Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/04/2022 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL REVISED AGENDA FORMAL MEETING   October 4, 2022 Tuesday 7:00 PM   Council Work Room 451 South State Street Room 326 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SLCCouncil.com   CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Dan Dugan, Chair District 6 Darin Mano, Vice Chair District 5 Victoria Petro-Eschler District 1 Alejandro Puy District 2 Chris Wharton District 3 Ana Valdemoros District 4 Amy Fowler District 7   Generated: 09:55:38 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. Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES   A.OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council Member Ana Valdemoros will conduct the formal meeting. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 4.The Council will approve the formal meeting minutes of July 19, 2022. 5.The Council will consider adopting a joint ceremonial resolution with Mayor Mendenhall declaring the second Monday in October as Indigenous Peoples Day in Salt Lake City. 6.The Council will consider adopting a joint resolution with Mayor Mendenhall Supporting a Phased, Lower Impact, Adaptive Approach to the Utah Department of Transportation’s Little Cottonwood Canyon Environmental Impact Statement and opposing the gondola alternative. B.PUBLIC HEARINGS: Items B1 – B4 will be heard as one public hearing   1. Grant Application: 2022 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance (JAG) Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Police Department to the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance. If awarded, the grant would fund professional travel and training for sworn and civilian staff; e-bikes; ballistic helmets and computers; rifle shields; supplies; community policing and targeted enforcement overtime; vehicle software and training; community surveys; subaward to Salt Lake County and the Unified Police Department.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda.   2. Grant Application: 2022 Utah Railroad Safety Grant – Railroad Crossing at 4900 West 700 South The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Division of Engineering to the Utah Department of Transportation. If awarded, the grant would fund safety improvements to the Union Pacific Railroad crossing at 4900 West 700 South. The railroad crossing improvements are a component of the reconstruction of 700 South between 5000 West to 4725 West with the aim to increase safety for vehicular traffic, rail cars, and travelers who are walking, biking, or rolling.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda.   3. Grant Application: 2022-23 Child and Adult Care Food Program YouthCity Snacks Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Division of Youth and Family Services to the Utah State Board of Education administering U.S. Department of Agriculture Funding. If awarded, the grant would fund reimbursement to provide snacks to YouthCity participants during the 2022-23 school year.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda.   4. Grant Application: 2022 Urban Sustainability Directors Network – Emergent Learning Fund Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Department of Sustainability to the Urban Sustainability Directors Network. If awarded, the grant would fund materials and supplies, consultant services, and equity-focused community based organization participation for the spring 2023 Western Adaptation Alliance (WAA) Conference.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda.   5. Ordinance: Ballpark Station Area Plan The Council will accept public comment and consider an ordinance that would adopt the Ballpark Station Area Plan. The Ballpark Station Area Plan is intended to set a framework to help guide growth-related issues and to capitalize on the Ballpark as the neighborhood’s central public asset. The Ballpark Station Area Plan will encompass the area that runs roughly between 900 South to 1700 South, and State Street to I-15. The small area plan’s boundaries are within both the Central Community Master Plan and the Downtown Master Plan.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 13, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 18, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Items #6 & #7 regarding The Other Side Village will be heard as one public hearing   6. Resolutions: The Other Side Village Pilot Project at 1850 West Indiana Avenue, Public Benefits Analysis and a Resolution to Authorize the Lease Rate and Terms The Council will continue to accept public comment and consider adopting 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 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   7. Ordinance: Rezoning to Facilitate Development of The Other Side Village at 1850 West Indiana Avenue The Council will continue to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance 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. Petition No.:PLNPCM2021-00787    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 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS:   1. Ordinance: Green Street Alley Vacation The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would vacate a City-owned alley situated in the Marion Park Subdivision between 1300 South and Harrison Avenue and Green Street and 700 East. The alley exists on paper only and the abutting property owners have encroached on the alley and incorporated it into their properties. Petition No.: PLNPCM2020-00903    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 13, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 6, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 4, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   2. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No. 3 for Fiscal Year 2022-23 The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2022-23. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes $6 million for deeply affordable housing, purchasing waste and recycling packer vehicles, and a federal grant for retrofitting the City Creek Water Treatment Plant among other items.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 6, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 and Tuesday, October 4, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council.   2.Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.)     E.NEW BUSINESS: 1. Resolution: Annexation at Approximately 2200 West Between 2800 North – 3300 North The Council will consider 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 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).     F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Ordinance: New Deferral for Emergency Loan Program Repayment The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would approve the deferral of Emergency Loan Program (ELP) repayments to December 31, 2024. These loans were provided to small businesses and nonprofits beginning in March 2020 and, because of continued disruptions in the economy, repayment was previously deferred to December 31, 2021.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 4, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   2. Ordinance – Placement of Small Cell Wireless in the Public Way The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would provide policy guidance for the placement of Small Wireless Facilities in the Public Way.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 4, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).     G.CONSENT: 1. Ordinance: Rezone, Master Plan Amendment and Alley Vacation at 1550 S Main Street Assemblage The Council will set the date of Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance 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. Petition No.: PLNPCM2021-1191 and PLNPCM2022-00065 and 00086    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 Staff Recommendation - Set date.   2. Ordinance: Alley Vacation at approximately 925 South 1200 West The Council will set the date of Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would vacate a portion of City-owned alley situated adjacent to 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. Petition No.: PLNPCM2021-00806    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 Staff Recommendation - Set date.   3. Board Appointment: Police Civilian Review Board - Jeremy Beckham The Council will consider approving the appointment of Jeremy Beckham 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 Staff Recommendation - Approve.   4. Board Appointment: Human Rights Commission – David Leta The Council will consider approving the appointment of David Leta 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 Staff Recommendation - Approve.   5. Board Reappointment: Airport Board – Roger Boyer The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Roger Boyer to the Airport Board for a term ending October 4, 2026.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 4, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Approve.   6. Board Reappointment: Airport Board – J. Steven Price The Council will consider approving the reappointment of J. Steven Price to the Airport Board for a term ending October 4, 2026.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 4, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Approve.   7. Board Reappointment: Arts Council – Susan Rickman The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Susan Rickman to the Arts Council for a term ending October 4, 2025.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 4, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Approve.     H.ADJOURNMENT:   CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 2:00 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. PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Formal Session on Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at the Sorensen Unity Center located at 1383 South 900 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84104. The following Council Members were present: Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton, Victoria Petro-Eschler, Alejandro Puy The following Council Members were absent: Ana Valdemoros Present Legislative leadership: Jennifer Bruno, Deputy Director; Lehua Weaver, Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall; Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff; Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Present City Staff: Katie Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, DeeDee Robinson – Minutes and Records Clerk, Sylvia Richards – Public Policy Analyst, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder, Taylor Hill – City Council Staff  Council Member Petro-Eschler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at: 7:02 pm.  MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 19, 2022 1 A.OPENING CEREMONY: 1. Council Member Victoria Petro-Eschler will conduct the formal meeting. Minutes: Council Member Petro-Eschler welcomed all attendees and detailed the Formal meeting format. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Minutes: The Westside Beasts from Rose Park Baseball led the meeting attendees in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. Minutes: Council Member Petro-Eschler recited the public meeting rules including the process for general comments. 4. The Council will approve the amended formal meeting minutes of June 8, 2021. Motion: Moved by Council Member Fowler, seconded by Council Member Dugan to approve the amended formal meeting minutes of June 8, 2021. AYE: Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton, Victoria Petro-Eschler, Alejandro Puy ABSENT: Ana Valdemoros Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass 5. The Council will consider adopting a joint ceremonial resolution with Mayor Mendenhall recognizing July 19, 2022 as “One Kind Act A Day” day in Salt Lake City.  Minutes: Council Member Petro-Eschler noted for the record that agenda language for the joint resolution was corrected to recognize the week of September 12, 2022 as “One Kind Act A Day” week. Council Member Dugan read the resolution. The resolution was presented to Khosrow Semnani, founder of the Semnani Family Foundation (One Kind Act a Day/thepowerofkind.org). Mr. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 19, 2022 2 Semnani accepted the resolution and encouraged all to contribute to making a difference in the community and to visit the foundation’s website.   Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Fowler to adopt Joint Ceremonial Resolution 18 of 2022: recognizing July 19, 2022, as “One Kind Act A Day” day in Salt Lake City. AYE: Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton, Victoria Petro-Eschler, Alejandro Puy ABSENT: Ana Valdemoros Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass 6. Council Member Petro-Eschler and the Council will recognize and celebrate the Halvorsen family who now has 4 generations of Fire Fighters who served in the Salt Lake City Fire Department. Minutes: Council Member Petro-Eschler read the names of Captain Charlie A. Halvorsen (served from September 1946 to April 1975), C. Kent Halvorsen (served from August 1967 to August 1988), R. James “Jim” Halvorsen (served from December 1972 to September 1996), Captain C. Davin Halvorsen (serving presently since September 2000), and Deven T. Halvorsen (serving presently since February 2022), representing four generations of family members to serve for the Rose Park – Salt Lake City Fire Department. She read a letter of gratitude and presented recognition certificates from the City Council to Davin and Deven Halvorsen. Chief Karl Lieb acknowledged the legacy of the Halvorsen family in the Salt Lake City Fire Department, noting it was the first time there were four generations of families serving in the Fire Department and presented a gift to the Halvorsen family on behalf of the Council, City, Salt Lake City Fire Department, and the residents they served. 7. Council Member Puy and the Council will recognize the legacy left by Archie Archuleta on the westside community and the City as a whole. Minutes: Council Member Puy expressed appreciation to Council Staff and the community for assisting with his desire to bring the Council to the westside, spoke of his fondness for the Archuleta Family and other individuals from the westside community who reflected the values Mr. Archuleta exemplified, and encouraged the community to do more to help each other. He presented Mrs. Lois Archuletta (wife of Mr. Archuletta) with a gift of flowers as a token of appreciation.  MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 19, 2022 3 Mrs. Lois Archuletta expressed gratitude for the recognition and said Archie loved and worked hard for this community and noted the important connection the new bridge (The Archie and Lois Archuleta Bridge – from 200 South to North Temple along the Jordan River) provided to the westside.   B.PUBLIC HEARINGS: Items B1 & B2 will be heard as one public hearing   1. Grant Application: 2022 Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Police Department to the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office. If awarded, the grant would fund an evaluation for the Promising Youth Project. The grant will also fund training and curriculum recommended by the evaluation contractor.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a    Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda.   2. Grant Application: State of Utah Asset Forfeiture Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Police Department to the State of Utah, Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice. If awarded, the grant would fund confidential informant funds to enhance investigations in narcotics-related cases.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 7 p.m. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 19, 2022 4 TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a    Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda.   Minutes: Sylvia Richards provided a brief introduction to the grant items (B1-B2). There were no public comments.   Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Wharton to close the public hearing and refer Items B-1 through B-2 to a future Consent Agenda for action. AYE: Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton, Victoria Petro-Eschler, Alejandro Puy ABSENT: Ana Valdemoros Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: NONE.   D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council.   Minutes: There were no questions. Council Member Fowler expressed appreciation for the Mayor’s initiatives that created equity in the City and ways City leaders demonstrated their dedication, commitment, and desire for a more equitable City. For these efforts, she thanked fellow Council Members, Council Staff, and the Administration.   2.Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.)     MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 19, 2022 5 Minutes: Kara Munsey spoke regarding the North Temple corridor of tracks, and said drug use was prevalent and hazardous waste littered the area, suggested/advocated for harm reduction (safe injections sites) rather than more policing.  Goud Maragani said he was running for County Clerk and spoke on his life/work history, goals of his campaign, and encouraged feedback through his website: goud4clerk.com. Vanessa Charcas spoke regarding Parking Solutions (private company) at 400 South Market (parking lot north of Jimmy Johns), her car being booted in the parking lot, expressed frustration of the company’s current practices, and urged the Council for assistance in the matter.  Duane Smith, resident of Glendale/District 2, spoke regarding his mailbox being vandalized and wanting to make the Council aware of this issue happening in his neighborhood. He then advocated for the Hendriksen PMAA Range to be reopened due to the west desert being too dry for target practice.   Rodger Miller, resident of Poplar Grove, spoke regarding the Tiny Home Village and said safety and security were needed, mental health issues needed to be addressed, and the project did not offer a successful solution to homelessness – more creative solutions were needed on the national, state, local levels of government along with charitable donations and suggested The Point by Switchpoint as a model for such. Jackson Green spoke regarding the current climate crisis (global warming) and suggested more control of water use by eliminating the requirement for grass lawns in the City.  Jan Hayes, resident of Poplar Grove, spoke on allegations of drug trafficking in her neighborhood, expressed frustration with the high amount of crime in the area, homeless individuals entering her home uninvited, and urged the Council to consider alternative solutions for housing the homeless in the neighborhood. Alison Lewis spoke regarding difficulties of biking across train tracks at 1300 South/400 South because trains impeded and blocked access and asked for funding to be allocated for a pedestrian/cyclist bridge to cross the tracks separate from vehicles.  Kyle LaMalfa spoke on the upcoming General Obligation (GO) Bond before the Council; noting that it contained formative items that could help facilitate the vision of The Seven Canyons Trust by bringing City Creek, Red Butte, Emigration, and Parleys to cut through the City as a pedestrian and trails corridor (not just water), along with Fisher Mansion, Warm Springs Park, and Allen Park needing a connection to one another – and encouraged the Council to support the effort for these buildings. Lisa Moen spoke regarding the 400 South roadway, expressing frustration with speeding cars, loud engines, and nearly being hit by cars and said something needed to be done. She expressed displeasure seeing the faces of alleged criminals on the murals MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 19, 2022 6 located on the 300 West (Fleet Block).  Amber Rasband, resident of Poplar Grove, spoke regarding issues of speeding in the area of 700 South Jeremy Street, wanting a stop/yield sign placed on the street, and raised concerns regarding alleged drug use in her neighborhood. Cheryl Christy spoke of being a resident of Rose Park and said more shops/restaurant amenities are needed in the neighborhood and spoke of her interest in beginning a campaign of caring for the area.  John A. Smith spoke on the concept of unity (being a powerful element – making a difference) and applauded the Council for coming out to the westside – bringing a greater deal of trust to the community.  Steve Wooldridge spoke regarding lack of traffic control signage in District 1 (Fairpark and Rose Park communities) and urged the Council to press for proper signage where it was needed. He also spoke regarding the Council reducing the Police Department in 2020 to build public trust, thereby constricting the ability of the Police Department to release body cam footage by City Ordinance to the community and reducing the department’s ability to recruit/retain personnel needed to keep the City safe.  Bernie Hart spoke on the issue of homelessness in the City; despite changes made by past/current Council/Administration, the issue persisted. He spoke regarding a physical activity program he was involved in that worked closely with the homeless community, detailed its successes, and encouraged the Council to enforce data collection when programs are funded by the City. Cathy Mason Copeland spoke of being a resident of the westside for many years and said much had changed but a lot of things had not progressed; lack of restaurants and shops that were accessible/walkable in the neighborhoods, and the area of 500 North and 800 West needed attention due to the areas history of flooding. Monica (no last name) was called on to speak but was not present. Dennis Keiting spoke about the Inland Port; being forced upon the people of the City, citing pollution and air quality issues, and asked the Council to dissolve it. Billy Palmer spoke regarding previous comments regarding wanting more walkable businesses/restaurants in the area, the people of the westside wanting a better sense of safety, issues of cars speeding through westside neighborhoods, and not seeing much concern on behalf of the City in regards to mitigating issues of safety and homelessness. Jason Seaton, resident of Poplar Grove, spoke on losing space in the westside neighborhoods to poor development options instead of needed amenities and proposed a camp location for the homeless community on Capitol Hill, as it would display to the State the issue of homelessness the City has had to handle. Katherine Flesch spoke of being homeless and detailed the challenges she faced; MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 19, 2022 7 hospitals being frightening, not being allowed entry into grocery stores, being unable to use proper restrooms when needed, and said she would not be homeless if she could have an address that no one would bother her at. Silivei Niu, resident of Glendale, spoke regarding small businesses in the community and encouraged the Council to provide more empowerment to employ residents of the westside in their own neighborhoods and to bring City-funded development to the area. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 19, 2022 8   E.NEW BUSINESS: 1. Ordinance: Updating Practices Regarding Donations The Council will consider approving an ordinance that would update the City’s practices regarding donations to the City. This ordinance would establish policy and guidelines for acceptance of donations to the city. Its provisions are intended to establish a review process that considers the intentions of the donor, the needs and desires of the community, and city benefits and costs associated with proposed donations, including long term costs of maintenance and care of donated property.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 19, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 19, 2022    Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Wharton to suspend the rules and adopt Ordinance 42 of 2022 Updating Salt Lake City Corporations practices regarding donations to the City, with the following changes: keep section 3.60.140B regarding reports to the City Council for donations requiring donation agreements, and also add a new report prior to any waiver being issued. AYE: Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton, Victoria Petro-Eschler, Alejandro Puy ABSENT: Ana Valdemoros Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 19, 2022 9   F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Ordinance: Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and Gender Equity The Council will consider approving an ordinance that would enact chapter 10.08 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to gender equity. This proposed ordinance requires an intersectional gender analysis be conducted every five years, establishes the Chief Equity Officer as oversight personnel (in conjunction with the volunteer-based Human Rights Commission), recommends funding to support the intersectional gender equity analysis, and requires the City have a compensation policy on equal pay for equal work.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 12, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 19, 2022    Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   Motion: Moved by Council Member Fowler, seconded by Council Member Wharton to adopt Ordinance 43 of 2022 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and Gender Equity, enacting chapter 10.08 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to gender equality. AYE: Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton, Victoria Petro-Eschler, Alejandro Puy ABSENT: Ana Valdemoros Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass 2. Resolution: Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement with the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) The Council will consider adopting a resolution that would authorize the Mayor to enter into two proposed adjustments to an interlocal agreement (ILA) with UTA. Amendment to Addendum No. 3 provides accounting adjustments and credits to the City for cost savings from COVID-19 related bus service reductions, reaching service thresholds, and actual fuel costs. Addendum No. 6 is the service agreement for the Frequent Transit Network (FTN) routes on 200 South, 900 South, and 2100 South and addition of FTN Route 1 on 1000 North/South MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 19, 2022 10 Temple. The ILA is a twenty-year agreement with a goal of full implementation of the FTN as described in the City’s Transit Master Plan. Note that the Plan identifies an FTN route on 600 North which UTA is implementing outside of the ILA with the City based on ridership levels and significance to the regional network.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 12, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 19, 2022    Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Wharton to adopt Resolution 19 of 2022 Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement with the Utah Transit Authority (UTA). AYE: Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton, Victoria Petro-Eschler, Alejandro Puy ABSENT: Ana Valdemoros Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 19, 2022 11   G.CONSENT: 1. Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at Rose Park Lane The Council will set the date of Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of property at approximately 1902 North, 1932 North, 1944 North, and 1954 North Rose Park Lane from R-1/7,000 (Single Family Residential District) to OS (Open Space District). This would also amend the Rose Park Small Area Plan Future Land Use Map. The property owner intends to demolish the existing vacant single-family home on 1932 N Rose Park Lane, consolidate the four parcels and incorporate the land into the Regional Athletic Complex to the north. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No.: PLNPCM2020-00152 & PLNPCM2020-00153    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 19, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, July 19, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 16, 2022    Staff Recommendation - Set date.   2. Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at 858 West and 860 West Hoyt Place The Council will set the date of Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of property located at 858 West and 860 West Hoyt Place from R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential District) to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential District). The two lots are approximately .39 acres (16,988 square feet).  If approved, the property owner’s stated intent is to subdivide the property and build two new single family homes at the rear of the property. There are two existing single family homes on the property that are being renovated and will remain as a part of the development. The Master Plan is not being changed. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No.: PLNPCM2021-01073    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 19, 2022 12 Briefing - Tuesday, July 19, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, July 19, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 16, 2022    Staff Recommendation - Set date.   3. Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 805 South 800 West The Council will set the date of Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of property located at 805 South 800 West from M-1 (Light Manufacturing District) to R-MU-35 (Residential/Mixed Use District). The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is intended to allow the property owner to accommodate a multi- family or an attached single-family development. No development plans have been submitted by the applicant at this time. If the amendment is approved the applicant could develop the site in accordance with the R-MU-35 zoning standards. The request did not require a master plan amendment. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No.: PLNPCM2021-01077    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 19, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, July 19, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 16, 2022    Staff Recommendation - Set date.   4. Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at 2435 South 500 East The Council will set the date of Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the general plan land use designation of a property located at 2435 South 500 East from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and the zoning map from R-1- 7,000 (Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District). The purpose of the request is to facilitate the construction of townhomes. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No.; PLNPCM2021-01041 & MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 19, 2022 13 01042.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 19, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, July 19, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 16, 2022    Staff Recommendation - Set date.   5. Ordinance: R-2 Text Amendment: Building Coverage The Council will set the date of Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning text of Subsection 21A.24.110.F of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to building coverage in the R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District. The Zoning Ordinance currently limits the building coverage for single-family homes to 40% of the lot and the building coverage for duplexes to 45% of the lot. The proposed amendment would increase the allowable building coverage to 45% for single- family homes in the R-2 district city-wide. Petition No.: PLNPCM2021-01228    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 19, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, July 19, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 16, 2022    Staff Recommendation - Set date.   6. Board Appointment: Bicycle Advisory Committee – Matthew Morriss The Council will consider approving the appointment of Matthew Morriss to the Bicycle Advisory Committee for a term ending July 19, 2025.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 19, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 19, 2022 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 19, 2022 14    Staff Recommendation - Approve.   7. Board Appointment: Community Development and Capital Improvement Programs (CDCIP) Advisory Board – Brad Christensen The Council will consider approving the appointment of Brad Christensen to the CDCIP Advisory Board for a term ending June 2, 2025.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 19, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 19, 2022    Staff Recommendation - Approve.   Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Fowler to approve the Consent Agenda. AYE: Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton, Victoria Petro-Eschler, Alejandro Puy ABSENT: Ana Valdemoros Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass   H.ADJOURNMENT:   Meeting adjourned at: 8:20 pm.  Minutes Approved: _______________________________  City Council Chair  MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 19, 2022 15 _______________________________  City Recorder This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript as other items may have been discussed; please refer to the audio or video for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4- 203(2)(b). To listen to the audio recording of the meeting or view meeting materials, please visit Salt Lake City Public Body Minutes library, available at www.data.slc.gov, selecting the Public Body Minutes hyperlink. If you are viewing this file in the Minutes library, use the links on the right of your screen within the ‘Document Relationships’ information to listen to the audio or view meeting materials.     This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Formal Meeting meeting held Tuesday, July 19, 2022.   MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 19, 2022 16 JOINT RESOLUTION DECLARING THE SECOND MONDAY IN OCTOBER AS INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ DAY IN SALT LAKE CITY WHEREAS,Salt Lake City recognizes the city is built upon the homelands of the Indigenous Peoples of this region, whose histories are entwined with the settlement of Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS,Salt Lake City values Indigenous Peoples’ contributions to our community, including their knowledge, labor, technology, science, philosophy, arts and the deep cultural influence that substantially shaped the character of Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS,Salt Lake City has a responsibility to oppose the systematic discrimination toward Indigenous people in the United States, which perpetuates high rates of poverty and income inequality, exacerbating disproportionate health, education, and social crises; and WHEREAS,Salt Lake City promotes closing the equity gap for Indigenous Peoples by supporting policies and practices that ensure broader access, resources and opportunity for these communities, and by honoring our nation’s Indigenous roots, history and contributions; and WHEREAS,Indigenous Peoples’ Day was first proposed in 1977 by a delegation of Native Nations to the United Nations sponsored International Conference on Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations in the Americas; and WHEREAS,Salt Lake City established its Human Rights Commission in 2005, committing itself to protect, respect and fulfill the full range of inherent human rights for all as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and numerous other international human rights treaties; and WHEREAS,Indigenous communities and Tribes in Utah called upon the City to officially recognize the Second Monday of October as Indigenous Peoples’ Day and celebrate Indigenous Peoples’ Day to promote understanding and friendship, and to combat prejudice and eliminate discrimination stemming from colonization. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor of Salt Lake City strongly support that Indigenous Peoples’ Day shall be an opportunity to celebrate the thriving cultures and values of the Indigenous Peoples of our region. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor of Salt Lake City strongly encourage Salt Lake City Public Schools to teach about the culture, government and history of Indigenous Peoples on this day and encourage residents, businesses, organizations, and public institutions to recognize Indigenous Peoples’ Day. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor of Salt Lake City firmly commit to continue efforts to promote the well-being and growth of Salt Lake City’s American Indian and Indigenous community and declares the second Monday in October as Indigenous Peoples’ Day in Salt Lake City. Adopted this _____ day of October 2022 __________________________ ______________________ Erin Mendenhall Daniel Dugan, Chair Salt Lake City Mayor Salt Lake City Council Member, District Six __________________________ ________________________ Darin Mano, Vice Chair Victoria Petro-Eschler Salt Lake City Council Member, District Five Salt Lake City Council Member, District One ______________________________ ____________________________ Alejandro Puy Chris Wharton Salt Lake City Council Member, District Two Salt Lake City Council Member, District Three __________________________ __________________________ Ana Valdemoros Amy Fowler Salt Lake City Council Member, District Four Salt Lake City Council Member, District Seven A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A PHASED, LOWER IMPACT, ADAPTIVE APPROACH TO THE UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATOINS’S LITTLE COTTONWOOD CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WHEREAS, the Little Cottonwood Creek watershed is a critical water supply for more than 450,000 people in Salt Lake County; and WHEREAS, for more than a century, residents of Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County have invested significant financial and other resources to the stewardship and protection of the Little Cottonwood Creek watershed, ensuring clean and reliable drinking water to the public; and WHEREAS,in the midst of drought, climate change, and population growth, water resources must be protected now more than ever; and WHEREAS, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has been conducting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) related to transportation alternatives for State Route 210, from the mouth of Little Cottonwood Canyon to the upper reaches of the Little Cottonwood Creek watershed for the last several years (LCC EIS); and WHEREAS,Salt Lake City has served as a Cooperating Agency for the LCC EIS and has invested hundreds of hours to the LCC EIS process since its inception: and WHEREAS, UDOT recently issued a Final EIS in which it identified a gondola alternative with proposed phasing as the preferred alternative to improve transportation in LCC, and is conducting a 45-day comment period for the Final EIS prior to issuing a Record of Decision; and WHEREAS,the gondola has a very high cost to taxpayers, with at least $550 million in construction costs, serves only two private ski resorts, creates an additional transportation corridor to the existing road, introduces additional water resources risks, and is fixed industrial infrastructure with limited flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances; and WHEREAS,the LCC EIS failed to effectively consider many of the additional water resources risks raised by Salt Lake City during the LCC EIS process, including the risks associated with construction and operation of the gondola, as well as the risks associated with increased visitation to the watershed, because the gondola is not shown to reduce the number of personal vehicles per hour in the peak period over other alternatives evaluated and will increase overall visitation capacity; and WHEREAS,because the LCC EIS failed to consider the additional water resources risks, the mitigation of and costs associated with these risks was not identified, potentially unfairly shifting future unevaluated financial and social water costs to the public; and WHEREAS, lower impact, highly adaptive approaches were not effectively evaluated, such as a multi-faceted approach that could include strategies like tolling, electric buses, parking management, regional mobility hubs, and carpool incentives; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council and the Salt Lake City Mayor wish to communicate their position on the proposed gondola alternative in the Final LCC EIS. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salt Lake City Council and the Mayor of Salt Lake City recommend removing the gondola alternative from consideration in the Record of Decision. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED The Salt Lake City Council and Mayor of Salt Lake City support UDOT in implementing a lower impact, adaptive approach to addressing transportation issues in Little Cottonwood Canyon, offering our collaboration while ensuring protection of the LCC watershed and water resources. Adopted this _____ day of October 2022 __________________________ ______________________ Erin Mendenhall Daniel Dugan, Chair Salt Lake City Mayor Salt Lake City Council Member, District Six __________________________ ________________________ Darin Mano, Vice Chair Victoria Petro-Eschler Salt Lake City Council Member, District Five Salt Lake City Council Member, District One ______________________________ ____________________________ Alejandro Puy Chris Wharton Salt Lake City Council Member, District Two Salt Lake City Council Member, District Three __________________________ __________________________ Ana Valdemoros Amy Fowler Salt Lake City Council Member, District Four Salt Lake City Council Member, District Seven Items B1-B4 Page 1 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:October 4, 2022 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items B-1 through B-4 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: Public Hearing: Oct. 4, 2022 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY www.slccouncil.com/city-budget TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Budget Analyst DATE:October 4, 2022 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT APPLICATION SUBMISSION PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: Not required. Set Date: Not required. Public Hearing: Oct. 4, 2022 Potential Action: TBD _________________________________________________________________ ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Administration has submitted four grant applications. In an effort to ensure that the City Council, Council staff and the public has adequate opportunity to see and comment on them, the grant application notifications will be included in the Council meeting agendas under Public Hearings. There won’t be a set date since this is not a required hearing. 1.2022 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance (JAG) Grant Purpose/Goal of the Grant: If awarded, the grant monies will be used to fund the following: Travel and training for sworn and civilian staff, ballistic helmets, ballistic computers, rifle shields, e-bikes and accessories, community policing and enforcement overtime, vehicle analytics software and training, Promising Youth project supplies and training, community surveys, and subawards to Salt Lake County and Unified Police Department ($54,482 to each agency). Grant Amount: $350,205 Requested by: Police Department Funding Agency: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance in collaboration with Salt Lake County Unified Police Department Match Requirement: $ -0- The following cost information was provided by the Administration: • Professional Travel Training for Sworn and Civilian Staff - $50,250 Page | 2 • E-bikes (+ accessories) - $45,000 • Ballistic Helmets - $24,000 • Ballistic Computers - $6,000 • Rifle Shields - $28,800 • Public Relations Unit Supplies - $7,691 • Community Policing and Targeted Enforcement Overtime - $20,800 • Vehicle Telematics Software and Training - $23,700 • Promising Youth Project Supplies and Training - $5,000 • Community Surveys - $30,000 • Subaward to Salt Lake County (BJA allocation) - $54,482 Additional information provided by the Administration in response to questions from Council staff: 1.How many e-bikes will be purchased? Are there more advantages than just the increase in speed? The department estimates being able to purchase 15 e-bikes plus accessories (helmets, spare tubes, locks, etc.). The ability to cover more distance as well as reducing the physical fitness demand on officers will also be advantages. Standard bikes require a high level of effort and the e-bikes will allow officers to conserve much of that energy and to use it while answering calls for service and serving the community. 2.What are the advantages of the ballistic computers? The units are calculators that will assist with data calculations and accounting for factors such as wind speed and direction, temperature, humidity, pressure, and altitude measurements for ballistic accuracy. This allows officers to be more accurate in shot placement for example during a hostage rescue. These computers will be assigned to specialty units only. 3.Will the new helmets be ballistic helmets or impact rated? The department will purchase ballistic helmets, but also intends to purchase impact system inserts to improve officer safety. Staff Recommendation: Please refer to motion sheet. Gr ant Application Submission Notification Memo TO: Jennifer Bruno, Cindy Gust -Jenson, Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, Cindy Lou Trishman CC: Justin Anderson, Sarah Behrens, Mike Brown, Jennifer Covino, Shellie Dietrich, Ann Garcia, Elizabeth Gerhart, Taylor Hill, Sandee Moore, Jaysen Oldroyd, Melyn Osmond, Recorder Routing; Sylvia Richards, DeeDee Robinson, Linda Sanchez, John Vuyk, Lehua Weaver FROM: J ordan Smith DATE: August 16, 2022 SUBJECT: FY 2022 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program – Local Solicitation FUNDING AGENCY: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance GRANT PROGRAM: FY 2022 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program – Local Solicitation REQUESTED AMOUNT: $350,205 DEPARTMENT APPLYING: Police Department COLLABORATING AGENCIES: Salt Lake County / Unified Police Department DATE SUBMITTED: August 8, 2022 SPECIFICS:  E quipment/Supplies  Technical Assistance (Training)  Provides FTE Position  Existing  New  Overtime  Requires Funding After Grant Explanation: Please see below.  Match Required:  In-Kind and/or  Cash GRANT DETAILS: The Salt Lake City Police Department is requesting funding for the following: • Professional Travel Training for Sworn and Civilian Staff - $50,250 • E-bikes (+ accessories) - $45,000 • Ballistic Helmets - $24,000 • Ballistic Computers - $6,000 • Rifle Shields - $28,800 • Public Relations Unit Supplies - $7,691 • Community Policing and Targeted Enforcement Overtime - $20,800 • Vehicle Telematics Software and Training - $23,700 • Promising Youth Project Supplies and Training - $5,000 • Community Surveys - $30,000 • Subaward to Salt Lake County (BJA allocation) - $54,482 • Subaward to Unified Police Department (BJA allocation) - $54,482 Items B1-B4 Page 1 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:October 4, 2022 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items B-1 through B-4 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: Public Hearing: Oct. 4, 2022 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY www.slccouncil.com/city-budget TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Budget Analyst DATE:October 4, 2022 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT APPLICATION SUBMISSION PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: Not required. Set Date: Not required. Public Hearing: Oct. 4, 2022 Potential Action: TBD _________________________________________________________________ ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Administration has submitted four grant applications. In an effort to ensure that the City Council, Council staff and the public has adequate opportunity to see and comment on them, the grant application notifications will be included in the Council meeting agendas under Public Hearings. There won’t be a set date since this is not a required hearing. 2.2022 Utah Railroad Safety Grant – Railroad Crossing at 4900 West 700 South Purpose/Goal of the Grant: If awarded, the grant monies will be used to fund safety improvements to the Union Pacific Railroad crossing at 4900 West 700 South, as part of the reconstruction of 700 South between 5000 West to 4725 West. It is anticipated that construction on the safety improvements will begin in late 2024 and will be complete in conjunction with the street reconstruction project in 2026. The Administration indicates this is Round Three of this project. Grant Amount: $150,000 Requested by: Department of Public Services, Division of Engineering Funding Agency: Utah Department of Transportation, in collaboration with Union Pacific Railroad Match Requirement: -0- Staff Recommendation: Please refer to motion sheet. Grant Application Submission Notification Memo TO: Jennifer Bruno, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson CC: Sarah Behrens, Jorge Chamorro, Ann Garcia, Taylor Hill, Sandee Moore, Jaysen Oldroyd, Melyn Osmond, Sylvia Richards, SLCRecorder@slcgov.com, Linda Sanchez, Jordan Smith, Mark Stephens, John Vuyk, Lehua Weaver FROM: Elizabeth Gerhart eg DATE: August 15, 2022 SUBJECT: Utah Railroad Safety Grant 2022 FUNDING AGENCY: Utah Department of Transportation GRANT PROGRAM: Utah Railroad Safety Grant 2022 REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $150,000 DEPARTMENT: Department of Public Services | Division of Engineering COLLABORATING AGENCIES: Union Pacific Railroad DATE SUBMITTED: August 12, 2022 SPECIFICS: □ Equipment/Supplies Only □ Technical Assistance □ Provides FTE □ Existing □ New □ Overtime □ Requires Funding After Grant Explanation: □ Match Required □ In-Kind and □ Cash GRANT DETAILS:  Salt Lake City Division of Engineering requested $150,000 for safety improvements to the Union Pacific Railroad crossing at 4900 West 700 South.  Salt Lake City Division of Engineering and Union Pacific Railroad are collaborating to implement the crossing safety upgrades proposed for this funding.  The railroad crossing improvements are a component of the reconstruction of 700 South between 5000 West to 4725 West with the aim to increase safety for vehicular traffic, rail cars, and travelers who are walking, biking, or rolling.  Construction of the safety improvements is anticipated to begin in late 2024 with completion in 2026 to correspond with the anticipated construction schedule of the 700 South street reconstruction. Items B1-B4 Page 1 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:October 4, 2022 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items B-1 through B-4 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: Public Hearing: Oct. 4, 2022 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY www.slccouncil.com/city-budget TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:October 4, 2022 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT APPLICATION SUBMISSION PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: Not required. Set Date: Not required. Public Hearing: Oct. 4, 2022 Potential Action: TBD _________________________________________________________________ ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Administration has submitted four grant applications. In an effort to ensure that the City Council, Council staff and the public has adequate opportunity to see and comment on them, the grant application notifications will be included in the Council meeting agendas under Public Hearings. There won’t be a set date since this is not a required hearing. 3.2022-23 Child and Adult Care Food Program YouthCity Snacks Grant Purpose/Goal of the Grant: If awarded, the grant monies will be used to fund the purchase of snacks for YouthCity participants during the 2022-23 school year. Grant Amount: $46,000 Requested by: Community & Neighborhoods Division of Youth & Family Services Funding Agency: Utah State Board of Education administering U.S. Department of Agriculture funding. Match Requirement: $-0- Staff Recommendation: Please refer to motion sheet. Grant Application Submission Notification Memo TO: Jennifer Bruno, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, Cindy Lou Trishman CC: Sarah Behrens, Ann Garcia, Taylor Hill, Tammy Hunsaker, Sandee Moore, Jaysen Oldroyd, Melyn Osmond, Sylvia Richards, SLCRecorder@slcgov.com, Linda Sanchez, Jordan Smith, Blake Thomas, Kim Thomas, John Vuyk, Lehua Weaver FROM: Elizabeth Gerhart eg DATE: September 9, 2022 SUBJECT: Child and Adult Care Food Program 2022-2023 for YouthCity Snacks FUNDING AGENCY: Utah State Board of Education administering U.S. Department of Agriculture funding GRANT PROGRAM: Child and Adult Care Food Program 2022-2023 REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $46,000 DEPARTMENT: Department of Community & Neighborhoods | Division of Youth & Family Services COLLABORATING AGENCIES: None DATE SUBMITTED: September 9, 2022 SPECIFICS:  Equipment/Supplies Only □ Technical Assistance □ Provides FTE □ Existing □ New □ Overtime □ Requires Funding After Grant Explanation: □ Match Required □ In-Kind and □ Cash □ New Program (City not performing function now) GRANT DETAILS:  The Division of Youth & Family Services submitted a renewal application for federal reimbursement to provide nutritious snacks to YouthCity participants during the 2022-2023 school year.  There is $0 in non-federal match/cost-share. Items B1-B4 Page 1 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:October 4, 2022 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items B-1 through B-4 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: Public Hearing: Oct. 4, 2022 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY www.slccouncil.com/city-budget TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Budget Analyst DATE:October 4, 2022 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT APPLICATION SUBMISSION PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: Not required. Set Date: Not required. Public Hearing: Oct. 4, 2022 Potential Action: TBD _________________________________________________________________ ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Administration has submitted four grant applications. In an effort to ensure that the City Council, Council staff and the public has adequate opportunity to see and comment on them, the grant application notifications will be included in the Council meeting agendas under Public Hearings. There won’t be a set date since this is not a required hearing. 4.Emergent Learning Fund 2022 – Urban Sustainability Directors Network - Western Adaption Alliance Conference Purpose/Goal of the Grant: If awarded, the grant monies will be used to fund materials and supplies, consultant services, and equity-focused community-based organization participation for the Spring 2023 Western Adaptation Alliance (WAA) Conference. Grant Amount: $20,000 Requested by: Department of Sustainability Funding Agency: Urban Sustainability Directors Network – Emergent Learning Fund in collaboration with the City of Tempe, Arizona Match Requirement: $87,000 – Source: In-kind (see below) The following information was provided by the Administration: Materials & Supplies $ 2,000 Consultant Services $ 8,000 Equity-Focused Community Based Page | 2 Organization Participation $10,000 Total Funds Requested $20,000 The Administration has provided the following information in response to questions from Council staff: a) What is the source of the match requirement? $47,000: Estimated value of airfare, ground transportation, lodging and other expenses for approximately 25 WAA communities and other partners to attend. There will be no travel expenses for SLC staff to attend, as the event is proposed to be hosted in SLC. $40,000: Estimated value of in-kind leverage of staff time from partner organizations and technical experts to prepare for and contribute to convening activities. This estimate does not include WAA local government staff time. b)Could you please elaborate on the WAA organization and conference (is the City a member, is there an annual cost, what are the benefits to the City, etc.) The Western Adaptation Alliance (WAA) is a regional network of Southwest and Intermountain U.S. cities that have similar climate challenges. Salt Lake City and Tempe, AZ co-chair. Bimonthly virtual workshops are held on various topics related to partnership- building, anticipated grant opportunities, and common climate impact interests such as drought, wildfire, air quality, and heat. Cities from ID, MT, UT, CO, NM, AZ, and NV regularly participate in workshops. In-person conferences are infrequent. The networking group has existed for about a decade. In the past decade, a few in-person convenings, trainings, and strategic planning sessions for the group have been supported by the Urban Sustainability Directors Network, ICLEI, and other philanthropic organizations. The WAA network exists to share information, resources, and tools, and collaborate on regional approaches to addressing climate resilience. There is no cost for cities to participate. Staff Recommendation: Please refer to motion sheet. Grant Application Submission Notification Memo TO: Jennifer Bruno, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson CC: Sarah Behrens, Ann Garcia, Taylor Hill, Debbie Lyons, Sandee Moore, Jaysen Oldroyd, Melyn Osmond, Sylvia Richards, SLCRecorder@slcgov.com, Linda Sanchez, Jordan Smith, John Vuyk, Lehua Weaver FROM: Elizabeth Gerhart eg DATE: September 7, 2022 SUBJECT: Urban Sustainability Directors Network - Emergent Learning Fund 2022 FUNDING AGENCY: Urban Sustainability Directors Network GRANT PROGRAM: Emergent Learning Fund 2022 REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $20,000 DEPARTMENT: Department of Sustainability COLLABORATING AGENCIES: City of Tempe, Arizona DATE SUBMITTED: August 31, 2022 SPECIFICS: □ Equipment/Supplies Only □ Technical Assistance □ Provides FTE □ Existing □ New □ Overtime □ Requires Funding After Grant Explanation:  Match Required $87,000  In-Kind and □ Cash GRANT DETAILS:  The Department of Sustainability requested $20,000 to host the spring 2023 convening for the Western Adaptation Alliance (WAA) with a focus on Aligning Investments: Economic Justice and Equitable Resilience.  WAA local government partners include Arizona (Flagstaff, Phoenix, Tempe, Tucson), Colorado (Aspen, Boulder, Denver, Fort Collins, Lakewood), Idaho (Blaine County and Boise), Montana (Bozeman and Missoula), Nevada (Las Vegas), New Mexico (Albuquerque, Las Cruces, Santa Fe) and Utah (Park City, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County).  Sustainability Directors for Salt Lake City, Utah and the City of Tempe, Arizona are co-leads for the convening.  The requested grant funds are directed toward the following costs: Category Amount Materials and Supplies $2,000 Contractual: Consultant Services $8,000 Other: Equity-Focused Community Based Organization Participation $10,000 Total Requested Grant Funds $20,000 Item B5 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 Budget and Policy Analyst DATE:October 4, 2022 RE: ORDINANCE: BALLPARK STATION AREA PLAN MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. Erin Mendenhall Mayor DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 145460, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5460 WWW.SLC.GOV 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: August 15, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: PLNPCM2022-00323 – Ballpark Station Area Plan STAFF CONTACT: Nannette Larsen, Senior Planner, nannette.larsen@slcgov.com 801-535-7645 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the Ballpark Station Area Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Ballpark Station Area Plan is intended to capitalize on the community assets and set a framework to help guide growth related issues and pressures and to keep the neighborhood as the home of baseball in Utah. The Station Area Plan will provide guidance on how the community grows and changes, with a focus on creating a safe and welcoming neighborhood. As demand for redevelopment in the neighborhood has grown so too has the need for a small area plan specific to the Ballpark Neighborhood. The Ballpark Station Area Plan will encompass the area that runs roughly between 900 South to 1700 South, and State Street to I-15. The small area plan’s boundaries are within both the Central Community Master Plan and the Downtown Master Plan. 8/15/2022 8/15/2022 The Ballpark Station Area Plan draft recommends “Big Moves” that will help transform the Ballpark Neighborhood and guide growth in the area. These goals include: •Create and apply a Ballpark neighborhood specific Transit Supportive Zone. •Reconfigure the Ballpark TRAX station • Improve 1300 South for pedestrians • Create a sense of place at and around the Ballpark •Repurpose parking lots and underutilized properties to add activity to the Heart of the Neighborhood •Invest in community amenities and green space to balance density with livability factors. The small area plan would establish goals and strategies to enhance the livability of the area. The goals here are broad in nature and direct future development in the community. The strategies, scaled toward application, describe ways to implement the larger picture goal. Actions describe specific ways to implement the goal as development or redevelopment occur over a longer time frame. The key strategies describe strategies to improve the ballpark station community and projects that would directly affect the community to bring about a positive change. The key strategies would focus on connectivity, a safer bike and pedestrian network, parking needs in the community, alleyway safety, greenspace in the community, providing housing options and mitigate displacement, and improving safety and security in the community. Included within the Ballpark Station Area Plan is also a proposed Future Land Use Map. This proposed future land use map and accompanying land use designation describe the appropriate development pattern of the area where density, building height, land use, emphasized transportation modes, and catalyst areas are attributes. The zoning map will be amended at a future date following the adoption of this plan to better conform to needs in the neighborhood and meet the land use designations recommended in the Future Land Use Map. PUBLIC PROCESS: The Salt Lake City’s Transportation Division received a Transportation and Land Use Connection grant from the Wasatch Front Regional Council, this Transportation and Land Use Connection grant allowed for the creation of the plan starting in December 2020. A consultant was chosen, GSBS, who worked closely with City Staff and spent 9-months identifying goals and meeting with community members and stakeholders. During this time numerous presentations to the community were made during the initial phase of the project. An online survey was available to inform the creation of the plan. This survey was published in March 2020 and notices of this survey were sent to the entire ballpark community. As the draft Image 1: vicinity map of the Ballpark Station Area Plan plan was formed a steering committee, comprising of members of the Ballpark Community was established. The steering committee met throughout 2021 to discuss and make recommendations. Towards the end of November 2021, a draft of the proposed plan was finalized, and City Staff began the official public notification process. A project webpage was created with information on the draft plan and guidance on how to leave comments, City Staff also attended multiple Community Council hearings to answer questions and solicit comments. Several public comments have been received and are included in Exhibit 5. The Planning Commission met to review the small area plan first through a work session on June 8th, the Commission met again July 27th, 2022 for a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed Ballpark Station Area Plan. Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous recommendation of approval to City Council with an added condition that Staff look at increasing density on Main Street. Prior to this meeting the final draft, with additional modifications, was posted to the project webpage. Notification of the public hearing was sent through listserv to all those who signed up for updates on the project webpage. Modifications have been made to the draft Ballpark Plan in response to public comments received in throughout 2022 and during both the Planning Commission’s work session and public hearing meetings. Planning Commission (PC) Records a)PC Agenda for June 8, 2022 (Click to Access) b)PC Minutes for June 8, 2022 (Click to Access) c)PC Memo for June 8, 2022 (Click to Access) d)PC Agenda for July 27, 2022 (Click to Access) e)PC Minutes for July 27, 2022 will be Published August 11, 2022 (Click to Access Meeting Information Webpage) f)PC Staff Report for July 27, 2022 (Click to Access) EXHIBITS: 1)Chronology 2)City Council Public Hearing Notice 3)Petition Initiation Memo 4)Ballpark Station Area Plan Draft 5)Ordinance 6)Public Comments Received 1. CHRONOLOGY Ballpark Station Area Plan Project Chronology PLNPCM2022-00323 December, 2020 Consultant and City Staff identify goals and meet with community members and stakeholders. December, 2020 Consultant team’s presentation to the Ballpark Community Council February, 2021 Consultant distributed to every address within the project area a post card with information on the Ballpark project and an accompanying survey February 4, 2021 Steering Committee met to discuss goals, case studies, neighborhood needs, and draft plan. March, 2020 Month long, bilingual, online Ballpark survey conducted. Over 530 responses received. March, 2020 Consultant published online the Ballpark Station Area plan information and interactive map. March 11, 2021 Steering committee met to discuss plan. March 20, 2021 A community event was held through Zoom by the consultant team. April 8, 2021 Steering Committee met to discuss plan. May 13, 2021 Steering Committee met to discuss plan. May 22, 2021 Second community even held at Smith’s Ballpark and Watchtower Coffee and Comics by consultant team. November 23, 2021 Public comment received through email. Regarding zoning, future land use map. November 24, 2021 Salt Lake City’s Ballpark Station Area Plan webpage published. November 24, 2021 Open House posted online with information regarding the small area plan November 24, 2021 Public comment received through email. Regarding bike lanes. November 24, 2021 Ballpark, Central 9th, and Liberty Wells Community Councils officially notified of the small area plan. November 29, 2021 Public comment received through email. Regarding future land use map updates. November 29, 2021 Public comment received through email. Regarding character areas, future land use map. December 2, 2021 Public comment received through email. Regarding proposed density and main street. December 6, 2021 Public comment received through email. Regarding historic character of neighborhood. December 6, 2021 Ballpark, Central 9th, and Liberty Wells met on the Ballpark Plan. GSBS presents the draft plan, public comments recorded. December 7, 2021 Public comment received through email. Regarding concerns over building heights, housing, crime, traffic, and parking. December 9, 2021 Public comment received through email. Regarding zoning updates and extension of the South Street Overlay District. December 20, 2021 Public comment received through email. Regarding additional density and activation of neighborhood. December 31, 2021 Public comment received through email. Regarding lighting, walkability, and concern over 1300 S. December 31, 2021 Public comment received through email. Regarding walkability, vacant parking lots, mid-block walkways, viewsheds and building heights, and sidewalks. February 4, 2022 Public comment received through email. Regarding the festival street, truly active ground floor uses, and parking. February 16, 2022 1st Modifications sent to consultant April 5, 2022 Public comment received through email. Regarding South State Street Corridor Overlay District. April 8, 2022 Ballpark Plan briefing transmitted to City Council. April 12, 2022 1st Completed modifications received from consultant. May 5, 2022 Planning staff attended Ballpark Community Council to review draft plan modifications and next steps. May 26, 2022 Public comment received through email. Regarding future land use map and South Jefferson Street. June 8, 2022 Planning Commission work session held to review and discuss draft plan. July 20, 2022 2nd Modifications made to draft plan. July 12, 2022 City Council mid-point briefing and discussion. July 12, 2022 Public comment received from Ballpark Community Council Chair. Regarding visual accessibility of the plan. July 13, 2022 July 27th Planning Commission agenda emailed to those who signed up for email updates on the project webpage. July 21, 2022 Ballpark Community Council response to the draft plan received. July 22, 2022 Planning Commission staff report published online. July 27, 2022 Public comment received through email. Regarding scope and size of the plan. July 27, 2022 Public comment received through email. Regarding future land use map. July 27, 2022 Planning Commission public hearing. 2. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2022-00323 – Ballpark Station Area Plan – A request by Mayor Erin Mendenhall to create a station area plan in the Ballpark Neighborhood. The Ballpark’s Station Area Plan is intended to capitalize on the community assets and set a framework to help guide growth related issues and pressures and to keep the neighborhood as the home of baseball in Utah. The Ballpark Station Area Plan will encompass the area that runs roughly between 900 South to 1700 South, and State Street to I-15. The small area plan's boundaries are within both the Central Community and the Downtown Master Plans. Information on the proposal can found on the City’s webpage for the proposal at the following link: https://www.slc.gov/planning/master-plans/ballparkplan/ As part of their review, 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: 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 Nannette Larsen at 801-535-7645 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at nannette.larsen@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/ , by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2022-00323. 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. PETITION INITIATION MEMO SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLC.GOV PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Erin Mendenhall Cc: Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer; Blake Thomas, Department of Community and Neighborhoods Director; Michaela Oktay, Deputy Planning Director From: Nick Norris, Planning Director Date: October 27, 2021 Re: Initiating a petition to adopt the Ballpark Station Area Plan and associate zoning changes recommended by the plan.. The Planning Division would like to request that that a petition be initiated to adopt the Ballpark Station Area Plan and zoning changes recommended in the plan. Initiating the petition will start the adoption process for the station area plan, which has been drafted by a consultant and created through a partnership with the stakeholders in the community. Creating the Ballpark Station Area Plan has included public engagement and participation managed through a Transportation/Land Use Connection Grant awarded to the City from the Wasatch Front Regional Council. The adoption process will provide an opportunity to ensure that the community and stakeholders support the proposed plan during a 45-day engagement period with the local recognized organizations, a briefing and public hearing with the Planning Commission and a transmittal to the City Council for adoption. It is not anticipated that significant changes will be made to the proposed plan. During this 45-day period the Planning Division and Ballpark Station Area Plan team will verify support for the zoning changes recommend by the plan. The proposed zoning changes recommend by the plan will also go through a public review period. That process is anticipated to start after the level of support for the proposed plan can be determined. Ideally the proposed zoning changes will mostly consist of zoning map changes utilizing existing zoning districts. However, the Planning Division will be prepared to potentially make minor changes to the existing zoning districts to address known issues with the zoning district, which may include vague standards, missing standards necessary to fulfill the purpose of the zoning district, and to ensure that the district(s) are consistent with adopted city policies and plans found in citywide planning documents. It is anticipated that this project will be processed by the “Growth” team in the Planning Division. This memo includes a signature block to initiate the petition if that is the decided course of action. If the decided course of action is to not initiate the application, the signature block can remain blank. Please notify the Planning Division when the memo is signed or if the decision is made to not initiate the petition. Please contact me at ext. 6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com if you have any questions. Thank you. Concurrence to initiate the zoning text amendment petition as noted above. l Page 2 _____________________________________ ______________ Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Date October 28, 2021 4. BALLPARK STATION AREA PLAN DRAFT Prepared by Salt Lake City in partnership with Wasatch Front Regional Council and the Utah Transit Authority ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS STEERING COMMITTEE Amy Hawkins, Resident, Ballpark Community Council Bryan Kinneburg, Salt Lake Bees Ciara Combs, Resident Dave Morris, Business Owner, Piper Down Pub Dennis Faris, Volunteers of America Jennifer Luft, Resident Jonathan Foulk, Utah Pride Center Marc Amicone, Salt Lake Bees Maurice “Mo” Smith, Urban Indian Center Mike Tuiasoa, Business Owner, Watchtower Coffee & Comics Paul Johnson, Resident, Central 9th Community Council Rob Dutton, Business Owner, Lucky 13 Bar & Grill Robert Loftus, Resident Ryan O’Mahoney, Resident Sach Combs, Resident Shelley Bodily, Resident Terrell Bodily, Resident, Ballpark Community Council TECHNICAL TEAM Susan Lundmark, Project Manager, Salt Lake City Transportation Division * Megan Townsend, Wasatch Front Regional Council * Jordan Swain, Utah Transit Authority, Real Estate and TOD * Kevin Leo, former UTA Real Estate and TOD * Jeff Gulden, Salt Lake City Transportation Division John Anderson, Salt Lake City Planning Division Sean Fyfe, Salt Lake City Engineering Division Corey Rushton, Salt Lake City Public Services Department Corinne Piazza, Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency Julianne Sabula, Salt Lake City Transportation Division Jennifer Schumann, Salt Lake City Housing Stability Division Tony Milner, Salt Lake City Housing Stability Division Dillon Hase, Salt Lake City Housing Stability Division Paul Drake, UTA Real Estate and TOD Laura Hanson, former UTA Director of Planning Manjeet Ranu, former UTA Director of Capital Projects Eric Callison, UTA Manager of Service Planning Kayla Kinkead, UTA Strategic Planning Lauren Victor, Wasatch Front Regional Council * Project Management Team CONSULTING TEAM Christine C. Richman, AICP, GSBS Consulting Annaka Egan, AICP, GSBS Consulting Jason Claunch, Catalyst Commercial Reid Cleeter, Catalyst Commercial Jacob Farnsworth, P.E., RSP1 , Kimley-Horn Steven Chester, AICP, Kimley-Horn TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 The Station Area, Ballpark Community Council and Heart of the Neighborhood Boundaries .....1 Figure 1.2: Building Age Map ...............................................................................................................................................2 Figure 2.1: Aerial View of “Heart of the Neighborhood” Concept .....................................................................6 Figure 2.2: East Side Platform Access - North Concept ........................................................................................7 Figure 2.3: West Side Platform Access - North Concept ......................................................................................8 Figure 2.4: 1300 South Improved Pedestrian Realm ...............................................................................................9 Figure 2.5: Festival Street Concept ................................................................................................................................10 Figure 2.6: Ballpark Character Areas..............................................................................................................................13 Figure 2.7: Connectivity Map .............................................................................................................................................14 Figure 2.8: Connectivity Map-Regional Context .....................................................................................................16 Figure 2.9: Future Land Use Map .....................................................................................................................................17 Figure 2.10: Existing 1300 South Street Section for the Heart of the Neighborhood .......................................20 Figure 2.11: Proposed 1300 South Street Section for the Heart of the Neighborhood ......................................20 Figure 2.12: Ten “Big Ideas” for the Future of Green Space In SLC .................................................................23 Figure 2.13: Community Services and Non-Profit Organizations Map .........................................................24 Figure 3.1: Ballpark Regional Context Map ................................................................................................................26 Figure 3.2: Catalytic Project: Connecting Central Ninth to Ballpark .............................................................28 Figure 3.3: State Street Project Area Map .................................................................................................................29 Figure 3.4: Sidewalk and Transit Map .............................................................................................................................31 Figure 3.5: Information Page on the Project Website and Interactive Map ...............................................39 Figure 3.6: Project Post Card ...........................................................................................................................................40 Figure 3.7: Survey Results Showing What the Ballpark Community Likes in their Neighborhood .............................................................................................41 TABLE OF TABLES Table 1.1: Household Demographics for the Ballpark Station Area and Surrounding Region ..............3 Table 1.2: 2019 Estimated Annual Income for the Ballpark Station Area .......................................................3 Table 3.1: Race and Ethnicity in the Ballpark Station Area and Salt Lake City ..........................................27 Table 3.2: Ownership and Rentership Rates in the Ballpark Station Area and Surrounding Region ...................................................................27 Table 3.3: Income in the Ballpark Station Area and Surrounding Region ...................................................27 Table 3.4: Summary of Ballpark Case Studies .........................................................................................................33 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................................i 1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................................1 2. The Plan ....................................................................................................................................................................................5 3. Community Exploration & Analysis .......................................................................................................................25 4. Implementation Plan .......................................................................................................................................................43 Appendix A. Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................................................48 B. Highest & Best Analysis ........................................................................................................................................XX C. Transportation Analysis ........................................................................................................................................XX D. Moderate Income Housing Plan ........................................................................................................................XX E. Case Study Analysis ................................................................................................................................................XX F. Community Engagement Materials .................................................................................................................XX EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Salt Lake City’s Ballpark Neighborhood is home to several community assets including the Smith’s Ballpark, home to the Los Angeles Angels AAA ballclub – the Salt Lake Bees, the Ballpark light rail station, several social service agencies, and the nearby Salt Lake Community College downtown campus. Throughout its history, the neighborhood has been home to the Ballpark at the corner of Main Street and 1300 South. Baseball has been a cornerstone for this area for more than 100 years. In 1993, Salt Lake City partnered with Salt Lake County and private entities to construct a new field and ballpark stadium to replace the structure that was originally built in 1915 and reconstructed in 1947 after a fire. The 1993 rebuild provided a state-of-the-art minor league stadium. A refresh and update of the stadium to current standards is now required. The Ballpark Neighborhood is adjacent to downtown, diverse, and growing. The area, which until recent years, was characterized by older, affordable single-family neighborhoods, light industrial uses, and big box stores is experiencing considerable development pressure. The pressure is expected to increase as Salt Lake City’s population and employment base continue to grow. The neighborhood includes several major transportation, transit, and emerging trail corridors that connect the area to downtown, the rest of the city, and the region. The area benefits from proximity to downtown. Because of development pressure and the presence of regionally significant transportation infrastructure, Salt Lake City’s Transportation Division sought and received a Transportation and Land Use Connection grant from the Wasatch Front Regional Council in partnership with Utah Transit Authority, to complete this station area plan. The planning area, referred to throughout the plan as the “Station Area,” is between 900 South and 1700 South and State Street and I-15. The purpose of the plan is to explore options to further integrate the Ballpark with the neighborhood, evaluate the transportation network and identify opportunities to improve transportation choices for the community, and take advantage of existing amenities and current development pressure to position the neighborhood for the future. Improved transportation choices include improved bus operations and circulation at and near the Ballpark TRAX station. The plan also recommends improved pedestrian and bicycle connections near the TRAX station, the Ballpark, and throughout the surrounding neighborhood to further improve the transportation network, better integrate the Ballpark and station into the neighborhood, and enhance livability as new development occurs. Plan goals, strategies and recommended actions were identified through a nine-month process that began in December 2020 with the launch of a website and interactive map in English and Spanish to generate input and ideas from the neighborhood and other stakeholders. Community engagement was ongoing throughout the planning process and included in-person, small group, and stakeholder meetings. The process also included the following studies: • Existing conditions analysis • Highest & best use analysis • Case study analysis The planning team and steering committee identified several key areas of focus for the plan. GROWTH & TRANSFORMATION New residential development in the Station Area has increased significantly and is occurring throughout the area. Former industrial, commercial, or low-density residential parcels are quickly becoming mid- to high-density residential developments. This new development has increased the density of the area and added hundreds of new housing units without adding additional services and amenities to the neighborhood. This is particularly pronounced west of the TRAX line where previous land uses – light industrial, flex uses, and big box retail did not attract investment in sidewalks, trails, or neighborhood level retail and services. This is also true along 1300 South where auto-oriented uses are transitioning to higher density uses to take advantage of the TRAX station and easy connections to West Temple and major arterials. These areas are difficult to navigate without a car and provide little pedestrian-level interest or comfort. This creates a disconnection between the existing neighborhood and new development. CONNECTIVITY & PEDESTRIAN/BIKING ENVIRONMENT The neighborhood has significant transportation infrastructure – a TRAX stop, two I-15 offramps (1300 South and 900 South), and several major and minor arterials. There are also offramps directly to the north and south of the project area on 2100 South and 600 South. These same transportation facilities create a challenging active transportation environment. The quickly redeveloping area west of the TRAX lines has limited access across the TRAX line to access the station, neighborhood amenities and services east of the rail line. PARKS, GREENSPACE & COMMUNITY FACILITIES Salt Lake City Public Services launched Reimagine Nature SLC Public Lands Master Plan process in April 2019 with the publication of the Salt Lake City Public Lands Needs Assessment. The assessment evaluated the level of parks, open space, and trails service in each of the city’s planning areas. The Station Area is in the Central City planning area. According to the 2019 assessment, 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. Much of the Station Area is identified as a High Need area according to the Needs Assessment. This means that additional park acres are needed in the neighborhood to serve current and future residents and visitors. The need for community amenities including parks, open space, and other community facilities such as a library or community center was identified during the community engagement process. The community also identified a lack of service and proper maintenance in current parks, such as missing trash receptacles and benches. They indicated that expanding park amenities and maintenance is a priority for creating clean and welcoming green spaces in the neighborhood. SAFETY & SECURITY Although addressing policing and safety is not part of the scope of this plan, the success of many of the recommendations in this plan depend on perceived and actual safety of pedestrian and bicycle connections, public open space and plazas, and community events and activities. Many of the recommendations to improve connectivity and pedestrian and biking safety can also improve overall perceived and actual safety in the Station Area through improved streetscapes and placemaking. The plan recommends goals and strategies to address the key areas identified in the planning process. The recommendations are summarized as six Big Moves. • Create and apply a Ballpark Station Area Transit Station Area zone in the area identified as the “Heart of the Neighborhood” • Reconfigure the Ballpark TRAX Station to improve access from the west • Improve 1300 South for pedestrians by creating new crossing and expanding and upgrading the pedestrian realm • Create a sense of place at and around the stadium • Repurpose parking lots and underutilized properties to add activity to the Heart of the Neighborhood • Invest in community amenities and green space to balance density with livability factors The plan identifies several tools to implement the recommendations. These tools include zoning changes and infrastructure and amenity investments. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYi ii View of the Smith’s Ballpark / Google Maps EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION This plan focuses on the Ballpark Station Area, defined as the area between 900 South and 1700 South and State Street and I-15. The Station Area is part of the Ballpark Community Council area, and part of Salt Lake’s Central City planning area. Figure 1.1 is a map of the Station Area within the Ballpark Community Council. In addition, the plan identifies opportunities and recommendations for the area immediately around the station and stadium. This is an area identified by the community as the “Heart of the Neighborhood” and is a ¼ mile radius around the Ballpark TRAX Station. BALLPARK AREA 1 I-80 I-15 I-15 I-80 Salt Lake City, UTSalt Lake City, UT Ballpark Regional Extent 0 10.5 Miles ballpark station 900 S 1700 S ST A T E S T 1300 S 2100 S I-80 I-15 I-15 I-80 Salt Lake City, UTSalt Lake City, UT Ballpark Regional Extent 0 10.5 Miles ballpark station 900 S 1700 S S T A T E S T 1300 S 2100 S Heart of the Neighborhood Ballpark Station Area Ballpark Neighborhood Boundary LEGEND FIGURE 1.1: THE STATION AREA, BALLPARK COMMUNITY COUNCIL AND HEART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES 0 600 1,200300Feet I-15 T E E R T S E TAT S 900 SOUTH 1700 SOUTH I-15 Legend Building Age Null pre 1950 1951-1960 1961-1970 1970-1980 1981-present FIGURE 1.2: BUILDING AGE MAP INTRODUCTION 2 The neighborhood is characterized by older buildings – both residential and commercial structures built before 1970 – and is unique in its composition of small businesses and residents of all backgrounds. Nearly 77 percent of structures in the Station Area are 50 years or older at the time of this plan. Figure 1.2, illustrates the age and lot size for the Station Area. Older structures – pink, yellow, and light green – are generally on small lots. Newer structures – medium and darker green – are on larger lots, generally consolidated from original small lots or on former rail-served industrial properties. In the single-family residential areas, the homes open onto the street and include front yards and stoops. In the 300 West area, newer commercial structures are primarily big box retail stores with large parking lots. Some of the newer development in the Station Area include higher density residential and office uses. This transition to higher density housing and office is expected to continue. INTRODUCTION 3 The Station Area has a higher rate of renter occupied units than Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County and the State of Utah, Table 1.1. The Station Area has, historically, been one of the more affordable neighborhoods in the city. As a result, current households reflect diverse backgrounds and a range of incomes. The median income for the Station Area is significantly lower than median income for the city and surrounding region as seen in Table 1.2. Continued affordability in the neighborhood is a challenge as new development occurs in this rapidly transitioning area. photo credit / caption Ballpark station Area Salt Lake City Salt Lake County Utah Total Households 1,854 82,259 397,918 1,050,542 Owner Households 15.3%41.3%61.8%63.1% Renter Households 78.6%51.7%33.2%27.0% Vacant Households 6.1%7.0%5.0%9.9% Families*768 41,258 277,473 781,973 Household Size 2.20 2.41 2.99 3.13 Source: ESRI TABLE 1.1: HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS FOR THE BALLPARK STATION AREA AND SURROUNDING REGION Ballpark station Area Salt Lake County Salt Lake MSA*Utah Median Household Income $26,047 $76,410 $76,256 $73,015 Average Household Income $44,498 $99,988 $99,114 $92,612 Per Capita Income $19,992 $33,095 $32,666 $29,227 Source: ESRI *Metropolitan Statistical Area TABLE 1.2: 2019 ESTIMATED ANNUAL INCOME FOR THE BALLPARK STATION AREA *The U.S. Census Bureau defines family is a group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together. INTRODUCTION This plan is organized to focus on the recommended goals, strategies, and actions in Section I – The Plan with supporting analysis and information in Section II – Community Exploration & Analysis. Section II includes summaries of the public engagement process and Existing Conditions and Case Study Analyses completed as part of the planning process. Section III – Implementation Plan consolidates all goals, strategies, and actions identified in the plan with implementation time frame. A complete set of survey responses and public comments as well as the complete Existing Conditions, Case Study, and Highest and Best Use analyses, Transportation Analysis and other documents used to complete this plan are found in the Appendix. SECTION I THE PLAN IDENTIFIES: • The Big Moves contemplated in the plan • Goals, Strategies and Actions to implement the plan • A Future Land Use Map for the Station Area • Key Strategies & Projects to: +Improve the pedestrian experience +Address transit and transportation needs including »Connectivity »Transit »Parking strategy +Safety and security including »Street and pedestrian-level lighting »Building design »Landscape design +Enhancing neighborhood greenspace +Maximizing housing opportunity and mitigating displacement SECTION II COMMUNITY EXPLORATION AND ANALYSIS INCLUDES: • Overview of the planning process • Study area demographics • Summary of existing conditions including +Prior planning efforts +Connectivity and the pedestrian and biking environment • Summary of Station Area Case Studies including +Ballparks studied +Key Takeaways • Summary of public engagement SECTION III IMPLEMENTATION PLAN • Appendix +Existing Conditions +Highest and Best Analysis +Transportation Analysis +Moderate Income Housing Plan +Case Study Analysis +Community Engagement Materials 4 People’s Freeway Park / Google Maps 5 THE PLAN The Ballpark neighborhood is the home of the Salt Lake Bees, the Los Angeles Angels AAA club. The Bees and their home field are a community-wide asset that attracts visitors from throughout the state to attend annual home games. The Ballpark and neighborhood are supported by the Ballpark TRAX Station, and a regional transportation system. The area directly around the Ballpark includes, a plaza at the corner of 1300 South and West Temple, Fire Station 8, and parking fields on Salt Lake City-, and privately-owned lots on and around 1300 South and Main Street. The Plan recommends additional investment in the immediate Ballpark area and supporting infrastructure to create a “Heart of the Neighborhood,” increase livability factors, and support continued growth in residential, office, restaurant, and retail uses. The neighborhood is in transition from a downtown “support” neighborhood, providing housing and services outside of the core, to a more distinct urban center. The area has undergone several transformations in its history and the latest has the potential to be the most dramatic yet.. Recent development projects have added new multi- family housing in the area with densities ranging from 15 units to 60 units per acre. The neighborhood is expected to continue to play a role in meeting Salt Lake City’s demand for new housing. Preserving neighborhood livability becomes increasingly important as density and development occur. Livability factors identified by the neighborhood during the planning process include access to services and retail, walkability and connectivity, safety and security, and open space and community amenities. This Plan recommends policies, projects, and improvements to: • Accommodate growth, • Expand on current community investments and assets, and • Enhance livability throughout the neighborhood. THE PLAN THE PLAN FIGURE 2.1: AERIAL VIEW OF “HEART OF NEIGHBORHOOD” CONCEPT THE BIG MOVES The plan contemplates several “Big Moves” that will help transform the neighborhood. These include: Create and apply a Ballpark neighborhood specific Transit Supportive Zone to the area around the Ballpark TRAX station along 1300 South from Main Street to 300 West that allows heights up to 8-10 stories with required enhancements to the public realm. Eligible enhancements may include pedestrian street lighting, street trees and public ground level uses such as restaurants or grocery space, retail or services. Figure 2.1 illustrates the opportunity to add density to the Ballpark site as well as the blocks to the north and west of the Ballpark. The concept also illustrates the importance of improvements, such as street lighting and wide sidewalks, to the public realm as density is added to the neighborhood. Current UTA parking lot at the Ballpark TRAX station / GSBS Consulting 6 THE PLAN7 Reconfigure the Ballpark TRAX station from a “suburban” park and ride to an “urban” neighborhood integrated format. This requires a new pedestrian/transit rider connection from the platform to 200 West/Lucy Avenue on the north end of the platform and loading areas on both the east and west side of the rail line allowing for an opportunity to increase passenger access. Figure 2.2 illustrates improved platform connectivity to the west. FIGURE 2.2: EAST SIDE PLATFORM ACCESS - NORTH CONCEPT Current view of west-side access to the TRAX platform / GSBS Consulting THE PLAN Improve 1300 South for pedestrians by creating new pedestrian crossings across 1300 South in addition to expanding and upgrading pedestrian ways to create a safe and comfortable walking environment. Figure 2.3 shows the potential for pedestrian crossings across 1300 South. Figure 2.4 shows improving sidewalks, street furniture, trees. In addition to improving sidewalks and adding pedestrian level lighting, the plan recommends the addition of street furniture, and trees. The concept contemplates the return of buses to 1300 South in accordance with the City’s Transit Master Plan. The plan recommends the 1300 South bus provide service to the Ballpark Station through an “in-line” bus stop. This means that riders making the transfer to or from the bus to TRAX would embark and disembark at stops on 1300 South and then access the platform either directly from the sidewalk for westbound buses or by crossing 1300 South for eastbound buses. Accommodating in-line bus service for riders of all abilities through a pedestrian crossing adjacent to the rail crossing arms likely requires some reconstruction on 1300 South to create a curb-less environment at the crossing. FIGURE 2.3: WEST SIDE PLATFORM ACCESS - SOUTH CONCEPT Current north access to the Ballpark TRAX Station / GSBS Consulting 8 THE PLAN9 Create a sense of place at and around the Ballpark. Create a sense of place through investment in community gathering spaces, streetscapes, and uses that encourage activity and interaction. The Ballpark is surrounded by wide sidewalks and an entry plaza. As any upcoming renovation and upgrades take place, the Ballpark itself could be reconfigured with active uses on the plaza and 1300 South frontage if possible. In addition, the plan recommends extending the opportunity for events on the sidewalk area on the west side of the Ballpark, along West Temple by investing in a “Festival Street” on West Temple from 1300 South to approximately Albermarle Avenue on the south. Figure 2.5 is a detail of the festival street concept. The festival street could be closed for special events, redirecting the traffic around the neighborhood. Such a festival street should embrace the Ballpark’s history though community art, historical interpretive fixtures, and programming. FIGURE 2.4: 1300 SOUTH IMPROVED PEDESTRIAN REALM Current east-facing view of 1300 South / GSBS Consulting THE PLAN FIGURE 2.5: FESTIVAL STREET CONCEPT Repurpose parking lots and underutilized properties to add activity to the Heart of the Neighborhood. Salt Lake City and UTA own large properties on the north side of 1300 South between Main Street and the TRAX line, currently used for surface parking, which are ideally located for redevelopment into dense housing, a community amenity or service, or office space with ground floor activating uses and an improved public realm. Buildings with up to 10 stories will create an urban context for 1300 South adjacent to the TRAX station and ballpark. The 1300 South, Main Street and West Temple street frontages should be activated with uses such as restaurants, bars, coffee shops, and similar uses that build on the success of existing businesses that currently call the neighborhood home. In addition to the City- and UTA- owned lots there are underutilized parcels in the immediate vicinity of the Ballpark and station that are appropriate for higher density development and enhancement of the public realm. The newly identified State Street Project Area , created by the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA), has tools to help create the level of investment contemplated for the neighborhood. Invest in community amenities and green space to balance density with livability factors. The Ballpark neighborhood has limited green spaces and community amenities within its boundaries. As the neighborhood grows, additional parks and open spaces are needed to serve both current and future residents and employees in the area. In addition, the neighborhood lacks community spaces for indoor and outdoor community gatherings. The Ballpark plaza and festival street can address the need for outdoor community gatherings, but space for indoor community gatherings is needed. The Station Area is undeserved for community facilities such as a library or community center. As redevelopment occurs in the Heart of the Neighborhood and at the current Public Utilities facility, a location for parks, open space, a library, community center, or combined facility should be identified and pursued. Proposed festival street location on West Temple / GSBS Consulting 10 THE PLAN | GOALS, STRATEGIES & ACTIONS11 GOALS, STRATEGIES & ACTIONS Members of the Ballpark Station Area have participated in several planning projects over the last several years that included neighborhood-wide conversations about goals for the future of the area. The goals and ideas identified in the prior planning processes were confirmed during this Ballpark Neighborhood Station Area planning process. The neighborhood identified the following goals to enhance livability and accommodate anticipated growth. GOAL: Take advantage of current development opportunities, existing services, and amenities to enhance neighborhood livability. The Ballpark and its supporting infrastructure are at the geographic and emotional “heart” of the neighborhood. The neighborhood accommodates and enjoys the vibrancy of game days and would like to see game day vibrancy on more days of the calendar and in all seasons. Several strategies are recommended to enhance vibrancy and leverage the community’s investment in the neighborhood. STRATEGIES: • Implement the goals and strategies identified in: »Life on State Implementation Plan (not adopted) »Central 9th Chapter of the Downtown Master Plan »300 West Reconstruction »Homeless Resource Centers Neighborhood Action Strategies »State Street Project Area Plan »Salt Lake City Moderate Income Housing Plan »Salt Lake City Parks & Public Lands Needs Assessment »Citywide Gentrification Assessment & Displacement Mitigation Plan »Growing SLC »The Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan • Update the city’s zoning code and map, as appropriate to implement the provisions of this plan: ACTIONS: +Amend Section 21A.26.078: TSA Transit Station Area District of the Salt Lake City Municipal Code to include the Ballpark Station Area as one of the existing TSA districts or create a new one if needed. • Require activation of the 1300 South frontage with restaurants, shops, street furniture and trees. • Implement streetscape improvements to accommodate pedestrian volumes. • Allow heights comparable to heights in other Urban Station Areas. • Protect the viewshed of the Wasatch Range from inside Smith’s Ballpark. +Evaluate and amend the City’s zoning code and map, as appropriate to include the urban design considerations identified in each of the character areas in this plan. +Evaluate and amend the City’s zoning code and map, as appropriate, to ensure compatible building scale and configuration on the east and west sides of Main Street. +Evaluate and amend the City’s zoning code and map, as appropriate to implement the following priorities for the 300 West Character Areas: • Ensure that amenities, connections, and services needed to support higher density development are included in development plans for the area. • Require development proposals to include mid-block and other connections to break down current large commercial blocks into smaller, more walkable blocks. • Where appropriate, development proposals incorporate access to existing and planned TRAX crossings. • Identify opportunities to provide community amenities, shops, and services within the heart for year-round activation. • Provide enhanced street and pedestrian lighting to improve safety and visibility. GOAL: Create a dense urban environment and entertainment zone around the Ballpark. STRATEGIES: • Invest in the station area and around the Ballpark to improve the overall neighborhood and enhance the opportunities in the Heart of the Ballpark. ACTIONS: +Improve east-west connectivity across TRAX to the north and the south of 1300 South. At a minimum, pedestrian/bicycle crossings should be identified to allow pedestrians and cyclists to move east to west without having to go to 1300 or 1700 South. +Install side-loading platforms at the Ballpark TRAX Station. +Consider redeveloping the TRAX station parking lot and bus turnaround for higher density uses and to provide neighborhood amenities. +Install pedestrian crossings east and west of TRAX on 1300 South on either side of the UTA crossing barrier. +Consider redevelopment opportunities for the City-owned parking lot at 1300 South and West Temple, while still allowing public parking land uses in the vicinity, to potentially increase density and improve the urban environment. +Install a festival street on West Temple and plazas adjacent to the stadium. +Invest in a public library within the station area that can serve as a neighborhood anchor and public amenity space. +Integrate greenspace and “green” elements into the urban landscape. • Enhance public space surrounding the Ballpark and include public art and references to historical elements. THE PLAN | GOALS, STRATEGIES & ACTIONS • Designate West Temple between 1300 South and Albemarle Avenue as a Festival Street for non-gameday and gameday activation including: • Farmers Markets • Community Celebrations • Food Truck festivals • Neighborhood Concerts • Implement a district-parking strategy that utilizes unused area parking and parking garages for game days to minimize the need for parking fields in the area. • Enhance the Ballpark’s relationship with the neighborhood by identifying opportunities to activate the West Temple and 1300 South facades of the stadium on non-game days and incorporate public green space, non- motorized connections, plazas, and similar public spaces around the stadium. • If feasible, identify a strategy to bury power lines as development in the Ballpark Neighborhood occurs. GOAL: Increase connectivity in the station area. The neighborhood is well-connected to the regional transportation and transit networks; however, the infrastructure for that regional network also acts as a barrier to internal connectivity, which limit easy multi-modal access to the Ballpark TRAX Station, schools, and parks, and separates newly developing residential uses west of the TRAX line from the rest of the neighborhood. Strategies recommended to improve connectivity within the neighborhood and the pedestrian and biking environment are listed below. Opportunities to improve connectivity include new connections, improvement of existing connections and reconfiguration of the TRAX station platform. Figure 2.7 is a map of opportunities to create new connections within the neighborhood. As of the writing of this Plan the new connection across the TRAX rails to the north of the Ballpark Station platform at Paxton Avenue is planned for near-term construction by UTA. The concept includes improved connection from the existing TRAX platform to the west to improve connectivity to the new residential developments along the 300 West corridor. STRATEGIES • Improve overall connectivity and walkability in the area. ACTIONS: +Study the potential future lane reconfiguration of 1300 South to eliminate or narrow traffic lanes and expand and improve the sidewalk. +Utilize existing alleyways, midblock, and truncated connections to create a system of bike and pedestrian pathways through the neighborhood. +Implement the planned TRAX line pedestrian crossings to the north of the current Ballpark Station. +Widen and enhance sidewalks to improve pedestrian comfort through the addition of street furnishings, pedestrian lighting and a buffer from moving traffic. +Implement pedestrian level lighting to improve safety and visibility. +Establish specific bicycle routes through the neighborhood according to the Salt Lake City Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan. +Reconfigure Ballpark TRAX Station to change from a suburban-style station that has northern platform access only from the east parking lot into an urban-style station that allows access from both the east and west sides of the station. This would include new access at the north end of the platform from Lucy Avenue/200 West on the west side of the TRAX rails +Redevelop part of the current surface parking lots to transit supportive uses that include retail, shops, and service near the Ballpark Station platform. +Establish a pedestrian crossing to the east and west of the UTA crossing barrier across 1300 South. +Study future crossings south of the 1300 South crossing at the TRAX line. GOAL: Increase urban design quality. Neighborhood identity refers to the ability of residents and visitors to distinguish a place by unique and distinct characteristics. Supporting the neighborhood as a distinguishable place involves consideration for creating a balanced mix of uses, ensuring architectural and landscape character, embracing historic character and elements, spotlighting neighborhood, and regional amenities, and considering the surrounding land use and transportation context of the area. The Ballpark Station Area is made up of several distinct areas that have their own character as expressed by building massing, use, streetscape elements and overall design. This plan supports the distinctly different areas within the neighborhood through recommendations to preserve some elements and enhance others. The character areas are illustrated in Figure 2.6. Photo: GSBS Consulting 12 THE PLAN | GOALS, STRATEGIES & ACTIONS13 0 600 1,200300Feet 3 0 0 W E S T 900 S 1300 S 1700 S S T A T E S T M A I N S T Main street character area 300 West transitional area central ninth corridor plan life on state street improvements west temple character area “heart” of the neighborhood FIGURE 2.6: BALLPARK CHARACTER AREAS Main Street Character Area 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 bikability of the neighborhood. West Temple Character Area The West Temple Character Area has a mix of residential and small businesses along the corridor. It is also home to the Public Utilities facility, the Ballpark Neighborhood park, and Jefferson Park. New development should maintain the current character and scale of the area. New development adjacent to the stadium should support the installation festival street improvements adjacent to the Ballpark from 1300 South to Albemarle Avenue. This can help expand the existing plaza area, create new plaza areas, and allow for temporary closure for community and gameday events, while also providing opportunities for art and historical elements. New development should also enhance the biking and walking environment on West Temple and consider traffic calming measures in the more residential sections. State Street Character Area The State Street Character Area is defined primarily by small businesses running the length of the station area. This area is undergoing several changes guided by the Salt Lake City Transportation Division’s Life on State Bikeway Implementation project and the RDA State Street Project Area Plan. Central Ninth Character Area The Central Ninth Character Area is defined by several small businesses and larger multifamily structures. This area is transitioning into a node with various entertainment options and services. New development in the area should maintain the current scale and massing of new development along the 900 South Corridor and implement the recommendations and strategies identified in the Downtown Master Plan – Central 9th Chapter including the 9th South Viaduct Catalytic Project. 300 West Character Areas The entire corridor is transitioning from an industrial/major commercial to higher density mixed use. However, there are several sub areas with the 300 West corridor that are transitioning at different rates. East of 300 West and North of 1300 South This area is historically characterized by smaller industrial and residential uses. Property consolidation has occurred and will continue to occur as demand for housing continues. There are large multifamily developments proposed or recently approved for the area. This area also includes an unused rail spur that is proposed for a light rail extension into the Granary District and the possibility of an adjacent trail, which is also being evaluated. Connectivity within this area and to the south to the Ballpark TRAX Station is a key consideration for this area. In addition, opportunities to add open space, public amenities, and neighborhood serving commercial should be pursued. West of 300 West and North of 1300 South This area currently has a mix of big box commercial, and newer office and residential uses. The transition of smaller parcels to low- and mid- density office and higher density residential is expected to continue as is the continuation of existing big box uses. East of 300 West and South of 1300 South This area is experiencing transition around several large scale, long-term uses. Lowes Home Improvement, the Gail Miller Homeless Resource Center, and the Utah State Liquor Store are expected to remain as the area transitions to include several new multi-family developments. As with the area north of 1300 South connectivity within the area and to the east across the TRAX line is a key consideration. Public amenities and neighborhood serving commercial should also be added to this area. West of 300 West and South of 1300 South The Walmart big box store is in this area as well as small lot light industrial and warehouse uses. This area is expected to transition in the future. The considerations identified for the areas already transitioning should inform zoning and development considerations in this area. “Heart” of the Neighborhood This area is characterized by its proximity to the Ballpark Station, Smith’s Ballpark, and several community organizations and businesses. This is the central hub of the neighborhood which will continue to densify as mixed- use development occurs. This area is appropriate for the highest densities allowed in Urban Station Areas. This level of density must be balanced with improvements to the public realm including an expanded sidewalk, pedestrian-focused amenities, plazas, street lighting, and street trees. A high level of visual interest and design quality is needed to balance the increased density in the area and require street activating uses on the ground floor. Illustrated in Figure 2.4. BALLPARK CHARACTER AREA DESCRIPTIONS Character areas are descriptions of existing conditions within each area. Character areas are generally defined by existing land uses, built scale, street corridors, density, and transit. proposed future connections *Potential Public Space at Ballpark Proposed Bike Routes *Multi-Modal Access Proposed Crossings Festival Street Proposed Future TRAX with Possible Adjacent Trail TRAX Line *Pedestrian Connection Through Future Development *Dependent on owner agreement Green Space TRAX Line Bikeway Festival Street Connection through Future Development 1300 SOUTH 3 0 0 W E S T W E S T T E M P L E M A I N S T R E E T S T A T E S T R E E T 0 100 200 400 FEET PAXTON AVE LUCY AVE 1400 SOUTH 1 2 A b c d FIGURE 2.7: CONNECTIVITY MAP RECOMMENDED CONNECTIONS IN THE “HEART” OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD Festival Street This street will allow temporary closure to vehicle traffic and host neighborhood and ballpark events. Proposed Bike Routes Several bike routes are in various stages of implementation through the heart of the neighborhood at the time of this document’s adoption. • The 300 West Reconstruction is funded and undergoing construction from 900 South to 2100 South with expected completion in 2022. • The existing designated bikeway on Main Street is undergoing an evaluation as part of the Salt Lake City Transportation Division’s Life on State Bikeway Implementation project. • The Paxton bikeway will connect State Street to 300 West. Multimodal Access This opportunity is recommended to connect the bikeway on Main Street to the TRAX Platform on Lucy Avenue. Pedestrian Connection Through Future Development This recommendation occurs in two locations: 1. This recommendation links the 1300 South station to the Ballpark and moves pedestrians through a private pedestrian-oriented development directly onto the proposed festival street on West Temple. 2. This recommendation connects West Temple to 300 West. This connection is dependent on a future agreement with UTA to provide a TRAX crossing on or near 1400 South. Potential for Future Public Space at Ballpark Additional public space through the addition of a ballpark perimeter trail, additional plazas, and activating public uses are recommended for this area. This recommendation would help connect the greater neighborhood to the Ballpark, but should not interfere with its daily operation and events. Proposed Crossings Additional crossings are recommended: a. directly east and west of the UTA crossings barriers on 1300 South. b. directly north of the 1300 South TRAX platform onto Lucy Avenue c. across the TRAX line at Paxton Avenue and the existing rail spur. d. An additional future crossing is recommended at or near 1400 South and should be evaluated for future opportunities in partnership with UTA. An enhanced crossing is also recommended at the intersection of 1300 South and West Temple. This crossing should show clear delineation, possibly through community art or a painted crossing. Proposed Future TRAX with Adjacent Trail This area is being evaluated by UTA for operating TRAX service with a possible adjacent trail. Opportunities for additional green spaces and greenery should be considered as this area is developed. 14 THE PLAN | GOALS, STRATEGIES & ACTIONS15 GOAL: Improve safety. Throughout the planning process safety was consistently identified as a current concern and goal for the future. This plan focuses on measures taken in the built environment to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety. STRATEGIES • Improve pedestrian experience and safety. ACTIONS: +Install pedestrian-level street lighting. +Require ground level uses in new buildings to incorporate pedestrian-level strategies. +Ensure adequate sidewalk width and park strips on primary walk routes, particularly around the TRAX station. +Improve ADA accessibility though sidewalk repair and removal of obstacles. +Ensure ongoing maintenance of all facilities to repair uneven sidewalks, functioning signals and frequent trash receptacles. • Identify and implement best practices in urban design to improve neighborhood safety, including: ACTIONS: +Identify opportunities for interaction, +Elimination of “blind corners” or areas, +Appropriate lighting for safety GOAL: Enhance social vibrancy. STRATEGIES • Support events and placemaking efforts including community art, pop-up events, and temporary food vendors. • Find creative solutions to enhance greenspace in the neighborhood. ACTIONS: +Explore creative options for additional greenspace in the heart of the neighborhood in and around the Ballpark. +Evaluate the opportunity for future green space on the current Public Utilities site if and when Salt Lake Department of Public Utilities moves offices to a new location. +Enhance the urban tree canopy in underserved areas of the neighborhood and require additional street trees and urban greenery with new development. +Maintain all green spaces with: • Trash receptacles • Pedestrian lighting • Pedestrian furniture • Improve the quality of current and future greenspace. ACTIONS: +Ensure funding for additional maintenance and staffing as additional greenspace is added. GOAL: Increase affordability and attainability of housing for current and future residents. STRATEGIES • Provide a diversity of housing types and options for different incomes, familial status, age, and needs. ACTIONS: +Promote a diversity in the size of new units in the neighborhood to accommodate residents in different stages of life, including families with children. • Utilize the RDA State Street Project Area as a tool to capture reinvestment in the neighborhood and help encourage a diversity of housing types. • Increase opportunities for home ownership in the neighborhood. ACTIONS: +Explore alternative options for ownership strategies including land trusts and co-ops. +Provide down-payment assistance or other programs for qualifying residents • Mitigate the negative impacts of gentrification as development occurs. ACTIONS: +Continue to provide and market home repair programs for qualifying residents. +Provide education and renter legal assistance to help current renters stay in place. +Support development assistance and financing programs to maintain affordability. +Preserve existing social services and provide additional services as development occurs to support housing options and access to opportunity at a variety of income levels. proposed future connections *Potential Public Space at Ballpark Proposed Bike Routes *Multi-Modal Access Proposed Crossings Festival Street Proposed Future TRAX with Possible Adjacent Trail TRAX Line Proposed Future Alleyway Connections *Pedestrian Connection Through Future Development *Dependent on owner agreement Green Space TRAX Line Bikeway Festival Street Connection through Future Development proposed future connections *Potential Public Space at Ballpark Proposed Bike Routes *Multi-Modal Access Proposed Crossings Festival Street Proposed Future TRAX with Possible Adjacent Trail TRAX Line Proposed Future Alleyway Connections *Pedestrian Connection Through Future Development *Dependent on owner agreement Green Space TRAX Line Bikeway Festival Street Connection through Future Development 1700 SOUTH I-15 I-15 0 600 1,200300Feet 1300 SOUTH 3 0 0 W E S T W E S T T E M P L E M A I N S T R E E T S T A T E S T R E E T PAXTON AVE LUCY AVE 1400 SOUTH 900 SOUTH FIGURE 2.8: CONNECTIVITY MAP - REGIONAL CONTEXT THE PLAN | CONNECTIONS 16 RECOMMENDED PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES • Wide enough to provide 4 distinct zones: +THE EDGE ZONE separates the roadway from the sidewalk. +THE FURNISHINGS ZONE provides space for street furnishings and vertical elements such as trees, benches, etc. +THE THROUGHWAY ZONE provides a minimum of five – eight feet clear continuous pathway for ADA accessibility. +THE FRONTAGE ZONE provides a “shy distance” between the throughway zone and building frontage/property line and entrances. • ADA accessible • Street trees to provide a shaded pedestrian way • Human scaled building frontages • Pedestrian level street lighting • Store fronts, office windows, and windows on homes facing the street. • Encourage and allow outdoor retail displays while maintaining ADA compliant throughway zone. • Use of plazas, courtyards, and squares to provide pedestrian amenities. THE PLAN | FUTURE LAND USE17 FUTURE LAND USE MAP The Future Land Use Map (Figure 2.9) guides future development and land use decisions. This is a broad conceptual map. The map identifies areas for continuation of current land use, scale, and density and areas for transformation. 0 600 1,200300Feet 3 0 0 W E S T LUCY AVE PAXTON AVE 900 S ANDREW AVE 1700 S PARAMOUNT AVE S T A T E S T M A I N S T streetscape/festival street improvements opportunity for community space ballpark station public utilities site proposed future 1700 S TRAX station* kensington ave byway project 900 s station central ninth connectivity project FIGURE 2.9: FUTURE LAND USE MAP Site Boundary Future Land Use Concept Areas with Opportunity to Integrate Additional Green Space 300 West Transitional Area Heart of the Neighborhood / Ballpark Entertainment Zone Main Street Area State Street Corridor Neighborhood Areas Medium Density Transitional Area Central Ninth Corridor Area Community Recommended Future Public Space Incorporated into the Ballpark Jefferson Park Mixed-Use Area Connections* Proposed Bike Routes Festival Street Pedestrian Connection Through Future Development Proposed Crossings Crossing Under Construction Proposed Future TRAX Line with Adjacent Trail UTA Station UTA Light Rail Gateway Areas Places of Interest Adopted Project Catalyst Area Community Recommended Catalyst Area Community Recommended Gateway Area Future Community Amenity 1/4 Mile Station Radius *DEPENDENT ON OWNER AGREEMENTS LEGEND Enhanced Crossing BALLPARK FUTURE LAND USE THE PLAN | FUTURE LAND USE 18 FUTURE LAND USE AREA DESCRIPTIONS Central Ninth Corridor Area This area is included in the Central Ninth chapter of the Downtown Master Plan. The corridor is experiencing new development and investment consistent with that plan. The Ballpark Station Area Plan assumes continued implementation of the Central Ninth chapter. The Central Ninth neighborhood should have direct connections to the Ballpark Station Area neighborhoods where possible. State Street Corridor This area presents opportunities to transform the State Street corridor into a mixed use, pedestrian, and bicycle friendly area through the introduction of a mix of uses, improvements to the bike and pedestrian environment and improved pedestrian crosswalks. Investments in east-west bicycle connections should be made to allow connectivity across State Street. 300 West Transitional Area The area between the TRAX lines and I-15 from 900 South to 1700 South was, until a few years ago, characterized by big box retail, auto-oriented services, storage, and flex space. The area is transitioning, primarily with new residential development. Medium to high density housing and office uses are appropriate in this area when balanced with sidewalk, connectivity, and other pedestrian improvements. As new households are added to the area, amenities, and services to support residents will create a mixed-use space and are needed to maintain quality of life and reduce reliance on automobile travel. The 300 West Reconstruction will improve multi-modal opportunities along 300 West and will encourage growth in the area. Opportunities to add pedestrian friendly retail and services as well as connect the 300 West area to the rest of the “Heart” of the neighborhood east of the TRAX line should be identified. These mixed-use areas should maintain a high-quality pedestrian environment to connect residents, businesses, and services. The character of long-standing local businesses should be considered for pedestrians as new development occurs to acknowledge the history of the area. Medium Density Transitional Area The area between the TRAX lines and West Temple south of 1400 South, which includes the current Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities site, is appropriate for redevelopment into medium density uses. The area is characterized by a mix of housing and commercial uses that back to the TRAX line. Redevelopment of this area should include medium density housing and commercial buildings with reduced height along the West Temple frontage adjacent to the neighborhood character area. The area also includes the Public Utilities Department offices and yard which is identified as a potential future catalytic area for community uses and open space to help support the existing neighborhood and potential future mid-density development. Neighborhood Areas The primarily single-family neighborhood south of 1300 South was “down-zoned” to preserve the housing stock, street grid pattern, and neighborhood. The scale and density of this area should be maintained with targeted redevelopment of vacant abandoned structures with new or rehabilitated structures at a comparable scale and character as the existing housing stock. Appropriate buffers between existing single-family areas and future higher-density uses should be maintained. The system of publicly-owned alleyways through the neighborhood character areas should be evaluated for improvement to enhance overall connectivity in the area. Main Street Area Main Street is an alternative to the heavy auto-traveled State Street to the east. Main Street from 900 to 1700 South is lower and slower than State Street making it a better pedestrian and biking environment. Main Street between 900 and 1300 South has developed into larger format commercial uses including car dealerships. Redevelopment of the automobile dealerships in this area is not likely in the next 5-10 years. Available parcels between State Street and Richards Street between 900 and 1300 South should be considered for redevelopment into a mix of market-rate and affordable housing at densities that would support growing business opportunities and a walkable Main Street, realizing that this may require taller buildings than what currently exists. Main Street at 1300 South is part of the Heart of the Neighborhood identified for transit supportive densities. As redevelopment of this section of Main Street occurs the viewshed of the Wasatch Range from inside of the Ballpark should be preserved by limiting the position and heights of buildings directly east and southeast of the ballpark to 3-4 stroies along Main Street with a gradual increase in building height towards State Street. 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 east side of Main Street is included in the State Street overlay zone which addresses the scale and placement of buildings in the area. Future development on Main Street should include compatible building scale and configuration on the east and west sides of Main Street. Building heights of 3-4 stories would be appropriate between the Utah Pride Center and Kensington Avenue along Main Street. Main Street between Kesington Avenue and 1700 South 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 no taller than 3 stories with front doors on Main Street, stoops, and yards. Parking should be setback from the street and located to the side or rear of buildings, or in garages. The Heart of the Neighborhood / Ballpark Station Entertainment Zone The area between just north of Paxton Avenue on the north and 1400 South on the south, Main Street on the east and 400 West on the west is the Heart of the Ballpark Neighborhood. This area includes Smith’s Ballpark, the Ballpark TRAX station, and several businesses and community organizations. This area is appropriate for Transit Station Area District Zoning as an Urban Station. The area is appropriate for higher densities. There are significant redevelopment opportunities in this area to enhance gameday and non-gameday activities in the area. In addition to the Ballpark and the station, the area already boasts some of the most popular local restaurants in the city. Building on this success there is an opportunity to create a vibrant entertainment zone centered on the Ballpark and serving the surrounding neighborhood as a community hub. This area could also be considered for the addition of a public service anchor such as a library with opportunity for public space. This area can support the highest intensity of use because of the transportation grid and available transit. It is recommended that streetscape elements should include additional art and interpretive historical elements, shaded pedestrian way, and visual elements directly related to the Ballpark. Community Recommended Future Public Space at the Ballpark This area is identified by the community as having opportunity for future public space around the Ballpark facility to create year-round activation. Some examples include additional plaza space, perimeter trail or other green space. This will help activate the area but should not interfere with game day and day-to-day operations. Jefferson Park Mixed-Use Area The area encompassing approximately east of the 200 West TRAX line to the West Temple corridor and Paxton Avenue to Mead Avenue to the north is characterized by a mix of housing types and commercial uses. Redevelopment of the area should support a live/work/play community by providing a mix of uses and building scales. Larger building forms are appropriate along corridors where large building forms are already present or where it is abutting the TRAX line on 200 West or along the West Temple corridor. These larger building forms should consist of approximately 5-7 stories and provide some commercial spaces/residential amenities. Smaller building scales should be focused on areas adjoining Jefferson Street and avenue streets; smaller building scales should generally consist of 2-3 stories and almost entirely comprised of medium-density residential uses. THE PLAN | FUTURE LAND USE19 Adopted Catalytic Areas These are areas of planned and adopted new investment that have been approved and are awaiting implementation. KENSINGTON AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD BYWAY PROJECT Kensington Avenue Byway Improvements including bicycle and pedestrian crossing improvements, traffic calming, wayfinding signage, and connectivity enhancements to existing bicycle and pedestrian routes. CENTRAL NINTH CATALYTIC CONNECTIVITY The Downtown Plan recommends several improvements to this area. Phase I underpass improvements include amenities on both sides of the 900 South viaduct such as public art, pedestrian lighting, street tress, and other comfort amenities. The Downtown Plan also proposes a Central Ninth Catalytic Connectivity Phase II TRAX extension which would run from 400 West to 900 South with adjacent active transportation trail if approved, as well as a Central Ninth Catalytic Connectivity Long Term 900 South viaduct demolition and shortening which would occur at the end of the viaduct’s structural life and be replaced with community amenities and new connections. Community Recommended Catalytic Areas These are areas of planned or potential new investment that can leverage transformative private investment, improve neighborhood livability, and create a new, vibrant Ballpark District. BALLPARK ENTERTAINMENT/STATION AREA IMPROVEMENTS The Ballpark is an anchor for both gameday and non-gameday improvements and activities. Ballparks around the country have increasingly become the centerpiece for broader entertainment areas including restaurants, bars, theaters, plazas, and community gathering spaces. Smith’s Ballpark is located in a neighborhood that already offers many of these amenities. There are also vacant and underutilized parcels around the Ballpark that can be redeveloped into housing, offices, stores, and restaurants to add vibrancy. The existing public realm can be rethought to provide opportunities for community activities. Opportunities include: • Transit supportive development in the existing Ballpark TRAX Station parking lot • High-density mixed-use development, with public parking spaces, in the City- owned parking lot north of the Ballpark • Redevelopment of the area west of the Ballpark into a high-density mixed-use concept with pedestrian-oriented features and amenities • Improvement of the pedestrian areas along 1300 South to address capacity and safety issues • Creation of a Festival Street on West Temple that can be closed to traffic for special events including community farmers market, concerts, etc. • Improved “permeability” of the Ballpark to allow non-gameday access to the team store and possibly ground level restaurants • Expansion of the Ballpark plaza to extend to the south and east to maximize special event and gameday activity areas. • Develop a transit supportive zone for this area that includes maximum height requirements to allow roof top decks with a view of the mountains and ballpark and minimum height requirements to create an urban experience for residents and visitors. • Addition of an anchoring community amenity which may include options like a library with opportunities for public space. Transit station upgrades in this area may include: • Pedestrian crossings directly to the east and west of the UTA crossing barriers, and to the north and south of 1300 South. • Elimination of the bus drop off loop • Station-adjacent transit-supportive development of the UTA surface parking lot and to the west of the station and improve overall performance of the station in the neighborhood. • Pedestrian/bikeways improvements to access the Ballpark Station. PUBLIC UTILITIES SITE The Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities is located at 1530 South West Temple. The Public Utilities offices and yards may relocate at some point in the future. If Salt Lake City makes an operational change, the current Public Utilities site would be a good location to add much needed community amenities to the neighborhood. Possible future uses include: • Expanded park space to supplement the “Ballpark Playground” currently on the site • Relocation of Fire Station #8 from next to the Ballpark, and reuse of the existing fire station location for an activating use with frontage consistent with a walkable and comfortable public space • A community center to provide community meeting and education space, and/or recreation facilities. COMMUNITY RECOMMENDED 1700 SOUTH TRANSIT HUB Long-range transportation plans recommend a future transit hub at 1700 South serving light rail and east-west bus service. This area should adopt an “urban form” including extensive “last mile” connections to surrounding neighborhoods and uses, and implementation of appropriate Transit Supportive Zoning. Community Recommended Gateways These are areas recommended by the community to announce arrival into the Ballpark neighborhood. Future Community Amenity Proposed locations for community amenities which may include opportunity for parks, libraries, and supportive services. Ballpark TRAX Station / GSBS Consulting THE PLAN | KEY STRATEGIES & PROJECTS CONNECTIVITY STRATEGIES Enhancing the pedestrian environment is a priority for the Ballpark Neighborhood. The ability to efficiently and comfortably access the area will benefit residents, current and future businesses, and will improve both gameday and non-gameday experiences for visitors. Movement throughout the neighborhood can be enhanced by the widening of sidewalks and pedestrian space and the enhancement of these public spaces to include street furniture, street trees and plants, and additional pedestrian-level street lighting. The pedestrian environment should be suitable and safe for all ages and abilities to ensure equitable access. This includes the improvement of existing street crossings to elevate the visibility of pedestrians and the addition of new street crossings where current options are limited. Figure 2.10 depicts the existing street sections for 1300 South. This plan recommends an updated street profile to improve walkability within the heart of the neighborhood. Figure 2.11 shows the recommended profile for 1300 South, which includes five feet of pedestrian space within a private encroachment to occur as properties redevelop, five feet of pedestrian space with street trees and pedestrian level lighting, and a center median. Recommendations for a safer bike and pedestrian network include: • Fill gaps in the sidewalk network and increase sidewalk width and buffers, prioritizing 1300 South, 300 West, 900 South, and 1700 South. The combined public sidewalk and private encroachment should have a minimum width of ten feet to allow for street trees and street lighting. • Provide and maintain pedestrian amenities including street furniture and trash receptacles • Improve bike lane marking, especially at major intersections • Enhance pedestrian-level lighting and prioritize underserved areas • Support pedestrian-level street activation including food, retail and entertainment options • Enhance existing crossings to prioritize pedestrians • Support mid-block crossings and alleyways to improve connectivity CONNECTIVITY There are several opportunities to enhance connectivity and improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the neighborhood. Navigating the Ballpark Neighborhood by foot and bicycle is supported by the surrounding grid system which historically provided easy connectivity in the area. Preserving connections and enhancing and adding new midblock connections will help people move throughout the neighborhood and provide alternatives to navigating along high-volume arterials. Figure 2.8 on page 16 identifies several recommended connections to navigate through the neighborhood. In addition to improved connectivity, additional upgrades to bike and pedestrian facilities are recommended. These include: • Upgraded bike parking facilities that are highly visible to decrease the risk of theft and provide a secure area to lock onto • Traffic signaling which recognizes the presence of bicycles along designated bikeways • Improve pedestrian crossings to highlight the pedestrian while calming traffic on high volume roads PARKING STRATEGY Parking needs in the Ballpark Neighborhood vary between game days and non-game days. On game days, landowners adjacent to the Ballpark provide paid parking, and several on-street parking options are available on a first-come-first-serve basis. However, on non-game days the surrounding properties sit as vacant lots and lack activating uses. Optimizing a balance of parking for year-round activation helps create a pedestrian environment with opportunity for different land use strategies. Future considerations for parking in the heart of the neighborhood include: • Reduce overall parking requirements through a shared parking system between different uses • Identify surrounding businesses as potential partners in a shared parking agreement for game day events • Increase bicycle parking options surrounding the Ballpark and at the Ballpark. • Allow developers to substitute a predetermined percentage of automobile parking for bicycle parking • Evaluate the need for a parking garage serving the 1300 South area as development occurs • Include standards for parking garages and their interaction with the neighborhood in the Transit Supportive Zone • Provide free transit access with Ballpark ticket sales • Encourage subsidization of transit passes by businesses for employees and residents. ALLEYWAY SAFETY Designated alleyways can provide connectivity options for pedestrians and bicyclists as they move throughout the Station Area. Maintaining a high level of perceived safety is important to the activation and success of these alternate routes and can be achieved by considering several activating urban design strategies to improve the health and quality of these public spaces. Tactics for creating safe and well-used alleyways include: • Enhance alleyway identity by naming designated alleyways. • Implement new paving, materials, and colors to indicate well caredfor places. • Maintain the alleyways and provide space for art and activities to show that they are cared for. • Provide frequent and lowglare pedestrian level lightning. Private Encroach. Private Encroach.Sdwlk Sdwlk 2 . 5 ’ C u r b / G u t t e r 2 . 5 ’ C u r b / G u t t e r 71.5’ 71.5’ Existing Proposed 2 . 5 ’ C u r b / G u t t e r 2 . 5 ’ C u r b / G u t t e r Sdwlk SdwlkCenter Median Center Lane (TWLTL) Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane 5’5’5’ 5’5’ 5’11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11.5’ 11.5’ 12’ 12’ FIGURE 2.10: EXISTING 1300 SOUTH STREET SECTION FOR THE HEART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD Private Encroach. Private Encroach.Sdwlk Sdwlk 2 . 5 ’ C u r b / G u t t e r 2 . 5 ’ C u r b / G u t t e r 71.5’ 71.5’ Existing Proposed 2 . 5 ’ C u r b / G u t t e r 2 . 5 ’ C u r b / G u t t e r Sdwlk SdwlkCenter Median Center Lane (TWLTL) Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane 5’5’5’ 5’5’ 5’11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11.5’ 11.5’ 12’ 12’ FIGURE 2.11: PROPOSED 1300 SOUTH STREET SECTION FOR THE HEART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD 20 STREET LIGHTING Pedestrian-level street lighting is key to making a place feel comfortable and safe for people navigating the neighborhood by foot and bicycle. The Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan identifies the Ballpark neighborhood as a high priority area for future street lighting because it is currently underserved and has several high potential conflict areas and schools. In addition to requiring new street lighting with new development, the neighborhood can request enhanced pedestrian-level street lighting through a process coordinated with the Salt Lake Department of Public Utilities by: 1. Submitting an initial request though the community council to Public Utilities for additional street lighting with specific locations and reasons. 2. Reviewing the surrounding street and land use character with Public Utilities to determine appropriate lighting type 3. Gather a cost estimate for the additional lighting and seek funding approval in partnership with the department. 4. Design, schedule and implement preferred option in partnership with the department. • Add plants and greenery, like green walls, to provide public green space while maintaining a level of transparency from private lots into the alleyway. • Embrace alleyways as part of the city network rather than “backside” spaces hidden from sight. SAFETY & SECURITY Safety is a priority to the Ballpark community. While this plan does not directly address crime, there are measures that can be integrated into the physical elements of the neighborhood to improve perceived safety. Appropriate Lighting Appropriate pedestrian level lighting should directly light the pedestrian-way at a height that maintains a pedestrian-scaled walkway. It is recommended that future development include pedestrian-scale lighting with a priority on underserved areas, street crossings, and transit stops. A definition of priority areas can be found in the Salt Lake City Street Lighting Masterplan. Appropriate pedestrian lighting should: • Be pedestrian scaled • Have a lighting pole height of 13-16 feet • Maintain color accuracy • Be coordinated according to surrounding land use and context This lighting option has significant glare and prioritizes the vehicle right of way, creating visibility and perceived safety issues. (Source: SLC Street Lighting Masterplan) Lights with low glare provide more comfortable streets and public spaces, providing light where it is needed without annoying nearby residents. Source: (SLC Street Lighting Master Plan) THE PLAN | KEY STRATEGIES & PROJECTS21 Transparent Building Fronts and Visibility Aside from adding visual interest to a street, transparent building fronts increase the number of ”eyes on the street” by allowing people inside buildings to have direct view of what is happening outside. This increased interaction between the inside and outside decreases the likelihood for crime in these areas, especially when well lit. Landscaping and Visibility Visually permeable landscaping provides another opportunity to improve the perceived safety of an area. Tall, view-obstructing fences and landscaping inhibit visibility of what is happening in an area. Areas with little visibility often experience criminal activity which can be hidden behind visual barriers. Prioritizing good visibility, especially in and around public spaces, inhibits the ability to conduct crime out of sight. ENHANCING NEIGHBORHOOD GREENSPACE The station area is served by two parks, Jefferson Park and the Ballpark Playground. Jefferson Park includes a playground and a multi-use field, and also acts as a stormwater retention area for the City. Jefferson Park is maintained by the City and offers 3 acres of green space. The Ballpark Playground, which was recently renamed from Peoples Freeway Park in 2020, is 0.4 acres and is maintained by the Salt Lake Department of Public Utilities. The Salt Lake City Parks & Public Lands Needs Assessment identifies the neighborhood as an area of greater need for green space. This area is likely to receive much of the City’s future growth, yet has the lowest level of service for parks in the city at 2.8 park acres per 1,000 population compared to a city-wide level of service of 3.5 city-owned and managed park acres per 1,000 population. This Plan’s recommendations for future opportunities for green space, identified in the Future Land Use Map, include the area just south of the 900 South freeway access ramp and the current Public Utilities site. As the Public Utilities department outgrows this location, the site should be evaluated for additional community green space. The proposed festival street, identified on the Future Land Use Map, should also incorporate green landscaping elements such as planters, street trees and landscaped areas. This example of Regent Street shows transparency between the street and inside the adjacent building help increase the perceived safety of an area. THE PLAN | KEY STRATEGIES & PROJECTS 22 The Ballpark Playground provides a greenspace oasis within the neighborhood The Salt Lake City Parks & Public Lands Needs Assessment identifies ten “big ideas” for the future of green space in the City, shown in figure 2.12. These ideas were developed through an extensive community outreach effort to identify what residents want to see in the future city-wide green space. Another opportunity for additional greenspace arises in future development of the neighborhood. This plan recommends that the City require additional green space as a requirement for new private development outlined in the recommended Transit Supportive Zoning for the heart of the neighborhood. New development should incorporate “green” features including additional street trees, planted medians and park strips, and strategic landscaping to provide pinpricks for greenery throughout the neighborhood. Drought resistant landscaping is recommended to support the city’s overall goal of creating an urban ecosystem the integrates parks, plazas and the urban forestry identified in the Downtown Plan. Creating successful public open space in the neighborhood can be achieved through several urban design recommendations. These include: • Treating public space as an object to work towards rather than “leftover space” • Integrating public space into community facilities like schools, libraries, and service centers • Lining public spaces with public uses to improve safety and accessibility • Considering the design of adjacent streets and their use of bulb outs, furniture, paving, and improvements to create a pleasant and desirable place • Creating pedestrian and bicycle routes which serve both transportation and recreational purposes. HOUSING OPPORTUNITY & MITIGATING DISPLACEMENT The Ballpark’s identity as an affordable area is quickly changing. While there are strong residential pockets within the neighborhood, a majority of new residential development has been mid-rise apartment style rental units. The community has identified three priorities to assist current and future residents in finding attainable and affordable housing regardless of their income, age, familial status, and background. These priorities include: • Providing clean, safe, and equitable housing options for all residents. • Providing opportunities for home ownership for a diversity of income levels • Mitigating the negative effects of gentrification as development occurs Anti-Displacement Strategies As this area continues to grow and change, households that spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing are at a greater risk for getting priced out of the neighborhood and being involuntarily displaced. The city is required by the state and WFRC to submit an annual report which highlights an estimate of moderate-income housing needs and review moderate income housing implementation progress outlined in Growing SLC, Salt Lake’s 5-year housing plan. In addition, at the time of writing, the City is conducting a Gentrification Assessment & Displacement Mitigation Study, which will include models of current and future gentrification pressures and provide recommendations to avoid involuntary displacement. Recommendations from that study should be followed in the Ballpark neighborhood as applicable. FUTURE PUBLIC SPACE SHOULD: 1. INCLUDE A WAYFINDING AND SIGNAGE CAMPAIGN THAT MAKES IT EASIER TO EXPLORE NEARBY PARKS, TRAILS AND PUBLIC SPACES 2. COMPLETE MISSING LINKS IN REGIONAL TRAILS AND INVEST IN GREENWAYS TO ENHANCE NATURE And CREEKS WITHIN THE CITY 3. TRANSFORM PARKS INTO VIBRANT COMMUNITY SPACES THAT EMPOWER RESIDENTS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTITY 4. HELP OUR PARKS, LARGE AND SMALL, COME ALIVE WITH ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR 5. INVEST IN PROJECTS AND MAINTENANCE ALONG THE JORDAN RIVER PARKWAY THAT WILL PROMOTE EQUITY, ACCESS, SCENIC BEAUTY, DIVERSE RECREATION, AND HEALTHY ECOLOGY ALONG THE PARKWAY 6. REVEAL PAST AND PRESENT STORIES FROM OUR DIVERSITY OF EXPERIENCES THAT HAVE SHAPED THIS VALLEY, GIVING FOCUS TO UNDERREPRESENTED AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLE. EXPRESS THESE STORIES THROUGH LANDSCAPES, STRUCTURE, AND PLACEMAKING 7. INCREASE THE PROVISION OF GREEN AND ACTIVE SPACES DOWNTOWN THAT WILL CONTRIBUTE TO LIVABILITY AND ECONOMIC VITALITY 8. BUILD PUBLIC AWARENESS TO SUPPORT NEW TREES STEWARDSHIP THAT ALLOWS URBAN FORESTRY TO PLANT TREES IN ALL PUBLICLYOWNED LANDSCAPES 9. INVITE APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVE USE OF OUR PUBLIC GOLFCOURSES FOR GREATER BENEFIT 10. CULTIVATE MORE BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY IN PARKS AND NATURAL AREAS Source: Salt Lake City Public Lands TEN “BIG IDEAS” FOR THE FUTURE OF GREEN SPACE IN SLC FIGURE 2.12: TEN “BIG IDEAS” FOR THE FUTURE OF GREEN SPACE IN SLC THE PLAN | KEY STRATEGIES & PROJECTS23 To reduce the negative impact of gentrification in the primarily renter occupied neighborhood, the city should work with local organizations and services to provide legal support, education, and outreach to residents. Existing community-based organizations can provide tenant services and homeowner assistance to support residents. Educating the community is an immediate step to mitigate displacement and includes education on tenants’ rights, understanding lease agreements, financial literacy, the risks of predation on vulnerable homeowners, and relocation assistance to help stabilize changing housing situations. The city should also support development assistance and financing to offer technical assistance to help low-income renters and owners in the area to identify increased rental opportunities for ADUs and financing strategies. Since the neighborhood is also home to a large number of the city’s unhoused residents, prioritizing the retention of outreach social services and case managers to help support the existing unhoused population in the neighborhood will likely improve health and safety outcomes for all residents. In addition, the equitable distribution of social services, case managers and housing options for individuals making under 30 percent of the area median income should be coordinated on a county-wide/regional level. Figure 2.13 shows a map of existing services and nonprofit organizations which provide support to much of Salt Lake County. Focus should be placed on connecting these county-wide services with improved public transit to improve overall access. 0 600 1,200300Feet T E E R T S E TAT S 900 SOUTH 1700 SOUTH VOA Detox Center Palmer Court Permanent Supportive Housing Fresh Start Behavioral Health UTAH DEPARTMENT oF CORRECTIONS ADULT PROHBATION AND PAROLE URBAN INDIAN CENTER OF SALT LAKE THE ROAD HOME HOUSING AND SERVICES GAIL MILLER RESOURCE CENTER UTAH PRIDE CENTER FIGURE 2.13: COMMUNITY SERVICES AND NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS MAP HOUSING RESOURCES AND OPPORTUNITIES Condo-Based Community Land Trust How it works: This program allows development of owner-occupied condos on appropriate private and public owned land through an ongoing lease. This reduces the purchase price of each unit and requires resale at an affordable price with a limit to appreciation to maintain affordability. Examples of where this has worked: Burlington, VT, Austin TX, Oakland, CA Target Outcomes: Increases opportunity for ownership, increases affordability SLC Home Repair Program How it works: The program allows owner-occupied households with moderate income to obtain either a no interest loan or a low interest loan to address health, safety and structural issues in their homes. https://www.slc.gov/hand/city-housing-programs/home-repair-program/ SLC Targeted Repair Program How it works: Very Low-Income households (50% and below AMI) can apply for a lifetime maximum grant of up to $50,000 to repair major structural and/or mechanical component deficiencies in their home. This grant will allow homeowners, who have no other funding options, access the funds needed to keep their homes accessible, habitable and safe. https://www.slc.gov/hand/city-housing-programs/salt-lake-city-hand-targeted-repair-program/ THE PLAN | KEY STRATEGIES & PROJECTS 24 COMMUNITY EXPLORATION & ANALYSIS PLANNING PROCESS The planning process began by working with the community to establish an understanding of current and planned assets and challenges in the neighborhood, followed by the study of transformational changes that can be made to enhance livability and opportunities in the area. At each step in the planning process, the ideas, information, and recommendation were reviewed and improved by the community through online and in-person outreach. The process began with an analysis of existing conditions that identified: • Current and projected population, employment, and other development in the area • Current and projected socio-economic factors • Current and planned transportation, transit, and multi-modal infrastructure • Prior plans and initiatives • Planned Ballpark improvements In addition to analysis of existing conditions the plan includes the findings of a Ballpark Area Case Study analysis and an economic Highest and Best Use Analysis. Those complete reports can be found in the appendices. COMMUNITY EXPLORATION & ANALYSIS 25 Neighborhood playground in at Jefferson Park / GSBS Consulting COMMUNITY EXPLORATION & ANALYSIS STUDY AREA The Ballpark neighborhood in Salt Lake City is directly south of downtown and has, over its history, transitioned from a first ring suburb characterized by single family residential development to a downtown support area characterized by industrial, distribution and similar uses to the southern boundary of Salt Lake City’s downtown with bars and restaurants. The neighborhood retains evidence of all these roles resulting in an eclectic and diverse mix of land uses. The study area for this plan does not include the entire Ballpark Community Council area. The southern boundary of the study area is 1700 South. The Ballpark neighborhood is characterized by a mix of uses near downtown Salt Lake and is easily accessible via TRAX light rail and major transportation corridors including I-15 and I-80, Figure 3.1. One of the key benefits identified by residents of the neighborhood is proximity to downtown. However, the transportation corridors also pose barriers to connectivity within the neighborhood. The presence of both I-15 and the UTA light rail lines inhibit east-west movement by acting as physical barriers and posing several safety issues for pedestrians and bicyclists navigating the area. 0 1.5 30.75 Miles I-15 I-80 I-15 Site Area Highways Roads City Boundary FIGURE 3.1: BALLPARK REGIONAL CONTEXT MAP Smith’s Ballpark / GSBS Consulting 26 COMMUNITY EXPLORATION & ANALYSIS27 Demographics Ballpark neighborhood households are: • smaller, • younger, and • more likely to rent than households in the rest of Salt Lake City, the County, and the State of Utah. There are an estimated 4,131 people living in 1,854 households within the study area boundaries. WFRC projects an increase to approximately 10,021 people by 2040. At current household sizes this is an additional 1,100 dwelling units in the next 20 years. Based on availability of developable land and the mix of land uses, actual growth could be even higher. Ballpark residents have a median age of 32.6 years with a larger population of young children (0 – 14) compared to Salt Lake City. However, study area has a smaller portion of the population ages 15 – 25, as well as elderly population (65+). The Ballpark area is diverse, with some similarities to Salt Lake City, with a greater percentage of Caucasian population, and those residents who identified as Some Other Race. The study area is also home to a high percentage of Hispanic residents, Table 3.1. The diverse population in the Ballpark area can prove to be an asset in terms of employment, as oftentimes employers will seek a diverse workforce to fill roles. Having a diverse population and skills available to employers can be leveraged as an asset for the community. To further understand the diversity of the Ballpark area, an analysis of Simpson’s Diversity Index was conducted to measure the diversity of a population in which members belong to a unique group. The analysis measures the racial and ethnic homogeneity of an area. The Ballpark area has Diversity Index scores of 0.38 and 0.34, respectively. Compared to the other block groups in vicinity of the study area, the Ballpark area has a higher level of diversity. This also means that while there aren’t large ratios of diverse populations in the study area, there are a high number of unique races and ethnicities within the community. An analysis of spoken languages was conducted and shows an increased level of languages spoken throughout the study area compared to Salt Lake City . Data provided by Liberty and Whittier Elementary, which includes languages of families, indicate that the majority of alternate languages spoken in the schools in the area include Spanish, Arabic, Burmese, Karen, Somali. The average size of households in the study area is significantly smaller at 2.2 people per household compared to the average household size of 3.13 observed throughout Salt Lake City and Utah. The Ballpark study area consists primarily of renter-occupied housing (78.6%) much higher than in surrounding multiplicities, Salt Lake County and in Utah, Table 3.2. More information on housing in Salt Lake City can be found in the Moderate Income Housing Plan. As shown in Table 3.3, the incomes within the study area are significantly lower than the incomes throughout Salt Lake City or the state of Utah. According to the 2019 U.S. Census Bureau ACS 5-year estimates, over 32 percent of households in the study area make less than $15,000 annually. In contrast, only 6.3 percent of households throughout the state earn less than $15,000. A large portion (22 percent) of households within the study area make between $50,000 and $75,000 annually, but only 12 percent of total households make more than $75,000. Race Ballpark station Area %Salt Lake City % Caucasian 72.6%70.9% African American 2.4%3.5% American Indian & Alaska Native 0.0%1.3% Asian 4.6%6.2% Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Islander 0.6%2.1% Some Other Race 18.2%11.7% Two or More Races 1.5%4.3% TOTAL 99.9%100.0% Ethnicity Hispanic Origin 22.2%24.0% Source: 2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, ESRI Ballpark station Area Salt Lake City Salt Lake County Utah Total Households 1,854 82,259 397,918 1,050,542 Owner Households 15.3%41.3%61.8%63.1% Renter Households 78.6%51.7%33.2%27.0% Vacant Households 6.1%7.0%5.0%9.9% Families 768 41,258 277,473 781,973 Household Size 2.20 2.41 2.99 3.13 Source: 2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, ESRI Ballpark station Area Salt Lake County Salt Lake MSA Utah Median Household Income $26,047 $76,410 $76,256 $73,015 Average Household Income $44,498 $99,988 $99,114 $92,612 Per Capita Income $19,992 $33,095 $32,666 $29,227 Source: 2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, ESRI TABLE 3.1 RACE AND ETHNICITY IN THE BALLPARK STATION AREA AND SALT LAKE CITY TABLE 3.2: OWNERSHIP AND RENTERSHIP RATES IN THE BALLPARK STATION AREA AND SURROUNDING REGION TABLE 3.3: INCOME IN THE BALLPARK STATION AREA AND SURROUNDING REGION SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Prior Planning Efforts Several plans have been completed on areas adjacent too or within the Ballpark Neighborhood over the past decade. Many of the recommendations from these prior plans are incorporated into this Station Area Plan. Existing Plans for the Area Include: Adopted City Plans: • Downtown Master Plan / Central 9th • Central Community Plan • State Street Reinvestment Plan • Growing SLC • Plan Salt Lake • Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan (undergoing adoption) Not Adopted: • Life on State 2010 • Life on State Implementation • Student Ballpark Master Plan Project • Homeless Resource Centers Neighborhood Action Strategies • Salt Lake City Parks & Public Lands Needs Assessment CENTRAL COMMUNITY PLAN – 2005 The most recent official plan for the Ballpark Neighborhood is the Central Community Plan adopted in 2005. The plan identified goals, strategies, and future land use for each of the neighborhoods within the Central Community Planning District. The plan identified four fundamental goals for the Central Community: • Livable communities and neighborhoods • Vital and sustainable commerce • Unique and active places • Pedestrian mobility and accessibility LIFE ON STATE - 2010 Life on State is a multi-jurisdictional vision document sponsored by Wasatch Front Regional Council that identified several goals for State Street/Highway 89 as it passes through the Salt Lake Valley. LIFE ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - 2018 In April 2018, Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake City completed a Life on State Implementation Plan that built on the vision and goals of the Life on State Vision plan to identify the specific elements and strategies to transform State Street to a “Signature Street.” DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN/CENTRAL NINTH NEIGHBORHOOD - 2016 The Central Ninth neighborhood immediately to the north of the Ballpark Neighborhood is part of the Downtown Planning District. The Downtown Master Plan identified a catalytic project to connect the Central Ninth Neighborhood to the Ballpark Neighborhood through the area occupied by the I-15 900 South viaduct, Figure 3.2. This initiative identifies improvement of existing underpasses to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety and experience, improve unused right-of-way for community greenspace, and eventually remove the viaduct to add community space to the neighborhood. HOMELESS RESOURCE CENTERS NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION STRATEGIES – 2020 Salt Lake City completed a plan to assess the impacts of two new Homeless Resource Centers in the Central Community. The Gail Miller Homeless Resource Center is located within the study area and provides beds for 200 unhoused men and women. The Geraldine King Resource Center is located two blocks north of the study area and provides beds for 200 unhoused women. The plan identified the following key strategies: 1. Commit to long-term investments in the physical and social infrastructure in neighborhoods around the new homeless resource centers. 2. Lead efforts to secure funding support from other non-City sources for investments in HRC neighborhoods. 3. Prioritize and fast-track planned City projects in the Capital Facilities Plan in neighborhoods supporting the HRC facilities. 4. Foster community driven efforts to improve quality of life in neighborhoods near resource centers. 126 STORY FROM TOMORROW the 900 south Viaduct separates the central Ninth neighborhood and the Ballpark neighborhood to the south. The two neighborhoods should be better connected to provide both neighborhoods with housing options, access to open space, and provide opportunities to walk to transit, shops, dining, etc. The connections could be improved by addressing the West temple and 900 south viaduct. as the viaduct ages and comes closer to the end of its structural life, city hall should work with area residents and business owners, uDot, and uta (who owns the abandoned rail corridor that passes under the viaduct) to study alternatives that improves the connectivity between the neighborhoods. Improving underpasses and adding amenities on both sides of the viaduct will help improve the connectivity and desirability of both neighborhoods. This may include the addition of public art, pedestrian lighting, street trees, and other pedestrian comfort amenities along the north-south streets. cATALY TIc pROjecT: cOnnecTIng cenTRAL nInTh TO bALLpARK 900 S 800 S 1300 S 3 0 0 W 2 0 0 W W T E M P L E REIMAGINE UNDERPASSLIGHTING REIMAGINE UNDERPASSLIGHTING CREATE GATEWAYGARDEN SMITH BALL PARK SOFTEN HIGHWAYEDGES CONNECT TO 9LINE SOFTEN HIGHWAYEDGES Source: Salt Lake City Downtown Masterplan FIGURE 3.2: CATALYTIC PROJECT: CONNECTING CENTRAL NINTH TO BALLPARK COMMUNITY EXPLORATION & ANALYSIS | EXISTING CONDITIONS 28 COMMUNITY EXPLORATION & ANALYSIS | EXISTING CONDITIONS29 The plan also identified near-, mid-, and long-term projects in the neighborhoods surrounding each of the HRCs in the Central Community to help mitigate the impacts of the centers. Many of the projects identified are City-wide projects such as improvements to transit access and housing policies and investments. The infrastructure improvement projects identified for the Ballpark Neighborhood, within ½ mile of the Gail Miller HRC include: • Near Term +300 West rebuild and ADA-accessibility improvements +Construction of a pedestrian crossing on 1300 to the Ballpark TRAX +Main Street Cycle Track +Street Lighting updates +Greenbike station at Ballpark TRAX Station • Mid Term +Construction of a neighborhood byway • Long Term +Multi-modal transportation improvements on State Street +Protected bike lanes on 300 West, 1700 South, 200 West, and West Temple +Improved bus facilities STATE STREET PROJECT AREA PLAN– 2019 The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City created the State Street Project Area Plan to further the economic development goals of the City and community, including land use and connectivity. The Plan includes the Ballpark Station Area Planning boundaries with the exception of a “carve out” for the Ballpark property and the City- owned parking lot to the north, incorporates the community vision and land use plans established by the Downtown Master Plan and the Central Community Master Plan, and provides funding and investment tools to help leverage private investment in the neighborhood. As seen in Figure 3.3, the project area extends along State Street from 300 South on the north to 2100 South on the south. FIGURE 3.3: STATE STREET PROJECT AREA MAP SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LANDS NEEDS ASSESSMENT - 2019 In 2019 the city identified existing natural lands needs for urban and non-urban areas of Salt Lake City. The plan identifies level of service for the city’s seven planning areas and identifies community goals for the Parks & Public lands system as it grows. SALT LAKE CITY GENTRIFICATION ASSESSMENT AND DISPLACEMENT MITIGATION PLAN (EXPECTED COMPLETION 2022) A plan to assess gentrification pressures and risk of involuntary displacement in Salt Lake City’s neighborhoods is expected to be completed in 2022. The effort will involve extensive community engagement, address inequities in the community, and provide recommendations for programs, policies and strategies to help residents stay in place and benefit from neighborhood investments. SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN (MOVING THROUGH ADOPTION PROCESS) The Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities created a Street Lighting Master Plan to identify areas of high priority for additional street lighting through out the city and to define proper placement and light levels for all city street lighting. The Street Lighting Master Plan The Master Plan archives all existing light poles and provides design and placement recommendations according to surrounding land use and ecological health. GROWING SALT LAKE CITY – A FIVE YEAR HOUSING PLAN Growing Salt Lake City is a five-year housing plan for the city from 2018 to 2022 and was published in January 2018 by the Department of Community and Neighborhoods. The Plan contains several topics including updates to zoning code, preservation of affordable housing, and equitability, fair housing, and transportation. Another key point of the plan is the close relationship of transportation, transit-oriented development, affordable housing. The plan focuses on how to make the city affordable so that more individuals and families can find housing there. With the anticipated increase in population comes transportation strains. The plan states that the need to create viable pedestrian, bicycle, and transit options is paramount as the City’s population grows. The Ballpark neighborhood has seen a large share of this growth since the adoption of this plan in 2018, primarily in new multifamily development. PLAN SALT LAKE Plan Salt Lake was adopted in December 2015 and gives a vision for the city through the year 2040. The plan gives a framework to prepare the city for the growth that is anticipated to come in future years. STUDENT PROJECT BALLPARK NEIGHBORHOOD MASTER PLAN, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH – 2020 A group of students from the University of Utah’s Department of City and Metropolitan Planning worked with members of the Ballpark Neighborhood Council to complete a neighborhood master plan. The plan identified a vision statement for the neighborhood: The Ballpark Neighborhood is a safe, vibrant, diverse, connected, and accessible neighborhood that welcomes new growth while preserving the existing sense of community. Safe – Residents will feel safe in their homes and throughout their community, and the neighborhood will be perceived as a safe area of the city. Vibrant – The Ballpark Neighborhood will be a destination for culture, arts, and entertainment that will be economically thriving and attractive to new businesses and visitors. Diverse – The neighborhood will include a wide variety of land uses, amenities, and housing types to serve the needs of its diverse residents. Connected and Accessible – The Ballpark Neighborhood will be a “gateway to the City” that feels both physically and socially connected to the rest of the City as well as a internally. Balanced – The neighborhood will welcome new growth while preserving the existing sense of community. In addition, the plan identified five focus areas to help guide the future of the area.: • Reimagining Main Street • Creating Housing Opportunities for Current and Future Neighbors • Increasing Mobility Options • Greening Ballpark • Creating Vibrant Transit Station Areas Ballpark Neighborhood condominiums / GSBS Consulting COMMUNITY EXPLORATION & ANALYSIS | EXISTING CONDITIONS 30 LEGEND Site Boundary Sidewalks Ballpark Station CONNECTIVITY AND THE PEDESTRIAN & BIKING ENVIRONMENT The Ballpark’s central location along several major regional transportation routes, proximity to transit, and transitioning urban landscape offer opportunities for enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. Figure 3.4 shows the existing location of bike, pedestrian and transit facilities in the neighborhood. As the area continues to develop, enhancing multimodal connectivity should be a priority to preserve existing connections and create a safe and efficient area to navigate for all ages and abilities. The Ballpark neighborhood has several high-volume roadways. 1300 South serves a high volume of east-west traffic from State Street to I-15, with 900 South and 1700 South also carrying notable traffic volumes. State Street and 300 West carry high volumes of vehicles moving north-south. The neighborhood is served by three TRAX light rail lines which run through the heart of the neighborhood, Figure 3.4. The area is also served by two frequent bus lines, the 9 (900 South) and the 200 (State Street) as well as the 17 (1700 South) which runs at a 30 minute frequency. The area has several existing bike routes connecting though the area. Main Street is identified as a bikeway and has a designated striped bike lane. The section of 900 South from I-15 to 300 West will have a buffered bike lane, and a marked shared roadway is planned to connect Paxton Avenue to the 1300 South underpass. I-15 I-15 0 600 1,200300Feet 1700 SOUTH S T A T E S T R E E T 900 SOUTH route 17 route 200 route 9 trax line FIGURE 3.4: SIDEWALK AND TRANSIT MAP photo credit / caption COMMUNITY EXPLORATION & ANALYSIS 31 Sidewalks are mostly complete in the study area although there are large gaps south of 1300 South between 300 West and West Temple, and in the north- west area of the project area. The existing sidewalk network needs repair along many of the major roadways and often provides limited width and space for movement alongside fast-moving vehicle traffic. Other obstacles, like light poles and uneven surfaces, present barriers for those using mobility devices and force pedestrians to navigate around them. Overall, east-west connectivity for pedestrians and bicycles is limited due to several roadways and rail lines which inhibit ease of movement through the area. Pedestrians and bicycles within the neighborhood must cross the TRAX line at either 900 South, 1300 South or 1700 South resulting in frequent illegal and dangerous crossings at points along the rail line. Several roadways with infrequent signalized crossings also act as barriers for navigating the neighborhood, such as 1300 South and 300 West, which have infrequent crossings and require pedestrians to extend their travel distance to cross at the nearest stoplight or cross illegally. Local business in the Ballpark Station Area. COMMUNITY EXPLORATION & ANALYSIS 32 SUMMARY OF STATION AREA CASE STUDIES Creating thriving and inclusive neighborhoods in areas surrounding major and minor league ballparks is a goal that cities strive to achieve through a variety of infrastructure and non-infrastructure investments. However, achieving this goal is often a challenge. Ballpark architecture and design plays a role in how well it integrates and enhances the surrounding community, and there are several other factors extending beyond the Ballpark itself that could help accelerate or facilitate economic and community vibrancy and integrate these otherwise disparate land uses. This exploration of case studies from ballpark areas across the country provides the planning team and the community examples of ballpark design and ballpark district activation strategies and outcomes to understand and identify lessons learned from similar ballparks that might support the vision and goals for the Smith’s Ballpark area. An initial list of case studies were selected based on those ballpark areas that are similar in urban scale and context to Smith’s Ballpark, including proximity to high quality transit, and community activation/integration. The full case study summary can be found in Appendix x. The selected case studies included: Major League Baseball Ballparks • Boston, MA • Chicago, IL Minor League Ballparks • Memphis, TN • Oklahoma City, OK • El Paso, TX The Major League examples informed decision making by providing examples of ballparks with longstanding success. The Minor League case studies provide a comparison of areas facing similar opportunities and challenges as Salt Lake City. Table 3.4 shows a comparison between the three Minor League case studies in comparison to Smith’s Ballpark. TABLE 3.4: SUMMARY OF BALLPARK CASE STUDIES Case Studies Salt Lake City Ballpark neighborhood Chickasaw Bricktown Ballpark Southwest University Park AutoZone Park Location Salt Lake City, UT Oklahoma City, OK El Paso, TX Memphis, TN Opening Date -April 1998 April 2014 April 2000 Stadium Capacity -13,066 9,500 14,320 Surrounding Area (1 mi) Facts Population (2020)15,587 4,532 14,994 12,210 Population Growth (2010 to 2020)+15%+60%+11%+1% Median Household Income (2020)$43,166 $56,927 $16,713 $25,195 Occupied Housing Units (2020)64% Rented/36% Owned 90% Rented/10% Owned 84% Rented/16% Owned 89% Rented/11% Owned Ballpark Area Features Identified in an area plan or Comprehensive Plan Pedestrian-only infrastructure Multimodal Connectivity (bike share, bike lanes, shared mobility) Accessible by high quality transit Parks/green spaces within the area Diverse surrounding land uses Adaptive reuse of existing buildings Special zoning regulations for the area Ballpark hosts other events (sporting and non-sporting) Supports community events within the Ballpark area COMMUNITY EXPLORATION & ANALYSIS | CASE STUDIES33 Case Studies Salt Lake City Ballpark neighborhoodChickasaw Bricktown BallparkSouthwest University ParkAutoZone Park LocationSalt Lake City, UTOklahoma City, OKEl Paso, TXMemphis, TN Opening Date-April 1998April 2014April 2000 Stadium Capacity-13,0669,50014,320 Surrounding Area (1 mi) Facts Population (2020)15,5874,53214,99412,210 Population Growth (2010 to 2020)+15%+60%+11%+1% Median Household Income (2020)$43,166$56,927$16,713$25,195 Occupied Housing Units (2020)64% Rented/36% Owned90% Rented/10% Owned84% Rented/16% Owned89% Rented/11% Owned Ballpark Area Features Identified in an area plan or Comprehensive Plan Pedestrian-only infrastructure Multimodal Connectivity (bike share, bike lanes, shared mobility) Accessible by high quality transit Parks/green spaces within the area Diverse surrounding land uses Adaptive reuse of existing buildings Special zoning regulations for the area Ballpark hosts other events (sporting and non-sporting) Supports community events within the Ballpark area CASE STUDY | MAJOR LEAGUE EXAMPLES BOSTON – FENWAY PARK LOCATION: Boston, MA CITY POPULATION: 694,583 STADIUM CAPACITY: 37,305 OPENING DATE: April 1912 Key Takeaways Fenway Park is one of the most iconic ballparks and ballpark areas in the MLB because of its history, design, and the activity and draw of the surrounding neighborhood. Some of these themes are hard to replicate, mainly because the neighborhood has grown up around the ballpark. Additionally, in the past 10 years, the neighborhood has seen millions of dollars in new development, creating an area that attracts students, young professionals, and families alike to both live and visit. However, there are some strategies that could be implemented to help recreate some of Fenway’s success, including: • Celebrate what makes a ballpark and its surrounding area unique. Some of Fenway’s most memorable elements have been engineered away in other more modern ballparks. Irregularities in design and layout should be celebrated to foster a unique sense of place. • Extend the ballpark atmosphere beyond the ballpark. Fenway Park’s gameday atmosphere spills out into the surrounding streets for multiple blocks, partly due to the limited space inside the ballpark. While that may be hard for other ballparks to replicate, the ballpark atmosphere is possible to foster and create outside the ballpark by creative use of right of way (closing/reusing streets) and special building regulations (zoning and design guidelines) CHICAGO – WRIGLEY FIELD LOCATION: Chicago, IL CITY POPULATION: 2,693,976 STADIUM CAPACITY: 41,649 OPENING DATE: April 1914 Key Takeaways Like Fenway, Wrigley’s age and history play a huge role in elevating the ballpark to one of the most beloved in all of baseball. However, there are some applicable strategies that can be applied to the SLC Ballpark area to help recreate some of what makes Wrigley so special including: • Having an open dialogue between ballpark and neighborhood. The incredibly close integration of ballpark and neighborhood has created several challenges through the years. The partnership between the two has been rocky at times but having both an open dialogue through a neighborhood council, along with a formalized agreement in place, have helped the two navigate disputes and thrive together. • Blur lines between ballpark and neighborhood. There is perhaps no better example of this takeaway than Wrigley Field. Surrounding businesses have taken advantage of the low walls in the outfield and built bleachers that can see into the stadium, becoming some of the most iconic elements of the stadium experience. While there are logistical challenges to implementing some of these elements at modern ballparks, creative ideas should be explored to help create a more permeable relationship between the ballpark and its surroundings. • The Chicago Cubs established a Neighborhood Preservation Fund in 2021 to invest in the surrounding neighborhood through street lighting, paving and infrastructure work around the ballpark. © Yards of Summer © Twitter (@BobVorwald) COMMUNITY EXPLORATION & ANALYSIS | CASE STUDIES 34 COMMUNITY PROFILE CASE STUDY | MINOR LEAGUE EXAMPLES OKLAHOMA CITY – CHICKASAW BRICKTOWN BALLPARK LOCATION: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma CITY POPULATION: 551,789 *Table 3.4 shows comparison to Salt Lake Ballpark Neighborhood Viewed as one of the most successful ballparks in the minor league, Bricktown Ballpark was part of the larger Bricktown redevelopment plan that helped energize the surrounding area while generating $238 million dollars in housing and mixed-use development. This case study highlights practices and lessons learned in supporting economic development, community-driven design and activation, and how the ballpark and surrounding area have blended development and culture. Key Takeaways • Look to create additional drivers beyond the ballpark. While a ballpark can help define an area and be the primary attractor, other community serving destinations can help create a more year-round destination and help to activate the area on non-gamedays. • Make multimodal connectivity safe and efficient, on gamedays and non- gamedays. While most visitors may still drive to the game, providing safe and convenient options for people to walk, bike, and take transit can benefit both gameday traffic operations and the neighborhood on non-gamedays. • Adaptative Reuse of existing infrastructure. Thinking creatively about existing infrastructure can help add to an area’s sense of place by adding an element of originality to an area. Projects can include the reuse of existing ROW or other urban utility infrastructure. © TripAdvisor OKC Dodgers Baseball Game (© nbykzs168.com)Winter Festival at Bricktown Ballpark COMMUNITY EXPLORATION & ANALYSIS | CASE STUDIES35 COMMUNITY PROFILE © TripAdvisor EL PASO – SOUTHWEST UNIVERSITY PARK LOCATION: El Paso, Texas CITY POPULATION: 682,669 *Table 3.4 shows comparison to Salt Lake Ballpark Neighborhood Opened on the edge of the Downtown area, El Paso’s ballpark case study highlights successes in integrating and celebrating the community’s culture through public art and activated public spaces. The ballpark is also on a challenging site, segregated from the surrounding neighborhoods by a freeway and heavy rail lines, causing the City and its partners to think creatively how they enhance the gameday experience of getting to the stadium, while also improving neighborhood mobility. Key Takeaways • A ballpark is not enough. From an economic development and redevelopment perspective, Southwest University Park confirms what many other Cities have encountered when building a new sports facility: that while it can help kick start or accelerate economic development, in and of itself the ballpark is not enough to be the sole driver for an area’s revitalization. • Strategic connectivity investments can go a long way. The connectivity of the area surrounding Southwest University Park suffers from a range of transportation barriers such as freight rail tracks and a major freeway. The City has focused on improving a few strategic connections to the ballpark, rather than improving every street in the area. The Durango Street overpass and the Missouri Road shared street are two examples of those strategic investments to enhance immediate ballpark connectivity. COMMUNITY EXPLORATION & ANALYSIS | CASE STUDIES 36 COMMUNITY PROFILE MEMPHIS – AUTOZONE PARK LOCATION: Memphis, Tennessee CITY POPULATION: 650,618 POPULATION RACE & ETHNICITY: *Table 3.4 shows comparison to Salt Lake Ballpark Neighborhood Home of the Memphis Redbirds, the AutoZone ballpark is renowned for its retro design, borrowing design elements from the surrounding historic architecture, and the efforts to integrate with and enhance the surrounding neighborhood. The ballpark won a Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) Charter Award for the way in which the ballpark laid the groundwork for kickstarting community revitalization and the creation of a ballpark district. The Ballpark District was a recipient of an Urban Land Institute (ULI) Award for Excellence in 2002 as Downtown Memphis developed into an enhanced neighborhood. Key Takeaways • Not a ballpark, a ballpark district. What makes AutoZone Park a standout is that it was not designed simply as a ballpark. The ballpark was conceived as a “Ballpark District” including dense multifamily development, new office buildings, a minor league baseball museum, a public elementary school (important for attracting families with children to downtown), and the adaptive reuse of the upper stories of an old YMCA building to lofts, along with the reuse of other historic buildings. • Ballpark as public space. The entry plaza, diagonally across an intersection from the landmark Peabody Hotel, provides a place for people to enjoy music, food, and entertainment before and after baseball games, and it functions as a gathering place at other times. The baseball team and the city both work to activate these spaces on gamedays and non-gamedays alike. • Parking as an activator. Rather than rely on a massive parking structure/lot, fans can find about 6,000 parking spaces within four blocks of the ballpark. The parking strategy works well as people can find less expensive parking further from the ballpark and as they stroll to and from the game they help to animate the streets. Memphis AutoZone Park (© Stadium Journey) COMMUNITY EXPLORATION & ANALYSIS | CASE STUDIES37 SUMMARY The three case studies highlight different design, policy, and program initiatives that have helped activate, connect, and integrate ballpark areas and the neighborhoods and communities that surround them. The following key takeaways were inferred from the case studies research: • Strategically interconnecting diverse forms of transportation, including “first and last mile” options, is important in creating an accessible ballpark and surrounding neighborhood for both gameday mobility, and neighborhood connectivity on non-gamedays. • Establishing connected, accessible, and pedestrian-oriented land uses and facilities creates a vibrant and engaging experience for visitors and residents in the area. • Holding multiple types of events, including community-driven events within a ballpark area, such as community movie nights, concerts, or festivals can help engage the surrounding community and enhance surrounding neighborhoods. • Reusing existing buildings and infrastructure can reduce infrastructure costs, enhance the sense of place, maintain neighborhood history, and character, and integrate ballpark design and uses with a surrounding neighborhood. • Establishing unique goals, policies, and regulations can help develop a ballpark neighborhood that complements the area’s desired character. While a ballpark can help spur initial development and investment in an area, development or redevelopment efforts will often require additional supportive policies, financing, programs, and initiatives in order to truly maximize the investment in the Ballpark itself. Mural outside of the Urban Indian Center on 1300 South / GSBS Consulting COMMUNITY EXPLORATION & ANALYSIS | CASE STUDIES 38 Overview Over the course of nine months, the Ballpark Community developed the Ballpark Station Area plan through a consultant-guided process. Because of the constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic, the process was completely virtual except for the final community event. The process included engagement on several levels through live virtual events, one-on-one Stakeholder meetings, small group Steering Committee meetings and online outreach including an interactive map and a bilingual survey. The Community gave input on a future land use strategy and design considerations. The project area is centered on Smith’s Ballpark and the Ballpark TRAX station, an area considered the “Heart” of the Ballpark Neighborhood. The Plan includes guidelines and a vision for the future of the Ballpark neighborhood from I-15 to State Street, 900 South to 1700 South and into the surrounding community. Community Council The public-facing part of the process began in December 2020 with a presentation about the Ballpark Station Area Planning process to the Ballpark Community Council and Ballpark Community. The Consulting team shared the schedule and engagement tools with the community and answered questions, addressed concerns, and provided information to promote community involvement throughout the process. Members from the project team attended the monthly community council meetings to better understand what community members in the Ballpark neighborhood experience and to gain a better understanding of the needs of the area. The draft Station Area Plan and supporting strategies were then presented to the Community during the December 2, 2021 Community Council Meeting for review and before finalizing the project recommendations and concepts. Steering Committee A steering committee was formed to help guide the process, review material, and to act as ambassadors for the Station Area Plan. The four Steering Committee meetings occurred on the evenings of February 4th, March 11th, April 8th, and May 13th, 2021. Steering Committee members were invited from a diverse list of community members provided by the Community Council leadership as well as individuals recommended by other Steering Committee members and the project management group. The Steering Committee included residents, business owners, representatives from Smith’s Ballpark, and local non-profit and community organization leaders. The Steering Committee was responsible for: • Refining the goals and vision for the area • Reviewing case studies for other ballparks • Reviewing existing conditions and help identifying neighborhood needs • Reviewing draft material before Community events and plan finalization Online Outreach PROJECT WEBSITE Several online outreach efforts accompanied the small group Steering Committee meetings, Stakeholder meetings, and community events during the process. A bilingual project website was created as a platform to provide information, alert the community of upcoming events, and to guide participants to an interactive map and idea board, Figure 3.5. The interactive map and idea board encouraged community members to share what they like, dislike, and specific ideas about their neighborhood on a collaborative discussion-based format, Figure x. Comments posted on the interactive map were included in the development of the neighborhood vision and goals as well as in the recommendations developed during the process. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT FIGURE 3.5: INFORMATION PAGE ON THE PROJECT WEBSITE AND INTERACTIVE MAP COMMUNITY EXPLORATION & ANALYSIS | PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT39 COMMUNITY POSTCARD AND SURVEY A bilingual community survey was distributed online to gather values, emerging ideas, and identify the needs of the community. A postcard was sent in February 2021 to every address within the project area and to every address within three blocks outside the project area boundary advertising the Ballpark project and survey, Figure 3.6. The postcard invited community members to the website and provided a call to action to help guide future development in the neighborhood. The City promoted the survey on their social media platforms in addition to the post card. The Ballpark survey received more than 530 responses in the month that it was active. All survey respondents were over the age of 21 with the largest group of participants being between 31 and 40, which is representative of the largest age group in the project area. Demographics for the area show a high number of young children ages 0-14 in the neighborhood, but this number significantly drops in the 15-19 cohort which may account for the lack of response from that group. Figure 3.7 illustrates how residents responded when asked what they like about they neighborhood. FIGURE 3.6: PROJECT POST CARD FIGURE 3.7: SURVEY RESULTS SHOWING WHAT THE BALLPARK COMMUNITY LIKES IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY EXPLORATION & ANALYSIS | PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 40 Area Stakeholders Several stakeholders were identified during the process and invited to two one-on-one meetings to review their experience in the neighborhood, their vision for the area, and to review the draft Plan. Stakeholders included: • The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) • The Salt Lake Bees • An educator small group session • Colmena Group • Nate Wade Subaru • The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City • The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City • CW Urban and Defy Colab • Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Department • The Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities • The Salt Lake City Planning Division • Salt Lake City Housing Stability Division • Salt Lake City Transportation Division Community Events The Community was invited to two Community Events during the process. COMMUNITY EVENT 1 DATE: March 20, 2021 LOCATION: Zoom The first event explored Growth & Economic Development opportunities for the neighborhood, case studies of other ballparks identified in the Case Study element of this document, and barriers and big ideas for transportation and connectivity for the neighborhood. Participants were invited to interact with the Consulting team to develop key ideas and terms for the vision for the future of the Ballpark Area and to identify key public and private actions to achieve the vision. COMMUNITY EVENT 2 DATE: May 22, 2021 LOCATION: Smith’s Ballpark and Watchtower Coffee and Comics The second community event was an in-person open house and provided an opportunity for the community to review and comment on the draft future land use vision. Screenshot from the first virtual community event. Second community event at Watchtower Coffee & Comics. COMMUNITY EXPLORATION & ANALYSIS | PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT41 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK IMPLEMENTATIONPLAN 43 Implementation Period strategies Immediate 2-5 Years 5+ Years Ongoing Take advantage of current development opportunities, existing services, and amenities to enhance neighborhood livability. Implement the goals and strategies identified in the Central 9th Chapter of the Downtown Master Plan, 300 West Corridor Redesign, State Street Project Area Plan, Homeless Resource Centers Neighborhood Action Strategies, Salt Lake City Moderate Income Housing Plan, Salt Lake City Parks & Public Lands Needs Assessment, Citywide Gentrification Assessment & Displacement Mitigation Plan, Growing SLC and the Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan. Update the city’s zoning code and map, as appropriate to implement the provisions of this plan. Amend Section 21A.26.078: TSA Transit Station Area District of the Salt Lake City Municipal Code to include the Ballpark Station Area as one of the existing TSA districts or create a new one if needed. This may include requiring activation of the 1300 South frontage with restaurants, shops, street furniture and trees, implementing streetscape improvements to accommodate pedestrian volumes, allowing heights comparable to heights in other Urban Station Areas, and protect the viewshed of the Wasatch Range from inside Smith’s Ballpark. Evaluate and amend the City’s zoning code and map, as appropriate to include the urban design considerations identified in each of the character areas in this plan. Evaluate and amend the City’s zoning code and map, as appropriate to implement the priorities for the 300 West Character Areas by ensuring that amenities, connections, and services needed to support higher density development are included in development plans for the area, that development proposals include mid-block and other connections to break down current large commercial blocks into smaller, more walkable blocks and that where appropriate, development proposals incorporate access to existing and planned TRAX crossings. Identify opportunities to provide community amenities, shops, and services within the heart for year-round activation. Provide enhanced street and pedestrian lighting to improve safety and visibility. Create a dense urban environment and entertainment zone around the Ballpark. Invest in the station area and around the Ballpark to improve the overall neighborhood and enhance the opportunities in the Heart of the Ballpark. Improve east-west connectivity across TRAX to the north and the south of 1300 South. At a minimum, pedestrian/bicycle crossings should be identified to allow pedestrians and cyclists to move east to west without having to go to 1300 or 1700 South. Install side-loading platforms at the Ballpark TRAX Station. Consider redeveloping the TRAX station parking lot and bus turnaround for higher density uses and to provide neighborhood amenities. Install pedestrian crossings east and west of TRAX on 1300 South on either side of the UTA crossing barrier. Consider redevelopment opportunities for the City-owned parking lot at 1300 South and West Temple, while still allowing public parking land uses, to potentially increase density and improve the urban environment. Install a festival street on West Temple and plazas adjacent to the stadium. Invest in a community amenity which may include a library with the opportunity of additional public space. Integrate greenspace and “green” elements into the urban landscape. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 44 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN45 Enhance public space surrounding the ballpark and include public art and references to historical elements. Designate West Temple between 1300 South and Albemarle Avenue as a Festival Street for non-gameday and gameday activation including farmers markets, community celebrations, food truck festivals and neighborhood concerts. Implement a district-parking strategy that utilizes un-used area parking and parking garages for game days to minimize the need for parking fields in the area. Enhance the ballpark’s relationship with the neighborhood by identifying opportunities to activate the West Temple and 1300 South facades of the stadium on non-game days and incorporate public green space, non-motorized connections, plazas, and similar public spaces around the stadium. If feasible, identify a strategy to bury power lines as development in the Ballpark Neighborhood occurs. Increase connectivity of the neighborhood. Improve overall connectivity and walkability in the area. Study the potential future lane reconfiguration of 1300 South to eliminate or narrow traffic lanes. Conduct: • A safety analysis based on existing conditions that includes any recommended changes to readway. • A traffic analysis. This includes traffic countes, signal analysis, and traffic modeling of how narrowning or eliminating lanes may impact safety, future roadway operations, and access to and from I-15. Utilize existing alleyways, midblock, and truncated connections to create a system of bike and pedestrian pathways through the neighborhood. Implement the planned TRAX line pedestrian crossings to the north of the current Ballpark Station. Widen and enhance sidewalks to improve pedestrian comfort through the addition of street furnishings, pedestrian lighting and a buffer from moving traffic. Implement pedestrian level lighting to improve safety and visibility. Establish specific bicycle routes through the neighborhood according to the Salt Lake City Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan. Reconfigure Ballpark TRAX Station to change from a suburban-style station that has northern platform access only from the east parking lot into an urban-style station that allows access from both the east and west sides of the station. This would include new access at the north end of the platform from Lucy Avenue/200 West on the west side of the TRAX rails. Redevelop part of the current surface parking lots to transit supportive uses. Establish a pedestrian crossing to the east and west of the UTA crossing barrier across 1300 South. Study future crossings south of the 1300 South crossing at the TRAX line. Implementation Period Action Immediate 2-5 Years 5+ Years Ongoing Increase urban design quality. Improve safety. Improve pedestrian experience and safety. Install pedestrian-level street lighting. Require ground level uses in new buildings to incorporate pedestrian-level strategies. Ensure adequate sidewalk width and protection strips on primary walk routes, particularly around the TRAX station. Ensure ongoing maintenance of all facilities to repair uneven sidewalks, functioning signals and frequent trash receptacles. Improve ADA accessibility though sidewalk repair and removal of obstacles. Identify and implement best practices in urban design to improve neighborhood safety. Identify opportunities for interaction. Eliminate “blind corners” or areas. Implement appropriate lighting for safety. Enhance social vibrancy. Support events and placemaking efforts including community art, pop-up events, and temporary food vendors. Enhance greenspace in the neighborhood. Evaluate the opportunity for future green space on the current Public Utilities site if and when Salt Lake Department of Public Utilities moves offices to a new location. Explore options for additional greenspace in the heart of the neighborhood in and around the ballpark. Enhance the urban tree canopy in underserved areas of the neighborhood and require additional street trees and urban greenery with new development. Maintain all green spaces with trash receptacles, pedestrian lighting and pedestrian furniture. Improve the quality of current and future greenspace. Ensure funding for additional maintenance and staffing as additional greenspace is added. Implementation Period Action Immediate 2-5 Years 5+ Years Ongoing IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 46 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN47 Increase affordability and attainability of housing for current and future residents. Provide a diversity of housing types and options for different incomes, familial status, age, and needs. Promote a diversity in the size of new units in the neighborhood to accommodate residents in different stages of life, including families with children. Utilize the RDA State Street Project Area as a tool to capture reinvestment in the neighborhood and help encourage a diversity of housing types. Increase opportunities for home ownership in the neighborhood. Explore alternative options for ownership strategies including land trusts and co-ops . Provide down-payment assistance or other programs for qualifying residents. Mitigate the negative impacts of gentrification as development occurs. Continue to provide and market home repair programs for qualifying residents. Provide education and renter legal assistance to help current renters stay in place. Support development assistance and financing programs to maintain affordability. Preserve existing social services and provide additional services as development occurs to support housing options and access to opportunity at a variety of income levels. Implementation Period Action Immediate 2-5 Years 5+ Years Ongoing APPENDIX AEXISTINGCONDITIONS APPENDIX 50 The Built Environment and Urban Design Land Use The Ballpark neighborhood hosts several uses within the boundaries of the study area, Figure A-1. The area around the Ballpark Stadium includes commercial, single family and multifamily residential, and several industrial parcels. The area has limited options for greenfield development within the project area but has several vacant lots which may support commercial, mixed use, or residential uses. Figure A-1 Current Land Uses Commercial The study area has several types of commercial activity. Commercial activity directly around the Ballpark Stadium includes several convenience stores, a car dealership, a carwash, and a full-service bar and restaurant. Commercial services transition from smaller local businesses on the eastern side of the study area to big box retail along the 300 West corridor. State Street, Main Street, 300 West, 900 South, 1300 South, and 1700 South are important commercial corridors. Each corridor has a unique character. State Street is primarily auto-serving and regional uses, Main Street between 1300 South and 1700 South includes a number of smaller scale local businesses mixed with residential uses. 300 West includes big box stores, light industrial uses, and other auto-serving uses. 900 South, 1300 South, and 1700 South are important east west corridors through the area with a mix of local and auto serving uses. Residential The study area hosts pockets of residential development with varying densities and housing types. The area adjacent to the Ballpark Stadium is a mixture of single family lots directly to the south and high-density low-income housing south of the stadium along West Temple. Single Family Much of the single-family housing stock in the area was built prior to 1950. The housing is primarily masonry structures on small lots. Most of the single family lots are located between Main Street and 200 West. The area directly south of Ballpark Stadium is a mixture of single-family lots. Multifamily Multifamily residential is found throughout the study area. Older multi-family units are interspersed with the single- family developments east of the TRAX line. Newer multi-family units, at higher densities, are found in the existing residential areas but also, increasingly, along the 300 West corridor. Newer multi-family structures are generally of two types: · Four/five stories with structured or surface parking and some amenities. · Townhomes or row homes with a parking garage and multiple living levels. Industrial Many of the industrial properties found in the neighborhood just 10 years ago have transitioned to retail or multi- family residential. The study area retains some industrial uses primarily in the area west of the TRAX line along the 300 West corridor. There are a handful of industrial uses remaining along the State Street corridor. As demand for housing and office space in Salt Lake City continues into the next decade, many of the existing industrial properties are expected to transition to housing, retail, or office uses. Parks, Trails and Open Space The study area includes Jefferson Park and Ballpark Neighborhood Park. Jefferson Park, located in the northern half of the study area east of the TRAX line, includes a detention basin and playground. Ballpark Neighborhood Park, located in the southern half of the study area east of the TRAX line, is a playground and grassy area in front of the Salt Lake Public Utilities facility on West Temple. According to the city’s recent parks planning effort. The neighborhood is underserved for parks and open space. Vacant There is limited vacant property in the study area. New development opportunities focus on redevelopment of underutilized parcels including parking lots and industrial properties. Community and Non-Profit There are several community and non-profit uses in the study area including the Gail Miller Homeless Resource Center, the Urban Indian Resource Center, the Pride Center, Horizonte alternative high school, Challenger private school, a fire station, Smith’s Ballfield, and the Salt Lake Public Utilities facility. Although the study area includes several community and non-profit uses, there are no community gathering facilities such as a community center or library. APPENDIX BHIGHEST & BEST USE ANALYSIS APPENDIX 52 Introduction This Market Analysis was conducted to explore the existing conditions regarding the Salt Lake City Ballpark Station Area neighborhood and to understand future projections to help inform the neighborhood planning process. This chapter identifies existing conditions and demographics, describes current physical, social, and economic conditions; and highlights key assets, challenges, and opportunities. Exhibit A APPENDIX53 Population Ballpark neighborhood households are: · More diverse, · Smaller, · Younger, and · More likely to rent than households in the rest of Salt Lake City, the County, and the State of Utah. There are an estimated 4,137 people living in 1,854 households within the study area boundaries. The population is projected to increase by approximately 2,400 people by 2040. At current household sizes this is an additional 1,100 dwelling units in the next 20 years. Based on availability of developable land and the mix of land uses, actual growth could be even higher. The State of Utah has been one of the fastest growing states since the 2010 Census in terms of percent growth, as evidenced by the roughly 1.5% annual population growth from 2010 to 2019. According to the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute at the University of Utah (Gardner Institute), the 2019 population of Utah has reached 3,220,262 residents. Net migration to Utah has been accelerated by international and national interests in the economy, quality of life, availability of jobs, and educated workforce. The Gardner Institute projects the population in Utah to experience sustained growth at a similar rate over the coming years. Projections have the state reaching an estimated 2020 population of 3,325,425 and growing to a 2030 population of 3,889,310. Ultimately, the State could grow to a population of 4,463,950 by 2040 and 5,017,232 by 2050. The Salt Lake City Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) was home to 1,236,178 residents in 2019 according to the Gardner Institute. The MSA contains both Salt Lake and Tooele Counties. The 1.6% growth experienced throughout the Salt Lake City MSA from 2019 to 2020 brings the current population to 1,255,764, while future growth is anticipated to match or remain just under that trajectory, according to Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) data. Within the MSA, Tooele County is anticipated to grow at a more rapid rate than Salt Lake County, although Salt Lake County’s denser population is anticipated to receive the lion’s share of the population growth. Exhibit B According to the Salt Lake City Department of Economic Development, there are several key drivers that bring business and new residents to the Salt Lake area, including quality of life, business friendly environment, accessibility, low-cost of living, and access to job opportunities. As a result of the aforementioned drivers, amongst other factors; Salt Lake County makes up roughly 36% of the state’s population. The University of Utah estimates Salt Lake County’s 2020 population is 1,181,471 and projects a compound annual growth rate of around 1.5% for the next 15 years. This substantial growth throughout the county will have to be accommodated through an increasingly context-sensitive framework as the available developable land dwindles, and in-fill development starts to take precedence over greenfield development. The study area consists of ~575-acres of fairly dense, mostly built-out commercial and residential development. According to ESRI, the 2020 Study Area population is 4,131. In 2000 the study area had a population of 1,775. Over the next ten years, the study area grew a staggering 74.5% to a population of 3,098. From 2010 to 2020 the accelerated growth continued throughout the neighborhood, but at lower rate of growth of 33.3%, compared to the previous decade. Population projections for the study area encompassing a variety of scenarios and sources are included below. Following a modest 2% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) from the 2020 population of 4,131 yields a 2040 population of 6,138, while the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) projects a 2040 population of more than 10,000 residents. Chart A 2000 2010 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Historical Data 1,775 3,098 4,131 ESRI Projection 4,131 4,734 5,337 5,940 6,543 2% CAGR 4,131 4,561 5,036 5,560 6,138 2.5% CAGR 4,131 4,674 5,288 5,983 6,769 3% CAGR 4,131 4,789 5,552 6,436 7,461 WFRC Projection 4,131 6,504 7,809 9,068 10,021 5,036 6,138 7,461 4,131 7,809 10,021 - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 P o p u l a t i o n Ballpark Study Area Population Projections Exhibit B below illustrates the projected 5-year growth percentage by block group of the study area, and larger influence area. The majority of the study area has been built-out, leaving few greenfield sites remaining to develop. Therefore, it will be critical for future growth to be accounted for in an environmentally, socially, and fiscally sustainable manner to ensure quality growth through creative and adaptive redevelopment. The resulting development will need to accommodate infill. In addition, the continued accommodation of high-density walkable development can allow for responsible growth and increase the population potential. APPENDIX 54 Exhibit C Age The median age of residents throughout the United States continues to grow older, reaching a 2020 median age of 38.2 compared to 37.2 in 2010. Similar trends related to aging populations can be observed throughout Salt Lake City and even the ballpark study area, as communities continue to age and mature through their lifecycles. The median age grew throughout the study area from 28.9 in 2010 to 32.6 in 2020, while Salt Lake City registered a median age of 32.9 Although median age is an important indicator of the demographics of a community, it’s critical to understand the population makeup through a more detailed perspective. A population pyramid provides an avenue to analyze the population in smaller, more digestible chunks. The population pyramid below shows a comparison of gender and age between the Study Area and the City of Salt Lake. This chart reflects a smaller proportion of children within Salt Lake City compared to the Study Area. Chart B Specifically, the ballpark study area has a larger population of young children (0 – 14) compared to Salt Lake City. However, study area has a smaller portion of the population ages 15 – 25, as well as elderly population (65+). In comparison, the chart below compares the ballpark study area, Salt Lake City, and Utah by age. The ballpark study area is closely aligned with both larger regions, differing with a smaller percentage of high school and college aged residents (15 – 24), but possessing a larger number of prime labor force (25 – 44) and older labor force (45 – 64) residents. APPENDIX55 Chart C 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Young (0-14)High School (15-19) College, New Family (20-24) Prime Labor Force (25- 44) Older Labor Force (45- 64) Elderly (65+) Age Cohorts Age Cohort Comparison Ballpark Study Area Salt Lake City Utah Exhibit D Race and Ethnicity According to the U.S. Census, racial and ethnic composition continues to diversify throughout the United States due to net immigration. According to Pew Research, immigrants and their descendants will account for up to 88% of future population growth. Increased diversity contributes to neighborhood culture and character and can even drive merchandising and development patterns. The Ballpark area is diverse, with some similarities to Salt Lake City, with a greater percentage of Caucasian population, and those residents who identified as Some Other Race. The study area is also home to a high percentage of Hispanic residents. The diverse population in the Ballpark area can prove to be an asset in terms of employment, as oftentimes employers will seek a diverse workforce to fill roles. Having a diverse population and skills available to employers can be leveraged as an asset for the community. APPENDIX 56 Race/Ethnicity Ballpark Study Area Salt Lake City Percentage Difference Percent Percent Caucasian 72.6%70.9%-1.7% African American 2.4%3.5%1.1% American Indian & Alaska Native 0.0%1.3%1.3% Asian 4.6%6.2%1.6% Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Island- er 0.6%2.1%1.5% Some Other Race 18.2%11.7%-6.5% Two or More Races 1.5%4.3%2.8% Total 99.9%100.0% Hispanic Origin 22.2%24.0%1.8% Source: 2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, ESRI Table A To further understand the diversity of the Ballpark area, an analysis of Simpson’s Diversity Index was conducted. Simpson’s Diversity Index measures the diversity of a population in which members belong to a unique group. The analysis measures the racial and ethnic homogeneity of a Census block group. The diversity index does not report which race is dominant in a block group; but these data can be overlayed with the racial makeup in Table A above to get a true understanding. The diversity index includes Hispanic ethnicity as a separate class in its determination. The two block groups of the Ballpark area have Diversity Index scores of 0.38 and 0.34, respectively. Compared to the other block groups in vicinity of the study area, the Ballpark area has a higher level of diversity. The Northwest corner of I-15 and 2100 Fwy is the only area that registers as more diverse but is likely a result of lack of residents and the presence of large commercial/industrial development. Exhibit E - Each of the five race’s percent of the total estimate is squared, and all the percentages are added together. The total of the sum of the square of each percentage forms the Diversity Index (DI). The index values range from 0.2 (most diverse) to 1 (least diverse). For example, a value of 1 indicates there is only one race represented in that block group. The results of the analysis indicate there is an elevated level of diversity within the Ballpark study area, compared to the surrounding area. As a component of the diversity evaluation within the Ballpark study area, an analysis of spoken languages was conducted. The results show an increased level of languages spoken throughout the study area compared to Salt Lake City (STI PopStats). Data provided by Liberty and Whittier Elementary, which includes languages of families, indicate that the majority of alternate languages spoken in the school district include Spanish, Arabic, Burmese, Karen, Somali. Households The Ballpark study area consists of 1,854 total households (ESRI). The average size of households in the study area is significantly smaller at 2.2 people per household compared to the average household size of 3.13 observed throughout APPENDIX57 Salt Lake City and Utah. Throughout the state, 74% of households are considered families, while only 41% of households in the study area identify as families. The average family size of 3.25 is smaller within the study area compared to the average family size of 3.62 throughout the state. Ballpark Study Area Salt Lake City Salt Lake County Utah Total Households 1,854 82,259 397,918 1,050,542 Owner Households 15.3%41.3%61.8%63.1% Renter Households 78.6%51.7%33.2%27.0% Vacant Households 6.1%7.0%5.0%9.9% Families 768 41,258 277,473 781,973 Household Size 2.20 2.41 2.99 3.13 Table B The Ballpark study area consists primarily of renter-occupied housing (78.6%) that is more affordable compared to households observed throughout Salt Lake City and the greater region. For comparative purposes, the average rate of household ownership across the United States is 56%, and across Utah the rate of ownership is even greater at 63% (ESRI). The study area has less vacancy than the state at 6.1% and 9.9%, respectively. The ballpark study area has a disproportionately large number of renter-occupied properties in contrast. A spatial analysis of rental properties was conducted through rental registration data provided by Salt Lake City. The results reveal a high concentration of rental properties amongst the residential development east of 300 W. This data was overlayed on parcel data provided by the County Tax Assessor, illustrating the year that a structure was built on a parcel-by-parcel basis. The results illustrate a correlation between the structures built before 1950 and rental properties. Exhibit F A number of properties have been developed within the study area over the last few years, almost all of which are apartment dwellings, townhomes, or rowhomes. The lack of available land for single-family residential development will likely perpetuate the development cycle, focusing new product deliveries on highly amenitized residential development. Increased opportunities for ownership product would help to balance the existing concentration of rental units and increase investment from both a community perspective, as well as an investor perspective. A review of residential product types including single family residential, townhouse, condo/co-op, and duplex/quadplex (2-4 unit) sold within the ballpark study area over the last 3-years reveals the following (Redfin): · Median Sold Price: $375,000 · Median Square Footage: 1,603 · Median Days on Market: 331 APPENDIX 58 · $/Square Foot: $240 · Over 56% of homes sold were built after 2007 Compared to the same metrics across the greater Salt Lake City market, the homes sold within the ballpark study area sold for a median price that is lower and spent more days on the market. However, the cost per square foot was comparable to the greater Salt Lake City market as a result of the smaller homes in the Ballpark area. The study area is an established community with a defined residential base, yet there is significant opportunity to bolster neighborhood sustainability through infill development. Infill development should optimize existing infrastructure investments and explore strategies to employ efficiencies in land utilization to create greater economies in cost of service and economic impact. There are several areas of the study area that are prime for infill development including along the Main St Corridor, as well as adjacent tracts near established neighborhoods. A significant opportunity exists in redeveloping older industrial type properties near the 300 West corridor. Many of these older properties are underutilized in relation to the value of the land. Aligning new residential development with broader housing choices and amenities will help increase the diversity of existing housing stock in the study area. New development will help stabilize and improve the values of existing housing stock and expand the housing options available to groups of people including first-time homebuyers, young families, and seniors. While single-family units have historically been the preferred housing type for generations, housing preferences continue to undergo a dramatic shift. Increasingly more people are now looking for varied product types in both suburban and urban communities including, townhouses, apartments, age-restricted communities, rowhomes, and brownstones that meet a greater diversity of needs, including lifestyle and financial situations. Educational Attainment According to ESRI, the levels of educational attainment achieved throughout the study area are lower than the City, County, or State. A disproportionate amount of the qualified population (ages 25+) has not completed high school, or only have a high school diploma. Only 15.9% of the population has a bachelor’s degree or graduate degree compared to 48.3% of the Salt Lake City population. Educational Attainment Ballpark Study Area Salt Lake City Number Percent Number Percent Population 25 years and over 2,677 135,589 No High School 115 4.3%6,644 4.9% Some High School 493 18.4%7,729 5.7% High School Graduate 667 24.9%22,779 16.8% Some College 669 25.0%23,050 17.0% Associate’s 308 11.5%9,898 7.3% Bachelor’s 308 11.5%36,067 26.6% Graduate 118 4.4%29,423 21.7% Percent High School Graduate or Higher 77.3%89.4% Percent Bachelor’s Degree or Higher 15.9%48.3% Source: 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, ESRI Table C Income and Employment The incomes observed within the study area are significantly lower than the incomes observed throughout Salt Lake City or the state of Utah. According to ESRI, over 32% of households in the study area make less than $15,000 annually. In contrast, only 6.3% of households throughout the state earn less than $15,000. A large portion (22%) of households within the study area make between $50,000 and $75,000 annually, but only 12% of total households make more than $75,000. Below is a breakdown of incomes observed throughout the study area and comparative geographies. It is important to note that although household income is low, the mean size per household within the study area is small. Therefore, per capita incomes compare somewhat more favorably to the Salt Lake City averages but are still far below. Ballpark Study Area Salt Lake County Salt Lake MSA Utah Median Household Income $26,047 $76,410 $76,256 $73,015 Average Household Income $44,498 $99,988 $99,114 $92,612 Per Capita Income $19,992 $33,095 $32,666 $29,227 Table D Exhibit G APPENDIX59 Throughout the ballpark study area, the primary employment industries are the service industry, retail, and finance/ insurance/real estate (FIRE). While the service industry provides critical services to the public, wages tend to be lower, and less predictable. An analysis of inflow/outflow from the U.S. Census revealed that as of 2018, only 56 residents were employed and living in the study area. An estimated 99% of people employed in the study area live outside the study area and travel in for work, and 96% of residents who live in the study area travel outside for work. 2020 Employed Population 16+ by Industry Ballpark Study Area Salt Lake City Total 1,792 108,869 Agriculture/Mining 2.0%0.5% Construction 5.6%5.3% Manufacturing 9.7%8.3% Wholesale Trade 1.4%1.6% Retail Trade 11.9%8.8% Transportation/Utilities 4.9%4.3% Information 2.6%2.0% Finance/Insurance/Real Estate 7.9%7.2% Services 52.2%58.3% Public Administration 2.0%3.6% Table E The type of employment observed through the built environment of the ballpark study area consists almost exclusively of traditional big-box retail and industrial/commercial to the west of 200 W, and traditional boulevard retail between Main St and State St. The middle portion between 200 W and Main St is characterized by a mix of residential and commercial development. To preserve and elevate employment in the study area, measures should be taken to attract businesses with higher tax bases, such as workforce development areas, business management consultants, or a small business in the FIRE industry to supplement and reinforce the existing workforce. Psychographics Psychographics are critical in understanding a population’s attitudes and interests rather than being limited by “objective” demographics. While demographics can tell us about a household’s size and average income, psychographics can help to paint a picture of why that family may purchase a particular item, or have preferences related to technology. These sorts of insights enable people to find similar-interest households, linking those with similar interests and attitudes, even if they’re from a different community. Below is a summation of the top psychographic segments based upon the percentage of households in the ballpark study area. The full description of each segment can be found in the appendix.1. Set to Impress households consist of nearly one in three residents being age 20 to 34 years old, and over half of the homes are single person and nonfamily households. Income levels are low; many works in food service while they are attending college. Set to Impress residents are tapped into popular music and the local music scene. 2. Metro Fusion households can be characterized as a young, diverse market. They speak a variety of languages, are ethnically diverse, and can be primarily characterized as renters. Many households have young children, work blue-collar jobs, and have lower incomes than average. Challenges and Opportunities Demographics Within the study area there are approximately 4,131 people and 1,854 households. The study area has experienced consistent growth and is expected to continue to grow at an average annual rate of around 2.5%. The average household size within the study area is relatively small, 2.2, especially compared to the household size observed throughout Salt Lake City. The study area population is a good bit younger than the metro-wide population. Given the higher ratio of young residents near the station, the area has a surprisingly high proportion of children (14 and younger). Children make up 23% of the study area, slightly larger than the citywide makeup of 19%. The residents of the study area are predominately white but are more diverse than the City or State makeup. Within the study area, 11% of the population is African American compared to just 3.5% across Salt Lake City. The study area has a significant portion of Hispanic residents, 38%. In contrast, Hispanics make up 24% of the Salt Lake City population. By any measure, incomes throughout the study area are very low. Over 62% of the households earn less than $15,000, well above the citywide proportion of 11%. Assuming households spend one-third of their income on housing before they are cost burdened, the median affordable rent for the area is around $700 per month. It is important to note that although household income is low, the average size per household throughout the study area is small. Commercial and Residential Development The neighborhood fabric – with its proportion of underutilized parcels, non-conforming uses, and older residential and commercial buildings – presents a challenge for the neighborhood. Many underutilized sites have large-footprint commercial buildings or large surface lots that lack street presence and pedestrian experience. These conditions contribute to the lack of identity in the area and discourage walking distances between destinations. However, with participation from property owners, some of these parcels and structures may provide opportunities for redevelopment or net new development. While parking availability is limited throughout the study area, especially on game days, the problem could compound as additional commercial development begins to occur. One solution to this issue could result from shared parking opportunities. Construction of structured parking would serve visitors on the weekend, and as a result, could potentially generate income while the ballpark is closed. For commercial developments that have few employees or peak hours that differ from their neighbors’, smaller shared parking lots could also be utilized. Additionally, adequate signage should be used to direct drivers to public parking lots so that they are not circulating unnecessarily around the ballpark in search of a parking spot. Current uses throughout the study area could better target the needs of residents, transit riders, visitors, and the surrounding community. Nearby commercial and retail development tends to be large-scale, underutilized, and over- parked with large setbacks. Generally speaking, building types should complement each other while providing the rich diversity that is needed for a vibrant community. While these types may vary, the standard of quality can be set and maintained as consistently high by establishing those parameters and following through as the District grows. Southwest of the ballpark, several underutilized parcels present major redevelopment opportunities to incorporate mixed-use development with housing, retail and community amenities. New development and redevelopment will benefit the neighborhood by creating greater community context and pedestrian-oriented design. By filling the gaps in the streetscape and providing destinations that better support community needs, the neighborhood can become a more active and desirable place, not only on gameday. One significant factor in determining whether a site will develop or redevelop is the total assessed value of a parcel – both building and land value combined. The Assessed Value map shows the areas of lowest value by square foot based on parcel-level tax assessor data. The parcels with the lowest value are identified by lighter coloring. Underutilized parcels throughout the study area should focus on incorporating a variety of product types and densities of development to increase the tax base and overall utilization or the parcels. Increased retail offerings should be utilized along key corridors to mitigate retail leakage, while also creating a more defined transition between the commercial and residential uses. A focused approach to incorporate retail in the appropriate locations will protect residents and their homes from undesirable adjacency, while providing an amenity. APPENDIX 60 Exhibit H Residential Market The study area is dominated by rental housing, only 15% of homes are owner-occupied, far lower than local, state, and national home ownership rates. An analysis of previously sold homes in the study area identified 150 sales of multi-family properties in the area over the last three years. The trend shows that the average sale price over the three-year period saw a slight increase and indicates that the majority of homes sold were recently built (constructed 2007 or later). Key Neighborhood Drivers The following assets should be leveraged in future development efforts of the neighborhood: · Smith’s Ballpark – The ballpark is located at the corner of West Temple and 1300 S in downtown Salt Lake City. The ballpark is home to the Salt Lake Bees, who play roughly 70 home games a year. · TRAX Ballpark Station · Salt Lake Community College · Schools Demand Market Supply and Demand The supply and demand analysis focused on identifying market opportunities for various land use typologies within the respective trade areas, and ultimately informed the Ballpark study area. Demand represents the willingness and ability of consumers to purchase a set amount of a good or service at a given price. Supply is the willingness of sellers to offer a given quantity of a good or service for a given price. The delta of supply and demand is the opportunity, or “leakage”. The analysis outlined below included analyses for residential, retail, office, and industrial land uses. Trade Area Development The boundaries of each trade area are influenced by the following factors, which were analyzed in the trade area creation process: · Market Factors are economic conditions that affect the amount (square footage) of existing product, sale and rental rate price, quality, and variety of product types within a defined market. · Physical Barriers include both natural and manmade obstacles that affect access to customers/supplies. Natural barriers in the case of the Ballpark study area could include mountains, lakes, or other natural geographic features. Man-made obstacles include highways, thoroughfares, and the built environment (buildings, drainage, etc.) which can deter customers and, in some cases, prevent access entirely. · Proximity to Population and Job Concentrations can affect the potential number of customers, talent pool, and overall synergies between end users. In most cases, access to population is the most critical component of a business or service and plays the largest role in any type of market implicated decision. · Spending Patterns include the amount, frequency, and distribution of spending that occurs within a trade area. The amount of disposable income, population characteristics, presence of existing users, and general attitudes all affect the way dollars get spent, and where they go. Residential Demand The residential trade area for the ballpark was determined to include the two-county Salt Lake City metropolitan area consisting of Salt Lake and Toole Counties. Residential demand was analyzed through two lenses as part of this effort: renter and owner-occupied units. Demand for residential units in the ballpark area is a function of regional demand being distributed and absorbed across the trade area. The ballpark area is nicely positioned within regional context to capture a portion of this potential based on existing gravity, access to jobs/population, and a variety of other factors. The ballpark area is hindered by physical constraints, a lack of available land, and the existing residential fabric. The number of households in the MSA is projected to grow over 5,850 units a year from a current stock of 397,918 households to 427,192 by 2025. Demand for both owner and renter-occupied units were calculated by accounting for the propensity of existing renters and owners to purchase or rent, as well as net new development from net migration. Based on current and anticipated home ownership and rental rates, there is demand for 62 rental units and 81 owner- occupied housing units that the ballpark area can capture on an annual basis. The total demand for units is broken down further by income-qualified rent and home prices by age groups. The analysis assumes a moderate capture rate of the potential trade area demand, designed to reflect the ballpark area’s potential portion of capture. To calibrate and understand demand at a more nuanced level, growth was anticipated by age groups, as well as APPENDIX61 corresponding income to home value/rent ratios. The tables below illustrate the relationship of income to home value and monthly rental rate. Home Value less than $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $350,000 $450,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $350,000 $450,000 and above Qualifying Income less than $35,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $35,000 $50,000 $75,000 $99,999 $149,000 $200,000 and above Monthly Rent $500 $750 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $750 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 And Up Qualifying Income Less Than $35,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $35,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 And Up The analysis of renter-occupied demand shows the majority of demand (56%) is anticipated to accommodate units that support the market rate of $1,500 + monthly rent. The age group anticipated to generate the most demand is the 35 – 54-year-old age group (34%). The second largest amount of renter-occupied demand is generated by the 65+ age group (20%). The product typology for each of these age groups and price points can vary, based on context. Infill opportunities are well-suited for the denser, established neighborhood context. Garden-style units or even detached units are a logical fit, especially near Smith’s ballpark or the TRAX station. The analysis of owner-occupied demand shows the majority of demand (59%) is anticipated to fall within the $250,000+ range. Similarly, the majority of demand is anticipated to be generated by the 35 – 54-year-old age group (50%). There is also moderate demand (22%) for the age 65+ group. Residential Trends The prevailing residential development trend of the post-World War II era has typically been characterized by the development of center-city neighborhoods and suburbs. These neighborhoods have blossomed into attractive places to live and even raise families for the majority of residents. However, in recent years there has been a paradigm shift towards experiences and amenities over possessions. This includes a shift towards smaller homes with elevated finishes and amenities opposed to livable area. In addition to the growing “quality-over-quantity” mindset, an observable increase in home values when connections to trails, walkability, or access to alternative forms of transportation is present. Additional factors effecting the current (re)development of neighborhoods include the integration of communal gathering spaces, and greater connection to non-residential uses like retail, office, and mixed-use developments. The desire for Increased housing options (typology) and amenities can be observed through an industry shift towards a consumer and market-based response to supplying residential developments with smaller and diversified footprints of residential units. Apartments that have developed through the form of urban, walkable, and high-end vertical development over the past several years have reaped the rewards of having been in the right place at the right time. Fundamental demand for new apartment development is molding the new geography of opportunity as demographics shift and rent-by-choice cohorts expand. An RCLCO study found that nearly 15 percent of renters earning over $100,000 are turning to rental products for lifestyle and convenience. The same study indicated that a growing portion of the population ages 55+ is choosing to rent as well, likely looking to downsize, unlock equity from their homes, as well as the convenience of low maintenance and social freedom. The ballpark neighborhood is an established community with a diversified distribution of land uses, yet there is still significant opportunity to bolster economic sustainability by taking advantage of infill development, especially within the urban context. In terms of economic development, urban/downtown environments including the Ballpark study area offer some of the greatest opportunity in Salt Lake City. A key advantage is the increased operational efficiencies compared to traditional suburban development, which can leverage existing infrastructure to enhance a vibrant, mixed- use destination for the community at large. Office Demand The greater Salt Lake office market was benefiting from the metro’s consistent job and population growth over the past several years prior to the onset of COVID-19. In review of market trends set forth by CoStar, it appears as though the market has fared better than many metros due in part to its well-diversified economy. Targeted employment has continued to develop in recent years from regional efforts to attract advanced manufacturing, aerospace and defense, energy, financial services, life and health sciences, and software & IT sectors. Regional growth in employment can be attributed the locally educated population, low cost of business, regional connectivity, and overall quality of life. Tech companies continue to be an important driver of not just employment but also office leasing, with several signing leases at new developments in the southern submarkets. Submarkets in this area of the metro are seeing major office- using employment gains from the tech sector. Online education company Pluralsight signed a lease for nearly 350,000 SF at the Gardner Company building under construction in Draper. Software companies InMoment and Lucid leased spaces in the south tower of the SoJo Station development. The ballpark study area falls within the midsized Interchange office submarket (CoStar), that contains around 1.6 million SF of office space. The submarket is generally bound between State Street and one block west of I-15 from the northern boundary of 1300 S, and a southern boundary of 3900 S. The vacancy rate has risen significantly over the past 12 months, reaching 6.6%, yet remains in line with the long-term average. There is 150,000 SF of office product under construction at 2200 S Main St, representing the most space under construction in the submarket for more than a decade. This represents a turnabout from the recent trend, as the last office building constructed here delivered more than five years ago. Some of the largest buildings in the submarket include Timesquare 5, Ikon building, Plaza 2100 and the Main St building. Average rents remain on the lower end of the market at a rate of $18.85/SF, mainly due to older construction. The analysis below uncovers that the ballpark can harness demand for over 15,000 SF of additional office development based on a conservative capture rate of the greater Salt Lake market. The majority of demand is anticipated to be generated from turnover of existing corporate users. Creating a corporate destination within the ballpark area would take advantage of accessibility, visibility, and adjacency to the TRAX station from a regional perspective, while providing workers with an amenity in the form of sports and an active neighborhood. APPENDIX 62 Ballpark Area Office Demand Analysis Firms Employees Employees/Firm Finance & Insurance 2,345 26,642 11 Real Estate 2,012 15,017 7 Professional, Scientific & Tech Services 3,721 47,717 13 Management of Companies & Enterprises 84 342 4 Health Services 3,469 98,560 28 Arts & Entertainment 661 11,643 18 Total 12,292 199,921 16 Avg. SF per Employee 150 Total Office SF 76,039,052 Avg. Submarket SF Absorption (10-year Average) (88,694) Potential Office SF Absorption -88,694 Estimated Subject Site Capture Rt.1% Potential Capture SF from Absorption -887 Potential Turnover 1% Potential Turnover SF 380,195 Avg. Vacancy Rate 7% Total Occupancy from Turnover 355,102 Estimated Subject Site Capture Rt.5% Potential Capture SF from Turnover 17,755 Total Potential Demand SF 16,868 Source: ESRI, CoStar, Catalyst Table F In review of various corporate/office developments throughout the Salt Lake market, several successful developments were identified and examined to understand the components of success. One of these developments is Cottonwood Corporate Center, located at the mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon, one of Salt Lake City’s most prestigious office locations. Designed by GSBS Architects, the property boasts spectacular views of both the canyon and the Salt Lake Valley. Nestled at the foot of the Wasatch Mountains, the four-building, Class A suburban office campus offers views of nearly the entire Salt Lake Valley. With easy access to the I-215 freeway, the campus is just 20-minutes away from downtown Salt Lake City, Park City and the Salt Lake International Airport. Cottonwood Corporate Center’s proximity to four ski resorts, several premier hotels, and many popular dining options makes it an ideal location for work and play. The development is buffered from the surrounding residential development on all sides by a pedestrian path and a tree- liner that serves both as an amenity and buffer to the increased density of development. Similar to Cottonwood Corporate Center, River Park Corporate Center is a suburban Class A master-planned development with over 1.7 million square feet of office. Access via I-215 in the southern portion of the valley allows access to downtown, Salt Lake International Airport, and several recreation destinations. One of the defining characteristics of the River Park development is the integration of the natural environment to the east. The Jordan River flows by parallel to the development as serves as a natural amenity to workers, as well as a buffer to the residential development to the east. Irvine Office Park in Draper represents another marquee development in the south valley, with over 540,000 SF of Class A office space under development. “Irvine Office Park offers unmatched access to major freeway and arterial systems in the heart of Silicon Slopes,” said Brandon Fugal, chairman of Colliers International in Utah. “This world-class facility not only provides prominent visibility along Utah’s major transportation corridor but also offers easy access to key amenities and services.” The Park is ideally positioned at the intersection of I-15 and Bangerter Highway, creating one of the most accessible developments along the Wasatch Front. Retail Primary Trade Area Understanding the characteristics and context of a trade area enables city leaders, planners, and developers to understand the purchasing power for the ballpark study area retail market and further understand the customer base for the region. A trade area will be impacted by competing trade areas and other shopping substitution options, and be impacted by access and mobility and barriers such as lakes, highways, railroads, airports, etc. In January 2021, Catalyst conducted a customer intercept study that included nearly 8,500 unique samples. These samples were collected from Smith’s Ballpark and Common Evening Locations (C.E.L) were derived from the samples and geocoded to statistically construct the Primary Trade Area. Catalyst utilized a conservative 63.9% capture rate of the total samples to define the Primary Trade Area. Due to the regionality of Smith’s ballpark, the resulting trade area is reflective of a large destination- based population, served by an area covering much of the metro area. The population of the PTA is greater than 1.175 million residents, and some of the key statistics of the PTA are reflected below: · Population – 1,175,340 · Households – 394,894 o Owner-occupied – 61% o Renter-occupied – 34% o Vacant – 4.5% · Median Household Income - $74,743 · Average Household Income - $96,702 · Median Home Value - $334,229 · Per Capita Income - $32,519 · Median Age – 32.8 · % Population 18+ - 71% Exhibit I APPENDIX63 Retail Demand The ballpark area is positioned in the heart of the increasingly competitive Salt Lake valley retail market. The more immediate market is observable halfway between Salt Lake City’s CBD and I-80. The ballpark’s competitive edge within the market is derived from the physical location, access to transit, and the established surrounding neighborhood. A key advantage of the neighborhood is the position within the regional population being served by the ballpark’s goods and services. It’s vital that future economic development efforts continue to leverage and provide not only for the local population, but the larger regional population being served by the study area. To calculate potential demand in square footage, Catalyst analyzed leakage within the PTA (potential demand in dollars less the existing supply in dollars.) The result is retail gap or “leakage”, the amount of dollars being spent on retail categories outside of the community. To calculate demand in square footage, Catalyst analyzed retail leakage within the PTA including the estimated individual demand generated from the regional student population, local workforce, commuter traffic, visitor, and residential drivers, and converted the amounts to square footage based on extensive industry knowledge and experience. The regional population of the PTA represents one of the largest drivers of retail demand for communities, especially. Based upon the growing population and high median household income within the PTA, there is a total retail Purchasing Power of over $82T. Purchasing power is the populations ability to purchase goods and services based on income and population. Research from the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) found that on average people spend 24% of their total income on retail goods and services. While the amount of retail leakage within the PTA indicates oversaturation in a number of categories, there are a number of categories that are underserved, and some that are more resilient towards market factors and oversaturation. Destination-oriented retail developments tend to be more resilient to oversupply, due to the regional population they serve, opposed to depending on neighborhood residents. The Ballpark study area is positioned to capture a large percentage of commuters passing by, especially on game-day. With the ample connectivity to the rest of the region via I-15, State Street, 1300 S, and TRAX, the ballpark study area is uniquely positioned to funnel and capture retail gravity along these transportation routes as the metro population continues to expand. Gateway features can be an integral part of a community which help define boundaries and celebrate its identity. Several key intersections and locations in the Ballpark area should be targeted as gateway opportunities and can be enhanced through theming, branding, wayfinding, and landscaping. These locations primarily exist when entering the study area along 1300 S, State St, and Main St, but also at major intersections, and where 1300 S and the TRAX station intersect. The perception of the community, its ability to attract and retain interest, and establish a unique and vibrant place, is often shaped by the quality and experience of key thoroughfares. Currently, commuter demand is responsible for generating more than 50,000 square feet of retail demand alone. Workforce generated demand represents a strong opportunity and existing component of the overall retail demand, especially with regards to daytime population and goods and services that facilitate the workers’ life. Increased corporate presence will allow the study area to remain active throughout the day, supporting goods and services, while creating partnerships between the community and employer. The regional and local workforce surrounding the ballpark area has generated more than 44,000 square feet of unmet demand. Typical goods and services that are driven by workforce and commuters generally include: Grocery stores, Health and beauty stores, Gas stations, General Merchandise stores, Office Supply stores, Sporting Goods stores, and Restaurants and eating establishments. Based on the categorical demand generated by the residential, commuter, and workforce components, there is nearly 232,000 square feet of unmet retail demand. To harness this demand, several key categories have been identified in the following bullets, while the whole analysis can be observed below: ● Department Stores ● Grocery Stores ● General Merchandise Stores ● Health and Personal Care Stores ● Full and Limited-Service Restaurants The table below summarizes the overall demand to be taken advantage of throughout the trade area. Potential Supportable Retail Square Footage by Retail Category Category NAICS Student Workforce Commuter Residential Total Auto Parts, Accessories & Tire Stores 4413 584 - 1,299 - 1,883 Furniture Stores 4421 - - - - - Home Furnishings Stores 4422 - - - - - Electronics & Appliance Stores 4431 108 1,885 1,635 457 4,085 Bldg Material & Supplies Dealers 4441 - - - - - Lawn & Garden Equip & Sup- ply Stores 4442 - - - 6,009 6,009 Grocery Stores 4451 718 3,941 4,647 85,387 94,694 Specialty Food Stores 4452 - - - - - Beer, Wine & Liquor Stores 4453 - - - - - Health & Personal Care Stores 446,4461 476 7,605 1,635 - 9,716 Gasoline Stations 447,4471 - - 21,642 18,743 40,385 Clothing Stores 4481 204 1,418 1,784 - 3,406 Shoe Stores 4482 374 1,950 3,270 - 5,594 Jewelry, Luggage & Leather Goods Stores 4483 178 1,486 1,557 - 3,221 Sporting Goods/Hobby/Musi- cal Instr Stores 4511 - 845 1,635 - 2,480 Book, Periodical & Music Stores 4512 - - - - - Department Stores Excluding Leased Depts.4521 - 2,535 1,635 - 4,170 Other General Merchandise Stores 4529 - 11,700 2,453 - 14,153 Florists 4531 - - - - - Office Supplies, Stationery & Gift Stores 4532 - 2,860 1,635 - 4,495 Used Merchandise Stores 4533 - - - - - Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers 4539 - - - 21,253 21,253 Full-Service Restaurants 7221 450 3,716 2,750 - 6,916 Limited-Service Eating Places 7222 407 5,005 3,896 9,308 Special Food Services 7223 - - - - - Drinking Places - Alcoholic Beverages 7224 - - - - - Total Demand (SF) 3,499 44,946 51,473 83,061 231,768 Table G APPENDIX 64 Retail Trends The ballpark study area falls within the midsized Interchange retail submarket (CoStar), that contains over 4.3 million SF of retail space. The submarket is generally bound between State Street and one block west of I-15 from the northern boundary of 1300 S, and a southern boundary of 3900 S. Although the submarket is home to a fairly dense amount of retail development, it only constitutes a small percentage of the metro area’s 70.8 million SF of retail. Although retail developments have experienced increased vacancy over the past 12 months, the Interchange submarket has a vacancy rate of 3.2%, remaining under the long-term average of 5.2%. Some of the largest developments in the submarket include the RC Willey building, Wal-Mart Supercenter, Sam’s Club, I-15 marketplace, and Lowe’s. Average rents remain steady on the lower end of the market at a rate of $16.28/SF, mainly due to older construction and lack of construction. Example Destination Districts in the Region In reviewing various retail developments throughout the Salt Lake market, several successful developments were identified and examined to understand the components of success. One of these developments is commonly referred to as 9th & 9th, located at the intersection of 900 S and 900 E, just 2 miles from Smith’s Ballpark. This area represents a quality example of merchandising, and appropriate neighborhood integration. The unique merchandising creates gravity for both neighborhood-serving and destination-based customers. Unique concepts represent a thoughtful approach to serving the immediate community, while simultaneously enticing residents from miles away to come shop and spend their energy within the district. Another key to success for this development is the integration to the existing neighborhoods on all corners. Appropriate building scale, urban form, and connectivity make it approachable, and create a seamless transition from surrounding the residential fabric. Downtown South Salt Lake is characterized by the land stretching from State Street to I-15 and I-80 to 2100 South as the neighborhood’s boundaries. Similar to Sugar House, Downtown South Salt Lake offers a mix of living, dining, drinking, and shopping that differentiates the neighborhood from other districts, and serves both a local and regional population. Downtown South Salt Lake is served by TRAX and the S-Line streetcar, as well as highway access and via State St. As Downtown South Salt Lake continues to grow and develop it will become even more destination based, serving a large regional population. Perhaps one of the most notable developments in the entire Salt Lake valley is Sugar House. Teaming with life and opportunities for living, shopping, dining, drinking, and trail-running, Sugar House represents one of the premier destinations in Salt Lake City. Sugar House has unmatched merchandising that appeals to both neighborhood residents, and residents of the greater Metro. Local shops, restaurants, and bars provide neighborhood hangouts for locals, and unique experiences for residents traveling up to an hour. Sugar House’s integration of parks and open space as well as residential fabric is a key component of the livability, connectivity, and quality of life that makes it such a destination. Program Justification Owner-Occu- pied Residential Renter-Occu- pied Residential Retail Office Demand High High Moderate Moderate Opportunities Strong popu- lation growth and regional job market create high demand for quality housing. Owner-occu- pied would be a deviation from existing neighborhood conditions. Infill. Mixed-use. Quality product that connects and accentuates the existing neighborhood fabric. Connec- tivity and open space are highly desirable ame- nities. Access to a largely regional population, as well as neigh- borhood. Grow- ing population and incomes will create demand for additional retail. Gameday programming and destination uses. Access to dense, regional population. Access to airport and Interstate. Es- tablished industries. Challenges Maintaining the integrity and quality of existing neigh- borhoods. Affordable mid- rate housing to accommodate local workforce Creating bal- anced neigh- borhoods and placement of strategic higher density product so that the mar- ket is not over built Changing retail desires and e-commerce will impact retail development. Merchandising needs to serve a regional popu- lation as well as neighborhood. Smaller market size. Constrained growth opportunities for larger corporate. Less connection to natural environment when compared to other Class A corpo- rate campus. Target Market rate. In- fill. High-density High quality projects of ~10 units. Regional retail, entertainment, restaurants. Midrise, garden, corporate campus. Planned SF XX Units under construction XX Units under construction 140,000 SF under construc- tion, but 0 SF in submarket 150,000 SF under construction in sub- market Target Market Values $200K +$1,500 +/month +/- $16/SF in submarket and +/- $19 in market +/- $19/SF in sub- market and +/- $23 in market Absorption Demand for 81 units annually Demand for 62 units annually Demand for nearly 230,000 SF across all categories Demand for 17,000 SF annually APPENDIX CTRANSPORTATIONANALYSIS APPENDIX 66 May 2021 093684000 Copyright © Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. !!""##$$%%&&&& !!""##$$%%##""&&''%%(())$$**%%++""####,,""--&&%% !!$$""$$))..//%%""--''""%%,,##""//%% %%""##''(())**""%%##%%++**''&&'',,%%--**""..&&##''##//00((++((&& ,,11++((%%++''22&&33**''!!++%%++**''((&&&&&& && && && && !!""##$$%%""##&&''(())""**'' '' !!""##$$%%""##&&''++,,**'''' 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 && !!""##$$%%&&&& && && && && !!""##$$%%##""&&''%%(())$$**%%++""####,,""--&&%%!!$$""$$))..//%%""--''""%% ,,##""//%% && %%""##''(())**""%%##%%++**''&&'',,%%--**""..&&##''##//00((++((&& ,,11++((%%++''22&&33**''!!++%%++**''((&& %% %% %% !!""##$$%%""##&&''(())""**'' !!""##$$%%""##&&''++,,**'' Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 111 East Broadway Suite 600 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 385 212 3176 APPENDIX67 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Ó May 2021 093684000 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS --.. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 //.. EXISTING PLANS AND STUDIES ................................................................................................ 2 /.-. State Street CRA Plan .................................................................................................... 2 /./. WFRC RTP 2019 – 2050 ............................................................................................... 3 /./.-. Active Transportation Projects ............................................................................. 3 /././. Transit Projects .................................................................................................... 4 /./.0. Roadway Projects ................................................................................................ 5 /.0. Growing Salt Lake City – A Five Year Housing Plan ...................................................... 5 /.1. Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan ................................................................................. 5 /.1.-. Active Transportation ........................................................................................... 6 /.1./. Transit .................................................................................................................. 7 /.2. Salt Lake City Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan ....................................................... 7 /.2.-. Pedestrians ........................................................................................................ 10 /.2./. Bicycling ............................................................................................................ 10 /.3. Plan Salt Lake .............................................................................................................. 13 /.4. Salt Lake City Central Community Master Plan ........................................................... 14 /.5. Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan ................................................................... 16 00.. EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... 18 0.-. Annual Average Daily Traffic ........................................................................................ 18 0./. Speed Limits ................................................................................................................. 20 0.1. Crash Analysis ............................................................................................................. 21 0.2. Transit Analysis ............................................................................................................ 25 0.4. Active Transportation Facilities .................................................................................... 26 0.6. Recommended Future Projects .................................................................................... 28 0.--. Field Visits ................................................................................................................ 30 APPENDIX 68 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page ii 0.-/. Network Deficiencies and Gaps ................................................................................ 34 11.. KEY TAKEAWAYS .................................................................................................................. 35 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - SAP Study Area ........................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2 - State Street CRA Plan Study Area ............................................................................... 2 Figure 3 - WFRC RTP 2019-2050 Active Transportation Projects ............................................... 3 Figure 4 - WFRC RTP 2019-2050 Transit Projects ...................................................................... 4 Figure 5 - WFRC RTP 2019-2050 Roadway Projects .................................................................. 5 Figure 6 - Future Transit Network ................................................................................................. 7 Figure 7 - Bus Stop Amenities ...................................................................................................... 7 Figure 8 - Pedestrian and Bicyclist Preferences ........................................................................... 9 Figure 9 - Pedestrian Recommendations ................................................................................... 10 Figure 10 - Existing Bicycle Network .......................................................................................... 11 Figure 11 - Short Term Bicycle Recommendations .................................................................... 12 Figure 13 - Central Community Future Land Uses ..................................................................... 15 Figure 14 - People's Freeway Neighborhood ............................................................................. 16 Figure 15 - 2017 Historical AADT Volumes ................................................................................ 18 Figure 16 – 20-Year AADT Growth ............................................................................................. 19 Figure 17 - Speed Limits ............................................................................................................. 20 Figure 18 - Overall Crashes (2015-2020) ................................................................................... 22 Figure 19 - Pedestrian Crashes (2015-2020) ............................................................................. 23 Figure 20 - Bike Crashes (2015-2020) ....................................................................................... 24 Figure 21 - Existing Transit Network ........................................................................................... 25 Figure 22 - Existing Pedestrian Network .................................................................................... 26 Figure 23 - Existing Bike Facilities .............................................................................................. 27 Figure 24 - WFRC Planned Active Transportation and Transit Projects .................................... 28 Figure 25 - Other Future Recommended Projects ...................................................................... 29 Figure 26 - Improper Bike Racks as Ballpark Station ................................................................. 30 Figure 27 - Illegal Midblock Crossings of 1300 South ................................................................ 31 Figure 28 - Poor Sidewalk Conditions along 300 West .............................................................. 32 Figure 29 - Narrow Sidewalk with Obstructions along 300 West ................................................ 33 APPENDIX69 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Ballpark SAP Crash Analysis ...................................................................................... 21 Table 2 - Ballpark Station Ridership Data ................................................................................... 25 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Crash Data Summary Report LIST OF ACRONYMS AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic ADA Americans with Disabilities Act CRA Community Reinvestment Area SAP Station Area Plan TDM Travel Demand Model UDOT Utah Department of Transportation UTA Utah Transit Authority WFRC Wasatch Front Regional Council 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 1 !!"" INTRODUCTION An important aspect of developing a Station Area Plan (SAP) is understanding the existing conditions around the transit station. This document provides a detail analysis of the existing conditions of the transportation network for the Salt Lake City Ballpark SAP. The SAP study area is bounded by I-15 on the west, 900 South on the north, State Street (US 89) on the east, and 1700 South on the south, as shown in Figure 1. This chapter of the Ballpark SAP includes a review of existing plans and previous studies, an overview of the existing mobility landscape and connectivity, crash analysis and safety, and identifies deficiencies and gaps within the transportation network of the neighborhood. All modes of transportation were considered as part of the analysis including vehicles, transit, bicyclists, pedestrians, mobility assistance devices and micromobility which accounts for modes like motorized scooters and skateboards. Figure 1 - SAP Study Area APPENDIX 70 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 2 ##"" EXISTING PLANS AND STUDIES This section of the document presents a brief overview of known plans and studies related to the Ballpark SAP study area. The overviews are focused on how the particular plans and studies relate to the transportation network. Understanding what has be accomplished in other plans and studies ensures that the Ballpark SAP fits into the greater context of Salt Lake City (The City) and doesn’t create friction with the overarching goals and plans of the City. Summaries are provided for the following plans and studies: § State Street Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) Plan (Draft) § Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 2019-2050 (2019) § Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan 2018-2022 (January 2018) § Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan (2017) § Salt Lake City Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan (December 2015) § Plan Salt Lake (December 2015) § Salt Lake City Central Community Master Plan (November 2005) § Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan (April 1996) 44556655 State Street CRA Plan The State Street CRA Plan encompasses the area shown in Figure 2. The plan focuses on how to use funding to invest in State Street and the surrounding areas. The SAP study area falls within the State Street CRA Plan study area. They key takeaway from the State Street CRA Plan related to the Ballpark SAP is to promote high-quality transit-oriented development near Ballpark Station. Figure 2 - State Street CRA Plan Study Area 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 3 44554455 WFRC RTP 2019 – 2050 The WFRC 2019-2050 RTP outlines recommended upgrades to highway, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation facilities. These recommended upgrades are identified for 2019 through 2050. The study area for the WFRC RTP is the urbanized areas of the City, West Valley City, Layton, and Ogden. Projects that are part of the WFRC RTP that fall within the ballpark station area are outlined in the following subsections. //..//..--.. Active Transportation Projects Figure 3 shows the recommended active transportation projects planned for the SAP study area from the WFRC RTP. Figure 3 - WFRC RTP 2019-2050 Active Transportation Projects APPENDIX71 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 4 //..//..//.. Transit Projects Figure 4 shows the recommended transit projects planned for the Ballpark SAP study area from the WFRC RTP. Figure 4 - WFRC RTP 2019-2050 Transit Projects 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 5 //..//..00.. Roadway Projects Figure 5 shows the recommended roadway projects planned for the Ballpark SAP study area from the WFRC RTP. Figure 5 - WFRC RTP 2019-2050 Roadway Projects 44557755 Growing Salt Lake City – A Five Year Housing Plan Growing Salt Lake City is a five-year housing plan for the City from 2018 to 2022 and was published in January 2018 by the Department of Community and Neighborhoods. The plan contains several topics including updates to zoning code, preservation of affordable housing, and equitability, fair housing, and transportation. This plan talks about the close relationship of transportation, transit-oriented development, affordable housing. The plan focuses on how to make the City affordable so that more individuals and families can find housing there. With the anticipated increase in population comes transportation strains. The plan states that the need to create viable pedestrian, bicycle, and transit options is paramount as the City’s population grows. 44558855 Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan The Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan was adopted in 2017. The plan outlines the history of transit in the City, presents the goals for the transit network in the City, and summarizes actions that can be taken to achieve those goals. The major goals of the plan are to implement a frequent transit network, develop on-demand and employee shuttle programs, develop improved bus corridors, and implement a variety of transit-supportive programs and transit access improvements. APPENDIX 72 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 6 //..11..--.. Active Transportation One of the keys to building a complete transit system, as stated in the plan, is to have a safe and convenient active transportation system connecting people to transit stops and key destinations. Because every transit trip begins and ends with an active transportation trip it is important to have good access to transit. Characteristics of good active transportation access to transit are identified as follows: § Well-marked intersections and mid-block crossings § Traffic calming measures § Exclusive pedestrian phases at intersections § Pedestrian-scale lighting § Wayfinding § Designing for disabilities § Protected bicycle lanes § Protected intersections § Bicycle lanes and boxes § Neighborhood byways § GREENbike § Smart placement of transit stops near bike facilities § Bicycle amenities and parking 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 7 //..11..//.. Transit The identified future transit network from the plan is shown in Figure 6. Existing bus stop amenities are shown in Figure 7. Figure 6 - Future Transit Network Figure 7 - Bus Stop Amenities 44559955 Salt Lake City Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan The Salt Lake City Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan was adopted in December 2015. Major goals of the plan include: § INTEGRATION: Integrate walking and bicycling into community planning to enhance livability, health, transportation, the environment, and economic development. § NETWORK: Develop a safe, comfortable, and attractive walking and bicycling network that connects people of all ages, abilities, and neighborhoods to the places they want to go. § MAINTENANCE: Maintain the walking and bicycling system year-round. APPENDIX73 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 8 § PROGRAMS: Promote the safety and attractiveness of walking and bicycling through education, encouragement, and enforcement programs. § TRANSIT CONNECTIONS: Integrate pedestrian and bicycle facilities with transit routes, stations, and stops. Figure 8 shows results of public outreach surveys on the topic of pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities conducted during the creation on the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 9 Figure 8 - Pedestrian and Bicyclist Preferences APPENDIX 74 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 10 //..22..--.. Pedestrians Recommended pedestrian improvements from the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan that are planned for the Ballpark SAP study area are shown in Figure 9. These recommended improvements include the following: § 1300 South – East-West Pedestrian Priority Corridors § 1700 South – East-West Pedestrian Priority Corridors § Paxton Avenue – Neighborhood Byway (0-10 Yrs) § Paxton Avenue / West Temple Intersection – Crossing Improvements § Kelsey Avenue / Main Street Intersection – Crossing Improvements § Kelsey Avenue / State Street Intersection – Crossing Improvements § Kelsey Avenue – Neighborhood Byway (0-10 Yrs) § Andrews Avenue – Neighborhood Byway (0-10 Yrs) § Andrews Avenue / Main Street Intersection – Crossing Improvements § Andrews Avenue / State Street Intersection – Crossing Improvements § West Temple – Neighborhood Byway (10-20 Yrs) § Multi-Use Trail (10-20 Yrs) from Paxton Avenue to 900 South to the side of railroad Figure 9 - Pedestrian Recommendations //..22..//.. Bicycling The existing bicycle network identified in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan within the Ballpark SAP study area is shown in Figure 10. Short term (0-10 years in the future) and long term (10-20 years in the future) bicycle network improvement recommendations are shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12, respectively. 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 11 Figure 10 - Existing Bicycle Network Short term (0-10 years in the future) bicycle network improvement recommendations include the following: § 900 South – Protected or Buffered Bike Lanes as part of Transvalley Corridor § 1300 South – Bike Lanes § Paxton Avenue – Shared Roadway § Paxton Avenue / West Temple Intersection – Crossing Improvements § Kelsey Avenue / Main Street Intersection – Crossing Improvements § Kelsey Avenue / State Street Intersection – Crossing Improvements § Kelsey Avenue – Neighborhood Byway § Andrews Avenue – Neighborhood Byway § Andrews Avenue / Main Street Intersection – Crossing Improvements § Andrews Avenue / State Street Intersection – Crossing Improvements APPENDIX75 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 12 Figure 11 - Short Term Bicycle Recommendations Long term (10-20 years in the future) bicycle network improvement recommendations include the following: § 1700 South – Protected or Buffered Bike Lanes § West Temple – Part Protected or Buffered Bike Lanes, part Shared Roadway § Multi-Use Trail from Paxton Avenue to 900 South to the side of railroad 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 13 Figure 12 - Long Term Bicycle Recommendations 4455::55 Plan Salt Lake Plan Salt Lake was adopted in December 2015 and gives a vision for the City through the year 2040. The plan gives a framework to prepare the city for the growth that is anticipated to come in future years. The plan includes the following 13 guiding principles: 1. Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunity for social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein. 2. Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around. 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. 4. A transportation and mobility network that is safe, accessible, reliable, affordable, and sustainable, providing real choices and connecting people with places. 5. Air that is healthy and clean. 6. Minimize our impact on the natural environment 7. Protecting the natural environment while providing access and opportunities to recreate and enjoy nature. 8. A beautiful city that is people focused. 9. Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past. 10. Vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural resources that showcase the community’s long-standing commitment to a strong creative culture. 11. Ensure access to all City amenities for all citizens while treating everyone equitably with fairness, justice, and respect. APPENDIX 76 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 14 12. A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and fosters an environment for commerce, local business, and industry to thrive. 13. A local government that is collaborative, responsive, and transparent. Each guiding principal contains targets to be reached by 2040 and several initiatives that can be implemented to help reach the stated targets. Several of these targets and initiatives involve goals related to pedestrian, bicycling, and transit. The 2040 targets related to transportation and mobility are as follows: § Public transit within ¼ mile of all homes § Reduce single occupancy auto trips § Decrease pedestrian, bike, and auto accidents To reach the 2040 targets the following initiatives have been identified: § Create a complete circulation network and ensure convenient equitable access to a variety of transportation options by: § Having a public transit stop within ¼ mile of all residents. § Expanding pedestrian and bicycle networks and facilities in all areas of the City. § Providing incentives for the use of transit. § Increase the frequency and service hours of transit in neighborhoods. § Enhancing the regional transportation networks. § Creating a system of connections so that residents may easily access employment, goods and services, neighborhood amenities, and housing. § Prioritize connecting residents to neighborhood, community, regional, and recreation nodes by improved routes for walking, biking, and transit. § Reduce automobile dependency and single occupancy vehicle trips. § Make walking and cycling viable, safe, and convenient transportation options in all areas of the City. § Prioritize maintenance of existing infrastructure. § Encourage transit-oriented development. § Support and enhance the Salt Lake International Airport as a regional and international amenity. § Collaborate with regional partners to relieve congestion and enhance rights-of-way for alternative modes of transportation. § Enhance rights-of-ways to join, rather than segregate, adjacent neighborhoods. § Incorporate green infrastructure into our rights-of-way and transportation network. § Incorporate pedestrian oriented elements, including street trees, pedestrian scale lighting, signage, and embedded art, into our rights-of-way and transportation networks. 4455;;55 Salt Lake City Central Community Master Plan The City is split up into different planning areas. The central community plan outlines the future plan for one of those areas and was adopted in November 2005. The nine goals of the plan are as follows: 1. Protect and improve the quality of life for everyone living in the community, regardless of age or ability. 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 15 2. Improve and support community involvement, public participation, and neighborhood activism in the Central Community. 3. Provide a basis for funding specific programs that assist housing, capital improvement programs, and public services. 4. Provide opportunities for smarter and more creative development practices to better serve the community. 5. Prevent inappropriate growth in specific parts of the community. 6. Encourage specific types of growth in designated parts of the community. 7. Establish financial incentives to support alternative modes of mobility. 8. Preserve historic structures and residential neighborhoods. 9. Establish recommendations for better coordination and administrative review of construction projects and city applications. Future land uses as laid out in the central community plan are shown in Figure 13. Figure 13 - Central Community Future Land Uses The Ballpark SAP study area falls within a smaller area within the central community plan, the people’s freeway neighborhood, as shown in Figure 14. APPENDIX77 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 16 Figure 14 - People's Freeway Neighborhood Some identified issues facing the People’s Freeway Neighborhood as outlined in the plan include the following: § Address ways of transitioning the northern portion of the neighborhood from the historic character of low-density residential development to one of transit-oriented development. § Improve circulation so it is safe for residents and children who must cross busy roadways to get to school or other public services. § Develop ways to address the isolation between major roadways and improve pedestrian orientation. 4455<<55 Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan The Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan was adopted in April 1996. The plan has an accompanying Transportation Action Plan that was updated in January 2000. The guiding principles set forth in the Transportation Master Plan are as follows: § The City's transportation system will support and encourage the viability and quality of life of its residential and business neighborhoods. § The City will encourage a multi-modal transportation system. Dependence on the automobile as our primary mode of transportation will be reduced by emphasizing other modes. The transportation system will be designed to move people, not just automobiles. § The City will take a leading role in addressing regional land use issues affecting Salt Lake City and their link to transportation impacts along the Wasatch Front. 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 17 § The City will consider the impact of various transportation modes on the environment and the community. § The City will develop funding mechanisms which are equitable and adequate to meet the capital and operational needs of the transportation system. § The City will educate citizens about transportation issues and impacts, and encourage public involvement in the decision-making processes. There are twelve major topics that are covered in the Transportation Master Plan. Each of the twelve topics contains action steps located in the Transportation Action Plan. The twelve topics are as follows: 1. Regional Planning 2. Land Use Planning 3. Street System 4. Transportation Demand Management 5. Parking 6. Public Transportation 7. Bicycles 8. Pedestrians 9. Freight Rail 10. Funding 11. Air Quality 12. Education It should be noted that a new Transportation Master Plan for Salt Lake City is currently being developed. Most of the action steps contained within this current plan have already been achieved or are outdated. No specific items related to the Ballpark SAP study area applicable from the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan. APPENDIX 78 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 18 $$"" EXISTING CONDITIONS An analysis was performed on the existing conditions of the transportation network within the study area of the Ballpark SAP. This analysis includes an overview of traffic volumes, crashes, speed limits, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, connectivity, transit facilities and ridership, future projects, and know deficiencies and gaps in the network. 77556655 Annual Average Daily Traffic WFRC uses a sophisticated transportation and land use model to predict future traffic volumes along roadway segments. This model is known as the Wasatch Front Travel Demand Model (TDM). Using the model, future annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes are forecasted along roadway segments in the Ballpark SAP study area. Figure 15 shows the historical 2017 AADT volumes for the study area. The anticipated growth in AADT over the 20-year period, based on the TDM is shown in Figure 16. Figure 15 - 2017 Historical AADT Volumes 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 19 Figure 16 – 20-Year AADT Growth APPENDIX79 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 20 77554455 Speed Limits Speed limits for the Ballpark SAP study area and surrounding areas are displayed in Figure 17. Figure 17 - Speed Limits 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 21 77558855 Crash Analysis A crash analysis was conducted for the Ballpark SAP study area for the six-year period from 2015 to 2020. Crash data was taken from the Utah Department of Transportation’s (UDOT) Numetric website. The crash analysis looks at total vehicle crash, pedestrian involved crash, and bicycle crashes as seen in Table 1. Crash by severity for total crash, pedestrian crashes, and bicycle crashes are seen in Figure 18, Figure 19, and Figure 20, respectively. The Numetric crash data summary report is included in Appendix A. Table 1 - Ballpark SAP Crash Analysis Crash Type Year Total Crashes Crash Severity Property Damage Only Injury Fatal # % # % # % Pedestrian Crashes 2015 6 0 0% 5 83% 1 17% 2016 18 0 0% 17 94% 1 6% 2017 10 1 10% 9 90% 0 0% 2018 11 0 0% 11 100% 0 0% 2019 17 1 6% 16 94% 0 0% 2020 13 0 0% 13 100% 0 0% Total 75 2 3% 71 95% 2 3% Bicycle Crashes 2015 8 0 0% 8 100% 0 0% 2016 12 0 0% 12 100% 0 0% 2017 8 0 0% 8 100% 0 0% 2018 9 0 0% 9 100% 0 0% 2019 10 0 0% 10 100% 0 0% 2020 5 0 0% 4 80% 1 20% Total 52 0 0% 51 98% 1 2% All Crashes 2015 182 95 52% 86 47% 1 1% 2016 281 142 51% 137 49% 2 1% 2017 229 134 59% 95 41% 0 0% 2018 196 103 53% 92 47% 1 1% 2019 242 133 55% 108 45% 1 0% 2020 176 96 55% 79 45% 1 1% Total 1,306 703 54% 597 46% 6 0% Crash data an associated analysis may be protected under 23 USC 409 APPENDIX 80 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 22 Figure 18 - Overall Crashes (2015-2020) 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 23 Figure 19 - Pedestrian Crashes (2015-2020) APPENDIX81 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 24 Figure 20 - Bike Crashes (2015-2020) 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 25 77559955 Transit Analysis An overview of the existing transit network in and around the Ballpark SAP study area is provided in Figure 21. The overview includes the location of all know UTA transit facilities including bus routes, bus stop locations, light rail tracks, and frontrunner tracks. Table 2 displays the Ballpark Trax Station ridership data for the 3-year period from 2017 to 2019. Figure 21 - Existing Transit Network Table 2 - Ballpark Station Ridership Data Year Average Boardings Average Departures Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekday Saturday Sunday 2017 2,196 1,413 365 1,905 1,372 350 2018 2,071 1,270 377 1,760 1,160 345 2019 1,860 1,620 356 1,533 1,548 313 Average 2,042 1,434 366 1,733 1,360 336 APPENDIX 82 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 26 7755;;55 Active Transportation Facilities The existing conditions analysis identified active transportation facilities within the Ballpark SAP study area. Figure 22 displays the identified sidewalks and marked crosswalks in the study area. Marked crosswalks include both signalized crossings and unsignalized crossings. Figure 23 identifies the various types of bike facilities within the study area. It should be noted that no existing pedestrian count data was available for this area. Figure 22 - Existing Pedestrian Network 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 27 Figure 23 - Existing Bike Facilities APPENDIX83 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 28 7755==55 Recommended Future Projects As documented in Section 2, future active transportation and transit projects were identified in the study area. Figure 24 outlines future recommended projects as identified in the WFRC 2050 RTP. Figure 25 summarizes other recommended future projects as identified in Salt Lake City’s Transit Master Plan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. Figure 24 - WFRC Planned Active Transportation and Transit Projects 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 29 Figure 25 - Other Future Recommended Projects APPENDIX 84 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 30 7755666655 Field Visits Multiple field visits of the Ballpark SAP study area were conducted in an effort to better understand existing conditions. These field visits included walks around the study area to gain a pedestrian’s perspective and driving the roadways to gain a driver’s perspective. The main purpose of field visits was to identify issues that weren’t apparent from a general overview of existing data and studies. The main observation is that the study area is not favorable to active transportation as a transportation mode. Observations included improper bike parking facilities (Figure 26) and the overall lack of bike parking locations, pedestrians crossing midblock without a midblock crosswalk (Figure 27), and narrow sidewalks with obstructions within the walking path (Figure 28 and Figure 29). Figure 26 - Improper Bike Racks as Ballpark Station 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 31 Figure 27 - Illegal Midblock Crossings of 1300 South APPENDIX85 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 32 Figure 28 - Poor Sidewalk Conditions along 300 West 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 33 Figure 29 - Narrow Sidewalk with Obstructions along 300 West APPENDIX 86 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 34 7755664455 Network Deficiencies and Gaps Based on the information collected in the existing conditions analysis, the follow network deficiencies and gaps in the Ballpark SAP study area were identified. § Bicycle § Lack of East-West Bicycle Routes § Lack of Bicycle Parking Racks § Improper Bicycle Parking Options § 1300 South § 300 West § Maintenance of Existing Bicycle Lanes § Bicycle Safety § Pedestrian § Lack of Pedestrian Pathways and Sidewalks Connecting Neighborhoods § Narrow Sidewalks § Sidewalk Obstructions § Pedestrian Lighting § Pedestrians Crossing 1300 South at Unsafe Locations § ADA Issues § Pedestrian Safety § Vehicle § Lack of Shoulder on 1300 South § Vehicle Safety 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 Page 35 %%"" KEY TAKEAWAYS The existing conditions analysis for the Ballpark SAP study area included a review of existing plans and previous studies, an overview of existing facilities, crash analysis, and identifying deficiencies and gaps in the network. All modes of transportation were considered as part of the analysis including vehicles, transit, bicyclists, pedestrians, and micromobility. The SAP study area is bounded by I-15 on the west, 900 South on the north, State Street (US 89) on the east, and 1700 South on the south. The following key takeaways were identified based on the existing conditions analysis. § Look for opportunities to reduce overall vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle crashes § Look for opportunities to improve safety for all road users § Improve the overall pedestrian and bicycling environment. This can be done through a variety of strategies including: § Pedestrian lighting § Wider sidewalks § Remove sidewalk obstructions § Install mid-block crossing on 1300 South west of the Trax Station § Implement additional bicycle lanes § Improve existing bicycle lanes § Provide neighborhood connections § Install bicycle parking racks § Implement applicable items from the existing plans and studies for the study area § Improve accessibility to public transit options in the area APPENDIX87 093684000 Transportation Network Analysis - Existing Conditions 2021-05-26 Existing Conditions Analysis.docx May 2021 APPENDIX &&''''(())**++,,--&&-- CRASH DATA SUMMARY REPORT CRASH SUMM ARY REPORT Ballpark Station Area Crashes (2015-2020) Created on May 25, 2021 Created by Jacob Farnsworth Data extents: January 1, 2015 to December 29, 2020 Applied Filters Total Crashes 1,306 Fatal Crashes 6 UDOT Crash Summa ry Crashes 1,306 100.00% 764 58.50% 163 12.48% 153 11.72% 134 10.26% 80 6.13% 77 5.90% 73 5.59% 116 8.89% Cra sh Severity Crashes 703 53.83% 324 24.81% 239 18.30% 34 2.60% 6 0.46% Injury L evel People Shape: Polygon Year ≤≥2015 - 2020 Total Cra shes Intersection Related Roadwa y Departure Speed Related Distra cted Driving DUI Pedestrian Involved CMV Involved + 5 m ore No injury/PDO Possible injury Suspected Minor Injury Suspected Serious Injury Fatal © Mapbox © OpenStreetMap Improve this map APPENDIX 88 2,623 76.23% 471 13.69% 303 8.81% 37 1.08% 6 0.17% 1 0.03% Manner of Collision Crashes 436 33.38% 329 25.19% 285 21.82% 106 8.12% 70 5.36% 27 2.07% 25 1.91% 18 1.38% 10 0.76% Crash Date Time (Yea r)Crashes 176 13.48% 242 18.53% 196 15.01% 229 17.53% 281 21.52% 182 13.94% 0 0% Roadway Surface Condition Crashes 1,120 85.76% 130 9.95% 27 2.07% 17 1.30% 7 0.54% 4 0.31% 1 0.08% 0 0% Wea ther Condition Crashes 997 76.34% No injury Possible injury Suspected Minor Injury Suspected Serious Injury Fatal Unknown Angle Front to Rear Not Applicable/Single Vehicle Sideswipe Sam e Direction Pa rked Vehicle Head On (front-to-front) Unknown Sideswipe Opposite Direction + 3 more 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 + 6 more Dry Wet Snow Ice/Frost Slush Unknown (retired) Sand, Dirt, Gravel + 8 more Clea r 197 15.08% 63 4.82% 40 3.06% 6 0.46% 1 0.08% 1 0.08% 1 0.08% 0 0% Most Harmful Event Vehicle 2,051 81.94% 111 4.43% 70 2.80% 69 2.76% 50 2.00% 31 1.24% 20 0.80% 19 0.76% 82 3.28% Light Condition Crashes 964 73.81% 244 18.68% 42 3.22% 30 2.30% 16 1.23% 5 0.38% 5 0.38% Cloudy Rain Snowing Unknown Fog, Smog Severe Crosswinds Sleet, Hail + 3 more Collision With Other Motor Vehicle in Transport Collision With Pa rked Motor Vehicle Concrete Barrier Pedestrian Pedacycle Other Fixed Object* Collision Between Motor Vehicle in Transport and Vehicle Cargo/Part or Object Set in Motion by Motor Vehicle Overturn/Rollover + 47 more Da ylight Da rk - Lighted Da rk - Not Lighted Dusk Da rk - Unknown Lighting Da wn Unknown Oth er 0 0.00% APPENDIX DCASE STUDYANALYSIS APPENDIX 90 Salt Lake City Ballpark Station Area Plan Case Study Analysis Stadium Area Activation & Mobility Best Practices January 2020 Prepared By: Page | 1 TT aabbllee ooff CCoonntteennttss II nnttrroodduuccttiioonn .............................................................................................................................. 2 MMaajjoorr LLeeaagguuee EExxaammpplleess:: ............................................................................................................. 3 Boston – Fenway Park ............................................................................................................. 3 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3 Design Features .................................................................................................................. 3 Neighborhood Integration .................................................................................................... 3 Gameday / Non-Gameday Activation ..................................................................................... 4 Chicago – Wrigley Field............................................................................................................ 4 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 4 Design Features .................................................................................................................. 5 Neighborhood Integration .................................................................................................... 5 Gameday / Non-Gameday Activation ..................................................................................... 5 MMiinnoorr LLeeaagguuee EExxaammpplleess:: ............................................................................................................. 6 Oklahoma City – Chickasaw Bricktown Ballpark ........................................................................... 6 Ball Park Facts .................................................................................................................... 6 Development of Downtown .................................................................................................. 7 Gameday/Non-Gameday Activation ...................................................................................... 8 Interconnected Transportation.............................................................................................. 8 Key Takeaways .......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. El Paso – Southwest University Park..........................................................................................11 Ball Park Facts ...................................................................................................................11 Neighborhood Revitalization ...............................................................................................12 Transportation ..................................................................................................................14 Key Takeaways .......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Memphis – AutoZone Park ......................................................................................................16 Ball Park Facts ...................................................................................................................16 Neighborhood Integration ...................................................................................................17 Transportation ..................................................................................................................17 Community Integration.......................................................................................................18 Key Takeaways .......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Summary.................................................................................................................................19 APPENDIX91 Page | 2 II nntt rroodduuccttiioonn Creating thriving and inclusive neighborhoods in areas surrounding major and minor league ballparks is a goal that cities strive to achieve through a variety of infrastructure and non-infrastructure investments . However, achieving this goal is often a challenge. Ballpark architecture and design plays a role in how well it integrates and enhances the surrounding community, but there are a number of other factors extending beyond the ballpark itself that has the ability to help accelerate or facilitate economic and community vibrancy and integrate these otherwise disparate land uses. This exploration of case studies from ballpark areas across the country provides the planning team and the community examples of ballpark design and ballpark district activation strategies and outcomes to understand and identify lessons learned from similar ballparks that might support the vision and goals for the Smith’s Ballpark area . Case studies were selected based on those ballpark areas that are similar in urban scale and context to Smith’s Ballpark, including proximity to high quality transit, and community activation/integration. The initial list of case studies included: • Denver, CO • Toronto, ON • Ogden, UT • Kansas City, MO • St Louis, MO • St. Paul, MN • Minneapolis, MN • Atlanta, GA • Memphis, TN • Boston, MA • Oklahoma City, OK The initial list was paired down and refined with input from the plan technical committee to focus on those case studies that have some of the most valuable lessons learned from similar challenges faced by Smith’s Ballpark neighborhood in Salt Lake City. The technical committee specifically wanted to focus the selection and exploration on ballpark and ballpark areas that • Are experiencing similar challenges to the SLC Ballpark area • Have a mixture of surrounding land uses • Have existing high quality transit connections The final set of detailed case studies explored below are a combination of major league and minor league ballpark areas and consider the challenges faced by these ballparks and their surrounding neighborhoods and the unique strategies employed by these communities to overcome those challenges. Page | 3 MM aajj oorr LLeeaagguuee EE xxaammpplleess:: Boston – Fenway Park Location: Boston, MA City Population : 694,583 Stadium Capacity: 37,305 Opening Date: April 1912 Introduction Fenway Park, located in Boston, Massachusetts, near Kenmore Square has been the home of the Boston Red Sox Since 1912. The stadium has undergone many renovations and transformations through the years but remains the oldest active ballpark in Major League Baseball (MLB). Its constrained location in the dense Fenway–Kenmore neighborhood has necessitated the park to be been renovated or expanded many times, resulting in quirky features including "The Triangle", Pesky's Pole, and the Green Monster in left field. The ballpark is known for providing an intimate fan experience and is the fifth smallest among MLB ballparks by seating capacity, second smallest by total capacity, and one of eight that cannot accommodate at least 40,000 spectators. The Fenway Neighborhood grew up around the stadium and today is one of Boston’s most thriving and walkable urban neighborhoods today. Design Features The irregular shaped city block forced the original ballpark designers to get creative in how they aligned the playing field, grandstands , and concourses. The ballpark’s irregularities coupled with the ballpark’s principles of jewel box architecture has created a memorable design that cannot be recreated. Fenway Park is one of the two remaining “jewel box” ballparks still in use in MLB (the other being Wrigley Field). Jewel box is a term used in reference to ballparks built (or re-built) primarily between 1909 and 1915 that feature a two-tier grandstand design and are often squeezed inside a city block. The jewel box design and context results in significant number of obstructed view seats at the ballpark, due to pillars supporting the upper deck. Fenway’s integration into the irregular city block created the need to incorporate some unique design features such as the “green mons ter”, the 37-foot wall in left field, to compensate for the short outfield dimensions, and the “triangle” – a point where the outfield walls meet in centerfield at an extreme angle, creating a triangle section of seats. These unique features that could be challenges or drawbacks, are what make the stadium so beloved. Neighborhood Integration Fenway Park is located along Lansdowne Street and Jersey Street in the Kenmore Square area of Boston. After the ballpark was built, the neighborhood began to grow rapidly and there were intentional efforts to create buildings around the stadium that meshed with the architecture and height datum that was already created. This created a tight knit relations hip between the park and community, something that is noticeably lacking in most other ballparks throughout the country. The ballpark is the primary draw in the neighborhood, but the character of the area is far more nuanced with myriad of trails, quiet parks, museums, academic institutions and retail opportunities . Additionally, in the past 10 years, the neighborhood has seen millions of dollars in new development, creating an area that attracts students, young professionals, and families alike to live and visit. APPENDIX 92 Page | 4 Gameday / Non-Gameday Activation The ballpark has existed for so long that the immediate surrounding area has evolved over time to almost serve as an extension of the ballpark. This is illustrated prominently on Lansdowne Street. The area surrounding Lansdowne Street is famous for its music venues and nightlife, and the street comes alive with outdoor vendors on Red Sox game days , with the surrounding bars and restaurants spilling into the street. During the 2020 season, that blur between ballpark and neighborhood was enhanced when Lansdowne Street was temporarily closed to allow the surrounding dining establishments to expand their outdoor space for social distancing and to attempt to recreate the gameday experience while no fans were allowed into the stadium. The ballpark hosts a number of different events throughout the year, though the focus is clearly baseball. Other events semiregular hosted at Fenway include a handful of concerts and special sporting events, such as international soccer or professional hockey exhibitions. Key Takeaways Fenway Park is one of the most iconic ballparks and ballpark areas in the major leagues because its history, its design, and the activity and draw of the surrounding neighborhood. Some of these themes are hard to be replicated, mainly because the neighborhoods has grown up around the ballpark. However as mentioned, there are a some strategies that other ballpark and ballpark areas can implement to help recreate some of Fenway’s success including: • Celebrate what makes a ballpark and its surrounding area unique. Some of Fenway’s most memorable elements have been engineered away in other more modern ballparks. Irregularities in design and layout should be celebrated to foster a unique sense of place. • Extend the ballpark atmosphere beyond the ballpark. Fenway Park’s gameday atmosphere spills out into the surrounding streets for multiple blocks, partly due to the limited space inside the ballpark. While that may be hard for other ballparks to replicate, the ballpark atmosphere is possible to foster and create outside the ballpark by creative use of right of way (closing /reusing streets) and special building regulations (zoning and design guidelines) Chicago – Wrigley Field Location: Chicago, IL City Population : 2,693,976 Stadium Capacity: 41,649 Opening Date: April 1914 Introduction First opened in 1914, Wrigley Field is the oldest stadium in the National League, and second oldest behind Fenway Park. With its iconic ivy-covered outfield walls, the hand turned scoreboard, and the distinctive main entry marquee, there is no shortage of design elements which make the ballpark unique and beloved. These unique elements are not contained strictly to the ballpark itself but are also found throughout the surrounding neighborhood. The attempt to blend the ballpark and adjacent neighborhood required establishment of multiple “good neighbor agreements ” and other policies negotiated between the ballpark and the surrounding communities to help resolves gameday conflicts over time. Conflicts aside, Wrigley is one of the best examples of a stadium as an anchor for stadium urbanism that results a thriving, walkable area. Page | 5 Design Features Wrigley Field has several unique elements that contribute to the park’s allure. The most iconic elements of the stadium’s design include its core building materials – steel-and-concrete with exposed bricks and steel beams – to reflect the City’s modern, industrial character. Inside the stadium there are a number of design features unique to Wrigley, such as the ivy-covered outfield walls, hand operated scoreboard, and main entrance marquee. The seating arrangement within the park is also very intimate, with very little foul territory separating fans from the field of play. The two recessed wall areas, or "wells", located in left and right field, give those areas a little more length than if the wall were to follow the contour from center field. These dimensional irregularities create strange bounces and swirling winds that the ballpark is famous for. While these design elements contribute to what makes it so special, it is the ballparks location and integration with its surroundings that make it so special, yet impossible to replicate. Neighborhood Integration The park’s integration with its surroundings is a product mainly of the timing of its construction. Built in 1914, the area leaned on public transportation instead of cars do get people to and from the stadium, making it critical for the stadium to be in a walkable and connected neighborhood. The neighborhood around the stadium—known as Wrigleyville— has become more desirable and developed over time, especially since the 1990s. Although home to numerous bars and restaurants, the area is largely residential, which added to the stadium’s appeal but also resulted in resistance to some proposed changes. Notably, it took until 1988, and the threat of moving the Cubs baseball team to a different stadium, for lights to be installed at Wrigley Field, allowing night games to be played. After the Cubs and Wrigley were purchased in 2009, a major renovation was proposed that drew strong objections from some residents. Ultimately, much of the plan was approved, which include a redefined clubhouse, adjacent hotel, front office, and outdoor plaza. The neighborhood and the Cubs organization have gone as far as to create a “Neighborhood Protection Agreement” which primarily addresses parking, traffics, and public safety. The ballpark and surrounding neighborhood exist in a symbiotic relationship in which enhancements to the ballpark have driven demand for the surrounding neighborhood and vis versa. While close integration of the ballpark with the surrounding residential neighborhood has created conflicts over the years, the benefits have outweighed the consequences and resulted in one of the greatest ballpark districts in the entire country. Gameday / Non -Gameday Activation Located in the North Chicago community area of Lakeview, within the Wrigleyville Neighborhood, the ba llpark and surrounding neighborhood have grown-up with each other. Wrigley has stood the test of time because it is sewn into the surrounding urban fabric. Hours before the game, fans will stream into the Wrigleyville neighborhood, packing local bars and restaurants. Those arriving by public transportation will step onto the platform at the Addison Red Line stop and look down on bustling streets and a view of the field. An exceptional unique gameday feature is the neighboring bars and restaurants that overlook the field. Nearby buildings are so close to the field that owners have even converted their rooftops to bleacher seating they sell to fans , which is sometimes a harder ticket to get than one to the actual game. APPENDIX93 Page | 6 Minimal extra attention is needed within the ballpark area during gamedays to create the memorable scene found in and around the stadium. The walkable location closely knit urban form, and the intentional and unintentional blending of neighborhood and ballpark create an exceptional gameday atmos phere. Key Takeaways Like Fenway, Wrigley’s age and history play a huge role in elevating the ballpark to one of the most beloved in all of baseball. However, there are some applicable strategies that can be applied in the SLC Ballpark area to help recreate some of what makes Wrigley so special including: • Having an open dialogue between ballpark and neighborhood. The incredibly close integration of ballpark and neighborhood has created several challenges through the years . The partnership between the two has been rocky at times but having both an open dialoged through a neighborhood council, along with a formalized agreement in place, have helped the two navigate disputes and thrive together. • Blur lines between ballpark and neighborhood. There is perhaps no better example of this takeaway Wrigley Field. Surrounding businesses have taken advantage of the low walls in the outfield and built belchers that can see into the stadium, becoming some of the most iconic elements of the stadium experience. While there are logistical challenges to implementing some of these elements at modern ballparks, creative ideas should be explored to help create a more permeable relationship between the ballpark and its surroundings. MM iinnoorr LLeeaagguuee EExxaammpplleess:: Oklahoma City – Chickasaw Bricktown Ballpark Ball Park Facts Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Population: 551,789 Capacity: 13,066 Opening Date: April 1998 Construction Cost: $34 million Funding Source: Voter approved one-cent sales tax increase in 1993 to fund the Metropolitan Area Projects Plan (MAPS). Events: Oklahoma City Dodgers Minor League games, meeting space, private events, convention events, concerts, on- field events, walks and runs, and festivals. Surrounding Area Facts (1-Mile Radius) 2020 Population: 4,532 Population Growth (2010 to 2020): +60% 2020 Median Income: $56,927 2020 Occupied Housing Units: 90% Rented/10% Owned Population Race & Ethnicity: Page | 7 Viewed as one of the most successful ballparks in the minor league, Bricktown ballpark was part of the larger Bricktown redevelopment plan that helped energize the surrounding area while generating $238 million dollars in housing and mixed-use development. This case study highlights practices and lessons learned in supporting economic development , community-driven design and activation, and how the ballpark and surround area have blended development and culture. Development of Downtown The Bricktown Ballpark was constructed after voter approval of dedicating sales tax as a part of the Metropolitan Area Projects (MAPS) initiative. MAPS outlines the development of major capital improvements in the core area of Oklahoma City to spur urban community redevelopment, such as implementing a trolley service and developing a paved canal system, convention center, and music hall, among other projects . The total investment for nine projects funded by MAPS, including the construction of the Chickasaw Brickyard Ballpark, was $360 million. Since the construction of the ballpark, the area has spring up as an “play, work, live” destination with various mixed-use buildings, multi-family housing developments, hotels, restaurants, shops, a movie theater, and more. As a result of the initial capital investments, by 2005, 3,400 projects worth $1.3 billion in capital White Population , 57.37% Black/African American Population , 25.62% American Indian/Alaska Native Population , 4.19% Asian Population , 2.89% Other Race Population, 5.89% Population of Two or More Races , 4.06% OKC Dodgers Baseball Game Hispanic Ethnicity 13% Non Hispanic 87% APPENDIX 94 Page | 8 investments were completed or in progress in the area 1. Gameday/Non-Gameday Activation The ballpark and surrounding Downtown Bricktown district have become an entertainment attraction and a community for residents and tourist alike. The ballpark attracts thousands of visitors during baseball games and other community events. The Chickasaw Bricktown Ballpark hosts a variety of events including: • Oklahoma City Dodgers games; • Fundraising runs/walks; • Snow tubing in winter months; • An annual Winter Festival; • High school baseball series; • Concerts; and • Meetings and seminars . In 2017, the ballpark hosted 451,033 visitors for baseball games and 146,778 visitors attending other events hosted at the ballpark 2. The Bricktown district also features various retail stores, dining options, bars, clubs, hotels and other attractions which have become a destination feature for ballpark visitors. Interconnected Transportation The Bricktown ballpark is accessible by various interconnected transportation options that go beyond personal automobiles, including : • Oklahoma City Streetcar; • Oklahoma River Water Taxi; • Spookies bicycle sharing; • Embark bus service; and • Exclusive pedestrian streets. The diversity in transportation modes makes it easy for visitors and residents to access the ballpark and surrounding areas in Bricktown. Pedestrian Connectivity Various pedestrian friendly amenties accommodate the thousands of visitors in Bricktown. These include spacious sidewalks, green spaces, walkways along the canal, connectivity to parking areas , and access signage. The pedestrian facilities provide accessibility between Bricktown area attractions, parking, and the Chickasaw Bricktown Ballpark and enhances the experience by providing visitors a with comfortable and aesthetically pleasant walking experience to the ballpark. 1 Impact Analysis of Oklahoma’s MAPS and Other Significant Central City Investments (2009). 2 Oklahoma City MAPS Project Economic Impact Study (2019). Winter Festival at Bricktown Ballpark Water Taxi at Bricktown Page | 9 Wanda Jackson Way Wanda Jackson Way is a 0.15-mile long activated alleyway that provides access from the east area parking facilities directly to the main entrance on the southwest corner of the ballpark. Along the pedestrian- friendly alley are: • A restaurant; • A bar; • Mini golf; • Water taxi guided tours; • Brickopolis Entertainment; • Walkways along the canal; and • Outdoor seating areas. California Avenue California Avenue is a scenic pedestrian walkway along the Bricktown canal. The walkway connects parking facilities , a streetcar stop on Sheridan Avenue, and the entrance on the northwest corner of the ballpark. The walkway features restaurants with outdoor seating, landscaped sidewalks , pedestrian bridges across the canal, and access to Wanda Jackson Way. Summary • The Chickasaw Bricktown Ballpark, and other MAPS projects, initiated the investment in the area by private developers. • The ballpark hosts baseball games and other events that attract hundreds of thousands of visitors to the Downtown area . • Interconnected and diverse transportation options create an accessible and inviting experience for visitors arriving at the ballpark area and navigating around the ballpark area and surrounding neighborhood. • Pedestrian friendly areas provide connectivity between the ballpark and parking facilities and help integrate entertainment and other visitor amenities . Technical Committee Success Measures • Transit Connection- o OKC Streetcar Stop directly next to stadium • Surrounding Land Use o Mixed Use; Multifamily Residential; Other Entertainment • Similar Challenges o Non-gameday activation Wanda Jackson Way Restaurants along California Avenue APPENDIX95 Page | 10 o Growing g entrification concerns o Maintaining momentum of new ballpark and proactively enhancing gameday experience Key Takeaways • Look to create additional drivers beyond the ballpark. While a ballpark can help define an area and be the primary attractor, other community serving destinations can help create a more year-round destination and help to activate the area on non-gamedays • Make multimodal connectivity safe and efficient, on game days and non-gamedays. While most still may drive to the game, providing safe and convenient options for people to walk, bike, and take transit can benefit both gameday traffic operations, but also benefit the neighborhood on non-gamedays. • Adaptative Reuse of existing infrastructure. Thinking creatively about existing infrastructure can help add to an area’s sense of place by adding an element of originality to an area. Projects can include the reuse of existing ROW or other urban utility infrastructure. Page | 11 El Paso – Southwest University Park Ball Park Facts Location: El Paso, Texas City Population : 682,669 Stadium Capacity: 9,500 Opening Date: April 2014 Construction Cost: $72 million Funding Source: General fund subsidies from the City of El Paso through hotel and sales tax, rent and parking revenues. Events: El Paso Chihuahuas Minor League games, soccer games, music festivals, food festivals, marathons, and concerts. Surrounding Area Facts (1-Mile Radius) 2020 Population: 14,994 Population Growth (2010 to 2020): +11% 2020 Median Income: $16,713 2020 Occupied Housing Units: 84% Rented/16% Owned Population Race & Ethnicity: Opened on the edge of the Downtown area, El Paso’s ballpark case study highlights successes in integrat ing and celebrating the community’s culture through public art and activated public spaces. The ballpark is also on a challenging site, segregated from the surrounding neighborhoods by a freeway and White Population , 72.25% Other Race Population, 19.15% Black/African American Population , 4.99% Population of Two or More Races , 2.33% Asian Population , 1.29% Hispanic Ethnicity 87% Non Hispanic 13% APPENDIX 96 Page | 12 heavy rail lines, causing the City and its partners to think creatively how they enhance the gameday experience of getting to the stadium, while also improving neighborhood mobility. Neighborhood Revitalization Southwest University Park emerged from the desire to revitalize the Downtown area of El Paso. In 2006, the City of El Paso published El Paso Downtown 2015 Plan which introduced strategic planning efforts in redeveloping Downtown. The plan identified a Downtown arena as a catalyst for spurring investment in entertainment and hotels in the district and investment in amenities for local neighborhoods. The Downtown neighborhood would be accessible by expanded existing transportation networks , including transit options and connected, accessible pedestrian facilities . Ballpark as a Catalyst for Development In the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Plan El Paso (2012), the City laid the foundations for the Downtown 2015 Plan and provides regulations and policies to guide the growth of the City. This included an evaluation of El Paso’s outdated City Hall site to determine best use of the land to help the City achieve its Downtown goals . Part of the results from the evaluation spurred discussions about constructing a stadium on the site. In 2012, the plan was adopted, and the City built the Southwest University Park Baseball Stadium. The ballpark integrates into the Downtown area’s historical character and reflects the history and culture of El Paso through commissioned public artwork. The City of El Paso identified the buildout of a stadium as a catalyst for economic development in the Downtown area. Since the opening of the ballpark, millions of dollars’ worth of private development has been constructed, including new hotels, apartment building s, and renovations of historic buildings . While investment in the stadium has helped spark development, Plan El Paso also identifies a set of policies and initiatives to continue to help with the Downtown revitalization efforts. These include: • Evaluating rezoning for future land use plans based on a SmartCode to encourage development by private investors; • Reus ing and repurpos ing Downtown buildings as office, retail, entertainment, and residential space; and • Completing a connected pedestrian network of greens, plazas, comfortable streetscapes, and pedestrian passages connecting Downtown area neighborhoods; and • Improving the provision of on-street parking, public parking lots and garages, and shared private parking spaces. Gameday/Non-Gameday Activation Plan El Paso Future Land Use Framework for Downtown Page | 13 The Southwestern University Ballpark offers its venue for a variety of events, including: • El Paso Chihuahua Minor League games; • Marathons; • Music festivals; • El Paso Locomotive FC soccer games; • High school baseball games; • Boxing exhibitions; • Sports expos; • Job fairs; and • Graduation ceremonies. According to El Paso Downtown Management District’s (DMD) Annual Report (2017), a survey identified that 55% of Downtown El Paso visitors visited the area for “Events”. Of those visitors , 38% attended sporting events. Las Plazas (Art District) Southwest University Park is situated within the Las Plazas Art District, which is a hub for arts and community events, including street festivals. Destinations in the arts district include: • El Paso Museum of Art; • The Plaza Theater; • San Jacinto Plaza; • El Paso Museum of History; • Convention Center; and • Abraham Chavez Theater. According to the DMD’s Annual Report, 26% of Downtown visitors attend street festivals while 2% attended museum events. Union Plaza District South and west of the ballpark is Union Plaza, which is a center for entertainment and nightlife. The plaza is centered around a repurposed industrial building that now houses restaurants and bars in a small area bounded by Durango Street, San Francisco Avenue, Overland Avenue and Anthony Street. Repurposing the historical buildings helps keep the historical character of the area while providing new, attractive uses. Western Street bisects the plaza and provides walkable, shaded paths, and outdoor. A wide pedestrian walkway painted by a local artist exists along Durango Street and provides connectivity between Union Plaza and direct access to the main entrance of Southwest Pedestrian Amenities along Western Street San Jacinto Plaza APPENDIX97 Page | 14 University Park. If development in the area continues, as planned, the district will become a diverse entertainment and dining area activated by ballpark visitors due to ease of access. Transportation Downtown El Paso and accessibility to the ballpark is limited, however a few critical strategic connections have been created. While there are gaps in pedestrian connectivity, and minimal bicycle infrastructure, the City has taken steps to improve connectivity such as the creation of the pedestrian walkway along Durango Street bridge. Rather than focusing on every street in the stadium area, resources and investment have been focused on creating a few vibrant and efficient connections. As the Downtown area is expected to grow, the transportation infrastructure and options are planned to expand as well to create a connected area. El Paso Streetcar The ballpark initiated the revitalization of Downtown El Paso and incentivized the expansion of transportation alternatives. While the ballpark itself is located on a segregated site surrounded by a freeway and heavy rail lines, the City has begun making Downtown more accessible. On major investment is the integrated a streetcar transit system, the El Paso Streetcar, which is a 4.8-mile system with 27 stops that connects the City’s Downtown and uptown neighborhoods . The streetcar creates a reliable method of travel for the community and visitors to access key destinations in Downtown such as businesses and restaurants, the ballpark stadium, government buildings, and the art districts. The streetcar experiences the highest ridership on weekends, during baseball games, and for special events in Downtown. Summary • Downtown El Paso is activated by community and sporting events in and around the stadium. It hosts its largest crowds during sporting games at Southwest University Park and during events in the arts district. • While the ballpark helped spur initial development and investment in the area, the City has put into place additional policies to help continue revitalization efforts. • Repurposing and reusing existing historical buildings for a variety of future developments reduces infrastructure costs , enhances existing buildings , and maintains the historical character of an area. • Expanding transportation alternatives is an important component in creating a n accessible Downtown area. Pedestrian Walkway along Durango Street El Paso Streetcar Page | 15 • Strategically focus resources and investments to create efficient connectivity between the ballpark and surrounding Downtown neighborhood. Technical Committee Success Measures • Transit Connection o El Paso Streetcar Stop ~500’ from stadium entrance • Surrounding Land Use o Civic; Office; Commercial; limited residential • Similar Challenges o Lack of Ballpark related redevelopment o Challenging connectivity barriers Key Takeaways A ballpark is not enough. From an economic development and redevelopment perspective, Southwest University Park confirms what many other Cities have encountered when building a new sports facility. While it can help kick start or accelerate economic development, in of itself is not enough to be the sole driver for an area’s revitalization. Strategic connectivity investments can go a long way. The connectivity of the area surrounding Southwest University Park suffers from a range of transportation barriers such as freight rail tracks and a major freeway. The City has focused on improving a few strategic connections to the ballpark, rather than improving every single street in the areas. The Durango Street overpass and the Missouri Rd Woonerf are two examples of those strategic investments to enhance immediate ballpark connectivity. APPENDIX 98 Page | 16 Memphis – AutoZone Park Ball Park Facts Location: Memphis, Tennessee City Population : 650,618 Stadium Capacity: 14,320 Opening Date: April 2000 Construction Cost: $80.5 million Funding Source: The Memphis Redbirds privately financed construction of the ballpark ($46 million) and the renovation of the Moore Building (now called the Toyota Center) next to it through the issuance of $72 million in tax-exempt bonds by the Center City Revenue Finance Corp. Events: Memphis Redbirds Minor League games, soccer games, races, corporate outings, wedding events, and concerts. Surrounding Area Facts (1-Mile Radius) 2020 Population: 12,210 Population Growth (2010 to 2020): +1% 2020 Median Income: $25,195 2020 Occupied Housing Units: 89% Rented/11% Owned Population Race & Ethnicity: Home of the Memphis Red Birds, the AutoZone ballpark is renowned for its historic design and the efforts to integrat e with and enhance the surrounding neighborhood. The ballpark won a Congress for the New Urbanism Charter Award for the way in which the ballpark enhanced the surrounding neighborhood and helped kickstart community revitalization. Black/African American Population , 74.26% White Population , 21.43% Population of Two or More Races , 1.79% Asian Population , 1.51% Other Race Population, 1.02% Memphis AutoZone Park Hispanic Ethnicity 2% Non Hispanic 98% Page | 17 AutoZone Parks hosts a variety of events including: • Memphis Redbirds minor league baseball games; • USL Memphis 901 FC soccer games; • Concerts; • Meetings and corporate outings; and • Community movie events. The ballpark was opened in 2000 and was identified as a part of the Memphis/Shelby C ounty South Central Business Improvement District Comprehensive Plan to aid in diversifying and revitalizing the Downtown Memphis area. Prior to construction of the ballpark, the area was filled with abandoned buildings and empty lots . Neighborhood Integration The completion of the ballpark sparked an urban renaissance in the Downtown Memphis area. The area was developed strategically by establishing a special land use zone known as the “Sport and Entertainment District”. The special dis trict is governed by zoning regulations that uniquely compliment the area’s character. The AutoZone Park now blends historical building with a sports facility to offer a unique entertainment area. Other uses for the entertainment district to complement the ballpark include apartment buildings , an elementary school, a law school, office buildings , and commercial developments. All new developments are integrated into the area to create a livable entertainment district. The Ballpark District was a recipient of an Urban Land Institute (ULI) Award for Excellence in 2002 as Downtown Memphis developed into an enhanced neighborhood. There is both a residential and visitor community in the ballpark area, and in addition to the sporting events held at the stadium, there are also regular community events, such as free fitness classes at the park, festivals , and live music. Ballpark Features The Memphis ballpark was designed with brick and exposed steel truss work to symbolize and integrate into the City’s historic area. The area was once a warehouse and distribution center as well as a railroad center for Memphis. The historical, abandoned buildings around the ballpark have been refurbished to provide modern amenities. Transportation The Downtown Memphis area features walkable streets , parks and open spaces, a bike sharing program, electric scooters, and trolley service which contribute to creating an engaging and connected neighborhood. The City has been active in providing “first and last mile” transportation options. AutoZone Park can be accessed by: • Bicycles – bike lanes surround the ballpark and there are there are three bike share stations accessible from its entrance. • Main Street Trolley Service – wide paved sidewalks connect the trolley stops on Main Street and the ballpark. • Vehicles – parking for vehicles is provided in proximity to the ballpark, and a network of pedestrian facilities connect parking to the ballpark entrance. APPENDIX99 Page | 18 Transportation Options along Main Street Community Integration AutoZone Park is home to the Memphis Redbirds franchise, a Minor League Triple-A team. The Memphis Redbirds in the only nonprofit team in minor league baseball. The team has not only invested to revitalize Downtown Memphis but has also invested in the community by giving back to the residents of Memphis. The Memphis Redbirds Baseball Foundation, run by a volunteer board of 20 Memphis citizens, supports a variety of philanthropic activities, including: • Donating thousands of dollars to inner-C ity charities; • Awarding more than $600,000 a year for youth baseball and softball programs in City schools or summer leagues; • Refurbishing area facilities for youth activities; and • Providing opportunities for children to attend professional baseball games . Summary • A “live, work, play, and shop” neighborhood can be developed strategically around a ballpark by establishing unique zoning districts and regulations to complement the area’s character. • Community events within a ballpark area, such as community movie nights , concerts or festivals can help engage the surrounding community and enhance surrounding neighborhoods. • Providing walkable streets and “first and last mile” options are important in creating an accessible ballpark and surrounding neighborhood. Technical Committee Success Measures • Transit Connection o Streetcar stop on Main Street ~1,000’ from entrance • Surrounding Land Use o Downtown context; mixed use; office; limited residential • Similar Challenges o Neighborhood revitalization and activation Page | 19 Key Takeaways Not a ballpark, a ballpark district. What makes AutoZone Park a standout is that it was not designed simply as a ballpark. The ballpark was conceived as a “Ballpark District” including dense multifamily development, new office buildings, a minor league baseball museum, a public elementary school (important for attracting families with children to downtown), and the adaptive reuse of the upper stories of an old YMCA building to lofts, along with the reuse of other historic buildings. Ballpark as public space. The entry plaza, diagonally across an intersection from the landmark Peabody Hotel, provides a place for people to enjoy music, food, and amusements before and after baseball games, and it functions as a gathering place at other times. The baseball team, and the city work to activate these spaces on gamedays and non-gamedays alike. Parking as an activator. Rather than rely on a massive parking structure/lot, fans can find about 6,000 parking spaces within four blocks of the ballpark. The parking strategy works well as people can find less expensive parking further from the ballpark and as they stroll to and from the game they help to animate the streets. SS uumm mmaarryy The three case studies highlight different design, policy, and program initiatives that have helped activate, connect, and integrate ballpark areas and the neighborhoods and communities that surround them. The following key takeaways were inferred from the case studies research: • Strategically interconnecting diverse forms of transportation, including “first and last mile” options , is important in creating an accessible ballpark and surrounding neighborhood for both for game day mobility, and neighborhood connectivity on non-gamedays. • Establishing connected, accessible, and pedestrian-oriented land uses and facilities creates a vibrant and engaging experience for visitors and residents in the area. • Holding multiple types of events, including community-driven events within a ballpark area, such as community movie nights, concerts or festivals , can help engage the surrounding community and enhance surrounding neighborhoods. • Reusing existing buildings and infrastructure can reduce infrastructure costs, enhance an areas sense of place, maintain neighborhood history and character, and integrate ballpark design and uses with a surrounding neighborhood. • Establishing unique goals, policies , and regulations can help develop a ballpark neighborhood that complements the area’s desired character. • While a ballpark can help spur initial development and investment in an area, development or redevelopment effort will often require additional supportive policies, financing, programs, and initiatives in order to truly maximize the investment in the ballpark itself. The table below provides a summary of features for each case study that ha s helped the respective ballpark area activate and integrate with surrounding neighborhood. The table also includes surrounding area facts within a one-mile radius of each stadium. The pie graphs below help visualize the surrounding area population’s race and ethnicity. APPENDIX 100 Summary of Case Studies Ballpark Features Case Studies Salt Lake City Ballpark Chickasaw Bricktown Ballpark Southwest University Park AutoZone Park Location Salt Lake City, UT Oklahoma City, OK El Paso, TX Memphis, TN Opening Date - April 1998 April 2014 April 2000 Stadium Capacity - 13,066 9,500 14,320 Su r r o u n d i n g A r e a (1 m i ) Fa c t s Population (2020) 15,587 4,532 14,994 12,210 Population Growth (2010 to 2020) +15% +60% +11% +1% Median Household Income (2020) $43,166 $56,927 $16,713 $25,195 Occupied Housing Units (2020) 64% Rented/36% Owned 90% Rented/10% Owned 84% Rented/16% Owned 89% Rented/11% Owned B a l l p a r k A r e a F e a t u r e s Identified in an area plan or Comprehensive Plan x x x Pedestrian-only infrastructure x X Multimodal Connectivity (bike share, bike lanes, shared mobility) x x Accessible by high quality transit x x x Parks/green spaces within the area x x x Diverse surrounding land uses x x x Adaptive reuse of existing buildings X x Special zoning regulations for the area x x x Ballpark hosts other events (sporting and non-sporting) x x x Supports community events within the ballpark area x x x APPENDIX101 APPENDIX ECOMMUNITYENGAGEMENT MATERIALS APPENDIX 102 Ballpark Neighborhood Station Area Plan Community Event #1 March 20, 2021 10:00 AM - NOON A G E N D A Time Description Responsible 10:00 – 10:05 Welcome & Introduction of team Susan Lundmark Christine Richman 10:05 – 10:10 Meeting norms & expectations Annaka Egan 10:10 – 10:20 Introduction to Process and Review and Input: · Roles & responsibilities · Public Engagement Schedule · Tools · Study Area · Getting to know you poll · Key ideas and terms for the vision for the Future of the Ballpark area (Review key statements/terms from prior documents) · Emerging Key Public Actions · Emerging Key Private Actions Christine Richman 10:20 – 10:50 Breakout Session #1 · Growth & Economic Development o Opportunities o Big Ideas for Growth & Economic Development · The Ballpark o Review of key take-aways from case studies o Big Ideas for the Ballpark · The Station, Transportation & Connectivity o Review of barriers/benefits of current infrastructure o Big ideas for the Station, Transportation and Connectivity Jason Claunch Steven Chester Jacob Farnsworth 10:50 – 11:20 Breakout Session #2 · Growth & Economic Development o Opportunities o Big Ideas for Growth & Economic Development · The Ballpark o Review of key take-aways from case studies o Big Ideas for the Ballpark · The Station, Transportation & Connectivity o Review of barriers/benefits of current infrastructure o Big ideas for the Station, Transportation and Connectivity Jason Claunch Steven Chester Jacob Farnsworth 11:20 – 11:50 Breakout Session #3 · Growth & Economic Development o Opportunities o Big Ideas for Growth & Economic Development · The Ballpark o Review of key take-aways from case studies o Big Ideas for the Ballpark · The Station, Transportation & Connectivity o Review of barriers/benefits of current infrastructure o Big ideas for the Station, Transportation and Connectivity Jason Claunch Steven Chester Jacob Farnsworth 11:50 - Noon Polling · Key ideas and terms for the vision for the Future of the Ballpark area (Review key statements/terms from prior documents) · Emerging Key Public Actions · Emerging Key Private Actions Christine Richman Noon Adjourn APPENDIX103   Ballpark Station Area Plan Steering Committee Meeting #1 February 11, 2021 6:00 – 8:00 PM A G E N D A # Time Description Responsible ͳ͸ǣͲͲ–͸ǣͲͷ‡Ž…‘‡—•ƒ—†ƒ”ʹ͸ǣͲͷ–͸ǣͳͲ‡‡–‹‰‘”•Ƭ‡š’‡…–ƒ–‹‘•Ƭ’—”’‘•‡ŽŽ͵͸ǣͳͲ–͸ǣ͵ͷ –”‘†—…–‹‘•Ƭ™‡Ž…‘‡‡š‡”…‹•‡Š”‹•–‹‡‹…ŠƒͶ͸ǣ͵ͷ–͸ǣͶͷWhy have we asked you here tonight? • What is a Station Area Plan • How will it be used? • Role of the Steering Committee • Process & schedule —•ƒ—†ƒ”Š”‹•–‹‡‹…Šƒͷ͸ǣͶͷ–͹ǣͳͲ‘—‹–›‡‰ƒ‰‡‡–Ƭ‘—–”‡ƒ…Š • Phase 1 – Public Engagement launch o Logo o Website o Outreach o Survey – Survey review and practice • Tutorial on Social Pinpoint • Stakeholder & small group interviews • Who is missing from the conversation? • How can we reach them? Š”‹•–‹‡‹…Šƒ ͸͹ǣͳͲǦ͹ǣʹͷƒŽŽ’ƒ”ƒ•‡–—†›‡˜‹‡™–‡˜‡Š‡•–‡”͹͹ǣʹͷ–͹ǣͷͷŠƒ–™‡Šƒ˜‡Ž‡ƒ”‡†•‘ˆƒ” • Economic & market analysis • Transportation & connectivity  ƒ•‘Žƒ—…Š ƒ‡ ƒ”•™‘”–Šͺ͹ǣͷͷ–ͺǣͲͲ‡š––‡’•Š”‹•–‹‡‹…ŠƒͻͺǣͲͲ†Œ‘—” APPENDIX 104   Ballpark Station Area Plan Steering Committee Meeting #2 March 11, 2021 6:00 – 8:00 PM A G E N D A # Time Description Responsible ͳ͸ǣͲͲ–͸ǣͲͷ‡Ž…‘‡—•ƒ—†ƒ”ʹ͸ǣͲͷ–͸ǣͳͲ‡‡–‹‰‘”•Ƭ‡š’‡…–ƒ–‹‘•Ƭ’—”’‘•‡ƒƒ‰ƒ͵͸ǣͳͲ–͸ǣͳͷ –”‘†—…–‹‘‘ˆ‡™‡„‡”•Š”‹•–‹‡‹…ŠƒͶ͸ǣʹͲ–͸ǣʹͷ”‘Œ‡…–—’†ƒ–‡Š”‹•–‹‡‹…Šƒͷ͸ǣʹͷ–͸ǣͶͷ ”‘™–ŠƬ…‘‘‹…‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– • Opportunities • Big Ideas for Growth & Economic Development Discussion ƒ•‘Žƒ—…Š ͸͸ǣͶͷ–͹ǣͲͷŠ‡–ƒ–‹‘ǡ”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘Ƭ‘‡…–‹˜‹–› • Review of barriers/benefits of current infrastructure • Big ideas for the Station, Transportation & Connectivity ƒ‡ ƒ”•™‘”–Š ͹͹ǣͲͷǦ͹ǣʹͷŠ‡ƒŽŽ’ƒ” • Review key take-aways from case studies • Big ideas for the Ballpark –‡˜‡Š‡•–‡” ͺ͹ǣʹͷ–͹ǣͶͷ‹•‹‘Ƭ’”‹‘”‹–‹‡•ˆ‘”–Š‡ˆ—–—”‡ • Guiding principles • Key terms Š”‹•–‹‡‹…Šƒ ͻ͹ǣͶͷ–͹ǣͷͷ‘—‹–›˜‡–͓ͳƒ”…ŠʹͲǡʹͲʹͳ’Žƒ‹‰Ƭƒ–‡”‹ƒŽ•†‹•…—••‹‘Š”‹•–‹‡‹…Šƒ͹ǣͷͷ–ͺǣͲͲ‡š––‡’•ƒƒ‰ƒͺǣͲͲ†Œ‘—”   Ballpark Station Area Plan Steering Committee Meeting #3 April 8, 2021 6:00 – 8:00 PM A G E N D A # Time Description Responsible ͳ͸ǣͲͲ–͸ǣͲͷ‡Ž…‘‡—•ƒ—†ƒ”ʹ͸ǣͲͷ–͸ǣͳͲ‡‡–‹‰‘”•Ƭ‡š’‡…–ƒ–‹‘•Ƭ’—”’‘•‡ƒƒ‰ƒ͵͸ǣͳͲ–͸ǣʹͲ”‘Œ‡…–—’†ƒ–‡ • Community Event debrief • Preliminary survey results • Stakeholder update Š”‹•–‹‡‹…Šƒ Ͷ͸ǣʹͲ–͸ǣͶͷ‹•…—••‹‘ƒ†‹†‡–‹ˆ‹…ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ‰‘ƒŽ•Ƭ‘’’‘”–—‹–‹‡•‹ƒ”‡ƒ • Growth & economic development • Transportation & connectivity • Ballpark/Station area ŽŽ ͷ͸ǣͶͷ–͹ǣͲͲ‡˜‹‡™‘ˆ”„ƒ ‘‘–’”‹–„ƒ•‡Ž‹‡•…‡ƒ”‹‘Ƭ†‹•…—••‹‘‘ˆ‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‘‡ƒ•—”‡•ƒƒ‰ƒ͸͹ǣͲͲ–͹ǣ͵Ͳ”‡ƒ‘—–™‘”•‡••‹‘•–‘˜‹•—ƒŽ‹œ‡ˆ—–—”‡‘ˆƒŽŽ’ƒ”‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘† • Density & growth • Connectivity • Focus areas ŽŽ ͹͹ǣ͵Ͳ–͹ǣͷͷ —ŽŽ‰”‘—’†‹•…—••‹‘‘ˆˆ—–—”‡˜‹•‹‘‘ˆƒŽŽ’ƒ”‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†Š”‹•–‹‡‹…Šƒͺ͹ǣͷͷ–ͺǣͲͲ‡š––‡’•ƒƒ‰ƒͺǣͲͲ†Œ‘—” APPENDIX105   Ballpark Station Area Plan Steering Committee Meeting #4 May 13, 2021 6:00 – 8:00 PM A G E N D A # Time Description Responsible ͳ͸ǣͲͲ–͸ǣͲͷ‡Ž…‘‡—•ƒ—†ƒ”ʹ͸ǣͳͲ–͸ǣͳͷ”‘Œ‡…–—’†ƒ–‡Š”‹•–‹‡‹…Šƒ͵͸ǣͳͷ–͸ǣ͵Ͳ‡˜‹‡™ƒ††‹•…—••‘‡…–‹˜‹–›‹ƒ‰”ƒ ƒ…‘„ ƒ”•™‘”–ŠͶ͸ǣ͵Ͳ–͸ǣͶͷ”‡Ž‹‹ƒ”› —–—”‡ƒ†•‡ƒ’‡˜‹‡™ƒ†‹•…—••‹‘Š”‹•–‹‡‹…Šƒͷ͸ǣͶͷ–͹ͳͷ‡˜‹‡™ƒ††‹•…—••†‡•‹–‹‡•‹Š‡ ‡ƒ”–‘ˆ–Š‡ƒŽŽ’ƒ”ƒƒ‰ƒ͸͹ǣͳͷ–͹ǣͶͷ‡˜‹‡™ƒ††‹•…—••”„ƒ ‘‘–’”‹–…‡ƒ”‹‘ƒŽ›•‹•‘ˆ†‡•‹–‹‡•‹Š‡ ‡ƒ”–‘ˆ–Š‡ƒŽŽ’ƒ”ƒƒ‰ƒ ͹͹ǣͶͷ–͹ǣͷͷ‘—‹–›˜‡–’Žƒ‹‰ˆ‘”ƒ›ʹͳƬʹʹƒƒ‰ƒͺ͹ǣͷͷ–ͺǣͲͲ‡š––‡’•ƒƒ‰ƒͺǣͲͲ†Œ‘—” APPENDIX 106 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 5. ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2022 (Adopting the Ballpark Station Area Plan) An ordinance adopting the Ballpark Station Area Plan as part of Salt Lake City’s general plan. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a hearing on July 27, 2022 on a petition by Mayor Erin Mendenhall to adopt the Ballpark Station Area Plan as a geographically-specific part of Salt Lake City’s general plan required by Part 4 of Utah Code Chapter 10-9a; and WHEREAS, at its July 27, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and WHEREAS, after holding 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. Adopting the Ballpark Station Area Plan. That Ballpark Station Area Plan provided in Exhibit “A” attached hereto is adopted as part of Salt Lake City’s general plan as required by Part 4 of Utah Code Chapter 10-9a. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 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: ______________. Ordinance adopting the Ballpark Station Area Plan APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney August 11, 2022 EXHIBIT “A” Ballpark Station Area Plan 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED 1 July 21, 2022 To Nanette Larsen and Members of the Planning Commission: On behalf of the Board of the Ballpark Community Council, I am writing to respond to several of the points within the current draft of the Ballpark Station Area Plan, posted to https://www.slc.gov/planning/master-plans/ballparkplan/ on April 13, 2022. First, we applaud many of the “Big Moves” identified in the Plan that will help transform the Ballpark neighborhood and guide growth in the area, including reconfiguring the Ballpark TRAX station, improving 1300 South for pedestrians, creating a sense of place at and around the Ballpark, and investing in community amenities and green space to balance density with livability factors. However, this letter asks for two major revisions in the Ballpark Station Area Plan. First and foremost is that (1) public safety be made into a major criterion moving forward for all building proposals within the Ballpark neighborhood. Using public safety as a major criterion for building proposals will have implications for directing how space may be used in the Ballpark neighborhood. We call upon the city to use planning tools to address the disproportionate crime in the Ballpark community by, for example, incentivizing a mixture of establishments to that will draw people during all times of the day and enhance what Jane Jacobs referred to as “social control.” For example, staggered business hours will help maximize the amount of surveillance for neighboring business properties—Jacobs’ concept of “constant succession of eyes.” Using public safety as a lens through which to view planning decisions, it may behoove the city to evaluate the current property division among renters, owners, businesses, and public space in the Ballpark neighborhood. The second major revision (2) is asking for an acknowledgement of “tree equity”, that the Ballpark Station Area Plan explicitly note the current discrepancy for the Ballpark neighborhood in Salt Lake City’s Urban Forestry canopy and propose plans to remedy that inequity. (1) We believe that in its current iteration, this plan is fundamentally flawed in that it fails to address public safety. We acknowledge the statement on page 4 in the Plan’s Executive Summary: 2 “Although addressing policing and safety is not part of the scope of this plan, the success of many of the recommendations in this plan depend on perceived and actual safety of pedestrian and bicycle connections, public open space and plazas, and community events and activities.” While it’s useful to define the scope and purpose of any given document, that cannot be a pretext for avoiding crucial issues. Crime and public safety are the most critical issues facing the Ballpark neighborhood. A planning document should, by definition, make these primary considerations in guiding development choices and land use in the Ballpark community. We strongly request that the plan be revised, and that addressing public safety become an integral part of this plan prior to approval by the Planning Commission or City Council. Members of the Planning Commission may already be familiar with Ballpark’s crime statistics, but we encourage you to view the interactive google map Ballpark Homicides, 2018 – 2022: Tracking homicides in and adjacent to the Ballpark neighborhood in Salt Lake City, Utah. https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1xudbo- Q0dOLtXW_AK1wTyPIpN--fOjU&usp=sharing Analysis: The Homicide Rate in the Ballpark Neighborhood is 9 Times Higher Than in Salt Lake City According to Salt Lake City Police Department CompStat reports, Salt Lake City experienced 18 criminal homicides in both 2020 and 2021 (http://www.slcpd.com/ass3ts/uploads/2022/02/2021-CompStat-Annual-Summary.pdf). With a population of approximately 200,000 residents, Salt Lake City’s 2020 and 2021 homicide rate of 1 homicide per 11,111 residents is low for that of a mid-sized city. However, the homicide rate of the Ballpark neighborhood is not low. The homicide rate in Ballpark Homicides, 2018 – 2022 3 the Ballpark neighborhood is disproportionately high compared to the rest of Salt Lake City. In both 2020 and 2021, 5 (28%) of Salt Lake City’s 18 homicides occurred in or within a block of the Ballpark neighborhood. The residential population of the Ballpark neighborhood is approximately 6,000 residents, or 3% of the residential population of Salt Lake City (6,130 residents according to the Kem Gardner Institute report from 2019). This means that a neighborhood with approximately 3% of the residential population is carrying 28% of the burden of the homicides in Salt Lake City. Per capita, the Ballpark neighborhood experiences 9 times the rate of homicides compared with the whole of Salt Lake City. Put another way, if the rest of Salt Lake City experienced homicides at the same per capita rate as the Ballpark neighborhood—approximately 1 homicide per 1,200 residents1—Salt Lake City would experience approximately 162 homicides a year, 9 times the number of homicides that the city presently experiences now. This is not a new problem for the Ballpark community, although it has become worse in recent years. In 2019, after four homicides took place within a two-block radius of 1300 South in the Ballpark neighborhood in less than a year, we wrote a letter asking for then- Salt Lake City Mayor Biskupski and Salt Lake City Police Chief Mike Brown to meet with Ballpark community representatives to propose practical, measurable solutions to our neighborhood’s problems with homicide and violence. We suggested that the city use nuisance ordinances and other policy mechanisms to change practices in our neighborhood’s crime-ridden businesses. Sixty-three community leaders signed the letter, including then-Council Member Erin Mendenhall, now Mayor. We circulated the letter to the local press before holding an Anti-Violence Forum in September 2019, attracting further media attention. (After 4 homicides in a year, Salt Lake neighborhood asks city, police to ‘do something’. September 5, 2019). It is now 2022, and the community’s efforts to bring attention to the Ballpark neighborhood’s significant inequity in violent crime have not been sufficient to address the issue. Disproportionate violent crime in the Ballpark community has not been a one- or two-year anomaly, it has become a consistent pattern. It is clear that merely reframing Salt Lake City’s current public safety resources or making small adjustments to deploying those resources has not been sufficient to correct these inequities. Significant additional and 1 As a note for larger context, this is a rate comparable to that of Washington, DC at the height of the crack epidemic, when it was labeled the nation's "murder capital." In 1990, Washington, DC had a population of about 606,900 people and had 472 homicides. That’s approximately 1 homicide for every 1,286 residents. This is remarkably similar to the current rate of homicides in the Ballpark neighborhood. 4 targeted resources and policy changes will be necessary to address Ballpark’s public safety issues. Therefore, we strongly request that the Ballpark Station Area Plan be revised, and that addressing public safety become an integral part of this plan prior to approval by the Planning Commission or City Council. Using public safety as a criterion in evaluating future planning proposals could be a very important tool for the Ballpark community moving forward. We therefore ask that it be included and be made available in the toolbox of methods to address crime in the community. For a recent scholarly publication on how zoning and placemaking pertain directly to crime in communities like the Ballpark neighborhood, we recommend and will subsequently quote extensively from a recent publication: Whose 'Eyes on the Street' Control Crime?: Expanding Place Management into Neighborhoods by Shannon J. Lining and Jock E. Eck, from Cambridge University Press, December 2021. (Particular thanks to Professor Alessandro Rigolon for this recommendation.) “Place functioning is the foundation for understanding crime in larger areas. Deliberate choices of property owners, government agents, and private decision- makers influence many of the crime opportunities. Owners receive the legal powers to control properties, including deciding what the property will be used for and dictating what behaviors they will allow by those who use it. (Eck, 1994, 2018). Deliberate choices about places influences activity at those places. What owners do with their properties will have some influence on crime. It will either suppress or encourage crime (Eck & Madensen, 2018). We must look to the incentives that place managers have for their properties. We challenge the city to consider what incentives could Salt Lake City create so that property owners in Ballpark, particularly those who manage properties around 1300 South, would be encouraged to run safe, law-abiding businesses? Furthermore, we look to Jane Jacobs’ insights when we ask planners to consider a Ballpark Station Area Plan that, rather than valuing mere housing density around fixed rail transit, looks for opportunities to create more neighborhood stakeholders. According to the demographic analysis in the Ballpark Station Area Plan, 79% of the households in Ballpark are renter-occupied, 15% owner-occupied, and 6% vacant. Could these demographics be contributing to Ballpark’s disproportionate crime rates? “Criminologists viewed Jacobs as having an ecologically rooted, resident-focused view of crime control. The evidence suggests otherwise. Jacobs argues that shopkeepers and property owners are the primary source of informal social control. While residents appear in Jacobs’ work, she highlights their 5 limitations and puts far more emphasis on the role of shopkeepers and property owners. [emphasis added] … Nowhere in Jacobs’ writings do we find any declarations that she believed that social control is created by mutual trust and expectations among residents. Jacobs contended that, “The high-rent tenants, most of whom are so transient we cannot even keep track of their faces, have not the remotest idea of who takes care of their street, or how.” (Jacobs, 1961, p. 39) Blocks consisting solely of residential buildings create dead spaces with little surveillance… The store, and with it the storekeeper, is the missing link in urban redevelopment… In summary, to cite Jacobs as an advocate of residents being the primary source of order on city streets is mistaken. Residents have a role, but for Jacobs the small business, namely its owners and employees, was far more important. Today we would call the owners and proprietors of these businesses place managers (Eck, 1994). In Jacobs’ theory, they are the “eyes on the street.” They produce order on the street. And in contrast to renters and visitors to an area, shopkeepers have difficulty picking up their stakes and moving elsewhere. They have skin in the game. In a neighborhood without a multi-year, disproportionate violent crime problem, community leaders might be uncomplicatedly supportive of a Ballpark Station Transit Supportive Zone near the Ballpark TRAX station that would allow building heights up to 120 feet. However, because the Ballpark neighborhood has such serious and now long-standing, disproportionate issues with violent crime, we do not believe this is an appropriate location to add density without additional and deliberate crime mitigation strategies, such as increasing the percentage of owner-occupancy residences and small business owners in the neighborhood. As Jane Jacobs might say, there is substantial evidence to suggest that Ballpark needs stakeholders with skin in the game. We welcome proposals that address the need to add density that also include deliberate crime mitigation strategies. But to ignore Ballpark’s crime mitigation needs would do our community a profound disservice and fail to acknowledge the victims of violent crime. Due to the high level of renter-occupied properties in the Ballpark neighborhood (79% 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. Given that renters are significantly less likely to vote than homeowners (https://www.apartmentlist.com/research/renter-voting-preferences), continuing to fill 6 the Ballpark neighborhood with a disproportionate amount of rental housing units will in turn continue to politically disenfranchise the neighborhood. Perhaps the Ballpark Station Area Plan could be revised to suggest policies and resources to help buffer the effects of a renter-majority neighborhood and bolster local political participation. Additionally, we would like the Ballpark Station Area Plan to more robustly address issues of tree equity. While westside inequities in the tree canopy have been noted in the public discourse, the Ballpark neighborhood has been curiously absent from those discussions (although it is clear to see from the city maps, the Ballpark neighborhood is not left out of the inequity). The Urban Forestry map clearly shows that 300 West, 400 West, 1300 South, and 1700 South are some of the most tree-less, barren areas of the city (see streets highlighted in yellow on the adjacent map). While the 300 West plan that is currently being implemented includes trees, it's not just 300 West itself. It's the entire corridor, including cross streets. We need more plans to correct this inequity. 7 We wish to emphasize that we are continuing to seek additional solutions to Ballpark’s issues with disproportionate violent crime. We have aggressively engaged with other strategies such as communicating our concerns to our city administration, local media, and partnering with the Salt Lake City Police Department with neighborhood watch groups to target hot spot policing solutions towards specific locations in the neighborhood. Given Jane Jacobs’ theories and the experience of criminologists in other cities, we believe aggressive planning solutions that overtly invest in shopkeeper and property owner stakeholders and take Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles into account may also be key strategies in reducing our neighborhood’s disproportionate crime statistics. These strategies could be important for bringing families back to the Ballpark neighborhood. In the meantime, we hope that other stakeholders, including the current city administration, will acknowledge and address the situation by proposing additional measurable solutions to our neighborhood’s problems with homicide and violence. These comments are not comprehensive. Another issue of great concern in the Ballpark community revolves around the relationship between alleyways and safety. The Ballpark Station Area Plan’s suggestion to utilize the alleyways is very forward-thinking, however, it has been unofficial policy that the City has ceased to maintain alleyways Citywide primarily due to a gap in funding. The City has a long track record of alley closures as a means of eliminating this burden. If the City wants to take advantage of Ballpark alleyways and realize them as the valuable assets that they could become, the City will need to look at a 8 broader policy for the alleyways and make certain that funding is in place to maintain them. At the present time, multiple alleyways in the Ballpark community pose far more of a crime burden than any kind of a benefit on the surrounding community. Finally, we are grateful to the many city staff members and staff from the private sector who dedicated their time and resources to developing this plan during an unusual time. We are also thankful for community members, both residents and business owners, who volunteered their time, beginning in Fall 2020, to serve on the Ballpark Station Area Plan Steering Committee, engage the surrounding community during a pandemic, and to provide feedback. During this time, our community experienced significant challenges that have prevented some of us from fully and effectively engaging with the Ballpark Station Area Plan, most notably (1) serious and disproportionate levels of violent crime and (2) the related attrition of our fellow dedicated community members. It is particularly notable and deeply sad that the majority of Ballpark residents who served on the Ballpark Station Area Plan Steering Committee have moved away from the neighborhood because they no longer felt safe enough to remain as residents in the neighborhood, particularly those who are parents of younger children. Of the nine residents who served on the Steering Committee, five have moved away, and another formally resigned from public service from the Central 9th Community Council as of January 2022. We again thank them for their dedicated public service, their companionship, and while they could, for fighting with us to transform a neighborhood they believe in. We miss them terribly and look forward to a future when everyone perceives our Ballpark neighborhood to be a safe and welcoming residential community for people of all ages. Thank you for including the Ballpark Community Council’s input on this proposal. Please contact us with any questions. Sincerely, Amy J. Hawkins, PhD Chair of the Ballpark Community Council From George Chapman to Everyone 06:52 PM so is colony b on 1300S going to be changed to recognize lack of pedestrian access (minimal sidewalk) 228w needs a sidewalk not a building next to the sidewalk (RDA approved loan) From Patrick Quinn to Everyone 06:59 PM The report says we need more single family homes, along with green space. That seems inconsistent with 10 story buildings. You have mentioned "current scale", but doesn't a 120 foot building go against this stated scale goal? Will all ‘upgrades’ be south of 1300? What are the plans for the Horizonte lot? Please elaborate on these topics. From Jessa Tuminez to Everyone 07:02 PM Parking is a huge issue already in the 'heart of the neighborhood' area, how does future zoning help with this? I'm particularly concerned with the 'replacement' of current parking by TRAX as show in the image shown earlier with a six story building From Amy J. Hawkins, Chair to Everyone 07:04 PM Here are some details about Colony B, but not the address: https://www.defycolabs.com/communities/project-one-b7jry From Jesse Hulse to Everyone 07:05 PM The heart of the neighborhood zone appears to incorporate single family home areas just south of the stadium on Richards St. and the Paxton & Lucy Ave NW of the stadium. Is it anticipated that they will be zoned for high density 10 story buildings as well or will there be some nuance applied to this diagram? From Annette & Mike Wheeler to Everyone 07:05 PM So if the city will be removng existing parking in the heart of Ballpark, it seems prudent to restrict parking around Ballpark to residents only, esepcilly on game days. Otherwise, residents will be negatively impacted by non-residents coming to games. Those non-residents would be encouraged to take public transportation rather than using their cars if permit parking is enforced. They can park at TRAX stations and commute in a more environmental and neighborhood friendly way. From Anthony W to Everyone 07:06 PM What is the current character and scale of the west temple character district? There are parking lots, multi family, business, and just a hand full of single family homes. How do you maintain the scale and character when it has no cohesive identity? The plan talks about a potentially 120-foot building on the east side of west temple in the parking lot. Is that the same scale and density? Will the single family homes on west temple across the street be locked in as low intensity forever while high intensity is built all around it? Even on side streets like Lucy and Paxon? It seems like the city wants to add extreme density on SLC owned parking lot on 1300s and the UTA parcel by trax while parts of the neighborhood are just stuck in a low intensity zone. From Amy J. Hawkins, Chair to Everyone 07:07 PM The plan does state that an action we should take to increase attainability of housing for current and future residents is “Increase opportunities for home ownership in the neighborhood.” I’m not sure it specifies single family. From George Chapman to Everyone 07:07 PM we complained to rda about the minimization of the sidewalk on the project at 228w 1300s so how are the pedestrians going to be helped with a minimouse sidewalk. how does SLC suggest improving the sidewalk at 228w???!! There is an RDA approved building limiting the sidewalk From lucy cabrera to Everyone 07:08 PM That green space is now full of rocks bcuz of all the people laying down and using their drugs From George Chapman to Everyone 07:13 PM but parking is needed at Ballpark Station. UTA keeps removing parking at rail and it discourages ridership. plus security at 1300S station is not effective I thought that we were in a drought/desert. why put in medians when a wider sidewalk would be better. SLC stopped watering medians a few years ago in another drought why didn't 228W require 10 ft wide sidewalks From George Chapman to Everyone 07:15 PM Amy - RDA was told that their loan would hurt pedestrian access on 1300S and we asked for wider sidewalks. City Council was told but they ignored it. sorry goodbye From Jessa Tuminez to Everyone 07:18 PM A few weeks back, I provided comments / change recommendations on the boundaries of 'Heart of the Neighborhood' to improve conformity of use, reactivate the neighborhood and increase safety between Paxton and Jefferson Park...have the comments been considered ? I provided the comments to Nannette Amazing, thank you! From George Hauser to Everyone 07:19 PM S Washington south of the I15 ramp should be included in the connectivity map. what about including a tunnel under the I15 ramp at S Washington? From Marcus Lonardo to Everyone 07:20 PM George, I agree! Jessa, great comment! When will the revised plan be finalized? From George Hauser to Everyone 07:22 PM Also, there could be a mid-block connector between the south end of S Washington just south of Brooklyn to 200 W. This would require the property owner to dedicate a portion of their property, but it would enhance the value of their property and add a valuable public connection. From Jessa Tuminez to Everyone 07:26 PM Any reason why the heart of neighborhood is not just blue all across all the way to the yellow line on this map? From Amy J. Hawkins, Chair to Everyone 07:26 PM Is 120 feet allowed anywhere outside of the current downtown zoning? Unless I really don’t understand Form Based II zoning, 120 is not what’s currently permitted around the Central 9th station. From Jessa Tuminez to Everyone 07:27 PM LOTs of opportunity to revitalize these areas which are, right now, ridden with crime AND under-utilized lots From Marcus Lonardo to Everyone 07:29 PM Amen, Jessa!! At minimum, put the TSA zoning along the trax line and all the way to the park. From Anthony W to Everyone 07:29 PM The west temple character zone does not make sense. it bisects the heart. West temple is a mix of use. your talking about putting a 120 ft building on the east side and then expecting the other parcels on west temple to stay the same? or what is meant by maintain the character? From Jessa Tuminez to Everyone 07:31 PM TSA zoning along the trax line and all the way to the park would be a great idea and I think contributes to the overeall goals of this initiative From Reed Sherman to Everyone 07:32 PM Yes! Power lines in the ground is a great idea. Good luck in getting RMP to comply. From Annette & Mike Wheeler to Everyone 07:35 PM Can you please be more specific about how you will mitigate the parking issues on game days? Have you considered requiring suburban attendees use public transportation instead of their cars. I my opinion, that would require zero parking for suburbanites to preserve parking for urban residents. From Andre to Everyone 07:39 PM I do think TSA zoning as it's currently drawn is not enough. Along 200 W trax line extending the to the TSA zone makes more sense and more conducive to the goals of the plan zoning which encourages development but no/minimum parking is what I'd like to see to encourage trax ridership and biking / pedestrian activities From Danielle Hildebrand to Everyone 07:39 PM A TSA zone should absolutely be extended all of the way along the train line on 200 West. This specific whole street is commercial on the West side mixed with 6 story buildings on the east (this is between 1300 South and 900 South). There are a handful of homes next to 6-story buildings that have been termed "flawed urban planning" at the moment. These homes have not been included in the TSA zone & I strongly believe were missed. From Jesse Hulse to Everyone 07:39 PM Planning team, it’s concerning that problems we are seeing with FB-UN2 aren’t being addressed and FB- UN3 seems poised to repeat them. It would be disappointing to say the least if we don’t address these things now with FB-UN2&3 and before new Ballpark zoning which may follow in the footsteps of those FB zones, can you please add that to the notes and could we follow up on that? From Andre to Everyone 07:40 PM also, encouraging and protecting resident only parking Iin the heart of the neighborhood is a good idea. Can we also see EV parking to encourage environment friendly modes of transportation? From John Anderson to Everyone 07:41 PM Thanks Jesse, I have those notes. As mentioned the City Council is considering creating the FB-UN3 and is still accepting public information. Here's a link with more information: https://fleet-block-rezone- slcgov.hub.arcgis.com/ From Marcus Lonardo to Everyone 07:42 PM Andre- great comment on resident only parking. From Jesse Hulse to Everyone 07:43 PM Thanks John, we will revisit and resubmit and follow up with our city council reps From Jessa Tuminez to Everyone 07:45 PM to mitigate gentrification, the answer is to encourage development competition. Having zoning the encourages that in the ballpark area from trax line and all the way across Jefferson park would do this sadly, just having a couple streets 'high density' would just encourage these high-priced townhomes and push current residents out From Amy J. Hawkins, Chair to Everyone 07:45 PM I’m glad to see “increase opportunities for home ownership” make the final document. According to the findings of this plan, only 15% of the homes in our neighborhood are owner-occupied. Continuing to fill the neighborhood with rentals will, I believe, continue to politically-disenfranchise the neighborhood. From Jeff Sandstrom to Everyone 07:47 PM Thank you for addressing the need for opportunities for home ownership in the neighborhood. Home ownership, I feel, is an important part of improving the quality of the neighborhood through increased engagement and involvement in the community. From Jessa Tuminez to Everyone 07:48 PM home ownership needs to evolve as concept. Median income is 23K in Ballpark! So we need to make sure people have a 'home' even if it's not in the traditional sense of owning a home From Andre to Everyone 07:49 PM Increasing the supply of housing is the best way to decrease the cost. From Jessa Tuminez to Everyone 07:49 PM HUGE thank you Christine!! You did an amazing job From Marcus Lonardo to Everyone 07:50 PM I'll second that! GSBS did an incredible job on this first draft. From Jessa Tuminez to Everyone 07:50 PM I am so so SO excited about the Ballpark transformation plan. LONG overdue. Just please listen to us who have been in this community and who own and have lived here and seen it for all its ups and downs From Amy J. Hawkins, Chair to Everyone 07:50 PM Folks on this call may be interested in Salt Lake City’s citywide Gentrification Assessment and Displacement Mitigation Study. The lead consultant for the study, Baird+Driskell Community Planning, will be presenting an overview of the project team and process to date to the Human Rights Commission on Tuesday night at 5:30. The Zoom info and link to agenda are below. Please feel free to share with anyone else that might be interested. https://www.utah.gov/pmn/sitemap/publicbody/1270.html https://www.slc.gov/boards/human-rights-commission-agendas-minutes/ From Jeff Sandstrom to Everyone 07:51 PM A second thank you for adding significant consideration to the current character and scale of the existing areas before approving new zoning. It is very important to maintain the existing scope, scale and historic nature of the area while welcoming new, appropriate development. From Marcus Lonardo to Everyone 07:52 PM Also- big shout out to everyone involved in community outreach! Such a distinction from the homeless center fiasco. Thank you for allowing our feedback in this process. From Jessa Tuminez to Everyone 07:52 PM Agree, Marcus! From Marcus Lonardo to Everyone 07:53 PM Which areas of this plan have FB-UN2 or 3? From Patrick Quinn to Everyone 07:53 PM What was the reasoning/justification behind specifically preserving views for the Ballpark? Aren't these same views important to residents? The Ballpark is only used half of the year and for a couple of days a week at the height of the season. Why would the city and Planning Commission ignore (overlook) those same concerns for community homeowners? If the views you speak of are important to baseball fans who visit the Ballpark for a two or three hours, shouldn't the same consideration be applied to people who live in the neighborhood every day of the year? From Marcus Lonardo to Everyone 07:53 PM I thought heart of the neighborhood was TSA. From Susan Lundmark to Everyone 07:53 PM Thank you for participating and giving us such great feedback and all these comments! From Annette & Mike Wheeler to Everyone 07:53 PM those of us living in an urban neighborhood are more likely to take public transportation. A study is not necessary in the short term to realize that those living in the suburbs could be a more productive target group to require public transportation into our community. If there is not place for them to park, they will be forced to take public transportation. From Jessa Tuminez to Everyone 07:58 PM I'm excited to see the plan evolve. When will we see the next draft taking comments into account? Open dialogue is super important. Can we schedule next session with the public? From Marcus Lonardo to Everyone 07:59 PM Great comment- Jessa I would also like to review a modified plan From Reed Sherman to Everyone 08:02 PM Great plan. I’m all for more trees and less power lines. Love the idea of turning ally ways into pedestrian and bike ways. From:Jim Grisley To:Larsen, Nannette Subject:(EXTERNAL) Ball park upgrade. Date:Thursday, December 16, 2021 1:55:53 PM Attachments:image001.jpg Hello Nannette, I would like to comment on the Ballpark/Party street upgrade. I was at the opening meeting at the site at which Erin gave an outline of the project. As far as I’m concerned this project would be a complete waste of time and money unless the Gail Miller HRC is moved to a more suitable location. The homeless and assorted nefarious characters come from miles around to be near the homeless center and the neighborhood around it ( Ballpark) and the increase in murder, crime and drug use is out of control ! I have personally witnessed drug use right on the HRC property on numerous occasions. The Ballpark proper is inundated with many of these individuals and SLC can’t currently handle it so how would a project like this be any different ? Look at the Police reports as they reflect the dire situation the Ballpark is in. The proposed Library would just become a restroom and loitering area for these folks and the local neighbors would actually see an increase of in crime, vandalism, trespassing ,drug use and prostitution. As far as the Trax station relocation is concerned, it will do absolutely nothing to remedy the pervasive jay walking on 1300 So and 300 W which daily poses a threat to pedestrians and drivers alike. Also, why weren’t there any businesses from 300 West on the planning committee? Seems like the committee was hand picked to avoid any negative comments. I would like to invite you to visit us and I can show you first hand the negative impact the HRC is having on the Ballpark neighborhood and those of us that live and work in it. Please call to discuss at your convenience. Regards, Jim Grisley J.M. Grisley Machine Tools, Inc. 1485 South 300 West Salt Lake City, Ut 84115 From:Danielle Hildebrand To:Larsen Nannette Cc:Anderson John; Lundmark Susan Subject:(EXTERNAL) Ballpark Area Plan Feedback Date:Monday, January 17, 2022 1 53:59 PM Attachments:image.png image png image.png b8011a30-ee64-4aa4-8fb5-7dffc020bdd1.png image.png image.png image.png image.png image.png Hello all! Thank you so much for all of your help & choosing my neighborhood as a focal point this year. I purchased in this neighborhood in 2015 and have since brought many friends and family members into this neighborhood. We have been dedicated homeowners and neighbors who have continued to look after each other while our neighborhood was severely impacted on multiple fronts during this past couple years. We have been active on the community council and have many meetings with the superhero city officials who care deeply about our neighborhood. As our city prepares for our population to double over the next 20-40 years and with our air quality being one of the worst universe-wide, we know that housing near the transit stations is an urgent need. Nearly all of the homes in this neighborhood are hitting the 100-year-old (+) mark and many were built with poor building standards PRIOR to there even being cars here on our SLC streets. Most of the homes in the ballpark are single family homes and consist of 1-2 bedrooms in total. As a homeowner, I completely understand that my 2 bedroom home on the train line is NOT the highest & best use for this property currently OR long term. I absolute LOVE what you all have been working towards and think the whole plan is absolutely brilliant. I do think there are 3 properties that were accidently missed in the plan that I would like to outline below. We have met with these 4 city officials: DIANA MARTINEZ, KATIA PACE, TREVOR OVENDEN & MEAGAN BOOTH who all agreed that "moderate density" is not the appropriate zoning for these 3 properties that sit IN BETWEEN 2 high rise apartment buildings (one to the north and one to the south). For example, our house is less than 5 feet from a 6 story building and the 4 city officials we met with agreed that this is absolutely terrible urban planning to keep these properties "as-as." We know that long-term, zoning dictates everything and are extremely hopeful that you would agree that these 3 parcels that are DIRECTLY on the trainline were missed during the preplanning and should be changed to be TSA zoning. 1055 S. 200 W. Salt Lake City, UT 84101 (Parcel ID: 1512408008) 1049 S. 200 W. Salt Lake City, UT 84101 (Parcel ID: 1512408007) 1039 S. 200 W. Salt Lake City, UT 84101 (Parcel ID: 1512408006) If you are familiar with the children's movie "UP," these 3 parcels on 200 West already look like these first 2 photos below from the movie. Additionally, there is a gigantic abandoned warehouse directly across the street that is slated to become an enormous skyrise of apartment building soon. Zoning dictates everything so we are extremely hopeful to not be left to the outcome below. A couple properties down the street, this has already happened. We do not want to become this house. ACTUAL PHOTOS OF THE 3 PARCELS WE ARE REQUESTING A ZONING CHANGE OF: From:Ryan Esmay To:Larsen, Nannette Subject:(EXTERNAL) Ballpark Master Plan Date:Friday, December 31, 2021 11:49:22 AM Hi! I'm writing as a homeowner in the heart of the ballpark neighborhood (right next to the trax station), and I just had a few thoughts about the Ballpark master plan that I thought I'd share. I'm thrilled by the idea of this neighborhood getting more attention since I've always felt it could be lovely if it was just given a bit more care! Some things here are truly beautiful- and convenient, like the ballpark, and the trax station, but other things definitely need more attention. The sidewalks on my street (Lucy Ave) are not extremely well-lit, nor is 1300 South, which is a bummer if we want to go out at night and feel safe. In addition to the lighting problems, 1300 south feels like it belongs to the cars at times, with thin, often obstructed sidewalks. I'd love it if my small neighborhood area could start to feel a bit more walkable- I think that would really boost the connectivity of the area. Another issue, far more complicated to solve, is the huge homelessness problem we have in our neighborhood. Many of my neighbors have had break-ins, as have we... and it's too bad! We always want to help them however we can, but it's hard to be empathetic when they leave trash (and worse things) all over our street and lawn, break into homes, and camp out in the alley behind our backyard. Don't know how to solve the problem exactly, but it's not hard to see that something needs to be done. I'm absolutely thrilled about the idea of bringing a new library to the ballpark area, might I suggest the large, scarcely used parking lot on West Temple and 1300 S? It's a bit of an eyesore now, and doesn't seem to even be used much, outside of ballgame nights! Anyway, I'm very excited. I'm just one person living here, but if there's anything I can do to help at all, I'd love to be involved however I can be. We love our neighborhood and want to see it improve and grow, not get neglected. Thanks! All the best, Ryan Esmay P.O. BOX 520697 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84152-0697 Dear Councilmember Mano, Mr. Norris and Ms. Larsen, We are reaching out to comment on the Ballpark Station Area Plan Draft that was recently released by the Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning Department. We here at TAG SLC are very much interested in the neighborhood and have made significant investments in what we view as one of the most vibrant and exciting areas of Salt Lake City. Overall, we felt that the plan will contribute towards making the neighborhood a more positive place to live. The plans around creating a more engaging West Temple Corridor on both game days and year-round were especially exciting. However, we are concerned that the plan neglects a section of the People’s Freeway area, on Goltz Avenue, where we own several properties. Our concerns regarding the proposed Station Area Plan are centered on an area we feel is being left out. We believe that lack of attention to this location will be detrimental for future development and create a lack of clarity for those seeking to invest in the neighborhood. For example, the Goltz Avenue area is within roughly a quarter mile of both the Ballpark and 200 W TRAX stations but is not included in any character areas or land use map changes intended to facilitate the reimagining of the neighborhood by bringing new amenities and mixed-uses. The plan contradicts itself by showing this area as the “heart of the neighborhood” in Figure 1.1 on the first page of the plan, but then failing to include it in the Character Areas seen in Figure 2.6 and listing it as Medium Density in the Future Land Use Map in Figure 2.9. Aside from the contradictions present in the maps, the absence of details on Goltz Avenue and surrounding streets in the Character Areas leaves many questions as to what exactly the City’s vision for the area is. Moreover, there are no details on types of development appropriate in Medium Density areas on the land use area descriptions on page 18, making this the only land use not described. This land use is present in older documents, are we to assume that definitions carry over or does the city have a different vision for medium density in the Ballpark area? Recent years have seen successful development in this pocket of the Ballpark neighborhood, with the C9 building adding over 90 units in close proximity to TRAX stations and local businesses such as Blue Copper, Laziz and Publik Coffee. We feel that this area is particularly well suited to development according to the statements of the plan as it is close to transit and other public amenities, most notably Jefferson Park. Jefferson Park is the largest established park in the neighborhood 2.79 acres. However, the park is currently viewed by a blight by area residents as demonstrated by multiple news stories over the last year (see attached). Page 23 of the plan advises on ways to create successful public space through urban design, including a recommendation to line public spaces with public uses to improve accessibility and safety. We feel that including Goltz Avenue and surrounding streets in the “Heart of the Neighborhood” Character Area and Future Land Uses will facilitate this by encouraging mixed-uses that create ground level activation next to the largest existing public space in the neighborhood. We hope that the concerns that we raised are taken seriously as we believe that the location of Goltz Avenue and surrounding streets will fit well within the purpose statements of Salt Lake City Transit Areas and that their inclusion will facilitate mixed-use development that will enhance precious Ballpark neighborhood public land and accommodate a growing population in a place that is close to transit as well as other amenities. Best regards, Jake Billitteri & the TAG SLC Team https://www.abc4.com/news/local-news/residents-question-crime-at-slc-parks/ https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/slc-park-has-become-nightmare-with- dangerous-crime-neighbors-say From:Roo To:Larsen, Nannette Subject:(EXTERNAL) ballpark plan Date:Friday, February 4, 2022 7:38:06 PM Hi Nannette - these are purely my opinions as a resident. 1. festival street. I don’t think we need another festival street, at least not yet. we have yet to see how 300 S (500-600 W) plays out; we already have Edison St.; and our true festival street is between the City & County Building and the Library. 2. My primary destinations in this area. First, in order of frequency: Lowes Target Lucky 13 Ballpark TRAX station (usually alighting rather than boarding) Second, in order of preference: Lucky 13 Lowes (they have better garden section than Home Depot) Ballpark TRAX Target 3. West Temple is valuable to me because when I get off TRAX at 1300 South, it is the nicest road to ride my bicycle south to connect to Parley’s Trail. I appreciate the trees. I don’t ride on Main Street, despite the bike lanes, because it is too wide, too barren, and, in the summer, too hot. I hope any festival street action will not disrupt this. Although Central Pointe Station is closer to Parley’s Trail, the connection is more clunky. 4. Apartment buildings need PUBLIC ACCESS ground level retail or restaurants, not just activity centers and gyms for residents. If Ballpark needs destinations, these are the destinations. 5. Walmart and Lowes, in true cities, can be those ground level retail establishments, with parking garages and apartments above. I know this is not their preferred building form, but they can and will do it in locations (or countries) that demand it. It might sound weird, but I hope we can keep Lowes in Salt Lake. I like shopping in Salt Lake because I know that a percentage of sales tax goes to Salt Lake City. I try to shop in Salt Lake City instead of Millcreek or South Salt Lake. Thanks for considering my comments. Becka Roolf 563 E Elm Ave From:Kelsey Maas To:City Council Liaisons; Larsen, Nannette Subject:(EXTERNAL) Ballpark Resident Comments Date:Tuesday, December 14, 2021 9:37:58 AM Attachments:image.png image.png Hello, My partner and I live in District 5 on South Jefferson. The other day on a walk we clocked how truly odd this pedestrian crossing thing is on South Jefferson & Goltz (I put a screenshot). I got an email today about the Ballpark Plan which I'll be reading more on, but what jumped out to me was the 'pinpricks' of green. My partner and I thought wouldn't it be fun if this odd traffic-island-triangle thing was a tiny park instead of more pavement on top of existing pavement. I'm not sure if you are familiar with Mill Ends Park in Portland - its the smallest park in the world - so a bigger than that, but something that is fun. Also, as a side note I wanted to say that we love Ballpark. There are hidden gems of restaurants, global groceries, bakeries and breweries that would be tragic if they got pushed out due to rising rents. On that same note, we love living here, because we actually have a porch and small back garden - access to the outside - which we can't afford really elsewhere in the city. In short, we don't live in a studio or one bedroom 'luxury apartment' that crams you in small space with little to no access to being able to sit outside for a lot of money. Please, please be thoughtful in how density is added. We understand its needed, but let's not build future slums, but future homes. Thanks for your time!image.png nnage.png Kelsey Kelsey Maas World Heritage Studies, M.A. Preservation Utah I Salt Lake City, UT Ljnkedln I Pronouns: she, her, hers From:jody ellis To:Larsen, Nannette Subject:(EXTERNAL) Ballpark Station and Planning Date:Thursday, December 30, 2021 8:12:27 AM Hello Nannette, I have some questions and concerns regarding changes around the ballpark trax station. I understand change is needed. We need better and safer pedestrian access. I live on Lucy Ave between 200W and W Temple. It's a nice quiet street with good neighbors that watch out for each other. I'm not sure if I misunderstand that the plan is to have more access from trax to Lucy Ave. I can see access from Lucy from the west but please not more pedestrian traffic east of the trax. This is a residential area. I have used public transportation in many cities and we don't leave the station and walk through a neighborhood. There needs to be a safe walkway from the station to W Temple. The 1300 South sidewalk is too narrow. Could a sidewalk large enough for 2 way pedestrian traffic and bike lanes be placed along the north side of the trax parking lot and behind the Indian center and the 7Eleven. With a nice crosswalk across W Temple. Then eliminate the crosswalk by Lucy and pedestrian traffic down Lucy. With the homeless and Horizante traffic walking down our street many of us don't feel safe in our front yards. They walk down the street dropping trash, swearing... the dogs in the neighborhood bark at them, as they should because they are protecting their property. One of my neighbors said he thought there was something mentioned about using the alleys for pedestrian and bike traffic. I have a 2 car garage in the alley that we use daily. When I'm driving down the alley and there is someone walking I have to wait for them to move over so it is safe for me to pass them. My neighbor and I feel the alley is way to narrow for any type of pedestrian traffic. Besides at this time I wouldn't feel safe walking down the alley. All summer we had a homeless man camped by our neighbors garage. Many times when I leave or come home I need to ask people to move off my garage apron. Other neighbors have the same problem. Our alley is a mess and not a safe place. I look forward to making our neighborhood a better place. Sincerely, Jody Ellis From:Kirk Huffaker To:Larsen, Nannette Subject:(EXTERNAL) Ballpark Station Area Plan Comments Date:Monday, December 6, 2021 7:40:06 PM Hi Nannette, Please include the following as a public comment on the draft BSAP. I was surprised to read through the entire report and see a small single mention of the historic character of the district. In addition, the citywide Historic PreservationPlan is not referenced once as one of the guiding documents that was or should beconsidered. I believe both of these are very negative omissions for the plan and thecity at large. While the area has not been formally surveyed, approximately 343 buildings have been identified within the neighborhood boundary and are documented in the Utah SHPO database. There is one National Register Historic District, Boulevard Gardens, and zero individually listed structures in the NRHP. However, approximately 105 structures have been documented to be eligible for listing in the NRHP, includingmany within the station plan boundary. So there is definitely potential fordocumentation and preservation of historic character throughout the neighborhood. In addition, there are already strong historic preservation financial incentives in placefor preservation, including several from the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake Citythat can be used in addition to state and federal incentives. The public, property owners, and developers are missing opportunities if city plans do not highlight these available options. Without foresight within plans such as Ballpark, more significant buildings will meetthe same fate as the Sarah Quayle Cook House at 1706 S. West Temple - demolition.It is my sincere hope that the plan team will revisit the plan to incorporate morehistoric preservation information by utilizing historic building data and the SLCHistoric Preservation Plan to integrate these allied planning programs andphilosophies into this community plan. Best Regards, Kirk Kirk Huffaker, Principal Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Salt Lake City, Utah www.kirkhuffaker.com- Pronouns: He / His / Him / Mr. - *Please note my new email address: From:James Alfandre To:Larsen, Nannette Subject:(EXTERNAL) Ballpark Station Area Plan Date:Monday, December 20, 2021 6:55:06 PM Nannette, I would like to submit a comment of support for the Ballpark Station Area Plan. My company has one completed project and three more projects in this neighborhood and are very active in creating urban, vibrant, well-designed projects that add missing-middle and other needed housing. I like the vision of more density and activation around the Ballpark and TRAX stop and throughout the neighborhood in appropriate locations such as the main corridors of Main Street. This plan will set the tone for future growth and activation in this neighborhood that will create a more liveable, vibrant and safe place to be. I would add that the proper zoning should be implemented as soon as possible to help the Plan's vision become a reality, incentive developers to design great urbanism that creates walkable, vibrant streets, and reduces the amount of application workload on the Planning Staff. Best, James Alfandre -- James Alfandre Managing Partner | Urban Alfandre www.urbanalfandre.com From:Meredith Bunsawat To:Larsen, Nannette Subject:(EXTERNAL) Ballpark Station Area Plan Date:Thursday, December 2, 2021 2:11:56 PM Hello, Just wanted to say that as residents and homeowners in the Ballpark neighborhood, my partner and I are excited about this plan! The neighborhood is very central located to many locally owned businesses and I think it would boost their businesses to add more types of housing and attractions to the neighborhood. We also think it would be best if the Main Street Motel were bought out and transformed into something that has a positive impact on the neighborhood. As you probably know, it has long been known for being a major source of crime in the neighborhood. Thank you for your efforts! Best, Meredith From:Paul Svendsen To:Larsen, Nannette Cc:Ballpark; Stephen Alfandre; James Alfandre; Oktay, Michaela Subject:(EXTERNAL) Ballpark Station Area Plan Date:Thursday, December 9, 2021 10:39:49 AM Attachments:image001.png Hi Nannette, I would like to submit comments regarding the proposed Ballpark Station Area Plan. I have done several developments in the project area and currently own 5 properties that will be impacted by the proposed changes. I am very interested in seeing how the plan is implemented. One of the Plan’s strategies is to “update the City’s zoning code and map, as appropriate, to implement the provisions of this plan.” I really hope SLC takes this seriously and is willing to experiment with some changes to see if they encourage desirable development. To that end, I strongly support the proposal to expand the South Stare Street Corridor Overlay to include the west side of Main Street. The character of the street is the same on both sides and there is no reason they should be subject to different zoning regulations. The west side of Main Street has incredible potential that is being constrained by the current zoning and expanding the SSSC would help a lot. I would also suggest the following modifications to properties zoned CC within the South State Street Corridor Overlay: No minimum lot area (to encourage missing middle and affordable housing development like tiny houses, townhouses, etc.). No minimum lot width (same reason). Clarify that structures within the SSSC and the CC zone are exempted from the minimum front yard and corner side yard requirements. Currently the ordinance is unclear and the ordinance seems to be applied differently depending on which staffer is assigned to the project. Increase maximum height to 35’ to permit taller ceilings, roof decks, and even 4 stories with one partially sub-grade garden level (as was done at the Row 17 development with great results). Allow more than one principal building per lot regardless of street frontage. This will permit desirable types of residential development that are well established in other locations, such as two homes on a single lot. Allow the following uses: ** Single family attached (so that townhomes can be built without going through the condominium process, which makes obtaining financing more difficult and costly for prospective homeowners) From:Matt Haydon To:Larsen, Nannette Subject:(EXTERNAL) Ballpark Station Plan Date:Tuesday, December 7, 2021 10:45:17 AM Nannette, You mentioned in the email to me that this was a 20 year plan. But this goes against what is said on page 44 of the plan. "Amend Section 21A.26.078: TSA Transit Station Area District of the Salt Lake City Municipal Code to include the Ballpark Station Area as one of the existing TSA districts or create a new one if needed. This may include requiring activation of the 1300 South frontage with restaurants, shops, street furniture and trees, implementing streetscape improvements to accommodate pedestrian volumes, allowing heights comparable to heights in other Urban Station Areas, and protect the views of the Wasatch Range from inside Smith’s Ballpark.” Doesn’t this mean that once you get the code changed, that 10-12 story buildings would be approved immediately? This would be a major change in the community and have a significant impact on the infrastructure and living conditions. Where are these other “Urban Station Areas?” Are you referring to downtown? Where are these shops and restaurants going to be placed? From State St to 3rd West is pretty full. Moreover, you did not address the inconsistencies of the plan when it states there is a need for single family homes. You did not address my infrastructure concerns. I noticed while driving my daughter to school today that there was an RV and two cars that look as if people were living in them on one of our streets. Nothing has been done to either move these people along or ticket them. The local park is not safe enough for people to bring their kids or dogs. I have had several neighbors stalked by people from the park. The driveway on our property in a throughway for people, we have had multiple incidents with the homeless here; theft, human excrement, and threats to people. We have begged the city to allow us to fence our driveway, but we have had NO support from our city councilman. He actually said in a meeting with our community that he would fight against it. He also claims the quality of life issues should be accepted because that is part of the urban lifestyle. NO, he is wrong and it is this attitude by the city government that is causing the issue. We should be able to walk to our mailbox without being accosted by the homeless. You mention that you want to encourage ridership on Trax. But also mention that you have had negative experiences, isn’t that an indication of an issue? Why would riders want to put their safety at risk? Would you want your children, if you have them, exposed to these risks? You mentioned nothing about the parking issue. So many of the recent projects have used the carveout allowing for few parking spaces, is this going to be the same? What about all the other projects that are scheduled for this area? Does the 20 year plan accommodate for these projects? What about security for the neighborhood? We have the highest crime rate in the city and the highest murder rate. What is going to be done about the drugs in our neighborhood? These concerns need to be addressed. Finally, these meetings should not take place on Zoom anymore. We are at a point that anyone who wants the vaccine can get it or have natural immunities. People can wear masks if they are uncomfortable. Zoom does not allow for real interaction. People can be muted and ignored. Matt Haydon From:Matt To:Larsen, Nannette Subject:(EXTERNAL) Station Area Plan Date:Monday, December 6, 2021 2:06:28 PM Ms. Larsen, I live in the Ballpark community and I am against a manor part of the plan. While I am happy to see this area being targeted for revitalization, I am against the idea of a 120 foot variance. In the plan it says that there is a need for single family homes the solution is to build apartments? That sounds like an error, you can have one or the other, but not both. This community is constantly having high density housing built within its boarders. The rest of the city needs to help with the density issue. Another issue I have is the anti-car stance that city projects are adapting. The public transit system is not good enough. It is unrealistic to assume that people will use Trax to take kids to school, go grocery shopping, or other daily shopping. There is a serious issue with safety on Trax, the stations are not safe and riding on the trains is not safe. This is the exact reason we have stopped taking Trax. My wife used to take it everyday, but the station was being used as a homeless camp/shelter and she was being harassed on a daily basis. Trax police officers tried their best but since the homeless are allowed to ride for free in areas it seems like a lost cause. We had to buy an additional car as a result. The idea of taking my daughter on Trax and possibly exposing her to this is unthinkable. Based on our experience I don’t think it is reasonable to ask people to take Trax with kids and groceries. Finally, I have a serious issues with infrastructure. The local infrastructure cannot handle an additional four or five hundred people and their cars. Traffic on game day is terrible and our community is overwhelmed with cars. We lose all of our street parking and when we call parking enforcement, nothing is done. Our community already has people living out of their cars and rvs, and the city government does nothing to help. Are these structures going to have enough parking? Or are they going to take advantage of the the carve out the city council and planning commission gives if the building is close to a trax station? If they are the streets will be even more crowded, creating a parking and safety issue. And let’s not forget the potential for crime. We are already being told to leave nothing in our cars, now our trash cans are being emptied out by the homeless on a daily basis. What about security? Is there going to be a police sub-station? We were promised an increase in patrols and security when the homeless resource center was opened and we have to fight to get a cop out here. Many in my community and neighborhood are against the idea of a 120 foot tall building. If you want to build single family homes, go for it. Keep additional apartment buildings out of Ballpark, we have done our fair share, it is time other areas in the city do theirs. If you would like to discuss this issue further and with members of our community (Rowhaus) please contact me. Best, Matt Haydon Sent from my iPhone From:george chapman To:Larsen, Nannette Cc:Norris, Nick Subject:(EXTERNAL) Comments on Ballpark Station Area Plan Draft Date:Friday, December 31, 2021 6:12:19 PM The Draft Plan suggests increasing the density of 1300 South (a street that is already maxed out) and allow buildings 120 feet high. But it also recommends pedestrian amenities to encourage walkability. But SLC RDA/Council approved a loan to a development on 1300 South that restricts the sidewalk to a micro sidewalk next to 35MPH traffic! Any building higher that 2 stories should provide 10 foot sidewalks! Lights, trees and other obstacles that may restrict safe bicycling and pedestrian travel should be minimized. It also, appropriately recommends opening up the street just north and west of the 1300 South TRAX Station (Lucy Ave) to allow access to 300 West. But it may take years to open up and the Plan also suggests using the UTA parking lots, which are usually full and have been a crime magnet, for building Transit Oriented Development buildings. In other areas where parking lots are used for TODs, parking garages are proposed. Parking garages in Utah have a complicated reputation. Ogden's parking garages were so uncomfortable that they led to the downfall of the Downtown Ogden Mall. The proposal also suggests putting several pedestrian crossings on 1300 South (so the proposed 1300 South eastbound bus doesn't have to cross the street). But that would slow traffic and increase pollution. It is also very unsafe. Putting a pedestrian crossing close to a crossing arm for a train crossing is complicated. If there is room for a couple of cars before the arm, the pedestrian crossing becomes a threat to pedestrians. One pedestrian crossing is necessary now since the RDA approved project on 1300 South destroys walkability on the north side of 1300 South going to 300 West. The crossing should be next to and west of the TRAX crossing arms and coordinated with that system. The plan appears to put in bicycle sharrows in two of the four lanes of 1300 South which also will increase pollution since the 1300 South road traffic is already maxed out with four lanes. It suggests studying eliminating 1300 South traffic lanes! The City plan also proposes a center median which doesn't make sense in a desert and drought area. Several years ago, the City stopped watering medians. The sidewalks need widening more than the median. The proposal also recommends high density apartments in the parking lots of UTA and City owned Ballpark. The City RDA is recommended to force the changes and increased development. The proposal does recommend more green space and parks but the City is ignoring the best potential for park, the Fleet Block. A library is recommended and is a good idea. The Plan recommends changing the 1300 South TRAX area to TSA Station Area with a result of no parking requirements. Although it recommends protecting the "viewshed of the Wasatch Range from inside Smith's Ballpark". But the priority should be to protect the viewshed of residents! The Plan suggests much higher density development but refuses to require wider sidewalks that can accomodate bicycles and pedestrians and does not decrease vehicle availability. It also recommends mid-block crossings that will increase pollution and probably require 20MPH like downtown. The goal is to: "Create a dense urban environment and entertainment zone around the Ballpark." I do not think that it will increase safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. Sugar House supergentrification significantly reduced pedestrian and bicycle safety despite many new crossing lights on 2100 South. The plan suggests burying power lines which historically has been very expensive (but necessary with high rises next to the lines). The City should not pay for the burying. Private developers should pay. Personally, I believe that the money could be better spent on wider sidewalks which would place the buildings appropriately further away from the power lines. Central 9th RDA project spent millions on burying lines with minimal effect. The Plan recommends "Implement a district-parking strategy that utilizes unused area parking and parking garages for game days to minimize the need for parking fields in the area." That could include paid parking in the area that already does not have enough parking. The 1400 South TRAX crossing is a problem for UTA. It would be costly and a safety nightmare. These are high speed trains and the area has too many homeless who are supposed to stay off the tracks. Allowing a crossing at 1400 South makes it too easy to be on the tracks. UTA should deny it. The same with the Paramount Ave crossing. Pedestrian furniture, although nice to have, especially at bus stops, would create obstacles for shared pedestrian and bicycle use on sidewalks and attract so called undesirables loitering. Homeless have a tendency of hanging out in the area. Trees should not decrease the sidewalk width. Wider sidewalks are better than trees in park strips. Trees belong where they will be watered, in yards. The Plan recommends "Elimination of “blind corners” or areas" but the City and Plan recommends building to the corner next to skinny sidewalks which are perfect for blind corners. (see construction on 2100 South). Buildings at corners should be well set back for wider sidewalks. The rail line from 1300 South to 400 West should be a linear park, not a TRAX. The local taxpayer cost would be better invested in a linear park and Fleet Block Park. The local cost of the proposed TRAX to 400 West is $100 million. What does the community want for that $100 million? The 1700 South TRAX station would completely change TRAX (with the 650S station) into a milkrun. That is not conducive to increasing transit use. More attention should be focused on eliminating car dealerships which destroy any walkability. The 9th South Viaduct is an important traffic corridor, which if eliminated, would increase pollution in the area. The area around 900 South and to the north is increasing density significantly. George Chapman 1186S 1100E SLC I am in support of increased density in the entire heart of the neighborhood; however, I do have concerns and problems with the proposed language for the West Temple Character Zone. I go into more detail on this below. West Temple Character District: “New development should maintain the current character and scale of the area” This yellow line defined as the “West Temple Character Zone” bisects the heart of the neighborhood proposed area. It makes no sense and I do not know what character they are even talking about preserving. This stretch of west temple It’s a hodgepodge of uses and scale (pictures and examples below) where the very few single family homes look out of place. As the owner of one of those 6 houses (corner of Lucy and West Temple), I say forget that. Let this whole area be included in a higher and better density proposed for the heart of the neighborhood. The way the plan currently reads is that potentially 120 foot buildings could go into the blue areas defined as the heart of the neighborhood, while the property I own would be stuck as a small single family home with a back yard all in the name of preserving some kind of undefined character. My property could potentially be surrounded by new uses and density while these old homes are just left in some arbitrary lower density assignment. I am all for added density, my concern is that everyone else will get the benefit of added density while my property which has an existing front door facing west temple (entire south side of property is on lucy) will be forced to stay low density. The plan would basically exclude a handful of property owners from the added benefits while the city builds a huge building across the street. Let us be included in the upzoning, and don’t leave us in the early 1900s when these houses were built as kit homes. I think my property would be a great spot in the urban core for higher density housing options. Its proximity to Trax, and 1300 south makes it a prime candidate. It would be a shame and not make sense if this must stay a small 2-bedroom single-family home, where many new units could be placed in an urban core, in the name of preserving some perceived character zone while the adjacent properties get the benefit and best use of the heart of the neighborhood zone. I think it would be a great spot for infill of duplex/twin homes, micro units, row housing, or even someday a commercial space to support the area (like a bike and coffee shop). This home is unreinforced masonry and adds no significant character to the neighborhood. It will most likely be torn down regardless of zoning changes in the near future. Would the city like to see higher density with multiple living units or commercial, or just keep a small house with a backyard. Again, as an owner of one of the few single-family homes on this stretch, I say forget that. Let them be included in a higher and better density. Pictures of West Temple with notes Is this the character that the plan wants to preserve? Half of the homes around here are in disrepair and don’t add any real significant historical importance to the area. They could be incorporated into the up- zoning and in my opinion are not even close to a best use for an area that is right nest to mass transit, is easily bikeable, close to amenities, and is perfect for higher and better density and use. From:Jessa Tuminez To:Larsen, Nannette Cc:Lindquist, Kelsey Subject:Re: (EXTERNAL) Request for Ballpark Station Area Plan Date:Monday, November 29, 2021 4:55:12 PM Attachments:image003.png image004.png Thanks Nannette! Let me know once you have reviewed and discussed my comments with relevant parties. Would you be the final decision maker or would that be the GSBS consultants? I do feel strongly that my proposed change is more in line with the broad goals outlined in the Ballpark Station Area Plan and would serve to re-activate the area better, but I'm open to hearing and understanding the other side if there's disagreement or we choose not to modify the plan. Appreciate any updates you can give me. Thanks, Jessa Tuminez Jessa On Mon, Nov 22, 2021, 11:11 PM Jessa Tuminez <tuminez.j@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Nanette, I appreciate your clarification, thank you! I have a couple questions/comments: 1.Was there a particular reason the city chose to draw the line between Paxton rather than keeping the street uniformed in zoning? 2. I’d like to propose a change in the draft plan to include the north end of Paxton in the high density zoning. I think this makes sense given: The north and south side share many characteristics currently (ex. both streets have rental properties) and will share characteristics in the future such as the proposed bike route, being transit oriented, and having significant redevelopment opportunities Additionally, with the very under-utilized alleyway just north of Paxton street (boxed red in attached screenshot), I feel that this alley or Fremont Ave (with the park in front of it) would be the least intrusive to the neighborhood and would be a better line to delineate medium density from high density zoning I appreciate you taking my comments. I'm happy to talk through this in person or on the phone, if helpful. Just let me know. Thanks, Jessa Tuminez Proposed Future Land Use Map Incompatible with Surrounding Uses: Highlighted area has 3 older SFH's in between two large, high density apartment complexes. My house awkwardly sits 5 feet from a 6 story apartment complex. 1/2 block to the east, apartment complexes being developed on small lots that are the same size as mine. Directly across the street is the future home of an approved 500+ unit affordable/market housing project. The land in front of the 500+ unit development is currently being marketed for sale as another multi- family development site. A few months ago I had a DRC meeting with the planning department about this very issue. They agreed with my assessment that the current zoning and layout was "poor urban planning" and that the neighborhood would benefit from a change. However, they explained that the process to change the current future land use map would likely take 18+months. I was told that TSA or FB-UNC 2 zoning would be more appropriate and would better conform to the surrounding uses. I am hopeful that this small neighborhood plan offers a quicker path to updating the future land use map to a more neighborhood compatible zoning designation. Here is the info on my property: Property Address: Current Zoning: RM-35 Proposed Plan Zoning: Medium Density Neighbor's addresses: What are your thoughts on my proposal to update the plan to address this oversight? I'd love to hear your feedback/concerns. I would also be curious to hear what you would recommend for next steps. Is it possible to loop in the planning department as they are already aware of this situation? Thanks, Amy! On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 9:13 AM Marcus Lonardo <marcuslonardo10@gmail.com> wrote: From: Marcus Lonardo <marcuslonardo10@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 11:48 PM To: Anderson, John <John.Anderson@slcgov.com>; Lundmark, Susan <Susan.Lundmark@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Fwd: Ballpark Improvement Plan Hello John and Susan, I was referred to you both by Amy Hawkins. (See forwarded email thread). I understand that you are managing the creation of the Ballpark Station Area Plan. I have reviewed the draft plan in detail and am very impressed with your forward thinking vision for the neighborhood. I believe there are a few small, but important, tweaks that can be made to improve the plan. Is there still time for changes to be made? I would like have a discussion with the team responsible for ultimately finalizing the plan. Would either of you, or anyone on the plan creation team, be free for a 15 minute phone call? If helpful, I can detail my notes in a concise email. Please advise me on the best way to make mine and my neighbor's voice's heard. There are so many parties involved in the creation of the plan that it is difficult to identify the best people to speak with. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! -Marcus ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Amy J. Hawkins <amy.j hawkins@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 2:02 PM Subject: Re: Ballpark Improvement Plan To: Marcus Lonardo <marcuslonardo10@gmail.com> Cc: Paul Johnson <pjslc@yahoo.com>, Jesse Hulse <jesse@atlasarchitects.com> Sure, Marcus. I reached out to Susan Lundmark for her advice and this is what she suggested: To: Lundmark, Susan <Susan.Lundmark@slcgov.com>; Annaka Egan <aegan@gsbsconsulting.com>; Christine Richman <crichman@gsbsconsulting.com>; Anderson, John <John.Anderson@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Re: Ballpark Improvement Plan Hi Susan, Folks like Marcus are starting to send me their feedback on the Ballpark Area Plan. How should I best direct their comments? I don't want considered feedback like this to be lost. According to what I see on the area plan website, it doesn't seem like the public comment period has officially begun yet. Is that right? "The Planning Division of the City will set up community discussions with the focus on gauging community support for the plan. Where there is not support, let’s have a meaningful conversation about why and what can be done about it. The official 45-day public comment period for the plan will happen during this timeframe; check back on this website soon to make comment and/or sign up with your email address to receive notification of the public comment period." *** Hi Amy, Thanks very much for reaching out and I’m glad to hear that community members are reading through the Plan and considering their feedback. My understanding is the 45-day comment period is not open quite yet. Until that time, I think it would probably be helpful to suggest that community members consider documenting their feedback in one location (as Marcus has done in his email below) and enter their email address at the Plan website: https://www.slc.gov/planning/master-plans/ballparkplan/ With their email entered on that website, those community members will be notified directly when the comment period opens, and they can send their documented feedback directly to SLC Planning Division as part of the official Plan adoption process. Or, if they prefer, they can email their comments to John Anderson at john.anderson@slcgov.com John’s team will be managing the Plan adoption process and John can forward those emails to the appropriate planner once the official comment period opens. I hope that helps! Please let me know if you have other questions or if I can help in other ways. Thanks, Susan On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 1:23 PM Marcus Lonardo <marcuslonardo10@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you all for your feedback! I am in no rush but want to get my feedback incorporated in the Ballpark Area Masterplan, if possible. Is there a point of contact, who is heading up community outreach for the plan, I can be put in contact with? I saw that GSBS was contracted to advise on the plan. Can I be put in contact with their representative? Thank you, Marcus On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 3:44 PM Marcus Lonardo <marcuslonardo10@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you all for your feedback! I am in no rush but want to get my feedback incorporated in the Ballpark Area Masterplan, if possible. Is there a point of contact, who is heading up community outreach for the plan, I can be put in contact with? I saw that GSBS was contracted to advise on the plan. Can I be put in contact with their representative? Thank you, Marcus On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 7:46 PM <pjslc@yahoo.com> wrote: I must defer to Jesse’s professional expertise. The lot owners who wish for the change may do so on their own but there will be a financial cost. Planning (zoning@slcgov.com) can give you the specifics. The Ballpark plan may include some rezoning, but it certainly won’t move forward at a quick pace if that’s what you’re looking for. Though it’s unlikely you need to be concerned about zoning becoming less friendly to density in your neighborhood, so you might want to do a little wait and see. Personally I would only pursue a zoning change if I was planning to attempt a development on my own. Regards, Paul Paul Johnson Chair, Central 9th Community Council From: Jesse Hulse <jesse@atlasarchitects.com> Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 3:40 PM To: Marcus Lonardo <marcuslonardo10@gmail.com> Cc: Amy J. Hawkins <amy.j hawkins@gmail.com>; Paul Johnson <pjslc@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Ballpark Improvement Plan I think whether you pursue a rezone along the traditional route, or you hope the city does as part of their ballpark plan, the process will be the same, but it could take a lot longer if you wait for the City. If you want to pursue it for all 3 lots, you would need your neighbors to participate and just work with Planning to go through the process. The other option is to lobby the Administration, City Council, Planning Dept to make it part of the Ballpark plan to rezone Jesse J Hulse Principal, Atlas Architects Inc Vice Chair, Central 9th Community Council From: Marcus Lonardo <marcuslonardo10@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 4:45 PM To: Jesse Hulse <jesse@atlasarchitects.com> Cc: Amy J. Hawkins <amy.j hawkins@gmail.com>, Paul Johnson <pjslc@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Ballpark Improvement Plan Hi Jesse, Thank you for your feedback and thoughts. I'm glad to hear that you think a change in designation to something along the lines of TSA or FBUNC makes sense given the circumstances. Paul, I would be curious to hear your feedback as well. What do you all recommend as the next step? I want to do my best to push this concept to the neighborhood/planning department so that it can be incorporated into the final plan. I am not very familiar with the small area plan process and want to make sure I follow the proper steps and speak to the right people. Thank you all for your help and guidance. -Marcus On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 1:31 PM Jesse Hulse <jesse@atlasarchitects.com> wrote: In that case then yes, I would agree that even with their inherent faults, (which C9CC is pushing to correct) TSA or FB would make sense to allow for larger multi-family projects here. The existing RMF-35 isn’t bad though, it would allow for 3 story town home development like Rowhaus to the South which would also feel in character and scale or 3 story multifamily apartment. Some variation in height along a street is nice so that the street face doesn’t feel relentless and offers some extra opportunity for view and daylight to residents or passersby. My two cents. Jesse J Hulse Principal, Atlas Architects Inc Vice Chair, Central 9th Community Council From: Marcus Lonardo <marcuslonardo10@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 11:54 AM To: Jesse Hulse <jesse@atlasarchitects.com> Cc: Amy J. Hawkins <amy.j.hawkins@gmail.com>, Paul Johnson <pjslc@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Ballpark Improvement Plan Hi Jesse, Please let me know how I can be of help in applying pressure to make sure they follow through on the zoning changes. I strongly oppose preserving the existing character of the 3 parcels in question on the proposed Ballpark small area plan. My house is literally 5ft from a 6 story apartment complex. (have you seen the movie Up? ha!) I am in favor of amending the proposed plan for these parcels to a future land use zoning designation that better conforms to the sun-ounding uses. S1mounding uses: 2 Large high density apartments on either side. 500+ units going in directly across the street +additional land across the street being marketed for sale as another high density apartment site. We are literally swrnunded. We are a forgotten small island of SFH's in a sea of high density multi family-yet we still only have RMF-35 zoning and fall into the "medium density" designation on the proposed plan. TSA zoning is suggested one block south. I think the medium zoning designation for these three parcels ( or whole block) ,on the proposed plan, is an oversight. I had a DRC meeting with the city a few months back. They strongly agreed the cwTent layout is an example of poor urban planning. They recollllllended I pursue a rezone to FB-UNC 2 or TSA. They also recollllllended I reach out to the community council for fe.edback. They said a rezone process would take 18+ months and that you essentially need to be a RE developer. I am hopeful this small area plan can provide a quicker path to a more reasonable future land use designation. I only own one of the homes. My neighbors and I have serious concems about our long term property values being dramatically impared by the lack of conformity with the neighborhood. Do you see where I'm coming from? What are your thoughts/concems? Thank you, All! -Marcus On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 11:25 AM Jesse Hulse <jesse@atlasarchitects.com> wrote: Hi Marcus, Nice to meet you, I’m really glad that our efforts appeared to pay off – however we are going to have to keep after them to make sure they follow through on the zoning changes. What are you hoping to accomplish with a rezone, are you wanting to get your property and maybe the two neighbors rezoned, so they can be redeveloped into something denser like the two apartments on either side, or are you trying to preserve the character of those 3 existing properties? Jesse J Hulse Principal, Atlas Architects Inc Vice Chair, Central 9th Community Council From: Marcus Lonardo <marcuslonardo10@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 10:51 AM To: Amy J. Hawkins <amy.j hawkins@gmail.com> Cc: Paul Johnson <pjslc@yahoo.com>, Jesse Hulse <jesse@atlasarchitects.com> Subject: Re: Ballpark Improvement Plan Amy, thank you for the introduction and excellent synopsis. Hi Paul and Jesse, See my initial email to Amy for greater context. I look forward to connecting and identifying an appropriate future land use zone for the identified strip of land. On another note- you all were incredible in helping voice our neighborhood's concerns with the proposed homeless shelter around the corner. Great work! I I Thank you! -Marcus Lonardo Hi Amy, Thank you for sharing. I generally really like the plan and think it will help accommodate the necessa1y growth and changes our neighborhood will experience over the next 1 O+ years. I would like to point out one po1tion of the proposed map that I think could be improved upon. I I own a home at 1055 S 200 W that sits in between two large apartment complexes. My house is awkwardly 5 feet from C9 Flats, a six story apartment complex. There is another large apartment complex a few doors down. See image below: The proposed plan does not materially change the zoning designation for this awkward strip of highlighted land that includes my home (see above in yellow). I think this is because the homes in this strip barely fall outside of the 1/4 mile trax diameter. These homes are roughly 0.3 miles from both trax stops and still idea for a transit oriented development. Proposed Future Land Use Map Incompatible with Surrounding Uses: · Highlighted area has 3 older SFH's in between two large, high density apartment complexes. · My house awkwardly sits 5 feet from a 6 story apartment complex. · 1/2 block to the east, apartment complexes being developed on small lots that are the same size as mine. · Directly across the street is the future home of an approved 500+ unit affordable/market housing project. · The land in front of the 500+ unit development is currently being marketed for sale as another multi-family development site. A few months ago I had a DRC meeting with the planning department about this very issue. They agreed with my assessment that the current zoning and layout was "poor urban planning" and that the neighborhood would benefit from a change. However, they explained that the process to change the current future land use map would likely take 18+months. I was told that TSA or FB-UNC 2 zoning would be more appropriate and would better conform to the surrounding uses. I am hopeful that this small neighborhood plan offers a quicker path to updating the future land use map to a more neighborhood compatible zoning designation. Here is the info on my property: Property Address: 1055 South 200 West Current Zoning: RM-35 Proposed Plan Zoning: Medium Density Neighbor's addresses: 1049 S 200 W and 1039-1045 S W What are your thoughts on my proposal to update the plan to address this oversight? I'd love to hear your feedback/concerns. I would also be curious to hear what you would recommend for next steps. Is it possible to loop in the planning department as they are already aware of this situation? Thanks, Amy! On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 10:34 AM Amy J. Hawkins <amy.j.hawkins@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Paul and Jesse, Marcus Lonardo reached out to me because he lives about a block south of Central 9th in a home at 1055 South 200 West. He's looking to change the zoning of his property (currently his block includes 3 100+ year old homes adjacent to high density apartments on three sides) and thinks that this could be meaningful feedback to include in the Ballpark Area Plan. I agree! However, he's been advised that Form-Based 2 zoning or TSA zoning would be good options for his home. By both of our limited understanding this would match the "heart of the neighborhood" zoning designation that is proposed one block away. Could we help give him some feedback about how Form-Based Zoning has worked out for the Central 9th neighborhood and what kinds of zoning might make sense for his block? Best regards, Amy On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 3:13 PM Marcus Lonardo <marcuslonardo10@gmail.com> wrote: From:Lundmark, Susan To:mcgonigle.julia@gmail.com Cc:Lyons, Amy; Larsen, Nannette Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) SLC Bikeways Date:Wednesday, November 24, 2021 2:53:28 PM Hi Julia, I apologize for the delayed reply and thank you for the suggestion you sent to SLC Transportation Division. I was sent your email because I have been the City’s project manager for creating the Ballpark Station Area Plan, which is a transportation and land use plan in the direct vicinity of the Ballpark TRAX station and Smith’s Ballpark (where the Bees play). If you are interested, a public review draft of the Plan is available here, and there is also a place to enter your email to receive updates: https://www.slc.gov/planning/master-plans/ballparkplan/ The Plan is now going through the City’s official plan adoption process, including a public outreach and comment period. This step is being led by Nannette Larsen in SLC Planning Division, who is copied here so she can include your comment in the consideration of the draft plan. Just so you know, right now there is a recommendation in the draft Plan to further study the possibility re-allocating roadway space and/or reducing the number of vehicle travel lanes on 1300 South between State Street and 300 West to allow better bicycle and sidewalk options on this stretch. We are not promising that we would be able to do that, but we are recommending that we study it further to see what the options may be. I hope this helps! Please reach out to me or Nannette with any other questions. Thank you, Susan SUSAN LUNDMARK (pronouns: she/her) Project Manager, Transportation Planner Transportation Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6112 EMAIL susan.lundmark@slcgov.com www.slc.gov/transportation www.ourneighborhoodscan.com From: Julia McGonigle <mcgonigle.julia@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 11:10 AM To: Transportation <transportation@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) SLC Bikeways I see SLC is undergoing a lot of bike infrastructure planning for the next few years. Awesome! Happy to pay taxes to make that happen. I wish you would, in the meantime, connect the bike lane on 1300S between State and ~3rd/4th west. Currently the bike lane on 13th south just dumps you onto State Street with no bike friendly option other than diverting up to 900S or down to 1700S, which is a pretty far jump on the traffic heavy State Street. 1300S needs the bike lane extended to at least Main Street ASAP, but preferably just connect it all the way through as it is on 9th and 17th. This would be wonderful and cheap....just a little paint on the road. Your constituents would appreciate this immensely. From:Roo To:Larsen, Nannette Subject:(EXTERNAL) ballpark plan Date:Friday, February 4, 2022 7:38:06 PM Hi Nannette - these are purely my opinions as a resident. 1. festival street. I don’t think we need another festival street, at least not yet. we have yet to see how 300 S (500-600 W) plays out; we already have Edison St.; and our true festival street is between the City & County Building and the Library. 2. My primary destinations in this area. First, in order of frequency: Lowes Target Lucky 13 Ballpark TRAX station (usually alighting rather than boarding) Second, in order of preference: Lucky 13 Lowes (they have better garden section than Home Depot) Ballpark TRAX Target 3. West Temple is valuable to me because when I get off TRAX at 1300 South, it is the nicest road to ride my bicycle south to connect to Parley’s Trail. I appreciate the trees. I don’t ride on Main Street, despite the bike lanes, because it is too wide, too barren, and, in the summer, too hot. I hope any festival street action will not disrupt this. Although Central Pointe Station is closer to Parley’s Trail, the connection is more clunky. 4. Apartment buildings need PUBLIC ACCESS ground level retail or restaurants, not just activity centers and gyms for residents. If Ballpark needs destinations, these are the destinations. 5. Walmart and Lowes, in true cities, can be those ground level retail establishments, with parking garages and apartments above. I know this is not their preferred building form, but they can and will do it in locations (or countries) that demand it. It might sound weird, but I hope we can keep Lowes in Salt Lake. I like shopping in Salt Lake because I know that a percentage of sales tax goes to Salt Lake City. I try to shop in Salt Lake City instead of Millcreek or South Salt Lake. Thanks for considering my comments. Becka Roolf 563 E Elm Ave From:jody ellis To:Larsen, Nannette Subject:(EXTERNAL) Ballpark Station and Planning Date:Thursday, December 30, 2021 8:12:27 AM Hello Nannette, I have some questions and concerns regarding changes around the ballpark trax station. I understand change is needed. We need better and safer pedestrian access. I live on Lucy Ave between 200W and W Temple. It's a nice quiet street with good neighbors that watch out for each other. I'm not sure if I misunderstand that the plan is to have more access from trax to Lucy Ave. I can see access from Lucy from the west but please not more pedestrian traffic east of the trax. This is a residential area. I have used public transportation in many cities and we don't leave the station and walk through a neighborhood. There needs to be a safe walkway from the station to W Temple. The 1300 South sidewalk is too narrow. Could a sidewalk large enough for 2 way pedestrian traffic and bike lanes be placed along the north side of the trax parking lot and behind the Indian center and the 7Eleven. With a nice crosswalk across W Temple. Then eliminate the crosswalk by Lucy and pedestrian traffic down Lucy. With the homeless and Horizante traffic walking down our street many of us don't feel safe in our front yards. They walk down the street dropping trash, swearing... the dogs in the neighborhood bark at them, as they should because they are protecting their property. One of my neighbors said he thought there was something mentioned about using the alleys for pedestrian and bike traffic. I have a 2 car garage in the alley that we use daily. When I'm driving down the alley and there is someone walking I have to wait for them to move over so it is safe for me to pass them. My neighbor and I feel the alley is way to narrow for any type of pedestrian traffic. Besides at this time I wouldn't feel safe walking down the alley. All summer we had a homeless man camped by our neighbors garage. Many times when I leave or come home I need to ask people to move off my garage apron. Other neighbors have the same problem. Our alley is a mess and not a safe place. I look forward to making our neighborhood a better place. Sincerely, Jody Ellis From:Ciara C To:Larsen, Nannette Subject:(EXTERNAL) Ballpark Station Area Plan-recommendation of concern Date:Tuesday, April 5, 2022 9:40:31 AM Dear Ms Larsen, I am writing to you as a long time resident of Ballpark and homeowner on West Temple for nearly 20 years. My husband and I have been very involved in the community and are excited for the plans and future growth of the area. We appreciate all the hard work that has gone into creating the Ballpark Station Area Plan. Recently I reread the Ballpark Station Area Plan and noticed a recommendation of great concern. You can find the paragraph and recommendation of concern on page 18, paragraph "Main Street Area". I have also put the paragraph below for your convenience. "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 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." I am very much opposed to extending the State Street overlay zone to the west side of Main Street in the area from 1300 South and 2100 South. In reviewing the current overlay map it appears that city planners intentionally omitted the west section of Main Street beginning at 1300 South. I assume this was an effort to keep the character and charm of that section of Main Street. It is my understanding that all the properties on the west side, currently zoned Commercial Corridor could and would in the future be exempt from any setback if this layover is in fact extended. This type of overlay zoning would be absolutely devastating for that specific area where developers are already chomping at the bit to purchase and build right up to the sidewalk. As you may know the Ballpark area is in desperate need of greenspace and this overlay would greatly reduce what small amount we do have. This recommendation is contradictory to the rest of the area plan that often states an intention for landscape design and enhanced neighborhood greenspace. Furthermore in the paragraph it states that the two sides of Main Street should be compatible. Developers are already interpreting this to mean that the two sides of the street should “mirror” and suggesting west side setbacks be eliminated to match the east side. I can not imagine concrete walls are the goal for our lovely Main Street. Please please reconsider this recommendation. The west side of Main Street (between 1300 South to 2100 South) is where many of the local residents walk and serves as a transition into the residential community west of Main. It also provides a pleasant walk to the stadium. The properties are green, lovely and yes, setback from the street. This area has so much character and charm. It would be a shame to see it go. Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Ciara Combs From:Kelsey Maas To:Larsen, Nannette Subject:(EXTERNAL) Ballpark Area Plan - Resident Comments Date:Thursday, May 26, 2022 5:31:43 PM Dear Nannette, I'm a resident of this area. I live on South Jefferson. I sat in on the Ballpark Community Council meeting and heard the city updates. I'd like to see South Jefferson also see the same protections that the "Avenue" streets will see. While there is one massive development on Goltz - it doesn't fit well with the rest of the street. I heard a developer argue that because 200 W will be developed, then we might as well build up Goltz and South Jefferson, which I don't understand this logic. I welcome development on 200 W. The trax line serves as a natural divide between the areas. Central Ninth has many areas where there are street enclaves of similar residential forms (homes, duplexes, small multiplexes) (S. Jefferson between 800-900S, Washington between 800-900S) that are great! Please don't allow developers to demo these affordable historic homes with unsustainable zoning. Thanks for your time, Kelsey (84101) From:Amy J. Hawkins To:Larsen, Nannette Cc:sarah.reale@gmail.com; danthomas801@gmail.com; Jeffs2123@yahoo.com; dougflagler@gmail.com Subject:(EXTERNAL) more accessible version of the Station Area Plan? Date:Tuesday, July 12, 2022 6:17:37 PM Hi Nannette, Several of the Ballpark Community Council Board Members and community members would like to engage with the Ballpark Station Area Plan and review the draft document, but they are finding it very challenging due to the size of the text in both the body of the document (most of which is in 9-point font) and the text in the figures. I have to admit that even for someone familiar with the zoom features on a pdf viewer and with a large computer monitor, it can be quite challenging to view the document. Not all of the Ballpark Community Council board members, and certainly the vast majority of Ballpark community members have access to that level of digital literacy or equipment. Is there a way that we could be provided with a more visually-accessible version of the Station Area Plan? I apologize for not getting back to you about this issue earlier. I know it is important to allow community members the opportunity to view and respond to this plan. When it comes to issues of access, digital literacy, and even squinting at smaller fonts, I should have tried to communicate with others with more nuance about potential barriers to viewing the Station Area Plan. You might be able to imagine how some of these conversations went--I think most people can get embarrassed, frustrated, and defensive when they don't have access or ease of use with technology that they perceive others do. It wasn't immediately obvious to me that even though I was struggling with zooming in and out, for others in our neighborhood, this was presenting some impossible barriers to entry to engaging with the details in the drafts of the plan. (This could be one reason why the city may have received relatively little community response thus far.) I would appreciate any help with getting a more visually-accessible version of the plan. Thank you for your time, 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. From:cindy cromer To:Larsen, Nannette Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fw: Station Area Plan TONIGHT Date:Wednesday, July 27, 2022 3:13:06 PM draft of comments for tonight; probably similar but could change See you tonight. cindy c. I have extensive history with Small Area plans, beginning in the 1980's with the East Central Neighborhood Plan, adopted in 1984. I have worked on almost all of the small area plans in the Central Community since that time and am a huge fan of the planning tool to solve complex land use issues facing the neighborhoods in the Central Community, especially East Central. Relative to the plans I have worked on, the scope of this small area plan is actually large. Frequently the plans have been a single block or a commercial node. The proposal covers a much larger area. It could more appropriately be called a large, small area plan. Small area plans in my experience have been initiated by challenging issues facing a defined area, for example the Smith's loading dock at 9th and 9th. This plan does NOT begin where other plans begin. It doesn't start where the neighborhood is. The pressing issues are crime, personal safety, and displacement of business people and residents. This is where the plan has to start because moving the conversation to a Festival Street is a long way from where we are. And a starting point regarding the perceptions of the neighborhood is essential to engaging in the kind of designs which would reduce crime and make the neighborhood safer. Connectivity, the darling concept of planners, is a bad idea for the foreseeable future. Increasing home ownership substantially would be helpful. Additional public spaces where people who are not law abiding can gather are NOT a good idea. I was very concerned when I heard that the City, in top-down fashion, was suggesting a branch of the library. Not now...not in this budget cycle or the next one. So the plan needs to start where the neighborhood is. That is what all of the small area plans I have worked on have done. This one should not be any different. P.O. BOX 520697 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84152-0697 Dear Planning Commission We are reaching out to comment on the Ballpark Station Area Plan that is on the agenda for July 27, 2022. We here at TAG SLC are very interested in the neighborhood and have made significant investments in what we view as one of the most vibrant and exciting areas of Salt Lake City. Overall, we felt that the plan will contribute towards making the neighborhood a more positive place to live. The plans around creating a more engaging West Temple Corridor on both game days and year-round were especially exciting. However, we are concerned with the proposed Jefferson Park Mixed-Use Area. Our core concern is the proposed height limited for “Jefferson and avenues streets” which is called out to be 2-3 stories. The vast majority of this area is being proposed to allow more height and density than what is allowed today. Yet, this section of Jefferson Mixed-Use Area seems to be being down zoned, as these streets are currently zoned to allow 35 ft height (3 stories) This area is directly between the 900 S and Ballpark Trax Stops, making it a great place to add density. There is precedence within the Jefferson Mixed Use as the most recent projects completed in this area were rezoned from RMF-35 to R-MU. (which allows 75 ft by right). The proximity to open space @ Jefferson Park is another reason that this area is well suited for additional density. We ask the planning commission and staff to consider allowing more height and density across the Jefferson Park Mixed Use Area. Best regards, The TAG SLC Team 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. Item C1 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:October 4, 2022 RE: Green Street Alley Vacation PLNPCM2020-00903 MOTION 1 (adopt) I move that the Council adopt the ordinance MOTION 2 (reject) I move that the Council reject the ordinance. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:October 4, 2022 RE: Green Street Alley Vacation PLNPCM2020-00903 PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE No one spoke at the September 20, 2022 public hearing. The Council closed the hearing and deferred action to a future Council meeting. The following information was provided for the September 20, 2022 Council public hearing. It is provided again for background purposes. BRIEFING UPDATE Council Members did not express objections to the proposed alley vacation. They confirmed with Planning staff the alley property would be divided in half and deeded to abutting property owners if the alley vacation is adopted. The following information was provided for the September 13, 2022 Council briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will be briefed about a proposal to vacate a T-shaped alley between 1300 South and Harrison Avenue, and between Green Street (approximately 655 East) and 700 East. The alley was platted as part of the Marion Park Subdivision in 1890 and is adjacent to six residential properties on Green Street, property Item Schedule: Briefing: September 13, 2022 Set Date: September 6, 2022 Public Hearing: September 20, 2022 Potential Action: October 4, 2022 Page | 2 at the southwest corner of 1300 South and 700 East owned by Grace Gospel Church, and UDOT as shown in the image below. All abutting parcels are zoned R-1/5,000, with the exception of the UDOT property which, due to its ownership by the State, is not required to have a City zoning designation. Homes fronting 700 East existed on the east side of the alley until UDOT acquired the property in the 1960s for an expansion of 700 East and the homes were demolished. The alley has not been used in the decades since and exists only on paper. It is not a potential mid-block connection as is the case with some alleyways in the City. Abutting property owners to the west incorporated the alley into their properties and built fences and other encroachments. The petitioner, who is an adjacent property owner, discovered this issue when applying for a building permit to construct a shed on what they learned is alley property. When UDOT acquired land adjacent to the alley for the above referenced 700 East expansion, a subdivision amendment was not processed so that land is still considered by the City to be residential. It remained vacant for years until a community garden was recently created on a portion of the UDOT land as shown below. 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. While the Gospel Grace Church property is not being used as residential, it is zoned R-1/5,000, (which is a conditional use in this zoning designation), so the Church would not be charged for abutting alley property if the Council approves the alley vacation. Similarly, UDOT would not be charged for the alley segment abutting its property since a subdivision amendment changing the land use was not processed when the property was acquired. Abutting Green Street property owners signed a petition supporting the alley vacation. Although a representative of Gospel Grace Church did not sign the petition, Planning staff stated the Church agreed to participate in the proposal. During City department and division review of the alley vacation petition, the Engineering Division expressed opposition for the following reasons: •Vacating the alley would give half ownership to the residential property owners west of the alley, and half to UDOT. (It is worth noting UDOT expressed a willingness to concede its half of the alley except for a small segment on the eastern side of the east/west portion of the alley.) If approved, the residential property owners and UDOT could complete that transaction without City involvement. •Illegal encroachment by adjacent property owners should not be the basis for an alley vacation. (Planning staff stated encroachment is not the reason for the vacation, rather it is lack of use.) •There should be a community benefit due to the vacation. No objections were received from other responding City departments or divisions. The Planning Commission reviewed this petition at its February 23, 2o22 meeting and held a public hearing. One person spoke at the hearing sharing concerns about the City not charging low-density residential property owners for abutting alley property but charging adjacent commercial and higher density residential owners when alleys are vacated. The Commission followed Planning staff’s recommendation and forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation to the Council for the alley vacation. Included in the recommendation is a condition that the entire width of the north/south alley segment should be deeded to the abutting residential property owners on the alley’s west side. The Attorney’s Office recommends half of the alley is deeded to abutting property owners on each side of the alley as outlined in City Code if the Council adopts the alley vacation. Owners can work with each other without City involvement to transfer ownership. Page | 3 Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed alley closure, address questions Council Members may have and prepare for a public hearing. POLICY QUESTION 1. If the Council is supportive of this alley closure request, does it prefer to divide the alley property between the abutting property owners, or deed the entire width to residential property owners to the west? Page | 4 Image courtesy Salt Lake City Planning Division Community garden at the corner of Harrison Avenue and 700 East Image courtesy of Google ADDITONAL INFORMATION Alley vacation requests receive three phases of review, as outlined in section 14.52.030 Salt Lake City Code (see pages 6-8 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 5-6 of the Planning Commission staff report for full analysis of these issues. Issue 1: Alley Vacation Request The petitioner originally requested vacating only the alley segment abutting properties between 1331 South Green Street and 669 East Harrison Avenue. It was discovered the alley segments abutting Gospel Grace Church were also absorbed into its property. The Church agreed to be included in the proposed alley vacation. Planning staff noted the alley stopped having a purpose or use after abutting homes east of the alley were demolished in the 1960s. It is Planning’s opinion the alley is not useful as a public right-of-way and satisfies the “Lack of Use” policy consideration required in Section 14.52.02 of Salt Lake City Code. Issue 2: Alley Ownership Initially it was unclear if the City or UDOT owned the alley. Planning staff worked with UDOT and determined the alley was not part of the right-of-way acquired by UDOT. The petitioner provided a survey of their property that shows the alley at the rear of their property. Issue 3: Alley Disposition Page | 5 As discussed above, disposition of vacated City alleys is outlined in Section 14.52.040 Salt Lake City Code. For vacated alleys abutting low-density residential properties, the alley is divided in half and property owners on either side receive half the alley. As all abutting properties are designated as low-density residential, each will receive half the alley property adjacent to their properties if the Council adopts the proposal. Planning reviewed the proposed alley vacation against standards required for alley vacations and believes City policies and the relevant master plan do not include any policies opposed to the vacation. The Council has expressed an interest in retaining ownership of alleys that have future potential for mid-block connectivity or trail usage. This alleyway does not appear to have that potential future use. Attachment D (pages 24-26 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. According to Engineering staff, the division opposes giving UDOT half the alley segment abutting its property. Engineering also stated encroachment should not be the basis for vacating an alley. Planning staff stated Lack of Use is the basis, not encroachment. Community purpose is one policy consideration for alley vacations, however, as noted above, Lack of Use is the policy consideration for the subject petition. Other City departments and divisions had no issues with the proposal or did not provide comments. •City Code required analysis: The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations for closure, vacation or abandonment of City owned alleys (Lack of Use, Public Safety, Urban Design, Community Purpose). Finding: Complies. Planning staff determined the proposed alley vacation satisfies the Lack of Use policy consideration. •City Code required analysis: The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property. Finding: Complies. The subject alley does not functionally exist, so no abutting properties use it for required off-street parking. •City Code required analysis: The petition will not result in any property being landlocked. Finding: Complies. All abutting properties have public street access. No property would be landlocked 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: Complies. Plan Salt Lake promotes increased connectivity through mid-block connections. However, the alley is not needed for this purpose. The Central Community Master Plan calls for the linear parkway on the west side of 700 East to be improved. The recently opened community garden on the property between the alley and 700 East improved the parkway. Planning staff stated the proposed alley vacation will not have an impact. Page | 6 •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 proposal would vacate the entire alley. •City Code required analysis: The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. Finding: Complies. None of the properties abutting the subject alley use it for rear access. PUBLIC PROCESS December 15, 2020-Petition received by Planning Division. January 11, 2021-Petition assigned to Katia Pace, Principal Planner. March 16, 2021-Confirmed alley belongs to Salt Lake City. April 8, 2021-Notice of the alley vacation request and request for comments sent to the Liberty Wells Community Council and East Liberty Park Community Organization Chairs. No comments were provided from either organization prior to the May 23, 2021 45-day recognized organization comment period expiration. June 1, 2021-Verbal approval received from Gospel Grace Church to include its property in the application. June 15, 2021-Early notification announcement sent to residents and owners within 300 feet of the subject alley. The notice included information about the project and how to provide public input. November 3, 2021-Received confirmation UDOT would relinquish its right to half the north/south alley segment. February 10, 2022-Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed. Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. February 13, 2022-Public hearing notice signs posted on property. February 24, 2022-Planning Commission review and public hearing. One person spoke in opposition to the proposal. The Commission closed the hearing and unanimously voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. March 21, 2022-Draft ordinance sent to the Attorney’s Office. August 1, 2022-Signed ordinance sent to Planning Division from Attorney’s Office (some questions arose about the proposal which created a delay). August 2, 2022-Transmittal received in City Council Office Page | 7 The process for closing or vacating a City-owned alley is outlined in Section 14.52 Salt Lake City Code. 14.52.010: DISPOSITION OF CITY'S PROPERTY INTEREST IN ALLEYS: The city supports the legal disposition of Salt Lake City's real property interests, in whole or in part, with regard to city owned alleys, subject to the substantive and procedural requirements set forth herein. 14.52.020: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR CLOSURE, VACATION OR ABANDONMENT OF CITY OWNED ALLEYS: The city will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations: A. Lack Of Use: The city's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat; however, it is evident from an onsite inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right of way; B. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity, unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area; C. Urban Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element; or D. Community Purpose: The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002) 14.52.030: PROCESSING PETITIONS: There will be three (3) phases for processing petitions to dispose of city owned alleys under this section. Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing, including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City Council. A. Administrative Determination Of Completeness: The city administration will determine whether or not the petition is complete according to the following requirements: 1. The petition must bear the signatures of no less than seventy five percent (75%) of the neighbors owning property which abuts the subject alley property; 2. The petition must identify which policy considerations discussed above support the petition; 3. The petition must affirm that written notice has been given to all owners of property located in the block or blocks within which the subject alley property is located; 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 Page | 8 consider the proposed disposition of the city owned alley property. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the planning commission shall make a report and recommendation to the city council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors: 1. The city police department, fire department, transportation division, and all other relevant city departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the property; 2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; 3. Granting the petition will not deny sole access or required off street parking to any property adjacent to the alley; 4. Granting the petition will not result in any property being landlocked; 5. Granting the petition will not result in a use of the alley property which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the city, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses; 6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within twelve (12) months of issuance of the building permit; 7. The petition furthers the city preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and 8. The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. C. Public Hearing Before The City Council: Upon receipt of the report and recommendation from the planning commission, the city council will consider the proposed petition for disposition of the subject alley property. After a public hearing to consider the matter, the city council will make a decision on the proposed petition based upon the factors identified above. (Ord. 58-13, 2013: Ord. 24-11, 2011) 14.52.040: METHOD OF DISPOSITION: If the city council grants the petition, the city owned alley property will be disposed of as follows: A. Low Density Residential Areas: If the alley property abuts properties which are zoned for low density residential use, the alley will merely be vacated. For the purposes of this section, "low density residential use" shall mean properties which are zoned for single-family, duplex or twin home residential uses. 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) Page | 9 14.52.050: PETITION FOR REVIEW: Any party aggrieved by the decision of the city council as to the disposition of city owned alley property may file a petition for review of that decision within thirty (30) days after the city council's decision becomes final, in the 3rd district court. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 2, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Green Street Alley Vacation – PLNPCM2020-00903 STAFF CONTACT: Katia Pace, Principal Planner, katia.pace@slcgov.com (801) 535-6354 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve an Ordinance to vacate the alley. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Nicholas Lumby, property owner residing at 1343 S Green Street, is requesting Salt Lake City to vacate a “T” shaped alley adjacent to his property and running between 1300 South and Harrison Avenue and Green Street and 700 East. The property abutting this alley is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District). The alley exists in paper only and the abutting property owners have encroached the alley into their properties. UDOT is an abutting property owner of the alley, it owns land in this block that was acquired when 700 East was expanded in the 1960s. This alley was plated as part of the Marion Park Subdivision in 1890. In the early 1960s, 700 East was expanded and the homes on the east of this block were demolished to give way for the road expansion. The alley was absorbed into the abutting properties to the west, but it was never vacated. The issued was discovered recently when the applicant requested a building permit for a garage on land that is part of the alley. 8/2/2022 8/2/2022 Lisa Shaffer (Aug 2, 2022 12:35 MDT) 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 8 Proposed alley vacation – red line Abutting property owners: 1. Gospel Grace Church (yellow dotted line): 662, 664, 666 E 1300 South & 1319, 1325 S Green Street 2. 1331 S Green Street 3. 1337 S Green Street 4. 1343 S Green Street (Petitioner) 5. 1347 S Green Street 6. 1351 S Green Street 7. 669 E Harrison Avenue 8. UDOT acquired land for expansion of 700 East According to Section 14.52.040 of Salt Lake City Code, the City’s method of disposition for a vacated alley, that abuts property zoned for low density residential use, is to split the alley in half and deed each respective half back to the abutting property owners. The Gospel Grace Church property is within the R-1/5,000 (single-family residential), therefore the alley abutting the church and the residential properties would be deeded and not sold. According to the disposition method listed above, UDOT will receive half of the alley abutting its property. That means that part of the property generally occupied by the west property owners, will be owned by UDOT. UDOT has stated that it’s willing to give up its half portion of the north/south alley. If the alley is vacated the property owners will work with Real Estate Services and UDOT to exchange properties as needed. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chair of the Liberty Wells Community Council and East Liberty Park Community Organization on April 8, 2021. • Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners located within 300 feet of the project site on June 15, 2021, providing notice about the project and information on how to give public input on the project. • No formal comments were submitted by the Liberty Wells Community Council or the East Liberty Park Community Organization. • No public comments were submitted in relation to this proposal. • A Planning Commission Public Hearing was held on February 23, 2022. • The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to City Council for the alley vacation with the condition that the alley be deeded in its entirety to the west abutting property owners. EXHIBITS: 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Hearing 3. Planning Commission Record a) Planning Commission Notice and Postmark of February 23, 2022 b) Planning Commission Agenda of February 23, 2022 c) Planning Commission Minutes of February 23, 2022 d) Planning Commission Staff Report of February 23, 2022 4. Original Petition 5. Mailing List SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2022 (Vacating a city-owned alley situated in the Marion Park Subdivision between 1300 South Street and Harrison Avenue and Green Street and 700 East Street) An ordinance vacating an unnamed city-owned alley situated in the Marion Park Subdivision between 1300 South Street and Harrison Avenue and Green Street and 700 East Street, pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00903. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on February 23, 2022, to consider a request made by Nicholas Lumby (“Applicant”) (Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00903) to vacate an unnamed city-owned alley; and WHEREAS, the petition demonstrates that the alley has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right of way; and WHEREAS, at its February 23, 2022, hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation on said petition to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”); 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 situated in the Marion Park Subdivision located between 1300 South Street and Harrison Avenue and Green Street and 700 East Street, which is the subject of Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00903, and which is more particularly described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto, is hereby vacated and declared not presently necessary or available for public use. SECTION 2. Reservations and Disclaimers. The vacation is expressly made subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of this property, and subject to the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities, including the city’s water and sewer facilities. Said vacation is also subject to any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of ______________, 2022. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ 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 August 1, 2022 EXHIBIT “A” GREEN ALLEY VACATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 29, BLOCK 1 OF THE MARION PARK SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 14, 5 ACRE PLAT “A”, BIG FIELD SURVEY; AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 10 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 15, SAID BLOCK 1; THENCE EAST 109.8 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 45°00’00” EAST 7.07 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 366 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 2, SAID BLOCK 1; THENCE EAST 10 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, SAID BLOCK 1; THENCE NORTH 366 FEET; THENCE NORTH 45°00’00” WEST 7.07 FEET; THENCE EAST 109.8 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 16, SAID BLOCK 1; THENCE NORTH 10 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 37, SAID BLOCK 1; THENCE WEST 239.6 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2020-00903 December 15, 2020 Petition received by the Planning Division. January 11, 2021 Petition assigned to Katia Pace, Principal Planner. March 16, 2021 Got confirmation that alley was Salt Lake City property and not UDOT’s property. Couldn’t move forward without this confirmation of alley ownership. April 8, 2021 Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the chairs of the Liberty Wells Community Council and East Liberty Park Community Organization. Neither chair provided response to the request for comment. June 1, 2021 Got verbal approval from the Gospel Grace Church to include their property to the application. June 15, 2021 Sent notice of application to property owners and tenants of property within 300 feet of the alley. Received no response. November 3, 2021 Got confirmation that UDOT relinquished their right to get half of the north/south portion of the alley. February 10, 2022 Planning Commission hearing notice mailed to owners and tenants of property within 300 feet of the alley. February 24, 2022 Planning Commission reviewed the petition and conducted a public hearing. The commission then voted to send a positive recommendation to the City Council. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2020-00903 – Green Alley Vacation – The owner at 1343 S Green Street, Nicholas Lumby, has requested Salt Lake City to vacate a "T" shaped alley running between 1300 South and Harrison Avenue and Green Street and 700 East. The alley exists on paper only and the abutting property owners have incorporated the alley into their properties. The property abutting this alley is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District) and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TBD 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 Katia Pace at 801-535-6354 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at katia.pace@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition numbers PLNPCM2020-00903. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD a) Notice and Postmark of February 23, 2022 3. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD b) Planning Commission Agenda of February 23, 2022 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA February 23, 2022 at 5:30 p.m. (The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion) ATTENTION: This meeting will not have an anchor location at the City & County Building based on the following determination by the Planning Commission Chair: I, Amy Barry, Chair of the Planning Commission, hereby determine that with the ongoing COVID -19 pandemic conditions existing in Salt Lake City including, but not limited to, the elevated number of cases, that meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who would be present. Commission Members will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms: • YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings • SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or would like to provide general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at: • https://bit.ly/slc-pc-02232022 Instructions for using WebEx are provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2022 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ADU Conditional Use at Approximately 1532 South Green Street - Dorian Rosen, the property owner, has requested conditional use approval for a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to be situated in the rear, west side of the property located at the above-stated address. The ADU will be 14’8” tall and 650 square-feet. To meet the requirements to allow the ADU to reach the maximum 650 square feet a 425 square foot addition to the main dwelling will be built. The subject property is zoned R-1 /5,000 (Single-Family Residential) and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Marino. (Staff contact: Grant Amann at 801-535-6171 or grant.amann@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021-01273 2. Green Street Alley Vacation - Sara Koenig, the property owner at approximately 1343 S Green Street, is requesting Salt Lake City to vacate a "T" shaped alley running between 1300 South and Harrison Avenue and Green Street and 700 East. The alley exists on paper only and the abutting property owners have incorporated the alley into their properties. The property abutting this alley is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District) and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Katia Pace at 801-535-6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00903 3. Dooley Court Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision at approximately 122 S Dooley CT and 126 S Windsor Street - Warren Crummett, the property owner, is requesting planned development and preliminary subdivision approval to divide an existing lot into two lots for a new twin home. The proposal includes retaining the existing single-family home on-site and building a new twin home on the newly created lots. Planned Development approval is requested to modify the required twin home lot area from 1,500 square feet to approximately 1,367 square feet and for an approximate 2-inch reduction to the front yard setback in the southwest area of the lot fronting Dooley Court. The project is located in the SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) zoning district. a. Planned Development – Planned Development request to waive lot area and setback requirements in the SR-3 zone. Case number PLNPCM2021-00958 b. Preliminary Subdivision – Creation of two new lots to accommodate a twin home. Case number PLNSUB2021-01151 The subject property is within Council District #4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: Krissy Gilmore at 801-535-7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) 4. Glendale Townhomes at approximately 1179 S Navajo Street - Pierre Langue of Axis Architects, representing the property owners, is requesting approval from the City to redevelop the property with 57 townhomes, 24 of which would include a live/work option. The buildings would be three stories tall with internal garages for each unit. Currently, the land is occupied by Tejedas Market and is zoned CB (Community Business). This type of project must be reviewed as a Planned Development as four of the buildings would not have frontage on a public street. The subject property is located within Council District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy. (Staff contact: Eric Daems at 801-535-7236 or eric.daems@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021-00378 5. Pacific Yard Design Review & Planned Development - KTGY Architects, representing Urban Alfandre, are requesting a Planned Development and Design Review approval for a mixed-use multifamily building at approximately 443 W 700 South, 720 S 400 West, and 704 S 400 West. The proposed 7-story building is 88-feet in height and includes 292 units and 202 parking stalls. It has 12,000 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor. The applicant is requesting relief from all required setbacks and landscaping through the Planned Development process and requesting an additional 28 feet of building height through Design Review. The project site is in the General Commercial (CG) zoning district. In the CG zone, new buildings taller than sixty feet (60') but less than ninety feet (90') may be authorized through Design Review. The proposed project incorporates a public mid-block pedestrian walkway along the western property line a. Planned Development – Planned Development request to waive setback and landscaping requirements in the CG zone. Case number PLNPCM2021-00822 b. Design Review – Design Review request for 28 feet of additional height. Case number PLNPCM2021-00835 The property is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff Contact: Laura Bandara at 801-535-6188 or laura.bandara@slcgov.com) 6. Hoyt Place Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 858 W & 860 W Hoyt Place - Bert Holland, representing Hoyt Place Development LLC, is requesting a zoning map amendment for the properties located at the above-stated address. The proposal would rezone the properties from R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District. The two lots are approximately .39 acres or 16,988 square feet. Future development plans were not submitted with this application. The property is located within Council District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman at 801-535-7660 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021-01073 7. Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment – Stephen Pace, the applicant, is requesting a zoning text amendment to permit the restoration or reconstruction of a historic carriage house for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The dwelling unit, located within the reconstructed or restored historic carriage house, would not be required to meet density, lot coverage, setbacks of the applicable base zoning district, or the accessory structure footprint or height limitations. The proposed language requires eligible properties to be both a Salt Lake City Landmark and listed as a National Register Site of Historic Places and located in one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), I (Institutional) or SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential). (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist at 385-226- 7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00106 For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public- meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD c) Planning Commission Minutes of February 23, 2022 Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 1 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING This meeting was held electronically Wednesday, February 23, 2022 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at approximately 5:30 pm. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. These minutes are a summary of the meeting. For complete commentary and presentation of the meeting, please visit https://www.youtube.com/c/SLCLiveMeetings. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Vice-Chairperson Maurine Bachman, Commissioners Andra Ghent, Jon Lee, Andres Paredes, Mike Christensen, Brenda Scheer, Adrienne Bell, and Aimee Burrows. Chairperson Amy Barry was excused. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Planning Manager John Anderson, Planning Manager Kelsey Lindquist, Senior City Attorney Hannah Vickery, Associate Planner Grant Amann, Principal Planner Katia Pace, Senior Planner Kristina Gilmore, Senior Planner Eric Daems, Urban Designer Laura Bandara, Principal Planner Amanda Roman, Administrative Secretary David Schupick, and Administrative Secretary Aubrey Clark. REPORT OF THE CHAIR & VICE-CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2022 Brenda abstained. All other Commissioners voted “yes”. The motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS ADU Conditional Use at Approximately 1532 South Green Street - Dorian Rosen, the property owner, has requested conditional use approval for a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to be situated in the rear, west side of the property located at the above-stated address. The ADU will be 14’8” tall and 650 square-feet. To meet the requirements to allow the ADU to reach the maximum 650 square feet a 425 square foot addition to the main dwelling will be built. The subject property is zoned R-1 /5,000 (Single-Family Residential) and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Grant Amann at 801-535-6171 or grant.amann@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021- 01273 Associate Planning Grant Amann reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff report. He stated that Staff recommends approval with conditions listed in the staff report. He reviewed the ADU size, parking location, ADU access, and neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Aimee Burrows shared concern about condition number 3 being added in. She felt that it should not be added into the conditions because it is already part of City code. The Commissioners discussed how it was handled on previous cases. Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 2 The Applicant Dorian Rosen stated that he was available for any questions but did not have a presentation. Commissioner Ghent asked the applicant if he was aware of the City not permitting rentals under 30 days. The applicant stated that he was aware. PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Bachman opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one wished to speak, Commissioner Bachman closed the public hearing. MOTION Commissioner Brenda Scheer stated, Motion to Approve with Modifications Recommended by the Planning Commission: Based on the findings listed in the staff report, the information presented, and input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use petition (PLNPCM2021-01273) as proposed, with the conditions listed in the staff report, with the following modifications: removal of condition 3. Commissioner Andra Ghent seconded the motion. Commissioners Andres Paredes, Mike Christensen, Adrienne Bell, Jon Lee, Andra Ghent, Aimee Burrows, and Brenda Scheer voted “yes”. The motion passed unanimously. Green Street Alley Vacation - Sara Koenig, the property owner at approximately 1343 S Green Street, is requesting Salt Lake City to vacate a "T" shaped alley running between 1300 South and Harrison Avenue and Green Street and 700 East. The alley exists on paper only and the abutting property owners have incorporated the alley into their properties. The property abutting this alley is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District) and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Katia Pace at 801-535-6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020- 00903 Principal Planner Katia Pace reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. She stated that Staff recommends a positive recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Aimee Burrows asked for clarification on if the property owners will have to buy t he land or if it will be deeded to them. Katia Pace stated that it will be deeded to them, based on single family residential zoning. Commissioner Burrows stated that she remembers another case in which the property owners had to purchase the land. Katia Pace stated that is the case for multifamily zoning districts or commercial properties. Commissioner Burrows asked if encroachment is a reason for vacant use of the alley. Katia Pace stated that in the past it functioned as an alley but since the demolition of the properties on the east side for the expansion of 700 East, it no longer functioned as an alley. Commissioner Burrows asked for clarification that the lack of use then caused the encroachment. Katia Pace stated that was correct. Commissioner Burrows asked if all the property owners have signed onto the project. Katia Pace stated that the applicant was looking for a building permit on top of the alley, and at that moment found the property was not theirs but the city’s property. She also stated that the five property owners have signed the form and the approval of the church for this application. Nicholas Lumby stated that he did apply for the application when he found out the land was not part of his property. He stated that one of his neighbors had tried to get the alley vacated before in the past. Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 3 When speaking with other neighbors he found that they were all under the impression that the fence line was the end of their property line. PUBLIC HEARING Vice-Chairperson Maurine Bachman opened the public hearing. • Cindy Cromer stated disapproval for the project. Vice-Chairperson Maurine Bachman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Brenda Scheer stated concern of how the property is being deeded and not paid for since in the past property owners have had to pay. MOTION Commissioner Brenda Scheer stated, Based on the findings and analysis in the staff report, testimony, and discussion at the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the mayor to declare the alley surplus property and for the City Council to vacate the alley with the following condition: 1.That the alley is deeded the entire 10-foot width to the west abutting property owners. Commissioner Mike Christensen seconded the motion. Commissioners Andra Ghent, Jon Lee, Andres Paredes, Mike Christensen, Brenda Scheer, Adrienne Bell, and Aimee Burrows all voted “yes”. The motion passed unanimously. Dooley Court Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision at approximately 122 S Dooley CT and 126 S Windsor Street - Warren Crummett, the property owner, is requesting planned development and preliminary subdivision approval to divide an existing lot into two lots for a new twin home. The proposal includes retaining the existing single-family home on-site and building a new twin home on the newly created lots. Planned Development approval is requested to modify the required twin home lot area from 1,500 square feet to approximately 1,367 square feet and for an approximate 2-inch reduction to the front yard setback in the southwest area of the lot fronting Dooley Court. The project is located in the SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) zoning district. a. Planned Development – Planned Development request to waive lot area and setback requirements in the SR-3 zone. Case number PLNPCM2021-00958 b. Preliminary Subdivision – Creation of two new lots to accommodate a twin home. Case number PLNSUB2021-01151 The subject property is within Council District #4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: Krissy Gilmore at 801-535-7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) Senior Planner Krissy Gilmore reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. She stated that Staff recommends approval with the conditions listed in the Staff Report. Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 4 Commissioner Burrows asked if a 2-inch setback modification request is common. Staff clarified that it is not, but felt it was best to include it in the application to be safe. The Applicant Warren Crummett stated that he is passionate about this project because it addressed the missing middle type housing that is needed. PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Bachman opened the public hearing. • Frederick Stagbrook – Central Community Council – in opposition to the petition • Cindy Cromer – in opposition to the petition • Jen Colby - in opposition to the petition • Keenan Wells – in opposition to the petition • Email read into the record from Steve Wilson – in opposition to the petition Seeing that no one else with to speak, Commissioner Bachman closed the public hearing. The applicant addressed some of the concerns brough up during the public hearing. Commissioners, Staff, and the Applicant discuss: • The size of other lots on the block. Staff clarifying that they are around 1500 square feet. • Whether there are other twin homes on the neighborhood. There are not but there is a duplex nearby. • Whether the lot would meet the lot size requirements for a single-family home. It would. • Who would complete the new construction? The applicant has hired an architect. MOTION Commissioner Adrienne Bell stated, Based on the findings listed in the staff report, the information presented, and input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission approve the Planned Development petition (PLNPCM2021-00958) and Preliminary Subdivision Plat (PLNSUB2021-01151) as proposed, subject to complying with the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Mike Christensen seconded the motion. Commissioners Brenda Scheer, Aimee Burrows, and Andres Paredes voted no. Commissioners Andra Ghent, Jon Lee, Adrienne Bell, and Mike Christensen voted “yes”. The motion passed with 3 “no” and 4 “yes”. Glendale Townhomes at approximately 1179 S Navajo Street - Pierre Langue of Axis Architects, representing the property owners, is requesting approval from the City to redevelop the property with 57 townhomes, 24 of which would include a live/work option. The buildings would be three stories tall with internal garages for each unit. Currently, the land is occupied by Tejedas Market and is zoned CB (Community Business). This type of project must be reviewed as a Planned Development as four of the buildings would not have frontage on a public street. The subject property is located within Council District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy. (Staff contact: Eric Daems at 801-535- 7236 or eric.daems@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021-00378 Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 5 Senior Planner Eric Daems reviewed the petition as outlined in the staff report. He stated that Staff recommends approval with the condition listed in the staff report. Commissioner Mike Christensen asked how many housing units could be built on this property. Eric Daems stated that there is not a standard set yet, but it is based off setback, building height, and parking. John Anderson stated that as the building grows larger it will have to come to the planning commission to go through design review. Pierre Langue stated he is the architect on the project. He stated that they worked based off the area, and the density of the area is not enough demand for a retail space. He stated they developed more streets to allow access. He also stated that the public amenities with this project will be beneficial for people in the area. Pierre Langue stated that they implemented a lot of guest parking. PUBLIC HEARING Vice-Chairperson Maurine Bachman opened the public hearing. • Kellie Tuiono stated her disapproval for the project. • Kristen Prosser stated her disapproval for the project. • Pachuco Lautaro stated his disapproval for the project. • Susie Estrada stated her disapproval for the project. • Violeta Rio stated her disapproval for the project. Vice-Chairperson Maurine Bachman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Brenda Scheer stated her empathy for the public and their comments. She did state that the Planning Commission cannot consider gentrification, traffic, who benefits, or what the community needs are in their decision. She stated that they must base their decision on if it matches the criteria. Commissioner Aimee Burrows stated that she has read the public comments and that she shares concerns that the community garden will not replace the grocery store as a food resource. She stated that the planning commission cannot require a grocery store. MOTION Commissioner Mike Christensen stated, Based on the findings listed in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission approve the Planned Development request for the Glendale Town homes project located at 1179 South Navajo Street for petition PLNPCM2021-00378, subject to complying with the following condition listed in the staff report: 1.The final approval for site and building lighting for the development be delegated to staff to review in accordance with adopted standards and ordinances. Commissioner Brenda Scheer seconded the motion. Commissioners Andra Ghent, Jon Lee, Andres Paredes, Mike Christensen, Brenda Scheer, Adrienne Bell, and Aimee Burrows all voted “yes”. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 6 MOTION A break was taken. The meeting reconvened at 7:45 PM. Pacific Yard Design Review & Planned Development - KTGY Architects, representing Urban Alfandre, are requesting a Planned Development and Design Review approval for a mixed-use multifamily building at approximately 443 W 700 South, 720 S 400 West, and 704 S 400 West. The proposed 7-story building is 88-feet in height and includes 292 units and 202 parking stalls. It has 12,000 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor. The applicant is requesting relief from all required setbacks and landscaping through the Planned Development process and requesting an additional 28 feet of building height through Design Review. The project site is in the General Commercial (CG) zoning district. In the CG zone, new buildings taller than sixty feet (60') but less than ninety feet (90') may be authorized through Design Review. The proposed project incorporates a public mid-block pedestrian walkway along the western property line a. Planned Development – Planned Development request to waive setback and landscaping requirements in the CG zone. Case number PLNPCM2021-00822 b. Design Review – Design Review request for 28 feet of additional height. Case number PLNPCM2021-00835 The property is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff Contact: Laura Bandara at 801-535-6188 or laura.bandara@slcgov.com) Urban Designer Laura Bandara reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. She stated that Staff recommends approval with the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Bell asked about the midblock walkway and where the second half of it is proposed. Staff clarified where it would be located to the south and the developer of that property would be responsible for its creation. Commissioner Scheer asked what concessions were being provided for no open space. Staff clarified that it would be the midblock walkway and street engagement, in compliance with the Downtown Plan. The applicant James Alfandre reviewed the work that Urban Alfandre have done to integrate into their neighborhood. He stated that they wish to increase housing stock in the Granary District and provide a walkway and missing or mid-rise housing and small local service retail to help make the granary a complete neighborhood. He reviewed the proposed project and why they are requesting the reduced setbacks and shared examples from the area that are similar to their request. Commissioner Bell asked if the applicant was comfortable with the conditions in the staff report. The applicant stated that they were committed to those conditions. Commissioner Scheer asked if the applicant they had presented their project to the community councils. The applicant stated that they presented to the local community councils back on January 10th and were only asked what the City regulations were on façade length. Commissioner Scheer asked if the applicant went before the community councils in advance to get their input on the design of the project. The applicant stated that they went to the community council meeting as previously mentioned. Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 7 Commissioner Ghent asked for clarification on what was being asked for by the applicant versus what is being asked for by the community councils since there is so much dialog in the emails that came in after the staff report was completed and she got lost in the back and forth. She shared her concern about the back and forth and lack of support from the Community Councils. The applicant said that they were also confused because the Councils did not bring up their concerns during the joint Community Council meeting. Commissioner Burrows asked if the trees that they are adding are already required. The applicant confirmed that the trees are required. He stated that they are asking for ground floor commercial space in lieu of the 10-foot landscaping buffer which is not required by zoning. He said that they want to create better street engagement and pedestrian experience. Commissioner Ghent asked for clarification on whether the applicant is asking for less vegetation than what code requires. The applicant said that is correct. Commissioner Ghent asked if the vegetation could be made up by adding it to the roof or another location. The applicant stated that is something that they would be wiling to look into. Planning Manager John Anderson clarified to the Commission that while it wouldn’t meet the minimum standard of landscaping the Commission could decide if that was a good trade, they could make that decision through this process. Commissioner Jon Lee stated that he felt it was a good compromise and didn’t feel more greenery should be added when we are in a water shortage. He explained his view of the setback creating better street engagement. Commissioner Christensen agreed with Jon Lee. PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Bachman opened the public hearing. • Amy Hawkins – Chair Ballpark Community Council – has serious concerns about the proposal. They want to see more green space. • Emailed comment was read into the record from Geoffrey S. Kaessner – In favor of the petition Seeing that no one else wished to speak, Commissioner Bachman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ghent says she agrees that the setbacks are not useful. She has concerns of creating a heat island. She wondered if a rooftop garden would create a significant cost to the developer and how much it would raise the rents. The applicant stated that he didn’t know off the top of his head what it would cost. Commissioner Burrows asked what the Commission thought of the tabling the item to give them a chance to talk to the Community Councils and planning to build something the Commission would approve. Commissioner Scheer stated her concern regarding what the community is getting in exchange for less green space. Planning Manager John Anderson interjected that he wanted the Commissioners to be cautious using the terms “What are we getting?”, stating that they need to look at the project and say whether or not it meets the standards. Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 8 Planning Manager Kelsey Lindquist reminded the Commission that other design review applications have come before the Planning Commission and have met design review standards without including a commercial component on the ground floor. Commissioner Burrows felt like the design was not finished. Commissioner Lee says this is an opportunity to decide as to whether this is a better use of the space. He feels there are amenities be added that would be a good addition to the neighborhood. Commissioner Burrows stated that she is concerned because three Community Councils had the concern of losing that green space, not just one person. Commission Scheer stated that she agrees with Jon Lee in regard to the 10-foot setback but does not want all of the open space requirements to be eliminated. She also stated that she is hoping for a better division of the frontage. She would like to see a little garden in the middle or a park in the back of the walkway. Commissioner Ghent said that plants adapted to the environment could be planted. She doesn’t feel she has enough experience to gauge whether the setbacks and added vegetation would improve air quality. Urban Designer Laura Bandara let the Commission know that the 700 South Façade is north facing so it will be in the shade much of the year. She also clarified that the minimum landscaping required by code is 1650 square feet in the landscape yard area if they did it to code. Commissioner Burrows said that they are not satisfied with the current design review the way it is proposed. She would like to make a motion to table. MOTION Commissioner Aimee Burrows motioned to table the petition asking that the applicant explore solutions on the setbacks and landscaping and vegetation relief with input from the public. Planning Manager Kelsey Lindquist asked for clarification on the motion and whether the Commission is expecting the applicant to return to the community councils. The commission clarified that was not an expectation of the applicant. Commissioner Mike Christensen seconded the motion. Commissioner Brenda Scheer, Aimee Burrows, Andra Ghent, Mike Christensen, and Andres Paredes voted “yes”. Commissioner Jon Lee and Adrienne Bell voted “no”. The motion to table passed with 2 “no” and 5 “yes” votes. Hoyt Place Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 858 W & 860 W Hoyt Place - Bert Holland, representing Hoyt Place Development LLC, is requesting a zoning map amendment for the properties located at the above-stated address. The proposal would rezone the properties from R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District. The two lots are approximately .39 acres or 16,988 square feet. Future development plans were not submitted with this application. The property is located within Council District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman at 801-535-7660 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021-01073 Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 9 Principal Planner Amanda Roman reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. She stated that Staff recommends a positive recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Aimee Burrows asked if this rezone would prevent demolition of homes. Amanda Roman clarified that when it is brought to City Council, the applicant will enter into a development agreement with the city that will require them to maintain at least the same number of housing units. Amanda Roman also stated that she is not sure if that agreement will state that they cannot demolish and then rebuild the existing structures, but the applicant will be tied into their “replacement” housing choice as outlined in their housing mitigation plan. Aimee Burrows asked for clarification on if they will not necessarily be required to keep the two old existing houses. Amanda Roman stated that she doesn’t believe so. John Anderson stated that it is hard to require that outside of the historic districts. Bert Holland stated that he has already begun renovation and has families eager to move in. He also stated that he has already attracted a high number of diverse buyers seeking single-family workforce housing. PUBLIC HEARING Vice-Chair Maurine Bachman opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one wished to speak, Vice-Chair Maurine Bachman closed the public hearing. MOTION Commissioner Brenda Scheer stated, Based on the information in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve PLNPCM2021-01073. Commissioner Mike Christensen seconded the motion. Commissioners Andra Ghent, Jon Lee, Andres Paredes, Mike Christensen, Brenda Scheer, Adrienne Bell, and Aimee Burrows all voted “yes”. The motion passed unanimously. Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment – Stephen Pace, the applicant, is requesting a zoning text amendment to permit the restoration or reconstruction of a historic carriage house for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The dwelling unit, located within the reconstructed or restored historic carriage house, would not be required to meet density, lot coverage, setbacks of the applicable base zoning district, or the accessory structure footprint or height limitations. The proposed language requires eligible properties to be both a Salt Lake City Landmark and listed as a National Register Site of Historic Places and located in one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi- Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), I (Institutional) or SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential). (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist at 385-226-7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00106 Planning Manager Kelsey Lindquist reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. She stated that Staff recommends denial of the proposal because it does not meet the standards. She reviewed the text amendment background stating that the proposal originally went before the Historic Landmark Commission and received a negative recommendation. She shared some of the conflicts including the existing ADU ordinance which requires an owner occupancy requirement, but the applicant does not live on site. She listed other compliance issues as all principal structures require street frontage, lot minimums, and lot and bulk requirements. She stated that Staff has tried to work with the applicant on language solutions but was ultimately unsuccessful. Staff forwarded the amendment to the Historic Landmark Commission for review to receive direction for the applicant on the proposed language, but Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 10 the Commission forwarded a negative recommendation against the proposal. She stated that the HLC did not discuss potential solutions to improve the language. She said that the applicant, since going before the HLC in July of 2020, has yet to put the proposed language in an ordinance format, address Staff concerns about enforceability and administration, and requested to continue to the planning commission for recommendation to the City Council. She reviewed the criteria that included in the ordinance format as: purpose statement, definition of terms, applicability, process, and standards/criteria. She noted that the existing language does not include much of the criteria which is crucial for Staff and City Council. She reviewed the purpose of the text amendment and incentive to the text amendment. She reviewed the other eligible properties that the text amendment could affect. The applicant Stephen Pace shared a photo slide of the Beer estate. He stated, “Just above the left center of the photograph is the white topped buildings or carriage house and a 30-year-old older building referred to as the harness shop from 1867 you can see from the photograph that there I guess were no drones or aerial photographs being taken in salt lake but you can date it you know very securely. The city and county building is finished on the upper left-hand corner The catholic cathedral is under construction in the upper middle of the picture and so on so. If we could go one more okay this is working this is the block that's under this is the block that's under consideration we heard our stuff earlier in the evening that about the problems with people misunderstanding alleyways in the avenues this block is an excellent example if you look down on the lower right hand corner at property 225 of third avenue you can see that there's about six feet of that house that is on the neighbor's property and then if you look at 223 fourth avenue there's about a similar six feet of that house but or that apartment building that is on 225's property and the same thing with 217 and so on now these are not maps are not absolutely accurate but I had the properties surveyed and I know they're darn close if you go up to 222 which is the carriage house address you can see that there's a white roof building almost dead center in the photograph that I guess I own about six feet of that neighbor's garage and the whopper is if you go up to the northwest corner 4th avenue and a street you can see a under some trees there is a fake looking anyway carriage house built in 1990 with the Salt Lake City building permit where Salt Lake City gave the builder permission to just take the city land so about two-thirds of the garage there on the corner of that lot does not belong to the belongs to Salt Lake City and it was given away. I raised that issue with the city saying well if you're willing to part with that ground I’d like to get a few hundred feet can I do that oh no and the city the chief of staff then decided that they were going to start sending out bills to the people that owned that carriage house for a couple thousand dollars that take carriage house a couple of thousand dollars a year and I said you don't want to do that that's a hornet's nest and they sent out the first set of bills and then they chickened out they did not have the they just canceled the bills and decided that well we'll go we'll just give away the property because of our mistake so on the next page then this is the beer mansion the photograph that you were shown earlier by Miss Lindquist is about a 500 foot footprint of image of the carriage house or I'm sorry of the harness shop house which has nothing to do with the you know pretty imposing structure you can see there the cladding designed to serve the or cladding designed together with the carriage house to serve the William Beer family next slide these two buildings then the one in front outlined in red is the harness shop house about just about exactly 500 square feet of footprint and behind it outlined in blue is the carriage house as it was built in and this is the 1905 photo next one please so to give you a feeling for what that looks like if you take t he 222 fourth avenue this is just about dead center in the photograph or in the map the Sanborn Fire Map you can see a square darkish building yeah that has if well an analogy would be that if you were looking if you were taking god's view of the Washington monument looking down on the Washington monument you would see almost exactly that same profile a pyramid top that the only way you can get a building shaped like that fire like the fire map shows is for a ride a pyramid but instead of sitting on a 500 foot limestone base I believe it is for the Washington monument it's only on a 10-foot brick base so then we scanned that into the go ahead from the tower on 8th street and 6th avenue and so here is what the carriage house behind once again behind the harness shop house looks like in you know to within probably an inch maybe an inch and a half of resolution there's enough photographic evidence of remaining materials on site that we basically know Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 11 that what the building looked like was a 10 foot brick or a 10 foot high 35 foot wide brick cube with a pyramid on top of it and it's a right angle pyramid with all the faces looking to look the same now for some context most of what we talked about with the historic landmarks commission I had assumed an error that they were people a little closer to their high school geometry than they evidently were and that they would understand what we were proposing it's the Washington monument with a pyramid and a drip edge on it and that's what we're proposing to build or to rebuild and it's a design that is I believe about 4 500 years old it ain't new Greeks had it the Egyptians have it it's been around for a long time we got a lot of pushback from the landmarks commission with people saying that your design is speculative it's conjectural you don't know what the building looked like that was probably the biggest single thing we talked about in the landmarks commission hearing it turns out though that with the stuff that miss Lindquist has published last week the mention of concept of improper design conjectural design and so on that's all banished that's all gone someplace else so the city doesn't so what the main thing the city believed or that the landmark commission believed just was not true and it's disappeared from the record.” Vice-Chair Bachman interject to let the applicant know that he had one minute of presentation time remaining. The applicant stated “Okay well let's see is there um we're looking here if I just let me summarize it let's go to the last page okay let's look at this one I looked at four almost 400 dwelling units that have gone through landmark sites since January 2019 actually they went back a year past that so that's four years worth of data that produced 111 applications for dwelling unit review the pages of text that generated was just under eight thousand now the champion in terms of pages that were submitted to the landmarks commission is the beer carriage house which has 179 pages of stuff to go through the winner and still champion based on the planning commission submission is that it's now grown to 187.” Vice-Chair Bachman asked Mr. Pace to wrap up his presentation. Mr. Pace stated, “well yeah what I'd like to do would be to come back and talk since I’ve got 187 pages that I've got a report on here and we only talked about three pages three of those pages at the landmarks mission hearing I would like to be rescheduled to give to do justice to this and talk about what we've proposed what we haven't proposed and what the city has the planning staff has substituted for it's ill-considered and withdrawn older proposals.” Vice-Chair Bachman asked Mr. Pace if he would like to withdraw his application. Mr. Pace said no. Vice-Chair Bachman asked if the Commissioners had any questions for Mr. Pace. Commissioner Scheer asked if Mr. Pace understood that the text amendment that he was proposing would only affect him and a few other properties. The applicant stated yes it would affect 4 other properties. Commissioner Scheer stated that the text amendment which he has submitted has some deficiencies. She stated that the slides of the property that Mr. Pace shared had nothing to do with the text amendment he was requesting. PUBLIC HEARING Vice-Chair Bachman opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one wished to speak, Vice-Chair Bachman closed the public hearing. Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 12 Commissioner Burrows asked if City Council voted on the text amendment after it was forwarded with a negative recommendation from the Historic Landmark Commission. Planning Manager Kelsey Lindquist said that it had not been voted on, HLC being the first step in the process and Planning Commission being the second step. MOTION Commissioner Andra Ghent stated, Based on the information in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the requested zoning text amendment for carriage house reconstruction. Commissioner Aimee Burrows seconded the motion. Commissioners Brenda Scheer, Aimee Burrows, Andra Ghent, Jon Lee, Adrienne Bell, Mike Christensen, Andres Paredes voted “yes”. The motion passed with a negative recommendation forwarded to the City Council. The meeting adjourned at 9:31 PM. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD d) Planning Commission Staff Report of February 23, 2022 PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY & NEIGHORHOOD DEVELOPMENT Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Katia Pace, (801) 535-6354, katia.pace@slcgov.com Date: February 24, 2022 Re: PLNPCM2020-00903 – Green Alley Vacation - between 1300 South and Harrison Ave and Green Street and 700 East Alley Vacation ADDRESSES & PARCEL NUMBER OF PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO THE ALLEY: 1.Gospel Grace Church: 662, 664, 666 E 1300 South & 1319, 1325 S Green Street (16-08-357-001, 16-08-357-002, 16-08-357-003, 16-08-357-004 16-08-357-005) 2.1331 S Green Street (16-08-357-006) 3.1337 S Green Street (16-08-357-007) 4.1343 S Green Street (16-08-357-008) 5.1347 S Green Street (16-08-357-009) 6.1351 S Green Street (16-08-357-011) 7.669 E Harrison Avenue (16-17-101-003) 8.UDOT (no parcel number) MASTER PLAN: Central City Master Plan ZONING DISTRICT: R-1/5000 Single Family Residential. APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Utah State Code, Section 10-9a-204 and 10-9a-609.5, Chapters 2.58 and 14.52 of Salt Lake City Municipal Code REQUEST: Nicholas Lumby, property owner residing at 1343 S Green Street, is requesting Salt Lake City to vacate a “T” shaped alley adjacent to her property and running between 1300 South and Harrison Avenue and Green Street and 700 East. The property abutting this alley is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District). The alley exists in paper only and the abutting property owners have absorbed the alley into their properties. UDOT is an abutting property owner of the alley, it owns land in this block that was acquired when 700 East was expanded in the 1960s. An alley vacation means that Salt Lake City vacates its interest in the alley as City property. It deeds the property back to the abutting property owners if the abutting property is zoned for low density residential use. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings and analysis in this staff report, Planning Staff finds that the proposal meets the criteria for alley vacations, and therefore recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the mayor to declare the alley surplus property and for the City Council to vacate the alley with the following condition: 1.That the alley is deeded the entire 10-foot width to the west abutting property owners. 1 Proposed alley vacation – red line Abutting property owners: 1.Gospel Grace Church (yellow dotted line): 662, 664, 666 E 1300 South & 1319, 1325 S Green Street 2.1331 S Green Street 3.1337 S Green Street 4.1343 S Green Street (Petitioner) 5.1347 S Green Street 6.1351 S Green Street 7.669 E Harrison Avenue 8.UDOT acquired land for expansion of 700 East 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 8 2 ATTACHMENTS: A. Site Photographs B. Applicant Information C. UDOT Information D. Analysis of Standards E. Public Process and Comments F. Department Comments PROJECT DESCRIPTION & BACKGROUND: This alley was plated as part of the Marion Park Subdivision in 1890. In the early 1960s, 700 East was expanded and the homes on the east of this block were demolished to give way for the road expansion. The alley was absorbed into the abutting properties to the west, but it was never vacated. The issued was discovered recently when the applicant requested a building permit for a garage on land that is part of the alley. Marion Park Subdivision showing alley and UDOT property 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 8 Alley UDOT property 3 The property belonging to UDOT is being proposed to become the Harrison Garden, a community garden sponsored by Wasatch Community Gardens. This group is working with SLC Engineering Department, and the plans are to have the garden started by Spring of this year. View of the alley right of way looking from South end Aerial view of the alley 4 KEY ISSUES: The following key issues were identified: Issue 1: Alley Vacation Request The applicant originally requested that only the portion of the alley abutting the properties between 1331 S Green Street and 669 E Harrison Avenue be vacated. However, the portion of the alley abutting the Gospel Grace Church presented a similar situation, where the alley has been absorbed into the property. The Gospel Grace Church has agreed to be included along with the proposed alley vacation. Since the homes in the east half of the block were demolished, the alley stopped having a purpose or use. The properties on the west side of the block have absorbed the alley into their properties. Visually there is no alley. The alley property is not useful as a public right-of-way. The request satisfies policy consideration, “Lack of Use”, as required by Section 14.52.02 of the Salt Lake City Code. Issue 2: Alley Ownership First there was a question on the ownership of the alley, whether the alley belonged to Salt Lake City or UDOT. After staff received a drawing from UDOT (see Attachment C), it was confirmed that the alley was never part of the right-of-way acquired by UDOT and therefore the alley still belongs to Salt Lake City. Also, the applicant provided a survey of their property that shows the rear of their property as being a 10-foot alley (see Attachment B). Survey of 1343 S Green Street showing the alley in blue 5 Issue 3: Alley Disposition According to Section 14.54.040 of Salt Lake City Code, the City’s method of disposition for a vacated alley, that abuts property zoned for low density residential use, is to split the alley in half and deed each respective half back to the abutting property owners. The Gospel Grace Church property is within the R-1/5,000 (single-family residential), therefore the alley abutting the church and the residential properties would be deeded and not sold. Since UDOT abuts part of the alley, UDOT is eligible for their half of the alley. Staff got confirmation that UDOT is willing to give up the right to acquire its half portion of the alley except for the northeast horizontal portion of the “T” shape on the eastern portion of the alley which UDOT might be interested. It’s important that UDOT not request to acquire half of the alley because that would cause the property owners to move their fences and some accessory structures that have been in place for decades as the residential properties absorbed the entire 10 feet of alley right of way. DISCUSSION: The alley vacation has been reviewed against the standards for alley vacations located in Attachment D. In compliance with the applicable policies, the alley is not being used as a public alley and the vacation is supported by all the adjacent property owners. Further, City policies and the relevant Master Plan do not include any policies that would oppose the vacation of this alley. NEXT STEPS: Chapter 14.52 of the Salt Lake City Code regulates the disposition of City owned alleys. Once the Planning Commission has reviewed the request, their recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for consideration. The City Council has final decision authority with respect to alley vacations. Showing zoning on the block 6 ATTACHMENT A: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Showing the rear yards and location of the alley behind the fences. North end. Showing the rear yards and location of the alley behind the fences. South end. 7 ATTACHMENT B: APPLICANT INFORMATION 8 9 10 11 12 Salt Lake City Planning Department 451 South State Street, Room 215 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Re: Request to Vacate Alley Dear Salt Lake City Council, and Salt Lake Planning Officials, We are writing to you to request the vacation of the alley segment that runs north-south at approximately 676 East from approximately 1316 South to Harrison Avenue {1370 South). The alley measurements are approximately, 305' x 10-15'. Please refer to the attached Sidwell map (page 16-08-31) on p.4 of this document, for locations. Reasons for this request include: • We are the owners of the parcel 16-08-357-008-0000 immediately to the west of the alley Lot numbers N 8 1/3 FT OF LOT 6 & ALL LOT 7 BLK 1 MARION PARK-the alley vacation will clean up the ownership of the strip of vacant land that has been assumed by the property owners. • The alley has been vacant for many years (50+). Maintenance has been taken care of the alley by the adjacent property owners. • Vacating the alley will not affect any of the properties along the line, nor will this be detrimental to the public as it is not accessed by traffic. • Vacating the alley could accommodate any future construction of structures by the abutting property owners including a 199 ft2 storage shed currently under construction by the petitioner. Assumptions • It is assumed that the alley running east-west at approximately 1316 South from 661 East to 676 East has previously been vacated as the Gospel Grace Church parking lot is located there. • It is assumed that the alley running north-south from 1300 South to 1316 South at approximately 676 East has been previously vacated as the Gospel Grace Church building is built across the potential alley location. Four other property owners abutting the alley include: • Rance Wilkins 1331 S Green Street Salt Lake City, UT, 84105 801.360.5203 Gerri West/ Kelly Favero 1337 S Green Street Salt Lake City, UT, 84105 801.467.4179/801.326.8750 13 • Sukeshinee Wilkins 1347 S Green Street Salt Lake City, UT, 84105 801.503.6373 *Signatures of the above are attached to the application. Adjacent Land Use The land uses surrounding the site include: • East: Vacant • West: Residential • North: Commercial (Church), Parking Lot • South: Residential, Road Petitioner Details Name: Nicholas Lumby + Sara Koenig Brett Markum/ Sheri Hohmann 1351 S Green Street Salt Lake City, UT, 84105 801.712.4585 Street Address: 1343 South Green Street, Salt Lake City, UT, 84105 Parcel Number: 16-08-357-008-0000 Lot Number: N 8 1/3 FT OF LOT 6 & ALL LOT 7 BLK 1 MARION PARK. Thank you for your consideration, Regards, \ 1u1J£~~0/zd I Y ( ~2fu/zo Nicholas LumbQ ate Links: Vicinity Map Sidwell Map -Alley Location Sidwell Map -Abutting Properties Photos Signatures -Abutting Propert i es Sara Koenig Date 14 15 Sidwell Ma~ -Alley Location I ~ ST 1300 S b7.30 50 50 82.11 57 .30 50 50 130_ I-> 25 -~ -~ i.. 25 . l-,3 2.30 32.30_ I-> 25 _,_. -,-.15 -3~ Q 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 29 30 31 32 33 34 co 41 2~14 1::: ,Q 821 01 co 357 bot !ii ,.._ ~ 482 t)02 N ~ 35i 002 48; '016 .... >--~ ,_ __ ------.._ 35i K:)03 I---.... N ~ j... 4,~20l 5 0 ~ "": ( 17 "' ~ 0 0 ,-...x:. 0 I Assumed vacated alley running I .-- 5 -~~=-~~ ~ &16 109.80 :e 15 I ,-.: :;: :e east -west co .,. A0'),.,44 g 0 -.------, ""' N ~~ '17 ---"' ' ...,,v,vv -4 11i_80 114 .80 14 18 "" 1 13357005 ,1-----I -·--0 0 1 ' ,, ___ 1 19 ·---,, "' "' I LJ. 1 2 12 1 20 ~ 11 357006 ,11-----1 I.---..... 0 0 • I ·v._v,.,_ f __..-___ ,..,,, "' "' T 10 ~ I Assumed current alley runn i ng 0 21 north -south 9 22 ::E 9 0 I i-J ' ,. _____ 1 ... _ _.,,..__J ,I 0 ~ g ,, _____ ·v ... vv~ 1 23 -v,_.,;,-r "' I ~ 8 - "' I 17 24 "' 7 er: 357JJ..08 • I Pe t it ioner Locatlon I -.-... _ : ·-·-0 c,i ◄ ·v.,.VIV '25 , ___ ,v "' "' ..J -s------~ :e "' ' "' ' ~ ---I (),. 1 .. --,.; I " ··--·-.. "' -----1 -----.-"' ~1 - ~ £.W£.IJV I 127 ·-"' 1"'-' 357011 .., 0 ,-: :e 4 ::i .... •I\ "' I ,-..: I <t-A.' 0 Qi ~--r--1 I' 0 o:e co 3 003 I , og,_4 I.( 28 N I I , 1 -I _ oJ.. , , LI. L ' ' ., .,..,_ . 16 I"' 'I 1 .. Sidwell Ma~ -Abutting Pro~erties L 1·½2 ST 1300S 57.30 50 50 82.11 57 .3 0 50 50 30_ ~25 _ ..... -'-,... 25 _ W2.3o 32.30_._,, 25 i----25 -37<:) -~ c -I 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 29 30 31 32 33 34 "' 41 2~14 r::: ,:::) 121 01 "' ~01 g r--~ 357 482 002 N ~ 35, 002 48~ 016 .... ~~ ---,_____, ,q 35i K)03 I---,_. ~ c I-'" 4,~20( 5 g i:,i.:i ~ 17 0 0 ,--r----0 .,.. 15 -~~:-~~ Q-0 116 109.80 :(l :(l 15 ,..: co N A-"'"""-' 0 0 ' ,..,----,. /'),, N ·-1 17 ---U') U') t 14-----14 11uio 114 .80 ' ..... I~ 18 13357005 .. ----.-I . --0 0 1 ' ----'19 -Y-'-""" I' U') U') I I.I.. 1 12 12 Property Owner: ~WIikins I 1 20 < 11 357006 1331 S Green Street, ,.-----j ,. ___ - 0 0 1 -Salt Lake City, UT, 84105 , ................ 1 21 "'TVA,._/.., U') >= U') • ~-0 10 :E Property Owner: Gerri West/ Kelly f.~ 9 22 9 0 1337 S Green Street, ,._ ----' . ---. ,,,. 0 ~ g ' .,,:,._7 Sa lt Lake Ci ty, UT, 84105 ·-----I 23 ·---"T U') I --·--8 8 --Property Owner: Petitioner I M 1343 S Green Street, 7 24 M 7o: 357~8 Salt Lake City, UT, 84105 ,,, __ -, .... I ,. ___ I- 0 ..; I , .... ,v,v 1 25 -ru'-Vllt.l U') M l-'-11----~--6 :(l ~ Property Owner: Sukeshinee Wilkins ' i q-... ---1347 S Green Street, ~ "' --..; I r --"'191"-Sa lt Lake City, UT, 84105 M -. I -~-~, .... I ----'"'' f , ____ ~ ,--. 357~ "' Property Owner: Sheri Hohmann & Brett Mark m 4 27 i;; :(l 4 i:i 1351 5 Green Street, 0 .... -~ 1 Salt Lake City, UT, 84105 ~ I ' Qi >----'--=--, \) I)., 3 003 I I O<J..4 lie 28 A l 0 ' 3 I I N !' N ' I 1 ,/.. 1 n .... ,, I ----~ 17 Photos Assumed Alley Location: North-South {676 East/ 1316 S -Harrison) Assumed Vacated Alley: East-West {661-676 East/ 1316 S) 18 ATTACHMENT C: UDOT INFORMATION 19 From:Erick Shosted To:Pace, Katia Cc:Charles Hill; Diana Leka; Michael Timothy Subject:(EXTERNAL) Re: Ownership Confirmation - 700 East (between 1300 S & Harrison Ave) Date:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 11:18:33 AM Attachments:US-0140(2)_03_Plan.TIF Katia, The attached ROW map shows UDOT ownership in the area you are inquiring about. The following link is the website that explains UDOT's process for disposing of real property. https://www.udot.utah.gov/connect/business/surplus-property/ Thanks, On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:47 AM Diana Leka <dleka@utah.gov> wrote: Katia - meet Erick and Chip from the Region 2 office of UDOT. They should be able to help you through this process and request. On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:45 AM Pace, Katia <Katia.Pace@slcgov.com> wrote: Diana, Salt Lake City Planning Division is responding to a request to vacate an alley that runs north-south between 1300 South and Harrison Avenue (1370 South) and between Green Street and 700 East. This alley appears to be owned by UDOT. SLC Planning needs confirmation from UDOT that the alley is own by UDOT, or not. This confirmation is needed because SLC would not have the authority to vacate the alley if the property belongs to UDOT. The request comes from the owners of the parcel 16-08-357-008-0000, or 1343 S. Green Street, a property immediately to the west of the alley. The reason for the request is that the alley was assumed to be vacated and the property owners abutting the alley have incorporated the alley into their properties. I’m not sure who to contact at UDOT to give me this information. If you are not the person I need to contact, please let me know who that person would be. Also, it would really be helpful to know what is the process to request UDOT for the alley/property vacation and possible purchase. I’ve attached some additional information, please let me know if you have any questions. 20 21 From:Charles Hill To:Pace, Katia Cc:Erick Shosted; Diana Leka; Michael Timothy Subject:Re: FW: (EXTERNAL) Re: Ownership Confirmation - 700 East (between 1300 S & Harrison Ave) Date:Wednesday, November 3, 2021 8:21:06 PM Yes, we would take that from the existing fence line to the east towards SR-71. Thanks! Chip Charles (Chip) Mason Hill UDOT - Region Two Pre-Construction Engineer Cell: 801-910-2091 Email: cmason-hill@utah.gov On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 6:09 PM Pace, Katia <Katia.Pace@slcgov.com> wrote: Chip, I’m sending you a map of the location of the alley and I have a question for you: is UDOT’s interest on the horizontal portion of the yellow ‘T’ on the map? I’m pretty sure that the Planning Commission and City Council will ask me that and I want to be able to give them an answer. Thank you so much for your help. KATIA PACE Principal Planner Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION CELL 385-226-8499 Email katia.pace@slcgov.com 22 WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights. From: Charles Hill <cmason-hill@utah.gov> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 2:16 PM To: Pace, Katia <Katia.Pace@slcgov.com> Cc: Erick Shosted <eshosted@utah.gov>; Diana Leka <dleka@utah.gov>; Michael Timothy <mtimothy@utah.gov> Subject: Re: FW: (EXTERNAL) Re: Ownership Confirmation - 700 East (between 1300 S & Harrison Ave) Katia, Apologies for the delay in this response. The only area that UDOT would be interested in would be the eastern portion of the T section at the north end. There is currently a study underway to provide an improved active transportation facility along 700 East and this was the only area that was concerning. Thanks and let me know what you need from my group moving forward. Chip Charles (Chip) Mason Hill UDOT - Region Two Pre-Construction Engineer Cell: 801-910-2091 Email: cmason-hill@utah.gov On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 9:41 AM Pace, Katia <Katia.Pace@slcgov.com> wrote: Charles, 23 ATTACHMENT D: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS SPECIFIC ZONING DISTRICT PURPOSE STATEMENTS 21A.24.070 R-1/5000 Single Family Residential District 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 and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. RELATED MASTER PLAN ITEMS Central Community Master Plan, adopted 2005 The plan does not address alley vacations. On the Liberty neighborhood planning area section of the plan under the Streets and Circulation it says: • Improve the linear parkway along the west side of 700 East. Plan Salt Lake, adopted 2015 GUIDING PRINCIPLE/A beautiful city that is people focused. • Promote increased connectivity through mid-block connections. Salt Lake City Code, Section 14.52: Disposition of City Owned Alleys Chapter 14.52 of the Salt Lake City Code regulates the disposition of City owned alleys. When evaluating requests to vacate public alleys, the City considers whether or not the continued use of the property as a public alley is in the City’s best interest. Once the Planning Commission has reviewed the request, their recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for consideration. The City Council has final decision authority with respect to alley vacations. Section 14.52.020: 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: Factor Finding Rationale 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 Complies - The alley property is not useful as a public right-of- way. The request satisfies one of the policy considerations as required by Section 14.52.02 of the Salt Lake City Code. Since the homes in the east half of the block were demolished, the alley stopped having a purpose or use. The properties on the west side of the block have absorbed the alley into their properties. Visually there is no alley. The proposed vacation satisfies consideration A- Lack of Use. The alley vacation would not interfere with access to the other abutting properties. The vacated alley would be compatible with surrounding development. 24 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. Section 14.52.030B: 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 reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the property; Complies Staff requested input from appropriate City Departments and Divisions. Engineering opposes the proposed alley vacation for the following reasons: • Per State code, vacating the alley will give ownership of west ½ of the alley to the property owners and the east ½ half to UDOT (on the segment #8 running parallel to 700 East). • The adjacent property owner’s illegal encroachment into the alley should not be the basis for the vacation. • There should be a community benefit due to the vacation. Staff addressed one of the concerns by requesting UDOT to concede its interest on their half of the alley (except on the northeast portion of the horizontal portion of the “T” shaped alley). Furthermore, the encroachment is not the reason for the alley vacation, it’s the “Lack of Use” that is explained above and it satisfies the consideration for the alley vacation. 2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; Complies The proposed alley vacation satisfies the “Lack of Use” policy consideration of 14.52.020. See the discussion and findings on the previous page. 3. Granting the petition will not deny sole access or required off street parking to any property adjacent to the alley; Complies The alley is not being used as an alley and has been absorbed by the abutting property owners. The property at 1351 S Green St does not have a garage, however, there is room for a parking pad on the side of the home, but there is no driveway from the street that can be used to access this potential parking space. 25 The alley vacation will not deny access or required off street parking to any of the abutting property owners. 4. Granting the petition will not result in any property being landlocked; Complies All properties have street access and will not be landlocked if the alley is vacated. 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; Complies Plan Salt Lake promotes increased connectivity through mid-block connections. However, this alley is not needed for a midblock connection. The Central City Community Master Plan calls for the linear parkway along the west side of 700 East to be improved. The proposed community garden on the property abutting the alley is an improvement to the parkway. The alley vacation will not have an impact on the proposal. 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; Complies There are no opposing abutting property owners. 7. The petition furthers the city preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and Complies The proposed alley would be disposed in its entirety. 8. The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. Complies The alley is not being used as an alley and has been absorbed by the abutting property owners. The property at 1351 S Green St does not have a garage, however, there is room for a parking pad on the side of the home, but there is no driveway from the street that can be used to access this potential parking space. Section 14.52.040: 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. The Planning Commission must also make a recommendation to the mayor regarding the disposition of the property. If the Commission recommends that the alley property be declared surplus, the property should be disposed of according to Section 2.58 City-Owned Real Property of the Salt Lake City Code. Finding: The abutting properties are zoned R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential), therefore the alley would simply be vacated split in half and deeded to the abutting property owners. 26 ATTACHMENT E: 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 the proposed project: • Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chair of the Liberty Wells Community Council and East Liberty Park Community Organization on April 8, 2021, to solicit comments. • No public comments have been submitted by the Liberty Wells Community Council or the East Liberty Park Community Organization. • Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners located within 300 feet of the project site on June 15, 2021, providing notice about the project and information on how to give public input on the project. No public comments were submitted. • The 45-day recognized organization comment period expired on May 23, 2021. Public Hearing Notice: • Public hearing notice mailed: February 10, 2022 • Public hearing notice signs posted on property: February 13, 2022 • Public notice posted on City & State websites & Planning Division list serve: February 10, 2022 27 ATTACHMENT F: DEPARTMENT COMMENTS CITY DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Public Utilities (Jason Draper): No public utility objections to the proposed vacation. Engineering (Scott Weiler): Engineering opposes the proposed alley vacation for the following reasons: • Per State code, vacating the alley will give ownership of west ½ of the alley to the property owners and the east ½ half to UDOT (on the segment #8 running parallel to 700 East). • The adjacent property owner’s illegal encroachment into the alley should not be the basis for the vacation. • There should be a community benefit due to the vacation. Planning’s response: Staff addressed one of the concerns by requesting UDOT to concede its interest on their half of the alley (except on the northeast portion of the horizontal portion of the “T” shaped alley). Furthermore, the encroachment is not the reason for the alley vacation, it’s the Lack of Use. Transportation (Michael Barry): There are no comments from Transportation. This alley appears to no longer function as an alley. Zoning (Alan Michelsen): No zoning comments regarding the proposed alley vacation. Fire (Ed Itchon): No comments Real Estate Services (Shellie Finan): The properties and the church sit on are zoned residential. UDOT The attached ROW map shows UDOT ownership in the area you are inquiring about. The following link is the website that explains UDOT's process for disposing of real property. https://www.udot.utah.gov/connect/business/surplus-property/ 28 4. ORIGINAL PETITION 5. MAILING LIST Name Address City State Zip ABBY SHERLOCK; ADAM SH 647 E HARRISON AVE SALT LAKE CUT 84105 ANN KRISTINE PENMAN LIV 623 E HARRISON AVE SALT LAKE CUT 84105 AUSTIN HARDY; JC HARDY 1326 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 BECKIE STEPHENSEN; MARC 1337 S TYLER ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 BRADLEY L BEACHAM; VALE 1343 S TYLER ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 BRENT J CHIDESTER; CHRIST 1331 S TYLER ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 BRYCE SCHULZKE TRUST 01 652 E HARRISON AVE SALT LAKE CUT 84105 CARLOS RIVERA 1378 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 CARRIE D MEHR PO BOX 233 MENDON UT 84325 CHARLENE WEIR 1344 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 CITY OF SALT LAKE PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CUT 84114 COURTNEY C GREEN 1350 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 Current Occupant 646 E 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84105 Current Occupant 1325 S TYLER ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84105 Current Occupant 664 E 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84105 Current Occupant 666 E 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84105 Current Occupant 1319 S GREEN ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84105 Current Occupant 1325 S GREEN ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84105 Current Occupant 669 E HARRISON AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84105 Current Occupant 1351 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84105 Current Occupant 713 E HARRISON AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84105 Current Occupant 1349 S TYLER ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84105 Current Occupant 636 E HARRISON AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84105 DANIELLE BAUM; PARKER B 1383 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 ERIC R MEAGAN; NICOLE LE 579 E SHERMAN AVE SALT LAKE CUT 84115 GOSPEL GRACE CHURCH 662 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CUT 84105 HARRISON TOWNHOMES H 717 E HARRISON AVE SALT LAKE CUT 84105 JALEE M JALALPOUR 1330 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 JASONE ROSE 636 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CUT 84105 JONATHAN L ALBRIGHT; SA 1381 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 KAREN EVANS LIVING TRUS 1318 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 KELLY FAVERO 1337 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 LISA MCAFEE 1338 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 MARY C MALONEY 1319 S TYLER ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 NICHOLAS A LUMBY; SARA 1343 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 NICHOLAS AMES 641 E HARRISON AVE SALT LAKE CUT 84105 PETER CAPUTO; HELOISA A 632 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CUT 84105 RANCE WILKINS; SUKESHIN 1331 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 SCOTT BUCCAMBUSO; MAR 1871 S WYOMING ST SALT LAKE CUT 84108 SETH J BOCKHOLT 1373 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 SHAWNA LEE VENABLE 661 E HARRISON AVE SALT LAKE CUT 84105 SHERI L HOHMANN; BRETT 1351 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 SUGARHOOD MANAGEMEN 1382 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 SUKESHINEE WILKINS 1347 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 TODD G CURTIS 631 E HARRISON AVE SALT LAKE CUT 84105 Owner or Resident 1314 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 Owner or Resident 2870 E 3300 S MILLCREEK UT 84109 Item C2 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 tinyurl.com/SLCFY23 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke and Sylvia Richards Budget Analysts DATE:October 4, 2022 RE: Budget Amendment Number Three FY2023 Staff note: At the September 20 meeting, the Council approved item A-2: Deeply Affordable Housing to Address Immediate and Long-term Homeless Needs ($6 million from CIP Holding Account to General Fund). MOTION 1 – ADOPT REMAINING ITEMS I move that the Council adopt an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2023 final budget of Salt Lake City only for items as shown on the motion sheet. Staff note: Council Members do not need to read the individual items being approved below; they are listed for reference. A-1: Capital Equipment Purchase – Refuse Packers and Additional Funding for Cost Increases ($3,055,700 from Refuse Fund) A-6: Governmental Immunity Funding to Cover Potential Costs for Remainder of FY2023 ($500,000 from General Fund Balance) A-7: Utah League of Cities and Towns (ULCT) Membership Cost Increase ($38,000 from General Fund Balance) D-1 Recognizing Revenue in Donations Fund ($44,668) D-2: Transfer Consumer Protection Analyst FTE from Mayor’s Office to Housing Stability Division in CAN (Budget Neutral) D-3: UDOT Class C Reimbursement ($1,617,217 for Class C Fund) D-4: Dominion Energy 200 South Reimbursement ($600,000 from Dominion Energy to CIP Fund) E-1: Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program Retrofitting City Creek Water Treatment Plant ($36,680,000 from Misc. Grant Fund to Water Fund Holding Account) E-2: Transportation Investment Fund (TIF) Active Transportation Projects Transit Transportation Investment Fund (TTIF) First & Last Mile Projects 300 West Active Transportation Improvements (500 South to 2100 South) ($2.1 million from Misc. Grant Fund Holding Account) E-3: Transportation Investment Fund-Active Transportation (TTIF): Parley’s Trail Gap in Sugar House ($950,000 from Misc. Grant Fund Holding Account) Consent Agenda No.3 G-1: US Department of Justice, 2019 Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) ($3,700 from Misc. Grant Fund) G-2: 2022 U.S. Department of Agriculture administered by Utah State Office of Education Summer Food Service Program - Youth Summer Snack Programs ($11,042 from Misc. Grant Fund) G-3: School-Age Program Summer Expansion Grant 2022-2023, State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services ($390,000 from Misc. Grant Fund) G-4 through G-9 School-Age Program Grant 2022-2023, State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services ($62,223 each from Misc. Grant Fund) Consent Agenda No.2 G-1: Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control - 2023 Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Grant ($587,915 from Misc. Grant Fund) G-2: Teen Afterschool Prevention (TAP) Grant, State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services ($1,008,000 from Misc. Grant Fund) G-3: Utah State Department of Public Safety - 2022 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) ($38,000 from Misc. Grant Fund) G-4: Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), State Asset Forfeiture Grant (SAFG) ($6,000 from Misc. Grant Fund) I-1: Know Your Neighbor Program State Grant Award ($100,000 to Grant Fund) I-2: Additional Funding to Cover Cost Increases for RDA Marmalade Plaza Project ($1 Million from Parks Impact Fees) MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT I move that the Council proceed to the next agenda item. MOTION 5 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING and NOT ADOPT I move that the Council close the public hearing and proceed to the next agenda item. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238 PO BOX145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394 ERINMENDENHALL Mayor MARY BETHTHOMPSON Chief Financial Officer CITYCOUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ___________________________________Date Received: _______________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: __________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 29, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM:Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT:Budget Amendment #3 SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT:John Vuyk, Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that, subsequent to a public hearing, the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY2022-23 adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: REVENUE EXPENSE GENERAL FUND $ 6,000,000.00 $ 6,538,000.00 WATER FUND 36,680,000.00 36,680,000.00 DONATION FUND 44,668.00 44,668.00 REFUSE FUND 0.00 3,035,700.00 MISCELLANEOUS GRANT FUND 2,417,995.00 2,417,995.00 CIP FUND GOVERNMENT IMMUNITY 5,267,216.94 500,000.00 11,267,216.94 500,000.000 TOTAL $ 50,909,879.94 $ 60,483,579.94 8/29/2022 8/29/2022 rachel otto (Aug 29, 2022 16:05 MDT) BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Revenue for FY 2022-23 Budget Adjustments The following chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for fiscal year 2023. Because of the timing of this budget amendment no updates for fiscal year 2023 projections are available. The City has begun closing out fiscal year 2022 and will provide updates to Council as the audit progresses. In c l u d i n g p r o p o s e d c h a n g e s f o r B A # 3 f u n d b a l a n c e w o u l d b e p r o j e c t e d a s f o l l o w s f o r F Y 2 0 2 3 : Ad j u s t e d f u n d b a l a n c e i s p r o j e c t e d t o b e a t 1 6 . 7 3 % . The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $50,909,879.94 of revenue and expense of $60,483,579.94. The amendment proposes changes in seven funds, with two FTEs. The amendment also includes the use of $538,000.00 from the General Fund fund balance. The proposal includes twenty-four initiatives for Council review. A summary spreadsheet document, outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council. The budget opening is separated in eight different categories: A. New Budget Items B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources C. Grants for New Staff Resources D. Housekeeping Items E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F. Donations G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I. Council Added Items PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing In i t i a t i v e N u m b e r / N a m e F u n d R e v e n u e A m o u n t E x p e n d i t u r e Am o u n t R e v e n u e A m o u n t E x p e n d i t u r e Am o u n t On g o i n g o r O n e - ti m e FT E s 1 Ca p i t a l E q u i p m e n t P u r c h a s e - R e f u s e Pa c k e r s Re f u s e - 3 , 0 3 5 , 7 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 2 De e p l y A f f o r d a b l e H o u s i n g t o A d d r e s s Im m e d i a t e a n d L o n g - t e r m H o m e l e s s N e e d s CI P - 6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 2 De e p l y A f f o r d a b l e H o u s i n g t o A d d r e s s Im m e d i a t e a n d L o n g - t e r m H o m e l e s s N e e d s GF 6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 3 W i t h d r a w n P r i o r t o T r a n s m i t t a l 4 W i t h d r a w n P r i o r t o T r a n s m i t t a l 5 W i t h d r a w n P r i o r t o T r a n s m i t t a l 6 Go v e r n m e n t a l I m m u n i t y F u n d i n g t o C o v e r Co s t s f o r F i s c a l Y e a r GF - 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e 6 Go v e r n m e n t a l I m m u n i t y F u n d i n g t o C o v e r Co s t s f o r F i s c a l Y e a r Go v t I m m u n 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 7 Ut a h L e a g u e o f C i t i e s a n d T o w n s Me m b e r s h i p C o s t I n c r e a s e GF - 3 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 O n g o i n g - 1 Re c o g n i z i n g R e v e n u e i n t h e D o n a t i o n s Fu n d Do n a t i o n 4 4 , 6 6 8 . 0 0 4 4 , 6 6 8 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 2 FT E T r a n s f e r - C o n s u m e r P r o t e c t i o n An a l y s t GF - ( 1 0 8 , 8 4 1 . 0 0 ) O n g o i n g ( 1 . 0 0 ) 2 FT E T r a n s f e r - C o n s u m e r P r o t e c t i o n An a l y s t GF - 1 0 8 , 8 4 1 . 0 0 O n g o i n g 1 . 0 0 3 U D O T C l a s s C R e i m b u r s e m e n t C I P 1 , 6 1 7 , 2 1 6 . 9 4 1 , 6 1 7 , 2 1 6 . 9 4 O n e - t i m e - 4 Do m i n i o n E n e r g y 2 0 0 S o u t h Re i m b u r s e m e n t CI P 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - Se c t i o n E : G r a n t s R e q u i r i n g N o N e w S t a f f R e s o u r c e s 1 Bu i l d i n g R e s i l i e n t I n f r a s t r u c t u r e a n d Co m m u n i t i e s ( B R I C ) P r o g r a m Wa t e r 3 6 , 6 8 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 3 6 , 6 8 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 2 3 0 0 W e s t P r o t e c t e d B i k e L a n e s C I P 2 , 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 , 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 3 P a r l e y s T r a i l G a p i n S u g a r H o u s e C I P 9 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 9 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - - Co n s e n t A g e n d a # 1 1 US D e p a r t m e n t o f J u s t i c e , 2 0 1 9 B u r e a u o f Ju s t i c e A s s i s t a n c e G r a n t ( J A G ) Mi s c G r a n t s 3 , 7 0 0 . 0 0 3 , 7 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 2 U. S . D e p a r t m e n t o f A g r i c u l t u r e ad m i n i s t e r e d b y U t a h S t a t e O f f i c e o f Ed u c a t i o n S u m m e r F o o d S e r v i c e P r o g r a m 20 2 2 - Y o u t h S u m m e r S n a c k P r o g r a m s Mi s c G r a n t s 1 1 , 0 4 2 . 0 0 1 1 , 0 4 2 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 3 Sc h o o l - A g e P r o g r a m S u m m e r E x p a n s i o n Gr a n t 2 0 2 2 - 2 0 2 3 , St a t e o f U t a h , D e p a r t m e n t o f W o r k f o r c e Se r v i c e s Mi s c G r a n t s 3 9 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 3 9 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - FY 2 0 2 3 B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t # 3 Co u n c i l A p p r o v e d Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n P r o p o s e d Se c t i o n A : N e w I t e m s Se c t i o n D : H o u s e k e e pin g Se c t i o n F : D o n a t i o n s Se c t i o n G : C o u n c i l C o n s e n t A g e n d a - - G r a n t A w a r d s Se c t i o n C : G r a n t s f o r N e w S t a f f R e s o u r c e s Se c t i o n B : G r a n t s f o r E x i s t i n g S t a f f R e s o u r c e s 1 FY 2 0 2 3 B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t # 3 4 Fa i r m o n t P a r k , S c h o o l - A g e P r o g r a m G r a n t 20 2 2 - 2 0 2 3 , St a t e o f U t a h , D e p a r t m e n t o f W o r k f o r c e Se r v i c e s Mi s c G r a n t s 6 2 , 2 2 3 . 0 0 6 2 , 2 2 3 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 5 Li b e r t y P a r k , S c h o o l - A g e P r o g r a m G r a n t 20 2 2 - 2 0 2 3 , St a t e o f U t a h , D e p a r t m e n t o f W o r k f o r c e Se r v i Mi s c G r a n t s 6 2 , 2 2 3 . 0 0 6 2 , 2 2 3 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 6 Ce n t r a l C i t y , S c h o o l - A g e P r o g r a m G r a n t 20 2 2 - 2 0 2 3 , St a t e o f U t a h , D e p a r t m e n t o f W o r k f o r c e Se r v i c e s Mi s c G r a n t s 6 2 , 2 2 3 . 0 0 6 2 , 2 2 3 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 7 Ot t i n g e r H a l l , S c h o o l - A g e P r o g r a m G r a n t 20 2 2 - 2 0 2 3 , St a t e o f U t a h , D e p a r t m e n t o f W o r k f o r c e Se r v i c e s Mi s c G r a n t s 6 2 , 2 2 3 . 0 0 6 2 , 2 2 3 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 8 So r e n s o n M u l t i - C u l t u r a l C e n t e r , S c h o o l - Ag e P r o g r a m G r a n t 2 0 2 2 - 2 0 2 3 , S t a t e o f Ut a h , D e p a r t m e n t o f W o r k f o r c e S e r v i c e s Mi s c G r a n t s 6 2 , 2 2 3 . 0 0 6 2 , 2 2 3 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 9 Un i t y C e n t e r , S c h o o l - A g e P r o g r a m G r a n t 20 2 2 - 2 0 2 3 , St a t e o f U t a h , D e p a r t m e n t o f W o r k f o r c e Se r v i c e s Mi s c G r a n t s 6 2 , 2 2 3 . 0 0 6 2 , 2 2 3 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - Co n s e n t A g e n d a # 2 1 E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e o f t h e P r e s i d e n t , O f f i c e o f Na t i o n a l D r u g C o n t r o l - 2 0 2 3 R o c k y Mo u n t a i n H i g h I n t e n s i t y D r u g T r a f f i c k i n g Ar e a ( H I D T A ) G r a n t Mi s c G r a n t s 5 8 7 , 9 1 5 . 0 0 5 8 7 , 9 1 5 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 2 T e e n A f t e r s c h o o l P r e v e n t i o n ( T A P ) G r a n t , St a t e o f U t a h , D e p a r t m e n t o f W o r k f o r c e Se r v i c e s Mi s c G r a n t s 1 , 0 0 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 , 0 0 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e 2 . 0 0 3 U t a h S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b l i c S a f e t y - 20 2 2 E m e r g e n c y M a n a g e m e n t Pe r f o r m a n c e G r a n t ( E P M G ) Mi s c G r a n t s 3 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 3 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 4 U t a h C o m m i s s i o n o n C r i m i n a l a n d J u v e n i l e Ju s t i c e ( C C J J ) , S t a t e A s s e t F o r f e i t u r e G r a n t (S A F G ) Mi s c G r a n t s 6 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 6 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - To t a l o f B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t I t e m s 5 0 , 9 0 9 , 8 7 9 . 9 4 6 0 , 4 8 3 , 5 7 9 . 9 4 - - 2 . 0 0 In i t i a t i v e N u m b e r / N a m e F u n d R e v e n u e A m o u n t E x p e n d i t u r e Am o u n t R e v e n u e A m o u n t E x p e n d i t u r e Am o u n t On g o i n g o r O n e - ti m e FT E s To t a l b y F u n d C l a s s , B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t # 3 : Ge n e r a l F u n d GF 6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 6 , 5 3 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 - - - CI P F u n d CI P 5 , 2 6 7 , 2 1 6 . 9 4 1 1 , 2 6 7 , 2 1 6 . 9 4 - - - Do n a t i o n F u n d Do n a t i o n 4 4 , 6 6 8 . 0 0 4 4 , 6 6 8 . 0 0 - Wa t e r F u n d Wa t e r 3 6 , 6 8 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 3 6 , 6 8 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 - - - Re f u s e F u n d Re f u s e - 3 , 0 3 5 , 7 0 0 . 0 0 - - - Go v e r n m e n t a l I m m u n i t y Go v t I m m u n 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 - - - Mi s c e l l a n e o u s G r a n t F u n d Mi s c G r a n t s 2 , 4 1 7 , 9 9 5 . 0 0 2 , 4 1 7 , 9 9 5 . 0 0 - - 2 . 0 0 - - - Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n P r o p o s e d C o u n c i l A p p r o v e d Se c t i o n I : C o u n c i l A d d e d I t e m s 2 FY 2 0 2 3 B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t # 3 To t a l o f B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t I t e m s 5 0 , 9 0 9 , 8 7 9 . 9 4 6 0 , 4 8 3 , 5 7 9 . 9 4 - - 2 . 0 0 3 FY 2 0 2 3 B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t # 3 Cu r r e n t Y e a r B u d g e t S u m m a r y , p r o v i d e d f o r i n f o r m a t i o n o n l y FY 2 0 2 2 - 2 3 B u d g e t , I n c l u d i n g B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t s FY 2 0 2 2 - 2 3 Ad o p t e d B u d g e t BA # 1 T o t a l B A # 2 T o t a l B A # 3 T o t a l B A # 4 T o t a l B A # 5 T o t a l T o t a l R e v e n u e Ge n e r a l F u n d ( F C 1 0 ) 42 5 , 5 3 7 , 4 0 8 6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 43 1 , 5 3 7 , 4 0 8 Cu r b a n d G u t t e r ( F C 2 0 ) 3, 0 0 0 3, 0 0 0 DE A T a s k F o r c e F u n d ( F C 4 1 ) 1, 7 6 2 , 5 6 0 1, 7 6 2 , 5 6 0 Mi s c S p e c i a l S e r v i c e D i s t r i c t s ( F C 4 6 ) 1, 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 1, 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 St r e e t L i g h t i n g E n t e r p r i s e ( F C 4 8 ) 4, 3 0 2 , 2 2 2 4, 3 0 2 , 2 2 2 Wa t e r F u n d ( F C 5 1 ) 10 8 , 1 9 6 , 3 6 8 3 6 , 6 8 0 , 0 0 0 14 4 , 8 7 6 , 3 6 8 Se w e r F u n d ( F C 5 2 ) 19 6 , 6 3 0 , 9 0 7 19 6 , 6 3 0 , 9 0 7 St o r m W a t e r F u n d ( F C 5 3 ) 13 , 4 7 6 , 7 3 3 13 , 4 7 6 , 7 3 3 Ai r p o r t F u n d ( F C 5 4 , 5 5 , 5 6 ) 30 2 , 2 6 8 , 6 0 0 30 2 , 2 6 8 , 6 0 0 Re f u s e F u n d ( F C 5 7 ) 21 , 4 5 8 , 1 0 5 21 , 4 5 8 , 1 0 5 Go l f F u n d ( F C 5 9 ) 11 , 5 6 0 , 6 7 6 11 , 5 6 0 , 6 7 6 E- 9 1 1 F u n d ( F C 6 0 ) 3, 9 2 5 , 0 0 0 3, 9 2 5 , 0 0 0 Fl e e t F u n d ( F C 6 1 ) 28 , 8 2 6 , 9 9 2 1 2 0 , 0 0 0 28 , 9 4 6 , 9 9 2 IM S F u n d ( F C 6 5 ) 30 , 5 2 3 , 1 6 7 30 , 5 2 3 , 1 6 7 Co u n t y Q u a r t e r C e n t S a l e s T a x f o r Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n ( F C 6 9 ) 9, 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 9, 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 CD B G O p e r a t i n g F u n d ( F C 7 1 ) 4, 6 7 0 , 5 1 7 4, 6 7 0 , 5 1 7 Mi s c e l l a n e o u s G r a n t s ( F C 7 2 ) 34 , 1 5 8 , 9 1 8 2 , 4 1 7 , 9 9 5 36 , 5 7 6 , 9 1 3 Ot h e r S p e c i a l R e v e n u e ( F C 7 3 ) 30 0 , 0 0 0 30 0 , 0 0 0 Do n a t i o n F u n d ( F C 7 7 ) 2, 9 2 0 , 2 5 0 2 0 , 0 0 0 4 4 , 6 6 8 2, 9 8 4 , 9 1 8 Ho u s i n g L o a n s & T r u s t ( F C 7 8 ) 16 , 2 1 7 , 0 0 0 16 , 2 1 7 , 0 0 0 De b t S e r v i c e F u n d ( F C 8 1 ) 32 , 0 3 7 , 9 8 9 32 , 0 3 7 , 9 8 9 CI P F u n d ( F C 8 3 , 8 4 & 8 6 ) 35 , 4 6 0 , 3 8 7 5 , 5 3 0 , 9 1 6 5 , 2 6 7 , 2 1 7 46 , 2 5 8 , 5 2 0 Go v e r n m e n t a l I m m u n i t y ( F C 8 5 ) 3, 9 6 4 , 5 2 3 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 4, 4 6 4 , 5 2 3 Ri s k F u n d ( F C 8 7 ) 54 , 6 7 9 , 0 0 0 54 , 6 7 9 , 0 0 0 T o t a l o f B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t I t e m s 1 , 3 4 4 , 1 8 0 , 3 2 2 5 , 6 7 0 , 9 1 6 - 5 0 , 9 0 9 , 8 8 0 - - 1 , 4 0 0 , 7 6 1 , 1 1 8 4 FY 2 0 2 3 B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t # 3 Cu r r e n t Y e a r B u d g e t S u m m a r y , p r o v i d e d f o r i n f o r m a t i o n o n l y FY 2 0 2 2 - 2 3 B u d g e t , I n c l u d i n g B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t s T o t a l E x p e n s e B A # 1 T o t a l B A # 2 T o t a l B A # 3 T o t a l B A # 4 T o t a l B A # 5 T o t a l T o t a l E x p e n s e Ge n e r a l F u n d ( F C 1 0 ) 42 5 , 5 3 7 , 4 0 8 3 2 5 , 0 0 0 6 , 5 3 8 , 0 0 0 43 2 , 4 0 0 , 4 0 8 Cu r b a n d G u t t e r ( F C 2 0 ) 3, 0 0 0 3, 0 0 0 DE A T a s k F o r c e F u n d ( F C 4 1 ) 1, 7 6 2 , 5 6 0 1, 7 6 2 , 5 6 0 Mi s c S p e c i a l S e r v i c e D i s t r i c t s ( F C 4 6 ) 1, 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 1, 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 St r e e t L i g h t i n g E n t e r p r i s e ( F C 4 8 ) 5, 7 5 7 , 8 2 5 5, 7 5 7 , 8 2 5 Wa t e r F u n d ( F C 5 1 ) 13 2 , 7 5 2 , 8 1 5 3 6 , 6 8 0 , 0 0 0 16 9 , 4 3 2 , 8 1 5 Se w e r F u n d ( F C 5 2 ) 25 5 , 9 1 4 , 5 8 0 25 5 , 9 1 4 , 5 8 0 St o r m W a t e r F u n d ( F C 5 3 ) 18 , 6 9 9 , 7 2 2 18 , 6 9 9 , 7 2 2 Ai r p o r t F u n d ( F C 5 4 , 5 5 , 5 6 ) 38 4 , 6 8 1 , 6 7 1 6 8 8 , 8 1 8 , 0 0 0 1, 0 7 3 , 4 9 9 , 6 7 1 Re f u s e F u n d ( F C 5 7 ) 24 , 9 5 2 , 6 7 2 3 , 0 3 5 , 7 0 0 27 , 9 8 8 , 3 7 2 Go l f F u n d ( F C 5 9 ) 14 , 7 2 6 , 0 1 6 14 , 7 2 6 , 0 1 6 E- 9 1 1 F u n d ( F C 6 0 ) 3, 8 0 0 , 3 8 5 3, 8 0 0 , 3 8 5 Fl e e t F u n d ( F C 6 1 ) 30 , 4 2 6 , 0 3 2 4 , 0 1 1 , 3 6 0 34 , 4 3 7 , 3 9 2 IM S F u n d ( F C 6 5 ) 30 , 5 2 3 , 1 6 7 30 , 5 2 3 , 1 6 7 Co u n t y Q u a r t e r C e n t S a l e s T a x f o r Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n ( F C 6 9 ) 9, 4 5 8 , 7 4 8 9, 4 5 8 , 7 4 8 CD B G O p e r a t i n g F u n d ( F C 7 1 ) 4, 9 5 8 , 4 3 3 4, 9 5 8 , 4 3 3 Mi s c e l l a n e o u s G r a n t s ( F C 7 2 ) 26 , 6 1 4 , 1 5 3 2 , 4 1 7 , 9 9 5 29 , 0 3 2 , 1 4 8 Ot h e r S p e c i a l R e v e n u e ( F C 7 3 ) 30 0 , 0 0 0 30 0 , 0 0 0 Do n a t i o n F u n d ( F C 7 7 ) 28 7 , 2 5 0 2 0 , 0 0 0 4 4 , 6 6 8 35 1 , 9 1 8 Ho u s i n g L o a n s & T r u s t ( F C 7 8 ) 25 , 7 7 9 , 2 5 3 25 , 7 7 9 , 2 5 3 De b t S e r v i c e F u n d ( F C 8 1 ) 33 , 6 5 8 , 5 5 8 33 , 6 5 8 , 5 5 8 CI P F u n d ( F C 8 3 , 8 4 & 8 6 ) 35 , 4 6 0 , 3 8 7 9 , 8 4 2 , 2 5 1 1 1 , 2 6 7 , 2 1 7 56 , 5 6 9 , 8 5 5 Go v e r n m e n t a l I m m u n i t y ( F C 8 5 ) 3, 1 6 9 , 7 6 7 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 3, 6 6 9 , 7 6 7 Ri s k F u n d ( F C 8 7 ) 54 , 6 7 9 , 0 0 0 54 , 6 7 9 , 0 0 0 - T o t a l o f B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t I t e m s 1 , 5 2 5 , 6 0 3 , 4 0 2 1 4 , 1 9 8 , 6 1 1 6 8 8 , 8 1 8 , 0 0 0 6 0 , 4 8 3 , 5 8 0 - - 2 , 2 8 9 , 1 0 3 , 5 9 3 Bu d g e t M a n a g e r An a l y s t , C i t y C o u n c i l Co n t i n g e n t A p p r o p r i a t i o n 5 Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 1 Section A: New Items A-1: Capital Equipment Purchase Refuse Packers Refuse $3,035,700.00 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Angie Nielsen For Questions Please Include: Angie Nielsen, Debbie Lyons, Chris Bell, Sophia Nicholas, Mary Beth Thompson The Department of Sustainability is requesting FY 2023 capital equipment budget of $3,035,700 to initiate the ordering of 13 packer units. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, equipment manufacturers are experiencing delays and equipment order backlogs. Based on information received from packer equipment manufacturers the timeline for ordering and receiving equipment has increased to over 12 months. Additionally, production curtailments at these manufacturers have translated to us not being able to have our FY 2022 purchase order completely filled. The department is only getting 3 of the 9 packers ordered so need to add remaining 6 to our FY 2023 order of 7 for a total of 13. Based on all these factors, the department is requesting a FY 2023 increase to order 13 packers. A-2: Deeply Affordable Housing to Address Immediate and Long-term Homeless Needs CIP $6,000,000.00 GF $6,000,000.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Rachel Otto For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Mary Beth Thompson, Blake Thomas , Tony Milner The Administration proposes to portion City funds for deeply affordable housing into two phases. Phase I The first phase would provide funding for permanent supportive housing and/or transitional shelter housing projects that will: Serve people currently experiencing homelessness in Salt Lake City; Offer at least 100 housing units Have a majority of units ready for occupancy on or before April 15, 2023 Have a majority of its funding from non-SLC sources. The Administration recommends the Council support the creation of an Homelessness Housing Grant Fund with the conditions identified above. The administration further recommends the Council allocate a total of $6 million to this Grant Fund from funds that were placed in the CIP last fiscal year budget with the intention of using them for housing. Community and Neighborhoods will expedite creation of a grant application for non-profit developers to apply for a portion of those funds, not to exceed $2.5 million per applicant. As this is intended to focus on creation of units within the next 9 months to align with the end of the winter overflow shelter season, it is expected that applicants will include those renovating existing motels for transitional or permanent supportive housing projects. We also anticipate they will have already begun work and need funds to continue and/or finish construction. Phase II The Administration appreciates the $20.1 million that the City Council & RDA Board approved for affordable housing in . As that funding comprises RDA and Federal HOME grant funds which are restricted and require extended processes, the Administration believes they will be more appropriate for some other projects in the pipeline that are farther out in the development process. A number of housing projects are applying for federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits and might need 12-24 months to complete planning and construction. g programs with those funds this fall. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 2 Conclusion This request is submitted for the consideration of the City Council within this budget amendment due to the following recent developments: Several private developers have been in communication with the city about projects that were not ready as of the adoption of the city budget in June of 2022, but are ready to start developing now; Implementation of this grant program will incentivize creation of additional PSH units prior to the end of the winter emergency shelter season in April 2023; during the year. The Administration believes that the opportunity to create housing options for those experiencing unsheltered homelessness within Salt Lake City meets the high standard of use for these funds; The Administration sees the same urgency that the City Council has expressed regarding the impacts of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness. Many of our City staff are out in the City every day, doing their best to address issues related to homelessness. Our community liaisons, the HEART team, the Rapid Intervention Team, Park Rangers, police officers, fire fighters and dozens of others work on the complex issue of homelessness, day in and day out. We are all frustrated by the number of levers that the City simply does not have control over including funding for our state and county to address mental health and substance abuse, the legal or practical path to put criminal offenders in jail, and space in emergency shelters. But housing people is one clear, compassionate answer, and one way we can help people get off the street and on the path to success in our City. See full memo at the end of this document A-3: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal A-4: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal A-5: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal A-6: Governmental Immunity Funding to Cover Anticipated Costs for Fiscal Year GF $500,000.00 Govt Immunity $500,000.00 Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson For Questions, Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson, Katie Lewis This funding is being requested to bolster the Governmental Immunity Fund balance. Due the size of claims having already been paid this fiscal year; the Governmental Immunity Fund balance is significantly lower than it should be this early in the year. The added funding will help ensure there are sufficient funds to cover anticipated claims. A-7: Utah League of Cities and Towns Membership Cost Increase GF $38,000.00 Department: Non-Departmental Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson For Questions, Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 3 was higher than anticipated this year. This funding will cover the increased cost. Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section D: Housekeeping D-1: Recognizing Revenue in Donations Fund Donation $44,668.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich, Chief Brown For Questions, Please Include: Shellie Dietrich, Chief Brown The Police Department is requesting a housekeeping amendment in the 77 fund to recognize budget from existing resources. D-2: FTE Transfer Consumer Protection Analyst GF -$108,841.00 GF $108,841.00 Department: CAN-Housing Stability Prepared By: Tony Milner For Questions, Please Include: Tony Milner, Brent Beck, Blake Thomas Consumer Protection Analyst FTE to be transferred from the Mayor's Office to Housing Stability. This position is cur rently listed in the Mayor's Office as Community Liaison, grade 26. The position will focus on consumer protection as well as eviction prevention. D-3: UDOT Class C Reimbursement CIP $1,617,216.66 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente For Questions, Please Include: Dawn Valente, Dustin Petersen, Jorge Chamoro, Mary Beth Thompson UDOT has reimbursed the City Class C funds that were paid toward the 1300 East project between 1300 South and 2100 South in the amount of $1,617,216.94. This budget amendment is to receive those funds and place them back into the Class C fund for eligible class c projects. Project final billing is attached as the last worksheet. D-4: Dominion Energy 200 South Reimbursement CIP $600,000.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente For Questions, Please Include: Dawn Valente, Dustin Petersen, Jorge Chamoro, Mary Beth Thompson Dominion Energy is replacing pipeline on 200 South in the area that the City is doing reconstruction between 400 West and 900 East. A Release Agreement was recorded between the 2 parties on June 13, 2022 in which Dominion Energy is providing the City with $600,000 to pay for the asphalt restoration. This budget amendment is requesting both the revenue and the expenditure budgets for this agreement. Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources E-1: Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program Water $36,680,000.00 Department: Public Utilities Prepared By: Ann Garcia, Lisa Tarufelli For Question, Please Include: Ann Garcia, Lisa Tarufelli, Mary Beth Thompson, Laura Briefer, Mark Christensen Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 4 This budget amendment is to recognize the City's Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program Grant for FY23 in the amount of $36,680,000 for the purpose of retrofitting the City Creek Water Treatment Plant in Salt Lake City. The Justice40 Initiative was established by President Biden in Executive Order 14008 on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad and last year, formal guidance, M-21-28, Interim Implementation Guidance for the Justice40 Initiative was issued. Justice40 covered programs are Federal programs that make covered investments in seven categories. The City submitted a sub application and under the BRIC Program that fell under the FEMA Department of Homeland Security infrastructure category. The funding will go towards mitigating seismic and flooding hazards at the City Creek Water Treatment Plan. The Grant has a performance period of 36 months from FY23 through FY25. The project match of $15,808,325 is budgeted over the next three years (FY23 through FY25). The match sources will be a combination of the annual budget and financial forecasting. We need to put a hold on this funding until an award agreement is received. We have received an email announcing the award. E-2: 300 West Protected Bike Lanes CIP $2,100,000.00 Department: CAN-Transportation Prepared By: Ann Garcia, Jeff Gulden For Questions, Please Include: Ann Garcia, Jeff Gulden, Jon Larsen, Blake Thomas This project will design and construct protected bike lanes on 300 West from 900 South to 300 South. Salt Lake City is currently reconstructing 300 West (900 South to 2100 South) and adding a bicycle path separated from vehicle traffic through nearly all of the project area. This project will continue the protected bike lanes into downtown. Funds will be used for design and construction. Match will be proposed from the SLC Streets Bond through the annual budget and from Transportation Division staff time and consultant resources for outreach, planning, design, and construction management. Current project is posted to the 300 West Reconstruction project. Could we please setup a new cost center to reflect this description/appropriation language. We need to put a hold on this funding until an award agreement is received. We have received an email announcing the award. E-3: Parleys Trail Gap in Sugar House CIP $950,000.00 Department: CAN-Transportation Prepared By: Ann Garcia, Jeff Gulden For Questions, Please Contact: Ann Garcia, Jeff Gulden, Jon Larsen, Blake Thomas Trail along Highland Drive. This project will help complete a regional trail network. The project will include a high-quality two-way bicycle facility in the public right of way on the west side of Highland Drive and it will also include a 200 feet multi-use trail facility along Sugarmont Drive just west of Highland Drive. Current project is posted to the 1100 East/Highland Dr Reconstruction project. We need to put a hold on this funding until an award agreement is received. We have received notice of the award. Section F: Donations Section G: Consent Agenda Consent Agenda #1 Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 5 G-1: US Department of Justice, 2019 Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Misc. Grants $3,700.00 Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith/Ann Garcia ****This item is to budget for the interest that has accumulated in this grant cost center since the original grant award. This grant ends 9/30/22 and the interest needs to be budgeted for so that it can be included in the closeout of this award.**** The Police department receives this grant annually and will use the award of $326,545 to conduct community policing and system implementation overtime projects, fund training for sworn and civilian personnel and the Peer Support program. Additionally, the department will purchase supplies, a service dog and veterinary services for the K9 program, and protective police helmets. No match is required. G-2: U.S. Department of Agriculture administered by Utah State Office of Education Summer Food Service Program 2022 - Youth Summer Snack Programs Misc. Grants $11,042.00 Department: Public Services (Youth & Family) Prepared By: Kim Thomas/Ann Garcia The Division of Youth & Family (YouthCity) applied for and received a grant in the amount of $11,042 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture administered by the Utah State Office of Education, for the Summer Food Service Program. These funds are available to provide a daily nutritious snack to youth participating in the YouthCity Summer Program 2022 at Central City Recreation Center, Fairmont Park, Liberty Park, Ottinger Hall, and Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center/Unity Center Campus. SLC is reimbursed on a monthly basis and only qualified nutritious snacks and meals served to children participating in the summer enrichment/education activities during the summer program hours are eligible for reimbursement. A Public hearing was held on this grant application on May 17, 2022. G-3: School-Age Program Summer Expansion Grant 2022-2023, State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services Misc. Grants $390,000.00 Department: Public Services (Youth & Family) Prepared By: Kim Thomas/Ann Garcia The Public Services Division of Youth and Family Services applied for and received a grant award of $390,000 for the 2022 summer expansion program, from Utah State Department of Work Force Services through the Utah Office of Child Care for the School Age Program Summer Expansion Grant. The Division of Youth and Family Services received $390,000 to provide YouthCity 2022 summer programming for youth five to twelve years old at Fairmont Park, Liberty Park, Central City, Ottinger Hall, Sorenson Unity Center, and Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center. $325,430 for Salaries and Fringe for existing staff, $44,260 for Materials and Supplies, and $20,310 for Professional Fees and Contract Services. No match is required by the funding agency. The Division is providing a voluntary cash match of the Division's General Fund 2022-2023 budget for salaries and fringe benefits for 100% full time equivalent (FTE) of seven site staff and one Associate Director for program delivery, 50% FTE of the Division Director for administrative oversight, and 50% FTE of one Office Facilitator for general support. A public hearing was held for the grant application on May 17, 2022. G-4: Fairmont Park, School-Age Program Grant 2022-2023, Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 6 State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services Misc. Grants $62,223.00 Department: Public Services (Youth & Family) Prepared By: Kim Thomas/Ann Garcia The Public Services Division of Youth and Family Services applied for and received a grant award of $62,223 for Fairmont Park for 2022-2023 summer programs, from Utah State Department of Work Force Services through the Utah Office of Child Care for the School Age Program Grant. The School-Age Program Grant monies will fund wages and benefits for eight (8) hourly positions to serve from 7:45 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Monday thru Friday over the 2022-2023 Summer programs: A portion of grant funding is directed to wages and fringe benefits for seven (7) Group one full-time Group Facilitator positions and one (1) Licensed Teacher position. $46,343.30 for Salaries and Fringe for existing staff, $9,980.00 for Materials and Supplies, and $5,899.70 for Other: Educational Field Trips. No match is required by the funding agency. A public hearing was held on May 17, 2022. G-5: Liberty Park, School-Age Program Grant 2022-2023, State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services Misc. Grants $62,223.00 Department: Public Services (Youth & Family) Prepared By: Kim Thomas/Ann Garcia The Public Services Division of Youth and Family Services applied for and received a grant award of $62,223 for Liberty Park for 2022-2023 summer programs, from Utah State Department of Work Force Services through the Utah Office of Child Care for the School Age Program Grant. The School-Age Program Grant monies will fund wages and benefits for eight (8) positions to serve from 7:45 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Monday thru Friday the YouthCity 2022-2023 summer programs at Central City: A portion of grant funding is directed to wages and fringe benefits for seven (7) Group Facilitator positions and one (1) Licensed Teacher Position. $46,343.30 for Salaries and Fringe for existing staff, $9,980.00 for Materials and Supplies, and $5,899.70 for Other: Educational Field Trips No match is required by the funding agency. A public hearing was held for the grant application on May 17, 2022. G-6:Central City, School-Age Program Grant 2022-2023, State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services Misc. Grants $62,223.00 Department: Public Services (Youth & Family) Prepared By: Kim Thomas/Ann Garcia The Public Services Division of Youth and Family Services applied for and received a grant award of $62,223 for Central City for 2022-2023 summer programs, from Utah State Department of Work Force Services through the Utah Office of Child Care for the School Age Program Grant. The School-Age Program Grant monies will fund wages and benefits for eight (8) positions to serve from 7:45 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Monday thru Friday the YouthCity 2022-2023 summer programs at Liberty Park: A portion of grant funding is directed to wages and fringe benefits for seven (7) Group Facilitator positions and one (1) Licensed Teacher Position. $46,343.30 for Salaries and Fringe for existing staff, $9,980.00 for Materials and Supplies, and $5,899.70 for Other: Educational Field Trips. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 7 No match is required by the funding agency. A public hearing was held for the grant application on May 17, 2022. G-7: Ottinger Hall, School-Age Program Grant 2022-2023, State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services Misc. Grants $62,223.00 Department: Public Services (Youth & Family) Prepared By: Kim Thomas/Ann Garcia The Public Services Division of Youth and Family Services applied for and received a grant award of $62,223 for Ottinger Hall for 2022-2023 summer programs, from Utah State Department of Work Force Services through the Utah Office of Child Care for the School Age Program Grant. The School-Age Program Grant monies will fund wages and benefits for eight (8) positions to serve from 7:45 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Monday thru Friday the YouthCity 2022-2023 summer programs at Ottinger Hall: A portion of grant funding is directed to wages and fringe benefits for seven (7) Group Facilitator positions and one (1) Licensed Teacher Position. $46,343.30 for Salaries and Fringe for existing staff, $9,980.00 for Materials and Supplies, and $5,899.70 for Other: Educational Field Trips. No match is required by the funding agency. A public hearing was held for the grant application on May 17, 2022. G-8: Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center, School-Age Program Grant 2022- 2023, State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services Misc. Grants $62,223.00 Department: Public Services (Youth & Family) Prepared By: Kim Thomas/Ann Garcia The Public Services Division of Youth and Family Services applied for and received a grant award of $62,223 for Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center for 2022-2023 summer programs, from Utah State Department of Work Force Services through the Utah Office of Child Care for the School Age Program Grant. The School-Age Program Grant monies will fund wages and benefits for eight (8) positions to serve from 7:45 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Monday thru Friday the YouthCity 2022-2023 summer programs at Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center: A portion of grant funding is directed to wages and fringe benefits for seven (7) Group Facilitator positions and one (1) Licensed Teacher Position. $46,343.30 for Salaries and Fringe for existing staff, $9,980.00 for Materials and Supplies, and $5,899.70 for Other: Educational Field Trips. No match is required by the funding agency. A public hearing was held for the grant application on May 17, 2022. G-9: Unity Center, School-Age Program Grant 2022-2023, State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services Misc. Grants $62,223.00 Department: Public Services (Youth & Family) Prepared By: Kim Thomas/Ann Garcia Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 8 The Public Services Division of Youth and Family Services applied for and received a grant award of $62,223 for Unity Center for 2022-2023 summer programs, from Utah State Department of Work Force Services through the Utah Office of Child Care for the School Age Program Grant. The School-Age Program Grant monies will fund wages and benefits for eight (8) positions to serve from 7:45 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Monday thru Friday the YouthCity 2022-2023 summer programs at Unity Center: A portion of grant funding is directed to wages and fringe benefits for seven (7) Group Facilitator positions and one (1) Licensed Teacher Position. $46,343.30 for Salaries and Fringe for existing staff, $9,980.00 for Materials and Supplies, and $5,899.70 for Other: Educational Field Trips No match is required by the funding agency. A public hearing was held for the grant application on May 17, 2022. Consent Agenda #2 G-1: Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control - 2023 Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Grant Misc Grants $587,915.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Ann Garcia The Salt Lake City Police Department received a grant of $587,915 from the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program. Of this award $172,360 is approved for salaries and $58,799 is approved for fringe benefits for an administrative employee, K-9 officer, and a contracted finance manager. $140,000 for investigative overtime, $45,000 for investigative/operational and administrative travel, $15,656 for vehicle leases and services contracts, $11,700 for supplies, and $144,400 for other administrative costs and confidential informant funds. A public hearing was held on 5/17/22 for the grant application on this award. G-2: Teen Afterschool Prevention (TAP) Grant, State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services Misc Grants $1,008,000.00 Department: CAN (Youth & Family) Prepared By: Kim Thomas / Ann Garcia The Youth and Family Services Division applied for and received a grant award of $336,000 per year for a three-year period, from Utah State Department of Work Force Services through the Teen Afterschool Prevention Grant. These funds have been awarded to fund YouthCity Teen sites: Glendale, Central City, Library, Northwest and Sorenson Teen program operating expenses. The allocation of these funds will be over three years and will help fund two new full-time equivalent (FTE) Community Program Managers, and eight existing positions for Teen Specialists, in addition to General Operating expenses, and Professional Services expenses. No match is required by the funding agency. A public hearing was held on 06/14/2022 on the grant application. G-3: Utah State Department of Public Safety - 2022 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Misc Grants $38,000.00 Department: Emergency Management Prepared By: Audrey Pierce / Ann Garcia The Emergency Management Services Division received a $38,000 FY2022 EMPG grant from the State of Utah, Department of Public Safety. This grant is awarded on an annual basis to jurisdictions to help offset costs of planning and updating emergency preparedness plans, conduct emergency preparedness exercises and produce materials and other media for public educational outreach and training pertaining to emergency preparedness. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 9 These funds will offset costs in providing National Incident Management System (NIMS) training to SLC staff with emergency response responsibilities during a disaster or other significant event. The funds will be used to fund community preparedness activities, purchase training materials, supplies and equipment including books, brochures, handouts, etc. The grant requires a 50% match which will be satisfied with the Community Preparedness Coordinator's time and budgeted for within Emergency Managements general fund. A public hearing was held for this grant application on 6/14/22. G-4: Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), State Asset Forfeiture Grant (SAFG) Misc Grants $6,000.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Ann Garcia The Salt Lake City Police Department applied for and received a $6,000 grant award from the State of Utah, Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), under the State Asset Forfeiture Grant (SAFG) program. The SAFG program funds crime prevention and law enforcement activities within specific guidelines. CCJJ developed the SAFG program as a means of evaluating and distributing state forfeiture funds. The funds will be used for confidential informant funds to enhance investigations in narcotics-related cases. A public hearing was held on 07/19/22 for this grant application. Section I: Council Added Items Item A-2 Attachment Background The greatest issue facing the City right now is the growing number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness. We are not alone in this struggle as many communities across the state and country are grappling with similar concerns. While Salt Lake City employs a number of interventions to address homelessness and its related impacts, the administration, along with our local partners and national experts agree that housing is the core of any solution to this issue. The closure of the winter overflow shelter this past April, coupled with economic impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic has led to increasing numbers of people with nowhere to go on our City streets, in City parks, and along the Jordan River. The need for housing solutions for people experiencing and on the verge of homelessness is urgent and the impacts are becoming extreme. The Administration shares the frustration of the City Council, residents, and businesses that the tools we have and employ are not enough, and we need all levels of government, including the county, state, and federal government, to do more to serve people experiencing mental health issues, disabilities, and suffering from substance use disorders, along with homelessness. While there is currently a process underway to locate another 400 beds of emergency shelter from October to April in Salt Lake County, without other permanent housing solutions, the City will continue to experience an increase in homelessness and its impacts. Proposal Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 10 The Administration proposes to portion City funds for deeply affordable housing into two phases. Phase I The first phase would provide funding for permanent supportive housing and/or transitional shelter housing projects that will: Serve people currently experiencing homelessness in Salt Lake City; Offer at least 100 housing units Have a majority of units ready for occupancy on or before April 15, 2023 Have a majority of its funding from non-SLC sources. The Administration recommends the Council support the creation of an Homelessness Housing Grant Fund with the conditions identified above. The administration further recommends the Council allocate a total of $6 million to this Grant Fund from funds that were placed in the CIP last fiscal year budget with the intention of using them for housing. Community and Neighborhoods will expedite creation of a grant application for non-profit developers to apply for a portion of those funds, not to exceed $2.5 million per applicant. As this is intended to focus on creation of units within the next 9 months to align with the end of the winter overflow shelter season, it is expected that applicants will include those renovating existing motels for transitional or permanent supportive housing projects. We also anticipate they will have already begun work and need funds to continue and/or finish construction. Phase II The Administration appreciates the $20.1 million that the City Council & RDA Board approved for affordable As that funding comprises RDA and Federal HOME grant funds which are restricted and require extended processes, the Administration believes they will be more appropriate for some other projects in the pipeline that are farther out in the development process. A number of housing projects are applying for federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits and might need 12-24 months to complete planning and construction. with those funds this fall. Conclusion This request is submitted for the consideration of the City Council within this budget amendment due to the following recent developments: Several private developers have been in communication with the city about projects that were not ready as of the adoption of the city budget in June of 2022, but are ready to start developing now; Implementation of this grant program will incentivize creation of additional PSH units prior to the end of the winter emergency shelter season in April 2023; The CIP funds were identified in discussion of needs during the year. The Administration believes that the opportunity to create Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 11 housing options for those experiencing unsheltered homelessness within Salt Lake City meets the high standard of use for these funds; The Administration sees the same urgency that the City Council has expressed regarding the impacts of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness. Many of our City staff are out in the City every day, doing their best to address issues related to homelessness. Our community liaisons, the HEART team, the Rapid Intervention Team, Park Rangers, police officers, fire fighters and dozens of others work on the complex issue of homelessness, day in and day out. We are all frustrated by the number of levers that the City simply does not have control over including funding for our state and county to address mental health and substance abuse, the legal or practical path to put criminal offenders in jail, and space in emergency shelters. But housing people is one clear, compassionate answer, and one way we can help people get off the street and on the path to success in our City. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2022 (Third amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2022-2023) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2022 which adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2022, and Ending June 30, 2023. In June of 2022, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2022, and ending June 30, 2023, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the Utah Code. prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including any amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including any amendments to the employment staffing document as provided above, have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2022. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes 2 specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including any amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2023, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128 of the Utah Code. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2022. ________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________ Vetoed _________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _________ of 2022. Published: ___________________. Approved As To Form ___Jaysen Oldroyd________ Jaysen Oldroyd SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2022 (Third amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2022-2023) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2022 which adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2022, and Ending June 30, 2023. In June of 2022, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2022, and ending June 30, 2023, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the Utah Code. The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including any amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including any amendments to the employment staffing document as provided above, have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2022. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes 2 specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including any amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2023, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128 of the Utah Code. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2022. ________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________ Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed _________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _________ of 2022. Published: ___________________. Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form __________ Jaysen Oldroyd Impact Fees Summary Confidential Data pulled 07/01/2022 Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area Area Cost Center UnAllocated Cash Notes: Impact fee - Police 8484001 846,150$ A Impact fee - Fire 8484002 1,156,234$ B Impact fee - Parks 8484003 15,216,578$ C Impact fee - Streets 8484005 8,061,854$ D 25,280,816$ Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month 202107 (Jul2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202108 (Aug2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202109 (Sep2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202110 (Oct2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202111 (Nov2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202112 (Dec2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202201 (Jan2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202202 (Feb2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202203 (Mar2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202204 (Apr2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202205 (May2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Current Month 202206 (Jun2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202305 (May2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202307 (Jul2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202308 (Aug2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202309 (Sep2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202310 (Oct2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202311 (Nov2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202312 (Dec2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202401 (Jan2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202402 (Feb2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202403 (Mar2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202404 (Apr2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202405 (May2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202406 (Jun2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total, Currently Expiring through June 2024 0$ -$ -$ -$ 0$ Fiscal Quarter E = A + B + C + D Police Fire Parks Streets TotalCalendar Month Impact Fees Confidential Data pulled 07/01/2022 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC Police Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Police Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Police Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Police Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Police Allocation Remaining Appropriation ReimbExcessPoliceCapacity IF 8422800 1,898,497$ -$ 1,898,497$ -$ Police'sConsultant'sContract 8419205 3,565$ -$ 3,565$ -$ Public Safety Building Replcmn 8405005 14,068$ 14,068$ -$ 0$ Eastside Precint 8419201 21,639$ -$ -$ 21,639$ Police Impact Fee Refunds 8421102 338,448$ -$ 100,842$ 237,606.45$ Grand Total 2,276,217$ 14,068$ 2,002,903$ 259,246$ A Fire Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Fire Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Fire Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Fire Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Fire Allocation Remaining Appropriation Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 4,941$ 3,021$ 1,862$ 58$ FY20 FireTrainingFac. 8420431 56,031$ -$ -$ 56,031$ Fire Station #3 Debt Service 8422200 483,233$ -$ 483,233$ -$ Grand Total 1,045,105$ 3,021$ 985,995$ 56,089$ B Parks Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining AppropriationValues Description Cost Center Sum of Parks Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Parks Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Parks Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Parks Allocation Remaining Appropriation Cnty #2 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420426 88$ -$ 88$ -$ Warm Springs Off Leash 8420132 20,411$ -$ 20,411$ -$ Fairmont Park Lighting Impr 8418004 49,752$ -$ 49,752$ -$ Fisher Carriage House 8420130 1,098,764$ 261,187$ 837,577$ -$ Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 4,857$ 2,596$ 2,219$ 42$ Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 23,530$ 23,000$ -$ 530$ Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 1,110$ -$ -$ 1,110$ Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 1,570$ -$ -$ 1,570$ Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 224,247$ 92,027$ 130,574$ 1,646$ Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$ ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 10,830$ -$ 4,433$ 6,398$ FY Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 12,795$ 4,328$ -$ 8,467$ Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 9,350$ -$ -$ 9,350$ 9line park 8416005 21,958$ 855$ 2,692$ 18,411$ IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 58,014$ -$ 1,905$ 56,109$ UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 135,084$ 21,169$ 12,803$ 101,112$ Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 523,889$ 374,573$ 39,040$ 110,276$ FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 722,920$ 116,388$ 480,599$ 125,933$ C Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$ 9Line Orchard 8420136 195,045$ 12,423$ 28,477$ 154,145$ RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 180,032$ -$ -$ 180,032$ Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 388,477$ 16,762$ 117,939$ 253,777$ Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ -$ 275,000$ Bridge to Backman 8418005 290,276$ 10,285$ 4,515$ 275,475$ SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 425,000$ -$ 105,861$ 319,139$ Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$ Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 431,000$ 24,953$ -$ 406,047$ Historic Renovation AllenParK 8422410 420,000$ -$ -$ 420,000$ Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 489,688$ 29,235$ 35,098$ 425,355$ Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 510,000$ 44,362$ -$ 465,638$ Green loop 200 E Design 8422408 610,000$ -$ -$ 610,000$ Emigration Open Space ACQ 8422423 700,000$ -$ -$ 700,000$ Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,094,430$ 33,364$ 47,318$ 1,013,749$ SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 1,304,682$ -$ -$ 1,304,682$ Pioneer Park 8419150 3,343,904$ 86,260$ 179,148$ 3,078,497$ GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 3,200,000$ 17,400$ 22,152$ 3,160,449$ Grand Total 17,281,123$ 1,174,504$ 2,142,322$ 13,964,297$ Streets Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Street Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Street Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Street Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Street Allocation Remaining Appropriation 9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 152,500$ 68,924$ 83,576$ -$ 700 South Reconstruction 8415004 2,449$ -$ 2,449$ -$ Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ 13,000$ -$ -$ Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 95,653$ 12,768$ 82,180$ 705$ Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 1,444$ -$ -$ 1,444$ Gladiola Street 8406001 16,109$ 13,865$ -$ 2,244$ Urban Trails FY22 IF 8422619 6,500$ -$ -$ 6,500$ Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 29,817$ 17,442$ -$ 12,374$ 500 to 700 S 8418016 96,637$ -$ 73,893$ 22,744$ Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 25,398$ -$ -$ 25,398$ 900 South 9Line RR Cross IF 8422604 28,000$ -$ -$ 28,000$ Transportatn Safety Imprvmt IF 8422620 44,400$ 13,090$ -$ 31,310$ D 1700S Corridor Transfrmtn IF 8422622 35,300$ -$ -$ 35,300$ Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 35,392$ -$ -$ 35,392$ 200S TransitCmpltStrtSuppl IF 8422602 37,422$ -$ -$ 37,422$ Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 58,780$ 20,697$ -$ 38,083$ 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$ Local Link Construction IF 8422606 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$ 400 South Viaduct Trail IF 8422611 90,000$ -$ -$ 90,000$ Neighborhood Byways IF 8422614 104,500$ -$ -$ 104,500$ Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$ Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 200,000$ -$ 18,154$ 181,846$ TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 302,053$ 53,713$ 9,608$ 238,732$ Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 2,250,220$ 396,873$ 1,470,038$ 383,309$ IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8419008 221,688$ -$ 221,238$ 450$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8420105 300,000$ 77,706$ 222,294$ -$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 875,000$ 67,474$ 19,589$ 787,937$ Grand Total 5,967,404$ 840,578$ 2,220,710$ 2,906,116$ Total 26,566,261$ 2,032,171$ 7,348,343$ 17,185,748$ E = A + B + C + D TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE $1,156,234 UnAllocated Budget Amount 8484001 846,150$ 25,280,816$ 8484002 8484003 8484005 15,216,578$ 8,061,854$ 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. Item F1 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Allison Rowland Budget and Policy Analyst DATE:October 4, 2022 RE: ORDINANCE: NEW DEFERRAL FOR EMERGENCY LOAN PROGRAM REPAYMENT MOTION 1 – ADOPT ORDINANCE I move that the Council adopt the ordinance approving the deferral of Emergency Loan Program loans to December 31, 2024. MOTION 2 – ADOPT ORDINANCE WITH LEGISLATIVE INTENTS I move that the Council adopt the ordinance approving the deferral of Emergency Loan Program loans to December 31, 2024, along with the following Legislative Intent(s) (optional): (The following intents were mentioned at different times in the meeting and could be considered separately) a.That the new deferral to the end of 2024 be offered as an “opt-in” process for each borrower, rather than occurring automatically. b.That a discount scaled to reflect current interest rates be offered to borrowers who are able to repay before the end of 2024. c.That by March 1, 2023, the Department of Economic Development propose criteria and processes for borrowers that might not have an alternative to loan "forgiveness" or write-off, MOTION 3 – NOT ADOPT I move that the Council not adopt the ordinance, and proceed to the next agenda item. DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ERIN MENDENHALL MAYOR LORENA RIFFO-JENSON INTERIM DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL _______________________ Date Received: ___________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________ __________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 9/14/2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Lorena Riffo Jenson, Interim Director, Department of Economic Development SUBJECT: Emergency Loan Program Repayment STAFF CONTACTS: Roberta Reichgelt, (roberta.reichgelt@slcgov.com) x7694 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Adopt an Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: $1M issued for the Emergency Loan Program in FY20. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The COVID-19 Pandemic (“Pandemic”) has impacted the world and our local economy to an unprecedented level. It is widely known that small businesses have experienced extreme difficulties relating to the pandemic that are, in turn, having a great impact on the economy. In the early days of the Pandemic, the City sought to mitigate the negative effects for long term health and the well-being of the economy by releasing an Emergency Loan Program (ELP). Established in March of 2020, ELP's goal was to assist small businesses immediately impacted by the Pandemic by providing financial relief for businesses and their employees. In other words, the program was intended to close the financial gap between closure and the eventual State and Federal relief programs (see program transmittal to Council attached). The City’s ELP was one of the first in the country to be established at the onset of the pandemic. 9/15/2022 9/15/2022 Lisa Shaffer (Sep 15, 2022 08:33 MDT) The ELP provided $1M in funding to 52 Salt Lake City businesses and nonprofits in amounts ranging from $5,000 up to $20,000. The repayment of these loans was set to begin 90 days after the Mayor’s Emergency Proclamation ended on May 7, 2021. During this 90-day window, DED sent out a survey to recipients to understand the potential impacts of requiring loan repayment. The response rate was 12% and more than half of those responses indicated that it would be somewhat difficult or extremely difficult to make repayments on their loan. Because Salt Lake City’s small businesses were still recovering from the impacts of the Pandemic, the City’s Department of Economic Development (“DED”) administratively deferred repayment of all loans until December 31, 2021. Loan repayments were set to begin on January 1, 2022; however, the ELP loans remain outstanding, pending policy direction from City Council. During this period, two of the 52 recipients have exercised the option to pay off their loan and none of the remaining loans are in repayment. Additionally, of the 52 businesses/nonprofits that received loans, two businesses1 and one nonprofit have since closed. State of the Economy While many industries have experienced recovery in taxable sales, some industries continue to face economic challenges. Below are industries which 1) experienced losses in 2020 compared to 2019, 2) represent more than $100m in taxable sales in 2019, and 3) continue to see fluctuations in revenue with the introduction of new COVID variants: ●Food Service and Drinking Places ●Accommodations (i.e. hotels) ●Arts, Entertainment and Recreation These industries are central to Salt Lake City’s quality of life and urban core experience. The severe impact of the Pandemic on these industries was predicted at the onset of the Pandemic- related shutdowns, which was why DED targeted these industries for the Emergency Loan Program. Of the SLC businesses and nonprofits that received funds, 67% came from the above listed industries. Furthermore, a Mckinsey study was done on these industries predicting when they would recover back to 2019 pre-Pandemic levels and found that it could be as long as 2024/2025 2 before they would experience full recovery. This is due to low financial resilience (balance sheets for small businesses in these industries lack flexibility, since a significant portion of the costs are relatively fixed) and also because these industries typically operate on extremely thin margins. Another industry significantly represented in the ELP recipients was retail (21%, not including food and beverage). All of the ELP recipient retail businesses have brick and mortar locations in Salt Lake City. Retail had already been suffering with the rise of Amazon and other online retail options, and the Pandemic only exacerbated this issue, forcing retailers to adapt their sales models. 1 ONE OF THESE TWO BUSINESSES HAS SINCE REOPENED AS A NEW BUSINESS CONCEPT. 2https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/our-insights/us-small-business-recovery-after-the-covid- 19-crisis Supply chain issues have also caused stress on businesses due to COVID infections setting off port closures. It is not surprising that the impacts of this are more severe on small businesses, as they are not able to easily pursue alternative transport options. In addition, the current high inflation rate that our country and state are collectively facing continues to further impact our small business community. Lastly, current labor shortages have caused Salt Lake City’s small businesses to have difficulties finding employees to support their businesses. This will almost certainly create further negative economic impacts on small businesses and serves to demonstrate how uncertain their economic recovery is in the short-term future, necessitating further assistance for small businesses. In general, Salt Lake City experienced a dramatic drop in year-over-year sales in 2020 with April 2020 having a 16% drop and continued negative year-over-year performance until December of 2020. 2021 saw tremendous recovery, with April 2021 seeing 40% year-over-year growth. This overall recovery continues into the latest months captured by County data (December 2021),3 but the data indicates ongoing fluctuations due to spikes in COVID cases from variants. Loan Program Repayment Examples from Illinois and Utah Due to the continued financial impact to small businesses, communities throughout the nation that also instituted emergency loan programs are finding ways to eliminate the debt burden on their small businesses. The State of Illinois’ Small Business Emergency Loan Fund supported their 3 https://slco.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=c07ef403435442909c7dc30c0da2b718 recipient businesses by later releasing a Business Interruption Grants Program that businesses could use to pay back the loan4. Locally, the State of Utah’s Small Business Bridge Loan Program was deployed around the same time as the City’s Emergency Loan Program with a similar objective to keep businesses afloat while awaiting federal funding. A total of $12M was delivered to 1,150 businesses and nonprofits 5. Loan repayment restarted 12 months after the funds were issued (approximately Spring of 2021) and as of December 2021 only $4M had been collected. At the end of 2021 and beginning of 2022 the Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity (GO Utah) sent out communication stating that borrowers’ loans would be converted to grants and any businesses that had begun making payment would be reimbursed. No application was required for this conversion of the funds; instead, GO Utah simply worked with the borrowers to amend their current loan contract. Policy Considerations In order to pursue next steps for the City’s Emergency Loan Program loan recipients, DED presents the following Policy Considerations for Council to contemplate: 1) Loan deferment for 12 additional months until January 1, 2023. (As noted above, repayment was set to begin in January 2022 and the loans remain pending policy direction). This option would give loan recipients additional time to further recover the economic losses to their business. 2) Loan deferment until December 31, 2024 - this deadline is in alignment with the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) expenditures deadline. This takes into consideration that small businesses could seek opportunities from ARPA funds to assist with financial hardships the business may be experiencing. Please note, however, that ARPA funds may only be used for Pandemic-related business operating expenses and labor, and debt repayment is not an eligible use of ARPA funds. Thus, this deferment would provide an opportunity for businesses to access assistance that would potentially free up other revenue for the ELP debt repayment. In addition, the deferment of debt payments is a key item that supports the recovery of businesses, and this timeline is in alignment with the economic data and information referenced above. 3) Convert all loans into grants, similar to what other emergency loan programs have done, such as the Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity as described previously. This would relieve the businesses of having to pay back the debt as they continue to recover. Should this option be approved, a public benefit analysis for each of the 52 individual businesses/nonprofits would need to be executed prior to converting any of the loans to grants. 4 https://www2.illinois.gov/dceo/SmallBizAssistance/Pages/IllinoisSmallBusinessEmergencyLoanFund.aspx 5https://business.utah.gov/news/sorenson-impact-center-releases-first-report-on-bridge-loan- program/?hilite=bridge+loans 4) Convert some of the loans into grants by creating guidelines to consider for businesses that can demonstrate a hardship and need for relief. Should this option be approved, a public benefit analysis for each individual business/nonprofit that meets the guidelines for a grant would need to be executed in order to relieve the business/nonprofit of repayment. The City deeply values its local, small business community and wants to assist borrowers whose businesses may still be recovering from the COVID-19 Pandemic. Therefore, the Department of Economic Development recommends to Council to consider further deferment of repayment in line with the ARPA expenditures deadline of December 31, 2024 (option 2, above). This would allow for additional time needed to further support small business recovery. At that time, DED can assess each business’s ability to repay and can provide further recommendations to Council on an individual basis.6 By availing this option to small businesses, the City would further demonstrate its strong support for the small business community. 6 IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT DED RECOMMENDATIONS AT THAT TIME MAY INCLUDE SOME SELECTIVE RECOMMENDATIONS TO WRITE-OFF OR REDUCE LOAN PRINCIPAL, DEPENDING ON CONDITIONS OF THE LOAN RECIPIENT BUSINESSES. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2022 (Ordinance approving the deferral of Emergency Loan Program loans) WHEREAS, on March 10, 2020, the Mayor issued a “Proclamation Declaring a Local Emergency” (“Proclamation”) in response to the global outbreak of COVID-19 (“Pandemic”). WHEREAS, on March 24, 2020, Salt Lake City Corporation (the “City”) created a revolving loan fund referred to as the Emergency Loan Program (the “ELP”) via Resolution No. 4 of 2020 to provide financial relief for small businesses located in Salt Lake City in response to the Pandemic’s adverse economic impacts; and WHEREAS, the City, via Resolution No. 4 of 2020, adopted certain loan criteria and processes to govern the ELP (the “Program Terms”); and WHEREAS, the ELP, administered by the City’s Department of Economic Development (the “DED”), provided one million dollars in funding to fifty-two Salt Lake City businesses and nonprofits in amounts ranging from $5,000 up to $20,000; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Program Terms, the repayment of the ELP loans was set to begin 90 days after the Proclamation ended on May 7, 2021; and WHEREAS, the repayment of the loans was additionally deferred from August 7, 2021, to December 31, 2021 in response to ongoing adverse economic impacts arising from various coronavirus variant outbreaks in the Pandemic during the fall; and WHEREAS, economic recovery for small businesses continues to be unsteady, with Salt Lake City businesses in retail, food/beverage services, hospitality, arts, entertainment, and recreation industries continuing to face financial stress due to the Pandemic’s lingering impacts, such as variant spikes, global supply chain issues, increasing inflation, and labor shortages; and WHEREAS, these continuing adverse impacts may further strain the financial condition of the City’s small business ELP loan recipients; and WHEREAS, the City deeply values its local, small business community, and wishes to relieve the economic pressure on ELP loan recipients to permit them additional time for a full and robust economic recovery; and WHEREAS, a deferral of the ELP loans until December 31, 2024, in line with the ARPA expenditure deadline, would provide ELP loan recipients the opportunity to more fully recover from the adverse impacts brought by the Pandemic. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, that: SECTION 1. Deferral of ELP loans until December 31, 2024. The City Council hereby authorizes the deferral of repayment of the ELP loans until December 31, 2024. The City Council authorizes the Mayor to negotiate and execute amendments to the loan agreements and any other relevant documents necessary to evidence this deferral, including incorporating such other terms and agreements as recommended by the City Attorney’s office. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of _____________________, 2022. Dan Dugan, Council Chair 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: Sara Montoya, City Attorney September 14, 2022 ERIN MENDENHALL MAYOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RDA DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BEN KOLENDAR ACTING DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 13, 2020 Chris Wharton, Chair FROM: Benjamin Kolendar, Acting Director, Department of Economic Development SUBJECT: Emergency Loan Program Update STAFF CONTACTS: Peter Makowski, Acting Director of Business Development Division peter.makowski@slcgov.com; (801) 573-1760 DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Item RECOMMENDATION: NA BUDGET IMPACT: NA BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and Mayor Mendenhall’s “State of Local Emergency” declaration on March 10th, 2020, Salt Lake City’s Department of Economic Development (DED) focused all efforts to support the business community as business shutdowns, partial and full closures were recommended and later required. April 13, 2020 April 13, 2020 DED immediately responded by surveying the business community through an online survey. DED provided emergency information and assembled business resources, available at that time, by building a COVID-19 website, housed on our Department site. The information received from companies as a result of the survey demonstrated a need for small business support that was rapid and flexible. Staff immediately researched emergency economic relief programs, which resulted in the creation of the Emergency Loan Program (ELP). The programs’ mission is to assist small businesses immediately impacted by COVID-19 by providing financial relief for businesses and their employees and bridging the financial gap between closure and eventual State and Federal relief programs. On Tuesday March 17th, City Council approved the allocation of $1,000,000, sourced from the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF), to fund ELP small business loans. The funds were to be distributed in two rounds of $500,000 for amounts requested by the borrower. Loan Terms: •Loan Amount: up to $20,000 •Term: 5 years •Interest Rate: 0% •Repayment Terms: Equal monthly payments of principal. Repayment will commence approximately 90 days following the subsidence of the COVID-19 outbreak and following notice from the City. Any write-off or loan forgiveness must be approved by the City Council. Eligible Borrowers: •Must have physical location within Salt Lake City limits •Must have 50 employees or less •25% of this funding shall be allocated to businesses West of I-15. •Guarantee: Loan is guaranteed by any owner holding 20% or more interest in the ownership of the business (Non- Profit Organizations exempt). Required information: •Complete Application •Financials: profit and loss, and balance sheets from previous year •Business tax returns from previous year •Most recent month-end or quarterly financial statement •Previous year’s personal tax returns •Copy of Salt Lake City Business License •Copy of driver’s license or government issued ID •Signed W-9 form •Copy of lease or mortgage statement Loan Processing and Evaluation Applications were received and uploaded for our Application Review Team to process. After ensuring that all required application documents have been received, the Application Review Team evaluated and scored each application (evaluation form attached). The following criteria was considered when scoring each complete application: •Business type (25 pts) - priority on restaurant, retail, bars, events spaces, arts based businesses that have been heavily affected by the mandated closures/limitations. o 25 = Targeted industry (restaurant/bar/retail/event/arts) o 15 = Non-targeted industry o 0 = Not applicable (home based business, independent contractor, etc) •Financial Need (25 pts) – rating the completeness of financial information provided and overall health of the business. Prioritizing those that have been disrupted in operations due to the county and state mandated closures for certain types of businesses. o 25 = Complete financials/Healthy business o 15 = Incomplete financials/Unhealthy business o 0 = No financials •Narrative (25 pts) - Businesses must provide an overview of the business in the form of an Executive Summary, which must demonstrate under normal circumstances the business would be profitable without disaster disruption, and the impact on the business such as decreased customers, decreased sales, etc. o 25 = Detailed description of business/impact o 15 = Incomplete description of business/impact o 0 = No narrative •Use of funds (15 pts) o 15 = Working capital, inventory, marketing o 0 = Non-applicable use •Credit Score (10 pts) – Non-Profit Organizations exempt o 0 = 0-549 o 2 = 550-599 o 4 = 600-649 o 6 = 650-650 o 8 = 700-749 o 10 = 750+ All complete applications were reviewed, scored and ranked by total score (100 points possible). Loan Committee Once complete applications were reviewed and scored, they were packaged for review by the ELP Loan Committee. The Loan Committee consists of representatives from the City Council, SLC Business Advisory Board, Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, SLC Arts Council, and Downtown Alliance. The Loan Committee was provided the following: •List of complete applications for review •Evaluation form and methodology •Access to all application files Loan Committee Ranking The Loan Committee was charged with ranking all complete loans and selecting those to be funded. •The Loan Committee members selected the top 25 loans to fund at the applicant’s requested amount (25% of complete applications will be west side businesses) •Staff tallied the committee rankings, evaluated additional loans, and approved the loan package for funding. o Round 1 Loan Committee Ranking Attached o Round 2 Loan Committee Ranking Attached Diversity When developing the ELP, DED took the following measures to attempt to reach all members of the community: •Installed Google Translation on the ELP website, translating our website in thousands of languages. •Offered applications in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Swahili. •Worked with the Suazo Business Center and other ethnic Chambers of Commerce to adapt application requirements to fit the needs of their communities. •Included gender and ethnicity data tracking in all applications •Partnered with the Suazo Business Center and the Small Business Development Center to assist non-English speaking applicants with completing their applications. DED collected data on applications as it pertains to diversity. Diverse Applications are defined as loan applications with non-white and/or female guarantors. DED used the following methodology to measure this data: •Data categorized by Loan Recipients (funded) and Total Applications (complete applications only) •Data subcategorized by Funding Round and totaled. •Represented Diverse Applications of Loan Recipients and Total Applications as a percentage. •Guarantors are required to own 20% of the business applying. Data reflects applications with ethnic and/or female guarantors. Many applications included two guarantors, gender/ethnicity was collected for both in these cases and were captured in the analysis. •Represented Loan Recipients and Total Applications of Total Guarantors as a percentage. •Compared Loan Recipients and Total Applications ethnic/gender data to Salt Lake City demographic data (Source: Source: EDCUtah, JobsEQ, http://wwwchmuraecon.com/jobseq, January 2020) After two rounds of funding, completed applications and loans funded displayed the following demographic characteristics: Data Analysis Observations •While racially diverse applications were short of population demographics across the board, round 2 showed a significant increase from round 1 to round 2. •Total recipient percentages for racially diverse and women owned against applications were fairly consistent with minor increases for both categories. Round One Funding On Wednesday evening, March 18th, DED launched the first round of funding via our website and started accepting applications online. Note, Salt Lake City experienced a 5.7 magnitude earthquake earlier that morning. During round one, while responding to impacts of the earthquake, DED on-boarded, reviewed and evaluated all applications received, while creating the backend processes, including an Application Review Team, required to perform these tasks. DED worked with local partners to develop a streamlined application and review process, making our website and documents multi-lingual, and assisting applicants with translation and financial needs. All solutions involved virtual and online tools to “work from home” and social distancing requirements. Due to time and capacity constraints, DED was unable to assist customers with their applications, thus only completed applications were considered for funding in round one. On Monday, March 23rd , the round one application period closed. DED received 341 applications, with 73 complete loans packaged for loan committee review. On Wednesday, March 25th, complete applications were forwarded to the ELP Loan Committee, consisting of members from the City Council, SLC Business Advisory Board, Redevelopment Agency, Downtown Alliance, and SLC Arts Council, for consideration. Due to funding constraints, 26 of 73 complete applications were funded. On Thursday, March all applicants, both funded and unfunded, were notified and staff began helping applicants complete their applications. •Application and Evaluation Results APPLICATIONS ROUND 1 Total Complete Applications 73 Total Incomplete Applications 268 East of I‐15 Applications 295 West of I‐15Applications 46 Total applications 341 EVALUATIONS ROUND 1 East of I‐15 Evaluated 64 West of I‐15 Evaluated 9 •Funding Results FUNDING ROUND 1 Total Loans Funded 26 Total Loans Not Funded 315 East Side $ Requested $5,401,883 West Side $ Requested $791,000 Total $ Requested $6,192,883 East Side $ Funded $377,000 West Side $ Funded $120,000 Round Two Funding On Wednesday, March 26th, DED launched round two of funding and immediately on-boarded, reviewed and evaluated new applications, while working with incomplete applications from round one. This required staff to review hundreds more applications while simultaneously helping hundreds of applicants complete their applications. Similar to round one, DED created the backend processes, including a complete Customer Service Team, throughout the round two application period. On Thursday, April 2nd, the round two application period closed and all Loans Evaluated 73 Total $ Funded $497,000 complete loans applications were forwarded to the ELP Loan Committee for approval. The committee approved 26 of 303 loans on Monday, April 6th. •Application and Evaluation Results APPLICATIONS ROUND 2 Total Complete Applications 303 Total Incomplete Applications 83 East of I‐15 Applications 336 West of I‐15Applications 50 Total applications 386 EVALUATIONS ROUND 2 East of I‐15 Evaluated 266 West of I‐15 Evaluated 37 •Funding Results FUNDING ROUND 2 Total Loans Funded 26 Total Loans Not Funded 360 East Side $ Requested $5,800,472 West Side $ Requested $860,000 Total $ Requested $6,660,472 East Side $ Funded $360,000 West Side $ Funded $135,000 Industry Funding Results The ELP funding focused on key industries (Restaurant/Bar, Retail, Event, Arts) identified through our online survey. The graphs below represent completed applications by industry. Loans Evaluated 303 Total $ Funded $495,000 Program Financial Results APPLICATIONS ROUND 1 ROUND 2 TOTAL Total Complete Applications 73 303 376 Total Incomplete Applications 268 83 351 East of I‐15 Applications 295 336 631 West of I‐15Applications 46 50 96 Total applications 341 386 727 EVALUATIONS ROUND 1 ROUND 2 TOTAL East of I‐15 Evaluated 64 266 330 West of I‐15 Evaluated 9 37 46 Loans Evaluated 73 303 376 FUNDING ROUND 1 ROUND 2 TOTAL Total Loans Funded 26 26 52 Total Loans Not Funded 315 360 675 East Side $ Requested $5,401,883 $5,800,472 $11,202,355 West Side $ Requested $791,000 $860,000 $1,651,000 Total $ Requested $6,192,883 $6,660,472 $12,853,355 East Side $ Funded $377,000 $360,000 $737,000 West Side $ Funded $120,000 $135,000 $255,000 Total $ Funded $497,000 $495,000 $992,000 Lessons Learned •The City needs a reliable source of diverse owned businesses in order to appropriately benchmark applications. Population demographics may not accurately correlate to business ownership. •The digital divide can pose challenges to quickly administering programs virtually. •The first round and second round had a large disparity of minority applications. The second round had a higher volume and percentage of diverse applications. •The Mayor’s ADA liaison and policy advisors on human rights and refugees & new Americans should be included in the loan committee for future rounds. •If the Business Development team asks organizations to select review committee members, diverse representation should be considered before confirming those members. •Technology solutions for additional rounds of funding and/or future financial programs would drastically reduce processing manpower. It’s likely that a technology solution could also help with the challenge of incomplete applications. •Requirements for non-profits should differ from for -profit businesses. Attachments •Loan Evaluation Form •Final Approved Businesses Amount Requested: Income/Expenses Goods Sold #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 5 Credit Score rating: score 0-549 0 550-599 2 600-649 4 10 650-699 6 700-749 8 750+ 10 Round 1 Loan Recipients Reported Race Guarantor 1 Reported Gender Guarantor 1 Reported Race Guarantor 2 Gender Guarantor 2 Tradition white male white male Cucina Deli white male Marble Cast Productions other male other female Les Madeleine hispanic female Desert Dog Daycare white female white male Equipt Expedition Outfitters white male Brewvies white male Atelier LLC white female white female Mineral and Matter white female LUX Events hispanic male white male Tulie white female white male Sun Trap white male white male Cornerstone Aviation white female Ken Sanders Rare Books white male Vosen's Bread Paradise white male white female Comfort Bowl asian male Kyoto white male n/a male Butterfly Jac Salon white female white female Greek Souvlaki white male Western Rivers white male Sugarhouse BBQ white male white male Este Pizza Sugarhouse white male white female Proper Brewing white male Challenger Industrial Supply white male Sierra Wholesale Supply white male Proper Cuisine white male Round 2 Loan Recipients Reported Race Guarantor 1 Reported Gender Guarantor 1 Reported Race Guarantor 2 Gender Guarantor 2 Nomad Eatery white female Flourish Bakery n/a n/a Caputo's white n/a King's English white female white female Salt Lake Film Society white female Zaater & Zayton other female other female Beehive Floral white female Galaxy LLC hispanic female hispanic female Red Iguana hispanic female Amour Café white female white male Urban Lounge white male white male Fisher Beer white male Sweet Lake hispanic female white male Utah Arts Festival Foundation n/a n/a Utah Cultural Alliance white female Publik Coffee white female Urban Pioneer Foods white female Hayat's Grill other male Relax Nails LLC asian male asian male Quarters Arcade Bar white male white male East Liberty Tap House white male white male Garage on Beck white male Blue Copper white male white male Toasters white male white n/a Hello Bulk american indian female Utah Arts Alliance white male Item F2 Page 1 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:October 4, 2022 RE: MOTION SHEET – ORDINANCE: Small Cell Wireless Facilities The Council may consider the following motions: Motion 1 – Adopt I move that the Council adopt an ordinance regarding the Placement of Small Wireless Facilities in the Public Way. Motion 2 – Not Adopt. I move that the Council not adopt the ordinance and move to the next item. Project Timeline: Public Hearing: Not Required Potential Action: Oct. 4, 2022 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 https://tinyurl.com/SmallCellsSLC TO: City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards Budget & Policy Analyst DATE: September 20, 2022 RE: Small Cell Wireless Facilities (SWF) Draft Ordinance Design Standards ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE As Council Members are aware, small cell wireless facilities (SWF) add capacity and coverage on a wireless network. As requested by the Council, the Attorney’s office has drafted an ordinance that would add design standards for these facilities, including the preference for co-location on existing City utility poles, to City code. The following design standards have been added to the draft ordinance: a) Small Wireless Facilities (SWF) will be installed on an existing or replacement utility pole when one is available rather than on a new freestanding pole; b) The aesthetics of any SWF will blend into the surroundings to the extent possible (matching color, height and fluting of existing poles including in historic districts); c) Installations in residential neighborhoods will be minimized by requiring new facility locations to prioritize locations on busier collector streets rather than local streets, and if an installation is permitted on a local street, it will be located at the intersection of property lines and not in the public way behind the sidewalk (where a sidewalk exists); d) SWF will be installed in a public alley on an existing utility pole when available rather than on the street. Engineering is using administrative discretion to currently enforce the four design guideline policies listed in the draft ordinance, and if adopted by Council, then the design standards would be updated to reflect the ordinance. Design standards will change as technology changes. The Administration reports 400+ small wireless facilities to date and counting. Additionally, the number of complaints has decreased since Engineering implemented the Council's requested design standards which the ordinance will codify. Federal and State laws and rules give telecommunication providers the right to install facilities in the public- right-of-way subject to municipal regulations. Providers must be treated the same under municipal regulations so one company is not unduly favored over another. Goal of the briefing: To review the draft ordinance which provides policy guidance for the placement of Small Wireless Facilities in the Public Way, and to identify any policy issues for follow up. POLICY QUESTIONS Item Schedule: Briefing: Sept. 20, 2022 Potential Action: October 4, 2022 Page | 2 1. Design Standards Satisfy Policy Goals – The Council may wish to discuss whether the draft ordinance design standards satisfy the Council’s and community’s policy goals to better integrate SWF into neighborhoods citywide. 2. Enforcement Mechanisms – The Council may wish to ask what monitoring and enforcement mechanisms are available to the Administration if reasonable design standards are not adhered to. 3. No Duty to Underground SWF – SB189 appears to preclude the City from requiring undergrounding of SWF electrical boxes and other infrastructure. The City’s standard franchise agreement stipulates a duty to underground lines and cables “to the greatest extent reasonably practicable” and is specifically required in four areas: (1) new residential subdivisions, (2) Central Business District, (3) any area of the City where existing utilities are already underground, and (4) whenever other utility companies are undergrounding cables and lines. ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION Additional information on Small Cell Wireless Facilities (SWF) As noted above, small cell wireless facilities (SWF) add capacity and coverage on a wireless network. This benefits locations with a high density of telecommunication users, such as downtown. SWF are expected to provide part of the infrastructure for fifth-generation wireless technologies (“5G”). Each facility includes an antenna, radio and power meter, and needs connections to power and fiber optic cables. Wireless providers can install SWF on public-right-of-way infrastructure including existing and new monopoles, billboards, streetlights, street signs, traffic poles, utility poles and other structures; however, the Engineering Division is emphasizing the City’s preference to secure wireless equipment onto existing city-owned streetlights and utility-owned poles. The Administration notes that this is sometimes not possible because some block faces only have one streetlight. Coordination with Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) The Administration provided the following summary of how RMP is involved in locating SWF in the public- right-of-way. “Rocky Mountain Power (“RMP”) policies directly influence the implementation of City code. RMP allows for small cell infrastructure attachments to its existing utility poles as well as to overhead wires. Such attachments require a pole attachment or wireline attachment agreement between RMP and the small cell provider; once this agreement is in place, providers must submit pole location plan and then RMP does a site analysis of each location within a 45-day period. After pole sites are approved by RMP, the small cell provider submits to the City RMP’s written approval along with the company’s permit application to locate in the ROW. RMP does not have poles in the Central Business District as it is an underground district, and so other locations for small cell facilities must be identified.” Current City Ordinances Governing Antennas in Public-right-of-way The Administration reports three sections of City Code govern SWF in the public-right-of-way. However, SB189 supersedes these ordinances to allow SWF potentially anywhere in the public-right-of-way. Section of Salt Lake City Code Title Function SLC §21A.40.090 Antenna Regulations in Public Right of Way (ROW) a. Allows antennas to be mounted on existing 3rd-party-owned utility poles. There are no other antenna installations allowed in the ROW. b. Requires the electric equipment to be placed underground or on private property (or on the pole, which is not allowed by RMP). c. Requires that facilities in the ROW be subject to any applicable franchise fees or lease agreement required by City. SLC §14.32.425 Telecommunication Right of Way Permits Allows conduit and cable to be located within the ROW Page | 3 SLC § 14.40.020 Utility Poles and Wires New poles are only allowed for franchise holders (but not permitted for antennas). SB189 Small Wireless Facilities Deployment Act (Effective Date September 1, 2018) In March 2018, the State Legislature passed and the Governor signed SB189. The law conveys broad rights upon telecommunication providers to (1) install SWF on all municipally owned infrastructure within the public-right- of way and (2) construct new monopoles for SWF. Municipalities must allow installation of SWF but may narrowly regulate designs. Administration’s Overview of SB189 • Wireless providers have the right to: o install small wireless facilities and utility poles within ROW; and o locate small wireless facilities on municipal poles (includes streetlights, traffic lights, street signs) and other structures in the ROW (including billboards) • City is required to recognize small wireless facilities in ROW as a permitted use in all zones and districts (strictly an administrative process) • A small wireless facility consists of: an antenna of 6 cubic feet or less; pole and ground equipment of 28 cubic feet or less • The small wireless facilities may be installed on a utility pole no taller than 50 ft. (potential additional 10 ft. for antennae) City Powers • Design/Historic and Underground Districts – City must allow small wireless facilities including utility poles (heightened design standards) • May limit new utility poles in ROW that is 60 ft. wide or less and adjacent to residential property • May adopt reasonable, nondiscriminatory design standards • May adopt nondiscriminatory police-power-based regulations for management of ROW • May deny applications for articulable public safety reasons • May require agreement dealing with indemnification, insurance and bonding before ROW work Compensation • Annual ROW Access Rate o 3.5% of gross revenue under Municipal Telecommunications License Tax (if the tax applies), or o the greater of 3.5% of gross revenue or $250 per small wireless facility • Annual Authority Pole Attachment Rate: $50 per collocated small wireless facility per authority pole • Application Fees (for a Permit to work in the ROW) o $100 per collocated small wireless facility o $250 per utility pole with a small wireless facility o $1000 per non-permitted use • Other applicable permit fees Application Limits • Consolidated application: up to 25 small wireless facilities of substantially the same type; Up to 75 small wireless facility (3 consolidated applications) per 30 days Shot Clocks (Review periods) • Review for Completion: 30 days (City can deem application incomplete and applicant has 90 days to cure any deficiencies) • Installation on existing pole: 60 days (including completion review) • Installation on new, modified, or replacement utility pole: 105 days (including completion review) • One additional extension of 10 business days • Deemed complete and/or granted if municipality does not meet deadlines ACRONYMS 5G – Fifth generation wireless technologies FY – Fiscal Year RMP – Rocky Mountain Power Page | 4 ROW – Right of Way SB – Senate Bill SWF – Small cell wireless facilities Work Session Item No. 9 Attachment A (DRAFT) 2.3 General Requirements Small Cell Facilities Design Guidelines 2.3 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Any small cell collocated on a pole must comply with the following requirements: 1. A small wireless Facility will be installed on an existing or replacement utility pole when one is available rather than installed as a new freestanding pole in the public way. 2. The aesthetics of any Facility will blend into the surroundings to the extent possible, including matching the color, height, and fluting of existing surrounding poles. 3. Installations in residential neighborhoods will be minimized by requiring new Facility locations to prioritize locations on collector streets rather than local streets, and if an installation is permitted on a local street, it will be located at the intersection of property lines and not located in the public way behind the sidewalk (where a sidewalk exists). 4. Facilities will be installed in a public alley on an existing utility pole when available rather than on the street and adjacent public way. 5. Shall be placed at the intersection of property lines, or along secondary property street face. 6. Shall maintain required clearance from existing utilities. See 8.11.2 for Public Utilities clearances. 7. Should be equidistant from adjacent poles. 8. Shall match the aesthetics of existing streetlights and street furniture in the neighborhood of the proposed small cell locations. Aesthetic considerations and accommodations shall be included in the application submittal. 9. All equipment located within the public ROW shall be located such that it meets ADA requirements and does not obstruct, impede, or hinder usual pedestrian or vehicular travel or interferes with the operation and maintenance of signal lights, signage, streetlights, street furniture, fire hydrants, or business district maintenance. 10. Shall minimize impact to the aesthetics of the existing poles. 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ____ of 2022 (Placement of Small Wireless Facilities in the Public Way) WHEREAS, pursuant to Utah Code Chapter 54-21 and Salt Lake City (“City”) Code Chapter 14.56, a wireless provider may install wireless facilities in the City’s public way. Terms used herein have the meanings given them in City Code § 14.56.020. WHEREAS, pursuant to Utah Code § 54-21-103, the City may, among other things, adopt design standards for the installation and construction of small wireless facilities or utility poles in the public way that are reasonable and nondiscriminatory and include additional installation and construction details that do not conflict with the Utah Code. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council desires to provide policy direction on the design standards for the installation and construction of small wireless facilities and utility poles in the City’s public way to improve the aesthetics of the public way, minimize disruption to private and public property, avoid duplication of infrastructure, preserve the character of historic districts, encourage coordination between utility providers, and better integrate new technology into existing land use patterns. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: Section 1. DESIGN STANDARDS. The City desires to minimize the impact of the installation of small wireless facilities or utility poles (“Facilities”) on the aesthetics of the City’s public way. Any design standards adopted by the City related to installation of Facilities in the public way will include the following, to the extent they comply with applicable law and are technologically feasible. (a) A small wireless Facility will be installed on an existing or replacement utility pole when one is available rather than installed as a new freestanding pole (as described in the design standards) in the public way. (b) The aesthetics of any Facility will blend into the surroundings to the extent possible, including matching the color, height, and fluting of existing surrounding poles. (c) Installations in residential neighborhoods will be minimized by requiring new Facility locations to prioritize locations on collector streets rather than local streets, and if an installation is permitted on a local street, it will be located at the intersection of property lines and not located in the public way behind the sidewalk (where a sidewalk exists). (d) Facilities will be installed in a public alley on an existing utility pole when available rather than on the street and adjacent public way. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication. 2 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah on__________, 2022. Dan Dugan, Council Chair ATTEST: ______________________________ City Recorder Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ______ of 2022. Published: _______________. Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form By: _______________________ Kimberly K. Chytraus Date: __________________ 9/29/2022 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 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 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: 9/23/2022 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 9/23/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 9/23/2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Re-Appointment Recommendation: Airport Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Re-Appointment Recommendation: Airport Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Roger Boyer as a member of Airport 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 23, 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 re-appointment to Airport Board. Roger Boyer to be re-appointed for a four year term, ending 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: 9/23/2022 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 9/23/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 9/23/2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Re-Appointment Recommendation: Airport Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Re-Appointment Recommendation: Airport Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint J. Steven Price as a member of Airport 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 23, 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 re-appointment to Airport Board. J. Steven Price to be re-appointed for a four year term, ending 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: 9/23/2022 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 9/23/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 9/23/2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Re-Appointment Recommendation: Arts Council Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Re-Appointment Recommendation: Arts Council Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Susan Rickman as a member of Arts Council 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 23, 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 re-appointment to Arts Council Board. Susan Rickman to be re-appointed for a three year term, ending 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 October 4, 2022 7:05 PM from Corpany, Scott to host (privately): Items B6 and B7 will be heard today as one public hearing. If you've signed up for either of those individual items, we will call your names in the order that we've received them when it's time for the combined hearing. If you have any questions, please message the host. Thank you! October 4, 2022 7:05 PM from Corpany, Scott to all attendees: Items B6 and B7 will be heard today as one public hearing. If you've signed up for either of those individual items, we will call your names in the order that we've received them when it's time for the combined hearing. If you have any questions, please message the host. Thank you!