Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10/04/2022 - Work Session - Meeting Materials
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL REVISED AGENDA WORK SESSION October 4, 2022 Tuesday 2:00 PM Council Work Room 451 South State Street Room 326 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SLCCouncil.com 7:00 pm Formal Meeting Room 326 (See separate agenda) Welcome and public meeting rules In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the City & County Building through the main east entrance. The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting based on circumstance or availability of speakers. Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start times and durations are approximate and are subject to change at the Chair’s discretion. Generated: 09:53:15 The Council has returned to a hybrid meeting approach. The hybrid meeting enables people joining remotely or in-person to listen to the Council meeting and participate during public comment items. Public Comments: The public can give comments to the Council during the meetings online through Webex or in-person in Room 326 of the City and County Building. In-person attendees can fill out a comment card and online participants will register through Webex in order to be added to the comment queue. Agenda & Registration Information: 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.) Public Health Information: Masks are no longer required in City Facilities, but are welcome for any attendees who prefer to continue using them. We will continue to monitor the situation take any reasonable precautions for the public and staff. Work Session Items The Council will begin the meeting with a closed session 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:30 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate. 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 2.Informational: Updates on Glendale Regional Park Planning ~ 3:00 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive project updates related to the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan, which the Department of Public Lands is preparing as a vision for repurposing the former site of Glendale Water Park, and a guide for implementing that vision. Updates include new information on the Glendale Regional Park “preferred site plan,” anticipated phasing for site development, a “preview” of additional information to be included in the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan, and more. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 4, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Items #3 & #4 regarding The Other Side Village will be heard as one briefing 3.Resolutions: Follow-up on The Other Side Village Pilot Project at 1850 West Indiana Avenue, Public Benefits Analysis and a Resolution to Authorize the Lease Rate and Terms ~ 3:30 p.m. 40 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about a resolution that would authorize the Lease Rate and Term for The Other Side Village Pilot Project at 1850 West Indiana Avenue. This would allow the City to enter into a 40-year below-market ground lease agreement with The Other Side Academy, a Utah nonprofit corporation, in order to facilitate the construction of a tiny home village with approximately 54 units of affordable housing. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 6, 2022; Tuesday, September 20, 2022; and Tuesday, October 4, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - Monday, August 29, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 and Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 18, 2022 4.Ordinance: Rezoning to Facilitate Development of The Other Side Village at 1850 West Indiana Avenue Follow-up - - The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning map to portions of City-owned properties at 1850 West Indiana Avenue and 1965 West 500 South to rezone the parcels from PL (Public Lands) to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood). The proposed uses on the approximately 37.1-acre site would include permanent supportive housing for homeless individuals as well as services and resources to include on-site healthcare, medical services, and community gathering spaces. This request only relates to the zoning designation of the property. No specific site development proposal has been submitted or is under consideration at this time and the Westside 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, September 13, 2022; Tuesday, September 20, 2022; and Tuesday, October 4, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - Monday, August 29, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 and Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 18, 2022 5.Tentative Break ~ 4:10 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 6.Ordinance: Rezone, Master Plan Amendment and Alley Vacation at 1550 S Main Street Assemblage - - The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map and the zoning of the properties at 1518, 1530, 1540, 1546 South Main Street and 1515 South Richards Street from CC (Corridor Commercial District) and R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District) to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District). The ordinance would also vacate a city- owned alley situated adjacent to properties located at 1518, 1530, 1540, South Main Street and 1515 South Richards Street. The intent of these petitions would be to combine all parcels as well as the alley into one cohesive parcel under the new zoning in order to build a mixed-use/multi-family development on the site. 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 - TBD Set Public Hearing Date - TBD Hold hearing to accept public comment - TBD TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD 7.Ordinance: Alley Vacation at approximately 925 South 1200 West ~ 4:30 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would vacate a portion of City- owned alley situated adjacent to the property at 925 South 1200 West, and a section of the 9-Line trail. The proposal is to vacate an east/west alley segment and incorporate the vacant land into the neighboring property. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 4, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 4, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Thursday, November 10, 2022 8.Resolution: Fiscal Year 2023 Sustainability Holding Account Funds - Electrified Transportation ~ 4:50 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a resolution declaring satisfaction of Budget Contingency for the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget relating to the Department of Sustainability. The Sustainability Department is providing additional information to satisfy budget conditions for the Electrified Transportation holding account. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 4, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD 9.Resolution: Annexation at Approximately 2200 West Between 2800 North – 3300 North ~ 5:10 p.m. 10 min. The Council will receive a briefing about the annexation application and petition located at approximately 2200 West between 2800 North – 3300 North. The City Council has 14 days from the date of receipt (September 27, 2022) 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, October 4, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 4, 2022 10.Informational: State Legislative Briefing ~ 5:20 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing about issues affecting the City that may arise during the 2023 Utah State Legislative Session. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 4, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 11.Board Appointment: Police Civilian Review Board - Jeremy Beckham ~ 5:50 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Jeremy Beckham prior to considering appointment to the Police Civilian Review Board for a term ending September 1, 2025. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 4, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 4, 2022 12.Board Appointment: Human Rights Commission – David Leta ~ 5:55 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview David Leta prior to considering appointment to the Human Rights Commission for a term ending December 26, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 4, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 4, 2022 Standing Items 13.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. 14.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. 15.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. CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 1:30 p.m. on Monday, October 3, 2022, 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. Administrative updates October 4, 2022 COVID-19 update Cases in Utah are down 24% in the last two weeks. (NYT Coronavirus in the US: Latest Map and Case Count 10/4/2022)current status summary Cases in the US are down 24% in the last two weeks. (NYT Coronavirus in the US: Latest Map and Case Count 10/4/2022) Sources: NYT Tracking Coronavirus in Utah , NYT Coronavirus in the US, CDC COVID-19 Integrated County View COVID-19 Update booster FAQ What's the difference between Pfizer and Moderna boosters? Beyond the difference in age criteria, there is no practical difference between the shots. Pfizer is available to age 12 and up; Moderna is 18 and up. Does this Omicron-specific booster entirely replace the other boosters? The new booster shot is a bivalent vaccine, meaning that it targets two versions of the coronavirus: the original strain, and the Omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5. The previous booster shot targeted only the original version of the virus. The new shots are now the only available boosters for people ages 12 and older. How long should I wait to get the new booster if I recently had a shot or got Covid? As soon as two months, but ideally between 4 and 6 months. What about children under 12? Kids under the age of 12 currently cannot receive the new booster. Children between the ages of 5 and 11 will get the previous booster; the C.D.C. recommends that they get that shot five months after their second dose. Kids under 5 are not eligible for booster shots. https://slco.org/health/COVID-19/vaccine/booster Source: Salt Lake County Health Department October 4, 2022 September 19, 2022 Source: Salt Lake County Health Department Source: Utah Department of Environmental Quality Monkeypox Update Since May 2022, 160 confirmed and probable cases of monkeypox have been reported in Utah. •Central Utah:1 •Davis County: 13 •Salt Lake County: 114 •Summit County: 2 •Tooele County: 2 •Tri-County: 1 •Utah County: 1 •Weber/Morgan: 10 The Monkeypox vaccine is currently available to: •Any sexually active man, or transgender or nonbinary person who has sex with men. •Anyone who, in the past 6 months,has had sex in a commercial sex venue or in association with a large, public event If you meet the criteria you may call 385 -468-SHOT (7468) to schedule an appointment for vaccination. Flu Update Flu season is HERE •Flu activity tends to ramp up in October then peak between December and February —and significant activity can continue as late as May, according to the CDC. •Experts are concerned about a "twindemic," a surge of both COVID and the flu, this season given some flu trends coming out of the southern hemisphere. Vaccinations are key: •Everyone 6 months and older should be vaccinated. •Most people only one dose of flu vaccine for the season. •September and October are generally good times to be vaccinated against flu, and ideally, everyone should be vaccinated by the end of October. Find your nearest flu vaccine by visiting www.vaccines.gov/find-vaccines www.slc.gov/feedback/ Regularly updated with highlighted ways to engage with the City. Community Engagement Highlights Planning •Ballpark Station Area Plan –District 5 •Planning Commission recommended adoption w/ modifications •Shelter Zoning –Citywide •45-day comment period expected to begin mid -October •Accessory Dwelling Unit Modifications -Citywide •Planning Commission recommended adoption slc.gov/planning Transportation •Capitol Hill Traffic Calming –District 3 •Tentative open house: November 16th •Kensington Neighborhood Byway Project –District 5 •Survey closes October 6th (link via feedback page) •North Temple Mobility Hub Study –District 1/2 •Preliminary concepts nearing completion •Sugar House Projects (Local Link) -District 7 •Combining outreach efforts slc.gov/transportation Community & Neighborhoods •Thriving in Place –Citywide •Time to review phase 1 •Beginning of phase 2 of the project slc.gov/can Public Utilities •Tanner Reservoir –Citywide •Rebuild needed and expected completed by 2025 slc.gov/utilities Mayor's Office Community Office Hours slc.gov/mayor Location Date Mestizo Coffee House (631 W North Temple)10/5 11-3pm Cafe on 1st (39 I Street)10/7 9:30am -11:30am Forest Dale Golf Course (2375 S 900 E)10/8 10am-1pm Northwest Rec Center 10/11 4-6pm Caputo's (1516 S 1500 E)10/13 11:00am -1:00pm Publik Ed's (210 S University St.)10/14 10am -12pm Neighborhood Hive (2065 E 2100 S)10/22 10:30am-12:30pm Honeysuckle Coffee Co. (1588 S Main St.)TBD Upcoming Events Event Date Start Downtown Farmers Market (October 1)10/01/22 Downtown Farmers Market (October 8)10/08/22 9th West Farmers Market 10/09/22 Downtown Farmers Market (October 15)10/15/22 Amare Fun Run 10/15/22 Downtown Farmers Market (October 22)10/22/22 Monster Block Party at the RAC 10/28/22 International Market 10/29/22 Homelessness Update: Single Adult HRC Occupancy Sept 25 –Oct 1, 2022 STH -1000 West Men's HRC STH -King Women's HRC STH -Miller Mixed HRC Total Shelter Capacity 300 200 200 700 Avg number of beds occupied/night 291 199 199 689 Avg number of beds unoccupied/night 9 1 1 11 Avg % of beds occupied/night 97%99.5%99.5%98.4% Avg % of beds unoccupied/night 3%0.5%0.5%1.6% Winter Shelter Options Weigand Center/ St.VdP -Daytime/ Meals St. Vincent de Paul –Oct 17 -65 nightly beds Millcreek Overflow-Oct 17 –100 nightly beds Geraldine King HRC-Nov 1-50 add. nightly beds Gail Miller HRC-Nov 1 –50 add. nightly beds Mens' HRC-Nov 1 –75 additional nightly beds Rapid Intervention 8 active camps -outreach 14 sites-environmental rehabs/ cleanings Health Dept Cleanings Jordan River Trail-various locations Homelessness Update October 2022 Schedule 14th-Resource Fair 9:30-12:30 @ Library Square 17th-Kayak Court @ Jordan River 28th-Multiple Case Docket 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: Allison Rowland Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:October 4, 2022 RE: INFORMATIONAL: UPDATES ON GLENDALE REGIONAL PARK PLANNING ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Public Lands Department transmitted an update on items related to the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan, which will come before the Council after it is reviewed by the Planning Commission later in October. The Department is preparing the Master Plan as the guiding vision for repurposing the former site of the Glendale Water Park. The items and information updated in the most recent transmittal include: •The Glendale Regional Park “preferred site plan”; •Anticipated phasing for site development; •A “preview” of information in the upcoming Glendale Regional Park Master Plan; •A review of the community engagement process carried out to inform the Master Plan process; and •Discussion of an option for SITES certification (similar to LEED, but for parks); The planning process completed so far has included site analysis, conceptual planning, extensive public engagement, a review by the Council on May 3, 2022, and refinement of the “preferred site plan.” The project is led by the Department of Public Lands and includes other relevant City Departments (see Section G below), as well as an external consultant team, led by Design Workshop, which was also the consultant for Reimagine Nature, the Twenty-Year Public Lands Master Plan. Goal of the briefing: Review the Glendale Regional Park updates and discuss any concerns or suggestions with the Department of Public Lands. Item Schedule: Briefing: October 4, 2022 Public Hearing: n/a Potential Action: n/a Page | 2 ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION A.The “Preferred Site Plan.” The project team for the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan developed the “preferred site plan” by combining the highest-rated design, character, and features from earlier draft site plans, based on the community priorities expressed throughout the public engagement process. It illustrates the proposed full buildout of the 17-acre site, and includes programs and amenities prioritized through public engagement. This updated version was submitted for Planning Commission review, and included in the transmittal to the Council, as Exhibit A. Key elements of the “preferred site plan” have been further refined through the public engagement process. The four elements selected are listed below. 1.Community Gathering and Event Spaces – a promenade/community plaza spanning the north central gateway, an event stage and lawn, smaller pavilions and picnic lawns and a riverside beach and boardwalk. 2.Play Places for Everyone - hiking, walking and paved trails, an all-ages and -abilities playground, climbing features, multi-use sport courts, dog park, and sledding hill. 3.Places to Enjoy the Water - a splash pad, kayak rental, access to the Jordan River for recreation, boat dock and ramp, and an outdoor pool. 4.Places to Wheel Around - an ice/roller skating ribbon, skateboarding area, and bike trails. B.Site Development Phasing. Implementation of the full Glendale Regional Park Master Plan will be phased to reflect funding and strategic opportunities, as well as staff capacity and logistics. Recommendations for each stage will be included in the Master Plan and, the Department stated, “detailed design of each phase will refine the design, construction materials, site character, maintenance requirements, and construction costs. Additionally, specific proposed improvements (such as an outdoor pool) will require additional feasibility studies as well as collaboration with community partners and other City departments and divisions.” 1.Deadline for Phase 1. The Public Lands Department adopted an aggressive planning, design, and construction schedule for this site because it was originally funded by the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (https://www.nps.gov/subjects/lwcf/index.htm). This Fund requires that active recreation be publicly accessible on-site within three years of removing existing amenities. This means the first phase of the project must be complete by April 2024. As noted in the May 3, 2022, staff report, to meet this timeline the project team advanced with the detailed design of Phase 1 park elements before the Master Plan has been adopted. This allowed adequate time for the development of construction documents, contracting a construction firm, site preparation, and public notice before construction begins. 2.Phase 1 Strategy. Elements and amenities were selected for Phase 1 based on the following criteria: a. Inclusion of recreational elements that meet the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund requirements; b. Features that can be constructed within the expedited timeline and fit within current budget allocations; Page | 3 c. Connecting Phase 1 to the existing Glendale Neighborhood Park and its amenities (such as the restroom) to maximize park use and access; d. Inclusion of improvements that will not be affected or closed during construction of future phasing; and e. Community support amenities that are typical of a regional park and are eligible for impact fees. 3.Phase 1 Elements and Amenities. Elements and amenities typical of a neighborhood park were identified by the project team for funding using $3.2 million dollars of parks-specific impact fees, which were allocated by the Council in FY22 (see map in transmittal Exhibit B). The team will prioritize design and construction of these items, but because of quickly rising costs the Department may need to request additional impact fee funding to complete the list. The list, in priority order, is as follows: a. Playground with accessible design and assistive technologies for all ages b. Pavilion c. Looped pathways d. Community plaza and gathering space e. Landscaping and site restoration (which is scalable, based on budget) f. Multipurpose sport court g. Parking (existing parking is available if this must be removed from Phase 1) 4.Site Management during Construction. Demolition continues on the site to remove obsolete infrastructure. The process has taken longer than expected because of unforeseen site conditions and has resulted in rising costs. To minimize vandalism and other problems, the Department of Public Lands contracted with CBI Security during demolition and will continue this contract during Phase 1construction. Once demolition is completed, the Department will secure site hazards will be secured, and develop the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to comply with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements. Site restoration, including addressing and managing noxious weeds and invasive vegetation, will begin during Phase 1 construction. In addition, the Department will strive to preserve the health of onsite ecological and environmental assets, including existing trees and canopy. The Glendale Regional Park Master Plan will provide additional recommendations for site management and restoration during and after construction. C.Master Plan Preview. The mission of the 17-acre Glendale Regional Park, is defined as follows: “With characteristics that celebrate and preserve community, culture and diversity, Glendale Regional Park will be a neighborhood and regional attraction that makes nature and recreation within an arm’s reach while improving the natural resources for current and future generations of Westside residents.” Additional information that will be included in the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan includes: 1. The ways the park will fulfill its established goals, including community leadership of the park vision, providing opportunities for safe community gathering and programming, completing the regional connection of open space along the Jordan River, enhancing access to nature, and improving environmental quality and justice. Page | 4 2. Proposed improvements to site access with recommendations for new connections, trails, public transportation access, and access across 1700 South. 3. The ecology of the site and unique characteristics of its location along the Jordan River, and the potential impacts to the of future climate changes. 4. Recommendations for future management of the site, potentially including additional Department of Public Lands staff to help meet programming and partnership needs, working with key community partners and stakeholders, including organizations that promote inclusivity, equity and partnerships, and local and minority-owned businesses to program elements of the site. 5. Recommendations on future programming opportunities for Public Lands, the types of programming the community desires, and ways for partnerships can be carried out. 6. Plan metrics to assess the fulfillment of the park goals that were affirmed by the public. 7. The full implementation of the Master Plan, which will be contingent on funding availability. 8. Cost estimates for full Master Plan implementation. 9. Maintenance and Management Recommendations. for the construction phase and beyond. D.Community Engagement. A primary City goal was that Glendale Regional Park reflect and celebrate the Glendale community. Community engagement for the master plan process and for the development of the preferred plan began in October 2021, using a multi-pronged approach including youth and stakeholder engagement, development of a Community Advisory Committee, an online survey and public open house, and in-person engagement events. A detailed description of the public engagement efforts can be found at https://www.slc.gov/parks/parks-division/glendale-waterpark/. The final preferred plan for the site was reviewed by the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Advisory Board (PNUT Board), the Community Advisory Committee, and the Glendale Neighborhood Council. E.SITES Certification. The project team is interested in potentially certifying the future Glendale Regional Park through the Sustainable Sites Initiative (SITES, www.sustainablesites.org) which is a sustainability- focused program similar to the LEED program for buildings, but aimed at landscapes like parks, streetscapes and corporate campuses. At this point, the project team recommends beginning with pre- certifying the entire Master Plan for the 17-acre site as a tangible commitment to environmental quality and justice. The Department of Public Lands stated, “With historic underinvestment, lower levels of service and evidence of environmental injustices present in this community in the past, having a SITES certified landscape in the Glendale neighborhood would not only show the City’s investment in restorative landscapes and climate resiliency but would also set a standard for site development in the future and begin to show tangible effort towards equitable environmental investment across the City.” Costs associated with this certification would include $5,000 to pre-certify the entire new park, $6,500 for Certification of Phase 1 of the park, and $6,500 for Certification of each successive phase. There would be additional costs for a specialized consultant. The Department further noted, Page | 5 “Projects pursuing certification often incur higher costs in design and construction, however, they consistently return significant long term cost savings related to ongoing operations and maintenance costs.” F.Funding the Plan and Implementation. The Glendale Regional Park Master Plan is being developed using $225,000 which was approved in a Fiscal Year 2021 budget amendment. A full cost estimate for implementation of the Master Plan will be included in the final version. It will likely require phasing over several years, unless a large upfront investment can be secured. Additional funds for subsequent phases will be requested through the proposed 2022 General Obligation (GO) bond, which is on the November ballot for consideration by voters. The Department of Public Lands is working to identify additional funding opportunities, as well. G.Internal Leadership Group. Due to the site’s size, location along the Jordan River, and complexity, the Department of Public Lands formed an internal City leadership group, which includes representatives of Public Lands, Engineering, Public Services, Transportation and Sustainability. The City’s consultant on this project, Design Workshop, also collaborates with this group. Design Workshop’s team includes specialized subconsultants, including River Restoration for environmental health and restoration recommendations, David Evans and Associates for public engagement, and Agora Partners for programming and partnerships. H.Background. The Glendale Regional Park site was known previously as Raging Waters, Seven Peaks, and other names over the years. The water park site was closed in 2018, after the City declined to renew the contract with the most recent vendor. The site has remained closed but was subject to recurrent vandalism and theft of some remaining assets, in spite of fencing and private security contracted by the Department of Public Lands. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Several potential future budget items are mentioned in this update, including costs for one or more additional FTEs and SITES certification. Given that these items are not eligible for funding from impact fees or the potential GO bond (should voters approve it), would the Council like to request information on how these items might be funded? 2.Would the Council like to discuss potential options for the Glendale Regional Park improvements in case the GO bond does not win voter support? 3. The Council may wish to request additional information on the role of the Community Advisory Committee after the final version of the Master Plan is adopted. Does the Administration foresee a continuing role for this group of local community leaders and organizations based in Glendale? Would the Council like to suggest some potential roles to explore? 4.The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the new Glendale Regional Park will complement the existing Glendale Neighborhood Park. MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS -Project Introduction and Site Analysis -Transportation and access, site context, site ecology, community demographics -Community Engagement Overview -Preferred Conceptual Site Plan -Features and amenities, programming, partnerships and activation -Plan Goals and Metrics -Connectivity, community spaces, and environmental metrics -Implementation and Phasing Strategy -Cost estimates, restoration strategy, amenities and features, programming, and operations and management NEXT STEPS -Planning Commission Public Noticing Period: Ends October 10th -Shared plan information online, with key stakeholders and the Community Advisory Committee, and at the October Glendale Community Council meeting -TENTATIVE: Planning Commission hearing and presentation: October/November 2022 -TENTATIVE: Transmittal to City Council for Adoption: December 2022 -Phase 1: Implementation by April 2024 -Funding Status: $3.2 million For more information, the interactive site plan and the draft of the full Glendale Park Plan, visit https://www.slc.gov/parks/parks- division/glendale-waterpark/ (available in English and Spanish) ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor Kristin Riker Public Lands Director PUBLIC LANDS DEPARTMENT 1965 WEST 500 SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84014 www.slcgov.com TEL 801-972-7800 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL __________________________________ Date Received: ___________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ______________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: July 11, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Kristin Riker, Director, Public Lands, Public Lands Director________________________ SUBJECT: Briefing of Glendale Regional Park Preferred Plan STAFF CONTACTS: Kristin Riker, Director, Public Lands Department kristin.riker@slcgov.com; Katherine Maus, Public Lands Planner, Public Lands Department katherine.maus@slcgov.com; Nancy Monteith, Senior Landscape Architect, Department of Public Services nancy.monteith@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Brief RECOMMENDATION: Review documentation and briefing provided. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Since 2018 the Glendale Water Park site has been closed to the public. Public Lands is finalizing a master plan to guide development of the 17-acre site. Demolition of obsolete infrastructure will continue through this summer. A portion of the park must be open to public recreation by April 2024 to meet the requirements of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (https://www.nps.gov/subjects/lwcf/index.html). To meet this deadline, The City is moving forward with Glendale Park Phase I implementation and is in the process of selecting a consultant to develop detailed design for Phase I with construction of site improvements to follow. The purpose of this briefing is to share the preferred Glendale Regional Park Site Plan and Phase I Site Plan with the Council and provide a summary of the planning process and a preview of the Master Plan document. Public Lands is finalizing details of the master plan document and it will be transmitted to City Council in the coming weeks. Public Lands will share the preferred plan with the community, prior to transmitting the master plan document to Planning Commission and City Council. The planning process and final plan are outlined below. The project team is comprised of members of Salt Lake City in the Public Lands Department, Engineering Division and Transportation Division, as well as our planning consultant, Design Workshop. The Design Workshop planning team includes specialized subconsultants, including River Restoration for environmental health and restoration recommendations, David Evans and Associates for public engagement, and Agora Partners for programming and partnerships. This project team has been working 8/9/2022 8/9/2022 Lisa Shaffer (Aug 9, 2022 15:22 MDT) to develop the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan since 2021, which will provide the guiding vision and design for the future of the old water park site and establish a framework to guide development and programming of the site into the future. The plan relies heavily on Glendale community input and is aimed at representing the unique and diverse culture of the Glendale Community while also including amenities that will create a regional draw for residents of Salt Lake City. The project team has worked closely with project stakeholders, neighborhood residents, community partners and students at Glendale Middle and Mountain View Elementary Schools to create a community-supported vision that reflects the Glendale neighborhood’s rich heritage. Over 1300 people responded to a city-wide survey, bringing the total participant count for the project to nearly 1700. Key elements of the master plan were informed by public input and include: • Community Gathering and Event Spaces – a promenade/community plaza spanning the north central gateway, an event stage and lawn, smaller pavilions and picnic lawns and a riverside beach and boardwalk. • Play Places for Everyone - hiking, walking and paved trails, an all-ages and abilities playground, climbing features, multi-use sport courts, dog park, and sledding hill. • Places to Enjoy the Water - a splash pad, kayak rental, access to the Jordan River for recreation, boat dock and ramp, and an outdoor pool. • Places to Wheel Around - an ice/roller skating ribbon, skateboarding area and bike trails. PUBLIC PROCESS: Community engagement for the master plan process and for the development of the preferred plan used a multi-pronged approach including youth and stakeholder engagement, development of a community advisory committee, online survey and public open house, along with in-person engagement events. The public process began with robust engagement with the Glendale Community and then broadened to a citywide engagement effort. A detailed description of the public engagement efforts can be found at https://www.slc.gov/parks/parks-division/glendale-waterpark/. In brief, the engagement process consisted of three engagement windows: Public Engagement Window 1: The first public engagement window prioritized neighborhood and community stakeholder engagement to ensure the community voice was the guide in establishing the initial vision. Considering the predominately younger population in this area, the project team focused on Glendale Middle School and Mountain View Elementary School students and families, while also engaging community leaders and the Glendale Neighborhood Council. The project team met multiple times with the students, engaged in design charettes and used the direction we received from these 130 students to guide initial plan alternative design. The project team also attended and held several in-person events with the Glendale community and created a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) specifically for this plan creation. The CAC was comprised of members who are considered leaders in the Glendale community and represented a variety of community organizations, businesses and affiliations specifically in the Glendale community. The members of the CAC provided key feedback on the project mission, goals, engagement process and vision for the park and shared information about the planning process with their community. The engagement from Window 1 drove the development of two concept alternatives. Public Engagement Window 2: The two concept alternatives were shared with the public and with City Council. The project team kicked- off broad, citywide public engagement with an open house hosted at the Glendale and Parkview Community Learning Center to open a survey. Residents of Glendale, members of the CAC and the city at large attended the event to orient themselves to the plans. Over 1360 people citywide participated in the survey which informed the development of the final preferred plan for the site. The preferred plan includes community-prioritized features from each of the two concept plans. The project team met again with the CAC to review engagement results and get feedback before moving forward with the final preferred plan. Public Engagement Window 3: The third and final window included sharing out of the final preferred plan for the site with the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Advisory Board (PNUT Board), the CAC and Glendale Neighborhood Council. The final preferred plan will be shared with the public in July 2022, with the master plan to follow upon adoption by City Council. The project team will seek formal adoption of the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan by City Council in Summer 2022. Please see below for additional details on engagement events, descriptions, and participation. Updated Public Engagement Calendar Public Engagement Events Notes Time Period Community and Neighborhood Department Survey 3,500 Respondents-- Public Survey through the department of Community and Neighborhoods to gauge public interest in the future of the park https://www.slc.gov/can/cares/waterpark/ 2020 SLC Waterpark Commemoration Survey Report 3841 Respondents—Public Survey to gauge interest in demolition and re-development of the park. https://www.slc.gov/wp- content/uploads/2021/01/Water-Park-Survey-Report- Nov-2020.pdf 2020 Glendale Community Council Visioning Exercise 11 Participants and 3 Community Council Members visioning a potential future for the site 2021 Initiation of Formal Planning Process by Public Lands department Public Lands initiates a formal city engagement and planning process for the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan supported by Design Workshop as project consultant. Spring/ Summer 2021 External Stakeholder Engagement: Community Events Parents and students were asked at three community events which elements from past surveys should be included in the park. Events included: Morning Coffee with 20 respondents; Glendale Scare Fair with around 50 respondents; Hartland 4 Youth and Family Event with 40 respondents Fall 2021 External Stakeholder Engagement: Glendale Middle School and Mountain View Elementary Design exercises were led with 88 middle school and 40 fifth grade students to gather feedback and input on the future design of the site. The process included on- site meetings with 88 Glendale Middle School, “Place- It” activity with University Neighborhood Partners, and collage creation. https://multicultural.utah.gov/glendale-youth-as- placemakers/ Fall 2021 Community Advisory Committee Meeting 1 A CAC was created to ensure neighborhood representation in the preferred plan and final master plan documents. These stakeholder meetings ensured engagement with westside communities. The first meeting oriented participants to the project and asked for general impressions on the project. January 2022 Community Advisory Committee Engagement Meeting 2 This meeting presented two conceptual ideas for the park and sought specific feedback on the ideas and amenities for the future site. February 2022 “Plan Your Park” in-person Open House and engagement event at Community Learning Center Project team worked with Glendale Community Council to host an event with over 100 attendees to share with the community the concepts that have been generated so far and to launch a public survey. March 16, 2022 Online Survey Public survey to gather broader feedback on amenities and concept alternatives receiving 1361 responses. March 16, 2022- April 16, 2022 CONSIDERATIONS The preferred plan presented here (Exhibit A) illustrates the full buildout of the 17-acre site and includes programs and amenities prioritized through public engagement. Development of the full site will require multiple phases, defined by future funding allocations. The consultant team proposed a series of phases that represent a strategic development of the site. Detailed design of each phase will refine the design, construction materials, site character, maintenance requirements, and construction costs. Additionally, specific proposed improvements (such as an outdoor pool) will require additional feasibility studies as well as collaboration with community partners and other City departments and divisions. Recommendations for addressing considerations of the preferred plan are included in the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan draft document Later this summer. MASTER PLAN PREVIEW The Glendale Regional Park Master Plan final draft will be transmitted to City Council subsequent to a review by the Planning Commission. The consultant team explored how this site design reflects the community, restores the site as an ecological asset, and makes recommendations regarding operations, site management, programming, and maintenance. The plan also dives into how the park will fulfill the established goals, including the park vision being led by the community, providing opportunities for safe community gathering and programming, completing the regional connection of open space along the river and enhancing access to nature, and finally improving environmental quality and justice. The plan includes improvements to site access with proposed recommendations for new connections, trails, public transportation access and access across 1700 South. It highlights the ecology of the site and unique characteristics the Jordan River provides, and how the site might be impacted by future climate changes. The plan also makes recommendations on programming opportunities for Public Lands into the future, outlines the types of programming the community desires to see, and how partnerships may be carried out in the future. Finally, it outlines plan metrics to assess the fulfillment of the park goals that were confirmed by the public. Implementation strategy is included in the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan draft and will be contingent on funding availability. The project team intends to minimize the phasing to the greatest extent possible based on funding and has begun work on Phase 1 with $3.2 million allocated in impact fees. PHASE 1 With the tight timeline to implement Phase 1 of construction, the project team must move forward with detailed design of Phase 1 park elements on a parallel course to the Master Plan adoption process. The Community Advisory Committee Engagement Meeting 3 This meeting shared the results of the broader survey with the Committee and solicit feedback and impressions on the data. April 12, 2022 Community Advisory Committee Engagement Meeting 4 Final preferred plan sharing and feedback from the CAC, as well as explanation of Phase 1 May 31, 2022 Presentation to Glendale Neighborhood Council Sharing of public process and phase 1 implementation projects, timeline and budget Jun 15, 2022 FUTURE ENGAGEMENT: Preferred Plan Confirmation Confirm final preferred plan and share with the public. July 2022 FUTURE ENGAGEMENT: Master Plan presentation and adoption Presentation of preferred plan and Master Plan document to City Council for adoption. July 2022 selection process for a consultant to develop design drawings for Phase I is underway. Many factors contributed to the selection of Phase 1 elements and amenities, which include: - Inclusion of recreational elements that meet the LWCF requirements - Features that can be constructed within our expedited timeline and fit within current budget allocations - Sequencing development for maximizing park use and access by connecting Phase 1 to the existing Glendale Neighborhood Park and its amenities, such as the restroom - Inclusion of improvements that will not be affected or closed during construction of future phasing - Community support amenities that are typical of a regional park and are eligible for use of impact fees - The project team has cost estimated Phase 1 elements and will include elements that are currently buildable for the $3.2 million allocated. Due to current levels of inflation and escalation, it is very likely that all elements included here will not be feasible with the $3.2 million build. The project team will prioritize Phase 1 elements, indicated below, and may request additional impact fee funding to complete all Phase 1 amenities. The following features are included for potential design and construction in Phase 1, in priority order: 1. Playground with accessible design and assistive technologies for all ages 2. Pavilion 3. Looped pathways 4. Community Plaza and gathering space 5. Landscaping and site restoration (scalable based on budget) 6. Multipurpose sport court 7. Parking (existing parking is available should this be removed from Phase 1) The proposed Phase 1 elements can be found in Exhibit B. Future phases of the park will be implemented as quickly as funding and logistics can be navigated. SITES CERTIFICATION The project team has been exploring certification through the Sustainable Sites Initiative (SITES) for the future Glendale Regional Park. SITES (sustainablesites.org/) is a sustainability-focused program based on the understanding that any project has the ability to protect, improve and even regenerate healthy ecosystems by reducing water use, filtering stormwater runoff, providing wildlife habitat, and improving air quality and human health. The SITES certification is managed by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC), the same agency that manages the LEED rating system for buildings. Where LEED addresses buildings and vertical construction, the SITES’ rating system is used for everything related to the landscape. The Glendale Regional Park site has been pre-scored by our consultant to assess the feasibility of creating a SITES certified landscape. Upon scoring the project, the Glendale Regional Park Site has the potential to certify on the Platinum level if the City elects to pursue certification to the greatest extent. The project team recommends pre-certifying the entire park master plan for the 17-acre site as a tangible commitment to environmental quality and justice. Each phase of the project would be certified during construction. Overall costs for certification vary based on site size and condition but some expected costs for pre- certification and certification of Phase 1 include: • $5,000 to pre-certify the entire new park • $6,500 for Certification of Phase 1 of the park • $6,500 for Certification of each successive phase • Additional costs for specialized consultant work to assist the City through the certification process(es) estimated around $90,000 Projects pursuing certification often incur higher costs in design and construction, however, they consistently return significant long term cost savings related to ongoing operations and maintenance costs. If certification is pursued, the Glendale Regional Park would be the first SITES certified landscape in Utah. With historic underinvestment, lower levels of service and evidence of environmental injustices present in this community in the past, having a SITES certified landscape in the Glendale neighborhood would not only show the City’s investment in restorative landscapes and climate resiliency but would also set a standard for site development in the future and begin to show tangible effort towards equitable environmental investment across the City. The project team is in favor of pre-certifying the entire 17- acres as well as proceeding with certification for Phase 1. MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT Demolition is ongoing to remove the remaining obsolete infrastructure. Due to cost increases and unforeseen site conditions, demolition timeline and costs are increasing. Upon completion of the demolition, Public Lands will take over site security and the SWPP plan, and site hazards will be secured, and restoration will begin while Phase 1 is being constructed, including addressing and managing the noxious weeds and invasive vegetation on site. The Glendale Regional Park Master Plan draft provides recommendations for site management and restoration during construction, and after. In addition, Public Lands will strive to preserve the health of the existing trees and canopy on site as an ecological and environmental asset. While the former water park site remains an attractive nuisance, Public Lands has contracted with CBI security during demolition, prior to and during construction on Phase 1. Recommendations for future management of the site, including programming and partnership needs, are also included in the Master Plan draft document. In order to fulfill the park goal of creating a safe community asset, programming and management into the future will be key. Potential opportunities for addressing management needs including expanding internal Public Lands staff, continue to create and build upon key community partners and stakeholders, engage with community organizations that promote inclusivity, equity and partnerships, and working with local and minority-owned businesses to program elements of the site. NEXT STEPS a. Project team will share preferred plan with the public upon transmittal to City Council. b. Project team will transmit the final draft of the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan to Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation, and complete administrative process to receive Mayoral recommendation. c. City Council will receive a recommendation from Planning Commission related to adoption of the Master Plan, as well as a memorandum from Planning Staff and a Mayoral recommendation memorandum. d. Council will conduct adoption process, which will include a public hearing and additional public outreach e. Project team will share out final Glendale Regional Park Master Plan to the community Upon transmittal of the final Glendale Regional Park Master Plan draft, City Council will lead the Master Plan adoption process for Glendale Regional Park Master Plan in Summer 2022. If City Council has any comments or questions on the preferred plan, Master Planning process, or Phase 1 implementation, the project team would welcome any collaboration on these efforts as a city. ATTACHMENTS: A. Preferred Plan for Glendale Regional Park B. Phase 1 Glendale Regional Park EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B Items B6 & B7 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: Allison Rowland & Brian Fullmer Policy Analysts DATE:October 4, 2022 RE: The Other Side Village Public Benefits Analysis and Below Market Lease Rate and Term; and The Other Side Village Rezoning Application PLNPCM2021-00787 The following motions are for the public hearing on the TOSV public benefits analysis and below market lease rate and term (public hearing item #6) AND the TOSV rezoning application public hearing (public hearing item #7) MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing on the Other Side Village: - public benefits analysis and below market lease rate and term (item #6), - and rezoning application (item #7), - and defer action 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: Allison Rowland Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:September 6, 2022 RE: RESOLUTION: REVIEWING THE PUBLIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS FOR THE OTHER SIDE VILLAGE PILOT PROJECT AT 1850 WEST INDIANA AVENUE AND CONSIDERING A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE LEASE RATE AND TERM ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing on the public benefits analysis and the proposed lease rate and term for a pilot project to test the viability of The Other Side Village (TOSV), a tiny home community that would offer “recovery housing” for people experiencing homelessness, particularly those who struggle with substance abuse, mental health and/or physical disabilities. Its services would be similar to those at permanent supportive housing developments, and it would be located on eight acres at 1850 West Indiana Avenue and part of an adjacent parcel, on a portion of vacant land owned by Salt Lake City that was formerly a landfill. The Other Side Academy (TOSA), a Utah nonprofit corporation would lease the area for 40 years at $1 per year. TOSA has agreed to pay for all costs to remediate the site of the pilot project, which includes part of the former landfill, as well as the costs of development and operation of the pilot project. Any request to lease the remainder of the City properties for less than fair market value would be submitted later and with a supplemental public benefit analysis. The Council will hear public comment on this resolution at the September 20 Formal Meeting. In conjunction with this project, the Administration has requested the Council consider a zoning amendment for the City property. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed zoning change on October 27, 2021, and the City Council will be briefed on that issue on September 13 with a public hearing also on September 20. Goal of the briefing: Review the public benefit analysis for the pilot project of The Other Side Academy’s Village and consider authorizing the below-market lease rate and 40-year term. Item Schedule: Briefing: September 6, 2022 Set Date: August 29, 2022 Public Hearing: September 20, 2022 Potential Action: October 4 Page | 2 2 1 7 1 7 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND BACKGROUND A.The Properties and Proposed Lease. Since learning of TOSA’s interest in establishing a “village” of tiny homes, the Mayor’s Administration has worked with the organization to identify potential sites large enough for the planned full build-out, which was envisioned as at least 30 acres. Parcels of this size with access to public transit are not available in most areas of Salt Lake City, but two abutting candidate parcels totaling approximately 83.5 acres of City-owned property were identified, one at 1850 West Indiana Avenue and the other at 1965 West 500 South. Parts of these parcels served as a City landfill between 1923 and 1962, and they will require environmental remediation before they can be used for the TOSV (see section B). In addition, a fault line runs through the property and the Utah Geological Survey is currently conducting a trenching study to gather additional information. The fault line and precise locations of environmental contamination could affect the boundaries and site plan of future phases of the development. The Public Benefits Analysis in the transmittal states that the 2022 assessed value of the Indiana Avenue property is about $4.20 per square foot, or $8,230,000 for the full parcel, excluding remediation, mitigation, and cleanup costs. The City and TOSA agreed to phase in the development, starting with a pilot project to test its viability (see section D below). The proposal before the Council would allow TOSA to site the pilot project on eight acres at the southeast corner of the properties. This area is assessed at approximately $1,460,000. TOSA would not have rights or obligations related to the other areas of these properties, unless and until another phase of the project is approved by the City. The City would continue to secure and maintain these areas, and TOSA states that it is committed to ensuring that residents of the Pilot Site are respectful of the surrounding property and neighborhood. The Administration proposes a lease term of 40 years at the reduced lease rate of $1 per year, with an option to renew during the last year of the lease, subject to review and approval by the Council. The below-market lease terms would be offered as the City’s contribution to TOSA’s effort to provide creative solutions for people experiencing homelessness. Utah State law provides that a municipality may “authorize municipal services or other nonmonetary assistance to be provided to a nonprofit entity, whether or not the municipality receives consideration in return,” under certain conditions. 1. The purpose of these services or assistance must be approved by the municipal legislative body and provide for “the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the inhabitants of the municipality.” 2. A public hearing must be held by the legislative body before the decision is made. ➢The Council may wish to ask the Administration and the Attorney’s Office about some issues that could be addressed in the terms of the lease agreement, including: o an operating covenant; o ensuring that the pledges and guarantees offered in the transmittal are in a form acceptable to the City; and o any potential termination of the lease, should TOSV not meet the mutually- agreed expectations. B.Environmental Remediation. Under the lease, the City would relinquish any responsibility for environmental remediation, construction, operation, or maintenance of the pilot site and project. All of these would be assumed by TOSA. The organization also would accept full liability for the costs and claims related to the remediation and mitigation. Current cleanup efforts are limited to the pilot site, which is believed to be the area where the smallest amount of trash was buried. Page | 3 2 1 7 1 7 The transmittal reports that the City’s Department of Sustainability is already involved with the identification, sampling, and site investigation process and will work with State and other agencies to ensure that requirements are met for site cleanup, remediation, and mitigation. Department of Sustainability staff plans to work closely with regulators, an environmental consultant, and TOSA through the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). The Sustainability Department reviews and provides input on sampling plans, reviews findings and recommendations, and coordinates the implementation of the selected remediation pathway. UDEQ will examine historical reports and environmental sampling results, and may recommend additional sampling, depending on the results of the first round. The Sustainability Department estimates one additional round of sampling and associated reporting by the consultant would cost $70,000, which would be drawn from the City’s non-departmental environmental fund. This fund was set up to be used for environmental assessments on City property and received $100,000 in the FY23 budget. The Administration reports: “Additional budget allocations may be necessary depending on the extent of the environmental work recommended by UDEQ, the City’s desire to continue participating in the VCP, and other city properties that require environmental assessments or remediation.” Once the VCP program is completed, the City would receive a “Certificate of Completion” for the project area. This indicates that all necessary precautions were taken to protect environmental and public health and provides liability protection for the City. The Sustainability Department notes that because the pilot project would be sited in the area where it is believed the smallest amount of trash was buried, remediation there may be simpler than in other areas of the property. The Department estimates that sampling and evaluation of remediation options for subsequent phases could take a year or longer, depending on what is discovered, and the proposed uses of the property. ➢The Council may wish to request additional information from the Administration about the extent of the work already completed by the Sustainability Department on this project, including the cost of any staff time that exceeded services normally provided for potential City leases. C.Informal Public Benefits Analysis. Unlike many other cases the Council considers, a formal public benefits analysis conducted by an outside consultant was not required in this case due to the non-profit status of TOSA. Still, the Administration requested that the Attorney’s Office conduct an “informal” public benefits analysis with help from the Department Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) to identify the potential benefits of the proposed agreement between Salt Lake City and The Other Side Academy (TOSA), the entity which proposes to develop The Other Side Village (TOSV). These public benefits are identified in Exhibit C of the transmittal. 1.Benefits to City. The Informal Public Benefits Analysis notes that in exchange for the property lease to TOSA for the Pilot Project the City and its residents would receive the following benefits: a. Development, operation, and management of a Pilot Project at TOSV that offers a new model for supporting people experiencing homelessness, including “a path to secure housing.” b. Case management for residents, including help accessing benefits and entitlements; healthcare; behavioral and mental health services; education and employment supports; and other community resources. Page | 4 2 1 7 1 7 c. New housing units for households with incomes at or below 30% of Area Median Income, which in 2022 is no more than $21,510 for a single person. Maximum rents would be set at 25% of the area median income and adjusted annually, which is currently $448 monthly, including basic utilities. (Tenants would be allowed to increase their income after signing their leases.) d. Potentially, reduced costs of public care for unsheltered people who likely use emergency services; more alternatives to scarce shelter beds and services; reductions of population in living in encampments. e. The activation of currently vacant property; mitigation of former landfill space; reduction of criminal activity in the vicinity of TOSV; additional investments in nearby neighborhoods in grocery and other retail stores, recreation, and transit. 2.Growing SLC and Council Priorities. The transmittal states that the proposal aligns with both the City’s 2018-2022 Housing Plan, and the Council’s longtime priorities in the following ways: a. Offering solutions to address housing for incomes below 40% AMI; b. Providing housing and services to the City’s most vulnerable populations; c. Creating a net increase in affordable housing units while avoiding displacement of existing affordable housing; d. Retaining and expanding the diversity of AMI and innovative housing types. D.The Pilot Project. As the site map in the transmittal’s Exhibit A indicates, TOSA ultimately intends to expand its operations to cover much of the property on Indiana Avenue and a portion of the 500 South property. For now, though, it has agreed with the Administration to demonstrate the feasibility of its tiny home village concept through a pilot project that would extend over approximately eight acres. The focus would be on “Recovery Housing,” treating people who are considered chronically homeless, that is, those who have experienced homelessness for at least one year, or repeatedly over several years, and who are struggling with substance use disorder, serious mental illness, and/or physical disability. The pilot project would consist of at least 54 deed-restricted tiny homes, six tiny homes for on-site staff who provide 24-hour coverage, and 25 tiny homes that would be offered as nightly rentals. The homes would measure between 280 and 400 square feet each. In addition, the pilot project would include community space, commercial space for income-generating projects, and space for on-site supportive services, as well as utility serve and related infrastructure, and roads, curbs, and gutters. All tenants would be required to pay a standardized rental rate, since this project does not have project- based rental vouchers attached to the units, unlike many other housing developments that serve people who were formerly homeless or have extremely low-incomes. TOSA states that it is committed to assisting prospective and actual tenants obtain and maintain a source of income to pay rent, such as employment, Social Security Disability Insurance, or a Housing Choice tenant-based rental voucher. Page | 5 2 1 7 1 7 1.The Recovery Housing Model. TOSV’s organization and supportive services would conform to National Alliance for Recovery Residence Standards for “Recovery Housing,” a model designed for people suffering from substance use disorders who need supportive transitional housing. Recovery housing provides an alcohol and drug-free living environment and may require residents to participate in recovery activities as a condition for residency. The Recovery Housing Model is recognized and supported by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which recognizes the importance of providing individual choice to support various paths towards recovery. This support is outlined in a HUD Policy Brief on the topic. As described by TOSA: “In this Policy Brief, HUD states that some people pursuing recovery from addiction express a preference for an abstinence-focused residential or housing program where they can live among and be supported by a community of peers who are also focused on pursuing recovery from addiction–environments that are provided by Recovery Housing programs. HUD defines “Recovery Housing” as housing in an abstinence-focused and peer-supported community for people recovering from substance use issues. The Village would meet this definition. The Policy Brief continues to describe characteristics of “Recovery Housing”, which include residents choosing to actively participate together in community activities focused on supporting recovery. The Policy Brief states that: “Many Recovery Housing programs include a high percentage of staff in all areas of the organization that are in recovery themselves. Not only does this type of staffing advance the goals of the program through peer support, but it provides program participants, in some cases, with an opportunity to become employed in a mission-oriented work environment. This creates an environment that benefits both the organization and the individual program participants.” The Village has all of the above components: residents choosing to actively participate in community to support recovery, staff that are in recovery themselves, and employment opportunities for residents.” In response to a staff question, TOSA outlined the process for residents who break their sobriety commitments: “The Other Side Village is a sober community following the HUD defined Recovery Housing Model. TOSA understands that the path to sobriety is challenging and sometimes involves setbacks. If a resident is found to have violated sobriety commitments, there is not an automatic eviction, but rather they will be assisted in every way to regain their sobriety. This could range anywhere from a period of regular drug and alcohol testing and outpatient support to a requirement to participate in residential treatment. All residents will be offered the option of returning to the Welcome Neighborhood for some period of time as a way of restoring sobriety. A resident will be evicted from the Village if they are unwilling to agree upon a reasonable plan to return to sobriety. These policies are in alignment with the HUD guidelines in their Policy Brief on Recovery Housing that was previously mentioned.” Like other housing providers, TOSA would be required to comply with the Fair Housing Act and could face regulatory and legal action for any violations. Page | 6 2 1 7 1 7 2.Tenant Selection. To ensure compliance with Federal and State fair housing laws, the term sheet that accompanies the proposed ordinance changes would require that TOSA: a. not deny housing to protected classes; b. not unreasonably limit the ability of families with children to obtain housing; c. develop and make public written tenant selection policies and procedures that include descriptions of the eligibility requirements; d. ensure that all applicants to the project go through the coordinated entry process used by the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness to ensure coordination and efficiency; e. enter any new resident into the Homeless Management Information System (“HMIS”) coordinated entry system; f. give preference to Salt Lake City residents for placement; and, g. submit annual compliance reports to the City. In addition, an admission preference may be established for individuals with a commitment to sobriety. To be able to afford to pay rent, tenants may be required to have employment or another source of income, such as social security disability or a tenant-based voucher. TOSA intends to lease units on a month-to-month basis, but tenants may remain in their homes indefinitely while they continue to meet the basic obligations of tenancy. If no applications from chronically homeless people are received and TOSV homes are available, the Administration intends to ensure that these are filled with people who are most critically in need of housing, using the coordinated entry system and intake/assessment tools of the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness to match the needs of each unique individual and household. This system generally prioritizes those with longer lengths of homelessness and certain other vulnerabilities for housing. 3.Programming. The Term Sheet for the proposed lease agreement requires supportive services including “on-site case coordination or management that ensures tenants’ access to a wide variety of services and on-site location of services provided by professional service providers as evidenced through an agreement” with appropriately licensed providers. These are to be made available on a “flexible and voluntary basis” and address the following: mental health; substance and alcohol use; health; case management; independent living skills; employment; peer support; and community involvement and support. TOSA is still developing partnerships with service providers, so the scope and scale of on-site health and case-management has not yet been finalized. Because of widely reported staff shortages in social services, staff requested information about how TOSA would handle this issue should it occur in the organizations they are preparing to engage. The reply was as follows: “It is possible that there could be staffing shortages among the service providers and that those staffing shortages could lead to a reduction of services for the residents of the Village. If this were to occur, the Village management would simultaneously pursue two options. One would be to bring in the services of other service providers. The Other Side Village has already had discussions with other medical and mental health service providers who are interested in providing services to the residents of the Village. The other option would be to try to fill the gaps in service through volunteers. The Other Side Village has a number of doctors and clinicians who have volunteered to help at the Village.” Page | 7 2 1 7 1 7 Since, in addition to on-site services, TOSA would coordinate access to off-site services, the organization stated: “TOSA assumes responsibility to coordinate and facilitate access to both on-site and off-site services. This will be accomplished by the Village Coaches, the full-time non-clinical case managers. Each resident will have a Village Coach assigned to them and part of the Village Coach's responsibilities is to facilitate and coordinate access to services, including arranging transportation for them for any off-site appointments.” E.Pilot Project Financing. The financing models include both constructions expenses and operational expenses and revenue. TOSA currently projects breaking ground on the pilot project in early 2023. 1.Construction Costs. Full buildout of the TOSV Pilot Project was estimated at nearly $13.8 million at the end of April 2022, approximately $162,000 per unit, not including land costs. This included environmental remediation, architect fees and building permits, roads and utilities, construction of homes and other buildings, and landscaping, as shown in the figure below. TOSA believes that most of these costs will be covered through in-kind contributions and donations. As of July 6, 2022, TOSA reports having received nearly $2.2 million in cash for this project, with another $3.1 in cash pledged. The exhibits to the transmittal include letters from various individuals promising in-kind support and guarantees. The Administration has committed to ensuring that TOSA has adequate funds to move the project forward prior to closing on the land lease. ➢To increase the likelihood that these pledges are enforceable, the Council could consider asking the Administration to include a condition on the ground lease that any pledge or guarantees is in a form acceptable to the City (this was also noted in an earlier policy question). TOSV PILOT PHASE - CAPITAL COSTS Environmental Remediation $232,500 Permit / Fees $400,000 Civil Work $1,045,440 Tiny Home Construction $4,350,000 Welcome Neighborhood Homes $875,000 Neighborhood Center $441,000 Community Center / Clinic $3,146,400 Social Enterprise Building $2,300,000 Landscaping $320,000 Architectural Fees $666,744 Total $13,777,084 Source: TOSA, dated 4/29/22 as provided to City staff on 6/24/22 Note: Excludes land costs Page | 8 2 1 7 1 7 2.Operations Costs. The primary source of revenue to cover TOSV’s operating costs will be the “social enterprise” businesses located on-site, which are designed to provide job opportunities for residents. These include a thrift store, cookie manufacturing, and rental of the 25 purpose-built tiny homes to the public, including Pilot Project visitors and volunteers. This would be known as the Community Inn. Rent from TOSV residents would cover approximately 10% of operating costs. TOSA indicated that the years noted on the pro forma included in the transmittal (Exhibit G) would shift to reflect that the bulk of revenues and expenses would begin to accrue in 2023, rather than 2022. In response to staff questions, TOSA provided the following additional information: “The Other Side Village has had 2 market studies for the cookie production. The two studies were done independently by University of Utah as well as by Brigham Young University business and MBA students. Both studies showed a growing cookie market and strong indicators for a viable cookie production business. In regards to the Thrift Store, no additional market study was conducted. The Other Side Village is drawing on the experience of the Academy running the two thrift stores in Millcreek and Murray, plus their experience of launching and running a Thrift Furniture store in Denver. There would be a relationship between the Village thrift store and the Academy’s stores. The most obvious relationship is for the Academy to provide inventory for the Village store. The Academy has excess inventory available that would be easy to place at the Village thrift store at little expense or effort.” ➢The Council may wish to ask the Administration about the strategy to be used in the event the operational revenues are not sufficient to cover operational costs. F.Assessment of Pilot Project. The transmittal states that the purpose of the pilot project is to demonstrate the feasibility of the concept. The Administration would assess this using the following criteria: 1. Financial feasibility, successfully generating sufficient positive cashflow to maintain and grow its operations. 2. Social outcomes of the target populations, reducing the number of chronically homeless individuals and improving the well-being of residents. 3. At the neighborhood level, the project’s positive impact on the surrounding community. ➢The Council may wish to ask the Administration about the assessment process: Which department or division would be charged with the assessment? Which indicators and sources of information would be used? What would become of the pilot site and the construction on it should the pilot not demonstrate feasibility? ➢The Council may wish to ask the Administration how success will be evaluated and/or confirmed prior to the authorization of future phases. ➢The Council could ask the Administration to consider adding terms to the lease to lay the groundwork for termination if the Village does not meet operational expectations and/or cover expenses. 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 Office Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 19, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) __________________________ SUBJECT: Informal Public Benefits Analysis for a tiny home village with ~54 units of affordable housing in exchange for a below-market 40-year land lease of approximately 8 acres of vacant City property located at approximately 1850 West Indiana Avenue. STAFF CONTACT: Tammy Hunsaker, Deputy Director, Community and Neighborhoods 801-535-7244, tammy.hunsaker@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Consideration of the attached resolution allowing the City to enter into a 40-year below-market ground lease agreement with The Other Side Academy, a Utah nonprofit corporation, in order to facilitate the construction of a tiny home village with ~54 units of affordable housing. BUDGET IMPACT: N/A BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City and the State of Utah are experiencing a widening housing affordability gap, one of the fundamental causes of homelessness. Resources at the federal and state level have proven vastly inadequate in addressing the housing crisis. As such, cities are left to stretch local dollars, implement innovative policy tools, and think outside of the box with project typologies. Research and experience have overwhelmingly demonstrated that investment in permanent housing solutions is effective in reducing homelessness. Long-term housing solutions, particularly solutions that are co-located with supportive services, not only stabilize lives but have been proven to be more cost effective than emergency shelters and care facilities. 8/19/2022 8/19/2022 In 2020, the Administration began to explore new, innovative solutions to addressing the homelessness crisis. At this time, an exploratory partnership was formed between the City and The Other Side Academy (“TOSA”), a Utah 501(c)3 non-profit organization, to analyze the feasibility of a tiny home village that provides housing for chronically homeless individuals. TOSA brings unique experience with operation of “therapeutic communities” that help those with long histories of addiction and criminal behavior stabilize their lives. As a result of this exploratory partnership, a tiny home village for individuals experiencing homelessness has been conceptualized and is proposed to be located on approximately 40 acres of City-owned property located at 1850 W Indiana Avenue and 1965 West 500 South (the “Property”). The Other Side Village (“TOSV”) is proposed to be a “recovery housing” model that aligns with National Alliance for Recovery Residence standards and is contemplated to eventually encompass the Property. Currently, the Administration and TOSA have narrowed the scope to a pilot project limited to approximately 8 acres (the “Pilot Site”) to demonstrate the feasibility of the concept, refer to Exhibit A: Site Map. This initial phase of the project will include approximately 54 deed-restricted tiny homes, 6 tiny homes for staff, 25 tiny homes to be offered as nightly rentals, community space, commercial space for social enterprise endeavors, and space for on-site services (the “Pilot Project”). The Administration and TOSA have negotiated project terms that include a below-market land lease of $1.00 per year for 40 years to assist in the financial viability of the Pilot Project. Pursuant to State law, the City shall first hold a public hearing followed by authorization by the City Council in order to execute a below-market land lease. Highlights of the Pilot Project are as follows, with additional detail included in Exhibit B: Resolution and Term Sheet and Exhibit C: Informal Public Benefits Analysis. I.Project Overview The Pilot Project is proposed to include the following: •At least 60 tiny homes to be used as permanent housing §A minimum of 54 units, or 90% of the total permanent housing units, shall be deed-restricted as affordable §Up to 6 units, or 10% of the total permanent housing units, may be used as staff living quarters •Up to 25 additional tiny homes may be used as a Community Inn offered as nightly rentals to generate income for TOSV operations •A ~ 2,000 square foot Neighborhood Center to house clubhouse type uses for TOSV residents •A ~10,000 square foot Social Enterprise Building to house social enterprise endeavors that generate income for the TOSV operations •A ~12,000 square foot Community Center building to house multi-purpose space, and supportive services for TOSV residents including a medical clinic, a mental health clinic, a social services clinic, administrative offices, and a security office •Utility service and related infrastructure; roads and curb/gutter II.Recovery Housing Model Utilizing the recovery housing model, TOSA plans to target individuals who are considered chronically homeless, generally defined as individuals experiencing homelessness for at least a year, or repeatedly, and struggling with a disabling condition such as a serious mental illness, substance use disorder, or physical disability. Similar to permanent supportive housing, recovery housing values independent living and voluntary clinical services. Where they differ is that recovery housing requires an alcohol and drug- free living environment and may require residents to participate in recovery activities as a condition for residency. This social model of recovery helps individuals relearn how to organize their lives, interact with others, and participate in community-based recovery activities. III.Affordable Housing & Tenant Selection An overview of the affordable housing and tenant selection terms are as follows: •Units shall primarily be available to persons or families that meet HUD’s definition of chronically homeless. If there are units available and no applications from chronically homeless individuals, TOSA may lease units to vulnerable homeless individuals. •An admission preference may be established for individuals with a commitment to sobriety. •All applicants shall go through the coordinated entry process used by the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness. •Tenants may be required to have employment or another source of income, such as social security disability or a tenant-based voucher, to be able to afford to pay rent. •Maximum rents shall be set for individuals and households at 25% of the area median income (“AMI”), adjusted annually for household size. For a single person based on 2022 HUD income limits, this would equate to $448 maximum monthly rent including basic utilities. •Maximum incomes shall be set for individuals and households at 30% of the AMI and below. Tenants must meet this income threshold, in addition to meeting homelessness criteria, upon entering into a lease. This equates to a maximum annual income of $21,510 for a single person based on 2022 HUD income limits. Tenants will only be required to meet this income threshold upon entering into a lease and may increasing their income subsequently. •TOSA intents to provide leases on a month-to-month basis, however, tenants may live in their homes as long as they meet the basic obligations of tenancy without a time limitation. IV.Supportive Services & Programming The Pilot Project will include supportive services to assist homeless persons in transitioning from homelessness, and to enable tenants to live as independently as possible. The scope and scale of on-site health and case-management services is yet to be finalized, as TOSA is working on building partnerships with service providers - refer to Exhibit D: Service Providers Letters of Interest for additional information. In addition to on-site services, TOSA plans to coordinate access to off-site specialty services that are tailored to unique needs that residents may have. In addition to health-related services, the Pilot Project will include programming to develop social and life-skills. Employment training will be available through the on-site social enterprise businesses. V.Site & Zoning The Property is currently zoned PL - Public Lands. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning of the Property to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District). The Salt Lake City Planning Commission recommended approval of the zoning change on October 27, 2021, with the request currently being considered by the City Council through a transmittal from the Planning Division. The Property is vacant and will require significant infrastructure and site improvements to facilitate the Pilot Project. VI.Environmental Remediation Parts of the Property were previously used as a landfill. Environmental testing indicates that various levels of mitigation efforts need to occur in order for the Property to be safe for residential development. The extent of mitigation will depend on the placement of land uses and the utilization of environmental controls. The Department of Sustainability is involved with the identification, sampling, and site investigation process and will work with State and other cognizant agencies to ensure that requirements are met for site clean- up, remediation, and mitigation. VII.Development Viability TOSA estimates that the Pilot Project will cost an estimated $13.8 million, excluding land costs, as follows: TOSV PILOT PHASE - CAPITAL COSTS Environmental Remediation $232,500 Permit / Fees $400,000 Civil Work $1,045,440 Tiny Home Construction $4,350,000 Welcome Neighborhood Homes $875,000 Neighborhood Center $441,000 Community Center / Clinic $3,146,400 Social Enterprise Building $2,300,000 Landscaping $320,000 Architectural Fees $666,744 Total $13,777,084 Source: TOSA, dated 4/29/22 as provided to City staff on 6/24/22 Note: Excludes land costs The majority of costs will be covered by in-kind work and donations. According to TOSA, the fund-raising status is as follows as of July 6, 2022: •Almost $2.2 million in cash has been committed and received •Another $3.1 in cash has been pledged •The remaining balance is either committed or expected to be received through in- kind assets and services - Refer to Exhibit E: In Kind Letters for additional information The Administration will ensure that TOSA has adequate funds to move the project forward prior to closing on the land lease. If fundraising does not meet expectations or there are gaps in the receipt of charitable funds, Joseph Grenny, TOSA’s Chairman of the Board, and his wife have made a personal commitment of up to $5,000,000 to cover shortfalls - refer to Exhibit F: Construction Commitment Letter for additional information. VIII.Operating Viability & Social Enterprises Rent revenues are only estimated to cover about 10% of the annual operating costs – refer to Exhibit G: Pro Forma. The remaining revenue required to successfully operate the Pilot Project will be generated by social enterprise businesses that will be located on-site. These businesses are anticipated to be a motel (Community Inn), thrift store, and cookie- manufacturing enterprise. In addition to generating revenue to cover operating costs, these businesses will provide critical job training opportunities for residents. The Community Inn will include 25 stand-alone tiny homes offered as nightly rentals for the general public, thereby providing lodging opportunities for Pilot Project visitors and volunteers. While these businesses are yet to be established, TOSA has considerable experience with social enterprise businesses and has partnered with the founder of Lofthouse Cookies to advise on the cookie manufacturing business. If revues fall short, TOSA has committed to covering up to $1,000,000 annually to cover operating expenses –refer to Exhibit H: Operating Commitment Letter. PUBLIC PROCESS: Under Utah law, after first holding a public hearing, a municipality may “authorize municipal services or other nonmonetary assistance to be provided to a nonprofit entity, whether or not the municipality receives consideration in return.” Utah Code §10-8- 2(1)(a)(v). Because TOSA is a nonprofit entity, the City may waive the fair-market rental rates it would ordinarily be required to receive for use of City-owned property so long as the municipal legislative body first holds a public hearing regarding the waiver and authorizes the Administration to enter into the land lease for the below-market lease rates. While a formal public benefits analysis is not required pursuant to Utah law, an informal public benefits analysis is provided as Exhibit C: Informal Public Benefits Analysis to provide an analysis of the public benefits to be received in exchange for a waiver of the fair-market rents for a land lease. EXHIBITS: A.Site Map B.Resolution and Term Sheet C.Informal Public Benefits Analysis D.Service Provider Letters of Interest E.In Kind Letters F.Construction Commitment Letter G.Pro Forma H.Operating Commitment Letter EXHIBIT A: SITE MAP Note: Pilot Site is defined by the smaller blue boundary. Site plan is subject to change. RESOLUTION NO. _____ OF 2022 (Authorizing the Lease Rate and Term for The Other Side Village Pilot Project located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue, Salt Lake City) WHEREAS, The Other Side Academy (“TOSA”), a Utah nonprofit corporation, desires to develop a community of small homes, community space, support services, and commercial uses to provide affordable housing and life skill development for the City’s unsheltered population, to be known as The Other Side Village (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the first phase of the Project (the “Pilot Project”) will include affordable housing, supportive services, community space, social enterprise buildings, and additional tiny homes to be offered as nightly rentals, as further described on the attached term sheet (the “Term Sheet”); and WHEREAS, TOSA and the City desire to locate the Pilot Project on approximately 8 acres of the real property owned by the City and located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue, Salt Lake City (the “Pilot Site”); WHEREAS, the primary beneficiaries of the construction of the Pilot Project will be individuals experiencing chronic homelessness who are transitioning into housing as part of the City, County, and State’s efforts to address the homelessness and housing crisis in Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS, a below-market ground lease to TOSA will facilitate the development of the Pilot Project, which would otherwise be financially unfeasible; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to provide assistance to TOSA in the form of a ground lease rate for the Pilot Site in the amount of $1.00 per year for a term of 40 years, so long as the conditions of the ground lease between City and TOSA, or another nonprofit approved by City, are met (the “Lease Fee Waiver”); and EXHIBIT B: RESOLUTION & TERM SHEET 2 WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 10-8-2(1)(a)(i) allows public entities to provide nonmonetary assistance and waive fees to and for nonprofit entities after a public hearing; and WHEREAS, though Utah Code Section 10-8-2 does not require a study for such waiver or assistance, in this case the Administration voluntarily performed an analysis of the nonmonetary assistance to the nonprofit corporation (the “Analysis”); and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing relating to the foregoing, in satisfaction of the requirements of Utah Code Section 10-8-2; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the Analysis, and has fully considered the conclusions set forth therein, and all comments made during the public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1.The City Council hereby adopts the conclusions set forth in the Analysis, and hereby finds and determines that, for all the reasons set forth in the Analysis, the Lease Fee Waiver is appropriate under these circumstances. 2.The terms outlined on the Term Sheet represent the approved terms for the Pilot Project, and the City Council hereby authorizes the City administration to negotiate the final terms consistent with the Term Sheet or more beneficial to the City, and execute the ground lease and any other relevant documents consistent with this Resolution and incorporating such other terms and agreements as recommended by the City Attorney’s office. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, on _________, 2022. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: ______________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ____________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office By: ___________________________ Kimberly Chytraus, Senior City Attorney EXHIBIT TO RESOLUTION The Other Side Village Pilot Project Term Sheet AFFORDABLE HOUSING I.Unit Requirements TOSA shall develop and maintain the Pilot Site to include a minimum of 60 tiny home units. Of the total units: 1.Up to 10% may be unrestricted in rent and occupancy for utilization by staff. 2.A minimum of 90% shall be available and affordable to individuals or families meeting the HUD-adopted definition of chronically homeless and homeless, with a priority on chronically homeless. These units shall be designated as the “Affordable Units”. II.Occupancy Requirements TOSA must place into the Affordable Units individuals and families that meet the HUD-adopted definition of chronically homeless and homeless, prioritized as follows: 1.TOSA shall first make the units available to persons or families that meet HUD’s definition of chronically homeless as defined in section 401(2)(A) of the McKinney- Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(9)). In general, to meet this definition, a chronically homeless person or family’s head of household must be sleeping in a place not meant for human habitation or living in a homeless emergency shelter or safe haven, have a disabling condition, as defined in section 401(9) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(9)), and i.be continuously homeless for a year or more, OR ii.have had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years as long as the combined occasions equal at least 12 months. 2.If there are units available and no applications from chronically homeless individuals, TOSA may lease units to vulnerable homeless individuals, as “homeless” is then- currently defined by HUD, provided that applicants who have been homeless for the longest periods of time immediately preceding their application are given priority over applicants who have been homeless for lesser periods of time. III.Tenant Eligibility To determine whether a tenant is eligible, TOSA must verify that the prospective tenant meets HUD’s definition of chronically homeless or homeless and whose incomes have an aggregate annual income for all occupants that is 30% and below of the area median income for Salt Lake City Utah, HUD Metro FMR Area as adjusted for household size. IV.Tenant Selection 1.The Affordable Units shall be made available pursuant to federal and state fair housing laws and HUD guidance, including the following: i.TOSA may establish admission preferences, including a preference for individuals with a commitment to sobriety, but may not deny housing to protected classes pursuant to federal and state fair housing laws. ii.TOSA may regulate the occupancy of units based on unit size but may not unreasonably limit the ability of families with children to obtain housing. 2.TOSA must develop and make public written tenant selection policies and procedures that include descriptions of the eligibility requirements. The Tenant Selection Plan must include evidence of a contractual partnership with service provider(s) and whether there is a restriction or preference in the admission of tenants. The restriction or preference must cite the supporting documentation to ensure inclusion and nondiscrimination in the selection of tenants. 3. TOSA will ensure that all applicants for housing in the project will go through the coordinated entry process used by the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness to ensure coordination and efficiency with the current homelessness services system. 4. TOSA also will enter any new resident into the Homeless Management Information System (“HMIS”) coordinated entry system. 5. Preference will be given to Salt Lake City residents for placement into the development. V. Maximum Rents 1. The annualized rent (which includes all required housing costs such as utilities and other charges uniformly assessed to all Affordable Units, other than charges for optional services) per unit shall be set forth in a written lease and shall not exceed, for the term of the lease, 30% of the annual income limit for individuals and households with a maximum AMI of 25% AMI for the applicable Unit Type (i.e. studio or bedroom number). VI. Tenant Lease Requirements 1. Leases may be provided on a month-to-month basis, with the intent that tenants may live in their homes as long as they meet the basic obligations of tenancy without a time limitation. 2. TOSA shall comply with local, state, and federal laws, including the federal fair housing act, when approving applicants as tenants, evicting, terminating a lease, or providing a notice to quit. 3. TOSA must incorporate specific provisions into the lease agreement for each eligible tenant of the Affordable Units that establish the tenant's obligation to provide accurate information regarding household income and composition. VII. Record-Keeping and Reporting Requirements 1. Upon execution of a lease, TOSA must verify and document the tenant’s annual (gross) income. 2. TOSA must re-examine the income and household composition of tenants on an annual basis. 3. TOSA must submit annual compliance reports to the City. These reports shall document the occupancy and show whether TOSA is in compliance with tenant eligibility requirements. 4. TOSA must provide the City a written certification of compliance when the project reaches initial compliance and then with each annual report. SUPPORTIVE SERVICES The pilot project will include supportive services to assist homeless persons in transitioning from homelessness, and to promote the provision of supportive housing to enable homeless persons to live as independently as possible. Supportive services will include on-site case coordination or management that ensures tenants’ access to a wide variety of services and on-site location of services provided by professional service providers as evidenced through an agreement. Services shall be made available on a flexible and voluntary basis and may address the following: mental health, substance and alcohol use, health, case management, independent living skills, employment, peer support, and community involvement and support. Physical and mental health providers shall have the appropriate licenses, which other services may be provided by those with appropriate training and following industry best practices. PROGRAMMING The pilot project will include programming that includes peer mentoring and the life skill development. This will include opportunities for residents to obtain employment experience by working in a social enterprise to the best of their ability. While participation in these employment activities shall be encouraged, it is not a condition of living in the pilot project. TERM The term of the lease will be forty (40) years with an option to renew the lease within the last year of the lease subject to approval by the Salt Lake City Council for the reduced lease rate. LEASE RATE The lease rate for the property will be $1 per year for the term of the lease. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council Members SUBJECT: Informal Analysis of Public Benefits Provided by The Other Side Village’s Small Home Project in Exchange for a Below-market Ground Lease of Property INTRODUCTION Salt Lake City (the “City”) owns real property located at approximately 1850 West Indiana Avenue, Salt Lake City, consisting of approximately 45 acres (the “City Property”). The Other Side Academy, a Utah nonprofit corporation (“TOSA”) desires to develop a community of small homes, community space, support services, and commercial uses to provide affordable housing and life skill development for the City’s unsheltered population (the “Project”). This informal public benefits analysis is only for the first phase of the Project (the “Pilot Project”), which is intended to be a lease of approximately 8 acres of the City Property (the “Pilot Site”) and development of approximately of 54 tiny homes that shall be deed restricted as affordable and co-located with supportive services and social enterprise uses. While the City’s primary interest in development of the Pilot Site is affordable housing and supportive services, TOSA intends to develop other uses including community space, social enterprise buildings, and additional tiny homes to be offered as nightly rentals. Prior to development, the Pilot Site may require environmental remediation and/or mitigation to allow for residential uses. TOSA has agreed to pay for all costs to remediate the Pilot Site and to develop and operate the Pilot Project. Any request to lease the remainder of the City Property for less than fair market value will be submitted to the City Council at a later time for a supplemental public benefit analysis. In exchange for the remediation, operation, and management of the Pilot Project, TOSA is seeking a discounted lease rate for a 40-year ground lease of the Pilot Site (the “Ground Lease”). Though a formal analysis of the benefits to be received by the City in exchange for the benefit provided to TOSA is not required under Utah Code ⸹10-8-2, this informal analysis has been prepared to help assist the City Council’s evaluation of the recommended action. LEGAL FRAMEWORK Under Utah law, after first holding a public hearing, a municipality may “authorize municipal services or other nonmonetary assistance to be provided to a nonprofit entity, whether or not the municipality receives consideration in return.” Utah Code §10-8-2(1)(a)(v). Because TOSA is a nonprofit entity, the City may waive the fair-market rental rates it would ordinarily be required to receive for use of the City Property so long as the municipal legislative body first holds a public hearing regarding the waiver and authorizes the Administration to enter into the Ground Lease at the below-market lease rate. Utah Code §10-8-2(3) outlines the purposes for which a municipal body may appropriate funds as “for 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 EXHIBIT C: INFORMAL PUBLIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS 2 inhabitants of the municipality.” The factors that must be considered in determining the propriety of such an appropriation or waiver if made to any type of entity or individual other than a nonprofit entity as set forth under Utah Code §10-8-2(3)(e). Here, it may be helpful to consider the same factors: (1)The specific benefits (including intangible benefits) to be received by the City in return for the arrangement; (2)The City’s purpose in making the appropriation, including an analysis of how the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort or convenience of the residents of Salt Lake City will be enhanced; and (3)Whether the appropriation is “necessary and appropriate” to accomplish the reasonable goals and objectives of the City in the area of economic development, job creation, affordable housing, blight elimination, resource center development, job preservation, the preservation of historic structures and property, and any other public purpose. BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT AND CITY PROPERTY As an overview of the entire Project, to be named The Other Side Village, TOSA anticipates developing a community that will be a secure and self-reliant neighborhood designed to serve the most vulnerable of the City’s unsheltered individuals, particularly those that meet the definition of chronically homeless. The home sizes may range from approximately 280-400 square feet. The Pilot Project is anticipated to have onsite services similar to those provided with permanent supportive housing, such as onsite medical, dental, and mental health services. In addition, TOSA is proposing that the community will have a garden and gathering spaces to serve residents. TOSA plans to implement social enterprises so that the Project can support itself financially and allow residents to gain employment experience. TOSA’s purpose for the Project is to create a community for unsheltered residents of Salt Lake City following the recovery housing model. Similar to permanent supportive housing, recovery housing values independent living and voluntary clinical services. Where they differ is that recovery housing requires an alcohol and drug-free living environment and may require residents to participate in recovery activities as a condition for residency. TOSA’s intent is to instill a peer accountability model to keep the community safe, clean, and orderly, to run social enterprises within the non-profit so that the organization can eventually be operationally self-sufficient and not be dependent on the government or donors. The Administration worked with TOSA to identify a parcel suitable for development of the Project, which ideally requires at least 30 acres, access to public transportation, and reasonable proximity to services. There are very few parcels of sufficient size and geography available within Salt Lake City boundaries. The City Property was identified as one that will allow the community to be established and potentially expand as a diverse type of deeply affordable housing and accessible services. 3 The City Property was historically used as a landfill between 1923 and 1962. It is currently vacant property and requires significant environmental remediation/mitigation and cleanup of refuse prior to development of residential uses. TOSA is working with the City’s Sustainability Department and the State of Utah to determine the scope and scale of the efforts, and TOSA has agreed to pay for the entire cost and to accept full liability for the costs and claims related to the remediation/mitigation. Before committing to lease the entire City Property to TOSA for the Project, the City and TOSA agreed to phase the Project, starting with the Pilot Project using the Pilot Site for the development of a minimum of 60 tiny homes to be utilized as housing (the “Housing Units”). Of the anticipated 60 Housing Units, a minimum of 54, or 90% of the total Housing Units, will be available and affordable to individuals and/or households that align with fair housing occupancy standards who have experienced homelessness and have incomes at or below 30% of Salt Lake County’s average median income (“AMI”), the (“Affordable Units”). The remaining 6, or up to 10% of the total Housing Units, will be available for Pilot Project staff to live on-site to help provide 24-hour staff coverage. In addition to the Housing Units, TOSA plans to construct and utilize up to 25 tiny homes as nightly rentals (the “Community Inn”). The Community Inn will also function as a social enterprise to provide job training and revenue for TOSV operations. TOSA shall construct and operate supportive services for the residents to assist homeless persons in transitioning from homelessness, and to enable tenants to live as independently as possible. Finally, TOSA intends to construct community space and social enterprise buildings to provide job training and revenue for the Pilot Project’s operations. The Ground Lease will include the affordability requirements for the Pilot Project, as well as other requirements. The Pilot Project is anticipated to include development of the buildings, Housing Units, related infrastructure (curb and gutter), and will also include the related amenities. TOSA desires to eventually develop the entire City Property for the Project and anticipates submitting a separate request to lease the additional City Property after meeting certain metrics, including occupancy and confirmation that the Pilot Project does not have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. If TOSA requests to lease the remaining City Property, it will accept full responsibility for the costs and liability to remediate and/or mitigate the additional City Property to standards for residential development. TOSA is requesting that the City approve the Ground Lease of the Pilot Site in exchange for the public benefits TOSA will be providing with the homeless services, environmental remediation, development, and operation of the Pilot Project. The Council has been asked to consider a zoning amendment for the City Property concurrent with consideration of the proposed below- market lease rate to allow development of the Pilot Project. TOSA intends to construct and operate the Pilot Project through donations from foundations, corporations, and private citizens. Eventually, TOSA hopes to obtain self-sufficiency through revenues generated from social enterprises, including the Community Inn. 4 TERMS OF THE GROUND LEASE AND PUBLIC BENEFITS PROVIDED I.Terms of Ground Lease; Costs to the City Under the proposed Ground Lease between the City and TOSA, the City will maintain ownership of the Pilot Site and the Pilot Project will be owned and developed by TOSA, or a non-profit entity approved by the City. The Ground Lease will be structured to require a $1.00 dollar per year payment over the 40-year lease term. The Ground Lease will require that the Pilot Site will be used solely for the development and operation of the small home community. The 2022 assessed value of the City Property is approximately $4.20 per square foot, which equates to about $8,230,000 for the City Property or $1,460,000 for the Pilot Site property, excluding remediation, mitigation, and cleanup costs. Remediation and mitigation of the Pilot Site acres of City Property will allow it to be utilized for residential purposes. The below-market lease terms are being offered as the City’s contribution to providing solutions for homeless services. The City will not have any responsibility for environmental remediation, construction, operation, or maintenance of the Pilot Site and Pilot Project. II.Public Benefits Provided by the Pilot Project. The Pilot Project as planned provides numerous benefits to the City and promotes the City’s reasonable goals of objectives to increase the availability of affordable housing, job training, and supporting the City’s unsheltered population on a path to secure housing. A wide array of affordable housing options is needed to create a path from shelter to housing. By the City maintaining ownership of the Pilot Site but leasing it to TOSA, the City will facilitate the development of housing and services for underserved populations in our City that need it most. Residents of the Pilot Project will have the opportunity to work with case managers and may receive support in the following areas: sober living; tenant responsibilities and housing stability; access to benefits and entitlements; access to healthcare providers; access to behavioral health services; access to education and employment supports; access to mental health services and medications; information and referral to community resources (including but not limited to food pantries, legal services, faith-based organizations, additional housing options); and other relevant services and supports. Regular engagement in case management services will assist tenants in developing and fine-tuning life skills. Further, the on-site social enterprise endeavors will provide job skill development for residents of the Pilot Project. The Pilot Project will help lower the cost of public care of unsheltered individuals by providing housing for people who likely have a history of utilizing emergency services within Salt Lake City. Once housed, residents will free up shelter beds and services for others in the community to access and help alleviate capacity restraints at the homeless resource centers. In addition, accessible housing may alleviate encampments within the city that require tremendous City and County resources to maintain the health and safety of the unsheltered individuals and the public. Some residences will be earmarked as deeply affordable recovery housing to provide needed assistance to the most vulnerable population in our community. These are greatly needed community benefits. 5 The unsheltered population typically have limited access to healthcare and may rely on emergency services for care. Connecting residents to accessible medical, dental, and mental health care within the community will allow for preventative care, reducing the need for emergency room visits and hopefully providing better health outcomes. Alleviating the current burden on emergency medical services and hospitals to provide continuing care for unsheltered individuals will benefit both the individual users and the public. III.Salt Lake City’s Purposes and Enhancing the Quality of Life for Residents. Through the services mentioned above, the Pilot Project aims to serve formerly unsheltered individuals through housing, healthcare, social enterprise, and community. By helping serve the needs of these individuals, it is anticipated that the impact to the City can be measured through improvement of life skills and health outcomes, reduction in area criminal activity, and new or increased employment of clients served by the Pilot Project. The neighborhood surrounding the Pilot Project may also benefit by activation of the currently vacant and former landfill space. Increasing the number of residences in the area may encourage additional investments in the neighborhood such as grocery and other retail stores, recreation, and transit. In addition, TOSA is committed to ensuring that the Pilot Project does not become a strain on the City’s public safety infrastructure and does not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhoods. IV.Accomplishing Salt Lake City’s Goals. The construction and operation of the Pilot Project is in line with the City’s Housing Plan, Growing SLC: a Five Year Housing Plan, 2018-2022. Growing SLC includes solutions to address housing for incomes below 40% AMI providing housing and services to the City’s most vulnerable populations. Growing SLC strongly encourages supporting residents living in poverty and making $20,000 per year or less. To do that, the plan sets the following actions items for the City: (1)Lead in the development of new affordable housing types, as well as construction methods that incorporate innovative solutions to issues of form, function, and maintenance. (2)Offer incentives to developers of affordable housing such as land discounts and primary financing options. (3)Work with housing partners and government entities to continue supporting and enhancing service models that meet the needs of the City’s most vulnerable households. The plan also adopts the City Council’s 2017 guiding principles for evaluating and appropriating City funds for housing. The priorities relevant to the Pilot Project are as follows: (1)Create a net increase in affordable housing units while: (i) Avoiding displacement of existing affordable housing to the extent possible, and (ii) Retaining and expanding the diversity of AMI and innovative housing types. (2)Create a spectrum of housing options for people of all backgrounds and incomes. 6 (3)Include collaboration with community and private sector partners to enable opportunities for in kind contributions, creative financing, and service delivery models. (4)Utilize city-owned land whenever possible. (5)Enable residents’ success to maintain housing through partnerships with providers of supportive services. (6)Identify tools to increase and diversify the total housing supply including housing types that the private market does not sufficiently provide such as … innovative housing types. The Pilot Project accomplishes several of the City’s goals and priorities by providing predictable, affordable housing and supports needs of its residents. CONCLUSION The development of the Pilot Project by TOSA will be a benefit to residents of the City. Providing a below-market Ground Lease for the Pilot Site is an appropriate use of City resources to achieve the City’s “reasonable goals and objectives of the City in the area of economic development, job creation, affordable housing, blight elimination, resource center development, job preservation, the preservation of historic structures and property.” Further, the Pilot Project helps to achieve the City’s goals by creating a net increase in affordable housing stock while providing long-term housing services for very low-income residents who have experienced homelessness. 4460 S Highland Dr. Salt Lake City, UT 84124 888.949.4864 ValleyCares.com July 1, 2022 The Other Side Village 667 East 100 South Salt Lake City, UT 84102 To Whom it May Concern: It is my pleasure to provide this letter of support on behalf of Valley Behavioral Health, Inc (Valley). Valley has worked closely with The Other Side Village leadership team to create the Welcome Neighborhood which will temporarily house and prepare individuals experiencing chronic homelessness to transition from the street to Village life and connect them to resources and services needed, including mental health treatment, supportive housing, medication management, and targeted case management. Valley collaborates on the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness and the Housing Core Function Group. In addition, Valley’s homeless outreach program, Storefront, works closely with the three Homeless Resource Centers and the Midvale Family Shelter by providing regular outreach and connecting those staying at these centers to various community housing programs. We support The Other Side Village initiative and plan to provide onsite mental health services to the residents of the Village on a regular basis when it is operational. We look forward to continuing our combined efforts to make homelessness rare, brief, and non- recurring in our capital city by lifting individuals out of chronic homelessness through community and connection. Sincerely, Preston L. Cochrane Valley Behavioral Health, Inc Vice President of Housing & Support Services EXHIBIT D: SERVICE PROVIDERS LETTERS OF INTEREST June 17, 2022 Mr. Tim Stay The Other Side Village Executive Director Dear Mr. Stay, On behalf of Fourth Street Clinic, I am pleased to provide this letter of interest for The Other Side Village, a.k.a Tiny Village, as you move forward in your planning and approval phase to begin construction. Fourth Street Clinic is committed to providing high quality integrated health care services to those in our community experiencing homelessness. We believe that housing is a critical component of achieving and maintaining good health, and we are pleased to be included in the conversation on how we can partner to support those experiencing homelessness as they transition into housing. We look forward to continuing conversations as you embark on the planning process to discuss expand funding opportunities, defining and understanding the scope and timelines of the project, and engaging with additional partners to support our work. As community partners, we are keenly aware that partnerships are essential to extend and strengthen vital programs that ensure the health and well-being of those experiencing homelessness. Located in downtown Salt Lake City since 1988, Fourth Street Clinic has been the primary provider of health care services in Salt Lake County and its surrounding area. In 2021, 4,672 individuals received care at our downtown clinic as well as through our Medical Street Team and our Mobile Clinic. Fourth Street Clinic stands ready to look at ways in which our organizations can work collaboratively to maximize resources and to improve the health care for our homeless community. Fourth Street Clinic values the partnership of our organizations and applauds the work of The Other Side Village to address the many challenges of homelessness. I look forward to ongoing discussions and clarity on the Tiny Village project as plans are solidified. I can be reached directly at 801-364-0058 ext 1383 or janida@fourthstreetclinic.org. Sincerely, Janida Emerson CEO July 3, 2022 Salt Lake City Council Attn: Tim Stay 667 E 100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84120 RE: THE OTHER SIDE VILLAGE Dear City Council: The purpose of this letter is to document the commitment of Sego Homes to help with the funding and construction of the The Other Side Village. Sego Homes, along with their vendors and trade partners, has provided support to several charitable organizations over the past few years such as Operation Underground Railroad to whom we donated $121,000 and Hopes for Hope to whom we donated $101,000. We anticipate providing a similar level of support to The Other Side Village by building and donating several of the tiny homes proposed for this community. We respectfully request that the City Council approve this proposed community and facilitate the successful development of this innovative and much needed community. Sincerely, SEGO HOMES Wayne H. Corbridge CEO wayne@segohomes.com (801) 362-6228 EXHIBIT E: IN KIND LETTERS June 24, 2022 ATTN: Mr. Tim Stay The Other Side Academy 667 E 100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Dear Tim, As you know, HomeAid is a 501(c)3 organization with 32 years experience in partnering with the homebuilding industry to provide discounted and in-kind construction and renovation services to organizations serving people experiencing homelessness. The HomeAid Utah affiliate has been in operation over 3 years and has enjoyed tremendous support in our fight to help alleviate human suffering within our community. We are supported by some of the largest homebuilders and industry associates locally, regionally and nationally. We are aware of and eager to participate in your new tiny home community project in Salt Lake City, The Other Side Village. Our sister affiliate, HomeAid Austin, has been very successful in their efforts at the Community First Village in Austin, Texas and will have completed 36 tiny-homes by the end of 2023. HomeAid Utah anticipates we can facilitate the construction of approximately 15-20 tiny homes, possibly an entire sub-village within the initial phase of the community. It is our goal that once completed and additional phases become available, we can be an ongoing contributor over the duration of the total project buildout facilitating the construction of several more homes. We are very much looking forward to participating with you on this worthy initiative. Sincerely, Don Adamson Executive Director, HomeAid Utah Cc: Nate Shipp, Affiliate President, HomeAid Utah t 801.595.6400 e4harchitecture.com |833 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 July 1, 2022 The Other Side Village Attn: Tim Stay 667 E 100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Re: Support for the Other Side Village Project Dear Tim, At your request, I am writing to summarize our support to date for the Other Side Village project. Our architectural firm, E4H Environments for Health Architecture, is dedicated to improving the wellness of our communities including physical health, mental health, equality, and basic human needs. The charitable wing of our organization, E4Hcares, has been providing full architectural services for the Other Side Village project for well over a year. Our Salt Lake firm partner, David Dixon, has orchestrated the development of the site plan, buildings, and homes by leading a host of other design professionals, schools, and individuals in the planning of the Village while he fills in the gaps. To date, David has contributed well over 400 hours to this effort. At our standard billing rate of $250/hour for our firm partners, this would equate to a donation of over $100,000 in design services. We would estimate he and others in our firm will spend another equal amount of time seeing the project through to completion. We firmly believe the Other Side Village will be the best program anywhere for caring for our homeless neighbors and helping them to lead more productive lives. The leaders of the Village effort have a proven track record with the Other Side Academy and we hope the City will continue to offer their full support to bring this to fruition as quickly as possible. Best regards, David J. Dixon, AIA EXHIBIT F: CONSTRUCTION COMMITMENT LETTER 45 OPERATIONAL 15-YEAR PROFORMA FOR VILLAGE PILOT PHASE EXHIBIT G: PROFORMA 667 E 100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84102 TheOtherSideAcademy.com July 1, 2022 To Whom it May Concern : The board of The Other Side Academy has agreed to cover any operational shortfalls in funding from the operations of The Other Side Village in an amount up to $1 million per year. I also confirm that The Other Side Academy has the financial means to provide these funds if needed. Respectfully, Tim Stay CEO The Other Side Academy tim@theothersideacademy.com 801-362-8998 EXHIBIT H: OPERATING COMMITMENT LETTER RESOLUTION NO. _____ OF 2022 (Authorizing the Lease Rate and Term for The Other Side Village Pilot Project located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue, Salt Lake City) WHEREAS, The Other Side Academy (“TOSA”), a Utah nonprofit corporation, desires to develop a community of small homes, community space, support services, and commercial uses to provide affordable housing and life skill development for some of the City’s unsheltered population, to be known as The Other Side Village (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the first phase of the Project (the “Pilot Project”) will include affordable housing, supportive services, community space, social enterprise buildings, and additional tiny homes to be offered as nightly rentals, as further described on the attached term sheet (the “Term Sheet”); and WHEREAS, TOSA and the City desire to locate the Pilot Project on approximately 8 acres of the real property owned by the City and located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue, Salt Lake City (the “Pilot Site”); WHEREAS, the primary beneficiaries of the construction of the Pilot Project will be individuals experiencing chronic homelessness who are transitioning into housing as part of the City, County, and State’s efforts to address the homelessness and housing crisis in Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS, a below-market ground lease to TOSA will facilitate the development of the Pilot Project, which would otherwise be financially unfeasible; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to provide assistance to TOSA in the form of a ground lease rate for the Pilot Site in the amount of $1.00 per year for a term of 40 years, so long as the conditions of the ground lease between City and TOSA, or another nonprofit approved by City, are met (the “Lease Fee Waiver”); and 2 WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 10-8-2(1)(a)(i) allows public entities to provide nonmonetary assistance and waive fees to and for nonprofit entities after a public hearing; and WHEREAS, though Utah Code Section 10-8-2 does not require a study for such waiver or assistance, in this case the Administration voluntarily performed an analysis of the nonmonetary assistance to the nonprofit corporation (the “Analysis”); and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing relating to the foregoing, in satisfaction of the requirements of Utah Code Section 10-8-2; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the Analysis, and has fully considered the conclusions set forth therein, and all comments made during the public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby adopts the conclusions set forth in the Analysis, and hereby finds and determines that, for all the reasons set forth in the Analysis, the Lease Fee Waiver is appropriate under these circumstances. 2. The terms outlined on the Term Sheet represent the approved terms for the Pilot Project, and the City Council hereby authorizes the City administration to negotiate the final terms consistent with the Term Sheet or more beneficial to the City, and execute the ground lease and any other relevant documents consistent with this Resolution and incorporating such other terms and agreements as recommended by the City Attorney’s office. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, on _________, 2022. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: ______________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ____________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office By: ___________________________ Kimberly Chytraus, Senior City Attorney 1 APPROVAL OF REZONE REQUEST Potential Conditions to Approval of Rezone (publication of zoning amendment ordinance) Finalize development agreement that requires TOSV to: o Obtain all required permits and approvals from City o Comply with all applicable laws, regulations o Construct all improvements as required, including infrastructure Completion of environmental remediation of pilot phase acreage at TOSV’s cost (full payment or reimbursement to City) and receipt of Certificate of Completion or equivalent Executed guaranty of up to $5 Million from Joseph and Celia Grenny Development Agreement – Defaults and Remedies The Development Agreement and its potential remedies for the City in an event of default apply during the construction period. Such events of default may include, but are not limited to: o TOSV not constructing the improvements within the time limit provided for in the schedule of development o TOSV fails to build the improvements as required o TOSV fails to provide regular development reports Potential remedies if TOSV fails to remedy an event of default: o Terminate the ground lease with TOSV, with our option (not obligation) to purchase the improvements o Terminate the ground lease with TOSV, take possession of the improvements, and relet the property o Enforce on the performance and payment guarantees to complete the construction of the improvements o File a breach of contract claim (which may result in damages or specific performance) o Any other remedies available at law or equity 2 APPROVAL OF PUBLIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS Potential Conditions to Authorize Execution of Below FMV Ground Lease Finalize development agreement Approve financial sources and uses Firm financial commitments for source funding and donations Operating budget guaranty from TOSA Completion of environmental remediation of pilot phase acreage at TOSV’s cost (full payment or reimbursement to City) and receipt of Certificate of Completion or equivalent Potential Ground Lease Requirements 1. Completion of development in compliance with the Development Agreement and continued operation of Village as developed. Development shall include: (a) At least 60 tiny homes to be used as permanent housing: at least 54 units (or 90% of the total permanent housing units) shall be deed-restricted as affordable to standard described in the term sheet (b) At least 3 affordable units are ADA compliant/wheelchair accessible, and more if dictated by resident needs (c) Up to 6 units (not more than 10% of the total permanent housing units) may be used as staff living quarters (d) Up to 25 additional tiny homes may be used as a Community Inn offered as nightly rentals to generate income for TOSV operations (e) A ~ 2,000 square foot Neighborhood Center to house clubhouse type uses for TOSV residents (or sized as appropriate) (f) A ~10,000 square foot Social Enterprise Building to house social enterprise endeavors that generate income for the TOSV operations (or sized as appropriate) (g) A ~12,000 square foot Community Center building to house multi-purpose space, and supportive services for TOSV residents including a medical clinic, a mental health clinic, a social services clinic, administrative offices, and a security office (or sized as appropriate) (h) Utility service and related infrastructure; roads and curb/gutter 2. Compliance with attached term sheet to be attached to Resolution (may be modified by Council). 3. The primary purpose of the Village is to provide housing for qualified residents. The different uses within the Village (residential, supportive services, social enterprise, and commercial/community inn) should be constructed alongside each other so that there are services to support occupied residences and enterprise to support operation of TOSV. For every 10 residential units constructed, at least 9 shall be affordable units. 4. Continual operation of the residential units and supportive services during the lease term. 5. Transportation to off-site supportive services must be provided. 6. Occupancy by residents promptly following receipt of certificate of occupancy (or equivalent) 3 7. Annual Reports - reporting requirements on term sheet and other requested metrics 8. Council Review – review (not more than one time per year) to evaluate purpose and operation compliance (a) Financial feasibility, successfully generating sufficient positive cashflow to maintain and grow its operations. Potential metrics: i. Development viability – Funding and construction of the agreed-upon capital improvements. ii. Operating viability – Development of revenue generating endeavors that provide for the financial self-sufficiency of TOSV, including adequate funding to support on-site supportive services. (b) Social outcomes of the target populations, reducing the number of chronically homeless individuals and improving the well-being of residents. Potential metrics: i. Housing Accessibility – Number of chronically homeless and homeless individuals that successfully obtain housing within the Village. ii. Length of Stay – Average days that TOSV residents successfully maintain housing in the Village. iii. Returns to Homelessness – The extent to which TOSV residents return to homelessness from being housed within the Village. iv. Employment – Percent of TOSV residents that successfully obtain and retain employment. v. Income Growth – Percent of income growth for TOSV residents. vi. Service Provider Partnerships – The extent to which TOSV establishes partnerships with services providers to provide on-site and offsite supportive services. vii. Housing Referral Partnerships – The extent to which TOSV establishes partnerships with service providers for housing referrals. (c) At the neighborhood level, the project’s positive impact on the surrounding community. Potential metrics: i. Community Amenities – The successful development and operation of agreed-upon community amenities, including a bodega or cookie storefront. ii. Public Safety – The number of Police calls and cases. iii. Code Enforcement – The number of enforcement cases. iv. Environmental – The extent to which TOSA completes the necessary environmental mitigation for the planned land uses. 10. Maintenance of all Improvements, including buildings, homes, street, gutter, storm drains, etc. 11. Units are studio or one-bedroom units with private baths and kitchens, fully furnished including housewares, maintained in good repair and compliant with applicable law. 12. Supportive services and employment are offered for residents to participate on a voluntary basis. 13. Employment of residents complies with all applicable laws, including all employment and non- discrimination laws. 4 13. All standard City contracting terms are included, as well as other terms reasonably recommended by the City Attorney to meet Council intent. 14. Operation of bodega or similar grocery type store (can have 3rd party operator). 15. City will not provide further financial contribution to operation of Village. Any future phases must be approved by City Council. 16. Adequate security measures for Village and surrounding community. Ground Lease – Default and Remedies The Ground Lease and its potential remedies apply during the entire period of construction (once the Ground Lease is executed) and operation of the TOSV. Such events of default may include, but are not limited to: o TOSV fails to operate the Village as required o TOSV fails to comply with the terms of the Ground Lease o TOSV fails to provide regular operating reports o TOSV fails to report to Council as required Potential remedies if TOSV fails to remedy an event of default: o Charge TOSV fair market rent for the leased property o Terminate the ground lease with TOSV, with an option (not obligation) to purchase the improvements o Terminate the ground lease with TOSV, take possession of the improvements, and relet the property o File a breach of contract claim (which may result in damages or specific performance) o Injunctive relief o Any other remedies available at law or equity 5 TOSV Pilot Project – Affordable Housing, Supportive Services, and Programming Term Sheet (to be attached to Resolution) AFFORDABLE HOUSING I. Unit Requirements TOSV shall develop and maintain the Site to include a minimum of 60 tiny home units. Of the total units: 1. Up to 10% may be unrestricted in rent and occupancy for utilization by staff. 2. A minimum of 90% shall be available and affordable to individuals or families meeting the HUD-adopted definition of chronically homeless and homeless, with a priority on chronically homeless. These units shall be designated as the “Affordable Units”. II. Occupancy Requirements TOSV must place into the Affordable Units individuals and families that meet the HUD-adopted definition of chronically homeless and homeless, prioritized as follows: 1. TOSA shall first make the units available to persons or families that meet HUD’s definition of chronically homeless as defined in section 401(2)(A) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(9)). In general, to meet this definition, a chronically homeless person or family’s head of household must be sleeping in a place not meant for human habitation or living in a homeless emergency shelter or safe haven, have a disabling condition, as defined in section 401(9) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(9)), and i. be continuously homeless for a year or more, OR ii. have had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years as long as the combined occasions equal at least 12 months. 2. If there are units available and no applications from chronically homeless individuals, TOSV may lease units to vulnerable homeless individuals, as “homeless” is then-currently defined by HUD, provided that applicants who have been homeless for the longest periods of time immediately preceding their application are given priority over applicants who have been homeless for lesser periods of time. III. Tenant Eligibility To determine whether a tenant is eligible, TOSV must verify that the prospective tenant meets HUD’s definition of chronically homeless or homeless and whose incomes have an aggregate annual income for all occupants that is 30% and below of the area median income for Salt Lake City Utah, HUD Metro FMR Area as adjusted for household size. 6 IV. Tenant Selection 1. The Affordable Units shall be made available pursuant to federal and state fair housing laws and HUD guidance, including the following: i. TOSV may establish admission preferences, including a preference for individuals with a commitment to sobriety, but may not deny housing to protected classes pursuant to federal and state fair housing laws. ii. TOSV may regulate the occupancy of units based on unit size but may not unreasonably limit the ability of families with children to obtain housing. 2. TOSV must develop and make public written tenant selection policies and procedures that include descriptions of the eligibility requirements. The Tenant Selection Plan must include evidence of a contractual partnership with service provider(s) and whether there is a restriction or preference in the admission of tenants. The restriction or preference must cite the supporting documentation to ensure inclusion and nondiscrimination in the selection of tenants. 3. TOSV will ensure that all applicants for housing in the project will go through the coordinated entry process used by the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness to ensure coordination and efficiency with the current homelessness services system. 4. TOSA also will enter any new resident into the Homeless Management Information System (“HMIS”) coordinated entry system. 5. Preference will be given to Salt Lake City residents for placement into the development. V. Maximum Rents The annualized rent (which includes all required housing costs such as utilities and other charges uniformly assessed to all Affordable Units, other than charges for optional services) per unit shall be set forth in a written lease and shall not exceed, for the term of the lease, 30% of the annual income limit for individuals and households with a maximum AMI of 25% AMI for the applicable Unit Type (i.e. studio or bedroom number). VI. Tenant Lease Requirements 1. Leases may be provided on a month-to-month basis, with the intent that tenants may live in their homes as long as they meet the basic obligations of tenancy without a time limitation. 2. TOSV shall comply with local, state, and federal laws, including the federal fair housing act, when approving applicants as tenants, evicting, terminating a lease, or providing a notice to quit. 3. TOSV must incorporate specific provisions into the lease agreement for each eligible tenant of the Affordable Units that establish the tenant's obligation to provide accurate information regarding household income and composition. 7 VII. Record-Keeping and Reporting Requirements 1. Upon execution of a lease, TOSV must verify and document the tenant’s annual (gross) income. 2. TOSV must re-examine the income and household composition of tenants on an annual basis. 3. TOSV must submit annual compliance reports to the City. These reports shall document the occupancy and show whether TOSA is in compliance with tenant eligibility requirements. 4. TOSV must provide the City a written certification of compliance when the project reaches initial compliance and then with each annual report. SUPPORTIVE SERVICES The pilot project will include supportive services to assist homeless persons in transitioning from homelessness, and to promote the provision of supportive housing to enable homeless persons to live as independently as possible. Supportive services will include on-site case coordination or management that ensures tenants’ access to a wide variety of services and on-site location of services provided by professional service providers as evidenced through an agreement. Services shall be made available on a flexible and voluntary basis and may address the following: mental health, substance and alcohol use, health, case management, independent living skills, employment, peer support, and community involvement and support. Physical and mental health providers shall have the appropriate licenses, which other services may be provided by those with appropriate training and following industry best practices. PROGRAMMING The pilot project will include programming that includes peer mentoring and the life skill development. This will include opportunities for residents to obtain employment experience by working in a social enterprise to the best of their ability. While participation in these employment activities shall be encouraged, it is not a condition of living in the pilot project. TERM The term of the lease will be forty (40) years with an option to renew the lease within the last year of the lease subject to approval by the Salt Lake City Council for the reduced lease rate. LEASE RATE The lease rate for the property will be $1 per year for the term of the lease. Items B6 & B7 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: Allison Rowland & Brian Fullmer Policy Analysts DATE:October 4, 2022 RE: The Other Side Village Public Benefits Analysis and Below Market Lease Rate and Term; and The Other Side Village Rezoning Application PLNPCM2021-00787 The following motions are for the public hearing on the TOSV public benefits analysis and below market lease rate and term (public hearing item #6) AND the TOSV rezoning application public hearing (public hearing item #7) MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing on the Other Side Village: - public benefits analysis and below market lease rate and term (item #6), - and rezoning application (item #7), - and defer action 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:September 13, 2022 RE: The Other Side Village (TOSV) Rezoning Application PLNPCM2021-00787 The Council will be briefed about an ordinance requested by The Other Side Academy (TOSA) to amend zoning designations on portions of properties located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue, and 1965 West 500 South. Both properties are owned by Salt Lake City and zoned PL (Public Lands). The requested zoning designation is FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District) to develop a walkable urban mixed-use neighborhood that would be known as “The Other Side Village” (TOSV) operated by TOSA. Permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless individuals, along with on-site healthcare, medical services, and community gathering spaces are anticipated under the proposal. The proposed rezoning would apply to approximately 28.5 acres of the 1850 West Indiana Avenue parcel, and approximately 8.6 acres at 1965 South 500 West for a total of approximately 37.1 acres as shown in the image below. Total area of both parcels is approximately 83.43 acres. Approval by the Council would result in both parcels being “split zoned” (two zoning designations within each parcel). It has not been determined by the Administration whether the parcels would remain split zoned or subdivided. If the parcels are subdivided that is an administrative process and would not involve the Council. Under the proposal, the City would retain ownership of the subject property and lease it to TOSA at a reduced rate. This was addressed separately at the Council work session on September 6, 2022 by Council Senior Public Policy Analyst Allison Rowland in her report reviewing the public benefit analysis for TOSV. (Note: Ms. Rowland’s report and the public benefits analysis are attached to this report.) A specific site development proposal has not been submitted at this time however, the petitioner indicated, and the public benefits analysis is based on a “phased approach.” This would include an initial “demonstration” or pilot project on the southeast portion of the subject property. Item Schedule: Briefing: September 13, 2022 Set Date: August 29, 2022 Public Hearing: September 20, 2022 Potential Action: TBD Page | 2 2 1 7 4 2 According to information included with the public benefits analysis, the pilot project would consist of at least 54 deed-restricted tiny homes, six tiny homes for on-site staff who provide 24-hour coverage, and 25 tiny homes that would be offered as nightly rentals. The homes would measure between 280 and 400 square feet each. In addition, the pilot project would include community space, commercial space for income-generating projects, and space for on-site supportive services, as well as utility serve and related infrastructure, and roads, curbs, and gutters. Total costs are estimated at $13.8 million, excluding land costs, which TOSA has indicated it will raise largely through donations and in-kind contributions. If the pilot project is successful future phases would then expand into other areas of the property. This rezoning action would accommodate those future phases, although future public benefits analysis would be needed before the City agrees to additional ground leases. The Planning Commission followed Planning staff’s recommendation to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. In addition, the Commission included the following with its recommendation. Whereas the community and the public should have the opportunity to plan the neighborhood with the large and potentially impactful project. We recommend that the Council ask the City staff to work with the applicant, businesses, and the community to prepare a development agreement prior to conveying the property. This plan needs to look at infrastructure, including transportation, services, Commercial development, and the buffering and protection of the existing business and the needs of the nearby residents. 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. Rezoning portions of the subject parcels will result in “split-zoning.” The Council may wish to ask the Administration if there are plans to subdivide the lots or leave them with multiple zoning designations. 3. The Council may wish to discuss rezoning only the approximately 8 acre proposed pilot project site rather than the larger area. 4. During small group meetings with Council Members, TOSV envisions “thousands of visitors” to the Village each year. The Council may wish to ask if there are parking areas and restroom facilities anticipated to accommodate visitors. 5. Again, in small group meetings, TOSV representatives stated there would potentially be on-site short-term rentals available. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if the proposed zoning designation permits this use. 6. The Council may wish to ask what determines if the pilot project is deemed a success, and what thresholds will be judged to determine future phases. Note: this is partially discussed in the staff report pertaining to the public benefits analysis. Page | 3 2 1 7 4 2 Zoning Map with subject parcels outlined in yellow. Areas proposed for rezoning are outlined in orange. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Planning staff identified four key considerations with this proposal. They are summarized below. Please see pages 4-8 of the Planning Commission staff report for full details. Consideration 1-Neighborhood and City-Wide Master Plan Considerations Planning staff reviewed the proposal and found it is not in conflict with, and generally supported by the Westside Master Plan, the 9-Line Community Reinvestment Plan, Plan Salt Lake, and Growing SLC. Consideration 2-Change in Zoning and Compatibility with Adjacent Properties Planning staff noted concerns raised about impact the village might have on neighboring properties due to more people in an area that hasn’t had a residential presence. Planning stated “…it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict the scale of these impacts other than to acknowledge that some impacts are likely to occur with such a change in land use. The Master Plan recognizes future changes in this area which Page | 4 2 1 7 4 2 assumes that some impacts are likely to occur with land use changes. Additional infrastructure improvements such as sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians will help to lessen these impacts.” When reviewing the proposed zoning change, Planning staff also noted the following: “Given the location of the property, development pattern, and surrounding zoning, it is staff’s opinion that the change in zoning from PL to FB-UN2 would not lead to changes that are incompatible with the existing development process.” However, Planning recommended the City Council consider a requirement for additional buffering between the industrial and residential uses during the site development process. Consideration 3-Consideration of Alternate Zoning Districts Planning staff considered other potential zoning designations and found the proposed FB-UN2 zoning district is the only one that would accommodate most uses listed by the applicant. (A memo with the analysis is included on pages 11-12 of the Planning Commission staff report.) Some uses are not listed, but zoning interpretations may allow some of these depending on scale, or they may be allowed as accessory uses. These will be reviewed in detail during any development proposal review. Planning staff does not recommend changing to a zoning district other than the requested FB-UN2 designation. Consideration 4-Site Conditions and Infrastructure The subject properties are vacant and do not have infrastructure to support the proposed use as a “tiny home village.” Significant infrastructure improvements will need to be made if the village is developed, however, the extent of any improvements is unknown until a development proposal is submitted. Portions of both parcels were previously used as a landfill site. The Administration is involved with sampling and will work with State agencies on any needed site cleanup and mitigation. Any future development plan may be impacted but to what extent is unknown at this point. In their application materials the petitioner acknowledged the former landfill site and said that area could be utilized for non-housing uses such as additional green space with walking paths and trees, parking for large community events, or potentially a solar farm to provide electricity to the village. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment E (pages 29-30) 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 • August 13, 2021-Early notification announcement mailed to residents and property owners within 300 feet of the project site. Information included project details and information about how to access the online open house and provide input. • August 23, 2021-Planning staff attended West Side Community Councils Open Forum. The applicant presented the proposal and answered questions about the project. • August 31, 2021-Notice of the project and request for comments sent to Poplar Grove Community Council Chair. Courtesy notice also sent to Glendale Community Council Chair. (The Glendale Page | 5 2 1 7 4 2 Community Council is outside of the 660-foot boundary of official notice but is the closest recognized organization adjacent to the project boundary.) Neither community council provided comments to Planning staff. • Planning staff hosted an online open house from August 16, 2021-September 30, 2021 to solicit public comments about the proposal. • October 27, 2021-The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposal. Numerous comments supportive of and opposed to the project were received by Planning staff prior to, during, and following the hearing. Comments supportive of the proposal noted it is an innovative approach to a complex issue. Those opposed primarily expressed concerns about impact the village may have on crime and other activities in the area. Comments sent to Planning staff are found in Attachment F (pages 31-103) of the Planning Commission staff report, and in Exhibit 5 (pages 32-59) of the Administration’s transmittal to the City Council. • October 27, 2021-The Planning Commission closed the public hearing and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. 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: Allison Rowland Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:September 6, 2022 RE: RESOLUTION: REVIEWING THE PUBLIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS FOR THE OTHER SIDE VILLAGE PILOT PROJECT AT 1850 WEST INDIANA AVENUE AND CONSIDERING A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE LEASE RATE AND TERM ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing on the public benefits analysis and the proposed lease rate and term for a pilot project to test the viability of The Other Side Village (TOSV), a tiny home community that would offer “recovery housing” for people experiencing homelessness, particularly those who struggle with substance abuse, mental health and/or physical disabilities. Its services would be similar to those at permanent supportive housing developments, and it would be located on eight acres at 1850 West Indiana Avenue and part of an adjacent parcel, on a portion of vacant land owned by Salt Lake City that was formerly a landfill. The Other Side Academy (TOSA), a Utah nonprofit corporation would lease the area for 40 years at $1 per year. TOSA has agreed to pay for all costs to remediate the site of the pilot project, which includes part of the former landfill, as well as the costs of development and operation of the pilot project. Any request to lease the remainder of the City properties for less than fair market value would be submitted later and with a supplemental public benefit analysis. The Council will hear public comment on this resolution at the September 20 Formal Meeting. In conjunction with this project, the Administration has requested the Council consider a zoning amendment for the City property. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed zoning change on October 27, 2021, and the City Council will be briefed on that issue on September 13 with a public hearing also on September 20. Goal of the briefing: Review the public benefit analysis for the pilot project of The Other Side Academy’s Village and consider authorizing the below-market lease rate and 40-year term. Item Schedule: Briefing: September 6, 2022 Set Date: August 29, 2022 Public Hearing: September 20, 2022 Potential Action: October 4 Page | 2 2 1 7 4 1 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND BACKGROUND A.The Properties and Proposed Lease. Since learning of TOSA’s interest in establishing a “village” of tiny homes, the Mayor’s Administration has worked with the organization to identify potential sites large enough for the planned full build-out, which was envisioned as at least 30 acres. Parcels of this size with access to public transit are not available in most areas of Salt Lake City, but two abutting candidate parcels totaling approximately 83.5 acres of City-owned property were identified, one at 1850 West Indiana Avenue and the other at 1965 West 500 South. Parts of these parcels served as a City landfill between 1923 and 1962, and they will require environmental remediation before they can be used for the TOSV (see section B). In addition, a fault line runs through the property and the Utah Geological Survey is currently conducting a trenching study to gather additional information. The fault line and precise locations of environmental contamination could affect the boundaries and site plan of future phases of the development. The Public Benefits Analysis in the transmittal states that the 2022 assessed value of the Indiana Avenue property is about $4.20 per square foot, or $8,230,000 for the full parcel, excluding remediation, mitigation, and cleanup costs. The City and TOSA agreed to phase in the development, starting with a pilot project to test its viability (see section D below). The proposal before the Council would allow TOSA to site the pilot project on eight acres at the southeast corner of the properties. This area is assessed at approximately $1,460,000. TOSA would not have rights or obligations related to the other areas of these properties, unless and until another phase of the project is approved by the City. The City would continue to secure and maintain these areas, and TOSA states that it is committed to ensuring that residents of the Pilot Site are respectful of the surrounding property and neighborhood. The Administration proposes a lease term of 40 years at the reduced lease rate of $1 per year, with an option to renew during the last year of the lease, subject to review and approval by the Council. The below-market lease terms would be offered as the City’s contribution to TOSA’s effort to provide creative solutions for people experiencing homelessness. Utah State law provides that a municipality may “authorize municipal services or other nonmonetary assistance to be provided to a nonprofit entity, whether or not the municipality receives consideration in return,” under certain conditions. 1. The purpose of these services or assistance must be approved by the municipal legislative body and provide for “the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the inhabitants of the municipality.” 2. A public hearing must be held by the legislative body before the decision is made. ➢The Council may wish to ask the Administration and the Attorney’s Office about some issues that could be addressed in the terms of the lease agreement, including: o an operating covenant; o ensuring that the pledges and guarantees offered in the transmittal are in a form acceptable to the City; and o any potential termination of the lease, should TOSV not meet the mutually- agreed expectations. B.Environmental Remediation. Under the lease, the City would relinquish any responsibility for environmental remediation, construction, operation, or maintenance of the pilot site and project. All of these would be assumed by TOSA. The organization also would accept full liability for the costs and claims related to the remediation and mitigation. Current cleanup efforts are limited to the pilot site, which is believed to be the area where the smallest amount of trash was buried. Page | 3 2 1 7 4 1 The transmittal reports that the City’s Department of Sustainability is already involved with the identification, sampling, and site investigation process and will work with State and other agencies to ensure that requirements are met for site cleanup, remediation, and mitigation. Department of Sustainability staff plans to work closely with regulators, an environmental consultant, and TOSA through the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). The Sustainability Department reviews and provides input on sampling plans, reviews findings and recommendations, and coordinates the implementation of the selected remediation pathway. UDEQ will examine historical reports and environmental sampling results, and may recommend additional sampling, depending on the results of the first round. The Sustainability Department estimates one additional round of sampling and associated reporting by the consultant would cost $70,000, which would be drawn from the City’s non-departmental environmental fund. This fund was set up to be used for environmental assessments on City property and received $100,000 in the FY23 budget. The Administration reports: “Additional budget allocations may be necessary depending on the extent of the environmental work recommended by UDEQ, the City’s desire to continue participating in the VCP, and other city properties that require environmental assessments or remediation.” Once the VCP program is completed, the City would receive a “Certificate of Completion” for the project area. This indicates that all necessary precautions were taken to protect environmental and public health and provides liability protection for the City. The Sustainability Department notes that because the pilot project would be sited in the area where it is believed the smallest amount of trash was buried, remediation there may be simpler than in other areas of the property. The Department estimates that sampling and evaluation of remediation options for subsequent phases could take a year or longer, depending on what is discovered, and the proposed uses of the property. ➢The Council may wish to request additional information from the Administration about the extent of the work already completed by the Sustainability Department on this project, including the cost of any staff time that exceeded services normally provided for potential City leases. C.Informal Public Benefits Analysis. Unlike many other cases the Council considers, a formal public benefits analysis conducted by an outside consultant was not required in this case due to the non-profit status of TOSA. Still, the Administration requested that the Attorney’s Office conduct an “informal” public benefits analysis with help from the Department Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) to identify the potential benefits of the proposed agreement between Salt Lake City and The Other Side Academy (TOSA), the entity which proposes to develop The Other Side Village (TOSV). These public benefits are identified in Exhibit C of the transmittal. 1.Benefits to City. The Informal Public Benefits Analysis notes that in exchange for the property lease to TOSA for the Pilot Project the City and its residents would receive the following benefits: a. Development, operation, and management of a Pilot Project at TOSV that offers a new model for supporting people experiencing homelessness, including “a path to secure housing.” b. Case management for residents, including help accessing benefits and entitlements; healthcare; behavioral and mental health services; education and employment supports; and other community resources. Page | 4 2 1 7 4 1 c. New housing units for households with incomes at or below 30% of Area Median Income, which in 2022 is no more than $21,510 for a single person. Maximum rents would be set at 25% of the area median income and adjusted annually, which is currently $448 monthly, including basic utilities. (Tenants would be allowed to increase their income after signing their leases.) d. Potentially, reduced costs of public care for unsheltered people who likely use emergency services; more alternatives to scarce shelter beds and services; reductions of population in living in encampments. e. The activation of currently vacant property; mitigation of former landfill space; reduction of criminal activity in the vicinity of TOSV; additional investments in nearby neighborhoods in grocery and other retail stores, recreation, and transit. 2.Growing SLC and Council Priorities. The transmittal states that the proposal aligns with both the City’s 2018-2022 Housing Plan, and the Council’s longtime priorities in the following ways: a. Offering solutions to address housing for incomes below 40% AMI; b. Providing housing and services to the City’s most vulnerable populations; c. Creating a net increase in affordable housing units while avoiding displacement of existing affordable housing; d. Retaining and expanding the diversity of AMI and innovative housing types. D.The Pilot Project. As the site map in the transmittal’s Exhibit A indicates, TOSA ultimately intends to expand its operations to cover much of the property on Indiana Avenue and a portion of the 500 South property. For now, though, it has agreed with the Administration to demonstrate the feasibility of its tiny home village concept through a pilot project that would extend over approximately eight acres. The focus would be on “Recovery Housing,” treating people who are considered chronically homeless, that is, those who have experienced homelessness for at least one year, or repeatedly over several years, and who are struggling with substance use disorder, serious mental illness, and/or physical disability. The pilot project would consist of at least 54 deed-restricted tiny homes, six tiny homes for on-site staff who provide 24-hour coverage, and 25 tiny homes that would be offered as nightly rentals. The homes would measure between 280 and 400 square feet each. In addition, the pilot project would include community space, commercial space for income-generating projects, and space for on-site supportive services, as well as utility serve and related infrastructure, and roads, curbs, and gutters. All tenants would be required to pay a standardized rental rate, since this project does not have project- based rental vouchers attached to the units, unlike many other housing developments that serve people who were formerly homeless or have extremely low-incomes. TOSA states that it is committed to assisting prospective and actual tenants obtain and maintain a source of income to pay rent, such as employment, Social Security Disability Insurance, or a Housing Choice tenant-based rental voucher. Page | 5 2 1 7 4 1 1.The Recovery Housing Model. TOSV’s organization and supportive services would conform to National Alliance for Recovery Residence Standards for “Recovery Housing,” a model designed for people suffering from substance use disorders who need supportive transitional housing. Recovery housing provides an alcohol and drug-free living environment and may require residents to participate in recovery activities as a condition for residency. The Recovery Housing Model is recognized and supported by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which recognizes the importance of providing individual choice to support various paths towards recovery. This support is outlined in a HUD Policy Brief on the topic. As described by TOSA: “In this Policy Brief, HUD states that some people pursuing recovery from addiction express a preference for an abstinence-focused residential or housing program where they can live among and be supported by a community of peers who are also focused on pursuing recovery from addiction–environments that are provided by Recovery Housing programs. HUD defines “Recovery Housing” as housing in an abstinence-focused and peer-supported community for people recovering from substance use issues. The Village would meet this definition. The Policy Brief continues to describe characteristics of “Recovery Housing”, which include residents choosing to actively participate together in community activities focused on supporting recovery. The Policy Brief states that: “Many Recovery Housing programs include a high percentage of staff in all areas of the organization that are in recovery themselves. Not only does this type of staffing advance the goals of the program through peer support, but it provides program participants, in some cases, with an opportunity to become employed in a mission-oriented work environment. This creates an environment that benefits both the organization and the individual program participants.” The Village has all of the above components: residents choosing to actively participate in community to support recovery, staff that are in recovery themselves, and employment opportunities for residents.” In response to a staff question, TOSA outlined the process for residents who break their sobriety commitments: “The Other Side Village is a sober community following the HUD defined Recovery Housing Model. TOSA understands that the path to sobriety is challenging and sometimes involves setbacks. If a resident is found to have violated sobriety commitments, there is not an automatic eviction, but rather they will be assisted in every way to regain their sobriety. This could range anywhere from a period of regular drug and alcohol testing and outpatient support to a requirement to participate in residential treatment. All residents will be offered the option of returning to the Welcome Neighborhood for some period of time as a way of restoring sobriety. A resident will be evicted from the Village if they are unwilling to agree upon a reasonable plan to return to sobriety. These policies are in alignment with the HUD guidelines in their Policy Brief on Recovery Housing that was previously mentioned.” Like other housing providers, TOSA would be required to comply with the Fair Housing Act and could face regulatory and legal action for any violations. Page | 6 2 1 7 4 1 2.Tenant Selection. To ensure compliance with Federal and State fair housing laws, the term sheet that accompanies the proposed ordinance changes would require that TOSA: a. not deny housing to protected classes; b. not unreasonably limit the ability of families with children to obtain housing; c. develop and make public written tenant selection policies and procedures that include descriptions of the eligibility requirements; d. ensure that all applicants to the project go through the coordinated entry process used by the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness to ensure coordination and efficiency; e. enter any new resident into the Homeless Management Information System (“HMIS”) coordinated entry system; f. give preference to Salt Lake City residents for placement; and, g. submit annual compliance reports to the City. In addition, an admission preference may be established for individuals with a commitment to sobriety. To be able to afford to pay rent, tenants may be required to have employment or another source of income, such as social security disability or a tenant-based voucher. TOSA intends to lease units on a month-to-month basis, but tenants may remain in their homes indefinitely while they continue to meet the basic obligations of tenancy. If no applications from chronically homeless people are received and TOSV homes are available, the Administration intends to ensure that these are filled with people who are most critically in need of housing, using the coordinated entry system and intake/assessment tools of the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness to match the needs of each unique individual and household. This system generally prioritizes those with longer lengths of homelessness and certain other vulnerabilities for housing. 3.Programming. The Term Sheet for the proposed lease agreement requires supportive services including “on-site case coordination or management that ensures tenants’ access to a wide variety of services and on-site location of services provided by professional service providers as evidenced through an agreement” with appropriately licensed providers. These are to be made available on a “flexible and voluntary basis” and address the following: mental health; substance and alcohol use; health; case management; independent living skills; employment; peer support; and community involvement and support. TOSA is still developing partnerships with service providers, so the scope and scale of on-site health and case-management has not yet been finalized. Because of widely reported staff shortages in social services, staff requested information about how TOSA would handle this issue should it occur in the organizations they are preparing to engage. The reply was as follows: “It is possible that there could be staffing shortages among the service providers and that those staffing shortages could lead to a reduction of services for the residents of the Village. If this were to occur, the Village management would simultaneously pursue two options. One would be to bring in the services of other service providers. The Other Side Village has already had discussions with other medical and mental health service providers who are interested in providing services to the residents of the Village. The other option would be to try to fill the gaps in service through volunteers. The Other Side Village has a number of doctors and clinicians who have volunteered to help at the Village.” Page | 7 2 1 7 4 1 Since, in addition to on-site services, TOSA would coordinate access to off-site services, the organization stated: “TOSA assumes responsibility to coordinate and facilitate access to both on-site and off-site services. This will be accomplished by the Village Coaches, the full-time non-clinical case managers. Each resident will have a Village Coach assigned to them and part of the Village Coach's responsibilities is to facilitate and coordinate access to services, including arranging transportation for them for any off-site appointments.” E.Pilot Project Financing. The financing models include both constructions expenses and operational expenses and revenue. TOSA currently projects breaking ground on the pilot project in early 2023. 1.Construction Costs. Full buildout of the TOSV Pilot Project was estimated at nearly $13.8 million at the end of April 2022, approximately $162,000 per unit, not including land costs. This included environmental remediation, architect fees and building permits, roads and utilities, construction of homes and other buildings, and landscaping, as shown in the figure below. TOSA believes that most of these costs will be covered through in-kind contributions and donations. As of July 6, 2022, TOSA reports having received nearly $2.2 million in cash for this project, with another $3.1 in cash pledged. The exhibits to the transmittal include letters from various individuals promising in-kind support and guarantees. The Administration has committed to ensuring that TOSA has adequate funds to move the project forward prior to closing on the land lease. ➢To increase the likelihood that these pledges are enforceable, the Council could consider asking the Administration to include a condition on the ground lease that any pledge or guarantees is in a form acceptable to the City (this was also noted in an earlier policy question). TOSV PILOT PHASE - CAPITAL COSTS Environmental Remediation $232,500 Permit / Fees $400,000 Civil Work $1,045,440 Tiny Home Construction $4,350,000 Welcome Neighborhood Homes $875,000 Neighborhood Center $441,000 Community Center / Clinic $3,146,400 Social Enterprise Building $2,300,000 Landscaping $320,000 Architectural Fees $666,744 Total $13,777,084 Source: TOSA, dated 4/29/22 as provided to City staff on 6/24/22 Note: Excludes land costs Page | 8 2 1 7 4 1 2.Operations Costs. The primary source of revenue to cover TOSV’s operating costs will be the “social enterprise” businesses located on-site, which are designed to provide job opportunities for residents. These include a thrift store, cookie manufacturing, and rental of the 25 purpose-built tiny homes to the public, including Pilot Project visitors and volunteers. This would be known as the Community Inn. Rent from TOSV residents would cover approximately 10% of operating costs. TOSA indicated that the years noted on the pro forma included in the transmittal (Exhibit G) would shift to reflect that the bulk of revenues and expenses would begin to accrue in 2023, rather than 2022. In response to staff questions, TOSA provided the following additional information: “The Other Side Village has had 2 market studies for the cookie production. The two studies were done independently by University of Utah as well as by Brigham Young University business and MBA students. Both studies showed a growing cookie market and strong indicators for a viable cookie production business. In regards to the Thrift Store, no additional market study was conducted. The Other Side Village is drawing on the experience of the Academy running the two thrift stores in Millcreek and Murray, plus their experience of launching and running a Thrift Furniture store in Denver. There would be a relationship between the Village thrift store and the Academy’s stores. The most obvious relationship is for the Academy to provide inventory for the Village store. The Academy has excess inventory available that would be easy to place at the Village thrift store at little expense or effort.” ➢The Council may wish to ask the Administration about the strategy to be used in the event the operational revenues are not sufficient to cover operational costs. F.Assessment of Pilot Project. The transmittal states that the purpose of the pilot project is to demonstrate the feasibility of the concept. The Administration would assess this using the following criteria: 1. Financial feasibility, successfully generating sufficient positive cashflow to maintain and grow its operations. 2. Social outcomes of the target populations, reducing the number of chronically homeless individuals and improving the well-being of residents. 3. At the neighborhood level, the project’s positive impact on the surrounding community. ➢The Council may wish to ask the Administration about the assessment process: Which department or division would be charged with the assessment? Which indicators and sources of information would be used? What would become of the pilot site and the construction on it should the pilot not demonstrate feasibility? ➢The Council may wish to ask the Administration how success will be evaluated and/or confirmed prior to the authorization of future phases. ➢The Council could ask the Administration to consider adding terms to the lease to lay the groundwork for termination if the Village does not meet operational expectations and/or cover expenses. PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: David J. Gellner, AICP, Senior Planner; 385-226-3860; david.gellner@slcgov.com Date: October 27, 2021 Re: Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2021-00787) Zoning Map Amendment PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1850 W Indiana Avenue & 1965 West 500 South PARCEL SIZE: Total of approximately 37.1 acres PARCEL ID: 15-10-101-001-0000 and 15-03-351-003-0000 MASTER PLAN: Westside Master Plan (2014) ZONING DISTRICT: PL – Public Lands (Requested change to FB-UN2) REQUEST: Tim Stay, CEO of The Other Side Academy, is requesting that the City amend the zoning map for portions of the properties located at 1850 W Indiana Avenue and 1965 W 500 S respectively. Both properties are owned by Salt Lake City and are zoned PL - Public Lands. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning of the properties to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District), in order to develop a walkable urban neighborhood of mixed uses to be known as “The Other Side Village”. The rezoning would be applied to approximately 28.5 acres of the property at 1850 W Indiana and approximately 8.6 acres of the property at 1965 S 500 W. The proposed uses on the approximately 37.1-acre site would include permanent supportive housing for homeless individuals, as well as services and resources to include on-site healthcare, medical services, and community gathering spaces. This request only relates to the zoning designation of the property. No specific site development proposal has been submitted or is under consideration at this time. This zoning map amendment does not require an amendment to the Westside Master Plan. The Planning Commission’s role in this application is to provide a recommendation to the City Council, who will make the final decision on the requested zoning map amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis and findings of fact in this staff report, planning staff finds that the zoning map amendment petition meets the standards, objectives and policy considerations of the city for a zoning map amendment and recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to change the identified properties from PL (Public Lands) to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District). ⚫ Page 2 ATTACHMENTS: A. Future Land Use Map B. Staff Zoning Recommendations C. Applicant Information D. Existing Conditions E. Analysis of Standards F. Public Process and Comments G. Department Comments VICINITY MAP & PROPERTY AREA ⚫ Page 3 Proposed Area to be Rezoned – Includes 28.5 acres of the parcel located at 1850 W Indiana Avenue and 8.6 acres of the parcel Located at 1865 W 500 S respectively. An area of 13.5 acres has been left out from the parcel located at 1850 W Indiana Avenue. ⚫ Page 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reason for Request The applicants are requesting the change from PL - Public Lands to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District), in order to develop a walkable urban neighborhood of mixed uses to be known as “The Other Side Village”. The rezoning would be applied to 37.1 acres of property including 28.5 acres of the parcel at 1850 W Indiana and 8.6 acres of the parcel at 1965 S 500 W. The applicants are proposing a variety of uses including permanent supportive housing as well as on-site healthcare, medical services, and community gathering spaces. The purpose of the zoning amendment is due to the majority of the envisioned future uses not being allowed under the current PL zoning designation. This request only relates to the zoning designation of the property. No specific site development proposal has been submitted or is under consideration at this time. The applicant has however indicated that the future development of the parcel would likely follow a “phased approach”. One scenario that has been discussed with City Staff includes using a 5-acre portion of the total rezoned area as a “demonstration” project with approximately 50 tiny homes being developed. Subsequent phases would use other sections of the rezoned property area. The applicant’s narrative explaining the rationale for the zoning map amendment request and conceptual plans can be found in Attachment C of this report. KEY CONSIDERATIONS: The key considerations associated with this proposal are: 1. Neighborhood and City-Wide Master Plan Considerations 2. Change in Zoning and Compatibility with Adjacent Properties 3. Consideration of Alternate Zoning Districts 4. Site Conditions and Infrastructure Key considerations are discussed further in the following paragraphs and were identified through the analysis of the project (Attachment D) and department review comments (Attachment F). Consideration 1: Neighborhood and City-Wide Master Plan Considerations Westside Master Plan (2014) The subject area falls within area discussed in the Westside Master Plan (WSMP or Plan). The WSMP recognizes a need to encourage growth, redevelopment, and reinvestment in the Westside, in order to support the vision of the Westside Community as a “beautiful, safe, sustainable place for people to live, work, and have fun.” The WSMP includes the following goals that would support the proposed zoning map amendment: 1. Promote reinvestment and redevelopment in the Westside community through changes in land use, improved public infrastructure and community investment to spur development that meets the community’s vision while maintaining the character of the Westside’s existing stable neighborhoods. 2. Protect and encourage ongoing investment in existing, low density residential neighborhoods while providing well designed, compatible and high density residential development where needed, appropriate or desired. 3. Recognize, develop and foster opportunities for unique, mixed use neighborhood and community nodes in the Westside that reflect the diverse nature of the community and provided resources to allow for their growth. ⚫ Page 5 The Plan (pg. 12) recognizes the area west of Redwood Road as historically industrial and attributes some of the development of the area in this form to the nationwide economic growth of the 1950s and the expansion of the Salt Lake International Airport in the 1960s. The Plan shows this property as part of the nebulous “Industrial Districts” mapped on pg. 25 which are further described in the Plan section called “Industrial Districts” on pg. 69. The Plan recognizes “…that anticipated zoning changes and long-term redevelopment of the Redwood Road corridor will lead to a gradual change away from industrial uses on its west side.” (pg. 71). Conversely, the Plan contradicts some of this through the inclusion of the following language: “In the Westside, Redwood Road has long been the edge of residential land uses and this boundary should be maintained.” (pg. 54) The WSMP recognizes that through the development of the Plan there were viewpoints and opinions as to how the west side of Redwood Road should be used in the future. Many people favored the long-term replacement of industrial uses with more commercial uses. “There was little to no discussion about residential development west of Redwood Road, as most people acknowledged that it was nearly impossible to do so with the area’s land use history.” (pg. 27). The lack of discussion about having residential development west of Redwood should not be interpreted as a prohibition of that change being considered or taking place. The Plan was developed in 2014 and represents a “snapshot in time” of the community and the participants and community engagement that took place. The development pressures and persistent issues of homelessness today are undoubtedly different than they were when the Plan was adopted. In other words, the conditions of the time were not such that the idea of developing residential uses in the area was considered as a necessary option at the time and so it was not discussed. It is Staff’s position that the proposed change is not in conflict with the Westside Master Plan. Statements in the Plan indicate that it was anticipated that change would take place in this area, even if there was no agreement or direction in terms of the form that these changes should follow. Redevelopment Agency (RDA) – 9 Line Community Reinvestment Area Plan The 9-Line Community Reinvestment Area Plan is a document that was produced by the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA). The purpose of the 9-Line Plan is to help create funding mechanisms and opportunities to help implement the community vision established through the development of the Westside Master Plan. This Plan is intended to “…assist in closing the gap in identified disparities by providing housing stability, economic development and improved neighborhood conditions.” (Introduction - pg. 4) The subject properties are located within the study area of the Plan, but not within a specific Geographic Target Area (pg. 17) identified in the plan. The closest target area is at the intersection of Redwood Road and Indiana Avenue. While they are City-owned properties and would not be eligible for funding within the Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) established by the Plan, the goals and vision of the Plan are relevant to the general discussion of envisioned west side improvements within the study area. Standards to Guide Project Area Development (pg. 15) – this section of the Plan references numerous goals from the Westside Master Plan to be used as standards in the project area including the three goals cited above in the section on the WSMP. The Objectives in the 9-Line plan including those of Neighborhood Revitalization – Object 1 (pg. 16) speak to the development of underutilized properties while Objective 4 (pg. 19) speaks to developing a variety of housing for all income level. The proposed change is generally supported by the standards and objectives referenced in the 9-Line Community Reinvestment Plan. ⚫ Page 6 Plan Salt Lake Elements and Considerations Plan Salt Lake (December 2015) outlines an overall vision of sustainable growth and development in the city. This includes the development of a diverse mix of uses which is essential to accommodate responsible growth. At the same time, compatibility, which is how new development fits into the scale and character of existing neighborhoods is an important consideration. New development should be sensitive to the context of surrounding development while also providing opportunities for new growth. Guiding Principles outlined in Plan Salt Lake that would relate to the proposed change include the following: 1) Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunities for social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein. 3) Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics. 11) Ensure access to all City amenities for all citizens while treating everyone equitably with fairness, justice and respect. The Housing chapter of Plan Salt Lake includes a number of initiatives intended to help implement the Plan. The initiative to “Support homeless services” is specifically identified. The Plan also references “collaboration with community partners…” in terms of access and equity to City services and amenities. The proposed change is in concert with the general principles and strategies identified in Plan Salt Lake. Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan – 2018-2022 (2017) Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan – 2018-2022 (aka – the Salt Lake City Housing Plan) was adopted in late 2017 as the City’s first housing plan since 2000. The Housing Plan is intended to advance the vision that Salt Lake City is a place for a growing diverse population to find housing opportunities that are safe, secure, and enrich lives and communities. A big focus of the Plan is the protection and development of affordable housing opportunities throughout the City as identified in Goal 2: Affordable Housing. The plan describes the linkages and interaction between a lack of affordable housing and very low-income renters and the City’s most vulnerable citizens. This lack of affordable housing can push some citizens into homelessness as they are priced out of the market. The Housing Plan was developed using existing housing policy, primarily Plan Salt Lake and the Salt Lake City Comprehensive Housing Policy. The guiding principles of Plan Salt Lake are incorporated by reference including the initiative to “Support homeless services”. The proposed change is in concert with the principles and strategies identified in Growing SLC. Consideration 2: Change in Zoning and Compatibility with Adjacent Properties The subject properties have frontage on Indiana Avenue, which is identified as City Arterial in the SLC Transportation Master Plan. Abutting properties to all sides are zoned M-1 – Light Manufacturing. The requested FB-UN2 zoning would allow residential and commercial uses that are not allowed by the current zoning. The proposal would create an area of residential development within a historically industrial area of the City. This is not a typical scenario as there is usually a desired separation between industrial and residential uses. The reasoning behind this is due to anticipated impacts of the industrial areas on the residential areas and not ⚫ Page 7 the other way around. In that sense, the anticipated development of the village would not have a significant impact on the surrounding industrial properties in terms of noise and pollution that would be comparable to normal activities and uses that could take place on these properties. Some concerns have been raised about the impact of the village on neighboring properties through an increased presence of people in an area that historically has not had a residential presence. Various concerns included a worry about crime, pedestrian traffic and other impacts that the village would introduce to neighboring properties. It is difficult, if not impossible, to predict the scale of these impacts other than to acknowledge that some impacts are likely to occur with such a change in land use. The Master Plan recognizes future changes in this area which assumes that some impacts are likely to occur with land use changes. Additional infrastructure improvements such as sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians will help to lessen these impacts. Given the location of the property, development pattern, and surrounding zoning, it is staff’s opinion that the change in zoning from PL to FB-UN2 would not lead to changes that are incompatible with the existing development in the area. The nature of surrounding uses or potential uses on the future village site and its residents are a concern, however. There is no buffering required to separate the current uses on the M-1 properties from the FB-UN2 property. A 15 foot buffer would only be required if the M-1 properties were re-developed. During the site development phase of the project appropriate buffering should be considered. Staff is recommending that the City Council consider a requirement for additional buffering between the industrial and residential uses during the site development process. Consideration 3: Consideration of Alternate Zoning Districts The applicant is specifically requesting a change to the FB-UN2 zoning district. In June of 2021, Planning Staff considered and analyzed different zoning districts for the property that would support a proposed mixed use village concept. Analysis of the different zoning districts that could potentially support the proposed uses was completed by Brooke Olson, Associate Planner and sent to the applicant on June 3, 2021. A copy of the memorandum from Planning to The Other Side Academy is included in Attachment B of this report. In making their recommendation, Planning Staff considered the following: • The main driver for this change is the applicant’s desire to develop a mixed use village on the property. The village will be largely self-contained and include commercial uses and health services. • Many of the desired uses are not allowed under the current PL zoning designation. • The zoning district to support this village concept would have to allow different dwelling types as well as retail uses and services. • A focus on a high-quality and pleasing design for the development was desired. Changing to either the FB-UN2 or FB-SC district would accommodate most of the uses described by the applicant. Various TSA – Transit Station zoning districts and the MU – Mixed Use zoning district were also considered. The TSA zoning districts did not fit the location context of the site as they are intended to be located around transit stations. The MU district was not considered a viable option due to the lack of emphasis on the form of development and the incorporation of design standards to help achieve a high-quality development. It should be noted that the applicant’s narrative includes a long list of desired uses in the proposed village and within the development. As stated above, the proposed FB-UN2 zoning district is the only zoning district that would accommodate the majority of uses that the applicant has listed. There are some uses that are not specifically listed in the FB-UN2 zoning district; however, staff determined that similar scaled uses may be allowed. Zoning interpretations may allow uses that are not specifically listed depending on the scale and ⚫ Page 8 configuration or some uses may be considered as accessory to listed uses and could be allowed. These issues will be looked at in more detail at the time a specific development proposal is under review by Staff. For these reasons and the issues identified in the Key Considerations and Analysis of Standards sections of this report, as well as the analysis included in the Memorandum included in Attachment B, a change to an alternate zoning district in lieu of the applicant’s request for the FB-UN2 zoning district is not being recommended by staff. Consideration 4: Site Conditions and Infrastructure The subject properties are vacant and lack infrastructure to support the proposed “tiny home village”. The property will need substantial infrastructure improvements to facilitate future development on the property. The City can provide services and infrastructure to the property to facilitate development. The extent of infrastructure improvements, including the provision of utilities, will be dependent upon the location and scale of any future development proposals. Assuming the rezoning is approved, at the time a specific development proposal is submitted, proposed uses will need to comply with the applicable requirements for development of the site. Public Utilities and other City departments will review any specific development proposals submitted and identify any additional requirements that would apply. Parts of the property at 1850 W Indiana was previously used as a landfill site. This landfill use also extended northward onto portions of the property located at 1965 W 500 S. The extent of the site that was used for these activities and any contamination is unclear. Other City departments are involved with the identification, sampling and site investigation process and they will work with State and other cognizant agencies to meet any requirements for site clean-up, site remediation and mitigation. This may impact the site development plan in terms of the location of future uses. This issue is outside of the purview of the Planning Commission but is mentioned for the purpose of process clarification, since some public comments pointed out the previous use of the site for landfill activities and raised questions about how this would impact the proposed future development. DISCUSSION: The applicant has proposed to rezone the properties from the existing PL – Public Lands zoning designation to FB-UN2 in order to develop the proposed “tiny home village” on the site. It is staff’s opinion that the change in zoning for these properties would not negatively impact the character of the area. As such, staff finds that the requested zone change is appropriate when considered in the context of the area and is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. NEXT STEPS: The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration as part of the final decision on this petition. If ultimately approved, the applicant may proceed with the submission of plans for the development under the parameters of the new zoning designation. Other applications will be required that don’t require Planning Commission or City Council approval. This is aside from any site development applications that may be required and are mentioned here for the sake of process clarity. Those applications may include: • Lot line adjustments for the two (2) existing parcels. • Lot consolidation application for the newly created parcel. ⚫ Page 9 ATTACHMENT A: Future Land Use Map in the Master Plan ⚫ Page 10 ATTACHMENT B: Staff Zoning District Recommendations On June 3, 2021, Brooke Olson, Associate Planner provided the applicant with a Memorandum and analysis in regard to a question about zoning that would support the uses that were listed in the applicant’s preliminary proposal. The memo on the following pages also addresses Consideration 3: Consideration of Alternate Zoning Districts found in the Key Considerations section of this report found on Page 7. Planning Division Community & Neighborhoods Department Memorandum To: Tim Stay From: Brooke Olson, Associate Planner Date: 3 June 2021 Re: 1850 W Indiana Avenue Rezone Recommendations 1850 W Indiana Avenue The Other Side Village- The Planning Division has reviewed a property narrative for The Other Side Village mixed use development at approximately 1850 W. Indiana Avenue. The proposed mixed-use village would consist of 400-500 small residential dwelling units of various typologies, neighborhood and community centers, open spaces, general retail, commercial, and institutional uses. The property is currently located in the PL (Public Lands) zone which allows for a diversity of public facilities and public land uses. However, mixed use developments and residential uses are not permitted under the current PL land use zoning designation. Therefore, the property must be rezoned to allow The Other Side Village development as proposed. Staff completed an analysis of the land use tables in section 21.A.33 of the Salt Lake City zoning ordinance and concluded the proposed development is permitted within the following zoning districts: Of the seven zoning district options listed above, the zoning district which would likely best accommodate the proposed use is a Form Based District. While TSA (Transit Station Area Districts) allow mixed use development, transit districts were created to provide a compact support base around core transit stations which the site in question does not fit that description. The proposed mixed-use village would also be permitted within the MU (Mixed Use District) however, the MU district lacks zoning regulations which focus on scale, form of development and any significant design standards. The purpose of the Form Based District is to create walkable urban neighborhoods which provide people-oriented places, options for housing types, proximity to amenities and public transportation, and access to recreational and employment opportunities. In addition, the Form Based District ordinance provides specific zoning regulations that focus on the scale and form of development to create pedestrian oriented communities to live, work and play within a close proximity. As shown in the table above, there are two Form Based subdistricts the proposed development is permitted within, FB-SC (Special Purpose Corridor Subdistrict) and FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2 Subdistrict). The FB-SC subdistrict is intended for high intensity development in the special purpose corridors. The FB-SC zone is characteristically supported by multiple street types and contains buildings that are generally 6-7 stories in height. This zone is currently mapped along the S-Line streetcar in the Sugar House neighborhood. The FB-UN2 subdistrict regulations provide the framework for a lower intensity urban neighborhood generally consisting of buildings up to four stories in height with taller buildings located on street corners, which may contain a single use, or mix of uses. This zone is currently mapped in the Central Ninth neighborhood. In considering the scope and development objectives of The Other Side Village, the FB-SC and FB-UN2 zone accomplish the goals of the proposal as stated. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me at 385-707-6770 or brooke.olson@slcgov.com Thank you. ⚫ Page 11 ATTACHMENT C: Applicant Information The narrative and other exhibits found on the following pages were submitted by the applicant in relation to the requested zoning map changes. Other Side Village – Zoning Map Amendment – 1850 W Indiana Avenue Rezoning Application PLNPCM2021-00787 A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. 1850 W Indiana Avenue - The Other Side Village The purpose of the amendment is to rezone the parcel of ground currently designated as Public Lands (PL Zone) to a Formed Based District (FB-NU2) to accommodate the development of a walkable urban neighborhood of mixed uses. The proposed mixed-use village would consist of 400-500 small residential dwelling units of various typologies for the chronically homeless, including neighborhood and community centers, open spaces, general retail, commercial, and institutional uses. The property is currently located in the PL (Public Lands) zone which allo ws for a diversity of public facilities and public land uses. However, mixed use developments and residential uses are not permitted under the current PL land use zoning designation. Therefore, the property must be rezoned to allow The Other Side Village development as proposed. The zoning district which would likely best accommodate the proposed use is a Form Based District. The purpose of the Form Based District is to create walkable urban neighborhoods which provide people-oriented places, options for housing types, proximity to amenities and public transportation, and access to recreational and employment opportunities. In addition, the Form Based District ordinance provides specific zoning regulations that focus on the scale and form of development to create pedestrian oriented communities to live, work and play within a close proximity. The FB-UN2 subdistrict regulations provide the framework for a lower intensity urban neighborhood generally consisting of buildings up to four stories in height with taller buildings located on street corners, which may contain a single use, or mix of uses. This zone is currently mapped in the Central Ninth neighborhood. In considering the scope and development objectives of The Other Side Village, the FB -UN2 zone accomplish the goals of the proposal as stated. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. The Village The Village is a permanent supportive housing development for the chronically homeless, where those coming out of chronic homelessness can find not only tiny homes to rent affordably, but services and resources to help them along the way, in a hand -up, not handout model. It is anticipated that the Village will house up to approximately 400+ residents in cottage homes and similar sized attached housing units as duplexes (two-family residences) and triplexes (row houses) as provided for in the FB-NU2 Zone. The support services for the Village will include on-site health care, dental, and social services along with a convenience store, deli, and pet supplies. In addition, community gathering spaces will include an auditorium, non- denominational church, and an amphitheater. Housing will be arranged in neighborhoods of approximately 30 homes each with neighborhood amenities to include a small pavilion, laundry, commercial kitchen, and a multipurpose room for social gatherings. To encourage self-sufficiency, social enterprises will be incorporated into the Village to provide opportunities for work and community service. The Homes The homes will be sized between 250 and 400 sf each. The majority will be stand -alone homes, but the development will have some duplexes and trip lexes. Each home will be attractively furnished, and will have a bed, a kitchen, with standard appliances, a bathroom with a shower, and heating and AC. This will be a gated community, where the residents will be able to come and go as necessary, but there can be controlled access of visitors to maintain safety and order within the Village. The homes will be situated in small neighborhoods of 25-35 homes to create the opportunities for close connected neighborhoods. Each neighborhood will be a mix of single units, duplex units, and triplex units. Connected to every 2-4 neighborhoods will be a Neighborhood Center. The Neighborhood Center will have a common area, a kitchen, laundry equipment, and a outdoor grill space with some picnic tables. Wrap-Around Services The Village will include facilities to provide services and resources for the residents of the Village in a Community Center. These services will include: • A medical exam room • A dental exam room • Mental health therapy rooms • A room big enough for a group session • A dog wash room • A veterinarian exam room • A room for employment services • Space for other supportive services, such as legal aid • A training room for finances literacy and other similar classes • Space for community gathers, meals, fitness activities (such as yoga or aerobics) • A commercial kitchen The medical, dental, and mental health services will be provided by third -party providers, who will provide these services directly to the residents. Community volunteers will be involved in providing many of the other services. Retail Services The Village will have a range of retail services, primarily focused on providing nearby services for the residents, but these will also be accessible to the surrounding neighborhoods. Planned retail services will include: • A small deli and coffee shop • A small grocery store • A hair salon and barbershop • A gift shop • A place that tells the Village story for tours These services will be situated outside of the gated community and will be located to have ea sy access and parking for clientele that will be frequenting these services from outside the Village. Community Amenities The Village will have the following amenities spread throughout the development for the benefit of the residents: • A small non-denominational chapel • A multi-use basketball/pickleball sports court • A cantina / food truck spot / coffee station near the center or north end of the village with an outdoor seating area nearby to be frequented primarily by the residents. • A picnic area • A memorial garden for residents that pass on • A memorial garden for pets • A horseshoe pit • A dog park • A Food Pantry (with access for Food Bank truck deliveries, storage and distribution space) • Open lawn space for active use • A fitness path that creates an integrated feel between neighborhoods with outdoor stations along the way. • A Children’s play area for visiting kids and grandkids • Trail systems that make for comfortable and natural movement between neighborhoods and attractive amenities spread between neighborhoods that encourage interaction. Performing Arts Center The Village will have a world-class 600 seat Performing Arts Center to host local and national performers as well as host plays, concerts, and community events. We are envisioning this facility to be able to have TV broadcast abilities as well as a recording studio so that this facility can be a revenue generating source for the Village. Residents would have access to the performances at free or significantly reduced rates and the surround ing community would be able to attend as well. The operations of the Performing Arts Center will also create employment opportunities for residents. One possibility for parking is to have parking up on the landfill for large events and have people walk down or have shuttles down, much like they do at USANA. Outdoor Amphitheater The Village will have an outdoor events space and amphitheater, where we can have performances, show movies, or have outdoor events, such as Farmer’s Markets, a Christmas Market or other such events. These would be available to both the residents as well as the surrounding community. This space will also create additional employment opportunities for the residents of the Village. We would want to be able to seat around 600 peopl e. We anticipate being able to have outside Food Trucks to be able to come onsite to provide additional food services. Social Enterprises The Village will have an onsite food production facility that will be manufacturing cookies to be sold through wholesale channel and retail channels. The facility will need access for delivery trucks. This social enterprise will provide employment opportunities for the residents of the Village. The Landfill Zone While the Landfill Zone would be challenging to build homes and structures upon it based upon the unstable material below the surface, there are still ways to utilize this difficult parcel. The Village would be able to utilize this land to create additional green space with trees and paths, construct a modest solar farm to provide electricity for the Village, and to provide additional parking for large community events at the Village. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. The site was the former location of the City’s landfill and as such was designated as Public Lands. While the west side of the parcel contains the buried landfill material and is not developable, the east half of the parcel has passed an environmental analysis and is appropriate for development. The proposed mixed-use development is ideally suited for this parcel that is bounded by I-215 on the west, the City’s Parks & Recreation property on the north, a wrecking yard on the east, and Indiana Avenue on the south with industrial development on the south side of the street. While the site is thus isolated from the residential neighborhoods east of Redwood Road, it will still serve as an integral part the Salt Lake community at large. The property is currently located in the PL (Public Lands) zone which allows for a diversity of public facilities and public land uses. However, mixed use developments and residential uses are not permitted under the current PL land use zoning designation. Based upon 21A.33.070: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses For Special Purpose Districts, the following uses are not permitted in a Public Lands zone: Not Permitted in Public Lands zone: • Agricultural Use • Amphitheater, formal • Veterinary office • Artisan Food production • Clinic (Medical, Dental) • Commercial Food Production • No Residential of any kind (except care taker residence) • Mixed Use Development • Performing Arts Production Facility • Philanthropic Use • Place of Worship • Restaurant • Retail Goods Establishment • Retail Sales Therefore, the property would need to be rezoned to allow The Other Side Village development as proposed. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? Yes. If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. All of this parcel: Parcel Record 15101010010000 Owner SALT LAKE CITY CORP Address 1850 W INDIANA AVE A portion of this parcel: Parcel Record 15033510030000 Owner SALT LAKE CITY CORP Address 1965 W 500 S Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? No. EXCLUDED PARCEL 13.5 ACRES PARCEL B 8.6 ACRES PARCEL A 28.5 ACRES PROPOSED PROPERTIES THE OTHER SIDE VILLAGE N Frequently Asked Questions What is the Village? The Other Side Village is a self-reliant, master-planned neighborhood that provides affordable, permanent quality housing, access to social services, and a robust and supportive community for men and women coming out of chronic homelessness. The Village is founded on the conviction that housing alone will never solve homelessness, but community will. The combination of high quality, permanent housing and a strong culture of personal growth, support and connection is the heart of our model. Who is it for? To be eligible to live in The Other Side Village, an individual must have experienced chronic homelessness. We expect many of our residents to have at least one disabling condition, either mentally or physically. We define chronic homelessness as any person with a disability who has been living unsheltered for the last 12 months continuously or on multiple occasions that cumulatively total at least 12 months. All potential residents are required to complete an assessment, be fingerprinted and agree to a criminal background check processed by the FBI. Those with past sex offenses or arson convictions are not eligible for residence. Who are we? And why do we think we can do it? For decades in Utah, we’ve wrung our hands about what to do with criminal offenders with long histories of addiction. Who would have thought that the solution was to have 100 longtime felons move into a home in downtown Salt Lake City? And yet, in 2015, that is exactly what began. Since then, The Other Side Academy has become one of Utah’s gems – a model of citizenship, cleanliness, professionalism and integrity. The students you see here have been arrested an average of 25 times. And yet when racial tension erupted into riots in downtown Salt Lake City in the summer of 2020, it was students of The Other Side Academy who rushed to the scene to clean up. When police spent sleepless nights preparing for civil unrest, it was students of The Other Side Academy who brought them coffee and encouragement. When the Salt Lake City Council was considering whether to give The Other Side Academy permission to remain in its downtown location, over fifty neighbors turned out to say that the neighborhood was better because they were there. And the police officials gave a report that crime had actually gone down since we moved into the neighborhood. And amazingly, all of this was done without any government funds. Students of The Other Side Academy pay their own way by running some of the most respected businesses in the state. For decades in Utah, we’ve wrung our hands about how to help the growing number of people experiencing homelessness in our cities. We believe the same principles that have enabled students at The Other Side Academy to create a model community point the way to what must be done. While those experiencing chronic homelessness face different challenges than TOSA students, we contend that there are universal principles for creating healthy communities that give us a responsibility to step in. Why? Because we understand what it is to be marginalized. We understand what it takes to become self-reliant. We have experience creating a peer community with strong values and shared accountability. And so, in coming months, The Other Side Academy is partnering with the City of Salt Lake to create The Other Side Village – a self-reliant, peer-led village that provides a safe, dignified and uplifting life for people who are chronically unsheltered, and which brings them and the larger community into mutually ennobling relationships. Just like The Other Side Academy. Why are we a Village and not a tiny home project? It is not about Tiny Homes. You’ll notice that residents live in what are called “Tiny Homes.” But be careful, the size of the homes is the least important part of this effort. Some communities are building tiny home neighborhoods that will likely become tiny slums in short order. The key is not the physical structures, but the social system. The primary ingredient for success, like at The Other Side Academy, is creating a strong culture that lifts and changes all who are part of it. This is what The Other Side Academy has learned to do. And we are committed to creating this same opportunity for our homeless brothers and sisters. The most important part is to create an environment, socially and physically, that facilitates connection with others. Homelessness is the result of a catastrophic loss of family. So the solution must be to build a new family. The second most important part is establishing a community with strong social norms. This is what brings out the best in all of us. These strong norms will invite all to strive to achieve their potential, allowing them the dignity of being part of the solution, not just a problem to be solved. Work and self-improvement are fundamental principles of happiness. As all are invited to contribute at the level of their ability, The Other Side Village will remain prosperous, safe and strong. The Other Side Village believes that the single greatest cause of homelessness is a profound, catastrophic loss of family. That’s why our focus at The Other Side Village is to do more than just provide adequate housing. We are developing a community with supportive services and amenities to help address an individual’s relational needs at a fraction of the cost of traditional housing initiatives. We seek to empower our residents to build relationships with others, and to experience healing and restoration as part of engaging with a broader community. What will the houses be like? One of the irreplaceable ingredients to solving homelessness is providing affordable, high quality, permanent housing. And that’s exactly what the homes in the Village will do. Our homes will provide approximately 350 to 400 square feet to each resident, including a bedroom, a living room, a bathroom with a shower, and a kitchen with all the appliances. If we intend to create a community where people can thrive, it must be centered on homes that provide the comfort and amenities that each of us expects for ourselves. What services will be provided at The Other Side Village? There is a broad range of services that will be available on-site to our residents with facilities designed specifically to accommodate their unique needs. These include: ● Full-time behavioral health case managers ● Primary healthcare service ● Social enterprise business opportunities through The Other Side Village Social Enterprises ● Regular farmers market to provide residents with healthy, nutritious, and free vegetables harvested from the Village’s main gardens ● Employment opportunities ● Supportive community services and activities What will be the rules of the Village? Individuals living in The Other Side Village are required to follow three primary community covenants. Residents must: 1. Pay rent on time. 2. Abide by civil law. 3. Follow the rules of the community itself (similar to HOA or Homeowners Association for a neighborhood). What was this site previously? Looking at the site, there is the historic landfill that was used from 1920 to 1962. This western portion on the site is the elevated portion on the parcel along the west side, adjacent to I-215. The landfill has been dormant for the last 60 years and has 5 feet of fill over the top of the landfill. We do not plan to build any housing or offices on the westside landfill portion of the parcel. We have already done a number of environmental tests on the site and we continue to do additional testing until we are satisfied that this is a safe and healthy place. The eastside of the parcel is largely native soil with some green waste at the southern and northern ends of the parcel. We plan to build the housing on the eastside of the parcel and avoid building on the western landfill portion. To date, none of the test results has disqualified the eastern portion of the site from being considered as a viable site. We continue to do further testing as well as working closely with local and state regulatory agencies, including the Salt Lake City Office of Sustainability and the Utah State Department of Environmental Quality. As we do continued testing, if we find anything that makes the site not viable for humans that cannot be safely remediated , we will abandon this site and pursue other locations. Are you concerned about crime in the Village? How will you police the community? One of our goals at The Other Side Village is to transform the way people view the stereotype of individuals who find themselves homeless. After years of serving and working with criminal addicts at The Other Side Academy as well as the homeless population in Salt Lake, we believe the stereotype of chronically homeless individuals as it relates to crime is actually wrong. Chronically homeless individuals are among the most vulnerable and most often are the victims of crime, as opposed to being the perpetrators of crime. Every neighborhood in any city at any time is susceptible to some level of criminal activity. Neighborhoods can mitigate potential criminal activity through strong vigilance. The very essence of The Other Side Village is neighbor looking after neighbor. We will have a robust Neighborhood Watch Program and will work to resolve as many issues as possible within the community. As a data point, crime statistics from the Salt Lake Police Department in the area surrounding The Other Side Academy shows a significant reduction in crime in the neighborhood after we moved in. It is also what has happened since Community First! Began building a village for formerly homeless individuals that will ultimately have over 1,500 tiny homes in it. The crime rate has dropped, neighbors are regular visitors to these campuses, and property values have been enhanced. We are confident that the same will happen with the establishment of the Village. ⚫ Page 12 ATTACHMENT D: Existing Conditions ⚫ Page 13 Conditions The subject properties are located north of Indiana Avenue to the west of Redwood Road. Redwood is a major State Arterial, while Indiana Avenue is identified as City Arterial in the SLC Transportation Master Plan. Abutting properties in all directions are zoned M-1 – Light Manufacturing. The location context is also described more fully in the Key Considerations section of this report. Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning All Directions: Zoned M-1 – Light Manufacturing District Adjacent & Nearby Uses: Car storage and salvage, trucking and transportation related uses, City Fleet Operations, City Parks operations and open (vacant) land. Development Pattern The overall development pattern of the area is dominated by commercial and light industrial uses along Redwood Road and Indiana Avenue. On the east side of Redwood, the development turns to residential uses. Much of the land bound roughly by Interstate 80, Indiana Avenue, I-215 on the west and Redwood Road on the east has not been intensely developed. Development typically consists of industrial buildings in one portion of the property with large areas devoted to surface storage or other industrial operations on the rest of the property. As such, from an aerial photograph perspective, much of the land appears to be under-utilized or largely vacant. The area lies to the west of a future node identified in the West Side Master Plan. The Plan envisions a Community Node centered at the intersection of Redwood and Indiana Avenue. While the subject property is located approximately one-quarter to one-half mile to the west of this node, future development of the proposed village could benefit from the proximity of development at this node and the services that may exist there. Comparison of the Existing and Proposed Zoning The subject property is zoned PL – Public Lands. The purpose of the PL zoning district follows: The purpose of the PL Public Lands District is to specifically delineate areas of public use and to control the potential redevelopment of public uses, lands and facilities. This district is appropriate in areas of the City where the applicable master plans support this type of land use. The applicant has requested that the property be changed to the FB-UN2 – Form Based Urban Neighborhood zoning district. The purpose of the FB-UN2 zoning district follows: The purpose of the form based districts is to create urban neighborhoods that provide the following: 1. People oriented places; 2. Options for housing types; 3. Options in terms of shopping, dining, and fulfilling daily needs within walking distance or conveniently located near mass transit; 4. Transportation options; 5. Access to employment opportunities within walking distance or close to mass transit; 6. Appropriately scaled buildings that respect the existing character of the neighborhood; ⚫ Page 14 7. Safe, accessible, and interconnected networks for people to move around in; and 8. Increased desirability as a place to work, live, play, and invest through higher quality form and design. Some highlights of the differences in allowed uses between the existing PL and proposed FB-UN2 zoning districts are: • The focus of the PL zone is for public or community uses as the name would suggest. • Housing, other than institutional uses are prohibited and the focus is not on people-oriented uses such as retail services or other services that would be provided to individuals. • The purpose of the FB-UN2 zone is to support people-oriented places which provides for living options, goods and services, and transportation options in a walkable setting. • The FB-UN2 zone allows a variety of dwelling types as well as public and community uses. It also allows for commercial business and retail with an emphasis on high-quality design. Existing Zoning – PL – Public Lands 21A.33.070: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS: • Accessory use • Adaptive reuse of a landmark site • Antenna – communication tower • Art gallery • Botanical garden • Community garden • Daycare Centers – various • Exhibition hall • Fairground • Farm stand, seasonal • Golf course • Government facility or office • Jail • Library • Municipal service uses • Museum • Office • Open space • Park • Parking • Reception center • Recreation uses • Research facility • Retail – accessory use only • Schools • Solar array • Stadium • Theater • Urban farm Proposed Zoning – FB-UN2 – Form Based Urban Neighborhood 21A.33.080: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN FORM BASED DISTRICTS: • Accessory use • Alcohol uses • Animal, vet office • Antenna – communication tower • Art gallery • Artisan food production • Bed & breakfast misc. • Clinic – medical and dental • Commercial food preparation • Community garden • Community recreation center • Daycare centers – various • Dwelling – assisted living & congregate care • Group homes – various • Support housing • Single-family homes – various types • Single family cottages ⚫ Page 15 • Multi-family homes • Single room occupancy • Farmer’s market • Financial institution • Funeral home • Government facility • Health & fitness facility • Hotel/motel • Laboratory • Library • Mixed use • Municipal service uses • Museum • Nursing care facility • Office • Open space • Park • Parking • Place of worship • Plazas • Recreation uses • Research facility • Restaurant • Retails goods establishment • Retail services • Sales & displays • Schools – various • Seasonal farm stand • Solar array • Specialty stores • Studio – art • Theater • Urban farm • Utility uses • Wireless telecommunications ⚫ Page 16 ATTACHMENT E: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS ZONING MAP 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 to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the following: Factor Finding Rationale 1. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; Complies The Westside Master Plan speaks to creating opportunities through changes in land use and recognizes the need for well-designed higher density developments as well as unique neighborhoods. Various purposes, goals, objectives, and policies identified in City documents including Plan Salt Lake, Growing SLC, and the RDA 9 Line Plan are consistent with the proposed changes. This is further articulated and discussed in the Key Considerations section of this report in regard to the Westside Master Plan and other documents cited here. 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the adopted plans of the city, and, in addition: A. Lessen congestion in the streets or roads; B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers; C. Provide adequate light and air; D. Classify land uses and distribute land development and utilization; E. Protect the tax base; F. Secure economy in governmental expenditures; G. Foster the city's industrial, business and residential development; and H. Protect the environment. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(1-3), 1995) The proposed zone change from PL to FB-UN2 would support the purposes of the zoning ordinance found in Chapter 21A.02.0303: Purpose and Intent as outlined above. It would promote the health, safety and welfare of some of the City’s most vulnerable residents, those experiencing homelessness. It would also help implement the applicable Master Plan for the area and support the purpose statement of the proposed FB-UN2 zoning district. 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties; Complies The proposed FB-UN2 zoning district would allow residential and commercial uses which are not currently allowed by the PL – Public Lands zoning designation. The overall scale and allowed uses in the proposed zone would not be out of scale with the surrounding industrial zoning. Additional future infrastructure improvements such as sidewalks will help to lessen impacts on neighboring properties. Additional consideration related to buffering between the neighboring industrial uses and this property is being recommended. ⚫ Page 17 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards Complies The subject properties are within the Airport Flight Path Protection Influence Zone H. This area has specific height restrictions. The Airport Planner indicated that: 1) Salt Lake City does not require an avigation easement for new development in this zone. 2) This project creates no observed impacts to airport operations. 5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Complies The proposed development of the subject properties was reviewed by the various city departments tasked with administering public facilities and services. The infrastructure in this area is lacking and will require significant upgrades to accommodate development of the village. The city has the ability to provide services to the subject property. The extent of required infrastructure improvements will be dependent upon the scale of any specific site development proposals that are reviewed at a future time. If the rezone is approved, any new use will need to comply with the applicable requirements for redevelopment of the site. Public Utilities and other departments will review any specific development proposals submitted at that time and additional comments and requirements may apply to that development proposal. ⚫ Page 18 ATTACHMENT F: Public Process and Comments Public Notice, Meetings, Comments The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to this project: Public Notices: • Notice of the project and a formal letter requesting comments was sent to the Chair of the Poplar Grove Community Council on August 13, 2021. • Notice sent to the Glendale CC Chair as a courtesy. The Glendale CC is outside of the 600 feet boundary for official notice but is the closest recognized organization adjacent to the project boundary. • Staff sent an early notification announcement postcard about the project to all residents and property owners located within 300 feet of the project site on August 13, 2021. The mailed notice included project details, that recognized community organizations were aware of the proposal and included information on how to access the online open house and 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 August 16, 2021 and ended on September 30, 2021. • Staff attended an online meeting for a West Side Community Councils Open Forum held on August 23, 2021. • The 45-day recognized organization comment period expired on September 30, 2021. Public Hearing Notice: • Public hearing notice mailed: October 14, 2021 • Public hearing notice signs posted on properties: October 14, 2021 • Public notice posted on City and State websites & Planning Division list serve: October 14, 2021 Public and Recognized Organization Comments: To date approximately 70 public comments have been submitted to staff via email in relation to the proposal. The combined redacted public comments received via email can be found on the following pages of this report. Many of the comments received by staff cite opposition to the idea of providing services to persons experiencing homelessness within the community. The most commonly cited concerns about the proposal relate to worries about how the village will impact crime and other activities in the area. There were also many comments in support of the proposal. The comments in support recognized that the solutions to issues of homelessness were not simple and that this was an innovative approach. Many of the comments simply indicate support or opposition to the proposal without providing a reason for that opinion. The Planning Commission and Staff are charged with reviewing and applying the Planning standards applicable to a Zoning Map Amendment in making a recommendation to City Council. September 4, 2021 David Gellner Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S State St., Rm 406 P.O. Box145480 Salt Lake City, UT. 84114-5480 david.gellner@slcgov.com RE: PLNPCM2021-00787 The Otherside Village Proposed Location on Mr. Gellner I am writing to provide my comment against the rezoning and subsequent build of The Other Side Village on 1850 W Indiana Avenue & a Portion of the Property at 1965 W 500 S. See the problem is the project isn’t well researched, well planned or well funded. The only other “community” they claim to be similar to is a place based in Austin Texas. Excuse me 20 miles outside of Austin because it was shut down by Austin city proper. The academy keeps saying look at our stats in reference to the high density housing building in sugar house but that is an apples to oranges comparison because it houses only ex cons. It doesn’t compare to this facility because an ex-con who has been court ordered or let out of prison early to be in the program is highly highly motivated to stay in their lane because they don’t want to go back to prison. A homeless addict or mentally ill person has zero motivation to live by any set of rigorous rules placed upon them by tosa. The worst thing that could happen is once they’ve been brought to our neighborhood and don’t comply they’ll just go back to what they’ve been doing for however many years and years they’ve been homeless. Which unfortunately will happen around our homes and kids and public spaces. As far as well planned goes the academy has put out a bunch of renderings of nice courtyards and shiny new buildings to make us feel good about what’s going on there but in reality nothing has really been planned out. As of the last public meeting they had a week ago the land hasn’t even been zoned for residential use and has a biohazard easement in place because it was a former landfill for Salt Lake City. DocuSign Envelope ID: 14F93CEA-6C01-409F-9C8D-A9194FC24720 They also constantly flip flop back and forth with statements about whether or not it will be a gated community for the homeless or open to the public with venues and fancy new stores. I suppose most people have heard the idea from tosa that it will be open to the public because they’re trying to make it seem like an “asset” to our community. It is not an asset. As far as the funding is concerned it is not well funded at all. They don’t even have enough funds yet to start on phase 1 if it gets approved by the city. They say nothing will be funded through tax payer dollars but that’s simply a lie. They’re seeking millions from the American relief plan money that the state received which is supposed to be set aside and utilized to give relief to businesses and infrastructure hit most harshly from COVID restrictions. The funny thing about funding as well is that the other side academy hasn’t put up or plans to put up any of their on average 2-7 million dollars in net profit every year to fund this venture. They want donations and other pathways to fund the project. Joseph Grenny just wants to continue to run his “non profit” and continue to rake in millions of dollars every year, pulling at peoples heart strings. As far as people being assets I agree people can be assets when they choose to be. Unfortunately chronically homeless people have chosen to be chronically homeless. Whether that’s through a crippling addiction or lack of motivation or drive they have chosen this life. There are so many current programs and facilities that they could be utilizing everyday to end their homelessness that they chose not to use. Honestly the homeless people in our neighborhoods and city are the opposite of an asset. They breed crime, violence, and filth and then expect people to feel sorry for them and give them money on the streets. Compassionate people try to help them by starting programs and getting groups together just to be turned down by the homeless because it’s too limiting or hard to do. Nothing with the track record of homeless people gives me confidence that this profitable venture for Joseph Grenny will help our community get lifted out of the pit it’s currently and successfully trying to crawl out of. I want our community to be cleaned up and turn into a nice inviting neighborhood exactly like sugarhouse did 20 years ago when they were approved for the state RDA funds. We just started our direct funding from the state and we need to have things that bring our community up without the risk of potentially ruining everything we’ve worked so hard for. Thank you, Erik Sansom DocuSign Envelope ID: 14F93CEA-6C01-409F-9C8D-A9194FC24720 , Resident Poplar Grove September 23, 2021 Re: Downtown Alliance support for The Other Side Village proposal Dear Salt Lake City Council Members and Planning Commission Members: I write to convey Downtown Alliance’s support for the proposed Other Side Village. We appreciate that Mayor Mendenhall and Salt Lake City have partnered with The Other Side Academy to develop this innovative option for needed shelter, community and belonging. Homelessness continues to rise to the top of concerns among our downtown stakeholders. We support expanding housing options in order to prevent homelessness and to assist those who are currently homeless. This project will add a significant number of additional affordable housing units to the City’s inventory. The Downtown Alliance supports the creation of The Other Side Village. We realize this effort will not eliminate homelessness, but we believe the village will fill a specific housing need that provides a safe and stable alternative to more than 400 people who are currently chronically homeless. We encourage the Planning Commission and the City Council to approve the proposed Zoning Amendment and we urge the City Council to approve the lease of the Indiana parcel for the development of this property. Respectfully, Dee Brewer Executive Director 201 South Main Street, Suite 2300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 September 24, 2021 Re: The Other Side Village Proposal Dear Salt Lake City Council Members: The Salt Lake Chamber commends Mayor Mendenhall and Salt Lake City for partnering with The Other Side Academy to facilitate the development of The Other Side Village. I write to express our support and belief in this noble endeavor to give people a chance to build their lives after a hardship. The project will not only provide much needed affordable housing for those most in need but also strengthen our sense of community and belonging. Many in our downtown community, from patrons to businesses, face a significant problem with homelessness and its side effects. This issue consistently ranks as a top concern for businesses. These businesses care about their employees’ and customer safety, public health issues, impact on already tight revenue margins, and honest concern for this vulnerable homeless population. The impact of this cascading human tragedy is felt by all stakeholders, most importantly the homeless population themselves. We care for their well-being and support efforts to change outcomes on the ground, as the creation of The Other Side Village will accomplish. We want you to know that the Salt Lake Chamber fully supports the creation of The Other Side Village. While this will not solve our homelessness problem it will change the lives of 400 people who are experiencing chronic homelessness and get them off the streets. This rezoning will provide a way to help these individuals and the space for life transformation out of homelessness. The Other Side Village will have a positive impact on Salt Lake City. We encourage the City Council to approve the Zoning Amendment and we urge the City Council to approve the lease of the Indiana parcel for the development of this property. This is our chance to turn a property with marginal utility into a better environment for place and people through its cleanup and transformation. Respectfully, Derek Miller, President & CEO, Salt Lake Chamber 201 South Main Street | Suite 2300 | Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 | Phone 801.364.3631 | Fax 801.328.5098 www.slchamber.com September 30, 2021 RE: The Other Side Village Project – Indiana Avenue To whom it may concern, I am corresponding on behalf of the Alvie Carter Trust regarding the proposed Other Side Village (“Project”). We have been retained to represent the Carter family, along with legal counsel, in providing input to the City and developer as it relates to the Cater properties which are located adjacent to the proposed site on the east side. Collectively, the Carters own 6 parcels comprising some 3.88 +/- acres with approximately 650 linear feet of shared property line with the Project and 330 feet of frontage on Indiana Avenue. That being the case, we believe that the Carter properties will be the most significantly affected by the proposed Project. First, we would like to state that conceptually we are in favor of the Project and hope to interact with the City and developer in a proactive and positive manner that will protect the Carter assets while offering the Project its best chance of success. Our primary concerns at this stage are: Traffic – We want to insure that our use as industrial with the likelihood of large commercial vehicles entering and leaving the Carter property is not impeded, and that safety for all drivers and pedestrians is maintained. Security – Given the scale of the Project, we want to make sure that property boundaries are respected, and that public frontage areas for properties surrounding the Project are kept free of trash and do not become an area of loitering that would negatively impact the future businesses that will occupy the Carter property. Buffering – We believe that it is important to create a sensible and aesthetically acceptable buffer between the uses, given their diverse nature and would like to engage actively in the site planning discussions. Utilities – It is important that the Project not over tax the utilities and services for the area so that all other properties and development can operate within industry standards. Site Design – We want to make sure that adjacent uses are compatible (Not putting Project dumpsters next to our entrance for example). 2 We are excited to participate in the public process and hope that we can create mutually viable and vibrant new development for this area. Please let us know if we should be addressing others in our correspondence and how we can most easily collaborate with your team. We deeply appreciate your time and consideration and look forward to working with you. With respect, Graig Griffin, SIOR Managing Partner – Utah Advisors Windermere Commercial Real Estate cc: Chris Carter, Daniel Fale, Stephen Hester, Esq. 1 Gellner, David From:Alejandro Avila <> Sent:Monday, September 20, 2021 11:06 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Homeless village on redwood and Indians Avenue Hi David I’m writing this email to let you know that I am against this developing project . I live in the area and feel like there is already a problem with homelessness and drugs in my neighborhood and a lack of police presence as it is. Even if we call police they never show up!! So please re consider the location I think it is for a good cause but as far as location goes I feel like there are plenty of other areas we’re this would be a better fit but not in our nieghborhood. Sent from my iPhone 1 Gellner, David From:Alison Lewis <> Sent:Thursday, September 30, 2021 8:22 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Opposed to re-zoning parcel off of Indiana for the Other Side Village Hi David, I'm writing because I live in Poplar Grove (just off Indiana and 1500 W) and am opposed to rezoning the parcel proposed for a homeless village. We are already a delicate community with a large transient and homeless population living along our multi-use paths (JRPT and 9-line), have homeless service centers already, are in need of a larger and nicer grocery store (this development would tax that resource) and in general, are trying to create a neighborhood environment where children can walk the sidewalks without parents feeling uneasy. The Other Side Village will have a program where if a prospective residents doesn't comply with their rules and structure, they will be asked to leave. We are concerned as a community about this fact. Please, we ask the city to consider another neighborhood with more resources to accommodate what will eventually be up to 500 tiny home units. Thank you, Alison Lewis 1 Gellner, David From:Amanda Penrose Sent:Wednesday, September 29, 2021 12:04 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Other side village on Indiana Avenue. Hi David, Just reaching out I know today is the last day to give input on the proposed Other side Village on Indiana Ave. My Mother lives just past redwood on Indiana Ave and has grand‐kids visiting her frequently Including my kids. This would only be 2 minutes walking from her house I am very worried about the safety of my children, other children, and the residents in general in the area. My sister and other friends also live nearby. Please do not approve this project for this area. Thanks, 1 Gellner, David From:Deborah Williams > Sent:Wednesday, September 29, 2021 12:39 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Homeless Village Dear David, I live near the proposed site for the homeless village. I have not received any city notice but was informed my time to respond runs out tomorrow. I have young children that would no longer be able to play outside, and after over a decade of living at my current residence I would consider moving if this village is constructed. There are countless reasons why adding the proposed homeless village would be a very bad idea. Reasons that would be detrimental to our community and our families safety. I ask that you DO NOT REZONE THE PARCEL ON INDIANA for the homeless village. We already have issues with crime that we should address before adding to it. Thank You, Amy Williams 1 Gellner, David From:Ana Manavahe <> Sent:Sunday, September 19, 2021 11:42 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Against the Other Side Village Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed I am a resident of popular grove and I am against the “Other Side Village” project. We already have too many of a problem in our area and we do not want any more. Regards, Ana Manavahē Sent from my iPhone 1 Gellner, David From:Ashley Stone > Sent:Wednesday, September 22, 2021 11:16 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Hello David Gellner, My name is Ashley Stone. I’m writing to tell you that I support The Other Side Village. I strongly believe that they are building a community that will help people. It is so important that we create an environment of safety, love, and support for our unsheltered community. I know that if they are shown some compassion, given safe shelter, food, community, access to health care and the opportunity to learn and grow they will take it and begin to flourish. Thank you, Ashley Stone ‐‐ Ashley Belle Stone 1 Gellner, David From:Beth J < Sent:Sunday, September 26, 2021 1:45 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Support of otherside village 1850 Indiana Ave, slc Hello David! My name is Beth Johnston and I am a home owner and resident in poplar grove, a short walk NE of the proposed Otherside Village development. My home is located directly across from Sherwood Park on 400 S and as such my neighbors and I have seen our fair share of homeless "regulars" passing through or camping in the park as long as they are able before being removed by police. I understand there are many voices against the proposed village, citing concerns of increased vagrancy, litter, and crime in our neighborhood should the village build in the proposed location. To the contrary, however, I am completely IN SUPPORT OF the proposed village and its location. The Otherside facilities currently in existence in downtown slc clearly show this organization is professional and able to provide a much needed hand up to our less fortunate residents who not only desire a place to live and transition off the streets but also willing to work for it. The other locations are clean, well‐managed, and a positive solution to a problem the city seems to struggle finding solutions for. I would be proud to have this type of development in my neighborhood. The facilities offered by the proposed village also provide much needed positive attention to the west side of downtown, which suffers from a kind of neglect and dismissal by the city. We are not a dumping ground for the valley, but rather take pride in our diverse ethnic community and strong family values despite what may be deemed negatively as low income living. The village proposes possible amenities such as a farmers market or craft market, outdoor entertainment venues, even a theatre and food trucks! These are all desirable changes we would love to have here. I believe properly educating other less informed dissenters, who seem to envision hoardes of mentally disturbed and unkempt vagrant zombies wandering their streets, will sway opinion toward development. (If you could also put a bug into the city's ear about developing a similar project blended with KOA type lot rental services for the many RV dwellers we are accumulating, that would also be...most welcome. They exist in a grey area of mobile homelessness that have little to no services available yet I have spoken to several who would love to have this type of community option to help get them back into a stable situation.) Please feel free to share my support at up coming meetings regarding this project or contact me with any questions. Thank you for your time, Beth (Elizabeth) Johnston Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android 1 Gellner, David From:Gellner, David Sent:Monday, September 20, 2021 4:52 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:FW: (EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Rezoning concerns From: brennan <b > Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 3:45 PM To: Gellner, David <David.Gellner@slcgov.com>; Mayor <Mayor@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Rezoning concerns My name is Brennan Gallegos and I live near 1500 W and Indiana Ave. I was just informed that The Other Side intends to request that property only a few blocks away from me be rezoned to allow a homeless camp to be established. I would like to formally address my concerns in regards to the matter. While I do think that something needs to be done about the homeless problems in Salt Lake City, this proposal is not the solution. I feel that the project does not consider what resources the homeless community utilize on a day to day basis. These resources are all located downtown. If the proposed Village is created, it would mean that every day, the homeless population would need to walk over an hour to get to these resources and then walk an hour to get home. It is not reasonable to have people be expected to walk 2 hours a day just to be able to survive. In addition to the logistical issues above, I feel that there is a conflict of interest in the proposed plan from the Other Side Academy who own lots of property near downtown Salt Lake City. By moving the homeless population out of the city, they are going to have large profit gains from property value at the expense of the primarily ethnic community of Popular Grove who are already affected by discrimination and racism when it comes to property value. It is not appropriate for Tim Stay, a white CEO, to put another financial burden on this community. The state property in question should be used for something that benefits our local community instead of hurting it. Lastly I am concerned for the safety of my children with the introduction of a large homeless population only a few blocks from our house. Homeless individuals are sometimes drug addicts who leave their used heroin needles on the street. Or are convicted felons who should not be allowed near children or the various schools in our area. Please forward these concerns to the appropriate party because The Other Side Village is not the solution to the homeless issue in Utah. Respectfully, ‐Brennan Gallegos 1 Gellner, David From:Bonnie Wolsey-Dickinson <> Sent:Friday, September 3, 2021 9:28 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Rezoning for homelessness Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Completed Please consider rezoning for The other Side homeless initiative. We need this desperately. 1 Gellner, David From:brian.diggs <> Sent:Tuesday, September 28, 2021 10:39 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Hello David, I am writing in full support of the Other Side Village proposal. As the Executive Director of Family Promise Salt Lake, I know the struggles homeless people face daily. Having a place to call home empowers the unsheltered to build community, find employment, and assimilate into the wider culture. Moreover, the work of The Other Side Academy is invaluable to so many. Their commitment to building an accountability structure has proven effective. I believe this is integral to addressing homelessness here and around the country. Thanks for letting me express my opinion! Rev. E. Brian Diggs Executive Director Family Promise Salt Lake Salt Lake City, UT 84104 1 Gellner, David From:B Wurts < Sent:Wednesday, September 22, 2021 10:52 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Village Project Good Morning David, I wanted to take a moment to show my support for the Village Project that has been proposed for SLC. While I am sure you have received letters, calls and emails from concerned individuals in the area; I wanted to let you know that I believe in a project like this. Too often I hear "What is Salt Lake going to do about the homeless population?" but it is quickly followed by "just keep them away from my area". Which is an unfortunate way to look at the growing issue. People want it to be taken care of, but only when it is not going to affect them. ‐ Bryce Wurtsbaugh 1 Gellner, David From:Celia Grenny > Sent:Saturday, September 4, 2021 5:45 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Completed Dear David, My name is Celia Grenny and I am a Salt Lake City resident. I just wanted to let you know that I support the Village in the proposed location by The Other Side Academy. My husband and I are the founders of TOSA, and we have been amazed by what a small group of about 100 students have been able to accomplish over the past six years. We believe that giving them a supportive environment where they are also held accountable for their actions has been a large component in their success. Our students have flourished in an atmosphere of love and nurture. We plan to offer this same environment to those who are presently unable to help themselves, but are willing to live in a clean, supportive and safe place. We have every intention of, and are willing to exert every effort to elevate the surrounding area as well. Together we can create a jewel for area residents to access services and recreation opportunities on the property. I implore you to help us in this effort and approve the rezone application. Thank you, Celia Grenny 1 Gellner, David From:Caitlin Howell Sent:Sunday, September 5, 2021 6:08 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Other side village support Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Please approve this requested amendment change as it will allow The Other Side Village to help those currently living in chaos and squalor 1 Gellner, David From:C JAY LARSON < Sent:Saturday, September 11, 2021 8:29 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Zone change approval recommendation for The Other Side Village. Dear Commissioner Gellner, I am writing you requesting for your approval of the zone change for "The Other Side Village". I was taken on an inspection tour of the parcel of land where The Other Side Village is proposed to be built by Joseph Grenny. I can understand why some of the local residents on the east side of that property would be concerned‐‐‐‐‐who would want several hundred homeless people to be living so close to our homes and our neighborhood? When a permit was requested of the Salt Lake Planning Commission to establish the Other Side Academy as a future home for former felons, the surrounding neighborhood people all asked similar questions of great concern, "Who would want a bunch of felons to live in our neighborhood?" All that is required of the neighbors and people who currently live in the locality of the proposed site of The Other Side Village is to be open minded and inquire themselves of any of the current neighbors of TOSA, right up in the heart of Salt Lake City, as to their present opinions of TOSA. Their response will be most assuring‐‐‐‐‐"The best neighbors we have ever had!" I have made several visits to TOSA with my family. Each visit was an uplifting experience. I can assure you that the Leadership people at TOSA are intelligent, professional people who have but one motive: To lift up people out of their seemingly helpless condition of chaos and squalor. They have the talents and knowhow to make The Othe Side Village a highly successful pursuit‐‐‐a blessing, rather than a curse for all the potential future residents of The Other Side Village. With all that is said above, I ask of you, Commissioner Gellner for your support in favor of approving the zoning change which would give the go‐ahead for establishing The Other Side Village. With appreciation, I am, C. Jay Larson 1 Gellner, David From:Courtney Giles <c > Sent:Wednesday, September 22, 2021 10:30 AM To:Gellner, David Cc: Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village To Whom it May Concern, I.E David Gellner I am writing this letter in support of The Other Side Village. I have actively worked with the homeless population in Salt Lake City for going on 15 years now. The issue has become unprecedented when it comes to safe, reliable and long‐term solutions for this demographic. The Other Side Village will offer a place of Community, family, solace, self sufficiency and above all a place to call home. The city has gone about affordable housing and options for our unsheltered community in some of the worst ways possible. We need a solid solution to address the real need for housing for the chronically homeless members of our community. It is vital and for some at this point life or death. Please consider this plea from a person who spends countless hours weekly with these people. Knowing that this project is underway is the only relief of helplessness I have felt in some time for our unsheltered family! I and many others support The Other Side Village. Thank you kindly, Be blessed Courtney Giles 1 Gellner, David From:David Mceuen <> Sent:Thursday, September 23, 2021 9:44 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Support The Other Side Village Hi David, I'm writing to show my support for The Other Side Village project that is open for public comments. I support the zoning change needed for this project. This is an important project to assist the city and its residents who are experiencing homelessness. I know the leaders at the Other Side Village will do a tremendous job and I know they have spent an enormous amount of time working on this project to provide the best outcomes possible for the project's residents. This would be a great use of that property and a great asset to the community. I am a business owner and commercial property owner in Salt Lake City, next to Pioneer Park and I'm very familiar with the homelessness, street camping, substance abuse, crime and other problems in our community. This project will be major step in providing additional resources to serve the community's needs in addressing homelessness. Regards, David McEuen 1 Gellner, David From:Dayne Bechtold > Sent:Sunday, September 26, 2021 7:47 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The other side village Hi Mr. Gellner, My name is Dayne Bechtold and I’m a resident of South Jordan. While this reasoning won’t directly effect me I believe if it can help end the homeless epidemic here in the greater salt lake area for those who truly want to be better, than there is no reason we shouldn’t help get this village built. I took a look at the properties that are being requested and I see no reason why we shouldn’t use it to help the homeless of our city. Thanks for the work you do! Sent from my iPhone 1 Gellner, David From:Deborah Williams > Sent:Wednesday, September 29, 2021 10:01 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Oppose rezoning for homeless village Dear Mr. Gellner, I have lived on Indiana Ave just a few blocks away from the proposed site for over 30 years. I have grandchildren that visit often. Please don't make our neighborhood even more unsafe. I feel that the homeless village would violate my right to feel safe in my own home. I understood that we should've been able to attend a public meeting where we would have the opportunity to give our comments but we were never notified of such a meeting. I ask that you please reconsider this project. Respectfully, Deborah Williams 1 Gellner, David From:Debra DeFa <> Sent:Thursday, September 30, 2021 1:49 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Rezoning Good Afternoon, My name is Debbie DeFa and as a resident of Poplar Grove and I am AGAINST the rezoning to allow The Other Village to build at their requested site on Indiana Avenue. I hope that this will be taken into consideration as the vote moves forward. Thank You!!! 1 Gellner, David From:D Kent Walker < Sent:Sunday, September 26, 2021 8:48 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Opposition to homeless village Dear Sir, Please be advised that I oppose the re zoning of 1850 W Indiana Ave., SLC; as well as the construction of a homeless village and said address. Thank you Kent Walker 1 Gellner, David From:Devin Thorpe <t > Sent:Saturday, September 4, 2021 11:25 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Hi David, I'm a new‐media journalist who ran for Congress last year. I've been honored to know Tim Stay for almost 20 years. I've written extensively about the work of The Other Side Academy. I consider it to be Utah's most successful and impactful poverty eradication tool. Tim and his team are great humans, focused on solving real problems in our community. I can't be emphatic enough that I support and encourage you to support rezoning to allow for the Other Side Village to proceed. It will improve that neighborhood. It will improve our community. I lack the data you have, but I have lived downtown for 20 years. I've seen the ups and downs of homelessness in our city. From my vantage point, things have never been worse. I attribute this to the lingering opioid crisis, the lack of a meaningful minimum wage and the dire lack of affordable housing. The Other Side Village will address the latter problem. As you likely know, success in helping people overcome their other challenges has been demonstrated to improve if they are housed first. The Other Side Village is not a complete solution for Salt Lake City but this isn't reason to oppose it. That is the reason to do it faster and to look for opportunities to replicate what works there elsewhere. Thanks for your consideration. Let's do some good! dt Devin D. Thorpe P.S. The best part of email is that it is asynchronous. I've sent this message at a time that is convenient for me. Life features a bountiful trove of human activities more important than reading my note. Please don't ever feel pressure to respond before it is easy for you. 1 Gellner, David From:Ellen Garn Sent:Thursday, September 23, 2021 4:49 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Other side village zoning change I support this zoning change as it will bring additional permanent supportive housing to the Salt Lake market and give those experiencing homelessness a safe and sober environment to change their lives. Thank you, Ellen Garn SLC resident 1 Gellner, David From:Elna Hamp <> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 11:32 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village - Support David, I am in support of The Other Side Village! I have been to Community First in Austin three times and seen what works and doesn’t work to change lives. In addition, I have been to TOSA and talked to the folks who have benefited from the “community as method” that Joseph, Tim, Dave, and others are deploying. The results are remarkable and will be a framework for The Other Side Village. Salt Lake City’s village plan will be an example to the world of how Utah cares and treats people in desperate need. A place where those that need help can live in a home and have a village that will help them lead productive and meaningful lives amongst friends. Elna Hamp Clinic Administrator Jordan Landing Clinic 1 Gellner, David From:Esther Stowell <e > Sent:Thursday, September 2, 2021 11:27 AM To:Gellner, David Cc:Ima Mmi; Poplar Grove 2; Faris, Dennis Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM: 2021-00787 - Zoning Map Amendment for The Other Side Village David, My name is Esther Stowell, Resident of Poplar Grove, the location for the referenced zoning application. I want to draw your attention to the Facebook Page residents in our neighborhood are using to voice their opinion about this map amendment request: https://m.facebook.com/145826534316844/ We'll continue to raise awareness and submit the necessary comments, in opposition of this request, as requested in your letter to the Poplar Grove Community Council dated Aug 13, 2021. Thank you for your time. Esther Stowell 1 Gellner, David From:Heidi Van Ert <> Sent:Wednesday, September 22, 2021 4:00 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side village Dear Mr. Gellner: Please approve the amendment change so that The Other Side Village will be able tp assist and help those currently living without homes. Heidi Van Ert, retired teacher and community member 1 Gellner, David From:Ilauna Gurr < Sent:Saturday, September 25, 2021 9:43 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:Re: (EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Dear Mr. Gellner, I have been very impressed with the success of The Other Side Academy and am hopeful that the same principles of self‐ reliance , peer accountability, and connectedness could bring the same help and success to The Other Side Village. This seems like a good formula for helping the homeless help themselves. Please make the zoning change necessary so The Other Side can bring services to residents and hopefully the surrounding neighborhoods. ilauna gurr Sent from my iPhone On Sep 24, 2021, at 2:56 PM, Gellner, David <David.Gellner@slcgov.com> wrote: 1 Gellner, David From:Jackie Daniels-Brown <j Sent:Thursday, September 23, 2021 10:53 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Hi there, I am writing in support of The Other Side Village. Our community is in desperate need of what the village could offer to our unsheltered friends and relatives ‐ safety, dignity, respect, compassion, resources and services, consistency ‐ I could go on and on about the benefits that the village would provide but I’d like to say also that the city’s current responses toward unsheltered folk’s existence have fallen drastically short of what is needed. The Village offers what IS needed. The city has been sending messages not just to unsheltered folks but to the entire city and state (and frankly, to the rest of the country) that the way SLC addresses mental health, addiction, and homelessness is to displace, provide scant resources, and throw the rest in the trash. I am very happy that the city has decided to consider the Village as it sounds like the city has chosen to set a different example. I am not originally from UT but have lived here half my life, and I’ve noticed that SLC likes to talk about how different of a city it is but actions speak louder than words. All last year we heard gov Herbert say “if you love your neighbor wear a mask” ‐ this city emphasizes caring for your neighbor a LOT. The village is the ultimate expression of caring for your neighbor. I have spent time at many camps and have met many folks living on the street. They are kind, caring, giving people. They are creative, they are accountable to themselves and others. They create family when their own is gone. They have incredible hopes and dreams for their futures that could really get them places. They are helpful and respectful and many just want to have peace, just like I do and probably just like you do. As a city, we need our officials to teach the community as a whole, through actions, that our unsheltered friends are just that ‐ friends, neighbors, family ‐ not dehumanized beings. Please continue with this Village project. Help us educate people who oppose this project. Our current way of doing things is not sustainable and it is not working. It is literally traumatizing hundreds if not thousands of people over and over again. We need this project as a community to heal and to truly actually be good neighbors. Thank you for your time, Jackie Daniels‐Brown SLC,UT 84105 1 Gellner, David From:Jaden McCarrey > Sent:Monday, September 27, 2021 2:33 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Village an Asset to SLC To whom it may concern, The Village has created a self-sustaining model that will help address homelessness in SLC. This program will be an invaluable asset to the city and I give it my full recommendation. Kindly, ‐‐ Jaden McCarrey 1 Gellner, David From:Jeff Howell < Sent:Wednesday, September 22, 2021 9:36 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Support zoning changes Hi David, I support the zoning change for the other side academy. Thank you, Sent from my iPhone 1 Gellner, David From:Joseph Grenny < Sent:Saturday, September 4, 2021 8:27 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Completed Hello, David, Thank you for your service to our city. I have lived in Salt Lake City for the past four years. I love it. And yet I can see that some things are terribly broken. We continue to add resources for the homeless and little seems to improve. I am a supporter of The Other Side Village because I believe it is a new and different solution that might help some to permanently change their lives. I believe the land under consideration on Indiana Avenue is an ideal location – close enough to the city but far enough from immediate neighbors that it will have time to prove that it is a safe place. I have great confidence in The Other Side Academy to do this in a way that the neighbors will be very happy with once they see it. Please approve their request for use of the land so that Salt Lake City can start helping some of these suffering people to change their lives. Thank you, Joseph Grenny 1 Gellner, David From:John Gurr <> Sent:Thursday, October 7, 2021 1:11 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Villages Importance:High I support this zoning change for The Other Side Villages … it will bring additional permanent supportive housing to the Salt Lake market and give those experiencing homelessness a safe and sober environment to change their lives. Living in the Rio Grande area, I know full well how dire circumstances can be for the homeless and recognize that this would be a meaningful way to assist those in greater need. Thank you. Residence: Salt Lake City, Utah 1 Gellner, David From:Joseph Williams > Sent:Wednesday, September 22, 2021 7:16 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Homeless proposal Dear Mr. Gellner, I am emailing you today because I oppose the other side village proposal on Indiana Avenue. I live just less than 10 minutes away from the proposed site, and I am opposed to the project, because of the drug use and the level of crime it will bring to the area. Not to mention the affect it will undoubtedly have on property values for the surrounding area. 1 Gellner, David From:Jesselie Anderson Sent:Saturday, September 4, 2021 1:09 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Other Side Academy Village Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed I’m writing to urge your support for The Other Side Academy Village. They have the expertise and experience to assure that the village is successful and gives those that live there a chance for a better more stable and productive life. Please support this! Jesselie and Scott Anderson Jesselie B. Anderson 1 Gellner, David From:Julie F < Sent:Wednesday, September 29, 2021 12:02 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Vote NO for Indiana Ave Village Dear Mr. Gellner, I am writing this email in regards to the project being planned for the Other Side Village on Indiana Avenue. My mother is a long time resident of Salt Lake City, specifically, directly on Indiana Avenue, having purchased her home in 1991. Throughout the years, living here, we have encountered homeless concerns, break ins, car fires, drug raids at neighboring homes, shootings, and hit and runs, all in our small block area. We are extremely concerned that the if there is approval of this new homeless community that it will bring an already stressed area, so much more crime. Please, our police force is already completely maxed out even to the point of highlighting the death of the University of Utah student #22 Mr. Aaron Lowe, where the response time was over 2 hours. Our city does not have the resources for this. Please do the West side of Salt Lake City right and vote NO!! on the Other Side Village. Thank you! 1 Gellner, David From:Justin McKelvy > Sent:Thursday, September 30, 2021 8:31 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Oppose removing the Indians Parcel for the homeless village Hello David, I am writing to oppose removing the Indians parcel proposed for the homeless village. Though I support the idea of helping provide infrastructure to assist a population in need. I feel that the area of poplar grove is already supporting a large population of displaced homeless and already supports this community with other resources. I would like to see this in the valley of Salt Lake if responsibly executed, but Poplar Grove has already done it's fair share to help and is in need of additional community building infrastructure for non‐homeless residents. Every day my family and I see homeless people around our home and on the 9 line trail where they leave significant piles of trash and sleep at night, they are in our bushes near our homes and parks and at times can be unsettling. There is human feces and needles being reported around our neighborhoods from those displaced from existing resources in the area. I see this proposed community as another draw for more homeless to the area where those who will not be able to make it in the community will be pushed into our green spaces, alleys, and backyards where there is no capacity to manage it. I want help and resources like this, but I don't think this community is safely able to shoulder more than what it is already carrying. Thank you, Justin McKelvy Resident of Poplar Grove 1 Gellner, David From:Keri Keech > Sent:Monday, September 27, 2021 8:08 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Other Side Villages Sir, I am opposed to the building of the village for the homeless. I know it is a big problem. I deal with it every day. I will not go for a walk by myself in my own neighborhood due to the amount of the homeless in my area. If that village is built it will make the matters worse. Sent from my iPhone 1 Gellner, David From:Kristina Pulsipher < Sent:Thursday, September 23, 2021 7:30 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Good evening, Mr. Gellner, I wanted to express my support for The Other Side Village and their efforts. I feel this will be a tremendous asset to the community. Not only will it provide much needed housing, but also teach trades and employable skills. This is not just a place to put people who are then out of sight, out of mind, but truly will change lives and enrich our city, county, and state. Sincerely, Kristina Pulsipher 1 Gellner, David From:l Sent:Tuesday, September 21, 2021 8:34 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Support for Zoning Change for The Other Side Village Dear Mr. Gellner, I support the zoning change for The Other Side Village. Thanks for your consideration. Larry Brown 1 Gellner, David From:Lew Swain < Sent:Monday, September 6, 2021 12:01 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Other side village Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed David I have followed the few news pieces that have addressed the proposed Other Side Village project that is proposed for the West side of Salt Lake. It is my understanding that the site for this project is currently being considered for a rezone. I believe this project will do more to address the needs of the homeless community in Salt Lake than any of the existing shelters or food kitchens could ever do. I have spoken to those who are proposing this project. This is a site that will help displaced people achieve significant help in their desires to become self reliant. People will be in their own homes with accessibility to medical, dental, and counseling services on site. They will have a small grocery store which will lessen the need to travel some distance for their food. The residents will have employment opportunities in the village and employment support for jobs in the community. Those who will become residents of the village will agree to the village rules, all of which will direct behavior towards being good law abiding members of a supportive community within the larger community of Salt Lake. It is my understanding that the city will be contributing the land but private funds will be used for the improvement of the project. This seems like the best offer the city of Salt Lake has ever been presented with to address the huge social costs associated with homelessness. I am in full support of this rezoning request and hope that this can be the first of many such projects throughout the state. Lewis Swain 1 Gellner, David From:Lisa Adams Sent:Thursday, September 30, 2021 5:59 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Zoning Change for The Other Side Village Dear David, Just a quick note to offer support for the requested change of zoning for the proposed Other Side Village. As a former planning commissioner and former council member, I do not take zoning changes lightly. I know that long‐term repercussions, precedent, and unintended consequences must be taken into account. Knowing all of that, I still support this zoning change as a way to help our city tackle the significant problems we have with the unhoused and with affordable housing. The Other Side Academy has a proven track record. Consistently, TOSA improves the community where it is located. Witness the change on Seventh East between South Temple and First South. Where once there were two eyesores that attracted squatters, there are two beautiful homes where new lives begin, and pages are turned. I have no doubt that the Other Side Village will be a force for good in the area surrounding it. Sincerely, Lisa Ramsey Adams 1 Gellner, David From:Lisa Hansen < Sent:Thursday, September 23, 2021 3:51 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Supporting the Village David: I'm writing as a Utah licensed mental health professional not associated with the Village to offer my experience that the Village as proposed will be an asset to Salt Lake City that will be envied by other cities in the mountain west as the highest standard of care. The Village and The Other Side Academy demonstrate that we know how to lift and change people, and we know how to make this work as an integral part of our classy and beautiful city. Our community wants to do the right thing. This is it. I encourage you to support the re‐zoning of property that would allow the Village to move forward. Lisa T. Hansen Lisa Tensmeyer Hansen She, Her, Hers PhD, LMFT Center for Couples and Families In compliance with the Health Portability and Accountability Act "HIPAA" (rule 104‐91), this message and any attachments are intended only for use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this electronic message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error or it was forwarded to you without permission from Dr. Hansen, please FORWARD this message back to the sender at the email address above, DELETE this message from all mailboxes and any other electronic storage medium and DESTROY all copies. Thank you. 1 Gellner, David From:Ella Griffin <> Sent:Monday, September 20, 2021 8:36 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) No to the other side village on Indiana ave and redwood road arena Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged My mom says I won’t be able to ride my bike by myself anymore if the other side village gets built 5 blocks away from my house. I am 9 year old. Marce 1 Gellner, David From:Mary Kingston < Sent:Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:23 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLEASE DO NOT REZONE THE INDIANA PARCEL!!! Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged PLEASE do not use the parcel on indiana ave. for the proposed homeless village. there are mulitple residents and schools within walking distance of that area and multiple kids that the homeless community could potentially pose a threat to. our family has lived on indiana for decades and has multiple children who frequently visit and live on indiana. Placing the homeless village there would force us to relocate and leave our precious home with concerns for the safety of our children. its not just our family either, like i mentioned before there are multiple residental neighborhoods, schools, churches, etc. again PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS DECISION AND PLACE THE VILLAGE SOMEWHERE ELSE! 1 Gellner, David From:melinda richards <ri > Sent:Sunday, September 26, 2021 7:34 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Please support The Other Side Village! I absolutely support the zoning change to allow The Other Side Village to be built! It will bring additional permanent supportive housing to the prohibitively expensive Salt Lake market and give those experiencing homelessness a safe home base as a foundation to change their lives. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 1 Gellner, David From:michelle smith <> Sent:Monday, September 20, 2021 8:45 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) No to the Other Side Village on Indiana Ave and Redwood Road area Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed I moved to Glendale 47 years ago. My dad passed away last year and I bought his house in Glendale also. There were two roads to get to my house, but a couple of years ago they blocked off my road to make it nicer for people to walk on the 9line trail. The 9line trail would turn into the pathway for the Other Side Village to get to Smith’s Food King, the park next to it, the Jordan River trail, and the Peace Gardens. I drive public transportation. I see everywhere in the valley where the shelters and programs are placed, riffraff tends to surround it. Our neighbor hood is already too fragile to bear this weight. I already have to call the police on average of 4 times a year. If the Other Side Village gets build there, I anticipate that I will have to call the police 12 times a year. Please explore other avenues for this tiny home village. Thank you, Michelle Smith Sent from Mail for Windows 1 Gellner, David From:Mindy Young <> Sent:Saturday, September 4, 2021 8:37 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Support for The Other Side Academy Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Hello! My name is Mindy Young and I am the Managing Director of Equality Utah. I am writing to ask for support for The Other Side Academy. I have been personally volunteering with this group for a few years now and have been thrilled by the collaboration between Equality Utah and TOSA‐ so much good happens when we work together. I have also served on the board of the Salt Lake Salvation Army and I have been so grateful for all the volunteer hours that TOSA has been willing to do for The Salvation Army. I have seen the lives that are affected by this beautiful organization and want to do all I can to see it grow and flourish. I fully support this zoning change and know it will do so much good for our community ‐ especially those experiencing homelessness. What a beautiful way to help them become sober in a beautiful environment that they can change their lives for good. Please feel free to call me on my cell phone if I can offer anything further 4356913575. Best, ‐‐ Mindy B. Young, MFA Managing Director She, Her, Hers www.equalityutah.org Become a Business Equality Leader Today! Our work continues, become a sustaining donor today! 1 Gellner, David From:Miriam Lopez Sent:Wednesday, October 6, 2021 2:15 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) We oppose!!!!!!! Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed We oppose the rezoning of the indiana parcel for a homeless village!!!!! 1 Gellner, David From:Moe Egan < @theothersidevillage.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 22, 2021 9:54 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village David, this is an opportunity for the chronically homeless to get the American Dream back on the table. This is a human problem that demands a human response. I’m confident that we can address this issue, person to person, human to human and heart to heart. That’s how you move the needle with this population…I know. I’m 16 years clean and sober…smoked drugs for 25 years and I was homeless in San Francisco for 10 years. This model and culture of peer accountability worked for me and it will work for Salt Lake City‘s homeless population as well. Moe Egan Director of Neighbor Recruitment 1 Gellner, David From:NICHOLAS CRAIG JACKSON <u > Sent:Wednesday, September 29, 2021 11:40 AM To:Gellner, David Cc:samgrenny@gmail.com Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Academy - Village Hi David, My name is Nick Jackson, and I am a Finance Major at the University of Utah. I am a member of the Goff Strategic Leadership Center and have been placed on a team in charge of developing a sustainable business plan to implement at the proposed village for The Other Side Academy. I understand that support for developing this village has been contested, but I would like to demonstrate to you that this matter is being taken very seriously. I believe plans for this project should be approved, and I believe this community will combat the homeless crisis Salt Lake City has faced for years. We have decided to address how this community will become self‐sufficient. Donations are great, but we hope to have this community be able to sustain itself as soon as possible. We have been studying other successful communities for individuals experiencing homelessness, such as Community First! in Austin, Texas, and La Fageda in Spain. These communities have found a way to employ homeless individuals in their community‐based social enterprises, thus allowing them to gain work experience and pay their rent. In both cases, the social enterprises implemented have generated a significant amount of revenue, attracting more residents and allowing for expansion. We have several ideas for social enterprises that can generate revenue for the community. Now, we are conducting market research and a series of financial analyses to determine if and how these ideas can support the community. We have access to some of the finest business professionals in the state, and plan on utilizing their expertise to help this project succeed. I would love to keep you updated on our work if you are interested. We are high‐achieving students who are enthusiastic about the idea of helping our community. However, all our efforts will be in vain if this project is not approved by you and your associates. I urge you to give us a chance to succeed in our goal of developing a sustainable social enterprise for this community to combat homelessness in Utah. Thank you for your time, Nick Jackson 1 Gellner, David From:Nigel S < Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 1:48 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Other Side Village Public Comment David, My name is Nigel Swaby. I'm the Chair of the Fairpark Community Council whose boundaries are also adjacent to the proposed project. I'm writing to express conditional support of the Other Side Village project proposed at 1850 West Indiana Ave. This is my opinion and independent of the Fairpark Community Council. I fully support the mission of the Other Side Academy. They have been a good neighbor at their current location and run an effective program. I have no reservations about their ability to successfully operate the Other Side Village. My concern lies in the location being part of the 9-Line RDA zone which requires commerce and sales tax to replenish the funds loaned for the development. Whether the Other Side Village uses RDA funding in this project is immaterial as there is an opportunity cost for acquiring such a large parcel in that zone. I have spoken to the operators about this challenge. As long as some of the planned amenities like the grocery store and theater are structured as for profit entities and not rolled into the Other Side Village as non-profit, then they have my support. Thanks for your consideration. Best regards, Nigel Swaby 1 Gellner, David From:Swaby Real Estate < Sent:Thursday, September 30, 2021 2:15 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Other Side Village Rezone David, I'm writing to express my support for the Other Side Village rezone on Indiana Ave. I live in the Fairpark neighborhood and grew up in Glendale. I'm well aware of the inequities the west side of Salt Lake has faced for my entire life. At first look, adding 400 deeply affordable units to the west side looks inequitable. Frankly, if this was another developer or provider, I would be completely opposed to this project. But it's not. It's the Other Side Academy who has a great track record for community improvement and business development. Their current project is effectively invisible to neighbors, except for the improvements to the community it has made. There has also been discussion about the property being in the 9‐line RDA. Andrew Johnston has assured me that it's not. Regardless, the neighbors in the area have an expectation of community amenities being built in the area. I think it's critical their requests for specified amenities be met. I believe TOSA will at least discuss it with them, if not agree. I've toured TOSA many times, had them present this plan at Fairpark Community Council and have spoken to them privately about it. I believe they are capable of making this project work and they have my support. Thanks for your consideration. Best regards, Nigel Swaby 1 Gellner, David From:Nicholas Smith Sent:Saturday, September 4, 2021 8:50 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Support For The Other Side Village Zoning Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed David, I support the zoning change for The Other Side Village. This change would provide much needed support for the homeless population and also enrich the surrounding community. Please approve this request . If we all do our part we can create something that creates lasting change in the lives of so many. Sincerely, Nicholas Smith The Other SIde Village Supporter 1 Gellner, David From:'Olivia Manavahe <f > Sent:Sunday, September 19, 2021 2:00 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Opposed to "Other Side Village" Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Hello, My name is Olivia Manavahe, and I am from the Poplar Grove area. I am opposed to the idea of building the "Other Side Village" as there are problems we already face within the area, resulting in being cautious and attentive. Building the "Other Side Village" near a school isn't very ideal, as children should feel safe in their learning environment . I may sound biased, but there are people within these areas that aren't safe to be around especially for kids. Please reconsider this matter, as it not only affects the children but the neighborhood as a whole. Thank you for your time. 1 Gellner, David From:Cathryn Graham > Sent:Saturday, October 2, 2021 7:22 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Zoning Amendment Please add me to the list of Salt Lake City residents who SUPPORT the Other Side Village concept and its Zoning Amendment Application currently under review by your department. I support the Zoning change! I know this land parcel very well; managed its use for over 30 years as a City administrator and believe it is an appropriate final use for this site! I support this Zoning Amendment because it helps address a very critical, and currently unmet Salt Lake City issue and it is in alignment with the City’s goals. The Zoning Amendment will bring additional permanent and supportive housing to the Salt Lake City market and give those who experience homelessness a safe and respectful environment to live and change their lives! I know very well the issues of homelessness in Salt Lake City by volunteering on a daily basis as an advocate and voice for these underserved residents. This land parcel has sat underutilized for over 40 years. Time to place it to good use! The Other Side Academy community is the REAL DEAL!!!!! Rick Graham Salt Lake City, Utah. 1 Gellner, David From:Richard Stowell > Sent:Monday, September 6, 2021 2:44 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM: 2021-00787 - Zoning Map Amendment Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Mr. Gellner: Please note my opposition to rezoning land currently under consideration for The Other Side Village near 1850 Indiana Avenue. I object to the rezoning as strongly as possible. Our neighborhood needs many things. A village along the lines The Other Side describes is not one of them, and to rezone to make it easier to allow them to proceed with their plans is an affront to the interests of our neighborhood and those who live here. Thank you. Rich Stowell 1 Gellner, David From:sara day <s Sent:Wednesday, September 22, 2021 10:29 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) I Support The Other Side Village Hello, My name is Sara Day, I live on the west side of Salt Lake City and I am a strong supporter of The Other Side Village. I believe this project will both help the unsheltered of our city and will be an asset to the neighborhood. Here is my information: Sara Day Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Thank you! Sara 1 Gellner, David From:Seth Andrews <> Sent:Sunday, September 26, 2021 5:02 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Other Side Village zoning Please approve the Other Side Village zoning request. I support this zoning amendment because it helps to address the critical issue of homelessness in Salt Lake City. The land in question is currently under‐utilized to its potential. Seth Andrews 1 Gellner, David From:Sheila Cancilla <> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 1:00 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Other Side Villages zoning support Hi David, I am writing in support of zoning changes for The Other Side Villages project. There are many chronically homeless citizens who cannot afford stable housing nor access section 8 housing support due to multiple circumstances, some related to previous history of substance use disorder and poor decisions made which adversely affected their criminal background while under the influence. Additionally this population really needs the level of community support which would be provided in this project, further this population would likely fail in the mainstream housing environments due to lack of support and sense of community among people who have experienced similar circumstances. I ask you to consider the zoning changes required to allow this valuable project to move forward. The model that The Other Side Academy uses has demonstrated clear and proven success. There are multiple states who have also utilized similar models with proven success. I feel quite confident that with the planned on‐site support from Fourth Street Clinic and Valley Behavioral Health, these citizens will be able to achieve the goal of long term stable housing and also be able to receive the necessary mental and physical health support. Thank you for your consideration Sheila Young RN Sent from my iPhone 1 Gellner, David From:Samuel Mills Sent:Tuesday, September 14, 2021 5:30 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The other side village Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Hi David I am a long time resident of the Glendale community. And am extremely concerned with this project. I am worried that the public comments will not be taken seriously and it seem the city has ready made a decision on the location. I have contemplated the benefits of this. And I do have empathy and an open mind towards those in our community experiencing homelessness. For a period of my life I was struggling with homelessness. And I have had family members and friends who have as well. I understand there are limited and complicated nuances and resources available. Yet having been close to this lifestyle I have seen what it can bring to a community. I have worked with our public schools on the west side for over 15 years. And the amount of drug paraphernalia and mentally ill individuals I have had to clear out before children show up to the grounds is immeasurable. This location is withing 5 miles of multiple elementary schools and a junior high. Adjacent to the nine line trail that is already declining. That nine line trail will be the only way to connect this to the downtown city. All this will do is bring a huge influx of traffic to this already struggling neighborhood. I understand the other side has strict rules for individuals in the program and I respect the work they have done. Yet there has been nothing said about the surrounding community of homeless or crime that is not living or allowed in the community that will undoubtedly still have ties to individuals in the community. Are there additional police resources or community resources to protect tax payers properties families children or neighborhood... I have yet to see that. This neighborhood is already struggling. And once again this is something just pushed on the west side. Where the majority of the demographic will not reach out to the city due too the fear of even talking to a government official. This will undoubtedly bring a huge amount of crime and even more people living and openly using drugs into this community l. That is already struggling. There is no equity in this being pushed on the west side. As a minority I'm extremely offended that the mayor declared racism a public health crisis. And then openly supported pushing this into a struggling community that is primarily minorities who will not speak out. Because it's the only parcel of land they could find. It took me three hours of searching to even find this means of public comment. Quite frankly the city should be ashamed of how it is handling this proposal. Sam mills 1 Gellner, David From:Samantha Perez > Sent:Monday, September 20, 2021 2:40 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fwd: The Village at Poplar Grove Please see below. Samantha P. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Samantha Perez < Date: September 20, 2021 at 1:38:54 PM MDT To: mayor@slcgov.com Subject: The Village at Poplar Grove Hello, As a resident of Poplar Grove, I do not support the construction of The Other Side Village in my neighborhood, mere blocks from my house. This is placing an already predominantly ethnic community with more hardships and I do not support this vision. If you have any additional questions, please reach out. Thanks, Samantha Perez Sent from my iPhone 1 Gellner, David From:Sarah Winkler <s > Sent:Sunday, September 5, 2021 11:13 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) support of The Other Side Village's zoning amendment application Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Good Morning, Personally and professionally I strongly support The Other Side Village's application for zoning amendment at 1850 Indiana Avenue from PL to FB‐UN2. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Sarah L. Winkler, AIA, S.E., LEED AP 1 Gellner, David From:Tim Glenn <t > Sent:Wednesday, September 22, 2021 8:09 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Other Side Village public comment Hi David, My name is Tim Glenn. I live in the Poplar Grove neighborhood ‐ about a half mile from the proposed Other Side Village property. I'd like to offer public comment on the rezoning and the project itself. Thanks for the opportunity. I think it's important to start off by saying that I support this project. It's important for people experiencing homelessness to have dignity and access to housing. Being someone who lives within walking distance of the project location, with kids who also go to school down the street from this location, I want to make it clear I support the rezone. Thanks to the city for their efforts. That said, I think it's important the city is proactive in considering how this fits in with the west side master plan and what steps they plan to take in order to continue to support this project going forward. The perception that a person might have about this project is just a little too close to the classic stereotypes of Salt Lake City. When looking at this location, it would be pretty easy to come to the conclusion that the city is pushing people experiencing homelessness as far west as it can, asking them to live on an old landfill, an area of the city that the West Side Master Plan calls unsuitable for living, in the middle of M1 manufacturing zoning and with little infrastructure. I'm not saying this is the actual motivation, but it's easy enough to tell that story. The M1 zoning surrounding this plat of land will impact access to food, services, jobs, and more. I won't claim to be an expert on zoning across the city, but I wonder if there is any other location in the valley where a new neighborhood would be completely surrounded by M1 zoning? Will the city be proactive in revisiting zoning for the surrounding area? Currently, the West Side Master Plan describes the west side of Redwood Road as not suitable for housing because of the type of manufacturing that has existed there. That plan calls for more commercial type zoning and using I‐215 as a natural barrier to M1 zoning going forward. This was based on community input and the hope that Redwood Road could become a gateway to the neighborhood and commercial nodes. How does this project fit into that plan and impact that plan? Currently this is a plat of land that has zero sidewalks connecting to it. Are there any new plans in development for improving the infrastructure connected to this location? Not only is it not currently accessible to someone in a wheel chair, but it doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the project. As I understand it, the village will likely house a population that does not have a high percentage of vehicle owners. How does the city plan to add foot‐centric infrastructure and improve the walkability of this area? Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit public comment. I think the rezone may be beneficial in many ways. But I strongly believe the city needs to be proactive in finding solutions to these other issues as well or it could be seen as an action that only pushes a problem out of view rather than trying to solve it. Thanks, Tim Glenn Poplar Grove 1 Gellner, David From:Tracy Walker <> Sent:Sunday, September 26, 2021 10:25 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Oppose Homeless Village Mr. Gellner, I am a Poplar Grove resident and I am writing to express my OPPOSITION to the proposed location at 1850 Indiana Avenue for the homeless village. I would prefer to see the land used for community based opportunities like a grocery store, coffee shop, restaurants, etc. Thank you, Tracy Walker 1 Gellner, David From:Tyler Clancy <> Sent:Wednesday, September 22, 2021 2:37 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) In support of The Other Side Village Good Afternoon David! I just wanted to send in a note of my support for The Other Side Village. I believe this is not the silver bullet to help end homelessness but it is absolutely a critical factor in this complex issue. Thanks again, Tyler Clancy ‐‐ Tyler Clancy Executive Director 1 Gellner, David From:Umu Tafisi <> Sent:Wednesday, September 8, 2021 1:24 AM To:Gellner, David; Mayor Subject:(EXTERNAL) Other Side Village Proposal - Public Commenting Period Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Mayor Mendenhall and Mr. Gellner: I write to request that you not approve the Other Side Village plans (“OSV Project”) to build a massive homeless service and housing site for the chronically homeless, on the City-owned parcel at 1850 W. Indiana (900 South). A major concern that’s critical for you and local councils to thoroughly evaluate and assess, in understanding “why” the Other Side Village should not be placed in Glendale/Poplar Grove, is that they are high crime locations. Moreover, several questions and concerns remain yet to be answered about the OSV Project. I am personally connected to Glendale and Poplar Grove. I am a former resident of Council District 2. I have many close family members still residing in Glendale and Poplar Grove. I visit the community regularly and often, at least once a week to visit family members and support local businesses. I know and care about Glendale and Poplar Grove. Unfortunately, data publicly available (including by the city PD) clearly indicates that crime rates are high in these locations. This data doesn’t surprise me, and it is material and should not be ignored. This is especially important when comparing crime rates to other cities and locations across Salt Lake County and the State of Utah. For example, NeighborhoodScout.com rates the proposed Glendale/Poplar Grove location as a “Most Dangerous” area, and surrounding areas are similarly designated. So, why would it make sense to place a service and housing site for populations that are vulnerable to drug-use and crime, in a communities already wrestling with high rates of drug-use and crime? It doesn’t make sense. Furthermore, there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of safer vacant lots that could house the OSV project across the County and across the State. What other locations have been considered? How can the community, residents and our families be assured that a thorough, impartial, and methodical due diligence process has or will take place addressing the OSV Project proposal? Otherwise, the OSV Project is just rushed at light-speed without fair consideration for legitimate concerns, including with respect to safety and impact on the communities as well as impact on the OSV Project’s vulnerable populations. Notably, I was informed at the Glendale Community Council meeting for the OSV Project (in August 2021), that the proposed site was targeted because OSV needs at least 30-45 2 acres to build on. If this is true, there are several open lots throughout the Salt Lake Valley, Salt Lake County, and across the State of Utah, that have at least 30-45 acres. What other specific expansive locations have even been considered for the OSV Project? What criteria disqualified those sites from being selected? Importantly, why would the OSV Project be concentrated in just one location, when they should be spread out across the County and State? Why must Glendale and Poplar Grove shoulder a significant undertaking that should instead be spread out and carried by multiple communities across the County and across the State of Utah? Please be prepared to discuss specific details and confirmed and impartial analyses during Glendale Community Council’s upcoming September meeting. I was informed that the OSV Project will be a topic of discussion at the meeting - which would be helpful to have since the public commenting period for the OSV Project is only 45 days and ends September 30th (can this date also be extended to ensure fair due process and transparency for residents)? I appreciate your immediate feedback on the above points and concerns. These are just a few of the concerns and questions that I have right now. Regards, Umu ⚫ Page 19 ATTACHMENT G: Department Comments CITY DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Engineering – Scott Weiler Engineering has no objections to the proposed zoning amendment. Some of the issues that will need to be addressed as this progresses include: Is this going to require a subdivision plat? Will dedication of public R/W occur? If yes, who will maintain the public R/W? Fire – Ken Anderson In reviewing this zoning map amendment, we see that there is not an associated site development proposal. Based on this, Fire and Building code have no issues. Salt Lake City Police Department – Lamar Ewell The Police Department has no issue with the zoning change. Salt Lake City Airport – David Miller, Senior Airport Planner The parcel for address 1965 W 500 S. is the Salt Lake City's Airport Influence Zone "H" this area having specific height restrictions. Salt Lake City does not require an avigation easement for new development in this zone. This project creates no observed impacts to airport operations. Sustainability – Debbie Lyons Residential waste and recycling services are provided by the Sustainability Department for residences, defined in Salt Lake City Code Chapter 9.08. If the development has 4 or more residential dwelling units on a single lot, it would be considered a multi-family property and would not be eligible for the city’s residential waste and recycling services. The development would be required to arrange for waste and recycling services through a privately contracted hauler. Chapter 9.08.200 requires the development to arrange for a recycling service in addition to waste hauling service if the development is expected to generate and average of 4 or more cubic yards of solid waste or recyclable items per week Public Services – Lorna Vogt There are not any service delivery issues for Public Services that would affect the zoning amendment. Service delivery is not a problem to this location but will be dependent on how sidewalks, roads internal to the property, and roadway improvements along Indiana Ave are installed. I assume those issues will be addressed in the development process Transportation – Kevin Young The proposed site at 1850 W Indiana Avenue is served by Indiana Avenue, which is classified as an arterial on the City’s Major Street Plan and has one travel lane in each direction, a center turn lane, and on-street bike lanes. The speed limit along Indiana Avenue at this location is 35 MPH. The average daily traffic volume on Indiana Avenue at this location is approximately 4,600 vehicles. There is inadequate pedestrian access to this location since there is no sidewalk on either side of Indiana Avenue between Redwood Road and this site. This parcel is located approximately .25 miles from Redwood Road, which currently has north/south bus service provided by UTA. Direct transit service could be provided to this parcel if UTA were to provide bus service to the site along Indiana Avenue or if Trips to Transit On-Demand service was implemented for this location. ⚫ Page 20 The 9 Line Trail is planned to extend west of Redwood Road, either along Indiana Avenue or within the existing UPRR right-of-way (if the UPRR right-of-way can be acquired at some future time). When built, the 9 Line Trail would go directly by this site under either scenario, providing pedestrian and other trail use access to this location. Public Utilities – Jason Draper These properties have limited utility infrastructure. Water System: There is a culinary 2” meter to the property connected to a 8” water main in Indiana Avenue. The public water system loops back to redwood road through the bending river subdivision but is a dead end main west of bending river road. There are two fire hydrants along the Indiana frontage. To avoid conflicts connection to the water main should be done before it crosses the rail tracks. New water mains will need to be run through the site. Sewer System: There is a 42” sewer trunk line that runs through this property from the south to north approximately 350 feet west of the East Property line. This is a major trunkline for the city and connects to the new Sewer Pump Station at 500 South. Maintenance and access easement will be required to be retained for this sewer main. This will need to be 40 feet wide with no building and improved access along the pipe. Direct connections to this main will not be possible, however a 8” sewer main could be connected to one of the manholes to provide service to this subdivision. New sewer mains will be required through the site. Storm Drain System There is a 24” storm drain line in Indiana Ave. Groundwater is generally shallow in this area. Storm drain will need to be managed onsite to limit discharge to the storm drain system to 0.2 cubic feet per second per acre with the additional requirement of the 80th percentile storm water quality capture volume. Low Impact Development or other site improvements may be required to meet this requirement. Drainage from the site may be difficult and significant retention of stormwater may be necessary. Street Lighting System There are two streetlights along the Indiana frontage. Streetlighting on public roadway swill need to meet the current street light standards. We can model the system to verify, however, the existing infrastructure should be adequate to provide utility service without any offsite improvements. Onsite improvements will require an 8” sewer main and an 8” water main to provide service to these homes as well as individual connections to each residence. Assumptions used will be for 100 gallons per day per person for water and sewer demand. If the roads are to be private roads, then we will need to evaluate options for water and sewer mains and easements. Public mains would require 30 foot exclusive easement. Private mains may put a burden on the property and residents for maintenance. Separate water and fire lines may be an option with meters and detector checks connected to the public mains. If the roads are to be public, configuration of the public mains can be evaluated. Housing Stability – Tony Milner Our comments are, in regards to, “The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire ⚫ Page 21 protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection,” are: • This proposed development would significantly increase residential units on this parcel. FB-UN2s are optimal when integrated with other residential zoning. If approved, this FB-UN2 parcel would be an island among M-1 and CC zoning. What are the developer’s proposals to connect tenants to existing or new amenities such as transit, parks/trails, groceries stores, etc.? • If approved, has the developer provided the City with an maximum density estimated and related developer contributions to related utilities enhancements? • If approved, this may spur other residential rezoning applications in the area, which would then stress future City utilities. • This proposed development would primarily serve low- to moderate-income residents and thus be eligible for the City’s Impact Fee Waivers. Therefore, the City would possibly not collect on this one-time impact fee that supports police and parks. RESOLUTION NO. _____ OF 2022 (Authorizing the Lease Rate and Term for The Other Side Village Pilot Project located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue, Salt Lake City) WHEREAS, The Other Side Academy (“TOSA”), a Utah nonprofit corporation, desires to develop a community of small homes, community space, support services, and commercial uses to provide affordable housing and life skill development for some of the City’s unsheltered population, to be known as The Other Side Village (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the first phase of the Project (the “Pilot Project”) will include affordable housing, supportive services, community space, social enterprise buildings, and additional tiny homes to be offered as nightly rentals, as further described on the attached term sheet (the “Term Sheet”); and WHEREAS, TOSA and the City desire to locate the Pilot Project on approximately 8 acres of the real property owned by the City and located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue, Salt Lake City (the “Pilot Site”); WHEREAS, the primary beneficiaries of the construction of the Pilot Project will be individuals experiencing chronic homelessness who are transitioning into housing as part of the City, County, and State’s efforts to address the homelessness and housing crisis in Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS, a below-market ground lease to TOSA will facilitate the development of the Pilot Project, which would otherwise be financially unfeasible; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to provide assistance to TOSA in the form of a ground lease rate for the Pilot Site in the amount of $1.00 per year for a term of 40 years, so long as the conditions of the ground lease between City and TOSA, or another nonprofit approved by City, are met (the “Lease Fee Waiver”); and 2 WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 10-8-2(1)(a)(i) allows public entities to provide nonmonetary assistance and waive fees to and for nonprofit entities after a public hearing; and WHEREAS, though Utah Code Section 10-8-2 does not require a study for such waiver or assistance, in this case the Administration voluntarily performed an analysis of the nonmonetary assistance to the nonprofit corporation (the “Analysis”); and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing relating to the foregoing, in satisfaction of the requirements of Utah Code Section 10-8-2; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the Analysis, and has fully considered the conclusions set forth therein, and all comments made during the public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby adopts the conclusions set forth in the Analysis, and hereby finds and determines that, for all the reasons set forth in the Analysis, the Lease Fee Waiver is appropriate under these circumstances. 2. The terms outlined on the Term Sheet represent the approved terms for the Pilot Project, and the City Council hereby authorizes the City administration to negotiate the final terms consistent with the Term Sheet or more beneficial to the City, and execute the ground lease and any other relevant documents consistent with this Resolution and incorporating such other terms and agreements as recommended by the City Attorney’s office. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, on _________, 2022. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: ______________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ____________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office By: ___________________________ Kimberly Chytraus, Senior City Attorney ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: The Other Side Village Rezoning Application PLNPCM2021-00787 STAFF CONTACT: David J. Gellner, AICP, Senior Planner, david.gellner@slcgov.com (801) 535-6107 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 PL (Public Lands to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District). The Planning Commission recommendation of approval included the following additional recommendation: Whereas the community and the public should have the opportunity to plan the neighborhood with the large and potentially impactful project. We recommend that the Council ask the City staff to work with the applicant, businesses, and the community to prepare a development agreement prior to conveying the property. This plan needs to look at infrastructure, including transportation, services, Commercial development, and the buffering and protection of the existing business and the needs of the nearby residents. BUDGET IMPACT: None December 29, 2021 Lisa Shaffer (Dec 29, 2021 15:02 MST) 12/29/2021 12/29/2021 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Tim Stay, CEO of The Other Side Academy, is requesting that the City amend the zoning map for portions of the properties located at 1850 W Indiana Avenue and 1965 W 500 S respectively. Both properties are owned by Salt Lake City and are zoned PL - Public Lands. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning of the properties to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District), in order to develop a walkable urban neighborhood of mixed uses to be known as “The Other Side Village”. The rezoning would be applied to approximately 28.5 acres of the property at 1850 W Indiana and approximately 8.6 acres of the property at 1965 S 500 W. The proposed uses on the approximately 37.1-acre site would include permanent supportive housing for homeless individuals, as well as services and resources to include on-site healthcare, medical services, and community gathering spaces. This zoning map amendment does not require an amendment to the Westside Master Plan. The subject properties are highlighted on the map exhibit below. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Notice of the project and a formal letter requesting comments was sent to the Chair of the Poplar Grove Community Council on August 13, 2021. • Notice sent to the Glendale CC Chair as a courtesy. The Glendale CC is outside of the 600 feet boundary for official notice but is the closest recognized organization adjacent to the project boundary. • Staff sent an early notification announcement postcard about the project to all residents and property owners located within 300 feet of the project site on August 13, 2021. The mailed notice included project details, that recognized community organizations were aware of the proposal and included information on how to access the online open house and 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 August 16, 2021 and ended on September 30, 2021. • Staff attended an online meeting for a West Side Community Councils Open Forum held on August 23, 2021. The applicant presented the proposal to the Forum and answered questions about the project. • The 45-day Recognized Organization comment period expired on September 30, 2021. • No formal comments were submitted to Staff by either the Poplar Grove or Glendale Community Councils. • Numerous public comments were submitted to staff in advance of the Planning Commission Hearing as well as after the staff report was published. The most commonly cited concerns about the proposal related to worries about how the village will impact crime and other activities in the area. There were also many comments in support of the proposal. The comments in support recognized this as an innovative approach to a complex problem. • The public comments can be found in the Planning Commission Records – Attachment C – Planning Commission Staff Report of October 27, 2021. • Additional written public comments received after the staff report was published can be found in Exhibit 5 - Written Comments Received after the Staff Report was Published. • A Planning Commission Public Hearing was held on October 27, 2021. By unanimous vote, the Planning Commission forwarded a Positive recommendation to City Council for the proposed zoning map change. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of October 27, 2021 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of October 27, 2021 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of August 11, 2021 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3. Original Petition 4. Mailing List 5. Written Comments Received after the Staff Report was Published SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2022 (Amending the zoning map pertaining to a portion of a City-owned parcel of property located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue and a portion of a City-owned parcel located at 1965 West 500 south to rezone the parcel from PL Public Lands to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to a portion of a City-owned parcel located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue and a portion of a City-owned parcel located at 1965 West 500 South to rezone the property from PL Public Lands to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2021-00787. WHEREAS, Tim Stay, CEO of the Other Side Academy submitted an application to rezone a portion of a City-owned parcel located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue and a portion of a City-owned parcel located at 1965 West 500 South, as more particularly described in “Exhibit A” attached hereto and incorporated by reference (the “property”), to rezone the property from PL Public Lands to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2021-00787 (the “petition”); and WHEREAS, at its October 27, 2021 meeting, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 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 a portion of the City-owned parcel located at 1850 W Indiana Avenue (Tax ID No. 15-10-101-001-0000) and a portion of the City-owned property located at 1965 West 500 South (Tax ID No. 15-03-351-003-0000), more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is rezoned from PL Public Lands to FB- UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood. SECTION 2. 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 ____________, 20__. ______________________________ 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 Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: _________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Hannah Vickery, Senior City Attorney By: ___________________________________ Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney 12/9/2021 Exhibit “A” Legal description of the property parcels: Tax ID No 15-10-101-001-0000 - Identified as 1850 West Indiana Avenue A part or portion of that certain property as described in the Warranty Deed recorded September 2, 1944 as Entry No. 983619 in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder, located in the Southwest Quarter of Section 3 and the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point located 903.56 feet North 89°52’50” East and North 00°05'12" West 21.99 feet from the Salt Lake County Survey monument found marking the Southwest Corner of Section 3, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; thence North 89°54'48" East 748.00 feet: thence South 00°05'12" East 1337.85 feet to the Northerly right of way line of Indiana Avenue; thence South 89°53'01" West 304.90 feet along said line; thence South 89°53’18” West 198.52 feet along said line to the Northeasterly line of the Union Pacific Railroad right of way, thence North 74°11'41" West 991.63 feet along said line to the Easterly right of way of Interstate 215 and a point of non-tangency with a 4009.72 foot radius curve to the left (radius point bears North 89°12’57”W); thence northerly 350.00 feet along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 05°00'04" (chord bears North 01°42'59" West 349.89 feet); thence South 74°11'41" East 541.51 feet; thence North 53°06'04" East 247.67 feet; thence North 00°05'12" West 716.70 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains ± 28.914 acres, ± 1,259,476 sq. ft. Tax ID No. 15-03-351-003-0000- A portion of 1965 West 500 South A part or portion of that certain property as described in the Warranty Deed recorded September 2, 1944 as Entry No. 983619 in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder, located in the Southwest Quarter of Section 3 and the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point located 483.50 feet North 00°01’30” West along the West line of the said Section 3, and 776.03 feet North 89°52’50” East from the Salt Lake County Survey monument found marking the Southwest Corner of Section 3, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, running thence North 89°52'50" East 875.01 feet to and along the South line of that certain parcel described in Entry No. 13021960 in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder; thence South 00°05'12" East 461.94 feet; thence South 89°54'48" West 748.00 feet; thence North 15°28'31" West 478.59 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains: ± 8.601 Acres, ± 374,678 SQ. FT. Both of these descriptions are graphically represented on the following pages. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3. Original Petition 4. Mailing List 5. Written Comments Received after the Staff Report was Published 1. Project Chronology PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PETITION: PLNPCM2021-00787 – The Other Side Village Rezoning Application August 4, 2021 Petition for the zoning map amendment received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division August 16, 2021 Petition assigned to David Gellner, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing. August 13, 2021 Notice of the project and a formal letter requesting comments was sent to the Chair of the Poplar Grove Community Council on August 13, 2021 in order to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. Notice was also sent to the Glendale CC Chair as a courtesy. The Glendale CC is outside of the 600 feet boundary for official notice but is the closest recognized organization adjacent to the project boundary. August 13, 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. August 16, 2021 Staff hosted an online Open House to solicit public comments on the proposal. The Online Open House period started on August 16, 2021 and ended on September 30, 2021. August 23, 2021 Staff attended an online meeting for a West Side Community Councils Open Forum held on August 23, 2021. September 30, 2021 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. No formal comments were submitted to staff by recognized organizations to date related to this proposal. October 14, 2021 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting and Public Hearing notice mailed. October 14, 2021 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing posted on the properties. October 27, 2021 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on October 27, 2021. By unanimous vote, the Planning Commission forwarded a Positive recommendation to City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2021-00787 – Zoning Map Amendment for The Other Side Village at 1850 W Indiana Avenue and 1965 W 500 S – Tim Stay, CEO of The Other Side Academy is requesting that the City amend the zoning map for portions of the properties located at 1850 W Indiana Avenue and 1965 W 500 S respectively. Both properties are owned by Salt Lake City and are zoned PL - Public Lands. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning of the property to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District) in order to develop a walkable urban neighborhood of mixed uses to be known as “The Other Side Village”. The rezoning would be applied to a 28.5 acres of the property at 1850 W Indiana and 8.6 acres of the property at 1965 S 500 W. The proposed uses on the approximately 37.1-acre site would include permanent supportive housing for homeless individuals as well as services and resources to include on-site healthcare, medical services, and community gathering spaces. This request only relates to the zoning designation of the property. No specific site development proposal has been submitted or is under consideration at this time and the Westside Master Plan is not being changed. The properties are located within Council District 2, represented by Dennis Faris. (Staff contact: David J. Gellner at (801) 535-6107 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 801-535-6107 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 Updated 7/1ϱ/Ϯϭ Zoning Amendment F Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance F Amend the Zoning Map OFFICE USE ONLY Received By: Date Received: Project #: Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment: PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Address of Subject Property (or Area): Name of Applicant: Phone: Address of Applicant: E-mail of Applicant:Cell/Fax: Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property: F Owner F Contractor F Architect F Other: Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant): E-mail of Property Owner:Phone: ©©Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION ©©If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City Planning Counter at (801) 535-7700 prior to submitting the application. REQUIRED FEE ©DĂƉŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚ͗Ĩiling fee of $ϭ͕Ϭϳϱplus$121per acre in excess of one acre ©dĞdžƚŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚ͗ĨŝůŝŶŐĨĞĞŽĨΨϭ͕Ϭϳϱ͘ ©Plus additional fee for mailed public notices. SIGNATURE ©If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: SA L T L A K E C I T Y P L A N N I N G Anna 08/04/2021 PLNPCM2021-00787 Other Side Village – Zoning Map Amendment – 1850 W Indiana Avenue The Other Side Academy Erin.Mendenhall@slcgov.com 1850 W Indiana Avenue, Salt Lake City 667 E 100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Salt Lake City hƉĚĂƚĞĚϳͬϭϱͬϮϭ St a f f R e v i e w SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Project Description (please attach additional sheets.) A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed. WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION Mailing Address: Planning Counter PO Box 145471 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 In Person: Planning Counter 451 South State Street, Room 215 Telephone: (801) 535-7700 INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED ______ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. x x x x TVS 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 145460, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5460 TEL 801.535.6230 August 4, 2021 Nick Norris Salt Lake City Planning Director Dear Nick, Salt Lake City authorizes The Other Side Academy to initiate a planning application for the proposed zone change for the property located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue which is owned by Salt Lake City Corporation. Please let me know if you need any additional information Sincerely, Dan Rip Policy and Program Manager Department of Community and Neighborhoods cc: Blake Thomas Orion Goff Shellie Finan Other Side Village – Zoning Map Amendment – 1850 W Indiana Avenue Rezoning Application PLNPCM2021-00787 A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. 1850 W Indiana Avenue - The Other Side Village The purpose of the amendment is to rezone the parcel of ground currently designated as Public Lands (PL Zone) to a Formed Based District (FB-NU2) to accommodate the development of a walkable urban neighborhood of mixed uses. The proposed mixed-use village would consist of 400-500 small residential dwelling units of various typologies for the chronically homeless, including neighborhood and community centers, open spaces, general retail, commercial, and institutional uses. The property is currently located in the PL (Public Lands) zone which allo ws for a diversity of public facilities and public land uses. However, mixed use developments and residential uses are not permitted under the current PL land use zoning designation. Therefore, the property must be rezoned to allow The Other Side Village development as proposed. The zoning district which would likely best accommodate the proposed use is a Form Based District. The purpose of the Form Based District is to create walkable urban neighborhoods which provide people-oriented places, options for housing types, proximity to amenities and public transportation, and access to recreational and employment opportunities. In addition, the Form Based District ordinance provides specific zoning regulations that focus on the scale and form of development to create pedestrian oriented communities to live, work and play within a close proximity. The FB-UN2 subdistrict regulations provide the framework for a lower intensity urban neighborhood generally consisting of buildings up to four stories in height with taller buildings located on street corners, which may contain a single use, or mix of uses. This zone is currently mapped in the Central Ninth neighborhood. In considering the scope and development objectives of The Other Side Village, the FB -UN2 zone accomplish the goals of the proposal as stated. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. The Village The Village is a permanent supportive housing development for the chronically homeless, where those coming out of chronic homelessness can find not only tiny homes to rent affordably, but services and resources to help them along the way, in a hand -up, not handout model. It is anticipated that the Village will house up to approximately 400+ residents in cottage homes and similar sized attached housing units as duplexes (two-family residences) and triplexes (row houses) as provided for in the FB-NU2 Zone. The support services for the Village will include on-site health care, dental, and social services along with a convenience store, deli, and pet supplies. In addition, community gathering spaces will include an auditorium, non- denominational church, and an amphitheater. Housing will be arranged in neighborhoods of approximately 30 homes each with neighborhood amenities to include a small pavilion, laundry, commercial kitchen, and a multipurpose room for social gatherings. To encourage self-sufficiency, social enterprises will be incorporated into the Village to provide opportunities for work and community service. The Homes The homes will be sized between 250 and 400 sf each. The majority will be stand -alone homes, but the development will have some duplexes and trip lexes. Each home will be attractively furnished, and will have a bed, a kitchen, with standard appliances, a bathroom with a shower, and heating and AC. This will be a gated community, where the residents will be able to come and go as necessary, but there can be controlled access of visitors to maintain safety and order within the Village. The homes will be situated in small neighborhoods of 25-35 homes to create the opportunities for close connected neighborhoods. Each neighborhood will be a mix of single units, duplex units, and triplex units. Connected to every 2-4 neighborhoods will be a Neighborhood Center. The Neighborhood Center will have a common area, a kitchen, laundry equipment, and a outdoor grill space with some picnic tables. Wrap-Around Services The Village will include facilities to provide services and resources for the residents of the Village in a Community Center. These services will include: • A medical exam room • A dental exam room • Mental health therapy rooms • A room big enough for a group session • A dog wash room • A veterinarian exam room • A room for employment services • Space for other supportive services, such as legal aid • A training room for finances literacy and other similar classes • Space for community gathers, meals, fitness activities (such as yoga or aerobics) • A commercial kitchen The medical, dental, and mental health services will be provided by third -party providers, who will provide these services directly to the residents. Community volunteers will be involved in providing many of the other services. Retail Services The Village will have a range of retail services, primarily focused on providing nearby services for the residents, but these will also be accessible to the surrounding neighborhoods. Planned retail services will include: • A small deli and coffee shop • A small grocery store • A hair salon and barbershop • A gift shop • A place that tells the Village story for tours These services will be situated outside of the gated community and will be located to have ea sy access and parking for clientele that will be frequenting these services from outside the Village. Community Amenities The Village will have the following amenities spread throughout the development for the benefit of the residents: • A small non-denominational chapel • A multi-use basketball/pickleball sports court • A cantina / food truck spot / coffee station near the center or north end of the village with an outdoor seating area nearby to be frequented primarily by the residents. • A picnic area • A memorial garden for residents that pass on • A memorial garden for pets • A horseshoe pit • A dog park • A Food Pantry (with access for Food Bank truck deliveries, storage and distribution space) • Open lawn space for active use • A fitness path that creates an integrated feel between neighborhoods with outdoor stations along the way. • A Children’s play area for visiting kids and grandkids • Trail systems that make for comfortable and natural movement between neighborhoods and attractive amenities spread between neighborhoods that encourage interaction. Performing Arts Center The Village will have a world-class 600 seat Performing Arts Center to host local and national performers as well as host plays, concerts, and community events. We are envisioning this facility to be able to have TV broadcast abilities as well as a recording studio so that this facility can be a revenue generating source for the Village. Residents would have access to the performances at free or significantly reduced rates and the surround ing community would be able to attend as well. The operations of the Performing Arts Center will also create employment opportunities for residents. One possibility for parking is to have parking up on the landfill for large events and have people walk down or have shuttles down, much like they do at USANA. Outdoor Amphitheater The Village will have an outdoor events space and amphitheater, where we can have performances, show movies, or have outdoor events, such as Farmer’s Markets, a Christmas Market or other such events. These would be available to both the residents as well as the surrounding community. This space will also create additional employment opportunities for the residents of the Village. We would want to be able to seat around 600 peopl e. We anticipate being able to have outside Food Trucks to be able to come onsite to provide additional food services. Social Enterprises The Village will have an onsite food production facility that will be manufacturing cookies to be sold through wholesale channel and retail channels. The facility will need access for delivery trucks. This social enterprise will provide employment opportunities for the residents of the Village. The Landfill Zone While the Landfill Zone would be challenging to build homes and structures upon it based upon the unstable material below the surface, there are still ways to utilize this difficult parcel. The Village would be able to utilize this land to create additional green space with trees and paths, construct a modest solar farm to provide electricity for the Village, and to provide additional parking for large community events at the Village. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. The site was the former location of the City’s landfill and as such was designated as Public Lands. While the west side of the parcel contains the buried landfill material and is not developable, the east half of the parcel has passed an environmental analysis and is appropriate for development. The proposed mixed-use development is ideally suited for this parcel that is bounded by I-215 on the west, the City’s Parks & Recreation property on the north, a wrecking yard on the east, and Indiana Avenue on the south with industrial development on the south side of the street. While the site is thus isolated from the residential neighborhoods east of Redwood Road, it will still serve as an integral part the Salt Lake community at large. The property is currently located in the PL (Public Lands) zone which allows for a diversity of public facilities and public land uses. However, mixed use developments and residential uses are not permitted under the current PL land use zoning designation. Based upon 21A.33.070: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses For Special Purpose Districts, the following uses are not permitted in a Public Lands zone: Not Permitted in Public Lands zone: • Agricultural Use • Amphitheater, formal • Veterinary office • Artisan Food production • Clinic (Medical, Dental) • Commercial Food Production • No Residential of any kind (except care taker residence) • Mixed Use Development • Performing Arts Production Facility • Philanthropic Use • Place of Worship • Restaurant • Retail Goods Establishment • Retail Sales Therefore, the property would need to be rezoned to allow The Other Side Village development as proposed. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? Yes. If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. All of this parcel: Parcel Record 15101010010000 Owner SALT LAKE CITY CORP Address 1850 W INDIANA AVE A portion of this parcel: Parcel Record 15033510030000 Owner SALT LAKE CITY CORP Address 1965 W 500 S Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? No. Frequently Asked Questions What is the Village? The Other Side Village is a self-reliant, master-planned neighborhood that provides affordable, permanent quality housing, access to social services, and a robust and supportive community for men and women coming out of chronic homelessness. The Village is founded on the conviction that housing alone will never solve homelessness, but community will. The combination of high quality, permanent housing and a strong culture of personal growth, support and connection is the heart of our model. Who is it for? To be eligible to live in The Other Side Village, an individual must have experienced chronic homelessness. We expect many of our residents to have at least one disabling condition, either mentally or physically. We define chronic homelessness as any person with a disability who has been living unsheltered for the last 12 months continuously or on multiple occasions that cumulatively total at least 12 months. All potential residents are required to complete an assessment, be fingerprinted and agree to a criminal background check processed by the FBI. Those with past sex offenses or arson convictions are not eligible for residence. Who are we? And why do we think we can do it? For decades in Utah, we’ve wrung our hands about what to do with criminal offenders with long histories of addiction. Who would have thought that the solution was to have 100 longtime felons move into a home in downtown Salt Lake City? And yet, in 2015, that is exactly what began. Since then, The Other Side Academy has become one of Utah’s gems – a model of citizenship, cleanliness, professionalism and integrity. The students you see here have been arrested an average of 25 times. And yet when racial tension erupted into riots in downtown Salt Lake City in the summer of 2020, it was students of The Other Side Academy who rushed to the scene to clean up. When police spent sleepless nights preparing for civil unrest, it was students of The Other Side Academy who brought them coffee and encouragement. When the Salt Lake City Council was considering whether to give The Other Side Academy permission to remain in its downtown location, over fifty neighbors turned out to say that the neighborhood was better because they were there. And the police officials gave a report that crime had actually gone down since we moved into the neighborhood. And amazingly, all of this was done without any government funds. Students of The Other Side Academy pay their own way by running some of the most respected businesses in the state. For decades in Utah, we’ve wrung our hands about how to help the growing number of people experiencing homelessness in our cities. We believe the same principles that have enabled students at The Other Side Academy to create a model community point the way to what must be done. While those experiencing chronic homelessness face different challenges than TOSA students, we contend that there are universal principles for creating healthy communities that give us a responsibility to step in. Why? Because we understand what it is to be marginalized. We understand what it takes to become self-reliant. We have experience creating a peer community with strong values and shared accountability. And so, in coming months, The Other Side Academy is partnering with the City of Salt Lake to create The Other Side Village – a self-reliant, peer-led village that provides a safe, dignified and uplifting life for people who are chronically unsheltered, and which brings them and the larger community into mutually ennobling relationships. Just like The Other Side Academy. Why are we a Village and not a tiny home project? It is not about Tiny Homes. You’ll notice that residents live in what are called “Tiny Homes.” But be careful, the size of the homes is the least important part of this effort. Some communities are building tiny home neighborhoods that will likely become tiny slums in short order. The key is not the physical structures, but the social system. The primary ingredient for success, like at The Other Side Academy, is creating a strong culture that lifts and changes all who are part of it. This is what The Other Side Academy has learned to do. And we are committed to creating this same opportunity for our homeless brothers and sisters. The most important part is to create an environment, socially and physically, that facilitates connection with others. Homelessness is the result of a catastrophic loss of family. So the solution must be to build a new family. The second most important part is establishing a community with strong social norms. This is what brings out the best in all of us. These strong norms will invite all to strive to achieve their potential, allowing them the dignity of being part of the solution, not just a problem to be solved. Work and self-improvement are fundamental principles of happiness. As all are invited to contribute at the level of their ability, The Other Side Village will remain prosperous, safe and strong. The Other Side Village believes that the single greatest cause of homelessness is a profound, catastrophic loss of family. That’s why our focus at The Other Side Village is to do more than just provide adequate housing. We are developing a community with supportive services and amenities to help address an individual’s relational needs at a fraction of the cost of traditional housing initiatives. We seek to empower our residents to build relationships with others, and to experience healing and restoration as part of engaging with a broader community. What will the houses be like? One of the irreplaceable ingredients to solving homelessness is providing affordable, high quality, permanent housing. And that’s exactly what the homes in the Village will do. Our homes will provide approximately 350 to 400 square feet to each resident, including a bedroom, a living room, a bathroom with a shower, and a kitchen with all the appliances. If we intend to create a community where people can thrive, it must be centered on homes that provide the comfort and amenities that each of us expects for ourselves. What services will be provided at The Other Side Village? There is a broad range of services that will be available on-site to our residents with facilities designed specifically to accommodate their unique needs. These include: ● Full-time behavioral health case managers ● Primary healthcare service ● Social enterprise business opportunities through The Other Side Village Social Enterprises ● Regular farmers market to provide residents with healthy, nutritious, and free vegetables harvested from the Village’s main gardens ● Employment opportunities ● Supportive community services and activities What will be the rules of the Village? Individuals living in The Other Side Village are required to follow three primary community covenants. Residents must: 1. Pay rent on time. 2. Abide by civil law. 3. Follow the rules of the community itself (similar to HOA or Homeowners Association for a neighborhood). What was this site previously? Looking at the site, there is the historic landfill that was used from 1920 to 1962. This western portion on the site is the elevated portion on the parcel along the west side, adjacent to I-215. The landfill has been dormant for the last 60 years and has 5 feet of fill over the top of the landfill. We do not plan to build any housing or offices on the westside landfill portion of the parcel. We have already done a number of environmental tests on the site and we continue to do additional testing until we are satisfied that this is a safe and healthy place. The eastside of the parcel is largely native soil with some green waste at the southern and northern ends of the parcel. We plan to build the housing on the eastside of the parcel and avoid building on the western landfill portion. To date, none of the test results has disqualified the eastern portion of the site from being considered as a viable site. We continue to do further testing as well as working closely with local and state regulatory agencies, including the Salt Lake City Office of Sustainability and the Utah State Department of Environmental Quality. As we do continued testing, if we find anything that makes the site not viable for humans that cannot be safely remediated , we will abandon this site and pursue other locations. Are you concerned about crime in the Village? How will you police the community? One of our goals at The Other Side Village is to transform the way people view the stereotype of individuals who find themselves homeless. After years of serving and working with criminal addicts at The Other Side Academy as well as the homeless population in Salt Lake, we believe the stereotype of chronically homeless individuals as it relates to crime is actually wrong. Chronically homeless individuals are among the most vulnerable and most often are the victims of crime, as opposed to being the perpetrators of crime. Every neighborhood in any city at any time is susceptible to some level of criminal activity. Neighborhoods can mitigate potential criminal activity through strong vigilance. The very essence of The Other Side Village is neighbor looking after neighbor. We will have a robust Neighborhood Watch Program and will work to resolve as many issues as possible within the community. As a data point, crime statistics from the Salt Lake Police Department in the area surrounding The Other Side Academy shows a significant reduction in crime in the neighborhood after we moved in. It is also what has happened since Community First! Began building a village for formerly homeless individuals that will ultimately have over 1,500 tiny homes in it. The crime rate has dropped, neighbors are regular visitors to these campuses, and property values have been enhanced. We are confident that the same will happen with the establishment of the Village. 4. Mailing List OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR own_unit OWN_CITY OWN_STATE OWN_ZIP BAJR, LLC 3185 E DESERET DR ST GEORGE UT 84790 SALT LAKE CITY CORP PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 MIRAMICHI PROPERTIES, LLC PO BOX 25906 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84125 BENEFICIAL INTERNATIONAL INC 1780 W 500 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 MIRAMICHI PROPERTIES, LLC 1852 W 500 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 VERTICAL SPACE, LLC 169 W 400 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SHACKLETON'S ENDURANCE, LLC 2471 S 150 W BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 VERTICAL SPACE, LLC 1450 S 400 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 ISSB, LLC 2082 W GARDNER LN WEST JORDAN UT 84088 M‐13, LP LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 221 S 35TH AVE PHOENIX AZ 85009 ALVIE CARTER TRUST 1810 W INDIANA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1810 W INDIANA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 MANTAS INVESTMENTS, LLC 3380 S 500 W SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115 C L W PROPERTIES, LLC 642 E EIGHTEENTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 JP GODWIN PROPERTIES IV, LLC PO BOX 1147 DUNN NC 28335 STEVEN M CLINGER; MARGARET K CLINGER (JT) 19839 N 85TH DR PEORIA AZ 85382 LIVAN, LLC 1036 W 1850 N WEST BOUNTIFUL UT 84087 BKR HOLDINGS, LLC 5845 CRESTRIDGE ROAD BILLINGS MT 59101 HILLCREST INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC 5230 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 Current Occupant 460 S ORANGE ST Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1990 W 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1850 W 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1784 W 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1853 W 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1965 W 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1855 W 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1965 W 500 S #1 Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1759 W 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1759 W 500 S #NFF1 Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 622 S REDWOOD RD Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1875 W 500 S #NFF1 Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1875 W 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1835 W 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1837 W 500 S #NFF1 Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1805 W 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1775 W 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1815 W 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1811 W 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 715 S DELONG ST Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 719 S DELONG ST Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 2105 W INDIANA CIR Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1850 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1818 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1816 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1804 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1808 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1806 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1802 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1802 W INDIANA AVE WEST Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 652 S REDWOOD RD Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1995 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1925 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1907 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1795 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 850 S REDWOOD RD Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1810 W REDWOOD DEPOT LN Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1830 W REDWOOD DEPOT LN Salt Lake City UT 84104 Salt Lake City Planning ‐ David Gellner PO BOX 145480 Salt Lake City UT 84114 5. Written Comments Received after the Staff Report was Published 1 Gellner, David From:Deborah Hunt <> Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 7:46 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) My comments in favor of Other Side Village I would like to speak at the meeting in favor of the Other Side Village. I live in the neighborhood (Poplar Grove) and would welcome the Village here. After 22 years away from Salt Lake City, I moved back from Denver, Colorado. I was shocked and disheartened to see the number of unhoused residents in the parkways and side streets on the near West side. In my neighborhood, I see many camped by the Jordan Parkway. I knew that Salt Lake City had received a "Housing First" grant a few years ago, as I had been involved with applying for a similar grant application in Denver. I really hoped that the housing situation in Salt Lake City had improved. I do appreciate the efforts of the city and the Mayor's office have made to reach out, educate the public, provide on site services, and work to provide shelter. Our city can and must do better. The Other Side Village is an essential, effective, and dignified approach. A similar tiny home project has been highly successful in Denver and other cities. Let's show our creativity, compassion, and flexibility to make Salt Lake City a model for providing cutting edge services to our unsheltered neighbors. Please adjust zoning to accommodate this project. Respectfully, Dr. Deborah Esquibel Hunt Poplar Grove resident 1 Gellner, David From:christopher dunn <> Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 7:18 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) The other side village I ask that you not change the zoning of this property. As a resident in close proximity I feel like the use that is being proposed would create a decrease in property value and I would feel unsafe in my neighborhood. 1 Gellner, David From:Deborah Beninati > Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 7:20 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Dear Commissioners: I am writing in support of zoning for The Other Side Village. The Other Side Village is an Integrated Community for people coming out of chronic homelessness. I have spent the past 18 months working directly with people facing homelessness in the Salt Lake City area. The Other Side Village offers the best possible solution to the overwhelming and complicated issues surrounding homelessness. This carefully planned community will provide access to social and medical services, including support for addiction recovery and employment opportunity. The ultimate goal of the community is to reach self‐sufficiency to cover operational expenses generated through social and business enterprises. I urge to support the zoning of this unique opportunity to assist our fellow citizens experiencing homelessness. Respectfully, Deborah Beninati 1 Gellner, David From:central9thcc@gmail.com Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 11:22 PM To:Gellner, David; Planning Public Comments; Faris, Dennis; Representative Angela Romero; Mano, Darin; Valdemoros, Ana Cc:Zoning; Lopez, Eva; Clark, Weston; ; Central 9th 1; ; 'Jesse Hulse'; Ballpark; Senator Derek Kitchen; Cleveland, Ashley; 'Scott Howell'; Subject:(EXTERNAL) Zoning Map Amendment Proposal (PLNPCM2021-00787) FB‐UN2 Zoning Concerns – Zoning Map Amendment – 1850 W Indiana Avenue & 1965 West 500 South Zoning Map Amendment PLNPCM2021‐00787 Though we are supportive of The Other Side Academy and their Other Side Village proposal, we urge caution with regards to rezoning to FB‐UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District). FB‐UN2 started as an experiment in what is now the Central 9th neighborhood of Salt Lake City, it dominates our zoning, and has proven to be flawed and unhealthy for the vibrant community we strive to achieve in Central 9th. As with any experiment at some point you must evaluate the results, fix problems, and address unintended consequences which become recognizable over time. Both our community and the city have recognized the problems created by FB‐UN2 for several years but seem unable to motivate the Planning Division or Administration to take necessary actions and correct the flaws in this zoning. Below are some of our main concerns and fears we have for this rezone proposal. We want to be certain the neighbors and community surrounding this location are aware of what FB‐UN2 may bring. 1. FB‐UN2 offers very generous use by right, 4 or 5 stories depending on location, minimal setbacks from neighboring properties, no greenspace, no parking, no ground level engagement, nor aesthetic requirements, removing the community from most planning discussion or participation. It is wonderful zoning for developers or planning department staff trying to reduce workloads, it is horrible from a neighborhood perspective. At 950 South Washington Street a developer was able to remove 3 single family homes and is replacing them with 200 microunits, no parking, no ground level community engagement, no greenspace benefitting the neighborhood, or any other feature improving community quality of life. Because they are building by right, based on FB‐UN2, the developer has not had to engage the community at all. Though Central 9th has reached out multiple times, we have been rebuffed by what this zoning allows. 200 microunits will forever alter the neighborhood, but we, the community, have no voice due to FB‐UN2. 2. FB‐UN2 discourages greenspace, and builders have found its flaws, constructing numerous poorly built multi story walk up units which already appear to be aging badly. Simply look at the microunits at 850 South West Temple to see what a 4th floor walkup with no elevators, parking, common space for residents, ground level engagement, or any greenspace can look like. What of the needs for accessible challenged individuals, let alone someone who would like to age in place or retire, FB‐UN2 offers them no refuge. If this is the future of zoning for Salt Lake, we are all in trouble. 3. Another major concern with regards to FB‐UN2 is the planning division's proposed Affordable Housing Overlay, which hardly touches much of the city but penalizes those of us already hosting density. The proposed overlay would allow up to 3 additional stories, meaning an 8‐story building could be built by right in FB‐UN2 zoned areas. There are simple fixes to what ails FB‐UN2. The zoning could be altered to say if a multi‐unit housing project is proposed for more than 20 units it should be required to go through design review, green space and ground level engagement should be mandatory, rooftop greenspace encouraged, and FB‐UN2 where it borders FB‐UN1 should not allow 2 additional height under the proposed housing overlay. We do not ever want to see an 8‐story building in FB‐UN2 bordering a maximum 30’ height home in FB‐UN1 but that is what is being proposed. We simply request Salt Lake City follow the Plan Salt Lake master plans as adopted by the city when it comes to zoning and its effects on our neighborhood and others where form‐based zoning is proposed. http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/Downtown.pdf (Central 9th begins on page 130 at this link) With regards, Paul Johnson Chair, Central 9th Community Council 1 Gellner, David From:Adam Breen > Sent:Friday, October 22, 2021 1:12 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) 10/27 - Other Side Village's rezoning City Commissioners, I am typing this email as positive support for the application and rezone of the Other Side Village. As you are aware, our nation, our state, our city and our community continue to enlarge the gap between the upper class and the lower class due to economic pressures, growth and unforeseen disruption. Our forefathers vision of the American Dream is quickly becoming unreachable for many americans. The term "Attainable Housing" has slipped away and affordable housing (Government or deeds restricted) is becoming the only option for many individuals and families. Years of government leadership have believed urban sprawl and low density would keep home ownership alive and give people a healthy and happy life. This perceived notion of suburbia did appear to fulfill its purpose for about 30 years however we are now seeing this concept as one of many contributing factors to the large separation between socioeconomic classes. I have to praise Salt Lake City for your leadership and recognition in these issues. Salt Lake City currently is considering affordability and availability major issues and progressively acting by approving increased height, density, and growth through the city master plan and other individual application requests. The Other Side Village is a conceptual project that addresses these similar issues from the so‐called battle field. The Academy's vision of revitalizing individuals that have been priced out of society and have lost hope is a large step of re‐ inviting individuals to properly participate in our society. Giving these people a chance, whether it be a first or second or so on, will prove, with the right influence and help, that people are inherently good in nature and want to be a part of something larger. The Other Side Village will give these people without a place in life a place they can call home and restart a life they are proud of. I am not currently involved in this project or within the Other Side Academy with the exception of personally following this project due to my interest in the growth and positive changes in our community. I look forward to seeing this project gain steam and conceptualize into an amazing Village! Thank you for taking the time to read this and consider the positive impacts this project will make on our community and residents. ‐‐ Breen Homes Adam Breen 1 Gellner, David From: Sent:Monday, October 25, 2021 8:43 AM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Rezoning I support the rezoning request for The Other Side Village and full implementation of the program for these reasons: - It serves a worthy social purpose, providing safe, secure shelter for fellow human beings who at least temporarily are unable to do so for themselves. - The Other Side Academy (TOSA) has an excellent track record as a therapeutic community in helping troubled individuals become functioning, positive members of society., and has a clear, logical process for adapting its approach to the needs of homeless individuals. - TOSA has shown itself to be a self sustaining contributor to Salt Lake City, through its business entities and civic involvement. - TOSA's alumni, board, and supporters, represent tremendous intellectual, and economic resources, and include some of the finest business minds, social entrepreneurs, and philanthropists in the world. - The Other Side Village will consist of "tiny homes", a highly affordable and innovative approach to creating safe, secure, and comfortable housing that minimizes negative environmental impacts, and is sustainable. - I live in the Atlanta metro area and have worked as an urban planner and project director under Mayors Maynard Jackson, Shirley Franklin, and Kasim Reed, as well as The Martin Luther King Center, The, National Conference of Black Mayors, and the NAACP. Atlanta and every major American city can adapt The Other Side Village as a model to address our own growing and .seemingly intractable problems of homelessness and wasted human potential. Respectfully Submitted, Arthur Cole 1 Gellner, David From:David Dixon < Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 8:51 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) TOSV The City owns the property so the rezone and uses are very much controlled by the City until the development agreement is achieved. We are working with the DEQ on the environmental questions. Thanks, Dave Dixon architect for the Village. Sent from my iPhone 1 Gellner, David From: Sent:Thursday, October 21, 2021 12:55 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:FW: (EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Proposal ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: David Dixon Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 12:22 PM To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com> Cc: Tim Stay Subject: (EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Proposal Dear Planning Commissioners and staff, As an owner/partner of an architectural firm here in Salt Lake City, I have had interactions with homeless people for years around our building at 833 South 200 East. For the most part, they are passive people with mental health issues that live on our streets. I have spoken with many of them and found them to suffer from a chronic loss of family and connection with others, coupled with substance abuse issues for many that are not addressed. As you know, homelessness is a complex problem with no easy solutions. I became involved with the Other Side Academy a few years ago on some design options they were considering for their facilities downtown and they reached out to me a few months ago for design help on the proposed Other Side Village here in Salt Lake. I know of their tremendous success at TOSA dealing with former inmates and I believe that they can produce similar results with those selected to live in TOSV. As the managing architect for the Village design, I am serving without compensation and working with several architectural and land planning firms to master plan the Village and produce construction drawings. I agree that the Form Based Zoning is the proper designation for the Village in that it provides for the mixed uses contemplated and the housing types proposed. It promises to be a safe, inviting, community that will provide the services needed by the residents to improve their standard of living and address their underlying issues. I have read about and visited other similar villages across the country and have observed their successes and drawbacks. I know that TOSV's approach will lead to similar successes and avoid the pitfalls of other Villages by becoming self‐ sustaining, supportive, and better managed with a higher level of design and greater community services. Knowing what I know about this population and the design and management proposed for the Indiana Avenue site, I want to let you know of my support for the project as a trendsetting solution for a significant segment of our homeless community. I'm sure there will be those in surrounding communities that will be skeptical of what is being proposed with fears of increased crime rates, less safe neighborhoods, and a negative impact on property values. I have served as a planning commission chairman and a city council member in my hometown of Farmington. I know of the concerns of neighbors when changes or developments are proposed. I can say that in my visits to other Villages in Austin, Texas, and Kansas City, safety concerns were not observed there and TOSV will be even better managed. I would not hesitate to allow 2 TOSV to be constructed near my neighborhood and believe it to be one thing we can do right for the individuals selected to make it their permanent homes. Thank you, Dave David J. Dixon, AIA Partner . 1 Gellner, David From:Deborah Hunt < Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 5:25 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) Link for October 27 meeting Hello, I would like to speak at the meeting in favor of the Other Side Village. I live in the neighborhood (Poplar Grove) and would welcome the Village here. After 22 years away from Salt Lake City, I moved back from Denver, Colorado. I was shocked and disheartened to see the number of unhoused residents in the parkways and side streets on the near West side. In my neighborhood, I see many camped by the Jordan Parkway. I knew that Salt Lake City had received a "Housing First" grant a few years ago, as I had been involved with applying for a similar grant application in Denver. I really hoped that the housing situation in Salt Lake City had improved. I do appreciate the efforts of the city and the Mayor's office have made to reach out, educate the public, provide on site services, and work to provide shelter. Our city can and must do better. The Other Side Village is an essential, effective, and dignified approach. A similar tiny home project has been highly successful in Denver and other cities. Let's show our creativity, compassion, and flexibility to make Salt Lake City a model for providing cutting edge services to our unsheltered neighbors. Please adjust zoning to accommodate this project. Dr. Deborah Esquibel Hunt 1 Gellner, David From:Fraser Nelson > Sent:Saturday, October 23, 2021 9:23 AM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) Support for the OtherSide Village Dear members, Please accept this letter of support for the Village rezoning request. I have long been involved in homelessness services though my work as Director of Data and Innovation for Mayor Ben McAdams, while a Managing Director of the Sorenson Impact Center and while leading the Community Foundation of Utah and the Disability Law Center. As a long time resident of downtown and now the Ballpark neighborhood I have talked with my unhoused neighbors about their struggles and hopes for a place they can be safe and regain lives that feel lost. I have also been engaged with The Other Side Academy since its inception and just this week used their moving services. All this is to say that I have great faith in their organization and truly hope that this innovative model can be brought to our community. Thank you, Fraser Nelson Salt Lake City UT 84101 1 Gellner, David From:Heidi Willis > Sent:Thursday, October 21, 2021 10:45 AM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) Support for Rezoning for Other Side Village As a long‐term Utah resident interested in strengthening and improving our community, I’m writing to express my enthusiastic support of the rezoning request for the Other Side Village which will be discussed in the 5:30 meeting on Oct 27. Thanks so much, Heidi Bennion Willis Sent from my iPhone 1 Gellner, David From:Jordan Frandsen <> Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 7:54 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2021-00787: Zoning Map Amendment Comments I support the rezoning and development of the proposed locations on behalf of the Other Side Academy. The proposals, the outreach, and the presentations have convinced me that this will be a benefit both to my community (I live down the 9‐Line from this project) and to the whole city and state. I thank the commission again for hearing and approving my proposal (Alley Vacation) and support this proposal as well. Jordan Frandsen, Property Owner Salt Lake City, UT 84104 1 Gellner, David From:Kathy Smith Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 2:16 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Academy Village rezone request Dear Commissioners, I've had the privilege of visiting The Other Side Academy twice and would be honored to have such a community in my neighborhood. I urge you to visit TOSA if you haven't already and to approve the rezone request for the property that the city already owns. This is a proven program for dramatically reducing recidivism and creating a social fabric for those who have suffered chronic homelessness or incarceration. I worked for the State of Utah when the state's 10-year plan for ending chronic homelessness was launched in the early 2000's. I was the director of the Commission on Volunteers. I can see opportunities for service that would be life-changing at TOSA; I've experienced it myself. I have also served as a planning commissioner and as a city council woman in northern Utah and thank you for your diligent and sometimes thankless service. Truly, Kathy Smith 1 Gellner, David From:Laurie Hopkins <> Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 3:29 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) 10/28 Planning Commission Meeting - The Other Side Village Dear Planning Commission, I am unable to attend the Public Hearing portion of the meeting, so am taking the opportunity to provide a general comment regarding the development of the tiny home village by The Other Side Academy. I understand there is an environmental evaluation being conducted at the proposed site and likely other issues that need to be and should be addressed for the project to be appropriately moved forward and viable. That said, I am in support of a projects that will add deeply affordable housing to the community, and that will specifically serve individuals that are experiencing homelessness find accessible and stable housing. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Laurie G. Hopkins Executive Director | Shelter the Homeless 1 Gellner, David From:Leslie Montgomery < Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 10:49 AM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Hello, I write to share my support of the proposed Other Side Village project. As a mortgage professional for the past 35 years, I have seen homelessness grow beyond the “hobos” I saw on the streets of Seattle growing up. Over the last several years, Seattle has faced significant housing issues with unwanted tent camps and lack of understanding or social services to address the issues facing the city. A solution like The Other Side Village is an innovative and empowering answer to our challenges. There are individuals with mental challenges whether born with disabilities or locked in the grip of the addiction disease. The village will offer a community of support where the residents help one another and help the community sustain itself. As a founding board member for HomeAid Utah, I have learned the devastation that homelessness puts of families which is well beyond the myth of who we typically see on the streets. I am proud to be part of this organization helping the homeless population service providers with their facilities and projects. We have become a viable organization for good in the Salt Lake valley. We listened to a presentation earlier this year about The Other Side Village and unanimously agreed that it is a spectacular opportunity to make sustainable change within our community. I am also the President of Soroptimist International of Ogden, the largest and oldest women’s rights organization in the world. We celebrated our 100 ‐year anniversary on 10/3/2021. The pandemic has affected women in an extremely negative way, setting our progress back 30 years (my adult life) which is incredibly discouraging. Housing is one of these areas affected. If a woman must take care of the children and is the sole provider, she is in a no‐win situation when it comes to her ability to provide housing. These are real issues in our community which need to be solved. We, as human beings, must help care for those who cannot care for themselves. With gratitude, ! 1 Gellner, David From:Ronda Landa <> Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 4:27 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Hi I wanted to reach out to comment on my support of the rezoning for The Other Side Village. As a downtown employee and as an individual that utilizes the vendors of downtown, I see this as a separate user within the city. Any city growing like our city is, what is critical is ‘smart’ planning. Bringing the community together that would live within this community is ‘smart’ planning. We need to plan for all types of housing within our city limits. Thank you. Regards, Ronda UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, please do not overnight or deliver any documents to our office. If original documents need to be delivered to First American, please advise and an alternate address will be provided. We appreciate your Should we receive emailed wire instructions, please understand that we will need to telephone a trusted individual to confirm the authenticity of the instructions prior to releasing the wire. The safety of your funds is important to us, and with wire fraud on the rise, we want to add a layer of protection. ****************************************************************************************** This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above or may contain information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the 1 Gellner, David From:Scott Sloan Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 11:17 AM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village--request to approve rezoning Dear Planning Commission, I’m writing in support of the other side village, which has the potential to provide life‐changing housing for many. I understand that in order to move forward on this project the Council needs to approve a zoning change, which I fully support. Please join in supporting this change so that the work can continue. Sincerely, Scott Sloan CEO BaseCamp Franchising, LLC 1 Gellner, David From:Soren Simonsen > Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 8:27 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) Comments regarding The Other Side Village I have provided oral comments in support of The Other Side Village. I wish to also provide some written comments that don’t apply so much to The Other Side Village as to the community more broadly. Currently, almost the entirety of Redwood Road is zoned Commercial Corridor (CC). This corridor could be a wonderful gathering place for the community of residents and businesses, and that vision is clearly articulated in the West Salt Lake Master Plan, but it will not happen under the current CC zone. I urge the Planning Commission to not only rezone the parcels for The Other Side Village, but to consider applying the FB‐UN‐2 or another appropriate form based zone to all of the currently CC zoned properties and make meaningful transformation of this corridor to benefit the entire west side of Salt Lake City. Thank you ‐ Søren Simonsen | 1 Gellner, David From:Susan Klinker Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 10:05 AM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) in support of The Other Side Village rezoning request Dear Planning Commission Members, I am writing in support of the Other Side Village's request for rezoning. I've been following the development of this project since it was first announced and have been very impressed with the project's leadership. The Other Side team has unique experience, and an amazing track record of helping people turn their lives around, one relationship at a time. They really care, and have quickly organized the resources and professional support to make an ambitious project like this happen. I believe they have the passion and skill at all levels, to create a caring & engaged community developed in partnership with the City. I am proud to live in a City that is leading the way in developing workable solutions to the problem of homelessness. "Be it ever so humble, there's no place like home." Thanks for your support of this important project, Susan Klinker ‐‐ 1 Gellner, David From:Anne Charles < Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 6:26 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) 1850 W Indiana Ave & 1965 W 500 S Comment Hello, Please read this within your public comment hearing. I am opposed to the amendment to this rezone. Firstly, I do not support this organization and their practices. I am Anne Charles, a clinical director at a substance use treatment center that works with previously incarcerated folks to prevent relapse and recidivism. I do not believe in the lack of resources provided by the Other Side academy, specifically in regards to the physical and mental health of their students. They do not have doctors or mental health clinicians provided for clients. If we are to create a supportive housing community I want to know that those living there will genuinely have support. Secondly, I do not believe the land itself should be used. This is said to be a space of those who are chronically homeless and part of the parcel is a former landfill. This is not only insulting, but also unsafe. A 2017 Department of Environmental Quality study found elevated levels of metals like, lead, mercury, copper, and nickle. There has been no further study since because there was no population or residences on the land and deemed unnecessary. The otherside village has said they are "very aggressive in their environmental testing." This proves to be untrue because we have seen the studies and know further testing should be done. I do not see the results of environmental testing in this proposal and would need to see this before feeling comfortable having folks live there. The argument I heard when these views have been expressed is "that only part of the parcel includes the formerlandfull and that part of the land will be developed with gardens and green space." People will still be in these gardens and green space and presumably consume the food and be exposed to the soils of this space. This is not an adequate solution and shows the lack of investment in ensuring the safety of those who have few options. Please ensure the safety of out community. Thank you, ‐‐ Anne Charles Clinical Director, LCSW Odyssey House of Utah, Meadowbrook 1 Gellner, David From:Carter McDaniels <> Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 11:45 AM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) Approve the Otherside Village David, Hopefully this email finds you well. My name is Carter McDaniels. I am an entrepreneurship and strategy major at the University of Utah. The Otherside village should be approved and the development of this village will be of paramount importance when it comes to combating Salt Lake’s ongoing homeless crisis. Something needs to be done to combat the current state of Utah's Homeless epidemic and while providing a solution to this issue is a daunting task to say the least, there is no better organization better suited to take on this challenge than the Otherside Academy. Best, Carter McDaniels 1 Gellner, David From:Courtney Giles <> Sent:Thursday, October 21, 2021 10:15 AM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Support To Whom it May Concern, Planning Commission I am writing this letter in support of The Other Side Village. I have actively worked with the homeless population in Salt Lake City for going on 15 years now. The issue has become unprecedented when it comes to safe, reliable and long‐term solutions for this demographic. The Other Side Village will offer a place of Community, family, solace, self sufficiency and above all a place to call home. The city has gone about affordable housing and options for our unsheltered community in some of the worst ways possible. We need a solid solution to address the real need for housing for the chronically homeless members of our community. It is vital and for some at this point life or death. Please consider this plea from a person who spends countless hours weekly with these people. Knowing that this project is underway is the only relief of helplessness I have felt in some time for our unsheltered family! I and many others support The Other Side Village. Thank you kindly, Be blessed Courtney Giles 1 Gellner, David From:Turner Bitton <> Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 3:26 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Support Hello, I am a resident of Glendale and serve as the Chair of the Glendale Community Council. I’m writing today in my personal capacity to express my support for locating The Other Side Village in my neighborhood. Glendale has long been a gateway to welcoming for many people. I bought my home in Glendale because it was affordable and rich in heritage. I love this neighborhood and believe The Other Side Village is a way to invest in Glendale’s legacy. Glendale is home to the International Peace Gardens and the Jordan River Peace Labyrinth, both of which are symbols of Glendale’s status as a gateway of welcoming. The Other Side Village will bring many needed amenities and development to an area of the neighborhood that is disconnected from the neighborhood. The increased transit resources that the village is working to secure along Indiana Avenue would benefit residents and bring new east‐west connections across the neighborhood. As I’ve spoken with my neighbors, I’ve learned that the vast majority of my neighbors support this innovative project. The addition of new residents seeking another chance is exciting and should be supported by the planning commission. Thanks, Turner C. Bitton 1 Gellner, David From:Richard Stowell <> Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 7:26 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) Comment on Rezoning application Though there is currently no development plan associated with this rezoning application, it is plain that the applicant has plans for a homeless village. This is troubling. The westside is becoming the part of the city where leaders can put their problems. It’s a dangerous trend. If such a large proportion of the county’s homeless population is coming into our neighborhood for services, whether or not they get them, it will result in families moving out. Businesses not moving in. It runs the risk of becoming a vicious cycle. Don’t let the state and county manipulate you into thinking our neighborhood is the only viable option for projects like this. RDA designations should come into play. According to the city website, the Redevelopment Agency is supposed to promote revenue-generating activity: “Our RDA encourages new development that will create jobs and generate tax revenue for the community to help revitalize the City.” This project would be at the lowest end of the revenue generation scale, and is much more likely to draw city revenue. This commission should only vote to rezone the property in extraordinary circumstances. Such circumstances should be limited to development that would clearly and unambiguously revitalize the west side. The applicant simply does not meet that threshold. Thank you. 1 Gellner, David From:Deborah Williams <> Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 7:12 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) Rezoning property on Indiana Ave for the tiny village I have lived on Indiana Ave just a couple of blocks from the proposed site for over 30 years. I have grand children that visit frequently. Please do not allow this. I want to be able to feel safe in my own home. Thank you for your consideration Sent from my iPhone 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 Office Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 19, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) __________________________ SUBJECT: Informal Public Benefits Analysis for a tiny home village with ~54 units of affordable housing in exchange for a below-market 40-year land lease of approximately 8 acres of vacant City property located at approximately 1850 West Indiana Avenue. STAFF CONTACT: Tammy Hunsaker, Deputy Director, Community and Neighborhoods 801-535-7244, tammy.hunsaker@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Consideration of the attached resolution allowing the City to enter into a 40-year below-market ground lease agreement with The Other Side Academy, a Utah nonprofit corporation, in order to facilitate the construction of a tiny home village with ~54 units of affordable housing. BUDGET IMPACT: N/A BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City and the State of Utah are experiencing a widening housing affordability gap, one of the fundamental causes of homelessness. Resources at the federal and state level have proven vastly inadequate in addressing the housing crisis. As such, cities are left to stretch local dollars, implement innovative policy tools, and think outside of the box with project typologies. Research and experience have overwhelmingly demonstrated that investment in permanent housing solutions is effective in reducing homelessness. Long-term housing solutions, particularly solutions that are co-located with supportive services, not only stabilize lives but have been proven to be more cost effective than emergency shelters and care facilities. 8/19/2022 8/19/2022 In 2020, the Administration began to explore new, innovative solutions to addressing the homelessness crisis. At this time, an exploratory partnership was formed between the City and The Other Side Academy (“TOSA”), a Utah 501(c)3 non-profit organization, to analyze the feasibility of a tiny home village that provides housing for chronically homeless individuals. TOSA brings unique experience with operation of “therapeutic communities” that help those with long histories of addiction and criminal behavior stabilize their lives. As a result of this exploratory partnership, a tiny home village for individuals experiencing homelessness has been conceptualized and is proposed to be located on approximately 40 acres of City-owned property located at 1850 W Indiana Avenue and 1965 West 500 South (the “Property”). The Other Side Village (“TOSV”) is proposed to be a “recovery housing” model that aligns with National Alliance for Recovery Residence standards and is contemplated to eventually encompass the Property. Currently, the Administration and TOSA have narrowed the scope to a pilot project limited to approximately 8 acres (the “Pilot Site”) to demonstrate the feasibility of the concept, refer to Exhibit A: Site Map. This initial phase of the project will include approximately 54 deed-restricted tiny homes, 6 tiny homes for staff, 25 tiny homes to be offered as nightly rentals, community space, commercial space for social enterprise endeavors, and space for on-site services (the “Pilot Project”). The Administration and TOSA have negotiated project terms that include a below-market land lease of $1.00 per year for 40 years to assist in the financial viability of the Pilot Project. Pursuant to State law, the City shall first hold a public hearing followed by authorization by the City Council in order to execute a below-market land lease. Highlights of the Pilot Project are as follows, with additional detail included in Exhibit B: Resolution and Term Sheet and Exhibit C: Informal Public Benefits Analysis. I.Project Overview The Pilot Project is proposed to include the following: •At least 60 tiny homes to be used as permanent housing §A minimum of 54 units, or 90% of the total permanent housing units, shall be deed-restricted as affordable §Up to 6 units, or 10% of the total permanent housing units, may be used as staff living quarters •Up to 25 additional tiny homes may be used as a Community Inn offered as nightly rentals to generate income for TOSV operations •A ~ 2,000 square foot Neighborhood Center to house clubhouse type uses for TOSV residents •A ~10,000 square foot Social Enterprise Building to house social enterprise endeavors that generate income for the TOSV operations •A ~12,000 square foot Community Center building to house multi-purpose space, and supportive services for TOSV residents including a medical clinic, a mental health clinic, a social services clinic, administrative offices, and a security office •Utility service and related infrastructure; roads and curb/gutter II.Recovery Housing Model Utilizing the recovery housing model, TOSA plans to target individuals who are considered chronically homeless, generally defined as individuals experiencing homelessness for at least a year, or repeatedly, and struggling with a disabling condition such as a serious mental illness, substance use disorder, or physical disability. Similar to permanent supportive housing, recovery housing values independent living and voluntary clinical services. Where they differ is that recovery housing requires an alcohol and drug- free living environment and may require residents to participate in recovery activities as a condition for residency. This social model of recovery helps individuals relearn how to organize their lives, interact with others, and participate in community-based recovery activities. III.Affordable Housing & Tenant Selection An overview of the affordable housing and tenant selection terms are as follows: •Units shall primarily be available to persons or families that meet HUD’s definition of chronically homeless. If there are units available and no applications from chronically homeless individuals, TOSA may lease units to vulnerable homeless individuals. •An admission preference may be established for individuals with a commitment to sobriety. •All applicants shall go through the coordinated entry process used by the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness. •Tenants may be required to have employment or another source of income, such as social security disability or a tenant-based voucher, to be able to afford to pay rent. •Maximum rents shall be set for individuals and households at 25% of the area median income (“AMI”), adjusted annually for household size. For a single person based on 2022 HUD income limits, this would equate to $448 maximum monthly rent including basic utilities. •Maximum incomes shall be set for individuals and households at 30% of the AMI and below. Tenants must meet this income threshold, in addition to meeting homelessness criteria, upon entering into a lease. This equates to a maximum annual income of $21,510 for a single person based on 2022 HUD income limits. Tenants will only be required to meet this income threshold upon entering into a lease and may increasing their income subsequently. •TOSA intents to provide leases on a month-to-month basis, however, tenants may live in their homes as long as they meet the basic obligations of tenancy without a time limitation. IV.Supportive Services & Programming The Pilot Project will include supportive services to assist homeless persons in transitioning from homelessness, and to enable tenants to live as independently as possible. The scope and scale of on-site health and case-management services is yet to be finalized, as TOSA is working on building partnerships with service providers - refer to Exhibit D: Service Providers Letters of Interest for additional information. In addition to on-site services, TOSA plans to coordinate access to off-site specialty services that are tailored to unique needs that residents may have. In addition to health-related services, the Pilot Project will include programming to develop social and life-skills. Employment training will be available through the on-site social enterprise businesses. V.Site & Zoning The Property is currently zoned PL - Public Lands. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning of the Property to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District). The Salt Lake City Planning Commission recommended approval of the zoning change on October 27, 2021, with the request currently being considered by the City Council through a transmittal from the Planning Division. The Property is vacant and will require significant infrastructure and site improvements to facilitate the Pilot Project. VI.Environmental Remediation Parts of the Property were previously used as a landfill. Environmental testing indicates that various levels of mitigation efforts need to occur in order for the Property to be safe for residential development. The extent of mitigation will depend on the placement of land uses and the utilization of environmental controls. The Department of Sustainability is involved with the identification, sampling, and site investigation process and will work with State and other cognizant agencies to ensure that requirements are met for site clean- up, remediation, and mitigation. VII.Development Viability TOSA estimates that the Pilot Project will cost an estimated $13.8 million, excluding land costs, as follows: TOSV PILOT PHASE - CAPITAL COSTS Environmental Remediation $232,500 Permit / Fees $400,000 Civil Work $1,045,440 Tiny Home Construction $4,350,000 Welcome Neighborhood Homes $875,000 Neighborhood Center $441,000 Community Center / Clinic $3,146,400 Social Enterprise Building $2,300,000 Landscaping $320,000 Architectural Fees $666,744 Total $13,777,084 Source: TOSA, dated 4/29/22 as provided to City staff on 6/24/22 Note: Excludes land costs The majority of costs will be covered by in-kind work and donations. According to TOSA, the fund-raising status is as follows as of July 6, 2022: •Almost $2.2 million in cash has been committed and received •Another $3.1 in cash has been pledged •The remaining balance is either committed or expected to be received through in- kind assets and services - Refer to Exhibit E: In Kind Letters for additional information The Administration will ensure that TOSA has adequate funds to move the project forward prior to closing on the land lease. If fundraising does not meet expectations or there are gaps in the receipt of charitable funds, Joseph Grenny, TOSA’s Chairman of the Board, and his wife have made a personal commitment of up to $5,000,000 to cover shortfalls - refer to Exhibit F: Construction Commitment Letter for additional information. VIII.Operating Viability & Social Enterprises Rent revenues are only estimated to cover about 10% of the annual operating costs – refer to Exhibit G: Pro Forma. The remaining revenue required to successfully operate the Pilot Project will be generated by social enterprise businesses that will be located on-site. These businesses are anticipated to be a motel (Community Inn), thrift store, and cookie- manufacturing enterprise. In addition to generating revenue to cover operating costs, these businesses will provide critical job training opportunities for residents. The Community Inn will include 25 stand-alone tiny homes offered as nightly rentals for the general public, thereby providing lodging opportunities for Pilot Project visitors and volunteers. While these businesses are yet to be established, TOSA has considerable experience with social enterprise businesses and has partnered with the founder of Lofthouse Cookies to advise on the cookie manufacturing business. If revues fall short, TOSA has committed to covering up to $1,000,000 annually to cover operating expenses –refer to Exhibit H: Operating Commitment Letter. PUBLIC PROCESS: Under Utah law, after first holding a public hearing, a municipality may “authorize municipal services or other nonmonetary assistance to be provided to a nonprofit entity, whether or not the municipality receives consideration in return.” Utah Code §10-8- 2(1)(a)(v). Because TOSA is a nonprofit entity, the City may waive the fair-market rental rates it would ordinarily be required to receive for use of City-owned property so long as the municipal legislative body first holds a public hearing regarding the waiver and authorizes the Administration to enter into the land lease for the below-market lease rates. While a formal public benefits analysis is not required pursuant to Utah law, an informal public benefits analysis is provided as Exhibit C: Informal Public Benefits Analysis to provide an analysis of the public benefits to be received in exchange for a waiver of the fair-market rents for a land lease. EXHIBITS: A.Site Map B.Resolution and Term Sheet C.Informal Public Benefits Analysis D.Service Provider Letters of Interest E.In Kind Letters F.Construction Commitment Letter G.Pro Forma H.Operating Commitment Letter EXHIBIT A: SITE MAP Note: Pilot Site is defined by the smaller blue boundary. Site plan is subject to change. RESOLUTION NO. _____ OF 2022 (Authorizing the Lease Rate and Term for The Other Side Village Pilot Project located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue, Salt Lake City) WHEREAS, The Other Side Academy (“TOSA”), a Utah nonprofit corporation, desires to develop a community of small homes, community space, support services, and commercial uses to provide affordable housing and life skill development for the City’s unsheltered population, to be known as The Other Side Village (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the first phase of the Project (the “Pilot Project”) will include affordable housing, supportive services, community space, social enterprise buildings, and additional tiny homes to be offered as nightly rentals, as further described on the attached term sheet (the “Term Sheet”); and WHEREAS, TOSA and the City desire to locate the Pilot Project on approximately 8 acres of the real property owned by the City and located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue, Salt Lake City (the “Pilot Site”); WHEREAS, the primary beneficiaries of the construction of the Pilot Project will be individuals experiencing chronic homelessness who are transitioning into housing as part of the City, County, and State’s efforts to address the homelessness and housing crisis in Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS, a below-market ground lease to TOSA will facilitate the development of the Pilot Project, which would otherwise be financially unfeasible; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to provide assistance to TOSA in the form of a ground lease rate for the Pilot Site in the amount of $1.00 per year for a term of 40 years, so long as the conditions of the ground lease between City and TOSA, or another nonprofit approved by City, are met (the “Lease Fee Waiver”); and EXHIBIT B: RESOLUTION & TERM SHEET 2 WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 10-8-2(1)(a)(i) allows public entities to provide nonmonetary assistance and waive fees to and for nonprofit entities after a public hearing; and WHEREAS, though Utah Code Section 10-8-2 does not require a study for such waiver or assistance, in this case the Administration voluntarily performed an analysis of the nonmonetary assistance to the nonprofit corporation (the “Analysis”); and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing relating to the foregoing, in satisfaction of the requirements of Utah Code Section 10-8-2; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the Analysis, and has fully considered the conclusions set forth therein, and all comments made during the public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1.The City Council hereby adopts the conclusions set forth in the Analysis, and hereby finds and determines that, for all the reasons set forth in the Analysis, the Lease Fee Waiver is appropriate under these circumstances. 2.The terms outlined on the Term Sheet represent the approved terms for the Pilot Project, and the City Council hereby authorizes the City administration to negotiate the final terms consistent with the Term Sheet or more beneficial to the City, and execute the ground lease and any other relevant documents consistent with this Resolution and incorporating such other terms and agreements as recommended by the City Attorney’s office. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, on _________, 2022. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: ______________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ____________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office By: ___________________________ Kimberly Chytraus, Senior City Attorney EXHIBIT TO RESOLUTION The Other Side Village Pilot Project Term Sheet AFFORDABLE HOUSING I.Unit Requirements TOSA shall develop and maintain the Pilot Site to include a minimum of 60 tiny home units. Of the total units: 1.Up to 10% may be unrestricted in rent and occupancy for utilization by staff. 2.A minimum of 90% shall be available and affordable to individuals or families meeting the HUD-adopted definition of chronically homeless and homeless, with a priority on chronically homeless. These units shall be designated as the “Affordable Units”. II.Occupancy Requirements TOSA must place into the Affordable Units individuals and families that meet the HUD-adopted definition of chronically homeless and homeless, prioritized as follows: 1.TOSA shall first make the units available to persons or families that meet HUD’s definition of chronically homeless as defined in section 401(2)(A) of the McKinney- Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(9)). In general, to meet this definition, a chronically homeless person or family’s head of household must be sleeping in a place not meant for human habitation or living in a homeless emergency shelter or safe haven, have a disabling condition, as defined in section 401(9) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(9)), and i.be continuously homeless for a year or more, OR ii.have had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years as long as the combined occasions equal at least 12 months. 2.If there are units available and no applications from chronically homeless individuals, TOSA may lease units to vulnerable homeless individuals, as “homeless” is then- currently defined by HUD, provided that applicants who have been homeless for the longest periods of time immediately preceding their application are given priority over applicants who have been homeless for lesser periods of time. III.Tenant Eligibility To determine whether a tenant is eligible, TOSA must verify that the prospective tenant meets HUD’s definition of chronically homeless or homeless and whose incomes have an aggregate annual income for all occupants that is 30% and below of the area median income for Salt Lake City Utah, HUD Metro FMR Area as adjusted for household size. IV.Tenant Selection 1.The Affordable Units shall be made available pursuant to federal and state fair housing laws and HUD guidance, including the following: i.TOSA may establish admission preferences, including a preference for individuals with a commitment to sobriety, but may not deny housing to protected classes pursuant to federal and state fair housing laws. ii.TOSA may regulate the occupancy of units based on unit size but may not unreasonably limit the ability of families with children to obtain housing. 2.TOSA must develop and make public written tenant selection policies and procedures that include descriptions of the eligibility requirements. The Tenant Selection Plan must include evidence of a contractual partnership with service provider(s) and whether there is a restriction or preference in the admission of tenants. The restriction or preference must cite the supporting documentation to ensure inclusion and nondiscrimination in the selection of tenants. 3. TOSA will ensure that all applicants for housing in the project will go through the coordinated entry process used by the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness to ensure coordination and efficiency with the current homelessness services system. 4. TOSA also will enter any new resident into the Homeless Management Information System (“HMIS”) coordinated entry system. 5. Preference will be given to Salt Lake City residents for placement into the development. V. Maximum Rents 1. The annualized rent (which includes all required housing costs such as utilities and other charges uniformly assessed to all Affordable Units, other than charges for optional services) per unit shall be set forth in a written lease and shall not exceed, for the term of the lease, 30% of the annual income limit for individuals and households with a maximum AMI of 25% AMI for the applicable Unit Type (i.e. studio or bedroom number). VI. Tenant Lease Requirements 1. Leases may be provided on a month-to-month basis, with the intent that tenants may live in their homes as long as they meet the basic obligations of tenancy without a time limitation. 2. TOSA shall comply with local, state, and federal laws, including the federal fair housing act, when approving applicants as tenants, evicting, terminating a lease, or providing a notice to quit. 3. TOSA must incorporate specific provisions into the lease agreement for each eligible tenant of the Affordable Units that establish the tenant's obligation to provide accurate information regarding household income and composition. VII. Record-Keeping and Reporting Requirements 1. Upon execution of a lease, TOSA must verify and document the tenant’s annual (gross) income. 2. TOSA must re-examine the income and household composition of tenants on an annual basis. 3. TOSA must submit annual compliance reports to the City. These reports shall document the occupancy and show whether TOSA is in compliance with tenant eligibility requirements. 4. TOSA must provide the City a written certification of compliance when the project reaches initial compliance and then with each annual report. SUPPORTIVE SERVICES The pilot project will include supportive services to assist homeless persons in transitioning from homelessness, and to promote the provision of supportive housing to enable homeless persons to live as independently as possible. Supportive services will include on-site case coordination or management that ensures tenants’ access to a wide variety of services and on-site location of services provided by professional service providers as evidenced through an agreement. Services shall be made available on a flexible and voluntary basis and may address the following: mental health, substance and alcohol use, health, case management, independent living skills, employment, peer support, and community involvement and support. Physical and mental health providers shall have the appropriate licenses, which other services may be provided by those with appropriate training and following industry best practices. PROGRAMMING The pilot project will include programming that includes peer mentoring and the life skill development. This will include opportunities for residents to obtain employment experience by working in a social enterprise to the best of their ability. While participation in these employment activities shall be encouraged, it is not a condition of living in the pilot project. TERM The term of the lease will be forty (40) years with an option to renew the lease within the last year of the lease subject to approval by the Salt Lake City Council for the reduced lease rate. LEASE RATE The lease rate for the property will be $1 per year for the term of the lease. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council Members SUBJECT: Informal Analysis of Public Benefits Provided by The Other Side Village’s Small Home Project in Exchange for a Below-market Ground Lease of Property INTRODUCTION Salt Lake City (the “City”) owns real property located at approximately 1850 West Indiana Avenue, Salt Lake City, consisting of approximately 45 acres (the “City Property”). The Other Side Academy, a Utah nonprofit corporation (“TOSA”) desires to develop a community of small homes, community space, support services, and commercial uses to provide affordable housing and life skill development for the City’s unsheltered population (the “Project”). This informal public benefits analysis is only for the first phase of the Project (the “Pilot Project”), which is intended to be a lease of approximately 8 acres of the City Property (the “Pilot Site”) and development of approximately of 54 tiny homes that shall be deed restricted as affordable and co-located with supportive services and social enterprise uses. While the City’s primary interest in development of the Pilot Site is affordable housing and supportive services, TOSA intends to develop other uses including community space, social enterprise buildings, and additional tiny homes to be offered as nightly rentals. Prior to development, the Pilot Site may require environmental remediation and/or mitigation to allow for residential uses. TOSA has agreed to pay for all costs to remediate the Pilot Site and to develop and operate the Pilot Project. Any request to lease the remainder of the City Property for less than fair market value will be submitted to the City Council at a later time for a supplemental public benefit analysis. In exchange for the remediation, operation, and management of the Pilot Project, TOSA is seeking a discounted lease rate for a 40-year ground lease of the Pilot Site (the “Ground Lease”). Though a formal analysis of the benefits to be received by the City in exchange for the benefit provided to TOSA is not required under Utah Code ⸹10-8-2, this informal analysis has been prepared to help assist the City Council’s evaluation of the recommended action. LEGAL FRAMEWORK Under Utah law, after first holding a public hearing, a municipality may “authorize municipal services or other nonmonetary assistance to be provided to a nonprofit entity, whether or not the municipality receives consideration in return.” Utah Code §10-8-2(1)(a)(v). Because TOSA is a nonprofit entity, the City may waive the fair-market rental rates it would ordinarily be required to receive for use of the City Property so long as the municipal legislative body first holds a public hearing regarding the waiver and authorizes the Administration to enter into the Ground Lease at the below-market lease rate. Utah Code §10-8-2(3) outlines the purposes for which a municipal body may appropriate funds as “for 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 EXHIBIT C: INFORMAL PUBLIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS 2 inhabitants of the municipality.” The factors that must be considered in determining the propriety of such an appropriation or waiver if made to any type of entity or individual other than a nonprofit entity as set forth under Utah Code §10-8-2(3)(e). Here, it may be helpful to consider the same factors: (1)The specific benefits (including intangible benefits) to be received by the City in return for the arrangement; (2)The City’s purpose in making the appropriation, including an analysis of how the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort or convenience of the residents of Salt Lake City will be enhanced; and (3)Whether the appropriation is “necessary and appropriate” to accomplish the reasonable goals and objectives of the City in the area of economic development, job creation, affordable housing, blight elimination, resource center development, job preservation, the preservation of historic structures and property, and any other public purpose. BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT AND CITY PROPERTY As an overview of the entire Project, to be named The Other Side Village, TOSA anticipates developing a community that will be a secure and self-reliant neighborhood designed to serve the most vulnerable of the City’s unsheltered individuals, particularly those that meet the definition of chronically homeless. The home sizes may range from approximately 280-400 square feet. The Pilot Project is anticipated to have onsite services similar to those provided with permanent supportive housing, such as onsite medical, dental, and mental health services. In addition, TOSA is proposing that the community will have a garden and gathering spaces to serve residents. TOSA plans to implement social enterprises so that the Project can support itself financially and allow residents to gain employment experience. TOSA’s purpose for the Project is to create a community for unsheltered residents of Salt Lake City following the recovery housing model. Similar to permanent supportive housing, recovery housing values independent living and voluntary clinical services. Where they differ is that recovery housing requires an alcohol and drug-free living environment and may require residents to participate in recovery activities as a condition for residency. TOSA’s intent is to instill a peer accountability model to keep the community safe, clean, and orderly, to run social enterprises within the non-profit so that the organization can eventually be operationally self-sufficient and not be dependent on the government or donors. The Administration worked with TOSA to identify a parcel suitable for development of the Project, which ideally requires at least 30 acres, access to public transportation, and reasonable proximity to services. There are very few parcels of sufficient size and geography available within Salt Lake City boundaries. The City Property was identified as one that will allow the community to be established and potentially expand as a diverse type of deeply affordable housing and accessible services. 3 The City Property was historically used as a landfill between 1923 and 1962. It is currently vacant property and requires significant environmental remediation/mitigation and cleanup of refuse prior to development of residential uses. TOSA is working with the City’s Sustainability Department and the State of Utah to determine the scope and scale of the efforts, and TOSA has agreed to pay for the entire cost and to accept full liability for the costs and claims related to the remediation/mitigation. Before committing to lease the entire City Property to TOSA for the Project, the City and TOSA agreed to phase the Project, starting with the Pilot Project using the Pilot Site for the development of a minimum of 60 tiny homes to be utilized as housing (the “Housing Units”). Of the anticipated 60 Housing Units, a minimum of 54, or 90% of the total Housing Units, will be available and affordable to individuals and/or households that align with fair housing occupancy standards who have experienced homelessness and have incomes at or below 30% of Salt Lake County’s average median income (“AMI”), the (“Affordable Units”). The remaining 6, or up to 10% of the total Housing Units, will be available for Pilot Project staff to live on-site to help provide 24-hour staff coverage. In addition to the Housing Units, TOSA plans to construct and utilize up to 25 tiny homes as nightly rentals (the “Community Inn”). The Community Inn will also function as a social enterprise to provide job training and revenue for TOSV operations. TOSA shall construct and operate supportive services for the residents to assist homeless persons in transitioning from homelessness, and to enable tenants to live as independently as possible. Finally, TOSA intends to construct community space and social enterprise buildings to provide job training and revenue for the Pilot Project’s operations. The Ground Lease will include the affordability requirements for the Pilot Project, as well as other requirements. The Pilot Project is anticipated to include development of the buildings, Housing Units, related infrastructure (curb and gutter), and will also include the related amenities. TOSA desires to eventually develop the entire City Property for the Project and anticipates submitting a separate request to lease the additional City Property after meeting certain metrics, including occupancy and confirmation that the Pilot Project does not have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. If TOSA requests to lease the remaining City Property, it will accept full responsibility for the costs and liability to remediate and/or mitigate the additional City Property to standards for residential development. TOSA is requesting that the City approve the Ground Lease of the Pilot Site in exchange for the public benefits TOSA will be providing with the homeless services, environmental remediation, development, and operation of the Pilot Project. The Council has been asked to consider a zoning amendment for the City Property concurrent with consideration of the proposed below- market lease rate to allow development of the Pilot Project. TOSA intends to construct and operate the Pilot Project through donations from foundations, corporations, and private citizens. Eventually, TOSA hopes to obtain self-sufficiency through revenues generated from social enterprises, including the Community Inn. 4 TERMS OF THE GROUND LEASE AND PUBLIC BENEFITS PROVIDED I.Terms of Ground Lease; Costs to the City Under the proposed Ground Lease between the City and TOSA, the City will maintain ownership of the Pilot Site and the Pilot Project will be owned and developed by TOSA, or a non-profit entity approved by the City. The Ground Lease will be structured to require a $1.00 dollar per year payment over the 40-year lease term. The Ground Lease will require that the Pilot Site will be used solely for the development and operation of the small home community. The 2022 assessed value of the City Property is approximately $4.20 per square foot, which equates to about $8,230,000 for the City Property or $1,460,000 for the Pilot Site property, excluding remediation, mitigation, and cleanup costs. Remediation and mitigation of the Pilot Site acres of City Property will allow it to be utilized for residential purposes. The below-market lease terms are being offered as the City’s contribution to providing solutions for homeless services. The City will not have any responsibility for environmental remediation, construction, operation, or maintenance of the Pilot Site and Pilot Project. II.Public Benefits Provided by the Pilot Project. The Pilot Project as planned provides numerous benefits to the City and promotes the City’s reasonable goals of objectives to increase the availability of affordable housing, job training, and supporting the City’s unsheltered population on a path to secure housing. A wide array of affordable housing options is needed to create a path from shelter to housing. By the City maintaining ownership of the Pilot Site but leasing it to TOSA, the City will facilitate the development of housing and services for underserved populations in our City that need it most. Residents of the Pilot Project will have the opportunity to work with case managers and may receive support in the following areas: sober living; tenant responsibilities and housing stability; access to benefits and entitlements; access to healthcare providers; access to behavioral health services; access to education and employment supports; access to mental health services and medications; information and referral to community resources (including but not limited to food pantries, legal services, faith-based organizations, additional housing options); and other relevant services and supports. Regular engagement in case management services will assist tenants in developing and fine-tuning life skills. Further, the on-site social enterprise endeavors will provide job skill development for residents of the Pilot Project. The Pilot Project will help lower the cost of public care of unsheltered individuals by providing housing for people who likely have a history of utilizing emergency services within Salt Lake City. Once housed, residents will free up shelter beds and services for others in the community to access and help alleviate capacity restraints at the homeless resource centers. In addition, accessible housing may alleviate encampments within the city that require tremendous City and County resources to maintain the health and safety of the unsheltered individuals and the public. Some residences will be earmarked as deeply affordable recovery housing to provide needed assistance to the most vulnerable population in our community. These are greatly needed community benefits. 5 The unsheltered population typically have limited access to healthcare and may rely on emergency services for care. Connecting residents to accessible medical, dental, and mental health care within the community will allow for preventative care, reducing the need for emergency room visits and hopefully providing better health outcomes. Alleviating the current burden on emergency medical services and hospitals to provide continuing care for unsheltered individuals will benefit both the individual users and the public. III.Salt Lake City’s Purposes and Enhancing the Quality of Life for Residents. Through the services mentioned above, the Pilot Project aims to serve formerly unsheltered individuals through housing, healthcare, social enterprise, and community. By helping serve the needs of these individuals, it is anticipated that the impact to the City can be measured through improvement of life skills and health outcomes, reduction in area criminal activity, and new or increased employment of clients served by the Pilot Project. The neighborhood surrounding the Pilot Project may also benefit by activation of the currently vacant and former landfill space. Increasing the number of residences in the area may encourage additional investments in the neighborhood such as grocery and other retail stores, recreation, and transit. In addition, TOSA is committed to ensuring that the Pilot Project does not become a strain on the City’s public safety infrastructure and does not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhoods. IV.Accomplishing Salt Lake City’s Goals. The construction and operation of the Pilot Project is in line with the City’s Housing Plan, Growing SLC: a Five Year Housing Plan, 2018-2022. Growing SLC includes solutions to address housing for incomes below 40% AMI providing housing and services to the City’s most vulnerable populations. Growing SLC strongly encourages supporting residents living in poverty and making $20,000 per year or less. To do that, the plan sets the following actions items for the City: (1)Lead in the development of new affordable housing types, as well as construction methods that incorporate innovative solutions to issues of form, function, and maintenance. (2)Offer incentives to developers of affordable housing such as land discounts and primary financing options. (3)Work with housing partners and government entities to continue supporting and enhancing service models that meet the needs of the City’s most vulnerable households. The plan also adopts the City Council’s 2017 guiding principles for evaluating and appropriating City funds for housing. The priorities relevant to the Pilot Project are as follows: (1)Create a net increase in affordable housing units while: (i) Avoiding displacement of existing affordable housing to the extent possible, and (ii) Retaining and expanding the diversity of AMI and innovative housing types. (2)Create a spectrum of housing options for people of all backgrounds and incomes. 6 (3)Include collaboration with community and private sector partners to enable opportunities for in kind contributions, creative financing, and service delivery models. (4)Utilize city-owned land whenever possible. (5)Enable residents’ success to maintain housing through partnerships with providers of supportive services. (6)Identify tools to increase and diversify the total housing supply including housing types that the private market does not sufficiently provide such as … innovative housing types. The Pilot Project accomplishes several of the City’s goals and priorities by providing predictable, affordable housing and supports needs of its residents. CONCLUSION The development of the Pilot Project by TOSA will be a benefit to residents of the City. Providing a below-market Ground Lease for the Pilot Site is an appropriate use of City resources to achieve the City’s “reasonable goals and objectives of the City in the area of economic development, job creation, affordable housing, blight elimination, resource center development, job preservation, the preservation of historic structures and property.” Further, the Pilot Project helps to achieve the City’s goals by creating a net increase in affordable housing stock while providing long-term housing services for very low-income residents who have experienced homelessness. 4460 S Highland Dr. Salt Lake City, UT 84124 888.949.4864 ValleyCares.com July 1, 2022 The Other Side Village 667 East 100 South Salt Lake City, UT 84102 To Whom it May Concern: It is my pleasure to provide this letter of support on behalf of Valley Behavioral Health, Inc (Valley). Valley has worked closely with The Other Side Village leadership team to create the Welcome Neighborhood which will temporarily house and prepare individuals experiencing chronic homelessness to transition from the street to Village life and connect them to resources and services needed, including mental health treatment, supportive housing, medication management, and targeted case management. Valley collaborates on the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness and the Housing Core Function Group. In addition, Valley’s homeless outreach program, Storefront, works closely with the three Homeless Resource Centers and the Midvale Family Shelter by providing regular outreach and connecting those staying at these centers to various community housing programs. We support The Other Side Village initiative and plan to provide onsite mental health services to the residents of the Village on a regular basis when it is operational. We look forward to continuing our combined efforts to make homelessness rare, brief, and non- recurring in our capital city by lifting individuals out of chronic homelessness through community and connection. Sincerely, Preston L. Cochrane Valley Behavioral Health, Inc Vice President of Housing & Support Services EXHIBIT D: SERVICE PROVIDERS LETTERS OF INTEREST June 17, 2022 Mr. Tim Stay The Other Side Village Executive Director Dear Mr. Stay, On behalf of Fourth Street Clinic, I am pleased to provide this letter of interest for The Other Side Village, a.k.a Tiny Village, as you move forward in your planning and approval phase to begin construction. Fourth Street Clinic is committed to providing high quality integrated health care services to those in our community experiencing homelessness. We believe that housing is a critical component of achieving and maintaining good health, and we are pleased to be included in the conversation on how we can partner to support those experiencing homelessness as they transition into housing. We look forward to continuing conversations as you embark on the planning process to discuss expand funding opportunities, defining and understanding the scope and timelines of the project, and engaging with additional partners to support our work. As community partners, we are keenly aware that partnerships are essential to extend and strengthen vital programs that ensure the health and well-being of those experiencing homelessness. Located in downtown Salt Lake City since 1988, Fourth Street Clinic has been the primary provider of health care services in Salt Lake County and its surrounding area. In 2021, 4,672 individuals received care at our downtown clinic as well as through our Medical Street Team and our Mobile Clinic. Fourth Street Clinic stands ready to look at ways in which our organizations can work collaboratively to maximize resources and to improve the health care for our homeless community. Fourth Street Clinic values the partnership of our organizations and applauds the work of The Other Side Village to address the many challenges of homelessness. I look forward to ongoing discussions and clarity on the Tiny Village project as plans are solidified. I can be reached directly at 801-364-0058 ext 1383 or janida@fourthstreetclinic.org. Sincerely, Janida Emerson CEO July 3, 2022 Salt Lake City Council Attn: Tim Stay 667 E 100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84120 RE: THE OTHER SIDE VILLAGE Dear City Council: The purpose of this letter is to document the commitment of Sego Homes to help with the funding and construction of the The Other Side Village. Sego Homes, along with their vendors and trade partners, has provided support to several charitable organizations over the past few years such as Operation Underground Railroad to whom we donated $121,000 and Hopes for Hope to whom we donated $101,000. We anticipate providing a similar level of support to The Other Side Village by building and donating several of the tiny homes proposed for this community. We respectfully request that the City Council approve this proposed community and facilitate the successful development of this innovative and much needed community. Sincerely, SEGO HOMES Wayne H. Corbridge CEO wayne@segohomes.com (801) 362-6228 EXHIBIT E: IN KIND LETTERS June 24, 2022 ATTN: Mr. Tim Stay The Other Side Academy 667 E 100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Dear Tim, As you know, HomeAid is a 501(c)3 organization with 32 years experience in partnering with the homebuilding industry to provide discounted and in-kind construction and renovation services to organizations serving people experiencing homelessness. The HomeAid Utah affiliate has been in operation over 3 years and has enjoyed tremendous support in our fight to help alleviate human suffering within our community. We are supported by some of the largest homebuilders and industry associates locally, regionally and nationally. We are aware of and eager to participate in your new tiny home community project in Salt Lake City, The Other Side Village. Our sister affiliate, HomeAid Austin, has been very successful in their efforts at the Community First Village in Austin, Texas and will have completed 36 tiny-homes by the end of 2023. HomeAid Utah anticipates we can facilitate the construction of approximately 15-20 tiny homes, possibly an entire sub-village within the initial phase of the community. It is our goal that once completed and additional phases become available, we can be an ongoing contributor over the duration of the total project buildout facilitating the construction of several more homes. We are very much looking forward to participating with you on this worthy initiative. Sincerely, Don Adamson Executive Director, HomeAid Utah Cc: Nate Shipp, Affiliate President, HomeAid Utah t 801.595.6400 e4harchitecture.com |833 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 July 1, 2022 The Other Side Village Attn: Tim Stay 667 E 100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Re: Support for the Other Side Village Project Dear Tim, At your request, I am writing to summarize our support to date for the Other Side Village project. Our architectural firm, E4H Environments for Health Architecture, is dedicated to improving the wellness of our communities including physical health, mental health, equality, and basic human needs. The charitable wing of our organization, E4Hcares, has been providing full architectural services for the Other Side Village project for well over a year. Our Salt Lake firm partner, David Dixon, has orchestrated the development of the site plan, buildings, and homes by leading a host of other design professionals, schools, and individuals in the planning of the Village while he fills in the gaps. To date, David has contributed well over 400 hours to this effort. At our standard billing rate of $250/hour for our firm partners, this would equate to a donation of over $100,000 in design services. We would estimate he and others in our firm will spend another equal amount of time seeing the project through to completion. We firmly believe the Other Side Village will be the best program anywhere for caring for our homeless neighbors and helping them to lead more productive lives. The leaders of the Village effort have a proven track record with the Other Side Academy and we hope the City will continue to offer their full support to bring this to fruition as quickly as possible. Best regards, David J. Dixon, AIA EXHIBIT F: CONSTRUCTION COMMITMENT LETTER 45 OPERATIONAL 15-YEAR PROFORMA FOR VILLAGE PILOT PHASE EXHIBIT G: PROFORMA 667 E 100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84102 TheOtherSideAcademy.com July 1, 2022 To Whom it May Concern : The board of The Other Side Academy has agreed to cover any operational shortfalls in funding from the operations of The Other Side Village in an amount up to $1 million per year. I also confirm that The Other Side Academy has the financial means to provide these funds if needed. Respectfully, Tim Stay CEO The Other Side Academy tim@theothersideacademy.com 801-362-8998 EXHIBIT H: OPERATING COMMITMENT LETTER 1 APPROVAL OF REZONE REQUEST Potential Conditions to Approval of Rezone (publication of zoning amendment ordinance) Finalize development agreement that requires TOSV to: o Obtain all required permits and approvals from City o Comply with all applicable laws, regulations o Construct all improvements as required, including infrastructure Completion of environmental remediation of pilot phase acreage at TOSV’s cost (full payment or reimbursement to City) and receipt of Certificate of Completion or equivalent Executed guaranty of up to $5 Million from Joseph and Celia Grenny Development Agreement – Defaults and Remedies The Development Agreement and its potential remedies for the City in an event of default apply during the construction period. Such events of default may include, but are not limited to: o TOSV not constructing the improvements within the time limit provided for in the schedule of development o TOSV fails to build the improvements as required o TOSV fails to provide regular development reports Potential remedies if TOSV fails to remedy an event of default: o Terminate the ground lease with TOSV, with our option (not obligation) to purchase the improvements o Terminate the ground lease with TOSV, take possession of the improvements, and relet the property o Enforce on the performance and payment guarantees to complete the construction of the improvements o File a breach of contract claim (which may result in damages or specific performance) o Any other remedies available at law or equity 2 APPROVAL OF PUBLIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS Potential Conditions to Authorize Execution of Below FMV Ground Lease Finalize development agreement Approve financial sources and uses Firm financial commitments for source funding and donations Operating budget guaranty from TOSA Completion of environmental remediation of pilot phase acreage at TOSV’s cost (full payment or reimbursement to City) and receipt of Certificate of Completion or equivalent Potential Ground Lease Requirements 1. Completion of development in compliance with the Development Agreement and continued operation of Village as developed. Development shall include: (a) At least 60 tiny homes to be used as permanent housing: at least 54 units (or 90% of the total permanent housing units) shall be deed-restricted as affordable to standard described in the term sheet (b) At least 3 affordable units are ADA compliant/wheelchair accessible, and more if dictated by resident needs (c) Up to 6 units (not more than 10% of the total permanent housing units) may be used as staff living quarters (d) Up to 25 additional tiny homes may be used as a Community Inn offered as nightly rentals to generate income for TOSV operations (e) A ~ 2,000 square foot Neighborhood Center to house clubhouse type uses for TOSV residents (or sized as appropriate) (f) A ~10,000 square foot Social Enterprise Building to house social enterprise endeavors that generate income for the TOSV operations (or sized as appropriate) (g) A ~12,000 square foot Community Center building to house multi-purpose space, and supportive services for TOSV residents including a medical clinic, a mental health clinic, a social services clinic, administrative offices, and a security office (or sized as appropriate) (h) Utility service and related infrastructure; roads and curb/gutter 2. Compliance with attached term sheet to be attached to Resolution (may be modified by Council). 3. The primary purpose of the Village is to provide housing for qualified residents. The different uses within the Village (residential, supportive services, social enterprise, and commercial/community inn) should be constructed alongside each other so that there are services to support occupied residences and enterprise to support operation of TOSV. For every 10 residential units constructed, at least 9 shall be affordable units. 4. Continual operation of the residential units and supportive services during the lease term. 5. Transportation to off-site supportive services must be provided. 6. Occupancy by residents promptly following receipt of certificate of occupancy (or equivalent) 3 7. Annual Reports - reporting requirements on term sheet and other requested metrics 8. Council Review – review (not more than one time per year) to evaluate purpose and operation compliance (a) Financial feasibility, successfully generating sufficient positive cashflow to maintain and grow its operations. Potential metrics: i. Development viability – Funding and construction of the agreed-upon capital improvements. ii. Operating viability – Development of revenue generating endeavors that provide for the financial self-sufficiency of TOSV, including adequate funding to support on-site supportive services. (b) Social outcomes of the target populations, reducing the number of chronically homeless individuals and improving the well-being of residents. Potential metrics: i. Housing Accessibility – Number of chronically homeless and homeless individuals that successfully obtain housing within the Village. ii. Length of Stay – Average days that TOSV residents successfully maintain housing in the Village. iii. Returns to Homelessness – The extent to which TOSV residents return to homelessness from being housed within the Village. iv. Employment – Percent of TOSV residents that successfully obtain and retain employment. v. Income Growth – Percent of income growth for TOSV residents. vi. Service Provider Partnerships – The extent to which TOSV establishes partnerships with services providers to provide on-site and offsite supportive services. vii. Housing Referral Partnerships – The extent to which TOSV establishes partnerships with service providers for housing referrals. (c) At the neighborhood level, the project’s positive impact on the surrounding community. Potential metrics: i. Community Amenities – The successful development and operation of agreed-upon community amenities, including a bodega or cookie storefront. ii. Public Safety – The number of Police calls and cases. iii. Code Enforcement – The number of enforcement cases. iv. Environmental – The extent to which TOSA completes the necessary environmental mitigation for the planned land uses. 10. Maintenance of all Improvements, including buildings, homes, street, gutter, storm drains, etc. 11. Units are studio or one-bedroom units with private baths and kitchens, fully furnished including housewares, maintained in good repair and compliant with applicable law. 12. Supportive services and employment are offered for residents to participate on a voluntary basis. 13. Employment of residents complies with all applicable laws, including all employment and non- discrimination laws. 4 13. All standard City contracting terms are included, as well as other terms reasonably recommended by the City Attorney to meet Council intent. 14. Operation of bodega or similar grocery type store (can have 3rd party operator). 15. City will not provide further financial contribution to operation of Village. Any future phases must be approved by City Council. 16. Adequate security measures for Village and surrounding community. Ground Lease – Default and Remedies The Ground Lease and its potential remedies apply during the entire period of construction (once the Ground Lease is executed) and operation of the TOSV. Such events of default may include, but are not limited to: o TOSV fails to operate the Village as required o TOSV fails to comply with the terms of the Ground Lease o TOSV fails to provide regular operating reports o TOSV fails to report to Council as required Potential remedies if TOSV fails to remedy an event of default: o Charge TOSV fair market rent for the leased property o Terminate the ground lease with TOSV, with an option (not obligation) to purchase the improvements o Terminate the ground lease with TOSV, take possession of the improvements, and relet the property o File a breach of contract claim (which may result in damages or specific performance) o Injunctive relief o Any other remedies available at law or equity 5 TOSV Pilot Project – Affordable Housing, Supportive Services, and Programming Term Sheet (to be attached to Resolution) AFFORDABLE HOUSING I. Unit Requirements TOSV shall develop and maintain the Site to include a minimum of 60 tiny home units. Of the total units: 1. Up to 10% may be unrestricted in rent and occupancy for utilization by staff. 2. A minimum of 90% shall be available and affordable to individuals or families meeting the HUD-adopted definition of chronically homeless and homeless, with a priority on chronically homeless. These units shall be designated as the “Affordable Units”. II. Occupancy Requirements TOSV must place into the Affordable Units individuals and families that meet the HUD-adopted definition of chronically homeless and homeless, prioritized as follows: 1. TOSA shall first make the units available to persons or families that meet HUD’s definition of chronically homeless as defined in section 401(2)(A) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(9)). In general, to meet this definition, a chronically homeless person or family’s head of household must be sleeping in a place not meant for human habitation or living in a homeless emergency shelter or safe haven, have a disabling condition, as defined in section 401(9) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(9)), and i. be continuously homeless for a year or more, OR ii. have had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years as long as the combined occasions equal at least 12 months. 2. If there are units available and no applications from chronically homeless individuals, TOSV may lease units to vulnerable homeless individuals, as “homeless” is then-currently defined by HUD, provided that applicants who have been homeless for the longest periods of time immediately preceding their application are given priority over applicants who have been homeless for lesser periods of time. III. Tenant Eligibility To determine whether a tenant is eligible, TOSV must verify that the prospective tenant meets HUD’s definition of chronically homeless or homeless and whose incomes have an aggregate annual income for all occupants that is 30% and below of the area median income for Salt Lake City Utah, HUD Metro FMR Area as adjusted for household size. 6 IV. Tenant Selection 1. The Affordable Units shall be made available pursuant to federal and state fair housing laws and HUD guidance, including the following: i. TOSV may establish admission preferences, including a preference for individuals with a commitment to sobriety, but may not deny housing to protected classes pursuant to federal and state fair housing laws. ii. TOSV may regulate the occupancy of units based on unit size but may not unreasonably limit the ability of families with children to obtain housing. 2. TOSV must develop and make public written tenant selection policies and procedures that include descriptions of the eligibility requirements. The Tenant Selection Plan must include evidence of a contractual partnership with service provider(s) and whether there is a restriction or preference in the admission of tenants. The restriction or preference must cite the supporting documentation to ensure inclusion and nondiscrimination in the selection of tenants. 3. TOSV will ensure that all applicants for housing in the project will go through the coordinated entry process used by the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness to ensure coordination and efficiency with the current homelessness services system. 4. TOSA also will enter any new resident into the Homeless Management Information System (“HMIS”) coordinated entry system. 5. Preference will be given to Salt Lake City residents for placement into the development. V. Maximum Rents The annualized rent (which includes all required housing costs such as utilities and other charges uniformly assessed to all Affordable Units, other than charges for optional services) per unit shall be set forth in a written lease and shall not exceed, for the term of the lease, 30% of the annual income limit for individuals and households with a maximum AMI of 25% AMI for the applicable Unit Type (i.e. studio or bedroom number). VI. Tenant Lease Requirements 1. Leases may be provided on a month-to-month basis, with the intent that tenants may live in their homes as long as they meet the basic obligations of tenancy without a time limitation. 2. TOSV shall comply with local, state, and federal laws, including the federal fair housing act, when approving applicants as tenants, evicting, terminating a lease, or providing a notice to quit. 3. TOSV must incorporate specific provisions into the lease agreement for each eligible tenant of the Affordable Units that establish the tenant's obligation to provide accurate information regarding household income and composition. 7 VII. Record-Keeping and Reporting Requirements 1. Upon execution of a lease, TOSV must verify and document the tenant’s annual (gross) income. 2. TOSV must re-examine the income and household composition of tenants on an annual basis. 3. TOSV must submit annual compliance reports to the City. These reports shall document the occupancy and show whether TOSA is in compliance with tenant eligibility requirements. 4. TOSV must provide the City a written certification of compliance when the project reaches initial compliance and then with each annual report. SUPPORTIVE SERVICES The pilot project will include supportive services to assist homeless persons in transitioning from homelessness, and to promote the provision of supportive housing to enable homeless persons to live as independently as possible. Supportive services will include on-site case coordination or management that ensures tenants’ access to a wide variety of services and on-site location of services provided by professional service providers as evidenced through an agreement. Services shall be made available on a flexible and voluntary basis and may address the following: mental health, substance and alcohol use, health, case management, independent living skills, employment, peer support, and community involvement and support. Physical and mental health providers shall have the appropriate licenses, which other services may be provided by those with appropriate training and following industry best practices. PROGRAMMING The pilot project will include programming that includes peer mentoring and the life skill development. This will include opportunities for residents to obtain employment experience by working in a social enterprise to the best of their ability. While participation in these employment activities shall be encouraged, it is not a condition of living in the pilot project. TERM The term of the lease will be forty (40) years with an option to renew the lease within the last year of the lease subject to approval by the Salt Lake City Council for the reduced lease rate. LEASE RATE The lease rate for the property will be $1 per year for the term of the lease. 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:October 4, 2022 RE: 1518, 1530, 1540, 1546 South Main Street, 1515 South Richards Street Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments, Alley Vacation PLNPCM2021-001191 and PLNPCM2022-00065/-00086 The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map and master plan for parcels at 1518, 1530, 1540, 1546 South Main Street, and 1515 South Richards Street in City Council District Five, from CC (Corridor Commercial) and R-1/5,000 (single-family residential) to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood). A request to change the Central Community Master Plan future land use map from Community Commercial to High Mixed-Use is also proposed. In addition, a request to vacate a City-owned alley that runs through the properties is included in the proposal. (See image below.) The petitioner’s intent is to consolidate the seven parcels (some parcels share the same address), and the alley into one larger (approximately 2 acre) parcel with FB-UN2 zoning to develop a mixed-use development on the site. No specific site development proposal has been submitted as of the writing of this report. Two duplexes and two single-family homes would be removed for a total loss of six housing units as part of the proposal. Replacement of the housing units was the option selected for housing loss mitigation as discussed in Consideration 4 below. These proposals were reviewed by the Planning Commission at its July 27, 2022 meeting and a public hearing was held at which five people spoke. Some comments were supportive of redeveloping the area and closing the alley. Concerns expressed included the size of the proposed development is out of scale for the neighborhood and would impact the area, particularly those who live adjacent to the property; changing the zoning from prevalent existing Corridor Commercial zoning of properties fronting Main Street in the Item Schedule: Briefing: October 4, 2022 Set Date: October 4, 2022 Public Hearing: October 18, 2022 Potential Action: November 10, 2022 Page | 2 area; additional rental units will not benefit the already predominately renter occupied neighborhood; and concern for residents who would be displaced when existing housing is removed. The Commission closed the hearing and voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council with the following conditions: 1. Housing removed from the site must be replaced. 2. Vacated alley property be integrated into the future development. 3. Rezoned parcels must be consolidated through the appropriate process. Area zoning map with subject parcels and alley outlined Image courtesy Salt Lake City Planning Division Page | 3 Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning and future land use map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask if any units in the proposed building will be affordable, and at what percentage of AMI. 2. The Council may wish to ask if current residents of the properties will be assisted with relocation. 3. The Council may wish to ask the developer for the anticipated mix of rental units in the proposed development. 4. The petitioner expressed a willingness to provide “ample” off-street parking in the proposed development. The Council may wish to ask what parking ratios are being considered and if the petitioner is amenable to including this in a development agreement. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property, amend the future land use map, and vacate the alley. No formal site plan has been submitted to the City nor is it within the scope of the Council’s authority to review the plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified six key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 3-9 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1-Compliance with City Goals, Policies and Plans The Central Community Master Plan (2005) is the current relevant plan for this area. The Plan’s future land use map shows the properties fronting Main Street, and the motel as “Community Commercial.” The property fronting Richards Street is listed as “Medium Density Residential.” Planning staff found the following Central Community Master Plan policies and statements applicable to this proposal: •RLU (Residential Land Use)-1.3- Restrict high-density residential growth to Downtown, East Downtown, TOD areas and Gateway. •RLU-1.5 - Use residential mixed uses zones to provide residential land uses with supportive retail, service and commercial uses. •Mixed Use Policy – RLU-4.0 - Encourage mixed use development that provides residents with a commercial and institutional component while maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood. •Mixed Use Policy – RLU-4.2 – Support small mixed use development on the corners of major streets that does not have significant adverse impact on the residential neighborhood. •Commercial land use policy CLU-1.4 – High Density Mixed Use – Target areas adjacent to light rail station in the downtown area for higher intensity commercial use and medium to high density housing. •Ensure that new development is compatible with existing neighborhood in terms of scale, character, and density. Page | 4 It is Planning’s opinion that the proposal is supported by some Central Community Master Plan policies and statements, while others do not. The Ballpark Station Area Plan is in draft form and has not been adopted. The draft Plan has been discussed with the community and references to it were included in some comments to Planning. The subject petitions may meet some elements of the Ballpark Station Area Plan while not meeting others. It is worth noting since no specific development proposal has been submitted, and the Plan has not been adopted, it is not possible to determine if the petitions would comply. Plan Salt Lake (2015) outlines an overall vision of sustainable growth and development in the city. Included in the Plan is a recommendation to develop a mix of uses needed to accommodate responsible growth. New development scale and character compatibility with the existing neighborhood is also a consideration. Planning staff stated “The proposed development is supported by general principles and initiatives found in Plan Salt Lake. It would provide additional housing options within a walkable neighborhood with commercial services served by convenient transit opportunities.” It is Planning staff’s opinion the proposal is in line with Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan – 2018- 2022 (2017), which calls for providing more housing units and housing variety in the neighborhood. Consideration 2-Neighborhood Compatibility & Anticipated Impacts Neighborhood compatibility and impacts from new development are important considerations when reviewing zoning changes. The applicant stated they intend to remove the motel and other structures on the subject parcels. As noted above, no specific site plan has been submitted and the property could potentially be developed with other uses allowed under the FB-UN2 zoning designation. Existing CC zoning would allow buildings up to 30 feet by right, and up to 45 feet through Design Review. The proposed FB-UN2 zoning would allow buildings up to 50 feet tall if zoning standards are met. It is worth noting the petitioner originally included a request additional height up to 65 feet on the parcels. That request was withdrawn following community and staff feedback. Additional standards including glass percentages, building materials and ground floor uses in the FB-UN2 zoning district are not required in CC zoning. When abutting single-family residential zoning, FB-UN2 zoning requires added upper floor step backs to lessen impact to lower scale adjacent development. CC zoning does not include this requirement. (These standards are included in the Zoning District Comparison table found on pages 8-10 below.) Planning staff found the proposed FB-UN2 zoning designation would not create additional impacts to the neighborhood beyond existing zoning if the properties were redeveloped. Consideration 3-Consideration of Alternate Zoning Districts Planning staff reviewed the R-MU-45 zoning district as a potential alternative to the requested FB-UN2. It has similar characteristics as FB-UN2 including a maximum height of 45 feet which is why they selected it for comparison. Development standards for the ground floor and upper floor step backs are also included under R-MU-45, but not in the current CC zoning district. (See Zoning District Comparison below.) Page | 5 A key difference between FB-UN2 and R-MU-45 is parking requirements. FB-UN2 does not require off- street parking. The petitioner stated they intend to provide adequate parking and are amenable to a development agreement including that requirement. In its review, Planning found more of the allowed uses in R-MU-45 are conditional rather than permitted, which would require additional processes when reviewing a development proposal. Other zoning districts allow both residential and mixed-use developments, with varying height and other requirements. Planning staff did not recommend consideration of alternate zoning districts. Consideration 4-Housing Loss Mitigation Requirements When considering petitions for zoning changes that permit nonresidential land uses on property that includes residential dwelling units, Salt Lake City Code requires a City approved housing loss mitigation plan. The subject petition proposes to remove six existing housing units. Additional housing units are proposed, but a plan is required as FB-UN2 zoning allows nonresidential uses. Mitigating housing loss may include providing replacement housing or paying a fee to the City’s housing trust fund based on the difference between the housing value and replacement cost of building new units. For deteriorated housing, not caused by deliberate indifference by the property owner, a flat fee may be paid by the petitioner to the City’s housing trust fund. A plan satisfying the mitigation requirement by providing replacement housing was submitted. This plan was evaluated and approved by the Community and Neighborhoods Department Director. The Council has the option to work with the petitioner to include replacement housing units as part of a development agreement. Consideration 5-Alley Vacation Request As discussed above, an alley vacation is part of the petitioner’s proposal. The subject alley is approximately 250 feet long and 16 feet wide. The alley is said to be blocked for most of its length and is being used for parking and storage. Alley vacation requests receive three phases of review, as outlined in section 14.52.030 Salt Lake City Code (see pages 11-13 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. Salt Lake City Code requires alley vacations meet at least one of the following policy considerations: A-Lack of Use, B-Public Safety, C-Urban Design, or D-Community Purpose. Urban Design and Public Safety are the factors for this request. The petitioner believes the alley is not a positive urban design element and would be better used as part of their proposed development. They also believe the alley contributes to crime in the area. SLCPD officers reportedly discussed in community meetings the motel and alley are problem areas in the area, though no reports have been provided detailing the alley’s contribution to crime. Alley vacations are also required to include a petition with signatures of at least 75% of abutting property owners indicating support of the proposed vacation. The petitioner received signatures from six of the eight abutting property owners. There was no opposition to the alley vacation expressed by those who didn’t sign the petition. Page | 6 City Department Review During City department and division review of the petitions, the Engineering Division expressed opposition to the alley vacation, stating “SLC Engineering does not support the proposed alley vacation. The power runs down the alley on both sides (with the transformers) and it appears that underground utilities may also exist. They are parking vehicles in the alley currently.” Public Utilities provided comments saying it does not have utility lines in the subject alley. They noted private water and sewer lines likely are within the alley, but those are owned by the petitioner. No objections or concerns were received from other responding City departments or divisions. Analysis of Factors Pages 50-52 of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties Complies Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Not applicable (not within any zoning overlays) The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Complies Pages 53-55 of the Planning Commission staff report includes 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 the 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: Planning staff believes it complies. As noted above, City Engineering objected to the alley vacation. Other City departments and divisions had no issues with the proposal or did not provide comments. (Department review comments are found in Attachment H (page 95 of the Planning Commission staff report).) Planning staff stated “The Engineering Department does not support the request while Public Utilities has no objections. Part of the objections of Engineering concerned the possible location of utilities underground in the alley. Public Utilities indicated that there may be some Page | 7 water lines but did not have concerns. Since the site consists of multiple parcels to be combined, the issue of utilities and any required relocation will be dealt with on an individual development proposal under consideration.” •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 Urban Design and Public Safety policy considerations. •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 sole 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 because 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 are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses. Finding: Closing the alley will not result in uses that are contrary to any City policy. •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 owners expressed opposition to the proposed alley vacation. •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 alley does not pass fully through the block between Andrew Avenue and Van Buren. Planning stated, “Since there is no continuation to the alley, for all intents and purposes this remaining segment would act as an “entire alley” so this factor has been met.” •City Code required analysis: The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. Finding: Complies. The alley is not necessary for rear access to residences. It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposed alley vacation generally meets the policy considerations and factors for alley vacations. They noted the Engineering Division is opposed to the request, but those objections did not consider redevelopment of the site which will likely remove or relocate utilities on the site. Consideration 6-Public Input and Concerns Most comments received by the Planning Division regarding the proposal are in opposition to the rezoning. Many people expressed frustration with the existing motel and other properties that are included in this proposal creating neighborhood issues, and a desire for change. Concern with the proposed building’s height and scale, along with resulting neighborhood impacts are the primary reasons people expressed for their opposition. The Ballpark Community Council sent a letter to Planning staff outlining its opposition to the proposed zoning amendments, and support of the alley vacation. This letter and other written comments received prior to the Planning Commission public hearing are found on pages 57-94 of the Page | 8 Planning Commission staff report. Comments received by Planning following the Planning Commission staff report was published are found on pages 65-87 of the Administration’s transmittal. ZONING COMPARISON CC and R-1/5,000 vs. Proposed FB-UN2 The following table is found on pages 46-49 of the Planning Commission staff report. It is included here for convenience. Parameter CC Zone (Existing) R-1/5,000 (Existing) FB-UN2 (Proposed) Allowed Uses Multi-family and mixed- use developments, gas stations, alcohol uses, animal cremation, art gallery, food production, various commercial retail and service uses, assisted living and support uses, boarding house, funeral home, crematoriums, motel uses, offices, school uses, commercial parking, recreation, storage uses, movie theater, automobile sales, service, repairs and rentals among others. Mostly single-family detached uses. Multifamily and commercial uses are not allowed. Some government and municipal and school uses allowed as conditional. Dwellings to include single, multi-family and others, mixed use developments, alcohol uses, various commercial retail and service uses, assisted living and support uses, assisted living and support uses, boarding house, funeral home, clinic and medical uses, motel uses, offices, school uses and others. Maximum Building Height 30-feet by right 45-feet through Design Review 28-feet to ridge for pitched roofs or 20-feet for flat roofed buildings. 50-feet for a multifamily or mixed-use form. A variety of other uses are allowed and the height limit varies. In the absence of a specific development proposal, the applicant could build any of the allowed uses under the new zoning if it were to be approved. Front/Corner/Side/Rear Yard Setbacks Front and corner side yards: 15 feet Interior side: None Rear yard: 10 feet Front: 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. Interior side: Corner lots – 4- feet Interior side for Interior lots – 4 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other. No minimum on front and corner side. Maximum 10 feet. Side: 15-feet along a side property line that that abuts a residential zoning district less than 35- feet otherwise none. Rear: Minimum 20 feet along rear adjacent to residential less than 35- feet. Page | 9 Rear yard: 25% of lot depth or 20-feet, whichever is less. Required Build to Line Not applicable Not applicable Minimum of 50% of street facing facade shall be built to the minimum setback line Upper Lever Step Back None required Not applicable Buildings shall be stepped back 1 additional foot for every foot of building height above 30' along a side or rear property line adjacent to FBUN1 or any residential zoning district that has a maximum building height of 35' or less, unless the building is set back from the property line 45' or more. Buffer Yard Required if abutting single-family residential Specific landscaping requirements and trees are required. Not applicable No specific buffer required but a 20-foot rear yard is required and upper building step backs are required when located adjacent to residential. Lot Size Minimum 10,000 SF 5,000 SF but cannot exceed 7,000 SF 4,000 SF Minimum Lot Width 75 feet Not specified 30 feet Landscaped Yards 15-feet required on all front and corner side yards. Additional landscaping required is if additional building height is allowed. Required yards must all be maintained as landscaped yards. Open Space Area: A minimum of ten percent (10%) of the lot area must be open space area which may include landscaped yards, patio, dining areas, common balconies, rooftop gardens, and other similar outdoor living spaces. Off-street Parking & Loading (21A.44.030) The CC zone requires the following for multi- family uses: 2 parking spaces for each dwelling unit containing 2 or more bedrooms 1 parking space for 1 bedroom and efficiency dwelling 1/2 parking space for single room occupancy dwellings (600 square Two parking spaces for each single-family residence. Additional spaces required for other uses when allowed. No parking minimum specified or required. Page | 10 foot maximum) Additional parking will be required for the commercial aspects of the project. This varies depending on the use. General Design Standards: • Ground floor uses • Percentage glass • Building materials • Entrance Requirements • Balconies • Open space requirements No general design standards or requirements if building to 30-feet. If requesting Design Review, additional elements may be requested. None specified for commercial or multi- family as they are not allowed. Ground floor uses required • 60% of ground floor facing façade must be glass • 15% on all upper floors on street facing facades. • 70% of any street facing building facade must be clad in high quality, durable, natural materials • Specific entrance requirements based on building type. • Balconies required on all street-facing units • Open Space Required: A minimum of ten percent (10%) of the lot area must be open space area. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • November 19, 2021-Petition for zoning map and accompanying text amendment received by Planning Division. • February 1, 2022-Petitions for the master plan amendment and alley vacation received by Planning Division. Petitions assigned to David Gellner, Senior Planner. • February 9, 2022-Information about petitions sent to Ballpark Community Council and Midtown District Community Council. 45-day recognized organization input and comment period begins. Online open house period begins. Early notification sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project site providing information about the proposal and how to give public input. • March 3, 2022-Planning staff attended an online meeting of the Ballpark Community Council. • March 30, 2o22-45-day public comment period for recognized organizations ended. • May 15, 2022-Applicant made changes to the original request which included a text amendment to allow additional building height on these properties. The text amendment portion of the Page | 11 application was withdrawn by the applicant. • May 23, 2022-Notice sent to the Ballpark Community Council and all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the development informing them of changes to the proposal, specifically that the text amendment request allowing additional building height was withdrawn by the applicant. • July 14, 2022-Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning listserv for the July 27, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. Public hearing notice mailed. Public hearing notice posted on properties. • July 27, 2022-Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission voted unanimously in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments, and alley vacation. • August 23, 2022-Ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office. • September 6, 2022-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • September 21, 2022-Transmittal received in City Council Office. Salt Lake City Code for Alley Vacation 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, Page | 12 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 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. Page | 13 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. 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 1 July 27, 2022 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: David J. Gellner, AICP, Senior Planner – 801-535-6107 - david.gellner@slcgov.com Date: July 27, 2022 Re: PLNPCM2021-01191 and PLNPCM2022-00065 & 00086 Zoning Map & Master Plan Amendments & Alley Vacation PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1518, 1530, 1540, 1546 S Main Street and 1515 S Richards Street MASTER PLAN: Central Community Master Plan ZONING DISTRICT: CC – Corridor Commercial and R-1/5000 – Single-Family Residential REQUEST: Urban Alfandre is requesting that the City amend the zoning map and master plan for multiple contiguous property parcels located at 1518, 1530, 1540, 1546 S Main Street and 1515 S Richards Street respectively. Some of the parcels have duplicate addresses. An alley that runs through the properties would be vacated as part of this request. The applicant intends to combine all parcels as well as the alley into one cohesive parcel under the new zoning in order to develop a mixed use development on the site. No specific site development plan has been proposed or is under consideration at this time. The following petitions are associated with this proposal: 1. Zoning Map Amendment – PLNPCM2021-01191 – Rezoning subject parcels from CC (Corridor Commercial) & R-1/5000 (Single-family residential to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood). 2. Master Plan Amendment – PLNPCM2022-00065 – Change to the future land use map in the Central Community Master Plan from Community Commercial to High Mixed Use. 3. Alley Vacation – PLNPCM2022-00086 – Request to vacate and close the platted alley to incorporate the area into the development as private property. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information and findings listed in the staff report, it is the Planning Staff’s opinion that the request generally meets the applicable standards of approval and therefore recommends that the Planning Commission transmit positive recommendations to the City Council for the Zoning Map, Master Plan and Alley Vacation petitions with the following recommendations: 1. The housing being removed from the site must be replaced. 2. The property for the vacated alley be integrated into the future development. 3. The rezoned parcels must be consolidated through the appropriate process. 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 2 Planning Commission – July 27, 2022 ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant’s Narrative & Materials C. Property and Vicinity Photos D. Housing Loss Mitigation Report E. Zoning District Comparison F. Review Standards G. Public Process & Comments H. Department Review Comments PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 3 Planning Commission – July 27, 2022 The applicant is proposing to rezone seven (7) property parcels in an around 1518 – 1546 S Main Street in what is being called “The 1550 S Main Street Assemblage”. All properties are zoned CC – Commercial Corridor with the exception of the parcel at 1515 S Richards Street which is zoned R - 1/5000, Single-Family Residential. The applicant is requesting a zoning change to the FB-UN2 – Form Based Urban Neighborhood Zoning District as well as a change to the future land use map designation in the Central Community Master Plan from Community Commercial to High Mixed Use on these parcels. An application has also been submitted to vacate the platted alley that runs through the properties. No specific site development plan has been submitted or is being review with these requests. The intent of these petitions would be to combine all parcels as well as the alley into one cohesive parcel of approximately 2 acres. Under the new zoning, the applicant intends to a build a new mixed use development on the site. The current zoning would support the establishment of multi-family and mixed-use developments on the site, however, that applicant is looking to utilize some of the design standards of the form-based district in order to create a higher -quality development with a sensitivity to massing and active pedestrian spaces. These differences are discussed in more detail in the Key Considerations section of this report under Consideration 2: Neighborhood Compatibility & Anticipated Impacts. The applicant’s original proposal, since revised, included an accompanying request for a text amendment to allow additional building height on the subject parcels. The proposal was to allow multi-family/mixed-use building forms up to 65-feet in height on these parcels. The FB-UN2 Zoning District allows buildings of this type to a maximum height of 50 -feet. Based upon public and staff feedback, the applicant withdrew the text amendment portion of this request. The proposed zoning map change would be to the FB-UN2 district as it exists without additional height being requested. The applicant’s proposal is described more fully in their narrative included in Attachment B of this report. Revisions to the applicant’s original proposal indicating that the text amendment to allow additional height was being withdrawn from consideration are also included in this attachment. APPROVAL PROCESS AND COMMISSION AUTHORITY The Planning Commission’s role in these applications is to provide a recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission’s recommendation for the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments, and alley vacation, whether negative or positive, will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. City Council has final decision making authority for these types of applications. KEY CONSIDERATIONS The key considerations listed below were identified through the analysis of the project: 1. Compliance with City Goals, Policies & Plans 2. Neighborhood Compatibility & Anticipated Impacts 3. Consideration of Alternate Zoning Districts 4. Housing Loss Mitigation Requirements 5. Alley Vacation Request 6. Public Input and Concerns 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 4 Planning Commission – July 27, 2022 Consideration 1: Compliance with City Goals, Policies and Plans Central Community Master Plan (2005) The subject property and surrounding area are discussed in the Central Community Master Plan. The Central Community Master Plan (CCMP) is the relevant neighborhood plan for the area at this time. The future land use map in the CCMP shows the properties as “Community Commercial” for those along Main Street as well as the motel property in the interior of the block. The map shows the property fronting on Richards Street as “Medium Density Residential”. The properties are located within the “People’s Freeway Neighborhood” described within the Plan. The following policies and statements in the CCMP are relevant to this proposal: • RLU-1.3- Restrict high-density residential growth to Downtown, East Downtown, TOD areas and Gateway. • RLU-1.5 - Use residential mixed uses zones to provide residential land uses with supportive retail, service and commercial uses. • Mixed Use Policy – RLU-4.0 - Encourage mixed use development that provides residents with a commercial and institutional component while maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood. • Mixed Use Policy – RLU-4.2 – Support small mixed use development on the corners of major streets that does not have significant adverse impact on the residential neighborhood. • Commercial land use policy CLU-1.4 – High Density Mixed Use – Target areas adjacent to light rail station in the downtown area for higher intensity commercial use and medium to high density housing. • Ensure that new development is compatible with existing neighborhood in terms of scale, character, and density. The Central Community Master Plan contains policies and statements that both support the proposed rezoning of the property and statements that conflict with the proposed changes as noted above. Ballpark Station Area Plan (DRAFT in progress – not yet adopted) The Ballpark Station Area Plan is currently in the drafting stage and has not received input or a recommendation from the Planning Commission to City Council at this time nor has it been reviewed by City Council. The Draft Plan has been discussed with the local community and the public has been involved in its creation. Several of the public comments received by Planning Staff referenced this plan. Staff is mentioning the Draft Plan for the sake of clarification in regard to submitted comments. Since the Plan is still in Draft form, the final form may change in terms of content and recommendations. In and of itself, the Ballpark Station Area Plan is not an adopted City document nor the relevant community plan upon which decisions can be based upon at this time. That being said, in context of the ongoing efforts to establish an updated vision and master plan for this area, the draft document must be mentioned as part of the “larger picture” in considering changes in this area. Initial analysis of the latest draft indicates the following with respect to the subject properties: • The subject area is located just south of the “Heart of the Neighborhood/Ballpark Entertainment Zone” in what the draft plan is listing as the “Main Street Area” • The subject properties are about 0.66 miles from the Ballpark TRAX Station via the shortest walking path. 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 5 Planning Commission – July 27, 2022 • Descriptions in the “Main Street Area” include the following language: o The east side of Main Street is included in the State Street overlay zone which addresses the scale and placement of buildings in the area. To ensure compatible development on both sides of Main Street the overlay zone should be extended to include the properties on the west side of Main Street. o New buildings in the area should be considered for redevelopment at a scale comparable to the surrounding area with front doors on Main Street, stoops and yards. The proposed changes meet some of the anticipated policies and recommendations in the forthcoming Ballpark Plan while they may not meet others. In the absence of a specific development proposal under review, and in consideration of the plan being in draft form and subject to change, it is not possible to fully analyze compliance in terms of the Plan. Plan Salt Lake (2015) Plan Salt Lake (December 2015) outlines an overall vision of sustainable growth and development in the city. This includes the development of a diverse mix of uses which is essential to accommodate responsible growth. At the same time, compatibility, that is how new development fits into the scale and character of existing neighborhoods is an important consideration. New development should be sensitive to the context of surrounding development while also providing opportunities for new growth. Plan Salt Lake, emphasizes the need for a variety of housing options. This is expressed in the guiding principles and related initiatives under each guiding principle as listed below: • Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around. o Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors. o Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. • Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics. o Increase the number of medium density housing types and options. o Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people oriented. o Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate. o Promote high density residential in areas served by transit. The proposed development is supported by the general principles and initiatives found in Plan Salt Lake. It would provide additional housing options within a walkable neighborhood with commercial services served by convenient transit opportunities. 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 6 Planning Commission – July 27, 2022 Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan – 2018-2022 (2017) Additionally, the city’s housing plan, Growing SLC, reinforces the growing demand for housing. The plan cites density limitations as a local barrier, which has been exacerbating the city’s housing cri sis. The following goals and objective are relevant to this proposal: • Increase housing options: Reform City practices to promote a responsive, affordable, high- opportunity housing market. The proposal is in line with the strategy of providing more housing units and housing variety in the neighborhood. Consideration 2: Neighborhood Compatibility & Anticipated Impacts Neighborhood compatibility and the anticipated impacts of new development are important considerations in a zoning change. The applicant’s stated intent for the rezone is to remove the existing motel and other buildings in order to develop a mixed use/multi-family residential development on the properties. However, no specific site development plan is under consideration so it is important to note that if the rezone is approved, the applicant would not be bound to building this kind or form of development and could construct other uses allowed under the new FB-UN2 zoning designation. The existing CC zoning would allow buildings up to 30-feet by right and up to 45-feet through the Design Review process. Since the properties are not in a historic district or subject to any additional overlay provisions, the existing parcels could be combined and redeveloped by right or through processes to allow additional height. A comparison of development requirements in the CC and FB- UN2 districts is included in a table in Attachment E of this report. The FB-UN2 zoning district would allow buildings up to 50-feet in height provided all of the zoning standards are being met. This is a slight increase over the maximum potential height in the CC district. However, the FB-UN2 zone has a higher requirement in any new development for design elements such as glass percentages, building materials, ground floor uses and other elements that are not required in the CC zoning district. The intent of these st andards is to create higher quality and more pedestrian friendly developments. In addition, when abutting single-family residential zoning, the FB-UN2 district requires additional upper level building step backs in order to lessen the impact on lower scale adjacent development. The CC zone does not require this. Given the negligible difference in maximum building height combined with more robust design standards, it is Staff’s finding that the new zoning would not introduce additional impacts beyond those that could potentially occur under the existing CC zoning if the properties were to be redeveloped. Consideration 3: Consideration of Alternate Zoning Districts The original request by the applicant was for a change to the FB-UN2 zoning district with an accompanying text amendment to allow up to 65-feet in height on the subject parcels. That request has since been modified and additional height is no longer being considered. The FB-UN2 zoning district would allow buildings up to 50-feet in height to be developed if they are utilizing a multi- 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 7 Planning Commission – July 27, 2022 family or mixed-use form. In addition, where the FB-UN2 zoning district abuts single-family the upper portions of the building must be stepped back 1-additional foot for every 1-foot of building height above 30' along a side or rear property line. The CC zoning district allows buildings of up to 30-feet by right and up to 45-feet through the Design Review process. If additional height is being requested, additional landscaping would be required under the CC zoning. However, no upper building step backs or other requirements apply in the CC zoning district. In addition, the CC zoning district includes almost no general design standards (Chapter 21A.37) to influence the aesthetics of the building such as requirements for ground floor glass, building materials or ground floor uses. In that regard, the FB-UN2 zone is intended to create a better product in terms of high quality design, something that is important in the context of a site being redeveloped that abuts an existing neighborhood and development. Another zone that would provide additional development options in terms of allowed uses and flexibility would be the R-MU45 – Residential/Mixed Use district. The R-MU-45 zone would also incorporate additional development standards for the ground floor and upper floor step backs, something not included in the existing CC zoning district. To be clear, there are other zoning districts that would allow both residential and mixed use developments in addition to the R -MU-45 zone. These districts vary in height and other requirements. Staff chose to highlight the R -MU-45 zone specifically in comparison to the FB-UN-2 as it has a similar maximum heights, requires additional step-backs when adjacent to single-family residential zoning and is intended to provide areas within the City for mixed use development containing residential, retail, service commercial and small scale office uses. The standards for the district are intended to promote appropriately scaled development that is pedestrian oriented. In that regard, the FB-UN-2 and R-MU-45 zones have a good number of similarities to serve as a basis of comparison. This is the reason why Staff chose to highlight the R- MU-45 zone specifically in lieu of other alternate zoning districts. Comparing the FB-UN2 to the R-MU-45 zoning districts, more of the allowed uses in the R-MU-45 zone are Conditional, thereby requiring additional processes at the time of a specific development proposal. The FB-UN2 district requires more design elements for every use, thereby making the “form” more important than the actual use. The maximum height difference between the existing CC zone (45 feet), proposed FB-UN2 zone (50 feet) and the R-MU-45 district (45 feet) are roughly equivalent. One major difference between the FB-UN2 district and R-MU-45 and other “non form based” districts are the parking requirements. The form-based district such as FB-UN2 don’t have a specific parking requirement. As such, the development could be built without required parking. The applicant has stated that they intend to provide adequate off=street parking and were willing to have that required through a development agreement. It should be noted however that the provision of parking was also based upon the original proposal which included additional building height in order to provide parking. This request for additional height has now been withdrawn. The applicant also discusses the parking and willingness to be held to a development agreement in Attachment B. Planning Staff is not recommending the consideration of an alternate zoning district such as R-MU- 45 in lieu of the requested FB-UN2 zoning given the similarity of maximum building height, additional design standards in the FB-UN2 district and the applicant’s desires. 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 8 Planning Commission – July 27, 2022 Consideration 4: Housing Loss Mitigation Requirements Per Chapter 18.97 of City Code, 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. The housing mitigation plan shall be proposed and submitted to the city's Planning Director and the Director of Community and Neighborhoods and shall be accompanied by a housing impact statement. The applicant is proposing to remove six (6) existing housing units. Their plan is to build more housing but a housing mitigation plan is required for this petition because the FB-UN2 district allows nonresidential uses to be built. Options for mitigating residential housing loss include providing replacement housing, paying a fee to the City’s housing trust fund based on the difference between the housing value and replacement cost of building new units, and where deteriorated housing exists and is not caused by deliberate indifference of the landowner, the petitioner may pay a flat fee to the City’s housing trust fund. The applicant submitted a housing loss mitigation plan that satisfies the mitigations requirements by providing replacement housing. The final plan was evaluated and approved by Blake Thomas, Community and Neighborhoods Director, prior to the petition being heard by the Planning Commission. A signed copy of the HLM Plan is included in Attachment D 0f this report. Staff is adding a recommendation to require replacement of the existing housing on the site as part of the rezoning. In addition, this may be required by City Council as part of a Development Agreement yet to be determined as Council considers the request. Consideration 5: Alley Vacation Request This proposal includes a request to vacate the platted alley that runs through the center of the development. The alley is currently blocked off for the majority o f its length and is being used for parking or storage. An alley vacation requires that at least one (1) policy consideration as listed in Title 14.52.02 be met in order to process the application and that a signature threshold of 75% of abutting property owners be me. The request satisfies two (2) policy considerations, which are, Public Safety and Urban Design Considerations. The signature threshold has also been met. An analysis of the factors found in Title 14.52.030.B. that must be reviewed for an alley vacation shows that the petition generally meets the policy considerations and factors considered for an alley vacation. This is discussed in more detail in Attachment F: Review Standards under the section for Alley Vacations. Planning Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a positive request to City Council for the Alley Vacation. Consideration 6: Public Input and Concerns The majority of public comments received indicated opposition to the proposed rezoning. Most residents agreed that the current motel and properties created issues within the community in terms of crime and other undesirable activities, and that a change to these properties would be welcomed. However, there was concern about the proposed height and scale of any future development on the site and the impacts it would have on the existing neighborhood. The original proposal that was sent out for community comments included a text amendment to the FB-UN2 district allow an additional 15-feet of building height on these properties up to 65 -feet. So the comments received are reflective of the original proposal with additional building height request 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 9 Planning Commission – July 27, 2022 which many felt was too tall in the location context of the property. The applicant has since modified the proposal and eliminated the text amendment request seeking additional building height. Planning Staff sent out a supplemental notice postcard to all property owners and residents with in 300-feet of the subject properties informing them of changes to the proposal and the elimination of the request for additional height. No additional comments were received in relation to the supplemental information sent. STAFF RECOMMENDATION & SUMMARY The Central Community Master Plan and other City plans and documents contains policies and statements that both support the proposed rezoning of the properties and statements that conflict with the proposed changes. In addition, the proposed changes will have a short-term impact on the adjacent neighborhood as the property is redeveloped for another us e. However, this impact is similar to impacts that could occur under the current zoning if the properties were redeveloped. The redevelopment of the properties will add housing and commercial uses into the neighborhood and remove a use that has been a safety concern in the neighborhood. The proposed changes must be weighed against the existing policies in terms of what is in the City’s best interest and priorit ies as well as public concerns about the proposed changes. Based upon the key considerations and analysis in this report, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward positive recommendations to the City Council for the Zoning Map, Master Plan and Alley Vacation petitions. NEXT STEPS The Planning Commission’s recommendation for the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments, and alley vacation, will be forwarded to the City Council. City Council has final decision making authority for these types of applications. Additional public hearings will be held by City Council as part of their consideration of these applications. 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 10 Planning Commission – July 27, 2022 ATTACHMENT A: Vicinity Map 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 11 Planning Commission – July 27, 2022 ATTACHMENT B: Applicant’s Narrative Includes the following documents: 1. Revised narrative dated 05/16/2022 – indicates withdrawal of text amendment for additional building height. 2. Original narrative dated 02/03/2022 – includes text amendment for additional building height 3. Massing study – dated 01/24/2022 – reflects original request for additional height. TO: David Gellner CC: Wayne Mills FROM: Urban Alfandre (Stephen Alfandre, Owner) DATE: 5.16.2022 RE: Amendment to Rezone application on 1550 S Main Street Assemblage David, After extensive meetings with the community council, Planning Staff, and other neighborhood stakeholders, we are requesting an amendment to our previous rezone application wherein we requested additional height of 15 feet within the FB-UN2 zone to a maximum of 65 feet. We wish to revise our application and not request the additional 15 feet within the FB-UN2 zone which would result in a maximum height of 50 feet. It became clear to us that the neighborhood did not agree with 65 feet in height at this location and we want to align ourselves with their desire to see a project of smaller scale. Although we can technically achieve a 50 ft height limit via design review and planned development in the current CC zone, we would rather work in the FB-UN2 zone for various reasons. Here is why we believe the FBUN-2 zone at this location far exceeds using the CC zone for this project: 1. Higher Design Standards The FB-UN2 zone has higher urban design standards than the CC zone, which we believe will make for a better project. Creating a consistent street wall, enhancing walkability, requiring more glass and balconies and patios, and ensuring architectural design will contribute to the character of the neighborhood are all requirements of the FB-UN2 zone. We are proponents of having more FB-UN2 zones because of how they demand for better urban design in our city. 2. Step-backs to create neighborhood compatibility The FB-UN2 zone requires step-backs and setbacks from adjacent single-family properties which creates appropriate transitions between our parcels and adjacent single family homes. 3. Active ground floor uses The FB-UN2 zone requires a permitted use other than parking shall occupy at least 75% of the width of any street-facing building façade which makes for much better ground floor pedestrian interaction than the CC zone. Our intent is to create a dynamic ground floor experience for pedestrians. We also want to address two additional complaints the neighborhood has had about the FB-UN2 zone: parking and setbacks. Parking – the FB-UN2 zone does not require parking. We have offered (on numerous occasions) to voluntarily add ample parking within the project via a development agreement with the City Council to lessen the impact of on-street parking in the neighborhood. In fact, we have voluntarily included parking on all of our projects in the FB-UN2 zone even though we haven’t been required to do so. Setbacks – a common complaint from the neighbors is the lack of setbacks required in the FB- UN2 zone. We continue to advocate for zero setbacks within urban-pedestrian areas for the following reasons: 1. There already exists a 30-ft setback between the property line and the street at 1515 S Main street. Adding more setback to this existing condition would amplify the unfriendly pedestrian experience that currently exists by exacerbating the wide chasm between street-walls along Main Street, as seen below. Wide streets with large setbacks is not good urban design for cities and prohibits pedestrian scale, comfort and vibrancy. 2. The eastern side of Main Street has zero setbacks and the draft ‘Ballpark Station Area Plan’ is recommending for the western side to also have zero setbacks to create a unified urban street wall (of which we agree entirely). Salt Lake City Urban Design Element pg 65: “ The street wall can be used to create a pleasant contrast to surrounding suburban residential areas. … A strong street wall helps facilitate pedestrian circulation as well as provide a sense of space and scale …” 3. Setbacks are not intended to be active open space for community use and actually do more to hurt vibrant pedestrian experiences in our opinion. In the CC zone only 1/3 of the setback area is required to be landscaped with vegetation which means the majority can be gravel or rocks which doesn’t invite open-space users. 4. Our intention is to add some retail space on the ground floor and the FB-UN2 zone is much more conducive to creating an enhanced retail experience than the CC zone. For instance, in the CC zone, surface parking lots are allowed, which kill the pedestrian and retail experience. Main Street can’t afford anymore surface parking lots. The FBUN-2 zone requires strong street walls, durable building materials and active ground floor uses which create a more enhanced retail and pedestrian experience than what the CC zone requires. The section of Main Street from 1300 S to 1700 S is dead. There is little-to-no pedestrian activity currently and as major landowners in the neighborhood it is our strong desire to revitalize this area through good urban design and retail activation to create a vibrant pedestrian experience, that is currently not found in this area. The CC zone is the wrong zone to encourage this type of revitalization for the reasons mentioned above. Thank you for your considering of our request. Sincerely, Stephen Alfandre Founding Principal – Urban Alfandre www.urbanalfandre.com February 3, 2022 RE: 1) Zoning Text Amendment; 2) zoning map amendment; and 3) master plan amendment for 1550 South Main Street Assemblage Summary • Urban Alfandre (UA) is the contract purchaser of an approximately 2 acre site with direct frontage on Main Street and Andrew Avenue (exact parcel numbers shown below). • UA is requesting to re-zone these parcels from CC to FBUN-2 and to be listed in Table 21A.27.050.C as a property that can achieve up to five stories and 65’ in height, with a voluntary development agreement to add off-street parking within the building and massing that is sensitive to the adjacent parcels and neighborhood. • We believe FBUN-2 parcels that are listed in Table 21A.27.050.C is the appropriate zone for the following reasons: o The height of the proposed zone (65 ft) allows for maximum flexibility to achieve the following design goals: 1) add sufficient off-street parking in the building; 2) design ground floor retail with appropriate height; o It is where we should be adding density – located within a 10 minute walk to the 1300 S TRAX station which allows residents to enjoy transportation optionality and not be dependent on a car o It conforms with the proposed Ballpark master plan of activation, retail, and density near transit and on major corridors • The current CC zone limits the height of our intended use to 45 ft which is insufficient for off-street parking and retail on the ground floor. • The current use of the Main Street Motel is one that brings significant and recurring crime to the neighborhood. The neighborhood stakeholders have all expressed strong desire to see this use go away. Our intended use of a mixed-use residential and retail building will activate the street and help make the entire neighborhood safer. www.urbanalfandre.com Report We are pleased to submit this application to amend the current zoning from CC to FBUN-2 with additional height at the properties highlighted below in blue, located at approximately 1550 S Main Street, which is currently the Main Street Motel. The parcel numbers are: 15132780200000, 15132780170000, 15132780120000, 15132780110000, 15132780120000, 15132780130000, 15132780140000 and the city-owned alley bifurcating these parcels. The purpose of this amendment is to redevelop this blighted, crime-ridden property into a mixed- use project that would add housing not typically found in this neighborhood and neighborhood- scaled commercial to this portion of Main Street, a major commercial thoroughfare, just blocks from downtown and a ½ mile to the Ballpark TRAX. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned is as follows: Our vision for this property is to rezone it from Commercial Corridor (CC) to FBUN-2 Corner Lot for the following reasons: 1) Proximity to TRAX and location on a prominent corner of Main St — a major corridor connecting into downtown. This property is within a ½ mile from the Ballpark TRAX stop, categorizing this location as a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). The following are benefits of successful Transit-Oriented Developments: Main St Motel Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), March 10, 2020 0 0.01 0.030.01 mi 0 0.03 0.050.01 km 1:1,387 The information depicted here is to be taken as an approximate fit in regards to the spatial position of the layers presented. This map is not intended to represent an actual field Survey of, nor establish the acutal relation between, any of the layers dep This map was created by the office of the Salt Lake County Assessor, in cooperation with the offices of Surveyor, Recorder, Auditor, and Information Services. Copyrigyht 2013, Assessor GIS. www.urbanalfandre.com • Create compact development within an easy walk of public transit and with sufficient density to support transit ridership • Establish a hierarchy of transportation which places the pedestrian first, bicycle second and auto third. • Create active places and livable communities that service daily needs and where people feel a sense of belonging and ownership. • Incorporate retail into a development if it is a viable use at the location. Ideally drawing customers both from both the TOD and a major street. • TOD strengthens urban development but also helps manage future regional growth by encouraging growth to occur where the existing infrastructure is best suited to address it. The benefits of this type of development include: o More residents living close to commercial areas to support a strong, local oriented economy. o This reduces the overall cost of development and reduces negative environmental impacts on air and water quality while creating community oriented public places. • By optimizing land use and accessibility, Transit-Oriented Development decreases traffic congestion, improves air quality and public health, lowers the cost of living, and makes opportunities more accessible. (http://tod.org/) • Encourage the stabilization and revitalization of existing neighborhoods, as new uses are designed to support existing neighborhood characteristics o The stabilization of these parcels is an important part of making this neighborhood safer to walk and take transit. 2) To add density and a mix of uses, in an appropriate scale, that contemplates future growth of adjacent properties within the current zoning. Five-story, well designed mixed- use buildings which are massed correctly, are appropriate for these parcels which are situated on a prominent corner of Main Street which is a major commercial corridor connecting the densest part of downtown, which is just a couple blocks away, to the heart of the Ballpark neighborhood. The neighborhood recently went through a zoning change to preserve single family homes on the interior streets to accommodate more density on the main corridors of Main Street and 1700 South. This proposal is compatible with this neighborhood objective. www.urbanalfandre.com (Image 1) Image 1 shows the transition of Main Street from Downtown, where our City’s densest buildings are found, just a couple of blocks north, to past 2100 South and the start of South Salt Lake. FBUN-2 will serve as a transition zone of gentle density between Downtown, the Ballpark Area which will become much more dense, according to the Ballpark Area Plan (Draft), and downtown South Salt Lake. The purpose of a Transition Area as described by the Salt Lake City TOD Documents is: • to provide a moderate level of land development intensity that incorporates the principles of sustainable transit oriented development. The transition area is intended to provide an important support base to the core area and transit ridership as well as buffer surrounding neighborhoods from the intensity of the core area. These areas reinforce the viability of the core area and provide opportunities for a range of housing types at different densities. Transition areas are generally located within a one-half (½) mile from the station platform, but may vary based on the character of the area. Transition areas typically serve the surrounding neighborhood; include a broad range of building forms that house a mix of compatible land uses. The minimum desired density is ten (10) dwelling units per acre. Commercial uses may include office, retail, restaurant and other commercial land uses that are necessary to create mixed use neighborhoods. Commercial uses can be clustered around intersections and along block faces to create neighborhood nodes. The zoning along this portion of Main Street is currently Commercial Corridor which allows up to 45’ in height through a Planned Development approval. With the growth trajectory of our city and the lack of housing options it is only a matter of time before adjacent properties are redeveloped to 45’. Site M a i n S t D o w n t o w n Ballpark Area Plan (Draft) ‘Heart of the Neighborhood’calls for heights up to 120’ www.urbanalfandre.com 3) Extra height creates more livability and housing opportunities: The current CC zoning allows up to 45’ through a Planned Development process. A rezone to FBUN-2 Corner Lot is only one story taller than what is currently allowed, however, the extra story and height allows for much more flexibility to add more housing types not typically found in this neighborhood, adequate onsite parking, and ground floor commercial with the appropriate ceiling heights to attract desired local retail tenants, while also creating a vibrant pedestrian experience. (Slate, a project our team developed in the Central 9th neighborhood in the same FBUN-2 zone, has off-street parking and appropriate ceiling heights for ground floor active commercial space The current zoning of CC isn’t the best fit for this portion of Main Street for the following reasons: 1. A maximum height of 45’ doesn’t allow the flexibility to add a material amount of housing units not typically found in the neighborhood, with proper ground floor ceiling heights for commercial space and provide enough off-street parking. 2. Setbacks are much larger than the east side of Main St causing an irregular urban wall and public realm. This zoning amendment will achieve the ‘Central Community’s Master Plan’ vision by: 1) Creating more livable communities and neighborhoods through the appropriate transition of multi-family housing and mixed land uses in designated areas a) This zoning amendment would achieve this by redeveloping this detrimental use into a multi-family, mixed-use project on Main Street, which is a major thoroughfare for automobiles, but also denser multifamily housing and commercial space, which would also make this neighborhood more livable for a wider range of people. www.urbanalfandre.com 2) To have pedestrians use transit and walk comfortably to services, shopping and recreational opportunities. a) It is important to leverage parcels on major thoroughfares to create smart density to support TRAX and BRT transportation systems. This site is a 10 minute walk to the 1300 South TRAX stop and is considered a transit-oriented site. This zoning amendment is appropriate to this location and will achieve city-wide master plan, housing and TOD goals by redeveloping it in a mixed-use, contextually sensitive way that promotes walkability and vibrancy along a major commercial thoroughfare just blocks from downtown. 3) To increase pedestrian accessibility by creating housing that supports the employment center of the downtown area. a) Leveraging this location, which is a 10 minute walk to TRAX, through creating more housing will increase pedestrian accessibility and transit accessibility that will support the employment center of downtown. 4) An enhanced built environment that encourages employees to work and live in the Central Community a) Adding housing types not typically found in this neighborhood, in a mixed-use setting, that creates a more vibrant and walkable streetscape, while providing more services within walking distance, creates a vibrant built environment which will attract more people to live and work in this neighborhood. This zoning amendment will achieve Salt Lake City Housing Affordability Priorities by: 1) Removing barriers which limit housing density, prohibit needed housing types or create excessive developer burden. a) This zoning amendment would achieve this by redeveloping this detrimental use into a multi-family, mixed-use project on Main Street and provide units that are not typically found in the neighborhood. www.urbanalfandre.com The above photos of recently delivered projects, Moda on Main and The Edith, which are larger townhome units, comprise most of the new housing stock in this neighborhood. The rezone would allow for something different — more efficient residential units above ground floor retail, which will deliver a more varied housing stock to the neighborhood. 2) Support the development of new or underutilized housing types that meet the unique needs of the City’s diverse population and improve housing choices into the future. a) The proposed rezone would provide more housing types not typically found in this neighborhood and in so doing, increase housing choices for a wider range of people in this neighborhood. 3) Promote transit-oriented development, walkable communities and models that decrease the need for cars or parking stalls. a) Leveraging this TOD site into a mixed-use project that increases the walkability of Main Street would accomplish this Priority. Ballpark Area Plan (Draft) • While we understand that the Ballpark Area Plan has not been officially adopted yet, we believe it’s important to plan for the future. This project is in the ‘Main Street Character Area’ of the recently released draft Ballpark Station Area Plan, of which is defined by the presence of small local businesses, a generally pleasant pedestrian and bike environment, and medium-density residential buildings. New development should focus on maintaining the scale, walkability and bikability of the neighborhood. o This project will implement the intent of the Main Street Character Area by: ▪ Creating ground floor commercial space for local businesses ▪ Creating a vibrant pedestrian experience through activation and design including: • Street trees • ADA accessible • Human scaled building frontages www.urbanalfandre.com • Pedestrian level street lighting • Store fronts, office windows, and windows on homes facing the street ▪ Enhancing the walkability and bikability of Main Street through design, gentle density and a mix of uses. • The Ballpark Area Plan (Draft) also calls out for reduced setbacks on the west side of Main Street to be equal with the setbacks on the east side of Main Street to create a more uniform urban wall and public realm. Our team is interested in executing a Development Agreement with the City to ensure the public benefits of off-street parking, human scaled street frontages and ground floor commercial space are incorporated in the new project. This request, if approved, will amend the zoning map, future land use map in the master plan and amend the text of the zoning ordinance. Kindest regards, James Alfandre Founding Principal Urban Alfandre, LLC 650 South 500 West #188 Salt Lake City, UT 84103 www.urbanalfandre.com The above is a precedent image to show an example of street activation and sensitivity to massing. 2 0 2 1 1 1 4 7 MAIN STREET LOFTSSALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 2021.12.08 01 S MAIN S T . AND R E W A V E CONTEXT AERIAL LOOKING NW SITE 2 0 2 1 1 1 4 7 MAIN STREET LOFTSSALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 2021.12.08 02 MAIN ST. @ ANDREW LOOKING SW MAIN ST. @ VAN BUREN LOOKING NW CONTEXT SITE SITE MAIN ANDREW MAINW VAN BUREN 2 0 2 1 1 1 4 7 MAIN STREET LOFTSSALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 2021.12.08 03 MASSING ANALYSIS CONTEXTUAL GOAL SMALLER SCALE STRATEGY BREAK DOWN FACADE LENGTH TO CREATE A SERIES OF SMALLER BUILDINGS 2 0 2 1 1 1 4 7 MAIN STREET LOFTSSALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 2021.12.08 04 CONTEXTUAL GOAL REDUCED MASS & HEIGHT STRATEGY SETBACK AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS TO DIVERSIFY BUILDING MASSES 2 OVER 3 5 STORIES 1 OVER 4 1 OVER 4 4 OVER 1REDUCED SCALE REDUCED SCALE MASSING ANALYSIS 2 0 2 1 1 1 4 7 MAIN STREET LOFTSSALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 2021.12.08 05 STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION ALIGNMENT WITH UNITS PROPORTION & SCALE PUBLIC REALM SEQUENCE TRANSITION TOWNHOMES URBAN COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIALCONTEXT RESIDENTIALCONTEXT TRANSITION TOWNHOMES MASSING ANALYSIS 2 0 2 1 1 1 4 7 MAIN STREET LOFTSSALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 2021.12.08 06 DESIGN APPROACH PRECEDENTS 2 0 2 1 1 1 4 7 MAIN STREET LOFTSSALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 2021.12.08 07 WAREHOUSE TYPOLOGY STRONG REPETITION GRID & MODULE ADAPTIVE REUSE CONTROLLED DISORDER AFFIXED ELEMENTS TRANSITION TOWNHOMES RESIDENTIALCONTEXT UNIFORM PRIMARY COLUMNS3’-8” BRICK MODULE B A S E M I D D L E T O P URBAN COMMERCIAL LOWER HEIGHT SMALLER MODULE HUMAN SCALE DETAILS RESIDENTIAL USE OUTWARD - PRIVACY LANDSCAPE TALLER HEIGHT LARGER GRID PATTERN STRONG RHYTHM DOMINANT FENESTRATIONS BUSINESS ORIENTED INWARD - INVITING HARDSCAPE DESIGN APPROACH 2 0 2 1 1 1 4 7 MAIN STREET LOFTSSALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 2021.12.08 08 P U B L I C R E A L M P R I V A T E R E A L M TRANSITION TOWNHOMES RESIDENTIALCONTEXT URBAN COMMERCIAL TRANSITION TOWNHOMES RESIDENTIALCONTEXT DESIGN APPROACH 2 0 2 1 1 1 4 7 MAIN STREET LOFTSSALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 2021.12.08 09 PRELIMINARY DESIGN ITERATION MAIN ST FACADE MODERN WAREHOUSE TYPOLOGY / ADAPTIVE REUSE LIGHTER TOP STRONG CORNER & CLEAR GRID LOBBY / LEASING / AMENITY AFFIXED ELEMENTS - SUSPENDED BALCONIES & CANOPIES POP-TOP / PENTHOUSE LANGUAGE RESIDENTIAL TYPOLOGY SMALLER MODULE FOR SMALL RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES SUSPENDED BALCONIES & CANOPIES 2 0 2 1 1 1 4 7 MAIN STREET LOFTSSALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 2021.12.08 10 PRELIMINARY DESIGN ITERATION ANDREW AVE. FACADE MODERN WAREHOUSE TYPOLOGY / ADAPTIVE REUSE 2 0 2 1 1 1 4 7 MAIN STREET LOFTSSALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 2021.12.08 11 CONTEXTUAL APPROACH SINGLE FAMILY HOME TYPOLOGY LOWER HEIGHT COVERED FRONT PORCH ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS SETBACK TO RESPECT RESIDENTIAL CONTEXT LANDSCAPE DESCENDING HEIGHT 2 0 2 1 1 1 4 7 MAIN STREET LOFTSSALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 2021.12.08 12 CONTEXTUAL APPROACH LOW DENSITYNEIGHBORHOOD LOWER BUILDING HEIGHT DESCENDING MASS PERMEABLE CORNER RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC REALM DESCENDING HEIGHT 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 12 Planning Commission – July 27, 2022 ATTACHMENT C: Property and Vicinity Photos Property at 1518 S Main containing a closed restaurant being used to package food items. The Main Street Motel at 1530 S Main Street Street view looking north along Main Street 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 13 Planning Commission – July 27, 2022 Duplex at 1515 S Richards & back of Main Street Motel Duplex at 1515 S Richards Street – 1 of 2 duplexes Existing alley through the properties - to be vacated Richards Street – Gated off at near project area. 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 14 Planning Commission – July 27, 2022 Back of duplex at 1515 S Richards Existing duplex at 1515 S Richards – 1 0f 2 duplexes Existing dwelling at 1540 S Main – to be removed Existing dwelling at 1546 S Main – to be removed 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 15 Planning Commission – July 27, 2022 ATTACHMENT D: Housing Loss Mitigation Report A copy of the Housing Loss Mitigation report, as required per Title 18.97 of City Code, signed by Blake Thomas, Director of Community & Neighborhoods on July 6, 2022, is included on the following pages of this report. PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Housing Loss Mitigation Report 1550 S Main St. Assemblage - Zoning Map Amendment 1518, 1530, 1540, 1546 S Main Street and 1515 S Richards Street Petitions PLNPCM2021-01191 & PLNPCM2022-00065 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Existing Conditions Urban Alfandre is requesting that the City amend the zoning map and master plan for seven (7) contiguous property parcels located at 1518, 1530, 1540, 1546 S Main Street and 1515 S Richards Street respectively. The applicant’s zoning amendment requests for the properties are as follows: • 1518, 1530, 1540, 1546 S Main Street o CC – Corridor Commercial to FB-UN2 – Form Based Urban Neighborhood • 1515 S Richards Street o R-1/5,000 to FB-UN2 – Form Based Urban Neighborhood The R-1/5000 property at 1515 S Richards contains two (2) duplexes. The City recognizes a total of four (4) existing housing units on this property per the Zoning Certificates on file. The properties at 1540 and 1546 S Main Street respectively contain one single-family dwelling each. Through this proposal, a total of six (6) existing housing units would be removed from the overall site. The intent would be to combine all parcels as well as the alley into one cohesive parcel under the new zoning in order to develop a mixed use development on the site. If the zoning map amendment request is approved, the applicant intends to replace the houses with new dwelling units within a multi-family/mixed use building. The site design of the new dwelling units is to be determined and submitted to the City on a later date. Proposed Zoning Map Amendment Nearly all of the City’s zoning districts allow some type of nonresidential uses, including the FB-UN2 zoning district. There is not a requirement in the FB-UN2 zone to include residential uses in new developments so essentially a development that includes no residential uses would be allowed. Because these applications are “petition(s) for a zoning change that would permit a nonresidential use of land,” a Housing Loss Mitigation Plan is required. Housing Loss Mitigation Plans are reviewed by the city’s Planning Director and the Director of Community and Neighborhoods. The plan includes a housing impact statement and a method for mitigating residential loss. To address section 18.97 of the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant intends to build replacement housing as their mitigation plan for rezoning the property. As a condition of approval, the applicant will either enter into a development agreement with the City or submit a land use application to develop the property that includes the replacement of the lost unit. If the applicant chooses to submit a land use application, the effective date of the associated zoning amendment ordinance would be triggered by the approval of that development application or building permit to build the replacement dwelling. Attachments A. Site Photos HOUSING IMPACT STATEMENT (Applicant and Staff narrative) Introduction Urban Alfandre is petitioning to rezone five parcels located at 1518, 1530, 1540, 1546 S Main Street and 1515 S Richards Street for re-development. Currently the properties are home to an older motel, 3 single family residences, and a “snack factory” (former restaurant being used to package convenience food items for resale elsewhere). The parcels are currently zoned as CC with the exception of 1515 S Richards St, which is zoned as R-1-5000. Urban Alfandre plans to construct a multi-family mixed use building which will provide additional housing for the area and new spaces for local retail or restaurant tenants Housing Mitigation Ordinance Compliance The Housing Mitigation Ordinance requires a housing impact statement which includes the following: 1. Identify the essential adverse impacts on the residential character of the area subject of the petition; Three of the 5 current parcels have single family residences, but the rezone would add a significant number of new residents to the neighborhood. The residential character of the area would be enhanced by the rezone. 2. Identify by address any dwelling units targeted for demolition, following the granting of the petition; a. 1540 S Main St has one unit that will be targeted for demolition b. 1546 S Main St has one unit that will be targeted for demolition c. 1515 S Richards St has 4 units of housing that will be targeted for demolition. 3. Separately for each dwelling unit targeted for demolition, state its current fair market value, if that unit were in a reasonable state of repair and met all applicable building, fire, and health codes; a. 1540 S Main St - According to Salt Lake County Records, the building and land are worth $210,700 b. 1546 S Main St - According to Salt Lake County Records, the building and land are worth $221,900 c. 1515 S Richards St - According to Salt Lake County Records, the building and land are worth $358,900 4.State the number of square feet of land zoned for residential use that would be rezoned or conditionally permitted to be used for purposes sought in the petition, other than residential housing and appurtenant uses; and 1515 S Richards St is the only parcel currently zoned for strictly residential and is 7840 SF. However, with the rezone that we are seeking, all the combined parcels area would be zoned for residential mixed use. The new total area that could be used for residential would be increased to 77,101 SF. 5.Specify a mitigation plan to address the loss of residentially zoned land, residential units, or residential character. Section 18.97.130 outlines three options for the mitigation of housing loss. These options are: A.Replacement housing, B.Fee based on the difference between housing value and replacement costs, C.Flat mitigation fee. Per the applicant: Urban Alfandre would propose to mitigate the residential loss by building replacement housing on the same parcels. The proposal would include over 200 new apartments. The petitioner chose option A, which addresses the change in zoning by providing replacement housing if the zoning map amendment is approved. Either a development agreement or approval of a land use or building permit application (that replaces the demolished unit) will be required as a condition of zoning amendment approval. Any proposed development agreement would be reviewed by the Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office and the City Council. FINDINGS The petition to rezone the properties at 1518, 1530, 1540, 1546 S Main Street and 1515 S Richards Street from CC and R-1/5000 to FB-UN2 is not anticipated to have a negative impact on the City’s existing housing stock. While the petitioner has proposed demolishing a total of six (6) existing housing units, they plan to add additional housing units to the property. The petitioner will be legally required to replace the demolished units either through a development agreement or through approval of land use or building permit application. DETERMINATION OF MITIGATION Based on the findings outlined in this report, the Director of Community and Neighborhoods has determined the applicant will have complied in a satisfactory manner with the Housing Loss Mitigation standards outlined by Title 18.97 Blake Thomas Director of Community and Neighborhoods Date: July 6, 2022 Subject Property – 1515 S Richards – Duplex 1 Subject Property – Duplex 1 – Back view Subject Property – 1515 S Richards – Duplex 2 Both duplexes at 1515 S Richards Street shown Subject Property – 1540 S Main Street - SFD Subject Property – 1546 S Main Street - SFD 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 16 July 27, 2022 ATTACHMENT E: Zoning District Comparison CC (Corridor Commercial District) Purpose Statement: The purpose of the CC Corridor Commercial District is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive commercial dev elopment with a local and regional market area along arterial and major collector streets while promoting compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods through design standards. This district provides economic development opportunities through a mix of land uses, including retail sales and services, entertainment, office and residential. Safe, convenient and inviting connections that provide access to businesses from public sidewalks, bike paths and streets are necessary. Access should follow a hierarchy that p laces the pedestrian first, bicycle second and automobile third. This district is appropriate in areas where supported by applicable master plans. The standards are intended to promote a safe and aesthetically pleasing environment to all users. R-1/5000 – Single-Family Residential Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide for conventional single-family residential neighborhoods on lots not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe a nd comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. FB-UN2 – Form Based Urban Neighborhood Purpose Statement: The purpose of the form based districts is to create urban neighborhoods that provide the following: 1. People oriented places; 2. Options for housing types; 3. Options in terms of shopping, dining, and fulfilling daily needs within walking distance or conveniently located near mass transit; 4. Transportation options; 5. Access to employment opportunities within walking distance or close to mass transit; 6. Appropriately scaled buildings that respect the existing character of the neighborhood; 7. Safe, accessible, and interconnected networks for people to move around in; and 8. Increased desirability as a place to work, live, play, and invest through higher quality form and design. Context Description: The form based districts are intended to be utilized in areas with the following characteristics: 1. Street, Block, And Access Patterns: A regular pattern of blocks surrounded by a traditional grid of streets that provide mobility options and connections for pedestrians, bicyclists, and automobiles. Blocks include sidewalks separated from vehicle travel lanes by a landscaped park strip. Front yards are landscaped or include active, outdoor uses. 2. Building Placement And Location: Residential buildings are generally located close to the sidewalk with a small, transitional, semipublic space, such as a landscaped front yard, that is consistent along the block face. Buildings along arterials are located close to the sidewalk with parking to the side or rear of building. 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 17 Planning Commission – July 27, 2022 3. Building Height: Building heights on local streets are relatively low and consistent with existing building heights with little variation. Buildings located on arterial streets are generally taller. 4. Mobility: A balance between pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists exist in the area, and residents are well connected to other parts of the city. Intent Of Form Based Districts: 1. Statement Of Intent: Form based districts are intended to provide zoning regulations that focus on the form of development, the manner in which buildings are oriented toward public spaces, the scale of development, and the interaction of uses within the city. Form based districts provide places for people to live, work, and play within a close proximity. Regulations within form based districts place emphasis on the built environment over land use. 2. How To Use This Chapter: Form based districts emphasize the form, scale, placement, an d orientation of buildings. Each subdistrict includes a table of permitted building forms and specific development regulations for each building form. The first step is to identify which subdistrict the property is located in, and then identify what building forms are permitted, and finally what standards apply to the specific building form. All new developments and additions to existing buildings shall comply with the specific requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 23 -16, 2016) FB-UN2 urban neighborhood 2 subdistrict: Generally includes buildings up to four (4) stories in height, with taller buildings located on street corner parcels, which may contain a single use or a mix of commercial, office, and residential uses. Development regulations are based on building type, with the overall scale, form, and orientation of buildings as the primary focus. Zoning District Comparison Table – CC and R-1/500 versus the proposed FB-UN2 Parameter CC Zone R-1/5000 FB-UN2 - Proposed Allowed Uses Multi-family and mixed use developments, gas stations, alcohol uses, animal cremation, art gallery, food production, various commercial retail and service uses, assisted living and support uses, boarding house, funeral home, crematoriums, motel uses, offices, school uses, commercial parking, recreation, storage uses, movie theater, automobile sales, service, repairs and rentals among others. Mostly single- family detached uses. Multi- family and commercial uses are not allowed. Some government and municipal and school uses allowed as conditional. Dwellings to include single, multi-family and others, mixed use developments, alcohol uses, various commercial retail and service uses, assisted living and support uses, assisted living and support uses, boarding house, funeral home, clinic and medical uses, motel uses, offices, school uses and others. 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 18 Planning Commission – July 27, 2022 Maximum Building Height 30-feet by right 45-feet through Design Review 28-feet to ridge for pitched roofs or 20-feet for flat roofed buildings. 50-feet for a multi- family or mixed-use form. A variety of other uses are allowed and the height limit varies. In the absence of a specific development proposal, the applicant could build any of the allowed uses under the new zoning if it were to be approved. Front/Corner/ Side/Rear Yard Setbacks Front and corner side yards: 15 feet Interior side – None Rear yard: 10 feet Front: 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. Interior side: Corner lots – 4- feet Interior side for Interior lots – 4 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other. Rear yard: 25% of lot depth or 20-feet, whichever is less. No minimum on front and corner side. Maximum 10 feet. Side: 15-feet along a side property line that that abuts a residential zoning district less than 35- feet otherwise none. Rear: Minimum 20 feet along rear adjacent to residential less than 35-feet. Required Build to Line Not applicable Not applicable Minimum of 50% of street facing facade shall be built to the minimum setback line Upper Level Step Back None required Not applicable. Buildings shall be stepped back 1 additional foot for every foot of building height above 30' along a side or rear property 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 19 Planning Commission – July 27, 2022 line adjacent to FB- UN1 or any residential zoning district that has a maximum building height of 35' or less, unless the building is set back from the property line 45' or more. Buffer Yard Required if abutting single-family residential Specific landscaping requirements and trees are required. Not applicable. No specific buffer required but a 20 foot rear yard is required and upper building step backs are required when located adjacent to residential. Lot Size Minimum 10,000 SF 5,000 SF but cannot exceed 7,000 SF 4,000 SF Minimum Lot Width 75-feet D Not specified 30-feet Landscaped Yards 15-feet required on all front and corner side yards. Additional landscaping required is if additional building height is allowed. Required yards must all be maintained as landscaped yards. Open Space Area: A minimum of ten percent (10%) of the lot area must be open space area which may include landscaped yards, patio, dining areas, common balconies, rooftop gardens, and other similar outdoor living spaces. Off Street Parking & Loading (21A.44.030) The CC zone requires the following for multi-family uses: 2 parking spaces for each dwelling unit containing 2 or more bedrooms 1 parking space for 1 bedroom and efficiency dwelling 1/2 parking space for single room occupancy dwellings (600 square foot maximum) Additional parking will be required for the commercial Two parking spaces for each single-family residences. Additional spaces required for other uses when allowed. No parking minimum specified or required. 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 20 Planning Commission – July 27, 2022 aspects of the project. This varies depending on the use. General Design Standards: • Ground floor uses • Percentage glass • Building materials • Entrance Requirements • Balconies • Open space requirements No general design standards or requirements if building to 30-feet. If requesting Design Review, additional elements may be requested. None specified for commercial or multi-family as they are not allowed. • Ground floor uses required • 60% of ground floor facing façade must be glass • 15% on all upper floors on street facing facades. • 70% of any street facing building facade must be clad in high quality, durable, natural materials • Specific entrance requirements based on building type. • Balconies required on all street-facing units • Open Space Required: A minimum of ten percent (10%) of the lot area must be open space area. 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 21 Planning Commission – July 27, 2022 ATTACHMENT F: Review Standards MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS State Law, Utah Code Annotated, Title 10 Chapter 9a, requires that all municipalities have a master plan. However, there is no specific criteria relating to master plan amendments. The City does not have specific criteria relating to master plan amendments. However, City Code Section 21A.02.040 – Effect of Adopted Master Plans or General Plans addresses this issue in the following way: All master plans or general plans adopted by the planning commission and city council for the city, or for an area of the city, shall serve as an advisory guide for land use decisions. Amendments to the text of this title or zoning map should be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the applicable adopted master plan or general plan of Salt Lake City. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(1-4), 1995) In this case, the master plan is being amended in order to provide consistency between the Central Community Master Plan and the proposed zoning designation of the subject properties. Specifically, the request facilitates a rezoning of the property to a district that will allow different uses on the property. State Law does include a required process in relation to a public hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission in relation to a master plan amendment. The required process and noticing requirements have been met. ZONING MAP 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 to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the following: 1. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; The applicant is seeking a zoning map amendment to redevelop the larger site for a mixed -use/multi- family type development. In addition, a master plan amendment is being sought because the proposed zoning amendment is not consistent with the future land use map in the Central Community Master Plan. Plan Salt Lake The proposed changes are supported by the general principals and initiatives found in Plan Salt Lake. The proposed zoning amendment is also in line with growth and housing goals outlined in the city’s 5 - year housing plan, Growing SLC. These goals include increasing medium density housing and providing more housing types and options in terms of unit size and price while directing grow th to areas with existing infrastructure. At the same time, the proposal conflicts with policies aimed at the preservation of existing neighborhoods and discourages the expansion of multi -family uses in areas that are predominantly low-density or single-family in nature. Community Plan and Small Area Plan The proposed amendments are in line with some of the goals and policies in the Central Community Master Plan and in conflict with others. In addition, the City is currently developing a new plan for this area, the Ballpark Station Area Plan. That plan has not yet been adopted but is important to note in the overall big picture for the area. Overall, Staff finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 22 Planning Commission – July 27, 2022 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. The proposal helps to foster the city’s residential development by allowing additional housing options to be established. The proposal would help to promote the convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants. The proposal helps to implement aspects of the City’s adopted plans and policies as discussed above. 21A.02.030 Purpose and Intent The proposal supports the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Title 21A.02.030. The proposal helps to foster the city’s residential development by allowing additional housing options to be established. The proposal helps to implement aspects of the City’s adopted plans and policies Zoning District Purpose The proposal would support the purposes of the proposed FB-UN2 zoning district by helping to create people oriented places, creating options for housing and commercial spaces and promoting higher quality form and design. 21A.50.010 Purpose Statement – Amendments The general purpose statement for amendments which includes zoning map amendments codified in Chapter 21A.50-010 follows: The purpose of this chapter is to provide standards and procedures for making amendments to the text of this title and to the zoning map. This amendment process is not intended to relieve particular hardships nor to confer special privileges or rights upon any person, but only to make adjustments necessary in light of changed conditions or changes in public policy. The proposal is intended to facilitate redevelopment of a site for additional housing and commercial spaces that will benefit the neighborhood and City. While the requested change could arguably be cast in the light of “benefitting the developer”, in the big picture of City needs and policies, the zoning change is justified. Staff finds that the proposed changes are not in conflict with the purpose statement for amendments as highlighted above. 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties; Concerns have been raised through the public outreach process in relation to the impact of the zone change on adjacent properties This is discussed further in the Key Considerations section of this report under Consideration 2: Neighborhood Compatibility & Anticipated Impacts and also in Consideration 3: Consideration of Alternate Zoning Districts. While staff finds that while the proposed zoning change could lead to additional impacts on neighboring properties, it is not substantially more than what could be experienced if the property was re-developed under the current zoning allowances in place. 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; The property is not located within an overlay district. This standard is not applicable. 5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. In the absence of a specific development proposal, few comments were provided by other City Divisions and Department. Comments from other City Departments and Divisions are included in Attachment H. 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 23 Planning Commission – July 27, 2022 The city has the ability to provide services to the subject property. The existing infrastructure may need to be replaced or upgraded at the owner’s expense in order to meet specific City requirements. If the rezone is approved, any new use will need to comply with the applicable requirements for redevelopment of the site. Public Utilities and other departments will review any specific development proposals submitted at that time and additional comments and requirements may apply to that development proposal. ALLEY VACATIONS 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 on-site 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 or 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. 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. Policy Considerations the Applicant is Proposing to Meet: Policy Consideration C – Urban Design Policy Consideration B – Public Safety The policy consideration of Urban Design and Public Safety are the driving factors for this request. The applicant argues that the alley does not contribute as a positive urban design element and that the property would be better used as part of their future development. The applicants also argue that the alley contributes to crime in the area. Although no substantive reports in support of the alley contributing to crime have been provided, officers from the SLCPD in community meetings have reported that the motel property in general and the alley serves as a problem area in the community. The applicants’ narrative found in Attachment C outlines the reason for the request. Chapter 14.52.030 specifies that “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;” The applicant’s petition has received signatures from six (6) of the eight (8) property owners who abut the alley. Finding: Staff finds that at least one policy consideration has been sufficiently met in order to process the petition and that the 75% petition signature and noticing requirements have been met. 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 24 Planning Commission – July 27, 2022 Salt Lake City Code, Section 14.52.030B: Processing Petitions – 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: Factor Finding Rationale 1. The City Police Department, Fire Department, Transportation Division, and all other relevant City Departments and Divisions have no objection to the proposed disposition of the property; Complies Staff requested input from pertinent City Departments and Divisions. Comments were received from Public Utilities and Engineering. The Engineering Department does not support the request while Public Utilities has no objections. Part of the objections of Engineering concerned the possible location of utilities underground in the alley. Public Utilities indicated that there may be some water lines but did not have concerns. Since the site consists of multiple parcels to be combined, the issue of utilities and any required relocation will be dealt with on an individual development proposal under consideration. Individual department comments are included in Attachment H. 2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; Complies The proposed alley closure satisfies at least one policy consideration in order for the petition to be processed. 3. The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property; Complies Vacation of the alley would not impact parking or sole access to any property. The applicant owns or has under contract the majority of the parcels that abut the alley and is looking to integrate the alley property into a future development. 4. The petition will not result in any property being landlocked; Complies No properties would be rendered landlocked by this proposal. 5. 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 Complies The petitioner is requesting the vacation of a platted segment of alley in order to incorporate the property into a new development for the property. There is no identified future use or need for the alley. City documents and policies do not speak to the future use or closure of alleys in this area 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 25 Planning Commission – July 27, 2022 which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses; of the City. Closing of the alley will not result in uses that are contrary to any City policy. 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 12 months of issuance of the building permit; Complies No abutting property owners have opposed the alley vacation. No applications for a permit have been made. 7. The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and Complies The applicant is requesting closure of an existing alley. The continuation of the alleyway to the north is intact and not a part of this petition. The subject alley does not pass fully through the block between Andrew Avenue and Van Buren so it is essentially a segment of alley. Since there is no continuation to the alley, for all intents and purposes this remaining segment would act as an “entire alley” so this factor has been met. 8. The alley is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. Complies The alley is not necessary to access the rear of the existing residences. The petition generally meets the policy considerations and factors considered for an alley vacation. While the Engineering Department indicated that they opposed the request, their objections did not take into account the overall re -development of the site which will likely necessitate the relocation or removal of all utilities on the existing site. As such, Planning Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a positive request to City Council for the Alley Vacation. 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 26 Planning Commission – July 27, 2022 ATTACHMENT G: Public Process & Comments Public Notice, Meetings, Comments The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposed project since the applications were submitted: • February 9, 2022 – The Ballpark Community Council and Midtown District Community Council were sent the required 45-day notice for recognized community organizations. The letter included information about the Online Open House being held during the comment period. • February 9, 2022 - Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. The notice included information about the Online Open House. • February 9, 2022 – The project was posted to the Online Open House webpage. The Open House webpage was online from February 9, 2022 until March 30, 2022. • March 3, 2022 – Staff attended an online meeting held by the Ballpark CC in order to answer questions about the project and required processes. • May 23, 2022 – Staff sent out a notice postcard to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the development informing them of changes to the proposal, specifically that the request for a text amendment to allow additional building height was no longer being proposed by the applicant. Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included: • July 14, 2022 o Public hearing notice signs posted on the properties • July 14, 2022 o Public hearing notice mailed o Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division list serve Public Input: Staff received approximately 25 comments via email about the proposal as well as an official letter from the Ballpark CC and one other letter from the community. The redacted comments received as well as any letters are included on the following pages of this report. The majority of comments indicated opposition to the proposed rezoning. It should however be noted that the comments received came in relation to the original proposal which has since been revised by the applicant. This does not represent a dismissal of public comments by Staff, it is merely intended as a notation that the proposal did change between when the comments were made and the final version was being considered by staff. This is explained in more detail below. As a general theme, while most residents agreed that the current motel and properties created issues in the community with crime and other activities, and that a change would be welcomed, there was concern about the proposed height and scale of any future development on the site. It should be noted that the original proposal included a text amendment to the FB-UN2 district allow an additional 15-feet of building height on these properties up to 65-feet. The applicant has 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 27 Planning Commission – July 27, 2022 since modified the proposal and eliminated the request for additional building height. The current proposal is for FB-UN2 as it exists which would allow development up to 50 feet in height. On May 23, 2022, Planning Staff sent out a supplemental notice postcard to all property owners and residents with 300-feet of the subject properties informing them of changes to the proposal and the elimination of the request for additional height. Staff received two (2) additional emailed comments in support of the revised request, both in support of the proposal. Public Comments and Letters Received by Planning Staff The following pages contain the letters and email comments received by Planning Staff in relation to this proposal. March 30, 2022 To David Gellner and Members of the Planning Commission: On behalf of the Board of the Ballpark Community Council, I am writing to express our opposition to the proposals to: (1) rezone the properties that comprise the 1550 S. Main Street Assemblage—the seven contiguous properties that include the current Main Street Motel: 1518, 1530, 1540, 1546 S Main Street and 1515 S Richards Street to FB-UN2 with additional height (PLNPCM2021-01191), and (2) amend the Master Plan to change the future land use on the Central Community Master Plan. (PLNPCM2022-00065) We support the third proposal for an alley vacation (PLNPCM2022-00086), a request to vacate and close the platted alley to incorporate the area as private property. This proposal is essentially irrelevant at present, as the alley has been gated and closed for years. But until this area of the Ballpark neighborhood can be made safe, we support continuing to close off the alley. The alley borders the properties that host the notorious Main Street Motel, which over the past several years has been a public safety blight on our neighborhood. Most recently, this past Thursday, March 24th the Main Street Motel was the site of a standoff between Salt Lake Police SWAT and John Fraire, an armed suspect with warrants issued for his arrest. Unfortunately, this is not the only time armed fugitives have used the surrounding alleys to evade police in this year alone. We are also concerned that when the Ballpark Community Council reached out to Urban Alfandre in August and September 2021 about the possibility of submitting a joint Capital Improvement Project to improve the alley adjacent to their planned project Gabbot’s Row, 40 units of housing a block north of their current proposal, the developer declined. As community advocates, of course we want to see the Main Street Motel gone, but asking us to choose between that motel and a 65-foot 2-acre monolith of rental units built up to the sidewalk is a false choice. The Ballpark Community Council hosted the applicant, Stephen and James Alfandre from Urban Alfandre at the joint Ballpark/Central 9th Community Council meeting, held over Zoom on Thursday, March 3, 2022. Over 40 community members attended to learn about the proposal. Following the meeting, a discussion and vote was held among the members of the Board of the Ballpark Community Council, with the majority opposing the proposal. Several community members have reached out to Board members, with the vast majority also opposing the rezone. Community and Board members share common concerns: that the height of 65 feet is out of scale with anything else on the block, and eliminating side and front yard setback requirements would remove possible greenspace and not serve the public interest. One community member documented housing recently constructed in Salt Lake City built up to the sidewalk, noting it as an example of a negative pedestrian experience we wouldn’t want replicated in our own neighborhood (see photos). The proposed height of the rezone is out of scale with what is described in the Central Community Master Plan’s subsection on "the People’s Freeway neighborhood" (what the Ballpark neighborhood was officially called at the time this Master Plan was approved). The Master Plan specifies that the area "between 1300 and 1700 South from 200 West to Main Street” as being Medium/High-Density Residential... “Medium/high-density residential areas have multi-story residential structures built at a mid- rise level of three to four stories." Three to four stories is consistent with the current zoning of Commercial Corridor, not with allowing buildings up to 65 feet. The Master Plan also states in a subsection labelled "Issues within the Peoples Freeway neighborhood, Residential" that a goal should be to “improve infrastructure and landscaping of commercial and industrial areas." Removing setback requirements and therefore removing landscaping—what the applicant is proposing and what would be allowed in FB-UN2—is completely incompatible with the stated goal of improving landscaping. While the Ballpark Station Area Plan is still being revised and reviewed, these proposed new heights are in conflict with the current draft of the Station Area Plan. In it, "The Main Street Character Area is defined by the presence of small local businesses, a generally pleasant pedestrian and bike environment, and medium-density residential buildings. New development should focus on maintaining the scale, walkability, and bikeability of the neighborhood." The 65-foot tall building proposed in this project would be several stories taller than anything currently located on Main Street between 1300 South and 1700 South, therefore, would not be maintaining the scale. Would this therefore mean that all other properties in the Main Street Character area would be compared to a new 65-foot building? We certainly hope not. During the public engagement sessions for the Station Area Plan, Ballpark residents learned that according to the 2019 Salt Lake City Public Lands Needs Assessment, much of the Ballpark Station Area is identified as a High Need area. Central City’s level of service is 2.8 park acres per 1,000 population, as compared to a city-wide level of service of 3.5 city- owned and managed park acres per 1,000 population. Any further reduction in our neighborhood's greenspace would not serve the public interest. Front and side yards are part of greenspace. Peer-reviewed academic research suggests that front yard spaces are the most important spaces for neighbors to socialize and community-build. For example, in "Importance of the Residential Front Yard For Social Sustainability: Comparing Sense of Community Levels in Semi-private-public Open Spaces" by Abu Yousuf Swapan, Joo Hwa Bay, and Dora Marinova, published in Journal of Green Building, front yards were rated as the most important outdoor space out of 13 possible outdoor spaces in response to the question, "In a comfortable weather condition, in which outdoor spaces do you most get to know other people within your neighborhood?" The study concludes that front yards act as semi-private-public spaces where people enjoy important activities and their physical design should accommodate the need for social interactions, identity creation, and the development of a sense of community. Given the high level of renter-occupied properties in the Ballpark neighborhood (85% compared to 15% of owner-occupied properties), there is a high degree resident turnover and forming long-lasting social bonds between neighbors can be challenging. Providing opportunities to develop a sense of community is very important to invested neighborhood residents, and in no way do we want to endorse reducing the physical spaces in the Ballpark neighborhood where those interactions happen. We also encourage our Planning Division and elected officials to see the benefit in incentivizing missing middle owner- occupied housing. Continuing to fill the Ballpark neighborhood with a disproportionate amount of rental housing units will in turn continue to politically disenfranchise the neighborhood. As a community, we echo fundamental concerns about the FB-UN2 zone expressed by other community advocates, Cindy Cromer of the Central City neighborhood and Paul Johnson of the Central 9th neighborhood: “The FB-UN2 zone is dysfunctional and should not be used anywhere. This rezoning would be a huge gift to the property owner. In return, the City would gain an increased tax base and more market rate housing. Those gains would occur at the expense of the surrounding small-scale investors, otherwise known as homeowners.” – Cindy Cromer “FB-UN2 started as an experiment in what is now the Central 9th neighborhood of Salt Lake City… and has proven to be flawed and unhealthy for the vibrant community we strive to achieve in Central 9th. As with any experiment at some point you must evaluate the results, fix problems, and address unintended consequences which become recognizable over time…FB-UN2 allows too much by right and removes the community from most planning discussion or participation, discourages greenspace, and is proposed to be made potentially even denser/taller if the proposed Affordable Housing Incentives program is implemented as described. The proposed overlay would allow up to 3 additional stories, meaning an 8-story building could be built by right in FB-UN2 zoned areas.” – Paul Johnson Finally, if a rezone were to occur despite our objections and the objections of other community members, it absolutely should be tied to a developer agreement. By rezoning this property, the city would essentially be endowing it with substantially greater monetary value. In exchange for hosting more density, the City and the surrounding neighborhood should receive public benefits like green space, family units, affordability, and/or ground floor commercial space with genuine streetscape engagement that would serve as legitimate community spaces—not merely ground floor laundry rooms, private gym space, a rental office, bike storage, mail rooms, etc. Thank you for including the Ballpark Community Council’s input on this proposal. As community member Sach Combs stated during our March Community Council meeting, we would challenge the developer to accomplish their goals while still meeting the current zoning on the properties. Sincerely, Amy J. Hawkins, Chair of the Ballpark Community Council Dear Mr. Gellner: We the undersigned are against the rezone of the Main Street Motel and surrounding properties . We are composed of long-term residents who desperately want the hotel redeveloped but are very concerned about the developer's request to change the rezone. Below are our shared beliefs : 1. Zoning Map Amendment and Master Plan Amendment -Opposed. We feel that the current Commercial Corridor zoning is still the most appropriate size and scale for this area . We are opposed for the following reasons : a) Although the Ballpark Area Station Master Plan has not been officially adopted by the City , it is expected to be adopted. This proposal does not meet the definition of the Main Street Character Area for medium density residential buildings and for maintaining the "scale, walkability, and bike ability of the neighborhood". Furthermore , the proposal does not meet the definition of Future Land Use Area Descriptions for this specific part of the Main Street Area . "The area between Major Street and the recently down-zoned residential area should be considered for redevelopment into a medium density area that utilizes current building scale and massing to guide future development. New buildings in the area should be considered for redevelopment at a scale comparable to the surrounding area with front doors on Main Street, stoops, and yards ." b) The proposed development has single-fam ily homes on the entire south boundary of the property, both on Ma i n Street and on Van Buren Avenue . The boundary on the north is also single family re sidenti al on And rew Avenue, other than the Fa ith Pentecostal Church, which is most of the west boundary of the development. The development would directly affect these residences ; imagine having an apartment building next to your single- family home that is three times the size of your home. c) We strongly opposed the rezone because it would eliminate setbacks. The combination of no setbacks and a 65-foot building in a residential neighborhood is concerning. Andrew's Avenue (the north side of the project) has a tiny sidewalk/park strip and with zero setback we believe this side of the street would lose all walkability. The Ballpark district is already lacking in greenspace and has less greenspace than anywhere in the city. Setbacks not only provide green space but allow for people to gather and for retail space to offer services outdoors. d) Other new developments on Main Street (including the M 15 townhomes Main Street and Kensington Avenue and the Moda on Main townhomes at 1566 S. Main Street) have been able to create good, attractive and v iable new developments including both setbacks and garages, within the existing CC zoning . 2. Alley Vacation -In Favor. The undersigned feel that the alley is unknown , unused , and already inaccessible. It has been blocked and essentially abandoned for years. The alley should be vacated by the City and any utility right-of-ways should be abandoned if the utilities are moved underground for this or other future development of this parcel. Thank you for including the Ballpark community members' input on this proposal. Sincerely, Clayton Taylor & Shelbie Mecham (Homeowners) . Richards Street Thomas Lee Jennings & Pat Jennings (Homeowners) Richards Street Timothy Jennings-Hill (Homeowner) . Richards Street Kimberly Atwood, (Homeowner) Richards Street Terrell Bodily, (former Homeowner/now renting) S. Richards Street Brian S . Whaley, (Homeowner) Merrimac Avenue Pablo Dario Pinet (Homeowner) Richards Street Viviana Ramirez, (Homeowner) Richards Street /Le l( e1 ' Mo r 'i' .v"'-(_ /f-0 fV1. e o -w ~ )r II 5 J f ~ SL C ~Eo~6t. ~TT ~ ( ~IME WNt:µ_} s.jeferSovt St , ~LC ~115 1 Gellner, David From:Amy J. Hawkins <> Sent:Thursday, March 24, 2022 4:52 PM To:Stephen Alfandre Cc:James Alfandre; Gellner, David; Midtown District Subject:(EXTERNAL) Re: Main street motel rezone - ballpark letter of support Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Hello Stephen, Thank you for reaching out and hosting a community engagement session. I have polled the Board of the Ballpark Community Council, and this proposal doesn't have majority support among the Board members. Therefore, we can't provide you with a letter of support. Two of the six community members who attended your community engagement session contacted me after the session to express their opposition to the rezone proposal. They expressed concerns about both increased height and the elimination of setback requirements in FB‐UN2 zoning. I agree with the residents who believe that eliminating setback requirements would be unfortunate for all of the properties that would be included on this re‐zone, and I think it would also set an unfortunate precedent for Main Street. Our neighborhood already has the least amount of greenspace in Salt Lake City, and I don't believe that any further reduction in our neighborhood's greenspace serves the public interest. Front and side yards are part of greenspace. Peer‐reviewed research suggests that front yard spaces are the most important spaces for neighbors to socialize and community‐build. For example, in "Importance of the Residential Front Yard For Social Sustainability: Comparing Sense of Community Levels in Semi‐private‐public Open Spaces" front yards were rated as the most important outdoor space out of 13 possible outdoor spaces in response to the question "In a comfortable weather condition, in which outdoor spaces do you most get to know other people within your neighborhood?" The study concludes that front yards act as semi‐private‐public spaces where people enjoy important activities and their physical design should accommodate the need for social interactions, identity creation, and the development of a sense of community. Providing opportunities to develop a sense of community is very important to our neighborhood residents, and in no way do we want to endorse reducing the physical spaces in the Ballpark neighborhood where those interactions happen. Best regards, Amy J. Hawkins, PhD Chair, Ballpark Community Council facebook.com/BallparkCC/ ‐‐‐ As per official University of Utah guidance, please note: I am Amy J. Hawkins; I am a Ph.D.‐trained researcher and full‐time faculty member at the University of Utah School of Medicine in the Department of Biochemistry, but I am writing on my personal behalf and not on behalf of the university. On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 2:16 PM Stephen Alfandre < wrote: Amy, 2 We had a very productive community work‐session on Thursday of last week. 6 neighbors/property owners showed up to give input into our plans (see attached sign‐in sheet below). The main requests from the community are as follows: Encourage outdoor dining and a great pedestrian experience with the retail Parking ‐ make sure there is sufficient off‐street parking Neighborhood character sensitivity ‐ make sure to be sensitive to the houses to the south fronting Van Buren street and add appropriate scale to transition to the larger massing. We didn't get much pushback on the height. We showed a map of the area with the 7 story building fronting main (where Penny Ann's cafe is) and we showed the projected height of the new ballpark area plan and how we will be lower in height than both of those bookends. It seemed as though creating a great retail/pedestrian experience and off‐ street parking were the two main desires. Many of the attendees really wanted retail fronting main street to bring more eyes and activity to the street and to bring more customers to the area to help the existing businesses. James and I plan to incorporate all of these comments into a development agreement that requires us to fulfill these wishes which won't happen until the City Council stage. We aren't required to do this but we are voluntarily electing to add these features to make a better development for the community. We are writing to request a letter of support from the Ballpark Community Council. Is this something you can provide? We are happy to meet with you to discuss these plans in greater detail. Stephen ‐‐ Stephen Alfandre Founding Principal - Urban Alfandre 1 Gellner, David From:B Davis < Sent:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 10:14 AM To:Gellner, David; Mano, Darin Subject:(EXTERNAL) 1550 Main Street Assemblage/Petition # PLNPCM2021-01191 and PLNPCM2022-00065 & 00086 Dear David I would like to comment on and speak in favor of the above. As you know I was chair of the Ballpark Community Council for around 10 years or so up until about 3 years ago. I own property, both commercial and some residential rentals in the Ballpark CC. I also own and operate 3 small businesses in the same. Being quite familiar with the area, and during my tenure as Chair, I realized that the area was on the brink of some positive and transformative changes. In response I wrote a document titled A Vision for the Ballpark Neighborhood ‐ a Model Transit Oriented Community (AVFTBNAMTOC). It suggested and initiated numerous significant projects in the area, many of which have been adopted. A very significant one is as follows: 1) West Temple Downzone. What was referred to as the ‘residential core’ defined as West Temple along with the east/west side streets from 1300 South to 2100 South. This area contained the vast bulk of the single family homes in the area. A very significant percentage of it was actually zoned RMF 35 and RMF 45. The desire of the CC and neighborhood was to preserve this large and contiguous island of single family homes. It was not to prevent the development of adjacent surrounding areas such as Main St. It was not an anti‐development proposal and actually stated that in the preamble. It was merely a desire to preserve the existing single family homes. There is also some larger higher density development on West Temple such as the Taylor Springs/Taylor Gardens and Fletcher Court. It was successfully adopted by City Council and preserved 191 single family homes in the area. It was the largest downzone in SLC history by a factor of 10! One of the things that was specifically left out of this proposal was any single family homes on Main St. This was for a couple of reasons. First we wanted a petition that would pass. There numerous single family homes on Main Street but the most of them were being used as commercial purposes. I felt that this would generate opposition and possibly doom the proposal. Was using the concept of “don’t sacrifice the good for the perfect”! Second we realized that development would be coming to the area. The north/south routes in the area are State St, Main St, West Temple, 200 West and 300 West. Lets look at these routes in more detail. State Street ‐ it was a high traffic volume State Owned route which to this day is mainly commercial activities including some institutional activities such as SLCC and the County Complex. West Temple ‐ with the rezone it was envisioned and this is the area that would retain the existing small scale development ‐ mainly the existing single family homes. 200 West is the Trax line 300 West is another major commercial corridor on a much larger scale compared to State St. This leaves Main Street and lets remember we are talking about ‘Main Street’!. First let us use a common definition of what a Main Street is ‐ it is “chief in size and importance”. Historically that has not been the case and one could argue that both State St and 300 West have traditionally had more development but that doesn’t preclude Main St fulfilling it’s perceived and defined purpose! In the document (AVFTBNAMTOC), it was envisioned that Main St was the north/south route which had the potential and which significant higher density redevelopment activity would occur and be encouraged. The 1550 Main St Assemblage is exactly what was envisioned and hoped would happen on Main St. Also bear in mind, that there is already a 7 story apartment a few blocks south of this proposal and the Ballpark Station Small Area Plan is recommending development up to 10 stories a few blocks to the north. So the proposed 6 story structure seems very reasonable to me 2 and will easily fit into the neighborhood. It is also a mixed use proposal which will bring some ground floor street facing commercial activity which will activate the street. It is also well designed with setbacks and step backs so again it’s impact will be minimal in my opinion. Other benefits of this proposal would be that it would eliminate the Main Street Motel. It has been an eyesore and crime magnet for several decades. Lastly, another and at this point unrealized component to the (AVFTBNAMTOC) was that ultimately a street car line would come thru the Ballpark Neighborhood. Between 1300 So and 2100 South the only possible option would be Main St. To encourage and support this there needs to be increased density. In conclusion, I support this proposal wholeheartedly and would encourage a positive recommendation from the Planning Department. Best regards Bill Davis ex‐officio Chair of the Ballpark CC. CC: Darin Mano ‐ City Council person District 5 1 Gellner, David From:Brady Smith <> Sent:Tuesday, March 29, 2022 1:18 PM To:Gellner, David Cc:Mano, Darin Subject:(EXTERNAL) Comment on 1550 S. Main Street Project To Whom it May Concern: I'm writing to express my support for the proposed rezone of the 1550 S. Main Street Assemblage. I live in the M15 Lofts close to the existing Main Street Motel, which is rightfully regarded as a menace to the community. It's come to my attention that some of my M15 Loft neighbors are organizing comments opposing the rezone on the grounds that Urban Alfandre's proposal provides insufficient green space, involves a building too large for the neighborhood, and might provide insufficient setback from the street. (The latter claim seems unsupported by the publicly available drawings, which show turf strips between the street and sidewalk). I strongly disagree with my neighbors and I support the Urban Alfandre plan for a number of reasons. First, I am hesitant to get in the way of anyone trying to put an end to the Main Street Motel, especially given Salt Lake's somewhat tricky regulatory environment. Killing the proposal could extend the life of the motel for years. Second, Salt Lake City is in the midst of a major housing crisis. Those of us who are fortunate enough to own our townhouses have benefited immensely from housing scarcity already. Insisting on a smaller building might serve the narrow concerns of pre‐existing property owners but does nothing to benefit the wider community. Finally, Salt Lake City is also experiencing the beginnings of environmental struggles that will only get worse in the years to come. Our air quality is an issue, and water is ever scarcer. Everything I know about sustainable development suggests that density is key, and as a former resident of both Chicago and New Jersey, I do not share some Utahns' fear of large buildings. I fully support the Urban Alfandre proposal and I look forward to seeing the development proceed. Best, Brady Smith 1 Gellner, David From:Celene Kidd <c Sent:Sunday, March 27, 2022 3:35 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Oppose rezoning of 1518 S Main Street Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Dear Mr. Gellner, I am writing to you to express my opposition to the rezone request of the property at 1518 S Main Street. As I understand, this land is currently zoned as Commercial Corridor (with one property zoned as residential) and the developer is requesting a change to Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2. Under the presented plan and renderings for this rezone, the developer is planning to build to the maximum 65 feet and right up to the sidewalk without any setbacks. A building height of 65 feet, 5‐6 stories tall is not within the fabric and scale of the community it is surrounded by. Under the current zone a developer can build 30 ‐ 45 feet, which in my opinion is plenty, and suits the neighborhood. Regarding setbacks we must continue to require this as our area is in desperate need of greenspace and has less greenspace than anywhere in the city. Setbacks not only provide green space but allow for people to gather and for retail space to offer services outdoors. The community and city have spent the last few years developing the Ballpark Station Area Plan. In that plan the property of 1518 Main street falls under the Main Street character area. This area specifically designates that "New development should focus on maintaining scale". This rezone request contradicts that recommendation completely in both height and setback. I know the wonderful residents of Ballpark want this motel gone but we must also stay true to the character of Ballpark and Main Street with scale, setbacks and greenspace. Thank you for your time Sincerely, Celene Kidd 1 Gellner, David From:Ciara C <> Sent:Wednesday, March 2, 2022 5:24 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Comment on 1550 S Main St- Dear Mr. Gellner, I am writing to you to express my opposition regarding the property of 1550 S Main Street. This property is currently zoned as Commercial Corridor (with one property zoned as residential) and I firmly believe this property needs to remain the same. The developer wants the land rezoned to high mixed use so they may build higher. The developer claims the height is needed in order to provide parking. I do not see why that would be the case. A developer can still provide parking without needing to build five stories high. These two acres are surrounded by single homes so a five story high building is simply not acceptable. In the rendering I saw there is also no setback from the sidewalk which is a staple and current requirement along that stretch of main street. The lack of a setback not only goes against the entire rest of the neighborhood but is completely unwelcoming. Lastly, the ballpark area recently received a master plan. In that plan it was recommended that 1550 stay to scale with the rest of the neighborhood. This building of 65 feet goes against our master plan. I stand in strong opposition to this development as is. Thank you for your time. Ciara Combs 1 Gellner, David From:Daron Young Sent:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 6:11 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) 1515 S. Main Street Rezone Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Hi David, I'm writing regarding the rezone process for1515 S. Main Street to FB‐UN that is being proposed by Urban Alfandre. I am a property owner in the Ballpark Community Council and I support this rezone. I believe this neighborhood will benefit from further investment and redevelopment in making the community more walkable and friendly and the zoning this project is seeking will help accomplish that. Thank you. Daron Young 1 Gellner, David From:Dustin Anderson <> Sent:Sunday, March 27, 2022 3:56 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Oppose rezoning of 1518 south main street Dear Mr. Gellner, I am writing to you to express my opposition to the rezone request of the property at 1518 S Main Street. As I understand, this land is currently zoned as Commercial Corridor (with one property zoned as residential) and the developer is requesting a change to Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2. Under the presented plan and renderings for this rezone, the developer is planning to build to the maximum 65 feet and right up to the sidewalk without any setbacks. A building height of 65 feet, 5‐6 stories tall is not within the fabric and scale of the community it is surrounded by. Under the current zone a developer can build 30 ‐ 45 feet, which in my opinion is plenty, and suits the neighborhood. Regarding setbacks we must continue to require this as our area is in desperate need of greenspace and has less greenspace than anywhere in the city. Setbacks not only provide green space but allow for people to gather and for retail space to offer services outdoors. The community and city have spent the last few years developing the Ballpark Station Area Plan. In that plan the property of 1518 Main street falls under the Main Street character area. This area specifically designates that "New development should focus on maintaining scale". This rezone request contradicts that recommendation completely in both height and setback. I know the wonderful residents of Ballpark want this motel gone but we must also stay true to the character of Ballpark and Main Street with scale, setbacks and greenspace. Thank you for your time 1 Gellner, David From:Jordan Bergera < Sent:Tuesday, March 29, 2022 11:45 AM To:Gellner, David; Mano, Darin Subject:(EXTERNAL) Opposition to the 1518 S Main Street rezone request Dear Mr. Geller, I am writing to you to express my opposition to the rezone request of the property at 1518 S Main Street. My husband and I have lived here for two years and are invested in the neighborhood, its residents and future. This neighborhood is where we have planted our roots and look forward to watching our family grow. As I understand, this land is currently zoned as Commercial Corridor (with one property zoned as residential) and the developer is requesting a change to Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2. Under the presented plan and renderings for this rezone, the developer is planning to build to the maximum 65 feet and right up to the sidewalk without any setbacks. A building height of 65 feet, 5‐6 stories tall, will not only be an eyesore, but goes against the vision of the ballpark residents who have spent time and money to conserve a community centric vision. Under the current zone a developer can build 30 - 45 feet, which seems appropriate, and suits the neighborhood. Regarding setbacks we must continue to require this as our area is in desperate need of greenspace and has less greenspace than anywhere in the city. Setbacks not only provide green space but allow for people to gather and for retail space to offer services outdoors. I am 100% in favor of seeing this motel gone as it has been a dangerous hub for criminal activity; however, it's important to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. This neighborhood is already a truly mixed neighborhood, combining commercial, residential, industrial, cultural, and educational uses. I see significant potential growth and opportunity for this area, and hope that the residents’ concerns can be respected and valued moving forward with this project. Thank you for your time, Jordan Bergera Richards St 1 Gellner, David From:Josh Blankenship > Sent:Monday, March 28, 2022 10:46 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Opposition to Rezone for 1518 S Main St and Surrounding Properties Hello Mr. Gellner, We are current homeowners in the M15 Lofts on Kensington Ave and Main St in the Ballpark Neighborhood. We have owned our home for one year and previously rented on Richards St for 3 years. Therefore, we are deeply invested in the community as we are building our future here. We are writing in opposition to the rezone request at 1518 S Main Street and the surrounding properties. We have a strong desire to see the neighborhood improve with the potential for homeownership and new business opportunities. However, we do not support the rezone request by Urban Alfandre to change the future land use map designation in the Central Community Master Plan from Community Commercial and Single Family Residential to High Mixed Use. We feel this rezone would negatively impact the neighborhood feel. We also do not support the design for no setbacks from the sidewalk on the northern side of the proposed building along Andrews Street. It appears the property area for all of the parcels together would be approximately 2 acres and are proposing apartment buildings to fill the majority of that space. We would like to see more potential for homeownership in the form of condos or townhomes similar to our location. We are hopeful that new construction in the future can transform the neighborhood while improving the infrastructure and landscaping of commercial and industrial areas. This also includes maintaining the current plan specifying that the area "between 1300 and 1700 South from 200 West to Main Street as being Medium/High-Density Residential 30-50 Dwelling Units/Acre...Medium/high-density residential areas have multi-story residential structures built at a mid-rise level of three to four stories." The rezone would go against the proposed Ballpark Station Area Plan and the Central Community Master Plan. We appreciate your work and hope that you take our concerns into consideration while being mindful of how we continue to develop this property. Thank you for your time, Josh Blankenship and Roshani Patel 1 Gellner, David From:Lance Holter <> Sent:Saturday, March 26, 2022 10:10 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) 1518 S. Main Street Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Flagged Dear Mr. Gellner, I’m writing to protest the proposed development at 1528 S. Main st. Firstly, nothing could be more oversized and out of place than this enormous apartment building. Especially in an area of residential dwellings and next to the ball park, a place where families from all over the city and nation come for relaxation and fun. Why does the city keep allowing the building of these giant oversized apartment buildings with no areas for parking and green space for mental health ? They look and seem like communist era concrete compounds from the soviet empire of the 1950’s. Last fall our daughter was looking for housing in SLC and eventually found a new apartment on W. Temple, we helped move her in and we were surprised that there was No Parking provided as part of the project, we had to station our truck in an alley to move her belongings many floors up to her lease. Not even an elevator was available to assist. How sad that your planning office allowed this. Every large project should include parking and open/geeen space as part of their plan and design. This should be number one in the city’s development criteria. Years from now the sovietization of our city’s housing will come back to haunt us , the citizen’s, and the city planning department. For our future mental health make green/open space in development a priority. Do not destroy our classic residential neighborhoods with over powering gigantic in scale , apartment complex’s. This will be a sad future for our children and the generations to come. Please do not allow the development at 1518 S. Main as proposed. Lance Holter SLC, Utah , 84103 Sent from my iPhone 1 Gellner, David From:Lance Holter <> Sent:Monday, March 28, 2022 10:55 AM To:Gellner, David Cc:Lance Holter Subject:(EXTERNAL) 1518 S Main Street > Dear Mr. Gellner, > I am writing to you to further express my opposition to the rezone request of the property at 1518 S Main Street for the following reasons. > As I understand, this land is currently zoned as Commercial Corridor (with one property zoned as residential) and the developer is requesting a change to Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2. > > Under the presented plan and renderings for this rezone, the developer is planning to build to the maximum 65 feet and right up to the sidewalk without any setbacks. > A building height of 65 feet, 5‐6 stories tall is not within the fabric and scale of the community it is surrounded by. Under the current zone a developer can build 30 ‐ 45 feet, which in my opinion is plenty, and suits the neighborhood. Regarding setbacks we must continue to require this as our area is in desperate need of greenspace and has less greenspace than anywhere in the city. Setbacks not only provide green space but allow for people to gather and for retail space to offer services outdoors. > > The community and city have spent the last few years developing the Ballpark Station Area Plan. In that plan the property of 1518 Main street falls under the Main Street character area. This area specifically designates that "New development should focus on maintaining scale". This rezone request contradicts that recommendation completely in both height and setback. > > I know the wonderful residents of Ballpark want this motel gone but we must also stay true to the character of Ballpark and Main Street with scale, setbacks and greenspace. Thank you for your consideration, Lance Holter Sent from my iPhone 1 Gellner, David From:Mona Marler Sent:Saturday, March 26, 2022 10:18 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) 1518 S Main Street Rezone Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Flagged Hello Mr. Gellner, As a resident of the neighborhood, I am writing to you to express my STRONG opposition to the rezone request of the property at 1518 S Main Street. The property is currently zoned as Commercial Corridor (with one property zoned as residential) the developer is requesting a change to Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2. It seems to be a trend here in Salt Lake City, for developers to request a variance so that they can maximize every foot of the property without considering the compatibility of the neighborhood. 1. Under the presented plan and renderings for this rezone, the developer is planning to build to the maximum 65 feet and right up to the sidewalk without any setbacks. There are currently a number of these buildings in Salt Lake City, that are built right next to the sidewalk, and provide no green or open space for the tenants. We know that creating green and open space, fosters a community, this area has less greenspace that anywhere in the city. Where will the children play? 2. The building height of 65 feet, 5‐6 stories is too and not compatible within the scale of the community it is surrounded by. Please keep the zoning as is, which allows for a building 30 ‐ 45 feet. 3. The community and city have spent the last few years developing the Ballpark Station Area Plan. In that plan the property of 1518 Main Street falls under the Main Street character area. This area specifically designates that "New development should focus on maintaining scale". This rezone request contradicts that recommendation completely in both height and setback. Although we’re happy to see the Motel go away, we simply ask that the city stay firm or the Ballpark Station Masterplan and not allow the rezone for a project that is too massive for this neighborhood. Thank you for your time and hearing my voice. Please vote NO. 1 Gellner, David From:nannette condie Sent:Thursday, March 3, 2022 9:42 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Main Street property I’m writing on behalf of our community on Main Street, 1479 south Main. The 65’ apartment complex purposed for our community is too large for our area. The streets cannot handle a unit this size, the zoning should remain as is. My father and I have owned Condie’s Candies for many years now. We see positive improvements in our area but we both feel this apartment complex is not abiding by the preexisting laws of our neighborhood. Thank you for listening to our concerns. Thank you Nannette and George Phillipps Condie 1 Gellner, David From:nannette condie <c > Sent:Monday, March 28, 2022 10:21 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Re: Zoning change Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Can you please send this copy in. I corrected some mistakes. Thank you! On Sunday, March 27, 2022, 05:22:04 PM MDT, nannette condie <> wrote: Dear David Gellner, A second notice about the rezoning on Richards street. We feel the project purpose is too big in scope, especially the height. We would also like to add, that they should not be able to set the building so close to the sidewalk. The motel will certainly not be missed in our district, but the big apartment might be selling us short in the long run. Our neighborhood is about to be overrun by apartments that are not adhering to set codes. Please keep us in mind when deciding on the future of the ballpark district. We are at a tipping point, we need to have try to keep Main Street a beautiful friendly place that is not crowded with buildings that will not age well and place our roads and parking with limited access. Thank you, Nannette Condie George phillipp Condie Geraldine Condie Shelly Helm Karen Cunningham 1 Gellner, David From:Paul Svendsen <> Sent:Monday, March 7, 2022 2:00 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) 1550 S Main St Assemblage Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Hi David, I’d like to submit this comment in strong support of the zoning change proposed by Urban Alfandre for its assemblage at 1550 S Main St. The proposal would be incredibly beneficial to the neighborhood. By adding density in a smart, sensitive way, it will bring life and architectural interest to a block that is currently a magnet for undesirable activity. It will provide a mix of housing opportunities that the area needs desperately. And it will add commercial space in proximity to where people live, providing a much‐needed amenity for neighborhood residents. The scale of the project is well thought out. The highest elevations are centered at the intersection on Main Street, with lower heights at the edges in deference to neighboring properties. Almost all of the project’s west frontage adjoins a church parking lot, so I think the negative impact to neighboring properties will be minimal, and far, far outweighed by the project’s benefits. I own four parcels in close proximity to the properties proposed for a rezone. Allowing this project to proceed, thereby eliminating the notorious Main Street motel, is probably the single most beneficial thing that Salt Lake City can do to foster continued improvement of this part of the Ballpark neighborhood. I can’t express how excited I am to see construction get started. I hope SLC makes that possible. Paul Paul Svendsen / Realtor® WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE – UTAH —————————————————— 1 Gellner, David From:Ryan Cathey <> Sent:Thursday, March 31, 2022 10:59 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) 1550 South Main Street Redevelopment Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Mr. Gellner I’m writing this message to express my support for the proposed development at 1550 South Main Street by Urban Alfandre. I’m a small business owner and property owner in the area who will be directly impacted by the proposed development. My property is at 1588 South Main Street, less than a block away. In my opinion, the development proposed by Urban Alfandre is a perfect balance of mixed use (commercials and residential) density for the area. This project will fit with the overall redevelopment of the area as envisioned by the SLC RDA and Ballpark Community Council. Again, I want to express my support for this project and encourage approval of the requested Zoning Map Amendment, Master Plan Amendment and Alley Vacation petitions. Thank you very much. Ryan Cathey, P.E. President Web www.talismancivil.com 1588 S Main St. Ste. 200, Salt Lake City, UT, 84115 1 Gellner, David From:Ryan O'Mahony > Sent:Tuesday, March 29, 2022 3:42 PM To:Gellner, David Cc:Ballpark Subject:(EXTERNAL) Opposed to Rezone at 1518 S Main David, My name is Ryan O'Mahony and I've lived at Merrimac Ave for the last 6 years. I'm writing to you in opposition of the proposed rezone at 1518 S Main (Main Street Motel). Last spring, the City, planning consultants and many select community members participated in numerous steering community meetings, which I was a part of. Four of the main concerns the steering committee brought to the City's attention when planning out the future of the Ballpark neighborhood was green space, safety, height restrictions and buildings that fit the character of the neighborhood. This rezone would deviate from all of those critical concerns. The Ballpark neighborhood already has the least amount of green space in the city and eliminating the setback would reduce our green space even more. Although the Main Street motel is quite the eye sore, the park strip in that area makes me feel safe from vehicles when I'm walking my dog. I have concerns that allowing this rezone will introduce a high density structure similar to some of the ones where no setback was required (2100 S 400 E), creating a safety concern. My understanding is this rezone would allow a 65 foot structure to be built. A structure at that height would not only be comparable to some of the structures downtown but it could set the standard for the Ballpark's future with high density housing. The Ballpark neighborhood is growing faster than the majority of the districts in the valley and if the city sets a precedent for this development we could have something special, something that the Ballpark residents deserve! Please don't let these developers come in and cram every unit they can when it can be done tastefully. Thanks so much for your time. Ryan O'Mahony 1 Gellner, David From:Sach Combs < Sent:Tuesday, March 29, 2022 9:58 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Comments for 1530 S. Main Street Assemblage Petition(s) Dear Mr. Gellner, I’m writing in opposition to the proposed rezone request for the “1530 S. Main Street Assemblage” a.k.a. the Main Street Motel. As a civically engaged Ballpark resident and close neighbor to the motel for nearly 20 years, I have spent lots of time living in and thinking about this part of the city. What is so frustrating with this particular request is that a resident, or city planner for that matter, shouldn’t have to choose between keeping a festering crime ridden motel or supporting the plan for an oversized and out of place structure. This should not be a “lesser of two evils” situation. With that said, I have 3 main issues with the rezone being requested. First, the height allowed with the rezone simply doesn’t fit with the fabric of the Ballpark neighborhood. A comparable development, Towers on Main apartments, are unappealing 'towers' and stick out like fly on a wedding cake. As a charming neighborhood with tree lined streets, a central swath of single-family homes with large front porches, and a variety of local bars, eateries, and other commercial outlets, Ballpark is human scale and walkable. A rezone, allowing for up to 65’ in height, simple doesn’t fit within this well-established neighborhood. Conversely, the current zoning of Commercial Corridor does better blend with Ballpark by “promoting compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods through design standards.” The Central Community Master Plan (CCMP) suggests 3- 4 story buildings in this area and promoting pedestrian circulation. Also worth mentioning, the recently drafted Ballpark Station Area Plan, is complimentary to both current CC zoning and the CCMP and again speaks of “maintaining scale” in this specific area. The rezone would be contrary to all current guidance for the area. Second, and potentially more problematic with the rezone, is the lack of a minimum set back requirement. The developer has indicated the desire to build right up to the sidewalk on both frontages. I can’t imagine a more uncomfortable pedestrian experience than traveling along half city blocks of 3’ sidewalk adjacent to a 6-story building. This will not activate the area as suggested by the developer and is contrary to current guidance including the Creating Tomorrow Together - Commission Report which recommends developers "focus on walkways" and "put the pedestrian first." Their is already a trend allow developers to deviate on the setback requirement when not allowed by the zoning and this could further cement this practice which would be disastrous for activation. There are a few examples within Salt Lake City of recent developments approved without setbacks that are ridiculous and should never have been allowed. This brings me to my last point which is a concern over what seems to be a relentless push from the developers to rezone and get variance without genuine concern of lasting consequences to the community. These changes appear to be done solely to maximize the profit on the development over the short term, and most often provide nothing in return to the community. When the project is complete, the developers move on to the next while the residents and community members live with the results. I believe the burden should be on the developer to present an overwhelming case that the rezone and/or variance will provide lasting value to the community and not just because they need 2 the increased density to make more profit. I shouldn’t have to lobby the planning division/commission and city council to have developers build within the current Master Plan(s) and design guidance. I am happy to see the attention that Ballpark has received in recent years from the city and developers. There are few residents more excited than me at the prospect of having the Main Street Motel gone. However, it is not right to have to make significant concessions on this property that will have long term and negative impacts to the residents of the neighborhood. When making your recommendation to the Planning Commission, please consider what the authors of the CCMP wrote: “Managing future growth of the Central Community relies on successful implementation of this master plan.” Thank you for your time. Sach Combs SLC, Utah 84115 1 Gellner, David From:Shelley Bodily Sent:Friday, February 11, 2022 2:40 PM To:Gellner, David Cc:Terrell Bodily; Ballpark Subject:(EXTERNAL) Comment on 1550 South Main Street Rezone Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Good Afternoon David: I received notification of the project at 1550 S Main Street, rezone request. To say I want that no‐tell motel to be gone is an UNDERSTATEMENT, however, the new proposed zoning is not appropriate at this location and I DO NOT SUPPORT the rezone. 1. the new zoning will be directly adjacent to R‐1/5000 single family homes and includes an R‐1/5000 parcel (can I now rezone my R‐1/5000 property to urban form based?). These homes don’t exceed 25’ in height anywhere. The new zoning will allow 65’ height which is more than double the height and scale of the existing residential home zone. 65’ is too tall/too large in scale for this location. The exiting CC is appropriate. 65’ will shadow this historic neighborhood. 2. Does this open the door for all of the existing R‐1/5000 homes on that block to also be granted this new zoning if it happens at 1550? 3. Does this open the door for all of the property on Main Street to also be granted the new zoning? 4. The new potential owner for 1550 South Main Street is working on a townhome project directly north of this proposed project and is complying with the CC zoning at that location‐‐currently. There is not a hardship that the project on 1550 is experiencing that the project directly north didn’t have and is complying with the current zoning. 5. I personally investigated vacating the same alley that 1550 is requesting vacation of, just the north segment between Andrew Avenue and Merrimac Avenue and was told by city engineering that there is an electrical easement that runs down the ally that prevents it from being physically closed off. It may be vacated but never closed off. The easement requires on open 16’ right of way be maintained EVEN IF the alley is vacated and privatized. If we have to comply with that, so should the alley they are asking be vacated OR the same conditions should be allowed on the North end of the alley. Our alley should also be vacated and closed physically. 6. The new Ballpark Station area plan has designated the homes north of the 1550 block projects as the NEIGHBORHOOD ZONE, and the area of the 1550 Main Street project as MAIN STREET AREA CHARACTER. This as defined in the BallPark Station Area Plan created by GSBS Architects. I was a steering committee member for this master plan, and it is currently awaiting adoption by the city. 2 The proposed zoning does not meet the definition of the new Ballpark Master Plan. It is TOO TALL and TOO DENSE. COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR fits the definition of the Main Street Character Area. This owner should comply with CC just like his project to the north. If this project wants to go that tall, it should happen near the transit oriented zones near Trax or on State Street which is what our masterplan defined. These are all the comments I have against this rezone. Shelley Bodily I AIA I NCARB I LEED AP ID+C Dear Mr. Gellner: We the undersigned are against the rezone of the Main Street Motel and surrounding properties . We are composed of long-term residents who desperately want the hotel redeveloped but are very concerned about the developer's request to change the rezone. Below are our shared beliefs : 1. Zoning Map Amendment and Master Plan Amendment -Opposed. We feel that the current Commercial Corridor zoning is still the most appropriate size and scale for this area . We are opposed for the following reasons : a) Although the Ballpark Area Station Master Plan has not been officially adopted by the City , it is expected to be adopted. This proposal does not meet the definition of the Main Street Character Area for medium density residential buildings and for maintaining the "scale, walkability, and bike ability of the neighborhood". Furthermore , the proposal does not meet the definition of Future Land Use Area Descriptions for this specific part of the Main Street Area . "The area between Major Street and the recently down-zoned residential area should be considered for redevelopment into a medium density area that utilizes current building scale and massing to guide future development. New buildings in the area should be considered for redevelopment at a scale comparable to the surrounding area with front doors on Main Street, stoops, and yards ." b) The proposed development has single-fam ily homes on the entire south boundary of the property, both on Ma i n Street and on Van Buren Avenue . The boundary on the north is also single family re sidenti al on And rew Avenue, other than the Fa ith Pentecostal Church, which is most of the west boundary of the development. The development would directly affect these residences ; imagine having an apartment building next to your single- family home that is three times the size of your home. c) We strongly opposed the rezone because it would eliminate setbacks. The combination of no setbacks and a 65-foot building in a residential neighborhood is concerning. Andrew's Avenue (the north side of the project) has a tiny sidewalk/park strip and with zero setback we believe this side of the street would lose all walkability. The Ballpark district is already lacking in greenspace and has less greenspace than anywhere in the city. Setbacks not only provide green space but allow for people to gather and for retail space to offer services outdoors. d) Other new developments on Main Street (including the M 15 townhomes Main Street and Kensington Avenue and the Moda on Main townhomes at 1566 S. Main Street) have been able to create good, attractive and v iable new developments including both setbacks and garages, within the existing CC zoning . 2. Alley Vacation -In Favor. The undersigned feel that the alley is unknown , unused , and already inaccessible. It has been blocked and essentially abandoned for years. The alley should be vacated by the City and any utility right-of-ways should be abandoned if the utilities are moved underground for this or other future development of this parcel. Thank you for including the Ballpark community members' input on this proposal. Sincerely, Clayton Taylor & Shelbie Mecham (Homeowners) 1482 S. Richards Street Thomas Lee Jennings & Pat Jennings (Homeowners) 1470 S. Richards Street Timothy Jennings-Hill (Homeowner) 1487 S . Richards Street Kimberly Atwood, (Homeowner) 1460 S . Richards Street Terrell Bodily, (former Homeowner/now renting) 1481 S. Richards Street Brian S . Whaley, (Homeowner) 26 W. Merrimac Avenue Pablo Dario Pinet (Homeowner) 1455 S. Richards Street Viviana Ramirez, (Homeowner) 1459 S. Richards Street /Le l( e1 154b' Mo r 'i' .v"'-(_ /f-0 fV1. e o -w ~ )r II 5 S J fl\ µ1' "'-f ~ SL C ~Eo~6t. ~TT ~ ( ~IME WNt:µ_} "\629 s.jeferSovt St , ~LC ~115 March 8, 2022 Mr. David Gellner, Senior Planner I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed zoning change for the 1550 S Main Street Assemblage. I live at 1496 S Main, the residence north of the parking lot on the corner of Main Street and Andrew Avenue. Although I am pleased with the prospects of the redevelopment of this property, I am opposed to the Zoning Map Amendment – PLNPCM2021-01191 and the Master Plan Amendment – PLNPCM2022-00065 for this property for the following reasons: • The re-zoning scale and density are not compatible with the Ballpark Area Station Master Plan. The Main Street Character Area is defined as “the presence of small local businesses, a generally pleasant pedestrian and bike environment, and medium-density residential buildings. New development should focus on maintaining the scale, walkability and bikability of the neighborhood”. Furthermore, the re-zone is not compatible with the Future Land Use Area Description of the BAMP – “Main Street between the current Utah Pride Center (1380 S Main Street) and 1700 South has retained its original scale and includes several locally owned restaurants, bakeries and shops.”…”The area between Major Street and the recently down-zoned residential area should be considered for redevelopment into a medium density area that utilizes current building scale and massing to guide future development. New buildings in the area should be considered for redevelopment at a scale comparable to the surrounding area with front doors on Main Street, stoops and yards.” • None of the new developments on Main Street (15 Kensington Lofts, Moda on Main, etc) in this area have received a zoning change. In fact, the 15 Kensington Lofts were even denied a variance to add rooftop patios, as it was deemed too high for the Commercial Corridor zoning. All of these new developments have been able to incorporate off street parking, setbacks, landscaping, etc., without a hardship. • The height and scale of the proposal is too large for the surroundings. The entire southern boundary of the proposed development is single family residences on Van Buren Avenue and on Main Street. Across the street from the northern boundary is Richards Street a residential street and the first four buildings north of the parking lot on Main Street are single family homes. Imaging having a 65’ apartment building looming next to or close to your single family residence; it would be three times the height… • Allowing a zoning change for this development could set a precedent for others to expect a zoning change in the same area. The prospective buyer and developer of this parcel has enough space in the 2+ acre parcel to make setbacks, greenspace and landscaping, commercial space and off-street parking for the development under the existing CC zoning. I am opposed to the re-zoning proposal. I am in favor of the proposed Alley Vacation – PLNPCM2022-00086. Thank you for taking feedback from surrounding property owners. Don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Jeff Sandstrom 1496 S Main, SLC, UT 84115 To City planners & elected officials: I am requesting that developers be denied the right to build up to 65 feet along the 1500 block on Main Street. My understanding is that they want to build next to the sidewalks with little to no setbacks. If a resident wants to build up to the sidewalk with a house or ADU certain setback restrictions apply and for good reasons. As an example, the condos/apartments on 2100 South and 4th East do not have a setback from the sidewalk and pose a hazard to cars entering onto 21st South. Visibility is further reduced by parked cars outside the development. In a neighborhood it is important to have green space for mental and physical health. Residents need space to walk their dogs, and a place for children to play, and neighbors to visit with one another. I know that every square inch is important to a developer. They usually ask for variations to zoning laws for building height and setbacks. City planners I am asking you to deny variations or exceptions to the plans that were set forth under the Central Community Master Plan. We know that our community needs to replace the individual single-family residences into multi-family units, but hopefully this will be done in a moderate and tasteful manner. I request that Salt Lake City planners stick to the plans outlined in the following: the Central Community Master Plan (http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/cent.pdf) has a subsection on "the People’s Freeway neighborhood" and specifies that the area "between 1300 and 1700 South from 200 West to Main Street as being Medium/High-Density Residential 30-50 Dwelling Units/Acre...Medium/high-density residential areas have multi-story residential structures built at a mid- rise level of three to four stories." Three to four stories is pretty different from the proposed 65 feet! The Central Community Master Plan also states in a subsection labelled "Issues within the Peoples Freeway neighborhood, Residential" that a goal should be to “Improve infrastructure and landscaping of commercial and industrial areas." What the developer is proposing and what would be allowed in FB -2--is completely incompatible with improving landscaping. Letter submitted by Mary Cox on 03-28-2022 via email. 1 Gellner, David From:Nate Birchall <> Sent:Monday, April 11, 2022 4:27 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Rezone Dear David, I am a property owner along main street south of the ballpark, and I understand there is an application to potentially rezone the dilapidated, crime‐infested hotel at 1515 South Main. As a property owner, I am strongly in favor of such a rezone to an updated residential/commercial use. It is far past time to rid our neighborhood of that hotel and crime that it has facilitated. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Nate Birchall 1 Gellner, David From:Samuel B Owen <> Sent:Saturday, May 28, 2022 4:23 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Re: 1550 S main rezone Forgot to say, W Van Buren Avenue On May 28, 2022, at 4:19 PM, Samuel B Owen <> wrote: Please give the developer what they want so they can go ahead and make good use of a parcel (currently Main street motel) that is a tragic and dangerous blight on the neighborhood and city. 1550 S Main Street Assemblage 28 Planning Commission – July 27, 2022 ATTACHMENT H: Department Review Comments This proposal was reviewed by the following departments. Any requirement identified by a City Department is required to be complied with. Engineering: Scott Weiler Rezone and Master Plan Comments: No objections to the proposed zoning or master plan changes. Alley Vacation Comments: SLC Engineering does not support the proposed alley vacation. The power runs down the alley on both sides (with the transformers) and it appears that underground utilities may also exist. They are parking vehicles in the alley currently. Transportation: Michael Barry No comments provided Fire Review No comments provided. Police: Lamar Ewell No objections or comments from the SLCPD on any of the requests. Public Utilities: Jason Draper Rezone and Master Plan Comments: No comments provided. Alley Vacation Comments: It does look like power is in the alley but I don't have any public utilities here. The private water and sewer probably crosses the alley to the back units but right now is all held by the same owner. 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: Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT:1550 S Main Street Assemblage Rezone, Master Plan & Alley Vacation PLNPCM2021-01191 and PLNPCM2022-00065 & 00086 STAFF CONTACT:David J. Gellner, AICP, Senior Planner, david.gellner@slcgov.com (801) 535-6107 DOCUMENT TYPE:Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendations of the Planning Commission to approve an Ordinance to amend the zoning map for the subject properties, changing them from CC (Corridor Commercial) and R-1/5000 (Single-Family Residential) to FB- UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood), to amend the Future Land Use Map in the Central Community Master Plan from "Community Commercial" to "High Mixed Use", and, to vacate the platted alley. The Planning Commission recommendation of approval included the following additional recommendations: 1. The housing being removed from the site must be replaced. 2. The property for the vacated alley be integrated into the future development. 3. The rezoned parcels must be consolidated through the appropriate process. BUDGET IMPACT:None 9/21/2022 9/21/2022 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Urban Alfandre is requesting that the City amend the zoning map and master plan for multiple contiguous property parcels located at approximately 1518, 1530, 1540, 1546 S Main Street and 1515 S Richards Street respectively. Some of the parcels have duplicate addresses. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning of the properties from CC (Corridor Commercial) and R-1/5000 (Single-Family Residential) to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District). The original request also included a text amendment to allow additional building height on the properties. That request was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant as The Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map designates the properties as "Community Commercial". The petitioner is requesting to amend the future land use map for the parcels to "High Mixed Use". The applicant has also requested to vacate an alley that runs through the properties. The applicant intends to combine all parcels as well as the alley into one cohesive parcel under the new zoning in order to develop a mixed use development on the approximately 2-acre consolidated site. No specific site development proposal has been submitted at this time. The subject properties and alley location are highlighted on the map exhibit below. PUBLIC PROCESS: Notice of the project and a formal letter requesting comments was sent to the Chairs of the Ballpark and Midtown District Community Councils on February 9, 2022. Staff sent an early notification announcement postcard about the project to all residents and property owners located within 300 feet of the project site on February 9, 2022. The mailed notice included project details, that recognized community organizations were aware of the proposal and included information on how to access the online open house and 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 February 9, 2022 and ended on March 30, 2022. Staff attended an online meeting held by the Ballpark Community Council on March 3, 2022. The 45-day Recognized Organization comment period expired on March 30, 2022. Comments submitted by the Ballpark Community Council are included in the Staff Report. On May 15, 2022, the applicant made changes to the original request which included a text amendment to allow additional building height on these properties. Based on the public comments and working with Planning Staff, the text amendment portion of the application was withdrawn by the applicant. On May 23, 2022, Planning Staff sent a follow-up notice to the Ballpark Community Council and all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project site informing them of changes to the proposal, specifically that the request for a text amendment to allow additional building height had been withdrawn by the applicant. Numerous public comments were submitted to staff in advance of the Planning Commission Hearing as well as after the staff report was published. The most commonly cited concerns about the proposal related to worries about how the village will impact crime and other activities in the area. There were also comments in support of the proposal. The public comments can be found in the Planning Commission Records Attachment C Planning Commission Staff Report of July 27, 2022. Additional written public comments received after the staff report was published can be found in Exhibit 5 - Written Comments Received after the Staff Report was Published. A Planning Commission Public Hearing was held on July 27, 2022. By unanimous vote, the Planning Commission forwarded a Positive recommendation to City Council for all three (3) petitions zoning map and master plan amendments & alley vacation. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of July 27, 2022 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of July 27, 2022 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of July 27, 2022 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3. Original Petition 4. Mailing List 5. Written Comments Received after the Staff Report was Published SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2022 (Amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map and the zoning of the properties located at 1518, 1530, 1540, 1546 South Main Street and 1515 South Richards Street from CC Corridor Commercial District and R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood District; and vacating a city-owned alley situated adjacent to properties located at 1518, 1530, 1540, South Main Street and 1515 South Richards Street) An ordinance amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map and amending the zoning map pertaining to parcels of property located at 1518, 1530, 1540, 1546 South Main Street and 1515 South Richards Street (the “Properties”) to rezone the Properties from CC Corridor Commercial District and R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to the FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood District; Amending the Future Land Use Map with respect to the Properties from Corridor Commercial to High Mixed Use; and vacating a city- owned alley situated adjacent to properties located at 1518, 1530, 1540, South Main Street and 1515 South Richards Street (the “Alley”) pursuant to Petition numbers PLNPCM2021-01191, PLNPCM2022-00065 and PLNPCM2022-00086, respectively. WHEREAS, Urban Alfandre, the property owner and representative, submitted an application to rezone the Properties from CC Corridor Commercial District and R-1/5,000 Single- Family Residential District to the FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood District pursuant to Petition number PLNPCM2021-01191; an application to amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map with respect to the Properties from Corridor Commercial to High Mixed Use pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2022-00065; and, an application to vacate a city- owned alley situated between properties located at 1518, 1530, 1540, South Main Street and 1515 South Richards Street pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2022-00086; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on July 27, 2022 on the aforementioned petitions, had a discussion, and voted to forward a positive recommendation of approval to the Salt Lake City Council (the “City Council”) to approve the zoning map amendment, future land use map amendment, and, alley vacation pursuant to the petitions subject to the following conditions: (1) The housing being removed from the site must be replaced, (2) The property for the vacated alley must be integrated into the future development, and (3) the rezoned parcels must be consolidated through the appropriate process. 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 is in the city’s best interests; that good cause exists to vacate the unnamed, city-owned alley described herein; and that neither the public interest nor any person will be materially injured by the alley vacation. 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 parcels located at 1518 South Main Street (Tax ID No. 15- 13-278-011-0000), 1530 South Main Street (Tax ID No. 15-13-278-012-0000 and 15-13-278- 017-0000), 1540 South Main Street (Tax ID No. 15-13-278-013-0000), 1546 South Main Street (Tax ID No. 15-13-278-014-0000) and 1515 South Richards Street (Tax ID No. 15-13-278-020- 0000), as more particularly described in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated by reference, shall be and hereby are rezoned from CC Corridor Commercial District and R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood District. SECTION 2. Amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. The Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map shall be and hereby is amended to change the land use designation of the Properties identified in Exhibit “A” from Corridor Commercial to High Mixed Use. SECTION 3. Vacating City-Owned Alley. That an unnamed, city-owned alley adjacent to properties located at 1518, 1530, 1540, South Main Street and 1515 South Richards Street, which is the subject of Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00086, and which is more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, hereby is, vacated and declared not presently necessary or available for public use. SECTION 4. 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 closure is also subject to any existing rights- of-way or easements of private third parties. SECTION 5. Conditions. The approval of this ordinance is conditioned upon the following: 1. The housing being removed from the site must be replaced. 2. The property for the vacated alley must be integrated into the future development. 3. The rezoned parcels must be consolidated through the appropriate process. 4. The proposed method of disposition of the alley property shall be consistent with the method of disposition set forth in Section 14.52.040 (“Method of Disposition”), Chapter 2.58 (“City Owned Real Property”) of the Salt Lake City Code, and all other applicable laws. SECTION 6. 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 as well as with the Salt Lake County Recorder (regarding the alley vacation). The Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed to not publish or record this ordinance until the conditions are satisfied as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director or his designee. SECTION 7. Time. If the conditions identified in Section 5 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 ______________, 2022. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2022. Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney September 6, 2022 Exhibit “A” Legal description of the properties and alley: Property Parcels 1. Address: 1518 S Main Street Tax ID No. 15-13-278-011-0000 2. Address: 1530 S Main Street Tax ID No. 15-13-278-012-0000 and 15-13-278-017-0000 3. Address: 1540 S Main Street Tax ID No. 15-13-278-013-0000 4. Address: 1546 S Main Street Tax ID No. 15-13-278-014-000 5. Address: 1515 S Richards Street Tax ID No. 15-13-278-020-0000 Property Legal Description Lots 2 through 11, Block 3, Dieter & Johnson, Main Street Addition, according to the official plat thereof as recorded as entry no. 24652, in Book C, Page 33, in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder. ALSO: Lots 12 through 20, and Lot 1, Block 3, Dieter & Johnson, Main Street Addition, according to the official plat thereof as recorded as entry no. 24652, in Book C, Page 33, in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder. ALSO: Lot 36, Herrick Subdivision, according to the official plat thereof recorded as entry no. 483594, Book H, Page 70, in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder. ALSO: Lot 1, Block 3, Gabbott’s Addition, according to the official plat thereof recorded as entry no. 29055, Book C, Page 65, in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder. Alley Legal Description A strip of land situate within Block 3, Dieter & Johnson, Main Street Addition, according to the official plat thereof. Said plat recorded as entry no. 24652, in Book C, Page 33, in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder; Said strip of land being described as follows: All of that alleyway located within Block 3, Dieter & Johnson, Main Street Addition Subdivision; Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 12, of said Block 3, And running thence south 254.1 feet, more or less, along the west lines of lots 12 through 20, and lot 1 to the southwest corner of said lot 1; thence west 16.5 feet (18.0 feet per Salt Lake City Atlas Plats), more or less to the southeast corner of lot 2 of Block 3; thence north 254.1 feet, more or less along the east line of lots 2 through 11 to the northeast corner of lot 11 of Block 3; thence east 16.5 feet (18.0 feet per Salt Lake City Atlas Plats), more or less to the point of beginning. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3. Original Petition 4. Mailing List 5. Written Comments Received after the Staff Report was Published 1. Project Chronology PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PETITIONS: PLNPCM2021-01191 & PLNPCM2022-00065 & 00086 - Zoning Map, Master Plan Amendment and Alley Vacation for the 1550 S Main Street Assemblage November 19, 2021 Petition for the zoning map & accompanying text amendment received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division. February 1, 2022 Petition for the master plan amendment received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division. February 1, 2022 Petition for the alley vacation received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division. All petitions assigned to David Gellner, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing. February 8, 2022 All applications deemed to be complete for further processing. February 9, 2022 Information about all petitions was sent to the Chair of the Ball Park Community Council and Midtown District Community Council in order to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. February 9, 2022 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. February 9, 2022 Staff hosted an online Open House to solicit public comments on the proposal. The Online Open House period started on February 9, 2022 and ended on March 30, 2022 March 3, 2022 Staff attended an online meeting of the Ball Park CC on March 3, 2022 March 30, 2022 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. May 15, 2022 The applicant made changes to the original request which included a text amendment to allow additional building height on these properties. The text amendment portion of the application was withdrawn by the applicant. May 23, 2022 Staff sent a notice to the Ballpark Community Council and all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the development informing them of changes to the proposal, specifically that the request for a text amendment to allow additional building height was withdrawn by the applicant and was no longer part of the proposal. July 14, 2022 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of July 27, 2022. Public hearing notice mailed. July 14, 2022 Public hearing notice signs with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the properties. July 27, 2022 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on July 27, 2022. By unanimous vote, the Planning Commission forwarded Positive recommendations to City Council for the proposed zoning map and master plan changes and the alley vacation. 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2021-1191 and PLNPCM2022-00065 & 00086 Zoning Map, Master Plan Amendment and Alley Vacation for the 1550 S Main Street Assemblage. Urban Alfandre is requesting that the City amend the zoning map and master plan for multiple property parcels located at approx. 1518, 1530, 1540, 1546 S Main Street and 1515 S Richards Street respectively. The existing alley that runs through the properties would be vacated as part of this request. The intent of these petitions would be to combine all parcels as well as the alley into one cohesive parcel under the new zoning in order to build a mixed-use/multi-family development on the site. On July 27, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to recommend approval to the City Council for the following applications: a. Zoning Map Amendment: The change the zoning from CC (Corridor Commercial) & R-1/5000 (Single-Family Residential) to FB-UN2 (Form-Based Urban Neighborhood) zoning district. Case PLNPCM2021-01191 b. Master Plan Amendment - Change to the future land use map in the Central Community Master Plan from Community Commercial to High Mixed Use. Case PLNPCM2022-00065 c. Alley Vacation: Request to vacate and close the platted alley to incorporate the area as private property in the development. Case PLNPCM2022-00086 As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petitions. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TBD TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. 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 David Gellner at 801-535-6107 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 The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the tab and entering the petition numbers PLNPCM2021-01191, PLNPCM202200065 and PLNPCM2022-00086. 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 make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. Original Petition TO: David Gellner CC: Wayne Mills FROM: Urban Alfandre (Stephen Alfandre, Owner) DATE: 5.16.2022 RE: Amendment to Rezone application on 1550 S Main Street Assemblage David, After extensive meetings with the community council, Planning Staff, and other neighborhood stakeholders, we are requesting an amendment to our previous rezone application wherein we requested additional height of 15 feet within the FB-UN2 zone to a maximum of 65 feet. We wish to revise our application and not request the additional 15 feet within the FB-UN2 zone which would result in a maximum height of 50 feet. It became clear to us that the neighborhood did not agree with 65 feet in height at this location and we want to align ourselves with their desire to see a project of smaller scale. Although we can technically achieve a 50 ft height limit via design review and planned development in the current CC zone, we would rather work in the FB-UN2 zone for various reasons. Here is why we believe the FBUN-2 zone at this location far exceeds using the CC zone for this project: 1. Higher Design Standards The FB-UN2 zone has higher urban design standards than the CC zone, which we believe will make for a better project. Creating a consistent street wall, enhancing walkability, requiring more glass and balconies and patios, and ensuring architectural design will contribute to the character of the neighborhood are all requirements of the FB-UN2 zone. We are proponents of having more FB-UN2 zones because of how they demand for better urban design in our city. 2. Step-backs to create neighborhood compatibility The FB-UN2 zone requires step-backs and setbacks from adjacent single-family properties which creates appropriate transitions between our parcels and adjacent single family homes. 3. Active ground floor uses The FB-UN2 zone requires a permitted use other than parking shall occupy at least 75% of the width of any street-facing building façade which makes for much better ground floor pedestrian interaction than the CC zone. Our intent is to create a dynamic ground floor experience for pedestrians. We also want to address two additional complaints the neighborhood has had about the FB-UN2 zone: parking and setbacks. Parking the FB-UN2 zone does not require parking. We have offered (on numerous occasions) to voluntarily add ample parking within the project via a development agreement with the City Council to lessen the impact of on-street parking in the neighborhood. In fact, we have voluntarily included parking on all of our projects in the FB- been required to do so. Setbacks a common complaint from the neighbors is the lack of setbacks required in the FB- UN2 zone. We continue to advocate for zero setbacks within urban-pedestrian areas for the following reasons: 1. There already exists a 30-ft setback between the property line and the street at 1515 S Main street. Adding more setback to this existing condition would amplify the unfriendly pedestrian experience that currently exists by exacerbating the wide chasm between street-walls along Main Street, as seen below. Wide streets with large setbacks is not good urban design for cities and prohibits pedestrian scale, comfort and vibrancy. 2. The eastern side of Main Street has zero setbacks and is recommending for the western side to also have zero setbacks to create a unified urban street wall (of which we agree entirely). create a pleasant contrast to surrounding suburban residenti strong street wall helps facilitate pedestrian circulation as well as provide a 3. Setbacks are not intended to be active open space for community use and actually do more to hurt vibrant pedestrian experiences in our opinion. In the CC zone only 1/3 of the setback area is required to be landscaped with vegetation which means the majority can be gravel or rocks invite open-space users. 4. Our intention is to add some retail space on the ground floor and the FB-UN2 zone is much more conducive to creating an enhanced retail experience than the CC zone. For instance, in the CC zone, surface parking lots are allowed, anymore surface parking lots. The FBUN-2 zone requires strong street walls, durable building materials and active ground floor uses which create a more enhanced retail and pedestrian experience than what the CC zone requires. The section of Main Street from 1300 S to 1700 S is dead. There is little-to-no pedestrian activity currently and as major landowners in the neighborhood it is our strong desire to revitalize this area through good urban design and retail activation to create a vibrant pedestrian experience, that is currently not found in this area. The CC zone is the wrong zone to encourage this type of revitalization for the reasons mentioned above. Thank you for your considering of our request. Sincerely, Stephen Alfandre Founding Principal Urban Alfandre Al l e y V a c a t i o n A p p l i c a t i o n Ur b a n A l f a n d r e Re a s o n f o r a l l e y v a c a t i o n r e q u e s t : cu r r e n t l y a t t r a c t s s i g n i f i c a n t c r i m e i n t h e a r e a a n d b y i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h i s l a n d i n t o o u r p r o j e c t w e c a n c r e a t e a b e t t e r a n d s a f e r e n v i r o n m e n t f o r r e s i d e n t s . Wr i t t e n d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e a l l e y b o u n d a r i e s : t h e a l l e y r u n s s o u t h f r o m A n d r e w A v e n u e f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 6 4 f t . a n d t h e n d e a d - e n d s i n t o t h e b a c k y a r d o f 1 8 W Va n B u r e n A v e . T h e r e i s n o t h r u - a c c e s s t o V a n B u r e n a v e . T h e a l l e y i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 4 f t w i d e . www.urbanalfandre.com February 3, 2022 RE: 1) Zoning Text Amendment; 2) zoning map amendment; and 3) master plan amendment for 1550 South Main Street Assemblage Summary Urban Alfandre (UA) is the contract purchaser of an approximately 2 acre site with direct frontage on Main Street and Andrew Avenue (exact parcel numbers shown below). UA is requesting to re-zone these parcels from CC to FBUN-2 and to be listed in Table voluntary development agreement to add off-street parking within the building and massing that is sensitive to the adjacent parcels and neighborhood. We believe FBUN-2 parcels that are listed in Table 21A.27.050.C is the appropriate zone for the following reasons: o The height of the proposed zone (65 ft) allows for maximum flexibility to achieve the following design goals: 1) add sufficient off-street parking in the building; 2) design ground floor retail with appropriate height; o It is where we should be adding density located within a 10 minute walk to the 1300 S TRAX station which allows residents to enjoy transportation optionality and not be dependent on a car o It conforms with the proposed Ballpark master plan of activation, retail, and density near transit and on major corridors The current CC zone limits the height of our intended use to 45 ft which is insufficient for off-street parking and retail on the ground floor. The current use of the Main Street Motel is one that brings significant and recurring crime to the neighborhood. The neighborhood stakeholders have all expressed strong desire to see this use go away. Our intended use of a mixed-use residential and retail building will activate the street and help make the entire neighborhood safer. www.urbanalfandre.com Report We are pleased to submit this application to amend the current zoning from CC to FBUN-2 with additional height at the properties highlighted below in blue, located at approximately 1550 S Main Street, which is currently the Main Street Motel. The parcel numbers are: 15132780200000, 15132780170000, 15132780120000, 15132780110000, 15132780120000, 15132780130000, 15132780140000 and the city-owned alley bifurcating these parcels. The purpose of this amendment is to redevelop this blighted, crime-ridden property into a mixed- use project that would add housing not typically found in this neighborhood and neighborhood- scaled commercial to this portion of Main Street, a major commercial thoroughfare, just blocks from downtown and a ½ mile to the Ballpark TRAX. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned is as follows: Our vision for this property is to rezone it from Commercial Corridor (CC) to FBUN-2 Corner Lot for the following reasons: 1) Proximity to TRAX and location on a prominent corner of Main St a major corridor connecting into downtown. This property is within a ½ mile from the Ballpark TRAX stop, categorizing this location as a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). The following are benefits of successful Transit-Oriented Developments: www.urbanalfandre.com Create compact development within an easy walk of public transit and with sufficient density to support transit ridership Establish a hierarchy of transportation which places the pedestrian first, bicycle second and auto third. Create active places and livable communities that service daily needs and where people feel a sense of belonging and ownership. Incorporate retail into a development if it is a viable use at the location. Ideally drawing customers both from both the TOD and a major street. TOD strengthens urban development but also helps manage future regional growth by encouraging growth to occur where the existing infrastructure is best suited to address it. The benefits of this type of development include: o More residents living close to commercial areas to support a strong, local oriented economy. o This reduces the overall cost of development and reduces negative environmental impacts on air and water quality while creating community oriented public places. By optimizing land use and accessibility, Transit-Oriented Development decreases traffic congestion, improves air quality and public health, lowers the cost of living, and makes opportunities more accessible. (http://tod.org/) Encourage the stabilization and revitalization of existing neighborhoods, as new uses are designed to support existing neighborhood characteristics o The stabilization of these parcels is an important part of making this neighborhood safer to walk and take transit. 2) To add density and a mix of uses, in an appropriate scale, that contemplates future growth of adjacent properties within the current zoning. Five-story, well designed mixed- use buildings which are massed correctly, are appropriate for these parcels which are situated on a prominent corner of Main Street which is a major commercial corridor connecting the densest part of downtown, which is just a couple blocks away, to the heart of the Ballpark neighborhood. The neighborhood recently went through a zoning change to preserve single family homes on the interior streets to accommodate more density on the main corridors of Main Street and 1700 South. This proposal is compatible with this neighborhood objective. www.urbanalfandre.com (Image 1) buildings are found, just a couple of blocks north, to past 2100 South and the start of South Salt Lake. FBUN-2 will serve as a transition zone of gentle density between Downtown, the Ballpark Area which will become much more dense, according to the Ballpark Area Plan (Draft), and downtown South Salt Lake. The purpose of a Transition Area as described by the Salt Lake City TOD Documents is: to provide a moderate level of land development intensity that incorporates the principles of sustainable transit oriented development. The transition area is intended to provide an important support base to the core area and transit ridership as well as buffer surrounding neighborhoods from the intensity of the core area. These areas reinforce the viability of the core area and provide opportunities for a range of housing types at different densities. Transition areas are generally located within a one-half (½) mile from the station platform, but may vary based on the character of the area. Transition areas typically serve the surrounding neighborhood; include a broad range of building forms that house a mix of compatible land uses. The minimum desired density is ten (10) dwelling units per acre. Commercial uses may include office, retail, restaurant and other commercial land uses that are necessary to create mixed use neighborhoods. Commercial uses can be clustered around intersections and along block faces to create neighborhood nodes. The zoning along this portion of Main Street is currently Commercial Corridor which h the growth trajectory of our city and the lack of housing options it is only a matter of time before www.urbanalfandre.com 3) Extra height creates more livability and housing opportunities: The current CC zoning gh a Planned Development process. A rezone to FBUN-2 Corner Lot is only one story taller than what is currently allowed, however, the extra story and height allows for much more flexibility to add more housing types not typically found in this neighborhood, adequate onsite parking, and ground floor commercial with the appropriate ceiling heights to attract desired local retail tenants, while also creating a vibrant pedestrian experience. (Slate, a project our team developed in the Central 9th neighborhood in the same FBUN-2 zone, has off-street parking and appropriate ceiling heights for ground floor active commercial space 1. to add a material amount of housing units not typically found in the neighborhood, with proper ground floor ceiling heights for commercial space and provide enough off-street parking. 2. Setbacks are much larger than the east side of Main St causing an irregular urban wall and public realm. 1) Creating more livable communities and neighborhoods through the appropriate transition of multi-family housing and mixed land uses in designated areas a) This zoning amendment would achieve this by redeveloping this detrimental use into a multi-family, mixed-use project on Main Street, which is a major thoroughfare for automobiles, but also denser multifamily housing and commercial space, which would also make this neighborhood more livable for a wider range of people. www.urbanalfandre.com 2) To have pedestrians use transit and walk comfortably to services, shopping and recreational opportunities. a) It is important to leverage parcels on major thoroughfares to create smart density to support TRAX and BRT transportation systems. This site is a 10 minute walk to the 1300 South TRAX stop and is considered a transit-oriented site. This zoning amendment is appropriate to this location and will achieve city-wide master plan, housing and TOD goals by redeveloping it in a mixed-use, contextually sensitive way that promotes walkability and vibrancy along a major commercial thoroughfare just blocks from downtown. 3) To increase pedestrian accessibility by creating housing that supports the employment center of the downtown area. a) Leveraging this location, which is a 10 minute walk to TRAX, through creating more housing will increase pedestrian accessibility and transit accessibility that will support the employment center of downtown. 4) An enhanced built environment that encourages employees to work and live in the Central Community a) Adding housing types not typically found in this neighborhood, in a mixed-use setting, that creates a more vibrant and walkable streetscape, while providing more services within walking distance, creates a vibrant built environment which will attract more people to live and work in this neighborhood. This zoning amendment will achieve Salt Lake City Housing Affordability Priorities by: 1) Removing barriers which limit housing density, prohibit needed housing types or create excessive developer burden. a) This zoning amendment would achieve this by redeveloping this detrimental use into a multi-family, mixed-use project on Main Street and provide units that are not typically found in the neighborhood. www.urbanalfandre.com The above photos of recently delivered projects, Moda on Main and The Edith, which are larger townhome units, comprise most of the new housing stock in this neighborhood. The rezone would allow for something different more efficient residential units above ground floor retail, which will deliver a more varied housing stock to the neighborhood. 2) Support the development of new or underutilized housing types that meet the unique needs a) The proposed rezone would provide more housing types not typically found in this neighborhood and in so doing, increase housing choices for a wider range of people in this neighborhood. 3) Promote transit-oriented development, walkable communities and models that decrease the need for cars or parking stalls. a) Leveraging this TOD site into a mixed-use project that increases the walkability of Main Street would accomplish this Priority. Ballpark Area Plan (Draft) While we understand that the Ballpark Area Plan has not been officially adopted yet, we his project is in presence of small local businesses, a generally pleasant pedestrian and bike environment, and medium-density residential buildings. New development should focus on maintaining the scale, walkability and bikability of the neighborhood. o This project will implement the intent of the Main Street Character Area by: Creating ground floor commercial space for local businesses Creating a vibrant pedestrian experience through activation and design including: Street trees ADA accessible Human scaled building frontages www.urbanalfandre.com Pedestrian level street lighting Store fronts, office windows, and windows on homes facing the street Enhancing the walkability and bikability of Main Street through design, gentle density and a mix of uses. The Ballpark Area Plan (Draft) also calls out for reduced setbacks on the west side of Main Street to be equal with the setbacks on the east side of Main Street to create a more uniform urban wall and public realm. Our team is interested in executing a Development Agreement with the City to ensure the public benefits of off-street parking, human scaled street frontages and ground floor commercial space are incorporated in the new project. This request, if approved, will amend the zoning map, future land use map in the master plan and amend the text of the zoning ordinance. Kindest regards, James Alfandre Founding Principal Urban Alfandre, LLC 650 South 500 West #188 Salt Lake City, UT 84103 www.urbanalfandre.com The above is a precedent image to show an example of street activation and sensitivity to massing. www.urbanalfandre.com November 12, 2021 RE: Zoning Amendment for 1550 South Main Street Assemblage Summary Urban Alfandre (UA) is the contract purchaser of an approximately 2 acre site with direct frontage on Main Street and Andrew Avenue (exact parcel numbers shown below). UA is requesting to re-zone the property from CC to FBUN-2 Corner Lot with a voluntary development agreement to add off-street parking within the building and massing that is sensitive to the adjacent parcels. We believe FBUN-2 Corner Lot is the appropriate zone for the following reasons: o The height of the proposed zone (65 ft) allows for maximum flexibility to achieve the following design goals: 1) add sufficient off-street parking in the building; 2) design ground floor retail with appropriate height; o It is where we should be adding density located within a 10 minute walk to the 1300 S TRAX station which allows residents to enjoy transportation optionality and not be dependent on a car o It conforms with the proposed Ballpark master plan of activation, retail, and density near transit The current CC zone limits the height of our intended use to 45 ft which is insufficient for off-street parking and retail on the ground floor. The current use of the Main Street Motel is one that brings significant and recurring crime to the neighborhood. The neighborhood stakeholders have all expressed strong desire to see this use go away. Our intended use of a mixed-use residential and retail building will activate the street and help make the entire neighborhood safer. www.urbanalfandre.com Report We are pleased to submit this application to amend the current zoning from CC to FBUN-2 Corner Lot at the properties highlighted below in blue, located at approximately 1550 S Main Street, which is currently the Main Street Motel. The parcel numbers are: 15132780200000, 15132780170000, 15132780120000, 15132780110000, 15132780120000, 15132780130000, 15132780140000 and the city-owned alley bifurcating these parcels. The purpose of this amendment is to redevelop this blighted, crime-ridden property into a mixed-use project that would add housing not typically found in this neighborhood and neighborhood-scaled commercial to this portion of Main Street, a major commercial thoroughfare, just blocks from downtown and a ½ mile to the Ballpark TRAX. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned is as follows: Our vision for this property is to rezone it from Commercial Corridor (CC) to FBUN-2 Corner Lot for the following reasons: 1) Proximity to TRAX and location on a prominent corner of Main St a major corridor connecting into downtown. This property is within a ½ mile from the Ballpark TRAX stop, categorizing this location as a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). The following are benefits of successful Transit-Oriented Developments: Create compact development within an easy walk of public transit and with sufficient density to support transit ridership www.urbanalfandre.com Establish a hierarchy of transportation which places the pedestrian first, bicycle second and auto third. Create active places and livable communities that service daily needs and where people feel a sense of belonging and ownership. Incorporate retail into a development if it is a viable use at the location. Ideally drawing customers both from both the TOD and a major street. TOD strengthens urban development but also helps manage future regional growth by encouraging growth to occur where the existing infrastructure is best suited to address it. The benefits of this type of development include: o More residents living close to commercial areas to support a strong, local oriented economy. o This reduces the overall cost of development and reduces negative environmental impacts on air and water quality while creating community oriented public places. By optimizing land use and accessibility, Transit-Oriented Development decreases traffic congestion, improves air quality and public health, lowers the cost of living, and makes opportunities more accessible. (http://tod.org/) Encourage the stabilization and revitalization of existing neighborhoods, as new uses are designed to support existing neighborhood characteristics o The stabilization of these parcels is an important part of making this neighborhood safer to walk and take transit. 2) To add density and a mix of uses, in an appropriate scale, that contemplates future growth of adjacent properties within the current zoning. Five-story, well designed mixed-use buildings which are massed correctly, are appropriate for these parcels which are situated on a prominent corner of Main Street which is a major commercial corridor connecting the densest part of downtown, which is just a couple blocks away, to the heart of the Ballpark neighborhood. The neighborhood recently went through a zoning change to preserve single family homes on the interior streets to accommodate more density on the main corridors of Main Street and 1700 South. This proposal is compatible with this neighborhood objective. www.urbanalfandre.com (Image 1) densest buildings are found, just a couple of blocks north, to past 2100 South and the start of South Salt Lake. FBUN-2 will serve as a transition zone of gentle density between Downtown, the Ballpark Area which will become much more dense, according to the Ballpark Area Plan (Draft), and downtown South Salt Lake. The purpose of a Transition Area as described by the Salt Lake City TOD Documents is: to provide a moderate level of land development intensity that incorporates the principles of sustainable transit oriented development. The transition area is intended to provide an important support base to the core area and transit ridership as well as buffer surrounding neighborhoods from the intensity of the core area. These areas reinforce the viability of the core area and provide opportunities for a range of housing types at different densities. Transition areas are generally located within a one-half (½) mile from the station platform, but may vary based on the character of the area. Transition areas typically serve the surrounding neighborhood; include a broad range of building forms that house a mix of compatible land uses. The minimum desired density is ten (10) dwelling units per acre. Commercial uses may include office, retail, restaurant and other commercial land uses that are necessary to create mixed use neighborhoods. Commercial uses can be clustered around intersections and along block faces to create neighborhood nodes. The zoning along this portion of Main Street is currently Commercial Corridor which www.urbanalfandre.com trajectory of our city and the lack of housing options it is only a matter of time before . 3) Extra height creates more livability and housing opportunities: The current CC zoning -2 Corner Lot is only one story taller than what is currently allowed, however, the extra story and height allows for much more flexibility to add more housing types not typically found in this neighborhood, adequate onsite parking, and ground floor commercial with the appropriate ceiling heights to attract desired local retail tenants, while also creating a vibrant pedestrian experience. (Slate, a project our team developed in the Central 9th neighborhood in the same FBUN-2 zone, has off-street parking and appropriate ceiling heights for ground floor active commercial space reasons: 1. A maximum height to add a material amount of housing units not typically found in the neighborhood, with proper ground floor ceiling heights for commercial space and provide enough off-street parking. 2. Setbacks are much larger than the east side of Main St causing an irregular urban wall and public realm. 1) Creating more livable communities and neighborhoods through the appropriate transition of multi-family housing and mixed land uses in designated areas a) This zoning amendment would achieve this by redeveloping this detrimental use into a multi-family, mixed-use project on Main Street, which is a major thoroughfare for www.urbanalfandre.com automobiles, but also denser multifamily housing and commercial space, which would also make this neighborhood more livable for a wider range of people. 2) To have pedestrians use transit and walk comfortably to services, shopping and recreational opportunities. a) It is important to leverage parcels on major thoroughfares to create smart density to support TRAX and BRT transportation systems. This site is a 10 minute walk to the 1300 South TRAX stop and is considered a transit-oriented site. This zoning amendment is appropriate to this location and will achieve city-wide master plan, housing and TOD goals by redeveloping it in a mixed-use, contextually sensitive way that promotes walkability and vibrancy along a major commercial thoroughfare just blocks from downtown. 3) To increase pedestrian accessibility by creating housing that supports the employment center of the downtown area. a) Leveraging this location, which is a 10 minute walk to TRAX, through creating more housing will increase pedestrian accessibility and transit accessibility that will support the employment center of downtown. 4) An enhanced built environment that encourages employees to work and live in the Central Community a) Adding housing types not typically found in this neighborhood, in a mixed-use setting, that creates a more vibrant and walkable streetscape, while providing more services within walking distance, creates a vibrant built environment which will attract more people to live and work in this neighborhood. This zoning amendment will achieve Salt Lake City Housing Affordability Priorities by: 1) Removing barriers which limit housing density, prohibit needed housing types or create excessive developer burden. a) This zoning amendment would achieve this by redeveloping this detrimental use into a multi-family, mixed-use project on Main Street and provide units that are not typically found in the neighborhood. www.urbanalfandre.com The above photos of recently delivered projects, Moda on Main and The Edith, which are larger townhome units, comprise most of the new housing stock in this neighborhood. The rezone would allow for something different more efficient residential units above ground floor retail, which will deliver a more varied housing stock to the neighborhood. 2) Support the development of new or underutilized housing types that meet the unique a) The proposed rezone would provide more housing types not typically found in this neighborhood and in so doing, increase housing choices for a wider range of people in this neighborhood. 3) Promote transit-oriented development, walkable communities and models that decrease the need for cars or parking stalls. www.urbanalfandre.com a) Leveraging this TOD site into a mixed-use project that increases the walkability of Main Street would accomplish this Priority. Ballpark Area Plan (Draft) y released draft Ballpark Station Area Plan, of which is defined by the presence of small local businesses, a generally pleasant pedestrian and bike environment, and medium-density residential buildings. New development should focus on maintaining the scale, walkability and bikability of the neighborhood. o This project will implement the intent of the Main Street Character Area by: Creating ground floor commercial space for local businesses Creating a vibrant pedestrian experience through activation and design including: Street trees ADA accessible Human scaled building frontages Pedestrian level street lighting Store fronts, office windows, and windows on homes facing the street Enhancing the walkability and bikability of Main Street through design, gentle density and a mix of uses. The Ballpark Area Plan (Draft) also calls out for reduced setbacks on the west side of Main Street to be equal with the setbacks on the east side of Main Street to create a more uniform urban wall and public realm. Our team is interested in executing a Development Agreement with the City to ensure the public benefits of off-street parking, human scaled street frontages and ground floor commercial space are incorporated in the new project. This request, if approved, will amend the zoning map. Kindest regards, James Alfandre Founding Principal Urban Alfandre, LLC 650 South 500 West #188 Salt Lake City, UT 84103 www.urbanalfandre.com The above is a precedent image to show an example of street activation and sensitivity to massing. 20211147 20211147 20211147 20211147 20211147 20211147 20211147 BASE MIDDLE TOP 20211147 PUBLIC REALM PRIVATE REALM 20211147 20211147 20211147 20211147 Updated Alley Vacation or Closure OFFICE USE ONLY Received By: Date Received: Project #: Project Name: PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Location of the Alley: Name of Applicant: Phone: Address of Applicant: E-mail of Applicant: Cell/Fax: Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property: Owner Contractor Architect Other: Name of Property Owner abutting the alley (if different from applicant): E-mail of Property Owner: Phone: Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION lanners are available for consultation prior to submitting this application. Please email zoning@slcgov.com if you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application. WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online. REQUIRED FEE Filing fee of $26 Plus additional fee for required public notices SIGNATURE If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: SA L T L A K E C I T Y P L A N N I N G Urban Alfandre - Stephen Alfandre 301-767-5148 steve@urbanalfandre.com 3017675148 colonialmotel@gmail.com 01/25/2022 1500 main street, east of Richards St; west of Main Street; south of Andrew Ave 650 S 500 W Suite 188 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Contract purchaser David Pope 8015779637 St a f f R e v i e w SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Please include with the application: (please attach additional sheets electronically) 1. A letter explaining why you are requesting this alley vacation or closure. 2. A Sidwell map showing the area of the proposed alley vacation or closure. On the map please: a.Highlight the area of the proposed alley vacation or closure. b. Indicate with colored dot the property owners who support the petition. c. Submit a digital (PDF) copy of the map. 3. A written description with measurements of the proposed alley vacation or closure. A final legal description prepared by a licensed engineer will be required later. 4. The name, address and signatures of all abutting property owners who support the petition. Petition must include the signatures of no less than 80% of the abutting property owners. Signatures should be from the property owners and not from the property renters. You may use the form attached to this application or provide your own form with signatures. WHAT IS AN ALLEY VACATION OR CLOSURE? As part of the subdivision process, early developers were required to create alleys which were then deeded to the City. They were used for coal delivery, garbage pickup and other services. They also allowed access to garages. Today, the City is officially the owner of these alleys. In situations where it can be demonstrated that there is an over-riding public purpose for vacating the alley, the City may relinquish its property interest in the alley. When an alley is next to or abuts a single family or duplex residential property, the City vacates the alley, divides it in half, and the property is conveyed to the abutting property owners. If an alley is next to or abuts a non-residential, or multifamily residential (3 or more dwelling units) property, the City may close the alley and then sell the land at fair market value to the abutting property owners. WHAT THE CITY CONSIDERS BEFORE VACATING OR CLOSING AN ALLEY Section 14.52.020 1. The City police department, fire department, transportation division, and all other relevant City departments have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the property; 2. Granting the petition will not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any property adjacent to the alley; 3. Granting the petition will not result in any property being landlocked; 4. 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; 5. 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; 6. The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and 7.The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED ______ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. PETITION TO VACATE OR CLOSE AN ALLEY Name of Applicant: Address of Applicant: Date: As an owner of property adjacent to the alley, I agree to the proposed vacation or closure. I understand that if my property is a commercial business or a rental property with more than three (3) dwelling units, I will be required to pay fair market value for my half of the alley. Print Name Address Signature Date Print Name Address Signature Date Print Name Address Signature Date Print Name Address Signature Date Print Name Address Signature Date Print Name Address Signature Date Print Name Address Signature Date Print Name Address Signature Date Print Name Address Signature Date Print Name Address Signature Date Print Name Address Signature Date Print Name Address Signature Date Print Name Address Signature Date Urban Alfandre - Stephen Alfandre 650 S 500 W Suite 188 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 01/25/2022 David Pope 1530 S Main Street Salt Lake City UT 84115 Four Holdings, Inc 1530 S Main Street Salt Lake City UT 84115 1/25/2022 1/25/2022 1518 S Main Street Salt Lake City, Ut 84115Four Holdings, Inc 1540 S Main Street Salt Lake CityDavid Pope 1546 S Main Street Salt Lake City UT 84115David Pope 1515 S Richards Street Salt Lake City UT 84115Four Holdings, Inc 18 W Van Buren Ave Salt Lake City 84115John R and Mary J Hargreaves 22 W Van Buren Ave Salt Lake City UT 84115Thelma Castaneda; Tammy Dryer "See signature above" "See signature above" "See signature above" "See signature above" Updated /2 /2 Zoning Amendment Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance Amend the Zoning Map OFFICE USE ONLY Received By:Date Received:Project #: Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment: PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Address of Subject Property (or Area): Name of Applicant:Phone: Address of Applicant: E-mail of Applicant:Cell/Fax: Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property: Owner Contractor Architect Other: Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant): E-mail of Property Owner:Phone: Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City Planning Counter at zoning@slcgov.com prior to submitting the application. REQUIRED FEE Map Amendment: filing fee of $1,0 plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre Text Amendment: filing fee of $1,0 , plus fees for newspaper notice. Plus, additional fee for mailed public notices. Noticing fees will be assessed after the application is submitted. SIGNATURE If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Signature of Owner or Agent:Date: St a f f R e v i e w SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Project Description (please electronically attach additional sheets. See Section 21A.50 for the Amendments ordinance.) A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed. WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED ______ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. 4. Mailing List 5. Written Comments Received after the Staff Report was Published Additional Public Comments from Ballpark CC and Residents 07/19/2022 On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 10:32 PM Amy J. Hawkins < wrote: Hello David Gellner and the Planning Division, I attempted to forward some of the correspondence our neighborhood has recently exchanged with Urban Alfandre regarding management of other nearby property in the Ballpark neighborhood. Unfortunately it bounced back due to file size restrictions. I and other surrounding residents often sent photos of evidence of our current situation. I am sorry that the photos won't make it into the report to be considered by members of the Planning Commission, but hopefully the amount and tone of the correspondence will still convey some of the important information. It is also important to note that despite what surrounding residents have been told, as of the time that I am writing this email, the buildings at 1450 S. Main Street are still standing and have yet to be demolished. The surrounding neighborhood no longer believes that Urban Alfandre will be honest or transparent with them regarding timelines or expectations regarding this or other properties in the neighborhood. This is unfortunate. *** Dear David Gellner, the Salt Lake City Planning Division, and Members of the Planning Commission, As we approach next week's public hearing for the 1550 S Main Street Assemblage Zoning Map, Master Plan, Zoning Text Amendments, and Alley Vacation, I am passing along some of the recent correspondence between residents in the Ballpark neighborhood and Urban Alfandre concerning another property assemblage of theirs one block to the north, at approximately 1450 S. Main Street. We are still waiting for the buildings on this property to be demolished. While we wait, these unsecured properties have attracted a considerable amount of drug dealing, sex work, bike chop shops, and camping, causing the surrounding residents a great deal of stress. While there is currently fencing around the property, it is not secure (as evidenced by the shopping carts that appear on the other side of the fencing). Many emails to the property owners, Urban Alfandre, have gone unanswered for days, or have never been answered at all. It is deeply concerning to the residents of the Ballpark neighborhood that we have experienced problems with these properties as they have been vacated and turned over to Urban Alfandre. Prior to being owned by Urban Alfandre, these properties were occupied by a used car lot, a dog car care business, and a closed electronics store, and were not extremely troubled properties. In contrast, the 1550 S. Main Street Assemblage properties that they wish to acquire and rezone include the Main Street Motel, one of Salt Lake City's most troubled and crime-ridden properties. The Main Street Motel is a notorious low budget motel that has often been the site of sex work, domestic abuse, drug sales and use, and has been involved with several recent homicides in our neighborhood in the past few years. If Urban Alfandre cannot responsibly manage the transitioning of an unproblematic used car lot and dog day care without causing such a dramatic uptick of crime to the surrounding neighborhood, they should not be allowed to manage the transition of one Salt Lake City's most troubled properties. The consequences for the neighborhood will not be trivial. Given the history of the property and the Salt Lake Police Department SWAT team that has had to visit this year while it has been occupied and managed, it is not an exaggeration to say that human lives will be at risk during any gap between its current style of management and complete demolition. I welcome my other Ballpark neighbors to submit further comments about their experience in our neighborhood to zoning@slcgov.com and David.Gellner@slcgov.com while Urban Alfandre has been responsible for managing the unoccupied 1450 S. Main Street properties. Sincerely, Amy J. Hawkins, PhD Chair, Ballpark Community Council facebook.com/BallparkCC/ From:Jeff Sandstrom <> Date:July 8, 2022 at 7:54:02 AM MDT To:James Alfandre < Cc:Amy Hawkins < Subject:Security breach Good morning James. On my morning walk, I noticed that the fences have been breached both on main street and on the Alley side of your property. I saw a homeless person leaving through the front fence in front of the dog building, they have simply pulled the post out of the ground and opened the fence. They have a shopping cart inside. Plus, you might check the security of the dog building it almost appears that someone could be Camping inside with a blanket in the interior doorway. In the back alley, part of the new fence has been Opened to expose a hole in the old fence. Thanks, Jeff Sandstrom On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 6:27 PM John Allison <> wrote: Hey James, We are looking forward to that new, no trespassing signs and fence going up tomorrow. I just took a picture of some folks camping out in the alley rummaging through the trash inside the current fence boundaries. Thanks, John On Tue, Jun 28, 2022, 2:58 PM James Alfandre > wrote: John, Thanks for the update. The 'No Trespassing' signs will be added this afternoon, and more cleanup will continue throughout the week. Construction perimeter fencing is being installed on Friday. James On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 1:38 PM John Allison > wrote: Hi James, It looks like some clean up has happened at your property and the homeless camp has finally been removed. We also look forward to you adding the city approved "no trespassing" signs so this doesn't happen again while the property gets redeveloped into much needed new housing. I know you've said that there have been delays in the demolition but the faster it can look like the lot at 1700 S and W Temple (pic attached) the better it will be for the community to not have so many people attracted to the empty buildings like a month to a flame. I am sure there are supply chain and labor shortage issues but an expedited demolition of the property will keep people from using it. I walk my dog every day past 1700 S and W Temple lot and have never seen a squatter there because it is very unappealing since there is a clear line of sight to the roads. Additionally, I noticed another hole has been cut into the fence (see attached pic). Thanks, John On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 9:22 PM Ryan O'Mahony <> wrote: James, With the exponential growth of drug activity and trash buildup since the tenants have left a few weeks ago, the thought of another few weeks has me frightened. As Amy mentioned, we can no longer walk along your property and feel safe. I have been calling the police multiple times a day between the encampments, drug use and break ins. Please help the neighborhood by at least cleaning up and securing the perimeter of the property prior to Dominions work. The lot literally looks like a junk yard, and to be honest I am embarrassed to live next to something like this. Please let us know if there is something we can do to expedite the process. Thank you. W Merrimac Ave From:Amy J. Hawkins <> Date: Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 5:04 PM Subject: Re: request for update on demolition timeline To: James Alfandre <> Hi James, Your response deeply concerns me because on June 10th you wrote and told us that you were planning to demo the buildings next week, which would have been June 13th - June 17th. Will you write to us two weeks from now on July 11th, and let us know of another delay? I'm sorry if I wasn't perfectly clear in my previous email. Given the current situation on our street, a minimum of two weeks is going to be a very long time to wait. We do not feel safe walking down our street. I do not feel safe exiting my front door, because it is in full view of this camp, and its occupants have seen me speaking with police officers. The occupants of this camp appear to be friendly with drug dealers. Who can we call to help you obtain your permits faster? I mean this *very literally*. We are willing to make calls and make contacts for you. Please take advantage of this opportunity. I need you to help us answer this question so we can feel safer, sooner. Best regards, Amy J. Hawkins, PhD Chair, Ballpark Community Council facebook.com/BallparkCC/ --- On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 6:43 PM andrew mauss <> wrote: Hello, Also a concerned neighbor here. I have noticed and have videos showing the uptick in people camping and browsing the back yards in my ally. It is up 10x since the buildings have been vacant. There is a mostly permanent living situation between the trailers. The door on the pet boarding place was wide open last week and there where at least 3 people hanging out in there. The fact that the trailer on the street is allowed to be there is 100 precent because the building is vacant. It is unacceptable that the only thing that has been done to secure them is some plywood and it didn't even happen until last week or so. I am a general contractor and have been involved with multiple projects very similar to what this one seems to be, and the fact that nothing is being done there because of dominion is ridiculous. The properties could have been secured and patrolled, as well as all what I am almost positive is hazmat stuff left in the dealership. That could all have been removed prior to the excavators coming in to demo. Ultimately these properties are your responsibility now and should be kept accordingly. Hi James, I second all of Amy and John's frustrations and concerns! It seems clear that leaving these buildings abandoned for this length of time seems to be nothing less than poor planning on you and your firm's part. As an outsider looking in, it is perplexing how much time you have had to prepare for this (over a year) and how horrible it is going. And placing all the responsibility on Dominion seems to be passing the buck. Gary's property still has multiple semi trucks that are still full of materials that he has been slowly unpacking. Given the speed at which he is unloading those I don't get the sense that he is under any pressure to move out, which makes me question the real timeline of this demolition. Are there parts of the property that you can begin to clear/clean up. For example, the section of alleyway behind my house (middle of the alleyway) has huge bushes that are on George's property. This provides a place for the homeless to hide out and there is a huge encampment there (in the alleyway and on George's property). There is a permanent fire pit next to the road where people are burning the plastic coating off copper wire they are selling. Additionally the old auto body shop and dog daycare has a ton of large item trash (stoves, refrigerators, ATV) that could be moved and cleaned up. Getting rid of that trash would make your properties look less inviting for people who are passing by and interested in scavenging. Right now it looks like a junkyard.....is it really that surprising homeless people are breaking in to see what they can steal. Two (or more) weeks of this is unexceptable and we all know that enforcement alone isn't going to change this. Please share more options for what you are going to do. Best, Jason From:James Alfandre > Date: Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 4:23 PM Subject: Re: request for update on demolition timeline Dominion Gas is working with SLC now to obtain a permit to work in the right of way to kill their lines. We are hopeful that it will be resolved soon. The asbestos should be remediated in the buildings shortly. We're still a couple of weeks away from being able to receive the demo permit, it sounds like, but are doing what we can to expedite. We are working on expediting the perimeter construction fencing and will monitor the property on a regular basis and will work with the local police officers to assist. James On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 2:56 PM John Allison <j > wrote: Hi Everyone, I'd just like to add to what Amy has stated in the previous email(s) and add a few pictures. It is my hope that Dominion Power and RMP will expedite the process of cutting gas and power to these properties so demolition of these buildings can begin immediately. Because the fence has been compromised people are coming and going from the buildings constantly throughout the day and night. It has overwhelmed our section of the neighborhood and they are now looking for power out of our outlets on private property. Some have been so audacious to just "squat" on our front porches. All of this activity has greatly increased because these empty buildings are still here and accessible. Is there not anything that we can do to help this process along? The dry cleaner on the corner of 1700S and W. Temple was abandoned and quickly demolished and there hasn't been any squatting on the property. Why can't this be done for this property? Thanks for your time, John On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 10:53 AM Amy J. Hawkins wrote: Thank you, James. Again, we are happy to help make phone calls to expedite the demo permit. Please let us know what we can do. We realize the fencing would have to be fairly substantial and a big step up from decorative garden fencing currently surrounding the trailers to effectively secure the property and prevent camping. The encampment that I photographed on Sunday morning was broken down and moved to the east side of your building by Sunday afternoon. Additionally, a trailer parked on the north side of the street on Merrimac Avenue and spent the night on the street, where people used drugs and visited your property and our townhomes throughout the night (Dan Thomas a Ballpark Community Council Board Member who is copied on this email, can verify the latter, having messaged me at 11:41 pm about telling a transient person to stop using our external power and to leave our property--they returned to their camper. Thankfully, multiple neighbors and police communicated about the trailer today and have informed its occupants that they need to leave the street. Profound thanks to Lieutenant Steve Wooldridge and Sergeant Allen Christiansen and their officers for their policing of the Ballpark neighborhood, and for the officers who visited throughout the day and evening yesterday. James, please let us know what we can do to advocate for securing the property and expediting your permits. We will continue to have issues with camping, drug use, dealing and other issues that transient populations attract until this is resolved. Amy J. Hawkins, PhD Chair, Ballpark Community Council facebook.com/BallparkCC/ On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 9:14 AM James Alfandre < wrote: Thank you for this update. I am sorry the neighbors have had to deal with this. We are working to get fencing up to secure the property and to get the encampment gone while We are hoping to have the fencing up within the next day or two and will have the encampment removed today. James On Jun 26, 2022, at 10:49 PM, Amy J. Hawkins <> wrote: Hi James, neighbors have asked me to contact you again within the past 48 hours. Their questions are being prompted by the fact your unsecured property is now a known vector for a criminal element in Salt Lake City. We have experienced a dramatic increase in criminal activity and it has become dangerous . Regarding both demolition and construction, I think your property manager should anticipate needing to take increased security measures to protect both your property and the surrounding neighborhood. I hope the surrounding neighborhood is still of concern to you. As I write this email to you now at 9:24 pm on Sunday evening, it is listening to police officers break up yet another encampment on your property (which I can hear from inside my home). We watched officers enter through the fence surrounding the property because it is, as a Between this past Thursday afternoon, last night, and today, the transient population that the property has attracted to our neighborhood has had a profound impact on the lives of the residents of the surrounding blocks who are trying to live above the law. I have spent at least 8 hours of the past week dealing with issues surrounding the dramatically increased transient population on our block and in our alley, including calling 911, the non-emergency dispatch number, and submitting video and photo evidence to the police department, SLC mobile app and Civil Enforcement about break ins and new damage to our surrounding community. For o your property when we woke up this morning and it was this encampment that also prevented us from feeling as if we could safely walk in our neighborhood last night, knowing that folks were watching us enter and leave our home. If there is anything that the neighborhood can do to help advocate to further secure the future process of demolition, please let us know. I would be more than happy to place a phone call with Dominion Power or any other service provider to help expedite the process, or to ask the would be eager to help out a neighborhood that already experienced two homicides in May 2022. This situation is intolerable. Please let us know what you will do to help alleviate it as soon as possible. Sincerely, Amy J. Hawkins, PhD Chair, Ballpark Community Council facebook.com/BallparkCC/ --- On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 1:06 PM Rob Phillips <r > wrote: James - I am one of the owners of the business across the street, RoHa Brewing Project. From this email it sounds like you are looking to demo and develop that space along Kensington and Major Street. We look forward to any improvement. If we can support you in this effort in any way - please let me know. We are doing all we can to improve the neighborhood, and increase walking traffic. Please let me know if you need anything, my contact information is below. Thank you, Rob Rob Phillips work cell On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 12:49 PM James Alfandre < wrote: Amy, Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We were planning to demo the buildings next week, however, we are waiting on Dominion Energy to kill the gas meters and haven't received a date for when that will be yet. We will get the property secured and boarded as soon as we can. James On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 11:35 AM Amy J. Hawkins > wrote: Hello Salt Lake City Civil Enforcement and Urban Alfandre, I'm writing to let you know that the Ballpark neighborhood is having problems with the unsecured buildings at 1450 S. Main Street (at the corner of Merrimac Avenue and Main Street) being repeatedly broken into by transient folks coming through the neighborhood. Multiple residents have reached out to me this week to let me know that these unsecured buildings are a serious problem, including Arika Schockmel, whose 11-year old daughter was recently solicited on her bicycle at the end of her block as if she was a sex worker. Our neighbor and Ballpark Community Council board member Jeff Sandstrom has just reached out to our Salt Lake Police Department Community Liaison Office Detective Fallows (thanks very much for being proactive, Jeff!), but I'm hoping that this can possibly be solved faster by Civil Enforcement and the current property owners and developers working together to secure the property before it is safely demo'ed. Could we be given a timeline to know when the buildings might be demo'ed? What can we do to help alert you to future problems to circumvent this situation in the future? Thank you for your help, Amy J. Hawkins, PhD Chair, Ballpark Community Council ----------Forwarded message --------- From:Jeff S > Date: Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 11:17 AM Subject: Increase in homeless campers, unsecured building To: Cc: Amy Hawkins , Dan Thomas <>, Nannette Condie Rob Philips <>, Catherine Cargill <>, Jason Sch <j > Hello Detective Fallows: We have an increase in homeless campers in the alleys. The alley between Main Street and Major street, behind Condie's Candy has been reported an an ongoing problem, especially in the evening and nighttime hours. An expanding number of people have been hanging out behind the business. Condies have called the police about this several times. The alley between Andrew Avenue and Merrimac Avenue just west of Main Street also has another camp in the middle of the alley. They are frequently blocking the right of way in the alley. I also reported the abandoned building at 1450 S Main on the City's app for having been broken into. The entire back of the building is wide open, with two garage door open. The building needs to be boarded and secured asap. The tenant has moved out and it is going to be redeveloped soon. Someone has cut the fence from the alley into the rear of the property, as well. If you could put these issues on your team's radar, we would really appreciate the help. Thanks, Jeff Sandstrom, board member, Ballpark Community Council S Main Street DAVID J.GELLNER,MAG, AICP Senior Planner Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION DAVID J.GELLNER,MAG, AICP Senior Planner Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION DAVID J.GELLNER,MAG, AICP Senior Planner Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION DAVID J.GELLNER,MAG, AICP Senior Planner Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 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:October 4, 2022 RE: Alley Vacation at approximately 925 South 1200 West PLNPCM2021-00806 ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will be briefed about a proposal to vacate a segment of City-owned alley adjacent to the property at 925 South 1200 West in City Council District Two. The petitioner owns the above-mentioned property which is located where 1200 West dead ends at the 9-Line trail. The subject alley segment is approximately 150 feet long and 14-16 feet wide. Alley segments east and west of the subject segment were vacated in 1981. An east-west alley segment between the 9-Line trail and 900 South is not proposed to be vacated. (See image below.) When the 9-Line trail was created, access to the subject alley segment was effectively closed to vehicular traffic as there is no curb cut. With the trail a few feet away, the alley is essentially unused. The petitioner stated they plan to use the alley property as a garden if the alley vacation is approved by the Council. Section 14.52.040 Salt Lake City Code outlines the method of disposition of alley property if a petition is approved by the City Council. If abutting properties are zoned for low density residential use, the alley is merely vacated, divided in half and the owners are not charged. However, since the subject alley segment is at the subdivision edge, the full width of the alley would be deeded to the petitioner. This is discussed in the Additional Information section below. This petition was reviewed at the October 27, 2021 Planning Commission meeting and a public hearing was held. Two people spoke at the public hearing in support of the proposed alley vacation. The Commission closed the hearing and followed Planning staff’s recommendation by voting 7-1 to forward a positive recommendation to the Council. The Commissioner who voted in opposition to the recommendation stated she is generally not in favor with alley vacations. Item Schedule: Briefing: October 4, 2022 Set Date: October 4, 2022 Public Hearing: October 18, 2022 Potential Action: November 10, 2022 Page | 2 Aerial image showing subject alley segment in red. Alley segments in blue were previously vacated. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division Photo of alley from where 1200 West dead ends at the 9-Line Trail. The trail is to the right, with the petitioner’s property left of the alley. Image courtesy of 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. Page | 3 POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Does the Council have concerns with the proposed alley vacation? 2. The Council may wish to ask why this section of the alley was the only portion not previously vacated in 1981. 3. The Council may wish to ask whether there would be any concerns if fencing or other landscaping elements were installed between this property and the 9-line trail. ADDITIONAL 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. The Planning Commission staff report provides information relating to the following three key considerations connected 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. Consideration 1: Property Owner Consent Salt Lake City Code requires signatures of at least 80% of abutting property owners indicating their support of proposed alley vacations. Property owners abutting the subject alley are the petitioner and Salt Lake City Corporation. (A property owner to the east of the subject alley segment signed the petition supporting the vacation, though their property does not directly abut the alley.) The Administration found it was not necessary for Salt Lake City Corporation to sign the petition as an abutting property owner because the City’s intent will be known based on the City Council's decision to approve or deny the alley vacation. Consideration 2: Policy Considerations Salt Lake City Code requires alley vacations meet at least one of the following policy considerations: A-Lack of Use, B-Public Safety, C-Urban Design, or D-Community Purpose. Lack of use is the primary consideration for the proposed alley vacation. The alley segment is essentially unused as a public right of way as abutting east/west segments of the alley were previously vacated which effectively rendered the alley unusable for beneficial public use. Additionally, vehicle access is not possible as there is no curb cut. Urban design is the other policy consideration related to this petition. It is Planning staff’s opinion the alley will continue to deteriorate and remain unmaintained if there isn’t current or potential future use of the alley segment. Consideration 3: History and Disposition if Vacated The subject alley is recorded on the 1909 Burlington 2nd Addition Subdivision plat. It is believed the alley was used at some point, but adjacent segments were vacated in 1981. According to the City Attorney’s Office, alleys dedicated as part of a subdivision must be conveyed to property owners within that subdivision if they are vacated. As this alley is on the perimeter of the subdivision, the entire alley width would be conveyed to the petitioner if the vacation is approved. It is worth noting a north/south alley segment that intersects the subject alley would remain open if the alley vacation is approved. A resident reportedly uses that segment, which is accessed from 900 South as there is no street access at 1200 West. Page | 4 City Department Review During City department and division review of the alley vacation petition, the Engineering Division expressed opposition, stating “Engineering does not support the closure of a public right of way.” No objections or concerns were received from other responding City departments or divisions. Analysis of Factors Attachment D (pages 13-15 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 the 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: Planning staff believes it complies. As noted above, City Engineering objected to the alley vacation. Other City departments and divisions had no issues with the proposal or did not provide comments. (Department review comments are found in Attachment F (page 17 of the Planning Commission staff report).) Planning staff stated “After further scrutiny and review, Planning staff has found that all other standards are being met and continue to recommend approval. •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 and Urban Design policy considerations. •City Code required analysis: The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property. Finding: Complies. The north/south alley segment will remain and provide access to the rear yard. •City Code required analysis: The petition will not result in any property being landlocked. Finding: Complies. No property would be landlocked because 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 are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses. Finding: The Westside Master Plan discusses importance of mid-block connections. However, the alley is not needed for this purpose as the 9-Line Trail provides east/west trail access. •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 owners expressed opposition to the proposed alley vacation. •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. Abutting east/west alley segments were previously vacated. The north/south alley segment would remain, but since there is no remaining east/west continuation of the alley, Planning staff believes the subject alley would be considered the “entire alley.” Page | 5 •City Code required analysis: The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. Finding: Complies. Properties abutting the subject alley do not use it for rear access. PUBLIC PROCESS August 13, 2021-Petition received by Planning Division. August 17, 2021-Petition assigned to Krissy Gilmore, Senior Planner. August 23, 2021-Notice sent to recognized community organizations. Early notification sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet. October 15, 2021-Public hearing notices emailed to those who requested notice. Agenda posted to Planning Commission website and State public notice webpage. October 27, 2021-Planning Commission public hearing. May 17, 2022-Alley vacation legal description from licensed engineer provided by applicant and reviewed by City Engineering Division. May 25, 2022-Draft ordinance sent to Attorney’s Office. August 3, 2022-Final ordinance received from Attorney’s Office. September 21, 2022-Transmittal received in City Council Office Salt Lake City Code 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 Page | 6 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 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; Page | 7 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. Salt Lake City Council // October 4, 2022 ALLEY VACATION 925 S 1200 W PLNPCM2021-00806 •Request to vacate a segment of alley approx.150-feet long adjacent to 925 S 1200 W. •The alley is essentially unused as a public right of way and impassible to travel because there is no curb cut allowing vehicle access . •Adjacent sections of the alley were vacated in 1981 •Case law supports full width of alley going to the owners of 925 S 1200 W. Salt Lake City // Planning Division PROJECT REQUEST Krissy Gilmore // Senior Planner Kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com 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: September 21, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Alley Vacation at approximately 925 S 1200 W, Petition PLNPCM2021-00806 STAFF CONTACT: Krissy Gilmore, Senior Planner, Kristina.Gilmore@slcgov.com, 801-535- 7780 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follows the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve the ordinance to Vacate the Alley located at approximately 925 S 1200 W with the condition that the method of disposition of the alley property shall be consistent with the method of disposition outlined in Section 14.52.040 – Method of Disposition and Chapter 2.58 City Owned Real Property of the Salt Lake City Ordinance. BUDGET IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Jordan and Elizabeth Frandsen, property owners at 925 S 1200 W, are asking to vacate an approximately 150-foot-long section of platted alley adjacent to the property. The alley is part of two alleys forming a backward “L” shape, one leg of which runs east/west from 1200 West Street, and one leg runs north/south from 900 South to the 9 Line Trail. The proposal is to vacate the east/west alley segment and incorporate the vacant land into the neighboring property. The total area of the proposed vacation is approximately 2,100 square feet. The remaining east/west portion of the alleyway was previously vacated in 1981. The north/south portion of the “L” shape is not included in this petition and would remain open. With their positive recommendation, at the suggestion of the Attorney’s Office, the Planning Commission recommended a condition that the method of disposition for the alley shall be consistent with the method of disposition outlined 9/21/2022 9/21/2022 Lisa Shaffer (Sep 21, 2022 16:37 MDT) in Section 14.52.040 – Method of Disposition and Chapter 2.58 City Owned Real Property of the Salt Lake City Ordinance. PUBLIC PROCESS: •The Planning Division provided a 45-day comment period notice to the Poplar Grove Community Council on August 23, 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 notice about the proposal and information on how to give public input on the project on August 23, 2021. •The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing for this request on October 27, 2021. By a vote of 7-1, they forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed Alley Vacation. Planning Commission (PC) Records PC Agenda for October 27, 2021 (Click to Access) PC Minutes of October 27, 2021 (Click to Access) PC Staff Report for October 27, 2021 (Click to Access Staff Report) EXHIBITS 1.Chronology 2.Notice of City Council Hearing 3.Petition Application SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ________ of 2022 (Vacating a portion of city-owned alley situated adjacent to properties located at 925 South 1200 West Street and 929 South Navajo Street) An ordinance vacating a portion of an unnamed, city-owned alley adjacent to properties located at 925 South 1200 West Street and 929 South Navajo Street, pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00806. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 27, 2021 to consider a request made by Jordan and Elizabeth Frandsen (“Applicants”) (Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00806) to vacate a portion of an unnamed, city-owned alley adjacent to properties located at 925 South 1200 West Street and 929 South Navajo Street; and WHEREAS, at its October 27, 2021 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation on said petition to the Salt Lake City Council; and WHEREAS, the portion of alley that is the subject of this petition was dedicated to public use in the Second Burlington Subdivision plat, recorded in 1909, and is situated on the perimeter of that subdivision; and WHEREAS, the general rule prescribed by Utah Code Section 72-5-105 is that abutting owners on each side of a vacated right-of-way vest with title to half of the width of the vacated right-of-way, however, as explained in Fries v. Martin, 154 P.3d 184 (Utah Ct. App. 2006), when a vacated right-of-way is situated on the perimeter of a subdivision, title to the entire width of that right-of-way vests only in the abutting property owners within the subdivision; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds after holding a public hearing on this matter, 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. 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 925 South 1200 West Street and 929 South Navajo Street, which is the subject of Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00806, and which is more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, hereby is, vacated and declared not presently necessary or available for public use. SECTION 2. Reservations and Disclaimers. The above vacation is expressly made subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of this property, and also subject to the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities, including the city’s water and sewer facilities. Said closure is also subject to any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of ______________, 2022. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. EXHIBIT “A” Legal description of the unnamed, city-owned alley to be vacated: THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTION IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OFFICIAL SALT LAKE CITY ATLAS “PLAT 35” AND THE “SECOND BURLINGTON ADDITION” SUBDIVISION PLAT RECORDED OCTOBER 11, 1909 AS ENTRY NO. 255916 IN BOOK “F” OF PLATS, PAGE 22. BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 88, SECOND BURLINGTON ADDITION, AS RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE SALT LAKE COUNTY RECORDER, AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 148.0 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 88 OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 16.0 FEET; THENCE WEST 148.0 FEET; THENCE NORTH 16.0 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS: 2,368 SQUARE FEET or 0.054 ACRES. 1) CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2021-00806 August 13, 2021 Application for an Alley Vacation accepted. August 17, 2021 Petition PLNPCM2021-00806 was assigned to Krissy Gilmore, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing. August 23, 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. October 15, 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. October 22, 2021 Planning Commission Staff Report posted. October 27, 2021 Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed alley vacation. May 17, 2022 Alley vacation legal description from a licensed engineer was provided by the applicant and reviewed by the City Engineering Division. May 25, 2022 Draft ordinance sent to Attorney’s Office August 3, 2022 Final ordinance received from Attorney’s Office 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2021-00806– Jordan and Elizabeth Frandsen, property owners, have initiated a petition to vacate an approximately 150-foot section of platted alley to the south of their property. The alley is part of two alleys forming a backward "L" shape, one leg of which runs east/west from 1200 West, and one leg runs north/south from 900 South to the 9 Line Trail. The proposal is to vacate an east/west alley segment and incorporate the vacant land into the neighboring property. The total area of the proposed vacation is approximately 2,100 square feet. 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/2021/10.%20October/00806.1200% 20W%20Alley%20Vacation.Staff%20Report.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: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah 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 Krissy Gilmore at 385-535-7780 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at Kristina.gilmore@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 August 2, 2021 To Whom It May Concern: My name is Jordan Frandsen. My wife, Elizabeth, and I recently purchased a home at 925 S 1200 W, here in Salt Lake City. The property sits at a dead end, abutting the Nine-Line walking path. There is an alley behind the property, parallel to 1200 W, which is accessible from 900 S. Within the last two years, the city blocked access to the alley from 1200 W. It is listed as an active public right-of-way, but there is no way to access it from the street anymore. We would like to request closure of this alley to the public and officially annex it to our property because it can no longer function as an alley due to the city’s beautification process. When we moved in, garbage had been accumulating there, as well as signs of use by unsheltered individuals. If we are able to annex it, we plan to use it as a family garden and would like to run sprinkler lines to this area, as well as put up a gate at either end. I have already been working to maintain the area, clearing garbage, weeds and overburdened trees that grew along my driveway and the alley. Here is a snap shot of the current zoning map, which has not been updated since the construction of the curbing and sidewalks to the Nine Line: Here is a picture of the current access from 1200 W, with the curbing restricting vehicle access to this property: measurement is taken) by 151 feet long. Maps taken from https://maps.slcgov.com/mws/atlasplats-lg.htm Thank you for taking the time to review this application. My family and I look forward to beautifying this space once the alley is formally closed. Jordan Frandsen 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:October 4, 2022 RE:FY23 Sustainability Holding Account Funds – Electrified Transportation ISSUE AT A GLANCE There are 3 Electric Vehicle (EV) holding account items before the Council for review and a decision on funding release: •Installing Publicly Accessible EV Chargers on City Property and Right-of-Way ($214,000) o Funds for installation of new public access EV charging stations in the City •Evaluating Opportunities to Incentivize Public Adoption of Electric Vehicles ($150,000) o A study and assessment of optimal city strategies for meeting carbon emission reduction goals •City Fleet and Assessment of Projected Internal EV Charging Needs ($150,000) o A study and assessment of infrastructure, logistical and other requirements related to the electrification of the City corporation’s internal fleet These funds were appropriated but held during the Council’s fiscal year 2023 budget process. The items are now before the Council for potential decision on release. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND 1.Beginning in February 2018, the department reports the City first began providing public charging at EV stations for free. The Council at that time approved the expense. The department reports that utilization of the stations increased measurably with the onset of free charging. Item Schedule: Briefing: October 4, 2022 Public Hearing: Potential Action: Page | 2 2. The department’s request for an internal charging study will clarify coordination about internal city charging stations and those provided for ongoing public use. My 3. The department’s requested internal EV charging study (City Fleet and Assessment of Projected Internal EV Charging Needs) might clarify this coordination (between internal city charging stations, and those provided for ongoing public use). a. (See appendix B) 4. Specific to the $214,000 requested for new EV charging stations, the department indicates the money will fund up to six new chargers with up to 2 ports each. 5. The department indicates locations for these public-facing charging facilities are coordinated via the City’s Electrified Transportation Committee. The plans requested herein for funding would elaborate the process for selection of charging sites, especially Evaluating Opportunities to Incentivize Public Adoption of Electric Vehicles. 6.The department indicates the expectation that some or all of that $214,000 could be reimbursed through grants from government and private sources (e.g. federal funding or Rocky Mountain Power). See policy question #5. Resolution 45 of 2020 This document is included here as attachment 2. The resolution is tied into the department funding requests discussed in this report. In particular, the resolution relates to transportation goals related to electrifying the city’s fleet, incentivizing public EV adoption, and providing infrastructure for those processes. The resolution was adopted jointly by the Council and Mayor in 2020. See section below for questions and discussion on the policy statements referenced above. It includes a number of policy statements, such as: Electrified Municipal Fleet Goals: The City will strive to purchase electric vehicles for its internal fleet, while also considering total cost of ownership, to ensure progress towards its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2040. The City sets the following goals for purchases within its fleet, including target dates that may be adjusted to account for market availability and total cost of ownership considerations: a. All new sedans purchased will be plug-in vehicles by 2023; b. All new sports utility vehicles ( SUVs) purchased will be plug-in vehicles by 2025; c. All new pickup trucks purchased will be plug-in vehicles by 2027; d. All new medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and off-road equipment purchases will be evaluated for electric options prior to purchase; Page | 3 e. The City will financially support the charging infrastructure necessary to own and operate plug-in vehicles within its fleet. … Electrified Personal Vehicle Goals: The City will support the development of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, plus other programs, policies and projects that encourage the purchase and use of electric vehicles by local residents and non- governmental fleets. The City will strive to accelerate uptake and use of electric vehicles at rates higher than national averages and in line with achieving local air quality and community carbon reduction goals. See section below for questions and discussion on the policy statements referenced above. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Which City department is the decisive authority on each component topic of electric vehicles and infrastructure? For example, how are decisions made for the various city departments who may have a preference for EV purchases. For EV charger placement? (See appendix B) 2. Council May wish to clarify whether the evaluation being conducted will consider pros and cons of providing free EV charging versus returning to the practice of charging for electricity at public charging stations, and whether proposed studies would also evaluate the practice that entities have nationally of charging for both electricity and some portion of the maintenance, operation and installation cost of the charging stations, so the programs can be self-sustaining. 3. One Council Member has asked whether the current level of City funding for EV incentives, or funding a study of potential additional EV incentives, has a disproportionate benefit for people in society who already have the financial capability to acquire electric vehicles. On one hand, current users of the charging stations might have access to some privilege. a.What funding or policy interventions might be available to reduce greenhouse gas emitting vehicles where owners are not in a position to purchase an EV? Will proposed or other studies consider that? b. Staff attempted to capture two aspects of the equity conversation but definitely does not intend for the two sub questions above to be exhaustive. 4. Does the Council want to review RESOLUTION 45 noted above in a future dedicated work session briefing and consider: a. Does the Council wish to review any part of the resolution? Page | 4 b. Do these measures support effective reduction in the City’s most polluting vehicles? 5. If the funds for placing new EV charging stations are reimbursed from public and private grantors as discussed above, the Council might wish to discuss with the department the process for appropriating those reimbursement funds. 6. Furthermore, it is unusual for government to front the money for a project or study and plan, and have that be reimbursed by a grant. In many cases, reimbursing expenses for which funds are already appropriated is considered ‘supplanting’ and is expressly prohibited, particularly by the federal government. The Council might want to clarify the process on this grant and reimbursement process. 7. The Council might wish to inquire whether a methodology exists or could be developed to assess the number of unique public charging station users, especially in relation to the City’s free-charging policy. a. If the council wishes, staff can gather national or regional information on what fees others are assessing (cities and privately owned), how it impacts use, and when cities have transitioned from no fees to fees, to provide the Council information on how or if they want to charge fees 8. Is the City the best entity to be paying for this? The US government recently made available significant funding related to EV charging. The Council might evaluate the funding landscape and evaluate the best City role in this context. APPENDIX A One example of the department attempting to leverage available grant funding relates to Rocky Mountain Power funding availability for installation of charging stations. In the context of this availability, the department suggests that major upcoming City construction projects such as the redesign at 200 South and 300 West could rely on the RMP funding for the project to include charging stations. If the funding for new stations were released, the department would continue with an existing application for grant reimbursement on new installations as part of this 200 South 300 West project. The City’s Transportation Division has prepared site plans that include charging stations for this project. Page | 5 APPENDIX B From the transmittal The Sustainability Department, in collaboration with Public Services Department, have been working to develop the scope of work attached herein for the competitive solicitation of a consultant to assess the City’s fleet, which will include: 1) evaluating the long-term fleet replacement strategy, including electrification; 2) analyzing current and planned fleet usage patterns and 3) identifying future electric infrastructure needs at City facilities to support a more electrified fleet. From the Administration-Council staff email Q & A: Q: Do you think all City departments and divisions are on the same track with these proposals— in other words, there are not other efforts in the City that duplicate or go against the proposals in the EV transmittal (question for all three line items) A: In short, yes, we have worked with departments and divisions to ensure these efforts are not duplicative or counter to other priorities: a. General Cross-Departmental Collaboration: Sustainability launched an Internal Electrified Transportation committee in 2021 which includes members from different Departments and Divisions, including: Fleet, Airport, Facilities, Engineering, Planning, Transportation, Economic Development, and RDA. City Council members and staff are welcome to attend these meetings. The Committee reviews all Electrified Transportation initiatives proposed by Sustainability to ensure there is alignment and to avoid duplication. Sustainability also participates on an internal Funding committee, convened by Transportation on a monthly basis, where projects and grant funding ideas are discussed. All departments are invited to send representatives to this meeting. b. Internal Fleet Electrification Study: We have been working closely with Public Services (Fleet and Facilities) to develop the scope of work for the Internal Fleet Electrification Study, and both Departments will collaborate in this effort. Members of the Internal Fleet Committee, which is convened by the Public Services Fleet Division, have had the opportunity to review and provide input on the scope of the study. c. EV Infrastructure Study: There is a subcommittee of the Internal Electrified Transportation Committee working on the scope of work for this study, which will assess opportunities to support and incentivize public adoption of EVs. Subcommittee members include staff from Planning, Engineering, RDA, and Transportation. The scope of work for this study is being prepared by staff from Transportation and Sustainability. All subcommittee members will have an opportunity to review and provide input on this scope of work. Page | 6 d. Installation of EV stations: Sustainability is collaborating with other Departments and Divisions to evaluate sites. Attachments 1. Transmittal 2. Resolution 45 of 2020 RESOLUTION NO. 45 OF 2020 A joint resolution of the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor establishing electrified transportation goals for Salt Lake City WHEREAS, Salt Lake City municipal government is committed to protecting the public health and safety of its residents, combating climate change, and ensuring access to clean air, clean water and a livable environment; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City is dedicated to being a leader in the use of clean energy, establishing policies and programs that conserve energy, promote sustainability, and improve our air quality; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City’s Mayor and City Council adopted a joint resolution in 2016 calling for an 80 percent reduction in community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2040; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City created an Electrified Transportation Roadmap in 2018 with strategies and best practices for local governments in Utah to support electrified transportation; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City is committed to fiscal responsibility by reducing fuel consumption and associated costs for City operations; and WHEREAS, residents are concerned about air quality and support strong action by government leaders to reduce pollution; and WHEREAS, cities along the Wasatch Front, including Salt Lake City, are not in compliance with federal health-based standards for fine particulate matter and ozone, and vehicle emissions are the primary source of air pollution; and WHEREAS, the petroleum-fueled on-road transportation sector accounts for nearly 20% of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions in Salt Lake City and is a contributing factor to air pollution and climate change, threatening the health of our citizens and long-term stability and success of our community; and WHEREAS, air pollution from vehicle emissions harm public health in the form of increased cardiovascular disease, asthma, lung cancer, and diabetes, with children and the elderly at special risk; and WHEREAS, disadvantaged populations face the biggest impacts from poor air quality, with higher rates of respiratory illnesses, hospitalizations, and premature death; and WHEREAS, the transition of the transportation sector to clean energy technologies, including electric vehicles (EVs), will provide a range of benefits including improved air quality, enhanced public health, and reduced reliance on finite imported resources; and R 20-1R 20-16 WHEREAS, electrification of cars, trucks and buses is needed in order to achieve deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and the benefits grow over time as electricity generation in Utah gets cleaner and Salt Lake City achieves its net-100% renewable electricity community goal by 2030; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City is responsible for providing infrastructure for safe and reliable travel options for residents and visitors that support a robust economy and minimize negative impacts of transportation; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor as follows: 1. Electrified Municipal Fleet Goals: Salt Lake City Corporation will strive to purchase electric vehicles for its internal fleet, while also considering total cost of ownership, to ensure progress towards its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2040. The City sets the following targets for purchases within its fleet, including target dates that may be adjusted to account for market availability and total cost of ownership considerations: a. All new sedans purchased will be plug-in vehicles by 2023; b. All new sports utility vehicles (SUVs) purchased will be plug-in vehicles by 2025; c. All new pickup trucks purchased will be plug-in vehicles by 2027; d. All new medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and off-road equipment purchases will be evaluated for electric options prior to purchase; e. The City will financially support the charging infrastructure necessary to own and operate plug-in vehicles within its fleet. 2. Electrified Transit Goals: Salt Lake City Corporation will encourage Utah Transit Authority (UTA) to implement a sustained transition to electric buses and will collaborate with UTA on related efforts. 3. Electrified Smart Mobility Goals: Salt Lake City Corporation will collaborate with providers of smart mobility services such as rideshare, car share and other transportation options to encourage electrification of their fleets and operations that help achieve local air quality and community carbon reduction goals. The City will also prioritize equitable access to smart mobility services to ensure an inclusive development of clean and affordable transportation options for community members. 4. Electrified Personal Vehicle Goals: Salt Lake City Corporation will support the development of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, plus other programs, policies and projects that encourage the purchase and use of electric vehicles by local residents and non-governmental fleets. The City will strive to accelerate uptake and use of electric vehicles at rates higher than national averages and in line with achieving local air quality and community carbon reduction goals. Passed and adopted by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this 8th day of December, 2020. ____________________________ ____________________________ Erin J. Mendenhall Chris Warton, Chair Salt Lake City Mayor Salt Lake City Council Member, District Six ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: Approved As To Form Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office ________________________ ____________________________ CITY RECORDER Megan DePaulis, Senior City Attorney Megan DePaulis (Dec 17, 2020 16:52 MST) Megan DePaulis Chris Wharton (Dec 29, 2020 18:55 MST)Erin Mendenhall (Dec 30, 2020 10:21 MST) Cindy Trishman (Jan 4, 2021 23:24 MST) Resolution 45 of 2020 (establishing electrified transportation goals), adopted 12-8-20. Final Audit Report 2021-01-05 Created:2020-12-17 By:Kory Solorio (kory.solorio@slcgov.com) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAA8ig_Mbez_PtRPuXEMDzjozp6rqv1P0Zv "Resolution 45 of 2020 (establishing electrified transportation go als), adopted 12-8-20." History Document created by Kory Solorio (kory.solorio@slcgov.com) 2020-12-17 - 11:32:06 PM GMT- IP address: 204.124.13.151 Document emailed to Megan DePaulis (megan.depaulis@slcgov.com) for signature 2020-12-17 - 11:34:17 PM GMT Email viewed by Megan DePaulis (megan.depaulis@slcgov.com) 2020-12-17 - 11:52:34 PM GMT- IP address: 204.124.13.222 Document e-signed by Megan DePaulis (megan.depaulis@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2020-12-17 - 11:52:48 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 204.124.13.222 Document emailed to Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slcgov.com) for signature 2020-12-17 - 11:52:50 PM GMT Email viewed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slcgov.com) 2020-12-30 - 1:54:54 AM GMT- IP address: 73.63.28.254 Document e-signed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2020-12-30 - 1:55:03 AM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 73.63.28.254 Document emailed to Erin Mendenhall (erin.mendenhall@slcgov.com) for signature 2020-12-30 - 1:55:05 AM GMT Email viewed by Erin Mendenhall (erin.mendenhall@slcgov.com) 2020-12-30 - 5:20:52 PM GMT- IP address: 97.117.115.8 Document e-signed by Erin Mendenhall (erin.mendenhall@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2020-12-30 - 5:21:06 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 97.117.115.8 Document emailed to Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com) for signature 2020-12-30 - 5:21:07 PM GMT Document e-signed by Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2021-01-05 - 6:24:12 AM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 204.124.13.222 Agreement completed. 2021-01-05 - 6:24:12 AM GMT ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date Sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: September 16, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Debbie Lyons, Sustainability Director SUBJECT: FY23 Sustainability Holding Account Funds – Electrified Transportation STAFF CONTACTS: Sophia Nicholas Sustainability Deputy Director Sophia.Nicholas@slcgov.com | 801-535-7755 DOCUMENT TYPE: Written Briefing RECOMMENDATION: The Sustainability Department is providing additional information to satisfy budget conditions for the Electrified Transportation holding account. Attached is an approved as to form resolution the Council may consider adopting to recognize satisfaction of budget conditions. Council review of these proposed solicited contracts prior to September 30 is critical if Council wishes to leverage federal funding for EV infrastructure projects, as described in further detail below. BUDGET IMPACT: Projects proposed in FY23 budget include: 1) $150,000 for the Internal Fleet electrification analysis; 2) $150,000 for the evaluation of opportunities to improve public access to electric vehicles (EVs) and charging infrastructure; and 3) $214,000 for the installation of additional electric vehicle charging stations on city property (to be used with the funding opportunities described below). BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: FY 2023 Sustainability Holding Accounts The Council-Adopted FY2023 City budget placed the following contingenc ies on funds allocated for: 1) Community Food Assessment; 2) New EV Charging station installations; and 3) Two separate Electric Vehicle charging studies to evaluate internal and public facing EV charging needs : a. For all proposed expenditures of funds tied to a contract that requires a competitive bid process, the Department will not solicit bids or proposals, execute a contract, or 9/19/2022 9/19/2022 Lisa Shaffer (Sep 19, 2022 13:31 MDT) ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 encumber such funds until the Department has provided a draft scope of work or draft request for proposals to the Council for review. b. Any policy document or multi-year funding plan must be in compliance with Resolution 14 of 2020, and the Department will not rely on other previously adopted resolutions or policy documents to authorize the administrative adoption of such policy documents or multi-year funding plans. c. All policy documents will be adopted by the City Council before the Department relies on the policies for additional policy or budget plans. A. Projects Requiring Competitive Bid Process 1. City Fleet and Assessment of Projected Internal EV Charging Needs ($150,000) The Sustainability Department has been working with Public Services’ internal Fleet Advisory Committee and has been leading an Electrified Fleet Subcommittee to support electrification of the City’s fleet. The Sustainability Department, in collaboration with Pu blic Services Department, have been working to develop the scope of work attached herein for the competitive solicitation of a consultant to assess the City’s fleet, which will include: 1) evaluating the long-term fleet replacement strategy, including electrification; 2) analyzing current and planned fleet usage patterns and 3) identifying future electric infrastructure needs at City facilities to support a more electrified fleet. The Department expects this evaluation to take one year to complete. This assessment is a necessary information-gathering tool to help the City meet its fleet electrification goals that were established in Joint Resolution 45 of 2020. The assessment will be shared with the Council to inform future policy discussions and budget decisions. 2. Evaluating Opportunities to Incentivize Public Adoption of Electric Vehicles ($150,000) Federal grant funding opportunities are beginning to roll out related to the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) to incentivize EV adoption. Prior to accessing such funding, the City Council will need to evaluate opportunities and potential strategies, and subsequently determine priorities and policies for the City. The Sustainability Department’s request for $150,000 is intended to engage a consultant who will survey and assess the City’s charging infrastructure, resulting in a report that will lay out a framework of options and recommend priorities for the installation of publicly-available EV charging stations, with a goal to provide equitable access to clean transportation options. The scope of work for the study is in process of being drafted, and will likely include: 1) evaluating where publicly-accessible charging infrastructure is needed in the city; 2) identifying potential strategies to advance private installation of EV stations at homes and buildings; 3) benchmarking best management practices on local government providing EV charging infrastructure and subsidizing usage fees; and 4) identifying opportunities for potential installation and on-going management of EV stations on public property, including City right-of-way. The report will be shared with the Council to inform future policy discussions and budget decisions. 3. Installing Publicly Accessible EV Chargers on City Property and Right-of-Way ($214,000) The City currently has several opportunities to access grant funding from several sources to expand public EV charging infrastructure, including the installation and maintenance of 38 Level 2 chargers ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 throughout the city for public and fleet use, and 45 additional chargers at the Salt Lake City Airport. These grants require either upfront funding commitments before applying for the grants or City supplementation of the grant funding before the City can access such funding. This additional infrastructure will encourage wider adoption of electric vehicles, a goal established by Joint Resolution 45 of 2020. According to the Center for Sustainable Energy, most current EV owners charge at home or at work. However, to support mass adoption of E Vs, including by people who do not have access to private EV chargers, publicly-accessible EV charging is essential. Placement of EV charging stations in public places, particularly high -trafficked areas, locations near higher-density housing, and places where people park for more than an hour (i.e. recreation facilities, parks, libraries) demonstrates availability of charging infrastructure and encourages EV adoption. The estimated cost of electricity to support charging at City-owned chargers, excluding the Salt Lake City Airport, was approximately $21,000 in FY2022. The City has the opportunity, with the federal infrastructure funds becoming available later this fall, and utility incentives currently available, to incorporate EV charging in existing City-owned parking lots and on public streets where parking is planned or already provided. Locations under current evaluation are: a. 200 South Street Reconstruction Project: The Sustainability Department has been working closely with the Transportation Division on the 200 South Reconstruction project to facilitate the installation of electrical infrastructure needed to support EV chargers near 300 West and 200 East. Funding is available from Rocky Mountain Power to reimburse the City for a significant portion of the electrical infrastructure and charger installation costs, and has a grant deadline of September 30, 2022. These funds will be reimbursed upon completion of the project, which requires upfront commitment of funds before the grant application is submitted. The Transportation Division expects to release the design-build RFP for the 200 South project no later than November 2022, which will include installation of an EV station if funds are available. b. City facilities, parking lots, and road projects: Several City-owned locations are being evaluated as potential publicly-accessible EV charging sites, including the Regional Athletic Center, Jordan Park Golf Course, Liberty Park, and all City library branches. We are also evaluating opportunities along the Rights of Way as they align with upcoming roadway projects. Sustainability is evaluating these potential locations against environmental justice indicators to ensure that our efforts align with the Justice40 initiative, which is an important consideration for upcoming federal funding opportunities. The findings from the evaluation of opportunities, discussed in the previous section, will be useful to inform the grant applications, while the funding for EV installations can be leveraged towards any match requirements. The Federal Highway Administration is expected to announce the Community Charging Grant Program this fall, which can support future EV charger installations on City property. A minimum non-federal cost share of 20% is anticipated. c. Location TBD, partnership with Rocky Mountain Power. Rocky Mountain Power has indicated they would like to partner with the City to install a publicly-accessible fast-charger (Level 3) in Salt Lake City. Rocky Mountain Power has funding to install 20-25 fast chargers throughout the State of Utah and would like some of those chargers to be installed in Salt Lake City. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 Although the timeline and funding needs for th is effort are not clear at this time, EV charging installation funding may be used towards these collaborative projects. Releasing the EV charging installation funding from the holding account will enable the Sustainability Department to leverage City funds towards available grants and partner with other City departments and outside agencies to expand EV charging availabilit y at a drastically reduced cost to the City, which encourages further public adoption of EVs. B. Policy (Contingencies b and c) Electrifying the City’s transportation system (including personal vehicles, organizational fleets, and our public transportation system), is critical to meeting the City’s goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, established in Joint Resolution 22 of 2016, as well as the City’s electrified transportation goals established in Joint Resolution 45 of 2020. Transitioning the transportation sector to clean energy technologies, including electric vehicles, will provide a range of benefits including improved air quality, enhanced public health, and reduced reliance on finite resources. Installation of EV stations ($214,000) are construction projects in line with the goals established by the above-mentioned Joint Resolutions and will not result in any kind of policy document. The internal fleet electrification analysis and the evaluation of public EV charging opportunities in the City are both studies that will not directly result in any new policy document. These technical studies will collect and compile data and produce reports that the Council may rely upon in considering future public processes, budget allocation, and policy development, including a discussion on the City’s overall role in building out publicly-accessible EV charging. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 Attachment A. DRAFT Scope of Work from the Draft Fleet Electrification Plan RFP EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF WORK CONSULTANT TO DEVELOP FLEET ELECTRIFICATION PLAN NOTE: Exhibit “A” to be modified/completed by City after conditional selection based upon the selected offeror’s proposal and any negotiated terms and conditions. I. GENERAL A. Consultant, if doing business under an assumed name, i.e. an individual, association, partnership, corporation, or otherwise, shall be registered with the Utah State Division of Corporations and Commercial Code. NOTE: Forms and information on how to get registered may be obtained by calling (801) 530-4849 or by accessing www.corporations.utah.gov B. Consultant shall assume full responsibility for damage to City property caused by Consultant's employees or equipment as determined by designated City personnel. C. Consultant shall be solely responsible for the safety of Consultant's employees and others relative to Consultant's work, work procedures, material, equipment, transportation, signage, and related activities and equipment. D. Consultant shall possess and keep in force all licenses and permits required to perform services under this Agreement. E. No guarantee of the actual service requirement is implied or expressed by this Agreement. Service requirements shall be determined by actual need. II. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CONTRACTOR It is anticipated that the work plan will follow the major task headings stated hereunder. However, as provided in Paragraph D, below, these tasks may change as development of the work plan evolves and as the project progresses. The responsibilities of Consultant include, but shall not be limited to, the following tasks or items. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 NOTE: Based upon the Tasks listed below, Bidder shall propose a milestone schedule it deems appropriate and achiev able. City anticipates a 12 month period of performance. Task 1: Project Management This task includes oversight of the consultant team and the administrative tasks required to support the overall project. 1.1: Project Scope and Work Plan The consultant and City will hold a project kickoff to confirm project goals and objectives, methodology, and project schedule, and to establish: • Communication protocols and methods • Project objectives, priorities, timelines and deliverables • Data requirements and sources, including telematics data, fuel consumption, other documents • The composition of and work plans for project teams/committees 1.2: Regular Project Management Team Meetings The consultant will arrange and facilitate regular project meetings between lead consultant staff and City management staff to address project progress, key milestones and deliverables, and any critical issues that arise during the project. Formal meetings should take place at least every two weeks with regular and frequent communication in between. 1.3: Project Meetings and Briefings The consultant will attend Fleet Electrification Subcommittee meetings and Fleet Advisory Committee meetings. The consultant will be prepared to discuss project updates and collect and summarize relevant comments provided by these teams, as needed. Task 1 Deliverables: • Project scope and work plan, progress reports, schedule and budget updates • Meeting summaries • Monthly progress reports • Production of presentation materials Task 2: Fleet Electrification Plan 2.1 Fleet Assessment The consultant will evaluate usage patterns of the internal fleet and identify charging needs. The Fleet Division will provide telematics data for all vehicles. Salt Lake City uses Geotab telematics. Consultant must be able to integrate with our existing Geotab telematics data. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 The assessment will include, but is not limited to the following tasks: • Analyzing vehicle telematics data to evaluate usage patterns (daily mileage, overnight parking patterns, idling) • Identify charging needs for EV replacements that will meet operational requirements of each vehicle. • Incorporate information on operational changes and EV replacements projections. • Recommend EVs based on market availability, state of technology, and vehicle-to-task assessment and develop a vehicle deployment sched ule that minimizes fleet down-time 2.2: EVSE Assessment The consultant will evaluate the electrical capacity at each City facility where vehicles park and recommend infrastructure upgrades needed to support vehicle charging demands of a fully electric fleet. The consultant will recommend the brand-neutral Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) needed to support operational needs of the vehicles at each City facility and optimizing charging of fleet vehicles. The assessment will include, but is not limited to the following tasks: • Evaluate electrical capacity at City facilities where fleet vehicles are parked. • Identify alternative locations (City owned or third-party owned) that can be used as additional charging locations for fleet vehicles. • Determine charger type (Level 1, Level 2, or Fast DC) needed to support vehicle operational demands and predict load profiles at each facility. • Determine upgrades needed to the electrical infrastructure to support charging demand. • Recommend smart charging approaches to minimize utility costs and vehicle down time. • Recommend alternative approaches, including EV-ready parking construction, vehicle- to-grid, renewable energy sources, etc. • EVSE recommendations must be brand neutral and general to allow for a competitive bidding process for the implementation phase. 2.3: Off-Grid Charging and Energy Storage The City is responsible for providing many essential services to our residents, including public safety, firefighting, waste management, and public utilities. It is crucial that these services and operations are available during brownouts, blackouts, and other emergency situations, such as natural disasters, infrastructure damage, extended periods of power outage, or other unforeseen event. The consultant will evaluate the charging needs for first responder and other critical vehicles and identify opportunities to improve the resiliency of the fleet’s charging infrastructure. The assessment will include, but is not limited to the following tasks: ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 • Determine charging needed to support operations during an emergency • Recommend off-grid charging and energy storage solutions, removable batteries • Evaluate feasibility of alternative fuel charging technologies (i.e. hydrogen chargers) 2.4: Fleet Electrification Plan Deliverable In addition to the evaluations described above, the Plan will also include: • Develop phased-in approach for the long-term installation of infrastructure, taking into account vehicle deployment schedules, magnitude of upgrades needed at each fac ility, coordination with utility provider, and other criteria. • Provide a cost estimate for fleet electrification, EVSE, and utility upgrades • Identifying financing mechanisms to support fleet electrification, including grants and incentives. Task 3: Final Report 3.1: Prepare Final Report • Prepare final report detailing the analyses, findings, and recommendations from Tasks 2.1 – 2.4. Submit report to the City for review and approval. Present final report to Electrified Subcommittees members. III. DELIVERABLES Consultant shall provide City with the following: A. The Final Plan document and all collected data and information shall be made available to City in common digital formats. Plans and reports shall be submitted via CD or flash drive in both Microsoft Word .docx and full-resolution Adobe .pdf formats. The final report and all attachments and addendums shall be submitted via duplicate CD or flash drives in both Microsoft Word .docx and full-resolution Adobe .pdf formats. All maps and graphics included in the final plan and attachments shall also be included as individual digital files for editing (for example, .xlsx, .INDD, and .ai) and for display (for example, .tiff, .jpeg, and .png) in common formats. If saving .tiff images, ensure the compression option is selected to avoid very large file sizes. Geographic information collected or produced for the report shall be submitted as a geodatabase or as individual shapefiles for ArcGIS, as appropriate. Photos collected during field research shall be submitted as low-resolution images for printing. Any photos used in the final report which are subject to copyright or are downloaded from the web must have appropriate permission. Any data collected using specialized software (for example via trail counters) shall be submitted in summary format in a common file type such as .xlsx. Finally, ten spiral-bound hard copies of the final plan and addendums or attachments shall be submitted with laminated front and back cover. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 B. The data used in compiling, and the results of, any tests, surveys or inspections, as well as all photographs, drawings, renderings, schedules, data processing output, computations, studies, audits, reports, models, and other items of like kind prepared by Consultant, its employees and consultants, shall be the property of City on which City shall own the copyright. Consultant may retain reproducible copies of all of the foregoing documents for information and reference and customary marketing and public relations. The originals of all of the foregoing documents shall be delivered to City upon completion of the work and before final payment is made. This provision may be enforced by an order of specific performance and is independent of any other provision of this Agreement. V. CHANGES TO TASKS AND DELIVERABLES 1. City and Consultant may agree to changes to the tasks and deliverables in Section III provided that such changes do not increase the total not-to-exceed amount to be paid by the City as described in Paragraph A of Section II of Exhibit “B”. Letters or emails may be used by the parties to document the parties’ agreement to such changes. 2. If City obtains or allocates additional funds for other additional tasks and deliverables related to the Fleet Electrification Plan that it desires Consultant to perform for a separate or increased not-to-exceed amount, City and Consultant may only agree to such additional work and amount by executing a formal amendment to this Agreement. Any such increased not-to-exceed amount is to be determined through negotiation based on the same hourly rates, overhead rates, and fixed profit percentage described in Exhibit “B” for the original scope of work. VI. DISCLOSURE OF CITY RECORDS Because City shall own the documents generated by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant shall not, without written approval by City, disclose publicly said records. VII. SAMPLES Upon request by the designated representative of City, Consultant shall provide samples of all materials intended for use for prior approval. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 Attachment B: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. __ OF 2022 (A Resolution Declaring Satisfaction of Budget Contingency for the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget Relating to the Department of Sustainability) WHEREAS, on June 14, 2022, the Salt Lake City Council adopted Ordinance No. 32 of 2022, adopting the City budget, excluding the Library Fund, and adopting the employment staffing document, for fiscal year 2022-2023 (the “Budget Ordinance”); and WHEREAS, the Budget Ordinance specified a contingency applying to, among other departments, the Department of Sustainability (the “Department”); and WHEREAS, the budget contingency related to the Department’s fiscal year 2022-2023 budget specified that the Department must provide certain information to City Council and comply with Resolution 14 of 2020 in adopting any policy document or multi-year funding plan, when relevant (the “Budget Contingency”); and WHEREAS, the City desires to support clean transportation, including electrified transportation, to reduce air pollution, combat climate change, and improve public health; and WHEREAS, the Department seeks to engage a consultant to assess the City’s fleet, including evaluating the long-term fleet replacement strategy, including electrification, analyzing current and planned fleet usage patterns, and identifying future electric infrastructure needs at City facilities to support a more electrified fleet (“Internal Fleet Electrification Analysis”); and WHEREAS, the Department also seeks to engage a consultant to evaluate the City’s EV infrastructure, including evaluating where publicly-accessible EV charging infrastructure is needed in Salt Lake City, identifying potential strategies to advance private installation of EV stations at homes and buildings, benchmarking best management practices on local government providing EV charging infrastructure and subsidizing usage fees, and identifying opportunities for potential installation and management of additional EV stations on City property, including right-of-way (“EV Infrastructure Study”); and WHEREAS, the Department would like to leverage City funding to access federal grant funding and utility incentives to install EV charging stations in existing City-owned parking lots and on public streets where parking is planner or already provided (“Public EV Charging Installation Projects”); and WHEREAS, the Department has provided to City Council the information requested to satisfy the Budget Contingency. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. The City Council has determined the Department has met the Budget Contingency and hereby declares the Budget Contingency is satisfied with respect to the funding 2 allocated in the Budget Ordinance for the Internal Fleet Electrification Analysis, the EV Infrastructure Study, and the Public EV Charging Installation Projects. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of ___________________, 2022. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: ______________________________ Dan Dugan, Chair, Salt Lake City Council Attest: ___________________________ City Recorder Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved as to Form: ___________________________ Senior City Attorney Date: ______________________ September 15, 2022 Item E1 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet Policy Analyst DATE:October 4, 2022 RE:Annexation of 162 acres into Salt Lake City Located at approximately 2200 West between 2800 North – 3300 North MOTION 1 I move the Council accept a petition to annex property located at approximately 2200 west between 2800 North to 3300 North, and the Jordan River for further consideration. MOTION 2 I move the Council deny the petition. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst DATE: October 4, 2022 RE:Annexation of 162 acres into Salt Lake City Located at approximately 2200 West between 2800 North – 3300 North PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: October 4, 2022 Set Date: Public Hearing: Potential Action: October 4, 2022 ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing about an annexation application and petition located at approximately 2200W, between 2800N, 3300N, and the Jordan River. The property is currently located in unincorporated Salt Lake County. The size of the annexation is approximately 162 acres. The applicant is requesting the City zone the property M-1 Light manufacturing. The application was submitted to the Salt Lake City Recorder’s office on September 27, 2022. 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, which expires on October 11, 2022, the petition will be considered accepted. Accepting the Petition is not approval of the annexation request. Acceptance begins the next step in the annexation process which includes notices sent to property owners, a protest period, and the final consideration by the Council. The designation of the zoning of the property will be considered throughout the process and defined in the ordinance considered by the Council. The Council has the option to request Planning Commission review in their public meeting, with a request for a recommendation on the proposed annexation and zoning. Page | 2 POLICY QUESTIONS •The Council may wish to ask the Administration what happens with the petition if the Council denies it acceptance. •If accepted, does the Council wish to request the Planning Commission review the petition as part of the public process and forward a recommendation to the City Council? •If accepted, does the Council wish to request the Planning Staff review and forward options for appropriate zoning districts for the Council to consider? Vicinity Map Annexation into Salt Lake City 2200 West 2800 North – 3300 North 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: Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT:PLNPCM2022-00937 Legacy Business Park Annexation STAFF CONTACT:Nick Norris, Planning Director (nick.norris@slcgov.com or 801-535-6173) DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: That the Council accept the annexation application by adopting the resolution. If accepted, it means that the City will process the Annexation proposal and return to the City Council for a final decision as prescribed by Utah Code. BUDGET IMPACT:None at this time BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On September 27, 2022 Salt Lake City accepted a petition for a proposed annexation of unincorporated land into the city. The annexation, formerly known as the Misty River Annexation, is located on the east side of 2200 West between approximately 2850 West and 3300 North. The annexation includes approximately 162 acres of land. The annexation is proposing that the land be zoned M-1 Light Industrial if the city approves the annexation. The proposed annexation does create an island or peninsula, and therefore requires the Salt Lake County Council to adopt a resolution of support for creating the island or peninsula. The Count Council adopted a resolution of support on August 2, 2022. 9/30/2022 9/30/2022Lisa Shaffer (Sep 30, 2022 15:11 MDT) Utah Code regulating annexations requires that an application for an annexation be filed with the city and the County on the same day. That occurred on September 27, 2022. This establishes the application date for the annexation. The City Council is now tasked to determine if they accept the Petition by resolution or deny by motion within the 14-day window from the date of the notice. For this reason, time is of the essence. If no action is taken within the 14-day window, the Petition will be considered accepted. If the Council accepts the Petition a 30-day period of noticing begins and a Certification of Petition is issued if all requirements are met. Upon Certification, within 10 days the Recorder’s office on behalf of the Council will mail a notice to each owner of real property locating within the proposed annexation area and post physical notices, post notice on the Utah Public Meeting Site, post on the website, and mail written notice to each affected entity. At this stage, protests may be submitted regarding the annexation. If protests are filed, the City Recorder will coordinate with appropriate entities and provide a written update to the City Council. Upon resolving protests, or if no protests are filed, the City Council is required to hold a public hearing. Prior to the public hearing, the Planning Division will provide a transmittal with the proposed ordinance to annex the property and information regarding the proposed zoning. Adopting the zoning of the property is done as part of the annexation process and is not subject to the typical zoning process outlined in Utah Code or in City Ordinance. The rationale behind that is that the city cannot apply zoning outside of the city boundaries and State Code requires all land within the City to be zoned and therefore the zoning is adopted at the same time as the annexation is approved. State Code also does not require a recommendation from the Planning Commission on annexations or on the proposed zoning associated with annexed land. However, the City Council has the discretion to ask the Planning Commission for a recommendation. The annexation process is not subject to the 45-day public notice required by City Code. Due to noticing requirements outlined in Utah Code, applying the 45-day notice period may result in the City Council not being able to comply with the timing requirements for annexations in State Code. PUBLIC PROCESS: All notices for the proposed annexation that are required up to this point in time have been completed. This includes notice from the County for the adoption of the resolution that occurred on August 2, 2022 and notice of intent to file the annexation with affected agencies. Additional public process is required as indicated above. EXHIBITS: 1) Resolution 2) Annexation Application Materials 1. Resolution RESOLUTION NO. ________ OF 2022 ACCEPTING A PETITION TO ANNEX APPROXIMATELY 162 ACRES OF LAND SITUATED BETWEEN 2200 WEST STREET AND THE JORDAN RIVER AND BETWEEN APPROXIMATELY 2800 NORTH AND 3300 NORTH STREET FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE SECTION 10-2-405 WHEREAS, on September 26, 2022, Jason Head of Dakota Pacific Real Estate on behalf of annexation sponsor XCEL Development, LLC (“Petitioner”) submitted a petition (Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00937) to annex into Salt Lake City approximately 162 acres of land situated between 2200 West Street and the Jordan River and between approximately 2800 North and 3300 North Street in unincorporated Salt Lake County (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the proposed annexation would create an island of unincorporated land and therefore caused the Salt Lake County Council to assert that its support of the proposed annexation is necessary; and WHEREAS, on August 2, 2022, the Salt Lake County Council approved a resolution identifying their support and encouraging Salt Lake City to annex the unincorporated island of land created by this proposed annexation; and WHEREAS, the proposed annexation area is identified as an expansion area described as “Study Area 1 - West Airport” in the city’s annexation policy plan titled, “A MASTER ANNEXATION POLICY DECLARATION for Salt Lake City, Utah” adopted in 1979 and as shown on the map accompanying that plan titled, “SALT LAKE CITY Annexation Policy Declaration Proposed Future Boundaries”; and WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 10-2-405 provides that a municipal legislative body may, within 14 days of receiving an annexation petition, accept an annexation petition for further consideration or deny it; and WHEREAS, accepting an annexation petition for further consideration pursuant to Section 10-2-405 does not constitute final approval of the annexation by the municipal legislative body and does not establish whether any particular zoning designation may be appropriate for potentially annexed land; and WHEREAS, because the Property is within Salt Lake City’s expansion area in its 1979 annexation policy plan and because the Property is congruous to Salt Lake City corporate limits, the Salt Lake City Council finds that it should accept the subject annexation petition for further consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: That Petitioner’s petition to annex approximately 162 acres into Salt Lake City is hereby accepted by the Salt Lake City Council for further consideration as provided by Utah Code Section 10-2-405. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of ________________, 2022. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By:___________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Resolution accepting XCEL Development annexation petition APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney September 30, 2022 2. Annexation Application Materials Annexation to Salt Lake City OFFICE USE ONLY PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Please note AVAILABLE CONSULTATION WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online. REQUIRED FEE $1,344 SIGNATURE Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. 10- 2-403( 2), notice is hereby given that the property owner identified below intends to file an annexation petition with Salt Lake City, in Salt Lake County, Utah. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Letter requesting the Annexation 2. Please answer the following questions on an attached sheet/s: 3. Please include with the application: FILLING WITH SALT LAKE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE Please note INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED PETITION TO ANNEX PROPERTY INTO SALT LAKE CITY JURISDICTION (this page may be duplicated if necessary) NOTICE: There will be no public election on the annexation proposed by this petition because Utah law does not provide for an annexation to be approved by voters at a public election. If you sign this petition and later decide that you do not support the petition, you may withdraw your signature by submitting a signed, written withdrawal to the Salt Lake City Recorder. If you choose to withdraw your signature, you shall do so no later than 30 days after Salt Lake City receives notice that the petition has been certified. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 9/1/2022 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 9/1/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 9/1/2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Police Civilian Review Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Police Civilian Review Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Jeremy Beckham as a member of Police Civilian Review Board . ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 September 1, 2022 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Dear Councilmember Dugan, Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to Police Civilian Review Board. Jeremy Beckham to be appointed for a three year term, ending the first Monday in September 2025 starting from the dates of City Council advice and consent. I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Cc: File ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 9/22/2022 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 9/22/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 9/22/2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Human Rights Commission STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Human Rights Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint David Leta as a member of Human Rights Commission. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 September 22, 2022 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Dear Councilmember Dugan, Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to Human Rights Commission. David Leta to be appointed for a four year term, ending the last Monday of December 2026 from starting from the dates of City Council advice and consent. I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Cc: File City Council Announcements October 4, 2022 For Your Information A.Changes to the November 2022 Meetings. The meetings for November have been updated due to travel and scheduling conflicts. The meetings for November will be: •Thursday, November 10, 2022 – Will consist of an RDA, Work Session, and Formal meeting •Tuesday, November 22, 2022 – Will consist of a Work Session, Formal and Board of Canvassers meeting SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING I, ____________________, acted as the presiding member of the Salt Lake Council, which met on ___________________ in an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Proclamation. Appropriate notice was given of the Council's meeting as required by §52-4-202. A quorum of the Council was present at the meeting and voted by at least a two-thirds vote, as detailed in the minutes of the open meeting, to close a portion of the meeting to discuss the following: §52-4-205(l)(a) discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of anindividual; §52 -4-205(1)(b) strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; §52-4-205(l)(c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; §52-4-205(l)(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; §52-4-205(l)(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) if 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; §52-4-205(1)(f) discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and §52-4-205(1)(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 andPublic Meetings Act. Other, described as follows: _____________________________________________________________ The content of the closed portion of the Council meeting was restricted to a discussion of the matter(s) for which the meeting was closed. With regard to the closed meeting, the following was publicly announced and recorded, and entered on the minutes of the open meeting at which the closed meeting was approved: (a)the reason or reasons for holding the closed meeting; (b)the location where the closed meeting will be held; and (c)the vote of each member of the public body either for or against the motion to hold the closed meeting. The recording and any minutes of the closed meeting will include: (a)the date, time, and place of the meeting; (b)the names of members Present and Absent; and (c)the names of all others present except where such disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality necessary to fulfill the original purpose of closing the meeting. Pursuant to §52-4-206(6), a sworn statement is required to close a meeting under §52-4-205(1)(a) or (f), but a record by electronic recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by electronic recording and/or detailed written minutes is required for a meeting closed under §52-4-205(1)(b),(c),(d),(e),and (g): A record was not made. A record was made by: : Electronic recording Detailed written minutes I hereby swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Presiding Member Date of Signature Dan Dugan October 4, 2022 X X X X X Dan Dugan (Oct 6, 2022 16:26 MDT) Dan Dugan Oct 6, 2022 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING I, ____________________, acted as the presiding member of the Salt Lake Council, which met on ___________________ in an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Proclamation. Appropriate notice was given of the Council's meeting as required by §52-4-202. A quorum of the Council was present at the meeting and voted by at least a two-thirds vote, as detailed in the minutes of the open meeting, to close a portion of the meeting to discuss the following: §52-4-205(l)(a) discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of anindividual; §52 -4-205(1)(b) strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; §52-4-205(l)(c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; §52-4-205(l)(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; §52-4-205(l)(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) if 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; §52-4-205(1)(f) discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and §52-4-205(1)(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 andPublic Meetings Act. Other, described as follows: _____________________________________________________________ The content of the closed portion of the Council meeting was restricted to a discussion of the matter(s) for which the meeting was closed. With regard to the closed meeting, the following was publicly announced and recorded, and entered on the minutes of the open meeting at which the closed meeting was approved: (a)the reason or reasons for holding the closed meeting; (b)the location where the closed meeting will be held; and (c)the vote of each member of the public body either for or against the motion to hold the closed meeting. The recording and any minutes of the closed meeting will include: (a)the date, time, and place of the meeting; (b)the names of members Present and Absent; and (c)the names of all others present except where such disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality necessary to fulfill the original purpose of closing the meeting. Pursuant to §52-4-206(6), a sworn statement is required to close a meeting under §52-4-205(1)(a) or (f), but a record by electronic recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by electronic recording and/or detailed written minutes is required for a meeting closed under §52-4-205(1)(b),(c),(d),(e),and (g): A record was not made. A record was made by: : Electronic recording Detailed written minutes I hereby swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Presiding Member Date of Signature Dan Dugan October 4, 2022 X X X X Dan Dugan (Oct 6, 2022 16:26 MDT) Dan Dugan Oct 6, 2022 Sworn Statements No. 1 & No. 2 for WS Meeting on October 4, 2022 Final Audit Report 2022-10-06 Created:2022-10-06 By:DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slcgov.com) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAA4zGgdCeE1-FWiDlLcMAxFHPzJUW0m0HX "Sworn Statements No. 1 & No. 2 for WS Meeting on October 4, 2022" History Document created by DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slcgov.com) 2022-10-06 - 4:39:59 PM GMT Document emailed to daniel.dugan@slcgov.com for signature 2022-10-06 - 4:41:13 PM GMT Email viewed by daniel.dugan@slcgov.com 2022-10-06 - 10:25:27 PM GMT Signer daniel.dugan@slcgov.com entered name at signing as Dan Dugan 2022-10-06 - 10:26:01 PM GMT Document e-signed by Dan Dugan (daniel.dugan@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2022-10-06 - 10:26:03 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2022-10-06 - 10:26:03 PM GMT