HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/11/2023 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
REVISED AGENDA
WORK SESSION
July 11, 2023 Tuesday 3:45 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
3:45 PM Work Session
Or immediately following the 2:00 PM
Redevelopment Agency Meeting
7:00 pm Formal Meeting
Room 326 or 315
(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.
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: 09:14:09
Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start
times and durations are approximate and are subject to change.
Work Session Items
1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 3:45 p.m.
15 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.Resolution: Capital Improvement Program Projects ~ 4:00 p.m.
70 min
The Council will receive a briefing about the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP),
which involves the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or
other city-owned physical structures. Generally, projects have a useful life of at least five
years and cost $50,000 or more. The Council approves debt service and overall CIP
funding in the annual budget process, while project-specific funding is approved by
September 1 of the same calendar year.
For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY24CIP.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 and Tuesday, July 11, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 13, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 and Tuesday, August 8,
2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 15, 2023
3.Ordinances: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 754
South State Street ~ 5:10 p.m.
30 min
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of
property at approximately 754 South State Street from D-2 (Downtown Support District)
to D-1 (Central Business District). The purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow
for the redevelopment of the property with an urban hospital. The Council will also
consider an ordinance that would amend the text of Section 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake
City Code to add Hospitals (including accessory lodging facility), and Ambulance Services
(indoor & outdoor) as Conditional Uses in the D-1 Central Business District.
Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with
similar characteristics. Petitioner: Kirton McConkie.
For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/754StateStreetRezone.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, July 11, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 13, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023
4.Informational: Historic Carriage House Text Amendment ~ 5:40 p.m
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend section
21A.34.020 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the reconstruction of a historic carriage
house for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The draft ordinance outlines a
required application process, criteria, and applicable standards associated for a carriage
house reconstruction. Petitioner: Stephen Pace.
The Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation, therefore an
ordinance has not been drafted. If the Council decides to approve the zone amendment,
an ordinance would be drafted and considered for approval.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, July 11, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, July 18, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 15, 2023
5.Resolution: Community Renewable Energy Program Utility
Agreement ~ 6:00 p.m.
10 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a resolution on the City’s ongoing participation
in developing a community renewable energy program.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, July 11, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023
6.Resolution: Addendum No. 7 to Interlocal Agreement with
the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) for Transit Master Plan
Frequent Bus Service Routes Implementation
Written Briefing
-
The Council will receive a written briefing about a resolution that would authorize the
Mayor to enter into the proposed addendum No. 7 to the Interlocal Agreement with UTA
to implement 2023-24 Frequent Transit Network (FTN) service. Addendum No. 7 is the
service agreement for the routes on 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South and 1000
North/South Temple. The interlocal agreement is for twenty-years with a goal of full
implementation of the FTN as described in the City’s Transit Master Plan. Note that the
Plan identifies an FTN route on 600 North which UTA is implementing outside of the
City agreement based on ridership levels and significance to the regional network.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, July 11, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023
7.Board Appointment: Racial Equity and Policing Commission: Michael Ryan
Hogan -
-
The Council will interview Michael “Ryan” Hogan prior to considering appointment to
the Racial Equity and Policing Commission for a term ending December 20, 2025.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
8.Board Appointment: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and
Trails Advisory Board: Kerri Nakamura ~ 6:15 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Kerri Nakamura prior to considering appointment to the
Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Advisory Board for a term ending July
11, 2026.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, July 11, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 11, 2023
Standing Items
9.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
10.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.
11.Tentative Closed Session -
-
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described
under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to:
a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health
of an individual;
b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the
transaction would:
(i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water
right or water shares, if:
(i) public discussion of the transaction would:
(A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
(ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and
(iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body
approves the sale;
f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to
Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements
of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 2:00 p.m. on Monday, July 10, 2023, 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
July 11, 2023
www.slc.gov/feedback/
Regularly updated with highlighted
ways to engage with the City.
Community Engagement Highlights
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canPublic Utilities slc.gov/utilities/
City Creek Water Treatment Plant
www.slc.gov/feedback/
•Primary construction likely to begin in
January.
•City Creek Canyon is open.
•No more construction related
closures planned in 2023.
•Groundbreaking ceremony anticipated
early 2024.
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canSustainabilityslc.gov/sustainability/
The Other Side Village
www.slc.gov/feedback/
•Public Comment Period started on
June 23.
•Submit comments through July 23 by
email: cjhowell@utah.gov
•Proposed Remedial Action Plan
available online for review.
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canPublic Lands slc.gov/parks/
www.slc.gov/feedback/
•Steenblik Park
•Survey will close in August
•232 survey responses so far
•Donner Trail Park
•Survey will close end of August
•278 survey responses so far
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canPlanningslc.gov/planning/
www.slc.gov/feedback/
Project Status
Gas stations near bodies of water Online open house has started
Affordable Housing Incentives Transmitted with ordinance to CAN
Ballpark Station Area Zoning Map Amendments Public input process is underway
2100 South Station Area Plan and Zoning Amendments Public input process is underway
Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Preparing draft ordinance
Historic Overlay Enforcement Preparing draft ordinance
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com
Planning slc.gov/planning
Thriving in PlaceMayor’s Office
Location Date Time
Red Butte Garden July 12 9am -11am
Publik Coffee (West Temple location)July 18 10:30am – 12:30pm
Rose Park Neighborhood Center July 19 11am – 12:45pm
Chillin' with a Cop at
Cloud Nine Creamery
July 21 7pm – 8:30pm
Riverside Park (Partners in the Park)July 25 6pm – 8pm
Liberty Park (near the playground)July 28 2pm – 4:30pm
July Community Office Hours
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canJuly Events
These events are a collection of City Sponsored, ACE, and publicly permitted events.
Event Date Location
Yappy Hour 7/13 Liberty Park
Festival Latino Americano De Salud 7/14 Alliance community Services Office
Summer Film Series at Liberty Park - Erin's Guide to Kissing Girls 7/14 Liberty Park
Downtown Farmers Market 7/15 Pioneer Park
Twilight Concert Series - Trampled by Turtles 7/15 Gallivan Center
Salt Lake City Criterium: Industry 7/15 Granary District
Salt Lake City Criterium: Sugar House 7/16 Sugar House Park
East Bench Ice Cream Social 7/19 Donner Trail Park – East Side
Main Street (Alleyways Amplified Fashion Show)7/21 Eccles Theater Lobby
Summer Film Series at Liberty Park -- Blueback 7/21 Liberty Park
Sugar House Rocks Concert Series 7/21 Monument Plaza in Sugar House
Sabores de Mi Patria/Flavors of My Homeland Workshop Series 7/21 Wasatch Community Garden's Campus
Downtown Farmers Market 7/22 Pioneer Park
Feria Ambiental:Para celebrar la semana de conservacion Latina (Latino Conservation Week Fair)7/22 Three Creeks Confluence
The Cookout '23 7/23 Fairmont Park
Drone Show 7/24 Liberty Park
Partners in the Park 7/25 Riverside Park
Homeless Resource Center Utilization
•July 3rd -7th HRCs:97.9%
Rapid Intervention/ EIM
•EIM- South Temple 600-800 W
•62 HEART-tracked camps
•RIT locations:
o VOA Outreach Engagement: 7
o RIT Site Rehabilitations: 12 (+15)
Resource Fair:
•Friday July 14th- @ Pioneer Park
9:30-12:30
Kayak Court
-Friday July 21st- Jordan River
Homelessness
Update
for more information contact:
Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End
Homelessness (SLVCEH)
endutahhomelessness.org /
salt-lake-valley
Utah Office of Homeless Services
(OHS)
jobs.utah.gov/homelessness/
index.html
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
tinyurl.com/SLCFY24CIP
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:June 6, 2023
RE:FY2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
ANNUAL BUDGET BOOK: Pages 67-68 and 143 – 154
CIP BUDGET BOOK PAGES:
- 5-12 shows a summary table of proposed projects and funding sources
- 13-15 lists CIP projects not recommended for funding
- 19-23 identify existing bonds paid from CIP (does not include General Obligation bonds)
and other ongoing obligations
- 27-53 has project specific pages for the recommended General Fund CIP projects
- 57-108 has project specific pages for enterprise fund capital projects (Airport, Golf, and Public Utilities)
NEW INFORMATION
The Council added a total of $1,258,815 to the FY2024 CIP budget above the Mayor’s Recommended Budget.
This funding is from two sources: $644,126 Funding Our Future limited to the five critical need areas, and
$614,689 recaptured from capital projects older than three years which are basically General Fund dollars
available to any CIP project. As a reminder, the five Funding Our Future categories are: improved street
conditions (sidewalk-to-sidewalk), greater housing opportunities, better public transit services, public safety
(fire, police, social workers, and 911 dispatch), and parks maintenance.
Projects of Council Member Interest Not Recommended for Funding by Advisory Board & Mayor
The total cost to fully fund the four projects listed below is $2,214,126. Of this amount, $496,412 could come
from impact fees which is itemized by project below. The Council could fund these projects by adding funding to
CIP above the Mayor’s Recommended Budget and/or shifting funding from projects that are recommended for
funding. Projects are listed in district numerical order and updated since the first briefing.
Project Timeline:
Budget Hearings: May 16 & June 6, 2023
1st Briefing: June 6, 2023
2nd Briefing: July 11, 2023
3rd Briefing & Public Hearing: July 18, 2023
4th Briefing & Public Hearing: August 8, 2023
Potential Action: August 15, 2023
Note: The Council approves debt service and
overall CIP funding in the annual budget. Project
specific funding is approved by September 1.
Page | 2
Council Member Petro: Project #21 is $830,000 for Rose Park Lane Landscaping, Trail Rebuild, and Safety
-$235,000 is eligible for parks impact fees (second phase listed below)
-Council Member Petro expressed interest in only funding the $30,000 for two solar feedback speed limit
signs pending available funding
-The project could be partially funded in two or three phases:
o $565,000 for the trail reconstruction as the first phase
o $235,000 for irrigation and tree planting as the second phase
o $30,000 for two solar feedback speed limit signs which could be done independently from the
other two phases (at any time)
Council Member Wharton: Project #57 requesting $210,000 for Ensign Peak Nature Park Access and Security
Improvements
-The project would install new lighting, an access gate and fence at the popular trailhead, and landscaping
around the entrance
-The nature park has experienced on and off nuisance (traffic, noise, littering, trespassing) and criminal
activity (fires, public intoxication, firearm discharges) for several years particularly late at night
-The project appears ineligible for parks impact fees
Council Member Valdemoros: Project #22 requesting $530,000 for Richmond Park Playground
-$212,000 is eligible from park impact fees
-Richmond Park is also identified as a neighborhood park to be reimagined with funding from the Parks,
Trails, and Open Space General Obligation Bond
Council Member Dugan: Project #46 requesting $494,126 for Westside of Foothill Drive Safety Enhancements
-The project is 10% eligible for transportation impact fees which is $49,412
-The project is from the 2017 Foothill Drive Implementation Strategy but this was not brought to the
Council for adoption
-The project could be split into phases which would increase the total cost. Individual cost estimates by
intersections and potential phase are:
o Phase 1:
▪2600 East / Foothill Drive: $110,000
▪Westminster / Foothill Drive: $20,000
▪Laurelhurst / Foothill Drive: $85,000
o Phase 2:
▪Blaine + 2500 E / Foothill Drive: $170,000
▪Bryan / Foothill Drive: $110,000
Council Member Fowler: Project #32 requesting $150,000 for Sugar House Safe Side Streets Phase 2
-Phase 1 received $153,221 in FY2022 CIP for studying, testing, public engagement, and designs of traffic
calming improvements on six local streets: Hollywood Avenue, Ramona Avenue, Garfield Avenue,
Lincoln Street, 1000 East, and McClelland Street
-An application was submitted in the FY2023 CIP cycle for Phase 2 but did not receive additional funding
-The FY2024 CIP application is requesting funds that would be combined with remaining funds from
Phase 1 to complete the traffic calming improvements recommended in the Phase 1 traffic study
Project #1 Library Plaza Structural Assessment and Visioning
Council staff asked the Administration how does the proposed Library Plaza structural assessment and visioning
project relate to the already funded 200 East Green Loop designs and study, the Washington Square Master
Plan, and the several studies already done about the plaza (2002 Library Square Block Plan, 2017 Evaluating
Library Square Urban Land Institute Report, 2018 GSBS Architects Library Square Study, and others)? The
Administration’s response is copied below for reference.
“This March, a planning and design consultant, Wenk Associates, was hired by the inter-departmental City team
to work on studying the Green Loop, including more detailed planning and schematic (preliminary) design for
the 200 East leg (South Temple to 900 South). Assessing land uses, utilities, transportation, demographics,
future development, and other information will help the City understand the possibilities for a drastically
different design for the street, including more green space and necessary utilities. This also considers the
impacts and feasibility of a “festival street” between 400 South and 500 South. Final documents will form the
Page | 3
basis of federal grant applications that the City will submit in April 2024. The Green Loop project will target the
Right of Way, as opposed to the Library Plaza CIP application which includes the public space within the block.
The submitted CIP application for this funding cycle is intended to provide a vision, plan and conceptual design
for Library Plaza ($125,000 of a larger $190,000 Library Plaza application). If funded, this process will identify
solutions and designs for activating the plaza and revitalizing the space as a site for large public events, as
originally intended. Solutions will mitigate barriers to access and enjoyment, including direct sunlight, lack of
shade, urban heat island effect, and protection from the elements. With Salt Lake City being a potential
candidate for the 2030 or 2034 Olympics, reimagining and retrofitting this space will be critical if Library Plaza
and adjacent civic sites are intended to be used to host significant events and accommodate additional capacity.
It is critical that these studies, plans, and schematic designs of 200 East and Library Plaza be completed before
the City can confidently understand the need for and costs of additional design and construction of these sites.”
Policy Question:
➢The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether the City’s policy goal is to advance
the concept of a Civic Campus by further connecting the two sides of 200 East between 400 S and 500
S (Washington Square and Library Plaza). Previous Councils discussed and funded studies to look at
changing this one-block section of 200 East to facilitate public events and the Civic Campus concept.
Project #60 Maintenance of City-owned Property
The Council approved $700,000 for this use in the last annual budget of which $598,685 remains available.
Another $700,000 was requested of which $200,000 (the base ongoing funding) was approved as part of the
annual budget adoption on June 13. The Administration provided the following list of five projects with high-
level cost estimates (FY2023 remaining funds and FY2024 requested funds). The Public Services Department is
conducting a facility assessment which may recommend projects to use these funds.
Policy Question:
➢The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether some of the $500,000 requested
in FY2024 could be used for other CIP projects since the FY2023 remaining appropriation of
$598,685 is enough to cover the cost estimates of the five items listed below.
$100,000 at the Former Public Safety Building (PSB):
(Note this building is also called the Northwest Pipeline Building at 315 E 200 S)
The Administration is planning projects that will improve the safety and security of the building and
surrounding property while the property is being prepared for redevelopment. These improvements include
repair to an existing gate, a new motorized gate to access Magnolia parking, improvements to the park strip,
ongoing landscape maintenance and cleanup (including biowaste cleanup), and car towing and disposal. These
expenses are anticipated to cost up to $100,000.
$200,000 for a Development Strategy and Spacing Needs Study:
(Note the Council may consider this item as a separate project since the scope is beyond maintenance of city-
owned property)
The Administration would like to utilize a portion of these funds to issue an RFP for a consultant to develop a
Disposition and Development Strategy for a suite of City-owned parcels, with the intent of planning for future
space needs, identifying surplus property for future municipal purposes, and identifying property for revenue
generation. This effort, anticipated to be as much as $200,000, is somewhat outside of the scope of the approved
use of funding and may require a scope adjustment.
$100,000+ additional Funding for Major Renovations to the Annex building Leased by Odyssey House:
This project was awarded $500,000 in CIP funding for structural repairs. Public Services is working on a site
assessment in order to identify improvements and develop bids. Based on the condition of the building, it is
believed that the necessary improvements may require an additional $100,000+ to bring the building up to
health, safety, and welfare standards. Odyssey House has abandoned operations in one section of the building
due to safety issues and is still operating its programming in the other section on a limited basis.
$100,000 for Maintenance of City-owned Buildings Leased to Third Parties:
The Administration would like to utilize a portion of the funding for maintenance of not only vacant city-owned
property but for property that is leased to a third-party (vacant from city municipal function). Projects include
replacement of a disintegrating fence at the Salt Lake Acting Company building, anticipated to be up to $15,000.
In addition, improvements are needed to the Memorial House building that are the responsibility of the City
Page | 4
pursuant to the lease, including items such as HVAC replacement, repair of windows and doors, repair of water
damage, etc. These repairs could cost up to $75,000.
$50,0000 for Pre-development Work at the Fleet Block and former Public Safety Building (PSB):
The Administration is planning to use up to $50,000 to prepare Fleet Block and the former PSB for
redevelopment. Funds will be used for surveys, title work, appraisals, subdivision of property, etc.
Project #61 Urban Trails Maintenance
(Note this is proposed to be a new ongoing annual maintenance line item)
The Administration provided the following description of this new line item. “These funds will be used for
repaving, crack and seal repair, bridge re-decking, bridge replacements, trail shoulder surfacing, snow removal,
debris removal on urban paved trails. Project locations include the Jordan River Parkway, 9Line Trail, Folsom
Trail. Short description: These funds will be used to fund contractors, equipment, and material to maintain
urban trails and trail segments that potentially come online during the fiscal year. The maintenance of these
trails is necessary to keep them safe for all that use them and so they can be used year-round.”
Surplus Land Fund Updated Balance
During the review of capital accounts older than three years, the Finance Department identified a few old
property management accounts with land sale proceeds that should have been returned to the Surplus Land
Fund because that was the original source for the unused funds. The Surplus Land Funds new balance is
$5,128,676 after these proceeds are transferred.
CIP Debt Load Projections through FY2027
The Administration provided the following chart to illustrate the ratio of ongoing commitments to available
funding through FY2027. Pay as you go projects reflect new capital projects. The chart shows relatively stable
debt load projections using approximately 55% of the annual General Fund transfer to CIP. An important caveat
to note is the chart assumes 9% of ongoing General Fund revenues are transferred into CIP annually. The
FY2023 budget hit the 9% transfer goal but the City has typically been closer to 7% over the past 15 years. The
FY2024 budget transferred 7.1% of ongoing General Fund revenues into CIP (after including the Council’s $1.2
million above the Mayor’s Recommended Budget) which means less funding is available to go to new projects.
Most of these commitments are debt payments on existing bonds. Other commitments include, ESCO debt
payments, the Crime Lab lease, capital replacement funding for parks and facilities, contributions to the CIP cost
overrun account and the 1.5% for art fund. The CIP Budget Book includes an overview and details on each of the
ongoing commitments. Note that General Obligation (G.O.) bonds are not paid from CIP because they are
funded through a separate, dedicated voter-approved property tax increase.
Page | 5
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Each year, the Council appropriates overall funding available for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and
approves debt payments and ongoing obligations as part of the annual budget in June. Over the summer, the
Council reviews individual projects and per state law must approve project specific funding by September 1. CIP
is an open and competitive process where residents, local organizations, and City departments submit project
applications. The Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident advisory board
reviews the applications in public meetings and makes funding recommendations to the Mayor and Council. The
Mayor provides a second set of funding recommendations which this year are identical to the advisory board’s
except one project; $150,000 for Westside Art was proposed after the CDCIP board completed their
deliberations. The Council considers both sets of funding recommendations and ultimately decides project
specific funding. Funding for capital improvements sometimes occurs in midyear budget amendments but the
annual CIP process is the Council’s largest annual opportunity to fund large public construction projects. This
report provides an overview of the proposed overall budget for FY2024, projects of Council Member interest not
recommended for funding, policy questions, and further details in the Additional Info section and attachments.
Overview of the FY2024 CIP Proposed Budget
The total FY2024 CIP budget is $39.3 million which is $7.4 million (16%) less than last year. FY2023 was a
record year for CIP with nearly $47 million total funding plus the $67.5 Million Sales Tax Bond and $85 million
Parks, Trails, and Open Space General Obligation Bond. The proposed FY2024 CIP budget is closer to the City’s
typical total CIP funding level in recent years. However, the General Fund transfer to CIP (first row in the table
below) is 6.8% of ongoing revenues which is slightly below the 7% seen in most budget years (last year was a
record at 9%). An additional $851,814 would be needed to reach the 7% level for FY2024. Most of the lower total
CIP funding is caused by removal of $3.7 million in one-time funds used in FY2023 to replace hand held radio
equipment and the shift of $1.8 million from Funding Our Future for parks from CIP (as it was in the FY2023
budget) to personnel costs. The Administration indicates that ongoing funding spent on vehicles this year for
those personnel could be added to CIP again next year. The table below details funding sources for CIP by fiscal
year. See Attachment 5 for an overview of the major CIP Funding Sources. Other highlights include:
$10.3 Million Unrestricted Funds – $10,287,935 of the ongoing transfer from the General Fund are unrestricted
funds available for any new projects (the most flexible funding available). This does not include the Funding Our
Future source which the Council has restricted to five critical need areas.
$1.4 Million Decrease of Impact Fees Spending – The amount of impact fees in the proposed CIP budget is the
smallest amount since FY2017. There are over $20.7 million of impact fees available to spend across the four
types: fire, parks, police, and transportation. Most of the available funds are for parks and transportation. See
Additional info section for more. It’s worth noting the Council sometimes approves significant amounts of
impact fees for capital expenses in midyear budget amendments so CIP is not the only relevant budget opening.
$300,000 Decrease for County 1/4¢ Sales Tax for Transportation – This became a new funding source three
years ago and is available to transportation projects per state law. As seen in other sales tax revenue line items,
this one has experienced significant growth in recent years but is projects to slightly decrease in FY2024.
$10.9 Million Debt and Lease Payments – $10,901,526 (44%) of the General Fund transfer to CIP (including
Funding Our Future dollars) is needed to cover debt payments and the Crime Lab lease payment. However, it
should be noted that $4,393,161 of this amount is for a first-year payment on a proposed sales tax revenue bond
for which the Council has not approved the list of projects. This funding could be used for FY2024 projects if the
Council declines to proceed with the bond or approves a smaller bond.
Comparison of CIP Funding Sources by Fiscal Year
Page | 6
Projects of Council Member Interest Not Recommended for Funding by Advisory Board & Mayor
The total cost to fully fund the four projects listed below is $2,514,126. Of this amount, $747,000 could come
from parks impact fees which is itemized by project below. The Council could fund these projects by adding
funding to CIP above the Mayor’s Recommended Budget and/or shifting funding from projects that are
recommended for funding. Projects are listed in district numerical order:
Council Member Petro: Project #21 is $830,000 for Rose Park Lane Landscaping, Trail Rebuild, and Safety
-$235,000 is eligible for parks impact fees
-The project could be partially funded in two or three phases:
o $565,000 for the trail reconstruction as the first phase
o $235,000 for irrigation and tree planting as the second phase
o $30,000 for two solar feedback speed limit signs which could be done independently from the
other two phases (at any time) and potentially with funding from the temporary traffic calming
intervention funding in the Transportation Division’s base budget
Council Member Puy: Project #18 requesting $500,000 for Madsen Park Improvements
-$300,000 is eligible from park impact fees
-CDCIP Board said if additional funding is available, then this project is their next highest priority
-Madsen Park is also identified as a neighborhood park to be reimagined with funding from the Parks,
Trails, and Open Space General Obligation Bond
Council Member Valdemoros: Project #22 requesting $530,000 for Richmond Park Playground
-$212,000 is eligible from park impact fees
-Richmond Park is also identified as a neighborhood park to be reimagined with funding from the Parks,
Trails, and Open Space General Obligation Bond
Council Member Dugan: Project #46 requesting $494,126 for Westside of Foothill Drive Safety Enhancements
-Some elements might be partially eligible for transportation impact fees
-The project is from the 2017 Foothill Drive Implementation Strategy but this was not brought to the
Council for adoption
-A request has been submitted to the Administration for phasing options
Council Member Fowler: Project #32 requesting $150,000 for Sugar House Safe Side Streets Phase 2
$ C h an g e % C h an g e
Ge ne r al Fund 1 5 ,1 2 6 ,884$ 2 5 ,2 3 1 ,4 3 1$ 2 1 ,1 89 ,4 6 1$ (4 ,0 4 1 ,9 7 0 )$ -1 6 %
Fu nd ing Our Futu r e *3 ,5 80 ,0 0 0$ 5 ,1 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,6 2 6 ,87 5$ (1 ,4 7 3 ,1 2 5 )$ -2 9 %
Cla ss C 3 ,0 2 1 ,7 0 6$ 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 1 7 %
I m p a c t Fe e s**8,2 7 6 ,1 0 3$ 4 ,1 5 9 ,7 5 5$ 2 ,9 6 8,85 0$ (1 ,1 9 0 ,9 0 5 )$ -2 9 %
CDBG 3 2 2 ,0 0 0$ 7 2 2 ,0 0 0$ -$ (7 2 2 ,0 0 0 )$ ONE-TI ME
Re p u r p o se Old CI P A c c o u nts***2 5 2 ,2 7 1$ 1 5 2 ,6 6 0$ PENDI NG -ONE-TI ME
Co u nt y 1 /4 ¢ Sale s Ta x 4 ,9 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 8,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 7 ,7 0 0 ,0 0 0$ (3 0 0 ,0 0 0 )$ -4 %
Su r p lu s Land Fund 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ -$ -$ -$ ONE-TI ME
Sm it h's Naming Rig h t s Re v e nue 1 5 4 ,0 0 0$ 1 5 4 ,0 0 0$ 1 5 0 ,0 0 0$ (4 ,0 0 0 )$ -3 %
SLC Sp o r ts Co mple x ESCO 1 4 8,5 0 5$ 1 4 8,5 0 5$ 1 5 0 ,5 0 0$ 1 ,9 9 5$ 1 %
Me m o r ial Ho use Re nt Re v e nue 6 8,5 5 4$ 6 8,5 5 4$ 5 0 ,0 0 0$ (1 8,5 5 4 )$ -2 7 %
TOTA L 3 6 ,0 2 7 ,1 3 1$ 4 6 ,7 3 6 ,9 0 5$ 3 9 ,3 3 5 ,6 86$ (7 ,4 0 1 ,2 1 9 )$ -1 6 %
TOTA L w ith o u t ONE-TI ME 3 5 ,2 5 2 ,86 0$ 4 5 ,86 2 ,2 4 5$ 3 9 ,3 3 5 ,6 86$ (6,5 2 6 ,5 5 9 )$ -1 4 %
*I nc lu d e s % to CI P "o ff t h e to p" av aila b le t o a ny pro je c t , a nd fu nding fo r t ra nsit , a nd pub lic rig h t o f w ay
infra st ru c ture . A ls o , fu nd ing so urc e is o ng o ing b ut Co u nc il c o u ld c h ange t h e u se c a te go rie s in t h e fu ture
**Th e re a re fo ur im p a c t fe e ty pe s: fire , p a rks, po lic e a nd st re e ts
***I nc lu de s re c ap t u re d fu nds fro m m u lt ip le funding so u rc e s
No t e : Th e re 's a $2 2 ,89 2 d e b t se rv ic e re sc o pe re duc tio n no t se pa rate d o u t in t h e ta b le ab o v e fo r FY 2 0 2 2
C I P Fu n din g So u rc e s A do pt e d
2 0 2 1-2 2
A do p t e d
2 0 2 2 -2 3
Pro p o se d
2 0 2 3 -2 4
FY 2 0 2 3 t o FY 2 0 2 4
Page | 7
-Phase 1 received $153,221 in FY2022 CIP for studying, testing, public engagement, and designs of traffic
calming improvements on six local streets: Hollywood Avenue, Ramona Avenue, Garfield Avenue,
Lincoln Street, 1000 East, and McClelland Street
-An application was submitted in the FY2023 CIP cycle for Phase 2 but did not receive additional funding
-The FY2024 CIP application is requesting funds that would be combined with remaining funds from
Phase 1 to complete the traffic calming improvements recommended in the Phase 1 traffic study
Simplified Funding Log and Project Scores from CDCIP Resident Advisory Board
(See Attachment 4 for the simplified funding log)
The CDCIP Board scored each CIP application which serves as a general guide to help inform funding decisions
but is not meant to be strictly adhered to. The Board recommends that if additional funding were available, then
project #18 Madsen Park Improvements be prioritized. The log also includes a social vulnerability index
developed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) using 16 factors to rank Census Tracts. The next column
shows scores from the Sustainability Department where 10 is the highest (best) possible. Then the Parks,
Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails or PNUT Board scores are shown where 1 is the highest (best)
possible. The last column on the sight side shows current pavement conditions for public right of way (streets,
alleys, curb & gutter, and sidewalks) where applicable.
Recapture Funds from Completed Projects and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years
(Attachment 6 – Pending at time of publishing this staff report)
The CIP and Debt Management Resolution (Attachment 1) states that remaining funds should be considered for
recapture from completed projects and unfinished projects that are older than three years unless there has been
significant progress. The table in Attachment 6 is the staff’s attempt to follow up on the Council’s policy
guidance for CIP projects. Most of the 128 projects received General Fund dollars or impact fees. Some of this
funding could be recaptured by the Council as one-time revenue for General Fund uses, however, the other
sources like Class C, CDBG, impact fees, and donations have uses limited by law. The table was sent to the
Administration to identify whether a project is completed and status updates for unfinished projects. A response
and potential funding to recapture will be added to one of the Council’s upcoming unresolved issues briefings.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Capital Asset Plan Early Policy Check-in Briefing – The Council may wish to schedule a briefing
for an early policy check-in about the guiding priorities and framework for developing the Capital Asset
Plan (five-year CIP plan). The Non-departmental budget has a $350,000 transfer to IMS for Capital
Asset Planning software to facilitate development and periodic updating of the plan. See Attachment 7
for the Council’s potential policy goals, metrics, and requests from a briefing in 2019.
2.Livable Streets (Traffic Calming) Program Funding Level – The Council may wish to discuss
the funding level and pace of implementing the Livable Streets Program. See Attachment 9 with
information from the Transportation Division including first year accomplishments and maps of the
highest need zones. The Division anticipates completing six or seven zones (neighborhoods) at the
proposed funding level of $1.35 million in FY2024 combined with the $2 million from FY2023 CIP. An
additional $9 million would be needed to fully fund the remaining 18 high need zones (red, orange, and
yellow on the color-coded map assuming an average cost of $500,000 per zone).
3.Combine Two Separate $150,000 Appropriations for Westside Art – The Council may wish to
continue the discussion from the RDA FY2024 budget overview about whether to combine two separate
$150,000 appropriations proposed for new art on the Westside. One appropriation is proposed in CIP
and the other is proposed in the RDA 9-Line Project Area.
4.Inflationary Price Increases and the Cost Overrun Account – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration how inflationary price increases have impacted departments utilizing the CIP Cost
Overrun Account, and if additional funding may be needed to avoid project scope reductions. The
Council could also re-evaluate the funding level for the account and/or the formula for the maximum
amounts a project may receive, which hasn’t been updated since 2004 (see section 11 of Attachment 1).
5.Resources to Support Constituent Applications – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration the need to address geographic equity issues with additional targeted City resources for
neighborhoods that submit few or no constituent applicants. Some Council Members expressed interest
in being proactive to support constituent applications from neighborhoods with higher poverty rates.
Page | 8
Some constituents and CDCIP Board Members commented at public meetings in recent years that they
felt like some projects get more support from departments than others.
6.CIP Project Status Reports – The Council may wish to ask the Administration about mechanisms to
facilitate the up-to-date sharing of information on current CIP projects. In the past, there were a variety
of mechanisms to share information, ranging from topic-by-topic email requests to consolidated
monthly reports. Council Members could then more quickly provide accurate/timely information to
interested constituents.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Definition of a CIP Project
As defined in the Council-adopted 2017 Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies Resolution (Attachment
1), a CIP project must “involve the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other
physical structures, … have a useful life of five or more years, … have a cost of $50,000 or more, … or significant
functionality can be demonstrated…such as software.” The Council also set a three-year spending deadline as
part of the guiding policies. CIP accounts older than three years are periodically reviewed for recapture from
projects that finished under budget or were not pursued.
Cost Estimates for Regular CIP Projects
(Attachment 8)
Cost estimates will be updated over the summer to inform the Council’s project-specific deliberations in July and
August. The current version was last updated in July 2022. Cost estimates for various types of projects are based
on actual costs from recent years. The document was developed by Council staff in collaboration with the
Administration. The three categories of project cost estimates are parks, streets, and transportation. Inflation
and supply chain constraints have continued to impact the City’s capital projects so the costs shown in the
current version are likely more expensive now. Some categories have seen significant increases while others have
closer to typical inflation rate increases. The Engineering Division provided some context that the City doesn’t
know to what extent the larger price increases are temporary (such as related to pandemic caused short-term
supply chain disruptions) or longer-term trends.
Comparison of CIP Project Requests by Year and Type
This chart was prepared by Council staff as a comparison of total project requests on the CIP funding log since
FY2017, and whether the application is come a constituent or internal to a City department. The FY2024 CIP
cycle has 59 project requests which is about average over the time shown in the chart. FY2021 had the fewest
with 19 project requests only from departments (it was intentionally an “abbreviated CIP cycle” per the
Administration at the time). FY2023 had the most with 90 project requests.
10 13 19 14
0
24
41
29
67
37
35 40
19
50
49
30
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2022 FY2024
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Total Project Requests by Fiscal Year (FY)
Constituent Departmental
Page | 9
Surplus Land Fund
The Administration reports the current available to spend balance is $2,374,127 and another $2,195,130 is
proposed in FY2023 Budget Amendment #6. If approved, then the total available balance would be $4,569,257.
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
property can only be sold once.
Cost Overrun Account
The Administration reports the current available to spend balance is $823,081 and another $100,000 is
proposed in FY2023 Budget Amendment #6 as a reimbursement to the account. The FY2024 CIP budget
includes $247,571 of additional funding. If the two appropriations are approved, then the total available balance
would be $1,170,652. The Council established this account for projects that experience costs slightly higher than
budgeted. A formula determines how much additional funding may be pulled from the Cost Overrun account
depending on the total Council-approved budget. See section 11 of Attachment 1 for the formula. This process
allows the Administration to add funding to a project without returning to the Council in a budget amendment.
A written notification to the Council on uses is required. The purpose is to allow projects to proceed with
construction instead of delaying projects until the Council can act on a budget amendment which typically takes
a few months.
1.5% for New Art and Maintenance of Existing Artworks
(New annual report is pending from the Arts Council)
The Administration stated the annual report required by ordinance about maintenance of City artworks in the
past fiscal year and planned for the next will be transmitted to the Council in July or August. This timing is after
the annual budget is adopted so the amount of funding available in CIP overall allows the 1.5% to be calculated
and inform how those funds would be used.
Salt Lake City Code, Chapter 2.30, established the Percent for Art Fund and designates roles for the Art Design
Board and Arts Council related to artist selection, project review and placement. The Public Art Program also
oversees projects with funding from the Airport and RDA. In April 2021 the Council amended Chapter 2.30 to
make several changes to the ordinance including an increase from 1% to 1.5% of ongoing unrestricted CIP
funding for art. There is no ceiling so the Council could approve funding for art above 1.5%.
The ordinance also sets a range of 10%-20% for how much of the resulting annual funding is allocated to
maintenance (as opposed to new artworks). This section of the ordinance also states that before funds are
deposited into the separate public art maintenance fund a report from the Administration will be provided to the
Council identifying works of art that require maintenance and estimated costs. This creates the first ongoing
dedicated funding for conservation and maintenance of the City’s public art collection consisting of over 270
pieces and counting. The collection is expected to continue growing. Note that in Budget Amendment #2 of
FY20 the Council made a one-time appropriation of $200,000 to establish an art maintenance fund.
Impact Fee Unallocated “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking
The Council approved several million dollars of impact fee projects in the past few years. The table below is
current as of April 24, 2023, and includes a couple adjustments based on Budget Amendment #6 of FY2023.
Available to spend impact fee balances are bank account balances subtracting encumbrances and expired funds.
The Mayor’s recommended CIP budget proposes using $2,728,850 of parks impact fees and $240,000 of
transportation impact fees. The total amount of the four impact fee types is $20,730,097. Impact fees must be
encumbered within six years of the City receiving them. Expired impact fees must be returned to the entity who
paid them with interest over the intervening six years.
Type Unallocated Cash
“Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring
Impact Fees
Fire $0 More than two years away -
Parks $13,980,808 More than two years away -
Police $1,339,030 More than two years away -
Transportation $5,410,259 More than two years away -
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
Clarifying “Complete Streets” and “Livable Streets” Initiatives
Page | 10
(See Attachment 9 for a Livable Streets Program update from the Transportation Division including first year
accomplishments and maps of the highest need zones)
There are two separate pots of funding – one for “complete streets” and another for “Livable Streets” – which are
both under the CIP umbrella. The “complete streets” funding is intended to be used to ensure that major street
reconstruction projects meet the standards defined in City Code Chapter 14.06, with elements like bike lanes
(Complete Streets). The “Livable Streets” funding is intended to be used for neighborhood scale traffic calming
projects as defined by the Livable Streets program presented to the Council in October 2021. This is separate
from street reconstruction projects. The program ranked all 113 zones citywide across several variables including
crash data, community assets, and resident socioeconomic factors. In August 2022, the Council provided policy
guidance that a citywide needs-based equity approach should be used to prioritize zones based on the ranking.
CIP Tracking Technology Improvements
The Administration reports improvements are ongoing to CIP tracking of projects and applications. A project
dashboard is in development. Once complete, the Administration plans to make the dashboard publicly
available. The City currently provides a public interactive construction and permits project information map
available here: http://maps.slcgov.com/mws/projects.htm
ATTACHMENTS
1. Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies Resolution 29 of 2017
2. FY2024 CIP Funding Log – Note the spreadsheet from the Administration is not formatted for printing
3. FY2024 Mayor’s Recommended CIP Budget Book Log
4. FY2024 Simplified CIP Funding Log by CDCIP Board Scores
5. Overview of CIP Major Funding Sources
6. List of Completed and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years
7. Capital Asset Plan (CAP) Council Requests from January 2019
8. Regular CIP Projects Cost Estimates (last updated July 2022)
9. Livable Streets Traffic Calming Program First Year Accomplishments Summary and Updated Zone Map
ACRONYMS
CAP – Capital Asset Plan (a five-year CIP plan)
CDBG – Community Development Block Grants
CDC – Centers for Disease Control
CDCIP – Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
ESCO – Energy Service Company
FTE – Full-time Employee
FY – Fiscal Year
GO Bond – General Obligation Bond
IMS – Information Management Systems Department
PSB – Public Safety Building
RESOLUTION NO . _29_0F 2017
(Salt Lake City Council capital and debt management policies.)
R 17-1
R 17-13
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council ("City Council" or "Council") demonstrated its
commitment to improving the City's Capital Improvement Program in order to better address the
deferred and long-term infrastructure needs of Salt Lake City; and
WHEREAS, the analysis of Salt Lake City's General Fund Capital Improvement
Program presented by Citygate Associates in February 1999, recommended that the Council
review and update the capital policies of Salt Lake Corporation ("City") in order to provide
direction to the capital programming and budgeting process and adopt and implement a formal
comprehensive debt policy and management plan; and
WHEREAS, the City's Capital Improvement Program and budgeting practices have
evolved since 1999 and the City Council wishes to update the capital and debt management
policies by updating and restating such policies in their entirety to better reflect current
practices; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to improve transparency of funding opportunities
across funding sources including General Fund dollars, impact fees, Class C (gas tax) funds,
Redevelopment Agency funds, Public Utilities funds, repurposing old Capital Improvement
Program funds and other similar funding sources.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City,
Utah:
That the City Council has determined that the following capital and debt management
policies shall guide the Council as they continue to address the deferred and long-term
infrastructure needs within Salt Lake City:
Capital Policies
1. Capital Project Definition-The Council intends to define a capital project as follows:
"Capital improvements involve the construction, purchase or renovation of
buildings, parks, streets or other physical structures. A capital improvement must
have a useful life of five or more years. A capital improvement is not a recurring
capital outlay item (such as a motor vehicle or a fire engine) or a maintenance
expense (such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches). In order to be
considered a capital project, a capital improvement must also have a cost of
$50,000 or more unless such capital improvement's significant functionality can
be demonstrated to warrant its inclusion as a capital project (such as software).
Acquisition of equipment is not considered part of a capital project unless such
acquisition of equipment is an integral part of the cost of the capital project."
2. Annual Capital Budget Based on 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan-The Council requests that
the Mayor's Recommended Annual Capital Budget be developed based upon the 10-Year
Capital Facilities Plan and be submitted each fiscal year to the City Council for consideration
as part of the Mayor 's Recommended Budget no later than the first Tuesday of May.
3. Multiyear Financial Forecasts-The Council requests that the Administration :
a. Prepare multi-year revenue and expenditure forecasts that correspond to the capital
program period;
b . Prepare an analysis of the City's financial condition , debt service levels within the capital
improvement budget, and capacity to finance future capital projects; and
c . Present this information to the Council in conjunction with the presentation of each one-
year capital budget.
4. Annual General Fund Transfer to CIP Funding Goal-Allocation of General Fund revenues
for capital improvements on an annual basis will be determined as a percentage of General
Fund revenue . The Council has a goal that no less than nine percent (9%) of ongoing General
Fund revenues be invested annually in the Capital Improvement Fund.
5. Maintenance Standard-The Council intends that the City will maintain its physical assets at
a level adequate to protect the City's capital investment and to minimize future maintenance
and replacement costs.
6 . Capital Project Prioritization-The Council intends to give priority consideration to projects
that:
a. Preserve and protect the health and safety of the community;
b. Are mandated by the state and/or federal government; and
c. Provide for the renovation of existing facilities resulting in a preservation of the
community's prior investment, in decreased operating costs or other significant cost
savings , or in improvements to the environmental quality of the City and its
neighborhoods.
7. External Partnerships -All other considerations being equal, the Council intends to give fair
consideration to projects where there is an opportunity to coordinate with other agencies ,
establish a public/ private partnership, or secure grant funding .
8. Aligning Project Cost Estimates and Funding-The Council intends to follow a guideline of
approving construction funding for a capital project in the fiscal year immediately following
the project's design wherever possible. Project costs become less accurate as more time
passes. The City can avoid expenses for re-estimating project costs by funding capital
projects in a timely manner.
9. Advisory Board Funding Recommendations-The Council intends that all capital projects be
evaluated and prioritized by the Community Development and Capital Improvement
Program Advisory Board . The resulting recommendations shall be provided to the Mayor ,
and shall be included along with the Mayor 's funding recommendations in conjunction with
the Annual Capital budget transmittal , as noted in Paragraph two above.
10. Prioritize Funding Projects in the 10-Year Plan-The Council does not intend to fund any
project that has not been included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan for at least one (1)
year prior to proposed funding, unless extenuating circumstances are adequately identified.
11. Cost Overrun Process -The Council requests that any change order to any capital
improvement project follow the criteria established in Resolution No. 65 of2004 which
reads as follows:
a. "The project is under construction and all other funding options and/ or methods
have been considered and it has been determined that additional funding is still
required.
b. Cost overrun funding will be approved based on the following formula:
1. 20% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets of $100,000 or less;
ii. 15% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets between $100,001 and $250,000;
iii. 10% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets over $250,000 with a maximum overrun cost of $1oo,ooo.
c. The funds are not used to pay additional City Engineering fees.
d. The Administration will submit a written notice to the City Council detailing the
additional funding awarded to projects at the time of administrative approval.
e. If a project does not meet the above mentioned criteria the request for additional
funding will be submitted as part of the next scheduled budget opening.
However, if due to timing constraints the cost overrun cannot be reasonably
considered as part of a regularly scheduled budget opening, the Administration
will prepare the necessary paperwork for review by the City Council at its next
regularly scheduled meeting."
12. Recapture Funds from Completed Capital Projects-The Council requests that the
Administration include in the first budget amendment each year those Capital Improvement
Program Fund accounts where the project has been completed and a project balance remains.
It is the Council's intent that all account balances from closed projects be recaptured and
placed in the CIP Cost Overrun Contingency Account for the remainder of the fiscal year, at
which point any remaining amounts will be transferred to augment the following fiscal year's
General Fund ongoing allocation.
13. Recapture Funds from Unfinished Capital Projects-Except for situations in which
significant progress is reported to the Council, it is the Council's intent that all account
balances from unfinished projects older than three years be moved out of the specific project
account to the CIP Fund Balance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, account balances for bond
financed projects and outside restricted funds (which could include grants, SAA or other
restricted funds) shall not be moved out of the specific project account.
14. Surplus Land Fund within CIP Fund Balance -Revenues received from the sale of real
property will go to the unappropriated balance of the Capital Projects Fund and the revenue
will be reserved to purchase real property unless extenuating circumstances warrant a
different use. It is important to note that collateralized land cannot be sold.
15 . Transparency of Ongoing Costs Created by Capital Projects-Any long-term fiscal impact to
the General Fund from a capital project creating ongoing expenses such as maintenance,
changes in electricity /utility usage, or additional personnel will be included in the CIP
funding log and project funding request. Similarly, capital projects that decrease ongoing
expenses will detail potential savings in the CIP funding log.
16. Balance Budget without Defunding or Delaying Capital Projects -Whenever possible,
capital improvement projects should neither be delayed nor eliminated to balance the
General Fund budget.
17. Identify Sources when Repurposing Old Capital Project Funds-Whenever the
Administration proposes repurposing funds from completed capital projects the source(s)
should be identified including the project name, balance of remaining funds, whether the
project scope was reduced, and whether funding needs related to the original project exist.
18. Identify Capital Project Details -For each capital project, the capital improvement projects
funding log should identify:
a. The Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board's
funding recommendations,
b. The Administration's funding recommendations,
c. The project name and a brief summary of the project,
d . Percentage of impact fee eligibility and type,
e. The project life expectancy,
f. Whether the project is located in an RDA project area,
g. Total project cost and an indication as to whether a project is one phase of a larger
project,
h. Subtotals where the project contains multiple scope elements that could be funded
separately,
1. Any savings derived from funding multiple projects together,
j. Timing for when a project will come on-line,
k. Whether the project implements a master plan,
1. Whether the project significantly advances the City's renewable energy or
sustainability goals,
m . Ongoing annual operating impact to the General Fund,
n. Any community support for the project -such as community councils or petitions,
o. Communities served,
p. Legal requirements/mandates,
q. Whether public health and safety is affected,
r. Whether the project is included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan,
s. Whether the project leverages external funding sources, and
t. Any partner organizations .
Debt Management Policies
1. Prioritize Debt Service for Projects in the 10 -Year Capital Facilities Plan -The Council
intends to utilize long-term borrowing only for capital improvement projects that are
included in the City's 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan or in order to take advantage of
opportunities to restructure or refund current debt. Short-term borrowing might be utilized in
anticipation of future tax collections to finance working capital needs.
2. Evaluate Existing Debt before Issuing a New Debt-The Council requests that the
Administration provide an analysis of the City's debt capacity, and how each proposal meets
the Council's debt policies, prior to proposing any projects for debt financing. This analysis
should include the effect of the bond issue on the City's debt ratios , the City 's ability to
finance future projects of equal or higher priority , and the City's bond ratings.
3. Identify Repayment Source when Proposing New Debt-The Council requests that the
Administration identify the source of funds to cover the anticipated debt service requirement
whenever the Administration recommends borrowing additional funds.
4. Monitoring Debt Impact to the General Fund-The Council requests that the Administration
analyze the impact of debt-financed capital projects on the City's operating budget and
coordinate this analysis with the budget development process.
5. Disclosure of Bond Feasibility and Challenges -The Council requests that the
Administration provide a statement from the City's financial advisor that each proposed bond
issue appears feasible for bond financing as proposed. Such statement from the City's
financial advisor should also include an indication of requirements or circumstances that the
Council should be aware of when considering the proposed bond issue (such as any net
negative fiscal impacts on the City 's operating budget, debt capacity limits , or rating
implications).
6. A void Use of Financial Derivative Instruments -The Council intends to avoid using interest
rate derivatives or other financial derivatives when considering debt issuance.
7 . Maintain Reasonable Debt Ratios-The Council does not intend to issue debt that would
cause the City's debt ratio benchmarks to exceed moderate ranges as indicated by the
municipal bond rating industry .
8. Maintain High Level Bond Ratings-The Council intends to maintain the highest credit
rating feasible and to adhere to fiscally responsible practices when issuing debt.
9. Consistent Annual Debt Payments Preferred -The Council requests that the Administration
structure debt service payments in level amounts over the useful life of the financed
project(s) unless anticipated revenues dictate otherwise or the useful life of the financed
project(s) suggests a different maturity schedule.
10. Sustainable Debt Burden-The Council intends to combine pay-as-you-go strategy with
long-term financing to keep the debt burden sufficiently low to merit continued AAA general
obligation bond ratings and to provide sufficient available debt capacity in case of
emergency.
11. Lowest Cost Options-The City will seek the least costly financing available when evaluating
debt financing options .
12. Avoid Creating Structural Deficits-The City will minimize the use of one-time revenue to
fund programs/projects that require ongoing costs including debt repayments.
13. Aligning Debt and Project Timelines-Capital improvement projects financed through the
issuance of bonded debt will have a debt service that is not longer than the useful life of the
project.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this -~3L.Lr_...d ___ day of
October , 2017.
ATTEST :
HB _A TTY -#64309 -v3-CIP _a nd _ Debt_ Management_Pol icies
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By 4 = ASL
CHAIRPERSON -=-::::::::____
Salt Lake City
App ed As To Form
By: ~~~~~~~.P
aysen Oldroyd
Da e: lt:>/-:z.../ 17
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1
Library Plaza Structural Assessment and Visioning
Requested Funding: $190,000
Many complex structural and drainage issues at Library Plaza are causing known
settling and damage to critical materials (e.g., pavers, railings and footings, walls)
visible on the surface. This project will include an investigation into these issues,
followed by planning and design to complete the necessary changes. Specific plaza
elements that will be investigated include the wedge wall near 200 East, fountain,
retaining walls and pavers, and overall stability throughout the plaza. The project
will also include a planning process to identify solutions and designs for activating
the plaza. These will mitigate currently unknown and known barriers (including
direct sunlight and little shade or protection from the elements) to increased
usage in line with its original intent as a public event space. Salt Lake City is a
potential candidate for the 2030 Olympics and structural repairs, retrofitting, and
reimagining space within this site will be critical first steps if the City wants to use
this site to host events and accommodate large crowds. If funded, this request
would lay the groundwork for a funding application for construction within the
next few years. Once construction is funded, this project will be a joint venture
between Public Lands and Facilities.
190,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 190,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
2
Safer Crossings: Main St., Glendale Park, and Citywide
Requested Funding: $900,000
This request will fund two key projects as well as providing ongoing funding to a
citywide program that installs warranted crossing beacons, traffic signals, or other
traffic control devices to address safety issues. 1. Main Street Pedestrian Crossings
-Crosswalks on Main Street are simply inadequate by modern standards; the
Transportation Division has developed a phased improvement plan that began
with a 2022 resurfacing project after which Main Street was restriped with one
travel lane in each direction. Ten crossing locations need upgraded crosswalks;
about half will be done in 2023 with funds already allocated. This request is for
construction funds for the remaining locations. 2. Glendale Park / 1700 South -
Community engagement show an overwhelming desire from neighborhood
residents to have a safer and more comfortable way to cross 1700 South, with
residents repeatedly requesting a tunnel or bridge to cross this wide roadway
carrying heavy truck traffic. This request is for funds to upgrade the existing
crosswalk at 1300 W 1700 S from flashing yellow beacons (RRFBs) to a pedestrian-
activated signal (HAWK, Toucan, or half-signal), to fully stop traffic with a red
light between the residential Glendale neighborhoods to the north and the new
Glendale Regional Park (Phase 1 - 2024) to the south. 3. Citywide traffic safety
projects include the installation of traffic control devices such as signals, flashers,
signs, or markings to improve pedestrian safety.
270,000$ -$ 540,000$ -$ 90,000$ -$ 270,000$ -$ 540,000$ -$ 90,000$ -$
Parks
Impact
Fees
Council Funding Allocations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks
Impact
Fees
#Project Description
Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources
Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log
Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 1
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
Parks
Impact
Fees
Council Funding Allocations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks
Impact
Fees
#Project Description
Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources
3
200 East ADA and Sidewalk Improvements
Requested Funding: $234,000
200 East ADA and sidewalk improvements. This project seeks to bring a section of
sidewalks near senior housing into compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). It also seeks to improve walkability in a low-income
neighborhood by fixing a gap in continuous sidewalks. The area — between 1700
South and 2100 South — is home to a higher proportion of people with disabilities
than any other Census tract in the state of Utah, yet a portion of it is inaccessible
to people with disabilities. There is a 300 ft segment of 200 East that does not
have sidewalks on the east side of the street between Garfield Ave and Coatsville
Ave. Through discussions with City staff and the constituent applicant, we
developed a solution that provides a continuous ADA accessible pathway on the
west side of 200 East between Garfield Ave and 1700 South. This involves new
curb ramps at Downington Ave/200 E and Garfield Ave/200 E), about 50 ft of
sidewalk replacement, and pavement markings to formalize the crosswalks.
Additionally, a crosswalk upgrades will be added at 200 East 1700 South, where
there is a marked crosswalk near a high school, the Salt Lake Community College
and the Tim and Brenda Huval daycare center on the north side of 1700 South.
Driver cooperation is low at this crosswalk, and a rectangular rapid flashing
beacon (RRFB) will help to ensure compliance and a safer crossing.
234,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 234,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
4
Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / Operational Investments
Requested Funding: $1,500,000
Funds will construct bus stops along frequent transit routes that reflect the
recommendations of the Transit Master Plan. Examples include the 200 (State
Street), 209 (900 East) and 217 (Redwood Road). Improvements ensure that
stops are legal, accessible, safe, and convenient. This is a partnership program
with UTA, with investment by the City made to complement (rather than
supplant) UTA's plans for bus stop construction as articulated in their Bus Stop
Master Plan, and City investments generate UTA investments. Salt Lake City
constructs the concrete pad, and UTA provides the shelters, benches, bike racks,
and trash cans. They also empty the trash cans! If accessibility is limited by
bicycle and/or pedestrian connections to bus stops, these funds may be used to
close those gaps. Funds may also provide match to $5.59 million in federal grants
received so far for transit hubs (especially 200 S East Downtown Hub, Westside
North Temple Hub). The transit hubs are multi-million dollar projects; a portion
of these funds will be used to provide the required local match. These projects are
also partnership projects with UTA (and other potential partners, such as the
University of Utah and real estate developers), with both agencies seeking funds,
providing match, and together creating the full project. In some cases, these funds
were combined with other projects to maximize those investments, for example by
mobilizing construction crews once for two or more related and co-located
projects. This also serves to minimize construction disruption to the community.
-$ 990,000$ -$ -$ 110,000$ -$ -$ 990,000$ -$ -$ 110,000$ -$
Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log
Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 2
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
Parks
Impact
Fees
Council Funding Allocations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks
Impact
Fees
#Project Description
Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources
5
Complete Streets Program: 2100 South, Virginia St., and Citywide
Requested Funding: $6,600,000
This program funding request provides supplemental funds to street projects that
have been found, including through input from the community, to need additional
complete street elements such as sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, bikeways, safer
intersections, placemaking, and street greening. • 2100 South (700 E to 1300 E) -
This corridor in the heart of Sugarhouse has long needed reconstruction and
represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make substantial upgrades to its
central role in one of Salt Lake City's largest and most walkable business districts.
This street currently does a poor job of serving all who use it. This funding would
enable the City to complete a meaningful transformation of this critical roadway
with complete streets improvements for all modes. • Virginia Street (11th Ave to
South Temple) - This neighborhood road provides access between the Avenues
and South Temple for people driving, walking, riding, or taking the bus. The road
is missing sections of sidewalk on the west side, lacks bike lanes (more bicyclists
use Virginia Street than other principal north-south streets in the Avenues), and
has aging medians that the neighborhood has long desired to have removed (and
replaced with more effective traffic calming). The requested funding would fill the
gaps of missing sidewalk, improve bus stops, enhance pedestrian crossings, add
uphill bike lane/downhill shared lane, and implement traffic calming. • Citywide
corridor designs and restriping, primarily tied to Streets Division surface
treatments and/or in preparation for reconstruction.
-$ -$ 3,293,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,293,000$ -$ -$ -$
6
Public Way Concrete 2023/2024
Requested Funding: $750,000
This annual program addresses deteriorated or defective concrete sidewalks,
accessibility ramps, curb and gutter, retaining walls, etc. in the public way
through saw-cutting, slab jacking, or removal and replacement. Funding for this
vital program in the last 4 years has averaged 53%. Providing a fully accessible
public right-of-way is an unfunded federal mandate through the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. Not only is it the City's legal responsibility to ensure the
public way is accessible to all, it is a moral obligation.
-$ 750,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 750,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log
Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 3
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
Parks
Impact
Fees
Council Funding Allocations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks
Impact
Fees
#Project Description
Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources
7
Livable Streets Implementation
Requested Funding: $2,500,000
This citywide program aims to address the most common resident complaint to
Transportation staff - speeding vehicles. It uses a data-driven & equitable
prioritization process for the implementation of traffic calming improvements in
the areas most in need.
250,000$ 1,100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ 1,100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
8
Neighborhood Byways
Requested Funding: $800,000
Neighborhood byways create pleasant and convenient routes for people walking,
bicycling, or rolling by encouraging safe travel speeds, discouraging cut-through
vehicle traffic, providing safe crossings of busy streets, and connecting people to
key community destinations. These funds will be used for the engineering design
and construction of the Westpointe / Jordan Meadows Neighborhood Byway, and
for the engineering design of the Sugar House to the U Neighborhood Byway.
Both of these projects are currently in conceptual design with significant
community input. The Westpointe / Jordan Meadows Neighborhood Byway has
already received a state grant for $900,000 toward its $1.5 million construction
budget. This CIP request will serve as the required 40% match to this grant.
440,000$ -$ 360,000$ -$ -$ -$ 440,000$ -$ 360,000$ -$ -$ -$
9
Complete Streets Reconstruction 2023/2024
Requested Funding: $4,500,000
This annual program funds reconstruction of deteriorated City streets, including
curb and gutter, sidewalk, and drainage improvements as necessary. Where
appropriate, it will include appropriate complete streets bicycle and pedestrian
access improvements.
2,250,000$ -$ -$ 2,250,000$ -$ -$ 2,250,000$ -$ -$ 2,250,000$ -$ -$
Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log
Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 4
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
Parks
Impact
Fees
Council Funding Allocations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks
Impact
Fees
#Project Description
Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources
10
Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion
Requested Funding: $507,000
This park (Emery St and 800 S.) currently has a half court - which is used,
frequently, with players spilling out all over the court and grass surrounding it.
Basketball, to an extent, is the glue that holds the youth in our neighborhood
together. It creates bonds. Sees no color - just "mad skills"! This park has needed
some TLC for a VERY long time. This year, we finally saw some improvements in
the form of sprinkler repairs. Our volleyball court received some intense care to
pull out weeds, and till the sand. Guess what? The youth and families are now
converging for a game or two every other day. "If you build it, they will come,"
holds true over and over again as we start to see some overdue care on the
Westside. Adding the full basketball court, along with the dual pickle ball and
tennis court (underway by the Public Lands Dept.) to this Park, will bring it to the
light it truly deserves. This project will fund the expansion of the court which
includes demolition, irrigation adjustments, a new concrete court, fencing,
signage (that would include a flower bed, which will provide beautification
opportunities for Friends of Poplar Grove Park to showcase their flower planting
skills over the years). Furthermore, it will also fund an artist to design and paint a
mural on the new court. Which will provide an opportunity for local artists to
share their talents with the community. There are so many benefits to this project -
it invites all to participate, enjoy and cherish this wonderful open space for many
years to come. COVID-19 may have been a hard time to deal with, but our parks
became the extension of our homes and will remain that way for a long
253,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 253,500$ 253,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 253,500$
11
Jordan Park and Peace Gardens Cultural Landscape Report and
Master Plan
Requested Funding: $200,000
This project will fund the development of a Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) for
the 33.5 acres of both Jordan Park and the International Peace Gardens. The CLR
will outline site history, elements and features that contribute to the historic and
cultural significance of the site, and recommendations to retain and enhance
these values. The CLR will inform and be followed by a Master Plan for the site.
The master plan will include potential recommendations for how and if Salt Lake
City should expand the Peace Gardens and increase amenities and programming
at Jordan Park. This funding will include robust community and stakeholder
engagement, visioning for both sites, as well as implementation strategies and
prioritization. Public Lands has received significant interest from stakeholders,
cultural associations and organizations, and individuals to expand the Peace
Gardens, which will require formal planning before proceeding with expansion.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log
Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 5
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
Parks
Impact
Fees
Council Funding Allocations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks
Impact
Fees
#Project Description
Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources
12
Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parklet
Requested Funding: $850,000
In November 2022, Public Lands acquired a property adjoining Cottonwood Dog
Park and the Jordan River located at 356 Redwood Road. The dirt lot has long
been used as an informal parking lot for dog park users, even prior to property
acquisition. This project would develop a trailhead and parking lot that better
serve the park’s current and future users. This site has the potential to better serve
as a gateway to the Jordan River Trail and to Cottonwood Park as a whole, with
interpretive signage, wayfinding, improved connectivity, landscaping, and a small
gathering space along the river. This would also provide lighting and artwork to
provide a welcoming space. This project also funds a new restroom facility to
replace the existing failing restroom.
202,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 648,000$ 202,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 648,000$
13
Three Creeks West - Roadways Addendum
Requested Funding: $850,000
At the urging and recommendation of Salt Lake City staff, this application comes
to rectify a miscalculation by the city in estimating the cost of the 2023 CIP "Three
Creeks West – Roadways" project, which calls for reconstructing about two blocks
of 1300 South and 1000 West beside the Jordan River. This Council-approved
project will install sanitary sewers, storm sewers, curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
roadway reconstruction and all necessary infrastructure. None of this
infrastructure exists in this residential neighborhood, established in the 1920s to
1950s. The oldest house on the roadway was built in 1925 and mine was built in
1939. Installing sanitary sewers will enable removal of failing septic systems that
are leaching harmful E. coli into surface water, causing a health threat. This
project is endorsed by the Glendale Community Council and residents of all 25
homes on the roadways. Staff tell me the 2023 city-generated estimate for this
project fell short to cover costs, and $850,000 more is needed. The project was
approved by the CIP citizen advisory board, Mayor Erin Mendenhall, and ratified
in resolution by the City Council on Aug. 16, 2022.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
14
Complete Streets Overlay 2023/2024
Requested Funding: $3,500,000
This annual program funds rehabilitation of deteriorated City streets, including
curb and gutter, sidewalk, and drainage improvements as necessary. Where
appropriate, it will include appropriate complete streets bicycle and pedestrian
access improvements.
-$ -$ -$ 1,250,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,250,000$ -$ -$
Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log
Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 6
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
Parks
Impact
Fees
Council Funding Allocations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks
Impact
Fees
#Project Description
Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources
15
Urban Trails: The Other Side Village & the 9-Line Trail
Requested Funding: $1,700,000
Two projects are critical to this urban trails request: connectivity for The Other
Side Village just west of Redwood Road, and a short gap in the 9-Line Trail near
the University of Utah. This request seeks funding for critical trail connections in
support of "The Other Side Village," the tiny home village with assistive services
that will be constructed just west of Redwood Road in the City's Glendale / Poplar
Grove neighborhoods. The Village is very near, but not yet connected to, key
resources including frequent transit service on Redwood Road; a new Transit Hub
approximately 1/3 mile directly north at Orange Street and 500 South; and the
existing 9-Line Trail (from Redwood Road to the University of Utah). A charter
school, Wallace Stegner Academy, also west of Redwood Road, is an additional
key destination to be served by these trails. $1.2 million will be allocated to begin
improvements, currently under study, which will prioritize a multi-use trail
and/or sidewalks on Indiana Avenue; safer crossings of Redwood Road; a new
multi-use trail north from the Village to the transit center; and/or segments of the
9-line trail and Surplus Canal Trail (see map). This is anticipated to be Phase 1 of
three or four requests. Funds will also be used for a missing gap in the 9-Line
Trail near the University of Utah, where the 12' wide multi-use trail along
Sunnyside Avenue narrows down to a scant 4' wide sidewalk, creating conflicts
between bicyclists and pedestrians. This segment was not able to be developed
during the initial trail construction due to a lack of easement from the property
owner; a portion of the $500,000 request will be used to secure that easement as
well as to construct the full width of trail.
-$ -$ 1,700,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,700,000$ -$ -$ -$
16
Rose Park and Jordan River Recreation Hub
Requested Funding: $459,000
The Public Lands Department has the opportunity to acquire the Rose Park Golf
Course driving range from its Golf Division for the purpose of improving more
equitably accessible public open space. This improvement would vastly expand
green space in the Rose Park and Westpointe areas. This project would fund
planning, community engagement, and conceptual design for the future driving
range site as well as the existing Roots Disc Golf Course as one cohesive recreation
hub. This hub would be the largest open space along the Jordan River within Salt
Lake City. This funding would not include the acquisition costs of the driving
range, only planning and conceptual design for that site. In addition, this project
would fund design and construction of specific site improvements identified in the
planning and engagement process at the Roots Disc Golf Course. This may include
irrigation modifications, additional trees, building upgrades, and naturalized
landscaping.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log
Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 7
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
Parks
Impact
Fees
Council Funding Allocations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks
Impact
Fees
#Project Description
Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources
17
Citywide Park Restroom Planning Study/Fairmont Restroom
Conceptual Design
Requested Funding: $75,000
Restroom safety and vandalism present ongoing problems in city parks, especially
the large, heavily used parks. Friends of Fairmont Park and other stakeholders
have raised this issue with Parks officials for some time. Friends of Fairmont
invited Parks to present ideas about restroom design on January 11, 2022 and
dialogue occurred regarding new designs that could reduce vandalism. We have
identified a key design flaw with how restrooms in the Parks are configured, and
that if addressed, can significantly reduce (but sadly not eliminate) problems. The
Fairmont Park Restroom Pilot CIP for 2022-23 proposes a (1) planning study to
update planning guidance for parks restroom policy and practice, (2) conceptual
design for a new restroom to be tested in Fairmont Park. It is expected that the
new design strategy will reduce vandalism and maintenance costs and increase
restroom uptime and safety. The intent is to benchmark a proposed new restroom
configuration against the current design in other parks, to test the viability of this
approach, developing best practice in park restroom management.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
18
Madsen Park Improvements
Requested Funding: $500,000
This project seeks to improve Madsen Park by increasing activation through
improving existing structures and adding new amenities in order to encourage
more visitation. The surrounding area is planned to increase in population from
apartments on and near North Temple. The improvements at the park would
improve the quality of life for all area residents. Improvements include
installation of new lighting, playground renewal, installation of a fenced dog park,
benches, a small pavilion, seating and signage.
Note that this park was selected a District Two location to receive funding from
the voter-approved Parks, Trails, & Open Space Bond
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
19
Fire Station No. 7 Tennis and Pickleball Court Restoration and
Amenities
Requested Funding: $855,000
This project will fund construction for restoring the courts and adding amenities
at the Fire Station No. 7 Tennis Park on 300 North (west of 1000 West). This
space is currently two failed tennis courts. One tennis court will be restored and
the other will be converted into two pickleball courts. The addition of two
pickleball courts is necessary to meet increasing demand for usable pickleball
courts throughout the city. There are currently no dedicated pickleball courts on
the westside. This project would also complete associated amenities on site as
funding is available such as court lighting, drinking fountains, and ADA access.
Public Lands is funding the design of the courts which will be completed in early
2023. This funding will go towards construction costs of the courts and other
associated amenities.
438,850$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 416,150$ 438,850$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 416,150$
Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log
Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 8
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
Parks
Impact
Fees
Council Funding Allocations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks
Impact
Fees
#Project Description
Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources
20
337 Park Development
Requested Funding: $550,000
337 Pocket Park was initially established as a community garden, but has since
been decommissioned as such due to adjacent higher density property
development to the south shading out agricultural potential. The parcel has since
been sitting vacant. This potential pocket park needs significant development in
order to add public land level of service to District 4. Funding would facilitate
public engagement, planning and design, and construction of the site. This project
is an expansion of a previously submitted constituent CIP application during the
FY22-23 cycle with the addition of Public Lands-supported direction for
implementation. Currently, a small portion of the parcel (nearest to 400 East) has
public art and plantings. This project would develop the remainder of the parcel.
Potential amenities and features of this site will be determined with public
engagement but could include an off-leash dog park, seating, and native plantings
appropriate for shaded areas. This property has been the subject of continuous
encroachments since the lot to the south of this parcel has been under
development. There have been inquiries about the 337 Park lot being reduced to
allow for access to the southern development. Because of the increased interest in
this lot and the threat to this valuable property in a low level-of-service area for
parks, it is critical for the development of this lot to move forward as quickly as
possible.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 550,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 550,000$
Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log
Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 9
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
Parks
Impact
Fees
Council Funding Allocations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks
Impact
Fees
#Project Description
Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources
21
Rose Park Lane Beautification, Trail, and Safety Improvements
Requested Funding: $840,000
There is a great need for improvements along Rose Park Ln. This project would
fund replacement of the failed trail, new and modified irrigation, and two solar
feedback speed limit signs. The Urban Forestry division has committed to
providing trees and installation at the new sites on Rose Park Lane. The trail work
would allow for significantly more trees in this area and would contribute overall
to a much more beautiful space. The entire stretch of Rose Park Ln is currently
covered in weeds and highly neglected. Part of it was irrigated 4-5 years ago for
the WestPointe run off ditch (large grassy area/detention basin at the corner of
Rose Park Ln and 1700N), but this irrigation was never extended for the
remainder of that stretch of road. This lane is highly visible from I-215 with large
volumes of traffic going to the beautiful soccer fields just a few feet up the road.
This has increased the traffic and speed of that traffic on Rose Park Ln. Safety is
an issue as cars will continue to use highway speeds down that road upward of 60
MPH. I believe that fixing the trail, planting trees with irrigation, and erecting
visible solar speed limit signs on Rose Park Ln would greatly improve community
morale and safety for the families that walk with their children and pets, and bike
and run on this trail. Adding trees and speed limit signs will also help in reducing
air pollution, high summer heat and traffic noise. I recommend solar radar
feedback speed limit signs to help slow down the traffic - one sign after the 2100N
Exit just beyond the RAC entrance of the RAC, and the other sign at 1700N
entrance. This area has been highly neglected for the last 17 years and continues
to see more and more traffic with less and less help or attention in the way of
beatification of a vital and thriving neighborhood
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
22
Richmond Park Community Playground
Requested Funding: $530,000
This project will replace one of the oldest playgrounds in the city located at
Richmond Park. Utilizing the existing playground space, this project would create
two play areas to cater towards younger and older children. This playground
would utilize larger equipment with more features to create more potential for
play and a higher level of service. The playground will incorporate accessible
design to be friendly and usable by a diversity of users of all abilities. This project
also includes removal and replacement of safety surfacing throughout the
playground site. The new community playground will provide an inviting and
engaging place for the Central City community to play while supporting resident
health and wellness. This community currently has the lowest level of park service
in our city and will significantly benefit from increased amenities. This
playground will further activate the park by adding in a place for children to play
while adults utilize the community garden. Public Lands has over 70 playgrounds,
and this project would address one of the highest needs in our system.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log
Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 10
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
Parks
Impact
Fees
Council Funding Allocations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks
Impact
Fees
#Project Description
Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources
23
Rose Park Lane Open Space and Trail Connection Study
Requested Funding: $140,000
In summer 2022, City Council approved the rezone of four Public Lands parcels
on Rose Park Lane to Open Space. This project seeks funding to conduct a
planning, engagement, and conceptual design process on these four parcels,
totaling approximately 3.6 acres, for a new park/open space. This will include
evaluating different uses on site and conducting studies on completing the trail
connection through the open space. There is currently no sidewalk through these
parcels, and there are no other amenitized park spaces that directly service this
neighborhood. This project would fund initial studies to better inform a next
phase for design and construction of the open space. This project is closely
connected to the application "Rose Park Lane Beautification, Trail, and Safety
Improvements" which would complete landscaping and trail improvements on the
trail leading to the open space. This project also builds on Public Land's current
work to demolish the abandoned house on the property which is a very high
priority for the Westpointe community.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
24
Jefferson Park Improvements
Requested Funding: $530,000
Jefferson Park is an under-resourced jewel in the Ballpark Neighborhood. This
application seeks to address long standing issues identified in the City’s Ballpark
Station Area Plan, including “a lack of service and proper maintenance in current
parks”. The City and our residents have been discussing ways to improve the park
for years. The City notes that our neighborhood is “underserved for parks and
open space” and given the move to increase the density of housing in the area, we
can only anticipate more stressors. It is time to preserve and improve what we
already have. The park currently has a small, aging playground with two benches,
a set of temporary soccer nets, and an off leash dog area. We request the
following: Safety improvements: Ample, attractive 'dark sky' lighting throughout
the perimeter of the park and fencing around the playground area. Given the
area’s crime, this is essential. Health improvements: Permanent, attractive
garbage cans along the perimeter of the park to reduce the constant flow of
garbage (including clothing, needles and human waste), and to encourage
responsible dog ownership. Activation improvements: The retention pond berm is
an ideal location for a walking path around the park and provide residents a place
to exercise. Adding a few benches (with garbage cans) under the existing shade
trees, like in Liberty Park, will encourage activation.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 530,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 530,000$
Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log
Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 11
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
Parks
Impact
Fees
Council Funding Allocations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks
Impact
Fees
#Project Description
Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources
25
Parks Bilingual Signage Installation
Requested Funding: $414,000
This project will replace existing signage and add new bilingual signage in English
and Spanish in approximately ten parks citywide. This project will be the second
phase of implementation of the City's new multi-lingual signage standards. The
standards were completed in early 2022, with the first phase of implementation
occurring in 2022 and early 2023. The first phase of implementation included
these ten parks: Westpointe Park, Sunnyside Park, Pioneer Park, City Creek Park,
Poplar Grove Park, Cottonwood Park, Rotary Glen/Donner Trail Park, Jordan
Park, Riverside Park, Liberty Park. These parks were initially chosen because they
are classified as Community Parks in the Public Lands Master Plan, have
numerous and varying amenities, and lack effective signage types and locations
currently. Currently, many parks, natural areas and public spaces are not
adequately signed for appropriate and effective communication of public lands'
regulations, assets, amenities, and stories. This project would not only add
signage to parks with outdated or inadequate signage, but would add bilingual
information on all signs in order to enhance communication and provide public
lands information more equitably and reliably throughout Salt Lake City. The
project will also help the City accomplish the goals of the recently-adopted
Reimagine Nature Public Lands Master Plan. While some of these parks are
classified as Neighborhood Parks, their size and varying amenities necessitate the
need for the addition of multiple signs that are not currently present in the park.
82,800$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 331,200$ 82,800$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 331,200$
26
Fairpark Traffic Circle Construction Phase
Requested Funding: $497,000
1000 West is an important street for the Fairpark neighborhood and access to the
Utah State Fairpark. Over the last two years, Salt Lake City Transportation
Division has engaged with the community about the challenges and opportunities
on 1000 West. Common requests for changes to 1000 West include slowing
vehicle speeds, making the crosswalks safer, improving street aesthetics, and
balancing regional access needs with neighborhood livability. This application is
requesting funds to build a traffic circle at the intersection of 1000 West and 500
North. This application is related to one submitted for FY23, that awarded funds
for study/design only. The Transportation Division is actively working on the
study/design while supporting this application for construction funds.
Intersection upgrades at 500 North is consistent with the 1000 West Corridor
Plan, which seeks to moderate vehicle speeds, improve walkability, add
landscaping, and create a gateway feature for the neighborhood.
-$ -$ 497,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 497,000$ -$ -$ -$
Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log
Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 12
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
Parks
Impact
Fees
Council Funding Allocations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks
Impact
Fees
#Project Description
Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources
27
North Temple Arts and Tourism District Improvements
Requested Funding: $495,111
We are in need of many improvements in the area to make residents, workers and
visitors feel safe and welcomed, and for ease of getting to work safely and
efficiently. In addition, there is another emotional need that enhances people's
sense of enjoyment and quality of life for both residents and visitors. These much
needed enhancements include pedestrian safety improvements to include, but not
limited to: 1. Pedestrian-scale, decorative lighting on 800 West from North
Temple to dead end at approximately 150 South. 2. Potential for raised
crosswalks, RRFB(s), or other enhanced pedestrian crossing features 3.
ADA/sidewalk improvements as needed. The Secondary goal, which fulfills
emotional needs of the community and quality of life, would be to activate park
blocks, including but not limited to: 1. Amenities / improvements for southern
three park blocks, which includes the two closest to Folsom Trail and the third
(southern-most) at the dead end, which in theory has the lowest volume vehicle
traffic, (between 800 W. from North Temple to dead end at approximately 150 S.).
Park amenities could include: Benches, Bike racks, Interactive kids’ features,
Climbable public artwork, Other public artwork (Arts Council has agreed to work
with team and carry out City’s public art process for commission if any public
artwork funding is awarded). These improvements to 800 West will make it feel
welcoming, inclusive, and safe, especially after dark. These improvements will
also support activating an arts centered, vibrant Westside neighborhood.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
28
Alleyway Improvements 2023/2024
Requested Funding: $250,000
This annual program, kicked off in 2021, funds reconstruction or rehabilitation of
deteriorated City alleyways, including pavement and drainage improvements as
necessary.
-$ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log
Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 13
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
Parks
Impact
Fees
Council Funding Allocations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks
Impact
Fees
#Project Description
Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources
29
Fire Station #1 Apparatus Bay Extension
Requested Funding: $1,148,771
Originally constructed in 1994, Fire Station #1 was built to house the resources
(both human and mechanical) that were in use at the time. Since then, much of
our apparatus and equipment needs at this strategic location have changed,
requiring additional space. Fire Station #1 is located at 211 South 500 East. The
call volume for this station is consistently the highest in the city and has been
steadily increasing over the past five years. In fact, it recently came to the
attention of SLCFD Administration that the current call volume and projected
increase would be unsustainable for the single fire engine that was housed there.
In response, the Administration made the data-based decision to reassign existing
resources within the City, in an effort to alleviate the pressure on the fire crews
operating out of Station 1 Specifically, a fire truck was moved from Fire Station #5
to Fire Station #1, essentially repurposing Fire Station #1 to what is known in the
industry as a “dual-company house.” While this reassignment of resources has
certainly shown a more balanced delivery of emergency services, there are
logistical limitations affecting the housing of the newly assigned aerial apparatus.
The three newest and most advanced trucks are too long to be housed in the
apparatus bays at Fire Station #1. We have implemented the use of an older,
shorter aerial apparatus. In the meantime, we await the construction of a new,
smaller in length truck (not a standard build) which is anticipated to take 3-4
years. There is uncertainty that the manufacturer will be able to build this length
of truck in the future. As such, it is requested that funding be made available to
design and construct the expansion of four (4) apparatus bays at Fire Station #1.
1,148,771$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,148,771$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
30
Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY24
Requested Funding: $1,700,000
Following a 10-year plan to eliminate the $45,600,000 in deferred asset renewal,
the Facilities Division will utilize the funds requested to replace assets that are
beyond their useful life, prioritizing assets based on their criticality.
1,700,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,700,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log
Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 14
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
Parks
Impact
Fees
Council Funding Allocations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks
Impact
Fees
#Project Description
Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources
31
Mill and Overlay Maintenance Pilot Program
Requested Funding: $750,000
The Streets Division, part of Public Services will be the project sponsor and
implementation manager. Streets is requesting to begin a Mill & Overlay pilot
program, which is a more robust form of roadway surface treatment. Many
existing city roadways do not currently need a full depth reconstruction but are
not in good enough condition for current maintenance surface treatments, namely
chip and slurry seal. If nothing is done, these roads will deteriorate rapidly and
soon require expensive reconstruction. The Mill & Overlay program would allow
Streets to perform maintenance on these roads at a lower cost. These roads would
also then be eligible for chip & slurry surface treatments a few years down the
road. The combination of the Mill & Overlay program with chip and slurry surface
treatments would put off the need for full depth reconstruction of eligible roads
for many years to come, saving the City money and increasing the quality of City
roadways. To carry out this pilot program Streets needs two additional pieces of
equipment, an Asphalt Paver, and a Cold-Milling Machine. These machines would
also assist in other maintenance the division performs, as currently a cold milling
machine is rented for four months each year (when available) at an annual cost of
$70,000.
-$ -$ 750,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 750,000$ -$ -$ -$
32
Sugar House Safe Side Streets Part 2
Requested Funding: $150,000
Design and construction of City staff recommendations on the project area’s six
local streets: Hollywood Avenue, Ramona Avenue, Garfield Avenue, Lincoln
Street, 1000 East, and McClelland Street. Continued funding on partially funded
CCIP, Sugar House Safe Side Streets, from FY 21/22. The Salt Lake City
Transportation Division has conducted a series of sessions with residents and
worked with a contracted Fehr & Peers consultant team. A recommendations
document with a draft traffic calming treatment design has been created and
shared with residents. This CCIP request seeks to fill the funding gap between
what has been awarded in previous years and what is required to complete the
infrastructure recommended for implementation in the plan.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log
Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 15
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
Parks
Impact
Fees
Council Funding Allocations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks
Impact
Fees
#Project Description
Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources
33
Historic Restorations, Replacements, Conservation Work at
International Peace Gardens
Requested Funding: $325,000
The International Peace Gardens in District 2 receives hundreds of visitors per
day but contains much tired and dilapidated garden architecture. Hollows left by
stolen plaques and artwork everywhere remind visitors of theft and vandalism
and limit their understanding of the history and cultures behind the 28 national
garden exhibits. CIP funding is needed to replace or replicate, conserve, and
conceive a plan and trust fund for future upkeep of this trove of art, ethnic and
botanic diversity. Specific projects are listed in the budget narrative and will be
completed in priority order, if funded. Additionally, if funding is leveraged by
other sources, this funding would be used to complete additional projects. The
types of projects include: Security/GPS tracking chips for each asset, conservation
and restoration artworks, design and replacement of artwork that has been
removed/stolen, replacement of perennial botanicals and landscaping, structural
study and design exploring expansion of the greenhouse while assessing the
feasibility of a visitor space/exhibition space.
325,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 325,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
34
Fred and Ila Rose Wetland Preserve Improvements
Requested Funding: $361,073
Improved public access for intended non-consumptive nature users through 1) the
installation of boulder manways at all three entrances, 2) complete removal of
dysfunctional Preserve-long split-rail fencing, 3) complete removal of rock-filled
gabion baskets at both pond-side access points, and 4) creation of sloped cracked
gravel beaches at both pondside access points. Installation of low fencing to newly
installed manways to help limit access to the Preserve at its two entrances at 1100
West. Installation of a low gate at its northwest entrance to allow for occasional
needed operations and maintenance by authorized vehicles. Design and
installation of a trash-rack in front of the wetland pond outlet to facilitate water
exchange while still allowing in-and-out migration of Jordan River wildlife,
especially fishes.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log
Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 16
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
Parks
Impact
Fees
Council Funding Allocations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks
Impact
Fees
#Project Description
Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources
35
75-Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement
Requested Funding: $400,000
Upgrade an aging traffic signal, along with parts of the surrounding intersection,
with safety and operational improvements for all modes. The typical life of a
traffic signal is 30 years. After that age, frequent repairs are needed, and the
structural supports for the traffic signal may be at risk of failing. Twenty traffic
signals in Salt Lake City are over 40 years old, with some of them rapidly
approaching 75 years old. This project will fund the design and construction to
replace one of the oldest and/or poorest condition traffic signals in Salt Lake City.
The project will replace and upgrade the signal with new steel poles, signal heads,
and detection, including current best practices for pedestrian detection and
design, pedestrian countdown timers, and motor vehicle left turn phasing, as
needed. It is anticipated that a traffic signal along 1300 East near the University of
Utah will be selected. Those traffic signals were constructed in 1948.
-$ -$ 360,000$ -$ 40,000$ -$ -$ -$ 360,000$ -$ 40,000$ -$
36
Park Strip, Median, Park Irrigation / Water Reduction Strategy and
Implementation
Requested Funding: $500,000
This project will explore different methods of transforming our medians, park
strips, and non-active park spaces to reduce the amount of water use in these
areas not used for active play. Our park strips, parks, and medians have a lot of
grass in them and we would like to have a consultant look at some areas in the
City and explore different alternatives to grass or different varieties of grass that
will reduce our water consumption. We would then use project funding to be able
to change several of these areas and help the City become a leader in transforming
these types areas to a better use of water in the City. There are a lot of park strips
in the City that are hard to irrigate, so let's try and turn them into something that
saves water and is still user friendly. We could also look at areas to be more of a
pollinator gardens to benefit the environment while being pleasing to the eye. We
would like to research what would be sustaining in our environment while not
being a burden on maintenance. It could be mulch, rock, different grasses the sky
is the limit. Let us be the innovators and help the City overcome our water woes
one park strip at a time.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log
Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 17
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
Parks
Impact
Fees
Council Funding Allocations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks
Impact
Fees
#Project Description
Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources
37
Liberty and Jordan Parks Greenhouses - Revisioned
Requested Funding: $242,823
Salt Lake City’s greenhouses located in Liberty (LPG) and Jordan (JPG) Parks are
showing signs of aging requiring repair and renovation to ensure they continue to
support the community’s horticultural, biodiversity, and conservation interests.
Part 1 – Structural audits of both facilities are planned to identify the type and
extent of repairs needed in order to ensure safe working conditions, compliance
with statutory regulations, and enhancing the building’s life cycle by identifying
both preventative and corrective actions to secure the properties. Part 2 –
Examines to what degree the current structure and any proposed renovations
support LPG’s and JPG’s mission statements. Part 2 includes a marketing study to
identify a) options to extend mission statements to include innovative
programs/activities of interest to the general public and/or that support the
development of new collaborative partnerships with other horticultural
institutions, and b) identify how to ‘scale up’ select activities/programs (e.g., aid
municipalities to promote biodiversity/sustainability) to address conservations
interests of a broader set of constituents in order to generate (consultation) self-
supporting revenues. Part 3 – Develops a plan, budget, and timetable to conduct a
collegiate case competition (in collaboration with the University of Utah’s College
of Architecture and Planning) to review/evaluate technical and aesthetic
proposals to guide LPG renovations per historical guidelines/updated mission.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
38
First Encampment Park
Requested Funding: $125,500
The Park is 26 years old & upgrades & improvements are needed to improve
safety & ensure continued usage. Goals include mending and upgrading the
sprinkler system and incorporating drip systems to reduce water waste & rock
erosion; improving drainage in the dry 'riverbed' to reduce standing water issues;
adding motion sensor lighting to improve safety and discourage criminal activity;
repairing damaged monuments to improve the perception that the park is valued;
replanting water-wise vegetation that has eroded to improve visibility within the
park; adding a more visible park sign; adding historical placards with added
context; repairing engraved pioneer names damaged by water on the rocks to
ensure continued historical value and work with new Park Rangers to share &
modernize accessible historical information.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log
Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 18
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
Parks
Impact
Fees
Council Funding Allocations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks
Impact
Fees
#Project Description
Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources
39
Indiana Avenue Area - Transit & Trail Connections
Requested Funding: $162,500
In October, the Salt Lake City Council approved The Other Side Village (TOSV)
pilot project, a tiny home community just west of Redwood Road on Indiana
Avenue. Also just west of Redwood Road, the Wallace Stegner Academy (WSA)
charter school, Riverbend Sports and Events Complex, and Vincit Amor Event
Center are all attracting families and individuals to the evolving, formerly-
industrial area. This request for design funding will follow on a Transportation
Division study, currently in progress, that is assessing the feasibility,
recommended phasing, and cost estimates for a suite of projects on either side of
Redwood Road, between 400 S and California Ave. This proposal seeks funds for
the design and permitting of three key elements to connect TOSV, WSA, and other
destinations to walking, biking, and transit options, and to existing infrastructure
such as the 9-Line Trail, a new transit hub opening in early 2023 at Orange Street
/ 500 S, and sidewalks on Redwood Road. • The design and environmental
assessment / permitting of a multi-use trail connection between The Other Side
Village development and the new transit hub. • The possible location of one or
more GREENbike stations connecting the village, the transit center, and bus stops
along Redwood Road. • The design of a signalized crossing of Redwood Road at
either Redwood Depot Lane (~950 S) and Redwood Rd or 1040 South and
Redwood Road. The final location will be decided in discussion with UDOT. This
signal may be a pedestrian and bicycle signal, or a full traffic signal. Future funds
will be sought for construction.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
40
Multimodal Capital Maintenance
Requested Funding: $200,000
These funds are for hiring contractors for specialized maintenance of
infrastructure for which SLC does not have the equipment or staff. Examples:
enhanced crosswalks, bike lanes, bike racks, colored pavement, delineators, radar
speed feedback signs, pedestrian warning flashers, bike racks, etc.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
41
700 South (Phase 7, 4600 West to 5000 West) Additional Funding
Requested Funding: $4,000,000
This project will complete the last half mile of a 4.6 mile 700 South
reconfiguration from 25 Ft wide deteriorated asphalt road to a 50 FT wide
concrete street with bicycle lanes, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and storm drainage
from Redwood Rd to 5600 West. Additional funding is needed to complete the
package for multiple reasons: a water main 1,300 feet long is required to be
replaced ($650,000); Styrofoam fill was proposed to mitigate settlement over the
water main as a cost savings method, however that proposal was rejected; Union
Pacific changed the City cost of the rail crossing from $400,000 to $1,200,000;
inflation has driven up the cost of construction.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log
Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 19
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
Parks
Impact
Fees
Council Funding Allocations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks
Impact
Fees
#Project Description
Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources
42
800 S 1000 E Crosswalk Upgrade
Requested Funding: $336,500
Every day throughout the day many parents, children and volunteers at Rowland
Hall, as well as students and families attending Judge Memorial and East High,
cross the busy intersection of 800 South 1000 East in conditions that are very
dangerous. We are asking for a HAWK style crosswalk system to replace the
existing rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) at this busy intersection. We
suggest moving the RRFBs to the next crosswalk to the west, at Lincoln St 800
South. In addition, the 1000 East crosswalk is in disrepair and we request it be
replaced with a colored concrete crosswalk. Drivers of vehicles speed up and down
800 South. The road has two lanes in each direction, eastbound and westbound
left turn lanes, and a deteriorated 4-foot median on the intersection's east side.
This crosswalk is also at the bottom of a hill that encourages westbound speeding
and challenges sightlines from both directions. Currently, there is a tree blocking
visibility for the cars driving westbound. There have been many near misses as
children cross one side in safety, only to be stranded in the middle of the street as
drivers from the other side blow through the intersection unaware that a student
has started to cross. Given all of these factors, a more visible way to highlight
pedestrians crossing the street, and ensure student and adult safety would be
greatly appreciated. We are asking for a HAWK style crosswalk system to better
protect children and families, moving the existing RRFBs to the next crosswalk to
the west (Lincoln St 800 South), and replacing the deteriorated crosswalk with a
colored concrete crosswalk
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
43
Central 9th Streetscape Improvements
Requested Funding: $85,000
The Central 9th Community Council is seeking CIP Funds to purchase and install
nine commercial trash receptacles to be located on 900 S, between West Temple
and 300 W. We are also seeking funding for banner arms to be attached to the
street lighting on 900 S between West Temple and 300 W and 200 W between
800 S and the 900 S freeway off-ramp for Central 9th branding banners. Also we
would like laser cut C9 logos to be attached to benches and planters along public
spaces on 900 S between West Temple and 200 W as well as 200 W between 800
S and the 900 S freeway off-ramp.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log
Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 20
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
Parks
Impact
Fees
Council Funding Allocations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks
Impact
Fees
#Project Description
Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources
44
Sugar House Community Map Project
Requested Funding: $93,400
Maps present information about the world in a simple, visual way. They are living
documents that inform, direct, and recognize a community’s open spaces, historic
buildings, public services, and points of interest. Sugar House is a special
community—a true inner-city that balances the needs of residents, visitors,
merchants, vendors, families, students, and others unlike any other region in Salt
Lake City. Strategically placed maps throughout Sugar House would inform and
direct pedestrians and cyclists, identify key locations in the community, provide
specific branding for Sugar House, and showcase pride for the sweetest
neighborhood in Utah. The Sugar House Community Map Project will install eight
(8) outdoor maps in the community. The maps will detail assets, historic
landmarks, public works, open spaces, places of interest, and walking/biking
paths. In addition, each map will include a QR code to connect with the Sugar
House Business Alliance.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
45
Phase I: Plaza 349 Life Safety, Security, and HVAC Upgrades
Requested Funding: $2,000,000
Plaza 349 is critical to the day to day operations of the city by hosting several key
departments including: Human Resources (HR), Engineering, Information
Management Services (IMS), Transportation, and Building Inspection divisions.
The city has commissioned a space planning and vulnerability study which
identified key elements to be updated including life safety, access controls, and
security. Facilities department has also identified key assets, including HVAC
system and parking structure, that require updating to ensure operation. This CIP
application is for the first phase of the project and will include upgrading life
safety, access controls, security, HVAC design, and key HVAC asset upgrades. The
estimated cost of the first phase is $2 million.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
46
Implementation of Safety Enhancements West Side Foothill Drive
Requested Funding: $494,126
Building safer intersections for pedestrians and cyclists at major Foothill Drive
intersections. In 2017 the Foothill Drive Implementation Strategy was completed
with community input and professional planners. Since then little has been done
to address the safety issues and solutions suggested in the plan. Residents and
users of this corridor are seeking funds to implement changes along the west side
at intersections between Bryan Avenuye and 2600 East.The most important
intersection is 2500 East and Blaine Avenue near the Beacon Heights Elementary
School.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log
Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 21
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
Parks
Impact
Fees
Council Funding Allocations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks
Impact
Fees
#Project Description
Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources
47
Reimagining 4th & 4th (4th West & 4th South)
Requested Funding: $100,000
4th (N) & 4th (W) is a critical piece of the Capitol Hill-Marmalade neighborhood
infrastructure. A redesign of the intersection and the evolving 400 N and 400 W
corridors has the potential to connect residents and visitors with the rich social
infrastructure of the neighborhood. The proposed study is intended to create and
improve community gathering places and develop safe, efficient, green, and
pleasing neighborhood-wide connections for pedestrians, cyclists, transit users,
and vehicle drivers.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
48
11th Ave Park Pavilion, Trees, and Benches
Requested Funding: $533,165
Install a new medium sized pavilion for shade and provide a gathering place for
families, friends and neighbors. It will be located near the sports fields and north
of the parking area, and would be large enough for six picnic tables and provide
space for several groups to gather in the shade. Seating: The views from 11th
Avenue Park are outstanding, however, there are few places to sit. Seating would
be added at the top of the two slopes and adjacent to looped path. Backless
benches will allow for viewing either the sports fields, the tennis or the valley
below. Landscape enhancements: Increase the number of shade trees in the area
near the playground, pavilion, and sports fields. Increased shade will offer refuge
for spectators and families with small children. It is also critical to have trees of
different age classes to create a healthy urban forest. Concrete Pad: With
destination level recreation amenities there is a need to provide restrooms during
the peak-use seasons. Seasonal demand can be met with portable units. A
concrete pad near the entrance would make the park more usable for all who use
the park.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
49
New Liberty Park Crosswalks and Trails
Requested Funding: $262,000
Two proposed crosswalks across 500 E along with new sidewalks connecting to
the Liberty Park sidewalk loop. One crosswalk would connect Edith Ave to Liberty
Park, and one would connect Williams Ave to Liberty Park. These new crosswalks
would benefit the local community by a) increasing pedestrian access to Salt Lake
City’s flagship park, b) reducing speed on 500 E by adding visual friction to the
road, and c) improving pedestrian safety by allowing people to avoid crossing at
busy intersections.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log
Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 22
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
Parks
Impact
Fees
Council Funding Allocations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks
Impact
Fees
#Project Description
Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources
50
Sunnyside and Arapeen Signal & Safety Improvements
Requested Funding: $450,000
The intersection at Sunnyside/Arapeen represents a significant impediment to
traffic entering the Research Park area and creates traffic congestion that impacts
the neighborhood adjacent to Sunnyside Avenue and to Foothill Drive. This
volume of left-turning traffic would justify adding a new left-turn lane.
Additionally, the 9-Line Trail (Sunnyside Trail) is on the north side of the
roadway, and vehicles that make a westbound to northbound left-turn conflict
with trail users in an unsafe manner. This project seeks to address these issues
through the use of a technology called a "Flex Lane". This relatively new signal
technology would allow one of the westbound through lanes to be converted to a
shared left-through lane during this morning rush hour, resulting in less
congestion and less frustration for residents in the area. In this way, we can use
technology to avoid widening the roadway for a dual left and maximize the facility
we already have. This technology has recently been employed by UDOT at the
intersection of South Temple / State Street for people making a southbound left
turn and has resulted in improved conditions in that area. The added benefit of
this change would be that we could modify the signal phasing so that when the
trail through traffic has a green light, no left turns are permitted. When the left
turning traffic has a green arrow, trail users would be stopped. We are also
planning some additional bike infrastructure at the intersection. In order to
complete this project, it would be necessary to completely rebuild the signal as
well as the pavement in the intersection, which is in a failed condition. The project
is also planned to include several complete street enhancements to the crosswalks
and bike lanes at the intersection.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
51
Wasatch Hollow Park: Engagement, Planning & Restoration
Requested Funding: $500,000
The Wasatch Hollow Community Council (WHCC) has been collaborating with
SLC Public Lands regarding critical improvements to Wasatch Hollow Park. As a
response to growing concerns about safety, degradation of the park, and non-
compliance with posted off-leash dog guidelines, SLC Public Lands conducted a
survey in August of residents. The survey sought input on off-leash dog use and
other activities at the park, with the goal of serving a diverse and inclusive
community of park users. The WHCC is considering the survey results and other
community inputs, and intends to submit recommendations to the City. This
project would fund a planning and engagement process at Wasatch Hollow park
to identify capital improvements that are well supported by the surrounding
community and address existing challenges at the park, specifically related to off-
leash dogs and activation. The resulting plan is expected to include
recommendations for better separation of the off-leash dog area and the creation
of other active and passive use areas where dogs are not allowed to be off-leash,
new landscaping and restoration of the field. Remaining funding would then be
used for design and construction of plan recommendations.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log
Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 23
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
Parks
Impact
Fees
Council Funding Allocations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks
Impact
Fees
#Project Description
Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources
52
Hansen Ave - West Entrance/Exit
Requested Funding: $470,703
Purchase a small portion of private property at approximately 400 West Hansen
Ave to create a second (west) access point for Hansen Ave. Initial contact with the
property owner indicates that they would be amenable to having the conversation
about selling this property. Would include upgrading the property to City
standards for a public road. This would convert this current street from a dead
end street to one with two access points. There would be many benefits both
public and private for this change. As detailed later in this application in more
detail. A brief overview is as follows: Currently Hansen Ave (1650 South 300
West) enters and exists about 120 feet from a very busy intersection - 1700
South/300 West. This creates a lot of congestion along with several other
problems. Emergency vehicle (Fire trucks/ambulances) access would be
significantly improved. City Maintenance (snowplowing) would be significantly
improved. Garbage collection would be significantly improved. Freight and
package delivery for the existing businesses and the soon to be 175 new residents
would significantly improved.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
53
Nevada Street Reconstruction
Requested Funding: $479,000
Rebuild Nevada St running from Redondo Ave north to Garfield.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
54
Sunnyside Pickleball Courts
Requested Funding: $500,000
Idea 1 - Sunnyside 4/6 Pickleball courts at Sunnyside Park on 800 South. Like to
incorporate the best elements of all the pickle courts that I have visited in the SLC
area. Ideal court location would be just south of the existing pavilion near the
parking lot. This an older affluent area that would benefit from the following
elements: Tall perimeter fencing to retain the ball within the courts, short fencing
separating the internal courts, Sitting or bench area, covered, Night Lights,
Flagging above to shade from sun, Paddle Rack system (like Fairnont court),
Placard/signage that describes court rules, Court location will not infringe on the
3 existing large fields on the west side of the park used for football and lacrosse,
nor the baseball fields on the north side, New Courts in this location will require:
Removal of the vollyeball standards, never used, Removal or replanting of trees...
Planting should be planted to strategically create shade for waiting players
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
55
1200 E Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk
Requested Funding: $351,000
Install curb and gutter on east side of road, and curb, gutter, and sidewalk on west
side of road on 1200 East between Zenith Ave. and Crandall Ave.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log
Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 24
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
Parks
Impact
Fees
Council Funding Allocations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks
Impact
Fees
#Project Description
Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources
56
Salt Lake City Pétanque
Requested Funding: $500,000
I was National champion in a sport called petanque in 2019. Our national
organization wanted us to put out bids. So I did and they got rejected as we don't
have a facility to hold national tournaments. We are a growing sport and even had
a medal winner on the last world games in Atlanta. What we ask for is a venue so
we can practice. That way we can get national tournaments to Salt lake City. In
almost every park, we see bocce courts but I never seen any bocce players. We are
starting to grow as a sport and would love to have our own location. This project is
proposing the addition of 16 Petanque courts, along with shade structures and
seating at Rosewood Park.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
57
Ensign Peak Nature Park Improvements
Requested Funding: $210,000
Ensign Nature Park attracts thousands of visitors at all hours of day and night.
However, the park was not designed to handle the volume of traffic it receives,
and it shows; the park lacks adequate facilities for visitors (no water or
bathrooms), has heavily eroded trails and is not designed to manage the visitor
volume. The increase in popularity of the park in recent years has come at
considerable cost to the residents in the area - traffic, noise, littering and crime.
Most of this adverse impact to the community is at night. The goal of this project
is to reduce the impact to the community and be a first step towards enabling the
park to be improved over the long-term. Before any other improvements can be
sustainably made to the park, we need to limit late night access to the park, for the
following reasons: 1) The impact on the community is severe - the late night
crowd is loud - drinking, playing loud music, driving loudly, etc at all hours of the
day -- it is common for significant numbers of people to be there even at 3am.
They frequently leave beer bottles, fast food containers and other trash on
neighboring lawns. 2) Public safety - there have been dangerous fires caused by
night time visitors to the park at least twice, and firearms have been discharged at
least twice in the last 2 years in the area by nighttime visitors. I propose we
address this by building a fence with a full-height turn-locking turnstile and ADA
gate at the park entrance, so the park can be locked between hours that the city
and community agree is reasonable. Many residents in the area are willing to be
volunteers to help with unlocking and locking the gate at night, and generally be
stewards of the park. Improved lighting and landscaping in this area will further
deter after-hours activity.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
58
11th Avenue Park Pickleball Expansion
Requested Funding: $502,500
Expand 11th Avenue Park pickleball courts by 4 more pickleball courts (6 current
dedicated courts to a total of 10 dedicated courts), with fencing. This proposal also
includes creating lines on the 2 tennis courts closest to the pickleball courts to be
used by pickleball players if all pickleball courts are in use. This project also
includes new signage: number the courts; queuing expectations and paddle
holders; court rules.
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log
Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 25
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 Cent
Sales Tax
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
Parks
Impact
Fees
Council Funding Allocations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks
Impact
Fees
#Project Description
Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
General
Fund
Funding
Our
Future
Transportation Dedicated Sources
59
Westside Art Project
Requested Funding: $150,000
Not presented to CDCIP Board. Could be combined with or separate from the
$150,000 for new art in the 9-Line RDA Project Area which was approved as part
of the FY2024 annual budget.
-$ 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
60
Maintenance of Vacant City-owned Property
Requested Funding: $500,000
Not presented to CDCIP Board. $200,000 is separately approved with the annual
budget for security and utilities at vacant City-0wned properties. The Council
approved $700,000 last fiscal year of which $598,698 remains available. The
Administration identified five projects with a total cost of $550,000 to use the
FY2023 funding. Projects have not yet been identified for the $500,000 in new
funding for FY2024 (would not lapse to Fund Balance). The five projects using the
FY2023 funds are:
- $100,000 at the Former Public Safety Building (PSB)
- $200,000 for a Development Strategy and Spacing Needs Study
- $100,000+ additional Funding for Major Renovations to the Annex building
Leased by Odyssey House
- $100,000 for Maintenance of City-owned Buildings Leased to Third Parties
- $50,0000 for Pre-development Work at the Fleet Block and former Public Safety
Building (PSB)
500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
61
Urban Trails Maintenance
Requested Funding: $200,000
Not presented to CDCIP Board. Proposed as a new item that would be base
funding ongoing annually. These funds will be used for repaving, crack and seal
repair, bridge re-decking, bridge replacements, trail shoulder surfacing, snow
removal, debris removal on urban paved trails. Project locations include the
Jordan River Parkway, 9Line Trail, Folsom Trail. Short description: These funds
will be used to fund contractors, equipment, and material to maintain urban trails
and trail segments that potentially come online during the fiscal year. The
maintenance of these trails is necessary to keep them safe for all that use them
and so they can be used year-round
200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
8,484,921$ 3,240,000$ 7,500,000$ 3,500,000$ 240,000$ 2,728,850$ 8,484,921$ 3,240,000$ 7,500,000$ 3,500,000$ 240,000$ 2,728,850$
AVAILABLE FUNDING BY SOURCE 8,484,921$ 3,240,000$ 7,500,000$ 3,500,000$ 240,000$ 2,728,850$ 9,099,610$ 3,884,126$ 7,500,000$ 3,500,000$ 240,000$ 2,728,850$
AVAILABLE FUNDING LESS TOTALS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 614,689$ 644,126$ -$ -$ -$ -$
TOTALS
Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log
Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 26
Mayor’s Recommended
Capital Improvement
Program Budget
FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS Page:
FY 2023-24 PROJECTS OVERVIEW 1
FY 2023-24 CAPITAL PROJECTS SUMMARY 5
DEBT SERVICE CIP
DEBT SERVICE CIP 19
ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SOURCES 22
GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
Library Plaza Structural Assessment and Visioning 27
Safer Crossings: Main St., Glendale Park, and Citywide 28
200 East ADA and Sidewalk Improvements 29
Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / Operational Investments 30
Complete Streets Program: 2100 South, Virginia St., and Citywide 31
Public Way Concrete 2023/2024 32
Livable Streets Implementation 33
Neighborhood Byways 34
Complete Streets Reconstruction 2023/2024 35
Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion 36
Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parklet 37
Complete Streets Overlay 2023/2024 38
Urban Trails: The Other Side Village & the 9-Line Trail 39
Fire Station No. 7 Tennis and Pickleball Court Restoration and Amenities 40
337 Park Development 41
Jefferson Park Improvements 42
Parks Bilingual Signage Installation 43
Fairpark Traffic Circle Construction Phase 44
Alleyway Improvements 2023/2024 45
Fire Station #1 Apparatus Bay Extension 46
Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY24 47
Mill and Overlay Maintenance Pilot Program 48
Historic Restorations, Replacements, Conservation Work at International Peace Gardens 49
75-Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement 50
Westside Art 51
Cost Overrun 52
Percent for Art 53
ENTERPRISE FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
CUP Crossover Piping 58
Decommission R/W 14-32 & T/W Improvements (Design)59
Table of Contents
Replace Pumps in Glycol Pumps Stations 60
Taxiway F Reconstruction (G - F1) - (Construction)61
Taxiway U & V Proper (Design)62
Taxiway U & V Tunnel & Roadway Realignment 63
UPS Pump Station Replacement 64
Demo Row 21 - Apron & Taxiway Reconstruction 65
SVRA Hangar Site Development - Phase I 66
TVY Water & Sewer Improvements 67
Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations FY24 68
S Employee Parking Lot Development Program / Surplus Canal Relocation (Design)69
S Employee Parking Lot Development Program / Surplus Canal Relocation (Construction)70
AOC Backup Generator 71
Demo FAA FMP and Construct New Roadway 72
NS1 & NS4 Switch Gear & Capacitor 73
NWS Replacement Controls 74
GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
Tee Box Leveling 76
Pump Replacement 77
Maintenance Equipment 78
Parking Lot Resurfacing 79
Property Fencing Project 80
New Construction Projects 81
Irrigation Improvements 82
Cart Path Improvements 83
PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
Water Main Replacements 86
Treatment Plant Improvements 87
Deep Pump Wells 88
Meter Change-Out Program 89
Water Service Connections 90
Storage Reservoirs 91
Pumping Plants & Pump Houses 92
Culverts, Flumes & Bridges 93
Distribution Reservoirs (Tanks)94
Maintenance & Repair Shops (Water Utility)95
Treatment Plants 96
Collection Lines 97
Lift Stations 98
Maintenance & Repair Shops (Sewer Utility)99
Storm Drain Lines 100
Riparian Corridor Improvements 101
Landscaping 102
Table of Contents
Storm Water Lift Stations 103
Detention Basins 104
Street Lighting Projects 105
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CAPITAL PROJECTS
City Creek Daylighting 108
Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank
CIP Summary
Documents
This page intentionally left blank
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Introduction and Overview
Salt Lake City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a multi-year planning program of capital expenditures needed
to replace or expand the City’s public infrastructure. The principal element that guides the City in determining the
annual infrastructure improvements and budgets schedule is the current fiscal year capital budget.
The City CIP Budget Process includes a review by the Community Development & Capital Improvement Program
(CDCIP) Board, consisting of community residents from each district. The CDCIP Board scores projects on a variety
of criteria and provides funding recommendations to the Mayor.
The Mayor considers the CDCIP recommendations as the Administration prepares its funding recommendations for
the City Council as part of the Annual Recommended Budget. The City Council reviews the recommendations of the
Mayor and the CDCIP Board and carefully analyzes each of the proposed projects before allocating funding and
adopting the final CIP budget. The details of the recommended FY2023-24 CIP Budget are included in this book.
In considering major capital projects, the City looks at the potential operating impact of each project. New capital
improvements often entail ongoing expenses for routine operations. Upon completion or acquisition, the repair and
maintenance of new facilities often require additional positions to maintain the new infrastructure. Conversely, a
positive contribution, such as a reduction in ongoing repairs and maintenance of a capital project, is factored into
the decision-making process.
Each project includes a section for estimated future maintenance and/or operations expenses, where the
departments have included projections of any increases to future operating costs.
The City also reviews all CIP projects to determine the progress. All projects older than three years that do not show
significant progress are then considered for recapture, allowing those funds to be used on more shovel-ready
projects. The Administration continuously evaluates the City’s funding of its Capital Improvement Program. Because
the proceeds from debt financing are considered a source for funding the City’s capital improvement projects, the
City analyzes the effect that issuance of additional debt would have on its debt capacity and current debt ratio.
Salt Lake City Resolution No. 29 of 2017 / Salt Lake City Council Capital and Debt Management
Policies
Resolution No. 29 of 2017 provides the framework for project funding recommendations. Its guidance helps clarify
the expectations of the City’s Capital Improvement Program and the steps the Administration should take in
determining how to best address the City’s deferred and long-term maintenance needs.
Some of the policies guiding the CDCIP Board and the Administration include:
–A definition of a capital improvement as having a useful life of five or more years and cannot have a
recurring capital outlay such as a motor vehicle or a fire engine. It also clarifies that a capital outlay does not
include maintenance expenses such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches.
–A capital improvement must be a City asset and have a cost of $50,000 or more, with few exceptions.
–Salt Lake City aims to maintain its physical assets at a level adequate to protect its capital investments and
minimize maintenance and replacement costs.
–Priorities are given to projects that preserve and protect the health and safety of the community; are
mandated by the state and/or federal government; and provide for the renovation of existing facilities
resulting in the preservation of the community’s prior investment.
–The recapture of Capital Improvement Program funds during the first budget amendment of each year if an
existing balance remains on a completed project.
–Debt Service (excluding G.O. Bonding).
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
1 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
FY 2023-24 Capital Improvement Allocations
Salt Lake City’s FY2023-24 adopted CIP budget appropriates $545,012,942 for CIP, utilizing General Funds, Class “C”
Funds, Impact Fee Funds, Quarter Cent Tax Funds, Redevelopment Agency Funds, Enterprise Funds, and other
public and private funds.
The City’s General Fund accounts for all debt service on outstanding Sales and Excise Tax Revenue bonds through a
payment from the City CIP contribution, except for the Eccles Theater project. The Library Fund covers the Local
Building Authority Lease Revenue bonds for Glendale and Marmalade Libraries while debt associated with the
construction of two fire stations is funded through CIP. Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue bonds are funded through
the City’s Class C Road fund. Funds to pay debt service, equaling $11,482,326, are included in the adopted annual
budget.
Outstanding Sales and Excise Tax Revenue bonds financed a variety of the City’s capital improvement projects.
Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue bonds funded the reconstruction of Class C roads throughout the City.
A total of $10,274,000 was recommended for Transportation projects. Of this amount, the budget appropriates
$1,194,000 of General Funds, $240,000 of Impact Fee funds, $2,090,000 of Funding our Future funds, and
$6,750,000 in ¼ Cent Tax funding. Programs funded include Safer Crossings, Sidewalk Improvements, Frequent
Transit Routes, Complete Streets, Livable Streets, Neighborhood Byways, Urban Trails, Traffic Circle Construction,
and Traffic Signal Replacement.
The recommended budget for Parks, Trails, and Open Space capital improvement projects includes a total
appropriation of $4,221,000 from the General Fund and Parks Impact Fee funds. Projects funded include Library
Plaza Structural Assessment and Visioning, Park Development and Improvements, Bilingual Signage Installation, and
Park Restoration and Conservation.
Public Services capital improvement recommended budget includes a total appropriation of $10,348,771. Of this
amount, the budget appropriates $4,598,771 from the General Fund, $3,500,000 of Class C funding, $1,000,000 of
Funding our Future funds, $750,000 in ¼ Cent Tax funding, and $500,000 of CIP funding. Programs funded include
Public Way Concrete, Complete Streets Reconstruction and Overlay, Alleyway Improvements, Mill and Overlay
Maintenance Pilot, and the Facilities Asset Renewal Plan. An apparatus bay extension project was also funded for
Fire Station #1.
A total of $150,000 was also recommended for a Westside Art Project from Funding our Future funds.
Capital Projects
The CIP pages include details for each recommended project for the FY2023-24 Budget. These pages provide a
breakout of the funding recommendations and future costs associated with each project. The total for capital
projects in the FY2023-24 budget is $24,993,771.
Enterprise Fund Projects
The City’s enterprise functions; Airport, Water, Sewer, Storm Water, Redevelopment, Refuse Collection and Golf –
are by nature, very capital intensive. The budgets for these activities reflect the need to maintain the integrity and
capacity of the current capital infrastructure and its functionality.
Airport Fund – The Department of Airports is an enterprise fund of Salt Lake City Corporation and does not receive
any general fund revenues to support the operation of the City’s system of airports. The Department of Airports (the
Airport) has 639 employee budgeted positions and is responsible for managing, developing, and promoting airports
that provide quality transportation facilities and services, and a convenient travel experience.
The Fiscal Year 2024 budget continues to see growth in enplanements, revenues, as well as expenditures. The Salt
Lake City International Airport (SLCIA) continues to benefit from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) as well as the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) grants awarded for FY2024. The Airport will use the remaining funds in the ARPA
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
2 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
grants which will help offset operating and maintenance expenses that will lower the landing fee and terminal rents
charged in FY24 as well as make up for lost revenues. The BIL grants will continue to provide much needed and
critical funding for airport capital infrastructure projects that are moving from design into actual construction. The
Airport will be bringing on 22 gates located on South Concourse East (SCE) in October 2024 which brings additional
staffing and maintenance staff requirements while seeing a significant reduction in the hardstand operations.
The developed FY24 budget continues to provide positive financial benefits with increased passengers and revenues
that help offset increased operating expenses. The Airport will continue to fund important capital projects. These
projects include the Terminal Redevelopment Program (TRP) and the North Concourse Program (NCP), which
together are called the New SLC. In addition, critical projects found in the airfield, terminal, and auxiliary airports
will continue to be funded to ensure that all Airport’s owned facilities keep up with critical infrastructure to support
the growth we are currently experiencing as well as the growth we are projecting into future years.
Public Utilities Funds – Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) has four distinct utilities: water,
sewer, storm water, and street lighting. Each utility is operated as a separate enterprise fund. Tax money is not
used to fund these services. Funding for SLCDPU capital expenditures comes from user fees, fund reserves, revenue
bonds, and occasionally a grant or state/federal government subsidized loan. The department is utilizing a Water
Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan to finance a portion of the water reclamation facility
construction. Customers pay for the services they receive through utility rates that have been established for each
fund. The rates were developed on a cost of service basis. Our utilities are infrastructure intensive and
administration of these assets requires long term project and financial planning.
The SLCDPU capital budget is shown by fund with subcategory cost centers under each. In fiscal year 2024, the
department has over 95 capital projects between the four funds as well as continuing work on existing projects.
Many of the capital projects in Public Utilities cover multiple fiscal years. It is common for projects to be designed in
one year and constructed in subsequent years. The budget includes projects rated as a high priority in the
Department’s Capital Asset Program (CAP). The replacement of the water reclamation facility is the largest project
undertaken by SLCDPU. Other elements of our systems are also experiencing aging problems and will require
increasing attention in the future. For example, our three water treatment plants were built in the 1950’s and early
60’s. Planning is underway for each of the three plants to determine the best approaches for their replacement. A
unique aspect of capital projects in SLCDPU is that Federal, State, and local regulations affect many of our priorities.
Adding to the complexity are water rights and exchange agreement obligations.
RDA Funds – The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) strengthens neighborhoods and commercial
districts to improve livability, create economic opportunity and foster authentic, equitable communities. The RDA
utilizes a powerful set of financial and planning tools to support strategic development projects that enhance the
City’s housing opportunities, commercial vitality, public spaces, and environmental sustainability. The RDA’s primary
source of funds for the projects include property tax increment and program income revenue, depending on the
specific budget account.
The RDA often participates with Salt Lake City in the redevelopment or construction of city owned infrastructure
projects. As part of the RDA Budget Policy, Capital Projects are defined as any project that anticipates multi-year
funding. The allocation of funds for these projects is part of the budget approval process and is typically contingent
on the RDA Board authorizing appropriation once the specific project costs and details are known. Depending on
the project, the timeline for this process may not follow the City’s CIP schedule or requirements for approval.
The RDA fiscal year 2024 budget process proposes one potential City infrastructure project. The City Creek
daylighting design plan explores bringing a portion of City Creek that currently runs in a culvert underground up to
the surface just north of the Folsom Trail from 800 West to 1000 West. The project goals include increasing access
to nature, improving water quality and mitigating surface flooding. This $50,000 funding request will produce final
construction drawings which will be used for project implementation. Landscaping improvements and other
pedestrian amenities will also be recommended as a part of the design plan to activate the trail and create a
welcoming centerpiece for the westside community. The total cost for implementation is estimated to be between
$15,000,000 and $20,000,000.
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
3 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Sustainability Fund - Sustainability operations enable continuing compliance with federal, state, and local
regulations related to landfill gas collection, closing portions of the landfill, and constructing a new landfill cell within
the permitted footprint included in the master plan. Sustainability proposed no projects for FY 2023-24.
Golf Fund - The Golf Division operates seven full-service golf courses at six Salt Lake City locations providing quality
recreational experiences at a competitive price for Salt Lake City residents and visitors from surrounding cities and
various out of state locations. Golf Course Capital Projects are funded, primarily, from excess revenue generated by
user fees. Over the past several years, expenses have outpaced revenues and have limited Golf’s ability to self-fund
most if not all non-emergency Capital Projects. In 2012, a Golf CIP Fund was established that allocates $1 per every 9
holes played and 9% from all annual pass sales toward building funds that can be used exclusively for Capital
Projects. Until FY 2019, these funds had not been released for use as the fund balance was needed to provide a
fund balance offset against a fund deficit. As part of the FY22 budget proposal, the Golf Division implemented a Golf
CIP Fee increase from $1 to $2 per every 9 holes played, beginning in January 2022, in order to bring more capital
into the Golf CIP Fund to increase funding from this source for additional future projects.
The Golf Division has produced excess revenue over the past 3 years and is able to begin re-investing funds into
long-overdue projects.
The Golf Division has budgeted $6,610,220 for Capital Improvement Projects in FY24. The Golf Division is
undertaking a four-year project to improve tee box hitting surfaces by re-leveling and re-sodding many of the tee
box areas at each course and have allocated $60,000 in FY24 from the Golf CIP Fund. The Golf Division is
undertaking a multi-year project to repair existing cart paths and construct some new carts paths and has allocated
$525,000 for FY24. Other significant projects include new parking lot resurfacing at the Mountain Dell and driving
range hitting facility at Glendale golf course.
As part of a multi-year plan to upgrade vital maintenance equipment at all courses, the Golf Division will be using
$424,263 in FY24 to purchase additional equipment.
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
4 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
De
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Debt Service Projects
Sales Tax Series 2013B Bond $ 362,950 $ 362,950
Sales Tax Series 2014B Bond $ 747,025 $ 747,025
Sales Tax Series 2016A Bond $ 2,003,973 $ 2,003,973
Sales Tax Series 2019A Bond $ 358,575 $ 358,575
Sales Tax Series 2022B Bond $ 1,999,625 $ 1,999,625
Sales Tax Series 2022C Bond $ 3,088,875 $ 3,088,875
B & C Roads Series 2014 $ 979,503 $ 979,503
ESCO Debt Service to Bond $ 761,000 $ 761,000
Fire Station #3 $ 679,400 $ 679,400
Fire Station #14 $ 501,400 $ 501,400
Debt Service Projects Total $ 10,301,526 $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 1,180,800 $ 11,482,326
On
g
o
i
n
g
Ongoing Projects
Crime Lab $ 600,000 $ 600,000
Facilities Maintenance $ 350,000 $ 350,000
Trail Maintenance $ 200,000 $ 200,000
Public Lands Maintenance $ 250,000 $ 250,000
Ongoing Projects Total $ 1,200,000 $ — $ — $ — $ 200,000 $ — $ 1,400,000
Ot
h
e
r
O
n
g
o
i
n
g
Other Ongoing
Community and Neighborhoods - Surplus Land RES
$ 700,000 $ 700,000
Public Services- Smiths Ballfield $ 150,000 $ 150,000
Public Services- ESCO County Steiner
$ 150,500 $ 150,500
Public Services - Memorial House $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Other Ongoing $ 700,000 $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 350,500 $ 1,050,500
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2024
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
5 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Ne
w
C
I
P
New/Maintenance Projects Total
Library Plaza Structural Assessment and Visioning
$ 190,000 $ 190,000
Safer Crossings: Main St., Glendale Park, and Citywide
$ 270,000 $ 90,000 $ 540,000 $ 900,000
200 East ADA and Sidewalk Improvements
$ 234,000 $ 234,000
Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / Operational Investments
$ 990,000 $ 110,000 $ 1,100,000
Complete Streets Program: 2100 South, Virginia St., and Citywide
$ 3,293,000 $ 3,293,000
Public Way Concrete 2023/2024
$ 750,000 $ 750,000
Livable Streets Implementation $ 250,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,350,000
Neighborhood Byways $ 440,000 $ 360,000 $ 800,000
Complete Streets Reconstruction 2023/2024
$ 2,250,000 $ 2,250,000 $ 4,500,000
Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion
$ 253,500 $ 253,500 $ 507,000
Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parklet
$ 202,000 $ 648,000 $ 850,000
Complete Streets Overlay 2023/2024
$ 1,250,000 $ 1,250,000
Urban Trails: The Other Side Village & the 9-Line Trail
$ 1,700,000 $ 1,700,000
Fire Station No. 7 Tennis and Pickleball Court Restoration and Amenities
$ 438,850 $ 416,150 $ 855,000
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2024
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
6 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Ne
w
C
I
P
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
337 Park Development $ 550,000 $ 550,000
Jefferson Park Improvements $ 530,000 $ 530,000
Parks Bilingual Signage Installation
$ 82,800 $ 331,200 $ 414,000
Fairpark Traffic Circle Construction Phase
$ 497,000 $ 497,000
Alleyway Improvements 2023/2024
$ 250,000 $ 250,000
Fire Station #1 Apparatus Bay Extension
$ 648,771 $ 500,000 $ 1,148,771
Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY24
$ 1,700,000 $ 1,700,000
Mill and Overlay Maintenance Pilot Program
$ 750,000 $ 750,000
Historic Restorations, Replacements, Conservation Work at International Peace Gardens
$ 325,000 $ 325,000
75-Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement
$ 40,000 $ 360,000 $ 400,000
Westside Art $ 150,000 $ 150,000
New Projects Total $ 7,284,921 $ 3,240,000 $ 3,500,000 $ 2,968,850 $ 7,500,000 $ 500,000 $ 24,993,771
Cost Overrun $ 22,214 $ 225,357 $ 247,571
Percent for Art $ 161,518 $ 161,518
Total General Fund/Other Fund/Class C Fund/Impact Fee Fund/Surplus Land Fund CIP Projects
$ 19,508,661 $ 3,626,875 $ 3,500,000 $ 2,968,850 $ 7,700,000 $ 2,031,300 $ 39,335,686
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2024
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
7 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Airport CIP Projects
CUP Crossover Piping $ 505,000 $ 505,000
Decommission R/W 14-32 & T/W Improvements (Design)
$ 405,000 $ 405,000
Replace Pumps in Glycol Pumps Stations
$ 967,000 $ 967,000
Taxiway F Reconstruction (G - F1) - (Construction)
$ 9,400,000 $ 9,400,000
Taxiway U & V Proper (Design)$ 4,725,000 $ 4,725,000
Taxiway U & V Tunnel & Roadway Realignment
$ 78,651,000 $ 78,651,000
UPS Pump Station Replacement $ 1,483,000 $ 1,483,000
Demo Row 21 - Apron & Taxiway Reconstruction
$ 1,613,000 $ 1,613,000
SVRA Hangar Site Development - Phase I
$ 2,721,000 $ 2,721,000
TVY Water & Sewer Improvements
$ 9,046,000 $ 9,046,000
Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations FY24
$ 1,068,000 $ 1,068,000
S Employee Parking Lot Development Program / Surplus Canal Relocation (Design)
$ 1,559,000 $ 1,559,000
S Employee Parking Lot Development Program / Surplus Canal Relocation (Construction)
$ 60,808,000 $ 60,808,000
AOC Backup Generator $ 311,000 $ 311,000
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2024
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
8 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Demo FAA FMP and Construct New Roadway
$ 1,044,000 $ 1,044,000
NS1 & NS4 Switch Gear & Capacitor $ 1,063,000 $ 1,063,000
NWS Replacement Controls
$ 624,000 $ 624,000
Total Airport CIP Projects $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 175,993,000 $ 175,993,000
Go
l
f
Golf CIP Projects
Tee Box Leveling $ 60,000 $ 60,000
Pump Replacement $ 20,000 $ 20,000
Maintenance Equipment $ 424,263 $ 424,263
Parking Lot Resurfacing $ 250,000 $ 250,000
Property Fencing Project $ 55,220 $ 55,220
New Construction Projects $ 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000
Irrigation Improvements $ 4,400,000 $ 4,400,000
Cart Path Improvements $ 525,000 $ 525,000
Total Golf CIP Projects $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 7,034,483 $ 7,034,483
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2024
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
9 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Pu
b
l
i
c
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Public Utilities CIP Projects
Water Main Replacements $ 14,620,000 $ 14,620,000
Treatment Plant Improvements $ 38,340,000 $ 38,340,000
Deep Pump Wells $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Meter Change-Out Program $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000
Water Service Connections $ 3,450,000 $ 3,450,000
Storage Reservoirs $ 6,690,000 $ 6,690,000
Pumping Plants & Pump Houses $ 900,000 $ 900,000
Culverts, Flumes & Bridges $ 4,200,000 $ 4,200,000
Distribution Reservoirs (Tanks)$ 2,300,000 $ 2,300,000
Maintenance & Repair Shops (Water Utility)
$ 400,000 $ 400,000
Treatment Plants $ 212,259,773 $ 212,259,773
Collection Lines $ 23,955,000 $ 23,955,000
Lift Stations $ 2,750,000 $ 2,750,000
Maintenance & Repair Shops (Sewer Utility)
$ 350,000 $ 350,000
Storm Drain Lines $ 6,230,000 $ 6,230,000
Riparian Corridor Improvements $ 250,000 $ 250,000
Landscaping $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Storm Water Lift Stations $ 650,000 $ 650,000
Detention Basins $ 365,000 $ 365,000
Street Lighting Projects $ 2,240,000 $ 2,240,000
Total Public Utilities CIP Projects
$—$—$—$—$—$322,599,773 $322,599,773
RD
A
Redevelopment Agency (RDA) CIP Projects
City Creek Daylighting $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Total RDA CIP Projects $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2024
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
10 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Sustainability CIP Projects
No Projects $ —
Total Sustainability CIP Projects
$ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ —
Total Enterprise and Other Fund CIP
$ 505,677,256 $ 505,677,256
GRAND TOTAL $ 19,508,661 $ 3,626,875 $ 3,500,000 $ 2,968,850 $ 7,700,000 $ 507,708,556 $ 545,012,942
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2024
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
11 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Salt Lake City
Impact Fee Summary
Fiscal Year 2024
PROJECT Street Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees TOTAL
Impact Fee Projects
Im
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
s
Safer Crossings: Main St., Glendale Park, and Citywide $ 90,000 $ — $ 90,000
Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / Operational Investments $ 110,000 $ — $ 110,000
Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion $ — $ 253,500 $ 253,500
Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parklet $ — $ 648,000 $ 648,000
Fire Station No. 7 Tennis and Pickleball Court Restoration and Amenities $ — $ 416,150 $ 416,150
337 Park Development $ — $ 550,000 $ 550,000
Jefferson Park Improvements $ — $ 530,000 $ 530,000
Parks Bilingual Signage Installation $ — $ 331,200 $ 331,200
75-Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement $ 40,000 $ — $ 40,000
Total Impact Fee by Type $ 240,000 $ 2,728,850 $ 2,968,850
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
12 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Salt Lake City Unfunded Projects Fiscal Year 2024
Un
f
u
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Public Lands Jordan Park and Peace Gardens Cultural Landscape Report and Master Plan
1060 S 900 W, Salt Lake City, UT 84104 $ 200,000 $ — $ 200,000
Constituent Three Creeks West - Roadways Addendum
948 W 1300 South to 1106 W 1300 South; and 1225 S 1000 West to 948 W 1300 South, SLC UT 84104
$ 850,000 $ — $ 850,000
Public Lands Rose Park and Jordan River Recreation Hub (Other Funds - $225,000 Parks Impact Fees)
Roots Disc Golf Course - 1250 North Redwood Road, Salt Lake City, Utah 84116Rose Park Golf Course Driving Range - 1386 North Redwood Road Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
$ 270,000 $ 225,000 $ 495,000
Constituent Citywide Park Restroom Planning Study/Fairmont Restroom Conceptual Design Citywide $ 75,000 $ — $ 75,000
Constituent Madsen Park Improvements (Other Funds - $300,000 Parks Impact Fees)
1000 W and South Temple St, Salt Lake City, 84116 $ 200,000 $ 300,000 $ 500,000
Constituent
Rose Park Lane Beautification, Trail, and Safety Improvements (Other Funds - $294,000 Parks Impact Fees)
2100 N Exit off I-215 to Rose Park Ln and 1700 N intersection, Salt Lake City UT 84116
$ 546,000 $ 294,000 $ 840,000
Public Lands Richmond Park Community Playground (Other Funds - $212,000 Parks Impact Fees)
444 E 600 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 $ 318,000 $ 212,000 $ 530,000
Public Lands Rose Park Lane Open Space and Trail Connection Study
1954 N Rose Park Lane, Salt Lake City, UT 841161944 N Rose Park Lane, Salt Lake City, UT 841161932 N Rose Park Lane, Salt Lake City, UT 841161902 N Rose Park Lane, Salt Lake City, UT 84116
$ 140,000 $ — $ 140,000
Constituent North Temple Arts and Tourism District Improvements 100 South 800 West SLC, Utah 84104 $ 495,111 $ — $ 495,111
Constituent Sugar House Safe Side Streets Part 2
The local, neighborhood streets within the area bounded by 900 East on the west, 1100 East on the east, 2100 South on the south, and Garfield Avenue on the north.
$ 150,000 $ — $ 150,000
Constituent Fred and Ila Rose Wetland Preserve Improvements 950 S 1100 W, SLC, Utah, 84104 $ 361,073 $ — $ 361,073
Public Lands Park Strip, Median, Park Irrigation/Water Reduction Strategy and Implementation Citywide $ 500,000 $ — $ 500,000
Constituent Liberty and Jordan Parks Greenhouses - Revisioned
600 E 1300 S, Salt Lake City, UT 841051060 S 900 W, Salt Lake City, UT 84104
$ 242,823 $ — $ 242,823
Constituent First Encampment Park 1704 S 500 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84105 $ 125,500 $ — $ 125,500
Organization Name Proposal Title Project Address Location General Funds Other Funds Total
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
13 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Un
f
u
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Constituent Indiana Avenue Area - Transit & Trail Connections
The approximate mid-point of the proposed trail between the Other Side Village and the new transit hub at 500 S and Orange Street. Proposed Redwood Road signalized crossing: 1040 South Redwood Road, Salt Lake City, UT 84104
$ 162,500 $ — $ 162,500
Transportation Multimodal Capital Maintenance (Other Funds - $200,000 FOF Other)Citywide $ — $ 200,000 $ 200,000
Engineering 700 South (Phase 7, 4600 West to 5000 West) Additional Funding
700 South Street from 4600 West to 5000 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84104 $ 4,000,000 $ — $ 4,000,000
Constituent 800 S 1000 E Crosswalk Upgrade 800 South 1000 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 $ 336,500 $ — $ 336,500
Constituent Central 9th Streetscape Improvements
200 West between 800 S and the 900 S freeway off-ramp and 900 South between West Temple and 200 W in Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
$ 85,000 $ — $ 85,000
Constituent Sugar House Community Map Project Multiple locations throughout the Sugar House area $ 93,400 $ — $ 93,400
Facilities Phase I: Plaza 349 Life Safety, Security, and HVAC Upgrades 349 S 200 E, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84111 $ 2,000,000 $ — $ 2,000,000
Constituent Implementation of Safety Enhancements West Side Foothill Drive
Foothill Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84108 and1. Blaine Avenue and 2500 East2. 2600 East3. Bryan Avenue4. Westminster Avenue5. Possible modifications at Laurelhurst
$ 494,126 $ — $ 494,126
Constituent Reimagining 4th & 4th (4th West & 4th South)
400 N 400 W Intersection and Corridors, Salt Lake City, UT 84103 $ 100,000 $ — $ 100,000
Public Lands 11th Ave Park Pavilion, Trees, and Benches (Other Funds - $533,165 Parks Impact Fees)
581 Terrace Hills Dr., Salt Lake City, UT 84103 $ — $ 533,165 $ 533,165
Constituent
New Liberty Park Crosswalks and Trails (Other Funds - $13,000 Street Impact Fees, $131,000 Parks Impact Fees)
1216 S 500 E, Salt Lake City, 84105978 S 500 E, Salt Lake City, 84105(Southeast and southwest corners of Edith Ave and Williams Ave @ 500 East)
$ 118,000 $ 144,000 $ 262,000
Transportation
Sunnyside and Arapeen Signal & Safety Improvements (Other Funds - $45,000 Street Impact Fees, $405,000 Qcent Tax)
2240 East Sunnyside Ave., Salt Lake City UT 84108 $ — $ 450,000 $ 450,000
Constituent Wasatch Hollow Park: Engagement, Planning & Restoration
1631 E 1700 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84105 $ 500,000 $ — $ 500,000
Constituent Hansen Ave - West Entrance/Exit 400 West Hansen Ave, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 $ 470,703 $ — $ 470,703
Constituent Nevada Street Reconstruction Nevada Street from Redondo North to Garfield, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84108 $ 479,000 $ — $ 479,000
Organization Name Proposal Title Project Address Location General Funds Other Funds Total
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
14 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Un
f
u
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Constituent Sunnyside Pickleball Courts (Other Funds - $500,000 Parks Impact Fees)
1800 E. Sunnyside Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84108 $ — $ 500,000 $ 500,000
Constituent 1200 E Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk 1200 E Zenith Ave. Salt Lake City, Ut 84106 $ 351,000 $ — $ 351,000
Constituent Salt Lake City Pétanque (Other Funds - $500,000 Parks Impact Fees)
Rosewood Park, 1400 N 1200 W, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 $ — $ 500,000 $ 500,000
Constituent Ensign Peak Nature Park Improvements 163 E Ensign Vista Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84103 $ 210,000 $ — $ 210,000
Constituent 11th Avenue Park Pickleball Expansion (Other Funds - $502,500 Parks Impact Fees)
584 Terrace Hills Drive, Salt Lake City UT 84103 $ — $ 502,500 $ 502,500
Total Unfunded CIP Projects $ 13,873,736 $ 3,860,665 $ 17,734,401
Organization Name Proposal Title Project Address Location General Funds Other Funds Total
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
15 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
This page intentionally left blank
Debt Service
Capital Improvement
Program
This page intentionally left blank
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B
2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$362,950 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds November 2013 October 1, 2023 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B, were issued in November 2013 for the purpose of financing a
portion of the costs of the Sugarhouse Streetcar and to pay for a portion of various improvements to create a
“greenway” within the corridor. The total par amount of bonds issued was $7,315,000.
A portion of the Series 2013B Bonds were refunded with the series 2021 Bonds. As of June 30, 2023, $355,000 in
principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due on October 1. The bonds mature on October 1, 2023.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B
2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$747,025 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds September 2014 October 1, 2034 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B, were issued in September 2014 for the purpose of acquiring,
constructing, remodeling, and improving of various City buildings, parks, property, and roads.
The Series 2014B bonds were issued with a par amount of $10,935,000. As of June 30, 2023, $7,460,000 in principal
remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature
on October 1, 2034.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A
2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$2,003,973 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds June 2016 October 1, 2028 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A, were issued in June 2016 to refund a portion of the
Series 2009A Bonds. The Series 2009A Bonds were originally issued to finance all or a portion of the acquisition,
construction, improvement and remodel of the new Public Services maintenance facility, a building for use as City
offices and other capital improvements within the City.
Fleet contributes 13.9%, Refuse contributes 13%, and the general fund contributes 73.1% of the debt service on the
Maintenance Facility Program portion of the bonds.
The Series 2016A bonds were issued with a par amount of $21,715,000. As of June 30, 2023, $13,880,000 in principal
remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature
on October 1, 2028.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019A
2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$358,575 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds December 2019 April 1, 2027 General Fund
Salt Lake City Debt Service CIP
19 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019A, were issued in December 2019 to refund a portion of
the Series 2007A Bonds. The Series 2007A Bonds were originally issued to fund the TRAX Extension to the
Intermodal Hub and Grant Tower improvements to realign rail lines near downtown.
The Series 2019A bonds were issued with a par amount of $2,620,000. As of June 30, 2023, $1,270,000 in principal
remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature April
1, 2027.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2022B
2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$1,999,625.00 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds November 2022 October 1, 2042 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2022C
2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$3,088,875 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds November 2022 October 1, 2032 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2022B&C, were issued in November 2022 to finance all or a
portion of the cost of acquiring, constructing and improving capital improvement projects, including: City Cemetery
irrigation and road repairs and reconstruction; Pioneer Park; 600 North Corridor; new radio towers for City
communication; an upgrade of the electrical transformer at the Central Plant and emergency back-up generators;
Westside railroad quiet zones; Warm Spring Plunge structure stabilization; Smith's Ballpark; urban wood re-
utilization equipment and storage additions; and Fisher Mansion stabilization; and various other capital
improvement program projects.
The Series 2022B bonds were issued with a par amount of $40,015,000. As of June 30, 2023, $40,015,000 in principal
remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature
October 1, 2042.
The Series 2022C bonds were issued with a par amount of $24,240,000. As of June 30, 2023, $24,240,000 in principal
remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature
October 1, 2032.
Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014
2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$979,503 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds August 2014 April 1, 2024 Class C
The Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014, were issued in August 2014 for the purpose of constructing
and repairing 13th South Street from State Street to 4th West, and from State Street to 5th West, and 17th South
Street from State Street to 700 East.
The Series 2014 bonds were issued with a par amount of $8,800,000. As of June 30, 2023, $960,000 in principal
remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature on
April 1, 2024.
Salt Lake City Debt Service CIP
20 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
ESCO Lease Debt Service
2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$93,500 Capital Lease December 2019 March 2026 General Fund
This lease provides energy efficient equipment to Public Services Facilities Division.
ESCO Steiner Lease Debt Service
2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$150,500 Capital Lease January 2013 July 2029 County
$150,500 Capital Lease January 2013 July 2029 General Fund
This lease was entered into by Public Services to acquire energy efficient equipment for Steiner. Since the costs of
this facility is shared 50% with the County, the County pays 50% of this lease payment.
ESCO Parks Lease Debt Service
2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$517,000 Capital Lease August 2012 March 2026 General Fund
This lease was entered into by Public Services to acquire energy efficient equipment for city parks.
Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A
2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$501,400 LBA Lease Revenue Bonds March 2016 April 15, 2037 General Fund
The Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City (LBA of SLC) issued the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A in March
2016 for the purpose of financing a portion of the construction costs of the Fire Station #14 Project.
The Series 2016A bonds were issued with a par amount of $6,755,000. As of June 30, 2023, $5,220,000 in principal
remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on April 15. Interest is due semi-annually on April 15 and October 15. The bonds mature
on April 15, 2037.
Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A
2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$679,400 LBA Lease Revenue Bonds April 2017 April 15, 2038 General Fund
The Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City (LBA of SLC) issued the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A in April
2017 for the purpose of financing a portion of the construction costs of the Fire Station #3 Project.
The Series 2017A bonds were issued with a par amount of $8,115,000. As of June 30, 2023, $6,950,000 in principal
remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on April 15. Interest is due semi-annually on April 15 and October 15. The bonds mature on
April 15, 2038.
Salt Lake City Debt Service CIP
21 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SOURCES
Crime Lab Rental Payments
2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$600,000 General Fund
Yearly rental payments for Crime Evidence Lab.
Facilities Maintenance
2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$350,000 General Fund
The Facilities ongoing CIP funding will be used to replace a variety of capital assets. The purpose is to stop problems
early on and prevent larger catastrophic failures of equipment and systems in the City’s building stock.
Trail Maintenance
2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$200,000 ¼ Cent Tax
These funds will be used to fund contractors, equipment, and material to maintain urban trails and trail segments
that potentially come online during the fiscal year. The maintenance of these trails is necessary to keep them safe
for all that use them and so they can be used year-round.
Public Lands Maintenance
2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$250,000 General Fund
The Parks ongoing CIP funding will be used to replace a variety of capital assets. The purpose is to stop problems
early on and prevent larger failures in the City’s park stock.
Percent for Art
2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$161,518 Funding our Future
To provide enhancements such as decorative pavement, railings, sculptures, and other works of art. (1.5% of CIP)
Cost Overrun
2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$22,214$225,357 General Fund & Funding Our Future
Funding set aside to cover unforeseen costs of projects.
Salt Lake City Debt Service CIP
22 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Smith Ballfield Naming Rights
2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$150,000 Other -Donations
Two parts to this request - to establish budget within the 83 fund to accept the revenue received for the naming
rights pertaining to Smith Baseball Field and to establish an expense within the 83 fund to continue addressing the
deferred maintenance backlog in this facility. This building was completed in 1990 and is now 33 yrs. old.
CIP Memorial House
2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$50,000 Other - Rental
A revenue cost center has been established to receive revenue payments from the Utah Heritage Foundation.
Monthly payments are received and are to be re-invested in the facility to maintain the property. Plans for the use
of the funding is to be determined.
Real Estate Services – Surplus Land
2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$700,000 General Fund
Salt Lake City Corporation holds several properties in its real estate inventory that are not used for city functions but
that are either vacant or are leased to third parties. This fund is for the maintenance, security, and improvement of
these properties.
Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019B
2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
Sales Tax Revenue Bonds October 2019 April 1, 2038 RDA
Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013A, were issued in October 2013 for the purpose
of financing a portion of the costs of acquiring, constructing, and equipping a performing arts center and related
improvements. The Series 2013A Bonds were refunded with the Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue
Refunding Bonds, Series 2019B.
The RDA pays the full amount of the debt service for the Series 2019B bonds. However, if the RDA is unable to pay
any of the debt service, the City’s General Fund would be responsible for it.
The total par amount of bonds issued was $58,540,000. As of June 30, 2023, $56,790,000 in principal remains
outstanding.
Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature on
April 1, 2038.
Salt Lake City Debt Service CIP
23 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
This page intentionally left blank
General Fund
Capital Projects
This page intentionally left blank
Project Title:Library Plaza Structural Assessment and Visioning
Project Address:200 East 400 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Project Description:
Many complex structural and drainage issues at Library Plaza are causing known settling and damage to critical materials (e.g., pavers, railings and footings, walls) visible on the surface. This project will include an investigation into these issues, followed by planning and design to complete the necessary changes. Specific plaza elements that will be investigated include the wedge wall near 200 East, fountain, retaining walls and pavers, and overall stability throughout the plaza. The project will also include a planning process to identify solutions and designs for activating the plaza. These will mitigate currently unknown and known barriers (including direct sunlight and little shade or protection from the elements) to increase usage in line with its original intent as a public event space.
Salt Lake City is a potential candidate for the 2030 Olympics and structural repairs, retrofitting, and reimagining space within this site and adjacent properties will be critical first steps if the City wants to use this site to host events and accommodate large crowds. If funded, this request would lay the groundwork for a funding application for construction within the next few years. Once construction is funded, this project will be a joint venture between Public Lands and Facilities.
Proposal ID:423313
Department:Public Lands
Project Type:Capital
Category: Planning
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $190,000 $190,000
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
None
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
27 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Safer Crossings: Main St., Glendale Park, and Citywide
Project Address:
Main St Crossings (900 South to 2100 South): This second set of crossings is likely to include: Layton Ave, Van Buren/Bryan Ave, Cleveland / Merrimac Ave, Paxton / Kelsey Ave, Fayette, OC Tanner, Grove Ave.Glendale Park Crossing: 1300 West 1700 SouthCitywide
Project Description:
This project will fund two key projects as well as providing ongoing funding to a citywide program that installs warranted crossing beacons, traffic signals, or other traffic control devices to address safety issues.
1. Main Street Pedestrian Crossings - Ten crossing locations need upgraded crosswalks; about half will be done with funds already allocated in FY23. This request is for construction funds for the remaining locations. Anticipated construction is 2024.
2. Glendale Park / 1700 South - This request is for funds to upgrade the existing crosswalk at 1300 W 1700 S from flashing yellow beacons (RRFBs) to a pedestrian-activated signal (HAWK, Toucan, or half-signal), to fully stop traffic with a red light between the residential Glendale neighborhoods to the north and the new Glendale Regional Park (Phase 1 - 2024) to the south.
3. Citywide traffic safety projects include the installation of traffic control devices such as signals, flashers, signs, or markings to improve pedestrian safety.
Wide crosswalks like this one on Main Street will receive pedestrian refuge islands.
Proposal ID:424230
Department:Transportation
Project Type:Capital
Category: New
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $270,000 $270,000
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds $90,000 $90,000
1/4 Cent Tax $540,000 $540,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses as a result of projects that would be planned / designed using these funds. These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
28 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:200 East ADA and Sidewalk Improvements
Project Address:
Route: 200 East from 1700 South to Westminster AveKey intersection: 200 East Downington Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84115
Project Description:
200 East ADA and sidewalk improvements. This project seeks to bring a section of sidewalks near senior housing into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It also seeks to improve walkability in a low-income neighborhood by fixing a gap in continuous sidewalks.
Potential layout for new curb ramp and sidewalk at 200 East and Downington Ave.
Proposal ID:417914
Department:Transportation
Project Type:Capital
Category: New, Constituent
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $234,000 $234,000
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses as a result of projects that would be planned / designed using these funds. These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
29 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / Operational Investments
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
Funds will construct bus stops along frequent transit routes that reflect the recommendations of the Transit Master Plan. Examples include the 200 (State Street), 209 (900 East) and 217 (Redwood Road). Improvements ensure that stops are legal, accessible, safe, and convenient. This is a partnership program with UTA, with investment by the City made to complement (rather than supplant) UTA's plans for bus stop construction as articulated in their Bus Stop Master Plan, and City investments generate UTA investments. Salt Lake City constructs the concrete pad, and UTA provides the shelters, benches, bike racks, and trash cans. If bicyclist/pedestrian connections to bus stops are problematic or don’t exist, these funds may be used to address those issues. Funds may also provide match to $5.59 million in federal grants received so far for transit hubs (especially 200 S East Downtown Hub, Westside North Temple Hub). The transit hubs are multi-million-dollar projects; a portion of these funds will be used to provide the required local match. These projects are also partnership projects with UTA (and other potential partners, such as the University of Utah and real estate developers), with both agencies seeking funds, providing match, and together creating the full project.
Bus shelters, trash cans, and bike racks are all part of Salt Lake’s transit improvements along Frequent Transit Network routes.
Proposal ID:424222
Department:Transportation
Project Type:Capital
Category: New
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds $110,000 $110,000
FOF Transit $990,000 $990,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses as a result of projects that would be planned / designed using these funds. These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
30 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Complete Streets Program: 2100 South, Virginia St., and Citywide
Project Address:
1000 East 2100 South, Salt Lake City, UT, 84106, 200 North Virginia Street, Salt Lake City, UT, 84103, Citywide
Project Description:
This program funding request provides supplemental funds to street projects that have been found, including through input from the community, to need additional complete street elements such as sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, bikeways, safer intersections, placemaking, and street greening.
This year's request focuses on three aspects: two critical streets, both tied to Streets Bond Funding in the 2024 construction season, and third, an allocation for citywide restriping and corridor designs, primarily in conjunction with planned maintenance. For these streets to be reconstructed and/or restriped to meet both City Ordinance and community expectations, these additional funds are needed.
Rendering of updated design on 2100 South
Proposal ID:424210
Department:Transportation
Project Type:Capital
Category: Renewal
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
1/4 Cent Tax $3,293,000 $3,293,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
The reconstructed streets will reduce pavement maintenance costs but may create increased operating expenses in other Departments and Divisions due to landscaping and new Complete Streets elements. These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
31 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Public Way Concrete 2023/2024
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
This annual program addresses deteriorated or defective concrete sidewalks, accessibility ramps, curb and gutter, retaining walls, etc. in the public way through saw-cutting, slab jacking, or removal and replacement. Funding for this vital program in the last 4 years has averaged 53%. Providing a fully accessible public right-of-way is an unfunded federal mandate through the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Not only is it the City's legal responsibility to ensure the public way is accessible to all, it is a moral obligation.
Proposal ID:423889
Department:Engineering
Project Type:Capital
Category: Renewal
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
FOF Streets $750,000 $750,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
None
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
32 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Livable Streets Implementation
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
This citywide program aims to address the most common resident complaint to Transportation staff - speeding vehicles. It uses a data-driven & equitable prioritization process for the implementation of traffic calming improvements in the areas most in need.
Traffic circles are one tool identified in the Livable Streets Report to help slow traffic on neighborhood streets.
Proposal ID:424211
Department:Transportation
Project Type:Capital
Category: New
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $250,000 $250,000
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
FOF Other $1,100,000 $1,100,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses as a result of projects that would be planned / designed using these funds. These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
33 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Neighborhood Byways
Project Address:
975 North Star Crest Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 (Westpointe / Jordan Meadows Neighborhood Byway, approximate mid-point)1400 South 1600 East, Salt Lake City UT 84105 (Sugar House to the U Neighborhood Byway, approximate mid-point)
Project Description:
Neighborhood byways create pleasant and convenient routes for people walking, bicycling, or rolling by encouraging safe travel speeds, discouraging cut-through vehicle traffic, providing safe crossings of busy streets, and connecting people to key community destinations. These funds will be used for the engineering design and construction of the Westpointe / Jordan Meadows Neighborhood Byway, and for the engineering design of the Sugar House to the U Neighborhood Byway. Both projects are currently in conceptual design with significant community input. The Westpointe / Jordan Meadows Neighborhood Byway has already received a state grant for $900,000 toward its $1.5 million construction budget. This CIP request will serve as the required 40% match to this grant.
Technicians finishing up the installation of a neighborhood byway crossing in Poplar Grove along 400 South.
Proposal ID:424216
Department:Transportation
Project Type:Capital
Category: New
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $440,000 $440,000
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
1/4 Cent Tax $360,000 $360,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses as a result of projects that would be planned / designed using these funds. These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
34 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Complete Streets Reconstruction 2023/2024
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
This annual program funds reconstruction of deteriorated City streets, including curb and gutter, sidewalk, and drainage improvements as necessary. Where appropriate, it will include appropriate complete streets bicycle and pedestrian access improvements.
Proposal ID:423853
Department:Engineering
Project Type:Capital
Category: Renewal
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $2,250,000 $2,250,000
Class C Funds $2,250,000 $2,250,000
Impact Fee Funds
FOF Streets
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
None
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
35 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion
Project Address:Poplar Grove Park (Indiana Avenue and Emery St.), Salt Lake City, UT 84104
Project Description:
This park currently has a half court – which is used frequently, with players spilling out all over the court and grass surrounding it. This project will fund the expansion of the court which includes demolition, irrigation adjustments, a new concrete court, fencing, signage (that would include a flower bed, which will provide beautification opportunities for Friends of Poplar Grove Park to showcase their flower planting skills over the years. Not all will play on the court, but some could still benefit from this improvement by volunteering to plant flowers). Furthermore, it will also fund an artist to design and paint a mural on the new court. Which will provide an opportunity for local artists to share their talents with the community. There are so many benefits to this project - it invites all to participate, enjoy and cherish this wonderful open space for many years to come. COVID-19 may have been a hard time to deal with, but our parks became the extension of our homes and will remain that way for a long time.
Proposal ID:419327
Department:Public Lands
Project Type:Capital
Category: New, Constituent
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $253,500 $253,500
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds $253,500 $253,500
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Annual maintenance is expected to increase by $1,000.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
36 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parklet
Project Address:356 N Redwood Rd, Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Project Description:
In November 2022, Public Lands acquired a property adjoining Cottonwood Dog Park and the Jordan River located at 356 Redwood Road. The dirt lot has long been used as an informal parking lot for dog park users, even prior to property acquisition. This project would develop a trailhead and parking lot that better serve the park’s current and future users. This site has the potential to better serve as a gateway to the Jordan River Trail and to Cottonwood Park as a whole, with interpretive signage, wayfinding, improved connectivity, landscaping, and a small gathering space along the river. This would also provide lighting and artwork to provide a welcoming space. This project also funds a new restroom facility to replace the existing failing restroom. It should be noted that Cottonwood Park was selected as one of District 1’s “Reimagine Neighborhood Parks, Trails, or Open Space” projects, funded by the GO Parks Bond.
Proposal ID:424360
Department:Public Lands
Project Type:Capital
Category: New
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $202,000 $202,000
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds $648,000 $648,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Annual maintenance impact is estimated at $2,000.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
37 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Complete Streets Overlay 2023/2024
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
This annual program funds rehabilitation of deteriorated City streets, including curb and gutter, sidewalk, and drainage improvements as necessary. Where appropriate, it will include appropriate complete streets bicycle and pedestrian access improvements. Street segments identified by Roadway Asset Services (RAS) as backlog candidates for 3” Overlay (OCI of approximately 40-50) are included below as recommended projects.
Suggested Project areas: 2.34 Lane MilesWasatch Drive - 1300 S to Michigan Ave (partly within Bonneville Golf Course)800 E - 100 S to 400 S (signal loops at 100 S)Work displayed below on the map.
Proposal ID:424280
Department:Engineering
Project Type:Capital
Category: Renewal
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds $1,250,000 $1,250,000
Impact Fee Funds
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
None
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
38 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Urban Trails: The Other Side Village & the 9-Line Trail
Project Address:
1900 West Indiana Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 841041851 East Sunnyside Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84108
Project Description:
Two projects are critical to this urban trails request: connectivity for The Other Side Village just west of Redwood Road, and a short gap in the 9-Line Trail near the University of Utah. This request seeks funding for critical trail connections in support of "The Other Side Village," the tiny home village with assistive services that will be constructed just west of Redwood Road in the City's Glendale / Poplar Grove neighborhoods. $1.2 million will be allocated to begin improvements, currently under study, which will prioritize a multi-use trail and/or sidewalks on Indiana Avenue; safer crossings of Redwood Road; a new multi-use trail north from the Village to the transit center; and/or segments of the 9-line trail and Surplus Canal Trail (see map). This is anticipated to be Phase 1 of three or four requests. Funds will also be used for a missing gap in the 9-Line Trail near the University of Utah, where the 12' wide multi-use trail along Sunnyside Avenue narrows down to a scant 4' wide sidewalk, creating conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians.
This section of Indiana Avenue lacks even a sidewalk connecting “The Other Side Village” to transit stops on Redwood Road.
Proposal ID:424227
Department:Transportation
Project Type:Capital
Category: New
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
1/4 Cent Tax $1,700,000 $1,700,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses as a result of projects that would be planned / designed using these funds. These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
39 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Fire Station No. 7 Tennis and Pickleball Court Restoration and Amenities
Project Address:273 North 1000 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Project Description:
This project will fund construction for restoring the courts and adding amenities at the Fire Station No. 7 Tennis Park on 300 North (west of 1000 West). This space is currently two failed tennis courts. One tennis court will be restored, and the other will be converted into two pickleball courts. The addition of two pickleball courts is necessary to meet increasing demand for usable pickleball courts throughout the city. There are currently no dedicated pickleball courts in the city’s westside neighborhoods. This project would also complete associated amenities on site, as funding is available, such as court lighting, drinking fountains, and ADA access. Public Lands has already separately funded the design of this court project. This CIP funding will go towards construction costs of the courts and other associated amenities.
Proposal ID:424358
Department:Public Lands
Project Type:Capital
Category: Renewal
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $438,850 $438,850
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds $416,150 $416,150
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Annual maintenance costs will decrease by $1,000.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
40 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:337 Park Development
Project Address:337 South 400 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Project Description:
337 Pocket Park was initially established as a community garden but has since been decommissioned as such due to adjacent higher density property development to the south shading out agricultural potential. The parcel has since been sitting vacant and in a state of disrepair. This potential pocket park needs significant development to add park service to District 4. Funding would facilitate public engagement, planning and design, and construction of the site. This project is an expansion of a previously submitted constituent CIP application during the FY22-23 cycle with the addition of Public Lands-supported direction for implementation. Currently, a small portion of the parcel (nearest to 400 East) has public art and plantings. This project would develop the remainder of the parcel. Potential amenities and features of this site will be determined with public engagement but could include an off-leash dog park, seating, and native plantings appropriate for shaded areas. This property has been the subject of continuous encroachments since the lot to the south of this parcel has been under development. There have been inquiries about the 337 Park lot being reduced to allow for access to the southern development. Because of the increased interest in this lot and the threat to this valuable property in a low level-of-service area for parks, it is critical for the development of this lot to move forward as quickly as possible.
Proposal ID:423315
Department:Public Lands
Project Type:Capital
Category: New
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds $550,000 $550,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Annual maintenance impact is estimated at $7,500.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
41 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Jefferson Park Improvements
Project Address:Fremont Ave and West Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
Project Description:
Jefferson Park is an under-resourced jewel in the Ballpark Neighborhood. This application seeks to address long standing issues identified in the City’s Ballpark Station Area Plan, including “a lack of service and proper maintenance in current parks”. The park currently has a small, aging playground (to be replaced through separate funding by Public Lands in 2023) with two benches as well as a set of temporary soccer nets and an off-leash dog area. The constituent applicants request the following:
•Safety improvements: Ample, attractive 'dark sky' lighting throughout the perimeter of the park and fencing around the playground area. Given the area’s crime, this is essential.
•Health improvements: Permanent, attractive garbage cans along the perimeter of the park to reduce the constant flow of garbage (including clothing, needles, and human waste), and to encourage responsible dog ownership.
•Activation improvements: The retention pond berm is an ideal location for a walking path around the park and provides residents with a place to exercise. Adding a few benches (with garbage cans) under the existing shade trees, like in Liberty Park, will encourage activation.
Proposal ID:417708
Department:Public Lands
Project Type:Capital
Category: New, Constituent
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds $530,000 $530,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Annual maintenance would increase by $4,000.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
42 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Parks Bilingual Signage Installation
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
This project will replace existing signage and add new bilingual signage in English and Spanish in approximately ten parks citywide. This project will be the second phase of implementation of the City's new multi-lingual signage standards. The standards were completed in early 2022, with the first phase of implementation occurring in 2023 and early 2024. The first phase of implementation included ten parks and were initially chosen because they are classified as Community Parks in the Public Lands Master Plan, have numerous and varying amenities, and lack effective signage types and locations currently. The second phase of implementation, to be completed with this funding proposal, are the next largest parks with varying amenities that necessitate the addition of signage that the park currently lacks.
Currently, many parks, natural areas and public spaces are not adequately signed for appropriate and effective communication of public lands' regulations, assets, amenities, and stories. This project would not only add signage to parks with outdated or inadequate signage, but would add bilingual information on all signs in order to enhance communication and provide public lands information more equitably and reliably throughout Salt Lake City. The project will also help the City accomplish the goals of the recently-adopted Reimagine Nature Public Lands Master Plan.
Proposal ID:423318
Department:Public Lands
Project Type:Capital
Category: New
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $82,800 $82,800
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds $331,200 $331,200
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Annual maintenance impact: $2,900
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
43 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Fairpark Roundabout Construction Phase
Project Address:500 North 1000 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Project Description:
1000 West is an important street for the Fairpark neighborhood and access to the Utah State Fairpark. Over the last two years, Salt Lake City Transportation Division has engaged with the community about the challenges and opportunities on 1000 West. Common requests for changes to 1000 West include slowing vehicle speeds, making the crosswalks safer, improving street aesthetics, and balancing regional access needs with neighborhood livability.
This application is requesting funds to build a roundabout at the intersection of 1000 West and 500 North. This application is related to one submitted for FY23, that awarded funds for study/design only. The Transportation Division is actively working on the study/design while supporting this application for construction funds. Intersection upgrades at 500 North is consistent with the 1000 West Corridor Plan, which seeks to moderate vehicle speeds, improve walkability, add landscaping, and create a gateway feature for the neighborhood.
Proposal ID:416618
Department:Transportation
Project Type:Capital
Category: New, Constituent
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
¼ Cent Tax $497,000 $497,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses as a result of projects that would be planned / designed using these funds. These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
44 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Alleyway Improvements 2023/2024
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
This annual program, kicked off in 2021, funds reconstruction or rehabilitation of deteriorated City alleyways, including pavement and drainage improvements as necessary.
Proposal ID:424439
Department:Engineering
Project Type:Capital
Category: Renewal
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
FOF Streets $250,000 $250,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
None
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
45 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Fire Station #1 Apparatus Bay Extension
Project Address:211 South 500 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
Project Description:
Originally constructed in 1994, Fire Station #1 was built to house the resources (both human and mechanical) that were in use at the time. Since then, much of our apparatus and equipment needs at this strategic location have changed, requiring additional space. Fire Station #1 is located at 211 South 500 East, in the heart of Salt Lake City’s downtown. The call volume for this station is consistently the highest in the city and has been steadily increasing over the past five (5) years. In fact, it recently came to the attention of SLCFD Administration that the current call volume and projected increase would be unsustainable for the single fire engine that was housed there. In response, the Administration made the data-based decision to reassign existing resources within the City, in an effort to alleviate the pressure on the fire crews operating out of Station 1 Specifically, a fire truck was moved from Fire Station #5 to Fire Station #1, essentially repurposing Fire Station #1 to what is known in the industry as a “dual-company house.” While this reassignment of resources has certainly shown a more balanced delivery of emergency services, there are logistical limitations affecting the housing of the newly assigned aerial apparatus. The three newest and most advanced SLCFD aerial apparatus (trucks) are too long to be housed in the apparatus bays at Fire Station #1. Consequently, we have implemented the use of an older, shorter aerial apparatus. In the meantime, we await the construction of a new, smaller in length truck (not a standard build) which is anticipated to take 3-4 years to build. Additionally, there is uncertainty that the manufacturer will be able to build this length of truck in the future. As such, it is requested that funding be made available to design and construct the expansion of four (4) apparatus bays at Fire Station #1.
Proposal ID:425243
Department:Fire
Project Type:Capital
Category: New
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $648,771 $648,771
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
Other $500,000 $500,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
None
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
46 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY24
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
Following a 10-year plan to eliminate the $45,600,000 in deferred asset renewal, the Facilities Division will utilize the funds requested to replace assets that are beyond their useful life, prioritizing replacements based on asset criticality.
Proposal ID:426588
Department:Facilities
Project Type:Capital
Category: Renewal
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $1,700,000 $1,700,000
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Annual maintenance cost will be reduced as new assets are more efficient, switching from reactive repair work to ongoing preventative maintenance.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
47 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Mill and Overlay Maintenance Pilot Program
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
The Streets Division, part of Public Services, will be the project sponsor and implementation manager. Streets is requesting to begin a Mill & Overlay pilot program, which is a more robust form of roadway surface treatment. Many existing city roadways do not currently need a full depth reconstruction but are not in good enough condition for current maintenance surface treatments, namely chip and slurry seal. If nothing is done, these roads will continue to deteriorate and soon require a costly reconstruction. The Mill & Overlay program would allow Streets to perform maintenance on these roads at a lower cost, compared to reconstructing. To carry out this pilot program the Streets Division needs two additional pieces of equipment, an Asphalt Paver, and a Cold-Milling Machine.
Proposal ID:426528
Department:Streets
Project Type:Capital
Category: New
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
1/4 Cent Tax $750,000 $750,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Average yearly maintenance cost: $19,400 (for both pieces of equipment)
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
48 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Historic Restorations, Replacements, Conservation Work at International Peace Gardens
Project Address:1060 South 900 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84104
Project Description:
Despite receiving hundreds of visitors per day, the International Peace Gardens in District 2 has dilapidated garden architecture. Hollows left by stolen plaques and artwork remind visitors of theft and vandalism, and limit their understanding of the history and cultures behind the 28 national garden exhibits. CIP funding is needed to replace or replicate, conserve, and conceive a plan and trust fund for future upkeep of this trove of art, ethnic and botanic diversity. This request consists of multiple projects that include: conservation and restoration artworks, design and replacement of artwork that has been removed/stolen, replacement of perennial botanicals and landscaping, structural study and design exploring expansion of the greenhouse while assessing the feasibility of a visitor space/exhibition space.
Proposal ID:418741
Department:Public Lands
Project Type:Capital
Category: New, Constituent
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $325,000 $325,000
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Annual Maintenance Impact: $1,000-$3,000.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
49 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:75-Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement
Project Address:1300 East @ 400 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84102 or1300 East @ 100 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84102
Project Description:
Upgrade one aging traffic signal, along with parts of the surrounding intersection, with safety and operational improvements for all modes. The typical life of a traffic signal is 30 years. After that age, frequent repairs are needed, and the structural supports for the traffic signal may be at risk of failing. Twenty traffic signals in Salt Lake City are over 40 years old, with some of them rapidly approaching 75 years old. This project will fund the design and construction to replace one of the oldest and/or poorest condition traffic signals in Salt Lake City. The project will replace and upgrade the signal with new steel poles, signal heads, and detection, including current best practices for pedestrian detection and design, pedestrian countdown timers, and motor vehicle left turn phasing, as needed. It is anticipated that a traffic signal along 1300 East near the University of Utah will be selected. Those traffic signals were constructed in 1948.
75-year-old traffic signal at the busy intersection of 1300 East 400 South.
Proposal ID:424235
Department:Transportation
Project Type:Capital
Category: Renewal
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds $40,000 $40,000
1/4 Cent Tax $360,000 $360,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
This signal reconstruction will reduce signal maintenance costs, as keeping an older traffic signal alive past its normal expiration date typically includes extra repairs.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
50 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Westside Art
Project Address:Westside of Salt Lake City
Project Description:
An art project will be incorporated into the City’s westside neighborhood.
Proposal ID:N/A
Department:
Project Type:Art
Category: New
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
FOF Other $150,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
None
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
51 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Cost Overrun
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
Funding set aside to cover unforeseen costs of projects.
Proposal ID:NA
Department:
Project Type:Overrun
Category: New
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $22,214
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
FOF Other $225,357
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
None
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
52 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Percent for Art
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
Funding set aside to provide art at City developed projects.
Proposal ID:NA
Department:
Project Type:Art
Category: New
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
FOF Other $161,518
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
None
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
53 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
This page intentionally left blank
Enterprise Fund
Capital Projects
This page intentionally left blank
The Department of Airports
The Department of Airports is an enterprise fund of Salt Lake City Corporation and does not receive any
general fund revenues to support the operation of the City’s system of airports. The Department of
Airports (the Airport) has 639 employee budgeted positions and is responsible for managing, developing,
and promoting airports that provide quality transportation facilities and services, and a convenient travel
experience.
The Fiscal Year 2024 budget continues to see growth in enplanements, revenues, as well as expenditures.
The Salt Lake City International Airport (SLCIA) continues to benefit from the American Rescue Plan Act
(ARPA) as well as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) grants awarded for FY2024. The Airport will use
the remaining funds in the ARPA grants which will help offset operating and maintenance expenses that
will lower the landing fee and terminal rents charged in FY24 as well as make up for lost revenues. The
BIL grants will continue to provide much needed and critical funding for airport capital infrastructure
projects that are moving from design into actual construction. The Airport will be bringing on 22 gates
located on South Concourse East (SCE) in October 2024 which brings additional staffing and maintenance
staff requirements while seeing a significant reduction in the hardstand operations.
The developed FY24 budget continues to provide positive financial benefits with increased passengers
and revenues that help offset increased operating expenses. The Airport will continue to fund important
capital projects. These projects include the Terminal Redevelopment Program (TRP) and the North
Concourse Program (NCP), which together are called the New SLC. In addition, critical projects found in
the airfield, terminal, and auxiliary airports will continue to be funded to ensure that all Airport’s owned
facilities keep up with critical infrastructure to support the growth we are currently experiencing as well
as the growth we are projecting into future years.
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
57 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:CUP Crossover Piping
Project Description:
This project will provide crossover 12-inch diameter piping from the existing 12-inch chilled water supply and return lines to the 20-inch supply and return hot water piping that feeds the Airport Terminal and Concourse areas from the Central Utility Plant (CUP). This would enable the Airport to maintain chilled water for cooling and hot water for heating as a backup to the system if there is a failure of lines that run underground from the CUP to the Terminal and Concourse areas.
Project Justification:
The existing chilled water and hot water piping systems run underground from a standalone location in the CUP north to the Airport Terminals and Concourse areas. If a failure of either supply lines happens, the crossover piping would facilitate the transfer of chilled water and/or hot water to keep the supply of cooling or heating to continue in a temporary operation mode until a permanent fix could be made.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2023 November 2023 June 2024
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$401,000 $54,000 $8,000 $2,000 $40,000 $505,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$505,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
58 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Decommission R/W 14-32 & T/W Improvements (Design)
Project Description:
As outlined in the SLCIA Master Plan, Runway 14-32 has two FAA hot spot locations and numerous non- standard geometry challenges. This runway accounts for only 1 percent of total aircraft operations at SLCIA and is unnecessary in the SLCIA runway system to meet FAA-defined wind coverage requirements and thus is not eligible for federal funding assistance. This means the entire cost of any and all corrective solutions would be paid by SLCDA. Through engagement with SLCDA staff and stakeholders, it was determined the cost to correct the runway hot spots outweighs the benefit the runway provides to the airport system. The Master Plan concluded that the final solution for implementation is to remove Runway 14-32.
Project Justification:
Projects in the short-term phase of airport development focus on modifications to the airfield that enhance airport operational safety. These projects address changes in runways and taxiways needed to reduce the potential for runway incursions and comply with current FAA airport design standards. This request is to develop the design on removing Runway 14-32 and modifications needed to the existing taxiway connections at Taxiways J, M, P, and Q.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2023 June 2024
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$367,000 $20,000 $18,000 $405,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$405,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
59 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Replace Pumps in Glycol Pumps Stations
Project Description:
This project will replace the existing piping, pumps, and valves in the Intermediate East Pump Station (IEPS) and the East Pump Station (EPS) for the glycol pump stations.
Project Justification:
The piping, pumps, and valves for the glycol pump stations have been in service for over 20 years and are approaching the end of their useful service life. The piping and equipment are obsolete and can no longer be maintained, and are showing significant signs of deterioration due to the corrosive nature of the deicing fluid. New pumps that are more efficient, require less maintenance, and safe guard against system failure will be installed. These pumps are long lead items and are critical for de- ice operations on Taxiway L and the 34R de-ice pad.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 203 July 2023 October 2023
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$734,000 $155,000 $5,000 $73,000 $967,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$967,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
60 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Taxiway F Reconstruction (G - F1) - (Construction)
Project Description:
This project is a continuing phase to maintain the Airport's infrastructure and bring the taxiway geometry to current FAA standards. The project will consist of replacing the pavement on Taxiway F between Taxiways G and F1. Work will include demolition of existing concrete pavement and econocrete base, unclassified excavation, placement of engineered fill, placement of new econocrete base course and new portland cement concrete. Also included is the installation of new in-pavement centerline base cans and the reinstallation of centerline and taxiway edge lights complete with new underground cabling and connectors. Finally new asphalt shoulder paving and pavement marking will be done.
Project Justification:
Taxiway F connects Runway 16R-34L and Runway 16L-34R with the terminal area. It has a high volume of aircraft use because it serves as a major taxi route for arriving and departing aircraft. The taxiway concrete panels are showing signs of pavement distress including surface spalling, full depth slab cracking, and corner breaking indicating that the pavement is at the end of its useful service life. This area has received multiple patches where the concrete has settled indicating possible base failure. This project will make a significant contribution to safety and capacity by ensuring that the taxiway pavement integrity is preserved while minimizing FOD.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
April 2024 October 2024
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$9,400,000 $9,400,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$7,050,000 $2,350,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
61 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Taxiway U & V Proper (Design)
Project Description:
This project is the first of two phases that includes constructing a tunnel structure to allow for Taxiways U and V to cross over a depressed portion of 4000 West. This work includes realigning 4000 West as identified on the SLCIA master plan and shown on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP). Other components of this project are constructing MSE walls along the new 4000 West realignment, earthwork, asphalt and concrete paving, relocating conflicting utilities, drainage systems, and fencing.
Project Justification:
The recently completed SLCIA master plan identified Taxiways U and V as a new cross field taxiway system between the north cargo support area and existing concourses. Currently Taxiways E and F are the only taxiway connections between Runways 16R/34L - 16L/34R and the terminal area. The construction of Taxiways U and V will provide alternative taxi routes to improve aircraft circulation and overall airfield efficiency and safety, particularly during snow removal operations on Taxiways E and F. This project will provide an immediate benefit to flow of aircraft on the airfield as well as improving safety by reducing traffic in a very congested area on the airfield. With current passenger numbers already approaching 2019 numbers and the airlines expecting to increase operations at SLCIA, there is a need to expand the airfield capacity. Additionally, the new taxiway system will allow for future maintenance to occur on Taxiways E and F as well as provide an enabling project for a future Concourse C.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2023 June 2024
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$4,725,000 $4,725,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$4,725,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
62 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Taxiway U & V Tunnel & Roadway Realignment
Project Description:
This project is the first of two phases that includes constructing a tunnel structure to allow for Taxiways U and V to cross over a depressed portion of 4000 West. This work includes realigning 4000 West as identified on the SLCIA master plan and shown on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP). Other components of this project are constructing MSE walls along the new 4000 West realignment, earthwork, asphalt and concrete paving, relocating conflicting utilities, drainage systems, and fencing.
Project Justification:
The recently completed SLCIA master plan identified Taxiways U and V as a new cross field taxiway system between the north cargo support area and existing concourses. Currently Taxiways E and F are the only taxiway connections between Runways 16R/34L - 16L/34R and the terminal area. The construction of Taxiways U and V will provide alternative taxi routes to improve aircraft circulation and overall airfield efficiency and safety, particularly during snow removal operations on Taxiways E and F. This project will provide an immediate benefit to flow of aircraft on the airfield as well as improving safety by reducing traffic in a very congested area on the airfield. With current passenger numbers already approaching 2019 numbers and the airlines expecting to increase operations at SLCIA, there is a need to expand the airfield capacity. Additionally, the new taxiway system will allow for future maintenance to occur on Taxiways E and F as well as provide an enabling project for a future Concourse C.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2023 March 2024 November 2026
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$64,560,000 $6,339,000 $1,291,000 $5,000 $6,456,000 $78,651,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$36,570,000 $42,081,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
63 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:UPS Pump Station Replacement
Project Description:
The glycol collection system is deteriorating in older portions of the airport. In new development the ability to divert low concentration surface water has been implemented to improve the efficiency of the reclamation process. This project will replace the pumps at the UPS Cargo facility pump station due to deterioration and add a diversion vault with actuators, similar to more recent installations. The actuators help manage the large volume of water that does not need treatment which is generated from the cargo ramp deicing pads.
Project Justification:
The pump station near the UPS Cargo facility is rapidly deteriorating and is in need of replacement. The surface water that is collected during inclement weather that does not need to be treated at the reclamation plant needs to be diverted to storm drain. This project replaces essential infrastructure as well as improves efficiency of the reclamation process, ultimately reducing processing costs. The pump station work needs to be completed prior to the start of the Airport's deicing season to accommodate the air cargo carriers.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2023 July 2023 October 2023
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$1,164,000 $178,000 $23,000 $2,000 $116,000 $1,483,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$1,483,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
64 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Demo Row 21 - Apron & Taxiway Reconstruction
Project Description:
This project is for site development within General Aviation Zone 3 on the eastside of Salt Lake City International Airport (SLCIA) to support future expansion. Work will include demolition of an existing row of T-hangars along with asbestos mitigation, if necessary, and site preparation consisting of taxilane pavement reconstruction and rerouting of existing water and storm drain utilities.
Project Justification:
The only remaining undeveloped land in General Aviation Zone 3 on the eastside of SLCIA currently cannot accommodate larger ADG II aircraft. This project will construct a taxilane for access to undeveloped areas at the Airport and allow for future growth.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2023 October 2023 June 2024
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$1,126,000 $141,000 $23,000 $210,000 $113,000 $1,613,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$1,613,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
65 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:SVRA Hangar Site Development - Phase I
Project Description:
This project will widen the existing taxilane north of the existing shade hangars and construct a new ramp complete with underground utilities for a proposed future site for a new T-hangar at the South Valley Regional Airport (SVRA).
Project Justification:
An existing taxilane north of the shade hangars will be widened approximately 21' to accommodate Group II aircraft to access a new 220' x 750' ramp where a future T-hangar will be constructed. New underground utilities consisting of gas, power, communication, water, storm drain, and sewer will be installed and stubbed up to within 15 feet of the future T-hangars.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2023 October 2023 September 2024
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$2,276,000 $216,000 $46,000 $1,000 $182,000 $2,721,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$2,721,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
66 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:TVY Water & Sewer Improvements
Project Description:
This project will provide water and sewer infrastructure to the Tooele Valley Airport (TVY) to support the future aerial firefighting facilities being constructed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This work includes the installation of a sewer lift station, 16,500 LF of sewer line, and 16,500 LF of water line.
Project Justification:
Salt Lake City Corporation recently signed a lease agreement with the BLM which will begin construction of government facilities including a Single Engine Airtanker (SEAT) base of operations to include Air Attack, Helitack operations, retardant distribution and containment systems, and an Aviation Dispatch Center building on approximately 10 acres at TVY. Development of future hangars and facilities cannot occur until water and sewer utilities are available at TVY. The BLM is expected to begin construction of their new facility in 2023 and have an operational SEAT base by 2025. SLCDA is working on an agreement with Grantsville City to connect the water and sewer utilities.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2023 April 2024 October 2024
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$7,399,000 $259,000 $148,000 $500,000 $740,000 $9,046,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$9,046,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
67 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations FY24
Project Description:
Salt Lake City Department of Airports (SLCDA) has created a Master Plan for a phased installation program of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (EVCS) and infrastructure relative to the annual purchase of electric vehicles in Utah. For the past several years, the Airport has received rebates from Rocky Mountain Power which have reimbursed up to 75% of the cost to purchase and install EVCS on the Airport campus. This year the Airport will apply for funding incentives to install infrastructure for 16 level 2 EVCS for employee parking.
Project Justification:
Salt Lake City is designated as a Serious Nonattainment Area for EPA's 24-hour standard for particulate matter PM2.5. Fine particulate matter, or PM2.5 is an air pollutant resulting from motor vehicle emissions that contribute to respiratory problems. This project will promote additional options for sustainable transportation and will reduce area emissions that contribute to fine particulate matter. The Airport is proposing to install infrastructure and purchase 16 Level 2 EVCS for the employee parking lot.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2023 October 2023 September 2024
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$884,000 $89,000 $2,000 $5,000 $88,000 $1,068,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$1,068,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
68 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:S Employee Parking Lot Development Program / Surplus Canal Relocation (Design)
Project Description:
This program will implement a series of projects over the next 5 years that will allow for the development of the Southern Open Space (Former Golf Course) into an employee parking lot as shown on the new SLCIA ALP. Phase 1 of this project will design the relocation of the surplus canal. This phase is intended to complete the design and permitting requirements set forth by the USACE. Phase 2 will be to mitigate the wetlands in the area which will allow for the new canal to be relocated. Phase 3 will be to relocate the canal to the south, parallel to the existing TRAX line. Phases 4 and 5 will then design and build the infrastructure, parking lot, roadways, and employee screening facility required to operate the South Employee Parking Lot.
Project Justification:
The Environmental Assessment (EA) currently underway requires the design of the surplus canal relocation to be completed to a 60% design level. This budget request is to complete the balance of the design and provide contract documents for bid, award, and construction administration for the FY2025 construction season.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2023 July 2025 June 2028
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$1,410,000 $19,000 $10,000 $120,000 $1,559,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$1,559,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
69 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:S Employee Parking Lot Development Program / Surplus Canal Relocation (Construction)
Project Description:
This program will implement a series of projects over the next 5 years that will allow for the development of the Southern Open Space (Former Golf Course) into an employee parking lot as shown on the new SLCIA ALP. Phase 1 of this project will design the relocation of the surplus canal. This phase is intended to complete the design and permitting requirements set forth by the USACE. Phase 2 will be to mitigate the wetlands in the area which will allow for the new canal to be relocated. Phase 3 will be to relocate the canal to the south, parallel to the existing TRAX line. Phases 4 and 5 will then design and build the infrastructure, parking lot, roadways, and employee screening facility required to operate the South Employee Parking Lot.
Project Justification:
The recently completed SLCIA master plan identified that a new employee parking lot will be needed to accommodate the forecasted increase in employee numbers at our facility. The existing South Employee Parking Lot will be reutilized to accommodate the forecasted increase in passenger parking. With passenger numbers already approaching past 2019 numbers and the airlines expecting to increase both their operations and employee numbers at SLCIA, the need to expand our parking has been accelerated. There currently is not enough parking to sustain peak days. This program will provide an immediate and long-term parking solution.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2023 July 2025 June 2028
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$45,185,000 $4,784,000 $904,000 $5,417,000 $4,518,000 $60,808,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$60,808,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
70 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:AOC Backup Generator
Project Description:
This project will provide a new 480V backup generator to support the Airport Operations Center (AOC) building users that have been affected by power outages.
Project Justification:
The Airport Operations Center (AOC) is considered a vital building where Airport Control is directed and maintained. After a number of recent power outages, the facility users requested the building service loads to be backed up by a new generator. The AOC building is currently supported from two electrical services and two emergency standby generators. Envision Engineering, one of the Airport's on-call electrical consultants, has completed a study to evaluate the AOC standby branch capacity on the south side of the building and proposed options to backup these loads for the vital functions of the AOC. The option selected was to move the entire distribution panel NDL-1A-01 to a new 480V generator to meet the demands for full backup power.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2023 October 2023 December 2024
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$250,000 $29,000 $5,000 $2,000 $25,000 $311,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$311,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
71 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Demo FAA FMP and Construct New Roadway
Project Description:
This project is for additional site development in General Aviation Zone 3 on the east side of Salt Lake City International Airport (SLCIA) to support current demand for corporate hangar development. Work will include demolition of the FAA FMP building and construction of a new hangar access road. This project includes site preparation and construction of taxilane pavement and installation of new underground utilities to a future hangar lease area. A new 475-foot wide by 30-foot long hangar access road and taxilane pavement will be constructed up to the future hangar lease line.
Project Justification:
The only remaining undeveloped land in General Aviation Zone 3 on the east side of SLCIA currently cannot accommodate larger ADG II aircraft for future hangar facility development. This project will construct infrastructure to allow for future growth.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2023 October 2023 September 2024
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$783,000 $75,000 $48,000 $60,000 $78,000 $1,044,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$1,044,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
72 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:NS1 & NS4 Switch Gear & Capacitor
Project Description:
This project will replace the Electrical Main Distribution equipment for buildings NS1 and NS4 located in North Support and provide a power factor capacitor bank for NS4 to condition the power output within this building. The work includes the purchase and installation of all new main electrical distribution equipment for the incoming high voltage Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) that feeds the main breakers and switchboards in both buildings. This also includes miscellaneous conduit, cabling, and junction box work.
Project Justification:
The NS1 and NS4 North Support buildings were constructed approximately 37 years ago and replacement parts for the original electrical equipment in these buildings is no longer available. This is due to the electrical manufacturer going out of business. Since parts are no longer available for purchase, any failure of the electrical infrastructure in either of these buildings will impact Airport Fleet Maintenance, Warehouse, and Roads and Grounds staff and equipment. Also impacted would be the CASS, Radio, and Electrical shops.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2023 October 2023 December 2024
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$905,000 $77,000 $7,000 $2,000 $72,000 $1,063,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$1,063,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
73 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:NWS Replacement Controls
Project Description:
This project will replace the existing Variable Air Volume (VAV) units that have reached the end of their useful life in the tenant area of the National Weather Service (NWS) facility. The units will be replaced with new VAV units with Direct Digital Controls (DDC).
Project Justification:
The existing VAV units are pneumatically controlled and have reached the end of their useful life and will be replaced with new units that have integrated DDC controls allowing BACKNET connections for the control and maintenance by Airport Maintenance.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2023 October 2023 June 2024
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$494,000 $66,000 $10,000 $5,000 $49,000 $624,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$624,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
74 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
The Salt Lake City Golf Division
The Golf Division operates seven full-service golf courses at six Salt Lake City locations providing quality
recreational experiences at a competitive price for Salt Lake City residents and visitors from surrounding
cities and various out of state locations. Golf Course Capital Projects are funded, primarily, from excess
revenue generated by user fees. Over the past several years, expenses have outpaced revenues and have
limited Golf’s ability to self-fund most if not all non-emergency Capital Projects. In 2012, a Golf CIP Fund
was established that allocates $1 per every 9 holes played and 9% from all annual pass sales toward
building funds that can be used exclusively for Capital Projects. Until FY 2019, these funds had not been
released for use as the fund balance was needed to provide a fund balance offset against a fund deficit.
As part of the FY22 budget proposal, the Golf Division implemented a Golf CIP Fee increase from $1 to $2
per every 9 holes played, beginning in January 2022, in order to bring more capital into the Golf CIP Fund
to increase funding from this source for additional future projects.
The Golf Division has produced excess revenue over the past 3 years and is able to begin re-investing
funds into long-overdue projects.
The Golf Division has budgeted $6,610,220 for Capital Improvement Projects in FY24. The Golf Division is
undertaking a four-year project to improve tee box hitting surfaces by re-leveling and re-sodding many of
the tee box areas at each course and have allocated $60,000 in FY24 from the Golf CIP Fund. The Golf
Division is undertaking a multi-year project to repair existing cart paths and construct some new carts
paths and has allocated $525,000 for FY24. Other significant projects include new parking lot resurfacing
at the Mountain Dell and driving range hitting facility at Glendale golf course.
As part of a multi-year plan to upgrade vital maintenance equipment at all courses, the Golf Division will
be using $424,263 in FY24 to purchase additional equipment.
Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects
75 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Tee Box Leveling
Project Address:All 6 SLC Golf Courses
Project Description:
The Golf Division will be doing tee box leveling at all 6 courses ($60,000). Salt Lake City customer satisfaction surveys and course evaluation initiatives have shown that the biggest area of needed improvement is the condition of the tee boxes. This is an area where course labor can be utilized to perform a large portion of the work. The Golf Division proposes utilizing Golf CIP funds to pay for needed equipment and supplies. Each course will undertake a four-year plan to address tee box leveling of existing tee boxes and to begin construction of new forward tee boxes.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Lands - Golf
Project Type:Improvement
Category: Capital
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
Golf CIP Funds $60,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets.
Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects
76 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Pump Replacement
Project Address:Glendale
Project Description:
The Golf Division will be replacing the first of five irrigation pumps at Glendale golf course ($20,000). The replacement of these pumps will take place over a 5-year period. This is the first of 5 pumps that are nearing their life expectancy. At any time if one of these pumps goes down it will have impact on our ability to irrigate the golf course.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Lands - Golf
Project Type:Replacement
Category: Capital
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
Golf CIP Funds $20,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets.
Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects
77 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Maintenance Equipment
Project Address:All 6 SLC Golf Courses
Project Description:
As part of a multi-year plan to upgrade vital maintenance equipment at all courses, the Golf Division will be using $424,263 in FY24 to purchase additional used equipment (usually lease-return equipment from high-end private courses). The plan would be to purchase equipment if available such as Sprayer, Groundsmaster, Greensmaster.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Lands - Golf
Project Type:Equipment
Category: Capital
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
Golf Operating Fund $424,263
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets.
Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects
78 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Parking Lot Resurfacing
Project Address:Mountain Dell
Project Description:
The Golf Division will be resurfacing the parking lot at Mountain Dell. This improvement project is estimated to cost ($250,000). The current parking lot surface is beyond just normal sealing and patching and will require full replacement.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Lands - Golf
Project Type:Improvement
Category: Capital
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
Golf CIP Fund $250,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets.
Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects
79 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Property Fencing Project
Project Address:Nibley Park
Project Description:
The Golf Division will be replacing property fencing at Nibley Park golf course ($55,220). The projects consist of removal of existing damaged fencing along the northern perimeter (2700 south) and replacing it with new fencing material.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Lands - Golf
Project Type:Improvement
Category: Capital
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
Golf CIP Fund $55,220
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets.
Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects
80 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:New Construction Projects
Project Address:Glendale
Project Description:
The Golf Division will be entering into the planning phases of a new construction project at Glendale Golf Course ($1,300,000). The projects consist of a double-decker range structure and new fencing at Glendale. This project will position the Glendale driving range to take advantage of changing market conditions and will expand the range capacity and extend the use of the range by 3 to 4 additional months annually, having a significant increase in driving range revenue generation and providing an enhanced recreation opportunity for City residents and visitors.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Lands - Golf
Project Type:Construction
Category: Capital
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
Golf CIP Fund $1,300,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets.
Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects
81 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Irrigation Improvements
Project Address:Rose Park
Project Description:
The Golf Division will be doing irrigation improvements at Rose Park ($4,400,000). The current mainline system is as old as 65 years and is in desperate need of replacement. This project also includes a turfgrass reduction plan and some redesign of certain holes to allow for a more efficient system, utilizing fewer heads and potential water use reduction of up to 40%.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Lands - Golf
Project Type:Improvements
Category: Capital
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
Golf CIP Fund $4,400,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets.
Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects
82 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Cart Path Improvements
Project Address:All 6 SLC Golf Courses
Project Description:
The Golf Division will be doing cart path improvements at all 6 courses ($525,000). Well-maintained golf cart paths are critical for the overall customer experience and for helping to preserve golf course playing conditions. The existing paths are decades behind receiving proper repair and expansion. Additionally, with slight modifications, many cart paths can be used by non-golfers during the off season or other times when conditions are not ideal for golf.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Lands - Golf
Project Type:Improvements
Category: Capital
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
Golf CIP Fund $525,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets.
Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects
83 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
This page intentionally left blank
The Salt Lake City Public Utilities
Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) has four distinct utilities: water, sewer, storm water,
and street lighting. Each utility is operated as a separate enterprise fund. Tax money is not used to fund
these services. Funding for SLCDPU capital expenditures comes from user fees, fund reserves, revenue
bonds, and occasionally a grant or state/federal government subsidized loan. The department is utilizing
a Water Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan to finance a portion of the water reclamation
facility construction. Customers pay for the services they receive through utility rates that have been
established for each fund. The rates were developed on a cost of service basis. Our utilities are
infrastructure intensive and administration of these assets requires long term project and financial
planning.
The SLCDPU capital budget is shown by fund with subcategory cost centers under each. In fiscal year
2024, the department has over 95 capital projects between the four funds as well as continuing work on
existing projects. Many of the capital projects in Public Utilities cover multiple fiscal years. It is common
for projects designed in one year and be constructed in subsequent years. The budget includes projects
rated as a high priority in the Department’s Capital Asset Program (CAP). The replacement of the water
reclamation facility is the largest project undertaken by SLCDPU. Other elements of our systems are also
experiencing aging problems and will require increasing attention in the future. For example, our three
water treatment plants were built in the 1950’s and early 60’s. Planning is underway for each of the three
plants to determine the best approaches for their replacement. A unique aspect of capital projects in
SLCDPU is that Federal, State, and local regulations affect many of our priorities. Adding to the complexity
are water rights and exchange agreement obligations.
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
85 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Water Main Replacements
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
SLCDPU has over 1,300 miles of aging water pipe. Over the past 10 years, Public Utilities has replaced an average of 18,820 linear feet per year. The budget includes two major transmission line projects: 1) $5,000,000 for the continuation of a master plan project – East-West Conveyance Line – Terminal Reservoir to 300 East and 2) next phase of Upper Conduit for $3,500,000. This category also includes $6,120,000 for routine replacement of pipelines in poor condition at various locations in the system with $2,950,000 related to the Funding our Future streets bond projects. The department is continuing to develop a more robust way to identify pipeline replacement priorities and corrosion related issues within the system.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $14,620,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
86 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Treatment Plant Improvements
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
All three city-owned water treatment plants (WTPs) were built in the 1950's and early 1960's. Each plant is nearing the end of its expected life and will need to be rebuilt. The City Creek WTP will be rebuilt first based on DPU’s receipt of a FEMA BRIC grant for this project. The grant is a 70% match up to $36.6M. Work during the coming FY includes completion of design ($1.7M), start of construction ($12.5M), and continued public engagement ($290K).
The reconstruction of the Big Cottonwood WTP will be delayed until sufficient budget is available to design and construct this important project. However, construction of the Big Cottonwood Creek Pump Station ($10M this year) and associated SLA Replacement – Cottonwoods Connection pipeline ($10M this year) will begin as part of a regionalization approach that allows Big Cottonwood Creek water to be treated using available capacity of the existing Little Cottonwood WTP. This pump station and pipeline will serve as redundancy to both the Big Cottonwood WTP and the portion of the Big Cottonwood Conduit that conveys drinking water from the plant to the City’s drinking water distribution system.
This cost center also includes replacing failing components as they wear out as part of annual budget ($2M) to ensure regulatory compliance until larger projects can be funded. Finally, the budget for capital project support of $1.65M includes contracted project management support necessary for delivery of these important projects.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $38,340,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Estimated operational increase of $2.2M per/year.
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
87 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Deep Pump Wells
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
The Department would like to bring more wells online to help supplement water supplies, first starting with inactive wells. One of these inactive wells is the budgeted 1500 East Well. This well and other inactive wells are being evaluated for future use and repair or rehabilitation, as required to bring wells to current codes and Division of Drinking Water standards.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $100,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
88 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Meter Change-Out Program
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
The budget includes the continuation of the small meter change out program piloted in 2015 and initiated in 2018. Metering water consumption by customers is the source of our revenue. Approximately 51,100, or 63%, of the system’s water meters have been replaced with advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) read meters. With optimal conditions, 10,000 to 12,000 meters per year can be replaced. Supply chain issues have created delays thus replacement is planned at 8,000 meters per year. The plan is to complete the residential AMI meter change out program in the next 4 to 4 ½ years. AMI technology provides hourly usage information instead of relying on monthly data. An online portal provides our customers with information to better manage their water usage and alerts to the status of their water service. Better information will assist us in water conservation efforts.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $2,500,000
Priority: Ongoing program
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
89 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Water Service Connections
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
Water service extends beyond the corporate boundaries of Salt Lake City. Approximately 37% of our service connections are in this outlying area. Repair and replacement of these connections are part of an ongoing program. The components of this program are service line replacements, new connections, and small and large meter maintenance and replacement. Public Utilities is determining the best way to implement the EPA’s Lead and Copper Rule Revision (LCRR) including developing inventories, sampling plans, public outreach, and lateral service line replacements. The plan will include resources, personnel, and capital needs. Budget associated with the LCRR includes $500,000 to support pothole work associated with inventory development and service line material identification.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $3,450,000
Priority: Project/need specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Estimated operational increase of $100,000 per year associated LCRR line replacement and temporary filters.
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
90 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Storage Reservoirs
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
SLCDPU owns and operates six raw water reservoirs that store snow run-off. SLCDPU operates Little Dell Dam, for the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy with a capital improvement budget of $400,000 for controls replacements. Little Dell and 5 of SLCDPU’s reservoirs are used to store water that is treated for drinking water. All seven of the reservoirs are a contingent way for the Department to meet exchange agreements for secondary water. Three of the reservoirs are used by ski areas for snowmaking. The raw water storage reservoir at Mountain Dell has a $6,040,000 proposed budget for outlet replacement, upstream waterproofing, and land restoration work. SLCDPU has received a 30% matching funds, grant of $265,000 in December of 2022 for engineering and planning for Lake Mary Dam’s restoration.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $6,690,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
91 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Pumping Plants & Pump Houses
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
As a result of its size and topography, the water distribution system consists of more than 50 different pressure zones. Pump stations are often connections between pressure zones, pumping treated water from one zone to another. The utility has over thirty pump stations with many still needing back-up power or generators for system resiliency. Planned projects for this fiscal year are the Arlington Hills Pump Station Full Backup Power project, $700,000, and the University Pump Station Piping Replacement and Equipment Upgrades project, $200,000.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $900,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
92 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Culverts, Flumes & Bridges
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
These secondary water conveyance systems are critical to maintaining our water exchange agreements. Planned projects within this category are the flume from Double Barrels to the railroad tracks for $2,200,000 and the JSL Canal Enclosure at Millcreek for $2,000,000. These projects are intended to support the long-term resiliency and reliability of systems that are critical to maintaining water deliveries.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $4,200,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
93 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Distribution Reservoirs (Tanks)
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
SLCDPU has over 100,000,000 gallons of finished water storage in 22 tanks and reservoirs. These components require on-going inspection and maintenance. The location and elevation of these facilities is critical to the operation of the water distribution system. The budget includes $1,850,000 dedicated to maintenance and repair of both the 15th East Reservoir and Park Reservoir structures. Other projects include slope stabilization efforts at the Canyon Cove Upper Tank, $50,000, and drainage upgrades at the Capitol Hills Tanks site, $400,000.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $2,300,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
94 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Maintenance & Repair Shops (Water Utility)
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
SLCDPU is evaluating properties for future use by the department. The budgeted $400,000 is to evaluate the feasibility of expanding the SLCDPU campus at the existing location or relocating the SLCDPU campus to meet existing needs and address safety concerns. This evaluation will consider the cost benefit of campus improvements and will assess the department’s ability to mitigate financial impacts by leveraging existing assets.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $400,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible, long term operational costs to be evaluated with feasibility assessments through design.
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
95 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Treatment Plants
Project Address:1365 West 2300 North
Project Description:
The largest budgeted item in this category is for the construction of a new water reclamation facility. The $210,499,773 estimate represents the continuation of a multi-year project and includes design, construction, and program management. Existing plant improvement projects include Capital Asset Rehabilitation and Upgrades for $1,300,000, digester rehabilitation and cogeneration projects for $210,000 and $250,000 respectively. These existing plant improvements are critical to maintaining existing operations while the new water reclamation facility is commissioned.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Sewer Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $212,259,773
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Temporary dewatering will continue to have an operational impact in FY24 for chemical costs. The annual operational cost of wastewater treatment is anticipated to increase by $2M to $4M for power and chemical costs when the construction of the new water reclamation facility is complete and operational. This estimate will be refined as construction progresses.
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
96 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Collection Lines
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
SLCDPU has over 667 miles of aging sewer collections pipelines. Proposed budget within this category includes pipe renewal & replacement projects, City/County/State driven projects, and master plan projects. Master plan projects are the largest budgeted item in this category and total $23,955,000. This includes $1,500,000 for the 1800 North Sewer Realignment Phase 2; $6,000,000 for 1800 North Sewer Realignment Phase 3; $12,000,000 for 2100 S Upsizing Project; and $250,000 for South Temple Upsizing Project. Master plan projects identified within this category support system condition improvements and growth related capacity constraints. Pipe renewal & replacement projects are budgeted for $2,155,000 and consist of Emergency Operations Support, 2100 S Sewer Rehab (600 E/400 E), and other small improvement projects intended to improve system operations and reliability. The budget includes $1,650,000 for capital project support, program management, and emergency projects. Project budgets to support City, County and State driven projects are estimated at $400,000 which includes Misc. Public Services Projects and the 700 N Sewer Rehabilitation design, which is to be completed in advance of the planned roadway improvements.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Sewer Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $23,955,000
Priority: Project Specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
97 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Lift Stations
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
The Proposed lift station renewal and replacement program anticipates two projects for FY 2023/2024. The first of these projects includes the 5300 West Lift Station capacity improvements budgeted for $2,500,000. This project is intended to support growth within the International Center and surrounding inland port development area. The Industrial Lift Station Improvements budgeted for $250,000 are intended to improve the existing lift station operating conditions and to mitigate sanitary sewer overflows that have been experienced over the past several years.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Sewer Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $2,750,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
98 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Maintenance & Repair Shops (Sewer Utility)
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
SLCDPU is evaluating properties for future use by the department. The budgeted $350,000 is to evaluate the feasibility of expanding the SLCDPU campus at the existing location or relocating the SLCDPU campus to meet existing needs and address safety concerns. This evaluation will consider the cost benefit of campus improvements and will assess the department’s ability to mitigate financial impacts by leveraging existing assets.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Sewer Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $350,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible, long term operational costs to be evaluated with feasibility assessments through design.
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
99 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Storm Drain Lines
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
The largest item in this category is $5,730,000 for projects supporting City, County, and State driven projects, including $4,430,000 in work supporting Funding our Future streets bond projects. Other projects in this category total $1,300,000 for various collection lines and public utility defined projects to include Highland Drive storm drain improvements, northwest drain bypass to Jordan River improvements, and Emigration Creek at 1700 South improvements. Other local area projects to be completed by city crews at various locations are budgeted to be $500,000.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Storm Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $6,230,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
100 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Riparian Corridor Improvements
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
The planned riparian project for FY 2023/2024 is Emigration Creek – 1700 S Outlet Protection. Riparian vegetation will be restored and a wingwall and apron will be installed to reduce erosion in Emigration Creek. This work will accompany the rehabilitation of the 1700 S culvert which conveys Emigration Creek through the roadway.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Storm Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $250,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
101 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Landscaping
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
The landscaping budget includes $50,000 for the Northwest Oil Drain canal remediation. This budget is to reserve funding for cleanup and closeout on the remediated portions of the Northwest Drain.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Storm Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $50,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
102 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Storm Water Lift Stations
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
Storm water lift station work includes the design of a storm water lift station in Swede Town budgeted for $200,000. This will provide improved drainage services in Swede Town and surrounding area east of the railroad. The Northwest Drain Lift Station Reconstruction is intended to increase capacity of the Northwest Drain and is budgeted for design in the amount of $450,000.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Storm Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $650,000
Priority: Project Specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
103 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Detention Basins
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
Detention Basins work includes the continuation of the design of the Granary District Floodplain Mitigation and Re-Mapping Project. This project will design detention basins to be installed within the city to reduce the Granary Floodplain. The Granary District Floodplain Mitigation and Re-mapping is budgeted for $365,000.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Storm Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $365,000
Priority: Project Specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
104 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:Street Lighting Projects
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
Planned projects for FY 2023/2024 are $2,240,000 to upgrade to high efficiency lighting and other system improvements on arterial streets, collector streets, and in neighborhoods. This includes budget to hire a contractor to perform inspections on new street lighting facilities, consultant support to develop an Implementation Plan for new Master Plan related projects, and budget for improvements for base level lighting services and three enhanced lighting groups. The master plan determines and guides best practices for upgrades and new lights.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Street Lighting Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Funds
Enterprise Funds: $2,240,000
Priority: Ongoing program
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Reduce electricity costs.Replacing aging poles and wiring throughout the city.Continued research on Smart City and Lighting Control Technology.
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
105 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
This page intentionally left blank
Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency
The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) strengthens neighborhoods and commercial districts
to improve livability, create economic opportunity and foster authentic, equitable communities. The RDA
utilizes a powerful set of financial and planning tools to support strategic development projects that
enhance the City’s housing opportunities, commercial vitality, public spaces, and environmental
sustainability. The RDA’s primary source of funds for the projects include property tax increment and
program income revenue, depending on the specific budget account.
The RDA often participates with Salt Lake City in the redevelopment or construction of city owned
infrastructure projects. As part of the RDA Budget Policy, Capital Projects are defined as any project that
anticipates multi-year funding. The allocation of funds for these projects is part of the budget approval
process and is typically contingent on the RDA Board authorizing appropriation once the specific projects
costs and details are known. Depending on the project, the timeline for this process may not follow the
City’s CIP schedule or requirements for approval.
The RDA fiscal year 2024 budget process proposes one potential City infrastructure project. The City
Creek daylighting design plan explores bringing a portion of City Creek that currently runs in a culvert
underground up to the surface just north of the Folsom Trail from 800 West to 1000 West. The project
goals include increasing access to nature, improving water quality and mitigating surface flooding. This
$50,000 funding request will produce final construction drawings which will be used for project
implementation. Landscaping improvements and other pedestrian amenities will also be recommended
as a part of the design plan to activate the trail and create a welcoming centerpiece for the westside
community. The total cost for implementation is estimated to be between $15,000,000 and $20,000,000.
Salt Lake City RDA Capital Projects
107 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Project Title:City Creek Daylighting
Project Address:Folsom Corridor – North Temple Project Area
Project Description:
Appropriation of funds to support a design plan to daylight (bring to the surface) a portion of City Creek that runs north of the Folsom Trail from 800 West to 1000 West. Project goals include increasing access to nature, improving water quality and mitigating surface flooding. This funding request will produce final construction drawings which will be used for project implementation. Landscaping improvements and other pedestrian amenities will also be recommended as a part of the design plan to activate the trail and create a welcoming centerpiece for the westside community. The total cost for implementation is estimated to be between $15,000,000 and $20,000,000.
Proposal ID:
Department:RDA
Project Type:
Category:
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $50,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Impact will be determined on a case-by-case basis, but it’s anticipated that City Parks and Public Utilities will maintain the creek and associated amenities.
Salt Lake City RDA Capital Projects
108 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
#Application Title CDCIP
Board
Council
District
Requested
Funding
Recommended
Funding
Social Vulnerability
Index
Sustainability
10 is Highest
PNUT Board
1 is Highest
Pavement
Condition
1 Library Plaza Structural Assessment and Visioning 104 4 $ 190,000 $ 190,000
Moderate-Low
Vulnerability NA Internal #7 Serious
2 Safer Crossings: Main St., Glendale Park, and Citywide 103.29 Citywide $ 900,000 $ 900,000 Highest Vulnerability 5 Satisfactory
3 200 East ADA and Sidewalk Improvements 103.14 5 $ 234,000 $ 234,000
Moderate-Low
Vulnerability 6 Failed
4 Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / Operational Investments 101.86 Citywide $ 1,500,000 $ 1,100,000 Citywide (N/A)6 N/A
5 Complete Streets Program: 2100 South, Virginia St., and Citywide 100.71 Citywide $ 6,600,000 $ 3,293,000 Citywide (N/A)7 Failed
6 Public Way Concrete 2023/2024 100 Citywide $ 750,000 $ 750,000 Citywide (N/A)2 Ranges from Poor to
Failed
7 Livable Streets Implementation 99.14 Citywide $ 2,500,000 $ 1,350,000 Citywide (N/A)5 N/A
8 Neighborhood Byways 98 Citywide $ 800,000 $ 800,000 Highest Vulnerability 7 N/A
9 Complete Streets Reconstruction 2023/2024 97 Citywide $ 4,500,000 $ 4,500,000 Citywide (N/A)2 Serious/Failed
10 Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion 96.86 2 $ 507,000 $ 507,000 Highest Vulnerability 1 Constituent #8 Fair
11 Jordan Park and Peace Gardens Cultural Landscape Report and Master Plan 96 2 $ 200,000 $- Moderate-High
Vulnerability NA Internal #5 N/A
12 Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parklet 95.57 1 $ 850,000 $ 850,000 Highest Vulnerability NA Internal #4 Failed
13 Three Creeks West - Roadways Addendum 95.29 2 $ 850,000 $- Moderate-High
Vulnerability 1 Serious
14 Complete Streets Overlay 2023/2024 95.29 Citywide $ 3,500,000 $ 1,250,000 Citywide (N/A)2 Serious/Failed
15 Urban Trails: The Other Side Village & the 9-Line Trail 94 Citywide $ 1,700,000 $ 1,700,000 Highest Vulnerability 5 N/A
16 Rose Park and Jordan River Recreation Hub 93.86 1 $ 495,000 $- Highest Vulnerability NA Internal #9 N/A
17 Citywide Park Restroom Planning Study/Fairmont Restroom Conceptual Design 93.43 Citywide $ 75,000 $- Lowest Vulnerability 1 Constituent #4 Poor
18 Madsen Park Improvements 93 2 $ 500,000 $- Highest Vulnerability 5 Constituent #3 Fair
19 Fire Station No. 7 Tennis and Pickleball Court Restoration and Amenities 92.57 1 $ 855,000 $ 855,000 Highest Vulnerability NA Internal #1 Failed
20 337 Park Development 92.29 4 $ 550,000 $ 550,000
Moderate-High
Vulnerability NA Internal #8 N/A
21 Rose Park Lane Beautification, Trail, and Safety Improvements 92 1 $ 840,000 $- Moderate-High
Vulnerability 4 Constituent #6 Failed
Attachment 4 - FY2024 Simplified Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log by CDCIP Advisory Board Scores
Page 1
#Application Title CDCIP
Board
Council
District
Requested
Funding
Recommended
Funding
Social Vulnerability
Index
Sustainability
10 is Highest
PNUT Board
1 is Highest
Pavement
Condition
22 Richmond Park Community Playground 92 4 $ 530,000 $ - Moderate-Low
Vulnerability NA Internal #10 Serious
23 Rose Park Lane Open Space and Trail Connection Study 91.14 1 $ 140,000 $ - Moderate-High
Vulnerability NA not ranked Very Poor
24 Jefferson Park Improvements 90.86 5 $ 530,000 $ 530,000 Highest Vulnerability 5 Constituent #2 Very Poor
25 Parks Bilingual Signage Installation 89.86 Citywide $ 414,000 $ 414,000 Citywide (N/A)NA Internal #6 N/A
26 Fairpark Traffic Circle Construction Phase 89.57 1 $ 497,000 $ 497,000 Highest Vulnerability 4 Satisfactory
27 North Temple Arts and Tourism District Improvements 89.14 2 $ 495,111 $ - Highest Vulnerability 5 Fair
28 Alleyway Improvements 2023/2024 87 Citywide $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Citywide (N/A)NA Serious/Failed
29 Fire Station #1 Apparatus Bay Extension 86.57 4 $ 1,148,771 $ 1,148,771 Moderate-High
Vulnerability NA N/A
30 Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY24 85.57 Citywide $ 1,700,000 $ 1,700,000 Citywide (N/A)7 Ranges from Poor to
Failed
31 Mill and Overlay Maintenance Pilot Program 84 Citywide $ 750,000 $ 750,000 Citywide (N/A)1 N/A
32 Sugar House Safe Side Streets Part 2 83.14 7 $ 150,000 $ - Moderate-Low
Vulnerability 3 N/A
33 Historic Restorations, Replacements, Conservation Work at International Peace Gardens 82.86 2 $ 325,000 $ 325,000 Moderate-High
Vulnerability NA Constituent #1 Poor
34 Fred and Ila Rose Wetland Preserve Improvements 82.29 2 $ 361,073 $ - Highest Vulnerability NA Constituent #9 Satisfactory/Poor
35 75-Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement 80.14 4 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 Moderate-Low
Vulnerability NA Failed
36 Park Strip, Median, Park Irrigation/Water Reduction Strategy and Implementation 80 Citywide $ 500,000 $ - Citywide (N/A)7 Internal #3 N/A
37 Liberty and Jordan Parks Greenhouses - Revisioned 78.57 Citywide $ 242,823 $ - Moderate-High
Vulnerability 5 Constituent #7 Fair/Poor
38 First Encampment Park 77 5 $ 125,500 $ - Moderate-Low
Vulnerability 1 Satisfactory
39 Indiana Avenue Area - Transit & Trail Connections 76.57 2 $ 162,500 $ - Moderate-High
Vulnerability 6 N/A
40 Multimodal Capital Maintenance 76.43 Citywide $ 200,000 $ - Citywide (N/A)5 Ranges from Poor to
Failed
41 700 South (Phase 7, 4600 West to 5000 West) Additional Funding 72.29 2 $ 4,000,000 $ - Moderate-High
Vulnerability 2 Failed
42 800 S 1000 E Crosswalk Upgrade 70.43 5 $ 336,500 $ - Moderate-Low
Vulnerability 4 Very Poor
Attachment 4 - FY2024 Simplified Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log by CDCIP Advisory Board Scores
Page 2
#Application Title CDCIP
Board
Council
District
Requested
Funding
Recommended
Funding
Social Vulnerability
Index
Sustainability
10 is Highest
PNUT Board
1 is Highest
Pavement
Condition
43 Central 9th Streetscape Improvements 70.43 5 $ 85,000 $ - Highest Vulnerability 2 N/A
44 Sugar House Community Map Project 68.71 7 $ 93,400 $ - Lowest Vulnerability 3 Very Poor/NA
45 Phase I: Plaza 349 Life Safety, Security, and HVAC Upgrades 68.57 4 $ 2,000,000 $ - Citywide (N/A)7 Ranges from Poor to
Failed
46 Implementation of Safety Enhancements West Side Foothill Drive 67.86 6 $ 494,126 $ - Lowest Vulnerability 4 N/A
47 Reimagining 4th & 4th (4th West & 4th South) 65.57 3 $ 100,000 $ - Moderate-Low
Vulnerability 4 Satisfactory
48 11th Ave Park Pavilion, Trees, and Benches 64 3 $ 533,165 $ - Lowest Vulnerability NA Internal #2 N/A
49 New Liberty Park Crosswalks and Trails 60.14 5 $ 262,000 $ - Moderate-High
Vulnerability 4 Constituent #5 N/A
50 Sunnyside and Arapeen Signal & Safety Improvements 60 6 $ 450,000 $ - Moderate-High
Vulnerability 2 Failed
51 Wasatch Hollow Park: Engagement, Planning & Restoration 56 6 $ 500,000 $ - Lowest Vulnerability 2 Constituent #10 Fair
52 Hansen Ave - West Entrance/Exit 53.14 5 $ 470,703 $ - Highest Vulnerability 2 N/A
53 Nevada Street Reconstruction 52.71 6 $ 479,000 $ - Lowest Vulnerability 2 Serious
54 Sunnyside Pickleball Courts 49.29 6 $ 500,000 $ - Moderate-High
Vulnerability NA N/A
55 1200 E Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk 48 7 $ 351,000 $ - Lowest Vulnerability 1 Serious
56 Salt Lake City Pétanque 44.57 1 $ 500,000 $ - Moderate-High
Vulnerability NA N/A
57 Ensign Peak Nature Park Improvements 43.43 3 $ 210,000 $ - Lowest Vulnerability NA Poor
58 11th Avenue Park Pickleball Expansion 40.57 3 $ 502,500 $ - Lowest Vulnerability NA N/A
59 Westside Art Project N/A 1, 2,
and/or 3 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 TBD NA N/A
Attachment 4 - FY2024 Simplified Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log by CDCIP Advisory Board Scores
Page 3
Overview of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Major Funding Sources
General Fund Dollars
(Most flexible funding source; can be spent on any project)
These are the City’s most flexible unrestricted funds available to be spent on any CIP project. The Council
transfers a portion of General Fund revenues into the CIP Fund as part of each annual budget in June.
The City collects a variety of revenue sources that all go into the General Fund such as property taxes,
sales taxes, franchise taxes, building permits and license fees, and many others. A Council audit identified
9% of ongoing General Fund revenues as an ideal funding level to help ensure the City keeps up with
capital investment needs. The City reached that 9% funding level in FY2023. In the prior two decades the
City’s annual General Fund transfer into the CIP Fund averaged closer to 7%.
Funding Our Future 0.5% Local Salt Lake City Option Sales Tax
(Critical need categories: housing, public transit, streets, and public safety; a fifth category of parks
maintenance was added in FY2023)
The 0.5% sales tax increase was authorized by the Legislature only for the capital city as part of the
State prison relocation from Draper. The City’s local option sales tax was increased as part of the
FY2019 annual budget and was branded “Funding Our Future” along with a Streets Reconstruction
Bond approved by voters (all those bond funds have now been budgeted). Prior to enacting the sales
tax increase the City conducted impact research, public hearings, open houses, workshops, letters,
online information, and other extensive outreach. The funds from the sales tax are limited to the
critical need categories as determined by the Council. The definition of the critical need categories
has evolved over the times such as expanding public safety from only police to also include 911
dispatch, fire, medical, and social workers. The number of categories was originally four and a fifth
category, parks maintenance, was added in FY2023. There is no legal limitation to the categories
which are subject to the Council’s annual appropriation process and subject to change.
Class C Funds
(State gas tax)
Class C funds are generated by the Utah State Tax on gasoline. The state distributes these funds to local
governments on a center lane mileage basis. The City’s longstanding practice has been to appropriate
Class C funds for the general purpose of street reconstruction and asphalt overlays. The Roadway
Selection Committee selects specific street segment locations as recorded in the Engineering Division’s Six
Year Pavement Plan which is regularly updated. Note that there is overlap in eligible uses between this
funding source and the County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation and Streets Funding.
Per state law, Class C funds may be used for:
1. All construction and maintenance on eligible Class B & C roads
2. Enhancement of traffic and pedestrian safety, including, but not limited to: sidewalks, curb and
gutter, safety features, traffic signals, traffic signs, street lighting and construction of bicycle
facilities in the highway right-of-way
3. Investments for interest purposes (interest to be kept in fund)
4. Equipment purchases or equipment leases and rentals
5. Engineering and administration costs
6. Future reimbursement of other funds for large construction projects
7. Rights of way acquisition, fencing and cattle guards
8. Matching federal funds
9. Equipment purchased with B & C funds may be leased from the road department to another
department or agency
10. Construction of road maintenance buildings, storage sheds, and yards. Multiple use facilities
may be constructed by mixing funds on a proportional basis
11. Construction and maintenance of alleys
12. B & C funds can be used to pay the costs of asserting, defending, or litigating
13. Pavement portion of a bridge (non-road portions such as underlying bridge structure are not
eligible)
County Quarter Center (0.25%) Sales Tax
(Limited to transportation and streets eligible uses per state law)
The County fourth quarter-cent transportation funding is an ongoing sales tax funding source dedicated
to transportation and streets. The City has taken a progressive view of transportation beyond a vehicle-
focused perspective and uses a multi-modal, more inclusive approach (walking, biking, public transit,
accessibility and ADA, ride-share, trails, safety, scooters, etc.). The Wasatch Front Regional Council
summarized eligible uses for this funding as “developing new roads or enhancing (e.g., widening) existing
roads; funding active transportation, including bike and pedestrian projects; or funding transit
enhancements. It can also be used for maintenance and upkeep of existing facilities.” (SB136 of 2018
Fourth Quarter Cent Local Option Sales Tax Summary June 22, 2018). Revenue from the 0.25% sales tax
increase is split 0.10% for the Utah Transit Authority or UTA, 0.10% for cities and 0.05% for Salt Lake
County as of July 1, 2019 and afterwards. Note that there is overlap in eligible uses between this funding
source and Class C funds.
Impact Fee Eligibility
(Four types: fire, parks, police, and transportation / streets)
Impact fees are one-time charges imposed by the City on new development projects to help fund the cost
of providing infrastructure and services to that new development. This is part of the City’s policy that
growth should pay for growth. A project, or portion of a project, must be deemed necessary to ensure the
level of service provided can continue with the additional impacts of the new developments (such as
serving more residents or workers). As a result, it’s common for a project to only be partially eligible for
impact fee funding (the growth-related portion) so other funding sources must be found to cover the
difference. It is important to note that per state law, the City has six years from the date of collection to
spend or encumber under a contract the impact fee revenue. After six years, if those fees are not
encumbered or spent then the fees are returned to the developer with interest.
General Impact Fee Guidelines:
1. Impact fees are to be used to keep a current level of service for new growth to a City.
2. Cannot be used to cure deficiencies serving existing development.
3. May not raise the established level of service in existing development.
4. Cannot include an expense for overhead, such as any cost for staff/administration, operation, and
maintenance.
5. Impact fees can only be used to pay for the portion of the project directly attributable to growth
(it’s uncommon for projects to be 100% eligible for impact fees).
6. Must be incurred or encumbered within 6 years from the date they are collected, or they shall be
returned to the developer with interest payments per state law.
7. Must use an adopted Impact Fees Facilities Plan to determine the public facilities needed to serve
new growth and set fees costs by development type.
8. Repair and replacement projects are not growth related.
9. Upgrade projects are not growth related.
10. Repair, replacement, or upgrades can be included as part of a mixed project where the scope will
create increased capacity to serve projected growth.
11. Impact fees must be spent in the same geographic boundary (service area) in which they are
collected. The City’s Impact Fee Facilities Plan designates the entire city as the service area. The
Transportation section was updated in 2020. The other three sections were adopted in 2016.
Funding
Source
Cost
Center Description Remaining
Appropriation Complete?If Not Complete, Status?
8319062 Deteriorated or Missing Concre $209.89
Total $209.89
8314031 Driver Feedback Signs $86,320.00
8317032 Bridge Maintenance Program $21,518.62
8317036 Street Improvements: Reconstru $2,219.83
8317359 Gladiola to Indiana 900S Seq C $112,657.56
8318023 Gladiola 900 S Imp $38,047.09
8319504 Street Reconstruct 1500S/2700S $8,281.62
8320501 Streets Reconstruction 20 $1,497.88
8320502 Street Overlay 20 $99,454.82
8320503 Traffic Signal Upgrades 20 $0.74
Total $369,998.16
8300800 ESCO Steiner - County Ongoing $439,527.00
8317076 SLVSWMF Projects $132,043.12
8319705 ZAP Oak Tennis Pro $4,721.20
8319710 Trans Choice 9 Line $62,203.69
8319720 Millcreek Sugarhouse County $27,021.29
8320070 FY20 Landfill Monitoring $207,402.00
Total $872,918.30
8314094 West Salt Lake Master Plan Imp $8,598.00
8314104 Genesee Trailhead Acquistion $234,427.36
8314105 Fisher Mansion Carriage House $12,039.79
8315083 Wakara Way/Arapeen Dr Donation $35,565.72
8317064 Jordan River Trail – Union P $500,000.00
8321800 Community Nutrition Hub $75,462.02
8322633 200 South Dominion Donation $300,000.00
8323401 Backman Community Donation $20,000.00
8600071 Smith Ballfield Naming Rights $374,908.15
8619621 Transportation Safety Improvem $630.25
Total $1,561,631.29
8315015 Fire Station #14 furnishings $6,265.96
8315027 Bikeway - Close the gap $25,335.87
8316046 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr $103,181.93
8316070 Warm Springs Park, 840 N 300 W $13,194.60
8317025 500/700 S Reconstruction $476,232.86
8317029 Bus Stop Enhancements $16,990.39
8317043 Parks and Public Lands Compreh $7,343.15
8317049 UTA TIGER GRANT MATCH $21,634.16
8317055 Capital Facilities Plan $4,928.32
8318028 Bridge Maintenance $76,503.76
8318044 East West Connections Study $970.74
8318045 Bikeways Urban Trails $57,732.81
8318047 Rose Park Pedestrian Byway $24,336.20
8318048 Miller Park ADA access $364,735.10
8318049 Jordan R. Flood Control $4,432.91
8318053 Parks and Rec HVAC $9,900.00
8318084 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT - CIP $110,104.00
8319085 Cost overrun $56,027.29
8319301 Delong & Parks Yard Improvemen $20,915.09
8319401 Glendale Park Playground Path $43,476.17
8319403 RAC Shade Structure and Playgr $1,428.58
CDBG
Class C
County
Donations
Funding
Source
Cost
Center Description Remaining
Appropriation Complete?If Not Complete, Status?
8319405 Rose Park Multiloop Trail $148,007.23
8319406 11th Ave Pavilion and Signage $39,545.97
8319616 Whitlock Curb and Gutter $18,909.88
8319619 1900 East Reconsruction $68,502.51
8319621 Traffic Signals Upgrade $0.68
8319622 1400 E Sunnyside Intersection $64,662.90
8319701 Library Parking Equipment $59,576.57
8319721 Millcreek Sugarhouse GF $485.95
8319741 WestsideMultimodal GF $29,657.50
8319900 Transportation Acctg SalesTax $2,241.02
8320085 Cost overrun $70,381.00
8320401 Liberty Park 7 Cany Fountain $695,580.27
8320402 Hidden Hollow Water Enhancemen $379,928.03
8320404 10 E Senior Ctr Retaining Wall $2,378.51
8320405 Libert Prk Drainage Fueling S.$94,837.45
8320406 Community Parks Signage $248,665.00
8320407 Three Creeks Con Phase III $492,800.00
8320432 Liberty 7 Canyons Fountain $127,968.00
8320442 Match UT FHA Foothill Trails $144,106.12
8320602 Bus Stop Signal Enhancements $772,947.60
8320603 McClelland Str Phase 2a $124,740.00
8320701 Sorensen Unity Connecting Corr $875,000.00
8381200 OPEN SPACE LAND MATCHING $11,600.00
8395046 OPEN SPACE LAND TRUST $9,103.01
8600001 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT - GF $598,685.20
8600005 Crime Lab Rent $101,842.10
8600040 Percent for Art $255,895.77
8600042 Maintenance Percent for Art $43,133.35
8600401 Parks Maintenance $206,898.27
8600402 Public Lands Maintenance FOF $1,170,528.45
8600701 Facilities Maintenance $451,424.24
8600702 Facilities Asset Renewal $964,847.78
8619402 City-wide Park Walkway Safety $5,386.33
8619409 Fairmont Stream Access Beautif $17,000.00
8619411 Westside Trail Connections $249,922.91
8619602 Bridge Maintenance $150,000.00
8619603 Saw Cutting Sidewalk -$33.59 Why is this negative?
8619624 1700 S Lane Reconfiguration $35,322.27
8619625 Sunnyside 9 Line Trail $3,342.01
8620608 Sugarhouse 600 E Traffic Calmi $149,068.28
8620621 Bridge Maintenance $250,000.00
8686058 Elections Expenses $91,546.00
Total $10,672,104.46
8405005 Public Safety Building Replcmn $0.28
8406001 Gladiola Street $2,244.33
8412002 Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design $124,593.18
8416004 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr $42,832.69
8416005 9line park $4,420.71
8417011 Marmalade Park Block Phase II $73,264.60
8417012 Parley's Trail Design & Constr $327,678.45
8417013 Rosewood Dog Park $1,055.97
General Fund
Funding
Source
Cost
Center Description Remaining
Appropriation Complete?If Not Complete, Status?
8417014 Redwood Meadows Park Dev $9,350.26
8417017 Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn $2,945.50
8417018 Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence $1,569.60
8418002 Cwide Dog Lease Imp $261.73
8418003 Bikeway Urban Trails $181,845.59
8418005 Bridge to Backman $251,757.84
8418016 500 to 700 S $22,744.01
8419008 Traffic Signal Upgrades $450.00
8419103 ImperialParkShadeAcct'g $6,397.50
8419150 Pioneer Park $3,022,323.09
8419201 Eastside Precint $21,639.09
8419202 Fire'sConsultant'sContract $58.00
8419203 Street'sConsultant'sContract $12,374.31
8419204 Park'sConsultant'sContract $42.00
8420110 Transp Safety Improvements $32,028.03
8420120 Complete Street Enhancements $18,699.37
8420125 Street Improve Reconstruc 20 $383,308.67
8420134 Jordan Prk Event Grounds $399,055.66
8420136 9Line Orchard $142,612.29
8420138 Rich Prk Comm Garden $8,103.29
8420142 Wasatch Hollow Improvements $413,726.49
8420406 IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks $54,807.56
8420420 UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails $121,329.10
8420424 Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen $110,390.48
8420430 FY20 Bridge to Backman $117,628.28
Total $5,911,537.95
8600002 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT -$27,171.28 Why is this negative?
Total -$27,171.28
8316079 University bikeway $1,200.80
Total $1,200.80
8318100 Fire Training Center $19,313.38
8319801 PolicePrecinctLandAquisition $1,299,688.00
8381600 Regional Sports Complex land p $489,836.03
8381750 Building Assessment - City Bld $19,602.62
Total $1,828,440.03
$208,275,255.98
Impact Fees
Land Sales
Private
Donations
Sale of
Property
Grand Total
Capital Asset Plan (CAP) Council Requests from January 2019
1.Policy Goals and Metrics – Council Members requested high-level cost estimates for the City
to implement the below policy goals as well as any metrics. The Administration was invited to
recommend policy goals to the Council. Three cost estimates are included based on prior
discussions but may not represent the best currently available information. The table is intended
for discussion purposes and does not represent a comprehensive list of policy goals for Council
consideration.
Potential Policy Goals Potential Metrics High-level Cost
Estimate
Bring all facilities out of
deferred maintenance
Appropriations vs. funding
need identified in Public
Services’ Facilities Dashboard
that tracks each asset
$6.8 million
annually or $68
million over ten
years
Expand the City's urban trail
network with an emphasis on
East-West connections
Total paved/unpaved network
miles; number and funding
for improved trail features;
percentage of 9-Line
completed
$21 million for 9-
Line
implementation
Increase the overall condition
index of the City's street
network from poor to fair
Overall Condition Index
(OCI); pavement condition
survey every five years
$133 million cost
estimate (in addition
to existing funding
level)
Implement the Foothill Trails
Master Plan
Distance of improved trails
completed; number and
funding for improved
trailheads
$TBD
Advance the City's
sustainability goals through
building energy efficiency
upgrades
Energy savings; carbon
emission reductions $TBD
Focus on renewal and
maintenance projects over
creating new assets
Number, funding level and
ratio of renewed assets vs.
new assets
$TBD
2.Project Location Mapping – Council Members requested a map of all CAP projects. The idea
of multiple maps based on dollar value was discussed such as $50,000 - $999,999, $1 million - $5
million, and over $5 million.
3.Measure CAP to CIP Alignment – Council Members expressed support for annually
measuring the alignment of how many CIP Funding Log projects were previously listed in the
CAP and how many CIP projects receiving appropriations were previously listed in the CAP. A
high alignment would indicate the CAP is successfully identifying the City’s capital needs.
4.Council Adoption of CAP – The question arose if the Council should adopt the CAP each year
with the annual budget or potentially in the summer when reviewing project specific funding.
Does the Administration have a preference?
Parks 2019 Estimate 2021 Estimate 2022 Estimate
Trailside Pit Toilet $150,000 $168,000 $200,000
Portland Loo (each) Existing Sewer Line $200,000 $224,000 $270,000
4 Seat Each Gender. Existing Sewer Line $350,000 $450,000 $550,000
8 Seat Each Gender. Existing Sewer Line $550K - $600K $700,000 $850,000
Site Master Plan $50K - $75K $75,000-$100,000 $90,000-$115000
Cultural Landscape Report $75,000-$150,000 $90,000-$175,000
City-wide Comprehensive Study $150K - $250K $200,000-$300-000 $230,000-$350,000
Installed with sewer connection $15K - $30,000 $35000- $50,000 $45,000-$62,500
Playground Replacement $150K - $250K $250,000-$350,000 $300,000-$450,000
New Playground $150K - $250K $450,000-$550,000 $550,000-$650,000
Native soil field $150,000 $400,000-$500,000 $450,000-$550,000
Sand-based field $400,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000
Softball/Baseball Field Improvements (Each Field)$200,000 $250,000 $300,000
Fencing (6 ft. vinyl coated chain link)$45.00-$55.00/LF $54.00-$65.00
Patch, repair and paint $150,000 $168,000 $210,000
New post tension court $250,000 $300,000 $360,000
Hand-built natural surface single track trail (40"
width)$6-12/LF $25.00-$30.00/LF $30.00-$35.00
Machine-built natural-surface trail (40" width)$20-25/LF $10.00-$15.00/LF $13.00-$18.00
Asphalt Trail $3.50/SF $5.00/SF $7.00/SF
Concrete Trail (6" thick)$4.50/SF $8.00/SF $12.00/SF
Soft Surface - Crushed stone $2.50/SF $6.00-$10.00/ SF $8.00-$13.00/SF
Off-leash Dog Parks $250K - $350K $ 280,000-$392,000 $330,000-$460,000
Irrigation Systems Per Acre $52,000+$75,000 +85000+
Tree Replacements (Each 2-inch caliper)$350 $750 $600
Natural Area Restoration Per Acre $100K - $200K $ 112,000- $224,000 $135,000-$250,000
Transportation 2019 Estimate 2021 Estimate 2022 Estimate
Bike - One Mile Cycle Track/Lane Mile (3 lane miles =
1.5 actual miles)500,000+$600,000+700,000.00$
Bike - One Lane Mile (2 lane miles = 1 mile actual mile) 2,000+$2,500+4,000.00$
Bike - Protected Lane Mile (200 West 2015)$400,000 $500,000-1,000,000 $750,000-$1,250,000
Traffic Signals - New 250,000$ 350,000.00$ 400,000.00$
Traffic Signals - Upgrades 250,000$ 350,000.00$ 400,000.00$
HAWK Signals 130,000$ 150,000.00$ 175,000.00$
Crosswalk - Flashing 60,000$ $75,000 $85,000
Crosswalk - School Crossing Lights 25,000$ $30,000 $35,000
Crosswalk - Colored/Stamped varies based on width of
road $15K - $25K $18,000-$27,000 $20000 - $30000
Driver Feedback Sign 8,000$ $9,500 $11,000
Speed Table / Raised Crosswalk 25,000$ $30,000 $40,000
Pedestrian Refuge Island 10,000$ $12,000 $15,000
Curb Extension at Intersection 20,000$ $25,000 $30,000
Crosswalk 1,600$ $1,800 $2,000
Streets 2019 Estimate 2021 Estimate 2022 Estimate
Asphalt Overlay (Lane Mile)280,000$ 335,000$ 360,000$
Crack Seal (Lane Mile)5,000$ 6,000$ 8,000$
Road Reconstruction - Asphalt (Lane Mile)500,000$ 600,000$ 700,000$
Road Reconstruction - Asphalt to Concrete (Lane Mile)$700k - $1.2 M $840,000 - $1,440,000 $1,000,000 - $1,700,000
Sidewalk slab jacking (per square foot)4$ $5 $6
Sidewalk replacement (per square foot)$ 7 - $10 $8 - $12 $9 - $15
Tennis Court Improvements (2 Courts)
Path/ Trail Improvements
Restrooms (dependent on site and utility work)
Studies
Drinking Fountains
Multi-purpose Field Improvements
Note: Last updated July 2022
Regular CIP Project Costs; General Rules of Thumb
NOTE: Costs are estimates based on most recent information available (could be out of date), vary by project, and do not include ongoing maintenance
Attachment 7 - Regular CIP Project Cost Estimates (July 2022)
Livable Streets Traffic Calming Program First Year Accomplishments Summary
From the Transportation Division
-Hired four new transportation planners.
-Worked with the Administration and City Council to change the prima facie speed limit from 25 mph
to 20 mph. Additional 20 mph signs are currently being prepared for installation near elementary
schools throughout the city.
-Updated the Livable Streets and Transportation Safety web pages.
-For Livable Streets Zone 1, phase 1 of the traffic calming project for the Capitol Hill area has been
awarded and will be constructed this summer.
-Our first public meetings were held this spring for Livable Streets Zones 2, 3 and 4.
-Speed bumps to be installed on 2100 East and 1300 South. The project has been awarded and will
be constructed this summer.
-The Slow Down West Sugar House project has been awarded and will be constructed this summer.
-Temporary traffic calming devices were installed in the Sugar House Safe Side Streets project area.
-As part of the Emery Street Livability Improvement Pilot Project, temporary traffic calming devices
have been installed on Emery St with more on the way over the next couple of weeks.
-Extensive work has been performed to update the crosswalk flag program.
-Livable Streets enhancements were installed at a school crosswalk located at 2150 E Westminster
-A roundabout has been designed for 700 S 1000 W. The project is currently being prepared for
advertisement to obtain contractor bids.
-In-roadway crosswalk warning signs were installed at multiple locations.
Zone Prioritization and Status Based on Funding Level
The prioritization of the zones hasn’t changed, therefore the overall map remains the same. Since this
program is so new, we’re still working off estimates of the amount of funding each zone will require for
their Livable Streets improvements. If we assume that the average of each zone will be $500K, then,
based on the original $2M plus the new $1.35M funding will provide us with enough funding for
approximately $3.35M/$500K = 6.7 Zones, or about six or seven zones. The attached map highlights the
locations of the top 7 Livable Streets zones. We’re already working on Zones 1-4. Based on these
assumptions, the FY2024 $1.35 million request will fund all or a portion of the projects in zones 5, 6 and
7.
Note, the color coded prioritization map on the following page is from the Livable Streets Program 2022
Final Report page 13. Council staff added zone numbers one through seven to help compare the two
maps. An interactive version of the zones map is available on the Transportation Division’s website here:
https://www.slc.gov/transportation/plans-studies/livable-streets/#LivableStreetsProjects
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
Item B9
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:July 11, 2023
RE: 754 South State Street Zoning Map and Text Amendments (Sears Block)
PLNPCM2022-01109
MOTION 1 (close and defer)
I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting.
MOTION 2 (continue hearing)
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:July 11, 2023
RE: 754 South State Street Zoning Map and Text Amendments (Sears Block)
PLNPCM2022-01109
The Council will be briefed on a proposed zoning map amendment for ten parcels totaling approximately
nine acres on the block bordered by 700 South, 800 South, State Street, and Main Street as shown in the
image below. This is the former Sears department store location which closed in 2018 and the buildings
have since been demolished. The property is currently zoned D-2 (Downtown Support District), and the
requested zoning designation is D-1 (Central Business District). Intermountain Health owns the property,
and their stated objective is to construct an urban hospital on the site.
Hospitals are not allowed as permitted or conditional uses under the proposed D-1 or current D-2 zoning.
Included with the zoning map amendment, the petitioner also requested a text amendment to section
21A.33.050 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts found in Salt Lake City Code
to allow hospitals, including accessory lodging facilities, and ambulance services as permitted uses in the
D-1 zoning district. It is worth noting that the Planning Commission recommended the Council adopt the
text amendment to specify that these uses should be conditional rather than permitted. Additional
information follows later in this report.
Nine acres is significantly smaller than a typical hospital development, but the applicant indicated
additional height allowed under the proposed D-1 zoning district would allow them to build up rather than
out, so the site would accommodate their needs. (Building height is limited to 120 feet in the current D-2
zoning district. There is no height limit in the D-1 zone, but buildings taller than 200 feet are subject to
design review and conditions).
Item Schedule:
Briefing: July 11, 2023
Set Date: June 6, 2023
Public Hearing: July 11, 2023
Potential Action: July 18, 2023
Page | 2
It is worth noting that Major Street is a public street entering the site mid-block from 700 South. During
the design process, if the petitioner wants to build over the street property rather than use it as an access
point, a separate street vacation petition would be required.
The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and the accompanying text amendment.
No formal site plan has been submitted to the City nor is it within the scope of the Council’s role to review
the plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be
considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project.
The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at its March 22, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing
at which two people spoke. A representative of the Downtown Community Council expressed general
support and referenced a letter sent to Intermountain (included on pages 31-34 of the Planning
Commission staff report) which includes several requests for the potential hospital site that would be
reviewed later if the project advances. The other commenter shared concerns about potential adverse
effects to nearby neighbors from the hospital and helicopters landing there. When asked about the
anticipated frequency of helicopter landings, the petitioner said the hospital will not be a trauma one center
as are Intermountain Medical Center and the University of Utah Hospital, so helicopter traffic will be light.
Some patients will require transport via helicopter, with a projected average of one to two times per week.
This is based on what LDS Hospital experiences. Heliports are currently allowed as a conditional use in the
D-1 zone.
The Commission voted 7-3 to forward a positive recommendation to the Council amending the zoning map
for the subject parcels from D-2 to D-1, and add the following uses as Conditional within the D-1 district:
•Ambulance service (indoor)
•Ambulance service (outdoor)
•Hospital, including accessory lodging facility.
One Commissioner who voted against the motion previously made a motion to include the above uses as
permitted. A substitute motion was made to include the uses as conditional in the D-1 zoning district,
which a majority of the Commission voted to support. Others who voted against the motion did not specify
why they were opposed.
Page | 3
Vicinity map with the subject parcels outlined in yellow.
Note-other parcels on the block are under separate ownership and not included in this proposal.
Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map and text amendments, determine if the Council
supports moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to ask the petitioner whether they are planning to provide housing at or near
the proposed hospital site.
2. The Council may wish to ask the petitioner about what ground floor public facing amenities are
anticipated for the site such as retail and food establishments, in order to provide ground floor
activation for pedestrian traffic, as is the goal of other D-1 district parcels.
3. The Council may also with to ask about plans for other public-facing amenities such as open space,
etc. that could provide a benefit to the adjacent community.
4. The Council may wish to discuss policy goals for midblock walkways or other ways to break up the
building(s) and provide a more open feel to the site. As previously stated there is no current site
plan and the Council’s role is not to review site plans, although this could provide policy guidance
for the future as it relates to closure of Major Street, which fall under the Council’s purview.
5. The Council may wish to ask the petitioner if they have plans to provide healthcare services for
those staying at the homeless resource centers, or services not available from other providers.
6. As shown in the map below, if approved, this parcel would be zoned D-1 and would not be
contiguous with other D-1 properties. It would be separated by properties on the north side of 700
South which are zoned D-2. The Council may wish to ask the Planning Division if this is consistent
with best practices (previous concerns have been raised by the Administration and past Councils
about “spot zoning”), or if there are considerations for rezoning those properties in the future. As
noted in Planning’s analysis, the surrounding uses are compatible with the proposal.
Page | 4
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 4-9 of
the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the
staff report.
Consideration 1-Neighborhood and Citywide Master Plan Considerations
The subject parcels are near the southern edge of the area covered by the Downtown Master Plan, adopted
in 2016. The plan acknowledges ongoing population growth and calls for improved access to services and
amenities that support current and future downtown residents. If the proposed hospital is built it would
provide healthcare and jobs for nearby residents and those in the region.
Existing infrastructure will not accommodate the level of demand a hospital would generate. The developer
will be required to make improvements to offsite water, sewer, and stormwater quality in addition to
nearby water mains. Other needed improvements will be identified if the hospital is built.
The subject parcels are less than one block south of the D-1 zoning district as shown in the area zoning map
below. Although the proposed zoning change to D-1 would allow for higher density development and taller
buildings called for in the Downtown Master Plan, Planning staff found the zoning supports initiatives
outlined in the plan and continues the established development framework.
If approved by the Council, the subject properties would be surrounded by D-2 zoning, but Planning
anticipates these property owners will eventually work toward rezoning their properties.
Planning staff identified the following guiding principles found in Plan Salt Lake (2015) that relate to the
proposed zoning map and text amendments.
•Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunities for social interaction, and services
needed for the wellbeing of the community therein.
•A beautiful city that is people focused.
•Ensure access to all City amenities for all citizens while treating everyone equitably with fairness,
justice and respect.
•A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and fosters an environment for commerce, local
business, and industry to thrive.
Page | 5
Area zoning map with subject property outlined in red.
Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division.
Consideration 2-Development Potential
D-2 zoning limits building height to 120 feet. The requested D-1 zoning does not limit building height, but
buildings taller than 200 feet are subject to conditions and design review. One of the following conditions
would have to be provided as part of the design review process if a building taller than 200 feet is built:
•Midblock walkway that exceeds standard requirements by at least five feet,
•Affordable housing incentives,
•Additional ground floor use and visual interest,
•A restrictive covenant for a building older than 50 years and not listed as a local landmark site, or
•500 square feet of open space with a shade that covers 60% of the area.
Planning staff anticipates a design review application will be submitted requesting additional building
height.
Consideration 3- Compatibility with Adjacent Properties
As noted above, the subject property is less than one block south of the D-1 district and the Downtown
Master Plan anticipates this district to expand to approximately 900 South. Planning staff believes the
proposed rezone is compatible with development to the north and aligns with the community’s expectation
of downtown expansion. Surrounding businesses are smaller in scale and include restaurants, barber
shops, banks, and car dealerships.
Page | 6
The Central City neighborhood is located to the east of the subject property, and Central 9th is to the west.
Central City is an established residential neighborhood with some of the city’s oldest single-family homes.
Central 9th is also an older single-family residential neighborhood but is transitioning to more medium
density among the older homes. It is Planning staff’s opinion the surrounding community would not be
adversely impacted by the rezone. Additionally, if surrounding property owners work to rezone their
properties as is anticipated, development potential on those properties would be the same.
The subject site is within the Ballpark Community Council boundaries, but is within 600 feet of the Central
9th, Central City, and Downtown community council boundaries. It is within the Ballpark neighborhood,
but not included in the recently adopted Ballpark Small Area Plan. Rather, as noted above, it is located
within the Downtown Master Plan area.
If the proposed hospital is built, there will be a significant increase in area pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
Planning noted that designers would need to consider City plans related to streetscape design, midblock
connections, and activation on State and Main Streets. They also encouraged transit use for employees,
promote active transportation, and to be an example of how an urban hospital can revitalize a site. Those
recommendations would be reviewed if the project develops.
ZONING COMPARISON
The following table includes regulations in the zoning ordinance recently adopted by the Council.
Regulation Existing Zoning (D-2)Proposed Zoning (D-1)
Building Height Maximum height-65 feet by right
Above 65 feet up to 120 feet
subject to design review
Minimum height-100 feet
Maximum Height-no limit
Buildings taller than 200 feet
subject to design review and must
include at least one of the
following:
•Midblock walkway
•Affordable housing
•Exceed minimum ground
floor uses
•Restrictive covenant on
historic building to
preserve for at least 50
years
•Privately owned publicly
accessible open space of
at least 500 square feet
Yard Requirements Front/corner side yard-no
minimum.
Ten feet maximum.
Buildings with ground floor
residential: Minimum eight-foot
front yard setback, 16 foot
maximum. Provided yard shall
No minimum
Eight feet maximum. If provided
must include at least one of the
following:
•Minimum of one bench for
every 500 square feet of
yard space
•Landscaping that includes
increase of at least 25% of
Page | 7
be landscaped and provide at
least one of the following:
•Minimum of one bench for
every 500 square feet of
yard space
•Landscaping that includes
increase of at least 25% of
total number of required
trees
•Awning covering at least
five feet width and length
from all street-facing
building entrances
total number of required
trees
•Awning covering at least
five feet width and length
from all street-facing
building entrances
Analysis of Factors
Attachment D (pages 25-29) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map and zoning text
amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal.
Zoning Map Amendments
Factor Finding
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of
the city as stated through its various adopted
planning documents.
The proposed amendment is
generally consistent with the goals
and policies of the applicable
master plans.
Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
The proposal generally furthers
the specific purpose statements of
the zoning ordinance.
The extent to which a proposed map amendment will
affect adjacent properties
The change in zoning is not
anticipated to create any
substantial new negative impacts
that wouldn’t be anticipated with
the current zoning.
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with the purposes and provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts which may impose additional
standards.
There is no applicable overlay
district that imposes additional
development standards on this
property.
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.
The redevelopment of the site will
require public facility upgrades.
Zoning Text Amendments
Factor Finding
Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent
with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of
the city as stated through its various adopted
planning documents.
The proposed amendment is
generally consistent with the goals
and policies of the applicable
master plans.
Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
The proposal generally furthers
the specific purpose statements of
the zoning ordinance.
Page | 8
Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent
with the purposes and provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts which may impose additional
standards.
The change in zoning is not
anticipated to create any
substantial new negative impacts
that wouldn’t be anticipated with
the current zoning.
The extent to which a proposed text amendment
implements best current, professional practices of
urban planning and design.
The redevelopment of the site will
require public facility upgrades.
City Department Review
During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed objections to the
proposal, but provided, or stated they would provide, comments that are applicable if the property is
developed.
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• November 11, 2022-Petition for zoning map and text amendment received by Planning Division.
• November 23, 2022-Zoning map amendment petitions assigned to Amanda Roman, Urban
Designer.
• December 8, 2022-Notice sent to Ballpark, Central City, Central 9th, and Downtown Community
Councils, and Downtown Alliance. Early notification sent to property owners and residents within
300 feet of the proposal.
• December 12, 2022- Proposal posted for an online open house.
• March 10, 2023-Planning Commission public hearing notice sent. Agenda posted to Planning
Commission website and State Public Notice webpage.
• March 22, 2023-Planning Commission public hearing. The Commission forwarded a positive
recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. The Commission
also forwarded a positive recommendation to add the proposed hospital and ambulance service
land uses to D-1 as conditional rather than the requested permitted uses.
• March 27, 2023-Ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office.
• April 14, 2023-Signed ordinance received from the Attorney’s Office.
• April 27, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office.
City Council // July 11, 2023
ZONING MAP & TEXT AMENDMENT754 S STATE STREET
PLNPCM2022-01109
Request 1:Request to rezone the property at
approximately 754 S State Street from D-2 (Downtown
Support District)to D-1 (Central Business District)
•Property includes 10 parcels and is approximately 9 acres
•If the amendments are approved,the property owner,
Intermountain Healthcare,intends to build an urban hospital
on the site
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
PROJECT REQUEST
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
M
A
I
N
S
T
700 S
800 S
Address Parcel ID Approximate Acreage
748 South State St.16-07-103-017 .55
709 South Main St.16-07-103-001 .66
36 E 700 S 16-07-103-002 .81
48 E 700 S 16-07-103-003 .17
56 E 700 S 16-07-103-004 .24
728 S Major St.16-07-103-008 .10
725 S Major St.16-07-103-009 .25
735 S Major St.16-07-103-010 .10
739 S Major St.16-07-103-011 .1o
754 S State St.16-07-103-022 5.97
Major Street None Total Acreage:8.95
Request 2:Text amendment to section 21A.33.050 Table of
Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts would add
the following uses as Conditional within the D-1 zoning district:
• Ambulance service (indoor)
• Ambulance service (outdoor)
• Hospital, including accessory lodging facility
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
PROJECT REQUEST
AMBULANCE SERVICE: An emergency response facility housing
ambulance services, dispatching, staging, and maintenance.
HOSPITAL, INCLUDING ACCESSORY LODGING FACILITY: An
institution licensed by the State of Utah specializing in giving clinical,
temporary, or emergency services of a medical or surgical nature to
human patients.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
•General Plan Policies
•Development Potential
•Compatibility with Adjacent Properties
CONSIDERATIONS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
On March 22,2023,the Planning Commission voted 7-3 to forward a positive
recommendation to the Council amending the zoning map for the subject parcels from D-2 to
D-1,and add the following uses as Conditional within the D-1 district:
•Ambulance service (indoor)
•Ambulance service (outdoor)
•Hospital,including accessory lodging facility
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Amanda Roman // Urban Designer
amanda.roman@slcgov.com
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Downtown Plan
The subject property is located at the edge of downtown within the South
State corridor and adjacent to the Central 9th neighborhood,in an area also
referred to as Midtown.
•Growth is expected &appropriate
•The existing infrastructure will need to be improved,as the current
systems cannot handle such an increase in demand
•Public and city reviewer comments call for street activation,breaking
up the block,and high quality design,specifically of the public realm.
Plan Salt Lake
1.Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment,opportunities for social
interaction,and services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein.
8.A beautiful city that is people focused.
11.Ensure access to all City amenities for all citizens while treating everyone
equitably with fairness,justice and respect.
12.A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and fosters an environment
for commerce,local business,and industry to thrive.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
D-2 Zoning District
•By-right height of 65 feet
•Maximum height of 120 feet,with Design Review
approval
•The zone has design standards relating to ground floor
use and visual interest,building materials and glass
requirements,building entrance locations,and maximum
building length
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
D-1 Zoning District
•By-right height of 200 feet,no maximum height with
Design Review approval
•Projects requesting additional height must include:a
midblock walkway or affordable housing incentives,
additional ground floor use and visual interest,a
restrictive covenant for a building older than 50 years and
not listed as a local landmark site,or 500 square feet of
open space with at least 60%tree canopy coverage
•New D-1 Design Standards:maximum blank wall and
reflective glass limitations,dimensions between building
entrances,streetscape requirements,and increased
building articulation
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
The site is within the Ballpark Community
Council boundary,but also within 600 feet of the
Central 9th,Central City,and Downtown
Community Council boundaries
North:Downtown,small-scale restaurants &retail
East:Central City residential neighborhood
South:Medium density residential,commercial,car
dealerships
West:Older transitioning single-family neighborhood,
commercial,car dealerships,medium density
residential
COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT PROPERTIES
Hoyt Place
Salt Lake City
Council Meeting
July 11, 2023
Confidential and property of Intermountain Health
•Easily accessible for patients,
including convenient ingress/
egress and proximity to
freeways
•Place where physicians want
to practice
•Adequate acreage
•Singular owner/transaction
•Near public transportation
•Municipal support
Site Priorities
•Existing D-1 zone is
only a half block to the
north.
•D-1 change will improve
growth of the nearby
central business district.
•Facilitates connection
between adjacent zones
that are east and west
of State Street.
Relation to Existing Zoning
Aerial photo from Google
Earth
•Market has not
responded to or valued
the existing D-2 zoning,
which has left a vacant,
un-used site.
•Re-zone will facilitate a
comprehensive approach
to redeveloping the site.
D-1 Will Facilitate Highest and Best Use
Photos from Google Earth,
Street View(Existing site before demolition)
What might a new, world
class hospital mean for
downtown Salt Lake City?
•Daily flow of 1,700
Employees
•High quality, high reputation
infrastructure for decades
•Influx of new, purpose-driven
downtown traffic
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 27, 2023
Darin Mano, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 754 S State Street
Petition PLNPCM2022-01109
STAFF CONTACT: Amanda Roman, Urban Designer
801-535-7660 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to amend the zoning map of 10 parcels at approximately 754 S State Street from
D-2 Downtown Support District to D-1 Central Business District and amend section 21A.33.050
Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts to add the following uses as
Conditional within the D-1 zoning district:
•Ambulance service (indoor)
•Ambulance service (outdoor)
•Hospital, including accessory lodging facility
BUDGET IMPACT: None.
Lisa Shaffer (Apr 27, 2023 16:42 MDT)04/27/2023
04/27/2023
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The proposal includes a zoning map amendment to change the zoning of 10 parcels at
approximately 754 S State Street from D-2 Downtown Support District to D-1 Central Business
District. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow for the redevelopment of the property
with an urban hospital. To develop the property, the D-1 zoning district land use table also needs
to be amended to add hospitals and ambulance services as Permitted or Conditional uses.
Planning staff recommended that the two
proposed uses (Hospitals and Ambulance
Services) be adopted as Permitted uses in
the D-1 zoning district. During the
Planning Commission discussion period
on March 22, 2023, a majority of the
Commission (7:3) voted to modify staff’s
recommendation and forward the
proposal to the City Council with a
recommendation to adopt the uses as
Conditional rather than Permitted.
Additional discussion topics during the
March 22, 2023, Planning Commission
meeting included parking and housing
options on the site if the rezone is adopted.
The intent behind the rezone and text amendment request is to allow for more design flexibility
for the purpose of constructing an urban hospital. The building height in the D-2 zoning district is
limited to a maximum of 120 feet, with Design Review approval. The by-right building height in
the D-1 zone for buildings located on a block corner is 100 – 375 feet. Buildings taller than 375
feet must receive Design Review approval, but there is no maximum height.
The Planning Division has transmitted a proposed ordinance to the City Council that would
increase allowable building heights in the Downtown Districts while supporting human-scale
development, increased street activation, pedestrian accessibility, and community character. If
adopted, the Downtown Building Heights and Street Activation text amendment (PLNPCM2022-
00529) would directly affect the development potential of the subject property. The proposed
amendment would eliminate the distinction of corner and midblock lots and change the by-right
building height in the D-1 zone to 200 feet. Buildings over 200 feet would be required to receive
Design Review approval but would have no maximum height. The City Council was briefed on
the proposed text amendment on April 4, 2023. At the time of this transmittal, a vote has not been
taken to approve, modify, or deny the ordinance.
For specific information regarding the proposal, please refer to the Planning Commission Staff
Report.
ST
A
T
E
S
T
MA
I
N
ST
700 S
800 S
PUBLIC PROCESS:
• The Planning Division provided a 45-day comment period notice to the associated
community councils for the property: Ballpark, Central City, Central 9th, and Downtown.
The councils held a joint meeting with Planning staff and the applicant to discuss the
proposal on January 19, 2023. A formal letter was submitted and is included in the Planning
Commission Staff Report.
• Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property
owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing notice about the proposal and
information on how to give public input on the project on December 12, 2022.
• An online open house has been posted to the Planning Division’s webpage since December
12, 2022. The page remains open for review.
• Four public comments were received prior to the Planning Commission meeting and three
were submitted either after the Commission staff report was published or after the meeting.
The three additional comments are included in Exhibit 4 of the transmittal.
Planning Commission (PC) Records (Click to Access)
PC Agenda for March 22, 2023
PC Minutes of March 22, 2023
PC Staff Report for March 22, 2023
EXHIBITS
1. Chronology
2. Notice of City Council Hearing
3. Petition Application
4. Additional Public Comments
5. Mailing List
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2023
(An ordinance amending the zoning of property located at approximately 754 S State Street from
D-2 Downtown Support District to D-1 Central Business District)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at approximately
754 S State Street from D-2 Downtown Support District to D-1 Central Business District
pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01109.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a
public hearing on March 22, 2023 to consider a petition by Tyler Buswell, counsel for the
property owner, to rezone ten parcels located at 754 S State Street (Tax ID Nos. 16-07-103-017-
0000, 16-07-103-001-0000, 16-07-103-002-0000, 16-07-103-003-0000, 16-07-103-004-0000,
16-07-103-008-0000, 16-07-103-009-0000, 16-07-103-010-0000, 16-07-103-011-0000, 16-07-
103-022-0000) from D-2 Downtown Support District to D-1 Central Business District pursuant
to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01109; and
WHEREAS, at its March 22, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of
transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said
petition; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that
adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and
hereby is amended to reflect that the property identified on Exhibit “A” hereto shall be and
hereby is rezoned from D-2 Downtown Support District to D-1 Central Business District.
2
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 ______________,
2023.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2023.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance rezoning 754 S State Street to D-1
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:___________________________
By: ____________________________
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney
April 14, 2023
3
EXHIBIT “A”
Legal Description and Map of Property Subject to Zoning Map Amendment:
Parcel Tax ID Nos.
16-07-103-017
16-07-103-001
16-07-103-002
16-07-103-003
16-07-103-004
16-07-103-008
16-07-103-009
16-07-103-010
16-07-103-011
16-07-103-022
PARCEL 16-07-103-001-0000:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT
LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 160 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 179
FEET; THENCE WEST 160 FEET; THENCE NORTH 179 FEET TO THE PLACE OF
BEGINNING.
PARCEL 16-07-103-004-0000:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT
LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE WEST 62.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 165
FEET; THENCE EAST 62.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 165 FEET TO THE PLACE OF
BEGINNING.
PARCEL 16-07-103-008-0000:
PART OF LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND
COMMENCING 206.25 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 6, BLOCK
16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY; THENCE WEST 82.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
41.25 FEET; THENCE EAST 105 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41.25 FEET; THENCE WEST
22.5 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 16-07-103-009-0000:
COMMENCING AT A POINT 165 FEET SOUTH AND 44 FEET EAST OF THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 8, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY
AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 57.75 FEET; THENCE WEST 27.5 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 27.5 FEET; THENCE WEST 109 FEET; THENCE NORTH 85.25 FEET; THENCE
EAST 136.5 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
PARCELS 16-07-103-017-0000, 16-07-103-010-0000, and 16-07-103-011-0000:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 8, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT
LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 49.5 FEET; THENCE WEST 165
FEET; THENCE NORTH 49.5 FEET; THENCE WEST 92.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 79.75
FEET; THENCE EAST 109 FEET; THENCE NORTH 27.5 FEET; THENCE EAST 148.5
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 107.25 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
4
PARCEL 16-07-103-002-0000:
BEGINNING AT A POINT 160 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5,
BLOCK 16, PLAT "A", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 87.5
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 179 FEET; THENCE WEST 87.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 179
FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
ALSO: BEGINNING AT A POINT 4 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT
6, BLOCK 16, PLAT "A", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE WEST
78.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 165 FEET; THENCE EAST 78.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 165
FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
ALSO: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT "A",
SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 37.5 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 148.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 22.4 FEET TO A POINT 165 FEET
SOUTH AND 22.5 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 7; THENCE
WEST 26.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 165 FEET; THENCE EAST 4 FEET TO THE PLACE
OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 16-07-103-003-0000:
BEGINNING 57.5 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 16,
PLAT "A", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 45 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 165 FEET; THENCE WEST 30 FEET; THENCE NORTHWEST 22.4
FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT 148.5 FEET SOUTH FROM THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 148.5 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 16-07-103-022-0000:
TRACT 1: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 16, PLAT
''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 17 RODS; THENCE
WEST 10 RODS; THENCE NORTH 3 RODS; THENCE WEST 142.5 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 5 RODS; THENCE WEST 105 FEET; THENCE NORTH 68.5 FEET; THENCE
WEST 15 RODS; THENCE SOUTH 239 FEET; THENCE EAST 10 RODS; THENCE SOUTH
21 FEET; THENCE WEST 10 RODS; THENCE SOUTH 221 FEET; THENCE EAST 660
FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
TRACT 2: BEGINNING 165 FEET SOUTH FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 6,
BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 22.5
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 41.25 FEET; THENCE WEST 105 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41.25
FEET; THENCE EAST 82.5 FEET TO THE BEGINNING.
TRACT 3: BEGINNING AT A POINT 88 FEET SOUTH FROM THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF LOT 4, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING
THENCE SOUTH 21 FEET; THENCE EAST 165 FEET; THENCE NORTH 21 FEET;
THENCE WEST 165 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL (S. Major St.):
PARCELS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 DESCRIBED ABOVE ARE TOGETHER WITH THE
FOLLOWING:
A RIGHT OF WAY IN COMMON WITH OTHERS: COMMENCING 37.5 FEET EAST
FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY
5
SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 148.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWEST 22.5
FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT 142.5 FEET WEST AND 165 FEET NORTH FROM
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 7; THENCE SOUTH 165 FEET; THENCE
EAST 50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 165 FEET; THENCE NORTHWEST 22.5 FEET, MORE
OR LESS, TO A POINT 107.5 FEET WEST AND 11 RODS NORTH FROM THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 7; THENCE NORTH 148.5 FEET; THENCE WEST
20 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2023
(An ordinance amending the text of Section 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code to add
Hospitals (including accessory lodging facility), Ambulance Services (indoor), and Ambulance
Services (outdoor) as Conditional Uses in the D-1 Central Business District)
An ordinance amending the text of Section 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code to add
Hospitals (including accessory lodging facility), Ambulance Services (indoor), and Ambulance
Services (outdoor) as conditional uses in the D-1 Central Business District pursuant to Petition
No. PLNPCM2022-01109.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a
public hearing on March 22, 2023 to consider a petition by Tyler Buswell, counsel for the
property owner, to amend the text of Section of 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code to add
Hospitals (including accessory lodging facility), Ambulance Services (indoor), and Ambulance
Services (outdoor) as permitted uses in the D-1 Central Business District pursuant to Petition No.
PLNPCM2022-01109; and
WHEREAS, at its March 22, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of
transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) that
Section of 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code be amended to add Hospitals (including
accessory lodging facility), Ambulance Services (indoor), and Ambulance Services (outdoor) as
conditional uses in the D-1 Central Business District; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that
adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
2
SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.050 That
Section 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Table of Permitted and Conditional
Uses for Downtown Districts) shall be and hereby is amended as follows:
21A.33.050: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR DOWNTOWN
DISTRICTS:
Legend: C = Conditional P = Permitted
Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District
D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4
Accessory use, except those that are
otherwise specifically regulated elsewhere
in this title
P P P P
Adaptive reuse of a landmark site P P P P4
Alcohol:
Bar establishment (indoor) P6 C6 C6 P6
Bar establishment (outdoor) P6 C6 C6 P6
Brewpub (indoor) P6 P6 P6 P6
Brewpub (outdoor) P6 P6 P6 P6
Tavern (indoor) P6 C6 C6 P6
Tavern (outdoor) P6 C6 C6 P6
Ambulance Service (indoor) C
Ambulance Service (outdoor) C
Animal, veterinary office P P
Antenna, communication tower P P P P
Antenna, communication tower, exceeding
the maximum building height
C C C C
Art gallery P P P P
Artisan food production P14,18 P18 P18 P18
Bed and breakfast P P P P
Bed and breakfast inn P P P P
Bed and breakfast manor P P P P
Bio-medical facility P17,18 P17,18 P17,18 P17,18
Blood donation center P
Bus line station/terminal P7 P7 P7 P7
3
Bus line yard and repair facility P
Car wash P3
Check cashing/payday loan business P5
Clinic (medical, dental) P P P P
Commercial food preparation P18 P18 P18 P18
Community garden P P P P
Convention center P
Crematorium P P P
Daycare center, adult P P P P
Daycare center, child P P P P
Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P12 P12 P12 P12
Daycare, registered home daycare or
preschool
P12 P12 P12 P 12
Dwelling:
Artists' loft/studio P P P P
Assisted living facility (large) P P P P
Assisted living facility (limited
capacity)
P P P
Assisted living facility (small) P P P P
Congregate care facility (large) C C C C
Congregate care facility (small) P P P P
Group home (large) C C
Group home (small) P P P P
Multi-family P P P P
Residential support (large) C C
Residential support (small) C C
Exhibition hall P
Farmers' market P
Financial institution P P P P
Financial institution with drive-through
facility
P8 P8
Funeral home P P P
Gas station P P7 P7
Government facility C C C C
Government facility requiring special
design features for security purposes
P7 P7
4
Heliport, accessory C C C
Home occupation P13 P13 P13 P13
Homeless resource center C15 C15
Homeless shelter C15 C15
Hospital, including accessory lodging
facility
C
Hotel/motel P P P P
Industrial assembly C18 C18
Laboratory, medical related P18 P18 P18 P18
Laundry, commercial P18
Library P P P P
Limousine service P
Mixed use development P P P P
Mobile food business (operation in the
public right-of-way)
P P P P
Mobile food business (operation on private
property)
P P P P
Mobile food court P P P P
Municipal services uses including City
utility uses and police and fire stations
P P P P
Museum P P P P
Office P P P P
Office, publishing company P P P P
Open space on lots less than 4 acres in size P7 P7 P7 P7
Park P P P P
Parking, commercial C P C C
Parking, off site P P P P
Performing arts production facility P P P P
Place of worship P11 P11 P11 P11
Radio, television station P P P
Railroad, passenger station P P P P
Reception center P P P P
Recreation (indoor) P P P P
Recreation (outdoor) P
Research and development facility P18 P18 P18 P18
Restaurant P P P P
5
Restaurant with drive-through facility P8
Retail goods establishment P P P P
Retail service establishment P P P P
Retail service establishment, upholstery
shop
P P
Sales and display (outdoor) P P P P
School:
College or university P P P P
K - 12 private P P
K - 12 public P P
Music conservatory P P P P
Professional and vocational P P P P
Seminary and religious institute P P P P
Shared housing P P P P
Small brewery C18
Social service mission and charity dining
hall
C C
Stadium C C C
Storage, self P16 P P
Store:
Department P P P
Fashion oriented department P2
Mass merchandising P P P
Pawnshop P
Specialty P P P
Superstore and hypermarket P
Studio, art P P P P
Technology facility P18 P18 P18 P18
Theater, live performance P9 P9 P9 P9
Theater, movie P P P P
Utility, buildings or structure P1 P1 P1 P1
Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or
pole
P1 P1 P1 P1
Vehicle:
Automobile repair (major) P P7 P7
Automobile repair (minor) P P7 P7
6
Automobile sales/rental and service P10 P P10
Vending cart, private property P P P P
Vending cart, public property
Warehouse P18
Warehouse, accessory P P
Wholesale distribution P18
Wireless telecommunications facility (see
section 21A.40.090, table 21A.40.090E of
this title)
Qualifying provisions:
1. Subject to conformance to the provisions in subsection 21A.02.050B of this title.
2. Uses allowed only within the boundaries and subject to the provisions of the Downtown Main Street
Core Overlay District (section 21A.34.110 of this title).
3. A car wash located within 165 feet (including streets) of a residential use shall not be allowed.
4. Building additions on lots less than 20,000 square feet for office uses may not exceed 50 percent of the
building's footprint. Building additions greater than 50 percent of the building's footprint or new office
building construction are subject to a design review (chapter 21A.59 of this title).
5. No check cashing/payday loan business shall be located closer than 1/2 mile of other check
cashing/payday loan businesses.
6. Subject to conformance with the provisions in section 21A.36.300, "Alcohol Related Establishments",
of this title.
7. Subject to conformance with the provisions of chapter 21A.59, "Design Review", of this title.
8. Subject to conformance to the provisions in section 21A.40.060 of this title for drive-through use
regulations.
9. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a Single- or Two-Family Zoning District.
10. Must be located in a fully enclosed building and entirely indoors.
11. If a place of worship is proposed to be located within 600 feet of a tavern, bar establishment, or
brewpub, the place of worship must submit a written waiver of spacing requirement as a condition of
approval.
12. Subject to section 21A.36.130 of this title.
13. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to
section 21A.36.030 of this title.
14. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales.
15. Subject to conformance with the provisions of section 21A.36.350 of this title.
16. Limited to basement/below ground levels only. Not allowed on the ground or upper levels of the
building, with the exception of associated public leasing/office space.
17. Prohibited within 1/2 mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as
defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules.
18. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1.
SECTION 6. 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 ______________,
2023.
7
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2023.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance amending Section 21A.33.050 of
the Salt Lake City Code
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:___________________________
By: ____________________________
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney
April 14, 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2.NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3.ORIGINAL PETITION
4.ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
5.MAILING LIST
1) CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2022-01109
November 11, 2022
November 23, 2022
December 8, 2022
December 12, 2022
March 10, 2023
March 17, 2023
March 22, 2023
March 27, 2023
April 14, 2023
Application for a Zoning Map and Text Amendment.
Petition PLNPCM2022-01109 was assigned to Amanda
Roman, Urban Designer, for staff analysis and processing.
Notice sent to Recognized Community Organizations
informing them of the petition. The RCO’s notified
included the Ballpark, Central City, Central 9th, and
Downtown Community Councils, and the Downtown
Alliance.
Early notification of the project was also sent to property
owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal.
The proposal was posted for an online open house through
March 22, 2023. The proposal can still be viewed online.
Planning Commission public hearing notices emailed to
interested parties and residents/property owners who
requested notice. Agenda posted to the Planning
Commission website and the State of Utah Public Notice
webpage.
Planning Commission Staff Report posted.
Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a
positive recommendation to the City Council to approve the
proposed map amendment.
The Commission also forwarded a recommendation to
approve the text amendment, but modified the
recommendation to add the land uses to the D-1 zoning
district as Conditional rather than Permitted.
Ordinance request sent to Attorney’s Office.
Signed ordinance received from Attorney’s Office.
2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2022-01109 Zoning Map
& Zoning Text Amendment for the property at approximately 754 S State Street. Kirton
McConkie, represented by Tyler Buswell, Attorney for IHC Health Services, Inc. (the
Property Owner), initiated a petition for a zoning map and zoning text amendment, which
would facilitate the development of an urban hospital at approximately 754 S State Street.
The zoning map amendment request is to rezone 10 parcels from D-2 Downtown Support
District to D-1 Central Business District. The 10 parcels included in this proposal are
listed below for reference.
Address Parcel ID Approximate Acreage
748 South State St. 16-07-103-017 .55
709 South Main St. 16-07-103-001 .66
36 E 700 S 16-07-103-002 .81
48 E 700 S 16-07-103-003 .17
56 E 700 S 16-07-103-004 .24
728 S Major St. 16-07-103-008 .10
725 S Major St. 16-07-103-009 .25
735 S Major St. 16-07-103-010 .10
739 S Major St. 16-07-103-011 .1o
754 S State St. 16-07-103-022 5.97
Major Street None Total Acreage: 8.95
The proposed text amendment to section 21A.33.050 Table of Permitted and Conditional
Uses for Downtown Districts would add the following uses as Conditional within the D-1
zoning district:
• Ambulance service (indoor)
• Ambulance service (outdoor)
• Hospital, including accessory lodging facility
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive
comments regarding the petitions. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City
Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may
consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be
held:
DATE: TIME: 7:00 pm PLACE: 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the
City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake
City, Utah. For more information, please visit www.slc.gov/council. Comments may
also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending
an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any
source are shared with the Council and added to the public record.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call
Amanda Roman at 801-535-7660 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, or via e-mail at amanda.roman@slcgov.com
The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting
the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2022-01109.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may
include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make
requests at least two make a request, please contact the City Council Office at
council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711.
3) ORIGINAL PETITION
Tyler Buswell
50 E. South Temple, Suite 400
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
4862-9323-6517
November 15, 2022
Nick Norris, Director
Salt Lake City – Planning Division
451 S. State St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
nick.norris@slcgov.com
RE: Letter in support of application for zoning map and text amendment.
Applicant: Kirton McConkie
Attn: Tyler L. Buswell
50 E. South Temple Street, #400
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
(801) 321-4820
tbuswell@kmclaw.com
Property
Addresses: 754 S. State St.
709 S. Main St.
36, 48, and 56 E. 700 S.
725, 727, 728, 735, and 739 S. Major St.
All of S. Major St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
As more fully described in Exhibit A
(collectively, the “Property”).
Totaling approx. 9.22 acres.
Amendments
Requested: Zoning map amendment of the Property from the D-2 Zone to the
D-1 Zone. And zoning text amendment to the D-1 Zone to allow
hospitals as a permitted use.
Application Fees: $2,036.95 for map amendment ($1,075 + $121 x 7.95 acres).
$1,075 for text amendment.
2 of 7
4862-9323-6517
Dear Mr. Norris:
This law firm represents IHC Health Services, Inc. (“Intermountain”), which is the
owner of the Property described above. This letter accompanies the zoning map and
text amendment application submitted concurrently with this letter. The purpose of this
letter is to address the submittal requirements of the City’s Zoning Amendment
application form. Specifically, this letter will provide the following: (1) a statement
declaring the purpose of the amendment, (2) a description of the proposed use of the
property being rezoned, (3) the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate
for the area, (4) the parcel numbers for each parcel affected by the proposed map
amendment, and (5) the requested text revisions to the applicable zoning ordinance.
Intermountain and our firm look forward to working with the City regarding this
application. We hope to create an outcome that will benefit the City, the Property, and
residents of Salt Lake City.
(1) Purpose for the amendment.
Intermountain proposes to amend both the zoning map and the applicable text of
the D-1 zone. The Property is comprised of 10 separate tax parcels where the old Sears
building is located and an old, unused right of way (S. Major St.), all of which is situated
just south of downtown Salt Lake City. The current zoning of all such parcels is the D-2
Downtown Support District zone, and Intermountain proposes to amend the zoning map
to the D-1 Central Business District zone. As explained further in paragraph (5) below,
Intermountain also proposes to amend the text of the D-1 zone to allow Hospitals as a
permitted use, along with other uses to be designated as either permitted or conditional
uses.
Accordingly, the purpose of these proposed amendments is to allow for the re-
development of the majority of the Sears block to accommodate a new, downtown,
urban hospital. As the City has known for some time, the Sears property has been in
dire need of improvement and redevelopment for many years. The unique location of
the block, directly on the southern border of downtown and right along State Street,
makes it a prime location for a unique project in general, and an urban hospital in
particular.
The amendment to D-1 will allow for the maximum flexibility on the Property to
create a project that can both function as part of the downtown core, but also facilitate a
transition from the downtown uses to the supporting uses of the D-2 zone. Moreover,
the amendment will allow the Property to best meet the City’s vision for the South State
area as described in the Downtown Master Plan.
(2) Description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned.
While Intermountain has not created any formal or conceptual plans for the
Property, the hospital use would be akin to many urban hospitals across the country.
3 of 7
4862-9323-6517
The project would create and serve as an anchor and bookend on the south end of
downtown. The current border of the D-1 zone is less than half a block away to the
northwest of the Property, and approximately half a block away directly to the north of
the Property, so a hospital project would not only fit with the existing development
pattern in the surrounding area, but it would serve to revitalize the area. The hospital
would include the typical necessary accompanying uses for a hospital.
(3) Reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area.
The current zoning of D-2 for the Property is not appropriate because it has
created a site that is underperforming and is not the highest and best use for the
Property. The Property has sat largely vacant and underutilized for so long because the
D-2 zone does not foster and has not attracted the type of users and uses that this site
will support. Because the Property is located in a transition block from D-1 to D-2, it has
created a circumstance where more traditional downtown uses, such as high-rise office
or residential projects are not well suited, and the economics of lower-rise commercial,
office, or residential uses are not as financially viable.
The proposed use of a hospital can bridge the gap of those drawbacks created
by the Property’s location. The D-1 zone will allow Intermountain the flexibility in building
height while also not being out of character for the area with the Grand America being
two blocks away, and the new multi-story office/residential projects built on 600 South
and Main Street, 700 South Main Street, and 600 South State Street. The D-1 zone’s
building height and density flexibility will also help Intermountain in working with the City
to design a project that better incorporates permeability and walkability of the Property
that would not otherwise be possible given the small area of the Property compared to
the level of services Intermountain desires to include on the Property.
Amending the Property to D-1 will also be in line with the City’s vision of the
“South State” area in its Downtown Master Plan. A hospital will accomplish the goals of
re-urbanizing South State while not disrupting the integrity of the neighborhoods to the
east. It would also serve those neighborhoods by providing needed healthcare services
within walking distance to many residents.
The current state and zoning of the Property has failed to live up to or satisfy the
City’s vision for the area. So, Intermountain would strive to cooperate with the City in its
efforts to implement the Downtown Master Plan goals for this site. A hospital can blend
and accomplish the City’s desired outcomes for this area.
(4) Parcel numbers to be changed from D-2 to D-1 on the Zoning Map.
The following parcels are all proposed to be changed from D-2 to D-1 on the
City’s Zoning Map:
4 of 7
4862-9323-6517
Address Parcel Number Approx.
Acreage
709 S. Main St. 16-07-103-001-0000 0.66
56 E. 700 S. 16-07-103-004-0000 0.24
728 S. Major St. 16-07-103-008-0000 0.10
725-727 S. Major St. 16-07-103-009-0000 0.25
754 S. State St. 16-07-103-017-0000 0.55
735 S. Major St. 16-07-103-010-0000 0.10
739 S. Major St. 16-07-103-011-0000 0.10
36 E. 700 S. 16-07-103-002-0000 0.81
48 E. 700 S. 16-07-103-003-0000 0.17
754 S. State St. 16-07-103-022-0000 5.97
All of S. Major St. None
(5) Requested text amendments to the D-1 Zone.
Currently, a hospital is not specifically designated in the table of permitted and
conditional uses for the D-1 zone. Consequently, in addition to the requested map
amendments, Intermountain proposes the following text amendments to the D-1 zone.
(a) Edit to 21A.33.050, Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses For
Downton Districts.
Intermountain proposes to add the following uses to Table 21A.33.050:
“Ambulance service (indoor): Permitted.”
“Ambulance service (outdoor): Permitted.”
“Hospital, including accessory lodging facility: Permitted.”
“Retail, sales and service accessory use when located within a principal
building and operated primarily for the convenience of employees:
Permitted.”
(Note that the following uses that may be incorporated into the proposed hospital
are already either permitted or conditional uses in the D-1 zone as shown on Table
21A.33.050: Bio-medical facility (permitted); medical clinic (permitted); heliport
(conditional use); laboratory, medical related (permitted); mixed-use development
(permitted); office (permitted).)
5 of 7
4862-9323-6517
We look forward to working with the City on these proposed changes. Please feel
free to contact me at if you would like to
discuss.
Sincerely,
Kirton McConkie
Tyler L. Buswell
Counsel for Intermountain
6 of 7
4862-9323-6517
Exhibit A
Legal Description of the Property
Real property located in Salt Lake County, Utah, more particularly described as follows:
PARCEL 1 (16-07-103-001-0000):
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY
AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 160 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 179 FEET; THENCE WEST 160 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 179 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 2 (16-07-103-004-0000):
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND
RUNNING THENCE WEST 62.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 165 FEET; THENCE EAST 62.5 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 165 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 3 (16-07-103-008-0000):
PART OF LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND COMMENCING 206.25 FEET
SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 6, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY; THENCE
WEST 82.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 41.25 FEET; THENCE EAST 105 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41.25 FEET;
THENCE WEST 22.5 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 4 (16-07-103-009-0000):
COMMENCING AT A POINT 165 FEET SOUTH AND 44 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT
8, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 57.75 FEET; THENCE
WEST 27.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 27.5 FEET; THENCE WEST 109 FEET; THENCE NORTH 85.25 FEET;
THENCE EAST 136.5 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 5 (16-07-103-017-0000, 16-07-103-010-0000, 16-07-103-011-0000):
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 8, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY
AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 49.5 FEET; THENCE WEST 165 FEET; THENCE NORTH 49.5 FEET; THENCE
WEST 92.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 79.75 FEET; THENCE EAST 109 FEET; THENCE NORTH 27.5 FEET;
THENCE EAST 148.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 107.25 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 6 (16-07-103-002-0000):
BEGINNING AT A POINT 160 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5, BLOCK 16, PLAT "A",
SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 87.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 179 FEET; THENCE
WEST 87.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 179 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
ALSO: BEGINNING AT A POINT 4 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 6, BLOCK 16, PLAT
"A", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE WEST 78.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 165 FEET;
THENCE EAST 78.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 165 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
ALSO: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT "A", SALT LAKE CITY
SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 37.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 148.5 FEET; THENCE
7 of 7
4862-9323-6517
SOUTHWESTERLY 22.4 FEET TO A POINT 165 FEET SOUTH AND 22.5 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF LOT 7; THENCE WEST 26.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 165 FEET; THENCE EAST 4 FEET TO THE
PLACE OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 7 (16-07-103-003-0000):
BEGINNING 57.5 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT "A", SALT LAKE
CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 45 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 165 FEET; THENCE WEST 30
FEET; THENCE NORTHWEST 22.4 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT 148.5 FEET SOUTH FROM THE
POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 148.5 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 8 (16-07-103-022-0000):
TRACT 1: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY
SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 17 RODS; THENCE WEST 10 RODS; THENCE NORTH 3 RODS;
THENCE WEST 142.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 5 RODS; THENCE WEST 105 FEET; THENCE NORTH 68.5
FEET; THENCE WEST 15 RODS; THENCE SOUTH 239 FEET; THENCE EAST 10 RODS; THENCE SOUTH 21
FEET; THENCE WEST 10 RODS; THENCE SOUTH 221 FEET; THENCE EAST 660 FEET TO THE PLACE OF
BEGINNING.
TRACT 2: BEGINNING 165 FEET SOUTH FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 6, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'',
SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 22.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 41.25 FEET; THENCE
WEST 105 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41.25 FEET; THENCE EAST 82.5 FEET TO THE BEGINNING.
TRACT 3: BEGINNING AT A POINT 88 FEET SOUTH FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 4, BLOCK
16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 21 FEET; THENCE EAST 165 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 21 FEET; THENCE WEST 165 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 9 (S. Major St.):
PARCELS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 DESCRIBED ABOVE ARE TOGETHER WITH THE FOLLOWING:
A RIGHT OF WAY IN COMMON WITH OTHERS: COMMENCING 37.5 FEET EAST FROM THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 148.5
FEET; THENCE SOUTHWEST 22.5 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT 142.5 FEET WEST AND 165 FEET
NORTH FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 7; THENCE SOUTH 165 FEET; THENCE EAST 50
FEET; THENCE NORTH 165 FEET; THENCE NORTHWEST 22.5 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT 107.5
FEET WEST AND 11 RODS NORTH FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 7; THENCE NORTH
148.5 FEET; THENCE WEST 20 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.
4)ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
From:Thomas Merrill
To:Roman, Amanda
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Downtown coalition requests re: Intermountain
Date:Tuesday, March 21, 2023 2:54:05 PM
Hi Amanda,
After having reviewed the excellent staff report prepared for tomorrow's agenda item entitled,
"Zoning Map & Text Amendment at Approximately 754 S State Street," we wondered what
opportunities there are to get our official requests from the 1/19 meeting with Intermountain
and Planning Commission staff on record? Those requests are summarized below:
1. Requirement of a concept plan prior to D1 zoning approval
We believe Intermountain is a unique entity that has a greater obligation to transparency with
regard to their planning process by virtue of their non-profit status and corresponding
community benefit obligations set forth by state and federal law. Specifically, we believe that
their request for D1 zoning approval be approved but conditioned upon first the submission of
a concept plan that demonstrates a sincere - even if preliminary - incorporation of community
feedback gathered to date. Note: we have communicated this request to our D4 Council
Member, Ana Valdemoros.
2. The fourth text amendment element re: internal retail should be conditional and
limited
As communicated by surrounding businesses, we are concerned that the fourth element of the
proposed text amendment, "Retail, sales and service accessory use when located within a
principal building and operated primarily for the convenience of employees: Permitted”
should be only conditionally approved and limited.We strongly recommend against internal
retail developments that impede the full beneficial impact of Intermountain's workforce and
clientele on the surrounding retail community. We understand that Intermountain would
reasonably want food options for employees that allow them to stay close to their
responsibilities but an approach similar to the Medical Center in Murray with a variety of
internal restaurants would undermine the objective to support the existing retail community.
Thank you for your consideration on this.
--
Tom Merrill
Downtown Community Council
From:Erik Bieging
To:Planning Public Comments
Subject:(EXTERNAL) No IHC hospital downtown without comprehensive reproductive healthcare
Date:Saturday, March 25, 2023 12:17:45 AM
Hello,
The following comments are intended to be read for the planning commission regarding
Intermountain Healthcare's request to rezone 754 S State Street (the Sears block):
With the passage of H.B. 467 during the most recent state legislative session, hospitals will
soon be the only institution legally allowed to provide abortion services in Utah. The two
providers of routine abortion in the state, Planned Parenthood and Wasatch Women's Center,
will soon be forced to close in May. Residents of Salt Lake City will have to travel hundreds
of miles to receive what the American Medical Association calls an essential healthcare
service.
Zoning offers communities the opportunity to align land uses with the needs of their residents.
When a new land use is granted, it should fulfill the needs of the community. At first glance, it
would seem that Intermountain Healthcare's proposal to add hospital functions as a permitted
use on their downtown property would improve access to healthcare for Salt Lake City
residents. However, Intermountain Healthcare has not and has made no intention to provide
routine abortion services at its hospitals, despite being uniquely positioned to do so. In Salt
Lake City, we already have access to tertiary care hospitals with extensive healthcare services,
but abortion care will soon be the exception. We should not grant a new hospital land use
unless the hospital will provide the essential healthcare services that our residents need most.
Thank you,
Erik Bieging
Salt Lake City Resident
From:Clark, Aubrey
To:Roman, Amanda
Cc:Norris, Nick; Oktay, Michaela
Subject:Bird Friendly Glass
Date:Thursday, April 6, 2023 5:16:06 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Just received this in the MySLC portal:
Hello, Council Member Dugan received the below email from a constituent and referred the constituent to planning. Council MemberDugan is interested in seeing bird friendly windows implemented at the new IHC building. Thanks!
From: Jeanne LeBer <j >Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2023 2:17 PM
To: Dugan, Dan <dan.dugan@slcgov.com>Cc: Jeanne LeBer <; Linda Johnson ; GSLA Membership; Barbara Brown ; Cooper Farr <>;
Christopher Merritt <Subject: (EXTERNAL) Who could we talk to about building with bird-friendly glass?
Dear Dan:Our Great Salt Lake Audubon Bird-window Collision Working Group recently talked with you about building with bird-friendly glass.We noted the hospital building being built on the old Sears property is still in the planning phases. (See link in email below from LindaJohnson.)
Can you suggest a contact person we could talk to about using bird-friendly glass in the structure.
Appreciate you getting back to us on this.
Let me know.Thanks.
Jeanne
I am sure applicants don’t want us giving out their info. What would the proper response be here?
Aubrey Clark | (She/Her/Hers)
Administrative Assistant
PLANNING DIVISION | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
Direct: (801) 535-7759 or Mobile: (385) 415-4701
Email: Aubrey.Clark@slcgov.com
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING WWW.SLC.GOV
Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately
as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not
binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to
the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest
any property with development rights.
5) MAILING LIST
OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR own_unit OWN_CITY OWN_STAT OWN_ZIP
S & S ROBERTS INVESTMENTS, LTD 338 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
ADY-CHASE, LP 535 E FOURTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
QUALITY OIL COMPANY 4625 S 2300 E # 203 HOLLADAY UT 84117
KEN GARFF ENTERPRISES, LLC 111 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
TAYLOR AIR, LLC PO BOX 3390 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110
700 SOUTH PARTNERS, LLC 180 N UNIVERSITY AVE PROVO UT 84601
AXIOM PROPERTIES III, LLC PO BOX 3390 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110
HARRIS & HARRIS, LC PO BOX 71979 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84171
D STEVEN BREWSTER; DANA S BREWSTER (JT)657 S MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
THIRD RIVER REAL ESTATE CORPORATION 4701 N STONEHAVEN LOOP LEHI UT 84043
LOTUS WINTER, LLC 338 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
CITY GREEK LLC PO BOX 520795 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152
DELUXE MANAGEMENT, INC 662 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
PEZELY, PROPERTIES LLC 1433 S CHANCELLOR WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108
BNOLLC 68 S MAIN ST # 200 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
SINCLAIR REAL ESTATE COMPANY PO BOX 30825 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84130
CUP OF SUGAR INC 1383 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105
STANLEY D SCHUBACH PO BOX 128 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110
SHELTER THE HOMELESS COMMITTEE INC 242 W PARAMOUNT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115
AM TALBOT & SONS LLC 273 E SIXTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
700 GS, LLC PO BOX 3390 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110
MOUNTAIN AMERICA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION PO BOX 2331 SANDY UT 84091
LOUIS A. MATE 1172 HWY 89 FISH HAVEN ID 83287
FOOD ALLEY LLC 722 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
ALTAF H SIAL 777 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
WILLIAM B SUTTON 825 S MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
DENA LLC 26 E 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
NINTH STREET DEVELOPMENT, LLC PO BOX 65809 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84165
VINA ENTERPRISES LLC; SHERRY VINA 3751 S WASATCH BLVD MILLCREEK UT 84109
WILLIAM B SUTTON 823 S MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
KIMWELL CORPORATION 1000 S MAIN ST # 104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
STORE CAPITAL ACQUISITIONS LLC 2410 LILLYVALE AVENUE LOS ANGELES CA 90032
WOLF BUILDING LLC 20 W CENTURY PARK WY SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115
LC SMGA HOLDINGS 801 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
GEORGE S CASSITY 801 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
Current Occupant 676 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84101 UT
Current Occupant 18 W 700 S Salt Lake City 84101 UT
Current Occupant 16 W 700 S Salt Lake City 84101 UT
Current Occupant 690 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84101 UT
Current Occupant 755 S RICHARDS ST Salt Lake City 84101 UT
Current Occupant 750 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84101 UT
Current Occupant 702 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84101 UT
Current Occupant 16 W 800 S Salt Lake City 84101 UT
Current Occupant 808 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84101 UT
Current Occupant 659 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 640 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 679 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 29 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 31 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 43 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 47 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 61 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 660 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 666 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 680 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 34 E EARDLEY PL Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 49 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 57 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 665 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 675 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 131 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 709 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 36 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 48 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 56 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 68 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 728 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 725 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 735 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 739 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 730 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 748 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 62 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 716 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 754 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 711 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 735 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 741 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 745 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 749 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 14 E 800 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 56 E 800 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 60 E 800 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 827 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 830 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 802 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 810 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 38 E 800 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 833 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
Current Occupant 817 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE: July 11, 2023
RE:Historic Carriage House Text Amendment
PLNPCM2020-00106
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: July 11, 2023
Set Date: July 11, 2023
Public Hearing: August 8, 2023
Potential Action: August 15, 2023
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The City Council will be briefed on a zoning text amendment that would establish a process permitting the
reconstruction of an historic carriage house for the purpose of creating a dwelling unit. The applicant owns
property at 222 East 4th Avenue (Council District 3) that has the remnants of an historic carriage house.
The applicant would like to rebuild the carriage house and use it for a dwelling unit. This is a private
petition seeking to make changes to the zoning ordinance. If adopted, the applicant would then be able to
submit an application to go through the process to obtain a permit to reconstruct the carriage house on
their property.
Throughout the process the planning staff identified several barriers to the applicant’s proposed ordinance
language that would make it impracticable. The Transmittal letter notes that planning staff reviewed the
draft language and made recommendations that would provide “clarification on authority, review process,
applicable standards and an identified application.” (Transmittal Letter Page 2) However, the applicant
did not accept those recommendations and chose instead to move forward with the zoning amendment
without any of the recommended changes by planning staff.
Since the proposal is meant to address an historic structure, the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed
the petition and forwarded a unanimous negative recommendation due to the issues outlined above and
discussed in detail in the Planning Commission staff report.
Planning staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City
Council. The Planning Commission concurred with the staff recommendation and forwarded a negative
recommendation. Based on a series of meetings and discussions, Council Member Wharton asked planning
Page | 2
2
3
9
4
9
staff if they could propose a draft ordinance that would accomplish the goals of the applicant and be in line
with City practices and goals. Planning staff drafted the ordinance, and it has been shared with the
applicant. That draft ordinance is also in front of the Council for consideration. See background section for
more information on the timeline of discussions.
In the memo below, Section 1 includes an outline of the applicant’s petition. Section 2 includes the
summary of the alternative draft ordinance planning staff provided for consideration.
Policy Questions
•Does the Council support directing staff to work with the Administration to prepare Planning’s
proposed draft for the public hearing and consideration.
•The Council may wish to ask the Administration to provide a summary of how their proposed draft
will enable an historic carriage house to potentially be rebuilt by the applicant.
Section 1 – Applicant Proposed Changes
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning staff found the concept behind the petition was supported by many of the city’s master
plans and community plans. Attachment E of the Planning Commission staff report, pages 164-166,
outlines statements in applicable city plans that express general support for the concept.
However, staff felt the proposed ordinance as drafted by the applicant would not be feasible. They
attempted to work with the applicant prior to submission of the language, as well as after the
application was accepted and assigned; however, “the applicant was not amendable to staff
recommendations.” (Transmittal letter, Page 166)
Planning staff found they were not able to support the proposed amendment because it “does not
include actual text to be inserted into the zoning code, does not address the process for approval of
projects under the proposal, and is therefore not something that can be administered.”
(Transmittal letter, Page 166)
Due to these reasons, The Planning Commission agreed with the planning staff’s recommendation
and forwarded a negative recommendation to the City Council.
Outline of Proposed Changes by the Applicant
Pages 13-14 of the applicant’s submission outline their proposed changes.
Reconstruction of an historic carriage house is allowed if the following conditions are met:
1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
2) The property and address are individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had, an
identifiable carriage house on the property.
4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a physically-
detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-drawn vehicles and
related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter animals; all related to serving
the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the primary structure located on
Page | 3
2
3
9
4
9
the same or adjacent property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, second story or half-
story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the
roof peak and may have provided housing for a livery man or house servants.
5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be proven, with the
burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed through at least two of the
following methods:
a. Sanborn maps;
b. Historic photographs;
c. Planning, zoning or building permit records;
d. Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basements,
etc.
6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification.
7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built within the
historic footprint).
8) Proposed alterations of a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration, and
reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salt
Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission.
9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow original/
historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback standards. If
unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for adjacent properties,
additional buffers may be required.
10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new dwelling unit on the
property.
11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use.
12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review standards and
criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review process.
13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or subdivided
illegally.
14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future. The following
conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for reconstruction:
a. That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of the
reconstruction.
b. Meeting the current minimum lot size.
Section 2 – Alternative Draft provided by Planning
Attachment A is the alternative draft provided by planning staff. This version defines an historic carriage
house, establishes the criteria that must be satisfied to reconstruct an historic carriage house, outlines the
application requirements, approval standards and modification standards for the process to reconstruct an
historic carriage house.
Since this draft is within the scope of the original petition, this draft does not need to go back to the
Planning Commission for review.
1. Applicability
a. The property / address must be a landmark site
b. Provide documentation that indicates a carriage house existed on the site.
Page | 4
2
3
9
4
9
2. Application requirements
a. An application to reconstruct an historic carriage house is considered new
construction and must provide documentation that satisfies the documentation
requirements required by this section.
3. Approval Standards
a. Reconstruction shall only be used to depict vanished or non-surviving portions of a
property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate
reconstruction with minimal conjecture.
b. Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials,
features, and spatial relationships.
c. Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and
elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on
conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic
properties. A reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non-
surviving historic property in materials, design, color, and texture.
d. Proposed designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed or
considered.
e. The proposed carriage house shall match the footprint size, shape, and location on the
property based on historic documentation provided by the applicant. Historic
documentation shall be used to approximate the location and dimensions of the
structure. The proposed carriage house shall match the approximate roof shape of the
original carriage house.
f. Entryways into the house, including reconstructed entryways for carriages, shall
approximately match historic entryways commonly found on carriage houses from
the same era as the original carriage house.
g. Impacts to adjacent properties, including but not limited to solar access, noise, light
trespass, refuse storage, and mechanical equipment locations, parking locations, have
been mitigated or can be mitigated through the site layout, appropriate buffering,
and/or building designs.
4. Allowed uses after reconstruction
a. A single-family dwelling, regardless of lot area, lot width or street frontage.
b. Any accessory use authorized in the underlying zoning district or overlay district.
c. Accessory dwelling units subject to the applicable regulations for accessory dwelling
units.
5. Authorized Modifications
a. The Historic Landmark Commission may modify the following if the proposal
compiles with the applicable standards:
(1) Minimum lot area when the lot does not contain the minimum lot area for
an additional dwelling unit.
(2). Modifications to 21A.36.010 and 21A.36.020
(3) any authorized modification identified in 21A.06.050
6. Definition
a. Carriage House: a carriage house is defined as a physically detached, secondary
structure originally constructed to house horse-drawn vehicles and related
Page | 5
2
3
9
4
9
equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter animals; all related to serving
the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the primary structure
located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft,
second story or half-story, or open interior space, and may have provided housing for
people who worked or provided service to the site.
Background – Discussions and timeline
•Throughout the process the applicant contacted Council Member Wharton expressing concerns
about the application. Council Member Wharton and council staff communicated with the
applicant many times, stating the Council has a policy to hold off on meeting with applicants or
discussing a zoning petition until an item that requires Council review is transmitted to the Council
after it goes through the standard process which included Historic Landmark Commission and
Planning Commission review.
•Once the application was transmitted to the council office, Council Member Wharton met with
planning staff to discuss the petition. During that meeting he asked if the planning staff has any
changes that could be made allowing the petition to move forward with a solution that would work
for both the applicant and the City. Planning staff provided an alternative draft ordinance that if
adopted, would enable the reconstruction of historic carriage houses.
•Council and Planning staff met with Mr. Pace over the course of a few months to discuss the
alternative ordinance. After a couple of meetings with him and his representatives, Mr. Pace
expressed support to request the City Council review the petition, as well as planning staff’s
proposed changes.
CITY COUNCIL// July 11, 2023
CARRIAGE HOUSE TEXT AMENDMENT
PLNPCM2020-00106
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Stephen Pace, applicant, is requesting to amend the
zoning ordinance to permit the restoration or
reconstruction of a historic carriage house for the
purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The dwelling unit
located within the reconstructed or restored historic
carriage house would not be required to meet density, lot
coverage, setbacks of the applicable base zoning district
or the accessory structure footprint or height limitations.
The proposed language requires eligible properties to be
both a Salt Lake City Landmark and listed as a National
Register Site of Historic Places and located in one of the
following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density
Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), I
(Institutional) or SR-1A (Special Development Pattern
Residential).
PROPOSAL
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
1978 Photograph
•Language was unenforceable and could not be administered
IDENTIFIED ISSUES WITH LANGUAGE
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
•The applicant has been seeking a solution to achieve a carriage house reconstruction on
222 E. 4th Avenue.
•Applicant submitted a text amendment application on February 6, 2020.
•Historic Landmark Commission reviewed the proposed text amendment on July 16, 2020.
The Historic Landmark Commission forwarded a negative recommendation to the Planning
Commission based on the discussion and the concerns outlined in the provided motion. The
motion can be found on page 2 of the staff report.
•The applicant has not made any changes to the proposed language based on the discussion
or direction provided by the Historic Landmark Commission.
•The Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation to the City Council on
February 23, 2022.
•The applicant’s proposal is unchanged. At the request of City Council, Planning Staff drafted
language to address the issues identified.
TEXT AMENDMENT BACKGROUND
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Staff added the following sections of code to clarify the proposal:
1.Defined the parameters of eligibility
a)Local landmark site
b)Clear documentation of the footprint, location, shape of roof and approximate height of the structure. Location,
arrangement, size and details of any window or door, including carriage entries. Information can not be conjectural.
2.Established submittal requirements
3.Created standards of review for carriage house reconstruction, which closely follow the Secretary of the Interior’s
4.Established zoning flexibility for the structure (lot, bulk and density)
5.Established allowed uses for the structure (Single-family dwelling, any accessory use or ADU)
6.Prohibition of any future subdivision
7.Created an application and review process with the Historic Landmark Commission having authority of approval or denial
8.Requires the applicant to submit an updated ILS after the carriage house reconstruction
STAFF’S LANGUAGE PROPOSAL
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
QUESTIONS
General text amendment outline:
Proposed Language:
1.Purpose Statement (what are the regulations trying to achieve)
2.Definition of Terms
3.Applicability (what conditions must be met for the regulations to apply)
4.Process (who is the decision maker and what is the decision-making process)
5.Standards/Criteria (what are the specific regulations pertaining to the application)
OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Purpose:
1.To permit the reconstruction or restoration of a historic carriage house for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit.
2.Incentivize the preservation and restoration of a historic feature on a landmark site.
3.Add to the housing units within Salt Lake City, while respecting the appearance and scale single -family residential
neighborhoods.
4.Sustainability objectives are supported by utilizing an existing structure or elements of an existing structure.
5.Increase the economic viability of historic properties and further the City’s historic preservation goals.
Applicability:
1.Must be listed as a Salt Lake City Landmark.
2.Must be listed as a National Register Site.
3.Must be located with RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), SR-1A (Special
Development Pattern), and I (Institutional)
4.Must be substantial evidence that the carriage house existed or exists. The applicant must provide evidence through at
least two of the following methods:
•Historic photographs
•Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
•Planning, zoning or building permit records
•Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basement, etc.
Review Process:
Not specified in the current proposed language; however, the proposed language implies that the design, construction and
alterations would require a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Standards and Criteria:
1.A reconstructed or restored carriage house would only be allowed to be used for a single-family residence.
2.Off street parking is required for the dwelling unit.
3.The restored or reconstructed carriage house would be limited to the historic footprint of the original structure.
4.If it is determined that there are negative impacts, additional buffers may be required.
5.The site has a clean record.
6.The two residences could not be subdivided in the future.
7.The property owner is not required to permanently reside on the property.
8.Base zoning restrictions, such as: lot coverage, setbacks, height and density can be modified.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
The applicant provided the following list of eligible properties:
1.Fisher Mansion and Carriage House (1206 W. 200 S.)
2.Kearns Mansion (603 E. South Temple)
3.Keith Mansion (529 E. South Temple)
4.William F. Beer Estate (222 4th Avenue)
5.McIntyre House (259 7th Avenue)
ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
06/20/2023
Date Received: _________________________________________
Lisa Shaffer (Jun 20, 2023 11:56 MDT)Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 0_6_/_2_0_/2_0_2_3_________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council
Darin Mano, Chair
DATE: June 20, 2023
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
___________
SUBJECT: Historic Carriage House Text Amendment
STAFF CONTACT: Kelsey Lindquist, Planning Manager, 385-226-7227
DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Only
RECOMMENDATION: The City Council follow the recommendation of both the Historic
Landmark Commission and Planning Commission and deny the requested zoning text
amendment for the reconstruction of historic carriage houses for the purposes of creating an
additional dwelling unit. Since the Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation
on this proposed text amendment, an ordinance has not been provided for this transmittal. If the
City Council wishes to approve the proposal, the applicant will be required to draft adoptable
language so that an ordinance can be drafted for City Council approval.
BUDGET IMPACT: The budget impact is unknown because the applicant has yet to identity
an application process for a carriage house reconstruction. It is unknown if a future identified
application would off-set staff time associated with a review of a carriage house reconstruction.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Stephen Pace, the property owner of the Beer Estate, is
requesting to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, in order to reconstruct or restore the
remains of a historic carriage house on his property. Through working with Planning on potential
options to create an additional dwelling unit in a reconstructed version of the historic carriage
house, several zoning barriers were identified. The barriers are described in detail within the staff
report. In order to address the goals and desires of reconstructing a historic carriage house at 222
E. 4th Ave, the applicant submitted a zoning text amendment application.
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
Aerial of Subject Property
Photograph of Subject Carriage House, 2017
The submitted text amendment language specifies the eligibility criteria for a potential carriage
house reconstruction as a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and as a
Salt Lake City Landmark Site, also located in the following zoning districts:
• SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential)
•RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential)
• RO (Residential Office)
• I (Institutional)
This specific criteria language limits the applicability to 5 properties citywide, which include the
following: 222 E. 4th Avenue, 259 E. 7th Avenue, 529 E. South Temple, 603 E. South Temple
and 1206 W. 200 S. The applicant didn’t specify a clear process for review or an application. The
language does allude to a review by the Historic Landmark Commission but isn’t clear on the
process. The standards and criteria provided by the applicant require evidence of the carriage
house, parking requirements, prohibition of any future subdivision of the property, no
requirement for an owner occupancy, and flexibility of zoning regulations of accessory structures
and density limitations in the applicable base zoning restrictions.
The provided text amendment language is missing key sections that lack clarification on
authority, review process, applicable standards and an identified application. Staff attempted to
address the concerns with the proposed language with the applicant several times. Staff
ultimately forwarded the language to the Historic Landmark Commission for input and direction.
The Historic Landmark Commission discussed the proposal during a hearing on July 16, 2020,
and unanimously decided to forward a negative recommendation to Planning Commission. After
the Historic Landmark Commission, the applicant did not address the identified issues identified
by staff or the items discussed during the Historic Landmark Commission hearing. The applicant
requested to continue the text amendment to Planning Commission. Planning Commission held a
public hearing on the proposed text amendment on February 23, 2022. The Planning
Commission unanimously forwarded a negative recommendation on the proposal.
As discussed in the Planning Commission staff report, staff acknowledges that there are several
adopted master plans and documents that provide guidance for historic preservation, many of
which express general support for the concept of creating and adopting flexible zoning
regulations that create economic incentives for contributing structures and landmark sites. Policy
statements and goals in the Community Preservation Plan, Plan Salt Lake, Avenues Master Plan
and Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan, include encouraging and supportive statements for
increasing housing stock in already developed sections of the city, as well as creating tools to
further historic preservation goals. With this in mind, staff attempted to work with the applicant
prior to the submission of the language, as well as after the application was accepted and
assigned. The applicant has not been amenable to Staff recommendations or direction.
Additionally, the applicant has not been amenable to the Historic Landmark Commission’s
concerns, comments and the specific reasoning for the negative recommendation. The idea
behind providing flexibility to landmark sites and eligible properties within local historic districts
is generally in line with the adopted plans and policies within several planning documents.
However, the proposed language provided by the applicant does not provide a framework in
which to administer approvals or review requests.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
• The application was submitted on February 6, 2020.
• The application assigned to Kelsey Lindquist on February 7, 2020.
• An Online Open House was held during April 1, 2020 through May 15, 2020.
• Staff received public comments via email and comments provided direction to the
applicant. Staff included these comments within the staff report for both the Historic
Landmark Commission and Planning Commission.
• On July 16, 2020, the Historic Landmark Commission held a public hearing and
unanimously forwarded a negative recommendation to the Planning Commission to
forward a negative recommendation to the City Council.
• On February 23, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously
forwarded a negative recommendation to the City Council.
Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) Records
a) HLC Agenda of July 16, 2020 (Click to Access)
b) HLC Minutes of July 16, 2020 (Click to Access)
c) HLC Staff Report of July 16, 2020 (Click to Access Report)
Planning Commission (PC) Records
a) PC Agenda of February 23, 2022 (Click to Access)
b) PC Minutes of February 23, 2022 (Click to Access)
c) Planning Commission Staff Report of February 23, 2022 (Click to Access Report)
EXHIBITS:
1) CHRONOLOGY
2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3) PLANNING COMMISSION – February 12, 2020
a) Mailed and Posted Notice
b) Staff Report
c) Agenda/Minutes
4) HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION – July 16, 2020
a) Staff Report
b) Agenda/Minutes
5) ORIGINAL APPLICANT PETITIONS
6) MAILING LIST
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) CHRONOLOGY
2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3) PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 23, 2022 PUBLIC HEARING
a) MAILED NOTICE
b) STAFF REPORT
c) AGENDA/MINUTES
4) HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2020 PUBLIC HEARING
a) STAFF REPORT
b) AGENDA/MINUTES
5) ORIGINAL APPLICANT PETITIONS
6) MAILING LIST
1) CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petitions: PLNPCM2020-00106
February 6, 2020
February 7, 2020
Stephen Pace, property owner of 222 E. 4th Avenue submits text
amendment application.
Petition assigned to Kelsey Lindquist, Planning Manager, for staff
analysis and processing.
March 9, 2020
April 8, 2020
April 1, 2020
May 15, 2020
July 2, 2020
Petition reviewed internally, staff provided comments to applicant.
Notice mailed to properties within 300 feet of identified properties
Application posted for online open house.
End of online open house.
Historic Landmark Commission agenda posted to website and emailed to
list serve recipients.
July 9, 2020 Staff report posted to Planning’s website.
July 16, 2020 Historic Landmark Commission Public Hearing.
February 11, 2022 Planning Commission agenda posted to website and emailed to list serve
recipients.
February 11, 2022
February 23, 2022
Notice of public hearing provided to the 5 eligible properties.
Planning Commission Public Hearing.
2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL
HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2020-00106 Carriage House
Reconstruction – On behalf of Stephen Pace, property owner of 222 E. 4th Avenue, is requesting
a text amendment to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to permit the reconstruction of a historic
carriage house for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The dwelling unit, located within the
reconstructed or restored historic carriage house, would not be required to meet density, lot
coverage, setbacks of the applicable base zoning district, or the accessory structure footprint or
height limitations. The proposed language requires eligible properties to be both a Salt Lake City
Landmark and list as a National Register Site of Historic Places and located in one of the following
zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential Office),
I (Institutional) or SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential).
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive
comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City
Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider
adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held:
DATE:
PLACE:Electronic and in-person options.
451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person
opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located
at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including
WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments
may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an
email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are
shared with the Council and added to the public record.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Kelsey
Lindquist at 385-226-7227 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday throughFriday,
or via e-mail at kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at
https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number
PLNPCM200-00106.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include
alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least
two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at
council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711.
3) PLANNING COMMISSION
a) Mailing Notice
February 11, 2022
3) PLANNING COMMISSION
b) Staff Report
February 23, 2022
Staf f Repor t
PLANNING DIVISIO
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
To:Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From:
Date:
Re:
Kelsey Lindquist (801) 535-7930
February 17, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment
Text Amendment
PROPERTY ADDRESS: Citywide
MASTER PLAN: Community Preservation Plan, Plan Salt Lake, Avenues Master Plan and The
Growing Salt Lake City Housing Plan
ZONING DISTRICT: RMF-35, RO, I, SR-1A
REQUEST: The Salt Lake City Planning Division has received a zoning text amendment petition
from Stephen Pace, to permit the restoration or reconstruction of a historic carriage house
for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The dwelling unit located within the
reconstructed or restored historic carriage house would not be required to meet density, lot
coverage, setbacks of the applicable base zoning district or the accessory structure footprint
or height limitations. The proposed language requires eligible properties to be both a Salt
Lake City Landmark and listed as a National Register Site of Historic Places and located in
one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential),
RO (Residential Office), I (Institutional) or SR-1A (Special Development Pattern
Residential).
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in this staff report and the factors to consider for
zoning text amendment, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a
negative recommendation to the City Council regarding this proposal.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Applicant’s Proposed Code
C. Applicant’s Narrative
D. Eligible Properties
E. City Plan Considerations
F. Analysis of Zoning Amendment Standards
G. Public Process and Comments
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-5357757 FAX 801-535-6174
PLNPCM2020-00106 1 February 16, 2022
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION HEARING
Staff briefed the Historic Landmark Commission on July 16, 2020 to gain feedback and direction on the
proposed language. To watch the full discussion, the Historic Landmark Commission meeting can be viewed
via the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNg7TG8fSOc&t=11s. Ultimately, the briefing
resulted in the HLC forwarding a negative recommendation to the Planning Commissionwith the following
motion (language pulled from HLC minutes):
Commissioner Svendsen made a motion that the Historic Landmark Commission Move that the HLC
forward the following recommendation to the Planning Commission:
1. The Commission is generally very supportive of the applicant’s goals of increasing density on the
property and making the property more economically sensible.
2. The Commission also suggests that there are significant shortcoming both procedural and
substantive with the current zoning ordinance that are preventing reasonable development on
properties like this.
3. This seems like an end around of the existing City’s ordinance regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
and also the RMF-35
4. Because of the application is so limited it is like spot zoning and that can have unforeseen
consequences with respect to future neighbors and a variety of circumstances.
In summary, the HLC forwards a negative recommendation to this particular proposal but urges the
Planning Commission to consider other changes to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance or RMF-35
Ordinance that would permit the applicant to move forward with what he is proposing and applies to
the City more broadly as a whole.
BACKGROUND OF THE REQUESTED TEXT AMENDMENT:
Stephen Pace, the property owner of the Beer Estate located at 222 E. 4th Avenue and 181 N. B Street, is
requesting to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to provide an incentive to reconstruct or restore
the remains of a historic carriage house on his property. The applicant has been working with Planning on
a solution to reconstruct a carriage house that is located on the southern portion of 222 E. 4th Avenue. This
historic carriage house is associated with the Beer Estate Landmark Site, which was constructed by Richard
Kletting. Additional information on the specific carriage house reconstruction proposal can be found in
Attachment C.
PLNPCM2020-00106 2 February 16, 2022
Aerial of Proposal on 222 4th Avenue
Photo of Subject Carriage House, 2018
PLNPCM2020-00106 3 February 16, 2022
The applicant has approached the City with the intent of rebuilding the remains of a carriage house on the
property located at 222 E. 4th Avenue, in order to add another dwelling unit on his property. Salt Lake City
zoning regulations do not allow the reconstruction due to building location regulations, minimum lot width
and minimum lot areas for the applicable zoning district. The Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations would
also prohibit the applicant’s proposal to reconstruct a carriage house as a dwelling unit on the property. The
following provides a summary of these barriers:
1. The dwelling unit located within a restored or reconstructed carriage house would be considered a
single-family detached dwelling. Adding another single-family dwelling to this property at the
proposed location would not be allowed because:
a. All principal structures required to have frontage on a public street (21A.36.010.B) must be
located along a street. The home (carriage house) would be located in back of the existing
principal structure on the property.
b. The zoning district where the property is located requires a minimum of 5,000 square feet
per single-family dwelling (21A.24.130.C), so 10,000 square feet would be required for two
single-family dwellings. The subject property is 8,184 square feet which does not meet the
minimum size requirement.
c. The home (carriage house) would not meet building setback regulations (21A.24.130) due
to its close proximity to the side and rear property lines.
2. The accessory dwelling unit ordinance would permit an additional unit to the rear of the property
located at 222 4th Avenue; however, there are several conflictswith the reconstructed carriage house
as an ADU. The accessory dwelling unit ordinance (ADU) poses a conflict with the requirement that
the owner of the property reside onsite. While Stephen Pace owns the subject property located at
222 4th Avenue, he resides at 181 B Street. This standard could not be satisfied. Additionally, the
size limitation of ADUs would not accommodate the traditional size of a historic carriage house.
Staff acknowledges that the barriers to achieving the goals of restoring the carriage house prohibit the
applicant from introducing an additional dwelling unit on the property. The proposed text amendment is
essentially site specific in order to permit the construction of an additional single-family dwelling on the
property. The proposed language will not offer or introduce an overall solution to other contributing
structures within a local or national historic district.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE:
The applicant provided a list of “conditions” that should be met in order to add a dwelling unit in a
reconstructed/restored carriage house; however, the applicant has not provided actual ordinance language.
Staff anticipates that the proposed regulations, if they addressed staff’s recommendations, could be
incorporated into the Historic Preservation Overlay chapter of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant’s
proposal is in Attachment B.
To better organize and summarize the proposal, Staff attempted to categorize the provided language into
the standard ordinance format (see below).
Purpose Statement: No purpose statement provided by the applicant.
Definitions
•CARRIAGE HOUSE: A carriage house is defined as a physically-detached, secondary structure
originally constructed to house horse-drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or uses to
store grain or shelter animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the
owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples
incorporate a hay loft, secondary story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in
excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or
house servants.
Applicability
For a property to be considered eligible, the property must be listed as a Salt Lake City Landmark
Site and a National Register Site on the National Register of Historic Places.
•
PLNPCM2020-00106 4 February 16, 2022
•
•
The property must be located in one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density
Multi-Family Residential), SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential), RO (Residential
Office) and the I (Institutional).
There must be substantial evidence that a carriage house exists or existed on the subject property.
The burden of proof would be strictly on the applicant. The applicant must provide evidence
through at least two of the following methods:
o
o
o
o
Historic photographs
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
Planning, zoning or building permit records.
Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basement, etc.
Review Process
The applicant has not specified a review process; however, the proposed language implies that the design,
construction and alterations would require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Landmark
Commission.
•A restored or reconstructed historic carriage house would be required to comply with the Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, which is section 21A.34.020.G
in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
Standards/Criteria
•A reconstructed or restored carriage house would only be allowed to be used for a single-family
residence.
•
•
Off street parking is required for the dwelling unit.
The restored or reconstructed carriage house would be limited to the historic footprint and must
not exceed the size (historic footprint) of the original structure.
•If it is determined that the reconstruction or restoration of the carriage house negatively impacts a
neighboring property, additional buffers may be required.
•
•
•
•
The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or subdivided illegally
The two residences could not be subdivided in the future.
The property owner is not required to permanently reside on the property.
Base zoning restrictions, such as: lot coverage, setbacks, height and density can be modified.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS:
1. City Goals Regarding Historic Preservation
Staff acknowledges that there are several adopted master plans and documents that provide guidance for
historic preservation, many of which express general support for the concept of creating and adopting
flexible zoning regulations that create economic incentives for contributing structures and landmark sites.
Policy statements and goals in the Community Preservation Plan, Plan Salt Lake, Avenues Master Plan
and Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan, include encouraging and supportive statements for increasing
housing stock in alreadydeveloped sections of the city, as well as creating tools to further incentivize historic
preservation for many of the historic property owners within the City. With that said, Staff was originally
supportive of the concept of introducing zoning flexibility into historic districts with the goal of restoring
existing structures and introducing additional housing stock. With this in mind, staff attempted to work
with the applicant prior to the submission of the language, as well as after the application was accepted and
assigned. The applicant has not been amenable to Staff recommendations or direction. Additionally, the
applicant has not been amenable to the Historic Landmark Commission’s concerns, comments and the
specific reasoning for the negative recommendation. The idea behind providing flexibility to landmark sites
and eligible properties within local historic districts is generally in line with the adopted plans and policies
within several planning documents (see Attachment E). However, the proposed language provided by the
applicant does not provide a framework in which to administer approvals or review requests. Additionally,
the language is essentially site-specific.
2. Rational for Negative Recommendation
Planning Staff has identified the following specific issues regarding the proposed language:
PLNPCM2020-00106 5 February 16, 2022
1. As proposed, the language would affect only one property by providing some allowance for the
applicant to construct a second single-family dwelling on the site. However, as an amendment
to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Staff takes into consideration the limiting impact the
proposal would have on incentivizing historic preservation in Salt Lake City. Staff
acknowledges that the applicant wishes to limit the proposed language to be primarily site
specific for the subject property located at 222 4th Avenue. Even though the applicant indicates
that there are 5 properties that could potentially qualify for the allowance, many of those
properties already have secondary dwelling units or are owned by entities uninterested in
pursuing this allowance.
2. As is, the language is unenforceable. This means that without clear language and a framework
to review proposals for a reconstruction of a historic carriage house, there could be very few
limitations. While the applicant provides a suggestion to have the Historic Landmark
Commission review the proposed reconstruction, it doesn’t provide clear framework for such
review.
3. The proposed language doesn’t provide a way to administer the allowance of how an applicant
would apply to reconstruct a historic carriage house.
4. The language does not account for how any potential impacts to abutting and adjacent
properties would be mitigated.
5. Overall, the proposed amendment is missing crucial language for Staff, Planning Commission
and City Council to take the proposal under consideration.
NEXT STEPS:
The Historic Landmark Commission provided a negative recommendation to the Planning Commission
and City Council on the proposed zoning text amendment. Staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council, due to the noted negative
recommendation by the Historic Landmark Commission and the issues noted with the proposed language.
Once a recommendation is provided by the Planning Commission, the recommendation will be
transmitted to the City Council. The Planning Commission’s recommendation is not a final decision; thus,
it is not appealable by the applicant. The City Council will make the final decision on the proposed zoning
amendment.
PLNPCM2020-00106 6 February 16, 2022
ATTACHMENT A: VICINITY MAP OF POTENTIAL SITES
The applicant provided a list of 5 properties that are potentially eligible for a reconstructed or
restored carriage house. The map on the following page highlights the subject properties.
PLNPCM2020-00106 7 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 98 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
ATTACHMENT B: APPLICANT’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE
PLNPCM2020-00106 190 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 110 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 121 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment
April 9, 2020
The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following conditions are
met:
1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
2) The property and address are individually listed on the National Register of Historic
Places.
3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had, an
identifiable carriage house on the property.
4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a
physically-detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-drawn
vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter animals; all
related to serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the
primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples
incorporate a hay loft, second story or half-story, or open interior space under a
pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have
provided housing for a livery man or house servants.
5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be proven,
with the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed through at least
two of the following methods:
• Sanborn maps;
• Historic photographs;
• Planning, zoning or building permit records;
• Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basements, etc.
6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification.
7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built within
the historic footprint).
8) Proposed alterations of a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration, and
reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the
Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission.
PLNPCM2020-00106 132 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow
original/ historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback standards.
If unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for adjacent properties,
additional buffers may be required.
10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new dwelling unit
on the property.
11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use.
12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review
standards and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review process
13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or
subdivided illegally.
14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future.
The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for
reconstruction:
1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of the
reconstruction.
2) Meeting the current minimum lot size.
PLNPCM2020-00106 143 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Stephen C. Pace Zoning Text Amendment Proposal for
Historic Carriage House Structures
UPDATED APPLICATION AND NARRATIVE
April 3, 2020
TO:
FROM:
CC:
Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division
Kirk Huffaker, Principal/Consultant, Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies
Stephen Pace, Applicant and Property Owner
As of April 2, 2020, the city has chosen not to provide an advance copy of draft
language or alternatives for their proposal, so we are not yet in a position to
comment on the pros and cons or details of whatever the city's position may be. We
are therefore requesting through this updated application to proceed with this
application without further additions by the city.
We have not attempted to draft our suggestions in terms of the specific sections of the
city code that will satisfy final location of the amendment within the zoning code. In the
event that our proposal is carried forward to city council, we believe that this will need to
be done under supervision of the city attorney at a later date. Instead we have presented
a synopsis below of what we believe provisions in the zoning code should allow for in the
reconstruction/rehabilitation/restoration of documented historic carriage houses
associated with current or potential National Register of Historic Places-listed sites and
located in areas with current multi-family zoning. The narrative highlights reasons why the
city should support this measure and what we believe the limited impacts on
development could be.
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
Stephen C. Pace, the applicant, is the owner of 222 4th Ave., Salt Lake City, and desires
to rebuild a carriage house associated with the historic William F. Beer Estate. Four
structures, including the carriage house, of the estate are listed as a Salt Lake City
Landmark Site and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The following text
amendment is submitted to the Planning Division for review and comment. The applicant
desires Administrative and/or Planning Commission consideration to resolve a property
size issue in the Avenues historic district. The current property is zoned RMF-35 and is
located in the Lower (West) Avenues neighborhood. There are three primary issues that
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 154 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 2
are not satisfied by any section in the current Zoning Ordinance, including all of the
following:
• Two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner does
not keep a permanent address;
• Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure;
• Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning
district.
To address these shortcomings, the following draft language is proposed as a text
amendment to Chapter 21A.34 Overlay Districts under 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation
Overlay District. It is the desire of the applicant to obtain approval for an application under
this text amendment with one review and public process through the Historic Landmarks
Commission. Utilizing this process will give the public an opportunity for input before one
public commission.
In the H Historic Preservation Overlay District as defined under Chapter 21A.34.020,
reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following conditions are met:
1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site as defined within Chapter
21A.34.020.
2) The property and address are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, either
individually or as a Contributing structure in a National Register-listed Historic District.
3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had, a
carriage house on the property.
4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a physically-
detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-drawn vehicles and
related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter animals; all related to
serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the primary structure
located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, second
story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from
the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house
servants.
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 165 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 3
5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be proven, with
the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed through at least two of
the following methods:
• Sanborn maps;
• Historic photographs;
• Planning, zoning or building permit records;
• Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basements, etc.
6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification.
7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built within the
historic footprint).
8) Proposed alterations a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration, and
reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salt
Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission.
9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow original/
historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback standards. If
unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for adjacent properties,
additional buffers may be required.
10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new dwelling unit
on the property.
11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use.
12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review standards
and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review process
13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or
subdivided illegally.
14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future.
The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for
reconstruction:
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 176 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 4
1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of the
reconstruction.
2) Meeting the current minimum lot size.
3) Meeting off-site parking standards.
Submitted on February 4, 2020
This application and accompanying narrative for zoning text amendment is submitted on
behalf of Stephen Pace, property owner for 222 4th Avenue, Salt Lake City. The applicant
desires Administrative, Planning Commission, and City Council consideration of and
prompt action on the application to resolve multiple zoning issues with the subject
property that prevents the owner from achieving his goal of adaptive use/reconstruction
of a historic carriage house. This former carriage house was one of the four primary
structures of the historic William F. Beer Estate, which was listed in the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1977 and is an individual landmark site in the Salt Lake City
Cultural Register.
According to historic research, the Beer Estate residence and carriage house date to
circa 1899. Both were constructed according to design by architect Richard K.A. Kletting.
Kletting also served as architect for a house and carriage house with similar details for
Albert Fisher (Fisher Mansion and Carriage House) at 1206 West 200 South in 1893. The
Beer Estate carriage house is described in the NRHP nomination as follows:
Area residents describe it as originally a two-story brick structures with a “steeple”
top. Dimensions were approximately 47’ x 40’ and it was used to shelter (at least)
nine draft/riding horses, cattle, chickens, rabbits, etc., two buggies, and as a
residence for the caretakers. The structure was cut in half about World War I, for
use as a garage. Current condition is deteriorated.
Since 1977 when the paragraph was written, the carriage house has continued to
deteriorate. Current site conditions exhibit severe structural deficiency but original brick
and stone foundations, wood floors, and wood framing and walls are present.
The owner desires to rebuild the carriage house within the original footprint and according
to the original design. Use of the carriage house is proposed to be single-family
residential with a single-car garage. Due to the cost of material salvage, architectural
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 187 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 5
replication, and construction, and given that the project is entirely privately funded, the
housing unit is not proposed to be affordable housing. Some original materials have
already been salvaged for reuse, and the owner desires to reuse as much of the existing
material and structure as possible in the reconstruction. The proposed design for
reconstruction of the carriage house has been completed and initially submitted for
discussion with the city.
The property at 222 4th Ave. is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues
neighborhood and Avenues Historic District. There are three primary issues that are
obstacles to adaptive use and reconstruction and not satisfied by any section in the
current zoning ordinance, including:
• Allowance for two residentially-used structures on the same property where the
property owner does not keep a permanent address;
• Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure;
• Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning
district.
In addition, we believe that these issues will not be resolved by the Adaptive Reuse
Ordinance (in process), revisions to the RMF-30 zoning classification (in process), and are
not addressed through the Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance.
Therefore, to address the shortcomings, the following supportive documentation and
zoning text amendment draft language are proposed for Chapter 21A.34 Overlay Districts
under 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. As a point of application
process, it is acceptable to the applicant to utilize the city’s existing process for
Conditional Use to obtain approval for use of the property. We believe that utilizing the
Conditional Use process along with Historic Landmarks Commission review for design
will adequately give the public two opportunities for input before two separate
commissions. However, if the Planning Division can determine another acceptable
application and review process that would only involve review before one commission
and administrative review, the applicant would be open to receiving information about this
possibility. The applicant reserves the right to approve or deny any proposed process
change.
The goals of this application to address the three current deficiencies and well supported
by the city’s wide range of plans and guiding documents, including those that are
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 198 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 6
neighborhood-specific, for historic preservation, and for housing. The following is a
summary list of those plans and supportive statements from each.
Avenues Master Plan
Housing and Neighborhood Improvement Planning Goal: Continue to encourage private
restoration and rehabilitation efforts in the Avenues Community through financial
assistance and supportive zoning and building code enforcement. (pg. 3)
Historic Preservation Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and
architecturally significant sites and the established character of the Avenues and South
Temple Historic Districts. (pg. 4)
Future land use map indicates Medium-Density 8-20 Unites per Gross Acre (pg. 7)
Property is situated between an urban trail (A Street) and within one block of two
Collector streets (B Street and Second Avenue), as well as a half-mile from the Central
Business District, therefore meeting this plan’s and many other plan’s goals of proximity
to transportation and for walkability.
Urban Design Planning Goal: Design public facilities to enhance the established
residential character of the Avenues, and encourage private property improvements that
are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (pg. 10)
Residential Design Guidelines
The applicant’s overall goal is most closely defined as Rehabilitation in the Salt Lake City
Design Guidelines, but could also be viewed as a combination of strategies, including
Reconstruction. Rehabilitation is defined in Part I, page 3:5:
“Rehabilitation is the process of returning a property to a state which makes a
contemporary use possible, while still preserving those portions or features of the
property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values.
Rehabilitation may include the adaptive reuse of the building, and major or minor
additions may also occur. Most good preservation projects in Salt Lake City may
be considered rehabilitation projects.”
A definition for Reconstruction is provided in the Appendix, pg. C:3, and states that
Reconstruction is:
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 2109 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 7
“The act or process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and detail
of a vanished building, structure, or object, or a part thereof, as if [sic] appeared at
a specific period of time.”
Accessory Structures (Part II 9:1)
This application follows the guidelines in Chapter 9: Accessory Structures, including the
Context & Character, Design Objective, Preserving or Rehabilitating Historic Accessory
Structures, and subsections with the headings:
• Preserve a historic accessory building when feasible.
• New accessory buildings should be constructed to be compatible with the primary
structure.
• Attaching garages and carports to the primary structure should be avoided.
The Avenues (Part III 13:1-14)
This application complies with the stipulations on page 13:12 under the heading
Accessory Structures within the specific chapter for The Avenues:
• Most secondary structures were built along the rear of the lot, accessed by the alley, if
one existed. This should be continued.
• Garages, as well as driveways, should not dominate the streetscape; therefore, they
should be detached from the main house and located to the rear of the house, if
possible.
• Historically, garages and carriage houses in the Avenues were simple wood structures
covered with a gabled or hipped roof.
• A new secondary structure should follow historic precedent, in terms of material and
form.
Community Historic Preservation Plan
“The need to preserve the unique character of the City’s urban neighborhoods, while
allowing for modifications to existing homes to meet today’s current living standards for
space and convenience are important City policies.” (pg. I-8)
The CHPP references the city’s Community Housing Plan (II-7,8), and while those
references are supportive of this application, they are not from the city’s most current
housing plan. The city adopted the Growing SLC Housing Plan in 2018 and references
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 210 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 8
from that plan are included in a later section. However, the CHPP does reference goals of
the city’s Strategic Plan and Futures Report on pages II-10 and II-11. Those that are also
supportive of this application include:
- Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods.
- Our historical heritage, including historic buildings and neighborhoods, is recognized as
a vital component of an exciting, livable city. Preserve historic structures, streets, and
other landmarks in all new development strategies.
- Assist property owners with solving the challenges of adaptive reuse.
Policies and Actions Relating to Regulations
3.3I Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable
appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic
structures.
3.3k Support modifications of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use that
will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in historic
districts in an effort to ensure preservation of the structure.
Regulatory Incentives
Two sections that support this application are Flexibility in Zoning Regulations (III-31), and
Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings (III-32). These are further supported by:
3.4a Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the
preservation of historic properties.
3.4c Modification to lot, bulk and signage standards should be allowed in local historic
districts and to Landmark Sites where the modification would allow for better compliance
with the historic preservation standards than the underlying zoning standard would allow.
3.4d Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in
appropriate locations where it is found that the negative impacts can be mitigated and
where the uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the interior
of the structure.
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 221 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 9
Economic Development
6.4c Historic preservation is identified as an important means of providing employment
opportunities for local crafts persons and skilled workers which keep money in the local
economy.
Housing
6.5a Ensure zoning supports the retention and reuse of existing historic apartment and
non-residential buildings.
6.5b Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive
reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units.
6.5e Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation of
historic structures.
Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
Goal 1: Increase Housing Options
Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability
needs of a growing, pioneering city.
1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant
transportation routes.
1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing
options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing
structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts.
Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development.
Goal 3: Equitable & Fair Housing
Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity throughout
all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of opportunity.
Objective 3: Implement Life cycle Housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the
city.
3.3.1 Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that
promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages of
life.
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 232 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 10
The SLC Comprehensive Housing Policy (2016) also includes supportive statements for
this proposal:
1. Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition;
2. Respect the character and charm of predominantly residential districts, including those
with historic character and qualities, while also providing opportunities for the provision of
local goods and services easily accessed by neighborhoods;
4. Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City;
7. Recognize that residents, business owners, and local government all have a role to play
in creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods.
Plan Salt Lake
Under Sustainable Growth & Development on page 9, the paragraphs on Placemaking
and Density, and those that reference Compatibility and Green Building on page 10, are
supportive of this application.
On page 14, supportive Guiding Principles of Plan Salt Lake include the following:
2) Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how
they live, and how they get around.
3) Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City,
providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.
8) A beautiful city that is people focused.
9) Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past.
10) Vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural resources that showcase the
community’s long standing commitment to a strong creative culture.
Under Chapter 1 - Neighborhoods, the supportive Initiatives on page 17 include:
1. Maintain neighborhood stability and character.
4. Support neighborhood identity and diversity.
6. Incorporate artistic elements and support cultural events on a neighborhood scale to
reinforce neighborhood character and identity.
Under Chapter 2 - Growth, the supportive Initiatives on page 19 include:
1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as
transit and transportation corridors
3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
6. Accommodate and promote an increase in the city’s population.
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 243 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 11
Under Chapter 3 - Housing, the supportive Initiatives on page 21 include:
2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the
potential to be people-oriented.
6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
Under Chapter 6 - Natural Environment, the supportive Initiatives on page 27 include:
3. Practice responsible waste management by: reusing and repurposing materials,
including promoting the reuse of existing buildings over demolition.
Under Chapter 8 - Beautiful City, the supportive Initiatives on page 31 include:
5. Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure that: reflects our
diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage.
7. Reinforce and preserve neighborhood district character and a strong sense of place.
Under Chapter 9 - Preservation, the supportive Initiatives on page 33 include:
1.Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public
spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate.
3. Retain areas of structures of historic and architectural value.
4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making.
5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
Under Chapter 13 - Government, the supportive Initiatives on page 41 include:
2. Provide opportunities for public participation, input, and engagement throughout the
decision-making process.
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 254 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
ATTACHMENT C: APPLICANT’S NARRATIVE
Links included in applicant's narrative: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/HLC/2020/07%20July%202020/00106StaffReport.pdf http://
utahcfa.org/architect/richard_karl_kletting
PLNPCM2020-00106 265 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment
AMENDED APPLICATION NARRATIVE
April 9, 2020
TO:
FROM:
CC:
Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division
Kirk Huffaker, Principal/Consultant, Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies
Stephen Pace, Applicant and Property Owner
NOTE
Because, as we understand it, the purpose of the “open house” is to seek broad public
input on our proposal, we have not attempted to draft our suggestions in terms of the
specific sections of the city code that will satisfy final location of the amendment within
the zoning code. In the event that our proposal is carried forward to city council, we
believe that this will need to be done under supervision of the city attorney at a later
date. Instead we have presented a synopsis below of what we believe provisions in the
zoning code should allow for in the reconstruction/rehabilitation/restoration of
documented historic carriage houses associated with current National Register of
Historic Places-listed residential sites and located in areas that already have multi-
family zoning. The narrative highlights reasons why the city should support this
measure and what we believe the limited impacts on development could be.
Stephen C. Pace, the applicant, is the owner of 222 4th Ave., Salt Lake City, and
desires to rebuild a carriage house associated with the historic William F. Beer Estate.
Four structures, including the carriage house, of the estate are listed as a Salt Lake
City Landmark Site and listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places.
The following text amendment is submitted to the Planning Division for review and
comment. The applicant desires Administrative and/or Planning Commission
consideration to resolve a property size issue in the Avenues historic district. The
current property is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues
neighborhood. There are three primary issues that are not satisfied by any section in
the current Zoning Ordinance, including all of the following:
• Two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner
does not keep a permanent address;
• Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure;
• Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning
district.
PLNPCM2020-00106 276 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Page 2
As it is the desire of the applicant to obtain approval for an application under this text
amendment with one review and public process through the Historic Landmarks
Commission, we believe this language should probably be included in Chapter
21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Utilizing this process will
streamline the process for the applicant, for city review, and provide the public an
opportunity for input.
APPLICABILITY
The proposed text amendment will be applicable citywide to residences listed
individually as Salt Lake City Landmark Sites and where the residence and historic
carriage house (as defined below) are both listed on the National Register of Historic
Places as an individual listing (not simply in a National Register-listed historic district).
The applicant believes that at least four (4) residence/historic carriage house
complexes currently could meet this qualifying test. This is based on best information
available to the applicant, which in part, is included as an attachment. In the event the
city grants future Landmark Site designations, and National Register landmark status is
sought and granted by the U.S. Department of Interior, the number of qualifying sites
may increase in the future.
TEXT AMENDMENT
The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following
conditions are met:
1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
2) The property and address are individually listed on the National Register of
Historic Places.
3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had,
an identifiable carriage house on the property.
4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a
physically-detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-
drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter
animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the
owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent
property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, second story or half-story, or
open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the
roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house servants.
PLNPCM2020-00106 287 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Page 3
5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be
proven, with the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed
through at least two of the following methods:
• Sanborn maps;
• Historic photographs;
• Planning, zoning or building permit records;
• Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls,
basements, etc.
6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification.
7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built
within the historic footprint).
8) Proposed alterations of a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration,
and reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of
Appropriateness from the Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission.
9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow
original/ historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback
standards. If unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for
adjacent properties, additional buffers may be required.
10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new
dwelling unit on the property.
11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use.
12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review
standards and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review
process
13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built
or subdivided illegally.
14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future.
PLNPCM2020-00106 298 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Page 4
The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for
reconstruction:
1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of
the reconstruction.
2) Meeting the current minimum lot size.
Submitted February 4, 2020 / Amended April 6 and 8, 2020
This application and accompanying narrative for zoning text amendment is submitted
on behalf of Stephen Pace, property owner for 222 4th Avenue, Salt Lake City. The
applicant desires Administrative, Planning Commission, and City Council consideration
of and prompt action on the application to resolve multiple zoning issues with the
subject property that prevents the owner from achieving his goal of reconstruction of a
historic carriage house. This former carriage house was one of the four primary
structures of the historic William F. Beer Estate, which was listed in the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1977 and is an individual landmark site in the Salt
Lake City Cultural Register.
According to historic research, the Beer Estate residence and carriage house date to
circa 1899. Both were constructed according to design by architect Richard K.A.
Kletting. Kletting also served as architect for a house and carriage house with similar
details for Albert Fisher (Fisher Mansion and Carriage House) at 1206 West 200 South
in 1893. The Beer Estate carriage house is described in the NRHP nomination as
follows:
Area residents describe it as originally a two-story brick structures with a
“steeple” top. Dimensions were approximately 47’ x 40’ and it was used to
shelter (at least) nine draft/riding horses, cattle, chickens, rabbits, etc., two
buggies, and as a residence for the caretakers. The structure was cut in half
about World War I, for use as a garage. Current condition is deteriorated.
Since 1977 when the paragraph was written, the carriage house has continued to
deteriorate. Current site conditions exhibit severe structural deficiency but original
brick and stone foundations, wood floors, and wood framing and walls are present.
The owner desires to rebuild the carriage house within the original footprint and
according to the original design. Use of the carriage house is proposed to be single-
family residential with a single-car garage. Due to the cost of material salvage,
architectural replication, and construction, and given that the project is entirely
privately funded, the housing unit is not proposed to be affordable housing. Some
PLNPCM2020-00106 3209 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Page 5
original materials have already been salvaged for reuse, and the owner desires to reuse
as much of the existing material and structure as possible in the reconstruction. The
proposed design for reconstruction of the carriage house has been completed and
initially submitted for discussion with the city.
The property at 222 4th Ave. is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West)
Avenues neighborhood and Avenues Historic District. There are three primary issues
that are obstacles to adaptive use and reconstruction and not satisfied by any section
in the current zoning ordinance, including:
• Allowance for two residentially-used structures on the same property where the
property owner does not keep a permanent address;
• Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure;
• Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning
district.
In addition, we believe that these issues will not be resolved by the proposed Adaptive
Reuse Ordinance (in process), proposed revisions to the RMF-30 zoning classification
(in process), and are not addressed through the current Accessory Dwelling Unit
ordinance.
Therefore, to address the shortcomings, the following supportive documentation and
zoning text amendment draft language are proposed for Chapter 21A.34.020 H Historic
Preservation Overlay District. As stated above, it is the desire of the applicant to obtain
approval for an application under this text amendment with one review and public
process through the Historic Landmarks Commission. Utilizing this process will
streamline the process for the applicant, for city review, and provide the public an
opportunity for input.
The goals of this application to address the three current deficiencies and well
supported by the city’s wide range of plans and guiding documents, including those
that are neighborhood-specific, for historic preservation, and for housing. The following
is a summary list of those plans and supportive statements from each.
Avenues Master Plan
Housing and Neighborhood Improvement Planning Goal: Continue to encourage
private restoration and rehabilitation efforts in the Avenues Community through
financial assistance and supportive zoning and building code enforcement. (pg. 3)
Historic Preservation Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and
architecturally significant sites and the established character of the Avenues and South
Temple Historic Districts. (pg. 4)
PLNPCM2020-00106 310 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Page 6
Future land use map indicates Medium-Density 8-20 Unites per Gross Acre (pg. 7)
Property is situated between an urban trail (A Street) and within one block of two
Collector streets (B Street and Second Avenue), as well as a half-mile from the Central
Business District, therefore meeting this plan’s and many other plan’s goals of
proximity to transportation and for walkability.
Urban Design Planning Goal: Design public facilities to enhance the established
residential character of the Avenues, and encourage private property improvements
that are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (pg. 10)
Residential Design Guidelines
The applicant’s overall goal is most closely defined as Rehabilitation in the Salt Lake
City Design Guidelines, but could also be viewed as a combination of strategies,
including Reconstruction. Rehabilitation is defined in Part I, page 3:5:
“Rehabilitation is the process of returning a property to a state which makes a
contemporary use possible, while still preserving those portions or features of
the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural
values. Rehabilitation may include the adaptive reuse of the building, and major
or minor additions may also occur. Most good preservation projects in Salt Lake
City may be considered rehabilitation projects.”
A definition for Reconstruction is provided in the Appendix, pg. C:3, and states that
Reconstruction is:
“The act or process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and
detail of a vanished building, structure, or object, or a part thereof, as if [sic]
appeared at a specific period of time.”
Accessory Structures (Part II 9:1)
This application is consistent with the guidelines in Chapter 9: Accessory Structures,
including the Context & Character, Design Objective, Preserving or Rehabilitating
Historic Accessory Structures, and subsections with the headings:
• Preserve a historic accessory building when feasible.
• New accessory buildings should be constructed to be compatible with the primary
structure.
• Attaching garages and carports to the primary structure should be avoided.
PLNPCM2020-00106 321 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Page 7
The Avenues (Part III 13:1-14)
This application complies with the stipulations on page 13:12 under the heading
Accessory Structures within the specific chapter for The Avenues:
• Most secondary structures were built along the rear of the lot, accessed by the alley,
if one existed. This should be continued.
• Garages, as well as driveways, should not dominate the streetscape; therefore, they
should be detached from the main house and located to the rear of the house, if
possible.
• Historically, garages and carriage houses in the Avenues were simple wood
structures covered with a gabled or hipped roof.
• A new secondary structure should follow historic precedent, in terms of material and
form.
Community Historic Preservation Plan
“The need to preserve the unique character of the City’s urban neighborhoods, while
allowing for modifications to existing homes to meet today’s current living standards
for space and convenience are important City policies.” (pg. I-8)
The CHPP references the city’s Community Housing Plan (II-7,8), and while those
references are supportive of this application, they are not from the city’s most current
housing plan. The city adopted the Growing SLC Housing Plan in 2018 and references
from that plan are included in a later section. However, the CHPP does reference goals
of the city’s Strategic Plan and Futures Report on pages II-10 and II-11. Those that are
also supportive of this application include:
- Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods.
- Our historical heritage, including historic buildings and neighborhoods, is recognized
as a vital component of an exciting, livable city. Preserve historic structures, streets,
and other landmarks in all new development strategies.
- Assist property owners with solving the challenges of adaptive reuse.
Policies and Actions Relating to Regulations
3.3I Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable
appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic
structures.
PLNPCM2020-00106 332 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Page 8
3.3k Support modifications of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use
that will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in
historic districts in an effort to ensure preservation of the structure.
Regulatory Incentives
Two sections that support this application are Flexibility in Zoning Regulations (III-31),
and Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings (III-32). These are further supported by:
3.4a Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the
preservation of historic properties.
3.4c Modification to lot, bulk and signage standards should be allowed in local historic
districts and to Landmark Sites where the modification would allow for better
compliance with the historic preservation standards than the underlying zoning
standard would allow.
3.4d Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in
appropriate locations where it is found that the negative impacts can be mitigated and
where the uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the
interior of the structure.
Economic Development
6.4c Historic preservation is identified as an important means of providing employment
opportunities for local crafts persons and skilled workers which keep money in the
local economy.
Housing
6.5a Ensure zoning supports the retention and reuse of existing historic apartment and
non-residential buildings.
6.5b Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive
reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units.
6.5e Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation
of historic structures.
PLNPCM2020-00106 343 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Page 9
Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
Goal 1: Increase Housing Options
Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the
affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city.
1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant
transportation routes.
1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing
options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing
structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts.
Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing
development.
Goal 3: Equitable & Fair Housing
Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity
throughout all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of opportunity.
Objective 3: Implement Life cycle Housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the
city.
3.3.1 Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that
promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages
of life.
The SLC Comprehensive Housing Policy (2016) also includes supportive statements for
this proposal:
1. Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition;
2. Respect the character and charm of predominantly residential districts, including
those with historic character and qualities, while also providing opportunities for the
provision of local goods and services easily accessed by neighborhoods;
4. Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City;
7. Recognize that residents, business owners, and local government all have a role to
play in creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods.
Plan Salt Lake
Under Sustainable Growth & Development on page 9, the paragraphs on Placemaking
and Density, and those that reference Compatibility and Green Building on page 10,
are supportive of this application.
PLNPCM2020-00106 354 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Page 10
On page 14, supportive Guiding Principles of Plan Salt Lake include the following:
2) Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how
they live, and how they get around.
3) Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City,
providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.
8) A beautiful city that is people focused.
9) Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past.
10) Vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural resources that showcase the
community’s long standing commitment to a strong creative culture.
Under Chapter 1 - Neighborhoods, the supportive Initiatives on page 17 include:
1. Maintain neighborhood stability and character.
4. Support neighborhood identity and diversity.
6. Incorporate artistic elements and support cultural events on a neighborhood scale to
reinforce neighborhood character and identity.
Under Chapter 2 - Growth, the supportive Initiatives on page 19 include:
1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as
transit and transportation corridors
3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
6. Accommodate and promote an increase in the city’s population.
Under Chapter 3 - Housing, the supportive Initiatives on page 21 include:
2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have
the potential to be people-oriented.
6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
Under Chapter 6 - Natural Environment, the supportive Initiatives on page 27 include:
3. Practice responsible waste management by: reusing and repurposing materials,
including promoting the reuse of existing buildings over demolition.
Under Chapter 8 - Beautiful City, the supportive Initiatives on page 31 include:
5. Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure that: reflects
our diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage.
7. Reinforce and preserve neighborhood district character and a strong sense of place.
Under Chapter 9 - Preservation, the supportive Initiatives on page 33 include:
1.Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public
spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate.
3. Retain areas of structures of historic and architectural value.
PLNPCM2020-00106 365 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Page 11
4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making.
5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
Under Chapter 13 - Government, the supportive Initiatives on page 41 include:
2. Provide opportunities for public participation, input, and engagement throughout the
decision-making process.
PLNPCM2020-00106 376 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 387 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 398 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 4309 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 410 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 421 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 432 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 443 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 454 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 465 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 476 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 487 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 498 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 5409 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 510 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 521 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 532 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 543 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 554 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 565 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 576 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 587 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 598 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 6509 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 610 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 621 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 632 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 643 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 654 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 665 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 676 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 687 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 698 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 7609 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 710 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 721 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 732 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 743 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 754 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 765 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
ATTACHMENT D: ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES
The applicant provided the following list of eligible properties:
1. Fisher Mansion and Carriage House (1206 W. 200 S.)
2. Kearns Mansion (603 E. South Temple)
3. Keith Mansion (529 E. South Temple)
4. William F. Beer Estate (222 4th Avenue)
5. McIntyre House (259 7th Avenue)
The following attachments include the applicable nominations and photographs.
PLNPCM2020-00106 776 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 787 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 798 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 8709 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 810 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 821 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 832 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 843 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 854 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 865 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 876 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 887 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 898 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 9809 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 910 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 921 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 932 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 943 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 954 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 965 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 976 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 987 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 998 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 19090 FebruaJruyly169, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1010 FebruaJruyly169, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1021 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1032 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1043 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1054 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1065 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1076 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1087 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1098 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 11009 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1110 FebruaJruyly169, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1121 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1132 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1143 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1154 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1165 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1176 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1187 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1198 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 12109 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1210 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1221 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1232 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1243 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1254 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1265 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1276 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1287 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1298 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 13209 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1310 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1321 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1332 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1343 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1354 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1365 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1376 February 16, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1387 February 16, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1398 February 16, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 14309 February 16, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1410 February 16, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1421 February 16, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1432 February 16, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1443 February 16, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1454 February 16, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1465 February 16, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1476 February 16, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1487 February 16, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1498 February 16, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 15409 February 16, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1510 Februaryly1 69, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 1521 Februaryly1 69, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 1532 Februaryly1 69, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 1543 Februaryly1 69, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 1554 Februaryly1 69, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 1565 Februaryly1 69, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 1576 Februaryly1 69, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 1587 Februaryly1 69, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 1598 Februaryly1 69, 2022
PLFNePbCruMa1 2r65y0 09l y21069-,,020012026
PLNPCM2020-00106 1610 Februaryly1 69, 2022
PLNPCMF2e0b12r60u21-a0r0yl 1y10696, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 1632 Februaryly1 69, 2022
PLNPFCeMb2r1u06a2J 43ru0yl-y010691,, 0260220
ATTACHMENT E: CITY PLAN CONSIDERATIONS
Adopted City Plan Policies and Guidance
There are several adopted master plans and documents that provide guidance for historic preservation,
many of which express general support for the concept of creating and adopting flexible zoning regulations
that create economic incentives for contributing structures and landmark sites. Policy statements and goals
in the Community Preservation Plan, Plan Salt Lake, Avenues Master Plan and Growing Salt Lake
Housing Plan, include statements for increasing housing stock in already developed sections of the city, as
well as creating tools to further incentivize historic preservation for many of the historic property owners
within the City. The master plans that address historic preservation goals and policies include the following:
•Community Preservation Plan
o The comprehensive plan for Historic Preservation, includes many related policies for
incentivizing preservation.
•Plan Salt Lake
o Plan Salt Lake includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development.
Utilizing the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit
would be in line with the policies outline in this master plan.
o
o
o
Includes guiding policies that preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
Encourages the retention of areas and structures of historic and architectural value.
Promotes a balance of preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
•Avenues Master Plan
The comprehensive plan for the Avenues encourages historic preservation of historically
and architecturally significant sites.
o
The master plans that address housing goals and policies include the following:
•Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
o The housing plan encourages the creation of the flexible zoning tools and regulations to
create additional housing stock.
•Plan Salt Lake
o Includes guiding policies that encourage housing options that accommodate gaining in
place, as well as the promotion of rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
Also includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development. Utilizing
the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit would be
in line with the policies outline in this master plan.
o
Community Preservation Plan
The Community Preservation Plan, adopted in 2012, indicates that the City needs to adopt a “wider
ranger of preservation tools.” Historic preservation tools are generally identified as incentives, which
can include an array of policies that encourage the preservation, restoration or reconstruction of
important historic features on historic properties.
Policy 2.1a: Ensure the long-term viability of existing local historic districts.
Policy 2.1b: Ensure consistency between the Community Preservation Plan and all other adopted
City plans.
Policy 2.3a: Identify historic preservation as an important component of the City’s sustainability
efforts based on its important economic, environmental and cultural benefits to the City.
PLNPCM2020-00106 164 February 16, 2022
Policy 3.2o: Explore a variety of tools to determine the appropriate method for implementing
historic preservation policies of a specific historic resource.
Policy 3.3a: Align preservation-related City regulations with the goals and policies of this plan.
Policy 3.3b: The Historic Preservation Overlay District standards are to be used as the basis for
decision making when considering applications and the standards should be applied in a
reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility.
Policy 3.3g: Ensure that underlying zoning is supportive of preservation policies for the area in
which historic or character preservation is proposed.
Policy 3.3i: Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable
appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic structures.
Policy 3.3k: Support modification of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use that
will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in historic districts in
an effort to ensure preservation of the structure.
Policy 3.4a: Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the
preservation of historic properties.
Policy 3.4b: Develop a wide range of incentives to encourage the protection of historic properties.
Policy 3.4d: Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in
appropriate locations where it is found that he negative impacts can be mitigated and where the
uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the interior of the structure.
Policy 6.1a: Historic Preservation is a primary tool to implement the sustainable goals of Salt
Lake City.
Policy 6.1b: The energy benefits, including life-cycle costs of preserving older buildings, should be
understood by property owners, development professionals, decision makers, City Staff and the
general public.
Policy 6.5b: Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive
reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units.
Policy 6.5e: Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation
of historic structures.
Plan Salt Lake
Guiding Principle: Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past.
Initiatives:
1. Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public spaces,
streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate.
3. Retain areas and structures of historic and architectural value.
4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making.
5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
6. Improve education and outreach about the value of historic preservation.
Plan Salt Lake Housing Goals and Policies
Guiding Principal/ Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the
city, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.
PLNPCM2020-00106 165 February 16, 2022
1. Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low income).
2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
3. Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place.
4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the
potential to be people-oriented.
5. Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate.
6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
7. Promote high density residential in areas served by transit.
8. Support homeless services.
Avenues Master Plan
Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites and
the established character of the Avenues and South Temple Historic District.
Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of
a growing, pioneering city.
1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options,
create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while
minimizing neighborhood impacts.
Staff Discussion:
The above stated policies and guidelines relate to the proposed language for the historic carriage
house reconstruction or restoration for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The policies and
guidelines encourage the creation of additional housing through flexibility and incentives within the
Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Staff was originally supportive of the concept of introducing zoning
flexibility into historic districts with the goal of restoring existing structures and creating additional
housing stock. Staff attempted to work with the applicant prior to the submission of the language, as well
as after the application was accepted and assigned. The applicant has not been amenable to Staff
recommendations or direction. Additionally, the applicant has not been amenable to the Historic
Landmark Commission’s concerns, comments and the specific reasoning for the negative
recommendation. It is impossible to support a text amendment proposal that does not include actual text
to be inserted into the zoning code, does not address the process for approval of projects under the
proposal, and is therefore not something that can be administered. The applicant could remedy this by
drafting actual code language, productively working with staff of the Planning Division to put the proposal
into an ordinance format, in recognition that the Planning Commission cannot forward a
recommendation to the City Council that is not in an adoptable format.
PLNPCM2020-00106 166 February 16, 2022
ATTACHMENT F: 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 considers
the following factors. Although the proposed ordinance is not complete, Staff drafted responses to
the factors based on the concepts of the proposed ordinance.
FACTOR FINDING RATIONALE
1. Whether a proposed The specific proposal is not in While the concept may be valid, Staff
cannot evaluate the proposed text
amendment against this factor because
the proposal provided by the applicant
is not in an ordinance format.
text amendment is
consistent with the
purposes, goals,
objectives and
ordinance format and thus, this
factor cannot be fully evaluated
or analyzed.
policies of the city as
stated through its
various adopted
planning
documents;
2. Whether a proposed The specific proposal is not in While the concept may be valid, Staff
cannot evaluate the proposed text
amendment against this factor because
the proposal provided by the applicant
is not in an ordinance format.
text amendment
furthers the specific
purpose statements
of the zoning
ordinance format and thus, this
factor cannot be fully evaluated
or analyzed.
ordinance;
3. Whether a proposed The specific proposal is not in While the concept may be valid, Staff
cannot evaluate the proposed text
amendment against this factor because
the proposal provided by the applicant
is not in an ordinance format.
text amendment is
consistent with the
purposes and
ordinance format and thus, this
factor cannot be fully evaluated
or analyzed.
provisions of any
applicable overlay
zoning district
which may imposed
additional
standards;
4. The extent to which
a proposed text
amendment
The specific proposal is not in
ordinance format and thus, this
factor cannot be fully evaluated
or analyzed.
While the concept may be valid, Staff
cannot evaluate the proposed text
amendment against this factor because
the proposal provided by the applicant
is not in an ordinance format.
implements best
current, professional
practices of urban
planning and
design.
PLNPCM2020-00106 167 February 16, 2022
ATTACHMENT G: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS
The zoning text amendment was posted on Salt Lake City Planning Division’s website on February
11, 2022, for public engagement and comment purposes. Notice of the post was provided via
Listserve. All of the public comments that have been submitted are attached.
PLNPCM2020-00106 168 February 16, 2022
May 8, 2020
Kelsey Lindquist
Senior Planner
Salt Lake City Planning Division
Dear Mr. Lindquist,
I am writing to you regarding the petition to amend Title 21A-Zoning of the
city code to allow for the reconstruction of a documented historic carriage house
at 222 4th Avenue. My wife and I reside in our home in the upper avenues and we
own three units in the Carlton Towers at 266 East 4th Avenue; which is less than a
quarter of a block from the subject property.
The proposed amendments seem quite reasonable if a process for approval
includes safeguards that assures conformity to historic values. With appropriate
reviews, the preservation and/or reconstruction of historic landmark sites
acknowledged by the National Register of Historic Places would be possible and
would serve to enhance the aesthetic of the Avenues Historic District as well as
several other unique sites and neighborhoods in our city.
I believe that the request to obtain approval for an application under the
proposed amendment utilizing the Historic Landmarks Commission’s review and
public scrutiny process provides the safeguards necessary to maintain historic
integrity.
I would encourage the City to approve the Zoning Amendment request.
Respectfully,
Jim Bradley
Salt Lake City, Utah 84103
PLNPCM2020-00106 17649 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
From:
To:
Barbara Hounsell
Stephen C Pace
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Lindquist, Kelsey; Scott S. Cruze
(EXTERNAL) Stephen C. Pace Carriage House Project
Wednesday, May 13, 2020 11:44:04 AM
Hello Stephen,
Barbara and I enjoyed talking with you on Sunday about your Carriage House
reconstruction project.
Assuming proper engineering and construction practices are followed, we are
in full support of this historically important project as described as the Stephen
C. Pace Historic Carriage House proposed zoning text amendment, 222 4th
Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah.
The proper engineering and construction to which we refer must protect the
integrity of the existing retaining wall on the north side of our Peery Apartment
property. The project must not compromise our retaining wall with additional
loads, including loads that come from structures, dirt or fill, landscape
materials, vegetation, or water and water retention.
Sincerely,
Barbara Hounsell
Alex Cross
Owners of the Peery Apartments, LLC
Cc:
Scott Cruze
Kelsey Lindquist
PLNPCM2020-00106 1750 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
From:
To:
Carol Foster
Lindquist, Kelsey
Cc:Paul Foster
Subject:
Date:
(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2020-00106, 222 4th Ave
Friday, May 15, 2020 10:12:32 AM
To whom it may concern:
We are writing in support of Stephen Pace’s renovation of 222 4th Ave. We are neighbors at
163 B St.
We have spoken with Stephen and support his renovation plan.
Our primary concerns were regarding keeping the community feeling of our neighborhood,
promoting house ownership over renting, against Airbnbs / apartments and for more long-term
housing for families or individuals.
Stephen explained that his rentals have very little turnover of renters and we have witnessed
that, living here since 2002.
Another concern was windows overlooking our property (backyard of 163 B Street) and
Stephen explained there weren’t any.
Feel free to reach out to us if you have any questions.
Many thanks,
Carol and Paul Foster
PLNPCM2020-00106 1761 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 172 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 173 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 174 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 175 February 16, 2022
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
children had taken over his property, they executed a sale of the strip to me in exchange
for $10. I began paying property taxes on the strip in 2018.
A third person, Mr. Thomas Mulcock, 212 4th Ave, (801) 864-3881 owns a four-plex and
garages on the southwest corner of the 222 lot. I provided him with the zoning change
package in April but did not reach him by phone until May 11. He indicated that he did
not carefully read my proposal, that he had no necessary objection to it, but that due to
his wife's critical illness he doubted he would get to it in the near future. I told him that
under the circumstances I would not bother him again.
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 176 February 16, 2022
3) PLANNING COMMISSION
c) Agenda/Minutes
February 23, 2022
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
February 23, 2022 at 5:30 p.m.
(The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion)
ATTENTION: This meeting will not have an anchor location at the City & County Building based on the
following determination by the Planning Commission Chair:
I, Amy Barry, Chair of the Planning Commission, hereby determine that with the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic conditions existing in Salt Lake City including, but not limited to, the elevated number of cases,
that meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who would
be present.
Commission Members will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning
Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested
in watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms:
•
•
YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or would like to
provide general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at:
•https://bit.ly/slc-pc-02232022
Instructions for using WebEx are provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2022
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ADU Conditional Use at Approximately 1532 South Green Street - Dorian Rosen, the property
owner, has requested conditional use approval for a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to
be situated in the rear, west side of the property located at the above-stated address. The ADU
will be 14’8” tall and 650 square-feet. To meet the requirements to allow the ADU to reach the
maximum 650 square feet a 425 square foot addition to the main dwelling will be built. The subject
property is zoned R-1 /5,000 (Single-Family Residential) and is located within Council District 5,
represented by Darin Marino. (Staff contact: Grant Amann at 801-535-6171 or
grant.amann@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021-01273
2. Green Street Alley Vacation - Sara Koenig, the property owner at approximately 1343 S Green
Street, is requesting Salt Lake City to vacate a "T" shaped alley running between 1300 South and
Harrison Avenue and Green Street and 700 East. The alley exists on paper only and the abutting
property owners have incorporated the alley into their properties. The property abutting this alley
is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District) and is located within Council District 5,
represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Katia Pace at 801-535-6354
or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00903
3. Dooley Court Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision at approximately 122 S
Dooley CT and 126 S Windsor Street - Warren Crummett, the property owner, is requesting
planned development and preliminary subdivision approval to divide an existing lot into two lots
for a new twin home. The proposal includes retaining the existing single-family home on-site and
building a new twin home on the newly created lots. Planned Development approval is requested
to modify the required twin home lot area from 1,500 square feet to approximately 1,367
square feet and for an approximate 2-inch reduction to the front yard setback in the southwest
area of the lot fronting Dooley Court. The project is located in the SR-3 (Special Development
Pattern Residential) zoning district.
a. Planned Development – Planned Development request to waive lot area and setback
requirements in the SR-3 zone. Case number PLNPCM2021-00958
b. Preliminary Subdivision – Creation of two new lots to accommodate a twin home. Case
number PLNSUB2021-01151
The subject property is within Council District #4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff
contact: Krissy Gilmore at 801-535-7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com)
4. Glendale Townhomes at approximately 1179 S Navajo Street - Pierre Langue of Axis
Architects, representing the property owners, is requesting approval from the City to redevelop
the property with 57 townhomes, 24 of which would include a live/work option. The buildings
would be three stories tall with internal garages for each unit. Currently, the land is occupied by
Tejedas Market and is zoned CB (Community Business). This type of project must be reviewed
as a Planned Development as four of the buildings would not have frontage on a public
street. The subject property is located within Council District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy.
(Staff contact: Eric Daems at 801-535-7236 or eric.daems@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2021-00378
5. Pacific Yard Design Review & Planned Development - KTGY Architects, representing Urban
Alfandre, are requesting a Planned Development and Design Review approval for a mixed-use
multifamily building at approximately 443 W 700 South, 720 S 400 West, and 704 S 400 West.
The proposed 7-story building is 88-feet in height and includes 292 units and 202 parking stalls.
It has 12,000 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor. The applicant is requesting
relief from all required setbacks and landscaping through the Planned Development process and
requesting an additional 28 feet of building height through Design Review. The project site is in
the General Commercial (CG) zoning district. In the CG zone, new buildings taller than sixty feet
(60') but less than ninety feet (90') may be authorized through Design Review. The proposed
project incorporates a public mid-block pedestrian walkway along the western property line
a. Planned Development – Planned Development request to waive setback and landscaping
requirements in the CG zone. Case number PLNPCM2021-00822
b. Design Review – Design Review request for 28 feet of additional height. Case number
PLNPCM2021-00835
The property is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff Contact:
Laura Bandara at 801-535-6188 or laura.bandara@slcgov.com)
6. Hoyt Place Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 858 W & 860 W Hoyt Place - Bert
Holland, representing Hoyt Place Development LLC, is requesting a zoning map amendment for
the properties located at the above-stated address. The proposal would rezone the
properties from R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential to SR-3 Special Development Pattern
Residential District. The two lots are approximately .39 acres or 16,988 square feet. Future
development plans were not submitted with this application. The property is located within Council
District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman at 801-535-7660 or
amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021-01073
7. Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment – Stephen Pace, the applicant, is requesting
a zoning text amendment to permit the restoration or reconstruction of a historic carriage house
for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The dwelling unit, located within the reconstructed or
restored historic carriage house, would not be required to meet density, lot coverage, setbacks of
the applicable base zoning district, or the accessory structure footprint or height limitations. The
proposed language requires eligible properties to be both a Salt Lake City Landmark and listed
as a National Register Site of Historic Places and located in one of the following zoning districts:
RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), I (Institutional) or
SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential). (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist at 385-226-
7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00106
For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-
meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified,
which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.
4) HISTORIC LANDMARK
COMMISSION
a) Staff Report
July 16, 2020
BACKGROUND:
Stephen Pace, the property owner of the Beer Estate located at 222 4th Avenue and 181 N B Street, is
requesting to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance in an effort to provide an incentive to reconstruct
or restore a historic carriage house on his property. The applicant has been working with Salt Lake City on
a solution to reconstruct a carriage house that is located on the southern portion of 222 4th Avenue. This
historic carriage house is associated with the Beer Estate Landmark Site, which was constructed by Richard
Kletting. Additional information on the site specific carriage house reconstruction proposal can be found in
Attachment C.
Aerial of Proposal on 222 4th Avenue
The applicant has approached the City on numerous occasions with the intent of rebuilding the carriage
house to add another dwelling unit on his property. Salt Lake City zoning regulations currently do not allow
the reconstruction due to building location regulations, as well as lot minimums for the applicable zoning
district. Additionally, the applicant’s plan does not conform to the regulations pertaining to accessory
dwelling units. The following provides a summary of these barriers:
1. The dwelling unit located within a restored or reconstructed carriage house would be considered to
be a single-family detached dwelling. Adding another single-family dwelling to this property at the
proposed location would not be allowed because:
a. All principal structures must be located along a street. The home (carriage house) would be
located in back of the existing principal structure on the property.
b. The zoning district where the property is located requires a minimum of 5,000 square feet
per single-family dwelling so 10,000 square feet would be required for two single-family
dwellings. The subject property is 8,184 square feet so it does not meet the minimum size
requirement.
PLNPCM2020-00106 2 July 9, 2020
c. The home (carriage house) would not meet building setback regulations due to its close
proximity to the side and rear property lines.
2. The accessory dwelling unit ordinance would permit an additional unit to the rear of the property
located at 222 4th Avenue; however, there are several conflicts with the reconstructed carriage house
as an ADU. The accessory dwelling unit ordinance (ADU) poses a conflict with the requirement that
the owner of the property reside onsite. While Stephan Pace owns the subject property located at
222 4th Avenue, he resides at 181 B Street. This standard could not be satisfied. Additionally, the
size limitation of ADUs would not accommodate the traditional size of a historic carriage house.
The proposed text amendment, while it is fairly site specific, proposes solutions to the listed conflicts within
the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE:
The applicant provided a list of proposed “conditions” that should be met in order to add a dwelling unit in
a reconstructed/restored carriage house; however, the applicant has not provided actual ordinance
language. The applicant’s proposal is in AttachmentB. Staff anticipates that the proposed regulations, when
drafted, will be incorporated into the Historic Preservation Overlay chapter of the Zoning Ordinance and
will be structured in the following way:
1. Purpose Statement (what are the regulations trying to achieve)
2. Definition of Terms
3. Applicability (what conditions must be met for the regulations to apply)
4. Process (who is the decision maker and what is the decision-making process)
5. Standards/Criteria (what are the specific regulations pertaining to the application)
Staff organized the applicant’s list of conditions into these categories in an effort to better summarize the
proposal for the Historic Landmark Commission and to begin to organize the language into a standard
ordinance format (see below). Staff commentary and requested direction from the Historic Landmark
Commission are at the end of the ordinance summary.
Purpose
The applicant did not provide a specific purpose statement, but Staff believes the following should
be considered when developing the legal purpose statement:
o To permit the reconstruction or restoration of a historic carriage house for the purposes of
creating a dwelling unit.
o
o
Incentivize the preservation and restoration of a historic feature on a landmark site.
Add to the housing units within Salt Lake City, while respecting the appearance and scale
of single-family residential neighborhoods.
o
o
Sustainability objectives are supported by utilizing an existing structure or elements of an
existing structure.
Increase the economic viability of historic properties and further the City’s historic
preservation goals.
Definitions
CARRIAGE HOUSE: A carriage house is defined as a physically-detached, secondary structure
originally constructed to house horse-drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or uses to
store grain or shelter animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the
owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples
incorporate a hay loft, secondary story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in
excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or
house servants.
PLNPCM2020-00106 3 July 9, 2020
Applicability
For a property to be considered eligible, the property must be listed as a Salt Lake City Landmark
Site and a National Register Site on the National Register of Historic Places.
The property must be located in one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density
Multi-Family Residential), SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential), RO (Residential
Office) and the I (Institutional).
There must be substantial evidence that a carriage house exists or existed on the subject property.
The burden of proof would be strictly on the applicant. The applicant must provide evidence
through at least two of the following methods:
o
o
o
o
Historic photographs
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
Planning, zoning or building permit records.
Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basement, etc.
Review Process
The applicant has not specified a review process; however, the proposed language implies that the design,
construction and alterations would require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Landmark
Commission.
A restored or reconstructed historic carriage house would be required to comply with the Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, which is section 21A.34.020.G
in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
Standards/Criteria
A reconstructed or restored carriage house would only be allowed to be used for a single-family
residence.
Off street parking is required for the dwelling unit.
The restored or reconstructed carriage house would be limited to the historic footprint and must
not exceed the size (historic footprint) of the original structure.
If it is determined that the reconstruction or restoration of the carriage house negatively impacts a
neighboring property, additional buffers may be required.
The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or subdivided illegally
The two residences could not be subdivided in the future.
The property owner is not required to permanently reside on the property.
Base zoning restrictions, such as: lot coverage, setbacks, height and density can be modified.
STAFF COMMENTARY AND QUESTIONS FOR THE HISTORIC
LANDMARKCOMMISSION
Staff is presenting the proposal to the Historic Landmark Commission in order to obtain feedback and
direction prior to finalizing draft ordinance language. This section is organized to relate each question or
comment to the applicable section within the proposed language above. The following sections provides
Staff’s concerns and opinions on what the language is missing, potential impacts, as well as needed
clarification.
Purpose
The applicant did not provide a purpose statement for the proposed ordinance. Staff developed some ideas
to incorporate into the purpose statement. The ideas and potential language were pulled from the
applicant’s narrative, the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance and applicable master plans.
Point to Discuss
Does the Commission agree with the statements and/or have anything to add?
Definitions
The applicant provided the definition of Carriage House to Staff. Staff believes that there are additional
definitions that will be needed to provide direction and clarity for the proposed language.
PLNPCM2020-00106 4 July 9, 2020
Points to Discuss
Should Historic Footprint be defined as part of this proposal?
Are there other needed terms that the Commission can identify?
Other terms may be included in the definition section as the ordinance is developed.
Applicability
The Historic Landmark Commission does not have the authority to review alterations to properties listed
on the National Register of Historic Places. However, the proposal encompasses properties listed on both
the National Register of Historic Places and properties listed as Salt Lake City Landmarks.
Points to Discuss
Should the proposal be modified to strictly include properties that are Salt Lake City Landmarks
and listed in the applicable zoning districts?
This change would clarify the review authority but would not significantly modify the number of
properties eligible for the reconstruction or restoration of a historic carriage house, due to the
limiting zoning districts.
The applicant provided a list of 4 items that could be used to determine the existence of a carriage house,
which include; historic photographs, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, zoning and building permit history and
identifiable structural elements. The applicant proposes that only 2 of the 4 would be required to satisfy the
burden of proof.
Points to Discuss
Staff is concerned that the proposed criteria is too loose.
o This concern is directly connected to the potential impact that a reconstructed historic
carriage house could have on abutting properties, due to height and setbacks.
Pictorialevidence or information should be required tounderstand the design, materials and height
of the historic structure.
o
o
If pictorial evidence is not available, the structure would likely be conjectural.
Does the Commission have concerns that a conjectural structure would impact the status
of the landmark site?
o
o
o
o
Without pictorial evidence, the proposed language would essentially permit the building of
a new single-family structure, which is not the purpose or intent of this language.
Without pictorial evidence, how would the design, height and footprint be reviewed and
determined?
If pictorial evidence is found to be too difficult to obtain, is there other information that
would satisfy the intent and ease the concerns?
What would be the review process for a historic carriage house that does not have any
pictorial evidence?
The suggested zoning and building permit history would be difficult to satisfy, since the full records
are not available or encompass all of the permit history.
Does the Commission have any additional concerns or recommendations with other provisions in
the proposed applicability section?
Review Process
The applicant has not specified a review process; however, the proposed language implies that the design,
construction and alterations would require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Landmark
Commission.
Points to discuss
The Landmark Commission does not have the authority to approve projects that increase density
beyond what is allowed by ordinance. Staff proposes to draft the ordinance so that an extra
dwelling unit would be permitted by right within a restored or reconstructed carriage house. The
Landmark Commission would then review the restoration or reconstruction.
Construction in the H Historic Overlay is reviewed in a number of ways.
o Minor Alteration Applications are the most commonly submitted applications for the
alteration of a site. These applicationsare alsoapplicable for the construction of a detached
garage or a detached accessory dwelling unit.
PLNPCM2020-00106 5 July 9, 2020
.Since minor alterations are applicable for the ADUs and detached accessory
structures, Staff initially considered this the most appropriate application for the
proposal.However, this type of reconstruction has potentiallymore impacts to the
abutting and adjacent properties.
The potentialimpactsinclude the location, setbacks, height and footprint.
o Major Alteration or New Construction Application requires the review and approval of the
Historic Landmark Commission.
.
.
.
Due to the potential for impacts, would the process for new construction or a
major alteration be more appropriate?
A new construction or major alteration application would require Historic
Landmark Commission review and approval.
Depending upon the recommendation regarding the pictorial evidence, the new
construction process may provide clearer guidelines and standards for the design
of the structure.
Does the Commission have a recommendation on the process?
Standards/Criteria
Points to Discuss
Applicant proposes that it could only be used as a single-family residence.
Are their pitfalls with simply allowing it to be reconstructed for typical accessory uses?
Currently, proposed construction in the Historic Preservation Overlay District that does not
conform to dimensional zoning standards, such as setbacks and building coverage requires Special
Exception approval by the HLC. The applicant proposes that the HLC should be able to approve
dimensional zoning exceptions through the Certificate of Appropriateness.
o
o Staff supports this idea, due to the need for zoning flexibility for reconstructed historic
carriage houses.
o Staff does have a concern with coupling the review process and any needed special
exceptions, due to the potential for impacts to the adjacent and abutting properties.
.There should likely be a notification process to provide notice to effected property
owners and tenants.
The applicant suggests that the reconstructed carriage house be limited to the historic footprint.
o The Sanborn Fire Insurance maps are fairly accurate for the historic footprint
determination.
.Is the Landmark Commission comfortable with the utilization of the Sanborn Fire
Insurance Maps for this purpose, if the historic foundation or walls are no longer
visible?
The applicant suggests that additional buffers may be required if an impact is determined.
How will the size of an additional buffer be determined?
Are there additional criteria that the Commission has for consideration?
o
KEY CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Limitations of the Proposed Language:
Staff acknowledges that the applicantwishes to limit the proposed language to be primarily site specific
for the subject property located at 222 4th Avenue. Through limiting the language, as proposed, the
proposed amendment to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance would potentially impact 5 properties.
While the proposed language is narrow in focus and addresses rather specific issues, the overall goal
of the proposal is in line with adopted policies and guidelines. The proposed language incentivizes the
preservation or reconstruction of historic features on historic properties.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW DISCUSSION:
Zoning text amendments are reviewed for compliance with Salt Lake City master plans and adopted
policies. There are several documents that provide guidance for historic preservation. The master plans
that address historic preservation goals and policies include the following:
PLNPCM2020-00106 6 July 9, 2020
Community Preservation Plan
o The comprehensive plan for Historic Preservation, includes many related policies for
incentivizing preservation.
Plan Salt Lake
o Plan Salt Lake includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development.
Utilizing the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit
would be in line with the policies outlined in this master plan.
o
o
o
Includes guiding policies that preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
Encourages the retention of areas and structures of historic and architectural value.
Promotes a balance of preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
Avenues Master Plan
The comprehensive plan for the Avenues encourages historic preservation of historically
and architecturally significant sites.
o
The master plans that address housing goals and policies include the following:
Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
o The housing plan encourages the creation of the flexible zoning tools and regulations to
create additional housing stock.
Plan Salt Lake
o Includes guiding policies that encourage housing options that accommodate gaining in
place, as well as the promotion of rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
Also includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development. Utilizing
the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit would be
in line with the policies outline in this master plan.
o
The above documents have a variety of policies and guidelines that relate to creating incentives for historic
preservation, as well as zoning flexibility to create additional housing units. All of the applicable policies
and guidelines are discussed in Attachment E and F. As discussed in those attachments, the proposed
zoning changes are generally supported by the associated adopted City policies.
NEXT STEPS:
One of the duties of the Historic Landmark Commission is to make recommendations on applications for
zoning amendments that involve historic preservation overlay districts and landmark sites. After the
Historic Landmark Commission reviews and makes recommendations on the concepts of the proposed
ordinance, Planning Staff will work with the applicant to develop the actual ordinance language, which will
be presented to the Planning Commission for their consideration. The Planning Commission will consider
the proposed ordinance in a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City
Council will make the final decision on the proposed zoning amendment.
PLNPCM2020-00106 7 July 9, 2020
ATTACHMENT A: VICINITY MAP OF POTENTIAL SITES
The applicant provided a list of 5 properties that are potentially eligible for a reconstructed or
restored carriage house. The map on the following page highlights the subject properties.
PLNPCM2020-00106 8 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 9 July 9, 2020
ATTACHMENT B: APPLICANT’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE
PLNPCM2020-00106 10 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 11 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 12 July 9, 2020
Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment
April 9, 2020
The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following conditions are
met:
1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
2) The property and address are individually listed on the National Register of Historic
Places.
3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had, an
identifiable carriage house on the property.
4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a
physically-detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-drawn
vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter animals; all
related to serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the
primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples
incorporate a hay loft, second story or half-story, or open interior space under a
pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have
provided housing for a livery man or house servants.
5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be proven,
with the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed through at least
two of the following methods:
• Sanborn maps;
• Historic photographs;
• Planning, zoning or building permit records;
• Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basements, etc.
6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification.
7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built within
the historic footprint).
8) Proposed alterations of a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration, and
reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the
Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission.
PLNPCM2020-00106 13 July 9, 2020
9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow
original/ historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback standards.
If unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for adjacent properties,
additional buffers may be required.
10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new dwelling unit
on the property.
11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use.
12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review
standards and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review process
13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or
subdivided illegally.
14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future.
The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for
reconstruction:
1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of the
reconstruction.
2) Meeting the current minimum lot size.
PLNPCM2020-00106 14 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Stephen C. Pace Zoning Text Amendment Proposal for
Historic Carriage House Structures
UPDATED APPLICATION AND NARRATIVE
April 3, 2020
TO:
FROM:
CC:
Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division
Kirk Huffaker, Principal/Consultant, Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies
Stephen Pace, Applicant and Property Owner
As of April 2, 2020, the city has chosen not to provide an advance copy of draft
language or alternatives for their proposal, so we are not yet in a position to
comment on the pros and cons or details of whatever the city's position may be. We
are therefore requesting through this updated application to proceed with this
application without further additions by the city.
We have not attempted to draft our suggestions in terms of the specific sections of the
city code that will satisfy final location of the amendment within the zoning code. In the
event that our proposal is carried forward to city council, we believe that this will need to
be done under supervision of the city attorney at a later date. Instead we have presented
a synopsis below of what we believe provisions in the zoning code should allow for in the
reconstruction/rehabilitation/restoration of documented historic carriage houses
associated with current or potential National Register of Historic Places-listed sites and
located in areas with current multi-family zoning. The narrative highlights reasons why the
city should support this measure and what we believe the limited impacts on
development could be.
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
Stephen C. Pace, the applicant, is the owner of 222 4th Ave., Salt Lake City, and desires
to rebuild a carriage house associated with the historic William F. Beer Estate. Four
structures, including the carriage house, of the estate are listed as a Salt Lake City
Landmark Site and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The following text
amendment is submitted to the Planning Division for review and comment. The applicant
desires Administrative and/or Planning Commission consideration to resolve a property
size issue in the Avenues historic district. The current property is zoned RMF-35 and is
located in the Lower (West) Avenues neighborhood. There are three primary issues that
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 15 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 2
are not satisfied by any section in the current Zoning Ordinance, including all of the
following:
• Two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner does
not keep a permanent address;
• Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure;
• Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning
district.
To address these shortcomings, the following draft language is proposed as a text
amendment to Chapter 21A.34 Overlay Districts under 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation
Overlay District. It is the desire of the applicant to obtain approval for an application under
this text amendment with one review and public process through the Historic Landmarks
Commission. Utilizing this process will give the public an opportunity for input before one
public commission.
In the H Historic Preservation Overlay District as defined under Chapter 21A.34.020,
reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following conditions are met:
1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site as defined within Chapter
21A.34.020.
2) The property and address are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, either
individually or as a Contributing structure in a National Register-listed Historic District.
3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had, a
carriage house on the property.
4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a physically-
detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-drawn vehicles and
related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter animals; all related to
serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the primary structure
located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, second
story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from
the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house
servants.
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 16 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 3
5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be proven, with
the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed through at least two of
the following methods:
• Sanborn maps;
• Historic photographs;
• Planning, zoning or building permit records;
• Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basements, etc.
6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification.
7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built within the
historic footprint).
8) Proposed alterations a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration, and
reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salt
Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission.
9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow original/
historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback standards. If
unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for adjacent properties,
additional buffers may be required.
10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new dwelling unit
on the property.
11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use.
12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review standards
and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review process
13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or
subdivided illegally.
14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future.
The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for
reconstruction:
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 17 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 4
1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of the
reconstruction.
2) Meeting the current minimum lot size.
3) Meeting off-site parking standards.
Submitted on February 4, 2020
This application and accompanying narrative for zoning text amendment is submitted on
behalf of Stephen Pace, property owner for 222 4th Avenue, Salt Lake City. The applicant
desires Administrative, Planning Commission, and City Council consideration of and
prompt action on the application to resolve multiple zoning issues with the subject
property that prevents the owner from achieving his goal of adaptive use/reconstruction
of a historic carriage house. This former carriage house was one of the four primary
structures of the historic William F. Beer Estate, which was listed in the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1977 and is an individual landmark site in the Salt Lake City
Cultural Register.
According to historic research, the Beer Estate residence and carriage house date to
circa 1899. Both were constructed according to design by architect Richard K.A. Kletting.
Kletting also served as architect for a house and carriage house with similar details for
Albert Fisher (Fisher Mansion and Carriage House) at 1206 West 200 South in 1893. The
Beer Estate carriage house is described in the NRHP nomination as follows:
Area residents describe it as originally a two-story brick structures with a “steeple”
top. Dimensions were approximately 47’ x 40’ and it was used to shelter (at least)
nine draft/riding horses, cattle, chickens, rabbits, etc., two buggies, and as a
residence for the caretakers. The structure was cut in half about World War I, for
use as a garage. Current condition is deteriorated.
Since 1977 when the paragraph was written, the carriage house has continued to
deteriorate. Current site conditions exhibit severe structural deficiency but original brick
and stone foundations, wood floors, and wood framing and walls are present.
The owner desires to rebuild the carriage house within the original footprint and according
to the original design. Use of the carriage house is proposed to be single-family
residential with a single-car garage. Due to the cost of material salvage, architectural
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 18 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 5
replication, and construction, and given that the project is entirely privately funded, the
housing unit is not proposed to be affordable housing. Some original materials have
already been salvaged for reuse, and the owner desires to reuse as much of the existing
material and structure as possible in the reconstruction. The proposed design for
reconstruction of the carriage house has been completed and initially submitted for
discussion with the city.
The property at 222 4th Ave. is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues
neighborhood and Avenues Historic District. There are three primary issues that are
obstacles to adaptive use and reconstruction and not satisfied by any section in the
current zoning ordinance, including:
• Allowance for two residentially-used structures on the same property where the
property owner does not keep a permanent address;
• Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure;
• Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning
district.
In addition, we believe that these issues will not be resolved by the Adaptive Reuse
Ordinance (in process), revisions to the RMF-30 zoning classification (in process), and are
not addressed through the Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance.
Therefore, to address the shortcomings, the following supportive documentation and
zoning text amendment draft language are proposed for Chapter 21A.34 Overlay Districts
under 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. As a point of application
process, it is acceptable to the applicant to utilize the city’s existing process for
Conditional Use to obtain approval for use of the property. We believe that utilizing the
Conditional Use process along with Historic Landmarks Commission review for design
will adequately give the public two opportunities for input before two separate
commissions. However, if the Planning Division can determine another acceptable
application and review process that would only involve review before one commission
and administrative review, the applicant would be open to receiving information about this
possibility. The applicant reserves the right to approve or deny any proposed process
change.
The goals of this application to address the three current deficiencies and well supported
by the city’s wide range of plans and guiding documents, including those that are
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 19 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 6
neighborhood-specific, for historic preservation, and for housing. The following is a
summary list of those plans and supportive statements from each.
Avenues Master Plan
Housing and Neighborhood Improvement Planning Goal: Continue to encourage private
restoration and rehabilitation efforts in the Avenues Community through financial
assistance and supportive zoning and building code enforcement. (pg. 3)
Historic Preservation Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and
architecturally significant sites and the established character of the Avenues and South
Temple Historic Districts. (pg. 4)
Future land use map indicates Medium-Density 8-20 Unites per Gross Acre (pg. 7)
Property is situated between an urban trail (A Street) and within one block of two
Collector streets (B Street and Second Avenue), as well as a half-mile from the Central
Business District, therefore meeting this plan’s and many other plan’s goals of proximity
to transportation and for walkability.
Urban Design Planning Goal: Design public facilities to enhance the established
residential character of the Avenues, and encourage private property improvements that
are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (pg. 10)
Residential Design Guidelines
The applicant’s overall goal is most closely defined as Rehabilitation in the Salt Lake City
Design Guidelines, but could also be viewed as a combination of strategies, including
Reconstruction. Rehabilitation is defined in Part I, page 3:5:
“Rehabilitation is the process of returning a property to a state which makes a
contemporary use possible, while still preserving those portions or features of the
property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values.
Rehabilitation may include the adaptive reuse of the building, and major or minor
additions may also occur. Most good preservation projects in Salt Lake City may
be considered rehabilitation projects.”
A definition for Reconstruction is provided in the Appendix, pg. C:3, and states that
Reconstruction is:
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 20 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 7
“The act or process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and detail
of a vanished building, structure, or object, or a part thereof, as if [sic] appeared at
a specific period of time.”
Accessory Structures (Part II 9:1)
This application follows the guidelines in Chapter 9: Accessory Structures, including the
Context & Character, Design Objective, Preserving or Rehabilitating Historic Accessory
Structures, and subsections with the headings:
• Preserve a historic accessory building when feasible.
• New accessory buildings should be constructed to be compatible with the primary
structure.
• Attaching garages and carports to the primary structure should be avoided.
The Avenues (Part III 13:1-14)
This application complies with the stipulations on page 13:12 under the heading
Accessory Structures within the specific chapter for The Avenues:
• Most secondary structures were built along the rear of the lot, accessed by the alley, if
one existed. This should be continued.
• Garages, as well as driveways, should not dominate the streetscape; therefore, they
should be detached from the main house and located to the rear of the house, if
possible.
• Historically, garages and carriage houses in the Avenues were simple wood structures
covered with a gabled or hipped roof.
• A new secondary structure should follow historic precedent, in terms of material and
form.
Community Historic Preservation Plan
“The need to preserve the unique character of the City’s urban neighborhoods, while
allowing for modifications to existing homes to meet today’s current living standards for
space and convenience are important City policies.” (pg. I-8)
The CHPP references the city’s Community Housing Plan (II-7,8), and while those
references are supportive of this application, they are not from the city’s most current
housing plan. The city adopted the Growing SLC Housing Plan in 2018 and references
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 21 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 8
from that plan are included in a later section. However, the CHPP does reference goals of
the city’s Strategic Plan and Futures Report on pages II-10 and II-11. Those that are also
supportive of this application include:
- Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods.
- Our historical heritage, including historic buildings and neighborhoods, is recognized as
a vital component of an exciting, livable city. Preserve historic structures, streets, and
other landmarks in all new development strategies.
- Assist property owners with solving the challenges of adaptive reuse.
Policies and Actions Relating to Regulations
3.3I Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable
appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic
structures.
3.3k Support modifications of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use that
will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in historic
districts in an effort to ensure preservation of the structure.
Regulatory Incentives
Two sections that support this application are Flexibility in Zoning Regulations (III-31), and
Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings (III-32). These are further supported by:
3.4a Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the
preservation of historic properties.
3.4c Modification to lot, bulk and signage standards should be allowed in local historic
districts and to Landmark Sites where the modification would allow for better compliance
with the historic preservation standards than the underlying zoning standard would allow.
3.4d Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in
appropriate locations where it is found that the negative impacts can be mitigated and
where the uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the interior
of the structure.
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 22 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 9
Economic Development
6.4c Historic preservation is identified as an important means of providing employment
opportunities for local crafts persons and skilled workers which keep money in the local
economy.
Housing
6.5a Ensure zoning supports the retention and reuse of existing historic apartment and
non-residential buildings.
6.5b Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive
reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units.
6.5e Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation of
historic structures.
Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
Goal 1: Increase Housing Options
Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability
needs of a growing, pioneering city.
1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant
transportation routes.
1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing
options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing
structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts.
Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development.
Goal 3: Equitable & Fair Housing
Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity throughout
all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of opportunity.
Objective 3: Implement Life cycle Housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the
city.
3.3.1 Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that
promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages of
life.
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 23 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 10
The SLC Comprehensive Housing Policy (2016) also includes supportive statements for
this proposal:
1. Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition;
2. Respect the character and charm of predominantly residential districts, including those
with historic character and qualities, while also providing opportunities for the provision of
local goods and services easily accessed by neighborhoods;
4. Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City;
7. Recognize that residents, business owners, and local government all have a role to play
in creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods.
Plan Salt Lake
Under Sustainable Growth & Development on page 9, the paragraphs on Placemaking
and Density, and those that reference Compatibility and Green Building on page 10, are
supportive of this application.
On page 14, supportive Guiding Principles of Plan Salt Lake include the following:
2) Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how
they live, and how they get around.
3) Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City,
providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.
8) A beautiful city that is people focused.
9) Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past.
10) Vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural resources that showcase the
community’s long standing commitment to a strong creative culture.
Under Chapter 1 - Neighborhoods, the supportive Initiatives on page 17 include:
1. Maintain neighborhood stability and character.
4. Support neighborhood identity and diversity.
6. Incorporate artistic elements and support cultural events on a neighborhood scale to
reinforce neighborhood character and identity.
Under Chapter 2 - Growth, the supportive Initiatives on page 19 include:
1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as
transit and transportation corridors
3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
6. Accommodate and promote an increase in the city’s population.
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 24 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 11
Under Chapter 3 - Housing, the supportive Initiatives on page 21 include:
2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the
potential to be people-oriented.
6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
Under Chapter 6 - Natural Environment, the supportive Initiatives on page 27 include:
3. Practice responsible waste management by: reusing and repurposing materials,
including promoting the reuse of existing buildings over demolition.
Under Chapter 8 - Beautiful City, the supportive Initiatives on page 31 include:
5. Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure that: reflects our
diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage.
7. Reinforce and preserve neighborhood district character and a strong sense of place.
Under Chapter 9 - Preservation, the supportive Initiatives on page 33 include:
1.Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public
spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate.
3. Retain areas of structures of historic and architectural value.
4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making.
5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
Under Chapter 13 - Government, the supportive Initiatives on page 41 include:
2. Provide opportunities for public participation, input, and engagement throughout the
decision-making process.
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 25 July 9, 2020
ATTACHMENT C: APPLICANT’S NARRATIVE
PLNPCM2020-00106 26 July 9, 2020
Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment
AMENDED APPLICATION NARRATIVE
April 9, 2020
TO:
FROM:
CC:
Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division
Kirk Huffaker, Principal/Consultant, Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies
Stephen Pace, Applicant and Property Owner
NOTE
Because, as we understand it, the purpose of the “open house” is to seek broad public
input on our proposal, we have not attempted to draft our suggestions in terms of the
specific sections of the city code that will satisfy final location of the amendment within
the zoning code. In the event that our proposal is carried forward to city council, we
believe that this will need to be done under supervision of the city attorney at a later
date. Instead we have presented a synopsis below of what we believe provisions in the
zoning code should allow for in the reconstruction/rehabilitation/restoration of
documented historic carriage houses associated with current National Register of
Historic Places-listed residential sites and located in areas that already have multi-
family zoning. The narrative highlights reasons why the city should support this
measure and what we believe the limited impacts on development could be.
Stephen C. Pace, the applicant, is the owner of 222 4th Ave., Salt Lake City, and
desires to rebuild a carriage house associated with the historic William F. Beer Estate.
Four structures, including the carriage house, of the estate are listed as a Salt Lake
City Landmark Site and listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places.
The following text amendment is submitted to the Planning Division for review and
comment. The applicant desires Administrative and/or Planning Commission
consideration to resolve a property size issue in the Avenues historic district. The
current property is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues
neighborhood. There are three primary issues that are not satisfied by any section in
the current Zoning Ordinance, including all of the following:
• Two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner
does not keep a permanent address;
• Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure;
• Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning
district.
PLNPCM2020-00106 27 July 9, 2020
Page 2
As it is the desire of the applicant to obtain approval for an application under this text
amendment with one review and public process through the Historic Landmarks
Commission, we believe this language should probably be included in Chapter
21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Utilizing this process will
streamline the process for the applicant, for city review, and provide the public an
opportunity for input.
APPLICABILITY
The proposed text amendment will be applicable citywide to residences listed
individually as Salt Lake City Landmark Sites and where the residence and historic
carriage house (as defined below) are both listed on the National Register of Historic
Places as an individual listing (not simply in a National Register-listed historic district).
The applicant believes that at least four (4) residence/historic carriage house
complexes currently could meet this qualifying test. This is based on best information
available to the applicant, which in part, is included as an attachment. In the event the
city grants future Landmark Site designations, and National Register landmark status is
sought and granted by the U.S. Department of Interior, the number of qualifying sites
may increase in the future.
TEXT AMENDMENT
The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following
conditions are met:
1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
2) The property and address are individually listed on the National Register of
Historic Places.
3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had,
an identifiable carriage house on the property.
4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a
physically-detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-
drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter
animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the
owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent
property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, second story or half-story, or
open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the
roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house servants.
PLNPCM2020-00106 28 July 9, 2020
Page 3
5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be
proven, with the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed
through at least two of the following methods:
• Sanborn maps;
• Historic photographs;
• Planning, zoning or building permit records;
• Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls,
basements, etc.
6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification.
7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built
within the historic footprint).
8) Proposed alterations of a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration,
and reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of
Appropriateness from the Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission.
9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow
original/ historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback
standards. If unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for
adjacent properties, additional buffers may be required.
10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new
dwelling unit on the property.
11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use.
12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review
standards and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review
process
13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built
or subdivided illegally.
14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future.
PLNPCM2020-00106 29 July 9, 2020
Page 4
The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for
reconstruction:
1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of
the reconstruction.
2) Meeting the current minimum lot size.
Submitted February 4, 2020 / Amended April 6 and 8, 2020
This application and accompanying narrative for zoning text amendment is submitted
on behalf of Stephen Pace, property owner for 222 4th Avenue, Salt Lake City. The
applicant desires Administrative, Planning Commission, and City Council consideration
of and prompt action on the application to resolve multiple zoning issues with the
subject property that prevents the owner from achieving his goal of reconstruction of a
historic carriage house. This former carriage house was one of the four primary
structures of the historic William F. Beer Estate, which was listed in the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1977 and is an individual landmark site in the Salt
Lake City Cultural Register.
According to historic research, the Beer Estate residence and carriage house date to
circa 1899. Both were constructed according to design by architect Richard K.A.
Kletting. Kletting also served as architect for a house and carriage house with similar
details for Albert Fisher (Fisher Mansion and Carriage House) at 1206 West 200 South
in 1893. The Beer Estate carriage house is described in the NRHP nomination as
follows:
Area residents describe it as originally a two-story brick structures with a
“steeple” top. Dimensions were approximately 47’ x 40’ and it was used to
shelter (at least) nine draft/riding horses, cattle, chickens, rabbits, etc., two
buggies, and as a residence for the caretakers. The structure was cut in half
about World War I, for use as a garage. Current condition is deteriorated.
Since 1977 when the paragraph was written, the carriage house has continued to
deteriorate. Current site conditions exhibit severe structural deficiency but original
brick and stone foundations, wood floors, and wood framing and walls are present.
The owner desires to rebuild the carriage house within the original footprint and
according to the original design. Use of the carriage house is proposed to be single-
family residential with a single-car garage. Due to the cost of material salvage,
architectural replication, and construction, and given that the project is entirely
privately funded, the housing unit is not proposed to be affordable housing. Some
PLNPCM2020-00106 30 July 9, 2020
Page 5
original materials have already been salvaged for reuse, and the owner desires to reuse
as much of the existing material and structure as possible in the reconstruction. The
proposed design for reconstruction of the carriage house has been completed and
initially submitted for discussion with the city.
The property at 222 4th Ave. is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West)
Avenues neighborhood and Avenues Historic District. There are three primary issues
that are obstacles to adaptive use and reconstruction and not satisfied by any section
in the current zoning ordinance, including:
• Allowance for two residentially-used structures on the same property where the
property owner does not keep a permanent address;
• Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure;
• Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning
district.
In addition, we believe that these issues will not be resolved by the proposed Adaptive
Reuse Ordinance (in process), proposed revisions to the RMF-30 zoning classification
(in process), and are not addressed through the current Accessory Dwelling Unit
ordinance.
Therefore, to address the shortcomings, the following supportive documentation and
zoning text amendment draft language are proposed for Chapter 21A.34.020 H Historic
Preservation Overlay District. As stated above, it is the desire of the applicant to obtain
approval for an application under this text amendment with one review and public
process through the Historic Landmarks Commission. Utilizing this process will
streamline the process for the applicant, for city review, and provide the public an
opportunity for input.
The goals of this application to address the three current deficiencies and well
supported by the city’s wide range of plans and guiding documents, including those
that are neighborhood-specific, for historic preservation, and for housing. The following
is a summary list of those plans and supportive statements from each.
Avenues Master Plan
Housing and Neighborhood Improvement Planning Goal: Continue to encourage
private restoration and rehabilitation efforts in the Avenues Community through
financial assistance and supportive zoning and building code enforcement. (pg. 3)
Historic Preservation Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and
architecturally significant sites and the established character of the Avenues and South
Temple Historic Districts. (pg. 4)
PLNPCM2020-00106 31 July 9, 2020
Page 6
Future land use map indicates Medium-Density 8-20 Unites per Gross Acre (pg. 7)
Property is situated between an urban trail (A Street) and within one block of two
Collector streets (B Street and Second Avenue), as well as a half-mile from the Central
Business District, therefore meeting this plan’s and many other plan’s goals of
proximity to transportation and for walkability.
Urban Design Planning Goal: Design public facilities to enhance the established
residential character of the Avenues, and encourage private property improvements
that are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (pg. 10)
Residential Design Guidelines
The applicant’s overall goal is most closely defined as Rehabilitation in the Salt Lake
City Design Guidelines, but could also be viewed as a combination of strategies,
including Reconstruction. Rehabilitation is defined in Part I, page 3:5:
“Rehabilitation is the process of returning a property to a state which makes a
contemporary use possible, while still preserving those portions or features of
the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural
values. Rehabilitation may include the adaptive reuse of the building, and major
or minor additions may also occur. Most good preservation projects in Salt Lake
City may be considered rehabilitation projects.”
A definition for Reconstruction is provided in the Appendix, pg. C:3, and states that
Reconstruction is:
“The act or process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and
detail of a vanished building, structure, or object, or a part thereof, as if [sic]
appeared at a specific period of time.”
Accessory Structures (Part II 9:1)
This application is consistent with the guidelines in Chapter 9: Accessory Structures,
including the Context & Character, Design Objective, Preserving or Rehabilitating
Historic Accessory Structures, and subsections with the headings:
• Preserve a historic accessory building when feasible.
• New accessory buildings should be constructed to be compatible with the primary
structure.
• Attaching garages and carports to the primary structure should be avoided.
PLNPCM2020-00106 32 July 9, 2020
Page 7
The Avenues (Part III 13:1-14)
This application complies with the stipulations on page 13:12 under the heading
Accessory Structures within the specific chapter for The Avenues:
• Most secondary structures were built along the rear of the lot, accessed by the alley,
if one existed. This should be continued.
• Garages, as well as driveways, should not dominate the streetscape; therefore, they
should be detached from the main house and located to the rear of the house, if
possible.
• Historically, garages and carriage houses in the Avenues were simple wood
structures covered with a gabled or hipped roof.
• A new secondary structure should follow historic precedent, in terms of material and
form.
Community Historic Preservation Plan
“The need to preserve the unique character of the City’s urban neighborhoods, while
allowing for modifications to existing homes to meet today’s current living standards
for space and convenience are important City policies.” (pg. I-8)
The CHPP references the city’s Community Housing Plan (II-7,8), and while those
references are supportive of this application, they are not from the city’s most current
housing plan. The city adopted the Growing SLC Housing Plan in 2018 and references
from that plan are included in a later section. However, the CHPP does reference goals
of the city’s Strategic Plan and Futures Report on pages II-10 and II-11. Those that are
also supportive of this application include:
- Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods.
- Our historical heritage, including historic buildings and neighborhoods, is recognized
as a vital component of an exciting, livable city. Preserve historic structures, streets,
and other landmarks in all new development strategies.
- Assist property owners with solving the challenges of adaptive reuse.
Policies and Actions Relating to Regulations
3.3I Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable
appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic
structures.
PLNPCM2020-00106 33 July 9, 2020
Page 8
3.3k Support modifications of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use
that will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in
historic districts in an effort to ensure preservation of the structure.
Regulatory Incentives
Two sections that support this application are Flexibility in Zoning Regulations (III-31),
and Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings (III-32). These are further supported by:
3.4a Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the
preservation of historic properties.
3.4c Modification to lot, bulk and signage standards should be allowed in local historic
districts and to Landmark Sites where the modification would allow for better
compliance with the historic preservation standards than the underlying zoning
standard would allow.
3.4d Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in
appropriate locations where it is found that the negative impacts can be mitigated and
where the uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the
interior of the structure.
Economic Development
6.4c Historic preservation is identified as an important means of providing employment
opportunities for local crafts persons and skilled workers which keep money in the
local economy.
Housing
6.5a Ensure zoning supports the retention and reuse of existing historic apartment and
non-residential buildings.
6.5b Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive
reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units.
6.5e Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation
of historic structures.
PLNPCM2020-00106 34 July 9, 2020
Page 9
Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
Goal 1: Increase Housing Options
Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the
affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city.
1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant
transportation routes.
1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing
options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing
structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts.
Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing
development.
Goal 3: Equitable & Fair Housing
Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity
throughout all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of opportunity.
Objective 3: Implement Life cycle Housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the
city.
3.3.1 Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that
promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages
of life.
The SLC Comprehensive Housing Policy (2016) also includes supportive statements for
this proposal:
1. Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition;
2. Respect the character and charm of predominantly residential districts, including
those with historic character and qualities, while also providing opportunities for the
provision of local goods and services easily accessed by neighborhoods;
4. Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City;
7. Recognize that residents, business owners, and local government all have a role to
play in creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods.
Plan Salt Lake
Under Sustainable Growth & Development on page 9, the paragraphs on Placemaking
and Density, and those that reference Compatibility and Green Building on page 10,
are supportive of this application.
PLNPCM2020-00106 35 July 9, 2020
Page 10
On page 14, supportive Guiding Principles of Plan Salt Lake include the following:
2) Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how
they live, and how they get around.
3) Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City,
providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.
8) A beautiful city that is people focused.
9) Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past.
10) Vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural resources that showcase the
community’s long standing commitment to a strong creative culture.
Under Chapter 1 - Neighborhoods, the supportive Initiatives on page 17 include:
1. Maintain neighborhood stability and character.
4. Support neighborhood identity and diversity.
6. Incorporate artistic elements and support cultural events on a neighborhood scale to
reinforce neighborhood character and identity.
Under Chapter 2 - Growth, the supportive Initiatives on page 19 include:
1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as
transit and transportation corridors
3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
6. Accommodate and promote an increase in the city’s population.
Under Chapter 3 - Housing, the supportive Initiatives on page 21 include:
2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have
the potential to be people-oriented.
6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
Under Chapter 6 - Natural Environment, the supportive Initiatives on page 27 include:
3. Practice responsible waste management by: reusing and repurposing materials,
including promoting the reuse of existing buildings over demolition.
Under Chapter 8 - Beautiful City, the supportive Initiatives on page 31 include:
5. Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure that: reflects
our diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage.
7. Reinforce and preserve neighborhood district character and a strong sense of place.
Under Chapter 9 - Preservation, the supportive Initiatives on page 33 include:
1.Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public
spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate.
3. Retain areas of structures of historic and architectural value.
PLNPCM2020-00106 36 July 9, 2020
Page 11
4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making.
5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
Under Chapter 13 - Government, the supportive Initiatives on page 41 include:
2. Provide opportunities for public participation, input, and engagement throughout the
decision-making process.
PLNPCM2020-00106 37 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 38 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 39 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 40 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 41 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 42 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 43 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 44 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 45 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 46 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 47 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 48 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 49 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 50 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 51 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 52 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 53 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 54 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 55 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 56 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 57 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 58 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 59 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 60 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 61 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 62 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 63 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 64 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 65 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 66 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 67 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 68 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 69 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 70 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 71 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 72 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 73 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 74 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 75 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 76 July 9, 2020
ATTACHMENT D: ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES
The applicant provided the following list of eligible properties:
1. Fisher Mansion and Carriage House (1206 W. 200 S.)
2. Kearns Mansion (603 E. South Temple)
3. Keith Mansion (529 E. South Temple)
4. William F. Beer Estate (222 4th Avenue)
5. McIntyre House (259 7th Avenue)
The following attachments include the applicable nominations and photographs.
PLNPCM2020-00106 77 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 78 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 79 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 80 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 81 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 82 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 83 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 84 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 85 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 86 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 87 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 88 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 89 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 90 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 91 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 92 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 93 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 94 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 95 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 96 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 97 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 98 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 99 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 100 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 101 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 102 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 103 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 104 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 105 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 106 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 107 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 108 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 109 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 110 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 111 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 112 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 113 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 114 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 115 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 116 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 117 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 118 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 119 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 120 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 121 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 122 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 123 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 124 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 125 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 126 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 127 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 128 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 129 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 130 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 131 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 132 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 133 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 134 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 135 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 136 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 137 020
CM2020 00106 138 020
CM2020 00106 139 020
CM2020 00106 140 020
CM2020 00106 141 020
CM2020 00106 142 020
CM2020 00106 143 020
CM2020 00106 144 020
CM2020 00106 145 020
CM2020 00106 146 020
CM2020 00106 147 020
CM2020 00106 148 020
CM2020 00106 149 020
CM2020 00106 150 020
CM2020 00106 151 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106 152 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106 153 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106 154 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106 155 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106 156 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106 157 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106 158 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106 159 ly 9,
NPCM12600ly209-,00106
NPCM2020-00106 161 ly 9,
NPCM2012602-00l1y 096,
NPCM2020-00106 163 ly 9,
N P C M 21062J4u0l-y0 091, 026020
ATTACHMENT E: CITY PLAN CONSIDERATIONS
Adopted City Plan Policies and Guidance
Zoning text amendments are reviewed for compliance with Salt Lake City master plans and adopted
policies. There are several documents that provide guidance for historic preservation and housing. The
master plans that address historic preservation goals and policies include the following:
Community Preservation Plan
o The comprehensive plan for Historic Preservation, includes many related policies for
incentivizing preservation.
Plan Salt Lake
o Plan Salt Lake includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development.
Utilizing the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit
would be in line with the policies outline in this master plan.
o
o
o
Includes guiding policies that preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
Encourages the retention of areas and structures of historic and architectural value.
Promotes a balance of preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
Avenues Master Plan
The comprehensive plan for the Avenues encourages historic preservation of historically
and architecturally significant sites.
o
The master plans that address housing goals and policies include the following:
Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
o The housing plan encourages the creation of the flexible zoning tools and regulations to
create additional housing stock.
Plan Salt Lake
o Includes guiding policies that encourage housing options that accommodate gaining in
place, as well as the promotion of rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
Also includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development. Utilizing
the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit would be
in line with the policies outline in this master plan.
o
Community Preservation Plan
The Community Preservation Plan, adopted in 2012, indicates that the City needs to adopt a “wider
ranger of preservation tools.” Historic preservation tools are generally identified as incentives, which
can include an array of policies that encourage the preservation, restoration or reconstruction of
important historic features on historic properties.
Policy 2.1a: Ensure the long-term viability of existing local historic districts.
Policy 2.1b: Ensure consistency between the Community Preservation Plan and all other adopted
City plans.
Policy 2.3a: Identify historic preservation as an important component of the City’s sustainability
efforts based on its important economic, environmental and cultural benefits to the City.
Policy 3.2o: Explore a variety of tools to determine the appropriate method for implementing
historic preservation policies of a specific historic resource.
Policy 3.3a: Align preservation-related City regulations with the goals and policies of this plan.
PLNPCM2020-00106 165 July 9, 2020
Policy 3.3b: The Historic Preservation Overlay District standards are to be used as the basis for
decision making when considering applications and the standards should be applied in a
reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility.
Policy 3.3g: Ensure that underlying zoning is supportive of preservation policies for the area in
which historic or character preservation is proposed.
Policy 3.3i: Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable
appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic structures.
Policy 3.3k: Support modification of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use that
will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in historic districts in
an effort to ensure preservation of the structure.
Policy 3.4a: Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the
preservation of historic properties.
Policy 3.4b: Develop a wide range of incentives to encourage the protection of historic properties.
Policy 3.4d: Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in
appropriate locations where it is found that he negative impacts can be mitigated and where the
uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the interior of the structure.
Policy 6.1a: Historic Preservation is a primary tool to implement the sustainable goals of Salt
Lake City.
Policy 6.1b: The energy benefits, including life-cycle costs of preserving older buildings, should be
understood by property owners, development professionals, decision makers, City Staff and the
general public.
Policy 6.5b: Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive
reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units.
Policy 6.5e: Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation
of historic structures.
Plan Salt Lake
Guiding Principle: Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past.
Initiatives:
1. Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public spaces,
streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate.
3. Retain areas and structures of historic and architectural value.
4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making.
5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
6. Improve education and outreach about the value of historic preservation.
Plan Salt Lake Housing Goals and Policies
Guiding Principal/ Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the
city, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.
1. Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low income).
2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
3. Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place.
4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the
potential to be people-oriented.
PLNPCM2020-00106 166 July 9, 2020
5. Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate.
6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
7. Promote high density residential in areas served by transit.
8. Support homeless services.
Avenues Master Plan
Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites and
the established character of the Avenues and South Temple Historic District.
Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of
a growing, pioneering city.
1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options,
create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while
minimizing neighborhood impacts.
Staff Discussion:
The above stated policies and guidelines relate to the proposed language for the historic carriage
house reconstruction or restoration for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The policies and
guidelines encourage the creation of additional housing through flexibility and incentives within the
Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The proposed language also promotes the sustainability through
the restoration or recreation of a historic carriage house.
PLNPCM2020-00106 167 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 168 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 169 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 170 July 9, 2020
ATTACHMENT G: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS
The zoning text amendment was posted on Salt Lake City Planning Division’s website on April 6,
2020, for public engagement and comment purposes. Notice of the post was provided via Listserve.
All of the public comments that have been submitted are attached.
PLNPCM2020-00106 171 July 9, 2020
May 8, 2020
Kelsey Lindquist
Senior Planner
Salt Lake City Planning Division
Dear Mr. Lindquist,
I am writing to you regarding the petition to amend Title 21A-Zoning of the
city code to allow for the reconstruction of a documented historic carriage house
at 222 4th Avenue. My wife and I reside in our home in the upper avenues and we
own three units in the Carlton Towers at 266 East 4th Avenue; which is less than a
quarter of a block from the subject property.
The proposed amendments seem quite reasonable if a process for approval
includes safeguards that assures conformity to historic values. With appropriate
reviews, the preservation and/or reconstruction of historic landmark sites
acknowledged by the National Register of Historic Places would be possible and
would serve to enhance the aesthetic of the Avenues Historic District as well as
several other unique sites and neighborhoods in our city.
I believe that the request to obtain approval for an application under the
proposed amendment utilizing the Historic Landmarks Commission’s review and
public scrutiny process provides the safeguards necessary to maintain historic
integrity.
I would encourage the City to approve the Zoning Amendment request.
Respectfully,
Jim Bradley
Salt Lake City, Utah 84103
PLNPCM2020-00106 174 July 9, 2020
From:
To:
Barbara Hounsell
Stephen C Pace
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Lindquist, Kelsey; Scott S. Cruze
(EXTERNAL) Stephen C. Pace Carriage House Project
Wednesday, May 13, 2020 11:44:04 AM
Hello Stephen,
Barbara and I enjoyed talking with you on Sunday about your Carriage House
reconstruction project.
Assuming proper engineering and construction practices are followed, we are
in full support of this historically important project as described as the Stephen
C. Pace Historic Carriage House proposed zoning text amendment, 222 4th
Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah.
The proper engineering and construction to which we refer must protect the
integrity of the existing retaining wall on the north side of our Peery Apartment
property. The project must not compromise our retaining wall with additional
loads, including loads that come from structures, dirt or fill, landscape
materials, vegetation, or water and water retention.
Sincerely,
Barbara Hounsell
Alex Cross
Owners of the Peery Apartments, LLC
Cc:
Scott Cruze
Kelsey Lindquist
PLNPCM2020-00106 175 July 9, 2020
From:
To:
Carol Foster
Lindquist, Kelsey
Cc:Paul Foster
Subject:
Date:
(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2020-00106, 222 4th Ave
Friday, May 15, 2020 10:12:32 AM
To whom it may concern:
We are writing in support of Stephen Pace’s renovation of 222 4th Ave. We are neighbors at
163 B St.
We have spoken with Stephen and support his renovation plan.
Our primary concerns were regarding keeping the community feeling of our neighborhood,
promoting house ownership over renting, against Airbnbs / apartments and for more long-term
housing for families or individuals.
Stephen explained that his rentals have very little turnover of renters and we have witnessed
that, living here since 2002.
Another concern was windows overlooking our property (backyard of 163 B Street) and
Stephen explained there weren’t any.
Feel free to reach out to us if you have any questions.
Many thanks,
Carol and Paul Foster
PLNPCM2020-00106 176 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
children had taken over his property, they executed a sale of the strip to me in exchange
for $10. I began paying property taxes on the strip in 2018.
A third person, Mr. Thomas Mulcock, 212 4th Ave, (801) 864-3881 owns a four-plex and
garages on the southwest corner of the 222 lot. I provided him with the zoning change
package in April but did not reach him by phone until May 11. He indicated that he did
not carefully read my proposal, that he had no necessary objection to it, but that due to
his wife's critical illness he doubted he would get to it in the near future. I told him that
under the circumstances I would not bother him again.
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
4) HISTORIC LANDMARK
COMMISSION
b) Agenda/Minutes
July 16, 2020
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING
July 16, 2020 at 5:30 PM
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b).
IMPORTANT MEETING INFORMATION
This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members will connect
remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Historic Landmark Commission meetings can still access the
meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Historic Landmark Commission meetings, they
are available on the following platforms:
•YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
•SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comments, email;
historiclandmarks.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on WebEx at:
http://tiny.cc/slc-hlc-07-16-2020
Instructions for using WebEx are provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning. It is recommended to login 10 minutes prior to
the start of the meeting.
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM
Approval of Minutes for June 4, 2020
Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Director’s Report
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Commission will hear public comments not pertaining to items listed on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment
The Salt Lake City Planning Division has received a zoning text amendment petition from Kirk Huffaker, on behalf of Stephen
Pace, to permit the reconstruction of historic carriage houses associated with Salt Lake City Landmark Sites and National
Register sites located within the RMF-35 (Moderate Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), SR-1A (Special
Development Residential) and I (Institutional) zoning districts. The reconstructed or restored historic carriage house would be
utilized as a dwelling unit. The proposed text amendment is City wide. Related provisions of Title 21A Zoning may be amended
as part of this petition. (Staff contact Kelsey Lindquist (801) 434-7930 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com). Case number
PLNPCM2020-00106
NEXT MEETING
The next regular meeting of the Commission is scheduled for Thursday, August 6, 2020, unless a special meeting is scheduled
prior to that date.
For Historic Landmark Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at
slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two
days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Historic Landmark
Commission.
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING
July 16, 2020 at 5:30 PM
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b).
APPEAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION DECISION
Anyone who is an “adversely affected party” as defined by Utah Code Section 10-9a-103, may appeal a decision of the Historic
Landmark Commission by filing a written appeal with the appeals hearing officer within ten (10) calendar days following the date
on which a record of decision is issued.
The applicant may object to the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission by filing a written appeal with the appeals hearing
officer within thirty (30) calendar days following the date on which a record of decision is issued
For Historic Landmark Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at
slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two
days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Historic Landmark
Commission.
SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING
This meeting was held electronically pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b)
Thursday, July 16, 2020
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission Meeting. The meeting was
called to order at 5:30:00 PM . Audio recordings of the Historic Landmark Commission meetings are
retained for a period of time.
Present for the Historic Landmark Commission meeting were: Chairperson Kenton Peters,
Commissioners Rocio Torres Mora, Victoria Petro- Eschler, Michael Vela and Paul Svendsen. Vice
Chairperson Robert Hyde and David Richardson were excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Paul Nielson,
Attorney; Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner and Rosie Jimenez, Administrative Secretary.
Chairperson Peters provided participation options and instructions to the public.
APPROVAL OF THE June 4, 2020, MEETING MINUTES.
MOTION
Commissioner Petro- Eschler moved to approve the June 4, 2020, meeting minutes.
Commissioner Svendsen seconded the motion. Commissioners Vela, Maw, Petro-Eschler,
Svendsen, and Torres Mora, “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Chairperson Peters reported, Commissioner Esther Stowell has stepped down from the Historic
Landmark Commission. We appreciate her service and wish her well on her next steps. We are working
on filling her seat.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Commissioner Adams will not be reappointed he has chosen to step down. There are now two vacancies.
There have been several people who have applied. We will update as we find out new information.
5:30:36 PM
Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment
The Salt Lake City Planning Division has received a zoning text amendment petition from Kirk Huffaker, on behalf
of Stephen Pace, to permit the reconstruction of historic carriage houses associated with Salt Lake City Landmark
Sites and National Register sites located within the RMF-35 (Moderate Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential
Office), SR-1A (Special Development Residential) and I (Institutional) zoning districts. The reconstructed or restored
historic carriage house would be utilized as a dwelling unit. The proposed text amendment is City wide. Related
provisions of Title 21A Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact Kelsey Lindquist (801) 434 -
7930 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com). Case number PLNPCM2020-00106
Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, reviewed the proposal and recommended that the Historic Landmark Commission
review the proposed regulations and make recommendations to the Planning Commission.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
•
•
Reasoning behind approving demolishing and reconstructing versus creating and ADU
Clarification on owner occupancy on an ADU
Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission July 16, 2020 Page 1
•
•
•
Clarification on Staff Report in reviewing alterations
Questions on zoning codes
Restoration or Reconstruction of the existing structure
Kirk Huffaker and Stephen Pace were available for questions.
The Commission and Applicant discussed the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
How does the Proposal benefit the City as a whole
Total of Carriage Houses and explanation
Clarification of proposed qualifying zones
Clarification of the request and building renovation
More clarification on the existing structure
Preservation clarification
Definition of Carriage House
Lot line adjustment or consolidation
PUBLIC HEARING 6:30:46 PM
Chairperson Peters opened the Public Hearing;
Cindy Cromer – In support of proposal and asks city and commissioner to approve
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Peters closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION 6:54:18 PM
Commissioner Svendsen made a motion that the Historic Landmark Commission Move that the
HLC forward the following recommendation to the Planning Commission:
1. The Commission is generally very supportive of the applicant’s goals of increasing density
on the property and making the property more economically sensible.
2. The Commission also suggests that there are significant shortcoming both procedural and
substantive with the current zoning ordinance that are preventing reasonable development
on properties like this.
3. This seems like an end around of the existing City’s ordinance regarding Accessory
Dwelling Units and also the RMF-35
4. Because of the application is so limited it is like spot zoning and that can have unforeseen
consequences with respect to future neighbors and a variety of circumstances.
In summary, the HLC forwards a negative recommendation to this particular proposal but urges
the Planning Commission to consider other changes to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance
or RMF-35 Ordinance that would permit the applicant to move forward with what he is proposing
and applies to the City more broadly as a whole.
Commissioner Torres-Mora seconded the motion Commissioners Vela, Svendsen, Petro- Eschler.
Maw, Torres-Mora, voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 7:07:58 PM
Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission July 16, 2020 Page 2
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
This meeting was held electronically
Wednesday, February 23, 2022
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to
order at approximately 5:30 pm. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for
a period of time. These minutes are a summary of the meeting. For complete commentary and
presentation of the meeting, please visit https://www.youtube.com/c/SLCLiveMeetings.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Vice-Chairperson Maurine Bachman,
Commissioners Andra Ghent, Jon Lee, Andres Paredes, Mike Christensen, Brenda Scheer, Adrienne
Bell, and Aimee Burrows. Chairperson Amy Barry was excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Planning Manager John Anderson, Planning
Manager Kelsey Lindquist, Senior City Attorney Hannah Vickery, Associate Planner Grant Amann,
Principal Planner Katia Pace, Senior Planner Kristina Gilmore, Senior Planner Eric Daems, Urban
Designer Laura Bandara, Principal Planner Amanda Roman, Administrative Secretary David Schupick,
and Administrative Secretary Aubrey Clark.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR & VICE-CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2022
Brenda abstained. All other Commissioners voted “yes”. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ADU Conditional Use at Approximately 1532 South Green Street - Dorian Rosen, the property owner,
has requested conditional use approval for a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to be situated in
the rear, west side of the property located at the above-stated address. The ADU will be 14’8” tall and
650 square-feet. To meet the requirements to allow the ADU to reach the maximum 650 square feet a
425 square foot addition to the main dwelling will be built. The subject property is zoned R-1 /5,000
(Single-Family Residential) and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff
contact: Grant Amann at 801-535-6171 or grant.amann@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021-
01273
Associate Planning Grant Amann reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff report. He stated that Staff
recommends approval with conditions listed in the staff report. He reviewed the ADU size, parking
location, ADU access, and neighborhood compatibility.
Commissioner Aimee Burrows shared concern about condition number 3 being added in. She felt that it
should not be added into the conditions because it is already part of City code.
The Commissioners discussed how it was handled on previous cases.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 1
The Applicant Dorian Rosen stated that he was available for any questions but did not have a
presentation.
Commissioner Ghent asked the applicant if he was aware of the City not permitting rentals under 30
days. The applicant stated that he was aware.
PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Bachman opened the public hearing.
Seeing that no one wished to speak, Commissioner Bachman closed the public hearing.
MOTION
Commissioner Brenda Scheer stated, Motion to Approve with Modifications Recommended by
the Planning Commission: Based on the findings listed in the staff report, the information
presented, and input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission
approve the Conditional Use petition (PLNPCM2021-01273) as proposed, with the conditions
listed in the staff report, with the following modifications: removal of condition 3.
Commissioner Andra Ghent seconded the motion. Commissioners Andres Paredes, Mike
Christensen, Adrienne Bell, Jon Lee, Andra Ghent, Aimee Burrows, and Brenda Scheer voted
“yes”. The motion passed unanimously.
Green Street Alley Vacation - Sara Koenig, the property owner at approximately 1343 S Green Street,
is requesting Salt Lake City to vacate a "T" shaped alley running between 1300 South and Harrison
Avenue and Green Street and 700 East. The alley exists on paper only and the abutting property owners
have incorporated the alley into their properties. The property abutting this alley is zoned R-1/5,000
(Single-Family Residential District) and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano.
(Staff contact: Katia Pace at 801-535-6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-
00903
Principal Planner Katia Pace reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. She stated that Staff
recommends a positive recommendation to City Council.
Commissioner Aimee Burrows asked for clarification on if the property owners will have to buy the land
or if it will be deeded to them. Katia Pace stated that it will be deeded to them, based on single family
residential zoning. Commissioner Burrows stated that she remembers another case in which the property
owners had to purchase the land. Katia Pace stated that is the case for multifamily zoning districts or
commercial properties. Commissioner Burrows asked if encroachment is a reason for vacant use of the
alley. Katia Pace stated that in the past it functioned as an alley but since the demolition of the properties
on the east side for the expansion of 700 East, it no longer functioned as an alley. Commissioner Burrows
asked for clarification that the lack of use then caused the encroachment. Katia Pace stated that was
correct. Commissioner Burrows asked if all the property owners have signed onto the project. Katia Pace
stated that the applicant was looking for a building permit on top of the alley, and at that moment found
the property was not theirs but the city’s property. She also stated that the five property owners have
signed the form and the approval of the church for this application.
Nicholas Lumby stated that he did apply for the application when he found out the land was not part of
his property. He stated that one of his neighbors had tried to get the alley vacated before in the past.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 2
Principal Planner Amanda Roman reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. She stated that
Staff recommends a positive recommendation to City Council.
Commissioner Aimee Burrows asked if this rezone would prevent demolition of homes. Amanda Roman
clarified that when it is brought to City Council, the applicant will enter into a development agreement with
the city that will require them to maintain at least the same number of housing units. Amanda Roman
also stated that she is not sure if that agreement will state that they cannot demolish and then rebuild the
existing structures, but the applicant will be tied into their “replacement” housing choice as outlined in
their housing mitigation plan. Aimee Burrows asked for clarification on if they will not necessarily be
required to keep the two old existing houses. Amanda Roman stated that she doesn’t believe so. John
Anderson stated that it is hard to require that outside of the historic districts.
Bert Holland stated that he has already begun renovation and has families eager to move in. He also
stated that he has already attracted a high number of diverse buyers seeking single-family workforce
housing.
PUBLIC HEARING
Vice-Chair Maurine Bachman opened the public hearing.
Seeing that no one wished to speak, Vice-Chair Maurine Bachman closed the public hearing.
MOTION
Commissioner Brenda Scheer stated, Based on the information in the staff report, the information
presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission
forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve PLNPCM2021-01073.
Commissioner Mike Christensen seconded the motion. Commissioners Andra Ghent, Jon Lee,
Andres Paredes, Mike Christensen, Brenda Scheer, Adrienne Bell, and Aimee Burrows all voted
“yes”. The motion passed unanimously.
Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment – Stephen Pace, the applicant, is requesting a
zoning text amendment to permit the restoration or reconstruction of a historic carriage house for the
purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The dwelling unit, located within the reconstructed or restored
historic carriage house, would not be required to meet density, lot coverage, setbacks of the applicable
base zoning district, or the accessory structure footprint or height limitations. The proposed language
requires eligible properties to be both a Salt Lake City Landmark and listed as a National Register Site
of Historic Places and located in one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-
Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), I (Institutional) or SR-1A (Special Development Pattern
Residential). (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist at 385-226-7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case
number PLNPCM2020-00106
Planning Manager Kelsey Lindquist reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. She stated that
Staff recommends denial of the proposal because it does not meet the standards. She reviewed the text
amendment background stating that the proposal originally went before the Historic Landmark
Commission and received a negative recommendation. She shared some of the conflicts including the
existing ADU ordinance which requires an owner occupancy requirement, but the applicant does not live
on site. She listed other compliance issues as all principal structures require street frontage, lot
minimums, and lot and bulk requirements. She stated that Staff has tried to work with the applicant on
language solutions but was ultimately unsuccessful. Staff forwarded the amendment to the Historic
Landmark Commission for review to receive direction for the applicant on the proposed language, but
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 9
the Commission forwarded a negative recommendation against the proposal. She stated that the HLC
did not discuss potential solutions to improve the language. She said that the applicant, since going
before the HLC in July of 2020, has yet to put the proposed language in an ordinance format, address
Staff concerns about enforceability and administration, and requested to continue to the planning
commission for recommendation to the City Council. She reviewed the criteria that included in the
ordinance format as: purpose statement, definition of terms, applicability, process, and standards/criteria.
She noted that the existing language does not include much of the criteria which is crucial for Staff and
City Council. She reviewed the purpose of the text amendment and incentive to the text amendment. She
reviewed the other eligible properties that the text amendment could affect.
The applicant Stephen Pace shared a photo slide of the Beer estate. He stated, “Just above the left
center of the photograph is the white topped buildings or carriage house and a 30-year-old older building
referred to as the harness shop from 1867 you can see from the photograph that there I guess were no
drones or aerial photographs being taken in salt lake but you can date it you know very securely. The city
and county building is finished on the upper left-hand corner The catholic cathedral is under construction
in the upper middle of the picture and so on so. If we could go one more okay this is working this is the
block that's under this is the block that's under consideration we heard our stuff earlier in the evening that
about the problems with people misunderstanding alleyways in the avenues this block is an excellent
example if you look down on the lower right hand corner at property 225 of third avenue you can see that
there's about six feet of that house that is on the neighbor's property and then if you look at 223 fourth
avenue there's about a similar six feet of that house but or that apartment building that is on 225's property
and the same thing with 217 and so on now these are not maps are not absolutely accurate but I had the
properties surveyed and I know they're darn close if you go up to 222 which is the carriage house address
you can see that there's a white roof building almost dead center in the photograph that I guess I own
about six feet of that neighbor's garage and the whopper is if you go up to the northwest corner 4th
avenue and a street you can see a under some trees there is a fake looking anyway carriage house built
in 1990 with the Salt Lake City building permit where Salt Lake City gave the builder permission to just
take the city land so about two-thirds of the garage there on the corner of that lot does not belong to the
belongs to Salt Lake City and it was given away. I raised that issue with the city saying well if you're
willing to part with that ground I’d like to get a few hundred feet can I do that oh no and the city the chief
of staff then decided that they were going to start sending out bills to the people that owned that carriage
house for a couple thousand dollars that take carriage house a couple of thousand dollars a year and I
said you don't want to do that that's a hornet's nest and they sent out the first set of bills and then they
chickened out they did not have the they just canceled the bills and decided that well we'll go we'll just
give away the property because of our mistake so on the next page then this is the beer mansion the
photograph that you were shown earlier by Miss Lindquist is about a 500 foot footprint of image of the
carriage house or I'm sorry of the harness shop house which has nothing to do with the you know pretty
imposing structure you can see there the cladding designed to serve the or cladding designed together
with the carriage house to serve the William Beer family next slide these two buildings then the one in
front outlined in red is the harness shop house about just about exactly 500 square feet of footprint and
behind it outlined in blue is the carriage house as it was built in and this is the 1905 photo next one please
so to give you a feeling for what that looks like if you take the 222 fourth avenue this is just about dead
center in the photograph or in the map the Sanborn Fire Map you can see a square darkish building yeah
that has if well an analogy would be that if you were looking if you were taking god's view of the
Washington monument looking down on the Washington monument you would see almost exactly that
same profile a pyramid top that the only way you can get a building shaped like that fire like the fire map
shows is for a ride a pyramid but instead of sitting on a 500 foot limestone base I believe it is for the
Washington monument it's only on a 10-foot brick base so then we scanned that into the go ahead from
the tower on 8th street and 6th avenue and so here is what the carriage house behind once again behind
the harness shop house looks like in you know to within probably an inch maybe an inch and a half of
resolution there's enough photographic evidence of remaining materials on site that we basically know
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 10
that what the building looked like was a 10 foot brick or a 10 foot high 35 foot wide brick cube with a
pyramid on top of it and it's a right angle pyramid with all the faces looking to look the same now for some
context most of what we talked about with the historic landmarks commission I had assumed an error
that they were people a little closer to their high school geometry than they evidently were and that they
would understand what we were proposing it's the Washington monument with a pyramid and a drip edge
on it and that's what we're proposing to build or to rebuild and it's a design that is I believe about 4 500
years old it ain't new Greeks had it the Egyptians have it it's been around for a long time we got a lot of
pushback from the landmarks commission with people saying that your design is speculative it's
conjectural you don't know what the building looked like that was probably the biggest single thing we
talked about in the landmarks commission hearing it turns out though that with the stuff that miss Lindquist
has published last week the mention of concept of improper design conjectural design and so on that's
all banished that's all gone someplace else so the city doesn't so what the main thing the city believed or
that the landmark commission believed just was not true and it's disappeared from the record.”
Vice-Chair Bachman interject to let the applicant know that he had one minute of presentation time
remaining.
The applicant stated “Okay well let's see is there um we're looking here if I just let me summarize it let's
go to the last page okay let's look at this one I looked at four almost 400 dwelling units that have gone
through landmark sites since January 2019 actually they went back a year past that so that's four years
worth of data that produced 111 applications for dwelling unit review the pages of text that generated was
just under eight thousand now the champion in terms of pages that were submitted to the landmarks
commission is the beer carriage house which has 179 pages of stuff to go through the winner and still
champion based on the planning commission submission is that it's now grown to 187.”
Vice-Chair Bachman asked Mr. Pace to wrap up his presentation.
Mr. Pace stated, “well yeah what I'd like to do would be to come back and talk since I’ve got 187 pages
that I've got a report on here and we only talked about three pages three of those pages at the landmarks
mission hearing I would like to be rescheduled to give to do justice to this and talk about what we've
proposed what we haven't proposed and what the city has the planning staff has substituted for
it's ill-considered and withdrawn older proposals.”
Vice-Chair Bachman asked Mr. Pace if he would like to withdraw his application.
Mr. Pace said no.
Vice-Chair Bachman asked if the Commissioners had any questions for Mr. Pace.
Commissioner Scheer asked if Mr. Pace understood that the text amendment that he was proposing
would only affect him and a few other properties. The applicant stated yes it would affect 4 other
properties. Commissioner Scheer stated that the text amendment which he has submitted has some
deficiencies. She stated that the slides of the property that Mr. Pace shared had nothing to do with the
text amendment he was requesting.
PUBLIC HEARING
Vice-Chair Bachman opened the public hearing.
Seeing that no one wished to speak, Vice-Chair Bachman closed the public hearing.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 11
Commissioner Burrows asked if City Council voted on the text amendment after it was forwarded with a
negative recommendation from the Historic Landmark Commission. Planning Manager Kelsey Lindquist
said that it had not been voted on, HLC being the first step in the process and Planning Commission
being the second step.
MOTION
Commissioner Andra Ghent stated, Based on the information in the staff report, the information
presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission
forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the requested zoning text amendment
for carriage house reconstruction.
Commissioner Aimee Burrows seconded the motion. Commissioners Brenda Scheer, Aimee
Burrows, Andra Ghent, Jon Lee, Adrienne Bell, Mike Christensen, Andres Paredes voted “yes”.
The motion passed with a negative recommendation forwarded to the City Council.
The meeting adjourned at 9:31 PM.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 12
5) ORIGINAL APPLICANT
PETITION
6) MAILING LIST
OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADD OWN_CITY
181 N 'B' STSALT LAKE CITY
PO BOX 490JACKSON
OWN_ZIP OWN_STATE
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED
AIC INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, LLC
Current Occupant
84103
WY
UT
UT
83001
84102
84114
84102
84114
84103
529 E SOUTSalt Lake City
450 N STATSALT LAKE CITY
603 E SOUTSalt Lake City
PO BOX 145SALT LAKE CITY
STATE OF UTAH
Current Occupant
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
UT
UT
UT
JUSTIN R PADAWER; SALLY G PADAWER (JT259 E SEVE SALT LAKE CITY UT
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
03/29/2022Lisa Shaffer
_______________Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: __0_4_/0__1_/2_0_2__2______
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 25, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: Historic Carriage House Text Amendment
STAFF CONTACT: Kelsey Lindquist, Planning Manager, 385-226-7227
DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Only
RECOMMENDATION: The City Council follow the recommendation of both the Historic
Landmark Commission and Planning Commission and deny the requested zoning text
amendment for the reconstruction of historic carriage houses for the purposes of creating an
additional dwelling unit. Since the Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation
on this proposed text amendment, an ordinance has not been provided for this transmittal. If the
City Council wishes to approve the proposal, the applicant will be required to draft adoptable
language so that an ordinance can be drafted for City Council approval.
BUDGET IMPACT: The budget impact is unknown because the applicant has yet to identity
an application process for a carriage house reconstruction. It is unknown if a future identified
application would off-set staff time associated with a review of a carriage house reconstruction.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Stephen Pace, the property owner of the Beer Estate, is
requesting to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, in order to reconstruct or restore the
remains of a historic carriage house on his property. Through working with Planning on potential
options to create an additional dwelling unit in a reconstructed version of the historic carriage
house, several zoning barriers were identified. The barriers are described in detail within the staff
report. In order to address the goals and desires of reconstructing a historic carriage house at 222
E. 4th Ave, the applicant submitted a zoning text amendment application.
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
Aerial of Subject Property
Photograph of Subject Carriage House, 2017
The submitted text amendment language specifies the eligibility criteria for a potential carriage
house reconstruction as a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and as a
Salt Lake City Landmark Site, also located in the following zoning districts:
• SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential)
•RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential)
• RO (Residential Office)
• I (Institutional)
This specific criteria language limits the applicability to 5 properties citywide, which include the
following: 222 E. 4th Avenue, 259 E. 7th Avenue, 529 E. South Temple, 603 E. South Temple
and 1206 W. 200 S. The applicant didn’t specify a clear process for review or an application. The
language does allude to a review by the Historic Landmark Commission but isn’t clear on the
process. The standards and criteria provided by the applicant require evidence of the carriage
house, parking requirements, prohibition of any future subdivision of the property, no
requirement for an owner occupancy, and flexibility of zoning regulations of accessory structures
and density limitations in the applicable base zoning restrictions.
The provided text amendment language is missing key sections that lack clarification on
authority, review process, applicable standards and an identified application. Staff attempted to
address the concerns with the proposed language with the applicant several times. Staff
ultimately forwarded the language to the Historic Landmark Commission for input and direction.
The Historic Landmark Commission discussed the proposal during a hearing on July 16, 2020,
and unanimously decided to forward a negative recommendation to Planning Commission. After
the Historic Landmark Commission, the applicant did not address the identified issues identified
by staff or the items discussed during the Historic Landmark Commission hearing. The applicant
requested to continue the text amendment to Planning Commission. Planning Commission held a
public hearing on the proposed text amendment on February 23, 2022. The Planning
Commission unanimously forwarded a negative recommendation on the proposal.
As discussed in the Planning Commission staff report, staff acknowledges that there are several
adopted master plans and documents that provide guidance for historic preservation, many of
which express general support for the concept of creating and adopting flexible zoning
regulations that create economic incentives for contributing structures and landmark sites. Policy
statements and goals in the Community Preservation Plan, Plan Salt Lake, Avenues Master Plan
and Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan, include encouraging and supportive statements for
increasing housing stock in already developed sections of the city, as well as creating tools to
further historic preservation goals. With this in mind, staff attempted to work with the applicant
prior to the submission of the language, as well as after the application was accepted and
assigned. The applicant has not been amenable to Staff recommendations or direction.
Additionally, the applicant has not been amenable to the Historic Landmark Commission’s
concerns, comments and the specific reasoning for the negative recommendation. The idea
behind providing flexibility to landmark sites and eligible properties within local historic districts
is generally in line with the adopted plans and policies within several planning documents.
However, the proposed language provided by the applicant does not provide a framework in
which to administer approvals or review requests.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
• The application was submitted on February 6, 2020.
• The application assigned to Kelsey Lindquist on February 7, 2020.
• An Online Open House was held during April 1, 2020 through May 15, 2020.
• Staff received public comments via email and comments provided direction to the
applicant. Staff included these comments within the staff report for both the Historic
Landmark Commission and Planning Commission.
• On July 16, 2020, the Historic Landmark Commission held a public hearing and
unanimously forwarded a negative recommendation to the Planning Commission to
forward a negative recommendation to the City Council.
• On February 23, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously
forwarded a negative recommendation to the City Council.
Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) Records
a) HLC Agenda of July 16, 2020 (Click to Access)
b) HLC Minutes of July 16, 2020 (Click to Access)
c) HLC Staff Report of July 16, 2020 (Click to Access Report)
Planning Commission (PC) Records
a) PC Agenda of February 23, 2022 (Click to Access)
b) PC Minutes of February 23, 2022 (Click to Access)
c) Planning Commission Staff Report of February 23, 2022 (Click to Access Report)
EXHIBITS:
1) CHRONOLOGY
2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3) PLANNING COMMISSION – February 12, 2020
a) Mailed and Posted Notice
b) Staff Report
c) Agenda/Minutes
4) HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION – July 16, 2020
a) Staff Report
b) Agenda/Minutes
5) ORIGINAL APPLICANT PETITIONS
6) MAILING LIST
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) CHRONOLOGY
2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3) PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 23, 2022 PUBLIC HEARING
a) MAILED NOTICE
b) STAFF REPORT
c) AGENDA/MINUTES
4) HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2020 PUBLIC HEARING
a) STAFF REPORT
b) AGENDA/MINUTES
5) ORIGINAL APPLICANT PETITIONS
6) MAILING LIST
1) CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petitions: PLNPCM2020-00106
February 6, 2020
February 7, 2020
Stephen Pace, property owner of 222 E. 4th Avenue submits text
amendment application.
Petition assigned to Kelsey Lindquist, Planning Manager, for staff
analysis and processing.
March 9, 2020
April 8, 2020
April 1, 2020
May 15, 2020
July 2, 2020
Petition reviewed internally, staff provided comments to applicant.
Notice mailed to properties within 300 feet of identified properties
Application posted for online open house.
End of online open house.
Historic Landmark Commission agenda posted to website and emailed to
list serve recipients.
July 9, 2020 Staff report posted to Planning’s website.
July 16, 2020 Historic Landmark Commission Public Hearing.
February 11, 2022 Planning Commission agenda posted to website and emailed to list serve
recipients.
February 11, 2022
February 23, 2022
Notice of public hearing provided to the 5 eligible properties.
Planning Commission Public Hearing.
2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL
HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2020-00106 Carriage House
Reconstruction – On behalf of Stephen Pace, property owner of 222 E. 4th Avenue, is requesting
a text amendment to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to permit the reconstruction of a historic
carriage house for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The dwelling unit, located within the
reconstructed or restored historic carriage house, would not be required to meet density, lot
coverage, setbacks of the applicable base zoning district, or the accessory structure footprint or
height limitations. The proposed language requires eligible properties to be both a Salt Lake City
Landmark and list as a National Register Site of Historic Places and located in one of the following
zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential Office),
I (Institutional) or SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential).
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive
comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City
Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider
adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held:
DATE:
PLACE:Electronic and in-person options.
451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person
opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located
at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including
WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments
may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an
email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are
shared with the Council and added to the public record.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Kelsey
Lindquist at 385-226-7227 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday throughFriday,
or via e-mail at kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at
https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number
PLNPCM200-00106.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include
alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least
two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at
council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711.
3) PLANNING COMMISSION
a) Mailing Notice
February 11, 2022
3) PLANNING COMMISSION
b) Staff Report
February 23, 2022
Staf f Repor t
PLANNING DIVISIO
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
To:Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From:
Date:
Re:
Kelsey Lindquist (801) 535-7930
February 17, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment
Text Amendment
PROPERTY ADDRESS: Citywide
MASTER PLAN: Community Preservation Plan, Plan Salt Lake, Avenues Master Plan and The
Growing Salt Lake City Housing Plan
ZONING DISTRICT: RMF-35, RO, I, SR-1A
REQUEST: The Salt Lake City Planning Division has received a zoning text amendment petition
from Stephen Pace, to permit the restoration or reconstruction of a historic carriage house
for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The dwelling unit located within the
reconstructed or restored historic carriage house would not be required to meet density, lot
coverage, setbacks of the applicable base zoning district or the accessory structure footprint
or height limitations. The proposed language requires eligible properties to be both a Salt
Lake City Landmark and listed as a National Register Site of Historic Places and located in
one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential),
RO (Residential Office), I (Institutional) or SR-1A (Special Development Pattern
Residential).
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in this staff report and the factors to consider for
zoning text amendment, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a
negative recommendation to the City Council regarding this proposal.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Applicant’s Proposed Code
C. Applicant’s Narrative
D. Eligible Properties
E. City Plan Considerations
F. Analysis of Zoning Amendment Standards
G. Public Process and Comments
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-5357757 FAX 801-535-6174
PLNPCM2020-00106 1 February 16, 2022
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION HEARING
Staff briefed the Historic Landmark Commission on July 16, 2020 to gain feedback and direction on the
proposed language. To watch the full discussion, the Historic Landmark Commission meeting can be viewed
via the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNg7TG8fSOc&t=11s. Ultimately, the briefing
resulted in the HLC forwarding a negative recommendation to the Planning Commissionwith the following
motion (language pulled from HLC minutes):
Commissioner Svendsen made a motion that the Historic Landmark Commission Move that the HLC
forward the following recommendation to the Planning Commission:
1. The Commission is generally very supportive of the applicant’s goals of increasing density on the
property and making the property more economically sensible.
2. The Commission also suggests that there are significant shortcoming both procedural and
substantive with the current zoning ordinance that are preventing reasonable development on
properties like this.
3. This seems like an end around of the existing City’s ordinance regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
and also the RMF-35
4. Because of the application is so limited it is like spot zoning and that can have unforeseen
consequences with respect to future neighbors and a variety of circumstances.
In summary, the HLC forwards a negative recommendation to this particular proposal but urges the
Planning Commission to consider other changes to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance or RMF-35
Ordinance that would permit the applicant to move forward with what he is proposing and applies to
the City more broadly as a whole.
BACKGROUND OF THE REQUESTED TEXT AMENDMENT:
Stephen Pace, the property owner of the Beer Estate located at 222 E. 4th Avenue and 181 N. B Street, is
requesting to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to provide an incentive to reconstruct or restore
the remains of a historic carriage house on his property. The applicant has been working with Planning on
a solution to reconstruct a carriage house that is located on the southern portion of 222 E. 4th Avenue. This
historic carriage house is associated with the Beer Estate Landmark Site, which was constructed by Richard
Kletting. Additional information on the specific carriage house reconstruction proposal can be found in
Attachment C.
PLNPCM2020-00106 2 February 16, 2022
Aerial of Proposal on 222 4th Avenue
Photo of Subject Carriage House, 2018
PLNPCM2020-00106 3 February 16, 2022
The applicant has approached the City with the intent of rebuilding the remains of a carriage house on the
property located at 222 E. 4th Avenue, in order to add another dwelling unit on his property. Salt Lake City
zoning regulations do not allow the reconstruction due to building location regulations, minimum lot width
and minimum lot areas for the applicable zoning district. The Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations would
also prohibit the applicant’s proposal to reconstruct a carriage house as a dwelling unit on the property. The
following provides a summary of these barriers:
1. The dwelling unit located within a restored or reconstructed carriage house would be considered a
single-family detached dwelling. Adding another single-family dwelling to this property at the
proposed location would not be allowed because:
a. All principal structures required to have frontage on a public street (21A.36.010.B) must be
located along a street. The home (carriage house) would be located in back of the existing
principal structure on the property.
b. The zoning district where the property is located requires a minimum of 5,000 square feet
per single-family dwelling (21A.24.130.C), so 10,000 square feet would be required for two
single-family dwellings. The subject property is 8,184 square feet which does not meet the
minimum size requirement.
c. The home (carriage house) would not meet building setback regulations (21A.24.130) due
to its close proximity to the side and rear property lines.
2. The accessory dwelling unit ordinance would permit an additional unit to the rear of the property
located at 222 4th Avenue; however, there are several conflictswith the reconstructed carriage house
as an ADU. The accessory dwelling unit ordinance (ADU) poses a conflict with the requirement that
the owner of the property reside onsite. While Stephen Pace owns the subject property located at
222 4th Avenue, he resides at 181 B Street. This standard could not be satisfied. Additionally, the
size limitation of ADUs would not accommodate the traditional size of a historic carriage house.
Staff acknowledges that the barriers to achieving the goals of restoring the carriage house prohibit the
applicant from introducing an additional dwelling unit on the property. The proposed text amendment is
essentially site specific in order to permit the construction of an additional single-family dwelling on the
property. The proposed language will not offer or introduce an overall solution to other contributing
structures within a local or national historic district.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE:
The applicant provided a list of “conditions” that should be met in order to add a dwelling unit in a
reconstructed/restored carriage house; however, the applicant has not provided actual ordinance language.
Staff anticipates that the proposed regulations, if they addressed staff’s recommendations, could be
incorporated into the Historic Preservation Overlay chapter of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant’s
proposal is in Attachment B.
To better organize and summarize the proposal, Staff attempted to categorize the provided language into
the standard ordinance format (see below).
Purpose Statement: No purpose statement provided by the applicant.
Definitions
•CARRIAGE HOUSE: A carriage house is defined as a physically-detached, secondary structure
originally constructed to house horse-drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or uses to
store grain or shelter animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the
owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples
incorporate a hay loft, secondary story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in
excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or
house servants.
Applicability
For a property to be considered eligible, the property must be listed as a Salt Lake City Landmark
Site and a National Register Site on the National Register of Historic Places.
•
PLNPCM2020-00106 4 February 16, 2022
•
•
The property must be located in one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density
Multi-Family Residential), SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential), RO (Residential
Office) and the I (Institutional).
There must be substantial evidence that a carriage house exists or existed on the subject property.
The burden of proof would be strictly on the applicant. The applicant must provide evidence
through at least two of the following methods:
o
o
o
o
Historic photographs
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
Planning, zoning or building permit records.
Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basement, etc.
Review Process
The applicant has not specified a review process; however, the proposed language implies that the design,
construction and alterations would require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Landmark
Commission.
•A restored or reconstructed historic carriage house would be required to comply with the Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, which is section 21A.34.020.G
in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
Standards/Criteria
•A reconstructed or restored carriage house would only be allowed to be used for a single-family
residence.
•
•
Off street parking is required for the dwelling unit.
The restored or reconstructed carriage house would be limited to the historic footprint and must
not exceed the size (historic footprint) of the original structure.
•If it is determined that the reconstruction or restoration of the carriage house negatively impacts a
neighboring property, additional buffers may be required.
•
•
•
•
The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or subdivided illegally
The two residences could not be subdivided in the future.
The property owner is not required to permanently reside on the property.
Base zoning restrictions, such as: lot coverage, setbacks, height and density can be modified.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS:
1. City Goals Regarding Historic Preservation
Staff acknowledges that there are several adopted master plans and documents that provide guidance for
historic preservation, many of which express general support for the concept of creating and adopting
flexible zoning regulations that create economic incentives for contributing structures and landmark sites.
Policy statements and goals in the Community Preservation Plan, Plan Salt Lake, Avenues Master Plan
and Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan, include encouraging and supportive statements for increasing
housing stock in alreadydeveloped sections of the city, as well as creating tools to further incentivize historic
preservation for many of the historic property owners within the City. With that said, Staff was originally
supportive of the concept of introducing zoning flexibility into historic districts with the goal of restoring
existing structures and introducing additional housing stock. With this in mind, staff attempted to work
with the applicant prior to the submission of the language, as well as after the application was accepted and
assigned. The applicant has not been amenable to Staff recommendations or direction. Additionally, the
applicant has not been amenable to the Historic Landmark Commission’s concerns, comments and the
specific reasoning for the negative recommendation. The idea behind providing flexibility to landmark sites
and eligible properties within local historic districts is generally in line with the adopted plans and policies
within several planning documents (see Attachment E). However, the proposed language provided by the
applicant does not provide a framework in which to administer approvals or review requests. Additionally,
the language is essentially site-specific.
2. Rational for Negative Recommendation
Planning Staff has identified the following specific issues regarding the proposed language:
PLNPCM2020-00106 5 February 16, 2022
1. As proposed, the language would affect only one property by providing some allowance for the
applicant to construct a second single-family dwelling on the site. However, as an amendment
to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Staff takes into consideration the limiting impact the
proposal would have on incentivizing historic preservation in Salt Lake City. Staff
acknowledges that the applicant wishes to limit the proposed language to be primarily site
specific for the subject property located at 222 4th Avenue. Even though the applicant indicates
that there are 5 properties that could potentially qualify for the allowance, many of those
properties already have secondary dwelling units or are owned by entities uninterested in
pursuing this allowance.
2. As is, the language is unenforceable. This means that without clear language and a framework
to review proposals for a reconstruction of a historic carriage house, there could be very few
limitations. While the applicant provides a suggestion to have the Historic Landmark
Commission review the proposed reconstruction, it doesn’t provide clear framework for such
review.
3. The proposed language doesn’t provide a way to administer the allowance of how an applicant
would apply to reconstruct a historic carriage house.
4. The language does not account for how any potential impacts to abutting and adjacent
properties would be mitigated.
5. Overall, the proposed amendment is missing crucial language for Staff, Planning Commission
and City Council to take the proposal under consideration.
NEXT STEPS:
The Historic Landmark Commission provided a negative recommendation to the Planning Commission
and City Council on the proposed zoning text amendment. Staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council, due to the noted negative
recommendation by the Historic Landmark Commission and the issues noted with the proposed language.
Once a recommendation is provided by the Planning Commission, the recommendation will be
transmitted to the City Council. The Planning Commission’s recommendation is not a final decision; thus,
it is not appealable by the applicant. The City Council will make the final decision on the proposed zoning
amendment.
PLNPCM2020-00106 6 February 16, 2022
ATTACHMENT A: VICINITY MAP OF POTENTIAL SITES
The applicant provided a list of 5 properties that are potentially eligible for a reconstructed or
restored carriage house. The map on the following page highlights the subject properties.
PLNPCM2020-00106 7 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 98 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
ATTACHMENT B: APPLICANT’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE
PLNPCM2020-00106 190 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 110 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 121 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment
April 9, 2020
The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following conditions are
met:
1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
2) The property and address are individually listed on the National Register of Historic
Places.
3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had, an
identifiable carriage house on the property.
4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a
physically-detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-drawn
vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter animals; all
related to serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the
primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples
incorporate a hay loft, second story or half-story, or open interior space under a
pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have
provided housing for a livery man or house servants.
5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be proven,
with the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed through at least
two of the following methods:
• Sanborn maps;
• Historic photographs;
• Planning, zoning or building permit records;
• Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basements, etc.
6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification.
7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built within
the historic footprint).
8) Proposed alterations of a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration, and
reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the
Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission.
PLNPCM2020-00106 132 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow
original/ historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback standards.
If unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for adjacent properties,
additional buffers may be required.
10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new dwelling unit
on the property.
11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use.
12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review
standards and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review process
13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or
subdivided illegally.
14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future.
The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for
reconstruction:
1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of the
reconstruction.
2) Meeting the current minimum lot size.
PLNPCM2020-00106 143 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Stephen C. Pace Zoning Text Amendment Proposal for
Historic Carriage House Structures
UPDATED APPLICATION AND NARRATIVE
April 3, 2020
TO:
FROM:
CC:
Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division
Kirk Huffaker, Principal/Consultant, Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies
Stephen Pace, Applicant and Property Owner
As of April 2, 2020, the city has chosen not to provide an advance copy of draft
language or alternatives for their proposal, so we are not yet in a position to
comment on the pros and cons or details of whatever the city's position may be. We
are therefore requesting through this updated application to proceed with this
application without further additions by the city.
We have not attempted to draft our suggestions in terms of the specific sections of the
city code that will satisfy final location of the amendment within the zoning code. In the
event that our proposal is carried forward to city council, we believe that this will need to
be done under supervision of the city attorney at a later date. Instead we have presented
a synopsis below of what we believe provisions in the zoning code should allow for in the
reconstruction/rehabilitation/restoration of documented historic carriage houses
associated with current or potential National Register of Historic Places-listed sites and
located in areas with current multi-family zoning. The narrative highlights reasons why the
city should support this measure and what we believe the limited impacts on
development could be.
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
Stephen C. Pace, the applicant, is the owner of 222 4th Ave., Salt Lake City, and desires
to rebuild a carriage house associated with the historic William F. Beer Estate. Four
structures, including the carriage house, of the estate are listed as a Salt Lake City
Landmark Site and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The following text
amendment is submitted to the Planning Division for review and comment. The applicant
desires Administrative and/or Planning Commission consideration to resolve a property
size issue in the Avenues historic district. The current property is zoned RMF-35 and is
located in the Lower (West) Avenues neighborhood. There are three primary issues that
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 154 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 2
are not satisfied by any section in the current Zoning Ordinance, including all of the
following:
• Two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner does
not keep a permanent address;
• Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure;
• Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning
district.
To address these shortcomings, the following draft language is proposed as a text
amendment to Chapter 21A.34 Overlay Districts under 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation
Overlay District. It is the desire of the applicant to obtain approval for an application under
this text amendment with one review and public process through the Historic Landmarks
Commission. Utilizing this process will give the public an opportunity for input before one
public commission.
In the H Historic Preservation Overlay District as defined under Chapter 21A.34.020,
reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following conditions are met:
1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site as defined within Chapter
21A.34.020.
2) The property and address are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, either
individually or as a Contributing structure in a National Register-listed Historic District.
3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had, a
carriage house on the property.
4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a physically-
detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-drawn vehicles and
related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter animals; all related to
serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the primary structure
located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, second
story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from
the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house
servants.
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 165 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 3
5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be proven, with
the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed through at least two of
the following methods:
• Sanborn maps;
• Historic photographs;
• Planning, zoning or building permit records;
• Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basements, etc.
6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification.
7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built within the
historic footprint).
8) Proposed alterations a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration, and
reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salt
Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission.
9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow original/
historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback standards. If
unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for adjacent properties,
additional buffers may be required.
10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new dwelling unit
on the property.
11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use.
12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review standards
and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review process
13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or
subdivided illegally.
14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future.
The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for
reconstruction:
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 176 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 4
1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of the
reconstruction.
2) Meeting the current minimum lot size.
3) Meeting off-site parking standards.
Submitted on February 4, 2020
This application and accompanying narrative for zoning text amendment is submitted on
behalf of Stephen Pace, property owner for 222 4th Avenue, Salt Lake City. The applicant
desires Administrative, Planning Commission, and City Council consideration of and
prompt action on the application to resolve multiple zoning issues with the subject
property that prevents the owner from achieving his goal of adaptive use/reconstruction
of a historic carriage house. This former carriage house was one of the four primary
structures of the historic William F. Beer Estate, which was listed in the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1977 and is an individual landmark site in the Salt Lake City
Cultural Register.
According to historic research, the Beer Estate residence and carriage house date to
circa 1899. Both were constructed according to design by architect Richard K.A. Kletting.
Kletting also served as architect for a house and carriage house with similar details for
Albert Fisher (Fisher Mansion and Carriage House) at 1206 West 200 South in 1893. The
Beer Estate carriage house is described in the NRHP nomination as follows:
Area residents describe it as originally a two-story brick structures with a “steeple”
top. Dimensions were approximately 47’ x 40’ and it was used to shelter (at least)
nine draft/riding horses, cattle, chickens, rabbits, etc., two buggies, and as a
residence for the caretakers. The structure was cut in half about World War I, for
use as a garage. Current condition is deteriorated.
Since 1977 when the paragraph was written, the carriage house has continued to
deteriorate. Current site conditions exhibit severe structural deficiency but original brick
and stone foundations, wood floors, and wood framing and walls are present.
The owner desires to rebuild the carriage house within the original footprint and according
to the original design. Use of the carriage house is proposed to be single-family
residential with a single-car garage. Due to the cost of material salvage, architectural
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 187 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 5
replication, and construction, and given that the project is entirely privately funded, the
housing unit is not proposed to be affordable housing. Some original materials have
already been salvaged for reuse, and the owner desires to reuse as much of the existing
material and structure as possible in the reconstruction. The proposed design for
reconstruction of the carriage house has been completed and initially submitted for
discussion with the city.
The property at 222 4th Ave. is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues
neighborhood and Avenues Historic District. There are three primary issues that are
obstacles to adaptive use and reconstruction and not satisfied by any section in the
current zoning ordinance, including:
• Allowance for two residentially-used structures on the same property where the
property owner does not keep a permanent address;
• Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure;
• Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning
district.
In addition, we believe that these issues will not be resolved by the Adaptive Reuse
Ordinance (in process), revisions to the RMF-30 zoning classification (in process), and are
not addressed through the Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance.
Therefore, to address the shortcomings, the following supportive documentation and
zoning text amendment draft language are proposed for Chapter 21A.34 Overlay Districts
under 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. As a point of application
process, it is acceptable to the applicant to utilize the city’s existing process for
Conditional Use to obtain approval for use of the property. We believe that utilizing the
Conditional Use process along with Historic Landmarks Commission review for design
will adequately give the public two opportunities for input before two separate
commissions. However, if the Planning Division can determine another acceptable
application and review process that would only involve review before one commission
and administrative review, the applicant would be open to receiving information about this
possibility. The applicant reserves the right to approve or deny any proposed process
change.
The goals of this application to address the three current deficiencies and well supported
by the city’s wide range of plans and guiding documents, including those that are
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 198 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 6
neighborhood-specific, for historic preservation, and for housing. The following is a
summary list of those plans and supportive statements from each.
Avenues Master Plan
Housing and Neighborhood Improvement Planning Goal: Continue to encourage private
restoration and rehabilitation efforts in the Avenues Community through financial
assistance and supportive zoning and building code enforcement. (pg. 3)
Historic Preservation Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and
architecturally significant sites and the established character of the Avenues and South
Temple Historic Districts. (pg. 4)
Future land use map indicates Medium-Density 8-20 Unites per Gross Acre (pg. 7)
Property is situated between an urban trail (A Street) and within one block of two
Collector streets (B Street and Second Avenue), as well as a half-mile from the Central
Business District, therefore meeting this plan’s and many other plan’s goals of proximity
to transportation and for walkability.
Urban Design Planning Goal: Design public facilities to enhance the established
residential character of the Avenues, and encourage private property improvements that
are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (pg. 10)
Residential Design Guidelines
The applicant’s overall goal is most closely defined as Rehabilitation in the Salt Lake City
Design Guidelines, but could also be viewed as a combination of strategies, including
Reconstruction. Rehabilitation is defined in Part I, page 3:5:
“Rehabilitation is the process of returning a property to a state which makes a
contemporary use possible, while still preserving those portions or features of the
property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values.
Rehabilitation may include the adaptive reuse of the building, and major or minor
additions may also occur. Most good preservation projects in Salt Lake City may
be considered rehabilitation projects.”
A definition for Reconstruction is provided in the Appendix, pg. C:3, and states that
Reconstruction is:
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 2109 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 7
“The act or process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and detail
of a vanished building, structure, or object, or a part thereof, as if [sic] appeared at
a specific period of time.”
Accessory Structures (Part II 9:1)
This application follows the guidelines in Chapter 9: Accessory Structures, including the
Context & Character, Design Objective, Preserving or Rehabilitating Historic Accessory
Structures, and subsections with the headings:
• Preserve a historic accessory building when feasible.
• New accessory buildings should be constructed to be compatible with the primary
structure.
• Attaching garages and carports to the primary structure should be avoided.
The Avenues (Part III 13:1-14)
This application complies with the stipulations on page 13:12 under the heading
Accessory Structures within the specific chapter for The Avenues:
• Most secondary structures were built along the rear of the lot, accessed by the alley, if
one existed. This should be continued.
• Garages, as well as driveways, should not dominate the streetscape; therefore, they
should be detached from the main house and located to the rear of the house, if
possible.
• Historically, garages and carriage houses in the Avenues were simple wood structures
covered with a gabled or hipped roof.
• A new secondary structure should follow historic precedent, in terms of material and
form.
Community Historic Preservation Plan
“The need to preserve the unique character of the City’s urban neighborhoods, while
allowing for modifications to existing homes to meet today’s current living standards for
space and convenience are important City policies.” (pg. I-8)
The CHPP references the city’s Community Housing Plan (II-7,8), and while those
references are supportive of this application, they are not from the city’s most current
housing plan. The city adopted the Growing SLC Housing Plan in 2018 and references
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 210 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 8
from that plan are included in a later section. However, the CHPP does reference goals of
the city’s Strategic Plan and Futures Report on pages II-10 and II-11. Those that are also
supportive of this application include:
- Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods.
- Our historical heritage, including historic buildings and neighborhoods, is recognized as
a vital component of an exciting, livable city. Preserve historic structures, streets, and
other landmarks in all new development strategies.
- Assist property owners with solving the challenges of adaptive reuse.
Policies and Actions Relating to Regulations
3.3I Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable
appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic
structures.
3.3k Support modifications of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use that
will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in historic
districts in an effort to ensure preservation of the structure.
Regulatory Incentives
Two sections that support this application are Flexibility in Zoning Regulations (III-31), and
Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings (III-32). These are further supported by:
3.4a Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the
preservation of historic properties.
3.4c Modification to lot, bulk and signage standards should be allowed in local historic
districts and to Landmark Sites where the modification would allow for better compliance
with the historic preservation standards than the underlying zoning standard would allow.
3.4d Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in
appropriate locations where it is found that the negative impacts can be mitigated and
where the uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the interior
of the structure.
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 221 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 9
Economic Development
6.4c Historic preservation is identified as an important means of providing employment
opportunities for local crafts persons and skilled workers which keep money in the local
economy.
Housing
6.5a Ensure zoning supports the retention and reuse of existing historic apartment and
non-residential buildings.
6.5b Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive
reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units.
6.5e Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation of
historic structures.
Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
Goal 1: Increase Housing Options
Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability
needs of a growing, pioneering city.
1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant
transportation routes.
1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing
options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing
structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts.
Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development.
Goal 3: Equitable & Fair Housing
Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity throughout
all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of opportunity.
Objective 3: Implement Life cycle Housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the
city.
3.3.1 Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that
promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages of
life.
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 232 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 10
The SLC Comprehensive Housing Policy (2016) also includes supportive statements for
this proposal:
1. Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition;
2. Respect the character and charm of predominantly residential districts, including those
with historic character and qualities, while also providing opportunities for the provision of
local goods and services easily accessed by neighborhoods;
4. Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City;
7. Recognize that residents, business owners, and local government all have a role to play
in creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods.
Plan Salt Lake
Under Sustainable Growth & Development on page 9, the paragraphs on Placemaking
and Density, and those that reference Compatibility and Green Building on page 10, are
supportive of this application.
On page 14, supportive Guiding Principles of Plan Salt Lake include the following:
2) Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how
they live, and how they get around.
3) Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City,
providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.
8) A beautiful city that is people focused.
9) Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past.
10) Vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural resources that showcase the
community’s long standing commitment to a strong creative culture.
Under Chapter 1 - Neighborhoods, the supportive Initiatives on page 17 include:
1. Maintain neighborhood stability and character.
4. Support neighborhood identity and diversity.
6. Incorporate artistic elements and support cultural events on a neighborhood scale to
reinforce neighborhood character and identity.
Under Chapter 2 - Growth, the supportive Initiatives on page 19 include:
1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as
transit and transportation corridors
3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
6. Accommodate and promote an increase in the city’s population.
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 243 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 11
Under Chapter 3 - Housing, the supportive Initiatives on page 21 include:
2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the
potential to be people-oriented.
6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
Under Chapter 6 - Natural Environment, the supportive Initiatives on page 27 include:
3. Practice responsible waste management by: reusing and repurposing materials,
including promoting the reuse of existing buildings over demolition.
Under Chapter 8 - Beautiful City, the supportive Initiatives on page 31 include:
5. Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure that: reflects our
diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage.
7. Reinforce and preserve neighborhood district character and a strong sense of place.
Under Chapter 9 - Preservation, the supportive Initiatives on page 33 include:
1.Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public
spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate.
3. Retain areas of structures of historic and architectural value.
4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making.
5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
Under Chapter 13 - Government, the supportive Initiatives on page 41 include:
2. Provide opportunities for public participation, input, and engagement throughout the
decision-making process.
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 254 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
ATTACHMENT C: APPLICANT’S NARRATIVE
Links included in applicant's narrative: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/HLC/2020/07%20July%202020/00106StaffReport.pdf http://
utahcfa.org/architect/richard_karl_kletting
PLNPCM2020-00106 265 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment
AMENDED APPLICATION NARRATIVE
April 9, 2020
TO:
FROM:
CC:
Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division
Kirk Huffaker, Principal/Consultant, Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies
Stephen Pace, Applicant and Property Owner
NOTE
Because, as we understand it, the purpose of the “open house” is to seek broad public
input on our proposal, we have not attempted to draft our suggestions in terms of the
specific sections of the city code that will satisfy final location of the amendment within
the zoning code. In the event that our proposal is carried forward to city council, we
believe that this will need to be done under supervision of the city attorney at a later
date. Instead we have presented a synopsis below of what we believe provisions in the
zoning code should allow for in the reconstruction/rehabilitation/restoration of
documented historic carriage houses associated with current National Register of
Historic Places-listed residential sites and located in areas that already have multi-
family zoning. The narrative highlights reasons why the city should support this
measure and what we believe the limited impacts on development could be.
Stephen C. Pace, the applicant, is the owner of 222 4th Ave., Salt Lake City, and
desires to rebuild a carriage house associated with the historic William F. Beer Estate.
Four structures, including the carriage house, of the estate are listed as a Salt Lake
City Landmark Site and listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places.
The following text amendment is submitted to the Planning Division for review and
comment. The applicant desires Administrative and/or Planning Commission
consideration to resolve a property size issue in the Avenues historic district. The
current property is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues
neighborhood. There are three primary issues that are not satisfied by any section in
the current Zoning Ordinance, including all of the following:
• Two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner
does not keep a permanent address;
• Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure;
• Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning
district.
PLNPCM2020-00106 276 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220
Page 2
As it is the desire of the applicant to obtain approval for an application under this text
amendment with one review and public process through the Historic Landmarks
Commission, we believe this language should probably be included in Chapter
21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Utilizing this process will
streamline the process for the applicant, for city review, and provide the public an
opportunity for input.
APPLICABILITY
The proposed text amendment will be applicable citywide to residences listed
individually as Salt Lake City Landmark Sites and where the residence and historic
carriage house (as defined below) are both listed on the National Register of Historic
Places as an individual listing (not simply in a National Register-listed historic district).
The applicant believes that at least four (4) residence/historic carriage house
complexes currently could meet this qualifying test. This is based on best information
available to the applicant, which in part, is included as an attachment. In the event the
city grants future Landmark Site designations, and National Register landmark status is
sought and granted by the U.S. Department of Interior, the number of qualifying sites
may increase in the future.
TEXT AMENDMENT
The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following
conditions are met:
1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
2) The property and address are individually listed on the National Register of
Historic Places.
3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had,
an identifiable carriage house on the property.
4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a
physically-detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-
drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter
animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the
owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent
property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, second story or half-story, or
open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the
roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house servants.
PLNPCM2020-00106 287 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
Page 3
5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be
proven, with the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed
through at least two of the following methods:
• Sanborn maps;
• Historic photographs;
• Planning, zoning or building permit records;
• Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls,
basements, etc.
6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification.
7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built
within the historic footprint).
8) Proposed alterations of a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration,
and reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of
Appropriateness from the Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission.
9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow
original/ historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback
standards. If unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for
adjacent properties, additional buffers may be required.
10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new
dwelling unit on the property.
11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use.
12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review
standards and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review
process
13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built
or subdivided illegally.
14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future.
PLNPCM2020-00106 298 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
Page 4
The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for
reconstruction:
1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of
the reconstruction.
2) Meeting the current minimum lot size.
Submitted February 4, 2020 / Amended April 6 and 8, 2020
This application and accompanying narrative for zoning text amendment is submitted
on behalf of Stephen Pace, property owner for 222 4th Avenue, Salt Lake City. The
applicant desires Administrative, Planning Commission, and City Council consideration
of and prompt action on the application to resolve multiple zoning issues with the
subject property that prevents the owner from achieving his goal of reconstruction of a
historic carriage house. This former carriage house was one of the four primary
structures of the historic William F. Beer Estate, which was listed in the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1977 and is an individual landmark site in the Salt
Lake City Cultural Register.
According to historic research, the Beer Estate residence and carriage house date to
circa 1899. Both were constructed according to design by architect Richard K.A.
Kletting. Kletting also served as architect for a house and carriage house with similar
details for Albert Fisher (Fisher Mansion and Carriage House) at 1206 West 200 South
in 1893. The Beer Estate carriage house is described in the NRHP nomination as
follows:
Area residents describe it as originally a two-story brick structures with a
“steeple” top. Dimensions were approximately 47’ x 40’ and it was used to
shelter (at least) nine draft/riding horses, cattle, chickens, rabbits, etc., two
buggies, and as a residence for the caretakers. The structure was cut in half
about World War I, for use as a garage. Current condition is deteriorated.
Since 1977 when the paragraph was written, the carriage house has continued to
deteriorate. Current site conditions exhibit severe structural deficiency but original
brick and stone foundations, wood floors, and wood framing and walls are present.
The owner desires to rebuild the carriage house within the original footprint and
according to the original design. Use of the carriage house is proposed to be single-
family residential with a single-car garage. Due to the cost of material salvage,
architectural replication, and construction, and given that the project is entirely
privately funded, the housing unit is not proposed to be affordable housing. Some
PLNPCM2020-00106 3209 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
Page 5
original materials have already been salvaged for reuse, and the owner desires to reuse
as much of the existing material and structure as possible in the reconstruction. The
proposed design for reconstruction of the carriage house has been completed and
initially submitted for discussion with the city.
The property at 222 4th Ave. is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West)
Avenues neighborhood and Avenues Historic District. There are three primary issues
that are obstacles to adaptive use and reconstruction and not satisfied by any section
in the current zoning ordinance, including:
• Allowance for two residentially-used structures on the same property where the
property owner does not keep a permanent address;
• Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure;
• Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning
district.
In addition, we believe that these issues will not be resolved by the proposed Adaptive
Reuse Ordinance (in process), proposed revisions to the RMF-30 zoning classification
(in process), and are not addressed through the current Accessory Dwelling Unit
ordinance.
Therefore, to address the shortcomings, the following supportive documentation and
zoning text amendment draft language are proposed for Chapter 21A.34.020 H Historic
Preservation Overlay District. As stated above, it is the desire of the applicant to obtain
approval for an application under this text amendment with one review and public
process through the Historic Landmarks Commission. Utilizing this process will
streamline the process for the applicant, for city review, and provide the public an
opportunity for input.
The goals of this application to address the three current deficiencies and well
supported by the city’s wide range of plans and guiding documents, including those
that are neighborhood-specific, for historic preservation, and for housing. The following
is a summary list of those plans and supportive statements from each.
Avenues Master Plan
Housing and Neighborhood Improvement Planning Goal: Continue to encourage
private restoration and rehabilitation efforts in the Avenues Community through
financial assistance and supportive zoning and building code enforcement. (pg. 3)
Historic Preservation Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and
architecturally significant sites and the established character of the Avenues and South
Temple Historic Districts. (pg. 4)
PLNPCM2020-00106 310 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
Page 6
Future land use map indicates Medium-Density 8-20 Unites per Gross Acre (pg. 7)
Property is situated between an urban trail (A Street) and within one block of two
Collector streets (B Street and Second Avenue), as well as a half-mile from the Central
Business District, therefore meeting this plan’s and many other plan’s goals of
proximity to transportation and for walkability.
Urban Design Planning Goal: Design public facilities to enhance the established
residential character of the Avenues, and encourage private property improvements
that are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (pg. 10)
Residential Design Guidelines
The applicant’s overall goal is most closely defined as Rehabilitation in the Salt Lake
City Design Guidelines, but could also be viewed as a combination of strategies,
including Reconstruction. Rehabilitation is defined in Part I, page 3:5:
“Rehabilitation is the process of returning a property to a state which makes a
contemporary use possible, while still preserving those portions or features of
the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural
values. Rehabilitation may include the adaptive reuse of the building, and major
or minor additions may also occur. Most good preservation projects in Salt Lake
City may be considered rehabilitation projects.”
A definition for Reconstruction is provided in the Appendix, pg. C:3, and states that
Reconstruction is:
“The act or process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and
detail of a vanished building, structure, or object, or a part thereof, as if [sic]
appeared at a specific period of time.”
Accessory Structures (Part II 9:1)
This application is consistent with the guidelines in Chapter 9: Accessory Structures,
including the Context & Character, Design Objective, Preserving or Rehabilitating
Historic Accessory Structures, and subsections with the headings:
• Preserve a historic accessory building when feasible.
• New accessory buildings should be constructed to be compatible with the primary
structure.
• Attaching garages and carports to the primary structure should be avoided.
PLNPCM2020-00106 321 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
Page 7
The Avenues (Part III 13:1-14)
This application complies with the stipulations on page 13:12 under the heading
Accessory Structures within the specific chapter for The Avenues:
• Most secondary structures were built along the rear of the lot, accessed by the alley,
if one existed. This should be continued.
• Garages, as well as driveways, should not dominate the streetscape; therefore, they
should be detached from the main house and located to the rear of the house, if
possible.
• Historically, garages and carriage houses in the Avenues were simple wood
structures covered with a gabled or hipped roof.
• A new secondary structure should follow historic precedent, in terms of material and
form.
Community Historic Preservation Plan
“The need to preserve the unique character of the City’s urban neighborhoods, while
allowing for modifications to existing homes to meet today’s current living standards
for space and convenience are important City policies.” (pg. I-8)
The CHPP references the city’s Community Housing Plan (II-7,8), and while those
references are supportive of this application, they are not from the city’s most current
housing plan. The city adopted the Growing SLC Housing Plan in 2018 and references
from that plan are included in a later section. However, the CHPP does reference goals
of the city’s Strategic Plan and Futures Report on pages II-10 and II-11. Those that are
also supportive of this application include:
- Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods.
- Our historical heritage, including historic buildings and neighborhoods, is recognized
as a vital component of an exciting, livable city. Preserve historic structures, streets,
and other landmarks in all new development strategies.
- Assist property owners with solving the challenges of adaptive reuse.
Policies and Actions Relating to Regulations
3.3I Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable
appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic
structures.
PLNPCM2020-00106 332 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
Page 8
3.3k Support modifications of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use
that will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in
historic districts in an effort to ensure preservation of the structure.
Regulatory Incentives
Two sections that support this application are Flexibility in Zoning Regulations (III-31),
and Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings (III-32). These are further supported by:
3.4a Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the
preservation of historic properties.
3.4c Modification to lot, bulk and signage standards should be allowed in local historic
districts and to Landmark Sites where the modification would allow for better
compliance with the historic preservation standards than the underlying zoning
standard would allow.
3.4d Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in
appropriate locations where it is found that the negative impacts can be mitigated and
where the uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the
interior of the structure.
Economic Development
6.4c Historic preservation is identified as an important means of providing employment
opportunities for local crafts persons and skilled workers which keep money in the
local economy.
Housing
6.5a Ensure zoning supports the retention and reuse of existing historic apartment and
non-residential buildings.
6.5b Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive
reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units.
6.5e Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation
of historic structures.
PLNPCM2020-00106 343 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
Page 9
Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
Goal 1: Increase Housing Options
Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the
affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city.
1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant
transportation routes.
1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing
options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing
structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts.
Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing
development.
Goal 3: Equitable & Fair Housing
Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity
throughout all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of opportunity.
Objective 3: Implement Life cycle Housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the
city.
3.3.1 Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that
promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages
of life.
The SLC Comprehensive Housing Policy (2016) also includes supportive statements for
this proposal:
1. Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition;
2. Respect the character and charm of predominantly residential districts, including
those with historic character and qualities, while also providing opportunities for the
provision of local goods and services easily accessed by neighborhoods;
4. Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City;
7. Recognize that residents, business owners, and local government all have a role to
play in creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods.
Plan Salt Lake
Under Sustainable Growth & Development on page 9, the paragraphs on Placemaking
and Density, and those that reference Compatibility and Green Building on page 10,
are supportive of this application.
PLNPCM2020-00106 354 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
Page 10
On page 14, supportive Guiding Principles of Plan Salt Lake include the following:
2) Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how
they live, and how they get around.
3) Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City,
providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.
8) A beautiful city that is people focused.
9) Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past.
10) Vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural resources that showcase the
community’s long standing commitment to a strong creative culture.
Under Chapter 1 - Neighborhoods, the supportive Initiatives on page 17 include:
1. Maintain neighborhood stability and character.
4. Support neighborhood identity and diversity.
6. Incorporate artistic elements and support cultural events on a neighborhood scale to
reinforce neighborhood character and identity.
Under Chapter 2 - Growth, the supportive Initiatives on page 19 include:
1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as
transit and transportation corridors
3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
6. Accommodate and promote an increase in the city’s population.
Under Chapter 3 - Housing, the supportive Initiatives on page 21 include:
2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have
the potential to be people-oriented.
6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
Under Chapter 6 - Natural Environment, the supportive Initiatives on page 27 include:
3. Practice responsible waste management by: reusing and repurposing materials,
including promoting the reuse of existing buildings over demolition.
Under Chapter 8 - Beautiful City, the supportive Initiatives on page 31 include:
5. Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure that: reflects
our diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage.
7. Reinforce and preserve neighborhood district character and a strong sense of place.
Under Chapter 9 - Preservation, the supportive Initiatives on page 33 include:
1.Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public
spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate.
3. Retain areas of structures of historic and architectural value.
PLNPCM2020-00106 365 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
Page 11
4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making.
5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
Under Chapter 13 - Government, the supportive Initiatives on page 41 include:
2. Provide opportunities for public participation, input, and engagement throughout the
decision-making process.
PLNPCM2020-00106 376 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 387 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 398 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 4309 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 410 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 421 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 432 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 443 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 454 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 465 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 476 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 487 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 498 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 5409 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 510 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 521 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 532 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 543 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 554 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 565 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 576 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 587 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 598 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 6509 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 610 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 621 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 632 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 643 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 654 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 665 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 676 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 687 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 698 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 7609 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 710 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 721 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 732 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 743 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 754 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 765 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
ATTACHMENT D: ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES
The applicant provided the following list of eligible properties:
1. Fisher Mansion and Carriage House (1206 W. 200 S.)
2. Kearns Mansion (603 E. South Temple)
3. Keith Mansion (529 E. South Temple)
4. William F. Beer Estate (222 4th Avenue)
5. McIntyre House (259 7th Avenue)
The following attachments include the applicable nominations and photographs.
PLNPCM2020-00106 776 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 787 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 798 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 8709 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 810 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 821 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 832 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 843 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 854 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 865 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 876 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 887 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 898 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 9809 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 910 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 921 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 932 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 943 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 954 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 965 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 976 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 987 FebruaJruyly196, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 998 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 19090 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1010 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1021 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1032 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1043 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1054 FebruaJruyly196, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1065 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1076 FebruaJruyly196, 20220
PLNPCM2020-00106 1087 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1098 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 11009 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1110 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1121 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1132 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1143 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1154 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1165 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1176 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1187 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1198 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 12109 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1210 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1221 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1232 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1243 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1254 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1265 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1276 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1287 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1298 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 13209 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1310 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1321 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1332 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1343 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1354 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1365 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1376 February 16, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1387 February 16, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1398 February 16, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 14309 February 16, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1410 February 16, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1421 February 16, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1432 February 16, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1443 February 16, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1454 February 16, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1465 February 16, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1476 February 16, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1487 February 16, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1498 February 16, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 15409 February 16, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 1510 Februaryly196, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 1521 Februaryly196, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 1532 Februaryly196, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 1543 Februaryly196, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 1554 Februaryly196, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 1565 Februaryly196, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 1576 Februaryly196, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 1587 Februaryly196, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 1598 Februaryly196, 2022
PLFNePbCruMa1 2r65y0 09l y21096-,020012026
PLNPCM2020-00106 1610 Februaryly196, 2022
PLNPCMF2e0b12r60u21-a0r0yl 1y10966, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 1632 Februaryly196, 2022
PLNPFCeMb2r1u06a2J 43ru0yl-y010961, 0260 2 02
ATTACHMENT E: CITY PLAN CONSIDERATIONS
Adopted City Plan Policies and Guidance
There are several adopted master plans and documents that provide guidance for historic preservation,
many of which express general support for the concept of creating and adopting flexible zoning regulations
that create economic incentives for contributing structures and landmark sites. Policy statements and goals
in the Community Preservation Plan, Plan Salt Lake, Avenues Master Plan and Growing Salt Lake
Housing Plan, include statements for increasing housing stock in already developed sections of the city, as
well as creating tools to further incentivize historic preservation for many of the historic property owners
within the City. The master plans that address historic preservation goals and policies include the following:
•Community Preservation Plan
o The comprehensive plan for Historic Preservation, includes many related policies for
incentivizing preservation.
•Plan Salt Lake
o Plan Salt Lake includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development.
Utilizing the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit
would be in line with the policies outline in this master plan.
o
o
o
Includes guiding policies that preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
Encourages the retention of areas and structures of historic and architectural value.
Promotes a balance of preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
•Avenues Master Plan
The comprehensive plan for the Avenues encourages historic preservation of historically
and architecturally significant sites.
o
The master plans that address housing goals and policies include the following:
•Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
o The housing plan encourages the creation of the flexible zoning tools and regulations to
create additional housing stock.
•Plan Salt Lake
o Includes guiding policies that encourage housing options that accommodate gaining in
place, as well as the promotion of rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
Also includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development. Utilizing
the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit would be
in line with the policies outline in this master plan.
o
Community Preservation Plan
The Community Preservation Plan, adopted in 2012, indicates that the City needs to adopt a “wider
ranger of preservation tools.” Historic preservation tools are generally identified as incentives, which
can include an array of policies that encourage the preservation, restoration or reconstruction of
important historic features on historic properties.
Policy 2.1a: Ensure the long-term viability of existing local historic districts.
Policy 2.1b: Ensure consistency between the Community Preservation Plan and all other adopted
City plans.
Policy 2.3a: Identify historic preservation as an important component of the City’s sustainability
efforts based on its important economic, environmental and cultural benefits to the City.
PLNPCM2020-00106 164 February 16, 2022
Policy 3.2o: Explore a variety of tools to determine the appropriate method for implementing
historic preservation policies of a specific historic resource.
Policy 3.3a: Align preservation-related City regulations with the goals and policies of this plan.
Policy 3.3b: The Historic Preservation Overlay District standards are to be used as the basis for
decision making when considering applications and the standards should be applied in a
reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility.
Policy 3.3g: Ensure that underlying zoning is supportive of preservation policies for the area in
which historic or character preservation is proposed.
Policy 3.3i: Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable
appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic structures.
Policy 3.3k: Support modification of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use that
will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in historic districts in
an effort to ensure preservation of the structure.
Policy 3.4a: Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the
preservation of historic properties.
Policy 3.4b: Develop a wide range of incentives to encourage the protection of historic properties.
Policy 3.4d: Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in
appropriate locations where it is found that he negative impacts can be mitigated and where the
uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the interior of the structure.
Policy 6.1a: Historic Preservation is a primary tool to implement the sustainable goals of Salt
Lake City.
Policy 6.1b: The energy benefits, including life-cycle costs of preserving older buildings, should be
understood by property owners, development professionals, decision makers, City Staff and the
general public.
Policy 6.5b: Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive
reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units.
Policy 6.5e: Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation
of historic structures.
Plan Salt Lake
Guiding Principle: Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past.
Initiatives:
1. Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public spaces,
streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate.
3. Retain areas and structures of historic and architectural value.
4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making.
5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
6. Improve education and outreach about the value of historic preservation.
Plan Salt Lake Housing Goals and Policies
Guiding Principal/ Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the
city, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.
PLNPCM2020-00106 165 February 16, 2022
1. Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low income).
2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
3. Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place.
4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the
potential to be people-oriented.
5. Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate.
6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
7. Promote high density residential in areas served by transit.
8. Support homeless services.
Avenues Master Plan
Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites and
the established character of the Avenues and South Temple Historic District.
Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of
a growing, pioneering city.
1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options,
create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while
minimizing neighborhood impacts.
Staff Discussion:
The above stated policies and guidelines relate to the proposed language for the historic carriage
house reconstruction or restoration for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The policies and
guidelines encourage the creation of additional housing through flexibility and incentives within the
Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Staff was originally supportive of the concept of introducing zoning
flexibility into historic districts with the goal of restoring existing structures and creating additional
housing stock. Staff attempted to work with the applicant prior to the submission of the language, as well
as after the application was accepted and assigned. The applicant has not been amenable to Staff
recommendations or direction. Additionally, the applicant has not been amenable to the Historic
Landmark Commission’s concerns, comments and the specific reasoning for the negative
recommendation. It is impossible to support a text amendment proposal that does not include actual text
to be inserted into the zoning code, does not address the process for approval of projects under the
proposal, and is therefore not something that can be administered. The applicant could remedy this by
drafting actual code language, productively working with staff of the Planning Division to put the proposal
into an ordinance format, in recognition that the Planning Commission cannot forward a
recommendation to the City Council that is not in an adoptable format.
PLNPCM2020-00106 166 February 16, 2022
ATTACHMENT F: 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 considers
the following factors. Although the proposed ordinance is not complete, Staff drafted responses to
the factors based on the concepts of the proposed ordinance.
FACTOR FINDING RATIONALE
1. Whether a proposed The specific proposal is not in While the concept may be valid, Staff
cannot evaluate the proposed text
amendment against this factor because
the proposal provided by the applicant
is not in an ordinance format.
text amendment is
consistent with the
purposes, goals,
objectives and
ordinance format and thus, this
factor cannot be fully evaluated
or analyzed.
policies of the city as
stated through its
various adopted
planning
documents;
2. Whether a proposed The specific proposal is not in While the concept may be valid, Staff
cannot evaluate the proposed text
amendment against this factor because
the proposal provided by the applicant
is not in an ordinance format.
text amendment
furthers the specific
purpose statements
of the zoning
ordinance format and thus, this
factor cannot be fully evaluated
or analyzed.
ordinance;
3. Whether a proposed The specific proposal is not in While the concept may be valid, Staff
cannot evaluate the proposed text
amendment against this factor because
the proposal provided by the applicant
is not in an ordinance format.
text amendment is
consistent with the
purposes and
ordinance format and thus, this
factor cannot be fully evaluated
or analyzed.
provisions of any
applicable overlay
zoning district
which may imposed
additional
standards;
4. The extent to which
a proposed text
amendment
The specific proposal is not in
ordinance format and thus, this
factor cannot be fully evaluated
or analyzed.
While the concept may be valid, Staff
cannot evaluate the proposed text
amendment against this factor because
the proposal provided by the applicant
is not in an ordinance format.
implements best
current, professional
practices of urban
planning and
design.
PLNPCM2020-00106 167 February 16, 2022
ATTACHMENT G: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS
The zoning text amendment was posted on Salt Lake City Planning Division’s website on February
11, 2022, for public engagement and comment purposes. Notice of the post was provided via
Listserve. All of the public comments that have been submitted are attached.
PLNPCM2020-00106 168 February 16, 2022
May 8, 2020
Kelsey Lindquist
Senior Planner
Salt Lake City Planning Division
Dear Mr. Lindquist,
I am writing to you regarding the petition to amend Title 21A-Zoning of the
city code to allow for the reconstruction of a documented historic carriage house
at 222 4th Avenue. My wife and I reside in our home in the upper avenues and we
own three units in the Carlton Towers at 266 East 4th Avenue; which is less than a
quarter of a block from the subject property.
The proposed amendments seem quite reasonable if a process for approval
includes safeguards that assures conformity to historic values. With appropriate
reviews, the preservation and/or reconstruction of historic landmark sites
acknowledged by the National Register of Historic Places would be possible and
would serve to enhance the aesthetic of the Avenues Historic District as well as
several other unique sites and neighborhoods in our city.
I believe that the request to obtain approval for an application under the
proposed amendment utilizing the Historic Landmarks Commission’s review and
public scrutiny process provides the safeguards necessary to maintain historic
integrity.
I would encourage the City to approve the Zoning Amendment request.
Respectfully,
Jim Bradley
Salt Lake City, Utah 84103
PLNPCM2020-00106 17649 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
From:
To:
Barbara Hounsell
Stephen C Pace
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Lindquist, Kelsey; Scott S. Cruze
(EXTERNAL) Stephen C. Pace Carriage House Project
Wednesday, May 13, 2020 11:44:04 AM
Hello Stephen,
Barbara and I enjoyed talking with you on Sunday about your Carriage House
reconstruction project.
Assuming proper engineering and construction practices are followed, we are
in full support of this historically important project as described as the Stephen
C. Pace Historic Carriage House proposed zoning text amendment, 222 4th
Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah.
The proper engineering and construction to which we refer must protect the
integrity of the existing retaining wall on the north side of our Peery Apartment
property. The project must not compromise our retaining wall with additional
loads, including loads that come from structures, dirt or fill, landscape
materials, vegetation, or water and water retention.
Sincerely,
Barbara Hounsell
Alex Cross
Owners of the Peery Apartments, LLC
Cc:
Scott Cruze
Kelsey Lindquist
PLNPCM2020-00106 1750 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
From:
To:
Carol Foster
Lindquist, Kelsey
Cc:Paul Foster
Subject:
Date:
(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2020-00106, 222 4th Ave
Friday, May 15, 2020 10:12:32 AM
To whom it may concern:
We are writing in support of Stephen Pace’s renovation of 222 4th Ave. We are neighbors at
163 B St.
We have spoken with Stephen and support his renovation plan.
Our primary concerns were regarding keeping the community feeling of our neighborhood,
promoting house ownership over renting, against Airbnbs / apartments and for more long-term
housing for families or individuals.
Stephen explained that his rentals have very little turnover of renters and we have witnessed
that, living here since 2002.
Another concern was windows overlooking our property (backyard of 163 B Street) and
Stephen explained there weren’t any.
Feel free to reach out to us if you have any questions.
Many thanks,
Carol and Paul Foster
PLNPCM2020-00106 1761 FebruaJruyly196, 20202
PLNPCM2020-00106 172 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 173 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 174 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 175 February 16, 2022
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
children had taken over his property, they executed a sale of the strip to me in exchange
for $10. I began paying property taxes on the strip in 2018.
A third person, Mr. Thomas Mulcock, 212 4th Ave, (801) 864-3881 owns a four-plex and
garages on the southwest corner of the 222 lot. I provided him with the zoning change
package in April but did not reach him by phone until May 11. He indicated that he did
not carefully read my proposal, that he had no necessary objection to it, but that due to
his wife's critical illness he doubted he would get to it in the near future. I told him that
under the circumstances I would not bother him again.
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 176 February 16, 2022
3) PLANNING COMMISSION
c) Agenda/Minutes
February 23, 2022
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
February 23, 2022 at 5:30 p.m.
(The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion)
ATTENTION: This meeting will not have an anchor location at the City & County Building based on the
following determination by the Planning Commission Chair:
I, Amy Barry, Chair of the Planning Commission, hereby determine that with the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic conditions existing in Salt Lake City including, but not limited to, the elevated number of cases,
that meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who would
be present.
Commission Members will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning
Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested
in watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms:
•
•
YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or would like to
provide general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at:
•https://bit.ly/slc-pc-02232022
Instructions for using WebEx are provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2022
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ADU Conditional Use at Approximately 1532 South Green Street - Dorian Rosen, the property
owner, has requested conditional use approval for a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to
be situated in the rear, west side of the property located at the above-stated address. The ADU
will be 14’8” tall and 650 square-feet. To meet the requirements to allow the ADU to reach the
maximum 650 square feet a 425 square foot addition to the main dwelling will be built. The subject
property is zoned R-1 /5,000 (Single-Family Residential) and is located within Council District 5,
represented by Darin Marino. (Staff contact: Grant Amann at 801-535-6171 or
grant.amann@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021-01273
2. Green Street Alley Vacation - Sara Koenig, the property owner at approximately 1343 S Green
Street, is requesting Salt Lake City to vacate a "T" shaped alley running between 1300 South and
Harrison Avenue and Green Street and 700 East. The alley exists on paper only and the abutting
property owners have incorporated the alley into their properties. The property abutting this alley
is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District) and is located within Council District 5,
represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Katia Pace at 801-535-6354
or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00903
3. Dooley Court Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision at approximately 122 S
Dooley CT and 126 S Windsor Street - Warren Crummett, the property owner, is requesting
planned development and preliminary subdivision approval to divide an existing lot into two lots
for a new twin home. The proposal includes retaining the existing single-family home on-site and
building a new twin home on the newly created lots. Planned Development approval is requested
to modify the required twin home lot area from 1,500 square feet to approximately 1,367
square feet and for an approximate 2-inch reduction to the front yard setback in the southwest
area of the lot fronting Dooley Court. The project is located in the SR-3 (Special Development
Pattern Residential) zoning district.
a. Planned Development – Planned Development request to waive lot area and setback
requirements in the SR-3 zone. Case number PLNPCM2021-00958
b. Preliminary Subdivision – Creation of two new lots to accommodate a twin home. Case
number PLNSUB2021-01151
The subject property is within Council District #4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff
contact: Krissy Gilmore at 801-535-7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com)
4. Glendale Townhomes at approximately 1179 S Navajo Street - Pierre Langue of Axis
Architects, representing the property owners, is requesting approval from the City to redevelop
the property with 57 townhomes, 24 of which would include a live/work option. The buildings
would be three stories tall with internal garages for each unit. Currently, the land is occupied by
Tejedas Market and is zoned CB (Community Business). This type of project must be reviewed
as a Planned Development as four of the buildings would not have frontage on a public
street. The subject property is located within Council District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy.
(Staff contact: Eric Daems at 801-535-7236 or eric.daems@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2021-00378
5. Pacific Yard Design Review & Planned Development - KTGY Architects, representing Urban
Alfandre, are requesting a Planned Development and Design Review approval for a mixed-use
multifamily building at approximately 443 W 700 South, 720 S 400 West, and 704 S 400 West.
The proposed 7-story building is 88-feet in height and includes 292 units and 202 parking stalls.
It has 12,000 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor. The applicant is requesting
relief from all required setbacks and landscaping through the Planned Development process and
requesting an additional 28 feet of building height through Design Review. The project site is in
the General Commercial (CG) zoning district. In the CG zone, new buildings taller than sixty feet
(60') but less than ninety feet (90') may be authorized through Design Review. The proposed
project incorporates a public mid-block pedestrian walkway along the western property line
a. Planned Development – Planned Development request to waive setback and landscaping
requirements in the CG zone. Case number PLNPCM2021-00822
b. Design Review – Design Review request for 28 feet of additional height. Case number
PLNPCM2021-00835
The property is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff Contact:
Laura Bandara at 801-535-6188 or laura.bandara@slcgov.com)
6. Hoyt Place Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 858 W & 860 W Hoyt Place - Bert
Holland, representing Hoyt Place Development LLC, is requesting a zoning map amendment for
the properties located at the above-stated address. The proposal would rezone the
properties from R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential to SR-3 Special Development Pattern
Residential District. The two lots are approximately .39 acres or 16,988 square feet. Future
development plans were not submitted with this application. The property is located within Council
District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman at 801-535-7660 or
amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021-01073
7. Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment – Stephen Pace, the applicant, is requesting
a zoning text amendment to permit the restoration or reconstruction of a historic carriage house
for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The dwelling unit, located within the reconstructed or
restored historic carriage house, would not be required to meet density, lot coverage, setbacks of
the applicable base zoning district, or the accessory structure footprint or height limitations. The
proposed language requires eligible properties to be both a Salt Lake City Landmark and listed
as a National Register Site of Historic Places and located in one of the following zoning districts:
RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), I (Institutional) or
SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential). (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist at 385-226-
7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00106
For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-
meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified,
which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.
4) HISTORIC LANDMARK
COMMISSION
a) Staff Report
July 16, 2020
BACKGROUND:
Stephen Pace, the property owner of the Beer Estate located at 222 4th Avenue and 181 N B Street, is
requesting to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance in an effort to provide an incentive to reconstruct
or restore a historic carriage house on his property. The applicant has been working with Salt Lake City on
a solution to reconstruct a carriage house that is located on the southern portion of 222 4th Avenue. This
historic carriage house is associated with the Beer Estate Landmark Site, which was constructed by Richard
Kletting. Additional information on the site specific carriage house reconstruction proposal can be found in
Attachment C.
Aerial of Proposal on 222 4th Avenue
The applicant has approached the City on numerous occasions with the intent of rebuilding the carriage
house to add another dwelling unit on his property. Salt Lake City zoning regulations currently do not allow
the reconstruction due to building location regulations, as well as lot minimums for the applicable zoning
district. Additionally, the applicant’s plan does not conform to the regulations pertaining to accessory
dwelling units. The following provides a summary of these barriers:
1. The dwelling unit located within a restored or reconstructed carriage house would be considered to
be a single-family detached dwelling. Adding another single-family dwelling to this property at the
proposed location would not be allowed because:
a. All principal structures must be located along a street. The home (carriage house) would be
located in back of the existing principal structure on the property.
b. The zoning district where the property is located requires a minimum of 5,000 square feet
per single-family dwelling so 10,000 square feet would be required for two single-family
dwellings. The subject property is 8,184 square feet so it does not meet the minimum size
requirement.
PLNPCM2020-00106 2 July 9, 2020
c. The home (carriage house) would not meet building setback regulations due to its close
proximity to the side and rear property lines.
2. The accessory dwelling unit ordinance would permit an additional unit to the rear of the property
located at 222 4th Avenue; however, there are several conflicts with the reconstructed carriage house
as an ADU. The accessory dwelling unit ordinance (ADU) poses a conflict with the requirement that
the owner of the property reside onsite. While Stephan Pace owns the subject property located at
222 4th Avenue, he resides at 181 B Street. This standard could not be satisfied. Additionally, the
size limitation of ADUs would not accommodate the traditional size of a historic carriage house.
The proposed text amendment, while it is fairly site specific, proposes solutions to the listed conflicts within
the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE:
The applicant provided a list of proposed “conditions” that should be met in order to add a dwelling unit in
a reconstructed/restored carriage house; however, the applicant has not provided actual ordinance
language. The applicant’s proposal is in AttachmentB. Staff anticipates that the proposed regulations, when
drafted, will be incorporated into the Historic Preservation Overlay chapter of the Zoning Ordinance and
will be structured in the following way:
1. Purpose Statement (what are the regulations trying to achieve)
2. Definition of Terms
3. Applicability (what conditions must be met for the regulations to apply)
4. Process (who is the decision maker and what is the decision-making process)
5. Standards/Criteria (what are the specific regulations pertaining to the application)
Staff organized the applicant’s list of conditions into these categories in an effort to better summarize the
proposal for the Historic Landmark Commission and to begin to organize the language into a standard
ordinance format (see below). Staff commentary and requested direction from the Historic Landmark
Commission are at the end of the ordinance summary.
Purpose
The applicant did not provide a specific purpose statement, but Staff believes the following should
be considered when developing the legal purpose statement:
o To permit the reconstruction or restoration of a historic carriage house for the purposes of
creating a dwelling unit.
o
o
Incentivize the preservation and restoration of a historic feature on a landmark site.
Add to the housing units within Salt Lake City, while respecting the appearance and scale
of single-family residential neighborhoods.
o
o
Sustainability objectives are supported by utilizing an existing structure or elements of an
existing structure.
Increase the economic viability of historic properties and further the City’s historic
preservation goals.
Definitions
CARRIAGE HOUSE: A carriage house is defined as a physically-detached, secondary structure
originally constructed to house horse-drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or uses to
store grain or shelter animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the
owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples
incorporate a hay loft, secondary story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in
excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or
house servants.
PLNPCM2020-00106 3 July 9, 2020
Applicability
For a property to be considered eligible, the property must be listed as a Salt Lake City Landmark
Site and a National Register Site on the National Register of Historic Places.
The property must be located in one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density
Multi-Family Residential), SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential), RO (Residential
Office) and the I (Institutional).
There must be substantial evidence that a carriage house exists or existed on the subject property.
The burden of proof would be strictly on the applicant. The applicant must provide evidence
through at least two of the following methods:
o
o
o
o
Historic photographs
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
Planning, zoning or building permit records.
Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basement, etc.
Review Process
The applicant has not specified a review process; however, the proposed language implies that the design,
construction and alterations would require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Landmark
Commission.
A restored or reconstructed historic carriage house would be required to comply with the Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, which is section 21A.34.020.G
in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
Standards/Criteria
A reconstructed or restored carriage house would only be allowed to be used for a single-family
residence.
Off street parking is required for the dwelling unit.
The restored or reconstructed carriage house would be limited to the historic footprint and must
not exceed the size (historic footprint) of the original structure.
If it is determined that the reconstruction or restoration of the carriage house negatively impacts a
neighboring property, additional buffers may be required.
The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or subdivided illegally
The two residences could not be subdivided in the future.
The property owner is not required to permanently reside on the property.
Base zoning restrictions, such as: lot coverage, setbacks, height and density can be modified.
STAFF COMMENTARY AND QUESTIONS FOR THE HISTORIC
LANDMARKCOMMISSION
Staff is presenting the proposal to the Historic Landmark Commission in order to obtain feedback and
direction prior to finalizing draft ordinance language. This section is organized to relate each question or
comment to the applicable section within the proposed language above. The following sections provides
Staff’s concerns and opinions on what the language is missing, potential impacts, as well as needed
clarification.
Purpose
The applicant did not provide a purpose statement for the proposed ordinance. Staff developed some ideas
to incorporate into the purpose statement. The ideas and potential language were pulled from the
applicant’s narrative, the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance and applicable master plans.
Point to Discuss
Does the Commission agree with the statements and/or have anything to add?
Definitions
The applicant provided the definition of Carriage House to Staff. Staff believes that there are additional
definitions that will be needed to provide direction and clarity for the proposed language.
PLNPCM2020-00106 4 July 9, 2020
Points to Discuss
Should Historic Footprint be defined as part of this proposal?
Are there other needed terms that the Commission can identify?
Other terms may be included in the definition section as the ordinance is developed.
Applicability
The Historic Landmark Commission does not have the authority to review alterations to properties listed
on the National Register of Historic Places. However, the proposal encompasses properties listed on both
the National Register of Historic Places and properties listed as Salt Lake City Landmarks.
Points to Discuss
Should the proposal be modified to strictly include properties that are Salt Lake City Landmarks
and listed in the applicable zoning districts?
This change would clarify the review authority but would not significantly modify the number of
properties eligible for the reconstruction or restoration of a historic carriage house, due to the
limiting zoning districts.
The applicant provided a list of 4 items that could be used to determine the existence of a carriage house,
which include; historic photographs, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, zoning and building permit history and
identifiable structural elements. The applicant proposes that only 2 of the 4 would be required to satisfy the
burden of proof.
Points to Discuss
Staff is concerned that the proposed criteria is too loose.
o This concern is directly connected to the potential impact that a reconstructed historic
carriage house could have on abutting properties, due to height and setbacks.
Pictorialevidence or information should be required tounderstand the design, materials and height
of the historic structure.
o
o
If pictorial evidence is not available, the structure would likely be conjectural.
Does the Commission have concerns that a conjectural structure would impact the status
of the landmark site?
o
o
o
o
Without pictorial evidence, the proposed language would essentially permit the building of
a new single-family structure, which is not the purpose or intent of this language.
Without pictorial evidence, how would the design, height and footprint be reviewed and
determined?
If pictorial evidence is found to be too difficult to obtain, is there other information that
would satisfy the intent and ease the concerns?
What would be the review process for a historic carriage house that does not have any
pictorial evidence?
The suggested zoning and building permit history would be difficult to satisfy, since the full records
are not available or encompass all of the permit history.
Does the Commission have any additional concerns or recommendations with other provisions in
the proposed applicability section?
Review Process
The applicant has not specified a review process; however, the proposed language implies that the design,
construction and alterations would require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Landmark
Commission.
Points to discuss
The Landmark Commission does not have the authority to approve projects that increase density
beyond what is allowed by ordinance. Staff proposes to draft the ordinance so that an extra
dwelling unit would be permitted by right within a restored or reconstructed carriage house. The
Landmark Commission would then review the restoration or reconstruction.
Construction in the H Historic Overlay is reviewed in a number of ways.
o Minor Alteration Applications are the most commonly submitted applications for the
alteration of a site. These applicationsare alsoapplicable for the construction of a detached
garage or a detached accessory dwelling unit.
PLNPCM2020-00106 5 July 9, 2020
.Since minor alterations are applicable for the ADUs and detached accessory
structures, Staff initially considered this the most appropriate application for the
proposal.However, this type of reconstruction has potentiallymore impacts to the
abutting and adjacent properties.
The potentialimpactsinclude the location, setbacks, height and footprint.
o Major Alteration or New Construction Application requires the review and approval of the
Historic Landmark Commission.
.
.
.
Due to the potential for impacts, would the process for new construction or a
major alteration be more appropriate?
A new construction or major alteration application would require Historic
Landmark Commission review and approval.
Depending upon the recommendation regarding the pictorial evidence, the new
construction process may provide clearer guidelines and standards for the design
of the structure.
Does the Commission have a recommendation on the process?
Standards/Criteria
Points to Discuss
Applicant proposes that it could only be used as a single-family residence.
Are their pitfalls with simply allowing it to be reconstructed for typical accessory uses?
Currently, proposed construction in the Historic Preservation Overlay District that does not
conform to dimensional zoning standards, such as setbacks and building coverage requires Special
Exception approval by the HLC. The applicant proposes that the HLC should be able to approve
dimensional zoning exceptions through the Certificate of Appropriateness.
o
o Staff supports this idea, due to the need for zoning flexibility for reconstructed historic
carriage houses.
o Staff does have a concern with coupling the review process and any needed special
exceptions, due to the potential for impacts to the adjacent and abutting properties.
.There should likely be a notification process to provide notice to effected property
owners and tenants.
The applicant suggests that the reconstructed carriage house be limited to the historic footprint.
o The Sanborn Fire Insurance maps are fairly accurate for the historic footprint
determination.
.Is the Landmark Commission comfortable with the utilization of the Sanborn Fire
Insurance Maps for this purpose, if the historic foundation or walls are no longer
visible?
The applicant suggests that additional buffers may be required if an impact is determined.
How will the size of an additional buffer be determined?
Are there additional criteria that the Commission has for consideration?
o
KEY CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Limitations of the Proposed Language:
Staff acknowledges that the applicantwishes to limit the proposed language to be primarily site specific
for the subject property located at 222 4th Avenue. Through limiting the language, as proposed, the
proposed amendment to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance would potentially impact 5 properties.
While the proposed language is narrow in focus and addresses rather specific issues, the overall goal
of the proposal is in line with adopted policies and guidelines. The proposed language incentivizes the
preservation or reconstruction of historic features on historic properties.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW DISCUSSION:
Zoning text amendments are reviewed for compliance with Salt Lake City master plans and adopted
policies. There are several documents that provide guidance for historic preservation. The master plans
that address historic preservation goals and policies include the following:
PLNPCM2020-00106 6 July 9, 2020
Community Preservation Plan
o The comprehensive plan for Historic Preservation, includes many related policies for
incentivizing preservation.
Plan Salt Lake
o Plan Salt Lake includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development.
Utilizing the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit
would be in line with the policies outlined in this master plan.
o
o
o
Includes guiding policies that preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
Encourages the retention of areas and structures of historic and architectural value.
Promotes a balance of preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
Avenues Master Plan
The comprehensive plan for the Avenues encourages historic preservation of historically
and architecturally significant sites.
o
The master plans that address housing goals and policies include the following:
Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
o The housing plan encourages the creation of the flexible zoning tools and regulations to
create additional housing stock.
Plan Salt Lake
o Includes guiding policies that encourage housing options that accommodate gaining in
place, as well as the promotion of rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
Also includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development. Utilizing
the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit would be
in line with the policies outline in this master plan.
o
The above documents have a variety of policies and guidelines that relate to creating incentives for historic
preservation, as well as zoning flexibility to create additional housing units. All of the applicable policies
and guidelines are discussed in Attachment E and F. As discussed in those attachments, the proposed
zoning changes are generally supported by the associated adopted City policies.
NEXT STEPS:
One of the duties of the Historic Landmark Commission is to make recommendations on applications for
zoning amendments that involve historic preservation overlay districts and landmark sites. After the
Historic Landmark Commission reviews and makes recommendations on the concepts of the proposed
ordinance, Planning Staff will work with the applicant to develop the actual ordinance language, which will
be presented to the Planning Commission for their consideration. The Planning Commission will consider
the proposed ordinance in a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City
Council will make the final decision on the proposed zoning amendment.
PLNPCM2020-00106 7 July 9, 2020
ATTACHMENT A: VICINITY MAP OF POTENTIAL SITES
The applicant provided a list of 5 properties that are potentially eligible for a reconstructed or
restored carriage house. The map on the following page highlights the subject properties.
PLNPCM2020-00106 8 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 9 July 9, 2020
ATTACHMENT B: APPLICANT’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE
PLNPCM2020-00106 10 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 11 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 12 July 9, 2020
Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment
April 9, 2020
The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following conditions are
met:
1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
2) The property and address are individually listed on the National Register of Historic
Places.
3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had, an
identifiable carriage house on the property.
4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a
physically-detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-drawn
vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter animals; all
related to serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the
primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples
incorporate a hay loft, second story or half-story, or open interior space under a
pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have
provided housing for a livery man or house servants.
5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be proven,
with the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed through at least
two of the following methods:
• Sanborn maps;
• Historic photographs;
• Planning, zoning or building permit records;
• Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basements, etc.
6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification.
7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built within
the historic footprint).
8) Proposed alterations of a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration, and
reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the
Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission.
PLNPCM2020-00106 13 July 9, 2020
9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow
original/ historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback standards.
If unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for adjacent properties,
additional buffers may be required.
10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new dwelling unit
on the property.
11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use.
12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review
standards and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review process
13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or
subdivided illegally.
14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future.
The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for
reconstruction:
1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of the
reconstruction.
2) Meeting the current minimum lot size.
PLNPCM2020-00106 14 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Stephen C. Pace Zoning Text Amendment Proposal for
Historic Carriage House Structures
UPDATED APPLICATION AND NARRATIVE
April 3, 2020
TO:
FROM:
CC:
Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division
Kirk Huffaker, Principal/Consultant, Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies
Stephen Pace, Applicant and Property Owner
As of April 2, 2020, the city has chosen not to provide an advance copy of draft
language or alternatives for their proposal, so we are not yet in a position to
comment on the pros and cons or details of whatever the city's position may be. We
are therefore requesting through this updated application to proceed with this
application without further additions by the city.
We have not attempted to draft our suggestions in terms of the specific sections of the
city code that will satisfy final location of the amendment within the zoning code. In the
event that our proposal is carried forward to city council, we believe that this will need to
be done under supervision of the city attorney at a later date. Instead we have presented
a synopsis below of what we believe provisions in the zoning code should allow for in the
reconstruction/rehabilitation/restoration of documented historic carriage houses
associated with current or potential National Register of Historic Places-listed sites and
located in areas with current multi-family zoning. The narrative highlights reasons why the
city should support this measure and what we believe the limited impacts on
development could be.
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
Stephen C. Pace, the applicant, is the owner of 222 4th Ave., Salt Lake City, and desires
to rebuild a carriage house associated with the historic William F. Beer Estate. Four
structures, including the carriage house, of the estate are listed as a Salt Lake City
Landmark Site and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The following text
amendment is submitted to the Planning Division for review and comment. The applicant
desires Administrative and/or Planning Commission consideration to resolve a property
size issue in the Avenues historic district. The current property is zoned RMF-35 and is
located in the Lower (West) Avenues neighborhood. There are three primary issues that
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 15 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 2
are not satisfied by any section in the current Zoning Ordinance, including all of the
following:
• Two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner does
not keep a permanent address;
• Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure;
• Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning
district.
To address these shortcomings, the following draft language is proposed as a text
amendment to Chapter 21A.34 Overlay Districts under 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation
Overlay District. It is the desire of the applicant to obtain approval for an application under
this text amendment with one review and public process through the Historic Landmarks
Commission. Utilizing this process will give the public an opportunity for input before one
public commission.
In the H Historic Preservation Overlay District as defined under Chapter 21A.34.020,
reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following conditions are met:
1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site as defined within Chapter
21A.34.020.
2) The property and address are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, either
individually or as a Contributing structure in a National Register-listed Historic District.
3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had, a
carriage house on the property.
4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a physically-
detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-drawn vehicles and
related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter animals; all related to
serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the primary structure
located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, second
story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from
the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house
servants.
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 16 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 3
5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be proven, with
the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed through at least two of
the following methods:
• Sanborn maps;
• Historic photographs;
• Planning, zoning or building permit records;
• Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basements, etc.
6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification.
7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built within the
historic footprint).
8) Proposed alterations a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration, and
reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salt
Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission.
9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow original/
historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback standards. If
unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for adjacent properties,
additional buffers may be required.
10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new dwelling unit
on the property.
11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use.
12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review standards
and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review process
13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or
subdivided illegally.
14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future.
The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for
reconstruction:
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 17 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 4
1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of the
reconstruction.
2) Meeting the current minimum lot size.
3) Meeting off-site parking standards.
Submitted on February 4, 2020
This application and accompanying narrative for zoning text amendment is submitted on
behalf of Stephen Pace, property owner for 222 4th Avenue, Salt Lake City. The applicant
desires Administrative, Planning Commission, and City Council consideration of and
prompt action on the application to resolve multiple zoning issues with the subject
property that prevents the owner from achieving his goal of adaptive use/reconstruction
of a historic carriage house. This former carriage house was one of the four primary
structures of the historic William F. Beer Estate, which was listed in the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1977 and is an individual landmark site in the Salt Lake City
Cultural Register.
According to historic research, the Beer Estate residence and carriage house date to
circa 1899. Both were constructed according to design by architect Richard K.A. Kletting.
Kletting also served as architect for a house and carriage house with similar details for
Albert Fisher (Fisher Mansion and Carriage House) at 1206 West 200 South in 1893. The
Beer Estate carriage house is described in the NRHP nomination as follows:
Area residents describe it as originally a two-story brick structures with a “steeple”
top. Dimensions were approximately 47’ x 40’ and it was used to shelter (at least)
nine draft/riding horses, cattle, chickens, rabbits, etc., two buggies, and as a
residence for the caretakers. The structure was cut in half about World War I, for
use as a garage. Current condition is deteriorated.
Since 1977 when the paragraph was written, the carriage house has continued to
deteriorate. Current site conditions exhibit severe structural deficiency but original brick
and stone foundations, wood floors, and wood framing and walls are present.
The owner desires to rebuild the carriage house within the original footprint and according
to the original design. Use of the carriage house is proposed to be single-family
residential with a single-car garage. Due to the cost of material salvage, architectural
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 18 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 5
replication, and construction, and given that the project is entirely privately funded, the
housing unit is not proposed to be affordable housing. Some original materials have
already been salvaged for reuse, and the owner desires to reuse as much of the existing
material and structure as possible in the reconstruction. The proposed design for
reconstruction of the carriage house has been completed and initially submitted for
discussion with the city.
The property at 222 4th Ave. is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues
neighborhood and Avenues Historic District. There are three primary issues that are
obstacles to adaptive use and reconstruction and not satisfied by any section in the
current zoning ordinance, including:
• Allowance for two residentially-used structures on the same property where the
property owner does not keep a permanent address;
• Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure;
• Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning
district.
In addition, we believe that these issues will not be resolved by the Adaptive Reuse
Ordinance (in process), revisions to the RMF-30 zoning classification (in process), and are
not addressed through the Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance.
Therefore, to address the shortcomings, the following supportive documentation and
zoning text amendment draft language are proposed for Chapter 21A.34 Overlay Districts
under 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. As a point of application
process, it is acceptable to the applicant to utilize the city’s existing process for
Conditional Use to obtain approval for use of the property. We believe that utilizing the
Conditional Use process along with Historic Landmarks Commission review for design
will adequately give the public two opportunities for input before two separate
commissions. However, if the Planning Division can determine another acceptable
application and review process that would only involve review before one commission
and administrative review, the applicant would be open to receiving information about this
possibility. The applicant reserves the right to approve or deny any proposed process
change.
The goals of this application to address the three current deficiencies and well supported
by the city’s wide range of plans and guiding documents, including those that are
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 19 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 6
neighborhood-specific, for historic preservation, and for housing. The following is a
summary list of those plans and supportive statements from each.
Avenues Master Plan
Housing and Neighborhood Improvement Planning Goal: Continue to encourage private
restoration and rehabilitation efforts in the Avenues Community through financial
assistance and supportive zoning and building code enforcement. (pg. 3)
Historic Preservation Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and
architecturally significant sites and the established character of the Avenues and South
Temple Historic Districts. (pg. 4)
Future land use map indicates Medium-Density 8-20 Unites per Gross Acre (pg. 7)
Property is situated between an urban trail (A Street) and within one block of two
Collector streets (B Street and Second Avenue), as well as a half-mile from the Central
Business District, therefore meeting this plan’s and many other plan’s goals of proximity
to transportation and for walkability.
Urban Design Planning Goal: Design public facilities to enhance the established
residential character of the Avenues, and encourage private property improvements that
are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (pg. 10)
Residential Design Guidelines
The applicant’s overall goal is most closely defined as Rehabilitation in the Salt Lake City
Design Guidelines, but could also be viewed as a combination of strategies, including
Reconstruction. Rehabilitation is defined in Part I, page 3:5:
“Rehabilitation is the process of returning a property to a state which makes a
contemporary use possible, while still preserving those portions or features of the
property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values.
Rehabilitation may include the adaptive reuse of the building, and major or minor
additions may also occur. Most good preservation projects in Salt Lake City may
be considered rehabilitation projects.”
A definition for Reconstruction is provided in the Appendix, pg. C:3, and states that
Reconstruction is:
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 20 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 7
“The act or process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and detail
of a vanished building, structure, or object, or a part thereof, as if [sic] appeared at
a specific period of time.”
Accessory Structures (Part II 9:1)
This application follows the guidelines in Chapter 9: Accessory Structures, including the
Context & Character, Design Objective, Preserving or Rehabilitating Historic Accessory
Structures, and subsections with the headings:
• Preserve a historic accessory building when feasible.
• New accessory buildings should be constructed to be compatible with the primary
structure.
• Attaching garages and carports to the primary structure should be avoided.
The Avenues (Part III 13:1-14)
This application complies with the stipulations on page 13:12 under the heading
Accessory Structures within the specific chapter for The Avenues:
• Most secondary structures were built along the rear of the lot, accessed by the alley, if
one existed. This should be continued.
• Garages, as well as driveways, should not dominate the streetscape; therefore, they
should be detached from the main house and located to the rear of the house, if
possible.
• Historically, garages and carriage houses in the Avenues were simple wood structures
covered with a gabled or hipped roof.
• A new secondary structure should follow historic precedent, in terms of material and
form.
Community Historic Preservation Plan
“The need to preserve the unique character of the City’s urban neighborhoods, while
allowing for modifications to existing homes to meet today’s current living standards for
space and convenience are important City policies.” (pg. I-8)
The CHPP references the city’s Community Housing Plan (II-7,8), and while those
references are supportive of this application, they are not from the city’s most current
housing plan. The city adopted the Growing SLC Housing Plan in 2018 and references
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 21 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 8
from that plan are included in a later section. However, the CHPP does reference goals of
the city’s Strategic Plan and Futures Report on pages II-10 and II-11. Those that are also
supportive of this application include:
- Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods.
- Our historical heritage, including historic buildings and neighborhoods, is recognized as
a vital component of an exciting, livable city. Preserve historic structures, streets, and
other landmarks in all new development strategies.
- Assist property owners with solving the challenges of adaptive reuse.
Policies and Actions Relating to Regulations
3.3I Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable
appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic
structures.
3.3k Support modifications of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use that
will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in historic
districts in an effort to ensure preservation of the structure.
Regulatory Incentives
Two sections that support this application are Flexibility in Zoning Regulations (III-31), and
Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings (III-32). These are further supported by:
3.4a Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the
preservation of historic properties.
3.4c Modification to lot, bulk and signage standards should be allowed in local historic
districts and to Landmark Sites where the modification would allow for better compliance
with the historic preservation standards than the underlying zoning standard would allow.
3.4d Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in
appropriate locations where it is found that the negative impacts can be mitigated and
where the uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the interior
of the structure.
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 22 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 9
Economic Development
6.4c Historic preservation is identified as an important means of providing employment
opportunities for local crafts persons and skilled workers which keep money in the local
economy.
Housing
6.5a Ensure zoning supports the retention and reuse of existing historic apartment and
non-residential buildings.
6.5b Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive
reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units.
6.5e Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation of
historic structures.
Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
Goal 1: Increase Housing Options
Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability
needs of a growing, pioneering city.
1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant
transportation routes.
1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing
options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing
structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts.
Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development.
Goal 3: Equitable & Fair Housing
Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity throughout
all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of opportunity.
Objective 3: Implement Life cycle Housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the
city.
3.3.1 Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that
promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages of
life.
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 23 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 10
The SLC Comprehensive Housing Policy (2016) also includes supportive statements for
this proposal:
1. Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition;
2. Respect the character and charm of predominantly residential districts, including those
with historic character and qualities, while also providing opportunities for the provision of
local goods and services easily accessed by neighborhoods;
4. Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City;
7. Recognize that residents, business owners, and local government all have a role to play
in creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods.
Plan Salt Lake
Under Sustainable Growth & Development on page 9, the paragraphs on Placemaking
and Density, and those that reference Compatibility and Green Building on page 10, are
supportive of this application.
On page 14, supportive Guiding Principles of Plan Salt Lake include the following:
2) Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how
they live, and how they get around.
3) Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City,
providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.
8) A beautiful city that is people focused.
9) Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past.
10) Vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural resources that showcase the
community’s long standing commitment to a strong creative culture.
Under Chapter 1 - Neighborhoods, the supportive Initiatives on page 17 include:
1. Maintain neighborhood stability and character.
4. Support neighborhood identity and diversity.
6. Incorporate artistic elements and support cultural events on a neighborhood scale to
reinforce neighborhood character and identity.
Under Chapter 2 - Growth, the supportive Initiatives on page 19 include:
1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as
transit and transportation corridors
3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
6. Accommodate and promote an increase in the city’s population.
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 24 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Page 11
Under Chapter 3 - Housing, the supportive Initiatives on page 21 include:
2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the
potential to be people-oriented.
6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
Under Chapter 6 - Natural Environment, the supportive Initiatives on page 27 include:
3. Practice responsible waste management by: reusing and repurposing materials,
including promoting the reuse of existing buildings over demolition.
Under Chapter 8 - Beautiful City, the supportive Initiatives on page 31 include:
5. Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure that: reflects our
diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage.
7. Reinforce and preserve neighborhood district character and a strong sense of place.
Under Chapter 9 - Preservation, the supportive Initiatives on page 33 include:
1.Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public
spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate.
3. Retain areas of structures of historic and architectural value.
4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making.
5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
Under Chapter 13 - Government, the supportive Initiatives on page 41 include:
2. Provide opportunities for public participation, input, and engagement throughout the
decision-making process.
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
PLNPCM2020-00106 25 July 9, 2020
ATTACHMENT C: APPLICANT’S NARRATIVE
PLNPCM2020-00106 26 July 9, 2020
Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment
AMENDED APPLICATION NARRATIVE
April 9, 2020
TO:
FROM:
CC:
Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division
Kirk Huffaker, Principal/Consultant, Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies
Stephen Pace, Applicant and Property Owner
NOTE
Because, as we understand it, the purpose of the “open house” is to seek broad public
input on our proposal, we have not attempted to draft our suggestions in terms of the
specific sections of the city code that will satisfy final location of the amendment within
the zoning code. In the event that our proposal is carried forward to city council, we
believe that this will need to be done under supervision of the city attorney at a later
date. Instead we have presented a synopsis below of what we believe provisions in the
zoning code should allow for in the reconstruction/rehabilitation/restoration of
documented historic carriage houses associated with current National Register of
Historic Places-listed residential sites and located in areas that already have multi-
family zoning. The narrative highlights reasons why the city should support this
measure and what we believe the limited impacts on development could be.
Stephen C. Pace, the applicant, is the owner of 222 4th Ave., Salt Lake City, and
desires to rebuild a carriage house associated with the historic William F. Beer Estate.
Four structures, including the carriage house, of the estate are listed as a Salt Lake
City Landmark Site and listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places.
The following text amendment is submitted to the Planning Division for review and
comment. The applicant desires Administrative and/or Planning Commission
consideration to resolve a property size issue in the Avenues historic district. The
current property is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues
neighborhood. There are three primary issues that are not satisfied by any section in
the current Zoning Ordinance, including all of the following:
• Two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner
does not keep a permanent address;
• Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure;
• Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning
district.
PLNPCM2020-00106 27 July 9, 2020
Page 2
As it is the desire of the applicant to obtain approval for an application under this text
amendment with one review and public process through the Historic Landmarks
Commission, we believe this language should probably be included in Chapter
21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Utilizing this process will
streamline the process for the applicant, for city review, and provide the public an
opportunity for input.
APPLICABILITY
The proposed text amendment will be applicable citywide to residences listed
individually as Salt Lake City Landmark Sites and where the residence and historic
carriage house (as defined below) are both listed on the National Register of Historic
Places as an individual listing (not simply in a National Register-listed historic district).
The applicant believes that at least four (4) residence/historic carriage house
complexes currently could meet this qualifying test. This is based on best information
available to the applicant, which in part, is included as an attachment. In the event the
city grants future Landmark Site designations, and National Register landmark status is
sought and granted by the U.S. Department of Interior, the number of qualifying sites
may increase in the future.
TEXT AMENDMENT
The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following
conditions are met:
1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
2) The property and address are individually listed on the National Register of
Historic Places.
3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had,
an identifiable carriage house on the property.
4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a
physically-detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-
drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter
animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the
owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent
property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, second story or half-story, or
open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the
roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house servants.
PLNPCM2020-00106 28 July 9, 2020
Page 3
5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be
proven, with the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed
through at least two of the following methods:
• Sanborn maps;
• Historic photographs;
• Planning, zoning or building permit records;
• Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls,
basements, etc.
6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification.
7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built
within the historic footprint).
8) Proposed alterations of a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration,
and reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of
Appropriateness from the Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission.
9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow
original/ historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback
standards. If unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for
adjacent properties, additional buffers may be required.
10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new
dwelling unit on the property.
11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use.
12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review
standards and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review
process
13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built
or subdivided illegally.
14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future.
PLNPCM2020-00106 29 July 9, 2020
Page 4
The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for
reconstruction:
1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of
the reconstruction.
2) Meeting the current minimum lot size.
Submitted February 4, 2020 / Amended April 6 and 8, 2020
This application and accompanying narrative for zoning text amendment is submitted
on behalf of Stephen Pace, property owner for 222 4th Avenue, Salt Lake City. The
applicant desires Administrative, Planning Commission, and City Council consideration
of and prompt action on the application to resolve multiple zoning issues with the
subject property that prevents the owner from achieving his goal of reconstruction of a
historic carriage house. This former carriage house was one of the four primary
structures of the historic William F. Beer Estate, which was listed in the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1977 and is an individual landmark site in the Salt
Lake City Cultural Register.
According to historic research, the Beer Estate residence and carriage house date to
circa 1899. Both were constructed according to design by architect Richard K.A.
Kletting. Kletting also served as architect for a house and carriage house with similar
details for Albert Fisher (Fisher Mansion and Carriage House) at 1206 West 200 South
in 1893. The Beer Estate carriage house is described in the NRHP nomination as
follows:
Area residents describe it as originally a two-story brick structures with a
“steeple” top. Dimensions were approximately 47’ x 40’ and it was used to
shelter (at least) nine draft/riding horses, cattle, chickens, rabbits, etc., two
buggies, and as a residence for the caretakers. The structure was cut in half
about World War I, for use as a garage. Current condition is deteriorated.
Since 1977 when the paragraph was written, the carriage house has continued to
deteriorate. Current site conditions exhibit severe structural deficiency but original
brick and stone foundations, wood floors, and wood framing and walls are present.
The owner desires to rebuild the carriage house within the original footprint and
according to the original design. Use of the carriage house is proposed to be single-
family residential with a single-car garage. Due to the cost of material salvage,
architectural replication, and construction, and given that the project is entirely
privately funded, the housing unit is not proposed to be affordable housing. Some
PLNPCM2020-00106 30 July 9, 2020
Page 5
original materials have already been salvaged for reuse, and the owner desires to reuse
as much of the existing material and structure as possible in the reconstruction. The
proposed design for reconstruction of the carriage house has been completed and
initially submitted for discussion with the city.
The property at 222 4th Ave. is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West)
Avenues neighborhood and Avenues Historic District. There are three primary issues
that are obstacles to adaptive use and reconstruction and not satisfied by any section
in the current zoning ordinance, including:
• Allowance for two residentially-used structures on the same property where the
property owner does not keep a permanent address;
• Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure;
• Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning
district.
In addition, we believe that these issues will not be resolved by the proposed Adaptive
Reuse Ordinance (in process), proposed revisions to the RMF-30 zoning classification
(in process), and are not addressed through the current Accessory Dwelling Unit
ordinance.
Therefore, to address the shortcomings, the following supportive documentation and
zoning text amendment draft language are proposed for Chapter 21A.34.020 H Historic
Preservation Overlay District. As stated above, it is the desire of the applicant to obtain
approval for an application under this text amendment with one review and public
process through the Historic Landmarks Commission. Utilizing this process will
streamline the process for the applicant, for city review, and provide the public an
opportunity for input.
The goals of this application to address the three current deficiencies and well
supported by the city’s wide range of plans and guiding documents, including those
that are neighborhood-specific, for historic preservation, and for housing. The following
is a summary list of those plans and supportive statements from each.
Avenues Master Plan
Housing and Neighborhood Improvement Planning Goal: Continue to encourage
private restoration and rehabilitation efforts in the Avenues Community through
financial assistance and supportive zoning and building code enforcement. (pg. 3)
Historic Preservation Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and
architecturally significant sites and the established character of the Avenues and South
Temple Historic Districts. (pg. 4)
PLNPCM2020-00106 31 July 9, 2020
Page 6
Future land use map indicates Medium-Density 8-20 Unites per Gross Acre (pg. 7)
Property is situated between an urban trail (A Street) and within one block of two
Collector streets (B Street and Second Avenue), as well as a half-mile from the Central
Business District, therefore meeting this plan’s and many other plan’s goals of
proximity to transportation and for walkability.
Urban Design Planning Goal: Design public facilities to enhance the established
residential character of the Avenues, and encourage private property improvements
that are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (pg. 10)
Residential Design Guidelines
The applicant’s overall goal is most closely defined as Rehabilitation in the Salt Lake
City Design Guidelines, but could also be viewed as a combination of strategies,
including Reconstruction. Rehabilitation is defined in Part I, page 3:5:
“Rehabilitation is the process of returning a property to a state which makes a
contemporary use possible, while still preserving those portions or features of
the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural
values. Rehabilitation may include the adaptive reuse of the building, and major
or minor additions may also occur. Most good preservation projects in Salt Lake
City may be considered rehabilitation projects.”
A definition for Reconstruction is provided in the Appendix, pg. C:3, and states that
Reconstruction is:
“The act or process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and
detail of a vanished building, structure, or object, or a part thereof, as if [sic]
appeared at a specific period of time.”
Accessory Structures (Part II 9:1)
This application is consistent with the guidelines in Chapter 9: Accessory Structures,
including the Context & Character, Design Objective, Preserving or Rehabilitating
Historic Accessory Structures, and subsections with the headings:
• Preserve a historic accessory building when feasible.
• New accessory buildings should be constructed to be compatible with the primary
structure.
• Attaching garages and carports to the primary structure should be avoided.
PLNPCM2020-00106 32 July 9, 2020
Page 7
The Avenues (Part III 13:1-14)
This application complies with the stipulations on page 13:12 under the heading
Accessory Structures within the specific chapter for The Avenues:
• Most secondary structures were built along the rear of the lot, accessed by the alley,
if one existed. This should be continued.
• Garages, as well as driveways, should not dominate the streetscape; therefore, they
should be detached from the main house and located to the rear of the house, if
possible.
• Historically, garages and carriage houses in the Avenues were simple wood
structures covered with a gabled or hipped roof.
• A new secondary structure should follow historic precedent, in terms of material and
form.
Community Historic Preservation Plan
“The need to preserve the unique character of the City’s urban neighborhoods, while
allowing for modifications to existing homes to meet today’s current living standards
for space and convenience are important City policies.” (pg. I-8)
The CHPP references the city’s Community Housing Plan (II-7,8), and while those
references are supportive of this application, they are not from the city’s most current
housing plan. The city adopted the Growing SLC Housing Plan in 2018 and references
from that plan are included in a later section. However, the CHPP does reference goals
of the city’s Strategic Plan and Futures Report on pages II-10 and II-11. Those that are
also supportive of this application include:
- Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods.
- Our historical heritage, including historic buildings and neighborhoods, is recognized
as a vital component of an exciting, livable city. Preserve historic structures, streets,
and other landmarks in all new development strategies.
- Assist property owners with solving the challenges of adaptive reuse.
Policies and Actions Relating to Regulations
3.3I Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable
appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic
structures.
PLNPCM2020-00106 33 July 9, 2020
Page 8
3.3k Support modifications of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use
that will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in
historic districts in an effort to ensure preservation of the structure.
Regulatory Incentives
Two sections that support this application are Flexibility in Zoning Regulations (III-31),
and Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings (III-32). These are further supported by:
3.4a Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the
preservation of historic properties.
3.4c Modification to lot, bulk and signage standards should be allowed in local historic
districts and to Landmark Sites where the modification would allow for better
compliance with the historic preservation standards than the underlying zoning
standard would allow.
3.4d Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in
appropriate locations where it is found that the negative impacts can be mitigated and
where the uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the
interior of the structure.
Economic Development
6.4c Historic preservation is identified as an important means of providing employment
opportunities for local crafts persons and skilled workers which keep money in the
local economy.
Housing
6.5a Ensure zoning supports the retention and reuse of existing historic apartment and
non-residential buildings.
6.5b Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive
reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units.
6.5e Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation
of historic structures.
PLNPCM2020-00106 34 July 9, 2020
Page 9
Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
Goal 1: Increase Housing Options
Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the
affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city.
1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant
transportation routes.
1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing
options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing
structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts.
Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing
development.
Goal 3: Equitable & Fair Housing
Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity
throughout all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of opportunity.
Objective 3: Implement Life cycle Housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the
city.
3.3.1 Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that
promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages
of life.
The SLC Comprehensive Housing Policy (2016) also includes supportive statements for
this proposal:
1. Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition;
2. Respect the character and charm of predominantly residential districts, including
those with historic character and qualities, while also providing opportunities for the
provision of local goods and services easily accessed by neighborhoods;
4. Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City;
7. Recognize that residents, business owners, and local government all have a role to
play in creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods.
Plan Salt Lake
Under Sustainable Growth & Development on page 9, the paragraphs on Placemaking
and Density, and those that reference Compatibility and Green Building on page 10,
are supportive of this application.
PLNPCM2020-00106 35 July 9, 2020
Page 10
On page 14, supportive Guiding Principles of Plan Salt Lake include the following:
2) Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how
they live, and how they get around.
3) Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City,
providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.
8) A beautiful city that is people focused.
9) Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past.
10) Vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural resources that showcase the
community’s long standing commitment to a strong creative culture.
Under Chapter 1 - Neighborhoods, the supportive Initiatives on page 17 include:
1. Maintain neighborhood stability and character.
4. Support neighborhood identity and diversity.
6. Incorporate artistic elements and support cultural events on a neighborhood scale to
reinforce neighborhood character and identity.
Under Chapter 2 - Growth, the supportive Initiatives on page 19 include:
1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as
transit and transportation corridors
3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
6. Accommodate and promote an increase in the city’s population.
Under Chapter 3 - Housing, the supportive Initiatives on page 21 include:
2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have
the potential to be people-oriented.
6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
Under Chapter 6 - Natural Environment, the supportive Initiatives on page 27 include:
3. Practice responsible waste management by: reusing and repurposing materials,
including promoting the reuse of existing buildings over demolition.
Under Chapter 8 - Beautiful City, the supportive Initiatives on page 31 include:
5. Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure that: reflects
our diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage.
7. Reinforce and preserve neighborhood district character and a strong sense of place.
Under Chapter 9 - Preservation, the supportive Initiatives on page 33 include:
1.Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public
spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate.
3. Retain areas of structures of historic and architectural value.
PLNPCM2020-00106 36 July 9, 2020
Page 11
4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making.
5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
Under Chapter 13 - Government, the supportive Initiatives on page 41 include:
2. Provide opportunities for public participation, input, and engagement throughout the
decision-making process.
PLNPCM2020-00106 37 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 38 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 39 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 40 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 41 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 42 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 43 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 44 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 45 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 46 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 47 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 48 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 49 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 50 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 51 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 52 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 53 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 54 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 55 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 56 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 57 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 58 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 59 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 60 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 61 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 62 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 63 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 64 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 65 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 66 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 67 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 68 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 69 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 70 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 71 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 72 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 73 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 74 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 75 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 76 July 9, 2020
ATTACHMENT D: ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES
The applicant provided the following list of eligible properties:
1. Fisher Mansion and Carriage House (1206 W. 200 S.)
2. Kearns Mansion (603 E. South Temple)
3. Keith Mansion (529 E. South Temple)
4. William F. Beer Estate (222 4th Avenue)
5. McIntyre House (259 7th Avenue)
The following attachments include the applicable nominations and photographs.
PLNPCM2020-00106 77 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 78 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 79 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 80 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 81 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 82 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 83 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 84 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 85 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 86 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 87 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 88 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 89 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 90 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 91 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 92 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 93 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 94 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 95 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 96 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 97 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 98 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 99 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 100 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 101 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 102 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 103 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 104 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 105 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 106 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 107 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 108 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 109 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 110 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 111 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 112 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 113 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 114 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 115 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 116 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 117 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 118 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 119 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 120 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 121 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 122 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 123 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 124 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 125 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 126 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 127 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 128 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 129 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 130 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 131 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 132 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 133 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 134 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 135 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 136 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 137 020
CM2020 00106 138 020
CM2020 00106 139 020
CM2020 00106 140 020
CM2020 00106 141 020
CM2020 00106 142 020
CM2020 00106 143 020
CM2020 00106 144 020
CM2020 00106 145 020
CM2020 00106 146 020
CM2020 00106 147 020
CM2020 00106 148 020
CM2020 00106 149 020
CM2020 00106 150 020
CM2020 00106 151 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106 152 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106 153 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106 154 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106 155 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106 156 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106 157 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106 158 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106 159 ly 9,
NPCM12600ly209-,00106
NPCM2020-00106 161 ly 9,
NPCM2012602-00l1y 096,
NPCM2020-00106 163 ly 9,
N P C M 21062J4u0l-y0 091, 026020
ATTACHMENT E: CITY PLAN CONSIDERATIONS
Adopted City Plan Policies and Guidance
Zoning text amendments are reviewed for compliance with Salt Lake City master plans and adopted
policies. There are several documents that provide guidance for historic preservation and housing. The
master plans that address historic preservation goals and policies include the following:
Community Preservation Plan
o The comprehensive plan for Historic Preservation, includes many related policies for
incentivizing preservation.
Plan Salt Lake
o Plan Salt Lake includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development.
Utilizing the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit
would be in line with the policies outline in this master plan.
o
o
o
Includes guiding policies that preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
Encourages the retention of areas and structures of historic and architectural value.
Promotes a balance of preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
Avenues Master Plan
The comprehensive plan for the Avenues encourages historic preservation of historically
and architecturally significant sites.
o
The master plans that address housing goals and policies include the following:
Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
o The housing plan encourages the creation of the flexible zoning tools and regulations to
create additional housing stock.
Plan Salt Lake
o Includes guiding policies that encourage housing options that accommodate gaining in
place, as well as the promotion of rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
Also includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development. Utilizing
the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit would be
in line with the policies outline in this master plan.
o
Community Preservation Plan
The Community Preservation Plan, adopted in 2012, indicates that the City needs to adopt a “wider
ranger of preservation tools.” Historic preservation tools are generally identified as incentives, which
can include an array of policies that encourage the preservation, restoration or reconstruction of
important historic features on historic properties.
Policy 2.1a: Ensure the long-term viability of existing local historic districts.
Policy 2.1b: Ensure consistency between the Community Preservation Plan and all other adopted
City plans.
Policy 2.3a: Identify historic preservation as an important component of the City’s sustainability
efforts based on its important economic, environmental and cultural benefits to the City.
Policy 3.2o: Explore a variety of tools to determine the appropriate method for implementing
historic preservation policies of a specific historic resource.
Policy 3.3a: Align preservation-related City regulations with the goals and policies of this plan.
PLNPCM2020-00106 165 July 9, 2020
Policy 3.3b: The Historic Preservation Overlay District standards are to be used as the basis for
decision making when considering applications and the standards should be applied in a
reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility.
Policy 3.3g: Ensure that underlying zoning is supportive of preservation policies for the area in
which historic or character preservation is proposed.
Policy 3.3i: Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable
appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic structures.
Policy 3.3k: Support modification of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use that
will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in historic districts in
an effort to ensure preservation of the structure.
Policy 3.4a: Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the
preservation of historic properties.
Policy 3.4b: Develop a wide range of incentives to encourage the protection of historic properties.
Policy 3.4d: Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in
appropriate locations where it is found that he negative impacts can be mitigated and where the
uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the interior of the structure.
Policy 6.1a: Historic Preservation is a primary tool to implement the sustainable goals of Salt
Lake City.
Policy 6.1b: The energy benefits, including life-cycle costs of preserving older buildings, should be
understood by property owners, development professionals, decision makers, City Staff and the
general public.
Policy 6.5b: Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive
reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units.
Policy 6.5e: Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation
of historic structures.
Plan Salt Lake
Guiding Principle: Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past.
Initiatives:
1. Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public spaces,
streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate.
3. Retain areas and structures of historic and architectural value.
4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making.
5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
6. Improve education and outreach about the value of historic preservation.
Plan Salt Lake Housing Goals and Policies
Guiding Principal/ Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the
city, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.
1. Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low income).
2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
3. Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place.
4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the
potential to be people-oriented.
PLNPCM2020-00106 166 July 9, 2020
5. Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate.
6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
7. Promote high density residential in areas served by transit.
8. Support homeless services.
Avenues Master Plan
Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites and
the established character of the Avenues and South Temple Historic District.
Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of
a growing, pioneering city.
1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options,
create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while
minimizing neighborhood impacts.
Staff Discussion:
The above stated policies and guidelines relate to the proposed language for the historic carriage
house reconstruction or restoration for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The policies and
guidelines encourage the creation of additional housing through flexibility and incentives within the
Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The proposed language also promotes the sustainability through
the restoration or recreation of a historic carriage house.
PLNPCM2020-00106 167 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 168 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 169 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 170 July 9, 2020
ATTACHMENT G: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS
The zoning text amendment was posted on Salt Lake City Planning Division’s website on April 6,
2020, for public engagement and comment purposes. Notice of the post was provided via Listserve.
All of the public comments that have been submitted are attached.
PLNPCM2020-00106 171 July 9, 2020
May 8, 2020
Kelsey Lindquist
Senior Planner
Salt Lake City Planning Division
Dear Mr. Lindquist,
I am writing to you regarding the petition to amend Title 21A-Zoning of the
city code to allow for the reconstruction of a documented historic carriage house
at 222 4th Avenue. My wife and I reside in our home in the upper avenues and we
own three units in the Carlton Towers at 266 East 4th Avenue; which is less than a
quarter of a block from the subject property.
The proposed amendments seem quite reasonable if a process for approval
includes safeguards that assures conformity to historic values. With appropriate
reviews, the preservation and/or reconstruction of historic landmark sites
acknowledged by the National Register of Historic Places would be possible and
would serve to enhance the aesthetic of the Avenues Historic District as well as
several other unique sites and neighborhoods in our city.
I believe that the request to obtain approval for an application under the
proposed amendment utilizing the Historic Landmarks Commission’s review and
public scrutiny process provides the safeguards necessary to maintain historic
integrity.
I would encourage the City to approve the Zoning Amendment request.
Respectfully,
Jim Bradley
Salt Lake City, Utah 84103
PLNPCM2020-00106 174 July 9, 2020
From:
To:
Barbara Hounsell
Stephen C Pace
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Lindquist, Kelsey; Scott S. Cruze
(EXTERNAL) Stephen C. Pace Carriage House Project
Wednesday, May 13, 2020 11:44:04 AM
Hello Stephen,
Barbara and I enjoyed talking with you on Sunday about your Carriage House
reconstruction project.
Assuming proper engineering and construction practices are followed, we are
in full support of this historically important project as described as the Stephen
C. Pace Historic Carriage House proposed zoning text amendment, 222 4th
Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah.
The proper engineering and construction to which we refer must protect the
integrity of the existing retaining wall on the north side of our Peery Apartment
property. The project must not compromise our retaining wall with additional
loads, including loads that come from structures, dirt or fill, landscape
materials, vegetation, or water and water retention.
Sincerely,
Barbara Hounsell
Alex Cross
Owners of the Peery Apartments, LLC
Cc:
Scott Cruze
Kelsey Lindquist
PLNPCM2020-00106 175 July 9, 2020
From:
To:
Carol Foster
Lindquist, Kelsey
Cc:Paul Foster
Subject:
Date:
(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2020-00106, 222 4th Ave
Friday, May 15, 2020 10:12:32 AM
To whom it may concern:
We are writing in support of Stephen Pace’s renovation of 222 4th Ave. We are neighbors at
163 B St.
We have spoken with Stephen and support his renovation plan.
Our primary concerns were regarding keeping the community feeling of our neighborhood,
promoting house ownership over renting, against Airbnbs / apartments and for more long-term
housing for families or individuals.
Stephen explained that his rentals have very little turnover of renters and we have witnessed
that, living here since 2002.
Another concern was windows overlooking our property (backyard of 163 B Street) and
Stephen explained there weren’t any.
Feel free to reach out to us if you have any questions.
Many thanks,
Carol and Paul Foster
PLNPCM2020-00106 176 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
children had taken over his property, they executed a sale of the strip to me in exchange
for $10. I began paying property taxes on the strip in 2018.
A third person, Mr. Thomas Mulcock, 212 4th Ave, (801) 864-3881 owns a four-plex and
garages on the southwest corner of the 222 lot. I provided him with the zoning change
package in April but did not reach him by phone until May 11. He indicated that he did
not carefully read my proposal, that he had no necessary objection to it, but that due to
his wife's critical illness he doubted he would get to it in the near future. I told him that
under the circumstances I would not bother him again.
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
4) HISTORIC LANDMARK
COMMISSION
b) Agenda/Minutes
July 16, 2020
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING
July 16, 2020 at 5:30 PM
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b).
IMPORTANT MEETING INFORMATION
This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members will connect
remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Historic Landmark Commission meetings can still access the
meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Historic Landmark Commission meetings, they
are available on the following platforms:
•YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
•SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comments, email;
historiclandmarks.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on WebEx at:
http://tiny.cc/slc-hlc-07-16-2020
Instructions for using WebEx are provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning. It is recommended to login 10 minutes prior to
the start of the meeting.
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM
Approval of Minutes for June 4, 2020
Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Director’s Report
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Commission will hear public comments not pertaining to items listed on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment
The Salt Lake City Planning Division has received a zoning text amendment petition from Kirk Huffaker, on behalf of Stephen
Pace, to permit the reconstruction of historic carriage houses associated with Salt Lake City Landmark Sites and National
Register sites located within the RMF-35 (Moderate Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), SR-1A (Special
Development Residential) and I (Institutional) zoning districts. The reconstructed or restored historic carriage house would be
utilized as a dwelling unit. The proposed text amendment is City wide. Related provisions of Title 21A Zoning may be amended
as part of this petition. (Staff contact Kelsey Lindquist (801) 434-7930 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com). Case number
PLNPCM2020-00106
NEXT MEETING
The next regular meeting of the Commission is scheduled for Thursday, August 6, 2020, unless a special meeting is scheduled
prior to that date.
For Historic Landmark Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at
slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two
days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Historic Landmark
Commission.
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING
July 16, 2020 at 5:30 PM
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b).
APPEAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION DECISION
Anyone who is an “adversely affected party” as defined by Utah Code Section 10-9a-103, may appeal a decision of the Historic
Landmark Commission by filing a written appeal with the appeals hearing officer within ten (10) calendar days following the date
on which a record of decision is issued.
The applicant may object to the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission by filing a written appeal with the appeals hearing
officer within thirty (30) calendar days following the date on which a record of decision is issued
For Historic Landmark Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at
slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two
days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Historic Landmark
Commission.
SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING
This meeting was held electronically pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b)
Thursday, July 16, 2020
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission Meeting. The meeting was
called to order at 5:30:00 PM . Audio recordings of the Historic Landmark Commission meetings are
retained for a period of time.
Present for the Historic Landmark Commission meeting were: Chairperson Kenton Peters,
Commissioners Rocio Torres Mora, Victoria Petro- Eschler, Michael Vela and Paul Svendsen. Vice
Chairperson Robert Hyde and David Richardson were excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Paul Nielson,
Attorney; Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner and Rosie Jimenez, Administrative Secretary.
Chairperson Peters provided participation options and instructions to the public.
APPROVAL OF THE June 4, 2020, MEETING MINUTES.
MOTION
Commissioner Petro- Eschler moved to approve the June 4, 2020, meeting minutes.
Commissioner Svendsen seconded the motion. Commissioners Vela, Maw, Petro-Eschler,
Svendsen, and Torres Mora, “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Chairperson Peters reported, Commissioner Esther Stowell has stepped down from the Historic
Landmark Commission. We appreciate her service and wish her well on her next steps. We are working
on filling her seat.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Commissioner Adams will not be reappointed he has chosen to step down. There are now two vacancies.
There have been several people who have applied. We will update as we find out new information.
5:30:36 PM
Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment
The Salt Lake City Planning Division has received a zoning text amendment petition from Kirk Huffaker, on behalf
of Stephen Pace, to permit the reconstruction of historic carriage houses associated with Salt Lake City Landmark
Sites and National Register sites located within the RMF-35 (Moderate Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential
Office), SR-1A (Special Development Residential) and I (Institutional) zoning districts. The reconstructed or restored
historic carriage house would be utilized as a dwelling unit. The proposed text amendment is City wide. Related
provisions of Title 21A Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact Kelsey Lindquist (801) 434-
7930 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com). Case number PLNPCM2020-00106
Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, reviewed the proposal and recommended that the Historic Landmark Commission
review the proposed regulations and make recommendations to the Planning Commission.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
•
•
Reasoning behind approving demolishing and reconstructing versus creating and ADU
Clarification on owner occupancy on an ADU
Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission July 16, 2020 Page 1
•
•
•
Clarification on Staff Report in reviewing alterations
Questions on zoning codes
Restoration or Reconstruction of the existing structure
Kirk Huffaker and Stephen Pace were available for questions.
The Commission and Applicant discussed the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
How does the Proposal benefit the City as a whole
Total of Carriage Houses and explanation
Clarification of proposed qualifying zones
Clarification of the request and building renovation
More clarification on the existing structure
Preservation clarification
Definition of Carriage House
Lot line adjustment or consolidation
PUBLIC HEARING 6:30:46 PM
Chairperson Peters opened the Public Hearing;
Cindy Cromer – In support of proposal and asks city and commissioner to approve
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Peters closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION 6:54:18 PM
Commissioner Svendsen made a motion that the Historic Landmark Commission Move that the
HLC forward the following recommendation to the Planning Commission:
1. The Commission is generally very supportive of the applicant’s goals of increasing density
on the property and making the property more economically sensible.
2. The Commission also suggests that there are significant shortcoming both procedural and
substantive with the current zoning ordinance that are preventing reasonable development
on properties like this.
3. This seems like an end around of the existing City’s ordinance regarding Accessory
Dwelling Units and also the RMF-35
4. Because of the application is so limited it is like spot zoning and that can have unforeseen
consequences with respect to future neighbors and a variety of circumstances.
In summary, the HLC forwards a negative recommendation to this particular proposal but urges
the Planning Commission to consider other changes to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance
or RMF-35 Ordinance that would permit the applicant to move forward with what he is proposing
and applies to the City more broadly as a whole.
Commissioner Torres-Mora seconded the motion Commissioners Vela, Svendsen, Petro- Eschler.
Maw, Torres-Mora, voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 7:07:58 PM
Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission July 16, 2020 Page 2
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
This meeting was held electronically
Wednesday, February 23, 2022
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to
order at approximately 5:30 pm. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for
a period of time. These minutes are a summary of the meeting. For complete commentary and
presentation of the meeting, please visit https://www.youtube.com/c/SLCLiveMeetings.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Vice-Chairperson Maurine Bachman,
Commissioners Andra Ghent, Jon Lee, Andres Paredes, Mike Christensen, Brenda Scheer, Adrienne
Bell, and Aimee Burrows. Chairperson Amy Barry was excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Planning Manager John Anderson, Planning
Manager Kelsey Lindquist, Senior City Attorney Hannah Vickery, Associate Planner Grant Amann,
Principal Planner Katia Pace, Senior Planner Kristina Gilmore, Senior Planner Eric Daems, Urban
Designer Laura Bandara, Principal Planner Amanda Roman, Administrative Secretary David Schupick,
and Administrative Secretary Aubrey Clark.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR & VICE-CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2022
Brenda abstained. All other Commissioners voted “yes”. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ADU Conditional Use at Approximately 1532 South Green Street - Dorian Rosen, the property owner,
has requested conditional use approval for a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to be situated in
the rear, west side of the property located at the above-stated address. The ADU will be 14’8” tall and
650 square-feet. To meet the requirements to allow the ADU to reach the maximum 650 square feet a
425 square foot addition to the main dwelling will be built. The subject property is zoned R-1 /5,000
(Single-Family Residential) and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff
contact: Grant Amann at 801-535-6171 or grant.amann@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021-
01273
Associate Planning Grant Amann reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff report. He stated that Staff
recommends approval with conditions listed in the staff report. He reviewed the ADU size, parking
location, ADU access, and neighborhood compatibility.
Commissioner Aimee Burrows shared concern about condition number 3 being added in. She felt that it
should not be added into the conditions because it is already part of City code.
The Commissioners discussed how it was handled on previous cases.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 1
The Applicant Dorian Rosen stated that he was available for any questions but did not have a
presentation.
Commissioner Ghent asked the applicant if he was aware of the City not permitting rentals under 30
days. The applicant stated that he was aware.
PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Bachman opened the public hearing.
Seeing that no one wished to speak, Commissioner Bachman closed the public hearing.
MOTION
Commissioner Brenda Scheer stated, Motion to Approve with Modifications Recommended by
the Planning Commission: Based on the findings listed in the staff report, the information
presented, and input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission
approve the Conditional Use petition (PLNPCM2021-01273) as proposed, with the conditions
listed in the staff report, with the following modifications: removal of condition 3.
Commissioner Andra Ghent seconded the motion. Commissioners Andres Paredes, Mike
Christensen, Adrienne Bell, Jon Lee, Andra Ghent, Aimee Burrows, and Brenda Scheer voted
“yes”. The motion passed unanimously.
Green Street Alley Vacation - Sara Koenig, the property owner at approximately 1343 S Green Street,
is requesting Salt Lake City to vacate a "T" shaped alley running between 1300 South and Harrison
Avenue and Green Street and 700 East. The alley exists on paper only and the abutting property owners
have incorporated the alley into their properties. The property abutting this alley is zoned R-1/5,000
(Single-Family Residential District) and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano.
(Staff contact: Katia Pace at 801-535-6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-
00903
Principal Planner Katia Pace reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. She stated that Staff
recommends a positive recommendation to City Council.
Commissioner Aimee Burrows asked for clarification on if the property owners will have to buy the land
or if it will be deeded to them. Katia Pace stated that it will be deeded to them, based on single family
residential zoning. Commissioner Burrows stated that she remembers another case in which the property
owners had to purchase the land. Katia Pace stated that is the case for multifamily zoning districts or
commercial properties. Commissioner Burrows asked if encroachment is a reason for vacant use of the
alley. Katia Pace stated that in the past it functioned as an alley but since the demolition of the properties
on the east side for the expansion of 700 East, it no longer functioned as an alley. Commissioner Burrows
asked for clarification that the lack of use then caused the encroachment. Katia Pace stated that was
correct. Commissioner Burrows asked if all the property owners have signed onto the project. Katia Pace
stated that the applicant was looking for a building permit on top of the alley, and at that moment found
the property was not theirs but the city’s property. She also stated that the five property owners have
signed the form and the approval of the church for this application.
Nicholas Lumby stated that he did apply for the application when he found out the land was not part of
his property. He stated that one of his neighbors had tried to get the alley vacated before in the past.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 2
Principal Planner Amanda Roman reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. She stated that
Staff recommends a positive recommendation to City Council.
Commissioner Aimee Burrows asked if this rezone would prevent demolition of homes. Amanda Roman
clarified that when it is brought to City Council, the applicant will enter into a development agreement with
the city that will require them to maintain at least the same number of housing units. Amanda Roman
also stated that she is not sure if that agreement will state that they cannot demolish and then rebuild the
existing structures, but the applicant will be tied into their “replacement” housing choice as outlined in
their housing mitigation plan. Aimee Burrows asked for clarification on if they will not necessarily be
required to keep the two old existing houses. Amanda Roman stated that she doesn’t believe so. John
Anderson stated that it is hard to require that outside of the historic districts.
Bert Holland stated that he has already begun renovation and has families eager to move in. He also
stated that he has already attracted a high number of diverse buyers seeking single-family workforce
housing.
PUBLIC HEARING
Vice-Chair Maurine Bachman opened the public hearing.
Seeing that no one wished to speak, Vice-Chair Maurine Bachman closed the public hearing.
MOTION
Commissioner Brenda Scheer stated, Based on the information in the staff report, the information
presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission
forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve PLNPCM2021-01073.
Commissioner Mike Christensen seconded the motion. Commissioners Andra Ghent, Jon Lee,
Andres Paredes, Mike Christensen, Brenda Scheer, Adrienne Bell, and Aimee Burrows all voted
“yes”. The motion passed unanimously.
Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment – Stephen Pace, the applicant, is requesting a
zoning text amendment to permit the restoration or reconstruction of a historic carriage house for the
purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The dwelling unit, located within the reconstructed or restored
historic carriage house, would not be required to meet density, lot coverage, setbacks of the applicable
base zoning district, or the accessory structure footprint or height limitations. The proposed language
requires eligible properties to be both a Salt Lake City Landmark and listed as a National Register Site
of Historic Places and located in one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-
Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), I (Institutional) or SR-1A (Special Development Pattern
Residential). (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist at 385-226-7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case
number PLNPCM2020-00106
Planning Manager Kelsey Lindquist reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. She stated that
Staff recommends denial of the proposal because it does not meet the standards. She reviewed the text
amendment background stating that the proposal originally went before the Historic Landmark
Commission and received a negative recommendation. She shared some of the conflicts including the
existing ADU ordinance which requires an owner occupancy requirement, but the applicant does not live
on site. She listed other compliance issues as all principal structures require street frontage, lot
minimums, and lot and bulk requirements. She stated that Staff has tried to work with the applicant on
language solutions but was ultimately unsuccessful. Staff forwarded the amendment to the Historic
Landmark Commission for review to receive direction for the applicant on the proposed language, but
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 9
the Commission forwarded a negative recommendation against the proposal. She stated that the HLC
did not discuss potential solutions to improve the language. She said that the applicant, since going
before the HLC in July of 2020, has yet to put the proposed language in an ordinance format, address
Staff concerns about enforceability and administration, and requested to continue to the planning
commission for recommendation to the City Council. She reviewed the criteria that included in the
ordinance format as: purpose statement, definition of terms, applicability, process, and standards/criteria.
She noted that the existing language does not include much of the criteria which is crucial for Staff and
City Council. She reviewed the purpose of the text amendment and incentive to the text amendment. She
reviewed the other eligible properties that the text amendment could affect.
The applicant Stephen Pace shared a photo slide of the Beer estate. He stated, “Just above the left
center of the photograph is the white topped buildings or carriage house and a 30-year-old older building
referred to as the harness shop from 1867 you can see from the photograph that there I guess were no
drones or aerial photographs being taken in salt lake but you can date it you know very securely. The city
and county building is finished on the upper left-hand corner The catholic cathedral is under construction
in the upper middle of the picture and so on so. If we could go one more okay this is working this is the
block that's under this is the block that's under consideration we heard our stuff earlier in the evening that
about the problems with people misunderstanding alleyways in the avenues this block is an excellent
example if you look down on the lower right hand corner at property 225 of third avenue you can see that
there's about six feet of that house that is on the neighbor's property and then if you look at 223 fourth
avenue there's about a similar six feet of that house but or that apartment building that is on 225's property
and the same thing with 217 and so on now these are not maps are not absolutely accurate but I had the
properties surveyed and I know they're darn close if you go up to 222 which is the carriage house address
you can see that there's a white roof building almost dead center in the photograph that I guess I own
about six feet of that neighbor's garage and the whopper is if you go up to the northwest corner 4th
avenue and a street you can see a under some trees there is a fake looking anyway carriage house built
in 1990 with the Salt Lake City building permit where Salt Lake City gave the builder permission to just
take the city land so about two-thirds of the garage there on the corner of that lot does not belong to the
belongs to Salt Lake City and it was given away. I raised that issue with the city saying well if you're
willing to part with that ground I’d like to get a few hundred feet can I do that oh no and the city the chief
of staff then decided that they were going to start sending out bills to the people that owned that carriage
house for a couple thousand dollars that take carriage house a couple of thousand dollars a year and I
said you don't want to do that that's a hornet's nest and they sent out the first set of bills and then they
chickened out they did not have the they just canceled the bills and decided that well we'll go we'll just
give away the property because of our mistake so on the next page then this is the beer mansion the
photograph that you were shown earlier by Miss Lindquist is about a 500 foot footprint of image of the
carriage house or I'm sorry of the harness shop house which has nothing to do with the you know pretty
imposing structure you can see there the cladding designed to serve the or cladding designed together
with the carriage house to serve the William Beer family next slide these two buildings then the one in
front outlined in red is the harness shop house about just about exactly 500 square feet of footprint and
behind it outlined in blue is the carriage house as it was built in and this is the 1905 photo next one please
so to give you a feeling for what that looks like if you take the 222 fourth avenue this is just about dead
center in the photograph or in the map the Sanborn Fire Map you can see a square darkish building yeah
that has if well an analogy would be that if you were looking if you were taking god's view of the
Washington monument looking down on the Washington monument you would see almost exactly that
same profile a pyramid top that the only way you can get a building shaped like that fire like the fire map
shows is for a ride a pyramid but instead of sitting on a 500 foot limestone base I believe it is for the
Washington monument it's only on a 10-foot brick base so then we scanned that into the go ahead from
the tower on 8th street and 6th avenue and so here is what the carriage house behind once again behind
the harness shop house looks like in you know to within probably an inch maybe an inch and a half of
resolution there's enough photographic evidence of remaining materials on site that we basically know
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 10
that what the building looked like was a 10 foot brick or a 10 foot high 35 foot wide brick cube with a
pyramid on top of it and it's a right angle pyramid with all the faces looking to look the same now for some
context most of what we talked about with the historic landmarks commission I had assumed an error
that they were people a little closer to their high school geometry than they evidently were and that they
would understand what we were proposing it's the Washington monument with a pyramid and a drip edge
on it and that's what we're proposing to build or to rebuild and it's a design that is I believe about 4 500
years old it ain't new Greeks had it the Egyptians have it it's been around for a long time we got a lot of
pushback from the landmarks commission with people saying that your design is speculative it's
conjectural you don't know what the building looked like that was probably the biggest single thing we
talked about in the landmarks commission hearing it turns out though that with the stuff that miss Lindquist
has published last week the mention of concept of improper design conjectural design and so on that's
all banished that's all gone someplace else so the city doesn't so what the main thing the city believed or
that the landmark commission believed just was not true and it's disappeared from the record.”
Vice-Chair Bachman interject to let the applicant know that he had one minute of presentation time
remaining.
The applicant stated “Okay well let's see is there um we're looking here if I just let me summarize it let's
go to the last page okay let's look at this one I looked at four almost 400 dwelling units that have gone
through landmark sites since January 2019 actually they went back a year past that so that's four years
worth of data that produced 111 applications for dwelling unit review the pages of text that generated was
just under eight thousand now the champion in terms of pages that were submitted to the landmarks
commission is the beer carriage house which has 179 pages of stuff to go through the winner and still
champion based on the planning commission submission is that it's now grown to 187.”
Vice-Chair Bachman asked Mr. Pace to wrap up his presentation.
Mr. Pace stated, “well yeah what I'd like to do would be to come back and talk since I’ve got 187 pages
that I've got a report on here and we only talked about three pages three of those pages at the landmarks
mission hearing I would like to be rescheduled to give to do justice to this and talk about what we've
proposed what we haven't proposed and what the city has the planning staff has substituted for
it's ill-considered and withdrawn older proposals.”
Vice-Chair Bachman asked Mr. Pace if he would like to withdraw his application.
Mr. Pace said no.
Vice-Chair Bachman asked if the Commissioners had any questions for Mr. Pace.
Commissioner Scheer asked if Mr. Pace understood that the text amendment that he was proposing
would only affect him and a few other properties. The applicant stated yes it would affect 4 other
properties. Commissioner Scheer stated that the text amendment which he has submitted has some
deficiencies. She stated that the slides of the property that Mr. Pace shared had nothing to do with the
text amendment he was requesting.
PUBLIC HEARING
Vice-Chair Bachman opened the public hearing.
Seeing that no one wished to speak, Vice-Chair Bachman closed the public hearing.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 11
Commissioner Burrows asked if City Council voted on the text amendment after it was forwarded with a
negative recommendation from the Historic Landmark Commission. Planning Manager Kelsey Lindquist
said that it had not been voted on, HLC being the first step in the process and Planning Commission
being the second step.
MOTION
Commissioner Andra Ghent stated, Based on the information in the staff report, the information
presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission
forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the requested zoning text amendment
for carriage house reconstruction.
Commissioner Aimee Burrows seconded the motion. Commissioners Brenda Scheer, Aimee
Burrows, Andra Ghent, Jon Lee, Adrienne Bell, Mike Christensen, Andres Paredes voted “yes”.
The motion passed with a negative recommendation forwarded to the City Council.
The meeting adjourned at 9:31 PM.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 12
5) ORIGINAL APPLICANT
PETITION
6) MAILING LIST
OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADD OWN_CITY
181 N 'B' STSALT LAKE CITY
PO BOX 490JACKSON
OWN_ZIP OWN_STATE
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED
AIC INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, LLC
Current Occupant
84103
WY
UT
UT
83001
84102
84114
84102
84114
84103
529 E SOUTSalt Lake City
450 N STATSALT LAKE CITY
603 E SOUTSalt Lake City
PO BOX 145SALT LAKE CITY
STATE OF UTAH
Current Occupant
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
UT
UT
UT
JUSTIN R PADAWER; SALLY G PADAWER (JT259 E SEVE SALT LAKE CITY UT
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Sam Owen, Policy Analyst
DATE:July 11, 2023
RE: Community Renewable Energy Agency (CREA) status and next steps
ISSUE AT A GLANCE
The Community Renewable Energy Agency (CREA) is approaching a complete application to the state
commission that regulates the current proposal and potential future program. The current step is
working with all member communities and Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) to get approval for the
utility agreement. The transmittal includes a resolution for Council consideration on the utility
agreement and continued city participation in the program and application process.
This item is before the Council for feedback and review.
OTHER BACKGROUND
Major items of the utility agreement include:
•Terms of payment for a technical consultant as part of the program application (all member
communities have paid this amount)
•Communities agree to pay for opt-out noticing to customers as required by state law, if they
adopt the final Program ordinance; SLC's estimated noticing cost has already been budgeted as
part of the FY24 SLC Sustainability budget but will not be paid unless City Council adopts the
final Program ordinance
•Addresses the topic of how any unpaid termination fees at the time of program dissolution will
be handled
The Utility Agreement does not address the following topics that will be addressed in
the Program Application:
•Regular costs for customers once the renewable energy program is active
Item Schedule:
Briefing: 7/11/23
Public Hearing: n/a
Potential Action: 8/8/23
Page | 2
•Financial backstop, procurement and other elements related to the operation of the program
and resource acquisition
•Amounts of termination fees
Major items of the resolution include:
•Language affirming city commitment to mitigating climate change through supporting clean
energy
•Reference to a 2016 clean energy resolution adopted by the Council and Mayor at that time
•Listing of CREA history up to this point, including the background and need for the utility
agreement
Finally, the resolution RESOLVED clauses read as follows:
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as
follows:
1. The City Council hereby ratifies the City’s ongoing participation in developing the
community renewable energy program application, in conjunction with the
Communities, CREA, and RMP.
2. The City Council hereby demonstrates support of Councilmember Dan Dugan in
executing the Utility Agreement in his role as Chair of the CREA Board.
3. The City Council reserves its rights to separately consider adoption of the Ordinance
[the future ordinance that would enact the program, after state review and decision].
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. Council Members might wish to ask about any City obligations under the agreement or
program application if the program fails to get regulatory approval or struggles for other
reasons.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Transmittal (including resolution)
Salt Lake City Council
Community Renewable Energy Agency
Purpose of today’s work session
Goals:
•Review and discuss the draft resolution
•Answer questions about the program status and timeline
Please note that the following terms may be used interchangeably:
•Community Renewable Energy Agency
•CREA
•Utah 100 Communities
•Utah 100 Program
Steps on the resolution and Council role
Major items of the resolution include:
• Language affirming city commitment to mitigating climate change through supporting clean energy
• Reference to a 2016 clean energy resolution adopted by the Council and Mayor at that time
• Listing of CREA history up to this point, including the background and need for the utility agreement
Finally, the resolution RESOLVED clauses read as follows:
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows:
1.The City Council hereby ratifies the City’s ongoing participation in developing the community
renewable energy program application, in conjunction with the Communities, CREA, and RMP.
2.The City Council hereby demonstrates support of Councilmember Dan Dugan in executing the
Utility Agreement in his role as Chair of the CREA Board.
3.The City Council reserves its rights to separately consider adoption of the Ordinance [the future
ordinance that would enact the program, after state review and decision].
Steps on the Utility Agreement
•The Utility Agreement is next to remain eligible for the Community Renewable Energy Program.
•Each participating community must be prepared to sign the agreement in order to continue with the application.
•Each participating community signs separately
•The draft Utility Agreement is consistent with how the Program was described in the Council’s last briefing
Steps to maintain eligibility for & develop Community Renewable Energy Program
Community net-
100% Resolution
Adopted
23 communities
adopted
Establishes net-
100% goal to
ensure eligibility
for Program, as
required by law
Interlocal
Governance
Agreement
Signed
18 communities
signed
Maintains eligibility
for Program, as
required by law &
outlines Community
Renewable Energy
Agency (CREA)
interlocal cooperative
structure
Utility
Agreement – to
be signed
All communities
sign with the utility
Maintains eligibility
for Program, as
required by law
One agreement,
approved by the
Board and signed by
each community
Program
Application – to
be submitted
Agency approves
and utility submits
Maintains eligibility
for Program, as
required by law
Target submission:
end of March 2023
Receive
Approval from
Utah PSC
Program is
approved
Commission order
may require changes
to program rates,
materials, etc.
Potential timeline:
3-6 months after
Program Application
is submitted
Adopt
Ordinance
Each community
adopts
Adopts the approved
Program for the
community
Must be approved
within 90 days of
Utah PSC approval
State legislature
and Utah PSC
Establishes
requirements &
defines pathway to
develop program
HB 411 Enabling
Legislation
Passed and Rules
Adopted
ERIN MENDENHALL OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Mayor
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
06/27/2023
Date Received:
______________________________Lisa Shaffer (Jun 27, 2023 15:04 MDT)
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer 06/27/2023Date Sent to Council:
TO:Salt Lake City Council
Darin Mano, Chair
DATE: June 27, 2023
FROM:Debbie Lyons, Sustainability Director
SUBJECT: Resolution Supporting Salt Lake City’s Participation in the Community
Renewable Energy Program
STAFF CONTACTS:Sophia Nicholas
Sustainability Deputy Director
Sophia.Nicholas@slcgov.com | 801-535-7755
DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution endorsing the City’s ongoing participation
in developing a community renewable energy program.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
In order to protect the public health and safety of Salt Lake City’s residents, ensure access to clean
air and water, and secure the livability of our environment, Salt Lake City is committed to reducing
climate-harming emissions and supporting greater uses of renewable energy in the community and
for municipal operations.
In 2016, the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor Jackie Biskupski adopted a joint resolution
establishing, among other targets, a goal to achieve 100% renewable energy for its community
electricity supply by 2032.
As part of that effort, Salt Lake City began collaborating with Rocky Mountain Power and other
Utah communities on a pathway to achieve a “net-100%” renewable electricity supply for the entire
community. (The term “net” denotes matching the amount of electricity a participating community
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
ERIN MENDENHALL OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Mayor
uses annually with the amount of new renewable energy delivered to the grid through new energy
developments.)
In March 2019, the Utah Legislature passed the Community Renewable Energy Act, Utah Code
⸹⸹54-17-901 to -909 (the “Act”), and Governor Herbert signed this legislation into law. The
legislation authorizes a filing to the Utah Public Service Commission (“PSC”) to create rules, rates
and expectations for communities desiring to be served by a net-100% renewable electricity
portfolio by 2030. Rocky Mountain Power is the facilitator of the program for participating
communities in their service territory.
In August 2019, as required by the Act, the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor Biskupski passed a
new joint resolution updating the Salt Lake City community electricity goal date to 2030, including
the 2030 target date for achieving net-100% renewable electricity.
Since that time, Salt Lake City has worked with Rocky Mountain Power and 17 other communities
in developing a community renewable energy program application that meets the requirements of
the Act. Please see attached resolution and visual graphic for more details.
In 2023, the Administration expects Rocky Mountain Power to submit this application to the PSC.
The application must include, among other items, information about the customers within the
boundaries of the participating communities, projected rates under the proposed program, an
agreement between each participating community and the qualified electric utility (a “Utility
Agreement”), a low-income plan, a proposed solicitation plan for the acquisition of renewable
energy resources, and a draft ordinance that establishes a participating community’s participation in
the program, which can only be considered for adoption by each community following approval of
the application by the PSC (the “Ordinance”).
The Ordinance has been developed with input from Salt Lake City staff and Salt Lake City Council
Member Dan Dugan, who also serves as the Community Renewable Energy Agency (“CREA”)
Board Chair. The draft Ordinance was shared with the City Council in November 2022. After PSC
approval of the program application, the Ordinance will be sent to the City Council for approval or1
disapproval of Salt Lake City’s participation in the approved program. City Council has the ultimate
authority to choose whether the City will participate in the Community Renewable Energy Program
when considering the Ordinance.
The remaining elements of the program application have been developed jointly between the
communities, CREA, and RMP. Completion of the final outstanding item, the Utility Agreement,
will allow RMP to finalize the program application for PSC submission. The participating
communities, RMP, and the CREA Board anticipate finalizing the Utility Agreement in the coming
weeks.
1 After RMP submits the program application, the PSC will undertake its review process. It is important to
note that the PSC may or may not make modifications to the program from what is submitted in the program
application as part of the review and approval process.
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
ERIN MENDENHALL OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Mayor
At this critical juncture, the Administration requests the City Council signal its continued support for
the City’s ongoing participation in developing the Community Renewable Energy Program
application, in conjunction with the other participating communities, the CREA, and Rocky
Mountain Power.
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
ERIN MENDENHALL OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Mayor
Exhibit A- Resolution
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
RESOLUTION NO. ___ OF 2023
(A Resolution of the City Council endorsing the City’s ongoing participation in development of a
community renewable energy program)
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation (“City”), as a municipal government, is
responsible for promoting the public health and safety of its residents, including access to clean
air, clean water, and a livable environment; and
WHEREAS, energy resources utilized as a municipal government and community
significantly impact public health and safety, including the economic and social well-being of
current and future residents; and
WHEREAS, there is scientific consensus regarding the reality of climate change and the
connection between human activity, especially the combustion of fossil fuels that create
greenhouse gases, and warming of the planet; and
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City is already feeling the effects of climate change locally
through increased temperatures, changes in water systems, extreme weather events, and other
disruptions that threaten our economy, residents, and overall quality of life; and
WHEREAS, the transition to a low-carbon community reliant on the efficient use of
renewable energy resources will provide a range of benefits including improved air quality,
enhanced public health, increased national and energy security, local green jobs, reduced reliance
on finite resources and myriad other positive outcomes; and
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City is committed to helping facilitate this transition alongside
other national and international communities that have prioritized addressing climate change by
investing in clean energy to enhance the well-being of current and future generations; and
WHEREAS, electricity generation has contributed the largest share of Salt Lake City’s
calculated municipal and community greenhouse gas emissions; and
WHEREAS, the on November 1, 2016, the City Council and Mayor adopted a Joint
Resolution stating certain energy commitments, including its goal of ensuring the transition to
100% renewable energy for its community electricity supply by 2032; and
WHEREAS, in 2019, the Utah Legislature adopted the Community Renewable Energy
Act, Utah Code §§ 54-17-901 to -909 (the “Act”) to enable development of a community
renewable energy program; and
WHEREAS, the Act contemplates that a qualified electric utility will file an application
with the Public Service Commission (“PSC”) for approval of a community renewable energy
program to serve any municipality and county that chooses to become a participating community
(each, a “Community”); and
WHEREAS, the program application must include, among other items, information about
the customers within the boundaries of the Communities, projected rates under the proposed
program, an agreement between each Community and the qualified electric utility (a “Utility
Agreement”), a low-income plan, a proposed solicitation plan for the acquisition of renewable
energy resources, and a draft ordinance that establishes a Community’s participation in the
program, which would only be considered for adoption by each Community following approval
of the application by the PSC (the “Ordinance”); and
WHEREAS, as directed by the Act, the PSC adopted Utah Administrative Rule R746-
314 (the “Rules”) to facilitate implementation of the Act;
WHEREAS, the Rules require that the Communities enter into an agreement that
“establishes a decision-making process for program design, resource solicitation, resource
acquisition, and other program issues and provides a means of ensuring that [the Communities]
will be able to reach a single joint decision on any necessary program issues”; and
WHEREAS, on or about June 28, 2021, the City and the Communities entered into the
Interlocal Cooperation Agreement Among Public Entities Regarding the Community Renewable
Energy Program, outlining a means of ensuring such single joint decisions can be made through
the Community Renewable Energy Agency (“CREA”); and
WHEREAS, Councilmember Dan Dugan represents the City by serving as a Board
Member on the CREA Board and has been appointed by the CREA Board to serve as Chair; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, to participate in a community renewable energy
program application, Communities must first adopt a resolution setting forth a 100% renewable
electricity goal by 2030 and subsequently enter into a Utility Agreement with the qualified
electric utility; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of the Act, on August 27, 2019, the
City Council and Mayor formally adopted a Joint Resolution establishing a “community goal of
achieving an amount equivalent to 100% of the annual electric energy supply for participating
customers from renewable energy resources by 2030”; and
WHEREAS, the City, CREA, the Communities, and the qualified electric utility, Rocky
Mountain Power (“RMP”), have negotiated a Utility Agreement in compliance with the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor, as Chief Executive of the City will sign the Utility Agreement
on behalf of the City, and the City Council supports Councilmember Dan Dugan’s role and
authority to sign on behalf of CREA as the CREA Board Chair; and
WHEREAS, the City, CREA and the Communities have assisted RMP with developing a
community renewable energy program application that meets the requirements of the Act, and
RMP is preparing to finalize the application to the PSC; and
2
WHEREAS, at this critical juncture in the process of developing and submitting for
approval a proposed community renewable energy program application, the City Council wishes
to signal its ongoing support for the proposed community renewable energy program application.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as
follows:
1.The City Council hereby ratifies the City’s ongoing participation in developing
the community renewable energy program application, in conjunction with the
Communities, CREA, and RMP.
2.
3.
The City Council hereby demonstrates support of Councilmember Dan Dugan in
executing the Utility Agreement in his role as Chair of the CREA Board.
The City Council reserves its rights to separately consider adoption of the
Ordinance.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of
___________________, 2023.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By: ______________________________
Darin Mano, Chair, Salt Lake City Council
Attest:
___________________________
City Recorder
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved as to Form:
________
Date: _J_u_ne__2_7_, _20_2_3____________
3
ERIN MENDENHALL OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Mayor
Exhibit B- Community Renewable Energy Program Timeline
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: June 20, 2023
Darin Mano, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT:Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with the Utah
Transit Authority (UTA), Addendum No. 7 – Continuation of FTN Routes 1, 2, 9, and 21
STAFF CONTACT:Julianne Sabula, Deputy Director of Transportation,
julianne.sabula@slcogov.com, 801-535-6678
DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council approve a resolution (Exhibit 1) authorizing the
Mayor to enter into the proposed addendum 7 (Exhibit 3) to the Interlocal Agreement with UTA
(Exhibit 2) to implement 2023-24 Frequent Transit Network (FTN) service.
BUDGET IMPACT:The budget impact of Addendum No. 7 is $6,462,409.34 for the FTN
service to be provided during FY 23-24 along Routes 1, 2, 9, and 21, which is currently funded
to run until August Change Day 2023. The funds associated with this addendum are included in
the Mayor’s Recommended Budget, and cost details appear in Exhibit 4.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Transit Master Plan Implementation ILA with UTA is a
twenty-year agreement that has a goal of full implementation of the FTN as described in Salt
Lake City’s Transit Master Plan. Council adopted the Plan in 2017 with the intent that six
corridors would be included in Phase one of implementation. These corridors are 200 South, 900
South, 2100 South, 1000 North, 600 North, and 400 South.
Council has since approved Addendum No. 1, along with a corresponding budget appropriation,
to mobilize (referring to the recruitment, hiring, and training of operators, mechanics, and
Lisa Shaffer (Jun 21, 2023 11:41 MDT)06/21/2023
06/21/2023
supervisors, as well as the initial vehicle lease payments for training and testing along the new
routes) for service on Routes 2, 9, and 21, which began operations in August 2019. Addendum
No. 2 and the corresponding budget sponsored continuation of the increased frequency and hours
of operation (span) on these routes. UTA conducts periodic “true-ups” to determine whether
actual costs came in at, above, or below projections, for instance, due to fuel costs. This yielded
an amendment to Addendum No. 2, which was approved in January 2021 and resulted in a credit
to Salt Lake City. Addenda Nos. 3 and 4 have continued operation of additional span and
frequency on these routes for the 2020-21 and 2021-22 service years until Council approved and
funded Addendum 5 to mobilize for Route 1. Addendum No. 6 was approved in 2022 for the
launch of service on Route 1, in addition to continued service on the 2, 9, and 21. Council also
approved an amendment to Addendum No. 3 in 2022 for a credit to the City as a result of Covid-
related service reductions.
This Addendum No. 7 mimics Addendum No. 6 for continuation of the sponsored routes, with
adjustments made according to the terms of the main agreement. These include inflation, fuel
costs, and UTA’s “baseline” which refers to the level of service UTA would provide absent City
sponsorship based on the service guidelines articulated in the Five-Year Service Plan. It should
be noted that the City and UTA decided to use an annual inflation rate of 2.2% in the cost
calculator with the idea that over the course of the 20-year agreement, fluctuations year-to-year
would balance out. In addition, despite volatility in fuel prices over the past year, the variation
was not significant enough to warrant the true-up that was foreshadowed in last year’s transmittal
for Transit Master Plan implementation.
Implementation of the FTN has been a highly collaborative effort between the City and UTA
over the past five years. Many of the corridors in the Transit Master Plan are included and
budgeted for in UTA’s Five-Year Service Plan. Some have already been implemented at UTA’s
expense, such as the 900 East and Upper Avenues corridors (Route 209), State Street (Route
200), 600 North (extension of route 205, proposed for restoration of frequent service as labor
supply rebounds), and Redwood Road (Route 217).
PUBLIC PROCESS: The Transit Master Plan public process was very robust and included 16
stakeholder interviews, 18 mobile events, and over 2000 unique online comments. The
Transportation Advisory Board and Bicycle Advisory Committee provided guidance on both the
Master Plan and the guiding principles for the ILA. Specific to the ILA, addenda, and
corresponding City budget appropriations, the process included City-hosted public hearings on
the ILA and prior addenda. This year’s budget process, including public hearings, will provide
for additional public comment on the transit service line item. In addition, UTA conducts public
hearing processes for the Five-Year Service Plan, as well as for each Change Day.
EXHIBITS:
1) Resolution
2) Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority Transit Master Plan Implementation
Interlocal Agreement
3) Addendum No. 7
a) Description of the 2023-24 FTN
b) 2023-24 Baseline Services
4) 2023 Cost Calculator
a) 2021 National Transit Database (NTD) Profile
b) Cost Per Mile
c) Paratransit
d) Cost Worksheet
5
EXHIBIT 1
Resolution
RESOLUTION ________ OF 2023
Authorizing approval of Addendum No. 7 to an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt
Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority providing for transfer of City funds for
implementation of the Transit Master Plan.
WHEREAS, Utah Code Title 11, Chapter 13 allows public entities to enter into cooperative
agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019, Salt Lake City Council authorized that the City enter
into an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit
Authority providing for transfer of City funds for implementation of the Transit Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Interlocal Agreement contemplated that the parties would enter into an
annual addendum to provide funding for the frequent transit network routes and other transit
improvements; and
WHEREAS, a draft addendum has been prepared to accomplish said purposes;
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 following:
ADDENDUM NO. 7 TO THE SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH
TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRANSMIT MASTER PLAN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
(2023-2024 FTN ROUTES).
2. 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 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 this day of , 2023.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
CITY RECORDER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: ___________________
June 16, 2023
5
EXHIBIT 2
Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal
Agreement with UTA
5
EXHIBIT 3
Addendum No. 7
1
ADDENDUM NO. 7
TO SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
TRANSIT MASTER PLAN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
(2023-2024 FTN Routes)
This Addendum No. 7 (“Addendum”) to that certain Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah
Transit Authority Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement (“ILA”) is made this
____ day of _____, 2023, by and between Utah TransitAuthority,a public transit district organized
under the laws of the State of Utah (“UTA”), and Salt Lake City Corporation, a Utah municipal
corporation (“City”). UTA and City are hereinafter collectively referred to as “Parties” and each
may be referred to individually as “Party,” all as governed by the context in which such words are
used.
RECITALS
A. On the 6th day of March, 2019, the Parties entered into the ILA, whereby the parties
agreed to participate jointly in planning and funding for public transportation improvements in and
around the City; and
B. Pursuant to the terms of the ILA, the Parties desire to specifically identify certain
components of the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan to be governed by this Addendum.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Pursuant to Section 3 of the ILA, the City, in cooperation with UTA, identified as
the City-sponsored frequent transit network routes for 2023-24 (“FTN Routes”) to be provided by
UTA for a one-year period from the August 2023 change day until the next succeeding August
change day.
2. The description of those 2023-24 FTN Routes is set forth in Attachment 1.
3. The description of the 2023-24 Baseline Services is set forth in Attachment 2.
4. The calculation of the Annual Service Mile Charge for the City-sponsored 2023-
24 FTN Routes is set forth in in Attachment 3.
5. The final routing and implementation of the FTN Routes shall be determined in
accordance with all applicable laws, regulations and policies regarding transit service planning
(including, without limitation, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act) and operational considerations
shall be addressed in consultation with the City.
6. Invoicing for implementation of the FTN Routes will be according to Section 7 of
the ILA.
7. This Addendum may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall
be an original, with the same effect as if the signatures were upon the same instrument.
8. This Addendum is limited to the terms expressly provided herein and except as set
forth herein, the ILA shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. If there
is a conflict between this Addendum and the ILA, the terms of this Addendum shall prevail and
control.
9. Any capitalized terms that are not specifically defined in this Addendum shall have
the meanings set forth in the ILA.
2
10. This Addendum will become effective upon Salt Lake City Council’s adoption of
a resolution authorizing the Mayor or her designee to enter into this Addendum; and appropriation
of funding to meet the City’s financial obligations under this Addendum (the “Effective Date”).
[THE BALANCE OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.]
3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Addendum as of the Effective
Date.
[Signature pages to Addendum No. 7 to Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority
Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement]
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
By______________________________________
Russell Fox
Director of Planning
By______________________________________
Nichol Bourdeaux
Chief Planning and Engagement Officer
By______________________________________
Jay Fox
Executive Director
Approved as to Form
____________________________________
Michael Bell
UTA Legal Counsel
4
[Signature pages to Addendum No. 7 to Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority
Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement]
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
By______________________________________
Its______________________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
By: ____________________________
Senior City Attorney
Date: ___________________________
ATTEST & COUNTERSIGN:
Salt Lake City Recorder’s Office
By: ____________________________
City Recorder
[Attach Salt Lake City Council Resolution Approving Addendum]
5
ATTACHMENT A
Description of the 2023-24 FTN Routes
For This Addendum No. 7
6
ATTACHMENT B
2023-24 Baseline Services
For This Addendum No. 7
Dr
a
f
t
f
o
r
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
2
3
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
Ad
d
e
n
d
u
m
7
:
2
0
2
3
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Pl
e
a
s
e
r
e
f
e
r
t
o
t
h
e
U
T
A
2
0
2
3
-
2
0
2
7
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
P
l
a
n
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
o
n
3
/
8
/
2
0
2
3
f
o
r
U
T
A
'
s
b
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
.
ww
w
.
r
i
d
e
u
t
a
.
c
o
m
/
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
p
l
a
n
Su
m
m
a
r
y
:
•
Th
e
F
i
v
e
-
Y
e
a
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
P
l
a
n
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
F
T
N
l
e
v
e
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
n
R
o
u
t
e
2
o
n
w
e
e
k
d
a
y
s
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
U
T
A
'
s
b
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
l
e
v
e
l
.
•
U
T
A
m
a
d
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
s
p
a
n
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
n
R
o
u
t
e
s
2
,
9
,
a
n
d
2
1
i
n
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
2
0
,
w
h
i
c
h
a
r
e
n
o
w
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
b
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
a
t
n
o
•
P
l
e
a
s
e
v
i
s
i
t
t
h
i
s
l
i
n
k
t
o
a
c
c
e
s
s
r
o
u
t
e
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
d
a
t
a
o
n
U
T
A
'
s
O
p
e
n
D
a
t
a
P
o
r
t
a
l
.
An
n
u
a
l
M
i
l
e
s
Au
g
u
s
t
2
0
2
3
To
t
a
l
M
i
l
e
s
20
2
3
-
2
0
2
7
5Y
S
P
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
Mi
l
e
s
20
2
3
Sp
o
n
s
o
r
e
d
Mi
l
e
s
2
2
1
0
,
2
1
8
1
7
3
,
7
0
4
3
6
,
5
1
4
9
47
2
,
9
2
6
12
0
,
7
0
4
35
2
,
2
2
2
21
35
9
,
4
9
4
27
8
,
2
9
0
81
,
2
0
4
1
50
9
,
0
6
8
36
4
,
8
7
7
14
4
,
1
9
1
To
t
a
l
1,
5
5
1
,
7
0
6
93
7
,
5
7
4
61
4
,
1
3
2
An
n
u
a
l
Ho
u
r
s
Au
g
u
s
t
2
0
2
3
To
t
a
l
H
o
u
r
s
20
2
3
-
2
0
2
7
5Y
S
P
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
Ho
u
r
s
20
2
3
Sp
o
n
s
o
r
e
d
Ho
u
r
s
2
25
,
9
5
4
.
0
0
18
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
7,
9
5
4
.
0
0
9
49
,
8
4
0
.
0
0
38
,
0
0
8
.
0
0
11
,
8
3
2
.
0
0
21
39
,
4
0
2
.
0
0
28
,
7
1
9
.
0
0
10
,
6
8
3
.
0
0
1
51
,
8
2
0
.
0
0
39
,
9
2
2
.
0
0
11
,
8
9
8
.
0
0
To
t
a
l
1
6
7
,
0
1
6
.
0
0
1
2
4
,
6
4
9
.
0
0
42
,
3
6
7
.
0
0
5
EXHIBIT 4
2023 Cost Calculator
ht
t
p
s
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
r
i
d
e
u
t
a
.
c
o
m
/
Ut
a
h
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
66
9
W
2
0
0
S
20
2
1
A
n
n
u
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
P
r
o
f
i
l
e
Mr
.
J
a
y
F
o
x
Sa
l
t
L
a
k
e
C
i
t
y
,
U
t
8
4
1
0
1
-
1
0
1
4
(8
0
1
)
2
6
2
-
5
6
2
6
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
T
a
r
g
e
t
s
-
2
0
2
2
Ur
b
a
n
i
z
e
d
A
r
e
a
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
-
2
0
1
0
C
e
n
s
u
s
Se
r
v
i
c
e
C
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
Da
t
a
b
a
s
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
f
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
F
u
n
d
s
E
x
p
e
n
d
e
d
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
Pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
-
A
s
s
e
t
T
y
p
e
-
T
a
r
g
e
t
%
n
o
t
i
n
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
G
o
o
d
R
e
p
a
i
r
Sa
l
t
L
a
k
e
C
i
t
y
-
W
e
s
t
V
a
l
l
e
y
C
i
t
y
,
U
T
17
6
,
6
4
6
,
3
3
7
An
n
u
a
l
P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
M
i
l
e
s
(
P
M
T
)
N
T
D
I
D
:
80
0
0
1
F
a
r
e
s
a
n
d
D
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
$
3
1
,
4
8
1
,
1
9
4
7
.
3
%
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
-
A
u
t
o
m
o
b
i
l
e
s
-
9
7
%
27
8
Sq
u
a
r
e
M
i
l
e
s
23
,
9
7
2
,
2
9
4
An
n
u
a
l
U
n
l
i
n
k
e
d
T
r
i
p
s
(
U
P
T
)
R
e
p
o
r
t
e
r
T
y
p
e
:
Fu
l
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
e
r
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
$
2
7
1
,
8
4
5
,
1
1
1
6
2
.
9
%
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
-
S
t
e
e
l
W
h
e
e
l
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
-
0
%
1,
0
2
1
,
2
4
3
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
79
,
9
1
6
Av
e
r
a
g
e
W
e
e
k
d
a
y
U
n
l
i
n
k
e
d
T
r
i
p
s
A
s
s
e
t
T
y
p
e
:
Ti
e
r
I
(
R
a
i
l
)
S
t
a
t
e
F
u
n
d
s
$
0
0
.
0
%
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
-
T
r
u
c
k
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
R
u
b
b
e
r
T
i
r
e
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
-
3
0
%
42
Po
p
.
R
a
n
k
o
u
t
o
f
4
9
8
U
Z
A
s
48
,
9
7
4
Av
e
r
a
g
e
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
U
n
l
i
n
k
e
d
T
r
i
p
s
S
p
o
n
s
o
r
N
T
D
I
D
:
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
$
1
2
8
,
6
6
7
,
3
8
4
2
9
.
8
%
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
-
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
/
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
-
0
%
Ot
h
e
r
U
Z
A
s
S
e
r
v
e
d
20
,
1
1
4
Av
e
r
a
g
e
S
u
n
d
a
y
U
n
l
i
n
k
e
d
T
r
i
p
s
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
-
P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
/
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
-
2
%
77
O
g
d
e
n
-
L
a
y
t
o
n
,
U
T
,
8
2
P
r
o
v
o
-
O
r
e
m
,
U
T
,
0
U
t
a
h
N
o
n
-
U
Z
A
To
t
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
F
u
n
d
s
E
x
p
e
n
d
e
d
$
4
3
1
,
9
9
3
,
6
8
9
10
0
.
0
%
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
-
C
R
-
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
r
R
a
i
l
-
2
%
As
s
e
t
s
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
-
L
R
-
L
i
g
h
t
R
a
i
l
-
4
%
Se
r
v
i
c
e
A
r
e
a
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
Se
r
v
i
c
e
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
d
Re
v
e
n
u
e
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
1,
4
7
4
So
u
r
c
e
s
o
f
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
E
x
p
e
n
d
e
d
Ro
l
l
i
n
g
S
t
o
c
k
-
A
B
-
A
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
B
u
s
-
0
%
60
7
Sq
u
a
r
e
M
i
l
e
s
35
,
8
8
7
,
4
3
7
An
n
u
a
l
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
M
i
l
e
s
(
V
R
M
)
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
69
7
F
a
r
e
s
a
n
d
D
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
$
0
0
.
0
%
R
o
l
l
i
n
g
S
t
o
c
k
-
B
R
-
O
v
e
r
-
t
h
e
-
r
o
a
d
B
u
s
-
3
2
%
2,
2
1
8
,
4
8
2
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
2,
0
9
3
,
0
7
2
An
n
u
a
l
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
H
o
u
r
s
(
V
R
H
)
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
24
3
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
$
8
6
,
2
4
0
,
3
7
2
6
2
.
0
%
R
o
l
l
i
n
g
S
t
o
c
k
-
B
U
-
B
u
s
-
1
3
%
1,
0
1
6
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
O
p
e
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
(
V
O
M
S
)
T
r
a
c
k
M
i
l
e
s
23
3
.
4
7
S
t
a
t
e
F
u
n
d
s
$
2
,
1
6
3
,
7
0
0
1
.
6
%
R
o
l
l
i
n
g
S
t
o
c
k
-
C
U
-
C
u
t
a
w
a
y
-
0
%
1,
4
8
9
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
(
V
A
M
S
)
L
a
n
e
M
i
l
e
s
2.
1
0
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
$
5
0
,
6
1
2
,
9
3
5
3
6
.
4
%
R
o
l
l
i
n
g
S
t
o
c
k
-
L
R
-
L
i
g
h
t
R
a
i
l
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
-
0
%
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
Ro
l
l
i
n
g
S
t
o
c
k
-
M
V
-
M
i
n
i
v
a
n
-
1
2
%
Mo
d
a
l
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
To
t
a
l
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
E
x
p
e
n
d
e
d
$
1
3
9
,
0
1
7
,
0
0
7
10
0
.
0
%
Ro
l
l
i
n
g
S
t
o
c
k
-
R
L
-
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
r
R
a
i
l
L
o
c
o
m
o
t
i
v
e
-
0
%
Mo
d
a
l
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
(
O
E
)
Ro
l
l
i
n
g
S
t
o
c
k
-
R
P
-
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
r
R
a
i
l
P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
C
o
a
c
h
-
4
0
%
Mo
d
e
Di
r
e
c
t
l
y
Op
e
r
a
t
e
d
Pu
r
c
h
a
s
e
d
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
Sy
s
t
e
m
s
a
n
d
Gu
i
d
e
w
a
y
s
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
St
a
t
i
o
n
s
Ot
h
e
r
T
o
t
a
l
La
b
o
r
$
2
2
1
,
6
3
6
,
3
2
0
6
5
.
4
%
R
o
l
l
i
n
g
S
t
o
c
k
-
V
N
-
V
a
n
-
1
2
%
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
B
u
s
58
-
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
$
7
0
,
2
0
9
,
7
1
9
2
0
.
7
%
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
R
a
i
l
45
-
$
7
6
5
,
3
5
9
$
2
8
,
2
8
0
,
3
6
6
$
2
,
3
8
2
,
2
0
6
$
1
5
,
9
5
2
$
3
1
,
4
4
3
,
8
8
3
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
d
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
$
8
,
2
7
6
,
9
1
0
2
.
4
%
De
m
a
n
d
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
52
¹
6
3
¹
$
3
,
4
5
7
,
2
8
2
$
2
2
5
,
9
5
4
$
0
$
5
0
,
3
2
3
$
3
,
7
3
3
,
5
5
9
O
t
h
e
r
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
$
3
8
,
7
1
0
,
5
4
3
1
1
.
4
%
Li
g
h
t
R
a
i
l
81
-
$
6
4
,
6
8
1
$
1
0
,
3
1
4
,
5
3
6
$
8
,
7
3
4
,
1
5
6
$
7
3
,
8
6
8
$
1
9
,
1
8
7
,
2
4
1
To
t
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
$
3
3
8
,
8
3
3
,
4
9
2
10
0
.
0
%
Bu
s
33
8
¹
7
¹
$
1
6
,
9
3
7
,
0
9
3
$
3
3
,
8
4
3
,
0
2
7
$
3
3
,
7
2
6
,
6
4
7
$
1
4
4
,
1
3
7
$
8
4
,
6
5
0
,
9
0
4
R
e
c
o
n
c
i
l
i
n
g
O
E
C
a
s
h
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
$
9
3
,
1
6
0
,
1
9
7
Va
n
p
o
o
l
37
2
-
$
1
,
4
2
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
1
,
4
2
0
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
d
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
9
4
6
7
0
$
2
1
,
2
2
5
,
8
3
5
$
7
2
,
6
6
3
,
8
8
3
$
4
4
,
8
4
3
,
0
0
9
$
2
8
4
,
2
8
0
$1
3
9
,
0
1
7
,
0
0
7
(R
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
l
y
)
$
0
Fa
r
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
Lo
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
:
6
2
.
%
St
a
t
e
F
u
n
d
s
:
1
.
6
%
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
:
3
6
.
4
%
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
Mo
d
e
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
Fa
r
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
Us
e
s
o
f
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
An
n
u
a
l
Pa
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
M
i
l
e
s
An
n
u
a
l
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
M
i
l
e
s
An
n
u
a
l
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
H
o
u
r
s
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
B
u
s
$1
1
,
0
0
3
,
6
1
2
$
4
0
4
,
4
0
5
$
0
6
,
4
4
0
,
4
7
2
4
2
9
,
2
5
0
1
,
1
2
2
,
1
0
8
4
8
,
6
9
3
0.
0
9
9
5
8
7
0
.
7
%
1
1
.
9
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
R
a
i
l
$4
9
,
4
2
8
,
2
8
2
$
2
,
8
5
6
,
6
4
0
$
3
1
,
4
4
3
,
8
8
3
5
4
,
4
6
2
,
0
9
8
2
,
0
6
2
,
3
3
4
4
,
5
6
9
,
4
0
4
1
4
8
,
8
2
2
1
7
4
.
5
6
9
4
5
5
3
.
3
%
2
0
.
0
De
m
a
n
d
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
$2
1
,
6
5
4
,
8
5
8
¹
$
3
0
0
,
4
4
5
¹
$
3
,
7
3
3
,
5
5
9
2
,
8
2
6
,
9
7
9
3
0
1
,
5
0
5
2
,
3
8
5
,
4
7
6
1
5
5
,
2
7
6
0.
0
1
8
3
1
1
5
¹
5
9
.
1
%
3
.
9
Li
g
h
t
R
a
i
l
$7
9
,
9
2
4
,
8
8
9
$
8
,
1
9
5
,
6
8
0
$
1
9
,
1
8
7
,
2
4
1
3
7
,
9
0
0
,
6
1
3
8
,
4
0
3
,
8
6
2
6
,
3
3
4
,
6
9
8
3
6
3
,
1
5
3
9
3
.
9
1
1
4
8
1
4
0
.
7
%
1
4
.
4
Bu
s
$1
5
9
,
1
9
5
,
6
9
7
¹
$
1
1
,
3
6
5
,
5
5
7
¹
$
8
4
,
6
5
0
,
9
0
4
4
9
,
6
1
2
,
6
6
3
1
2
,
1
8
7
,
6
2
2
1
5
,
8
4
2
,
5
8
7
1
,
2
5
0
,
4
5
2
9.
4
4
9
8
3
4
5
¹
4
4
.
4
%
8
.
2
Va
n
p
o
o
l
$1
7
,
6
2
6
,
1
5
4
$
2
,
8
3
5
,
0
6
4
$
1
,
4
2
0
2
5
,
4
0
3
,
5
1
2
5
8
7
,
7
2
1
5
,
6
3
3
,
1
6
4
1
2
6
,
6
7
6
0
.
0
5
2
6
3
7
2
4
1
.
4
%
5
.
9
To
t
a
l
$
3
3
8
,
8
3
3
,
4
9
2
$
2
5
,
9
5
7
,
7
9
1
$
1
3
9
,
0
1
7
,
0
0
7
1
7
6
,
6
4
6
,
3
3
7
2
3
,
9
7
2
,
2
9
4
3
5
,
8
8
7
,
4
3
7
2
,
0
9
3
,
0
7
2
2
7
7
.
8
1
,
4
8
9
1
,
0
1
6
3
1
.
8
%
Pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Mo
d
e
Mo
d
e
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
B
u
s
$9
.
8
1
$
2
2
5
.
9
8
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
r
B
u
s
$
1
.
7
1
$
2
5
.
6
3
0
.
4
8
.
8
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
R
a
i
l
$1
0
.
8
2
$
3
3
2
.
1
3
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
r
R
a
i
l
$
0
.
9
1
$
2
3
.
9
7
0
.
5
1
3
.
9
De
m
a
n
d
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
$9
.
0
8
$
1
3
9
.
4
6
D
e
m
a
n
d
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
$
7
.
6
6
$
7
1
.
8
2
0
.
1
1
.
9
Li
g
h
t
R
a
i
l
$1
2
.
6
2
$
2
2
0
.
0
9
L
i
g
h
t
R
a
i
l
$
2
.
1
1
$
9
.
5
1
1
.
3
2
3
.
1
Bu
s
$1
0
.
0
5
$
1
2
7
.
3
1
B
u
s
$
3
.
2
1
$
1
3
.
0
6
0
.
8
9
.
7
Va
n
p
o
o
l
$3
.
1
3
$
1
3
9
.
1
4
V
a
n
p
o
o
l
$
0
.
6
9
$
2
9
.
9
9
0
.
1
4
.
6
To
t
a
l
$
9
.
4
4
$
1
6
1
.
8
8
T
o
t
a
l
$
1
.
9
2
$
1
4
.
1
3
0
.
7
1
1
.
5
12
1
3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
B
u
s
OE
/
V
R
M
$
7
.
6
8
$
7
.
2
8
#
$
7
.
6
3
#
$
7
.
8
8
#
$
8
.
7
5
#
$
1
0
.
0
5
L
i
g
h
t
R
a
i
l
2
0
0
6
:
7
.
6
8
20
0
7
:
7
.
2
8
20
0
8
:
7
.
3
7
20
0
9
:
7
.
6
3
20
1
0
:
8
.
2
1
20
1
1
:
7
.
8
8
20
1
2
:
8
.
3
1
20
1
3
:
8
.
7
5
20
1
4
:
1
0
.
2
9
20
1
5
:
1
0
.
0
5
OE
/
P
M
T
$
1
.
9
8
$
1
.
4
4
#
$
1
.
1
9
#
$
1
.
5
0
#
$
1
.
7
8
#
$
3
.
2
1
20
0
6
:
1
.
9
8
20
0
7
:
1
.
4
4
20
0
8
:
1
.
2
20
0
9
:
1
.
1
9
20
1
0
:
1
.
4
5
20
1
1
:
1
.
5
20
1
2
:
1
.
7
6
20
1
3
:
1
.
7
8
20
1
4
:
2
.
8
8
20
1
5
:
3
.
2
1
UP
T
/
V
R
M
1
.
4
5
1
.
2
8
#
1
.
4
0
#
1
.
1
7
#
1
.
1
7
#
0
.
7
7
20
0
6
:
1
.
4
5
20
0
7
:
1
.
2
8
20
0
8
:
1
.
3
3
20
0
9
:
1
.
4
20
1
0
:
1
.
2
4
20
1
1
:
1
.
1
7
20
1
2
:
1
.
1
3
20
1
3
:
1
.
1
7
20
1
4
:
.
8
2
20
1
5
:
.
7
7
OE
/
V
R
M
$
7
.
1
1
$
6
.
8
7
#
$
8
.
2
2
#
$
9
.
6
1
#
$
1
0
.
8
3
#
$
1
2
.
6
2
20
0
6
:
7
.
1
1
20
0
7
:
6
.
8
7
20
0
8
:
8
.
0
3
20
0
9
:
8
.
2
2
20
1
0
:
1
0
.
0
8
20
1
1
:
9
.
6
1
20
1
2
:
1
0
.
7
3
20
1
3
:
1
0
.
8
3
20
1
4
:
1
3
.
4
5
20
1
5
:
1
2
.
6
2
OE
/
P
M
T
$
0
.
5
3
$
0
.
5
3
#
$
0
.
5
5
#
$
0
.
7
0
#
$
0
.
8
6
#
$
2
.
1
1
20
0
6
:
.
5
3
20
0
7
:
.
5
3
20
0
8
:
.
5
4
20
0
9
:
.
5
5
20
1
0
:
.
7
2
20
1
1
:
.
7
20
1
2
:
.
8
20
1
3
:
.
8
6
20
1
4
:
2
.
1
20
1
5
:
2
.
1
1
UP
T
/
V
R
M
2
.
9
3
2
.
8
7
#
2
.
9
8
#
2
.
8
0
#
2
.
6
1
#
1
.
3
3
20
0
6
:
2
.
9
3
20
0
7
:
2
.
8
7
20
0
8
:
3
.
0
9
20
0
9
:
2
.
9
8
20
1
0
:
2
.
8
8
20
1
1
:
2
.
8
20
1
2
:
2
.
6
9
20
1
3
:
2
.
6
1
20
1
4
:
1
.
3
5
20
1
5
:
1
.
3
3
No
t
e
s
:
ªD
e
m
a
n
d
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
-
T
a
x
i
(
D
R
/
T
X
)
a
n
d
n
o
n
-
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
f
l
e
e
t
s
d
o
n
o
t
r
e
p
o
r
t
f
l
e
e
t
a
g
e
d
a
t
a
.
¹I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
d
a
t
a
f
o
r
a
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
w
i
t
h
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
r
.
*T
h
i
s
a
g
e
n
c
y
h
a
s
a
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
d
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
i
n
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
y
b
u
y
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
f
r
o
m
U
T
A
H
V
A
L
L
E
Y
P
A
R
A
T
R
A
N
S
I
T
(
N
T
D
I
D
:
E
n
t
i
t
y
th
a
t
D
o
e
s
N
o
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
t
o
N
T
D
)
,
a
n
d
i
n
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
d
a
t
a
a
r
e
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
d
i
n
t
h
i
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
f
o
r
m
o
d
e
D
R
/
P
T
.
*T
h
i
s
a
g
e
n
c
y
h
a
s
a
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
d
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
i
n
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
y
b
u
y
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
f
r
o
m
T
O
O
E
L
E
C
O
U
N
T
Y
A
G
I
N
G
&
A
D
U
L
T
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
(
N
TD
I
D
:
E
n
t
i
t
y
t
h
a
t
D
o
e
s
N
o
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
t
o
N
T
D
)
,
a
n
d
i
n
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
d
a
t
a
a
r
e
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
d
i
n
t
h
i
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
f
o
r
m
o
d
e
D
R
/
P
T
.
*T
h
i
s
a
g
e
n
c
y
h
a
s
a
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
d
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
i
n
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
y
b
u
y
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
f
r
o
m
M
V
P
U
B
L
I
C
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
(
N
T
D
I
D
:
E
n
t
i
t
y
t
h
a
t
D
o
e
s
N
o
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
t
o
N
T
D
)
,
a
n
d
i
n
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
d
a
t
a
a
r
e
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
d
i
n
t
h
i
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
f
o
r
m
o
d
e
D
R
/
P
T
.
*T
h
i
s
a
g
e
n
c
y
h
a
s
a
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
d
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
i
n
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
y
b
u
y
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
f
r
o
m
V
I
A
(
N
T
D
I
D
:
E
n
t
i
t
y
t
h
a
t
D
o
e
s
N
o
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
t
o
N
T
D
)
,
a
n
d
i
n
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
d
a
t
a
a
r
e
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
d
i
n
t
h
i
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
f
o
r
m
o
d
e
D
R
/
P
T
.
*T
h
i
s
a
g
e
n
c
y
h
a
s
a
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
d
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
i
n
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
y
b
u
y
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
f
r
o
m
T
O
O
E
L
E
C
O
U
N
T
Y
A
G
I
N
G
&
A
D
U
L
T
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
(
N
TD
I
D
:
E
n
t
i
t
y
t
h
a
t
D
o
e
s
N
o
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
t
o
N
T
D
)
,
a
n
d
i
n
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
d
a
t
a
a
r
e
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
d
i
n
t
h
i
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
f
o
r
m
o
d
e
M
B
/
P
T
.
*T
h
i
s
a
g
e
n
c
y
h
a
s
a
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
d
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
i
n
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
y
b
u
y
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
f
r
o
m
M
V
P
U
B
L
I
C
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
(
N
T
D
I
D
:
E
n
t
i
t
y
t
h
a
t
D
o
e
s
N
o
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
t
o
N
T
D
)
,
a
n
d
i
n
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
d
a
t
a
a
r
e
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
d
i
n
t
h
i
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
f
o
r
m
o
d
e
M
B
/
P
T
.
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Fl
e
e
t
A
g
e
i
n
Ye
a
r
s
ª
An
n
u
a
l
Un
l
i
n
k
e
d
T
r
i
p
s
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Sp
a
r
e
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
O
p
e
r
a
t
e
d
in
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Us
e
s
o
f
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
Fi
x
e
d
G
u
i
d
e
w
a
y
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
Ro
u
t
e
M
i
l
e
s
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
fo
r
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
O
p
e
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
Se
r
v
i
c
e
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
p
e
r
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
M
i
l
e
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
p
e
r
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
H
o
u
r
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
p
e
r
Pa
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
M
i
l
e
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
p
e
r
Un
l
i
n
k
e
d
P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
T
r
i
p
Un
l
i
n
k
e
d
T
r
i
p
s
p
e
r
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
M
i
l
e
Un
l
i
n
k
e
d
T
r
i
p
s
p
e
r
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
H
o
u
r
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
7.
3
%
62
.
9
%
29
.
8
%
g 62
.
0
%
1.
6
%
36
.
4
%
$0
.
0
0
$5
.
0
0
$1
0
.
0
0
$1
5
.
0
0
12
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
2
0
21
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
p
e
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
Mi
l
e
:
B
u
s
8 ######
$0
.
0
0
$1
.
0
0
$2
.
0
0
$3
.
0
0
$4
.
0
0
12
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
2
0
2
1
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
p
e
r
P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
M
i
l
e
:
Bu
s
8 #
g
#####
0.
0
0
0.
5
0
1.
0
0
1.
5
0
2.
0
0
12
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
2
0
2
1
Un
l
i
n
k
e
d
P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
T
r
i
p
p
e
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
M
i
l
e
:
B
u
s
g
$0
.
0
0
$5
.
0
0
$1
0
.
0
0
$1
5
.
0
0
12
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
2
0
2
1
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
p
e
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
Mi
l
e
:
L
i
g
h
t
R
a
i
l
6:
7
.
6
8
20
0
7
:
7
.
2
8
20
0
8
:
7
.
3
7
20
0
9
:
7
.
6
3
20
1
0
:
8
.
2
1
20
1
1
:
7
.
8
8
20
1
2
:
8
6:
1
.
9
8
20
0
7
:
1
.
4
4
20
0
8
:
1
.
2
20
0
9
:
1
.
1
9
20
1
0
:
1
.
4
5
20
1
1
:
1
.
5
20
1
2
:
1
.
7
6
6:
1
.
4
5
20
0
7
:
1
.
2
8
20
0
8
:
1
.
3
3
20
0
9
:
1
.
4
20
1
0
:
1
.
2
4
20
1
1
:
1
.
1
7
20
1
2
:
1
.
1
6:
7
.
1
1
20
0
7
:
6
.
8
7
20
0
8
:
8
.
0
3
20
0
9
:
8
.
2
2
20
1
0
:
1
0
.
0
8
20
1
1
:
9
.
6
1
20
1
2
:
6:
.
5
3
20
0
7
:
.
5
3
20
0
8
:
.
5
4
20
0
9
:
.
5
5
20
1
0
:
.
7
2
20
1
1
:
.
7
20
1
2
:
.
8
20
1
3
:
.
8
6:
2
.
9
3
20
0
7
:
2
.
8
7
20
0
8
:
3
.
0
9
20
0
9
:
2
.
9
8
20
1
0
:
2
.
8
8
20
1
1
:
2
.
8
20
1
2
:
2
.
6
$0
.
0
0
$0
.
5
0
$1
.
0
0
$1
.
5
0
$2
.
0
0
$2
.
5
0
12
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
2
0
21
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
p
e
r
P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
M
i
l
e
:
Li
g
h
t
R
a
i
l
.6 1 1 6 60.
0
0
1.
0
0
2.
0
0
3.
0
0
4.
0
0
12
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
2
0
21
Un
l
i
n
k
e
d
P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
T
r
i
p
p
e
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
M
i
l
e
:
L
i
g
h
t
R
a
i
l
20
2
1
N
T
D
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
b
y
Mo
d
e
Le
s
s
F
u
e
l
C
o
s
t
s
(D
i
e
s
e
l
,
C
N
G
an
d
G
a
s
o
l
i
n
e
)
D
e
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
s
An
n
u
a
l
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
M
i
l
e
s
Co
s
t
P
e
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
M
i
l
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
F
u
e
l
ex
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
De
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
Bu
s
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
15
9
,
1
9
5
,
6
9
7
$
(9
,
2
0
2
,
6
3
9
)
$
18
,
9
8
6
,
2
0
3
$
16
8
,
9
7
9
,
2
6
1
$
15
,
8
4
2
,
5
8
7
9.
4
7
$
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
B
u
s
11
,
0
0
3
,
6
1
2
$
(6
3
1
,
4
4
2
)
$
10
,
3
7
2
,
1
7
0
$
66
0
,
6
7
2
15
.
7
0
$
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
R
a
i
l
49
,
4
2
8
,
2
8
2
$
(5
,
5
7
0
,
4
7
8
)
$
52
,
9
0
1
,
3
4
7
$
96
,
7
5
9
,
1
5
1
$
4,
0
3
9
,
5
8
1
10
.
8
6
$
Li
g
h
t
R
a
i
l
79
,
9
2
4
,
8
8
9
$
52
,
9
0
1
,
3
4
7
$
13
2
,
8
2
6
,
2
3
6
$
6,
1
1
4
,
1
0
8
13
.
0
7
$
Pa
r
a
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
21
,
6
5
4
,
8
5
8
$
(5
8
5
,
9
5
2
)
$
4,
6
4
4
,
9
0
5
$
25
,
7
1
3
,
8
1
1
$
1,
7
0
9
,
3
9
6
12
.
3
3
$
Ot
h
e
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
17
,
6
7
7
,
1
0
0
$
(9
1
3
,
4
2
4
)
$
4,
6
1
5
,
0
8
6
$
21
,
3
7
8
,
7
6
2
$
5,
7
0
5
,
1
7
0
2.
9
4
$
NT
D
T
o
t
a
l
s
33
8
,
8
8
4
,
4
3
8
$
(1
6
,
9
0
3
,
9
3
5
)
$
13
4
,
0
4
8
,
8
8
7
$
45
6
,
0
2
9
,
3
9
0
$
34
,
0
7
1
,
5
1
4
9.
4
5
$
Fu
e
l
C
o
s
t
s
16
,
9
0
3
,
9
3
5
$
NT
D
P
l
u
s
F
u
e
l
47
2
,
9
3
3
,
3
2
5
$
CA
F
R
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
47
2
,
9
3
3
,
3
2
5
$
Di
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
-
$
Ut
a
h
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
20
2
1
N
T
D
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
C
o
s
t
p
e
r
M
i
l
e
b
y
M
o
d
e
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
20
2
1
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
'
s
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
D
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
(
N
T
D
)
,
Ag
e
n
c
y
Pr
o
f
i
l
e
,
ht
t
p
s
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
.
d
o
t
.
g
o
v
/
n
t
d
/
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
-
a
g
e
n
c
y
-
p
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
20
2
2
U
t
a
h
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
C
A
F
R
)
,
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
r
i
d
e
u
t
a
.
c
o
m
/
A
b
o
u
t
-
UT
A
/
U
T
A
-
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
-
a
n
d
-
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
20
2
1
C
O
S
T
P
E
R
M
I
L
E
DR
A
F
T
f
o
r
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
2
3
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
Ad
d
e
n
d
u
m
7
:
P
a
r
a
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
C
o
s
t
s
20
2
3
-
2
0
2
4
S
p
o
n
s
o
r
e
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
:
2
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
,
9
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
,
2
1
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
,
1
0
0
0
N
48
,
6
9
3
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
B
u
s
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
H
o
u
r
s
(
2
0
2
1
N
T
D
)
36
3
,
1
5
3
Li
g
h
t
R
a
i
l
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
H
o
u
r
s
(
2
0
2
1
N
T
D
)
1,
2
5
0
,
4
5
2
Bu
s
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
H
o
u
r
s
(
2
0
2
1
N
T
D
)
1,
6
6
2
,
2
9
8
To
t
a
l
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
H
o
u
r
s
f
o
r
B
u
s
,
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
r
B
u
s
,
a
n
d
L
R
T
15
5
,
2
7
6
To
t
a
l
D
e
m
a
n
d
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
H
o
u
r
s
(
2
0
2
1
N
T
D
)
9%
<-
p
l
u
g
i
n
t
o
c
o
s
t
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
o
r
,
c
e
l
l
B
1
6
De
m
a
n
d
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
H
o
u
r
s
f
o
r
B
u
s
,
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
r
B
u
s
,
a
n
d
L
i
g
h
t
R
a
i
l
Dr
a
f
t
f
o
r
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
2
3
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
Ad
d
e
n
d
u
m
7
20
2
3
-
2
0
2
4
S
p
o
n
s
o
r
e
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
:
1
0
0
0
N
,
2
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
,
9
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
,
a
n
d
2
1
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
VA
R
I
A
B
L
E
V
A
L
U
E
S
SP
O
N
S
O
R
E
D
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
C
O
S
T
9.
4
7
$
Mo
s
t
r
e
c
e
n
t
N
T
D
C
o
s
t
p
e
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
M
i
l
e
,
B
u
s
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
(
1
)
9.
4
7
$
Mo
s
t
r
e
c
e
n
t
N
T
D
C
o
s
t
P
e
r
M
i
l
e
-
B
u
s
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
2.
2
%
An
n
u
a
l
e
s
c
a
l
a
t
o
r
r
a
t
e
(
2
)
2
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
Y
e
a
r
s
s
i
n
c
e
N
T
D
r
e
p
o
r
t
9.
8
9
$
ND
T
r
a
t
e
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
t
o
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Y
e
a
r
C
o
s
t
s
20
%
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
D
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
o
f
f
t
h
e
3
5
%
b
u
i
l
t
i
n
t
o
N
T
D
(
3
)
7.
9
1
$
Di
s
c
o
u
n
t
e
d
N
T
D
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
t
o
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Y
e
a
r
C
o
s
t
s
61
4
,
1
3
2
Sp
o
n
s
o
r
e
d
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
M
i
l
e
s
:
1
0
0
0
N
,
2
0
0
S
w
e
e
k
e
n
d
s
,
9
0
0
S
,
a
n
d
2
1
0
0
S
61
4
,
1
3
2
Sp
o
n
s
o
r
e
d
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
M
i
l
e
s
4,
8
5
7
,
7
8
4
.
1
2
$
To
t
a
l
M
i
l
e
a
g
e
C
o
s
t
,
W
i
t
h
o
u
t
F
u
e
l
,
A
n
n
u
a
l
9%
Sp
o
n
s
o
r
e
d
P
a
r
a
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
r
a
t
e
(
4
)
43
7
,
2
0
0
.
5
7
$
Ad
d
P
a
r
a
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
5,
2
9
4
,
9
8
4
.
6
9
$
To
t
a
l
A
n
n
u
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
C
o
s
t
s
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
f
u
e
l
3.
9
0
$
Fu
e
l
C
o
s
t
p
e
r
G
a
l
l
o
n
(
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Y
e
a
r
B
u
d
g
e
t
e
d
C
o
s
t
)
3.
9
0
$
Fu
e
l
C
o
s
t
p
e
r
G
a
l
l
o
n
4.
8
Fu
e
l
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
,
M
i
l
e
s
p
e
r
G
a
l
l
o
n
(
a
d
j
u
s
t
p
e
r
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
t
y
p
e
)
4.
8
0
Bu
s
M
i
l
e
s
p
e
r
G
a
l
l
o
n
61
4
,
1
3
2
Sp
o
n
s
o
r
e
d
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
M
i
l
e
s
49
8
,
9
8
2
.
2
5
$
To
t
a
l
F
u
e
l
C
o
s
t
49
3
,
0
6
1
$
20
1
9
A
n
n
u
a
l
S
p
o
n
s
o
r
e
d
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
L
e
a
s
e
C
o
s
t
s
49
,
3
0
6
.
1
4
$
Pe
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
+
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
R
a
t
e
10
Sp
o
n
s
o
r
e
d
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
10
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
f
o
r
s
p
o
n
s
o
r
e
d
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
49
3
,
0
6
1
.
4
0
$
To
t
a
l
A
n
n
u
a
l
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
C
o
s
t
f
o
r
S
p
o
n
s
o
r
e
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
17
5
,
3
8
1
$
20
2
2
A
n
n
u
a
l
S
p
o
n
s
o
r
e
d
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
L
e
a
s
e
C
o
s
t
s
43
,
8
4
5
.
2
5
$
Pe
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
+
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
R
a
t
e
4
Sp
o
n
s
o
r
e
d
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
4
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
f
o
r
s
p
o
n
s
o
r
e
d
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
17
5
,
3
8
1
.
0
0
$
To
t
a
l
A
n
n
u
a
l
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
C
o
s
t
f
o
r
S
p
o
n
s
o
r
e
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
66
8
,
4
4
2
.
4
0
$
6,
4
6
2
,
4
0
9
.
3
4
$
T
O
T
A
L
(1
)
N
T
D
C
o
s
t
p
e
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
M
i
l
e
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
t
o
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
f
u
e
l
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
b
u
t
d
o
e
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
2
%
f
o
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
(
e
.
g
.
e
n
g
i
n
e
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
,
e
t
c
)
.
(2
)
T
h
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
e
s
c
a
l
a
t
o
r
i
s
a
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
o
f
t
h
e
P
C
E
C
P
I
o
v
e
r
a
t
w
e
n
t
y
y
e
a
r
pe
r
i
o
d
.
(3
)
U
T
A
w
i
l
l
d
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
t
h
e
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
c
h
a
r
g
e
s
i
n
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
s
c
a
l
e
o
f
t
h
e
se
r
v
i
c
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
m
i
l
e
s
.
(4
)
P
a
r
a
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
r
a
t
e
i
s
e
q
u
a
l
t
o
t
h
e
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
t
h
e
m
o
s
t
r
e
c
e
n
t
N
T
D
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
to
t
a
l
d
e
m
a
n
d
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
h
o
u
r
s
a
s
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
t
o
t
a
l
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
ho
u
r
s
f
o
r
B
u
s
,
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
r
B
u
s
a
n
d
L
i
g
h
t
R
a
i
l
.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 6/12/2023
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 6/12/2023
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 6/12/2023
Darin Mano, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity and Policing Commission
STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson
April.Patterson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity and Policing
Commission
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Michael “Ryan” Hogan member
of the Racial Equity and Policing Commission.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
June 12, 2023
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Dear Council Member Mano,
Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for: Racial
Equity and Policing Commission
Michael "Ryan" Hogan to be appointed for a two year term, starting from date of City
Council advice and consent and term ending on Monday, December 20, 2025.
I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
cc: file
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 6/30/2023
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 6/30/2023
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 6/30/2023
Darin Mano, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and
Trails Advisory Board
STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson
April.Patterson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban
Forestry and Trails Advisory Board
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Kerri Nakamura
member of the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Advisory Board.
.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
June 30, 2023
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Dear Council Member Mano,
Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for: Parks,
Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Advisory Board
Kerri Nakamura to be appointed for a three year term starting from date of City Council
advice.
I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
cc: file
City Council Announcements
July 11, 2023
Information Needed:
Schedule for Thursday, July 13th meetings:
1. 3:00 p.m.: The State of Downtown is Thursday, July 13th at LeMeridian. At 3
pm they will honor recipients of the Downtown Creator award, which
includes Danny Waltz as an honoree. The meeting is scheduled for later than
4:15 p.m., but the Council will hold the Vacancy interviews at 4:30.
➢Could Council Members confirm their attendance with staff so that we
can RSVP.
2. 4:30 p.m. Council Meeting - confirming Council Members’ attendance at the
District 7 Vacancy interviews.
July 11, 2023
TO: Members of the Salt Lake City Council
FROM: Stephen Pace, Property Owner at 222 4th Ave. and 181 B St., Salt Lake City
Firstly, thank you for your time and consideration of my application for a text amendment
to resolve a decades -old building and zoning issue on my property and in the historic
Avenues neighborhood. In advance of the briefing on July 11,1 believe it's important to set
provide additional information as to my petition and the process it's been through to get
to this point. Since I only have five minutes to speak before the council, it also won't be
possible for me to convey all of this information during the allotted time.
The Goal
In briefest terms, my goal is to rebuild the carriage house that was historically designed for
the property and functioned for at least two decades before conversion to an auto garage.'
There are five areas of strength for this application as to why l believe you should support
it. They are as follows:
1) Historic significance of the Beer Estate;
2) Policy findings support the text amendment in principle;
3) There is 100% neighbor support for the text amendment and rebuilding the
carriage house; and,
4) The proposal has a narrow scope of impact; and,
5) The asserted downsides are speculative and unsubstantial.
Summary Historic Background
History of this property starts with Dr. William F. Beer, M.D. and famed architect Richard
K.A. Kletting. Klettin.g, one of the most important architects to ever lend his talents to Utah,
was the architect for the William F. Beer historic buildings located at 181 B St. and 222 4th
Ave., Salt Lake City. While being adjacent to each other, the two parcels have never been
adjoined nor functioned as one Lmit.
Located at 181 B St., the Beer Mansion is a 26-room, four -level residence built in 1898-99,
which I meticulously restored to its circa 1900 status. The Beer Mansion appears as an
Research shows the Carriage House form was changed coincident with World War I.
exemplar in Salt Lake City's guidelines on appropriate methods for historic preservation.
On the same lot is an approximately 600 square foot "workshop" that I remodeled.
Adjoining the rear of the 181 B St. property is a separate lot that faces 222 4th Ave. and
historically featured two structures. The first is a smaller structure known as the Harness
Shop House built, according to Salt Lake County, in 1867. I restored this structure in the
1980s and it continues to function today as a single rental living unit. Also on the same
roughly 8,400 square foot lot are the remains of the historic Carriage House that served the
Beer Estate. The 1905 photo below has been annotated to show the "Harness Shop House"
outlined in red, and the carriage house outlined in blue.
In 1977, the Beer Estate buildings, including the Carriage House, were individually listed
on the National Register of Historic Places. The Carriage House remains in the same form
today as it did at the time of designation, though has experience deterioration over that
time. Following i1 1979, the Salt Lake City Commission enacted an ordinance expressly
directing that these very buildings be "fostered, enhanced, and preserved" and has
2
managed the neighborhood through actions of the Historic Landmarks Commission and
adherence to the ordinance and design guidelines, or modified city ordinance that remains
in effect to this day.
Policy FindinM
There are seven key areas of policy findings that were included in the 2020 Pace Carriage
House HLC Staff Report that are worth highlighting separateiy here. As a group, they form
the basis as to why it would be in the city's interest to adopt and finalize the text
amendment.
Topic: "Key Consideration" (pg. G)
Stan Finding/Rationale: "Proposal is in line with adopted policies and guide nes."
Topic: Standards of Review (Pg. 7)
Finding: "Proposed zoning changes are generally supported by the associated .adopted
City policies."
Topic: "City Plan Considerations"' (pg. 165-167)
Finding: "For the purposes of creating a dwelling, unit. The policies and guidelines
encourage the creation of additional housing through flexibility and incentives within the
SLC zoning ordinances. "The proposed language also promotes sustainability through the
restoration or re-creation of a historic carriage house."
Subject: "Analysis of Zoning Amendment Standards." (pg. 186-190)
Topic 1: "Consistent with purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City."
Finding: "Proposal is generally consistent with the policies."
Topic 2: "Furthers specific purpose statements of zoning ordinance."
Finding: "Proposal generally furthers purpose of zoi*-ig ordinance."
Topic 3: "Consistent with purposes (of) applicable overlay district."
Fir &ng: "Proposal is generally consistent."
Topic 4: "The extent to which proposed text amendynertt Implements best current
professional practices of urban planning."
Finding: "Proposal provides an incentive to preserve, restore or reconstruct a historic
2 *(Community Preservation Plan, Plan salt Lake, Avenues Master flan, Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan,
Plan Salt Lake (Housing Options.))
3
features associated with landmark sites... implements intent of regulations... also
implements best current professional and design and practices." It is a mystery to us how
the findings in text of the application could be more favorable to our proposal. None of
these topics were even discussed by the HLC in July 2020.
Public Support
This proposal enjoys tl2e support of all neighboring property owners. Notably, no member
of the public spoke out against the proposal. The HLC inexplicably failed to discuss the
significant, indeed unanimous public support in favor of this proposal, found at
Attachment G to the July 9, 2020, HLC Staff Report. It was evidently too poptdlar to discuss_
Typically, in these instances staff tabulates and presents information regarding
neighborhood opinion so that such data could be analyzed by decisimunakers.
Unfortunately, in this case that did not happen. Perhaps even more notable is the emission
of a favorable ematil submission by Commissioner David Richardson who was wiable to
attend) the HLC meeting. His comments were not included irl the HLC Staff Report nor
distributed at the meeting.' In spiteof thelong-standing city practice that all comment
relatd to Planning Division staff reports are public documents.
In addition, several HLC members voiced their support for the philosophy behind the text
amendment during their meeting on July 16, 2020. No member of the HLC could disagree
that the proposal furthers the City's established goals. For one, the proposal will
indisputably allow for a. mucl-t more beneficial use of property than its current state,
something that all HLC commissioners acknowledged as a desirable goal. The Planning
staff comes out and says that it will also increase housing availability, and avoid needlessly
wasting useable, viable space, in fr.ertherance of Salt Lake City's goals. As stated in the
minutes of the HLC meeting, everyone involved recognized the need for "reasonable
development" of this property, and this amendment allows exactly that. We have never
talked to anyone who has asserted that a five -car garage makes sense as an, amenity for a
one -bedroom. house. It's an obvious waste of land and resources.
Narrow Scope of Impact
This is a modest proposal with narrow scope. Given its purpose to allow reconstruction of
historic carriage houses, it is a preservation tool for National Register -designated historic
3 In the interest of clarity, the city should respond on whether concealment of the Richardson email was a
decision made by the Planning Division staff or was it done at the instruction of Planning Division
management.
4
properties, and is completely voluntary. This total number of such carriage house
structures surviving in our city is certainly less than a dozen, and therefore will likely not
have broad reach or unintended consequences.
Downsides are .Minimal
The concerns some have raised come nowhere close to outweighing the benefits of the
proposed text amendment. These criticisms simply do not hold water upon close review.
Each is raised and rebutted below.
Concern 1: Some on the HLC expressed concern that there could be a proliferation of
individuals attempting to take advantage of the proposed text amendment, even in the
absence of evidence of a carriage house ewer existing on the property.
Response 1: There is no rational basis to tear that anyone will suddenly claim there was a
historic carriage house on their property whose existence has never been recognized.
Contrary to the concerns expressed by some, this proposal will not burden the HLC with
sorting out legitimate carriage house claims from spurious ones. The reality is that the text
amendment requires National Register status -- a process of sufficient vetting as to leave no
real concern that anyone will try to falsely claim that their property once housed a historic
carriage house.4 Moreover, the Department of the Interior makes no secret of the fact that
the Internal Revenue Service closely advises the Secretary of the Interior on matters
involving the integrity of National Register listings, when federal tax benefits are utilized.
This hawkish monitoring of the National Register listings thus provides all the more reason
to doubt that anyone could successfully palm off a fake carriage house.' The notion of fake
carriage houses brought up in the HLC is pure fantasy.
4 In the HLC Staff Report, it is noted that "[t]l-ye Historic Landmark Commission does not have the authority
to review alterations to propelties listed on the National Register of Historic Places." See July 9, 2020 HLC
Staff Report Attachment F (page 5). To be clear, this does not mean that the HLC is prohilsited from reviewing
alterations to properties on that register. Rather, this statement simply recognizes that the grant of HLC's
authority is defined in terms of Salt Lake City Landmarks, not national ones.
5 This omission was disconcerting for at least two reasons. The record (including the public open hawse
comments) was obviously faked € y the planning staff and therefore Face believes he was thus denied a fair
and complete hearing on the }proposal.. because the evidentiary basis for hearings was obviously flawed and
the Planning staff was never sanctioned for its prevarications, the reliability of all HLC and Planning
Commission proceedings as tivs matter is open to question. If documentation can be so easily hidden behind
laws and deadlines that facilitate concealment, then its anyone's guess as to what else may have been faked
and hidden. The Staff Report statement that all public comment was reposted is a notorious fie. If proof is
needed of this, Mr. Pace can provide a copy of internal staff emails.
E
Concern 2: Some on the HLC expressed the concern that the desired restoration of the
carriage house would result in an "inappropriate reconstruction" or "faux replica" of the
original.
Response 2: As Planning Director Norris explained to the HLC, the type of work sought to
be done here is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's guidelines for historic
preservation. Although the HLC may not have been aware of it, reconstruction is a
legitimate preservation technique in situations like this one. The HLC Staff Report likewise
acknowledged that, under the amendment: "A restored or reconstructed historic carriage
house would be required to comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties, which is section 21A.34.020.G in the Salt Lake City Zoning
Ordinance." (July 9, 2020 HLC Staff Report Attachment F, page 4) A copy of the Secretary
of the Interior's detailed standards, which will guide the recreation process, are available
here. It also bears noting that pictorial evidence, along with si&nificant portions of the
historic structure and its footprint, still exist for this property, so concerns abrout "faux"
replicas are particularly misplaced here. Indeed, other structures on the Beer Estate serve
as exemplars in Salt Lake City's publications for how to properly pursue historic
preservation. There is no reason to think the carriage house will differ.
Concern 3: Some on the HLC expressed the concern that neighbors might be upset that the
footprint of the historic carriage house does not adhere to modern setback spacing.
Response 3: This concern fails to account for the views of current neighbors,100% of whom
approve of the proposal, To the extent the HLC was expressing concerns that some
hypothetical future neighbors might someday raise, those individuals will have the choice
of whether to purchase neighboring property or not with full knowledge of what is in store
for the restoration of the carriage house.' If these are bonafide concerns, it leads me. to doubt
whether the HLC incumbents (as a group) are in any position to administer zoning
decisions, since an "upset" could apply to any property by any individual, at any time.
Concern 4: Some on the HLC suggested that this problem was better solved through
amending the ADU ordinance or the RMF-35 Zoning ordinance.
Response 4: Those approaches are overbroad, clumsy, and unsuited to the solving the
narrow but important problem of allowing the rehabilitation of historic carriage houses.
The narrow, focused approach presented by the text amendment solves the problem
without opening larger cans of worms. The ADU ordinance and the RW-35 Zoning
Ordinance can continue to operate elsewhere, but they should not prevent the
rehabilitation or reconstruction of important pieces of Salt Lake City history. A carriage
h Can the HLC be trusted to be provide sound input for zoning decisions, when, as is the case for the face
proposal, the HLC input is based on rank speculation by parties that have no in -Wrest ox ownership standing
in the appEcation? The HLC fails otherly to identify the standing of such parties.
house is 2-3 times as big as an ADU. l question. the probability of trying to make one set of
laws cover both types of buildings.
Concern 5: Some on the HLC suggested that the zoning text amendment could be
considered inappropriate "spot zoning."
Response 5: Utah courts define spat zoning as the "singling out one particular parcel for
different and less favorable treatment." ToI ban. v. Logan City, 2007 UT App 260, ,r 16, 167
P.3d 489 (emphasis added) (quoting Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. Nezv York, 366 N.E.2d 1271,
1275 (N.Y. 1977), aff'd, 438 U.S. 104 (1978).
Final Desien
While we have done extensive research and pre -design for rebuilding the Carriage House,
there are several details that need to be decided and incorporated. However, I`m waiting
to invest in final design until this text amendment is completed. In the spirit of
transparency, I'm sharing my list of potential known additions to the plans so that the city
council understands the full scope of what still needs to be completed.
Possible future changes to the current plans:
1. Foundation and foundation plan including pad for a garage;
2. Site plan for sewer, electric, and drainage including gutters;
3. Full dimensional drawings and site plan to scale;
4. Materials summary and specifications list with online links and/or digital product
brochures:
a. Cementitious (Hardiplank) siding on exterior;
b. Salvage and reuse of original bricks on site;
c. Types, styles, and products for windows and doors;
d. Type of asphalt shingle and product name; and,
5. Carriage house -style door on south similar to Fisher Mansion is planned to be non -
operable due to extreme changes in grade; carriage house -style door on north to be
operable with accordion fold.
We sincerely hope this gives you additional insight into my unique situation. We believe
this is a proposal that, in the big picture, if passed, signals strong support for historic
preservation in Salt Lake City and for historic neighborhoods that have decades old zoning
and property issues. To that end, we strongly encourage you to move forward in the
process to consider passage of this text amendment.
7