. See Attachment A -Planning Commission Staff Report Map Page | 3 o The Council may wish to further discuss this with the administration, specifically to clarify which properties are exempt from these proposed changes. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The water use limit is intended to preserve City water resources in the long term, while at the same time allowing for the City’s continued economic development. Agricultural, institutional, and residential uses are exempted from the ordinance, as they generally would not reach the water use threshold and in the very limited cases where such uses may potentially exceed the threshold, they provide other public good or health benefits that warrant exemption, such as public recreational space. The Transmittal letter note there are currently two uses in the City that exceed the threshold, the University of Utah and a refinery. Both uses have full or partial exemptions from compliance with City zoning regulations due to other State or Federal regulations. All other commercial and industrial uses in the City currently use less than the proposed 300,000-gallon per day limit. There are only two existing businesses that currently exceed 200,000-gallons per day. The City is aware of at least one bottling plant use currently in the process of obtaining City permits that may exceed the 300,000-gallon limit. (Transmittal Letter, Page 2). That business already applied for a building permit prior to the Mayor’s petition so it would not be affected by the proposed changes as it is vested. KEY CHANGES (Planning Commission Staff Report, Page 2) Implements a water use limit on commercial and industrial land uses 300,000-gallons/day Clarifies definition of bottling plant to cover bottling of beverages in any form, including bottles, cans, or any other container. Defines the terms water use report and potable water (used in the proposed regulation). Adds a footnote to bottling plant land use referencing the existing Inland Port overlay prohibition on bottling plants Pages 3-8 of the Planning Commission staff reports includes a discussion about the key issues identified by the Planning Staff. A short summary of those is provided below. See the planning commission staff report to view the full analysis. 1. Land Uses and Businesses Impacted by the Proposal The proposed ordinance is directed at large, intensive commercial and industrial land uses that have the potential to consume significant amounts of water. Impacted zoning districts include: Light Manufacturing (M-1) and General Commercial (CG), Heavy Manufacturing, Downtown, Transit Station Area, Business Park, Research Park, Form Based Zones, and other Commercial zones. The City’s Zoning ordinance currently prohibits “bottling plant” uses from anywhere within the Inland Port overlay. The prohibition was adopted in 2018 as part of the Inland Port Overlay. o However, the properties north of I-80 which are part of the development agreement are vested in the City’s 2018 zoning code. These changes would not apply to those properties. o See Map, Attachment A -Planning Commission Staff Report Other properties exempt from this change include large state-owned properties such as the State Prison, State and Institutional Trust Land Administration (SITLA) land, University of Utah, University Medical, and Research Park. Page | 4 The 300,000 gallons per day limit is based on an analysis of existing uses on the City’s water system and is intended to balance water resources with continued business development. o The 300,000-gallon limit also takes into consideration the City’s deliberate long term water supply and demand planning, including future development of additional water resources and climate change risks associated with drought intensification. o The City’s long-term planning assumes a variety of future residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses that generally align with the current mix of water use intensity, but with a growing population and increased development. o This is a proactive approach as there appears to be growing interest in siting industries within the City that are proposing to use more than 300,000 gallons of water per day, and in some cases more than 1 million gallons of water per day. 2. Original Ordinance Proposal and Subsequent Changes The first version of the ordinance included a blanket limit of 300,000 gallons per day for all uses and a prohibition on bottling plants citywide, with an exemption for alcohol related uses. o Based on additional research and input, the draft ordinance was revised to directly target commercial and industrial users. o The ordinance was also revised to remove the proposed blanket citywide bottling plant ban along with the associated alcohol manufacturer exemption. The proposal would have treated water, milk, or soda bottling plants differently than other uses that may have similar water impacts, such as breweries, and could appear to unfairly target such uses. 3. Public Notice and City Department/Public Input July 2021, the City posted an “Open House” webpage Planning sent information to Recognized Community Organizations Planning staff attended Business Advisory Board meeting The City’s Sustainability and Economic Development Departments reviewed and provided comments State Department of Agriculture provided comments 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: PLNPCM2021-00638 Significant Water Consuming Land Uses Zoning Text Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, Planning Division, daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com or 801-535-7165; Laura Briefer, Director, Public Utilities Department, laura.briefer@slcgov.com, 801-483-6741 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the proposed ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Mayor Erin Mendenhall is proposing zoning amendments that would limit the amount of City culinary water that commercial and industrial land uses can utilize. In the past year there has been a growing awareness of the current drought conditions and the drought’s potential long-term impacts on the City’s water resources. Given these drought conditions and concerns related to future water resources, the Planning Division and Public Utilities Department developed the proposed land use amendments that would limit commercial and industrial water use and prevent future very large water users from being located the City. Such uses may have significant impacts on the City’s water resources. The water use limit is intended to preserve City water resources in the long term, while at the same time allowing for the City’s continued economic development. November 1, 2021 Lisa Shaffer (Nov 2, 2021 12:32 MDT) 11/02/2021 11/02/2021 Proposed Ordinance Water Use Limit The proposed text amendment implements a 300,000 gallon per day limit on the amount of City culinary water that any commercial and industrial land uses can utilize. These types of uses are targeted by the proposed ordinance as many of these land uses have the potential to use significant amounts of City water. Agricultural, institutional, and residential uses are exempted from the ordinance, as they generally would not reach the water use threshold and in the very limited cases where such uses may potentially exceed the threshold, they provide other public good or health benefits that warrant exemption, such as public recreational space. The limit affects multiple zones where such uses are allowed. The ordinance would require any person seeking a building permit for a new land use, or an addition to an existing land use, to verify that their proposal would not result in a facility that uses over 300,000 gallons per day. Facilities exceeding this limit would not be allowed. Permit applicants would need to certify their anticipated use with any permit application, and Public Utilities would be able to require additional documentation to verify the use numbers provided. Ordinance details, including enforcement mechanisms, can be found in the full Planning Commission staff report. Please see the “Key Ordinance Components” section on page 2 of that staff report for those details. Current Impacted Uses Two uses in the City currently exceed the threshold, specifically the University of Utah and a refinery. Both uses have full or partial exemptions from compliance with City zoning regulations due to other State or Federal regulations. All other commercial and industrial uses in the City currently use less than the 300,000-gallon per day limit. There are only two existing businesses that currently exceed 200,000-gallons per day. The City is aware of at least one bottling plant use currently in the process of obtaining City permits that may exceed the 300,000-gallon limit. Temporary Ordinance in Effect- January 4th Expiration In July the City temporarily imposed zoning regulations that prohibit new or expanding land uses that use more than 300,000 gallons per day. While this is in effect, the City will not issue any permits for a land use that would violate the regulation. State Code allows the City to impose such temporarily regulations for a period of 6 months while proposed regulations are working through the public process to City Council. The 6-month period ends on January 4th. If the City Council doesn’t adopt the proposed regulations before that date, the temporary regulations will expire on that date and uses that exceed 300,000 gallons per day will be permitted. Ordinance Update Following the Planning Commission recommendation, the Attorney’s Office identified that the term “institutional uses” was not defined in the Zoning ordinance, which could lead to confusion on what uses are covered by the institutional use exemption in this code. Due to that, a line was added to the proposed code that defines “institutional land use” for purposes of the water use regulation to include government uses, places of worship, and hospitals. PUBLIC PROCESS: In early July 2021, the City posted an “Open House” webpage with information regarding the proposal, including a draft code. Information about the proposal and a link to the webpage were sent out to City recognized community organizations (RCOs) and the Planning listserv. Two RCOs requested presentations on the proposal and Staff attended their meetings to discuss the proposal, specifically the Sugar House Community Council (SHCC) and Glendale Community Council. Notices were also sent in August to potentially affected businesses and property owners based on research of City water use data and business license records. Details regarding the noticing and public input received are located in attachment E of the Planning Commission staff report. In addition to RCO meetings, Staff attended the September 8th meeting of the City’s Business Advisory Board to discuss the proposal. At the meeting one board member asked whether the proposal would affect the Inland Port area and another board member expressed their support for the proposal. A representative of the City’s Economic Development department also expressed their support for the proposal, noting that it would provide a water use threshold that City staff could point to when responding to businesses looking to located here. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the proposal on September 22, 2021. Notice of the public hearing was sent to the Planning listserv, including all recognized organizations, and to all businesses/property owners previously notified during the initial public engagement. At the public hearing, the Commission generally discussed how the ordinance would be enforced and the basis of the proposed water use threshold. Two individuals spoke during the public hearing, including a representative of the Utah Department of Agriculture and Foods, who spoke in support of the agriculture exemption in the ordinance, and a representative of the Marathon Refinery, who spoke generally about their water use and potential facility additions. Following discussion, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance changes. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda for September 22, 2021 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes for September 22, 2021 (Click to Access) c) PC Staff Report for September 22, 2021 (Click to Access) EXHIBITS: 1) Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Hearing 3) Original Petition 4) Mailing List SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2021 (An ordinance amending various sections of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to land uses that use or consume significant amounts of water pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00635) An ordinance amending various sections of the Salt Lake City Code to regulate land uses that use or consume significant amounts of water as provided herein. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on September 22, 2021 to consider a request by the Salt Lake City Council (the “City Council”) to amend the Salt Lake City Code to prohibit land uses that use or consume a significant amount of water; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on September 22, 2021 to consider petition number PLNPCM2021-00635 (the “petition”) initiated by Salt Lake City Mayor, Erin Mendenhall, to amend Salt Lake City Code to prohibit land uses that use or consume a significant amount of water; and WHEREAS, at its September 22, 2021 hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation of approval to the City Council to adopt changes to the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the prohibition of land uses which use or consume significant amounts of water; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council desires to modify its land use regulations to as provided herein; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds that while the city has adequate water resources for the current needs of the city’s customers in the city’s designated water service area 2 and the city holds water interests that can be developed in the future for the benefit of its water customers, the city’s water resource supply is not unlimited and, furthermore changing environmental conditions are placing significant pressure on the city’s water resources; WHEREAS, the majority of the city’s water resources emanate from the watershed that contribute water to Great Salt Lake, and the city is very concerned that a shrinking Great Salt Lake has significant negative ramifications to the health and welfare of the public and environment; and WHEREAS, immediate steps are appropriate to limit use of the city’s water resources by water consumers that would consume very large quantities of water that would exacerbate the pressures on the city’s water resources and the Great Salt Lake system ; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council desires to enact land use regulations that protect and preserve the availability of the city to provide water to its current customers and to future development in the city that will promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the present and future city residents; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds that modification of its land use regulations is just one of a number of methods in which Salt Lake City currently regulates water use or consumption and contemplates that the city will continue to explore further regulatory methods to help ensure a fair and equitable use of the city’s finite resource; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds, after holding a public hearing on this matter, that adopting this ordinance promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the city. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 3 SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 21A.33. That Chapter 21A.33 of the Salt Lake City Code (Land Use Tables) shall be and hereby is amended to read and appear as follows: SECTION: 21A.33.010: General Provisions 21A.33.020: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts 21A.33.030: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts 21A.33.035: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts 21A.33.040: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts 21A.33.050: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts 21A.33.060: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Gateway District 21A.33.070: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts 21A.33.080: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses in Form Based Districts 21A.33.010: GENERAL PROVISIONS: A. Permitted Uses: The uses specified as permitted uses in Sections 21A.33.020, 21A.33.030, 21A.33.035, 21A.33.040, 21A.33.050, 21A.33.060, 21A.33.070, and 21A.33.080 of this chapter, tables of permitted and conditional uses, are permitted provided that they comply with the general standards set forth in Part IV of this title and all other applicable requirements of this title. B. Conditional Uses: The uses specified as conditional uses in Sections 21A.33.020, 21A.33.030, 21A.33.035, 21A.33.040, 21A.33.050, 21A.33.060, 21A.33.070, and 21A.33.080 of this chapter, tables of permitted and conditional uses, shall be allowed provided they are approved pursuant to the standards and procedures for conditional uses set forth in Chapter 21A.54 of this title, and comply with all other applicable requirements of this title. C. Uses Not Permitted: Any use specifically listed without a "P" or a "C" designated in the table of permitted and conditional uses for a district shall not be allowed in that zoning district. D. Prohibited Uses: The following land uses are prohibited in all zoning districts: 1. Commercial and Industrial Land Uses That Exceed 300,000 Gallons of Water per Day. a. New Land Uses: Any new commercial or industrial land use that consumes or uses more than an annual average of 300,000 gallons of potable water per day is prohibited SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2021 (An ordinance amending various sections of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to land uses that use or consume significant amounts of water pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00635) An ordinance amending various sections of the Salt Lake City Code to regulate land uses that use or consume significant amounts of water as provided herein. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on September 22, 2021 to consider a request by the Salt Lake City Council (the “City Council”) to amend the Salt Lake City Code to prohibit land uses that use or consume a significant amount of water; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on September 22, 2021 to consider petition number PLNPCM2021-00635 (the “petition”) initiated by Salt Lake City Mayor, Erin Mendenhall, to amend Salt Lake City Code to prohibit land uses that use or consume a significant amount of water; and WHEREAS, at its September 22, 2021 hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation of approval to the City Council to adopt changes to the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the prohibition of land uses which use or consume significant amounts of water; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council desires to modify its land use regulations to as provided herein; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds that while the city has adequate water resources for the current needs of the city’s customers in the city’s designated water service area 2 and the city holds water interests that can be developed in the future for the benefit of its water customers, the city’s water resource supply is not unlimited and, furthermore changing environmental conditions are placing significant pressure on the city’s water resources; WHEREAS, the majority of the city’s water resources emanate from the watershed that contribute water to Great Salt Lake, and the city is very concerned that a shrinking Great Salt Lake has significant negative ramifications to the health and welfare of the public and environment; and WHEREAS, immediate steps are appropriate to limit use of the city’s water resources by water consumers that would consume very large quantities of water that would exacerbate the pressures on the city’s water resources and the Great Salt Lake system ; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council desires to enact land use regulations that protect and preserve the availability of the city to provide water to its current customers and to future development in the city that will promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the present and future city residents; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds that modification of its land use regulations is just one of a number of methods in which Salt Lake City currently regulates water use or consumption and contemplates that the city will continue to explore further regulatory methods to help ensure a fair and equitable use of the city’s finite resource; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds, after holding a public hearing on this matter, that adopting this ordinance promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the city. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 3 SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 21A.33. That Chapter 21A.33 of the Salt Lake City Code (Land Use Tables) shall be and hereby is amended to read and appear as follows: SECTION: 21A.33.010: General Provisions 21A.33.020: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts 21A.33.030: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts 21A.33.035: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts 21A.33.040: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Manufacturing Districts 21A.33.050: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts 21A.33.060: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Gateway District 21A.33.070: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts 21A.33.080: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses in Form Based Districts 21A.33.010: GENERAL PROVISIONS: A. Permitted Uses: The uses specified as permitted uses in Sections 21A.33.020, 21A.33.030, 21A.33.035, 21A.33.040, 21A.33.050, 21A.33.060, 21A.33.070, and 21A.33.080 of this chapter, tables of permitted and conditional uses, are permitted provided that they comply with the general standards set forth in Part IV of this title and all other applicable requirements of this title. B. Conditional Uses: The uses specified as conditional uses in Sections 21A.33.020, 21A.33.030, 21A.33.035, 21A.33.040, 21A.33.050, 21A.33.060, 21A.33.070, and 21A.33.080 of this chapter, tables of permitted and conditional uses, shall be allowed provided they are approved pursuant to the standards and procedures for conditional uses set forth in Chapter 21A.54 of this title, and comply with all other applicable requirements of this title. C. Uses Not Permitted: Any use specifically listed without a "P" or a "C" designated in the table of permitted and conditional uses for a district shall not be allowed in that zoning district. D. Prohibited Uses: The following land uses are prohibited in all zoning districts: 1. Commercial and Industrial Land Uses That Exceed 300,000 Gallons of Water per Day. a. New Land Uses: Any new commercial or industrial land use that consumes or uses more than an annual average of 300,000 gallons of potable water per day is prohibited 4 in all zoning districts. The use and consumption limit is based on the total use from all water meters that serve the land use. b. Expansions of Existing Uses: No commercial or industrial land use shall expand to an extent that increases its daily potable water consumption or use to exceed an annual average of 300,000 gallons of potable water per day. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection 21A.38.040.H, an existing land use that exceeds the water use threshold may not expand if the expansion will result in a net increase in water consumption or use. The use and consumption limit is based on the total use from all water meters that serve the land use. c. Water Use Report Required: A land use applicant shall certify the anticipated daily water use of the proposed land use in a manner satisfactory to the Department of Public Utilities. The Department of Public Utilities may require an anticipated daily water use report of any land use applicant proposing a new use or expansion of an existing use. d. Exemption: Agricultural, residential, and institutional land uses are not subject to the regulations of this subsection. For purposes of this section, an institutional land use includes government owned or operated facilities, places of worship, and hospitals. 2. Reserved. 4 in all zoning districts. The use and consumption limit is based on the total use from all water meters that serve the land use. b. Expansions of Existing Uses: No commercial or industrial land use shall expand to an extent that increases its daily potable water consumption or use to exceed an annual average of 300,000 gallons of potable water per day. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection 21A.38.040.H, an existing land use that exceeds the water use threshold may not expand if the expansion will result in a net increase in water consumption or use. The use and consumption limit is based on the total use from all water meters that serve the land use. c. Water Use Report Required: A land use applicant shall certify the anticipated daily water use of the proposed land use in a manner satisfactory to the Department of Public Utilities. The Department of Public Utilities may require an anticipated daily water use report of any land use applicant proposing a new use or expansion of an existing use. d. Exemption: Agricultural, residential, and institutional land uses are not subject to the regulations of this subsection. For purposes of this section, an institutional land use includes government owned or operated facilities, places of worship, and hospitals. 2. Reserved. 5 21A.33.020: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS: To view TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS in PDF, click HERE Legend: C = Conditional P = Permitted Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District FR-1/ 43,560 FR-2/ 21,780 FR-3/ 12,000 R-1/ 12,000 R-1/ 7,000 R-1/ 5,000 SR-1 SR-2 SR-3 R-2 RMF- 30 MF-35 RMF- 45 RMF- 75 RB R-MU- 35 R-MU- 45 R-MU RO Accessory use, except those that are otherwise specifically regulated elsewhere in this title P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Adaptive reuse of a landmark site C8 C8 C8 C8 C8 C8 C8 C8 C8 C8 C8 C8 C8 P P P P P6 Alcohol, bar establishment (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C9 C9 C9 C9 Alcohol, brewpub (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C9 C9 C9 Alcohol, tavern (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C9 Animal, veterinary office C C C P P6 Art gallery P P P P P Artisan food production (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) P3 P3 P3 P3 P 6 Bed and breakfast inn P P P P Bed and breakfast manor P Clinic (medical, dental) P P P P P6 Commercial food preparation P21 P21 P21 P21 P21 Community garden C C C C C C C C C P P P P P P P P P Community recreation center C Crematorium C C C Daycare center, adult C P P P P P P Daycare center, child C18 C1 8 C18 C18 C1 8 C1 8 C18 C18 C18 P P P P P P Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 Dwelling, accessory guest and servant’s quarter P11 P11 P11 Dwelling, accessory unit C C C C C C P P P P P P P P P P P P Dwelling, assisted living facility (large) C P P C P P Dwelling, assisted living facility (limited capacity) C C C C C C C C C P P P P P P P P 7 Dwelling, assisted living facility (small) P P P P P P Dwelling, congregate care facility (large) C C C C C C C Dwelling, congregate care facility (small) C C C C C C C C C C P P P P P P P P Dwelling; dormitory, fraternity, sorority P12 Dwelling, group home (large) C C C C C14 C C C C14 Dwelling, group home (small) P P P P P P P P P P P P P P15 P P P P15 Dwelling, manufactured home P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Dwelling, multi- family P P P P P P P P P Dwelling, residential support (large) C C C C C16 Dwelling, residential support (small) C C P C C P P17 Dwelling, rooming (boarding) house C P C C C P P Dwelling, single- family (attached) P P P P P P P P P P Dwelling, single- family (detached) P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 8 Dwelling, twin home and two- family P P P2 P P P P P P P Financial institution P P P P6 Funeral home P P P P Governmental facility C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C6 Home occupation P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 Laboratory, medical related P21 P21 P21 P21 P21 Library C C C C C Mixed use development P1 P P P P Mobile food business (operation on private property) P P P Municipal service use, including city utility use and police and fire station C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Museum P C P P P Nursing care facility P P P P P Office, excluding medical and dental clinic and office P P P P P6 Open space on lots less than 4 acres in size P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Park P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Parking, off site (to support nonconforming uses in a C C C C C 9 residential zone or uses in the CN or CB zones) Parking, park and ride lot shared with existing use P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Place of worship on lots less than 4 acres in size C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Reception center P P P Recreation (indoor) P P P P P Research and development facility P21 P21 Restaurant P P P P P Restaurant with drive- through facility Retail goods establishment P P P P Retail goods establishment, plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area P P P P Retail service establishment P P P P School, music conservatory P C C P School, professional and vocational P C C P P6 School, seminary and religious institute C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Seasonal farm stand P P P P P 10 Studio, art P P P P P Technology facility P21 P21 P21 P21 Temporary use of closed schools and churches C19 C19 C19 C19 C1 9 C1 9 C19 C1 9 C19 C19 C19 C19 C19 C19 Theater, live performance C1 3 C13 C13 C13 C1 3 Theater, movie C C C C C Urban farm P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Utility, building or structure P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5, 7 Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 Wireless telecommunications facility (see Section 21A.40.090, Table 21A.40.090.E of this title) Qualifying provisions: 1. A single apartment unit may be located above first floor retail/office. 2. Provided that no more than 2 two-family buildings are located adjacent to one another and no more than 3 such dwellings are located along the same block face (within subdivisions approved after April 12, 1995). 3. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 4. Reserved. 5. See Subsection 21A.02.050.B of this title for utility regulations. 6. Building additions on lots less than 20,000 square feet for office uses may not exceed 50 percent of the building’s footprint. Building additions greater than 50 percent of the building’s footprint or new office building construction are subject to a design review. 7. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Section 21A.02.050 of this title. 11 8. Subject to conformance with the provisions of Subsection 21A.24.010.S of this title. 9. Subject to conformance with the provisions in Section 21A.36.300, “Alcohol Related Establishments”, of this title. 10. In the RB zoning district, the total square footage, including patio space, shall not exceed 2,200 square feet in total. Total square footage will include a maximum 1,750 square feet of floor space within a business and a maximum of 450 square feet in an outdoor patio area. 11. Accessory guest or servant’s quarters must be located within the buildable area on the lot. 12. Subject to conformance with the provisions of Section 21A.36.150 of this title. 13. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a single- or two-family zoning district. 14. Large group homes established in the RB and RO districts shall be located above the ground floor. 15. Small group homes established in the RB and RO districts shall be located above the ground floor. 16. Large residential support established in RO districts shall be located above the ground floor. 17. Small residential support established in RO districts shall be located above the ground floor. 18. Subject to Section 21A.36.130 of this title. 19. Subject to Section 21A.36.170 of this title. 20. Subject to Section 21A.36.030 of this title. 21. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. 12 21A.33.030: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS: To view TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS in PDF, click HERE Legend: C = Conditional P = Permitted Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB Accessory use, except those that are specifically regulated elsewhere in this title P P P P P P P Adaptive reuse of a landmark site P P P P P P Alcohol: Bar establishment (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C10,11 C10,11 P10 P10 P10 P10 Bar establishment (more than 2,500 square feet in floor area) P10 C10 P10 P10 Brewpub (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C10,11 P10 P10 P10 P10 Brewpub (more than 2,500 square feet in floor area) P10 C10 P10 P10 Distillery P16, 23 Tavern (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C10,11 P10 P10 P10 P10 Tavern (more than 2,500 square feet in floor area) P10 C10 P10 P10 Ambulance service (indoor) P P P P Ambulance service (outdoor) P6 P6 P6 P Amusement park P P Animal: Cremation service P P Kennel P Pet cemetery P4 Veterinary office C P P P P P Antenna, communication tower P P P P P 13 Antenna, communication tower, exceeding the maximum building height in the zone C C C C C Art gallery P P P P P P P Artisan food production (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) P20 P20 P P P20 P Artisan food production (more than 2,500 square feet in floor area) P23 P23 P23 Auction (outdoor) P P Auditorium P P P P Bakery, commercial P23 Bed and breakfast P P P P P P P14 Bed and breakfast inn P P P P P P Bed and breakfast manor C3 C3 P P P Bio-medical facility P22, 23 P22, 23 P22, 23 P22, 23 Blacksmith shop P23 Blood donation center C P Brewery P23 Bus line station/terminal P P Bus line yard and repair facility P Car wash P P P Car wash as accessory use to gas station or convenience store that sells gas P P P P Check cashing/payday loan business P8 P8 Clinic (medical, dental) P P P P P P Commercial food preparation P23 P23 P23 P23 P23 P23 Community correctional facility, large Community correctional facility, small C7,17 Community garden P P P P P P P Contractor’s yard/office C P 14 Crematorium C C C C Daycare center, adult P P P P P P Daycare center, child P P P P P P Daycare, nonregistered home daycare or preschool P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 Dwelling: Assisted living facility (large) P P P P Assisted living facility (small) P P P P Congregate care facility (large) C C C C Congregate care facility (small) P Group home (large) P C C Group home (small) when located above or below first story office, retail, or commercial use, or on the first story where the unit is not located adjacent to street frontage P P P P P P P Living quarter for caretaker or security guard P P P P P P Manufactured home P Multi-family P P P P P P Residential support (large) C C Residential support (small) C C Rooming (boarding) house P P P P P Single-family attached P Single-family detached P Single room occupancy Twin home P Two-family P Equipment rental (indoor and/or outdoor) P P Farmers’ market C C P P 15 Financial institution P P P P P P Financial institution with drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 Flea market (indoor) P P P P Flea market (outdoor) P Funeral home P P P P Gas station C P P P P Government facility C C C C C C Government facility requiring special design features for security purposes P P P P P P Home occupation P19 P19 P19 P19 P19 P19 P19 Homeless resource center C21 Homeless shelter C21 Hotel/motel C P P P House museum in landmark sites (see Subsection 21A.24.010.S of this title) C Impound lot C12 Industrial assembly P23 Intermodal transit passenger hub P Laboratory, medical related P23 P23 P23 P23 P23 Large wind energy system P P P Laundry, commercial P23 Library P P P P P P C Limousine service (large) P Limousine service (small) C C P Manufactured/mobile home sales and service P Mixed use development P P P P P P P13 Mobile food business (operation on private property) P P P P P P 16 Municipal service uses, including city utility uses and police and fire stations C C C C C C Museum P P P P P P P Nursing care facility P P P Office P P P P P P P15 Office, single practitioner medical, dental, and health P Offices and reception centers in landmark sites (see Subsection 21A.24.010.S of this title) C Open space P P P P P P Open space on lots less than 4 acres in size P Park P P P P P P P Parking: Commercial C P P Off site C P P P P P Park and ride lot C C P P Park and ride lot shared with existing use P P P P P Place of worship on lot less than 4 acres in size P P P P P P C Radio, television station P P P P Reception center P P P P P Recreation (indoor) P P P P P P P Recreation (outdoor) C C P Recreational vehicle park (minimum 1 acre) C Recycling collection station P P P P P P Research and development facility P23 P23 P23 P23 Restaurant P P P P P P Restaurant with drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 Retail goods establishment P P P P P P P Plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area P P P P P P P 17 With drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 Retail service establishment P P P P P P P Furniture repair shop C P P P P P With drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 Reverse vending machine P P P P P P Sales and display (outdoor) P P P P P P School: College or university P P P P P Music conservatory P P P P P Professional and vocational P P P P P Seminary and religious institute P P P P P C Seasonal farm stand P P P P P P Sexually oriented business P5 Sign painting/fabrication P Small brewery C23 P23 Solar array P23 Storage (outdoor) C P Storage, public (outdoor) C P Storage, self P P Store: Department P P Mass merchandising P P P Pawnshop P Specialty P P P P Superstore and hypermarket P P Warehouse club P Studio, art P P P P P P P 18 Studio, motion picture P Taxicab facility P Technology facility P23 P23 P23 P23 Theater, live performance P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 Theater, movie C P P P P Urban farm P P P P P P Utility, building or structure P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe, or pole P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 Vehicle: Auction P Automobile repair (major) P P Automobile repair (minor) C P P P P P Automobile sales/rental and service P P Automobile salvage and recycling (indoor) P23 Boat/recreational vehicle sales and service P P Truck repair (large) P Truck sales and rental (large) P P Vending cart, private property P Warehouse P23 P23 Welding shop P Wholesale distribution P23 P23 Wireless telecommunications facility (see Section 21A.40.090, Table 21A.40.090.E of this title) C Woodworking mill P23 Qualifying provisions: 1. Development in the CS district shall be subject to planned development approval pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 21A.55 of this title. Certain developments in the CSHBD zone shall be subject to the design review process pursuant to the provisions of Subsection 21A.26.060.D and Chapter 21A.59 of this title. 19 2. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Subsection 21A.02.050.B of this title for utility regulations. 3. When located in a building listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources (see Subsections 21A.24.010.S and 21A.26.010.K of this title). 4. Subject to Salt Lake Valley Health Department approval. 5. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Section 21A.36.140 of this title. 6. Greater than 3 ambulances at location require a conditional use. 7. A community correctional facility is considered an institutional use and any such facility located within the AFPP Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay District is subject to the land use and sound attenuation standards for institutional uses of the applicable Airport influence zone within Section 21A.34.040 of this title. 8. No check cashing/payday loan business shall be located closer than 1/2 mile of other check cashing/payday loan businesses. 9. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Section 21A.40.060 of this title for drive-through use regulations. 10. Subject to conformance with the provisions in Section 21A.36.300, “Alcohol Related Establishments”, of this title. 11. In CN and CB zoning districts, the total square footage, including patio space, shall not exceed 2,200 square feet in total. Total square footage will include a maximum 1,750 square feet of floor space within a business and a maximum of 450 square feet in an outdoor patio area. 12. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a single- or two-family zoning district. 13. Residential units may be located above or below first floor retail/office. 14. In the SNB zoning district, bed and breakfast use is only allowed in a landmark site. 15. Medical and dental offices are not allowed in the SNB zoning district, except for single practitioner medical, dental and health offices. 16. Permitted in the CG zoning district only when associated with an on site food service establishment. 17. Prohibited within 1/2 mile of any residential zoning district boundary and subject to Section 21A.36.110 of this title. 18. Subject to Section 21A.36.130 of this title. 19. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to Section 21A.36.030 of this title. 20. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 21. Subject to conformance with the provisions of Section 21A.36.350 of this title, the city may not prohibit construction of a homeless resource center or homeless shelter if the site is approved by and receives funding through the State Homeless Coordinating Committee, with the concurrence of the Housing and Community Development Division within the Department of Workforce Services, in accordance with Section 35A-8-604 of the Utah Code. 22. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 23. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. 20 21A.33.035: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR TRANSIT STATION AREA DISTRICTS: To view TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR TRANSIT STATION AREA DISTRICTS in PDF, click HERE Legend: C = Conditional P = Permitted Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District TSA-UC TSA-UN TSA-MUEC TSA-SP Core Transition Core Transition Core Transition Core Transition Accessory use, except those that are specifically regulated elsewhere in this title P P P P P P P P Adaptive reuse of a landmark site P P P P P P P P Agricultural use P P P P P P P P Alcohol: Bar establishment (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) P P P P P P P P Bar establishment (more than 2,500 square feet in floor area) P C P C P C P C Brewpub (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) P P P P P P P P Brewpub (more than 2,500 square feet in floor area) P C P C P C P C Distillery P12 C12 P12 C12 P12 P12 P12 C12 Tavern (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) P P P P P P P P Tavern (more than 2,500 square feet in floor area) P C P C P C P C Winery P12 C12 P12 C12 P12 P12 P12 P12 Amphitheater, formal C C Amphitheater, informal C C 21 Amusement park C C Animal: Cremation service P P P P P P P P Kennel P P P P Pet cemetery1 P1 P1 P1 P1 Stable, public P P Veterinary office P P P P P P P P Antenna, communication tower P P P P P P P P Antenna, communication tower, exceeding the maximum building height in the zone C C C C C C C C Art gallery P P P P P P P P Artisan food production P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 Auction (indoor) P P P P Auditorium P P Bakery, commercial P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 Bed and breakfast P P P P P P P P Bed and breakfast inn P P P P P P P P Bed and breakfast manor P P P P P P P P Bio-medical facility P11,12 P11,12 P11,12 P11,12 Blood donation center P P P P P P P P Botanical garden P P P P P P P P Brewery C12 C12 C12 C12 P12 P12 P12 P12 Car wash P P Car wash as accessory use to gas station or convenience store that sells gas P P Clinic (medical, dental) P P P P P P P P 22 Commercial food preparation P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 Community correctional facility, small2,8 C2,8 Community garden P P P P P P P P Convent/monastery P P P P P P P P Convention center C C Crematorium P P P P P P Daycare center, adult P P P P P P P P Daycare center, child P P P P P P P P Daycare, nonregistered home daycare or preschool P6 P6 P6 P6 P6 P6 P6 P6 Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P6 P6 P6 P6 P6 P6 P6 P6 Dwelling: Artists’ loft/studio P P P P P P P P Assisted living facility (large) P P P P P P P P Assisted living facility (small) P P P P P P P P Congregate care facility (large) C C C C C C C C Congregate care facility (small) P P P P P P P P Group home (large) P P P P P P P P Group home (small) P P P P P P P P Living quarter for caretaker or security guard P P P P P P P P Manufactured home P P P P P P P P Multi-family P P P P P P P P Residential support (large) P P P P P P P P Residential support (small) P P P P P P P P 23 Rooming (boarding) house P P P P P P P P Single-family attached P P P P P P P P Single-family detached P P P P Single room occupancy P P P P P P P P Twin home P P P P P P P P Two-family P P P P P P P P Exhibition hall C C Farmers’ market P P P P P P P P Financial institution P P P P P P P P Financial institution with drive-through facility P P Flea market (indoor) P P P P P P P P Flea market (outdoor) P P Food processing P12 P12 P12 P12 Funeral home P P P P P P P P Gas station P P Government facility P P P P P P P P Government facility requiring special design features for security purposes P P P P P P P P Grain elevator P P P P Greenhouse P P P P P P P P Home occupation P7 P7 P7 P7 P7 P7 P7 P7 Hospital, including accessory lodging facility P P P P P P P P Hotel/motel P P P P P P P P House museum in landmark sites (see Subsection 21A.24.010.S of this title) P P P P P P P P 24 Industrial assembly P12 P12 P12 P12 Laboratory, medical related P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 Laundry, commercial P12 P12 Library P P P P P P P P Light manufacturing P12 P12 P12 P12 Meeting hall of membership organization P P P P P P P P Mixed use development P P P P P P P P Mobile food business (operating on private property) P P P P P P P P Mobile food business (operation in public right- of- way) P P P P P P P P Mobile food court P P P P P P Municipal service uses, including city utility uses and police and fire stations P P P P P P P P Museum P P P P P P P P Nursing care facility P P P P P P P P Office P P P P P P P P Office, publishing company P P P P P P P P Office, single practitioner medical, dental, and health P P P P P P P P Offices and reception centers in landmark sites (see Subsection 21A.24.010.S of this title) P P P P P P P P Open space P P P P P P P P Park P P P P P P P P Parking: Commercial (if located in a parking structure) P P P P P P P 25 Commercial (surface lot)3 P3 P3 Off site3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P7 P3 Park and ride lot3 P3 P3 Park and ride lot shared with existing use P P Performing arts production facility P P P P P P P P Philanthropic use P P P P P P P P Photo finishing lab P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 Place of worship P P P P P P P P Printing plant P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 Radio, television station P P P P P P Railroad passenger station P P P P P P P P Reception center P P P P P P P P Recreation (indoor) P P P P P P P P Recreation (outdoor) P P P P P P P P Recycling collection station P P P P P P P P Research and development facility P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 Restaurant P P P P P P P P Restaurant with drive- through facility9 C10 Retail goods establishment P P P P P P P P Plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area P P P P P P P P With drive-through facility Retail service establishment P P P P P P P P Furniture repair shop P P P P P P P P Sales and display (outdoor) P P P P P P P P 26 School: College or university P P P P P P P P Music conservatory P P P P P P P P Professional and vocational P P P P P P P P Seminary and religious institute P P P P P P P P Seasonal farm stand P P P P P P P P Small brewery P12 C12 P12 C12 P12 P12 P12 P12 Social service mission and charity dining hall C C C C P P P P Solar array P12 P12 P12 P12 Stadium C C C C C C Storage, self P P P P Store: Convenience P P P P P P P P Department P P P P P P P P Mass merchandising P P P P P P P P Specialty P P P P P P P P Superstore and hypermarket P P Warehouse club P P Studio, art P P P P P P P P Studio, motion picture P P P P Technology facility P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 Theater, live performance4 P4 C4 P4 C4 P4 P4 P4 P4 Theater, movie P P P P P P Urban farm P P P P P P P P Utility, building or structure5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 27 Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe, or pole5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 Vehicle: Automobile repair (minor) P P Vending cart, private property P P P P P P P P Warehouse P12 P12 Wholesale distribution P12 Wireless telecommunications facility (see Section 21A.40.090 of this title) P P P P P P P P Wireless telecommunications facility, exceeding the maximum building height of the zone (see Section 21A.40.090 of this title) C C C C C C C C Woodworking mill P12 P12 P12 Zoological park C C Qualifying provisions for specific land uses: 1. Subject to Salt Lake Valley Health Department approval. 2. A community correctional facility is considered an institutional use and any such facility located within the AFPP Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay District is subject to the land use and sound attenuation standards for institutional uses of the applicable Airport influence zone within Section 21A.34.040 of this title. 3. Surface parking lots as a principal use located on a lot that has frontage on a public street are prohibited. 4. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a single- or two-family zoning district. 5. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Subsection 21A.02.050.B of this title for utility regulations. 6. Subject to Section 21A.36.130 of this title. 7. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to Section 21A.36.030 of this title. 8. Subject to Section 21A.36.110 of this title. 9. Drive-through windows are prohibited on any public street facing facade and automobile stacking is prohibited between public street facing facades and the adjacent public right-of-way. 10. Subject to conformance with the provisions in Section 21A.40.060 for drive-through use regulations. 28 11. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 12. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. 21A.33.040: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS: To view TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS in PDF, click HERE. Legend: C = Conditional P = Permitted Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District M-1 M-2 Accessory use, except those that are otherwise specifically regulated elsewhere in this title P P Adaptive reuse of a landmark site C C7 Agricultural use P P Alcohol: Bar establishment C6,10 C6,10 Brewpub P6,10 P6,10 Distillery P19 P19 Tavern C6,10 C6,10 Winery P19 P19 Ambulance services (indoor and/or outdoor) P P Animal: Cremation service P P Kennel P13 P Pet cemetery P2 P2 Pound P12,13 P12 Raising of furbearing animals C P Stockyard C12 P12 Veterinary office P P Antenna, communication tower P P Antenna, communication tower, exceeding the maximum building height C C Artisan food production P19 P19 Bakery, commercial P19 P19 Bio-medical facility P18,19 P18,19 29 Blacksmith shop P19 P19 Bottling plant P19,20 P19,20 Brewery P19 P19 Building materials distribution P P Bus line station/terminal P P Bus line yard and repair facility P12 P Cannabis production establishment P P Check cashing/payday loan business P9 Chemical manufacturing and/or storage C19 Commercial food preparation P19 P19 Community correctional facility, large C8,16 Community correctional facility, small C8,16 Community garden P Concrete and/or asphalt manufacturing C12,13,19 P12,19 Contractor’s yard/office P P Crematorium P P Data center P19 Daycare center, adult P Daycare center, child P Drop forge industry P19 Dwelling, living quarters for caretaker or security guard, limited to uses on lots 1 acre in size or larger and is accessory to a principal use allowed by the zoning district P P Equipment, heavy (rental, sales, service) P P Equipment rental (indoor and/or outdoor) P P Explosive manufacturing and storage C12,19 Financial institution with or without drive-through facility P11 Flammable liquids or gases, heating fuel distribution and storage P12 Food processing P19 P19 Gas station P P Golf course P19 Government facility P P Government facility requiring special design features for security purposes P P Grain elevator C12 P Greenhouse P Heavy manufacturing P12,19 Home occupation P15 P15 30 Hotel/motel P Impound lot P12 P12 Incinerator, medical waste/hazardous waste C12,19 Industrial assembly P19 P19 Laboratory, medical related P19 P19 Large wind energy system P13,14 P Laundry, commercial P19 P19 Light manufacturing P19 P19 Limousine service P P Mobile food business (operation in the public right- of-way) P P Mobile food business (operation on private property) P P Mobile food court P P Municipal services uses including city utility uses and police and fire stations P Office P Office, publishing company P Open space P P Package delivery facility P P Paint manufacturing P19 Park P P Parking: Commercial P Off site P P Park and ride lot P P Park and ride lot shared with existing use P P Photo finishing lab P19 P19 Poultry farm or processing plant P12,19 Printing plant P19 Radio, television station P Railroad, freight terminal facility C4 C4 Railroad, repair shop C19 P19 Recreation (indoor) P Recreation (outdoor) P Recycling: Collection station P P Processing center (indoor) P19 P19 31 Processing center (outdoor) C12,13,14,19 P12,19 Refinery, petroleum products C12,19 Restaurant with or without drive-through facilities P11 Research and development facility P19 P19 Retail goods establishment with or without drive- through facility P11 Retail service establishment: Electronic repair shop P Furniture repair shop P P Upholstery shop P Rock, sand and gravel storage and distribution C P School: Professional and vocational (with outdoor activities) P Professional and vocational (without outdoor activities) P Seminary and religious institute P Seasonal farm stand P P Sexually oriented business P5 P5 Sign painting/fabrication P P Slaughterhouse P12 Small brewery P19 P19 Solar array P17,19 P19 Storage and display (outdoor) P P Storage, public (outdoor) P P Storage, self P P Store, convenience P P Studio, motion picture P Taxicab facility P P Technology facility P19 Tire distribution retail/wholesale P P Truck freight terminal P12 P12 Urban farm P P Utility: Building or structure P P Electric generation facility C3,12,19 C3,12,19 Sewage treatment plant C P Solid waste transfer station C12 P12 32 Transmission wire, line, pipe or pole P1 P1 Vehicle: Auction P P Automobile and truck repair P P Automobile and truck sales and rental (including large truck) P P Automobile part sales P P Automobile salvage and recycling (indoor) P19 P19 Automobile salvage and recycling (outdoor) C 12,13,14,19 P12,19 Recreational vehicle (RV) sales and service P P Truck repair (large) P P Vending cart, private property P P Warehouse P19 P19 Welding shop P19 P19 Wholesale distribution P19 P19 Wireless telecommunications facility (see Section 21A.40.090, Table 21A.40.090.E. of this title) Woodworking mill P19 P19 Qualifying provisions: 1. See Subsection 21A.02.050.B of this title for utility regulations. 2. Subject to Salt Lake Valley Health Department approval. 3. Electric generating facilities shall be located within 2,640 feet of an existing 138 kV or larger electric power transmission line. 4. No railroad freight terminal facility shall be located within 1 mile of a residential zoning district. 5. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Section 21A.36.140 of this title. 6. If a place of worship is proposed to be located within 600 feet of a tavern, bar establishment, or brewpub, the place of worship must submit a written waiver of spacing requirement as a condition of approval. 7. Building additions on lots less than 20,000 square feet for office uses may not exceed 50 percent of the building’s footprint. Building additions greater than 50 percent of the building’s footprint or new office building construction are subject to a design review. 8. A community correctional facility is considered an institutional use and any such facility located within the AFPP Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay District is subject to the land use and sound attenuation standards for institutional uses of the applicable Airport influence zone within Section 21A.34.040 of this title. 9. No check cashing/payday loan business shall be located closer than 1/2 mile of other check cashing/payday loan businesses. 10. Subject to conformance with the provisions in Section 21A.36.300, “Alcohol Related Establishments”, of this title. 33 11. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Section 21A.40.060 of this title for drive- through use regulations. 12. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a single- or two-family zoning district. 13. Prohibited within the Eco-Industrial Buffer Area of the Northwest Quadrant Overlay District. 14. Prohibited within the Development Area of the Northwest Quadrant Overlay District. 15. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to Section 21A.36.030 of this title. 16. Prohibited within 1/2 mile of any residential zoning district boundary and subject to Section 21A.36.110 of this title. 17. Prior to issuance of a building permit in the Development Area and the Eco-Industrial Buffer Area of the Northwest Quadrant Overlay, consultation with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources is required to obtain recommendations on siting and equipment types for all solar arrays on a particular property to mitigate impacts to wildlife. 18. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 19. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. 20. Prohibited in the IP Inland Port Overlay District. See Subsection 21A.34.150.B.2.f. 21A.33.050: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS: To view TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS in PDF, click HERE Legend: C = Conditional P = Permitted Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Accessory use, except those that are otherwise specifically regulated elsewhere in this title P P P P Adaptive reuse of a landmark site P P P P4 Alcohol: Bar establishment (indoor) P6 C6 C6 P6 Bar establishment (outdoor) P6 C6 C6 P6 Brewpub (indoor) P6 P6 P6 P6 Brewpub (outdoor) P6 P6 P6 P6 Tavern (indoor) P6 C6 C6 P6 Tavern (outdoor) P6 C6 C6 P6 Animal, veterinary office P P 34 Antenna, communication tower P P P P Antenna, communication tower, exceeding the maximum building height C C C C Art gallery P P P P Artisan food production P 14,18 P18 P18 P18 Bed and breakfast P P P P Bed and breakfast inn P P P P Bed and breakfast manor P P P P Bio-medical facility P17,18 P17,18 P17,18 P17,18 Blood donation center P Bus line station/terminal P7 P7 P7 P7 Bus line yard and repair facility P Car wash P3 Check cashing/payday loan business P5 Clinic (medical, dental) P P P P Commercial food preparation P18 P18 P18 P18 Community garden P P P P Convention center P Crematorium P P P Daycare center, adult P P P P Daycare center, child P P P P Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P 12 P 12 P 12 P 12 Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P 12 P 12 P 12 P 12 Dwelling: Artists’ loft/studio P P P P Assisted living facility (large) P P P P Assisted living facility (limited capacity) P P P Assisted living facility (small) P P P P Congregate care facility (large) C C C C Congregate care facility (small) P P P P Group home (large) C C Group home (small) P P P P Multi-family P P P P Residential support (large) C C Residential support (small) C C Exhibition hall P 35 Farmers’ market P Financial institution P P P P Financial institution with drive-through facility P8 P8 Funeral home P P P Gas station P P7 P7 Government facility C C C C Government facility requiring special design features for security purposes P7 P7 Heliport, accessory C C C Home occupation P 13 P 13 P 13 P 13 Homeless resource center C 15 C 15 Homeless shelter C 15 C 15 Hotel/motel P P P P Industrial assembly C18 C18 Laboratory, medical related P18 P18 P18 P18 Laundry, commercial P18 Library P P P P Limousine service P Mixed use development P P P P Mobile food business (operation in the public right-of-way) P P P P Mobile food business (operation on private property) P P P P Mobile food court P P P P Municipal services uses including city utility uses and police and fire stations P P P P Museum P P P P Office P P P P Office, publishing company P P P P Open space on lots less than 4 acres in size P7 P7 P7 P7 Park P P P P Parking, commercial C P C C Parking, off site P P P P Performing arts production facility P P P P Place of worship P11 P11 P11 P11 Radio, television station P P P Railroad, passenger station P P P P Reception center P P P P 36 Recreation (indoor) P P P P Recreation (outdoor) P Research and development facility P18 P18 P18 P18 Restaurant P P P P Restaurant with drive-through facility P8 Retail goods establishment P P P P Retail service establishment P P P P Retail service establishment, upholstery shop P P Sales and display (outdoor) P P P P School: College or university P P P P K - 12 private P P K - 12 public P P Music conservatory P P P P Professional and vocational P P P P Seminary and religious institute P P P P Small brewery C18 Social service mission and charity dining hall C C Stadium C C C Storage, self P 16 P P Store: Department P P P Fashion oriented department P2 Mass merchandising P P P Pawnshop P Specialty P P P Superstore and hypermarket P Studio, art P P P P Technology facility P18 P18 P18 P18 Theater, live performance P9 P9 P9 P9 Theater, movie P P P P Utility, buildings or structure P1 P1 P1 P1 Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole P1 P1 P1 P1 Vehicle: Automobile repair (major) P P7 P7 37 Automobile repair (minor) P P7 P7 Automobile sales/rental and service P10 P P10 Vending cart, private property P P P P Vending cart, public property Warehouse P18 Warehouse, accessory P P Wholesale distribution P18 Wireless telecommunications facility (see Section 21A.40.090, Table 21A.40.090.E of this title) Qualifying provisions: 1. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Subsection 21A.02.050.B of this title. 2. Uses allowed only within the boundaries and subject to the provisions of the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District (Section 21A.34.110 of this title). 3. A car wash located within 165 feet (including streets) of a residential use shall not be allowed. 4. Building additions on lots less than 20,000 square feet for office uses may not exceed 50 percent of the building’s footprint. Building additions greater than 50 percent of the building’s footprint or new office building construction are subject to a design review (Chapter 21A.59 of this title). 5. No check cashing/payday loan business shall be located closer than 1/2 mile of other check cashing/payday loan businesses. 6. Subject to conformance with the provisions in Section 21A.36.300, “Alcohol Related Establishments”, of this title. 7. Subject to conformance with the provisions of Chapter 21A.59, “Design Review”, of this title. 8. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Section 21A.40.060 of this title for drive-through use regulations. 9. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a single- or two-family zoning district. 10. Must be located in a fully enclosed building and entirely indoors. 11. If a place of worship is proposed to be located within 600 feet of a tavern, bar establishment, or brewpub, the place of worship must submit a written waiver of spacing requirement as a condition of approval. 12. Subject to Section 21A.36.130 of this title. 13. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to Section 21A.36.030 of this title. 14. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 15. Subject to conformance with the provisions of Section 21A.36.350 of this title, the city may not prohibit construction of a homeless resource center or homeless shelter if the site is approved by and receives funding through the State Homeless Coordinating Committee, with the concurrence of the Housing and Community Development Division within the Department of Workforce Services, in accordance with Section 35A-8-604 of the Utah Code. 38 16. Limited to basement/below ground levels only. Not allowed on the ground or upper levels of the building, with the exception of associated public leasing/office space. 17. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 18. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. 21A.33.060: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN THE GATEWAY DISTRICT: To view TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN THE GATEWAY DISTRICT in PDF, click HERE. Legend: C = Conditional P = Permitted Use G-MU Accessory use, except those that are otherwise specifically regulated elsewhere in this title P Adaptive reuse of a landmark site P Alcohol: Bar establishment (indoor) P2 Bar establishment (outdoor) P2,5 Brewpub (indoor) P2 Brewpub (outdoor) P2,5 Tavern (indoor) P2 Tavern (outdoor) P2,5 Ambulance service (indoor) C Amphitheater, formal P Amphitheater, informal P Animal, veterinary office P Antenna, communication tower P Antenna, communication towers, exceeding the maximum building height C Art gallery P Artisan food production P9 Artists’ loft/studio P Auction (indoor) P Auditorium P Bed and breakfast P Bed and breakfast inn P Bed and breakfast manor P Bio-medical facility P8,9 39 Botanical garden P Bus line station/terminal P3 Clinic (medical, dental) P Commercial food preparation P9 Community garden P Crematorium P Daycare center, adult P Daycare center, child P Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P 6 Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P 6 Dwelling: Assisted living facility (large) P Assisted living facility (limited capacity) P Assisted living facility (small) P Congregate care facility (large) C Congregate care facility (small) P Group home (large) C Group home (small) when located above or below first story office, retail or commercial use, or on the first story where the unit is not located adjacent to the street frontage P Living quarters for caretaker or security guard P Multi-family P Residential support (large) C Residential support (small) C Single-family (attached) P Equipment rental (indoor and/outdoor) P Farmers’ market P Financial institution P Flea market (indoor) P Funeral home P Government facility C Government facility requiring special design features for security purposes P3 Heliport, accessory C Home occupation P 7 Hotel/motel P Industrial assembly C9 40 Laboratory, medical related P9 Large wind energy system P Library P Mixed use development P Mobile food business (operation in the public right-of-way) P Mobile food business (operation on private property) P Mobile food court P Municipal services uses including city utility uses and police and fire stations P Museum P Office P Open space P Park P Parking: Commercial C Off site P Park and ride lot C Park and ride lot shared with existing use P Performing arts production facility P Photo finishing lab P9 Place of worship P Radio, television station C Reception center P Recreation (indoor) P Recreation (outdoor) C Research and development facility P9 Restaurant P Retail goods establishment P Retail goods establishment, plant and garden shop, with outdoor retail sales area P Retail service establishment P Retail service establishment, upholstery shop C School: College and university P K - 12 private P K - 12 public P Music conservatory P 41 Professional and vocational P Seminary and religious institute P Seasonal farm stand P Small brewery C9 Social service mission and charity dining hall C Solar array P9 Stadium C Storage, self P3 Store: Department P Mass merchandising P Specialty P Superstore and hypermarket P Studio, art P Studio, motion picture C Technology facility P9 Theater, live performance P4 Theater, movie P Urban farm P Utility, building or structure P1 Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole C Vehicle: Automobile repair (minor) P Automobile sales/rental and service (indoor) P Boat/recreational vehicle sales and service (indoor) P Vending cart, private property P Vending cart, public property P Wireless telecommunications facility (see Section 21A.40.090, Table 21A.40.090.E of this title) Zoological park C Qualifying provisions: 1. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Subsection 21A.02.050.B of this title. 2. Subject to conformance with the provisions of Section 21A.36.300, ”Alcohol Related Establishments”, of this title. 3. Subject to conformance with the provisions of Chapter 21A.59, “Design Review”, of this title. 42 4. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a single- or two-family zoning district. 5. Subject to the requirements set forth in Section 21A.40.065, “Outdoor Dining”, of this title. 6. Subject to Section 21A.36.130 of this title. 7. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to Section 21A.36.030 of this title. 8. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 9. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. No conditional use permit shall be granted for any property which abuts a residential zoning district, except for places of worship, public/private utilities and related facilities, residential facilities for persons with a disability and educational facilities. 43 21A.33.070: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS: To view TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS in PDF, click HERE Legend: C = Conditional P = Permitted Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH EI MU Accessory use, except those that are otherwise specifically regulated elsewhere in this title P P P P P P P P 20 P P P P P P P P Adaptive reuse of a landmark site C2 C2 C2 P2 Agricultural use C P P P P P P Air cargo terminals and package delivery facility P P Airport P Alcohol: Bar establishment (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C12 Brewpub (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) P12 C12 Brewpub (more than 2,500 square feet in floor area) P12 Tavern (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C12 Ambulance service (indoor) P P Ambulance service (outdoor) P10 P10 Amphitheater, formal P C Amphitheater, informal P P 44 Animal: Kennel on lots of 5 acres or larger C P8 P8 P8 P8 Pet cemetery P4 P4 P4 P4 P4,5 Stable (private) P P P P Stable (public) P P P P Veterinary office P P Antenna, communication tower P P C P P P P P 21 P P C P P P Antenna, communication tower exceeding the maximum building height in the zone C C P 21 P P11 C C C Art gallery P P P P P P Artisan food production P24 P18, 24 Bed and breakfast P2 P P Bed and breakfast inn P2 P P Bed and breakfast manor P2 P P Bio-medical facility P23,24 P23,24 P23, 24 P23, 24 Botanical garden P P P P Cannabis production establishment P P P P P Cemetery P Clinic (medical, dental) P P P P P 45 Commercial food preparation P24 P24 Community garden P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Convent/monastery P P Data center P24 Daycare center, adult P P P P P P P P Daycare center, child P P P P P P P P P Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 Dwelling: Accessory unit P P P P P P Assisted living facility (large) C P P Assisted living facility (limited capacity) P P P Assisted living facility (small) P P P Congregate care facility (large) C C C Congregate care facility (small) P P P Group home (large) C Group home (small) P P P P Living quarters for caretaker or security guard P P P C P P P P Manufactured home P P P 46 Mobile home P Multi-family P P Residential support (large) C Residential support (small) P Rooming (boarding) house P Single-family (attached) P Single-family (detached) P P P P Twin home and two-family P Exhibition hall C P C P Extractive industry P24 Fairground C Farm stand, seasonal P P P P P P P P P P P P P Financial institution P P P Financial institution with drive-through facility P14 P14 Gas station P7 Golf course P24 P24 P24 Government facility C C P P P P P 20 P C C C13 C P C Government facility requiring special design features for security purposes C C Government office P P P P P P P P 47 Heliport C C P P C C Home occupation P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 Hospital, including accessory lodging facility C P P Hotel/motel C C P P Hunting club, duck P Industrial assembly P24 P24 Jail C Jewelry fabrication P Laboratory, medical related P24 P24 P24 P24 P24 Large wind energy system C C C C C C C P P Library P P P P P Light manufacturing C24 P24 Manufacturing, concrete or asphalt P15, 24 Meeting hall of membership organization P P P P P Mixed use development P Mobile food business (operation on private property) P P P P P Municipal service uses, including city utility uses and police and fire stations C C P P P P P C C C14 C P C Museum C P P P P P P 48 Nursing care facility P P P Office P P P P P P P P Open space P P P P P P P P P9 P P P P P P P P Park P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Parking: Commercial C Off site P P P P P C Off site (to support uses in an OS or NOS zoning district) P Park and ride lot P C Park and ride lot shared with existing use P P P P P P P P Performing arts production facility P P Philanthropic use P P P P Place of worship P P P P P Radio, television station P6 P Reception center C22 C P P P P Recreation (indoor) C P P P P P P Recreation (outdoor) P P P P Research and development facility P24 P24 P24 P24 P24 Restaurant P7 P 49 Restaurant with drive-through facility P7,14 P3 Retail goods establishment P7 P P Retail, sales and service accessory use when located within a principal building P20 P Retail, sales and service accessory use when located within a principal building and operated primarily for the convenience of employees P P P P P P P P P Retail service establishment P School: College or university P P P K - 12 private P P P P K - 12 public P P P P Music conservatory P P P Professional and vocational P P P P P Seminary and religious institute P P C Small brewery C24 Solar array P24 P24 P19, 24 P24 P24 P24 Stadium C C C Storage, accessory (outdoor) P P P P Studio, art P 50 Technology facility P24 P24 P24 P24 Theater, live performance C15 C15 C15 C15 C15 C15 C15 Theater, movie C C Transportation terminal, including bus, rail and trucking P Urban farm P P P P P P P P P P P P Utility, building or structure P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 Vehicle, automobile rental agency P P Vending cart, private property P P Vending cart, public property P Warehouse P24 P24 Warehouse, accessory to retail and wholesale business (maximum 5,000 square foot floor plate) P Wholesale distribution P24 P24 Wireless telecommunications facility (see Section 21A.40.090, Table 21A.40.090.E of this title) Zoological park P Qualifying provisions: 1. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Subsection 21A.02.050.B of this title. 2. When located in a building listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. 51 3. When located on an arterial street. 4. Subject to Salt Lake Valley Health Department approval. 5. In conjunction with, and within the boundaries of, a cemetery for human remains. 6. Radio station equipment and antennas shall be required to go through the site plan review process to ensure that the color, design and location of all proposed equipment and antennas are screened or integrated into the architecture of the project and are compatible with surrounding uses. 7. When approved as part of a business park planned development pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 21A.55 of this title. 8. Kennels, whether within penned enclosures or within enclosed buildings, shall not be permitted within 200 feet of an existing single-family dwelling on an adjacent lot. 9. Trails and trailheads with signage are subject to Section 21A.46.120, “Sign Regulations for Special Purpose Districts”, of this title. 10. Greater than 3 ambulances at location require a conditional use. 11. Maximum of 1 monopole per property and only when it is government owned and operated for public safety purposes. 12. Subject to conformance with the provisions in Section 21A.36.300, “Alcohol Related Establishments”, of this title. 13. If located on a collector or arterial street according to the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan - Major Street Plan: Roadway Functional Classification map. 14. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Section 21A.40.060 of this title for drive-through use regulations. 15. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a single- or two-family zoning district. 16. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to Section 21A.36.130 of this title. 17. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to Section 21A.36.030 of this title. 18. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 19. Prior to issuance of a building permit in the Development Area and the Eco-Industrial Buffer Area of the Northwest Quadrant Overlay, consultation with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources is required to obtain recommendations on siting and equipment types for all solar arrays on a particular property to mitigate impacts to wildlife. 20. When customarily provided with the principal use and is accessory to the principal use. 21. New antennae and communication towers are allowed outside the telecommunication corridor in the OS Open Space District for public safety, public security or Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department purposes only. 52 22. Reception centers may be allowed in parks of 100 acres or more where the reception center is a subordinate use to the principal use of the property as a park. Reception centers are allowed in existing buildings, are limited to 1 reception center per park, and hours of operation are limited to park hours. Removal of existing recreation areas to accommodate the stand alone reception center use, including areas to accommodate parking for the reception center use, is not permitted. 23. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 24. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. 53 21A.33.080: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN FORM BASED DISTRICTS: To view TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN FORM BASED DISTRICTS in PDF, click HERE Note: Uses which are not listed in the following table are not permitted in any Form Based Code Zoning District. Legend: C = Conditional P = Permitted Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District FB-UN1 FB-UN2 FB-SC FB-SE Accessory use, except those that are specifically regulated in this chapter, or elsewhere in this title P P P P Alcohol: Bar establishment P P C Brewpub P P C Tavern, 2,500 square feet or less in floor area P P C Animal, veterinary office P P P Antenna, communication tower P P P Art gallery P P P Artisan food production P3,5 P3,5 P3,5 Bed and breakfast P P P P Bed and breakfast inn P P P P Bed and breakfast manor P P P P Bio-medical facility P4,5 P4,5 Clinic (medical, dental) P P P Commercial food preparation P5 P5 P5 Community garden P P P P Community recreation center P P P Daycare center, adult P P P Daycare center, child P P P Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P1 P1 P1 P1 Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P1 P1 P1 P1 Dwelling: Assisted living facility (limited capacity) P P P P Assisted living facility (small) P P P Congregate care facility (large) C C C Congregate care facility (small) C Group home (large) P P P 54 Group home (small) when located above or below first story office, retail, or commercial use, or on the first story where the unit is not located adjacent to street frontage P P P Multi-family P P P Residential support (large) P Residential support (small) P Rooming (boarding) house P Single-family attached P P P Single-family detached P Single-family detached (cottage development building form only) P P Single room occupancy P Two-family P Farmers’ market P P P Financial institution P P P Funeral home P P P Government facility P P P P Health and fitness facility P P P Home occupation P2 P2 P2 P2 Hotel/motel P P House museum in landmark site P P P P Laboratory, medical related P5 P5 P5 Library P P P Mixed use developments including residential and other uses allowed in the zoning district P P P Municipal service uses, including city utility uses and police and fire stations P P P P Museum P P P Nursing care facility P P P Office P P P Office and/or reception center in landmark site P P P Open space P P P P Park P P P P Parking, off site P P P P Photo finishing lab P5 P5 Place of worship P P P 55 Plazas P P P P Recreation (indoor) P P P Research and development facility P5 P5 P5 Restaurant P P P Retail goods establishment P P P Retail goods establishment, plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area P P P Retail service establishment P P P Sales and display (outdoor) P P P School: College or university P P P Music conservatory P P P Professional and vocational P P P Seminary and religious institute P P P Seasonal farm stand P P P Solar array P5 P5 P5 Store, specialty P P P Studio, art P P P Technology facility P5 P5 P5 Theater, movie P P P Urban farm P P P P Utility, building or structure P P P P Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe, or pole P P P P Vending cart, private property P P P Wireless telecommunications facility P P P Qualifying provisions: 1. Subject to Section 21A.36.130 of this title. 2. Subject to Section 21A.36.030 of this title. 3. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 4. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 5. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. 56 SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020. That Section 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (List of Defined Terms) shall be and hereby is amended as follows: a. Adding the Term “Anticipated Daily Water Use Report”. That Section 21A.60.040 shall be and hereby is amended to add the term “Anticipated Daily Water Use Report”, which term shall be inserted into Section 21A.60.020 in alphabetical order and shall read as follows: Anticipated Daily Water Use Report. b. Adding the Term “Potable water”. That Section 21A.60.040 shall be and hereby is amended to add the term “Potable water”, which term shall be inserted into Section 21A.60.020 in alphabetical order and shall read as follows: Potable water. SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Definitions of Terms) shall be and hereby is amended as follows: a. Amending the Definition of “BOTTLING PLANT”. That the definition of the term, “BOTTLING PLANT” provided in Section 21A.62.040 shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: BOTTLING PLANT: An establishment that engages in the bottling, canning, or filling of any container with beverages for distribution. The term “bottling plant” shall not include any beverage or food manufacturing type use which is otherwise listed specifically in the table of permitted and conditional uses found in Chapter 21A.33 of this title. b. Adding the Definition “ANTICIPATED DAILY WATER USE REPORT”. That Section 21A.62.040 shall be and hereby is amended to add the definition “ANTICIPATED DAILY WATER USE REPORT”, which definition shall be inserted into Section 21A.62.040 in alphabetical order and shall read as follows: 57 ANTICIPATED DAILY WATER USE REPORT: A detailed report provided by an applicant that demonstrates the anticipated daily use and/or consumption of water for the described use based on commonly accepted standards within the water utility industry. c. Adding the Definition “POTABLE WATER”. That Section 21A.62.040 shall be and hereby is amended to add the definition “POTABLE WATER”, which definition shall be inserted into Section 21A.62.040 in alphabetical order and shall read as follows: POTABLE WATER: Water that is safe for human consumption and provided by the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance 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: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 58 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2021. Published: ______________. Ordinance regulating high water uses (final) APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney October 29, 2021 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 2021 2 (An ordinance amending various sections of the Salt Lake City Code 3 pertaining to land uses that use or consume significant amounts of water 4 pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00635) 5 6 An ordinance amending various sections of the Salt Lake City Code to regulate land uses 7 that use or consume significant amounts of water as provided herein. 8 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”) held 9 a public hearing on September 22, 2021 to consider a request by the Salt Lake City Council (the 10 “City Council”) to amend the Salt Lake City Code to prohibit land uses that use or consume a 11 significant amount of water; and 12 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”) held 13 a public hearing on September 22, 2021 to consider petition number PLNPCM2021-00635 (the 14 “petition”) initiated by Salt Lake City Mayor, Erin Mendenhall, to amend Salt Lake City Code to 15 prohibit land uses that use or consume a significant amount of water; and 16 WHEREAS, at its September 22, 2021 hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor 17 of forwarding a positive recommendation of approval to the City Council to adopt changes to the 18 Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the prohibition of land uses which use or consume significant 19 amounts of water; and 20 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council desires to modify its land use regulations to as 21 provided herein; and 22 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds that while the city has adequate water 23 resources for the current needs of the city’s customers in the city’s designated water service area 24 2 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT and the city holds water interests that can be developed in the future for the benefit of its water 25 customers, the city’s water resource supply is not unlimited and, furthermore changing 26 environmental conditions are placing significant pressure on the city’s water resources; 27 WHEREAS, the majority of the city’s water resources emanate from the watershed that 28 contribute water to Great Salt Lake, and the city is very concerned that a shrinking Great Salt 29 Lake has significant negative ramifications to the health and welfare of the public and 30 environment; and 31 WHEREAS, immediate steps are appropriate to limit use of the city’s water resources by 32 water consumers that would consume very large quantities of water that would exacerbate the 33 pressures on the city’s water resources and the Great Salt Lake system ; and 34 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council desires to enact land use regulations that protect 35 and preserve the availability of the city to provide water to its current customers and to future 36 development in the city that will promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the 37 present and future city residents; and 38 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds that modification of its land use regulations 39 is just one of a number of methods in which Salt Lake City currently regulates water use or 40 consumption and contemplates that the city will continue to explore further regulatory methods 41 to help ensure a fair and equitable use of the city’s finite resource; and 42 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds, after holding a public hearing on this 43 matter, that adopting this ordinance promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the 44 citizens of the city. 45 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 46 3 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 21A.33. That Chapter 47 21A.33 of the Salt Lake City Code (Land Use Tables) shall be and hereby is amended to read and 48 appear as follows: 49 SECTION: 50 21A.33.010: General Provisions 51 21A.33.020: Table Oof Permitted Aand Conditional Uses Ffor Residential Districts 52 21A.33.030: Table Oof Permitted Aand Conditional Uses Ffor Commercial Districts 53 21A.33.035: Table Oof Permitted Aand Conditional Uses Ffor Transit Station Area 54 Districts 55 21A.33.040: Table Oof Permitted Aand Conditional Uses Ffor Manufacturing Districts 56 21A.33.050: Table Oof Permitted Aand Conditional Uses Ffor Downtown Districts 57 21A.33.060: Table Oof Permitted Aand Conditional Uses Iin Tthe Gateway District 58 21A.33.070: Table Oof Permitted Aand Conditional Uses Ffor Special Purpose Districts 59 21A.33.080: Table Oof Permitted Aand Conditional Uses Iin Form Based Districts 60 61 21A.33.010: GENERAL PROVISIONS: 62 63 A. Permitted Uses: The uses specified as permitted uses in sSections 21A.33.020, 64 21A.33.030, 21A.33.035, 21A.33.040, 21A.33.050, 21A.33.060, 21A.33.070, and 65 21A.33.080 of this chapter, tables of permitted and conditional uses, are permitted 66 provided that they comply with the general standards set forth in pPart IV of this title and 67 all other applicable requirements of this title. 68 B. Conditional Uses: The uses specified as conditional uses in sSections 21A.33.020, 69 21A.33.030, 21A.33.035, 21A.33.040, 21A.33.050, 21A.33.060, 21A.33.070, and 70 21A.33.080 of this chapter, tables of permitted and conditional uses, shall be allowed 71 provided they are approved pursuant to the standards and procedures for conditional uses 72 set forth in cChapter 21A.54 of this title, and comply with all other applicable 73 requirements of this title. 74 C. Uses Not Permitted: Any use specifically listed without a "P" or a "C" designated in the 75 table of permitted and conditional uses for a district shall not be allowed in that zoning 76 district. 77 D. Prohibited Uses: The following land uses are prohibited in all zoning districts: 78 1. Commercial and Industrial Land Uses That Exceed 300,000 Gallons of Water per Day. 79 4 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT a. New Land Uses: Any new commercial or industrial land use that consumes or uses 80 more than an annual average of 300,000 gallons of potable water per day is prohibited 81 in all zoning districts. The use and consumption limit is based on the total use from all 82 water meters that serve the land use. 83 b. Expansions of Existing Uses: No commercial or industrial land use shall expand to an 84 extent that increases its daily potable water consumption or use to exceed an annual 85 average of 300,000 gallons of potable water per day. Notwithstanding the provisions 86 of Subsection 21A.38.040.H, an existing land use that exceeds the water use threshold 87 may not expand if the expansion will result in a net increase in water consumption or 88 use. The use and consumption limit is based on the total use from all water meters that 89 serve the land use. 90 c. Water Use Report Required: A land use applicant shall certify the anticipated daily 91 water use of the proposed land use in a manner satisfactory to the Department of 92 Public Utilities. The Department of Public Utilities may require an anticipated daily 93 water use report of any land use applicant proposing a new use or expansion of an 94 existing use. 95 d. Exemption: Agricultural, residential, and institutional land uses are not subject to the 96 regulations of this subsection. For purposes of this section, an institutional land use 97 includes government owned or operated facilities, places of worship, and hospitals. 98 2. Reserved. 99 100 101 102 5 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 21A.33.020: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS: 103 To view TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS in PDF, click HERE 104 Legend: C = Conditional P = Permitted 105 Use Permitted Aand Conditional Uses Bby District FR-1/ 43,560 FR-2/ 21,780 FR-3/ 12,000 R-1/ 12,000 R-1/ 7,000 R-1/ 5,000 SR-1 SR-2 SR-3 R-2 RMF- 30 MF-35 RMF- 45 RMF- 75 RB R-MU- 35 R-MU- 45 R-MU RO Accessory use, except those that are otherwise specifically regulated elsewhere in this title P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Adaptive reuse of a landmark site C8 C8 C8 C8 C8 C8 C8 C8 C8 C8 C8 C8 C8 P P P P P6 Alcohol, bar establishment (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C9 C9 C9 C9 Alcohol, brewpub (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C9 C9 C9 Alcohol, tavern (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C9 Animal, veterinary office C C C P P6 Art gallery P P P P P Artisan food production (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) P3 P3 P3 P3 P 6 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Bed and breakfast inn P P P P Bed and breakfast manor P Clinic (medical, dental) P P P P P6 Commercial food preparation P21 P21 P21 P21 P21 Community garden C C C C C C C C C P P P P P P P P P Community recreation center C Crematorium C C C Daycare center, adult C P P P P P P Daycare center, child C18 C1 8 C1 8 C18 C1 8 C1 8 C18 C18 C18 P P P P P P Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 Dwelling, accessory guest and servant’s quarter P11 P11 P11 Dwelling, accessory unit C C C C C C P P P P P P P P P P P P Dwelling, assisted living facility (large) C P P C P P Dwelling, assisted living facility (limited capacity) C C C C C C C C C P P P P P P P P 7 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Dwelling, assisted living facility (small) P P P P P P Dwelling, congregate care facility (large) C C C C C C C Dwelling, congregate care facility (small) C C C C C C C C C C P P P P P P P P Dwelling; dormitory, fraternity, sorority P12 Dwelling, group home (large) C C C C C1 4 C C C C1 4 Dwelling, group home (small) P P P P P P P P P P P P P P15 P P P P15 Dwelling, manufactured home P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Dwelling, multi- family P P P P P P P P P Dwelling, residential support (large) C C C C C1 6 Dwelling, residential support (small) C C P C C P P17 Dwelling, rooming (boarding) house C P C C C P P Dwelling, single- family (attached) P P P P P P P P P P Dwelling, single- family (detached) P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 8 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Dwelling, twin home and two- family P P P2 P P P P P P P Financial institution P P P P6 Funeral home P P P P Governmental facility C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C6 Home occupation P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 Laboratory, medical related P21 P21 P21 P21 P21 Library C C C C C Mixed use development P1 P P P P Mobile food business (operation on private property) P P P Municipal service use, including Ccity utility use and police and fire station C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Museum P C P P P Nursing care facility P P P P P Office, excluding medical and dental clinic and office P P P P P6 Open space on lots less than 4 acres in size P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Park P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Parking, off site (to support nonconforming uses in a C C C C C 9 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT residential zone or uses in the CN or CB Zzones) Parking, park and ride lot shared with existing use P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Place of worship on lots less than 4 acres in size C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Reception center P P P Recreation (indoor) P P P P P Research and development facility P21 P21 Restaurant P P P P P Restaurant with drive- through facility Retail goods establishment P P P P Retail goods establishment, plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area P P P P Retail service establishment P P P P School, music conservatory P C C P School, professional and vocational P C C P P6 School, seminary and religious institute C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Seasonal farm stand P P P P P 10 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Studio, art P P P P P Technology facility P21 P21 P21 P21 Temporary use of closed schools and churches C19 C19 C19 C19 C1 9 C1 9 C19 C1 9 C19 C19 C19 C19 C19 C19 Theater, live performance C1 3 C13 C13 C13 C1 3 Theater, movie C C C C C Urban farm P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Utility, building or structure P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5, 7 Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 Wireless telecommunications facility (see sSection 21A.40.090, tTable 21A.40.090.E of this title) Qualifying provisions: 106 1. A single apartment unit may be located above first floor retail/office. 107 2. Provided that no more than 2 two-family buildings are located adjacent to one another and no more than 3 such dwellings are located along the same block face (within 108 subdivisions approved after April 12, 1995). 109 3. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 110 4. Reserved. 111 5. See sSubsection 21A.02.050.B of this title for utility regulations. 112 6. Building additions on lots less than 20,000 square feet for office uses may not exceed 50 percent of the building’s footprint. Building additions greater than 50 percent of 113 the building’s footprint or new office building construction are subject to a design review. 114 7. Subject to conformance to the provisions in sSection 21A.02.050 of this title. 115 11 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 8. Subject to conformance with the provisions of sSubsection 21A.24.010.S of this title. 116 9. Subject to conformance with the provisions in sSection 21A.36.300, “Alcohol Related Establishments”, of this title. 117 10. In the RB Zzoning Ddistrict, the total square footage, including patio space, shall not exceed 2,200 square feet in total. Total square footage will include a maximum 1,750 118 square feet of floor space within a business and a maximum of 450 square feet in an outdoor patio area. 119 11. Accessory guest or servant’s quarters must be located within the buildable area on the lot. 120 12. Subject to conformance with the provisions of sSection 21A.36.150 of this title. 121 13. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a Ssingle- or Ttwo-Ffamily Zzoning Ddistrict. 122 14. Large group homes established in the RB and RO Ddistricts shall be located above the ground floor. 123 15. Small group homes established in the RB and RO Ddistricts shall be located above the ground floor. 124 16. Large residential support established in RO Ddistricts shall be located above the ground floor. 125 17. Small residential support established in RO Ddistricts shall be located above the ground floor. 126 18. Subject to sSection 21A.36.130 of this title. 127 19. Subject to sSection 21A.36.170 of this title. 128 20. Subject to sSection 21A.36.030 of this title. 129 21. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. 130 12 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 21A.33.030: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR COMMERCIAL 131 DISTRICTS: 132 To view TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS in PDF, click HERE 133 134 Legend: C = Conditional P = Permitted 135 Use Permitted Aand Conditional Uses Bby District CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB Accessory use, except those that are specifically regulated elsewhere in this title P P P P P P P Adaptive reuse of a landmark site P P P P P P Alcohol: Bar establishment (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C10,11 C10,11 P10 P10 P10 P10 Bar establishment (more than 2,500 square feet in floor area) P10 C10 P10 P10 Brewpub (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C10,11 P10 P10 P10 P10 Brewpub (more than 2,500 square feet in floor area) P10 C10 P10 P10 Distillery P16, 23 Tavern (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C10,11 P10 P10 P10 P10 Tavern (more than 2,500 square feet in floor area) P10 C10 P10 P10 Ambulance service (indoor) P P P P Ambulance service (outdoor) P6 P6 P6 P Amusement park P P Animal: Cremation service P P Kennel P Pet cemetery P4 Veterinary office C P P P P P Antenna, communication tower P P P P P 13 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Antenna, communication tower, exceeding the maximum building height in the zone C C C C C Art gallery P P P P P P P Artisan food production (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) P20 P20 P P P20 P Artisan food production (more than 2,500 square feet in floor area) P23 P23 P23 Auction (outdoor) P P Auditorium P P P P Bakery, commercial P23 Bed and breakfast P P P P P P P14 Bed and breakfast inn P P P P P P Bed and breakfast manor C3 C3 P P P Bio-medical facility P22, 23 P22, 23 P22, 23 P22, 23 Blacksmith shop P23 Blood donation center C P Brewery P23 Bus line station/terminal P P Bus line yard and repair facility P Car wash P P P Car wash as accessory use to gas station or convenience store that sells gas P P P P Check cashing/payday loan business P8 P8 Clinic (medical, dental) P P P P P P Commercial food preparation P23 P23 P23 P23 P23 P23 Community correctional facility, large Community correctional facility, small C7,17 Community garden P P P P P P P Contractor’s yard/office C P 14 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Crematorium C C C C Daycare center, adult P P P P P P Daycare center, child P P P P P P Daycare, nonregistered home daycare or preschool P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 Dwelling: Assisted living facility (large) P P P P Assisted living facility (small) P P P P Congregate care facility (large) C C C C Congregate care facility (small) P Group home (large) P C C Group home (small) when located above or below first story office, retail, or commercial use, or on the first story where the unit is not located adjacent to street frontage P P P P P P P Living quarter for caretaker or security guard P P P P P P Manufactured home P Multi-family P P P P P P Residential support (large) C C Residential support (small) C C Rooming (boarding) house P P P P P Single-family attached P Single-family detached P Single room occupancy Twin home P Two-family P Equipment rental (indoor and/or outdoor) P P Farmers’ market C C P P 15 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Financial institution P P P P P P Financial institution with drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 Flea market (indoor) P P P P Flea market (outdoor) P Funeral home P P P P Gas station C P P P P Government facility C C C C C C Government facility requiring special design features for security purposes P P P P P P Home occupation P19 P19 P19 P19 P19 P19 P19 Homeless resource center C21 Homeless shelter C21 Hotel/motel C P P P House museum in landmark sites (see sSubsection 21A.24.010.S of this title) C Impound lot C12 Industrial assembly P23 Intermodal transit passenger hub P Laboratory, medical related P23 P23 P23 P23 P23 Large wind energy system P P P Laundry, commercial P23 Library P P P P P P C Limousine service (large) P Limousine service (small) C C P Manufactured/mobile home sales and service P Mixed use development P P P P P P P13 Mobile food business (operation on private property) P P P P P P 16 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Municipal service uses, including Ccity utility uses and police and fire stations C C C C C C Museum P P P P P P P Nursing care facility P P P Office P P P P P P P15 Office, single practitioner medical, dental, and health P Offices and reception centers in landmark sites (see sSubsection 21A.24.010.S of this title) C Open space P P P P P P Open space on lots less than 4 acres in size P Park P P P P P P P Parking: Commercial C P P Off site C P P P P P Park and ride lot C C P P Park and ride lot shared with existing use P P P P P Place of worship on lot less than 4 acres in size P P P P P P C Radio, television station P P P P Reception center P P P P P Recreation (indoor) P P P P P P P Recreation (outdoor) C C P Recreational vehicle park (minimum 1 acre) C Recycling collection station P P P P P P Research and development facility P23 P23 P23 P23 Restaurant P P P P P P Restaurant with drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 Retail goods establishment P P P P P P P Plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area P P P P P P P 17 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT With drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 Retail service establishment P P P P P P P Furniture repair shop C P P P P P With drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 Reverse vending machine P P P P P P Sales and display (outdoor) P P P P P P School: College or university P P P P P Music conservatory P P P P P Professional and vocational P P P P P Seminary and religious institute P P P P P C Seasonal farm stand P P P P P P Sexually oriented business P5 Sign painting/fabrication P Small brewery C23 P23 Solar array P23 Storage (outdoor) C P Storage, public (outdoor) C P Storage, self P P Store: Department P P Mass merchandising P P P Pawnshop P Specialty P P P P Superstore and hypermarket P P Warehouse club P Studio, art P P P P P P P 18 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Studio, motion picture P Taxicab facility P Technology facility P23 P23 P23 P23 Theater, live performance P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 Theater, movie C P P P P Urban farm P P P P P P Utility, building or structure P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe, or pole P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 Vehicle: Auction P Automobile repair (major) P P Automobile repair (minor) C P P P P P Automobile sales/rental and service P P Automobile salvage and recycling (indoor) P23 Boat/recreational vehicle sales and service P P Truck repair (large) P Truck sales and rental (large) P P Vending cart, private property P Warehouse P23 P23 Welding shop P Wholesale distribution P23 P23 Wireless telecommunications facility (see sSection 21A.40.090, tTable 21A.40.090.E of this title) C Woodworking mill P23 136 Qualifying provisions: 137 1. Development in the CS Ddistrict shall be subject to planned development approval pursuant to the provisions 138 of cChapter 21A.55 of this title. Certain developments in the CSHBD Zzone shall be subject to the design review 139 process pursuant to the provisions of sSubsection 21A.26.060.D and cChapter 21A.59 of this title. 140 19 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2. Subject to conformance to the provisions in sSubsection 21A.02.050.B of this title for utility regulations. 141 3. When located in a building listed on the Salt Lake City rRegister of cCultural rResources (see 142 sSubsections 21A.264.010.S and 21A.26.010.K of this title). 143 4. Subject to Salt Lake Valley Health Department approval. 144 5. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in sSection 21A.36.140 of this title. 145 6. Greater than 3 ambulances at location require a conditional use. 146 7. A community correctional facility is considered an institutional use and any such facility located within an the 147 AFPP Airport Noise Flight Path Protection Overlay Zone District is subject to the land use and sound attenuation 148 standards for institutional uses of the applicable Airport Overlay influence Zzone within chapter Section 149 21A.34.040 of this title. 150 8. No check cashing/payday loan business shall be located closer than 1/2 mile of other check cashing/payday loan 151 businesses. 152 9. Subject to conformance to the provisions in sSection 21A.40.060 of this title for drive-through use regulations. 153 10. Subject to conformance with the provisions in sSection 21A.36.300, “Alcohol Related Establishments”, of this 154 title. 155 11. In CN and CB Zzoning Ddistricts, the total square footage, including patio space, shall not exceed 2,200 square 156 feet in total. Total square footage will include a maximum 1,750 square feet of floor space within a business and a 157 maximum of 450 square feet in an outdoor patio area. 158 12. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a Ssingle- or Ttwo-Ffamily Zzoning Ddistrict. 159 13. Residential units may be located above or below first floor retail/office. 160 14. In the SNB Zzoning Ddistrict, bed and breakfast use is only allowed in a landmark site. 161 15. Medical and dental offices are not allowed in the SNB Zzoning Ddistrict, except for single practitioner medical, 162 dental and health offices. 163 16. Permitted in the CG Zzoning Ddistrict only when associated with an on site food service establishment. 164 17. Prohibited within 1/2 mile of any Rresidential Zzoning Ddistrict boundary and subject to sSection 21A.36.110 of 165 this title. 166 18. Subject to sSection 21A.36.130 of this title. 167 19. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to 168 sSection 21A.36.030 of this title. 169 20. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 170 21. Subject to conformance with the provisions of sSection 21A.36.350 of this title, the Ccity may not prohibit 171 construction of a homeless resource center or homeless shelter if the site is approved by and receives funding 172 through the State Homeless Coordinating Committee, with the concurrence of the Housing and Community 173 Development Division within the Department of Workforce Services, in accordance with sSection 35A-8-604 of 174 the Utah Code. 175 22. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as defined by 176 the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 177 20 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 23. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. 178 179 180 21A.33.035: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR TRANSIT STATION AREA 181 DISTRICTS: 182 To view TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR TRANSIT STATION AREA DISTRICTS in PDF, 183 click HERE 184 Legend: C = Conditional P = Permitted 185 186 Use Permitted Aand Conditional Uses Bby District TSA-UC TSA-UN TSA-MUEC TSA-SP Core Transition Core Transition Core Transition Core Transition Accessory use, except those that are specifically regulated elsewhere in this title P P P P P P P P Adaptive reuse of a landmark site P P P P P P P P Agricultural use P P P P P P P P Alcohol: Bar establishment (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) P P P P P P P P Bar establishment (more than 2,500 square feet in floor area) P C P C P C P C Brewpub (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) P P P P P P P P Brewpub (more than 2,500 square feet in floor area) P C P C P C P C Distillery P12 C12 P12 C12 P12 P12 P12 C12 Tavern (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) P P P P P P P P Tavern (more than 2,500 square feet in floor area) P C P C P C P C Winery P12 C12 P12 C12 P12 P12 P12 P12 Amphitheater, formal C C 21 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Amphitheater, informal C C Amusement park C C Animal: Cremation service P P P P P P P P Kennel P P P P Pet cemetery1 P1 P1 P1 P1 Stable, public P P Veterinary office P P P P P P P P Antenna, communication tower P P P P P P P P Antenna, communication tower, exceeding the maximum building height in the zone C C C C C C C C Art gallery P P P P P P P P Artisan food production P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 Auction (indoor) P P P P Auditorium P P Bakery, commercial P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 Bed and breakfast P P P P P P P P Bed and breakfast inn P P P P P P P P Bed and breakfast manor P P P P P P P P Bio-medical facility P11,12 P11,12 P11,12 P11,12 Blood donation center P P P P P P P P Botanical garden P P P P P P P P Brewery C12 C12 C12 C12 P12 P12 P12 P12 Car wash P P Car wash as accessory use to gas station or convenience store that sells gas P P 22 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Clinic (medical, dental) P P P P P P P P Commercial food preparation P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 Community correctional facility, small2,8 C2,8 Community garden P P P P P P P P Convent/monastery P P P P P P P P Convention center C C Crematorium P P P P P P Daycare center, adult P P P P P P P P Daycare center, child P P P P P P P P Daycare, nonregistered home daycare or preschool P6 P6 P6 P6 P6 P6 P6 P6 Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P6 P6 P6 P6 P6 P6 P6 P6 Dwelling: Artists’ loft/studio P P P P P P P P Assisted living facility (large) P P P P P P P P Assisted living facility (small) P P P P P P P P Congregate care facility (large) C C C C C C C C Congregate care facility (small) P P P P P P P P Group home (large) P P P P P P P P Group home (small) P P P P P P P P Living quarter for caretaker or security guard P P P P P P P P Manufactured home P P P P P P P P Multi-family P P P P P P P P Residential support (large) P P P P P P P P 23 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Residential support (small) P P P P P P P P Rooming (boarding) house P P P P P P P P Single-family attached P P P P P P P P Single-family detached P P P P Single room occupancy P P P P P P P P Twin home P P P P P P P P Two-family P P P P P P P P Exhibition hall C C Farmers’ market P P P P P P P P Financial institution P P P P P P P P Financial institution with drive-through facility P P Flea market (indoor) P P P P P P P P Flea market (outdoor) P P Food processing P12 P12 P12 P12 Funeral home P P P P P P P P Gas station P P Government facility P P P P P P P P Government facility requiring special design features for security purposes P P P P P P P P Grain elevator P P P P Greenhouse P P P P P P P P Home occupation P7 P7 P7 P7 P7 P7 P7 P7 Hospital, including accessory lodging facility P P P P P P P P Hotel/motel P P P P P P P P House museum in landmark sites (see P P P P P P P P 24 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT sSubsection 21A.24.010.S of this title) Industrial assembly P12 P12 P12 P12 Laboratory, medical related P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 Laundry, commercial P12 P12 Library P P P P P P P P Light manufacturing P12 P12 P12 P12 Meeting hall of membership organization P P P P P P P P Mixed use development P P P P P P P P Mobile food business (operating on private property) P P P P P P P P Mobile food business (operation in public right- of- way) P P P P P P P P Mobile food court P P P P P P Municipal service uses, including Ccity utility uses and police and fire stations P P P P P P P P Museum P P P P P P P P Nursing care facility P P P P P P P P Office P P P P P P P P Office, publishing company P P P P P P P P Office, single practitioner medical, dental, and health P P P P P P P P Offices and reception centers in landmark sites (see sSubsection 21A.24.010.S of this title) P P P P P P P P Open space P P P P P P P P Park P P P P P P P P Parking: 25 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Commercial (if located in a parking structure) P P P P P P P Commercial (surface lot)3 P3 P3 Off site3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P7 P3 Park and ride lot3 P3 P3 Park and ride lot shared with existing use P P Performing arts production facility P P P P P P P P Philanthropic use P P P P P P P P Photo finishing lab P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 Place of worship P P P P P P P P Printing plant P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 Radio, television station P P P P P P Railroad passenger station P P P P P P P P Reception center P P P P P P P P Recreation (indoor) P P P P P P P P Recreation (outdoor) P P P P P P P P Recycling collection station P P P P P P P P Research and development facility P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 Restaurant P P P P P P P P Restaurant with drive- through facility9 C10 Retail goods establishment P P P P P P P P Plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area P P P P P P P P With drive-through facility Retail service establishment P P P P P P P P Furniture repair shop P P P P P P P P 26 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Sales and display (outdoor) P P P P P P P P School: College or university P P P P P P P P Music conservatory P P P P P P P P Professional and vocational P P P P P P P P Seminary and religious institute P P P P P P P P Seasonal farm stand P P P P P P P P Small brewery P12 C12 P12 C12 P12 P12 P12 P12 Social service mission and charity dining hall C C C C P P P P Solar array P12 P12 P12 P12 Stadium C C C C C C Storage, self P P P P Store: Convenience P P P P P P P P Department P P P P P P P P Mass merchandising P P P P P P P P Specialty P P P P P P P P Superstore and hypermarket P P Warehouse club P P Studio, art P P P P P P P P Studio, motion picture P P P P Technology facility P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 P12 Theater, live performance4 P4 C4 P4 C4 P4 P4 P4 P4 Theater, movie P P P P P P Urban farm P P P P P P P P 27 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Utility, building or structure5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe, or pole5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 Vehicle: Automobile repair (minor) P P Vending cart, private property P P P P P P P P Warehouse P12 P12 Wholesale distribution P12 Wireless telecommunications facility (see sSection 21A.40.090 of this title) P P P P P P P P Wireless telecommunications facility, exceeding the maximum building height of the zone (see sSection 21A.40.090 of this title) C C C C C C C C Woodworking mill P12 P12 P12 Zoological park C C 187 Qualifying provisions for specific land uses: 188 1. Subject to Salt Lake Valley Health Department approval. 189 2. A community correctional facility is considered an institutional use and any such facility located within an the 190 AFPP Airport Noise Flight Path Protection Overlay Zone District is subject to the land use and sound attenuation 191 standards for institutional uses of the applicable Airport Overlay influence Zzone within chapter Section 192 21A.34.040 of this title. 193 3. Surface parking lots as a principal use located on a lot that has frontage on a public street are prohibited. 194 4. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a Ssingle- or Ttwo-Ffamily Zzoning Ddistrict. 195 5. Subject to conformance to the provisions in sSubsection 21A.02.050.B of this title for utility regulations. 196 6. Subject to sSection 21A.36.130 of this title. 197 7. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to 198 sSection 21A.36.030 of this title. 199 8. Subject to sSection 21A.36.110 of this title. 200 28 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 9. Drive-through windows are prohibited on any public street facing facade and automobile stacking is prohibited 201 between public street facing facades and the adjacent public right-of-way. 202 10. Subject to conformance with the provisions in sSection 21A.40.060 for drive-through use regulations. 203 11. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as defined by 204 the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 205 12. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. 206 207 21A.33.040: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR MANUFACTURING 208 DISTRICTS: 209 To view TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS in PDF, 210 click HERE. 211 Legend: C = Conditional P = Permitted 212 Use Permitted Aand Conditional Uses Bby District M-1 M-2 Accessory use, except those that are otherwise specifically regulated elsewhere in this title P P Adaptive reuse of a landmark site C C7 Agricultural use P P Alcohol: Bar establishment C6,10 C6,10 Brewpub P6,10 P6,10 Distillery P19 P19 Tavern C6,10 C6,10 Winery P19 P19 Ambulance services (indoor and/or outdoor) P P Animal: Cremation service P P Kennel P13 P Pet cemetery P2 P2 Pound P12,13 P12 Raising of furbearing animals C P Stockyard C12 P12 Veterinary office P P Antenna, communication tower P P Antenna, communication tower, exceeding the maximum building height C C 29 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Artisan food production P19 P19 Bakery, commercial P19 P19 Bio-medical facility P18,19 P18,19 Blacksmith shop P19 P19 Bottling plant P19,20 P19,20 Brewery P19 P19 Building materials distribution P P Bus line station/terminal P P Bus line yard and repair facility P12 P Cannabis production establishment P P Check cashing/payday loan business P9 Chemical manufacturing and/or storage C19 Commercial food preparation P19 P19 Community correctional facility, large C8,16 Community correctional facility, small C8,16 Community garden P Concrete and/or asphalt manufacturing C12,13,19 P12,19 Contractor’s yard/office P P Crematorium P P Data center P19 Daycare center, adult P Daycare center, child P Drop forge industry P19 Dwelling, living quarters for caretaker or security guard, limited to uses on lots 1 acre in size or larger and is accessory to a principal use allowed by the zoning district P P Equipment, heavy (rental, sales, service) P P Equipment rental (indoor and/or outdoor) P P Explosive manufacturing and storage C12,19 Financial institution with or without drive-through facility P11 Flammable liquids or gases, heating fuel distribution and storage P12 Food processing P19 P19 Gas station P P Golf course P19 Government facility P P Government facility requiring special design features for security purposes P P Grain elevator C12 P 30 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Greenhouse P Heavy manufacturing P12,19 Home occupation P15 P15 Hotel/motel P Impound lot P12 P12 Incinerator, medical waste/hazardous waste C12,19 Industrial assembly P19 P19 Laboratory, medical related P19 P19 Large wind energy system P13,14 P Laundry, commercial P19 P19 Light manufacturing P19 P19 Limousine service P P Mobile food business (operation in the public right- of-way) P P Mobile food business (operation on private property) P P Mobile food court P P Municipal services uses including Ccity utility uses and police and fire stations P Office P Office, publishing company P Open space P P Package delivery facility P P Paint manufacturing P19 Park P P Parking: Commercial P Off site P P Park and ride lot P P Park and ride lot shared with existing use P P Photo finishing lab P19 P19 Poultry farm or processing plant P12,19 Printing plant P19 Radio, television station P Railroad, freight terminal facility C4 C4 Railroad, repair shop C19 P19 Recreation (indoor) P Recreation (outdoor) P 31 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Recycling: Collection station P P Processing center (indoor) P19 P19 Processing center (outdoor) C12,13,14,19 P12,19 Refinery, petroleum products C12,19 Restaurant with or without drive-through facilities P11 Research and development facility P19 P19 Retail goods establishment with or without drive- through facility P11 Retail service establishment: Electronic repair shop P Furniture repair shop P P Upholstery shop P Rock, sand and gravel storage and distribution C P School: Professional and vocational (with outdoor activities) P Professional and vocational (without outdoor activities) P Seminary and religious institute P Seasonal farm stand P P Sexually oriented business P5 P5 Sign painting/fabrication P P Slaughterhouse P12 Small brewery P19 P19 Solar array P17,19 P19 Storage and display (outdoor) P P Storage, public (outdoor) P P Storage, self P P Store, convenience P P Studio, motion picture P Taxicab facility P P Technology facility P19 Tire distribution retail/wholesale P P Truck freight terminal P12 P12 Urban farm P P Utility: Building or structure P P 32 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Electric generation facility C3,12,19 C3,12,19 Sewage treatment plant C P Solid waste transfer station C12 P12 Transmission wire, line, pipe or pole P1 P1 Vehicle: Auction P P Automobile and truck repair P P Automobile and truck sales and rental (including large truck) P P Automobile part sales P P Automobile salvage and recycling (indoor) P19 P19 Automobile salvage and recycling (outdoor) C 12,13,14,19 P12,19 Recreational vehicle (RV) sales and service P P Truck repair (large) P P Vending cart, private property P P Warehouse P19 P19 Welding shop P19 P19 Wholesale distribution P19 P19 Wireless telecommunications facility (see Section 21A.40.090, Table 21A.40.090.E. of this title) Woodworking mill P19 P19 213 Qualifying provisions: 214 1. See Subsection 21A.02.050.B of this title for utility regulations. 215 2. Subject to Salt Lake Valley Health Department approval. 216 3. Electric generating facilities shall be located within 2,640 feet of an existing 138 kV or larger electric power 217 transmission line. 218 4. No railroad freight terminal facility shall be located within 1 mile of a Rresidential Zzoning Ddistrict. 219 5. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Section 21A.36.140 of this title. 220 6. If a place of worship is proposed to be located within 600 feet of a tavern, bar establishment, or brewpub, the 221 place of worship must submit a written waiver of spacing requirement as a condition of approval. 222 7. Building additions on lots less than 20,000 square feet for office uses may not exceed 50 percent of the building’s 223 footprint. Building additions greater than 50 percent of the building’s footprint or new office building 224 construction are subject to a design review. 225 8. A community correctional facility is considered an institutional use and any such facility located within an the 226 AFPP Airport Noise Flight Path Protection Overlay Zone District is subject to the land use and sound attenuation 227 standards for institutional uses of the applicable Airport Overlay influence Zzone within chapter Section 228 21A.34.040 of this title. 229 33 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 9. No check cashing/payday loan business shall be located closer than 1/2 mile of other check cashing/payday loan 230 businesses. 231 10. Subject to conformance with the provisions in Section 21A.36.300, “Alcohol Related Establishments”, of this 232 title. 233 11. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Section 21A.40.060 of this title for drive- through use regulations. 234 12. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a Ssingle- or Ttwo-Ffamily Zzoning Ddistrict. 235 13. Prohibited within the Eco-Industrial Buffer Area of the Northwest Quadrant Overlay District. 236 14. Prohibited within the Development Area of the Northwest Quadrant Overlay District. 237 15. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to 238 Section 21A.36.030 of this title. 239 16. Prohibited within 1/2 mile of any Rresidential Zzoning Ddistrict boundary and subject to Section 21A.36.110 of 240 this title. 241 17. Prior to issuance of a building permit in the Development Area and the Eco-Industrial Buffer Area of the 242 Northwest Quadrant Overlay, consultation with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources is required to obtain 243 recommendations on siting and equipment types for all solar arrays on a particular property to mitigate impacts to 244 wildlife. 245 18. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as defined by 246 the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 247 19. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. 248 20. Prohibited in the IP Inland Port Overlay District. See Subsection 21A.34.150.B.2.f. 249 250 251 21A.33.050: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS: 252 To view TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS in PDF, click HERE 253 Legend: C = Conditional P = Permitted 254 Use Permitted Aand Conditional Uses Bby District D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Accessory use, except those that are otherwise specifically regulated elsewhere in this title P P P P Adaptive reuse of a landmark site P P P P4 Alcohol: Bar establishment (indoor) P6 C6 C6 P6 Bar establishment (outdoor) P6 C6 C6 P6 Brewpub (indoor) P6 P6 P6 P6 34 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Brewpub (outdoor) P6 P6 P6 P6 Tavern (indoor) P6 C6 C6 P6 Tavern (outdoor) P6 C6 C6 P6 Animal, veterinary office P P Antenna, communication tower P P P P Antenna, communication tower, exceeding the maximum building height C C C C Art gallery P P P P Artisan food production P 14,18 P18 P18 P18 Bed and breakfast P P P P Bed and breakfast inn P P P P Bed and breakfast manor P P P P Bio-medical facility P17,18 P17,18 P17,18 P17,18 Blood donation center P Bus line station/terminal P7 P7 P7 P7 Bus line yard and repair facility P Car wash P3 Check cashing/payday loan business P5 Clinic (medical, dental) P P P P Commercial food preparation P18 P18 P18 P18 Community garden P P P P Convention center P Crematorium P P P Daycare center, adult P P P P Daycare center, child P P P P Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P 12 P 12 P 12 P 12 Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P 12 P 12 P 12 P 12 Dwelling: Artists’ loft/studio P P P P Assisted living facility (large) P P P P Assisted living facility (limited capacity) P P P Assisted living facility (small) P P P P Congregate care facility (large) C C C C Congregate care facility (small) P P P P Group home (large) C C Group home (small) P P P P 35 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Multi-family P P P P Residential support (large) C C Residential support (small) C C Exhibition hall P Farmers’ market P Financial institution P P P P Financial institution with drive-through facility P8 P8 Funeral home P P P Gas station P P7 P7 Government facility C C C C Government facility requiring special design features for security purposes P7 P7 Heliport, accessory C C C Home occupation P 13 P 13 P 13 P 13 Homeless resource center C 15 C 15 Homeless shelter C 15 C 15 Hotel/motel P P P P Industrial assembly C18 C18 Laboratory, medical related P18 P18 P18 P18 Laundry, commercial P18 Library P P P P Limousine service P Mixed use development P P P P Mobile food business (operation in the public right-of-way) P P P P Mobile food business (operation on private property) P P P P Mobile food court P P P P Municipal services uses including Ccity utility uses and police and fire stations P P P P Museum P P P P Office P P P P Office, publishing company P P P P Open space on lots less than 4 acres in size P7 P7 P7 P7 Park P P P P Parking, commercial C P C C Parking, off site P P P P Performing arts production facility P P P P 36 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Place of worship P11 P11 P11 P11 Radio, television station P P P Railroad, passenger station P P P P Reception center P P P P Recreation (indoor) P P P P Recreation (outdoor) P Research and development facility P18 P18 P18 P18 Restaurant P P P P Restaurant with drive-through facility P8 Retail goods establishment P P P P Retail service establishment P P P P Retail service establishment, upholstery shop P P Sales and display (outdoor) P P P P School: College or university P P P P K - 12 private P P K - 12 public P P Music conservatory P P P P Professional and vocational P P P P Seminary and religious institute P P P P Small brewery C18 Social service mission and charity dining hall C C Stadium C C C Storage, self P 16 P P Store: Department P P P Fashion oriented department P2 Mass merchandising P P P Pawnshop P Specialty P P P Superstore and hypermarket P Studio, art P P P P Technology facility P18 P18 P18 P18 Theater, live performance P9 P9 P9 P9 Theater, movie P P P P 37 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Utility, buildings or structure P1 P1 P1 P1 Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole P1 P1 P1 P1 Vehicle: Automobile repair (major) P P7 P7 Automobile repair (minor) P P7 P7 Automobile sales/rental and service P10 P P10 Vending cart, private property P P P P Vending cart, public property Warehouse P18 Warehouse, accessory P P Wholesale distribution P18 Wireless telecommunications facility (see sSection 21A.40.090, tTable 21A.40.090.E of this title) 255 Qualifying provisions: 256 1. Subject to conformance to the provisions in sSubsection 21A.02.050.B of this title. 257 2. Uses allowed only within the boundaries and subject to the provisions of the Downtown Main Street Core 258 Overlay District (sSection 21A.34.110 of this title). 259 3. A car wash located within 165 feet (including streets) of a residential use shall not be allowed. 260 4. Building additions on lots less than 20,000 square feet for office uses may not exceed 50 percent of the building’s 261 footprint. Building additions greater than 50 percent of the building’s footprint or new office building 262 construction are subject to a design review (cChapter 21A.59 of this title). 263 5. No check cashing/payday loan business shall be located closer than 1/2 mile of other check cashing/payday loan 264 businesses. 265 6. Subject to conformance with the provisions in sSection 21A.36.300, “Alcohol Related Establishments”, of this 266 title. 267 7. Subject to conformance with the provisions of cChapter 21A.59, “Design Review”, of this title. 268 8. Subject to conformance to the provisions in sSection 21A.40.060 of this title for drive-through use regulations. 269 9. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a Ssingle- or Ttwo-Ffamily Zzoning Ddistrict. 270 10. Must be located in a fully enclosed building and entirely indoors. 271 11. If a place of worship is proposed to be located within 600 feet of a tavern, bar establishment, or brewpub, the 272 place of worship must submit a written waiver of spacing requirement as a condition of approval. 273 12. Subject to sSection 21A.36.130 of this title. 274 13. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to 275 sSection 21A.36.030 of this title. 276 14. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 277 38 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 15. Subject to conformance with the provisions of sSection 21A.36.350 of this title, the Ccity may not prohibit 278 construction of a homeless resource center or homeless shelter if the site is approved by and receives funding 279 through the State Homeless Coordinating Committee, with the concurrence of the Housing and Community 280 Development Division within the Department of Workforce Services, in accordance with sSection 35A-8-604 of 281 the Utah Code. 282 16. Limited to basement/below ground levels only. Not allowed on the ground or upper levels of the building, with 283 the exception of associated public leasing/office space. 284 17. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as defined by 285 the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 286 18. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. 287 288 21A.33.060: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN THE GATEWAY DISTRICT: 289 To view TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN THE GATEWAY DISTRICT in PDF, click HERE. 290 Legend: C = Conditional P = Permitted 291 Use G-MU Accessory use, except those that are otherwise specifically regulated elsewhere in this title P Adaptive reuse of a landmark site P Alcohol: Bar establishment (indoor) P2 Bar establishment (outdoor) P2,5 Brewpub (indoor) P2 Brewpub (outdoor) P2,5 Tavern (indoor) P2 Tavern (outdoor) P2,5 Ambulance service (indoor) C Amphitheater, formal P Amphitheater, informal P Animal, veterinary office P Antenna, communication tower P Antenna, communication towers, exceeding the maximum building height C Art gallery P Artisan food production P9 Artists’ loft/studio P Auction (indoor) P Auditorium P 39 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Bed and breakfast P Bed and breakfast inn P Bed and breakfast manor P Bio-medical facility P8,9 Botanical garden P Bus line station/terminal P3 Clinic (medical, dental) P Commercial food preparation P9 Community garden P Crematorium P Daycare center, adult P Daycare center, child P Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P 6 Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P 6 Dwelling: Assisted living facility (large) P Assisted living facility (limited capacity) P Assisted living facility (small) P Congregate care facility (large) C Congregate care facility (small) P Group home (large) C Group home (small) when located above or below first story office, retail or commercial use, or on the first story where the unit is not located adjacent to the street frontage P Living quarters for caretaker or security guard P Multi-family P Residential support (large) C Residential support (small) C Single-family (attached) P Equipment rental (indoor and/outdoor) P Farmers’ market P Financial institution P Flea market (indoor) P Funeral home P Government facility C Government facility requiring special design features for security purposes P3 40 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Heliport, accessory C Home occupation P 7 Hotel/motel P Industrial assembly C9 Laboratory, medical related P9 Large wind energy system P Library P Mixed use development P Mobile food business (operation in the public right-of-way) P Mobile food business (operation on private property) P Mobile food court P Municipal services uses including Ccity utility uses and police and fire stations P Museum P Office P Open space P Park P Parking: Commercial C Off site P Park and ride lot C Park and ride lot shared with existing use P Performing arts production facility P Photo finishing lab P9 Place of worship P Radio, television station C Reception center P Recreation (indoor) P Recreation (outdoor) C Research and development facility P9 Restaurant P Retail goods establishment P Retail goods establishment, plant and garden shop, with outdoor retail sales area P Retail service establishment P Retail service establishment, upholstery shop C School: 41 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT College and university P K - 12 private P K - 12 public P Music conservatory P Professional and vocational P Seminary and religious institute P Seasonal farm stand P Small brewery C9 Social service mission and charity dining hall C Solar array P9 Stadium C Storage, self P3 Store: Department P Mass merchandising P Specialty P Superstore and hypermarket P Studio, art P Studio, motion picture C Technology facility P9 Theater, live performance P4 Theater, movie P Urban farm P Utility, building or structure P1 Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole C Vehicle: Automobile repair (minor) P Automobile sales/rental and service (indoor) P Boat/recreational vehicle sales and service (indoor) P Vending cart, private property P Vending cart, public property P Wireless telecommunications facility (see sSection 21A.40.090, tTable 21A.40.090.E of this title) Zoological park C 292 Qualifying provisions: 293 42 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1. Subject to conformance to the provisions in sSubsection 21A.02.050.B of this title. 294 2. Subject to conformance with the provisions of sSection 21A.36.300, ”Alcohol Related Establishments”, of this 295 title. 296 3. Subject to conformance with the provisions of cChapter 21A.59, “Design Review”, of this title. 297 4. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a Ssingle- or Ttwo-Ffamily Zzoning Ddistrict. 298 5. Subject to the requirements set forth in sSection 21A.40.065, “Outdoor Dining”, of this title. 299 6. Subject to sSection 21A.36.130 of this title. 300 7. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to 301 sSection 21A.36.030 of this title. 302 8. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as defined by 303 the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 304 9. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. 305 No conditional use permit shall be granted for any property which abuts a Rresidential Zzoning Ddistrict, except for 306 places of worship, public/private utilities and related facilities, residential facilities for persons with a disability and 307 educational facilities. 308 43 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 21A.33.070: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS: 309 To view TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS in PDF, click HERE 310 Legend: C = Conditional P = Permitted 311 Use Permitted Aand Conditional Uses Bby District RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH EI MU Accessory use, except those that are otherwise specifically regulated elsewhere in this title P P P P P P P P 20 P P P P P P P P Adaptive reuse of a landmark site C2 C2 C2 P2 Agricultural use C P P P P P P Air cargo terminals and package delivery facility P P Airport P Alcohol: Bar establishment (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C12 Brewpub (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) P12 C12 Brewpub (more than 2,500 square feet in floor area) P12 Tavern (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C12 Ambulance service (indoor) P P Ambulance service (outdoor) P10 P10 Amphitheater, formal P C Amphitheater, informal P P 44 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Animal: Kennel on lots of 5 acres or larger C P8 P8 P8 P8 Pet cemetery P4 P4 P4 P4 P4,5 Stable (private) P P P P Stable (public) P P P P Veterinary office P P Antenna, communication tower P P C P P P P P 21 P P C P P P Antenna, communication tower exceeding the maximum building height in the zone C C P 21 P P11 C C C Art gallery P P P P P P Artisan food production P24 P18, 24 Bed and breakfast P2 P P Bed and breakfast inn P2 P P Bed and breakfast manor P2 P P Bio-medical facility P23,24 P23,24 P23, 24 P23, 24 Botanical garden P P P P Cannabis production establishment P P P P P Cemetery P Clinic (medical, dental) P P P P P 45 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Commercial food preparation P24 P24 Community garden P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Convent/monastery P P Data center P24 Daycare center, adult P P P P P P P P Daycare center, child P P P P P P P P P Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 P 16 Dwelling: Accessory unit P P P P P P Assisted living facility (large) C P P Assisted living facility (limited capacity) P P P Assisted living facility (small) P P P Congregate care facility (large) C C C Congregate care facility (small) P P P Group home (large) C Group home (small) P P P P Living quarters for caretaker or security guard P P P C P P P P Manufactured home P P P 46 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Mobile home P Multi-family P P Residential support (large) C Residential support (small) P Rooming (boarding) house P Single-family (attached) P Single-family (detached) P P P P Twin home and two-family P Exhibition hall C P C P Extractive industry P24 Fairground C Farm stand, seasonal P P P P P P P P P P P P P Financial institution P P P Financial institution with drive-through facility P14 P14 Gas station P7 Golf course P24 P24 P24 Government facility C C P P P P P 20 P C C C13 C P C Government facility requiring special design features for security purposes C C Government office P P P P P P P P 47 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Heliport C C P P C C Home occupation P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 P 17 Hospital, including accessory lodging facility C P P Hotel/motel C C P P Hunting club, duck P Industrial assembly P24 P24 Jail C Jewelry fabrication P Laboratory, medical related P24 P24 P24 P24 P24 Large wind energy system C C C C C C C P P Library P P P P P Light manufacturing C24 P24 Manufacturing, concrete or asphalt P15, 24 Meeting hall of membership organization P P P P P Mixed use development P Mobile food business (operation on private property) P P P P P Municipal service uses, including Ccity utility uses and police and fire stations C C P P P P P C C C14 C P C Museum C P P P P P P 48 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Nursing care facility P P P Office P P P P P P P P Open space P P P P P P P P P9 P P P P P P P P Park P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Parking: Commercial C Off site P P P P P C Off site (to support uses in an OS or NOS Zzoning Ddistrict) P Park and ride lot P C Park and ride lot shared with existing use P P P P P P P P Performing arts production facility P P Philanthropic use P P P P Place of worship P P P P P Radio, television station P6 P Reception center C22 C P P P P Recreation (indoor) C P P P P P P Recreation (outdoor) P P P P Research and development facility P24 P24 P24 P24 P24 Restaurant P7 P 49 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Restaurant with drive-through facility P7,14 P3 Retail goods establishment P7 P P Retail, sales and service accessory use when located within a principal building P20 P Retail, sales and service accessory use when located within a principal building and operated primarily for the convenience of employees P P P P P P P P P Retail service establishment P School: College or university P P P K - 12 private P P P P K - 12 public P P P P Music conservatory P P P Professional and vocational P P P P P Seminary and religious institute P P C Small brewery C24 Solar array P24 P24 P19, 24 P24 P24 P24 Stadium C C C Storage, accessory (outdoor) P P P P Studio, art P 50 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Technology facility P24 P24 P24 P24 Theater, live performance C15 C15 C15 C15 C15 C15 C15 Theater, movie C C Transportation terminal, including bus, rail and trucking P Urban farm P P P P P P P P P P P P Utility, building or structure P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 Vehicle, automobile rental agency P P Vending cart, private property P P Vending cart, public property P Warehouse P24 P24 Warehouse, accessory to retail and wholesale business (maximum 5,000 square foot floor plate) P Wholesale distribution P24 P24 Wireless telecommunications facility (see Section 21A.40.090, Table 21A.40.090.E of this title) Zoological park P 312 Qualifying provisions: 313 1. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Subsection 21A.02.050.B of this title. 314 2. When located in a building listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. 315 51 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3. When located on an arterial street. 316 4. Subject to Salt Lake Valley Health Department approval. 317 5. In conjunction with, and within the boundaries of, a cemetery for human remains. 318 6. Radio station equipment and antennas shall be required to go through the site plan review process to ensure that the color, design and location of all 319 proposed equipment and antennas are screened or integrated into the architecture of the project and are compatible with surrounding uses. 320 7. When approved as part of a business park planned development pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 21A.55 of this title. 321 8. Kennels, whether within penned enclosures or within enclosed buildings, shall not be permitted within 200 feet of an existing single-family dwelling on an 322 adjacent lot. 323 9. Trails and trailheads with signage are subject to Section 21A.46.120, “Sign Regulations Ffor Special Purpose Districts”, of this title. 324 10. Greater than 3 ambulances at location require a conditional use. 325 11. Maximum of 1 monopole per property and only when it is government owned and operated for public safety purposes. 326 12. Subject to conformance with the provisions in Section 21A.36.300, “Alcohol Related Establishments”, of this title. 327 13. If located on a collector or arterial street according to the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan - mMajor sStreet pPlan: rRoadway fFunctional 328 cClassification map. 329 14. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Section 21A.40.060 of this title for drive-through use regulations. 330 15. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a Ssingle- or Ttwo-Ffamily Zzoning Ddistrict. 331 16. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to Section 21A.36.130 of this title. 332 17. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to Section 21A.36.030 of this title. 333 18. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 334 19. Prior to issuance of a building permit in the Development Area and the Eco-Industrial Buffer Area of the Northwest Quadrant Overlay, consultation with 335 the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources is required to obtain recommendations on siting and equipment types for all solar arrays on a particular property 336 to mitigate impacts to wildlife. 337 20. When customarily provided with the principal use and is accessory to the principal use. 338 21. New antennae and communication towers are allowed outside the telecommunication corridor in the OS Open Space District for public safety, public 339 security or Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department purposes only. 340 52 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 22. Reception centers may be allowed in parks of 100 acres or more where the reception center is a subordinate use to the principal use of the property as a 341 park. Reception centers are allowed in existing buildings, are limited to 1 reception center per park, and hours of operation are limited to park hours. 342 Removal of existing recreation areas to accommodate the stand alone reception center use, including areas to accommodate parking for the reception 343 center use, is not permitted. 344 23. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental 345 Quality administrative rules. 346 24. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. 347 348 53 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 21A.33.080: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN FORM BASED DISTRICTS: 349 To view TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN FORM BASED DISTRICTS in PDF, click HERE 350 Note: Uses which are not listed in the following table are not permitted in any Form Based Code Zoning District. 351 Legend: C = Conditional P = Permitted 352 Use Permitted and Conditional Uses Bby District FB-UN1 FB-UN2 FB-SC FB-SE Accessory use, except those that are specifically regulated in this chapter, or elsewhere in this title P P P P Alcohol: Bar establishment P P C Brewpub P P C Tavern, 2,500 square feet or less in floor area P P C Animal, veterinary office P P P Antenna, communication tower P P P Art gallery P P P Artisan food production P3,5 P3,5 P3,5 Bed and breakfast P P P P Bed and breakfast inn P P P P Bed and breakfast manor P P P P Bio-medical facility P4,5 P4,5 Clinic (medical, dental) P P P Commercial food preparation P5 P5 P5 Community garden P P P P Community recreation center P P P Daycare center, adult P P P Daycare center, child P P P Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P1 P1 P1 P1 Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P1 P1 P1 P1 Dwelling: Assisted living facility (limited capacity) P P P P Assisted living facility (small) P P P Congregate care facility (large) C C C Congregate care facility (small) C Group home (large) P P P 54 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Group home (small) when located above or below first story office, retail, or commercial use, or on the first story where the unit is not located adjacent to street frontage P P P Multi-family P P P Residential support (large) P Residential support (small) P Rooming (boarding) house P Single-family attached P P P Single-family detached P Single-family detached (cottage development building form only) P P Single room occupancy P Two-family P Farmers’ market P P P Financial institution P P P Funeral home P P P Government facility P P P P Health and fitness facility P P P Home occupation P2 P2 P2 P2 Hotel/motel P P House museum in landmark site P P P P Laboratory, medical related P5 P5 P5 Library P P P Mixed use developments including residential and other uses allowed in the zoning district P P P Municipal service uses, including Ccity utility uses and police and fire stations P P P P Museum P P P Nursing care facility P P P Office P P P Office and/or reception center in landmark site P P P Open space P P P P Park P P P P Parking, off site P P P P Photo finishing lab P5 P5 Place of worship P P P 55 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Plazas P P P P Recreation (indoor) P P P Research and development facility P5 P5 P5 Restaurant P P P Retail goods establishment P P P Retail goods establishment, plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area P P P Retail service establishment P P P Sales and display (outdoor) P P P School: College or university P P P Music conservatory P P P Professional and vocational P P P Seminary and religious institute P P P Seasonal farm stand P P P Solar array P5 P5 P5 Store, specialty P P P Studio, art P P P Technology facility P5 P5 P5 Theater, movie P P P Urban farm P P P P Utility, building or structure P P P P Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe, or pole P P P P Vending cart, private property P P P Wireless telecommunications facility P P P 353 Qualifying provisions: 354 1. Subject to sSection 21A.36.130 of this title. 355 2. Subject to sSection 21A.36.030 of this title. 356 3. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 357 4. Prohibited within ½ mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as defined by 358 the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 359 5. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. 360 56 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020. That Section 361 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (List of Defined Terms) shall be and hereby is amended as follows: 362 a. Adding the Term “Anticipated Daily Water Use Report”. That Section 21A.60.040 363 shall be and hereby is amended to add the term “Anticipated Daily Water Use Report”, which term shall 364 be inserted into Section 21A.60.020 in alphabetical order and shall read as follows: 365 Anticipated Daily Water Use Report. 366 b. Adding the Term “Potable water”. That Section 21A.60.040 shall be and hereby is 367 amended to add the term “Potable water”, which term shall be inserted into Section 21A.60.020 in 368 alphabetical order and shall read as follows: 369 Potable water. 370 SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That Section 371 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Definitions of Terms) shall be and hereby is amended as follows: 372 a. Amending the Definition of “BOTTLING PLANT”. That the definition of the term, 373 “BOTTLING PLANT” provided in Section 21A.62.040 shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 374 BOTTLING PLANT: An establishment commercial facility for the purpose of that engages in the 375 bottling, canning, or filling of any container of with beverages for distribution. The term “bottling 376 plant” shall not include any beverage or food manufacturing type use which is otherwise listed 377 specifically in the table of permitted and conditional uses found in Chapter 21A.33 of this title. 378 379 b. Adding the Definition “ANTICIPATED DAILY WATER USE REPORT”. That 380 Section 21A.62.040 shall be and hereby is amended to add the definition “ANTICIPATED DAILY 381 WATER USE REPORT”, which definition shall be inserted into Section 21A.62.040 in alphabetical 382 order and shall read as follows: 383 57 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT ANTICIPATED DAILY WATER USE REPORT: A detailed report provided by an applicant that 384 demonstrates the anticipated daily use and/or consumption of water for the described use based on 385 commonly accepted standards within the water utility industry. 386 c. Adding the Definition “POTABLE WATER”. That Section 21A.62.040 shall be and 387 hereby is amended to add the definition “POTABLE WATER”, which definition shall be inserted into 388 Section 21A.62.040 in alphabetical order and shall read as follows: 389 POTABLE WATER: Water that is safe for human consumption and provided by the Salt Lake City 390 Department of Public Utilities. 391 392 SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance take effect immediately after it has been published in 393 accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-713. 394 395 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of ______________, 2021. 396 ______________________________ 397 CHAIRPERSON 398 ATTEST: 399 400 ______________________________ 401 CITY RECORDER 402 403 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 58 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 411 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 412 413 ______________________________ 414 MAYOR 415 ______________________________ 416 CITY RECORDER 417 418 (SEAL) 419 420 Bill No. ________ of 2021. 421 Published: ______________. 422 Ordinance regulating high water uses (legislative) 423 1. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Significant Water Consuming Land Uses Text Amendment Petition PLNPCM2021-00638 June 17, 2021 Petition initiated by Mayor Erin Mendenhall. Planning Division begins work on proposal with Public Utilities Department. July 8, 2021 Project website posted on City website with draft of the ordinance. Public notices sent to recognized community organizations and Planning listserv. July 8, 2021 Temporary water use limit ordinance officially imposed. Official temporary ordinance notification sent to Planning listserv, posted on state website, and posted on City Planning website. August 16, 2021 Proposal presented to the Sugar House Community Council Land Use and Zoning Committee August 27, 2021 Proposal presented to the Glendale Community Council Chair. August 31, 2021 Notices mailed to potentially impacted businesses and property owners based on City data research. September 8, 2021 Proposal presented to the City’s Business Advisory Board. September 9, 2021 Public notices for September 22 Planning Commission meeting mailed to potentially impacted businesses/property owners, sent out via Planning listserv, including to recognized organizations. and posted on City Planning Division and State notice websites September 22, 2021 Planning Commission holds public hearing on the proposal. Planning Commission votes unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2021-00635 – Significant Water Consuming Land Uses – A request by Mayor Erin Mendenhall to amend the text of the zoning ordinance related to land uses that consume significant amounts of water. The proposal would implement a 300,000-gallon a day limit on the amount of water that commercial and industrial land uses can utilize. The limit affects multiple zones and multiple land uses citywide. The ordinance also amends and clarifies the definitions of related land use terms. Other related standards of Title 21A Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. Information on the proposal can found on the City’s webpage for the proposal at the following website: https://www.slc.gov/planning/2021/07/07/significant-water-users-text-amendment/ 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 Daniel Echeverria at 801-535-7165 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at daniel.echeverria@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  Page 1 Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Petition Initiation Request To: Mayor Mendenhall From: Michaela Oktay, Deputy Planning Director Date: June 6, 2021 CC: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff; Blake Thomas, CAN Director; file Re: Initiating an amendment to Title 21A, the Zoning Ordinance, to review land use types that involve significant water consumption This memo is to request that you initiate a petition for the Planning Division to begin the process of amending the zoning ordinance to review land use types that may involve significant water consumption and prohibit land uses that exceed an average water usage of gallons per day. The current extreme drought situation may have heightened the urgency to ensure that future land uses do not threaten Salt Lake City’s ability to provide water to all of its residents and businesses, but this is a reality we would have to confront in the near future anyway as we plan for growth in our desert climate. The Division prepare a land use ordinance to: 1. Prohibit new land uses that would likely consume more than an annual average of 300,000 gallons of water per day; 2. Restrict the expansion of existing land use types that consume more than an annual average of 300,000 gallons of water per day; 3. Review existing land use regulations for potential revisions to mitigate demands on the city’s water supply; and 4. Amend definitions and land use tables to clarify that “bottling plant” includes the filling of various container forms with a liquid product generated from culinary water, and is further, prohibited city-wide. Such amendments shall continue to allow for small scale alcohol beverage production. The Planning Division may declare application of the “pending ordinance rule”, which is established in Utah Code Section 10-9a-509 as a means of prohibiting certain uses for up to 180 days from the time a land use regulation petition is initiated. The 180-day period is intended to give the municipality time to get the petition through the planning commission and city council processes.The adoption process of the resulting ordinance will include review and recommendation by the Planning Commission prior to a review and decision by the City Council. If you have any questions, please contact me. Page 2 Concurrence to initiating the zoning amendment petition as noted above. _________________________________ _______________ Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Date 06/07/2021 4. MAILING LIST Name Address City State ZIP Utah Inland Port Authority ATTN: Jack Hedge 111 South Main Street Suite 550 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Henkel Corporation 3540 W 1987 South Salt Lake City UT 84104 BCG Beverage LLC 1911 S 3850 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Airgas USA LLC 5190 W 700 South Salt Lake City UT 84104 DS Services of America 1825 S 3730 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Ice Cold Empire SLC LLC 1675 S Empire Road Salt Lake City UT 84104 Meadow Gold Dairies 3730 W 1820 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Staker & Parson Companies 3313 W Directors Row Salt Lake City UT 84104 Sweet Candy Company 3780 W Directors Row Salt Lake City UT 84104 Tesoro Logistics Operations LLC 474 W 900 N Salt Lake City UT 84103 Thatcher Company 1265 S Wallace Rd Salt Lake City UT 84104 Actavis Laboratories 575 S Chipeta Way Salt Lake City UT 84108 White Wave Foods 11039 S Albion Pass Ct South Jordan Ut 84095 DS Services of America 2300 WINDY RIDGE PARKWAY STE 500N Atlanta GA 30339 Ice Cold Empire SLC LLC 1656 Reunion Ave South Jordan UT 84095 Meadow Gold Dairies PO BOX 26817 Salt Lake City UT 84126 Staker & Parson Companies PO BOX 3429 Ogden UT 84409 Sweet Candy Company PO BOX 22450 Salt Lake City UT 84122 Tesoro Logistics Operations LLC 539 S Main St St Findlay OH 45840 Thatcher Company PO BOX 27407 Salt Lake City UT 84127 Danone North America 1658 S 4370 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 CURRENT OCCUPANT 1722 S FREMONT DR Salt Lake City UT 84104 CURRENT OCCUPANT 1745 S MILESTONE Dr STE 3B Salt Lake City UT 84104 CURRENT OCCUPANT 132 S 800 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 CURRENT OCCUPANT 2030 N REDWOOD STE 70 Salt Lake City UT 84116 CURRENT OCCUPANT 5447 W 700 S STE B Salt Lake City UT 84104 ROHA BREWING PROJECT LLC 30 E KENSINGTON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115 TOASTED BARREL BREWERY 412 W 600 N Salt Lake City UT 84103 RED ROCK BREWERY LC 443 N 400 W Salt Lake City UT 84103 BCG BEVERAGE LLC 1911 S 3850 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 PROPER BREWING COMPANY LLC 857 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City UT 84111 Perfect Water & Essentials LLC 2484 W CUSTER RD Salt Lake City UT 84104 PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP, THE 3388 W 1987 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 UINTA BREWING COMPANY 1722 S FREMONT DR Salt Lake City UT 84104 Reddy Ice LLC 1675 S EMPIRE RD Salt Lake City UT 84104 MOUNTAIN WEST CIDER COMPANY LLC 425 N 400 W Salt Lake City UT 84103 HIGH WEST DISTILLERY, LLC 3555 W 1500 S STE B Salt Lake City UT 84104 TEMPLIN FAMILY BREWING 936 S 300 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 KIITOS BREWING LLC 608 W 700 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 HAMMER SPRING DISTILLERS INC 3697 W 1987 S BLD 5 Salt Lake City UT 84104 PURE WATER TECHNOLOGIES #1 LLC 11 S JEREMY Salt Lake City UT 84104 L3 Communications 640 N 2200 West Salt Lake City UT 84116 C7 Data Centers 179 E Social Hall AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 CCI Bakery 902 E LOGAN AVE Salt Lake City UT 84105 CAVALCANTI & VERTAMATTI FOODS LLC 850 S 3600 W STE F Salt Lake City UT 84104 DRUPEFRUIT 161 W 900 S Salt Lake City UT 84101 THE NUT GARDEN 3528 W 500 S STE 7 Salt Lake City UT 84104 HONEST JOHN BITTERS CO 331 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City UT 84111 SUGAR & VICE CORP 57 W 200 S STE 102 Salt Lake City UT 84101 BROOKE & BRADFORD LLC 759 S GLADIOLA ST STE 1 Salt Lake City UT 84104 PRIME SNAX 1750 S 500 W STE 700 Salt Lake City UT 84115 SLC Chow, LLC 751 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Chili Beak 751 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 GARDEN GATE 928 E 900 S Salt Lake City UT 84105 LA DIANA LLC 46 S 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 BARBACOA MEXICAN GRILL 1335 S 700 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 RICO BRAND 945 W FOLSOM AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 L3 COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS WEST 1220 N 2200 W STE 800 Salt Lake City UT 84116 CREMINELLI FINE MEATS LLC 310 N WRIGHT BROTHERS DR Salt Lake City UT 84116 READY WISE INC 3676 W CALIFORNIA AVE STE B106 Salt Lake City UT 84104 THE CHOCOLATE CONSPIRACY 774 S 300 W STE A Salt Lake City UT 84101 COOKIETREE INC 4010 W ADVANTAGE CIR Salt Lake City UT 84104 Streusel 67 W 1700 S Salt Lake City UT 84115 HOWEY SALT LAKE LLC 675 E 2100 S STE J Salt Lake City UT 84106 LA DIANA TORTILLA AND BAKERY FACTORY LLC 927 W FOLSOM AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 THE BEAN WHOLE 2153 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84109 LA MEXICANA TORTILLERIA LLC 964 S 200 W STE 3 Salt Lake City UT 84101 VMI NUTRITION INC 391 S ORANGE ST STE E Salt Lake City UT 84104 LOS ANGELES BREAD TWO INC.3683 W 1987 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 CINTAS CORPORATION 1586 S 5350 W STE A Salt Lake City UT 84104 NABISCO INC 4275 W 1980 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 CONDIE MASTERCRAFT CANDY CO 1479 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City UT 84115 BAGLEY ICE & CARBONIC 221 W PARAMOUNT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115 AMOUR CAFE 1329 S 500 E Salt Lake City UT 84105 GRANITE BAKERY 902 E 2700 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 PANADERIA FLORES INC 1625 W 700 N STE F Salt Lake City UT 84116 MEADOW GOLD DAIRIES 3730 W 1820 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 GAF PROPERTIES II LLC 61 S 600 E Salt Lake City UT 84102 GAF PROPERTIES I LLC 71 S 600 E Salt Lake City UT 84102 MARTIN-BROWER COMPANY 1790 S 5200 W NORT Salt Lake City UT 84104 GAF PROPERTIES III, LLC 607 E 100 S Salt Lake City UT 84102 HK BREWING COLLECTIVE, LLC 751 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 WIO SMART FOODS INC 729 W 1700 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Solstice Malt 3528 W 500 S STE 6 Salt Lake City UT 84104 Vive Juicery LLC 1597 S 1100 E Salt Lake City UT 84105 BLUE CHIP GROUP INC 1911 S 3850 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 TULIE BAKERY 863 E 700 S Salt Lake City UT 84102 KINGS PEAK COFFEE LLC 412 S 700 W STE 140 Salt Lake City UT 84104 CREMINELLI FINE MEATS, LLC 310 N WRIGHT BROTHERS DR Salt Lake City UT 84116 Z NECTAR, LLC 918 S 500 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 DFS Gourmet Specialties Inc. 3195 W PROFESSIONAL CIR STE 300 Salt Lake City UT 84104 Raw Eddys 751 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 DREAM DINNERS OPERATIONS 1140 E BRICKYARD RD STE 28 Salt Lake City UT 84106 BITTERS LAB 850 S 400 W STE 117 Salt Lake City UT 84101 STONE GROUND BAKERY 1025 S 700 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 TOSCA SERVICES LLC 5950 W AMELIA EARHART DR Salt Lake City UT 84116 LAKEVIEW CHEESE PRODUCTS, LLC 1755 S FREMONT DR Salt Lake City UT 84104 FILLINGS & EMULSIONS 1475 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City UT 84115 NUSH FOODS 333 W HOPE AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115 MADBROOK DONUT COMPANY 1391 S 300 W Salt Lake City UT 84115 PROBAR LLC 190 N APOLLO Salt Lake City UT 84116 VEGETABLE EXPRESS LLC 46 S ORANGE ST STE C Salt Lake City UT 84116 Item E9 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:December 7, 2021 RE: Bueno Avenue Apartments Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 129 South 700 East and 758 East Bueno Avenue PLNPCM2021-00047 & PLNPCM2021-00048 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:December 7, 2021 RE: Bueno Avenue Apartments Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 129 South 700 East and 758 East Bueno Avenue PLNPCM2021-00047 & PLNPCM2021-00048 BRIEFING UPDATE At the November 16, 2021 briefing a Council Member asked about condition of the Bueno Avenue road and whether it is a City owned street. Planning staff noted the private street is mainly a dirt road with a small amount of asphalt near the 700 East entrance. Another question was raised about why the Planning Commission initially voted to forward a positive recommendation to the Council for the master plan and zoning map amendments and the second vote was a negative recommendation, and whether the housing loss mitigation plan was a factor. Planning explained there were different Commissioners for the second vote and the mitigation plan was not a factor in the second vote. A Council Member asked about the apartments being used for short-term vacation housing. Planning staff acknowledged there is potential for this and stated the units would need to be licensed for that use. The proposed RMF-45 zoning designation would allow for month-to-month rentals under certain uses such as “rooming house.” In response to a Council Member inquiry about a single entrance/exit for the proposed development, Planning staff stated there were no concerns raised from the Transportation Division or Fire Department. A Council Member asked about the difference between an SRO (Single Room Occupancy) building and a rooming/boarding house (referred to as co-living by the applicant). Planning staff outlined some key differences at the briefing and in a subsequent email to Council staff. The following table summarizes the two. Item Schedule: Briefing: November 16, 2021 Set Date: November 16, 2021 Public Hearing: December 7, 2021 Potential Action: December 14, 2021 Page | 2 SRO Rooming/boarding house Definition (abbreviated)Residential dwelling facility containing individual, self- contained, dwelling units none of which may exceed 500 sq ft in size (essentially a micro or studio unit). A building or group of attached buildings containing in combination of at least three lodging units for occupancy on at least a monthly basis. Minimum rental period 30 days 30 days Occupant limit None None Parking requirement Varies based on zoning district 1 stall per 2 occupants The applicant addressed the Council stating this is the first-of-its-kind co-living project in Salt Lake City and will provide housing for 192 individuals. He stated rents would be approximately 40% below market rate. The Council received additional constituent feedback expressing concern about 72 on-site parking stalls for 192 potential residents at the proposed development. The constituents believe at the price point for rooms, nearly all residents will have a vehicle. There is reportedly a lack of on-street parking in the area. Another concern raised is rooms may be used as short-term vacation housing or an extended stay hotel. Following the public hearing a Council Member asked staff about parking requirements for a rooming house within the RMF-45 zoning designation. One parking stall is required per two people for whom rooming accommodations are provided. Thus, if the proposed rooming/co-living development accommodates 192 residents in the building, 96 parking stalls would be required. The applicant proposes a 25% reduction in required parking stalls based on transportation management strategies outlined in City Code. Reducing the required 96 parking stalls by 25% would result in 72 parking stalls, which is what the applicant is proposing. A Council Member asked staff to check with the Attorney’s Office about fair housing concerns from a constituent, and no issues were raised. The Planning Commission voted to table planned development and conditional use applications associated with the master plan and zoning map amendments before the Council. If amendments are approved by the Council, the Planning Commission will then review the other applications that are part of this proposal. If the Council votes against the master plan and zoning map amendments, the other applications will not be able to move forward. The Council’s role is to determine whether the proposed RMF-45 zoning designation is appropriate for these parcels. For reference, staff prepared the table below which includes conditional and permitted uses that differ between the current SR-3 and proposed RMF-45 zoning districts. Use SR-3 RMF-45 Community garden C P Dwelling, assisted living facility (large)P Dwelling, assisted living facility (limited capacity)P Dwelling, assisted living facility (small)P Dwelling, congregate care facility (large)C Dwelling, congregate care facility (small)C P Dwelling, group home (large)C Page | 3 Dwelling, multi-family P Dwelling, residential support (large)C Dwelling, residential support (small)C Dwelling, rooming (boarding) house C Dwelling, twin home and two-family P Nursing care facility P The following information was provided for the November 16, 2021 Council briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about an ordinance that would amend zoning of the properties at 724, 728, 732, 738, 744, 750 and 754 East Bueno Avenue from SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential District) to RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District). The applicant is also proposing to consolidate these and parcels at 129 South 700 East, and 758 East Bueno Avenue already zoned RMF-45 into one parcel. Additionally, the proposal would amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map for the properties from Medium-Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential. The property is on the block interior bordered by 100 and 200 South and between 700 and 800 East as shown in the image below. The applicant proposes constructing a 4-story apartment building with 65 1–4- bedroom apartments (192 bedrooms total). Each bedroom would be leased individually and have a private bathroom. Kitchen and living room spaces in each apartment would be shared among residents within the unit. 72 on-site parking spaces are included in the proposal. A single-story amenity and leasing building fronting on 700 East is also proposed as part of the development. According to the applicant’s proposal, “This development provides attainably priced housing with a bedroom rental to be at or near the 60% AMI Rent restriction level. This is achieved without the requirement of city, state, or federal funding, or any other type of public incentive.” Under the proposed development a six-unit multi-family building and seven single-family homes on the private, unpaved road would be removed. The homes are reportedly in poor condition as shown in the Housing Condition Report found on pages 141-183 of the Planning Commission staff report. The applicant states it is economically unfeasible to rehabilitate the homes. It should be noted the applicant stated in their application the homes will be removed regardless of the outcome of the master plan and zoning map amendments. If the proposed amendments are not approved, the applicant’s expressed plans are to construct luxury for sale townhomes on the site which would be allowed “by right” under current zoning. These proposed master plan and zoning map amendments were reviewed at the June 23, 2021 Planning Commission meeting and a public hearing was held. Several people spoke or had their comments read during the hearing. Most expressed opposition to the proposal. The Planning Commission voted to table planned development and conditional use applications associated with this proposal and may review them at a future date depending on the City Council’s decision on the master plan and zoning map amendments. The Council’s role is to determine if the proposed master plan amendment and rezone are appropriate for the interior block parcels. Page | 4 On June 23 the Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the Council on the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments. However, that vote was recalled at the July 14 Planning Commission meeting when it was discovered a housing mitigation loss report was not presented to the Planning Commission. Acco0rding to the Housing Mitigation ordinance, “any petition for a zoning change that would permit a nonresidential use of land, that includes within its boundaries residential dwelling units, may not be approved until a housing mitigation plan is approved by the city.” (18.97.020.A) Because existing use of the property is residential and the proposed RMF-45 zoning district would allow nonresidential land uses, the proposed amendment is subject to the housing loss mitigation process. The report found the petition amending zoning for the subject parcels from SR-3 to RMF-45 would replace lost housing stock. It further found replacement costs exceed market value of the existing homes, so no mitigation fee is required. The Community and Neighborhoods Director signed the report associated with this proposal. This proposal was reviewed again at the September 8, 2021 Planning Commission meeting and a housing mitigation report was presented. A second public hearing on the proposal was held and more than 20 people spoke or provided written comments with the majority expressing opposition. Planning staff recommended the Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. The Commission voted 3-2 to forward a negative recommendation on the master plan and zoning map amendments. Commissioners who voted to forward a negative recommendation stated the proposed rezone was not compatible with the master plan and neighborhood context. A desire for lower density development in the area was also expressed. Commissioners who voted in support of forwarding a positive recommendation to the City Council did not comment. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to discuss how impacts such as additional residents and traffic in this area would be managed. 2. The Council may wish to ask what the minimum lease period is. Will it be less than six months? 3. Does each bedroom accommodate only one individual? a. If so, how will this be monitored and enforced? b. Is that permitted under the Fair Housing Act? 4. The Council may wish to discuss how and if this project helps address housing demands and needs of the city and neighborhood 5. This type of project is raising concerns about the loss of naturally occurring affordable housing in favor of newer, market rate units. a. The Council may wish to ask the administration for a status report on updates to the housing loss mitigation plan. 6. The dense nature of this project raised questions about traffic flow in and out of the property as there is only one entrance/exit. Was this addressed by the Administration? 7. Did the Administration discuss potential parking issues with the proposed development given the lack of on-street parking in the area? Are the 72 on-site parking spaces adequate to serve 192 residents of the development plus visitors? Page | 5 Proposed Bueno Avenue Apartments Site Plan Vicinity zoning map with subject project area outlined in yellow. Parcels proposed to be rezoned from SR-3 to RMF-45 outlined in red. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Planning staff identified three key issues with this proposal. They are summarized below. Please see pages 11-13 for full details. Issue 1-Zoning and Master Plan Amendment There are separate planned development and conditional use applications associated with this proposal. They are dependent on the zoning and master plan amendments being approved and will be considered by the Planning Commission later if the zoning and master plan amendments are approved. Page | 6 As stated above, if the zoning and master plan amendments are not approved development on the site under existing zoning designations could result in development of luxury townhomes and a loss of affordable housing stock. Issue 2-Housing Mitigation As noted above, a housing loss mitigation report was reviewed by the Administration and the Community and Neighborhoods Director approved the report. No housing loss mitigation fee is required. Issue 3-Rooming House/Co-Living - Innovative Housing Development An objective of the Growing SLC Housing Plan is to “lead in the construction of innovative housing solutions.” Rooming houses/co-living buildings are new to Salt Lake City, but, according to Planning staff, is popular in many metro areas. (The Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance uses the term “rooming (boarding) house.” Co-living is an updated term and used by the applicant.) Development of co-living communities is largely in response to rising housing costs and need for more affordable housing options. Co-living is often targeted toward 25- to 35-year-olds who are entering the workforce and priced out of the market but is not limited to this age range. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The table below compares building height and yard requirements for the SR-3 zoning designation with RMF-45 zoning. SR-3 RMF-45 Maximum Building Height The maximum height of buildings with pitched roofs shall be: a. Twenty-eight feet (28') measured to the ridge of the roof; or b. The average height of other principal buildings on the block face. 2. The maximum height of a flat roof building shall be twenty feet (20'). The maximum building height permitted in this district is forty five feet (45'). General Yard Requirements Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. Where there are no existing buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be ten feet (10'). Where the minimum front yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard: Twenty percent (20%) of lot depth, but need not exceed twenty five feet (25'). For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the existing yard. 2. Corner Side Yard: a. Single-family attached dwellings: Ten feet (10'). b. Multi-family dwellings: Twenty feet (20'). c. All other permitted and conditional uses: Twenty feet (20'). 3. Interior Side Yard: a. Single-family attached dwelling: No yard is required, Page | 7 2. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet (10'). For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required corner side yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. 3. Interior Side Yard: a. Single-family detached dwellings: Four feet (4'). b. Single-family attached and twin home dwellings: When abutting a single-family dwelling, a four foot (4') yard is required, otherwise no interior yard is required. Where a yard is provided, it shall be not less than four feet (4'). 4. Rear Yard: Twenty percent (20%) of the lot depth but not less than fifteen feet (15') and need not exceed thirty feet (30'). however if one is provided it shall not be less than four feet (4'). b. Multi-family dwellings: The minimum yard shall be eight feet (8'); provided, that no principal building is erected within ten feet (10') of a building on an adjacent lot. c. All other permitted and conditional uses: Ten feet (10') on each side. 4. Rear Yard: The rear yard shall be twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but need not exceed thirty feet (30'). MASTER PLAN CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified master plan considerations applicable to the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments which are summarized below. Please see pages 91-92 of the staff report for additional information. Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan 2018-2022 A goal to increase housing options is included in Growing SLC. The following objectives are listed: Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city. Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development. Objective 3: Lead in the construction of innovative housing solutions. Plan Salt Lake (2015) Plan Salt Lake, the citywide master plan includes policies related to providing additional housing options. Policies related to the proposed project include growth, housing, and air quality. Planning staff identified several objectives of these policies that align with the proposal such as: Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. Increase diversity of housing types for all income levels throughout the city. Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate. Promote high density residential in areas served by transit. Minimize impact of car emissions. Central Community Master Plan (2005) The subject properties are in the Bryant neighborhood and within the Central Community Master Plan area. The associated Future Land Use Map designates the SR-3 zoned parcels as “medium-density residential” and the RMF-45 parcels as “medium-high density residential.” Planning staff stated the medium-density residential designation is due to the block’s interior and existing lower density housing. Planning staff listed several residential land use goals and policies along with residential new construction policies in the Master Plan including: Page | 8 Reduce excessive density potential, stabilize the neighborhood, and conserve the neighborhood’s residential character. Ensure new multi-family development is carefully sited, well designed, and compatible in scale. Provide more affordable housing (owner occupied and rental). Based on the Future Land Use map use residential zoning to establish and maintain a variety of housing opportunities that meet social needs and income levels of a diverse population. Promote construction of a variety of housing options that are compatible with the character of the neighborhoods of the Central Community. Planning staff stated “Further development on this site under the current zoning and master plan designation could result in the removal of affordable housing stock, to be replaced by very high-priced housing. This would be counterproductive to the growing need of increasing attainably priced housing stock in the area. The requested master plan amendment would promote the redevelopment of this site and would help meet City growth and housing goals.” ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment I (pages 95-97) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Planning staff found the proposed amendment complies with all applicable standards, provided the Master Plan future land use map is amended. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for full details. PUBLIC PROCESS • March 1, 2021-Notice of the project and request for comments sent to East Central Community Council and Central City Neighborhood Council chairs. The East Central Community Council Chair submitted a letter to Planning staff expressing opposition to the proposal. • March 26, 2021-Early notification sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project area. • April 5, 2021-Project included in Planning Division online open house. • June 23, 2021-Planning Commission public hearing. The Commission tabled associated planned development and conditional use items until a City Council vote on the Master Plan and zoning map amendments. The Commission voted 4-3 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. • July 14, 2021-Planning Commission recalled vote from June 23, 2o21 meeting because a housing mitigation report was not considered prior to making recommendation to the City Council. • September 8, 2021-Planning Commission was presented a housing mitigation report. A second public hearing was held, and the Commission voted 3-2 to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the proposed Master Plan and zoning map amendments. 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: Bueno Apartments @ 724, 728, 732, 738, 744, 750 and 754 East Bueno Avenue - Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2021-00048) from SR-3 to RMF-45 and Master Plan Amendment (PLNPCM2021-00047) STAFF CONTACT: Katia Pace, Principal Planner, katia.pace@slcgov.com, 385-226-8499 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: •Planning Staff recommended approval. •On June 23, 2021 the Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. •On July 14, 2021 the Planning Commission recalled the vote from the June 23, 2021 meeting because the Planning Commission is required to consider a housing mitigation report for zoning amendments prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. •On September 8, 2021 the Planning Commission held a second public hearing and voted to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Kevin Perry, representing the property owner, is requesting approval for a master plan and zoning map amendment to accommodate the Bueno Avenue Apartments, a Rooming (boarding) House. The location would be at approximately 129 S 700 East and 758 East Bueno Avenue October 18, 2021 Lisa Shaffer (Oct 19, 2021 15:58 MDT) 10/19/2021 10/19/2021 (already RMF-45 parcels), together with the properties at 724, 728, 732, 738, 744, 750 and 754 East Bueno Avenue to be rezoned. Area in red shows the parcels that would be rezoned from SR-3 to RMF-45 and have the master plan designation changed from Medium Density to Medium Hight Density. Area in blue is the remainder area for the project that is zoned RMF-45. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 23, 2021. The commission voted to table the Planned Development and Conditional Use and voted 4-2 to forward a positive recommendation for the master plan and zoning map amendment to the City Council. The vote from the June 23rd meeting was recalled at the following Planning Commission meeting, on July 14, 2021, because according to Salt Lake City Code Section 18.97, Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss, the Planning Commission is required to consider a housing loss mitigation report for the zoning amendment prior to making a recommendation to the City Council and the report was not presented to the Planning Commission before the vote on the June 23rd meeting. On September 8, 2021, the Planning Commission held a second public hearing and reviewed the housing loss mitigation report. The report was approved and signed by the Department of Community and Neighborhoods director prior to being presented to the Planning Commission. The commission voted to recommend denial to the City Council for the following applications: a. Zoning Map Amendment – To rezone 7 parcels on the site from SR-3 to RMF-45. b. Master Plan Map Amendment - To amend the Central Community Master Plan future land use map from "Medium Density Residential" to "Medium High Density Residential" Proposed Project The final project proposes to consolidate 10 parcels and replace the existing structures with two buildings: a single-story amenity building fronting 700 East and a 4-story rooming house on the interior of the site. The rooming house would consist of 65 units ranging from 1 bedroom to 4- bedroom units. Each unit would share cooking and living room facilities and would have a bathroom for each bedroom. The total site is approximately 1.55 acres or 67,518 square feet. The breakdown of the 65 units would be: 1 Bed – 4 units (1 x 4 = 4) 2 Bed – 24 units (2 x 24 = 48) 3 Bed – 8 units (3 x 8 = 24) 4 Bed – 29 units (4 x 29 = 116) Existing Conditions Bueno Avenue is a private right-of-way, that runs across the site granting exclusive access to the parcels on this site and to the adjacent parcel to the south. At the entrance of the site, there is an existing multifamily building with garages/storage facilities. At the interior of the site there are seven single family homes. Several of these homes are currently vacant and have major structural and foundation issues, electrical code deficiencies, and plumbing problems. The condition of Bueno Avenue on this block is in disrepair, with an unmaintained dirt roadway. The utilities are severely outdated and require replacement. Housing Loss Mitigation Report The site is divided between RMF-45 and SR-3 zoning designation. Seven of the parcels with single-family homes and a vacant parcel are zoned SR-3; the other parcels are zoned RMF-45. The Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss ordinance (Salt Lake City Code Section 18.97) requires that any petition for a zoning change that would permit a nonresidential use of land and includes within its boundaries residential dwelling units, may not be approved until a housing mitigation plan is reviewed by the city. Because the proposed RMF-45 zoning district would allow for nonresidential land uses, the zoning amendment is subject to the housing loss mitigation process. As required by the housing loss mitigation ordinance, the Director of the Department of Community and Neighborhoods has signed the report. The report found that the petition to rezone these parcels from SR-3 to RMF- 45 zone would result in replacement of housing stock that allows for housing for 192 individuals. Block showing site in yellow line and RMF-45, RMF-35, and SR-3 zoning designations Recommendations On June 23, 2021, the Planning Commission voted 4-2 to forward a positive recommendation for the master plan and zoning map amendment to the City Council based on the initial staff report and the information presented and the input received in the public hearing. On September 8, 2021, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to forward a negative recommendation for denial based on the request not being compatible with the master plan and the context of the neighborhood. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Notice of the project and request for comments was sent to the East Central Community Council and the Central City Neighborhood Council on March 1, 2021. The East Central Community Council wrote a letter with a negative recommendation based on the loss of affordable housing. The Central City Neighborhood Council did not respond. • Notices were mailed to property owners/residents within ~300 feet of the proposal on March 26, 2021. • Online Open House with information about the proposal, was published on April 5, 2021 in the Salt Lake City Planning’s website https://www.slc.gov/planning/open-houses/. • The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 23, 2021. The commission voted to table the Planned Development and Conditional Use and voted 4-2 to forward a positive recommendation for the Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to the City Council. • On July 14, 2021 the Planning Commission recalled the vote from the June 23, 2021 meeting because the Planning Commission is required to consider a housing mitigation report for zoning amendments prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. • On September 8, 2021 the Planning Commission held a second public hearing as decided by the Chair and voted 3-2 to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the proposed master plan and zoning map amendment. Planning Commission Records: a) Planning Commission Agenda of June 23, 2021 (Click to Access) b) Planning Commission Minutes of June 23, 2021 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of June 23,2021 (Click to Access Report) d) Planning Commission Minutes of July 14, 2021 (Click to Access) e) Planning Commission Agenda of September 8, 2021 (Click to Access) f) Planning Commission Minutes of September 8, 2021 (Click to Access) g) Planning Commission Staff Report of September 8, 2021 with Housing Loss Mitigation Report (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1. Project Chronology 2. Additional Comments (Not on Staff Report) 3. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 4. Original Petition 5. Mailing List SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2021 (Amending the zoning of properties located at 724, 728, 732, 738, 744, 750 and 754 East Bueno Avenue from SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential District) to RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District), and amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map for the aforementioned properties from Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to properties located at 724, 728, 732, 738, 744, 750 and 754 East Bueno Avenue from SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential District) to RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District) pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00048 and amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map for the aforementioned properties from Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00047. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on June 23, 2021 on an application submitted by Kevin Perry representing Alta Terra Real Estate, on behalf of- Four Square Holdings LLC, the owner of real property located at located at 724, 728, 732, 738, 744, 750 and 754 East Bueno Avenue (the “Properties”), to rezone the Properties from SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential District) to RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District) pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00048, and to amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map (the “Future Land Use Map”) with respect to the Properties from Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00047; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission during their June 23, 2021 meeting voted to favor a recommendation to approve the rezone and amendments to the Future Land Use Map pursuant to the aforementioned petitions (the “June 23rd vote”); WHEREAS, on July 14, 2021 during a regularly scheduled meeting the Planning Commission recalled the June 23rd vote; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a subsequent public hearing on the aforementioned petitions on September 8, 2021 and following the public hearing voted to forward a recommendation to the City Council to deny the request to rezone and amend the Future Land Use Map as requested in the aforementioned petitions; 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 and amend the Future Land Use Map as set forth herein is in the city’s best interests. 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 Properties identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be and hereby are rezoned from SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential District) to RMF- 45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District). SECTION 2. Amending the Central Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map of the Central Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future land use designation of the Properties identified in Exhibit “A” from Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential. SECTION 3. 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 Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Hannah Vickery, Senior City Attorney 10/13/21 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description of Properties to be Rezoned and Subject to Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment: 724 East Bueno Avenue Parcel ID No. 16-05-107-002-0000 BEG 10 RD E FR SW COR LOT 4 BLK 54 PLAT B SLC SUR E 2.5 RD N 71.25 FT W 2.5 RD S 71.25 FT TO BEG. CONTAINS 3.049 SQUARE FEET OR 0.07 ACRE, MORE OR LESS. 728 East Bueno Avenue Parcel ID No. 16-05-107-003-0000 BEG 12.5 RD E FR SW COR LOT 4 BLK 54 PLAT B SLC SUR E 2.5 RD N 71.25 FT W 2.5 RD S 71.25 FT TO BEG. CONTAINS 2,940 SQUARE FEET OR 0.0675 ACRE, MORE OR LESS. 732 East Bueno Avenue Parcel ID No. 16-05-107-004-0000 BEG 2.5 RD W FR SE COR LOT 4 BLK 54 PLAT B SLC SUR W 2.5 RD N 71.25 FT; E 2.5 RDS; S 71.25 FT TO BEG. CONTAINS 2,940 SQUARE FEET OR 0.0675 ACRE, MORE OR LESS. 738 East Bueno Avenue Parcel ID No. 16-05-107-005-0000 BEG AT SE COR LOT 4 BLK 54 PLAT B SLC SUR N 5 RDS W 2.5 RDS S 5 RDS E 2.5 RDS TO BEG. CONTAINS 2,971 SQUARE FEET OR 0.0682 ACRE, MORE OR LESS. 744 East Bueno Avenue Parcel ID No. 16-05-155-001-0000 BEG 248 FT W & 8.5 FT S FR NE COR LOT 7 BLK 54 PLAT B SLC SUR W 63 FT S 45^ W 14.14 FT S 31.5 FT E 73 FT M OR L TO PT DUE S FR BEG N 42 FT TO BEG. CONTAINS 2,945 SQUARE FEET OR 0.0676 ACRE, MORE OR LESS. 750 East Bueno Avenue Parcel ID No. 16-05-155-002-0000 BEG AT SW COR LOT 7 BLK 54 PLAT B SLC SUR E 82 FT N 7 RD W 57.25 FT S 2 RD W 1.5 RD S 5 RD TO BEG. CONTAINS 8,725 SQUARE FEET OR 0.2003 ACRE, MORE OR LESS. 754 East Bueno Avenue Parcel ID No. 16-05-155-003-0000 BEG 205 FT W & 8.5 FT S OF THE NE COR LOT 7, BLK 54, PLAT B, SLC SUR; W 43 FT; S 42 FT; E 43 FT; N 42 FT TO BEG, ALSO COM 82 FT E FR SW COR SD LOT 7; E 43 FT; N 7 RDS; W 43 FT; S 7 RDS TO* CONTAINS 6,730 SQUARE FEET OR 0.1545 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petitions: PLNPCM2021-00048 & PLNPCM2021-00047 January 15, 2021 The following petitions were received by the Planning Division: • Planned Development (PLNPCM2021-00045) • Conditional Use (PLNPCM2021-00046) • Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2021-00048) • Master Plan Amendment (PLNPCM2021-00047) February 17, 2021 Petitions were assigned to Katia Pace. March 1, 2021 Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chairs of the East Central Community Council and the Central City Neighborhood Council. March 26, 2021 Early notification was sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project area. April 5, 2021 Online Open House with information about the proposal, where to get more information, and who to contact for questions and comments. April 14, 2021 Planning Staff emailed applicant with issue that the height of the Rooming House building exceeded requirement. May 24, 2021 Received new information from applicant with building height. June 23, 2021 Planning Commission held a public hearing. The commission voted to table the Planned Development and Conditional Use until the City Council decides on the Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment. The commission also voted 4-2 to forward a positive recommendation to City Council. July 14, 2021 Planning Commission recalled the vote from the June 23, 2021 meeting because the Planning Commission is required to consider a housing mitigation report for zoning amendments prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. September 8, 2021 Planning Commission held a second public hearing, were presented a Housing Loss Mitigation Report and voted 3-2 to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the proposed Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment. 2. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (Not on Staff Report) From: To:Planning Public Comments; Pace, Katia Subject:(EXTERNAL) NO on Bueno apartments spot up-zone request! Date:Monday, June 21, 2021 11:24:12 PM Attachments:Comments re proposed re-zone of Bueno Avenue Apartments.docx Salt Lake Planning Commission and Planning Staff: Please read and consider my attached comments re the proposed up-zone for the mid-block properties referred to as the Bueno Apartments. It is discouraging (to put it mildly) to have to continually prod the city to uphold its own planning documents and codes in the face of pressure from opportunistic developers who evidently see easy money in requesting spot up-zones in lieu of pursuing proposals on properties already zoned for the uses they propose. The city's failures in this regard are in part responsible for the many tracts of under-developed and derelict properties that plague the central city and the concurrent run-away price increases for properties in adjacent neighborhoods. Please work with the developer in question at these properties to devise a plan that doesn't entail tearing down existing affordable housing and that is compatible with the stated goals of the existing neighborhood planning documents. Thank you for your diligent work on this matter, Rich Rich Wilcox Comments re proposed re-zone of Bueno Avenue Apartments It was disheartening to see a SLC Planning Staff report in favor of a proposal to grant a spot up-zone to a developer who plans to tear down existing affordable housing on Bueno Avenue to built a single-room occupancy “dorm” in this location. SRO units, if really needed, should be built in areas already zoned for this use (in which there are many lots suitable for building or redevelopment), or as part of a university housing project, on campus. This is not a good time to be demolishing occupied, affordable housing units in our city. The positive report from the planning staff flies in the face of the negative recommendation from the East Central Community Council and is in direct conflict with the Central Community Master Plan. It also is further fuel for the bonfire of speculative investment in our community, where the city’s willingness to grant up-zoning requests from developers is driving property and housing costs through the roof. The city needs to encourage this type of development in areas already zoned for these purposes by standing by its own planning and land use documents. Failure to do so will result in the underdeveloped and blighted properties of downtown remaining in that state, while turning the surrounding neighborhoods into a sea of cookie-cutter apartments that won’t meet the housing needs of low- and moderate-income families. Any developer with an imagination and a constructive vision could come up with a proposal for this property that preserves the existing housing while adding additional units in place of the abandoned garage structures. The city planning staff and planning council should have the ability and motivation to push a developer lacking these characteristics into a better development plan. Please stand by the city’s own clear planning and land use documents, and the housing needs of the low-income residents already living on these properties, by voting “no” on the re-zoning request for these properties on Bueno Avenue. And (an apparently needed) nudge towards a proposal that preserves the existing affordable housing would be a helpful step. From:Anderson, John To:nils adey; Planning Public Comments Cc:Pace, Katia Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Support for zoning change SR-3 to RMF-45 for Bueno Avenue Date:Wednesday, September 8, 2021 9:00:22 AM Nils, Your comments are appreciated and will be shared with the Planning Commission prior to their meeting tonight. If you'd like to participate in that meeting please follow the instructions found on the agenda: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/09.%20September/PC09.08.2021agendaAMENDED.pdf JOHN ANDERSON Manager Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL CEL 385-226-6479 EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING www.ourneighborhoodscan.com "Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights." -----Original Message----- From: nils adey <nilsadey1@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 9:21 PM To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Support for zoning change SR-3 to RMF-45 for Bueno Avenue To whom it concerns, I am writing to show my support for the proposed SR-3 to RMF-45 zoning change for Bueno Avenue. Salt Lake City is in significant need for additional housing, particularly affordable housing, and this zoning change would be a step in the right direction. Thank you, Nils Adey From:Anderson, John To:Bojan Tomic; Planning Public Comments Cc:Pace, Katia Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Bueno Ave. Rezone Date:Wednesday, September 8, 2021 9:00:39 AM Bojan, Your comments are appreciated and will be shared with the Planning Commission prior to their meeting tonight. If you'd like to participate in that meeting please follow the instructions found on the agenda: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/09.%20September/PC 09.08.2021agendaAMENDED.pdf JOHN ANDERSON Manager Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL CEL 385-226-6479 EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING www.ourneighborhoodscan.com "Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights." From: Bojan Tomic Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 10:16 PM To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Bueno Ave. Rezone To whom it may concern, After reviewing the attached file, I believe this would be a worth while concept. Living in Salt Lake City has become hard for many individuals. A concept such as Bueno Avenue Apartments could help residents who may bot be able to afford living in the city. Best, Bojan Tomic From:Mills, Wayne To:Rankins, Marlene Cc:Pace, Katia; Clark, Aubrey Subject:FW: (EXTERNAL) Bueno Avenue Apartments Date:Wednesday, September 8, 2021 9:54:36 AM Hi Marlene- I think your doing the meeting tonight. Please forward these comments to the PC. Thanks. WAYNE MILLS Planning Manager Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7282 FAX 801-535-6174 WWW.slc.gov/planning Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights. From: hunter Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 8:52 PM To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Bueno Avenue Apartments To whom it may concern, I'm a Park City, UT resident, but I work in Salt Lake City. I am writing to you in support of the affordable housing option being proposed in the Bueno Avenue Apartments. As you likely know, the proposed strategy has proven effective in other cities where affordable housing has been challenging. Affordable housing will allow SLC's continued economic growth by providing a safe, clean, and desirable housing option within the community to attract the best job applicants. Allowing continued growth without providing strong living options for all economic levels will lead to tremendous challenges in the future. Now is the time to be proactive. I strongly urge you to vote in favor of the rezoning so that Bueno Avenue Apartments can move forward. I hope that a similar proposal will be brought forward to the PC community too as we are in desperate need of affordable housing. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Hunter Underhill From:John Davis To:Pace, Katia Subject:(EXTERNAL) "Bueno Avenue Co-Living Apartments" Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment Date:Wednesday, September 8, 2021 10:03:24 AM Master Plan Amendment (PLNPCM2021-00047) Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2021-00048) "Bueno Avenue Co-Living Apartments" Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment Katia: Please ensure my comments below are received by the Planning Commissioners. Thank you! Dear Planning Commissioners, I want to thank you all for the time and attention you have given thus far in carefully considering the myriad of planning applications associated with the Bueno Avenue development proposal. As I am sure you appreciate, this is a massively complex proposal, touching on housing affordability issues, displacement of existing residents, compatible neighborhood infill development, and a co-living housing type that is relatively new to our City in this context. After considering the proposal, I strongly encourage that you vote to forward a negative recommendation relative to the master plan and zoning map amendment proposals. I strongly believe that any planning proposal that directly results in (or is likely to result in) a loss or erosion of existing housing should be denied until Salt Lake City has targeted and effective housing loss mitigation and displacement policies in place. The instant proposal will result in a direct loss of existing naturally occurring affordable housing, with many current residents in the area likely unable to find new housing within Salt Lake City. In fact, current residents have communicated to others in the neighborhood that this redevelopment proposal will result in their displacement and that they will likely find themselves subsequently unhoused and seeking emergency shelter. Housing loss mitigation and displacement policies are essential to ensure our City grows in a way that is sensitive to existing housing-vulnerable residents. Housing loss mitigation and displacement policies are currently in the process of being developed and refined by the Administration, and decisionmakers including yourselves should be extraordinarily careful in considering proposals that impact housing in our City until these important protections are in place. In addition, while well intended, I am not convinced that the proposed co-living space is a true solution to addressing affordability in the way it is being marketed by the developers, especially when defined affordably is not explicitly required and enforced as a condition of approval. In many growing cities in the U.S., market developed co- living spaces – either new construction or rehabilitation/conversion of existing buildings – have not resulted in new affordable housing. Instead, many of these market rate co-living spaces are designed and marketed as luxury co-living and/or co- working arrangements for affluent students and young professionals. While more affordable than normal market rate one bedroom or studio units, they are often not the type of deeply affordable housing Salt Lake City requires. Moreover, co-living units by their nature will often not be suitable for families and other multi-generational households. The vast majority of the new development in our City in the last decade has indeed been primarily studio/1-bedroom units, and the housing needs of both families with children and multigenerational households have been ignored by the private development market and not fully supported by the City through effective policy. This immediate proposal appears to be a continuation of this trend. Thank you for your time in considering the above. Jack Davis From:Anderson, John To:Stephanie Anglin; Planning Public Comments Cc:Pace, Katia Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Vote Against The Bueno Avenue Apartments Proposal Date:Wednesday, September 8, 2021 10:44:20 AM Stephanie, Your comments are appreciated and will be shared with the Planning Commission prior to their meeting tonight. If you'd like to participate in that meeting please follow the instructions found on the agenda: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/09.%20September/PC 09.08.2021agendaAMENDED.pdf JOHN ANDERSON Manager Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL CEL 385-226-6479 EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING www.ourneighborhoodscan.com "Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights." From: Stephanie Anglin Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 10:16 AM To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Vote Against The Bueno Avenue Apartments Proposal I am asking you to vote against the proposal for the Bueno Avenue apartments. This rezone will negatively impact the standard of living in the East Central neighborhood. The city should not allow developers to force working-class people to share kitchens. It is becoming ever more clear that COVID-19 isn't going away any time soon. Even without COVID-19, people still get sick and will be forced to use a communal kitchen, threatening the safety of their neighbors. After working all day, would you want to cook in a communal kitchen where you are elbowing your neighbors for space to make dinner? Or would you rather have your own kitchen where you can cook with your family, safely and without as much stress? Furthermore, these apartments will dramatically increase rent in the area. Some micro-apartments in the valley have increased rent by almost 30% in only one year. There are no requirements for affordability in this proposal. This proposal is not a solution to the housing shortage. In fact, these apartments will displace mothers, children, and families. Frankly, this proposal is extremely disrespectful to the people in the East Central area. I am urging you to vote against this disrespectful and harmful proposal. You have the power to change the course of people's lives. Why would you want to put their lives in danger by voting for a proposal like this? Please, do the right thing. Sincerely, Stephanie Anglin From:cindy cromer To:Pace, Katia; Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) Re: zoning amendments: Bueno Ave. Date:Wednesday, September 8, 2021 2:33:19 PM To members of the Planning Commission From cindy cromer comment on zoning amendments: Bueno 9/8/21 part 2 First, thank you for separating the planned development and conditional use from the requests in front of you tonight. The bundling of the 4 requests conveyed that the project was a done deal to tenants, property owners, and business people on the block. Your vote in favor of the rezoning led some tenants to move soon after your vote. Never doubt that what you do and say makes a difference in people's lives. Secondly, the most important thing I learned from Izzy Wagner was the concept of "sweating the land." That is what this proposal does....It pushes the land beyond its carrying capacity, if you can think of a parallel between people and livestock. In previous messages, I have emphasized the development potential on this block and the constraints imposed by the existing condominiums. The staff report emphasizes the existing RMF-45 zoning but the reality is that the condominiums dating from the 1970's and 1990's determine the potential for a large portion of the block. The perimeter can certainly redevelop as RMF-45 and RMU-45 but the interior will be considerably lower based on divided ownership. Standard 1 for a zoning amendment: It has been the City's clear intent to protect the interior block streets in the older portions of the City since the adoption of the SR-3 zone in 1995. Standards 2 and 3 Without a major fire or earthquake and the proposed zoning change, the average height on the interior of this block would continue to be that of the Watts condos. The staff report refers to zoning, but because of the condominiums, the adjacent zoning is irrelevant to the impact on properties which are not going to redevelop. I suspect that you believe that proposals you addressed years ago have now been adopted by the City Council but they haven't been. There is a log jam of ordinances in the City Council office which are relevant to this proposal. You are being asked to support loopholes in ordinances such as housing loss mitigation which should have been taken care of years ago. From:JIM WELLS To:Pace, Katia Subject:(EXTERNAL) Comments on proposed re-zone on129 S. 700 E. Bueno boarding house Date:Wednesday, September 8, 2021 6:54:44 PM I oppose the re-zone for this project for 2 reasons 1. The 4 bedroom apt. described would rent for 4x $900 =$3600/month. That is an expensive apt. especially when you have no control over who your room mates are. 2. Parking depicted appears to account for ~ 20% of the rooms. They would be making a bad situation worse. Thanks , Jim Wells From:Mills, Wayne To:Pace, Katia Cc:Planning Public Comments Subject:FW: (EXTERNAL) Bueno Park Apartment Project 100 S 700 E Date:Monday, September 13, 2021 3:30:26 PM Katia- Please include these comments in your transmittal to the City Council. Thanks. WAYNE MILLS Planning Manager Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7282 FAX 801-535-6174 WWW.slc.gov/planning Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights. From: Casey Walrath < Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 3:25 PM To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>; Council Comments <Comments.Council@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Bueno Park Apartment Project 100 S 700 E Regarding the Planning Commission's recent negative recommendation of the proposed Bueno Park apartments zoning and master plan amendment on the 100 S 700 E block, I am disappointed and angry that, in the midst of an unprecedented housing crisis caused primarily by a regional shortage of affordable market-rate units, that a planning commissioner member would oppose an SRO project on the grounds that she "would much rather see a lower scale of development like townhouses" on the site. Simply put, we need more, not less, intensive development in this city, particularly near the downtown area, and for an appointed official whose home value, per county records, has appreciated nearly 40% in just five years to deny an affordable market rate project on the basis of arbitrary aesthetic preferences is deeply insulting to those of us being priced out of the city, whether we as individuals prefer the typology or not. I am writing this as an SLC resident to urge Planning Commission members to remember the needs of people who are not in a position to profit from the housing shortage, and for the council to ignore the commission's recommendation on this project and future ones like it. Thank you. - Casey Walrath 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2021-00048 & PLNPCM2021- 00047 - Bueno Avenue Apartments - Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment - Kevin Perry, representing the property owner, is requesting approval for a master plan and zoning map amendment to accommodate a new residential development, the Bueno Avenue Apartments, at the stated location. The project proposes to consolidate 10 parcels and replace the existing structures with two buildings: a single-story amenity building fronting 700 East and a 4-story rooming (boarding) house on the interior of the site. The rooming house would consist of 65 units ranging from 1 bedroom to 4-bedroom units. The total site is approximately 1.55 acres. This project requires both a Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment. a. Zoning Map Amendment – The current zoning of 7 of parcels on the site is SR-3, and zoning on 3 of the parcels is RMF-45. As part of the Zoning Amendment the Planning Commission will review a Housing Loss Mitigation Report. The applicant is requesting to amend the zoning map designation of the seven parcels zoned SR-3 to RMF-45. Case number PLNPCM2021-00048 b. Master Plan Map Amendment - The associated future land use map in the Central Community Master Plan currently designates the property as "Medium Density Residential". The petitioner is requesting to amend the future land use map for the parcels to be "Medium High Density Residential". Case number PLNPCM2021-00047 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: 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 www.slccouncil.com 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 Katia Pace at 385-226-8499 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at katia.pace@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. 4. ORIGINAL PETITION 5. MAILING LIST 150 SOUTH, LLC 2236 S BERKELEY ST SALT LAKE CUT 84109 AARON H LEIFER; NORMAN LEIFER; CAROL 150 S 800 E #I-1 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 ADELE BREEDEN 126 S 700 E SALT LAKE CUT 84102 AIRA GYLLENBOGEL 127 S 800 E # 14 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 ALLISON UCHIDA 150 S 800 E #A2 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 AMEL STOVRAG; SELMA HERCINOVIC (JT)110 S 800 E # 406 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 ANDREW STORY; JENNIFER THOMPSON (JT2593 POLI ST VENTURA CA 93003 ARNOLD LIU; STEPHANIE YI-FANG LIU (JT)PO BOX 541 SANDY UT 84091 BELINDA TRIEU 1619 E KENSINGTON AV SALT LAKE CUT 84105 BIRTOK LLC 561 KEYSTONE AVE #42 RENO NV 89503 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF S L CITY 440 E 100 S SALT LAKE CUT 84111 BRAD RASMUSSEN; PAULA RASMUSSEN (J 1487 E VINEYARD CT BOUNTIFULUT 84010 BRADLEY D HARPER 150 S 800 E # D6 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 BRIAN VOGEL 110 S 800 E # 202 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 BUTTERFLY RENTAL PROPERTIES LLC 952 E AVILA CT SANDY UT 84094 C FAM TR 512 KEELSON CIR REDWOOD CA 94065 CARY A SELF; JUDY H SELF (JT)2254 E LONSDALE DR COTTONWO UT 84121 CHARLES H LIVSEY 3893 MONARCH DR BOUNTIFULUT 84010 CLARENCE R III HENRIKSEN 155 E 900 S SALT LAKE CUT 84111 CONOR MCMULLIN; PAUL & KAREN MCM 1057 E 400 S SALT LAKE CUT 84102 CRAIG P LINDSEY 446 E DOWNINGTON A SALT LAKE CUT 84115 CRAIG WALKER 1450 E LOGAN AVE SALT LAKE CUT 84105 CREED WARDROP 150 S 800 E # H3 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 Current Occupant 77 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 717 E 100 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 40 S 800 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 680 E 100 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 682 E 100 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 684 E 100 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 688 E 100 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 114 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 118 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 122 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 144 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 154 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 130 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 136 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 113 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 125 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 129 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 732 E 100 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 736 E 100 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 740 E 100 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 742 E 100 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 750 E 100 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 760 E 100 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 116 S 800 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 110 S 800 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #200 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #201 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #202 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #203 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #205 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #206 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #300 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #301 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #302 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #303 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #304 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #305 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #306 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #307 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #402 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #403 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #404 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #405 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #406 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #407 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 135 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 724 E BUENO AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 728 E BUENO AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 732 E BUENO AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 738 E BUENO AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 145 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 149 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #A1 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #A4 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #A5 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #A6 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #A7 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #A8 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #A9 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #A10 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #A11 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #A12 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #B1 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #C1 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #C2 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #C3 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #C4 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #D1 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #D2 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #D5 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #D6 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #D10 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #E1 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #E2 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #E3 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #E4 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #E7 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #E8 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #E9 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #E10 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #E11 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #E12 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #F1 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #F2 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #G-3 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #G-4 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #G-5 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #G-6 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #G-7 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #G-8 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #G-9 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #G-10 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #H-8 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #H-9 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #I-2 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #I-3 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 150 S 800 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 744 E BUENO AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 750 E BUENO AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 754 E BUENO AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 758 E BUENO AVE #FRO Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 758 E BUENO AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 161 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 165 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 717 E 200 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 745 E 200 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 753 E 200 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 755 E 200 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 130 S 800 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 140 S 800 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 105 S 800 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 Current Occupant 139 S 800 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102 CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 10 SALT LAKE CUT 84103 CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 12 SALT LAKE CUT 84105 CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 13 SALT LAKE CUT 84106 CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 15 SALT LAKE CUT 84108 CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 17 SALT LAKE CUT 84110 CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 21 SALT LAKE CUT 84112 CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 22 SALT LAKE CUT 84113 CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 23 SALT LAKE CUT 84114 CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 24 SALT LAKE CUT 84115 CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 25 SALT LAKE CUT 84116 CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 27 SALT LAKE CUT 84118 CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 31 SALT LAKE CUT 84120 CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 32 SALT LAKE CUT 84121 CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 33 SALT LAKE CUT 84122 CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 34 SALT LAKE CUT 84123 CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 35 SALT LAKE CUT 84124 CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 36 SALT LAKE CUT 84125 DANIEL A LOEWN PO BOX 695 CENTERVIL UT 84014 DANIEL PAINTER 150 S 800 E #E6 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 DARISA, LLC 3 E JOY DR FARMINGT UT 84025 DARREN L STIRLAND; CHIUNG-TZU WU (JT 150 S 800 E # C2 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 DARYL TUNG 1034 SUTTER ST #3 SAN FRANCCA 94109 DEXINGHUI KONG 127 S 800 E # 11 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 DIGITAL RAFT ENTERPRISES LLC PO BOX 901286 SANDY UT 84090 DOUGLAS BABB; SUE BABB (JT)1785 E MEADOW DOW COTTONWO UT 84121 DOUGLASS G ADAMS; DIANE S ADAMS PO BOX 95452 SOUTH JOR UT 84095 DOW D YANG; LIYAN REN (JT)2127 E AVELINE AVE SALT LAKE CUT 84109 DRS TR 2084 E HARVARD OAKS SALT LAKE CUT 84108 DSSLCE11 LLC 150 S 800 E # E11 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 DSSLCE12 LLC 150 S 800 E # E11 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 DSSLCG1 LLC 150 S 800 E #G- SALT LAKE CUT 84102 DWIGHT H BUTLER; CHARLES C BUTLER (T 702 E 100 S SALT LAKE CUT 84102 EASTGATE CONDM COMMON AREA MAST PO BOX 9243 SALT LAKE CUT 84109 ELIZABETH BENNETT 150 S 800 E # D2 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 ERIC & KARLA MASCHOFF FAMILY TRUST D 150 S 800 E # A7 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 FOURSQUARE HOLDINGS LLC 6055 S HOLLADAY BLVD HOLLADAY UT 84121 GEORGE AUN; HOLLY AUN (JT)2012 W FARM RIDGE R TAYLORSVI UT 84129 GEORGE E MULLIGAN FAMILY TRUST 03/0 147 S 700 E SALT LAKE CUT 84102 GEORGE GOLDHOFF 1504 RACE ST CINCINNAT OH 45202 GREGORY K MORRELL; SUSAN B TALLEY (JT110 S 800 E # 405 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 H FAM TRUST; ALLAN R HODGSON; MARG 1996 PADDINGTON DR PARK CITY UT 84060 HARVARD PLUMB LLC 1468 E HARVARD AVE SALT LAKE CUT 84105 HIVE 55, LLC 350 S 200 E SALT LAKE CUT 84111 HUGH BROWN; JANE BROWN (JT)150 N SNOW CANYON IVINS UT 84738 IRONWOOD PROPERTIES LC 1967 S 300 W SALT LAKE CUT 84115 JAMES L JANNEY 127 S 800 E # 20 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 JAMIE YOUNG 1952 BLUEBELL DR BOUNTIFULUT 84010 JEREMY MOORE; SAYA MOORE (JT)160 S 700 E SALT LAKE CUT 84102 JOHN C BOUZEK 407 E 300 S SALT LAKE CUT 84111 JOHN CHRISTOPHER BOUZEK 15 SAINT MORITZ TERR PARK CITY UT 84098 JOHN H NEWTON 4514 S BUTTERNUT RD HOLLADAY UT 84117 JOHN HANSEN 637 RANCHO ARROYO FREMONT CA 94336 JOHN MICHAEL HEAGIN 110 S 800 E # 403 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 JONATHAN JUDD; CHRISTI JUDD (JT)127 S 800 E # 26 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 JONNICA KAIRN; JEFFREY L KAIRN (JT)19282 MAUNA LN HUNTINGTO CA 92646 JOSHUA S MORRILL 127 S 800 E # 30 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 JRD HOLDINGS LLC 8791 S TERRA POINTE W WEST JORDUT 84088 JULIANA POWELL 9863 S COUNTRYWOOD SANDY UT 84092 JULIE M BRADFORD 150 S 800 E # A12 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 KEMEI LIN 150 S 800 E #A3 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 KESI SAINSBURY 110 S 800 E # 404 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 KIMBERLI D BROWN 3006 MOUNTAIN RIDG PARK CITY UT 84060 KRIDIT INVESTMENTS, LLC PO BOX 695 CENTERVIL UT 84014 KRISTEN KANACK 654 E OXFORD HOLLOW MURRAY UT 84107 KRISTIAN KALLAKER 127 S 800 E #16 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 KURT S WERDER; KRISTIN N BAER-WERDER150 S 800 E # A8 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 KYLE K RICHARDS 143 S 800 E SALT LAKE CUT 84102 LAS TRUST 110 S 800 E # 307 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 LEE LIVENGOOD; MELISSA LIVENGOOD (JT 490 E NORTHMONT WY SALT LAKE CUT 84103 LEIGH ANNE BERNAL 846 E GARFIELD AVE SALT LAKE CUT 84105 LESLIE C HAARUP 838 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CUT 84102 LEVI P GEPHART; LINDSAY GEPHART (JT)11241 S TRENT DR SOUTH JOR UT 84095 LOUIS D CURTIS; JULIET T CURTIS (JT)2007 E MALIBU DR TEMPE AZ 85282 LP 150 APARTMENTS 3021 CITRUS CIR WALNUT C CA 94598 LUND 700 LLC 357 W 200 S # 200 SALT LAKE CUT 84101 MARCI MOON 730 E 100 S SALT LAKE CUT 84102 MARIANNE C NEWELL; ANGELINA B NEWE 110 S 800 E #20 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 MARK F ROARK 249 S 100 W PROVIDENCUT 84332 MARK S THORSEN; GIGI N THORSEN (JT)150 S 800 E # C1 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 MFSF 13 MARLBOROUGH STR CAULFIELD IC 3161 MICHAEL D HILL 14737 S ALPINE VIEW D HERRIMAN UT 84096 MICHELLE O ILK; MICHAEL J ILK (JT)3558 E DOVERHILL DR COTTONWO UT 84121 MILLAR 2016 FAMILY TRUST 12/14/2016; 4085 HIGHWAY 4 ANGELS CA CA 95222 NATHAN J MEMMOTT 110 S 800 E # 407 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 NIC CITY INVESTMENTS LLC 380 E OAK FOREST RD SALT LAKE CUT 84103 NORA C GALLEGOS; JOE M GALLEGOS (JT)231 E HAMPTON AVE SALT LAKE CUT 84111 OLIVER FLATT; MATTHEW RAYMOND FLAT 2285 S BENCHMARK CI SALT LAKE CUT 84109 PADDOCK PROPERTY LLC 150 S 800 E #G- SALT LAKE CUT 84102 PAIGE N ROCKWELL 150 S 800 E #E5 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 PARTRIDGE PLACE 25 LLC 2070 W 5025 S ROY UT 84067 PATRICK ECCLES 150 S 800 E # A11 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 PETER HASLAM 751 E 200 S SALT LAKE CUT 84102 PETER HILDYARD 147 S 800 E SALT LAKE CUT 84102 PRINCETON LOFTS LLC 357 W 200 S # 250 SALT LAKE CUT 84101 R CORY LLEWELYN; KOREY C LLEWELYN (JT127 S 800 E # 37 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 RAHMAN BADARANE; DEYZE B BADARANE 9245 REGENTS RD # M1 LA JOLLA CA 92037 RICHARD & JANICE WRIGHT LIVING TRUST 634 E 4630 S MURRAY UT 84107 ROBERT L GRAHAM 7911 S PONDEROSA WY SANDY UT 84094 ROGER L NIELSON; NYRA S NIELSON (JT)476 E 300 N EPHRAIM UT 84627 RYAN M ANDERSON 127 S 800 E #18 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 440 E 100 S SALT LAKE CUT 84111 SAMUEL G TURNER; TIERNEY D TURNER (J 110 S 800 E #20 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 SANDRINE C MCDONALD LIVING TRUST 122322 E ELLISONWOODS COTTONWO UT 84121 SERIES PARTRIDGE PLACE 32 OF SYCAMOR 231 E 400 S SALT LAKE CUT 84111 SHARA J HILLIER 110 S 800 E # 207 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 SMITHS FORK LLC 30125 HILLSIDE TERRAC SAN JUAN CCA 92675 SNOWBALL CAPITAL LLC 1649 N 2600 W LEHI UT 84043 STOKER ENTERPRISES LLC 144 S 700 E # 2 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 TABOR LUTHERAN CHURCH 175 S 700 E SALT LAKE CUT 84102 TERRY J HARDING; DEBRA J HARDING (JT)4218 S FOOTHILL DR BOUNTIFULUT 84010 TROLLEY REGENT CONDOMINIUMS PH 1 2 5200 S HIGHLAND DR # HOLLADAY UT 84117 OCCUPANT/PROPERTY OWNER 768 E 800 S SALT LAKE CUT 84102 OCCUPANT/PROPERTY OWNER 17065 EDGEWATER LN HUNTINGTO CA 92649 OCCUPANT/PROPERTY OWNER 8625 E VIA DEL PALACIO SCOTTSDALAZ 85258 OCCUPANT/PROPERTY OWNER 485 TOWERS DR SALEM UT 84653 OCCUPANT/PROPERTY OWNER 1685 CORONADO ST IDAHO FAL ID 83404 OCCUPANT/PROPERTY OWNER 150 S 800 E # G4 SALT LAKE CUT 84102 OCCUPANT/PROPERTY OWNER 315 W HUENEME RD CAMARILLOCA 93012 TUTTO TRANQUILO, LLC 8690 S ESCALADE CIR COTTONWO UT 84121 UTAH COMPLEX, LLC PO BOX 520697 SALT LAKE CUT 84152 UTNV PARKLANE LLC 1422 CLARKVIEW ROAD BALTIMOREMD 21209 VICTOR MIELE 1411 S UTAH ST # 6 SALT LAKE CUT 84104 WALTER GOINS 4671 W DAYBREAK RIM SOUTH JOR UT 84009 WANDA I RAMOS; F LAMAR PENOVICH (JT 1620 E CREEK RD SANDY UT 84093 WASATCH PROPERTIES SLC LLC 3693 E COVEPOINT DR SALT LAKE CUT 84109 WISE NG; KUO-YEN HWANG (JT)1783 S MOHAWK WY SALT LAKE CUT 84108 Kevin Perry Alta Terra Real Estate 3100 Pinebrook Rd. Ste Park City UT 84098 Item E10 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:December 7, 2021 RE: Rezone: 835 S Redwood Road & 1668 W Indiana Avenue from R-1/5,000 to R-MU-45 PLNPCM2021-00249 MOTION 1 – close and defer I move the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 – continue I move the council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. MOTION 3 – close and adopt I move the Council close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance. MOTION 4 – close and reject 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: December 7, 2021 RE:Rezone: 835 S Redwood Road & 1668 W Indiana Avenue from R-1/5,000 to R-MU-45 PLNPCM2021-00249 PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: Dec 7, 2021 Set Date: November 16, 2021 Public Hearing: Dec 7, 2021 Potential Action: Dec 7 or 14 2021 This item was originally scheduled for a briefing on November 16, 2021. However, due to time constraints on that day, the briefing was postponed, and the public hearing was still set for December 7, 2021. That is why the briefing and public hearing are on the same day. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of properties at approximately 835 South Redwood Road and 1668 West Indiana Avenue from R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District) to R-MU-45 (Residential/Mixed Use District). The property at 1668 West Indiana currently contains an individual single-family dwelling while the other property is vacant. No specific site development proposal has been submitted at this time. However, the applicant has indicated that if the zoning change is approved, they intend to consolidate the parcels and develop a mixed use on the combined property with ground floor commercial/retail and upper floor apartments. The change is consistent with changes identified in the Westside Master Plan which identified the intersection of Redwood and Indiana as the location of a future Community Node. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 9, 2021 and forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council by a majority vote of 4-2. Page | 2 Vicinity and Zoning Map (pages 2-3 of the Planning Commission Staff report) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Page | 3 Pages 3-6 of the Planning Commission staff reports includes a discussion about the key issues identified by the Planning Staff. A short summary of those is provided below. See the Planning Commission staff report to view the full analysis. 1. Neighborhood and City-Wide Master Plan Considerations Planning Staff found the proposed change is generally in compliance with the Westside Master Plan and vision for this intersection as a future Community Node. A community Node is defined as: o Community nodes are larger in scale than their neighborhood counterparts because they generally offer retail and services that attract people from a larger area. While some existing community nodes do not have residential components, new developments at these locations should incorporate housing. These nodes provide good opportunities to add density with multifamily residential units. Densities should be on the order of 20 to 30 dwelling units per acre with appropriate building forms to complement adjacent lower density uses if necessary. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs), which are fully separate dwelling units that are located on the same lot as the primary residence, may be appropriate at community nodes. ADUs are an effective way to increase density within the stable areas, especially with the community’s deep single-family lots. Retailers such as grocery stores, clothing stores or small professional offices are appropriate anchors for community nodes. These nodes can also be anchored around or include institutional uses, such as churches, schools or daycares. Community nodes should be comfortable and safe for pedestrians and bicyclists while providing some off- site parking that is located behind or to the side of the buildings. Developments around these type of nodes should also be accessible to regular public transportation service.” Planning Staff found the proposed zoning map amendment and overall project is aligned with the vision and guiding principles contained in Plan Salt Lake and are supported by policies and strategies that encourage neighborhoods: that provide a safe environment and opportunity for social interaction, provide people with choices about where they live and support local businesses. 2. Change in Zoning and Compatibility with Adjacent Properties Planning staff found given the location of the property and surrounding zoning, the change in zoning from R-1/5000 to R-MU-45 on these properties would be appropriate in the context of the area and would not lead to changes that are out of character or incompatible with the existing development in the area. The requested R-MU-45 zoning allows for commercial, multi-family and mixed uses that are not allowed under the current zoning. Since the proposed zone abuts single family residential zoning, the height limit in the R-MU-45 zoning district would be strictly limited to 45-feet. o There is not a process to exceed that height. When abutting single or two-family zoning, a landscaping buffer of 10-feet would be required. Page | 4 The side yard setback would have to be increased one foot (1') for every one foot (1') increase in height above thirty feet (30') on the subject property. o The building may be stepped so taller portions of a building are farther away from the side property line 3. Housing Mitigation Loss Requirements If the properties are developed strictly for a commercial use without a residential component, the removal of the existing dwelling would be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.97 – Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss of City Code. o The applicant would have to pay a mitigation fee for removing the existing housing unit. o The application and process would be reviewed by the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board (HAAB). Note: The Council may wish to ask the Administration for a status update on potential changes to the Housing Loss Mitigation program and Gentrification/Displacement study. 4. Consideration of Alternate Zoning Districts Planning Staff considered and analyzed different zoning districts for the property, including; Corridor Commercial, Residential Mixed Used-35. But ultimately supported the applicant’s request for R-MU-45. PUBLIC PROCESS The public process is outlined on page two of the transmittal letter. It met the standard requirements of noticing surrounding property owners, informing the Community Council and a public hearing at the Planning Commission. No formal comments have been submitted, nor objections raised in regard to the proposed changes. 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: Redwood Road and Indiana Avenue Zoning Map Amendment STAFF CONTACT: David J. Gellner, AICP, Senior Planner, david.gellner@slcgov.com (385) 226-3860 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 properties, changing them from R-1/5000 (Single-Family Residential) to R-MU-45 (Residential/Mixed Use). BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Property owner Khiem Tran requesting that the City amend the zoning map for two (2) properties located at 835 S Redwood Road and 1668 W Indiana Avenue respectively. The property at 1668 W Indiana currently contains an individual single-family dwelling while the other property is vacant. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning map designation of the property from R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential) to R-MU-45 (Residential/Mixed Use). No specific site development proposal has been submitted at this time. The change is consistent with changes identified in the Westside Master Plan which identified the intersection of Redwood and Indiana as the location of a future Community Node. The Master Plan is not being changed. The subject properties are highlighted on the zoning map/aerial photo below. October 18, 2021 Lisa Shaffer (Oct 19, 2021 16:00 MDT) 10/19/2021 10/19/2021 PUBLIC PROCESS: • Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chair of the Poplar Grove Community Council on March 25, 2021. • Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners located within 300 feet of the project site on March 25, 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 March 29, 2021 and ended on May 10, 2021. • No formal comments were submitted by the Poplar Grove Community Council. • No public comments were submitted in relation to this proposal. • A Planning Commission Public Hearing was held on June 9, 2021. By a majority vote of 4-2, the Planning Commission forwarded a Positive recommendation to City Council for the proposed zoning map change. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of June 9, 2021 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of June 9, 2021 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of June 9, 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 of the properties located at approximately 835 South Redwood Road and 1668 West Indiana Avenue from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to R-MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District.) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to the properties located at 835 South Redwood Road and 1668 West Indiana Avenue from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to R-MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021- 00249. WHEREAS, the property owner, Khiem Tran, submitted a petition number PLNPCM2021-00249 (the rezone petition ) to rezone the properties located at 835 South Redwood Road and 1668 West Indiana Avenue (Tax ID Nos. 15-10-205-016 and 15-10-205- 017, respectively -1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to R- MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District; and WHEREAS, in addition to the underlying R-1/7,000 and R-1/5,000 zoning, the parcels are further zoned with an overlay zoning designation of Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay; and WHEREAS, at its June 9, 2021 meeting, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing, had discussion, and voted to forward a recommendation of approval to the Salt Lake City Council (the City Council ) on the rezone petition; 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 Airport Flight Path 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 Properties located at 835 South Redwood Road and 1668 West Indiana Avenue, more particularly described and incorporated by reference shall be and hereby are rezoned from R-1/5000 Single-Family Residential District to R-MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District. SECTION 2.Effective Date. This Ordinance 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 20___. Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Hannah Vickery,Senior City Attorney 6/17/2021 Legal Description for the Properties to be Rezoned: Address: 835 South Redwood Road Tax ID No. 15-10-205-016 LOT 2, TRAN SUBDIVISION Contains 5,663 sq feet or 0.13 acres more or less. Address: 1668 West Indiana Avenue Tax ID No. 15-10-205-017 LOT 1, TRAN SUBDIVISION Contains 6,432 sq feet or 0.1456 acres more or less. 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: PLNPCM2021-00249 - Redwood Road & Indiana Avenue Zoning Map Amendment March 22, 2021 Petition for the zoning map amendment received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division March 23, 2021 Petition assigned to David Gellner, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. March 25, 2021 Information about the proposal was sent to the Chair of the Poplar Grove Community Council in order to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. March 25, 2021 Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. March 29, 2021 Staff hosted an online Open House to solicit public comments on the proposal. The Online Open House period started on March 29, 2021 and ended on May 10, 2021. May 10, 2021 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. No formal comments were submitted to staff by the recognized organizations to date related to this proposal. May 27, 2021 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of May 26, 2021. Public hearing notice mailed. May 27, 2021 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the properties. May 27, 2021 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on June 9, 2021. By a majority vote of 4-2, the Planning Commission forwarded a Positive recommendation to City Council for the proposed zoning map change. 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2021-00249 – Zoning Map Amendment at Redwood Road & Indiana Avenue – Khiem Tran, the property owner is requesting that the City amend the zoning map for two (2) properties located at 835 S Redwood Road and 1668 W Indiana Avenue respectively. The property at 1668 W Indiana currently contains an individual single-family dwelling while the other property is vacant. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning map designation of the property from R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential) to R-MU-45 (Residential/Mixed Use). No specific site development proposal has been submitted at this time. The change is consi stent with changes identified in the Westside Master Plan which identified the intersection of Redwood and Indiana as the location of a future Community Node. The Master Plan is not being changed. The property is located within Council District 2, represented by Dennis Faris. (Staff contact: David J. Gellner at (385) 226 -3860 or david.gellner@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 David Gellner at 385-226-3860 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at david.gellner@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 Zoning Map Amendment - Khiem Tran Date: Mar. 18, 2021 Project Description A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. The Westside community identified several existing and potential community nodes during outreach and engagement activities. Some nodes were clearly popular choices: Redwood Road at Indiana Avenue is an example of a potential node that was mentioned. The two properties that have Parcel #15102050160000 and 15102050170000 located at 835 S Redwood Road and 1668 W Indiana Avenue Salt Lake City, UT, 84104, respectively, are currently zoned as R-1/5000 (single-family residential), and I propose to change the zone to RMU-45. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. My buildings would support the Westside Master Plan, which designates the intersection of Redwood Road and Indiana Avenue as a "Community Node". Rezoning the property to RMU-45 would allow me to build a complex that supports multi-family apartments and commercial/retail business rather than two single-family homes. Specifically, the ground level of the buildings would be for commercial/retail business. The upper levels would be multi-family apartments. Each floor would have three to four apartments, with either two or three bedrooms and approximately 1200-1400 square feet per apartment. This would promote the desired reinvestment and redevelopment that the Westside Master Plan describes. This location would be appealing to families with easy access to Salt Lake City and the freeway. These buildings would promote reinvestment and redevelopment in the Westside community through changes in land use, improved public infrastructure, and community investment. Businesses such as grocery stores, clothing stores, fast food and sit-down restaurants, and offices would be convenient for both the nearby single-family homes, multi-family residents, and the nearby industrial employees. The Westside Master Plan emphasizes the need to "maximize use of property”. Allowing property owners at the identified community nodes to take full advantage of their properties to add density and commercial intensity to the area will be the best use for the property and its community. A certain percentage of residential development should be required for developments over a certain size, and the density benchmarks should be between 25 to 50 dwelling units per acre. Developers should be encouraged to aim for three to four stories in height, provided appropriate buffering and landscaping can make the new development compatible with any surrounding single-family development. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. 1 - The other three corners at the intersection of Redwood Road and Indiana Ave. are currently zoned for commercial use. The northwest and southwest corners are already commercial buildings, and the large property adjacent to the property at the southeast corner is also a commercial building, meaning that it would not be ideal to build two single-family homes at the intersection. 2 - The intersection of Redwood Road and Indiana Ave. is one of the entrances to downtown, so it needs to have an aesthetically-pleasing building to welcome people downtown instead of two simple single-family homes. 3 - Multi-family dwelling units may require less land than a single-family home. My proposal to rezone the properties will create a new look at the Redwood Road at Indiana Avenue Community Node and also contribute a part to making the Community Node more attractive to the community and also support the designations of the Westside Master Plan’s expectations. Because of the reasons stated, my proposal to rezone my properties will benefit the Community Node and its residents. LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 2 ( T.O. CMU WALL) LEVEL 3 T.O. FLOOR JOIST STUCCO MORNING MIST # 751 CLASSIC FINISH BY BASF- SENERGY STUCCO MORNING MIST # 751 CLASSIC FINISH BY BASF-SENERGY STUCCO REVEAL DARK GRAY PARAPET CAP TO MATCH WALL PANEL STUCCO REVEAL T.O. DECK 1 234 7 WINDOWCASEMENT/FIX WINDOW DECORATIVE VERTICAL ALUMINUM BARS STUCCO BAND HARRIER # 3094 CLASSIC FINISH BY BASF-SENERGY STUCCO BAND HARRIER # 3094 CLASSIC FINISH BY BASF-SENERGY CORRUGATED DARK GRAY METAL PANEL SELECT BY OWNER 5 2 6655 7 22 7 733 3 3336 7 7 3 2 3 3 T.O. FRAME WINDOW EYEBROW, TYP. WINDOW LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN 100' -0" LEVEL 2 ( T.O. CMU WALL) 108' -8" LEVEL 3 T.O. FLOOR JOIST 119' -0" CASEMENT/FIX WINDOW T.O. DECK 128' -11 1/2" 1 2 3 4 DECK COVERGLASS OVER ALUMINUM CANOPY GLASS OVER ALUMINUM CANOPY CORRUGATED DARK GRAY METAL PANEL SELECT BY OWNER LIGHT FIXTURE DECORATIVE VERTICAL ALUMINUM BARS LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP. AC UNIT, TYP. GUARDRAIL 1 111 1 1 111 4 A603 3 TYP. T.O. FRAME 129'-11" STUCCO MORNING MIST # 751 CLASSIC FINISH BY BASF-SENERGY STUCCO MORNING MIST # 751 CLASSIC FINISH BY BASF- SENERGY DARK GRAY PARAPET CAP TO MATCH WALL PANEL STUCCO BAND HARRIER # 3094 CLASSIC FINISH BY BASF-SENERGY STUCCO BAND HARRIER # 3094 CLASSIC FINISH BY BASF-SENERGY CORRUGATED DARK GRAY METAL PANEL SELECT BY OWNER 4H"X8"WX16"L CMU HONED COLOR NATURAL, BY AMCOR STUCCO MORNING MIST # 751 CLASSIC FINISH BY BASF- SENERGY 4H"X8"WX16"L CMU HONED COLOR NATURAL, BY AMCOR OR CONCRETE WALL GLASS OVER ALUMINUM CANOPY 3/16" = 1'-0"1 3/16" = 1'-0"2 FRONT ELEVATION (WEST) BACK ELEVATION (EAST) PROPOSAL 1: MIXED USE DOOR DOORDOORSTOREFRONT STOREFRONTSTOREFRONTRETAIL 1 RETAIL 2 RETAIL 3 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONCEPT OF PROPERTY AT 835 S REDWOOD RD. AND 1668 INDIANA AVE. LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 2 ( T.O. CMU WALL) LEVEL 3 T.O. FLOOR JOIST STUCCO MORNING MIST # 751 CLASSIC FINISH BY BASF- SENERGY DOOR WITH SIDELIGHT STUCCO MORNING MIST # 751 CLASSIC FINISH BY BASF-SENERGY STUCCO REVEAL DARK GRAY PARAPET CAP TO MATCH WALL PANEL STUCCO REVEAL T.O. DECK 1 234 7 WINDOW 4H"X8"WX16"L ELBONY SPLITFACE CMU BY AMCOR GARAGE DOOR COLOR DARK GRAY DOOR WITH SIDELIGHT LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP. CASEMENT/FIX WINDOW DECORATIVE VERTICAL ALUMINUM BARS STUCCO BAND HARRIER # 3094 CLASSIC FINISH BY BASF-SENERGY STUCCO BAND HARRIER # 3094 CLASSIC FINISH BY BASF-SENERGY CORRUGATED DARK GRAY METAL PANEL SELECT BY OWNER 5 2 6655 7 22 7 733 3 3336 7 7 3 2 3 3 4H"X8"WX16"L CMU HONED COLOR NATURAL, BY AMCOR 4H"X8"WX16"L CMU HONED COLOR NATURAL, BY AMCOR 4H"X8"WX16"L CMU HONED COLOR NATURAL, BY AMCOR T.O. FRAME WINDOW EYEBROW, TYP. WINDOW GARAGE DOOR COLOR DARK GRAY GARAGE DOOR COLOR DARK GRAY 4H"X8"WX16"L CMU HONED COLOR NATURAL, BY AMCOR OR CONCRETE WALL LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 2 ( T.O. CMU WALL) LEVEL 3 T.O. FLOOR JOIST CASEMENT/FIX WINDOW T.O. DECK 1 2 3 4 MAIN BREAKER AND METER PANEL 125 AMP, TYP. LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP. DECK COVERGLASS OVER ALUMINUM CANOPY GLASS OVER ALUMINUM CANOPY CORRUGATED DARK GRAY METAL PANEL SELECT BY OWNER DOOR LIGHT FIXTURE DECORATIVE VERTICAL ALUMINUM BARS CORRUGATED DARK GRAY METAL PANEL SELECT BY OWNER 4H"X8"WX16"L CMU HONED COLOR NATURAL, BY AMCOR 4H"X8"WX16"L CMU HONED COLOR NATURAL, BY AMCOR LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP. AC UNIT, TYP. GAS METER, TYP. AC UNIT, TYP. GUARDRAIL 1 111 1 1 111 4 A603 3 TYP. T.O. FRAME 129'-11" STUCCO MORNING MIST # 751 CLASSIC FINISH BY BASF-SENERGY STUCCO MORNING MIST # 751 CLASSIC FINISH BY BASF- SENERGY DARK GRAY PARAPET CAP TO MATCH WALL PANEL STUCCO BAND HARRIER # 3094 CLASSIC FINISH BY BASF-SENERGY STUCCO BAND HARRIER # 3094 CLASSIC FINISH BY BASF-SENERGY CORRUGATED DARK GRAY METAL PANEL SELECT BY OWNER 4H"X8"WX16"L CMU HONED COLOR NATURAL, BY AMCOR STUCCO MORNING MIST # 751 CLASSIC FINISH BY BASF- SENERGY 4H"X8"WX16"L CMU HONED COLOR NATURAL, BY AMCOR OR CONCRETE WALL CORRUGATED DARK GRAY METAL PANEL SELECT BY OWNER GLASS OVER ALUMINUM CANOPY 3/16" = 1'-0"1 3/16" = 1'-0"2 FRONT ELEVATION (WEST) BACK ELEVATION (EAST) PROPOSAL 2: TOWNHOMES ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONCEPT OF PROPERTY AT 835 S REDWOOD RD. AND 1668 INDIANA AVE. 4. Mailing List OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR OWN_CITY OWN_STATE OWN_ZIPVU LINH CAO 1785 MAPLE HILLS DR. BOUNTIFULUT 84010RUSTED SPUR LLC 1717 S REDWOOD RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104SILVER ANTLER, LLC 1717 S REDWOOD RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104BKR HOLDINGS, LLC5845 CRESTRIDGE ROAD BILLINGS MT 59101GARY D TAYLOR 1676 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104THANH V TRAN TRUST 08/21/2017; HUONG T.M. LE TR 2852 W MATTERHORN DR TAYLORSVILLE UT 84129MARGARET VALERIO 1660 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104GUSTAVO CARRILLO; MELITZA MEJIA CENTENO 1652 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104BLAKE A BACKUS; JERALD J THOMPSON (JT) 1644 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104ROGELIO RODRIGUEZ 1675 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104THANH V TRAN TRUST 08/21/2017; HUONG T.M. LE TR 2852 W MATTERHORN DR TAYLORSVILLE UT 84129KENT V LIVINGSTON 1659 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104RANDY L BINGHAM; SERENA L BINGHAM 1651 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104RENE LEYVA 1643 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104RICHARD W YOUNG 1635 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104BRANDON PERRY 1656 W INDIANA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104BLUEMOUNTAIN INC 2441 S 1560 W WOODS CROSS UT 84087ANTONIO A FUENTES; MARIA R FUENTES (JT) 1644 W INDIANA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104MIKE NIELSON; KELLY E NIELSON (JT) 1638 W INDIANA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104KHIEM T TRAN; YEN TRAN (JT) 5830 S STONE BLUFF WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84118D. AMY WILLIAMS 1657 W INDIANA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104D E WILLIAMS 1651 W INDIANA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104JAMES A LEROY; LISA M LEROY (JT) 1647 W INDIANA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104MARY ROBERTS 1639 W INDIANA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104HASIB ODOBASIC 6308 S TIMPANOGOS WY TAYLORSVILLE UT 84129APPLIED INSTALLATION AND ERECTION INC 875 S REDWOOD RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PO BOX 148420 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114Current Occupant 836 S REDWOOD RD Salt Lake City UT 84104Current Occupant 762 S REDWOOD RD Salt Lake City UT 84104Current Occupant 1720 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104Current Occupant 850 S REDWOOD RD Salt Lake City UT 84104Current Occupant 1668 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104Current Occupant 811 S REDWOOD RD Salt Lake City UT 84104Current Occupant 1667 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104Current Occupant 1648 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104Current Occupant 835 S REDWOOD RD Salt Lake City UT 84104Current Occupant 1668 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104Current Occupant 1633 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104Salt Lake City Planning ‐ David GellnerPO BOX 145480 Salt Lake City UT 84114 Item E11 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:December 7, 2021 RE: Text Amendment: Amend FB-SE to allow for rooftop commercial uses above the second story, subject to meeting a height of 30-feet. PLNPCM2021-00431 MOTION 1 – close and defer I move the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 – continue I move the council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. MOTION 3 – close and adopt I move the Council close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance. MOTION 4 – close and reject 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: December 7, 2021 RE:Text Amendment: Amend FB-SE to allow for rooftop commercial uses above the second story. PLNPCM2021-00431 PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: November 16, 2021 Set Date: November 16, 2021 Public Hearing: Dec 7, 2021 Potential Action: Dec 7 or 14 2021 Work Session Briefing The Council did not raise any significant questions or concerns about the proposed changes. The public hearing was scheduled for December 7, 2021. After the public hearing, if the Council would like to move forward with the petition quickly, the Council could choose to close the public hearing and adopt the proposed changes. A motion will be included that would provide that as an option. The following information was provided for the November 16 work session briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the FB-SE (Form Based Special Purpose Corridor Edge Subdistrict) zoning district to allow for rooftop commercial uses above the second story, subject to meeting a height of 30-feet. All properties, citywide, in the FB-SE zoning district would be impacted, although the FB-SE is primarily located within the Sugar House Community. Page | 2 Current regulations only limit commercial uses above the second story, and the proposed text amendment simply addresses those commercial rooftop uses above the second story, still capping the height at 30 feet for commercial uses. If someone in the FB-SE zone wants to build a one-story restaurant with rooftop dining, that is currently permitted. The applicant has an existing two-story building that he intends to use as a restaurant, which is a permitted use in the FB-SE zone. The applicant would like the ability to add outdoor dining on the rooftop above the second story. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 25, 2021 and voted 5-1 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Pages 3-6 of the Planning Commission staff report includes a discussion about the key issues identified by Planning Staff. A short summary of those is provided below. See the planning commission staff report to view the full analysis. 1. Compliance with Master Plan Policies Planning staff found the proposal is consistent with policies outlined in Plan Salt Lake and would help support small businesses and provide vibrant, mixed-use development. 2. Conditional Use for Rooftop Uses The Sugar House Land Use Committee requested rooftop uses be a conditional use. Planning staff reviewed the request and determined it was not appropriate because that change would be beyond the scope of the petition, any impacts from rooftop uses would be negligible and the use is generally compatible with the zoning district. 3. Impacts of the Proposed Text Amendment Staff found that the proposed amendment for rooftop uses above the second story does not have more of an impact than a rooftop commercial use above the first story. 4. Height Exceptions Some members of the public suggested including height exceptions for some rooftop structures like pergolas, sound walls, and elevator/stair bulkheads. Planning staff feels a two-story building with a pergola, sound wall, elevator bulkhead, or other similar structure on the rooftop area will likely still be under the 30 FT height requirement, so an exception is not necessary. Policy Questions The Council may wish to review where these zones abut single family structures, and discuss whether a conditional use would be helpful at a minimum so that notice is provided when a development is under consideration? PUBLIC PROCESS Page | 3 The public process is outlined on page two of the transmittal letter. It met the standard requirements of noticing surrounding property owners, informing the Community Council and a public hearing at the Planning Commission. Properties Zoned FB-SE Page 5, Planning Commission Staff Report Page | 4 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269 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: FB-SE 2nd Story Rooftop Commercial Uses, Petition PLNPCM2021-00431 STAFF CONTACT: Amy Thompson, Planning Manager, amy.thompson@slcgov.com, 385-226-9001 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council amend the text of the zoning ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This petition was submitted by Bill Grodnik, the owner of the property at 2166 S 900 East which is located in the FB-SE zoning district. The FB-SE zoning regulations currently limit commercial uses to the first two stories and a height of 30 feet. The proposed text amendment would allow for rooftop commercial uses above the two-story limitation subject to meeting the 30-foot height requirement. The proposed zoning text amendment impacts the FB-SE zoning district citywide. A rooftop use above the second story is not considered an additional story, but it is considered above the two-story limitation and the proposed text amendment is seeking to address that. The proposal does not change the land use table – existing permitted and conditional uses for the FB-SE zone will remain the same. Under the current FB-SE building form regulations, a commercial use is permitted or conditional (depending on the use) above the first story. The current regulations only limit commercial uses above the second story, and the proposed text amendment simply addresses those commercial October 18, 2021 Lisa Shaffer (Oct 20, 2021 15:02 MDT) 10/20/2021 10/20/2021 rooftop uses above the second story, still capping the height at 30 feet for commercial uses. If someone in the FB-SE zone wants to build a one-story restaurant with rooftop dining, that is currently permitted. The applicant has an existing two-story building that he intends to use as a restaurant, which is a permitted use in the FB-SE zone. The applicant would like the ability to add outdoor dining on the rooftop above the second story. Because the FB-SE zoning regulations limit commercial uses to the first two stories, he submitted an application for a text amendment that would allow him to utilize the rooftop above the second story for additional outdoor seating. Although the applicant is applying for these changes because of plans for his specific building, the proposed changes would impact all properties zoned FB-SE, and not just his specific property. PUBLIC PROCESS: •Community Council: Notice of the proposal was sent to the Sugar House and Liberty Wells Community Council Chairs on May 26, 2021. The Sugar House Land Use Committee requested a presentation of this item at their June 21, 2021 meeting. Both planning staff and the applicant were in attendance. The Sugar House Community Council submitted a letter regarding the proposal. The letter is included in the Planning Commission Staff Report. •Early Notification: On June 3, 2021, early notification of the project was provided to all property owners and residents with property currently zoned FB-SE. Early notification was also provided to all property owners and residents within 300 FT of FB-SE zoned property. •Public Open House: The Planning Division hosted an online Open House to solicit public comments on the proposal. The Online Open House comment period started on June 14, 2021 and ended on July 10, 2021. •Planning Commission Meeting: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 25, 2021. Notice of the hearing was sent to all registered recognized organization, 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 5-1 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Planning Commission (PC) Records PC Agenda for August 25, 2021 (Click to Access) PC Minutes of August 25, 2021 (Click to Access) PC Staff Report for August 25, 2021 (Click to Access Staff Report) EXHIBITS 1. Chronology 2.Notice of City Council Hearing 3.Petition Application LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 2021 2 3 (An ordinance amending Section 21A.27.040 to allow for commercial uses on rooftops which 4 exceed 2 stories in the FB-SE Zoning District) 5 6 An ordinance amending sections of 21A.27.040 of the Salt Lake City Code to allow for 7 commercial uses on rooftops which exceed 2 stories in the FB-SE Zoning District pursuant to 8 Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00431. 9 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”) held a 10 public hearing on August 25, 2021 to consider a petition number PLNPCM2021-00431 (the 11 “petition”) initiated by Bill Grodnik, owner of property at approximately 2166 South 900 East Street, 12 to amend the Salt Lake City Code to more allow for commercial and nonresidential uses on rooftops 13 which exceed 2 stories; and 14 WHEREAS, at its August 25, 2021 hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor of 15 forwarding a positive recommendation of approval to the Salt Lake City Council (the “City 16 Council”) to adopt changes to the Salt Lake City Code as requested in the petition; and 17 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council desires to modify its land use regulations as 18 provided herein; and 19 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds, after holding a public hearing on this 20 matter, that adopting this ordinance promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the 21 citizens of the City. 22 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 23 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.27.040.D. That Section 24 21A.27.040.D of the Salt Lake City Code (FB-SE Building Form Standards) shall be and hereby is 25 amended as follows: 26 D. FB-SE Building Form Standards: Building form standards are listed in table 21A.27.040.D of 27 this section. 28 29 Table 21A.27.040.D FB-SE BUILDING FORM STANDARDS 30 Permitted Building Forms Cottage, Row House, Multi-Family And Storefront H Maximum building height Maximum building height in the FB-SE is 45 ft. Limitation on commercial uses Commercial or nonresidential uses are limited to the first 2 stories and a height of 30 ft. Commercial and nonresidential rooftop uses are allowed above the second story subject to meeting the 30 ft. height requirement. F Front and corner side yard setback Greenway Minimum of 5 ft. Maximum of 15 ft. Neighborhood Minimum of 15 ft. Maximum of 25 ft. Avenue Minimum of 5 ft. Maximum of 10 ft. Boulevard Minimum of 15 ft. Maximum of 25 ft. B Required build-to Minimum of 50% of street facing facade shall be built to the minimum setback line. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT S Interior side yard When adjacent to a residential district, a minimum setback of 25% of the lot width, up to 25 ft., is required. Any portion of the building taller than 30 ft. must be stepped back 2 ft. from the required building setback line for every 1 ft. of height over 30 ft. When adjacent to other zoning districts, no minimum setback is required. See illustration below. R Rear yard When adjacent to a residential district, a minimum setback of 25% of the lot width, up to 25 ft., is required. Any portion of the building taller than 30 ft. must be stepped back 2 ft. from the required building setback line for every 1 ft. of height over 30 ft. When adjacent to other zoning districts, no minimum setback is required. See illustration below. L Minimum lot size 4,000 sq. ft.; not to be used to calculate density. W Minimum lot width 50 ft. DU Dwelling units per building form No minimum or maximum. BF Number of building forms per lot 1 building form permitted for every 4,000 sq. ft. of lot area provided all building forms have frontage on a street. 31 SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance take effect immediately after it has been 32 published in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code 33 §10-3-713. 34 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of 35 ______________, 2021. 36 ______________________________ 37 CHAIRPERSON 38 39 ATTEST: 40 41 ______________________________ 42 CITY RECORDER 43 44 45 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 46 47 48 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 49 50 51 ______________________________ 52 MAYOR 53 54 ______________________________ 55 CITY RECORDER 56 57 (SEAL) 58 59 Bill No. ________ of 2021. 60 Published: ______________. 61 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: _________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Hannah Vickery, Senior City Attorney By: ___________________________________ Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney 10/7/21 1) CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2021-00431 April 29, 2021 Bill Grodnik submitted an application for a Zoning Text Amendment. May 18, 2021 Petition PLNPCM2021-00431was assigned to Amy Thompson, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing. May 26, 2021 Notice sent to Recognized Community Organizations informing them of the petition. Early notification of the project was also sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal. June 3, 2020 Early Notification of the project was sent to property owners and residents with FB-SE zoned parcels as wells as property owners and residents within 300 FT of FB-SE zoned parcels. June 14, 2021 The Planning Division held an online open house to solicit comments on the proposal. The open house commenting period was open from June 14, 2021 – July 10, 2021. June 21, 2021 The proposal was presented at the Sugar House Land Use Committee Meeting. The applicant and planning staff were both in attendance to answer questions about the proposal. August 11, 2021 Planning Commission public hearing notices emailed to interested parties and residents/property owners who requested notice. Agenda posted to the Planning Commission website and the State of Utah Public Notice webpage. August 19, 2021 Planning Commission Staff Report posted. August 25, 2021 Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed text amendment. 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2021-00431 – A request by Bill Grodnik, owner of the property at approximately 2166 S 900 East, for a zoning text amendment that would impact all properties in the FB-SE (Form Based Special Purpose Corridor Edge Subdistrict) citywide. The FB-SE zone currently limits commercial or nonresidential uses to first two stories and a height of 30 feet. The proposed text amendment would allow for rooftop commercial uses above the second story, subject to meeting a height of 30-feet. The proposed amendment affects section 21A.27.040.D FB-SE Building Form Standards. Related provisions of Title 21A Zoning 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 accessible from this link - http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/08.August/Final%20Staff%20 Report%20-%20FB-SE%20Rooftop%20Text%20Amendment.pdf 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 Amy Thompson at 385-226-9001 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at amy.thompson@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) PETITION APPLICATION Item E12 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:December 7, 2021 RE: Alley Vacation at 1200 Block of Kensington and Bryan Avenues PLNPCM2021-00413 MOTION 1 – close and defer I move the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 – continue I move the council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. MOTION 3 – close and adopt I move the Council close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance. MOTION 4 – close and reject I move the Council close the public hearing and 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:December 7, 2021 RE: Alley Vacation at 1200 Block of Kensington and Bryan Avenues PLNPCM2021-00413 This item was originally scheduled for a briefing on November 16, 2021. However, due to time constraints on that day, the briefing was postponed, and the public hearing was still set for December 7, 2021. That is why the briefing and public hearing are on the same day. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will be briefed about a proposal to vacate an east/west City-owned alley from the McClelland Trail (~1200 East) to 1300 East between homes on Kensington and Bryan Avenues. It is approximately 11 feet wide and 717 feet long, adjacent to 28 properties on Kensington and Bryan Avenues, and homes at 1542 and 1550 South 1300 East. The alley does not continue west beyond the McClelland Trail or east of 1300 East. It should be noted access to and use of the McClelland Trail will not be impacted if the alley is vacated. The applicant included signatures supporting the alley vacation from 23 of the 28 adjacent property owners. None of the remaining property owners have communicated any objection to Planning or Council staff as of the date of this report. During City department and division review of the alley vacation application, the Engineering Division objected to the proposal stating the division gererally opposes any vacation of rights-of-way. Rocky Mountain Power stated establishing an 11’ wide utility easement on the alley property would be acceptable. The applicant is aware of and amenable to a utility easement. The subject alley is impassable due to a garage obstructing access at the east end and various encroachments from other abutting properties. Historic photographs indicate the structure at the alley’s Item Schedule: Briefing: December 7, 2021 Set Date: November 16, 2021 Public Hearing: December 7, 2021 Potential Action: December 14, 2021 Page | 2 eastern end and potentially other encroachments have been in place since at least 1970. Planning staff stated that other than a curb cut and some concrete slabs to access the garage from 1300 East, there is little evidence the alley ever existed through the block other than on paper. Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to vacate the alley to the City Council. In its recommendation the Commission also included a condition to establish a public utility easement along the alley property. If approved by the City Council, the subject alley property would be vacated and incorporated into abutting property owners’ parcels. Image courtesy Salt Lake City Planning Division Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed alley closure, address questions Council Members may have and prepare for a public hearing. POLICY QUESTION 1. If the Council is supportive of this alley closure request, will it include the public utilities easement recommendation? ADDITONAL INFORMATION Alley vacation requests receive three phases of review, as outlined in section 14.52.030 Salt Lake City Code (see pages 5 - 7 below). Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing, including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City Council. Page | 3 The Planning Commission staff report provides information relating to the following five key considerations related to this alley vacation. A short description of each issue is provided below for reference. Please see pages 3-4 of the Planning Commission staff report for full analysis of these issues. 1. Property Owner Consent Section 14.52.030.A.1 Salt Lake City Code states “the petition must bear the signatures of no less than seventy five percent (75%) of the neighbors owning property which abuse the subject alley property.” As noted above, 23 of 28 abutting property owners (82%) signed the petition supporting the alley vacation. 2.Policy Considerations City Code states alley vacations will be considered only when proposals satisfy at least one of the following policy considerations: Lack of Use; Public Safety; Urban Design; Community Purpose. Planning staff found the proposed alley vacation is consistent with the lack of use policy consideration. It is Planning staff’s belief sidewalks on Kensington and Bryan Avenues are a sufficient connection between the McClelland Trail and 1300 East. 3.Master Plan Considerations Planning staff found using the subject alley as a pedestrian walkway would be redundant in accomplishing the goals of the Central Community Master Plan and Plan Salt Lake recommendations for mid-block access and connections. The McClelland Trail provides north/south access, and as discussed above, sidewalks on Kensington and Bryan Avenues are east/west connections between the trail and 1300 East. 4.Nature of the Alley As noted above, there is little evidence the alley existed other than on paper. Attachment B (pages 6-12 of the Planning Commission staff report) includes aerial photographs of the alley and ground level photos of the eastern and western ends of the alley. 5. Future Public Use of the Alley Planning staff stated providing pedestrian or vehicle access to the alley would require significant City resources to remove trees and buildings and pave the alley. It would also likely be unpopular with adjacent residents. Planning noted the power lines currently running through the alley and stated a utility easement within the alley would preserve access for public utility providers. Attachment D (pages 32-34 of the Planning Commission staff report) is an analysis of factors City Code requires the Planning Commission to consider for alley vacations (Section 14.52.030 B Salt Lake City Code). In addition to the information above, other factors are summarized below. Planning staff found the proposed alley vacation complies with seven of the eight factors below. For the complete analysis, please refer to the staff report. City Code required analysis: The City Police Department, Fire Department, Transportation Division and all other relevant City departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the property. Finding: Does not comply. As noted above, City Engineering objected to the alley vacation. According to Engineering staff, the division generally opposes any vacation of public rights-of-way. Other City departments and divisions had no issues with the proposal or provided no comments. Rocky Mountain Power stated establishing an 11’ wide utility easement on the alley property would be acceptable. Page | 4 City Code required analysis: The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations for closure, vacation or abandonment of City owned alleys (Lack of Use, Public Safety, Urban Design, Community Purpose). Finding: Complies. Planning staff determined the proposed alley vacation satisfies the Lack of Use policy consideration. City Code required analysis: The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property. Finding: Complies. No abutting properties use the subject alley for required off-street parking. City Code required analysis: The petition will not result in any property being landlocked. Finding: Complies. All abutting properties have public street access. No property would be landlocked as a result of this alley vacation request. City Code required analysis: The disposition of the alley property will not result in a use which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the City, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses. Finding: Complies. Vacating the subject alley will not create or result in any use that is contrary to City policies. The residential character of the block would remain essentially the same as it is now since all abutting properties already encroach on the subject alley. City Code required analysis: No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within 12 months of issuance of the building permit. Finding: Complies. While five abutting property owners did not sign the initial petition, they have not raised any opposition to the vacation. Additionally, as of the publishing date of this report, the Building Services Division has not received any building permit application to construct a garage that would use the existing public right of way for access. City Code required analysis: The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it. Finding: Complies. The applicant has requested to vacate the entire length of the alley between 1300 East and the McClelland Trail (Jordan & Salt Lake City Canal). No segment would remain if the vacation were approved. City Code required analysis: The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. Finding: Complies. None of the properties abutting the subject alley use it for rear access. PUBLIC PROCESS June 7, 2021-Notice of the alley vacation request sent to the East Liberty Park and Wasatch Hollow Community Council Chairs with a link to the online open house webpage. Neither community council asked Planning staff or the applicant to attend one of their meetings. The Wasatch Hollow Community Council expressed support for the proposed alley vacation provided it does not interfere with the Jordan and Salt Lake Canal (which it does not). Early notification announcement sent to residents and owners within 300 feet of the subject alley. The notice included information about the online open house webpage and how to provide public comment. Page | 5 July 15, 2021-Public Hearing notice mailed. July 16, 2021-Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. July 28, 2021-Planning Commission public hearing. There were no comments at the hearing. The Commission closed the hearing and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. The process for closing or vacating a City-owned alley is outlined in Section 14.52 Salt Lake City Code. 14.52.010: DISPOSITION OF CITY'S PROPERTY INTEREST IN ALLEYS: The city supports the legal disposition of Salt Lake City's real property interests, in whole or in part, with regard to city owned alleys, subject to the substantive and procedural requirements set forth herein. 14.52.020: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR CLOSURE, VACATION OR ABANDONMENT OF CITY OWNED ALLEYS: The city will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations: A. Lack Of Use: The city's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat; however, it is evident from an onsite inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right of way; B. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity, unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area; C. Urban Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element; or D. Community Purpose: The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002) 14.52.030: PROCESSING PETITIONS: There will be three (3) phases for processing petitions to dispose of city owned alleys under this section. Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing, including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City Council. A. Administrative Determination Of Completeness: The city administration will determine whether or not the petition is complete according to the following requirements: 1. The petition must bear the signatures of no less than seventy five percent (75%) of the neighbors owning property which abuts the subject alley property; 2. The petition must identify which policy considerations discussed above support the petition; 3. The petition must affirm that written notice has been given to all owners of property located in the block or blocks within which the subject alley property is located; Page | 6 4. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the proposal to the appropriate community organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.60 of this code; and 5. The appropriate city processing fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule has been paid. B. Public Hearing and Recommendation From The Planning Commission: Upon receipt of a complete petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the planning commission to consider the proposed disposition of the city owned alley property. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the planning commission shall make a report and recommendation to the city council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors: 1. The city police department, fire department, transportation division, and all other relevant city departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the property; 2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; 3. Granting the petition will not deny sole access or required off street parking to any property adjacent to the alley; 4. Granting the petition will not result in any property being landlocked; 5. Granting the petition will not result in a use of the alley property which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the city, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses; 6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within twelve (12) months of issuance of the building permit; 7. The petition furthers the city preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and 8. The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. C. Public Hearing Before The City Council: Upon receipt of the report and recommendation from the planning commission, the city council will consider the proposed petition for disposition of the subject alley property. After a public hearing to consider the matter, the city council will make a decision on the proposed petition based upon the factors identified above. (Ord. 58-13, 2013: Ord. 24-11, 2011) 14.52.040: METHOD OF DISPOSITION: If the city council grants the petition, the city owned alley property will be disposed of as follows: A. Low Density Residential Areas: If the alley property abuts properties which are zoned for low density residential use, the alley will merely be vacated. For the purposes of this section, "low density residential use" shall mean properties which are zoned for single-family, duplex or twin home residential uses. Page | 7 B. High Density Residential Properties And Other Nonresidential Properties: If the alley abuts properties which are zoned for high density residential use or other nonresidential uses, the alley will be closed and abandoned, subject to payment to the city of the fair market value of that alley property, based upon the value added to the abutting properties. C. Mixed Zoning: If an alley abuts both low density residential properties and either high density residential properties or nonresidential properties, those portions which abut the low density residential properties shall be vacated, and the remainder shall be closed, abandoned and sold for fair market value. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002) 14.52.050: PETITION FOR REVIEW: Any party aggrieved by the decision of the city council as to the disposition of city owned alley property may file a petition for review of that decision within thirty (30) days after the city council's decision becomes final, in the 3rd district court. 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: October 18, 2021 Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: PLNPCM2021-00413 - Alley Vacation at 1200 Block of Kensington and Bryan Avenues STAFF CONTACT: Aaron Barlow, Principal Planner, aaron.barlow@slcgov.com, 385-386-2764 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The City Council follows the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve the ordinance to Vacate the Alley located within the 1200 Block of Kensington and Bryan Avenues on the condition that a public utility easement is established in its place. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This is a request from Steven Black, property owner of 1236 East Kensington Avenue, representing the property owners of the adjacent parcels, to vacate the 11-foot-wide, 717-foot-long alley located within the 1200 block of East Kensington and Bryan Avenues that runs east to west from 1300 East to the McClelland Trail (Jordan & Salt Lake City Canal). The petition to vacate the alley was signed by 23 of the 28 owners of property abutting the alley. The alley is essentially unused as a public right of way and impassible to travel because of encroachment from the adjacent properties. The intent of the request is to incorporate the unused alley into the adjacent properties. With their positive recommendation, the Planning Commission recommended establishing a public utility easement in the alley’s place. Additional information regarding this request can be found in Planning Commission Record C, (Planning Commission Staff Report of July 28, 2021). Lisa Shaffer (Oct 19, 2021 15:56 MDT) 10/19/2021 10/19/2021 PUBLIC PROCESS: • Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners located within 300 feet of the subject Alley on June 7, 2021. • Notice was also sent to the Chairs of the East Liberty Neighborhood Organization and Wasatch Hollow Community Council on June 7, 2021. • Staff hosted an online open house to solicit public comments on the proposal. The online Open House period started on June 7, 2021 and ended on July 14, 2021. • Staff received letters from both the East Liberty Neighborhood Organization and the Wasatch Hollow Community Council. They were included with the Planning Commission report. • Staff also received seven public comments, which were included with the Planning Commission report. • The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing for this request on July 28, 2021. By a vote of 5-1, they forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed Alley Vacation with the condition that a utility easement be established in its place. 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 20___ (Vacating a city-owned alley situated in the Amended Plat of Whitaker Subdivision of Lots 18 and 19, Block 16A, 5Acre Plat A. Big Field Survey located between lots 1-55 running from 1300 East Street and the Salt Lake & Jordan Canal) An ordinance vacating an 11 foot wide unnamed city-owned alley situated in the Amended Plat of Whitaker Subdivision of Lots 18 and 19, Block 16A, 5Acre Plat A. Big Field Survey located between lots 1-55 running from 1300 East Street and the Salt Lake & Jordan Canal, pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00413. WHEREAS, an 11 foot wide public alley running east and west through Block 2 of the Amended Plat of Whitaker Subdivision of Lots 18 and 19, Block 16A, 5 Acre Plat A. Big Field Survey was dedicated for public use; WHEREAS, the City has authority by state law to vacate public streets, including alleys; WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (the “planning commission”) held a public hearing on July 28, 2021, to consider a request made by Steven Black (“Applicant”) (Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00413) on behalf of the alley’s 28 adjacent property owners; and WHEREAS, at its July 28, 2021, hearing, the planning commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation on said petition to the Salt Lake City Council; WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council (the “city council”) held a legally notified public hearing as per section 10-9a-208 of the Utah Code on _____________; WHEREAS, the city council finds after holding a public hearing on this matter, that the city’s interest in the city-owned alley as more particularly described in Exhibit A,” attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is reflected on a plat; however, the alley has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right of way; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that there is good cause for the vacation of the alley and neither the public interest nor any person will be materially injured by the proposed vacation; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the vacation of the alley upon the conditions set forth herein are in the best interest of Salt Lake City. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Vacating City-Owned Alley. That an unnamed, city-owned alley situated in the Amended Plat of Whitaker Subdivision of Lots 18 and 19, Block 16A, 5Acre Plat A. Big Field Survey located between lots 1-55 running from 1300 East Street and the Salt Lake & Jordan Canal, which is the subject of Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00413, and which is more particularly described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto, hereby is, vacated and declared not presently necessary or available for public use. SECTION 2. Reservations and Disclaimers. The 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. Conditions. This proposed alley vacation is conditioned upon the following: 1.) A reservation of easement, evidenced by a declaration of easement, recorded by and for the benefit of the City for purposes of the use and location of public utilities. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The city recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until Real Estate Services certifies that the condition has been satisfied. SECTION 5. Time. If the conditions identified above have not been met within one year after adoption, this ordinance shall become null and void. The city council may, for good cause shown, by resolution, extend the time period for satisfying the conditions identified above. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of ______________, 20___. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 20___ Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Hannah Vickery, Senior City Attorney 9/22/21 EXHIBIT “A” Legal description of the unnamed, city-owned alley to be vacated: AN 11.00 FOOT WIDE ALLEY TO BE VACATED WITHIN BLOCK 2 OF WHITAKER SUBDIVISION AMENDED, SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE MONUMENT IN THE INTERSECTION OF KENSINGTON AVENUE & 1300 EAST STREET (POC); THENCE S89⁰56’37W ALONG THE MONUMENT LINE IN KENSINGTON AVENUE (BASIS OF BEARINGS) A DISTANCE OF 6.55 FEET AND S00⁰10’33”W A DISTANCE OF 29.18 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BLOCK 2, WHITAKER SUBDIVISION AMENDED, AND CONTINUING S00⁰10’33”W ALONG THE EAST LINE OF BLOCK 2 (ALSO THE EAST LINE OF LOT 55) A DISTANCE OF 105.19 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 55 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING (POB). THENCE N89⁰55’03”W ALONG THE SOUTH LINES OF LOTS 29-55 A DISTANCE OF 715.62 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 29; THENCE S06⁰32’02”W A DISTANCE OF 3.96 FEET; THENCE S13⁰00’36”W A DISTANCE OF 7.25 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 28 OF SAID BLOCK; THENCE S89⁰55’03”E ALONG THE NORTH LINES OF LOTS 1-28 A DISTANCE OF 717.67 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1 AND A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID BLOCK 2; THENCE N00⁰10’33”E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF BLOCK 2 A DISTANCE OF 11.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 0.18 ACRES. 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: PLNPCM2021-00413 – Alley Vacation at 1200 Block of Kensington and Bryan Avenues April 27, 2021 Petition for Alley Vacation received by the Planning Division. May 27, 2021 Petition assigned to Aaron Barlow, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. June 7, 2021 Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chairs of the East Liberty Neighborhood Organization and the Wasatch Hollow Community Council. June 7, 2021 Staff hosted an online Open House to solicit public comments on the proposal. The online open house period started on June 7, 2021, and ended on July 14, 2021. July 14, 2021 Public Hearing Notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning listserv for the July 28, 2021, Planning Commission meeting. Public hearing notice mailed to owners and tenants of property within 300 feet of the alley. July 16, 2021 Public hearing notice sign with project information posted around block containing subject alley. July 28, 2021 Planning Commission reviewed the petition and conducted a public hearing. The Commission then voted to send a positive recommendation to the City Council. 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2021-00413 - Alley Vacation at 1200 Block of Kensington and Bryan Avenues - This is a request from Steven Black, representing the property owners of the adjacent parcels, to vacate the 11- foot wide alley within the 1200 block of East Kensington and Bryan Avenues that runs east to west from 1300 East to the McClelland Trail. The intent of the request is to incorporate the unused alley into the adjacent properties. The subject alley is located within the R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District and is within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Aaron Barlow at 385-386-2764 or aaron.barlow@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: 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 slc.gov/council/news/featured- news/virtually-attend-city-council-meetings-2/ to learn how you can share your comments live during electronic City Council meetings. If you would like to provide feedback or comments via email or phone, please contact us through our 24-hour comment line at 801-535-7654 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 Aaron Barlow at 385-386-2764 between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at aaron.barlow@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. 3. Original Petition 4. Mailing List NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP W&NE FAM TR 10023 S WASATCH BLVD SANDY UT 84092 KATELIN GOINGS 1089 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ALEXANDER A ZUHL 1147 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 MARGARET D & MARK K MEYERS 1165 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 CECILY A LIGHT 1167 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 JOHN W BRANSON 1170 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 MICHAEL HESS 1172 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 TIFFANY ROUSCULP & CHRIS LIPPARD 1172 E EMERSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 CAROL SHINKOSKEY 1175 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 KLAIR WHITE 1176 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ELLEN E GOLDBERG & CLONTON PERSCHON 1177 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SHELLEY L HENSON 1179 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 JAMIE CHRISTENSEN; DI GIACOMO, LISA CHRISTENSEN 1179 E MILTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 FELICIA ALVAREZ 1180 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 JAKE C & SUZANNE RICKER 1182 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ASHLIN V SMITH 1184 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 MATTHEW RAY & MADISON BLOCKER 1186 E EMERSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 DAVID M SUHRE & BRIDGET A FARFEL 1188 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 HOA HOANG 1189 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 GREG & EMILY VANDYKE 1193 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 PEGGY ANDERSON 1195 E MILTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 CHRISTINE E JAHJA &INGRID B BLANKEVOORT 1199 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ALEXANDER J ALLEN 1206 E EMERSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 THOMAS A & LESLIE A KEMP 1207 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 MICHAEL J & JILL NICOLE MOSDELL 1211 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ERICK R BILLETDEAUX & STEPHANIE J ATHERTON 1212 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 MARC MOODY 1216 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RICHELLE RASMUSSEN & ANDREA T JAGER 1218 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 STEVEN L & JUNE A OLSEN 1218 E EMERSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 JESSICA THOMAS 1218 E WOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 JOHN G ALLEMAN 1220 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ANDREW C & HANNAH E ETHERINGTON 1225 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 JRH FAM TRUST 1225 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RODNEY J GORDON 1226 E EMERSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SHAHRAM KARAKHANI 1226‐1228 E WOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 CHAD M & PAMELA A SALVADORE 1228 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 JEFFREY A C LEFAVOR 1229 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 WENDY L NELSON 1230 E EMERSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RUDY J & YVONNE M SCHENK 1230 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RUSSELL E COSTA 1233 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 PAVLIK‐LOUDERBACK REVOCABLE TRUST 1233 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 DANIELLE & ELIJAH SZASZ 1234 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 DARRELL L PETERSEN 1234 E WOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 STEVE BLACK 1236 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 JOI T MATSUKAWA 1236 E WOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 KRISTEN AMEEL 1238 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 BICYCLE KICK, LLC 124 19TH ST HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 AARON BARLOW 1242 E EMERSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 J RICH WHITTAKER 1244 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 MICHAEL K KING 1246 E WOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ZAHRA GHORBANI 1247 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 WILL JAMISON 1248 E WOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 CHRISTOPHER A & SARAH H TAYLOR 1250 E EMERSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 PATRICK WILSON 1250 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 PETER REGIS & THOMAS CHILTON BENNETT 1253 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 STEVENSON FAMILY TRUST 1255 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RALPH D & COLLEEN S CHIPMAN FAMILY TRUST 1256 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 HAYES, DELBERT K & HONG‐HAYES, HUI C 1258 E WOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 JENNA M PIKE 1259 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 LWH LIV TRUST 1260 E EMERSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 DUNCAN HILTON 1262 E WOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 WILHELM KAPFHAMMER 1265 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 LISA C KRILEY 1266 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 JODIE L SWANSON 1268 E WOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 PAUL GREGORY RUBIN 1271 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 STEPHEN GRAY & KRISTINE FERREIRA 1273 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 VIRGIL L & MIRIAM MERRILL 1276 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 TERRY K SMITH & EILEEN NAUGHTON 1276 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 BRIAN P DANG 1280 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 JASON ALBINO & CARI LYNN NICHOLSON 1284 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 JEFFERY C & NICOLE R BECK 1315 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 NICHOLAS W & JODI L NORRIS 1319 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 MARC KORBULY 1321 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ANDERSEN, KAI A & ILENE S; TRS 1323 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 DAVID & DENA DEBRY 1324 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RYAN S & BETH A STUTSMAN 1324 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 CHRISTINA & JEREMY FALK 1327 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 LOUIS W PITT 1330 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 WILLIAM C & JOANN HANSON 1332 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 HECTOR JR & MARLENE SUAREZ 1371 S EMERY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 1175 MILTON LLC 14029 S 8TH PL PHOENIX AZ 85048 JACKIE & PAUL EDGCOMB 1405 US HIGHWAY 130 HIGHTSTOWN NJ 08520 M. KEITH & ELLIE D. PENDLETON 1514 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 EMOND, ABRAHAM M & HEUSCHER, SONJA A 1515 SCENIC LOOP FAIRBANKS AK 99709 MATTHEW A BARRAZA & RICHARD ANTHONY MILLER 1520 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 JULIE A STOUT 1535 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 WILLIAM V & TAMARA RUESCH 1536 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 WILFORD W WHITAKER & SUSAN ANN BOHNING 1537 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 JEFFERY OLESEN 1541 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 LEANN KAMAU 1549 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ALBORZ GHANDEHARI 1550 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 JIMMY KHUE NGO 1567 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 DNH REV TRUST 1570 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 MICHAEL MIKE VARDAKIS 1573 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 BV 1300 EAST, LLC 1580 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RICHARD ANDREW GODFREY & JOSEPH PIETRAFESA 1588 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 CHRISTOPHER C LINDSEY & LAURA E GILCHRIST 1589 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 BLAKE & SUSANNA G KARRINGTON 1593‐1595 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 MJRFT 1646 S DEVONSHIRE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 W.J.H. PROPERTY, LLC 1694 E MILLBROOK RD MILLCREEK UT 84106 PARTH GANDHI 1809 E MICHIGAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 CLOVER ENTERPRISES, LLC 187 E DORCHESTER DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SUGAR HOUSE PROJECT LLC 1943 BEAR HOLLOW DR PARK CITY UT 84098 MOUNTAIN SUNSHINE LLC 2466 S PROMONTORY DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 VINCENT & EUGENIA DREYER 2553 N CYPRESS WAY LEHI UT 84043 MARK ALDER 2779 E 2880 S MILLCREEK UT 84109 MIRIAM ELLIS 2883 E BELTON CIR SANDY UT 84093 ANTON BURTSEV & GANNA M SHESTAKOVA 3007 BARCLAY WAY ANN ARBOR MI 48105 STEPHEN A REGAN 3031 E MORNINGSIDE DR HOLLADAY UT 84124 KIMBERLY NORMAN & DALE W HARRELL JR 3166 S 2700 E MILLCREEK UT 84109 BENJAMIN M & MARY W WHEELER 4065 S EVELYN DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84124 HMTW INVESTMENT LLC 4088 W 1630 N LEHI UT 84043 LEHUA 1224, LLC 4115 NE 66TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97218 CAMASASLC, LLC 4275 PALOMINO CIR RENO NV 89519 JESSE J HEINEMAN & KIMBERLY S SHELDON 4512 GARDEN RD KNOXVILLE TN 37919 KOTA & ANASTASIA IKEDA 4666 MISSION AVE # 5 SAN DIEGO CA 92116 SUZANNE DOUTRE 4762 S NANILOA DR HOLLADAY UT 84117 RVM REV TR 5141 S EASTMOOR RD HOLLADAY UT 84117 INDY REVOCABLE TRUST 516 DAWSON RD AUSTIN TX 78704 HIRSCHEL ADLER PROPERTIES LLC 6 STILLWATER IRVINE CA 92603 TIMOTHY S & CAMILLE ALEXANDER 6127 SW NEVADA CT PORTLAND OR 97219 CLG LIV TR 6149 GLEN OAK ST LOS ANGELES CA 90068 JON K SIMONSEN & PHILLIP MOULTON 69 BRUCKNER BLVD APT 3 BRONX NY 10454 DAVID BODELL & TRISHA CALLELLA 8680 SHANNON RIVER CIR FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 DENNIS OWENS 921 S GREENWOOD TER SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 JOSE T & MARIA S TOFOLLA 962 W 200 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 PLATINUM CENTURY INVESTMENTS LLC 965 S MILITARY DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 MELROY & DONNA HARWARD 9928 S TREASURE CIR SOUTH JORDAN UT 84095 ELEANOR M MILLER PO BOX 521141 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 ALAN T & TINA M DROEGEMEIER PO BOX 526383 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 Current Occupant 1178 E EMERSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1180 E EMERSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1163 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1185 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1234 E EMERSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1236 E EMERSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1256 E EMERSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1278 E EMERSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1498 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1219 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1245 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1249 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1265 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1205 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1511 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1515 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1315 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1170 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1192 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1196 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1175 E MILTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1208 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1216 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1224 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1213 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1219 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1229 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1273 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1542 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1558 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1560 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1241 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1202 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1206 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1242 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1252 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1258 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1266 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1568 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1578 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1595 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1256 E WOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1592 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1226 E WOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1555 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1316 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1312 E BRYAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1581 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Item E13 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: December 7, 2021 RE: Columbus Street Alley North of Victory Road PLNPCM2020-00564 MOTION 1 – close and defer I move the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 – continue I move the council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. MOTION 3 – close and adopt I move the Council close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance. MOTION 4 – close and reject I move the Council close the public hearing and 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:December 7, 2021 RE: Columbus Street Alley North of Victory Road PLNPCM2020-00564 This item was originally scheduled for a briefing on November 16, 2021. However, due to time constraints on that day, the briefing was postponed, and the public hearing was still set for December 7, 2021. That is why the briefing and public hearing are on the same day. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will be briefed about a proposal to vacate a north/south City-owned alley north of Victory Road and adjacent to properties at 583, 585, 589, and 595 North Columbus Street, and 590 North Victory Road as shown in the image below. The five properties have a total of four property owners, all of whom signed a petition supportive of the alley vacation. Properties adjacent to the alley are zoned R-2 (Single- and two-family residential district), and OS (Open Space). The subject alley is approximately 150 feet long and total area is approximately 2,750 square feet. An alley segment north of the subject alley was previously vacated, and the southern end of the alley terminates at a UDOT right-of-way. The alley was recorded but undeveloped and exists only on paper. It is unlikely the alley could ever be developed due to steep topography of the hillside on which it is located. Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation to the City Council for the alley vacation. If approved by the City Council, the subject alley property would be vacated and incorporated into abutting property owners’ parcels. Owners of the residential properties would not be charged for their ½ width portions of the alley. The Open Space zoned parcel is privately owned, and that property owner would be charged market value for the ½ width alley property abutting theirs. Item Schedule: Briefing: December 7, 2021 Set Date: November 16, 2021 Public Hearing: December 7, 2021 Potential Action: December 14, 2021 Page | 2 Image courtesy Salt Lake City Planning Division Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed alley closure, address questions Council Members may have and prepare for a public hearing. ADDITONAL INFORMATION Alley vacation requests receive three phases of review, as outlined in section 14.52.030 Salt Lake City Code (see pages 4-6 below). Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing, including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City Council. The Planning Commission staff report provides information relating to the following four key considerations related to this alley vacation. A short description of each issue is provided below for reference. Please see pages 3-4 of the Planning Commission staff report for full analysis of these issues. 1. Property Owner Consent Section 14.52.030.A.1 Salt Lake City Code states “the petition must bear the signatures of no less than seventy five percent (75%) of the neighbors owning property which abuse the subject alley property.” As noted above, all four abutting property owners signed the petition supporting the alley vacation. Page | 3 2.Creation/History of the Alley and Disposition if Vacated The City Surveyor found the subject alley was not dedicated through the usual subdivision process. Rather, it was dedicated as a public right-of-way through the original platting of the city. As stated above, if the alley vacation is approved by the City Council, residential property owners would not be charged for the alley abutting their property. The Open Space property owner would be charged fair market value for the abutting alley property. The method of disposition is included in Chapter 14.52.040.C Salt Lake City Code below. 3.Existence of the Alley The alley was platted but exists only on paper. Planning staff noted “While the history is not clear, it is possible that there may not have been an intent to actually establish an alley in this location. Given the angle of slope coming off of Victory Road, a UDOT road, it is also likely that if an alley was planned, it was never built due to the physical constraints of the property grade.” 4.Future Public Uses of the Alley It is Planning staff’s belief there is no viable future use for the subject alley. No City department identified potential public uses and did not raise any objections to the alley vacation. Attachment E (pages 14-16 of the Planning Commission staff report) is an analysis of factors City Code requires the Planning Commission to consider for alley vacations (Section 14.52.030 B Salt Lake City Code). In addition to the information above, other factors are summarized below. Planning staff found the proposed alley vacation complies with all eight factors below. For the complete analysis, please refer to the staff report. City Code required analysis: The City Police Department, Fire Department, Transportation Division and all other relevant City departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the property. Finding: Complies. No City department raised objection to the alley vacation. City Code required analysis: The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations for closure, vacation or abandonment of City owned alleys (Lack of Use, Public Safety, Urban Design, Community Purpose). Finding: Complies. Planning staff determined the proposed alley vacation satisfies the Lack of Use policy consideration. City Code required analysis: The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property. Finding: Complies. Vacating the alley would not impact parking or access to any property. City Code required analysis: The petition will not result in any property being landlocked. Finding: Complies. No property would be landlocked as a result of this alley vacation request. City Code required analysis: The disposition of the alley property will not result in a use which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the City, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses. Finding: Complies. Vacating the subject alley will not create or result in any use that is contrary to City policies. There is no use for the alley and it likely could never be built due to site constraints. Page | 4 City Code required analysis: No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within 12 months of issuance of the building permit. Finding: Complies. No abutting property owner opposed the alley vacation and no building permit applications have been submitted. City Code required analysis: The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it. Finding: Complies. The request is to close a remaining alley segment. A continuation of the alley to the north was previously vacated, though the City Surveyor was not able to determine when that occurred. The remaining alley segment would be considered an “entire alley” and as such meets this factor. City Code required analysis: The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. Finding: Complies. None of the properties abutting the subject alley use it for rear access. PUBLIC PROCESS August 10, 2020-Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council Chair. August 11, 2020-Early notification announcement sent to residents and owners within 300 feet of the subject alley. The notice included information about how to provide public comment. May 13, 2021- Public hearing notice mailed Public hearing notice signs posted on property Public notice posted on City and State websites, and Planning Division listserv. May 26, 2021-Planning Commission public hearing. There were no comments at the hearing. The Commission closed the hearing and voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. The process for closing or vacating a City-owned alley is outlined in Section 14.52 Salt Lake City Code. 14.52.010: DISPOSITION OF CITY'S PROPERTY INTEREST IN ALLEYS: The city supports the legal disposition of Salt Lake City's real property interests, in whole or in part, with regard to city owned alleys, subject to the substantive and procedural requirements set forth herein. 14.52.020: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR CLOSURE, VACATION OR ABANDONMENT OF CITY OWNED ALLEYS: The city will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations: A. Lack Of Use: The city's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat; however, it is evident from an onsite inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right of way; Page | 5 B. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity, unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area; C. Urban Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element; or D. Community Purpose: The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002) 14.52.030: PROCESSING PETITIONS: There will be three (3) phases for processing petitions to dispose of city owned alleys under this section. Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing, including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City Council. A. Administrative Determination Of Completeness: The city administration will determine whether or not the petition is complete according to the following requirements: 1. The petition must bear the signatures of no less than seventy five percent (75%) of the neighbors owning property which abuts the subject alley property; 2. The petition must identify which policy considerations discussed above support the petition; 3. The petition must affirm that written notice has been given to all owners of property located in the block or blocks within which the subject alley property is located; 4. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the proposal to the appropriate community organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.60 of this code; and 5. The appropriate city processing fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule has been paid. B. Public Hearing and Recommendation From The Planning Commission: Upon receipt of a complete petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the planning commission to consider the proposed disposition of the city owned alley property. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the planning commission shall make a report and recommendation to the city council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors: 1. The city police department, fire department, transportation division, and all other relevant city departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the property; 2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; 3. Granting the petition will not deny sole access or required off street parking to any property adjacent to the alley; 4. Granting the petition will not result in any property being landlocked; 5. Granting the petition will not result in a use of the alley property which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the city, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of Page | 6 policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses; 6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within twelve (12) months of issuance of the building permit; 7. The petition furthers the city preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and 8. The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. C. Public Hearing Before The City Council: Upon receipt of the report and recommendation from the planning commission, the city council will consider the proposed petition for disposition of the subject alley property. After a public hearing to consider the matter, the city council will make a decision on the proposed petition based upon the factors identified above. (Ord. 58-13, 2013: Ord. 24-11, 2011) 14.52.040: METHOD OF DISPOSITION: If the city council grants the petition, the city owned alley property will be disposed of as follows: A. Low Density Residential Areas: If the alley property abuts properties which are zoned for low density residential use, the alley will merely be vacated. For the purposes of this section, "low density residential use" shall mean properties which are zoned for single-family, duplex or twin home residential uses. B. High Density Residential Properties And Other Nonresidential Properties: If the alley abuts properties which are zoned for high density residential use or other nonresidential uses, the alley will be closed and abandoned, subject to payment to the city of the fair market value of that alley property, based upon the value added to the abutting properties. C. Mixed Zoning: If an alley abuts both low density residential properties and either high density residential properties or nonresidential properties, those portions which abut the low density residential properties shall be vacated, and the remainder shall be closed, abandoned and sold for fair market value. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002) 14.52.050: PETITION FOR REVIEW: Any party aggrieved by the decision of the city council as to the disposition of city owned alley property may file a petition for review of that decision within thirty (30) days after the city council's decision becomes final, in the 3rd district court. ________________ ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 09/24/2021 09/28/2021 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: Amy Fowler, Chair September 24, 2021 FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods SUBJECT: Columbus Street Alley Vacation North of Victory Road STAFF CONTACT: David J. Gellner, AICP, Senior Planner, david.gellner@slcgov.com (385) 226-3860 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve an Ordinance to vacate the alley. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Nicholas Kanaan, a property owner at 585 N. Columbus Street and James Carr, a property owner at 583 N. Columbus Street are co-petitioners asking to vacate an approximately 150-foot long section of platted alley adjacent to their respective properties. The recorded but completely undeveloped alley segment runs north-south of Victory Road and abuts a total of five (5) properties owned by four (4) different property owners. The continuation of the alley to the north of this segment was previously vacated. The proposal is to vacate this remaining alley segment and incorporate the vacant land into the neighboring properties. The total area of the proposed vacation is approximately 2750 square feet. The platted alley is highlighted on the aerial photo below. The alley starts north of the UDOT right-of-way on Victory Road and runs approximately 150 feet to the north. The applicant’s reason for the request is based on the alley being platted but never having been developed. The area is filled with tall weeds and the alley could likely never be developed based on the steep 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 Lisa Shaffer (Sep 24, 2021 12:24 MDT) topography. The applicant asserts that there are no potential future uses for the alley and no reason to keep it in place. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chair of the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council on August 10, 2020. • Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners located within 300 feet of the project site on August 11, 2020 providing notice about the project and information on how to give public input on the project. • No formal comments were submitted by the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council. • No public comments were submitted in relation to this proposal. • A Planning Commission Public Hearing was held on May 26, 2021. • The Commission also voted unanimously to forward a Positive recommendation to City Council for the alley vacation. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of May 26, 2021 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of May 26, 2021 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of May 26, 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 (Vacating a city-owned alley situated adjacent to properties located at 583, 585, 589 and 595 North Columbus Street; and; 590 North Victory Road) An ordinance vacating an unnamed city-owned alley adjacent to properties located at 583, 585, 589 and 595 North Columbus Street; and; 590 North Victory Road, pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00564. WHEREAS, Nicholas Kanaan, owner of 585 North Columbus Street filed a written petition, Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00564, to vacate a city-owned alley situated between properties 583, 585, 589 and 595 North Columbus Street and 590 North Victory Road and as more particularly described in Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference ; and WHEREAS, the neighboring property owners of 605 North Ensign Street, 589 North Columbus Street, and 583 North Columbus Street reviewed and also designated in writing their approval of the petition; and WHEREAS, the petition demonstrates that the alley does not physically exist despite the and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 26, 2021, to consider the petition; and WHEREAS, at its May 26, 2021 meeting, the planning commission following the public hearing and discussion voted in favor of forwarding a recommendation of approval on the petition to the Salt Lake City Council ; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds after holding a public hearing on this matter, that there is good cause to vacate the alley and that vacating the alley will not materially injure the public interest or any person. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Vacating City-Owned Alley. That an unnamed, city-owned alley adjacent to properties located at 583, 585, 589 and 595 North Columbus Street; and; 590 North Victory Road, which is the subject of Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00564, and which is more particularly vacated and declared not presently necessary or available for public use. SECTION 2. Reservations and Disclaimers. The 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, o any existing rights- of-way or easements of private third parties. SECTION 3. Conditions. This vacation is conditioned upon the following: 1) The proposed method of disposition of the alley property shall be consistent with the the Salt Lake City Code, and all other applicable laws; and SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The city recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the conditions identified above have been met real property manager. , SECTION 5. Time. If the conditions identified above have not been met within one year after adoption, this ordinance shall become null and void. The city council may, for good cause shown, by resolution, extend the time period for satisfying the conditions identified above. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2021. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2021 Published: . APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Date:_7__/2/_2_02_1 By: Hannah Vickery, Senior City Attorney EXHIBIT "A" Legal description of the city-owned alley to be vacated: A portion of a 20.00 foot wide alleyway located within Block 15, Plat "J", Salt Lake City Survey, Salt Lake Base & Meridian; Being described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of lot 17, Block 15, Plat "J" Salt Lake City Survey; and running thence South 00°00'47" East 150.00 feet, more or less along the east line of an existing alleyway to a point on the Northerly right of way line of Victory Road; thence North 38°37'47" West 32.05 feet along said right of way line to a point on the west line of an existing alleyway; thence North 00°00'47" West 124.96 feet along said west line of alleyway; thence North 89°59'13" East 20.00 feet to the point of beginning. The above described parcel contains 2,750 square feet or 0.06 acre, more or less. 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: PLNPCM2020-00564 - Columbus Street Alley Vacation North of Victory Road July 27, 2020 Petition for the alley vacation received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division August 3, 2020 Petition assigned to David Gellner, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. August 10, 2020 Information about the proposal was sent to the Chair of the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council in order to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. August 11, 2020 Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. September 28, 2020 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. No formal comments were submitted to staff by the recognized organizations to date related to this proposal. May 13, 2021 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of May 26, 2021. Public hearing notice mailed. May 13, 2021 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. May 26, 2021 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on May 26, 2021. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a Positive recommendation to City Council for the proposed alley vacation. 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2020-00564 - Columbus Street Alley Vacation North of Victory Road – Nicholas Kanaan, a property owner at 585 N. Columbus Street and James Carr, a property owner at 583 N. Columbus Street are co -petitioners asking to vacate an approximately 150-foot long section of platted alley adjacent to their respective properties. The recorded but completely undeveloped alley segment runs north-south of Victory Road and abuts a total of five (5) properties owned by four (4) different property owners. The platted alley north of this appears to have been previously vacated. The proposal is to vacate this remaining alley segment and incorporate the vacant land into the neighboring properties. The total area of the proposed vacation is approximately 2750 square feet. The subject alley is located within Council District 3, represented by Chris Wharton. (Staff contact: David J. Gellner at (385 - 226-3860 or david.gellner@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 David Gellner at 385-226-3860 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at david.gellner@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 ,,, S:lgnatnreh&e The previous Alley Vacation / Closure Request document was reviewed and approved by all parties who own land adjacent to the proposed alley vacation/ closure request The alley is located on a steep sloping hill side that is currently fallow with weeds and grasses overgrowing it and unused. Due to the steep topography, this alley is completely unusable and cannot be accessed by a vehicle safely. The alley has never been in use, and does nothave potential for future use. There are no city structures or improvements on the alley, and as such it seems there is no utility to keeping this small plot of land as an alley any longer. The alley is located off of Victory Road between Ensign St and Columbus St and has width of 20', length on West of127.5', length on East of 150', and a total area of 2612.5 square feet (please see attached SIDWELL and PLAT maps. Keri HoUand t,,fV r.alumbus 101-023 First Name Last Name n Date Address Parcel • I l ---sss""fJ.Colµalbus St. 7 I 60 Norris & G Yaldine 11 1031 Gary bd Family l'I T"" 589 N. Columbus St. 6 17 Keri Holland 0 1 101023 LO 585 N. Columbus St. 18 DocProperties 0 Nicholas Kanaan LO 101024 7- 583 N. Columbus St. 9p.t. 19 James & Debbie Carr 0 101025 LO 20 0 I . - ,.. I , Aney Vacation/ Closure Request ID 101026 1 1..., 20' Wide, 127.S "!a_ t Length, 150' East Length 1 0 101027 LO 0 LO 7 102012 0 LO 6 0 LO 5 102013 I l 102014 I l ·, I ' g 4 102015 I J i ! 0 LO 3 102016 I 0 LO 2 10201i g .. .. .. .. 1,•• ..,- [... . t' -- ....................... -- l ' .• .t :,, - . ..- i I ...10 .-.- I ' - ... I • -, I- < 'I • .•• u II. -- " >- • " UI ·>- I :::, '·,"4'- I ' .•.• -I- I • ,w t I "'-' 'G!Llk'--........ ....-:,.-n.-•.,.·....-...-.. -•Id... W 1/2 NW 1/4 Sec 31 TIN RIE SALT LAKECOlJNTY. UTAH 09-31-11 _ ,_a: . . \. 1-._ '(,· . t"'cor i , .., ti 4. Mailing List OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR OWN_CITY OWN_STATE OWN_ZIP MARK R MILLIGAN; JENNIFER M MILLIGAN (JT) 580 N WESTCAPITOL ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 MARTIN I STEINBERG; MARGARET CHANDLER (JT) 576 N WESTCAPITOL ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 AMELIA K MATHISON 42 W GIRARD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 36 W GIRARD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 CAPITOL VIEW PROPERTIES, LLC 1559 W 3860 S WEST VALLEY UT 84119 599 NORTH DARWIN, LLC 672 E UNION SQ SANDY UT 84070 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 579 N DARWIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 ED ISABELLE 30 W GIRARD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 KELLI A FRAME 28 W GIRARD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 STEVEN B BOYINGTON; STUART N STONE (JT) 633 N VICTORY RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 RALPH W PATTERSON; JODI A PATTERSON (JT) 554 N WESTCAPITOL ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 ZAFFIRO PROPERTIES LLC 141 ASPEN DALE WY SW CALGARY, ALBE TA T3H0R GIRARD PROPERTIES UT, LLC 65 W 700 N BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 NORRIS W FAMILY GOOLD; TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 595 N COLUMBUS ST # B SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 CHRISTOPHER LEE 655 N COLUMBUS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 651 COLUMBUS, LLC 651 N COLUMBUS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 KERI LYNNE HOLLAND 589 N COLUMBUS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 DOCPROPERTIES, LLC 585 N COLUMBUS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 DEBBIE A CARR; JAMES A CARR (JT) 583 N COLUMBUS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 S REV TRUST 1169 E 5290 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 SHAWN CLAY; CORIN J CLAY (JT) 563 N COLUMBUS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 DANIEL A HERSHKOWITZ; ALYSSA M HERSHKOWITZ (JT) 135 S LAKE MERCED HILL SAN FRANCISCO CA 94132 MARK T WOOD 12861 VIAVISTA DEL PASADO ORO VALLEY AZ 85755 GALEN C BAGLEY; LESLEY H BAGLEY (JT) 642 N COLUMBUS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 FABERT PROPERTIES, LLC 6914 S 2160 W WEST JORDAN UT 84084 G WILKING PROPERTIES, LLC 1610 E DEAUVILLE AVE MURRAY UT 84121 ERIC J YOUSSEFI 612 N COLUMBUS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 2560 VIA ANITA PLS VRDS EST CA 90274 CLEMENS A LANDAU; JOANNA E LANDAU (JT) 600 N COLUMBUS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 KEVIN M MACK; HEIDI D RISTER (TC) 594 N COLUMBUS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 FOSTER/MAZZOLINI FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST 12/18/2018 588 N COLUMBUS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 MATTHEW V WENNER; JODY L WENNER (JT) 582 N COLUMBUS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 PATRICIA C OGDEN; PATRICK R OGDEN (JT) 576 N COLUMBUS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BRAEWICK, PROPERTIES LLC 142 E BRAEWICK RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 JOHN HOWA 564 N COLUMBUS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 MICHAEL S HATCH 617 N DESOTO ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 FRED S IV EDWARDS 611 N DESOTO ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 RICHARD M BROWN; SHEILA BROWN (JT) 605 N DESOTO ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 ALAN L OKAWA; ALLISON OKI (JT) 599 N DESOTO ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 LARRY L FRY; SHAWN E FRY (JT) 593 N DESOTO ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 LAURA L ARELLANO 587 N DESOTO ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 JOHN GEOFFREY FITZWILLIAM; MELANIE GALL FITZWILLIAM (JT) 581 N DESOTO ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 RICHARD D OLSEN 575 N DESOTO ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 CHARLES P MORGAN; PETER J MORGAN (JT) 571 N DESOTO ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 STERLING S HOLDEN; MIA M HOLDEN (JT) 31 E GIRARD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 AF RENT LLC 1361 E YALE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 6852 S HOLLOW MILL DR COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121 TANYA F BARRON 743 23RD ST APT 1F OGDEN UT 84401 LINDA SMITH‐HUNTER 1319 E 1700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 WEST GIRARD APARTMENTS LLC PO BOX 712416 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84171 JEREMIAH P JOHNSON; DEBORAH L JOHNSON (JT) 1029 N MAIN ST FARMINGTON UT 84025 NICOLE CHRISTINE ZAATAR 3 W GIRARD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 LELAND B SWANSON; JOANN B SWANSON (JT) 545 N DARWIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 558 N COLUMBUS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 EJAELA2 LLC 548 N COLUMBUS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 DANIEL EYLAN; MI OLSZEWSKA (JT) 546 N COLUMBUS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 TODD ANDREWS; CATHERINE OSBORNE (JT) 559 N DESOTO ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 Current Occupant 660 N VICTORY RD Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 580 N WEST CAPITOL ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 578 N WEST CAPITOL ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 576 N WEST CAPITOL ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 610 N WEST CAPITOL ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 599 N DARWIN ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 620 N VICTORY RD Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 554 N WEST CAPITOL ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 49 W GIRARD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 57 W GIRARD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 665 N COLUMBUS ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 605 N COLUMBUS ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 600 N VICTORY RD Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 590 N VICTORY RD Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 605 N COLUMBUS ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 599 N COLUMBUS ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 573 N COLUMBUS ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 595 N COLUMBUS ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 611 N COLUMBUS ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 613 N COLUMBUS ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 623 N COLUMBUS ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 559 N COLUMBUS ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 636 N COLUMBUS ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 632 N COLUMBUS ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 608 N COLUMBUS ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 570 N COLUMBUS ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 617 N DE SOTO ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 611 N DE SOTO ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 605 N DE SOTO ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 599 N DE SOTO ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 593 N DE SOTO ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 587 N DE SOTO ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 581 N DE SOTO ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 575 N DE SOTO ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 571 N DE SOTO ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 635 N DE SOTO ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 631 N DE SOTO ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 616 N COLUMBUS ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 614 N COLUMBUS ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 26 W GIRARD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 41 W GIRARD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 37 W GIRARD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103 Current Occupant 559 N DE SOTO ST Salt Lake City UT 84103 Salt Lake City Planning ‐ David Gellner PO BOX 145480 Salt Lake City UT 84114 Item E14 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 PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke Budget and Policy Analyst DATE:December 7, 2021 RE: City Consent to Subleases at The Leonardo MOTION 1 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action. MOTION 2 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future date. 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: Ben Luedtke Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:December 7, 2021 RE: City Consent to Subleases at The Leonardo ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE Property management including leasing and subleasing is typically an administrative function handled by the executive branch of City government. The request from The Leonardo for approval of subleasing space is coming to the Council like public benefits analyses required for private use of a public asset. In this case the public asset is the former library building at 209 East 500 South and the private use is The Leonardo subleasing spaces in the City-owned building to other entities. There are three requirements any sublease must satisfy at the former library building: 1. State Law Public Purpose – A sublease must advance a public purpose to comply with state law. 2. Voter-approved Bond Purpose – A sublease must comply with the purpose stated on the ballot when voters approved the general obligation bond. The ballot language was a bond “paying the costs of renovating, improving, and preserving the old main library building and providing related facilities located at approximately 5th South Street and 2nd East Street to establish a science, culture and art education center.” 3. Lease Section 19 for Subletting – A sublease must have “the written consent of the City,” … and “a direct relationship to The Leonardo’s Mission and programming plan.” The City has leased the former library building to The Leonardo since June 2009 after the City Council held a public hearing, considered a public benefits analysis and determined the lease served a public purpose. The lease allows The Leonardo to sublease space if the City consents and the entity subleasing has a direct relationship to The Leonardo’s mission and programming. The organization’s mission is “exploring and connecting art, culture, and science in imaginative ways to enrich peoples’ lives, expand consciousness, and enhance the community.” A sublease could include joint programming and partnerships with The Leonardo. The primary lease between the City and The Leonardo remains unchanged by any subleases that are approved. The Attorney’s Office provided a resolution for the Council’s consideration that would authorize the Mayor’s Administration to approve subleases at The Leonardo. This approach would allow the Administration to conduct property management including future sublease requests instead of each request coming to the Council for individual approval. The Administration would determine for each request if the sublease meets the three requirements listed above, that is, “fulfills a public purpose, complies with the bond purpose, and has a direct relationship to The Leonardo’s mission and programming” (end of page one of resolution). Project Timeline: 1st Briefing: December 7, 2021 Public Hearing: December 7, 2021 2nd Briefing: December 14, 2021 (if needed) Potential Action: December 14, 2021 Page | 2 1 9 5 8 0 The Administration’s transmittal includes a draft sublease agreement, a copy of the primary lease between the City and The Leonardo and a public benefits analysis specific to Ken Sanders Rare Books. There is also an exhibit detailing five potential phases for Ken Sanders Rare Books under a draft sublease at The Leonardo which envisions 11,437 of square feet and related building improvements being used as premises for the sublease. This would represent approximately 13% of the building’s total square footage. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Delegation of Authority for Consenting to Subleases – The Council may wish to discuss if it supports the delegating authority approach for the Administration to handle sublease requests at the former library building. This approach is like property management typically being an administrative function under separation of powers. 2. Long-term Plans for the Old Library Building – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration what plans exist for the old library building? 3. Maintenance and Building Status – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for a status update on the building including maintenance and capital improvement needs. Under the primary lease, the City is responsible for repair and replacement of the building foundations, structural systems both interior and exterior, and all electrical, plumbing, and mechanical systems. 4. Signs and Façade Changes – The Council may wish to ask if changes to the former library building’s façade such as signs or banners are anticipated to indicate new tenants. ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION Original and Refinanced Bonds Salt Lake City voters approved issuance of tax-exempt general obligation bonds in November 2003. Due to several delays the City issued the $10.2 million of bonds in November 2009. In 2017 the bonds were refinanced to save taxpayers money, and the City continues making payments. The Former Library Building (209 East 500 South) The former library building was constructed in 1964 with unreinforced masonry. The building has almost 87,000 square feet across five levels including the basement and sub-basement. In 2020, the recommended capital improvement needs were estimated at over $4 million to maintain current uses according to the Public Services Department’s Facilities Condition Index. Length of Primary Lease The primary lease between the City and The Leonardo was recorded in June 2009 and has an initial term of 20 years. If both the City and The Leonardo agree, then the lease may be extended three times for an additional 10 years each time which could add 30 years to the lease. It’s worth noting that The Leonardo pays $1 per month in rent under the primary lease for the duration of the term. Recent City Investments The Council approved$322,729 in 2016 as part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) using General Fund dollars to replace the former library building’s atrium roof deck. The project was intended to fix roof leaks that existed since the building was renovated in 2008-2010. The Council approved $60,000 in 2014 to increase access to the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit at The Leonardo so that students and families of Title One schools, and other Salt Lake City low-income residents, were able to attend the exhibit. The funding also covered related costs, such as (but not limited to) school bus rentals. RESOLUTION NO. _____ OF 2021 (Authorizing Subleases at The Leonardo) WHEREAS, on November 4, 2003, Salt Lake City voters approved the issuance by the City of general obligation bonds for the purpose of “paying the costs of renovating, improving and preserving the old main library building and providing related facilities located at approximately 5th South Street and 2nd East Street to establish a science, culture and art education center” (the “Bond Purpose”). WHEREAS, to fulfill the Bond Purpose, Salt Lake City Corporation (“City”) leases the former main library building, located at 209 East 500 South, to The Leonardo, formerly known as The Library Square Foundation for Art, Culture, and Science, pursuant to a Lease Agreement recorded with the City Recorder on June 25, 2009 (the “Lease”). WHEREAS, the Leonardo’s mission is “exploring and connecting art, culture, and science in imaginative ways to enrich peoples’ lives, expand consciousness, and enhance the community.” WHEREAS, under the terms of the lease between the Leonardo and the City, The Leonardo may sublease space within the building with the written consent of City so long as the sublease has a direct relationship to The Leonardo’s mission and programming plan. WHEREAS, the former main library building is a City asset and any use of such asset must be for a public purpose under Utah law. WHEREAS, The Leonardo has requested that the City consent to the sublease of a portion of the old main library, and the City Council desires to authorize the Administration to consent to such sublease requests, provided that the sublease fulfills a public purpose, complies with the Bond Purpose, and has a direct relationship to The Leonardo’s mission and programming plan. WHEREAS, the City Council has, following the provision of not less than fourteen (14) days public notice, conducted a public hearing relating to the foregoing, 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 it is appropriate for the City to consent to sublease arrangements at The Leonardo, provided that the Administration finds that the sublease fulfills a public purpose, complies with the Bond Purpose, and has a direct relationship to The Leonardo’s mission and programming plan. 2 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of _________, 2021. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: ______________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ____________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office ______________________________ Kimberly Chytraus, Senior City Attorney Date: ______________________ November 19, 2021 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: The Leonardo; City Consent to Sublease to Ken Sanders Rare Books STAFF CONTACT: Kimberly Chytraus, Senior City Attorney DOCUMENT TYPE: Consent to Sublease RECOMMENDATION: Approve Consent BUDGET IMPACT: N/A BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The City leases the old library building to The Leonardo to operate a science, culture and art education center. The City has also issued bonds in connection with The Leonardo and use of the property must comply with the purpose of the bonds. Under the Lease, a sublease must fulfill the mission of The Leonardo and be consented to by the City. The Leonardo has requested that the City consent to a sublease to Ken Sanders Rare Book, for collaboration on programs to enhance the mission of The Leonardo and operation of the gift shop and bookstore. The City analyzed if the sublease fulfills a public purpose in the attached memo and recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing prior to approving the consent to the sublease. PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing with 14 days’ prior notice EXHIBITS: 1)Memo 2)Lease 3) Proposed Sublease with City Consent November 1, 2021 Lisa Shaffer (Nov 2, 2021 12:33 MDT) 11/02/2021 11/02/2021 2 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council Members SUBJECT: Informal Analysis of Public Benefits Provided by The Leonardo Sublease to Ken Sanders Rare Books Introduction Salt Lake City Corporation (“City”) leases the old main library building, located at 209 East 500 South, to The Leonardo, formerly known as The Library Square Foundation for Art, Culture, and Science, pursuant to a Lease Agreement recorded with the City Recorder on June 25, 2009 (the “Lease”). The Leonardo has requested that the City consent to a sublease of a portion of the building to Dream Garden Press, Inc., doing business as Ken Sanders Rare Books (“Ken Sanders”). The Leonardo and Ken Sanders intend to collaborate to provide educational and cultural content and programming to further enhance the mission of The Leonardo as well as allow Ken Sanders to operate his rare bookstore. The Administration recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing on Though a formal analysis of the benefits to be received by the City in exchange for consenting to the sublease is not required under Utah Code ⸹10-8-2, this informal analysis has been prepared to help evaluate whether the City’s consent to the proposed sublease is appropriate given the legal restrictions on the use of the building under the bond and lease. Background Bonds. On November 4, 2003, Salt Lake City voters approved the issuance by the City of general obligation bonds for the purpose of “paying the costs of renovating, improving and preserving the old main library building and providing related facilities located at approximately 5th South Street and 2nd East Street to establish a science, culture and art education center (the “Bond purpose”). The City issued the bonds in 2009 and 2017 (the “Bonds”). Lease. To fulfill the Bond purpose, the City leased the building to The Leonardo. The Leonardo pays a nominal rent as approved by the City Council as a public benefit in satisfaction of Utah Code § 10-8-2 (“§10-8-2”). Pursuant to Section 19 of the Lease, The Leonardo may sublease space within the building with the written consent of the City (which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed) and the sublease must have a direct relationship to The Leonardo’s mission and programming plan. The Leonardo’s mission is “exploring and connecting art, culture, and science in imaginative ways to enrich peoples’ lives, expand consciousness, and enhance the community.” Sublease. The Leonardo and Ken Sanders have proposed a sublease whereby Ken Sanders will enhance and fulfill The Leonardo’s mission and programming. They plan to engage the community in discussions on current topics and social issues and employ each other’s strengths to obtain greater community reach and impact. Joint programs will include book clubs on relevant topics, exhibitions featuring rare books, maps and posters, poetry readings, festivals, children’s educational events and joint humanities exhibitions, all of which are designed to 3 enhance The Leonardo’s Mission to inspire creativity and innovation in all people. The first book club is a Children’s Story Hour for families featuring Ken Sander’s new and vintage children’s books. Ken Sanders will also be responsible for operating The Leonardo’s gift shop. Legal Framework Bond Requirements. The Administration has explored with bond counsel whether the sublease presents any issues under the Bonds that would jeopardize the Bond’s tax-exempt status. It is a multifactorial analysis to determine whether the sublease would be permissible. The outstanding question is whether the sublease fulfills a public purpose and complies with the Bond purpose. Current law relating to municipal bonds indicates that a governing body of a municipality “may not spend bond money raised for a designated purpose for a purpose not approved by the voters.”1 Here, the voters approved a bond to finance improvements of the building and establish a science, culture and art education center, and the sublease must comply with this Bond purpose. Determination of a Public Purpose. The City cannot expend public funds for private purposes.2 §10-8-2 governs municipal appropriations and dispositions of real property. It allows the City to appropriate funds only for a “corporate purpose,” which is broadly defined as any purpose that, in the judgment of the municipal legislative body, provides for the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the inhabitants of the municipality”3 (a “public purpose”), and applies a similar standard to the disposition of real property. The City’s determination of a public purpose is valid unless found “arbitrary and capricious.” The City Council approved the Lease to The Leonardo as having a public purpose following a public hearing and public benefit analysis under §10-8-2. In this context, the City has been asked to consent to a sublease of City property. While §10-8-2 may not strictly apply to the City’s consent of the sublease, it provides a helpful framework by providing a definition of public purpose and proscribing a public hearing to determine if the sublease fulfils a public purpose. For this reason, we recommend that the City Council first hold a public hearing before determining if the sublease fulfills a public purpose and complies with the Bond purpose. Analysis Supporting the Consent to the Sublease For the City to consent to the sublease, several conditions must be met under the Lease and the Bonds: 1 Concerned Citizens v. BD. of Com’rs, 897 P.2d 1267, 1271, (Wash.App.Div.1 1995). See also City and County of Denver v. Currigan, 362 P.2d 1060, 1064 (Colo. 1961)(citing McNichols that a city has reasonable discretion in the use of the proceeds of the bonds, but a use for a purpose other than that authorized by the voters is not within the range of reasonable discretion.) 2 “Closely related to the prohibition against the lending of the state’s credit, although technically not a part of it due to the narrow and specific wording of section 29, is the principle of law that public funds cannot be expended for private purposes.” See Utah Tech. Fin. Corp. at 412. 3 Utah Code § 10-8-2(3)(e)(3) 4 1. The sublease must have a direct relationship to The Leonardo’s mission and programming plan to satisfy the requirements of the Lease. 2. The sublease must fulfill a public purpose to comply with the application of §10-8-2. 3. The sublease must comply with the Bond purpose to satisfy the requirement that the Bonds be used only for the purpose approved by the voters. The sublease has a direct relation to The Leonardo’s mission. Ken Sanders will sell books related to art, science, and technology, as well as special collections of books to complement The Leonardo’s collections, exhibits, and programs within the museum. The joint collaborations will allow community members to explore and connect art, culture, and science in imaginative ways to enrich peoples’ lives, expand consciousness, and enhance the community, all part of The Leonardo’s mission. The sublease will fulfill a public purpose. The Lease was already determined to fulfill a public purpose demonstrated through the prior bonding process and §10-8-2 public benefit analysis. The collaboration and community events will create a dynamic and inclusive space for community to come together and exchange ideas, learnings and experiences. Its diverse book offerings offer a unique resource to the City on history, art, education, science, and culture. The Leonardo and Ken Sanders this year have collaborated on several activities to engage the community in discussions on current topics and social issues. These services will enhance the moral well-being, comfort, or convenience of the inhabitants of the City. The sublease also complies with the Bond purpose. The addition of a vintage bookstore with collections geared toward enhancement of the exhibits and activities at The Leonardo will contribute to the science, culture and art education center that is The Leonardo. Ken Sanders is a longtime Salt Lake City institution and is a proven resource to the community to provide educational and cultural content and programming. Its diverse book offerings offer a unique resource to the City on history, art, education, science, and culture. Conclusion Taking into consideration that the proposed sublease fulfills the Lease conditions, has a public purpose, and fulfills the Bond Purpose, the Administration requests that the City Council hold a public hearing to consent to the proposed sublease by The Leonardo to Ken Sanders. 1 SUBLEASE AGREEMENT This Sublease Agreement (“Sublease”), dated effective as of as of March 29, 2021 (the “Effective Date”), is entered into between The Leonardo, a Utah non-profit corporation formerly known as The Library Square Foundation for Art, Culture and Science, having an address of 209 E. 500 S., Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (“Sublandlord”) and the Dream Garden Press, Inc., a Utah corporation doing business as Ken Sanders Rare Books (“KSRB”) with an address of 268 S. 200 E., Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (“Subtenant” and, together with Sublandlord, collectively referred herein as the “Parties” or individually as a “Party”). RECITALS A. Sublandlord is a tenant under that certain Lease Agreement dated on or about June 24, 2009 (the “Primary Lease”, a copy of which has been provided to Subtenant, and all capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Primary Lease) with Salt Lake City Corporation (“Prime Landlord”). B. Pursuant to the Primary Lease, Sublandlord leased those certain premises (“Demised Premises”) more particularly described in the Primary Lease and located at the property having a street address of 209 East 500 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (the “Property”). C. Sublandlord desires to sublease a portion of the Demised Premises leased under the Primary Lease to Subtenant, and Subtenant desires to sublease a portion of Sublandlord’s Demised Premises from Sublandlord, in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Sublease. D. Sublandlord and Subtenant are entering into this Sublease in order to enhance Sublandlord’s cultural programming and audiences. Both Sublandlord and Subtenant are dedicated to engaging the community in discussions on current topics and social issues, and desire to employ each other’s strengths to obtain greater community reach and impact. Joint programs will include book clubs on relevant topics, exhibitions featuring rare books, maps and posters, poetry readings, festivals, children’s educational events and joint humanities exhibitions, all of which are designed to enhance Sublandlord’s mission to inspire creativity and innovation in all people. Subtenant shall also be responsible for operating Sublandlord’s Gift Shop. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, and conditions set forth herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Demise. Sublandlord hereby leases to Subtenant, and Subtenant hereby leases from Sublandlord, the portion of the premises described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Subleased Premises”). The Subleased Premises shall include use of the common areas associated with the Subleased Premises, which common areas Subtenant shall be permitted to use in common with Sublandlord and any other subtenants of Sublandlord. In addition, Subtenant shall be required to purchase parking passes at the rate charged by Prime Landlord (such parking spaces, together with the other common areas, the “Common Areas”). In the event that Subtenant’s use of the Common Areas is 2 excessive or interruptive of Sublandlord’s operations conducted at the Property, Subtenant shall comply with Sublandlord’s reasonable policies adopted from time-to-time with respect thereto. Included in the Subleased Premises is the furniture, furnishings and decorations that are present in the Subleased Premises as of the Sublease Commencement Date, and Subtenant shall have the duty and obligation to keep, maintain and replace, if necessary due to damage caused by Subtenant and its guests and invitees, such furniture, furnishings and decorations as are necessary to deliver such to Sublandlord at the end of the Term in substantially the same condition as of the Sublease Commencement Date, reasonable wear and tear excepted. 2. Term. (a) The term of this Sublease (“Term”) shall commence on the Effective Date (also known as the “Sublease Commencement Date”) and shall continue thereafter for a period of five (5) years (“Sublease Expiration Date”), unless sooner terminated or cancelled in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Sublease. Unless sooner terminated or cancelled in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Sublease, the Sublease shall renew for a consecutive 5-year term on the same terms and conditions. (b) If for any reason the term of the Primary Lease is terminated prior to the Sublease Expiration Date, this Sublease shall terminate on the date of such termination and Sublandlord shall not be liable to Subtenant for such termination. (c) If any court declares or determines in a final, unappealable order that this Sublease violates the terms of the bonds which Salt Lake City obtained in connection with rehabilitating the Demised Premises, then this Sublease shall automatically terminate. 3. Permitted Use. Subtenant shall use and occupy the Subleased Premises solely in accordance with, and as permitted under, the terms of the Primary Lease and for no other purpose. Sublandlord and Subtenant shall, on a quarterly basis during the term of this Sublease, provide a report to Prime Landlord describing and detailing the activities undertaken between Sublandlord and Subtenant which further the mission and programming plan of Sublandlord. 4. Payment of Rent. (a) Throughout the Term of this Sublease, Subtenant shall pay to Sublandlord fixed base rent (“Base Rent”) at the rate five percent (5%) of the total gross revenues generated by Subtenant from the conduct of its business on the Subleased Premises. The sole and exclusive exception are “consignment sales,” which mean the sale of books and ephemera that are owned by someone other than Subtenant. Starting January 1, 2022, Base Rent shall be a minimum of $3,000 per month but not to exceed $10,000.00 per month for each month or part thereof during the Term. Each month during the Term and in conjunction with each monthly payment of Base Rent, Subtenant shall provide to Sublandlord a summary report of Subtenant’s total gross revenues for the prior month, together with Subtenant’s calculation of the Base Rent. Sublandlord shall have the right, not more than once a year and at Sublandlord’s cost and expense, to audit Subtenant’s books and records relating to Subtenant’s calculation of the monthly Base Rent. Subtenant shall pay to Sublandlord the first installment of Base Rent 3 (accruing from the Effective Date until the time of execution and delivery of this Sublease by Subtenant to Sublandlord) and shall pay all other installments of Base Rent monthly on or before the first day of each month during the Term for such month. Any payment of Base Rent that is not received by Sublandlord within five (5) days of the date due shall incur a late fee of 5% of the amount due. Any other monetary amounts owed by Subtenant hereunder are sometimes referred to as “Additional Rent”, which shall be paid by Subtenant to Sublandlord within thirty (30) days of written notice from Sublandlord. Base Rent and Additional Rent are sometimes referred to collectively as the “Rent”. (b) All Base Rent shall be due and payable without demand therefor unless otherwise designated by Sublandlord and without any deduction, offset, abatement, counterclaim, or defense. 5. Signage. Subtenant shall be permitted to display such signage on the Subleased Premises as is approved in advance by Sublandlord and is permitted by the Primary Lease, and all signage displayed by Subtenant shall be removed upon termination of this Sublease and any damage to the Property from the removal of such signage shall be restored by Subtenant. 6. Incorporation of Primary Lease by Reference. (a) Subtenant, with respect to its use of the Leased Premises, does hereby covenant and agreed to abide by Sections 4, 13, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27 through 38 of the Primary Lease as though Subtenant were the “tenant” named in the Primary Lease, and Sublandlord shall have the right to enforce such provisions of the Primary Lease against Subtenant as though Sublandlord were the “landlord” named in the Primary Lease. If any of the express provisions of this Sublease shall conflict with any of the provisions of the Primary Lease, the provisions of the Primary Lease shall govern. 7. Subordination to Primary Lease. This Sublease is subject and subordinate to the Primary Lease. 8. Representations of Sublandlord. Sublandlord represents and warrants the following is true and correct as of the date hereof: (a) Sublandlord is the tenant under the Primary Lease and has the capacity to enter into this Sublease with Subtenant, subject to Prime Landlord’s consent. (b) The Primary Lease provided to Subtenant is a true, correct, and complete copy of the Primary Lease, is in full force and effect, and has not been further modified, amended, or supplemented except as expressly set out herein. (c) Sublandlord has not received any notice, and has no actual knowledge, of any default by Sublandlord under the Primary Lease. 9. AS-IS Condition; Alterations. Subtenant accepts the Subleased Premises in its current, “as-is” condition. Sublandlord shall have no obligation to furnish or supply any work, services, furniture, fixtures, equipment, or decorations, except Sublandlord shall deliver the Subleased Premises in 4 broom clean condition. On or before the Sublease Expiration Date or earlier termination or expiration of this Sublease, Subtenant shall restore the Subleased Premises to the condition existing as of the Sublease Commencement Date, ordinary wear and tear excepted, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by Sublandlord and Prime Landlord. The obligations of Subtenant hereunder shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Sublease. Subtenant shall not make any material modifications or alterations to the Subleased Premises without Sublandlord’s consent, which may be withheld in Sublandlord’s sole discretion; provided, however, that Subtenant may make such alterations as described in Exhibit A following Sublandlord’s approval of the plans and specifications for such alterations. In the event that Sublandlord does provide consent to any modifications or alterations of the Subleased Premises, all such shall be made in accordance with all applicable governmental requirements, shall be of good quality and workmanship and shall not result in the lien or encumbrances of the Property. 10. Cleaning and Maintenance. Subtenant shall keep the Subleased Premises in a clean, commercially reasonable condition, and shall repair or replace all components of the Property to the extent damaged by Subtenant, its guests and invitees. Sublandlord shall provide janitorial services for the Subleased Premises, and except as provided in the previous sentence, shall keep and maintain the Property in good maintenance and repair. 11. Utilities. Sublandlord shall pay all utilities used by Subtenant in the conduct of its business in the Subleased Premises. If possible, Subtenant shall establish its own utility accounts. If not possible, Subtenant’s obligation for utility consumption shall be determined pro rata based on the square footage then in use. In no event shall Sublandlord be responsible for the failure of any third- party utility provider to provide utilities to the Property, including without limitation power outages or other temporary interruptions in service. 12. Taxes. Sublandlord shall pay all real property taxes relating to the Property, if any, and Subtenant shall not pay any proportionate share of such taxes. Subtenant shall pay and discharge when due all taxes relating to the conduct of Subtenant’s business on the Subleased Premises, including without limitation personal property taxes and sales taxes that may become due on Rent payable hereunder. 13. No Privity of Estate; No Privity of Contract. Nothing in this Sublease shall be construed to create privity of estate or privity of contract between Subtenant and Prime Landlord. 14. No Breach of Primary Lease. Subtenant shall not do or permit to be done any act or thing, or omit to do anything, which may constitute a breach or violation of any term, covenant, or condition of the Primary Lease, notwithstanding such act, thing, or omission is permitted under the terms of this Sublease. 15. Subtenant Defaults. If Subtenant fails to cure a default under this Sublease within any applicable grace or cure period contained in the Primary Lease, Sublandlord, after five (5) days’ notice to Subtenant, shall have the right, but not the obligation, to seek to remedy any such default on the behalf of, and at the expense of, Subtenant, provided, however, that in the case of: (i) a life safety or property related emergency; or (ii) a default which must be cured within a time frame set out in the Primary Lease which does not allow sufficient time for prior notice to be given to 5 Subtenant, Sublandlord may remedy any such default without being required first to give notice to Subtenant. Any reasonable cost and expense (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses) so incurred by Sublandlord shall be deemed Additional Rent and shall be due and payable by Subtenant to Sublandlord within thirty (30) days after notice from Sublandlord. 16. Consents. Whenever the consent or approval of Sublandlord is required, Subtenant shall also be obligated to obtain the written consent or approval of Prime Landlord, if required under the terms of the Primary Lease. Sublandlord shall promptly make such consent request on behalf of Subtenant and Subtenant shall promptly provide any information or documentation that Prime Landlord may request. 17. Prime Landlord Consent to Sublease. This Sublease is expressly conditioned on obtaining the written consent of Prime Landlord (collectively, “Prime Landlord Consent”). The parties acknowledge that the Prime Lender may only give consent after a public hearing and City Council approval. (a) If the Prime Landlord Consent is not obtained within thirty (30) days from the date of City Council approval, either party may terminate this Sublease on written notice to the other, whereupon Sublandlord shall promptly refund to Subtenant the Rent paid to Sublandlord, and neither party shall have any further obligation to the other under this Sublease, except to the extent that the provisions of this Sublease expressly survive the termination of this Sublease. (b) This Section 17 shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Sublease. 18. Assignment or Subletting. Subtenant shall not sublet all or any portion of the Subleased Premises or assign, encumber, mortgage, pledge, or otherwise transfer this Sublease (by operation of law or otherwise) or any interest therein, without the prior written consent of: (a) Sublandlord, which consent may be unreasonably withheld or may be withheld in its sole and absolute discretion; and (b) Prime Landlord. 19. Indemnity. Subtenant shall indemnify and hold harmless Sublandlord from any claims, liabilities, and damages that Sublandlord may sustain resulting from the conduct of Subtenant’s business on the Subleased Premises or a breach by Subtenant of this Sublease. Likewise, Sublandlord and shall indemnify and hold harmless Subtenant from any claims, liabilities, and damages that Subtenant may sustain resulting from the conduct of Sublandlord’s business on the Demised Premises or a breach by Sublandlord of this Sublease. 20. Release. Subtenant hereby releases Sublandlord or anyone claiming through or under Sublandlord by way of subrogation or otherwise. Subtenant hereby releases Prime Landlord or anyone claiming through or under Prime Landlord by way of subrogation or otherwise to the extent that Sublandlord releases Prime Landlord under the terms of the Primary Lease. Subtenant shall cause its insurance carriers to include any clauses or endorsements in favor of Sublandlord, Prime Landlord, and any additional parties, which Sublandlord is required to provide under the provisions of the Primary Lease. Likewise, Sublandlord hereby releases Subtenant or anyone claiming through or under Sublandlord by way of subrogation or otherwise. 6 21. Notices. All notices and other communications required or permitted under this Sublease shall be given in the same manner as in the Primary Lease. Notices shall be addressed to the addresses set forth above. 22. Brokers. Sublandlord and Subtenant each represent to the other that it has not dealt with any other broker in connection with this Sublease and the transactions contemplated hereby. Sublandlord and Subtenant each indemnify and hold harmless the other from and against all claims, liabilities, damages, costs, and expenses (including without limitation reasonable attorneys’ fees and other charges) arising out of any claim, demand, or proceeding for commissions, fees, reimbursement for expenses, or other compensation by any person or entity who shall claim to have dealt with the indemnifying party in connection with the Sublease other than Broker. This Section 22 shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Sublease. 23. Entire Agreement. This Sublease contains the entire agreement between the parties regarding the subject matter contained herein and all prior negotiations and agreements are merged herein. If any provisions of this Sublease are held to be invalid or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality, or enforceability of the remaining provisions of this Sublease shall remain unaffected. 24. Amendments and Modifications. This Sublease may not be modified or amended in any manner other than by a written agreement signed by the party to be charged. 25. Successors and Assigns. The covenants and agreements contained in this Sublease shall bind and inure to the benefit of Sublandlord and Subtenant and their respective permitted successors and assigns. 26. Counterparts. This Sublease may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be deemed an original for all purposes, and all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. A signed copy of this Sublease delivered by either facsimile or email shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an original signed copy of this Sublease. 27. Choice of Law. This Sublease shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Utah, without regard to conflict of law rules. [remainder of page left blank; signature page follows] 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Sublease to be executed as of the Effective Date. SUBLANDLORD: The Leonardo, a Utah non-profit corporation By____________________________ Name: Title: SUBTENANT: Dream Garden Press, Inc., a Utah corporation, doing business as Ken Sanders Rare Books By___________________________ Name: Title: 8 Exhibit A Subleased Premises Description: Subleased Premises to consist of the following portions of the Property, to be occupied by Subtenant at the time agreeable to Sublandlord: Phase 1: Build-out of the west side of the main floor space. Approximately 1,600 square feet north of the existing gift shop, including bathrooms and emergency exit door. Phase 2: Approximately 837 square feet of proposed gallery space between the escalators at the back of the elevator walls, contiguous to the Phase 1 property. Includes small space behind escalators with connecting passage to the gift shop, and also includes KSRB storage under the escalators. Phase 3: Approximately 3,000 square feet of space in the sub-basement, currently known as “the KIVA”, including the two offices and the mezzanine space above, all located on the basement level. Phase 4: Approximately 4,000 square feet of the sub-basement to be walled off from the rest of the library at Subtenant’s cost and expense and in the manner approved by Sublandlord and to be used for KSRB Used Book Dept. Phase 5: Approximately 2,000 square feet of the sub-basement to be walled off from the rest of the library at Subtenant’s cost and expense and in the manner approved by Sublandlord and to be used for KSRB Storage. RECORDED JUN 2 4 2009 LEASE AGREEMENT rlTV RECORDER BETWEENSALTLAKECITYCORPORATIONJMiD'n . THE LIBRARY SQUARE FOUNDATION FOR ART,CULTURE AND SCIENCE SALT LAKE CITY LIBRARY BUILDING 209 EAST 500 SOUTH THIS LEASE AGREEMENT (the "Agreement"or "Lease"),dated as of Itme_,2009 (the "Effective Date"),is entered into by and between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION,a Utah municipal corporation (the "City"),and THE LIBRARY SQUARE FOUNDATION FOR ART,CULTURE AND SCIENCE,a Utah nonprofit corporation ("The Leonardo"). RECITALS: A.The City has constructed a new public library and parking facility (the "New Library"),and owns the old main library building (the "Building")located at 209 East 500 South,Salt Lake City,Utah 84111. B.The Leonardo desires to lease the Building from the City,and the City has found that The Leonardo's proposed use of the premises within the Building will benefit the conmlUnity by serving the cultural,educational,and aesthetic needs of the community,by contributing to the revitalization of downtown Salt Lake City,and by attracting visitors to the area as part of a civic center. C.The Leonardo has been fonned to utilize the Building in achieving its mission of exploring and connecting art,culture,and science in imaginative ways to eruich peoples'lives, expand consciousness,and enhance the community ("The Leonardo's Mission"). D.On November 4,2003,the Salt Lalce City voters approved the issuance by the City of up to $10,200,000 of general obligation bonds to renovate,improve,and preserve the Building for the purpose of housing a science,culture,art,and education center,Imown as "The Leonardo at Library Square."The issuance of the general obligation bonds,however,was contingent upon The Leonardo first raising an equal sum of money to be used for exhibits,progranls and activities to be conducted within the Building. E.As certified by the City'S Chief Financial Officer,The Leonardo has met its obligation to raise the $10,200,000 in matching funds. F.The City is now in a position to issue $10,200,000 of general obligation bonds and to use the sale proceeds thereof to allow the Building renovation to begin. G.In addition to the general obligation bonds to be issued by the City,as of the date of this Agreement,additional funding sources and grants have been made available for the completion ofthe renovation of the Building. AGREEMENT: The City and The Leonardo,for good and valuable consideration receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,hereby agree as follows: 1.LEASE OF BUILDING:The City hereby leases to The Leonardo,and The Leonardo hereby leases from the City,the Building and property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein,and as depicted in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Premises"),subject to the tenns and conditions of this Agreement.The Building shall be used by The Leonardo and,for limited purposes as set forth in Section 4 below,the City as more particularly set forth herein.The City also grants to The Leonardo,its tenants and licensees,and their employees,guests,and invitees,a non-exclusive license to enter upon and use the exterior walkways and sidewalks to and from the Building and the parking lot owned or operated by the City located on the city block between 400 South and 500 South and between 200 East and 300 East. Furthemlore,and without limiting the foregoing,the City hereby grants The Leonardo the right to the non-exclusive use of the sidewalk and driveway area depicted on Exhibit B as the "Shared Use Driveway."The parties agree that The Leonardo shall have the right to use such Shared Use Driveway for the purposes of loading (and unloading)exhibits and other property to and from the Building,Building construction and maintenance access,access by patrons .to the Building,and other related purposes.In this regard,the parties acknowledge that The Leonardo cunently anticipates that the north entrance to the Building will be the main entrance to the Building for The Leonardo's patrons and guests.The Leonardo shall be issued a keyes)for any chain or other gate installed along the Shared Use Dliveway from time to time.The Leonardo's coordination of the use of the Shared Use Driveway for delivery,pickup,and/or other designated uses (other than patron access)shall be through the City's appointed employee responsible for scheduling events at the Library Square.The City agrees that it shall not pemlit any exhibits, booths,or other displays to be located at any time within either the Shared Use Driveway or the sidewalk area adjacent to and directly to the north of the Shared Use Driveway (which cunently consists of concrete pavers),including but not limited to during any festival,show,or other special event OCCUlTing on or around Library Square. 2.TERM: 2.1 Initial Occupancy Tenn.The initial tenn of this Lease shall be twenty (20)years (the "Initial Occupancy Teml"),begilming upon "Substantial Completion"of the "Improvements"(as such tenns are defined in Section 6 of this Agreement)(the "Commencement Date").Upon Substantial Completion of the Improvements,the City and The Leonardo shall sign a written acknowledgement confimling the Commencement Date,as well as the condition as of the Commencement Date of (a)the Building and (b)the altwork referred to in Section 21.9 below.Once signed,such acknowledgment shall be attached hereto and incorporated herein as part of this Agreement.Notwithstanding the foregoing,in the event that the City is unable to sell the general obligation bonds referenced in the Recitals above on or before October 1,2009,notwitllstanding the City's use of its best efforts to do so,then either party may tenninate this Lease following such date alld prior to the time that such bonds are sold, 2 by giving written notice to the other party,whereupon this Lease shall be tenninated,and in such event,both parties shall be released from their respective obligations hereunder. 2.2 Pre-Occupancy Period.The period of time between the Effective Date of this Lease and the Commencement Date shall be referred to herein as the "Pre-Occupancy Period."During the Pre-Occupancy Period,the Building will be renovated and improved,as more fully set f011h in Section 6 below. 2.3 Extended Occupancy Tenns.The Initial Occupancy Term may be extended by The Leonardo,with the written consent of the City (which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld)for three (3)additional periods of ten (10)years (each,an "Extended Term")on the ternlS and conditions as provided in this Lease,unless The Leonardo provides the City with a written notice terminating this Agreement at least sixty (60)days prior to the expiration of the Initial Occupancy Term or then existing Extended Ternl,as applicable; provided,however,that The Leonardo's foregoing right to extend the Initial Occupancy Ternl (or Extended Ternl,as applicable),shall be null and void if The Leonardo fails to cure a substantial and material default of this Agreement and the applicable cure period has expired after receipt of written notice of such default as provided herein.The Pre-Occupancy Period,the Initial Occupancy Ternl,and any subsequent Extended Tenn(s)shall collectively be referred to herein as the "Ternl." At least one (I)year prior to the expiration of the Initial Occupancy Ternl or any Extended Ternl(s),the Parties shall consult with each other regarding the advisability of extending the then applicable Tenn of this Agreement,and whether any modifications or amendments to this Agreement (including a discussion of Base Rent,taking into account the then CUlTent conditions)are necessary in cormection with such extension.In this regard,and for pUlposes of deternlining whether to consent to the extension of the then-cunent ternl of this Agreement,the City shall consider,among other interests relating to the public good and welfare,whether The Leonardo is actively pursuing the fulfillment of The Leonardo's Mission, The Leonardo's reasonable expectations (evidenced in among other ways,by The Leonardo's fundraising and programming activities during the then cunent ternl0f this Agreement)relating to its continued use and enjoyment of the Premises for an additional Extended Tenn(s),and whether the City has an imminent need for an alternative use of the Building which serves a greater public interest than the public interest served by The Leonardo. 2.4 Further Extension of Tenn.If The Leonardo desires to continue to occupy the Building at the conclusion of the Tenn,the City shall discuss in good faith the possible further extension of the Teml or the entering into of a new lease with The Leonardo consistent with this Agreement.The City hereby agrees to consult with The Leonardo regarding The Leonardo's continued use of the Building after the expiration of the Term and prior to soliciting or accepting any offers from any third parties regarding the Building or any part thereof,and agrees to provide an opportunity for The Leonardo to present an offer to the City regarding the continuation of The Leonardo's use of the Building on tenns consistent with this Agreement. Except as provided in the immediately preceding sentence,The Leonardo shall vacate the Building at the end of the Tenn and the City shall not be obligated to pay The Leonardo anything with respect to The Leonardo's investment in the Building. 3 3.RENT:As consideration for this Agreement and the right to use the Building throughout the Tenn,The Leonardo shall pay to the City the sum of TWELVE DOLLARS ($12.00)per year ("Base Rent").The first installment of Base Rent shall be paid in advance on or before the Commencement Date and shall be paid for the remainder of the initial calendar year in which the Initial Occupancy Ternl commences,prorated to the nearest month.Except for the first payment of Base Rent,all installments of Base Rent shall be due and payable in advance for one year on the first day of each calendar year during the Tern1.The Leonardo may pay any and all installments of Base Rent for the Tenn in advance,without penalty.All installments of Base Rent shall be made payable to Salt Lake City Corporation,and sent to its City Treasurer,451 South State Street Room 225,Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 or at such other location as may be designated by the City to The Leonardo in writing. 4.USE OF PREMISES: 4.1.Use of Premises.As consideration for this Agreement and the right to use the Building,The Leonardo shall establish exhibits and operate programs and activities within the Building consistent with and in furtherance of The Leonardo's Mission,and subject to Sections 4.2 and 20 below,The Leonardo shall have the right to exclusively use the Premises for its operations as a science,culture,and art education center,and the operations of its tenants and licensees,so long as such uses are consistent with The Leonardo's Mission.The Leonardo,its patrons,invitees,agents and employees,and tenants (if any),shall.have the unrestricted right to enter and leave the Premises at all times consistent with the nonnal operational hours of The Leonardo.The Leonardo shall not use the Premises for any purpose other than that stated above. The Leonardo shall not use the roof of the Building for The Leonardo's Mission or put items on the roof without the prior consent of the City,which consent shall not he unreasonably withheld. To the extent that any portion of the Building is placed on a state or federal historical register, The Leonardo shall not damage,alter,remove,or replace such registered property or items in violation of applicable laws governing historic sites.In addition,the parties consider the following items to be of historic interest and value and therefore not to be damaged,altered, removed,or replaced by The Leonardo without the consent of the City:leaf lights;escalator; wood paneling;artwork;exterior concrete panels;and exterior glass curtain walls.If the City desires to add additional items to that list,it must first notify and discuss such additions with The LeonaTdo,but the City shall have authority to make the ultimate decision regarding any such additions.However,if The Leonardo presents,with respect to the second floor leaflights,a plan for non-permanent removal and replacement of such lights,the City will evaluate that plan and not unreasonably withhold its consent to that plan. 4.2.Additional City Use of Building and Premises.The City,with reasonable advance notice and with due consideration for The Leonardo's programming and administrative schedule,may have limited access to and use of the Premises for meetings,receptions,and other activities in a way that is compatible with The Leonardo's Mission.Although the City's use of the Premises for this limited purpose shall be on a rent-free basis,the City will be responsible for the associated costs of any event it sponsors or manages in the Premises.The.City will use its best efforts to avoid scheduling events for the Premises at times or for events which will conflict with The Leonardo's exhibits or events.In the event that the City uses the Building or the 4 Premises at a time or in a way that requires The Leonardo to close an exhibit during The Leonardo's ordinary hours of operation,the City shall reimburse The Leonardo Jor The Leonardo's lost revenues resulting from such closure.Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 4.2,the City shall not have the right to use (or license.to third parties the .use of) the sidewalks or landscaped areas comprising a portion of the Premises (as depictyd in Exhibit ~)for art festival displays or other outdoor exhibits,booths,tents,or galleries. 5.SIGNAGE:The Leonardo shall be pem1itted to install both pem1anent and temporary signage on the Building and Premises,provided that such signage (i)satisfies the requirements of the Salt Lake City Code,and (ii)confonns to a sign fastening system(s) acceptable to the City that does not compromise or damage the Building's exterior panels and surface (the "Sign Fastening System").The Sign Fastening Systems(s)must be agreed upon by The Leonardo and the City (including but not limited to the City's Engineering and Facilities divisions)prior to the Commencement Date,and any amendments or modifications to such system must be mutually agreed upon by the City and The Leonardo.Furthem1ore,the Parties anticipate that The Leonardo may be pem1itted to place temporary signage on the exterior of the Building during the initial renovations to the Building,consistent with the Salt Lake City Code and to the extent that such signage does not interfere with the construction and renovation project,subject to the prior approval of the City.The Leonardo shall be responsible to repair any damage done to the exterior of the Building by itself or its employees or agents in cOlmection with such signage. 6.DESIGN,RENOVATION,AND IMPROVEMENTS TO BUILDING:The Building shall be renovated and refurbished by the City,in cooperation with The Leonardo,in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement,and for the purpose of housing a science,culture,art,and education center to be known as "The Leonardo at Library Square." The improvements to be perfonned with respect to the Building (the "hnprovements")are more particularly identified in the current project scope and cost estimate attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C.The parties acknowledge that the Improvement costs shall be financed through the issuance of the general obligation bonds referred to in Recital D above,and that additional funding sources and grants have been made available for the completion of the renovation of the Building. The City shall be solely responsible for design and construction management of the Building,but the City and The Leonardo shall work together in good faith to agree upon a design for the Building that meets the City's building renovation objectives,supports the basic programming objectives of The Leonardo as a science,culture,art,and education center,and meets a reasonable construction timeline (the "Design and Construction Objectives").To this end,the City and The Leonardo agree that they shall jointly fonn a design and construction management oversight team (the "Design Team")of five (5)members,with three (3)members being appointed by the City and with two (2)members being appointed by The Leonardo (the "Leonardo Representatives").The Design Team will actively participate and be primarily responsible for the oversight of the design and construction management process relating to the Improvements,including but not limited to,reviewing and approving (a)conceptual plans,(b) constl'llction drawings,plans,and specifications,(c)construction scheduling and progress,(d), construction budgets,and (e)other related issues relating to the .successful completion of all of 5 the Improvements,and changes and amendments to the aforementioned items.Notwithstanding the foregoing,(a)the members of the Design Team appointed by the City shall be primarily responsible to make decisions relating to asbestos removal and seismic upgrades,and (b) particular consideration shall be given to the Leonardo Representatives'input and concerns relating to design issues that impact museum operations.In a good faith effort to maintain transparency and the efficient flow of infonnation between the Parties,the City and The Leonardo shall promptly and in good faith report and convey infonnation relating to the Improvements to the Design Teanl,and the City-retained architect,engineer,and contractor shall be required to provide the Design Team with regular updates.In making decisions relating to the Improvements,including but not limited to decisions relating to cost overruns and any amendments to the scope of the Improvements,the Design Team shall attempt to give due consideration to each of the Design and Construction Objectives. The Inlprovements,which shall be designed by an architect and perfonned by a contractor selected and engaged by the City,shall be designed,constructed,and otherwise perfonned and completed in compliance with any and all building codes applicable to said Improvements.All work perfonned shall be done ina·good and worlmlanlike manner. Furthernlore,the architectural design and construction shall comply with the requirements to receive LEED CI Silver certification awarded by the United States Green Building Council ("USGBC").The City shall direct the architect and contractor to prepare and file the request for LEED CI Silver certification,and all costs associated with the initial certification shall be paid out of the construction budget for the Improvements.The City shall provide notice to The Leonardo upon receipt of the LEED CI Silver certification.Within one (1)year following receipt of the City's LEED CI Silver certification,The Leonardo shall apply for LEED EB Silver certification,and shall be responsible for the costs associated with such certification.The Leonardo shall also be responsible to recertify with the USGBC from time to time,as required by the USGBC,to maintain the LEED EB Silver certification in good standing.The Leonardo shall provide proof of the certification and recertification to the City's Facilities Services Manager. It is cun·ently anticipated that the Inlprovements shall be Substantially Complete (as defined below)on or before the cunently estimated substantial completion date of November 1, 2010,but neither the validity of this Lease nor the obligations of either party under this Lease shall be affected by a failure to Substantially Complete the Improvements by such date.For pUllJoses of this Lease,"Substantial Completion"of the hnprovements shall be deemed to have occurred as soon as all of the Improvements have been constructed,a final certificate of occupancy has been issued for tbe Building,tbe Premises are in a "broom clean"condition (e.g., reasonably free of construction dust and debris resulting fi·om the installation of the Improvements),and are otherwise ready to be utilized for the use of the Premises pennitted by this Lease. After The Leonardo occupies the Premises all material damages that may occur during the ternl of this Agreement shall be promptly reported to the City's Facilities Services Division Manager.All pennanent alterations made by The Leonardo to the structure,pernlanent walls, controls,BYAC,fire protection,elevators,and plumbing,electrical and lighting of the Premises shall be detailed in writing and approved in advance (which approval shall not be wrreasonably 6 withheld),and shall not proceed without written approval of the City's Facilities Division Manager or other designee. 7.DEPOSIT:The Leonardo shall not be required to pay a monetary deposit associated with this Agreement.In lieu of a monetary deposit,The Leonardo accepts the Building "AS IS"as of the Commencement Date. 8.ALTERATIONS OF BUILDING AND INSTALLATION OF FIXTURES AND OTHER APPURTENANCES:The Leonardo may,at The Leonardo's .sole cost and expense in a good and workmanlike maimer,make such alterations and repairs to the.Premises following the Commencement Date as The Leonardo may reasonably require in connection with its operation of the Building,including but not limited to,the installation of exhibits or other progranIming improvements,provided that The Leonardo does not (without first obtaining the consent of the City)materially alter the basic character of the Building,weaken any structure on the Premises,or materially and pemIanently alter the HVAC,plumbing,electrical systems, utilities systems,roof systems,exterior wall systems,or elevator or escalator systems.The Leonardo shall also have the right to erect and install,at The Leonardo's sole cost and expense, temporary partitions,including exhibit partitions,and .other trade equipment and wiring, electrical fixtures,additionallights and wiring and other trade appliances as may be reasonably necessary to facilitate the handling of The Leonardo's operations.Any alterations or improvements to the Premises (excluding The Leonardo's personal property and trade fixtures and equipment),not removed by The Leonardo on or before the expiration or earliertermination of this Agreement (or a reasonable time thereafter),at the option of the City,shall become the property of the City.If the City elects not to take ownership of such property,The Leonardo shall remove such property.If The Leonardo fails to remove such property,the City may do so and bill The Leonardo for the expenses of such removal.In the event that The Leonardo removes any such trade equipment,fixtures,or other improvements made by The Leonardo pursuant to this Section,The Leonardo shall remove said equipment,fixtures and other improvements in a good worlG1lanlike maimer,and all damage done to the Premises by such removal shall be repaired at The Leonardo's sole cost and expense.The Leonardo shall restore the Premises to the condition as existed on the COimnencement Date,reasonable wear and tear excepted. 9.CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE: 9.1.The Leonardo's Maintenance Obligations.As consideration for this Agreement,commencing on the Conmlencement Date and continuing throughout the Tenn,The Leonardo,at its sole cost and expense,shall keep and maintain the Building and all pailS thereof, in good and clean condition alld repair and in accordance with LEED EB guidelines,and shall provide for the regular janitorial upkeep in accord alICe with the City's green cleaning standard and as required for LEEDEB operations and cellification described below,exterior grounds and landscaping services (including lawn,plantings,tree,and shrubbery care,irrigation,snow and ice removal and other seasonal services,and debris clean up that will keep the Premises in a neat, orderly,and aesthetically pleasing way),alld trash removal for the Premises.In addition to the foregoing,The Leonardo's responsibility includes the regular maintenance alld upkeep of electJical,plumbing,elevator,escalator,and mechanical systems exclusively servicing the 7 Premises,such maintenance and upkeep to be done according to National Fire Protection Association,National Electrical Code (NEC)70B,National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 72 and 75,and ANSI-ASHRE-ACCA standard 180-2008.The elevator and escalators in the Building are to be maintained by a State of Utah licensed elevator and escalator company and must receive annual inspection and recertification per applicable codes.Further,The Leonardo shall keep the sidewalks within the Premises reasonably free from ice and snow.The Leonardo shall also be responsible for all security and surveillance services to be provided on the Premises. The Building card access system shall be maintained by The Leonardo and disconnected from the City intranet once The Leonardo occupies the Premises.Upon termination of this Agreement, The Leonardo shall,at its sole expense,restore the Building card access system back to the City network.The Leonardo shall also take reasonable measures to assure that the artwork on the Premises,including the items mentioned in Section 21.9,are not damaged beyond the condition they are in as of the Commencement Date,as agreed by both parties on the Commencement Date pursuant to Section 2.1 above.The Leonardo shall not move any such artwork without the prior consent of the City. If The Leonardo fails to perfonn maintenance or repair of any portion of the Premises as required by this Section 9.1 within thirty (30)days after receipt of a written notice from the City (except in the event of an emergency situation,in which case no notice shall be required),and thereafter fails to diligently perform such maintenance or repair to completion,the City may,at its discretion,perfoml such maintenance or repair on behalf of The Leonardo upon written notice to The Leonardo.The Leonardo shall reimburse to the City the reasonable cost to perform such maintenance Of repair within thirty (30)days after receipt of notice from the City setting forth in reasonable detail such costs and the items to which they relate. 9.2.The City's Maintenance Obligations.Prior to the Commencement Date, the City,at its sole cost and expense,shall be responsible for all maintenance and cleaning of the Premises.At all times prior to and following the Commencement Date,the City shall be responsible to keep alld maintain in good condition,at its sole cost and expense and without reimbursement or contribution by The Leonardo,and repair and replace,if necessary,the foundations,stmctural systems (both interior and exterior)including,without limitation,the roof, roof membrane,roof drains,roof covering (including interior ceiling if damaged by leakage), load-bearing walls,columns,lintels,beams,footings,floor slabs,masonry walls,and sidewalks immediately adjacent to the Building (other than snow and ice removal)and constituting part of the Premises.Furthennore,the City shall be responsible,at its sole cost and expense,to replace, if necessary,all electrical (inclUding the photovoltaic system located on the roof of the Building), plumbing,and mechanical systems servicing the Premises (excluding ally such system(s) installed by The Leonardo in accordance with Section 8 above),and the upgrade of any such systems,provided that such upgrades are not required as a result of expansion of The Leonardo's use of the Building.Notwithstanding the foregoing,The Leonardo shall be entirely responsible for any cost or expense caused by the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of The Leonardo or any of The Leonardo's employee's,contractors,invitees,agents,guests or patrons relating to any Building system or other improvement. If the City fails to perfonn maintenance,repair,alld/or replacement of any portion of the Premises as required by this Section 9.2 within thirty (30)days after receipt of a written notice 8 from The Leonardo (except in the event of an emergency situation,in which case no notice shall be required),and thereafter fails to diligently perfornl such maintenance,repair,or replacement to completion,The Leonardo may,at its discretion,perform such maintenance,repair,or replacement on behalf of the City upon written notice to the City..The City shall reimburse to The Leonardo the reasonable cost to perfornl such maintenance,repair,or replacement within thirty (30)days after receipt of notice from The Leonardo setting forth in reasonable detail such costs and the items to which they relate. 10.UTILITIES:The City shall provide utility service to the Building.The City represents,and The Leonardo aclmowledges,that the heat to the Building is generated by steam supplied by a boiler plant operated by the City (the "Boiler Plant")and that the Building is not serviced by any natural gas or furnaces,and that the cooling of the Building is provided by chillers located within the Boiler Plant.As of the date of this Agreement,a meter is in place that will measure and assign to the Building the amount of natural gas consumed in the Boiler Plant to heat the Building.In addition,the electrical service to the Building is initially provided to the Boiler Plant by PacifiCorp,and then runs from the Boiler Plant to the Building and is metered by an electrical sub-meter on the Building.Domestic water and sanitary sewer service is provided directly to the Building.The City shall maintain the facilities through which the various utilities are provided to the Building.At the commencement of tlle Initial Occupancy Term,any telephone service or internet service to the Building shall be contracted directly by The Leonardo and paid by The Leonardo directly to the telephone provider. 11.PAYMENT OF OPERATION,MAINTENANCE AND UTILITY COSTS: 11.1.Payment of Utilities and Operation and Maintenance Costs.Subject to the terms and conditions of this Section II,commencing at the beginning of the Initial Occupancy Ternl and continuing throughout the Term of this Lease,The Leonardo shall pay to the City,as "Building Operating Costs,"the following costs:(a)the costs of utility service to the Building, and (b)as further set forth in this Section II,the costs associated with the operation oftlle Boiler Plant that are allocated to the Building,so long as such costs are reasonably supported by the City.The Leonardo shall pay the Building Operating Costs identified in an invoice from the City within fifteen (15)days after receipt of such invoice.Except as set forth in the previous sentence,the costs of utility service to the Building and the costs associated with the operation of the Boiler Plant shall be calculated as follows: 11.1.1 Natural Gas.The costs for natural gas allocated to the Building shall be based upon the monthly gas bill received from Questar Gas Company,or its successor gas provider,and then allocated to the Building by a separate BTU sub meter.The allocation of gas cost shall be calculated by the ratio of BTU's used by the Premises divided by the total BTU's for all buildings served of the central gas meter and lUultiplying the ratio to the total cost of gas as provided by the monthly Questar gas bill,resulting in a reasonable cost allocation for the Premises.The City shall prepare a separate monthly billing and shall send it to The Leonardo. 11.1.2 Electricitv.The costs for a kilowatt hour (KWH)and a kilowatt demand (KWD)will be based off of the sub-meter on the main electrical switchgear supplying 9 the Building.Such sub-meter shall measure the electrical consmnption for the Building.The cost of electricity for the Building shall be based upon the cost of KWH and l(WD measured by the sub_meter for the Building.The cost per KWH shall be detemlined based upon the current month's unit cost as calculated from the bill sent by PacifiCorp to the City for the electricity provided to the central electrical meter in the Boiler Plant. 11.1.3 Domestic Water.The cost of domestic water shall be based upon the amount of water consumed associated with the Building as measured by a separate water meter for the Building. 11.1.4 Boiler Plant Operating Costs.As of the date of this Agreement, the City's accounting system separates and collects costs associated with the operation of the Boiler Plant in a specific costs center.The costs included on this account include the costs associated with the operation of the Boiler Plant and the materials (such as pumps,motors, grease,lights,fan belts,etc.)necessary to keep the boiler plant in optimum rmming order.The costs to operate the Boiler Plant (including labor and materials)shall be allocated to the Building based on a ratio,the numerator is the Building's total BTDs for gas and electricity,and the denominator is the total BTDs for gas and electricity for all buildings served by the Boiler Plant, which buildings shall inclUde,at a minimum,the Building,the City and County Building,and the New Library. 11.1.5 Boiler Plant Utilitv Costs.As of the date of this Agreement,there are electrical,natural gas,and water costs associated with operation of the Boiler Plant that are not directly metered or allocated to the Building or other buildings and facilities serviced by the Boiler Plant.The Boiler plant utility costs shall be allocated to each of the buildings served by the central gas and electricity meters based on the ratios calculated in section 11.1.1 for gas and in 11.1.2 for electricity.The amount of natural gas used in the Boiler Plant shall be deemed to be the total natural gas consumption measured by the natural gas meter to the Boiler Plant less the natural gas consumption sub-meter to the Building and any and all other buildings and facilities serviced by the Boiler Plant,which buildings shall include,at a minimum,the Building,the City and County Building,and the New Library.A water meter shall separately meter the water used by the Boiler Plant and shall be allocated to each of the buildings served by the Boiler Plant (which buildings shall include,at a minimum,the Building,the City and County Building,and the New Library) based on the combined ratios for the respective building electricity and gas usage .. 11.2.Excluded Costs.The Building Operating Costs shall not include,and The Leonardo shall not be obligated to pay for the costs associated with:(i)any costs associated with the installation or construction of improvements associated with the Locker Room and the City'S use thereof;(ii)any damage to the Building caused by the City's negligent or intentional acts or omissions;(iii)the repair or restoration of any portion of the Building caused by any damage or destruction that should be covered by the insurance required to be maintained by Section 21.4; and (iv)any cost associated with any other building owned or operated by the City or with the Main Library and its grounds and exterior features,unless The Leonardo has use of such building. 10 11.3.No Additional Financial Support by the City.Other than by providing the Building at the specified rent,tlle City shall have no obligation to provide additional financial support to The Leonardo or to the operation or use of the Building or to programming during the Term of this Agreement beyond that already committed by the City,as set forth in Recital G above.The foregoing shall not limit the City's obligations under this Agreement,including without limitation those obligations relating to capital improvements,the provision of heating mld cooling,and other similar obligations. 12.TAXES,LICENSES·AND PERMITS:The Parties aclmowledge that the Internal Revenue Service classifies The Leonardo as a SOI(c)(3)corporation,and the City is a municipal corporation.As a result,neither party is a taxable entity.If either Pmiy allows a use within the Building that subjects the Building to any real estate taxes or assessments orallY other taxes or assessments,such Party shall be responsible for the taxes alld assessments arising from such use.Each Party shall pay any sales taxes and other taxes that are applicable due to such Party's use and operation within the Building.Throughout the entire Tenn hereof,each Party shall pay directly to the appropriate taxing authority when due all taxes,assessments,fees,and charges levied on such Party's personal property,including,but not limited to,equipment, fixtures,furnishings,alld other personal property owned by such Party within the Building. Notwithstallding anything herein to the contrary,The Leonardo shall be responsible for paying any privilege taxes imposed on or with respect to the Building. Either Party,at its sole cost and expense,may contest any taxes or assessments affecting the Building,and the other Party agrees to reasonably cooperate in any such contest,including the execution of mlY necessary documents.Any refunds and rebates of taxes or assessments obtained through a contest shall be applied as follows:(a)first,to the costs incurred in contesting such taxes and assessments,(b)second,to the Party responsible to pay such taxes pursuant to the tenus and conditions of this Agreement. 13.RESPONSIBILITY FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY:Neither Party shall be responsible for ally dmuage,loss,haml,injury,vandalism,theft,or pilferage whatsoever of or to any fiImiture,artwork,furnishings,equipment,or other personal property owned by the other Party or its tenants,licensee's,guests,or invitees.Any pers0l1al property placed within the Building shall be placed therein at the sole risk and hazard of the owner of such personal property.Each Party shall be responsible to maintain adequate insurance covering its own personal property.Each Party shall require any tenant or licensee to agree to the ternlS and conditions of this Section 13 and to maintain adequate insurance for such party's personal property that may be located within the Building. 14.PARKING:The Leonardo shall have the right to priority and exclusive use of nine (9)parking spaces in the U1lderground parking facility located beneath Library Square,with three (3)of such spaces to be located adjacent to the underground dock area of the Building for periodic exhibit delivery,and the remaining six (6)spaces to be located on the northeast comer of Levell of the parking facility (for the purpose of parking a trailer (a.lea."The Leonardo on Wheels")in such stalls).An additional two (2)parking spaces at the southwest comer of Level 1 shall be granted to The Leonardo for the purpose of a dunlpster.Furthenuore,The Leonardo shall have the right to request from the City at any time during the Tenu hereof,the non- 11 exclusive use of up to an additional thirty (30)unreserved spaces in the underground parking facility (at no additional cost to The Leonardo),to accommodate and satisfy the parking needs .of The Leonardo's management and staff.Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the ability of The Leonardo's invitees,patrons,and guests from parking (in common with the public)in any other City owned parking areas surrounding the Building,subject to and consistent with the City's rules and regulations regarding such parking areas then in effect.Any special event usage of parking must comply with City policy and requires the prior consent of the City. Notwithstanding the foregoing,ifthe City alters or changes its policy on how it will manage and finance the underground parking facility,including the charging of fees for employee use,such policy change will immediately apply to use of the parking spaces granted to the Leonardo,except for the two (2)parking stalks for the dumpster and the three (3)parking stalls adjacent to the loading dock that are not used for employee parking.However,the application to the parking spaces granted to The Leonardo of any such policy change shall not be done in such a ma1111er as to treat employees of The Leonardo less favorably than City employees are treated. 15.SURRENDER OF THE BUILDING:Upon the expiration or earlier tennination of this Agreement,The Leonardo shall surrender the Building in.good,broom clean condition,ordinary wear and tear excepted.Upon such ternlination,The Leonardo at its .sole expense shall remove all of its personal property from the Building,restore and repair any damage sustained to the Building resulting from removal of such personal property,and shall leave the City's personal property intact.It is agreed and understood by both Parties that existing heating,ventilation and air conditioning ("HVAC")equipment,electrica~plumbing,and lighting equipment attached to the Building is part of the Building and shall remain the City's property at the expiration or earlier termination ofthis Agreement,and shall not be removed from the Building,unless otherwise agreed upon by the Parties hereto in writing.The Leonardo shall sUITender all keys to the Building to City upon vacating the Building. 16.QUIET POSSESSION:The City represents and warrants that it has.good and marketable title to the Premises (including but not limited to tlle Building),and that the Premises is free and clear of any encumbrances.So long as The Leonardo confonns to the requirements of this Agreement,The Leonardo shall quietly and peacefully enjoy the Premises,and the City shall defend The Leonardo in such enjoyment and peaceful possession throughout the Initial Occupancy Ternl and any Extended Tenn(s)of this Agreement. 17.WAIVER:The waiving of any of the covenants or provisions of this Agreement by either Party shall be in writing and limited to the particular instance and shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other breaches of such covenant or any provision hereof. 18.FORCE MAJUERE:Any failure on the part of either Party to perform any obligation hereunder,and any delay in doing any act required hereby,shall be excused if such failure or delay is caused by any strike,labor dispute,lockout,governmental restriction,fire or other casualty,weatller or natural disaster,damage to facilities (not caused by such Party), conduct by third parties,or any similar cause beyond the reasonable control of the Party failing 12 to perform,to the extent and for the period that such cause continues,save and except that the provisions of this Section shall not excuse any nonpayment when due of money hereunder. 19.ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING:The Leonardo may sublease space within the Building only with the written consent of the City,which shall not be unreasonably withheld,conditioned,or delayed.Any such sublease must have a direct relationship to The Leonardo's Mission and programming plan.No sublease agreements shall be in conflict with this Agreement.Subject to the above,this Agreement and the rights and obligations of the Parties hereunder shall not be assigned to any other person or entity without the other Party's prior written consent. 20.LOCKER/SHOWER ROOM:The City,as part of thelmprovements,shall construct a locker room with lockers and showers consisting of approximately 1,100 square feet on the first floor below the Main Floor as shown on the Floor Plans (the "Locker Room").The Locker Room may be used by employees of The Leonardo and The Leonardo's tenants,if any, and by the City's employees whose offices are in the City and County Building,the building occupied by the City at 600 South 200 East,the building occupied by the City known as Plaza 349,the Justice Court Building occupied by the City at 333 South 200 East, and any other building located within two blocks of the Building (the "Locker Room Authorized Users")..The Locker Room shall be accessible for use by the Locker Room Authorized Users pursuant to a separate,undergrOlllldentrance.The Leonardo and the City shall jointly manage the use of the Locker Room so that the Locker Room may be equally used and enjoyed by the Locker Room Authorized Users.The Leonardo and the City may establish reasonable rules and regulations relating to the use of the Locker Room,which rules must be mutually approved by the Parties. Furthennore,the City shall be responsible for the maintenance and janitorial upkeep of the Locker Room,and The Leonardo shall be responsible to pay all water and other utility costs associated with the operation and use of the Locker Room.Under no condition shall the .use of the Locker Room create a burden upon,interfere with,or hinder the use of the Building by The Leonardo,nor shall The Leonardo unreasonably deny access to the locker room to any City employee.As part of the construction project,the City shall ensure that the Locker Room is properly secured. 21.INSURANCE: 21.1.General.Any insurance coverage required of The Leonardo herein that is written on a "claims made"form rather than on an "occurrence"foml shall (i)provide full prior acts coverage or have a retroactive date effective before the date of this Agreement,and (ii)be mailltained for a period of at least three (3)years following the end of the temlofthis Agreement or contain a comparable "extended discovery"clause.Evidence of current extended discovery coverage and the purchase options available upon policy tennination shall be provided to the City.All policies of insurance provided shall be issued by insurance companies licensed to do business in the State of Utah and either (1)listed on the United States Treasury j)epartment's Listing of Approved Sureties (Department Circular 570)(as amended),or (2)currently rated "A- "or better by A.M.Best Co..Each Party shall cause copies of certificates of insurance to be fumished to the other Party concurrently with or prior to the signing of this Agreement.If requested,The Leonardo shall also cause copies of the insurance policies required by this 13 Agreement to be provided to the City.In the event that governmental immunity limits are subsequently altered by legislation or judicial opinion,The Leonardo shall provide a new celtificate of insurance within thirty (30)days after being notified thereof in writing by the City, certifying coverage in compliance with the modified limits or,if no new limits are specified,in an amount acceptable to the City.The City may satisfy its insurance obligations through self- insurance. 21.2.Worker's Compensation Insurance.Each Party shall obtain and n1aintain during the Tenn of this Agreement worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance sufficient under Utah law to cover all of such Party's employees employed at the Building.In the event The Leonardo subcontracts any work or subleases any space in the Building,The Leonardo shall require its subcontractor(s)orsublessees similarly to provide worker's compensation insurance for all of the latter's employees,unless a waiver of coverage is allowed and acquired pursuant to Utah law. 21.3.Commercial General Liability Insurance.The Leonardo shall secure and maintain during the Tenn of this Agreement commercial general liability (CGL)insurance with the City as an additional insured,in the minimum amount of $2,000,000 per occurrence with a $3,000,000 general aggregate and $3,000,000 products and completed operations aggregate. These limits can be covered either under a CGL insurance policy alone,or a combination of a CGL insurance policy and an umbrella insurance policy and/or a CGL insurance policy and an excess insurance policy.The policy shall protect the City,The Leonardo,and any subcontractor or sublessee from claims for damages for personal injury,including accidental death,and from claims for property damage that may arise from The Leonardo's operations under this Agreement,whether perfonned by The Leonardo itself,any subcontractor or sublessee,or anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them.Such insurance shall provide coverage for premises operations,acts of independent contractors,products and completed operations.The City represents and warrants that it is self-insured pursuant to the provisions of Utah Code Section 63G-7-80l and may levy an aImual property tax sufficient to pay any claim,settlement, or judgment pursuant to the provisions of Utah Code Section 63G-7-704.The minimum limits aI1d coverage of liability insurance shall not limit The Leonardo's indemnification obligations hereunder. 21.4.Casualty InsuraI1ce.The City shall maintain in full force and effect during the Tem1 of this Agreement a primary and non-contributing policy or policies of commercial "All-risk"(also lmown as a "Special Perils Fom1")insurance covering fire and extended coverage,vandalism and malicious mischief,sprinkler leakage,and all other insurable perils of direct physical loss or damage which are customarily found in all-risk policies for similar buildings located in Salt Lake County,and any other coverage mutually agreed to by the Parties for the full replacement value of the Building and the fixtures and equipment affixed thereto and considered a paIt thereof.The City shall set the amount of any deductible and The Leonardo shall pay any deductible unless the City causes the loss to which the deductible relates,provided that such deductible shall not be in excess of $10,000.It is agreed that the City may satisfy its obligations under this Section tluough a reserve fund established purSUaIlt to Utah Code Section 63G-7-703.If a third-party insurance policy is available that provides similar or better coverage at a lower cost,The Leonardo may obtain a policy of insurance from such third-party insurance 14 carriers,in lieu of the policy otherwise maintained by the City in cOlmection with this Section. Such policy shall include at least the same coverage as provided in this Section. The insurance proceeds shall be released to the City in accordance with Section 22 of this Agreement to reconstruct the Building. The Leonardo shall pay the premium allocable to the Building for the insurance maintained by the City pursuant to tlus Section 21.4. 21.5.COImnercial Automobile Liability Insurance.The Leonardo shall maintain during the Tenn of this Agreement .commercial automobile liability insurance that provides coverage for owned,hired,and non-owned automobiles in the minimum amount of a combined single limit of $2,000,000 per occurrence or $1,000,000 liability per person, $2,000,000 liability per occurrence,and $250,000 property damage.These limits can be reached either with a commercial automobile liability insurance policy alone,or with a combination of a commercial automobile liability insurance policy and an umbrella insurance policy and/or a commercial automobile liability insurance policy and an excess insurance policy. 21.6.Insurance Non-cancelable for 30 Days.All required certificates and policies provided by The Leonardo shall provide that coverage thereunder shall not be canceled or modified without providing,in a malJl1er approved by the City Attorney,30 days prior written notice to the City. 21.7.Personal Property Insurance.Subject to Section 21.9,each Party shall insure,or cause to be insured,all personal property of such Party or of its tenants,licensees,or employees located within the Building.Neither Party shall pernlit the Building to be used for any purpose that would render the insurance thereon void.or canse cancellation thereof or cause the insurance risk to be more hazardous,or increase the insurance premium in effect at the time of the commencement of the Ternl.Neither Party shall keep,use,or sell,or pennit to be kept, used,or sold in or about the Building any article or materials that are prohibited by law. 21.8.Waiver of Certain Rights.With respect to any loss or damage that may occur to the Building (or any improvements thereon)or the respective property of the Parties therein,arising from any peril customarily insured under a fire and extended coverage insurance policy,regardless of the cause or origin (to the extent allowed by law),including negligence of the Parties,their agents,servants,tenants,licensees,or employees,each Party hereby releases the other Party from all claims with respect to such loss;arld each Party agrees that it and its insurance company,if any,shall have no right of subrogation against the other Party on account of any such loss,and each Party shall procure from its respective insurers under all policies of fire and extended coverage insurance a waiver of all rights of subrogation against the other Party which the insurers might otherwise have under such policies. 21.9.Insurance of Artwork.The City shall maintain in full force and effect during tlle Tenll of this Agreement replacement cost propelty insurarlce or,where applicable,fme arts coverage,for the artwork owned by the City within the Building,including without limitation insurance for the following artwork:(a)the Doug Snow mural;(b)the.To Roper sculptured wall on 15 the south side of the Building;and (c)the Caravaglia fountain sculpture in the Atrium Garden.The City shall set the amount of any deductible and The Leonardo shall pay any deductible unless the City causes the loss to which the deductible relates,provided that such deductible shall not be in excess of $10,000.It is agreed that the City may satisfy its obligations under this Section through a reserve fund established pursuant to Utah Code Section 63G-7-703. The Leonardo shall pay the premium allocable to the artwork in the Building for the insurance maintained by the City pursuant to this Section 21.9. 22.DAMAGE/DESTRUCTION:If fifty percent (50%)or greater of the Building is wholly or partially destroyed by fire or other casualty at any time during the Initial Occupancy Term or any Extended Term(s),The Leonardo or the City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by providing written notice to the other party within sixty (60)days after the casualty event.If this Agreement is tenninated,the proceeds of the insurance maintained by the City pursuant to Section 21.4 shall be paid and released to the City.If this Agreement is not temlinated by The Leonardo or the City as provided above,the proceeds of insurance maintained under Section 21.4 shall be released to the City and the City shall,as soon as commercially possible and in no event later than within sixty (60)days after such damage occurs commence the plmming and design for the repair,restoration and reconstruction of the Building (and thereafter diligently pursue them to completion)consistent with the final plans,including any fixtures and equipment that are deemed part of the Building,except as may be otherwise agreed upon by the Parties.Notwithstanding the above,if the Building is substantially danlaged or destroyed and the City desires to construct a new or different Building on the Property,the City shall notify The Leonardo in writing alld the Parties shall meet to discuss the possibility of replacing the Building with a new building and having The Leonardo occupy the new building. During any period The Leonardo cannot reasonably use the Building for The Leonardo's intended use due to any damage to the Building during the Initial Occupancy Tenn or Extended Teml(s)of this Agreement,as applicable,such applicable Tenn shall be tolled and The Leonardo's obligation to pay rent or ally other amounts under this Agreement shall be abated until such time as The Leonardo is able to reasonably use the Building for The Leonardo's intended use. 23.CONDEMNATION: 23.1.Total Taking.If the entire Building is taken under the power of eminent domain,this Agreement shall automatically temlinate as of the date The Leonardo is required to vacate the Building,and the City mld The Leonardo shall each thereafter be released from any further liability under this Agreement,except for any provisions hereof that shall survive the temlination of this Agreement. 23.2.Pmiial Taking.If a portion in excess of twenty percent (20%)of the squm'e footage of the Building is taken under the power of eminent domain,either Party may temlinate this Agreement as of the date The Leonardo is required to vacate the Building,upon thirty (30)days prior written notice to the other Party.If this Agreement is not tenninated,The Leonardo shall remain in that portion of the Building not so taken and,in that event,the City shall,at the City's sole cost and expense,restore the remaining portion of the Building as soon as 16 possible to a complete unit of like quality and character as existed prior to such taking and The Leonardo,at its sole cost and expense,shall repair,restore,and rebuild The Leonardo's furnishings,fixtures,equipment and other personal property located within the Building,if applicable. 23.3.Condemnation Awards.If this Agreement is temlinated due to condemnation,or any portion of the Building is taken but this Agreement remains in effect with respect to any portion not so taken (pursuant to Section 23.2 above),any and all awards or proceeds from such condemnation shall be payable to The Leonardo up to the total amount ofthe proceeds,insurance,or other funds and any other awards that may be payable to The Leonardo under law.Any condemnation award in excess of such proceeds,insurance,or other funds or awards shall be payable to the City. 24.INDEMNITY:As a contractual obligation and material consideration of this Agreement,each Party ("Indemnifying Party")shall indemnify,save harmless,and defend the other Party,its agents and employees,from and against any and all suits,actions,liens,damages, claims,liability,and expense (including attorney's fees,witness fees,discovery and investigative costs,and other legal related expenses)in co:nnection with or arising out of the active or passive negligence or action of the Indemnifying Party,and/or its agents,servants,contractors,and employees.In the case of The Leonardo,such obligation also applies to any actions or damages resulting from The Leonardo's contracts with third parties relating to the Building,including any rotating or special exhibits and including without limitation the contract with ExNet.Nothing herein shall require the IndenmifYing Party to indelll1lify the other Party for the other Party's own negligence or action. 25.DEFAULT: 25.1.The following shall be deemed events of default of this Agreement: 25.1.1 Either Party ("Defaulting Party")fails to pay any anlount to the other Pmiy ("Non-defaulting Party")when the same is due,and such failure continues for thirty (30)days after the Non-defaulting Pmiy has given the Defaulting Pmiy wlitten notice specifying the amount due. 25.1.2 The Defaulting Party fails to observe and perform any other provision of this Agreement to be observed or perfoDned by the Defaulting Party,where such failure continues for ninety (90)days (except where a different period of time is specified in this Agreement)after written notice by the Non-defaulting Party to the Defaulting Party.If tile nature of such default is such that the default cmmot be cured within such ninety (90)day (or other)period,the Defaulting Party shall not be deemed to be in default if the Defaulting Party shall within such period have commenced such cure and thereafter diligently prosecutes the same to completion. 25.1.3 After the commencement of the Initial Occupancy Ternl,The Leonardo fails to continuously occupy mld to use the Building consistent with The Leonardo's mission,as defined in this Agreement,for a period of ninety (90)consecutive days,and 17 thereafter fails to continuously occupy and use the Building consistent with The Leonardo's Mission for an additional period of thirty (30)consecutive days after receipt of a written notice from the City.For purposes of this Section 25.1.3,failure to occupy and use the Building shall not include reasonable periods of vacancy or non-occupancy due to:(a)damage,destruction, condemnation,remodeling,repairs,or restoration of or to the Building;(b)transition of occupation of portions of the Building by tenants or licensees;(c)progranmling,arranging, preparing,and setting up exhibits within the Building;and (d)transitions between exhibits and displays,so long as other portions of the Building are being occupied and used by The Leonardo consistent with The Leonardo's mission. 25.2.If an event of default occurs,the Non-defaulting Party shall have the right to:(a)tenninate this Agreement upon fifteen (15)days prior written notice to the other Party;or (b)pursue any and all other rights and remedies available under this Agreement,at law,or in equity.Notwithstanding the above,because of the up-front costs incurred by The Leonardo associated with the Building,it is acknowledged and agreed by the City that the City calmot temlinate this Agreement unless The Leonardo breached a substantial and material term of this Agreement.Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary,failure to pay base rent or any other amount due under this Agreement within six (6)months after written notice ofdelinquency is issued by the City shall be deemed a substantial and material breach of this Agreement.If this Agreement is temlinated,The Leonardo shall remove from the Building its fixtures,furnishings, equipment,and personal property and surrender the Building in the condition as required under this Agreement,and The Leonardo shall have a reasonable anlount of time to remove such items and repair the Building.If The Leonardo fails to remove any of its movable personal.property from the Building upon the temlination of this Agreement,the City may remove,store,sell,and dispose of such personal property in accordance with applicable law. 25.3.Dispute Resolution.Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary,if there is a dispute concerning the existence of all event of default,the Parties agree to amicably attempt to resolve the dispute using good faith efforts,including,if requested by either Party, paliicipation in non-binding mediation.The Parties shall equally share the cost of the mediator. 26.REPORTING:On an annual basis,The Leonardo shall provide a copy of its (a) finallcial statements alld a report relating to the perfonnance of The Leonardo during the preceding year to the City,within ninety (90)days following the end of The Leonardo's fiscal year,and (b)annual budget (approved by The Leonardo Board of Trustees)for the then-current fiscal year,within thirty (30)days following the commencement of such fiscal year. Notwithstanding the foregoing,the substance of any such infomlation provided pursuant to this Section shall not,in and of itself,be grounds upon which the City may declare The Leonardo to be in default ofthis Agreement.To the extent allowed by law,all infonnationprovided by The Leonal'do pursuant to this Section shall be confidential and not subj ect to public disclosure under the Government Records Access and Management Act,Utah Code Title 63G,.Chapter 2. 27.NOTICES:All notices,requests,demallds,and other communications hereunder shall be in writing and shall be given by (i)established express delivery service which maintains delivery records,(ii)hand delivery,or (iii)certified or registered mail,postage prepaid,retum 18 receipt requested,to the Parties at the following addresses,or at such other address as the Parties may designate by written notice in the above maImer: The Leonardo SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION clo Facilities Division 248 East 600 South Salt Lake City,Utah 841 I1 With a copy to clo Property Management P.O.Box 145460 Salt Lake City,Utah 84114-5460 The Leonardo at Library Square 209 East 500 South Salt Lake City,Utah 84 II1 Attention:Executive Director The Leonardo shaIl make any payments to the City to the address for the City set forth above. Notwithstanding the foregoing,during the Pre-Occupancy Period (e.g.,prior to The Leonardo's occupancy of the Building),notices to The Leonardo shall be sent to The Leonardo at Library Square,P.O.Box 2129,Salt Lake City,Utah 84110). 28.REPRESENTATION REGARDING ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES AND FORMER CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: The Leonardo represents that it has not:(1)provided an illegal gift or payoff to a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee,or his or her relative or business entity;(2)retained any person to solicit or secnre this Agreement upon an agreement or understanding for a commission,percentage,or brokerage or contingent fee,other than bona fide employees or bona fide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business;(3)knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in City's conflict of interest ordinance,Chapter 2.44,Salt Lake City Code;or (4)knowingly influenced,and hereby promise that it will not knowingly influence,a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee to breach any of the ethical standards set forth in City's conflict of interest ordinance,Chapter 2.44,Salt Lake City Code. 29.TIME:Time is of the essence in this Agreement and of every term,covenant, and addition herein contained. 30.SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS:AIl of the rights and obligations of the Parties under this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the respective heirs, executors,and their permitted successors.This Agreement shall not be assignable. 31.INTERPRETATION:The captions by which the sections of this Agreement are identified are for convenience only and shaIl have no effect upon the interpretation of this Agreement.The Parties acknowledge and agree that all of the temlS and conditions of this Agreement are contractual in nature and shall be interpreted under any applicable law as contractual obligations,and each Party waives any claims or defenses to the contrary.Vvhenever 19 the context so requires,the singular shall include the plural,the plural shall refer to the singular,and the neuter gender shall include the masculine and feminine genders.This Agreement shall be interpreted in a reasonable maImer to give effect to the Parties'intentions as set forth herein. 32.CITY IS A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY:The Leonardo is hereby informed that the City is a governmental entity under the Govenmlental Immunity ActofUtah,Utah Code AIm.§§63G-7-101 et seq.(2008)(the "Act").The Parties acknowledge that all of the tenns and conditions contained herein represent contractual obligations as such tenn is used in Utah Code Ann.§63G-7-301 (l)(a)(2008).Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to enlarge or lessen any rights ofthe Parties under the Act. 33.AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE:Each person executing this Agreement individually and personally represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized to execute and deliver the SaI1le on behalf of the entity for which he or she is signing,aI1d that all corporate and/or legislative authority aI1d approvals,as the case may be,have been obtained,and that this Agreement is a binding obligation on such entity. 34.NO AGENCY:In assuming and performing the obligations of this Agreement including but not limited to any obligations relating to The Leonardo's prograI11ming,the City and The Leonardo are each acting as independent parties as landlord and tenaI1t,respectively, and neither shall be considered or representitself as a joint venturer,partner,agent,or employee of the other.There is no intent by either Party to create or establish third party beneficiary status or rights in aI1Y third party,aI1d no such third party shall.have any rightto enforceaI1y right or enjoy any benefit created or established under this Agreement. 35.APPLICABLE LAW:TIllS Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with and enforced under the laws of the state of Utah. 36.ENTIRE AGREEMENT:This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement,and incorporates all prior correspondence,communications or agreements between the Parties relating to The.Leonardo's lease of the Building from the City,and cannot be altered or assigned except in Wliting signed by both Parties. 37.STATE SCIENCE CENTER AGREEMENT:The City hereby represents and wan'ants to The Leonardo that the Utah Science Center Agreement has been tenninated and is of no further force or effect. 38.ENTRY BY THE LEONARDO:In addition to .all other rights set forth in this Lease,dUling the Pre-Occupancy Period The Leonardo and its consultants and contractors shall have the right at all reasonable times and upon reasonable notice to the City to enter the Building to:(a)inspect and examine the Building;and (b)show the Building to prospective donors; provided,however,that the City shall have the right to reasonably object to such entry by The Leonardo in the event of health or safety concems.The City shall not be obligated to provide electricity and other utility service to the Building before the Commencement Date,except to the 20 extent to prevent damage to the Building.The Leonardo shall enter into the Building during the Pre-Occupancy Period at its sole risk and hazard. [Remainder ofPage Intentional~l'Le/i Blank.} 21 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written. By: Its: "The Leonardo" "City" THE LIBRARY SQUARE FOUNDATION FOR ART,CULTu;t}E AND SCIENCE FOUNDATION,.a'T.Jtah nonprofit corporation (/;J\t-ji,/\..../r8.lC(,';·)t·~PlfpdiJ {; ILL ,I-<c/..'-O!r:1..o SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION,a Utah municipal corporation By:~~Rlll])B~Mayor Attest and Countersign:RECOR 0E0 ~12 cz1<]..ei'-PA ~JUN 2/:2009 CITY RECORDER C.lTV RECORDER Approved as to foml: se::iL Z~o=.~----- :55. The foregoing instru efore me this __day of-:-::=-=-=-==-:=-=- 2009 by the of THE LIBRARY SQUARE FOUNDATION FOR ART,CULTUR D SCIENCE,a Utah nonprofit corporation. Notary Public Residing at Salt Lak' My commiss'expIres: 22 EXHIBIT A (Property Description) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:LEASED PROPERTY LINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 37,PLAT "A",SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY;THENCE NORTH 0°01'02"WEST 179.88 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID BLOCK 37;THENCE NORTH 89°58'25"EAST 279.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF A CONCRETE WALL;THENCE SOUTH 179.88 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF A CONCRETE WALL EXTENDED TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK 37; THENCE SOUTH 89°58'48"WEST 278.95 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK 37 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.CONTAINS 50182 SQUARE FEET OR 1.152 ACRES MORE OR LESS. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:MAINTENANCE LINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POlNT (TBC)ON THE EAST SIDE OF 200 EAST STREET,POINT BEING NORTH 0°01 '02"WEST 25.17 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF BLOCK 37 AND WEST 15.28 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 37,PLAT "N', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY;THENCE NORTH 0°01'00"WEST 184.01 FEET ALONG SAID TBC TO THE EXTENDED LINE OF THE NORTH LINE OF A CONCRETE RETAINING WALL,THENCE NORTH 89°58'25"EAST 294.28 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF WALL TO THE EXTENDED EAST LINE OF A CONCRETE WALL ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE LEONARDO BUILDING;THENCE SOUTH 238.35 FEET ALONG SAID CONCRETE WALL EXTENDING TO THE TBC ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 500 SOUTH STREET;THENCE THE NEXT 4 CALLS ALONG SAID TBC AS FOLLOWS: SOUTH 89°55'51"WEST 288.80 FEET TO A POINT OF A 21.19 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT;THENCE 31.27 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE;THENCE NORTH 01°01'03"WEST 16.86 FEET;THENCE NORTH 40 0 38'28"EAST 23.37 FEET TO THE POIN OF BEGINNING,CONTAINS 70757 SQFT (1.624 ACRES)MORE OR LESS. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:EXCEPTING THAT PORTION FOR UTILITY ACCESS OF A WATER VALVE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 200 EAST STREET, SAID POINT BEING NORTH 0°01 '02"WEST 95.19 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 37,PLAT "A",SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY;THENCE GOING WEST 8.00 FEET;THENCE NORTH 7.00 FEET;THENCE EAST 8.00 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 7.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,CONTAINS 56 SQFT MORE OR LESS. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:SHARED USE DRIVEWAY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 23 BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 200 EAST STREET, SAID POINT BEING NORTH 0 0 01 '02 "WEST 179.88 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 37,PLAT "A",SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY;THENCE NORTH 0 0 01 '02"WEST 29.30 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID BLOCK 37;THENCE NORTH 89°58'48"EAST 279.01 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF A CONCRETE RETAINING WALL;THENCE SOUTH 29.30 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF A CONCRETE WALL OF THE LEONARDO CENTER;THENCE SOUTH 89°58'48"WEST 279.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID CONCRETE WALL EXTENDING TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,CONTAINS 8179 SQFT (0.188 ACRES) 24 15.27'1-.II~_-L_..£.9£..Jl~1::;1L__24.00'tn~~toB.g~.$1-g'o.....,"cl~.U>(l)U>~"~"l~"~~~'"o~rU97II "I~III;;1~ILEONARDOBUILDINGSB9'58'4S':"W378.95'R/lI~I-~_E'~--~lI5J:oe"S":TI\1)''''~:POB.iLcORNffi---II1~i~•~III~8.oo1ll::•.m;;;r,0$~~~POOEXCEPllNGP&'f-~!~pP8z~';'~n~';'"'~0/~II.~I~~I~~~rnC~~1~~209.18tov.T:\Su.....ey_dW911\SUI'V'/I)IIndlllc\Gulla\Jobll\DESlGN\2009\03libraryLeonardoComei\LEONARDO.d\llll EXHIBIT C (Construction Budget) See attached. February September Hybrid New Scope 12 May 09 recap comments **Limited to Scope BUilding Cost Summary Items lIsted*'" $ L1 02 Siteworks &Demolition 384,989 $ L2 03 Concrete 39,196 $ L3 04 Masonry 39,000 $ L4 05 Metals 72,200 $ L5 06 Woods &Plastics 48,120 07 Thermal &Moisture $ L6 Protection 296,213 $ L7 08 Doors &Windows 146,282 $ L8 09 Finishes 300,552 $ L9 10 Specialties 72,766 L10 11 Equipment nic $ L11 12 Furnishings 6,257 $ L12 13 Special Construclion 1,850,000 $ L13 14 Conveying Syslem 168,000 $ L14 15 Mechanical 2,663,681 $ L15 16 Electrical 1,520,684 $ L16 Sub Total 7,607,939 L17 General Condilions (9%&$ L18 6%)456,476 $ L19 Overhead &Profit (4%)304,318 Design Contingency &Bid $ L20 Package Incr (10%)380,397 Total R e m o d e l Construclion $ L21 Cost 8,749,130 $Includes $100k for L22 LEED 135,000 documentation $ L23 SHPO Allowance 150,000 $ L24 Subtotal Conslruction Cosl 9,034,130 $ L25 Inflation (10 Feb 'Og)304,258 26 L26 $ L27 Total Construction Cost 9,338,388 L28 Soft Cosls Project Programming $additional study L29 Expenses Ihru 07/07 350,000 costs Incurred $ L30 Demolition Permit 2,300 $ L31 Plan Check Fees 31,023 $ L32 Building Permit 47,728 $ L33 1%State Permit Fee 477 $ L34 Impact Fees 30,000 $ L35 Geotechnical/Soil Study 30,000 Seismic Environmental $ L36 Studies/Remediation 10,000 City Engineering Mgt Fee $ L37 (1.5%)140,076 $ L38 Project Delivery System 130,000 ESCO Coordination Architectural Design Fees $ L39 7%653,687 $ L40 Architectural Reimbursables 40,000 $ L41 Enhanced Commissioning 75,000 Accelerate Hazmat and $ L42 Demo Owner's Construction $ L43 Contingency 933,839 Special Inspection and $ L44 Testing 25,000 Art (1 %&included in $ L45 exhibits)93,384 $ L46 Total Soft Costs 2,592,514 L47 $ L48 Total Base Project Costs 11,930,902 L49 L50 City Alternates L51 Blue Sky Solar Panels w/Included in Electrical $SeeL38 for funds, L52 Partial RMP Grant Div.16 item L199 200,000 220 KW? Braced frame additional $ L53 cost 594,519 $ L54 #3 Auditorium Renovation 646,178 L55 ADD LEO Prioritized alternates here I $ L56 Total Alternates 1,440,698 L57 Total Project Cost with $ L58 Alternates 13,371,600 L59 02 SITEWORK & L60 DEMOLITION 27 L61 Demolition L62 Remove Existing stairs nic $ L63 Wall sawculting 8"1,572 $ L64 Wall sawcutting 12"593 L65 Remove existing lockers nic L66 Demolish escalator nic L67 Demo millwork nic Remove existing L68 dumbwaiter nic L69 Demo escalators ceiling nic Demo exterior glazing at $ L70 shealWalls 9,243 L71 Demo pianter wall nic Demo planter at parkin9 L72 garage nic $ L73 Asbestos abatement 135,000 $ L74 Demo plumbing fixtures 1,560 L75 Demo stepped slab nic $shorten coves at L76 Demo ceiling coves 22,911 seismic braces Remove escalators framing L77 members nic L78 Demo soffit glazing nic Demo N &S vestibules $ L79 (tempered glass)1,134 Demo concrete waH at L80 stailWell perimeter nic Sawcut concrete wall at L81 stairwell perimeter nic $ L82 Remove Existing roof 29,859 $ L83 Electrical demolilion 82,914 full electrical scope $ L84 Mechanical demolition 41,457 L85 Demo interior wall nic $ L86 Painting protection 5,000 $ L87 Miscellaneous sawcutting 10,000 $ L88 Subtotal demolition 341,243 L89 L90 Earthwork L91 Site repair nic $ L92 New Sanitary Sewer 10,000 $ L93 Subtotal earthwork 10,000 L94 L95 Site concrete $ L96 Repair concrete steps 10,611 $ L97 Cut in pedestrian access at site wall 10,000 L98 Curb cut at vehicle access $ 28 11,875 Pedestrian walk at vehicle $ L99 access 1,260 $ L100 Subtotal Site concrete 33,746 L101 TOTAL SITEWORK &$ L102 DEMOLITION 384,989 L103 L104 03 CONCRETE Miscellaneous concrete $ L105 repair 30,000 $ L106 Floor patch 9,196 L107 Floor infill nic $ L108 TOTAL CONCRETE 39,196 L109 L110 04 MASONRY $ L111 eMU Infills 39,000 $ L112 TOTAL MASONRY 39,000 L113 L114 05 METALS L 115 New stairs nic L116 Landing at stairs nic Free standing railing at L117 interior locations nk $ L118 Modify existing railin9s 22,200 L119 Wall mounted railing nic $ L120 Existing fire stair rail to code 10,000 $ L121 Miscellaneous steel 40,000 $ L122 TOTAL METALS 72,200 L123 L124 06 WOOD &PLASTICS L125 Carpentry $ L126 Wood plates &blocking 12,880 $ L127 Fire-rated plywood backing 30,240 $ L128 subtotal carpentry 43,120 L 129 L130 Millwork L131 Ticket counter nic use existing L 132 Coat room shelving nic use existing $re attaching WQod L133 Miscellaneous millwork 5,000 paneling $ L134 Subtotal for millwork 5,000 L 135 TOTAL WOOD &$ L136 PLASTICS 48,120 L137 29 L138 07 THERMAL &MOISTURE PROTECTION $ L139 R-30 Ri9id insuiation 68,805 R-19 sprayed in at 3d fioor $ L140 pienum 68,635 Exterior wall at 2nd floor, L141 stud.Gyp.Insulation nic $ L142 Sound Batt 3,840 $ L143 Singly ply roof membrane 68,805 Tray garden waterproofing L144 repair nic see division 13 $ L145 Metal wail cap (Kynar)17,853 $ L146 Metai flashings 23,275 Cap at precast panels &$ L147 misc.repair 25,000 $ L148 Caulking &sealants 20,000 TOTAL THERMAL &$ L149 MOISTURE 296,213 L150 L 151 08 DOORS &WINDOWS New interior single wood $ L152 doors 3,270 L153 Sound door single nic New double aluminum $ L154 doors 6x7 7,700 NIS entrance mod 8x10 See Line L55 for L155 aluminum doors See Leonardo add alter NIS entrance new $ L156 storefront -tempered 21,718 New hardware at existing $ L157 door 10,000 Modification at existing $ L158 entry doors 5,600 Replace stairweil doors wi $ L159 rated doors 26,100 Interior glazing 3d floor $ L160 enclosure 28,614 L161 Repair existing glazing Done prior Done prior completed in Feb 09 Re-instail glazing at $necessary for L162 concrete shearwail 43,280 braced frame TOTAL DOORS &$ L163 WINDOWS 146,282 L164 L165 L166 L167 09 FINISHES 6"Metal stud interior $ L168 partition 22,800 6"Metal stud furring at L169 exterior waH nic Shaftwall at mechanical $shaftwall repair due L170 shaft 6,000 to construction L171 Minimum cafe fit out nic 5/8"abuse resistant $ L172 gypsum 25,600 30 $ L173 Tie in new walls at existing 2,000 Patch and repair existing $ L174 walls 5,500 Suspended gyp board $ L175 ceiling 3,825 Gypsum soffits -2nd fi. L176 sphere humanity nic L177 Acoustical spray waffle siab nic $ L178 Skim patch existing ceiiing 1,419 $ L179 Texture existing beams 92,536 Register Surrounds New ceiiing cove wiih metal L180 at escalator nic L181 6x6 Unistrut frame nic L182 Acoustic ceiling nlc Ceramic fioor tiie at $ L 183 restroom 10,350 $ L184 Ceramic tile base 2,280 Ceramic wall tiie at $ L185 restrooms 20,264 $ L186 Carpet 10,500 $ L187 Resilient flooring 36,300 $ L188 Rubber base 1,450 $ L189 PainVstain doors &frames 3,510 PainVstain existing doors &$ L190 frames 2,850 $ L191 Paint interior masonry 1,771 $ L192 Paint interior gyp 8,000 $ L193 Paint ceiling 495 L194 Paint existing ceiling beams nic L195 Paint exposed ceiiing nic Architectural repair at $ L196 shearwails 30,000 Drag Strut repair Mechanical area clean,$ L197 paint 10,000 $ L198 Seal interior concrete 3,102 House keeping $ L199 TOTAL FINISHES 300,552 L200 L201 10 SPECIALTIES $ L202 Fire extinguisher 2,346 $ L203 Chain link @ storage area 2,590 $ L204 Toiiet partition ADA 5,100 $ L205 Toilet partition standard 11,250 Toiiet partition doors at 2nd $ L206 &3d floor 7,000 31 $ L207 Urinal screens 1,800 $ L208 Grab bars 1,170 $ L209 Restroom mirrors 152 $ L210 Toilet tissue dispensers 1,950 $ L211 Electric hand dryers 11,200 $ L212 Locker bench 1,308 $ L213 Relocate existing iockers 1,900 L214 Double tiered metal lockers na $ L215 Identifying devices 25,000 $ L216 TOTAL SPECIALTtES 72,766 L217 L218 11 EQUIPMENT L219 Kitchen exhaust nic L220 TOTAL EQUIPMENT nk L221 L222 12 FURNtSHINGS L223 Roller shades 1st floor nic $ L224 Entrance Mat 5,634 $ L225 Shower curtains 623 $ L226 TOTAL FURNISHINGS 6,257 L227 13 SPECIAL L228 CONSTRUCTIONS $ L229 Tray garden repair 50,000 replacement Waler fealure at tray garden L230 (donor)nic $ L231 Seismic Upgrade 1,800,000 L232 Pile cap inc! L233 Mlcropiles at new footings inc! Core drilling at existing L234 footing/slab incl 18"conc.shear wall full L235 height.5,000 PSI inc! Reinforce pre-cast panels - L236 angle@ 2 fl.s inc! Epoxy dowel at existing L237 beams incl Epoxy dowel connection at L238 foundation wall incl Epoxy dowel connection at L239 columns incl L240 Core drilling at floor beam incl L241 Miscellaneous sawGutting inc! TOTAL SPECIAL $ L242 CONSTRUCTIONS 1,850,000 L243 32 L244 14 CONVEYING SYSTEMS Return 2 elevators to $ L245 normal operations 108,000 Escalator renovation 2-3d $ L246 lloor 60,000 TOTAL CONVEYING $ L247 SYSTEMS 168,000 L248 L249 15 MECHANICAL L250 HVAC $ L251 Air handler -120,000 CFM 474,000 $ L252 Air Handler -40,000 CFM 158,000 $ L253 Cooling tower on rool wlcoll 60,000 $ L254 Repair exisitng ductwork 92,127 $ L255 New pumps 45,000 New reheats at shaftwall $ L256 penetration 270,000 $ L257 Heat exchanger 65,000 $ L258 Connect to plant piping 20,000 $ L259 Hydronlc piping 244,137 $ L260 Valves 13,650 General cleanup 01 motors, L261 belts,valves incl Add lire smoke dampers at L262 shalt penetrations inc! Smoke evac system -$ L263 Smoke detect.In Div.16 250,000 L264 Smoke control system incl $ L265 New ductwork 275,000 $ L266 Ductliner 51,475 $ L267 Temperature controls 244,137 Br4SC? L268 Control modilications na $ L269 Exhaust lans medium 21,900 Fire dampers at 3d lioor $ L270 penetration 50,000 $ L271 New registers and grilles 15,500 $ L272 Utility metering 20,000 $ L273 Outdoor air monitoring 23,500 $ L274 Test and balance 16,350 $ L275 TOTAL HVAC 2,409,776 L276 Fire Sprinklers $ L277 Modifications Only 88,673 33 L278 L279 Plumbin9 $ L280 Toilets ADA 2,880 $ L281 Toilets Standards 6,800 $ L282 Waterless urinals 16,500 $ L283 Showers-Bikers 3,800 $ L284 Lavs 2,650 $ L285 New faucets at eXisting lavs 1,590 $ L286 3d fioor handicap toilets 16,000 One compartment sink at $ L287 exhibits 2,320 $ L288 Restroom repair allowance 50,000 $ L289 Wali mounted lavs 1,995 $ L290 Thermostatic mixing valves 7,800 L291 Sink rough-in nlc $ L292 Floor drains 500 $ L293 Mop sink 680 $ L294 Water lines 23,160 $ L295 WasteNent lines 23,557 $ L296 Clean &fiush lines 5,000 $ L297 TOTAL PLUMBING 165,232 L298 $ L299 TOTAL MECHANtCAL 2,663,681 L300 L301 16 ELECTRICAL (EC for hybrid,Spectrum for new scope) $ L302 New fire alarm system 225,000 L303 New main electrical service in L306 Lighting relamp &baliast exisitng L304 fixtures in L308 L305 Lighting controls in L308 $ L306 Service and distribution 391,540 $ L307 Power 244,137 Lighting (track heads in $ L308 exhibit bUdget)489,572 L309 Telecommunication nic $ L310 PA system 64,489 Security -card access &$ L311 CACTI 105,946 L312 PV system aliowance See L52 34 L313 TOTAL ELECTRICAL $ 1,520,684 HB _A TTY -#86 J l-v3-Leonardo_Jease_agreemenU-20-09.DOC 35 Salt Lake City Corporation Contract Activation Contract Nbr:03 1 09 3992 Status:A City Wide:N --,--"~._~ Title:Tl:iE~1!3.~RY~<.:lt,J~f{~E F()~U~IJA TI()~~L_~~~~(~~S~t\I~ Vendor 3?~~~g~~()N:"_f{lJ()~L!E3~~~~<.:l FOUt\l~[)~11()t\I:11-1~~~ Dept Contact:LINDA BENTON "'__'>~fr"c-"~~_.,..~~"~~,-...o..._~""_~~"__,,,"m_"_._"..o."'_'~~'"~'_"_"'__~Ym_ Starts:6/23/2009 Ends: .."_,"_,~~~__~,~...~~~,·,,·__m"~.,,_,_ Term:20 Units:YR Limit:$0.00 Contract Activation was successful. Item E15 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: Russell Weeks Senior Policy Analyst DATE:December 7, 2021 RE: MOTION SHEET – SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT MOTION 1 – To Close the Public Hearing I move that the Council close the public hearing. MOTION 2 – To Adopt the Ordinance I move that the Council adopt the ordinance pertaining to Sugar House Design Standards. MOTION 3 – To Defer Action to a Later Date I move that the Council defer action to a later date. MOTION 4 – To Not Adopt the Ordinance I move that the Council not adopt the ordinance pertaining to Sugar House Design Standards. 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: Russell Weeks Senior Policy Analyst DATE:December 6, 2021 at 10:08 PM RE: SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NEW INFORMATION The proposed amendments appear to resolve long-standing issues involving revising design standards for the Sugar House Business District. They are the result of an October 22, 2021, meeting involving City Council Chair Amy Fowler in her capacity as the District 7 Council Member; Sugar House Community Council Land Use and Zoning Committee Chair Judi Short; and Planning Division representatives. The Planning Division first prepared an ordinance in 2019 involving the Sugar House Business District. The ordinance was intended to do three things: 1.) Remove ambiguity in a land-use ordinance pertaining to Sugar House Business District design guidelines in order to meet a law passed by the Legislature that if a local land use ordinance is ambiguous, a developer would receive the benefit of the doubt on how to interpret it. 2.) To get rid of differences in the Sugar House Business District 1 and Sugar House Business District 2 planning subareas. (Please see map further down this update.) 3.) To ensure that design regulations apply to all sizes of buildings in the Sugar House Business District and not just large buildings. The City Council held a public hearing on the proposed revisions on March 3, 2020. The Sugar House Community Council voiced concerns about three items in the proposed ordinance in writing and at the 2020 public hearing. The Council continued the March 3 public hearing to a later date, and Council Member Fowler said she would like to meet with City planners and Community Council representatives to find places where they could agree. Item Schedule: Briefing: February 4, 2020 Set Date: February 4, 2020 Public Hearing: March 3, 2020; December 7, 2021 Potential Action: December 7, 2021 Page | 2 However, the City & County Building was shut the next week due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and the 2020 earthquake on March 18 damaged the building. After that, a variety of other issues postponed the meeting between Community Council representatives and City planners. At the October 22, 2021, meeting with Council Member Fowler, Ms. Short, and Planning Division representatives the group agreed on the three outstanding items: a.Street-facing facades of buildings: The revised ordinance would set façade lengths at 200 feet instead of 300 feet in parts of business district as was originally proposed. b.Doorway spacing minimums for street-facing facades: Doorway spacing would remain at 40 feet as proposed in the original amendments to the ordinance. c.Sidewalk widths: Widths would be a minimum of 10 feet wide throughout the Sugar House Business District for new principal buildings and for building additions that increase the gross building square footage by more than 50 percent. The ordinance originally set the widths at 8 feet and 6 feet, respectively, in Sugar House Business District 1 and Sugar House Business District 2. Because the City Council continued the March 3, 2020, public hearing, the motion sheet with this update will start with a motion to close the public hearing. The second motion will be to adopt the proposed ordinance. The third motion will be to defer action to a later date. The fourth motion will be to not adopt the proposed ordinance. Other revisions in the original proposed amendments include: List of New/Changed Regulations for Sugar House Business District Ground Floor Use Space: 80% of ground floor street-facing façade length must be a use besides parking and have a 25 foot minimum depth. Building Materials: 80% of ground floor street-facing façade and 60% of upper floor street facing facades must be covered in a high-quality durable material. Service Area Screening: Service areas (loading docks, etc.) must be screened. Parking Structure Design Standards: Adds various design standards primarily relating to ground floor use and facade design for parking structures. Ground Floor Commercial Use: When facing 1100 East/Highland Drive/2100 South, residential dwelling units are not allowed on the ground floor. Live/work units allowed. Sidewalk Materials: Minimum. 10% must be brick/pavers as an accent material. Street Light Installation: Required where identified by City Lighting Master Plan. Directional Signage: Increased height limit to 7 feet to allow for eye-level pedestrian wayfinding signage and increased square foot area limit to 21 square feet Park Strip Paving Materials: Fully hard surfaced park strips allowed if compliant with Sugar House Circulation and Amenities Plan. Building Heights: Changes paragraphs into tables; regulations stay the same. Map of Sugar House Business District Page | 3 The cross-hatched areas designate Sugar House Business District 2. The current City Code chapter regulating Sugar House Business District starts with this sentence: “The CSHBD Zone is divided into two (2) subareas for the purpose of defining design criteria. In other portions of this text, the CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 Zones are jointly referred to as the CSHBD Zone because all other standards in this title are the same.” Information below this sentence has appeared in a previous report. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE Page | 4 Goal of the briefing: To discuss with Planning Division proposed text amendment to incorporate design standards in the zoning ordinance chapter that regulates the Sugar House Business District. The proposed text amendment is intended to do two things: 1.) Adopt “clear and unambiguous … measurable and objective” design standards that are in The Sugar House Community Master Plan into City Code Chapter 21A.26.060 that regulates the Sugar House Business District.1 2.) Extend some of the design standards to new buildings that contain less than 20,000 gross square feet. The standards would be the same as for larger buildings. Under the current ordinance, buildings of less than 20,000 gross square feet Business District are required to comply with a few design standards, but new buildings larger than 20,000 gross square feet must comply with several design standards through the City’s design review process.2 After a public hearing on June 12, 2019, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council with a further recommendation to clarify how ground-floor façade glass treatments are to remain at eye-level.3 Planning staff has provided two options for City Council consideration: 1.) Lower the height of the area required to have a minimum of 40% glass from the current range of 3 feet and 8 feet to between 3 feet and 7 feet to ensure that in an extreme scenario, the 40 percent ground floor glass allocation would be within eye-level. 2.) Increase the ground floor glass requirement to 60 percent from 40 percent to ensure that in an extreme scenario, glass would be installed between 5 feet and 8 feet, allowing for eye-level visibility into a ground floor space. Neither option has been included in the proposed ordinance that is part of the transmittal to give the City Council the opportunity to decide whether to incorporate either of them or leave the proposed ordinance has it has been transmitted.4 Here is a list of proposed regulations in the text amendment for the Sugar House Business District, courtesy of the Planning Division.5 List of New/Changed Regulations for Sugar House Business District Ground Floor Use Space: 80% of ground floor street-facing façade length must be a use besides parking and have a 25 foot minimum depth. Building Materials: 80% of ground floor street-facing façade and 60% of upper floor street facing facades must be covered in a high-quality durable material. Service Area Screening: Service areas (loading docks, etc.) must be screened. Building Entrances: One required at every 40 feet (minimum) of street facing façade. Maximum Façade Length: 300' length limit for street facing façades. Parking Structure Design Standards: Adds various design standards primarily relating to ground floor use and facade design for parking structures. Ground Floor Commercial Use: When facing 1100 East/Highland Drive/2100 South, residential dwelling units are not allowed on the ground floor. Live/work units allowed. Minimum Sidewalk Widths: 8 feet in CSHBD1, 6 feet in CSHBD2. Sidewalk Materials: Minimum. 10% must be brick/pavers as an accent material. Street Light Installation: Required where identified by City Lighting Master Plan. Page | 5 Directional Signage: Increased height limit to 7 feet to allow for eye-level pedestrian wayfinding signage and increased square foot area limit to 21 square feet Park Strip Paving Materials: Fully hard surfaced park strips allowed if compliant with Sugar House Circulation and Amenities Plan. Building Heights: Changes paragraphs into tables; regulations stay the same. Council staff has attached stock photos of buildings containing 20,000 gross square feet to show how buildings that size look and one photo of a live/work space in a building on 400 South Street. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Should the City Council adopt one of the two options pertaining to ground-floor façade glass treatments or use the existing ordinance language? 2. Should ground-floor space in buildings be 25-feet deep? Larger buildings can get the 25-foot space requirement reduced through the design review process. It should be noted that Planning Division staff indicates that smaller buildings also can go through the design review process if desired to modify the depth requirement.6 3. The proposed ordinance includes a 300-foot maximum length for a building’s façade that faces a street. The Sugar House Community Council contends the maximum length should be 200-feet, and the Community Council’s Land Use Chair describes 300 feet as allowing “a dehumanizing mass of a structure.”7 The Planning Division staff report of June 7, 2012, contends the 300-foot maximum is the better length limit because it “generally has been the limit in the Business District for about the last 10 years, and pedestrian and vehicle networks in the Sugar House Circulation Plan are generally spaced about 300 feet apart to break up larger blocks and has been working to create a pedestrian network.”8 Is there a maximum length for a building’s façade that could accommodate both sides, or is there only a choice between a 200-foot maximum length and a 300-foot maximum length? ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION The current City Code chapter regulating Sugar House Business District starts with this sentence: “The CSHBD Zone is divided into two (2) subareas for the purpose of defining design criteria. In other portions of this text, the CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 Zones are jointly referred to as the CSHBD Zone because all other standards in this title are the same.” (Please see attached map.) The stated purpose of the Sugar House Business District zoning is “to promote a walkable community with a transit oriented, mixed use town center that can support a twenty-four (24) hour population. The CSHBD provides for residential, commercial and office use opportunities, with incentives for high density residential land use in a manner compatible with the existing form and function of the Sugar House master plan and the Sugar House Business District.” A March 2018 zoning petition initiation request to Mayor Jacqueline Biskupski, Planning Division Director Nick Norris noted three things: o The zone currently requires a design review public process for large buildings, but criteria for much of this design review is located in a "design guidelines" section of the Sugar House Master Plan instead of the zoning ordinance. o Much of the criteria is subjective and is often initially overlooked by developers who do not anticipate that development regulations are located in a master plan. Page | 6 o The 2017 Utah Legislature amended the Utah Land Use Development Management Act to state that vague land use ordinances cannot be enforced and must be interpreted to favor the land use applicant, and the design guidelines in the master plan do not comply with state code.9 The petition request said the purpose of a zoning text amendment would be to: o Adopt into the zoning code measureable and objective design standards that are currently in the Sugar House Community Master Plan. o Make regulations clear and unambiguous. o Clarify other existing language in the code related to the CSHBD zone. Planning staff met three times with the Sugar House Community Council Land Use Committee to discuss various aspects of the petition and the proposed text amendment. The Planning Division also surveyed developers and architects involved in the Sugar House Business District and briefed the Planning Commission and held an open house at the Sugar House Fire Station to discuss proposed amendments. Finally, the Planning Commission held a June 12, 2019, public hearing on the issue. In preparation for the public hearing, a Planning Division staff report said, “The proposed amendments to the Sugar House Business District zoning code are primarily intended to ensure that new small developments in Sugar House will support a high-quality pedestrian environment, despite having fewer regulations to follow than larger developments. … The proposal will impose additional design standards on all buildings (large and small) to help bridge the design criteria gap between large and small buildings. In addition to requiring compliance with new design standards, a few other regulation changes are being proposed, including requirements for additional sidewalk widths and requirements for commercial uses on the ground floor along certain streets.”10 Issues Ground Floor Façade Glass – The two options listed in the Issue at a Glance section of this report were prepared by Planning Division staff for City Council consideration and stem from a building that was developed under a previous ordinance.11 The current ordinance (21A.37) requires ground floor façades to be at least 40 percent glass and between 3 feet and 8 feet above grade to allow pedestrians to see into buildings. An ordinance previous to 21A.37 only required that façade glass be located somewhere on the ground floor façade. One building in the Sugar House Business District located the entire ground floor glass façade seven feet above grade. In providing the two options, Planning Division staff wrote, “The above regulation options regarding glass have not been incorporated into the ordinance that is included with this transmittal. The ordinance will need to be amended according to the City Council's direction. The Council can incorporate one of these options into the ordinance or adopt the proposed ordinai1ce without one of these options.”12 Ground Level Use Depth – According to the Planning Division June 7, 2019, staff report, two developers raised concerns that requiring ground-floor spaces to be 25 feet deep. Their concerns included the availability of natural light into a space that deep and how the space could accommodate vehicle parking stalls that might be located behind the space. The staff report also noted, “This full depth could be problematic for smaller sites with low site depth.”13 However, the report describes the 25-foot depth as a “middle ground between shallow and deep ground level spaces” and intended “to avoid the creation of shallow ground level spaces that might end up as just hallways that provide little potential for street engagement, and to avoid requiring excessively deep spaces that cut into the ability to provide the necessary parking within a building or site, all while still requiring enough space to accommodate an economically viable, active use that would engage the street.” Page | 7 The 25-foot depth is used in Residential/Mixed Use, Downtown Secondary Central Business, and Transit Station Area zones. Again, the Planning Division notes that the City design review process could be used to reduce the depth for large or small projects that meet the intent of the requirement.14 Ground Level Commercial Use on 1100 East, Highland Drive, and 2100 South – A developer in Sugar House wrote to oppose the original draft ordinance’s requirement to provide only commercial uses on the ground floors of buildings in the Sugar House Business District. Requiring only commercial uses would eliminate the option of building ground floor residences. The proposed ordinance would allow live/workspaces on ground floors of buildings on 1100 East Street, Highland Drive, and 2100 South Street, and it would allow ground-floor residences in buildings on other streets within the Business Districts. The section of the proposed ordinance appears to seek a balance between concerns about the viability of ground floor commercial spaces, increasing the potential costs of building other residential units above the first level, and potential increased parking requirements for buildings with commercial uses on ground floors versus the potential adverse effect of ground-floor residences on increasing the level of pedestrian activity on Business District streets – something the Sugar House Master Plan encourages.15 However, the Sugar House Community Council contends that the proposal does not meet the Sugar House Master Plan goal of supporting small, locally owned neighborhood businesses within residential areas.16 Sidewalk Width – The proposed ordinance calls for sidewalk widths of 8 feet for sidewalks in Sugar House Business District 1 and 6 feet for Sugar House Business District 2. The proposed dimensions come from the Sugar House Business District Design Guidelines Handbook and meet generally accepted industry standards.17 The June 7, 2019, Planning Division staff report also clarified that existing street trees can’t be eliminated to meet a sidewalk width requirement. It also might be noted that the Sugar House Community Council supports having sidewalks 8-feet-wide and 10-feet-wide sidewalks.18 Park Strip Paving and Landscaping – The proposed ordinance would allow park strips to be paved only if doing so follows the City’s Circulation and Amenities Plan and has the Planning Director’s approval. The proposal is intended to balance concerns about retaining green spaces within the Business District and a potential need to use park strips used as extensions of sidewalks to increase walkability. The proposed ordinance also clarifies that street trees are required and should be planted a minimum of every 30 feet.19 Building Façade Length – The proposed ordinance calls for a 300-foot maximum length of a street-facing façade. The Sugar House Community Council supports a 200-foot maximum length.20 According to the June 7, 2019, Planning Division staff report, the 300-foot length limit generally has been the limit in the Business District for about the last 10 years, and pedestrian and vehicle networks in the Sugar House Circulation Plan are generally spaced about 300 feet apart to break up larger blocks and has been working to create a pedestrian network. The report also notes that buildings with facades longer than 200 feet are expected to go through the City’s design-review process because they generally are larger than 20,000 gross square feet.21 Door Spacing Requirement – The proposed ordinance would require that doors entering from the sidewalk be placed every 40 feet. The Sugar House Community Council supports “active main entrances” to buildings every 30 feet.22 The Planning Division supports 40-foot spacing in part because it checked door placements in newer Sugar House Business District buildings and determined the average door spacing was about one door for every 45 feet. The report also said the requirement also could be “problematic for buildings on smaller lots, where the strict door spacing standard can lead to an oddly placed door.”23 Additional Sidewalk Paving Pattern Proposal – The proposed ordinance includes a requirement to have at least 10 percent of a sidewalk in a new Business District development be brick or paving stones. The requirement is supported by the Sugar House Community Council and comports with the Circulation and Amenities Plan. Page | 8 1 Petition Initiation Request, Nick Norris, March 20, 2018. 2 Email, Senior Planner Daniel Echeverria, January 29, 2020. 3 Planning Commission Minutes, June 12, 2019, 9:17:26 p.m. 4 Transmittal Letter, Page 3. 5 Planning Commission Staff Report, Daniel Echeverria, June 7, 2019, Page 2. 6 Email, Senior Planner Daniel Echeverria, January 29, 2020. 7 Letters, Judi Short, Sugar House Community Council Vice-Chair and Land Use Committee Chair, January 27, 2020, and March 16, 2019. 8 Planning Commission Staff Report, June 7, 2019, Page 7. 9 Petition Initiation Request, Nick Norris, March 20, 2018. 10 Planning Commission Staff Report, June 7, 2019, Page 2. 11 Transmittal Letter, Page 3 12 Transmittal Letter, Page 3 13 Planning Commission Staff Report, June 7, 2019, Page 4. 14 Email, Senior Planner Daniel Echeverria, January 29, 2020. 15 Planning Commission Staff Report, June 7, 2019, Pages 4 and 5. 16 Letter, Judi Short, Sugar House Community Council Vice-Chair and Land Use Committee Chair, January 27, 2020. 17 Planning Commission Staff Report, June 7, 2019, Page 5. 18 Letters, Judi Short, Sugar House Community Council Vice-Chair and Land Use Committee Chair, January 27, 2020, and March 16, 2019. 19 Planning Commission Staff Report, June 7, 2019, Page 6. 20 Letters, Judi Short, Sugar House Community Council Vice-Chair and Land Use Committee Chair, January 27, 2020, and March 16, 2019. 21 Planning Commission Staff Report, June 7, 2019, Page 7. 22 Letters, Judi Short, Sugar House Community Council Vice-Chair and Land Use Committee Chair, January 27, 2020, and March 16, 2019. 23 Planning Commission Staff Report, June 7, 2019, Page 7. 1 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 2 No. _____ of 2021 3 4 (An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code 5 pertaining to the CSHBD Sugar House Business District (CSHBD1 and CSHBD2)) 6 7 An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant 8 to Petition No. PLNPCM2018-00219 pertaining to the CSHBD Sugar House Business District 9 (CSHBD1 and CSHBD2). 10 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 12, 11 2019 to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Jacqueline Biskupski (“Applicant”) (Petition No. 12 PLNPCM2018-00219) to amend portions of Chapters 21A.26 (Zoning: Commercial Districts); 13 21A.37 (Zoning: Design Standards); and 21A.46 (Zoning: Signs) of the Salt Lake City Code to 14 modify regulations pertaining to the CSHBD Sugar House Business District (CSHBD1 and 15 CSHBD2); and 16 WHEREAS, at its June 12, 2019 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of 17 transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said petition; and 18 WHEREAS, the Sugar House Business District has experienced significant growth since 19 the most recent Sugar House Community Master Plan was adopted and the city council has 20 determined that an increase in sidewalk widths is necessary to accommodate increasing 21 pedestrian traffic; 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 Section 21A.26.060. That 27 Section 21A.26.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: CSHBD Sugar 28 House Business District (CSHBD1 and CSHBD2)) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as 29 follows: 30 31 21A.26.060: CSHBD SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT (CSHBD1 AND 32 CSHBD2): 33 34 In this chapter and the associated zoning map, the CSHBD Zone is divided into two (2) 35 subareas for the purpose of defining design criteria. In other portions of this text, the 36 CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 Zones are jointly referred to as the CSHBD Zone because all other 37 standards in this title are the same. 38 39 A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the CSHBD Sugar House Business District is to 40 promote a walkable community with a transit oriented, mixed use town center that can 41 support a twenty-four (24) hour population. The CSHBD provides for residential, 42 commercial and office use opportunities, with incentives for high density residential land 43 use in a manner compatible with the existing form and function of the Sugar House 44 master plan and the Sugar House Business District. 45 B. Uses: Uses in the CSHBD Sugar House Business District as specified in 46 sSection 21A.33.030, “Table Oof Permitted Aand Conditional Uses Ffor Commercial 47 Districts”, of this title are permitted, subject to the general provisions set forth in 48 sSection 21A.26.010 of this chapter and this section. 49 C. Conformance With Adopted Business District Design Guideline Handbook: All new 50 construction of principal buildings and additions that increase the off street parking 51 requirement shall be subject to and shall conform with the adopted Business District 52 design guidelines handbook located as an appendix section in the Sugar House master 53 plan. 54 C. Design Standards Compliance: Development shall comply with the requirements of 55 Chapter 21A.37 “Design Standards” when applicable as specified in that chapter. 56 D. Design Review: All new construction of principal buildings that exceed fifty feet (50’) in 57 height in the CSHBD1 District or thirty feet (30’) in height in the CSHBD2 District or 58 twenty thousand (20,000) gross square feet in size in either district shall be subject to 59 design review. The Planning Commission has the authority to approve projects through 60 the design review process. Design review shall be approved in conformance with the 61 “Sugar House Business District Design Guideline Handbook” (located as an appendix 62 section in the Sugar House Master Plan), “Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape 63 Amenities Plan,” and the provisions of cChapter 21A.59 of this title. 3 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 64 E. Minimum Lot Size: No minimum lot area or width is required. 65 F. Minimum Yard Requirements: 66 1. Front Aand Corner Side Yards: No minimum yard is required. 67 2. Maximum Front/Corner Side Yard Setback: The maximum front and corner side yard 68 setback is fifteen feet (15’). Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized 69 through the design review process, subject to the requirements of cChapter 21A.59 of 70 this title, and the review and approval of the Pplanning Ccommission. The Pplanning 71 Ddirector, in consultation with the Ttransportation Ddirector, may modify this 72 requirement if the adjacent public sidewalk is substandard and the resulting 73 modification to the setback results in a more efficient public sidewalk, and/or the 74 modification conforms with the “Sugar House Business District Design Guidelines 75 Handbook” or “Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan.” Appeal of 76 an administrative decision is to the Pplanning Ccommission. 77 3. Interior Side Yards: None required. 78 4. Rear Yards: No minimum yard is None required. 79 5. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting a lot in a Rresidential Ddistrict shall conform to the 80 buffer yards and landscape requirements of cChapter 21A.48 of this title. 81 6. Setback from Single-Family Zones: In addition, fFor those structures located on 82 properties zoned CSHBD that abut properties in a Low Density, Single-Family 83 Residential Zone, every three feet (3’) in building height above thirty feet (30’), shall 84 be required a corresponding one foot (1’) setback from the property line at grade. 85 This additional required setback area can be used for landscaping or parking. 86 7. Parking Setbacks: See Table 21A.44.060 for parking location restrictions. 87 88 G. Maximum Height: Maximum height limits vary, depending upon location and land use. 89 The following regulations shall apply for each area within the CSHBD Zone: 90 1. CSHBD1: 91 a. The maximum building height in the CSHBD1 Zone shall not exceed thirty feet 92 (30’) for those buildings used exclusively for nonresidential purposes. 93 b. Additional building square footage may be obtained up to a maximum building 94 height of one hundred five feet (105’); however, for each additional floor of 95 nonresidential use above thirty feet (30’), one floor of residential use is required. 96 c. The residential component may be transferred off site to another property within 97 the CSHBD Zoning District in accordance with the provisions of subsection I of 4 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 98 this section. If the required residential component is transferred off site, the 99 maximum nonresidential building height allowed shall be seventy five feet (75’). 100 Any building with a height in excess of seventy five feet (75’) shall be subject to 101 the requirements of subsection G1d of this section. 102 d. Maximum building height may be obtained to one hundred five feet (105’) for 103 any building subject to at least ninety percent (90%) of all parking for said 104 building being provided as structured parking, and in the case of a nonresidential 105 building, the developer shall provide off site residential development that is equal 106 to or greater than the square footage of the nonresidential building that exceeds 107 thirty feet (30’) in height. Height Limit Residential Use Nonresidential Use Up to 30’Allowed.Allowed. >30’ to 75’Allowed.For every square foot of nonresidential gross floor area above 30’ in height, an equivalent gross floor area of residential use must be provided. The residential floor area may be provided within the same building or in a separate building. Separate building option requires a development agreement with the city specified in Subsection 21A.26.060.I. >75’ to 105’Allowed if 90% of the required parking for the building is within a parking structure. Compliance with the same standard for >30’ to 75’ height noted above, and 90% of the required parking for the building must be located within a parking structure. 108 109 2. CSHBD2: 110 a. The maximum building height in the CSHBD2 Zone shall not exceed thirty feet 111 (30’) for those buildings used exclusively for nonresidential purposes. 5 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 112 b. Additional square footage may be obtained up to a maximum building height of 113 sixty feet (60’); however, for each additional floor of nonresidential use above 114 thirty feet (30’), one floor of residential use is required. 115 c. The residential component may be transferred off site to another property within 116 the CSHBD Zoning District in accordance with the provisions of subsection I of 117 this section. If the residential component is transferred “off site”, the maximum 118 nonresidential building height allowed shall be forty five feet (45’). 119 d. Buildings used exclusively for residential purposes may be built to a maximum 120 height of sixty feet (60’). Height Limit Residential Use Nonresidential Use Up to 30’Allowed.Allowed. >30’ to 60’Allowed.For every square foot of nonresidential gross floor area above 30’ in height, an equivalent gross floor area of residential use must be provided. The residential floor area may be provided within the same building or in a separate building. Separate building option requires a development agreement with the City specified in Subsection 21A.26.060.I. If the residential is provided off-site, the nonresidential building is limited to a height of 45’. 121 122 H. First Floor/Street Level Requirements: The first floor or street level space of all buildings 123 ground floor use area required by Chapter 21A.37 within this area shall be required to 124 provide uses consisting of occupied by residential, retail goods establishments, retail 125 service establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, 126 taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters or performing art facilities. 127 For such areas facing 2100 South, 1100 East, or Highland Drive, residential dwelling 128 units are not allowed within the required ground floor use area. Live/work units are 129 allowed in this space if the working area of the unit is located on the ground floor. 6 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 130 I. Residential Requirement Ffor Mixed Use Developments: For those mixed use 131 developments requiring a residential component, the residential portion of the 132 development shall be as follows: 133 1. Located in the same building as noted in sSubsection G of this section, or 134 2. May be located in a separate building and/or on a different property in the area zoned 135 CSHBD. For such off site residential configuration, the amount of residential 136 development required is equal to the total amount of gross square footage obtained 137 for the nonresidential floors rising in excess of thirty feet (30’), less any square 138 footage of the required fifteen foot (15’) step back noted in subsection G of this 139 section. In addition, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the nonresidential 140 structure, the applicant must identify specifically where the residential structure will 141 be located in the area zoned CSHBD and enter into a development agreement with the 142 Ccity to ensure the construction of the residential structure in a timely manner. In 143 such cases where the residential use is built off site, one of the following shall apply: 144 a. Construction of the off site residential use must be progressing beyond the 145 footings and foundation stage, prior to the nonresidential portion of the 146 development obtaining a certificate of occupancy, or 147 b. Prior to the nonresidential portion of the development obtaining a certificate of 148 occupancy, aA financial assurance shall be provided to the city assuring that 149 construction of the off site residential use will commence within two (2) years of 150 receiving a certificate of occupancy for the nonresidential component of the 151 development. The financial assurance shall be in an amount equal to fifty percent 152 (50%) of the construction valuation for the residential component of the 153 development as determined by the building official. The Ccity shall call the 154 financial assurance and deposit the proceeds in the Ccity’s Housing Trust Fund if 155 construction has not commenced within two (2) years of the issuance of the 156 certificate of occupancy for the nonresidential component of the development. 157 The financial assurance shall be in an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of the 158 construction valuation for the residential component of the development as 159 determined by the building official. The City shall call the financial assurance and 160 deposit the proceeds in the City’s Housing Trust Fund if construction has not 161 commenced within two (2) years of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy 162 for the nonresidential component of the development. 163 J. Park Strip Materials: Property within this zoning district shall be considered part of an 164 improvement district subject to the provisions of Section 21A.48.060, and as such, 165 alternative materials may be utilized for park strips. Alternative material is subject to 166 planning director approval based on its compliance with the adopted “Circulation and 167 Streetscape Amenities Plan” or its successor. 168 169 K. Street Trees: Street trees are required and subject to the regulations in Section 170 21A.48.060. 7 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 171 172 L. Street Lighting: Street lighting shall be installed in accordance with the City Street 173 Lighting Master Plan (or its successor) and any other contract or agreement with the city 174 pertaining to street lighting. This requirement only applies to new principal buildings. 175 176 M. Sidewalk Materials: Sidewalk paving shall include a minimum of ten percent (10%) brick 177 or pavers as an accent material, subject to engineering division approval. Modifications to 178 this requirement may be approved by the planning director if in compliance with the 179 adopted “Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan” or its successor. This 180 requirement only applies to new principal buildings. 181 182 N. Sidewalk Width: Sidewalks shall be a minimum of ten feet (10’) wide. This requirement 183 applies to new principal buildings and to additions that increase the gross building square 184 footage by more than fifty percent (50%). This standard does not require removal of 185 existing street trees, existing buildings, or portions thereof. For purposes of this section, 186 sidewalk width is measured from the back of the park strip or required street tree if no 187 park strip is provided, toward the adjacent property line. Modifications to this 188 requirement may be approved by the planning director if in compliance with the adopted 189 “Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan” or its successor. 190 191 SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.37.060.B. That 192 Subsection 21A.37.060.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Design Standards: Design 193 Standards Required in Each Zoning District: Commercial Districts) shall be, and hereby is 194 amended to read as follows: 195 B. Commercial Districts: District Standard (Code Section) SNB CN CB CS CC CSHBD CG TSA Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) 80 80 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) 60/25 60/25 Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.1) 80 90 8 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT District Standard (Code Section) SNB CN CB CS CC CSHBD CG TSA Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.2) 60 60 Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 40 40 40 40 60 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) X X X X X X 40 X 40 Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 15 15 15 15 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) 200 200 Upper floor step back (feet) (21A.37.050.G) 15 Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X X X X X X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X X X X X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K) X X X X X Ground floor residential entrances (21A.37.050.L) X Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) X Primary entrance design SNB District (21A.37.050.O) X 196 9 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 197 SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.46.090.D.3. 198 That Subsection 21A.46.090.D.3 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Sign Regulations 199 for Mixed Use and Commercial Districts: Sign Regulations for the CSHBD and CG Districts: 200 Standards for the CSHBD District) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 201 3. Sign Type, Size Aand Height Standards: 202 203 STANDARDS FOR THE CSHBD DISTRICT Types Oof Signs Permitted Maximum Area Per Sign Face Maximum Height Oof Freestanding Signs1 Minimum Setback2 Number Oof Signs Permitted Per Sign Type Awning/canopy signs 1 square foot per linear foot of storefront (sign area only) See note 1 May extend 6 feet from face of building 2 feet from back of curb5 1 per first floor door/window Canopy, drive- through 40% of canopy face if signage is on 2 faces. 20% of canopy face if signs are on 4 faces See note 1 n/a 1 per canopy face Construction sign 64 square feet 12 feet None 1 per street frontage Flat sign (storefront orientation)6 2 square feet per linear foot of store frontage4 See note 1 n/a 1 per business or storefront Marquee sign 1 square foot per linear foot of store frontage See note 1 See sSubsection 21A.46.070.O of this chapter 1 per storefront Monument sign3 100 square feet 20 feet None 1 per street frontage 10 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Nameplate 2 square feet See note 1 n/a 1 per building entry New development sign 80 square feet 12 feet None 1 per development Pole sign3 75 square feet for a single business, 100 square feet for multiple businesses 25 feet No extension across a property line is permitted 1 per street frontage Political sign 32 square feet 8 feet None No limit Private directional sign 8 21 square feet 4 7 feet None No limit Projecting building sign 0.5 square foot per linear foot of street frontage; not to exceed 40 square feet See note 1 May extend 6 feet from face of building, but shall not cross a property line 1 per street frontage Projecting business storefront sign 6 square feet per sign side, total of 12 square feet See note 1 May extend 4 feet from face of a building and 2 feet from back of curb5. A minimum height of 10 feet above the sidewalk shall be maintained 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have 2. All signs shall be located within the tenant's leasable area and not on any other tenant's leasable space Public safety sign 8 square feet 6 feet None No limit Real estate sign 64 square feet 12 feet None 1 per street frontage Wall sign or flat sign (general building orientation) 1 square foot per linear foot of building face4 See note 1 n/a 1 per building face Window sign 25% of total frontage See note 1 n/a No limit 11 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT window area per use 204 Notes: 205 1. For height limits on building signs, see sSubsection 21A.46.070.J of this chapter. 206 2. Not applicable to temporary signs mounted as flat signs. 207 3. See sSubsection D.6.a of this section. 208 4. A single-tenant building may combine the square footage total of both the storefront 209 orientation and the general building orientation flat signs to construct 1 larger sign. 210 5. Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line. 211 6. Storefront flat signs limited to locations on the lower 2 floors. 212 213 SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 214 first publication. 215 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 216 2021. 217 ______________________________ 218 CHAIRPERSON 219 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 220 221 ______________________________ 222 CITY RECORDER 223 224 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 225 226 227 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 228 229 ______________________________ 230 MAYOR 231 ______________________________ 232 CITY RECORDER 233 (SEAL) 234 235 Bill No. ________ of 2021. 236 Published: ______________.237 Ordinance amending design regulations in CSHBD (legislative) 11.8.21 238 239 240 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2021 (An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the CSHBD Sugar House Business District (CSHBD1 and CSHBD2)) An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2018-00219 pertaining to the CSHBD Sugar House Business District (CSHBD1 and CSHBD2). WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 12, 2019 to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Jacqueline Biskupski (“Applicant”) (Petition No. PLNPCM2018-00219) to amend portions of Chapters 21A.26 (Zoning: Commercial Districts); 21A.37 (Zoning: Design Standards); and 21A.46 (Zoning: Signs) of the Salt Lake City Code to modify regulations pertaining to the CSHBD Sugar House Business District (CSHBD1 and CSHBD2); and WHEREAS, at its June 12, 2019 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said petition; and WHEREAS, the Sugar House Business District has experienced significant growth since the most recent Sugar House Community Master Plan was adopted and the City Council has determined that an increase in sidewalk widths is necessary to accommodate increasing pedestrian traffic; 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 Section 21A.26.060. That Section 21A.26.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: CSHBD Sugar House Business District (CSHBD1 and CSHBD2)) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.26.060: CSHBD SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT (CSHBD1 AND CSHBD2): In this chapter and the associated zoning map, the CSHBD Zone is divided into two (2) subareas for the purpose of defining design criteria. In other portions of this text, the CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 Zones are jointly referred to as the CSHBD Zone because all other standards in this title are the same. A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the CSHBD Sugar House Business District is to promote a walkable community with a transit oriented, mixed use town center that can support a twenty-four (24) hour population. The CSHBD provides for residential, commercial and office use opportunities, with incentives for high density residential land use in a manner compatible with the existing form and function of the Sugar House master plan and the Sugar House Business District. B. Uses: Uses in the CSHBD Sugar House Business District as specified in Section 21A.33.030, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts”, of this title are permitted, subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21A.26.010 of this chapter and this section. C. Design Standards Compliance: Development shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 21A.37 “Design Standards” when applicable as specified in that chapter. D. Design Review: All new construction of principal buildings that exceed fifty feet (50’) in height in the CSHBD1 District or thirty feet (30’) in height in the CSHBD2 District or twenty thousand (20,000) gross square feet in size in either district shall be subject to design review. Design review shall be approved in conformance with the “Sugar House Business District Design Guideline Handbook” (located as an appendix section in the Sugar House Master Plan), “Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan,” and the provisions of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. E. Minimum Lot Size: No minimum lot area or width is required. F. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front and Corner Side Yards: No minimum yard is required. 3 2. Maximum Front/Corner Side Yard Setback: The maximum front and corner side yard setback is fifteen feet (15’). Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized through the design review process, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title, and the review and approval of the planning commission. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may modify this requirement if the adjacent public sidewalk is substandard and the resulting modification to the setback results in a more efficient public sidewalk, and/or the modification conforms with the “Sugar House Business District Design Guidelines Handbook” or “Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan.” Appeal of an administrative decision is to the planning commission. 3. Interior Side Yards: None required. 4. Rear Yards: None required. 5. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting a lot in a residential district shall conform to the buffer yards and landscape requirements of Chapter 21A.48 of this title. 6. Setback from Single-Family Zones: For those structures located on properties zoned CSHBD that abut properties in a Low Density, Single-Family Residential Zone, every three feet (3’) in building height above thirty feet (30’), shall be required a corresponding one foot (1’) setback from the property line at grade. This additional required setback area can be used for landscaping or parking. 7. Parking Setbacks: See Table 21A.44.060 for parking location restrictions. G. Maximum Height: Maximum height limits vary, depending upon location and land use. The following regulations shall apply for each area within the CSHBD Zone: 1. CSHBD1: Height Limit Residential Use Nonresidential Use Up to 30’ Allowed. Allowed. >30’ to 75’ Allowed. For every square foot of nonresidential gross floor area above 30’ in height, an equivalent gross floor area of residential use must be provided. The residential floor area may be provided within the same building or in a separate building. Separate building option requires a development 4 agreement with the city specified in Subsection 21A.26.060.I. >75’ to 105’ Allowed if 90% of the required parking for the building is within a parking structure. Compliance with the same standard for >30’ to 75’ height noted above, and 90% of the required parking for the building must be located within a parking structure. 2. CSHBD2: Height Limit Residential Use Nonresidential Use Up to 30’ Allowed. Allowed. >30’ to 60’ Allowed. For every square foot of nonresidential gross floor area above 30’ in height, an equivalent gross floor area of residential use must be provided. The residential floor area may be provided within the same building or in a separate building. Separate building option requires a development agreement with the City specified in Subsection 21A.26.060.I. If the residential is provided off-site, the nonresidential building is limited to a height of 45’. H. First Floor/Street Level Requirements: The ground floor use area required by Chapter 21A.37 shall be occupied by residential, retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters or performing art facilities. 5 For such areas facing 2100 South, 1100 East, or Highland Drive, residential dwelling units are not allowed within the required ground floor use area. Live/work units are allowed in this space if the working area of the unit is located on the ground floor. I. Residential Requirement for Mixed Use Developments: For those mixed use developments requiring a residential component, the residential portion of the development shall be as follows: 1. Located in the same building as noted in Subsection G of this section, or 2. May be located in a separate building and/or on a different property in the area zoned CSHBD. For such off site residential configuration, the amount of residential development required is equal to the total amount of gross square footage obtained for the nonresidential floors rising in excess of thirty feet (30’). In addition, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the nonresidential structure, the applicant must identify specifically where the residential structure will be located in the area zoned CSHBD and enter into a development agreement with the city to ensure the construction of the residential structure in a timely manner. In such cases where the residential use is built off site, one of the following shall apply: a. Construction of the off site residential use must be progressing beyond the footings and foundation stage, prior to the nonresidential portion of the development obtaining a certificate of occupancy, or b. Prior to the nonresidential portion of the development obtaining a certificate of occupancy, a financial assurance shall be provided to the city assuring that construction of the residential use will commence within two (2) years of receiving a certificate of occupancy for the nonresidential component of the development. The financial assurance shall be in an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of the construction valuation for the residential component of the development as determined by the building official. The city shall call the financial assurance and deposit the proceeds in the city’s Housing Trust Fund if construction has not commenced within two (2) years of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the nonresidential component of the development. J. Park Strip Materials: Property within this zoning district shall be considered part of an improvement district subject to the provisions of Section 21A.48.060, and as such, alternative materials may be utilized for park strips. Alternative material is subject to planning director approval based on its compliance with the adopted “Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan” or its successor. K. Street Trees: Street trees are required and subject to the regulations in Section 21A.48.060. 6 L. Street Lighting: Street lighting shall be installed in accordance with the City Street Lighting Master Plan (or its successor) and any other contract or agreement with the city pertaining to street lighting. This requirement only applies to new principal buildings. M. Sidewalk Materials: Sidewalk paving shall include a minimum of ten percent (10%) brick or pavers as an accent material, subject to engineering division approval. Modifications to this requirement may be approved by the planning director if in compliance with the adopted “Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan” or its successor. This requirement only applies to new principal buildings. N. Sidewalk Width: Sidewalks shall be a minimum of ten feet (10’) wide. This requirement applies to new principal buildings and to additions that increase the gross building square footage by more than fifty percent (50%). This standard does not require removal of existing street trees, existing buildings, or portions thereof. For purposes of this section, sidewalk width is measured from the back of the park strip or required street tree if no park strip is provided, toward the adjacent property line. Modifications to this requirement may be approved by the planning director if in compliance with the adopted “Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan” or its successor. SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.37.060.B. That Subsection 21A.37.060.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Design Standards: Design Standards Required in Each Zoning District: Commercial Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: B. Commercial Districts: Standard (Code Section) District SNB CN CB CS CC CSHBD CG TSA Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) 80 80 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) 60/25 60/25 Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.1) 80 90 7 Standard (Code Section) District SNB CN CB CS CC CSHBD CG TSA Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.2) 60 60 Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 40 40 40 40 60 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) X X X X X 40 X 40 Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 15 15 15 15 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) 200 200 Upper floor step back (feet) (21A.37.050.G) 15 Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X X X X X X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X X X X X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K) X X X X X Ground floor residential entrances (21A.37.050.L) X Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) X Primary entrance design SNB District (21A.37.050.O) X 8 SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.46.090.D.3. That Subsection 21A.46.090.D.3 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Sign Regulations for Mixed Use and Commercial Districts: Sign Regulations for the CSHBD and CG Districts: Standards for the CSHBD District) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 3. Sign Type, Size and Height Standards: STANDARDS FOR THE CSHBD DISTRICT Types of Signs Permitted Maximum Area Per Sign Face Maximum Height of Freestanding Signs1 Minimum Setback2 Number of Signs Permitted Per Sign Type Awning/canopy signs 1 square foot per linear foot of storefront (sign area only) See note 1 May extend 6 feet from face of building 2 feet from back of curb5 1 per first floor door/window Canopy, drive- through 40% of canopy face if signage is on 2 faces. 20% of canopy face if signs are on 4 faces See note 1 n/a 1 per canopy face Construction sign 64 square feet 12 feet None 1 per street frontage Flat sign (storefront orientation)6 2 square feet per linear foot of store frontage4 See note 1 n/a 1 per business or storefront Marquee sign 1 square foot per linear foot of store frontage See note 1 See Subsection 21A.46.070.O of this chapter 1 per storefront 9 Monument sign3 100 square feet 20 feet None 1 per street frontage Nameplate 2 square feet See note 1 n/a 1 per building entry New development sign 80 square feet 12 feet None 1 per development Pole sign3 75 square feet for a single business, 100 square feet for multiple businesses 25 feet No extension across a property line is permitted 1 per street frontage Political sign 32 square feet 8 feet None No limit Private directional sign 21 square feet 7 feet None No limit Projecting building sign 0.5 square foot per linear foot of street frontage; not to exceed 40 square feet See note 1 May extend 6 feet from face of building, but shall not cross a property line 1 per street frontage Projecting business storefront sign 6 square feet per sign side, total of 12 square feet See note 1 May extend 4 feet from face of a building and 2 feet from back of curb5. A minimum height of 10 feet above the sidewalk shall be maintained 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have 2. All signs shall be located within the tenant's leasable area and not on any other tenant's leasable space Public safety sign 8 square feet 6 feet None No limit Real estate sign 64 square feet 12 feet None 1 per street frontage 10 Wall sign or flat sign (general building orientation) 1 square foot per linear foot of building face4 See note 1 n/a 1 per building face Window sign 25% of total frontage window area per use See note 1 n/a No limit Notes: 1. For height limits on building signs, see Subsection 21A.46.070.J of this chapter. 2. Not applicable to temporary signs mounted as flat signs. 3. See Subsection D.6.a of this section. 4. A single-tenant building may combine the square footage total of both the storefront orientation and the general building orientation flat signs to construct 1 larger sign. 5. Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line. 6. Storefront flat signs limited to locations on the lower 2 floors. SECTION 4. 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 _______________________. 11 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2021. Published: ______________. Ordinance amending design regulations in CSHBD (final) 11.8.21 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney November 8, 2021 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Salt Lake City Council Charlie Luke, Chair FROM: Date Received: _ ( t> ~-~!°! Date sent to Council: It;-9'-1= -2e$4 DA TE: '8 · 2 0 · l tj BJECT: Sugar House Business District Design Standards Zoning Text Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, 801-535-7165 , daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the city Council adopt the ordinance to amend the text of the Sugar House Business District zone as recommended by the Planning Commission BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In March 2018 the Mayor initiated a zoning amendment to the Sugar House Business District zone to evaluate incorporating design guidelines stated in the Sugar House Master Plan into the zoning as new regulations . The Sugar House Business District is generally located between 900 East and 1300 East and from 1900 South to I-80 . Design guidelines include regulations on such things as building fa9ade design, spacing of doorways, glass transparency, and public way improvements. The design guidelines are currently implemented in large projects that go through a public process with the Planning Commission, but smaller developments (generally under 20 ,000 square feet) are not required to comply with the guidelines. The proposed amendments incorporate several of the design guidelines from the Sugar House Master Plan into the basic zoning for all developments in the Sugar House Business District, regardless of size. The additional standards include: • Building length limits • Doorway spacing minimums • High quality building material minimums • Ground floor use space dimensional minimums • Design requirements for parking structures • Service/loading area screening requirements • Prohibition on ground floor residential units facing Highland Drive and 2100 South to preserve c01mnercial character. Ground floor commercial use requirements would remain (restaurants, retail , bars, etc.) o Allowance for live/work units when facing Highland D1ive and 2100 South • Allowance for pedeshian way-finding signage • Streetscape requirements: o Park strip paving allowances o Street light requirements o Sidewalk accent material requirements o Sidewalk width minimums Most of the changes are similar to design requirements adopted or proposed for other pedestrian and transit-oriented zones in the City, including the Transit Station Area (TSA), Form Based, and Downtown Support (D-2) zones. The changes also include various minor language clarifications to the existing code to make the code clearer and reduce the need for interpretations. Details regarding the proposed changes are located in the Planning C01mnission Staff Report in Exhibit 3b, on page 2. A condensed visual suimnary of the regulations is located in the same exhibit on page 10. PUBLIC PROCESS: The proposal was presented to the Sugar House C01mnunity Council several times and an open house was held in the Sugar House neighborhood to get neighborhood feedback. Additionally, the Planning Di v ision reached out to several developers and architects who had worked in the area to get their input on the proposal. Additional details regarding the public process are found in the Planning Commission Staff Report in Exhibit 3b, on page 35 . There was support for most of the standards from the representatives of the co1mnunity council, with reservations about certain numerical requirements. One developer, who has developed three multi-family buildings in the Sugar House Business District, had significant concerns with the proposed streetscape improvement requirements and the prohibition on ground floor residential units facing 2100 S and Highland Drive. Those public c01mnents and concerns are included in Exhibit 3b on page 36 and in Exhibit 3c. The proposal went before the Planning Co1mnission for a public hearing on June 12111 • The Coimnission recoimnended approval of the proposed ordinance amendments w ith an additional rec01mnendation to modify the ground floor glass requirement to ensure that glass is installed at eye-level for the average pedeshian. The condition was related to concern that a development could allocate all of their required minimum ground floor glass to space that is above eye-level and that does not allow for pedestrian visibility into the ground floor space. Planning Commission Recommended Condition Background and Options Under the current code requirement, the ground floor fa9ade of buildings, between a height of 3' and 8', must be at least 40% glass. This is to allow for visibility into ground floor spaces by pedestrians. Buildings can provide more glas s than this minimum and often do. However, there is one extreme building case in Sugar House where all of the minimum ground floor glass was located above 7' in height -above eye-level. The building was developed under a prior ordinance that did not require the glass to be provided between 3' to 8' in height; the prior code just required that the glass be located somewhere on the ground floor facade. Although it is theoretically possible for a developer to install all of their minimum glass requirement between 6' and 8' (above eye-level), it is not generally practical due to the need for architectural support for the building and the fa9ade (i .e . glass will generally be broken up by columns and walls and so it is generally not possible for all of the glass required to be located above eye-level). As requested by the Planning Commission in their recommendation, the Planning Division has included two ordinance amendment options for the Council 's consideration that would eliminate the potential for that extreme scenario: 1. Lower the height of the area required to have a minimum of 40% glass from the cun-ent range of 3' and 8' to between 3' and 7'. This would ensure that in an extreme scenario, the 40% glass allocation would be within eye-level (between 5'2" and 7'). However, this could discourage development from allocating additional glass between 7' and 8', which can be beneficial from a design perspective and allow for additional visibility into a ground level space from the sidewalk. 2. Increase the glass requirement to 60% from 40%. This would ensure that in an extreme scenaiio, glass would be installed between 5' and 8', allowing for eye-level visibility into a ground floor space. The Transit Station Area zones and the Downtown Main Street Overlay zones have glass requirements of 60%. One thing to note about this option is that this percentage is relatively high and could more significantly impact fa9ade design and such a chai1ge was n't considered through the public process. The above regulation options regarding glass have not been incorporated into the ordinance that is included with this trnnsmittal. The ordinance will need to be amended according to the City Council 's direction. The Council can incorporate one of these options into the ordinance or adopt the proposed ordinai1ce without one of these options. EXHIBITS: 1) PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3) PLANNING COMMISSION -June 12, 2019 PUBLIC HEARING a) MAILING NOTICE b) STAFF REPORT c) AGENDNMINUTES/PUBLIC COMMENT d) PRESENTATION SLIDES 4) PLANNING COMMISSION -December 12 , 20 18 PUBLIC HEARING a) STAFF REPORT b) AGENDNMINUTES 5) ORIGINAL PETITION 6) MAILING LIST 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of20 (An o rdinance amending various sections of T itle 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pe11aining to the CSHBD Sugar House Bus in ess District (CSHBDl and CSHBD2)) An ordinance amending v arious sections of Title 21 A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant t o P etiti on No. PLNPCM2018-002 19 pe11 a ining to the CSHBD Sugar House Business District (CSHBD 1 and CSHBD2). WHEREAS, the Salt Lake C ity Planning Commiss ion held a publi c hearing on June 12 , 20 19 to consider a pe tition submitted b y Mayor Jacqueline Bi skupski ("Applicant") (Petit ion No. PLNPCM2018-00219) to amend portions of C hapter s 21A.26 (Zoning: Commercia l District s); 2 1A.37 (Zoning: Design Standards); and 21A.46 (Zoning: Signs) of t he Sal t Lake City Code to modify regulations pertaining to the C SHBD Sugar House Business District (CSHBD 1 and CS HBD2); and WHEREAS, at its June 12, 2019 meetin g, the planning commissi on voted in favor of tran smitting a pos itive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Counci l on said petition; a nd WHEREAS, after a public h earin g on this matter the city counci l has determined that ado pting thi s ordinance i s in the city's be st interes ts. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained b y the C ity Council of Salt Lake C ity, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 2 lA.26.060. That Section 21A.26 .060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercia l Districts : CSHBD Sugar House B u si n ess Distric t (CSHBD 1 and CSHBD2)) s hall be, and hereby i s amended to read as fo llows: LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 27 21A.26.060: CSHBD SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT (CSHBDl AND 28 CSHBD2): 29 30 In this chapter and the associated zoning map, the CSHBD Zone is divided into two (2) 31 s ubareas for the purpose of defining design criteria. In other portions of thi s text, the 32 CSHBDl and CSHBD2 Zones are jointly referred to as the CSHBD Zone because all other 33 standards in this title are the same. 34 35 A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the CSHBD Sugar House Business District is to 36 promote a walkable community with a transit oriented, mixed use town center that can 37 support a twenty:four (24) hour population. The CSHBD provides for residential, 38 commercial and office use opportunities, with incentives fo r high density residential land 39 use in a manner compatible with the existing form and function of the Sugar House 40 master plan and the Sugar House Business Di s trict. 41 B. Uses: Uses in the CSHBD Sugar Hou se Busi ness District as specified in 42 s~ection 21A.33.030, "Table GQf Pe1mitted Awid Conditional Uses Ffor Commercial 43 Di s tricts'', of this title are permitted , subject to the general provisions set forth in 44 s~ection 21A.26.010 of this chapter and this section. 45 C. Conformance \Vith Adopted Business District D es ign Guideline Handbook: All new 46 construction of principal buildings and additions that increase the off street parking 4 7 requirement shall be subject to and shall conform with the adopted Business District 48 design guidelines handbook located as an appendi>c section in the Sugar House master 49 ~ 50 C. Design Standards Compliance: Development s hall comply wi th the r equirements of 51 Chapter 21A.37 "D es ign Standards" when applicable as specified in that chapter. 52 D . Design Review: All new construction of principal buildings that exceed fifty fee t (50') in 53 height in the CSHBDl Di strict or thirty feet (30') in height in the CSHBD2 Dis trict or 54 twenty thousand (20,000) gross square feet in size in either district s hall be subj ect to 55 des ign review. The Planning Commission has the authority to approve projects through 56 the design review process. Design review shall be approved in conformance with the 57 "S ugar House Business District Design Guideline Handbook" (located as an appendix 58 section in the Sugar House Master Plan), "Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape 59 Amenities Plan," and the provisions of cChapter 21 A.59 of this title. 60 E. Minimum Lot Size: No minimum lot area or width is required. 61 F. Minimum Yard Requirements : 62 1. Front A~nd Comer Side Yards : No minimum yard i s required. 63 2. Maximum Front/Comer Side Yard Setback: The maximum front and comer s ide yard 64 setback is fifteen feet ( 15 '). Exceptions to this requirement may be authori ze d 65 throug h the design review pro cess, subject to the requirements of cChapter 21 A.59 of 2 66 67 68 69 70 7 1 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 G. 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT this title, and the review and approv al of the P.p_lannin g C.Qomm i ssion. The P.12lanning I)girect or, in consultation with the +!ransp ortati o n I)girector, may modify this requirem ent if the a djacent public s idewalk i s s ubs tandard and th e resulting modification to the setback results in a more effici ent public sidewalk, and/or the modification conforms with the "Sugar H o u se Business Dis tri ct Design G uidelines Handbook" or "Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan.:_: Appeal of an administrative dec i sion is to the P.12lanning C~omm i ssio n . 3. Interior Side Yards: None required. 4. Rear Yards : No minimum yard is None required. 5. Buffer Yard s: A ll lots abutting a lot in a Rfes idential t)gi str ict s ha ll conform to the buffer yards and landscape requirements of cChapter 21 A.48 of this title. 6. Setback from Single-Family Zones: In addition, ff.or those structures located on properties zoned CSHBD that a but properties in a Low Density, Single-Family Residential Zone, every three feet (3 ') in building height above thirty feet (3 0 '), sh a ll be required a corresponding one foot (1 ') setb ack from the property line at grade . This additional required setback area can be used for landscaping or p arking . 7. Parking Setbacks: See Table 2 1A.44.060 for parking location res trictions. Maximum Height: Maximum height limi ts vary, depending upon location and land u se. The following re gul at io n s shall apply fo r each area within the CSHBD Zone: 1. CSHBD l : a. +he maximum building height in the CSHBt)l Zone shall not exceed thirty feet (30 ') for those buildings used e>cc lusively for nonresidential purposes. b. Additional bui lding square footage may be obtained up to a maximum building height of one hundred five feet (I 05 '); however, for each additional floor of nonresidential use above thirty feet (30 '), one floor of residential use is required. c. +he residential component may be transferred off site to another property within the CSHBt) Zoning District in accordance with the provisions of subsection I of this section. If th e required residential component is transferred off s ite, the mmcimum nonresidential building height allowed shall be seventy five feet (75 '). Any bui ldi ng with a height in e>ccess of seventy five feet (75 ') shall be subject to the requirements of subsection GI d of this section. d. Mm<imum building height may be obtained to one hundred five feet (105') for any building subject to at least ninety percent (90%) of all parking for said building being provi ded as structured parking, and in the case of a nonresidential building, the devel oper shall provide off site residential development that is equal 3 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT to or greater than the square footage of the nonresidential building that e)(ceeds thirty feet (30') in height. Height Limit Residential Use Nonresidential Use U12 to 30' Allowed. Allowed. >30' to 75' Allowed. For every sguare foot of nonresidential gross floor area above 30 ' in height, an eguivalent gross floor area of residential u se must b e grovided. The residential floor area may be grovided within the same building or in a segarate building. Se12arate building OQtion reguires a develo12ment agreement with the city sgecified in Subsection 21A.26.060.I. >75' to 105' Allowed if 90% of the Com12 liance with the same r eguired 12arking for the standard for >30' to 75' building is within a height noted above, and 12arking structure. 90% of the reguired 12arking for the building must be located within a garking structure. 2. CSHBD2: a. The maximum building height in the C8HBD2 Zone shall not e>rneed thirty feet (30 ') for those buildings ased e)(clusively for nonresidential purposes. b. Additional square footage may be obtained up to a maximum building height of sixty feet (60'); however, for each additional floor of nonresidential use above thirty feet (30'), one floor of resid ential use is required. c. The residential component may be transferred off site to another property within the CSHBD Zoning District in accordance with the provisions of subsection I of this section. If the residential co mponent is transferred "off site", the mm{irnum nonresidential building height allowed shall be forty five feet (4 5 '). 4 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1 15 d. Buildings used e>wlusively for residential purposes may be built to a maximum 116 height ofsi>Cty feet (60'). Height Limit Residential Use Nonresidential Use u~ to 30' Allowed . Allowed. >30' to 60' Allowed. For every s guare foot of nonresidential gros s floor area above 30' in height, an eguivalent gross floor area of re sidential use must be grovided . The resi dential floor area may be grovided within the same building or in a segarate building. Segarate building ogtion reguires a develogment agreement with the City s gecified in Subsection 2 lA.26.060.I. If the re s idential is grovided off-site, the nonresidential building i s lim ited to a height of 45'. 117 118 H. First Floor/S treet Level Requirements: The first floor or street level space of all buildings 119 ground floor use area reguired by Chagter 2 1A.37 within this area shall be required to 120 provide uses consisting of occugied by residential, retail goods establishments, retail 121 service establishments, public service portions of businesses , restaurants, 122 taverns/brewpubs , bar establishments, art galleries, theaters or performing art facilitie s . 123 For such areas facing 2100 South, 1100 East, or Highland Drive , residential dwelling 124 units are not allowed within the r eguired ground floor use area. Live/work units are 125 allowed in this sgace if the working area of the unit i s located on the ground floor. 126 I. Residential Requirement Ffor Mixed Use Deve lopments : For those mixed use 12 7 developments requiring a residential component, the re sidential portion of the 128 development s hall be as follows: 129 1. Located in the same building as noted in sS.ubsection G of this section, or 130 2. May be located in a segarate building and/or on a diffe rent property in the area zoned 131 CSHBD. For such off site residential configuration, the amount of re s idential 132 development required is equal to the total amount of gro ss square footage obtained 133 for the nonresidential floors rising in excess of thirty feet (30'), less any square 5 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 134 footage of the required fifteen foot (15') step back noted in subsection G of this 13 5 section. In addition, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the nonres identia l 136 structure , the applicant must identify specificall y where the residential structure will 137 be located in the area zoned CSHBD and enter into a development agreement with the 138 Gfity to ensure the construction of the residential structure in a timely manner. In 139 such cases where the residential use is built off s ite, one of the following shall apply : 140 a. Construction of the off site residenti a l use must be progressing beyond the 141 footings and foundation stage, prior to the nonresidential portion of the 142 development obtaining a certificate of occupancy, or 143 b. Prior to the nonresidential portion of the development obtaining a certificate of 144 occupancy, aA financial assurance shall be provided to the city assuring that 145 construction of the off site residential use will commence within two (2) years of 146 receiving a certificate of occupancy for the nonres identia l component of the 14 7 development. The financial assurance shall be in an amount equal to fifty percent 148 (50%) of the construction valuation for the residential component of the 149 development as determined by the building official. The Gfity shall call the 150 financial assurance and deposit the proceeds in the Gfity' s Housing Trust Fund if 151 construction has not commenced within two (2) years of the issuance of the 152 certificate of occupancy for the n onresidential component of the development. 153 The financial assurance shall be in an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of the 154 construction valuation for the residential component of the development as 155 determined by the building official. The City shall call the financial assurance and 156 deposit the proceeds in the City's Housing Trust Fund if construction has not 15 7 commenced within ti.Yo (2) years of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy 158 for the nonresidential component of the development. 15 9 J. Park Strip Materials : Property within this zoning district shall be considered part of an 160 improvement district subject to the provisions of Section 21 A.48.060, and as such, 16 1 alternative materials may be utilized for park strip s. Alternative material is sub ject to 162 planning director approval based on its compliance w ith the adopted "Circulation and 163 Streetscape Amenities Plan" or its successor. 164 165 K. Street Trees: Street trees are required and sub ject to the regulations in Section 166 21A.48.060. 167 168 L. Street Lighting: Street lighting shall be in stalled in accordance with the City Street 169 Lighting Master Plan (or its successor) and any other contract or agreement with the city 170 pertaining to street lighting . This requirement only applies to new principal buildings. 171 172 M. Sidewalk Materials: Sidewalk paving sha ll include a minimum of ten percent (10%) brick 173 or pavers as an accent material, subject to engineering division approval. Modifications to 174 this requirement may be approved by the planning director if in compliance with the 175 adopted "Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan" or its successor. This 176 requirement only applies to new principal buildings. 6 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 177 178 N. Sidewalk Width: Si dewal ks shall be a minimum of e ight feet (8') wide in the CSHBDl 179 zone and six fee t (6 ') w ide in the CSHBD2 zone. T hi s requirement applies to new 18 0 principal buildings and to a dd itio ns that increase the gross bui ldin g sq uare footage by 181 more than fifty percent (50%). Thi s standard does not require removal of existing street 182 trees, existing buildings, or po rt ion s thereof. For purposes of this section, sidewalk w idth 183 is measured from the back of the park strip or r equired street tree if no park strip is 184 provided, to ward the adjacent prope1iy line . Modifications to th i s requirement may be 185 approved by the planning director i f in compliance with the ad opted "Sugar House 186 C ir cul ation and Streetscape Amenities Plan" or its s uccessor. 187 188 SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake Citv Code Subsection 21A.37.060.B. That 189 Subsection 21A.37.060.B of th e Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Design Standards: Design 190 Standards Required in Each Zon ing Di strict: Commercial Di stri cts) shall be, and hereby is 19 1 amended to read as follows: 192 B. Co mmercial Districts: I District [ Standard · · (Code Section) I SNB [~~@]~\ CSHBD l§JI TSA I 1:=====================: Ground floor use (%) DDDDDJiQl Dl801 (2 1 A.37.050~AJ) L__J L_j 1:=====================: Ground floo r use + visual interest(%) (2 1A.37 .050~A~2) 1:======================: Building m ate ri a ls : ground floor(%) (2 1 A.37 .0 50~BJ) :::::=====================: Building materials: upper floors(%) (2 1 A.37 .050~B~2) DDDDDLJ DLJ DDDDDLJDLJ DDDDDLJDLJ 1:=====================: c:JEJEJDD c:JDc:J i::=:::===Glass: up=per floors==:(%) DD DDDDDD (2 1 A.37.050~C~2) Glass: ground floor(%) (2 1 A.37.050~CJ ) 7 193 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Standard (Code Section) !:==================~ Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050_,_D) !:==================~ Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050_,_E) 1 :==================~ Street facing facade : maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050_,_F) I District I I SNB 1 ~@!]~0 1 CSHBD l~I TSA I ~t]t][]t]~t]EJ LJLJLJDDLJ DLJ DDDDD~DLJ 1 :=u==pp=e=r=fl=o=or=s=te=p=b=a=c=k==~DDD DD 1151 D D (feet) (21A.37.050_,_G) L__j Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050_,_H) !:==================~ Lighting: parking lot (2 1A.37.050J) !:==================~ Screening of mechanical equipment (2 1A.37 .050)) !:==================~ Screening of service areas (21A.37 .050_,_K) ~DDDDCJDLJ ~t][][]t]CJt]LJ ~tJtJ D DCJDLJ ~tJtJ[JD~DLJ i:=G==ro=u=n=d =fl=o=or=r=e=s i=de=n=tl=.a=l ~D DDDD D Dlxl entrances (21A.37.050_,_L) L_J l ~Parkinggarag~esor DD DDDCJ DD structures (21A.37 .050_,_M) LJDDDDDDD Primary entrance design SNB District (2 1A.37.050_,_0) 194 SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Sub section 2 1A.46.090 .D.3. 195 That Sub section 2 1A.46.090 .D .3 of the S alt Lake City Code (Zonin g: Sign s: Si gn Re gul ations 19 6 fo r Mi xed Us e and Commercial Di stricts : Si gn Regulations for the CSHBD and CG Di stricts : 197 Stand ard s for the CSHBD District) shall be , and hereby is amended to read as foll ows : 8 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 198 3 . Sign Type, Size Af!nd Hei ght Standards : 199 200 ST AN D ARDS FOR THE CSHBD DIS TRICT Maximum Number()Qf Maximum Height ()Qf Signs Types ()Qf Signs Area Per Freestanding Permitted Per Permitted Sign Face Signs 1 Minimum Setback2 Sign Type Awning/canopy 1 square foot See note 1 May extend 6 feet from I per first fl oor s igns per line a r face of building 2 feet door/window foot of from back of curb5 storefront (s ign area o nly ) Canopy, dri ve-40% of See n ote 1 n/a 1 per canopy th rough ca no py face face if s ig nage is o n 2 faces. 20% of ca nopy face if s ig ns are o n 4 faces Construction sign 64 square I 12 fee t II None I ' per street feet frontage Flat s ign 2 s qu are feet See n ote 1 I n/a I ' per bus in ess or (storefront per linear orientati on)6 foo t of store storefront frontage4 Marquee s ign I square foot See note 1 See I per s t orefront per line ar s.S.ubsect io n 2 1 A .46.070.0 foot of st o re o f thi s chapter fro ntage Monument s ign 3 I 00 s qu a re 20 feet None I ' pe r street fee t frontage I Nameplate I 2 s quare See note 1 n/a I ' per building fee t entry New development 80 square 12 feet None I ' per s ig n feet : development I Pole s ign ' I 75 square 25 fee t No extens ion across a 1 per s treet feet fo r a property li ne is permitted frontage 9 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT single business, 100 square feet for multiple businesses Po litical s ign 32 s quare I 8 feet None No limit I feet Private directional & ~square I 41 feet None No limit I s ign feet Projecting 0.5 square See note I May extend 6 feet from I per street building s ign foot per face of building, but shall frontage linear foot of not cross a property line street frontage; not to exceed 40 square feet Projecting 6 square feet See note I May extend 4 feet from I per leasable business storefront per s ig n face of a building and 2 space. Leasab le s ign side, total of feet from back of curb5. A spaces on 12 square minimum height of I 0 feet corners may feet above the s id ewalk s hat I have 2 . All signs be maintained s hall be located within the tenant's leasable area and not on any other tenant's leasab le space Pub li c safety 8 s quare I 6 feet II None II No lim it I sign feet Rea l estate s ign 64 s quare I 12 feet II None I I per street feet frontage Wall s ig n or flat 1 square foot See note I n/a I per building sign (general per linear face building foot of o rientati on) building face4 Window s ign 25% of total See note I I n/a I No limit frontage w ind ow area per use 201 Notes: 10 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 202 1. For height limits on bui ldi n g s ign s, see s,S.ubsection 21A.46.070) of thi s chapter. 203 2. Not applicable to temporary signs mounted as flat si gns. 204 3. See s.S.ubsection D ~6~a of th is secti on. 205 4. A s in gle-tenant building may combine th e square footage total of both the storefront 206 orientation and the general building orientation flat s igns to construct 1 larger sign. 207 5. Pub li c property lease and in surance required for projection over prope1ty line. 208 6. Storefront flat signs limited to locations on the lower 2 floors. 209 210 SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 211 first publ ication. 212 Passed by the City Counci l of Salt Lake C ity, Utah, this ___ day of _____ _ 2 13 20 . 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 22 1 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _________ _ Mayor's Action: ___ Approved . Vetoed. --- CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 20 . ---- Publi shed: ------ Ordinan ce am endin g des ign re gulations in CS HBD MAYOR 1 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of20 (An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the CSHBD Sugar House Bus iness District (CSHBDl and CSHBD2)) An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21 A of the Salt Lake City Code pursu ant to Petition No. PLN PCM2018-002 19 pertaining to the CSHBD Sugar House Business District (CSHBD 1 and CSHBD2). WHEREAS, the Salt Lake Ci ty Planning Commission h e ld a public hearing o n June 12 , 2019 to consider a petition submitted by M ayor Jacqueline Biskupski ("Applicant") (Petition No. PLNPCM20 18-00219) to amend portions of C ha pters 21 A.26 (Zonin g : Commercial Districts); 2 1A.37 (Zoning: Design Standard s); and 21A.46 (Zoning: Signs) of the Salt Lake City Code to modify r egulations pertaining to the CSHBD Sugar House Business District (CSHBD 1 and CS H BD2); and WHEREAS, at its June 12, 2 019 meeting, the planning commission voted in favo r 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 c ity's best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SEC TION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.26.060. That Section 2 1A.26.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning : Commercial Districts: CSHBD Sugar House Bus in ess District (CSHBDl and CSHBD2)) shall be, and hereby is a mende d to read as follows : 21A.26.060: CSHBD SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT (CSHBDl AND CSHBD2): In this chapter and the associated zo ning map, the CSHBD Zone is divided into two (2) subareas fo r the purpose of defining design criteria. In other portions of this text, the CSHBD 1 and CSHBD2 Zones are jointly referred to as the CSHBD Zone because all other standards in this title are the same. · A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the CSHBD Sugar House Business District is to promote a walkable community w ith a transit oriented, mixed u se town center that can sup port a twenty-four (24) hour population. The CSHBD provides for residential, commercial and office use opportunities, with incentives for high density residential land use in a manner compatible w ith the existing form and function of the Sugar House master plan and the Sugar House Business District. B. Uses: Uses in the CS HBD Sugar House Bus iness Dist rict as specified in Section 2 1A.33.030, "Table of Permitted and Conditi onal Uses for Commercial Di stricts", of this title are permitted, subject to the gen eral prov is ions set forth in Section 2 1A.26.010 of this ch apter and this section. C. Design Standards Compliance: Development shall comply with the re quirements of Chapter 21A.37 "Design Standards" when applicable as specified in that chapter. D . Design Review: All new construction of principal buildings that exceed fifty feet (50') in height in the CSHBD l District or thirty feet (30') in height in the CSHBD2 District or twenty thousand (20,000) gross square feet in size in either di stric t shall be subject to design review. Des i gn review s hall be approved in conformance w ith the "Sugar House Busi ness District Des ign Guideline Handbook" (located as an appendix section in the Sugar House Master Plan), "Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan," and the provi sions of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. E. Minimum Lot Size: No minimum l ot area or width is required. F. Minimum Yard Require ments : 1. Front and Corner Side Yards: No minimum yard is required. 2. Maximum Front/Corner Side Yard Setback: The maximum front and corner side yard setback is fifteen feet ( 15 '). Exceptions to this requirement may be authori zed through the design review process, subject to the requirements of Chapter 2 lA.59 of this title, and the review and approval of the planning commission. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may modify this requirement if the adjacen t public s idewalk is subs tandard and the resulting modification to the setback results in a more efficient public sidewalk, and/or the modification conforms with the "Sugar House Business District Design Guidelines Handbook" or "Sugar 2 House Circulation an d Streets cape Amenities Plan ." App eal of an a dmini strative decision is to the planning commission. 3. Interior Side Yards: None required. 4. Rear Yards: None required. 5. Buffer Yards : All lots abutting a lot in a residential distri ct shall conform to the buffe r yards and land scape requirements of Chapter 21 A.48 of thi s title . 6. Setback from Single-Family Zo nes: For those stru ctures located on properties zoned CSHBD that abut properties in a Low Density, Single-Famil y Residenti a l Zone, every three feet (3 ') in building height above thirty feet (30'), shall be required a corresponding one foot (l ')setback from the property l ine at grade. This additi onal required setback area can be used for la nd scap ing or p ar kin g . 7. Parking Setbacks: See Table 21A.44.060 for parking location restrictions . G. Maximum Hei ght: Maximum height limits vary, depending upon location and land u se. T he fo llowi ng regulations s ha ll apply for each area within the CSHBD Zone: 1. CSHBDl: Height Limit Residential Use Nonresidential Use U p to 30' Allowed. Allowed. >30' to 75' Allowed. For every square foo t of nonresidential gro ss floor area above 30 ' in height, an equivalent gross floor area of res idential use must be p rovided. The resi dential floor area may be provided w ithin the same bui ldin g or in a separate buil ding. Separate building opti on requires a development agreement w ith th e city s pecified in Sub section 2 l A.26.060.1. >75' to 105' Allowed if 90% of the Compli ance with the sam e re q uired parking for the standard for >30' to 75' building is wi thin a height noted above, and parking structure. 90% of the required parki ng for the buil ding 3 must be located within a parking structure. 2 . CSHBD2 : Height Limit Residential Use Nonresidential Use Up to 30' A ll owed. Allowed. >30' to 60' Allowed. For every square foot of nonresidential gross floor area above 30' in height, an equivalent gross floor area of residential use must be provided. The residential floor area may be provided within the same building or in a separate building. Separate building option requires a development agreement w ith the City specified in Subsection 21A.26.060.I. If the residential is provided off-site, the nonresidential building is limited to a height of 45'. H. First Floor/Street Level Requirements: The ground floor use ar ea required by Chapter 21A.37 shall be occupied by residential, retai l goods establishments, retail servi ce establ ishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establi shments, art gall eri es, th eaters or performing art facilities . For such areas facing 2100 South, 1100 East, or Highland Drive, residential dwelling units are not allowed within the required ground floor use area. Live/work units are allowed in this space if the working area of the unit is located on the ground floor. I. Residential Requirement for Mixed Use Developments : For those mixed use deve lopments requiring a res idential component, the residential portion of the development shall be as follow s : 1. Located in the same building as noted in Subsection G of this section, or 4 2. May be located in a separate building and/or on a different property in the area zoned CSHBD. For such off site residential configuration, the amount of residential development required i s equal to the total amount of gross square footage obtained for the nonresidential floors rising in excess of thirty feet (30 '). In addition, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the nonresidential structure, the applicant must identify specificall y where the residential structure will be located in the area zoned CSHBD and enter into a development agreement with the city to ensure the construction of the residential structure in a timely manner. In such cases where the residential use is built off s ite, one of the following shall apply: a. Construction of the off site residential use must be progressing beyond the footings and foundation stage, prior to the nonresidential portion of the development obtaining a certificate of occupancy, or b. Prior to the nonresidential portion of the development obtaining a certificate of occupancy, a financial assurance shall be provided to the city assuring that construction of the residential use will commence within two (2) years of receiving a certificate of occupancy for the nonresidential component of the development. The financial assurance shall be in an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of the construction valuation for the residential component of the development as determined by the building official. The city shall call the financial assurance a nd deposit the proceeds in the city's Housing Trust Fund if construction has not commenced within two (2) years of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the nonresidential component of the development. J. Park Strip Materials: Property within thi s zoning district shall be considered part of an improvement di s trict subject to the provisions of Section 2 lA.48.060, and as such, alternative materials may be utilized for park strips. Alternative material is subject to planning director approval based on its compliance w ith the adopted "Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan" or its successor. K. Street Trees: Street trees are required and subject to the regulations in Section 21A.48.060. L. Street Lighting: Street lighting shall be installed in accordance with the City Street Lighting Master Plan (or its successor) and any other contract or agreement with the city pertaining to street li ghting. This requirement only applies to new principal buildings. M. Sidewalk Materials: Sidewalk paving shall include a minimum of ten percent (10%) brick or pavers as an accent material, subject to engineering division approval. Modifications to this requirement may be approved by the planning director if in compliance with the adopted "Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan" or its successor. This requirement only applies to new principal buildings. N. Sidewalk Width: Sidewalks shall be a minimum of eight feet (8 ') wide in the CSHBD 1 zone and six feet (6 ') wide in the CSHBD2 zone. This requirement applies to new 5 principal buildings and to additions that increase the gross building square footage by m ore than fifty percent (50%). This standard doe s not requi re removal of exi sting street trees, existing buildings, or portions thereof. For purposes of this section , si dewalk width is measured from the back of the park strip or required stre et tree if no p ark strip is prov id e d, toward the adjacent property lin e. Modifications to thi s require ment may be ap proved by the planning director if in compliance with the adopted "Sugar Ho use Circulation and Streetscape Ameniti es Plan" or its succes sor. SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.37.060.B. That Subsection 21A.37.060.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Des ign Standards: Design Standards R equired in Each Zoning Di strict: Co mmercial Di stri cts) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: B. Co mmercial Di stricts: Standard (Code Section) 1:====================: Ground floor us e (%) (2 I A.37.050.A.1) I D istrict I I SNB l~~~~I CSHBD l~I TSA I DDDDDc:JDc:J 1:====================: DDDDDLJD LJ !:=====Building mate===r ials: ground DDDDDLJO DUO floor(%) (2 l A.37 .050.B.1) Gro und floor use+ visual int erest (%) (2 1A.3 7 .050.A.2) Building materials: upper fl oors(%) (21A.37 .050.B.2) DDDDDLJDLJ 1:====================: tJEJEJDD~Dc:J i:=====G lass: up=perfloors~(o/o) DDDDDDDD (2 1A.37.050.C .2) Glass: ground floor (%) (2 1A.37 .050.C. l) Building entrances (feet) (2 1A.37.0 50.D) 6 Standard (Code Section) !:=================~ Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 1;=================~ Street facing facade: max imum length (feet) (2 1A.37.0 50.F) I District I I SNB l~~~~I CSHBD l~I TSA I LJLJLJDDLJDLJ DDDDDLJDLJ 1 :=u==p=pe=r=fl=o=o=r=st=e=p=b=ac=k=====:ooooo115loo (feet) (21A.37.050.G) L__j Lighting: exterior (2 l A.37.050.H) !~================~ Li ghtin g: p arking lot (21 A.37.050 .I) !~================~ Screening of mechanical equipment (2 lA.37.050.J) c:JDDD D c:JD~ [_:]~~[]L]c:JLJ~ c:J~~DDc:JD~ ;::::====Screening=of servic=e areas lxllxllxl001Xl 0 1xl (21A.37.050.K) L_jl_JL_j L__j L_j .____Ground fl=oor res ide=ntial DDDDDD Dlxl ~ (21A.37.050.L) L_j :===Parkin ggarag~esor DDDDDCJDD structures (21A.37.050.M) Primary entrance de s ign SN B Di strict (21A.37.050.0) LJDDDDDDD SECTION 3. Amending the tex t of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.46.090.D.3. That Subsection 21A.46.090.D.3 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Sign Regulations for Mixed Use and Commercial Di stricts: Sign Regulations for the CSHBD and CG D istri cts: Standard s for the CSHBD Di strict) shall be, and hereby is amend ed to read as follows: 3. Sign Type, Size and Height Standards : 7 ST AN D ARDS FOR THE CSHBD DISTRI CT Maximum Number of Maximum Height of Signs Types of Signs Area Per Freestanding Permitted Per Permitted Sign Face Signs 1 Minimum Setback2 Sign Type Awning/canopy l s quare fo o t S ee note 1 May extend 6 fe et fr om 1 per first fl oor s ig ns per linear face of building 2 feet d oor/w ind ow fo ot o f from bac k of curb 5 s torefro nt (s ig n a rea only) C an o py, dri ve-4 0% of See no te 1 n/a l pe r can o py th ro ug h cano py fa ce face if s ig n age is o n 2 fac e s . 20% of canopy face if s igns a re on 4 fac es Con stru ction sign 64 squa re I 12 fe et II None I 1 pe r stre et fe et fro ntage F lat s ig n 2 s qua re feet See no te 1 I n/a I I pe r busi n ess or (sto re fro nt pe r linear o ri entati o n )6 fo ot of st o re storefront fr ontage4 Ma rq uee s ig n 1 square foot See note 1 See I pe r storefront per lin ear Subsec t io n 21 A.46 .070 .0 fo o t o f st o re of this c h a pte r fronta ge M o nume nt s ig n3 100 square I 2 0 fee t N one I 1 pe r street feet fr o ntage I Nam eplate I 2 s qu are I See n ote 1 n/a 11 pe r bu ilding fee t entry New d eve lo pm ent 80 s q ua re I 12 fee t None I l per s ign fee t development Pole s ig n3 75 squ a re 25 fee t No e xte nsion across a l per street feet fo r a property l in e is pe rmitted fro ntage s in g le bu s in ess, 100 squa re 8 feet for DI multiple bu s inesses Po l iti cal s ig n 32 s quare I 8 feet None No limit I feet Priva te directiona l 21 s quare I 7 feet N one No limit I sign feet Projecting 0.5 s quare See note 1 May e xtend 6 feet from 1 per street building s ign foot p e r face of building, bu t s hall fro ntage linear foot of no t cross a property lin e street fr ontage; not to exceed 40 squ are feet Projecting 6 s qu are feet See note 1 May extend 4 feet from 1 per leasabl e bu s in ess storefront per s ig n face of a bu ilding and 2 space. L easable s ign s ide, to tal of feet from back of c urb5 . A s paces on 12 s quare min imum height of I 0 feet corners may feet above the s ide walk s hal l have 2. All s igns be maintaine d s h all be located w ithin t he tenant's leasable a re a and not o n any ot he r tenant's leas able space Public safety 8 s quare I 6 feet None II No limit I s ign feet Real estate s ign 64 s quare I 12 feet None I I per street feet fr ontage Wall s ign or flat 1 sq ua re foot See n ote I n/a 1 per bui ld in g s ign (general per lin ear face building foot of orientation ) building face4 Window sign 25 % of tota l See note 1 I n/a I No limit frontage window area per use Notes: 1. For hei ght limits on building s igns, see Subsecti on 21A.46.0 70 .J of this chapter. 2. Not applicable to temporary s igns mounted as flat s igns. 3. See Subsection D.6 .a of thi s section. 9 4. A singl e-tenant buil d ing may comb ine the square footage total of both the storefront orientation and the general build ing orientation flat s igns to construct I larger sign. 5. Pub li c property lease and insurance required for projection over property line. 6. Stor efront flat signs limited to locations on the lower 2 fl oors . SECTION 4 . Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, thi s ___ day of _____ _ 20 CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSI GN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor o n ----------- Mayor's Action: Vetoed. ---___ Approved. CITY RECORDER (S EAL) Bill No. of20 ---- Published: ------- Ordinan ce am ending desi gn regulati ons in CSHBD (final) MAYOR AP PR OVEDASTOFORM 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 12, 2019 PUBLIC HEARING A. MAILING NOTICE B. STAFF REPORT C. AGENDA/MINUTES D. PRESENTATION SLIDES 4. PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 12TH WORK SESSION A. STAFF REPORT B. AGENDA/MINUTES 5. ORIGINAL PETITION 6. MAILING LIST 1.CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2018-00210 March 20, 2018 Mayor initiates petition to amend the Sugar House Business District (CSHBD) zoning March 21, 2018 Petition assigned to Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing. May 9, 2018 Notice sent to Recognized Community Organization (Sugar House Community Council) informing them of the petition. June 18, 2018 Attended Sugar House Community Council Land Use Committee to discuss initial scope of proposal July 10, 2018 Notice and survey sent to Sugar House developers and architects for input on existing zoning code July 10, 2018 Attended Sugar House Community Council Land Use Committee to discuss proposal for second time November 19, 2018 Attended Sugar House Community Council Land Use Committee to discuss proposal for third time December 12, 2018 Briefing held with Planning Commission for proposed changes February 20, 2019 Notices sent to property owners, residents within 300 feet of CSHBD zone, developers and architects, planning listserv and Council District 7 listserv March 6, 2019 Open House held at Fire Station #3 in Sugar House June 12, 2019 Planning Commission held public hearing and made positive recommendation to approve proposed changes with a condition related to glass 2.NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2018-00210 Sugar House Business District Design Standards Text Amendment - A request by the Mayor to amend the Sugar House Business District (CSHBD) zoning district regulations. The amendments would apply additional design standards to development in the zone. Design standards include regulations pertaining to such things as windows, entrances, and building materials. Currently, there are a limited number of design standards for small developments in Sugar House, whereas large developments have many more standards to comply with. The proposed additional design standards are meant to bridge this gap and help ensure that new small buildings support a high quality, pedestrian oriented environment in Sugar House. Other miscellaneous related changes and clarifications to the zoning code are also included in the amendments. The proposal affects both the CSHBD-1 and CSHBD-2 zoning districts. The zone is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. 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 Daniel Echeverria at 801-535-7165 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at daniel.echeverria@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. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION A.Mailing Notice June 12, 2019 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, June 12, 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 take~ Sugar House Business District Design Standards Text Amendment -A request by the Mayor to amend the Sugar . .'~ou~e.. .€iusfBi.~~trict (CSHBD) zoning district regulations. The amendments would apply addltioriai ... des·igh'*':'!.cS'tanda rds to development in the zone. Design standards include regulations pertaining to such things as windows, entrances, and building materials. Currently, there are a limited number of design standards for small developments in Sugar House, whereas large developments have many more standards to comply with. The proposed additional design standards are meant to bridge this gap and help ensure that new small buildings support a high quality, pedestrian oriented environment in Sugar House. Other miscellaneous related changes and clarifications to the zoning code· are also included in the amendments. The proposal affects both the CSHBD-1 and CSHBD-2 zon';:ng .districts . The zone is located_ within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff Contact: Daniel Echeverria, daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com or 801-535-7165) Case number PLNPCM2018-00210 . 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. This is an accessible facility. Fo r additional meeting information, please see www.slcgov.com or call 801-535-7757; TDD 535-6220. RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED -· 9 4 !H~92 1.s s 2i e 1 aea fl) fl) < ...J () ..... fl) ~ $ 000.50° MA • ·ri r_;t-:./Z.0/Z.Oi"3 STA"fE MA.i.... - COMMERCIAL SECURITY BANK KEY BANK/ CORELOGIC PO BOX 961009 FORT WORTH TX 761'()'.i -50 DE 1 F:TtJP 1~ TO SE JDi:.P. VACt..._NT uNA3~E T0 FOPWARn V."<.C SC: !41i4 x~~:c.~0~~~-~,-~o I 11., I 1:1il 1!!1111lII\1! 11\iI\l1\11\1~1 ;,~,,,~I ,,\,i ill ll \1G 11: ~ I 3. PLANNING COMMISSION B. Staff Report June 12, 2019 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 DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Daniel Echeverria, daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com, 801-535-7165 Date: June 7, 2019 Re: PLNPCM2018-00219 Sugar House Business District (CSHBD) Design Standards Zoning Text Amendment MASTER PLAN: Sugar House ZONING DISTRICT: Sugar House Business District-1 & -2 REQUEST: A request by the Mayor to amend the Sugar House Business District (CSHBD) zoning district regulations. The amendments would apply additional design standards to development in the zone. Design standards include regulations pertaining to such things as windows, entrances, and building materials. Currently, there are a limited number of design standards for small developments in Sugar House, whereas large developments have many more standards to comply with. The proposed additional design standards are meant to bridge this gap and help ensure that new small buildings support a high-quality pedestrian oriented environment in Sugar House. Other miscellaneous related changes and clarifications to the zoning code are also included in the amendments. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in this staff report and the factors to consider for zoning text amendments, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding this proposal. ATTACHMENTS: A.Summary Sheet of CSHBD Code and Changes B.Proposed Code C.City Plan Considerations D.Analysis Of Zoning Text Amendment Standards E.Public Process And Comments F.City Department Review Comments 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Project Description and Background…………….. 2 2. Key Considerations…………………………………….. 3 3. Standards of Review Discussion……………….….. 8 4. Next Steps……………………………………….……..….. 8 5. Attachments…………………………………………….... 9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The proposed amendments to the Sugar House Business District zoning code are primarily intended to ensure that new small developments in Sugar House will support a high-quality pedestrian environment, despite having fewer regulations to follow than larger developments. Large buildings in Sugar House must go through a comprehensive design review process known as “Conditional Building and Site Design Review,” whereas small buildings do not. The proposal will impose additional design standards on all buildings (large and small) to help bridge the design criteria gap between large and small buildings. In addition to requiring compliance with new design standards, a few other regulation changes are being proposed, including requirements for additional sidewalk widths and requirements for commercial uses on the ground floor along certain streets. Furthermore, minor changes are also being made to clarify existing regulations that have been confusing in the past for both staff and applicants. List of New/Changed Regulations for Sugar House Business District • Ground Floor Use Space: 80% of ground floor street facing façade length must be a use besides parking and have a 25' min. depth. • Building Materials: 80% of ground floor street facing façade and 60% of upper floor street facing facades must be covered in a high-quality durable material • Service Area Screening: Service areas (loading docks, etc.) must be screened. • Building Entrances: One required at every 40' (min.) of street facing façade. (Revised from 12/18) • Maximum Façade Length: 300' length limit for street facing façades. • Parking Structure Design Standards: Adds various design standards primarily relating to ground floor use and facade design for parking structures. • Ground Floor Commercial Use: When facing 1100 East/Highland Drive/2100 South, residential dwelling units are not allowed on the ground floor. Live/work units allowed. (Revised from 12/18) • Minimum Sidewalk Widths: 8' in CSHBD1, 6' in CSHBD2. (Revised from 12/18) • Sidewalk Materials: Min. 10% must be brick/pavers as an accent material (New from 12/18) • Street Light Installation: Required where identified by City Lighting Master Plan. • Directional Signage: Increased height limit to 7' to allow for eye-level pedestrian wayfinding signage and increased square foot area limit to 21 square feet • Park Strip Paving Materials: Fully hard surfaced park strips allowed if compliant with Sugar House Circulation and Amenities Plan • Building Heights: Changes paragraphs into tables, regulations stay the same Key Points • Adds additional design standards in CSHBD zones o Aimed at new, small scale development o Bridges design criteria gap between small and large developments o Standards would apply to all development sizes • Adds additional miscellaneous zoning standards aimed at streetscapes • Developments could still request modifications through Design Review process 2 The above is a quick list of the proposed new and changed regulations. The full proposed regulations with their full nuances can be read in the full code proposal in Attachment B. They are also summarized in a more visual oriented format in Attachment A. New regulations and changed regulations are underlined in that attachment. Some of the proposed changes are discussed further in the Key Considerations section due to Planning Commission discussions and further public input. Changes have been made to the code since it originally went to Planning Commission and those changes are also discussed in the Key Considerations section below. Planning Commission Discussion Planning Staff presented proposed changes to the CSHBD regulations to the Planning Commission in a work session on December 12, 2018. Details and discussion regarding the proposed modifications are in the staff memo from that meeting. The memo can be accessed from the following location: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2018/00210Memo.pdf It is also included as a separate file in the Planning Commission materials packet/Dropbox folder. As the proposed changes are discussed in depth in that memo, this staff report addresses items of discussion from that Planning Commission meeting, other input/developments since that time, and revisions to the code because of those. At the December 12th Planning Commission meeting the Commission discussed several different aspects of the proposal. Those discussed aspects of the proposal and responses are included in the Key Considerations section below. Developer/Property Owner Input Since the Planning Commission meeting, staff reached out to developers, property owners, and architects with the proposed changes, seeking their input. Staff received a comprehensive review of the proposed regulations from one developer who has built three different recent developments in the Sugar House Business District zone. His full letter is included in Attachment E. Additionally, staff sat down and discussed the proposal with another Sugar House property owner who owns a large portion of the shopping complex in central Sugar House to discuss the proposal and any concerns they might have. One other commercial property owner attended the open house and discussed how the standards would work and potential issues. Input from these developers and property owners and other responses to their concerns are in the Key Considerations section below. Other Community Input Additionally, staff held an open house in the Sugar House area and received formal comments from the Sugar House Community Council, following multiple meetings with their Land Use and Zoning Committee. The Open House included direct notice mailers to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the Sugar House Business District, as well as e-mailed noticing to City listservs, including the Planning and District 7 City Council listservs. Discussion regarding input from the open house and community council concerns is in the Key Considerations section below. The Sugar House Community Council’s full letter is in Attachment E. KEY CONSIDERATIONS: The key considerations and concerns below have been identified through the analysis of the project, neighbor and community input, Planning Commission input, and department reviews. 3 1.Ground Level Use Depth 2.Ground Level Commercial Use on 1100 East/2100 South 3.Sidewalk Width 4.Park Strip Paving and Landscaping 5.Building Façade Length 6.Door Spacing Requirement 7.Additional Sidewalk Paving Pattern Proposal Consideration 1: Ground Level Use Depth Two developers brought up the potential for the required ground floor space depth of 25' to be too deep for all or a portion of their ground floor uses. Concerns were also expressed as to how they could fit parking within the building, while also accommodating the ground level space depth requirement. The design standards chapter includes a required depth of 25 feet for ground level uses. This full depth could be problematic for smaller sites with low site depth. The 25' depth requirement represents a middle ground between shallow and deep ground level spaces; the intent was to avoid the creation of shallow ground level spaces that might end up as just hallways that provide little potential for street engagement, and to avoid requiring excessively deep spaces that cut into the ability to provide the necessary parking within a building or site, all while still requiring enough space to accommodate an economically viable, active use that would engage the street. This depth applies to any building that is subject to the ground floor active use requirements in the Design Standards chapter of the zoning code. This standard currently applies to the Residential/Mixed Use zones, Downtown Secondary Central Business zone, and Transit Station Area zone. The Design Review process, which is required for large buildings in Sugar House, can be used to modify the requirement, if it can be shown that an alternate design would still meet the intent of the standard by still activating the street at a similar level. Through a City staff level review, the requirement can be reduced from 25' to 20' depth (a 20% reduction) and it can be further reduced by the Planning Commission. Because of the flexibility provided by that process, staff believes that it is a reasonable and viable zoning requirement to help activate the ground level of buildings in Sugar House. •Staff Recommendation: Adopt the proposed ground level active use requirement, as the Design Review process can be used to modify the depth of the requirement providing flexibility for projects that meet the intent of the requirement. Consideration 2: Ground Level Commercial Use on 1100 E/2100 S One developer brought up concerns (see Attachment E) with the requirement that a commercial use be provided on the ground level (this requirement would mean that the ground level use couldn’t be 100% residential). Staff’s original proposal was that a commercial use be required to be incorporated into ground level spaces that face 1100 E/Highland Drive or 2100 South. The developer noted concerns with the viability of such spaces, parking requirement impacts, and increasing the associated cost of residential units in the building. Staff acknowledges these concerns and recognizes that these are all legitimate issues with requiring commercial uses on the ground floor. Additionally, staff is aware that it can be more difficult to get financing for mixed- use buildings versus single-use buildings, especially on lower-scale buildings (<60') that could be built in the CSHBD-2 zone. 4 However, ground level residential unit spaces generally do not provide the level of interactivity that commercial spaces provide and do not encourage ground level pedestrian activity. The Sugar House Master Plan strongly encourages ground floor interaction and activity and notes the importance of commercial uses in creating a vibrant activity center. Because of these policies, staff is recommending that ground level residential dwelling units be prohibited on the ground level of the major commercial/activity corridors on 2100 S and Highland Drive, in order to maintain a strong commercial presence in the Sugar House Central Business District. Taller residential buildings (>75') developed on these streets in the past decade have included ground floor commercial; however, smaller residential buildings in the CSHBD-2 zone (<60’) have not included ground floor commercial space. This difference may be due to the difficulty in getting financing for mixed-use developments, especially in lower scale buildings, and/or the ability to make such lower scale mixed-use developments profitable. Because of these factors, the proposed ground floor limitation may discourage residential building development on Highland Drive and 2100 South within the CSHBD-2 zone, and may result in single-use commercial developments, and/or fewer new developments on these corridors overall. However, because of the strong policy encouragement in City plans noted above, staff is recommending that the proposed restrictions be adopted. Staff has revised the original proposal to allow for ground-level live/work units, where a residential unit is located in some portion of the space and it otherwise has a ground level work/commercial space next to the sidewalk. This provides some flexibility in the regulation and may be easier to finance than a strict commercial space. The Sugar House Master Plan specifically calls out live/work units as an acceptable use to help activate the street level in the business district. The TSA zones have a similar zoning allowance for ground floors along 400 South and North Temple. Also important to note is that all other streets besides 1100 East/Highland Drive and 2100 South will be able to have residential dwelling units on the ground floor. •Staff Recommendation: Adopt the revised ground floor residential dwelling unit limitation, with the allowance for live/work units Consideration 3: Sidewalk Width Concerns were provided from a developer about sidewalk width requirements potentially causing removal of street trees. Street trees are required to be provided at a rate of 1 per every 30’ of street frontage. Because they are required, trees can’t be eliminated to meet the sidewalk width requirements. Staff has added a clarification to the sidewalk width standard to note that it does not require removal of existing street trees. The Planning Commission also had questions regarding the appropriateness of the specific sidewalk width requirement. The proposal comes directly from the Sugar House Business District Design Guideline Handbook, which calls for 8' in high pedestrian traffic areas and 6' in lower pedestrian traffic areas. This aligns with the proposed code, which calls for 8' in the CSBHD-1 (the denser/more intense of the Sugar House districts) and 6' in the CSHBD-2 (the lower intensity of the Sugar House districts that is generally on the periphery of the business district). These dimensions also lie within recommended sidewalk parameters from the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), a nationally recognized source for transportation policies and standards that are pedestrian and transit oriented. Their recommendations are 5 ' to 7' for residential areas (lower pedestrian traffic areas) and 8' to 12' for downtown and commercial areas. Both ranges align with the proposed recommendations. The City also has existing standards 5 codified in the subdivision code that apply to new subdivisions of property. The base standard is 6’ for commercial zones and 8' for central business district properties. These also align with the proposed Sugar House zone requirements. There was also discussion at the Planning Commission briefing regarding where the sidewalk width would be measured from. As a result, staff has clarified that the width would be measured from the back of park strip (if there was a park strip provided) or from the required street tree (in tree grate) if no park strip is provided. This would ensure there is a clear walking path of the minimum required dimensions. •Staff Recommendation: Adopt the proposed 6' and 8' sidewalk width requirements as they align with existing City policies and standards, and best practice standards Consideration 4: Park Strip Paving and Landscaping Concerns were also brought up regarding allowing park strips to be paved rather than landscaped. A variety of opinions on this were heard from residents, the community council, and developers. There are concerns that we will have fewer green spaces, but also a desire to see park strip areas utilized as extensions of the sidewalk to increase walkability. Staff believes that the proposed language that allows park strips to be paved only when in compliance with the City ’s adopted Circulation and Amenities Plan with Planning Director approval, represents a balanced approach that doesn’t allow for the wholesale elimination of park strips and vegetation in City rights-of- way. A couple concerns were provided from both a developer and the Community Council regarding the importance of street trees. Because of those concerns staff has included additional clarifying language in the proposed ordinance that street trees are required and are subject to the minimum 30' spacing in the general landscaping section. This requirement is not clear in the current general landscaping section of the Zoning code and the proposed code will clarify this. •Staff Recommendation: Adopt the proposed revised allowance for park strip paving, when in compliance with the adopted City plan, as noted in the draft code; along with the additional new code that makes it clear that trees are required Consideration 5: Building Façade Length The Planning Commission briefly discussed building lengths along street frontages and the community council would like to see the limit be 200 feet. The building length limitation regulation is meant to encourage a pedestrian network to develop in Sugar House, by requiring that pedestrian paths be provided between buildings once that length is met. The 300-foot limit has generally been the limit in Sugar House for the past decade and most new buildings are around this length. Additionally, most buildings that have hit this limit have incorporated pedestrian paths. Generally, staff believes the limit has been working in creating a pedestrian network as Sugar House develops. The pedestrian and vehicle networks envisioned in the Sugar House Circulation Plan to break up the large blocks in Sugar House are generally spaced ~300' apart. Staff believes a 200-foot limitation could create additional, excess pedestrian paths that don’t align with the Circulation Plan, and could lead to unnecessary, additional requests for building length modifications through the Design Review process. For example, in the TSA zone, a 200-foot limitation was established during revisions to the code. That has led to 300' long buildings being required to go 6 through the design review process, despite these buildings and their pedestrian networks already lining up with planned pedestrian circulation paths that are spaced every ~330 feet (mid-block). There were also concerns at the Planning Commission with the potential for long monotonous buildings and wanting to see variety in architecture for buildings that are of this length. Buildings exceeding 200' in length are all expected to go through the Design Review process due to such buildings exceeding the square footage that requires this process (20,000 sq ft) and the Design Review process includes a review of the design of the building for architectural interest. This review process encourages variety in the architecture for pedestrian interest regardless of building length. Staff Recommendation: Adopt the proposed 300' building length limitation as the length aligns with other City policies regarding the locations of pedestrian circulation paths Consideration 6: Door Spacing Requirement Staff received questions at the Planning Commission briefing about door spacing and what negative impacts the requirement could impose on developments. There is a desire for doors to be spaced every 30 feet and is communicated in both the adopted Design Guidelines Handbook and the Sugar House Community Council’s comments; however, such a dense door requirement can be logistically problematic in a few situations. One potentially problematic situation can occur when there is a garage entry on the facade, which can be 20' or wider. It may be difficult to place an entry door within the 30' spacing limit due to the location of the garage doors, garage door frames, and door equipment. The door could end up being impractical, locked, and/or unused as it would lead to a maintenance space or directly into the garage, rather than into usable ground level active space. The requirement can also be problematic for buildings on smaller lots, where the strict door spacing standard can lead to an oddly placed door. In surveying door placement on newer buildings in the Sugar House zone, the average spacing is approximately 1 door every 45 feet. The recently adopted (March 2019) Design Review process does not allow staff to administratively approve modifications to the door spacing requirement on developments. This means that any request to shift a door outside of the strict 30' spacing requirement would have to go the Planning Commission for approval. Staff believes 30' would be too strict and potentially impractical and is proposing a revised door spacing requirement of 40 feet. This matches the spacing requirement in the Transit Station Area zone and recently proposed requirements in the Downtown D-2 zone. Staff Recommendation: Adopt the proposed revised door spacing requirement of 40' as it reflects a more realistic expectation for door spacing, while still facilitating pedestrian interest Consideration 7: Additional Sidewalk Paving Pattern Proposal In their letter regarding this proposal (see Attachment E), the Sugar House Community Council identified that there was not a requirement in the proposed zoning relating to sidewalk material requirements. Generally new developments in Sugar House and City funded sidewalk improvements have been done with brick/pavers incorporated as accents to the standard concrete sidewalk. You can see this pattern in a variety of places in the Sugar House Business District, including on Monument Plaza. The Circulation and Amenities Plan also calls for brick/pavers to be integrated into sidewalks in Sugar House. 7 As this pattern is called for in City planning documents, staff has added an additional requirement into the proposed ordinance that would require at least 10% of the sidewalk to be brick/pavers. This aligns with the percentage guidance from the Circulation and Streetscape Amenities plan of 5% to 15%. The City Engineering division would ultimately be responsible to ensure that the brick proposed by applicants meets City maintenance and durability requirements. Staff Recommendation: Adopt the newly proposed minimum brick/paver requirement for sidewalks in Sugar House. STANDARDS OF REVIEW DISCUSSION: Zoning text amendments are reviewed for compliance with City master plans and adopted policies. There are several documents that provide guidance for City regulations for Sugar House, including: •Sugar House Community Master Plan o The comprehensive plan for the Sugar House area, includes many related policies for the Sugar House Business District •Sugar House Business District Design Guidelines Handbook (an appendix of the Master Plan) o Many of the proposed zoning standards are directly linked to guidelines in the handbook •Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Master Plan o This document includes plans for where new roads and pedestrian pathways should be provided, as well as what amenities should be provided in City rights-of- way, such as benches and special paving •City Pedestrian and Bicycling Master Plan o This includes plans for where pedestrian and bicycle routes should be located The above documents have a variety of policies and guidelines that relate to ensuring high quality, pedestrian and transit-oriented development occur in the Sugar House Business District. These policies and guidelines are discussed in Attachment C (City Plan Considerations) and D (Analysis of Zoning Text Amendment Standards). As discussed in those attachments, the proposed zoning changes are generally supported by the associated adopted City policies pertaining to this area of the City and many are directly linked to those policies and guidelines. NEXT STEPS: The Planning Commission can provide a positive or negative recommendati on for the proposal and can request that changes be made to the proposal. The recommendation and any requested changes will be sent to the City Council, who will hold a briefing and additional public hearing on the proposed changes. The City Council may make modifications to the proposal and approve or decline to approve the proposed changes. If ultimately approved by the City Council, the changes would be incorporated into the City Zoning code and new development would be required to follow the new regulations. 8 Summary Sheet of CSHBD Code and Changes The following summary sheets do not include every detail of the proposed regulations and are intended to make it easier to understand the general regulations of the zone without having to read the full code text. Please see Attachment B for the full text. Not included in the summary sheet is the change to the sign allowance for private directional signs. Please see the full code in Attachment B for that revision. 9 Zoning District Overview - Salt Lake City Planning DivisionDRAFTADDITIONAL APPLICABLE STANDARDS Additional standards in the zoning ordinance apply to development, including those related to landscaping, signs, and parking. Please see the zoning ordinance for the complete applicable regulations. The purpose of the CSHBD Sugar House Business District is to promote a walkable community with a transit oriented, mixed use town center that can support a twenty four (24) hour population. The CSHBD provides for residential, commercial and office use opportunities, with incentives for high density residential land use in a manner compatible with the existing form and function of the Sugar House master plan and the Sugar House business district. Development Examples New or revised standards are underlined. Proposed CSHBD Regulations Visual Summary Zoning Diagram   CSHBD SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT (1 & 2) PROPOSED CHANGES   Attachment A CSHBD-1 & CSHBD-2 Development Standards (21A.26.060) LOT WIDTH LOT AREA FRONT YARD  REAR/SIDE YARDS LANDSCAPE BUFFERS  HEIGHT  SURFACE PARKING PARK STRIP ALTERNATIVE STREET LIGHTING STREET TREES SIDEWALKS No min. or max. No min. 0' min, 15' max; Can be modified through Design Review* or by Planning Director None, except next to single- family residential zones: 1' for every 3' of height above 30'. 7' min. required next to residential zones. Varies based on sub- zone (1 or 2) and use, see height tables. Prohibited between front/corner property line and the front/corner building line. Alternative to landscaping is allowed (spe- cial pavement treatments) when compli- ant with SH Circulation Plan. Street lights required where identified by street light mas- ter plan. Min. 1 per 30' of front- age Min. 8' wide in CSBHD1, Min. 6' wide in CSHBD2. Min. 10% brick or pavers as ac- cent material. GROUND FLOOR USE  Ground floor use area shall be occupied by the following uses: residential, retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, social clubs, art galleries, theaters or performing art facilities. On ground floors facing 1100 E/Highland Drive or 2100 South, residential units are not allowed. Live/work units are allowed. DESIGN REVIEW THRESHOLD New construction >50' in CSHBD1 or >30' in CSHBD2, or >20,000 sq ft in size in either district is subject to Design Review process.* *Design Review requires that development meet additional design standards, see 21A.59. Development over the threshold is also subject to the Sugar House Business District Design Guideline Handbook and Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan. 10 Zoning District Overview - Salt Lake City Planning DivisionDRAFTDRAFTCSHBD2 HEIGHTLimit Residential Use Nonresidential Use Up to 30'Allowed.Allowed. >30' to 60' Allowed.Nonresidential floor area above 30' in height must be matched with equivalent res- idential floor area. Residential floor area may be provided within the same building or in a separate building. If in separate building, development agreement is required and nonresidential building limited to 45' in height. The above information is a summary of the DRAFT CSHBD zoning regulations. Please see the complete draft for the full regulations. CSHBD SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT (1 & 2) CSHBD Design Standards (21A.37) GROUND FLOOR ACTIVE USES 80% of ground floor facade must include uses other than parking; shall extend min 25' into building. Exceptions: 1. Single-family and two-family dwellings: up to 50% of facade may be garage. 2. Single-family attached: May be reduced to 10' depth. 3. Necessary vehicle access-ways to park- ing. Can be reduced to 60% with alternative vi- sual interest. See details in 21A.37. FACADE BUILDING MATERIALS Min. % of street facing facades shall be clad in durable materials, i.e. brick, masonry, tex- tured/patterned concrete or cut stone. Plan- ning Director may approve other durable materials. Ground Floor: 80% min. Upper Floors: 60% min. GROUND FLOOR GLASS 40% glass & non-reflective, allows 5' of vis- ibility into building; Reducible by 15% for residential ENTRANCES Min 1 entry for each street facing facade; entry required for every 40' (±6') of facade UPPER FLOOR STEP BACK (STREET FACING) Floors above 30' in height adjacent to pub- lic street must be stepped back 15' from the front building line. UPPER FLOOR STEP BACK (SIDE/ REAR FACADES) Floors above 30' in height adjacent to a public trail, public open space, or single/ two-family residential use must be stepped back 15' from the required yard setback. CSHBD Design Standards (21A.37) MAXIMUM LENGTH OF BLANK WALLS No blank walls over 15' long; must be broken up by windows, doors, art, or architectural detailing MAXIMUM LENGTH OF STREET FACING FACADES No street facing building wall may be longer than 300'. A minimum of 20' re- quired between separate buildings on the lot and shall include 5' walkway BUILDING EQUIP- MENT & SERVICE AREAS SCREENING Limited to on roof or in rear yard, sit- ed to minimize visibility, or integrated into design PARKING LOT LIGHTING If a parking lot/structure is adjacent to a residential zoning district or land use, any poles for the parking lot/structure security lighting are limited to sixteen feet (16') in height and the globe must be shielded and the lighting directed down to minimize light encroachment onto adjacent residential properties or into upper level residential units in multi-story buildings. Lightproof fenc- ing is required adjacent to residential properties. EXTERIOR LIGHTING Exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed down to prevent light trespass onto adjacent properties. Exterior light- ing shall not strobe, flash or flicker. PARKING STRUC- TURES Regulates external skin, elevator/ stair design, ramp location, lighting, signage, and ground level uses. See 21A.37.050.M for full list. All of the above design standards apply to new construction and additions. Existing building portions may remain as-is. All of the design standards may be modified through the Design Review process. See Chapter 21A.59. Proposed CSHBD Regulations Visual Summary New or revised standards are underlined.CSHBD1 HEIGHTLimit Residential Use Nonresidential Use Up to 30'Allowed.Allowed. >30' to 75' Allowed.Nonresidential floor area above 30' in height must be matched with equivalent res- idential floor area. Residential floor area may be provided within the same building or in a separate building. If in separate building, development agreement is required. >75' to 105' Allowed; 90% of required parking must be in a structure. 1. Compliance with the same standard for >30' to 75' noted above; and 2. 90% of required parking must be in a structure. PROPOSED CHANGES Attachment A DESIGN STANDARDS The below tables include the standards from Chapter 21A.37 "Design Standards" that apply to the Sugar House Business District zone. 11 Proposed Code The following is the full proposed code, which includes details and nuances to the regulations that are not fully covered in the summary sheets in Attachment A. There are two versions of the code included in this attachment. This includes a strike and underline version of the code that shows deleted and new text, respectively, and a clean version that shows the final code, which is what it will look like if adopted. 12 Proposed CSHBD Zone Changes 6/6/2019 1 Proposed Text Changes to Sugar House Business District Zoning STRIKETHROUGH AND UNDERLINE VERSION 21A.26.060: CSHBD SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT (CSHBD1 AND CSHBD2): In this chapter and the associated zoning map, the CSHBD zone is divided into two (2) subareas for the purpose of defining design criteria. In other portions of this text, the CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 zones are jointly referred to as the CSHBD zone because all other standards in the zoning ordinance are the same. A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the CSHBD Sugar House business district is to promote a walkable community with a transit oriented, mixed use town center that can support a twenty-four (24) hour population. The CSHBD provides for residential, commercial and office use opportunities, with incentives for high density residential land use in a manner compatible with the existing form and function of the Sugar House master plan and the Sugar House business district. B. Uses: Uses in the CSHBD Sugar House business district as specified in section 21A.33.030, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Commercial Districts", of this title are permitted, subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.26.010 of this chapter and this section. C. Conformance With Adopted Business District Design Guideline Handbook: All new construction of principal buildings and additions that increase the off street parking requirement shall be subject to and shall conform with the adopted business district design guidelines handbook located as an appendix section in the Sugar House master plan. C. Design Standards Compliance: Development shall comply with the requirements of chapter 21A.37 “Design Standards” when applicable as specified in that chapter. D. Design Review: All new construction of principal buildings that exceed fifty feet (50') in height in the CSHBD1 district or thirty feet (30') in height in the CSHBD2 district or twenty thousand (20,000) gross square feet in size in either district shall be subject to design review. The planning commission has the authority to approve projects through the design review process. Design review shall be approved in conformance with the “Sugar House Bbusiness Ddistrict Ddesign Gguideline Hhandbook” (located as an appendix section in the Sugar House Master Plan), “Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan,” and the provisions of chapter 21A.59 of this title. E. Minimum Lot Size: No minimum lot area or width is required. F. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front And Corner Side Yards: No minimum yard is required. 2. Maximum Front/Corner Side Yard Setback: The maximum front and corner setback is fifteen feet (15'). Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized through the Design Review process, subject to the requirements of chapter 21A.59 of this title, and the review and approval of the planning commission. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may modify this requirement if the adjacent public sidewalk is 13 Proposed CSHBD Zone Changes 6/6/2019 2 substandard and the resulting modification to the setback results in a more efficient public sidewalk, and/or the modification conforms with the “Sugar House Bbusiness Ddistrict Ddesign Gguidelines Hhandbook” or “Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan.” Appeal of an administrative decision is to the planning commission. 3. Interior Side Yards: None required. 4. Rear Yards: No minimum yard is None required. 5. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting a lot in a residential district shall conform to the buffer yards and landscape requirements of chapter 21A.48 of this title. 6. Setback from Single-Family Zones: In addition, fFor those structures located on properties zoned CSHBD that abut properties in a low density, single-family residential zone, every three feet (3') in building height above thirty feet (30'), shall be required a corresponding one foot (1') setback from the property line at grade. This additional required setback area can be used for landscaping or parking. 7. Parking Setbacks: See Table 21A.44.060 (CODIFIER NOTE: This reference may collide with simultaneous amendments to 21A.44 and may need to be adjusted.) for parking restrictions in yards. G. Maximum Height: Maximum height limits vary, depending upon location and land use. The following regulations shall apply for each area within the CSHBD zone: 1. CSHBD1: a. The maximum building height in the CSHBD1 zone shall not exceed thirty feet (30') for those buildings used exclusively for nonresidential purposes. b. Additional building square footage may be obtained up to a maximum building height of one hundred five feet (105'); however, for each additional floor of nonresidential use above thirty feet (30'), one floor of residential use is required. c. The residential component may be transferred off site to another property within the CSHBD zoning district in accordance with the provisions of subsection I of this section. If the required residential component is transferred off site, the maximum nonresidential building height allowed shall be seventy five feet (75'). Any building with a height in excess of seventy five feet (75') shall be subject to the requirements of subsection G1d of this section. d. Maximum building height may be obtained to one hundred five feet (105') for any building subject to at least ninety percent (90%) of all parking for said building being provided as structured parking, and in the case of a nonresidential building, the developer shall provide off site residential development that is equal to or greater than the square footage of the nonresidential building that exceeds thirty feet (30') in height. Height Limit Residential Use Nonresidential Use Up to 30' Allowed. Allowed. 14 Proposed CSHBD Zone Changes 6/6/2019 3 >30' to 75' Allowed. For every square foot of nonresidential gross floor area above 30' in height, an equivalent gross floor area of residential use must be provided. The residential floor area may be provided within the same building or in a separate building. Separate building option requires development agreement with the City specified in 21A.26.060.I. >75' to 105' Allowed if 90% of the required parking for the building is within a parking structure. Compliance with the same standard for >30' to 75' height noted above; and 90% of the required parking for the building must be located within a parking structure. 2. CSHBD2: a. The maximum building height in the CSHBD2 zone shall not exceed thirty feet (30') for those buildings used exclusively for nonresidential purposes. b. Additional square footage may be obtained up to a maximum building height of sixty feet (60'); however, for each additional floor of nonresidential use above thirty feet (30'), one floor of residential use is required. c. The residential component may be transferred off site to another property within the CSHBD zoning district in accordance with the provisions of subsection I of this section. If the residential component is transferred "off site", the maximum nonresidential building height allowed shall be forty five feet (45'). d. Buildings used exclusively for residential purposes may be built to a maximum height of sixty feet (60'). Height Limit Residential Use Nonresidential Use Up to 30' Allowed. Allowed. >30' to 60' Allowed. For every square foot of nonresidential gross floor area above 30' in height, an equivalent gross floor area of residential use must be 15 Proposed CSHBD Zone Changes 6/6/2019 4 provided. The residential floor area may be provided within the same building or in a separate building. Separate building option requires development agreement with the City specified in 21A.26.060.I. If the residential is provided off-site, the nonresidential building is limited to a height of 45'. H. First Floor/Street Level Requirements: The first floor or street level space of all buildings ground floor use area required by Chapter 21A.37 within this area shall be required to provide uses consisting ofoccupied by residential, retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, social clubs, art galleries, theaters or performing art facilities. 1. For such areas facing 2100 South, 1100 East, or Highland Drive, residential dwelling units are not allowed within the required ground floor use area. Live/work units are allowed in this space if the working area of the unit is located on the ground floor. I. Residential Requirement For Mixed Use Developments: For those mixed use developments requiring a residential component, the residential portion of the development shall be as follows: 1. Located in the same building as noted in subsection G of this section, or 2. May be located in a separate building and/or on a different property in the area zoned CSHBD. For such off site residential configuration, the amount of residential development required is equal to the total amount of gross square footage obtained for the nonresidential floors rising in excess of thirty feet (30'), less any square footage of the required fifteen foot (15') step back noted in subsection G of this section. In addition, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the nonresidential structure, the applicant must identify specifically where the residential structure will be located in the area zoned CSHBD and enter into a development agreement with the city to ensure the construction of the residential structure in a timely manner. In such cases where the residential use is built off site, one of the following shall apply: a. Construction of the off site residential use must be progressing beyond the footings and foundation stage, prior to the nonresidential portion of the development obtaining a certificate of occupancy, or b. Prior to the nonresidential portion of the development obtaining a certificate of occupancy, aA financial assurance shall be provided to the City that construction of the off site residential use will commence within two (2) years of receiving a certificate of occupancy for the nonresidential component of the development. The 16 Proposed CSHBD Zone Changes 6/6/2019 5 financial assurance shall be in an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of the construction valuation for the residential component of the development as determined by the building official. The city shall call the financial assurance and deposit the proceeds in the city's housing trust fund if construction has not commenced within two (2) years of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the nonresidential component of the development. The financial assurance shall be in an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of the construction valuation for the residential component of the development as determined by the building official. The city shall call the financial assurance and deposit the proceeds in the city's housing trust fund if construction has not commenced within two (2) years of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the nonresidential component of the development. J. Park Strip Materials: Property within this zoning district is considered part of an “official improvement district” authorized by 21A.48.060, and as such, alternative materials may be utilized for park strips. Alternative material is subject to Planning Director approval based on its compliance with the adopted “Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan” or its successor. K. Street Trees: Street trees are required and subject to the regulations in 21A.48.060. L. Street Lighting: Street lighting shall be installed in accordance with the City Street Lighting Master Plan (or its successor) and any other contract or agreement with the City pertaining to street lighting. This requirement only applies to new principal buildings. M. Sidewalk Materials: Sidewalk paving shall include a minimum of ten percent (10%) brick or pavers as an accent material, subject to engineering department approval. Modifications to this requirement may be approved by the Planning Director if in compliance with the adopted “Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan” or its successor. This requirement only applies to new principal buildings. N. Sidewalk Width: Sidewalks shall be a minimum of eight feet (8') wide in the CSHBD1 zone and six feet (6') wide in the CSHBD2 zone. This requirement applies to new principal buildings and to additions that increase the gross building square footage by more than fifty percent (50%). This standard does not require removal of existing street trees, existing buildings, or portions thereof. For purposes of this section, sidewalk width is measured from the back of the park strip or required street tree if no park strip is provided, toward the adjacent property line. Modifications to this requirement may be approved by the Planning Director if in compliance with the adopted “Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan” or its successor. 17 Proposed CSHBD Zone Changes 6/6/2019 6 Chapter 21A.37 Design Standards Chapter Changes: (Staff Note: The changes to this chapter are limited to Table 21A.37.060.B. See 21A.37.050 to see specific dimensional and other requirements for each listed standard.) 21A.37.060.B. Commercial Districts: Standard (Code Section) District SNB CN CB CS CC CSHBD CG TSA Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050A1) 80 80 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050A2) 60/25 60/25 Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050B1) 80 90 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050B2) 60 60 Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050C1) 40 40 40 40 60 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050C2 Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050D1) X X X X X X 40 X 40 Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050E) 15 15 15 15 15 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050F) 300 200 Upper floor step back (feet) (21A.37.050G) 15 Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050H) X X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050I) X X X X X X X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050J) X X X X X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050K) X X X X X Ground floor residential entrances (21A.37.050L) X 18 Proposed CSHBD Zone Changes 6/6/2019 7 Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050M) X Primary entrance design SNB district (21A.37.050O) X Chapter 21A.46 Sign Regulations Changes: (Staff Note: The proposal only changes the sign standards for “private directional signs.” No other sign type is modified. The below is an extract of the sign table with just this sign type included. 21A.46.090.D.STANDARDS FOR THE CSHBD DISTRICT: Types Of Signs Permitted Maximum Area Per Sign Face Maximum Height Of Freestanding Signs Minimum Setback Number Of Signs Permitted Per Sign Type Private directional sign 8 21 square feet 4 7 feet None No limit 19 Proposed CSHBD Zone Changes 6/6/2019 1 Proposed Text Changes to Sugar House Business District Zoning CLEAN VERSION 21A.26.060: CSHBD SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT (CSHBD1 AND CSHBD2): In this chapter and the associated zoning map, the CSHBD zone is divided into two (2) subareas for the purpose of defining design criteria. In other portions of this text, the CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 zones are jointly referred to as the CSHBD zone because all other standards in the zoning ordinance are the same. A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the CSHBD Sugar House business district is to promote a walkable community with a transit oriented, mixed use town center that can support a twenty-four (24) hour population. The CSHBD provides for residential, commercial and office use opportunities, with incentives for high density residential land use in a manner compatible with the existing form and function of the Sugar House master plan and the Sugar House business district. B. Uses: Uses in the CSHBD Sugar House business district as specified in section 21A.33.030, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Commercial Districts", of this title are permitted, subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.26.010 of this chapter and this section. C. Design Standards Compliance: Development shall comply with the requirements of chapter 21A.37 “Design Standards” when applicable as specified in that chapter. D. Design Review: All new construction of principal buildings that exceed fifty feet (50') in height in the CSHBD1 district or thirty feet (30') in height in the CSHBD2 district or twenty thousand (20,000) gross square feet in size in either district shall be subject to design review. Design review shall be approved in conformance with the “Sugar House Business District Design Guideline Handbook” (located as an appendix section in the Sugar House Master Plan), “Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan,” and the provisions of chapter 21A.59 of this title. E. Minimum Lot Size: No minimum lot area or width is required. F. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front And Corner Side Yards: No minimum yard is required. 2. Maximum Front/Corner Side Yard Setback: The maximum front and corner setback is fifteen feet (15'). Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized through the Design Review process, subject to the requirements of chapter 21A.59 of this title, and the review and approval of the planning commission. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may modify this requirement if the adjacent public sidewalk is substandard and the resulting modification to the setback results in a more efficient public sidewalk, and/or the modification conforms with the “Sugar House Business District Design Guidelines Handbook” or “Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan.” Appeal of an administrative decision is to the planning commission. 3. Interior Side Yards: None required. 20 Proposed CSHBD Zone Changes 6/6/2019 2 4. Rear Yards: None required. 5. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting a lot in a residential district shall conform to the buffer yards and landscape requirements of chapter 21A.48 of this title. 6. Setback from Single-Family Zones: For those structures located on properties zoned CSHBD that abut properties in a low density, single-family residential zone, every three feet (3') in building height above thirty feet (30'), shall be required a corresponding one foot (1') setback from the property line at grade. This additional required setback area can be used for landscaping or parking. 7. Parking Setbacks: See Table 21A.44.060 (CODIFIER NOTE: This reference may collide with simultaneous amendments to 21A.44 and may need to be adjusted.) for parking restrictions in yards. G. Maximum Height: Maximum height limits vary, depending upon location and land use. The following regulations shall apply for each area within the CSHBD zone: 1. CSHBD1: Height Limit Residential Use Nonresidential Use Up to 30' Allowed. Allowed. >30' to 75' Allowed. For every square foot of nonresidential gross floor area above 30' in height, an equivalent gross floor area of residential use must be provided. The residential floor area may be provided within the same building or in a separate building. Separate building option requires development agreement with the City specified in 21A.26.060.I. >75' to 105' Allowed if 90% of the required parking for the building is within a parking structure. Compliance with the same standard for >30' to 75' height noted above; and 90% of the required parking for the building must be located within a parking structure. 2. CSHBD2: Height Limit Residential Use Nonresidential Use 21 Proposed CSHBD Zone Changes 6/6/2019 3 Up to 30' Allowed. Allowed. >30' to 60' Allowed. For every square foot of nonresidential gross floor area above 30' in height, an equivalent gross floor area of residential use must be provided. The residential floor area may be provided within the same building or in a separate building. Separate building option requires development agreement with the City specified in 21A.26.060.I. If the residential is provided off-site, the nonresidential building is limited to a height of 45'. H. First Floor/Street Level Requirements: The ground floor use area required by Chapter 21A.37 shall be occupied by residential, retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, social clubs, art galleries, theaters or performing art facilities. 1. For such areas facing 2100 South, 1100 East, or Highland Drive, residential dwelling units are not allowed within the required ground floor use area. Live/work units are allowed in this space if the working area of the unit is located on the ground floor. I. Residential Requirement For Mixed Use Developments: For those mixed use developments requiring a residential component, the residential portion of the development shall be as follows: 1. Located in the same building as noted in subsection G of this section, or 2. May be located in a separate building and/or on a different property in the area zoned CSHBD. For such off site residential configuration, the amount of residential development required is equal to the total amount of gross square footage obtained for the nonresidential floors rising in excess of thirty feet (30'). In addition, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the nonresidential structure, the applicant must identify specifically where the residential structure will be located in the area zoned CSHBD and enter into a development agreement with the city to ensure the construction of the residential structure in a timely manner. In such cases where the residential use is built off site, one of the following shall apply: a. Construction of the residential use must be progressing beyond the footings and foundation stage, prior to the nonresidential portion of the development obtaining a certificate of occupancy, or 22 Proposed CSHBD Zone Changes 6/6/2019 4 b. Prior to the nonresidential portion of the development obtaining a certificate of occupancy, a financial assurance shall be provided to the City that construction of the residential use will commence within two (2) years of receiving a certificate of occupancy for the nonresidential component of the development. The financial assurance shall be in an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of the construction valuation for the residential component of the development as determined by the building official. The city shall call the financial assurance and deposit the proceeds in the city's housing trust fund if construction has not commenced within two (2) years of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the nonresidential component of the development. J. Park Strip Materials: Property within this zoning district is considered part of an “official improvement district” authorized by 21A.48.060, and as such, alternative materials may be utilized for park strips. Alternative material is subject to Planning Director approval based on its compliance with the adopted “Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan” or its successor. K. Street Trees: Street trees are required and subject to the regulations in 21A.48.060. L. Street Lighting: Street lighting shall be installed in accordance with the City Street Lighting Master Plan (or its successor) and any other contract or agreement with the City pertaining to street lighting. This requirement only applies to new principal buildings. M. Sidewalk Materials: Sidewalk paving shall include a minimum of ten percent (10%) brick or pavers as an accent material, subject to engineering department approval. Modifications to this requirement may be approved by the Planning Director if in compliance with the adopted “Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan” or its successor. This requirement only applies to new principal buildings. N. Sidewalk Width: Sidewalks shall be a minimum of eight feet (8') wide in the CSHBD1 zone and six feet (6') wide in the CSHBD2 zone. This requirement applies to new principal buildings and to additions that increase the gross building square footage by more than fifty percent (50%). This standard does not require removal of existing street trees, existing buildings, or portions thereof. For purposes of this section, sidewalk width is measured from the back of the park strip or required street tree if no park strip is provided, toward the adjacent property line. Modifications to this requirement may be approved by the Planning Director if in compliance with the adopted “Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan” or its successor. 23 Proposed CSHBD Zone Changes 6/6/2019 5 Chapter 21A.37 Design Standards Chapter Changes: (Staff Note: The changes to this chapter are limited to Table 21A.37.060.B. See 21A.37.050 to see specific dimensional and other requirements for each listed standard.) 21A.37.060.B. Commercial Districts: Standard (Code Section) District SNB CN CB CS CC CSHBD CG TSA Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050A1) 80 80 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050A2) 60/25 60/25 Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050B1) 80 90 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050B2) 60 60 Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050C1) 40 40 40 40 60 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050C2 Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050D1) X X X X X 40 X 40 Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050E) 15 15 15 15 15 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050F) 300 200 Upper floor step back (feet) (21A.37.050G) 15 Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050H) X X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050I) X X X X X X X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050J) X X X X X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050K) X X X X X Ground floor residential entrances (21A.37.050L) X 24 Proposed CSHBD Zone Changes 6/6/2019 6 Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050M) X Primary entrance design SNB district (21A.37.050O) X Chapter 21A.46 Sign Regulations Changes: (Staff Note: The proposal only changes the sign standards for “private directional signs.” No other sign type is modified. The below is an extract of the sign table with just this sign type included. 21A.46.090.D.STANDARDS FOR THE CSHBD DISTRICT: Types Of Signs Permitted Maximum Area Per Sign Face Maximum Height Of Freestanding Signs Minimum Setback Number Of Signs Permitted Per Sign Type Private directional sign 21 square feet 7 feet None No limit 25 City Plan Considerations Adopted City Plan Policies and Guidance The proposal affects zones located within the Sugar House Community area. There are multiple adopted City planning documents associated with this community area. This includes: • Sugar House Community Master Plan o The comprehensive plan for the Sugar House area, includes many related policies for the Sugar House Business District • Sugar House Business District Design Guidelines Handbook (an appendix of the Master Plan) o Many of the proposed zoning standards are directly linked to guidelines in the handbook • Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Master Plan o This document includes plans for where new roads and pedestrian pathways should be provided, as well as what amenities should be provided in City rights-of- way, such as benches and special paving • City Pedestrian and Bicycling Master Plan o This includes plans for where pedestrian and bicycle routes should be located The below sections include extracts of applicable policies from the above plans and discussion about those policies. Sugar House Master Plan Much of the master plan discusses building design and pedestrian improvements, so a number of policies are linked to the proposal, both indirectly and directly. Due to the number of related policies, not all of those policies are included here. Some applicable policies and associated plan discussions are copied below: • Develop the Sugar House Community to be a sustainable, attractive, harmonious and pedestrian oriented community. • Maintain, protect, and upgrade Sugar House as a residential community with a vital supporting commercial core. • Strengthen and support existing neighborhoods with appropriate adjacent land uses and design guidelines to preserve the character of the area. • Create visually interesting pedestrian-friendly street networks that directly connect local destinations. • Improve all modes of mobility including street and trail networks, transit, pedestrian and bicycle movement opportunities, and off-street cooperative parking facilities. • Provide pedestrian-scale activities in the Sugar House Business District by providing open space corridors and useful streetscape amenities. • Direct a mixed-land use development pattern within the Sugar House Business District to include medium- and high-density housing and necessary neighborhood amenities and facilities. These developments will be compatibly arranged, taking full advantage of future transit stations, Sugar House Park, Fairmont Park, and the proximity to the retail core. • Encourage increased intensity, greater diversity of land use, and locally-owned businesses in the Sugar House Business District. • Support small locally-owned neighborhood businesses to operate harmoniously within residential areas. 26 Sugar House Business District Policies • Reestablish the visible image of the Sugar House Business District as a "unique place” offering pleasant and convenient commercial, retail, office, entertainment and residential facilities. • Direct a mixed land use development pattern that includes Medium- and High-Density Housing with the associated neighborhood amenities and facilities to support future transit stations. • Support a human-scale environment by dividing large blocks into smaller blocks, and provide public easements to ensure pedestrian and non-motorized access to and through commercial developments. • Provide for a comprehensive system of street graphics and signage for easy and pleasant communication. • Strive for retail building placement that is visible through existing view corridors, to encourage pedestrian traffic to those businesses. Small Business Policies • Support locally-owned businesses to operate within the Sugar House Business District. • Provide varying types of office space for individuals or small businesses within new development. • Examine ways to preserve small businesses and provide incentives for developers to accommodate these businesses into new projects. • Educate business owners on the programs and services available that foster small business development. • Use the Main Street program model to support small businesses throughout the Sugar House community. Town Center The Town Center orients around the Sugar House Monument Plaza and creates a strong urban center to the district with businesses oriented directly to the street. Uses include retail, commercial, and office uses with a broad mix of small and large tenants. Office development offers a business-like atmosphere with a variety of office configurations, as well as convenient amenities and comfortable outdoor gathering spaces shaped by building placement. The Town Center scale focuses around a transit/pedestrian oriented commercial/retail with a strong street presence; wide sidewalks, street furnishings, lighting and landscaping or a delineated and developed open space system of the same character. The street level businesses are commercial and retail in nature, while the upper levels can be either residential or office depending on compatibility of the adjacent uses. Town Center Scale Mixed Use occurs primarily in the core area of the Business District surrounded by the Neighborhood Residential Medium-High Density residential use has the opportunity to develop throughout the Business District, and is encouraged through a mixed-use development pattern with “active” uses on the ground or street level. Live/work units are particularly suitable for the business district striving to achieve an intensity of development that can support a transit station and a 24-hour population. Reuse of existing structures is also encouraged; the Redman Loft Condominiums is one example of a successful adaptive reuse project that will transform an otherwise underutilized structure. Staff Discussion: The above policies and discussion from the master plan reiterate that the area is expected to be a mixed-use area and emphasizes the location of commercial and retail businesses at the street 27 level. There is an emphasis on pedestrian activity and the location of small businesses within the town center (business district) area. In compliance with those policies, the proposal adds some restrictions to the ground floor in order to better ensure that the ground level is occupied by active ground floor uses, but will allow live/work units as called for in the plan discussion. The plan also speaks to having design requirements, and emphasizes pedestrian orientation of the district, including wide sidewalks and lighting. All of the proposed changes relate back to these policies and plan guidance. Related Guidelines from SHBD Design Guideline Handbook Below are guidelines from the Sugar House Business District Design Guidelines Handbook that are directly related to the proposed zoning regulations. Additional guidelines may also be related to the proposal that aren’t captured here. • Design the town center with pedestrian-oriented corridors providing pedestrian comfort and amenities. • Form pedestrian/commercial promenades with planting and paving treatments in pedestrian corridors, coupled with active uses in adjacent buildings. • Form pedestrian/commercial promenades with planting and paving treatments in pedestrian corridors, coupled with active uses in adjacent buildings. • Incorporate special pavement treatment using materials and patterns coordinated for the district into pedestrian-activity areas. • Develop pedestrian corridors to connect activity centers and connect blocks. • Orient public entrances to the street. Functional entrances every 30 linear feet is desirable. • Require continuous street frontages except for driveways, plazas and walkways that allow the pedestrian to get to parking located behind buildings. • Articulate pedestrian/bicycle corridors and linkages with pedestrian scale furnishings, lighting, paving materials, public art, trees, and other plantings where appropriate. • Provide adequate width along walkways: major pedestrian walkways in high traffic areas should be a minimum of 8 feet in width; secondary walkways in low traffic areas should be a minimum of 6 feet in width; and walkways adjacent to parking lots where automobile bumpers may overhang the walk should be designed to allow a minimum of 6 feet clearance for walking. • Use easily maintained, durable, slip resistant paving materials suitable for this climate, such as concrete, concrete pavers, brick pavers, tile, etc. • Incorporate structured parking in new structures or adaptive reuse of existing structures and coordinate the parking with building and landscaping designs. Parking structures should not occupy the street frontage of 1100 East/Highland Drive and 2100 South. Parking structures on other streets should have retail/office use on the ground level. • Locate parking lots back from buildings to allow for pedestrian space and landscaping. • Screen service, storage and trash areas. These areas should be screened and buffered from pedestrian corridors, surrounding streets, residential units, Parleys Creek open space and other public use areas using materials compatible with the architecture and adjacent site features. • Prohibit parking lots to front onto Highland Drive or 2100 South in the area of the Town Center Overlay. 28 • Require parking structures that face onto the street to have retail spaces at the lower level. • Setback parking lots a minimum of 15 feet. • Locate parking lots to the rear of buildings. • Prohibit parking lots to front onto 2100 South. • Setback parking lots a minimum of 15 feet. • Complement the historic architecture of Sugar House with appropriate exterior building materials. Appropriate materials may include the following: • Brick; • Architectural concrete (precast or poured-in-place); • Stone; and • Glass. • Choose exterior building materials to be consistent with appropriate standards for structures of the kind proposed; and address durability and life-cycle cost issue. • Avoid placing mechanical equipment at grade level. Meters, pipes, stacks, heating and cooling equipment, control boxes, and antennas are examples of mechanical equipment requiring careful location and screening treatment. • Roof top mechanical equipment should be screened with architecturally integrated elements of the building. • Require loading docks on the “backside” of buildings to be carefully designed and screened. • Maintain and incorporate a regular-interval street lighting pattern into streetscape improvements. • Choose light poles, arms, and fixture designs to preserve the historic character of the streetscape. • Select lighting to be in scale with the pedestrian experience. • Provide street signs and other informational signage that are uniform and that provide neighborhood and community identity. • Design directional signing to be low, visible, integrated with the rest of the graphic systems, and functional. If directional signing is needed on the street directing people and vehicles, and on the interior of any development project, it should be consistently located in order to maximize its directional function. • Design informational signing that helps orient people on the development. It may take the form of a directory or other project wide identification in which people can orient themselves and be directed to those activities and areas they wish to visit. • Landscape park strips and public open space with street trees, shrubs, ground covers and lawn. Maintenance of park strips is the responsibility of the adjacent property owner. • Require light fixtures to meet Salt Lake City standards and specifications and be of a design that is compatible with the design theme of the business district. Staff Discussion: The above policies all relate to the proposed new standards. All the above guidelines (and others not extracted above) were evaluated to determine if they were feasible to implement as a standard, rather than a guideline. Those that were generally objective, with measurable guidance, were written as a standard. However, many of the guidelines were more general in nature, but were still used to help inform some of the proposed standards. An example of a 29 specific guideline being implemented as a standard is the sidewalk width requirements. Since a specific number was included in the guidelines it was straight-forward to convert this into a standard. Another example is the guideline regarding building materials for Sugar House: “Complement the historic architecture of Sugar House with appropriate exterior building materials. Appropriate materials may include the following: Brick; Architectural concrete (precast or poured-in-place); Stone; and Glass.” This guideline is very similar to the existing building material requirements in the Design Standards chapter of the Zoning Code, which limit building materials to similar high-quality materials, so it made sense to apply that Design Standard to this area. Other more general guidelines, such as “Form pedestrian/commercial promenades with planting and paving treatments in pedestrian corridors, coupled with active uses in adjacent buildings” inform the proposed requirements for active ground floor uses and inform the lighting, tree, and sidewalk requirements. Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan The Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan includes design guidelines for streetscape design and amenities. This includes guidelines for sidewalk materials, which includes paver and concrete recommendations, and streetscape amenities, including street furniture, bike racks, trees, and street lights. The below are the paving and landscaping recommendations related to sidewalks and park strips: Hardscape: Base Paving for Sidewalks Materials: Concrete; colored and/or textured Color: light to medium gray/slate Location: Primary paving material for sidewalks; Recommended to cover 85 to 95% of sidewalk paving, with the remainder for accent paving materials. Implementation Projects: J & K Notes: Limit implementation of smaller pavers in key pedestrian routes unless another primary route is available in an alternative material. Stamped or color concrete is recommended for primary routes. Hardscape: Accent Paving for Sidewalks/Parkstrips Materials: Concrete; colored and/or textured Color: medium to dark gray/slate; bluish-gray; greenish slate Location: Accent paving material for sidewalks; Recommended to cover 5 to 15% of paving on sidewalks and be located on streets with hardscaped park strips (2100 South between McClelland and Elizabeth Street; Highland Drive between Hollywood and Sugarmont/Wilmington; East side of McClelland between 2100 South and Sugarmont) Implementation Projects: J & K Softscape: Landscape Parkstrips Plantings: lawn or low groundcover Location: All sidewalks not included in hardscape parkstrip description (lawn to be prioritized for areas with minimum 6’ width) Softscape: Landscape Planters Plantings: native and/or drought-tolerant species 30 Planter materials: metal, concrete as accent Planter colors: stainless; neutral - grey/buff Location: Hardscaped parkstrips and plazas Implementation Projects: G & H Staff Discussion: The plan also calls for sidewalk widths of 8' to 12' on Highland Drive and 2100 South, with 0' to 5' park strips; and 5' to 8' sidewalk widths on McClelland Street with 0' to 8' park strips. The proposed zoning ordinance sidewalk ranges are within these guidelines. The Plan also notes that the existing street pole design should be retained and built upon. It includes the following language: The current black, metal street lights are recommended to serve as the primary anchor for new amenities in the SHBD. The streetlights represent the implementation of previous guidelines for the SHBD and have been installed on most of the major streets. Their overall look is classic, yet specific to Sugar House with vernacular details on the base of the pole. These are recommended to remain and establish the base upon which to link new amenities. SLC Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan This plan includes a variety of general policies regarding pedestrian and bicycle improvements and includes maps of planned routes for such users. Extracts from the plan that relate to the proposal, including on lighting and landscaping, are copied below. Regarding Lighting: Pedestrian lighting typically includes shorter lights (14-18’ maximum pole heights) directly above walkways and accent lighting that illuminates features on or near buildings. Pedestrian lighting increases drivers’ visibility of pedestrians, promotes perceived personal security, illuminates potential hazards, and creates vibrant and inviting streetscapes. Salt Lake City should consider the addition of pedestrian -scale lighting primarily in downtown and neighborhood business districts, along multiuse paths, and in conjunction with significant street reconstructions. Regarding Landscaping/Street Furniture: Landscaping, street trees, and street furniture can have a profound effect on improving the pedestrian feel of a corridor. The City should include the following in appropriate streetscape designs: • Landscaping and street trees, especially shade trees. • Planters • Benches, tables, and chairs 31 Analysis Of Zoning Text Amendment Standards ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS 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 making a decision concerning a proposed text amendment, the City Council should consider the following: FACTOR 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 proposal is generally consistent with the policies of the applicable adopted planning documents for the area. The amendments to the zoning code are in-line with the policies found in the Sugar House Master Plan and its associated planning and design documents, including: • Sugar House Business District Design Guideline Handbook • Sugar House Circulation and Amenities Plan Some of the proposed changes come from specific numerical recommendations in these documents, such as the specific sidewalk width requirements. Other numerical recommendations in the Design Standards chapter are not as directly linked to a specific numerical recommendation but were developed to address a more general policy or guideline. The proposed zoning code regulations are intended to ensure that future development helps achieve the general policies and goals in these plans that speak to high quality, pedestrian oriented development. Additional information and analysis regarding these plans and policies is located in Attachment C. 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; The proposal generally furthers the purpose statement of the CSHBD zone. The purpose statement of the CSHBD zone is the following: The purpose of the CSHBD Sugar House business district is to promote a walkable community with a transit oriented, mixed use town center that can support a twenty four (24) hour population. The CSHBD 32 provides for residential, commercial and office use opportunities, with incentives for high density residential land use in a manner compatible with the existing form and function of the Sugar House master plan and the Sugar House business district. The changes to the zoning district text pertain to regulations that are intended to support a walkable, pedestrian oriented built environment. An example of this is minimum requirements for the amount of the ground floor that must have activity along the sidewalk, which is one factor in ensuring a comfortable and interesting environment for pedestrians, and that is conducive to additional pedestrian activity. Another regulation example related to walkability includes the limits to the maximum length of street facades, which is intended to encourage pedestrian paths between large building masses. This will support the development of a network of pedestrian paths through the zone, which increases the walkability of the area. This in turn also relates to transit orientation, as it makes walking a comfortable experience to get to transit stop locations and reduces the distance a pedestrian must walk to a transit stop, encouraging transit use. High density residential use is still being encouraged by the ordinance through the limits on building height for commercial buildings and the greater allowances for residential building height. The proposed changes clarify the existing associated regulations but continue the same incentives. 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which The proposed changes are consistent with any associated overlays, as there are none There are no overlays applicable to this area that are being impacted by the proposed changes. 33 may impose additional standards; being impacted by the changes. 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. The proposal implements design standards and regulations that are commonly used in current professional urban planning and design practice. The majority of the changes are located in the Design Standards chapter of the Zoning Ordinance. This chapter was adopted within the last two years and was intended to consolidate a variety of design regulations into one section of the Zoning Ordinance that were previously scattered through the ordinance in various forms. Many of the old design standards were very similar, but often just worded differently. The Design Standards chapter meshed these different versions together to reduce the amount of interpretation required and ensure consistency in their application. Many of these design standards are universal and could be implemented in other zones to ensure high quality, pedestrian oriented development. The intent of this proposal is to implement some of these universal design standards in the CSHBD zone. The Planning Commission recently also reviewed a regulation change proposal for the D-2 zone that incorporated many of the same universal design standards into that zone. Most of the design standards are commonly found in recent zoning codes of other major cities for zones that are intended to be pedestrian oriented, such as shopping, community node, or downtown districts. These include regulations on materials, ground floor uses, windows, and entrance locations. As such, they are generally considered to represent best practices. 34 Public Process And Comments The following attachment lists the public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposed project. All written comments that were received throughout this process are included within this attachment. Sugar House Community Council The Sugar House Community Council (SHCC) was notified early in the process in May 2018 before the changes were developed. The SHCC was provided information about the issues staff was looking at in general for early input. Staff then met with the SHCC on two more occasions for input and a review of potential changes. Staff met with the SHCC at the following meetings: • June 18, 2018 • July 10, 2018 • November 19, 2018 Other Notices Developer, Architect, and Property Owner Outreach In July 2018, a survey was sent to developers, architects, and associated property owners who had worked on developments in the zone within the past 10 years. The survey was regarding any concerns they had with the existing Sugar House code. They were also sent information about the issues staff was looking at in general. Staff received a limited number of responses. Those responses generally reflected that there weren’t major concerns with the current “Conditional Building and Site Design Review” process that developments went through or associated regulations. Property Owner and Resident Outreach In February 2019, staff sent mailed notices to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the CSHBD zones to let them know of an Open House. The notice also included a link to the Planning website to get information on the proposed zoning, without having to attend the Open House. See below for more information on the Open House. Planning staff also reached out to the Sugar House Chamber in February 2019 with information about the proposal and offered to present to the group but did not receive a request for a presentation or comments on the proposal. Open House Planning staff held an open house in the Sugar House community area to present the proposed changes. This was held on: • March 6th from 5 PM to 7 PM at the Sugar House Fire Station #3 Notices of the open house and where to find more information online were mailed to all properties within the Sugar House Business District zone as well as to properties/residents within 300 feet of the boundaries of the zone. In total, 545 mailers were sent. 35 Notices were also via the Planning listserv and the City Council office sent a notice of the open house in their council district e-mail blast. Notices were also sent to the same developers, architects, and property owners included on earlier targeted notices. Five persons attended the open house, including four residents and a commercial property owner. Planning Commission Meetings Planning staff brought the proposed changes for a briefing to the following Planning Commission meeting: • December 12, 2018 Meeting – Planning Commission Briefing Notices were provided via listerv about the briefing. No public hearing was held. The Planning Commission discussed several aspects of the proposal. Those discussions and associated concerns are noted in the Key Considerations section of this staff report. Public Input Received All written public comments received to date can be found below. This includes a letter from the Sugar House Community Council and a letter from John Gardiner, a local developer who has built three recent multi-family buildings in the Sugar House Business District area. Additional informal public input was received during the Open House from residents and a commercial property owner. Staff also met with representatives of the Dee’s properties, which constitute a large portion of the Sugar House Shopping Center, to discuss the proposed changes. Regarding the Open House, two residents attended and provided generally supportive feedback. Two other residents also attended and had questions about the proposal, and noted that they were concerned with the loss of green space and having too much concrete in the area. One commercial property owner also attended and had general questions, including on how the ground floor use depth would be regulated, but did not provide any specific concerns. The ground floor use depth was also discussed with the Dee’s property representatives and how it could impact shallow lots with parking spaces behind the required space. The Sugar House Community Council was generally in support of the proposal but had concerns with the maximum building length and minimum sidewalk widths. These concerns are discussed in Consideration 5 and 3, respectively. The SHCC letter also noted that they would like to allow alternatives to landscaping in existing park strips where extra paving would be more beneficial toward creating a comfortable walking environment. This is discussed in Consideration 4. Additional comments were provided about requiring stamped pavement or brick. A modification was added to the code and is discussed in Consideration 7. Mr. Gardiner’s letter includes comments concerning front yard sidewalk/park strip requirements, ground floor use restrictions, ground floor use depth, ground floor glass, and the size threshold for improvements. Ground floor uses and depth concerns are discussed in Considerations 1 and 2. Front yard sidewalk/park strip requirements are discussed in Considerations 3 and 4. Mr. Gardiner noted that clear glass can create privacy issues for ground floor residential uses. Regarding the clear ground floor glass requirement, this is an existing requirement in the Design Standards chapter. It requires that the required glass allow visibility 5’ into the structure and is a standard requirement for all ground floor glass in any commercial of mixed-use zoning district in 36 the City. This proposal is not amending that general criteria in the Design Standards chapter. Modifications to the basic language and requirements of the Design Standards chapter are beyond the scope of this petition. Mr. Gardiner also noted that the requirement that additions of 1,000 square feet would trigger compliance could be problematic and proposed an increased threshold of 2,500 square feet. This threshold was noted in the original proposal as it was the current standard threshold in the Design Standards chapter for any development in any commercial or mixed-use zoning district in the City. However, the size threshold that triggers compliance with the Design Standards has since been changed and clarified. The requirement has been simplified to state that any new addition must comply with the Design Standards, but existing portions of the building may remain as -is. Remaining portions can also be remodeled if the remodel doesn’t make the building any less complying than it already is. This standard applies universally to any zone in the City that is subject to the Design Standards chapter. 37 March 16, 2019 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Judi Short, Vice Chair and Land Use Chair Sugar House Community Council RE: Sugar House Business District Design Standards Thank you for the opportunity to participate in reviewing the details of the Sugar House Business District Design Standards Zoning Text Amendment over the past year. The idea is to put in place minimum, objective standards for new development proposals that are too small to trigger a subjective design review process with the Planning Commission. These standards come out of the Sugar House Master Plan, but are not specific enough in the current zoning code The Idea is to codify these so there is no ambiguity. CSHBD- 1 district, buildings less than 50’ in height or less than 20,000 square feet in size are not required to go through a design review process. In the CSHBD-2 district, the size threshold is 30’ in height or 20.000 square feet in size. We like: • Active main entrances every 30 feet, even with the +/- 6’ due to existing conditions. • Wayfinding signs, at pedestrian level (4-6’) • Ground floor glass requirements • Maximum length of blank walls – 15’ • Parking structure standards • Ground floor use requirements - We like an active use requirement for ground floor use. A building with obscure glass and a bunch of desks is not interesting. • Façade building materials should be durable. • Parking lot lighting should minimize light encroachment. • Lighting requirements • Park strip alternatives • Screening of service areas. • What we didn’t like: • Maximum length of building facades 300 feet – should be 200 feet. • Sidewalk widths of 8 feet in one and 6 feet in 2. We would like to see 10’. Trees should be installed at least every 30’ along the street face. New street lighting to the Sugar House Standard. We would like to see a standard for sidewalk stamping that is in the circulation plan included. The predominant type is a red, textured pavement. This textured paving material has been used in the most recent updates to areas of the SHBD, including the monument plaza, corner treatments, and bulb outs. Textured pavement locations include the Monument Plaza, areas along 2100 South, 1100 East, and Highland Drive. One thing that seems to be missing has to do with plantings or treatment of the area between the sidewalk and the street. In many places we have an already built environment, with no expectation of redevelopment within the next 30 years. Sidewalks are often minimal, 4-6’. If we are trying to widen sidewalks wherever we can, there should be some sort of standard that allows for permeable uses between the existing sidewalk and the curb, to provide the effect of wider sidewalks. McClelland is an example where a skinny grass area between the 6’ sidewalk and the curb does nothing but create problems. It is hard to mow, hard to irrigate, and if group of people like a mom, a stroller, a teenager with a bike try to walk down the street, it is awkward to walk on that bit of grass. The standard should allow for widening the sidewalk with pavers or concrete, even if it is only in between the trees set 30’ apart. 38 From:JOHN A GARDINER To:Echeverria, Daniel Subject:Comments on Proposed CSHBD changes Date:Wednesday, March 27, 2019 10:34:43 AM Daniel, Following are my comments/recommendations on the proposed changes. Would be happy to discuss with you. 1. Front Yard Sidewalk Large wide sidewalks are in fashion with planners. Unfortunately what 6' - 8' sidewalk requirement ends up doing in CSHBD is tear out grass park strips and tear out trees. On our 21 by Urbana project we were able to persuade the City to let us retain the 1.5 - 2 ft. grass buffers on parking strip and keep existing sidewalk width. This also enabled us to save 3 or 4 four beautiful mature Honey Locust trees. Requiring 6' - 8' sidewalks results in tearing out the grass buffer and tearing out mature trees. This one is a bad idea. City employees maintain CSHBD park strips and trees and do a good job. We need green buffers to roadways. The idea that we need 6' - 8' wide sidewalks is a fiction - there are never going to be so many people walking at once to fill up sidewalks this wide - maybe require them on intersection of 2100 S and Highland and 2100 S and 1300 East, but most frontage in CSHBD is better served by maintain the nice mini park strips and existing trees. We have preserved trees and maintained park strips on all our Sugar House Properties and it has worked beautifully. Unfortunately, the urban forestry department has a bias thinking that tearing out 30 - 50 year old mature trees and replacing with little new trees is smart - its a really bad idea. The city owned Plaza on 2100 S and 1100 East is very sterile and lacks green space. Would have been so much better had existing trees been saved - there is no shade, no green space over there. Another case in point of the worst outcome of the 6 - 8 ft sidewalk and tear out mature trees concept is the new CVS store on NW corner of 1300 E and 2100 South. They tore out 35 year old Honey Locust trees, tore out nice grass buffer and replaced with small little trees that will take many decades to provide the shade and beauty that was there before and then you have this super wide sidewalk with no people on it. Very sterile, Quite ugly. This is what the 6' - 8' sidewalk policy will produce. Go look at the CVS streetscape - there was no reason those trees needed to come out - they didn't even build up to the sidewalk - easily saved - very bad outcome for the neighborhood. 2. Park Strip Alternative Same comment as above. We need green space not more pavers 3. Ground Floors on 1100 East and 2100 South must include commercial. 39 We have residential on our 2100 S frontage. It seems to be working as we have leased one of the two units and leased more units on 1000 East. Improsing commercial requirement not a great idea. We are not Boston, New York or LA. Track record of retail or commercial below residential is very poor in Utah. Most times it does not work. Also, the parking requirements for commercial are high and this displaces residential parking. Parking very tight. This one will increase the cost of projects and increase the cost of the housing built above. I thought the City wanted more affordable housing - this won't help - it does the opposite. Let the market decide whether residential or commercial works on the main floor. 4. Ground Floor Active Uses I understand the concept of not wanting blank facades on street front. I would suggest that 20' depth more workable requirement than 25'. Although we have 25' at 21 by Urbana, 5' of that is patio space. What we are finding out is that the patio space is being occupied by vagrants sleeping there (Current mayor does not enforce trespassing or no loitering laws for homeless so our managers have to kick them out - creating problems for us). On another upcoming project, we may not do patio space and instead have residential doors closer to sidewalk. Our units are generally 20' deep. 25' deep is a little too deep and results in darker units as farther from natural light. You can achieve the same goal by going to 20' 5. Ground Floor Glass Its a nice idea not to have reflective glass on Main Floor. We have lots of experience building ground floor units on the street in Sugar House. What we are finding is that residents complain a lot that people can see in their units - lack of privacy. This is a problem. No one wants people looking in their unit, like everyone driving by. Reflective glass should be allowed for residential. This is reality - we have to lease these spaces - non reflective does not work for residential. Homeless have free license to roam and camp on people's property in Salt Lake (no enforcement by Mayor - ever). We need to make residents feel safe or these ground floor spaces are not going to work at all. In this case, safety must trump aesthetics. Please work with us on this one - we are the only developer that has built tasteful residential ground level units in Sugar House - we can't keep doing it if we can't take measures to insure privacy. 6. 1,000 sf additions trigger regulations. I think this is way too small. We have a small office building we may renovate. Adding 1,000 sf should not trigger full compliance with all CSHDB regulations. Many of the old small building don't comply and costs to comply prohibitive. Adding 1,000 sf should be grandfathered. I suggest 2,500 sf addition as the minimum. 40 Daniel, these are the realities of how these changes will impact (sometimes negatively) the neighborhood and business viability. Please take them into account when crafting the ordinance. Our offices have been at corner of 1100 East and 2100 South for 12 years. We have completed 3 tasteful projects here and plan more. Many of our family members live in our projects. We know what we are talking about when discussing practical realities and we work and live in this neighborhood in addition to developing properties here. Please work with us on continuing to make Sugar house a great Urban Walkable Community but not over regulate in ways that are impractical. Thanks John John A. Gardiner President Gardiner Properties, LLC 1075 East 2100 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 (801) 487-2012 (Office) (801) 487-2093 (fax) 41 City Department Review Comments Planning Staff Note: In general, the proposed changes do not directly impact most other City departments. Transportation: No concerns. Engineering: No concerns. Planning Staff Note: The sidewalk materials proposal (bricks/pavers) was discussed with Engineering. When installed properly, brick, brick pavers, and/or stamped concrete with such a pattern, are acceptable to Engineering and the City maintenance crews. Because of the potential for these to be installed improperly or with methods that create maintenance issues, staff added additional language regarding requiring Engineering approval. Installation methods and materials will be subject to Engineering approval to ensure that the bricks/pavers are durable and not a maintenance issue for City crews. Public Utilities: No concerns provided. Public Utilities noted that they are working on a new City lighting master plan and noted that there is a special light pole requirement in Sugar House. Staff does not anticipate the light pole requirement changing in the new master plan. Building Services (Zoning): No concerns. 42 3.PLANNING COMMISSION C. Agenda/Minutes/Public Comments June 12, 2019 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA In Room 326 of the City & County Building June 12, 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 and 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 MAY 22, 2019 REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Subdivision/Planned Development Amendment at approximately 1570 S Main – Moda on Main - Brock Loomis of J.F. Capital is requesting approval from the City to create an 11 - unit residential subdivision for the previously approved Planned Development at 1570 S. Main. The configuration of two multi-family buildings with a combined total of 11 units has not changed, however each unit is now being proposed on its own sellable lot with shared common space. The project requires approval for the amended Planned Development and the subdivision. The following two petitions are associated with this request: a. Preliminary Subdivision Plat – A request to subdivide and reconfigure three parcels into 11 new parcels with shared common yard and parking areas. Case number PLNSUB2019-00133 b. Planned Development Amendment – A request to amend the Planned Development approval to address the creation of 11 lots that do not independently have street frontage, yards setbacks, or the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet in the CC Zone but are part of a larger common lot which meets the standards. Case number PLNSUB2018-00057 The subject property is located in Council District 5 represented by Erin Mendenhall. (Staff contact: Eric Daems at 801-535-7326 or eric.daems@slcgov.com). 2. Planned Development and Conditional Building and Site Design Review at approximately 45 South 600 West - A request by Auggie Wasmund, from C.W. Urban, for a Planned Development and Conditional Building and Site Design Review (CBSDR) to build a four story 48-unit residential building at approximately 45 S 600 West in the Gateway Mixed Use (G-MU) zoning district. Planned Development approval is required for all new construction in the G-MU zoning district. The applicant is also requesting a reduction of parking lot landscaping through the Planned Development process and the proposed exterior building materials require approval through the CBSDR process. The subject property is within Council District 4 represented by Ana Valdemoros (Staff Contact: Amy Thompson at 801-535- 7281or amy.thompson@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNSUB2019-00128 and PLNPCM2019-00129 3. Fern Subdivision Alley Vacation at approximately 1019 East Logan Avenue - Kathleen Bratcher, who lives at 1019 East Logan Avenue is proposing to vacate the alley that is to the west and north of her property. The western portion runs 126’ north and south along her property line. The northern portion of the alley runs east and west 336’ from the applicant’s property to 1053 E. Logan Avenue and then follows 1053 E. Logan’s eastern property line 126’ north and south. The alley is recorded on the Fern Subdivision and is adjacent to property on the north that is not part of the subdivision. The subject property is located in the R-1-5000 zoning district and is located in council district 5, represented by Erin Mendenhall. (Staff Contact: Anna Anglin at 801-535-6050 or anna.anglin@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2018-00468 4. Sugar Alley Conditional Building and Site Design Review at approximately 2188 S Highland Drive - Ben Lowe, representing the property owner Sugarhouse Dixon, LLC, has requested Conditional Building and Site Design Review approval to build an eight- story mixed-use building at 2188 S Highland Drive. The development is proposed to be approximately 85' in height and include 186 apartments and 16,000 square feet of retail space. Buildings over 50' in height in the Sugar House Business District-1 zone are required to go through the Conditional Building and Site Design Review process, and as the building exceeds this height it is proceeding through this process. Through this process applicant is also seeking a modification to a 15' upper floor step-back requirement for the north-east portion of their building that faces Highland Drive. The property is in the Sugar House Business District-1 (CSHBD-1) zone and is in Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff contact: Daniel Echeverria, daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com or 801-535-7165) Case number PLNPC2019-00264 5. Sugar House Business District Design Standards Text Amendment - A request by the Mayor to amend the Sugar House Business District (CSHBD) zoning district regulations. The amendments would apply additional design standards to development in the zone. Design standards include regulations pertaining to such things as windows, entrances, and building materials. Currently, there are a limited number of design standards for small developments in Sugar House, whereas large developments have many more standards to comply with. The proposed additional design standards are meant to bridge this gap and help ensure that new small buildings support a high quality, pedestrian oriented environment in Sugar House. Other miscellaneous related changes and clarifications to the zoning code are also included in the amendments. The proposal affects both the CSHBD-1 and CSHBD-2 zoning districts. The zone is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff Contact: Daniel Echeverria, daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com or 801-535-7165) Case number PLNPCM2018- 00210 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 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. 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 June 12, 2019 Page 1 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES EXTRACT City & County Building 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, June 12, 2019 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:35:34 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. Chairperson Bachman provided an opening statement. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Maurine Bachman; Commissioners Amy Barry, Adrienne Bell, Weston Clark, Carolynn Hoskins, Matt Lyon, and Brenda Scheer. Vice Chairperson Sara Urquhart; Commissioners Andres Paredes and Clark Ruttinger were excused. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were Molly Robinson, Planning Manager; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Amy Thompson, Senior Planner; Anna Anglin, Principal Planner; Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner; and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary. Field Trip A field trip was held prior to the work session. Planning Commissioners present were: Maurine Bachman, and Brenda Scheer. Staff members in attendance were Amy Thompson, Anna Anglin, and Daniel Echeverria. • 2188 S Highland Drive – Staff gave an overview of the proposal. Discussion was made regarding the separation between the buildings – 30 feet, air, light, etc. • 1019 East Logan Avenue – Staff gave an overview of the proposal. • 45 South 600 West – Staff gave an overview of the proposal. Commissioner Lyon arrived. 8:13:53 PM Sugar House Business District Design Standards Text Amendment - A request by the Mayor to amend the Sugar House Business District (CSHBD) zoning district regulations. The amendments would apply additional design standards to development in the zone. Design standards include regulations pertaining to such things as windows, entrances, and building materials. Currently, there are a limited number of design standards for small developments in Sugar House, whereas large developments have many more standards to comply with. The proposed additional design standards are meant to bridge this gap and help ensure that new small buildings support a high quality, pedestrian oriented environment in Sugar House. Other miscellaneous related changes and clarifications to the zoning code are also included in the amendments. The proposal affects both the CSHBD-1 and CSHBD-2 zoning districts. The zone is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff Contact: Daniel Echeverria, daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com or 801-535-7165) Case number PLNPCM2018-00210 Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. The Commission and Staff discussed the following: Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 12, 2019 Page 2 •Clarification on what constitutes the process •Clarity on whether the use has to be retail •Question regarding how much residential developments are currently located in area •New development sidewalk requirements •Width of sidewalk requirements •Whether there was restriction qualifier for the 40% glass above 5 feet •Clarification as to where the 200-foot width maximum causes problems •Park strip requirements •Concerns regarding building width and building separation PUBLIC HEARING 8:53:56 PM Chairperson Bachman opened the Public Hearing; Judi Short, Vice Chairperson of the Sugar House Community Council Representative – Raised concerns regarding the length of the buildings and spacing of entrances. Lynn Schwartz, Vice Chairperson of the Sugar House Community Council – Raised concerns regarding the length of the façade and the spacing of entrances. She also provided feedback regarding the tree clarification, height for signs, and live/work allowance. Laurie Karlik, Gardner Properties representative – Read a letter from John Gardner and provided a copy for the Commission’s review. Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Bachman closed the Public Hearing. The Commission and Staff further discussed the following: •Whether the increased size in sidewalks will have an impact on trees •Feasibility of retail •Design standards and clarification as to why the concern for specific uses for small projects MOTION 9:17:26 PM Commissioner Barry 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 PLNPCM2018-00219 Sugar House Business District Design Standards Text Amendment with the additional condition: 1.That the intent for glass percentage requirements is clarified. Discussion was made by the commission regarding standards. Commissioner Scheer seconded the motion. Commissioners Lyon, Barry, Clark, Hoskins, Scheer and Bell voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:21:22 PM Public Comment Submitted During Planning Commission Public Hearing - Laurie Karlick Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 12, 2019 - Public Comment Public Comment Submitted During Planning Commission Public Hearing - Laurie Karlick Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 12, 2019 - Public Comment Public Comment Submitted During Planning Commission Public Hearing - Laurie Karlick Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 12, 2019 - Public Comment Public Comment Submitted During Planning Commission Public Hearing - Laurie Karlick Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 12, 2019 - Public Comment Public Comment Submitted During Planning Commission Public Hearing - Laurie Karlick Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 12, 2019 - Public Comment 3.PLANNING COMMISSION D.Presentation Slides June 12, 2019 Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 12, 2019 SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS TEXT AMENDMENT PROPOSAL: Changes to CSHBD-1 & -2 zones •Adds additional design standards •Adds additional streetscape standards •Adds ground floor use restriction on dwelling units facing 1100 E & 2100 South •Bridges regulation gap between large and small development (small developments that are not subject to Design Review) •Puts requirements upfront Staff recommends positive recommendation SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS TEXT AMENDMENT Legend 'I CSHB D1 [l CSHBD2 SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS TEXT AMENDMENT Small Scale D ~~2P.21 ent ----. ------------------------ Building Permits Design Standards Co mplia n ce Large Scale Development --------------------------------------------------------. ------------------------ Sugar House Business District Design Guidelines Handbook Planning Commission D es ig n Review + D es ign Guidel in es + Des ign Sta nd a rd s City Zoning Code 21 A.37 -Design Standards Building Permits SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS TEXT AMENDMENT Building Design Standards •Ground floor use minimums (80% of façade length, 25' depth) •High quality building material minimums (80% lower, 60% upper) •Service area (loading docks, etc.) screening •Building entrance spacing (40’) (revised) •Maximum façade length (300') •Parking structure design requirements All generally required through Design Review process for large buildings, would now be required for all buildings, large or small Zoning Use Restriction •Ground floor use restriction-no dwelling units on 1100 E/2100 South), live/work allowed Additional limitation intended to better activate Sugar House streetscape SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS TEXT AMENDMENT Streetscape Standards: •Sugar House style street lighting •Wider sidewalks (6'/8'), modifications allowed (revised) •Accent brick/pavers (10%) for sidewalks (new) •Clarifies that street trees (1 every 30') are required (new) •Allowance for paved park strips in some circumstances All currently required/allowed through Design Review on larger buildings, would now be required for all buildings, large or small Sign Standards: •Increased size limit for eye-level wayfinding signage Wayfinding signs generally required through Design Review Building Materials 80% HQ lower Building Materials 60% HQ upper Building Entrance Spacing Min 40' Max. Façade Length 300' Ground Floor Use 80% of façade, 25' depth Sidewalk Width Min. 6'/8' Service Area Screening Parking Structure Design Standards Street Lighting Required Pedestrian Wayfinding Sign Allowance Blank Wall Limits 15’ (existing) Upper Building Step-back 15' at 30' height (existing) Ground Floor Glass Min. 40% (existing) Sidewalk Materials Min. 10% brick/ pavers Mechanical Equipment Screening Park Strip Paving Allowance Ground Floor Residential Restriction 1100 E/2100 S SUGAR HOUSE DESIGN STANDARDS PC Discussions Follow-up Sidewalk Widths (6'/8'): •Follow existing City subdivision policies •Align with Sugar House Business District Design Guidelines •Within width ranges of NACTO recommendations Building Length (300'): •300' has been standard for 10+ years (through CBSDR) •Aligns with Circulation Plan path spacing •Buildings under this length already subject to Design Review due to height/square footage •Lower threshold could result in additional unnecessary paths or additional modification requests Door Spacing (40'): •Revised to 40' from 30' •Average spacing on new buildings through Design Review: ~45' •30' potential for additional locked doors/odd design decisions SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS TEXT AMENDMENT Public Input •Developer concerned regarding ground floor use limitation on 1100 E/2100 S o Mixed-use can be financially more difficult and riskier than residential •SHCC would like to see 30' door spacing and 200' building length limit SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS TEXT AMENDMENT •Staff recommends positive recommendation be forwarded to City Council 4. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION A. Staff Report December 12, 2018 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 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS MEMORANDUM To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Daniel Echeverria, daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com, 801-859-1291 Date: December 6, 2018 Re: PLNPCM2018-00210 Sugar House Business District Design Standards ACTION REQUIRED: No action required. Planning staff would like the Planning Commission’s input on the direction staff is taking with the proposed zoning amendment petition. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In March 2018, the Mayor initiated this petition to add additional design standards that would apply to development in the Sugar House Business District (CSHBD) zone. Design standards regulate such things as exterior building materials, the number of doors on a facade, and the percent of window glass. For location context, the CSHBD zone is highlighted on the below map. The yellow areas are the CSHBD-1 zone, allowing development up to 105' in height, and the pink areas are the CSHBD-2 zone, allowing development up to 60 feet in height. The main purpose of the petition is to put in place minimum, objective design standards for new development proposals that are too small in this zone to trigger a design review process with the Planning Commission. The zoning code currently includes a small number of design standards for lower scale development in this zone. In the CSHBD-1 district, buildings less than 50' in height or less than 20,000 square feet in size are not required to go through a design review process. In the CSHBD-2 district (the less intense of the two districts), the size threshold is 30' in height or 20,000 square feet in size. When buildings are 1Sugar House Design Standards Memo 12/6/2018 under this size limit, development can simply proceed to building permits and just must comply with the base zoning, which includes objective, measurable design standards. Larger scale developments over these thresholds must go through a design review process with the Planning Commission known as “Conditional Building and Site Design Review.” Through that process Planning staff and the Planning Commission can analyze the proposal against a number of design review standards, as well as adopted design guidelines in the Sugar House Business District Design Guideline Handbook (the “Handbook”). The Handbook is attached as Attachment 2. The Handbook is a list of approximately 112 different design guidelines that apply to new development. The majority of these guidelines are subjective, but there are some objective guidelines that could be incorporated into the base zoning code as design standards. This text amendment proposal would put some of those objective guidelines in the zoning code as design standards so that they could be applied to smaller scale buildings. These design standards would also apply to larger buildings in combination with the guidelines from the Handbook. The City recently adopted a new chapter in the zoning ordinance to consolidate the design standards from various sections of the zoning ordinance into one place. This chapter has a number of standards that could be made applicable to developments in the Sugar House zone. The proposed changes use this chapter as a framework, to ensure that the design standards in place in Sugar House are consistent with others in the City. New/Revised Design Standards Staff has identified a number of standards that could be added into the ordinance as design standards. These all relate back to particular objective design guidelines from the Handbook. The proposed additional new design standards are noted below. 1.Ground Floor Use: Active ground floor uses must occupy 80% of the façade length and have a minimum depth of 25'. Although there is currently language in the code requiring specific uses on the ground floor in Sugar House, the language does not include clear dimensional requirements for the space itself. 2Sugar House Design Standards Memo 12/6/2018 a.Additional Commercial Requirement: The Sugar House zone currently requires that ground floor spaces incorporate one or more of some specific uses. A developer can include one of a number of commercial uses and/or a residential use. Currently, residential uses can take up the entire ground floor. Staff is considering a requirement that all ground floors along Highland Drive and 2100 South include a commercial use in the space. These streets are currently Sugar House’s commercial corridors, and with more residential development the community may otherwise lose significant commercial space. Given the overall decline in retail uses with the growth of online options, staff is cautious about requiring the entirety of the ground floors to include commercial uses as these spaces could simply sit vacant - adding less vitality to the public street than a residential use may provide. 2.Durable, High Quality Building Materials: Upper and lower building facades would need to incorporate certain minimum percentages of durable, high quality buildings materials. Upper levels would require 60% durable materials; lower levels would require 80%. Durable materials include brick, stone, masonry, textured/patterned concrete and fiber cement board. The minimums are similar to other districts in the City and generally reflect the percentages seen in high quality development in Sugar House. 3.Service Area Screening: Service area screening is not currently regulated in the Sugar House zone. This would add screening requirements for service/loading areas. 4.Building Entrances: Currently, one entrance is required for each building façade. However, the Handbook calls for entrances every 30', so the proposed standard also calls for entrances every 30 feet. For context, staff measured building entrance spacing throughout the business district and found current average door spacing to be approximately every 45' for street facing facades. The 30' spacing requirement is well under this average and may result in excess, unutilized entrances, so a higher spacing requirement may be appropriate. 5.Maximum Façade Length: The proposal would limit building lengths to 300 feet and require that when multiple buildings are located on a lot that they be separated with a 20' wide gap, including a 5' walkway. This proposal links to various design guidelines in the Handbook and guidance from the adopted Sugar House Circulation and Amenities Plan that encourage pedestrian walkways and connections throughout the Business District. 3Sugar House Design Standards Memo 12/6/2018 6.Parking Structure Design Standards: The proposal would apply existing design standards in 21A.37 that regulate the design of parking structures. It includes nine different standards, including exterior material requirements, street level habitable space requirements, and lighting restrictions. The full list of parking structure standards is located in section M in Attachment 3. Many of the standards relate to Handbook guidelines for parking structures. Other Additional Minimum Standards Additionally, based on other objective guidelines in the Handbook, Planning staff is proposing that the following additional minimum standards be added into the Sugar House zoning. Minimum Sidewalk Widths: Sidewalks would need to be 8' in the CSHBD-1 zone and 6' in the CSHBD-2 zone. This corresponds with the specific guidelines in the Handbook for high traffic areas (8') and low traffic areas (6'). Street Lighting Installation Requirements: Sugar House standard street lighting would be required where called for by the lighting master plan. Lighting installation is usually mandatory anyway, but it is not clear and upfront in the code. This additional language would make that requirement clear. Additional Allowances and Clarifications The proposal would also add additional allowances into the zone, based on items called for in the Handbook, and also make some clarifications to sections of the code that have been confusing in the past for developers and staff. Directional (Wayfinding) Signage: The proposal will increase the height limit allowed for directional signs from 4' to 6' to height to allow for eye-level wayfinding signage. The current height limit is not conducive to pedestrian wayfinding signage in the business district, which is called for in the Sugar House Master Plan and Handbook. Park Strip Paving Materials: The proposal would allow for paving, including concrete and brick, in park strips if the proposal complies with the Sugar House Circulation and Amenities Plan, with approval by the Planning Director. The Circulation Plan provides guidance about where it is appropriate to incorporate additional pavement areas in lieu of vegetated park strips. The full plan can be found here: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/SHCP.pdf 4Sugar House Design Standards Memo 12/6/2018 Maximum Building Height Regulations Clarification: The proposal would also simplify some language in the code relating to differing maximum building heights in the zone for residential and non-residential development. The proposal will convert the current code section into an easier to understand table, but will not change the requirements. A simplified version of the table is located in the information sheet in Attachment 1. Existing Design Standards The Sugar House zone includes some existing design standards. Those standards will remain in place. These standards include: Minimum Glass Requirements: 40% of the ground floor façade between 3' and 8' height level needs to be glass with visibility into the building at least 5 feet. Upper Floor Stepback: Requires that floors above the 30' height level be stepped back 15' from the lower front façade. The intent of this to reduce the impact of taller buildings on the traditional lower building scale of Sugar House. Lighting: Limits the height of parking lot light poles and requires shielding of light poles and exterior lighting to prevent light trespass and nuisance to adjacent properties. Maximum Length of Blank Wall: This limits the length of any blank wall on street facing building façades to 15’ in length maximum. One important item to note is that design standards may be modified for a development by going through the “Conditional Building and Site Design Review” process. The proposed alternative design would still have to meet the intent of design standard. Design Standards Table for Reference The design standards referenced above are located in a table in Chapter 21A.37 of the Zoning Code. That table with the proposed new additions for the CSHBD zone is copied below. New regulations are noted with an underline. An excerpt of the existing chapter that explains the requirements for each regulation in greater detail is located in Attachment 3. Regulation CSHBD Requirement Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050A1) 80% Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050A2) 60%/25% Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050B1) 80% Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050B2) 60% Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050C1) 40% 5Sugar House Design Standards Memo 12/6/2018 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050C2) Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050D) X 30 Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050E) 15 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050F) 300 Upper floor step back (feet) (21A.37.050G) 15 Lighting: Exterior (21A.37.050H) X Lighting: Parking lot (21A.37.050I) X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050J) X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050K) X Ground floor residential entrances (21A.37.050L) Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050M) X Primary entrance design SNB district (21A.37.050O) Public Process Planning staff has met with the Sugar House Community Council’s Land Use Committee multiple times to go over the proposed changes and get their input. Staff also sent a survey to developers who have completed developments in Sugar House within the last 10 years, requesting their input on the clarity of the current regulations and any issues they may have encountered. Staff will continue to reach out to the public and stakeholders, including developers, business groups, property owners, and the community council prior to taking the proposal to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and recommendation. Attachments 1.Zoning Information Sheet with Highlighted Changes 2.Sugar House Business District Design Guidelines Handbook 3.Current Design Standards Chapter Excerpt 6Sugar House Design Standards Memo 12/6/2018 Attachment 1. Zoning Information Sheet with Highlighted Changes 7Sugar House Design Standards Memo 12/6/2018 Zoning District Overview - Salt Lake City Planning Division The purpose of the CSHBD Sugar House Business District is to promote a walkable community with a transit oriented, mixed use town center that can support a twenty four (24) hour population. The CSHBD provides for residential, commercial and office use opportunities, with incentives for high density residential land use in a manner compatible with the existing form and function of the Sugar House master plan and the Sugar House business district. CSHBD-1 & CSHBD-2 Development Standards (21A.26.060) LOT WIDTH LOT AREA FRONT YARD REAR/SIDE YARDS LANDSCAPE BUFFERS HEIGHT SURFACE PARKING CBSDR THRESHOLD PARK STRIP ALTERNATIVE STREET LIGHTING No min or max No min 0' min, 15' max (Modifiable through CBSDR* or by Planning Director). Min. sidewalk width of 8' in CSHBD-1 or 6' in CSHBD-2. None, except next to single- family residential zones: 1' for every 3' of height above 30'. 7' min. required next to residential zones. Varies based on zone area and use, see height tables and CBSDR process threshold. Prohibited between front/ corner property line and the front/ corner building line. New construction over 50' in CSHBD-1 or 30' in CSHBD-2, or >20,000 sq ft in size in either district is subject to CBSDR process.* Alternative to landscaping is allowed (spe- cial pavement treatments) when compli- ant with SH Circulation Plan New street lights required where identified by street light mas- ter plan. Development Examples New or revised draft standards are underlined. Zoning Diagram   CSHBD SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT CSHBD-1 Height Residential Use Nonresidential Use Up to 30'Allowed.Allowed. >30' to 75'Allowed.Nonresidential floor area above 30' in height must be matched with equivalent residential floor area. Residential floor area may be provided within the same building or in a separate building. If in separate building, development agree- ment is required. >75' to 105'Allowed; 90% of required parking must be in structure. 1.Compliance with the same standard for ≥30' to 75' noted above; and 2.90% of required parking must be in structure. DRAFT OF PROPOSED CHANGES GROUND FLOOR USE  Ground floor shall include at least one of the following uses: residential, retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, social clubs, art galleries, theaters or performing art facilities. Ground floors facing Highland Drive or 2100 South must include a commercial use. *Conditional Building and Site Design Review (CBSDR) requires that development meet additional design review standards, see 21A.59.Development over the threshold is also subject to the Sugar House Business District Design Guideline Handbook. December 6, 2018DRAFT 8Sugar House Design Standards Memo 12/6/2018 Zoning District Overview - Salt Lake City Planning Division New or revised draft standards are underlined. CSHBD-2 Height Residential Use Nonresidential Use Up to 30'Allowed. Allowed. >30' to 60'Allowed.Nonresidential floor area above 30' in height must be matched with equivalent residential floor area. Residential floor area may be provided within the same building or in a sepa- rate building. If in separate building, development agreement is required and nonresiden- tial building limited to 45' in height. The above information is a synopsis of the DRAFT CSHBD zoning regulations and represents a work in progress. CSHBD SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT CSHBD Design Standards (21A.37) GROUND FLOOR ACTIVE USES 80% of ground floor facade must in- clude uses other than parking; shall extend min 25' into building. Excep- tions: 1. Single-family detached and two-family dwellings: up to 50% of facade may be garage. 2. Single-family attached: May be re- duced to 10' depth. 3. Necessary vehicle access-ways to parking. FACADE BUILDING MATERIALS Min. % of street facing facades shall be clad in durable materials, i.e. brick, masonry, textured/patterned concrete or cut stone Ground Floor: 80% min. Upper Floors: 60% min. GROUND FLOOR GLASS 40% glass & non-reflective, allows 5' of visibility into building; Reducible by 15% for residential ENTRANCES Min 1 entry for each street facing facade; entry required for every 30' (±6') of facade UPPER FLOOR STEP BACK (STREET FACING) Floors above 30' in height adjacent to public street must be stepped back 15' from the front building line. UPPER FLOOR STEP BACK (SIDE/REAR FACADES) Floors above 30' in height adjacent to a public trail, public open space, or single/two-family residential use must be stepped back 15' from the re- quired yard setback. CSHBD Design Standards (21A.37) MAXIMUM LENGTH OF BLANK WALLS No blank walls over 15' long; must be broken up by windows, doors, art, or architectural detailing MAXIMUM LENGTH OF STREET FACING FACADES No street facing building wall may be longer than 300'. A minimum of 20' required between separate build- ings on the lot and shall include 5' walkway BUILDING EQUIPMENT & SERVICE AREAS SCREENING On roof or in rear yard, sited to min- imize visibility or integrated into design PARKING LOT LIGHTING If a parking lot/structure is adjacent to a residential zoning district or land use, any poles for the parking lot/ structure security lighting are limit- ed to sixteen feet (16') in height and the globe must be shielded and the lighting directed down to minimize light encroachment onto adjacent residential properties or into upper level residential units in multi-story buildings. Lightproof fencing is re- quired adjacent to residential prop- erties. EXTERIOR LIGHTING Exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed down to prevent light trespass onto adjacent properties. Exterior lighting shall not strobe, flash or flicker. PARKING STRUCTURES Regulates external skin, elevator/ stair design, ramp location, lighting, signage, and ground level uses. See 21A.37.050.M for full list. DRAFT OF PROPOSED CHANGES DESIGN STANDARDS The below tables include the design standards from Chapter 21A.37 "Design Standards" that apply to the Sugar House Business District zone. ADDITIONAL APPLICABLE STANDARDS Additional standards in the zoning ordinance apply to development, including those related to landscaping and parking. Please see the zoning ordinance for the complete applicable regulations. December 6, 2018 All of the above design standards apply to new construction or additions of at least 1,000 square feet or more. All of the design standards may be modified through the Conditional Building and Site Design Review process. See Chapter 21A.59.DRAFTDRAFT9Sugar House Design Standards Memo 12/6/2018 Attachment 2. Sugar House Business District Design Guidelines Handbook 10Sugar House Design Standards Memo 12/6/2018 Design Guideline Handbook Page 1 of 8 Sugar House Business District Design Guidelines Handbook Reformatted from the Sugar House Community Master Plan These Design Guidelines apply to the Sugar House Business District Zoning District. Their purpose is to assure high quality development. The high quality of the district should be reflected in all of its aspects, including design, construction and tenant mix. The intent of these Design Guidelines is to give general design guidance with flexibility to the development of the area. They are not intended to restrict creativity or to dictate design solutions. Guidelines are intended to support and expand on the guidelines established in the Urban Design Element. They are also intended to be compatible with Salt Lake City zoning ordinances. In the development of design proposals, developers are encouraged to explore solutions and to present alternatives to these guidelines if they can be shown to achieve the same goals for high quality development. Pedestrian/Bicycle System Design Guidelines Pedestrian and bicycle access through the development and to surrounding areas and uses are critical to integrating the Sugar House community. It is important to develop a full range of pedestrian options with connections to adjacent uses, amenities and developments. Clearly defined, safe and pleasant pedestrian access through and between all of the use areas on the project should be provided. High traffic areas such as those between parking lots and building entrances, between buildings within the project, and other areas where the majority of pedestrians will be walking, should be a priority. 1. Design the town center with pedestrian-oriented corridors providing pedestrian comfort and amenities. 2. Provide proper separation of pedestrian and vehicular movement at a scale that encourages activity and pedestrian comfort. 3. Form pedestrian/commercial promenades with planting and paving treatments in pedestrian corridors, coupled with active uses in adjacent buildings. 4. Incorporate special pavement treatment using materials and patterns coordinated for the district into pedestrian-activity areas. 5. Provide pedestrian circulation from buildings adjacent to pedestrian corridors. 6. Develop pedestrian corridors to connect activity centers and connect blocks. 7. Provide clear, visible signage for pedestrian accessways. 8. Orient public entrances to the street. Functional entrances every 30 linear feet is desirable. 9. Require continuous street frontages except for driveways, plazas and walkways that allow the pedestrian to get to parking located behind buildings. 10. Provide a refuge for pedestrians with overhead protection at doorways on new buildings along 2100 South and Highland Drive/1100 South. 11Sugar House Design Standards Memo 12/6/2018 Design Guideline Handbook Page 2 of 8 11. Articulate pedestrian/bicycle corridors and linkages with pedestrian scale furnishings, lighting, paving materials, public art, trees, and other plantings where appropriate. 12. Accommodate the needs of disabled and elderly people by meeting requirements of the American’s With Disabilities Act (ADA) along pedestrian areas. 13. Provide adequate width along walkways: major pedestrian walkways in high traffic areas should be a minimum of 8 feet' in width; secondary walkways in low traffic areas should be a minimum of 6 feet in width; and walkways adjacent to parking lots where automobile bumpers may overhang the walk should be designed to allow a minimum of 6 feet clearance for walking. 14. Delineate space with paving materials and design to help define pedestrian areas from other circulation systems. 15. Use easily maintained, durable, slip resistant paving materials suitable for this climate, such as concrete, concrete pavers, brick pavers, tile, etc. 16. Avoid the use of rough or uneven paving materials which can be hazardous, particularly for elderly persons and persons in wheelchairs. 17. Design drainage grates to allow safe passage by bicycles and pedestrians, particularly in pedestrian/ bicycle circulation areas. Vehicular Circulation and Parking Design Guidelines 18. Encourage on-street parking in front of buildings as a traffic calming method and as a buffer for pedestrians. 19. Incorporate structured parking in new structures or adaptive reuse of existing structures and coordinate the parking with building and landscaping designs. Parking structures should not occupy the street frontage of 1100 East/Highland Drive and 2100 South. Parking structures on other streets should have retail/office use on the ground level. 20. Designate parking lots and structures with uniform identification signs. 21. Encourage through-block parking lots along the north side of 2100 South behind the building frontages and adequately buffered from adjoining residential areas. Encourage shared/coordinated parking with all businesses. 22. Avoid access to parking through residential areas. 23. Provide islands throughout parking areas to break up hard-surfaced areas. Berms and other changes of grade are recommended where possible. 24. Encourage shared parking and structured parking, either below grade or above grade. 25. Design primary access points to avoid traffic conflicts. Wherever possible, they should be located directly across from existing access drives and streets. Interior circulation drives should be articulated and reinforced with other site design features such as lighting standards, trees and other plantings, special paving and walkways, etc. An interior circulation system which includes a clearly defined route to parking areas is necessary. Immediate entry to large parking areas is not desirable. 12Sugar House Design Standards Memo 12/6/2018 Design Guideline Handbook Page 3 of 8 26. Design access points to adequately meet traffic needs with consideration for consolidation to minimize the number of curb cuts along the block face. 27. Design interior drives and parking lots so that pedestrian, service, and vehicular conflicts are minimized. 28. Design the vehicular circulation system to reduce traffic impacts to neighboring residential uses. 29. Locate parking lots back from buildings to allow for pedestrian space and landscaping. 30. Landscape parking lots. Interior islands, at least 6' in width between parking rows or bays can be used to minimize the visual impact of large expanses of asphalt and to control cross traffic through parking lots. 31. Screen service, storage and trash areas. These areas should be screened and buffered from pedestrian corridors, surrounding streets, residential units, Parleys Creek open space and other public use areas using materials compatible with the architecture and adjacent site features. Town Center Scale Mixed Use - Parking 32. Allow surface and structured parking; however, structured parking is highly recommended. 33. Prohibit parking lots to front onto Highland Drive or 2100 South in the area of the Town Center Overlay. 34. Require parking structures that face onto the street to have retail spaces at the lower level. Neighborhood Scale Mixed Use - Parking 35. Allow surface and structured parking. Structured parking facing onto the street must have retail space at the lower level. 36. Setback parking lots a minimum of 15 feet. 37. Locate parking lots to the rear of buildings. Residential - Parking 38. Allow surface and structured parking; however, structured parking is preferred. 39. Prohibit parking lots to front onto 2100 South. 40. Setback parking lots a minimum of 15 feet. Open Space - Parking 41. Avoid parking lots in Open Space areas. Building Architecture and Siting 42. Require the general pattern of buildings to include and emphasize the importance of public gathering spaces and pedestrian connections. 43. Consider the relationship of building forms to one another and to other elements of the Sugar House area so the effects will be complimentary and harmonious. 44. Relate the mass and height of new buildings to the historical scale of Sugar House development to avoid an overwhelming or dominating appearance in new construction. 13Sugar House Design Standards Memo 12/6/2018 Design Guideline Handbook Page 4 of 8 45.Treat building height, scale, and character as significant features of the Business District’s image. 46.Ensure that features of building design such as color, detail, materials, and scale are responsive to district character, neighboring buildings, and the pedestrian. 47.Require buildings situated in visually dominant positions to have interestingly detailed exteriors. Prohibit blank-walled facades. 48.Allow buildings within the core of the town center to stand out prominently only in exceptional circumstances. This would be when they signify the presence of activity centers and occupy focal points. 49.Design new construction to complement and enhance the character of adjacent older buildings having architectural merit through appropriate scale, massing, rhythm, and materials. 50.Require where applicable, that the base of the building emphasize horizontal divisions, texture, and other architectural details to relate to pedestrian activity. 51.Require the first floors of buildings to have clear, untinted glass that permits pedestrian contact with interior spaces along streets and pedestrian corridors. Prohibit dark-tinted or reflective glass windows, creating a blank, impersonal street front, uninviting to the pedestrian. 52.Preserve historic structures and their facades in order to preserve the historical fabric of the area, wherever feasible. 53.Complement the historic architecture of Sugar House with appropriate exterior building materials. Appropriate materials may include the following: Brick; Architectural concrete (precast or poured-in-place); Stone; and Glass. 54.Choose exterior building materials to be consistent with appropriate standards for structures of the kind proposed; and address durability and life-cycle cost issue. 55.Coordinate and compliment exterior materials throughout the area in order to develop a unified expression. 56.Avoid placing mechanical equipment at grade level. Meters, pipes, stacks, heating and cooling equipment, control boxes, and antennas are examples of mechanical equipment requiring careful location and screening treatment. 57.Roof top mechanical equipment should be screened with architecturally integrated elements of the building. 58.Orient large buildings to minimize shadows falling on public open spaces. The height and mass of tall, closely packed buildings should be shaped to permit sunlight to reach open spaces. 14Sugar House Design Standards Memo 12/6/2018 Design Guideline Handbook Page 5 of 8 59.Require large buildings and groups of buildings to maximize public views of the city's mountain backdrop. In larger projects, view corridors are needed to maintain a sense of living adjacent to the Wasatch Mountains. 60.Use sculpture, fountains, and monuments to enhance the three-dimensional quality of pedestrian gathering spaces. 61.Require loading docks on the “backside” of buildings to be carefully designed and screened. 62.Require the massing and scale of structures to be compatible with surrounding uses. 63.Orient buildings that are adjacent to the street, towards the street and promote a high quality image for each project. 64.Orient interior buildings towards each other and arrange them in clusters or in adjoining structures whenever possible. 65.Contain outdoor garden centers and other seasonal materials in permanently designated areas that are designed as part of the overall structure. 66.Include a variety of building heights in the mixed use area and take advantage of topographic changes, "stepping" the buildings down the profile. 67.Avoid construction of a "wall of buildings" along 1300 East blocking views to the west from Sugar House Park. 68.Avoid facade architecture: all faces of the building should be designed with similar detail and materials. Landscape Design Guidelines 69.Coordinate landscape design, incorporating landscaped treatment for open space, roads, paths, buildings and parking areas into a continuous and integrated design. 70.Include primary landscape treatment that consists of shrubs, ground covers and shade trees appropriate to the character of the project, the site and climatic conditions. 71.Provide a variety of plantings that include changes in color, texture, height, density, light, ground plane, etc. A mixture of shrubs, trees, ground covers, perennials, turf and annuals is suggested. 72.Provide landscaped separations between parking, drives, and service areas, and public use areas including walkways, plazas, eating areas, view corridors, prime vehicular access points, etc. 73.Architectural materials may be used, but plant materials should also be incorporated in the screening/buffering treatments. 74.Provide raised planters in high use areas when appropriate. Raised planters offer a good solution that protects plant materials from damage, and they offer opportunities for seating as well. 75.Provide trees planted on grade with a minimum opening of 5' square or round. Openings may be covered with tree grates or other material that allows air to reach the soil within the 5' area. 15Sugar House Design Standards Memo 12/6/2018 Design Guideline Handbook Page 6 of 8 76.Group plantings in larger planting areas rather than individual trees in grates, wherever possible. Plants are more successful in groupings and in larger planting areas. 77.Minimum plant sizes for all landscaped areas are as follows: Deciduous trees 2 1/2" caliper Evergreen trees 6' in height Deciduous shrubs 5 gallon container Evergreen shrubs 24" - 36" in height or spread Perennials 1 gallon container Ground covers 4" pots On-site Lighting Design Guidelines 78.Design lighting as a system that is integrated throughout the development, and that is compatible with the other lighting in the area. 79.Use pedestrian lighting along walkways, plazas, and other pedestrian areas to indicate routes and to provide safety. Fixture design should be appropriate and coordinated through the entire development. 80.Use lighting to highlight building facades. Generally, all building facades should be lighted at the street level. Above the first floor, light should be selectively positioned or defined. A more limited lighting pattern in the higher areas of the building is intended to produce greater contrast of light and shadow, accenting unique features without lighting the entire structure. 81.Use lighting to accent and highlight planting. Appropriate light levels and pleasant accent effects can be achieved with accent lighting, directed upwards into trees, provides low intensity, but offers dramatic illumination of nearby pedestrian areas. 82.Reserve architectural lighting for individual plaza areas to emphasize focal points. 83.Require parking lot lighting to meet Salt Lake City standards, at a minimum. 84.Design appropriate lighting levels to provide a safe atmosphere while deterring undesirable activities and avoiding night-sky pollution. Streetscape The pattern and design of streetscapes should convey a significant message complimenting the type and intensity of land development. A streetscape design should unify a district or neighborhood and portray an identity through the design. The following streetscape guidelines are recommended for the Town Center: 85.Design buildings to shape the street; the general pattern of buildings should help to define street areas and other public open spaces. 86.Allow for informal events such as displays and outdoor dining to encourage pedestrian activity. 87.Incorporate a consistent theme for streetscape design to strengthen the association of unrelated buildings. 16Sugar House Design Standards Memo 12/6/2018 Design Guideline Handbook Page 7 of 8 88.Select and design street landscaping according to a special theme for a given area to provide a sense of place in addition to its other amenities. 89.Maintain and incorporate a regular-interval street lighting pattern into streetscape improvements. 90.Choose light poles, arms, and fixture designs to preserve the historic character of the streetscape. 91.Select lighting to be in scale with the pedestrian experience. Signage Since adoption of the 1985 Sugar House Master Plan, the quality of signs in the Business District has improved. The City’s beautification project improved the area, along with the City Redevelopment Agency’s façade improvement program. Nevertheless, strict adherence to the City’s sign ordinance is necessar y to ensure that new signs do not dominate the streetscape of the urban area. This ordinance does not allow new billboards and assumes a long-term decrease in their number over time. As part of all planned developments, the policies of the City’s Urban Design Element relating to signage should be followed. In addition, planned developments must adhere to the following guidelines: 92.Install signage that emphasizes design elements of a building’s façade. 93.Select sign materials made of high quality, durable materials that will continue to look good after several years in Salt Lake’s climatic conditions. 94.Discourage pole signs and encourage wall and blade signs, as well as monument signs consistent with a pedestrian scale. 95.Provide street signs and other informational signage that are uniform and that provide neighborhood and community identity. 96.Integrate signs or awnings into the architectural design of any building rather than a feature independent and in conflict with the building's architecture. 97.Design signs and graphics to present their message with clarity; graphics should be clear and easily understood, so that people can orient themselves within the development and locate businesses and facilities easily. 98.Locate and size signs so that views to and from adjoining land parcels will not be blocked. 99.Design directional signing to be low, visible, integrated with the rest of the graphic systems, and functional. If directional signing is needed on the street directing people and vehicles, and on the interior of any development project, it should be consistently located in order to maximize its directional function. 100. Design informational signing that helps orient people on the development. It may take the form of a directory or other project wide identification in which people can orient themselves and be directed to those activities and areas they wish to visit. 17Sugar House Design Standards Memo 12/6/2018 Design Guideline Handbook Page 8 of 8 Off-Site Development Design Guidelines Off-site development includes work that occurs in the public way and on properties otherwise considered public such as the Parleys Creek property owned by Salt Lake City and any others that may be designated or assigned. 101. Provide public sidewalks and pedestrian/bike corridors that enhance the existing pedestrian circulation systems in the following locations: To the east along 2100 South and along Wilmington Avenue to Sugar House Park; Between the Sugar House Plaza Monument area and surrounding uses and areas; Between the public open space at Parleys Creek and surrounding uses and areas; Along the rail/trail designated in the Salt Lake City Open Space Plan; and To south and west to Fairmont Park. 102. Accommodate public transportation at the street edges. Coordinate with the Utah Transit Authority on location and design of turnouts, bus stops and other transit facilities. 103. Provide standard paving materials currently used in the area on sidewalks. Modifications to the patterns may be permitted and will require approval by Salt Lake City. 104. Landscape park strips and public open space with street trees, shrubs, ground covers and lawn. Maintenance of park strips is the responsibility of the adjacent property owner. 105. Select trees with guidance from the Salt Lake City Urban Forester. 106. Preserve and maintain existing vegetation along Parleys Creek. 107. Design street and circulation system drainage grates to allow safe passage by bicycles. 108. Require light fixtures to meet Salt Lake City standards and specifications and be of a design that is compatible with the design theme of the business district. 109. Include elements of visual interest and complexity into publicly owned open space. These elements can include landscaping, seating areas, furnishings, fountains, changes in grade, public art, etc. to add interest and excitement to the public spaces between buildings and along major circulation corridors. 110. Incorporate into the design and provide in designated locations of outdoor open space and public space elements such as site furnishings such as drinking fountains, benches, trash receptacles and ash receptacles, telephones, newspaper stands, bicycle storage. They should be coordinated and compatible to other site furnishings and design elements. 111. Design a mixture of seating opportunities if seating is provided. Materials that are comfortable and vandal resistant are preferred. 112. Consider seatwalls, steps, fountain edges, grassy mounds, etc. for an attractive variety of seating options that can accommodate many different needs. If seatwalls are used they should be a minimum of 12" wide and 16" to 24" high for comfortable, flexible seating. 18Sugar House Design Standards Memo 12/6/2018 Attachment 3. Current Design Standards Chapter Excerpt 19Sugar House Design Standards Memo 12/6/2018 Current Design Standards Excerpt Current Design Standards Chapter Excerpt 11/29/2018 21A.37.050: DESIGN STANDARDS DEFINED: The design standards in this chapter are defined as follows. Each design standard includes a specific definition of the standard and may include a graphic that is intended to help further explain the standard, however the definition supersedes any conflict between it and a graphic. A. Ground Floor Use And Visual Interest: This standard's purpose is to increase the amount of active uses and/or visual interest on the ground floor of a building. There are two (2) options for achieving this, one dealing solely with the amount of ground floor use, and the other combining a lesser amount of ground floor use with increased visual interest in the building facade's design. 1. Ground Floor Use Only: This option requires that on the ground floor of a new principal building, a permitted or conditional use other than parking shall occupy a minimum portion of the length of any street facing building facade according to section 21A.37.060, table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. All portions of such ground floor spaces shall extend a minimum of twenty five feet (25') into the building. Parking may be located behind these spaces. a. For single-family attached uses, the required use depth may be reduced to ten feet (10'). b. For single-family or two-family uses, garages occupying up to fifty percent (50%) of the width of the ground floor building facade are exempt from this requirement. c. For all other uses, vehicle entry and exit ways necessary for access to parking are exempt from this requirement. Such accessways shall not exceed thirty feet (30') in width. Individual dwelling unit garages do not qualify for this exemption. 2. Ground Floor Use And Visual Interest: This option allows for some flexibility in the amount of required ground floor use, but in return requires additional design requirements for the purpose of creating increased visual interest and pedestrian activity where the lower levels of buildings face streets or sidewalks. An applicant utilizing this option must proceed through the conditional building and site design review process for review of the project for determination of the project's compliance with those standards, and in addition, whether it contributes to increased visual interest through a combination of increased building material variety, architectural features, facade changes, art, and colors; and, increased pedestrian activity through permeability between the building and the adjacent public realm using niches, bays, gateways, porches, colonnades, stairs or other similar features to facilitate pedestrian interaction with the building. B. Building Materials: 1. Ground Floor Building Materials: Other than windows and doors, a minimum amount of the ground floor facade's wall area of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials according to section 21A.37.060, table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder of the ground floor facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the discretion of the planning 20Sugar House Design Standards Memo 12/6/2018 Current Design Standards Excerpt director if it is found that the proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the ground floor of a structure. 2. Upper Floor Building Materials: Floors above the ground floor level shall include durable materials on a minimum amount of any street facing building facade of those additional floors according to section 21A.37.060, table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. Windows and doors are not included in that minimum amount. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber cement board. Other materials may be approved at the discretion of the planning director if it is found that the proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the upper floor of a structure. C. Glass: 1. Ground Floor Glass: The ground floor building elevation of all new buildings facing a street, and all new ground floor additions facing a street, shall have a minimum amount of glass, or within a specified percentage range, between three (3) and eight feet (8') above grade according to section 21A.37.060, table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. All ground floor glass shall allow unhampered and unobstructed visibility into the building for a depth of at least five feet (5'), excluding any glass etching and window signs when installed and permitted in accordance with chapter 21A.46, "Signs", of this title. The planning director may approve a modification to ground floor glass requirements if the planning director finds: a. The requirement would negatively affect the historic character of an existing building; b. The requirement would negatively affect the structural stability of an existing building; or c. The ground level of the building is occupied by residential uses that face the street, in which case the specified minimum glass requirement may be reduced by fifteen percent (15%). 2. Upper Floor Glass: Above the first floor of any multi-story building, the surface area of the facade of each floor facing a street must contain a minimum amount of glass according to section 21A.37.060, table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. D. Building Entrances: At least one operable building entrance on the ground floor is required for every street facing facade. Additional operable building entrances shall be required, at a minimum, at each specified length of street facing building facade according to section 21A.37.060, table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. The center of each additional entrance shall be located within six feet (6') either direction of the specified location. Each ground floor nonresidential leasable space facing a street shall have an operable entrance facing that street and a walkway to the nearest sidewalk. Corner entrances, when facing a street and located at approximately a forty five degree (45°) angle to the two (2) adjacent building facades (chamfered corner), may count as an entrance for both of the adjacent facades. E. Maximum Length Of Blank Wall: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the ground floor level along any street facing facade shall be as specified according to section 21A.37.060, table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. Changes in plane, texture, materials, scale of materials, patterns, art, or other architectural detailing are acceptable methods to create variety and scale. This shall include architectural features such as bay windows, recessed or projected entrances or windows, balconies, cornices, 21Sugar House Design Standards Memo 12/6/2018 Current Design Standards Excerpt columns, or other similar architectural features. The architectural feature shall be either recessed a minimum of twelve inches (12") or projected a minimum of twelve inches (12"). F. Maximum Length Of Street Facing Facades: No street facing building wall may be longer than specified along a street line according to section 21A.37.060, table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. A minimum of twenty feet (20') is required between separate buildings when multiple buildings are placed on a single parcel according to subsection 21A.36.010B, "One Principal Building Per Lot", of this title. The space between buildings shall include a pedestrian walkway at least five feet (5') wide. G. Upper Floor Step Back: 1. For street facing facades the first full floor, and all additional floors, above thirty feet (30') in height from average finished grade shall be stepped back a minimum horizontal distance from the front line of building, according to section 21A.37.060, table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. An alternative to this street facing facade step back requirement may be utilized for buildings limited to forty five feet (45') or less in height by the zoning ordinance: those buildings may provide a four foot (4') minimum depth canopy, roof structure, or balcony that extends from the face of the building toward the street at a height of between twelve feet (12') and fifteen feet (15') above the adjacent sidewalk. Such extension(s) shall extend horizontally parallel to the street for a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the face of the building and may encroach into a setback as permitted per section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Required Yards", of this title. 2. For facades facing single- or two-family residential districts, a public trail or public open space the first full floor, and all additional floors, above thirty feet (30') in height from average finished grade shall be stepped back a minimum horizontal distance from the corresponding required yard setback (building line) according to section 21A.37.060, table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. H. Exterior Lighting: All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed down to prevent light trespass onto adjacent properties. Exterior lighting shall not strobe, flash or flicker. I. Parking Lot Lighting: If a parking lot/structure is adjacent to a residential zoning district or land use, any poles for the parking lot/structure security lighting are limited to sixteen feet (16') in height and the globe must be shielded and the lighting directed down to minimize light encroachment onto adjacent residential properties or into upper level residential units in multi- story buildings. Lightproof fencing is required adjacent to residential properties. J. Screening Of Mechanical Equipment: All mechanical equipment for a building shall be screened from public view and sited to minimize their visibility and impact. Examples of siting include on the roof, enclosed or otherwise integrated into the architectural design of the building, or in a rear or side yard area subject to yard location restrictions found in section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Required Yards", of this title. K. Screening Of Service Areas: Service areas, loading docks, refuse containers and similar areas shall be fully screened from public view. All screening enclosures viewable from the street shall be either incorporated into the building architecture or shall incorporate building materials and 22Sugar House Design Standards Memo 12/6/2018 Current Design Standards Excerpt detailing compatible with the building being served. All screening devices shall be a minimum of one foot (1') higher than the object being screened, and in the case of fences and/or masonry walls the height shall not exceed eight feet (8'). Dumpsters must be located a minimum of twenty five feet (25') from any building on an adjacent lot that contains a residential dwelling or be located inside of an enclosed building or structure. L. Ground Floor Residential Entrances For Single-Family Dwellings: For the zoning districts listed in section 21A.37.060, table 21A.37.060 of this chapter all attached single-family dwellings, townhomes, row houses, and other similar single-family housing types located on the ground floor shall have a primary entrance facing the street for each unit adjacent to a street. Units may have a primary entrance located on a courtyard, mid block walkway, or other similar area if the street facing facades also have a primary entrance. M. Parking Garages Or Structures: The following standards shall apply to parking garages or structures whether stand alone or incorporated into a building: 1. Parking structures shall have an external skin designed to improve visual character when adjacent to a public street or other public space. Examples include heavy gauge metal screen, precast concrete panels; live green or landscaped walls, laminated or safety glass, decorative photovoltaic panels or match the building materials and character of the principal use. The planning director may approve other decorative materials not listed if the materials are in keeping with the decorative nature of the parking structure. 2. The architectural design of the facades should express the internal function of the structure. Facade elements shall align to parking levels and there shall be no sloped surfaces visible from a public street, public trail or public open space. 3. Internal circulation must be designed such that parking surfaces are level (or without any slopes) along all primary facades. All ramping between levels need to be placed along the secondary facade or to the center of the structure. Parking structures shall be designed to conceal the view of all parked cars and drive ramps from public spaces. 4. Elevator and stairs shall be highlighted architecturally so visitors, internally and externally, can easily access these entry points. 5. Signage and wayfinding shall be integrated with the architecture of the parking structure and be architecturally compatible with the design. Public parking structures entrances shall be clearly signed from public streets. 6. Interior garage lighting shall not produce glaring sources toward adjacent properties while providing safe and adequate lighting levels. The use of sensor dimmable LEDs and white stained ceilings are a good strategy to control light levels on site while improving energy efficiency. 7. Where a driveway crosses a public sidewalk, the driveway shall be a different color, texture, or paving material than the sidewalk to warn drivers of the possibility of pedestrians in the area. 8. The street level facing facades of all parking structures shall be wrapped along all street frontages with habitable space that is occupied by a use that is allowed in the zone as a permitted or conditional use. 9. Parking structures shall be designed to minimize vehicle noise and odors on the public realm. Venting and fan locations shall not be located next to public spaces and shall be located as far as possible from adjacent residential land uses. 23Sugar House Design Standards Memo 12/6/2018 Current Design Standards Excerpt N.Residential Character In RB District: 1.All roofs shall be pitched and of a hip or gable design except additions or expansions to existing buildings may be of the same roof design as the original building; 2.The remodeling of residential buildings for retail or office use shall be allowed only if the residential character of the exterior is maintained; 3.The front building elevation shall contain not more than fifty percent (50%) glass; 4.Signs shall conform with special sign regulations of chapter 21A.46, "Signs", of this title; 5.Building orientation shall be to the front or corner side yard; and 6.Building additions shall consist of materials, color and exterior building design consistent with the existing structure, unless the entire structure is resurfaced. O. Primary Entrance Design In SNB District: Primary entrance design shall consist of at least two (2)of the following design elements at the primary entrance, so that the primary entrance is architecturally prominent and clearly visible from the abutting street. 1.Architectural details such as arches, friezes, tile work, canopies, or awnings. 2.Integral planters or wing walls that incorporate landscape or seating. 3.Enhanced exterior light fixtures such as wall sconces, light coves with concealed light sources, or decorative pedestal lights. 4.A repeating pattern of pilasters projecting from the facade wall by a minimum of eight inches (8") or architectural or decorative columns. 5.Recessed entrances that include a minimum step back of two feet (2') from the primary facade and that include glass on the sidewalls. 24Sugar House Design Standards Memo 12/6/2018 Current Design Standards Excerpt 21A.37.060: DESIGN STANDARDS REQUIRED IN EACH ZONING DISTRICT: This section identifies each design standard and to which zoning districts the standard applies. If a box is checked, that standard is required. If a box is not checked, it is not required. If a specific dimension or detail of a design standard differs among zoning districts or differs from the definition, it will be indicated within the box. In cases when a dimension in this table conflicts with a dimension in the definition, the dimensions listed in the table supersede those in the definition. TABLE 21A.37.060 B. Commercial Districts Standard District (Code Section) SNB CN CB CS CC CSHBD CG TSA Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050A1) 80 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050A2) 60/25 Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050B1) 90 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050B2) 60 Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050C1) 40 40 40 40 60 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050C2) Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050D) X X X X X X X 40 Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050E) 15 15 15 15 15 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050F) 200 Upper floor step back (feet) (21A.37.050G) 15 Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050H) X X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050I) X X X X X X X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050J) X X X X X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050K) X X X X Ground floor residential entrances (21A.37.050L) X Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050M) Primary entrance design SNB district (21A.37.050O) X 25Sugar House Design Standards Memo 12/6/2018 4. PLANNING COMMISSION B. Agenda/Minutes December 12, 2018 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA In Room 326 of the City & County Building December 12, 2018, 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. 1. OPMA Training – A representative from the City Attorney’s office will conduct a training on the Open and Public Meeting Act. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM IN ROOM 326 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 28, 2018 REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Broadway Apartments Conditional Building and Site Design - Lance Howell and Studio PBA Architects, representing property owner Cottonwood Marq On 2nd, LLC, are requesting Conditional Building and Site Design approval to accommodate additional height for a new 256- unit apartment building located at approximately 336 E. 200 South zoned R -MU: Residential- Mixed Use. The tallest point of the proposed building will be approximately 98’6’’ measured to the top of the rooftop amenity rooms. Buildings in the R -MU zoning district are permitted up to 75’ tall outright, and up to 125’ with Conditional Building and Site Design approval. The site is located in Council District 4, represented by Derek Kitchen. (Staff contact: Lauren Parisi at (801) 535-7226 or lauren.parisi@slcgov.com). Case number PLNPCM2018-00390 2. TSA Zoning Amendment - A request by Lorrie Hendricks, representing BIKE LLC, to amend the text of the TSA-MUEC-T (Transit Station Area Mixed Use Employment Center Transitional) zoning to allow for a restaurant with drive-through facility. The proposed amendment would affect section 21A.33 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of 21A -Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. The TSA-MUEC-T zoning district is primarily mapped along the North Temple (Jordan River to 2200 West), but the text amendment would apply citywide to all TSA-MUEC-T zoned property (Staff Contact: Doug Dansie at 801 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com). Case number PLNPCM2018-00575 3. D-1 Self-Storage Zoning Text Amendment - A request by Bruce Bingham, representing 324 State Street LLC, to amend the text of the D-1 (Central Business District) zoning district to allow self-storage facilities. The proposed amendment would affect section 21A.33 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. The D-1 zoning district is generally mapped between South Temple to 600 South and 200 East to 200 West Streets, but the text amendment would apply citywide to all D -1 zoned property. (Staff Contact: Doug Dansie at 801 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com). Case number PNPCM2018-00645 WORK SESSIONS 1. Sugar House Business District Design Standards Briefing - The Planning Division is considering amendments to the CSHBD zone that would apply additional design standards from Chapter 21A.37 “Design Standards” on development in the zone. Currently, smaller s cale developments below a certain size threshold in the CSHBD zone have few design standards that they must comply with. The amendments would apply minimum design standards to both smaller scale and larger scale development. Larger scale development would still be subject to the Conditional Building and Site Design Review process. The CSHBD zone is generally mapped between 900 East to 1300 East and 1950 South and I -80. The zone is located in Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. Because this is a b riefing and not a public hearing, Planning Staff is soliciting initial feedback from the Planning Commission and a decision will not be made regarding the proposed amendments at this meeting. (Staff contact: Daniel Echeverria at 801-535-7165 or daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2017-00773 2. RMF-30: Low Density Multi-Family Residential Zoning Standards Briefing – The Planning Division is considering amendments to the RMF-30: Low Density Multi-Family Residential zoning district. The intent of the proposed amendments is to implement the recently adopted Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan (2017-2021) and remove zoning barriers to creating new housing. Because this is a work session and not a public hearing, Planning Staff is soliciting initial feedback from the Planning Commission and a decision will not be made regarding the proposed amendments at this meeting. (Staff Contact - Lauren Parisi at 801-535-7226 or lauren.parisi@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2018-00065 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 t o 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. Planning Commission Meetings may be watched live on SLCTV Channel 17; past meetings are reco rded 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 December 12, 2018 Page 1 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES EXTRACT City & County Building 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, December 12, 2018 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:42:37 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; Commissioners Amy Barry, Adrienne Bell, Weston Clark, Carolynn Hoskins, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes, Clark Ruttinger, and Brenda Scheer. Vice Chairperson Sara Urquhart was excused. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were Molly Robinson, Planning Manager; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Lauren Parisi, Principal Planner; Doug Dansie, Senior Planner; Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary. Field Trip A field trip was held prior to the work session. Planning Commissioners present were: Maurine Bachman, Adrienne Bell, Weston Clark, Clark Ruttinger and Brenda Scheer. Staff members in attendance were Molly Robinson, Eric Daems, Lauren Parisi and Doug Dansie. WORK SESSIONS 7:52:17 PM Sugar House Business District Design Standards Briefing - The Planning Division is considering amendments to the CSHBD zone that would apply additional design standards from Chapter 21A.37 “Design Standards” on development in the zone. Currently, smaller scale developments below a certain size threshold in the CSHBD zone have few design standards that they must comply with. The amendments would apply minimum design standards to both smaller scale and larger scale development. Larger scale development would still be subject to the Conditional Building and Site Design Review process. The CSHBD zone is generally mapped between 900 East to 1300 East and 1950 South and I -80. The zone is located in Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. Because this is a briefing and not a public hearing, Planning Staff is soliciting initial feedback from the Planning Commission and a decision will not be made regarding the proposed amendments at this meeting. (Staff contact: Daniel Echeverria at 801-535-7165 or daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2017-00773 Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, briefed the Commission regarding the proposed project. The Commission and Staff discussed the following: • Building width • Whether paving the park strip would be part of the 6 or 8-foot sidewalk • The 300-foot maximum length • Possible alternative ways to break up the building • Parking strip and whether if it’s going to be something other than concrete Salt Lake City Planning Commission December 12, 2018 Page 2 • Minimum glass requirements • Whether the 25-foot depth is a standard that would suffice for a restaurant • Possible uses for the active use requirement • Clarification on the design review process • Whether anything can be done to preserve the original pattern look and feel of Sugar House • Sugar House sidewalk standards 8:31:57 PM 5.ORIGINAL PETITION Petition Initiation Request Planning Division Community & Neighborhoods Department To: From: Date: CC: Re: Mayor Jackie Biskupski Nick Norris, Planning Director March 20, 2018 Patrick Leary, Chief of Staff; Mike Re berg, CAN Director; file Initiate Petition to Amend Text in the Zoning Ordinance Related to Development Standards in the CSHBD Zoning District This memo is to request that you initiate a petition directing the Planning Division to analyze the appropriateness of amending sections of the Zoning Ordinance to add additional design standards in the CSHBD, Sugar House Business District Zoning District. The CSHBD zone covers the central business district of the Sugar House community area (see map on page 2). The zone currently requires a design review public process for large buildings, however, the criteria for much of this design review is located in a "design guidelines" section of the Sugar House Master Plan instead of the zoning ordinance. Much of the criteria is subjective and is often initially overlooked by developers who do not anticipate that development regulations are located in a master plan. In 2017 the Utah State Legislature made changes to the Utah Land Use Development Management Act to state that vague land use ordinances cannot be enforced and must be interpreted to favor the land use applicant. The design guidelines in the master plan do not comply with state code. This proposal would analyze the current vague design guidelines and create clear, measurable standards in the zoning ordinance that would comply with state code. The purpose of the zoning text amendment is to: • Adopt into the zoning code measureable and objective design standards that are currently in the Sugar House Community Master Plan; • Make regulations clear and unambiguous; and • Clarify other existing language in the code related to the CSHBD zone. As part of the process, the Planning Division will follow the City adoption process for zoning text amendments, which includes citizen input and public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council. Please contact Daniel E ch everria at ext. 7165 o r daniel.echc\'crria(il)slcgo".com if you h ave any questions. Thank you . Concurrence to initiate the zoning text amendment petition as noted above. Ja ·e Biskupski, Mayor Date 1m P . 17DO S r 0 255 51 0 1,020 1,530 2,040 • • Feet CSHBD z oned prop erties are outlined in y ellow in the map abo v e. •Page 2 6. MAILING LIST Addressee ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP WILMINGTON GARDENS GROUP LLC 2733 E PARLEYS WY # 300 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109-1661 WILMINGTON HOTEL LLC 2733 E PARLEYS WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109-1619 FIRST SECURITY BANK OF UTAH NA PO BOX 2609 CARLSBAD CA 92018 SUGARHOUSE PROPERTY LLC 40 DANBURY RD WILTON CT 6897 SUGAR HOUSE PARK AUTHORITY INC 3383 S 300 E SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115-4521 FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK OF SALT LAKE CITY UTAH425 PIKE ST # BRO79 SEATTLE WA 98101-2334 PHOENIX OF SALT LAKE CITY, LLC PO BOX 1159 DEERFIELD IL 60015 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 7500 E 53RD PL #1108 DENVER CO 80266-9918 STATE ROAD COMMISSION OF UTAH PO BOX 148420 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114-8420 MCCLELLAND STREET ASSOCIATES LC 1165 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2833 DREYER'S GRAND ICE CREAM INC 1 CHECKERBOARD SQUARE ST LOUIS MO 63164 CORP OF PB OF CH JC OF LDS 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST #2225 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 ROMNEY FARR PROPERTIES INC PO BOX 572408 MURRAY UT 84157-2408 SALT LAKE COUNTY PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114-4575 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 S STATE ST # 425 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TCI CABLEVISION OF UTAH INC ONE COMCAST CENTER FL #32 PHILADELPHIA PA 19103-2838 LAKE CITY CORP.PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114-5460 ESA P PORTFOLIO LLC PO BOX 49550 CHARLOTTE NC 28277-9550 B H ENTERTAINMENT INC C 2234 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2809 PACIFICORP 825 NE MULTNOMAH ST #1900 PORTLAND OR 97232 MNG SUGAR HOUSE, LLC 415 S CEDROS AVE STE 240 SOLANA BEACH CA 92075-1978 SKM PETERSON LLC 3574 N 150 W PROVO UT 84604 HOWTON PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 52427 ATLANTA GA 30355 MMP PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 520702 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 LINCOLN ASSOCIATES 223 W 700 S # 200 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 COMMERCIAL SECURITY BANK PO BOX 961009 FORT WORTH TX 76161 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1968 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3606 FAIRMONT HOLDINGS LLC 2205 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2314 974 EAST 2100 SOUTH, LLC 1075 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2349 GARDINER PROPERTIES 1200 EAST LLC 1073 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2349 JON QUITIQUIT 7880 S 1300 W WEST JORDAN UT 84088-4138 HEIDI K ELWELL; TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED (SURV)5824 S LONGFELLOW LN MURRAY UT 84107-6557 IHC HEALTH SERVICES INC 201 S MAIN ST # 1100 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111-2208 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1988 S 1100 E # 504 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-4723 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 922 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3306 SUGARHOUSE VILLA CONDO COMMON AREA MASTER CARD1979 S 1200 E # 8 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3540 HARMAN MANAGEMENT CORP 5544 S GREEN ST MURRAY UT 84123-5798 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1030 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3405 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 4955 S FAIRVIEW DR HOLLADAY UT 84117-6206 VIEW CITY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION2015 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3613 EGG VENTURES, INC.2187 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2332 HILAND PARTNERSHIP 1400 S FOOTHILL DR # 34 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108-2392 MEADOWBROOK PARTNERS DOHENY-VIDOVICH960 N SAN ANTONIO RD #114 LOS ALTOS CA 94022 ZIONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK PO BOX 54288 LEXINGTON KY 40555-4288 WPD I TRUST; BD I TRUST PO BOX 3588 SPOKANE WA 99220 STERLING FURNITURE COMPANY 2051 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2318 1 LC ROCKWOOD INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES5882 S HOLLADAY BLVD HOLLADAY UT 84121-1512 DK PARTNERSHIP LLC PO BOX 9199 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109-6199 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 505 N 'B' ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103-2547 LIBERTY VILLAGE PROPERTIES, LLC 6640 S WASATCH BLVD # 100 COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121-3817 SUGARHOUSE DISTRIBUTING INC 7997 S HUNTERS MEADOW CIR COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84093-6290 K-J CAMDEN LLC 555 BRYANT ST #515 PALO ALTO CA 94301 GRODBROS REAL ESTATE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LLLP3642 OAK WOOD DR PARK CITY UT 84060 GRODBROS REAL ESTATE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LLLP3642 OAKWOOD DR PARK CITY UT 84060 VIEW STREET BRE LLC PO BOX 223 MANHATTAN BEACH CA 90267 921 PROPERTIES LC 4070 S EVELYN DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84124-2250 GRAEKA ENTERPRISES 942 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-1519 FIT (UT) QRS 14-25 INC 12647 ALCOSTA BLVD #500 SAN RAMON CA 94583 OCCUPANT 215 N ADMIRAL BYRD RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116-3703 OCCUPANT PO BOX 145518 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114-5518 1049 ASSOCIATES LLC 600 N EASTCAPITOL ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103-2107 1976 DOUGLAS LLC 1976 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3606 2007 MCCLELLAND STREET LLC 2007 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3410 2100 SUGARHOUSE LLC 2121 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2396 2570 LLC PO BOX 522057 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152-2057 AAP LLC 1063 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2349 AARON B GEERY 1987 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3440 AARON N STEVENSON; CAITLIN B STEVENSON (JT)956 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2330 ABRAHAM SMITH; KIMBERLY COLTON (JT)2186 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2339 AGHDAS SIMIN TOOMEY LIVING TRUST 06/27/2018635 N DEARBORN ST CHICAGO IL 60654 AL WALKOWSKI; MARIAN WALKOWSKI (JT)2010 W SAN MARCOS BLVD SAN MARCOS CA 92078-3900 ALARM HOLDING COMPANY 2166 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2325 ALEXANDRA GRIFFITHS 1985 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3332 ALLAN MECHAM 1201 WILMINGTON AVE # 205 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-3759 ALLYSON MOWER; ALYSSA NICOLE WILLIAMS (JT)1172 E RAMONA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3506 AMY BARRY REVOCABLE TRUST 7/21/20171178 E RAMONA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3506 ANDREW M BLUNT 1014 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3405 ANGELA M WAAGEN; KIM C WAAGEN (JT)924 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2303 AOS APARTMENTS LLC 1963 S 1200 E # 106 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3530 ARNE HULTQUIST 1933 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ARTHUR A DENNISON; LAVERNA DENNISON (JT)1166 E RAMONA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3506 ASHER K TENN-MCCLELLAN 1988 S 1100 E # 403 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2353 ASS TRUST; JJ TRUST 1201 WILMINGTON AVE # 201 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-4259 AURELIO RUELAS 1015 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2304 BARTON INVESTMENT LLC 367 W 900 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103-1424 BEA A HAMMOND; REBECCA HALL (JT)1993 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3332 BEAR FLAT LLC 777 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-1829 BETH E DREES 2195 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2331 BRANDON B FALLAHI; ANTHONY C FALLAHI (TC)2006 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3321 BRANDON HIGLEY; LISA HIGLEY (JT)968 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3349 BRIAN M DIXON 6658 S CARACOL CV COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121-3458 BROOKS BIDDLE 14729 WESTWICK RD SNOHOMISH WA 98290-6107 CAITLIN T LIGHT; LINDA R LIGHT (JT)22 ANCHORAGE ST MARINA DEL REY CA 90292 2 CAMERON S HAUCK 1988 S 1100 E # 303 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-4705 CAMERON SHANER 1002 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2305 CAROLS PASTRY SHOP 1991 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3343 CDP PROPERTIES, LLC 1564 E 8640 S SANDY UT 84093-1579 CHICK-FIL-A INC 5200 BUFFINGTON RD ATLANTA GA 30349 CIH REV TRUST 1380 BONITA BAHIA BENICIA CA 94510-2406 CITY OF SOUTH SALT LAKE 220 E MORRIS AVE SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115-3223 CLW TRUST 1979 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3245 CMRK LLC; RLR INVESTMENTS #1 LLC 2280 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2836 COLIN R AUSTIN 342 SEVERIN RD SE PT CHARLOTTE FL 33952-9740 COMMONS AT SUGARHOUSE LC 1165 WILMINGTON AVE # 275 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-3081 CUSHMAN COMPANY LLC 1025 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2322 CWWF TRUST 1041 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3404 DANIEL H SCHULZ; BRANDIE SCHULZ (JT)1037 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3404 DANIEL L NEILSON; STACEY M NEILSON (JT)2092 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3321 DAVID PETRIE; JO ANN PETRIE (JT)124 19TH ST HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254-2825 DAVID SALAS WHEELER; MICHELLE M WHEELER (JT)2196 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2334 DAVID VARNER LIVING TRUST 01-13-20131998 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3334 DEREK & KIMBERLY PAYNE TRUST 07/20/20181034 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3405 DEVLIN ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED 2156 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2313 DF 1999 REV TR 209 HARDING BLVD ROSEVILLE CA 95678 DGM PROPERTIES LLC 5206 S HOLLADAY BLVD HOLLADAY UT 84117-7127 DH IRR TRUST 5872 W EMMELINE DR HERRIMAN UT 84096-1871 DIO LIV TRUST 1995 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3440 DONNA TURNER 1201 WILMINGTON AVE # 203 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-4259 DOUGLAS A TUKE 1979 S 1200 E # 11 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3540 DOUGLAS W JONES PO BOX 58291 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84158-291 DS TRUST 1782 TERRY LYNN LN SANTA ANA CA 92705 ERIC A HASEBI; SARAH R HASEBI (JT)2003 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3320 ERIC L SMITH; LAURIE L SMITH (JT)1010 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2305 ETC SUGARHOUSE LLC 1997 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2316 EVERETT C PECK; HANNA W PECK 938 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3306 FAIRMONT APARTMENTS LLC 2319 S FOOTHILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109-1403 FREDERICKA VAN AALSTEE HUBERS TRUST 7/30/20131010 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3405 GABRIELLE HOLT 834 E HUDSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-1610 GALE R FRANDSEN TRUST 4/30/2008 1201 WILMINGTON AVE # 204 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-3759 GARETT MILES; HALEY MILES (JT)42843 CHAMPNEY CT BROADLANDS VA 20148-5519 GINA P YOUNG; MARK S YOUNG (JT)3693 E ASTRO WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109-3843 H BLAINE WALKER; C HILEA WALKER (JT)24 E ALTAWOOD LN SANDY UT 84092-3522 HANS MICHAEL ERMARTH; BARBARA E WILL (JT)15 WOODCOCK LN ETNA NH 3750 HARVARD PLUMB LLC 1001 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2322 HARVARD PLUMB LLC 1468 E HARVARD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-1918 HNE TRUST 1024 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2305 HOLLYWOOD HOLDINGS, LLC 1075 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3446 HOLLYWOOD INVESTMENTS LLC 1025 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3404 HOON IK CHO; YONG SUK CHO 1988 S 1100 E # 204 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2317 J LOBO HOLLYWOOD LLC 1978 S WINDSOR ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3222 3 JAMES D RICKERS; PATRICIA A RICKERS 1146 E RAMONA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3506 JAMES E BUDNIK 1042 E RAMONA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3412 JAMES FLEEGE 922 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2303 JAMES P WEDGE; MICHELE L WEDGE (JT)1986 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3606 JANE ANNE HARTFORD 1124 E RAMONA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3506 JANET G PEACOCK 1186 E RAMONA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3506 JASON D UTLEY; ANDREA UTLEY (JT)1064 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3445 JEFFREY JOHNSTON 2027 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3607 JIM S MANWILL; SANDRA E MANWILL (JT)1930 E WALNUT MILL CV SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-4370 JOHN F GRAY; HEATHER L GRAY (JT)1050 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3445 JOHN M JAMESON; JENNIFER PINKOWSKI (JT)1008 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3405 JOHN ROGER ROTH; SHERYLYNNE GAILEY ROTH (JT)1607 HOLLY LN DAVIS CA 95616 JONAS I SAPPINGTON; DANIELLE K SAPPINGTON (JT)968 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2330 JONATHAN W PARKER 850 BEECH ST # 708 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 JONATHAN W RICHARDS; GAIL C RICHARDS (JT)2621 E EVERGREEN AVE MILLCREEK UT 84109-3011 JOSHUA M POTICHA 1988 S 1100 E # 305 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-4705 JOYCE MATTES; DAN MATTES (JT)1996 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3334 JULIE ANN BRAMHALL; ROBERT R BRAMHALL; SCOTT BRAMHALL (JT)1925 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3511 JWEAVER HOLDINGS, LLC 997 VIEW CREST LANE KAYSVILLE UT 84037 JYRKI MATTILA 9 SPRING MILL LN HAVERFORD PA 19041-1136 KAREN C LAO 987 E SIMPSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2310 KATHRYN E HOFFMAN-ABBY 1988 S 1100 E # 401 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-4706 KEITH ANTOGNINI 5125 S HIGHLAND DOWN LN HOLLADAY UT 84117-7036 KEVIN MCDOUGALL 2004 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3608 KEVIN MCDOUGALL 2018 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3608 KEVIN W MORGAN 2010 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3321 KH TRUST 1134 S DENVER ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111-4723 KIMBERLY J WATTS 1979 S 1200 E # 2 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3539 KRISTI M JOHNSON; MARSHA GIBSON (JT)2187 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2331 KYLE D SEVERINSEN; ASHLEY D SEVERINSEN (JT)2216 E 3380 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109-2641 L.L.C. SKC PROPERTY 3 2084 E PARKWAY AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109-1538 LANDMARK 973 E 2100 S LLC PO BOX 980580 PARK CITY UT 84098 LAURIE JOHNSON; LONN A JOHNSON (JT)2135 S 2000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-4136 LAVENA M SMITH 2198 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2339 LC STEVA 1948 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2317 LINDA S COLLARD 2211 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2314 LONG PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC 1988 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3334 LORI H HEWLETT 1988 S 1100 E # 201 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-4704 LOUIS W IV SCHMOHL 1989 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3332 LUKE A MARTIN 2015 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3607 LUKE TRENT 964 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3349 LYSKA L EMERSON 5655 EMIGRATION CANYON RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108-1776 MARGARET TUREY TRUST 08/09/2018 1979 S 1200 E # 6 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3511 MARK E PITTMAN REVOCABLE TRUST 10/16/20152195 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2332 MARK R MORRIS 35 E 100 S # 602 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111-1961 MARRON FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 1733 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3423 MARY ELLEN HOGLE 48 MARINE DR BLAKELY ISLAND WA 98222 4 MARY L GUNNING; BANGS C TAPSCOTT (JT)1980 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3606 MARY PHILLIPS 1988 S 1100 E # 205 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-4704 MARY WOOLSTON; DAVID MENDELSOHN (JT)2204 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2315 MAS TRUST 4285 W 1385 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104-6588 MATTHEW P MANES; MARK MORRIS (JT)866 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-1808 MAUREEN SIMES 940 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2303 MCDONALD ENTERPRISES LC 2208 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2327 MCP CENTURY LLC 429 SANTA MONICA BLVD SNATA M ONICA CA 90401 MECHAM PARKVIEW ASSOCIATES LLC; FONG PARKVIEW ASSOCIATES LLCPO BOX 521448 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152-1448 MEILEE LLC PO BOX 9041 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 MELISSA JIMMIE BOURGEOIS 1988 S 1100 E # 501 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2317 MELISSA STRAUTINS; NICK STRAUTINS (JT)1988 S 1100 E # 309 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2317 MICHAEL CARPENTER 1988 S 1100 E # 301 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-4705 MICHAEL D LUCIANO 841 THE VILLAGE CIR RALEIGH NC 27615-6863 MICHAEL K CALDWELL 1201 WILMINGTON AVE # 207 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-3759 MICHAEL R KINGSTON; JACQUELINE KINGSTON (TC)2010 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3411 MICHAEL S HOPKINS 1979 S 1200 E # 5 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3539 MP VENTURES LC 2157 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2306 NEIL C STEWART (JT)3070 S GRACE ST MILLCREEK UT 84109-2128 NUPETCO ASSOCIATES 2001 S WINDSOR ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3223 ORCAS INVESTMENT COMPANY 4372 POINT WHITE DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 PAMELLA J BLOLAND 1468 E KRISTIANNA CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103-4221 PATRICIA A BRAUN 978 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3349 PATRICK JAN & PEGGY MCDONOUGH TRUST 11/08/20181060 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3445 PATRICK REIMHERR 1014 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2305 PAUL TAYLOR 333 N MAIN ST #33-1 EPHRAIM UT 84627 PIROOZ 4, LLC 1466 E CHANDLER DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103-4217 R DOUGLAS SCOFIELD 1061 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3404 RACCO INVESTMENT COMPANY; BCDC LLC2025 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3613 RACHEL SWENSEN; JOSHUA P SWENSEN (TC)7490 S MAGIC HILLS DR COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121-5473 RAGHU R KRISHNAIAH 423 15TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94118-2808 RED SIGN INVESTMENTS LLC 841 N 900 W OREM UT 84057 ROBERT GILCHRIST 1988 S 1100 E # 203 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-4704 ROBERT J HART 2190 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2339 ROBERT S BEECROFT; ANNE T BEECROFT (JT)916 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3306 ROBERT T JACOBSEN 1031 E 3740 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-1916 RODGER BURGE 1521 E STANFORD CT DRAPER UT 84020-8858 ROGER P NELSON 1853 E ATKIN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-4021 ROMNEY FARR PROPERTIES INC 348 E WINCHESTER ST # 200 MURRAY UT 84107-8518 ROSA M CASTRO TRUST 01/31/2018 2192 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2334 RTG FAM TR 4247 S CAMILLE ST HOLLADAY UT 84124-2802 RYAN HALL; MELISSA HALL (JT)950 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3349 RYANS ON ELM, LLC 948 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2330 S&MJ LT 1056 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3445 SALT LAKE RAPE CRISIS CENTER INC 2035 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3613 SAMANTHA DUFF; PATRICK DUFF (JT)1988 S 1100 E # 308 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2317 SAMUEL KRAMER SPICE 1988 S 1100 E # 307 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2317 5 SANDRA OCTAVIANI DARMAWAN 1988 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2317 SANDS APARTMENTS LLC 2019 S MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115-2302 SCOTT C BREEN 2197 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2331 SCOTT GRIM 4611 S SHILOH PARK LN MILLCREEK UT 84117-4232 SCSC LEASING LC 2202 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2309 SERIES F 1134 4635 S BROOKWOOD DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117-4909 SHAYLARISSA PROPERTIES LLC 825 E SILVER SAGE DR SANDY UT 84094-4919 SIMPLY 899 LLC 1944 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2317 SLC 2100 SOUTH 2010 LLC 101 S ELLSWORTH AVE #300 SAN MATEO CA 94401 SLOAN BUCCOLA 4111 E MADISON ST # 264 SEATTLE WA 98112 SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTERS INC 1014 VINE ST 7TH FLOOR CINCINNATI OH 45202-1141 SMITH-SCOTT PROPERTIES LTD 1933 WALLENBERG DR FORT COLLINS CO 80526-1967 STACY K EDDINGS; PAUL J STACH (JT)2021 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3607 STATE OF UTAH 450 N STATE OFFICE BLDG SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 STEPHEN S CASHON 1979 S 1200 E # 3 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3539 STEVE C SHAW; BECKY N SHAW (JT)8 ST ANDREWS CIR SOUTHAMPTON NY 11968 STEVEN A JONES 2130 E 6320 S HOLLADAY UT 84121-2249 STEVEN SCHWARTZ; MARK MACHLIS (JT)7961 S MOUNTAIN OAKS DR COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121-5941 SUGAR HOUSE ENTERPRISES LLC 1547 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-1729 SUGAR3, LLC 24606 SE OLD BLACK NUGGET ISSAQUAIT WA 98029 SUGARHOUSE DIXON LLC 11 SPANISH BAY DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 SUGARHOUSE FITNESS PROPERTIES LLC 4725 S HOLLADAY BLVD HOLLADAY UT 84117-5402 SUGARHOUSE VETERINARY HOSPITAL BUILDING PTRN2206 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2309 SUGARMONT LLC 2121 S MCCLELLAND ST #303 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2565 SUTTONS WESTERN WHOLESALE FLOORING INC823 S MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111-4106 TAGGE SOLAIMANIAN; SARA SOLAIMANIAN (JT)4525 S PARK HILL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84124-3833 TAMI FARLEY 1828 S WASATCH DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108-3324 TAYLOR CHAPMAN; ELIZABETH CHAPMAN (JT)974 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2330 TIMOTHEA J BRENNAN 980 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3349 TOHLER PROPERTIES LLC 1525 E REDONDO AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3824 TONY A WOLFGRAMM; MARNIE J WOLFGRAMM (JT)1995 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3605 TR4 ENTERPRISES LC 2178 S 900 E # 4 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2388 TREMBLAY SIMES FAMILY TRUST 09/19/20178769 S WILLOW GREEN DR SANDY UT 84093-2061 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1045 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3404 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1869 E MICHIGAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108-1358 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 3215 E MILLCREEK DELL LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109-3184 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 819 WILD HERB RD DAMMERON VALLEY UT 84783-5141 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED PO BOX 526136 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152-6136 TSM COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE INC 1988 S 1100 E # 506 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-4723 TYLOR TEMKIN 1201 WILMINGTON AVE # 206 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-3759 UHP KUVASZ LLC 1963 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3511 UHP KUVASZ LLC PO BOX 526297 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152-6297 UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY PO BOX 30810 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84130-810 VALERIE MURDOCK 2193 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2332 VERL JENNINGS; KIM THI JENNINGS (JT)972 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3349 VICTORIA M SANCHEZ 928 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3306 VODA INVESTMENT CO 897 N 2500 W HURRICANE UT 84737 6 WAYNE LEASING LLC 1555 SUNVIEW DR OGDEN UT 84404 WILLIAM J BOGUS 2319 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2810 WMH FAM TRUST 1741 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108-1806 YORK FAMILY 2257, LLC 2257 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106-2320 YUCATAN LLC 540 E NORTHMONT WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103-3323 ZACHARIAH D CHATTERLEY; JULIE ADAMS-CHATTERLEY (JT)1150 E RAMONA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105-3506 ZHONGLIANG ZHAO; WEI TANG (JT)8156 S MAIO DR SANDY UT 84093-6772 CPA FINANCIAL EXCHANGE GROUP 299 S MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111-1941 RESIDENT 1327 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1995 S WINDSOR ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2035 S WINDSOR ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1990 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2004 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2030 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2000 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1993 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 934 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2005 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2027 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 958 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1989 S LINCOLN ST # REAR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1995-1997 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2017 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2034 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2040 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1940 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1932 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1051 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1057 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1950 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1940 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1018 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1024 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1999 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2009 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2019 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1990 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1998 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2006 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1033 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1987 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1066 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2005 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2015 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2019 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2023 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2027 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 7 RESIDENT 1994 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2012 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2008 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1991 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1974 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1939 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1941 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1975 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1983 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2005 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2011 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2017 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1134 E RAMONA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1140 E RAMONA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1158 E RAMONA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1182 E RAMONA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1970 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1931 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1953 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1950 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1155 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1988 S 1100 E # 101 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1988 S 1100 E # 202 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1988 S 1100 E # 206 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1988 S 1100 E # 207 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1988 S 1100 E # 208 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1988 S 1100 E # 209 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1988 S 1100 E # 302 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1988 S 1100 E # 304 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1988 S 1100 E # 402 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1988 S 1100 E # 404 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1988 S 1100 E # 405 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1988 S 1100 E # 406 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1988 S 1100 E # 502 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1988 S 1100 E # 503 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1988 S 1100 E # 505 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1923 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1937 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1985 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1938 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1948 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1958 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1964 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2000 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2002 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2006 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2010 S DOUGLAS ST # REAR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 8 RESIDENT 2018-2020 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1952 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1927 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1237 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2057 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1979 S 1200 E # 1 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1979 S 1200 E # 4 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1979 S 1200 E # 7 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1979 S 1200 E # 8 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1979 S 1200 E # 9 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1979 S 1200 E # 10 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2003 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2007 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2010 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2012 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2020 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2025 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2036 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2037 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2011 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2015 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2011-2015 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 867 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 875 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 909 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 935 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 951 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 959 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 967 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 973 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 870 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 880 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 850 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 859 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 858 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 861 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 865 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2148 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2178 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 922 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2175 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2195 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 910 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 916 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 932 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 975 E SUGARMONT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2185 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 9 RESIDENT 960 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2131 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2160 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 944 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 974 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 960 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 980 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2188 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2200 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2208 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 968 E SUGARMONT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2305 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1001 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1011 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1019 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1059-1063 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1095 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1045 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1049 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1053-1057 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1137 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1020 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1028 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2124 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1003 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1007 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2141 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1010 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2150 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1034 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2170 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1015 E SUGARMONT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1052-1074 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2168 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2200 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2220 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1070 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2146-2166 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2175 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2221 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2131 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1165 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2120 S HIGHLAND DR # 1 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2120 S HIGHLAND DR # 2 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2120 S HIGHLAND DR # 3 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2120 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1213 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 10 RESIDENT 2097 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1235 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2071 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1251 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1255 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1269 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2045 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1210 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1220 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1229 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1251 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2150 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2180 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2110 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2118 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2120 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2138 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1236-1244 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2111 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2125 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2165 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 2211 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RESIDENT 1201 E WILMINGTON AVE #1A SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1201 E WILMINGTON AVE #1B SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1215 E WILMINGTON AVE #1C SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1201 WILMINGTON AVE # 202 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1235 E WILMINGTON AVE # 3 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1215 E WILMINGTON AVE # 4 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1201 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1030 E SUGARMONT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1044 E SUGARMONT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1085 E SIMPSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1085 E SIMPSON AVE # NFF1 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1113 E SIMPSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1103 E SIMPSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1104 E SUGARMONT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2226 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2234 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1121 E ASHTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2262 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1147 E ASHTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2292 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2334 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1100 E ASHTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1104 E ASHTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1114 E ASHTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1154 E ASHTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 11 RESIDENT 1150 E IEIGHTYEAST FWY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1132 E ASHTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2410 S HIGHLAND DR # NFF1 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2265 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2202 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2299 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2212 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2240 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2254 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2275 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2294 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2227 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2255 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1180 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2201 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1190 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2274 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2210 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1265 E STRINGHAM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1260 E STRINGHAM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1280 E STRINGHAM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1212 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1202 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2380 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2390 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2408 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 2445 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1163 E PARKWAY AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RESIDENT 1330 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Daniel Echeverria PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114-5480 LANDON CLARK 2021 S 2200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 12 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:December 7, 2021 RE: 1945 South 1300 East Zoning Map Amendment PLNPCM2020-01022 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:December 7, 2021 RE: 1945 South 1300 East Zoning Map Amendment PLNPCM2020-01022 PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE Six people spoke at the November 16, 2021 public hearing. Most were opposed to the zoning map amendment citing concerns over additional traffic, loss of affordable housing, a waste of resources to gain seven additional housing units, and the owner’s reported lack of maintenance on the existing building. The current president of the adjacent medical condo building stated as a group of owners, they are not opposed to development but will not allow additional traffic through their property or permit apartment residents parking in their lot. He stressed the need for constant emergency response access to the medical offices. The Council closed the public hearing and deferred action to a future meeting. The following information was provided for the October 19, 2021 Council briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. BRIEFING UPDATE At the October 19 briefing Planning staff and the applicant clarified the number of units proposed for a new building. Based on the lot size, a maximum of 31 units would be allowed under RMF-45 zoning. The current building has 24 units. The applicant is planning on a similar mix of studio, one-bedroom and two- bedroom units as are in the current building. Responding to a Council Member question about building condition concerns, Planning staff stated there are no current zoning violations. Those commenting at the Planning Commission public hearing expressed Item Schedule: Briefing: October 19, 2021 Set Date: October 19, 2021 Public Hearing: November 16, 2021 Potential Action: December 7, 2021 Page | 2 concern about ongoing maintenance at the property and changes to landscaping. It was noted there were no zoning issues needing enforcement found during Planning staff’s site visit. A Council Member asked if the building is non-conforming under existing zoning. Planning staff confirmed existing zoning went into effect after the current building was constructed. If the building was demolished any new development would need to meet existing zoning requirements. The applicant is proposing a rezone of the property and not redevelopment at this point. The applicant stated he anticipates a boutique-type building rather than a large one and new construction will be more efficient that the existing building. He believes the increased density would be absorbed by current and future transit options. In response to a Council Member comment about considering numbers of units in a building as opposed to the number of people living in them, the applicant stated he is not planning on any units larger than two- bedroom. Council staff received a constituent email expressing concerns with the proposed rezone. It is included as Attachment A to this report. Council staff verified with Planning staff the parking requirements included in the Planning Commission staff report is correct. Additional comments will be forwarded to Council Members. The following information was provided for the October 19, 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 1945 South 1300 East from its current RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) designation to RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential). The proposed amendment is to accommodate a new multi-family residential development with potentially 46 residential units. The current site configuration including 24 residential units with a swimming pool, and on-site parking was developed in the late 1950s and has been in continuous use since then. A concept plan was submitted to City Planning by the applicant to provide staff with an idea of what is planned for the site if the zoning map is amended. Concept elevations are included on page 8 of the Planning Commission staff report. It should be noted the plans are not approved and may not be an accurate representation of what might be developed on the site. In addition, any redevelopment of the property is not part of this proposal. It is the Council’s role to determine if the proposed zoning map amendment is appropriate for the property. Several people spoke at the July 14, 2021 Planning Commission public hearing or emailed Planning staff about the proposed zoning map amendment. Most were opposed, expressing concerns about traffic, parking, existing building maintenance, and loss of affordable units. The Sugar House Community Council Land Use and Zoning Subcommittee sent a letter to Planning staff expressing opposition to the proposal. The Planning Commission forwarded a 5-2 positive recommendation to the City Council for this proposed zoning map amendment. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendment, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. Page | 3 POLICY QUESTIONS 1.Rezoning this property to RMF-45 will increase the value and allow the applicant to put more housing units on the parcel. The Council may wish to ask if any affordable units are included in the proposed development and at what percentage of AMI. 2.The Council may want to discuss with Planning which other zones may be appropriate if the density of units on RMF-45 would be too much for the neighborhood. 3.The Council may wish to ask Planning about current/ future planning efforts that would increase multi-family housing density in certain locations, and whether this requested rezone is consistent with those evaluations and potential changes, especially in terms of location, neighborhood compatibility, traffic mitigation, etc. 4.Is the Council supportive of the proposed zoning map amendment? Vicinity map with subject parcel shaded in yellow. (Image courtesy Salt Lake City Planning) Page | 4 Vicinity zoning map with subject parcel outlined in red. (note: the triangular shaped parcel to the east of the subject parcel is not included in this proposed zoning map amendment.) KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified four key considerations which are summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see pages 3-9 of the Planning Commission staff report. Consideration 1: RMF-35 and RMF-45 Zoning District Comparison The proposed zoning map amendment is to redevelop the site for higher density multi-family residential use. Most land uses permitted in the RMF-35 district are also allowed in RMF-45. Differences in conditional and permitted uses for the districts are summarized in the table below. Zone Community Recreation Center Adult Daycare Center Large Assisted Living Center Large Residential Support Dwelling Boarding House Dwelling Twin- & Two- Family Dwelling Nursing Care Facility RMF-35 C C P RMF-45 C P C C P Building height The major difference between the current RMF-35 and proposed RMF-45 zoning districts is maximum building height of 35’ and 45’ respectively. Yard Requirements Yard requirements for the current and proposed zones are similar and summarized in the table below. Note the differences in front and rear yard minimums between the zones. The subject parcel is approximately 190’ deep so front and rear yards would be 25’ and 30’ respectively with RMF-45 zoning. Zone Front Yard Min Interior Side Yard Corner Side Yards Rear Yard RMF-35 20’10’10’25% lot depth (max 25’) RMF-45 20% lot depth (max 25’)10’20’25% lot depth (max 30’) Parking Parking standards are the same for both districts requiring 2 parking spaces for 2-bedroom units, 1 parking space for 1-bedroom units, and ½ parking space for single room occupancy dwellings. Landscape Buffers Both zoning districts require landscape buffers when a site abuts a single-family residential district. A 10’ landscape buffer is required on any property line abutting a single-family district. As shown in the zoning map above, the north and northeast property lines would require landscape buffers as they abut R-1-5,000 zoning. Design Standards RMF-35 and RMF-45 have no required design standards. Both zoning districts have front façade controls found in Chapter 21A.24.010 Salt Lake City Code as the only architectural requirement. This addresses entrance doors, windows, balconies, porches, etc. on a building’s front façade. Page | 5 Consideration 2: Compatibility with Master Plan Policies The subject parcel is within an area covered by the 2001 Sugar House Master Plan. The plan outlines general land use policies and guidelines for the community and the associated Future Land Use Map has more specific guidelines for neighborhoods within the larger Master Plan area. The Master Plan’s Future Land Use Map lists the subject property as Medium-High Density Residential with between 20-50 dwelling units per acre. Planning staff found the proposed RMF-45 zoning district matches this density range and meets the intent of Medium-High Density Residential Land Use. Planning staff noted the Sugar House Master Plan states the following: “Although few areas in Sugar House are suitable for Medium-High Density housing, it should be encouraged where feasible.” “Support opportunities for conversion and infill development of Medium-High Density housing while requiring appropriate design and location to minimize land use conflicts with existing single-family development.” With its location just north of the Sugar House Business District, the subject property is in an area that transitions from commercial uses to single-family housing. Planning staff quoted the Sugar House Master Plan which states: “Higher density residential redevelopment within or on the periphery of the Sugar House Business District is desirable. Examples of zoning districts that can be used it implement this density are C-SHBD, RO, RMF-35, and RMF-45.” Plan Salt Lake, the citywide plan, provides guidance and outlines initiatives to support and guide growth in the city. It is Planning’s opinion the proposed rezone and development would be supported by Plan Salt Lake by providing residential access to nearby transit service on 1300 East and 2100 South. It also would create additional residential units that facilitate aging in place and accommodates increasing housing needed in the city. Consideration 3: Zoning Compatibility with Adjacent Properties The subject parcel has 24 residential units, and the anticipated development would have 46 units. Planning staff does not anticipate significant impacts to surrounding property owners and occupants. Building Height If the zoning map amendment is approved the most significant change will be building height. The current RMF-35 zoning district allows buildings up to 35’. Under the proposed RMF-45 zoning buildings could be up to 45’ in height. An adjacent building to the south of the subject site is zoned RO (Residential/Office) district. This district allows building height up to 60’. Single family residential houses are to the north and east of the subject site and across 1300 East. Buildings can be up to 28’ in these areas. Planning staff believes the proposed RMF-45 zoning district is appropriate for the site. They noted a 45’ multi-family residential building height would act as a buffer between the more intense RO zoning to the south and the lower density single-family residential homes to the north. In addition, properties to the east of 1300 East have a slight elevation increase toward View Street. This would somewhat mitigate effects on most properties surrounding the subject site. Page | 6 Parking As noted above, parking requirements for both the current RMF-35 and proposed RMF-45 zoning districts is the same. If the zoning map amendment is approved and the number of residential units is increased, a corresponding number of parking spaces depending on unit size would also be required. Building Setbacks and Landscape Buffer As noted above, landscape buffers between the subject parcel and abutting single-family residential districts are the same under either RMF-35 and RMF-45 zoning districts. A 10’ landscape buffer is required between the subject property and the single-family residences to the north and at the northeast corner. Consideration 4: Concept Plan When concept plans are submitted by applicants it provides an idea of what proposed zoning map amendments will accomplish. While helpful, applicants are not obligated to use the concept plan. Whether the zoning map amendment is approved by the Council or not, development on the subject site would still need to meet all applicable zoning standards and be reviewed through the building permit process. 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 the proposed amendment complies with all applicable standards. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for full details. PUBLIC PROCESS • April 26, 2021-Notice concerning the proposed zoning map amendment sent to Sugar House Community Council Chair. • May 17, 2021-The proposal was discussed at the Sugar House Community Council meeting. Comments at that meeting were primarily concerns about existing building and property maintenance, 1300 East road construction, and construction timeline. • July 1, 2021-Public hearing notice mailed to neighbors within 300’ of the subject site. Notice was also published in the newspaper. • July 14, 2021-Planning Commission public hearing. As noted above, several people spoke at the hearing expressing opposition to the proposal. Concerns cited were loss of affordable housing units, lack of benefit to the community, compatibility with surrounding neighborhood, loss of parking spaces for visitors to adjacent businesses to the south. The Planning Commission voted 5- 2 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. Page | 7 Attachment A From: Judi Short <judi.short@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2021 6:41 PM To: Fullmer, Brian <Brian.Fullmer@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) 1945 S 1300 East Thank you for sending the staff report written for the City Council as they assess this proposed rezone. I have a couple of changes. 1. The applicant is proposing 46 units, which is the correct amount for 1 acre if his parcel were to be in RMF 45. However, we have clarification from Nannette Larsen in planning that Max Chang could only build 31 units because the size of his parcel is .79 of an acre. I confirmed that on the Salt Lake County Assessor's website. So, this rezone would result in an increase from 25 to 31 units. These units are probably affordable, given their age and condition, so we would lose 25 affordable units and gain 31 expensive units. A total gain of 6 units. 2. Parking - Please double-check the parking requirement. I have attached the latest revised parking ordinance final draft, which I don't think is codified yet. We haven't seen anything in a long time that requires 2 spaces for a 2 bedroom unit. Look on page 7, I think this says 1.25 parking spaces per dwelling unit 2 bedrooms. There is no on-street parking on 1300 east. The parking lots for the businesses nearby are packed, I know my dentist is next door on the south, and there are times I cannot find a place to park. 3. Entrance and Egress - Entrance to this building is from a shared driveway (shared with the dental office on the south). This is a one-way road. Egress is to snake your way through the dental parking lot, out to 1300 East where you can only go north, and the wait is long because traffic is bumper to bumper. Or, through a skinny driveway to View Street, wide enough for one car. View Street has no available parking on it most times of day Or, head south down the skinny driveway behind the houses on view and east of Kentucky Fried Chicken to snake your way onto 2100 South, which is also packed at that corner most of the time. It is just a place where additional cars are not needed, Transportation says that area is F and has been for 10-15 years "and you guys just keep approving projects." 4. Mr Chang thinks people will just walk over to the streetcar, but that would likely be a 20 minute walk over 1300 East, 2100 South and through a myriad of parking lots or a steep walk down Wilmington Avenue to cross Highland Drive with still another long block to the streetcar. Not likely to happen. -- Judi Short Erin Mendenhall Mayor DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269 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: PLNPCM2020-01022 – 1945 South 1300 East Zoning Map Amendments STAFF CONTACT: Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner, nannette.larsen@slcgov.com 801-535-7645 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendations of the Planning Commission to approve the proposed Zoning Map amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Towards the end of December of last year a representative with American Estate Management Corp. initiated a petition to amend the Zoning Map. The request is for a property located at approximately 1945 South 1300 East and would amend the properties from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Residential Multi-Family) to RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential). The Planning Commission heard the petition on July 14th of this year and forwarded a positive recommendation to City Council to amend the Zoning Map. The current configuration of the site was developed in 1959 and includes 24 residential units. This initial development included a swimming pool in an interior courtyard and parking (covered and uncovered) located on the east side of the lot which was accessed by a private alley. After this multi-family development in the late 50s, this structure has been in continuous use as residential units since it’s construction. September 9, 2021 Lisa Shaffer (Sep 15, 2021 16:32 MDT) 09/15/2021 09/15/2021 The subject property is in the Sugar House Master Plan. The Sugar House Master Plan designates the property as “Medium High Density Residential” land use, this designated land use provides for an area that allows for a density of 20-50 dwelling units per acre. The property is also within the RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) zoning district, the applicant is proposing to rezone to RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential). The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is intended to accommodate a new multi- family residential development, the applicant initially requested a total of 46 residential units, however the maximum number permitted on this site, based on the square footage of the property is 31 residential units. If the zoning map amendment is approved the property owner would be allowed to fully redevelop the site in accordance with the RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential) zoning district standards and permitted land uses. Figure 1: Vicinity Map PUBLIC PROCESS: • Information concerning this petition was sent to the chair of the Sugar House Community Council on April 26, 2021. o The Sugar House Community Council met on the proposed amendment on May 17, 2021  Comments received during this meeting were concerns over building and property maintenance, road construction on 1300 East, timeline of the building construction, and whether the alley to the south of the site is public or private. • The surrounding property owners within 300’ received an early notification by mail on April 17, 2021. • Public notification for the Planning Commission Hearing was mailed July 1, 2021 to all neighbors within 300’ of the Zoning Map amendment site. • Public notification for the Planning Commission hearing was posted in the newspaper, July 1, 2021. • The petition was heard by the Planning Commission on July 14, 2021. The Planning Commission voted 5 to 2 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed zoning map amendment. o There were multiple public comments heard from the public during this hearing. The public comments were concerned about traffic, access to the private alley to the south, building height, and property maintenance. Planning Commission (PC) Records: a) PC Agenda of July 14, 2021 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of July 14, 2021 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of July 14,2021 (Click to Access Report) SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2021 (Amending the zoning of property located at approximately 1945 South 1300 East Street from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at approximately 1945 South 1300 East Street from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential to RMF- 45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020- 01022. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 14, 2021 on an application submitted by Max Chang (“Applicant”) on behalf of the property owner, American Estate Management Corp., to rezone property located at 1945 South 1300 East Street (Tax ID No. 16-17-481-008) (the “Property”) from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential to RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-01022; and WHEREAS, at its July 14, 2021 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said applications; and WHEREAS, following 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: 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 identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be and hereby is rezoned from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential to RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family. SECTION 2. 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 rezoning 1945 S 1300 E APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney August 17, 2021 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description of Property to be Rezoned: 1945 South 1300 East Street Tax ID No. 16-17-481-008 0609 COM 42.86 RDS N & 12 RDS W FR SE COR SEC 17, T 1S, R 1E, S L M; N 174.235 FT; E 198 FT; S 174.235 FT; W 198 FT TO BEG EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Hearing 3) Mailing List 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 1945 South 1300 East Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment Project Chronology Located at approximately 1945 S. 1300 E. PLNPCM2020-01022 December 29, 2020 Zoning Amendment application received by the City. January 21, 2021 Petition assigned to and received by Nannette Larsen. January 21, 2020 Application deemed complete and forwarded project review to applicable City departments. April 27, 2021 The Sugar House Community Council chair notified of the petition and forwarded information. April 27, 2021 Early Notification sent to neighbors located within 300’ of property May 11, 2021 A public comment by phone in reference to concerns about maintenance May 17, 2021 Sugar House Community Council met on the proposed amendment. Comments received during this meeting expressed concerns over building and property maintenance, road construction on 1300 East, timeline of building construction, and traffic on the alley to the south. May 17, 2021 Public comment by email received, concerned about quality of construction, mature trees on the site, and the current residents of the site. May 20, 2021 Public comment by phone received, concerned about disturbance and timeframe of construction. Stated they were ok with proposed density and height. July 1, 2021 Newspaper notice posted. July 1, 2021 Notice for Planning Commission Hearing mailed to property owners and residents within 300’ of the subject property July 2, 2021 Notice of Planning Commission Hearing posted at the property. July 7, 2021 Public comment received by email, concerned about increase density and infrastructure, construction quality, and design. July 8, 2021 Staff Report for Master Plan and Zoning Map amendment public hearing posted online July 8, 2021 Public comment received via email. Concerns regarding property maintenance and construction on 1300 east. July 14, 2021 Planning Commission Public Hearing. Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council for the Zoning Map amendment on the subject property. July 12, 2021 Public comment received via email. Concerned about additional building height, neighborhood character, and traffic. July 12, 2021 Public comment received via email. Concerns regarding increase in density and traffic. June 14, 2021 Public comment received via email. Concerns regarding private alley and access to the site. 2. NOTICE OF COUNCIL HEARING 3. MAILING LIST 1945 South 1300 East Mailing List BHARADWAJ KADIYALA; VINILA SISTA (JT) 1325 E WESTMINSTER AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 MOFFETT; DARRYL G MOFFETT (JT) 4173 E ABINADI RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84124 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 2739 E 4430 S HOLLADAY UT 84124 EDWARD W TAGGART 1340 E WESTMINSTER AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 MICHAEL G SEELEY 1908 S VIEW ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORP 4505 S WASATCH BLVD # 215 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84124 ERVIN STANKEVITZ 1930 S VIEW ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RSL REV TRUST 21821 BURBANK BLVD #156 WOODLAND HILLS CA 91367 E B JONES & SONS, LLC 2064 E ASHTON CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 DEAN R CALL PO BOX 9250 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 2899 E BROOKBURN RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 1968 VIEW DRIVE, A SERIES OF HAPPY LINCOLN, LLC 10138 S DUNSINANE DR SOUTH JORDAN UT 84009 ERIC T STRAIN; HOLLIE H HOWTON (JT) 1984 S VIEW ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 MEI J STASER; MEI STASER (JT) 3472 S LETTER HI LN SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84106 BRYCE ATKINSON 10138 S DUNSINANE DR SOUTH JORDAN UT 84009 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1924 S VIEW ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SF TR 1353 E RAMONA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 S FAM TR 1353 E RAMONA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RASHID L SABER 2438 S 2500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 KELLI C LUND; JUSTIN T MOOL (JT) 1356 E RAMONA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 LYNDA LEE WELCH 1362 E RAMONA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 MATT FAWSON 2572 E COBBLESTONE WY SANDY UT 84093 KELLEY H EVANS; PAULA J EVANS (JT) 1959 S VIEW ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ALEXANDER T AOYAGI; KARI L AOYAGI (JT) 1965 S VIEW ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 HOLY SPIRIT ASSOCIATION FOR UNIFICATION WORLD CHRISTIANITY 1969 S VIEW ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 WESTMINSTER COLLEGE 1840 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 RUSS L ISENBURG; ANN MARIE ISENBURG (JT) 1303 E WESTMINSTER AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 DANA UTAH, LLC 1311 E WESTMINSTER AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 TYLER R KEARN 528 27TH ST APT 5 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94131 CHRISTOPHER DAVID ALLOWAYS-RAMSEY 1935 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 LYNN STALEY 1935 S DOUGLAS ST # 11 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ALYSSA SCHRACK 1935 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 BEATY FAMILY INVESTMENTS, LLC 3418 E REGATTA LN COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84093 SCOTT W BRENNAN; CODY J CLAWSON (JT) 3887 S CHATTERLEIGH RD WEST VALLEY UT 84128 WHITNEY K REID 1935 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SKR INVESTMENTS LLC 1706 S BAMBROUGH PL SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 SUGARHOUSE DOUGLAS 17, LLC PO BOX 1373 AMERICAN FORK UT 84003 NEAL R CHRISTENSEN 1935 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 DOUGLAS PLAZA APT HOMES CONDO COMMON AREA MASTER CARD 8180 S 700 E # 120 SANDY UT 84070 WESTSIDE HOLDINGS, LLC 4438 N 3800 E LIBERTY UT 84310 MONICA L POWERS 1270 E WESTMINSTER AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 DAVID C CROOKS PO BOX 521062 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 DOYLE FAMILY 1999 REVOCABLE TRUST 10/20/1999 1911 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 IAN D A CAMPBELL 1943 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 PROJECT HOUSE, LLC 1901 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ANN NAREE SMITH 1953 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 MARK MCKENZIE 1957 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 4460 S ROGER DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84124 CARLYLE L HARRIS 1902 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ASSENNETH SOSA 1906 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ROD GARCIA 1912 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1613 E BROWNING AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 NELSON ROY; ROSALEA M CAMERON (JT) 1920 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 UZIEL MONTIEL; A SUE MONTIEL (JT) 1936 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 402 E BRAYDEN WY DRAPER UT 84020 JAMIE D DUIS; JAMES C FLEMING (JT) 1950 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 JENNIFER S ORISON 979 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 OVERSON LANDINGS LLC 213 GALAHAD PLACE N NORTH HUDSON WI 54016 H & C STRAUGHN FAMILY TRUST 03/23/2004 1964 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 JUDY Y DARBY 1968 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 K.C.S. CORPORATION 1970 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ANITA M ERMISH; BRENDAN ERMISH (JT) 1898 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 HIGHLAND PARK PLAZA CONDO 2ND AMD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 1955 S 1300 E # L1 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 HDC ENTERPRISES LLC 1955 S 1300 E # 1 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 J KRIS HANSON 1955 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 JEFFREY S KNIGHT 3089 E SILVER HAWK DR HOLLADAY UT 84121 M & K RUDD COMPANY LLC 1955 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 LEGACY PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC 3354 N 750 W OGDEN UT 84414 ZHEN ZHE EAST LLC; CBT TRUST 1955 S 1300 E # L1 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 HAYDEN RIVER VALLEY, LLC 1955 S 1300 E # L2 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 COLD STEEL PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC 6268 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121 MARK RYSER 1955 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 COLD STEEL PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC 6268 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121 ELMORE E GIEPERT; PATRICIA L GIEPERT (JT) 1304 E WESTMINSTER AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ANDREW A JOYCE; KIMBERLY BETH BROWN 1312 E WESTMINSTER AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SOUTHMINSTER PROPERTIES, LLC 2222 E 1700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 BRUCE K HUDMAN 1909 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 AMERICAN ESTATE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 1967 S 300 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 GERALD H NELSON PO BOX 520095 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 BRUCE HUDMAN 1909 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 MICHAEL G SEELEY 1908 S VIEW ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 WILLIAM RATTIGAN; MEAGHAN KELLIHER (JT) 1915 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 HIGHLAND PARK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC 1955 S 1300 E # 1 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 JARED C B LEE 1977 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 HIGHLAND PARK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC 1955 S 1300 E # 1 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ANDREW INGEBRETSEN; JILLAIRE INGEBRETSEN (JT) 1913 S 1300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1329 E WESTMINSTER AVE Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1328 E WESTMINSTER AVE Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1949 S 1300 E Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1934 S VIEW ST Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1954 S VIEW ST Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1960 S VIEW ST Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1964 S VIEW ST Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1968 S VIEW ST Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1974 S VIEW ST Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1968 S VIEW ST #NFF1 Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1354 E WESTMINSTER AVE Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1363 E RAMONA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1953 S VIEW ST Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1877 S 1300 E Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1319 E WESTMINSTER AVE Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1935 S DOUGLAS ST #11 Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1935 S DOUGLAS ST #13 Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1935 S DOUGLAS ST #14 Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1935 S DOUGLAS ST #16 Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1935 S DOUGLAS ST #17 Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1935 S DOUGLAS ST Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1264 E WESTMINSTER AVE Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1274 E WESTMINSTER AVE Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1949 S DOUGLAS ST Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1963 S DOUGLAS ST Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1914 S 1300 E Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1940 S 1300 E Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1954 S 1300 E Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1960 S 1300 E Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1955 S 1300 E Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1955 S 1300 E #1 Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1955 S 1300 E #3 Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1955 S 1300 E #7 Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1955 S 1300 E #L1 Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1955 S 1300 E #L2 Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1955 S 1300 E #L4 Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1955 S 1300 E #L6 Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1318 E WESTMINSTER AVE Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1945 S 1300 E Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1981 S 1300 E Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1969 S 1300 E Salt Lake City UT 84105 Current Occupant 1969 S 1300 E Salt Lake City UT 84105 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 ________________________________________________________________________________ NEW INFORMATION On November 16, the Council held a second briefing, public hearing, and then closed the public hearing to adopt some items including: - A-5: Community Health Access Team (CHAT) Program Vehicles ($150,000 from $2 Million Holding Account; $150,000 goes to Fleet Fund) - A-6: Non-Represented Employees’ Job Salary Survey ($75,000 from General Fund Balance) - A-10: Community Health Access Team (CHAT) Program Personnel Transfer (Budget Neutral) - A-11: Rose Park Golf Course Water & Energy Efficiency Grant (Matching Funds) ($1,800,000 from the Golf Fund - All items in Section D Housekeeping except D-1 - All items in Section G Consent Agenda for Grant Awards - I-1: Council Office Reclassifications and Amending FY22 Appointed Pay Plan The Council is scheduled to continue deliberation of the remaining proposed items at the December 7 work session. The Council could take a final vote on some items at the formal meeting that same day, at a future formal meeting or decline to approve a proposed item. 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 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 4th Briefing: TBD (if needed) Potential Action: December 7 and/or 14, 2021 Page | 2 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. 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 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: December 3, 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 (Dec 3, 2021 17:11 MST) 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. The revision from December 3rd includes detail for police spending around the homeless resource centers in two attached documents. 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 - 150,000.00 One-time - 5 Community Health Access Team Vehicles Fleet 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 One-time - 6 Non Represented Employee Job Salary Survey GF - 75,000.00 - 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 - 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 Withdrawn GF - - - - - 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 3.00 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 - 1,746,646.00 - Ongoing - 3 Premium Holiday - Other Funds Refuse 24,907.00 - 24,907.00 - One-time 3 Premium Holiday - Other Funds Golf 14,310.00 - 14,310.00 - One-time 3 Premium Holiday - Other Funds Fleet 18,585.00 - 18,585.00 - One-time 3 Premium Holiday - Other Funds IMS 30,380.00 - 30,380.00 - One-time 4 GPS Housekeeping GF - (74,600.00) - (74,600.00)One-time - 4 GPS Housekeeping GF - 74,600.00 - 74,600.00 One-time - 4 GPS Housekeeping Fleet 74,600.00 74,600.00 74,600.00 74,600.00 One-time - 5 Signage FTE Correction GF - 51,847.00 - 51,847.00 Ongoing - 6 General Obligation Series 2021A Bonds CIP 23,400,000.00 23,400,000.00 23,400,000.00 23,400,000.00 One-time - 6 General Obligation Series 2021A Bonds Debt Service 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 One-time - 7 Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A Debt Service 10,665,000.00 10,665,000.00 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 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 4,900,000.00 4,900,000.00 One-time - 8 Budget Carry Forward GF - 1,175,000.00 - 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 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 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 295,571.00 295,571.00 295,571.00 295,571.00 One-time - 4 Utah State Office for Victims of Crime, 2021- 2023 VOCA Victims of Crime Act Grant Misc Grants 364,162.48 364,162.48 364,162.48 364,162.48 One-time - 5 Department of Workforce Services, Housing & Community Development Division, FY22 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant Program Misc Grants 370,735.00 370,735.00 370,735.00 370,735.00 One-time - 6 Utah State Department of Public Safety - 2021 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Misc Grants 42,500.00 42,500.00 42,500.00 42,500.00 One-time - 7 Cities of Service, Johns Hopkins, Justice for the Jordan Grant, Love Your Block Misc Grants 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 One-time - 8 Utah State Office for Victims of Crime, Violence Against Women Act, Domestic Violence Victim Advocate Misc Grants 101,039.00 101,039.00 101,039.00 101,039.00 One-time - 1 Council Office Reclassifications GF - - - - On-Going Total of Budget Amendment Items 69,523,304.48 72,455,134.48 52,910,185.48 54,327,204.48 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 1,608,044.00 4,492,779.00 - 1,451,847.00 19.00 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 24,907.00 - - Golf Fund Golf 14,310.00 1,802,257.00 14,310.00 1,800,000.00 - Fleet Fund Fleet 438,905.00 423,258.00 243,185.00 224,600.00 - IMS Fund IMS 161,380.00 135,492.00 30,380.00 - - Miscellaneous Grants Fund Misc Grants 17,497,861.48 15,751,215.48 3,032,403.48 1,285,757.48 3.00 Housing Fund Housing - - - - - Debt Service Fund Debt Service 26,165,000.00 26,165,000.00 26,165,000.00 26,165,000.00 - CIP Fund CIP 23,400,000.00 23,400,000.00 23,400,000.00 23,400,000.00 Risk Fund Risk 212,897.00 212,897.00 - - - - - - Total of Budget Amendment Items 69,523,304.48 72,455,134.48 52,910,185.48 54,327,204.48 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 1,451,847.00 366,881,980.00 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 - 127,826,271.00 Sewer Fund (FC 52)268,213,796 221,826.00 - 268,435,622.00 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)19,201,013 19,705.00 - 19,220,718.00 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)706,792,500 1,350,949.00 - 708,143,449.00 Refuse Fund (FC 57)24,713,505 36,538.00 - 24,750,043.00 Golf Fund (FC 59)9,697,417 19,649.00 88,749.00 1,800,000.00 11,605,815.00 E-911 Fund (FC 60)4,056,856 4,056,856.00 Fleet Fund (FC 61)28,090,576 18,999.00 112,646.00 224,600.00 28,446,821.00 IMS Fund (FC 65)24,302,487 219,193.00 - 24,521,680.00 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 1,285,757.48 31,920,669.24 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 - 52,959,194.00 Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,755,009,505 7,688,537.76 2,559,683.00 2,000,000.00 54,327,204.48 - 1,821,584,930.24 Budget Manager Analyst, City Council Contingent Appropriation The Council adopted the items highlighted in yellow at the Council meeting on November 16th. 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 UDA Q 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: Pulled Prior to Submission Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 6 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 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 Range r 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 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 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 CitySourced 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 sec ond 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 complai nts reported in the app in years past. Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 7 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 positi on 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 o f forgivable loans. 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. 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. Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 8 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. 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. Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 9 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 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. Under the revised transmittal the Administration is recommending $400,000 for Public Safety, Police, needs associated with homeless shelters. Two documents outlining the expenses are attached to the revised transmittal as backup information. 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 Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 10 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 Ra nger 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 amend ment 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 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: Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 11  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 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 Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 12 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 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 t o 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 e mployees 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 Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 13 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 i ntended to offset the impacts on the west side from the Inland Port development. The opportunity of this program is to strengthen the community 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 RD A 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 sh ared-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 resour ces 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. Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 14 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 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 Forfeiture Grant (SAFG) program. The SAFG program funds crime prevention and law enforcement activities within specific guidelines. CCJJ de veloped 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. Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 15 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 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, 2021-2023 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 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 Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 16 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 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 preparedn ess. 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 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 i dentified 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. Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 17 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 $25,260 for the two-year performance period of the grant. The match is met with cash available in the Office of the Attorney’s budget. A Public Hearing was held 6/15/21 on this grant application Section I: Council Added Items Impact Fees ‐ Summary Confidential Data pulled 10/29/2021 Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area Area Cost Center UnAllocated Cash Notes: Impact fee - Police 8484001 415,503$ A Impact fee - Fire 8484002 1,487,183$ B Impact fee - Parks 8484003 8,948,216$ C Impact fee - Streets 8484005 6,101,644$ D 16,952,545$ 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 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202103 (Mar2021)2021Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202104 (Apr2021)2021Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202105 (May2021)2021Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202106 (Jun2021)2021Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202107 (Jul2021)2022Q1 (0)$ -$ -$ -$ (0)$ 202108 (Aug2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202109 (Sep2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Current Month 202110 (Oct2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 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 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202305 (May2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total, Currently Expiring through June 2021 0$ -$ -$ -$ 0$ FY 2023Calendar Month Fiscal Year 2021FY 2022Fiscal Quarter E = A + B + C + D Police Fire Parks Streets Total Impact Fees Confidential Data pulled 10/29/2021 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 Public Safety Building Replcmn 8405005 14,068$ 14,068$ -$ 0$ Police Impact Fee Refunds 8421102 338,448$ -$ 60,722$ 277,727$ Sugarhouse Police Precinct 8417016 10,331$ 10,331$ -$ -$ Police Refunds 8418013 -$ -$ (3,588)$ 3,588$ PolicePrecinctLandAquisition 8419011 239,836$ 239,836$ -$ -$ Eastside Precint 8419201 21,639$ 21,639$ -$ -$ Police'sConsultant'sContract 8419205 3,565$ -$ 3,565$ -$ ReimbExcessPoliceCapacity IF 8422800 1,898,497$ -$ 1,898,497$ -$ A Grand Total 2,526,385$ 285,875$ 1,959,195$ 281,315$ Fire Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Study for Fire House #3 8413001 15,700$ -$ -$ 15,700$ Fire Station #3 8415002 1,568$ -$ -$ 1,568$ Fire Station #3 8416009 565$ 96$ -$ 469$ Fire Station #14 8415001 6,083$ 6,083$ -$ -$ Fire Station #14 8416006 44,612$ -$ -$ 44,612$ Fire refunds 8416007 82,831$ -$ -$ 82,831$ Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 4,941$ 3,021$ 1,862$ 58$ FY20 FireTrainingFac. 8420431 56,031$ -$ -$ 56,031$ B Grand Total 212,331$ 9,200$ 1,862$ 201,268$ Parks Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values 9line park 8416005 21,958$ 19,702$ -$ 2,256$ Park refunds 8416008 11,796$ -$ -$ 11,796$ Parks and Public Lands Compreh 8417008 7,500$ -$ -$ 7,500$ Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,094,430$ 9,402$ 24,821$ 1,060,208$ Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$ Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 1,110$ -$ -$ 1,110$ C Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 9,350$ -$ -$ 9,350$ Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$ Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 1,570$ -$ -$ 1,570$ Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 23,530$ 23,000$ -$ 530$ Fairmont Park Lighting Impr 8418004 49,752$ 6,000$ 37,597$ 6,155$ Bridge to Backman 8418005 290,276$ 10,285$ 4,515$ 275,475$ ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 10,830$ -$ -$ 10,830$ Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 4,857$ 2,596$ 2,219$ 42$ Fisher Carriage House 8420130 1,098,764$ 1,038,968$ 59,796$ -$ Warm Springs Off Leash 8420132 20,411$ -$ 20,411$ -$ Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 431,000$ -$ -$ 431,000$ 9Line Orchard 8420136 195,045$ 32,650$ -$ 162,395$ Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 12,795$ 4,328$ -$ 8,467$ JR Boat Ram 8420144 15,561$ 6,378$ -$ 9,183$ Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 489,688$ 64,333$ -$ 425,355$ Pioneer Park 8419150 3,343,904$ 169,077$ 59,946$ 3,114,882$ UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 135,084$ 21,169$ 1,355$ 112,560$ Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 388,477$ 92,174$ 30,958$ 265,346$ Cnty #2 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420426 88$ -$ 88$ -$ FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 722,920$ 571,809$ 3,343$ 147,769$ IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 58,014$ 1,905$ -$ 56,109$ Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 523,889$ 287,290$ 8,852$ 227,746$ Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 224,247$ 173,467$ 34,134$ 16,646$ Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ -$ 275,000$ Parks Impact Fee Refunds 8418015 101,381$ -$ -$ 101,381$ Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$ GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 3,200,000$ -$ -$ 3,200,000$ Green loop 200 E Design 8422408 610,000$ -$ -$ 610,000$ Historic Renovation AllenParK 8422410 420,000$ -$ -$ 420,000$ SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 1,304,682$ -$ -$ 1,304,682$ SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 425,000$ -$ -$ 425,000$ Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 510,000$ -$ -$ 510,000$ RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 180,032$ -$ -$ 180,032$ Grand Total 16,694,447$ 2,534,534$ 288,033$ 13,871,881$ Streets Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Gladiola Street 8406001 16,109$ 13,865$ -$ 2,244$ 500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 32,718$ 16,691$ 16,027$ -$ Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$ 700 South Reconstruction 8415004 2,449$ -$ 2,449$ -$ 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$ Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 1,444$ -$ -$ 1,444$ 500 to 700 S 8418016 96,637$ 22,744$ 73,893$ -$ 9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 152,500$ 139,280$ 13,220$ -$ D Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 200,000$ -$ 12,484$ 187,516$ Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 35,392$ -$ -$ 35,392$ Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 95,653$ 44,088$ 50,864$ 700$ Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ 13,000$ -$ -$ Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 29,817$ 17,442$ -$ 12,374$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8419008 221,688$ 10,244$ 7,033$ 204,411$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8420105 300,000$ 300,000$ -$ -$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 875,000$ -$ -$ 875,000$ Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 58,780$ 20,697$ -$ 38,083$ Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 2,250,220$ 290,460$ 1,216,451$ 743,309$ TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 302,053$ -$ -$ 302,053$ IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$ 200S TransitCmpltStrtSuppl IF 8422602 37,422$ -$ -$ 37,422$ 900 South 9Line RR Cross IF 8422604 28,000$ -$ -$ 28,000$ Local Link Construction IF 8422606 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$ Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 25,398$ -$ -$ 25,398$ 400 South Viaduct Trail IF 8422611 90,000$ -$ -$ 90,000$ Neighborhood Byways IF 8422614 104,500$ -$ -$ 104,500$ 900 S Signal Improvements IF 8422615 70,000$ -$ -$ 70,000$ Urban Trails FY22 IF 8422619 6,500$ -$ -$ 6,500$ Transportatn Safety Imprvmt IF 8422620 44,400$ -$ -$ 44,400$ 1700S Corridor Transfrmtn IF 8422622 35,300$ -$ -$ 35,300$ Grand Total 5,967,404$ 888,511$ 1,392,421$ 3,686,472$ Total 25,400,567$ 3,718,120$ 3,641,511$ 18,040,936$ E = A + B + C + D TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE 8,948,216$ 6,101,644$ 16,952,545$ 8484002 8484003 8484005 415,503$ $1,487,183 8484001 UnAllocated Budget Amount FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 TOTAL Taking Care of the City: Revenue Loss (Based on Calendar Year Calculations)11,432,646$ 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. 1 Weisberg, Brent From:Brown, Mike Sent:Wednesday, December 1, 2021 03:56 PM To:'rruso@ch.utah.gov'; 'j.eining@draper.ut.us'; Troy D. Carr; 'cburnett@murray.utah.gov'; 'dhutson@rivertonpd.org'; 'gseverso@sandy.ut.gov'; 'Jeff Carr'; 'dcarruth@southsaltlakecity.com'; 'btcottam@taylorsvilleut.gov'; 'fross@rideuta.com'; Ken Wallentine; 'colleen.jacobs@wvc-ut.gov'; Sheriff Rosie Rivera; 'dcarruth@sslc.com'; 'ken.wallentine@westjordan.utah.gov' Cc:Brown, Mike; VanDongen, Lance; Zayas, Yvette; Weisberg, Brent; Ewell, Lamar; Purvis, Brian Subject:Winter Shelter Outside Agencies Chiefs and Sheriff: As you may know, after many months of effort to find a location for a temporary winter emergency homeless shelter, the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness has requested the use of a motel within Salt Lake City for winter overflow shelter. The intent of this facility is to allow access to indoor beds through this winter to adults in the county experiencing homelessness. Salt Lake City has agreed to allow this use. However, the city needs support to ensure the safety and security of those accessing shelter, as well as for the surrounding neighborhood. I understand that all of our departments are experiencing staffing shortages. SLCPD is not immune to this reality as well. Hosting this county-wide service requires all of us to share some level of responsibility for its support to allow all to benefit from the services. Below is a proposed plan and a request of each of you, as our partner agencies, to assist in making this winter service available as soon as possible.  SLCPD will contribute four officers and a supervisor. The city would be responsible for coordinating the schedule.  Our ask is that at least three other agencies, or a combination of agencies, contribute four officers (on overtime) to fill the four, five-hour shifts each day.  The hourly rate is $80 with $15 going back to the agency for vehicle, fuel, and maintenance reimbursement.  The remaining $65 is paid in overtime to the officer.  Shifts will be scheduled starting as soon as the program can open in December and will last until the end of the winter program in April. As this is both a county and state involved program, Unified PD and the State Department of Public Safety have been contacted and invited to provide support as well. Please review this draft and let me know how your department will be able to contribute to this multi- jurisdictional approach. I will be reaching out to all of you by phone in the very near future to have additional conversations. 2 Thank you, Mike MIKE BROWN Chief of Police Salt Lake City Police Department 801.799.3801 | mike.brown@slcgov.com www.slcpd.com | @slcpdPAGE 1 UTAH EMERGENCY WINTER HOUSING SHELTER dATE RANGE FOR OPERATION: DECEMBER 15, 2021 - APRIL 15, 2022 (120 d AYS) www.slcpd.com | @slcpd LAW ENFORCEMENT BUDGET AND STAFFING 4 OFFICERS A DAY 5 HOUR SHIFTS $80 AN HOUR $15 goes to the agency as a vehicle, fuel, maintenance reimbursement. $65 goes to the officer as overtime pay. = $1600 DAILY RATE X 120 DAYS (Estimated shelter operating period.) = $192,000 SHIFT 1 SHIFT 3 SHIFT 4 SHIFT 2 AGENCY AGENCY AGENCY SLCPD A B C SLCPD WILL PROVIDE 1 SUPERVISOR PER DAY SUPERVISOR 5 HOUR SHIFTS = $400 DAILY RATE X 120 DAYS = $48,000 THE TOTAL OVERTIME COST FOR THE SAFETY PLAN IS $816,000. FUNDING SOURCES FOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES ARE STILL BEING IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND WILL BE DETERMINED AT A LATER DATE. Item I1 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: Sam Owen, Policy Analyst DATE:December 7, 2021 RE:Ordinance: EPA Revisions to Sewer Regulations MOTION 1 I move the Council adopt the ordinance, which would take effect at the completion of the subsequent State regulatory process. MOTION 2 I move the Council not adopt 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:Sam Owen, Policy Analyst DATE: November 16, 2021 RE:Wastewater Control Revisions, Ordinance 17.36.60, Affirmative Defense Provision ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Department of Public Utilities working with industrial and commercial users of the sewer system on types of discharge permits for businesses whose operations may dispose of waste through the City’s sewer system. In a review of the Pretreatment Program, changes to City Code were identified to bring the language into compliance. The State of Utah’s Division of Water Quality “is requiring that City Code… be updated to properly match [United States Environmental Protection Agency] requirements regarding affirmative defense and prohibited discharges.” The updates will move the City into compliance with state and federal requirements in terms of how the ordinance is written, but require no changes to the City’s Sewer Utility current regulatory practice. The City Council is scheduled to take action on this item on December 7, and approval of the ordinance is understood as conditional, per State law. If the Council conditionally approves the ordinance, the State’s Division of Water Quality will initiate a public engagement period. The ordinance would then return to the Council for formal adoption if the pertinent requirements are met. ISSUE SUMMARY Basically, the City Code regarding users of the Sewer Utility is being proposed for update. The update adds new prohibitions from the Environmental Protection Agency, through the State’s Division of Water Quality. The City Code already meets the standards that would be created through the code update, however the code does not expressly show that in the way the update requires. In other words, no changes to the City’s Sewer Utility and its current regulatory practice are expected to occur. The changes are technical or formal in nature. The updates will move the City into compliance with state and federal requirements in terms of how the ordinance is written. Conversely, the City practice was already in compliance. Item Schedule: Briefing: November 16, 2021 Public Hearing: n/a (State process) Potential Action: December 7, 2021 Page | 2 “Affirmative defenses” are available to Sewer Utility customers who are in the position of violating the ordinance, when certain events occur that are contemplated and described in the ordinance. An affirmative defense is available when a customer discharges into the system in a way the code contemplates, but does not allow. Affirmative defenses expressly provided in the code can attenuate the severity of penalties for a prohibited release into the City’s sewer system. The update would expressly eliminate from the affirmative defense list discharge events having to do with fire or explosion hazards, low pH (highly acidic) discharges, and discharges involving trucked or hauled wastes. Attachments 1.Administrative transmittal Lisa Shaffer (Sep 29, 2021 11:55 MDT) 09/29/2021 09/29/2021 MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 245 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114 TEL 801-535-6403 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ____________________________ Date Received: __________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _____________ TO: Salt Lake City Council Amy Fowler, Chair DATE: October 26, 2021 FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer ________________________________ SUBJECT: Council Consent Agenda #3 Items Fiscal Year 2021-22 Associated with Budget Amendment #5 STAFF CONTACTS: John Vuyk, Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 DOCUMENT TYPE: Consent Agenda/Establish Grant Projects from Grant Holding Account RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the City Council consent to the transfer of these grants and donations from the holding account and establish a project budget for them. BUDGET IMPACT: Grant Holding Account ($ 524,616.00) New Grant Project 524,616.00 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The grant holding account was established to fund grants between budget amendments with the understanding that the grants would be submitted as part of the next budget opening. Items transmitted are placed on a Council Consent agenda and then formally approved during the following budget amendment. On occasion, a similar process is employed for donations to the City. Where necessary, resolutions were previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept these grants and donations. EXHIBITS: Consent Agenda Detail Consent Agenda Summary Lisa Shaffer (Oct 26, 2021 17:38 MDT) Fund Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs 1 State of Utah, The Utah Highway Safety Office, Distracted Driving Prevention Program Misc Grants 13,000.00 13,000.00 One Time 0 2 State of Utah, The Utah Highway Safety Office, Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program Misc Grants 9,690.00 9,690.00 One Time 0 3 US Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), FY21 De-Escalation Training Solicitation Misc Grants 92,320.00 92,320.00 One Time 0 4 US Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), FY21 Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Misc Grants 59,360.00 59,360.00 One Time 0 5 US Department of Justice, 2021 Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)Misc Grants 340,246.00 340,246.00 One Time 0 6 Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ) , State Asset Forfeiture Grant (SAFG)Misc Grants 10,000.00 10,000.00 One Time 0 Total of Budget Amendment Items 524,616.00 524,616.00 0 Fiscal Year 2021-22 Consent Agenda #3 Budget Amendment #5 Initiative Number/Name Section G: Council Consent Agenda - Grant Awards Section I: Council Added Items Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Consent Agenda #3 for Budget Amendment #5 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 1 Section G: Council Consent Agenda – Grant Awards G-1: State of Utah, The Utah Highway Safety Office, Distracted Driving Prevention Program Misc. Grants $13,000 Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Melyn Osmond The Police Department applied for and received a $13,000 grant from the Utah Highway Safety Office for the 2022 Distracted Driving Prevention Program. The grant funding for overtime to conduct distracted driving enforcement/education shifts. A Public Hearing was held on 4/20/21 for the grant application on this award. G-2: State of Utah, The Utah Highway Safety Office, Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program Misc. Grants $9,690 Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith/ Melyn Osmond The Police Department applied for and received a $9,690 grant from the Utah Highway Safety Office for the 2022 Salt Lake City Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program. This award is to fund Crosswalk enforcement/education overtime and Youth bicycle rodeo overtime. A Public Hearing was held on 4/20/21 for the grant application on this award. G-3: U S Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), FY21 De-Escalation Training Solicitation Misc. Grants $92,320 Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Melyn Osmond The Police Department applied for and received a $92,320 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services through the FY21 Community Policing Development De -Escalation Training Program. The grant will fund the Apex Officer Interactive Crisis Intervention, De-Escalation and Force Options Virtual Reality Training Simulator. It will also provide funding for up to 20 officers to attend an ICAT (Integrating Communications, Assessment, and Tactics) de-escalation train-the-trainer course as well as training staff overtime/supplies to implement the ICAT and virtual reality curriculums. The Apex Officer Virtual Reality Training System is a comprehensive solution that is designed to allow trainers the ability to give presentations and classes, conduct interactive testing and assessment, and provide immersive, hands -on scenario- based exercises with detailed debriefing and after -action review. ICAT is a training program that provides first responding police officers with the tools, skills, and options they need to successfully and safely defuse a range of critical incidents. The only costs being funded are for per diem, remaining travel costs will be covered by other funding sources. A Public Hearing was held on 10/5/21 for the grant application on this award. G-4: U S Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), FY21 Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Misc. Grants $59,360 Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith/ Melyn Osmond The Police Department applied for and received a $59,360 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services through the FY21 Community Policing Development Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act. The grant will fund: Training for Employee Wellness and Peer Support Teams, Wellness Initiative and Chaplain Program Uniforms, Program Education and Marketing Materials, Class Supplies, Program Evaluation, Instructor Fees for Family Wellness Workshops, and Overtime. A Public Hearing was held on 9/7/21 for the grant application on this award. G-5: US Department of Justice, 2021 Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Misc. Grants $340,246 Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Melyn Osmond The Police Department applied for and received a grant award from the U.S. Department of Justice under the 2021 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program. The total grant award is $340,246. Of that total the City wi ll subaward $57,054.50 to the Unified Police Department and $57,054.50 to Salt Lake County (Sheriff's Office). The subaward amounts are determined by a federal funding allocation formula. The Police Department will use its award to provide training for sworn and civilian personnel, to support directed community policing overtime, and to purchase the following: a tactical robot, less lethal shotguns and ammo, tactical Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Consent Agenda #3 for Budget Amendment #5 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 2 operation center throw phone capability enhancements, a laptop for Crime Lab FARO software, vest carriers and plates for Crime Lab personnel, LEAPS (Law Enforcement Automated Personnel Software), and camera systems for the Internal Affairs Unit and the HOP physical training facility. No Match is required. A Public Hearing was held on 10/5/21 for the grant application on this award. G-6: Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), State Asset Forfeiture Grant (SAFG) Misc. Grants $10,000 Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Melyn Osmond The Salt Lake City Police Department applied for additional grant funding and was awarded $10,000 from the State of Utah, Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), under the State Asset Forfeiture Grant (SAFG) program. The State is combining these new funds with the previously funded amount of $1,500. The funds will be used for an overt pole camera kit, Narcan nasal spray, and drug prevention/resource cards A public hearing was held 9/7/21 for this grant application. Signature: Email:garett.danielson@slcgov.com Date/Time Opened Popular Topic Contact Name 12/1/2021 15:38 Bueno Ave Rezone Anonymous Constituent 12/2/2021 16:10 Bueno Ave Rezone Cindy Cromer 12/3/2021 8:33 Trent Harris 12/3/2021 8:44 Bueno Ave Rezone Jen Colby 12/3/2021 10:04 Bueno Ave Rezone Jen Colby 12/3/2021 10:54 Bueno Ave Rezone Anonymous Constituent 12/3/2021 11:06 Bueno Ave Rezone Cindy Cromer 12/3/2021 16:43 1945 S 1300 E Rezone Judi Short 12/6/2021 15:43 Darlene Van Uden 12/7/2021 8:14 Elizabeth Garbe 12/7/2021 8:21 Lisa Davis 12/7/2021 8:23 Bruce Cohne 12/7/2021 9:48 Bueno Ave Rezone Monica Hilding 12/7/2021 9:54 1945 S 1300 E Rezone Judi Short 12/7/2021 11:06 1945 S 1300 E Rezone Yvonne Martinez Comment Constituent called in to express his opposition to the Bueno Avenue Apartments being built. He states that there are already too many high rises and apartments catered to the middle class. Dear members of the City Council, We write regarding the proposals affecting Bueno Avenue in the Bryant neighborhood and would greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss them with Councilmembers by phone or video chat. We have attempted to organize the issues which we believe need the Council's attention prior to any action on the developer’s requested Central Community Master Plan and Map Amendment. We were able to meet with Council Member Valdemoros on 11/29, and have revised the comments below based on that meeting. We did not anticipate the positive recommendation from the Planning staff. Cindy feared something which might function as a giant fraternity house and showed up late to find something far worse. Jen has talked to former and current residents and done a thorough analysis of Growing Salt Lake and the relevant neighborhood plans. Many of the circumstances are similar to the Lincoln St./200 S proposal, but in this case, the staff report from Planning was positive and the margin for the ultimately negative recommendation from the Planning Commission is 1 vote after a messy process that included a retraction of the first vote due to violation of the Housing Mitigation Ordinance and a second vote at which there was substantially more participation from local renters. We are keenly aware that we need the City Council's help to deal with unintended consequences of the proposal. The master plan and zoning amendment for Bueno Avenue are scheduled for consideration by the City Council on December 7. We have followed the process to date and have numerous concerns which were not addressed by the Planning Commission in either of 2 hearings. We are seeking your help in identifying ways to mitigate both site-specific and City-wide impacts of granting the requests. If that is not possible, we believe the Council should follow the latest Planning Commission recommendation and deny the petition. Summary: The applicant wants to rezone 7 contiguous interior block lots from SR3 (Special Development Pattern Residential District) to RMF45. The stated purpose is to merge the lots and an adjacent one on 700 E with a modest 6-plex, demolish the existing cottages and apartments, and build a “co-housing” (rooming house) complex after separate conditional use and planned unit development applications. The Planning Commission would make the final decisions on the requests for the planned development and conditional use. The applicant needs numerous exceptions to the zoning ordinance to maximize the size and scale of the proposed main building in the planned development. Properties on the full block bounded by 700 E, 800 E, 100 S and 200 S include a mix of condominium buildings, commercial properties (Wasatch Touring and medical clinics), single family houses; and multifamily buildings. This section of Bueno Avenue is a private street with one egress to the west. We do not see that the current proposals address the existing density on the block, the extensive potential for other redevelopment or better alternatives for the lots in question, the need for on-site parking, or the loss of existing, less expensive housing and replacement with market-rate single room occupancy rentals. Affordability-The City would be agreeing to a significant increase in density without gaining any affordable units. The anticipated rent for a bedroom and bathroom plus access to amenities is ~$875/mo based on rate estimates given at the Planning Commission hearings. On a per-square-foot basis the l i b k h ill l b d i h Dear Councilwoman, I understand that a meeting will be held soon concerning KEN SANDERS RARE BOOKS moving into a space at the Leonardo. I want to express my enormous support for this idea. Ken is a real asset to the community. He has done so much for local writers, poets, artists, and filmmakers. His store has been a landmark for decades but now it is marked for demolition. Retail rents have made getting another space next to impossible. I hope you will support the move. Respectfully, Trent Harris 115 SOUTH 1100 EAST SLC UT 84102Dear City Council Members and staff, Attached are scans of two pages of signatures from city residents in opposition to the developer request for a master plan and map amendments from SR3 to RMF45 for the "Bueno Avenue Apartments" project with the stated purpose of constructing a large-scale market rate rooming house. Please review these petitions and include them in the public record for this upcoming council agenda item. I have blocked out personal phone numbers and emails in the scans for inclusion in the record. Sincerely, Jen Colby, MPA D4 resident Dear Members of the City Council and Staff, The developers who are requesting a master plan and map amendment ordinance in the 700 block of Bueno Avenue in the Bryant neighborhood of the Central Community/East Central are doing so for the stated purpose of constructing a large luxury rooming house, or "co-living" residence. The planning staff report failed to evaluate the applicant's claims of meeting housing needs through innovation and whether this particular housing type - even if short term rentals could be prevented - is something city officials should be granting substantial concessions to facilitate. I and others have already raised the very real concern that these bed/bath rooms and/or suites could easily function as short-term rentals given the rent rates as compared to local hotel rooms and the City's current near inability to enforce its ban on short-term private rentals (AirBNB, VRBO, etc.). The issue of whether this particular site and massive upzoning is appropriate for this type of housing development is a serious one. I personally believe the answer to that is 'No' based on clear master plan language and standards. That issue will be addressed in other comments. That said, I also think it is important to look deeper at the PR pitch and claims regarding the proposed rooming house's desirability for Salt Lake City regardless of location. The attached paper is entitled Co-Living Assessed in a Time of Covid-19: Critical Intervention or Millennial Fad? by law professor Diane Klein. It considers these neo-rooming-houses being built mostly in high-cost coastal cities in the broader context of affordability, demographics and discrimination, amenities, privacy and lack thereof, rules (such as "no sexual activity" policies at some of these!), and finally from a public health and financial viability standpoint in the era of seemingly never-ending COVID-19. This remains highly relevant given the failure of the USA, especially in red states, to impose, maintain, or for large segments of its residents to voluntarily follow needed health measures to control COVID-19 now or into the foreseeable future. I hope that Council members will find a moment to at least skim the attached paper as some food for thought. Please include these comments and the attached paper in the public record. Here is a quote from the introduction (p. 161): “Should we believe the hype? Or is so-called 'co-living,' hyphenated or not, just another real estate developer’s attempt to extract more dollars per square foot while making Millennials feel better about their downward economic mobility – a piece of avocado toast you can live in, as it were? However, we might have thought about co-living before 2020, any current appraisal of it must necessarily take into account COVID-19, the U.S.’s failed response to the pandemic, and the consequent risks of dense living with a group of transient strangers in a time of stay-at-home orders, isolation/quarantine, and social distancing protocols." Sincerely, Jen Colby, MPA D4 Resident A caller left a message with and no name with his view of the Bueno Apartments. He said they have enough middle and higher class apartments in the area and that what they do not have enough is affordable housing to the area so if anything is going to be built it should be that. He asked for your support to not move forward with your vote for the Bueno Apartments. Thank you, ROBYN HOGGAN Salt Lake City Council Staff OFFICE of the CITY COUNCIL SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7608 WWW.SLCCOUNCIL.COM <http://www.slccouncil.com/> To assure proper attention to your email, please 'Reply to All' or include CCFrontOffice@slcgov.com <mailto:CCFrontOffice@slcgov.com> on the address line of this email Dear Members of the City Council-The unintended consequences of the proposal before this afternoon on Bueno Avenue could put it on my list of the worst decisions the City has made with respect to housing. The bungling and loopholes are everywhere. You must proceed with caution. My efforts to intervene behind the scenes with the disastrous hearing in June are below. Sincerely, cindy c. (Vili-I am assuming that Council Member Petro-Eschler has a straight forward e mail address at the City. Please correct any error on my part. Elizabeth was not sure that the e mail was available yet.) ________________________________ From: cindy cromer <3cinslc@live.com> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2021 3:10 PM To: Katia Pace <katia.pace@slcgov.com> Cc: nick norris <nick.norris@slcgov.com>; michaela.oktay@slcgov.com <michaela.oktay@slcgov.com>; Clark, Aubrey <Aubrey.Clark@slcgov.com>; priscilla.tuuao@slcgov.com <priscilla.tuuao@slcgov.com>; nick tarbet <nick.tarbet@slcgov.com>; russell weeks <russell.weeks@slcgov.com>; blake.thomas@slcgov.com <blake.thomas@slcgov.com>; hannah.vickery@slcgov.com <hannah.vickery@slcgov.com> Subject: Fw: Bueno Ave.: request to the Planning Commission Katia-Please forward this request to members of the Planning Commission excluding Commissioner Bell. To members of the Planning Commission From Cindy Cromer Re proposals related to Bueno Avenue, meeting 6/23/21 7/12/21 As a long-time investor on the block east of the proposal, I probably have more history about the planning and redevelopment of this block than anyone, and I deeply regret not writing you sooner. My written comments arrived shortly before your meeting on 6/23 and I commented at the hearing. I appreciate that you considered my cautionary remarks about the Fair Housing Act. I also appreciate that you separated the master plan amendment and zoning request from the other 2 proposals. Unfortunately, those two adjustments do not address the numerous issues with the applicant's request. I am writing to ask one of the Commissioners who voted in favor of the master plan amendment to consider recalling the motion. That is admittedly a bold request on my part, one that I have never made before. EXISTING AND ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT ON THE BLOCK Everyone, everyone, failed to take a comprehensive look at this block bounded by 100 S, 200 S, 800 E, and 700 E. This neighborhood, the Bryant neighborhood, has more small area plans than any other part of the City. There is a reason for that---the complexity of its land uses and the compromises that the City made in over the years to fix its mistakes. In terms of land use, this block is remarkably intact with more intense uses on the four corners and an interior block street. The corners are anchored by the tallest building on the block (Akerlow, Thomas, Dyer-ATD), an institutional use, a 2 1/2 story walk-up apartment building, and a nonconforming business property. The former site of the YMCA redeveloped as condo housing (Watts Corp.) and a corner gas station as ATD's condo project. No one considered the impact of these condominiums on the future land uses on the block. The Watts project has 3 street frontages. As indicated, the ATD project is the tallest building on the block. Barring disasters, these condominiums are permanent land uses and built forms because the sum of the parts in divided ownership exceeds the value of the whole. The location of the block between one of Salt Lake's great streets, 800 E, and the State hi h 00 h ll i f i d l b h f h d i i Thank you for sending the staff report written for the City Council as they assess this proposed rezone. I have a couple of changes. 1. The applicant is proposing 46 units, which is the correct amount for 1 acre if his parcel were to be in RMF 45. However, we have clarification from Nannette Larsen in planning that Max Chang could only build 31 units because the size of his parcel is .79 of an acre. I confirmed that on the Salt Lake County Assessor's website. So, this rezone would result in an increase from 25 to 31 units. These units are probably affordable, given their age and condition, so we would lose 25 affordable units and gain 31 expensive units. A total gain of 6 units. 2. Parking - Please double-check the parking requirement. I have attached the latest revised parking ordinance final draft, which I don't think is codified yet. We haven't seen anything in a long time that requires 2 spaces for a 2 bedroom unit. Look on page 7, I think this says 1.25 parking spaces per dwelling unit 2 bedrooms. There is no on-street parking on 1300 east. The parking lots for the businesses nearby are packed, I know my dentist is next door on the south, and there are times I cannot find a place to park. 3. Entrance and Egress - Entrance to this building is from a shared driveway (shared with the dental office on the south). This is a one-way road. Egress is to snake your way through the dental parking lot, out to 1300 East where you can only go north, and the wait is long because traffic is bumper to bumper. Or, through a skinny driveway to View Street, wide enough for one car. View Street has no available parking on it most times of day Or, head south down the skinny driveway behind the houses on view and east of Kentucky Fried Chicken to snake your way onto 2100 South, which is also packed at that corner most of the time. It is just a place where additional cars are not needed, Transportation says that area is F and has been for 10-15 years "and you guys just keep approving projects." 4. Mr Chang thinks people will just walk over to the streetcar, but that would likely be a 20 minute walk over 1300 East, 2100 South and through a myriad of parking lots or a steep walk down Wilmington Avenue to cross Highland Drive with still another long block to the streetcar. Not likely to happen. -- Judi Short 801.487.7387 h 801.864.7387 cHello! I would like to voice my support in advance of tomorrow's Work Session for the Council to support allowing The Leonardo to create subleasing agreements with entities that fulfil a public purpose in alliance with their overall mission. Specifically, I am writing in support of The Leonardo's proposed sublease of space to Ken Saunders and his incredible bookstore. He is a local treasure whose rightful spot is in the heart of the city where he can share his knowledge, his connections, and his unique collections with a broad range of city residents and visitors. Please vote yes! Best regards, Darlene van UdenDear Salt Lake City Council Member, Please find the attached letter supporting Mayor Mendenhall’s recommendation for the City’s use of $10 million in American Rescue Plan funding on a social impact investment in childcare, early childhood education, and workforce training to increase the skills and earning potential of parents and caregivers. If you have any questions please let me know. Thank you, Elizabeth Elizabeth Garbe, MSW United Way of Salt Lake Senior Director, Government Relations and Public Policy C: 801.664.6595 • uw.org <applewebdata://39730E76-92E7-47A0-8CE4- 3FE3A8FA869C/www.uw.org> • @ElizabethMGarbe You can help change the odds <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DbKl1CwYkc> for at-risk kids in our community. Join us and put #UtahKidsFirst Dear Council Members, Ahead of tomorrow's working session and public hearing regarding the approval of a sublease between The Leonardo and Ken Sanders Rare Books -- we've received inquiries from a few different people/places City regarding the status of The Leonardo's agreements with the City. Alex Hesses, executive director for The Leonardo, put together a letter to consolidate our responses -- which I've attached here. If there are any other questions, please reach out and we're happy to help. Best, Lisa Davis The Leonardo Board On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:43 AM Lisa Davis <lisadavisslc@gmail.com <mailto:lisadavisslc@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear Council members and staff, Happy 10-year anniversary! October 2021 marks a decade since The Leonardo first opened its doors to the public. At this exciting time, I wanted to take this opportunity to send an update on some of the new partnerships and programs we’ve been working on – and a preview of what’s to come. But first I'd like to extend a special invitation.On Friday, Nov. 12, we'll be holding a preview of “From Monet to Kandinsky <https://theleonardo.org/monet-to-kandinsky-the-leonardo-hosts-u-s-debut-of- immersive-multimedia-experience/> ," our first exhibit inside of the new Immersive Digital Exploratory Art Space (IDEA) Gallery. More information on the gallery is below -- and the invitation to the reception is attached. Please RSVP here <https://forms.gle/6s4wxWuQBetjYHbc8> if you can join us. (Space is limited to ensure compliance with COVID-19 safety precautions, so please respond soon.) Amplifying our mission with new community partnerships As you know, COVID disrupted our industry and closed many cultural institutions for months. Amidst the challenges, we took time to reflect deeply on how The Leonardo can best serve the community, build deep relationships, meet critical needs, and remain financially healthy. Thanks to the dedication and creativity of our staff and the devotion of our supporters and visitors—we enter our second decade in a stronger and more exciting place than ever. One of the most exciting initiatives has been creating a new community partnership model that brings new people, perspectives and energy into The Leonardo building to leverage our individual and collective strengths to grow our audiences and create new and meaningful experiences for our visitors. We’re proud to be working with Ken Sanders Rare Books, the Utah Black Chamber, Artes de Mexico en Utah, Centro Hispano, Utah Diné Bikéyah and others to build a dynamic and inclusive space for our community to come together and exchange ideas, learnings and experiences that include a broad spectrum of voices and points of view; and to learn and play. By creating joint programming that is aligned to The Leonardo’s mission, we are strengthening each individual partner, and building a collective that can have an exponentially larger and more positive impact on our community—while fulfilling the original vision of The Leonardo as a center for art, science and culture that provides an important public good for our citizens. Partnerships in Action The Leonardo’s partnership with the Utah Black Chamber started earlier this year with an exhibit, “Sorting Out Race: Examining Racial Identity and Stereotypes in Thrift Store Donations.” We also hosted a panel series featuring local black leaders and educators—their perspectives, challenges and ideas on how we can become a more inclusive community, and several “talking circles”—intimate conversations led by University of Utah professor Dr. ki h h l i f S d k S @ h d h //hl d /klkCouncilman please lend your voice in opposition to the new proposed mining operations in Parley’s Canyon. That operation if approved will add to our air pollution and to destruction of pristine habitat. Wishing you and yours a very joyous Holiday Season. Bruce Cohne Sorry Council Members the letter regarding Bueno Avenue was not included in the last email it is included now. Thank you, LINDA SANCHEZ Salt Lake City Council Staff OFFICE of the CITY COUNCIL SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7614 SLCCOUNCIL.COM <http://www.slccouncil.com/> To assure proper attention to your email, please 'Reply to All' or include CCFrontOffice@slcgov.com <mailto:CCFrontOffice@slcgov.com> on the address line of this email. From: Sanchez, Linda Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 2:35 PM To: City Council Members <City.Council.Members@slcgov.com> Cc: City Council Staff <City.Council.Staff@slcgov.com> Subject: Voice message received regarding Bueno Avenue and Significant Water Consuming Land Use Good afternoon Council Members, Monica Hilding left a message regarding a letter that she mailed about the Bueno Avenue she wanted to make sure you received it since she won’t be able to attend tomorrow’s meeting (that email has been attached). She also mentioned that she is in favor of the Ordinance: Significant Water Consuming Land Uses Text Amendment she thinks the usage should be 200 gallons. Thank you, LINDA SANCHEZ Salt Lake City Council Staff OFFICE of the CITY COUNCIL SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7614 SLCCOUNCIL.COM <http://www.slccouncil.com/> To assure proper attention to your email, please 'Reply to All' or include CCFrontOffice@slcgov.com <mailto:CCFrontOffice@slcgov.com> on the address line of this email. Council Members, Attached are comments on the 1945 South 1300 East rezone gathered by the Sugar House Community Council for the Planning Commission. They were included in the Administration’s transmittal but I was asked to send them again. Thanks, Brian BRIAN FULLMER Salt Lake City Council Staff OFFICE of the CITY COUNCIL SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7639 SLCCOUNCIL.COM <http://www.slccouncil.com/> To assure proper attention to your email, please 'Reply to All' or include CityCouncilLiaisons@slcgov.com <mailto:CityCouncilLiaisons@slcgov.com> on the address line of this emailAmy, I just read the latest staff report and I wanted to make one more point to the email I sent already. The staff report noted that there were no zoning issues with the current property, however, looking at the public information on permits for that parcel - there have been no permits for that property from 1991 when the electronic records are available until 2019. So the owner either made no updates or corrected any issues that required permits or they did work without permits and inspections so no one knows if the work they did met requirements and safety issues. I know that they installed new HVAC units and fixed plumbing for issues I heard about the raw sewage flooded one of the units. The permit they got in 2019 was for the roof, the contractor did get a permit but didn’t have any inspections done! I feel like this shows his intent to do things as cheaply as possible without concern for the health and safety of his tenants. Not only that but he never paid the fees associated that go towards funding for the planning and inspection departments. I This doesn’t make someone like me that works with the department and pays, the fees feel like the process is fair and equitable. Please do not grant the rezone, he can rebuild something that fits the lot under the current that provides appropriate ingress and egress, provide appropriate parking without causing issues with the commercial buildings, traffic issues on 13th and the alleys, and homes in the area. My neighbors and I hope that we can count on your support to stop this rezone. Thank you, Yvonne Attachments 2 1 1 1 1 Date/Time Opened Popular Topic Contact Name 11/15/2021 22:34 Homelessness Cathy Lilly 11/15/2021 22:36 Homelessness Subhadeep Nag 11/16/2021 9:59 Homelessness Angela Morgan 11/16/2021 10:31 Homelessness Angela Morgan 11/16/2021 11:50 1945 S 1300 E Rezone Alan Ernstsen 11/16/2021 12:25 Affordable Housing Jen Colby 11/16/2021 13:05 Erissa Burton Comment Attachments Hi, My name is Cathy lilly. I live in SLC. I had a chance to hike up from the Terrace Hills trailhead toward Twin Peaks for the first time in a long while. I was shocked and dismayed to see what the council let happen to that once beautiful system of trails. The organic deer trails have been carved out a rerouted so that the place is unrecognizable. Now there are ugly wide swaths dug out by a machine. They cut through areas that were once largely left alone, and thus provided habitat for birds and other creatures. Stands of gamble oak are ripped through. Mountain bikes are favored over hikers. What in the world were you thinking when you approved this? A treasure has been ruined. You have not been good stewards of a boloved public space in our community. Cathy Hi, I am Subhadeep Nag (Deep). Across the street we have been observing a lot of homeless people starting to congregate, and doing drugs. They would litter the sidewalks and adjoining streets as much as possible, making it look really ugly. They would cross the roads by jaywalking, putting the traffic at risk. At this stage, it is becoming difficult for walking alone around that neighborhood in the evening (especially for females), which wasn't the case even a few months ago. I have reported the concern to the police, filed another report at the SLC Mobile App, and I am also emailing you guys so that you are aware of the above situation. I would sincerely request you to take the appropriate measure at your earliest convenience. Thanks a lot for your service in advance, Best Regards, Deep Dear Council Members, I am unable to be on the virtual meeting Tuesday 11/16/2021 to give input, thus the reason for this email. As a 35 year resident of Rose Park I feel it is important to voice my concern in considering the Ramada Inn on North Temple and Redwood Road as a temporary homeless shelter. For as long as I can remember it has always been the west side of Salt Lake that carries the burdens of caring for the unsheltered when it comes to housing them. From the Airport Inn last year, The Road Home on Rio Grande, The Inn Between, the upcoming Village 9 transitional housing on 900 West 1000 North, Orange Street Half Way House and Fortitude Halfway House to the proposed Tiny Home Village location we have always been that part of the city that has shown compassion, care and welcomed the less fortunate and those trying to better themselves/situations. We also have been thrown the new Utah State Prison as well as the proposed Inland Port. It is high time that the City recognize, that while our community IS caring, we also need the rest of the City and parts of the County to step up and carry some of the burden of caring for this population. Our community can only do so much. I feel that because our community is of a higher population of low income families, as well as people of color, the City of Salt Lake thinks it is ok to disregard the concerns of West Side residents. The City simply feels it is ok to continue to pour project after project, that offer no financial benefits to our community or creates property value lowering projects here. All the while the rest of the city council district's NIMBY status is not only approved, but rewarded by always putting these projects on the West Side. I therefore request that the Ramada Inn designation as a temporary shelter be denied, and alternative locations be sought elsewhere. Respectfully submitted, Angela Morgan 1047 N Oakley St 84116 Tele: 801-953-4901 Dear Council Members, I am unable to be on the virtual meeting Tuesday 11/16/2021 to give input, thus the reason for this email. As a 35 year resident of Rose Park I feel it is important to voice my concern in considering the Ramada Inn on North Temple and Redwood Road as a temporary homeless shelter. For as long as I can remember it has always been the west side of Salt Lake that carries the burdens of caring for the unsheltered when it comes to housing them. From the Airport Inn last year, The Road Home on Rio Grande, The Inn Between, the upcoming Village 9 transitional housing on 900 West 1000 North, Orange Street Half Way House and Fortitude Halfway House to the proposed Tiny Home Village location we have always been that part of the city that has shown compassion, care and welcomed the less fortunate and those trying to better themselves/situations. We also have been thrown the new Utah State Prison as well as the proposed Inland Port. It is high time that the City recognize, that while our community IS caring, we also need the rest of the City and parts of the County to step up and carry some of the burden of caring for this population. Our community can only do so much. I feel that because our community is of a higher population of low income families, as well as people of color, the City of Salt Lake thinks it is ok to disregard the concerns of West Side residents. The City simply feels it is ok to continue to pour project after project, that offer no financial benefits to our community or creates property value lowering projects here. All the while the rest of the city council district's NIMBY status is not only approved, but rewarded by always putting these projects on the West Side. I therefore request that the Ramada Inn designation as a temporary shelter be denied, and alternative locations be sought elsewhere. Respectfully submitted, Angela Morgan From: Alan Ernstsen <alan.ernstsen@gmail.com <mailto:alan.ernstsen@gmail.com> > Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2021 6:46 PM To: ervin stankevitz <ervinstankevitz@hotmail.com <mailto:ervinstankevitz@hotmail.com> > Subject: (EXTERNAL) 1945 South 13th East Regarding `1945 South 13th East I think it's safe to suggest that the narrowing of Thirteenth East north of 21st South was done for a good reason. The transition to quaint residential, Allen Park and the Westminster campus are all enhanced by this narrowing which demands denying the expansion plans at 1945 South 13th East as well as any other expansion planning in that area, East and West. The added traffic would be unbearable and counter to the transitioning that occurs at that very address. And. Given the massive construction already occurring between 21st South and I-80, a diminution of scale going North is essential. Do not miss this opportunity to take control of the scale of development in our Fair City. Respectfully. Alan Ernstsen 5412220266 Dear Council Members and staff, I participated in the Planning Commission process for the "Bueno Avenue Apartments"-related amendments as a resident of D4 as well as on behalf of the East Central Community Council as a board member. The applicants have chosen to pursue these amendments to the Council despite the negative Planning Commission recommendation instead of going back to the drawing board. I submit the following personal comments for your consideration as you engage with this topic and review the relevant issues and concerns, below and attached. Thank you for your time and service to Salt Lake City. Re: Master Plan Amendment (PLNPCM2021-00047) Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2021-00048), setting stage for “Bueno Avenue Co-Living Apartments” Redevelopment Proposal At today’s work session there is an agenda item for the Master Plan and Zoning Map amendments at a land-banked set of contiguous parcels in the 700 block of Bueno Avenue (District 4). The process to date has been complicated and ultimately resulted in a negative recommendation, though with a split vote, from the Planning Commission. Unfortunately, despite the city’s fit premise regulations for rentals, the current owner and contracted buyers claim that the current modest workforce housing cottages are in disrepair and too expensive to simply rehabilitate despite tax credits and other options. They are requesting these amendments to pave the way for teardowns and redevelopment. It is an ongoing concern of mine that work sessions are formatted in such a way to have a one-sided presentation with no chance for residents or community groups to counter claims being made. That said, council staff are well prepared, and we expect our council members to ask probing and substantive questions on behalf of the body politic. As noted, the Planning Commission did vote to separate the original four amendments to first consider the Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments before addressing the Planned Development and Conditional Use ones. That said, it can be hard to separate the issues and concepts because the pitch to you is to pave the way for co-housing. It is always important to recognize that without a strong development agreement in place, the rezoned properties could be resold or developed differently within the standards of the new zone. Planning Commissioners and members of the public i d h i f l i h d “ i bili ” ff d bili i h Erissa Burton, Ramanda Inn on North Temple! Hello! Congrats on the win. I'm writing to express my concerns to turning the Ramada on North Temple into a temporary homeless shelter. We have enough problems as it is. Until the current issue with the addicted populations in our neighborhoods are resolved we do not have the capacity and cannot afford to invite more issues. Regardless of it being expected or not, the homeless shelters bring problems with them. We are already drowning with these issues. Thank you for your time. Erissa 1131 West Girard Date/Time Opened Popular Topic Contact Name 11/29/2021 14:22 Shea Klinghoffer 11/30/2021 7:37 Steve Erickson 11/30/2021 10:57 Steve Erickson 11/30/2021 13:54 Amy Carmen Description Hello Liaisons, I am sharing constituent Shae Klinghoffer general comments from today’s (Tuesday November 16,2021) Formal meeting. I’m not sure what follow up may be necessary but Council Member Fowler asked if we could find out where she lives, her address is 2506 S Green St Salt Lake City UT 84106. Shea’s comments were regarding the lack of civil enforcement with short term rentals like Airbnb and Burbo, lack of zoning enforcement, late night parties and strangers in the neighborhood, etc. She later added the following comments over chat: “Geroge asked why the codes aren't being enforced, one reason is the hosting platforms for short term rentals hide the addresses so civil enforcement can't find them. The addresses are only revelead after you book the space and they email you the information within 24hrs of check in. I'd also like to add that out of the 10 people I emailed through Airbnb and VRBO, three people said they would remove their listings once they were made aware they were breaking the law. I believe more people would comply if the requests came from civil enforcement.” November 30, 2021 Dear Councilmembers, I am writing to urge your support for allowing Ken Sanders Rare Books to move into The Leonardo. KRSB would be an ideal tenant for a community gathering space like The Leonardo. A long-time fixture downtown, the store has hosted countless community events like book and poetry readings, art and poster exhibits, speaking engagements, and live music performances - and promoted many more around town. KRSB will not only complement the mission and the events curated by The Leonardo, it will bring its own regular customers and fans. Iconic and eclectic, comfy and quirky, traditional yet progressive, KRSB has bucked the trend to large commercial franchise bookstores, and adapted to e-books and mail-order and books by home delivery, all while remaining a repository of western history and literature and keeping its local, community focus. It would match well with the innovative and provocative style of its new host. Thank you for your favorable consideration of this request. Steve Erickson Dear Councilmember Wharton, I am writing to urge your support for allowing Ken Sanders Rare Books to move into The Leonardo. KRSB would be an ideal tenant for a community gathering space like The Leonardo. A long-time fixture downtown, the store has hosted countless community events like book and poetry readings, art and poster exhibits, speaking engagements, and live music performances - and promoted many more around town. KRSB will not only complement the mission and the events curated by The Leonardo, it will bring its own regular customers and fans. Iconic and eclectic, comfy and quirky, traditional yet progressive, KRSB has bucked the trend to large commercial franchise bookstores, and adapted to e-books and mail-order and books by home delivery, all while remaining a repository of western history and literature and keeping its local, community focus. It would match well with the innovative and provocative style of its new host. Thank you for your favorable consideration of this request. Steve Erickson There is a proposed change on 2100 south between 2300 E and 1300 E. I responded to their survey, and emailed you my concerns. I don't if you got it, there was no confirmation. The proposal includes making one lane on each side, bike lanes and wider sidewalks. We went through this about this 3 years ago, and it was voted down for a good reason, there is too much traffic there, and too much development that is bringing more people. it will be a nightmare and long back ups! Please find other traffic calming ways like a 3 way stop at 1900 E., speed bumps, signs to remind them their speed limit, for them to slow down. How about a well advertised neighborhood meeting for example at Dilworth, with your drawings and proposal! How about info in your city council newsletters to give more details about it? People are upset, this can't be passed without more community input. Thank you, Amy Carmen Attachments Date/Time Opened Popular Topic Contact Name 11/17/2021 15:15 Melissa Lichtenstein 11/17/2021 16:23 Melissa Lichtenstein 11/18/2021 14:30 Kathy Adams 11/18/2021 15:47 Marshall Wright 11/18/2021 20:20 Homelessness Margaret Holloway 11/18/2021 20:22 Homelessness Erica Wood 11/18/2021 20:25 Homelessness John Clapp 11/18/2021 20:28 Homelessness Megan Tallon 11/18/2021 20:32 1945 S 1300 E Rezone Ervin Stan Kevitz 11/18/2021 20:34 Homelessness Alejandro Puy 11/18/2021 20:37 1945 S 1300 E Rezone Scott Cruze 11/18/2021 20:40 Homelessness Maria Garciaz 11/19/2021 14:23 Anonymous Constituent 11/23/2021 15:21 Harris Simmons Comment Attachments Brian, I will have the contractor revisit their traffic control asap. Thanks, Ramin Nasrabadi, PE, M.ASCE Engineer V Engineering Division DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC SERVICES SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7248 EMAIL ramin.nasrabadi@slcgov.com Thank you for getting back so quickly. The constituent asked when final striping will be completed. I appreciate the information about possibly early December. She also expressed concern about traffic cones near the 2700 South intersection and near 2100 South with no signs for drivers to keep right/left. In addition, she said there are areas between 2100 S and 2700 S with no cones or striping. Finally, the constituent said she was driving on 2100 South crossing 900 East and a car turning onto 900 East was in the path of oncoming traffic. The constituent said signs to alert drivers of where to drive were in place at some point during the project but are now gone. Any updates on traffic control will be appreciated. Thank you again. BRIAN FULLMER Salt Lake City Council Staff OFFICE of the CITY COUNCIL SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7639 SLCCOUNCIL.COM Hi Leah, The project will be striped once the island at 2100 South and the pedestrian crossings at Hollywood Avenue, 2100 South, and Ashton Avenue are poured. This is anticipated for early December, hopefully sooner. The concrete crew is behind schedule and all the final striping is pending their work. With striping – is there a specific location that is of concern with striping? It may be possible to put in temporary striping, if there is a specific concern. I will follow-up with the contractor on the traffic control and make sure it is operating safely. Thanks, Allison Hi Allison and Dianne, Brian Fullmer in the Council Office had a constituent compliant asking when the project will be striped and signed. She says the traffic control is lacking direction and would like more information on the schedule. I told Brian that we’re installing ped crossings and pouring concrete but that striping and signing is normally the final steps of a project. If you have any more information on the schedule that we can pass on to this constituent that’d be great, and also could you take a look at the traffic control to ensure that people are moving through the area safely? Thanks, Leah LEAH SMITH Civic Engagement Specialist Engineering Division Pronouns: she/her DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC SERVICES SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801- 535-6251 CEL 385-222-1640 WWW.SLC.GOV/ENGINEERING Melissa, Thanks for talking with me this afternoon. As we discussed, here is Council Member Fowler’s phone number 801-824-9698. Regards, Brian BRIAN FULLMER Salt Lake City Council Staff OFFICE of the CITY COUNCIL SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7639 SLCCOUNCIL.COM <http://www.slccouncil.com/> To assure proper attention to your email, please 'Reply to All' or include CityCouncilLiaisons@slcgov.com <mailto:CityCouncilLiaisons@slcgov.com> on the address line of this email. Ken Sanders Bookstore is the City Lights of Salt Lake. I am in full support of moving Sanders Bookstore into the Leonardo. This is an excellent idea! Sent from my iPhone Chris I remember the discussion we had in October when you knocked on my door asking for my vote for you to represent my district. We spoke about my concerns and interests in the community; I explained that one of the issues that I was concerned with was how the city was treating the Leonardo Museum. I am a member of the board of directors of the Museum and I've felt that the Museum has received short schriff from the city. The Leonardo is a true cultural and economic asset to the city. You may know that the Leonardo is in negotiations with the Ken Sanders BookStore to give them a sub-lease to operate in the Leonardo. Ken is losing his building space due to major redevelopment in downtown SLC (I think in your district) and needs a new space. Ken is suffering from the same issues as an iconic book store in Portland Oregon. See NYT articles: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/business/emily-powell-powells-books-corner- office.html?searchResultPosition=5 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/09/business/powells- books-pandemic.html?searchResultPosition=6 Having the iconic Ken Sanders Rare Books located at the Leonardo would be a true "win-win" for SLC. No doubt, if we played our cards right, we could get an "honorable mention" in the NYT as a forward thinking city for protecting an iconic bookstore. BTW: You should take a few minutes to chat with Ken. He's a very engaging person with fantastic ideas for operating out of and with the Leonardo. I gave you my vote and now I am asking for your vote to approve the sublease for Ken Sanders to operate at the Leonardo Museum. Thanks Marshall We on the westside that are facing the rise of property their and park destructions. We have the Right to know the other locations. You have an obligation to tell us who put the money to the group to make sure it stayed on the westside We're is your fairness??????? There is none it is who paid who to make sure we keep the westside under seige. While not standing up to the other cities You could have forced them to split them up into smaller groups which would have helped them find work closer to those areas Again like always. It is who paid who to make this decision Margaret Holloway Rosepark Hi Victoria and council members, I heard you were talking about using the Ramada for temporary winter housing. I just wanted to write and say I'm in support of using Rose Park locations for both temporary and long term housing options for those who are unsheltered. Please also share volunteer opportunities with this neighborhood. Lets make sure all people are supported in our community. thank you, erica woodCouncil members , I am a resident on the West side near the Ramada Inn which is being discussed tonight. I am not supportive of this proposal, as the west side , and especially along North temple is just another ask of the west side and its residents. The west side has shouldered much of the burden historically. From the Econo lodge with vouchers, to the Gateway Inn, All star motel, not to mention the low cost living space from a coverted mote heading West on North Temple. YOUR BLIGHTING THE GATEWAY TO THE CITY!!! I remember past council member Andrew Johnston FROM DISTRICT 2 , being livid last year that the city and especially the West side of SLC at the last minute having to deal with and pay for overflow for unsheltered people. What has changed in one year ? What will happen to the Star of India in the Ramada restaurant? You cannot think housing the homeless in such a high crime area is humane thing thing to do ? Unfortunately these type of decisions also contribute to lack of investors wanting to invest in the west side. This is such a bad plan for all the above stated reasons. Sincerely , John Clapp Dear Council Members, Please reconsider moving a "temporary" shelter into the area. This community is already struggling with an increase in homeless camps. North Temple is notorious for being a sordid and threatening area and I fear adding more homeless people to that equation will make things worse. I already feel unsafe in my neighborhood with the noticable and predictable (Pioneer Park clean up) uptick of the unhoused. Don't do this to us. We work hard and pay taxes and just want safe, clean communities. - Rose Park Resident Regarding the 1945 S 1300 E rezoning. First of all, I would like to say I have lived at my address, for 46 years and have come to know and befriend most of the neighbors. If this project develops as I have heard, it will take the view out of view street, not to mention lose the arts and crafts and calmness from one of the few remining undisturbed residential sugarhouse neighborhoods. It would be intolerable to myself and the 24 neighbors I have gathered with; to have the city council NOT hold the developer to the letter of the law/codes and the way they were designed. How can there suddenly not be a backyard setback for any structure from a property line?? We need you as our city council to protect your constituents! Respectfully, Ervin Stankevitz Dear City Council, and Madam Mayor. I am retyping this email (so if you get a more polished version later that seems to be lost somewhere in the internet, I’m sorry). Ive a few thoughts and concerns about turning the Ramada Inn into an winter shelter. I do understand that this site was selected because it’s easy transportation, access to resources etc etc. But as a neighbor, and as a minority I want to raise some concerns that I hope are recognized and mitigated: 1) Star of India is a female, immigrant owned business inside the Ramada Inn. They didn’t know about this and are concerned, specially about the fencing, and how would the overall changes affect them? Have we asked about how fencing would be done as to allow the many pick-ups and dine-ins at all times? 2) Madina Masjid mosque (less than a block away) and Nico’s restaurant (a block away): I want to also bring about the issue of minority, and immigrant prayer centers and restaurants in the area that have been for months (and longer) raised concerns about already dealing with drug markets, petty crime, vandalism, and other types related issues. 3) 7-11, criminal issues and “The Grand Boulevard” on North Temple: just across the street from this location we have a 7-11 that is very complex at night (with dozens of people dealing drugs in bikes). The issues will most likely impact the whole corridor. 4) issues with the motel itself, dignity and costs: Beyond the issue of fencing, and how would that be done… this facility has many many units that are inoperable (photos attached taken by me today). Who will pay for cost of repairs, bringing up to code the facilities? How would the impacts be mitigated? Thank you very much, I do too want to have beds for those Unsheltered, but I also want to make sure my community that is working VERY hard to come ahead is considered. Best. Alejandro Puy 10 CASE NUMBER: PLNPCM2020-01022, City Council, I represent the Highland Dental Building located directly to the South of 1945 South 1300 East at 1955 S. 1300 E. We share a private one way road with 1945 S. 1300 East. All of their residents currently exit and at times enter across our properties. As a group we are not opposed to the rezone or redevelopment with conditions. We will not give up our rights to our private road or parking nor can we allow their increased traffic to cross over our property & parking lot. We are the only ones who pay to maintain the private road currently used as egress to the Highland Apartments as well as the cost to maintain our own parking lot. We are not willing to have our parking lot become any more of a driveway than it currently is as that increases our costs and risks or accidents or liabilities. We often have apartment traffic driving against the one way direction to the Highland Apartments across our property which creates dangerous hazards. This is a medical facility and at times there are emergencies including patients entering or exiting with assistance such as under anesthetics, disabilities, or in severe pain. An abundance of caution is required in our parking & drive areas. We would propose that a rezone to RMF-45 be subject to a guarantee of: 1. Having their own private egress directly to and from 1300 E. for their parcel and does not cross our property or the 1-way private road which we pay to maintain around our building OR 2. They may widen the private road onto their property so that their residents have two way egress onto and off of their property without the need to cross over our property or monopolize the shared private driveway with their having apartment rules against such OR 3. Purchase of some other property, such as the one to the North who has reached out to them wondering if they would be interested in buying, and create an alternative access point elsewhere and additional parking as needed. Several of these alternatives are shown in the attached PDF. It also shows the current paths of egress to and from this property. If they are open to these conditions with guarantees to the same we are in favor of the rezone. Alternatively we are opposed to a rezone. One only needs to be at our property a short while to see apartment persons driving against the flow of traffic, parking on our property, or speeding through our parking lot from the apartments to know that increased traffic across our properties would be a added burden and liability to our facility, patients, vendors, customers, and staff. We appreciate your consideration. Kindest Regards, Scott Cruze Dear Council Members, As a 44-year community development organization, NeighborWorks primary mission is to build and strengthen neighborhoods through economic development, housing affordability and community engagement. As an organization, in partnership with local government and private sector, we have worked to invest and attract investments that will create neighborhoods of choice. With this in mind, it is beyond my comprehension to understand given all that North Temple is currently challenged with, how Salt Lake City can support a temporary shelter at 1659 W North Temple. While I recognize the critical need for vulnerable and unsheltered populations, this decision to place this temporary shelter reinforces and continues to contribute to the systemic inequities and discrimination of investment that Salt Lake City’s westside neighborhoods have experienced for decades. I acknowledge this is temporary and by mid-April another process could occur to make this a permanent shelter which is a strong possibility unless you make it a condition that this not occur. Westside residents, despite their opposition to Inland Port, Utah State Prison, the ongoing development of low-income highly dense developments in an area overrepresented with its share of low-income units feel their voice is not heard. Westside businesses and residents are generous, thoughtful and tolerate beyond other neighborhoods level of tolerance and approval of Ramada Inn as a temporary shelter reinforces the lack of commitment Salt Lake City has to equitable distribution of these services. What will happen with the small minority owned business at this location? Is there opportunity for SLC to negotiate with all of SL County hotels/motels to set aside a percentage of their vacant rooms to utilize as temporary shelter along the transit corridor. Are there other hotels/motels in SL County that are available? Did we investigate other possibilities or is Westside the only option? Please recognize the message you are sending to Westside residents and how your investment in Ramada Inn continues to contribute to the inequities Westside residents continue to battle. Your consideration is appreciated. Respectfully, Constituent called and did not identify herself and let us know she was frustrated about another overflow shelter opening in the westside on North Temple. She stated she knew CM Faris was the outgoing CM and appreciated all he has tried to do for the area. She would also like CM Faris to work with the incoming CM stop the city from adding any further shelters in D2. Please do everything in your power to stop this. Constinuent called from 801-577-0952 Subject: Support for Ken Sanders' move to The Leonardo As a Salt Lake City resident living in your district, I want to advocate for allowing Ken Sanders to move his book store (Ken Sanders Rare Books) into space at the Leonardo. Ken and his store are cultural treasures for Salt Lake City, and the challenges of running an independent book store, particularly at a time when the pandemic has spurred even greater levels of online commerce, are well known. Allowing Ken to move to the Leonardo will help ensure that his business continues for what we all hope will be a very long time. Thanks for your consideration! Harris H. Simmons Harris H. Simmons Chairman and CEO Zions Bancorporation