The URL can be used to link to this page

11/22/2022 - Work Session - Meeting Materials (2)SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL REVISED AGENDA WORK SESSION November 22, 2022 Tuesday 2:00 PM Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas. Council Work Room 451 South State Street Room 326 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SLCCouncil.com 7:00 pm Formal Meeting (See separate agenda) Welcome and public meeting rules In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the City & County Building through the main east entrance. The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting based on circumstance or availability of speakers. Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start times and durations are approximate and are subject to change at the Chair’s discretion. The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork. Generated: 08:29:12 Work Session Items 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:00 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 2.Ordinance: Fleet Block Zoning and Disposition Strategy Update ~ 2:30 p.m. 60 min. The Council will receive a status update on the zoning amendments and disposition strategy related to the Fleet Block, an 8.75-acres of City-owned property located between 300 and 400 West and between 800 and 900 South. Until 2010, this property was utilized by the City to manage its vehicle fleet. After the Fleet function was moved to a facility farther to the west, the City has conducted due diligence and various studies to prepare the property for redevelopment. The goal of these efforts is to turn this City- owned property into a community asset that will contribute to the economic, social, and environmental betterment of the City. The Administration will update the Council on community outreach efforts which have been conducted to help identify the future development plans for the block. The zoning amendments would create a new land use zone titled Form-Based Urban Neighborhood 3 (FB- UN3) and potentially rezone the 10-acre city block from Public Land (PL) and General Commercial (CG) to FB-UN3. Form-Based code focuses on the form and appearance of buildings. It also has more regulations that control those aspects of development than traditional zones. The proposal would apply regulations to future developments such as building design, height, bulk, use, and other development standards and land uses. The regulations are intended to support the block’s redevelopment. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Other sections of Title 21A – Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. For more information on this item visit www.tinyurl.com/SLCFleetBlock FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 6, 2020; Tuesday, December 8, 2020; and Tuesday, November 22, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 6, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 17, 2020 and Tuesday, November 17, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD 3.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.4 for Fiscal Year 2022- 23 Follow-up ~ 3:30 p.m. 40 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about an ordinance that would amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 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 sales tax revenue bond funds for critical infrastructure and investments in historic city-owned properties, additional funding for phase one of creating the Glendale Regional Park, police officer overtime, renovations to fire stations for gender equity improvements and emergency rental assistance funds from the U.S. Treasury among other items. For more information on this item visit https://fy23-slc-budget-slcgov.hub.arcgis.com/ FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Thursday, November 10, 2022 and Tuesday, November 22, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - Thursday, November 10, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD 4.Tentative Break ~ 4:10 p.m. 20 min. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 5.Ordinance: Library Budget Amendment No. 1 for Fiscal Year 2022-23 ~ 4:30 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would amend the budget for the Library Fund 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 appropriating funds to facilitate the purchase of property among other changes. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 22, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 22, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 13, 2022 6.Resolution: Amending an Interlocal Agreement Between Sandy and Salt Lake City Regarding Computer Aided Dispatch and Record Management System Services ~ 4:50 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a resolution that would authorize the approval of an amended and restated interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Sandy City regarding compensation Sandy City provides to Salt Lake City for certain public safety services related to dispatch, communication, and records management among other services. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 22, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 6, 2022 7.Ordinance: Economic Development Loan Fund - Club Verse at 609 South State Street ~ 5:10 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would approve $250,000 loan to Core Image Investments, LLC - Club Verse, at 609 South State Street from the Economic Development Loan Fund. This loan will assist in the creation of 45 new jobs in the next year and the retention of three current jobs. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 22, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 6, 2022 8.Ordinance: Enacting Temporary Zoning Regulations ~ 5:30 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would enact temporary zoning regulations authorizing the Volunteers of America Youth Resource Center at approximately 888 south 400 west to increase the maximum capacity by up to 10 more individuals, as long as the maximum occupancy meets building and fire code safety standards. The temporary zoning regulations will expire on April 15, 2023. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 22, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 22, 2022 9.Appointment of Disciplinary Appeals Hearing Officers ~ 5:50 p.m. 15 min. The Council will interview the following candidates prior to considering their appointment to the Disciplinary Appeals Hearing Officers Board; •Kirsten R. Allen, Attorney, Fabian VanCott •Brandon T. Crowther, Attorney, Preston & Scott •Clinton Drake, City Attorney, Bountiful City •Bryan M. Scott, Attorney, Preston & Scott FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 22, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 22, 2022 10.Informational: Funding our Future Quarter Three and Four Update Written Briefing - The Council will receive a written briefing of updates on Funding Our Future related activities for year three and quarter four (from January – June 2022). Funding Our Future is an initiative to address four critical needs: public safety, affordable housing, improved streets, park maintenance and better transit options. The Council approved a 0.5% sales tax increase in May 2018, and during the City’s annual budget process, allocated funding from anticipated sales tax revenue to each of those needs. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 22, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Standing Items 11.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. 12.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items. 13.Closed Session - - The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to: a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 1:00 p.m. on Monday, November 21, 2022, the undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated interest. CINDY LOU TRISHMAN SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations of options discussed. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. Administrative updates November 22, 2022 COVID-19 update Cases in Utah are up 16% in the last two weeks. (NYT Coronavirus in the US: Latest Map and Case Count 11/22/2022)current status summary Cases in the US are up 4% in the last two weeks. (NYT Coronavirus in the US: Latest Map and Case Count 11/22/2022) Sources: NYT Tracking Coronavirus in Utah , NYT Coronavirus in the US, CDC COVID-19 Integrated County View Source: Salt Lake County Health Department November 22, 2022 Source: Utah Department of Environmental Quality Community Wellness Update www.slc.gov/feedback/ Regularly updated with highlighted ways to engage with the City. Community Engagement Highlights Community & Neighborhoods •Housing SLC •Multiple engagement efforts happening •Analysis is ongoing slc.gov/can Transportation •Virginia Street Reconstruction •Draft Concept Designs online in December •GACC on December 7 slc.gov/transportation Public Utilities •Water Reclamation Facility (city-wide) •City Council Tour –Friday December 2nd •Parleys Canyon Mastication •Public engagement plan being developed •City Creek Water Treatment Plant Upgrade (city-wide) •Engagement begins this month slc.gov/utilities Mayor's Office Community Office Hours slc.gov/mayor Break for December –back in January! Upcoming Events Event Date Start Winter Farmer’s Market Weekly starting 11/12/22 –4/15/23 Park Rangers Jingle and Mingle 12/2/22 Park Rangers Jingle and Mingle 12/9/22 Park Rangers Jingle and Mingle 12/23/22 Homelessness Update: Single Adult HRC Occupancy November 14 –18, 2022 Homeless Resource Centers 97.1% Shelter the Homeless HRC Overflow 62.1% Millcreek Overflow 65.2% St. Vincent de Paul Overflow Rapid Intervention Team:8 Active Engagement Locations 12 Scheduled Site Rehabs COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst DATE: November 22, 2022 RE: Rezone & Text Amendment: Fleet Block PLNPCM2019- 00277 PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: October 6, 2020 Briefing: December 8, 2020 Briefing: November 22 2022 Public Hearing 1: Nov 10, 2020 Public Hearing 2: Nov 17, 2020 Potential Action: TBD ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive an update on proposed zoning amendments and disposition strategy for the City-owned property known as the Fleet Block, located between 300 and 400 West and between 800 and 900 South. Until 2010, most of this block was utilized by the City to manage its vehicle fleet. After the fleet function was moved to a facility farther west, the City conducted due diligence and various studies to prepare the property for redevelopment. The goal of these efforts is to turn this City-owned property into a community asset that will contribute to the economic, social, and environmental betterment of the city. Based on previous Council and community input and discussion, any redevelopment will need to balance developer interest, land use and compatibility, and the significant community interest in the property focused on art murals painted on the building walls. The staff report is outlined in the following manner: •Background Information •Request for Proposal strategy and policy considerations – starting on page 3 of the staff report (key questions for the Council from the Administration) •Zoning Amendments o Summary of Zoning Amendments o Planning Commission Recommended Changes o Responses to questions raised during the October 6, 2020, work session briefing o Zoning Policy Questions Page | 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION In 2019, former Mayor Biskupski initiated a zoning amendment to create a new zone titled Form- Based Urban Neighborhood 3 (FB-UN3) and rezone the Fleet Block to FB-UN3. The Fleet Block property became a focal point of community expression and interest during the summer of 2020 amidst calls for social justice and reform for police practices. In fall of 2020, the Council held a series of briefings and public hearings pertaining to the zoning amendments. Many constituents spoke during the fall 2020 Council meetings and public hearings on this issue and covered various main themes, including: •significant number of comments in favor of preserving the area or part of the area for a community gathering space such as park, open space area or community garden •some comments recommending a community center •requests to save the murals; requests to incorporate the murals into future open space or development •requests for community to be included in conversation; some called for the City to establish a community advisory group to help guide the development process •some expressed opposition to housing and commercial development on the Fleet Block •some commenters expressed a desire to see the block developed as it has been a blight in their neighborhood for years •importance of the area as a community gathering space was emphasized Due to the public comments provided, the Council decided additional, meaningful public outreach was needed to help identify the vision for the Fleet Block and define what the public benefits could look like before redevelopment and zoning decisions were made. The Council decided to postpone considering the zoning amendments until a plan to conduct additional public outreach was agreed upon. At that time, the Council expressed general support for the concepts of the zoning amendments; however, they felt with the enhanced focus on the block, additional public outreach was needed. There has been general agreement between the Administration and Council on components for the public process and goals based on previous conversations. Emphasis would include: 1. Creation of a meaningful community gathering space on the block such as a park/public square or open space. 2. Features that represent the history of marginalized members of the community and the fight, struggle, and advancement of the community’s efforts for equality, fair representation, and justice 3. Space for the incubation, growth, and economic success of small and local businesses 4. Affordable and accessible housing At a December 2020 Council briefing, the Council directed staff to work with the Community & Neighborhoods Department (CAN) and the Attorney’s Office to outline potential conditions to the zoning amendments that would help ensure a meaningful public process is completed. The process would help identify community benefits and be the basis of draft motions for the Council’s consideration. For example, adoption of the rezone would be connected with: 1. An opportunity to review and provide input on the Administration’s future planning efforts (a Request For Information or RFI). 2. Completing a public engagement process that would further explore the vision for future Fleet Block redevelopment and what the public benefits could look like. Page | 3 In January 2022, the Administration issued a Request-for-Information (RFI) for the Fleet Block. The purpose of the RFI was to “explore options available to the City to develop the Property and to learn from the prior experience of others in developing complex urban infill projects. The RFI was intended solely to assist in informing the City’s approach to developing the Property.” Staff note: An “RFI” is generally considered a more general information-gathering exercise, intended to be a lower-barrier for a variety of interested parties who may respond with ideas. An “RFP” is generally considered a more technical process and typically follows an RFI. Reponses to the RFI were due at the end of February. An internal City technical committee reviewed responses and utilized the information to draft a future Request for Proposal (RFP) specific to development proposals. In April of this year the Administration briefed the Council on Fleet Block, including the public process, rezone process, and development constraints of the block. The Council provided feedback emphasizing the importance of equality and inclusion. Previous large City property assemblages were offered to a single development team, often favoring partners with greater existing wealth and experience. At that time, the Council provided input encouraging the Administration to consider a different approach which could give other, less-capitalized partners an opportunity to participate. According to the Transmittal letter, since the last briefing in April, the Administration has “considered ways to not only infuse equity into the resulting development, providing affordable housing, affordable commercial space, and public space, but to also market and develop the property in a way that is more accessible to an inclusive group of partners. In consideration of the Council’s feedback, master plan polices, responses from the Request for Information (“RFI”), and development constraints, the Administration has developed an approach to create multiple development sites to be offered through a phased request for proposal (“RFP”) process. Dividing up the Fleet Block into multiple property offerings will be conducive for involving multiple development teams of varying scale and experience.” This briefing will provide an update to the City Council and the community on those efforts and outline the next steps pertaining to the following: 1. Zoning recommendations that would; 1) create the FB-UN3 zoning district and 2) rezone the Fleet Block to FB-UN3, 2. Request for Proposal strategy and policy considerations Request for Proposal (RFP) strategy and policy considerations Property disposition is an Administrative function. However, the Council has zoning authority and must approve any potential future discounts to the fair market value of the Fleet Block. Therefore, the Administration is seeking policy guidance from the Council pertaining to the RFP and development scenarios of the block. In addition to the policy questions below, the transmittal letter outlines the cost and process for the environmental remediation and the impact to the land value once midblock connections and public space are included. 1. Potential Policy Questions The Administration’s transmittal outlined a few policy questions they are seeking feedback from the Council on. Page | 4 a. Mid-Block Connections (page 2 Transmittal Letter) If the council supports including midblock connections on the Fleet Block, the City would need to identify land designated as midblock connections through the subdivision process, prior to issuing the RFP. Does the Council support maintaining City ownership of portions of the Fleet Block intended to be public in the future, or selling parcels to private property owners? Staff note: the Council could stipulate that a certain percentage of land be set aside as public to provide flexibility for RFP respondents to locate those connections in a more appropriate manner. Some questions have been raised about potential benefits and opportunities to the community if the fleet block was divided up into smaller developments instead of going with one master developer. Attachment A: Hypothetical Development Scenario, of the transmittal letter provides a hypothetical scenario of how the property could be subdivided to establish three separate development sites. Does the Councill wish to provide policy guidance on subdividing Fleet Block into smaller development sites? b. Park Space (page 3 Transmittal Letter) To move forward with the RFP process the City must identify where any public space will be located. The transmittal letter notes key considerations include the public feedback and alcohol buffers Does the Council wish to provide feedback on the location of public space on the Fleet Block? See staff note above. c. Zoning (page 4 Transmittal Letter) Since December 2020, the Council held off considering the zoning changes while the Administration conducted further, meaningful public process. The intent of the process was to help identify potential community benefits of the block and gather feedback on potential future uses on the block. Two steps the Council asked to have completed before considering the zoning changes are: 1. An opportunity to review and provide input on the Administration’s future planning efforts (an RFI). 2. Completing a public engagement process that would further explore the vision for future redevelopment of Fleet Block and what public benefits could be included. The Council was briefed on the RFI in April 2022. The RFP transmittal outlines additional public engagement the Administration conducted. Does the Council feel the goals for more public engagement and opportunity to provide input on the RFI have been satisfied? If yes, does the Council support setting a date to consider adopting the zoning changes at a Council meeting? d. RFP – Equity and Inclusion provisions (Page 5 Transmittal Letter) The Transmittal letter notes the RFPs will include requirements to ensure the forthcoming development provides economic opportunities, affordable living, and cultural expression for all residents, particularly communities of low- and moderate-income and minority communities. An Inclusive Committee will be established to help review and rank responses to the RFP. Page | 5 Additionally, a community benefit agreement to ensure the community’s interest are addressed in future development and metrics to track the outcomes will be part of the development process Does the Council have any question about how equity and inclusion factors will be included in the RFP process? Zoning Amendments 1. Summary of Zoning Amendments 2.Planning Commission Recommended Changes 3. Responses to questions raised during the October 6, 2020, work session briefing 4. Zoning Policy Questions 1. Summary of Zoning Amendments Text Amendment: Establish Development Standards and Land Uses The Planning Division drafted development standards for the FB-UN3 zoning district. FB-UN3 is meant to complement the existing FB-UN 1 and FB-UN2 zoning districts which are found mainly in the Central 9th neighborhood. According to Planning staff, “The zone would have similar regulations to the FB-UN2 zone, which is mapped on the blocks around 900 South and 200 West and allows for four to five story tall mixed-use development. The FB-UN3 zone would primarily differ in that it would include requirements for mid- block walkways, allow more intense commercial land uses, such as light manufacturing and industrial assembly, and allow for greater height. The differences are intended to reflect the broad mix of land uses expected with the block and the surrounding "Granary" area and various Downtown Plan policies for the area that support a mix of housing choices and clean industries.” (Planning Commission staff report, page 3) Below is a summary of key form-based concepts for the proposed the FB-UN3 zoning district. It is also outlined in detail on pages 3-6 of the Planning Commission staff report. It is provided here for ease of access. Additionally, Planning staff created a graphical summary of the proposed FB- UN3 regulations. See Attachment B to view that summary. Rezone the Fleet Block to FB-UN 3 The City owns the majority of the Fleet Block. However, the southwest corner is privately owned. The owner of that portion of the block asked to be included in the rezone. Page | 6 Vicinity Map (Page 2 Planning Commission Staff Report) Building Form Types •Row house (townhome) •Storefront (a commercial building - retail, office, etc.) •Vertical Mixed-Use (a building with ground floor commercial and residential above) •Multi-family (an apartment or condominium building) General Building Standards •Height Limits o 40' for rowhouse and 85' for vertical mixed-use/multi-family/storefront (125' through Design Review.) •Front Setback Limits and Build-To Lines o Requires that buildings are located close to the sidewalk •Open Space Requirements o 10% of lot area and can be yards, plazas, rooftop decks, similar o 25% of unit footprint for row houses •Ground Floor Use Minimums o 75% of the width of ground floor facade must be an active use (not parking) and have a minimum depth of 25' - meant to ensure activity occurs next to pedestrians along ground floor facades • Exception for rowhomes- use space must have 10' depth o Along 900 South, the required ground floor space is limited to the following uses: retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or performing art facilities. • Exception for row houses, must be live/work and have 25' depth Page | 7 •Minimum Ground Floor Heights o Min. 14' to ensure flexible, viable active spaces in the long-term •Mid-block Walkway Installation o Required where mapped in the Downtown Master Plan, generally through the middle of blocks. Meant to increase pedestrian accessibility through additional walking routes on large City blocks. •Entry Features for Dwellings o Every ground floor dwelling unit adjacent to a street must include an entry feature, such as a porch, stoop, shopfront, terrace, etc. o For row houses, each dwelling unit must include an entry feature even if the unit is not street facing •Rowhome Frontage o Rowhome lots without frontage along a street allowed with a final plat that documents access easements for lots and includes a shared infrastructure reserve study disclosure o Rowhomes adjacent to the street must incorporate a street facing entry feature Design Standards •Entryway Installation o Facade must include an entry feature- porch, stoop, shopfront, terrace, etc. o One entry required for every 75' of facade •Glass/Window Minimums o 60% of ground floor facade and 15% of upper floor facade must be glass. •Blank Wall Limits o No blank wall that is uninterrupted by doors, windows, or other projections, over 30' in length. •High Quality Exterior Building Material Minimums o Min. 70% of facade must be quality, durable material- brick, fiber-cement, textured concrete, etc. •Balcony Requirements for Dwellings Units o Dwelling units on upper levels facing a street must have a balcony •Upper Floor Step-back Requirement and Balcony Inclusion Alternative o Floors above the 30' height level facing a public street must be stepped back 15' or include balconies •Parking Structure Design Requirements o Includes variety of requirements for the facade and ground level activation •Build-to Line Alternatives o Allows for plazas, arcades, outdoor dining to count toward meeting minimum build-to line requirements (the setback that a minimum percentage of the building must be built to), allowing buildings to be set-back behind these features Page | 8 Parking and Driveway Regulations The zone includes limits on driveways and parking to limit their impact on the pedestrian experience: •Driveway number and location limits - 1 driveway per street face •Parking limited to behind/ side of buildings •No minimum parking requirement due to proximity to transit (same requirement as neighboring FB-UN1 and FB-UN2 zones) Streetscape Requirements Every building form must comply with general streetscape improvement requirements. These include regulations on: •Street trees (min. 1 every 30 feet) •Sidewalk widths (min. 8 feet) •Streetlights (required where identified in City streetlight plans) Land Uses The proposed allowed land uses are broad and are intended to reflect the Downtown Master Plans call for an integration of "urban family living" and "clean industry" uses. Staff believes the design controls of the form-based code allow for a larger assortment of uses without generally having the same level of concern for compatibility and conflicts that would likely exist under a traditional code. Outdoor manufacturing and outdoor equipment storage uses would not be allowed, to avoid noise and visual conflicts. Storage/warehouse uses, which have limited human activity, would not be allowed on the ground floor next to the sidewalk. •Broad variety of allowed uses (from townhomes up to light manufacturing) Please see Attachment C to view the proposed land use table. Signs Sign regulations proposed for this zone generally match the FB-UN2 zoning allowances, with some exceptions, taking into consideration the proposed higher scale of development in the FB-UN3. This includes some additional sign types, such as monument signs, marquee signs and building oriented flat signs (generally a major tenant or name of building). Other Related Amendments As part of this proposal, staff is including additions and clarifications to some general regulations for development under the Form-Based Code chapter. This includes: •Clarifying the list of allowed exterior building materials •Allowing modifications to design requirements through the "Design Review" chapter, which has standards related to such modifications. Currently, modification requests must go through the Planned Development process which does not address design specifically, unlike the Design Review chapter. Page | 9 2.Planning Commission Recommended Changes Pages 3-4 of the transmittal letter outlines four recommendations the Planning Commission requested the Council consider. If the Council supports the concepts raised by the Planning Commission, which are outlined below, the Administration can prepare draft language to be considered for inclusion in the final ordinance. a. Limit lot sizes The Commission was concerned there may be very large developments on the Fleet Block and recommended there should be lot size limits to encourage small buildings and greater building variety. • Generally, the City zoning code does not have maximum lot sizes, except within residential districts. • In certain zoning districts, the scale of development is regulated by limiting building width and the length of blank walls. Those regulations are included in the proposed FB-UN3 zone. • If the maximum lot size limitation were applied, such a limit would only be applicable to new subdivided lots, and existing lots of any size could be developed. • Through the selling process, the City can divide up the Fleet Block into smaller lots without changes to the zoning. Would the Council like to request the Administration draft regulations for consideration that would limit the potential size of lots on the Fleet Block? b. Require that lots have frontage on rights-of-way or streets •The Planning Commission expressed concern regarding row houses (townhomes) where some of the units are oriented to the side yard. •They requested the City Council consider regulations that would require all units in a row house project to be located along a public street or other public right-of-way. •The proposed ordinance presented to the Planning Commission requires every building to have public street frontage and the portion of the building along the street must address the street with limited setbacks, high quality building materials, glass minimums, and significant entrance features. •The proposed zoning also includes an allowance for a rowhouse building to have some units that don't face the street and are accessed from private sidewalks interior to a site. The allowance is similar to that recently adopted by the Council for the RMF-30 zone. Does the Council want to request the Administration draft regulations for consideration that would require all units to front a public street? c. Limit the size of parking lots with a maximum lot size •The Planning Commission was a concerned there could be large surface parking lots in the middle of blocks, like those in the Sugar House Business District, located behind or to the side of buildings. •In the FB-UN3 zone, there is a maximum parking stall number limit that should generally limit the potential for large surface parking lots. •The City doesn't currently have limits on parking lot sizes in any zone, except regarding the number of stalls allowed. Page | 10 •If a surface parking lot size limit was imposed, there would need to be analysis regarding its impact on the ability of potential businesses in this area to provide reasonable parking within the dimensions. Would the Council like to request the Administration draft regulations for consideration that would limit surface parking lot size in the FB-UN3 zone? d. Require the midblock walkways but allow them to be flexible in their location •The Planning Commission wanted to ensure there would be flexibility in the final location of mid-block walkways shown in the Downtown Plan for the Fleet Block, rather than requiring walkways to cross the block through the exact center of the block. •The zoning proposal includes language used in other City zones provides flexibility in exact walkway location, but additional language could be added to emphasize the flexibility. •Although no consideration was added to its recommendation, the Commission discussed how the Fleet Block property would be sold to a private developer, including if and how the property would be broken up into new mid-block streets, and if any public plaza/park property would be kept. •The Commission expressed a desire in seeing the block being broken up for smaller developments with mid-block streets, as opposed to one large, single development for the whole block. Staff informed the Commission the City could break up the block through the City's property sale process and could require new streets through the block. Would the Council like to request the Administration draft regulations for consideration that would ensure flexibility in locating mid-block walkways on the Fleet Block? 3. Responses to questions raised during the October 6, 2020 work session briefing During the October 6, 2020 work session briefing the Council raised questions about the proposed zoning amendments. The list of questions is outlined below. Please see Attachment D for the Administration’s responses to these questions. Staff will be prepared to review these questions one by one and answer additional questions the Council may have. A. Can the proposed ordinance require any open space be open to the public? B. Questions were raised about potentially increasing the amount of open space required by the ordinance. Concerns were expressed that may be considered a taking. ▪How, if at all, would requiring more open space be consider a taking if the City owns the property? ▪Would the taking concern apply to other privately owned properties that may be potentially rezoned to FB-UN3? ▪Would increasing the amount of required open space potentially impede some kinds of development? •Does requiring open space attract some kinds of development? C. Could the Administration explain if there is a difference between open space required by the ordinance and the City designating some of the City owned fleet block as a park/green/open space? Page | 11 D. Can the City designate as much of city-owned portions of the Fleet Block a park/open space as it wants? ▪What is the process for the City to designate a park area? E. Could Planning Staff further explain landscaping requirements for the various type of buildings in the FB-UN3 and if it would be appropriate to increase vegetation requirements for the larger buildings? ▪Would vegetation on rooftops be allowed (roof gardens, green roofs, etc.)? F. Concerns were raised about the center of Fleet Block becoming a large parking lot. ▪Are there provisions in the ordinance that would prevent this from happening or could they be added? G. The ordinance requires ground floor uses on 900 South to be active uses such as retail establishments, restaurants, etc. Could active uses be required on 300 West too? ▪Would providing some exceptions make it more feasible? Potential Straw Polls Pertaining to Follow-up Information on Zoning 1. Question E asked about landscaping requirements. Planning staff notes one way to address concerns that the open space is useable is to require a minimum length or width dimension for open space. This would increase the likelihood the space will be an amenity, rather than a narrow yard. A minimum open space dimension of 15’ x 15’ has been added to broader Form Based zone changes that are part of the ongoing Downtown Building Heights regulations project. Amenity requirements, like seating, have also been added. The changes would affect all Form Based zones, including FB-UN3. The proposal received a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission and will be with the Council shortly. •Does the Council support amending the ordinance to require a minimum length/width for open space? 2. Some expressed concern that allowing rooftop decks to count toward the open space requirement may not improve the overall design since it will be out view for most of the public who interact with the buildings •Does the Council support allowing rooftop decks to count toward open space requirements? •If not, does the Council support requesting the Administration make recommendations for changes to the FB-UN3 code pertaining to rooftop decks counting toward open space requirements. 3. Question G asked about active uses on 300 West. In Planning’s response they note the ordinance requires 14’ floors to “encourage and support the use of ground floor for more active uses in the long term even if not immediately viable.” They further note there are other examples in City code that are used to preserve future options to convert space to “higher activity uses.” •Does the Council support asking the Administration to make recommendations for changes to the FB-UN3 code that would provide additional options to encourage high activity uses along 300 West? Attachment A – Hypothetical Development Plan Page 7, Transmittal Letter DR A F T FORM BASED URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 FB-UN3 Development Standards for Multi-family/Mixed-Use/Storefront Building Forms LOT WIDTH & AREA FRONT/CORNER SIDE YARD REQUIRED BUILD-TO  REAR YARD SIDE YARDS MID-BLOCK WALKWAY HEIGHTOPEN SPACE  No mins.No min. required; doors prohibited from opening into public right-of-way. Max. 10' unless greater required due to utility easements. May be modified through Design Review. Min. 50% of facade shall be within 5' of front prop- erty line. May be modified through De- sign Review None, ex- cept min. 20' when next to zone with <30' max height None, ex- cept min. 10' when next to zone with <30' max height Required when shown in City plan. Min. 10' wide, 6' walking path 85' max; up to 125' through Design Re- view. Rooftop decks allowed on max height roof. Min. 10% of lot area. May be yards, common areas, roof- top decks, or similar. Min. 20% of req. area shall include vegetation. GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT The required ground floor use space shall be at least 14' in height. 900 SOUTH GROUND FLOOR USE LIMITATION The required ground floor use space facing 900 South shall be limited to the following uses: retail goods establishments, retail ser- vice establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or performing art facilities. GROUND FLOOR DWELLING UNIT ENTRANCES Each dwelling unit on the ground floor adjacent to a street shall include an allowed entry feature. (See Design Standards table for allowed entry features.) Pedestrian connection (see Design Standards) required to each required entry feature. LOADING BAY Max. of one (1) loading bay on a front facade per street face, subject to 21A.44.070. Loading bay entry width limited to 14' and must be screened by garage door. One loading bay driveway is allowed in addition to other driveway allowances. UPPER LEVEL STEP BACK If next to zone with <30' max height, the first full floor of the building above 30' shall step back 10' from the building facade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the applicable zoning district. Does not apply if separated from the zone by a street or alley. MULTIPLE BUILDING FORMS PER LOT Multiple building forms allowed per lot, if all forms have street frontage Zoning Diagram of Bulk RequirementsDevelopment Examples FB-UN3 The above information is a synopsis of the draft regulations. Please see the full draft zoning ordinance for the complete regulations. FOR BUILDING FORMS: MULTI-FAMILY/STOREFRONT/VERTICAL MIXED USE    Graphical Summary of Proposed FB-UN3 RegulationsAttachment B DR A F T FB-UN3 FORM BASED URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 FB-UN3 Development Standards for Row house Building Forms LOT WIDTH & AREA FRONT/CORNER SIDE YARD REAR YARD SIDE YARDS MIDBLOCK WALK- WAY HEIGHTOPEN SPACE  No mins.Min. 5'; Max. 10' unless greater re- quired due to utility easements. May be modified through Design Review. Min. 5', except min. 20' when next to zone with <30' height 0' for common walls; Min. 5' otherwise, except min. 10' when next to zone with <30' height Required when shown in City Plan. Min. 10' wide, 6' walking path 40' Max; Rooftop decks allowed on max height roof. Min. 25% of the footprint of the dwelling unit. May be yards, common areas, balconies, rooftop decks, or similar. Min. 20% of req. area shall include vegetation ENTRY FEATURE Each dwelling unit must include an allowed entry feature. See Design Standards table for allowed entry features. Dwelling units adjacent to a street must include entry feature on street facing façade. 5' wide pedestrian connection required to each required entry feature. SIDE/INTERIOR ORIENTATION Dwelling units not located directly adjacent to a street are permitted, provided the building configuration standards (Design Standards) for glass and ground floor transparency are complied with on the facade with the required entry feature. Lots without public street frontage allowed subject to recording a final subdivision plat that (1) documents new lots have access to a public street by way of easements/shared driveway and (2) includes a disclosure of private infrastructure costs ("reserve study"). 900 SOUTH GROUND FLOOR USE LIMITATION When facing 900 South, ground floor must be occupied by a live/work space at least 25' in depth. UPPER LEVEL STEP BACK If next to a zone with <30' max height, the first full floor of the building above 30' shall step back 10' from the building facade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the applicable zoning district. Doesn't apply if separated from zone by a street or alley. USES PER STORY Residential allowed on all stories; live/work units permitted on ground level. MULTIPLE BUILDING FORMS PER LOT Multiple building forms allowed per lot, if all forms have street frontage Zoning Diagram of Bulk RequirementsDevelopment Examples  The above information is a synopsis of the draft regulations. Please see the full draft zoning ordinance for the complete regulations. FOR BUILDING FORM: ROWHOUSE    Graphical Summary of Proposed FB-UN3 RegulationsAttachment B FORM BASED URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 BUILDING CONFIGURATION/DESIGN STANDARDS OTHER FB-UN3 SPECIFIC STANDARDS FB-UN3 The above information is a synopsis of the draft regulations. Please see the draft zoning ordinance for the complete regulations. FOR ALL BUILDING FORMS Form Based Code Design Standards BUILDING ENTRIES Min. 1 entry for every 75' of facade along street, al- ley, or greenway. ENTRY FEATURE Required building entry shall be one of the follow- ing: • Terrace or Lightwell • Forecourt • Stoop • Shopfront • Gallery • Porch and Fence (Multi-family/Rowhouse Only) FACADE LENGTH 200' maximum street facing facade length UPPER STEPBACK 15' stepback required for floors rising above 30' in height that are adjacent to public street, public trail, or public open space. Does not apply if balconies provided on these floors. UPPER LEVEL GLASS Floors above ground floor shall be min. 15% glass SECOND FLOOR BALCONIES/ PATIOS Uses facing a greenway may have a second floor bal- cony/patio. Rooftops may be used as patios, subject to all other zoning standards. GROUND FLOOR USES 75% of ground floor shall be a use other than park- ing. Shall be min. 25' in depth. Exception: Row houses require min. 10' depth. PARKING STRUCTURE DESIGN Regulates facade, elevator/stair design, ramp loca- tion, lighting, signage, and ground level uses. See 21A.27.030.C.4.f. Form Based Code Design Standards PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS Where required, pedestrian connections shall be min. 4' wide and shall be separated by vehicle areas by change in grade/wheel stop if pedestrian connection is <8' wide. Wing walls up to 2' in height allowed along entry walkways for seating/landscaping. GROUND FLOOR GLASS/ TRANSPARENCY Ground floor facade between 2' and 8' height shall be min. 60% glass. Min. 20% glass for urban house, two-family, cottage, and row house forms. Must have min. 6' visual clearance behind glass. May be modi- fied for structural integrity. BUILDING MATERIALS (FACADE) Min. 70% of building facade shall be high quali- ty, durable, natural materials, such as: stone, brick, wood lap siding, fiber cement board siding, textured or patterned concrete, or glass. EIFS allowed for trim only. Other materials of similar quality, durability may be approved by Planning Director. OPEN SPACE AREA Min. 10% of lot area shall be open space, unless oth- erwise specified in building form regulations. May be yards, common balconies, rooftop gardens/decks, dining areas, or other similar outdoor living spaces; excluding private balconies and parking landscaping. BUILDING FENESTRATION/ BLANK WALLS No blank walls over 30' in length that are not inter- rupted by windows, doors, change of building plane off-set of at least 12". RESIDENTIAL BALCONIES Street facing residential units above ground level shall have usable balcony with min. 4' depth. BUILD-TO LINE ALTERNATIVES Alternatives to the build-to line are allowed in lieu of the building facade, including landscaping walls, pergolas and trellises, arcades, plazas, and outdoor dining. See ordinance for details. PARKING/LOADING REGULATIONS (NEW PARKING AREAS AND BUILDINGS SUBJECT TO BELOW REQUIREMENTS) PARKING GARAGE ENTRANCES (STREET FACING) Garage entrances shall have a minimum 20' setback from front property line and shall not exceed 50% of first floor building width. One-way garage entry may not exceed 14' in width; multi-way garage entry may not exceed 26' in width. SURFACE PARKING LOCATION Located behind the building or to the side. If to the side, must be setback 25' from front/corner property line. Setback must be land- scaped: 1 tree for every 20' of street frontage and 3' tall wall/fence along property line (landscape screen alternative allowed). LOADING AND SERVICE AREAS Allowed behind or to the side of buildings only, except where allowed by building form regulation. All service areas shall be screened or located within the building. VEHICLE ACCESS One (1) driveway is allowed per street frontage. Driveways required to meet fire code are exempt from this limitation. STREETSCAPE PROVISIONS SIDEWALK WIDTHS Min. 8' sidewalk width. Measured from back of park strip or grated street tree toward adjacent property line. STREET TREES & STREET LIGHTS Street trees required at a rate of 1 per every 30' of frontage. Street lights required in compliance with Street Light Plan for area. The below configuration/design standards apply to all new buildings and additions when the new construction related to the addition is greater than twenty five percent (25%) of the footprint of the structure or one thousand (1,000) square feet, whichever is less. (This does not require remodeling of existing portions of structures.) All of the design standards may be modified through the Design Review process. See Chapter 21A.59. DR A F T See the zoning ordinance for other applicable general parking and landscaping regulations. This zone has no parking minimums. Graphical Summary of Proposed FB-UN3 RegulationsAttachment B 4. Streetscape Regulations: Specific str eetscape regulations applicable to the FB -UN3 district are li sted below in Table 21A.27.050.D.4 of this section . These regulations are in addition to any other applicab le streetscape standards in Title21A. TABLE 2 1 A.27 .050.D.4 Streetscape Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone Re ST SW SL ulation Street Trees Street tre e s are required and shall be provided as per Subs ect ion 21A.48.060 .D. S ide\Va lk \Vidth Side\V a lks sh a ll h ave a minimum \Vidt h of 8'. Thi s standard doe s not require removal of existing street trees, ex isting buildin gs , or porti on s th er eof. For purpo ses of this section , side\Valk \Vidth is measured from the back of the park strip or require d street tree if no park stri p is provided, to\Vard the adj acent property li ne. Street Lights Street li g hts are required and shall be in stall ed in complianc e \Vith the ci ty ' s Street Lighting Master Plan and Polic y or it s successor. 5. Uses Not Associated with Building Form: Allowed uses that do not involve construction of a building, such as parks and open space, are not required t o comply with any sp ecific building form regulation. SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake Citv Code Section 21A.33.080. That Section 21A.33.080 of th e Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of P ermitted and Conditiona 1 Uses In Form Based Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to read and appear as follows: 21A.33.080: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN FORM BASED DISTRICTS: Note: Uses which are not lis t e d in the following table are not permitted in any form based code zoning district. I Legend: IP= Permitted I C = Conditional Use Permitted Uses By District FB-FB-FB-FB-FB- UNI UN2 UN3 SC SE Accessory u se, except those that are spec ifi ca lly regulated in p p p p p thi s chapter, or elsewhere in t hi s title Adaptive reuse ot a landmark bmldmg p Alcohol: Bar establishment p p p c Brewpub p p p c 7 Di stillery p T av ern p Tav ern , 2 ,500 square fe et or less in fl o or area p p p c Win ery p Amphith eater , formal p Amphith eater , inform a l p Amusement park p Animal C r emation serv ic e p Kennel (Indoo r) p Kennel (Outdoor) c Veterinary offi ce p p p p Antenna, communication to w er p p p p All g allery p p p p Arti san food production p3 p p3 p3 Artists loft/s tudio p Auction (indoor) p Auditorium p B e d and breakfast p p p p p Bed and breakfas t inn p p p p p Bed and breakfast manor p p p p p Blacksmith shop (indoor) p Blo od donation c enter p Boardin g hous e p Botanica l g arden p Brew ery p Bus line st ation/terminal c Busine ss, mobile p C ar wash c Charity dinin g hall p Clinic (me dical , dental) p p p p Commercial fo o d preparatio n p p p p Commerc ial v id eo arcad e p Community g arden p p p p p Community recrea ti on center p p p p C onvent/monastery p Convention center p Crem ato rium p D ay care cente r , adul t p p p p center, child p p p p nonreg istered h ome d aycare p l pl pl p l pl reg iste r ed home daycare or prescho ol pl pl pl pl pl D ental laboratory/r esear ch fac ili ty p D welling : 8 Accessory guest and servants' quarters p Assisted living facilitv (large) p Assisted living facility (limited capacity) p p p p p Assisted l iving faci litv (small) p p p p Group home (large) p p p p Congre g ate Care Facility (Larg e) (Codifier N ote: Thi s c c c c c u se is pendin g adoption at Ci ty Council. The C here is only intended to be included in thi s p etition if thi s new use i s adooted.) Congregate Care Facility (Small) (Codifier No te : Thi s c p u se is pending adoption a t C ity Council lev el. The P h ere is only intended to be included in this petition if this new u se is adopted.) Group home (s m a ll) p p p p Living quaiiers for caretaker or security guard p Mult i-fami ly p p p p Residential support (lai · ge) p p Residential suppmi (small) p p Rooming (boarding) house p p Single-family attached p p p p Single -family detached p Single-family detached (cottage development building p p fomlonlv) Single room occupancy (CODIFIER/STAFF N OTE : p p p p To be moved to diffe r ent listing w ith pending ordinance changes . This li sting may nee d to b e modified to match new li stin g .) Two-family p E leemosynary faci lity (CODIFIER/STAFF N OTE : This land p p p u s e term may be r e mov ed with p etition p e nding action b y City Council.) Emergency m e dical ser v ices facility p Equipment rental (indoor) p Exhibition hall p Farmers' market p p p p Financial institution p p p p Flea market (indoor) p Funeral home p p p p Gas Station c Government facility requiring special design featu re s for p security pw7 Jose s Government office p Government facility p p p p p Gre enhou se p Health and fitness facility p p p p 9 Home occupation p2 p2 p2 p2 p2 Homeless Resource Center c Hospital p Hote l/mote l p p p House museum in landm ark site p p p p p Industrial assembly (indoor) p Intermodal transit passenger hub p Laboratory (medical , dental, optical) p p p p Laboratory, testing p Library p p p p Manufacturing, light (indoor) p Meeting hall of membership organization p Mixed us e deve lopments including re sidential and other uses p p p p allowed in the zoning district Mobile food business p Mobile food comi p Mobile food trailer p Mobile food truck p Municipal service use s, includ ing city utility uses and polic e p p p p p and fire stations Musemn p p p p Nursing care facility p p p p Office p p p p Office and/or r eception center in landmark site p p p p Office, publishing comoanv p Open space p p p p p Park p p p p p Parkin g, commercia 1 cs Parking faci lity, shared p5 Parking garage p Parking, off site p p p5 p p Parking, park and ride lot shared w ith existing use p5 Performing arts production p Photo finishing lab p p p Place of worship p p p p Plazas p p p p p Radio , televis ion station p Railroad passenger station p Reception center p Recreation (indoor) p p p p Recreation (outdoor) p Research and development facility p p p p Research facility (medical/dental) p p p p Restaurant p p p p Retai l goods estab lis hment p p p p Retail goods establi shment, plant and garden shop with p p p outdoor retail sales area Retail service establishment p p p Sales and display (outdoor) p p p School: Coll ege or university p p p Music conservatory p p p Professional and vocational p p p Seminary and r eligious institute p p p Public or private p Seasonal farm stand p p p Sign painting/fabrication (i ndoo r) p Small brewery p Social service mi ss ion p Solar array p p p Storage, se lf p4 Sto re , convenience p Store , specialty p p p Studio, art p p p Studio, motion picture p Theater, live performance p Theater, movie p p p Urban farm p p p p Uti li ty , building or structure p p p p Utility, transmiss ion wire, line, pipe, or pole p p p p Vehicle Automobile rental agency p Automobile repair maior c Automobile repair minor p Vending cart, private property p p p Warehouse p4 Welding shop (indoor) p Wholesale di stribution c4 Wi rele ss telecommunications facility p p p Woodworking mill (indoor) p Qualifying provisions: 1. Subject to Section 2 1 A.36 .130 of this title. 2. Subj ect to Section 21A.36 .0 3 0 of thi s title. 3. Must contain retail component for on-site food sale s. 4. Only allowed ona ground floor when the use is located behind anotherpermitted or conditional use that occupies the re quired grow 1 d floor use space. 5. Subject to parking lo cation restrictions of Subsection 21A.27.050.D.3. 11 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 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: Nick Tarbet, City Council Staff From: Daniel Echeverria, Planning Division Staff Date: October 27, 2020 Re: Fleet Block Follow-up Questions The below questions pertaining to the Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 (FB-UN3)/Fleet Block zoning proposal were provided by City Council staff for follow-up after the briefing held on October 6. Answers are provided below from Planning staff or other City Administration staff. Open Space/Park Questions: •Can the proposed ordinance stipulate any open space required to be open to the public? Attorney’s Office Response: This was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in the sibling cases of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard. In both cases, the court cited Kaiser Aetna v. U.S. to explain that one of the most essential property rights is the right to exclude others from the property owners’ land. This is not to say that requiring public access to private property owners’ land is a per se taking; there may be circumstances where requiring public access during some reasonable hours may be defensible, provided that the Nollan/Dolan essential nexus and rough proportionality tests are met (courts determine these matters on an ad hoc basis). Without a clear explanation of the rationale for requiring public access on private property, the city attorney’s office would be concerned about the possibility of an uncompensated taking. However, if the desire is to have such conditions imposed upon property now owned by the city, restrictive covenants recorded prior to sale may help to avoid that kind of a situation. •Questions were raised about potentially increasing the amount of open space required by the ordinance. Concerns were expressed that may be considered a taking. o How, if at all, would requiring more open space be consider a taking if the City owns the Property? Attorney’s Office Response: I’m not sure if there is a situation where a court could find that a city effected a taking on its own property, but under these circumstances, there would be no taking if the open space requirement were only imposed on city-owned property. Utah Code Section 10-8-1 establishes that city councils have control over their municipalities’ finances and property. Even if the city’s administrative branch disagreed, it would not be able to assert that a city policy caused a taking of city-owned land because the administrative branch is only capable of managing the city’s real property to the extent  Page 2 that the council has dictated. In short, the city could not claim a taking against itself for the effect of its own policies. •Would the taking concern apply to other privately owned properties that may be potentially rezoned to FBUN-3? Attorney’s Office Response: Yes. These kinds of exactions must be analyzed under the Nollan/Dolan tests. Courts look at the specific facts of a case to determine if there is a taking. Central to the court’s analysis will be determining how the open space requirement is related to the impacts of the development to the city (essential nexus from Nollan) and whether the demand is roughly proportionate (from Dolan) to the impacts caused. If this is the route the city wishes to go, very clear information explaining how development activity in these zones creates impacts that can only be offset by requiring open space, and including justification as to the percentage of open space required. The courts have been very clear that these kinds of exactions on development cannot be used to fulfil local governments’ wish lists, and courts have determined that it doesn’t matter that the rezone petitions are voluntary and may increase the value of the development property. Planning Staff Response: The current zoning proposal includes a 1.25-acre piece of private property on the Fleet Block that would be impacted by the rezone. •Would increasing the amount of required open space potentially impede some kinds of development? •Does requiring open space attract some kinds of development? Planning Staff Response: Residential uses may benefit the most from open space requirements due to the high level of use open space will receive from residents on any given day and time, versus commercial uses with a daytime population generally located within an office or other commercial building rather than outside. High open space requirements can “impede” any sort of development by reducing the development potential of a site by taking up space on the site and imposing additional costs on the development. It can impose additional costs if, for example, the additional space can be located on a roof top or other common area but requires additional improvements to meet landscaping or structural requirements. Residential developments, as opposed to commercial developments, are more likely to themselves provide open space to attract and serve residents without a City imposed requirement. So, an open space requirement could be seen as attracting (or being less of a barrier to) residential development more so than commercial development. However, commercial developments can also benefit from open space on site, providing potential outdoor dining areas for restaurant tenants or plazas that attract pedestrian and customer activity. Additionally, well designed and highly used public open spaces, such as parks and public plazas, can attract and support many different kinds of development- residential or commercial. •Could you explain if there is a difference between open space required by the ordinance and the city designating some of the city owned fleet block as a park/green/open space? Planning Staff Response: Open space required by the City Zoning Ordinance is not required to be public and would be required for any new development on a site. The proposed open space requirement in the FB-  Page 3 UN3 code would be a mandatory requirement imposed on any future development in the zone wherever the zone is mapped in the City. The open space required by the ordinance would remain privately owned and the property owner could control and limit access to it. The current and proposed zoning on the Fleet Block allows for park/green/open space uses. As the current property owner, the City can freely designate a portion of its own property as a public park or other public open space through the applicable City processes in Chapter 15.04. The City would then maintain ownership of that portion of the block. Other portions of the block could then be sold. See the Attorney’s Office response for further discussion regarding takings and the use of restrictive covenants to reserve property for public open space. •Can the City designate as much of Fleet Block a park/open space as they want? Attorney’s Office Response: As long as the city owns the property, it can do so prior to any sale through restrictive covenants or other appropriate mechanisms. •What is the process for the City to designate a park area? Attorney’s Office Response: Ensure that the property is zoned appropriately and amend Chapter 15.04 to add the park to the list of city parks. Public Services Response: City Code 15.04 contains a list and description of City parks. It contains a variety of kinds of properties including traditional parks, golf courses, ball diamonds, preserves, tennis courts, and trails. In 2015 the City Council added (or amended) 15.04.350 that added to the list a number of properties that hadn’t previously been in 15.04’s list of parks, but had been treated as parks by the Administration. Section 15.04.360 says: “The city council may amend this chapter to add parcels as parks or golf courses. Such parcels may be named under the procedure described in title 3, chapter 3.65 of this code.” So, the City Council may add new parks by amending chapter 15.04. If they want to name the park, they follow the procedure in 3.65. •Could you further explain the landscaping requirements for the various type of buildings in the FBUN-3 and if it would be appropriate to increase vegetation requirements for the larger buildings? •Would vegetation on rooftops be allowed (roof gardens, green roofs, etc.)? Planning Staff Response: The open space and vegetation requirements for buildings in the FB-UN3 zone vary depending on building type. The requirement is a percentage of the building footprint per rowhome (townhome) versus an overall percentage of the lot for larger buildings, like apartments. This difference is in part due to concerns that recent smaller townhome developments have not been providing adequate open space for resident use.  Page 4 For a rowhome, the open space requirement is 25% of the building footprint. So a typical townhome with a 600 square foot footprint would have 150 square feet of open space (ex: ~12' x 12' area). For other larger buildings, the open space requirement is an overall minimum 10% of the lot area. For a 100' x 100' lot, this would result in 1,000 square feet of open space (ex: ~31' x 31' space). The open space for all these buildings can take the form of landscaped yards, plazas, dining areas, common balconies, rooftop decks, and other similar outdoor living spaces. For all required open space, at least 20% of it is required to be covered in vegetation. Vegetation on rooftops is allowed as rooftop decks are one option of fulfilling the open space requirement. Higher vegetation requirements could be imposed in the ordinance, but the vegetation requirement was kept lower to allow and encourage the use of plazas, outdoor dining areas, or rooftops as open space, which would generally not have very high levels of vegetation. Higher requirements may simply result in turf grass areas and would be more appropriate in a less urban context. Higher vegetation requirements would also be appropriate if the intent of the open space was property drainage/water retention related, but the intent of the proposed requirement was to ensure some semi-private outdoor living space for residents and workers. Related to this, the Planning Division has recently heard concerns from residents in the Central 9 area regarding multi-family developments within their neighborhood not providing adequate open space (included vegetated open space) to accommodate the needs of residents and their pets, leading to negative impacts to nearby front yards and public park strips. The Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2 zone covers much of the Central 9 neighborhood and that zone requires 10% of lots to be open space. One method that could address these concerns is by requiring a minimum length or width dimension for the open space to increase the likelihood that the space will be an amenity, rather than a narrow yard. Parking Lot Questions: •Concerns were raised about the center of Fleet block becoming a large parking lot. •Are there provisions in the ordinance that would prevent this from happening or could be added? Planning Staff Response: There are provisions in the “Off Street Parking” chapter that limit the potential for a large parking lot, by limiting the number of parking stalls that can be provided on a property. For most developments, parking is limited by the “maximum parking” regulations in the zoning code. This limits the number of stalls allowed on a site by the size or number of units of a use, and thus also limits the area of a property that can be a parking lot. For example, a residential development can only provide 1 parking stall per residential unit as a normal maximum. This can be increased to 2 spaces per unit if a development provides certain alternative transportation amenities (related to bikes, transit, etc.). Parking can’t be increased beyond that without going through a special process with the Planning Commission. However, for a large enough development with a high enough parking limit, the center of the block could potentially be completely covered by a parking lot. This is similarly the case for any development in any zone in the City. Maximum parking stall limits, as Salt Lake currently has in place, are generally how major cities limit the potential for large parking lots. The City also has regulations that control the location of parking lots (requiring them to be to the rear or side of buildings and screening it with vegetation) to reduce its visual impact on the public realm. The proposed code includes such limits. The City could impose additional limits on overall parking lot sizes for this zone. However, such a limit  Page 5 wouldn’t reflect current best practices and would warrant further study to determine an appropriate area limit and its potential impacts on future development. Further limits on parking lots sizes could have a negative impact on lower revenue generating uses, such as small businesses and affordable housing, which may not have the revenue to support structured (rather than surface) parking and have a need for customer parking. The “UDA Fleet Block Study” done for the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division, included a recommendation to allow surface parking lots on the block as it could support lower revenue generating uses like small local businesses, and the surface parking could be an interim use until higher intensity development was feasible. Ground Floor Use Questions: •The ordinance requires ground floor uses on 900 South to be active uses such as retail establishments, restaurants, etc. Could active uses be required on 300 West too? •Would providing some exceptions make it more feasible? Planning Staff Response: A “higher activity” ground floor use requirement (requiring restaurants, retail, art galleries, lobbies, etc., and prohibiting residential dwellings or office) is proposed for 900 South due to the space being located along a major City trail corridor that is currently funded and being improved in the near term, and that may have a high level of pedestrian users in the near term. Such a requirement could be required for 300 West. However, a requirement was not proposed for 300 West as this portion of the street is not funded or slated for near term pedestrian related improvements (as opposed to other portions of 300 West located south of 900 S/Fleet Block) and may not have a high level of pedestrian activity in the near term. To be financially viable, higher activity uses generally need a high level of pedestrian activity and a critical mass of nearby population that can support them. Without such factors in place, such ground floor spaces can remain vacant, providing less potential activity along the sidewalk than lower activity uses such as residential and office. Due to these factors, the ordinance proposes requiring 14' ground floors to encourage and support the use of the ground floor for more active uses in the long term even if not immediately viable. A taller ground floor is much more conducive to high activity uses, as commercial tenants seek taller spaces for customer comfort, and taller spaces are more accommodating of any required commercial interior improvements. There are multiple other methods that could be incorporated into the zoning to both impose a high activity use requirement and also make it a more “feasible” or less potentially negatively financially impactful with “exceptions.” Potential options include requiring that the space be built to commercial standards (ex: City’s TSA zones), requiring only a certain percentage of the façade to be a high activity use, or providing financial subsidies separate from zoning. One example is the requirement in the City’s Transit Station Area (TSA) zones. The TSA zone has a slightly different zoning “exception” approach to encourage commercial uses on ground floors and some components could be added to the Fleet Block ordinance is desired. The TSA zone requires commercial, institutional, or public uses along 400 S/North Temple, but allows an exception for residential uses if the spaces are built to certain requirements. It requires that the spaces be/have: •Built to a commercial occupancy standard to allow for future conversion •Min. 12' tall ceiling heights (similar to 14' proposed for Fleet Block) •Min. 60% ground level glass  Page 6 •ADA accessible entrances directly to the sidewalk •Entry features with a 5' depth (porch, canopy, patio, etc.) Alternatively, the City can require that a certain percentage of the ground floor façade be a high activity use, rather than the entire length of a ground floor façade. This would reduce the potential area that may remain vacant if there was not demand for such use space and thus reduce the potential cost for a development/property owner. Further, beyond the zoning, the City can both encourage and make such high activity uses more financially feasible with financial incentives through City programs, such as those that support local retail or restaurant businesses. The City can also require and subsidize such uses on the Fleet Block property through restrictive covenants and then financial subsidies through any associated property sale. Attachment C – 12.8.2020 Public Lands vs FBUN3 zoning District Comparison Purpose Statements Purpose Statement PL Public Lands District: 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. Purpose statement FB-UN3: Generally, includes buildings up to eight (8) stories in height, with taller buildings allowed through the design review process. Development regulations are based on types of buildings and differ between building types as indicated. The district contains a mix of uses that include commercial, technical, light industrial, high density residential, and other supportive land uses. Public Lands vs FBUN3 zoning District Comparison Public Lands FBUN-3 Row House FB-UN3 Multi-family Residential / Storefront /Mixed Use Max Height 75’ for local government facilities such as prison/jail, government offices, arenas, stadiums, fairgrounds, exhibition halls 35’ all other uses 40’, Rooftop decks allowed on max height roof 85’ max; up to 125’ through design review. Rooftop decks allowed on max height roof Minimum Lot Area Public schools - 5 acres Other permitted uses - 20,000 sf No Minimum No Minimum Minimum Lot Width Public schools – 150’ Other permitted uses – 75’ No Minimum No Minimum Minimum Yard •Front Yard: 30' •Corner Side Yard: 30'. •Interior Side Yard: 20' o 50’ for public school •Rear Yard: 30' o 50’ for public school •Front/corner side yard •Minimum 5’; Maximum 10’ unless greater required due to utility easement. May be modified through Design Review •Rear Yard •Minimum 5’, except minimum 20’ when next to zone with greater than 30’ height •Side Yard •0’ for common walls; Minimum 5’ otherwise, except minimum 10’ when next to zone with greater than 30’ height •Front/corner side yard •No Minimum required; doors prohibited from opening into public right of way. •Max 10’ unless greater required due to utility easement. May be modified through design review •Rear Yard •None, except minimum 20’ when next to zone with greater than 30’ max height •Side Yard •None, except minimum 10’ when next to zone with greater than 30’ max height Landscape Buffer If PL abuts a lot in a single- family or two-family residential district, a ten foot 10' wide landscape buffer is required If FB-UN3 abuts a lot in an R-1, R-2, SR, RMF-30, RMF- 35 or RMF-45 District, a 7' landscape buffer is required. If FB-UN3 abuts a lot in an R-1, R-2, SR, RMF-30, RMF-35 or RMF-45 District, a 7' landscape buffer is required. Required Landscape Yards Required Landscape Yards: All front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscaped yards in conformance with the requirements of chapter 21A.48 of this title. Front/corner side yards not required to be landscaped. Front/corner side yards not required to be landscaped. Open Space None Minimum 25% of the footprint of the dwelling unit. May be yards, common areas, balconies, rooftop decks, or similar. Min. 20% of req. area shall include vegetation. Min. 10% of lot area. May be yards, common areas, rooftop decks, or similar. Min. 20% of req. area shall include vegetation. FLEET BLOCK UPDATE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION //NOVEMBER 22, 2022 PROPERTY OVERVIEW •8.75 acres •$37,500,000 value (does not consider environmental remediation costs) •Current Zoning: Public Lands •Proposed Zoning: FBUN 3 MASTER PLANS: PARKS “New Park in Granary District (Fleet Block!) at least 25% of the block or 3 acres on the corner.” MASTER PLANS:PARKS Fleet Block “[Fleet Block] demonstrates the best of urban family living and industry, the mixing of land uses once thought to be incompatible, and improved connections that focus on putting people first.” MASTER PLANS:DOWNTOWN PLAN PROPERTY OVERVIEWPHASEDRFP PROCESS Site 1(acres: 1 developable,0.3 midblock City-owned Park and/or Plaza(3.6 acres)Site 3(acres: 1.6 developable, 0.4 midblock)Site 2(acres: 1.5 developable, 0.4 midblock) *Site plan is conceptual and subject to change. 900 S 800 S 30 0 W 4 0 0 W HYPOTHETICALDEVELOPMENTPLAN CONSIDERATION:LEVERAGING LAND VALUE 47% 13% 41%Developable Area ~$17,500,000~4.1 acres Midblock Connections ~$4,700,000~1.1 acres Park Space ~$15,400,000~3.6 acres Subject to change. Based on the hypothetical development scenario. CONSIDERATION:ALCOHOL LICENSES CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION -NORTH CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION -SOUTH $23,000,000 $6,500,000 $21,000,000 RFP EQUITY & INCLUSION Inclusive Selection Committee Establishment of selection committees that will be responsible for evaluating, ranking, and selecting proposals for an award will include community representatives from diverse backgrounds along with City representatives. Community Benefit Agreement An agreement between the developer and community-based organizations that represents the public’s interest. Defines the benefits the community will receive in exchange for supporting the project. representing residents’ interests. Metrics & Outcomes Identify metrics to track and measure the development’s outcomes to provide accountability for the City and developer. Potential metrics may measure indicators such as affordability, underrepresented populations, climate resiliency, community health, and social and economic justice. $23,000,000 $6,500,000 $21,000,000 LAND VALUE BY USE Developable Area Midblock Connection Park Size Value Size Value Size Value Site 1 1 $4,268,880 0.3 $1,280,664 0 $ - Site 2 1.5 $6,403,320 0.4 $1,707,552 0 $ - Site 3 1.6 $6,830,208 0.4 $1,707,552 0 $ - Park 0 $ -0 $ -3.6 $15,367,968 Total 4.1 $17,502,408 1.1 $4,695,768 3.6 $15,367,968 $23,000,000 $6,500,000 $21,000,000 POLICY DIRECTION Midblock Connections •Ownership and Maintenance Structure Park/Public Space •Size and Location •Public Engagement Process Zoning •Timing and Adoption City Owned Property Fleet Block Zoning Amendments •2010 •City moved fleet operations to new facility –Fleet Block vacant •Current Zoning •Public Lands (PL) and General Commercial (CG ) •PL –limited to public facilities; CG –no design standards Fleet Block Context CG 90' D-2 120' FB-UN2 65' (Corners) PL 90' Fleet Block D-2 120' FB-UN1 30' “The redevelopment of the Fleet Block, (an 8.75) acre parcel owned by Salt Lake City, demonstrates the best of urban family living and industry, the mixing of land uses once thought to be incompatible, and improved connections that focus on putting people first. Zoning changes support a true mix of housing options including townhouses, the reuse of historic buildings, and mid-rise development.” Downtown Master Plan Fleet Block Context –Master Plan •D-2 –Downtown Support –car sales lots, no townhomes •CG –General Commercial –no design standards •FBUN2 –Form Based Urban Neighborhood –lower scale Fleet Block Context CG 90' D-2 120' FB-UN2 65' (Corners) PL 90' Fleet Block D-2 120' FB-UN1 30' Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 (FB-UN3) •Builds on framework of existing FB-UN2 zone in Central 9 •Mid-rise Heights •Density and intensity, active urban neighborhood •Design Controls •High quality appearance and pedestrian/street engagement •Broad Mix of Uses •From residential to light industrial •Expandable to Granary area Form Based Code Proposal –FB-UN3 Form Based Code Parts o Building Form Type o Bulk Controls o Design Standards o Land Uses o Streetscape o Parking o Signs Row House Downtown Plan: Mix of housing options, townhomes Vertical Mixed-Use/Multi-family/Storefront Downtown Plan: Mixed-use, active, urban, mid-rise scale Building Form Types Bulk Standards Row House •Lowest heights –40 ft •Limited setbacks –10 ft •Open space required per row house, based on footprint (25%) Bulk Standards Vertical Mixed-Use, Multi-family, & Storefront Building Form •Limited setbacks –5' to 10' •10% open space required –patios, rooftop decks, plazas •125'max. height (mid-rise between low-scale and high-rise downtown core) •Tallest buildings through Design Review (>85’) •14' ground floor heights Same standards apply to every Form Based zone •Entryway Requirements (Porch, patio, etc.) •Ground Floor Uses (not parking) •Glass/Window Minimums •Blank Wall Limits •Building Façade Length Limits •High Quality Exterior Building Materials •Balcony Requirements for Residential Units •Upper Floor Step-back/Balcony Alternative •Parking Structure Design Standards •Build-to Line Alternatives (patios, arcades) Design Standards Wide range of land uses Design standards limit negative impacts o Lowest intensity •Townhomes, multi-family residential •Parks, plazas o Middle intensity •Bars, restaurants, office, retail o Highest intensity (reflects Granary uses) •Breweries •Commercial food preparation •Industrial assembly (putting parts together) •Light manufacturing (indoors, no external noise, light, exhaust) Warehouse/storage uses prohibited in required active ground floor area (next to sidewalks) Land Uses •Parking location limits •Side (setback) or behind buildings •Sidewalk requirements –8 feet wide •Street trees -every 30 feet along sidewalks •Mid-block walkways –required when shown on Downtown Master Plan map, cross Fleet Block •Signs •Sizes/types similar to other existing urban/downtown zone allowances •Parking •No minimum parking required •TRAX stop 1 block away •Maximum parking limits Parking/Streetscape/Signs •High activity ground floor uses required on 900 South/9 Line •Retail, restaurants, bars, art galleries, etc. allowed -not residential units •Intended to ensure activity along 9 Line urban trail •Allows for rowhouse lots that don’t directly face the street •Allows “fee-simple” lot ownership of rowhouse units facing private walkways/driveways, instead of restricting those to rentals •Supports additional ownership opportunities •Similar to RMF-30 changes •Clarifications to the form-based code to reduce code conflicts Other Important Components Daniel Echeverria Planning Division daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com // 801-535-7165 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: November 2, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) __________________________ SUBJECT: Update on the status and disposition strategy for 8.75-acres of city-owned property located between 300 and 400 West and between 800 and 900 South, also known as the Fleet Block. STAFF CONTACT: Blake Thomas, Director, Community and Neighborhoods 385-270-4638, blake.thomas@slcgov.com Tammy Hunsaker, Deputy Director, Community and Neighborhoods 801-535-7244, tammy.hunsaker@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Informational Item RECOMMENDATION: Informational; however, the Council may wish to provide feedback due to related policy and budget considerations. BUDGET IMPACT: N/A BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On April 12, 2022, the Department of Community and Neighborhoods (“CAN”) and Mayor’s Office staff presented a briefing to the Council on the status of the Fleet Block. The City’s goal is to transform this underutilized 8.75-acres of City- owned property located between 300 and 400 West and 800 and 900 South (“Property”) into a community asset that will contribute to the economic, social, and environmental betterment of the city. During the briefing, CAN staff provided an update on the rezone process, development constraints, and community-driven considerations for development of the property. The Mayor’s Office provided an update on community outreach efforts with the families tied to the murals located on the property. Subsequently, the Council provided feedback to the Administration, emphasizing the importance of equity and inclusion. Lisa Shaffer (Nov 2, 2022 15:42 MDT)11/02/2022 11/02/2022 Since the April briefing, the Administration has considered ways to not only infuse equity into the resulting development, providing affordable housing, affordable commercial space, and public space, but to also market and develop the property in a way that is more accessible to an inclusive group of partners. In consideration of the Council’s feedback, master plan polices, responses from the Request for Information (“RFI”), and development constraints, the Administration has developed an approach to create multiple development sites to be offered through a phased request for proposal (“RFP”) process. Dividing up the Fleet Block into multiple property offerings will be conducive for involving multiple development teams of varying scale and experience. RFP Strategy Update & Policy Considerations While it is in the Administration’s authority to dispose of property, such as through an RFP process, it is in the Council’s authority to rezone the property and approve any forthcoming discounts to the fair market value. A portion of the Fleet Block land area is contemplated to remain in the City’s ownership as park and public space, and capital and maintenance costs must be considered for these improvements. Exhibit A: Hypothetical Development Scenario provides a hypothetical scenario of how the Property could be subdivided to establish three separate development sites, midblock connections, and park space. This hypothetical scenario is intended to provide a platform for the Council to provide policy direction, particularly on the following components: • Midblock Connections - Ownership and maintenance • Park/Public Space – Location; forthcoming community engagement process • Zoning – Rezone approval timing 1) MIDBLOCK CONNECTIONS The Downtown Plan, the master plan for the area, provides that a midblock connection be established bisecting the block north-south and east-west – Refer to Exhibit B: Midblock Map. Dividing up the block would require identification of the land area to be designated as midblock connections through the subdivision process and prior to issuing RFPs. Policy considerations are as follows: o Ownership and Maintenance. The City could retain ownership of the midblock connections, or the land could be included in the property offerings and incorporated into the RFPs. § City-owned: If the City retained long-term ownership of the midblock connections, public accessibility and oversite would be maximized. This would require considerable upfront capital to develop the improvements in addition to annual general fund for maintenance. § Privately-owned: If the City included segments of the midblock connections in the RFP property offerings, they would be privately- owned, developed, and maintained by the future property owners/leasees. This would require a development agreement to ensure that improvements are built to designated standards and to provide cohesiveness between the segments of midblock connections under different control. In addition, a public easement to ensure public accessibility, as well as some form of maintenance agreement to establish maintenance standards would be required. The cost to construct the midblock improvements would ultimately be the responsibility of the development team, however the City could provide a reduced land lease rate or sales price to incentive the publicly accessible improvements. 2) PARK/PUBLIC SPACE Reimagine Nature, the City’s Public Lands Master Plan, calls for a “new Park in Granary District (Fleet Block!) at least 25% of the block or 3 acres on the corner.” Further, Reimagine Nature, as well as the Downtown Plan, contemplate a green loop to “reimagine the Downtown SLC’s wide streets in key locations to create a Green Loop with trees, a multi-use recreational trail, linear park space and places for outdoor seating,” refer to Exhibit C: Green Loop Map. To implement a park and green loop as identified in master plans, the Mayor and City Council have included funding for a new park to be located on the Property as part of the general obligation bond, with $6 million as part of the voter referendum. Dividing up the block would require identification of the land area to be designated as the park/public space through the subdivision process and prior to issuing RFPs. Policy considerations are as follows: o Location. There are tradeoffs for locating the park/public space on various quadrants of the Property. Policy considerations are as follows: § 900 South: The Fleet Block public space could be located along 900 South to take advantage of synergies with the 9 Line trail and forthcoming Green Loop. The most significant levels of groundwater contamination are in the southeastern quadrant of the Property. § 800 South: Locating the public space along 800 South, particularly on the 300 West 800 South quadrant, could be a tribute to the social justice movement that was first initiated on this corner with the community- initiated mural of George Floyd. Additionally, the park/public space would be more compatible than other land uses to the high voltage lines run along the north side of the Property on 800 South. o Alcohol Buffer. When considering the location of the park space, it is important to consider Utah Code 32B-1-202 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act in which alcoholic beverage licenses will not be granted within specific proximity measurements to a community location. A "community location" is defined as a church, public or private school, a public park, public playground, or a library. § Restaurants may not be located within 300 feet measured by ordinary pedestrian travel, or 200 feet measured in a straight line. § All other outlets, such as bars, may not be located within 600 feet measured by ordinary pedestrian travel, or 200 feet measured in a straight line. These distances are measured from the nearest patron entrance of the proposed outlet to the property boundary of the community location. If a community location is established after an outlet receives a license, the outlet may continue to operate. If there is a subsequent change in ownership of the property or outlet, the variance will remain in place unless there is a change in license type, or a gap in licensing where the premises is used for different purposes. Refer to Exhibit D: Alcohol Restriction Buffer for the hypothetical development scenario provided in Exhibit A. o Robust Community Engagement. Once the land area has been identified for the park/public space, the Administration is proposing to launch an extensive community engagement process that acknowledges the community meaning that has been placed on the Fleet Block and work to transform the site into a civic common that fosters inclusion. Engagement efforts could include a collaborative exploration to identify placemaking and art elements that recognize communities that have been structurally and systematically overlooked. Through the FY 2023 budget, the Mayor proposed and the Council approved a budget of $100,000 that could be used for this effort. 3) ZONING To ensure that the Council and Administration are in alignment, the Council should adopt and/or indicate support for the ultimate zoning prior to the RFP process. A zoning amendment has been proposed that would apply a modified version of the City's Form Based Urban Neighborhood-2 (FB-UN2) zone to the Property. The zone would be known as the Form Based Urban Neighborhood-3 (FB-UN3) zone. The zone would have similar regulations to the FB-UN2 zone, which is mapped on the blocks around 900 South and 200 West and allows for four to five story tall mixed-use development. The FB-UN3 zone would primarily differ in that it would include requirements for midblock walkways, allow more intense commercial land uses, such as light manufacturing and industrial assembly, and allow for greater height (up to 125') than the adjacent FB-UN2 zone. Policy considerations are as follows: o Timing. On December 11, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously passed a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposal with conditions/considerations. Subsequently, the Council held multiple briefings as well as public hearings on November 10 and November 17, 2020. At that time, the Council requested additional information, particularly regarding plans for a park and/or public space. Over the past 18 months, additional public outreach has been completed, and the Administration has provided the Council with additional detail on the anticipated size and scope of the park and public space. As such, the Council may want to consider adoption of the proposed zoning or provide further direction to the Administration. Other Considerations 1) ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION The Property has various types and levels of environmental contaminants and groundwater intrusion from over 100 years of industrial uses. Based on estimates from 2017, cleanup costs may range from approximately $600,000 to $2,500,000, depending on the level of remediation and type of end uses. Undertaking a remediation process prior to the RFP process would be the costliest. The most cost effective and prudent approach may be a tailored approach that is determined by the planned locations of parking areas and buildings, along with the planned use for each building. This approach would entail working closely with regulators and the future development partners to minimize the volume of soil removal and remediation of groundwater. A phased development approach will allow the City to apply for funding that may be available for environmental mitigation of portions of the Property while concurrently moving forward with development of other portions of the block. The Administration is evaluating options for applying for grant funding through US EPA Brownfield Grants and other funding sources. Brownfield Grants are generally only available to public and nonprofit organizations that are not the party responsible for the contamination. The Administration believes that the City may be eligible for this funding for at least one large area of the Fleet Block, the northwest corner of the site where a historic coal yard was located. 2) LAND USES and VALUE As per an appraisal dated January 2022, the market value of the Property is $37,500,000, or $98 per square foot, as if no environmental remediation is required. The scope and scale of the park space and midblock connections will impact the developable land area, thereby affecting the land value that can be leveraged for other public benefits such as affordable housing and commercial space. Based on the hypothetical scenario provided as Exhibit A: Hypothetical Development Scenario, the land value breaks down as follows: Developable Area Midblock Connections Park Acres Value Size Value Size Value Site 1 1 $4,268,880 0.3 $1,280,664 0 $ - Site 2 1.5 $6,403,320 0.4 $1,707,552 0 $ - Site 3 1.6 $6,830,208 0.4 $1,707,552 0 $ - Park 0 $ - 0 $ - 3.6 $15,367,968 Total 4.1 $17,502,408 1.1 $4,695,768 3.6 $15,367,968 3) RFP EQUITY and INCLUSION The RFPs will include requirements to ensure that the forthcoming development provides economic opportunities, affordable living, and cultural expression for all residents, particularly communities of low- and moderate-income and minority people. After proposals are selected, the City will continue to involve underrepresented communities in the development process through the following: • Inclusive Selection Committees Establishment of selection committees that will be responsible for evaluating, ranking, and selecting proposals. These committees will include community representatives with diverse backgrounds along with City representatives. • Community Benefit Agreements Implementation of Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs) between the developers and community-based organizations representing residents’ interests. The agreements shall identify the benefits the community will receive in exchange for supporting the projects. • Metrics & Outcomes Identification of metrics to track and measure the developments’ outcomes to provide accountability for the City and developer. Potential metrics may measure indicators such as affordability, underrepresented populations, climate resiliency, community health, and social and economic justice. Next Steps and Timeframe Once the Council provides policy direction on the midblock connections, park space, zoning, and other considerations, the Administration will work to subdivide the property and develop design standards for the midblock connections. If the Council is supportive of the Administration’s proposed strategy, the first phase of the RFP process could begin by the first quarter of 2023. EXHIBITS: A. Hypothetical Development Plan B. Midblock Map C. Green Loop Map D. Alcohol Restriction Buffer EXHIBIT A: Hypothetical Development Plan EXHIBIT B: Midblock Map Source: Downtown Plan, adopted in 2016 EXHIBIT C: Green Loop Map Source: Reimagine Nature, adopted in 2022 EXHIBIT D: Alcohol Restriction Buffer Erin Mendenhall DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Marcia L. White Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: Chris Wharton, Chair Apr 17, 2020 FROM: Marcia L. White, Director Department of Community & Neighborhoods SUBJECT: PLNPCM2019-00277 Fleet Block Zoning Amendments STAFF CONTACT: Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com, 801- 535-7165 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and adopt a “Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3” zone into the City Zoning Code with considerations) and adopt a map amendment to apply the proposed zone over the entirety of the City block known as the “Fleet Block,” at approximately 850 S 300 West. The Planning Commission included conditions/considerations in their recommendation and those are discussed below. BUDGET IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In March 2019, former Mayor Jackie Biskupski initiated a petition to rezone the City’s portion of the 10-acre City block known as the “Fleet Block” to a new zone to facilitate the development of the Fleet Block in a way that supports the City’s master plans. Key Facts About the Proposed Rezoning The current property zoning would not support pedestrian friendly mixed-use development that is called for in the Downtown Master Plan. The new zoning will include design standards to require pedestrian friendly building design. 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 April 20, 2020 April 20, 2020 • The new zoning will allow for a wide variety of uses , from residential to light-industrial, in recognition of the variety of uses in the Granary area. The City owns approximately 8.75 acres of the Fleet Block. That property is currently zoned Public Lands (PL), which generally limits the property to institutional and municipal uses. The remaining 1.25 acres of the block are owned by a private entity , which requested to be included in the rezone. That property is currently zoned General Commercial (CG) which allows a variety of commercial and multi-family uses but has virtually no design standards for development. In response to the petition, the Planning Division evaluated zoning for the block that would support the City 's goals as noted in the Downtown Master Plan (2016.) The block has been identified in the Downtown Plan to be a redevelopment site that "demonstrates the best of urban family living and industry, the mixing of land uses once thought to be incompatible, and improved connections that focus on putting people first." To implement the master plan's policies for the Fleet Block and the surrounding area, the zoning amendment would apply a Form Based code zone to the block. A Form Based code focuses on the form and appearance of buildings and has more regulations that control those aspects of development than traditional zones. An example of a traditional zone is the City's General Commercial (CG) zone that has virtually no design controls and simply controls the setback and heights of buildings. The zoning amendment would apply a modified version of the City's Form Based Urban Neighborhood-2 (FB-UN2) zone to the Fleet Block. The zone would be known as the Form Based Urban Neighborhood-3 (FB-UN3) zone. The zone would have similar regulations to the FB-UN2 zone, which is mapped on the blocks around 900 South and 200 West and allows for four to five story tall mixed-use development. The FB-UN3 zone would primarily differ in that it would include requirements for mid-block walkways, allow more intense commercial land uses, such as light manufacturing and industrial assembly , and allow for greater height (up to 125') than the adjacent FB-UN2 zone. The differences are intended to reflect the broad mix ofland uses expected with the block and the surrounding "Granary" area and various Downtown Plan policies for the area that support a mix of housing choices and clean industries, and mid-rise scale development. In the long term, ifthe zone is adopted , the Division intends to explore rezoning additional property in the Granary area to the zone and has been crafting the zoning proposal with this possibility in mind . The Granary area is currently predominantly zoned CG, which again has no design standards. A visual summary of the proposed zoning , including diagrams showing size and setback requirements is located in Attachment B of the Staff Report in Exhibit 3B. Ordinance Note The ordinance included with this transmittal includes "codifier notes" that are not intended for adoption. These notes indicate where there may need to be changes to the ordinance prior to adoption to avoid text conflicts with two other pending zoning code changes currently before the City Council. The Attorney's Office will revise the ordinance prior to adoption as necessary, depending on the adoption status of the other pending ordinances , to prevent such a conflict. PUBLIC PROCESS: • The petition was initiated in March 2019 by former Mayor Jackie Biskupski. • The proposal was presented at an Open House on the Fleet Block on July 3th , 2019 with approximately 50 people in attendance. • The proposal was presented to the Planning Commission at a work session to get initial feedback on July 31 5 \ 2019. • A full public draft of the zoning code was published in October 2019, sent to all parties who provided their contact info at the July Open House, and to City listservs and associated community councils for the area. • On December 11th, 2019 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously passed a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposal with conditions/considerations . Planning Commission Recommended Considerations In their recommendation to approve the proposal, the Planning Commission requested that the City Council consider following four changes to that zoning amendment (staff clarification in parenthesis): 1. To limit the sizes oflots. 2. To require (that lots have) frontage on rights-of-way or streets (or walkways). 3. To limit the size of parking lots (with a maximum lot size). 4 . Require the midblock walkways but allow them to be flexible in their location. The below discusses the reasons the Commission included each of the recommended considerations. If the Council wants to move forward with the Commission's considerations, the administration can develop language to be added to the ordinance. Regarding consideration 1, the Commission was concerned that there may be very large developments on the Fleet Block and recommended that there should be lot size limits to encourage small buildings and more building variety . Generally, the City zoning code does not have maximum lot sizes , except within residential districts. In certain zoning districts, the scale of development is regulated by limiting building width and the length of blank walls and those regulations are included in the proposed FB-UN3 zone. If the maximum lot size limitation were applied, such a limit would only be applicable to new subdivided lots, and existing lots could be developed of any size . Through the selling process, the City can divide up the Fleet Block into smaller lots without changes to the zoning. Regarding consideration 2, the Planning Commission expressed concern regarding row houses (townhomes) where some of the units are oriented to the side yard. They stated that the City Council should consider regulations that would require all units in a row house project to be located along a public street or other public right-of-way. The City has experienced a growth in sideways townhomes. This is due, in large part, to existing development patterns where lots are narrow, but deep. In some zoning districts where these types of developments are occurring, there are limited design standards to ensure that the building containing the townhouse units engages positively with the public right-of-way. To combat this issue, the proposed ordinance that was presented to the Planning Commission requires every "building" to have public street frontage and the portion of the building along the street must address the street with limited setbacks, high quality building materials, glass minimums , and significant entrance features. However, the proposed zoning also includes an allowance for a rowhouse building to have some units that don't face the street and that are accessed from private sidewalks interior to a site. Additional regulations can be added to the ordinance to require all units to front a public street; however, this could be a barrier to providing more for-sale rowhouse/townhouse units in the City. For consideration 3, there was a concern that there could be large surface parking lots in the middle of blocks, like that seen in the Sugar House Business District, located behind or to the side of buildings . In this zone, there is a maximum parking stall number limit that should generally limit the potential for large surface parking lots. The City doesn't currently have any limits on parking lot sizes in any zone , except regarding the number of stalls allowed. If a surface parking lot size limit was imposed , there would need to be analysis regarding its impact on the ability of potential businesses in this area to provide reasonable parking within the dimensions. Regarding consideration 4, the Commission wanted to ensure that there would be flexibility in the exact final location of the mid-block walkways shown in the Downtown Plan for the Fleet Block, rather than requiring the walkways to cross the block through the exact center of the block. The zoning proposal includes language used in other City zones that has provided flexibility in exact walkway location , but additional language could be added to emphasize the flexibility. Although no consideration was added to their recommendation , the Commission discussed how the Fleet Block property would be sold to a private developer, including if and how the property would be broken up with new mid-block streets, and if any public plaza/park property would be kept. The Commission expressed a desire in seeing the block being broken up for smaller developments with mid-block streets as opposed to one large, single development for the whole block. Staff informed the Commission that the City could break up the block through the City 's property sale process and as part of that could require new streets through the block. Consideration Regarding ADA Residential Egress The Planning Divi sion recently received comments regarding the issues with ADA housing units being located on upper floors during emergencies. Residents with mobility impairments in units above the first floor may not be able to exit their building floor without assistance in the event of a fire or other emergency when elevators are either not functional or not safe to use. Such a resident could get to a stairwell , which have doors that are fire rated for a minimum of amount of time , but may have to wait for an emergency responder to arrive and assist with exiting the building. Multi- family buildings are required to include a certain percentage of ADA units . If ground level residential units were required to be ADA accessible, then mobility impaired residents in these units could evacuate the building in an emergency without this same egress concern. Given these concerns, the Council may want to consider requiring that all or some of the ADA units required by federal and state laws , including building code , be implemented on the ground floor if residential units are included in a development. Public Comments At the City open house in July, staff generally received positive comments about the proposed rezoning and the potential for redevelopment of the block. Issues that received multiple similar comments included the desire to see some public space included on the block (park, plaza, etc.), desire to see retail, restaurants, and bars, and concerns with loss of views from the adjacent apartments. Staff received other written input covering a variety of topics prior to the Planning Commission meeting. This public input is discussed in Consideration 2 of the staff report (page 9, Exhibit 3b). Following the Planning Commission meeting, Staff also received a letter from the owner of a nearby brewery (see Exhibit 3e) concerned with the lack of a parking requirement in the FB-UN3 zone and its impact on the on-street parking that the brewery patrons rely on. The brewery is located in the D-2 zone, which requires no off-street parking for buildings under 25,000 square feet in size. EXHIBITS: 1. CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. PLANNING COMMISSION -Dec. 11, 2019 a. Mailed and Newspaper Notice b. Staff Report c. Agenda/Minutes d. Staff Presentation Slides e. Additional Post Meeting Public Comment 4. PLANNING COMMISSION -July 31, 2019 a) Briefing Memo b) Agenda/Minutes 5. ORIGINAL PETITION 6. MAILING LIST SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of2020 (An ordinance amending the text of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to create the FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 District and amending the zoning map to apply the FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 District to the "fleet block" property located between 800 South and 900 South Streets and 300 West and 400 West Streets) An ordinance amending the text of Title 21 A of the Salt Lake City Code to create the FB - UN3 Form Based Urban Neighb orhood 3 District and amending the zoning map to apply the FB- UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 District to the "fleet block" property located between 800 South and 900 South Streets and 300 West and 400 West Streets pursuant to Petition No . PLNPCM2019-00277. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 11, 2019 to consider a petition by fmmer Salt Lake City Mayor Jacqueline Biskupski to amend various provisions of Title 2 1A of the Salt Lake City Code to create the FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood3 District, to establish regulations for that district, and to apply the FB- UN3 Form Based U rb an Neighborhood 3 District to the "fleet block" property located between 800 South and 900 South Streets and 300 West and 400 West Streets pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277); and WHEREAS, at its December 11, 2019 meeting, the p lanning commiss ion voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake C ity 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 Counci 1 of Salt Lake City , Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 2 lA.27.030.C. That Subsection 21A.27.030.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Form Based Districts: Building Configuration and Design Standards: Application of Building Configuration Standards) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: a. That the first paragraph of Subsection 21A.27.030.C is amended to read as follows: 21A.27.030.C. Application of Building Configuration Standards: Building configuration standards apply to all new buildings and additions when the new construction related to the addition is greater than twenty fi ve percent (25%) of the footprint of the structure or one thousand (1,000) square feet, whichever is less. The graphics included provide a v isual representation of the standards as a guide and are not meant to supersede the standards in the tables. This standard applies to all form- based zoning districts unless otherwise indicated. The standards in this section may be modified tlu ·ough the Design Review proce ss, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. The requirements set fOl lh in Subsections C.8 "Open Space Area" and C.12 "Permitted Encroachments and Height Exceptions" of this Subsection 21A.27.030.C may not be modified through Design Review. b. That Subsection 21A.27.030.C.7 is amended to read as follows: 7. Building Materials: A minimum of seventy percent (70%) of any street facing building facade shall be clad in high quality, durable , natural material s, such as stone, brick, wood lap siding, patterned or textured concrete , fiber cement board siding, shingled or panel sided, and glass. Material not specifically listed may be approved at the discretion of the planning director if it is found that the proposed material is of similar durability and quality to the listed materials. If approved, such material can count toward the seventy percent (70%) requirement. Other materials may count up to thil ly percent (30%) of the street facing building facade. Exterior insulation and finishing systems (EIFS) is permitted for trim only. c. That Subsection 21A.27.030.C.8 is amended to read as follows: 8. Open Space Area: A minimum often percent (10%) of th e lot area shall be provided for open space area, unless a different requirement is specified in the building form r egulation. Open space area may include landscaped yards, patio , dining are as, common balconies, rooftop gardens, and other simi lar outdoor living spaces. Private balconies shall not be counted toward the minimum open sp ace area requirement. R equired parkin g lot land scap ing or perimeter parking lot landscaping shall also not count toward the minimum open space area requirement. 2 SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake Citv Code Section 2 1A.27.050. That Section 21A.27.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Form Based Distri cts: FB-UNl and FB- UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborh ood Distri ct) shall be , and hereby is amended as fo ll ows: a . That the title of Section 21A.27.050 is amended to read as follows: 21A.27.050: FB-UNI, FB-UN2, AND FB-UN3 FORM BASED URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT: b. That Subsection 2 1A.27.050.A. 1 is amended to read as follows: A. Subdistricts: I . N ame d: The following subdi stricts can be found in the urban neighborhood form based districts: a. FB -UNl Urban Neighborhood 1 Subdistrict: Generally, includes small scale structure s , up to two and one -h alf (2.5) stori es in hei ght, on relatively small lots with up to four (4) dwelling units per lot depending on building type. Reuse of existing r es idential structures is encouraged. D evelopment r egulati ons are based on the building typ e . b. FB-UN2 Urban Neighborhood 2 Subdistrict: Generall y includes buildings up to four ( 4) stories in h eight, w ith taller buildings located on street comer parcels, w hich may contain a sing le use or a mix of commercial , office, and residential uses. Development regulati on s are based on building type, with the overall scale , form, and orientati on of buildings as the primary focus. c. FB-UN3 Urban Neighb orhood 3 Subdistrict: Generall y includes buildings up to eight (8) stori es in h e ight, w ith taller buildings allowed through the design re view process. Development regulations ar e based on types of buildings and differ between building types as indic ated. The district contain s a mix of uses that include commercial, technical, light indu strial, hi gh de nsity residential, and other supportive land uses. c. That Section 2 1A.27.050is amended to adopt a new Subsection 2 1A .27.050.D , which shall read and appear as follows: 2 1A.27.050.D. FB-UN3 Building Form Standards: Building form standards for each all owed bui ld in g form and other assoc iated regulations for the FB-UN3 zo ne are li sted in th e below tab les of this section. 1. Row House Building Form Standards: 3 TABLE 2 1A.27.050.D . 1 Building Regulation for Building Form: Regulation Row House H Height Maximum of 40'. All heights measured from established grade. Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are a ll owed on any roof, inclu ding roofs at the max imum allowed h e ig ht. F Front and Minimum 5'. Maximum 10', unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility Comer Sid e easements in w hi ch case the maximum setback shall be at tbe edge of the easement. May Yard Se tb ack be modified through Des ign R eview (Ch apter 21 A.59). s Interior Side Minimum of 5' betwee n row house bu il ding fol I I I and side property line, except when an Yard interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a maximum perm itte d buil din g he ight of 30' or les s, then the minimum shall be IO' . For the purpose of this reg ulatio n, an alley that is a min im um of IO' in width that separates a su bject property from a di ff e re nt zoning di str ict s ha ll not be co nside red adjace nt. No setback req uired for commo n wa ll s. R Rear Yard Minimum of 5 ' between row house bu ildin g form and rear property line , except when rear yard is adjacent to a zonin g district w ith a maximum permitted buil d ing height of 30' or less , the n the minimum is 20 ' . For the purpose of this regu latio n , an a ll ey that is a minimum ofIO ' in w idth that se parates a subject property from a different zo nin g d istrict sha LL not be cons ide red adjacent. u Uses Per Story Residential on all sto rie s; liv e/wo rk units permitted on ground !eve I. GU Ground Floor The required ground floor use space facing 900 South must be occupied by a live/work Use on 900 space at lea st 25' in depth. Dimensions may be modified through Des ign R ev iew South (Chapter 2 1 A.59). E E ntry Feature Each dwelling unit must include an allowed entry feature. See Table 2 lA.27.0308 for a ll owed entry features. Dwelling units adjace nt to a street must incl ud e an entry feature on street fac ing fa9ade . Pedestrian connect io n s w it h minimu m 5' w idth are required for each requi red entry feature . u Up per Level When adjacent to a lot in a zoning d istrict with a maximum building h e i ght of30' or Step Back less, the first fu ll floor of th e building above 30' shall step back 1 O' from the building fa9ade at finish ed grade along the side or rear yard that i s adjace nt to the lo t in the app licable zon ing di str ic t. T his regulati o n does not apply when a lot in a different zoning di strict is se parated from the s ubject parcel by a street or alley. OS Open Space Each dwelling unit shall in cl ud e a minimum open space area that is equal to at least 25% Area of the footprint of the individual unit , subject to all other open space area requirements ofSub sectio n 21A.27.030.C.8 11 O pen Space Area." A min imum of20% of the required open space a rea shall include vegetation. BF Buildin g Multiple bui ldings may b e built on as ing l e lot prov ided all of th e buildings have Fonl ls Per Lot frontage on a street. All buildings s h a II comp ly with a ll applicable standard s . so Side/Interior Dwe llin g units not located direct ly adjacent to a street are penl litted, provided the Orie ntatio n building configu ration standards for glass and ground floor transparency are comp lied w ith on the fa9ade with the requ ired entry feature. Lots fo r individ u a l row house dwelling units w itho ut public street frontage are allowed subject to recordin g a fina I s ubdivi sion plat th at: 4 MW O S I. Documents that new lo ts have adequate access to a public street by way of easements or a shar ed driveway ; and 2. inclu de s a disclosure of private infrastructure costs fo r any shared in frastructure associated with the new lot(s) per Section 21A.55. l 10 of this title . Mid-b lock If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted c ity plan on th e subject property , a Walkway mjdblock walkway shall be provided . The midblock walkway must be a minim umof 1 O' wide and include a minimum 6' wide unobstructed path. Des ign See Section 21A.27 .030 for other applicable building configuration and design Standards standards. 2. Multi-Family Residential, Storefront, and Veliical Mixed-Use Building Form Standards: TABLE 21A.27.050.D.2 Building Regulation for Building Forms: Regulation M ulti-family Residential/StorefrontNertical Mixed Use H Height Maximum height of 125'. All heights measured from established grade . Buildings in excess of 85' require design review in ace ordance with Chapter 2 IA.59. Roo ftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, in clu ding roofs at the maximum allowed height. GH Ground Floor Minimum ground floor hei g ht 14'. Hei ght F Front and No minimum is required; however , doors are prohibited from opening into the public Corner Side ri g ht of way. Maximum 10' unless a gre ate r setback is required due to ex isting util ity Yard Setback easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. May be modified through Des ign Review process (Chapter 2 lA.59). B Required Minimum of 50% of street facing facade shall be built within 5' of the fron t or corner Bui ld-To sid e prop erty lin e. May be modified through Design Re view process (Chapter 21A.59). s interi or Side No minimum required , except when an inte rio rside yard is adjacent to a zoning district Yard that has a maximum permitted building height of 30' or less, then the minimum sh a ll be IO '. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10' in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. R Rear Yard No minimum required, except when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum p ermitted building height of 30' or le ss , then the minimum is 20'. For the purpo se of thi s re gu lation, an alley that is a minimum ofIO ' in width that se paratesa subject property from a differ ent zoning di strict shall not be consid ered adjacent. GU Ground Floor The required ground floor use space facing 900 South sha II be li mited to the following Use on 900 uses: retail goods establishments , retail se rvice es tab li s hments , public serv ice portions of So uth bus in esses, restaurants, taverns /b rewpubs , bar est ab lishment s, art gallerie s, theaters , or pe rforming art facilities. E Ground F loor Ground floor dwe !Jing uruts adjacent to a street must have an a!Jowed entry feature . See Dwe lling Table 2 1A .27 .030 8 for allowed entry featur es . P edestrian connections , as per Subsection Entrances 2 1A . 27 .0 30 .C.5,are required to each required entry feature . u Upper Leve l When adjacent to a lot in a zo ning district with a maxim um bui ldi ng hei ght of 30' or Step Back less, the first full floor of the building above 30' shall step back 10' from the building facade at finished grade along th e side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in th e 5 SP GE VA LS EB app lica b le zoning distric t. T hi s reg ulatio n does not apply when a lot in a different zoning district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley. MW Mid-block lfa midblo ck walkway is shown in an adopted c ity plan on the subject property, a Walkway midb lock walk-way sha ll be provided. The m idb lock walkway must be a minimum of 1 O' wi d e and include a minimum 6' wide unobstructed path . BF Building Multipl e buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the bui ldings have Fonns Per fronta ge on a street. A ll buildings shall comp ly w it h all applica ble standards. Lot OS Open Space A minimum of20% of the requ ired open space area shall inclu de vegetation. Vegetation LB Loading Bay Max imum of one (I) loading bay on a front fai;:ade per stre e t face, subject t o all dimensional requireme nts in Sect ion 2 1A .44.070 . Loading bay entry w idth limited to 14' a nd must be screened by garage door. One load ing bay driv eway is a llowed in additio n to a ny other driveway a ll owances. DS De sign See Section 21A.27.030 for other applicable bui lding configuration and design Standards standards. 3. P arking R egulati ons: Specific p arking standards applicable to th e FB -UN3 di strict are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D .3 of this section . These are in addition to any o ther applicable parking stan dards in Title 21A. TABLE 21A.27.050.D.3 Parking Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone Regulation Surface Parking Surface parking sh a ll be loca t ed behind o r to t he side of a principa l buildi ng provided: Location I. The parking is set back a minimum of25' from the front or corner s ide property line; and 2. The setback area shall be considered a landscaped yard and comp ly with the landscape yard p la nting r eq uirements in Chapter 2 IA.46 a nd includ e: a. Trees w ith a minimum mature spread of20' p lanted at one tree fo r every 20' of street front age; and b. A 3 ' tall so lid wall or fence at the property line along t h e street. A hedge or other simi lar landscaped screen may be used in place of a wall or fe n ce provided th e plants a re spaced no further th a n 18 inches on center across the enti re frontage. Garage Street facing parking garage entrance doors s h a ll have a minimum 20' setback from the front E ntrances property line and shall not exceed 50% of the first floor building width. One-way garage entry may not exceed 14 ' in width ; multi way garage entry may n ot exceed 26' in width. Vehicle Access One (I) driveway is allowed per str eet frontage. Driveways requi red to meet fire code are exempt from this limitatio n . Loading and Allowed behind or to the side of a principalbuilding on ly, except w h er e specifica ll y a ll owed by Serv ice Areas building fonn regulation . All service areas shall be screened or located within the building. Existing The reuse of ex ist ing build in gs is exempt from the requi rements of thi s table unless new Buil d in gs park in g a rea(s) are being added. New parking areas are subject to compl iance with this section. 6 4. Streetscape Regulations: Specific str eetscape regulations applicable to the FB -UN3 district are li sted below in Table 21A.27.050.D.4 of this section . These regulations are in addition to any other applicab le streetscape standards in Title21A. TABLE 2 1 A.27 .050.D.4 Streetscape Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone Re ST SW SL ulation Street Trees Street tre e s are required and shall be provided as per Subs ect ion 21A.48.060 .D. S ide\Va lk \Vidth Side\V a lks sh a ll h ave a minimum \Vidt h of 8'. Thi s standard doe s not require removal of existing street trees, ex isting buildin gs , or porti on s th er eof. For purpo ses of this section , side\Valk \Vidth is measured from the back of the park strip or require d street tree if no park stri p is provided, to\Vard the adj acent property li ne. Street Lights Street li g hts are required and shall be in stall ed in complianc e \Vith the ci ty ' s Street Lighting Master Plan and Polic y or it s successor. 5. Uses Not Associated with Building Form: Allowed uses that do not involve construction of a building, such as parks and open space, are not required t o comply with any sp ecific building form regulation. SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake Citv Code Section 21A.33.080. That Section 21A.33.080 of th e Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of P ermitted and Conditiona 1 Uses In Form Based Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to read and appear as follows: 21A.33.080: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN FORM BASED DISTRICTS: Note: Uses which are not lis t e d in the following table are not permitted in any form based code zoning district. I Legend: IP= Permitted I C = Conditional Use Permitted Uses By District FB-FB-FB-FB-FB- UNI UN2 UN3 SC SE Accessory u se, except those that are spec ifi ca lly regulated in p p p p p thi s chapter, or elsewhere in t hi s title Adaptive reuse ot a landmark bmldmg p Alcohol: Bar establishment p p p c Brewpub p p p c 7 Di stillery p T av ern p Tav ern , 2 ,500 square fe et or less in fl o or area p p p c Win ery p Amphith eater , formal p Amphith eater , inform a l p Amusement park p Animal C r emation serv ic e p Kennel (Indoo r) p Kennel (Outdoor) c Veterinary offi ce p p p p Antenna, communication to w er p p p p All g allery p p p p Arti san food production p3 p p3 p3 Artists loft/s tudio p Auction (indoor) p Auditorium p B e d and breakfast p p p p p Bed and breakfas t inn p p p p p Bed and breakfast manor p p p p p Blacksmith shop (indoor) p Blo od donation c enter p Boardin g hous e p Botanica l g arden p Brew ery p Bus line st ation/terminal c Busine ss, mobile p C ar wash c Charity dinin g hall p Clinic (me dical , dental) p p p p Commercial fo o d preparatio n p p p p Commerc ial v id eo arcad e p Community g arden p p p p p Community recrea ti on center p p p p C onvent/monastery p Convention center p Crem ato rium p D ay care cente r , adul t p p p p center, child p p p p nonreg istered h ome d aycare p l pl pl p l pl reg iste r ed home daycare or prescho ol pl pl pl pl pl D ental laboratory/r esear ch fac ili ty p D welling : 8 Accessory guest and servants' quarters p Assisted living facilitv (large) p Assisted living facility (limited capacity) p p p p p Assisted l iving faci litv (small) p p p p Group home (large) p p p p Congre g ate Care Facility (Larg e) (Codifier N ote: Thi s c c c c c u se is pendin g adoption at Ci ty Council. The C here is only intended to be included in thi s p etition if thi s new use i s adooted.) Congregate Care Facility (Small) (Codifier No te : Thi s c p u se is pending adoption a t C ity Council lev el. The P h ere is only intended to be included in this petition if this new u se is adopted.) Group home (s m a ll) p p p p Living quaiiers for caretaker or security guard p Mult i-fami ly p p p p Residential support (lai · ge) p p Residential suppmi (small) p p Rooming (boarding) house p p Single-family attached p p p p Single -family detached p Single-family detached (cottage development building p p fomlonlv) Single room occupancy (CODIFIER/STAFF N OTE : p p p p To be moved to diffe r ent listing w ith pending ordinance changes . This li sting may nee d to b e modified to match new li stin g .) Two-family p E leemosynary faci lity (CODIFIER/STAFF N OTE : This land p p p u s e term may be r e mov ed with p etition p e nding action b y City Council.) Emergency m e dical ser v ices facility p Equipment rental (indoor) p Exhibition hall p Farmers' market p p p p Financial institution p p p p Flea market (indoor) p Funeral home p p p p Gas Station c Government facility requiring special design featu re s for p security pw7 Jose s Government office p Government facility p p p p p Gre enhou se p Health and fitness facility p p p p 9 Home occupation p2 p2 p2 p2 p2 Homeless Resource Center c Hospital p Hote l/mote l p p p House museum in landm ark site p p p p p Industrial assembly (indoor) p Intermodal transit passenger hub p Laboratory (medical , dental, optical) p p p p Laboratory, testing p Library p p p p Manufacturing, light (indoor) p Meeting hall of membership organization p Mixed us e deve lopments including re sidential and other uses p p p p allowed in the zoning district Mobile food business p Mobile food comi p Mobile food trailer p Mobile food truck p Municipal service use s, includ ing city utility uses and polic e p p p p p and fire stations Musemn p p p p Nursing care facility p p p p Office p p p p Office and/or r eception center in landmark site p p p p Office, publishing comoanv p Open space p p p p p Park p p p p p Parkin g, commercia 1 cs Parking faci lity, shared p5 Parking garage p Parking, off site p p p5 p p Parking, park and ride lot shared w ith existing use p5 Performing arts production p Photo finishing lab p p p Place of worship p p p p Plazas p p p p p Radio , televis ion station p Railroad passenger station p Reception center p Recreation (indoor) p p p p Recreation (outdoor) p Research and development facility p p p p Research facility (medical/dental) p p p p Restaurant p p p p Retai l goods estab lis hment p p p p Retail goods establi shment, plant and garden shop with p p p outdoor retail sales area Retail service establishment p p p Sales and display (outdoor) p p p School: Coll ege or university p p p Music conservatory p p p Professional and vocational p p p Seminary and r eligious institute p p p Public or private p Seasonal farm stand p p p Sign painting/fabrication (i ndoo r) p Small brewery p Social service mi ss ion p Solar array p p p Storage, se lf p4 Sto re , convenience p Store , specialty p p p Studio, art p p p Studio, motion picture p Theater, live performance p Theater, movie p p p Urban farm p p p p Uti li ty , building or structure p p p p Utility, transmiss ion wire, line, pipe, or pole p p p p Vehicle Automobile rental agency p Automobile repair maior c Automobile repair minor p Vending cart, private property p p p Warehouse p4 Welding shop (indoor) p Wholesale di stribution c4 Wi rele ss telecommunications facility p p p Woodworking mill (indoor) p Qualifying provisions: 1. Subject to Section 2 1 A.36 .130 of this title. 2. Subj ect to Section 21A.36 .0 3 0 of thi s title. 3. Must contain retail component for on-site food sale s. 4. Only allowed ona ground floor when the use is located behind anotherpermitted or conditional use that occupies the re quired grow 1 d floor use space. 5. Subject to parking lo cation restrictions of Subsection 21A.27.050.D.3. 11 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p SECTION 4. Amending th e t ext of Salt Lake Citv Code Subsection 2 1A.36.020.C. That Subsection 21A.36.020.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Gen eral Provis ions: Conformanc e With Lot and Bulk Controls : Hei ght Exceptions) shall be, and hereby is amended to r ead and appear as fo llows: ·I C. Height Exceptions: Excepti ons to the maximum building height in all z oning di stricts are allowed as indicated in Table 21A.36.020.C of this subsection. TABLE 21A.36.020 C HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS Type I Extent Above Maximum Building Height Allowed By the District Chimney J As req ir ed by local, State or Federal ___ _.A ..... t:" nplicable Districts All zoning districts Church stee p ies or spires E levator/sta irway tower or bulkhead F lagpole regul at ions ~~~~~~~~~~~'-----------------! JI No limit JI All zoning districts ·== = = = = = = = = = = = = =· ------1 16 feet All Commercia I, Manufa ctu rin g, Downtown , FB-UN2 , FB-UN3, RO, R - MU, RMF-45, RMF-75, RP, BP, I, U I , A , PL and PL -2 Di s trict s Maximum h e ig ht of the zo ning di stri ct A 11 zon in g di s tr ict s in whi ch the fl agpo le is loca ted or 60 feet, which ever is less. Condit iona l use approva l is requi red for addit io na I height [:====================l-~~~~~~~~~~--1~~~~~~~~~~ Li g ht pole s fo r sport fie ld s su ch as b a llp arks, stadiums, soccer field s, go lf driv ing range s, and simil ar u ses ' Mechanical equipment parapet wall Note: Maximum hei g ht of the zoning dist r ict o r 90 feet whiche ver is greater. Spec ia I exception a pprova I is requ ired fo r any furt her additional he igh t or if th e Ii g hts are located closer t h an 3 0 feet from adjacent res id en tial structures 5 feet Al I zon in g di stricts that a ll ow sport field activit ies and stad iums exc lud ing park s less than 4 ac res in size All zon n g fa hie ts, other than the FP, FR-1 , FR-2, FR-3,and Open Space Districts 1 . Lighting shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or li g ht into adjacent propel lise and have cutoffs to protect the v iew of th e night sky . 12 SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake Citv Code Subsection 21A.46 .096 . That Section 21 A.46 .096 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Sign Regulations for Form Based Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to read and appear as follows: 21A.46.096: SIGN REGULATIONS FOR FORM BASED DISTRICTS: The following regulations shall apply to signs permitted in the form based code zoning districts. Any sign not expressly permitted by these district regulations is prohibited. A. Sign Regulations for the Form Based Code Districts: 1. Purpose: Sign regulations for the form based code z oning districts are intended to provide appropriate signage oriented primarily to pedestrian and mass transit traffic. 2. Applicability : This subsection applies to all signs located within the form based code z oning districts. This subsection is intended to list all permitted signs in the zone. A ll other regulations in this chapter shall apply. B. Sign Type, Size and Height Standards : 1. A -FrameSign: I I Sign FB-FB-FB-FB-FB-Specifications Type UNI UN2 UN3 SC SE 13 A-p p p p Quantity 1 p er leas abl e space . Leas able space s fram e on corners m ay have 2 . sign Width Max immn o f 2 feet. Any portion of the frame (the support structure) may ex tend up to 6 inch e s in any direc tion b eyond the s ign face. Heig ht M aximum o f 3 feet. Any pO 11 ion of the frame (the support structure) m ay extend up to 6 inches in an y dire ction beyond the sig n face. Placement On public side walk or private property. Obstructi o n Minimum of 8 feet must b e fre e area m aintained at all time s for pedestri an passage. 2. A w ning or C anopy Sign: t ,_L - ---- Sign FB-FB-FB-FB-FB- Type UNI UN2 UN3 SC SE Specifications 14 Awning p p p p p Quantity 1 per window or entranc e. or Width Equal to the w idth of the w indow. canopy s ign P ro jection No maximum depth fro m building facade , however de sign subj ec t to mitigation of rainfall and snowfall runoff, conflict avo idanc e with tree canopy, and issu ance of encroachment permits w here required . The awning or canopy can project a maximum of 2 feet into a sp ec ia l purpo se corridor. Clearance M inimumof 10 fee t of ve 1 iical clearance. Letters A ll owed on vertical portions of s ign and only. logo s Location Private propeli y or a pub lic street. permitted Signs can face a special purp ose corridor but must be located on privat e property. All signs are subject to th e requirements of the r evocab le permitting process. 3. Con struc ti on Sign: Sign Ty p e FB-FB-FB-FB-FB-Spec ificat ions UNI UN2 UN3 SC SE Con struction p p p p p Quantity 1 per construction site. sign (see definition in Hei ght Max imum of 8 feet. Maximum of this chapter ) 12 feet in FB -UN3. Area Maximum of 64 squ are feet. Location Private property or a public street. permitted Signs can face th e spec ial purpose corridor, but must be located on private p roperty . 4. Flat Sign: 15 Sign FB-FB-FB-FB-FB-Sped fications Type UNI UN2 UN3 SC SE Flat p p p p Quantity 1 per le asa ble space. Le asab le spaces on sign co mers may have 2 . Width Maximum of 90% of width of leasab le space . No maximum w idth in FB-UN3. Height Max imum of 3 feet. No maximum hei ght in FB-UN3. Area 11 h s qu are feet per linear foot of store frontage. Projection Maximum of 1 foot. 5. Flat Sign (building orientation): FB-FB-FB-FB-FB- Sign Type UNI UN2 UN3 SC SE Specifications Flat sign p Quantity 1 per building face. (bui lding H eight May not extend above the roof line orientation) or top of parapet wall . Area 1 1 h square feet per linear foot of buildin g front age . 16 6. Marqu ee Sign: Si g n F B -FB-FB-FB-FB- Type UNI UN2 UN3 SC SE Specificatio n s Marquee p Quantity I per bui lding. s ign Width Maximum of 90% of width of leasable space . Height May not extend above the roof of the bui lding. Area 11 /i square feet per linear foot of bui lding frontage. Projection Maximmn of 6 feet. May project into righ t of way a maximum of 4 feet provided the sign is a m inimum of 12 feet above the sidewalk grade. 7. Monument Sign: Sign FB-FB-FB-FB-FB- Typ e UNI UN2 UN3 SC SE S p ecifications Monume nt p Quantity 1 per bu ild ing. sign Setback 5 feet. Heigh t Maximum of 20 feet. Area 1 square feet per l inear foot of building frontage. 8. Nameplate Sign: 17 ---- Sign FB-FB-FB-FB-FB- Type UNI UN2 UN3 SC SE Specifications Nameplate p p p p p Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces sign on comers m ay have 2. Area Maximum of 3 sq uare feet. 9. New Development Sign: FB-FB-FB-FB-FB- Sign Type UNI UN2 UN3 SC SE Specifications New p Quantity 1 p er street frontage. Development Setback 5 feet. sign Height 12 feet. A rea 200 s quare feet. I 0. Private Direct ional Sign: FB-FB-FB-FB-FB- Sign Type UNI UN2 UN3 SC SE Specifications 18 Private p p p p p Quantity No limit. directional Height Maximum of 5 feet. sign (see Area Maximum of 8 square feet. definition in this Restriction May not contain business name or chapter) lo go. Location Private property or public street. permitted Signs can face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. A ll signs are subject to the requirement s of the revocable permitting process. 11. Projecting Sign: Sign FB-FB-FB-FB-FB-Specifications Type UNI UN2 UN3 SC SE Projecting p p p p Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces s ign on comers may have 2 . Clearance Minimum of 1 0 feet above sidewalk/walkway. 19 Area 6 square feet p er si d e, 12 s quare feet tota l. Proj ection Maximum of 4 feet from building fac;:a de. Location Private property or public street. Signs permitted can face the s pecial purpose corridor but must b e located o n privat e propelty. All s igns are subject to the requirement s of the r evoca ble permitting process . 12. Projecting P arking Entry Sign: Sign Type FB-FB-FB-FB-FB-Specifications UNI UN2 UN3 SC SE Proj e cting p p p Quantity 1 per parking e ntry. parking entry C learan ce Minimum of 10 feet above sign (see sidewalk/walkway. projecting Height Maximum of 2 feet. s i g n 4 square fee t per s ide, 8 s quare graphic) Area fe et total. Proj ection Maximum of 4 feet from building facade for public and private streets. Maximum of 2 feet within the special purpose corridor. Location Private property or public street. permitted Signs can face the special purpose corridor but must b e locate d on private property. All s ign s are subj ect to the requirements of the revocable pelmitting process . 13. Publ ic Safety S i gn: Sign FB-FB-FB-FB-FB- Type UNI UN2 UN3 SC SE Specifications p p p p p Quantity INo limit. 20 Height Maximum of 6 feet. Area 8 s quare feet. Public safety Projection Maximum of 1 foot. sign (see Location Private property or public street. Signs d efinition p ermitted can face the sp ecial purpose cO 1 Tidor in this but must be located on private chapter) property . A ll signs a re subject to the requirem ents of the rev oca ble permitting process . 14. Real Estate Sign: Sign FB-FB-FB-FB-FB- Type UNI UN2 UN3 SC SE Specifications Real p p p p p Quantity 1 per leasa ble space. L easable spac es on estate co m ers may have 2. sign Height Maximum o f 12 feet. Area 32 s quare feet. 64 squar e feet in FB-UN3. Location Private property or public street. Sig n s can pemlitted face the s p ec ial purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All sign s 21 are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process. 15. Window Sign: L L J u u ------- --- ii--LI --- ,_ L_J f §1 0 s\ct-t - I Sign FB-FB-FB-FB-FB- Type UNI UN2 UN3 SC SE SpeGifiGatioA~ Window p p p p Quantity 1 per window. sign H e ight Maximum of 3 feet. Area Maximum of 25% of window area. SECTION 6. Amending th e 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 i s amended to app ly the FB-UN3 Form Based U rban Neighborhood 3 District to the "fleet block" property located between 800 South and 900 South Streets and 300 West and 400 West Streets (Tax ID Nos. 15-12-251-001-0000, 15-12-177-007-0000), and as more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto . 22 SECTION 7 . 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 _____ _ 2020. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on __________ _ Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDE R (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM Bill No. Published: of 2020. Ordinance adopting FB UNJ zoning and map amendments Fleet Block (final) 23 EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description and Map of Propeliy Subject to Zoning Map Amendment: All of Block 7 , Plat A, Salt Lake City Survey Parcel Tax ID Nos. 15-12 -25 1-001 -0000 15-12-177-007 -0000 §3 L Q'.00)@ - I I I L F~ _Jl r 7 f3 I \ ~ r-\ .. ' '\ \\ ·, ~ N .. \ ~ _, \ \ ~ \ \ . ··--I \ \ \ .. I \ I \ I I ·· .. \--! \ \ 1, I ' \;-..-. -I \ \ D Proper I y Rezoned I o FB -UN 3 -I,, ------- ~ I ~ ~ ©.!X O@ R ~ -!---1 " 0 c, L~ I ! l I - ---' 24 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. PLANNING COMMISSION -Dec. 11, 2019 a. Mailed and Newspaper Notice b. Staff Report c. Agenda/Minutes d. Staff Presentation Slides e. Additional Post Meeting Public Comment 4. PLANNING COMMISSION -July 31, 2019 a. Briefing Memo b. Agenda/Minutes 5. ORIGINAL PETITION 6. MAILING LIST 1. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2019-00277 Fleet Block Zoning Amendments March 22, 2019 Mayor Jackie Biskupski initiates petition for zoning changes to the Fleet Block March 23, 2019 Petition assigned to Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner July 8, 2019 Public Open House to review proposed zoning concepts. Public Open House was held on the Fleet Block. Notices were provided to residents, property owners, and businesses within 2 blocks of the site. More than 50 people attended the open house. July 31, 2019 Planning staff took concept materials and draft language to Planning Commission for a briefing . Materials also posted to website. No public hearing held at the briefing. October 3, 2019 Planning staff published revised public draft of the code based on concepts and input from July Open House . Notice was sent out to all attendees who left contact information at the July Open House and to Planning listserv. October 3, 2019 Notice of draft code proposal provided to Central 9th and Ball Park Community Councils, asking if recognized organizations would like a presentation at one of their meetings . November 28, 2019 Public notices mailed to residents, property owners, businesses within 2 blocks of site. E-mailed notices sent to Planning listserv and other parties who provided contact information at City Open House and via e-mail to staff. December 5, 2019 Staff report with draft code proposal published December 11, 2019 Planning Commission holds public hearing for the proposal. Planning Commission passed motion recommending approval with considerations. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering petitions PLNPCM2019-00277 Fleet Block Zoning Map and Text Amendment -A request by the Mayor to amend the text of the zoning ordinance and amend the zoning map for all of the properties located on the City block known as the "Fleet Block" at approximately 850 S 300 West. The "Fleet Block" is located between 800 and 900 South and 300 and 400 West. The text amendment would create a new zone in the City Zoning Ordinance , titled Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 (FB-UN3). The map amendment would change the zoning of the properties from PL (Public Lands) and CG (General Commercial) to the FB-UN3 zone . The FB-UN3 zone would apply new design, height, bulk, use, and other development standards to the properties. Related provisions of Title 21A Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The properties are located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held : DATE: TIME: PLACE: 7:00 p.m. Room 315 City & County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Daniel Echeverria at 801-535-7165 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters , and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535- 7600, or relay service 711. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION -Dec. 11, 2019 a. Mailed and Newspaper Notice 4 770 S. 5600 W . WEST VALLEY C ITY, UT AH 84 I 18 FED .TAX l.D.# 87 -02 17663 8 0 1-2 04-69 10 I )l'..,cn t '!'.\;<: " s P R O O F OF PU BLI CATION CUSTOMER'S COPY I CUSTOM ER NAME A D A DDRESS PLANNING DI VISION , ACCO UNTS PA YABLE PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE C ITY UT 84 11 4 I ACCO UN T N AME PLANNING DI V ISION , I TE LE PH ONE 80153577 59 I P UBLI CAT ION SCHED ULE START 11 /30/20 19 EN D 11 /30/20 19 I CUSTOMER REFE R ENCE UMBER Planning Commission Meet ing 12/11 /19 I CAPTION ACCOU 1T NU MB E R 9001 394298 DATE 12/2/2019 I OR DE R # INVO ICE NUMBER 000 1274593 Notice of Pu bli c Hearing On W ednesday, December 11, 201 9 , the Salt Lake C ity P lannin~ S IZE 39 LIN ES 2 COLUMN (S) !T IM ES I T OTAL COST 2 102 .50 AFFID AVIT OF PUBLI CATION \ibe n I :L:nkr~n l nr Notb of N>llc Heart1g C>_n Wednesday, Deoember 1 1, 2019, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider making reconmendations to the City Council regarding the fO llowing petitions, 1 • FIMt llodc Za*'<J Map and Text Amlnctnent -A re- quest by the Mayor lo amend the text of the zoning or- dinance. and amend the zoning map for all of the ~ropertres ~ted on the City bloc!< known as the ''FFleet Block" '!' appr oximately 850 S 300 West. The leet Block •S locoted between 800 and 900 South and 300 and 400 West. The text a mendment would create a new zone in the City Zon ing Ord inance titled Fonn Based Urban Neighborhood J (FB-~J). The map amenanent would change the zoning of the properties from Pl {Public l ands) and CG (General Conmerclal) to the. FB-ll-l? zone. The FB-lJ-13 zone would apply new design, he1git, bulk, use and othor dovelopmerit stond-a r~ to the properties. Related proVisions of Title 2 1 A Zoning ~Y be anended as part of this ~tition. The p roperties are located within Council District 4, repre- sented ~Y Ana Valdemoros. (Sta ff Contact, Daniel Echeverr ia at (80 1 ) 535-7 165 or danie l.ed>everria @ slcgov.com) Caie rUnber l'Uf'CM2ol 9-00Z77 The pub lic hearing will begin a t 5,30 pm. in raom 326 ofSattthela ·City County Building, 451 South State Street ke City, UT. ' The City & County Building Is an accessible facllity People with disab ilities may make requests for rea~ able accomnodation, which may include a lternate for-~, Interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and serv- iCes. Please make requests at least two business days In a_dvance, Ta make a r equest please contact the Plan-~·~.m3ce at 801 -535-7757, or relay service Uk AS NEW SPAPE R AGENCY COM PANY, LLC dba UTAH MEDIA GR OU P LEGAL BOOKER, l CERT IFY T HAT T HE ATIACH ED ADVERT ISEMENT O F Notice of Publi c Hearin g On Wed nesday, December 11, 2019, the Salt Lake C itv P lanning C ommiss ion will h o ld a public hearing to consider making r e commen dations FOR PLANNING DI V ISION, WAS P UBLI SH E D BY THE NEWS PA PER AGENCY COMPANY , L LC dba UTAH MEDI A GROUP, AGEN T FO R DESER ET NEWS AN D TH E SA LT LAKE T RJ BUN E, DA ILY N EW SPAPE RS PRINTED IN T HE ENG LI SH LANGUAGE WIT H GENE RAL C IRCU LATION JN UTAH , AND PUB LI SH ED IN SA LT LA K E C IT Y. SALT LAKE COUNTY IN THE STATE O F UTA H. NOTI CE IS ALSO POSTED ON UTAHLEGALS.COM O N TH E SAME DAY AS T H E FIR ST NEWSPAPER PUBLICATI ON DATE AND R EMAINS ON UTA HLEG ALS.COM IN DE FIN ITE LY. COM PLI ES W ITH UTAH DIG ITA L SIGNATURE ACT UTA H CODE 46-2-10 1: 46-3-10 4. PUBLI SHE D ON Start 11/30/2 0 19 End I 1/3 0/201 9 DATE 12/2/20 19 SIGNATURE ------------ ST ATE O F UTAH COUNT Y O F -~SAL~T.-...-.LA......_.K=E __ SUBSCRIBED A N D S WORN T O BEFORE ME ON TH IS 30TH DA Y OF N OVEMB ER fN TH E YEAR 201 9 BY LORAINE GU DMUND SON. NOTA RY PUB LI C S IG NATURE rn Cl) <( ...J (,) .... Cl) a:: L:: MAGDALENA PROPERTIES, LLC 2340 WESTCLIFFE LN WALNUT CREEK CA 94597 -• • -I -~ -,,-. ..... r-" ';\I -$. .. ,, ,...,_ : .... ,_ ,_ r" ..:...1 -...i...:...i -r ,.~.:...~.~v 4 f""'..'..llVl'1-.-~ JNAB~! TO FORW~qo SC: 841.14 "'04.36-062~0 -23 -47 i 1l;IIi!11! ! I ti I I Ii q Ii 11 ! ! 'I ii ll !l t 111 d I! ii if 1lit1I1,; l Ii qi I I ----------·---~ Current Occupant 981 s 500 w rn Cl) <( u .... I/) a:: ii: SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 i:Jof;:T le;;!d -/'\ J!:t:~1r-":CC •. «• •4>. ,.. ' ...,, _, -• ~ ........ :'Ii 0 S ~ .. C ~· r-J .,.; "'ji Q 2: ;:. UNAS~E TO =OFWAFD NSN 3C: 841.14 "·0.qt;-&·.:...2i5-2 -46 Ii 1l1 I I Ii I l \ \ i 11 ! i Ii!!! 11 (I l 1; 11 !\lI1II11II1 1 \I11 1 \I!i1 ·I\\. I 11 l l i I ·I I t I l PLANNING COMMISSION -Dec. 11, 2019 b. Staff Report Staff Report PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Daniel Echeverria, daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com , 801-535-7165 Date: December 5, 2019 (publication) Re: PLNPCM2019-00277 Fleet Block Zoning Map and Text Amendment Zoning Map and Text Amendment MASTER PLAN: Downtown Master Plan ZONING DISTRICT: Current zoning-Public Lands (PL) and General Commercial (CG) PROPERTY ADDRESS: 850 S 300 West ("Fleet Block" between 800 and 900 South and 300 and 400 West) REQUEST: A request by Mayor Jackie Biskupski to amend the text of the zoning ordinance and amend the zoning map for all of the properties located on the "Fleet Block" at approximately 850 S 300 West. The "Fleet Block" is located between 800 and 900 South and 300 and 400 West. The text amendment would create a new zone in the City Zoning Ordinance, titled Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 (FB-UN3). The map amendment would change the zoning of the properties from PL (Public Lands) and CG (General Commercial) to the FB-UN3 zone. The FB-UN3 zone would apply new design, height, bulk, use, and other development standards to the properties. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in this staff report and the factors to consider for zoning text and zoning map amendments, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding this proposal. ATIACHMENTS: A. Zoning and Vicinity Maps B. Summary of Proposed Code C. Proposed FB-UN 3 Code D. City Plan Considerations E. Analysis Of Zoning Amendment Standards F. Public Process And Comments G. Property Photographs H. City Department Review Comments I. Form Based Code Design Standards -Current Code SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 1 WWW.SLCGOV.COM TEL 8oi.535.7757 FAX 8oi.535.6174 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Project Description and Background................. 2 2. Key Considerations............................................ 8 3. Standards of Review Discussion........................ 11 4. Next Steps........................................................... 11 5. Attachments....................................................... 21 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The City is proposing to rezone the property known as the "Fleet Block" to support its redevelopment. The Fleet Block is located between 300 and 400 West and 800 and 900 South. The City has been discussing selling the City's portion of the Fleet Block for redevelopment for several years. The block was the home to the City's fleet and street maintenance facility for approximately 86 years but has been vacant since 2010 when the City moved those functions to a new facility. The Fleet Block, looking south-west from the 300 West and 900 South intersection . The City owned portion of the block is highlighted in yellow. The area highlighted in orange is privately owned. The entire block is proposed to be rezoned to the FB-UN3 zone. The City owned portion of the block (highlighted in yellow on the above map) is currently zoned Public Lands (PL), which generally limits the property to institutional and municipal uses. The privately-owned portion of the block (highlighted in orange on the map) is zoned General Commercial (CG), which allows a variety of commercial uses but has no regulations on the appearance of buildings or how they engage pedestrians. The property owner of that portion of the block has requested to be included in this rezoning. The block has been identified in the City's Downtown Master Plan (2016) to be a redevelopment site that "demonstrates the best of urban family living and industry, the mixing ofland uses once thought to be incompatible, and improved connections that focus on putting people first." As the current zoning for the block doesn't encourage or support redevelopment that would support those policies, the Planning Division has been evaluating new zoning options for the property. Fleet Block Zoning Amendments 2 To implement the master plan's policies for the Fleet Block and the surrounding area, the Planning Division has been evaluating implementing a Form Based code zone for the entire Fleet Block. A Form Based code focuses on the form and appearance of buildings and has more regulations that control those aspects of development than traditional zones. An example of a traditional zone is the City's General Commercial (CG) zone that has virtually no design controls and simply controls the setback and heights of buildings. The Planning Division is proposing a modified version of the City's Form Based Urban Neighborhood-2 (FB-UN2) zone for the Fleet Block. The zone would be known as the Form Based Urban Neighborhood-3 (FB-UN3) zone. The zone would have similar regulations to the FB-UN2 zone, which is mapped on the blocks around 900 South and 200 West and allows for four to five story tall mixed-use development. The FB-UN3 zone would primarily differ in that it would include requirements for mid-block walkways, allow more intense commercial land uses, such as light manufacturing and industrial assembly, and allow for greater height. The differences are intended to reflect the broad mix of land uses expected with the block and the surrounding "Granary" area and various Downtown Plan policies for the area that support a mix of housing choices and clean industries. In the long term, if the zone is adopted, the Division intends to explore rezoning additional property in the Granary area to the zone and has been crafting the zoning proposal with this possibility in mind. The Granary area is currently predominantly zoned CG, which again has no design standards. The Planning Division also evaluated implementing the Downtown Support (D-2) zone for the area. The zone now has several design standards included in its regulations and is currently zoned across properties near the Fleet Block. However, the Division decided against that zone due to its allowance for outdoor car sales lots and its lack of an allowance for lower scale townhome development. Key Facts • Current property zoning would not support pedestrian friendly mixed-use development • New zoning will include design standards to require pedestrian friendly building design • New zoning will allow for a wide variety of uses in recognition of variety of uses in the area, including light manufacturing uses • Text amendments also include clarifications to the building design standards for the Form Based zones in general A visual summary of the proposed zoning regulations is located in Attachment B. The full regulations are located in Attachment C. Key Form Based Code Concepts The below sections provide a summary of the type of regulations proposed for the Form Based Urban Neighborhood-3 zone. The full draft regulations are found in Attachment C. Building Form Types: There are four proposed allowed building form types in the zone. • Row house (townhome) • Storefront (a commercial building -retail, office, etc.) • Vertical Mixed-Use (a building with ground floor commercial and residential above) • Multi-family (an apartment or condominium building) Fleet Block Zoning Amendments 3 Rowhouse Vertical Mixed-Use/Multi-family/Storefront In the City's form-based code, regulations vary by the type ("form ") of building. For example, row houses have different set-backs than vertical mixed-use buildings, taking into consideration the different size and intensity of the building type. They also have slightly different design requirements. For example, the rowhouse form can incorporate a traditional residential "porch and fence" entry feature, whereas a storefront building couldn 't have that entry feature, but could include a "shopfront" entry feature with a canopy and entrance directly to the sidewalk. General Building Form Standards: Each building form also has regulations that are specific to that form. In this zone, the regulations for vertical mixed-use, multi-family, and storefront forms are nearly identical, except for some variations in required entry features . Summary diagrams of the proposed regulations for each form type are in Attachment B and the full regulation text for each building form is located in Attachment C. The proposed regulations include: • Height Limits o 40' for rowhouse and 85' for vertical mixed-use/multi-family/storefront (125' through Design Review.) • Front Setback Limits and Build-To Lines o Requires that buildings are located close to the sidewalk • Open Space Requirements o 10% of lot area and can be yards, plazas, rooftop decks , similar o 25% of unit footprint for row houses • Ground Floor Use Minimums o 75% of the width of ground floor fac;ade must be an active use (not parking) and have a minimum depth of 25' -meant to ensure activity occurs next to pedestrians along ground floor facades • Exception for rowhomes-use space must have 10' depth o Along 900 South, the required ground floor space is limited to the following uses : retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or performing art facilities. • Exception for row houses , must be live/work and have 25' depth • Minimum Ground Floor Heights o Min. 14' to ensure flexible , viable active spaces in the long-term • Mid-block Walkway Installation o Required where mapped in the Downtown Master Plan, generally through the middle of blocks. Meant to increase pedestrian accessibility through additional walking routes on large City blocks. Fl eet Block Zoning Am endments 4 • Entry Features for Dwellings o Every ground floor dwelling unit adjacent to a street must include an entry feature, such as a porch, stoop, shopfront, terrace, etc. o For row houses, each dwelling unit must include an entry feature even if the unit is not street facing • Rowhome Frontage o Rowhome lots without frontage along a street allowed with a final plat that documents access easements for lots and includes a shared infrastructure reserve study disclosure o Rowhomes adjacent to the street must incorporate a street facing entry feature Design Standards: All Form Based zoning districts, including the nearby FB-UN2, rely on a shared set of design standards that control fac;ade design. Every building form must comply with the design requirements and they are not being changed with this petition. The full existing design regulations with all of their nuances are included for reference in Attachment I. The design requirements are summarized below: • Entryway Installation o Fac;ade must include an entry feature-porch, stoop, shopfront, terrace, etc. o One entry required for every 75' of facade • Glass/Window Minimums o 60% of ground floor fac;ade and 15% of upper floor fac;ade must be glass . • Blank Wall Limits o No blank wall that is uninterrupted by doors , windows , or other projections , over 30' in length. • High Quality Exterior Building Material Minimums o Min. 70% of fac;ade must be quality, durable material-brick, fiber-cement, textured concrete, etc. • Balcony Requirements for Dwellings Units o Dwelling units on upper levels facing a street must have a balcony • Upper Floor Step-back Requirement and Balcony Inclusion Alternative o Floors above the 30' height level facing a public street must be stepped back 15' or include balconies • Parking Structure Design Requirements o Includes variety of requirements for the fac;ade and ground level activation • Build-to Line Alternatives o Allows for plazas, arcades, outdoor dining to count toward meeting minimum build-to line requirements (the setback that a minimum percentage of the building must be built to), allowing buildings to be set-back behind these features Parking And Driveway Regulations: The zone includes limits on driveways and parking to limit their impact on the pedestrian experience: • Driveway number and location limits -1 driveway per street face • Parking limited to behind/ side of buildings • No minimum parking requirement due to proximity to transit (same requirement as neighboring FB-UN1 and FB-UN2 zones) Fl eet Bl ock Zoning Am endments 5 Streetscape Requirements: Every building form must comply with general streetscape improvement requirements. These include regulations on: • Street trees (min. 1every30 feet) • Sidewalk widths (min. 8') • Street lights (required where identified in City street light plans) Land Uses: The proposed allowed land uses are broad and are intended to reflect the master plan's call for an integration of "urban family living" and "clean industry" uses. Staff believes the design controls of the form-based code allow for a larger assortment of uses without generally having the same level of concern for compatibility and conflicts there would be under a traditional code. Outdoor manufacturing and outdoor equipment storage uses would not be allowed to avoid noise and visual conflicts. Storage/warehouse uses, which have limited human activity, would not be allowed on the ground floor next to the sidewalk. • Broad variety of allowed uses (from townhomes up to light manufacturing) Signs: Sign regulations are also being proposed for this zone and generally match the FB-UN2 zoning allowances, with some exceptions, taking into consideration the proposed higher scale of development in the FB-UN3. This includes some additional sign types, such as monument signs, marque signs, and building oriented flat signs (generally a major tenant or name of building). Other Clarifications and Additions: As part of this proposal, staff is also including additions and clarifications to some general regulations for development under the Form Based Code chapter. This includes: • Clarifying the list of allowed exterior building materials • Allowing modifications to design requirements through the "Design Review" chapter, which has standards related to such modifications. Currently, modification requests must go through the Planned Development process which does not address design specifically, unlike the Design Review chapter. Planning Commission Briefing The proposal was brought to the Planning Commission for a briefing in July of this year. At the briefing the Planning Commission focused on a few of aspects of the proposal, including: • Height limit for row house (townhome) form • The potential for the area to develop as townhomes • Incentivizing more high-intensity mixed use, more active ground floor uses Regarding the height limit for rowhomes, staff was initially supportive of eliminating the height limit. However, staff ultimately determined that buildings over 40' should, due to their scale, be treated as the larger building form of "Multi-family /Mixed-Use/Storefront" and therefore include more substantial ground floor engagement, including taller ground floor heights and more use depth. The height limit in the proposed code for a rowhome is 40 feet. As for incentivizing more active ground floor uses, staff looked at regulations that the City has used in other similar zones to encourage or require more active ground floors, including the Downtown Support, Transit Station Area and Sugar House Business District zones Staff also considered creating an "incentive" for taller development, by allowing for taller developments if a Fleet Block Zoning Amendments 6 developer included more active ground floor commercial uses, such as bars and restaurants instead of office space or residential uses. One risk of such an incentive is that it would function simply as a "requirement" for tall buildings and could just disincentive construction of the taller, more dense development that is desired for this part of the city if there isn't market demand for such ground floor commercial uses. Considering this, staff included two requirements to encourage more active uses overall, while also requiring more active uses on key streets: o Require 14' tall ground floor heights for "multi-family/storefront/vertical mixed-use" forms to encourage ground floor active commercial uses and preserve the ability to convert the space into viable commercial spaces when there is market demand. o This is similar to the TSA zone requirements along 400 South/North Temple. o Require higher activity ground floor uses on 900 South o Uses would be limited to retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or performing art facilities. o Would also require any townhomes facing 900 South to be live/work with work space on the ground floor. o This is similar to the proposed requirements in Sugar House along 2100 S/1100 East. Viable commercial spaces for retail, bars, or restaurants, are generally built with higher ceiling heights. The proposed 14' minimum ground floor height requirement is intended to ensure that the spaces are conducive to active ground floor commercial uses, and to help preserve the ability of the space to change to a functional, more active space in the future even if it is originally built for a residential use. It allows a building to have purely residential uses on the ground floor if the market demand is not there, but the height provides the flexibility to accommodate a viable active commercial use in the future. The minimum floor height also encourages a developer to consider whether a commercial use would be immediately viable, as such uses could better take advantage of the ground floor height versus a residential use. The requirement for more active uses on the ground floor space facing 900 South is related to the City's long-term plans for that street. 900 South is the location of the 9 Line Trail, an urban trail that would extend from the east side of the City all the way to the Jordan River. The Downtown Plan supplements that trail plan by designating 900 South as part of the downtown "green loop," a transportation corridor with significant green space and pedestrian/bicycling amenities. As the City plans to ultimately invest significant resources to the improvement of the corridor, the ordinance would require more active uses besides dwelling units to better utilize the improvements. Examples of allowed active uses include public service portions of businesses, retail, restaurants, art galleries, and bars. Because the Downtown Plan emphasizes the potential for townhome development and urban family living, the proposed ordinance doesn't include an outright ban on townhomes/rowhouse along 900 South, but it does include a requirement that the ground level be a live/work space to potentially have a more active, commercial presence along the street. It is also important to note that this zoning is intended to be applied throughout the Granary area in the long term. In some areas of the Granary it might not make sense to require more active ground floor uses, as there might not be market demand for such use, so the more active ground Fleet Block Zoning Amendments 7 floor uses are not being proposed for every street. However, through the City's selling process for the City owned portion of the Fleet Block the City could impose further requirements for ground floor uses on development on the block and the City could financially incentive such uses. Changes to the Proposal Since the Planning Commission Briefing The proposal has been revised in the following substantive ways since the Planning Commission briefing: • Eliminated "limited bay" building form. The associated front fa<;ade loading dock allowance has been incorporated into the general building type "Mixed-Use/Multi- family /Storefront" • Added allowance to have rowhome lots without street frontage (similar to proposed RMF- 30 amendment allowances that recently went before the Planning Commission) • Added restriction that 900 South facing ground level spaces include higher activity uses, such as restaurant, retail, or bar, as it is the future 9 Line trail corridor. • Added restriction to industrial uses that they occur only indoors (light manufacturing, welding, sign fabrication) • Added restriction that warehouse/wholesale distribution be prohibited from street facing ground level spaces as they provide no ground level activity • Added requirement that all ground level dwelling units must include an entry feature, such as a porch, canopy, etc. • Added allowance for modifications to the front set-backs through design review to allow for variations if the design is pedestrian oriented • Variety of language clarifications and small clarifying additions to avoid code conflicts Most of the changes are minor and involve clarifications/supplementations to more substantive requirements. The most significant changes are the requirement for active ground floor uses along 900 South (discussed above) and the elimination of the "limited bay" building form. The limit bay form's primary design characteristic was the allowance for one front loading bay. However, the other elements of the building were similar to the regulations for vertical mixed use, multi-family, and storefront building forms. Given its similarities to the other forms, the loading bay allowance has been incorporated into that other building forms and the "limited bay" form has been removed from the proposal. This simplifies the zoning code and will result in a more consistent development pattern. KEY CONSIDERATIONS: The key considerations and concerns below have been identified through the analysis of the proposal, neighbor and community input, and department reviews. 1. Downtown Plan Guidance 2. Public Input and Code Changes Consideration 1: Downtown Plan Guidance For zoning amendments, Planning Staff is directed by ordinance to consider the associated City master plans and adopted policies that apply to a proposal. Staff reviews general City policies, including adopted policies in Citywide master plans such as Plan Salt Lake, and considers plans that are specific to an area. In this case the property is within the boundaries of the Downtown Master Plan. The full plan can be accessed here: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/Downtown.pdf Fleet Block Zoning Amendments 8 Staff considered the guidance in the the master plan in developing the proposed zoning. A comprehensive list of related Downtown Plan policies is located in Attachment D. The Downtown Plan includes specific policies aimed at the Fleet Block and more general policies applicable to downtown development overall. The Fleet Block specific policies include allowing a broad mix of uses and housing choices, from townhomes ("urban family living") at the lower intensity end up to industrial ("clean industries") uses at the higher end. The proposed zoning aligns with this in its building form allowances (townhome, storefront, multi-family, vertical mixed-use) and broad range of allowed uses. The policies also call for the area around the Fleet Block to be supportive of small, local serving retail, business incubator spaces, and to be an overall thriving employment center for the city. The zoning's land use allowances and active ground floor use requirements would support these uses. The Downtown Plan also has a variety of general policies that are applicable to all of the downtown area, including policies related to improving the pedestrian experience with pedestrian oriented development, building design, and associated public improvements. The proposed zoning incorporates design standards aimed at ensuring pedestrian oriented development with further design review required for taller buildings to ensure higher quality building and site design. Some of the proposed standards intended to accomplish these goals include transparency and entry feature requirements on the ground floor of buildings, restrictions on blank walls, requirements for mid-block pedestrian walkways, and requirements for active uses on street frontages. Overall, the proposed zoning is in-line with the Downtown Plan's policies for the block and the general area. The proposed zoning will allow for redevelopment of the Fleet Block in a way that supports the plan's policies and goals. The current zoning of the property would not allow the property to develop with a mix of land uses and would not require pedestrian oriented development. Consideration 2: Public Input and Code Changes Staff received public input regarding the following substantive aspects of the proposal. Discussion regarding this input and any changes made is provided below each topic. • Allowances for roof top uses -Changes made o Staff has added clarification to the code that the roof tops of buildings built to the maximum height limit may be used as habitable, usable outdoor space even if the roof is at the maximum height limit of the zone. • Requiring minimum heights for development -No changes made o Staff considered a minimum height for development here, but ultimately did not include such a limitation in the proposal. Minimum heights could serve to prevent low scale development that does not contribute to the Downtown Master Plan vision for higher density development. Minimum heights are sometimes used for properties where there has been significant public transit investment so that the property around the transit station isn't developed for low scale uses that underutilize the public investment. The Transit Station Area zone along 400 S and North Temple has a minimum height for properties that face the transit line but does not impose a minimum height requirement elsewhere. A minimum height may be appropriate for properties adjacent to the TRAX line, but staff anticipates applying this zone to other properties in the Granary not transit adjacent and where a minimum height may just delay additional investment in the area if there Fleet Block Zoning Amendments 9 is not a demand for taller buildings in the near term. For development context, the area is currently zoned CG, which allows for 60' to 90' tall development, yet there has not been significant investment in the area despite the height allowance. The City can control what type of development occurs directly on the Fleet Block through the selling process, which could include a requirement that the properties be a minimum height. • Additional maximum heights to better provide street enclosure -No changes made o Staff has difficulty supporting additional building height beyond the proposed 125' height limit as the Downtown Master Plan specifically calls for mid-rise development in this area. Though mid-rise is not specifically defined with a number range in the Downtown Plan, development higher than this value starts to approach what could be considered high-rise development. Beyond the direct language calling for mid-rise in this location, there are additional general master plan policies that support concentrating the highest building height allowances in the core of downtown, and this property is at the edge of the downtown area outside of the core. o A 125' height limit would generally support up to 12 stories of building height. The 125' height limit is also in-line with the 120' height limits in the Downtown Support Commercial (D-2) zone which was intended for downtown development outside of the downtown core and reflects the City's historical expectation for mid-rise in the downtown area. The difference of 5' of additional height is intended to accommodate and encourage taller ground floors in the proposed zone. • Concerns with ground floor material allowances and consistency -Changes made o Staff has included a clarification in the code to make it clear that the Planning Director can approve other high-quality materials beyond those specifically listed in the code. The clarification reflects current practice and the intent of the current regulation language. The current language has been a source of confusion for both developers and City staff, and the proposed language is intended to rectify that. • Concerns with current ground floor material allowances -No changes made o Staff has received concerns regarding some of the materials that are currently allowed on the ground floor fac;ades of buildings in all the Form Based zones. Examples include the allowance for wood and fiber-cement board on the ground floor as a primary fac;ade material and restrictions on stucco/EIFS. These material restrictions are located in the general Form Based code provisions and apply to all Form Based zones. Restricting currently allowed materials in the Form Based zones would exceed the scope of this petition as it would impact zones beyond just the proposed FB-UN3 zone, so restrictions on the allowed materials haven't been included in this proposal. These could be the analyzed and adjusted through a separate petition that analyzes all of the Form Based zones. • Concerns regarding design requirements and older building rehabilitation -No changes o Staff received concerns regarding how the design standards, such as glass/window and doorway requirements, would make renovating older buildings difficult. However, full compliance with design standards would not be triggered with interior rehabilitation/remodeling. Only new additions outside of the original buildings would be subject to full compliance with the design standards. A developer could modify the existing exterior of the building, with the only limitation being that if there was already a design feature that complied with the Fleet Block Zoning Amendments 10 design requirements, the alteration couldn't make it less compliant. An example of a prohibited alteration would be reducing the amount of glass on the ground floor when the glass already met the minimum requirements. • Fleet Block specific development concerns, various -No changes o Staff also received comments regarding a variety of Fleet Block specific improvements, including construction of full midblock streets through the fleet block, diagonal on-street parking around the block, modifying adjacent street widths, incorporating public plazas, fountains, and public open space, and requiring a certain unit mix for future development. These comments were specific to the Fleet Block and many are related to development aspects that aren't generally included in City zoning ordinances. Some of these could be appropriate for the City to evaluate in how the City improves the surrounding streets and through the City's selling process for the City owned portion of the block. Many of the elements are anticipated to be incorporated in future right-of-way improvements and in how the property is ultimately sold. STANDARDS OF REVIEW DISCUSSION: Zoning map and text amendments are analyzed regarding whether they are generally in-line with City master plans and adopted policies. As discussed in Consideration 1 and Attachment D (City Plan Considerations), the proposed zoning changes are generally in compliance with the adopted City policies pertaining to this area of the City. The current zoning for the Fleet Block is not supportive of the Downtown Master Plan's goals that generally support pedestrian oriented, mixed-use development. The proposed zoning does support those goals, with pedestrian oriented design standards for new development. Based on the proposal's compliance with adopted City policies applicable to the area, Planning recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. NEXT STEPS: The Planning Commission can provide a positive or negative recommendation for the proposal and as part of a recommendation, can add conditions or request that changes be made to the proposal. The recommendation and any requested conditions/changes will be sent to the City Council, who will hold a briefing and additional public hearing on the proposed zoning changes. The City Council may make modifications to the proposal and approve or decline to approve the proposed zoning map and text amendment. If ultimately approved by the City Council, the changes would be incorporated into the City Zoning code and official City Zoning map, and new development would be required to follow the new regulations. If the proposed zoning amendments are not ultimately approved by the City Council, the property would remain zoned Public Lands and General Commercial. The land zoned Public Lands would continue to not be developable for residential or commercial developments. The land zoned General Commercial could be developed for a variety of commercial and residential uses, but there would continue to be few design requirements for most buildings. Fleet Block Zoning Amendments 11 ATTACHMENT A: Zoning and Vicinity Maps Fleet Block Zoning Amendments 12 Legend I Ill Parcels Subject Property :!:'. 0 ~ goos 8 ... 80 0 S 6 00 s legend Subject Property D Parce ls Zoning D'i st,ri cts CG Ge n e ral Commercial D·2 Downtown Su pport Dist rict FB -UN l Form Bas ed U r b an N e ig h bo rh ood D istrict 1 FB -UN2 Form Bas ed U r b an N e igh bo rh ood D istrict 2 PL Pu blic Lan d s :!:'. 0 ~ goos 8 ... 80 0 S 600 s ATTACHMENT B: Summary of Proposed Code The following pages are a visual summary of the proposed zoning code. More detailed code language has been summarized for space and visual considerations. The full code language can be found in Attachment C. Fleet Block Zoning Amendments 15 Attachment B Graphical Summary of Proposed FB-UN3 Regulations FORM BASED FOR BUILDING FORMS: FB-UN3 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 MULTI-FAMILY/STOREFRONT/VERTICAL MIXED USE &AREA YARD No mins . No min. required ; doors prohibited from opening into public right-of-way. Max . 10' unless greater required due to utility easeme nts. M ay be modified through Design Review. GROUND FLOOR H EIGH T Each dwelling unit on the groun allowed entry features .) Pedestrian LOADING BAY 125' Height (Design Rev iew I C) ~ 85' Height (By Right) Max Building Width: 200' OPEN SPACE 0 85' m ax; up to Min. 10% of lot 125' through area . May be yards, Design Re-common area s, roof- v1ew . top decks , or similar. Rooftop decks Min. 20% ofreq. allowed on area shall include max height vegetation . roof. South s all be limited to the following uses : retail goods establi shments , retail ser- usinesses , restaurants , tavern s/brewpubs , bar establishments , art galleries , theaters, ent to a street shall include an allowed entry fe ature . (See Design Standards table for tion (see Design Standards) required to each required entry feature . Max . of one (1) loading bay on a front facade per stre et face, subject to 21A.44 .070 . Loading bay entry width limited to 14' and must be screened by garage door. On e loading bay driveway is allow ed in addition to other dri veway allowances . UPPER LEVEL STEP BACK If next to zone with ~30' max height, the first full floor of the building above 30' shall step back 1 O' from the building facade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the applicable zoning district. Does not apply if separated from the zone by a street or alley. MULTIPLE BUILDING FORMS PER LOT Multi le buildin forms allowed er lot, if all forms have street front a e The abov e information is a synopsis of th e draft regu lations. Pleas e set;6 he full draft zoning ordinance for the complete regulations. Attachment B Graphical Summary of Proposed FB-UN3 Regulations FB-UN3 FORM BASED URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 15' Upper Stepback (if no balconies) 10' Max Setback Open Space: 2 5% of the footprint of the unit (yards, patios, rooftop decks) Ground Fl oor Use: Use besides pa rki ng for min. 10' depth &AREA YARD No mins. E T Min . 5'; Max. 10' unless greater re- quired due to uti lity easements. May be modified through Design Review. E Sid eyard : Min 5 ' 40' Max ; Rooftop decks allowed on max height roof. FOR BUILDING FORM: ROWHOUSE OPEN SPACE 0 Min. 25% of the footprint of the dwelling unit. May be yards, common areas , balconies , rooftop decks, or similar. Min. 20% of req . area shall include vegetation Each dwelling unit must include adjacent to a street must incl ture. See gn Standards table for allowed entry features. Dwelling units acing fa9ade. 5' wide pedestrian connection required to each required entry fe ature . SIDE/INTERIOR ORIE NT T Dwelling units not Joe tree t are permitted , provided th e building configuration standards (Design Standards) for glass and ground ftoo li ed with on the facade with the required entry feature . Lots without public street ~e ct to recording a final subdivision plat that (1) documents new lots have access to a public street by way of ease e eway and (2) includes a disc losure of private infrastructure costs ("res erve study"). 900 SOUTH GROUND FLOOR USE LIMITATION When facing 900 South, ground ftoo ust be occupied by a live/work space at least 25' in depth . UPPER LEVEL STEP BACK If next to a zone with :;:3 0' max height , the first full floor of the building above 30' shall step back 10' from the building facade along the side or re ar ard that is ad 'acent to the a licable zonin district. Doesn't a 1 if se arated from zone b a street or alle . USES PER STOR Y Residential allowed on all stories ; live/work units ermitted on round level. MULT IPLE BUILDING FORMS PER LOT Multi le buildin forms allowed er lot , if all form s have street fronta e The above information is a synopsis of the draft regulations. Please s¢7the full draft zoning ordinance for the complete regulations . Attachment B FB-UN3 Graphical Summary of Proposed FB-UN3 Regulations FORM BASED URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 BUILDING CONFIGURATION/DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ALL BUILDING FORMS The below configuration/design standards apply to all new buildings and additions when the new construction related to the addition is greater than twenty five percent (25%) of the footprint of the structure or one thousand (1,000) square feet, whichever is less. (This does not require remodeling of existing portions of structures.) All of the design standards may be modified through the Design Review process. See Chapter 21A.59. BUILDING Min. 1 entry for every 75' of facade along street, al- ENTRIES ley, or greenway. ENTRY FEATURE Required building entry shall be one of the follow- ing: • Terrace or Lightwell • Forecourt • Stoop • Shopfront • Gallery • Porch and Fence (Multi-family/Rowhouse Only) FACADE LENGTH 200' maximum street facing facade length UPPER STEP BACK UPPER LEVEL GLASS 15' stepback required for floors rising above 30' in height that are adjacent to public street , public trail , or public open space. Does not apply if balconies provided on these floors . Floors above ground floor shall be min . 15% glass SECOND FLOOR Uses facing a greenway may have a second floor bal- BALCONIES/ cony/patio. Rooftops may be used as patios , subject PATIOS to all other zoning standards. GROUND FLOOR 75% of ground floor shall be a use other than park- USES ing . Shall be min. 25' in depth. PARKING STRUCTURE DESIGN Exception: Row houses require min. 10' depth . Regulates facade, elevator/stair design, ramp loc tion, lighting, signage , and ground level uses . Se 2 lA.27 .030 .C.4 .f. PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS GROUND FLOOR GLASS/ TRANSPARENCY BUILDING MATERIALS (FACADE) AREA Where required , pedestrian connections shall be min . 4' wide and shall be separated by vehicle areas by change in grade/wheel stop if pedestrian connection is <8' wide . Wing walls up to 2' in height allowed along entry walkways for seating/landscaping. Ground floor facade between 2' and 8' height shall be min. 60% glass . Min . 20% glass for urban house , two-family, cottage , and row house forms. Must have min. 6' visual clearance behind glass. May be modi- fied for structur integrity. ~-'--'-~~~~~~~~---1 tling facade shall be high quali- walls over 30' in length that are not inter- MJindows , doors , change of building plane t least 12". et facing residential units above ground level have usable balcony with min. 4 ' depth. of the building facade , including landscaping walls , pergolas and trellises , arcades, plazas, and outdoor dining. See ordinance for details. Located behind the building scaped: 1 tree for every 20' of s LOADING AND SERVICE AREAS de , must be setback 25' from front/comer property line. Setback must be land- all wall /fence along pro erty line (landscape screen alternative allowed). , except where allowed by building form regulation. All service areas shall be screened or located within the building. I LE CE One (1) driveway is allowed er street frontage. Driveways re uired to meet fire code are exem t from this limitation. SIDEWALK WIDTHS Min. 8' sidewa lk width. Measured from back of line. STREET TREES & STREET LIGHTS Street trees re uired at a rate of 1 er eve 30' of fronta e. Street Ii hts re uired in com liance with Street Li ht Plan for area. See the zoning ordinance for other applicable general parking and landscaping regulations. This zone has no parking minimums. The above information is a synopsis of the draft regulations. Please se"\A he draft zoning ordinance for the complete regulations. ATTACHMENT C: Proposed FB-UN3 Code The following pages include the proposed Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 zoning code and other related sections of the zoning code that are being amended as part of this proposal. The sections are listed below: • Building Form Regulations • Parking Regulations • Streetscape Regulations • General Changes to Form Based Zoning Code • General Provisions Zoning Code Changes • Future Parking Chapter Changes • Land Use Table • Sign Regulations Fleet Block Zoning Amendments 19 fiiiijllfot§Hii FB-UN3 Full Draft Regulation Text I FB-UN3 Zoning Code Changes Definitions of Building Forms Allowed in FB-UN3 Zone (for reference only-no changes) Row House: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit. A row house contains a minimum of three (3) residential dwelling units. Each unit may be on its own lot. If possible, off street parking is accessed from an alley . Multi-Family Residential: A multi-family residential structure containing three (3) or more dwelling units that may be arranged in a number of configurations. Storefront: A commercial structure that may have multiple stories and contain a variety of commercial uses that are allowed in the district that permits this building type. All buildings, regardless of the specific use, have a ground floor that looks like a storefront. Vertical Mixed Use: A multi-story building that contains a mix of commercial and/or office with residential uses. 21A.27.050: FB-UNll AND FB-UN2, and FB-UN3 FORM BASED URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT: A. Subdistricts: 1. Named: The following subdistricts can be found in the urban neighborhood form based districts: a . FB-UNl urban neighborhood 1 subdistrict: Generally, includes small scale structures, up to two and one-half (2 .5) stories in height, on relatively small lots with up to four ( 4) dwelling units per lot depending on building type . Reuse of existing residential structures is encouraged. Development regulations are based on the building type. b. FB-UN2 urban neighborhood 2 subdistrict: Generally includes buildings up to four (4) stories in height, with taller buildings located on street comer 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. c. FB-UN3 Urban Neighborhood 3 subdistrict: Generally includes buildings up to eight (8) stories in height, with taller buildings allowed through the design review process. Development regulations are based on types of buildings and differ between building types as indicated. The district contains a mix of uses that include commercial, technical, light industrial, high density residential, and other supportive land uses. -----(Note: Sections A.2, B, and C not being amended, code changes continue at section D below)------------ D. FB-UN3 Building Form Standards: Building form standards for each allowed building form and other associated regulations for the FB-UN3 zone are listed in the below tables of this section. 1. Row House Building Form Standards: TABLE 21A.27.050.D.1 Fleet Block Rezone Draft Regulations -December 2019 20 fiiiijllfot§Hii FB-UN3 Full Draft Regulation Text I m111rmn;t if~ F.l ffiml'r.Tii1 ~fTTl if' fl"iT;l~ ifuJ;J I lf: 1 U I Jil l:<1u.T•Tr111 L"'f':J .!:! Height Maximum of 40'; All heights measured from established grade . Roofto12 decks and associated railing/12ara12et are allowed on any roof, including roofs at the maximum allowed height. E Front and Minimum 5'. Maximum 10', unless a greater setback is reguired due to existing utility Corner Side easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. May Yard Setback be modified through Design Review (21A.59}. ~ Interior Side Minimum of 5' between row house building form and side 12ro12erty line, exce12t when an Yard interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a maximum 12ermitted building height of30' or less, then the minimum shall be 10'. For the 12umose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10' in width that se12arates a subject 12ro12erty from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. No setback reguired for common walls. B Rear Yard Minimum of 5' between row house building form and rear 12ro12efil line, exce12t when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum 12ermitted building height of 30 ' or less, then the minimum is 20'. For the l2U!J10Se of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10' in width that se12arates a subject 12ro12erty from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. !l Uses Per Stor~ Residential on all stories; live/work units 12ermitted on ground level. GU Ground Floor The reguired ground floor use s12ace facing 900 South must be occu12ied by a live/work Use on 900 s12ace at least 25' in de12th. Dimensions may be modified through Design Review South (21A.59}. Entr~ Feature Each dwelling unit must include an allowed entry feature . See Table 21A.27.030B for E allowed entry features . Dwelling units adjacent to a street must include an entry feature on street facing fa!.<ade . Pedestrian connections with minimum 5' width reguired to each reguired entry feature . !l Upper level When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30' or less, Step Back the first full floor of the building above 30' shall ste12 back 10' from the building facade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the a1212Iicable zoning district. This regulation does not a1212ly when a lot in a different zoning district is se12arated from the subject 12arcel by a street or alley. OS Open space Each dwelling unit shall include a minimum 012en s12ace area that is egual to at least 25% Area of the foot12rint of the individual unit, subject to all other 012en s12ace area reguirements of21A.27.030.C.8 "012en S12ace Area." A minimum of20% of the reguired 012en s12ace area shall include vegetation. BF Building forms Multi12le buildings may be built on a single lot 12rovided all of the buildings have per lot frontage on a street. All buildings shall com12ly with all a1212licable standards . so Side[lnterior Dwelling units not located directly adjacent to a street are 12ermitted, 12rovided the Orientation building configuration standards for glass and ground floor trans12arency are com12lied with on the fa!.<ade with the reguired entry feature . Lots for individual row house dwelling units without 12ublic street frontage are allowed subject to recording a final subdivision 12lat that: 1. Documents that new lots have adeguate access to a 12ublic street by way of easements or a shared driveway; and Fleet Block Rezone Draft Regulations -December 2019 21 fiiiijllfot§Hii FB-UN3 Full Draft Regulation Text I 2 . Includes a disclosure of 2rivate infrastructure costs for any shared infrastructure associated with the new lot(s} 2er section 21A.55. l l 0 of this title . MW Mid-block If a midblock walkway is shown in an ado11ted City 2lan on the subject 2ro11erty, a Walkwa~ midblock walkway shall be 2rovided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 10' wide and include a minimum 6' wide unobstructed 2ath. OS Design See section 21 A.27 .030 for other a1111licable building configuration and design standards . Standards 2. Multi-family Residential, Storefront, and Vertical Mixed-use building form standards: TABLE 21A.27.050.D.2 ---: fTTI r. ntt;l -... _ I ~ <=T;iJl F.l ffiTi1 1~~:711--F:l;;u •• -:.i.:rri'lr.~liil•••• 1a...,. ~--;.,, 7..•1~1-..1.;';;;:.i .. -;-r:ffj."illl7'l1111111•• .. • 111111 ... ~H'JWl'l"~ltm Maximum height of 125'. All heights measured from established grade. Buildings in excess of85' require design review in accordance with Cha11ter 21A.59 . Roofto11 decks and associated railing/11ara11et are allowed on any roof, including roofs at the maximum allowed height. GH Ground Floor Minimum ground floor height 14'. Height _E Front and Corner Side Yard Setback .!! Reguired Build-to ~ Interior Side Yard B. Rear Yard No minimum is required; however, doors are 2rohibited from 011ening into the 2ublic right of way. Maximum 10' unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. May be modified through Design Review 2rocess (21A.59}. Minimum of 50% of street facing facade shall be built within 5' of the front or corner side 2ro11erty line . May be modified through Design Review 2rocess (21A.59}. No minimum required, exce11t when an interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a maximum 2ermitted building height of 30' or less, then the minimum shall be 10'. For the 2wose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10' in width that se11arates a subject pro11erty from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. No minimum required, exce11t when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum 2ermitted building height of 30' or less, then the minimum is 20'. For the 2wose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10' in width that se11arates a subject 2ro11erty from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. GU Ground Floor The required ground floor use s11ace facing 900 South shall be limited to the following Use on 900 South uses : retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, 2ublic service 2ortions of businesses, restaurants, taverns /breWJJubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or 2erforming art facilities. ~ Ground Floor Ground floor dwelling units adjacent to a street must have an allowed entry feature . See Dwelling Table 21A.27 .030B for allowed entry features . Pedestrian connections, as per Entrances Y. Upper Level Step Back 21A.27 .030.C.5, are required to each required entry feature. When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30' or less, the first full floor of the building above 30' shall ste11back10' from the building facade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the a1111licable zoning district. This regulation does not a1111ly when a lot in a different zoning district is se11arated from the subject 2arcel by a street or alley Fleet Block Rezone Draft Regulations -December 2019 22 fiiiijllfot§Hii FB-UN3 Full Draft Regulation Text I MW Mid-block If a midblock walkway is shown in an ado12ted City 12lan on the subject 12ro12erty, a Walkwa¥ midblock walkway shall be 12rovided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 10' wide and include a minimum 6' wide unobstructed 12ath . BF Building Multi12le buildings may be built on a single lot 12rovided all of the buildings have Forms Per frontage on a street. All buildings shall com12ly with all a1212licable standards . Lot OS O~en S~ace A minimum of 20% of the reguired 012en s12ace area shall include vegetation. Vegetation LB Loading Ba¥ Max . of one (I) loading bay on a front facade 12er street face, subject to all dimensional reguirements in 21A.44 .070 . Loading bay entry width limited to 14' and must be screened by garage door. One loading bay driveway is allowed in addition to any other driveway allowances. OS Design See section 21 A .27 .030 for other a1212licable building configuration and design standards . Standards Fleet Block Rezone Draft Regulations -December 2019 23 fiiiijllfot§Hii FB-UN3 Full Draft Regulation Text I Parking Regulations 3. Parking Regulations: Specific parking standards applicable to the FB-UN3 zone are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D.3 of this section . These are in addition to any other applicable parking standards in the zoning code. TABLE 21A.27.050.D.3 SP Surface Parking Surface parking shall be located behind or to the side of a principal building provided: GE VA LS EB Location 1. The parking is set back a minimum of 25' from the front or corner side property line; Garage Entrances Vehicle Access Loading and service areas Existing Buildings and 2. The setback area shall be considered a landscaped yard and comply with the landscape yard planting requirements in 21A.46 and include: a. Trees with a minimum mature spread of 20' planted at one tree for every 20' of street frontage; and b . A 3' tall solid wall or fence at the property line along the street. A hedge or other simil ar landscaped screen may be used in place of a wall or fence provided the plants are spaced no further than 18 inches on center across the entire frontage. Street facing parking garage entrance doors shall have a minimum 20' setback from the front property line and shall not exceed 50% of the first floor building width . One-way garage entry may not exceed 14' in width; multiway garage entry may not exceed 26' in width. One (1) driveway is allowed per street frontage. Driveways required to meet fire code are exempt from this limitation. Allowed behind or to the side of a principal building only, except where specifically allowed by building form regulation. All service areas shall be screened or located within the building. The reuse of existing buildings is exempt from the requirements of this table unless new parking area(s) are being added. New parking areas are subject to compliance with this section. (Staff Note: The above are special additional parking regulations for the FB-UN3 zone beyond the general zoning ordinance requirements. Other general parking regulations, including parking minimums and dimensional requirements, are located in the Zoning Ordinance Parking Chapter 21A.44. No minimum parking is required in this zone.) Fleet Block Rezone Draft Regulations -December 2019 24 fiiiijllfot§Hii FB-UN3 Full Draft Regulation Text I Streetscape Regulations 4. Streetscape Regulations: Specific streetscape regulations applicable to the FB-UN3 zone are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D.4 of this section. These regulations are in addition to any other applicable streetscape standards in the zoning code. TABLE 21A.27.050.D.4 ST Street Trees Street trees are required and shall be provided as per 21A.48.060.D. SW Sidewalk Width Sidewalks shall have a minimum width of 8'. This standard does not require removal of existing street trees, existing buildings, or portions thereof. For purposes of this section, sidewalk width is measured from the back of the park strip or required street tree if no park strip is provided, toward the adjacent property line. SL Street Lights Street lights are required and shall be installed in compliance with the City's Street Light Master plan or its successor. (Staff Note: The above are special additional streetscape regulations for the FB-UN3 zone beyond general zoning ordinance requirements . Other general regulations apply, including park strip regulations, which are located in the Zoning Ordinance Landscaping and Buffers chapter in 21A.48 and public way improvement regulations, including curb and gutter requirements, which are in the Subdivision code in Chapter 20.) 5. Uses Not Associated with Building Form: Allowed uses that do not involve construction of a building, such as parks and open space, are not required to comply with any specific building form regulation. Fleet Block Rezone Draft Regulations -December 2019 25 fiiiijllfot§Hii FB-UN3 Full Draft Regulation Text I General Changes to Form Based Code Chapter 21A.27.030 Building Configuration Standards: C. Application Of Building Configuration Standards: Building configuration standards apply to all new buildings and additions when the new construction related to the addition is greater than twenty five percent (25%) of the footprint of the structure or one thousand (1,000) square feet, whichever is less. The graphics included provide a visual representation of the standards as a guide and are not meant to supersede the standards in the tables. This standard applies to all form-based zoning districts unless otherwise indicated. The standards in this section may be modified through the Design Review process, subject to the requirements of chapter 21A.59 of this title. Subsections C.8 "Open Space Area" and C.12 "Permitted Encroachments and Height Exceptions" may not be modified through Design Review. (Staff Note: The above change is to be able to process requests for modifications through the Design Review process which has standards for such design modifications , rather than requiring any changes to go through the Planned Development process . This modification allowance excludes the open space requirements as the design review process does not have standards that would relate to modifications in the percentage of open space. Additionally, encroachments and height exceptions are allowan ces , rather than requirements that could be modified through de sign review.) C.7. Building Materials: A minimum of seventy percent (70%) of any street facing building facade shall be clad in high quality, durable, natural materials, such as stone , brick, wood lap siding, patterned or textured concrete, fiber cement board siding, shingled or panel sided, and glass. Material not specifically listed may be approved at the discretion of the planning director if it is found that the proposed material is of similar durability and quality to the listed materials. If approved, such material can count toward the seventy percent (70%) requirement. Other materials may count up to thirty percent (30%) of the street facing building facade. Exterior insulation and finishing systems (EIFS) is permitted for trim only. (Staff Note : The above change is a clarification to codify current practice. The current list of materials is a list of examples ("such as ") and is not meant to be exclusive of other high quality materials but has been misinterpreted a s such. Patterned and textured concrete is always considered a high quality , durable material and is allowed, it just hasn't been specifically listed . Certain metals have also been approved if they are durable and high quality and applicants can provide documentation to the Planning Director about their durability and quality .) C.8. Open Space Area: A minimum of ten percent (10%) of the lot area shall be provided for open space area, unless a different requirement is specified in the building form regulation. Open space area may include landscaped yards, patio, dining areas, common balconies, rooftop gardens, and other similar outdoor living spaces. Private balconies shall not be counted toward the minimum open space area requirement. Required parking lot landscaping or perimeter parking lot landscaping shall also not count toward the minimum open space area requirement. Fleet Block Rezone Draft Regulations -December 2019 26 fiiiijllfot§Hii FB-UN3 Full Draft Regulation Text I General Changes to Related Zoning Code Sections 21A.36.020C. Height Exceptions: Exceptions to the maximum building height in all zoning districts are allowed as indicated in table 21A.36.020 C of this subsection. TABLE 21A.36.020C HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS Chimney As required by local, State or Federal regulations Church steeples or spires No limit Elevator/stairway tower or 16 feet bulkhead Flagpole Light poles for sport fields such as ballparks, stadiums, soccer fields, golf driving ranges, and similar uses 1 Mechanical equipment parapet wall Maximum height of the zoning district in which the flagpole is located or 60 feet, whichever is less. Conditional use approval is required for additional height Maximum height of the zoning district or 90 feet whichever is greater. Special exception approval is required for any further additional height or ifthe lights are located closer than 30 feet from adjacent residential structures 5 feet Fleet Block Rezone Draft Regulations -December 2019 27 All zoning districts All zoning districts All Commercial, Manufacturing, Downtown, FB-UN2, FB-UN3 , RO, R-MU, RMF-45, RMF-75, RP, BP, I, UI, A, PL and PL-2 Districts All zoning districts All zoning districts that allow sport field activities and stadiums excluding parks less than 4 acres in size All zoning districts, other than the FP, FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, and Open Space Districts fiiiijllfot§Hii FB-UN3 Full Draft Regulation Text I Changes to Future Parking Chapter (Separate Petition) Table 21A.44.040-A: Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking DU = dwelling unit sq. ft. = square feet Minimum Parking Requirement General Neighborhood Center Context Land Use Context RB , SNB , CB , CN , All zoning di stricts CSHBD 2, R-MU-3 5, not li sted in another context area R-MU-45, SR-3, FB-UN1 , FB-SE I Fleet Block Rezone Draft Regulations -December 2019 28 Urban Center Context D-2, MU, R-MU , TSA-T , CSHBD1 Transit Context D-1 , D-3 D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI , FB-UN2 , FB -UN 3, FB- SC Maximum Parking Allowed ftiid.1,,(§lil:I FB-UN3 Full Draft Regulation Textl Land Use Table 21 A.33.080: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN FORM BASED DISTRICTS: Note : Uses which are not listed in the following table are not permitted in any form based code zoning district. Legend: I P= Permitted I C= Conditional I Use Permitted Uses By District Accessory use, except those that are specifically re ulated in this cha ter, or elsewhere in this title Ada tive reuse of a landmark buildin Alcohol: Bar establishment uare feet or less in floor area Am Am Amusement ark Animal Cremation service Kennel Indoor ARimal, ¥eteFiRaFy effiGe (Staff Note : Moved to listing above Artisan food roduction Artists loft/studio Auction indoor Auditorium Bed and breakfast Bed and breakfast inn Bed and breakfast manor Blacksmith sho indoor Blood donation center FB-UN3 Draft Land Use Table -December 2019 29 . . . . . . . . . . ••••• llill p p p p c p p p c p p p p p c p p p p p p c p p p p P-P-P- p p p p p p p p p 3 p p 3 p 3 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1 ftiid.1,,(§lil:I FB-UN3 Full Draft Regulation Textl Boardina house p Botanical aarden p Brewerv p Bus line station/terminal c Business. mobile p Car wash c Charitv dinina hall p Clinic (medical, dental) p p p p Commercial food preparation p p p p Commercial video arcade p Community garden p p p p p Community recreation center p p p p Convent/monastery p Convention center ·· .. p Crematorium p Davcare center, adult p p p p center, child p p p p nonregistered home daycare p1 p1 p1 p1 p1 registered home daycare or preschool p1 p1 p1 p1 p1 Dental laboratory/research facility p Dwelling: Accessorv auest and servants' auarters p Assisted livina facilitv (larae) p Assisted livinQ facility (limited capacity) p p p p p Assisted livinQ facility (small) p p p p Group home (larQe) p p p p Congregate Care Facility (Large) (Codifier c c c c c Note: This use is pending adoption at City Council. The C here is only intended to be included in this petition if this new use is adopted.) Congregate Care Facility (Small) (Codifier c p Note: This use is pending adoption at City Council level. The P here is only intended to be included in this petition if this new use is adopted .) Group home (small) wl=leA leeateEI a9eve eF p p p p 9ele11.i fiFst steFy effiee, Fetail, eF eemmeFeial use , eF eA tl=le fiFst stery wl=leFe tl=le uAit is Aet leeateEI .... ~·----~ ~-L ,,., ..... _ _.. __ " ... _ "-'"' --"" -, .. _,.~- Livina auarters for caretaker or securitv auard p Multi-family p p p p Residential support (large) p p Residential support (small) p p FB-UN3 Draft Land Use Table -December 2019 2 30 ftiid.1,,(§lil:I FB-UN3 Full Draft Regulation Text l Rooming (boarding) house p p Single-family attached p p p p - Single-family detached p Single-family detached (cottage development p p building form only) -Single room occupancy (SRO)(CODIFIER/STAFI p p p p NOTE: To be moved to different listing with pending ordinance changes. This listing may need to be modified to match.) Two-family p Eleemosynary facility (CODIFIER/STAFF NOTE: This p p p land use term may be removed with petition pending action by City Council.) Emeraencv medical services facility -·· ... p Eauioment rental <indoor) p Exhibition hall p Farmers' market p p p p Financial institution p p p p Flea market (indoor) p Funeral home ' p p p p Gas Station c Government facility requiring special design p - features for securitv ourooses Government office p Government facilitv ·, p p p p p Greenhouse p Health and fitness facility p p p p Home occupation p2 p2 p2 p2 p2 Homeless Resource Center c Hosoital p Hotel/motel p p p House museum in landmark site p p p p p Industrial assemblv (indoor) p lntermodal transit oassenaer hub p Laboratory (medical, dental, optical) p p p p Laboratorv, testina p Library p p p p Manufacturina. liaht (indoor) p Meetina hall of membershio oraanization p Mixed use developments including residential and p p p p other uses allowed in the zoning district Mobile food business p Mobile food court p Mobile food trailer p Mobile food truck p FB-UN3 Draft Land Use Table -December 2019 3 31 ftiid.1,,(§lil:I FB-UN3 Full Draft Regulation Textl Munici~al service uses 1 including cit~ utilit~ uses p p p p p and police and fire stations Museum p p p p Nursing care facility p p p p Office p p p p Office and/or reception center in landmark site p p p p Office Publishina companv p Open space p p p p p Park p p p p p Parkina. commercial cs Parkina facilitv. shared p5 Parkina aaraae p Parking, off site p p p5 p p Parkina. park and ride lot shared with existina use p5 Performina arts oroduction p Photo finishing lab p p p Place of worship p p p p Plazas p p p p p Radio. television station p Railroad passenaer station p Reception center p Recreation (indoor) p p p p Recreation (outdoor) p -- Research and development facility p p p p Research facility (medical/dental) p p p p Restaurant p p p p Retail goods establishment p p p p Retail goods establishment, plant and garden shop p p p p with outdoor retail sales area Retail service establishment p p p p Sales and display (outdoor) p p p p School: Colleqe or university p p p p Music conservatory p p p p Professional and vocational p p p p Seminary and reliqious institute p p p p Public or private p Seasonal farm stand p p p p Sian oaintina/fabrication {indoor) p Small brewerv p Social service mission p Solar array p p p p Storaae. self p4 Store. convenience p Store, specialty p p p p FB-UN3 Draft Land Use Table -December 2019 4 32 ftiid.1,,(§lil:I FB-UN3 Full Draft Regulation Textl Studio, art p p p Studio. motion oicture p Theater live oerformance p Theater, movie p p p Urban farm p p p p Utility, building or structure p p p p Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe, or pole p p p p Vehicle Automobile rental aoencv p Automobile repair major c Automobile reoair minor p Vending cart, private property p p p Warehouse p4 Weldina shoo (indoor) ·· .. p Wholesale distribution C4 Wireless telecommunications facility p p p Woodworking mill (indoor) p Qualifying provisions: 1. Subject to section 21A.36.130 of this title. 2. Subject to section 21A.36.030 of this title. 3. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 4 . Only allowed on a ground floor when the use is located behind another permitted or conditional use that occupies the required ground floor use space. 5. Subject to parking location restrictions of 21A.27.0SO .D.3. FB-UN3 Draft Land Use Table -December 2019 33 p p p p p p p 5 fiiiifti,O.i§.1& FB-UN3 Full Draft Regulation Textl Sign Regulations 21A.46.096: SIGN REGULATIONS FOR FORM BASED DISTRICTS: The following regulations shall apply to signs permitted in the form based code zoning districts. Any sign not expressly permitted by these district regulations is prohibited. A. Sign Regulations For The Form Based Code Districts: 1. Purpose: Sign regulations for the form based code zoning districts are intended to provide appropriate signage oriented primarily to pedestrian and mass transit traffic. 2. Applicability: This subsection applies to all signs located within the form based code zoning districts. This subsection is intended to list all permitted signs in the zone. All other regulations in this chapter shall apply. B. Sign Type, Size And Height Standards: 1. A-Frame Sign: frame sign Width 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on comers may have 2 Maximum of 2 feet. Any portion of the frame (the support structure) may extend up to 6 inches in any direction beyond the sign face Maximum of 3 feet. Any portion of the frame (the support structure) may extend up to 6 inches in any direction beyond the sign face Placement On public sidewalk or private property Obstruction Minimum of 8 feet must be free area maintained at all times for pedestrian passage FB-UN3 Draft Sign Regulations -December 2019 34 1 fiiiifti,O.i§.1& FB-UN3 Full Draft Regulation Textl 2. Awning Or Canopy Sign: Awning P or p p p P Quantity 1 per window or entrance canopy sign Construction sign (see definition in this chapter) FB-UN3 Draft Sign Regulations -December 2019 Width Equal to the width of the window Projection No maximum depth from building facade, however design subject to mitigation of rainfall and snowfall runoff, conflict avoidance with tree canopy, and issuance of encroachment permits where required. The awning or canopy can project a maximum of 2 feet into a special purpose corridor Clearance Minimum of 10 feet of vertical clearance Letters and logos Location permitted Height Area Allowed on vertical portions of sign only Private property or a public street. Signs can face a special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process 1 per construction site Maximum of 8 feet. Maximum of 12 feet in FB-UN3 Maximum of 64 square feet Location permitted Private property or a public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor, but must be located on private property 35 2 fiiiifti,O.i§.1& FB-UN3 Full Draft Regulation Textl Flat sign Flat sign (building orientation) p p p P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on comers may have 2 Width Maximum of 90% of width of leasable space. No maximum width in FB-UN3 . Height Maximum of 3 feet. No maximum height in FB-UN3 Area 11 /z square feet per linear foot of store frontage Projection Maximum of 1 foot Quantity 1 per building face. Height May not extend above the roof line or top of parapet wall. Area 11 h square feet per linear foot of building frontage Quantity 1 per building Width Maximum of 90% of width of leasable space Height May not extend above the roof of the building. 11 h square feet per linear foot of building frontage Projection Maximum of 6 feet. May project into right of way a maximum of 4 feet provided the sign is a minimum of 12 feet above the sidewalk grade. FB-UN3 Draft Sign Regulations -December 2019 36 3 fiiiifti,O.i§.1& FB-UN3 Full Draft Regulation Textl 7. Monument sign p Quantity 1 per building Setback Height Area 5 feet Maximum of 20 feet 1 square feet per linear foot of building frontage Nameplate P p p p P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces sign Development §!@___ Private directional sign (see definition in this chapter) FB-UN3 Draft Sign Regulations -December 2019 on comers may have 2 Area Maximum of 3 square feet 1 per street frontage Setback 5 feet Height 12 feet Area 200 square feet Quantity No limit Height Maximum of 5 feet Area Maximum of 8 square feet Restriction May not contain business name or logo Location permitted 37 Private property or public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process 4 fiiiifti,O.i§.1& FB-UN3 Full Draft Regulation Textl Projecting sign Projecting parking entry sign (see projecting s1g grapliic) p p p P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on comers may have 2 Clearance Minimum of 10 feet above sidewalk/walkway Area 6 square feet per side , 12 square feet total Projection Maximum of 4 feet from building facade Location permitted Private property or public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process 1 per parking entry Clearance Minimum of 10 feet above sidewalk/walkway Height Maximum of 2 feet Area 4 square feet per side, 8 square feet total Projection Location permitted Maximum of 4 feet from building facade for public and private streets. Maximum of 2 feet within the special purpose corridor Private property or public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process FB-UN3 Draft Sign Regulations -December 2019 5 38 fiiiifti,O.i§.1& FB-UN3 Full Draft Regulation Textl Public safety sign (see definition in this chapter) Window sign p p p p p p p P Quantity No limit Height Maximum of 6 feet Area 8 square feet Projection Maximum of 1 foot Location permitted Private property or public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process Quantity 1 per leasable space . Leasable spaces on comers may have 2 Height Maximum of 12 feet Area 32 square feet. 64 square feet in FB-UN3 Location Private property or public street. Signs can permitted face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process P Quantity 1 per window Height Maximum of 3 feet Area Maximum of 25% of window area FB-UN3 Draft Sign Regulations -December 2019 6 39 ATTACHMENT D: City Plan Considerations Adopted City Plan Policies and Guidance Zoning map amendments are reviewed for compliance with City master plans and adopted policies. In developing a zoning code, the Planning Division considers applicable plan policies. The below plans were adopted for the area and policies related to the proposal are noted below each plan. • Downtown Master Plan (2016) o The Downtown Plan includes the following policy statement regarding the Fleet Block: • "The redevelopment of the fleet Block, a 7.5 acre parcel owned by Salt Lake City, demonstrates the best of urban family living and industry, the mixing of land uses once thought to be incompatible, and improved connections that focus on putting people first. Zoning changes support a true mix of housing options including townhouses, the reuse of historic buildings, and mid-rise development." o The Fleet Block is located in the Granary area of Downtown. The Downtown Plan calls for the Granary to include: • North/South and East/West mid-block walkways through the Fleet Block • Unique public spaces in block interiors • Streets as spaces for public gathering (Linear parks, median parking, divided boulevards, community gardens, innovative multi-use streets, solar streets and unique stormwater basins) • Business incubator space (focus on arts, digital arts, film , and creative industry) • Small, local-serving retail • Urban family living • Thriving employment center • Clean industries • True mix of housing choices • Develop the 9 Line trail/linear park along 900 south as part of the downtown green loop linear park system o Additional related policy statements for the Granary area: • Utilize interior streets and walkways for smaller scale building, like townhouse development, to activate interior of blocks while keeping main streets commercial. • Encourage the growth and establishment of mid-size to large employers in the Granary • Allow on-street parking to count towards parking requirements. • Streamline the process for reuse of existing buildings to support the growing art, creative industry and craft businesses in the Granary • Determine if there are character defining or historically significant buildings in the Granary and create incentives for the reuse and rehabilitation of those buildings while making it more difficult to demolish such buildings Fl eet Block Zoning Am endments 40 • Develop a "garden model" for block redevelopment to locate gardens interior to the block and on rooftops for food production and aesthetic enjoyment. o Related Granary future vision narrative statements: • The Granary's historic grit and modern refinement come together, forming a unique place in the downtown. Clean industries that do not negatively impact the public health thrive in the area. • The Granary continues its transition from primarily industrial uses and warehouse buildings and is repurposed for creative industries and supports office, retail, and restaurants. The area has more residents, primarily on the eastern half of the district. • Rail spurs and alleys that once served industry are converted to pedestrian avenues and unique public spaces interior to the blocks. The wide streets with relatively few cars provide opportunities for a new way of thinking about our streets as public spaces that provide space for movement and public gathering. The district is characterized by its growing creative industry, which is supported by new business incubator space. Reuse of older warehouse buildings and new infill development match the market demands for a thriving employment center. Midrise housing and small local-serving retail make the Granary a complete neighborhood. • The Downtown Plan also has several related general policies about development expectations for the downtown area: o Downtown Vision -Walkable Downtown: • Goal 3: (Create) an urban pedestrian experience that is dynamic and stimulating. • Incorporate pedestrian oriented design standards in all zoning districts downtown. • Activate mid-block walkways with both passive and active land uses, depending on location and surrounding density. o Downtown Vision -Prosperous Downtown: • Goal 6: Foster independently identified districts characterized by a delightful mix of shops, restaurants, cultural institutions, parks and public spaces, amenities, historic buildings, and architectural character. • Consider development regulations that produce buildings that are adaptable to land use changes so the structures are more permanent. o Initiative -Walkable Downtown: • Goal 1: An integrated mid-block walkway system that prioritizes pedestrians. • Carefully manage future development of new midblock walkways to encourage pedestrian prioritization, a unique pedestrian experience, and strong physical connections. • Incorporate mid-block walkways or streets throughout downtown to optimize downtown's large blocks for pedestrian movement and provide the maximum choice for how people will make their Journeys. • Goal 3: An urban pedestrian experience that is dynamic and stimulating. Fleet Block Zoning Amendments 41 • Incorporate pedestrian oriented design standards in all zoning districts downtown. • Activate midblock walkways with both passive and active land uses, depending on location and surrounding density. o Initiative -Beautiful Downtown • Goal 2: A densely-developed downtown core. • Encourage infill development • Modify zoning regulations to remove barriers to that development that helps implement the Downtown Community Plan is easier to realize. • Goal 4: Quality architecture and construction practices. • Plan Salt Lake • Explore a design review process for projects of special significance to ensure a distinctive and enduring place. A threshold to trigger design review may be based on building size, civic projects such as parks, civic centers, cultural facilities, or projects with special urban design significance • Review and update existing design standards for all zoning districts downtown as needed to provide greater certainty about project design for applicants and community members. The citywide master plan, Plan Salt Lake, includes a number of general policies that are related to future growth and development: o 2 .1: Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors. o 2 .2: Encourage a mix ofland uses. o 2.3: Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. o 2-4: Accommodate and promote an increase in the City's population. o 3-4: Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people-oriented. o 3.5: Promote high density residential in areas served by transit. o 4.12: Incorporate pedestrian oriented elements, including street trees, pedestrian scale lighting, signage, and embedded art, into our rights-of-way and transportation networks. o 8.1: Reinforce downtown as the visually dominant center of the City through the use of design standards and guidelines. o 8.5: Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure that: • Is people-focused; • Responds to its surrounding context and enhances the public realm; • Reflects our diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage; and • Is sustainable, using high quality materials and building standards. o 8.8 Promote increased connectivity through mid-block connections. o 12.2: Support the economic growth of Downtown , including: Innovation District in the Granary with an activated Fleet Block. Fl eet Block Zoning Am endments 42 Staff Discussion As noted in Consideration 1 , the amendments are generally in-line with the policies from the Downtown Master Plan, which focus on ensuring that downtown develops with high quality pedestrian-oriented development and supports a mix of compatible housing and business opportunities. In addition, the proposal is in-line with a variety of policies from the citywide master plan, Plan Salt Lake. These include policies related to promoting infill development on underutilized land, increasing the population of the city, promoting high density development near transit, and promoting high quality pedestrian-oriented development. Fleet Block Zoning Amendments 43 ATTACHMENT E: Analysis Of Zoning Amendment Standards ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS 21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. In making a decision concerning a proposed text amendment, the City Council should consider the following: FACTOR FINDING RATIONALE 1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; Fleet Block Zoning Amendments The proposal is generally consistent with the policies of the applicable adopted planning documents for the area. The proposal generally furthers the purpose statement of the zoning ordinance. 44 The amendments to the zoning code are generally in-line with policies in the associated area plan and citywide plans, as discussed in Consideration 1 and Attachment D. The purpose of the zoning ordinance is the following: The purpose of this title 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 to carry out the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Development and Management Act, title 10, chapter 9, of the Utah Code Annotated or its successor, and other relevant statutes. This title is, in addition, intended to: 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. 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. The proposed zoning is not associated any other zoning overlays that impose additional standards. The proposal implements regulations that are commonly used in current professional urban planning practice. ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS The proposal complies with the purpose of the zoning ordinance primarily by helping to foster development by rezoning the Fleet Block from a zone meant for public uses only to a zone that will allow for private development a variety of residential and commercial uses. The proposal also implements the adopted master plan for the area by adopting zoning that reflects that master plan's policies. The proposal is not located within an overlay that imposes any additional standards. The proposal implements regulations that reflect mainstream professional urban planning and design practices. Design standards similar to those proposed with this rezoning are adopted throughout the country by other municipalities. 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; Fleet Block Zoning Amendments The proposed map amendment is consistent with the related policies in the Downtown Master Plan and Plan Salt Lake. 45 As noted in Consideration 1 , and the policies in Attachment D, the proposal implements the policies of the Downtown Plan, that are directed at this particular City block and for the surrounding area. The zoning also complies with a variety of general policies found in Plan Salt Lake regarding the quality, pedestrian orientation, and location of new development. 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties; 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards 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. Fleet Block Zoning Amendments The proposal generally furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. The proposed zoning is not anticipated to introduce negative impacts to adjacent properties. The proposal will allow development that is compatible with an urban, active, downtown setting. The proposed zoning is not associated any other zoning overlays that impose additional standards. Adjacent roadways and public utility infrastructure will need to be upgraded when the block is developed. 46 See discussion under item 2 of the Zoning Text Amendment table above. The proposal will allow for development at similar intensities to that allowed by the zoning on the immediately adjacent City blocks. As the bulk, height, and use allowances for the properties are similar, the proposed zoning is not anticipated to introduce new negative impacts to the area. The proposal is not located within an overlay that imposes any additional standards. With any new development on this block, the surrounding infrastructure, including roadways and utility connections, will likely need to be upgraded. The west side of the property has no curb and gutter and so at a minimum such infrastructure would need to be installed on that side of the block. The City anticipates making improvements to 300 West in the near term and development on the block will benefit from those improvements. ATTACHMENT F: Public Process And Comments The following attachment lists the public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposed project. All written comments that were received throughout this process are included within this attachment. City Open House The Planning Division held an Open House for the proposal in July of this year. The Division sent invitations to nearby community councils, mailed notices to property owners, residents, and businesses within two and a half blocks of the site, and sent notices out to the City's listserv. The Division also sent out notices to various parties that had expressed interest in the Fleet Block development, including developers. The open house was held on the Fleet Block itself. Over 50 people attended the open house. Planning Commission Briefing The proposal was also taken to the Planning Commission for a briefing in July of this year. The Commission discussed townhome regulations, the potential for the area to develop primarily as townhomes, and ways to encourage active ground floor uses. Secondary Post-Open House Outreach The Planning Division refined the proposal after that public open house and sent updated information to everyone who attended the open house and left their contact information with the Division for updates. The Division also sent the information out to the City listserv, which reaches a wide variety of people that have signed up for updates on City related projects, and development groups that have expressed interest in the proposal. Planning Staff also contacted the two adjacent community councils , Central 9 and Ball Park, to get their input and ask if they would like a presentation at their community council meeting on the proposal. Public Comments Key public comments and resulting changes to the code are noted in Consideration 2 on page 6. Full e-mailed public comments are included on the next few pages of this attachment. Public Hearing Notice The Planning Division provided the following notices for the Planning Commission meeting: • Mailed notice sent November 26th • E-mailed notice to listserv sent November 26th • Public hearing notice signs posted on the property November 26th Fl eet Block Zoning Am endments 47 Corroon_Public Comment.pdf COMMENTS TO PROPOSED FLEET BLOCK ZONING CHANGE TO: DANIEL ECHEVERRIA, SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING FROM: PETER CORROON, SENTRY FINANCIAL SUBJECT: PROPOSED FLEET BLOCK ZONING DATE: AUGUST 6, 2019 Daniel, I have reviewed the Salt Lake City's proposal to change the zoning at the Fleet Block to Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 (FB-UN3) zoning, and attended the Planning Commission Information Session on July 31. Based on your comments at the Planning Commission, the FB-UN3 zoning may be applied to the rest of the Granary District (Innovation District) as well. Sentry Financial, through its affiliated entity SLC Innovation District I, is the owner of the privately-owned parcel on the Fleet Block, as well as other parcels within the Granary/Innovation District. The following are our comments to the proposed FB-UN3 Zoning. Building Configuration Standards • The low threshold of 1,000 sf to come under Building Configuration Standards may affect the rehabilitation of older warehouse buildings. Building Types • We appreciate the acknowledgement of different building types and creating possibilities for a true mixed-use "live, work, learn and play" district. Height Limits • The height limits seem reasonable, although we support increased height density over urban sprawl. Building Yard Set-Backs • Limiting Building Yard Set-Backs, as proposed, will allow good interaction with the streetscape Open Space Requirement • We support allowing Open Space to include rooftop decks 48 Corroon_Public Comment.pdf Minimum Ground Floor Heights • 14 Feet is a reasonable ground floor height, except where renovating existing. Building Width • Mixed-Use/Multi-family/Storefront: Please make sure that the proposed Maximum Building Width of 200 feet along a street does not hinder the rehabilitation of warehouse buildings in the district. Design Standards • Entryway: One entry required for every 75 feet of fac;ade. • Glass/Windows: The ground floor glass fac;ade requirements may hinder the rehabilitation of the older warehouse structures because this may harm the building structurally. • Blank Walls: The "No blank wall over 30 feet in length" requirement may hinder the rehabilitation of older warehouse buildings because some of them have long walls. Requiring openings could have structural implications. • Building Fac;ade: Generally OK except EIFS should be an allowable material for fac;ades. EIFS is not the problem. Bad design using EIFS is a problem. • Balconies: Required on all upper level housing units. People don't always use balconies. This should be expanded to allow Juliette Balconies. • Step-backs: Floors above 30' height level facing street must be stepped back 15' or include balconies. This may have negative implications for the building we are considering for Sentry's property at the Fleet Block. This should be limited to buildings adjacent to lower density zones . Parking Requirements • No Minimum Parking is good. Allow developers to decide what is needed for their tenants. • Parking Structures: All ramping between levels needs to be placed along the secondary fac;ade or to the center of the structure. Parking structures shall be designed to conceal the view of all parked cars and drive ramps from public spaces. Application of Building Configuration Standards • Building configuration standards apply to all new buildings and additions when the new construction is greater than 25% of the existing structure footprint or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. Permitted Uses • We appreciate the various uses allowed to create a true mixed-use "live, work, learn and play" district. Ground Floor Uses • All portions of ground floor space shall extend a minimum of 25 feet into building. This requirement may be harmful to narrow buildings. 2 49 Echeverria, Daniel From: Sent: To: Subject: Kyle Deans----> Wednesday~ Echeverria, Daniel Fleet Block Deans_Public Comment.pdf I was reviewing the Fleet Block Zone Change proposal, and for the most part I like the proposed changes. I do think however that a few things need to be looked at again. In the multi-family regulations, I think that the heights need to be increased. Study after study shows that if a building is taller than the adjacent street is wide that it visually narrows the street. The streets in this area are massive and we need to narrow those, since physically narrowing those isn't an option, then they need to be visually narrows. 300 and 400 West from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk is roughly 130'-135'. 800 and 900 South from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk is roughly 120'. If the goal is to truly make the neighborhood more walkable than the adjacent heights need to be allowed to be much taller than 85' and 125' with Design Review. There should also be minimum heights. All areas should have minimum heights as to not waste the space with a 1 story building. The sign ordinance needs to be addressed as well, Projecting signs in particular. 6 sf per side is way to small and will not effectively portray the business name, I feel that this needs to be looked into, or are there some examples of this size of sign in the city currently. I do know that there Sonoma Grill projecting sign isn't as large as the current ordinance allows for that area, but it is was to small and is essentially ineffective. Thank you for your hard work, I hope this items are considered some. Kyle R Deans Resident and lover of SLC 1 50 From: Jesse Hulse <jesse@atlasarchitects.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 11:20 AM To: Echeverria, Daniel Subject: Re: Notice of Planning Open House -Fleet Block Rezone Thanks Daniel, Hulse_Public Comment.pdf In addition to the durable materials clarification, I hope you can also look at some of those other issues with wood, fiber cement, and stucco. I'd be happy to provide more info or point you to some examples to see what can go wrong and where it can be done well On Jul 10, 2019, at 11:00 AM, Echeverria, Daniel <Daniel.Echeverria@slcgov.com> wrote: Thanks for taking the time to review the materials and provide feedback Jesse . I've been included in some of those back and forths on the materials, and that language has indeed caused some confusion. We've clarified that the Planning Director can approve other durable materials in the City's other zones and the Form Based zone code probably warrants some clarification as well. We will look into that and see if we can wrap a clarification into this proposal for the Form Based zones . It's definitely important to get input from the developer and architect side and I appreciate you taking the time to provide thoughtful feedback. I will include you when we put out a full draft code so that we can get your feedback on the more detailed proposal. Thanks, Daniel Echeverria Senior Planner PLANNING DIVISION SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION E-MAIL daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com TEL 801-535-7165 www.slc.gov/planning From: Jesse Hulse <jesse@atlasarchitects .com> Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 3:05 PM To : Echeverria, Daniel <Daniel.Echeverria@slcgov.com> Cc: Norris, Nick <Nick .Norris@slcgov.com> 51 Hulse_Public Comment.pdf Subject: Re: Notice of Planning Open House -Fleet Block Rezone Daniel, I had a previously scheduled meeting I had to attend yesterday so I couldn't make it to the open house, I hope you had a good turnout from Central 9th residents. I've reviewed the materials on line and I want to offer some feedback. This comes from my experience as an architect and developer in Central 9th using the FB-UNl & 2 for our own projects as well as those for our clients, and observing other projects in the neighborhood. We are now close to permitting our 6th project in FB-UNl and 2. First off, the presentation is good and thorough, I'm glad the Administration and Planning is taking on this rezone ahead of issuing RFP's for redevelopment. Overall, I think all the main ideas of why and how a FB code is the way to go here are included and make sense . The biggest issue I see is in Design Standards under allowable materials; BUILDING MATERIALS A minimum of 70% of any street facing building facade must be clad in high quality, durable, natural materials, such as stone, brick, wood lap siding, fiber cement board siding, shingled or panel sided, and glass. Other materials may count up to thirty percent 30% of the street facing building facade. Exterior insulation and finishing systems (EIFS) which is commonly referred to as stucco is permitted for trim only. We keep bumping up against architectural metal panel not being included as a durable material allowed in the 70%. On two separate projects we've permitted, both Spy Hop & Hat Trick, and now on a third in process, Central 9th Market Phase 2, we have gotten a permit review comment from Zoning saying it is not allowed, only to have to go back to someone in Planning who then has to talk to the Zoning person to get the material allowed. Quality metal panel is a durable material suited to an urban environment, and it's been allowed by precedent, so it would be helpful if this could be addressed in Zoning codes going forward. CMU and concrete are also not listed and have the same issues as being well suited to the code's intent and being allowed by precedent. Also, as we can see on different projects in C9, wood, whether it be lap siding or another profile and attachment and fiber cement can have varying outcomes, we have example of good and bad, that come down to detailing, species, finishing, exposure. It would be helpful and we would see better outcomes, if there was more guidance here. In general, both of these materials are more appropriate to medium density residential, but for all projects, the devil is in the details . We have two projects on Washington St, South of 52 900 where you can see how even following the Form Based Code and using this material, the outcome is very poor. Hulse_Public Comment.pdf EIFS & Stucco also have the potential to be good or bad, depending on how they are used architecturally, and again we have examples here of both. I would like to point out though, architecturally, one of the worst thing you can do with EIFS and Stucco is to use it as a trim material, which often manifests as a faux substitute for a higher quality traditional trim material. In short it would be helpful to include the durable materials that have been omitted and find a way to specify how to use or an approval process for the other materials that can be problematic. I think it would be helpful to have someone who wears both hats, developer & architect to provide some insight on how to tune this code so that it works for the development community and Planning gets the outcomes it wants to see. If you would like a volunteer, I would be happy to help. Thanks for the opportunity to provide input. Jesse J Hulse Principal, Atlas Architects Inc 801.322.2724 www .atlasa rch itects.com 53 From: Matt Murphy Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 9:53 AM To: Echeverria, Daniel <Daniel.Echeverria@slcgov.com > Subject: Opinion -Fleet Block Rezone Daniel, Murphy_Public Comment.pdf My name is Matt Murphy and I am a resident in the Central 9th Neighborhood. First, I want to say thank you for hosting an open house regarding the Fleet Block Rezone. You seemed busy with others last night and I didn't want to disrupt your conversations. About me: I work in tech along with my wife who works in healthcare. We are an active couple with a dog. We ski/snowboard/hike/camp/dine/drink ... anything that Salt Lake has to offer. We are both transplants from Chicago area. I am very excited to hear that the Fleet Block is going to be rezoned. Below are some of my thoughts on the plan. 1) Height of buildings: I am in favor of taller buildings IF commercial/retail/restaurants are required on the main floor. I understand we are in a housing crunch, hence why I support the taller buildings near Trax. However, I think there needs to be a continued emphasis on developing a culture rich neighborhood with bars/restaurants, entertainment and shops. 2) Sidewalks and walkways: When considering the walkways, please keep security/safety at top of mind. As you know there is a lot of crime/drug use in the C9 area. A lot of these people find small alleys/corners to shoot up, etc. It would be great to see all sidewalks widened in the area. As someone who frequents TF Brewing, Fisher, Etc, is it scary to cross intersections where cars are going 40+mph. 3) 300 West: Is there a plan to reduce the traffic speed/flow in that area? If we are to be walking/bike friendly, it would be great to see a boulevard on that road, or some other method of slowing traffic between 600 South and 900 South. Even if it is just better painted crosswalks, signals, etc. 4) 400 West between 600 south and 900 south: Are there larger plans for this street? It has so much potential to be a cool part of town. 4) Restaurants/Bars: It baffles me in a state that has sun 250 days of the year that we don't have more rooftop patios or outdoor seating. I frequent Minneapolis/Chicago (awful weather) and they maximize their outdoor space . It would be great if this could be included in the plan. 5) Chains/Franchises: Is it possible to ban any franchises from taking up commercial spaces? Often in Utah, when a space like this becomes available it turns into a strip mall. Thank you for reading my long winded email. As a resident that is invested in the area, I want to make sure my opinion is heard. Best of luck on the project! I am excited to see how it turns out. Best, -Matthew Joseph Murphy 54 Echeverria, Daniel From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Daniel, Joshua Stewart <jstewart@cnuutah.org> Monday, December 2, 2019 10:21 AM Echeverria, Daniel; Norris, Nick; Larsen, Jonathan (EXTERNAL) Fleet block Code Requirements Walkable SLC Blocks .pdf; UtahStreetConnectivityGuide-lntro.pdf I'm a supporter generally of the new form based code for the fleet block. Stewart_Public Comment.pdf I think there are some very good opportunities for this block and we should make the most of it. Please refer to the attached documents to supplement my comments below. First, mid-block streets with auto access should be included in the development requirements. Wasatch Front Regional Council has a wonderful document that explains why street connectivity, not just pedestrian connectivity, is so beneficial to our communities. Attached is the intro of that document. Our huge blocks need slow speed walkable mid-block streets. For me, the biggest benefit is they help bring vitality to the block and encourage safe (eyes on the street). Active transportation with on-street "eyes in cars" and opportunities for in-block on-street parking is crucial for the success of convenience retail. Multi-modal mid-block streets (car, bike, walking) make for a richer urban environment. Pedestrians without cars have safety risks and cars without pedestrian amenities make for stale blocks. Also, requiring ground floor retail without on-street parking is a formula for failure. Angled parking around the block faces should be considered and encouraged. Shrinking adjoining city streets -being willing to exchange perimeter streets land for internal mid-block streets would help reduce street widths and slow traffic and bring important mid-block streets to the block. Second, the open space definition needs to include a public accessible component. Roof top open space doesn't benefit the community as much as a nice ground floor plaza or ground garden space. Think Louisburg square in Boston or the many garden blocks in London England and Savannah Georgia. We need real green open spaces in these large blocks to make urban environments great. Please re-evaluate the open space requirements to require more ground floor open space that is green and includes substantial trees. Third, street trees need a chance to grow and thrive and larger planting areas for the trees is essential for their success. Putting them in a S'xS' opening doesn't work well in Utah. Street trees need less hard scape over their root systems. Minimum tree areas should be 100 sf. This could be S'x20' or lO'xlO' -but it needs to be more substantial so there is a chance for them to thrive in our urban environment. Walkability is vastly improved when shade is provided by large trees. Fourth, residential unit maximums should be provided. Large 200 and 300 unit apartment buildings are too big and have social, economic, and safety liabilities. Less than 24 unit buildings should be required. They allow for re-development potential and better community cohesiveness. Fifth, a diverse unit mix in the block should be required. We don't want to ghettoized it into all studios and 1 bedrooms. The city has a long term interest in the social success and when folks can live in one area over their lifetime it adds continuity to the community. Urban children-friendly areas should be encouraged. For example, over a person's life, they may be single, get married, have children, and then be empty nesters. With a unit diversity a family could move from a studio to a 2 bedroom to a 3 bedroom townhouse and still stay on the same block if a unit mix is required. Also, zoning out children without required amenities for children is hurtful and lessens the community spirit of a block . Downtown needs to provide tot-lots -urban places with swings, slides, and other amenities for children. Sixth, I'm not sure I agree with the balcony requirements for every unit. There can be great architecture without balconies, but maybe an exchange in the language could be "a balcony for every unit or 30 sf of ground floor public green space, plaza scape, or pedestrian amenities." 1 55 Stewart_Public Comment.pdf Seventh , I think a water feature of some sort ought to be required in the block . Historically, we used to have irrigation ditches and creeks that ran along blocks. Water features, (they can be very simple) make for a better urban environment for everyone . Creeks can be daylighted, a simple wall fountain, a sculpture with water, -there are numerous options. Eighth, architectural material and stylistic consistency would be beneficial. A hodgepodge of materials and styles on a block face make for a less desirable community. I would encourage developer be required to identify the style and material palette for the block and how it will be a long term asset to the city. Think about how Park City has style guides for development there and it strengthens the community feel and improves land values. Nineth, 5 stories should be the maximum development height. Walking to your unit above 5 stories isn't very reasonable and encouraging folks to walk to their unit and being closer to the street has distinct health benefits and social benefits. See Leon Krier's book, The Architecture of Community. We need to expect more from our urban places. Give me a call if you need any clarifications. I'd be happy to discuss. Thanks, Josh Stewart Salt Lake City Architect 2 56 I N T R 0 D u c T I 0 Josh Stewart -Public Comment Attachment -Utah Street Connectivity Guide •• The Utah Street Connectivity Guide is a comprehensive resource for improving street connectivity in communities throughout Utah. This guide: Identifies what street connectivity is. While most people have a general sense that "street connectivity" means the way our streets are connected to one another, this guide presents a clear yet comprehensive definition useful to practitioners and the communities they serve. The guide identifies a set of key aspects of street networks that constitute "connectivity." These aspects can be measured both in existing street networks and in proposed street connections. Makes the case for street connectivity. A high level of street connectivity creates several benefits. In addition to creating a more efficient transportation system, street connectivity can improve a wide range of community aspects reaching into safety, health, economic vitality, the environment, and quality of life . A series of community case studies undertaken as part of this project provides further demonstration of the quantified benefits of connectivity. Provides ways to improve street connectivity. With the benefits of street connectivity in mind , this guide provides ways to realize those benefits in a range of communities . The guide identifies how different types of Utah communities -from urban to suburban to rural, and from neighborhoods to special districts - can improve their connectivity in ways appropriate to their context and character. Finally, the project's case studies provide examples of how strategies can be implemented on the ground . Utah Street Connectivity Guide 1 This guide is the result of a study undertaken by the Mountainland Associati cMqWl StewWft ri 't'M~~~%8'~f~~~1 Y,tah Street Connectivity Guide Governments (MAG), Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), Utah Transit Authority (UTA), and Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC). The study involved • Understand the aspects of street connectivity-see Section 1.2. several subcomponents intended to explore street connectivity both academically • Understand why street connectivity matters to our Utah and on the ground in Utah communities. These included : communities_ see Sections 1.1and1 .2. • • • A literature review of the available studies from both academia and planning practitioners that explore the metrics, benefits, and strategies for street connectivity. See Appendix A for the complete Literature Review. A set of surveys that queried both local Utah jurisdiction and agency staff and Utah communities about issues related to street connectivity. See Appendix B for the complete surveys and summary of the results. Case studies in three Utah communities-Lehi , Layton , and Tooele County. These case studies involved the evaluation of street connectivity in areas within each community, recommendations for strategies to improve the connectivity in these areas, and the modeling of various benefits based on the improvements . See Appendix C for the full case studies . • The development of street connectivity context types . This study took a context-sensitive approach to street connectivity and developed custom guidance for different scales -from the region to the neighborhood -and different land use types -whether urban or rural, residential or mixed use . These typologies are the basis for the guidance in Section 2. • A series of three public open houses attended by approximately 35 local jurisdiction and agency staff, elected officials, and members of the public . • A Working Group comprised of representatives of project partner agencies such as MAG , UDOT, UTA, WFRC, and the three case study communities met regularly and provided guidance for the development of the above elements of the study. 2 Utah Street Connectivity Guide • • • • • See the quantified benefits of improving street connectivity-see Sections 1 .3 and Part 3 . Have the tools to make the case to your colleagues and constituents -see Sections 1.1, 1.3, and 3.3. Understand how street connectivity applies to your specific community -see Part 3 . Get tips for talking about street connectivity with your colleagues and constituents -see Section 2.2 (page 26). Select appropriate strategies to improve the street connectivity in your community-see Sections 2.2, 3.1 , 3.3, and 3.4. PART1 The Case for Connectivity •• Josh stew f . f~ireeTContifecfiv lty in°triaH ctivity Guide Connection is an essential aspect of our communities. Public streets provide the function of connecting us to our jobs, neighbors, friends, and the places we visit. Streets are built to link us to one another and our community destinations . But in recent decades, as cities and towns have grown, new street networks throughout Utah and the United States began to lose this connection . Living on a cul-de-sac , and the privacy and perceived safety that comes with it, became an attractive lifestyle . We realized that fewer street intersections allowed us to drive faster on bigger streets . Hierarchies of streets emphasized limited connections between neighborhoods and the collector and arterial streets that linked them to the surrounding region . Because of these desires for mobility, safety, and security, our networks became so disconnected that a house that sits next to a school might require a mile trip along a looping street system to access it. Utah Street Connectivity Guide 3 Yet a growing body of research shows the importance of reconnecting our communities with improved street networks. High levels of street connectivity actually do a better job of achieving many of the goals that many of our communities have in common -economic vitality, the effectiveness of infrastructure, health, and choice of how we travel around. Street connectivity disperses traffic throughout the network, leading to a significant reduction in travel times, delays, and having to drive on larger streets. Unlike widening streets, the increase in street connectivity creates additional community benefits, such as increasing use of transit, bicycling, and especially walking. This increased ability to walk, bike and take transit leads to documented lifts in outcomes as diverse as property values, obesity prevention, and ecosystem conservation . These benefits reach even to the aspects of street network that led city builders to disconnect streets in the first place -mobility, safety, and security. For example, the number one issue with respect to their neighborhoods for Utahns surveyed for this study is safety from traffic-and higher street connectivity has been shown to create more traffic safety . • • • • • • + + • • • Within this guide's case studies / 11 • communities while also achieving the community goals important to different cities and neighborhoods. For example, good access to destinations is important to many Utahns. But increasingly, even neighborhood schools are inaccessible for Utahns . Yet the smallest of investments in street connectivity can yield major returns of accessibility. One link in a disconnected street network, for example, can put a school within walking distance for twice as many people. Street connectivity is an idea useful to all Utah communities-and one that is flexible in how it is applied . This guide shows how all types of Utah communities can improve street connectivity in a way that is consistent with its core values . In order to provide a comprehensive guide to street connectivity, this guide sets out to answer three main questions related to street connectivity : What is street connectivity? Why does it matter? And, finally, how do we improve it in our communities? 000°0 000 The of each increase of connectivity yields the same travel time benefits as High intersection density is the best predictor for use of Adding 300 feet of roadway between two subdivisions in Charlotte, N.C., increased the fatal or severe crashes tend to occur in areas with can command a compared to nearby less-connected neighborhoods of roadway by 17 percent Sources: Utah Street Connectivity Case Study research; Ewing, R., and R. Cervera. Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis. In Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 76, Issue 3, June 20 7 O; Lehigh Valley Planning Commission. Street Connectivity Guidance Document, 20 7 7; Marshall, W E. and N. W Garrick. Street Network Types and Road Safety: A Study of 24 California Cities. In Urban Design International, August, 2009. 4 Utah Street Connectivity Guide •• Josh Stewart -Public Comment Attachment -Utah Street Connectivity Guide UTAH STREET CONNECTIVITY SURVEYS A set of surveys asked both Utah local jurisdiction and agency staff and Utah communities about opinions on street connectivity and existing connectivity-related policy but also opinions about broader topics such as neighborhoods and transportation. The community survey received 1,300 responses while the staff survey received nearly 100. Some key findings are summarized below. Safety is the aspect of transportation most important to people. For driving, walking and bicycling, 0 0 "'!./ Safety is often equated with disconnected streets (Our study has shown this not to be the case). of survey respondents say safety is the most important issue -the top response for each mode. Yet the staff survey agreed that this perception is the No. 1 barrier to increasing connectivity. People want to use alternative transportation. i1 1i1 .1 1. n. Il l II Il l II II II ~ -r 30°/o Over half of respondents agreed with the statement that "I would be willing to ride transit more if bus stops or train stations were more easily accessible by walking or biking from my home." of community survey respondents identified "good options for a wide range of transportation modes" as one of the most important neighborhood issues . Access to destinations is very important to people. l * One of the top barriers for walking is destinations are too far and "it takes too long to get where I want to go/' Both neighborhood and regional destinations are important to access. Cul-de-sac connection is a flash point for the street connectivity discussion. Utah Street Connectivity Guide 5 1.2 WHAT is connectivity? Josh Stew B'A 5 ~Jtgp~'OflSfR1!£trl!:9M N ~l<flfl1¥t Connectivity Guide Street connectivity is a simple idea -providing a network of public streets whose intersections allow for easy movement around it. However, this simple idea is more difficult to define . Look at the two images below. The images show two street networks, and they are clearly different. But why are they different? (ii' I ____ J ______ I I ------------- ~ + I i I d + --t t-+ -+ + -t t-+ + + -t t---+-+ -+ --+ These two networks differ in many ways . The network on the left has fewer four- way intersections than the one on the right, and less of a grid pattern. It has larger, and less-defined blocks . It has fewer places to access a major street . It requires a longer path to get from Point A to Point B. These differences all represent key aspects of street connectivity. After conversations with the study Working Group and extensive review of the academic literature and existing policy, the project team developed a working definition of street connectivity that has four aspects, two of them more general and "basic" and two others more specific and "secondary." 6 Utah Street Connectivity Guide The basic aspects describe the general qualities of connectivity of a network. These are good for understanding a network's high-level connectivity. The relative level of connection. The most basic aspect of street 1 .--.... ..... connectivity is the degree to which streets are connected to t f one another at each intersection . One way to consider this idea is to look at how much "work" each intersection is doing. A six-..... ...,. point intersection is doing a lot of work, transferring traffic and t t other users among six different streets . But a cul-de-sac, with + only one street coming off it, is doing the minimum amount of •---++•..,..• work . Essentially, the relative level of connection tells us how much work each intersection is doing -the more amount of work, the higher the level of connectivity. In the example below, the Downtown Salt Lake City grid has a higher level of connection because of its consistently 4-way intersections, while the eastern Salt Lake City example has mostly 3-way intersections and cul-de-sacs . Downtown f:v; - Salt Lake street grid 800' Network density. However, the level of connection does not tell the whole story. Like in its name, "level of connection " is relative . Take the very connected network in downtown Salt Lake City and compare it to Salt Lake City's Avenues neighborhood . Because both are nearly perfect grids, they have the same relative level of connection . However, the Avenues network is noticeably different, and more connected . This is due to the second basic aspect of street connectivity-network East Salt Lake street grid 800' l~f / ' ---+--- density. With its approximately 330-foot blocks, the Avenues has much higher network density than downtown Salt Lake City, with its 660-foot blocks . The Avenues has more links and more nodes . So, it is also important to consider this "absolute" aspect of the network to provide this other critical dimension of connectivity. Downtown Salt Lake street grid 800' Avenues neighborhood street grid 800' SECONDARY ASPECTS OF STREET CONNECTIVITY Josh Stewart -Public Comment Attachment -Utah Street Connectivity Guide The first two aspects of street connectivity give us a good understanding of the general connectivity of a street network. But a few things are missing . These two secondary aspects describe more real-world aspects of connectivity that one experiences on the ground in trips through the network. Ability to connect to specific destinations. This aspect addresses the problem that all destinations along a network are not equally popular -and, therefore, are not equally valuable for a network to connect to. An elementary school receives more trips along a network than a single family home, for example. So it is important to understand how well a given network connects the community to these specific points along it. Often improvements to accessing a specific destination such as a school are the most effective ways a built-out community can improve its connectivity. It is especially important that street networks connect to key community destinations like schools. Quality of the network for all users -walkability. The other secondary aspect of street connectivity considers that, on the ground , streets are much different than lines on a map. Each street offers a different environment for all the transportation modes -private vehicles, public transit, freight, bicycling, and walking. Among these, this guide argues that it is particularly important to pay attention to the conditions for walking. Pedestrians are the most vulnerable users of the network, and everyone is a pedestrian at some point during their trip. The pedestrian environment is critical for transit access. Consequently, this guide identifies walkability as a key aspect of street connectivity. Walkability here means how well a street provides infrastructure for walking-both along it and at street crossings. Walkable streets, with sidewalks or paths, buffers, amenities and safe roadway crossings, are an important aspect of street connectivity. r Each of these aspects is a vital aspect of connectivity, so that a truly connected street network that achieves the community goals outlined below should have all four of these . In this guide , each aspect is represented by a metric. The metrics are found in Section 2.1 of this document. •• f, Utah Street Connectivity Guide 7 1.3 WHY is connectivity important? A highly-connected street network-one where a dense set of intersections each connect to several streets, that connects a community to its key destinations, and is walkable -provides a multitude of benefits for Utah communities. This guide has quantified these benefits . Through a review of studies and literature available, as well as modeling of potential benefits in case studies of three Utah communities, we show how an increase in connectivity causes the achievement of benefits associated with commonly-found community goals . These include mobility, transportation choice, health and safety, infrastructure and growth management, economic vitality, and environmental conservation . The survey undertaken as part of this project confirms the importance of these objectives. Below, we show how each one of these goals is benefited by improved street connectivity. The benefits come in four types : Direct benefits describe a benefit that is conferred directly by street connectivity. For example, a dense, connected, walkable network directly increases the likelihood someone will choose a non-automobile transportation mode. Indirect benefits describe a benefit that is conferred by a direct benefit. For example, a dense, connected, walkable network directly increases the likelihood someone will choose a non-automobile transportation mode, which in turn decreases the likelihood that person will be obese. Inherent or implied benefits describe a benefit that is inherent in the nature of connectivity. For example, a more connected regional street network inherently helps its communities become more compatible with one another. However, these community goals have not been explored in the literature to a large extent. Finally, connectivity misconceptions describe perceived dis-benefits of street connectivity that have been shown to be either untrue or less significant than perceived . For example, higher street connectivity actually increases a community's security and lowers crime . Each of these benefits is influenced by one or more of the aspects of street connectivity described above . For some benefits, the deciding factor is relative level of connection; for others it may be network density. For many others, it is a combination of the four aspects . Except where noted as part of this project's case studies, sources for the information contained in the following discussion are found in the literature review in the Appendix, which also contains more information about each benefit. 8 Utah Street Connectivity Guide A well-connected street network leads to ... More walking and bicycling, which in turn leads to ... Additional benefits such as a cleaner environment, healthier communities, and economic vitality. ~ , .kC 0 ·<o SUMMARY OF DIRECT BENEFITS Regional and community mobility Josh Stewart -Public Comment Attachment -Utah Street Connectivity Guide Good street connectivity redistributes traffic among different routes in a network, providing more options and better accessibility for local traffic. This in turn frees some of the capacity on the adjacent arterial roads, which are mostly used by the non-local traffic. •• • Modeling the effects of proposed street connectivity improvements in the cities of Lehi, Layton, and Tooele Valley led to some key conclusions including: o In urban and suburban community-scale networks, a significant reduction in network travel times and delays was observed . o A set of street improvements improving connectivity in three communities by an average of 32 percent would lead to an average of a 17 percent decrease in delay. o Vehicle miles traveled {VMTs) on larger streets was, in most cases, significantly reduced , attributed to a more balanced distribution of traffic flows within the network . In general, 1 percent of increase in a city's street connectivity equals the network capacity of adding one lane-mile to an arterial street. • The literature confirms many of the conclusions of the case study modeling outlined above, and also indicates the following additional findings : o In general, the average reduction in VMTs is about 10 percent in networks with good street connectivity compared to those with poor connectivity. A greater reduction in VMTs is observed in less dense automobile-oriented urban areas. o In most cases, greater connectivity reduces traffic volumes on arterial streets, therefore improving mobility. The main factors that influence this are reduced trip distances, reduced number of local trips using arterials, multiple alternative routes, shifts from personal vehicles to other modes, and redistribution of traffic throughout the network which increases the network-wide capacity. o Returns of mobility are highest when a network goes from low to moderate network density, from about 10 to 16 connections per mile . These returns diminish for motorists when a network goes from this moderate level to a higher level of connectivity. Utah Street Connectivity Guide 9 Transportation choice Higher street connectivity provides travelers with greater choice of travel modes. In a well-connected network, active transportation modes and transit become more viable choices. This means that these types of networks are less automobile- dependent. • Improved connectivity leads to better mobility and access for cyclists and pedestrians. • Pedestrian and bicyclist benefits experience increasing returns from medium to high connectivity. • Good street connectivity increases the proportion of trips made by walking by between 25 and 900 percent . • Short blocks and grid-like network structure have been found to be influential characteristics for higher use of active transportation . • Connectivity improves the efficiency of bus transit by providing more direct routes and providing a good collector street network that creates more options for routing bus transit closer to neighborhoods. • A meta-study of 62 studies found that a high intersection density is the best predictor for use of non-motorized transportation modes . • The same study also found that use of transit was most closely related to a set of factors influenced by street connectivity, including destination accessibility and the design of networks to maximize street connectivity and intersection density. • This study 's case study modeling projected that a set of street improvements improving connectivity by approximately 30 percent in two suburban communities could lead to a bicycling mode share increase of 4 to 20 times and walking mode share by 4 to 6 times. 10 Utah Street Connectivity Guide High intersection density is a predictor for high use of non-motorized transportation modes. e Safety Josh Stew ffftra RHRllif~~Wti'i\fttAn~~Utah Street Connectivity Guide In recent years, many studies have focused on how built environment factors (such as street connectivity and community) affect physical activity and health . Higher street connectivity improves the investment in municipal infrastructure, such as utilities, and services, such as fire and emergency services . •• • Street network densities are correlated with roadway safety outcomes . The highest risks of fatal or severe crashes tend to occur in areas with low intersection densities. • More connected, multi-modal street design can significantly reduce traffic injury and fatality rates. A study of 24 California cities showed that cities with better bicycle networks had on average between 10 and 17 times lower vehicle occupant crash fatality rates and between 3.8 and 4.5 times lower vehicle occupant crash severe injury rates. • A local, well-connected network system encourages slower and more cautious driving, since drivers encounter various travel modes and more intersections. • A 2008 study of municipal services conducted by Charlotte, N.C., found that the citywide average response time in subdivisions constructed since 2001 -when minimum street connectivity standards were enacted in the city- dropped thirty seconds. • The 2008 Charlotte study found that building 300 feet of street between two subdivisions provided a 17 percent increase in service area for a fire station. • The study also found that the typical coverage area of a snowplow operator doubles in areas without prevalent cul-de-sac streets. • The Raleigh, N.C., Transportation and Planning Department studied fire and emergency management system efficiencies in three different neighborhood types and found that in all cases, the analysis showed far greater service efficiencies for neighborhoods with greater street connectivity. • The Reason Foundation found that "increasing connectivity of the street network will help improve the efficiency of the transportation network, allowing limited federal funds to be prioritized for pressing transportation needs with less local traffic on overburdened roadways, reduced wear and tear may prolong the life of many critical infrastructure links . The costs associated with maintaining roadways have grown considerably over the last few years and measures to extend their lifespan may reduce the burden of public expenditure ." The highest risks of fatal or severe crashes tend to occur in areas with low intersection densities . ---------------------------------------------Utah Street Connectivity Guide 11 SUMMARY OF INDIRECT BENEFITS Health Josh Stewart -Public Comment Attachment -Utah Street Connectivity Guide In addition to direct benefits , street connectivity has been shown to offer indirect benefits related to health, largely stemming from the health effects of increased physical activity. • Connectivity is one of a few key ingredients of walkable neighborhoods that produce positive body mass index {BMI) outcomes. In one study, for example , high-walkability residential neighborhoods with higher residential density, land use mi x, and street connectivity reported 70 minutes more physical activity within a week than other neighborhoods . Other studies have found increasing levels of walkability decrease the risk of excess weight. • Connectivity limits time spent in the car. Street connectivity impacts walking time and minutes spent in car, which consequently impacts BMI and population health. • The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that regular use of bicycles (for about three hours per week) can reduce the mortality risk by about 28 percent. • Similarly, consistent walking for about 30 minutes per day can reduce mortality risk by about 22 percent. • Physical activity also reduces occurrences of cardiovascular diseases , Type 2 Diabetes , and some cancers . These reductions are between 10 percent and 30 percent, according to the WHO reports. • Our case study modeling projected that a set of street improvements improving connectivity by approximately 30 percent in three communities would on average lead to a doubling of physical activity and a quadrupling of long-term health care cost savings. 12 Utah Street Connectivity Guide In one study, walkable, connected neighborhoods reported 70 minutes more physical activity per week than other neighborhoods. Economic vitality Josh Stewart 9Pu~~~9~~~ ~~~mlfi?~f rl!!M~~~e.llilS~'fi\lv~Wimn pact on Increasing street connectivity has been found to have an impact on a community's retail rents. A study of the Washington, DC, area 0 found that office economic vitality. Many of the benefits are measurable in the economy or in and retail spaces in areas with good walkability rented for $8.88/sq. ft. the fiscal well-being of households and governments . Some of the benefits are and $6 .92/sq . ft . more per year, respectively, compared to places with fair intangible such as increased personal time to spend with family and friends, walkability, holding household income levels constant. Additionally, relative improved overall health and well-being , and improved area air quality. to places with fair walkability, places with good walkability scores, on • • •• Compact, walkable neighborhood developments -in which connectivity is a key ingredient -can command a price premium. This premium has found to be as much as 40 to 100 percent compared to houses in nearby single-use subdivisions . The homes at Kentlands, Maryland , G sell at a 25 percent premium over comparable large-lot developments in the same zip code. A 2003 study showed a $24,255 premium for Portland-area homes in New Urbanist areas compared to those in conventional suburban neighborhoods. Street connectivity also has a direct positive effect on bicycling and bicycle networks can also have a positive impact on home values. The median home values in Minneapolis-St. Paul f) increased by $510 for every quarter of mile nearer to an off-street bicycle trail, while homes within half-mile of Indiana 's Monon Trail 0 had an average of 11 percent increase in sale price when compared to similar homes further away. Additionally, regional economies can benefit as well. A case study of North Carolina's Outer Banks concluded that the one-time investment into the bicycle network resulted in an annual economic impact that is nine times greater, supporting more than 1,400 annual jobs. • • average, bring in $301.76 more per month in residential rents and $81.54/ sq . ft . more in for-sale residential property values. Another study showed that a 10 percent increase in walkability showed a 1 to 9 percent growth in property value. Because street connectivity has been shown to influence mode choice of transit, the economic benefits of public transit are an indirect benefit of street connectivity. These include creating jobs, stimulating development, boosting business revenue , increasing local and state revenues , saving employers money, decreasing pollution , and conserving energy. For example, in Bexar County, Texas, 0 a study estimated that the County loses approximately $307 ,000 in regional income and 8.4 jobs for every million dollars of expenditures switched to auto. The same million spent on bus operations will generate nearly $1.2 million in regional income and 62 .2 jobs. There are also benefits to hotels as a result of improved transit connectivity. From 2006 to 2013 , communities with direct access to airport terminals ex perienced a 10 .9 percent increase in average daily rates and revenue per available room . • Worker productivity has been associated with bicycling. Those who bike regularly saw a 32 percent decrease in sick days taken and a 55 percent decrease in healthcare costs, all while seeing a 55 percent increase in productivity. The price premium for a walkable, connected neighborhood has been found to be as much as 40 to 100 percent. ---------------------------------------------Utah Street Connectivity Guide 13 • Motorized transportation benefits resulting from increased street Josh Stewart 11 Pu~ur E;g~~~~ IM~~~~~J ~t@~ §M~§ts ~~~~1*1~ents connectivity lead to a variety of community and regional scale economic improving connectivity in three communities by an average of 32 percent benefits. Models have found that increased street connectivity produces : would lead to small but significant increases in sales in different types of retail establishments. These included a 0.9 percent increase in o Lower materials costs: The reduction of travel time of trips on a supermarkets and grocery stores, a 0.7 percent increase in warehouse regional level also results in lower materials costs because goods clubs and supercenters, and a 0 .5 increase in limited service restaurants. can reach their destinations quicker and in a shorter distance saving both wages and fuel. Environment o Increased sales: For a local or neighborhood retailer, connectivity results in improved access to an area's customer base, generally resulting in higher sales per square foot . o Lower household costs: For local residential property owners, connectivity results in lower household transportation costs and increased personal time . Measures on the local level include job growth in all sectors including service and retail, as well as local tax benefits such as sales and property taxes . This leads to increase in job density which translates in to higher job accessibility lowering transportation costs for household . 14 Utah Street Connectivity Guide Street connectivity has major impacts on the environment. Shifts towards transit and active transportation modes in a connected network reduce VMTs, delays , and usage of automobiles which reduces air pollution, noise, and energy consumption . • This study's case study modeling projected that a set of street improvements improving connectivity by approximately 30 percent in two suburban communities would on average lead to a 500 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions due to increased walking and bicycling trips. Improving connectivity in two Utah suburban communities by 30 percent showed a likely 500 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions due to increased walking and bicycling . SUMMARY OF INHERENT OR IMPLIED BENEFITS lnterlocal and regional compatibility Josh Stewart -Public Comment Attachment -Utah Street Connectivity Guide Connectivity inherently creates compatibility. Past research efforts have used the term "internal connectivity" and "external connectivity" for measuring the connectivity of specific region within itself, and "inter-local connectivity" of that region. Studies on inter-local connectivity are rare, but measures can be developed based on regional connections to arterials and other neighborhoods . Areas of interest are connections between state and local jurisdictions for issues such as transit access and freight. Community access Connectivity inherently improves access . At a regional or community-wide scale, connectivity improvements can reduce bottlenecks and reduce distances that residents need to travel to jobs . At a neighborhood scale, where connectivity improvements can bring a school, park, or shopping area within walking or bicycling distance to more people . Access, in the context of street networks, also means interactions among people within a neighborhood. • Studies have recognized good street connectivity as the major prerequisite for accessibility and livability. • Streets shape community interaction and community life. Narrow streets with low traffic are friendlier for pedestrians, increasing interaction among people. Narrow streets also do not represent a barrier for the two communities on the opposite sides of the street. • Natural features such as rivers and man-made features, like highways and freeways, often serve as or create barriers to direct local travel, particularly for bicycle and pedestrian travel. This is a so-called "barrier effect," which reduces accessibility for active transportation modes and forces a shift to motorized travel . These inherent and implied benefits could benefit from increased study with regard to their relationship to street connectivity. •• Even making one small connection can drastically improve the accessibility of destinations. While the diagram on the left shows the existing area accessible within walking distance to a neighborhood school (star marker), the diagram on the right shows the area accessible within the same distance if one strategic connection is made (black dashed arrow). • • • For every street connectivity improves, Access to destinations improves • • • ·• • • 19~6 ~"1 ~~l ~li ·~"~I ~ For example -a neighborhood street network whose connectivity improves by 25 percent on average makes its community destinations accessible to 50 percent more of the neighborhood. ---------------------------------------------Utah Street Connectivity Guide 15 CONNECTIVITY MISCONCEPTIONS Cost Josh Stewart .. Pul1tt~i ~<mJrn1m~bll)ietlil hi W~hc$~~~1:1i;i~~tiMi~~~ in some studies, there are strategies that are implemented in the field to keep the traffic increase at a tolerant level . The perception is often that providing increased connections costs money, whether implemented by cities or developers . • When it comes to utilities and their maintenance, it was observed that better connectivity actually can decrease these costs, since utility connections are improved, and, therefore, easier to access and maintain . • There are strategies that communities can implement to avoid increase in costs, such as narrower street standards , limiting maximum block length, landscaping, and different treatments of cul-de-sacs. • Developers may also argue that improved street connectivity decreases the amount of salable land they will have for development, since potential building lots may be used for transportation connections. However, incorporating appropriate walkability, traffic control, and security features into connected streets, as well as the opportunity to have more diverse contents, can offset the potential decrease in property values . • In addition , the economic benefits of street connectivity because of walkability, bikeability, and transit-friendliness can also easily offset any short-term construction costs . Residential traffic and safety concerns Concerns about increased street connectivity are often related to increased traffic on residential streets. The community survey undertaken as part of this study found that the no . 1 reason people are hesitant to connect cul-de-sacs is concerns about traffic safety. The survey also found that traffic-related safety is important for all modes- it is the no . 1 issue for driving, walking, and bicycling . The staff survey, meanwhile , agreed that the no. 1 barrier to increasing connectivity in Utah communities is perception of connectivity negatively influencing traffic-related safety. • While poor street connectivity may reduce traffic at a neighborhood micro- level, traffic usually increases on collector and arterial streets, creating more severe barriers for residents around their neighborhood . • Our traffic modeling of some Utah neighborhoods found that improving connectivity in urban and rural neighborhoods does not seem to attract more through traffic, but at the same time provides a safer and better environment for non-motorized traffic modes . • Overall safety in a community benefits more from a connected street network than a disconnected one -see findings under "Safety" heading. 16 Utah Street Connectivity Guide • It is also important to provide good arterial and collector streets on the network borderlines that will provide more capacity and higher speeds for non-residential traffic, therefore minimizing the possibility that this traffic will use residential streets. Crime and personal security People often perceive that connected street networks invite crime and decrease personal security. Personal security is extremely important to Utahns -two-thirds of this project's survey respondents identified safety from crime as one of the most important three aspects of their neighborhood. The desire to remain safe from crime was also a main reason survey takers did not want to connect cul-de-sacs as th rough-streets. • • The increase in crime rates in relation to street connectivity has not been quantified in practice. A study performed in Western Australia did not find that better street connectivity alone is not related to the increase in crime rate, although it correlated more walking and activity with increase in crime. Rather, the study found that the presence in local destinations is related to the increase in crime rate . Another London study found that the risk of crime is less in well-connected network with more activity, following the "safety in numbers" principle. That study also found that the high-tax properties on cul-de-sacs are more vulnerable to crime in small cul-de-sacs, and that dwellings on cul-de-sacs have twice as many burglaries as dwellings on connected streets . Private Blocks Josh Stewart -Public Comment Attachment_Blocks 30°/o of all land is owned by the City 10 Acre Blocks Josh Stewart -Public Comment Attachment_Blocks r4.4 Acre Public Right of Way Stewart -Public Comment Attachm t_Blocks Josh Stewart -Public Comment Attachment_Blocks @ Exit Str ee t IJjew Josh Stewart -Public Comment Attachment_Blocks ----=------ 10 Acre Private Development Josh Stewart -Public Comment Attachment_Blocks 4.4 Acre City Owned Property Private on-street ~ Development parking -- ~4.4Acre 4.4 Acre City Owned Property Private on-street ~ Development parking ...______ D -- ~4.4Acre 4.4 Acre City Owned Property ent Attachment_Blocks 10 Acre Joshstewart-P i iouei;;uarrrOrS S Private on-street ~ Development parking -- ~4.4Acre 4.4 Acre City Owned Property Josh Stewart -Public Comment Attachment_Blocks Josh Stewart -Public Comment Attachment_Block ., ~: ,. , · ... \ ..... ks A1TACHMENT G: Property Photographs View of the.fleet block from 900 south, looking north at the center of the block (Credit: Google Maps) View of the fleet block from the intersection of 900 Sand 300 West looking north-west (Credit: Google Maps) Fleet Block Zoning Amendments 57 View of the Fleet Block from the intersection of Boo South and 300 West looking south-west (Credit: Google Maps) View looking south on 400 West from Boo South, Fleet Block is on the left. Apartment buildings are on the right, located across the street from the Fleet Block (Credit: Google Maps) Fleet Block Zoning Amendments 58 View of the south-west corner of the block, looking north-east from intersection of 900 south and 400 West. This corner of the block is privately owned, but they have requested to be part of the rezone proposal. (Credit: Google Maps) Fleet Block Zoning Amendments 59 ATTACHMENT H: City Department Review Comments Staff Note: The proposed changes do not generally impact other city departments as the regulations largely only control aspects of building design. However, staff routed the zoning amendments out to other City departments for review and comment. Transportation Transportation has no issues with this rezone. Engineering No comments. Public Utilities • All improvements must meet SLCDPU Standards, policies and ordinances. • Depending on development there may be offsite improvements required including storm drain, water main and sewer main improvements. • Green stormwater Infrastructure will be required especially along the 900 South Frontage • There are public and private water, sewer and storm drain lines through the property that will need to be resolved. • There is a project for 900 South improvements scheduled for 2021. • This property is on the boundary of the 100 year flood plain and the property may be subject to ponding up to 1 foot. • Minimum floor elevations should be evaluated. Building Services Building Services finds no issues with these proposed amendments. Fleet Block Zoning Amendments 60 ATTACHMENT I: Form Based Code Design Standards -Current Code The full, existing design standard regulations included in this section are applied to all Form Based zones in the City. All buildings in the proposed zone would be subject to these same design requirements. Three subsections of this code are being modified as noted in Attachment c . Fleet Block Zoning Amendments 61 ftiid.l,,(§1111 Form Based Code Design Standards Existing! Existing Building Design Standards for Form Based Zones (For Reference) The below are the existing building/design standard regulations for development in all Form Based Zones. These same standards will apply to development under the proposed FB-UN3 zoning for the Fleet Block. The FB-UN3 /Fleet Block rezoning proposal includes amendments to some of these standards to clarify the language and address code conflicts. Please see the draft FB-UN3 code for the proposed changes. 21A.27.030: BUILDING CONFIGURATION AND DESIGN STANDARDS: A. Specific Intent Of Configuration And Design Standards: 1. Design Related Standards: The design related standards are intended to do the following: a. Implement applicable master plans; b. Continue the existing physical character of residential streets while allowing an increase in building scale along arterials and near transit stations; c . Focus development and future growth in the city along arterials and near transit stations; d. Arrange buildings so they are oriented toward the street in a manner that promotes pedestrian activity, safety, and community; e. Provide human scaled buildings that emphasize design and placement of the main entrance/exit on street facing facades; f. Provide connections to transit through public walkways; g. Provide areas for appropriate land uses that encourage use of public transit and are compatible with the neighborhood; h . Promote pedestrian and bicycle amenities near transit facilities to maximize alternative forms of transportation; and i. Rehabilitate and reuse existing residential structures in the form based zoning districts when possible to efficiently use infrastructure and natural resources, and preserve neighborhood character. B. Building Configuration Standards Defined: The building configuration standards are defined in this section. The defined standards in this section are intended to identify how to comply with the building configuration standards tables located in this chapter. C. Application Of Building Configuration Standards: Building configuration standards apply to all new buildings and additions when the new construction related to the addition is greater than twenty five percent (25%) of the footprint of the structure or one thousand (1,000) square feet, whichever is less. The graphics included provide a visual representation of the standards as a guide and are not meant to supersede the standards in the tables. This standard applies to all form based zoning districts unless otherwise indicated. 1 . Building Entry: A minimum of one main entry with an entry feature facing a public street or walkway, excluding alleys , is required . The main entry is the primary pedestrian entrance into a building. Two-family dwelling buildings shall have a minimum of one main entry with porch or stoop for at least one of the dwelling units facing a street. The main entry for the second dwelling unit may face the street or side yard, but must also have Existing Form Based Zone Design Standards -For Reference Only 62 1 ftiid.l,,(§1111 Form Based Code Design Standards Existing! a porch or stoop entrance. Where required, the building entry must be one of the following: a. Front entrance: Door on the same plane as street facing facade; b. Recessed entrance: Inset behind the plane of the building no more than ten feet (1 O'). If inset, then the side walls of the inset must be lined with clear glass. Opaque, smoked, or darkened glass is not permitted; or c. Corner entrance: Entry that is angled or an inside comer located at the comer of two (2) intersecting streets. d. Number: Every building shall have at least one entry for every seventy five feet (75') of building facade along a public or private street, alley or greenway. 2. Encroachments: A permitted entry feature may encroach into a required yard provided no portion of the porch is closer than five feet (5') to the front property line. 3. Entry Feature: The following building entries are permitted as indicated: TABLE 21A.27.030 B ENTRY FEATURE STANDARDS Entry Feature Two- Permitted Based On Urban Cottage Family Building Form Type House Development Dwelling Porch and fence: A planted front yard whe re the p p p street facing building facade is set back from the front property line with an attached porch that is permitted to encroach into the required yard. The porch sha ll be a minimum of6' in depth. Th e front yard may include a fence no taller th an 3' in heigh t Reference Illustration -Porch And Fence Entry Feature Permitted Based On Urban Cottage Two-Family Building Form Type House Development Dwelling Terrace or lightwell: An entry feature where the p street facing facade is set back from th e front property line by an elevated terrace or sunken lightwell. May include a canopy or roof Reference Illustration -Terrace Or Lightwell Existing Form Based Zone Design Standards -For Reference Only 63 Row Multi- House Family p p Row Multi- House Family p p Vertical Mixed Storefront Use • Vertical Mixed Storefront Use p p 2 ftiid.l,,(§1111 Form Based Code Design Standards Existing! Entry Feature Two- Permitted Based On Urban Cottage Family Row Building Form Type House Development Dwelling House Forecourt: An entry feature wherein a portion of the p p p p street facing facade is c lose to the property line and the centra l portion is set back. The court created must be landscaped, contain outd oo r plazas, outdo or dining areas, private yards, or other simi lar features that encourage use and seating Ref ere nee Illustration -Forecourt Entry Feature Two- P ermitted Based On Urban Cottage Family Building Form Type House Development Dwelling Stoop: An entry feature wherein the street fac in g facade is p p close to the front property line and the first story is elevated from t he sidewa lk suffic iently to secure privacy for the wind ows. The entrance contains an exterior stair and landin g that is eith er para ll el or perpendicular to the street. Recommended for grou nd fl oor residential uses Reference Illustration -Stoop Existing Form Based Zone Design Standards -For Reference Only 64 p Vertical Multi-Mixed Family Storefront Use p p p Vertical Row M ulti-Store-Mixed House Family front Use p p p p 3 ftiid.l,,(§1111 Form Based Code Design Standards Existing! Entry Feature Two- Permitted Based On Urban Cottage Family Building Form Type House Development Dwelling Shopfront: An entry feature where the street facing facade is close to the property lin e and building entrance is at sidewa lk grade. Building entry is covered with an awning, canopy, or is recessed from the front building facade , wh ich defines th e entry and provides protection for customers Reference Illustration -Shopfront Entry Feature Permitted Based On Urban Cottage Two-Family Building Form Type House Development Dwelling Gallery: A building entry where the ground floor is no more than IO' from the front property line and the upper levels or roofline cantilevers from the ground floor facade up to the front property line Reference Illustration -Gallery Existing Form Based Zone Design Standards -For Reference Only 65 Vertical Row Multi-Mixed House Family Storefront Use p p p Vertical Row Multi-Mixed House Family Storefront Use p p p 4 ftiid.l,,(§1111 Form Based Code Design Standards Existing! 4. Additional Design Standards Required For The Form Based Districts (These Standards Do Not Apply To The FB-UNl Zoning District): a. Facade Length: The maximum length of any building facade facing a street is two hundred feet (200'). b. Stepback Requirement: Floors rising above thirty feet (30') in height shall be stepped back fifteen (15) horizontal feet from the building foundation at grade for building elevations that are adjacent to a public street, public trail , or public open space. This stepback does not apply to buildings that have balconies on floors rising above thirty feet (30') in height. c. Glass: For all floors or levels above the ground floor, a minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of all street facing facades must be glass. d. Second Floor Balconies And Patios: Commercial uses or businesses that face a greenway corridor may have a second floor balcony or patio. Rooftops can be used as patios and shall comply with all applicable zoning standards. e. Ground Floor Uses: On the ground floor , a permitted use other than parking shall occupy at least seventy five percent (75%) of the width of any street-facing building facade. All portions of such ground floor spaces shall extend a minimum of twenty five feet (25 ') into the structure of all building forms with the exception of row houses, two -family dwellings , and cottage developments , which shall extend a minimum of ten feet (1 O'). Parking may be located behind these spaces. f. Design Standards For Parking Structures: The following standards shall apply to parking structures whether stand alone or incorporated into a building: (1) Parking structures shall have an external skin designed to improve visual character when adjacent to a public street or other public space. Examples include heavy-gauge metal screen, precast concrete panels; live green or landscaped walls , laminated or safety glass, decorative photovoltaic panels or match the building materials and character of the principal use . The Planning Director may approve other decorative Existing Form Based Zone Design Standards -For Reference Only 66 5 ftiid.l,,(§1111 Form Based Code Design Standards Existing! materials not listed if the materials are in keeping with the decorative nature of the parking structure. (2) The architectural design of the facades should express the internal function of the structure. Facade elements shall align to parking levels and there shall be no sloped surfaces visible from a public street, public trail, or public open space . (3) Internal circulation must be designed such that parking surfaces are level (or without any slopes) along all primary facades. All ramping between levels need to be placed along the secondary facade or to the center of the structure. Parking structures shall be designed to conceal the view of all parked cars and drive ramps from public spaces. ( 4) Elevator and stairs shall be highlighted architecturally so visitors, internally and externally, can easily access these entry points . (5) Signage and way-finding shall be integrated with the architecture of the parking structure and be architecturally compatible with the design . Public parking structure entrances shall be clearly signed from public streets . (6) Interior garage lighting shall not produce glaring sources towards adjacent properties while providing safe and adequate lighting levels . The use of sensor dimmable LEDs and white-stained ceilings are a good strategy to control light levels on site while improving energy efficiency. (7) Where a driveway crosses a public sidewalk, the driveway shall be a different color, texture , or paving material than the sidewalk to warn drivers of the possibility of pedestrians in the area. (8) The street level facing facades of all parking structures shall be wrapped along all street frontages with habitable space that is occupied by a use that is allowed in the zone as a permitted or conditional use . (9) Parking structures shall be designed to minimize vehicle noise and odors on the public realm. Venting and fan locations shall not be located next to public spaces and shall be located as far as possible from adjacent residential land uses. 5. Pedestrian Connections: Where required, the following pedestrian connection standards apply: a . The connection shall provide direct access from any building entry to the public sidewalk or walkway. b . The connection shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards for accessibility. c. The connection shall be fully paved and have a minimum width of four feet ( 4'). d. The connection shall be separated from vehicle drive approaches and drive lanes by a change in grade and a wheel stop if the walkway is less than eight feet (8') wide. e. Pedestrian connections that lead directly from the sidewalk to the primary building entrance may contain wing walls, no taller than two feet (2') in height for seating, landscaping, etc . 6. Ground Floor Transparency: Where required, the ground floor transparency standards apply: Existing Form Based Zone Design Standards -For Reference Only 67 6 ftiid.l,,(§1111 Form Based Code Design Standards Existing! a. Minimum of sixty percent (60%) of street facing facade, located between two feet (2') and eight feet (8') above the grade of the sidewalk, shall be transparent glass. This may be reduced to twenty percent (20%) if the ground floor is within one of the following building types: urban house, two-family, cottage, and row house. b. There must be visual clearance behind the glass for a minimum of six feet (6'). Three- dimensional display windows at least six feet ( 6') deep are permitted and may be counted toward the sixty percent ( 60%) glass requirement. c. Ground floor windows of commercial uses shall be kept clear at night, free from any window covering, with internal illumination. When ground floor glass conflicts with the internal function of the building, other means shall be used to activate the sidewalk, such as display windows, public art, architectural ornamentation or detailing or other similar treatment. d . The first floor elevation facing a street of all new buildings, or buildings in which the property owner is modifying the size of windows on the front facade, shall comply with these standards. 7. Building Materials: A minimum of seventy percent (70%) of any street facing building facade shall be clad in high quality, durable, natural materials, such as stone, brick, wood lap siding, fiber cement board siding, shingled or panel sided, and glass. Other materials may count up to thirty percent (30%) of the street facing building facade. Exterior insulation and finishing systems (EIFS) is permitted for trim only. 8. Open Space Area: A minimum of ten percent (10%) of the lot area shall be provided for open space area. Open space area may include landscaped yards , patio, dining areas, common balconies, rooftop gardens, and other similar outdoor living spaces . Private balconies shall not be counted toward the minimum open space area requirement. Required parking lot landscaping or perimeter parking lot landscaping shall also not count toward the minimum open space area requirement. 9. Building Fenestration: No building wall that faces onto a street shall exceed more than thirty feet (30') in length without being interrupted by windows, doors, or change of building wall plane that results in an offset of at least twelve inches (12"). Illustration Of Building Fenestration 10. Residential Balconies: All street facing residential units above the ground floor or level shall contain a usable balcony that is a minimum of four feet ( 4') in depth . Balconies may overhang any required yard. 11. Design Standards Alternatives: Existing Form Based Zone Design Standards -For Reference Only 68 7 ftiid.l,,(§1111 Form Based Code Design Standards Existing! a. Alternatives To Required Build-To Line: Where a "required build-to" standard applies, the following alternatives may count toward the minimum build-to requirement as indicated: (1) Landscaping Walls: Landscaping walls between twenty four inches (24") and forty two inches (42") high may count up to twenty five percent (25%) toward the minimum requirement provided the following: (A) The wall incorporates seating areas. (B) The wall is constructed of masonry, concrete, stone or ornamental metal. (C) The wall maintains clear view sightlines where sidewalks and pedestrian connections intersect vehicle drive aisles or streets. (2) Pergolas And Trellises: Pergolas and trellises may count up to twenty five percent (25%) toward the minimum build-to requirement provided the following: (A) The structure is at least forty eight inches (48") deep as measured perpendicular to the property line . (B) A vertical clearance of at least eight feet (8') is maintained above the walking path of pedestrians. (C) Vertical supports are constructed of wood, stone, concrete or metal with a minimum of six inches by six inches ( 6" x 6") or a radius of at least four inches ( 4 "). (D) The structure maintains clear view sightlines where sidewalks and pedestrian connections intersect vehicle drive aisles or streets . (3) Arcades : Arcades may count up to one hundred percent (100%) toward the minimum requirement provided the following: (A) The arcade extends no more than two (2) stories in height. (B) No portion of the arcade structure encroaches onto public property. (C) The arcade maintains a minimum pedestrian walkway of five feet (5'). (D) The interior wall of the arcade complies with the building configuration standards. (4) Plazas And Outdoor Dining: Plazas and outdoor dining areas may count up to fifty percent (50%) toward the minimum requirement, and have a maximum front setback of up to fifteen feet (15') provided the following: (A) The plaza or outdoor dining is between the property line adjacent to the street and the street facing building facade . (B) Shall be within two feet (2') of grade with the public sidewalk. (C) The building entry shall be clearly visible through the courtyard or plaza. (D) The building facades along the courtyard or plaza shall comply with the ground floor transparency requirement. b. Alternatives To Ground Floor Transparency Requirement: The planning director may modify the ground floor transparency requirement in the following instances : (1) The requirement would negatively impact the historical character of a building within the H historic preservation overlay district; or Existing Form Based Zone Design Standards -For Reference Only 69 8 ftiid.l,,(§1111 Form Based Code Design Standards Existing! (2) The requirement conflicts with the structural integrity of the building and the structure would comply with the standard to the extent possible. 12. Permitted Encroachments And Height Exceptions: Obstructions and height exceptions are permitted as listed in this section or in section 21A.36.020 of this title or as indicated in this subsection. a. Canopies: Canopies covering the primary entrance or entrances to a structure may extend into the right of way provided all city processes and requirements for right of way encroachments are complied with. No commercial signs are allowed on entrance canopies if the canopy encroaches into the public right of way. b. Building Height: In order to promote a varied skyline and other roof shapes in the area, structures with a sloped roof may exceed the maximum building height in the form based districts by five feet (5') provided: (1) The additional height does not include additional living space . Vaulted ceilings , storage spaces , and utility spaces are permitted. (2) The slope of the roof is a minimum of a twelve-four (12:4) pitch or a quarter barrel shape. 12:4 Ratio Minimum Slope Of Pitched and Quarter Barrel Roof D. Other Applicable Development Standards: 1. Landscaping: Any applicable standard listed in chapter 21A.48 , "Landscaping And Buffers", of this title shall be complied with. 2. Signs: All signs shall comply with the standards found in section 21A.46.096 of this title. 3. Accessory Uses, Buildings And Structures: All accessory uses, buildings and structures shall comply with the applicable standards in chapter 21A.40 of this title, except as noted below: a . Form based urban neighborhood district specific standards for detached dwelling units : (1) Detached dwelling units may be built in a required yard as a stand alone unit or attached to an accessory building , such as a garage . (2) Detached dwelling units are only permitted with the urban house , two-family dwelling, and cottage development building forms. Existing Form Based Zone Design Standards -For Reference Only 70 9 ftiid.l,,(§1111 Form Based Code Design Standards Existing! (3) No accessory structure containing a detached dwelling unit shall exceed twenty five feet (25') in height. ( 4) If a detached dwelling unit is built as a second level , the minimum setback from property line shall be a minimum of four feet ( 4'). (5) All building configuration standards that apply to the primary building form shall also apply to the detached dwelling unit, with the exceptions listed below: (A) The detached dwelling unit shall have an entry feature that faces or is accessible from a public alley when present; (B) The entry feature may be a stoop that has a minimum dimension of four feet by four feet (4' x 4'); and (C) The ground floor transparency requirement does not apply to detached dwelling units located on the second floor of an accessory structure. b . Form Based Special Purpose Corridor District specific standards for detached or accessory parking garages or structures: (1) Detached or accessory multilevel parking garages or structures shall have the same setback requirements for principal structures. (2) The minimum setback required shall be landscaped to provide a buffer to the abutting residential district. No structure (primary or accessory) shall be permitted within this landscaped buffer. 4. Parking Regulations: All parking regulations shall comply with the requirements of chapter 21A.44 of this title. 5. Permitted Land Use: All uses allowed in the form based districts can be found in chapter 21A.33 of this title. Existing Form Based Zone Design Standards -For Reference Only 71 10 PLANNING COMMISSION -Dec. 11, 2019 c. Agenda/Minutes SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA AMENDED In Room 326 of the City & County Building December 11, 2019, at 5:30 p.m. (The order of the items may change at the Commission's discretion) FIELD TRIP -The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. DINNER -Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m. in Room 126 of the City and County Building. During the dinner break, the Planning Commission may receive training on city planning related topics, including the role and function of the Planning Commission. 1. OPMA Training -A representative from the City Attorney's office will conduct a training on the Open and Public Meeting Act. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM IN ROOM 326 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 13, 2019 REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR The Planning Commission will hear a presentation by Ted Knowlton from the Wasatch Front Regional Council regarding Wasatch Choices and what it means for Salt Lake City. Wasatch Choice (Wasatch Choice) is the shared regional vision for long-term transportation investments, development patterns and economic opportunities. It has been built from the ground up through collaboration between cities , towns, and counties across the Greater Wasatch Front, facilitated by Wasatch Front Regional Council and Mountainland Association of Governments. Overall it answers the questions: what the key quality of life goals we want to achieve together, what are the key strategies to achieve them, and how might we organize those strategies geographically. For the cities that have been involved, Wasatch Choice may also help in keeping broad goals and issues in mind as local decisions are considered. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 942 South 900 East ADU -Andrea Palmer of Modal Living Inc , on behalf of the owner, Kimberlee Lofthouse, is seeking Conditional Use approval for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) in a detached accessory structure located in the southwest corner of the rear yard of the home located at 942 South 900 East. The ADU will measure approximately 32' wide by 13' 6" inches deep by 11 '3 " high with square footage of approximately 432'. Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance section 21A.33.020: Table of Permitted and Conditional uses for Residential Districts, requires ADUs be reviewed as a conditional use within single-family residential zoning districts. The subject property is zoned R-1/5,000 : Single-Family Residential and is located within Council District 5 , represented by Erin Mendenhall. (Staff contact: Chris Lee at (801) 535-7706 or christopher .lee@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00651 2. Special Exception for an Over-Height Fence at approximately 762 West 1355 South - Wayne Gordon, architect representing the property owner, is requesting Special Exception approval for an over-height fence in the front yard of the property located at approximately 762 West 1355 South . The proposed six-foot (6') high chain-link fence would be along the front property line and driveway approach . By ordinance, fences are limited to four (4) feet in height in the front yard . The applicant is proposing the additional fence height for increased security and crime deterrence, such as trespassing, theft, and vagrancy. The subject property is zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing) and is located within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff Contact: Linda Mitchell at (801) 535-7751 or linda.mitchell@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00852 3. Alley Vacation at approximately 740 West 900 South -A request by West End LLC, the applicant and surrounding property owner, for an alley vacation or closure. The alley is located near the address of 740 West 900 South, runs mid-block, easUwest, and was previously partially vacated in 1993. The subject alley is surrounded by the M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning district and is located within Council District #2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff Contact: Nannette Larsen at (801) 535-7645 or nannette.larsen@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00813 4. Fleet Block Zoning Map and Text Amendment -A request by the Mayor to amend the text of the zoning ordinance and amend the zoning map for all of the properties located on the City block known as the "Fleet Block" at approximately 850 S 300 West. The "Fleet Block" is located between 800 and 900 South and 300 and 400 West. The text amendment would create a new zone in the City Zoning Ordinance, titled Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 (FB-UN3). The map amendment would change the zoning of the properties from PL (Public Lands) and CG (General Commercial) to the FB-UN3 zone. The FB-UN3 zone would apply new design, height, bulk, use, and other development standards to the properties. Related provisions of Title 21A Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The properties are located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff Contact: Daniel Echeverria at (801) 535-7165 or daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00277 The files for the above items are available in the Planning Division offices, room 406 of the City and County Building. Please contact the staff planner for information , Visit the Planning Division's website at www.slcgov.com !planning for copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes . Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission . Planning Commission Meetings may be watched live on SLCTV Channel 17; past meetings are recorded and archived and may be viewed at www.slctv.com . The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats , interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the Planning Office at 801-535-7757, or relay service 711. SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING EXTRACT City & County Building 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, December 11, 2019 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:34:06 PM . Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Adrienne Bell; Vice Chairperson Brenda Scheer; Commissioners Maurine Bachman, Amy Barry, Matt Lyon, Darin Mano, Andres Paredes, and Sara Urquhart. Commissioners Jon Lee, and Sara Urquhart were excused. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were John Anderson, Planning Manager; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Chris Lee, Principal Planner; Linda Mitchell, Principal Planner; Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner; Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner; and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary. Field Trip A field trip was held prior to the work session. Planning Commissioners present were : Maurine Bachman, Weston Clark, Carolynn Hoskins, Darin Mano, and Brenda Scheer. Staff members in attendance were John Anderson, Linda Mitchell, Nannette Larsen, Daniel Echeverria, and Chris Lee. 7:03:56 PM Fleet Block Zoning Map and Text Amendment -A request by the Mayor to amend the text of the zoning ordinance and amend the zoning map for all of the properties located on the City block known as the "Fleet Block" at approximately 850 S 300 West. The "Fleet Block" is located between 800 and 900 South and 300 and 400 West. The text amendment would create a new zone in the City Zoning Ordinance, titled Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 (FB-UN3). The map amendment would change the zoning of the properties from PL (Public Lands) and CG (General Commercial) to the FB-UN3 zone. The FB-UN3 zone would apply new design, height, bulk , use, and other development standards to the properties . Related provisions of Title 21A Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. The properties are located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros . (Staff Contact: Daniel Echeverria at (801) 535-7165 or daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00277 Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. The Commission and Staff discussed the following: • Whether row-houses are strictly residential • Whether a lobby would qualify as public access • Parking Salt Lake City Planning Commission December 11, 2019 Page 1 • Whether there is a maximum parking allowance • Clarification on where the midblock walkway falls in the master plan • Whether the midway walkway is strictly pedestrian access only • Whether there are other strategies that encourage different types of development, structures, buildings, or uses other than a 200-foot length restriction • Clarification on the process for a petition of this nature PUBLIC HEARING 7:28:14 PM Chairperson Bell opened the Public Hearing; Daniel Stephens -Raised concern with the restrictions of retail space, door spacing, and material type requirements. Joshua Stewart -Provided a few slides of examples and suggestions to break up the block with new roads and pedestrian paths through the block. Would like to see a plan for breaking up the block. Tim Dwyer -Provided a comment card that was read by Chairperson Bell stating his opposition related to the lack of parking requirements in the proposed zoning. Owns a business in the area and already sees a lack of parking in the area. Chris DeMuir -Spoke about concerns with the ground floor of buildings, including that the doesn't want to see parking garages, lobbies, and weight rooms on the first floor and would like to see something more interesting on the ground floor. Liked the idea of requiring commercial on the ground floor and opposed to rowhomes with regard to ground floor activity . Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Bell closed the Public Hearing. The Commission, Staff and Applicant further discussed the following: • Whether there is anything in the zoning ordinance that can restrict lot sizes or require midblock walkways or roadways • Whether there can be a maximum block size for subdivisions • Clarification as to whether staff considered maximum square footage for lots • Clarification on whether the new ordinances would restrict and limit rehabilitation to existing buildings Discussion was made within the Commission regarding possible conditions . MOTION 7:58:08 PM Commissioner Bachman stated, based on the information in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendments, PLNPCM2019-00277 Fleet Block Zoning Amendments with the additional following considerations: 1. To limit the size of the lots; 2. Require frontage on rights of way or streets; Salt Lake City Planning Commission December 11, 2019 Page 2 3. Require the midblock walkways but allow them to be flexible in location; 4. Limit the size of surface parking lots. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Commissioners Lyon, Clark, Scheer, Barry, Bachman, Hoskins, Paredes and Mano voted "Aye". The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:02:36 PM Salt Lake City Planning Commission December 11, 2019 Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION -Dec. 11, 2019 d. Staff Presentation Slides • 2010 • City moved fleet operations to new facility -Fleet Block vacant • Current Zoning • Public Lands (PL) and General Commercial (CG) • PL -limited to public facilities; CG -no design standards uThe redevelopment of the Fleet Block, a 7.5 acre parcel owned by Salt Lake City, demonstrates the best of urban family living and industry, the mixing of land uses once thought to be incompatible, and improved connections that focus on putting people first. Zoning changes support a true mix of housing options including townhouses, the reuse of historic buildings, and mid-rise development." Downtown Master Plan D-2: New design standards, but: • Allows outdoor car sales lots No town homes Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 • Mid-rise Heights • Density and intensity, active urban neighborhood • Design Controls • High quality appearance and pedestrian/street engagement • Broad Mix of Uses • From residential to light industry Form Based Code Parts o Building Form Type o Bulk Controls ----- o Design Standards o Land Uses o Streetsca pe o Parking o Signs Row House Downtown Plan: Mix of housing options, town homes Vertical Mixed-Use/Multi-family /Storefront Downtown Plan: Mixed-use, active, urban, mid-rise scale • Removed building form "Limited Bay" • Loading bay incorporated into Vertical Mixed-Use/Multifamily/Storefront Row House 15' Upper Stepback (If no balconies) 10' Max Setback Open Space: 25°/a of the footprint of the unit (yards, patios, rooftop decks) Ground Floor Use : Use besides parking for min. 10' depth Sideyard: Min S' • Lowest heights • Limited setbacks • Open space required per row house, based on footprint • Considered greater height • >40' should have higher ground level engagement 125' Height (Design Review 85' Height (By Right) Built-To: 50% of facade within 5' of property line Max Building Width : 200' • Limited setbacks allowe • 10% open space required per t ?:a~~.~~~~~~:,0:Zc~:~0t • Max height is mid-rise (between low-scale and high-rise downtown core) • Zoning and plan context (D-2 and Downtown Master Plan) • Tallest buildings through Design Review >85' Same standards apply to every form based zone • Entryway Installation (Porch, canopy, patio, etc) • Glass Minimums • Blank Wall Limits • High Quality Exterior Building Materials • Balcony Requirements for Residential Units • Upper Floor Step-back/Balcony Alternative • Parking Structure Design Standards • Build-to Line Alternatives (patios, arcades) Proposing broad list of allowed uses Design standards limit negative impacts o Lowest intensity • Townhomes, multi-family residential o Middle intensity • Bars/restaurants, office, retail, breweries o Highest intensity • Industrial assembly (putting pre-assembled parts together), light manufacturing (manufacturing with no external noise, light, exhaust, indoors) Changes: Warehouse/storage uses prohibited in required active ground floor area (next to sidewalk) • Driveway/parking location limits • Side/behind buildings • Sidewalk requirements -8 feet • Street trees -every 30' • Mid-block walkways -required when shown on Downtown Master Plan map, cross Fleet Block • Sign allowances • Similar to existing form based and commercial/urban zones .. = c:: --- ~ ........ ... - • Eliminated "Limited Bay" form • Front loading bay allowance incorporated into other building forms • Limited bay form was similar to other large building forms • Active uses (retail, restaurants, bars, etc.) on 900 South facing ground floors required • Townhomes would be required to be live/work • Intended to ensure active uses along 900 S greenway/9 Line trail • Other Ground Floor Requirements • 14' tall ground floor to encourage commercial elsewhere • Prohibited warehouse/storage from street facing ground floors • Added allowance for row house lots without direct street frontage • Similar to RMF-30 proposal for row houses • Various code language clarifications • Avoid code conflicts, misinterpretations • Open House July Bth • PC Briefing July 31st • Full draft went out for public comment in early October • Recommend positive recommendation to the City Council • If new zoning ultimately approved, City can sell City's Fleet Block property for development • City could still condition sale and further control what development looks like or includes PLANNING COMMISSION -Dec. 11, 2019 e. Additional Post Meeting Public Comment December 12, 2019 Fisher Brewing Company 320 West 800 South Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Fisher Brewing Company Salt Lake City, Utah ~sher JP BEER To : Salt Lake City Zoning Commission, Salt Lake City Councilwoman Ana Valdemoros, Daniel Echeverria Re: Fleet Block Zoning Map and Text Amendment Fisher Brewing Company, located immediately to the north of the Fleet Block, was founded in 2017 and has seen good success in the rapidly developing Granary District. We initially chose our location because of the industrial nature of the neighborhood and ease of access from downtown, the trax station at Central 9th, bike lanes and most importantly, the 1-15 freeway. The Fleet Block is surrounded by freeway entrances and exits including 900S and West Temple located to the Southeast of the block and the major downtown exit at 600 South and the entrance at 500S located immediately to the North . This is a neighborhood that is accessed by commuter car, freeway as well as bike lanes on 800 South and the Central 9th trax station. The Fleet Block could be considered a transit hub of the Granary District Neighborhood. As our business has grown and we experience busy lunches and after work rushes, the number one complaint we hear from our patrons is the lack of street parking and access to the business via car especially during peak hours of 3-9pm. Today, with minimal nearby businesses and a vacant Fleet Block across the street, we experience a loss in potential revenue when parking is not available and patrons who cannot find nearby street parking will continue driving to another establishment or area. Our business is predicated on the ease of access via bike train and car and that we can get people in and out of our establishment with quickly and efficiently. This is key for nearly any future restaurant, bar or retail business looking to call the Granary District or the Fleet Block home as well. Convenience of access is key. While we see several good provisions presented in the new FBUN-3 Zoning as proposed including a focus on ground level retail, quality building materials, etc. We do see a very important and key issue with the proposed FB-UN3 zone. As stated in the Staff report, there is no minimum parking requirement due to "proximity to transit (same requirement as neighboring FB-UNl and FB-UN2 zones)". The FB-UN3 zone features taller buildings and greater density in comparison to the FB-UNl and FB-UN2 zones and it is, in fact, as close to major driving transportation arteries connecting to 1-15 than it is to the Central 9th Trax station. Fisher Brewing Company-320 West 800 South Salt Lake City, UT 84101 (801)-487-BEER-www.fisherbeer.com Fisher Brewing Company Salt Lake City, Utah ~sher JP BEER The reality of our neighborhood today is that it is and will remain a car commuter centric neighborhood. We could estimate 90% of our customers arrive by car and rely on street parking to access our business and that the existing street parking is already constrained and fully utilized and the massive development potential of the Fleet Block To properly accommodate the proposed development density in the FB-UN3 zoning at Fleet Block, we strongly suggest that the new FBUN-3 zoning should specify a minimum parking requirement consistent with the rest of downtown salt lake city and the nearby zoning districts (D-2 and CG) representing the urban center context. Specifically for the FBUN-3 Zone and the future development of fleet block the following minimums should be implemented: • 1-2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of usable floor area (Typical Range 1-3 Spaces/lOOSF for Commercial and Retail Uses)* • 1-2 parking spaces for each dwelling unit (Practical Residential Minimum)* *Reference : (Chapter 21A.44 : Off Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading 21A.44.040 Required Off Street Parking, Minimum and Maximum Parking Spaces Required) We understand and applaud the efforts of Salt Lake City to be forward thinking in the development within the new FB-UN zoning districts as it pertains to a wide range of issues including parking and encouraging people to take other modes of transportation such as Trax or bicycles. However, the reality of the location of Fleet Block is that it is an urban adjacent area fed by commuters largely traveling by car and that adequate access to any new development, especially in the allowable densities being proposed in the zone, must observe this fact and a minimum parking requirement for future development on Fleet Block should be implemented into the FB-UN3 zoning. As a current business operating for nearly 3 years, located immediately adjacent to Fleet Block, w e feel that providing adequate parking through the zoning and building requirements is mandatory for the continued success of our business and future bar, restaurant, retail or entertainment focused businesses like ours that may be built within and around the Fleet Block, the core of the Granary District. Best regards, Tim Dwyer Co-Owner of Fisher Brewing Company Board Member Granary District Alliance tim@fisherbeer.com F isher Br ewin g Co m pan y-320 W es t 800 So uth Salt L ake City, UT 8410 1 (80 1)-487-BE ER-www.fisherbeer.com 4. PLANNING COMMISSION -July 31, 2019 a) Briefing Memo Memo PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Daniel Echeverria, daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com , 801-535-7165 Date: July 26, 2019 Re: PLNPCM2019-00277 Fleet Block Rezone Briefing ACTION REQUIRED: No action required. Planning staff would like to brief and get the Planning Commission's input on the direction staff is taking with a proposed zoning amendment petition to rezone the City block known as the "Fleet Block." BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION: The City is proposing to rezone the property known as the "Fleet Block" to support its redevelopment. The Fleet Block is located between 300 and 400 West and 800 and 900 South. The City has been discussing selling the City's portion of the Fleet Block for redevelopment for several years. The block was the home to the City's fleet and street maintenance facility for approximately 86 years but has been vacant since 2010 when the City moved those functions to a new facility. . • ....Q). -.A..._ _ ___.._,.., The Fleet Block, looking south-west from the 300 West and 900 South intersection. The City owned portion of the block is highlighted in yellow. The area highlighted in orange is privately owned. The entire block is proposed to be rezoned to a form-based zone. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 1 WWW.SLCGOV.COM TEL 8oi.535.7757 FAX 8oi.535.6174 July 26, 2019 The City owned portion of the block (highlighted in yellow on the above map) is currently zoned Public Lands (PL), which generally limits the property to institutional and municipal uses. The privately-owned portion of the block (highlighted in orange on the map) is zoned General Commercial (CG), which allows a variety of commercial uses but has no regulations on the appearance of buildings or how they engage pedestrians. The block has been identified in the City's Downtown Master Plan (2016) to be a redevelopment site that "demonstrates the best of urban family living and industry, the mixing of land uses once thought to be incompatible, and improved connections that focus on putting people first." As the current zoning for the block doesn't encourage or support redevelopment that would support those policies, the Planning Division has been evaluating new zoning options for the property. To implement the master plan's policies for the Fleet Block and the surrounding area, the Planning Division has been evaluating implementing a Form Based code zone for the entire Fleet Block. A Form Based code focuses on the form and appearance of buildings and has more regulations that control those aspects of development than traditional zones. An example of a traditional zone is the City's General Commercial (CG) zone that has virtually no design controls and simply controls the setback and heights of buildings. The Planning Division is proposing a modified version of the Form Based Urban Neighborhood- 2 (FB-UN2) zone for the Fleet Block. The zone would be known as the Form Based Urban Neighborhood-3 (FB-UN3) zone. The zone would have similar regulations to the FB-UN2 zone. That zone allows for "cottage developments" on the lower-intensity end and up to 65' mixed-use developments on the upper end. The most significant differences with the FB-UN3 zone are that it would include an additional building form (the "limited bay" form), requirements for mid-block walkways, greater intensity of allowed land uses, and greater allowances for height. The differences are intended to reflect the greater intensity of use expected with the block and the surrounding "Granary" area and various Downtown Plan policies for the area, including support for a mix of housing choices and clean industries. (Excerpts of related City Plan policies are located in the "City Plan" poster in Attachment A.) In the long term, if the zone is adopted, the Division intends to explore rezoning additional property in the Granary area to the zone and has been crafting the zoning proposal with this possibility in mind. The area is currently predominantly zoned CG, which again has no design standards. The Planning Division also evaluated implementing the Downtown Support (D-2) zone for the area which should soon have several design standards included in its regulations and is currently zoned near the Fleet Block. However, the Division decided against that zone due to its allowance for outdoor car sales lots and its lack of an allowance for lower scale townhome development. Key Form Based Code Concepts The below sections provide a summary of the type of regulations proposed for the Form Based Urban Neighborhood-3 zone. The full draft regulations are found in Attachment C. Building Form Types: There are four proposed allowed building types in the zone. One unique form to this zone is the "limited bay" building which is intended to reflect the warehouse form found in the surrounding more industrial area, which have loading bays on the front fai;ade. • Rowhouse Form • Storefront Buildings • Mixed-Use/Multi-family Buildings • Limited Bay Buildings 2 July 26, 2019 Row house Mixed-Use/Multi-family/Storefront Limited Bay General Building Form Standards: Each building form also has regulations that are specific to that form. Summary diagrams of the proposed regulations for each form type are in Attachment B and the full regulation text for each building form is located in Attachment C. The proposed regulations include: • Height Limits o 40' for rowhouse, 50' for limited bay (85' through Design Review), and 85' for mixed-use/multi-family/storefront (125' through Design Review .) • Front Setbacks Limits and Build-To Lines o Requires that buildings are located close to the pedestrian • Open Space Requirements o Generally 10% of lot area, can be yards, plazas , or rooftop decks • Ground Floor Use Minimums o To ensure activity occurs next to pedestrians along ground floor facades • Minimum Ground Floor Heights o Min. 14' to ensure flexible, viable active spaces in the long-term • Mid-block Walkway Installation o Required where mapped in the Downtown Master Plan, generally through the middle of blocks. Meant to increase pedestrian accessibility through additional walking routes on large City blocks. Design Standards: All Form Based zoning districts, including the nearby FB-UN2, rely on a shared set of design standards that control fac;ade design. Every building form must comply with the design requirements and they are not being changed with this petition. The full regulations with all of their nuances are included for reference in Attachment D. The design requirements are summarized below: • Entryway Installation o Fac;ade must include an entry feature-porch, stoop, shopfront, terrace, etc. o One entry required for every 75' of facade • Glass/Window Minimums o 60% of ground floor fac;ade and 15% of upper floor fac;ade must be glass. • Blank Wall Limits o No blank wall, uninterrupted by doors, windows, or other projections, over 30' in length. • High Quality Exterior Building Material Minimums o Min. 70% of fac;ade must be quality, durable material-brick, fiber-cement, textured concrete, etc. • Balcony Requirements for Dwellings Units 3 July 26, 2019 o Dwelling units on upper levels must have a balcony • Upper Floor Step-back Requirement and Balcony Inclusion Alternative o Floors above the 30' height level facing a public street must be stepped back 15' or include balconies • Parking Structure Design Requirements o Includes variety of requirements for the fac;ade and ground level activation • Built-to Line Alternatives o Allows for plazas, arcades, outdoor dining to count toward meeting minimum built-to line requirements, allowing buildings to be set-back behind these features Parking And Driveway Regulations: The zone includes limits on driveways and parking to limit their impact on the pedestrian experience: • Driveway number and location limits • Parking location limits • No minimum parking requirement due to proximity to transit (same requirement as neighboring FB-UN1 and FB-UN2 zones) Streetscape Requirements: Every building form must comply with general streetscape improvement requirements. These include regulations on: • Street trees (min. 1 every 30 feet) • Sidewalk widths (min. 8') Land Uses: The proposed allowed land uses are broad and are intended to reflect the master plan's call for an integration of "urban family living" and "industrial" uses. Staff believes the design controls of the form-based code allow for a larger assortment of uses without having the same level of concern for compatibility and conflicts there would be under a traditional code. Outdoor manufacturing and outdoor equipment storage uses would not be allowed to avoid noise and visual conflicts. • Broad variety of allowed uses (from townhomes up to light manufacturing) Signs: Sign regulations are also being proposed for this zone and generally match the FB-UN2 zoning allowances, with some exceptions, taking into consideration the proposed higher scale of development in the FB-UN3. This includes some additional sign types, such as monument signs, marque signs, and building oriented flat signs (generally a major tenant or name of building). Other Clarifications and Additions: As part of this proposal, staff is also including additions and clarifications to some general regulations for development under the Form Based Code chapter. This includes: • Clarifying the list of allowed exterior building materials • Allowing modifications to design requirements through the "Design Review" chapter, which has standards related to such modifications. Currently, modification requests must go through the Planned Development process which does not address design specifically, unlike the Design Review chapter. • Requiring that utility boxes be located on private property. 4 July 26, 2019 Public Process The Planning Division took a preliminary draft of the major concepts for the zone to a public open house on July 8th. The open house was held at the "Fleet by Little City" outdoor pop-up space on 400 West near 900 South, across the street from the Art Space apartments. The Division sent notices to property owners, residents, and businesses within a two-block radius of the Fleet Block. At least 50 people attended the open house. The Fleet Block Rezoning Open House was held on the street on the west side of the Fleet Block. The posters from the open house are located in Attachment A. They summarize the major concepts of the proposed zoning in a visual way. The boards cover: • History of the Fleet Block and the area • Existing City Master Plan policies for the area • Form based code background • Building form types • Design standards • Building heights • Allowed uses • Streetscape improvements Questions to get people thinking about the proposal were included on the boards and attendees could post sticky notes with comments on the boards. Based on comments heard and written down , and discussions with staff members at the open house, there didn't seem to be significant concerns with the proposal and interactions generally seemed to indicate support for higher intensity redevelopment of the block. Attendees expressed both concern and support for the proposed height limits. 5 July 26, 2019 There were concerns with loss of views but also support for tall urban buildings with engaging street level uses. Land uses also received a lot of comments, with proposals for open space/public squares, desire for ground floor commercial spaces, desire for more housing, including affordable housing, and some concerns with more intensive commercial or industrial type uses. Next Steps The Planning Division will be publishing the draft of the proposed text for public review and feedback and will send out notices to open house attendees, interested parties, and adjacent community councils. The Division will continue to refine and make other changes the proposed draft based on an evaluation of further public input and City policies related to the block. Other refinements will also be made based on the logistics of the code itself. Staff will ultimately bring a revised version of the code to the Planning Commission for a formal public hearing and recommendation at a later date. That recommendation would be passed on to the City Council for an additional public hearing and decision. When a new zone is adopted for the block by the City Council, the City could start the process to sell the City's Fleet Block property. The sale of the property could include selling conditions, which could further control what new development looks like or includes, beyond the zoning requirements being proposed with this petition. ATTACHMENTS: A. Open House Zoning Summary Posters B. Building Form Regulations Summary Diagrams C. Full Draft FB-UN 3 Zoning Text D. Form Based Code Design Standards (Existing) 6 July 26, 2019 ATTACHMENT A: Open House Zoning Summary Posters The following posters summarize major concepts of the draft proposal. Each poster covers one of the following topics: • History of the Fleet Block and the area • Existing City Master Plan guidance for the area • Form based code background • Building form types • Design standards • Building heights • Allowed uses • Streetscape improvements 7 July 26, 2019 8 July 26, 2019 The City is exploring options to sell the property as the City no longer uses the property for the City's fieet operations. As part of that, t he City Planning Division is proposing zoning changes to accommodate future private development. The block is currently zoned Public Lands (the City owned portion) and General Commercial (the smaller privately owned portion). The current zoning of the property is not conducive to the development of a mixed- use, pedestrian oriented p lace as called for in the City's adopted plans for the block. The City Planning Division is developing zoning rules that would allow for development that supports these City plans . As part of this proposal, the City is also proposing to rezone the south- west privately owned portion of the block so as to have a consistent zoning designation across the entire block . The process for a City in itiated zoning change begins with a formal petition made by the Mayor. The Planning Division then analyzes the proposa l and develops a recommended zone and regu lations . As part of this, the Planning Division seeks public input from property owners and residents. The Planning Division ana lyzes public input in deve loping the proposed regu lations and may incorporate changes. As part of the analysis and deve lopment of the proposed zoning, the Planning Division also eva luates adopted City po licies and guidelines that re late to the area being rezoned . Once a zon ing proposal is fully developed, the Plann ing Division takes the proposal to the Planning Commission for a formal publi c hearing and recommendation . The Planning Commission votes on a recommendation that is sent on to the City Council. THE FLEET BLOCK PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT Pettion Initiated Ma rch 26 9 COMMUNITY INPUT Open House july8 PROPOSAL REFINEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION & PUBLIC HEARINGS CITY COUNCIL & DESICION July 26, 2019 For the past 100 years this block has been used for industrial and heavy commercial uses. In 1911 the block included a beer production facility, a coal yard, and a contractor's yard . The industrial uses continued in the 1960s when the City built a new facility (the current vacant building) to maintain the City's vehicle fleet. The City ended its fleet operations on the b lock in 201 O and the block has mostly remained vacant since that time, except for the private property on the south-west corner of the block. First subdivision in the neighborhood, dividing up large blocks for smaller homes and businesses. Salt Lake City acquires most of the block from P.J. Moran. The property is used by the Streets Department. ... Salt Lake City builds a new repair shop building on the property. City builds new fleet maintenance building elsewhere in the City and vacates the property. P.J. Moran acquires most of the Fleet Block and establishes contractor business on the property. .. HS Freeway off-ramp construction begins. . . . RDA establishes West Temple Gateway project area City proposes rezoning the Fleet Block . 1958 // Aerial view of the block and surrounding property 0 1909 1/ P.J. Moran's Stables 11 850 S 300 W P.J. Moran's company did most of the City's street paving around this time. 10 1924 1/ The Salt Lake City Streets Department fleet with maintenance building in the background. The building previously housed the P.J. Moran Machine Shop. 1911 II Sanborn Fire Insurance Map . ' ' ... .,;_::;: -_... -.. - y. i... ~ . -~ ·: ~- .""" ·-,. .~.:.~~· 1913 II 900 South canal trench at 700 West July 26, 2019 iTlie Fleet Block is located within the Downtown Master. P.lan boundaries. iTlie P.lan provides guidance fo~ the zoning for this area. As part ot developing a zoning proposal, the P.lanning Division uses the plan as a guiding document. PLAN SALT LAKE // The Citywide vision for the next 25 years (adopted 2015) "Guiding Principa l: A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and fosters an innovative environment for commerce, entrepreneurial loca l business, and industry to thrive." "The City ... va lues and encourages entrepreneur ship and innovation and sees the creative economic sector as an important part of our local and regiona l economy." The Fleet Block is included in initiatives to support the growth of the downtown economy through the development of an innovation d istrict with an activated Fleet Block. As you look at the proposed zon ing tor the b lock, consider th e foll owing questions: Can you imagine this place supporting innovation a nd creativity? Can you imagine living here as a young adult, wit h a family, midlife , or after retirement? DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN This map from the Downtown Master Pian shows proposed improvements in the Granary. LEGEND Proposed Midblock Walkways -Green Loop/Park (Enhanced Landscaping Streets) I I I Urban Trai l Co nnection 1111111111 Future TRAX/Streetcar Lines What does the Downtown Plan say about the Fleet Block? 'The redevelopment of the fleet Block, a 7.5 acre parcel owned by Salt Lake City, demonstrates the best of urban family living and industry, the mixing of land uses once thought to be incomp atible, and improved connections that focus on putting people first. Zoning changes support a true mix of housing options including townhouses, the reuse of historic buildings, and mid-rise development." 11 -·~··~··.:..:.... I 700 SOUTH soo spurn I-I- VJ VJ w · ...... w ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 "' "' ' 900 SO_U_T_H _____ .., ' 1~',,/~--~~J~- T The Downtown Plan calls for the Granary to include: • North·South and East-West mid-block walkways through the Fleet Block • Unique public spaces in block interiors • Urban family living • True mix of housing choices • Small, local-serving retail • Thriving employment center • Streets as spaces for public gathering (Linear parks, median parking , divided boulevards , community gardens , innovative multi-use streets, solar str eets and uniqu e stonn-wat er basin s) • Business incubator space (Focus on arts, digital arts, film, and creative industry) • Clean industries July 26 , 2019 THE CITY IS PROPOSING A FORM-BASED ZONING CODE FOR THE FLEET BLOCK. WHAT IS A FORM BASED CODE? The Planning Division is proposing that the Fleet Block be rezoned to a Form Based Code. A form based code is a type of zoning regulation that focuses on the form and appearance of buildings. WHY MAKE THESE CHANGES? Form-based codes provide clearer expectations for development results than traditional codes, as they can incorporate many more design and appearance considerations than a traditional zoning code. The current zoning on the property is PL, Public Lands, and CG, Gene r al Commercial. Neither of these zones have any regulations on the appearance of buildings. REGULATIONS The primary components of a form based zone are the form and design standard requirements for new buildings. KEY REGULATIONS • Building Forms II The type and style of building allowed, such as rowhomes, storefronts • Design Standards II Building facade features, such as windows, entrances, canopies OTHER REGULATIONS • Height // Height limitations and special processes for certain heights • Uses // Uses allowed in the zone, such as residential, retail , office • Streetscapes II Improvements to sidewalks, park-strips, and mid-block walkways EXAMPLES OF FORM BASE ZONES • FBUN-1 and 2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood Zones Located in the Central 9 area • FB-SC Form Based Special Corridor District Located along and near the S-line corridor 12 July 26 , 2019 BUILDING FORMS One of the main components of a Form Based Code is building forms. The proposed zoning would allow the four building forms shown on the right. The images are examples of the variety of designs that may develop with each allowed building form . WHY THE PROPOSED FORMS? The forms are informed by t he ne ighborhood context and the City's adopted master pl an po licies. The limited bay buildings are i ntended t o al low fo r build i ngs re fl ec t ive of the t r ad it io nal i ndustria l bu ildings seen around t he neighborhood. Th e other bu ilding forms are intended to su pp ort the master plan polic ies r elated to provi ding a "mix of housin g choices" and encourag in g a m ixed-use "innova t io n district" that supports new bus in esses. QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER Do these forms support the Downtown Master Plan's goal to provide a mix of housing options? Do these build ing forms respond to the needs of local businesses? ROW HOUSES Row houses are single residences which share walfs wit h others creating a "row" of houses. They would be residential on aU stories with a live/work option on the ground floor. The maximum height would be 40'. ,. I 1•1 • "'-U ' :Ji f mi ·, lili . ,,._. - MIXED USE AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Residential buildings would have a minimum height of 14' fo r the ground fl oor to accommodate inviting commercial spaces. The total height of the structures could be up to 125' but any building above 85' would need to go through the design review process. The building width coufd not be any greater than 100' along a street unless approved for more through the design review process. 13 STOREFRONT Storefront buildings would have a minimum height of 14' for the ground floor to accommodate inviting commercial spaces. The total height of the structure could be up to 125' but any building above 85' would need to go through the design review process. The building width could not be any greater than 100' along a street unless approved for more through the design review process. LIMITED BAY BUILDINGS Limited bay buildings incorporate design elements of historic warehouse buildings . The "bay" in the title refers to the design of the building fa,ade with a large opening which traditionally accommodated large delivery trucks. The maximum height would be 50'. However, 85 ' could be approved via Design Review if it incorporates a setback of at least 10' for the portion of the structure above that height. ' -.. :-!3~·=-....... .. .. ,.1 .p .i ~~- July 26 , 2019 DESIGN STANDARDS A key part of a form-based code is the design standards, dealing mainly with street facing facade elements. This poster illustrates some of the key design standards be i ng proposed. WHY DO WE HAVE DESIGN STANDARDS? Design is all around us -from a tube of toothpaste to a freeway off-ramp, people make decisions about the obj ects we use, images we see, and the places we li ve, work, and visit every day. These decisio ns have significant power to impact how we perceive, understand, and nav igate the world aro und us-for good and bad. For exam pl e, if you want to enter a building bu t ca n't find t he door, a m isg uid ed design dec ision has impact ed you. Or if you would like a sma l l space of your own to watch passers-by on th e st reet, a ba lcony or a front stoop can allow you to engage in your su r roun dings and meet yo ur ne ighbors. Design can improve your quality of life, or it ca n ru in you r day. Salt La ke City's Pla nn ing Divisio n ai ms to ma intain and improve o ur resi dents' qual ity of life, meeting the needs of newcomers an d li felo ng Salt Lakers ali ke. Having clear design st anda r ds t hat are focused on th e inter ac ti ve pe destri an leve l of the city help s the Planning Divisio n to foster activity and wel l be ing t h rougho ut the city. The design standards use planning and architectur e principles to shape and promote a walkable environment, foster placemaking as a community and economic development tool, protect property values, assist in maintaining the established character of the city, and to implement the city's master plans. ENTRY FEATURES Every new building must include an entry feature at their main entry. The main entry is the primary pedestrian entrance into a building. En try features describe how the front facade of a building and the privately owned [and between the building and the sidewatk relate to the streetscape. Po r ch and Fence Terrace or Lightwe ll Shopfront Gallery Stoo p Foreco urt BUILDING MATERIALS GLASS At least 60% of street facing fa~ade shall be t ransparen t glas s. This may be reduced to 20% in these building types: urban house, two-family, cottage, and row house. Ground floor windows of commercial uses shall be kept clear at night, free from any window covering , with internal illumination. When ground floor glass conflicts with the internal function of the building, other means shaU be used to activate the sidewalk, such as display windows, public art, architectural ornamentation or detailing or other similar treatment. A minimum of 70% of any street facing building facade must be clad in high quality, durable, natural materials, such as st one, brick, wood lap siding, fiber cement board siding, shingled or panel sided, and glas s. Other materials may count up to thirty percent 30% of the street facing building facade . Exterior insulation and finishing systems (EIFS) which is commonly referred to as stucco is pennitted for trim only. Sto ne Br ick Woo d lap siding 14 Fib er cement board sidi ng, shingled or panel side d Glass July 26 , 2019 BUILDING HEIGHT Although a form based code focuses on building design, it still includes regulations on heights like a traditional zoning code. Those proposed height limits and the context for those are illustrated here. WHY THE PROPOSED HEIGHTS? The 85 foot tall all owance is in tended t o encourage new m id-r ise develo pment t hat co nfo r ms to the master pl an expectatio ns for t he block. The 125 foot additio nal height all owa nce th ro ugh a design review process is meant to encou rage more in nova ti ve and in te res ting buildings . Bu ildings over 85 feet in he ight m ust use a different constr uction m ethod t han t he typica l wood framed buildings allowed be low that t hreshold. These taller buildings are typically framed with steel and this allows for additional design possibilities than could happen with a wood framed building. HEIGHT ALLOWED BY RIGHT This building is approximately 85' in height. This ittustrates the maximum height that would be allowed "by right" or without a special design review process for development in this zone . Height is further limited by building form. For context, new buildings in Sugar House are generally around this height. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT CONTEXT For context, this shows the maximum building heights allowed on properties near the Fleet Block. • 125 FT • 125 FT • 90 FT 50 FT 15 HEIGHT THROUGH DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS The above buildings are approximately 125' in height and would be the maximum height allowed through a Design Review process with the Planning Commission. The design review proces s w ould be ensure that substantial buildings are compatible with their surroundings, make positive contributions to the pedestrian experience, and help achieve other City Master Plan goals. DOWNTOWN PLAN CONTEXT The Downtown Plan calls for "mid-rise stTeetcar" oriented development on the fleet block. The downtown plan doesn't specifically define what this term means, but 85' to 125' tall development is within the range of w hat would generally be considered a mid-rise dev elopment. LOW RISE MID RISE HIGH RISE July 26 , 2019 ALLOWED USES Part of the zoning amendment process involves determining what uses would be appropriate for the zone. The master plan and community input provide guidance as to what land uses should be allowed . The uses to the right are examples of the uses being proposed to be allowed for the zone. Due to the large number of allowed uses, not all potential uses are shown. QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER • What uses do you think are important to have in this neighborhood? • Do you see any of the proposed uses conflicting with each other? LIGHT MANUFACTURING USES Brewery COMMERCIAL USES Office RESIDENTIAL USES Single-fa m ily 16 Sign shop Artisan Food Product ion Light auto repair (tires, oi l, minor repai r s) Reta il and Restau r ants Multi-family Li ve/work July 26 , 2019 STREETSCAPES City policies provide guidance about streetscape improvements and new streetscapes, such as with new mid-block connections. This poster illustrates proposed requirements related to those and potential street improvements QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER How much of a street should be devoted to walking? What kind of amenities should be provided along sidewalks and park-strips? MID-BLOCK CONNECTIONS AND THE 9 LINE The City's Downtown Pla n incl ud es p lans for mid block co nn ec ti ons through the Ci ty fl eet b lock. The proposed ru les would req u ire pub li c pedestr ian wa lkways through the block. "H "H t-en w ~ 0 0 LO ... · ....... , ...... . . · . ~---- ··:·· -.. '·'· .... Th e green lin e t o th e so uth of the Fleet Bloc k represe nts th e path of th e f utu r e "9 Line" trai l connectio n. Th e City is working o n implement ing pedestria n and bike or ie nted streetsca pe improvements for t h is urba n t r ail sectio n. This is an example from Sugar House of a midblock walkway. Midblock connections on the fleet block could resemble this pedestrian oriented connection. 17 STREETSCAPEIMPROVEMENTS New deve lopment wou ld also requ ire new sidewalks, st reet trees and stree t lighting. The be low streetscapes show t he types of improvements that co ul d be done on a m id-s ize d st reet an d a sma ll er mid-block st reet. L July 26 , 2019 ATTACHMENT B: Building Form Regulation Summary Diagrams The following diagrams illustrate the bulk and massing regulations of the proposed building forms and summarize those regulations with abbreviated callouts. Not all of the regulations are illustrated due to space constraints. All building forms are subject to additional design standards which control fai;ade design, parking, and landscaping and those are not illustrated in these diagrams. The full proposed regulations with their associated nuances are located in Attachment C. Limited Bay Building Form 10' Upper Level Step-back ~;::'" Max Building Width : 200' ~ ~ Fm"l lo>d~':::::/,/ OpoOSpo<" 10% of lol J (yards, plazas, decks) 18 ~ ... ~-Ground Floo r Use: 75% of facade length July 26, 2019 Rowhouse Building Form 40 Max Height' Open Space: 25% of the f ootprin t of the un it (yards, patios , decks) Gro und Floo r Use: Use bes ides parking for min. 10' depth Sideyard: Min 5' Vertical Mixed Use/Multi-family/Storefront Building Form 85' Heig ht (By Right) 19 _....~--Gro u nd Floor Use: 75 % of facade length [ Mi~~und Fl oor Ope n Space: 10% of lot (yards, plazas , decks) July 26, 2019 ATTACHMENT C: Full Draft FB-UN3 Zoning Text The full FB-UN3 zoning code draft is divided into the following sections: • Building Form Regulations • Parking Regulations • Streetscape Regulations • General Changes to Form Based Zoning Code • Land Use Table • Sign Regulations 20 July 26, 2019 Building Form Regulations 21A.27.0SO.D: FB-UN3 Form Standards: Building Form standards are listed in Table 21A.27.0SO .D of this section. TABLE 21A.27.0SO.D FB-UN3 BUILDING FORM STANDARDS: Row House: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit. A row house contains a minimum of three (3) residential dwelling units. Each unit may be on its own lot. If possible, off street parking is accessed from an alley. ---:fJTI h ffiT;l ffi":J;J•it:m•111 .E Front and corner side yard setback ~ Interior side yard B Rear yard Y. Uses per story Q Ground Floor Use Y. Upper level step back OS Minimum outdoor open space area BF Number of building forms per lot MW Mid-block Walkway Maximum of 40' Minimum 5', Maximum 15', unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. Minimum of 5' between Row House building and side property line, except when an interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a maximum permitted building height of 30' or less, the minimum interior side yard shall be 10'. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10 feet in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. Minimum of 5', except when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of 30' or less, then minimum is 20'. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10 feet in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. Residential on all stories; live/work units permitted on ground level. Ground floor adjacent to a street must be occupied by habitable space other than parking for a minimum depth of 10 feet . When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of thirty feet or less, the first full floor of the building above 30' shall step back 10' from the building facade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley. Each dwelling unit shall include a minimum open space area that is no less than 25% of the footprint of the individual unit. The open space area may be in the form of private yards, outdoor common area that includes outdoor amenities, or rooftop gardens provided a minimum of 30% of the open space area includes vegetation. Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards. If a mid block walkway is shown in the Downtown Master Plan on the subject property, a mid block walkway shall be provided . The mid block walkway must be a minimum of ten feet (10') wide and include a minimum six foot (6') wide unobstructed path . FB-UN3 Draft Building Form Regulations 21 July 26, 2019 Storefront: A commercial structure that may have multiple stories and contain a variety of commercial uses that are allowed in the district that permits this building type. All buildings, regardless of the specific use, have a ground floor that looks like a storefront. nl!fiHDjrn .... .. ., ,-.~ i71Til ~ ~t:ur1111 H Height Maximum height of 125'. All heights measured from established grade. Any building in excess of 85' shall only be i;iermitted through the design review i;irocess . SH Story Height Minimum ground floor height 14' F Front and No minimum is reguired; however doors are i;irohibited from oi;iening into the i;iublic right of way. corner side Maximum 15', unless a greater setback is reguired due to existing utility easements in which case the yard setback maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement . ~ Interior side No minimum reguired, excei;it when an interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a yard maximum i;iermitted building height of 30' or less, the minimum interior side yard shall be 10'. For the i;iuri;iose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10 feet in width that sei;iarates a subject i;iroi;ierty from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. R Rear yard No minimum reguired, excei;it when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum i;iermitted building height of 30' or less, then minimum is 20'. For the i;iuri;iose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10 feet in width that sei;iarates a subject i;iroi;ierty from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent . Q Ground Floor Ground floor adjacent to a street must be occui;iied by habitable si;iace other than i;iarking for a Use minimum dei;ith of 25 feet and at least 75% of the width of the street facing building far;:ade. _1,1_ Upper level When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of thirty feet or less, the step back first full floor of the building above 30' shall stei;i back 10' from the building facade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the ai;ii;ilicable zoning district. This regulation does not ai;ii;ily when a lot in a different zoning district is sei;iarated from the subject i;iarcel by a street or alley BW Building Width Maximum of 200 feet along a street. Street facing building facades wider than 200 feet may be i;iermitted if ai;ii;iroved through the design review i;irocess in chai;iter 21A.59 . However, if a mid block walkway is shown in the Downtown Master Plan on the subject i;iroi;ierty, a mid block walkway shall be i;irovided regardless of the width of building . MW Mid-block If a mid block walkway is shown in the Downtown Master Plan on the subject i;iroi;ierty, a mid block Walkway walkway shall be i;irovided. The mid block walkway must be a minimum of ten feet {10') wide and include a minimum six foot (6') wide unobstructed i;iath . BF Number of Multii;ile buildings may be built on a single lot i;irovided all of the buildings have frontage on a street. building forms All buildings shall comi;ily with all ai;ii;ilicable standards. per lot OS Reguired open A minimum oi;ien si;iace area of 10% of the lot area shall be i;irovided . The oi;ien si;iace area may take space area the form of yards, common areas, and rooftoi;i gardens i;irovided a minimum of 30% of the oi;ien si;iace area includes vegetation . For buildings that include residential uses, the oi;ien si;iace area shall include amenities for building occuQants . A change of use is not reguired to comQly with this reguirement . FB-UN3 Draft Building Form Regulations 22 July 26, 2019 H SH F ~ ~ R Q .!:!. BW M w BF OS Vertical Mixed Use: A multi-story building that contains a mix of commercial and/or office with residential uses . Multi-Family Residential: A multi-family residential structure containing three (3) or more dwelling units that may be arranged in a number of configurations . irmm 1i'ir;:l ,,, '-.I Ii. (It': 1 I iW"' w.r::t:l nfl::r:lF.Tirll rMl1fl1Y :::F.Ti"iT1 ro ~ r'-11 l • t: 1 I I ~T::r;m F.l ffim Height Maximum height of 125'. All heights measured from established grade . Any_ building in excess of 85' shall only_ be 1;1ermitted through the design review 1;1rocess . Story Height Minimum ground floor height 14' Front and No minimum is reguired; however, doors are 1;1rohibited from 01;1ening into the 1;1ublic right of way_. corner side yard Maximum 10' unless a greater setback is reguired due to existing utility_ easements in which case the setback maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. Reguired build-Minimum of 50% of street facing facade shall be built within 5' of the front or corner side 1;1ro1;1erty_ to line Interior side No minimum reguired, exce1;1t when an interior side y_ard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a yard maximum 1;1ermitted building height of 30' or less, the minimum interior side y_ard shall be 10'. For the 1;1ur1;1ose of this regulation, an alley_ that is a minimum of 10 feet in width that se1;1arates a subject 1;1ro1;1erty_ from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. Rear yard No minimum reguired, exce1;1t when rear y_ard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum 1;1ermitted building height of 30' or less, then minimum is 20'. For the 1;1ur1;1ose of this regulation, an alley_ that is a minimum of 10 feet in width that se1;1arates a subject 1;1ro1;1erty_ from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. Ground Floor Ground floor adjacent to a street must be occu1;1ied by_ habitable s1;1ace other than 1;1arking for a Use minimum de1;1th of 25 feet and at least 75% of the width of the building along the front building wall Upper Level When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of thirty_ feet or less, the Step Back first full floor of the building above 30' shall steQ back 10' from the building facade at finished grade along the side or rear y_ard that is adjacent to the lot in the a1;11;11icable zoning district. This regulation does not a1;11;1ly_ when a lot in a different zoning district is se1;1arated from the subject 1;1arcel by_ a street or alley_ Building Width Maximum of 200 feet along a street. Street facing building facades wider than 200 feet may_ be 1;1ermitted if a1;11;1roved through the design review 1;1rocess in cha1;1ter 21A.59 . However, if a midblock walkway_ is shown in the Downtown Master Plan on the subject 1;1ro1;1erty_, a mid block walkway_ shall be 1;1rovided regardless of the width of the building. Mid-block If a mid block walkway_ is shown in the Downtown Master Plan on the subject 1;1ro1;1erty_, a mid block Walkway walkway_ shall be 1;1rovided . The midblock walkway_ must be a minimum often feet {10'} wide and include a minimum six foot {6'} wide unobstructed 1;1ath . Number of MultiQle buildings may_ be built on a single lot 1;1rovided all of the buildings have frontage on a street. building forms All buildings shall com1;1ly_ with all aQQlicable standards. per lot Reguired open A minimum 01;1en s1;1ace area of 10% of the lot area shall be 1;1rovided . The 01;1en s1;1ace area may_ take space area the form of y_ards, common areas, and rooftoQ gardens 1;1rovided a minimum of 30% of the 01;1en s1;1ace area includes vegetation. For buildings that include residential uses, the 01;1en s1;1ace area shall include amenities for building occu1;1ants. A change of use is not reguired to com1;1ly_ with this reguirement. FB-UN3 Draft Building Form Regulations 23 July 26, 2019 Limited Bay Building: The limited bay building form is intended to be similar in form to the historic warehouse buildings in the district. A service bay with a garage door facing the street is a defining feature of this building form. The service bay may be used for any use or accessory use permitted in the zoning district. Limited bay buildings have similar characteristics to the older warehouse buildings including how the building is placed on the site, building height, facade design and materials. This building form may include a mix of land uses. -----I I :m1 r; lfiT:l ra:r;rn F.l ffiTi1 nr. •• Jr,:.1fl~ !! Height Maximum height of 50'. Buildings may exceed 50' in height, up to a maximum of 85' ifthe building includes a minimum stepback of 10' at 50' in building height and is approved in accordance with 21A.59 Design Review. All heights measured from established grade. SH Story Height Minimum ground floor height 14' F Front and corner No minimum is reguired; however, doors are prohibited from opening into the public right of way. side yard setback Maximum of 10' unless a greater setback is reguired due to existing utility easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement . ~ Interior side yard A minimum of 5', except when an interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a maximum permitted building height of 30' or less, the minimum interior side yard shall be 10'. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10 feet in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. R Rear yard No minimum reguired, except when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of 30' or less, then minimum is 20'. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10 feet in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. Q Ground Floor Use Ground floor adjacent to a street must be occupied by habitable space other than parking for a minimum depth of 25 feet and at least 75% of the width of the building along the front building wall. One serviceLloading bay is allowed on the ground floor facade adjacent to a street. .!:!. u~~er level ste~ When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of thirty feet or less, the back first full floor of the building above 30' shall step back 10' from the building facade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley. BW Building Width Maximum of 200 feet along a street. Street facing building facades wider than 200 feet may be permitted if approved through the design review process in chapter 21A.59. However, if a mid block walkway is shown in the Downtown Master Plan on the subject property, a mid block walkway shall be provided. ~ Mid-block If a mid block walkway is shown in the Downtown Master Plan on the subject property, a mid block Walkway walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum often feet (10') wide and include a minimum six foot (6') wide unobstructed path. BF Number of build-Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have frontage on a street. ing forms ~er lot All buildings shall comply with any other applicable standards . OS Reguired o~en A minimum open space area of 10% of the lot area shall be provided. The open space area may take s~ace area the form of yards, common areas, and rooftop gardens provided a minimum of 30% of the open space area includes vegetation. For buildings that include residential uses, the open space area shall include amenities for building occupants . A change of use is not reguired to comply with this reguirement. FB-UN3 Draft Building Form Regulations 24 July 26, 2019 Parking Regulations Surface parking location Vehicle access Surface parking shall be located behind or to the side of a principal building provided; 1. The parking is set back a minimum of 25' from the corner side property line; and 2. The setback area shall be considered a landscaped yard and comply with the landscape yard planting requirements in 21A.46 and include: a. Tress with a minimum mature spread of 20 feet planted at one tree for every 20 feet of street frontage; and b . A wall or fence at the property line along the street. The wall or fence shall not exceed 36 inches in height. A hedge or other similar landscaped screen may be used in place of a wall or fence provided the plants are spaced no further than 18 inches on center across the entire frontage. Required to be from an alley. If no alley exists, 1 driveway is permitted per street frontage. A limited bay building form may have one driveway that connects the bay to the street . Unless fire code requires something different. Driveway Driveways shall be spaced a minimum of 20' between other driveways on the site and a minimum of spacing 10 feet from a property line unless a shared driveway with an adjacent property is used. Loading Allowed in the rear and side yard only except for limited bay buildings which may allow loading and functions to occur at the provided loading bay . All service areas shall be screened or located within service the building. areas Vehicle access width at street Existing Buildings When a one-way driveway is permitted and included in a development, the maximum width of the driveway or curb cut shall not exceed 12' in width excluding the curb radius. When a multi-directional vehicle driveway is included, the maximum width of the driveway and curb cut shall not exceed 24' in width excluding the curb radius. The driveway provided for a limited bay building may not exceed 24 feet in width. If fire access is required, the driveway shall be shared with the fire access and be the minimum width required by the applicable fire code. The reuse of existing buildings is exempt from the requirements of this table unless new parking areas are being added. FB-UN3 Draft Parking Regulations 25 July 26, 2019 Streetscape Regulations Sidewalk Width Street trees are required and shall be provided at a rate of 1 per every 30 feet of frontage as per 21A.48 .060 .D. Sidewalks shall have a minimum width of eight (8) feet . This standard does not require removal of existing street trees, existing buildings, or portions thereof. For purposes of this section, sidewalk width is measured from the back of the park strip or required street tree if no park strip is provided, toward the adjacent property line FB-UN3 Draft Streetscape Regulations 26 July 26, 2019 General Changes to Form Based Code Chapter 21A.27.030 Building Configuration Standards: C. Application Of Building Configuration Standards: Building configuration standards apply to all new buildings and additions when the new construction related to the addition is greater than twenty five percent (25%) of the footprint of the structure or one thousand (1,000) square feet, whichever is less. The graphics included provide a visual representation of the standards as a guide and are not meant to supersede the standards in the tables. This standard applies to all form-based zoning districts unless otherwise indicated. The standards in this section may be modified subject to the requirements of chapter 21A.59 Design Review of this title. (Staff Note: The above change is to be able to process requests for modifications through the Design Review process which has standards for such design modifications.) C.7. Building Materials: A minimum of seventy percent (70%) of any street facing building facade shall be clad in high quality, durable, natural materials, such as stone, brick, wood lap siding, patterned or textured concrete, fiber cement board siding, shingled or panel sided, and glass. Material not specifically listed may be approved at the discretion of the planning director if it is found that the proposed material is of similar durability and quality to the listed materials. If approved, such material can count toward the seventy percent (70%) requirement. Other materials may count up to thirty percent (30%) of the street facing building facade. Exterior insulation and finishing systems (EIFS) is permitted for trim only. (Staff Note: The above change is a clarification to codify current practice. The current list of materials is a list of examples ("such as") and is not meant to be exclusive of other high quality materials but has been misinterpreted as such. Patterned and textured concrete is always considered a high quality, durable material and is allowed, it just hasn't been specifically listed. We have also allowed for certain metals if they are durable and high quality and applicants can provide documentation to the Planning Director about their durability and quality.) D. Other Applicable Standards: 6. Utility boxes, vaults, meters, panels, and other similar utility equipment that are only necessary to serve the associated private development shall be located on private property and are not allowed in the public right of way. When located within a provided front yard, any utility equipment that is taller than twelve inches in height shall be screened from view from any public right of way. FB-UN3 Draft General Regulation Changes 27 July 26, 2019 Land Use Table 21A.33.080: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN FORM BASED DISTRICTS: Note: Uses which are not listed in the following table are not permitted in any form based code zoning district. I Legend: I P = Permitted I C = Conditional I Permitted Uses By District lltI9 FB-FB-FB-FB-FB UNl UN2 UN3 SC -SE Accessory use, except those that are specifically p p p p p - regulated in this chapter, or elsewhere in this title AdaRtive reuse of a landmark building p Alcohol: Bar establishment p p p c Brewpub p p p c - Distillery p Tavern p Tavern, 2,500 square feet or less in floor area p p p c Winery I . p - AmRhitheater p Amusement Rark p Animal Cremation service p kennel p Veterinary office p p p p 2~"'nimal, "<'eteFinaFy offiee -P-P-P- Antenna, communication tower p p p p Art gallery p p p p Artisan food production p3 p p3 p3 Artists loft/studio p Auction (indoor} p Auditorium p Bed and breakfast p p p p p Bed and breakfast inn p p p p p Bed and breakfast manor p p p p p Blacksmith shoR p Land Use Table Draft 28 July 26, 2019 Blood donation center p Boarding house p Botanical garden p Brewery p Bus line station/terminal c Business~ mobile p Car wash c Charity dining hall p Clinic (medical, dental) p p p p Commercial food preparation p p p p Commercial video arcade p Community garden p p p p p Community recreation center p p p p Convent/monastery p Convention center p - Crematorium p Daycare - center, adult p p p p - center, child p p p p nonregistered home daycare P' P' pl pl P' registered home daycare or preschool ·, P' P' pl pl P' Dental laboratory/research facility p Dwelling: Accessory @est and servants' guarters p Assisted living facility (large) p Assisted living facility (limited capacity) p p p p p Assisted living facility (small) p p p p Group home (large) p p p p Group home (small) wheB: lseatea aes•"e Sf p p p p eels•.v fifst stsfy sffiee, fetail, Sf esmmefeial Hse, Sf SB: the Hfst stsfy 'NHefe the HB:it is B:st lseatea atljaeeB:t ts stfeet ffsB:tage Living guarters for caretaker or security guard p Multi-family p p p p Residential support (large) p p Residential support (small) p p Rooming (boarding) house p p Single-family attached p p p p Single-family detached p Single-family detached (cottage development p p building form only) Land Use Table Draft 29 July 26, 2019 Single room occupancy p p Two-family p Eleemosynary facility (CODIFIER NOTE: This land p p p use term is changing with other City petition.) Emergency medical services facilitv p Eguipment rental p Exhibition hall p Farmers' market p p p p Financial institution p p p p Flea market (indoor} p Funeral home p p p p Gas Station c Government facility reguiring special design p - features for security purposes Government office p Government facility p Greenhouse p Health and fitness facility p p p p - Home occupation p2 p2 p p2 p2 Homeless Resource Center ', \ c Hospital p Hotel/motel p p p House museum in landmark site p p p p p --" Industrial assembly p Intermodal transit passenger hub p Laboratory (medical, dental, optical) p p p p Laboratory2 testing p Library p p p p Manufacturing2 light (indoor} p Meeting hall of membership organization p Mixed use developments including residential and p p p p other uses allowed in the zoning district Mobile food business p Mobile food court p Mobile food trailer p Mobile food truck p Municipal service uses 2 including city utility uses p and police and fire stations Museum p p p p Nursing care facility p p p p Office p p p p Land Use Table Draft 30 July 26, 2019 Office and/or reception center in landmark site p p p p Office Rublishing comRany p Open space p p p p p - Park p p p p p Parking~ commercial c Parking facility~ shared p Parking garage p Parking, off site p p p p p Parking~ Rark and ride lot shared with existing use p Performing arts Rroduction p Photo finishing lab p p p Place of worship p p p p Plazas p p p p p Radio~ television station p Railroad Rassenger station p ReceRtion center p Recreation (indoor) -p p p p Recreation~ (outdoor) p Research and development facility p p p p Research facility (medical/dental) p p p p -·, Restaurant p p p p - Retail goods establishment p p p p Retail goods establishment, plant and garden shop p p p p - with outdoor retail sales area Retail service establishment p p p p ~ Sales and display (outdoor) p p p p School: College or university p p p p Music conservatory p p p p Professional and vocational p p p p Seminary and religious institute p p p p Public or J2rivate , p Seasonal farm stand p p p p Sign Rainting/fabrication (indoor) p Small brewery p Social service mission p Solar array p p p p Storage~ self p4 Store~convenience p Store, specialty p p p p Studio, art p p p p Land Use Table Draft 31 July 26, 2019 Studio2 motion }!icture p Theater2 live J!erformance p Theater, movie p p p - Urban farm p p p p Utility, building or structure p p p p Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe, or pole p p p p - Vehicle Automobile rental agency p Automobile re2air major c Automobile re2air minor p Vending cart, private property p p p Warehouse p Welding shoJ! p Wholesale distribution c Wireless telecommunications facility p p p - Woodworking mill p Qualifying provisions : 1. Subject to section 21A.36.130 of this title. 2. Subject to section 2 lA.36.030 of this title. 3 . Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 4 . Only allowed on ground floor when the use is located behind another Qermitted or commercial use that occuQies the street frontage of the ground floor. Land Use Table Draft p p p p p p 32 July 26, 2019 Sign Regulations 21A.46.096: SIGN REGULATIONS FOR FORM BASED DISTRICTS: The following regulations shall apply to signs permitted in the form based code zoning districts. Any sign not expressly permitted by these district regulations is prohibited. A. Sign Regulations For The Form Based Code Districts: 1. Purpose: Sign regulations for the form based code zoning districts are intended to provide appropriate signage oriented primarily to pedestrian and mass transit traffic. 2. Applicability: This subsection applies to all signs located within the form based code zoning districts. This subsection is intended to list all permitted signs in the zone. All other regulations in this chapter shall apply. B. Sign Type, Size And Height Standards: 1. A-Frame Sign: A-p p p p Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces frame on comers may have 2 sign Width Maximum of 2 feet. Any portion of the frame (the support structure) may extend up to 6 inches in any direction beyond the sign face Height Maximum of 3 feet. Any portion of the frame (the support structure) may extend up to 6 inches in any direction beyond the sign face Placement On public sidewalk or private property Obstruction Minimum of 8 feet must be free area maintained at all times for pedestrian passage FB-UN3 Draft Sign Regulations 33 July 26, 2019 2. Awning Or Canopy Sign: Awning P or canopy sign Construction P sign (see definition in this chapter) p p FB-UN3 Draft Sign Regulations p p P Quantity 1 per window or entrance p Width Equal to the width of the window Projection No maximum depth from building facade, however design subject to mitigation of rainfall and snowfall runoff, conflict avoidance with tree canopy, and issuance of encroachment permits where required. The awning or canopy can project a maximum of 2 feet into a special purpose corridor Clearance Minimum of 10 feet of vertical clearance Letters and logos Location permitted Allowed on vertical portions of sign only Private property or a public street. Signs can face a special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process P Quantity 1 per construction site 34 Height Maximum of 8 feet. Maximum of 12 feet in FB-UN3 Area Maximum of 64 square feet Location permitted Private property or a public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor, but must be located on private property July 26, 2019 Flat sign Flat sign (building orientation) Marquee sign p p FB-UN3 Draft Sign Regulations p p p P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on comers may have 2 Width Maximum of 90% of width of leasable space. No maximum width in FB-UN3. Height Maximum of 3 feet. No maximum height in FB-UN3 Area 11 /z square feet per linear foot of store frontage Projection Maximum of 1 foot Quantity 1 per building face. Height May not extend above the roof line or top of parapet wall. Area 11 h square feet per linear foot of building frontage Quantity 1 per building Height Maximum of 90% of width of leasable space May not extend above the roof of the building. 11 h square feet per linear foot of building frontage Projection Maximum of 6 feet. May project into right of way a maximum of 4 feet provided the sign is a minimum of 12 feet above the sidewalk grade. 35 July 26, 2019 7. Monument sign Nameplate P sign New Development §!@__ Private P directional sign (see definition in this chapter) p p FB-UN3 Draft Sign Regulations p p p p p p Quantity 1 per building Setback Height Area 5 feet Maximum of 20 feet 1 square feet per linear foot of building frontage P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on comers may have 2 Area Maximum of 3 square feet Quantity 1 per street frontage Setback 5 feet Height 12 feet Area P Quantity Height Area 200 square feet No limit Maximum of 5 feet Maximum of 8 square feet Restriction May not contain business name or logo Location permitted 36 Private property or public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process July 26, 2019 Projecting sign Projecting parking entry sign (see projecting sign graphic) p FB-UN3 Draft Sign Regulations p p p p P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on comers may have 2 Clearance Minimum of 10 feet above sidewalk/walkway Area 6 square feet per side , 12 square feet total Projection Maximum of 4 feet from building facade Location permitted Private property or public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process P Quantity 1 per parking entry 37 Clearance Minimum of 10 feet above sidewalk/walkway Height Maximum of 2 feet Area 4 square feet per side, 8 square feet total Projection Location permitted Maximum of 4 feet from building facade for public and private streets. Maximum of 2 feet within the special purpose corridor Private property or public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process July 26, 2019 Public safety sign (see definition in this chapter) Real estate sign Window sign p p p p p FB-UN3 Draft Sign Regulations p p p p P Quantity No limit Height Maximum of 6 feet Area 8 square feet Projection Maximum of 1 foot Location permitted Private property or public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process P P Quantity 1 per leasable space . Leasable spaces on p comers may have 2 Height Maximum of 12 feet Area 32 square feet. 64 square feet in FB-UN3 Location Private property or public street. Signs can permitted face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process P Quantity 1 per window Height Maximum of 3 feet Area Maximum of 25% of window area 38 July 26, 2019 ATTACHMENT D: Form Based Code Design Standards (Existing) The existing design standard regulations included in this section are universally applied to all Form Based zones in the City. All buildings in the proposed zone would be subject to these same design requirements. 39 July 26, 2019 Existing Building Design Standards for Form Based Zones 21A.27.030: BUILDING CONFIGURATION AND DESIGN STANDARDS: A. Specific Intent Of Configuration And Design Standards: 1. Design Related Standards: The design related standards are intended to do the following: a. Implement applicable master plans; b. Continue the existing physical character of residential streets while allowing an increase in building scale along arterials and near transit stations; c . Focus development and future growth in the city along arterials and near transit stations; d. Arrange buildings so they are oriented toward the street in a manner that promotes pedestrian activity, safety, and community; e. Provide human scaled buildings that emphasize design and placement of the main entrance/exit on street facing facades; f. Provide connections to transit through public walkways; g. Provide areas for appropriate land uses that encourage use of public transit and are compatible with the neighborhood; h. Promote pedestrian and bicycle amenities near tran sit facilities to maximize alternative forms of transportation; and i. Rehabilitate and reuse existing residential structures in the form based zoning districts when possible to efficiently use infrastructure and natural resources, and preserve neighborhood character. B. Building Configuration Standards Defined: The building configuration standards are defined in this section. The defined standards in this section are intended to identify how to comply with the building configuration standards tables located in this chapter. C. Application Of Building Configuration Standards: Building configuration standards apply to all new buildings and additions when the new construction related to the addition is greater than twenty five percent (25%) of the footprint of the structure or one thousand (1,000) square feet, whichever is less. The graphics included provide a visual representation of the standards as a guide and are not meant to supersede the standards in the tables. This standard applies to all form based zoning districts unless otherwise indicated. 1. Building Entry: A minimum of one main entry with an entry feature facing a public street or walkway, excluding alleys, is required. The main entry is the primary pedestrian entrance into a building. Two-family dwelling buildings shall have a minimum of one main entry with porch or stoop for at least one of the dwelling units facing a street. The main entry for the second dwelling unit may face the street or side yard, but must also have a porch or stoop entrance. Where required, the building entry must be one of the following: a . Front entrance: Door on the same plane as street facing facade; b. Recessed entrance: Inset behind the plane of the building no more than ten feet (10'). If inset, then the side walls of the inset must be lined with clear glass. Opaque, smoked, or darkened glass is not permitted; or Existing Form Based Zone Design Standards 40 July 26, 2019 c. Corner entrance: Entry that is angled or an inside comer located at the comer of two (2) intersecting streets. d. Number: Every building shall have at least one entry for every seventy five feet (75') of building facade along a public or private street, alley or greenway. 2. Encroachments: A permitted entry feature may encroach into a required yard provided no portion of the porch is closer than five feet (5') to the front property line. 3. Entry Feature: The following building entries are permitted as indicated: TABLE 21A.27.030 B ENTRY FEATURE STANDARDS Entry Feature Two-Vertical Permitted Based On Urban Cottage Family Row Multi-Mixed Building Form Type House Development Dwelling House Family Storefront Use Porch and fence: A planted front yard where the p p p p p street facing building facade is set back from the front property line with an attached porch that is permitted to encroach into the required yard . The porch sha ll be a minimum of6' in depth. The front yard may include a fence no taller than 3' in height Reference Illustration -Porch And Fence • Entry Feature Vertical Permitted Based On Urban Cottage Two-Family Row Multi-Mixed Building Form Type House Development Dwelling House Family Storefront Use Terrace or lightwell: An entry feature where the p p p p p street facing facade is set back from the front property line by an elevated terrace or sunken lightwell. May include a canopy or roof Reference Illustration -Terrace Or Lightwell Existing Form Based Zone Design Standards 41 July 26, 2019 Entry Feature Two-Vertical Permitted Based On Urban Cottage Family Row Multi-Mixed Building Form Type House Development Dwelling House Family Storefront Use F orec ourt: An entry featu re wherein a portion of the p p p p p p p street facing facade is close to the property line and the central portion is set back. The court created must be landscaped , contain outdoor pla zas, outd oor dining areas, private yards, or other similar features that encourage use and seating Ref ere nee Illustration -Forecourt Entry Feature Two-Vertical Permitted Based On Urban Cottage Family Row Multi-Store-Mixed Building Form Type House Development Dwelling House Family front Use Stoop: An entry feature wherein the street fac in g facade is p p p p p p p close to the front property line and the first story is elevated from the sidewalk sufficiently to sec ur e privacy for the windows. The entrance contains an exterior stair and landing that is either parallel or perpendicular to the street. Recommended for ground floor residential uses Reference Illustration -Stoop Existing Form Based Zone Design Standards 42 July 26, 2019 Entry Feature Two-Vertical Permitted Based On Urban Cottage Family Row Multi-Mixed Building Form Type House Development Dwelling House Family Storefront Use Shopfront: An entry feature where the street facing p p p facade is close to the property line and building entrance is at sidewa lk grade . Building entry is covered with an awning, canopy, or is recessed from the front building facade, which defines th e entry and provides protection for customers Reference Illustration -Shopfront Entry Feature Vertical Permitted Based On Urban Cottage Two-Family Row Multi-Mixed Building Form Type House Development Dwelling House Family Storefront Use Gallery: A building entry where the ground floor p p p is no more than 1 O' from the front property line and the upper levels or roofl in e cantilevers from the ground floor facade up to the front property lin e Reference Illustration -Gallery Existing Form Based Zone Design Standards 43 July 26, 2019 4. Additional Design Standards Required For The Form Based Districts (These Standards Do Not Apply To The FB-UNl Zoning District): a. Facade Length: The maximum length of any building facade facing a street is two hundred feet (200'). b. Stepback Requirement: Floors rising above thirty feet (30') in height shall be stepped back fifteen (15) horizontal feet from the building foundation at grade for building elevations that are adjacent to a public street, public trail, or public open space. This stepback does not apply to buildings that have balconies on floors rising above thirty feet (30') in height. c. Glass: For all floors or levels above the ground floor , a minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of all street facing facades must be glass. d. Second Floor Balconies And Patios: Commercial uses or businesses that face a greenway corridor may have a second floor balcony or patio. Rooftops can be used as patios and shall comply with all applicable zoning standards . e. Ground Floor Uses: On the ground floor, a permitted use other than parking shall occupy at least seventy five percent (75%) of the width of any street-facing building facade. All portions of such ground floor spaces shall extend a minimum of twenty five feet (25') into the structure of all building forms with the exception ofrow houses, two-family dwellings , and cottage developments , which shall extend a minimum of ten feet (1 O'). Parking may be located behind these spaces. f. Design Standards For Parking Structures: The following standards shall apply to parking structures whether stand alone or incorporated into a building: (1) Parking structures shall have an external skin designed to improve visual character when adjacent to a public street or other public space. Examples include heavy-gauge metal screen, precast concrete panels; live green or landscaped walls , laminated or safety glass , decorative photovoltaic panels or match the building materials and character of the principal use. The Planning Director may approve other decorative materials not listed ifthe materials are in keeping with the decorative nature of the parking structure . (2) The architectural design of the facades should express the internal function of the structure. Facade elements shall align to parking levels and there shall be no sloped surfaces visible from a public street, public trail, or public open space. (3) Internal circulation must be designed such that parking surfaces are level (or without any slopes) along all primary facades . All ramping between levels need to be placed along the secondary facade or to the center of the structure. Parking structures shall be designed to conceal the view of all parked cars and drive ramps from public spaces . ( 4) Elevator and stairs shall be highlighted architecturally so visitors, internally and externally, can easily access these entry points. (5) Signage and way-finding shall be integrated with the architecture of the parking structure and be architecturally compatible with the design. Public parking structure entrances shall be clearly signed from public streets. Existing Form Based Zone Design Standards 44 July 26, 2019 (6) Interior garage lighting shall not produce glaring sources towards adjacent properties while providing safe and adequate lighting levels . The use of sensor dimmable LEDs and white-stained ceilings are a good strategy to control light levels on site while improving energy efficiency. (7) Where a driveway crosses a public sidewalk, the driveway shall be a different color, texture , or paving material than the sidewalk to warn drivers of the possibility of pedestrians in the area. (8) The street level facing facades of all parking structures shall be wrapped along all street frontages with habitable space that is occupied by a use that is allowed in the zone as a permitted or conditional use. (9) Parking structures shall be designed to minimize vehicle noise and odors on the public realm. Venting and fan locations shall not be located next to public spaces and shall be located as far as possible from adjacent residential land uses . 5. Pedestrian Connections: Where required, the following pedestrian connection standards apply: a. The connection shall provide direct access from any building entry to the public sidewalk or walkway. b. The connection shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards for accessibility. c. The connection shall be fully paved and have a minimum width of four feet ( 4'). d . The connection shall be separated from vehicle drive approaches and drive lanes by a change in grade and a wheel stop if the walkway is less than eight feet (8') wide. e. Pedestrian connections that lead directly from the sidewalk to the primary building entrance may contain wing walls, no taller than two feet (2') in height for seating, landscaping, etc . 6. Ground Floor Transparency: Where required, the ground floor transparency standards apply: a. Minimum of sixty percent (60%) of street facing facade, located between two feet (2') and eight feet (8') above the grade of the sidewalk, shall be transparent glass. This may be reduced to twenty percent (20%) if the ground floor is within one of the following building types: urban house, two-family, cottage , and row house. b . There must be visual clearance behind the glass for a minimum of six feet (6'). Three- dimensional display windows at least six feet ( 6') deep are permitted and may be counted toward the sixty percent ( 60%) glass requirement. c. Ground floor windows of commercial uses shall be kept clear at night, free from any window covering, with internal illumination. When ground floor glass conflicts with the internal function of the building, other means shall be used to activate the sidewalk, such as display windows, public art, architectural ornamentation or detailing or other similar treatment. Existing Form Based Zone Design Standards 45 July 26, 2019 d . The first floor elevation facing a street of all new buildings, or buildings in which the property owner is modifying the size of windows on the front facade, shall comply with these standards. 7. Building Materials: A minimum of seventy percent (70%) of any street facing building facade shall be clad in high quality, durable, natural materials, such as stone, brick, wood lap siding, fiber cement board siding, shingled or panel sided, and glass. Other materials may count up to thirty percent (30%) of the street facing building facade. Exterior insulation and finishing systems (EIFS) is permitted for trim only. 8. Open Space: A minimum of ten percent (10%) of the lot area shall be provided for open space. Open space may include landscaped yards, patio, dining areas, common balconies, rooftop gardens, and other similar outdoor living spaces. Private balconies shall not be counted toward the minimum open space requirement. Required parking lot landscaping or perimeter parking lot landscaping shall also not count toward the minimum open space requirement. 9. Building Fenestration: No building wall that faces onto a street shall exceed more than thirty feet (30') in length without being interrupted by windows, doors, or change of building wall plane that results in an offset of at least twelve inches (12"). Illustration Of Building Fenestration 10. Residential Balconies: All street facing residential units above the ground floor or level shall contain a usable balcony that is a minimum of four feet ( 4') in depth. Balconies may overhang any required yard. 11. Design Standards Alternatives: a. Alternatives To Required Build-To Line: Where a "required build-to" standard applies, the following alternatives may count toward the minimum build-to requirement as indicated: (1) Landscaping Walls: Landscaping walls between twenty four inches (24") and forty two inches (42") high may count up to twenty five percent (25%) toward the minimum requirement provided the following: (A) The wall incorporates seating areas. (B) The wall is constructed of masonry, concrete, stone or ornamental metal. (C) The wall maintains clear view sightlines where sidewalks and pedestrian connections intersect vehicle drive aisles or streets . (2) Pergolas And Trellises: Pergolas and trellises may count up to twenty five percent (25%) toward the minimum build-to requirement provided the following: Existing Form Based Zone Design Standards 46 July 26, 2019 (A) The structure is at least forty eight inches ( 48") deep as measured perpendicular to the property line. (B) A vertical clearance of at least eight feet (8') is maintained above the walking path of pedestrians. (C) Vertical supports are constructed of wood, stone, concrete or metal with a minimum of six inches by six inches ( 6" x 6") or a radius of at least four inches ( 4 "). (D) The structure maintains clear view sightlines where sidewalks and pedestrian connections intersect vehicle drive aisles or streets. (3) Arcades: Arcades may count up to one hundred percent (100%) toward the minimum requirement provided the following: (A) The arcade extends no more than two (2) stories in height. (B) No portion of the arcade structure encroaches onto public property. (C) The arcade maintains a minimum pedestrian walkway of five feet (5'). (D) The interior wall of the arcade complies with the building configuration standards. (4) Plazas And Outdoor Dining: Plazas and outdoor dining areas may count up to fifty percent (50%) toward the minimum requirement, and have a maximum front setback of up to fifteen feet (15') provided the following: (A) The plaza or outdoor dining is between the property line adjacent to the street and the street facing building facade. (B) Shall be within two feet (2') of grade with the public sidewalk. (C) The building entry shall be clearly visible through the courtyard or plaza. (D) The building facades along the courtyard or plaza shall comply with the ground floor transparency requirement. b. Alternatives To Ground Floor Transparency Requirement: The planning director may modify the ground floor transparency requirement in the following instances : (1) The requirement would negatively impact the historical character of a building within the H historic preservation overlay district; or (2) The requirement conflicts with the structural integrity of the building and the structure would comply with the standard to the extent possible. 12. Permitted Encroachments And Height Exceptions: Obstructions and height exceptions are permitted as listed in this section or in section 2 IA.36 .020 of this title or as indicated in this subsection. a. Canopies: Canopies covering the primary entrance or entrances to a structure may extend into the right of way provided all city processes and requirements for right of way encroachments are complied with. No commercial signs are allowed on entrance canopies if the canopy encroaches into the public right of way. b. Building Height: In order to promote a varied skyline and other roof shapes in the area, structures with a sloped roof may exceed the maximum building height in the form based districts by five feet (5') provided: Existing Form Based Zone Design Standards 47 July 26, 2019 (1) The additional height does not include additional living space. Vaulted ceilings, storage spaces, and utility spaces are permitted. (2) The slope of the roof is a minimum of a twelve-four (12:4) pitch or a quarter barrel shape. 12:4 Ratio Minimum Slope Of Pitched and Quarter Barrel Roof D. Other Applicable Development Standards: 1. Landscaping: Any applicable standard listed in chapter 21A.48, "Landscaping And Buffers", of this title shall be complied with. 2. Signs: All signs shall comply with the standards found in section 21A.46 .096 of this title. 3. Accessory Uses, Buildings And Structures: All accessory uses, buildings and structures shall comply with the applicable standards in chapter 21A.40 of this title, except as noted below: a. Form based urban neighborhood district specific standards for detached dwelling units: (1) Detached dwelling units may be built in a required yard as a stand alone unit or attached to an accessory building, such as a garage. (2) Detached dwelling units are only permitted with the urban house, two-family dwelling, and cottage development building forms. (3) No accessory structure containing a detached dwelling unit shall exceed twenty five feet (25') in height. ( 4) If a detached dwelling unit is built as a second level, the minimum setback from property line shall be a minimum of four feet ( 4'). (5) All building configuration standards that apply to the primary building form shall also apply to the detached dwelling unit, with the exceptions listed below: (A) The detached dwelling unit shall have an entry feature that faces or is accessible from a public alley when present; (B) The entry feature may be a stoop that has a minimum dimension of four feet by four feet (4' x 4'); and (C) The ground floor transparency requirement does not apply to detached dwelling units located on the second floor of an accessory structure. Existing Form Based Zone Design Standards 48 July 26, 2019 b . Form Based Special Purpose Corridor District specific standards for detached or accessory parking garages or structures : (1) Detached or accessory multilevel parking garages or structures shall have the same setback requirements for principal structures. (2) The minimum setback required shall be landscaped to provide a buffer to the abutting residential district. No structure (primary or accessory) shall be permitted within this landscaped buff er. 4. Parking Regulations: All parking regulations shall comply with the requirements of chapter 21A.44 of this title. 5. Permitted Land Use: All uses allowed in the form based districts can be found in chapter 21A.33 of this title. Existing Form Based Zone Design Standards 49 July 26, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION -July 31, 2019 b) Agenda/Minutes SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA In Room 326 of the City & County Building July 31, 2019, at 5:30 p.m. (The order of the items may change at the Commission's discretion) FIELD TRIP -The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. DINNER -Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m. in Room 126 of the City and County Building. During the dinner break, the Planning Commission may receive training on city planning related topics, including the role and function of the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM IN ROOM 326 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JULY 10, 2019 REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ADU at approximately 1978 South Windsor Street-Dwight Yee, representative for property owner, Joseph Wolf, is requesting Conditional Use approval to construct a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to the rear of the single-family home at 1978 Windsor Street. The property is located in the R-1/7,000 single-family residential zoning district. All ADU's in this zone are required to go through the Conditional Use review process. The subject property is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff contact: Eric Daems at (801) 535-7236 or Eric.daems@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00312 2. Over-height Fence Special Exception at approximately 1538 South 700 East -Heidi Kramer and Walter Kazmarzyk, the owners of the property at 1538 S 700 E, are requesting approval for a proposed over-height fence. Front yard walls and fences are permitted up to four feet, but extra height can be approved through a Special Exception. The proposed five feet eleven-inch (5'-11") wall would be installed parallel to the front property line and span the width of the lot. The applicant is proposing the fence in order to provide screening from noise and pollution and to provide security, and privacy on the site. The Planning Commission has final decision-making authority for Special Exceptions. The subject property is located in the R-1/5,000 Single Family District and within Council District 5 represented by Erin Mendenhall. (Staff contact: Krissy Gilmore at 801-535-7780 or Kristina.Gilmore@slcgov.com ) Case number PLNPCM2019-00428 3. MACU Commercial Parking Lot Conditional Use at 1225 South Redwood Rd -The applicant, Shane Sanders with Sanders Associates Architects, representing Mountain America Credit Union, is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to create a commercial parking lot at the address 1225 South Redwood Road . The proposed commercial parking lot will be located to the rear of the primary structure on the site, to the east of the existing parking, and will include 29 new parking stalls. The parking lot will operate on the same lot as a proposed Mountain America Credit Union; the overall number of parking stalls proposed on this site is 39 stalls. The property is in the Corridor Commercial (CC) zoning district and is in Council District 2 and is represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff contact Nannette Larsen at (801) 535-7645 or Nannette.larsen@slcgov.com ) Case number PLNPCM2019-00424 WORK SESSION 1. Fleet Block Rezone Briefing -A request by the Mayor to amend the zoning for all of the properties located on the "Fleet Block" at approximately 850 South 300 West. The amendment would change the zoning from PL (Public Lands) and CG (General Commercial) to FBUN- 3(Form Based Urban Neighborhood-3), a new form-based zone. A form-based zone emphasis placement of buildings on a lot and the form and bulk of buildings. Form and bulk regulations include building height and design standards that are intended to promote more store fronts and building entrances close to the sidewalk. A public hearing will be scheduled at a later date. The properties are located in Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff Contact: Daniel Echeverria at Daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com or 801-535- 7165) Case number PLNPCM2019-00277 The files for the above items are available in the Planning Division offices, room 406 of the City and County Building. Please contact the staff planner for information , Visit the Planning Division's website at www.slcgov.com !planning for copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes . Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission . Planning Commission Meetings may be watched live on SLCTV Channel 17; past meetings are recorded and archived, and may be viewed at www.slctv.com . The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation , which may include alternate formats , interpreters , and other auxiliary aids and services . Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the Planning Office at 801-535-7757, or relay service 711. SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES EXTRACT City & County Building 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, July 31, 2019 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:31:42 PM . Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Maurine Bachman; Vice Chairperson Sara Urquhart; Commissioners Amy Barry, Adrienne Bell, Weston Clark, Carolynn Hoskins, Matt Lyon, and Andres Paredes. Commissioner Brenda Scheer was excused. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were Nick Norris, Planning Director; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Eric Daems, Principal Planner; Krissy Gilmore, Principal Planner; Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner; Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner; and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary. Field Trip A field trip was held prior to the work session. Planning Commissioners present were : Maurine Bachman, Weston Clark, Carolynn Hoskins, Andres Paredes, and Sara Urquhart . Staff members in attendance were Nick Norris, Eric Daems, Krissy Gilmore, and Daniel Echeverria. WORK SESSION 7:05:35 PM Fleet Block Rezone Briefing -A request by the Mayor to amend the zoning for all of the properties located on the "Fleet Block" at approximately 850 South 300 West. The amendment would change the zoning from PL (Public Lands) and CG (General Commercial) to FBUN- 3(Form Based Urban Neighborhood-3), a new form-based zone . A form-based zone emphasis placement of buildings on a lot and the form and bulk of buildings . Form and bulk regulations include building height and design standards that are intended to promote more store fronts and building entrances close to the sidewalk. A public hearing will be scheduled at a later date. The properties are located in Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff Contact: Daniel Echeverria at Daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com or 801-535-7165) Case number PLNPCM2019-00277 Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, briefed the Planning Commission regarding the proposed rezone. The Commission and Staff discussed the following: • Mid-rise development height range • Whether there will be a height limit • How planning staff defines mid-rise • Clarification on zoning for properties that are up to 90-feet in height Salt Lake City Planning Commission July 31, 2019 Page 1 • Form base code parking standards • Clarification on whether 85-feet by right will require ground-floor retail and apartments • Whether it's permitted to have a full office building in the zone • Building length requirements • Clarification on why not change the entire CG zone • Whether the property has a potential to be full townhouse use • Clarification on what the masterplan calls for in the western portion of the Granary The meeting adjourned at 7:36:10 PM Salt Lake City Planning Commission July 31, 2019 Page 2 5. ORIGINAL PETITION Petition Initiation To: Mayor Jackie Biskupski From: Nick Norris, Planning Director Date: March 22, 2019 Request Planning Divisio n Community & Neighb.orhoods Department CC: Jennifer McGrath, Department of Community & Neighborhoods Director; Michaela Oktay, Assistant Planning Director; file Re: Fleet Block Rezone This memo is to request that you initiate a petition for the Planning Division to begin the process of rezoning the Fleet Block in response to the recommendations from Urban Design Associates (UDA). UDA is the consultant that has been working with Housing and Neighborhood Development on the feasibility study for development of the Fleet Block. The Fleet Block is currently zoned PL Public Lands. This zoning designation would not allow the block to develop in a manner that is consistent with the Downtown Master Plan or the recommendations from the Fleet Block feasibility study. The Planning Division has been working with HAND, Transportation, Engineering, and Public Services to develop zoning regulations that facilitate the development of the Fleet Block that follows the recommendations from UDA and implement the City's goals and objectives for the block. The proposed approach for the Fleet Block is to utilize a modified version of the zoning that is located to the east of the block in the Central Ninth neighborhood. The zoning would allow a wide arrange ofland uses to facilitate an innovation district, including a variety of h'ou~ing types as recommended by UDA. The zoning would allow for similar building height and setbacks to what is already allowed in the area. The zoning will be transferrable to other parts of the Granary as the market demand increases in the area. It is anticipated that the project will include appropriate engagement activities that build on the work of the feasibility study. The timeline for the engagement activities, planning commission process and transmittal to city council is anticipated to take a minimum of 3 months. If you have any questions, please contact me. Concurrence to initiating the zoning map amendment petition as noted above. Jackie Biskupski, Mayor Date •Page 1 6. MAILING LIST NAME Address City Zip Code 1030 Salt Lake City LLC 320 W BROOKLYN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 1030 SLC LLC; CENTRAL PARK WEST OFFICE BL 1000 S MAIN ST# 104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 203 REDWOOD ROAD, LLC 2102 E 3300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 235 WEST LLC PO BOX 522057 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 300 WEST SPE, LLC; PADOVA 300 WEST SPE, L 18881 VON KARMAN IRVINE CA 92612 39/42 LLC 51 E 400 S # 210 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 4 DOOR LLC dba EVOLVE CABINETS & CASEWC 678 S 500 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 400 EAST/WT APARTMENTS, LLC 11589 S SUMMERFIELD CIR SANDY UT 84092 825 S. 500 WEST, LLC 465 w 800 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 907 GALE STREET, LLC 315 W CENTER ST HEBER CITY UT 84032 907 GALE STREET, LLC 907 S GALE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 909 SOUTH PROPERTIES, LLC 3366 w 9000 s WEST JORDAN UT 84088 923 GALE LLC 1094 N HIGHLAND PARKWAY WASHINGTON UT 84780 951 WASHINGTON LLC 3037 ELOUISE AVE MILLCREEK UT 84109 965 CENTRAL LC 70 NORTH MAIN #106 BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 9TH STREET CENTER LLC 1175 E 1850 S BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 AC ELECTRIC INC 729 S KILBY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 A PLUS AUTO CENTER LLC 945 S GALE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 AARONS TOWING & RECOVERY 358 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ABRAHAM & ARLINE B MARKOSIAN FAMILY Ll 700 E NORTHCREST DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 ACS PRECISION FINISH, INC 4750 s 3685 w TAYLORSVILLE UT 84129 ADVANCED FOUR WHEEL DRIVE SYST 1102 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ADVANTAGE SALES & MARKETING LLC 231w800 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 AKBAR MATINKHAH 1374 E LAIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 A-L TOWING 337 W AMERICAN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ALFANDRE FAMILY FOUNDATION, INC 9806 E BEXHILL DR KENSINGTON MD 20895 ALFREDA K TSAI 830 S WESTIEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ALFREDO H JUAREZ; PATRICIA H JUAREZ (JT) 3088 S ALPINE MEADOWS DR WEST VALLEY UT 84120 ALL ABOUT TRUCKS INC 435 W FAYETIE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ALL FOR YOU RENTALS LLC 569 w 600 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ALL PRO RESTORATION, LLC 7747 S ALLEN ST MIDVALE UT 84047 ALLRED M H CONSTRUCTION 964 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ALVIE CARTER TRUST 12/05/1994 1810 W INDIANA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 AM PROPERTIES, LLC 4646 w 5215 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84118 AMBER N HOLMES LLC 908 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 AMERICAN CRANE INC 2471s150 w BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 American West International Trades, LLC 1085 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 AMERITECH COATINGS INC 534 w 800 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 AMERITEL INN ELKO, LLC; LLC. AMERITEL INN 110200 W EMERALD ST BOISE ID 83704 ANGELA H BROWN 1145 W SIMONDI AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ANGELINA'S CORNER LLC 1320 E MILNE LN COTIONWOOD HTS L 84047 ANGELO G GIANELO 81 S SKYCREST LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 ANNE E CLARK 1758 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ANNE R FLADE 2588 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 ANNEX MANAGEMENT LLC 1901S500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ARCHIPELLI PROPERTIES LC 1368 E WESTMINSTER AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 ARTHUR MORAIS; KARLA MORAIS (JT) PO BOX 333 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110 ASHOKA GROUP I, LLC 4512 S GILEAD WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84124 ATHERTON MANAGEMENT LLC 3679 E VIEWCREST CIR MILLCREEK UT 84124 AWAKE PROPERTIES, LLC PO BOX 45385 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84145 AXIOM PROPERTIES II, LLC 351w400 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 AXLE & GEAR COMPANY 1112 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 AV AD'S AUTO LLC 775 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 BARBARA JOY LIVSEY HOLT FAMILY LLC; TRUS-389 W 1700 S # C SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 BARREL LLC 150 E VINE ST MURRAY UT 84107 BOCA LLC 921s300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 BELOVED LLC 741s400 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 BENJAMIN JONES 725 s 200 w # 402 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 BERGAZ LLC 630 s 500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 BIG 0 TIRES 910 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 BIG SKY URBAN, LLC 57 w 2100 s SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115 BIRCH CREEK RANCH CO RR BOX 470 TROUT CREEK UT 84083 BISON HOLDINGS, INC 1332 S COLONIAL DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 BLUE COPPER COFFEE ROOM 179 w 900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 BLUEMOUNTAIN, INC PO BOX 294 LAYTON UT 84041 BM & V ENTERPRISES, LC 8907 S QUAIL HOLLOW DR SANDY UT 84093 BRIGHAM STREET SERVICE 662 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 BROADBENT LAND AND RESOURCES, LLC PO BOX 58627 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84158 BROOKLYN DEVELOPMENT LLC 404 W FAYETIE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 BROOKLYN DEVELOPMENT, LLC 3150 w 900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 BROWN OPPORTUNITY FUND LLC 850 S MENDON CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 BRUCE H AOKI 3393 E CANYON CREEK DR COTIONWOOD HTS L 84121 BULLDOG SHEETMETAL FABRICATION 246 W MONTROSE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 BURBIDGE CONCRETE PUMPING LLC 911 S RIO GRANDE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 BUSH SALES & MANUFACTURING INC 827 s 500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CAFE & GRILL THE OLD SCHOOL 616 s 500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CALEB M KIRSCH; MARY R KIRSCH (JT) 725 s 200 w # 303 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CAPITOL CENTER PROPERTIES, LLC 1475 E SIGSBEE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 CARL CONNELLY 2263 E HIGH MOUNTAIN DR SANDY UT 84092 CARTER PROPERTY 742 S KILBY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CD FAM TR 824 S WESTIEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CDM&M INVESTMENTS LLC 2432 W BRIDLE MEADOW CIR BLUFFDALE UT 84065 CENTRAL 9 LOFTS HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATI! 150 S STATE ST# 100 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CENTRAL NINTH DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LI 76 N 'H' ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 CENTRAL NINTH PLACE, LLC 3170 BANNOCK DR PROVO UT 84064 CENTRAL WATER INC. 229 w 900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CERTIFIED REPAIR LLC 917 S GALE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CHAMBERLAIN CABINETRY 736 s 400 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CHARLES R FEDERER; DUANGJUN FEDERER 48 W BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CHECKERSPOT, INC dba CHECKERSPOT DESIG~ 922 S 500 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CHRIS CONDIT PO BOX483 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110 CHRISTOPHER L BAIGUE; PIERRE C BAIGUE (JT : 725 S 200 W # 201 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CHRISTOPHER R DEMURI 1099 S WINDSOR ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 CHUCKLES LOUNGE INC 221w900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CINDY MENESES; ALFREDO MENESES (JT) 4223 SUNRISE DR PARK CITY UT 84098 CLASSIC APTS 356 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CLUB TRY ANGLES 251w900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 COLDSWEEP SOLUTIONS INC 205 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 COLFER, LLC; CPH VH, LLC (TC) 3308 MISTY LN VESTAVIA AL 35243 COLTRAIN PROPERTIES 228 W MONTROSE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CONCEPCION REYNAGA; MARIA G REYNAGA(. 2946 S SU NOAK CIR WEST VALLEY UT 84128 CONCEPT INC 368 w 900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 COPPER MOUNTAIN ELECTRIC LLC 479 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CRAIG N LINDBERG; ANNETIE N LINDBERG (JT 4573 S WORMWOOD DR WEST VALLEY UT 84120 CRAIG NIELSON PO BOX 1477 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110 CRESTVIEW INVESTMENTS, LLC PO BOX 57845 MURRAY UT 84157 CT2 COMMERCIAL, LLC 350 S 200 E # 104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CUONG CHI LUONG; PHUONG MY LUONG (JT) 255 S 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 Current Occupant 1001 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1002 S WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1005 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1007 s 500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1010 S WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1012 S WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1015 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1018 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1020 s 500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1022 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1030 s 400 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1032 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1035 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1036 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1038 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1039 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1040 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1042 S WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1043 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1046 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1047 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1048 S WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1049 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 105 w 600 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1050 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1050 s 500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1050 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1051s300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1051 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1052 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1055 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1056 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1057 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1058 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1058 S WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1061 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1062 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1063 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1064 S WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1065 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1068 S WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1075 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1081s300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1082 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1090 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1094 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1095 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 110 w 900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1108 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 111w800 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 111 W MEAD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 1132 s 500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 117 w 900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 120 w 900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 120 W MEAD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 124 W GOLTZ AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 125 w 800 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 126 w 900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 126 W MEAD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 127 W MEAD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 128 W GOLTZ AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 129 W MEAD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 130 W MEAD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 133 W MEAD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 134 W GOLTZ AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 135 w 900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 138 W GOLTZ AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 140 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 150 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 151 W MEAD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 160 w 900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 161w600 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 163 w 900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 165 w 800 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 165 W MEAD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 171 W MEAD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 175W900S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 175 W MEAD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 176W800S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 177W700S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 179W700S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 181w700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 181 w 800 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 183 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 185 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 212 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 216 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 218 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 222 W FAYETIE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 223 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 223 W FAYETIE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 224 W FAYETIE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 225 W MONTROSE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 226 W MONTROSE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 227 w 600 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 227 w 900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 228 W MONTROSE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 230 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 230 W BROOKLYN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 231w900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 232 w 800 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 233 W MONTROSE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 236 W MONTROSE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 237 w 600 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 237 W MONTROSE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 240 W MONTROSE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 241 W MONTROSE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 243 w 600 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 244 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 246 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 255 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 255 W BROOKLYN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 258 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 259 w 900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 259 W BROOKLYN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 263 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 267 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 269 W BROOKLYN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 271w900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 274 W BROOKLYN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 275 w 800 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 278 w 900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 285 w 800 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 305 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 307 w 600 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 313 w 900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 316 w 800 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 316 W AMERICAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 319 w 600 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 319 W AMERICAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 320 W AMERICAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 321 W AMERICAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 321 W BROOKLYN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 326 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 326 W AMERICAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 327 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 330 w 800 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 331 W AMERICAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 333 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 334 w 800 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 344 w 800 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 345 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 349 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 355 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 357 W AMERICAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 364 w 800 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 365 w 600 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 365 w 900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 380 w 800 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 389 W AMERICAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 390 W AMERICAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 401w900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 404 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 404 W FAYETIE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 406 W FAYETIE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 422 w 900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 423 w 800 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 431w600 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 435 W FAYETIE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 440 w 900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 443 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 444 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 448 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 450 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 455 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 456 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 458 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 460 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 467 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 471w800 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 510 w 900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 526 w 800 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 530 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 537 w 600 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 545 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 550 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 552 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 556 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 601s500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 610 s 400 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 614 s 400 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 615 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 615 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 616 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 619 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 619 s 600 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 621 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 624 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 625 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 625 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 626 S WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 631 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 634 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 634 s 400 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 636 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 637 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 642 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 645 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 648 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 652 S WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 655 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 656 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 657 s 400 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 662 S WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 663 s 400 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 663 s 600 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 664 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 668 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 672 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 672 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 672 S WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 675 s 400 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 676 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 677 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 680 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 710 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 711s300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 717 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 717 s 500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 721s200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 722 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 723 S KILBY CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 724 S KILBY CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 725 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 725 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 726S400W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 728 S KILBY CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 729 S KILBY CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 736 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 737 s 400 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 738 S KILBY CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 739 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 739 s 400 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 740 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 742 s 500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 745 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 750 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 754 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 756 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 764 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 770 S WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 773 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 774 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 776S400W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 776 s 500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 802 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 806 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 808 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 809 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 810 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 812 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 813 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 814 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 817S200W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 817 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 820 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 820 S WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 821s200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 821s300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 821 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 822 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 823 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 824 s 400 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 824 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 824 S WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 825 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 825 s 500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 826 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 826 S WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 827 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 828 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 829 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 829 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 829 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 830 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 830 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 830 S WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 831 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 832 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 832 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 832 S WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 833 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 833 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 834 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 834 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 835 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 835 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 835 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 836 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 837 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 838 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 838 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 839 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 839 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 839 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 839 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 840 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 840 S WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 841s200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 841 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 843 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 844 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 844 S WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 845 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 846 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 846 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 847S200W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 848 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 850 s 400 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 850 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 850 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 850 S WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 851s200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 851 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 851 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 852 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 852 S WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 854 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 854 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 855 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 855 s 500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 855 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 855 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 856 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 857 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 858 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 858 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 858 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 859 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 860 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 862 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 862 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 863 s 500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 863 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 864 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 868 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 869 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 870 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 871 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 873 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 877 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 888 s 400 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 901s200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 904 S GALE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 906 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 906 S GALE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 907 S GALE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 909 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 909 S GALE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 909 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 913 s 400 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 913 s 500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 913 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 914 S RIO GRANDE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 915 s 500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 915 S GALE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 915 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 916 S GALE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 916 S RIO GRANDE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 917S200W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 920 s 500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 920 S GALE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 921s200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 922 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 923 S GALE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 924 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 924 S GALE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 925 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 925 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 926 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 927 s 400 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 927 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 928 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 929 s 500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 930 S RIO GRANDE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 931 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 931 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 932 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 933 s 400 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 935 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 936 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 936 S RIO GRANDE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 937 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 937 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 938 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 942 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 942 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 943 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 945 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 945 S GALE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 945 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 948 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 950 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 950 s 500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 950 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 951 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 955 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 956 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 958 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 961s300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 961s400 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 961 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 962 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 962 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 965 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 965S400W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 967 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 968 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 969 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 969 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 970 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 974 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 981s500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 982 s 400 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CVS/Pharmacy #17596 1110 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CW THE RUTH, LLC 1148 W LEGACY CROSSING BL CENTERVILLE UT 84014 DA F P LLC PO BOX 2044 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110 DAIDB, LLC 211 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 DALLEN J MOORE 826 S WESTIEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Dan Green Restorations 830 s 500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 DANIEL R POSILOVICH 1743 S DOUGLASS RD STE D ANAHEIM CA 92806 DARIN MANO 1058 S WESTIEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 DAVE ROPER 177 w 700 s # 105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 DAVID M BEMIS 8479S1380 E SANDY UT 84093 DCM PROPERTIES LLC 915 S GALE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 DECORATION INC 826 s 500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 DONALD JEMERSON; HARRIETI DIETZ EMERS 1 798 WILDCAT CAYON RD BERKELEY CA 94708 DOUBLE BRONCO, LLC 351 W PIERPONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 DOUGLAS B BABB; SUE BABB (JT) 1785 E MEADOW DOWNS WY COTIONWOOD HTS L 84121 DOUGLAS W JONES PO BOX 58291 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84158 DPS SKIS 647 s 600 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 DRIFTWOOD AUTO BODY 362 w 800 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 DWIGHT ALLEN CURRY 3731 S LORETIA DR MILLCREEK UT 84106 EDEN REAL PROPERTIES, LLC 193 N 200 E CENTERVILLE UT 84014 EDIFICE, LLC 3261 UTILE COTIONWOOD RD SANDY UT 84092 EDU ENTERPRISES, LLC 469 E SERENITY OAK LN MURRAY UT 84107 El Pollo Loco 1120 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ELINE LLC 302 SUMMERMEADOW CIR BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 ELOY J. HERRERA; EUFELIA HERRERA 5095 S WHITAKER WY TAYLORSVILLE UT 84129 ENERGY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 501w700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ENVIROTECH PUMPSYSTEMS 440 w 800 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 EQUINOX SOFTWARE SERVICE 1025 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ETNA PROPERTIES, LLC 9160 s 300 w SANDY UT 84070 EUGENE MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC 4612 S 600 E MURRAY UT 84107 EUROPA PROPERTIES, LLC 2014 E 900 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 FEULNER ENTERPRISES, LLC 2027 E WALDO DR HOLLADAY UT 84117 FISHER BREWING COMPANY LLC 320 w 800 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Frontier Water Systems LLC 924 s 500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 G B CHAMBERLAIN 919 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 GLENS POLISH & PAINT INC 337 W AMERICAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 GOLD CROSS SERVICES INC 947S200W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 GOODIES ULTRA FUN COMPANY LLC 855 s 400 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 GRANARY HOLDINGS, LLC 170 S MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 GRANARY PROPERTIES, LLC 4916 W FISH HOOK RD SOUTH JORDAN UT 84009 GRANITE KINGS LLC 513 w 600 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 GRAY POND & ASSOCIATES, LLC 3780 23RD ST BOULDER CO 80304 GRB REV TR; JKB REV TR 639 S MOUNTAIN VIEW CIR NORTH SALT LAKE UT 84054 GRB REV TRUST; JKB REV TRUST 639 MOUNTAIN VIEW CIR NORTH SALT LAKE UT 84054 GREEN STREET PARTNERS/SECOND WEST APA 12636 S 125 W #A DRAPER UT 84020 GREENERY, LLC 230 s 500 w # 235 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 GREEN PRINT 840, LLC PO BOX 1131 PLEASANT GROVE UT 84062 GREENPRINT, LLC 1810 WEST 700 NORTH LINDON UT 84042 GREGORY C KETCH 655 E 100 N ALPINE UT 84004 GUY A SCRIBNER; LUCY SCRIBNER (JT) 1662 E MARVIN GARDENS HOLLADAY UT 84121 GUY LEGACY PARTNERS, LLC 7634 N SILVER CREEK RD PARK CITY UT 84098 HAT TRICK, LLC 16 E EXCHANGE PL SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 HEATHER KNOWLTON 725 s 200 w # 102 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 HEIDI THEOBALLD; CHARLES R FRICKS (JT) 10364 S ALTAVILLA DR SANDY UT 84092 HI DREAMS LLC 315 w 600 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 HOSPITALITY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP CAVANAI 201 W NORTHRIVER DR #100 SPOKANE WA 99201 IMAGE SIGN & LIGHTING 923 S GALE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 INDUSTRY SLC LLC 3001 BRIGHTON BLVD DENVER CO 80216 INFINITE INCEPTION INC. 2377 E QUAIL HOLLOW DR SANDY UT 84093 INTERMOUNTAIN JOBBERS SUPPLY 780 s 400 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 INTERMOUNTAIN LAND COMPANY LLC 127 W MEAD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 INTERMOUNTAIN LAND COMPANY LLC 5288 S COMMERCE DR #B-150 MURRAY UT 84107 ISAAC LEVET 832 S WESTIEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 J&JM LIV TR 7555 S MICHELLE WY COTIONWOOD HTS L 84093 JACOB L CALL; THERESA TAUA WONG (JT) 1042 S WESTIEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 JADE MARKET CENTRAL 9TH 161w900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 JASON D NGUYEN; THUY PHAM (JT) 11059 S SUNUP WY SOUTH JORDAN UT 84009 JB TIRE 988 s 500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 JDF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 5344 S COTIONWOOD LN HOLLADAY UT 84117 JDF LIV FAMILY TRUST 3448 s 350 w BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 JEFFERSON 838 LLC 760 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 JEFFERSON PARTNERS LLC 2551 E BRENTWOOD DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121 JEFFERSON WALKWAY HOME OWNERS ASSOC PO BOX 58232 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84158 JEFFREY COBABE AND ASSOCIATES LLC 540 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 JEFFREY M MCCARTHY 7058 STAGECOACH DR PARK CITY UT 84098 JEREMIAH RAMOS; ANNA LEE (JT) 725 s 200 w # 105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 JF GRANARY PARTNERS, LLC 1148 LEGACY CROSSING BLVD CENTERVILLE UT 84014 JG LV TRST 4788 S BRON BRECK ST HOLLADAY UT 84117 JIANSHENG WU 55 E DORCHESTER DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 JOHNNY UTAH, LLC 252 E COATSVILLE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JONATHAN D ROSE; KORI J ROSE (JT) 260 N ALMOND ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 JONATHAN WOOD 520 6TH ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103 JORDAN JOHNSON 725 s 200 w # 205 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 JOSE L BUSTILLOS; LYDIA G RODRIGUEZ (TC) 8113 S FLAXTON LN WEST JORDAN UT 84081 JOSE R HERNANDEZ; ROSALBA R HERNANDEZ 1213 S ONTARIO DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 JOSEPH R HAMPTON; DIANA L HAMPTON (TC) 3815 3RD AVE APT 12 SAN DIEGO CA 92103 JOSEPH S LEYBA 1775 TURK ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94115 JOSHUA A WETZEL; EDEN L MESSUTIA (JT) 11499 E 25TH DR AURORA CO 80010 JR MILLER INVESTMENT SLC 519 W STATE RD #101 PLEASANT GROVE UT 84062 JS AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR 260 w 900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 JUDY GARCIA PARKER 489 E 400 S # 215 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JW&FMS REV TR 4924 S ESTHER CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 KATHRYN A CAUSEY 923 LONGLEAF DR NORTH SALT LAKE UT 84054 KAVYAN SHANE KEYVANI 2309 S STATE ST SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115 KDZ PROPERTIES Ill LLC 2052 E SYCAMORE LN HOLLADAY UT 84117 KENNETH D ZENGER 664 S WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 KENNETH SNYDER; INGELA SNYDER 243 W OAK STREET ELKO NV 89801 KESSIMAKIS PRODUCE 995 s 500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 KESSIMAKIS PROPERTIES LLC 4648 S 345 E MURRAY UT 84107 KEVIN & KIMBERLY CHARLES LIVING TRUST 12 2255 STENNER CREEK RD SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93405 KeyBank Natioanal Association 1098 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 KILBY COURT 741 S KILBY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 KINGLORD INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, LLC 1696 E MUELLER PARK RD BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 KM FAM TR 13818 S VESTRY RD DRAPER UT 84020 KO COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, LLC 5962 S HOLLADAY BLVD HOLLADAY UT 84121 KRISTIE GILES 116 W LAYTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 L C 534 WEST 800 SOUTH 5288 S COMMERCE DR MURRAY UT 84107 L.L.C CANYON LANDS APARTMENTS; L.L.C. CM 251 E ADAM LANE WASHINGTON UT 84780 L.L.C. DWIGHT LAIRD 1182 E LAI RD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 L.L.C. IMAGE SIGN AND LIGHING 11474 S TARA WOODS LN SOUTH JORDAN UT 84095 LANDON JOHNSON 857-859 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 LAZIZ KITCHEN 912 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 LEADVILLE LLC 4351 S CAMILLE ST HOLLADAY UT 84124 LEWIS HUYNH HOLDINGS, LLC 6189 S RODEO LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121 LILLIAN M MCCOMAS; LILLIAN M MCCOMAN 1434 N BARONESS PL SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 LLL 825 LLC; 825 S 200 W, LLC 313 EUREKA ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94114 LLS ELLWANGER PROPERTY HOLDING-EAGLE F 338 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LMSORENSON PHOTOGRAPHY 746 S KILBY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 LTD SHARED EQUITIES A 1373 E SKYLINE DR BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 LUGNUT LLC 1125 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 LVNIVT; NORD INVESTMENT COMPANY 826 WOODMOOR CIRCLE BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 M FMTR 434 ZINFANDEL CIRCLE CLAYTON CA 94517 MAACK ART & FRAME INC 225 W MONTROSE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 MAFUA PROPERTY MAINTENANCE 135 W GOLTZ SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 MAGDALENA PROPERTIES, LLC 2340 WESTCLIFFE LN WALNUT CREEK CA 94597 MAGIC MASSAGE LLC 330 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 MARATHON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC 3731 W SOUTHJORDAN PKWY SOUTH JORDAN UT 84009 MARC REYNOLD PHOTO GROUP LLC 385 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 MARK MILLER TOYOTA 730 S WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 MARKAT COMPANY LLC 730 S WESTIEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 MARTIN D BECKSTEAD 8831 S BLUEJAY LN COTIONWOOD HTS L 84121 MATIHEW KALLIO PO BOX 296 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110 MAVERIK COUNTRY STORES, INC 185 S STATE ST# 800 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MCGREW STUDIOS LLC 721s400 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 MEDITRINA INC 165 w 900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 MELISSA MOEINVAZIRI 1064 S WESTIEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 MERLIN TIMOTHY 2939 E SHERWOOD DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 METHOD PROPERTIES LLC 360 W ASPEN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 MICELLI lOTH SOUTH LLC 2705 s 600 w SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115 MICHAEL G MURLEY PO BOX 682502 PARK CITY UT 84068 MICHAELS COTIERMAN; MARILYN E COTIERr 725 S 200 W # 301 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 NON PROPHET LLC 972 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ON SITE FLEET MANANGEMENT 455 W FAYETIE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 P & C VENTURES 240 W MONTROSE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 PRESTIGE RESIDENTIAL PAINTING 859 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 PRIME FIELD SERVICE CORPORATION 575 w 800 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 R & J PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS LLC 1008 S WEST TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 RACEEDDIE PRODUCTION SERVICES 733 s 400 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ROCMONT INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION 774 s 500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 RUBYSNAP INC 770 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 RV GENERAL MARINE 910 S RIO GRANDE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SCONEY ISLAND CORPORATION 1050 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SIXTH SOUTH COM MERICAL PARK LLC 675 s 500 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 STEIMEL COMMUNICATIONS INCORPORATED 661 S 600 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SUBWAY #45641 311w600 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SWITCH VENUE 625 s 600 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 TACOS GARAY 909 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 TEDS TRANSPORTATION/ TDT INTERNATIONA 738 S 400 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 TEMPLIN FAMILY BREWING 936 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 TERRY'S AUTO REPAIR 328 w 800 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 The Big 0 Doughnuts 248 w 900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 TRANSCO INDUSTRIES INC 859 s 600 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 TRUST PERFORMANCE 336 w 700 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 UNI FIRST CORPORATION 1024 s 200 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 UTAH BREWERS COOPERATIVE LLC 639 s 600 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 VENTURA'S CUSTOM AUTO PAINTING 372 W AMERICAN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 VERTICAL DINER AND THE JADE ROOM 234 w 900 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 VR GLOBAL SECURITY CONSULTING & INVESTI 249 W 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 WASATCH BODY SHOP INC 373 W AMERICAN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ZION FURNITURE and UPHOLSTERY 760 s 300 w SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 MJC HOLDINGS LLC 23 N MAIN ST FARMINGTON UT 84025 MORRIS R PARRY; MC 800, LLC 10 W BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 NISH LTD 2015 BLUEBELL DR BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 NOAH NASSER 7832 N PROMONTORY RANCH I PARK CITY UT 84098 NORMAN R BROWN; SUES BROWN (JT) 1719 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 0 N 0 INC 807 w 2100 s WOODS CROSS UT 84087 OZl OPPORTUNITY FUND, LLC 1810 W 700 N LINDON UT 84042 PARKSIDE CONDOMINIUM HOMEWONERS AS 7931 BLAZE TRAIL CT ORANGEVALE CA 95662 PATRICK MCMANUS 128-130 W GOLTZ AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 PATRICK RAMIREZ 725 S 200 W # T-204 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 PAUL HOPPER; CHRISTINE A HOPPER (JT) 606 S SENATE CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 PINE ISLAND PROPERTIES LLC 3010 E MIDDLETON WY HOLLADAY UT 84124 POB 588 TRST PO BOX 588 DRAPER UT 84020 Q-6 ASSOCIATES, LLC; LTD CENTRAL PARK WE~ 1000 S MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 QUALITY LINEN & TOWEL SUPPLY CO 68 JONSPIN RD WILMINGTON MA 01887 RAFFI DAGHLIAN 541 E NORTHHILLS DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 RAMOS INVESTMENTS, LLC 2466 W COUNTRYSIDE LN WEST JORDAN UT 84084 REALTY INCOME PROPERTIES 5, LLC 11995 EL CAMINO REAL SAN DIEGO CA 92130 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY PO BOX 145518 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 REDFISH INVESTMENTS, LLC ; DOMOS, LLC 2130 S ORCHARD DR BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 RICHARD Z PERSCHON; KATHLEEN T PERSCHO 4870 S PLYMOUTH VIEW DR TAYLORSVILLE UT 84123 RJW TRST; STACY ROBERT WILLIAMS FAMILY 12662 E COMANCHE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 RL SALT LAKE, LLC 201 W NORTH RIVER DR# 100 SPOKANE WA 99201 ROCK ENTERPRISES LLC 388 W MAIN ST AMERICAN FORK UT 84003 ROY N BYRD; JACKIE A BYRD (JT) 725 s 200 w # 203 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SAFE HAVEN II LLC PO BOX 572070 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84157 SALT LAKE CITY CORP PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 SALT LAKE CITY METRO 1743 S DOUGLASS RD #D ANAHEIM CA 92806 SALT LAKE COUNTY PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 SAMIR PATEL 33 CLEVELAND LN PRINCETON NJ 08540 SAMUEL ROGERS 629 S WASHINGTON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SA TI AR TABRIZ 1429 E ROOSEVELT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SECOND WEST PROPERTIES LLC 1775 N WARM SPRINGS RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 SHOREDITCH LLC 205 HUDSON ST NEW YORK NY 10013 SILVER ANTLER, LLC 1717 S REDWOOD RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SINCLAIR OIL CORP 550 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 SIXTH WEST PROPERTIES LLC 1831 S CONNOR ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 SMHTR 1475 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SNT ENTERPRISES LC PO BOX 538 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110 SOJOURN DEVELOPMENT SLC, LLC 2555 34TH ST NE CANTON OH 44705 SOUTHLAND CORPORATION PO BOX 711 DALLAS TX 75221 SQUIRE ENTERPRISES, LLC 5027 S MEMORY LN HOLLADAY UT 84117 STACY R WILLIAMS; SUSAN W; sue TRS STEVE 2468 E EMERSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 STEFANIE WILCOX 710 S INDIAN HILLS DR #86 SAINT GEORGE UT 84770 STEPHEN F BOULAY; ELIZABETH S BOULAY (JT) 540 E NORTHMONT WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 STEPHEN J KESLER; MORGAN K KESLER (JT) 748 DAVID WAY NO SALT LAKE CITY u· 84054 STRASSER ORGANIZATION, INC. 1935 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 TARGET CORPORATION 1000 NICOLLETI MALL MINNEAPOLIS MN 55403 TENFIFTEEN PARTNERS, LLC 3045 ELOUISE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 TONGUENGRUVEN LC PO BOX 1053 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110 TONY H NGO 3460s1940 w WEST VALLEY UT 84119 TRENTON HUGHES; MICHAEL HUGHES (JT) 725 s 200 w # 306 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 TURN COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC. 423 W 800 S # A200 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 TURPIN PROPERTIES, LLC 7372 S RACQUET CLUB DR COTIONWOOD HTS L 84121 TWO HUNDRED WEST, LLC 720 N REXFORD DR BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY 1400 DOUGLAS ST STOP 1640 OMAHA NE 68179 URBAN 9TH LLC 825 N 300 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 URBAN RENAISSANCE GROUP LLC 6055 S HOLLADAY BLVD HOLLADAY UT 84121 U RBAN-C9 LLC 251 UTILE FALLS DR WILMINGTON DE 19808 UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO 825 NE MULTNOMAH ST #190C PORTLAND OR 97232 UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY 669 w 200 s SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 UTP GROUP , INC PO BOX 3778 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110 VENTNOR AVENUE, LLC 1039 W RIVER VISTA CV RIVERTON UT 84065 VIDOVICH -AXIS LP 960 N SAN ANTONIO RD LOS ALTOS CA 94022 VINA INVESTMENT AND AMUSEMENT LLC 2663 E CASTO LN HOLLADAY UT 84117 VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA OF UTAH, INC 435 W BEARCAT DR SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115 WALL PROPERTIES SERVICES, LLC 456 E DOREEN ST MILLCREEK UT 84107 WANG ORGAN IZAITON LLC 168 CENTER ST MOAB UT 84532 WANG ORGANIZATION LLC 168 EAST CENTER ST MOAB UT 84532 WARBURTON FAMILY TRUST 05/15/1998 989 E MILLCREEK WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 WEST FACE PROPERTIES, LLC 395 E HORSE CREEK DR MIDVALE UT 84070 WESTERN REGION NONPROFIT HOUSING COR 233 W 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 WESTERN REGION NON-PROFIT HOUSING COi 223 W 700 S # D SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 WILLIAM E GOWEN 840 S WESTIEMPLE ST# 2 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 WILLIAM K REAGAN 1492 E PENROSE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 WWC91 HOLDINGS LLC PO BOX 711548 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84171 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 11207 S CRESCENTRIDGE CIR SOUTH JORDAN UT 84095 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1461 WILLOW VALLEY DR CENTERVILLE UT 84014 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 2116 E CONNOR PARK CV SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 L & LH TRST 1242 E EASTRIDGE CIR SANDY UT 84094 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 3718 s 3760 w WEST VALLEY UT 84120 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1433 E EMERSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED PO BOX 401624 LAS VEGAS NV 89140 MTW & ALW 2000 RV TRST 3393 E YESTERNIGHT ST MERIDIAN ID 83642 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1697 N FORT LN LAYTON UT 84041 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 4162 S MACKAY DR TAYLORSVILLE UT 84129 Daniel Echeverria -Salt Lake City Planning Divi PO Box 145480 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY23 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards Budget and Policy Analysts DATE:November 10, 2022 RE: Budget Amendment Number Three FY2023 ________________________________________________________________________________ Budget Amendment Number Four includes thirty-six proposed amendments, $121,322,581 of expenditures of which $5,890,164 is from Fund Balance, requested changes to eight funds and six new FTEs. If all the items are adopted as proposed, then Fund Balance would be 15.3% which is $9,975,284 above the 13% minimum target. Revenue for FY2023 Budget Adjustments The transmittal provides the most recent sales tax revenues and fund balance information in the following charts. Project Timeline: Set Date: Nov. 10, 2022 1st Briefing: Nov. 10, 2022 2nd Briefing: Nov. 22 / Dec. 6, 2022 (if needed) Public Hearing: Dec. 6, 2022 Potential Action: Dec. 13, 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 Fund Balance The Administration’s chart below shows the current General Fund Balance figures. 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 Impact Fees Update The Administration’s transmittal does not provide an updated summary of impact fee tracking. The information from Budget Amendment No. 3 is copied below and is current as of July 1, 2022. As a result, the City is on-track with impact fee budgeting to have no refunds during all of FY2023 and FY2024. The Administration reports work is nearing completion to update the fire and parks sections of the impact fee plan. The transportation section was updated in October 2020. Eligible projects for police impact fees are being identified. Note that the below balances were updated based on the Council’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project funding decisions. Type Unallocated Cash “Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring Impact Fees Fire $1,156,234 More than a year away - Parks $12,578,822*More than a year away - Police $846,150 More than a year away - Transportation $3,428,519 More than a year away - Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract *The RDA Board is evaluating using some funding for the Marmalade Plaza project Section A: New Items (note: to expedite the processing of this staff report, staff has included the Administration’s descriptions from the transmittal for some of these items) A-1: Elections Awareness ($38,509 from General Fund Balance) The cost of the general obligation bond election was $24,735. The cost of the insert for the voter information pamphlet was $13,774. This item will backfill costs incurred by the Recorder’s Office which were unknown at the time of adopting the annual budget. A-2: Rescope Unspent Operation Rio Grande Funds for Homelessness Services ($490,847 from General Fund Balance) This amendment is to repurpose unused Salt Lake County funds for Operation Rio Grande through a contract amendment with the County for new homelessness services. See attached County contract and contract amendments. $274,000: VOA, City Specific Outreach Team. Description: This funding will continue operations of the City’s outreach team with Volunteers of America. This team focuses on facilitating unsheltered residents access to both short term supportive services and long-term permanent housing. Absent this funding the City-specific street outreach team of four FTEs would stop operating. The team includes two case managers working on housing homeless individuals and two coordinators working on short-term interventions like temporary shelter and detox / treatment placements. There are no other city funding sources for this team. A countywide street outreach team would remain available for work in Salt Lake City but at a reduced level of service. Note the four-person City- specific street outreach team is in addition to the two street outreach workers and community liaisons funded by the State Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation grant. $177,847: Provider TBD, FY 2023 Winter Overflow Operations. Description: The Winter Overflow plan for this year, while mandated by the State legislature, was not funded by the State legislature. While existing state funding has now been identified to support most overflow costs, this funding has been identified as a source that can fill gaps in needed services for overflow operations this winter. Note that these funds could also be used for Police Department overtime staffing at and in neighborhoods around the winter overflow shelters including the forced flex capacity increases at the Miller and King Homeless Resource Centers (HRCs). $30,000: Shelter the Homeless, HRC Security. Description: Funds would be used to pay for one of the swing shift security staff at either the Geraldine E. King or the Gail Miller HRC. The City does not typically pay for private security at HRCs or other privately owned property. Shelter the Homeless has indicated the HRC operating budgets have a funding gap for security. Page | 4 2 2 1 9 2 $9,000: VOA, Detox Bed Costs. Description: Detox service costs increased this year and funding is needed to ensure immediate access for the City’s first responders to refer patients into two detox beds at VOA’s adult detox center. Note that the additional funding is to continue providing access to the two treatment beds at higher cost and is not securing additional bed availability. The City does not typically provide funding for detox beds. The Administration does not anticipate additional unspent funding from Operation Rio Grande becoming available for repurposing. Policy Question: ➢Balancing City Police Overtime and Shelter Operations Funding Needs Outside Typical City Scope – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether some of the proposed funding should go to Police Department overtime or shelter operations/detox beds proposed. Note that four items in this budget amendment are requesting $4,812,953 of new one-time funding for Police Department overtime. A-3: Dee Glen Tennis Court Reconstruction ($500,000 from General Fund Balance) In 2020 after the March 18th earthquake, the North side of Court 7 at the Dee Glen Smith Tennis Center began to significantly buckle and crack and has become unsafe. Cables holding the post-tension courts have shifted and could continue to shift more into the court with future weather or earthquake events. The Engineering Division has been working with a structural engineer to determine the best course of action. Failure of the post tensioning and drainage are suspected to be causing the cracking and court slab failure. Repair to the post tensioning is possible, however expensive, and likely temporary, and the contractor cannot guarantee the quality and longevity of the repair. This request for $500,000 will be to replace the post-tension courts with an anticipated cost of $360,000. Engineering also suggests another $140,000 to address drainage and other issues that may have caused the failure. The Administration states no further capital improvement needs have been identified at the Dee Glen Tennis Facility. The City evaluated whether property insurance could cover some or all the cost since the March 2020 earthquake is believed to have contributed to some of the damage. However, unlike earthquake damage to City buildings which was immediately apparent, the damage to the tennis courts was slower and cumulative from drainage issue over a couple years which complicates showing direct causality by the March 2020 earthquake. Policy Question: ➢Evaluate Tennis Court Reconstruction Needs Citywide – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to share evaluations of tennis court reconstruction needs citywide to help contextualize this funding request compared to other similar needs. Recent CIP proposals identified other tennis court locations to be reconstructed such as Fairpark Tennis, Fire Station Tennis, Westpointe Tennis and Riverside Tennis. A-4: New Public Lands Senior Warehouse Operator FTE ($18,750 from Golf Fund and Rescope $18,750 from existing Public Lands Budget) With the creation of the new Public Lands Department, we have identified a need to centralize purchasing, contracting, and warehouse support functions to include the Golf Division to maintain better controls and efficiency. The Golf Division has had several purchasing violations in the last year and the centralization of these functions will standardize processes and controls to avoid future purchasing violations. The Public Lands Department is requesting to reallocate existing seasonal budget from the General Fund and the Golf fund to share the cost 50/50 for (1) new FTE Senior Warehouse Operator position. This new position would potentially start January 1st, 2023, utilizing existing savings for 6-months in FY23. Additional funding would be requested to fund 50% of the position from the general fund for the full year in FY24. The Public Lands warehouse staff currently provides purchasing, ordering, contracting, payment processing, and warehouse inventory management for the entire Department. Over the last 24 months the warehouse staff workload has increased as the department has taken on Special Events, Community Events, Park Ranger Program and added new properties. The new Senior Warehouse Operator position would provide warehouse support to free up time for the current warehouse staff to dedicate more time toward purchasing, ordering, and contracting functions for the Golf Division, the other new programs and properties, and continue to assist other departments as needed. This proposal would use the same cost-share approach the Golf Fund and Public Lands currently have for a shared financial analyst FTE. An alternative approach would be the General Fund fully covering the new senior warehouse Page | 5 2 2 1 9 2 operator FTE and charging administrative fees to the Golf Fund. The Public Lands Department stated the administrative fees approach might be more complicated to track and manage. Policy Question: ➢Consider in the Annual Budget Context – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether the new requested FTE should be considered as part of the next annual budget in context of the City’s overall competing needs. The Administration indicates that without the new FTE several negative impacts could be expected such as employees receiving trainings at a slower pace and delays to ordering and receiving supplies. Conversely, waiting for the annual budget maximizes the Council’s flexibility to consider all requests and funding options comprehensively. A-5: Additional Funding for Phase One of Glendale Regional Park ($4.35 Million from Parks Impact Fees) The Administration is requesting $4.35 million from park impact fees to proceed with Phase 1 of creating the Glendale Regional Park as a contingency if bond funding is not available. This request was submitted before the November 8, 2022, election results were known for the proposed Parks, Trails, and Open Space General Obligation (GO) Bond. It includes $27 million for creation of a Glendale Regional Park at the 17-acre site of the former Raging Waters Park. At the time of publishing this staff report, initial election results from the Salt Lake County Clerk show 68.63% for the issuance of the bond and 31.37% against. If these results in favor of the bond issuance hold for final canvassing and certification of the results on November 22, then this budget amendment item may not be needed. The Council previously approved funding for creation of the Glendale Regional Park as follows: - $855,000 in Budget Amendment #5 of FY2021 for demolition of the waterpark and related infrastructure as well as site preparations for redevelopment into a regional park. - $225,000 in Budget Amendment #6 of FY2021 for creation of the Glendale Regional Park Plan. The Council received a briefing on the draft plan and the final version is expected to return to the Council for a potential adoption vote in the coming months. The Plan would guide future funding including from the proposed GO Bond. - $3.2 Million in FY2022 CIP for Phase 1 implementation to create the regional park. However, most of these funds were used for demolition and site preparation work because of unexpected circumstances. For example, cranes were needed to disassemble the roller coaster slide because of the complicated structural elements and more costly demolition options were used instead of blasting some infrastructure. The Administration states that slightly over $1 million of these funds remain for development of the regional park Phase 1. The Administration provided the following summary of Phase 1 funding needs: “Items that we have budgeted for include: demolition, geotechnical studies, site restoration, construction permits, new water connections and meters, new sanitary sewer and stormwater connections, stormwater fees, new gas and power connections, site surveys, soil testing, potential site remediation and cleaning, IMS requirements, demolition, slide retention and repurpose, city administrative/ engineering project management fees, materials testing, planning consultant fees, design consultant fees, contract administration testing and inspection fees and the required construction project contingency have all been estimated as part of the total project delivery cost of constructing park improvements. Many of these upfront items will not be required for future phases of park construction.” Phase 1 of the regional park is expected to include a multi-use sports court, pavilion, community plaza, pathways, parking, water-wise and ornamental plantings, and a playground with accessible designs for all ages. It’s important to note that federal Land and Water Conservation Fund regulations require the City to restore some public active recreation uses at the property by April 27, 2024. This requirement exists because the land was purchased with LWCF dollars which come with a perpetual public active recreation use. The Administration stated the if the GO Bond passes or this item is approved, then the City will be on track to meet the federal deadline. Page | 6 2 2 1 9 2 Policy Question: ➢The Council may wish to confirm with the Administration if these funds are still needed if the GO Bond passes (the official canvass is November 22). Previous discussions about this park indicated that there are far more needs than funding provided by existing appropriations and the GO Bond. A-6: Transfer CIP and Impact Fee Functions and Two FTEs from CAN to Finance ($223,299) This amendment will transfer CIP and Impact Fees functions from CAN to Finance, consisting of two FTE's and operating budget. FTE's consist of the CIP Impact Fee Manager, grade 30, and a Capital Improvement Program Specialist, grade 25. FTE annual budget of $210,394, annual operating budget of $12,905. A-7: Urban Forestry Division Director Reclassification (FY2023 Annual Budget Included Costs) The Public Lands Department is requesting the Council approve a reclassification of the Urban Forestry Division Director from a merit position to an appointed position and increase the pay grade from 32 to 35. The appointed position and proposed pay grade level are consistent with the status of division directors in Public Lands and other departments. The fully loaded annual cost for the increased pay grade is estimated at $10,032. The Department reports this cost has been accounted for in the recently adopted FY2023 annual budget. In addition to amending the staffing document as requested in this budget amendment, a new appointed employee designation also requires amending the Appointed Employees Pay Plan in the annual Compensation Plan for non- represented employees. At the same time as adopting the budget amendment, the Council could approve updating that plan and direct HR to make the necessary changes. The Council has used this approach before when changing positions from merit to appointed mid-year. Background - The Urban Forestry Division Director manages all aspects of the City’s urban forest growth and preservation needs including a multi-million-dollar budget and team of skilled trade professionals that provide individualized customer services to thousands of residents annually. The position requires expertise in a specialized biological science and the ability to apply and relate that knowledge to diverse city priorities and challenges. A-8: Two New Contract Development Specialists in Finance ($103,900 from General Fund and $5,000 from IMS Fund) The Department of Finance is requesting two Contract Development Specialists. Since 2021 the contract requests have been growing at a steady rate. In 2023 we are experiencing a surge of contracts that we couldn't have predicted. As you can see on the graph in FY 2020 we had 96 contracts, in 2021 we had 197 contracts, in 2022 we had 238 contracts, and current today we have 93 contracts (see graph). Two Contract Development Specialist positions are being requested accommodate the increased workload. These positions are a pay code 26 with budget for 6 months of salary plus an additional 26% for benefits. Contract or “K” requests increased 148% from FY2020 to FY2022. Multiple factors are contributing to this increase such as a growing operational budget for some departments, the influx of one-time federal funding (CARES Act, American Rescue Plan Act or ARPA, and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law), a generational level of capital investments from the recently passed Sales Tax Bond, Parks, Trails and Open Space Bond and FY2023 Capital Improvement Program or CIP. Page | 7 2 2 1 9 2 Purchase Orders or “PRs” have remained relatively stable however supply chain issues such as very short ordering windows are creating new problems for departments to navigate. Policy Question: ➢Consider in the Annual Budget Context – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether the two new requested FTEs should be considered as part of the next annual budget in context of the City’s overall competing needs. The Administration indicates that the contracting process is currently experiencing longer delays. Potential impacts of adding this request to the annual budget could be delayed project and program implementation, slowed services to the public and increased costs due to later purchases if inflation continues. Conversely, waiting for the annual budget maximizes the Council’s flexibility to consider all requests and funding options comprehensively. A-9: Lease, Utilities and Tenant Improvements for Two Police Substations ($678,462 from General Fund Balance) The ongoing costs associated with this request- Substations rent/utilities/parking is estimated to be $125,000 for the downtown substation and $5,000 for the N. Temple substation. This cost is only for 7 months (Dec to June). The annual budget amount needed would be closer to $225,000. The one-time costs associated with this request - All other costs are one-time and related to initial setup. They include tenant improvement (TI) and office furniture of $513,208 for the downtown location and $125,254 for the N. Temple location. See back up documentation for details. Additionally, the parking area is estimated at $40k which covers costs, design, storm drain and landscaping. Note that the downtown substation lease is for ten years and would be used by the Central Precinct. The North Temple substation lease is for five years with two options to renew for an additional five-year period. A-10: Renovations to Five Fire Stations for Gender Equity Improvements ($750,000 from General Fund Balance) Earlier this year, the Administration assessed all City fire stations evaluating workplace and personal space equity. Note that fire stations # 3 and 14 were recently constructed a few years ago. The assessment focused on the City’s older stations built a quarter century or longer ago. Half the stations (# 2, 4, 6, 9, and 13) in the City were determined to need minor modifications. These were completed using existing budgets with the Facilities Division. The other half (stations # 1, 5, 7, 8, and 10) were found to lack reasonable accommodations for gender equity. An example of a reasonable accommodation is renovation within the station to create a dorm and bathroom facility. Major facility renovations typically go through the City’s annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process. CIP is an open and competitive process where the Council can consider all the City’s capital needs together. Sometimes capital improvement projects are considered outside the CIP process that are urgent for legal or equity reasons. Page | 8 2 2 1 9 2 Background Information from the Administration: Historically, firefighting was a male-dominated profession. As a result, yesterday’s fire stations were built to accommodate individuals of the same gender, traditions, and background. Most of the fire stations in Salt Lake City were built in the late 80s and early 90s, with a few dating back as far as 1971. Today, the fire service is universally more diverse, and are certainly more aware and respectful of coworkers’ needs for inclusion and well-being. Individuals of different genders, gender identities, traditions, backgrounds, and perspectives work together to form the current generation of firefighters. This emphasizes the need to accommodate many different individuals in one fire station. Any firefighter or City employee should have a basic expectation of privacy and appropriate accommodations. We have made efforts to address these expectations internally, with limited success given the original design of the facilities. Today, our inability to permanently meet these standards places an unfair burden on all employees and can negatively impact morale and workplace productivity. A fire station should reflect Salt Lake City’s priorities of equitable and inclusive workspaces for all, and the Salt Lake City Fire Department has an obligation to promote and meet those goals and objectives. The proposed renovations to city facilities include modifying dorm rooms at fire stations 1, 7, and 10. This work will create adequate privacy by separating current dorm rooms with new walls and doors. Station 8 will add additional privacy by adding an additional bathroom and shower. Station 5 will require an additional dorm room with an adjacent bathroom with shower. A-11: Real Property Purchase ($430,000 from General Fund Balance) The Administration is proposing the purchase of real property previously discussed in a closed session. Further discussion about the purchase could be held in closed session if the Council desires. This is a key acquisition of real property that will benefit the city and be utilized immediately with no additional budget impacts. The proposed purchase would include a transfer from the general fund to the CIP fund for the purchase of the property. The Surplus Land Fund is an alternative funding source to General Fund Balance. The current balance of the Surplus Land Fund is $2,465,152. The Surplus Land Fund receives proceeds from the sale of real property (land and buildings). According to City policy the Surplus Land Fund can be spent on purchasing real property. The funds are one-time because the real property can only be sold once. A-12: Two New Public Lands Planner FTEs and One New Public Services Senior Project Manager ($302,600 from General Fund Balance – Ongoing Annual Cost $409,440) Write-up from the Administration’s transmittal: Full-time planning staff in the Public Lands Department are responsible for public engagement, design, consultant management, cross-departmental coordination, and implementation tasks required to complete critical Public Lands projects. Existing project workloads and backlogs (approximately 70-80 funded yet incomplete projects) already necessitate increased planning staff capacity. Significant increases in capital funding through the City Council-approved, $67.5 million Sales Tax Bond (August 2022) and the voter-approved, $85 million General Obligation (GO) Bond for Parks, Trails, and Open Spaces (November 2022) have further cemented the need for and urgency of hiring additional planners as quickly as possible. As such, the Public Lands Department proposes hiring two (2) new full-time public lands project planners (pay grade 28, non-union) through Budget Amendment #4 (FY22/23). This would allow the Department to tackle existing backlog and begin bond projects with more immediacy. Two more planners would grow the Department’s Planning Team to (5) total FTEs. The Sr. Project Manager will work within the Engineering Division and oversee a program dedicated solely to the proposed bond projects. This position will be necessary for oversight of design and construction, overall. This would include procurement of design and construction management, financial management, coordination with the Parks Division engagement efforts and preliminary design leading to construction - along with other administrative functions and coordination. This position will need to be a skilled engineer, landscape architect or project management professional with experience in large scale projects. It is necessary to submit this request through a budget amendment rather than through next year’s FY23/24 annual budget process due to the urgency and high expectations that the City and the public have in regard to the initiation and completion of critical public lands bond projects. Because the eight GO Bond projects will not all begin at the Page | 9 2 2 1 9 2 same time, the Department will be able to further assess the need for additional planners and resources and include further Planning Team staffing requests through the annual budget process. Due to fleet delays and materials shortages, this request also includes an additional Public Lands vehicle that will allow the Planning Team to complete community engagement and site visit tasks. It is included in the budget amendment to receive the vehicle as quickly as possible (with 8–10-month lead times becoming more common in recent years). Public Lands One- time and annual costs for these two (2) additional FTEs include salaries, benefits, equipment and IMS Department assistance, workspaces, and purchasing and maintaining one (1) compact fuel-efficient vehicle in the City’s fleet. Additional Information from Council Staff: Note some of these amounts and uses changed after the Administration’s proposal was transmitted and inadvertent errors were identified. The total requested funding is $302,600. A detailed breakout of the costs by positions and use are listed below. The fully loaded annual ongoing cost of the two planner FTEs is estimated at $241,440. The fully loaded annual ongoing cost for one senior project manager FTE is estimated at $168,000. -$69,000 one-time for the two planners of which $50,000 goes to Fleet for a vehicle, $4,000 to IMS for electronic devices and $15,000 for office setup. -$100,600 ongoing to provide five months of compensation funding for two planners -$63,000 one-time for a senior project manager of which $50,000 goes to Fleet for a vehicle, $4,000 to IMS for electronic devices and $9,000 for office setup. -$70,000 ongoing to provide five months of compensation funding for a senior project manager. Policy Questions: ➢Consider in the Annual Budget Context – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether the three new requested FTEs should be considered as part of the next annual budget in context of the City’s overall competing needs. The Administration indicates that some GO Bond projects could experience delays depending on when the bond funds are issued, and which projects are in the first issuance. Conversely, waiting for the annual budget maximizes the Council’s flexibility to consider all requests and funding options comprehensively. ➢CIP Project Delivery Needs – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether the three proposed FTEs are the most urgent staffing needs for CIP and what other staffing or resource needs exist (engineers, architects, financial positions, software, contracts, policies, etc.). During the annual budget Council Members expressed interest in using the auditing powers of the legislative branch to find efficiencies and improvements. The Council could also discuss with the Administration whether and how an audit of the Capital Improvement Program could be helpful. A-13: New Computers and Associated Devices for Airport Police ($155,028.26 from IMS Fund) Note: straw poll requested Write-up from the Administration: The Council approved moving the Airport Police into the Police Department in Budget Amendment #1 of FY2019. The Police Department and the Airport recently worked on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to govern services, costs, and related matters. As part of the MOU, the Information Management Services Department (IMS) will provide technical support and equipment for police officers working at the Airport. This will better ensure all police officers are using the same devices, software and have similar skillsets. There may be interoperability and uniformity of force benefits from further integration of the Airport police into the Police Department. We are requesting 64 new devices to be used by the Police Officers for the Airport Division that was recently moved to them. There is a total of 66 officers currently serving at the airport. Two devices have recently been updated. We are therefore requesting an additional 64 computers for the remaining officers. Docks are not needed for each additional computer but will be set up as specific workstations where officers while not in the field may sit for report writing or other administrative responsibilities. These will be hotel-style stations that will be shared and be able to be used by any officer. We are requesting 10 docks for this purpose. The dock in the quote is not the dock that will be used, but a standardized Thunderbolt 4 dock which is the new universal standard and will be compatible with the next generation computers that come out. The last batch of docks we purchased at the price listed below. We are also requesting a total of 13 car adapters for the airport vehicles. These Page | 10 2 2 1 9 2 devices come with a standard 3-year warranty. They are also strong ruggedized devices. We are recommending that we don't get the additional bumper-to-bumper warranty as shown on the initial quote. Our historical data shows that the devices do not break at a cost greater than the increase in the bumper-to-bumper warranty. Therefore, we recommend skipping the additional warranty currently. Price Quantity Total Computer $2,350.93 64 $150,459.52 Docks 284.00 10 2,840 Car Adaptor 132.98 13 1,728.74 TOTAL $155,028.26 The Administration has requested the Council consider a straw poll for this item because supply chain issues have created delays in ordering computers and other electronic devices. IMS reports delays have exceeded nine months in some cases. A-14: Police Officer Patrol Overtime to Cover Vacant Positions and Officers on Leave ($2,539,019 from General Fund Balance) The Police Department is requesting funding for patrol response staffing to maintain staffing at a level that provides safety in the community and helps to reduce call response times. Staffing levels continue to be strained and officer leave of all types is directly impacting patrol staffing. In September 2022, the Police Department added mandatory patrol shifts to cover shifts that are not currently staffed. For the current trimester, the Department added 18 patrol shifts per day. Demand for patrol resources has steadily increased over the past six years. Response times is a metric the Department is constantly striving to improve to help improve community expectations. The Administration stated that vacancy savings are being used to fund overtime shifts, paid leave, shift extensions and other personnel services costs. The vacancy savings are insufficient to cover minimum patrol staffing levels. The Police Department plans to offer shifts using these funds in the second half of the fiscal year as voluntary overtime. However, mandatory overtime could be reinstated if voluntary overtime coverage does not meet minimum patrol staffing levels and based on priority 1 (most serious crimes) response times. Overtime shifts may be paid at $65/hour to incentive voluntary coverage. There are currently 29 officers on leave for several reasons (military, administrative, FMLA, parental, short-term disability, and workers comp). 67 officers are in training. There are currently 43 police officer vacancies. This is an improvement over the 56 vacancies reported during the annual budget deliberations back in May. It’s important to note that the number of police officers increased by 24 this calendar year including: -2 sergeants and 10 police officer positions from the State Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation grant focused on the Miller and King homeless resource centers (HRC) and the surrounding neighborhoods o The two sergeants have been hired and the 10 police officers are in training o The grant includes $186,000 for police officer overtime at and around the two HRCs -1 sergeant and nine police officer positions to form a Violent Criminal Apprehension Team partly funded by the DOJ’s COPS Hiring Grant approved in Budget Amendment #6 of FY2022 -1 sergeant for the Special Victims Unit approved in Budget Amendment #6 of FY2022 -1 lieutenant police officer as Director over the new Civilian Response Team program approved in the last annual budget The Administration stated overtime funding is needed for several reasons including continued prolonged staffing vacancies since 2020, continued increases of calls for service, 2022 year to date reductions in crime reports have not reach a corresponding level where current staffing would allow ideal response times to the most serious priority 1 calls, callouts for major criminal events which are unpredictable, and the need to have time for officers to be in the community building relationships and conducting proactive policing work. The Police Department credits overtime funding this year with recent increases of proactive police work particularly in focus areas. Note that items D-10, E-1, and E-4 are also requesting funding for overtime staffing at the Police Department. If all the items are approved, then the total funding for overtime at the Police Department in FY2023 is over $6 million. Page | 11 2 2 1 9 2 Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section (None) Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section (None) Section D: Housekeeping D-1: Market Pay Adjustment – General Fund Transfer to Golf The Golf Enterprise Fund did not receive the FY23 NFP & CCAC market pay adjustment revenues. The Public Lands Department is requesting a housekeeping budget amendment to transfer a portion of general fund budget from Public Lands to the Golf Fund to cover these costs and the remaining amount will come from the Golf Fund balance. D-2: FY 2023 General Fund Funded Vehicle Purchases In Fiscal Year 2023 budget vehicles were added to the City's Fleet in the General Fund for new FTEs. However, Public Services Fleet did not receive the budget for the transfer from the General Fund to the Fleet Fund, or the budget for the related expenditures. This amendment will transfer funds to cover these purchases and provide the expenditure budget. D-3: FY 2022 Fleet Vehicle Purchases Public Services Fleet requested rollover funds on FY 2023 Budget Amendment 1 item D4. There was a discrepancy in the funding detail and Public Services Fleet requires $90,000 to order all vehicles. D-4: Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2022 C Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2022 C Federally Taxable, were sold in October 2022 for the purpose of financing five projects. This amendment creates the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds and the expenditure budget to pay for construction of the five projects. There will be five project cost centers in Fund 83 to which bond proceeds will be allocated. One cost center will receive $6,100,000 for the Central Plant Electrical Transformer Upgrade & Emergency Backup Generators project. A second cost center will receive $10,000,000 for the Pioneer Park Improvements project. A third cost center will receive $3,000,000 for the Fisher Mansion Stabilization & Improvements project. A fourth cost center will receive $2,000,000 for the Urban Wood Reutilization Equipment and Storage Additions project. A fifth cost center will receive $3,000,000 for the Smith's Ballpark Improvements project. There will also be a unique cost center for the bond's cost of issuance. This cost center will receive $140,000. Staff note: This is the last budget step for the bond funded projects. After this budget approval there will not be further Council actions required for the projects to proceed. D-5: Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2022 B Non-Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2022 B Non-Taxable, were sold in October 2022 for the purpose of financing five projects. This amendment creates the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds and the expenditure budget to pay for construction of the five projects. There will be five project cost centers in Fund 83 to which bond proceeds will be allocated. One cost center will receive $6,100,000 for the Westside Railroad Quiet Zone project. A second cost center will receive $8,000,000 for the Warm Springs Plunge Structure Stabilization & Improvements project. A third cost center will receive $11,200,000 for City Cemetery Road Repairs / Reconstruction project. A fourth cost center will receive $9,753,000 for the 600 North Corridor Transformation project. A fifth cost center will receive $7,500,000 for the Radio Towers project. There will also be a unique cost center for the bond's cost of issuance. This cost center will receive $244,846. Staff note: This is the last budget step for the bond funded projects. After this budget approval there will not be further Council actions required for the projects to proceed. D-6: General Obligation Series 2022 Streets Bonds In November 2018, voters authorized the issuance of up to $87 million in general obligation bonds to fund street construction. The General Obligation Bonds, Series 2022 were sold in September 2022 as the fourth and final issuance of the authorization. This amendment creates the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds and the expenditure budget to pay for construction of the street projects associated with the bonds. There will be eight Page | 12 2 2 1 9 2 project cost centers in Fund 83 to which bond proceeds will be allocated. The funding will be allocated as shown below: 1. $3,000,000 for the 1300 E (2100 S to the city limits) project. 2. $1,300,000 for Virginia Street (South Temple St to 11th Ave.) project. 3. $2,000,000 for West Temple (South Temple St to 200 South). 4. $3,000,000 for local streets construction projects. 5. $1,500,000 for the 1700 East (900 S) (2100 South to 2700 South) project. 6. $8,000,000 for the 2100 South (700 East to 1300 East) project. 7. $2,000,000 for additional local streets construction projects. 8. $2,500,000 for 100 East / Highland Dr to augment prior funding. There will also be a $194,957.90 allocation associated with the bond's cost of issuance. D-7: Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2022 B & C The Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2022 B&C were issued in October 2022 for the purpose of financing several capital projects throughout the City. The bonds were issued at a par amount of $64,225. The first interest payment is due on April 1, 2023. The Council added a $4,393,161 placeholder in the annual budget for a first year debt payment on the proposed sales tax revenue bond. The first debt payments total $1,196,588 which is $3,196,573 less than the placeholder. The first debt payments are less than expected because they are interest-only payments. Beginning next fiscal year, the payments will include principal and interest. The annual debt payments will be approximately $5.1 million for the next 20 years when the bonds will be fully paid off. D-8: FY 2022 Year End Fleet Encumbrance Rollover to FY 2023 Timing of vehicle and equipment orders tend to overlap the City's fiscal year cycle. Public Service Fleet has vehicles on order with funding that was encumbered in FY 2022. This amendment will move encumbered funds to FY 2023. D-9: FY 2022 Year End IMS Encumbrance Rollover to FY 2023 IMS has encumbered money that was expected to be paid out of the FY22 funds and needs to be paid in FY23. These encumbrances are listed in the Carry Over Encumbrance reports. All of these items have been approved for purchase by central finance in a prior year. These expenses will be paid for by the annual allocation that IMS uses to collect its revenue on an annual basis. D-10: Winter Shelter Overflow Patrol Resources – Informational Only In Budget Amendment #4 of FY2022, the Council appropriated $400,000 from ARPA for Police Department overtime staffing at the winter overflow shelter, the Weigand Homeless Resource Center and the surrounding neighborhoods. $378,560 of the funds remain available for other ARPA eligible uses. Grant funds do not lapse to fund balance but remain in the appropriated budget between fiscal years. However, since these funds were for the 2021-2022 winter shelter they are unavailable for use during the upcoming 2022-2023 winter overflow shelter time. The funds were not all spent last winter in part because of the delayed shelter opening. The Administration is requesting the Council approve using the remaining funds for the same use this winter. Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources E-1 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant Increase for Homeless Resource Centers Flex Capacity and Winter Overflow Shelter ($694,122 from State Formula Grant) This budget amendment is to recognize the City's annual State of Utah Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant Amendment #1 for FY23 in the amount of $694,122 for the purpose of addressing homelessness and homelessness related services in Salt Lake City. This year the State changed the process for distributing funds from a competitive grant to a formula grant. Due to HB440 and the State's decision to flex-up, the City is now eligible for an additional amount of the State Homeless Cities Mitigation funding to support the flex up (take-on additional shelter clients during the winter). However, as a result of a decision by the Utah Homeless Council, SLC is required to pass 2/3 of this new mitigation funding through to a service provider who is slated to provide winter overflow shelter and 1/3 may be used for City identified mitigation activities. Housing Stability staff have reviewed winter overflow shelter budgets and propose that the required 2/3 be passed through to Shelter the Homeless for overflow security and transportation, and the remaining 1/3 be directed to the Police Department for camp mitigation overtime shifts. Note: This additional $694,122 was not applied for; it was part of the State’s formula that is coming to Salt Lake City. $462,748 would be Page | 13 2 2 1 9 2 a pass through to Shelter the Homeless for operation costs at the Miller HRC and King HRC. The remaining $231,374 would be used for overtime staffing by the Police Department at the two HRCs, the Weigand Center downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods. It’s important to note that this funding is in addition to the $2.75 million recently awarded to the City from the annual State Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation grant. Note that items A-14, D-10 and E-4 are also requesting funding for overtime staffing at the Police Department. Policy Question: ➢Other Funding Needs Related to Winter Overflow Shelter Plans – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if there are other City funding needs related to flexing capacity at the two HRCs and the States’ winter overflow shelter plan. E-2: Rehabilitation of High Hazard Potential Dams: Lake Mary-Phoebe Planning and Design ($260,687 from Department of Homeland Security Grant) This budget amendment is to recognize the City's funding availability grant award in the amount of $260,687 for the purpose of planning and design for the rehabilitation of Lake Mary-Phoebe in Salt Lake City. The State of Utah, Division of Water Resources secured the funding from the Department of Homeland Security. The grant can be used to fund 65% of planning and design work. There are no new FTEs. Public Utilities has discussed potential projects on the Lake Mary Dam internally and with Utah Dam Safety Program. The intent was to budget work for Fiscal Year 2024. Given the available funding opportunity, Public Utilities has determined the schedule will be accelerated and initiate the evaluation and design to take advantage of the grant. Public Utilities has identified and will commit funding to mat the remaining 35% or $130,344 of the project. We need to put a hold on this funding until an award agreement is received. We have received an email announcing the award. Lake Mary-Phoebe is located near Brighton Ski Resort at the top of Big Cottonwood Canyon. The lake is located at the headwaters of Big Cottonwood Creek within the protected watershed that supports Salt Lake City’s water supply and water quality. Lake Mary-Phoebe dam is operated by the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities with storage water being conveyed to the Big Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant, where the water is treated and distributed to Salt Lake City residents and customers. See Attachment #1 for a map showing the dam location. E-3: Emergency Rental Assistance Program Additional Funding for City Renters ($5 Million from U.S. Treasury) The Treasury has reallocated unspent Emergency Rent Assistance Program (ERAP) 1 funds set-aside for the State of Utah by low-performing cities and made these funds available to apply for by high-performing cities, such as Salt Lake City. To administer Salt Lake City’s initial ERAP 1 award, the City contracted with the State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services’ (DWS) online Utah Rent Relief application portal, https://rentrelief.utah.gov/. Coordinating with DWS, Housing Stability staff have determined that Salt Lake City could apply for $5,000,000 in reallocated ERAP 1. These funds will further assist Salt Lake City residents with deposit, rent, utilities, rent arrears, and utility arrears, again utilizing the Utah Rent Relief application portal. Note: This new request is separate from, and does not affect, the City’s other Treasury ERAP 1 ($6,067,033), ERAP 1 Reallocated ($3,000,000), and ERAP 2 ($4,800,559.40) awards. See attached funding memos and award email from Treasury. Any of the additional emergency rental assistance funds remaining after the end of calendar year 2022 must be returned to the U.S. Treasury. This is an extension from the original deadline of September 30, 2022. No further extensions are allowed per federal law. The City has averaged $2 million a month in awards of emergency rental assistance. If this pace of awards continues, then the City would be able to spend the entire $5 million before the deadline. If this item is approved, then the City will have received nearly $23 million in emergency rental assistance for residents during the pandemic. The Administration provided the below additional context on how these funds have benefited City residents. Page | 14 2 2 1 9 2 Collaboration: The ERA program has brought together a coalition of organizations committed to ensuring rental assistance reaches those most in need. This coalition includes our funding partners at the County and State, the Community Action Partnership of Utah, community health workers, legal aid organizations, the Utah Courts, and community-based non-profits. Utah Community Action and Centro de la Familia provide assistance to those who need help applying for assistance. Equity: The funds have reached the communities most impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Among applicants who received assistance: - 100% had incomes less than 80% AMI - 53% identified as racial or ethnic minorities - 57% were women - 73% lived in zip codes west of 500 East - 47% were unemployed - Ages ranged from 18 to 90 years old Dashboard: The State Department of Workforce Services provides a public interactive map showing emergency rental assistance by zip code available here: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/285c8572fddd41a7b2221e731bf23ace/ E-4: Clean Neighborhoods Team Police Officer Overtime Mitigation Additional Funding ($1.664 Million from ARPA) The Administration is requesting $1,664,000 of funding, to provide funding for Clean Neighborhoods Teams for the Police Department to provide staffing to support the homeless encampment cleanup and camp re-establishment stabilization as requested by the Salt Lake County Health Department. Police officers working extra overtime shifts will provide security to ensure the cleanups can proceed in an environment that will be safe for all involved. Staffing numbers will vary depending on the size, number of cleanups and the location. The City’s total ARPA fiscal recovery funds award is $85,411,572. Of this amount, $25,332,867 has been spent as of September 30, 2022 and $33,043,966 have been budgeted. The remaining unobligated available to spend balance is $25,434,739. If this item is approved as requested by the Administration, then the balance would be $23,834,739. During the last annual budget deliberations, the City expected to use $15.5 million from ARPA in the FY2024 annual budget for estimated obligations such as revenue loss replacement, salary restorations and eligible Community Commitment Program costs. The estimated obligations and eligibility will change based on the City’s actual revenues, needs and potential further guidance from the U.S. Treasury. ARPA funds must be obligated (encumbered under a contract) by the end of calendar year 2024 and fully spent (no funds left in the bank account) by the end of calendar year 2026. Note that items A-14, D-10 and E-1 are also requesting funding for overtime staffing at the Police Department. Policy Questions: ➢Meeting Federal ARPA Deadlines – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration the City’s plans to use the remaining ARPA funds by the Federal Government’s deadlines. ➢Need for ARPA Funds in FY2024 – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to what extent ARPA funds may be needed in the FY2024 annual budget. The City’s FY2023 annual budget contemplated use of ARPA funds in FY2024 for revenue loss replacement and salary restorations as allowed by U.S. Treasury guidelines. ➢Review Interlocal Agreement with County for Camp Abatements – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to review the 2017 interlocal agreement between Salt Lake City and County for abatements of transient camps. The contract requires the City to provide “law enforcement support, limited equipment, and limited labor” for these regularly scheduled abatements, as appropriations are available. Section F: Donations Page | 15 2 2 1 9 2 (None) Section G: Council Consent Agenda No. 3 G-1: Utah Department of Health - Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) grant, FY23 Per Capita Allocation ($10,948 from Misc. Grants) The Fire Department applied for and was awarded $10,948 of grant funding from the Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services. This funding will be used towards the purchase of medical equipment relating to the provision of Emergency Medical Services as funding permits. A Public Hearing was held on 4/5/22 for the grant application on this award. Consent Agenda No. 4 G-1: Suga Education & Training Award, Suga Board of Directors ($30,000 from Misc. Grants) The City has requested funds to help implement Workday across departments with Train the Trainer education as well as additional aids including a training video. Each department has identified individuals who will assist their co-workers in learning about Workday and how to use it. The training will take place between November 2022 and April 2023. Suga is a non-profit whose mission is to provide assistance for furthering the education of software users in the public sector. No match is required. A public hearing was held for this grant application on 8/16/2022 G-2: State of Utah, The Utah Highway Safety Office, 2023 Distracted Driving Prevention Program ($17,000 from Misc. Grants) The Police Department applied for $14,175 and received a $17,000 grant from the Utah Highway Safety Office for the 2023 Distracted Driving Prevention Program. The grant funding for 54 distracted driving enforcement/education overtime shifts. A Public Hearing was held on 5/03/2022 for the grant application on this award. G-3: US Department of Justice, 2022 Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) ($350,205 from Misc. Grants) The Police Department applied for and received a grant award from the U.S. Department of Justice under the 2022 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program. The total grant award is $350,205. The Department will use its award to provide training for sworn and civilian personnel, E-bikes (+accessories), Ballistic Helmets, Ballistic Computers, Rifle Shields, Public Relations Unit Supplies, Community Policing and Targeted Enforcement Overtime, Vehicle Telematics Software and Training, Promising Youth Project Supplies and Training, Community Surveys, and 2 sub-awards to Salt Lake County (BJA allocations) and Unified Police Department (BJA allocations). No Match is required. A Public Hearing was held on 10/4/22 for the grant application on this award. G-4: U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women, 2020 YWCA Utah ($298,876 from Misc. Grants) The Police Department applied for and received a grant award from the YWCA from pass-through funds from U.S. Department of Justice under the 2020 grants to Improving Criminal Justice Responses to Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence and Stalking program. The total grant award is $298,876. Salt Lake City signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the YWCA to participate as a sub awardee on the project. The grant will fund three part-time civilian positions including two victim advocates and one civilian specialist to investigate cases involving restricted persons accessing firearms. It will also fund supplies for both positions. The grant will fund overtime to conduct operations to pursue protective order violations and outstanding domestic violence warrants. Lastly, it will fund travel training to send Domestic Violence Unit and Victim Advocate Program staff to a professional training conference. No Match is required. A Public Hearing was held on 4/21/2020 for the grant application on this award. Section I: Council Added Items I-1: Vouchers for RV Black Water Disposal at Designated Sites Pilot Program ($10,000 from General Fund Balance) Council Member Puy has proposed funding for a pilot program to address water quality concerns related to safe and sanitary disposal of black water from RVs. These one-time funds would be used in coordination with the Salt Lake County Health Department and City outreach teams to incentivize RVs to dump black water at designated sites Page | 16 2 2 1 9 2 rather than in the Jordan River. At the time of publishing this staff report the cost per disposal and location of disposal sites was being researched to determine how many RVs could participate in the program. I-2: Electric Vehicle EV Charging Infrastructure on 200 South ($38,000 Grant from Rocky Mountain Power) Note: straw poll requested On October 25 the City applied for this make ready grant funding to include EV charging as part of the upcoming 200 South reconstruction project. The grant was quickly awarded and the City must sign the acceptance letter within 30 days which is faster than expected at the time of application. As a result, the Administration has requested the Council consider making the grant funding a Council-added item. The Administration has also requested a straw poll if the Council supports acceptance of the grant since final approval in this budget amendment would happen after the 30 day acceptance deadline. I-3: Real Property Purchase ($3.3 Million from General Fund Balance) This item is a placeholder for the purchase of real property to be discussed in a closed session as allowed by state law. The proposed purchase would include a transfer from the General Fund to the CIP Fund for the purchase of the property. ATTACHMENTS 1. Map of Lake Mary-Phoebe ACRONYMS ARPA – American Rescue Plan Act BJA – Bureau of Justice Assistance CARES Act – Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act CCAC – Citizens' Compensation Advisory Committee CIP – Capital Improvement Program DWS – Department of Workforce Services EMS – Emergency Medical Services ERAP – Emergency Rent Assistance Program EV – Electronic Vehicle FTE – Full Time Equivalent Position FY – Fiscal Year GF – General Fund GO Bond – General Obligation Bond HRC – Homeless Resource Center HR – Human Resources IMS – Information Management Services Department JAG – Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant Misc. – Miscellaneous NOFA – Notice of Funding Availability RDA – Redevelopment Agency RV – Recreational Vehicle TAP – Teen Afterschool Prevention Grant TIF – Transportation Investment Fund TTIF – Transportation Investment Fund-Active Transportation Program TBD – To be determined VOA – Volunteers of America YWCA – Young Women's Christian Association of the United States of America, Inc. Lake Mary - Phoebe Printing Date: Friday, April 25, 2008 3:58 PM file: h://Tom/TomWard11x17.mxd 0 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,00012,500 Feet Lake Mary - Phoebe Location Exhibit Legend Lake Mary - Phoebe Lake Mary - Phoebe Protected Watershed LABEL Council District 1 Council District 2 Council District 3 Council District 4 Council District 5 Council District 6 Council District 7 <all other values> Big Cottonwood Canyon Little Cottonwood Canyon I- 2 1 5 I - 1 5 Salt Lake City I- 2 1 5 6200 S DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238 PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ___________________________________ Date Received: _______________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: __________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: November 7, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: RE-TRANSMITTAL Budget Amendment #4 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 $ 194,600.00 $ 2,774,764.00 CIP FUND 91,967,957.90 96,317,957.90 GOLF FUND 25,700.00 46,800.00 FLEET FUND 1,119,900.00 10,678,500.00 DEBT SERVICE FUND (2,951,726.95) (2,951,726.95) WATER FUND 260,687.00 260,687.00 IMS FUND 2,627,420.00 2,782,449.00 MISCELLANEOUS GRANTS FUND 8,065,151.00 8,065,151.00 TOTAL $ 101,309,688.95 $117,974,581.95 11/08/2022 11/08/2022 Lisa Shaffer (Nov 8, 2022 10:00 MST) BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Revenue for FY 2022-23 Budget Adjustments The following chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for fiscal year 2023. Initial projections for fiscal year 2023 projections continue to be positive. Sales tax is currently projected to exceed budget by $1.5 million while the sales tax associated with Funding Our Future is projected to exceed budget by $750K. Building permits continue to stay strong projecting to be over budget by $123,504. Charges and services is projecting to be over budget because of strong numbers from police service revenues, while miscellaneous revenue shows an increase over budget due to an increase in fuel reimbursement costs. The City is also projecting a large surplus due to the rising interest rates. While these numbers are positive, the Administration continues to wait for fiscal year 2022 to be closed and will provide updates to Council as the audit progresses. FY22-23 FY22-23 Amended Variance Annual Ammended Revised Favorable Revenue Budget Budget Forecast (Unfavorable) Property Taxes 125,012,927 125,012,927 125,012,927 - Sales and Use Tax 105,050,018 105,050,018 106,550,018 1,500,000 Franchise Tax 11,657,129 11,657,129 11,640,553 (16,576) PILOT Taxes 1,638,222 1,638,222 1,638,222 - TOTAL TAXES 243,358,296 243,358,296 244,841,720 1,483,424 License and Permits 40,736,114 40,736,114 40,859,618 123,504 Intergovernmental 4,644,622 4,644,622 4,657,592 12,970 Interest Income 2,071,154 2,071,154 2,771,154 700,000 Fines & Forfeiture 3,765,174 3,765,174 3,740,501 (24,673) Parking Meter Collection 2,635,475 2,635,475 2,635,475 - Charges and Services 4,432,794 4,432,794 4,614,603 181,809 Miscellaneous Revenue 3,438,710 3,438,710 3,583,408 144,698 Interfund Reimbursement 24,431,717 24,431,717 24,431,717 - Transfers 28,821,993 34,921,993 34,729,993 (192,000) TOTAL W/OUT SPECIAL TAX 358,336,049 364,436,049 366,865,781 2,429,732 Sales and Use Tax - 1/2 cent 44,364,490 44,364,490 45,114,490 750,000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 402,700,539 408,800,539 411,980,271 3,179,732 Including proposed changes for BA#4 fund balance would be projected as follows for FY2023: Adjusted fund balance is projected to be at 16.12%. FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL Beginning Fund Balance 6,625,050 82,617,126 89,242,176 6,625,050 109,660,920 116,285,970 12,906,520 99,464,558 112,371,078 Budgeted Change in Fund Balance 2,924,682 (7,810,302) (4,885,620) (2,879,483) (15,335,334) (18,214,817) (2,100,608) (20,736,262) (22,836,870) Prior Year Encumbrances (3,733,743) (6,165,453) (9,899,196) (1,879,654) (10,259,789) (12,139,443) (1,800,000) (8,000,000) (9,800,000) Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 5,815,989 68,641,371 74,457,360 1,865,913 84,065,797 85,931,710 9,005,912 70,728,296 79,734,208 Beginning Fund Balance Percent 14.51%23.16%22.13%3.62%23.89%21.30%19.07%18.70%18.74% Year End CAFR Adjustments Revenue Changes - - - - - - - - - Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) - (5,676,583) (5,676,583) - (7,535,897) (7,535,897) (7,535,897) (7,535,897) Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 5,815,989 62,964,788 68,780,777 1,865,913 76,529,900 78,395,813 9,005,912 63,192,399 72,198,311 Final Fund Balance Percent 14.51%21.24%20.44%3.62%21.75%19.43%19.07%16.70%16.97% Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance (1,000,000) (15,858,313) (16,858,313) BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - - BA#1 Expense Adjustment - - 5,138,235 5,138,235 - (475,000) (475,000) BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - 490,847 490,847 - - - BA#2 Expense Adjustment - - (986,298) (986,298) - - - BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - 6,000,000 6,000,000 BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (2,000,000) - (6,538,000) (6,538,000) BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - - 1,508,044 1,508,044 - 194,600 194,600 BA#4 Expense Adjustment - - (4,242,779) (4,242,779) - (2,774,764) (2,774,764) BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - - 400,000 400,000 - - - BA#5 Expense Adjustment - - (400,000) (400,000) - - - BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - - BA#6 Expense Adjustment - - (1,553,938) (1,553,938) - - - BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - - (794,641) (794,641) - - - BA#7 Expense Adjustment - (1,200,000) (10,843,298) (12,043,298) - - - Change in Revenue 7,298,201 10,388,598 17,686,799 11,139,999 23,083,587 34,223,586 - - - Change in Expense - - - 2,100,608 12,134,899 14,235,507 Fund Balance Budgeted Increase - - - - - - - - - - - - Adjusted Fund Balance 12,114,190 57,495,073 69,609,263 12,906,520 99,464,558 112,371,078 9,005,912 59,599,235 68,605,147 Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 30.21%19.40%20.69%25.06%28.26%27.86%19.07%15.75%16.12% Projected Revenue 40,095,707 296,422,894 336,518,601 51,499,136 351,910,770 403,409,906 47,215,097 378,322,311 425,537,408 FY2021 FY2023 BudgetFY2022 Projection The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $101,309,688.95 of revenue and expense of $117,974,581.95. The amendment proposes changes in eight funds, with three FTEs. The amendment also includes the use of $2,580,164.00 from the General Fund fund balance. The proposal includes 33 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 Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs 1 Elections Awareness GF - 38,509.00 One-time - 2 Repurpose Operation Rio Grande Funds for New Homelessness Services GF - 274,000.00 One-time - 2 Repurpose Operation Rio Grande Funds for New Homelessness Services GF - 177,847.00 One-time - 2 Repurpose Operation Rio Grande Funds for New Homelessness Services GF - 30,000.00 One-time - 2 Repurpose Operation Rio Grande Funds for New Homelessness Services GF - 9,000.00 One-time - 3 Dee Glen Tennis Court Reconstruction GF - 500,000.00 One-time - 3 Dee Glen Tennis Court Reconstruction CIP 500,000.00 500,000.00 One-time - 4 New Sr. Warehouse Operator FTE GF - (18,750.00)Ongoing - 4 New Sr. Warehouse Operator FTE GF - 18,750.00 Ongoing 0.50 4 New Sr. Warehouse Operator FTE Golf - (18,750.00)Ongoing - 4 New Sr. Warehouse Operator FTE Golf - 18,750.00 Ongoing 0.50 5 GO Bond Related - Glendale Regional Park Phase 1 - Increased Costs (from Impact Fees) CIP - 4,350,000.00 One-time - 6 Transfer CIP and Impact Fees to Finance GF - (223,299.00)Ongoing (2.00) 6 Transfer CIP and Impact Fees to Finance GF - 223,299.00 Ongoing 2.00 7 Forestry Division Director Reclassification to Appointed (Grade 35)GF - - Ongoing - 8 Contract Development Specialists GF - 103,900.00 Ongoing 2.00 8 Contract Development Specialists IMS 5,000.00 5,000.00 One-time - 9 Lease & Tenant Improvement for Substations GF - 130,000.00 Ongoing - 9 Lease & Tenant Improvement for Substations GF - 678,462.00 One-time - 10 Fire Station Gender Equity GF - 750,000.00 One-time - 10 Fire Station Gender Equity CIP 750,000.00 750,000.00 One-time - 11 Real Property Purchase GF - 430,000.00 One-time - 11 Real Property Purchase CIP 430,000.00 430,000.00 One-time - 12 GO Bond - FTE Request - (2) Public Lands Planner Positions, (1) PS Sr. Project Manager GF 194,600.00 310,600.00 Ongoing 3.00 12 GO Bond - FTE Request - (2) Public Lands Planner Positions, (1) PS Sr. Project Manager Fleet 108,000.00 108,000.00 One-time - 12 GO Bond - FTE Request - (2) Public Lands Planner Positions, (1) PS Sr. Project Manager IMS 8,000.00 8,000.00 One-time - 13 IMS / Airport Police Devices IMS - 155,029.00 One-time - 14 Patrol Response to Backfill Vacant Leave Positions GF - 2,539,019.00 One-time - FY 2023 Budget Amendment #4 Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed Section A: New Items 1 FY 2023 Budget Amendment #4 1 Market Pay Adjustment - GF Transfer to Golf GF - (25,700.00)Ongoing - 1 Market Pay Adjustment - GF Transfer to Golf GF - 25,700.00 Ongoing - 1 Market Pay Adjustment - GF Transfer to Golf Golf 25,700.00 46,800.00 Ongoing - 2 FY 2023 General Fund Funded Vehicle Purchases Fleet 1,011,900.00 1,011,900.00 One-time - 3 FY 2022 Fleet Vehicle Purchases Fleet 90,000.00 One-time - 4 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2022 C Federally Taxable CIP 24,240,000.00 24,240,000.00 One-time - 5 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2022 B Non-Taxable Debt Service 244,846.05 244,846.05 One-time - 5 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2022 B Non-Taxable CIP 42,553,000.00 42,553,000.00 One-time - 6 General Obligation Series 2022 Streets Bonds CIP 23,494,957.90 23,494,957.90 One-time - 7 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2022 B & C Debt Service (3,196,573.00) (3,196,573.00)One-time - 7 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2022 B & C GF - (3,196,573.00)One-time - 8 FY 2022 Year End Fleet Encumbrance Rollover to FY 2023 Fleet - 9,468,600.00 One-time - 9 FY 2022 Year End IMS Encumbrance Rollover to FY 2023 IMS 2,614,420.00 2,614,420.00 One-time - 10 Winter Shelter Overflow Patrol Resources - Informational Only Misc Grant - - One-time - Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources 1 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant FY 2023 Misc Grants 694,122.00 694,122.00 One-time - 2 Rehabilitation of High Hazard Potential Dams (HHPD)Water 260,687.00 260,687.00 One-time - 3 ERAP 1 Reallocated Funds Misc Grants 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 One-time - 4 Clean Neighborhood Teams Mitigation Staffing - ARPA Funding Misc Grants 1,664,000.00 1,664,000.00 One-time - - Section D: Housekeeping Section F: Donations Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources 2 FY 2023 Budget Amendment #4 Consent Agenda #3 1 Utah Department of Health - Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Grant, FY23 Per Capita Allocation Misc Grants 10,948.00 10,948.00 One-time - Consent Agenda #4 1 SUGA Education & Traning Award, SUGA Board of Directors Misc Grants 30,000.00 30,000.00 One-time - 2 State of Utah, The Utah Highway Safety Office, 2023 Distracted Driving Prevention Program Misc Grants 17,000.00 17,000.00 One-time - 3 US Department of Justice, 2022 Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Misc Grants 350,205.00 350,205.00 One-time - 4 US Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women, 2020 YWCA Utah Misc Grants 298,876.00 298,876.00 One-time - Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards 3 FY 2023 Budget Amendment #4 Total of Budget Amendment Items 101,309,688.95 117,974,581.95 - - 6.00 Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs Total by Fund Class, Budget Amendment #4: General Fund GF 194,600.00 2,774,764.00 - - 5.50 CIP Fund CIP 91,967,957.90 96,317,957.90 - - - Golf Fund Golf 25,700.00 46,800.00 - - 0.50 Fleet Fund Fleet 1,119,900.00 10,678,500.00 - - - Debt Service Fund Debt Service (2,951,726.95) (2,951,726.95) - - - Water Fund Water 260,687.00 260,687.00 - - - IMS Fund IMS 2,627,420.00 2,782,449.00 - - - Miscellaneous Grant Fund Misc Grants 8,065,151.00 8,065,151.00 - - - - Total of Budget Amendment Items 101,309,688.95 117,974,581.95 - - 6.00 Administration Proposed Council Approved Section I: Council Added Items 4 FY 2023 Budget Amendment #4 Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only FY 2022-23 Budget, Including Budget Amendments FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Revenue General Fund (FC 10)425,537,408 100,000 6,000,000 194,600 431,832,008 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,762,560 1,762,560 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 1,700,000 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)4,302,222 4,302,222 Water Fund (FC 51)108,196,368 36,680,000 260,687 145,137,055 Sewer Fund (FC 52)196,630,907 196,630,907 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)13,476,733 13,476,733 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)302,268,600 - 302,268,600 Refuse Fund (FC 57)21,458,105 21,458,105 Golf Fund (FC 59)11,560,676 25,700 11,586,376 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,925,000 3,925,000 Fleet Fund (FC 61)28,826,992 120,000 1,119,900 30,066,892 IMS Fund (FC 65)30,523,167 2,627,420 33,150,587 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,600,000 9,600,000 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)4,670,517 4,670,517 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)34,158,918 2,749,584 2,517,995 8,065,151 47,491,648 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)300,000 300,000 Donation Fund (FC 77)2,920,250 20,000 44,668 2,984,918 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)16,217,000 16,217,000 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)32,037,989 (2,951,727) 29,086,262 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)35,460,387 6,603,019 5,267,217 91,967,958 139,298,581 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,964,523 2,000,000 500,000 6,464,523 Risk Fund (FC 87)54,679,000 54,679,000 Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,344,180,322 11,592,603 - 51,009,880 101,309,689 - 1,508,092,494 5 FY 2023 Budget Amendment #4 Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only FY 2022-23 Budget, Including Budget Amendments Total Expense BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Expense General Fund (FC 10)425,537,408 847,540 6,538,000 2,774,764 435,697,712 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,762,560 1,762,560 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 1,700,000 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,757,825 5,757,825 Water Fund (FC 51)132,752,815 36,680,000 260,687 169,693,502 Sewer Fund (FC 52)255,914,580 255,914,580 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)18,699,722 18,699,722 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)384,681,671 688,818,000 1,073,499,671 Refuse Fund (FC 57)24,952,672 3,035,700 27,988,372 Golf Fund (FC 59)14,726,016 46,800 14,772,816 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,800,385 3,800,385 Fleet Fund (FC 61)30,426,032 4,011,360 10,678,500 45,115,892 IMS Fund (FC 65)30,523,167 2,782,449 33,305,616 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,458,748 9,458,748 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)4,958,433 4,958,433 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)26,614,153 2,749,584 2,517,995 8,065,151 39,946,883 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)300,000 300,000 Donation Fund (FC 77)287,250 20,000 44,668 351,918 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)25,779,253 100,000 25,879,253 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)33,658,558 (2,951,727) 30,706,831 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)35,460,387 11,713,917 12,267,217 96,317,958 155,759,479 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,169,767 2,000,000 500,000 5,669,767 Risk Fund (FC 87)54,679,000 54,679,000 - Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,525,603,402 21,442,401 688,818,000 61,583,580 117,974,582 - 2,415,421,965 Budget Manager Analyst, City Council Contingent Appropriation The Council adopted item A-2 at the September 20th Council meeting with the following contingency: "Each funding award to recommended housing developments will come to the Council for final approval." 6 Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 1 Section A: New Items A-1: Elections Awareness GF $38,509.00 Department: Attorney’s Office Prepared By: Olivia Hoge For questions please include: Olivia Hoge, Katie Lewis, Mary Beth Thompson The cost of the election $24,735. The cost of the insert for the VIP is $13,774. Because the approved funding was given before the resolution to hold a Special Election as well as include a mailer to be included in the GO Bond, we will need additional funding. Including a mailer, the estimated cost is $38,509. A-2: Repurpose Operation Rio Grande Funds for Homelessness Services GF $274,000.00 GF $177,847.00 GF $30,000.00 GF $9,000.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner For questions please include: Brent Beck, Tony Milner, Blake Thomas, Mary Beth Thompson This amendment is to repurpose unused Salt Lake County funds for Operation Rio Grande through a contract amendment with the County for new homelessness services. See attached County contract and contract amendments. $274,000: VOA, City Specific Outreach Team. Description: This funding will continue operations of the City’s outreach team with Volunteers of America. This team is a vital piece of the City's response to unsheltered homelessness and focuses on facilitating unsheltered residents access to both short term supportive services and long-term permanent housing. $177,847: Provider TBD, FY 2023 Winter Overflow Operations. Description: The Winter Overflow plan for this year, while mandated by the State legislature, was not funded by the State legislature. While existing state funding has now been identified to support the majority of overflow costs, this funding has been identified as a source that can fill gaps in needed services for overflow operations this winter. $30,000: Shelter the Homeless, HRC Security. Description: Funds would be used to pay for one of the swing shift security staff at either the Geraldine E. King or the Gail Miller HRC. $9,000: VOA, Detox Bed Costs. Description: Detox service costs increased this year and funding is needed to ensure immediate access for the City’s first responders to refer patients into two detox beds at VOA’s adult detox center. A-3: Dee Glen Tennis Court Reconstruction GF $500,000.00 CIP $500,000.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Kristin Riker For questions please include: Kristin Riker, Gregg Evans, Mary Beth Thompson In 2020 after the March 18th earthquake, the North side of Court 7 at the Dee Glen Smith Tennis Center began to significantly buckle and crack. The entire length of the edge of the court has deep cracks where the perimeter playing surface has shifted and has become unsafe. Cables holding the post-tension courts have shifted and could continue to shift more into the court with future weather or earthquake events. The Engineering Division has been working with a structural engineer to determine the best co urse of action. The structural engineer believes that based upon the transverse cracking and from preliminary observations , the drainage from the court and from the hillside to the east and possibly from poor backfill, water may be causing the subsidence of the perimeter beam. This is believed to be generating failure at the cable anchors and vertical saw cut of the old tennis Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 2 court slab. Failure of the post tensioning is also suspected to be causing the cracking and court slab failure. Repair to the post tensioning is possible, however expensive, and likely temporary , and the contractor cannot guarantee the quality and longevity of the repair. This request for $500,000 will be to replace the post -tension courts with an anticipated cost of $360,000. Engineering also suggests another $140,000 to address drainage and other issues that may have caused the failure. A-4: New Sr. Warehouse Operator FTE GF -$18,750.00 GF $18,750.00 Golf -$18,750.00 Golf $18,750.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Gregg Evans For questions please includes: Kristin Riker, Matt Kammeyer, Gregg Evans, Mary Beth Thompson With the creation of the new Public Lands Department we have identified a need to centralize purchasing, contracting, and warehouse support functions to include the Golf Division in order to maintain better controls and efficiency. The Golf Division has had several purchasing violations in the last year and the centralization of these functions will standardize processes and controls to avoid future purchasing violations. The Public Lands Department is requesting to reallocate existing seasonal budget from the General Fund and the Golf fund to share the cost 50/50 for (1) new FTE Senior Warehouse Operator position. This new position would potentially start January 1st 2023 utilizing existing savings for 6 -months in FY23. Additional funding would be requested to fund 50% of the position from the general fund for the full year in FY24. The Public Lands warehouse staff currently provides purchasing, ordering, contracting, payment processing, and warehouse inventory management for the entire Department. Over the last 24 months the warehouse staff workload has increased as the department has taken on Special Events, Community Events, Park Ranger Program and added new properties. Additionally, the warehouse staff is very skilled and knowledgeable and has graciously provided services for other departments to assist with their ordering and pricing needs. The new Senior Warehouse Operator position would provide warehouse support to free up time for the current warehouse staff to dedicate more time toward purchasing, ordering, and contracting functions for the Golf Division, the other new programs and properties, and continue to assist other departments as needed. A-5: GO Bond Related - Glendale Regional Park Phase 1–Increased Costs GF $4,350,000.00 CIP $4,350,000.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Kat Maus For questions please include: Kat Maus, Kristin Riker, Greg Evans, Mary Beth Thompson Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment to increase the funding for Phase 1 design and construction of Glendale Regional Park by $4,350,000 of impact fees. Phase 1 has previously been funded for $3.425 million in 2021, but additional funds are now required to complete the phase. With increased costs and extensive, unforeseen circumstances that have occurred with the demolition, Public Lands currently has only $1,750,000 remaining for construction to complete Phase 1. In addition, construction costs have risen since the original allocation so Public Lands will be able to deliver fewer amenities than what was originally expected. In order to make a significant impact, to reduce phasing of the full park build-out, and to meet the requirements for the Land and Water Conservation Funding, this additional request will be necessary to complete the currently proposed Phase 1. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 3 This funding request will include full design and implementation of Phase 1, Sustainable SITES Certification (https://sustainablesites.org/certification-guide), all survey work needed for the phase and soft costs. Proposed Phase 1 amenities that could be constructed with this additional funding, including fees and soft costs, consist of: - Multi-use sports court - Pavilion - Community Plaza - Pathways - Associated Parking - Water-wise and ornamental plantings - Playground with accessible design and assistive technologies for all ages Without additional allocation of impact fees, Phase 1 will be significantly reduced. Public Lands will work with the selected consultant to design to the current budget of the remaining $1.75 million, which could consist of element s including a scaled-down playground, sports court, and plaza based on construction and material costs. A-6: Transfer CIP and Impact Fees to Finance GF -$223,299.00 GF $223,299.00 Department: CAN / Finance Prepared By: Blake Thomas For questions please include: Blake Thomas, Tammy Hunsaker, Brent Beck, Mary Beth Thompson This amendment will transfer CIP and Impact Fees functions from CAN to Finance, consisting of two FTE's and operating budget. FTE's consist of the CIP Impact Fee Manager, grade 30, and a Capital Improvement Program Specialist, grade 25. FTE annual budget of $210,394, annual operating budget of $12,905. A-7: Forestry Division Dir. Reclassification to Appointed (Grade 35) GF $0.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Gregg Evans For questions please include: Kristin Riker, Gregg Evans, Mary Beth Thompson Department of Public Lands is requesting an FY 2023 $0 housekeeping budget amendment to reclassify the current Forestry Division Director to an appointed position (grade 35). Public Lands will utilize existing budget to fund this request. HR has reviewed this change and has revised the appointed employees pay plan document as part of this request. The Forestry Division Director has signed a letter acknowledging his understanding and acceptance of this appointment and has been offered reasonable compensation to make the change. The Urban Forestry Division Director is a crucial position that manages all aspects of the City's urban forest growth and preservation needs. This position manages a multimillion dollar budget and team of skilled trade professionals that provide individualized customer service to thousands of city residents every year. The position requires expertise in a specialized biological science and the ability to apply and relate that knowledge to diverse city priorities and challenges. Aside from working directly and regularly with numerous other City Departments and Divisions (including Public Utilities, Building Services, Planning, Public Services and Engineering) on City projects and priorities, the Urban Forestry Director must see to the delivery of professional grade productivity and quantifiable residential service. The combination of skills, productivity and publicity attached to the Urban Forestry Division Director position should merit a compensation class consistent with Division Directors throughout the City’s Public Services, Community & Neighborhoods, and Public Lands Departments. The City’s Revised Appointed Pay Plan is attached to the end of the amendment packet. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 4 A-8: Contract Development Specialist GF $103,900.00 IMS 5,000.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson For questions please include: Mary Beth Thompson, Christopher Jennings The Department of Finance is requesting two Contract Development Specialist. Since 2021 the contract request s have been growing at a steady rate. In 2023 we are experiencing a surge of contracts that we couldn't have predicted. As you can see on the graph in FY 2020 we had 96 contracts, in 2021 we had 197 contracts, in 2022 we had 238 contracts, and current today we have 93 contracts (see graph). Another example, June of 2022 had 44 contract requests come in and this is more than double the norm for end of the fiscal year and the most we have ever had in one month. All of this work needs to be done by writers on staff. This and the anticipation of becoming more active on city contract standards and administration has completely overwhelm our staff at the current levels. Two Contract Development Specialist positions are being requested accommodate the increased workload. These positions are a pay code 26 with budget for 6 months of salary plus an additional 26% for benefits. A-9: Lease & Tenant Improvement for Substations GF $130,000.00 96 197 238 93 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 K requests 876 717 807 234 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 PRs Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 5 GF $678,462.00 Department: Public Serv / Police / CAN Prepared By: JP Goates / Tammy Hunsaker For questions please include: JP Goates, Tammy Hunsaker, Brent Beck, Shellie Dietrich, Mary Beth Thompson The ongoing costs associated with this request- Substations rent/utilities/parking is estimated to be $125,000 for the downtown substation and $5,000 for the N. Temple substation. This cost is only for 7 months (Dec to June). The annual budget amount needed would be closer to $225,000. The one-time costs associated with this request - All other costs are one-time and related to initial setup. They include tenant improvement (TI) and office furniture of $513,208 for the downtown location and $125,254 for the N. Temple location. See back up documentation for details. Additionally, the parking area is estimated at $40k which covers costs, design, storm drain and landscaping. A-10: Fire Station Gender Equity GF $750,000.00 CIP $750,000.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dustin Petersen For questions please include: JP Goates, Dustin Petersen, Mary Beth Thompson Historically, firefighting was a male-dominated profession. As a result, yesterday’s fire stations were built to accommodate individuals of the same gender, traditions, and background. Most of the fire stations in Salt Lake City were built in the late 80s and early 90s, with a few dating back as far as 1971. Today, the fire service is universally more diverse, and are certainly more aware and respectful of coworkers’ needs for inclusion and well-being. Individuals of different genders, gender identities, traditions, backgrounds, and perspectives work together to form the current generation of firefighters. This emphasizes the need to accommodate many different individuals in one fire station. Any firefighter or City employee should have a basic expectation of privacy and appropriate accommodations. We have made efforts to address these expectations internally, w ith limited success given the original design of the facilities. Today, our inability to permanently meet these standards places an unfair burden on all employees and can negatively impact morale and workplace productivity. A fire station should reflect Sa lt Lake City’s priorities of equitable and inclusive workspaces for all, and the Salt Lake City Fire Department has an obligation to promote and meet those goals and objectives. The proposed renovations to city facilities include modifying dorm rooms at fire stations 1,7, and 10. This work will create adequate privacy by separating current dorm rooms with new walls and doors. Station 8 will add additional privacy by adding an additional bathroom and shower. Station 5 will require an additional dorm room w ith an adjacent bathroom with shower. A-11: Real Property Purchase GF $430,000.00 CIP $430,000.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: John Vuyk For questions please include: JP Goates, Tammy Hunsaker Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk The Administration is proposing the purchase of real property previously discussed in a closed session. Further discussion about the purchase could be held in closed session if the Council desires. This is a key acquisition of real property that will benefit the city and be utilized immediately with no additional budget impacts. The proposed purchase would include a transfer from the general fund to the CIP fund for the purchase of the property. A-12: GO Bond - FTE Request - (2) Public Lands Planner Positions, (1) PS Sr. Project Manager GF $310,600.00 Fleet $108,000.00 Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 6 IMS $8,000.00 Departments: Public Lands, Public Services Prepared By: Dustin Petersen / Gregg Evans For questions please include: Kristin Riker, Gregg Evans, Dustin Petersen, Jorge Chammoro, Mary Beth Thompson Full-time planning staff in the Public Lands Department are responsible for public engagement, design, consultant management, cross-departmental coordination, and implementation tasks required to complete critical Public Lands projects. Existing project workloads and backlogs (approximately 70-80 funded yet incomplete projects) already necessitate increased planning staff capacity. Significant increases in capital funding through the City Council -approved, $67.5 million Sales Tax Bond (August 2022) and the voter-approved, $85 million General Obligation (GO) Bond for Parks, Trails, and Open Spaces (November 2022) have further cemented the need for and urgency of hiring additional planners as quickly as possible. As such, the Public Lands Department proposes hiring two (2) new full-time public lands project planners (pay grade 28, non-union) through Budget Amendment #4 (FY22/23). This would allow the Department to tackle existing backlog and begin bond projects with more immediacy. Two more planners would grow the Department’s Planning Team to (5) total FTEs. The Sr. Project Manager will work within the Engineering Division and oversee a program dedicated solely to the proposed bond projects. This posit ion will be necessary for oversight of design and construction, overall. This would include procurement of design and construction management, financial management, coordination with the Parks Division engagement efforts and preliminary design leading to construction - along with other administrative functions and coordination. This position will need to be a skilled engineer, landscape architect or project management professional with experience in large scale projects. It is necessary to submit this request through a budget amendment rather than through next year’s FY23/24 annual budget process due to the urgency and high expectations that the City and the public have in regard to the initiation and completion of critical public lands bond projects. Because the eight GO Bond projects will not all begin at the same time, the Department will be able to further assess the need for additional planners and resources and include further Planning Team staffing requests through the annual budget process. Due to fleet delays and materials shortages, this request also includes an additional Public Lands vehicle that will allow the Planning Team to complete community engagement and site visit tasks. It is included in the budget amendment in order to receive the vehicl e as quickly as possible (with 8-10 month lead times becoming more common in recent years). Public Lands One-time and annual costs for these two (2) additional FTEs include salaries, benefits, equipment and IMS Department assistance, work spaces, and purchasing and maintaining one (1) compact fuel-efficient vehicle in the City’s fleet. • The projected one-time cost for FY22/23 is $69,000 ($50,000 for Fleet, $4,000 for IMS and $15,000 for office setup).  Fuel Costs for this fiscal year totaling $4,000 are also included. • The projected annual ongoing cost is $231,400 (Salaries & fuel cost). • The amendment proposes to add these new positions on January 29, 2023. The 5-month partial funding period would cost $100,600 for the current fiscal year (FY22/23). Funding for personnel and ongoing costs will be added to the Public Lands General Fund budget while funding for the vehicles and the IMS computer purchases will be transferred to Fleet Fund and IMS Fund, respectively. Public Services One-time and annual costs for these one (1) additional FTEs include salaries, benefits, equipment and IMS Department assistance, work spaces, and purchasing and maintaining one (1) compact fuel -efficient vehicle in the City’s fleet. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 7 • The projected one-time cost for FY22/23 is $63,000 ($50,000 for Fleet, $4,000 for IMS and $15,000 for office setup).  Fuel costs for this fiscal year totaling $4,000 are also included. • The projected annual ongoing cost is $184,000 (Salaries & fuel cost). • The amendment proposes to add these new positions on January 29, 2023. The 5-month partial funding period would cost $83,000 for the current fiscal year (FY22/23). Funding for personnel and ongoing costs will be added to the Public Lands General Fund budget while funding for the vehicles and the IMS computer purchases will be transferred to Fleet Fund and IMS Fund, respectively. A-13: IMS / Airport Police Devices IMS $155,029.00 Department: IMS Prepared By: Joseph Anthony For questions please include: Joseph Anthony, Aaron Bentley, Mary Beth Thompson We are requesting 64 new devices to be used by the Police Officers for the Airport Division that was recently moved to them. There is a total of 66 officers currently serving at the airport. Two devices have recently been updated. We are therefore requesting an additional 64 computers for the remaining officers. Docks are not needed for each additional computer but will be set up as specific workstations where officers while not in the field may sit for report writing or other administrative responsibilities. These will be hotel-style stations that will be shared and be able to be used by any officer. We are requesting 10 docks for this purpose. The dock in the quote is not the dock that will be used, but a standardized Thunderbolt 4 dock which is the new universal standard and will be compatible with the next generation computers that come out. The last batch of docks we purchased at the price listed below. We are also requesting a total of 13 car adapters for the airport vehicles. These devices come with a standard 3-year warranty. They are also strong ruggedized devices. We are recommending that we don't get the additional bumper-to-bumper warranty as shown on the initial quote. Our historical data shows that the devices do not break at a cost greater than the increase in the bumper -to-bumper warranty. Therefore, we recommend skipping the additional warranty at this time. Price Quantity Total Computer 2,350.93 64 150,459.52 Docks 284.00 10 2,840.00 Car Power Adapter 132.98 13 1,728.74 Total 155,028.26 A-14: Patrol Response to Backfill Vacant and Leave Positions GF $2,539,019.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich / Chief Brown For questions please include: Shellie Dietrich, Chief Brown, Jordan Smith, Mary Beth Thompson The Police Department is requesting funding for patrol response staffing to maintain staffing at a level that provides safety in the community and helps to reduce call response times. Staffing levels continue to be strained and officer leave of all types is directly impacting patrol staffing. In September 2022, the Police Department added mandatory patrol shifts to cover shifts that are not currently staffed. For the current trimester, the Department added 18 patrol shifts per day. This approach allows the Department to proactively reduce crime and improve response times. Demand for patrol resources has steadily increased over the past Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 8 six years. Response times is a metric the Department is constantly striving to improve to help improve community expectations. Salt Lake City is one of the fastest growing cities in the country. Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section D: Housekeeping D-1: Market Pay Adjustment – GF Transfer to Golf GF -$25,700.00 GF $25,700.00 Golf $46,800.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Kristin Riker For questions please include: Kristin Riker, Gregg Evans, Matt Kammeyer, Mary Beth Thompson The Golf Enterprise Fund did not receive the FY23 NFP & CCAC market pay adjustment revenues. The Public Lands Department is requesting a housekeeping budget amendment to transfer a portion of general fund budget from Public Lands to the Golf Fund to cover these costs and the remaining amount will come from the Golf Fund balance. D-2: FY 2023 General Fund Funded Vehicle Purchases Fleet $1,011,900.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dustin Petersen For questions please include: Dustin Petersen, Denise Sorensen, Dawn Valente, Julie Crookston, Mary Beth Thompson In Fiscal Year 2023 budget vehicles were added to the City's Fleet in the General Fund for new FTEs. However, Public Services Fleet did not receive the budget for the transfer from the General Fund to the Fleet Fund, or the budget for the related expenditures. This amendment will transfer funds to cover these purchases and provide the expenditure budget. D-3: FY 2022 Fleet Vehicle Purchases Fleet $90,000.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dustin Petersen For questions please include: Dustin Petersen, Denise Sorensen, Dawn Valente, Julie Crookston, Mary Beth Thompson Public Services Fleet requested rollover funds on FY 2023 Budget Amendment 1 item D4. There was a discrepancy in the funding detail and Public Services Fleet requires $90,000 to order all vehicles. D-4: Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2022 C Federally Taxable CIP $24,240,000.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Brandon Bagley For questions please include: Marina Scott, Brandon Bagley, Jared Jenkins, Mary Beth Thompson Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2022 C Federally Taxable, were sold in October 2022 for the purpose of financing five projects. This amendment creates the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds and the expenditure budget to pay for construction of the five projects. There will be five project cost centers in Fund 83 to which bond proceeds will be allocated. One cost center will receive $6,100,000 for the Central Plant Electrical Transformer Upgrade & Emergency Backup Generators project. A second cost center will receive $10,000,000 for the Pioneer Park Improvements project. A third cost center will receive $3,000,000 for the Fisher Mansion Stabilization & Improvements project. A fourth cost center will receive $2,000,000 for the Urban Wood Reutilization Equipment and Storage Additions project. A fifth cost center will receive $3,000,000 for the Smith's Ballpark Improvements project. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 9 There will also be a unique cost center for the bond's cost of issuance. This cost center will receive $140,000.00 D-5: Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2022 B Non-Taxable Debt Service $244,846.05 CIP $42,553,000.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Brandon Bagley For questions please include: Marina Scott, Brandon Bagley, Jared Jenkins, Mary Beth Thompson Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2022 B Non-Taxable, were sold in October 2022 for the purpose of financing five projects. This amendment creates the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds and the expenditure budget to pay for construction of the five projects. There will be five project cost centers in Fund 83 to which bond proceeds will be allocated. One cost center will receive $6,100,000 for the Westside Railroad Quiet Zone project. A second cost center will receive $8,000,000 for the Warm Springs Punge Structure Stabilization & Improvements project. A third cost center will receive $11,200,000 for City Cemetery Road Repairs / Reconstruction project. A fourth cost center will receive $9,753,000 for the 600 North Corridor Transformation project. A fifth cost center will receive $7,500,000 for the Radio Towers project. There will also be a unique cost center for the bond's cost of issuance. This cost center will receive $244,846.05. D-6: General Obligation Series 2022 Streets Bonds CIP $23,494,957.90 Department: Finance Prepared By: Brandon Bagley For questions please include: Marina Scott, Brandon Bagley, Jared Jenkins, Mary Beth Thompson In November 2018, voters authorized the issuance of up to $87 million in general obligation bonds to fund street construction. The General Obligation Bonds, Series 2022 were sold in September 2022 as the fourth and final issuance of the authorization. This amendment creates the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds and the expenditure budget to pay for construction of the street projects associated with the bonds. There will be eight project cost centers in Fund 83 to which bond proceeds will be allocated. The funding will be allocated as shown below: 1. $3,000,0000 for the 1300 E (2100 S to the city limits) project. 2. $1,300,000 for Virginia Street (South Temple St to 11th Ave) project. 3. $2,000,000 for West Temple (South Temple St to 200 South). 4. $3,000,000 for local streets construction projects. 5. $1,500,000 for the 1700 East (900 S) (2100 South to 2700 South) project. 6. $8,000,000 for the 2100 South (700 East to 1300 East) project. 7. $2,000,000 for additional local streets construction projects. 8. $2,500,000 for 100 East / Highland Dr to augment prior funding. There will also be a $194,957.90 allocation associated with the bond's cost of issuance. D-7: Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2022 B & C GF -$3,196,573.00 Debt Service -$3,196,573.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Brandon Bagley For questions please include: Marina Scott, Brandon Bagley, Jared Jenkins, Mary Beth Thompson The Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2022 B&C were issued in October 2022 for the purpose of financing several capital projects throughout the City. The bonds were issued at a par amount of $64,225.000. The first interest payment is due on April 1, 2023. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 10 D-8: FY 2022 Year End Fleet Encumbrance Rollover to FY 2023 Fleet $9,468,600.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dustin Petersen For questions please include: Dustin Petersen, Denise Sorensen, Dawn Valente, Julie Crookston, Mary Beth Thompson Timing of vehicle and equipment orders tend to overlap the City's fiscal year cycle. Public Service Fleet has vehicles on order with funding that was encumbered in FY 2022. This amendment will move encumbered funds to FY 2023. D-9: FY 2022 Year End IMS Encumbrance Rollover to FY 2023 IMS $2,614,420.00 Department: IMS Prepared By: Joseph Anthony For questions please include: Joseph Anthony, Aaron Bentley, Gloria Cortez, Mary Beth Thompson IMS has encumbered money that was expected to be paid out of the FY22 funds and needs to be paid in FY23. These encumbrances are listed in the Carry Over Encumbrance reports. All of these items have been approved for purchase by central finance in a prior year. These expenses will be paid for by the annual allocation that IMS uses to collect it's revenue on an annual basis. D-10: Winter Shelter Overflow Patrol Resources – Informational Only GF $0.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich For question please include: Shellie Dietrich, Jordan Smith, Mary Beth Thompson The Police Department was awarded a grant for $400,000 for winter overflow shelter patrol for fiscal year 2022. The Department used $21,410 of the funding in fiscal year 2022. The funding remains in place and the Administration is notifying the Council of the intent to use the remaining $378,560 for additional patrol resources will be needed in the Rio Grande area during the operational period of the 2022-2023 Winter Overflow Shelter. It is estimated the city’s downtown population for homeless services will increase by approximately 350 people during the weekday and outside of the shelters’ regular nighttime operating hours. Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources E-1: Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant FY 2023 Misc Grants $694,122.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Ann Garcia For questions please include: Ann Garcia, Mary Beth Thompson This budget amendment is to recognize the City's annual State of Utah Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant - Amendment #1 for FY23 in the amount of $694,121.82 for the purpose of addressing homelessness and homelessness related services in Salt Lake City. This year the State changed the process for distributing funds from a competitive grant to a formula grant. Due to HB440 and the State's decision to flex-up, the City is now eligible for an additional amount of the State Homeless Cities Mitigation funding to support the flex up (take-on additional shelter clients during the winter). However, as a result of a decision by the Utah Homeless Council, SLC is required to pass 2/3 of this new mitigation funding through to a service provider who is slated to provide winter overflow shelter and 1/3 may be used for City identified mitigation activities. Housing Stability staff have reviewed winter overflow shelter budgets and propose that the required 2/3 be passed through to Shelter the Homeless for overflow security and transportation, and the remaining 1/3 be directed to SLCPD for camp mitigation overtime shifts. E-2: Rehabilitation of High Hazard Potential Dams (HHPD) Water $260,687.00 Department: Public Utilities Prepared By: Ann Garcia For questions please include: Ann Garcia, Lisa Tarufelli, Mary Beth Thompson Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 11 This budget amendment is to recognize the City's funding availability grant award in the amount of $260,687 for the purpose of planning and design for the rehabilitation of Lake Mary-Phoebe in Salt Lake City. The State of Utah, Division of Water Resources secured the funding from the Department of Homeland Security. The grant can be used to fund 65% of planning and design work. No new FTEs. Public Utilities hads discussed potential projects on the Lake Mary Dam internally and with Utah Dam Safety Program. The intend was to budget work for Fiscal Year 2024. Given the available funding opportunity, Public Utilities has determined the schedule will be accelerated and initiate the evaluation and design to take advantage of the grant. Public Utilities has identified and will commit funding to mat th e remaining 35% or $130,344 of the project. 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: ERAP 1 Reallocated Funds Misc Grants $5,000,000.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner For questions please include: Tony Milner, Brent Beck, Ann Garcia, Mary Beth Thompson The Treasury has reallocated unspent Emergency Rent Assistance Program (ERAP) 1 funds set -aside for the State of Utah by low-performing cities and made these funds available to apply for by high-performing cities, such as Salt Lake City. To administer Salt Lake City’s initial ERAP 1 award, the City contracted with the State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services’ (DWS) online Utah Rent Relief applicat ion portal, https://rentrelief.utah.gov/. Coordinating with DWS, Housing Stability staff have determined that Salt Lake City could apply for $5,000,000 in reallocated ERAP 1. These funds will further assist Salt Lake City residents with deposit, rent, utilities, rent arrears, and utility arrears, again utilizing the Utah Rent Relief application portal. Note: This new request is separate from, and does not affect, the City’s other Treasury ERAP 1 ($6,067,033), ERAP 1 Reallocated ($3,000,000), and ERAP 2 ($4,800,559.40) awards. See attached funding memos and award email from Treasury. E-4: Clean Neighborhood Teams Mitigation Staffing – ARPA Funding Misc Grants $1,664,000.00 $1,664,000.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich / Chief Brown For questions please include: Shellie Dietrich, Chief Brown, Jordan Smith, Mary Beth Thompson The Administration is requesting $1,664,000 of funding, to provide funding for Clean Neighborhoods Teams for the Police Department to provide staffing to support the homeless encampment cleanup and camp re-establishment stabilization as requested by the Salt Lake County Health Department. Police officers working extra overtime shifts will provide security to ensure the cleanups can proceed in an environment that will be safe for all involved. Staffin g numbers will vary depending on the size, number of cleanups and the location. Section F: Donations Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 12 Section G: Consent Agenda Consent Agenda #3 G-1: Utah Department of Health - Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (EMS)grant, FY23 Per Capita Allocation Misc Grants $10,948.00 Department: Fire Department Prepared By: Brittany Blair/Ann Garcia The Fire Department applied for and was awarded $10,948 of grant funding from the Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services. This funding will be used towards the purchase of medical equipment relating to the provision of Emergency Medical Services as funding permits. A Public Hearing was held on 4-5-22 for the grant application on this award. Consent Agenda #4 G-1: SUGA Education & Traning Award, SUGA Board of Directors Misc Grants $30,000.00 Department: IMS Prepared By: Blake Scott / Ann Garcia The City has requested funds to help implement Workday across departments with Train the Trainer education as well as additional aids including a training video. Each department has identified individuals who will assist their co -workers in learning about Workday and how to use it. The training will take place between November 2022 and April 2023. SUGA is a non-profit whose mission is to provide assistance for furthering the education of software users in the public sector. No match is required. A public hearing was held for this grant application on 08/16/2022 G-2: State of Utah, The Utah Highway Safety Office, 2023 Distracted Driving Prevention Program Misc Grants $17,000.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Ann Garcia The Police Department applied for $14,175 and received a $17,000 grant from the Utah Highway Safety Office for the 2023 Distracted Driving Prevention Program. The grant funding for 54 distracted driving enforcement/education overtime shifts. A Public Hearing was held on 05/03/2022 for the grant application on this award. G-3: US Department of Justice, 2022 Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Misc Grants $350,205.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Ann Garcia The police department applied for and received a grant award from the U.S. Department of Justice under the 2022 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program. The total grant award is $350,205.00. The police department will use its award to provide training for sworn and civilian personnel, E-bikes (+accessories), Ballistic Helmets, Ballistic Computers, Rifle Shields, Public Relations Unit Supplies, Community Policing and Targeted Enforcement Overtime, Vehicle Telmatics Software and Training, Promising Youth Project Supplies and Training, Community Surveys, and 2 sub-awards to Salt Lake County (BJA allocations) and Unified Police Department (BJA allocations). Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 13 No Match is required. A Public Hearing was held on 10/4/22 for the grant application on this award. G-4: US Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women, 2020 YWCA Utah Misc Grants $298,876.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Ann Garcia The police department applied for and received a grant award from the YWCA from pass-through funds from U.S. Department of Justice under the 2020 grants to Improving Criminal Justice Responses to Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence and Stalking program. The total grant award is $298,876.00. Salt Lake City signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the YWCA to participate as a sub awardee on the project. The grant will fund three part-time civilian positions including two victim advocates and one civilian specialist to investigate cases involving restricted persons accessing firearms. It will also fund supplies for both positions. The grant will fund overtime to conduct operations to pursue protective order violations and outstanding domestic violence warra nts. Lastly, it will fund travel training to send Domestic Violence Unit and Victim Advocate Program staff to a professional training conference. No Match is required. A Public Hearing was held on 04/21/2020 for the grant application on this award. Section I: Council Added Items Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 14 Attachments Initiative A-2 Attachment County Contract No. AL17504C DA Matter 22CIV001228 AMENDMENT NO. 2 to INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT between SALT LAKE COUNTY and SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION THIS AMENDMENT is executed this __ day of September 2022, by and between SALT LAKE COUNTY (the "County"), a body corporate and politic of the State of Utah, on behalf of its Behavioral Health Division, and SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a Utah municipal corporation, ("City"). County and City are collectively referred to hereafter as the "Parties." RECITALS WHEREAS, on November 13, 2017, the Parties entered into an Agreement (County Contract No. AL17504C ("Agreement")) in which City agreed to provide the County with funds in exchange for County reserving treatment and detox beds for City's residents in need of such services; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Amendment 1, the Parties agreed the County should return the unspent funds the City provided to the County in the Agreement. WHEREAS, the County returned Four Hundred Ninety Thousand Eight Hundred Forty-Seven dollars ($490,847.00) of unspent funds (“Unspent Funds”) to the City. WHEREAS, the Parties desire to define the manner in which the City will spend the Unspent Funds and to extend the time frame for the City to use the Unspent Funds. THEREFORE, in exchange for valuable consideration, including the mutual covenants and agreements contained in the Agreement, Amendment 1 and this Amendment, the Parties covenant Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 15 and agree as follows: 1. Paragraph 1.f. of the Agreement and Amendment 1 shall be amended as follows: f. City shall use the Unspent Funds as follows: (1) VOA, City Specific Outreach, Outreach Team, $274,000; (2) Provider TBD, FY23 Winter Overflow Operations, $177,847; (3) Shelter the Homeless, HRC Security, $30,000; and (4) VOA, Detox Bed Costs, $9,000. The City shall report to the County when the remaining Unspent Funds have been fully spent, or by June 30, 2023, whichever comes first. 2. Paragraph 5 of the Agreement and Amendment 1 shall be amended as follows: 5. The Agreement shall terminate when the City spends the remaining Unspent F unds as described in Paragraph 1.f. of this Amendment. If the City does not spend the remaining Unspent Funds by June 30, 2023, the Parties may amend this Agreement to extend the deadline for the City to spend the remaining Unspent Funds. 3. All other terms and conditions of the underlying Agreement and Amendment 1 not specifically amended herein shall remain in full force and effect. [signature page to follow] Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 16 Initiative A-7 Attachments APPENDIX B – APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT Effective June 26, 2022 (revised October 24, 2022) 911 BUREAU Job Title Grade 911 DISPATCH DIRECTOR 041X 911 COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 032X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X AIRPORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS 041X CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, AIRPORT 040X DIRECTOR AIRPORT ENGINEERING 039X DIRECTOR AIRPORT MAINTENANCE 039X DIRECTOR FINANCE/ACCOUNTING AIRPORT 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION/COMMERCIAL SERVICES 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT PLANNING & CAPITAL PROJECTS 039X DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS - AIRPORT 039X DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL READINESS & TRANSITION 039X DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 038X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X CITY ATTORNEY CITY ATTORNEY 041X DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY 040X CITY RECORDER 034X CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBER-ELECT N/A* EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL OFFICE 041X COUNCIL LEGAL DIRECTOR 039X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - CITY COUNCIL 039X ASSOCIATE DEPUTY DIRECTOR COUNCIL 037X LEGISLATIVE & POLICY MANAGER 037X SENIOR ADVISOR CITY COUNCIL 037X SENIOR PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 033X COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL 031X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST III 031X COMMUNITY FACILITATOR 031X OPERATIONS MANAGER & MENTOR – CITY COUNCIL 031X PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 031X POLICY ANALYST/PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 028X Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 17 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST II 028X CONSTITUENT LIAISON/POLICY ANALYST 027X CONSTITUENT LIAISON 026X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST I 026X ASSISTANT TO THE COUNCIL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 025X COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT/AGENDA 024X COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 021X COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 037X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY SERVICES 037X DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION (ENGINEER) 037X PLANNING DIRECTOR 037X BUILDING OFFICIAL 035X DIRECTOR OF HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 035X DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION (PLANNER) 035X YOUTH & FAMILY DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 037X ARTS DIVISION DIRECTOR 032X BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DIRECTOR 032X FINANCE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 041X CITY TREASURER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 039X CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER 036X FIRE FIRE CHIEF 041X DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF 037X ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF 035X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X HUMAN RESOURCES CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER 041X DEPUTY CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER 037X CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD INVESTIGATOR 035X TRANSITION CHIEF OF STAFF 041X* TRANSITION COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 039X* TRANSITION EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 024X* INFORMATION MGT SERVICES CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 041X CHIEF INNOVATIONS OFFICER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 039X JUSTICE COURTS JUSTICE COURT JUDGE 037X CITY COURTS ADMINISTRATOR 036X Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 18 MAYOR CHIEF OF STAFF 041X CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 041X COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 039X DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF 039X SENIOR ADVISOR 039X COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 030X POLICY ADVISOR 029X REP COMMISSION POLICY ADVISOR 029X COMMUNITY LIAISON 026X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X OFFICE MANAGER - MAYOR'S OFFICE 024X COMMUNITY OUTREACH - EQUITY & SPECIAL PROJECTS COORDINATOR 024X COMMUNICATION AND CONTENT MANAGER - MAYOR'S OFFICE 021X ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 019X CONSUMER PROTECTION ANALYST 016X POLICE CHIEF OF POLICE 041X ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE 039X DEPUTY CHIEF POLICE 037X ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR - COMMUNICATIONS 037X ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR - INTERNAL AFFAIRS 037X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X PUBLIC LANDS PUBLIC LANDS DIRECTOR 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PUBLIC LANDS 037X GOLF DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X PARKS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES 041X CITY ENGINEER 039X DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS 038X FACILITIES DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X FLEET DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X STREETS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X COMPLIANCE DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X PUBLIC UTILITIES DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 039X FINANCE ADMINISTRATOR PUBLIC UTILITIES 039X CHIEF ENGINEER - PUBLIC UTILITIES 037X WATER QUALITY & TREATMENT ADMINSTRATOR 037X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 19 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 037X SUSTAINABILITY SUSTAINABILITY DIRECTOR 041X SUSTAINABILITY DEPUTY DIRECTOR 037X WASTE & RECYCLING DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X Except for a change in job title or reassignment to a lower pay level, no appointed position on this pay plan may be added, removed or modified without approval of the City Council. * Compensation for transitional positions, including city council member-elect, is set as provided under Chapter 2.03.030 of the Salt Lake City Code. Benefits for transitional employees are equivalent to those provided to full- time employees. Except for leave time, benefits for city council members-elect are also equivalent to those provided to full-time employees. APPENDIX B – APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT Effective June 26, 2022 (revised October 24, 2022) 911 BUREAU Job Title Grade 911 DISPATCH DIRECTOR 041X 911 COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 032X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X AIRPORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS 041X CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, AIRPORT 040X DIRECTOR AIRPORT ENGINEERING 039X DIRECTOR AIRPORT MAINTENANCE 039X DIRECTOR FINANCE/ACCOUNTING AIRPORT 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION/COMMERCIAL SERVICES 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT PLANNING & CAPITAL PROJECTS 039X DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS - AIRPORT 039X DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL READINESS & TRANSITION 039X DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 038X Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 20 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X CITY ATTORNEY CITY ATTORNEY 041X DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY 040X CITY RECORDER 034X CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBER-ELECT N/A* EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL OFFICE 041X COUNCIL LEGAL DIRECTOR 039X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - CITY COUNCIL 039X ASSOCIATE DEPUTY DIRECTOR COUNCIL 037X LEGISLATIVE & POLICY MANAGER 037X SENIOR ADVISOR CITY COUNCIL 037X SENIOR PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 033X COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL 031X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST III 031X COMMUNITY FACILITATOR 031X OPERATIONS MANAGER & MENTOR – CITY COUNCIL 031X PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 031X POLICY ANALYST/PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 028X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST II 028X CONSTITUENT LIAISON/POLICY ANALYST 027X CONSTITUENT LIAISON 026X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST I 026X ASSISTANT TO THE COUNCIL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 025X COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT/AGENDA 024X COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 021X COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 037X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY SERVICES 037X DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION (ENGINEER) 037X PLANNING DIRECTOR 037X BUILDING OFFICIAL 035X DIRECTOR OF HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 035X DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION (PLANNER) 035X YOUTH & FAMILY DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 037X ARTS DIVISION DIRECTOR 032X BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DIRECTOR 032X FINANCE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 041X CITY TREASURER 039X Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 21 DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 039X CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER 036X FIRE FIRE CHIEF 041X DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF 037X ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF 035X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X HUMAN RESOURCES CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER 041X DEPUTY CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER 037X CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD INVESTIGATOR 035X TRANSITION CHIEF OF STAFF 041X* TRANSITION COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 039X* TRANSITION EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 024X* INFORMATION MGT SERVICES CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 041X CHIEF INNOVATIONS OFFICER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 039X JUSTICE COURTS JUSTICE COURT JUDGE 037X CITY COURTS ADMINISTRATOR 036X MAYOR CHIEF OF STAFF 041X CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 041X COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 039X DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF 039X SENIOR ADVISOR 039X COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 030X POLICY ADVISOR 029X REP COMMISSION POLICY ADVISOR 029X COMMUNITY LIAISON 026X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X OFFICE MANAGER - MAYOR'S OFFICE 024X COMMUNITY OUTREACH - EQUITY & SPECIAL PROJECTS COORDINATOR 024X COMMUNICATION AND CONTENT MANAGER - MAYOR'S OFFICE 021X ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 019X CONSUMER PROTECTION ANALYST 016X POL ICE CHIEF OF POLICE 041X ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE 039X DEPUTY CHIEF POLICE 037X ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR - COMMUNICATIONS 037X ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR - INTERNAL AFFAIRS 037X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 22 PUBLIC LANDS PUBLIC LANDS DIRECTOR 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PUBLIC LANDS 037X GOLF DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X PARKS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X P UBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES 041X CITY ENGINEER 039X DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS 038X FACILITIES DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X FLEET DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X STREETS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X COMPLIANCE DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X PUBLIC UTILITIES DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 039X FINANCE ADMINISTRATOR PUBLIC UTILITIES 039X CHIEF ENGINEER - PUBLIC UTILITIES 037X WATER QUALITY & TREATMENT ADMINSTRATOR 037X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 037X SUSTAINABILITY SUSTAINABILITY DIRECTOR 041X SUSTAINABILITY DEPUTY DIRECTOR 037X WASTE & RECYCLING DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X Except for a change in job title or reassignment to a lower pay level, no appointed position on this pay plan may be added, removed or modified without approval of the City Council. * Compensation for transitional positions, including city council member-elect, is set as provided under Chapter 2.03.030 of the Salt Lake City Code. Benefits for transitional employees are equivalent to those provided to full- time employees. Except for leave time, benefits for city council members-elect are also equivalent to those provided to full-time employees. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 23 Initiative A-9 Attachments Downtown Regent Area/Count Unit Cost Total Ballistic Film 837 $ 250.00 $ 209,250.00 Window decals 5 $ 538.00 $ 2,690.00 Reception Glass and Kevlar 100 $ 250.00 $ 25,000.00 Paint 200 $ 4.00 $ 800.00 Key card access x4 4 $ 5,000.00 $ 20,000.00 Buzz in access point 1 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 New keyed locks 12 $ 250.00 $ 3,000.00 New security door install w/wall x2 2 $ 25,000.00 $ 50,000.00 Frame sheet paint 10 $ 900.00 $ 9,000.00 Couch and chairs lobby coffee 1 $ 3,800.00 $ 3,800.00 Cubes 6 $ 3,000.00 $ 18,000.00 Community Conference table 8' 1 $ 800.00 $ 800.00 Conferece chairs 10 $ 200.00 $ 2,000.00 Office desks and chairs 5 $ 3,000.00 $ 15,000.00 Office chairs 10 $ 200.00 $ 2,000.00 Break room table 1 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 Break chairs 4 $ 200.00 $ 800.00 Briefing room folding chairs 20 $ 100.00 $ 2,000.00 Bicycle racks 3 $ 250.00 $ 750.00 Line of sight wiring 1 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 Internet 1 $ 900.00 $ 900.00 Sum Total $ 371,890.00 Contruction Overhead, Permits, Fees, PM, Engr. 28% $ 104,129.20 Contingency 10% $ 37,189.00 $ 513,208.20 North Temple North Temple Area/Count Unit Cost Total Ballistic Film 198 $ 250.00 $ 49,500.00 Decals 3 $ 538.00 $ 1,614.00 Paint $ 4.00 $ - Key card access x2 2 $ 5,000.00 $ 10,000.00 Buzz in access 1 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 Fire alarm strobes and other $ 7,000.00 $ - Storefront door 1 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 Hall frame, sheet, paint $ 900.00 $ - Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 24 Reception desk 90 deg $ 3,800.00 $ - Lobby round table 6' 1 $ 750.00 $ 750.00 Conference table 4' $ 500.00 $ - Conferece chairs 4 $ 200.00 $ 800.00 Office desks and shelves $ 5,000.00 $ - Office chairs 2 $ 200.00 $ 400.00 Refridgerator 1 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 Break chairs 2 $ 200.00 $ 400.00 Microwave 1 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 Line of sight wiring? 1 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 Internet 1 $ 900.00 $ 900.00 Bicycle racks 3 $ 250.00 $ 750.00 Sum Total $ 90,764.00 Permits, Fees, PM, Engr. 28% $ 25,413.92 Contingency 10% $ 9,076.40 $ 125,254.32 Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 25 Initiative E-3 Attachments MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS HOUSING STABILTY DIVISION To: Tony Milner, Heather Royall, Tyler Durfee, Alex Lundy From: Erik Fronberg Subject: ERA1 Second Reallocation ($5,000,000) Date: October 27, 2022 SUMMARY The State of Utah voluntarily reallocated $5,000,000 in ERA1 funds to Salt Lake City for Direct Household Assistance in the form of rent and utility payments to Salt Lake City residents through the Utah Rent Relief portal (https://rentrelief.utah.gov). The Department of Workforce Services (DWS) has requested that 10% of the funding be set aside to reimburse the agency for administrative costs.  $ 4,500,000 for Direct Household Assistance (Cost Center 7262150)  $ 500,000 for Community Partner Administrative Costs (Cost Center 7262152) DETAILS On September 23, 2022, DWS informed Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County that Utah was likely to lose $15,000,000 in Treasury ERA1 funds by the end of September 2022 unless they reallocated the funds to other Utah ERA recipient jurisdictions. Reallocation would then have a spenddown date of December 31, 2022. Salt Lake City committed to receiving $5,000,000 of this funding and Salt Lake County committed to receiving the remaining $10,000,000. Salt Lake City submitted a request to the Treasury to receive the $5,000,000 reallocation on September 26, 2022. On October 18, 2022, the Treasury approved the City’s request without confirming the approved amount. On October 27, 2022, The Treasury released a payment of the full $5,000,000 and noted that the request was approved in full. These funds bring the City’s total Treasury ERA1 award to $14,067,033.20. These funds are separate from, and do not affect, the City’s ERA2 award ($4,800,559. 40) and ERA2 reallocation ($4,000,000). To administer Salt Lake City’ s ERA awards, the City continues to contract with DWS to utilize the online Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 26 Utah Rent Relief application portal at https://rentrelief.utah.gov/. DWS has requested that the City set aside the full 10% allowed for administrative costs for reimbursing the agency for costs related to operating the portal and issuing payments to eligible City residents. Existing City Admin dollars sufficiently cover inhouse administrative costs. Applicable ERA1 Cost Centers: Cost Center Name Addition from ERA1 Second Reallocation 7262150 US Treasury ERA1 Rent Assist $ 4,500,000 7262152 US Treasury ERA1 Hsg Stabili $ 500,000 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 Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 27 From: Fronberg, Erik To: Milner, Tony; Lundy, Alexander; Durfee, Tyler; Royall, Heather Cc: Swanson, Suzanne Subject: RE: (EXTERNAL) ERA1 Reallocation Disbursement Date: Thursday, October 27, 2022 4:22:40 PM Attachments: ERA1 Second Reallocation Memo.pdf Hi all! I’ve attached a memo outlining the $5,000,000 ERA1 second reallocation. DWS has asked us to set aside the full 10% available for administrative costs to cover the expenses associated with issuing payments on the City’s behalf bringing the allocations to: $4,500,000 for Direct Household Assistance (Cost Center 7262150) $500,000 for Community Partners Administrative Costs (Cost Center 7262152) Please let me know if you have any questions! Best, Erik ERIK FRONBERG Community Development Grants Specialist Housing Stability Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7291 EMAIL erik.fronberg@slcgov.com https://www.slc.gov/housingstability/ From: Fronberg, Erik Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2022 12:03 PM To: Milner, Tony <Tony.Milner@slcgov.com>; Lundy, Alexander <Alexander.Lundy@slcgov.com>; Durfee, Tyler <Tyler.Durfee@slcgov.com>; Royall, Heather <Heather.Royall@slcgov.com> Cc: Swanson, Suzanne <Suzanne.Swanson@slcgov.com> Subject: FW: (EXTERNAL) ERA1 Reallocation Disbursement Okay, looks like our confirmation from Treasury came through. I have a meeting with DWS this afternoon Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #4 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 28 where I’ll determine how much of this needs to be set aside for their admin vs. direct household assistance and will get it out as soon as possible for a budget amendment. ERIK FRONBERG Community Development Grants Specialist Housing Stability Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7291 EMAIL erik.fronberg@slcgov.com https://www.slc.gov/housingstability/ From: EmergencyRentalAssistance@treasury.gov <emergencyrentalassistance@treasury.gov> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2022 12:00 PM To: Fronberg, Erik <erik.fronberg@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) ERA1 Reallocation Disbursement Treasury released a payment of $5,000,000.00 via ACH on 10/27/2022. This comprises the approved amount of reallocated funding. Please ensure your financial staff is aware of the incoming funds referenced above. Thank you, U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA1) program Impact Fees ‐ Summary Confidential Data pulled 07/01/2022 Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area Area Cost Center UnAllocated Cash Notes: Impact fee - Police 8484001 846,150$ 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 Total FY 2 0 2 3 Calendar Month FY 2 0 2 2 FY 2 0 2 4 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$ SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2022 (Fourth 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 the amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate any staffing changes specifically stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing document as provided above, have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 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________ Jaysen Oldroyd Signature: Email: Alejandro Sanchez (Nov 8, 2022 09:53 MST) Alejandro Sanchez alejandro.sanchez@slcgov.com Page | 1 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke Budget & Public Policy Analyst DATE:November 22, 2022 RE: Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 Library Budget Amendment #1 ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE At a special meeting on October 26, the Library Board of Directors passed a motion (six in favor, two against and one absent) to recommend Budget Amendment #1 be adopted by the Salt Lake City Council. The budget amendment requests $1.3 million from the Library’s Fund Balance (rainy day fund / savings account) to facilitate the purchase of property. This matter is eligible to be discussed in a closed session per state law. While the Library has a significant level of independence from the City, and the Library Board is the policy- making body under state law, the Council is legally designated as the Library’s budget and taxation authority. Because this budget amendment could potentially affect future budget needs and/or tax rate adjustments, Council discussion/involvement is appropriate under state law. The process to-date presents an unusual situation. Purchase of real property is administrative, but only if the Council has appropriated the full amount of funds for the purchase. In this case, the Council-approved annual budget for the Library is inadequate to purchase property, although some funds were approved for a potential lease. In error, the Library Administration signed a contract to purchase property before requesting Library Board or Council budgetary approval. The signed contract also did not include a clause indicating that the action was subject to a Council appropriation which is standard practice. As a result, the Library did not have a budget appropriation at the time it executed the contract, and in order to comply with the Utah Fiscal Procedures Act, it must seek the Council’s approval of a budget appropriation prior to completing the acquisition of the property. The Council’s options are as follows: deny the budget amendment, which means the property acquisition could not proceed, or approve the budget amendment so the property acquisition may proceed with the required appropriation. Library’s Fund Balance (proposed funding source for the budget amendment) The Library’s Fund Balance (separate from the City’s) currently has $7,884,507 which is 27.6% of the Library’s general budget. There is adequate funding available in the Library’s Fund Balance to cover the proposed property purchase, but those funds are subject to appropriation by the Council. It is unclear the extent to which future tax increases may be necessary to cover operations because of this property purchase. It is also unclear whether using those funds for a property purchase would have an impact on other needs that the Library expressed when the recent (FY2023) tax increase was recommended by the Library Board, such as repairs or capital improvements from the Master Facilities Plan previously discussed (which identified over $100 million in needs), or to keep up with technology and collections content, etc. If the budget amendment is approved, then the amount would decrease to $6,584,507 or 22%. This is $2 million more than the Library’s 16% minimum target for Fund Balance which is equivalent to two months of operating costs. Fund Balance is Project Timeline: 1st Briefing: November 22, 2022 Set Date: November 22, 2022 2nd Briefing: December 6 (if needed) Public Hearing: December 13, 2022 Potential Action: December 13, 2022 Note: there is no legal deadline by when the Council must approve or deny the proposal Page | 2 considered one-time funding because the amount at the end of a fiscal year is unpredictable and there is no guarantee a similar amount will be available from year to year. The FY2023 annual budget for the Library includes using $1,163,350 from Fund Balance. The actual Fund Balance at the end of FY2022 was $2 million larger than estimated during annual budget deliberations. A Fund Balance +20% of ongoing general revenues is considered healthy. However, it’s important to note that the dollar amount is insufficient to pay for the $101 million of potential capital improvement projects the Library identified in the Master Facilities Plan over the next decade. Some of those projects may not be needed pending further study and deliberations. The City’s financial advisors have recommended that maintaining a healthy fund balance is important for bond ratings and in case of emergencies and other unforeseen expenses. ADDITIONIAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION Budget and Staffing History: The FY2023 annual budget for the Library included a property tax increase of $2,782,320. The property tax increase was estimated to be $4.73 per year, per $100,000 of valuation on a primary residence. For example, the increase was estimated at $18.94 per year for a primary residence valued at $400,000 or $34.43 per year for a commercial property at the same $400,000 valuation. The last tax increase for the Library system was five years ago, when the Council approved a roughly $3.9 million property tax increase to account for ongoing operating costs and debt service for the new Glendale and Marmalade branch libraries. It should be noted that the Council was central to, and in some cases initiated discussions for property purchase and necessary tax increases to cover construction and operating expenses for those additional branches. The increase also included $900,000 for ongoing facilities maintenance and $600,000 ongoing for technology. Fund Balance was used one year and then a property tax increase was approved to provide ongoing funding. Council staff prepared the below chart and corresponding data table to provide a summary of the Council approved budgets, total staffing, and annual changes from Fiscal Year 2016-2023. The chart shows that the Library’s budget increased annually over eight years. Over the same time, staffing levels increased annually except for a small reduction during 2022. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 $- $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Salt Lake City Public Library Budget & Staffing Fiscal Years 2016-2023 $ Amount # of FTEs $ Amount Y ear Ov er Y ear % Change # of FT Es Y ear Ov er Y ear % Change 2016 1 6,434 ,464$ -1 91 .5 - 2017 1 8,280,338$ 1 1.2%194 .7 75 1.7% 2018 21,864,096$ 1 9.6%206.55 6.0% 2019 22,286,208$ 1 .9%210.4 25 1.9% 2020 22,371,866$ 0.4%21 5.7 2.5% 2021 24 ,224,962$ 8.3%223.85 3.8% 2022 24,54 8,760$ 1 .3%223.1 5 -0.3% 2023 28,598,885$ 1 6.5%24 1 .45 8.2% Fiscal Y ear Budget T otal Staffing Updated SLC911 & Sandy Agreement Current Billing Contract for Sandy 7% of SLC911 personnel services 9% for operating, maintenance, charges, services, and capital expenses Need for Change •Process for determining Sandy’s bill each quarter has become very labor intensive, requiring many days of work just to calculate. New Sandy Agreement •Built in 7.12% increase for all CAD and RMS services each year •Cost increases experienced by SLC911 will be shared by Sandy proportionally each year •If the city of Sandy does not agree to the cost increase, our remedy would be to provide notice that SLC911 intends to cancel the contract. Rates The new rate will start at $636,000 Expected annual price increases will start in FY2024 if cost increases are experienced by SLC911 Updates from Chief Cline Questions or Comments? ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor Stephen Meyer Executive Director SLC911 COMMUNICATIONS BUREAU 475 South 300 East P.O. Box 145497, SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 www.SLC911.Admin@slcgov.com TEL 801-799-3000 Fax 801-799-4180 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: 10/5/2022 Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 10/5/2022 ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 10/5/2022 Daniel Dugan, Chair FROM: Stephen Meyer, Executive Director Salt Lake City 911 SUBJECT: Amending an Interlocal Agreement Between Sandy and Salt Lake City Regarding CAD and RMS Services. STAFF CONTACT: Stephen Meyer, Salt Lake City 911 Executive Director, Stephen.Meyer@slcgov.com, 801.799.3592 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Adopt BUDGET IMPACT: Salt Lake City will continue to receive Sandy’s portion of 911 Emergency Telephone Service Charge Revenue from the Utah State Tax Commission. Additionally, Sandy will also pay its portion of any pass-through costs charged by the CAD and RMS vendors and will pay Salt Lake City Corporation an additional $153,193 per quarter. The $153,193 quarterly payment will be adjusted annually to reflect that Sandy City will pay 7.12% of any total cost increases Salt Lake City incurs to provide the CAD and RMS services. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In October 2013, Salt Lake City and Sandy City entered into an Interlocal Agreement (the “Original Agreement”) under which Salt Lake City 911 Communications Bureau would provide dispatch services, including computer aided dispatch (“CAD”) and record management system (“RMS”) services to Sandy City. The Original Agreement contemplated that the proportional amounts charged to Sandy City for such services would be calculated based on the Parties’ estimated call volume and system usage. However, the pertinent state agencies have indicated that they cannot provide the data necessary to accurately calculate each parties’ proportional call volume and system usage. Moreover, the parties have mutually determined that the compensation approach used historically that attempts to rely on ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor Stephen Meyer Executive Director SLC911 COMMUNICATIONS BUREAU 475 South 300 East P.O. Box 145497, SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 www.SLC911.Admin@slcgov.com TEL 801-799-3000 Fax 801-799-4180 actual costs incurred in rendering services is excessively burdensome, less predictable, and administratively costly. In light of the challenges associated with obtaining the necessary data, and in order to create a predictable and streamlined approach to calculating the appropriate compensation for the dispatch services provided, Salt Lake City and Sandy desire to amend the Original Agreement. Under the amended agreement, Salt Lake City would receive various forms of compensation from Sandy City as outlined in the “Budget Impact” Section above. The compensation is intended to substantially cover Salt Lake City’s direct costs and any indirect costs incurred in providing dispatch services to Sandy City. The total compensation Salt Lake City receives under the proposed amendment should not be materially different from the total compensation received under the Original Agreement. However, the proposed amendment should reduce the City’s significant administrative costs and expenditure of resources that are currently incurred in administering and operating under the Original Agreement. The proposed amendment will also eliminate ambiguities existing in the Original Agreement related to the fact that the pertinent state agencies cannot provide the data necessary to accurately calculate the Parties’ proportional call volume and system usage. In summary, the compensation received by Salt Lake City under this proposed amendment should not be materially different than the amount of compensation Salt Lake City currently receives under the Original Agreement. However, adopting the proposed amendment will benefit both Salt Lake City and Sandy City by reducing the unnecessary expenditure of municipal resources related to the provision of dispatch services and by eliminating any purported reliance on information that the pertinent state agencies have now clearly indicated is not available. If the parties determine that the compensation received under the amended agreement is not an accurate reflection of the costs shared between the parties, then the Agreement contains provisions that would allow a party to either (i) pursue a revised cost structure that better reflects the parties’ proportionate costs, or (ii) withdraw from the Agreement after providing sufficient notice of such withdrawal to the other party. PUBLIC Engagement: N/A EXHIBITS: 1) Amended and restated interlocal agreement regarding CAD and RMS services 2) Price Schedule 1 RESOLUTION NO. _____ OF 2022 Authorizing the approval of an amended and restated interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Sandy City regarding compensation Sandy City provides to Salt Lake City for certain public safety services related to dispatch, communication, and records management. WHEREAS, Utah Code Title 11, Chapter 13 allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements regarding the provision of government services; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation (“SLC”) and Sandy City (“Sandy”) previously entered into an interlocal agreement dated October 17, 2013 (the “Interlocal Agreement”), under which SLC provided Sandy with RMS, CAD, 911 Call Taking and radio communications services (collectively the “Services”) for Sandy’s police, fire, medical, and animal control services; and WHEREAS, SLC and Sandy now desire to amend that Interlocal Agreement through the attached Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement Regarding CAD and RMS Services (the “Agreement”) to provide additional certainty regarding costs associated with the Services and to facilitate the calculation and payment of compensation related to such Services. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah as follows: 1. It does hereby approve the execution and delivery of the attached Agreement (attached hereto as Exhibit “A”) in order to provide certainty regarding the costs associated with the Services and to better facilitate the calculation and payment of compensation related to such Services: AMENDED AND RESTATED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REGARDING CAD AND RMS SERVICES 2. The effective date of the Agreement shall be the date on which an executed copy of the Agreement has been filed with the keeper of records of each of the parties to the Agreement. 3. Erin Mendenhall, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah or her designee is hereby authorized to approve, execute, and deliver said Agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, in substantially the same form as now before the City Council 2 and attached hereto, subject to such minor changes that do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City thereunder and as shall be approved by the Mayor, her execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of such approval. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of _________, 2022 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: ______________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ___________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ Jaysen Oldroyd, Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office 3 EXHIBIT A DocuSign Envelope ID: A9125B5F-247A-49FD-96E5-E2451918FFE9 DocuSign Envelope ID: A9125B5F-247A-49FD-96E5-E2451918FFE9 DocuSign Envelope ID: A9125B5F-247A-49FD-96E5-E2451918FFE9 DocuSign Envelope ID: A9125B5F-247A-49FD-96E5-E2451918FFE9 DocuSign Envelope ID: A9125B5F-247A-49FD-96E5-E2451918FFE9 DocuSign Envelope ID: A9125B5F-247A-49FD-96E5-E2451918FFE9 DocuSign Envelope ID: A9125B5F-247A-49FD-96E5-E2451918FFE9 DocuSign Envelope ID: A9125B5F-247A-49FD-96E5-E2451918FFE9 7/22/2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: A9125B5F-247A-49FD-96E5-E2451918FFE9 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:November 22, 2022 RE: ORDINANCE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND LOAN TO CLUB VERSE, AT 609 SOUTH STATE STREET ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will consider approving a loan from the City’s Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) to a business called Club Verse, at 609 South State Street. This business is a start-up for a night club, coffee shop, and meeting space for the queer and ally communities. The owner and manager is Core Image Investments, LLC, and the loan would be guaranteed personally by Riley Richter and Michael Repp. The Department of Economic Development stated in its transmittal that “the loan committee may approve exceptions to the $100,000 limit for [EDLF] start-ups if the personal guarantors, ownership, or equivalent, have experience in a comparable industry that exceeds three years,” and based on the extensive experience of the owners and core manager, the EDLF Loan committed agreed to this exception. The City’s Economic Development Loan Committee recommends the Council approve a $250,000 loan at 7.25% interest over seven years to this business for building renovation (machinery, equipment, furniture and fixtures). This loan will assist in the creation of 45 new jobs in the next year and the retention of 3 current jobs. The application from Club Verse meets the following EDLF program goals: •Increases employment opportunities; •Stimulates business development and expansion; •Encourages private investment; Item Schedule: Briefing: November 22, 2022 Public Hearing: N/A Potential Action: December 6, 2022 Page | 2 •Promotes economic development; •Enhances neighborhood vitality; and, •Boosts commercial enterprise. The EDLF is a program administered by the Department of Economic Development. Each loan application is pre-screened, and an underwriting analysis and economic impact statement are completed before an application may be recommended for Loan Committee (see below) review. Information on successful applications is transmitted to the Council for final approval. Goal of the briefing: Consider a potential $250,000 loan from the Economic Development Loan Fund to a business called Club Verse, at 609 South State Street. ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION A.EDLF available balance and amount of outstanding loans. The Finance Department reported the available fund balance at $8,658,332 on August 31, 2022. Outstanding loans totaled $3,775,136 as of September 30, 2022. B.EDLF Committee Membership. The Department of Economic Development listed nine members of the EDLF Committee as follows: City Employees 1. Finance Director, Community and Neighborhoods Department 2. Representative of the Mayor’s Office 3. Salt Lake City employee at large 4. Representative of the Division of Housing Stability 5. Director, Department of Economic Development Community Volunteers 1. Salt Lake City Business Advisory Board (BAB) member 2. Banker 3. Community lender 4. Business mentor POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether the EDLF Committee considered any other unique information about this business that would help Council Members with their own evaluations of how this application compares to others. For example, are there risk factors that are evaluated for each company, like outstanding loans, years in business, etc.? 2.What outreach does the Department do to ensure a diverse pool of businesses successfully applies to the EDLF? Are applications from diverse owners, particularly those whose businesses are located on the Westside, offered additional support through the application process? Does EDLF staff have ideas for improving access that would benefit from program changes or additional funding? 3. The Council may wish to request a more general update on EDLF use and processes. This could include the number of applications, review criteria used, loan program goals, etc. 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: October 12, 2022 Dan D ugan, Chair FROM: Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Interim Director, Department of Economic Development SUB JECT: Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund (EDLF) – Core Image Investments, LLC – Club Verse STA FF CONTACTS: Roberta Reichgelt, Business Development Director, Roberta.reichgelt@slcgov.com William Wright Project Manager, William.wright@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Loan Approval RECOMMENDATION : The EDLF Loan Committee recommends approval of $250,000 loan to Core Image Investments, LLC – Club Verse. BUD GET IMPACT: $250,000 from the Economic Development Loan Fund BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On September 29, 2022, a loan request from Core Image Investments, LLC – Club Verse was presented to the EDLF Loan Committee for review and discussion. Core Image Investments, LLC – Club Verse is a welcoming and inclusive night club, coffee shop, and meeting space for the queer and ally communities. Although Club Verse is a start-up, the loan committee may approve exceptions to the $100,000 limit for start-ups if the personal guarantors, ownership, or equivalent, have experience in a comparable industry that exceeds three years. Club Verse’ ownership and core management have nearly 100 years of experience operating bars, night clubs, and similar businesses. The Loan Committee voted unanimously to approve Club Verse as an existing business exception. Basic Loan request Business Name: Core Image Investments, LLC – Club Verse Address: 609 S State Street Loan Amount Requested: $250,000 Loan Term: 7 years Lisa Shaffer (Oct 14, 2022 11:26 MDT)10/14/2022 10/14/2022 Interest Rate: 7.25% Use of Funds: Building Renovation Loan Type: Start up Reasoning behind staff recommendation Applicants of The Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) go through a thorough application process consisting of a pre-screening, underwriting analysis and economic impact statement. Only after the loan applicant goes through these processes is the application recommended to be reviewed by the Loan Committee members. Upon the thorough review by the Loan Committee members a recommendation is made before the loan is transmitted to the Mayor for Council to receive the recommendation for final approval. Because the Loan Committee review process must adhere to the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act, DED’s staff has worked closely with the City Attorney’s Office to ensure that applicants’ information is protected and at the same time the public process is followed. In addition, the EDLF loans must meet the following goals of the Economic Development Loan Fund as stated in the EDLF program guidelines. This loan meets the EDLF program guidelines in the following areas. •Increase employment opportunities •Stimulate business development and expansion •Encourage private investment •Promote economic development •Enhance neighborhood vitality •Boost commercial enterprise T his loan will assist in the creation of 45 new jobs in the next year and retention of 3 current jobs. T his loan was recommended by the EDLF Committee to the City Council for approval. EDLF Loan Balances 1.As reported from The Finance Department on August 31, 2022, the EDLF available fund balance is $8,658,332.15 2.The amount of outstanding loans total is $3,775,135.90 as of September 30, 2022 EDLF Loan Committee There is a total of nine (9) EDLF Committee members. City Employees: 1.Community and Neighborhoods Finance 2.Mayor’s Office 3.Employee at large 4.Housing Stability 5.Economic Development C ommunity Volunteers: 6.Business Advisory Board (BAB) member 7.Banker 8.Community lender 9.Business mentor Attachments: Ordinance and Terms Sheet LOAN TERM SHEET Applicant : Core Image Investments, LLC - Club Verse Address : 609 S State Street Proposed Loan Terms Loan Amount: $250,000 Loan Terms: 7 Years Interest Rate Calculation Prime Interest Rate: 3.25% (at the time of application on January 1, 2022). EDLF Charge: 8% Less Discount: 4% •Priority Area State Street corridor Final Interest Rate: 7.25% Use of Funds: Machinery, Equipment, Furniture a nd Fixtures Bu sine ss T ype: Expan sion Collateral: Residential Real Estate, Personal Property, Equipment, Inventory Personal Guarantees: Riley Richter, Micheal Repp Conditions for Closing : Obtain all Cit y approvals, execute a ll loan documents a s deemed necessary by City legal counsel a nd DED staff, such other terms as recommended by City legal counsel a nd DED staff SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2022 (Ordinance approving a $2 50,000 loan to Core Image Investments, LLC - Club Verse, at 609 S State Street from the Economic Development Loan Fund) WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation’s (“City”) Economic Development Loan Fund (“EDLF) is a program to stimulate local business development, encourage private investment, enhance neighborhood vitality, and boost commercial enterprise in Salt Lake City. WHEREAS, th e EDLF is administered by the Department of Economic Development (“DED”) and loan applications are first prescreened by DED staff, and then reviewed by the EDLF Loan Committee. WHEREAS, the EDLF Loan Committee and DED staff recommend the approval of the attached loan term sheet for a $2 50,000 loan to Core Image Investments, LLC - Club Verse, a local business located at 609 S State Street. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, that: SECTION 1. Loan Approval. The City Council approves the loan outlined in the Term Sheet attached hereto, subject to revisions that do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City hereunder. The City Council authorizes the Mayor to negotiate and execute the loan agreement and any other relevant documents consistent with the Term Sheet, and 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 October 12, 2022 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ____ of 2022 (An Ordinance Enacting Temporary Zoning Regulations Authorizing Temporary Increase in Overnight Capacity at the Youth Homeless Resource Center at 888 S 400 W) WHEREAS, Section 10-9a-504 of the Utah Code permits a municipality, without prior consideration and recommendation from the municipality’s planning commission, to enact a temporary land use regulation for any part or all of a municipality if the governing body makes a finding of compelling countervailing public interest; and WHEREAS, on August 27, 2014, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission granted a conditional use permit to Volunteers of America to operate a thirty bed homeless youth shelter at 888 S 400 W (the “Shelter”); and WHEREAS, since 2014 the population of Salt Lake City has significantly increased, without a commensurate increase in the census for shelter space for homeless youth; and WHEREAS, despite the efforts at various levels of government, the number of youth experiencing homelessness and the efforts to address the needs of those youth experiencing homelessness has been compounded by the economic, humanitarian, and other various rising social crises; and WHEREAS, on March 24, 2022, Governor Spencer Cox signed legislation (codified at Section 35A-16-502) recognizing the need to allow overflow of homeless shelters during targeted overflow periods; and WHEREAS, the City concludes that until additional homeless youth resource centers are opened (or permanent housing is made available) there should be flexibility in temporarily increasing the overnight capacity at the Shelter; and 2 WHEREAS, the City is committed to ensuring that youth experiencing homelessness have access to shelter during the winter months when cold temperatures are often extreme during the night in the Salt Lake Valley; and WHEREAS, exposure to extreme cold temperatures can cause death, and in the past has caused deaths among unsheltered persons experiencing homelessness in Salt Lake City and other nearby communities; and WHEREAS, this temporary land use regulation is the necessary means to address the critical need for sheltering youth during imminent extreme weather conditions due to the delay in expanding the Shelter’s overnight capacity through other procedures set forth in City Code; and WHEREAS, increasing the overnight capacity at an existing shelter, as opposed to siting an additional shelter, imposes an lesser impact on the community as a whole; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to allow for a period not to extend past April 15, 2023, no more than twenty additional overnight sleeping accommodations for youth less than twenty three years old at the Shelter on an emergency basis to provide shelter to youth experiencing homelessness (a “temporary overflow homeless shelter use”), subject to the provisions herein; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds that protecting lives from the potentially deadly consequences of severe winter weather and providing housing for the City’s unsheltered youth during the school year constitutes a compelling, countervailing public interest which justifies a temporary land use regulation; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council intends for this temporary ordinance to be effective only during the 2022-2023 winter season and only until April 15, 2023; and 3 WHEREAS, increasing the overnight capacity at the Shelter after this temporary land use regulation expires may only be granted upon formal modification of the Shelter’s conditional use permit in accordance with City Code; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council encourages the State, County, public interest groups, other cities, and community organizations to continue to work together with the City to proactively address the causes and effects of the myriad of social, economic, humanitarian, and public health crises that continue to increase the number of individuals experiencing homelessness and compound the efforts to address the needs of those experiencing homelessness; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council encourages other cities in Utah to permit youth shelter locations in their communities. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Finding of Compelling Countervailing Public Interest. Pursuant to Section 10-9a-504 of the Utah Code, the City Council finds that protecting youth from the potentially deadly consequences of severe winter weather and providing safe housing during the school year for the City’s unsheltered youth constitutes a compelling, countervailing public interest sufficient to justify this temporary land use regulation. SECTION 2. Location. This temporary land use regulation shall apply to the property located at 888 S 400 W, which is already operating as a youth homeless shelter. SECTION 3. Uses Authorized. Increasing the overnight capacity from thirty beds to fifty beds for homeless youth less than twenty three years old at the location identified in Section 2 above is hereby authorized subject to the conditions listed in Section 4. 4 SECTION 4. Conditions. The temporary increase in the number of beds at the Shelter is authorized subject to the following: a. The Shelter shall meet all building and fire code requirements for such use unless other reasonable means or methods are approved, in writing, by the Fire Marshal and/or the Chief Building Official. A decision on whether a plan for alternative means and methods under this section provides sufficient assurance for life safety protection shall be made in the sole discretion of the Building Official and/or Fire Marshall and shall not be appealable. b. Volunteers of America, as the operator, will maintain a staff to client ratio in compliance with minimums set forth in state licensing code. Security guards may not be counted as part of this staffing ratio. c. The overnight occupancy, including supervisory staff, shall not exceed the occupancy limits identified in a temporary certificate of occupancy issued by the City, but in no case shall the number of overnight occupants exceed fifty individuals, excluding staff. Such temporary certificate of occupancy must be issued prior to any overnight occupancy of the building. d. All other conditions not expressly superseded by this temporary land use regulation set forth in the conditional use permit issued to the Shelter on August 27, 2014 remain in full force and effect. SECTION 5. Duration. This temporary zoning ordinance shall remain in effect until April 15, 2023 unless earlier amended, modified, or repealed. 5 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. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of ______________, 2022. ______________________________ Dan Dugan, Council Chair 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: ___________________________________ Katherine Lewis, City Attorney ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL _______________________ DATE RECEIVED: ___________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer DATE SENT TO COUNCIL: ___________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: November 3, 2023. Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer – Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Appointment, Disciplinary Appeals Hearing Officers STAFF CONTACTS: Jonathan Pappasideris, Division chief – Senior City Attorney Debra Alexander, Chief Human Resources Officer Katie Lewis, City Attorney DOCUMENT TYPE: Appointment, Disciplinary Appeals Hearing Officers RECOMMENDATION: In accordance with Chapter 2.24 of the Salt Lake City Code, which replaced the Salt Lake City Civil Service Commission and Salt Lake City Employee Appeals Board with disciplinary appeals hearing officers, the Administration recommends the Council consider the appointment of the five individuals listed below to serve as disciplinary appeals hearing officers. Pursuant to Chapter 2.24, the Mayor shall select a roster of between four and six individuals (each of whom must be an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Utah for a minimum of five years and who has significant professional experience in employment law) to hear and adjudicate appeals of certain final disciplinary decisions and present that roster to the City Council for advice and consent. The four individuals recommended by the Administration are: • Kirsten R. Allen, Attorney, Fabian VanCott • Brandon T. Crowther, Attorney, Preston & Scott • Clinton Drake, City Attorney, Bountiful City • Bryan M. Scott, Attorney, Preston & Scott • David Quealy, Deputy City Attorney, City of West Jordan Lisa Shaffer (Nov 4, 2022 09:34 MDT)11/04/2022 11/04/2022 ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of INFORMATION Mayor MANAGEMENT SERVICES AARON BENTLEY Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Aaron Bentley, Director of Information Management Services SUBJECT: Funding Our Future Quarter 3 & 4 Update STAFF CONTACT: Jamie Stokes, Civic Engagement Specialist, jamie.stokes@slcgov.com 385-267-6544 DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Only RECOMMENDATION: Per Council request, the Administration is providing an update on Funding Our Future staff, programs, and projects. Staff welcomes any questions and comments that this information may raise for Council Members. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Quarters 3 and 4 of Fiscal Year 21/22, from January to June 2022, were marked by new coronavirus variants along with increasing availability of vaccines, boosters and at-home covid-19 tests. While managing public health concerns, Salt Lake City also saw the return of many in-person events, including the St. Patrick’s Day Parade and regular Pride Festivities. Funding Our Future spending during Quarters 3 and 4 reflected our unique Spring, with staff and project managers focusing both on recovery and renewal. An exciting update to Funding Our Future stems from lessons learned during the pandemic and visions for future growth: the addition of parks maintenance as a fifth Funding Our Future focus area. Parks staff is working towards cementing the details on how their new allotment of Funding Our Future dollars will be spent, but Parks updates will be included in the next Funding Our Future transmittal. Funding Our Future sales tax revenue continued to support programs and staff in the areas of housing, transit, streets, and neighborhood safety during Quarters 3 and 4 of FY 2021-2022: 1 10/4/2022 10/4/2022 10/4/2022Lisa Shaffer (Oct 4, 2022 15:02 MDT) ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of INFORMATION Mayor MANAGEMENT SERVICES AARON BENTLEY Director Housing • Staff o The Census concluded in October 2020. Therefore, the Mayor Office’s Census Coordinator position changed focus to do more general community outreach work for the Mayor’s Office. The position title has officially changed to Special Project and Volunteer Program Manager and the person in the role is helming Salt Lake City’s Love Your Block Program, which focuses on environmental justice along the Jordan River. o Housing Stability recently hired a new person to fill the Community Development Grant Specialist position. Under the guidance of the previous Grant Specialist, the new employee will continue to oversee administration of Funding Our Future housing programs. o The Planning Division’s Additional Planner has focused on housing-related zoning issues including updates to RMF-30 zoning to promote more housing, the Affordable Housing Incentives project, and supporting the proposed tiny home village. • Programs o The Housing Stability Division continues to work closely with community partner organizations to assist with deployment of all housing programs. They continue to disperse all available funds into the community with programs like House 20, Rent Assistance, Mortgage Assistance, Down Payment Assistance, and more. o Additionally, Housing Stability hosted its first in-person grant awardee training since the pandemic began. Representatives from all funded programs attended either virtually or in-person. o The Redevelopment Agency (RDA) has utilized Funding Our Future dollars to support eight affordable housing projects throughout the City since 2019. Support for the projects comes through the RDA’s Housing Development Loan Program (HDLP), which provides financial incentive for the development of affordable housing - a key Funding Our Future focus area. Transit • Staff o The Transportation Division’s Transit Planner continues to update an online transit dashboard featured on the Funding Our Future website. The Planning Division’s Planner continues to work on transit-related zoning issues including the Ballpark Station Area Plan adoption, Fleet Block zoning, an update to the Sugar House Circulation Plan and Life on State. o The Transportation Division’s Transportation Engineer and Engineering Division’s Project Engineer have managed projects related to Funding Our Future. 2 ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of INFORMATION Mayor MANAGEMENT SERVICES AARON BENTLEY Director o The Civic Engagement Team’s Civic Engagement S pecialist, within IMS, has managed updates and supported engagement for Funding Our Future projects. The person in the Civic Engagement (CE) Specialist position since 2019 has recently moved to another position within the City. As of April 2022, updates provided to the public and Council are being provided by a new staff member. • Programs o The Transportation Division continues to work on implementing Bus Stop Improvements for Routes 1, 2, 9, 21 and 205. 50 bus stop improvements have been designed and are beginning to be implemented along 1000 North, 900 West, 600 North and Redwood Road. In addition to new and planned stops in Westside communities, transportation is also building stops along Downtown, North Temple and Foothill Drive routes. o Frequent Transit Network (FTN) Branding is close to being implemented along FTN routes. Staff are working with UTA to create appropriate signage and fabricate new bus shelters along FTN routes. The new branding and shelters will increase visibility for the FTN and make it e asier for residents to navigate the transit system. Neighborhood Safety • Staff o Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD) funding and programs are ongoing, and there are continuing efforts to maintain staffing levels as employees have separated employment from the Department. As of June 2022, all 50 Funding Our Future-funded Police Officer positions were filled. o The Additional Police Personnel positions—needed civilian personnel related to the increased police officers—continue to be filled. 11 out of 13 staff positions have been filled as of June 2022. These positions have provided support in records, crime lab, social work, data analysis, etc. 3 ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of INFORMATION Mayor MANAGEMENT SERVICES AARON BENTLEY Director • Programs o All SLCPD equipment, including body cameras and hybrid sedans, has been purchased. Streets • Staff o Salt Lake City’s Streets crews completed 48.93 lane miles during Q3 and Q4 of FY 21/22, despite getting a late start due to Salt Lake City’s wet Spring. • Programs o Funding Our Future dollars continue to improve the efficiency of our streets team thanks to the previous purchase of additional trailers and tack wagons. Each team now has their own equipment, which means they no longer have to take extra trips to share equipment. Progress also continues with Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects using Funding Our Future funds and street reconstruction projects funded by the 2018 voter-approved General Obligation Funding Our Future bond: • Capital Improvement Program (CIP) o Funding Our Future sales tax dollars continue to fund ongoing CIP Projects in Salt Lake City. The specific CIP projects funded are primarily improvements to the public way, enhancing other Funding Our Future transportation and street projects. Multiple projects started construction in FY 21/22 or are scheduled for later. • Street Reconstruction o Transportation and Engineering staff tailored engagement and planning for each bond project based on the community affected and the impact of reconstruction. 300 West, the largest bond project, started construction in 2021 and continued during 2022. Another major construction project, 200 South, began during 2022. o All upcoming Street Reconstruction Projects can be found on the bond map and larger project map on the Funding Our Future website. Capital City News, Salt Lake City’s regular news update by SLCtv, also completed a construction update in every episode. Staff also posted a weekly social media update (and responded to all comments and questions) about the extensive construction throughout FY 21/22 PUBLIC PROCESS: None EXHIBITS: 1) Funding Our Future Quarter 3 and 4 Update 4 Funding Our Future Years 1, 2, 3 & 4 Quarters 3 & 4 January 1 - June 31 | 2022 5 Overview Funding Our Future Quarters 3 and 4, from January 1st to June 31st 2022, was marked by a tentative emergence from isolation following the height of the pandemic. While City Departments, Divisions and staff remained cautious of public health threats, vaccincations and warmer weather made in-person engagement more possible than it had been the previous two years. Staff supporting by Funding Our Future dollars were able to connect with the community on projects like Love Your Block and the upcoming 2100 South resdesign. And, with increased out-of-home activies, the public was able to experience Funding Our Future supported improvements via bus stops and road repairs. Funding Our Future continued to play a crucial role in improving Salt Lake City. 6 Housing Critical Need Area Overview: According to the University of Utah’s Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, average rent in Salt Lake County has increased from $720 in 2010 to $1,301 in 2021. As rent and home prices continue to increase, programs supporting those making below the Area Median Income (AMI) of $77,000 are critical in helping Salt Lake City residents stay Salt Lake City resdients. Funding Our Future dollars continue to support affordable housing in important ways. Funding Our Future supported a planner in the Planning Division who worked on key housing-related projects, including affordable housing incentives (formerly known as the affordable housing overlay), downtown building heights and updates to Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations. The policy work performed by the planner will be vital in determining the future housing landscape in Salt Lake City. In addition to important policy work, Funding Our Future dollars also supported Community and Neighborhood’s Community Development Grant Administrator. The staff member in this position is tasked with overseeing community grants (also funded by Funding Our Future dollars) to important organizations in Salt Lake City. The Road Home, NeighborWorks and the International Rescue Committee are among the grant recipients. The Redevelopment Agency (RDA) also supported the creation of affordable housing units through the Housing Development Loan Program (HDLP). The loans are supported by Funding Our Future dollars. The Jackson Apartment Complex was forced to shut down due to damage from the March 2020 earthquake. Thanks in part to City funding, the Jackson was re-opened to house 80 senior residents making 60% AMI or less. Outcomes: See program tables below for details. Note: all contracts from FY 18/19 have now expired. FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Dept/Division Position Description Budget FTE Budget FTE Budget FTE Budget FTE STAFF Mayor’s Office Census Coordinator Support 2020 Census outreach. $80,000 1 $80,000 1 $83,310 1 $83,310 1 CAN/Planning Planner Help staff capacity on zoning issues. $101,161 1 $107,333 1 $118,794 1 $118,794 1 CAN/HAND Community Development Grant Administrator Oversee the administration of Funding Our Future housing programs, including application, contracting, reporting, and processing payments. $99,408 1 $98,963 1 $98,963 1 ^ On February 24th, Mayor Mendenhall spoke at the reopening of the Jackson Apartments, an affordable housing complex for seniors in the heart of downtown. Th reopening of the buidling was supported by Salt Lake City’s Redevelopment Agency. FY 19/20 Organization Program Outcomes Budget Spent FY 19/20 PROGRAMS International Rescue Committee Down Payment Assistance*Number of individuals granted down payment assistance: 1 Number of individuals who completed the Home Purchase Workshop: 10 Total down payment assitance granted: 37,602.34 $122,000 $121,854.64 Utah Community Action Landlord/Tenant Mediation Total number of individuals assisted into housing: 39 Number of houselds that received direct mediation: 25 Number of households that avoided eviction orders: 25 $300,000 $300,000 NOTE: Both organizations received contract extensions beyond their original end date, but their contracts expired as of June 30, 2022. *Salt Lake City’s Housing Stability team amended the Down Payment Assistance amount to range from $5,000 to $50,000 to provide more of an opporutity for diverse low-income buyers to close on a home in Salt Lake City. Not all expenses have been completed for FY 21/22 7 FY 20/21 Organization Program Outcomes Budget Spent FY 20/21 AND PROGRAMS Alliance House Rehabilitation/Housing Services Number of individuals assited into housing: 2 Number of individuals who received rent/utility and/or deposit assistance: 16 Nymber of indiviudals who received case management services: 16 Number of individuals moved to a permanent housing voucher: 1 $43,147 $28,584.36 Asian Association of Utah Mortgage Assistance Program Amount of assistance received: $2,219.74 $50,000 $11,257.88 Rental Assistance Program Number of households that received rent/arrears assistance: 25 Households that received case management: 5 Amount of assistance received: $36,707 $125,000 $80,006.77 Community Development Corportation of Utah Mortgage Assitance Program Amount of assistance received: $78,885 Number of households assisted: 11 $500,000 $51, 982.82 International Rescue Committee Rental Assistance Housing Stabilization Program Number of clients who received rental assistance: 10 Number of clients who received case management: 10 Amount of assistance received: $9,609.50 $39,797 $13,826.31 Home Ownership Down Payment Assistance Program Number of individuals granted down payment assistance: 3 Number of individuals who completed the homebuyer education course: 13 Amount of assistance provided: $96,483.66 $147,239.00 $0 Odyssey House Incentivized Rent Program Number of households granted rental assistance: 25 Number of households grant utility assistance: 0 Number of households receiving case management services: 0 Amount of assistance: 0 $100,000 $100,000 People’s Legal Aid Fair Tenant Program Number of households receiving eviction consultation: 21 Number of households receiving housing-related debt collection consultations: 1 Number of households receiving legal representation: 105 Number of households that avoided eviction orders: 25 $88,000 $84, 727.29 Utah Community Action Landlord/Tenant Mediation Number of households/indviduals assisted into housing: 2 Number of households/individuals still housed after 3 months: 0 Number of households that avoided eviction: 2 Number of households that received direct mediation: 2 Number of households that received case management: 2 $300,000 $25,802.88 Incentivized Rent Program Number of eligible households: 6 Number of individuals assisted into housing: 15 $187,079 $43,803.28 Rapid Rehousing Program Number of households/individuals who received rental assistance: 2 Number of households receiving case management services: 4 Amount of assistance provided: $1,250 $225,386 $33,969.54 NeighborWorks Salt Lake Down Payment Assistance Program Number of individuals granted down payment assistance:1 Number of individuals that completed the homebuyer education course: 1 Amount of assistance provided: $20,000 $152,761 $138, 345 8 FY 21/22 Organization Program Outcomes Budget Spent FY 20/21 PROGRAMS (CONTINUED) The Road Home House 20 Program Number of individuals assisted: 40 Number of new individuals enrolled: 23 Number of individuals currently housed:14 Number of individuals receiving case management services: 40 Number of individuals transitioned into a permanent supportive housing subsidy: 0 Amount of rental assistance provided: $26,588.46 $250,000 $237,658.12 Landlord Assurance Program Amount of landlords agreeing to partcipate: 15 Number of landlords provided with assistance: 15 Number of households maintaining housing: 15 Amount of property damage paid to landlords: $239.92 Amount of additional deposits paid to landlords: $7,426.69 Amount of signing bonuses paid to landlords: $0 $53,000 $42,905.61 Palmer Court Case Management Support Program Number of individuals/households that received case management services: 258 individuals/184 households Number of individuals/households received supportive services: 184 households Number of individuals/households remained housed: 175 households Number of individuals/households who increased their income/ benefits: 11 households $227,812 $206,238.84 Rental Assistance Program Number of individuals/households who received rental assistance: 31 households Number of individuals/households who received utility assistance: 7 households Number of individuals/households who received case management: 36 households Number of individuals/households who increased their income/ benefits: 3 households $476,858 $476,858 Shared Housing Program Number of individuals matched with roommates: 1 Number of individuals successfully housed: 1 Number of individuals who received financial assistance: 1 Number of individuals who received case management: 1 Number of individuals that received landlord/tenant support: 0 $162,000 $95,174.42 Valley Behavioral Health Rental Assistance Number of households received rental assistance: 11 Number of households received case management services: 11 Number of months rental assistance received: 1-3 Amount of assistance provided: $3,448 $17,500 $17,500 Volunteers of America Intensive Case Management for Women Number of individuals housed: 11 Number of individuals receiving long-term physical and behavioral health treatment: 15 Number of individuals receiving case management: 15 Percent of case managed individuals that are housed: 67.51% $199,773 $199,773 YWCA Number of households/individuals assisted into housing: 9 households/26 individuals Number of households received case management: 9 $54,648 $54,648 9 FY 21/22 Organization Program Outcomes Budget Spent FY 21/22 PROGRAMS Asian Assoociation of Utah Mortgage Assistance Program Amount of assistance given: 0 Housholds receiving mortgage assistance: 0 $50,000 $0 Vulnerable Populations Rental Assistance Program Households received rent/arrears assistance: 0 Households received case management : 0 Total Amount of Rental Assistance: $0 $125,000 $0 Community Develop- ment Corporation of Utah Down Payment Assistance Program Amount of assistance: $0 Households received mortgage assistance: 0 Mortgage assistance provided as a grant: 0 $100,000 $0 International Rescue Committee Incentivized Rent Assistance Program Number of clients who received rental assistance: 0 Number of clients who received case management: $163,000 $0 Dowm Payment Assistance Program Number of individuals granted down payment assistance: 0 Number of individuals that completed Homebuyer Education Course: 0 Amount of assistance provided: $0 Number of families enrolled in Home Purchase Program: 0 $150,000 $0 Odyssey House Rental Assistance Program Number of households granted rent assistance: 0 Number of households granted utility assistance: 0 Number of households receiving case management services: 0 Amount of assistance Q3: $0 Amount of assistance Q4: $0 $100,000 $0 People’s Legal Aid Fair Tenant Assistance Program Number of households receiving consultation (eviction): 0 Number of households receiving consultation (housing related debt collection): 0 Number of households receiving legal representation: 0 Number of households that avoided eviction orders: 0 $150,900 $0 Utah Community Action Landlord/Tenant Mediation Program Number of households/individuals assisted into housing: 0 Number of households/individuals still housed after 3 months: 0 Number of households that avoided eviction: 0 Number of households that received direct mediation: 0 Number of households received case management: 0 $150,000 $0 Rapid Re-housing Program Number of households/individuals received rental assistance: 0 Number of households receiving case management services: 0 Number of months rental assistance received: 0 Amount of assistance: $0 $237,100 $0 NeighborWorks Down Payment Assistance Program Number of individuals granted down payment assistance: 0 Number of individuals that completed Homebuyer Education Course: 0 Amount of assistance provided: $0 Number of families enrolled in Home Purchase Program: 0 $100,000 $0 10 FY 21/22 Organization Program Outcomes Budget Spent FY 21/22 PROGRAMS The Road Home Landlord Assurance Program “Number of landlords agreeing to participate: 0 Number of landlords provided with assistance: 0 Number of households maintaining housing: 0 Amount of property damage paid to landlords: $0 Amount of additional deposits paid to landlords: $0 Amount of signing bonuses paid to landlords: $0 $53,000 $0 Case Management Program Number of individuals/households that received case manage- ment services: 0Number of individuals/households received supportive services: 0 Number of individuals/households remained housed: 0 Number of individuals/households who increased their income/ benefits: 0 $303,620 $0 House 20 Program Number of individuals/households who received rental assis- tance: 0 Number of individuals/households who received utility assis- tance: 0 Number of individuals/households who received case manage- ment: 0 Total number of months rental assistance received: 0 Number of individuals/households who increased their income/ benefits: 0 $125,380 $0 Shared Housing Program Number of individuals matched with roommates: 0 Number of individuals successfully housed: 0 Number of individuals who received financial assistance: 0 Number of individuals who received case management: 0 Number of individuals that received landlord/tenant support: 0 $62,000 $0 Valley Behvioral Health Safe Haven Rental Assis- tance Program Number of households received rental assistance: 0 Number of households received case management services: 0 Number of months rental assistance received: 0 Amount of assistance provided: $0 $25,000 $0 Volunteers of America Intensive Case Management Program Number of individuals housed: 0 Number of individuals receiving long-term physical and behav- ioral health treatment: 0 Number of individuals receiving case management: 0 Percent of case managed individuals that are housed: 0% $100,000 $0 YWCA Transitional Housing Program Number of households/individuals assisted into housing: 0 Number of households received case management: 0 $55,000 $0 (CONTINUED) Salt Lake City began its gentrification and displacement study, called Thriving in Place, during FY 21/22. Public engage- ment took place during Q3 and Q4, which included bringing the community togeth- er to paint a mural at the Three Creeks Confluence Park. The mural paid tribute to the communities that make Salt Lake City a wonderful place to live. It conveyed the message: “We Live Here.” NOTE: Many of the above organizations were funded in FY 20/21 and are using currently using those funds to serve the community. FY 21/22 budgets represent the amount of money organizations were awarded in FY 21/22. Since some organizations are still using previoius funding, many of the “spent” amounts read $0. 11 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/222 Dept/Division Position Description Bud- get FTE Budget FTE Budget FTE Budget FTE STAFF IMS/Civic Engagement Engagement Specialist Support engagement on FoF projects. $66,166 1 $76,197 1 $76,197 1 CAN/Engineering Project Engineer Manage FoF reconstruction projects. $109,398 1 $132,153 1 $132,153 1 CAN/Transportation Engineer Manage infrastructure upgrade impacts. $100,342 1 $120,989 1 $190,989 1 CAN/Transportation Transit Planner Track transit programs. 1 $103,304 1 $88,974 1 $88,974 1 CAN/Planning Planner Help staff capacity on zoning issues. 1 $107,333 1 $90,382 1 $90,382 1 Transit Critical Need Area Overview: Transit isn’t simply a mode of travel. For some, it is the difference between getting to work on time and not arriving at all. For others, it is the difference between getting a groceries or going without. For all of us, it is a critical component to achieving our air quality goals and securing environemtnal and personal health for years to come. Funding Our Future dollars supported transit in many ways from January to June of 2022. Changing communting habits is a key step in achieving our lofty envrionmental and health goals. Supported by Funding Our Future dollars, the transportation and engineering teams continued bus stop improvements along routes Westside, North Temple and Foothill routes to make travel by bus a safer and more comfortable experience. In addtion to stop improvements, the transportation team also worked with UTA and a consulting firm on branding for Salt Lake City’s Frequent Transit Network (FTN) lines to increase visability and rider usability. Branding will be visiable on bus stop signage and on bus shelters themselves to help guide bus riders, new and returning, towards FTN stops. FTN lines include the 2, 9 and 21, with the addition of the 1 in August 2022. Besides infrastructure improvements at bus stops, Funding Our Future dollars supported UTA’s on-demand carshare service, called UTA On-Demand, which launced in December of 2021. The on-demand service is availble from 2200 W to 300 W and 2300 N to 2100 S on Salt Lake City’s Westside. For a low rate of just $2.50 per trip, riders can connect to transit or travel to the grocery store. Word-of-mouth has increased the popularity of the service, with ridership increasing from 749 in January 2022 to 3,401 in June 2022. The program has helped connect our communities and is increasing it’s capacity to do so through the addition of wheelchair acessible vehicles to the fleet and upcoming switch to electric vehciles. Outcomes: See program tables below for details. ^During Quarters 3 and 4 of Fiscal Year 21- 22, Salt Lake City’s Transportation team and the Funding Our Future supported Civic Engagement Specialist conducted public outreach on a new transportation master plan. The group took stakeholders on a walking tour focused on East-West connections. FY 18/19 Dept/Division Program Outcomes Budget Encumberence FY 18/19 PROGRAMS CAN/Transportation FTN Branding Public feedback yielded short list of FTN names being vetted for copyright and UTA compatibility - New “adopt-a-stop” step in the development process $250,000 $194,638 12 FY 19/20 & FY 20/21 Dept/Division Program Outcomes Budget Spent FY 19/20 & FY 20/21 PROGRAMS CAN/Transportation Bus Stop Improvements Transit capital improvements planned or implemented in every district of the City, improving ADA access $1,100,000 $0 CAN/Transportation UTA Bus Routes 2, 9, and 21 (FY 20/21) Improved transit service for the Salt Lake City community. $4,700,000 $4,472,276 CAN/Transportation UTA Bus Routes 2, 9, and 21 (FY 21/22) Improved transit service for the Salt Lake City community. $5,601,391 $4,402,129 CAN/Transportation FTN Branding Branding moving forward, collaborating with UTA $100,000 $89,280 CAN/Transportation TMA Development/Research Park Transportation continued to work on Westside Equity as well as TMA development with Research Park. $100,000 $0 NOTE: Not all expenses have been completed for FY 21/22. Q3 saw the implementation of Free Fare February, a partnership between Salt Lake City and UTA to provide free transit across all of UTA’s service areas during the month of February. UTA buses, ski buses, TRAX, FrontRunner and OnDemand servcie were all provided to riders for free. Ridership jumped in February when compared with January 2022 ridership. The Folsom Trail opened in Q4 of FY 21/22. The trail runs from 500 West near the North Temple TRAX stop, to 1000 West a block away from the Utah State Fairpark. This exciting project provides bikers, walkers, joggers and rollers with a desig- nated car-free path to go from West to East. 13 Safety Critical Need Area FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Department Position Description Budget FTE Budget FTE Budget FTE Budget FTE STAFF Police New Police Officers Provide community policing model. $4,795,802 27 $3,469,496 27 $8,749,563 27 $8,749,563 27 Police New Police Officers Provide community policing model. $3,225,659 23 23 23 Police Civilian Staff Provide support in records, crime lab, etc. $858,136 13 $858,136 13 13 13 Non-Departmental Social Workers Provide support in social work. $139,390 $962,109 NOTE: Not all expenses have been completed for FY 21/22. ^ Mayor Mendenhall and Chief Brown attended the graduation cermony for SLCPD Class 154 in February. All 50 Funding Our Future supported poilice officer positions are filled as of June 2022. Overview: The Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD) is tasked with the important work of keeping our community safe. Through Community Liaison Officers, Bike Squads and Coffee with a Cop, SLCPD continues to build relationships with the Salt Lake community. SLCPD continues to receive Funding Our Future dollars to support a fully staffed police force, including both sworn officers and civilian staff. As of June 2022, all 50 Funding Our Future officer positions have been filled and equipment to support the new hires has been purchased. Civilian staff members are also an important part of the Police Department’s ability to make our community safe. Funding Our Future helps fund the following positions on the police force: o Social Service Worker o LCSW/Mental Health Counselor o Office Technician o Quality Assurance Manager o Crime Scene Technician o Police Intelligence Specialist o Police Information Specialist o Victim Advocate 11 of 13 Funding Our Future supported civillian positions have been filled. Outcomes: See program tables below for details. SLCPD hosted a gun buy back event in June of 2022. Residents were invited to turn in any guns in their posession, no questions asked, in exchange for a gift card. 103 were turned in, including 5 which had been stolen. 14 Streets Critical Need Area Overview: The Salt Lake City streets crews continued to improve road conditions, (and quality of life) for Salt Lake residents during Q3 and Q4. Despite getting a late start due to a wet Spring, the streets crew completed 48.93 lane miles from Januarty to June of 2022. More specifically, their work can be broken down in terms of 20.63 miles of chip seal, 6.29 miles of inlays, and 22.01 miles of slurry seals. Funding Our Future dollars supported the Surface Treatments Streets team in this work. Thanks to equipment purchases made possible by Funding Our Future dollars in 2021, both of the surface treatment teams now have their own trailers for hauling equipment and tack wagons for inlay projects. This saves time and fuel by removing the need to drive around to multiple job sites to share equipment. The investment in trailers will streamline Streets’ work for miles to come. Outcomes: See program tables below for more details: FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Dept/Division Position Description Budget FTE Budget FTE Budget FTE Budget FTE STAFF Public Services/Streets Streets Crew Double number of surface treatment lane miles. $2,900,000 19 $1,667,890 19 $2,353,031 19 $2,353,031 19 NOTE: Not all expenses have been completed for FY 21/22. ^ Funding Our Future dollars continued to support surface treatments throughout the City including Kensington Avenue between 800 - 900 East and 800 West between Arapahoe and 700 South, among others. Salt Lake City’s Street’s Team continued to up- date it’s MySteet page, indicating where surface treatments are planned throughout SLC. Blue indicates slurry seals and red indicates chip seals. 15 2020 Construction Year Bond Projects Pre-Construction Cost Estimated (After Bid) Cost Final Cost (Does Not Include PU) Project Original Budget Cost Center Budget Bond Funds Earmarked Contingency Bond Funds Earmarked Final Cost Construction Bond Funds Spent 500 East: 1700 South to 2100 South $1,500,000 $1,350,000 $1,350,000 $1,606,345 $2,577,899 $1,350,000 2000 East: Parley’s Way to Salt Lake City Limits $1,300,000 $1,170,000 $1,170,000 $393,655 $2,932,039 $1,170,00 700 West: 1600 South to 2100 South $2,000,000 $1,800,000 $1,283,777 $0 $969,986 $882,146 Local Streets: Districts 1, 7 $3,000,000 $2,700,000 $2,973,502 $27,421 $2,393,864 $2,550,756 NOTE: There are additional earmarked funds from other sources to supplement the above bond reconstruction projects (like Class C and Impact Fees). 500 East between, 1700 South and 2100 South, before and after bond-sponsored 500 East between, 1700 South and 2100 South, before and after bond-sponsored reconstruction.reconstruction. 16 Pre-Construction Cost Estimated (After Bid) Cost Final Cost (Does Not In- clude) PU Project Original Budget Cost Center Budget Bond Funds Earmarked Contingency Bond Funds Earmarked Final Cost Construc- tion Bond Funds Used 100 South: North Cam- pus to 900 East $3,000,000 $2,700,000 $2,111,928 $0 $ 2,431,363 $ 2,111,928 900 East: Hollywood Drive to 2700 South $2,600,000 $2,340,000 $2,215,008 $0 $ 2,792,990 $ 2,215,008 900 South: 900 West to 300 West; West Temple to Lincoln Street $2,000,000 $1,800,000 $2,952,924 $1,240,428 $0 $0 300 West: Design $600,000 $540,000 $540,000 $50,000 $2,332,164 $879,547 300 West: 900 South to 2100 South $17,300,000 $15,570,000 $13,800,731 $0 $0 $0 200 South: Design $1,000,000 $900,000 $160,000 $0 $1,911368 $1,911,368 Local Streets: Districts 3, 6 $3,000,000 $2,700,000 $2,723,849 $0 $2,782,196 $2,708,921 2019 Contingency $2,000,000 NOTE: There are additional earmarked funds from other sources to supplement the above bond reconstruction projects (like Class C and Impact Fees). 2021 Construction Year Bond Projects 17 Pre-Construction Cost Estimated (After Bid) Cost Final Cost (Does Not In- clude PU) Project Original Budget Cost Center Budget Bond Funds Earmarked Contingency Bond Funds Earmarked Final Cost Construc- tion Bond Funds Used Local Streets: Districts 2 and 5 $3,000,000 $2,700,000 $2,669,657 $0 $0 $0 2020 Contingency $2,030,000 2022 Construction Year Bond Projects Work on 300 West continued to prog- ress during Q3 and Q4 of FY 21/22. The above shows image show the final con- cpet drawing for a cross section of 300 West, including bike lanes proctected by 18 FY 18/19 & FY 19/20 CIP Projects Project Overview Update Original Budget Budget Spent McClelland Trail and Neighborhood Street Livability Improvements This project, which is highly-supported by the community, desires to increase the livability of streets near homes and businesses and improve the comfort of the at grade McClelland Trail crossings at six east-west streets (from Harrison to Bryan Avenues, inclusive) between 1100 East and 1300 East. Design has been completed and the project was put out to bid; however, bids exceeded the available funding. The City is waiting to bid again at the optimal time in Fall 2022. $349,500 $2,758.98 McClelland Shared Street Phase 2 The goal of this project is to identify the option that best meets the vision and goals from the Sugar House Master Plan, and which are supported by the Sugar House Circulation Plan, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, and the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal Trail Implementation Plan. Construction was originally planned for construction year 2022, but was pushed back until Spring 2023 due to contractor issues $500,000 $92,072 Transportation Safety Improvements This project provides funding for high priority multi-modal safety improvements. This better empowers Transportation to work quickly to address identified safety needs in the City. This funding is being spent on traffic safety projects, such as installing new warning flashers at intersections around the City. $202,000 $200,830 Traffic Signal Upgrades This project removes the existing traffic signal equipment that has reached the end of its useful life, including steel poles, span wire, signal heads, and traffic signal loops and will upgrade the intersections with mast arm poles, new signal heads, pedestrian signal heads with countdown timers, improved detection, and left turn phasing, as needed. The FY 19/20 funding has now been fully encumbered to a contractor that is working on construction projects aimed to maintain and upgrade traffic signals. $118,310 $0 Bridge Preservation There are 23 bridges in Salt Lake City, most crossing either the Jordan River or the Surplus Canal. Engineering has prepared an ongoing bridge maintenance strategy. This project was bid out two separate times and both sets of bids came in way over the Engineer’s Estimate. Procurement rules allow Engineering to now reach out to other contractors to solicit quotations for work that meets the scope and need of the project. This will cover items such as routine bridge deck cleaning, resealing of joints and crack sealing. The project will run through the end of June 2024. $150,000 $0 Public Way Concrete Program This program addresses deteriorated curb and gutter, retaining walls, crosswalks ADA ramps, and other concrete structures in the public way and in coordination with Public Utilities. The contract was executed and the selected contractor started work. Due to the September 2020 windstorm, the contractor shifted their efforts to concrete damage caused by downed trees and tree stumps. The engineering team continues to work on reparing damage caused by the 2020 windstorm. $402,443 $180,715 Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements This project addresses uneven pavement adjacent to railway crossings. There are currently three known locations to be addressed. This initial request allowed Engineering to improve one to two of the locations and perform a survey for future years. Initial four locations completed by Geneva Rock. Additional locations completed $53,000 $53,000 Sugar House Traffic Calming and 600 East Neighborhood Byway Improvements The funding will be used to develop and implement two projects: 1) a neighborhood-wide traffic calming plan to address vehicle speeding and excessive cut-through issues in the west Sugar House neighborhood, and 2) improvements to the successful 600 East Neighborhood Byway. Salt Lake City, South Salt Lake, Millcreek and Holladay partnered on the Local Link study. Design is progressing and the project is now expected to be constructed in 2023. $150,000 $931 Complete Streets Enhancements This project complements bond and other roadway projects that have been funded or for which funds are being requested, but which do not include incorporation of Salt Lake City’s Complete Streets Ordinance and/or recommendations of City master plans. This funding has now been spent on enhanced crosswalks around the City, including flashing beacons, bulb-outs, and median islands. $100,000 $100,000 Total $2,025,253 $630,306 NOTE: There are additional CIP projects (constituent requests) from FY 18/19 and FY 19/20. These include the following: 1100 East Curb and Gutter, Whitlock Avenue Curb and Gutter, 1900 East Street Reconstruction, and 1400 East Sunnyside Avenue Intersection Reconstruction. 1900 East construction is complete. 19 FY 20/21 and FY 21/22 CIP Projects Project Overview Update Original Budget Budget Spent Bridge Rehabilitation: 400 South and 650 North This project rehabilitates the 400 South and 650 North vehicle bridges over the Jordan River. A bridge inspection performed by UDOT gave these bridges a Health Index score of 48.55 and 46.58, respectively, out of 100. Combining the two bridges into one project will result in economies of scale since the rehabilitation work for both bridges will be similar. The existing asphalt surface will be removed and the underlying deck will be treated for cracking and delaminated concrete. The deck will receive a waterproofing membrane, a new asphalt overlay, and deck drains to remove storm water from the deck. The under surface of the bridge will be treated for cracking and delaminated concrete on the deck, girders, pier caps, and abutments. The steel piles supporting the piers exhibit heavier than typical corrosion. The piles will be dewatered and treated for corrosion. The existing damaged parapet wall will be removed and rebuilt which will widen the sidewalk and improve the pedestrian access route. Additionally, aesthetic enhancements will be incorporated like replacing the chain link fence and including decorative railings. A consulting firm with specialized experience will be used for this project. SLC Engineering is preparing to put out RFPs for the design of the 650 N and 400 S bridge replacements. No additional funding is available at this time however additional funding will be requested to cover the full replacement of these bridges. $2,648,507 $0 Bridge Preservation There are 23 bridges in Salt Lake City, most crossing either the Jordan River or the Surplus Canal. UDOT inspects these bridges every two years and provides the city with a basic condition report. The City is responsible for performing appropriate maintenance activities based on statements in the UDOT report. Engineering has prepared an ongoing bridge maintenance strategy with the objective of extending the functional life of these structures, and extending the time between major repairs. The funds will be used to address needed repairs and routine maintenance. The bridge maintenance plan, as well as some initial projects to start maintenance on, was finalized fall 2021. Additionally, the consulting firm is finalizing pedestrian bridge inventory and condition report similar to the traffic bridges that will be used to assess corresponding maintenance. $150,000 $0 Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements In this second year of the project, Engineering is designing improvements and performing a survey of additional locations to address in future years. In 2021, only two rail adjacent pavement sections were completed. The remaining balance of $32,723 is already encumbered to Staker Parsons to do more rail adjacent projects. There was another CIP application for another $70K for FY22-23 $70,000 $69,975 Facilities Capital Asset Replacement Program The Facilities Division’s Facility Condition Index database categorizes asset renewal projects based on the criticality of projects starting with Priority 1 (Life Safety). For the FY 20/21 abbreviated CIP funding, Facilities requested funding for Projects in Priority 1 and a portion of Priority 2 for $2,503,710 total. Projects in the Priority 1 category must be replaced to meet OSHA, Federal, State, and local regulations and codes; to maintain security; or ensure safe building occupancy. These are not discretionary projects. FY 19/20 CIP investment funded many of the Priority 1 projects. This request is to fund the remaining current Priority 1 projects totaling $374,907. Priority 1 projects will never be completely eliminated as different assets fall into the category annually as they reach the end of their expected lifespan. Projects in Priority 2 address Structural Integrity, Property Loss, and Contractual Obligations. The latter is funding obligated through Interlocal Agreements with Salt Lake County for 50% of capital renewal at the Sorenson Campus and Salt Lake Sports Complex, and through a contract with the Salt Lake Bees at the Smiths Ballpark to maintain the facility. These are also non-discretionary projects. The funds requested for Priority 1 (Life Safety) and Priority 2 (Contractual Obligations) will address the most critical and contractually obligated needs for Facilities. Typically, the County can fund 100% of projects upfront, and the City reimburses its portion at project completion. The FY 20/21 County Interlocal Agreement obligations amount to $763,557. The County and City have identified the need to address $10 million in deferred capital renewal for both facilities. The Bees contract obligations for FY 20/21 total $688,907; however, the Bees contract partially funds capital renewal from annual naming rights revenue, so $224,637 is available to offset the requested amount for the Ballpark for a total FY 20/21 CIP request of $464,270. The total of deferred capital renewal at the Ballpark is currently $8,804,973. It should be noted the current construction environment is heated; Facilities included an additional 10% contingency rate to cover expected inflated costs. $2,503,710 $168,135.63 20 Project Overview Update Original Budget Budget Spent Parks Critical Asset Renewal This project funds the repair or replacement of park amenities and play features that are currently out-of-service or near closure. Many of the facilities are still functional, however, their poor condition discourages use. Features that may be replaced with this funding may include: - Basketball and tennis courts in deteriorated condition in parks - Paving surfaces that are tripping hazards in high use parks - Pavilions in disrepair - Playgrounds that are deteriorated and at risk for closure in parks - Inefficient and ineffective irrigation systems that increase operations and staffing costs in locations Specific information on priorities for these amenities are as follows: 1. Irrigation systems at 1200 East Islands and Warm Springs Park 2. Pavilions at Cottonwood Park and Poplar Park 3. Paving surface at Memory Grove Park 4. Basketball Court at Liberty Park and Poplar Grove Park 5. Tennis Courts at Poplar Grove Park 6. Playground at Pioneer Park and Taufer Park The original scope of the project was narrowed. The Parks Division has used all budgeted funds ito upgrade a portion of the outdated irrigation control systems that are used to remotely control Parks irrigation systems throughout the City. These updates will improve efficiency of the overall irrigation systems and allow improved central control of the system. Each park received this update. $1,075,000 $1,075,000 Public Art This line item adds art features to other CIP projects, including projects for Parks and Public Lands, Transportation, Facilities, and Engineering, as required by City ordinance. Each department selects 1-4 projects to then present to the Art Design Board. The Art Design Board reviews each project and considers many factors (City Council District representation, opportunities for emerging artists, etc). The life cycle of a public art project (18-24 months+) includes many steps of research, development, public calls, and more. During the time period of July 1 - December 31, 2021, the following was completed: -Conducted further project research and development -Further meetings with City departments about feasibility, location of project, construction timelines, and more -Scope determined to be a Neon based project -Vendor for fabrication determined -Public Art Program Manager conducted outreach and engagement with the local Community Council -Staff and Board development of RFP -Contract development with Attorney’s Office -Contract for services secured with vendor for fabrication of artists work -Graphics and associated marketing materials created for RFP -Release of RFP for artist application Due March 11th -Application review as applications come in $87,878 $ 35,114 21 Project Overview Update Original Budget Budget Spent Cost Overrun This line item allows additional funding flexibility for small cost increases over CIP project budget. -With the COVID pandemic, and the timing changes that occurred on many projects, no requests for this funding were made as of January 2022. $175,756 $0 Total -$6,710,851 $1,348,224 In April, The Salt Lake City Arts Council oversaw the instal- lation of “Out of the Blue”, a scultpure by Stephen Kesler. The scuplture, making waves in the 9th and 9th neighbor- hood, was painted by local artist Mike Murdock. 22 23 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING I, Dan Dugan, acted as the presiding member of the Salt Lake Council, which met on November 22, 2022 in a hybrid (electronic/in-person) meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Proclamation. Appropriate notice was given of the Council's meeting as required by §52-4-202. A quorum of the Council was present at the meeting and voted by at least a two-thirds vote, as detailed in the minutes of the open meeting, to close a portion of the meeting to discuss the following: §52-4-205(l)(a) discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of anindividual; §52 -4-205(1)(b) strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; §52-4-205(l)(c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; §52-4-205(l)(d) strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; §52-4-205(l)(e) strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii) if the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; §52-4-205(1)(f) discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and §52-4-205(1)(g) investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A Closed Meeting may also be held for Attorney-Client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code §78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open andPublic Meetings Act. Other, described as follows: _____________________________________________________________ The content of the closed portion of the Council meeting was restricted to a discussion of the matter(s) for which the meeting was closed. With regard to the closed meeting, the following was publicly announced and recorded, and entered on the minutes of the open meeting at which the closed meeting was approved: (a)the reason or reasons for holding the closed meeting; (b)the location where the closed meeting will be held; and (c)the vote of each member of the public body either for or against the motion to hold the closed meeting. The recording and any minutes of the closed meeting will include: (a)the date, time, and place of the meeting; (b)the names of members Present and Absent; and (c)the names of all others present except where such disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality necessary to fulfill the original purpose of closing the meeting. Pursuant to §52-4-206(6), a sworn statement is required to close a meeting under §52-4-205(1)(a) or (f), but a record by electronic recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by electronic recording and/or detailed written minutes is required for a meeting closed under §52-4-205(1)(b),(c),(d),(e),and (g): A record was not made. A record was made by: : Electronic recording Detailed written minutes I hereby swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Presiding Member Date of Signature X X X Daniel Dugan (Nov 23, 2022 10:20 MST)Nov 23, 2022 November 22, 2022 Sworn Statement for Closed Meeting Final Audit Report 2022-11-23 Created:2022-11-23 By:DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slcgov.com) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAA--Iet2Ib0e4ai7gdUpuyn2U-gp6jhoQo "November 22, 2022 Sworn Statement for Closed Meeting" Histo ry Document created by DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slcgov.com) 2022-11-23 - 1:32:59 AM GMT Document emailed to Daniel Dugan (daniel.dugan@slcgov.com) for signature 2022-11-23 - 1:33:52 AM GMT Email viewed by Daniel Dugan (daniel.dugan@slcgov.com) 2022-11-23 - 4:56:01 AM GMT Document e-signed by Daniel Dugan (daniel.dugan@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2022-11-23 - 5:20:08 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2022-11-23 - 5:20:08 PM GMT