08/08/2023 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
FORMAL MEETING
August 8, 2023 Tuesday 7:00 PM
Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in person at
the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas.
Council Work Room
451 South State Street, Room 326
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Darin Mano, Chair
District 5
Victoria Petro, Vice Chair
District 1
Alejandro Puy
District 2
Chris Wharton
District 3
Ana Valdemoros
District 4
Dan Dugan
District 6
Sarah Young
District 7
Generated: 12:35:00
Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet
determined.
WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES
A.OPENING CEREMONY:
1.Council Member Victoria Petro will conduct the formal meeting.
2.Pledge of Allegiance.
3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules.
4.The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of May 23, 2023, as
well as the formal meeting minutes of April 18, 2023 and May 23, 2023.
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Ordinance: Historic Carriage House Text Amendment
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance 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. Petition No.: PLNPCM2020-
00106
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
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
2. Ordinance: Sight Distance Triangle Text Amendment
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would
amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the sight
distance triangle. The proposal would amend the zoning ordinance regulations regarding
the sight distance triangle, which is the area providing visual clearance at streets, alleys,
and driveways intersections where views of approaching traffic should not be obstructed.
Currently the code does not include intersections of alleys and streets, and alleys and
sidewalks. The proposed amendment will add these intersections with alleys and add
standards to apply the sight distance triangle regulations to buildings and all other
structures not included in fence regulations. Petitioner: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Petition
No. PLNPCM2023-00054
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 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
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
3. Ordinance: Sugar House Drive-Through Text Amendment
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending
various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to drive-through uses
in the Sugar House Business District. The proposal would prohibit new drive-through
facilities in the district by removing the permitted use designations for all drive-through
facilities under CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for
Commercial Districts (21A.33.030). The amendment would also clarify that drive-
through facilities are only permitted when specifically listed as permitted in the land use
tables. Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00026
For more information on this item visit tinyurl.com/SugarHouseDriveThroughs.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 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
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
4. Resolution: Capital Improvement Program Projects
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting a resolution for project
funding allocations in the 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; Tuesday, July 11, 2023; Tuesday, July 18, 2023;
and Tuesday, August 8, 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
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS:
NONE.
D.COMMENTS:
1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council.
2.Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled
for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited
to two minutes.)
E.NEW BUSINESS:
NONE.
F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
NONE.
G.CONSENT:
1. Resolution: Ivory University House Public Benefits Analysis
The Council will set the date of Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public
comment and consider adopting a resolution that would adopt the conclusions of the
public benefit analysis and authorize impact and permit fee waivers and refunds for Ivory
University House L3C. In return, over a period of ten years, Ivory University House would
pledge need-based scholarships for Salt Lake City residents valued at the same amount as
the fee waivers and refunds.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 15, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 8, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 19, 2023
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
2. Ordinances: Form Based Urban Neighborhood Zoning Text Amendment
The Council will set the date of Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public
comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would create the Form-Based Urban
Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict (FB- UN3) as well as an ordinance that would amend the
zoning map to apply the FB-UN3 to the fleet block property. The fleet block property is
located between 800 South and 900 South Streets and 300 West and 400 West Street.
Form-Based code focuses on the form and appearance of buildings and has more
regulations that control those aspects of development than traditional zones. The
proposal would apply regulations such as building design, height, bulk, use, and other
development standards and land uses. Consideration may be given to rezoning the
property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Other sections of Title
21A – Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. Petition No. PLNPCM2019-
00277
For more information on this item visit tinyurl.com/SLCFleetBlock.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 8, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
3. Board Reappointment: Airport Board: Dirk Burton
The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Dirk Burton to the Airport
Board for a term ending August 8, 2027.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 8, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 8, 2023
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
4. Term Correction: Board Reappointment: Board of Appeals and Examiners –
Beverly A. Langue
The Council will consider approving a term correction for the reappointment of Beverly
A. Langue to the Board of Appeals and Examiners for a term ending December 22, 2027.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 8, 2023
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
H.ADJOURNMENT:
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 2:00 p.m. on Friday, August 4, 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.
PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Tuesday, May 23, 2023.
The following Council Members were present:
Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano
The following Council Members were absent:
Amy Fowler
Present Legislative leadership:
Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver –
Associate Deputy Director
Present Administrative leadership:
Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff, Lisa Shaffer – Chief Administrative
Officer
Present City Staff:
Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, DeeDee Robinson –
Minutes & Records Clerk, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany –
Staff Assistant, Allison Rowland – Public Policy Analyst, Andrew Johnston – Director of
Homelessness Policy and Outreach, Ben Luedtke – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Blake Thomas
– Community & Neighborhoods Director, Brian Fullmer – Constituent Liaison, Policy Analyst,
Kristin Riker – Public Lands Department Director, Mary Beth Thompson – Chief Financial
Officer, Nick Norris – Planning Director, Sylvia Richards – Public Policy Analyst
The meeting was called to order at 1:03 pm.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
1
Work Session Items
Click Here for the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year 2023-24
1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 1:00 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
Weston Clark provided information regarding:
Community Engagement Updates
•Ways to engage with the City at www.slc.gov./feedback/
•Ballpark NEXT voting ending May 25, 2023
•Mayor’s Community Office Hours locations and times for May 2023
•May/June 2023 Events: Utah Pride Festival, International Market, Utah Asian
Festival, etc.
Andrew Johnston provided information regarding:
Homelessness Update
•Homeless Resource Center (HRC) utilization
•Rapid Intervention Team (RIT)/Encampment Impact Mitigation (EIM)
locations/updates
•Kayak/Bicycle Court information
•Process for next year’s winter overflow
◦First meeting of the task group was last week
◦Goal was for 600 beds, plus an additional 200 stored beds for Code Blue
emergencies
◦Currently working on:
◾Securing a physical location
◾Funding
◾Operations plan for the facility
◦State deadline to submit winter overflow information was August 1, 2023
Ordinance: Rezone at Approximately 1350, 1358, and 1370 ~ 1:15 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
2
2.South West Temple
20 min
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of
properties at approximately 1350, 1358, and 1370 South West Temple Street from RB
(Residential Business District) to TSA-UC-C (Transit Station Area Urban Center
Core). The request is to facilitate future redevelopment of the site to allow for a mixed-
use structure that may include commercial and multi-family residential uses.
Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with
similar characteristics. Petitioner: Sattar Tabriz.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 6, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023
Council Member Mano indicated he was recusing himself from this agenda item due to
his business’ affiliation with the project. Council Member Wharton stepped in to chair
the meeting.
Brian Fullmer provided a brief introduction to the proposal.
Nanette Larsen provided information regarding:
•Current and proposed zoning; Residential Business (RB) to Transit Station Area –
Urban Center – Core (TSA-UC-C)
•Planning Commission recommended approval of the zoning map amendment
•Existing zoning conditions on subject property and surrounding area
•Subject properties located within both the Central Community Station Area Plan
and Ballpark Station Area
•Creation of Festival Street designation
•Planning Department working to begin implementing the Ballpark Station Area
Plan
•Community feedback consisted of multiple requests to retain 1350 and 1358 South
West Temple
Council Member Valdemoros brought forth the following issues:
•Concerns regarding the possible displacement of a resident in one of the existing
dwellings – encouraged affordable housing in the proposed project to offset the
loss of affordable rent
•Activation of the street level being important to the Ballpark neighborhood and
suggesting a possible development agreement to secure that element
•A time limit imposed/agreement for completion of development to avoid the
property being left vacant, derelict and prone to more problems for the
neighborhood
Sattar Tabriz and Brian Scott provided information regarding:
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
3
•The previous homeowner occupying one of the structures had moved and the home
was currently vacant
•Petitioner being open to more interactive/public facing activation along the street
•Apartment sizes proposed: range of studios to two bedrooms at 400 square to 900
square feet
•Affordable units would be considered and handled through partnering with a
chosen developer
Council Member Wharton expressed concerns that this proposal did not necessarily fit
the Festival Street concept without street level activation and was not adding to the
housing stock that the City was in need of.
Council Member Petro expressed agreement with Council Member Valdemoros’ concern
of activating the area in a timely manner.
3.Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget: Community and Neighborhoods
Department ~ 1:35 p.m.
45 min
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Community and Neighborhoods
Department budget for Fiscal Year 2023-24.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6,
2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
Allison Rowland provided an introduction to the briefing.
Tammy Hunsaker, Blake Thomas, Nick Norris, Orion Goff, Jon Larsen and
Angela Price provided information regarding:
Community & Neighborhoods Department Budget – Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-
2024
•Department of Community & Neighborhoods (CAN) consisting of 190 full-time
employees (FTEs), five divisions including Office of the Director (includes Real
Estate Services): Building Services, Housing Stability, Planning, Transportation,
and Youth and Family Services
•Summary of recent budget requests and actuals
•Update on Livable Streets progress/projects
•Short-term rental enforcement policy progress
•“15-Minute City” neighborhood study details and how it could affect City-wide
zoning reform
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
4
•Updates on Transportation’s Quick Action vs. permanent traffic calming methods
•Updates on department efforts regarding water wise landscaping (currently in the
transmittal phase)
Budget Requests
•Building Services:
◦$194K – Request for two Civil Enforcement Officers for short-term rental
enforcement
•Office of the Director/Housing Stability:
◦Thriving in Place and Housing SLC – Near-term action priorities:
◾$92K – Tenant Resource and Navigation Service (Funding Our
Future)
◾$180K – Tenant Relocation Assistance (Funding Our Future)
•Planning:
◦$100K – Neighborhood Amenities Analysis and Report (General Fund)
•Transportation:
◦$1.1M – On-Demand Ride Service (Funding Our Future)
◦$400K – Service for Bus Routes 1, 2, 9, 21 (Funding Our Future)
•Youth and Family Services:
◦$100K – Youth and Family Strategic Plan (General Fund)
◦$447,136 – Four YouthCity employees at Fairpark location (General Fund)
•Community & Neighborhoods:
◦$111,010 – Business Systems Analyst II position (General Fund)
Council Member Valdemoros requested an update on Council added items regarding
naturally occurring affordable housing and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Blake
Thomas indicated a transmittal containing more information on how these items were
integrated in City housing plans including how they would be funded, would be
forthcoming to the Council for review over the next few weeks.
Council Member Puy expressed concerns on the delay of responses for the Building
Service audit and requested an update on the audit’s Priorities 1-5. Orion Goff indicated
the Division was working with Council Staff on a formal response to the audit.
Council Member Valdemoros suggested $200K go towards quick action traffic calming
measures rather than the $100K proposed. Jon Larsen described recent traffic calming
measure being done across the City and said they were still calibrating effectiveness of
temporary vs. permanent traffic calming measures, and was amenable to the Council’s
preferences for funding the initiatives.
Council Member Mano suggested that the Administration notify residents how and
where the quick action traffic calming methods were being used as well as communicated
to Council Members, allowing them to answer constituent questions regarding the
efforts.
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget: Department of Public Lands ~ 2:20 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
5
4.Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget: Department of Public Lands ~ 2:20 p.m.
45 min
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Department of Public Lands
budget for Fiscal Year 2023-24.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6,
2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
Allison Rowland provided an introduction to the briefing.
Kristin Riker, Tyler Murdock and Lisa Shaffer provided information regarding:
Public Lands Proposed Budget for FY 2023-2024
•Public Lands consisting of the following divisions: Parks, Trails & Natural Lands,
Urban Forestry, and Administrative
•Public Lands Department summary of budget requests
•Inflationary and contractural increases
•Funding Our Future (FOF) re-allocation and requests
•Results of surveying City residents regarding “taking care of what we have” for City
parks, trails, etc.
•New properties, growth and use impacts for Parks and Trails and Natural Lands
(including new requested positions, new trails/natural lands/properties acquired
and how they impacted the community)
•Soft Surface Trail Maintenance Crew (for proactive and responsive long-term care
for existing Foothill trails)
•FOF re-allocation and request totals for vehicles for Parks and Trails Natural
Lands
•Special events on City property and how many departments could potentially be
involved the cost recovery effort in order to off-set maintenance costs for City
facilities
•$225K – Expanded City-wide events funding; two drone shows for July 4 and July
24, and nine new City events requiring one new Special Projects Assistant position
•New and expanded City sponsored events including locations and proposed dates
•Details on deferred park maintenance including the amount of allocated funding
and a list of current projects
•Trail maintenance and proposed maintenance plan
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
6
•Details of the budget contingency passed by the Council 2021 – noting an executive
summary that outlined the initial findings of the evaluation was provided to
Council Members
Council Member Puy said it was important to him for the Administration to consider
green/electric/hybrid fleet vehicles for the department, inquired on the status of
opening park restrooms and possible cost recovery options for damage to irrigation
systems during events held at parks. Kristin Riker explained that there was a late start to
opening park restrooms across the City due to cold weather lingering longer than usual
and employees being diverted to recent flood efforts for debris removal from City Creek,
they had contracted with PalAmerican Security to lock park restrooms at night, spoke on
the importance of green vehicles, noting the recent purchase of new green mowers in the
fleet, and said that cost recovery was accomplished through billing event organizers after
the fact to build in costs for any damages sustained.
Council Member Puy requested metrics on the Park Ranger Program and inquired if
tracking the status of water fountains, tracking park bathrooms, and collecting
neighborhood feedback could be added metrics for the program. Kristin Riker said there
would soon be a Park Ranger metrics dashboard available that would include a quarterly
report and would be made available to Council Members to add to their newsletters,
social media, etc.
5.Tentative Break ~ 3:05 p.m.
20 min.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
6.Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget: Department of Public Services ~ 3:25 p.m.
45 min
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Department of Public Services
budget for Fiscal Year 2023-24.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6,
2023 at 7 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
7
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
Kira Luke provided an introduction to the briefing.
Julie Crookston and Jorge Chamorro provided information regarding:
Department of Public Services Proposed Budget FY 2023-2024
•Department mission
•Department consisting of six divisions: Administrative Services, Compliance
Division, Engineering Division, Facilities Division, Fleet Division (Fleet Fund), and
Streets Division
Budget Requests
•$1.2M – Contractual/Inflationary increases: CPI (cost of living) adjustment, 10%
water utility surplus fee, overtime budget equalization
•$45K – Public Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations Maintenance
•New full-time employees (FTEs) :
◦$152,565 – Safety and Security Director
◦$178K – Environmental Engineer
◦$131,750 – Building Administrator
◦$332K – Trades Apprenticeship Program (for four new FTE’s)
•$130K – Mill and Overlay Pilot Program (Funding Our Future) – for
maintaining roads not eligible for current surface treatments nor full
reconstruction
Council Member Puy suggested the department consider dropping or postponing the
Building Administrator budget for more funding to go towards the Mill and Overlay Pilot
Program due to the amount of roads needing maintenance in the City. Jorge Chamorro
said current staff would be stretched and doubling the amount of materials wouldn’t get
them to double the amount of miles completed, and noted they could provide more data
regarding costs, time, miles completed after this year’s pilot program ended to possibly
fund a permanent program in the future.
7.Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget: Golf Fund ~ 4:10 p.m.
30 min
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Golf Fund budget for Fiscal Year
2023-24.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6,
2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
8
Jennifer Bruno provided a brief introduction to the briefing.
Matt Kammeyer provided information regarding:
Golf Fund Proposed Budget for FY 2023-2024
•Golf Division areas of focus:
◦Grow the game
◦Develop our talent
◦Improve assets
◦Be a community partner
•Data on Golf rounds played from FY 2013 to FY 2022
•Data on Golf course utilization (including total revenue and revenue per
start increased the past four years)
•Many out-of-play areas saw significant reductions of water in FY 2023
•Data on Golf course water usage (FY 2022 totals reflected a 37.5% reduction in
water use compared to FY 2021
•Operational expense breakdown, totaling $10,394,074
•Revenue increases totaling $1,149,391 (green fees, driving range fees, concessions,
golf cart rental, etc.)
•Current concessionaire contracts
Budget Requests
•$38,598 – Request for one half FTE: Senior Warehouse Operator (shared staffing
with Public Lands)
•$186,494 – Request for Seasonal Wage Increase (covered by Golf Fund)
•$199,162 – Inflationary/contractural increases (water, stormwater, power, fleet
fuel, etc.)
•$2.5M – Reinvestments back into Golf properties via Capital Improvement (CIP)
Projects (tee box leveling projects, cart path improvements, Rose Park irrigation
projects, etc.)
8.Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget: Fleet Fund ~ 4:40 p.m.
30 min
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Fleet Fund budget for Fiscal Year
2023-24, which provides vehicles, fuel, and vehicle maintenance and repair services for
all City departments.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6,
2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
9
Sylvia Richards provided an introduction to the briefing.
Nancy Bean, Jorge Chamorro, and Julie Crookston provided information
regarding:
Fleet Fund Proposed Budget for FY 2023-2024
•Division overview:
◦Purpose – procure, maintain, repair, and dispose of all City-owned vehicles
and equipment
◦Personnel – 46 FTEs
◦Assets – 1,613 vehicles, 2,828 pieces of equipment, 15 fuel stations, two
vehicle wash facilities
•Electrification of Fleet vehicles
Budget Requests
•Heavy Duty Wash Bay Cleanout (reducing $50K from General Fund)
•$657K Parts inflation increase
•$975K – Fuel inflation increase
•$1.7M – Streets (Funding Our Future)
•$4M – Public Safety (Funding Our Future)
9.Dinner Break ~ 5:10 p.m.
30 min.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
10.Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget: Non-Departmental Fund ~ 5:40 p.m.
40 min
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Non-Departmental Fund budget
for Fiscal Year 2023-24, which accounts for transfers to other funds, grants, and other
special revenue funds that do not belong to particular City departments.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
10
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6,
2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
Jennifer Bruno, Mary Beth Thompson, and Lisa Shaffer provided information
regarding:
Non-Departmental Fund Proposed Budget for FY 2023-2024
•$283,791 – Contractural increases (City Hall Police presence, Sugar House Park
Authority, Utah League of Cities & Towns, etc.)
•$100K – Water usage study
•$334,551 – Municipal elections
•$50K – Healthcare innovations and technology
•$150K – Employee appreciation
•$3,816,319 – Racial Equity in Policing
•$690K -Transportation increases (HIVE Pass funding, Transit On-Demand,
Transit Plan-Service, etc.)
•$23M – Transfer to CIP and Debt Service
•$11,743,350 – Transfer to Fleet
•$2M – Transfer to Golf Fund
•$22M – Transfer to IMS Fund
•$3.9M – Transfer to Insurance and Risk Management Fund
•$15.9M – Transfer to Redevelopment Agency Fund
•$1.4M – Transfer to Sustainability Fund
•$3.8M – FY 2023 one-time funding removal
•Branding the City & County Building to City Hall via changes to the glass windows
•Earthquake repair funding status
Council Member Dugan spoke on the importance of student buss passes as well as
funding for the item ($100K).
11.Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget: Unresolved Issues TENTATIVE
30 min
The Council will receive a briefing about unresolved issues relating to the proposed
budget for Fiscal Year 2023-24.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6,
2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
11
Jennifer Bruno, Katie Lewis, Ben Luedtke, Mary Beth Thompson and Council
Members discussed the following unresolved issues:
Housing Category
•$1M for loan program for naturally occurring affordable housing – raised by
Council Member Valdemoros
•$1M for City-wide Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) incentive program
•$2M Partnership with Neighborworks for equity-sharing housing project – raised
by Council Member Petro
•($ TBD) Partnership with Salt Lake County to add housing to Sunday-Anderson
Senior Center reconstruction – raised by Council Member Puy
•$500K Funding for gap at Switchpoint supportive housing – raised by Council
Member Petro (noting flexibility on the amount)
•$250K for sanctioned camping grant to supplement State efforts – raised by
Council Member Puy
Compensation Category
•Firefighter pay increases – raised by various Council Members (additional 1% to
5% increase over Mayor’s recommended 5%, proposed for an ongoing expense)
•Increased funding for pay equity for City Prosecutors ($200K increase) and Legal
Defenders ($122K to $150K)
•Wage increases for seasonal workers (amount TBD)
General Transportation/Streets Category
•$114K for student/guardian HIVE passes (potentially from Funding Our Future)
•$150K for train crossing safety signs – raised by Council Member Puy
•Possible increases for the Street Mill and Overlay Pilot Program within the Public
Services Department
•$100K for additional temporary traffic calming features
Other Category
•$100K Text messaging system for people calling 911 Dispatch – raised by Council
Member Puy
•Increased funding for Economic Development Department to partner with local
non-profits – raised by Council Member Valdemoros
•$50K for Facade Grant Program – raised by Council Member Puy
•Additional funding for Love Your Block – raised by Council Member Puy
•Blackwater tank/RV dumping – $10K in vouchers for dumping fees raised by
Council Member Puy
•$600K for one additional crew for the Park Ranger Program (REMOVED)
•Funding to scope a program for zoning efficiency – raised by Council Member
Mano (REMOVED) (Determined to be moved to a Legislative Intent)
Budget Cleanup Category
•Increased funding for lifestyle savings account
•Reappropriating Building Security funding not yet spent
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget: Insurance and Risk Written Briefing
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
12
•Downtown Street Activation
•Police Substations – $5K to meet gap for lease and utilities
•$35K being available to spread through different issues/purposes
•New full-time employee (FTE) requests
•Additional Civilian Response FTEs
12.Management
-
The Council will receive a written briefing about the proposed Insurance and Risk
Management fund budget, which accounts for employee insurance plans, for Fiscal Year
2023-24.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6,
2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
Written briefing only. No discussion was held.
13.Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget: Finance Department Written Briefing
-
The Council will receive a written briefing about the proposed Finance Department
budget for Fiscal Year 2023-24.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6,
2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
Written briefing only. No discussion was held.
Standing Items
14.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
13
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
Item not held.
15.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.
Cindy Gust-Jenson inquired if Council Members could meet next Thursday at
1:00PM.
Council Member Mano advised fellow Council Members to notify Staff of
availability for next Thursday.
Council Members Puy, Mano, Valdemoros, Petro and Dugan indicated
they would be available, Council Member Wharton indicated he would not
be available.
16.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.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
14
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.
Item not held.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
15
Meeting adjourned at 7:49 pm.
Minutes Approved:
_______________________________
City Council Chair Darin Mano
_______________________________
City Recorder
Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at www.data.slc.gov by selecting Public Body
Minutes) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior
to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active
indefinitely.
This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City
Council Work Session meeting held Tuesday, May 23, 2023 and is not intended to serve as a full
transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-
4-203.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
16
PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Formal Session on Tuesday, April 18, 2023.
The following Council Members were present:
Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy,
Darin Mano
Present Legislative Leadership:
Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver –
Associate Deputy Director
Present Administrative Leadership:
Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff, Lisa Shaffer – Chief Administrative Officer
Present City Staff:
Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, DeeDee Robinson –
Minutes & Records Clerk, Brian Fullmer – Public Policy Analyst, Sylvia Richards – Public Policy
Analyst, Stephanie Elliott – Minutes & Records Clerk
The meeting was called to order at 7:04 pm
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, April 18, 2023
1
LBA OPENING CEREMONY
A.Board/Council Member Victoria Petro will conduct the formal meeting.
B.Pledge of Allegiance.
LBA CONSENT:
Resolution: Budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building
Authority for Fiscal Year 2023-24
The Board will set the dates of Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7
p.m. to accept public comment and consider approving a resolution that would adopt
the final budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority of Salt
Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2023-24.
The LBA’s Capital Projects Fund for Fiscal Year 2023-24 only includes the bond debt
services for the Glendale and Marmalade Libraries. (Other Capital projects throughout
the City are included in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget.) The LBA is a financing
tool for cities and government entities, like libraries, to bond for capital projects at
better interest rates. Capital projects are big projects like parks, public buildings, and
street projects.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6,
2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
Motion:
Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Fowler to approve
LBA Consent Agenda.
AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton, Alejandro
Puy, Darin Mano
Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass
LBA ADJOURNMENT:
Motion:
Moved by Councilmember Wharton, seconded by Councilmember Fowler to
adjourn the Local Building Authority Meeting, and convene as the City Council.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, April 18, 2023
2
AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton, Alejandro
Puy, Darin Mano
Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass
OPENING CEREMONY:
1.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules.
2.The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of February 7, 2023,
and February 14, 2023, as well as the formal meeting minutes of February 7,
2023.
Council Member Puy took a moment of personal privilege to recognize the Die Hard
Pickleballer Club and presented the club with a Certificate of Recognition for their
community involvement.
Motion:
Moved by Councilmember Puy, seconded by Councilmember Wharton to
approve Work Session minutes of February 7 and 14, 2023 and Formal
minutes February 7, 2023.
AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton,
Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano
Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass
3.YouthCity Government will present the Youth State of the City Address.
Diya Oommen, Hamda Ibrahim, Julia Summerfield, Rodrigo Fernandez-
Esquivias, Cate Love presented the Youth State of the City Address to the Council. The
YouthCity Government (YCG) thanked the council for their work with the group and
spoke on the following topics regarding their impacts to the youth in the city:
•SB16 Transgender Medical Treatment and Procedures Amendments
•Women's Rights – overturn of Roe V Wade
•Reproductive Rights
•Transgender Youth Rights
•YouthCity Government Helps and
The Council thanked Angela Romero and Juanita Escareno for their work with the YCG.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Items E1 – E12 will be heard as one public hearing
1. Grant Application: Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities
(BRIC) Grant
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from Housing
Stability to the Department of Homeland Security. If awarded, the grant would
fund seismic improvements on private single-family dwellings. The 2022 application
includes duplexes and recruitment of homeowners who qualify as having low to moderate
income.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, April 18, 2023
3
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
See item E12 for minutes on public hearing items E1-E12.
2. Grant Application: 2022 Public Art Challenge: Wake the Great Salt Lake
Grant
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Salt
Lake City Arts Council to the Bloomberg Philanthropies. If awarded, the grant would
fund A series of 3-5 major artworks across the City created by world-renowned artists.
These artists will be selected with the intention of leveraging their notoriety and practice
while bringing awareness of our water conservation, air quality, ecology of the lake, and
environmental and social justice. A series of temporary public art projects by local and
regional artists and organizations in a multiplicity of disciplines will also be
commissioned. The grant would also fund a part-time curator position and a part-time
project coordinator.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
See item E12 for minutes on public hearing items E1-E12.
3. Grant Application: Consumer Recycling Education and Outreach Grant
Program
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Division
of Waste and Recycling to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. If awarded, the
grant would fund four part-time Education Specialists to conduct reuse, reduce, and
recycle presentations at community events, schools, and businesses; staff tabling events;
monitor curbside recycling and green waste can contamination weekly on Westside
routes; assist community recycling collection events; train Recycling Ambassadors; and
support campaign outreach. It would also fund overtime for two Waste Recycling
Equipment Operators to load and transport electronic (e-) waste collected at community
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, April 18, 2023
4
recycling events to a disposal facility.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
See item E12 for minutes on public hearing items E1-E12.
4. Grant Application: Marathon Community Investments Program Grant:
YouthCity Teen Program Transportation Solutions
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Division
of Youth & Family Services to the Marathon Petroleum Foundation. If awarded, the grant
would fund the purchase of one 14-passenger van for YouthCity Northwest Teen
programs. The van would be used to transport YouthCity Northwest Teen participants
from neighborhood middle schools and high schools to the Northwest Community
Center, which is the site for YouthCity Northwest Teen programming.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
See item E12 for minutes on public hearing items E1-E12.
5. Grant Application: First Responder Mental Health Services Grant: Wellness
and Peer Support Program
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Police
Department to the Utah Department of Public Safety. If awarded, the grant would fund
the purchase of three NeurOptimal and Neurofeedback systems for use in its Wellness
and Peer Support Program. These systems are being used to improve symptoms of post-
traumatic stress disorder, sleep difficulties, anxiety, trauma, panic, depression, and
more.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, April 18, 2023
5
discussion)
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
See item E12 for minutes on public hearing items E1-E12.
6. Grant Application: Leading City Procurement Reform Grant: Bloomberg
Center for Cities at Harvard
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Division
of Purchasing and Contract Management to the Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard.
If awarded, the grant would fund training to emphasize procurement as a more central
city function.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
See item E12 for minutes on public hearing items E1-E12.
7. Grant Application: School-Age Summer Quality Expansion Grant for
YouthCity Programming at Sorenson Unity Center
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Division
of Youth and Family Services to the Utah Department of Workforce Services. If awarded,
the grant would fund the Sorenson Unity Center summer youth program general
operating expenses.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, April 18, 2023
6
See item E12 for minutes on public hearing items E1-E12.
8. Grant Application: School-Age Summer Quality Expansion Grant for
YouthCity Programming at Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Division
of Youth and Family Services to the Utah Department of Workforce Services. If awarded,
the grant would fund the Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center summer youth program
general operating expenses.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
See item E12 for minutes on public hearing items E1-E12.
9. Grant Application: School-Age Summer Quality Expansion Grant for
YouthCity Programming at Ottinger Hall
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Division
of Youth and Family Services to the Utah Department of Workforce Services. If awarded,
the grant would fund the Ottinger Hall summer youth program general operating
expenses.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, April 18, 2023
7
See item E12 for minutes on public hearing items E1-E12.
10. Grant Application: School-Age Summer Quality Expansion Grant for
YouthCity Programming at Liberty Park
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Division of Youth and Family Services to the Utah Department of Workforce Services. If
awarded, the grant would fund the Liberty Park summer youth program general
operating expenses.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
See item E12 for minutes on public hearing items E1-E12.
11. Grant Application: School-Age Summer Quality Expansion Grant for
YouthCity Programming at Fairmont Park
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Division of Youth and Family Services to the Utah Department of Workforce Services. If
awarded, the grant would fund the Fairmont Park summer youth program general
operating expenses.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, April 18, 2023
8
See item E12 for minutes on public hearing items E1-E12.
12. Grant Application: School-Age Summer Quality Expansion Grant for
YouthCity Programming at Central City
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Division of Youth and Family Services to the Utah Department of Workforce Services. If
awarded, the grant would fund the Central City summer youth program general
operating expenses.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
Sylvia Richards introduced the grant items E1 – E12 for City programs to the
Council.
Gale Daws expressed support for the YouthCity programming and the great impact on
the community it would have to continue growing the programs.
Bernie Hart urged the Council to have more oversight on the use of the grant money
to ensure it was being used as directed.
Motion:
Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Fowler to
close the public hearing and refer items B1-B12 to a future consent agenda.
AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton,
Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano
Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass
13. Ordinance: Downtown Building Height and Street Activation Text
Amendment
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would
amend the zoning text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code
pertaining to building heights in the Downtown Plan area. This proposal includes
amendments to the following zoning districts: D-1 (Downtown Central Business
District), D-2 (Downtown Support), D-3 (Downtown Warehouse), D-4 (Downtown
Secondary Business District), G-MU (Gateway Mixed-Use), CG (General Commercial)
and the FB-UN1 and FB-UN2 (Form based districts). Additionally, the proposed code
revisions aim to accommodate growth and respond to new development pressures,
while developing standards for public spaces. The Council may consider modifications
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, April 18, 2023
9
to other related sections of the code as part of this proposal. Petitioner: Mayor Erin
Mendenhall Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-00529.
For more information on this item visit
https://tinyurl.com/downtownbuildingheights
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 4, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 2, 2023
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
Brian Fullmer introduced the Ordinance regarding the Downtown Building Height
and Street Activation Text Amendment.
Cindy Cromer urged the Council to review the amendment and expressed concern
about the negative impacts the ordinance would have on the environment.
Bernie Hart spoke on water issues. the new developments around SLC and asked the
council to review impacts to the community.
Doug Dansie expressed enthusiasm and concern for new growth, suggested additional
criteria be included in the design for the Planning Commission to review the impacts of
the height corridors.
Jake Seastrand expressed concern on the congestion created in their neighborhoods
by the new developments, suggested more city oversight on the new developments and
their impact on local resident's everyday life.
Motion:
Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Puy to
continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting.
AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton,
Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano
Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass
14. Ordinance: Rezone at 792 West 900 South and 875 South 800 West
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would
amend the zoning of property at 792 West 900 South and 875 South 800 West from M-
1 (Light Manufacturing District) to R-MU (Residential/Mixed Use District). The
proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is intended to allow the property owner to
develop two small multi-family dwellings. No development plans have been submitted
at this time. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning
district with similar characteristics. The properties are within Council District 2.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, April 18, 2023
10
Petitioner: Cameron Broadbent, Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-00587
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 4, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 2, 2023
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
Brian Fullmer introduced the Ordinance of rezoning a Light Manufacturing District
to a Residential/Mixed Use District.
Cameron Broadbent (Property Owner) expressed desire for the rezoning request
to be approved and stated their commitment to contributing to the community and
creating a modest development.
Motion:
Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Fowler to
close the public hearing and refer action to a future Council meeting for
action.
AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton,
Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano
Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass
15. Ordinance: Airport Title 16 Amendments
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would
repeal and replace Title 16 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Airports. The
proposed amendment would eliminate duplicate and outdated regulations. Changes also
include moving codified commercial standards to standalone administrative documents
for operators doing business at the airport. Language related to ground transportation
rules and fees is removed where it’s duplicated on the City’s ordinance regulating
business (Title 5).
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 4, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, April 18, 2023
11
Brian Fullmer introduced the Airport Title 16 Amendments
No public comment on this item.
Motion:
Moved by Council Member Fowler, seconded by Council Member Puy to
close the public hearing and defer the item to a future Council meeting for
action.
AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton,
Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano
Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass
POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS:
1. Ordinance: Homeless Resource Center Text Amendment
The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would establish a process for
approving future Homeless Resource Centers (HRCs) in the City and modify
existing standards for homeless resource centers and homeless shelters. The
Council may amend other related chapters and sections of Title 21A Zoning as
part of this proposal. This petition was initiated by the City Council through
Ordinance 15B of 2022. Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-01068
The proposal includes:
•A Homeless Resource Center Overlay Zoning District;
•Modifications to city ordinance 21A.36.350 Standards for Homeless
Resource Centers;
•Provisions for temporary/seasonal homeless resource centers that
incorporate recent changes to Utah Code;
•Modifications to city ordinance 21A.50 to include additional considerations
when mapping the HRC overlay and other related changes; and
•Updated defined terms.
For more information on this item visit www.tinyurl.com/HRCTextAmendment
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 7, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 18, 2023
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
Council Member Dugan expressed desire for further discussion on this amendment and
asked for specific clarification of the following initiative items:
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, April 18, 2023
12
•Size of Homeless Resource Center (HRC)
•the rules and processes each one must follow
•Firearm procedures and process for the HRC
•Reporting requirements for safety concerns
•Combined city and state efforts for the HRC
•Ensure the city was following the new legislation passed
Motion:
Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Valdemoros
to defer the item to a future Council meeting for action.
AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton,
Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano
Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass
2. Funding Allocations for One-year Action Plan for Community Development
Block Grant & Other Federal Grants for Fiscal Year 2023-24
The Council will consider an appropriations resolution that would authorize grant
funding to selected applicants and adopt the One-Year Annual Action Plan for Fiscal Year
2023-24. The plan includes Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding,
HOME Investment Partnership Program funding, Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)
funding, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funding. The
resolution would also approve an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake
City and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 7, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 18, 2023
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
Motion:
Moved by Council Member Fowler, seconded by Council Member Mano to
approve Resolution 09 of 2023 adopting 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan funding
allocations attached to the motion sheet as Exhibit A for CDBG, ESG, HOME and
HOPWA.
I further move that it is the intent of the Council to review the City’s various
Community Land Trust and Shared Equity Programs (such as the Westside
Community Initiative and Perpetual Housing Fund), and work with the
Administration to evaluate how to deliver this service most efficiently.
AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton,
Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano
Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, April 18, 2023
13
3. Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at 865 South 500 East
The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of
property at 865 South 500 East Street from RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family
Residential District) to CN (Neighborhood Commercial District), this would also amend
the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. The intent of the rezone
request is to allow for the conversion of the existing single-family dwelling on the
property to a commercial use. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to
another zoning district with similar characteristics. The property is located within
Council District 5. Petitioner: Rick Service, Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-00301 &
PLNPCM2022-00302
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 7, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 21, 2023 and Tuesday,
April 4, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 18, 2023
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
Motion:
Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Mano to adopt
an ordinance to rezone the property at approximately 865 South 500 East,
and complete a Master Plan Amendment.
AYE: Victoria Petro, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano
NAY: Ana Valdemoros, Daniel Dugan, Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton
Final Result: 3 – 4 Fail
COMMENTS:
1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council.
Council Member Petro thanked the administration for their quick action and response to
the flooding to help the community.
2.Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled
for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited
to two minutes.)
Roland Vick spoke on representation in the Federal Congress and the Utah Legislature
and gave solutions regarding taxes.
L. Maia Lavatai expressed interest in converting some of the tennis courts in their
neighborhoods (Rose Park and Glendale) to pickleball courts.
Lorin Schetselaar expressed concern on the involvement to keep the community safe,
sidewalks clear and neighborhood regulations being followed.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, April 18, 2023
14
George G. Zinn reminded the Council to listen to their constituents and uphold the
reputation of Salt Lake City.
Luke Ulstad expressed gratitude for the parks and other program around Salt Lake City
and expressed concern for the following:
•Dust from construction
•Lights burnt out at the Trax & Bus station, creating safety hazards
•Air Pollution
Carl Moore urged the Council to keep the program for the Og-Woi Garden and continue
their work in the community.
Larry Saggars thanked the Council for their work to mitigate the flood destruction and
expressed frustrations with the City Council communications with their residents.
Nigel Swabey expressed concern for the I-15 expansion and excitement for the new
Major League Baseball Stadium coming to the City.
Karina Villalba translated on behalf of neighbors stating their concerns for Rose
Park residents and other needs in their neighborhood.
Leslie Evans expressed the need and success of the Og-Woi Gardens and presented the
each district with a tree to plant.
Bernie Hart expressed his gratitude for the city council meeting, the dinner activity
before the formal meeting, expressed thoughts on the homelessness issues and need for
more attention to their community needs.
Lionel Trepanier thanked the Council and spoke on the wonderful impacts on the
community the Og-Wai Garden has had.
Dan Pots expressed the need to promote wildlife preserve on the West Side to bring
more wildlife into the area.
Jann McConkie expressed the want for paper ballots, in person voting and no rank
choice voting.
George Shafer spoke on issues regarding the effects of actions having consequences
and urged the city to look at those.
Jeremy King expressed appreciation for the regional park proposal, would like to see a
pickleball court included in the plans.
Nateijie Hamilton spoke against the demolition order of the Og-Woi Gardens and
urged the Council to save the Gardens.
Dan Steenblik stated concerns about fallen branches on the Jordan river trail and the
height of the riverbanks before the flooding gets worse.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, April 18, 2023
15
Jonathon Krausert expressed the need to plant more trees and grass in the city
using less gravel and absentee landlord issues not fixing houses, keeping up yards and
properties becoming dump sites.
Billy Palmer urged the Council to find other transportation solutions that do not
involve the I-15 or other freeway expansions.
NEW BUSINESS:
NONE.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Resolution: Convention and Tourism Assessment Area
The Council will consider adopting a resolution consenting to inclusion in Salt Lake
County’s proposed Convention and Tourism Business Assessment Area (CTAA). The Salt
Lake County Convention and Tourism Assessment Area (SLCo CTAA) is an assessment
area proposed to provide specific benefits to payors, by funding district wide development
& programming, and community and sales development with regional incentives
programs for assessed lodging establishments.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 18, 2023
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
Motion:
Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Wharton to
adopt Resolution 10 of 2023 consenting to inclusion in Salt Lake County’s
proposed Convention and Tourism Assessment Area (CTAA).
AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton,
Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano
Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, April 18, 2023
16
CONSENT:
1. Ordinances relating to Fiscal Year 2023-24 City Budget, including the budget
for the Library Fund
The Council will set the dates of Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7
p.m. to accept public comment regarding an ordinance adopting the final budget and the
employment staffing document for Salt Lake City, Utah and related ordinances for Fiscal
Year 2023-24.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday,
June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
2. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.6 for Fiscal Year 2022-23
The Council will set the date of Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment
and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the final budget of Salt Lake City,
including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2022-23. Budget
amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets,
including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment
includes funding for adapting the Seven Canyons Fountain at Liberty Park into a dry art
piece, a roof replacement for the Steiner Aquatics Center, and several proposals to use
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding for revenue replacement and a $10 million
contribution to the Perpetual Housing Fund of Utah among other items.
For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY23
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 2, 2023
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, April 18, 2023
17
3. Ordinance: Early Notification Text Amendment
The Council will set the date of Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public
comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would approve various changes to the
Salt Lake City Code relating to early notification of the public and recognized community
organizations for land use projects. The Council initiated this petition to clarify early
notification regulations and public outreach. The purpose of the proposed changes is to
increase awareness and participation by the public for various types of City projects while
still providing a timely review process for applicants. Related provisions of the City Code
may also be amended as part of this petition.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 4, 2020; Tuesday, September 15,
2020; Tuesday, November 16, 2021; and Tuesday, April 18, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 3, 2020; Tuesday,
October 6, 2020; Tuesday, October 20, 2020; Tuesday, December 7, 2021; and
Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 6, 2023
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
4. Board Reappointment: Sister Cities Board – M. Nicole Pessetto
The Council will consider approving the reappointment of M. Nicole Pessetto to the
Sister Cities Board for a term ending July 2, 2029.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 18, 2023
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
Motion:
Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Dugan to
approve the Consent agenda.
AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton, Alejandro
Puy, Darin Mano
Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, April 18, 2023
18
ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, April 18, 2023
19
Meeting adjourned at 8:46 pm
Minutes Approved: [Date will be added upon Approval]
_______________________________
City Council Chair Darin Mano
_______________________________
City Recorder
Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at www.data.slc.gov by selecting Public Body
Minutes) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior
to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active
indefinitely.
This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City
Council Formal meeting held Tuesday, April 18, 2023 and is not intended to serve as a full
transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-
4-203.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, April 18, 2023
20
PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Formal Session on Tuesday, May 23, 2023.
The following Council Members were present:
Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano
The following Council Members were absent:
Amy Fowler
Present Legislative Leadership:
Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver –
Associate Deputy Director
Present Administrative Leadership:
Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff, Lisa Shaffer – Chief Administrative
Officer
Present City Staff:
Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, DeeDee Robinson –
Minutes & Records Clerk, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany –
Staff Assistant
The meeting was called to order at 7:49 pm.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
1
A.OPENING CEREMONY:
1.Council Member Darin Mano will conduct the limited formal meeting.
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS:
NONE.
C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS:
NONE.
D.COMMENTS:
NONE.
E.NEW BUSINESS:
NONE.
F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
NONE.
G.CONSENT:
1. Resolution: Cannon Greens Community Garden at 1300 South and 800
West, Public Benefits Analysis and Authorizing the Lease Rate and Terms
The Council will set the date of Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment
and consider adopting a resolution that would authorize below-market rent for lease of
properties at 1300 South and 800 West for urban farming programs. The Public Lands
Department is proposing authorization of leases to the International Rescue Committee
(IRC) and Wasatch Community Gardens (WCG) for eight City-owned parcels, totaling
2.41 acres.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 6, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 13, 2023
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
2
2. Ordinance: New Five-Year Housing Plan, Housing SLC
The Council will set the date of Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment
and consider adopting an ordinance that would adopt the proposed new five-year
housing plan, Housing SLC. The City’s current housing plan, Growing SLC, expires at the
end of the fiscal year, and a new moderate income housing plan is needed to meet State
code requirements and receive priority consideration for State funding resources.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 25, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 13, 2023
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
3. Ordinance Clarification: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Text Amendment
The Council will correct an oversight from April 4, 2023 pertaining to the ordinance
amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code for Accessory Dwelling
Unit regulations. The clarification relates to the exceptions to providing one off-street
parking space for ADUs. Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-00475.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
Motion:
Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Valdemoros to
adopt the Consent agenda
AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin
Mano
ABSENT: Amy Fowler
Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass
H.ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
3
Meeting adjourned at 7:50 pm.
Minutes Approved:
_______________________________
City Council Chair Darin Mano
_______________________________
City Recorder
Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at www.data.slc.gov by selecting Public Body
Minutes) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior
to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active
indefinitely.
This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City
Council Formal meeting held Tuesday, May 23, 2023 and is not intended to serve as a full
transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-
4-203.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
4
Item B2
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet
Policy Analyst
DATE:August 8, 2023
RE:Historic Carriage House Text Amendment
PLNPCM2020-00106
MOTION 1 – continue
I move the council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting.
MOTION 2 – close and defer
I move the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting.
MOTION 3 - close and adopt
I move the Council close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance.
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE: August 8, 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
WORK SESSION SUMMARY
During the July 11 work session, the Council received a briefing outlining the key points of the issue,
including the fact that there are two potential ordinances that could be considered. 1) applicant’s
petition, 2) alternative draft ordinance provided by planning staff.
The Council expressed support for moving forward with the draft ordinance the Planning Staff
provided. The applicant also stated they would support moving forward with that ordinance as well.
The Attorney’s office provided the updated ordinance in collaboration with the Planning staff.
The public hearing was set for August 8.
The following information was provided for the July 11, briefing. It is
provided again for background purposes.
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
Page | 2
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
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
Page | 3
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
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:
Page | 4
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.
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.
Page | 5
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
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.
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2023
(An ordinance amending various sections of the Salt Lake City Code
pertaining to carriage houses in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District)
An ordinance amending various sections of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition
No. PLNPCM2020-00106 pertaining to carriage houses in the H Historic Preservation Overlay
District.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission (“Historic Landmark
Commission”) held a public hearing on July 16, 2020 to consider a petition submitted by Stephen
Pace (Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00106) to amend various sections of the Salt Lake City Code
to create regulations regarding reconstruction of carriage houses in the H Historic Preservation
Overlay District; and
WHEREAS, at its July 16, 2020 meeting the Historic Landmark Commission voted in
favor of transmitting a negative recommendation to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission
(“Planning Commission”) and Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 23, 2022 to
consider said petition; and
WHEREAS, at its February 23, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor
of transmitting a negative recommendation to the City Council on said petition; and
WHEREAS, following a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined
that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending Subsection 21A.34.020.F.2.a of the Salt Lake City Code. That
Subsection 21A.34.020.F.2.a of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: H Historic
Preservation Overlay District: Procedure for Issuance of Certificate of Appropriateness: Historic
Landmark Commission: Types of Construction) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as
follows:
a. Types of Construction: The following shall be reviewed by the historic landmark
commission:
(1) Substantial alteration or addition to a landmark site or contributing site, building,
and/or structure;
(2) New construction of principal building in H Historic Preservation Overlay District;
(3) Relocation of landmark site or contributing principal building;
(4) Demolition of landmark site or contributing principal building;
(5) Applications for administrative approval referred by the planning director;
(6) Installation of solar energy collection systems on the front facade of the principal
building in a location most compatible with the character defining features of the
home pursuant to Section 21A.40.190 of this title; and
(7) Reconstruction of a carriage house on a landmark site.
SECTION 2. Adopting Subsection 21A.34.020.Q of the Salt Lake City Code. That
Section 21A.34.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: H Historic
Preservation Overlay District) shall be, and hereby is amended to add a new Subsection
21A.34.020.Q, which shall read as follows:
Q. Reconstruction of a Carriage House in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District:
1. Applicability: The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following
criteria are satisfied:
a. The property and address are a landmark site. For the purpose of this section, any site
that has been further subdivided since the construction of the last principal building
on the site shall be considered part of the landmark site.
b. Documentation has been provided that indicates a carriage house associated with the
historic period of the landmark site existed on the site. Documentation may include
any property related record, prior survey, photographs, site plans, or similar records.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the necessary documentation and
justification for the proposed dimensions and details of the carriage house that is
proposed to be reconstructed. Documentation shall provide sufficient detail to
estimate the approximate details of the carriage house, including:
(1) The approximate location of the carriage house on the site and estimated setbacks;
(2) The approximate footprint shape and size;
(3) The approximate shape, slope, and details of the roof of the structure proposed to
be reconstructed;
(4) The approximate height of the structure in feet, based on the scale of existing
buildings or structures that are also visible in historic documentation or the
dimensions of the historic building materials, if available. The approximate height
shall include wall height and roof height; and
(5) The location, arrangement, size, and details of any window or door, including
carriage entries.
2. Application Requirements: An application to reconstruct a historic carriage house shall
be considered an application for new construction and include all the application
requirements for new construction in this section and documentation requirements in
Subsection 1.b above.
3. Approval Standards: An application to reconstruct a historic carriage house shall be
subject to the following standards. An application shall be approved if the following
standards are complied with:
a. Reconstruction shall only be used to depict vanished or non-surviving portion 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 the historic documentation provided by the applicant. Historic
documentation shall be used to approximate the location and dimensions of the
structure;
f. The proposed carriage house shall match the approximate roof shape of the original
carriage house;
g. The 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; and
h. Impacts to adjacent properties, including but not limited to solar access, noise, light
trespass, refuse storage, and mechanical equipment locations, parking locations, have
been mitigate or can be mitigated through the site layout, appropriate buffering,
and/or building designs.
4. Complying With Additional Codes: An application approved under this section shall
comply with all applicable codes, regulations and engineering standards that have been
adopted by the State of Utah or the city.
5. Subdivision Prohibited: Further subdivision of the property after approval of a
reconstruction under this section is prohibited and portions of Section 21A.38.060
authorizing subdivisions of lots with more than two principal buildings shall not be
applicable.
6. Allowed Uses After Reconstruction: The following uses shall be allowed in a
reconstructed carriage house approved under this section:
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; or
c. Accessory dwelling units subject to the applicable regulations for accessory dwelling
units.
7. Modifications Authorized: In considering a proposal to reconstruct a carriage house
under this section, the historic landmark commission may modify the following standards
upon finding that the proposal complies with the applicable standards:
a. Minimum lot area when the lot does not contain the minimum lot area for an
additional dwelling unit;
b. Modifications to Sections 21A.36.010 and 21A.36.020; and
c. Any authorized modification identified in 21A.06.050.
8. Updated Intensive Level Survey Required: If approved, the applicant shall provide the
city and updated intensive level survey to document the changes to the site.
SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That
Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions of Terms) shall
be and hereby is amended to add the definition of “CARRIAGE HOUSE”, which definition shall
be inserted in alphabetical order and shall read as follows:
CARRIAGE HOUSE: 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, and may have provided housing for
people who worked or provided service to the site.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________,
2023.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2023.
Ordinance adopting carriage house reconstruction regs (final)
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney
August 1, 2023
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
2 No. _____ of 2023
3
4 (An ordinance amending various sections of the Salt Lake City Code
5 pertaining to carriage houses in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District)
6
7 An ordinance amending various sections of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition
8 No. PLNPCM2020-00106 pertaining to carriage houses in the H Historic Preservation Overlay
9 District.
10 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission (“Historic Landmark
11 Commission”) held a public hearing on July 16, 2020 to consider a petition submitted by Stephen
12 Pace (Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00106) to amend various sections of the Salt Lake City Code
13 to create regulations regarding reconstruction of carriage houses in the H Historic Preservation
14 Overlay District; and
15 WHEREAS, at its July 16, 2020 meeting the Historic Landmark Commission voted in
16 favor of transmitting a negative recommendation to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission
17 (“Planning Commission”) and Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”); and
18 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 23, 2022 to
19 consider said petition; and
20 WHEREAS, at its February 23, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor
21 of transmitting a negative recommendation to the City Council on said petition; and
22 WHEREAS, following a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined
23 that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
24
25 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
26
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
27 SECTION 1. Amending Subsection 21A.34.020.F.2.a of the Salt Lake City Code. That
28 Subsection 21A.34.020.F.2.a of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: H Historic
29 Preservation Overlay District: Procedure for Issuance of Certificate of Appropriateness: Historic
30 Landmark Commission: Types of Construction) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as
31 follows:
32 a. Types Oof Construction: The following shall be reviewed by the Hhistoric Llandmark
33 Ccommission:
34
35 (1) Substantial alteration or addition to a landmark site or contributing site, building,
36 and/or structure;
37 (2) New construction of principal building in H Historic Preservation Overlay District;
38 (3) Relocation of landmark site or contributing principal building;
39 (4) Demolition of landmark site or contributing principal building;
40 (5) Applications for administrative approval referred by the Pplanning Ddirector; and
41 (6) Installation of solar energy collection systems on the front facade of the principal
42 building in a location most compatible with the character defining features of the
43 home pursuant to sSection 21A.40.190 of this title.; and
44 (7) Reconstruction of a carriage house on a landmark site.
45
46
47 SECTION 2. Adopting Subsection 21A.34.020.Q of the Salt Lake City Code. That
48 Section 21A.34.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: H Historic
49 Preservation Overlay District) shall be, and hereby is amended to add a new Subsection
50 21A.34.020.Q, which shall read as follows:
51 Q. Reconstruction of a Carriage House in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District:
52 1. Applicability: The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following
53 criteria are satisfied:
54
55 a. The property and address are a landmark site. For the purpose of this section, any site
56 that has been further subdivided since the construction of the last principal building
57 on the site shall be considered part of the landmark site.
58 b. Documentation has been provided that indicates a carriage house associated with the
59 historic period of the landmark site existed on the site. Documentation may include
60 any property related record, prior survey, photographs, site plans, or similar records.
61 It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the necessary documentation and
62 justification for the proposed dimensions and details of the carriage house that is
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
63 proposed to be reconstructed. Documentation shall provide sufficient detail to
64 estimate the approximate details of the carriage house, including:
65
66 (1) The approximate location of the carriage house on the site and estimated setbacks;
67 (2) The approximate footprint shape and size;
68 (3) The approximate shape, slope, and details of the roof of the structure proposed to
69 be reconstructed;
70 (4) The approximate height of the structure in feet, based on the scale of existing
71 buildings or structures that are also visible in historic documentation or the
72 dimensions of the historic building materials, if available. The approximate height
73 shall include wall height and roof height; and
74 (5) The location, arrangement, size, and details of any window or door, including
75 carriage entries.
76
77 2. Application Requirements: An application to reconstruct a historic carriage house shall
78 be considered an application for new construction and include all the application
79 requirements for new construction in this section and documentation requirements in
80 Subsection 1.b above.
81 3. Approval Standards: An application to reconstruct a historic carriage house shall be
82 subject to the following standards. An application shall be approved if the following
83 standards are complied with:
84
85 a. Reconstruction shall only be used to depict vanished or non-surviving portion of a
86 property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate
87 reconstruction with minimal conjecture;
88 b. Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials,
89 features, and spatial relationships;
90 c. Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and
91 elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on
92 conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic
93 properties. A reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non-
94 surviving historic property in materials, design, color, and texture;
95 d. Proposed designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed or
96 considered;
97 e. The proposed carriage house shall match the footprint size, shape, and location on the
98 property based on the historic documentation provided by the applicant. Historic
99 documentation shall be used to approximate the location and dimensions of the
100 structure;
101 f. The proposed carriage house shall match the approximate roof shape of the original
102 carriage house;
103 g. The entryways into the house, including reconstructed entryways for carriages, shall
104 approximately match historic entryways commonly found on carriage houses from
105 the same era as the original carriage house; and
106 h. Impacts to adjacent properties, including but not limited to solar access, noise, light
107 trespass, refuse storage, and mechanical equipment locations, parking locations, have
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
108 been mitigate or can be mitigated through the site layout, appropriate buffering,
109 and/or building designs.
110
111 4. Complying With Additional Codes: An application approved under this section shall
112 comply with all applicable codes, regulations and engineering standards that have been
113 adopted by the State of Utah or the city.
114 5. Subdivision Prohibited: Further subdivision of the property after approval of a
115 reconstruction under this section is prohibited and portions of Section 21A.38.060
116 authorizing subdivisions of lots with more than two principal buildings shall not be
117 applicable.
118 6. Allowed Uses After Reconstruction: The following uses shall be allowed in a
119 reconstructed carriage house approved under this section:
120
121 a. A single family dwelling, regardless of lot area, lot width or street frontage;
122 b. Any accessory use authorized in the underlying zoning district or overlay district; or
123 c. Accessory dwelling units subject to the applicable regulations for accessory dwelling
124 units.
125
126 7. Modifications Authorized: In considering a proposal to reconstruct a carriage house
127 under this section, the historic landmark commission may modify the following standards
128 upon finding that the proposal complies with the applicable standards:
129
130 a. Minimum lot area when the lot does not contain the minimum lot area for an
131 additional dwelling unit;
132 b. Modifications to Sections 21A.36.010 and 21A.36.020; and
133 c. Any authorized modification identified in 21A.06.050.
134
135 8. Updated Intensive Level Survey Required: If approved, the applicant shall provide the
136 city and updated intensive level survey to document the changes to the site.
137
138
139 SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That
140 Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions of Terms) shall
141 be and hereby is amended to add the definition of “CARRIAGE HOUSE”, which definition shall
142 be inserted in alphabetical order and shall read as follows:
143 CARRIAGE HOUSE: A physically detached, secondary structure originally constructed to
144 house horse-drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter
145 animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the
146 primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples incorporate a hay
147 loft, second story or half-story, or open interior space, and may have provided housing for
148 people who worked or provided service to the site.
149
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
150
151 SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
152 first publication.
153
154 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________,
155 2023.
156 ______________________________
157 CHAIRPERSON
158 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
159
160 ______________________________
161 CITY RECORDER
162
163 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
164
165
166 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
167
168 ______________________________
169 MAYOR
170 ______________________________
171 CITY RECORDER
172 (SEAL)
173
174 Bill No. ________ of 2023.175 Ordinance adopting carriage house reconstruction regs (legislative)
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
Date Received: 06/20/2023
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 06/20/2023
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:
Darin Mano, Chair
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
Lisa Shaffer (Jun 20, 2023 11:56 MDT)
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 Stephen Pace, property owner of 222 E. 4th Avenue submits text
amendment application.
February 7, 2020 Petition assigned to Kelsey Lindquist, Planning Manager, for staff
analysis and processing.
March 9, 2020 Petition reviewed internally, staff provided comments to applicant.
April 8, 2020 Notice mailed to properties within 300 feet of identified properties
April 1, 2020 Application posted for online open house.
May 15, 2020 End of online open house.
July 2, 2020 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 Notice of public hearing provided to the 5 eligible properties.
February 23, 2022 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
Staff Report
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Kelsey Lindquist (801) 535-7930
Date: February 17, 2022
Re: 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 Commission with 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 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 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 Historic photographs
o Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
o Planning, zoning or building permit records.
o 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 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. 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
ATTACHMENT B: APPLICANT’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE
PLNPCM2020-00106
190
FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
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 1132 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
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 1143 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
Stephen C. Pace Zoning Text Amendment Proposal for
Historic Carriage House Structures
UPDATED APPLICATION AND NARRATIVE
April 3, 2020
TO: Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division
FROM: Kirk Huffaker, Principal/Consultant, Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies
CC: 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 1154 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
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 1165 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
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 1176 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
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 1187 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
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 1198 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
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 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
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 2210 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
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 2221 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
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 2232 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
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 2243 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
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 2254 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
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 2265 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment
AMENDED APPLICATION NARRATIVE
April 9, 2020
TO: Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division
FROM: Kirk Huffaker, Principal/Consultant, Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies
CC: 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 2276 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
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 2287 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
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 2298 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
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,, 22002202
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 3310 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
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 3321 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
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 3332 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
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 3343 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
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 3354 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
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 3365 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
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 3376 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
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 7776 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
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 Includes guiding policies that preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
o Encourages the retention of areas and structures of historic and architectural value.
o Promotes a balance of preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
• Avenues Master Plan
o The comprehensive plan for the Avenues encourages historic preservation of historically
and architecturally significant sites.
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.
o 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.
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
text amendment is
consistent with the
purposes, goals,
objectives and
policies of the city as
stated through its
various adopted
planning
documents;
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.
2. Whether a proposed
text amendment
furthers the specific
purpose statements
of the zoning
ordinance;
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.
3. Whether a proposed
text amendment is
consistent with the
purposes and
provisions of any
applicable overlay
zoning district
which may imposed
additional
standards;
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.
4. The extent to which
a proposed text
amendment
implements best
current, professional
practices of urban
planning and
design.
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.
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 117649 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
From: Barbara Hounsell
To: Stephen C Pace
Cc: Lindquist, Kelsey; Scott S. Cruze
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Stephen C. Pace Carriage House Project
Date: 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 117750 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
From: Carol Foster
To: Lindquist, Kelsey
Cc: Paul Foster
Subject: (EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2020-00106, 222 4th Ave
Date: 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 117761 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202
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 Attachment B. 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 Incentivize the preservation and restoration of a historic feature on a landmark site.
o Add to the housing units within Salt Lake City, while respecting the appearance and scale
of single-family residential neighborhoods.
o Sustainability objectives are supported by utilizing an existing structure or elements of an
existing structure.
o 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 Historic photographs
o Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
o Planning, zoning or building permit records.
o 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.
• Pictorial evidence or information should be required to understand the design, materials and height
of the historic structure.
o If pictorial evidence is not available, the structure would likely be conjectural.
o Does the Commission have concerns that a conjectural structure would impact the status
of the landmark site?
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.
o Without pictorial evidence, how would the design, height and footprint be reviewed and
determined?
o If pictorial evidence is found to be too difficult to obtain, is there other information that
would satisfy the intent and ease the concerns?
o 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 applications are also applicable 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 potentially more impacts to the
abutting and adjacent properties.
• The potential impacts include 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.
o 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 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.
o How will the size of an additional buffer be determined?
• Are there additional criteria that the Commission has for consideration?
KEY CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Limitations of the Proposed Language:
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. 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 Includes guiding policies that preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
o Encourages the retention of areas and structures of historic and architectural value.
o Promotes a balance of preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
• Avenues Master Plan
o The comprehensive plan for the Avenues encourages historic preservation of historically
and architecturally significant sites.
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.
o 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.
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
ATTACHMENT B: APPLICANT’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE
PLNPCM2020-00106 10 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: Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division
FROM: Kirk Huffaker, Principal/Consultant, Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies
CC: 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: Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division
FROM: Kirk Huffaker, Principal/Consultant, Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies
CC: 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
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
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 Includes guiding policies that preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
o Encourages the retention of areas and structures of historic and architectural value.
o Promotes a balance of preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
• Avenues Master Plan
o The comprehensive plan for the Avenues encourages historic preservation of historically
and architecturally significant sites.
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.
o 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.
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
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: Barbara Hounsell
To: Stephen C Pace
Cc: Lindquist, Kelsey; Scott S. Cruze
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Stephen C. Pace Carriage House Project
Date: 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: Carol Foster
To: Lindquist, Kelsey
Cc: Paul Foster
Subject: (EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2020-00106, 222 4th Ave
Date: 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 OWN_ZIP OWN_STATE
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 181 N 'B' S SALT LAKE CITY 84103 UT
AIC INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, LLC PO BOX 49 JACKSON WY 83001
Current Occupant 529 E SOU Salt Lake City UT 84102
STATE OF UTAH 450 N STAT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
Current Occupant 603 E SOU Salt Lake City UT 84102
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PO BOX 14 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
JUSTIN R PADAWER; SALLY G PADAWER (J 259 E SEVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
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
Item B2
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:August 8, 2023
RE: Sight Distance Triangle Text Amendment
PLNPCM2023-00054
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:August 8, 2023
RE: Sight Distance Triangle Text Amendment
PLNPCM2023-00054
BRIEFING UPDATE
At the July 18, 2023 briefing Council Members expressed general support for the proposed text
amendment. A question was raised about whether the sight distance triangle requirements could be limited
to heights between 30 inches and 10 feet to allow for trees in the triangle area, provided they are trimmed
below 10 feet. Another suggestion was to permit mirrors, lights, or alarms where buildings meet sidewalks
to alert pedestrians of oncoming vehicles rather than requiring chamfers on building corners.
Planning staff followed up with proposed language that would allow alternative design solutions to provide
similar visual clearance and mitigate safety concerns. A legislative draft of the ordinance is attached that
includes the following proposed change as well as additional minor suggested changes.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, all structures shall comply with the Sight
Distance Triangle Requirements as defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62 of this title. The
planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may approve alternative
design solutions that result in similar visual clearance and effectively mitigate safety concerns.
The Off-Street Parking Manual was adopted by the Council with the parking ordinance and changes to the
manual can be made administratively. If the proposed ordinance is adopted by the Council, Planning staff
proposes amendments to the manual as shown in the attached Off-Street Parking Manual section.
The following information was provided for May 23, 2023 Council briefing. It is
included again for background purposes.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: July 18, 2023
Set Date: July 18, 2023
Public Hearing: August 8, 2023
Potential Action: August 15, 2023
Page | 2
The Council will be briefed about a proposal initiated by the Administration to amend the zoning ordinance
related to the sight distance triangle, which is the area at street, alley, and driveway intersections where
views of approaching traffic should not be obstructed. The purpose of sight distance triangles is to allow
drivers, pedestrians, and users of other transportation modes to see each other and stop safely.
Chapter 21A.62.040 of Salt Lake City Code measures sight distance triangles as a triangular area formed
by a diagonal line connecting two points. The code establishes a distance of 30 feet for corner lots and at
the intersection of streets and large truck driveways, and a distance of 10 feet for passenger vehicle and
light truck driveways crossing a sidewalk.
The current code is silent on intersections of alleys and sidewalks and alleys and streets. The proposed
amendment adds these intersections, as they have similar risks. In addition, the proposal adds sight
distance triangle standards to Salt Lake City Code chapters 21A.36.020 applying to principal buildings and
21A.40.050 related to accessory structures respectively. The images below provide a representation of the
proposed changes.
Other minor changes are also proposed in the text amendment. These generally clarify fence regulations
and add driveway distance requirements from a street intersection to all zoning districts. Under the
proposal fences, walls, and hedges on developed properties without a principal structure would be limited
to four feet in the front yard area, and six feet in the rear or side yard areas. Hedges are considered fences
for zoning purposes and are included in the proposed amendment. The current proposal does not include
landscaping and locations of trees. Heights of other plants within the sight distance triangle is included in a
separate text amendment and will be consistent with current standards and the proposed amendment.
Driveways for single- and two-family dwellings would be required to be a minimum of 20 feet from street
corner property lines, and driveways for all other uses would need to be at least 50 feet from street corner
property lines.
The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at its May 10, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at
which no one spoke. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City
Council.
Images courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division
Page | 3
Page | 4
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendment, determine if the Council supports moving
forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTION
1. Are Council Members supportive of the proposed text amendment?
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 3-5 of
the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the
staff report.
Consideration 1-Adding New Language and Clarifying Existing Language
As discussed above, intersections of alleys with sidewalks and streets are being added as part of the
proposed text amendment. In addition, language restricting principal and accessory buildings is being
added to the for consistency in how the requirement is applied.
Consideration 2-Noncomplying Fences and Structures
Under the proposed amendment, continued use of legally existing noncomplying structures such as fences,
buildings, and driveways would be allowed. They could be altered, expanded, and in some cases, replaced.
The proposed addition of alley intersections with sidewalks and streets would also not impact these
structures. Driveways closer to street intersections than allowed under the proposal would also be allowed
to remain and be repaired.
Page | 5
Noncomplying structures could be modified provided the changes do not make them more noncompliant.
If a noncomplying structure is voluntarily removed or destroyed, a replacement structure would need to
comply with the then current standards.
Consideration 3-How the proposal helps implement City goals and policies identified in
Plan Salt Lake
Planning staff referenced the transportation and mobility guiding principle in Plan Salt Lake which says in
part “a transportation and mobility network that is safe, accessible, reliable, affordable, and sustainable,
providing real choices and connecting people with places.” The sight distance triangle’s purpose is to
improve safety by providing unobstructed sightlines at intersections of streets, driveways, sidewalks, and
alleys. Incorporating language that includes all types of intersections, transportation modes, and structures
will ensure consistent application of requirements and reduce potential for accidents.
Additionally, Planning found that the proposed amendments support transportation and mobility
initiatives found in Plan Salt Lake, and in particular, Initiatives 5 and 3 which are respectively “Make
walking and cycling viable, safe, and convenient transportation options in all areas of the City” and
“Create a safe and convenient place for people to carry out their daily lives.”
Planning further noted the proposal is in line with guiding principle 1 of Plan Salt Lake “Neighborhoods
that provide a safe environment, opportunity for social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing
of the community therein.”
Planning staff stated “…the purpose of this proposal is to increase safety for all modes of transportation at
all points of potential conflict.”
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT STANDARDS
Planning staff reviewed the proposed text amendment against the following criteria City Code says the City
Council should consider. Please see Attachment B (pages 10-11) of the Planning Commission staff report
for additional information.
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.
Complies
Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning
ordinance.
Complies
A proposed text amendment is consistent with the
purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay
zoning districts which may impose additional
standards.
Complies
The extent to which a proposed text amendment
implements the best current, professional practices
of urban planning and design.
Complies
Page | 6
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• January 27, 2023 - Application accepted.
• January 30, 2023 - Petition assigned to Madison Blodgett, Associate Planner.
• October 2022 - Petition reviewed internally, and staff drafted language to support goals of the
February 2023 petition.
• February 15, 2023-Notice mailed to all community councils.
• February 15, 2023-Application posted for the online open house.
• March 20, 2023-Planning staff presented the proposal at the Sugar House Community Council.
• April 27, 2023-Planning Commission agenda posted to the website and emailed to the listserv.
• May 10, 2023-Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. The Planning Commission voted
unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
• May 17, 2023-Ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office.
• May 23, 2023-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office.
• May 30, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office.
Salt Lake City // Off-Street Parking Standards Manual 10
Figure 7 // Driveway Slope
2.2 VISUALLY CLEAR SIGHT ZONE AREAS AT
RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS16
2.2.1 Bushes, trees, and other types of vegetation as well as walls and fences can
visually block pedestrians, bicyclists, and cars from being seen by drivers entering
the street from driveways. To provide the needed visibility for safety, vegetation
should be kept trimmed within the clear sight zone areas on both sides of
driveways as illustrated in Figures 8 and 9.
2.2.2 A clear sight zone area is achieved when vision is not blocked between thirty inches
(30”) and seven feet (7’) above ground within a ten foot (10’) by ten foot (10’) triangle
on both sides of the driveway and between the sidewalk and the street.
2.2.3 A new proposed driveway needs to provide a five foot (5’) clearance in the park
strip between the edge of driveway and edge of obstacle such as trees, poles and
fire hydrants as illustrated in Figure 9.
2.2.4 When permitted by the zoning ordinance, a proposed retaining wall or fence
located in the clear sight zone area as illustrated in Figures 8 and 9.
16 From SLC Engineering Standards - Section E2.c2.
Figure 8 // Clear Sight Zone Perspective from Sidewalk
Salt Lake City // Off-Street Parking Standards Manual 11
Figure 9 // Clear Sight Zone Dimensions
2.3 ADDITIONAL PARKING ACCESS STANDARDS17
2.3.1 Access to additional parking shall be provided by either;
A. Widening the approach from the street to match the width of the new
driveway provided all provisions for driveways from 21A.44.060.B.3.c
can be met;
B. A driveway taper from the sidewalk at no less than a forty five degree
(45°) angle with the remnant area in the front yard area landscaped with
a minimum of shrubs and ground cover, provided that this option is not
allowed if the remnant landscaped area is less than forty five (45) square
feet or if curb, gutter and sidewalk are not present.
3. SURFACING STANDARDS
17 Newly proposed section to clarify options for drive approaches to widened driveways.
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2023
(An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code
pertaining to the sight distance triangle.)
An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant
to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00054 pertaining to the sight distance triangle.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a
public hearing on May 10, 2023 to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Erin Mendenhall
(Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00054) to amend portions of Chapters 21A.36; 21A.40; 21A.44;
and 21A.62 of the Salt Lake City Code to modify regulations pertaining to sight distance triangle;
and
WHEREAS, at its May 10, 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 text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.36.020. That
Section 21A.36.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Conformance with
Lot and Bulk Controls) shall be, and hereby is amended to include the following subpart D while
retaining all other subparts, tables, and notes in said section:
D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, all structures shall comply with the
Sight Distance Triangle Requirements as defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62 of this
title. Clear site zone areas shall be provided as indicated in the Salt Lake City Off Street
Parking Standards Manual. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation
2
director, may approve alternative design solutions that result in similar visual clearance and
effectively mitigate safety concerns.
SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.050. That
Section 21A.40.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and
Structures: General Yard, Bulk and Height Limitations) shall be, and hereby is amended to
include the following subpart D while retaining all other text and subparts in said section:
D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, all structures shall comply with the
Sight Distance Triangle Requirements as defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62 of this
title. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may approve
alternative design solutions that result in similar visual clearance and effectively mitigate
safety concerns.
SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1.
That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings
and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates) shall be,
and hereby is amended to read as follows:
1. Fences, walls, and hedges shall comply with the following regulations based on the
following zoning districts:
a. Residential Zoning Districts:
(1) Except as permitted in subsection 21A.24.010.P and 21A.40.120.E.4 of
this code, a fence, wall or hedge located between the front property line and front
building line of the facade of the principal structure that contains the primary entrance
shall not exceed 4 feet in height.
(2) A fence, wall, or hedge located at or behind the primary facade of the
principal structure shall not exceed 6 feet in height.
(3) On developed properties where there is no existing principal structure, the
height of a fence, wall, or hedge shall not exceed 4 feet in a front yard area or 6 feet in
the rear or side yard areas.
3
b. Nonresidential Zoning Districts:
(1) A fence, wall, or hedge located between the front property line and the
primary facade of the principal structure shall not exceed 4 feet in height.
(2) A fence, wall or hedge located at or behind the primary facade of the
principal structure shall not exceed 6 feet in height.
(3) On developed properties where there is no existing principal structure, the
height of a fence, wall, or hedge shall not exceed 4 feet in a front yard area or 6 feet in
the rear or side yard areas.
4
(4) Notwithstanding Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1.b.(1), in the M-2 and EI
zoning districts fences, walls, or hedges may be up to 6 feet in height when located
between the front property line and the front yard setback line.
(5) If there is no minimum front yard setback in the underlying zoning
district, a fence, wall, or hedge of a maximum 6 feet in height may be placed no closer
than 10 feet from the property line.
(6) Outdoor storage, when permitted in the zoning district, shall be located
behind the primary facade of the principal structure and shall be screened with a solid
wall or fence and shall comply with the requirements in Section 5.60.120. Outdoor
storage in the M-1 and M-2 districts are also subject to the provisions of 21A.28.010.B.3.
SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.3.
That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.3 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings
and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates) shall be,
and hereby is amended to read as follows:
3. Vacant Lots. Notwithstanding 21A.24.010.P.10.d, fencing to secure vacant or
undeveloped lots may be up to 6 feet in height, provided the fence is not closer than 5
feet to a public sidewalk and is no less than 80% transparent. Once the property is
developed, the fence will be required to comply with the height restrictions of this
title.
SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.5.
That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.5 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings
and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates) shall be,
and hereby is amended to read as follows:
5. Vision Clearance and Safety. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, a
fence, wall, or hedge shall comply with the sight distance triangle requirements of
this section.
a. Corner Lots; Sight Distance Triangle: No solid fence, wall or hedge shall be
erected to a height in excess of 3 feet if the fence, wall or hedge is located within the
sight distance triangle extending 30 feet either side of the intersection of the respective
street curb lines, or edge lines of roadway where curbing is not provided as noted in
Section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title.
5
b. Intersection of Street and Driveway; Intersection of Alley or Driveway and
Sidewalk; Sight Distance Triangle: Solid fences, walls and hedges shall not exceed 30
inches in height within the sight distance triangle as defined in Section 21A.62.050,
illustration I of this title.
c. Sight Distance Triangle and See Through Fences: Within the area defined as a
sight distance triangle, see through fences that are at least 50% open shall be allowed to a
height of 4 feet.
d. Alternative Design Solutions. To provide adequate line of sight for driveways and
alleys, the zoning administrator, in consulting with the development review team, may
require alternative design solutions, including, but not restricted to, requiring increased
fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns created by the
location of buildings, grade change or other preexisting conditions.
SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.7.
That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.7 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings
and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges) shall be, and hereby is amended to read
as follows:
7. Gates. No gate, whether crossing a driveway, walkway, or part of a fence, shall be
erected to a height in excess of the standards outlined in this subsection E. To regulate
the location of gates and their impact on vehicular staging within the public right of
way, passenger vehicles shall require a minimum 17 foot 6 inch setback from back
edge of sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not provided, and large truck
driveways shall require a 100 foot setback from back edge of sidewalk, or property
line when a sidewalk is not provided. This requirement does not apply to gates
abutting alleys. All gates are to swing inward to the property or be a roll gate that
does not impact the staging area.
SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.44.060.A.6.c.
That Subsection 21A.44.060.A.6.c of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Off Street Parking,
Mobility and Loading: Parking Location and Design: Generally: Driveway and Access) shall be,
and hereby is amended to read as follows:
c. Driveway Standards: All driveways shall comply with the following standards:
6
(1) Driveway Location: Driveways shall be at least 5 feet from any public utility
infrastructure such as power poles, fire hydrants, and water meters. Except for entrance and
exit driveways leading to approved parking areas, no curb cuts or driveways are permitted.
(2) Distance from street corners: Driveways for Single and Two-Family Dwellings
shall be located at least 20 feet from street corner property lines. Driveways for all other uses
shall be at least 50 feet from street corner property lines. When the width of the lot is less
than the required distance, the transportation director may approve modifications no greater
than the minimum necessary to accommodate the driveway.
(3) Driveway Widths: All driveways serving residential uses shall be a minimum 8
feet wide and shall comply with the standards for maximum driveway widths listed in Table
21A.44.060-C, “Minimum and Maximum Driveway Width”.
(4) Shared Driveways: Shared driveways, where two (2) or more properties share one
(1) driveway access, may be permitted if the transportation director determines that the
design and location of the shared driveway access will not create adverse impacts on traffic
congestion or public safety.
(5) Driveway Surface: All driveways providing access to parking facilities shall be
improved and maintained pursuant to the standards in the Off Street Standards Manual.
SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That the
definition of Sight Distance Triangle in Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning:
General Terms: Definitions) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows while retaining
all other definitions in said section:
SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE: A triangular area formed by a diagonal line connecting
two (2) points when measured as follows:
7
A. For corner lots: Extending 30 feet from the intersecting line of each street face of curb,
or edge of roadway where curbing is not provided.
B. For intersections of street and driveways or alleys: Extending 10 feet from each
intersecting edge of the driveway or alley and street curb line, or edge of roadway
where curbing is not provided.
C. For alleys or driveways crossing a sidewalk: Extending 10 feet from each intersecting
edge of the alley or driveway and back edge of the sidewalk.
The purpose of the sight distance triangle is to define an area in which vision obstructions are
prohibited. (See illustration in Section 21A.62.050 of this chapter.)
SECTION 9. Replacing Illustration I of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.050. That
Illustration I, the Sight Distance Triangle, in Section 21A.62.050 of the Salt Lake City Code
(Zoning: General Terms: Illustrations Of Selected Definitions) is hereby deleted in its entirety
and replaced with the following:
Illustration I: Sight Distance Triangle
8
9
SECTION 10. 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: ______________.
Ordinace regulating sight distance triangle
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:___________________________
By: ____________________________
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney
August 2, 2023
1
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1
No. _____ of 2023 2
3
(An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code 4
pertaining to the sight distance triangle.) 5
6
An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant 7
to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00054 pertaining to the sight distance triangle. 8
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a 9
public hearing on May 10, 2023 to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Erin Mendenhall 10
(Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00054) to amend portions of Chapters 21A.36; 21A.40; 21A.44; 11
and 21A.62 of the Salt Lake City Code to modify regulations pertaining to sight distance triangle; 12
and 13
WHEREAS, at its May 10, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of 14
transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said 15
petition; and 16
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that 17
adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. 18
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 19
20
SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.36.020. That 21
Section 21A.36.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Conformance with 22
Lot and Bulk Controls) shall be, and hereby is amended to include the following subpart D while 23
retaining all other subparts, tables, and notes in said section: 24
D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, all structures shall comply with the 25
Sight Distance Triangle Requirements as defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62 of this 26
title. Clear sight zone areas shall be provided as indicated in the Salt Lake City Off Street 27
Parking Standards Manual. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation 28
2
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
director, may approve alternative design solutions that result in similar visual clearance and 29
effectively mitigate safety concerns. 30
31
SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.050. That 32
Section 21A.40.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and 33
Structures: General Yard, Bulk and Height Limitations) shall be, and hereby is amended to 34
include the following subpart D while retaining all other text and subparts in said section: 35
D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, all structures shall comply with the 36
Sight Distance Triangle Requirements as defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62 of this 37
title. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may approve 38
alternative design solutions that result in similar visual clearance and effectively mitigate 39
safety concerns. 40
41
SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1. 42
That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings 43
and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates) shall be, 44
and hereby is amended to read as follows: 45
1. Fences, walls, and hedges shall comply with the following regulations based on the 46
following zoning districts: 47
a. Residential Zoning Districts: 48
(1) Except as permitted in subsection 21A.24.010.P and 21A.12.E.4 49
21A.40.120.E.4 of this code, a fence, wall or hedge located between the front property 50
line and front building line of the facade of the principal structure that contains the 51
primary entrance shall not exceed four (4) feet in height. 52
(2) A fence, wall, or hedge located at or behind the primary facade of the 53
principal structure shall not exceed 6 feet in height. 54
(3) On developed properties Where where there is no existing principal 55
structure, the height of a fence, wall, or hedge shall not exceed four (4) feet in a front 56
yard area or six (6) feet in the rear or side yard areas. 57
58
3
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
59 60
b. Nonresidential Zoning Districts: 61
(1) A fence, wall, or hedge located between the front property line and the 62
primary facade of the principal structure shall not exceed four (4) feet in height. 63
(2) A fence, wall or hedge located at or behind the primary facade of the 64
principal structure shall not exceed six (6) feet in height. 65
66
(3) On developed properties where there is no existing principal structure, the 67
height of a fence, wall, or hedge shall not exceed 4 feet in a front yard area or 6 feet in 68
the rear or side yard areas. 69
4
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
(3) Not withstanding (4) Notwithstanding Subsection 21A.40.120.1.b.(l) 70
21A.40.120.E.1.b.(1), in the M-2 and EI zoning districts fences, walls, or hedges may be 71
up to six (6) feet in height if when located between the front property line and the front 72
yard setback line. 73
(4) (5) If there is no minimum front yard setback in the underlying zoning 74
district, a fence, wall, or hedge of a maximum six (6) feet in height may be placed no 75
closer than ten (10) feet from the property line. 76
(5) (6) Outdoor storage, when permitted in the zoning district, shall be located 77
behind the primary facade of the principal structure and shall be screened with a solid 78
wall or fence and shall comply with the requirements in Section 5.60.120. Outdoor 79
storage in the M-1 and M-2 districts are also subject to the provisions of 21A.28.010.B.3. 80
81
SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.3. 82
That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.3 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings 83
and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates) shall be, 84
and hereby is amended to read as follows: 85
3. Vacant Lots. Notwithstanding 21A.24.010.P.10.d, fencing to secure vacant or 86
undeveloped lots may be up to six (6) feet in height, provided the fence is not closer 87
than five (5) feet to a public sidewalk and is no less than eighty percent (80%) 88
transparent. Once the property is developed, the fence will be required to comply with 89
the height restrictions of this Ttitle. 90
91
SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.5. 92
That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.5 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings 93
and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates) shall be, 94
and hereby is amended to read as follows: 95
5. Vision Clearance and Safety. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, a 96
fence, wall, or hedge shall comply with the Ssight Ddistance Ttriangle Rrequirements 97
of this Ssection. 98
a. Corner Lots; Sight Distance Triangle: No solid fence, wall or hedge shall be 99
erected to a height in excess of three (3) feet if the fence, wall or hedge is located within 100
the sight distance triangle extending thirty (30) feet either side of the intersection of the 101
5
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
respective street curb lines, or edge lines of roadway where curbing is not provided as 102
noted in sSection 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. 103
b. Corner Side, Side, Rear Yards; Sight Distance Triangle: Fences, walls or hedges 104
may be erected in any required corner side yard (extending to a point in line with the 105
front facade of the principal structure for residential zoning districts and up to any 106
required front yard setback line for all other zoning districts), required side yard or 107
required rear yard to a height not to exceed six (6) feet. The zoning administrator may 108
require either increased fence setback or lower fence height along corner side yards to 109
provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys. 110
c. b. Intersection of Street and Driveway; Intersection of Alley or Driveway 111
and Sidewalk; Sight Distance Triangle: Solid fences, walls and hedges shall not exceed 112
thirty (30) inches in height within the sight distance triangle as defined in sSection 113
21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. 114
d. c. Sight Distance Triangle Aand See Through Fences: Within the area 115
defined as a sight distance triangle, see through fences that are at least fifty percent (50%) 116
open shall be allowed to a height of four (4) feet. 117
e. d. Alternative Design Solutions. To provide adequate line of sight for 118
driveways and alleys, the zoning administrator, in consulting with the development 119
review team, may require alternative design solutions, including, but not restricted to, 120
requiring increased fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns 121
created by the location of buildings, grade change or other preexisting conditions. 122
123
SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.7. 124
That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.7 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings 125
and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges) shall be, and hereby is amended to read 126
as follows: 127
7. Gates. No gate, whether crossing a driveway, walkway, or part of a fence, shall be 128
erected to a height in excess of the standards outlined in this subsection E. To regulate 129
the location of gates and their impact on vehicular staging within the public right of 130
way, passenger vehicles shall require a minimum seventeen (17) foot six (6) inch 131
setback from back edge of sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not provided, 132
and large truck driveways shall require a one hundred (100) foot setback from back 133
edge of sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not provided. This requirement 134
does not apply to gates abutting alleys. All gates are to swing inward to the property 135
or be a roll gate that does not impact the staging area. 136
137
6
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.44.060.A.6.c. 138
That Subsection 21A.44.060.A.6.c of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Off Street Parking, 139
Mobility and Loading: Parking Location and Design: Generally: Driveway and Access) shall be, 140
and hereby is amended to read as follows: 141
c. Driveway Standards: All driveways shall comply with the following standards: 142
(1) Driveway Location in Residential Zoning Districts: With the exception of legal 143
shared driveways, driveways shall be at least twenty feet (20') from street corner property 144
lines and Driveways shall be at least five5 feet (5') from any public utility infrastructure such 145
as power poles, fire hydrants, and water meters. Except for entrance and exit driveways 146
leading to approved parking areas, no curb cuts or driveways are permitted. 147
(2) Distance from street corners: Driveways for Single and Two-Family Dwellings 148
shall be located at least 20 feet from street corner property lines. Driveways for all other uses 149
shall be at least 50 feet from street corner property lines. When the width of the lot is less 150
than the required distance, the transportation director may approve modifications no greater 151
than the minimum necessary to accommodate the driveway. 152
153
(2)(3) Driveway Widths: All driveways serving residential uses shall be a minimum 154
eight8 feet wide and shall comply with the standards for maximum driveway widths listed in 155
Table 21A.44.060-C, “Minimum and Maximum Driveway Width”. 156
157
158 159
(3)(4) Shared Driveways: Shared driveways, where two (2) or more properties share one 160
(1) driveway access, may be permitted if the transportation director determines that the 161
design and location of the shared driveway access will not create adverse impacts on traffic 162
congestion or public safety. 163
164
7
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
(4)(5) Driveway Surface: All driveways providing access to parking facilities shall be 165
improved and maintained pursuant to the standards in the Off Street Standards Manual. 166
167
SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That the 168
definition of Sight Distance Triangle in Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: 169
General Terms: Definitions) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows while retaining 170
all other definitions in said section: 171
SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE: A triangular area formed by a diagonal line connecting 172
two (2) points when measured as follows: 173
A. For corner lots: Extending thirty30 feet (30') from the intersecting line of each street 174
face of curb, or edge of roadway where curbing is not provided. Proposals in 175
commercial and industrial districts which have a minimum front or corner side yard 176
setback requirement, that seem to allow encroachment into the sight distance triangle, 177
shall be reviewed through the site plan review process by the city's development 178
review team. 179
180
B. For intersections of street or large truck and driveways or alleys: Extending thirty feet 181
(30') 10 feet from each intersecting edge of the driveway or alley and street face of 182
curb line, or edge of roadway where curbing is not provided. 183
184
C. For alleys or passenger vehicle and light truck driveways crossing a sidewalk: 185
Extending ten10 feet (10') from each intersecting edge of the alley or driveway and 186
back edge of the sidewalk. 187
188
The purpose of the sight distance triangle is to define an area in which vision obstructions are 189
prohibited. (See illustration in sSection 21A.62.050 of this chapter.) 190
191
SECTION 9. Replacing Illustration I of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.050. That 192
Illustration I, the Sight Distance Triangle, in Section 21A.62.050 of the Salt Lake City Code 193
(Zoning: General Terms: Illustrations Of Selected Definitions) is hereby deleted in its entirety 194
and replaced with the following: 195
8
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Illustration I: Sight Distance Triangle 196
9
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
197
198
10
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
SECTION 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 199
first publication. 200
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 201
2023. 202
______________________________ 203
CHAIRPERSON 204
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 205
206
______________________________ 207
CITY RECORDER 208
209
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 210
211
212
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 213
214
______________________________ 215
MAYOR 216
______________________________ 217
CITY RECORDER 218
(SEAL) 219
220
Bill No. ________ of 2023. 221
Published: ______________. 222
Ordinace regulating sight distance triangle 223
224
225
226
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
Date Received: 05/30/2023
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 05/30/2023
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 30, 2023
Darin Mano, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
SUBJECT: PLNPCM2023-00054
STAFF CONTACT: Madison Blodgett, Associate Planner
madison.blodgett@slcgov.com or 801-535-7749
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the changes to the zoning ordinance related
to the sight distance triangle as recommended by the Planning Commission.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated a petition to amend the zoning
ordinance regulations regarding the sight distance triangle, which is the area providing visual
clearance at street, alleys and driveways intersections where views of approaching traffic should not
be obstructed. Under the current code, sight distance triangles are measured as a triangular area
formed by a diagonal line connecting two points. Currently the definition in the code establishes a
distance of 30’ for corner lots and at the intersection of street and large truck driveways, and distance
of 10’ for passenger vehicle and light truck driveways crossing a sidewalk. The code is silent about
intersections of alleys and sidewalks and alleys and streets. Alleys intersecting with sidewalks and
streets operate in a similar manner as driveways, and therefore presents similar risks to oncoming
pedestrian, vehicular, or bike traffic. The proposed amendment modifies the sight distance triangle to
include alleys in the standards.
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
Lisa Shaffer (May 30, 2023 15:09 MDT)
In addition to amending the definition, the proposed amendment will add standards to apply the sight
distance triangle regulations to buildings and all other structures not included in fence regulations. In
the current code, the sight distance triangle is only referenced in the regulations for fences, walls and
hedges. Because no reference is made in other parts of the code, other structures, including buildings,
are currently allowed to encroach on the sight distance triangle areas. This creates inconsistent
application of the clear zone standards and open doors to hazardous conditions at intersections.
In addition to the changes mentioned above, the proposed ordinance will correct minor
inconsistencies in the code and help achieve the purpose of the sight distance triangle. More
specific information can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report.
The Planning Commission considered the request at a May 10, 2023 public hearing and voted
unanimously to send a positive recommendation to the City Council based on staff’s proposed
zoning ordinance text.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
Community Council Notice: A notice of application was sent to all recognized community
organizations on February 15, 2023, per City Code Chapter 2.60 with a link to the online open
house webpage. The recognized organizations were given 45 days to respond with any concerns
or to request staff to meet with them and discuss the proposed zoning amendment. The proposal
was presented at the March 20, 2023 Sugar House Community Council meeting and the overall
response was support for the amendment. The 45-day public engagement period ended on April 1,
2023.
Public Open House: An online open house was held from February 15, 2023, to April 1, 2023.
No public comment was received.
Planning Commission Meeting: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 10,
2023. The Planning Commission provided a positive recommendation to City Council on the
proposed amendment.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECORDS of MAY 26, 2023:
Planning Commission Agenda
Planning Commission Minutes
Planning Commission Staff report
EXHIBITS:
1. Project Chronology
2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing
3. Petition to Initiate
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
1
1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
2 No. of 2023
3
4 (An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code
5 pertaining to the sight distance triangle.)
6
7 An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant
8 to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00054 pertaining to the sight distance triangle.
9 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a
10 public hearing on May 10, 2023 to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Erin Mendenhall
11 (Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00054) to amend portions of Chapters 21A.36; 21A.40; 21A.44;
12 and 21A.62 of the Salt Lake City Code to modify regulations pertaining to sight distance triangle;
13 and
14 WHEREAS, at its May 10, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of
15 transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said
16 petition; and
17 WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that
18 adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
19 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
20
21 SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.36.020. That
22 Section 21A.36.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Conformance with
23 Lot and Bulk Controls) shall be, and hereby is amended to include the following subpart D while
24 retaining all other subparts, tables, and notes in said section:
25 D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, all structures shall comply with the
26 Sight Distance Triangle Requirements as defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62 of this
27 title. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may approve
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
2
28 alternative design solutions that result in similar visual clearance and effectively mitigate
29 safety concerns.
30
31 SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.050. That
32 Section 21A.40.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and
33 Structures: General Yard, Bulk and Height Limitations) shall be, and hereby is amended to
34 include the following subpart D while retaining all other text and subparts in said section:
35 D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, all structures shall comply with the
36 Sight Distance Triangle Requirements as defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62 of this
37 title. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may approve
38 alternative design solutions that result in similar visual clearance and effectively mitigate
39 safety concerns.
40
41 SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1.
42 That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings
43 and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates) shall be,
44 and hereby is amended to read as follows:
45 1. Fences, walls, and hedges shall comply with the following regulations based on the
46 following zoning districts:
47 a. Residential Zoning Districts:
48 (1) Except as permitted in subsection 21A.24.010.P and 21A.12.E.4
49 21A.40.120.E.4 of this code, a fence, wall or hedge located between the front property
50 line and front building line of the facade of the principal structure that contains the
51 primary entrance shall not exceed four (4) feet in height.
52 (2) A fence, wall, or hedge located at or behind the primary facade of the
53 principal structure shall not exceed 6 feet in height.
54 (3) On developed properties Where where there is no existing principal
55 structure, the height of a fence, wall, or hedge shall not exceed four (4) feet in a front
56 yard area or six (6) feet in the rear or side yard areas.
57
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
3
58 59
60 b. Nonresidential Zoning Districts:
61 (1) A fence, wall, or hedge located between the front property line and the
62 primary facade of the principal structure shall not exceed four (4) feet in height.
63 (2) A fence, wall or hedge located at or behind the primary facade of the
64 principal structure shall not exceed six (6) feet in height.
65
66 (3) On developed properties where there is no existing principal structure, the
67 height of a fence, wall, or hedge shall not exceed 4 feet in a front yard area or 6 feet in
68 the rear or side yard areas.
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
4
69 (3) Not withstanding (4) Notwithstanding Subsection 21A.40.120.1.b.(l)
70 21A.40.120.E.1.b.(1), in the M-2 and EI zoning districts fences, walls, or hedges may be
71 up to six (6) feet in height if when located between the front property line and the front
72 yard setback line.
73 (4) (5) If there is no minimum front yard setback in the underlying zoning district,
74 a fence, wall, or hedge of a maximum six (6) feet in height may be placed no closer than
75 ten (10) feet from the property line.
76 (5) (6) Outdoor storage, when permitted in the zoning district, shall be located
77 behind the primary facade of the principal structure and shall be screened with a solid
78 wall or fence and shall comply with the requirements in Section 5.60.120. Outdoor
79 storage in the M-1 and M-2 districts are also subject to the provisions of 21A.28.010.B.3.
80
81 SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.3.
82 That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.3 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings
83 and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates) shall be,
84 and hereby is amended to read as follows:
85 3. Vacant Lots. Notwithstanding 21A.24.010.P.10.d, fencing to secure vacant or
86 undeveloped lots may be up to six (6) feet in height, provided the fence is not closer
87 than five (5) feet to a public sidewalk and is no less than eighty percent (80%)
88 transparent. Once the property is developed, the fence will be required to comply with
89 the height restrictions of this Ttitle.
90
91 SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.5.
92 That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.5 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings
93 and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates) shall be,
94 and hereby is amended to read as follows:
95 5. Vision Clearance and Safety. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, a
96 fence, wall, or hedge shall comply with the Ssight Ddistance Ttriangle Rrequirements
97 of this Ssection.
98 a. Corner Lots; Sight Distance Triangle: No solid fence, wall or hedge shall be
99 erected to a height in excess of three (3) feet if the fence, wall or hedge is located within
100 the sight distance triangle extending thirty (30) feet either side of the intersection of the
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
5
101 respective street curb lines, or edge lines of roadway where curbing is not provided as
102 noted in sSection 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title.
103 b. Corner Side, Side, Rear Yards; Sight Distance Triangle: Fences, walls or hedges
104 may be erected in any required corner side yard (extending to a point in line with the
105 front facade of the principal structure for residential zoning districts and up to any
106 required front yard setback line for all other zoning districts), required side yard or
107 required rear yard to a height not to exceed six (6) feet. The zoning administrator may
108 require either increased fence setback or lower fence height along corner side yards to
109 provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys.
110 c. b. Intersection of Street and Driveway; Intersection of Alley or Driveway
111 and Sidewalk; Sight Distance Triangle: Solid fences, walls and hedges shall not exceed
112 thirty (30) inches in height within the sight distance triangle as defined in sSection
113 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title.
114 d. c. Sight Distance Triangle Aand See Through Fences: Within the area
115 defined as a sight distance triangle, see through fences that are at least fifty percent (50%)
116 open shall be allowed to a height of four (4) feet.
117 e. d. Alternative Design Solutions. To provide adequate line of sight for
118 driveways and alleys, the zoning administrator, in consulting with the development
119 review team, may require alternative design solutions, including, but not restricted to,
120 requiring increased fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns
121 created by the location of buildings, grade change or other preexisting conditions.
122
123 SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.7.
124 That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.7 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings
125 and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges) shall be, and hereby is amended to read
126 as follows:
127 7. Gates. No gate, whether crossing a driveway, walkway, or part of a fence, shall be
128 erected to a height in excess of the standards outlined in this subsection E. To regulate
129 the location of gates and their impact on vehicular staging within the public right of
130 way, passenger vehicles shall require a minimum seventeen (17) foot six (6) inch
131 setback from back edge of sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not provided,
132 and large truck driveways shall require a one hundred (100) foot setback from back
133 edge of sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not provided. This requirement
134 does not apply to gates abutting alleys. All gates are to swing inward to the property
135 or be a roll gate that does not impact the staging area.
136
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
6
137 SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.44.060.A.6.c.
138 That Subsection 21A.44.060.A.6.c of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Off Street Parking,
139 Mobility and Loading: Parking Location and Design: Generally: Driveway and Access) shall be,
140 and hereby is amended to read as follows:
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157 158
159
160
161
162
163
c. Driveway Standards: All driveways shall comply with the following standards:
(1) Driveway Location in Residential Zoning Districts: With the exception of legal
shared driveways, driveways shall be at least twenty feet (20') from street corner property
lines and Driveways shall be at least five5 feet (5') from any public utility infrastructure such
as power poles, fire hydrants, and water meters. Except for entrance and exit driveways
leading to approved parking areas, no curb cuts or driveways are permitted.
(2) Distance from street corners: Driveways for Single and Two-Family Dwellings
shall be located at least 20 feet from street corner property lines. Driveways for all other uses
shall be at least 50 feet from street corner property lines. When the width of the lot is less
than the required distance, the transportation director may approve modifications no greater
than the minimum necessary to accommodate the driveway.
(2)(3) Driveway Widths: All driveways serving residential uses shall be a minimum
eight8 feet wide and shall comply with the standards for maximum driveway widths listed in
Table 21A.44.060-C, “Minimum and Maximum Driveway Width”.
(3)(4) Shared Driveways: Shared driveways, where two (2) or more properties share one
(1) driveway access, may be permitted if the transportation director determines that the
design and location of the shared driveway access will not create adverse impacts on traffic
congestion or public safety.
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
7
164 (4)(5) Driveway Surface: All driveways providing access to parking facilities shall be
165 improved and maintained pursuant to the standards in the Off Street Standards Manual.
166
167 SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That the
168 definition of Sight Distance Triangle in Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning:
169 General Terms: Definitions) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows while retaining
170 all other definitions in said section:
171 SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE: A triangular area formed by a diagonal line connecting
172 two (2) points when measured as follows:
173 A. For corner lots: Extending thirty30 feet (30') from the intersecting line of each street
174 face of curb, or edge of roadway where curbing is not provided. Proposals in
175 commercial and industrial districts which have a minimum front or corner side yard
176 setback requirement, that seem to allow encroachment into the sight distance triangle,
177 shall be reviewed through the site plan review process by the city's development
178 review team.
179
180 B. For intersections of street or large truck and driveways or alleys: Extending thirty feet
181 (30') 10 feet from each intersecting edge of the driveway or alley and street face of
182 curb line, or edge of roadway where curbing is not provided.
183
184 C. For alleys or passenger vehicle and light truck driveways crossing a sidewalk:
185 Extending ten10 feet (10') from each intersecting edge of the alley or driveway and
186 back edge of the sidewalk.
187
188 The purpose of the sight distance triangle is to define an area in which vision obstructions are
189 prohibited. (See illustration in sSection 21A.62.050 of this chapter.)
190
191 SECTION 9. Replacing Illustration I of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.050. That
192 Illustration I, the Sight Distance Triangle, in Section 21A.62.050 of the Salt Lake City Code
193 (Zoning: General Terms: Illustrations Of Selected Definitions) is hereby deleted in its entirety
194 and replaced with the following:
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
8
195 Illustration I: Sight Distance Triangle
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
9
196
197
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
10
198 SECTION 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
199 first publication.
200 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of ,
201 2023.
202
203
204
205
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
CHAIRPERSON
206
207 CITY RECORDER
208
209 Transmitted to Mayor on .
210
211
212 Mayor’s Action: Approved. Vetoed.
213
214
215 MAYOR
216
217
218
219
220 221 222
223
224
225
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. of 2023.
Published: .
Ordinace regulating sight distance triangle
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:
By:
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2023
(An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code
pertaining to the sight distance triangle.)
An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant
to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00054 pertaining to the sight distance triangle.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a
public hearing on May 10, 2023 to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Erin Mendenhall
(Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00054) to amend portions of Chapters 21A.36; 21A.40; 21A.44;
and 21A.62 of the Salt Lake City Code to modify regulations pertaining to sight distance triangle;
and
WHEREAS, at its May 10, 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 text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.36.020. That
Section 21A.36.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Conformance with
Lot and Bulk Controls) shall be, and hereby is amended to include the following subpart D while
retaining all other subparts, tables, and notes in said section:
D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, all structures shall comply with the
Sight Distance Triangle Requirements as defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62 of this
title. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may approve
2
alternative design solutions that result in similar visual clearance and effectively mitigate
safety concerns.
SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.050. That
Section 21A.40.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and
Structures: General Yard, Bulk and Height Limitations) shall be, and hereby is amended to
include the following subpart D while retaining all other text and subparts in said section:
D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, all structures shall comply with the
Sight Distance Triangle Requirements as defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62 of this
title. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may approve
alternative design solutions that result in similar visual clearance and effectively mitigate
safety concerns.
SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1.
That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings
and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates) shall be,
and hereby is amended to read as follows:
1. Fences, walls, and hedges shall comply with the following regulations based on the
following zoning districts:
a. Residential Zoning Districts:
(1) Except as permitted in subsection 21A.24.010.P and 21A.40.120.E.4 of
this code, a fence, wall or hedge located between the front property line and front
building line of the facade of the principal structure that contains the primary entrance
shall not exceed 4 feet in height.
(2) A fence, wall, or hedge located at or behind the primary facade of the
principal structure shall not exceed 6 feet in height.
(3) On developed properties where there is no existing principal structure, the
height of a fence, wall, or hedge shall not exceed 4 feet in a front yard area or 6 feet in
the rear or side yard areas.
3
b. Nonresidential Zoning Districts:
(1) A fence, wall, or hedge located between the front property line and the
primary facade of the principal structure shall not exceed 4 feet in height.
(2) A fence, wall or hedge located at or behind the primary facade of the
principal structure shall not exceed 6 feet in height.
(3) On developed properties where there is no existing principal structure, the
height of a fence, wall, or hedge shall not exceed 4 feet in a front yard area or 6 feet in
the rear or side yard areas.
4
(4) Notwithstanding Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1.b.(1), in the M-2 and EI zoning
districts fences, walls, or hedges may be up to 6 feet in height when located between the
front property line and the front yard setback line.
(5) If there is no minimum front yard setback in the underlying zoning district, a
fence, wall, or hedge of a maximum 6 feet in height may be placed no closer than 10 feet
from the property line.
(6) Outdoor storage, when permitted in the zoning district, shall be located behind
the primary facade of the principal structure and shall be screened with a solid wall or
fence and shall comply with the requirements in Section 5.60.120. Outdoor storage in the
M-1 and M-2 districts are also subject to the provisions of 21A.28.010.B.3.
SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.3.
That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.3 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings
and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates) shall be,
and hereby is amended to read as follows:
3. Vacant Lots. Notwithstanding 21A.24.010.P.10.d, fencing to secure vacant or
undeveloped lots may be up to 6 feet in height, provided the fence is not closer than 5
feet to a public sidewalk and is no less than 80% transparent. Once the property is
developed, the fence will be required to comply with the height restrictions of this
title.
SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.5.
That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.5 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings
and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates) shall be,
and hereby is amended to read as follows:
5. Vision Clearance and Safety. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, a
fence, wall, or hedge shall comply with the sight distance triangle requirements of
this section.
a. Corner Lots; Sight Distance Triangle: No solid fence, wall or hedge shall be
erected to a height in excess of 3 feet if the fence, wall or hedge is located within the
sight distance triangle extending 30 feet either side of the intersection of the respective
street curb lines, or edge lines of roadway where curbing is not provided as noted in
Section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title.
5
b. Intersection of Street and Driveway; Intersection of Alley or Driveway and
Sidewalk; Sight Distance Triangle: Solid fences, walls and hedges shall not exceed 30
inches in height within the sight distance triangle as defined in Section 21A.62.050,
illustration I of this title.
c. Sight Distance Triangle and See Through Fences: Within the area defined as a
sight distance triangle, see through fences that are at least 50% open shall be allowed to a
height of 4 feet.
d. Alternative Design Solutions. To provide adequate line of sight for driveways and
alleys, the zoning administrator, in consulting with the development review team, may
require alternative design solutions, including, but not restricted to, requiring increased
fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns created by the
location of buildings, grade change or other preexisting conditions.
SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.7.
That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.7 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings
and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges) shall be, and hereby is amended to read
as follows:
7. Gates. No gate, whether crossing a driveway, walkway, or part of a fence, shall be
erected to a height in excess of the standards outlined in this subsection E. To regulate
the location of gates and their impact on vehicular staging within the public right of
way, passenger vehicles shall require a minimum 17 foot 6 inch setback from back
edge of sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not provided, and large truck
driveways shall require a 100 foot setback from back edge of sidewalk, or property
line when a sidewalk is not provided. This requirement does not apply to gates
abutting alleys. All gates are to swing inward to the property or be a roll gate that
does not impact the staging area.
SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.44.060.A.6.c.
That Subsection 21A.44.060.A.6.c of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Off Street Parking,
Mobility and Loading: Parking Location and Design: Generally: Driveway and Access) shall be,
and hereby is amended to read as follows:
c. Driveway Standards: All driveways shall comply with the following standards:
6
(1) Driveway Location: Driveways shall be at least 5 feet from any public utility
infrastructure such as power poles, fire hydrants, and water meters. Except for entrance and
exit driveways leading to approved parking areas, no curb cuts or driveways are permitted.
(2) Distance from street corners: Driveways for Single and Two-Family Dwellings
shall be located at least 20 feet from street corner property lines. Driveways for all other uses
shall be at least 50 feet from street corner property lines. When the width of the lot is less
than the required distance, the transportation director may approve modifications no greater
than the minimum necessary to accommodate the driveway.
(3) Driveway Widths: All driveways serving residential uses shall be a minimum 8
feet wide and shall comply with the standards for maximum driveway widths listed in Table
21A.44.060-C, “Minimum and Maximum Driveway Width”.
(4) Shared Driveways: Shared driveways, where two (2) or more properties share one
(1) driveway access, may be permitted if the transportation director determines that the
design and location of the shared driveway access will not create adverse impacts on traffic
congestion or public safety.
(5) Driveway Surface: All driveways providing access to parking facilities shall be
improved and maintained pursuant to the standards in the Off Street Standards Manual.
SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That the
definition of Sight Distance Triangle in Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning:
General Terms: Definitions) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows while retaining
all other definitions in said section:
SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE: A triangular area formed by a diagonal line connecting
two (2) points when measured as follows:
7
A. For corner lots: Extending 30 feet from the intersecting line of each street face of curb,
or edge of roadway where curbing is not provided.
B. For intersections of street and driveways or alleys: Extending 10 feet from each
intersecting edge of the driveway or alley and street curb line, or edge of roadway
where curbing is not provided.
C. For alleys or driveways crossing a sidewalk: Extending 10 feet from each intersecting
edge of the alley or driveway and back edge of the sidewalk.
The purpose of the sight distance triangle is to define an area in which vision obstructions are
prohibited. (See illustration in Section 21A.62.050 of this chapter.)
SECTION 9. Replacing Illustration I of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.050. That
Illustration I, the Sight Distance Triangle, in Section 21A.62.050 of the Salt Lake City Code
(Zoning: General Terms: Illustrations Of Selected Definitions) is hereby deleted in its entirety
and replaced with the following:
Illustration I: Sight Distance Triangle
8
9
SECTION 10. 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: .
Ordinace regulating sight distance triangle
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: May 22, 2023
By:
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney
Project Chronology
Petition: PLNPCM2023-00054
January 27, 2023
January 30, 2023
Application accepted.
Petition assigned to Madison Blodgett, Associate Planner.
October 2022 – Petition reviewed internally, and staff drafted language to support goals of
February 2023 the petition.
February 15, 2023 Notice mailed to all Community Councils
February 15, 2023 Application posted for the online open house.
March 20, 2023 Presented proposal at Sugar House Community Council meeting.
April 27, 2023 Planning Commission agenda posted to the website and emailed to the
listserv.
May 4, 2023 Staff report posted to Planning’s webpage.
May 10, 2023 Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. A positive
recommendation was forwarded to the City Council.
May 23, 2023 Signed ordinance received from City Attorney’s Office.
NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00054 – Mayor Erin Mendenhall has
initiated a petition to amend the zoning ordinance regulations regarding the sight distance triangle, which
is the area providing visual clearance at street, alleys and driveways intersections. The proposed changes
will affect sections 21A.40.120, regulations for fences, walls and hedges, 21A.36.020 and 21A.40.050 to
apply visual clearance to buildings, and 21A.62.040 to update the definition of sight distance triangle.
Related provisions of Title 21A, Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact:
Madison Blodgett at madison.blodgett@slcgov.com or 801-535-7749)
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments
regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this
issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same
night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held:
DATE: TBD
TIME: 7:00 pm
PLACE: Electronic and in-person options.
451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person
opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located
at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including
WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments
may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an
email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are
shared with the Council and added to the public record.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Madison
Blodgett at 801-535-7749 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
or via e-mail at madison.blodgett@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at
https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number
PLNPCM2023-00054.
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.
Item B4
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:August 8, 2023
RE: Sugar House Drive-Through Text Amendment
PLNPCM2023-00026
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:August 8, 2023
RE: Sugar House Drive-Through Text Amendment
PLNPCM2023-00026
BRIEFING UPDATE
At the July 18, 2023 briefing Council Members asked whether drive-through facilities are connected with a
business or the property, and if vacancy at a property would result in a loss of the nonconforming use.
Planning staff explained a nonconforming use is associated with the property. As an example, if a
restaurant with a drive-through closed and another restaurant opened at the same location, the drive-
through use would be allowed to continue. However, if there was a change of use on the property, (e.g.,
from a bank to a restaurant) that use would need Appeals Hearing Officer review to determine whether to
allow the drive-through to continue. A 12-month vacancy at a property with drive-through facilities would
result in the loss of the nonconforming use if the property was not marketed for use.
Other Council Members asked if any current plans would be affected by the change, and clarified where the
proposed changes would apply. Planning staff was not aware of any plans in the Sugar House Business
District that are proposing new drive-through facilities. Planning also reiterated that the proposal is only
for the Sugar House Business District and would not apply outside the area.
Council Members expressed general support for the proposed text amendment and noted drive-throughs
are appropriate for some areas of the city, but not in the Sugar House Business District.
The following information was provided for July 18, 2023 Council briefing. It is
included again for background purposes.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: July 18, 2023
Set Date: July 18, 2023
Public Hearing: August 8, 2023
Potential Action: August 15, 2023
Page | 2
The Council will be briefed about a proposal initiated by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to amend
the zoning ordinance that would prohibit drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District.
Currently, drive-throughs are permitted for financial institutions, restaurants, retail goods and retail
service establishments in the Sugar House Business District. The proposed changes prohibiting drive-
throughs are not citywide; they apply only to the Sugar House Business District.
The proposal is to prohibit new drive-through uses within the Sugar House Business District (CSHBD1 and
CSHBD2) by removing the permitted use designations in these districts from the Table of Permitted and
Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts (21A.33.030 Salt Lake City Code). In addition, the proposal
calls for modifying Section 21A.40.060 Salt Lake City Code clarifying that drive-through facilities are only
permitted when specifically listed as permitted in the land use tables.
Under the proposal, existing drive-through facilities in the Sugar House Business District would become
legal nonconforming uses and could continue operating.
Planning staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the Council.
The Commission reviewed the proposal during its April 26, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at
which three people spoke. The comments were generally in support of the proposal and some suggested
potential exceptions for financial institutions and pharmacies. Commissioners voted 10-1 in favor of
forwarding a positive recommendation to the City Council. The Commissioner who voted against the
proposal did not indicate why he was opposed.
Planning staff included the image below indicating where the current 12 drive-through facilities are located
in the Sugar House Business District.
Existing drive-through facilities in the Sugar House Business District
Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division
Page | 3
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendment, determine if the Council supports moving
forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTION
1. The Council may wish to discuss whether to allow new drive-throughs for new pharmacy and
financial institution uses in the Sugar House Business District as a permitted or conditional use as
raised in the Planning Commission Public Hearing.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 4-7 of
the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the
staff report.
Consideration 1-Compatibility with Master Plan Policies and Initiatives
Planning staff found the proposed text amendment supports principles found in Plan Salt Lake and the
Sugar House Master Plan including:
•reducing auto dependency and single occupancy vehicle trips
•promoting a “pedestrian-first” walkable community
•reducing greenhouse gas emissions
•a balanced economy
•encourage people-focused development
Planning noted “The proposed amendment will contribute towards the implementation of the above-
mentioned goals and policies by preventing an increase in the number of automobile-dependent uses,
encouraging pedestrian-oriented development, and facilitating small business clusters in a similar manner
to downtown areas.” (Planning Commission staff report page 5.)
Consideration 2-Impacts of the Proposed Text Amendment on New and Existing Uses
If the amendment is adopted, businesses would not be allowed to construct a new drive-through in the
Sugar House Business District. Existing drive-through facilities would become legal nonconforming uses
and allowed to continue until voluntarily removed or deemed to be abandoned.
Nonconforming uses are defined as “any building or land legally occupied by a use at the time of passage
of the ordinance codified herein or amendment thereto which does not conform after passage of said
ordinance or amendment thereto with the use regulations of the district in which located.” (Chapter
21A.62.040 Salt Lake City Code.)
If a nonconforming drive-through use is proposed to change to another nonconforming drive-through use,
the Appeals Hearing Officer would determine whether the new use would be a similar land use type as the
existing use. Planning provided an example of a bank in the Sugar House Business District with a drive-
through requested a change of use to a restaurant with a drive-through. Under that scenario, a process
outlined in City Code requires a hearing by an Appeals Hearing Officer, and staff review of applicable drive-
through facility regulations including stacking lane standards, and the requirement that internal
circulation patterns keep traffic from backing onto the street or block access to required parking spaces on
the lot.
Consideration 3-Use Analysis
Page | 4
During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people utilized drive-throughs as a convenient way to get goods and
services while maintaining social distancing. Some businesses without drive-throughs adapted by
dedicating parking spaces for online or phone order pick-up. Others provided a delivery option, limited the
number of customers allowed inside, or scheduled appointment times. Planning staff acknowledged drive-
throughs provide community benefits, but businesses can be successful without them.
Access for those with disabilities or who may have difficulty leaving their vehicle is an important
consideration. Planning staff noted the importance of equity discussed in Plan Salt Lake with an initiative
to “pursue equitable access to privately provided services and amenities across the City.” Planning
reiterated that under the proposal existing drive-through facilities in the Sugar House Business District will
be allowed to continue. They also noted other nearby zoning districts on 2100 South outside the Sugar
House Business District such as Corridor Commercial and Community Business that would continue to
allow drive-throughs.
Planning provided the following map showing where drive-through facilities are permitted, prohibited, or
permitted for some uses. In general, drive-throughs are prohibited in residential districts or in areas where
the district purpose statement emphasizes walkability. Drive-throughs are permitted or conditional uses in
major commercial only districts and some transitional/support districts.
Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division
In their recommendation to the Planning Commission, Planning staff stated “The proposed amendment
implements professional best practices, does not conflict with other applicable State of City Code, and
aligns with the City’s zoning purposes by promoting a walkable community in the Sugar House Business
District. The proposed amendment also furthers the purpose of the city’s policies and goals, including
those in the applicable master plans.” (Planning Commission staff report page 13.)
Page | 5
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT STANDARDS
Planning staff reviewed the proposed text amendment against the following criteria City Code says the City
Council should consider. Please see Attachment D (pages 24-25) of the Planning Commission staff report
for additional information.
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.
Complies
Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning
ordinance.
Complies
A proposed text amendment is consistent with the
purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay
zoning districts which may impose additional
standards.
Not
Applicable
The extent to which a proposed text amendment
implements the best current, professional practices
of urban planning and design.
Complies
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• August 24, 2022-Planning Commission voted to initiate the petition.
• January 26, 2023-Petition assigned to Andy Hulka, Principal Planner.
• February 17, 2023-Petition posted to the Planning Division Online Open House webpage.
• February 6, 2023-Notice emailed to Sugar House Community Council and Sugar House Chamber
of Commerce.
• March 1, 2023-Early notification mailed to property owners and tenants within the CSHBD1 and
CSHBD2 boundaries.
• March 20, 2023-Planning staff presented the proposed changes to the Sugar House Community
Council Land Use and Zoning Committee.
• April 14, 2023-Planning Commission agenda posted to City and State websites.
• April 26, 2023-Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. The Planning Commission
voted 10-1 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
• May 17, 2023-Ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office.
• June 9, 2023-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office.
• June 21, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office.
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: PLNPCM2023-00026, Sugar House Drive-Through Text Amendment
STAFF CONTACT: Andy Hulka, Principal Planner
andy.hulka@slcgov.com or 801-535-6608
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the changes to the zoning ordinance related
to drive-through uses within the Sugar House Business District, as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Planning Commission initiated a petition
to amend the zoning ordinance to prohibit new drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business
District (CSHBD1 & CSHBD2). Drive-through facilities for financial institutions, restaurants,
retail goods and retail service establishments are currently permitted uses in the Sugar House
Business District. The proposed text amendment would prohibit new drive-through facilities in the
district by removing the permitted use designations for all drive-through facilities under CSHBD1
and CSHBD2 in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts
(21A.33.030). The amendment would also clarify that drive-through facilities are only permitted
when specifically listed as permitted in the land use tables.
Lisa Shaffer (Jun 21, 2023 11:43 MDT)06/21/2023
06/21/2023
The proposed amendment is generally focused on aligning the land use tables with the stated
purpose of the CSHBD Sugar House Business District “to promote a walkable community with a
transit oriented, mixed use town center that can support a twenty-four (24) hour population.” The
proposal is also intended to align with city goals related to reducing automobile dependency,
improving air quality, and supporting the local economy. The amendment will not affect the ability
of existing businesses with drive-through facilities to continue their normal operations.
The Planning Commission considered the request at an April 26, 2023 public hearing and voted to
send a positive recommendation to the City Council based on staff’s proposed zoning ordinance
text.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
Community Council Notice: A notice of application was sent to the Sugar House Community
Council and Sugar House Chamber of Commerce on February 17, 2023, per City Code Chapter
2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage. The recognized organizations were given 45
days to respond with any concerns or to request staff to meet with them and discuss the proposed
zoning amendment. Staff attended the Sugar House Community Council’s Land Use and Zoning
Committee Meeting on March 20, 2023. The 45-day public engagement period ended on April 3,
2023.
Public Open House: An online open house was held from February 17, 2023, to April 3, 2023.
Staff received comments from five Sugar House residents in favor of the proposal and one
comment from a nearby business owner opposed to the proposal. The Sugar House Community
Council sent a letter supporting restrictions on restaurant drive-throughs but opposing restrictions
on bank and pharmacy drive-throughs. This letter has been included as an exhibit. The Key
Considerations section of the staff report discusses the issues and concerns that were raised by the
public.
Planning Commission Meeting: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 26,
2023. The Planning Commission provided a positive recommendation to City Council on the
proposed amendment.
Planning Commission (PC) Records
a) PC Agenda of August 24, 2022 (Petition Initiation – Click to Access)
b) PC Minutes of August 24, 2022 (Petition Initiation – Click to Access)
c) PC Agenda of November 9, 2022 (Briefing – Click to Access)
d) PC Minutes of November 9, 2022 (Briefing – Click to Access)
e) PC Agenda of April 26, 2023 (Public Hearing – Click to Access)
f) PC Minutes of April 26, 2023 (Public Hearing – Click to Access)
g) Planning Commission Staff Report of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access Report)
EXHIBITS:
1) Project Chronology
2) Notice of City Council Public Hearing
3) Sugar House Community Council Letter (Submitted after publishing of staff report)
1
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1
No. _____ of 2023 2
3
(Amending the text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to 4
drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District) 5
6
An ordinance amending the text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City 7
Code pertaining to drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District pursuant to Petition 8
No. PLNPCM2023-00026. 9
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a 10
public hearing on April 26, 2023 to consider a petition initiated by the Planning Commission 11
(Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00026) to amend Sections 21A.33.030 (Zoning: Land Use Tables: 12
Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) and Section 21A.40.060 13
(Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Drive-Through Facility Regulations) of the 14
Salt Lake City Code to prohibit new drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District 15
(CSHBD1 & CSHBD2) and to clarify that drive-through facilities are only permitted when 16
specifically listed as permitted in the land use tables; and 17
WHEREAS, at its April 26, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of 18
transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said 19
petition; and 20
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that 21
adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. 22
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 23
SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That 24
Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted 25
and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to remove the 26
2
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
permitted use designation corresponding to the column in that table pertaining to “CSHBD” and 27
the row in that table pertaining to “Financial institution with drive-through facility” use, which 28
row shall read and appear as follows: 29
Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District
CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB
Financial institution with drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9
30
SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That 31
Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted 32
and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to remove the 33
permitted use designation corresponding to the column in that table pertaining to “CSHBD” and 34
the row in that table pertaining to “Restaurant with drive-through facility” use, which row shall 35
read and appear as follows: 36
Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District
CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB
Restaurant with drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9
37
SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That 38
Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted 39
and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to remove the 40
permitted use designation corresponding to the column in that table pertaining to “CSHBD” and 41
the row in that table pertaining to “Retail goods establishment” use, which rows shall read and 42
appear as follows: 43
Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District
CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB
3
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Retail goods establishment P P P P P P P
Plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area P P P P P P P
With drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9
44
SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That 45
Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted 46
and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to remove the 47
permitted use designation corresponding to the column in that table pertaining to “CSHBD” and 48
the row in that table pertaining to “Retail service establishment” use, which rows shall read and 49
appear as follows: 50
Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District
CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB
Retail service establishment P P P P P P P
Furniture repair shop C P P P P P
With drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9
51
SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.060.B.2. 52
That Subsection 21A.40.060.B.2 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings 53
and Structures: Drive-Through Facility Regulations) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: 54
2. Drive-through facilities may be authorized as accessory uses to permitted uses or 55
conditional uses as when listed on the tables of permitted and conditional uses set forth in 56
part III of this title, specific district regulations for residential, commercial, 57
manufacturing, downtown, gateway, and special purpose districts when developed in 58
accordance with the standards of this section. 59
60
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 61
first publication. 62
63
4
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 2023. 64
______________________________ 65
CHAIRPERSON 66
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 67
68
______________________________ 69
CITY RECORDER 70
71
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 72
73
74
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 75
76
______________________________ 77
MAYOR 78
______________________________ 79
CITY RECORDER 80
(SEAL) 81
82
Bill No. ________ of 2023. 83
Published: ______________. 84
Ordinance amending text regulating drive throughs in Sugar House (legislative) 85
86
87
88
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2023
(Amending the text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to
drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District)
An ordinance amending the text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City
Code pertaining to drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District pursuant to Petition
No. PLNPCM2023-00026.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a
public hearing on April 26, 2023 to consider a petition initiated by the Planning Commission
(Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00026) to amend Sections 21A.33.030 (Zoning: Land Use Tables:
Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) and Section 21A.40.060
(Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Drive-Through Facility Regulations) of the
Salt Lake City Code to prohibit new drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District
(CSHBD1 & CSHBD2) and to clarify that drive-through facilities are only permitted when
specifically listed as permitted in the land use tables; and
WHEREAS, at its April 26, 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 Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That
Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted
and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to remove the
2
permitted use designation corresponding to the column in that table pertaining to “CSHBD” and
the row in that table pertaining to “Financial institution with drive-through facility” use, which
row shall read and appear as follows:
Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District
CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB
Financial institution with drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9
SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That
Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted
and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to remove the
permitted use designation corresponding to the column in that table pertaining to “CSHBD” and
the row in that table pertaining to “Restaurant with drive-through facility” use, which row shall
read and appear as follows:
Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District
CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB
Restaurant with drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9
SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That
Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted
and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to remove the
permitted use designation corresponding to the column in that table pertaining to “CSHBD” and
the row in that table pertaining to “Retail goods establishment” use, which rows shall read and
appear as follows:
Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District
CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB
3
Retail goods establishment P P P P P P P
Plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area P P P P P P P
With drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9
SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That
Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted
and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to remove the
permitted use designation corresponding to the column in that table pertaining to “CSHBD” and
the row in that table pertaining to “Retail service establishment” use, which rows shall read and
appear as follows:
Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District
CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB
Retail service establishment P P P P P P P
Furniture repair shop C P P P P P
With drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9
SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.060.B.2.
That Subsection 21A.40.060.B.2 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings
and Structures: Drive-Through Facility Regulations) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows:
2. Drive-through facilities may be authorized when listed on the tables of permitted and
conditional uses set forth in part III of this title, specific district regulations for
residential, commercial, manufacturing, downtown, gateway, and special purpose
districts when developed in accordance with the standards of this section.
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
4
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 amending text regulating drive throughs in Sugar House (final)
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney
June 9, 2023
1. PROJECT
CHRONOLOGY
Project Chronology
Petition: PLNPCM2023-00026
August 24, 2022
January 26, 2023
February 17, 2023
February 17, 2023
March 1, 2023
March 20, 2023
April 14, 2023
April 26, 2023
June 9, 2023
Planning Commission voted to initiate the petition.
Petition assigned to Andy Hulka, Principal Planner.
Petition posted to the Planning Division’s Online Open House
webpage (Public comment period ended April 3, 2023).
Notice emailed to the Sugar House Community Council and Sugar
House Chamber of Commerce.
Property owners and tenants within the CSHBD1 and CSHBD2
boundaries were mailed an early notification of the proposal.
Staff presented the proposed changes to the Sugar House Community
Council’s Land Use and Zoning Committee.
Planning Commission agenda posted on City and State websites.
Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. The Commission
voted 10-1 to send a positive recommendation to the City Council.
Signed ordinance received from City Attorney’s Office.
2. NOTICE OF CITY
COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00026 – The Salt Lake City Planning
Commission initiated a petition to amend the zoning ordinance to prohibit new drive-through uses in the
Sugar House Business District (CSHBD1 & CSHBD2). Drive-through facilities for financial institutions,
restaurants, retail goods and retail service establishments are currently permitted uses in the Sugar House
Business District. The proposed text amendment would prohibit new drive-through facilities in the district
by removing the permitted use designations for all drive-through facilities under CSHBD1 and CSHBD2
in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts (21A.33.030). The amendment
would also clarify that drive-through facilities are only permitted when specifically listed as permitted in
the land use tables. (Staff Contact: Andy Hulka at 801-535-6608 or andy.hulka@slcgov.com).
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:
TIME: 7:00 pm
PLACE: Electronic and in-person options.
451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person
opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located
at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including
WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments
may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an
email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are
shared with the Council and added to the public record.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Andy Hulka
at 801-535-6608 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
or via e-mail at andy.hulka@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at
https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number
PLNPCM2023-00026.
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. SUGAR HOUSE
COMMUNITY COUNCIL
LETTER
Item B4
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
PUBLIC HEARING
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY24CIP
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Policy and Budget Analyst
DATE:August 8, 2023
RE: FY 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget
Staff Note: The Council previously held a CIP public hearing on July 18. The Council is scheduled to
vote on the CIP project-specific funding at the August 15 formal meeting.
MOTION 1 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council close the public hearing.
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:August 8, 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
In this section, first is a potential funding scenario for the Council’s seven identified priority projects discussed
at the last briefing. The Council could consider other funding scenarios. Then responses to Council Member
questions about specific projects are listed in the same order as the projects’ on the funding log. The Council is
scheduled to vote on project specific funding at the August 15 meeting.
Potential Funding Scenario for Council-identified Priority Projects:
At the last briefing, Council Members identified seven priority projects for potential funding from the $614,689
of General Fund dollars and the $644,126 of Funding Our Future dollars that were added to CIP above the
Mayor’s recommended budget. The table below lists the seven projects and potential funding allocations from
the two funding sources. This scenario provides funding to all seven projects. Note the Livable Streets traffic
calming program was recommended for partial funding by the board and Mayor while the other six projects
were not recommended for any funding. The scenario has no funding shifts away from projects recommended by
the board and Mayor, and it does not require adding more funding into CIP in a later budget amendment.
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
- Combining CIP and Bond Funding – Projects #22 Richmond Park Playground and #27 North Temple
Arts and Tourism District Improvements would be partially funded from CIP and combined with
funding from the Parks, Trails & Open Space Bond.
- Dividing Projects into Phases – Projects #21 Rose Park Lane Beautification, Trail, and Safety
Improvements and #46 Safety Enhancements to Westside of Foothill Drive would be partially funded
and remaining phases could apply for funding in the next CIP cycle.
o Project #27 North Temple Arts and Tourism District Improvements is scalable to fit within the
available budget. It does not have specific amenities or locations identified or designed yet. The
Council could consider funding $69,111 for public engagement, designs, and cost estimates. This
would free up $123,578 that could go to another project. The construction funding could come
from the Parks, Trails & Open Space Bond and/or from a future CIP cycle.
- Fully Funded from CIP – Projects #32 Sugar House Safe Side Streets Part 2 and #57 Ensign Peak Nature
Park Improvements would be fully funded.
- Project #7 Livable Streets traffic calming program would have a new total of over $1.6 million from two
funding sources. The program is scalable based on available budget and was used as the balancing line
item receiving remaining funds after funding the other projects.
o The Transportation Division stated each zone in the program costs $250,000 - $500,000. The
additional funding would be enough to address traffic calming needs for a small or medium-
sized zone.
Project General Fund Funding Our Future
#7 Livable Streets Program
(New total would be $1,644,126)$294,126
#21 Rose Park Lane Beautification, Trail, and Safety
Improvements
(For two driver feedback signs)
$30,000
#22 Richmond Park Playground
(Combine with Parks, Trails & Open Space Bond
funding for District Four reimagine neighborhood
parks)
$212,000
#27 North Temple Arts and Tourism District
Improvements
(Combine with Parks, Trails & Open Space Bond
funds for Folsom Trail)
$192,689
#32 Sugar House Safe Side Streets Part 2
(Fully funds the second phase)$150,000
#46 Safety Enhancements to Westside of Foothill
Drive
(For Blaine Ave and 2500 East)
$170,000
#57 Ensign Peak Nature Park Improvements
(Fully funds the request)$210,000
TOTALS $614,689 $644,126
Page | 3
Project #2 Safer Crossings: Main Street, 1700 South Glendale Park, and Citywide TBD
Recommended for full funding of $900,000
The Council asked is a cost breakout available for the individual crossing improvements? The project is split into
three parts:
- $500,000 for five crossings on Main Street. The per crossing cost estimate is $60,000 - $100,000 per
crossing. This funding would be combined with $500,000 remaining from a FY2021 CIP allocation for
corridor transformations.
- $100,000 for a HAWK signal across 1700 South at the future Glendale Park. This funding would be
combined with remaining funds from FY2023 CIP for 1700 South. The price of a HAWK signal doubled
in the past year to $350,000.
- $300,000 for TBD crossings citywide. The Transportation Division maintains a priority list of crossings
for improvements pending available budget. Prioritization factors include vehicle and pedestrian counts,
speed limits and actual speed data, roadway lane configuration and width, and crashes, injuries, and
fatalities.
o For the citywide funds, Council Member Petro suggested 300 North to 600 North on 1200 West
are high need areas in District 1 particularly for seniors walking to the Smiths grocery store.
o Councilmember Puy suggested an enhancement to the crosswalk at 900 West and Fayette Ave,
which would cost about $150k.
Project #4 Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes
Recommended for partial funding of $1.1 million ($400,000 less than requested)
The Council asked what could be accomplished with an additional $400,000 to meet the $1.5 million requested
funding level? The additional funding could be used for two purposes:
- Continuing to improve bus stops at the current level which is more expensive because of inflation. The
Council approved $1.1 million for this program annually in CIP from FY2018 – FY2021 and in FY2023.
No funding was awarded in FY2022.
- Be held in a capital account for anticipated use as local matching funds for grants to construct a North
Temple Westside Transit Hub. The Transportation Division reports that the total estimated cost for the
transit hub is $10 million - $15 million. The Utah Transit Authority secured $1.4 million for the project
which is expected to be available in 2025 or later, and the City secured $2,116,407 in a Wasatch Front
Regional Council grant expected to be available in 2026 or later.
Policy Question:
➢The Council may wish to ask the Administration for more information about the North Temple
Westside Transit Hub plans and consider a briefing to provide policy guidance on the major project.
Project #5 Complete Streets Program
Recommended for partial funding of $3.3 million (half of the $6.6 million requested)
The Council asked what is the impact of the recommended funding level being $3.307 million less than the $6.6
million requested? The recommended funding level would likely result in the 2100 South reconstruction project
being prioritized because of the Streets Reconstruction Bond spending deadlines, earlier construction timeline,
and larger total cost. The next project to be prioritized is reconstruction of Virginia Street which is also receiving
funding from the bond but has a later construction schedule.
Project #6 Public Way Concrete Program
Recommended for full funding of $750,000
See Attachment 10 for tables and graphs summarizing the 50/50 concrete program utilization
Note that the 50/50 concrete program where a residential property owner and the City equally share
replacement costs is separate from the proactive Public Way Concrete Program. Commercially properties are
responsible for the full cost of replacement. The Council asked could the 50/50 cost sharing concrete
replacement program use an income-based sliding scale approach? The Public Services Department stated that
City Code sections 14.32.300 – 345 which govern the program does not include a sliding scale and welcomes a
policy discussion for potential changes.
Page | 4
The Council also asked what data exists about the program utilization? The program is run on a first-come first-
served basis. The available budget is spent each construction season completing about 130 individual projects.
The Department provided Attachment 10 which shows a breakout of projects by Council district, whether the
project was residential or commercial, and the total funding from 2020 to the present.
Policy Question:
➢The Council may wish to request a briefing about the City’s approaches for public right of way
concrete repair and replacement to provide policy guidance on potential changes such as an income-
based sliding scale and the available funding for the different programs.
Project #27 North Temple Arts and Tourism District Improvements
Not recommended for funding ($495,111 requested)
The Council requested info about the specific improvements proposed and a cost breakout. The project area is
both sides of 800 West and the center green median from North Temple to the dead-end street at approximately
150 South (cutoff by Interstate-15). This project could be considered like the green medians along 500 West
downtown that function as a linear park and the larger downtown green loop concept.
The project application identified five categories of potential improvements. Specific cost estimates are
unavailable because locations and types of improvements are to be determined. The Administration provided
cost ranges for the five categories as follows. The Council could consider funding $69,111 for public engagement,
designs, and cost estimates as phase 1 of this project, and phase 2 would return in a future CIP cycle requesting
construction of specifically identified improvements.
- Pedestrian safety improvements such as $40,000 - $220,000 for raised crosswalks or $40,000 -
$120,000 for rapid flashing beacons.
- Sidewalk upgrades to meet ADA requirements pending an engineering site survey to determine existing
conditions and cost estimates for potential improvements.
- Enhanced lighting described as “pedestrian-scale” or “decorative lighting” estimated to cost $185,000
(one side of the street only) to $365,000 for both sides. Installation on the center median may add cost
to add electrical connections to the medians.
- Park like amenities such as $2,000 - $5,000 for benches, $700 - $1,000 for bike racks, and $45,000
$100,000 for kids play feature (less than a full playground) which might be partially eligible for parks
impact fees. The Department noted these amenities are easily scalable based on the available budget.
-Public artworks from $20,000 for small scale murals to $120,000 for large scale sculptures
Potential to Combine CIP and Parks Bond Funding
The CIP project area partially overlaps with the Folsom Trail at the intersection of 800 West. The first issuance
of the Parks, Trails & Open Space Bond includes $5 million to complete the Folsom Trail west of 1000 West and
to add amenities to the trail east of 1000 West. Some of the proposed amenities and improvements in the CIP
project also appear eligible for this bond funding. The Council could consider partially funding the CIP project
and request the Administration evaluate how to combine with the bond funding.
Project #32 Sugar House Safe Side Streets Part 2
Not recommended for funding ($150,000 requested)
The Council asked whether the temporary traffic calming features currently in place could stay over the winter
and/or be added back in the spring. The Transportation Division responded that the temporary traffic calming
features could be restored in the spring. They are checking with the Streets Division about potentially leaving
some or all features over the winter pending evaluation of compatibility with the need for snow removal (plows).
Project #35 Replacement of 75-Year-Old Traffic Signal
Recommended for full funding of $400,000
The Council asked for details about which traffic signals are 75 years old or more. The Transportation Division
provided the below summary table showing the six oldest traffic signals in the City. The requested funding this
CIP cycle is to replace the traffic signal at 1300 East and 100 South. The signal at 900 West and 200 South is still
operational and per the Division “is most likely to become a nonagenarian.”
Page | 5
LOCATION AGE CONDITION REPLACEMENT STATUS
West Temple 200 South 88 Poles rotting Part of 200 South Reconstruction Project
Highland Dr. 2700 South 88 Wooden Pole In design, construction is funded
900 West 200 South 87 Direct bury poles ~400k funding needed
1300 East 200 South 75 Direct bury poles ~400k funding needed
1300 East 300 South 75 Direct bury poles ~400k funding needed
1300 East 100 South 75 Direct bury poles,
Emergency route
Requested funding, per this FY24 application
Reuse of Traffic Calming and Control Equipment
The Council asked what happens to these types of equipment once it’s no longer needed at a location such as
being replaced with an upgraded version or displaced by construction or development? The Transportation
Division responded that “Used equipment removed by upgrades or development is first evaluated to see if it’s
reusable and in satisfactory condition. If so, it’s sent to [the] Streets [Division] to be stored for future use as part
of maintenance activities. Because equipment standards are constantly being updated, new installations are
built using new equipment that meets current standards. Used signal equipment would rarely be suitable for use
in new construction but may be used to maintain existing signals.”
Project #38 First Encampment Park
Not recommended for funding ($125,500 requested)
The Council asked what existing funding sources are available to meet the maintenance needs at the Park? The
maintenance expenses are ineligible for parks impact fees and bond funding. The Public Lands Department
stated that many of the maintenance expenses could be handled by existing maintenance teams internally.
$56,000 of General Fund CIP dollars were identified for a phase one small asset replacement project including
irrigation replacement, plantings, and design. Additional potential funding sources are remaining one-time
funds from the Funding Our Future $2 million for parks maintenance approved in FY2023 CIP or remaining
ongoing base funding for parks maintenance approved annually prior to FY2023 CIP. When reviewing CIP
accounts as part of the annual budget, there was over $1.1 million remaining from the $2 million appropriation
last year, and over $200,000 remaining from the ongoing base funding.
Project #40 Multimodal Capital Maintenance
Not recommended for funding ($200,000 requested)
The Council asked what could be accomplished if this request was partially or fully funded? The Transportation
Division responded that the “public could see fewer bike racks downtown when existing bike racks are damaged
(primarily in car crashes) or in need of replacement; damaged delineators or missing delineators along bicycle
routes and/or pedestrian corridors; and faded, damaged, or missing pavement markings along bicycle and
pedestrian facilities.”
Moving this Ongoing Maintenance Expense into Public Services’ Base Budget
The Council discussed a preference to move this ongoing $200,000 maintenance need into the Transportation
Division’s or Public Services Department’s base budgets. The two are collaborating on an inventory and
assessment of the assets. This will be used to inform an analysis of whether bringing these functions in-house
would be more cost efficient than relying upon outside contractors. Adding this maintenance into a department’s
budget may require one-time equipment purchases, ongoing supplies funding, and new full-time employees. The
analysis would determine whether there are long-term savings from an in-house approach and could be
considered in the next annual budget.
Project #55 1200 East Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk
Not recommended for funding ($351,000 requested)
The Council asked would this project reduce the available street parking on the block, and is it correct that
adding the project to a street reconstruction would be more efficient? The Administration responded that the
one-block segment is not currently scheduled for a street reconstruction. Adding these types of improvements to
a full street reconstruction project would be more cost effective in terms of savings from a single project
mobilization instead of doing it twice and less disruption to the neighborhood. Impacts to on-street parking are
identified for all street projects during early design phases and included in public outreach and engagement to
potentially impacted residents, businesses, and property owners.
Page | 6
Updated Attachment 8 Regular CIP Projects Cost Estimates
The departments with common CIP projects provided updated cost estimates based on recent construction
projects and actual bids. The attachment includes cost estimates back to 2019 which shows the impacts of
inflation and supply chain constraints on the City’s construction budgets.
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
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.
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
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
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
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:
Page | 8
(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
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 | 9
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.
Page | 10
$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
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
$ 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 | 11
-$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
-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
Page | 12
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.
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.
Page | 13
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
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 | 14
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
(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
10. 50/50 Concrete Program Utilization Summary from 2020 to Present
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
Page | 15
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
General Fund Class C Streets Impact Fee Parks Impact Fee FOF Streets FOF Other FOF Transit Q Cent General Fund Class C Streets Impact Fee Parks Impact Fee FOF Streets FOF Other FOF Transit Q Cent
Available Funds 7,300,000$ 3,500,000$ 5,248,024$ 15,534,954$ 1,010,000$ 1,100,000$ 990,000$ 7,500,000$ Available Funds 7,307,135$ 3,500,000$ 5,248,024$ 15,534,954$ 1,010,000$ 1,250,000$ 990,000$ 7,500,000$
Recommended Funds 7,284,921$ 3,500,000$ 240,000$ 2,728,850$ 1,000,000$ 1,100,000$ 990,000$ 7,500,000$ Recommended Funds 7,284,921$ 3,500,000$ 240,000$ 2,728,850$ 1,000,000$ 1,250,000$ 990,000$ 7,500,000$
Remaining Funds 15,079$ -$ 5,008,024$ 12,806,104$ 10,000$ -$ -$ -$ Remaining Funds 22,214$ -$ 5,008,024$ 12,806,104$ 10,000$ -$ -$ -$
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
/
A
p
p
Re
f
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ti
t
l
e
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Sc
o
r
e
Fi
n
a
l
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
Am
o
u
n
t
Fi
n
a
l
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
Fi
n
a
l
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
Cl
a
s
s
C
Fi
n
a
l
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
St
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Fe
e
s
Fi
n
a
l
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
Pa
r
k
s
I
m
p
a
c
t
Fe
e
s
F
i
n
a
l
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
FO
F
S
t
r
e
e
t
F
i
n
a
l
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
FO
F
O
t
h
e
r
F
i
n
a
l
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
FO
F
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
F
i
n
a
l
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
Qc
e
n
t
T
a
x
O
t
h
e
r
(
E
x
c
e
s
s
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
)
Fi
n
a
l
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
Am
o
u
n
t
Fi
n
a
l
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
Fi
n
a
l
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
Cl
a
s
s
C
Fi
n
a
l
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
St
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Fe
e
s
Fi
n
a
l
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
Pa
r
k
s
I
m
p
a
c
t
Fe
e
s
F
i
n
a
l
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
FO
F
S
t
r
e
e
t
F
i
n
a
l
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
FO
F
O
t
h
e
r
F
i
n
a
l
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
FO
F
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
F
i
n
a
l
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
Qc
e
n
t
T
a
x
O
t
h
e
r
(
E
x
c
e
s
s
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
)
P2 (Tier I)Planning Library Plaza Structural Assessment and Visioning 104 $ 190,000 $ 190,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 190,000 $ 190,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
T4 New Safer Crossings: Main St., Glendale Park, and Citywide 103.3 $ 900,000 $ 270,000 $ - $ 90,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 540,000 $ 900,000 $ 270,000 $ - $ 90,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 540,000
C3 Constituent 200 East ADA and Sidewalk Improvements 103.1 $ 234,000 $ 234,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 234,000 $ 234,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
T6 New Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / Operational Investments 101.9 $ 1,100,000 $ - $ - $ 110,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 990,000 $ - $ 1,100,000 $ - $ - $ 110,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 990,000 $ -
T1 Renewal Complete Streets Program: 2100 South, Virginia St., and Citywide 100.7 $ 3,293,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,293,000 $ 3,293,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,293,000
E3 Renewal Public Way Concrete 2023/2024 100 $ 750,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 750,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 750,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 750,000 $ - $ - $ -
T2 New Livable Streets Implementation 99.14 $ 1,350,000 $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,100,000 $ - $ - $ 1,350,000 $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,100,000 $ - $ -
T5 New Neighborhood Byways 98 $ 800,000 $ 440,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 360,000 $ 800,000 $ 440,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 360,000
E1 Renewal Complete Streets Reconstruction 2023/2024 97 $ 4,500,000 $ 2,250,000 $ 2,250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,500,000 $ 2,250,000 $ 2,250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
C23 Constituent Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion 96.86 $ 507,000 $ 253,500 $ - $ - $ 253,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 507,000 $ 253,500 $ - $ - $ 253,500 $ - $ - $ - $ -
P1 (Tier I)New Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parklet 95.57 $ 850,000 $ 202,000 $ - $ - $ 648,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 850,000 $ 202,000 $ - $ - $ 648,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
E2 Renewal Complete Streets Overlay 2023/2024 95.29 $ 1,250,000 $ - $ 1,250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,250,000 $ - $ 1,250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
T3 New Urban Trails: The Other Side Village & the 9-Line Trail 94 $ 1,700,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,700,000 $ 1,700,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,700,000
P3 (Tier I)Renewal Fire Station No. 7 Tennis and Pickleball Court Restoration and Amenities 92.57 $ 855,000 $ 438,850 $ - $ - $ 416,150 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 855,000 $ 438,850 $ - $ - $ 416,150 $ - $ - $ - $ -
P6 (Tier II)New 337 Park Development 92.29 $ 550,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 550,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 550,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 550,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
C8 Constituent Jefferson Park Improvements 90.86 $ 530,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 530,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 530,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 530,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
P4 (Tier I)New Parks Bilingual Signage Installation 89.86 $ 414,000 $ 82,800 $ - $ - $ 331,200 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 414,000 $ 82,800 $ - $ - $ 331,200 $ - $ - $ - $ -
C6 Constituent Fairpark Traffic Circle Construction Phase 89.57 $ 497,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 497,000 $ 497,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 497,000
E5 Renewal Alleyway Improvements 2023/2024 87 $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ -
F1 New Fire Station #1 Apparatus Bay Extension 86.57 $ 1,148,771 $ 648,771 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 500,000 $ 1,148,771 $ 648,771 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 500,000
FA1 Renewal Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY24 85.57 $ 1,700,000 $ 1,700,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,700,000 $ 1,700,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
S1 New Mill and Overlay Maintenance Pilot Program 84 $ 750,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 750,000 $ 750,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 750,000
C21 Constituent Historic Restorations, Replacements, Conservation Work at International Peace Gardens 82.86 $ 325,000 $ 325,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 325,000 $ 325,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
T8 Renewal 75-Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement 80.14 $ 400,000 $ - $ - $ 40,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 360,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ - $ 40,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 360,000
N/A N/A Westside Art N/A $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000 $ - $ -
TOTAL 24,843,771$ 7,284,921$ 3,500,000$ 240,000$ 2,728,850$ 1,000,000$ 1,100,000$ 990,000$ 7,500,000$ 500,000$ 24,993,771$ 7,284,921$ 3,500,000$ 240,000$ 2,728,850$ 1,000,000$ 1,250,000$ 990,000$ 7,500,000$ 500,000$
CDCIP Board Recommendations Mayor Recommendations
The remaining $22,214 in GF and $10,000 of FOF Streets was added to Cost Overrun
Westside Art project was added ($150,000 of FOF Other)
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
Debit 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 2023 Estimate
Trailside Pit Toilet $150,000 $168,000 $200,000 $220,000
Portland Loo (each) Existing Sewer Line $200,000 $224,000 $270,000 $290,000
4 Seat Each Gender. Existing Sewer Line $350,000 $450,000 $550,000 $585,000
8 Seat Each Gender. Existing Sewer Line $550K - $600K $700,000 $850,000 $915,000
Site Master Plan $50K - $75K $75,000-$100,000 $90,000-$115000 $75,000-$115,000
Cultural Landscape Report $75,000-$150,000 $90,000-$175,000 $75,000-$175,000
City-wide Comprehensive Study $150K - $250K $200,000-$300-000 $230,000-$350,000 $200,000-$350,000
Installed with sewer connection $15K - $30,000 $35000- $50,000 $45,000-$62,500 $45,000 -$65,000
Playground Replacement $150K - $250K $250,000-$350,000 $300,000-$450,000 $325,000-$455,000
New Playground $150K - $250K $450,000-$550,000 $550,000-$650,000 $585,000-$715,000
Native soil field $150,000 $400,000-$500,000 $450,000-$550,000 $525,000-$650,000
Sand-based field $400,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,300,000
Softball/Baseball Field Improvements (Each Field)$200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $325,000
Fencing (6 ft. vinyl coated chain link)$45.00-$55.00/LF $54.00-$65.00 $58.00-$70.00/LF
Patch, repair and paint $150,000 $168,000 $210,000 $220,000
New post tension court $250,000 $300,000 $360,000 $400,000
Hand-built natural surface single track trail (40" width)$6-12/LF $25.00-$30.00/LF $30.00-$35.00 $32.50-$40.00/LF
Machine-built natural-surface trail (40" width)$20-25/LF $10.00-$15.00/LF $13.00-$18.00 $13.00-$20.00/LF
Asphalt Trail $3.50/SF $5.00/SF $7.00/SF $10.00/SF
Concrete Trail (6" thick)$4.50/SF $8.00/SF $12.00/SF $15.00/SF
Soft Surface - Crushed stone $2.50/SF $6.00-$10.00/ SF $8.00-$13.00/SF $10.00-$15.00/SF
Off-leash Dog Parks $250K - $350K $ 280,000-$392,000 $330,000-$460,000 $365,000-$500,000
Irrigation Systems Per Acre $52,000+$75,000 +$85,000+$90,000+
Tree Replacements (Each 2-inch caliper)$350 $750 $600 $750
Natural Area Restoration Per Acre $100K - $200K $ 112,000- $224,000 $135,000-$250,000 $145,000-$275,000
Transportation 2019 Estimate 2021 Estimate 2022 Estimate 2023 Estimate
Bike - One Mile Cycle Track/Lane Mile (3 lane miles =
1.5 actual miles)500,000+$600,000+$ 700,000 $746,000
Bike - One Lane Mile (2 lane miles = 1 mile actual mile)2,000+$2,500+$ 4,000 $4,300
Bike - Protected Lane Mile (200 West 2015)$400,000 $500,000-1,000,000 $750,000-$1,250,000 $799,000-$1,331,000
Traffic Signals - New $ 250,000 $ 350,000 $ 400,000 $426,000
Traffic Signals - Upgrades $ 250,000 $ 350,000 $ 400,000 $426,000
HAWK Signals $ 130,000 $ 150,000 $ 175,000 $350,000
Drinking Fountains
Multi-purpose Field Improvements
Tennis Court Improvements (2 Courts)
Path/ Trail Improvements
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
Restrooms (dependent on site and utility work)
Studies
Crosswalk - Flashing $ 60,000 $75,000 $85,000 $90,000
Crosswalk - School Crossing Lights $ 25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $37,000
Crosswalk - Colored/Stamped varies based on width of
road $15K - $25K $18,000-$27,000 $20000 - $30000 $21,500 - $32,000
Driver Feedback Sign $ 8,000 $9,500 $11,000 $12,000
Speed Table / Raised Crosswalk $ 25,000 $30,000 $40,000 $43,000
Pedestrian Refuge Island $ 10,000 $12,000 $15,000 $16,000
Curb Extension at Intersection $ 20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $32,000
Crosswalk $ 1,600 $1,800 $2,000 $2,200
Streets 2019 Estimate 2021 Estimate 2022 Estimate 2023 Estimate
Asphalt Overlay (Lane Mile)$ 280,000 $ 335,000 $ 360,000 $587,000
Crack Seal (Lane Mile)$ 5,000 $ 6,000 $ 8,000 $11,000
Road Reconstruction - Asphalt (Lane Mile)$ 500,000 $ 600,000 $ 700,000 $761,000
Road Reconstruction - Asphalt to Concrete (Lane Mile)$700k - $1.2 M $840,000 - $1,440,000 $1,000,000 - $1,700,000 $1,088,000 - $1,811,000
Sidewalk slab jacking (per square foot)$ 4 $5 $6 $7
Sidewalk replacement (per square foot)$ 7 - $10 $8 - $12 $9 - $15 $ 12 - $17
Note: Last updated July 2023
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
Attached you can find a map that shows every completed job from 2020 concerning the 50/50 and
commercial program as well as a few tables and charts that break down the data.
50/50 Program 2020-Present
Council District Estimates Sent Jobs Completed Percent
1 68 14 21%
2 35 11 31%
3 265 108 41%
4 42 21 50%
5 115 35 30%
6 263 124 47%
7 271 117 43%
Total 1059 430 41%
Table 1: Shows quantity of 50/50 estimates sent vs jobs completed broken down by Council District.
Commercial Program 2020-Present
Council District Estimates Sent Jobs Completed Percent
1 3 0 0%
2 9 2 22%
3 38 11 29%
4 32 6 19%
5 14 5 36%
6 6 3 50%
7 7 4 57%
Total 109 31 28%
Table 2: Shows quantity of commercial estimates sent vs jobs completed broken down by Council District.
Attachment 10 - 50/50 Concrete Program Utilization Summary
Figure 1: Data collected from 2020-present that shows the percentage of constituents that paid after an estimate was sent by
Council District.
Figure 2: Data collected from 2020-present that shows the percentage of constituents that paid after an estimate was sent by
Council District.
Figure 3: The data represented is broken down by Council District and shows the amount of jobs completed per district and the
cost associated with those jobs.
Figure 4: The data represented is broken down by Council District and shows the amount of jobs completed per district and the
cost associated with those jobs.
CAP Plan,
Matrix, &
Policy
Goals/Metrics
Council Briefing
July 18, 2023
Presented by Mary Beth Thompson,
Aaron Price, and Mike Atkinson
Capital Asset Planning Model
Funding Sources
Funding Source Description
Transportation Fund Quarter Cent Sales Tax - Transportation and Streets projects
Bonds General Obligation and Revenue
Special Assessment Area Central Business District - Economic Promotion
Grants Federal, State, County
Class C Roads State Gas Tax
General Fund Most flexible funding source, can be spent on any project
Public/Private Partnerships Potential future funding source
Impact Fees Fire, Parks, Police, and Transportation/Streets
Donations Individuals and foundations
Capital Asset Plan Elements
Division Master Plans Division specific documents
RDA & Public Utilities Input Strategic Collaboration
10 Year Division
Capital Planning Long-term capital planning
Annual Constituency
Requests
Reviewed to align with
internal requests & not
ranked
Impact Fee Facilities Plans Determine Impact Fee
Eligibility
Capital Asset Plan
Funding Sources
Committees
Finance
Committee
Provide detailed
information on
Funding Sources
CAP Committee
Internal project
ranking and
submittal to CDCIP
Board
CAP Committee Scoring
General Fund
Capital Asset Plan
CAP Manager
Funding Sources
Final Scoring & Budget
Finance
Committee
CAP Committee
Once projects have
been evaluated by the CAP
Committee, they are forwarded to
the CDCIP Board for
recommendation to the Mayor
and City Council.
Mayor City Council
Criteria Critical
Failure
Legal
Obligation
Risk: Life,
Health &
Safety
Outside
Funding
Completed
Project
Design
Promote
Equity
Environmental
Conservation Beautification Efficient
Investment
Workforce
Support
Community
Request
Points
(0-4):4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Y/N
[Project
Name]
Submitting a request:
When submitting a request, please provide answers to the following questions in addition to any information
available related to the criteria.
1. Describe the project.
2. What is the problem the department is trying to solve?
3. Who will the project serve, and how will it improve services?
4. What is the requested timing of project completion, and what is the implication if the request is delayed or denied?
5. Is this a replacement or a new capital asset project?
6. Is there an estimated cost at this time?
7. What is the current annual maintenance and the estimated future annual maintenance?
8. Has the capital asset project been scoped?
9. Has the capital asset project been designed?
*Criteria has been developed in accordance with Resolution 29 of 2017 and the Mayor's Goals of: Our Growth, Our
Environment, Our Communities, Our City Family.
CAP Matrix*
2019 Council Policy Goals and Metrics
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
2023 Mayor Goals – CIP Related
Our Environment
•Work with the City’s Sustainable Infrastructure Steering Committee to draft and propose internal
policy requiring capital projects to consider environmental justice impacts and incorporate green
and sustainable infrastructure.
•Complete Foothills Trails Master Plan evaluation and Plan addendum in collaboration with key
stakeholders and indigenous leaders.
Our Community
•Develop a 5-Year Strategic Plan for Planned Growth to more effectively utilize impact fees for
community benefits.
•Complete the Neighborhood Byway Design Guidebook and finish design and/or construction of at
least four neighborhood byways throughout the city.
•Implement action items on the Vision Zero program to reduce traffic-related injuries and fatalities.
•Propose adoption of Life on State to improve transportation and land uses along the corridor.
THANK YOU
Presented by Department of Finance
CAP Matrix*
Cri�cal Failure:
When reviewing this criterium, par�cular focus should be paid to whether the request will
prevent a cri�cal failure of a structure. Does this project follow the Sustainability Ordinance?
Legal Obliga�ons:
When reviewing this criterium, considera�ons include coming into compliance with ordinances
and execu�ve orders, various contractual agreements, or state and federal mandates.
Risk: Life, Health, and Safety:
When reviewing this criterium, par�cular focus should be paid to whether the request will
correct various types of code viola�ons or increase safety/reduce crime.
Outside Funding:
This criterium assesses whether there is outside funding support for a par�cular ini�a�ve,
including federal and state grants, coordina�on with other agencies, public/private
partnerships, or dona�ons. When analyzing outside funding, it should be noted how much of
the funding will s�ll need to be provided by the City in addi�on to any outside support.
Project Design Complete:
This is in accordance with Resolu�on Number 29 of 2017 which states, "The Council intends to
follow a guideline of approving construc�on funding for a capital project in the fiscal year
immediately following the project's design wherever possible. Project costs become less
accurate as more �me passes. The City can avoid expenses for re-es�ma�ng project costs by
funding capital projects in a �mely manner.”
Promote Equity:
Considera�on should be given to underserved areas of the city in order to improve the
infrastructure of the city as a whole ("close the gap amongst neighborhoods") rather than
improving some areas and allowing others to deteriorate. A map showing the condi�on of the
infrastructure of the city could help in performing this analysis.
Environmental Conserva�on:
This criterium involves analyzing whether a project provides environmentally sustainable
solu�ons or helps preserve natural resources (watersheds, rivers, green space, etc.)
Efficient Investment:
The main considera�ons for efficient investment are whether a project func�ons to increase
revenue or reduce expenses. Projec�ons on this front should be as accurate as possible and
veted through the Department of Finance.
Workforce Support:
This criterium focuses on whether a project supports the physical, mental, or economic well-
being of City employees, in keeping with the Mayor's goal of suppor�ng "Our City Family".
Beau�fica�on:
This relates to aesthe�c improvements including Art incorpora�on, Historic Preserva�on, Site
Beau�fica�on, and other opportuni�es that express the City's value for the arts and improving
quality of life through projects that go beyond func�onal efficiency.
Community Request:
While the financial limita�ons of any municipality inhibit the ability to act on every request - the
concerns and desires of our residents are vital to understanding how best to allocate our limited
resources, therefore, projects that are closely aligned with community requests should be given
proper considera�on.
*Criteria has been developed in accordance with Resolu�on 29 of 2017 and the Mayor's Goals
of: Our Growth, Our Environment, Our Communi�es, Our City Family.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Allison Rowland
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:August 8, 2023
RE: RESOLUTION: IVORY UNIVERSITY HOUSE PUBLIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will be briefed on a public benefit analysis conducted by the City Finance Department for a project
that would provide 465 units of new student housing at the University of Utah. The project, which is under
construction at 434 South Mario Capecchi Drive, is being developed by Ivory University House L3C, a “low-
profit limited liability company” (see Section A3 below for more information). The public benefit analysis was
performed to assess whether Salt Lake City could and should waive impact and permit fees, as well as providing
refunds for fees the project has already paid. The public benefit analysis concludes that “While the project is not
income restricted, it will be rent restricted and will address critical affordable housing needs of students.” The
amount waived or refunded would total just over $2.4 million. In return, over a period of ten years, Ivory
University House would pledge the same sum to fund need-based scholarships administered by the University of
Utah and reserved for Salt Lake City students.
Goal of the briefing: Review the public benefit analysis and consider adopting a resolution which would
authorize impact fee and permit fee waivers and refunds for Ivory University House L3C.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: August 8, 2023
Public Hearing: September 1
Potential Action: September 19
Page | 2
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND BACKGROUND
A.The Student Housing Project.
1.Project Overview. Ivory University House is currently under construction on 5.4 acres at 434
South Mario Capecchi Drive. The developer holds a 99-year ground lease on the property, which is
owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) and was formerly the site of an LDS
church and a parking lot. At completion it would consist of four buildings with 465 apartment-style
units for 621 University of Utah students. It would also include community rooms, classrooms, and
an outdoor study area.
The total project cost is estimated at $96 million and is financed through conventional (non-
governmental) sources, along with a $10 million donation from the Clark and Christine Ivory
Foundation. The first of the four buildings, Building A is scheduled for completion in Fall 2023.
Building B is scheduled for Fall 2024, Building C for Fall 2025, and Building D for Winter 2026.
In response to a staff question, Ivory University House stated:
“[A]ll Ivory University House (IUH) residents go through the same application
process. This process includes completing an online application, interviewing with
an IUH team member, confirming their agreement to the lease terms and code of
conduct, then receiving a room assignment. We are careful to comply with the Fair
Housing Act and do not give preference to any protected class.”
2.Rent Restrictions. Ivory University House L3C would enter into a restricted rent agreement with
Salt Lake City that would index rents at the equivalent of 30% of the monthly income limit set
annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for a one-person household
at 80% AMI or below in the Salt Lake City Metro Area (see chart below). However, unlike HUD
units, these would not be income restricted. In addition, since this is student housing, rents would
be calculated by bedroom rather than by unit, with a limit of one student occupant per bedroom.
For example, the unit types and maximum monthly rent per bedroom in 2022 would be the
following:
Bedrooms /
Units
Maximum Rent per
Bedroom (% of AMI)
2022 Maximum
Rent per Bedroom
Large studios with full kitchen 144 80%$1,434
Small studios with kitchenette 243 75%$1,344
Three-bedroom, three-bath 234 bedrooms
in 78 units
55%$986
Page | 3
Finally, utilities are usually included in the amount of maximum rent under HUD limits but in this
case, there would be an additional utility fee with an initial maximum of $55 per month. This could
increase by not more than 3% per year. The City’s Division of Housing Stability would monitor
compliance of deed restriction terms, including annual updates to HUD parameters.
3.About L3Cs (Low-profit Limited Liability Companies). The Ivory University House project
is being developed by Ivory University House L3C. This type of legal entity is relatively new and is
not as widely known as nonprofit or LLC business types. An L3C must have a primarily charitable or
educational purpose but it is allowed to earn a small profit, defined as one to ten percent, which can
be used to fund additional charitable projects (for additional information, see
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title48/Chapter3A/C48-3a-P13_1800010118000101.pdf). Since these
entities can make a profit, they are not exempt from Federal income taxes and donations to them
cannot be deducted from the contributor’s income taxes.
Page | 4
B. The Public Benefits Analysis.
1.Legal Framework. Utah Code requires that before a municipal legislative body decides to
appropriate any funds to a for-profit entity, it must receive a public benefits analysis and hold a
public hearing. The public hearing for this item is scheduled for September 1, 2023.
2.Public Benefits Identified. In finding that the City fees proposed to be waived for Ivory
University House L3C are appropriate and “proportionate to the public benefit it provides,” the
Administration identified the following specific public benefits.
a. The University of Utah’s housing shortage, illustrated by a wait list for on-campus housing
at 2,280 students, increases the pressure on the housing market in Salt Lake City. The
creation of 465 units of privately financed housing for 621 students at affordable rent levels
would increase the City’s overall housing stock and contribute to a reduction in demand by
students in the Salt Lake City rental market.
b. Construction of additional student housing located adjacent to the University of Utah
reduces campus traffic, enhancing the health and safety of the surrounding communities.
c. All of the project’s units will be subject to a voluntary, deeded, restrictive use agreement for
30 years. This will restrict rents to levels considered affordable at 80% AMI under annual
HUD standards, though income levels will not be restricted.
d. At least 25% of Ivory University House residents will receive additional, need-based rental
assistance, which will further contribute to student support and access to affordable
housing. These students will have a choice of any unit type available and not be segregated
in any way from other students. They also would be allowed to seek any additional aid
needed to fund their studies.
3.Waiver and Reimbursement Amounts. The proposed waivers and reimbursements for City
permit and impact fees would total $2,403,198 for the full project. Ivory University House L3C
already paid $754,483 in permit fees for the two phases of project construction, and $1,648,715 in
impact fees. (See the tables on the transmittal’s pages 3 and 4.)
a.Permit Fees. Permit fees are typically paid into the general fund and are set at a rate based on
the City’s cost for reviewing and administering building permits and inspections. With a waiver,
these services would be provided by the City at no cost, apart from the fees paid to the Public
Utilities Department, which may not be waived. This allocation would appear in an upcoming
budget amendment.
b.Impact Fees. Under Utah Code, a city may exempt a “low-income housing” project from
impact fees, but that term is not defined by the State. Meanwhile, City Code allows a 100%
exemption for rental housing that does not exceed HUD affordability guidelines for a household
whose income is 60% or below AMI. The Administration recommends an impact fee waiver for
Ivory University House L3C, because “while the Project is not income restricted, it will be rent
restricted and will address critical affordable housing needs of students.”
C.Scholarships. The terms of the property lease for Ivory University House require that all profits from its
operations be donated to student scholarships at the University of Utah. The resulting Ivory University
House Scholarship Fund will be administered directly by the University of Utah in accordance with the
University’s typical eligibility requirements and criteria for need-based scholarships. University policy states
that it “prohibits discrimination, harassment, or prejudicial treatment of a student because of their race,
color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, or status as an
individual with a disability, as a disabled veteran, or as a veteran of the Vietnam era.”
Page | 5
Neither Ivory University House L3C nor the owner of the leased property, the LDS Church, would be
involved in the selection of scholarship recipients, and these scholarships would be applicable to several
different housing options, including but not limited to Ivory University House. This housing will have a code
of conduct similar to that of on-campus housing, which includes a prohibition on alcohol and drugs. Ivory
University House has committed to the LDS Church to apply this rule but stated that, “Any student who
desires to live in the community consistent with the code of conduct is welcome.” Information about the
code of conduct and links to other resources can be found at https://www.housing.utah.edu/living-the-
u/resident-policies-responsibilities-2.
1.Scholarships for City Residents. If Salt Lake City agrees to not charge permit and impact fees,
and to refund amounts paid earlier—which would combine for a total of $2,403,198—Ivory
University House would work with the University of Utah to earmark need-based scholarships for
Salt Lake City residents in the same amount, paid over a period of ten years. These would be funded
by the operations of the project and, as stated in the public benefits analysis (see section B above):
“Depending on a student’s needs, these scholarships may come in the form of
tuition stipends, paid internships, or housing assistance. In essence, University
House will invest the value of fees waived directly into the individual lives of
some of the City’s residents who otherwise lack financial access to opportunity.”
2.Determining City Residence. The criteria for determining which students would qualify as Salt
Lake City residents has not yet been developed or formalized between the University, Ivory
University House, and the City. One issue will likely be when and how long a student would need to
live within City boundaries to be considered a resident. It also may be worth considering that the
University of Utah grants in-state tuition benefits to any existing student who completes 12
consecutive months in Utah, but this criteria might not make sense for determining Salt Lake City
residence. The partners in this project have stated that they are “open to tailoring that definition in
such a way to have the greatest impact for SLC residents in need.” (See Policy Question 1 below).
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to ask the Administration and the Attorney’s Office about whether details of the
developer’s commitment to provide scholarships to Salt Lake City residents need to be worked into the
proposed resolution. For now, the plan is apparently to use a separate agreement for this information. In
either case, the Council may wish to discuss the following issues:
-How would student residence be demonstrated? For example, would it be
based on the address of a parent (or other financially responsible party)? Open
only to students who have graduated from a high school located within Salt
Lake City? Or some other way?
-Is it sufficiently certain that the University of Utah would agree to provide
need-based financial aid to Salt Lake City residents with the first $2.4 million
of Ivory University Housing L3C donations? It appears from the transmittal
that the goal is to provide what is technically referred to as need-based
financial aid, which tends to support greater equity, rather than merit-based
scholarships.
-How would compliance with these terms be audited over the ten years the
agreement is in force?
2. The Council may wish to ask the Administration why 25% was chosen as the share of Ivory University
Housing residents who would receive need-based rental assistance, and how the level of rental
assistance for each resident will be determined. This 25% is in addition to the number who would
receive financial aid though the University of Utah from the Ivory University Housing Scholarship Fund.
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Finance Director
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238
PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: ___________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
____________________________________________ ____________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: July 3, 2023
Darin Mano
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
Katherine Lewis, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Authorizing the refund of certain building fees and an exemption from impact
fees incurred in the development of a student housing project by Ivory University House L3C.
Ivory University House L3C will pledge to use these funds toward scholarships funded by the
operations of Ivory University House in an amount equal to the fees refunded: Public Benefit
Analysis under Utah Code Section 10-8-2.
SPONSOR: NA
STAFF CONTACT: Kimberly Chytraus, City Attorney (801) 535-7685
Blake Thomas, Director of Community & Neighborhoods Department
Randy Hillier, Policy and Budget Analyst (801) 535-6606,
DOCUMENT TYPE: Public Benefits Analysis and Recommendation
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Salt Lake City Council provide a refund of
certain building fees and an exemption from impact fees incurred in the development of a student
housing project by Ivory University House L3C (“University House”). Because of the timing of
development, University House has paid the fees described herein, so if the fee waiver is granted
the City will refund the paid amounts. University House has also committed that, if the fees are
refunded, it will pledge scholarships funded by the operations of Ivory University House in an
amount equal to the fees refunded (an amount over $2,400,000) for Salt Lake City residents to be
paid over a period of ten years.
A portion of the Impact Fees being refunded, specifically the Fire Fee in the amount of $79,515,
will need to be obtained from the general fund through an upcoming budget amendment since
these fees have already been spent.
Katherine Lewis (Jul 13, 2023 14:57 MDT)
Lisa Shaffer (Jul 13, 2023 15:02 MDT)07/13/2023
07/13/2023
BUDGET IMPACT: NA
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
Alejandro Sanchez (Jul 13, 2023 15:01 MDT)
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council Members
SUBJECT: Analysis of Public Benefits Provided by Fee Waiver and Refund to Ivory
University House
INTRODUCTION
It is recommended that the Salt Lake City Council provide a refund of certain building fees and
an exemption from impact fees incurred in the development of a student housing project by Ivory
University House L3C (“University House”). Because of the timing of development, University
House has paid the fees described herein, so if the fee waiver is granted the City will refund the
paid amounts. University House has also committed that, if the fees are refunded, it will pledge
scholarships funded by the operations of Ivory University House in an amount equal to the fees
refunded (an amount over $2,400,000) for Salt Lake City residents to be paid over a period of ten
years.
University House is developing a student housing project at 434 South Mario Capecchi Drive,
Salt Lake City, Utah known as the Ivory University House (the “Project”). The Project is being
developed in two separate phases. University House paid the permit fees for the Project in the
amount of $754,483.23, broken down as follows:
Permit 1st Phase Fees
Paid
2nd Phase Fees
Paid
Total
Building Permit Fee $211,114.98 $211,117.77 $422,232.75
Plan Check Fee $137,224.74 $137,226.55 $274,451.29
Utah State Surcharge $2,111.15 $2,111.18 $4,222.33
Fire Sprinkler $3,398.41 $3,398.41 $6,796.82
Plumbing $8,080.71 $9,572.78 $17,653.49
Electrical $4,315.60 $5,805.61 $10,121.21
Mechanical $6,429.83 $12,575.51 $19,005.34
Fire Alarm Permit Not yet applied for Not yet applied for Not yet applied for
Total $372,675.42 $381,807.81 $754,483.23
University House initially applied for a permit fee waiver under Salt Lake City Code (“City
Code”) Section 18.20.220, but such waiver is only available to a nonprofit organization building
affordable housing (limited to households under 80% of the City’s average median income
(“AMI”))1. As discussed herein, because University House operates on a nonprofit basis and rent
1 Code Section 18.20.220 (E) establishes the standard for a fee waiver request by a nonprofit organization: “HAAB
[Housing Advisory and Appeals Board] may recommend granting the waiver or deferral if it finds that the project or
projects, and the sponsoring nonprofit organization furthers the city’s established low income housing goals to
provide housing for persons or families under eighty percent (80%) of the city ’s median income, as defined by the
United States department of housing and urban development, and also meets all applicable guidelines established for
any such programs by the United States department of housing and urban development. HAAB may recommend that
2
is considered affordable under the HUD standard described below, it is recommended that the
Project’s actual fees be refunded as described herein.
In addition, the Administration is seeking an exemption and reimbursement of impact fees for
the Project. Ivory paid the impact fees for the Project in the amount of $1,648,715, broken down
as follows for 465 units:
Impact Fee
Permit
Fee per
Unit
1st Phase Paid
(280 units)
2nd Phase Paid
(185 units)
Total
Fire Fee $171 $47,880 $31,635 $79,515
Park Fee $3,078 $861,840 $569,430 $1,431,270
Police Fee $59 $16,520 $10,915 $27,435
Roadway Fee $242 $67,760 $42,735 $110,495
TOTAL $994,000 $654,715 $1,648,715
City Code Section 18.98.060 provides for an exemption from the payment of impact fees for
housing that meets certain rent restrictions and income restrictions, ranging from 60% - 80%
AMI2. While the Project is not income restricted, it will be rent restricted and will address critical
affordable housing needs of students. It is recommended that the Project be granted an impact fee
waiver and the paid impact fees be refunded to University House, in the actual amount of the
impact fees, which is $1,648,715.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Utah Code section 10-8-2 states municipalities may appropriate funds for “corporate purposes
only.” Utah Code §10-8-2(1)(a)(i). Those purposes are, in the judgment of the municipal
legislative body, any purpose that “provides for the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being,
peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the inhabitants of the city.” Utah Code § 10-8-2(3). A
municipal legislative body must determine that the “net value received for any money
appropriated” is “measured on a project-by-project basis over the life of the project.” Utah Code
§ 10-8-2(3)(a). The municipal legislative branch “may consider intangible benefits received by
the municipality in determining net value received.” Utah Code § 10-8-2(3)(c). Moreover, a
“determination of value received, made by the municipality’s legislative body, shall be presumed
valid unless it can be shown that the determination was arbitrary, capricious, or illegal.” Utah
Code § 10-8-2(3)(b).
Prior to the municipal legislative body making a decision to appropriate any funds for a
corporate purpose, a public hearing must be held. If the entity receiving the benefit from the City
waivers may be granted for remodeling or construction of offices for nonprofit housing cor porations if it finds that
such remodeling or construction will save the corporation money and that such savings will be applied to a specific
housing project.”
2 City Code Section 18.98.060 in relevant part provides: “The following housing may be exempt from the payment
of impact fees, to the following extent:
“1. A one hundred percent (100%) exemption shall be granted for rental housing for which the annualized rent
per dwelling unit does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the annual income of a family whose annual income
equals sixty percent (60%) of the median income for Salt Lake City, as determined by HUD;”
3
is a for-profit entity, then a study (“Study”) that demonstrates the purpose for the appropriation
must be undertaken and posted for review by the public at least 14 days before a public hearing
on the issue. Utah Code § 10-8-2(3)(e). The factors to be considered in the Study are set forth
under Utah Code as:
(i) what identified benefit the municipality will receive in return for any money or
resources appropriated;
(ii) the municipality’s purpose for the appropriation, including an analysis of the way
the appropriation will be used to enhance the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being,
peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the inhabitants of the municipality; and
(iii) whether the appropriation is necessary and appropriate to accomplish the
reasonable goals and objectives of the municipality in the area of economic development,
job creation, affordable housing, blight elimination, job preservation, the preservation of
historic structures and property, and any other public purpose.
Utah Code § 10-8-2(3)(e)(i)-(iii). This Study examines each of these factors below.
BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT
The Developer. University House is a low-profit limited liability company, wholly owned by the
Ivory University House Trust, with the Clark and Christine Ivory Foundation as its beneficiary (a
501(c)(3) private foundation). University House leases the underlying real property from The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is an express requirement of that Lease that
University House donate all profits to student scholarships at the University of Utah. This
contractual obligation that University House not retain any profits ensures that University House
will operate the Project on a nonprofit basis in order to continue leasing the property.
The Project. Ivory University House is the only privately funded, philanthropically driven
student housing project in Salt Lake City and Utah. The Project is located on 5.4 acres bordered
by South Campus Drive, Mario Capecchi Drive, and Research Road. The Project is financed
through conventional financing and a $10,000,000 personal donation from the Ivory family. The
total Project cost is estimated to be approximately $96,000,000. It will have four buildings and
465 apartments. There are three unit types: 144 studios with a full kitchen, 243 studios with a
kitchenette, and 78 units with 3 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms.
The Project will also include community rooms, classrooms, and outdoor study areas. The single
living structure is designed to allow students to focus on their studies with common areas to
promote student engagement. The Project is across the street from the University of Utah, with a
TRAX station a 3-minute walking distance and the Student Life Center a 5-minute walking
distance.
The Ground Lease. The property is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
and is ground leased to University House with a ground lease term of 99 years. The terms of the
ground lease require that all profits, i.e., “the amount gross revenue exceed the costs and
expenses associated with operating [the Project]” be donated by University House to a
4
scholarship fund and housing assistance for students attending the University of Utah. The
ground lease can only be assigned to a tax-exempt charitable organization (a 501(c)(3)).
Affordable Housing. The maximum rent per bed will be at or below 30% of the monthly
income limit set by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) for a single
person household of 80% AMI or below. Since the project is student housing, rents will be
calculated by bedroom rather than by unit, with a limit of one student occupant per bedroom.
There will be an additional utility fee of an initial maximum of $55 per month, which may
increase not more than 3% per year (note that utilities are usually included in the amount of
maximum rent under HUD’s limits). The rent restriction will be evidenced by a restrictive use
agreement recorded against the leasehold interest held by University House (meaning the
restriction is in place as long as University House is leasing the land). HUD considers rent for
persons at 80% of AMI as affordable for low-income households. The amount of rent may be
adjusted with changes to HUD’s schedule.
Maximum Monthly Rent Per Bedroom by Unit Type
Unit Type Maximum Rent per
Bedroom - AMI
2022 Maximum
Rent per Bedroom
# of
Bedrooms
Single Bedroom Unit: 440 - 455 sq ft 80% $1,434 144
Single Bedroom Unit: 345 sq ft 75% $1,344 243
3-Bedroom Unit (per bedroom) 55% $986 234
Source: AMI data as per HUD’s FY 22 Income Limit Documentation System for the Salt Lake City,
UT HUD Metro FMR Area
Note: Units will be rent restricted but not income restricted.
Note: Maximum rent is assessed per bedroom and based on 30% of income for the applicable AMI
for a household size of one and will be updated annually based on AMI data as per HUD’s Income
Limit Documentation System for the Salt Lake City, UT HUD Metro FMR Area.
In addition to voluntarily restricting rents across the board, University House and the University
and Utah have committed that no less than 25% of the Project residents will receive additional
housing assistance. This will ensure that even students with the most financial need will have the
opportunity to live at the Project.
The Scholarship Fund. All profits from the housing project will be donated to a new
scholarship fund called the Ivory University House Scholarship Fund and will provide
scholarships, internships, or housing assistance for students at the University of Utah. The fund
was seeded by an additional $6,000,000 gift from the Clark and Christine Ivory Foundation and
is administered by the University of Utah, with priority given to students with the most financial
need. Applications for the first year recently opened and the fund has already received over 450
5
applications, one third of which came from students with significant financial needs. University
House has committed that if the fees are refunded, it will pledge scholarships funded by the
operations of the Project in an amount equal to the fees waived for Salt Lake City residents to be
paid over a period of ten years.
TERMS OF ASSISTANCE AND PUBLIC BENEFITS PROVIDED
I. Terms of Assistance
A. Waiver of Permit Fees. Under the City Code, a request to waive permit fees is reviewed
by the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board (“HAAB”), who reviews the request in a public
meeting and forwards its recommendation to the Director of Community and Neighborhoods.
The waiver is available to nonprofit organizations who are developing housing for persons or
families under eighty percent (80%) of AMI. The Director may approve the waiver. The permit
fees are typically paid into the general fund to cover the cost of the services of reviewing and
administering the permit, including building inspections. With a waiver, those services are
provided by the City at no cost. Fees paid to Public Utilities may not be waived. The total
amount of fees waived by the City is calculated as $754,483.23, plus the actual costs of the fire
alarm permit fees.
B. Exemption of Impact Fees. An exemption of impact fees is also approved by the Director
of Community and Neighborhoods. A 100% exemption is available for rental housing for which
the annualized rent per dwelling unit does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the annual income
of a family whose annual income equals sixty percent (60%) of AMI. There are additional
exemptions available for nonrental housing with higher income restrictions. Such rent and
income restrictions are documented and enforced through the recordation of a restrictive use
agreement on the property. The City’s exemption is allowed pursuant to the Utah Code,3 which
provides that the City can give an exemption for “low income housing”. The Utah Code does not
provide a definition for “low income housing” and the City relies on its Code for the definition.
The total amount of the impact fees that could be waived is $1,648,715.
II. Public Benefits Provided by Fee Waiver and Exemption
The Project is not strictly eligible for the permit fee waiver or impact fee exemption under the
City Code because University House, as a L3C, is a for-profit entity, and the Project is not
income restricted to residents whose income is at or below 60% AMI. However, because the
Project will provide significant and much needed benefits to the City, the Administration
proposes the fee waiver and impact fee exemption as appropriate for the Project.
University House, while a low-profit entity, has agreed to donate all its profits to the University
of Utah for a scholarship fund. Therefore, any proceeds will be reinvested in the student
population and into the housing located in Salt Lake City. University House estimates that the
3 11-36a-403 Other provisions of impact fee enactment. (1) A local political subdivision or private entity may
include a provision in an impact fee enactment that: (a) provides an impact fee exemption for: (i) development
activity attributable to: (A) low income housing; . . . and (b) except for an exemption under Subsection (1)(a)(i)(A),
establishes one or more sources of funds other than impact fees to pay for that development activity.
6
benefit to the student population and community will be over $1 billion over the life of the
ground lease. Student housing is not typically eligible for affordable housing subsidies available
to other types of housing developments, however, creation of 465 units at affordable rent levels
brings a significant benefit to the Salt Lake City housing market.
Increasing the housing stock within Salt Lake City in the form of student housing contributes to a
decrease in demand for students in the Salt Lake City rental market. The rent restriction will help
insulate students from the massive rate increases that continue to impact the rental market, driven
in part by the housing demand.
The proposed development offers a significant public benefit to Salt Lake City. It includes the
construction of privately financed student housing, comprising 465 units with rents below 80%
of the area median income. Additionally, 100% of the units will be subject to a voluntary deeded
restrictive use agreement for the 99-year lease period, and 25% of students will receive
additional rental assistance. These efforts will provide crucial student support and access to
affordable housing, all without any current public subsidy. In view of these benefits, the fees
waived by the City for this development are proportionate to the public benefit it provides.
III. Ivory University House will Benefit Salt Lake City Residents
Ivory University House is a unique philanthropic project. As with any innovative project,
it doesn’t fit neatly into any existing box. It has taken collaboration between The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and University House to
make this project a reality. University House and the University of Utah intend to honor their
partnership with the City by pledging scholarships funded by the operations of the Project in
amount equal to fees waived (in an amount over $2,400,000) for Salt Lake City residents to be
paid over a period of ten years. Depending on a student’s needs, these scholarships may come in
the form of tuition stipends, paid internships, or housing assistance. In essence, University House
will invest the value of fees waived directly into the individual lives of some of the City’s
residents who otherwise lack financial access to opportunity.
IIV. Salt Lake City’s Purposes and Enhancing the Quality of Life for Residents.
The City places a high value on health and safety. Housing an additional 621 students in the
Project will reduce the number of cars commuting to campus, which has a positive
environmental impact on air quality. Fewer cars also means fewer accidents that could occur in
heavy campus traffic. Reducing campus traffic enhances the health and safety of the surrounding
communities. The Project is located within walking distance of a TRAX station, providing easy
access to public transportation to the students who will live in the Project. Additionally, every
student is provided a public transit pass.
V. Accomplishing Salt Lake City’s Goals.
Support of the Project helps accomplish the goals of the City in affordable housing. Salt Lake
City faces a critical housing shortage. The University of Utah draws students from all over to the
University, and similarly faces a housing shortage for its students. As of last year, the University
of Utah had a wait list of 2,280 students seeking an on-campus living experience. The
7
University’s housing shortage increases the pressure on the housing needs in Salt Lake City,
given the large numbers of students who need affordable housing. The Project is being
developed on a site that was not previously used for residential purposes, thus the redevelopment
of the site is a true increase in housing units without any displacement. The ability to house 621
students in the Project will mean there are 621 fewer people who need housing in Salt Lake City.
The Project is also better suited to meeting the needs of the student population that a typical
housing project in the city.
Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan envisions Salt Lake City as a place for a growing,
diverse population to find housing opportunities that are safe, secure, and enrich lives and
communities, recognizes the changing nature of the city, and provides the foundation for creating
goals and strategies to manage the housing needs of tomorrow. The City’s support of the Project
through the fee waivers and refunds meets the housing plan goals by expanding housing
opportunities, addressing systematic failures in the rental market, and contributing to the diverse
housing types available for the student population. University House has created a new approach
to satisfy a fundamental need in our housing stock and this innovation is mutually beneficial to
the purposes in Growing SLC.
Within Growing SLC, the Council adopted policy statements to be used for evaluating and
appropriating City funds for housing. The priorities relevant to the Project are as follows:
(1) Create a net increase in affordable housing units while: (i) Avoiding displacement of
existing affordable housing to the extent possible, and (ii) Retaining and expanding the diversity
of AMI and innovative housing types.
(2) Include collaboration with community and private sector partners to enable opportunities
for in kind contributions, creative financing and service delivery models.
(3) Include affordable housing in transit-oriented developments because access to public
transit increases access to opportunities. Moderate increases in density should be encouraged
along transit corridors.
(4) Incentivize affordable housing within areas of high opportunity.
The project will also have the added benefit of providing scholarship assistance to Salt Lake City
residents.
CONCLUSION
Approval of a permit fee and impact fee waiver and refunds supports many of the City’s goals
with respect to the creation of affordable and diverse housing. Additionally, the Project will
create a broad public benefit through its philanthropic mission. Although the Project does not
meet the codified requirements for a permit fee waiver and impact fee exemption, the Project
fulfills a specific need and provides public benefits to the City that satisfy the requirements of
Utah Code § 10-8-2. For these reasons, the Administration requests that City Council approve
the requested permit fee and impact fee waiver and refunds.
8
REFERENCES This analysis has been available in the City Recorder’s Office, Room 415,
City & County Building, 451 South State Street since __________, 2023. The City Council
will hold a public hearing on whether to adopt a resolution approving the proposed study.
The public hearing will be held _______________.
RESOLUTION NO. _____ OF 2023
Authorizing Impact Fee and Permit Fee Waivers and Refunds
for Ivory University House L3C
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Department of Community and Neighborhoods has
proposed the waiver and refund of certain permit and impact fees (the “Fee Waiver”) paid by the
Ivory University House L3C, a low-profit limited liability company (“University House”); and
WHEREAS, University House is developing a student housing project at 434 South
Mario Capecchi Drive (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project will offer 465 units for 621 University of Utah students with a
maximum rent per bed at or below 30% of the monthly income limit set by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development for a single person household of 80% area median income
(“AMI”) or below; and
WHEREAS, all profits from the Project will be donated to a new scholarship fund at the
University of Utah, with priority given to students with the most financial need, and if the Fee
Waiver is granted, then University House will pledge scholarships for Salt Lake City residents in
the amount of the Fee Waiver over a period of ten years; and
WHEREAS, the Project provides rent rates at or below 80% AMI and significant public
benefits but does not meet the City code requirements to waive permit fees or impact fees for
affordable housing because University House is legally a for-profit entity and the Project is not
income restricted as the residents will be students; and
WHEREAS, Utah Code section 10-8-2 states that municipalities may appropriate funds
for “corporate purposes only,” and those purposes are, in the judgment of the municipal
2
legislative body, any purpose that “provides for the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being,
peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the inhabitants of the city.” Utah Code § 10-8-2(3); and
WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 10-8-2(3)(e) allows public entities to provide
nonmonetary assistance and waive fees to for-profit entities after a public hearing and conducting
a study to consider intangible benefits received by the municipality in determining net value
received for the appropriation; and
WHEREAS, the City performed an analysis (the “Analysis”) of the public benefits of
providing the Fee Waiver to University House, which Analysis was included in the transmittal to
the City Council before the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has, following the giving of not less than 14 days public
notice, conducted a public hearing relating to the foregoing, in satisfaction of the requirements of
Utah Code Section 10-8-2; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Analysis, and has fully considered the
conclusions set forth therein and all comments made during the public hearing;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as
follows:
1. The City Council hereby adopts the conclusions set forth in the Analysis, and
hereby finds and determines that, for all the reasons set forth in the Analysis, the Fee Waiver is
appropriate under these circumstances.
2. The City Council hereby authorizes the City administration to waive and refund the
fees consistent with this Resolution and incorporating such other terms and agreements as
recommended by the City Attorney’s office.
3
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of ________ 2023.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By: ______________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
____________________________
CITY RECORDER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
___________________________
Kimberly Chytraus, Senior City Attorney
Date: ______________________ June 5, 2023
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE: July 18, 2023
RE: Rezone & Text Amendment:
Fleet Block
PLNPCM2019- 00277
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: October 6, 2020
Briefing: December 8, 2020
Briefing: November 22 2022
Briefing: July 18, 2023
Public Hearing 1: Nov 10, 2020
Public Hearing 2: Nov 17, 2020
Potential Action: TBD
NEW INFORMATION
During the November 22, 2022, briefing, the Council received an update on the Fleet Block disposition
strategy as well as discussed the proposed zoning amendments pertaining to the FB-UN3 zone and
potential rezone of the Fleet Block to FB-UN3 Additionally, the Council conducted a series of straw polls
that provided direction to staff on changes pertaining to the draft zoning ordinance and the development
strategy for the block. (See Section 3 below)
Since that last briefing, the Administration worked to incorporate the Council’s recommended changes. On
June 1 of this year, the Administration sent updated transmittals for the block’s zoning and disposition
strategy.
Based on that updated work, the Administration is requesting the Council review the updated zoning
changes and disposition strategy and consider the following:
1) Approve the rezone as provided through a separate transmittal. The legislative function of rezoning
the property must be finalized prior to initiating an RFQ/P process to ensure that procurement
processes are based on an approved zoning district.
2) Indicate support for the Fleet Block public space to be located on the southeast quadrant of the
block as demonstrated on Exhibit A – Fleet Block: Proposed Location of Public Space. If the
Council is supportive, the Department of Public Lands will return to the Council at a later date to
formally designate the public space as either a public square or park.
3) Provide any final policy direction on the development plan and budgetary considerations prior to
the initiation of an RFQ or RFP process.
Page | 2
The updated information for July 18 is outlined in the following sections:
Section 1 – Policy Questions
Section 2 – Zoning Changes
Section 3 – Disposition strategy
Section 4 – Summary of Straw Polls Pertaining to Follow-up Information on Zoning
(November 22, 2022)
Section 1 – Policy Questions
•Is the Council ready to move the zoning petitions forward for potential action?
o The Council could consider adopting the zoning text amendment that would codify the FB-
UN3 zoning district and hold off on rezoning the Fleet Block.
o The Council could move forward with both zoning amendments
•Does the Council support the proposed site plan that bisects the block into four quadrants,
including a plaza/shared street, open space, midblock streets, and a nonmotorized midblock
connection?
•Does the Council support the proposed RFQ/RFP process outlined in the transmittal letter?
o Does the Council have any additional policy direction on the development plan and
budgetary considerations prior to the initiation of an RFQ or RFP process?
Section 2 – Zoning Changes
At the November 22nd City Council meeting the Council requested the following revisions and additional
information pertaining to the zoning changes. The changes were included by Planning staff are outlined
below:
•Split the ordinance into two parts
The ordinance has been split up into two parts which would need to be adopted separately.
o Zoning text amendment to adopt the code text.
o Zoning map amendment to map the zone over the Fleet Block.
•Lot Size Limits to Control Building Length Size
The City Council asked for more information on the Planning Commission recommendation to
consider a lot size limit for property in the FB-UN3 zone. Pages 3-4 of the transmittal letter outlines
the issue and provides reasons why Planning Staff does not believe a lot size limit is necessary.
In summary, “[Planning] Staff recommends not imposing a maximum lot size limit, as the
maximum façade length limit accomplishes the same intent and would better control development
size in more situations than a lot size limit. Further, the Administration is proposing to break up
the Fleet Block into multiple lots with an internal street and pedestrian walkway network, so a lot
size limit is not necessary to ensure that breakup.” (Transmittal Letter, Page 4)
•Ground Floor Modification
The Council discussed strengthening the ground floor use requirement to ensure a use with a high
level of activity would be on the ground floor of larger buildings. Planning staff proposed the
following language to address this concern:
For buildings with street facing building facades over 100' in length:
1. A minimum length of 30% of the ground floor street facing façade shall consist of non-
residential active uses allowed by 21A.37.050.A.1.
2. An additional minimum length of 45% of the ground floor street facing façade shall consist
of any active uses allowed by 21A.37.050.A.1.
3. This footnote does not apply to the rowhouse building form.
Active Use Definition: Active uses include retail establishments, retail services, civic spaces
(theaters, museums, etc.), restaurants, bars, art and craft studios, and other uses determined to be
substantially similar by the planning director and/or planning commission.
Page | 3
•Ordinance Updates Due to Recent Code Changes and Potential Conflicts
Planning Staff updated the land use table in the FB-UN3 ordinance to align with code changes
made since the Fleet Block was transmitted in 2020:
•Technology Related Land Uses
•Significant Water Consuming Land Uses
•Congregate Care
•Single-Room Occupancy
•Downtown Building Heights
Also removed duplicate uses from the FB-UN3 land use list to avoid conflict and interpretation
issues, such as “Office, Publishing Company” and “Store, Convenience,” as the uses are already
allowed under general uses like “Office” and “Retail Goods Establishment.”
Section 3 – Disposition strategy
The Transmittal letter discusses the following topics in depth. Below is a short summary of each of these
topics. See the Transmittal letter for full analysis.
•Site Plan and Public Space (Transmittal Letter, Page 2)
Based on the Council’s feedback provided during the November 2022 briefing and after completing
a shadow analysis, the Administration is recommending that the public space be located on the
south end of the block, on the 300 West 900 South corner for the following reasons (Transmittal
Letter, pages 1-2):
o It will support the Green Loop and 9 Line.
o A shade and shadow analysis indicates that this site will have less shade in the winter,
thereby making the public space more usable year-round.
o While locating two of the development sites along 800 South may require design
concessions to ensure adequate fire aerial access, the Administration believes that the
benefits of locating the open space on the southeast quadrant outweigh the resulting
negatives
Fleet Block Disposition Strategy Transmittal
Exhibit A Proposed Location of Public Spaces
Page | 4
•Midblock Infrastructure (Transmittal Letter, Page 3)
The updated Midblock connections are proposed to bisect the block into four quadrants as outlined
in the proposed site plan below:
Fleet Block Disposition Strategy Transmittal
Exhibit B: Proposed Site Plan
•Budgetary Impacts (Transmittal Letter, Page 3-4)
The Transmittal letter notes the goal is to have all the midblock connections owned and
maintained by the City, which will ensure the public’s rights to access and use the space to the
greatest extent possible. Funding for these two segments could be leveraged from the land value
of adjacent development sites or acquired through a forthcoming capital improvement program
(“CIP”) request.
Recently CAN completed a study by Common Ground Institute and Urban 3 on the Public Asset
Yield (“PAY”) model. Through the PAY model, which can be similar to an urban wealth fund
model, cities develop underutilized properties as income-generating uses such as residential,
office, and mixed-use communities.
The administration provided two options to transform the land value into a public benefit
1. Land Sales Proceeds: Sell property and utilize the sales proceeds as a capital investment
to build on-site public benefits
2. Ground Lease Proceeds: Issue a ground lease to an income-generating development and
capture lease revenue annually over time to implement public benefits
•Request for Qualifications / Request for Proposal Process (Transmittal Letter, Page 4)
Page | 5
The three development sites will be marketed competitively through either an RFQ or RFP process.
The procurement and development processes will include requirements to ensure that the ultimate
development provides economic opportunities, affordable living, and cultural expression for all
residents, particularly communities of low- and moderate-income and underrepresented groups.
The City will continue to involve the community in the development process through involving an
inclusive selection committee to evaluate rankings and proposal, require a Community Benefits
Agreement with potential developers and identification of metrics to track and measure outcomes
that will hold the City and developers accountable to the community’s vision for the block.
Section 4 –Summary of Straw Polls Pertaining to Follow-up Information on Zoning
(from November 22, 2022)
1. Question E asked about landscaping requirements. Planning staff notes one way to address
concerns that the open space is useable is to require a minimum length or width dimension for
open space. This would increase the likelihood the space will be an amenity, rather than a
narrow yard. A minimum open space dimension of 15’ x 15’ has been added to broader Form
Based zone changes that are part of the ongoing Downtown Building Heights regulations
project. Amenity requirements, like seating, have also been added. The changes would affect
all Form Based zones, including FB-UN3. The proposal received a positive recommendation
from the Planning Commission and will be with the Council shortly.
•Does the Council support amending the ordinance to require a minimum
length/width for open space?
No Change Needed - Downtown Height amendments will address this
2. Some expressed concern that allowing rooftop decks to count toward the open space
requirement may not improve the overall design since it will be out view for most of the public
who interact with the buildings
•Does the Council support allowing rooftop decks to count toward open
space requirements?
•If not, does the Council support requesting the Administration make
recommendations for changes to the FB-UN3 code pertaining to rooftop
decks counting toward open space requirements.
Council did not support this change
3. Question G asked about active uses on 300 West. In Planning’s response they note the
ordinance requires 14’ floors to “encourage and support the use of ground floor for more active
uses in the long term even if not immediately viable.” They further note there are other
examples in City code that are used to preserve future options to convert space to “higher
activity uses.”
•Does the Council support asking the Administration to make
recommendations for changes to the FB-UN3 code that would provide
additional options to encourage high activity uses along 300 West?
Planning will forward a recommendation
•If over a certain amount (TBD) of sf, could require active use.
•Building faced over x size must have x amount of ground floor commercial
•See response above.
Planning Commission Requests
a. Limit lot sizes
• The Commission was concerned there may be very large developments on the Fleet Block and
recommended there should be lot size limits to encourage small buildings and greater
building variety.
Page | 6
• Generally, the City zoning code does not have maximum lot sizes, except within residential
districts.
• In certain zoning districts, the scale of development is regulated by limiting building width
and the length of blank walls. Those regulations are included in the proposed FB-UN3 zone.
• If the maximum lot size limitation were applied, such a limit would only be applicable to new
subdivided lots, and existing lots of any size could be developed.
• Through the selling process, the City can divide up the Fleet Block into smaller lots without
changes to the zoning.
•Would the Council like to request the Administration draft regulations for
consideration that would limit the potential size of lots on the Fleet Block?
Council requested more information. Examples may be helpful.
b. Require that lots have frontage on rights-of-way or streets
•The Planning Commission expressed concern regarding row houses (townhomes) where
some of the units are oriented to the side yard.
•They requested the City Council consider regulations that would require all units in a row
house project to be located along a public street or other public right-of-way.
•The proposed ordinance presented to the Planning Commission requires every building to
have public street frontage and the portion of the building along the street must address the
street with limited setbacks, high quality building materials, glass minimums, and
significant entrance features.
•The proposed zoning also includes an allowance for a rowhouse building to have some units
that don't face the street and are accessed from private sidewalks interior to a site. The
allowance is similar to that recently adopted by the Council for the RMF-30 zone.
•Does the Council want to request the Administration draft regulations for
consideration that would require all units to front a public street?
Council did not support this change
c. Limit the size of parking lots with a maximum lot size
•The Planning Commission was concerned there could be large surface parking lots in the
middle of blocks, like those in the Sugar House Business District, located behind or to the
side of buildings.
•In the FB-UN3 zone, there is a maximum parking stall number limit that should generally
limit the potential for large surface parking lots.
•The City doesn't currently have limits on parking lot sizes in any zone, except regarding the
number of stalls allowed.
•If a surface parking lot size limit was imposed, there would need to be analysis regarding its
impact on the ability of potential businesses in this area to provide reasonable parking
within the dimensions.
•Would the Council like to request the Administration draft regulations for
consideration that would limit surface parking lot size in the FB-UN3
zone?
Council did not support this change
d. Require the midblock walkways but allow them to be flexible in their location
•The Planning Commission wanted to ensure there would be flexibility in the final location
of mid-block walkways shown in the Downtown Plan for the Fleet Block, rather than
requiring walkways to cross the block through the block’s exact center.
•The zoning proposal includes language used in other City zones provides flexibility in exact
walkway location, but additional language could be added to emphasize the flexibility.
Page | 7
•Although no consideration was added to its recommendation, the Commission discussed
how the Fleet Block property would be sold to a private developer, including if and how the
property would be broken up into new mid-block streets, and if any public plaza/park
property would be kept.
•The Commission expressed a desire to see the block being broken up for smaller
developments with mid-block streets, as opposed to one large, single development for the
whole block. Staff informed the Commission the City could break up the block through the
City's property sale process and could require new streets through the block.
•Would the Council like to request the Administration draft regulations for
consideration that would ensure flexibility in locating mid-block
walkways on the Fleet Block?
Council did not support this change – this was fleet block specific
The following information was provided for the November 22, 2022, briefing. It is
provided again for background purposes.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will receive an update on proposed zoning amendments and disposition strategy for the
City-owned property known as the Fleet Block, located between 300 and 400 West and between 800
and 900 South.
Until 2010, most of this block was utilized by the City to manage its vehicle fleet. After the fleet
function was moved to a facility farther west, the City conducted due diligence and various studies to
prepare the property for redevelopment.
The goal of these efforts is to turn this City-owned property into a community asset that will
contribute to the economic, social, and environmental betterment of the city. Based on previous
Council and community input and discussion, any redevelopment will need to balance developer
interest, land use and compatibility, and the significant community interest in the property focused on
art murals painted on the building walls.
The staff report is outlined in the following manner:
•Background Information
•Request for Proposal strategy and policy considerations – starting on page 3 of the staff
report (key questions for the Council from the Administration)
•Zoning Amendments
o Summary of Zoning Amendments
o Planning Commission Recommended Changes
o Responses to questions raised during the October 6, 2020, work session briefing
o Zoning Policy Questions
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In 2019, former Mayor Biskupski initiated a zoning amendment to create a new zone titled Form-
Based Urban Neighborhood 3 (FB-UN3) and rezone the Fleet Block to FB-UN3.
The Fleet Block property became a focal point of community expression and interest during the
summer of 2020 amidst calls for social justice and reform for police practices. In fall of 2020, the
Council held a series of briefings and public hearings pertaining to the zoning amendments.
Page | 8
Many constituents spoke during the fall 2020 Council meetings and public hearings on this issue and
covered various main themes, including:
•significant number of comments in favor of preserving the area or part of the area for a
community gathering space such as park, open space area or community garden
•some comments recommending a community center
•requests to save the murals; requests to incorporate the murals into future open space or
development
•requests for community to be included in conversation; some called for the City to establish a
community advisory group to help guide the development process
•some expressed opposition to housing and commercial development on the Fleet Block
•some commenters expressed a desire to see the block developed as it has been a blight in their
neighborhood for years
•importance of the area as a community gathering space was emphasized
Due to the public comments provided, the Council decided additional, meaningful public outreach was
needed to help identify the vision for the Fleet Block and define what the public benefits could look
like before redevelopment and zoning decisions were made.
The Council decided to postpone considering the zoning amendments until a plan to conduct
additional public outreach was agreed upon. At that time, the Council expressed general support for
the concepts of the zoning amendments; however, they felt with the enhanced focus on the block,
additional public outreach was needed. There has been general agreement between the
Administration and Council on components for the public process and goals based on previous
conversations. Emphasis would include:
1. Creation of a meaningful community gathering space on the block such as a park/public
square or open space.
2. Features that represent the history of marginalized members of the community and the fight,
struggle, and advancement of the community’s efforts for equality, fair representation, and
justice
3. Space for the incubation, growth, and economic success of small and local businesses
4. Affordable and accessible housing
At a December 2020 Council briefing, the Council directed staff to work with the Community &
Neighborhoods Department (CAN) and the Attorney’s Office to outline potential conditions to the
zoning amendments that would help ensure a meaningful public process is completed. The process
would help identify community benefits and be the basis of draft motions for the Council’s
consideration. For example, adoption of the rezone would be connected with:
1. An opportunity to review and provide input on the Administration’s future planning efforts (a
Request For Information or RFI).
2. Completing a public engagement process that would further explore the vision for future Fleet
Block redevelopment and what the public benefits could look like.
In January 2022, the Administration issued a Request-for-Information (RFI) for the Fleet Block. The
purpose of the RFI was to “explore options available to the City to develop the Property and to learn
from the prior experience of others in developing complex urban infill projects. The RFI was
intended solely to assist in informing the City’s approach to developing the Property.” Staff note: An
“RFI” is generally considered a more general information-gathering exercise, intended to be a
lower-barrier for a variety of interested parties who may respond with ideas. An “RFP” is generally
considered a more technical process and typically follows an RFI.
Page | 9
Reponses to the RFI were due at the end of February. An internal City technical committee reviewed
responses and utilized the information to draft a future Request for Proposal (RFP) specific to
development proposals.
In April of this year the Administration briefed the Council on Fleet Block, including the public
process, rezone process, and development constraints of the block. The Council provided feedback
emphasizing the importance of equality and inclusion. Previous large City property assemblages were
offered to a single development team, often favoring partners with greater existing wealth and
experience. At that time, the Council provided input encouraging the Administration to consider a
different approach which could give other, less-capitalized partners an opportunity to participate.
According to the Transmittal letter, since the last briefing in April, the Administration has
“considered ways to not only infuse equity into the resulting development, providing
affordable housing, affordable commercial space, and public space, but to also market and
develop the property in a way that is more accessible to an inclusive group of partners. In
consideration of the Council’s feedback, master plan polices, responses from the Request for
Information (“RFI”), and development constraints, the Administration has developed an
approach to create multiple development sites to be offered through a phased request for
proposal (“RFP”) process. Dividing up the Fleet Block into multiple property offerings will be
conducive for involving multiple development teams of varying scale and experience.”
This briefing will provide an update to the City Council and the community on those efforts and
outline the next steps pertaining to the following:
1. Zoning recommendations that would; 1) create the FB-UN3 zoning district and 2) rezone the
Fleet Block to FB-UN3,
2. Request for Proposal strategy and policy considerations
Request for Proposal (RFP) strategy and policy considerations
Property disposition is an Administrative function. However, the Council has zoning authority and
must approve any potential future discounts to the fair market value of the Fleet Block. Therefore, the
Administration is seeking policy guidance from the Council pertaining to the RFP and development
scenarios of the block.
In addition to the policy questions below, the transmittal letter outlines the cost and process for the
environmental remediation and the impact to the land value once midblock connections and public
space are included.
1. Potential Policy Questions
The Administration’s transmittal outlined a few policy questions they are seeking feedback
from the Council on.
a. Mid-Block Connections (page 2 Transmittal Letter)
If the council supports including midblock connections on the Fleet Block, the City would
need to identify land designated as midblock connections through the subdivision process,
prior to issuing the RFP.
Does the Council support maintaining City ownership of portions of the Fleet Block
intended to be public in the future, or selling parcels to private property owners? Staff
note: the Council could stipulate that a certain percentage of land be set aside as
Page | 10
public to provide flexibility for RFP respondents to locate those connections in a more
appropriate manner.
Some questions have been raised about potential benefits and opportunities to the
community if the fleet block was divided up into smaller developments instead of going
with one master developer. Attachment A: Hypothetical Development Scenario, of the
transmittal letter provides a hypothetical scenario of how the property could be subdivided
to establish three separate development sites.
Does the Councill wish to provide policy guidance on subdividing Fleet Block into
smaller development sites?
b. Park Space (page 3 Transmittal Letter)
To move forward with the RFP process the City must identify where any public space
will be located. The transmittal letter notes key considerations include the public
feedback and alcohol buffers
Does the Council wish to provide feedback on the location of public space on the Fleet
Block? See staff note above.
c. Zoning (page 4 Transmittal Letter)
Since December 2020, the Council held off considering the zoning changes while the
Administration conducted further, meaningful public process. The intent of the process
was to help identify potential community benefits of the block and gather feedback on
potential future uses on the block.
Two steps the Council asked to have completed before considering the zoning changes are:
1. An opportunity to review and provide input on the Administration’s future
planning efforts (an RFI).
2. Completing a public engagement process that would further explore the vision for
future redevelopment of Fleet Block and what public benefits could be included.
The Council was briefed on the RFI in April 2022. The RFP transmittal outlines
additional public engagement the Administration conducted.
Does the Council feel the goals for more public engagement and opportunity to
provide input on the RFI have been satisfied?
If yes, does the Council support setting a date to consider adopting the zoning
changes at a Council meeting?
d. RFP – Equity and Inclusion provisions (Page 5 Transmittal Letter)
The Transmittal letter notes the RFPs will include requirements to ensure the forthcoming
development provides economic opportunities, affordable living, and cultural expression
for all residents, particularly communities of low- and moderate-income and minority
communities. An Inclusive Committee will be established to help review and rank
responses to the RFP.
Additionally, a community benefit agreement to ensure the community’s interest are
addressed in future development and metrics to track the outcomes will be part of the
development process
Does the Council have any question about how equity and inclusion factors
will be included in the RFP process?
Page | 11
Zoning Amendments
1. Summary of Zoning Amendments
2.Planning Commission Recommended Changes
3. Responses to questions raised during the October 6, 2020, work session briefing
4. Zoning Policy Questions
1. Summary of Zoning Amendments
Text Amendment: Establish Development Standards and Land Uses
The Planning Division drafted development standards for the FB-UN3 zoning district. FB-UN3
is meant to complement the existing FB-UN 1 and FB-UN2 zoning districts which are found
mainly in the Central 9th neighborhood. According to Planning staff,
“The zone would have similar regulations to the FB-UN2 zone, which is mapped on the
blocks around 900 South and 200 West and allows for four to five story tall mixed-use
development.
The FB-UN3 zone would primarily differ in that it would include requirements for mid-
block walkways, allow more intense commercial land uses, such as light manufacturing
and industrial assembly, and allow for greater height.
The differences are intended to reflect the broad mix of land uses expected with the
block and the surrounding "Granary" area and various Downtown Plan policies for the
area that support a mix of housing choices and clean industries.” (Planning
Commission staff report, page 3)
Below is a summary of key form-based concepts for the proposed the FB-UN3 zoning district.
It is also outlined in detail on pages 3-6 of the Planning Commission staff report. It is provided
here for ease of access.
Additionally, Planning staff created a graphical summary of the proposed FB-
UN3 regulations. See Attachment B to view that summary.
Rezone the Fleet Block to FB-UN 3
The City owns the majority of the Fleet Block. However, the southwest corner is privately owned.
The owner of that portion of the block asked to be included in the rezone.
Vicinity Map
(Page 2 Planning Commission Staff Report)
Page | 12
Building Form Types
•Row house (townhome)
•Storefront (a commercial building - retail, office, etc.)
•Vertical Mixed-Use (a building with ground floor commercial and residential above)
•Multi-family (an apartment or condominium building)
General Building Standards
•Height Limits
o 40' for rowhouse and 85' for vertical mixed-use/multi-family/storefront (125'
through Design Review.)
•Front Setback Limits and Build-To Lines
o Requires that buildings are located close to the sidewalk
•Open Space Requirements
o 10% of lot area and can be yards, plazas, rooftop decks, similar
o 25% of unit footprint for row houses
•Ground Floor Use Minimums
o 75% of the width of ground floor facade must be an active use (not parking) and
have a minimum depth of 25' - meant to ensure activity occurs next to pedestrians
along ground floor facades
• Exception for rowhomes- use space must have 10' depth
o Along 900 South, the required ground floor space is limited to the following uses:
retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of
businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries,
theaters, or performing art facilities.
• Exception for row houses, must be live/work and have 25' depth
•Minimum Ground Floor Heights
o Min. 14' to ensure flexible, viable active spaces in the long-term
Page | 13
•Mid-block Walkway Installation
o Required where mapped in the Downtown Master Plan, generally through the
middle of blocks. Meant to increase pedestrian accessibility through additional
walking routes on large City blocks.
•Entry Features for Dwellings
o Every ground floor dwelling unit adjacent to a street must include an entry feature,
such as a porch, stoop, shopfront, terrace, etc.
o For row houses, each dwelling unit must include an entry feature even if the unit is
not street facing
•Rowhome Frontage
o Rowhome lots without frontage along a street allowed with a final plat that
documents access easements for lots and includes a shared infrastructure reserve
study disclosure
o Rowhomes adjacent to the street must incorporate a street facing entry feature
Design Standards
•Entryway Installation
o Facade must include an entry feature- porch, stoop, shopfront, terrace, etc.
o One entry required for every 75' of facade
•Glass/Window Minimums
o 60% of ground floor facade and 15% of upper floor facade must be glass.
•Blank Wall Limits
o No blank wall that is uninterrupted by doors, windows, or other projections,
over 30' in length.
•High Quality Exterior Building Material Minimums
o Min. 70% of facade must be quality, durable material- brick, fiber-cement,
textured concrete, etc.
•Balcony Requirements for Dwellings Units
o Dwelling units on upper levels facing a street must have a balcony
•Upper Floor Step-back Requirement and Balcony Inclusion Alternative
o Floors above the 30' height level facing a public street must be stepped back 15'
or include balconies
•Parking Structure Design Requirements
o Includes variety of requirements for the facade and ground level activation
•Build-to Line Alternatives
o Allows for plazas, arcades, outdoor dining to count toward meeting minimum
build-to line requirements (the setback that a minimum percentage of the
building must be built to), allowing buildings to be set-back behind these
features
Parking and Driveway Regulations
Page | 14
The zone includes limits on driveways and parking to limit their impact on the pedestrian
experience:
•Driveway number and location limits - 1 driveway per street face
•Parking limited to behind/ side of buildings
•No minimum parking requirement due to proximity to transit (same requirement as
neighboring FB-UN1 and FB-UN2 zones)
Streetscape Requirements
Every building form must comply with general streetscape improvement requirements. These
include regulations on:
•Street trees (min. 1 every 30 feet)
•Sidewalk widths (min. 8 feet)
•Streetlights (required where identified in City streetlight plans)
Land Uses
The proposed allowed land uses are broad and are intended to reflect the Downtown Master
Plans call for an integration of "urban family living" and "clean industry" uses. Staff believes
the design controls of the form-based code allow for a larger assortment of uses without
generally having the same level of concern for compatibility and conflicts that would likely
exist under a traditional code. Outdoor manufacturing and outdoor equipment storage uses
would not be allowed, to avoid noise and visual conflicts. Storage/warehouse uses, which have
limited human activity, would not be allowed on the ground floor next to the sidewalk.
•Broad variety of allowed uses (from townhomes up to light manufacturing)
Please see Attachment C to view the proposed land use table.
Signs
Sign regulations proposed for this zone generally match the FB-UN2 zoning
allowances, with some exceptions, taking into consideration the proposed higher scale of
development in the FB-UN3. This includes some additional sign types, such as monument
signs, marquee signs and building oriented flat signs (generally a major tenant or name of
building).
Other Related Amendments
As part of this proposal, staff is including additions and clarifications to some general
regulations for development under the Form-Based Code chapter. This includes:
•Clarifying the list of allowed exterior building materials
•Allowing modifications to design requirements through the "Design Review" chapter,
which has standards related to such modifications. Currently, modification requests
must go through the Planned Development process which does not address design
specifically, unlike the Design Review chapter.
2.Planning Commission Recommended Changes
Page | 15
Pages 3-4 of the transmittal letter outlines four recommendations the Planning Commission
requested the Council consider. If the Council supports the concepts raised by the Planning
Commission, which are outlined below, the Administration can prepare draft language to be
considered for inclusion in the final ordinance.
e. Limit lot sizes
The Commission was concerned there may be very large developments on the
Fleet Block and recommended there should be lot size limits to encourage small
buildings and greater building variety.
• Generally, the City zoning code does not have maximum lot sizes, except within
residential districts.
• In certain zoning districts, the scale of development is regulated by limiting
building width and the length of blank walls. Those regulations are included in
the proposed FB-UN3 zone.
• If the maximum lot size limitation were applied, such a limit would only be
applicable to new subdivided lots, and existing lots of any size could be
developed.
• Through the selling process, the City can divide up the Fleet Block into smaller
lots without changes to the zoning.
Would the Council like to request the Administration draft regulations for
consideration that would limit the potential size of lots on the Fleet Block?
f. Require that lots have frontage on rights-of-way or streets
•The Planning Commission expressed concern regarding row houses
(townhomes) where some of the units are oriented to the side yard.
•They requested the City Council consider regulations that would require all
units in a row house project to be located along a public street or other public
right-of-way.
•The proposed ordinance presented to the Planning Commission requires every
building to have public street frontage and the portion of the building along the
street must address the street with limited setbacks, high quality building
materials, glass minimums, and significant entrance features.
•The proposed zoning also includes an allowance for a rowhouse building to have
some units that don't face the street and are accessed from private sidewalks
interior to a site. The allowance is similar to that recently adopted by the
Council for the RMF-30 zone.
Does the Council want to request the Administration draft regulations for
consideration that would require all units to front a public street?
g. Limit the size of parking lots with a maximum lot size
•The Planning Commission was a concerned there could be large surface parking
lots in the middle of blocks, like those in the Sugar House Business District,
located behind or to the side of buildings.
•In the FB-UN3 zone, there is a maximum parking stall number limit that should
generally limit the potential for large surface parking lots.
•The City doesn't currently have limits on parking lot sizes in any zone, except
regarding the number of stalls allowed.
•If a surface parking lot size limit was imposed, there would need to be analysis
regarding its impact on the ability of potential businesses in this area to provide
reasonable parking within the dimensions.
Page | 16
Would the Council like to request the Administration draft regulations for
consideration that would limit surface parking lot size in the FB-UN3 zone?
h. Require the midblock walkways but allow them to be flexible in their
location
•The Planning Commission wanted to ensure there would be flexibility in the
final location of mid-block walkways shown in the Downtown Plan for the Fleet
Block, rather than requiring walkways to cross the block through the exact
center of the block.
•The zoning proposal includes language used in other City zones provides
flexibility in exact walkway location, but additional language could be added to
emphasize the flexibility.
•Although no consideration was added to its recommendation, the Commission
discussed how the Fleet Block property would be sold to a private developer,
including if and how the property would be broken up into new mid-block
streets, and if any public plaza/park property would be kept.
•The Commission expressed a desire in seeing the block being broken up for
smaller developments with mid-block streets, as opposed to one large, single
development for the whole block. Staff informed the Commission the City could
break up the block through the City's property sale process and could require
new streets through the block.
Would the Council like to request the Administration draft regulations for
consideration that would ensure flexibility in locating mid-block walkways on the
Fleet Block?
3. Responses to questions raised during the October 6, 2020 work session briefing
During the October 6, 2020 work session briefing the Council raised questions about the
proposed zoning amendments. The list of questions is outlined below. Please see
Attachment D for the Administration’s responses to these questions. Staff will be prepared
to review these questions one by one and answer additional questions the Council may have.
A. Can the proposed ordinance require any open space be open to the public?
B. Questions were raised about potentially increasing the amount of open space required by
the ordinance. Concerns were expressed that may be considered a taking.
▪How, if at all, would requiring more open space be consider a taking if the City
owns the property?
▪Would the taking concern apply to other privately owned properties that may be
potentially rezoned to FB-UN3?
▪Would increasing the amount of required open space potentially impede some
kinds of development?
•Does requiring open space attract some kinds of development?
C. Could the Administration explain if there is a difference between open space required by
the ordinance and the City designating some of the City owned fleet block as a
park/green/open space?
D. Can the City designate as much of city-owned portions of the Fleet Block a park/open
space as it wants?
▪What is the process for the City to designate a park area?
Page | 17
E. Could Planning Staff further explain landscaping requirements for the various type of
buildings in the FB-UN3 and if it would be appropriate to increase vegetation
requirements for the larger buildings?
▪Would vegetation on rooftops be allowed (roof gardens, green roofs, etc.)?
F. Concerns were raised about the center of Fleet Block becoming a large parking lot.
▪Are there provisions in the ordinance that would prevent this from happening
or could they be added?
G. The ordinance requires ground floor uses on 900 South to be active uses such as retail
establishments, restaurants, etc. Could active uses be required on 300 West too?
▪Would providing some exceptions make it more feasible?
Potential Straw Polls Pertaining to Follow-up Information on Zoning
4. Question E asked about landscaping requirements. Planning staff notes one way to
address concerns that the open space is useable is to require a minimum length or
width dimension for open space. This would increase the likelihood the space will
be an amenity, rather than a narrow yard. A minimum open space dimension of 15’
x 15’ has been added to broader Form Based zone changes that are part of the
ongoing Downtown Building Heights regulations project. Amenity requirements,
like seating, have also been added. The changes would affect all Form Based
zones, including FB-UN3. The proposal received a positive recommendation from
the Planning Commission and will be with the Council shortly.
•Does the Council support amending the ordinance to require a
minimum length/width for open space?
5. Some expressed concern that allowing rooftop decks to count toward the open
space requirement may not improve the overall design since it will be out view for
most of the public who interact with the buildings
•Does the Council support allowing rooftop decks to count
toward open space requirements?
•If not, does the Council support requesting the Administration
make recommendations for changes to the FB-UN3 code
pertaining to rooftop decks counting toward open space
requirements.
6. Question G asked about active uses on 300 West. In Planning’s response they note
the ordinance requires 14’ floors to “encourage and support the use of ground floor
for more active uses in the long term even if not immediately viable.” They further
note there are other examples in City code that are used to preserve future options
to convert space to “higher activity uses.”
•Does the Council support asking the Administration to make
recommendations for changes to the FB-UN3 code that would
provide additional options to encourage high activity uses along
300 West?
FB-UN3 Ordinance Update
▪Ordinance split into two parts:
1.Text Amendment –creates the FB-UN3 zone itself
2.Map Amendment –maps the FB-UN3 zone over the Fleet
Block
▪Ordinance also updated to reflect recently adopted codes and
eliminate code conflicts
▪Downtown zoning updates, tech land uses, etc.
Active Ground Floor Uses For Buildings >100’ in Length
Retail/Restaurant/Etc.
OR Residential
Retail/Restaurant/Etc.
NOT Residential
▪Council concerned with lack of highly active uses on ground floors
▪Current code (applies to all building sizes):
▪75% of ground floor length must be retail, restaurant, or similar, OR residential
▪Additional code proposal for large buildings over 100' in length:
▪30%must be retail, restaurant, or similar active use –NOT residential
▪Remaining 45% can be any active use –retail, restaurant, etc., OR residential
▪Reason for requirement -more economically viable for larger buildings
Proposed Ground Floor Requirement for Large Buildings
Building Length Limit vs Property/Lot Size Limit
▪Proposed code limits building length NOT
property/lot size
▪200' limit (~1/3 downtown block face)
▪Encourages building variety
▪PC suggested considering property size limits
in addition to building length –ex. 2 acres
▪Concerns Fleet Block could be one large
building
▪Property size limit not necessary
▪Building length limit accomplishes same
intent more directly
▪Consistent with approach in other zones
▪Large properties already exceeding size
limit would be legally exempt from
property size limit –but not building
limit
Proposed Building Length Limit
Example of a Property Size Limit
Max. 90,000 sq ft/
2 acres
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2023
(An ordinance amending the text of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code
to create the FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict)
An ordinance amending the text of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to create the FB-
UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-
00277.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on December
11, 2019 to consider a petition by former Salt Lake City Mayor Jacqueline Biskupski to amend
various provisions of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to create the FB-UN3 Form Based
Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict, to establish regulations for that subdistrict, and to apply the
FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict to the “fleet block” property located
between 800 South and 900 South Streets and 300 West and 400 West Streets pursuant to
Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277; and
WHEREAS, at its December 11, 2019 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor
of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said petition; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that
adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.27.030.C.
(Void if Building Heights in the Downtown Plan Area Ordinance Adopted). That, if amendments
to Subsection 21A.27.030.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Form Based Districts: Building
Configuration and Design Standards) pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00529 are not
2
adopted by the date of the City Council adopting this ordinance then that subsection shall be, and
hereby is amended as follows (if adopted then this Section 1 is void):
a. That the first paragraph of Subsection 21A.27.030.C is amended to read as follows:
21A.27.030.C. Application of Building Configuration Standards: Building
configuration standards apply to all new buildings and additions when the new
construction related to the addition is greater than twenty five percent (25%) of the
footprint of the structure or one thousand (1,000) square feet, whichever is less. The
graphics included provide a visual representation of the standards as a guide and are
not meant to supersede the standards in the tables. This standard applies to all form-
based zoning subdistricts unless otherwise indicated. The standards in this section
may be modified through the design review process, subject to the requirements of
Chapter 21A.59 of this title. The requirements set forth in Subsections C.8 “Open
Space Area” and C.12 “Permitted Encroachments And Height Exceptions” of this
Subsection 21A.27.030.C may not be modified through design review.
b. That Subsection 21A.27.030.C.7 is amended to read as follows:
7. Building Materials: A minimum of seventy percent (70%) of any street facing
building facade shall be clad in high quality, durable, natural materials, such as
stone, brick, wood lap siding, patterned or textured concrete, fiber cement board
siding, shingled or panel sided, and glass. Material not specifically listed may be
approved at the discretion of the planning director if it is found that the proposed
material is of similar durability and quality to the listed materials. If approved,
such material can count toward the seventy percent (70%) requirement. Other
materials may count up to thirty percent (30%) of the street facing building
facade. Exterior insulation and finishing systems (EIFS) is permitted for trim
only.
c. That Subsection 21A.27.030.C.8 is amended to read as follows:
8. Open Space Area: A minimum of ten percent (10%) of the lot area shall be
provided for open space area, unless a different requirement is specified in the
applicable form based zoning subdistrict for the applicable building form. Open
space area may include landscaped yards, patio, dining areas, common balconies,
rooftop gardens, and other similar outdoor living spaces. Private balconies shall
not be counted toward the minimum open space area requirement. Required
parking lot landscaping or perimeter parking lot landscaping shall also not count
toward the minimum open space area requirement.
3
SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.27.050. That
Section 21A.27.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Form Based Subdistricts: FB-UN1 and
FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood District) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows:
a. That the title of Section 21A.27.050 is amended to read as follows:
21A.27.050: FB-UN1, FB-UN2, AND FB-UN3 FORM BASED URBAN
NEIGHBORHOOD SUBDISTRICTS:
b. That Subsection 21A.27.050.A.1 is amended to read as follows:
A. Subdistricts:
1. Named: The following subdistricts can be found in the urban neighborhood form
based district:
a. FB-UN1 Urban Neighborhood 1 Subdistrict: Generally includes small scale
structures, up to two and one-half (2.5) stories in height, on relatively small
lots with up to four (4) dwelling units per lot depending on building type.
Reuse of existing residential structures is encouraged. Development
regulations are based on the building type.
b. FB-UN2 Urban Neighborhood 2 Subdistrict: Generally includes buildings up
to four (4) stories in height, with taller buildings located on street corner
parcels, which may contain a single use or a mix of commercial, office, and
residential uses. Development regulations are based on building type, with the
overall scale, form, and orientation of buildings as the primary focus.
c. FB-UN3 Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict: Generally includes buildings up
to eight (8) stories in height, with taller buildings allowed through the design
review process. Development regulations are based on types of buildings and
differ between building types as indicated. The subdistrict contains a mix of
uses that include commercial, technical, light industrial, high density
residential, and other supportive land uses.
c. [Note to codifier: use this Section 21A.27.050.D. if Building Heights in the Downtown
Plan Area Ordinance is not yet adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to
Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00529] That Section 21A.27.050 is amended to adopt a new
Subsection 21A.27.050.D:
21A.27.050.D. FB-UN3 Building Form Standards:
Building form standards for each allowed building form and other associated regulations
for the FB-UN3 subdistrict are listed in the below tables of this section.
4
1. Row House Building Form Standards:
TABLE 21A.27.050.D.1
Building
Regulation
Regulation for Building Form:
Row House
H Height Maximum of 40’. All heights measured from established grade.
Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at
the maximum allowed height.
F Front and
Corner Side
Yard Setback
Minimum 5’. Maximum 10’, unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility
easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. May
be modified through the design review process (Chapter 21A.59).
S Interior Side
Yard
Minimum of 5’ between row house building form and side property line, except when an
interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a maximum permitted building
height of 30’ or less, then the minimum shall be 10’. For the purpose of this regulation,
an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a
different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. No setback required for
common walls.
R Rear Yard Minimum of 5’ between row house building form and rear property line, except when
rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of
30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a
minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning
district shall not be considered adjacent.
U Uses Per Story Residential on all stories; live/work units permitted on ground level.
GU Ground Floor
Use on 900
South
The required ground floor use space facing 900 South must be occupied by a live/work
space at least 25’ in depth. Dimensions may be modified through the design review
process (Chapter 21A.59).
E Entry Feature Each dwelling unit must include an allowed entry feature. See Table 21A.27.030B for
allowed entry features. Dwelling units adjacent to a street must include an entry feature
on street facing façade. Pedestrian connections with minimum 5’ width are required for
each required entry feature.
U Upper Level
Step Back
When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or
less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall step back 10’ from the building
façade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the
applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning
district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley.
OS Open Space
Area
Each dwelling unit shall include a minimum open space area that is equal to at least 25%
of the footprint of the individual unit, subject to all other open space area requirements
of Subsection 21A.27.030.C.8 “Open Space Area.” A minimum of 20% of the required
open space area shall include vegetation.
BF Building
Forms Per Lot
Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have
frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards.
SO Side/Interior
Orientation
Dwelling units not located directly adjacent to a street are permitted, provided the
building configuration standards for glass and ground floor transparency are complied
with on the façade with the required entry feature.
Lots for individual row house dwelling units without public street frontage are allowed
subject to recording a final subdivision plat that:
5
2. Multi-Family Residential, Storefront, and Vertical Mixed-Use Building Form
Standards:
TABLE 21A.27.050.D.2
1. Documents that new lots have adequate access to a public street by way of easements
or a shared driveway; and
2. Includes a disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any shared infrastructure
associated with the new lot(s) per Section 21A.55.110 of this title.
MW Mid-block
Walkway
If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted city plan on the subject property, a
midblock walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of
10’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path.
DS Design
Standards
See Section 21A.27.030 for other applicable building configuration and design
standards.
Building
Regulation
Regulation for Building Forms:
Multi-family Residential/Storefront/Vertical Mixed Use
H Height Maximum height of 125’. All heights measured from established grade.
Buildings in excess of 85’ require design review in accordance with Chapter 21A.59.
Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at
the maximum allowed height.
GH Ground Floor
Height
Minimum ground floor height 14’.
F Front and
Corner Side
Yard Setback
No minimum is required; however, doors are prohibited from opening into the public
right of way. Maximum 10’ unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility
easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement.
May be modified through the design review process (Chapter 21A.59).
B Required
Build-To
Minimum of 50% of street facing facade shall be built within 5’ of the front or corner
side property line. May be modified through the design review process (Chapter
21A.59).
S Interior Side
Yard
No minimum required, except when an interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district
that has a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum shall be
10’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that
separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered
adjacent.
R Rear Yard No minimum required, except when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a
maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the
purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a
subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent.
GU Ground Floor
Use on 900
South
The required ground floor use space facing 900 South shall be limited to the following
uses: retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of
businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or
performing art facilities.
E Ground Floor
Dwelling
Entrances
Ground floor dwelling units adjacent to a street must have an allowed entry feature. See
Table 21A.27.030B for allowed entry features. Pedestrian connections, as per Subsection
21A.27.030.C.5, are required for each required entry feature.
6
3. Parking Regulations: Specific parking standards applicable to the FB-UN3 subdistrict
are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D.3 of this section. These are in addition to any
other applicable parking standards in Title 21A.
TABLE 21A.27.050.D.3
U Upper Level
Step Back
When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or
less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall step back 10’ from the building
facade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the
applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning
district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley.
MW Mid-block
Walkway
If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted city plan on the subject property, a
midblock walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 10’
wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path.
BF Building
Forms Per
Lot
Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have
frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards.
OS Open Space
Vegetation
A minimum of 20% of the required open space area shall include vegetation.
LB Loading Bay Maximum of one (1) loading bay on a front façade per street face, subject to all
dimensional requirements in Section 21A.44.070. Loading bay entry width limited to 14’
and must be screened by garage door. One loading bay driveway is allowed in addition
to any other driveway allowances.
DS Design
Standards
See Section 21A.27.030 for other applicable building configuration and design
standards.
Parking
Regulation
Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone
SP Surface Parking
Location
Surface parking shall be located behind or to the side of a principal building provided:
1. The parking is set back a minimum of 25’ from the front or corner side property line;
and
2. The setback area shall be considered a landscaped yard and comply with the landscape
yard planting requirements in Chapter 21A.46 and include:
a. Trees with a minimum mature spread of 20’ planted at one tree for every 20’ of
street frontage; and
b. A 3’ tall solid wall or fence at the property line along the street. A hedge or
other similar landscaped screen may be used in place of a wall or fence provided
the plants are spaced no further than 18 inches on center across the entire frontage.
GE Garage
Entrances
Street facing parking garage entrance doors shall have a minimum 20’ setback from the front
property line and shall not exceed 50% of the first floor building width. One-way garage entry
may not exceed 14’ in width; multiway garage entry may not exceed 26’ in width.
VA Vehicle Access One (1) driveway is allowed per street frontage. Driveways required to meet fire code are exempt
from this limitation.
LS Loading and
Service Areas
Allowed behind or to the side of a principal building only, except where specifically allowed by
the applicable form based zoning subdistrict for the applicable building form. All service areas
shall be screened or located within the building.
EB Existing
Buildings
The reuse of existing buildings is exempt from the requirements of this table unless new
parking area(s) are being added. New parking areas are subject to compliance with this section.
7
4. Streetscape Regulations: Specific streetscape regulations applicable to the FB-UN3
subdistrict are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D.4 of this section. These regulations
are in addition to any other applicable streetscape standards in Title 21A.
TABLE 21A.27.050.D.4
5. Uses Not Associated with Building Form: Allowed uses that do not involve
construction of a building, such as parks and open space, are not required to comply
with any specific building form regulation.
c. [Note to codifier: use this Section 21A.27.050.D. if Building Heights in the Downtown
Plan Area Ordinance is adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to Petition No.
PLNPCM2022-00529] That Section 21A.27.050 is amended to adopt a new Subsection
21A.27.050.D:
21A.27.050.D. FB-UN3 Building Form Standards:
Building form standards for each allowed building form and other associated regulations
for the FB-UN3 subdistrict are listed in the below tables of this section.
1. Row House Building Form Standards:
TABLE 21A.27.050.D.1
Streetscape
Regulation
Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone
ST Street Trees Street trees are required and shall be provided as per Subsection 21A.48.060.D.
SW Sidewalk Width Sidewalks shall have a minimum width of 8’. This standard does not require removal of
existing street trees, existing buildings, or portions thereof. For purposes of this section,
sidewalk width is measured from the back of the park strip or required street tree if no
park strip is provided, toward the adjacent property line.
SL Street Lights Street lights are required and shall be installed in compliance with the city’s Street
Lighting Master Plan and Policy or its successor.
Building Regulation Regulation for Building Form:
Row House
H Height Maximum of 40’. All heights measured from established grade.
Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at
the maximum allowed height.
F Front and
Corner Side
Yard Setback
Minimum 5’. Maximum 10’, unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility
easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. May
be modified through Design Review (Chapter 21A.59).
S Interior Side
Yard
Minimum of 5’ between row house building form and side property line, except when an
interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a maximum permitted building
height of 30’ or less, then the minimum shall be 10’. For the purpose of this regulation,
8
2. Multi-Family Residential, Storefront, and Vertical Mixed-Use Building Form
Standards:
TABLE 21A.27.050.D.2
an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a
different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. No setback required for
common walls.
R Rear Yard Minimum of 5’ between row house building form and rear property line, except when
rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of
30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a
minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning
district shall not be considered adjacent.
U Uses Per Story Residential on all stories; live/work units permitted on ground level.
GU Ground Floor
Use on 900
South
The required ground floor use space facing 900 South must be occupied by a live/work
space at least 25’ in depth. Dimensions may be modified through Design Review
(Chapter 21A.59).
E Entry Feature Each dwelling unit must include an allowed entry feature. See Table 21A.27.030B for
allowed entry features. Dwelling units adjacent to a street must include an entry feature
on street facing façade. Pedestrian connections, as per Subsection 21A.27.030.C.5, with
minimum 5’ width are required for each required entry feature.
U Upper Level
Stepback
When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or
less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall step back 10’ from the building
façade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the
applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning
district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley.
OS Open Space
Area
Each dwelling unit shall include a minimum open space area that is equal to at least 25%
of the footprint of the individual unit, subject to all other open space area requirements
of Subsection 21A.27.030.C.1 “Open Space Area.” A minimum of 20% of the required
open space area shall include vegetation.
BF Building
Forms Per Lot
Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have
frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards.
SO Side/Interior
Orientation
Dwelling units not located directly adjacent to a street are permitted, provided the design
standards for glass are complied with on the façade with the required entry feature.
Lots for individual row house dwelling units without public street frontage are allowed
subject to recording a final subdivision plat that:
1. Documents that new lots have adequate access to a public street by way of easements
or a shared driveway; and
2. Includes a disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any shared infrastructure
associated with the new lot(s) per Section 21A.55.110 of this title.
MW Midblock
Walkway
If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted city plan on the subject property, a
midblock walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of
10’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path.
DS Design
Standards
See Section 21A.27.030 and Chapter 21A.37 for other applicable building configuration
and design standards.
9
Building
Regulation
Regulation for Building Forms:
Multi-family Residential/Storefront/Vertical Mixed Use
H Height Maximum height of 125’. All heights measured from established grade.
Buildings in excess of 85’ require design review in accordance with Chapter 21A.59.
Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at
the maximum allowed height.
GH Ground Floor
Height
Minimum ground floor height 14’.
F Front and
Corner Side
Yard Setback
No minimum is required; however, doors are prohibited from opening into the public
right of way. Maximum 10’ unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility
easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement.
May be modified through Design Review process (Chapter 21A.59).
B Required
Build-To
Minimum of 50% of street facing facade shall be built within 5’ of the front or corner
side property line. May be modified through Design Review process (Chapter 21A.59).
S Interior Side
Yard
No minimum required, except when an interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district
that has a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum shall be
10’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that
separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered
adjacent.
R Rear Yard No minimum required, except when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a
maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the
purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a
subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent.
GU Ground Floor
Use on 900
South
The required ground floor use space facing 900 South shall be limited to the following
uses: retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of
businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or
performing art facilities.
E Ground Floor
Dwelling
Entrances
Ground floor dwelling units adjacent to a street must have an allowed entry feature. See
Table 21A.27.030B for allowed entry features. Pedestrian connections, as per Subsection
21A.27.030.C.5, are required to each required entry feature.
U Upper Level
Stepback
When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or
less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall step back 10’ from the building
facade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the
applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning
district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley.
MW Midblock
Walkway
If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted city plan on the subject property, a
midblock walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 10’
wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path.
BF Building
Forms Per
Lot
Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have
frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards.
OS Open Space
Vegetation
A minimum of 20% of the required open space area shall include vegetation.
10
3. Parking Regulations: Specific parking standards applicable to the FB-UN3 subdistrict
are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D.3 of this section. These are in addition to any
other applicable parking standards in Title 21A.
TABLE 21A.27.050.D.3
4. Streetscape Regulations: Specific streetscape regulations applicable to the FB-UN3
subdistrict are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D.4 of this section. These regulations
are in addition to any other applicable streetscape standards in Title 21A.
TABLE 21A.27.050.D.4
LB Loading Bay Maximum of one (1) loading bay on a front façade per street face, subject to all
dimensional requirements in Section 21A.44.070. Loading bay entry width limited to 14’
and must be screened by garage door. One loading bay driveway is allowed in addition
to any other driveway allowances.
DS Design
Standards
See Section 21A.27.030 and Chapter 21A.37 for other applicable building configuration
and design standards.
Parking
Regulation
Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone
SP Surface Parking
Location
Surface parking shall be located behind or to the side of a principal building provided:
3. The parking is set back a minimum of 25’ from the front or corner side property line;
and
4. The setback area shall be considered a landscaped yard and comply with the landscape
yard planting requirements in Chapter 21A.46 and include:
a. Trees with a minimum mature spread of 20’ planted at one tree for every 20’ of
street frontage; and
b. A 3’ tall solid wall or fence at the property line along the street. A hedge or
other similar landscaped screen may be used in place of a wall or fence provided
the plants are spaced no further than 18 inches on center across the entire frontage.
GE Garage
Entrances
Street facing parking garage entrance doors shall have a minimum 20’ setback from the front
property line and shall not exceed 50% of the first floor building width. One-way garage entry
may not exceed 14’ in width; multiway garage entry may not exceed 26’ in width.
VA Vehicle Access One (1) driveway is allowed per street frontage. Driveways required to meet fire code are exempt
from this limitation.
LS Loading and
Service Areas
Allowed behind or to the side of a principal building only, except where specifically allowed by
the applicable form based zoning subdistrict for the applicable building form. All service areas
shall be screened or located within the building.
EB Existing
Buildings
The reuse of existing buildings is exempt from the requirements of this table unless new
parking area(s) are being added. New parking areas are subject to compliance with this section.
Streetscape
Regulation
Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone
ST Street Trees Street trees are required and shall be provided as per Subsection 21A.48.060.D.
11
5. Uses Not Associated with Building Form: Allowed uses that do not involve
construction of a building, such as parks and open space, are not required to comply
with any specific building form regulation.
SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.080. That
Section 21A.33.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted
and Conditional Uses In Form Based Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to read and
appear as follows:
21A.33.080: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN FORM
BASED DISTRICTS:
Note: Uses which are not listed in the following table are not permitted in any form based
code zoning district.
Legend: P = Permitted C = Conditional
Use Permitted Uses By District
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE
Accessory use, except those that are specifically regulated in
this chapter, or elsewhere in this title
P P P P P
Adaptive reuse of a landmark building P
Alcohol:
Bar establishment P8 P8 P8 C8
Brewpub P8 P8 P8 C8
Distillery P5
Tavern P8
Tavern, 2,500 square feet or less in floor area P8 P8 P8 C8
Winery P5
Amphitheater, formal P
Amphitheater, informal P
Amusement park P
Animal
Cremation service P
SW Sidewalk Width Sidewalks shall have a minimum width of 8’. This standard does not require removal of
existing street trees, existing buildings, or portions thereof. For purposes of this section,
sidewalk width is measured from the back of the park strip or required street tree if no
park strip is provided, toward the adjacent property line.
SL Street Lights Street lights are required and shall be installed in compliance with the city’s Street
Lighting Master Plan and Policy or its successor.
12
Kennel (Indoor) P
Kennel (Outdoor) C
Veterinary office P P P P
Antenna, communication tower P P P P
Art gallery P P P P
Artisan food production P3,5 P3,5 P3,5 P3,5
Artists loft/studio P
Auction (indoor) P
Auditorium P
Bed and breakfast P P P P P
Bed and breakfast inn P P P P P
Bed and breakfast manor P P P P P
Bio-medical facility P4,5 P4,5 P4,5
Blacksmith shop (indoor) P
Blood donation center P
Botanical garden P
Brewery P5
Brewery, small P5
Bus line station/terminal C
Car wash C
Charity dining hall P
Clinic (medical, dental) P P P P
Commercial food preparation P5 P5 P5 P5
Community garden P P P P P
Community recreation center P P P P
Convent/monastery P
Convention center P
Crematorium P
Daycare
center, adult P P P P
center, child P P P P
nonregistered home daycare P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
registered home daycare or preschool P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
Dwelling:
Accessory guest and servants’ quarters P
Assisted living facility (large) P
Assisted living facility (limited capacity) P P P P P
Assisted living facility (small) P P P P
Congregate Care Facility (Large) C C C C
Congregate Care Facility (Small) C P
Group home (large) P P P P
Group home (small) P P P P
Living quarters for caretaker or security guard P
Multi-family P P P P
Residential support (large) P P
13
Residential support (small) P P
Rooming (boarding) house P P
Single-family attached P P P P
Single-family detached P
Single-family detached (cottage development
building form only)
P P
Single room occupancy P P
Two-family P
Emergency medical services facility P
Equipment rental (indoor) P
Exhibition hall P
Farmers’ market P P P P
Financial institution P P P
Flea market (indoor) P
Funeral home P P P P
Gas station C
Government facility P P P P P
Greenhouse P
Health and fitness facility P P P P
Home occupation P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
Hospital P
Hotel/motel P P P
House museum in landmark site P P P P P
Industrial assembly (indoor) P
Intermodal transit passenger hub P
Laboratory, medical related P5 P5 P5 P5
Library P P P P
Manufacturing, light (indoor) P
Meeting hall of membership organization P
Mixed use developments including residential and other uses
allowed in the zoning district
P P P P
Mobile food business P
Mobile food court P
Mobile food trailer P
Mobile food truck P
Municipal service uses, including city utility uses and police
and fire stations
P P P P P
Museum P P P P
Nursing care facility P P P P
Office P P P P
Office and/or reception center in landmark site P P P P
Open space P P P P P
Park P P P P P
Parking, commercial C7
Parking facility, shared P7
14
Parking garage P
Parking, off site P P P7 P P
Parking, park and ride lot shared with existing use P7
Performing arts production facility P
Photo finishing lab P5 P5 P5
Place of worship P P P P
Plazas P P P P P
Radio, television station P
Railroad passenger station P
Reception center P
Recreation (indoor) P P P P
Recreation (outdoor) P
Research and development facility P5 P5 P5 P5
Restaurant P P P P
Retail goods establishment P P P P
Retail goods establishment, plant and garden shop with
outdoor retail sales area
P P P P
Retail service establishment P P P P
Sales and display (outdoor) P P P P
School:
College or university P P P P
Music conservatory P P P P
Professional and vocational P P P P
Seminary and religious institute P P P P
Public or private P
Seasonal farm stand P P P P
Sign painting/fabrication (indoor) P
Social service mission P
Solar array P5 P5 P5 P5
Storage, self P6
Store, specialty P P P P
Studio, art P P P P
Studio, motion picture P
Technology facility P5 P5 P5 P5
Theater, live performance P
Theater, movie P P P P
Urban farm P P P P P
Utility, building or structure P P P P P
Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe, or pole P P P P P
Vehicle
Automobile rental agency P
Automobile repair major C
Automobile repair minor P
Vending cart, private property P P P P
Warehouse P6
15
Welding shop (indoor) P
Wholesale distribution C6
Wireless telecommunications facility P P P P
Woodworking mill (indoor) P
Qualifying provisions:
1. Subject to Section 21A.36.130 of this title.
2. Subject to Section 21A.36.030 of this title.
3. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales.
4. 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.
5. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1.
6. Only allowed on a ground floor when the use is located behind another permitted or
conditional use that occupies the required ground floor use space.
7. Subject to parking location restrictions of Subsection 21A.27.050.D.3.
8. Subject to conformance with the provisions of section 21A.36.300, "Alcohol Related
Establishments", of this title.
SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.36.020.C. That
Subsection 21A.36.020.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Conformance
With Lot and Bulk Controls: Height Exceptions) shall be, and hereby is amended to read and
appear as follows:
C. Height Exceptions: Exceptions to the maximum building height in all zoning districts are
allowed as indicated in Table 21A.36.020.C of this subsection.
TABLE 21A.36.020.C
HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS
Type
Extent Above Maximum Building
Height Allowed
By the District Applicable Districts
Chimney As required by local, State or Federal
regulations
All zoning districts
Church steeples or spires No limit All zoning districts
Elevator/stairway tower or
bulkhead
16 feet All Commercial,
Manufacturing, Downtown,
FB-UN2, FB-UN3, RO, R-
MU, RMF-45, RMF-75, RP,
BP, I, UI, A, PL and PL-2
Districts
16
Note:
1. Lighting shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into adjacent properties
and have cutoffs to protect the view of the night sky.
SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.46.096. That
Section 21A.46.096 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Sign Regulations for Form Based
Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to read and appear as follows:
21A.46.096: SIGN REGULATIONS FOR THE FORM BASED DISTRICT:
The following regulations shall apply to signs permitted in the form based code zoning
district. Any sign not expressly permitted by these district regulations is prohibited.
A. Sign Regulations for the Form Based Code District:
1. Purpose: Sign regulations for the form based code zoning district are intended to
provide appropriate signage oriented primarily to pedestrian and mass transit traffic.
2. Applicability: This subsection applies to all signs located within the form based code
zoning district. This subsection is intended to list all permitted signs in the zone. All
other regulations in this chapter shall apply.
B. Sign Type, Size and Height Standards:
1. A-Frame Sign:
Type
Extent Above Maximum Building
Height Allowed
By the District Applicable Districts
Flagpole Maximum height of the zoning district
in which the flagpole is located or 60
feet, whichever is less. Conditional use
approval is required for additional
height
All zoning districts
Light poles for sport fields
such as ballparks, stadiums,
soccer fields, golf driving
ranges, and similar uses1
Maximum height of the zoning district
or 90 feet whichever is greater. Special
exception approval is required for any
further additional height or if the lights
are located closer than 30 feet from
adjacent residential structures
All zoning districts that allow
sport field activities and
stadiums excluding parks less
than 4 acres in size
Mechanical equipment
parapet wall
5 feet All zoning districts, other than
the FP, FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, and
Open Space Districts
17
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE
Specifications
A-
frame
sign
P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces
on corners may have 2.
Width Maximum of 2 feet. Any portion of
the frame (the support structure) may
extend up to 6 inches in any direction
beyond the sign face.
Height Maximum of 3 feet. Any portion of
the frame (the support structure) may
extend up to 6 inches in any direction
beyond the sign face.
Placement On public sidewalk or private
property.
Obstruction
free area
Minimum of 8 feet must be
maintained at all times for pedestrian
passage.
2. Awning or Canopy Sign:
18
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
Awning
or
canopy
sign
P P P P P Quantity 1 per window or entrance.
Width Equal to the width of the window.
Projection
No maximum depth from building
facade, however design subject to
mitigation of rainfall and snowfall
runoff, conflict avoidance with tree
canopy, and issuance of encroachment
permits where required. The awning
or canopy can project a maximum of 2
feet into a special purpose corridor.
Clearance
Minimum of 10 feet of vertical
clearance.
Letters
and
logos
Allowed on vertical portions of sign
only.
Location
permitted
Private property or a public street.
Signs can face a special purpose
corridor but must be located on
19
private property. All signs are subject
to the requirements of the revocable
permitting process.
5. Construction Sign:
Sign Type FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE
Specifications
Construction
sign (see
definition in
this
chapter)
P P P P P Quantity
1 per construction site.
Height Maximum of 8 feet. Maximum of
12 feet in FB-UN3.
Area Maximum of 64 square feet.
Location
permitted
Private property or a public street.
Signs can face the special purpose
corridor, but must be located on
private property.
6. Flat Sign:
20
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE
Specifications
Flat
sign
P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on
corners may have 2.
Width Maximum of 90% of width of leasable
space. No maximum width in FB-UN3.
Height Maximum of 3 feet. No maximum height
in FB-UN3.
Area 11/2 square feet per linear foot of store
frontage.
Projection Maximum of 1 foot.
7. Flat Sign (building orientation):
Sign Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
Flat sign
(building
orientation)
P
Quantity 1 per building face.
Height May not extend above the roof line
or top of parapet wall.
Area 11/2 square feet per linear foot of
building frontage.
6. Marquee Sign:
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
Marquee
sign
P
Quantity 1 per building.
Width Maximum of 90% of width of
leasable space.
Height May not extend above the roof of
the building.
Area 11/2 square feet per linear foot of
building frontage.
Projection Maximum of 6 feet. May project
into right of way a maximum of 4
21
feet provided the sign is a
minimum of 12 feet above the
sidewalk grade.
7. Monument Sign:
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
Monument
sign
P
Quantity 1 per building.
Setback 5 feet.
Height Maximum of 20 feet.
Area 1 square feet per linear foot of
building frontage.
8. Nameplate Sign:
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
22
9. New Development Sign:
Sign Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
New
Development
sign
P
Quantity 1 per street frontage.
Setback 5 feet.
Height 12 feet.
Area 200 square feet.
10. Private Directional Sign:
Sign Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
Private
directional
sign (see
definition
in this
chapter)
P P P P P Quantity No limit.
Height Maximum of 5 feet.
Area Maximum of 8 square feet.
Restriction
May not contain business name or
logo.
Location
permitted
Private property or public street.
Signs can face the special purpose
corridor but must be located on
private property. All signs are
subject to the requirements of the
revocable permitting process.
11. Projecting Sign:
Nameplate
sign
P P P P P Quantity
1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces
on corners may have 2.
Area Maximum of 3 square feet.
23
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE
Specifications
Projecting
sign
P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces
on corners may have 2.
Clearance Minimum of 10 feet above
sidewalk/walkway.
Area 6 square feet per side, 12 square feet
total.
Projection Maximum of 4 feet from building
façade.
Location
permitted
Private property or public street. Signs
can face the special purpose corridor
but must be located on private
property. All signs are subject to the
requirements of the revocable
permitting process.
12. Projecting Parking Entry Sign:
24
Sign Type FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE
Specifications
Projecting
parking entry
sign (see
projecting
sign
graphic)
P P P Quantity 1 per parking entry.
Clearance Minimum of 10 feet above
sidewalk/walkway.
Height Maximum of 2 feet.
Area 4 square feet per side, 8 square
feet total.
Projection Maximum of 4 feet from
building facade for public and
private streets. Maximum of 2
feet within the special purpose
corridor.
Location
permitted
Private property or public street.
Signs can face the special
purpose corridor but must be
located on private property. All
signs are subject to the
requirements of the revocable
permitting process.
13. Public Safety Sign:
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
Public
safety
sign (see
definition
in this
chapter)
P P P P P Quantity No limit.
Height Maximum of 6 feet.
Area 8 square feet.
Projection Maximum of 1 foot.
Location
permitted
Private property or public street. Signs
can face the special purpose corridor
but must be located on private
property. All signs are subject to the
requirements of the revocable
permitting process.
14. Real Estate Sign:
25
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
Real
estate
sign
P P P
P Quantity
1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on
corners may have 2.
Height Maximum of 12 feet.
Area 32 square feet. 64 square feet in FB-UN3.
Location
permitted
Private property or public street. Signs can
face the special purpose corridor but must
be located on private property. All signs
are subject to the requirements of the
revocable permitting process.
15. Window Sign:
26
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
Window
sign
P P P P Quantity 1 per window.
Height Maximum of 3 feet.
Area Maximum of 25% of window area.
SECTION 6. Amending the text of Table 21A.37.060.G of Salt Lake City Code. That
Table 21A.37.060.G of the Salt Lake City Code (Form Based Districts), shall be, and hereby is
amended to read and appear as follows:
Standard (Code Section)
District
FB-UN1 FB-UN2 FB-UN3 FB-SC FB-SE
Ground floor use (%)
(21A.37.050.A.1)
75 753 75 75
Ground floor use + visual
interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2)
Building materials: ground
floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.3)
70 70 70 70 70
27
Building materials: upper
floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.4)
70 70 70 70 70
Glass: ground floor (%)
(21A.37.050.C.1)
601 601 601 601 601
Glass: upper floors (%)
(21A.37.050.C.2)
15 15 15 15 15
Reflective Glass: ground floor
(%) (21A.37.050.C.1)
Reflective Glass: upper floors
(%) (21A.37.050.C.2)
Building entrances (feet)
(21A.37.050.D)
75 75 75 75 75
Blank wall: maximum length
(feet) (21A.37.050.E)
15 15 30 30 30
Street facing facade:
maximum length (feet)
(21A.37.050.F)
200 200 200 200 200
Upper floor step back (feet)
(21A.37.050.G.4)
X X X X
Lighting: exterior
(21A.37.050.H)
X X X X X
Lighting: parking lot
(21A.37.050.I)
X X X
Screening of mechanical
equipment (21A.37.050.J)
X X X
Screening of service areas
(21A.37.050.K.1)
X X X2
Ground floor residential
entrances for dwellings with
individual unit entries
(21A.37.050.L)
X X X
Parking garages or structures
(21A.37.050.M)
X X X X X
Tree canopy coverage (%)
(21A.37.050.P.1)
40 40 40
28
Minimum vegetation standards
(21A.37.050.P.2)
X X X
Street trees (21A.37.050.P.3) X X X X X
Soil volume (21A.37.050.P.4) X X X
Minimize curb cuts
(21A.37.050.P.5)
X X X
Overhead cover
(21A.37.050.P.6)
Streetscape landscaping
(21A.37.050.P.7)
X X X
Height transitions: angular
plane for adjacent zone
districts (21A.37.050.Q)
X X X
Horizontal articulation
(21A.37.050.R)
X X X
Notes:
1. This may be reduced to twenty percent (20%) if the ground floor is within one of the
following building types: urban house, two-family, cottage, and row house.
2. Except where specifically authorized by the zone.
3. For buildings with street facing building facades over 100' in length:
a. A minimum length of 30% of the ground floor street facing façade shall
consist of non-residential active uses allowed by 21A.37.050.A.1.
b. An additional minimum length of 45% of the ground floor street facing façade
shall consist of any active uses allowed by 21A.37.050.A.1.
c. This footnote does not apply to the rowhouse building form.
SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________,
2023.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
29
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2023.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance adopting FB UN3 zoning (final)
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:___________________________
By: ____________________________
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney
July 7, 2023
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 1, 2023
Darin Mano, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: PLNPCM2019-00277 FB-UN3 Ordinance and Informational Update
STAFF CONTACT: Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com. 801-535-
7165
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the updated ordinances that would (1) adopt the FB-UN3 zone
and (2) map the zone on the Fleet Block.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
At the November 22nd City Council meeting the Council requested a revision to the proposed FB-
UN-3, Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3, ordinance regarding ground floor use requirements
and requested more information regarding the Planning Commission’s recommendation to
consider a lot size limit. The Council also discussed splitting the ordinance into two parts – a
zoning text amendment to adopt the code and zoning map amendment to map the zone over the
Fleet Block. Since that meeting, Staff has also made some updates to the proposed ordinance to
align the FB-UN3 text with recent City Code changes. The below sections provide more
information on those items.
Ground Floor Use Modification
The Council discussed strengthening the ground floor use requirement to ensure a use with a high-
level of activity would be on the ground floor of larger buildings. Buildings are already required
06/02/2023
06/02/2023
Lisa Shaffer (Jun 2, 2023 09:34 MDT)
to have a ground floor use that isn’t just parking along sidewalks, but that space can be occupied
by residential units. Residential units are not necessarily high activity uses. In response to this,
Staff is proposing the following language:
For buildings with street facing facades over 100' in length, a minimum of 30% of the
façade length shall be an “active use” as defined in 21A.37.050.A.1. Except for the
rowhouse building form, residential units shall not count as an “active use” toward the
30% minimum.
Active Use Definition: Active uses include retail establishments, retail services, civic
spaces (theaters, museums, etc.), restaurants, bars, art and craft studios, and other uses
determined to be substantially similar by the planning director and/or planning
commission.
The language would require that for buildings with a façade length longer than 100', at least 30%
of that length would need to include an “active use” with a high potential for visible activity, such
as retail or restaurant space, as defined above. Residential units would not count toward this
requirement. At the smallest size building this regulation would apply to (at least 101' in length),
the 30% requirement will create a space at least 30' in width, which is large enough to support a
small business. All required ground floor spaces are required by ordinance to have a minimum 25'
depth.
This is a diagram representing the area proportions of the proposed ground floor use regulation. The red
area is the percentage required to be a high activity “active use” such as retail or a restaurant; the
yellow is the remainder of the façade that at a minimum must be occupied by a lower activity “active
use,” such as residential or retail; and the remainder of the façade can be occupied by areas such as
lobbies, mailrooms, parking, or other less active uses.
The 100' length threshold captures larger buildings where there is likely more financial feasibility
to accommodate a high activity ground floor use. Rowhomes are proposed to be excluded from
the requirement as they are generally smaller in size, and it may not be as feasible to accommodate
such uses as part of those developments.
The above code relies on additional code not yet adopted, but that is currently proposed in the
“Downtown Building Heights” ordinance, and so the proposed code changes have been included
in that ordinance to avoid an ordinance conflict. That ordinance is currently before the Council.
Lot Size Limits to Control Building Length Size
The Planning Commission provided a recommendation that the City Council consider a lot size
limit for property in the FB-UN3 zone. The Commission was concerned that there may be very
large developments on the Fleet Block and recommended that there should be lot size limits to
encourage smaller buildings and more building variety. One particular concern at the Commission
meeting was that the Fleet Block could be developed for one very large building. A related
recurring concern for the Commission is long façade lengths.
Development scale is regulated in the FB-UN3 code with height limits (125' max.) and façade
length limits (200' max.). These two types of regulations are generally how development scale is
controlled in most of the City’s commercial and mixed-use zones. A key purpose of the façade
length limit is to avoid long, monotonous building facades and help visually break up long block
faces.
Diagrams of a lot size limit example next to the proposed 200' façade length limit.
Lot size limits are an additional way to regulate development scale. Maximum lot size limits are
used in the City’s lower scale single- and two-family residential zones and in one lower scale
commercial zone intended to be mapped within residential neighborhoods. An example of such a
limit is the R-1/5,000, Single-family Residential, zone that has a maximum lot size of 7,500 square
feet. The maximums are intended to help ensure new development is compatible and in scale with
existing single-family residential homes. In these zones a maximum façade length limit is not used.
This is in contrast to the City’s commercial and mixed-use zones that generally use a façade length
limit to limit development size, rather than a lot size limit.
Planning Staff doesn’t believe that a lot size limit is necessary due to the following reasons:
• Development size is already regulated by the façade length limit, which accomplishes the
same intent of limiting visible scale of development at the pedestrian level.
• A lot size limit, whether controlling maximum lot area or width, would add unnecessary
complexity to the zoning ordinance by having overlapping standards controlling
development size.
• Lot size limits would generally not limit development size for existing large properties.
Those properties could be developed as-is at their current size as “legal noncomplying”
properties. The lot size limit would only kick in if an owner wanted to divide their larger
property or join their property with others.
• A façade length limit would limit all future development sizes on these large properties –
unlike a maximum lot size limit.
Staff recommends not imposing a maximum lot size limit, as the maximum façade length limit
accomplishes the same intent and would better control development size in more situations than a
lot size limit. Further, the Administration is proposing to break up the Fleet Block into multiple
lots with an internal street and pedestrian walkway network, so a lot size limit is not necessary to
ensure that breakup.
Ordinance Split – Zoning Text and Zoning Map Amendments
The Council expressed interest in the proposed ordinance being split into two different parts – a
text amendment to adopt the FB-UN3 zone into the City’s ordinance and a map amendment to
map the zone over the Fleet Block. The City Attorney’s Office has split up the ordinance into those
two parts that can be adopted by the City Council separately. The text amendment would need to
be adopted first. The map amendment could then be adopted at a later date.
Ordinance Updates Due to Recent Code Changes and Potential Conflicts
There have been a few ordinance changes to the City’s land use tables since this ordinance was
first transmitted to the Council in April 2020, including the “Technology Related Land Uses,”
“Significant Water Consuming Land Uses,” “Congregate Care,” and “Single-Room Occupancy”
text amendments. As a result, Staff has updated the land use table in the FB-UN3 ordinance to
align with those code changes. For example, where tech related uses were added to the FB-UN2
zone, which is similar to the intensity of the FB-UN3 zone, the same uses have been added to the
FB-UN3 zone. Footnotes have also been added to uses to align with those text amendments.
Staff has also removed some duplicate uses from the FB-UN3 land use list to avoid conflict and
interpretation issues, such as “Office, Publishing Company” and “Store, Convenience,” as the uses
are already allowed under general uses like “Office” and “Retail Goods Establishment.”
There are other pending ordinance changes to City Code that are before the City Council, including
the “Downtown Building Heights” ordinance. The “Downtown Building Heights” ordinance
makes several changes to all the form-based zones and includes adjustments to the FB-UN3 zone
to align with those changes. Because of that, the FB-UN3 ordinance has been updated with
language to avoid a “text collision,” where conflicting code is adopted with two different
ordinances. With this additional language in place, the ordinances can be adopted in any order
without causing text collision issues.
PUBLIC PROCESS: The attached information and ordinance are a response to the Council’s
questions and discussion at the Council briefing held on November 22, 2022. Public process and
background information has been previously sent to the Council in prior transmittals.
EXHIBITS:
1)FB-UN3 Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance, Final and Legislative Versions (Adopts the
FB-UN3 Into the City Zoning Code)
2)FB-UN3 Zoning Map Amendment, Final Version (Maps the FB-UN3 Zone Over the Fleet
Block)
EXHIBIT 1: FB-UN3 Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance,
Final and Legislative Versions
Exhibit 2: FB-UN3 Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance,
Final Version
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2023
(An ordinance amending the text of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code
to create the FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict)
An ordinance amending the text of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to create the FB-
UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-
00277.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on December
11, 2019 to consider a petition by former Salt Lake City Mayor Jacqueline Biskupski to amend
various provisions of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to create the FB-UN3 Form Based
Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict, to establish regulations for that subdistrict, and to apply the
FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict to the “fleet block” property located
between 800 South and 900 South Streets and 300 West and 400 West Streets pursuant to
Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277; and
WHEREAS, at its December 11, 2019 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor
of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said petition; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that
adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.27.030.C.
(Void if Building Heights in the Downtown Plan Area Ordinance Adopted). That, if amendments
to Subsection 21A.27.030.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Form Based Districts: Building
Configuration and Design Standards) pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00529 are not
2
adopted by the date of the City Council adopting this ordinance then that subsection shall be, and
hereby is amended as follows (if adopted then this Section 1 is void):
a. That the first paragraph of Subsection 21A.27.030.C is amended to read as follows:
21A.27.030.C. Application of Building Configuration Standards: Building
configuration standards apply to all new buildings and additions when the new
construction related to the addition is greater than twenty five percent (25%) of the
footprint of the structure or one thousand (1,000) square feet, whichever is less. The
graphics included provide a visual representation of the standards as a guide and are
not meant to supersede the standards in the tables. This standard applies to all form-
based zoning subdistricts unless otherwise indicated. The standards in this section
may be modified through the design review process, subject to the requirements of
Chapter 21A.59 of this title. The requirements set forth in Subsections C.8 “Open
Space Area” and C.12 “Permitted Encroachments And Height Exceptions” of this
Subsection 21A.27.030.C may not be modified through design review.
b. That Subsection 21A.27.030.C.7 is amended to read as follows:
7. Building Materials: A minimum of seventy percent (70%) of any street facing
building facade shall be clad in high quality, durable, natural materials, such as
stone, brick, wood lap siding, patterned or textured concrete, fiber cement board
siding, shingled or panel sided, and glass. Material not specifically listed may be
approved at the discretion of the planning director if it is found that the proposed
material is of similar durability and quality to the listed materials. If approved,
such material can count toward the seventy percent (70%) requirement. Other
materials may count up to thirty percent (30%) of the street facing building
facade. Exterior insulation and finishing systems (EIFS) is permitted for trim
only.
c. That Subsection 21A.27.030.C.8 is amended to read as follows:
8. Open Space Area: A minimum of ten percent (10%) of the lot area shall be
provided for open space area, unless a different requirement is specified in the
applicable form based zoning subdistrict for the applicable building form. Open
space area may include landscaped yards, patio, dining areas, common balconies,
rooftop gardens, and other similar outdoor living spaces. Private balconies shall
not be counted toward the minimum open space area requirement. Required
parking lot landscaping or perimeter parking lot landscaping shall also not count
toward the minimum open space area requirement.
3
SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.27.050. That
Section 21A.27.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Form Based Subdistricts: FB-UN1 and
FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood District) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows:
a. That the title of Section 21A.27.050 is amended to read as follows:
21A.27.050: FB-UN1, FB-UN2, AND FB-UN3 FORM BASED URBAN
NEIGHBORHOOD SUBDISTRICTS:
b. That Subsection 21A.27.050.A.1 is amended to read as follows:
A. Subdistricts:
1. Named: The following subdistricts can be found in the urban neighborhood form
based district:
a. FB-UN1 Urban Neighborhood 1 Subdistrict: Generally includes small scale
structures, up to two and one-half (2.5) stories in height, on relatively small
lots with up to four (4) dwelling units per lot depending on building type.
Reuse of existing residential structures is encouraged. Development
regulations are based on the building type.
b. FB-UN2 Urban Neighborhood 2 Subdistrict: Generally includes buildings up
to four (4) stories in height, with taller buildings located on street corner
parcels, which may contain a single use or a mix of commercial, office, and
residential uses. Development regulations are based on building type, with the
overall scale, form, and orientation of buildings as the primary focus.
c. FB-UN3 Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict: Generally includes buildings up
to eight (8) stories in height, with taller buildings allowed through the design
review process. Development regulations are based on types of buildings and
differ between building types as indicated. The subdistrict contains a mix of
uses that include commercial, technical, light industrial, high density
residential, and other supportive land uses.
c. [Note to codifier: use this Section 21A.27.050.D. if Building Heights in the Downtown
Plan Area Ordinance is not yet adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to
Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00529] That Section 21A.27.050 is amended to adopt a new
Subsection 21A.27.050.D:
21A.27.050.D. FB-UN3 Building Form Standards:
Building form standards for each allowed building form and other associated regulations
for the FB-UN3 subdistrict are listed in the below tables of this section.
4
1. Row House Building Form Standards:
TABLE 21A.27.050.D.1
Building
Regulation
Regulation for Building Form:
Row House
H Height Maximum of 40’. All heights measured from established grade.
Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at
the maximum allowed height.
F Front and
Corner Side
Yard Setback
Minimum 5’. Maximum 10’, unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility
easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. May
be modified through the design review process (Chapter 21A.59).
S Interior Side
Yard
Minimum of 5’ between row house building form and side property line, except when an
interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a maximum permitted building
height of 30’ or less, then the minimum shall be 10’. For the purpose of this regulation,
an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a
different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. No setback required for
common walls.
R Rear Yard Minimum of 5’ between row house building form and rear property line, except when
rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of
30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a
minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning
district shall not be considered adjacent.
U Uses Per Story Residential on all stories; live/work units permitted on ground level.
GU Ground Floor
Use on 900
South
The required ground floor use space facing 900 South must be occupied by a live/work
space at least 25’ in depth. Dimensions may be modified through the design review
process (Chapter 21A.59).
E Entry Feature Each dwelling unit must include an allowed entry feature. See Table 21A.27.030B for
allowed entry features. Dwelling units adjacent to a street must include an entry feature
on street facing façade. Pedestrian connections with minimum 5’ width are required for
each required entry feature.
U Upper Level
Step Back
When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or
less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall step back 10’ from the building
façade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the
applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning
district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley.
OS Open Space
Area
Each dwelling unit shall include a minimum open space area that is equal to at least 25%
of the footprint of the individual unit, subject to all other open space area requirements
of Subsection 21A.27.030.C.8 “Open Space Area.” A minimum of 20% of the required
open space area shall include vegetation.
BF Building
Forms Per Lot
Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have
frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards.
SO Side/Interior
Orientation
Dwelling units not located directly adjacent to a street are permitted, provided the
building configuration standards for glass and ground floor transparency are complied
with on the façade with the required entry feature.
Lots for individual row house dwelling units without public street frontage are allowed
subject to recording a final subdivision plat that:
5
2. Multi-Family Residential, Storefront, and Vertical Mixed-Use Building Form
Standards:
TABLE 21A.27.050.D.2
1. Documents that new lots have adequate access to a public street by way of easements
or a shared driveway; and
2. Includes a disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any shared infrastructure
associated with the new lot(s) per Section 21A.55.110 of this title.
MW Mid-block
Walkway
If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted city plan on the subject property, a
midblock walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of
10’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path.
DS Design
Standards
See Section 21A.27.030 for other applicable building configuration and design
standards.
Building
Regulation
Regulation for Building Forms:
Multi-family Residential/Storefront/Vertical Mixed Use
H Height Maximum height of 125’. All heights measured from established grade.
Buildings in excess of 85’ require design review in accordance with Chapter 21A.59.
Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at
the maximum allowed height.
GH Ground Floor
Height
Minimum ground floor height 14’.
F Front and
Corner Side
Yard Setback
No minimum is required; however, doors are prohibited from opening into the public
right of way. Maximum 10’ unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility
easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement.
May be modified through the design review process (Chapter 21A.59).
B Required
Build-To
Minimum of 50% of street facing facade shall be built within 5’ of the front or corner
side property line. May be modified through the design review process (Chapter
21A.59).
S Interior Side
Yard
No minimum required, except when an interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district
that has a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum shall be
10’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that
separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered
adjacent.
R Rear Yard No minimum required, except when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a
maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the
purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a
subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent.
GU Ground Floor
Use on 900
South
The required ground floor use space facing 900 South shall be limited to the following
uses: retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of
businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or
performing art facilities.
E Ground Floor
Dwelling
Entrances
Ground floor dwelling units adjacent to a street must have an allowed entry feature. See
Table 21A.27.030B for allowed entry features. Pedestrian connections, as per Subsection
21A.27.030.C.5, are required for each required entry feature.
6
3. Parking Regulations: Specific parking standards applicable to the FB-UN3 subdistrict
are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D.3 of this section. These are in addition to any
other applicable parking standards in Title 21A.
TABLE 21A.27.050.D.3
U Upper Level
Step Back
When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or
less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall step back 10’ from the building
facade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the
applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning
district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley.
MW Mid-block
Walkway
If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted city plan on the subject property, a
midblock walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 10’
wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path.
BF Building
Forms Per
Lot
Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have
frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards.
OS Open Space
Vegetation
A minimum of 20% of the required open space area shall include vegetation.
LB Loading Bay Maximum of one (1) loading bay on a front façade per street face, subject to all
dimensional requirements in Section 21A.44.070. Loading bay entry width limited to 14’
and must be screened by garage door. One loading bay driveway is allowed in addition
to any other driveway allowances.
DS Design
Standards
See Section 21A.27.030 for other applicable building configuration and design
standards.
Parking
Regulation
Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone
SP Surface Parking
Location
Surface parking shall be located behind or to the side of a principal building provided:
1. The parking is set back a minimum of 25’ from the front or corner side property line;
and
2. The setback area shall be considered a landscaped yard and comply with the landscape
yard planting requirements in Chapter 21A.46 and include:
a. Trees with a minimum mature spread of 20’ planted at one tree for every 20’ of
street frontage; and
b. A 3’ tall solid wall or fence at the property line along the street. A hedge or
other similar landscaped screen may be used in place of a wall or fence provided
the plants are spaced no further than 18 inches on center across the entire frontage.
GE Garage
Entrances
Street facing parking garage entrance doors shall have a minimum 20’ setback from the front
property line and shall not exceed 50% of the first floor building width. One-way garage entry
may not exceed 14’ in width; multiway garage entry may not exceed 26’ in width.
VA Vehicle Access One (1) driveway is allowed per street frontage. Driveways required to meet fire code are exempt
from this limitation.
LS Loading and
Service Areas
Allowed behind or to the side of a principal building only, except where specifically allowed by
the applicable form based zoning subdistrict for the applicable building form. All service areas
shall be screened or located within the building.
EB Existing
Buildings
The reuse of existing buildings is exempt from the requirements of this table unless new
parking area(s) are being added. New parking areas are subject to compliance with this section.
7
4. Streetscape Regulations: Specific streetscape regulations applicable to the FB-UN3
subdistrict are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D.4 of this section. These regulations
are in addition to any other applicable streetscape standards in Title 21A.
TABLE 21A.27.050.D.4
5. Uses Not Associated with Building Form: Allowed uses that do not involve
construction of a building, such as parks and open space, are not required to comply
with any specific building form regulation.
c. [Note to codifier: use this Section 21A.27.050.D. if Building Heights in the Downtown
Plan Area Ordinance is adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to Petition No.
PLNPCM2022-00529] That Section 21A.27.050 is amended to adopt a new Subsection
21A.27.050.D:
21A.27.050.D. FB-UN3 Building Form Standards:
Building form standards for each allowed building form and other associated regulations
for the FB-UN3 subdistrict are listed in the below tables of this section.
1. Row House Building Form Standards:
TABLE 21A.27.050.D.1
Streetscape
Regulation
Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone
ST Street Trees Street trees are required and shall be provided as per Subsection 21A.48.060.D.
SW Sidewalk Width Sidewalks shall have a minimum width of 8’. This standard does not require removal of
existing street trees, existing buildings, or portions thereof. For purposes of this section,
sidewalk width is measured from the back of the park strip or required street tree if no
park strip is provided, toward the adjacent property line.
SL Street Lights Street lights are required and shall be installed in compliance with the city’s Street
Lighting Master Plan and Policy or its successor.
Building Regulation Regulation for Building Form:
Row House
H Height Maximum of 40’. All heights measured from established grade.
Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at
the maximum allowed height.
F Front and
Corner Side
Yard Setback
Minimum 5’. Maximum 10’, unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility
easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. May
be modified through Design Review (Chapter 21A.59).
S Interior Side
Yard
Minimum of 5’ between row house building form and side property line, except when an
interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a maximum permitted building
height of 30’ or less, then the minimum shall be 10’. For the purpose of this regulation,
8
2. Multi-Family Residential, Storefront, and Vertical Mixed-Use Building Form
Standards:
TABLE 21A.27.050.D.2
an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a
different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. No setback required for
common walls.
R Rear Yard Minimum of 5’ between row house building form and rear property line, except when
rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of
30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a
minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning
district shall not be considered adjacent.
U Uses Per Story Residential on all stories; live/work units permitted on ground level.
GU Ground Floor
Use on 900
South
The required ground floor use space facing 900 South must be occupied by a live/work
space at least 25’ in depth. Dimensions may be modified through Design Review
(Chapter 21A.59).
E Entry Feature Each dwelling unit must include an allowed entry feature. See Table 21A.27.030B for
allowed entry features. Dwelling units adjacent to a street must include an entry feature
on street facing façade. Pedestrian connections, as per Subsection 21A.27.030.C.5, with
minimum 5’ width are required for each required entry feature.
U Upper Level
Stepback
When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or
less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall step back 10’ from the building
façade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the
applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning
district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley.
OS Open Space
Area
Each dwelling unit shall include a minimum open space area that is equal to at least 25%
of the footprint of the individual unit, subject to all other open space area requirements
of Subsection 21A.27.030.C.1 “Open Space Area.” A minimum of 20% of the required
open space area shall include vegetation.
BF Building
Forms Per Lot
Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have
frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards.
SO Side/Interior
Orientation
Dwelling units not located directly adjacent to a street are permitted, provided the design
standards for glass are complied with on the façade with the required entry feature.
Lots for individual row house dwelling units without public street frontage are allowed
subject to recording a final subdivision plat that:
1. Documents that new lots have adequate access to a public street by way of easements
or a shared driveway; and
2. Includes a disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any shared infrastructure
associated with the new lot(s) per Section 21A.55.110 of this title.
MW Midblock
Walkway
If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted city plan on the subject property, a
midblock walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of
10’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path.
DS Design
Standards
See Section 21A.27.030 and Chapter 21A.37 for other applicable building configuration
and design standards.
9
Building
Regulation
Regulation for Building Forms:
Multi-family Residential/Storefront/Vertical Mixed Use
H Height Maximum height of 125’. All heights measured from established grade.
Buildings in excess of 85’ require design review in accordance with Chapter 21A.59.
Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at
the maximum allowed height.
GH Ground Floor
Height
Minimum ground floor height 14’.
F Front and
Corner Side
Yard Setback
No minimum is required; however, doors are prohibited from opening into the public
right of way. Maximum 10’ unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility
easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement.
May be modified through Design Review process (Chapter 21A.59).
B Required
Build-To
Minimum of 50% of street facing facade shall be built within 5’ of the front or corner
side property line. May be modified through Design Review process (Chapter 21A.59).
S Interior Side
Yard
No minimum required, except when an interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district
that has a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum shall be
10’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that
separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered
adjacent.
R Rear Yard No minimum required, except when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a
maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the
purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a
subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent.
GU Ground Floor
Use on 900
South
The required ground floor use space facing 900 South shall be limited to the following
uses: retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of
businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or
performing art facilities.
E Ground Floor
Dwelling
Entrances
Ground floor dwelling units adjacent to a street must have an allowed entry feature. See
Table 21A.27.030B for allowed entry features. Pedestrian connections, as per Subsection
21A.27.030.C.5, are required to each required entry feature.
U Upper Level
Stepback
When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or
less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall step back 10’ from the building
facade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the
applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning
district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley.
MW Midblock
Walkway
If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted city plan on the subject property, a
midblock walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 10’
wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path.
BF Building
Forms Per
Lot
Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have
frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards.
OS Open Space
Vegetation
A minimum of 20% of the required open space area shall include vegetation.
10
3. Parking Regulations: Specific parking standards applicable to the FB-UN3 subdistrict
are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D.3 of this section. These are in addition to any
other applicable parking standards in Title 21A.
TABLE 21A.27.050.D.3
4. Streetscape Regulations: Specific streetscape regulations applicable to the FB-UN3
subdistrict are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D.4 of this section. These regulations
are in addition to any other applicable streetscape standards in Title 21A.
TABLE 21A.27.050.D.4
LB Loading Bay Maximum of one (1) loading bay on a front façade per street face, subject to all
dimensional requirements in Section 21A.44.070. Loading bay entry width limited to 14’
and must be screened by garage door. One loading bay driveway is allowed in addition
to any other driveway allowances.
DS Design
Standards
See Section 21A.27.030 and Chapter 21A.37 for other applicable building configuration
and design standards.
Parking
Regulation
Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone
SP Surface Parking
Location
Surface parking shall be located behind or to the side of a principal building provided:
3. The parking is set back a minimum of 25’ from the front or corner side property line;
and
4. The setback area shall be considered a landscaped yard and comply with the landscape
yard planting requirements in Chapter 21A.46 and include:
a. Trees with a minimum mature spread of 20’ planted at one tree for every 20’ of
street frontage; and
b. A 3’ tall solid wall or fence at the property line along the street. A hedge or
other similar landscaped screen may be used in place of a wall or fence provided
the plants are spaced no further than 18 inches on center across the entire frontage.
GE Garage
Entrances
Street facing parking garage entrance doors shall have a minimum 20’ setback from the front
property line and shall not exceed 50% of the first floor building width. One-way garage entry
may not exceed 14’ in width; multiway garage entry may not exceed 26’ in width.
VA Vehicle Access One (1) driveway is allowed per street frontage. Driveways required to meet fire code are exempt
from this limitation.
LS Loading and
Service Areas
Allowed behind or to the side of a principal building only, except where specifically allowed by
the applicable form based zoning subdistrict for the applicable building form. All service areas
shall be screened or located within the building.
EB Existing
Buildings
The reuse of existing buildings is exempt from the requirements of this table unless new
parking area(s) are being added. New parking areas are subject to compliance with this section.
Streetscape
Regulation
Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone
ST Street Trees Street trees are required and shall be provided as per Subsection 21A.48.060.D.
11
5. Uses Not Associated with Building Form: Allowed uses that do not involve
construction of a building, such as parks and open space, are not required to comply
with any specific building form regulation.
SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.080. That
Section 21A.33.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted
and Conditional Uses In Form Based Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to read and
appear as follows:
21A.33.080: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN FORM
BASED DISTRICTS:
Note: Uses which are not listed in the following table are not permitted in any form based
code zoning district.
Legend: P = Permitted C = Conditional
Use Permitted Uses By District
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE
Accessory use, except those that are specifically regulated in
this chapter, or elsewhere in this title
P P P P P
Adaptive reuse of a landmark building P
Alcohol:
Bar establishment P8 P8 P8 C8
Brewpub P8 P8 P8 C8
Distillery P5
Tavern P8
Tavern, 2,500 square feet or less in floor area P8 P8 P8 C8
Winery P5
Amphitheater, formal P
Amphitheater, informal P
Amusement park P
Animal
Cremation service P
SW Sidewalk Width Sidewalks shall have a minimum width of 8’. This standard does not require removal of
existing street trees, existing buildings, or portions thereof. For purposes of this section,
sidewalk width is measured from the back of the park strip or required street tree if no
park strip is provided, toward the adjacent property line.
SL Street Lights Street lights are required and shall be installed in compliance with the city’s Street
Lighting Master Plan and Policy or its successor.
12
Kennel (Indoor) P
Kennel (Outdoor) C
Veterinary office P P P P
Antenna, communication tower P P P P
Art gallery P P P P
Artisan food production P3,5 P3,5 P3,5 P3,5
Artists loft/studio P
Auction (indoor) P
Auditorium P
Bed and breakfast P P P P P
Bed and breakfast inn P P P P P
Bed and breakfast manor P P P P P
Bio-medical facility P4,5 P4,5 P4,5
Blacksmith shop (indoor) P
Blood donation center P
Botanical garden P
Brewery P5
Brewery, small P5
Bus line station/terminal C
Car wash C
Charity dining hall P
Clinic (medical, dental) P P P P
Commercial food preparation P5 P5 P5 P5
Community garden P P P P P
Community recreation center P P P P
Convent/monastery P
Convention center P
Crematorium P
Daycare
center, adult P P P P
center, child P P P P
nonregistered home daycare P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
registered home daycare or preschool P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
Dwelling:
Accessory guest and servants’ quarters P
Assisted living facility (large) P
Assisted living facility (limited capacity) P P P P P
Assisted living facility (small) P P P P
Congregate Care Facility (Large) C C C C
Congregate Care Facility (Small) C P
Group home (large) P P P P
Group home (small) P P P P
Living quarters for caretaker or security guard P
Multi-family P P P P
Residential support (large) P P
13
Residential support (small) P P
Rooming (boarding) house P P
Single-family attached P P P P
Single-family detached P
Single-family detached (cottage development
building form only)
P P
Single room occupancy P P
Two-family P
Emergency medical services facility P
Equipment rental (indoor) P
Exhibition hall P
Farmers’ market P P P P
Financial institution P P P
Flea market (indoor) P
Funeral home P P P P
Gas station C
Government facility P P P P P
Greenhouse P
Health and fitness facility P P P P
Home occupation P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
Hospital P
Hotel/motel P P P
House museum in landmark site P P P P P
Industrial assembly (indoor) P
Intermodal transit passenger hub P
Laboratory, medical related P5 P5 P5 P5
Library P P P P
Manufacturing, light (indoor) P
Meeting hall of membership organization P
Mixed use developments including residential and other uses
allowed in the zoning district
P P P P
Mobile food business P
Mobile food court P
Mobile food trailer P
Mobile food truck P
Municipal service uses, including city utility uses and police
and fire stations
P P P P P
Museum P P P P
Nursing care facility P P P P
Office P P P P
Office and/or reception center in landmark site P P P P
Open space P P P P P
Park P P P P P
Parking, commercial C7
Parking facility, shared P7
14
Parking garage P
Parking, off site P P P7 P P
Parking, park and ride lot shared with existing use P7
Performing arts production facility P
Photo finishing lab P5 P5 P5
Place of worship P P P P
Plazas P P P P P
Radio, television station P
Railroad passenger station P
Reception center P
Recreation (indoor) P P P P
Recreation (outdoor) P
Research and development facility P5 P5 P5 P5
Restaurant P P P P
Retail goods establishment P P P P
Retail goods establishment, plant and garden shop with
outdoor retail sales area
P P P P
Retail service establishment P P P P
Sales and display (outdoor) P P P P
School:
College or university P P P P
Music conservatory P P P P
Professional and vocational P P P P
Seminary and religious institute P P P P
Public or private P
Seasonal farm stand P P P P
Sign painting/fabrication (indoor) P
Social service mission P
Solar array P5 P5 P5 P5
Storage, self P6
Store, specialty P P P P
Studio, art P P P P
Studio, motion picture P
Technology facility P5 P5 P5 P5
Theater, live performance P
Theater, movie P P P P
Urban farm P P P P P
Utility, building or structure P P P P P
Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe, or pole P P P P P
Vehicle
Automobile rental agency P
Automobile repair major C
Automobile repair minor P
Vending cart, private property P P P P
Warehouse P6
15
Welding shop (indoor) P
Wholesale distribution C6
Wireless telecommunications facility P P P P
Woodworking mill (indoor) P
Qualifying provisions:
1. Subject to Section 21A.36.130 of this title.
2. Subject to Section 21A.36.030 of this title.
3. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales.
4. 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.
5. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1.
6. Only allowed on a ground floor when the use is located behind another permitted or
conditional use that occupies the required ground floor use space.
7. Subject to parking location restrictions of Subsection 21A.27.050.D.3.
8. Subject to conformance with the provisions of section 21A.36.300, "Alcohol Related
Establishments", of this title.
SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.36.020.C. That
Subsection 21A.36.020.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Conformance
With Lot and Bulk Controls: Height Exceptions) shall be, and hereby is amended to read and
appear as follows:
C. Height Exceptions: Exceptions to the maximum building height in all zoning districts are
allowed as indicated in Table 21A.36.020.C of this subsection.
TABLE 21A.36.020.C
HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS
Type
Extent Above Maximum Building
Height Allowed
By the District Applicable Districts
Chimney As required by local, State or Federal
regulations
All zoning districts
Church steeples or spires No limit All zoning districts
Elevator/stairway tower or
bulkhead
16 feet All Commercial,
Manufacturing, Downtown,
FB-UN2, FB-UN3, RO, R-
MU, RMF-45, RMF-75, RP,
BP, I, UI, A, PL and PL-2
Districts
16
Note:
1. Lighting shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into adjacent properties
and have cutoffs to protect the view of the night sky.
SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.46.096. That
Section 21A.46.096 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Sign Regulations for Form Based
Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to read and appear as follows:
21A.46.096: SIGN REGULATIONS FOR THE FORM BASED DISTRICT:
The following regulations shall apply to signs permitted in the form based code zoning
district. Any sign not expressly permitted by these district regulations is prohibited.
A. Sign Regulations for the Form Based Code District:
1. Purpose: Sign regulations for the form based code zoning district are intended to
provide appropriate signage oriented primarily to pedestrian and mass transit traffic.
2. Applicability: This subsection applies to all signs located within the form based code
zoning district. This subsection is intended to list all permitted signs in the zone. All
other regulations in this chapter shall apply.
B. Sign Type, Size and Height Standards:
1. A-Frame Sign:
Type
Extent Above Maximum Building
Height Allowed
By the District Applicable Districts
Flagpole Maximum height of the zoning district
in which the flagpole is located or 60
feet, whichever is less. Conditional use
approval is required for additional
height
All zoning districts
Light poles for sport fields
such as ballparks, stadiums,
soccer fields, golf driving
ranges, and similar uses1
Maximum height of the zoning district
or 90 feet whichever is greater. Special
exception approval is required for any
further additional height or if the lights
are located closer than 30 feet from
adjacent residential structures
All zoning districts that allow
sport field activities and
stadiums excluding parks less
than 4 acres in size
Mechanical equipment
parapet wall
5 feet All zoning districts, other than
the FP, FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, and
Open Space Districts
17
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE
Specifications
A-
frame
sign
P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces
on corners may have 2.
Width Maximum of 2 feet. Any portion of
the frame (the support structure) may
extend up to 6 inches in any direction
beyond the sign face.
Height Maximum of 3 feet. Any portion of
the frame (the support structure) may
extend up to 6 inches in any direction
beyond the sign face.
Placement On public sidewalk or private
property.
Obstruction
free area
Minimum of 8 feet must be
maintained at all times for pedestrian
passage.
2. Awning or Canopy Sign:
18
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
Awning
or
canopy
sign
P P P P P Quantity 1 per window or entrance.
Width Equal to the width of the window.
Projection
No maximum depth from building
facade, however design subject to
mitigation of rainfall and snowfall
runoff, conflict avoidance with tree
canopy, and issuance of encroachment
permits where required. The awning
or canopy can project a maximum of 2
feet into a special purpose corridor.
Clearance
Minimum of 10 feet of vertical
clearance.
Letters
and
logos
Allowed on vertical portions of sign
only.
Location
permitted
Private property or a public street.
Signs can face a special purpose
corridor but must be located on
19
private property. All signs are subject
to the requirements of the revocable
permitting process.
5. Construction Sign:
Sign Type FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE
Specifications
Construction
sign (see
definition in
this
chapter)
P P P P P Quantity
1 per construction site.
Height Maximum of 8 feet. Maximum of
12 feet in FB-UN3.
Area Maximum of 64 square feet.
Location
permitted
Private property or a public street.
Signs can face the special purpose
corridor, but must be located on
private property.
6. Flat Sign:
20
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE
Specifications
Flat
sign
P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on
corners may have 2.
Width Maximum of 90% of width of leasable
space. No maximum width in FB-UN3.
Height Maximum of 3 feet. No maximum height
in FB-UN3.
Area 11/2 square feet per linear foot of store
frontage.
Projection Maximum of 1 foot.
7. Flat Sign (building orientation):
Sign Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
Flat sign
(building
orientation)
P
Quantity 1 per building face.
Height May not extend above the roof line
or top of parapet wall.
Area 11/2 square feet per linear foot of
building frontage.
6. Marquee Sign:
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
Marquee
sign
P
Quantity 1 per building.
Width Maximum of 90% of width of
leasable space.
Height May not extend above the roof of
the building.
Area 11/2 square feet per linear foot of
building frontage.
Projection Maximum of 6 feet. May project
into right of way a maximum of 4
21
feet provided the sign is a
minimum of 12 feet above the
sidewalk grade.
7. Monument Sign:
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
Monument
sign
P
Quantity 1 per building.
Setback 5 feet.
Height Maximum of 20 feet.
Area 1 square feet per linear foot of
building frontage.
8. Nameplate Sign:
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
22
9. New Development Sign:
Sign Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
New
Development
sign
P
Quantity 1 per street frontage.
Setback 5 feet.
Height 12 feet.
Area 200 square feet.
10. Private Directional Sign:
Sign Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
Private
directional
sign (see
definition
in this
chapter)
P P P P P Quantity No limit.
Height Maximum of 5 feet.
Area Maximum of 8 square feet.
Restriction
May not contain business name or
logo.
Location
permitted
Private property or public street.
Signs can face the special purpose
corridor but must be located on
private property. All signs are
subject to the requirements of the
revocable permitting process.
11. Projecting Sign:
Nameplate
sign
P P P P P Quantity
1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces
on corners may have 2.
Area Maximum of 3 square feet.
23
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE
Specifications
Projecting
sign
P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces
on corners may have 2.
Clearance Minimum of 10 feet above
sidewalk/walkway.
Area 6 square feet per side, 12 square feet
total.
Projection Maximum of 4 feet from building
façade.
Location
permitted
Private property or public street. Signs
can face the special purpose corridor
but must be located on private
property. All signs are subject to the
requirements of the revocable
permitting process.
12. Projecting Parking Entry Sign:
24
Sign Type FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE
Specifications
Projecting
parking entry
sign (see
projecting
sign
graphic)
P P P Quantity 1 per parking entry.
Clearance Minimum of 10 feet above
sidewalk/walkway.
Height Maximum of 2 feet.
Area 4 square feet per side, 8 square
feet total.
Projection Maximum of 4 feet from
building facade for public and
private streets. Maximum of 2
feet within the special purpose
corridor.
Location
permitted
Private property or public street.
Signs can face the special
purpose corridor but must be
located on private property. All
signs are subject to the
requirements of the revocable
permitting process.
13. Public Safety Sign:
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
Public
safety
sign (see
definition
in this
chapter)
P P P P P Quantity No limit.
Height Maximum of 6 feet.
Area 8 square feet.
Projection Maximum of 1 foot.
Location
permitted
Private property or public street. Signs
can face the special purpose corridor
but must be located on private
property. All signs are subject to the
requirements of the revocable
permitting process.
14. Real Estate Sign:
25
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
Real
estate
sign
P P P
P Quantity
1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on
corners may have 2.
Height Maximum of 12 feet.
Area 32 square feet. 64 square feet in FB-UN3.
Location
permitted
Private property or public street. Signs can
face the special purpose corridor but must
be located on private property. All signs
are subject to the requirements of the
revocable permitting process.
15. Window Sign:
26
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
Window
sign
P P P P Quantity 1 per window.
Height Maximum of 3 feet.
Area Maximum of 25% of window area.
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.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
27
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2023.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance adopting FB UN3 zoning (final)
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:___________________________
By: ____________________________
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney
April 19, 2023
1
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1
No. _____ of 2023 2
3
(An ordinance amending the text of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code 4
to create the FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict) 5
6
An ordinance amending the text of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to create the FB-7
UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-8
00277. 9
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 10
11, 2019 to consider a petition by former Salt Lake City Mayor Jacqueline Biskupski to amend 11
various provisions of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to create the FB-UN3 Form Based 12
Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict, to establish regulations for that subdistrict, and to apply the 13
FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict to the “fleet block” property located 14
between 800 South and 900 South Streets and 300 West and 400 West Streets pursuant to 15
Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277; and 16
WHEREAS, at its December 11, 2019 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor 17
of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said petition; and 18
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that 19
adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. 20
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 21
SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.27.030.C. 22
(Void if Building Heights in the Downtown Plan Area Ordinance Adopted). That, if amendments 23
to Subsection 21A.27.030.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Form Based Districts: Building 24
Configuration and Design Standards) pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00529 are not 25
2
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
adopted by the date of the City Council adopting this ordinance then that subsection shall be, and 26
hereby is amended as follows (if adopted then this Section 1 is void): 27
a. That the first paragraph of Subsection 21A.27.030.C is amended to read as follows: 28
21A.27.030.C. Application Oof Building Configuration Standards: Building 29
configuration standards apply to all new buildings and additions when the new 30
construction related to the addition is greater than twenty five percent (25%) of the 31
footprint of the structure or one thousand (1,000) square feet, whichever is less. The 32
graphics included provide a visual representation of the standards as a guide and are 33
not meant to supersede the standards in the tables. This standard applies to all Fform-34
Bbased Zzoning Dsubdistricts unless otherwise indicated. The standards in this 35
section may be modified through the design review process, subject to the 36
requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. The requirements set forth in 37
Subsections C.8 “Open Space Area” and C.12 “Permitted Encroachments And Height 38
Exceptions” of this Subsection 21A.27.030.C may not be modified through design 39
review. 40
41
b. That Subsection 21A.27.030.C.7 is amended to read as follows: 42
7. Building Materials: A minimum of seventy percent (70%) of any street facing 43
building facade shall be clad in high quality, durable, natural materials, such as 44
stone, brick, wood lap siding, patterned or textured concrete, fiber cement board 45
siding, shingled or panel sided, and glass. Material not specifically listed may be 46
approved at the discretion of the planning director if it is found that the proposed 47
material is of similar durability and quality to the listed materials. If approved, 48
such material can count toward the seventy percent (70%) requirement. Other 49
materials may count up to thirty percent (30%) of the street facing building 50
facade. Exterior insulation and finishing systems (EIFS) is permitted for trim 51
only. 52
53
c. That Subsection 21A.27.030.C.8 is amended to read as follows: 54
55
8. Open Space Area: A minimum of ten percent (10%) of the lot area shall be 56
provided for open space area, unless a different requirement is specified in the 57
applicable form based zoning subdistrict for the applicable building form. Open 58
space area may include landscaped yards, patio, dining areas, common balconies, 59
rooftop gardens, and other similar outdoor living spaces. Private balconies shall 60
not be counted toward the minimum open space area requirement. Required 61
parking lot landscaping or perimeter parking lot landscaping shall also not count 62
toward the minimum open space area requirement. 63
64
3
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.27.050. That 65
Section 21A.27.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Form Based Subdistricts: FB-UN1 and 66
FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood District) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: 67
a. That the title of Section 21A.27.050 is amended to read as follows: 68
69
21A.27.050: FB-UN1, AND FB-UN2, AND FB-UN3 FORM BASED URBAN 70
NEIGHBORHOOD SUBDISTRICTS: 71
72
b. That Subsection 21A.27.050.A.1 is amended to read as follows: 73
74
A. Subdistricts: 75
76
1. Named: The following subdistricts can be found in the urban neighborhood form 77
based district: 78
79
a. FB-UN1 uUrban nNeighborhood 1 sSubdistrict: Generally includes small 80
scale structures, up to two and one-half (2.5) stories in height, on relatively 81
small lots with up to four (4) dwelling units per lot depending on building 82
type. Reuse of existing residential structures is encouraged. Development 83
regulations are based on the building type. 84
85
b. FB-UN2 uUrban nNeighborhood 2 sSubdistrict: Generally includes buildings 86
up to four (4) stories in height, with taller buildings located on street corner 87
parcels, which may contain a single use or a mix of commercial, office, and 88
residential uses. Development regulations are based on building type, with the 89
overall scale, form, and orientation of buildings as the primary focus. 90
91
c. FB-UN3 Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict: Generally includes buildings up 92
to eight (8) stories in height, with taller buildings allowed through the design 93
review process. Development regulations are based on types of buildings and 94
differ between building types as indicated. The subdistrict contains a mix of 95
uses that include commercial, technical, light industrial, high density 96
residential, and other supportive land uses. 97
98
c. [Note to codifier: use this Section 21A.27.050.D. if Building Heights in the Downtown 99
Plan Area Ordinance is not yet adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to 100
Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00529] That Section 21A.27.050 is amended to adopt a new 101
Subsection 21A.27.050.D: 102
103
21A.27.050.D. FB-UN3 Building Form Standards: 104
Building form standards for each allowed building form and other associated regulations 105
for the FB-UN3 subdistrict are listed in the below tables of this section. 106
107
4
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
1. Row House Building Form Standards: 108
109
TABLE 21A.27.050.D.1 110
Building
Regulation
Regulation for Building Form:
Row House
H Height Maximum of 40’. All heights measured from established grade.
Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at
the maximum allowed height.
F Front and
Corner Side
Yard Setback
Minimum 5’. Maximum 10’, unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility
easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. May
be modified through the design review process (Chapter 21A.59).
S Interior Side
Yard
Minimum of 5’ between row house building form and side property line, except when an
interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a maximum permitted building
height of 30’ or less, then the minimum shall be 10’. For the purpose of this regulation,
an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a
different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. No setback required for
common walls.
R Rear Yard Minimum of 5’ between row house building form and rear property line, except when
rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of
30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a
minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning
district shall not be considered adjacent.
U Uses Per Story Residential on all stories; live/work units permitted on ground level.
GU Ground Floor
Use on 900
South
The required ground floor use space facing 900 South must be occupied by a live/work
space at least 25’ in depth. Dimensions may be modified through the design review
process (Chapter 21A.59).
E Entry Feature Each dwelling unit must include an allowed entry feature. See Table 21A.27.030B for
allowed entry features. Dwelling units adjacent to a street must include an entry feature
on street facing façade. Pedestrian connections with minimum 5’ width are required for
each required entry feature.
U Upper Level
Step Back
When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or
less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall step back 10’ from the building
façade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the
applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning
district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley.
OS Open Space
Area
Each dwelling unit shall include a minimum open space area that is equal to at least 25%
of the footprint of the individual unit, subject to all other open space area requirements
of Subsection 21A.27.030.C.8 “Open Space Area.” A minimum of 20% of the required
open space area shall include vegetation.
BF Building
Forms Per Lot
Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have
frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards.
SO Side/Interior
Orientation
Dwelling units not located directly adjacent to a street are permitted, provided the
building configuration standards for glass and ground floor transparency are complied
with on the façade with the required entry feature.
Lots for individual row house dwelling units without public street frontage are allowed
subject to recording a final subdivision plat that:
5
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
2. Multi-Family Residential, Storefront, and Vertical Mixed-Use Building Form 111
Standards: 112
113
TABLE 21A.27.050.D.2 114
1. Documents that new lots have adequate access to a public street by way of easements
or a shared driveway; and
2. Includes a disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any shared infrastructure
associated with the new lot(s) per Section 21A.55.110 of this title.
MW Mid-block
Walkway
If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted city plan on the subject property, a
midblock walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of
10’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path.
DS Design
Standards
See Section 21A.27.030 for other applicable building configuration and design
standards.
Building
Regulation
Regulation for Building Forms:
Multi-family Residential/Storefront/Vertical Mixed Use
H Height Maximum height of 125’. All heights measured from established grade.
Buildings in excess of 85’ require design review in accordance with Chapter 21A.59.
Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at
the maximum allowed height.
GH Ground Floor
Height
Minimum ground floor height 14’.
F Front and
Corner Side
Yard Setback
No minimum is required; however, doors are prohibited from opening into the public
right of way. Maximum 10’ unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility
easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement.
May be modified through the design review process (Chapter 21A.59).
B Required
Build-To
Minimum of 50% of street facing facade shall be built within 5’ of the front or corner
side property line. May be modified through the design review process (Chapter
21A.59).
S Interior Side
Yard
No minimum required, except when an interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district
that has a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum shall be
10’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10 ’ in width that
separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered
adjacent.
R Rear Yard No minimum required, except when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a
maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the
purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10 ’ in width that separates a
subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent.
GU Ground Floor
Use on 900
South
The required ground floor use space facing 900 South shall be limited to the following
uses: retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of
businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or
performing art facilities.
E Ground Floor
Dwelling
Entrances
Ground floor dwelling units adjacent to a street must have an allowed entry feature. See
Table 21A.27.030B for allowed entry features. Pedestrian connections, as per Subsection
21A.27.030.C.5, are required for each required entry feature.
6
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
115
3. Parking Regulations: Specific parking standards applicable to the FB-UN3 subdistrict 116
are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D.3 of this section. These are in addition to any 117
other applicable parking standards in Title 21A. 118
119
TABLE 21A.27.050.D.3 120
U Upper Level
Step Back
When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or
less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall step back 10’ from the building
facade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the
applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning
district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley .
MW Mid-block
Walkway
If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted city plan on the subject property, a
midblock walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 10’
wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path.
BF Building
Forms Per
Lot
Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have
frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards.
OS Open Space
Vegetation
A minimum of 20% of the required open space area shall include vegetation.
LB Loading Bay Maximum of one (1) loading bay on a front façade per street face, subject to all
dimensional requirements in Section 21A.44.070. Loading bay entry width limited to 14’
and must be screened by garage door. One loading bay driveway is allowed in addition
to any other driveway allowances.
DS Design
Standards
See Section 21A.27.030 for other applicable building configuration and design
standards.
Parking
Regulation
Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone
SP Surface Parking
Location
Surface parking shall be located behind or to the side of a principal building provided:
1. The parking is set back a minimum of 25’ from the front or corner side property line;
and
2. The setback area shall be considered a landscaped yard and comply with the landscape
yard planting requirements in Chapter 21A.46 and include:
a. Trees with a minimum mature spread of 20 ’ planted at one tree for every 20’ of
street frontage; and
b. A 3’ tall solid wall or fence at the property line along the street. A hedge or
other similar landscaped screen may be used in place of a wall or fence provided
the plants are spaced no further than 18 inches on center across the entire frontage.
GE Garage
Entrances
Street facing parking garage entrance doors shall have a minimum 20’ setback from the front
property line and shall not exceed 50% of the first floor building width. One-way garage entry
may not exceed 14’ in width; multiway garage entry may not exceed 26’ in width.
VA Vehicle Access One (1) driveway is allowed per street frontage. Driveways required to meet fire code are exempt
from this limitation.
LS Loading and
Service Areas
Allowed behind or to the side of a principal building only, except where specifically allowed by
the applicable form based zoning subdistrict for the applicable building form . All service areas
shall be screened or located within the building.
EB Existing
Buildings
The reuse of existing buildings is exempt from the requirements of this table unless new
parking area(s) are being added. New parking areas are subject to compliance with this section.
7
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
121
4. Streetscape Regulations: Specific streetscape regulations applicable to the FB-UN3 122
subdistrict are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D.4 of this section. These regulations 123
are in addition to any other applicable streetscape standards in Title 21A. 124
125
TABLE 21A.27.050.D.4 126
127
5. Uses Not Associated with Building Form: Allowed uses that do not involve 128
construction of a building, such as parks and open space, are not required to comply 129
with any specific building form regulation. 130
131
c. [Note to codifier: use this Section 21A.27.050.D. if Building Heights in the Downtown 132
Plan Area Ordinance is adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to Petition No. 133
PLNPCM2022-00529] That Section 21A.27.050 is amended to adopt a new Subsection 134
21A.27.050.D: 135
136
21A.27.050.D. FB-UN3 Building Form Standards: 137
Building form standards for each allowed building form and other associated regulations 138
for the FB-UN3 subdistrict are listed in the below tables of this section. 139
140
1. Row House Building Form Standards: 141
142
TABLE 21A.27.050.D.1 143
Streetscape
Regulation
Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone
ST Street Trees Street trees are required and shall be provided as per Subsection 21A.48.060.D.
SW Sidewalk Width Sidewalks shall have a minimum width of 8 ’. This standard does not require removal of
existing street trees, existing buildings, or portions thereof. For purposes of this section,
sidewalk width is measured from the back of the park strip or required street tree if no
park strip is provided, toward the adjacent property line.
SL Street Lights Street lights are required and shall be installed in compliance with the city’s Street
Lighting Master Plan and Policy or its successor.
Building Regulation Regulation for Building Form:
Row House
H Height Maximum of 40’. All heights measured from established grade.
Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at
the maximum allowed height.
F Front and
Corner Side
Yard Setback
Minimum 5’. Maximum 10’, unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility
easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. May
be modified through Design Review (Chapter 21A.59).
S Interior Side
Yard
Minimum of 5’ between row house building form and side property line, except when an
interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a maximum permitted building
height of 30’ or less, then the minimum shall be 10’. For the purpose of this regulation,
8
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
144
2. Multi-Family Residential, Storefront, and Vertical Mixed-Use Building Form 145
Standards: 146
147
TABLE 21A.27.050.D.2 148
an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a
different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. No setback required for
common walls.
R Rear Yard Minimum of 5’ between row house building form and rear property line, except when
rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of
30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a
minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning
district shall not be considered adjacent.
U Uses Per Story Residential on all stories; live/work units permitted on ground level.
GU Ground Floor
Use on 900
South
The required ground floor use space facing 900 South must be occupied by a live/work
space at least 25’ in depth. Dimensions may be modified through Design Review
(Chapter 21A.59).
E Entry Feature Each dwelling unit must include an allowed entry feature. See Table 21A.27.030B for
allowed entry features. Dwelling units adjacent to a street must include an entry feature
on street facing façade. Pedestrian connections, as per Subsection 21A.27.030.C.5, with
minimum 5’ width are required for each required entry feature.
U Upper Level
Stepback
When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or
less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall step back 10’ from the building
façade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the
applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning
district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley.
OS Open Space
Area
Each dwelling unit shall include a minimum open space area that is equal to at least 25%
of the footprint of the individual unit, subject to all other open space area requirements
of Subsection 21A.27.030.C.1 “Open Space Area.” A minimum of 20% of the required
open space area shall include vegetation.
BF Building
Forms Per Lot
Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have
frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards.
SO Side/Interior
Orientation
Dwelling units not located directly adjacent to a street are permitted, provided the design
standards for glass are complied with on the façade with the required entry feature.
Lots for individual row house dwelling units without public street frontage are allowed
subject to recording a final subdivision plat that:
1. Documents that new lots have adequate access to a public street by way of easements
or a shared driveway; and
2. Includes a disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any shared infras tructure
associated with the new lot(s) per Section 21A.55.110 of this title.
MW Midblock
Walkway
If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted city plan on the subject property, a
midblock walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of
10’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path.
DS Design
Standards
See Section 21A.27.030 and Chapter 21A.37 for other applicable building configuration
and design standards.
9
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
149
Building
Regulation
Regulation for Building Forms:
Multi-family Residential/Storefront/Vertical Mixed Use
H Height Maximum height of 125’. All heights measured from established grade.
Buildings in excess of 85’ require design review in accordance with Chapter 21A.59.
Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at
the maximum allowed height.
GH Ground Floor
Height
Minimum ground floor height 14’.
F Front and
Corner Side
Yard Setback
No minimum is required; however, doors are prohibited from opening into the public
right of way. Maximum 10’ unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility
easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement.
May be modified through Design Review process (Chapter 21A.59).
B Required
Build-To
Minimum of 50% of street facing facade shall be built within 5’ of the front or corner
side property line. May be modified through Design Review process (Chapter 21A.59).
S Interior Side
Yard
No minimum required, except when an interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district
that has a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum shall be
10’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that
separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered
adjacent.
R Rear Yard No minimum required, except when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a
maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the
purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a
subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent.
GU Ground Floor
Use on 900
South
The required ground floor use space facing 900 South shall be limited to the following
uses: retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of
businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or
performing art facilities.
E Ground Floor
Dwelling
Entrances
Ground floor dwelling units adjacent to a street must have an allowed entry feature. See
Table 21A.27.030B for allowed entry features. Pedestrian connections, as per Subsection
21A.27.030.C.5, are required to each required entry feature.
U Upper Level
Stepback
When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or
less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall step back 10’ from the building
facade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the
applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning
district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley.
MW Midblock
Walkway
If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted city plan on the subject property, a
midblock walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 10’
wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path.
BF Building
Forms Per
Lot
Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have
frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards.
OS Open Space
Vegetation
A minimum of 20% of the required open space area shall include vegetation.
10
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
150
151
3. Parking Regulations: Specific parking standards applicable to the FB-UN3 subdistrict 152
are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D.3 of this section. These are in addition to any 153
other applicable parking standards in Title 21A. 154
155
TABLE 21A.27.050.D.3 156
157
4. Streetscape Regulations: Specific streetscape regulations applicable to the FB-UN3 158
subdistrict are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D.4 of this section. These regulations 159
are in addition to any other applicable streetscape standards in Title 21A. 160
161
TABLE 21A.27.050.D.4 162
LB Loading Bay Maximum of one (1) loading bay on a front façade per street face, subject to all
dimensional requirements in Section 21A.44.070. Loading bay entry width limited to 14’
and must be screened by garage door. One loading bay driveway is allowed in addition
to any other driveway allowances.
DS Design
Standards
See Section 21A.27.030 and Chapter 21A.37 for other applicable building configuration
and design standards.
Parking
Regulation
Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone
SP Surface Parking
Location
Surface parking shall be located behind or to the side of a principal building provided:
3. The parking is set back a minimum of 25’ from the front or corner side property line;
and
4. The setback area shall be considered a landscaped yard and comply with the landscape
yard planting requirements in Chapter 21A.46 and include:
a. Trees with a minimum mature spread of 20 ’ planted at one tree for every 20’ of
street frontage; and
b. A 3’ tall solid wall or fence at the property line along the street. A hedge or
other similar landscaped screen may be used in place of a wall or fence provided
the plants are spaced no further than 18 inches on center across the entire frontage.
GE Garage
Entrances
Street facing parking garage entrance doors shall have a minimum 20’ setback from the front
property line and shall not exceed 50% of the first floor building width. One-way garage entry
may not exceed 14’ in width; multiway garage entry may not exceed 26’ in width.
VA Vehicle Access One (1) driveway is allowed per street frontage. Driveways required to meet fire code are exempt
from this limitation.
LS Loading and
Service Areas
Allowed behind or to the side of a principal building only, except where specifically allowed by
the applicable form based zoning subdistrict for the applicable building form . All service areas
shall be screened or located within the building.
EB Existing
Buildings
The reuse of existing buildings is exempt from the requirements of this table unless new
parking area(s) are being added. New parking areas are subject to compliance with this section.
Streetscape
Regulation
Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone
ST Street Trees Street trees are required and shall be provided as per Subsection 21A.48.060.D.
11
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
163
5. Uses Not Associated with Building Form: Allowed uses that do not involve 164
construction of a building, such as parks and open space, are not required to comply 165
with any specific building form regulation. 166
167
SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.080. That 168
Section 21A.33.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted 169
and Conditional Uses In Form Based Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to read and 170
appear as follows: 171
21A.33.080: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN FORM 172
BASED DISTRICTS: 173
174
Note: Uses which are not listed in the following table are not permitted in any Fform Bbased 175
Ccode Zzoning Ddistrict. 176
177
Legend: C= Conditional P= Permitted
178
Legend: P = Permitted C = Conditional
179
Use Permitted Uses By District
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE
Accessory use, except those that are specifically regulated in
this chapter, or elsewhere in this title
P P P P P
Adaptive reuse of a landmark building P
Alcohol:
Bar establishment P8 P8 P8 C8
Brewpub P8 P8 P8 C8
Distillery P5
Tavern P8
Tavern, 2,500 square feet or less in floor area P8 P8 P8 C8
Winery P5
Amphitheater, formal P
Amphitheater, informal P
Amusement park P
SW Sidewalk Width Sidewalks shall have a minimum width of 8 ’. This standard does not require removal of
existing street trees, existing buildings, or portions thereof. For purposes of this section,
sidewalk width is measured from the back of the park strip or required street tree if no
park strip is provided, toward the adjacent property line.
SL Street Lights Street lights are required and shall be installed in compliance with the city’s Street
Lighting Master Plan and Policy or its successor.
12
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Animal
Cremation service P
Kennel (Indoor) P
Kennel (Outdoor) C
Veterinary office P P P P
Animal, veterinary office
P P P
Antenna, communication tower P P P P
Art gallery P P P P
Artisan food production P3,5 P3,5 P3,5 P3,5
Artists loft/studio P
Auction (indoor) P
Auditorium P
Bed and breakfast P P P P P
Bed and breakfast inn P P P P P
Bed and breakfast manor P P P P P
Bio-medical facility P4,5 P4,5 P4,5
Blacksmith shop (indoor) P
Blood donation center P
Botanical garden P
Brewery P5
Brewery, small P5
Bus line station/terminal C
Car wash C
Charity dining hall P
Clinic (medical, dental) P P P P
Commercial food preparation P5 P5 P5 P5
Community garden P P P P P
Community recreation center P P P P
Convent/monastery P
Convention center P
Crematorium P
Daycare
center, adult P P P P
center, child P P P P nonregistered home daycare P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
registered home daycare or preschool P1 P1 P1 P1 P1
Dwelling:
Accessory guest and servants’ quarters P
Assisted living facility (large) P
Assisted living facility (limited capacity) P P P P P
Assisted living facility (small) P P P P
Congregate Care Facility (Large) C C C C
Congregate Care Facility (Small) C P
Group home (large) P P P P
13
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Group home (small) when located above or below
first story office, retail, or commercial use, or on the
first story where the unit is not located adjacent to
street frontage
P P P P
Living quarters for caretaker or security guard P
Multi-family P P P P
Residential support (large) P P
Residential support (small) P P
Rooming (boarding) house P P
Single-family attached P P P P
Single-family detached P
Single-family detached (cottage development
building form only)
P P
Single room occupancy P P
Two-family P
Emergency medical services facility P
Equipment rental (indoor) P
Exhibition hall P
Farmers’ market P P P P
Financial institution P P P
Flea market (indoor) P
Funeral home P P P P
Gas station C
Government facility P P P P P
Greenhouse P
Health and fitness facility P P P P
Home occupation P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
Hospital P
Hotel/motel P P P
House museum in landmark site P P P P P
Industrial assembly (indoor) P
Intermodal transit passenger hub P
Laboratory, medical related P5 P5 P5 P5
Library P P P P
Manufacturing, light (indoor) P
Meeting hall of membership organization P
Mixed use developments including residential and other uses
allowed in the zoning district
P P P P
Mobile food business P
Mobile food court P
Mobile food trailer P
Mobile food truck P
Municipal service uses, including city utility uses and police
and fire stations
P P P P P
Museum P P P P
14
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Nursing care facility P P P P
Office P P P P
Office and/or reception center in landmark site P P P P
Open space P P P P P
Park P P P P P
Parking, commercial C7
Parking facility, shared P7
Parking garage P
Parking, off site P P P7 P P
Parking, park and ride lot shared with existing use P7
Performing arts production facility P
Photo finishing lab P5 P5 P5
Place of worship P P P P
Plazas P P P P P
Radio, television station P
Railroad passenger station P
Reception center P
Recreation (indoor) P P P P
Recreation (outdoor) P
Research and development facility P5 P5 P5 P5
Restaurant P P P P
Retail goods establishment P P P P
Retail goods establishment, plant and garden shop with
outdoor retail sales area
P P P P
Retail service establishment P P P P
Sales and display (outdoor) P P P P
School:
College or university P P P P
Music conservatory P P P P
Professional and vocational P P P P
Seminary and religious institute P P P P
Public or private P
Seasonal farm stand P P P P
Sign painting/fabrication (indoor) P
Social service mission P
Solar array P5 P5 P5 P5
Storage, self P6
Store, specialty P P P P
Studio, art P P P P
Studio, motion picture P
Technology facility P5 P5 P5 P5
Theater, live performance P
Theater, movie P P P P
Urban farm P P P P P
Utility, building or structure P P P P P
15
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe, or pole P P P P P
Vehicle
Automobile rental agency P
Automobile repair major C
Automobile repair minor P
Vending cart, private property P P P P
Warehouse P6
Welding shop (indoor) P
Wholesale distribution C6
Wireless telecommunications facility P P P P
Woodworking mill (indoor) P
180
Qualifying provisions: 181
1. Subject to sSection 21A.36.130 of this title. 182
2. Subject to sSection 21A.36.030 of this title. 183
3. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 184
4. Prohibited within 1/2 mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or 185
radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality 186
administrative rules. 187
5. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. 188
6. Only allowed on a ground floor when the use is located behind another permitted or 189
conditional use that occupies the required ground floor use space. 190
7. Subject to parking location restrictions of Subsection 21A.27.050.D.3. 191
8. Subject to conformance with the provisions of section 21A.36.300, "Alcohol Related 192
Establishments", of this title. 193
194
SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.36.020.C. That 195
Subsection 21A.36.020.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Conformance 196
With Lot and Bulk Controls: Height Exceptions) shall be, and hereby is amended to read and 197
appear as follows: 198
C. Height Exceptions: Exceptions to the maximum building height in all zoning districts are 199
allowed as indicated in tTable 21A.36.020.C of this subsection. 200
201
TABLE 21A.36.020.C 202
HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS 203
Type
Extent Above Maximum Building
Height Allowed
By Tthe District Applicable Districts
Chimney As required by local, State or Federal
regulations
All zoning districts
16
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Note: 204
1. Lighting shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into adjacent properties 205
and have cutoffs to protect the view of the night sky. 206
207
208
SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.46.096. That 209
Section 21A.46.096 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Sign Regulations for Form Based 210
Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to read and appear as follows: 211
21A.46.096: SIGN REGULATIONS FOR THE FORM BASED DISTRICTS: 212
213
The following regulations shall apply to signs permitted in the form based code zoning 214
districts. Any sign not expressly permitted by these district regulations is prohibited. 215
216
A. Sign Regulations Ffor Tthe Form Based Code Districts: 217
1. Purpose: Sign regulations for the form based code zoning districts are intended to 218
provide appropriate signage oriented primarily to pedestrian and mass transit traffic. 219
Type
Extent Above Maximum Building
Height Allowed
By Tthe District Applicable Districts
Church steeples or spires No limit All zoning districts
Elevator/stairway tower or
bulkhead
16 feet All Commercial,
Manufacturing, Downtown,
FB-UN2, FB-UN3, RO, R-
MU, RMF-45, RMF-75, RP,
BP, I, UI, A, PL and PL-2
Districts
Flagpole Maximum height of the zoning district
in which the flagpole is located or 60
feet, whichever is less. Conditional use
approval is required for additional
height
All zoning districts
Light poles for sport fields
such as ballparks, stadiums,
soccer fields, golf driving
ranges, and similar uses1
Maximum height of the zoning district
or 90 feet whichever is greater. Special
exception approval is required for any
further additional height or if the lights
are located closer than 30 feet from
adjacent residential structures
All zoning districts that allow
sport field activities and
stadiums excluding parks less
than 4 acres in size
Mechanical equipment
parapet wall
5 feet All zoning districts, other than
the FP, FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, and
Open Space Districts
17
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
2. Applicability: This subsection applies to all signs located within the form based code 220
zoning districts. This subsection is intended to list all permitted signs in the zone. All 221
other regulations in this chapter shall apply. 222
B. Sign Type, Size Aand Height Standards: 223
1. A-Frame Sign: 224
225
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE
Specifications
A-
frame
sign
P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces
on corners may have 2.
Width Maximum of 2 feet. Any portion of
the frame (the support structure) may
extend up to 6 inches in any direction
beyond the sign face.
Height Maximum of 3 feet. Any portion of
the frame (the support structure) may
extend up to 6 inches in any direction
beyond the sign face.
Placement On public sidewalk or private
property.
18
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Obstruction
free area
Minimum of 8 feet must be
maintained at all times for pedestrian
passage.
226
2. Awning Oor Canopy Sign: 227
228
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
Awning
or
canopy
sign
P P P P P Quantity 1 per window or entrance.
Width Equal to the width of the window.
Projection
No maximum depth from building
facade, however design subject to
mitigation of rainfall and snowfall
runoff, conflict avoidance with tree
canopy, and issuance of encroachment
permits where required. The awning
or canopy can project a maximum of 2
feet into a special purpose corridor.
Clearance
Minimum of 10 feet of vertical
clearance.
19
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Letters
and
logos
Allowed on vertical portions of sign
only.
Location
permitted
Private property or a public street.
Signs can face a special purpose
corridor but must be located on
private property. All signs are subject
to the requirements of the revocable
permitting process.
229
5. Construction Sign: 230
231
Sign Type FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE
Specifications
Construction
sign (see
definition in
this
chapter)
P P P P P Quantity
1 per construction site.
Height Maximum of 8 feet. Maximum of
12 feet in FB-UN3.
Area Maximum of 64 square feet.
Location
permitted
Private property or a public street.
Signs can face the special purpose
corridor, but must be located on
private property.
232
6. Flat Sign: 233
20
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
234
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE
Specifications
Flat
sign
P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on
corners may have 2.
Width Maximum of 90% of width of leasable
space. No maximum width in FB-UN3.
Height Maximum of 3 feet. No maximum height
in FB-UN3.
Area 11/2 square feet per linear foot of store
frontage.
Projection Maximum of 1 foot.
235
7. Flat Sign (building orientation): 236
237
Sign Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
Flat sign
(building
orientation)
P
Quantity 1 per building face.
Height May not extend above the roof line
or top of parapet wall.
21
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Area 11/2 square feet per linear foot of
building frontage.
238
6. Marquee Sign: 239
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
Marquee
sign
P
Quantity 1 per building.
Width Maximum of 90% of width of
leasable space.
Height May not extend above the roof of
the building.
Area 11/2 square feet per linear foot of
building frontage.
Projection Maximum of 6 feet. May project
into right of way a maximum of 4
feet provided the sign is a
minimum of 12 feet above the
sidewalk grade.
240
7. Monument Sign: 241
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
Monument
sign
P
Quantity 1 per building.
Setback 5 feet.
Height Maximum of 20 feet.
Area 1 square feet per linear foot of
building frontage.
242
58. Nameplate Sign: 243
22
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
244
245
246
9. New Development Sign: 247
Sign Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
New
Development
sign
P
Quantity 1 per street frontage.
Setback 5 feet.
Height 12 feet.
Area 200 square feet.
248
610. Private Directional Sign: 249
250
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
Nameplate
sign
P P P P P Quantity
1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces
on corners may have 2.
Area Maximum of 3 square feet.
23
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Sign Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
Private
directional
sign (see
definition
in this
chapter)
P P P P P Quantity No limit.
Height Maximum of 5 feet.
Area Maximum of 8 square feet.
Restriction
May not contain business name or
logo.
Location
permitted
Private property or public street.
Signs can face the special purpose
corridor but must be located on
private property. All signs are
subject to the requirements of the
revocable permitting process.
251
711. Projecting Sign: 252
253
254
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE
Specifications
Projecting
sign
P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces
on corners may have 2.
24
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Clearance Minimum of 10 feet above
sidewalk/walkway.
Area 6 square feet per side, 12 square feet
total.
Projection Maximum of 4 feet from building
façade.
Location
permitted
Private property or public street. Signs
can face the special purpose corridor
but must be located on private
property. All signs are subject to the
requirements of the revocable
permitting process.
255
812. Projecting Parking Entry Sign: 256
Sign Type FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE
Specifications
Projecting
parking entry
sign (see
projecting
sign
graphic)
P P P Quantity 1 per parking entry.
Clearance Minimum of 10 feet above
sidewalk/walkway.
Height Maximum of 2 feet.
Area 4 square feet per side, 8 square
feet total.
Projection Maximum of 4 feet from
building facade for public and
private streets. Maximum of 2
feet within the special purpose
corridor.
Location
permitted
Private property or public street.
Signs can face the special
purpose corridor but must be
located on private property. All
signs are subject to the
requirements of the revocable
permitting process.
257
913. Public Safety Sign: 258
25
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
Public
safety
sign (see
definition
in this
chapter)
P P P P P Quantity No limit.
Height Maximum of 6 feet.
Area 8 square feet.
Projection Maximum of 1 foot.
Location
permitted
Private property or public street. Signs
can face the special purpose corridor
but must be located on private
property. All signs are subject to the
requirements of the revocable
permitting process.
259
104. Real Estate Sign: 260
261
262
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
Real
estate
sign
P P P
P Quantity
1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on
corners may have 2.
Height Maximum of 12 feet.
Area 32 square feet. 64 square feet in FB-UN3.
26
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Location
permitted
Private property or public street. Signs can
face the special purpose corridor but must
be located on private property. All signs
are subject to the requirements of the
revocable permitting process.
263
115. Window Sign: 264
265
266
Sign
Type
FB-
UN1
FB-
UN2
FB-
UN3
FB-
SC
FB-
SE Specifications
Window
sign
P P P P Quantity 1 per window.
Height Maximum of 3 feet.
Area Maximum of 25% of window area.
267
268
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 269
first publication. 270
271
27
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 272
2023. 273
______________________________ 274
CHAIRPERSON 275
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 276
277
______________________________ 278
CITY RECORDER 279
280
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 281
282
283
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 284
285
______________________________ 286
MAYOR 287
______________________________ 288
CITY RECORDER 289
(SEAL) 290
291
Bill No. ________ of 2023. 292
Published: ______________. 293
294
Ordinance adopting FB UN3 zoning (legislative) 295
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:___________________________
By: ____________________________
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2023
(An ordinance amending the zoning map to apply the FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood
3 District to the “fleet block” property located between 800 South and 900 South Streets and 300
West and 400 West Streets)
An ordinance amending the zoning map to apply the FB-UN3 Form Based Urban
Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict to the “fleet block” property located between 800 South and 900
South Streets and 300 West and 400 West Streets pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a
public hearing on December 11, 2019 to consider a petition by former Salt Lake City Mayor
Jacqueline Biskupski to amend various provisions of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to
create the FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict, to establish regulations for
that subdistrict, and to apply the FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict to the
“fleet block” property located between 800 South and 900 South Streets and 300 West and 400
West Streets pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277); and
WHEREAS, at its December 11, 2019 meeting, the 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 apply the FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict to the
2
“fleet block” property located between 800 South and 900 South Streets and 300 West and 400
West Streets (Tax ID Nos. 15-12-251-001-0000, 15-12-177-007-0000), and as more particularly
described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto.
SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________,
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 adopting FB UN3 zoning map amendment
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:___________________________
By: ____________________________
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney
March 23, 2023
3
EXHIBIT “A”
Legal Description and Map of Property Subject to Zoning Map Amendment:
All of Block 7, Plat A, Salt Lake City Survey
Parcel Tax ID Nos.
15-12-251-001-0000
15-12-177-007-0000
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: 7/12/2023
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 7/12/2023
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 7/5/2023
Darin Mano, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Re-Appointment Recommendation: Airport Board
STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson
April.Patterson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Re-Appointment Recommendation: Airport Board
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and re-appoint Dirk Burton
member of the Airport Board.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
July 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 re-appointment for: Airport
Board.
Dirk Burton to be re-appointed for a four 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
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
______________________________
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Received: 7/19/2023
Date Sent to Council: 7/19/2023
TO: DATE 7/19/2023
FROM:
Salt Lake City Council
Darin Mano, Chair
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Re-Appointment Recommendation: Board of Appeals and Examiners
April Patterson
April.Patterson@slcgov.com
Board Appointment Recommendation: Board of Appeals and
STAFF CONTACT:
DOCUMENT TYPE:
Examiners
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and re-appoint Beverly A. Langue as a
member of the Board of Appeals and Examiners.
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
July 19, 2023
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Mano
Listed below is my recommendation for membership re-appointment to the Board of Appeals
and Examiners.
Beverly A. Langue to be re-appointed for a five year term, ending on December 22, 2027. Re-
submitting transmittal to reflect correct term length.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this re-appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
ot. � f� Ji; glvto:
I+C%11 - '�F Tt443, 4;� .j ?s.,,11 :'
M1 4"4 3 Y J
t'f'C; �.� uSVs�c4 �4�=c,St;n c: -^ rnA-ve,c��`�b�
Policy Findings
There are seven key areas of policy findings that were included in the 2020 Pace Carriage
House HLC Staff Report that are worth highlighting separately 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. 6)
Staff Finding/Rationale: "Proposal is in line with adopted policies and guidelines."
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 zoning ordinance."
Topic 3: "Consistent with purposes (of) applicable overlay district."
Finding: "Proposal is generally consistent."
Topic 4: "The extent to which proposed text amendment Implements best current
professional practices of urban planning."
Finding: "Proposal provides an incentive to preserve, restore or reconstruct a historic
features associated with landmark sites. ..implements intent of re�uiat�c�5.� o
irnl menrts best current.nrofe�sional and design andpractices." It is a m ste y to v
the, findings in text of the application could be more_ favorable to our ti,_roposal. None of
these topics were even dismsse
Public Support
This proposal enjoys the su� n�ort of all neighboring r. p operty gwners, Notably, no member
of the public spoke out against the proposal. The HLC inexplicablyj yip }dLqc the
sjgTdficant, inARed Linanimous_ public su nn ;n favor of thi �, found at
Attachment G to the July 9, 2020, HLC Staff Report. It was evidently too_pop11ar tn riigr iss .
Typically, in these instances staff tabulates and presents information regarding
neighborhood opinion so that such data could be analyzed by decisionmakers.
Unfortunately, in this case that did not happen. Perhaps even more notable is the omission
gf,a favorable email submission bvCommissioner David Richardson who was unable td
attend the HLC meetinz, His comments were not included in the HLC Staff Report nor
distributed at the meeting.) In spite of the long-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 wVl
indisplitablv allow for a Mich 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,
wastiniz useable, viable space, in furtherance 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. WP havp npvPx
tail ecLto anyone who has asserted that a five-caLp.r;ige makes sense as an amenity for a
one-beddr .one house. It's an obvious waste of land and, resources.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
7/19/2023 10:39 Anonymous Constituent Homeless in Liberty Park Why are the homeless allowed to camp and set up residence in Liberty Park? Allen Park is gated wtih security.
Sugarhouse Park has police presence. However, the Liberty/Wells neighborhood along with the Ballpark
neighborhood are neglected. Maybe you can close down another street. It's interesting that the City/County
building is quickly cleared of homeless. I have tried contacting the mayors office and individual city council
members. All of them assure me they are not in control or have the ability to resolve issues. Some try to blame
the state legislatures for failure to enforce the laws within the city. But we have a police chief and district
attorney and city government that have worked to defund the police, apologize to criminals and seek to tax
those of us that actually contribute to the city. Rebranding the homeless as "housing adverse" or "unsheltered
neighbors" doesn't really change the fact of the situation. The solution is very simple. You can't camp on the
streets. Compassion is not allowing the homeless to camp in the hills, parks, sidewalks, in their cars and so
forth. Enforce that law. The resources are available. They can choose to use the resources that we have more
than abundately offer. Or they will need to move along to a place that allows people to live a third world
lifestyle. There is no reason to encourage or allow this behavior when the resources are there. It would be nice
to be able to use the park and neighborhood without stepping over needles, fecal matter, have people
screaming at the air or urinating on playground toys. The city picks and chooses the neighborhoods that get to
hosts their friends. Why not move all of our unsheltered friends to the city/county building lot? This may serve
a reminder to the city and encourage leaders to solve the issue rather than redirect attention.
7/19/2023 12:23 Susan Knight Phone Call Request Susan Knight lives in the lower Aves and she would like to chat with Chris about a variety of things. She has a
historic home and was thinking about making some changes to the use of the home and some of the
challenges with that. She would also love to just talk with him and get to know him. She understands he is
busy and is in no rush at all. She also does events and wants to let him know some of the things she is working
on, business developments, and some of the challenges she faces.
7/19/2023 16:23 Jeff Larsen PLNPCM2022-01138 and PLNPCM2022-01139 I have reviewed the request for the zoning map amendment and master plan amendment. I have read
transcripts from the planning commission meeting where the plan was presented, and spoken to people who
have opposed the plan, and also spoken to the applicant at length. I support the proposals for both items.
Bottom line, Salt Lake City needs to add housing stock, and the potential to allow an unused parcel, in one of
the most desirable areas of the city, to become a single family home makes this proposal both practical and
desirable, and fits with objectives established in Plan Salt Lake and Growing SLC. There are challenges with this
particular property that the owner will have to address as a development plan is created, but making this a
buildable, legitimate "flag lot" will ultimately add to the neighborhood. The space is used primarily as a
parking area now, and so the increase in traffic to access another single family home is not likely to be
significant enough to outweigh the benefits. There is a flag lot, with a home on it, behind my own home in the
nearby area (approximately 1300 E, 1400 S) that hasn't created negative impacts for my home or the
surrounding properties, so the same can be achieved here, with the right development plan, and this is not our
of character for the neighborhood. Jeff Larsen - SLC Resident
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
7/19/2023 16:25 Andrew Magee Public Utilities Hello, I am writing out of concern about my Water and Sewer bill. This may seem like a small issue to you, but
to me it reflects an additional ~$400 per year in unanticipated utility costs. Please allow me to briefly explain: I
was a homeowner in Salt Lake City from 2017-2020. At the time my monthly Sewer bill was ~$30/month. Now,
after recently purchasing a home in May and talking to a customer service rep at Public Utilities, it appears
that my monthly sewer bill will be approximately $54/month through at least July 1st of 2024, until,
apparently, the city can establish that my winter month water usage is low enough to justify a lower rate. And,
the supposed over spend that I am signed up for over the next 12 months is non-refundable. Throw on top of
that a substantial increase in garbage, storm water, and street light fees and suddenly I am paying
approximately $400/year more than just 3 years ago for "basic" services. Currently, without having used any
water for any landscaping, my bill sits at $109 for the month of July, compared to an average of $67/month in
2017 when I was probably over watering a large yard and had multiple roommates. That's a 62% increase in
costs over five years to service fewer people and do no landscaping compared to the same time 5 years ago.
Could you please help me understand why costs have gone up so much and what we are doing to try and keep
these costs under control? How do these cost increases reflect the city council's efforts to bolster affordable
housing in Salt Lake City? Thank you kindly for your response. Best, Andrew
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
7/19/2023 16:26 Hal Crimmel Opposed to Proposed Rezone of 1782 S 1600 E
Zoning (PLNPCM2022-01138 &PLNCPCM2022-
01139)
Dear City Council Members, My wife and I are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed rezone of 1782 S
1600 E (PLNPCM2022-01138 &PLNCPCM2022-01139). The current property owner is requesting amendments to the Sugar
House Master Plan Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map for the property at 1782 S 1600 E. We live at REDACTED, and
have attended meetings, and have reviewed the 61 page Staff Report prepared by Kelsey Lindquist dated April 20, 2023. We
have lived here in the neighborhood for 22 years and on this street for close to a decade. We are extremely opposed to
changing the zoning from R1/7000 Single Family Residential to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) Zoning
District with a corresponding Master Plan change, because if the zoning amendment is approved then there could be at least
four--and up to six rental units on a property the city currently considers to be one lot: 1572 E. Blaine Avenue in Salt Lake
City. Currently, there is a duplex on the property. New rules allow for an ADU to be built on that property. Then, if the
rezone is approved, creating a new lot, that property could also house a duplex and an ADU or a single-family home and an
ADU. The potential for this much higher density development on what currently is one lot is completely out of character for
the neighborhood. Further, it's possible there could be as many as 18 different people living on this current lot (3+3 in one
duplex; 3+3 in a new duplex; 3 in a new ADU and 3 in a second, new ADU. Per SLC parking regulations, each occupant could
park one vehicle on the street--that would mean a potential total of 18 trucks or cars attached to the one existing lot. That is
going to negatively impact the existing neighbors. We support neighborhoods that are not 100% single family homes, but
our block already has several duplexes on it and on the next block to the east, the three dwellings closest to us are all
duplexes. Adding yet more units to an already densely part of the neighborhood only benefits the property owner--not any
of the neighbors. Further, were this rezone to be approved, it sets a dangerous precedent. What if the other neighbors on
the street, who have large lots, sell and the new owner(s) claim that two lots could be created out of one R-1 lot because,
well, why not? The current owner of 1572 E Blaine seems intent on negatively impacting the quality of life for the seven
neighbors whose property abuts the lot in question. No one wants the rezone. Zoning exists to preserve the stability of
neighborhoods. The city council should consider whether the desire of one property owner, who lives in Olympus Cove, to
rezone a lot historically zoned as one lot should be should receive special privileges, as it will open the door to potentially
create a small rental village at the expense of those living in owner-occupied homes, who are united in their opposition to
the rezone. The subject property is an illegal lot created through a non-approved subdivision. The proposed master plan
amendment is not consistent with adopted City policies, and the proposed zoning amendment does not meet the applicable
factors for consideration. We request that the city council follow the recommendations of the Salt Lake City planning staff
and not approve the proposed amendments to the Sugar House Master Plan. Sincerely, Hal Crimmel Ingrid Weinbauer
7/19/2023 17:01 Harris Sondak Frustrations With Construction Closing Roads "Hello, Councilman. My name is Sondak. I live at REDACTED. I've never lived anywhere where developers get
to disrupt traffic as much as they do in Salt Lake City. It would seem to me that they ought to keep their
machines on their own ground and not encroach on the public right-of-way on the streets. And I'm wondering
if this is a legislative issue, an executive issue, or maybe one preemptive by the state. But, I'd like to call to
your attention that I find it really frustrating how often lanes are narrowed to accommodate private
developers' construction projects. Anyway, that’s my message. And, uh, I look forward to being informed
about how this has come to be and if there's anything that the city can offer to change the situation. Thank
you.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
7/20/2023 9:53 Steve McCutchan Proposal to Expedite Completion of Northpoint
Small Area Plan and Permit Development by
XCEL Development
I reviewed the Northpoint Small Area Plan (the Plan) and found that it should be revised. This is based upon
the Plan's reliance on old data from Salt Lake City International Airport (SLCIA) and the City's Airport Flight
Path Protection Overlay District (AFPP), the part of the City's Zoning Ordinance that restricts development in
proximity to the Airport. I also believe the AFPP should be revised as it is also out of date. The reason I believe
they are out of date is the information included in SLCIA's Master Plan 2022 and SLCIA's agreement with XCEL
Development in February 2021 to not contest our efforts to annex to North Salt Lake and develop a residential
community. SLCIA received an Avigation Easement over XCEL Development's property. I prepared a detailed
letter (Attached) that outlines my concerns and makes recommendations for a quick resolution. The draft
letter is addressed to Nick Norris and Krissy Gilmore (City Planning Staff) but can be revised to be addressed to
whomever you believe is the best person to consider the letter's contents. Dave and I are looking for your
advice as to how to proceed. In the letter, I propose to prepare a Draft Addendum to the Plan that will solely
revise the sections where I have concerns leaving most of the Plan as is. Also, I propose to prepare a revised
Draft AFPP that follows FAA Part 150 airport land use compatibility guidelines. There are examples at major
airports near metropolitan areas around the West. XCEL Development would pay my expenses. I would revise
the drafts under City Planning Staff's direction. Let me know if there is anything else you need. My letter is
attached. Steve
7/20/2023 12:45 Keiko Jones general comment on July 18 At the July 18 city council formal meeting, there was a speaker who spoke during the "general comment"
period. He didn't feel confident about speaking in English and saying what he wanted to say in 2 minutes, so
he used AI to convey his opinion. After he finished, one of the city council members stated that the comment
was about CIP therefore it should have been made during the "public hearing" period specifically for the topic
and that the general comment period was not the right place. The council member was right. But I just want to
say I didn't get the point of such a comment. If the councilman was telling that to the city staff, he should
know it doesn't have anything to do with the staff. Nobody assigns speakers to a certain slot. If he was telling
that to the speaker, the speaker had simply made a mistake when he registered online to speak. Was it worth
pointing it out in public? (Or maybe the staff moved the speaker to the general comment period due to the
technical difficulty at the end of the CIP public hearing? No big deal, especially since it was considered, right?) I
can imagine someone shy, maybe it was his first time to speak in such a setting, yet had felt strongly enough
about something to speak up. If I were in his shoes, I would have felt mortified being told publicly that I spoke
at the wrong place. I hope the incident won't discourage that person from ever speaking again. Council
members, please create an environment where residents feel comfortable expressing themselves instead of
making them feel ashamed that they made a mistake. Thank you for reading. Keiko Jones
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
7/21/2023 15:44 Rae Duckworth 900 south 300 west Dear SLC City Council, We hope this email finds you well. I am an active community member and CAG
(Community Activist Group) member in Salt Lake City. Recently, proposals were shared to the city council
regarding “Fleet Block”. Fleet Block is better known as The Salt Lake City Police Brutality Murals and it is of
historical value in our neighborhood. The discussions surrounding police violence are vital to our community
and our neighborhood’s growth. Demolishing these murals will not erase police violence or the conversations
needed around police reform, police violence and police murder. It is concerning that there was not a mention
of a community center, resource center or a permanent gathering center as this space is currently operating
that way. We feel it to be a priority when discussing the future and development of this area. Salt Lake City
currently has a high demand for resources that stretch from; shelter, food, water, harm reduction, mental and
physical health. These types of resources should be required in this block now that this intersection is equally
accessible from the East and West sides of the valley. We encourage you to support your community and their
current successful efforts at keeping this space safe for mourning and grieving, outreach, collecting and
sharing ideas, but most importantly getting to know our neighbors. Below are some reference ideas for your
next discussion. COUNTY HEALTH RANKINGS - TAKE ACTION
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3709358/ street civics - reducing crime CJC
healthcare.utah.edu https://www.safetyreimagined.org/community-of-practice/when-not-to-send-the-police-
a-conversation-with-los-angeles-police-chief-michel-moore CAHOOTS COMMUNITY JUSTICE CENTER hammer
& hope magazine Sincerely, Your Constituent -- Rae Duckworth Operating Chairperson of Black Lives Matter
Utah Chapter
7/21/2023 15:46 Sean McDermot Fleet Block Dear SLC City Council, We hope this email finds you well. I am an active community member and CAG
(Community Activist Group) member in Salt Lake City. Recently, proposals were shared to the city council
regarding “Fleet Block”. Fleet Block is better known as The Salt Lake City Police Brutality Murals and it is of
historical value in our neighborhood. The discussions surrounding police violence are vital to our community
and our neighborhood’s growth. Demolishing these murals will not erase police violence or the conversations
needed around police reform, police violence and police murder. It is concerning that there was not a mention
of a community center, resource center or a permanent gathering center as this space is currently operating
that way. We feel it to be a priority when discussing the future and development of this area. Salt Lake City
currently has a high demand for resources that stretch from; shelter, food, water, harm reduction, mental and
physical health. These types of resources should be required in this block now that this intersection is equally
accessible from the East and West sides of the valley. We encourage you to support your community and their
current successful efforts at keeping this space safe for mourning and grieving, outreach, collecting and
sharing ideas, but most importantly getting to know our neighbors. Below are some reference ideas for your
next discussion. COUNTY HEALTH RANKINGS - TAKE ACTION
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3709358/ street civics - reducing crime CJC
healthcare.utah.edu https://www.safetyreimagined.org/community-of-practice/when-not-to-send-the-police-
a-conversation-with-los-angeles-police-chief-michel-moore CAHOOTS COMMUNITY JUSTICE CENTER hammer
& hope magazine Sincerely, Sean McDermott
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
7/21/2023 15:50 Jackie Daniels-Brown Murals Dear SLC City Council, We hope this email finds you well. I am an active community member and CAG
(Community Activist Group) member in Salt Lake City. Recently, proposals were shared to the city council
regarding “Fleet Block”. Fleet Block is better known as The Salt Lake City Police Brutality Murals and it is of
historical value in our neighborhood. The discussions surrounding police violence are vital to our community
and our neighborhood’s growth. Demolishing these murals will not erase police violence or the conversations
needed around police reform, police violence and police murder. It is concerning that there was not a mention
of a community center, resource center or a permanent gathering center as this space is currently operating
that way. We feel it to be a priority when discussing the future and development of this area. Salt Lake City
currently has a high demand for resources that stretch from; shelter, food, water, harm reduction, mental and
physical health. These types of resources should be required in this block now that this intersection is equally
accessible from the East and West sides of the valley. We encourage you to support your community and their
current successful efforts at keeping this space safe for mourning and grieving, outreach, collecting and
sharing ideas, but most importantly getting to know our neighbors. Below are some reference ideas for your
next discussion. COUNTY HEALTH RANKINGS - TAKE ACTION
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3709358/ street civics - reducing crime CJC
healthcare.utah.edu https://www.safetyreimagined.org/community-of-practice/when-not-to-send-the-police-
a-conversation-with-los-angeles-police-chief-michel-moore CAHOOTS COMMUNITY JUSTICE CENTER hammer
& hope magazine Sincerely, Your Constituent
7/21/2023 15:52 Jennifer Jackson Community Space Needed Dear SLC City Council, We hope this email finds you well. I am an active community member and CAG
(Community Activist Group) member in Salt Lake City. Recently, proposals were shared to the city council
regarding “Fleet Block”. Fleet Block is better known as The Salt Lake City Police Brutality Murals and it is of
historical value in our neighborhood. The discussions surrounding police violence are vital to our community
and our neighborhood’s growth. Demolishing these murals will not erase police violence or the conversations
needed around police reform, police violence and police murder. It is concerning that there was not a mention
of a community center, resource center or a permanent gathering center as this space is currently operating
that way. We feel it to be a priority when discussing the future and development of this area. Salt Lake City
currently has a high demand for resources that stretch from; shelter, food, water, harm reduction, mental and
physical health.These types of resources should be required in this block now that this intersection is equally
accessible from the East and West sides of the valley. We encourage you to support your community and their
current successful efforts at keeping this space safe for mourning and grieving, outreach, collecting and
sharing ideas, but most importantly getting to know our neighbors. Below are some reference ideas for your
next discussion. COUNTY HEALTH RANKINGS - TAKE ACTION
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3709358/ street civics - reducing crime CJC
healthcare.utah.edu https://www.safetyreimagined.org/community-of-practice/when-not-to-send-the-police-
a-conversation-with-los-angeles-police-chief-michel-moore CAHOOTS COMMUNITY JUSTICE CENTER hammer
& hope magazine Sincerely, Your Constituent, Jennifer Jackson
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
7/25/2023 9:48 Matthew Morriss Firework ban in Glendale - D2 Councilman Puy, After the fourth of July and now Pioneer Day, I wanted to contact you regarding the use of
fireworks in Glendale. I’ve noticed that other neighborhoods have “fireworks banned” signs. The avenues. 9th
and 9th and yalecrest. Notably, the wealthier neighborhoods in town. Given the fact that Glendale already has
some of the worst air quality in the city and state, restricting fireworks seems like a natural fit to reduce
smoke during these summer holidays, reduce noise pollution, and reduce the chance of a fire breaking out.
This last point is what I worry about most as we have such hot and dry weather every summer. I hope you’ll
please consider options to make Glendale firework free. Matthew -- - Matthew Morriss, PhD
7/25/2023 10:14 Bernie Hart When something is working embrace it Wayne, Your observations may be correct in that much of what I do is centered around pointing out what I
see as flaws in our efforts to help the homeless. Nothing seems to ever change and when I offer alternatives,
no one seems to listen and I get upset and start throwing rocks...in hopes of creating ripples and waves that
might be the precursor to real change. Is it throwing rocks when I remind service providers and elected
officials that the only time they can be assured that a large number of the struggling and troubled homeless in
our community are not causing problems for local business, off selling or buying drugs and away from their
tents is when.... they are engaged in a productive and healing activity. You are all invited to join the troubled
and struggling homeless who are not causing problems between 9:45 - 1045 on Mon. Wed. Thur and Sat in
front of (ironically) SLCPD. Bernie
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
7/26/2023 15:44 Vicki Gorman PLNPCM 2022-01083 and PLNPCM 2022-01139 Dear Council Member Mano, I am writing again to share my strong opposition to changing the R 1/7000
(Single Family Residential) to SR-3 zoning (Special Development Pattern Residential) for the 1782 South 1600
East parcel. My husband and I have resided on our property for 16 years. Our property line to west diagonally
overlooks Mr. Arrasi’s planned development site. I attended and spoke at the April 26, 2023 Planning
Commission meeting and was extremely thankful when they voted to deny the applicant’s request for
rezoning. This vote was in solidarity with the Sugarhouse Community Council recommendation to uphold the
existing R 1/7000 zoning for this property. I also watched the Salt Lake City Council working session and
attended the July 18th meeting. I appreciated the thoughtful comments shared by the members. However,
there was a comment made by Ana Valdemoros (District 4) regarding the applicant’s stated desire to build a
family home on this property which is a tradition shared by many cultures wherein multiple family homes exist
on a single property. To be clear, there is no evidence that this is Mr. Arrasi’s primary motive considering he
currently lives in Olympus Cove. Furthermore, the property owners choose not to live on site but instead to
rent out the entire duplex. If owning a family home and residing in this neighborhood were the primary
objectives, it seems the applicant, his mother, sister and other relatives could simply reside in the existing
duplex and no rezoning would be necessary. I also feel very strongly that granting this rezoning application
sets a wholly undesirable precedent of rezoning based on a single property owner who does not reside in the
neighborhood to possibly build multiple structures on a lot that does not have a driveway or setbacks that
meet the requirements of SR-3. As noted in several other neighbors’ comments, the dimensions of the existing
alley make fire department access to the property questionable/unfeasible and conflicts with the surrounding
neighbors’ privacy and existing character of the neighborhood. In conjunction with my neighbors who have
submitted comments and attended the April 26th Planning Commission Meeting and the Salt Lake City Council
Meeting on July 18, 2023, I oppose the application for rezoning based on lot access that does not meet fire
safety codes, defiance of existing standards that support the character and historic nature of the
neighborhood as well as overcrowded land use concerns. I urge you to reject the SR-3 rezoning application and
to please support the existing R 1/7000 designation based on the information you have received here and
from the surrounding single family home residents as well as the Sugarhouse and Planning Committee
Councils’ votes to deny this rezoning application. Thank you in advance for your time and attention to my
comment. Sincerely, Victoria Gorman 1798 South 1600 East
7/28/2023 19:06 Julia Reid Against sanctioned camping I object to the idea of supporting sanctioned camping with $50,000 grants. I feel this is a waste of money and
simply delays a good solution to the homeless problem. I have not seen anything to indicate that there would
be sufficient resources to deal with the sanitation and safety issues, considering that the city fails to care
adequately for the homeless presently strewn about our streets. A camp of homeless people, many with
mental health and drug problems, would likely have violence and crime problems simply due to crowding.
Introducing a camp into any neighborhood is in my opinion a mistake. I feel strongly about this issue as I have
relatives in San Francisco and have witnessed how homelessness has literally destroyed that city. Sincerely,
Julia Reid
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
7/31/2023 16:55 Eddie Quijano Traffic Control in Rose Park Victoria, I love what the city did for 500 North in Fair Park! The speed bumps and the small roundabout is
perfect. This was a great example of managing the traffic in this area. Please do what you can to improve the
traffic on American Beauty between 600 -1000 North and on 12th west between 600 and 1000. Please don’t
wait for someone to get hurt or worse. Please! Sent from my iPad Eddie Quijano
7/31/2023 16:56 Sharla Humphrey 999 Cyclists July 29, 2023 Good Morning, What is being done to monitor the conduct of irresponsible citizens in the weekly
999 bicycle rides through SLC? Our granddaughter is a nursing student and was caught in the horrific mob of
cyclists on her return home on the night of July 27, 2023. She waited 15 minutes to get through an
intersection. The lights turned for her to proceed and she was restrained by the mob of cyclists. They banged
on her car, called her names, video taped her, and were unruly. If this is the norm, it needs to be controlled.
She was terrorized and traumatized by this mob of cyclists. This group is doing unlawful acts and harming
innocent, vulnerable citizens. There have been complaints since the inception of 999 and lives lost. This cannot
be ignored. What is the SLC police department doing to protect the citizens? It has mushroomed out of
control. For the record, the concern has been voiced. Our family is very concerned about our granddaughter’s
safety. We are concerned about how this has affected the safety of the citizens. Please respond. Sincerely,
Sharla Humphrey
7/31/2023 17:00 Claudia Rasmussen Let's preserve the SLC Police Brutality Murals -
Fleet Block
Dear SLC City Council, We hope this email finds you well. I am an active community member and CAG
(Community Activist Group) member in Salt Lake City. Recently, proposals were shared to the city council
regarding “Fleet Block”. Fleet Block is better known as The Salt Lake City Police Brutality Murals and it is of
historical value in our neighborhood. The discussions surrounding police violence are vital to our community
and our neighborhood’s growth. Demolishing these murals will not erase police violence or the conversations
needed around police reform, police violence and police murder. It is concerning that there was not a mention
of a community center, resource center or a permanent gathering center as this space is currently operating
that way. We feel it to be a priority when discussing the future and development of this area. Salt Lake City
currently has a high demand for resources that stretch from; shelter, food, water, harm reduction, mental and
physical health. These types of resources should be required in this block now that this intersection is equally
accessible from the East and West sides of the valley. We encourage you to support your community and their
current successful efforts at keeping this space safe for mourning and grieving, outreach, collecting and
sharing ideas, but most importantly getting to know our neighbors. Sincerely, Claudia Rasmussen
8/1/2023 8:59 Craig N Schriber Concerns with Zoning and Plan Amendments
1782 S. 1600 E. Voting AUG 8
Dear Salt Lake City Council Members, As a homeowner, living in District 7, and in proximity to the parcel
located at 1782 S 1600 E, I urge the Council to deny the property owner's request. This request for
amendments to the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map for the property at
1782 S 1600 E has already been reviewed and denied by zoning and staff. Please follow the recommendation
of the staff and do not allow this change! Thank you, Craig Craig Schriber
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
8/1/2023 9:06 Dean Thomas Upcoming Hearing on the Rezone Requests for
1782 S 1600 E at the July 18, 2023 Sugar House
City Council Meeting
We very strongly oppose the proposed rezone from R1-7000 to SR-3 for the property located at 1782 S 1600 E.
We live east of this property at REDACTED. I have lived in this home about 50 years, I bought from my mother
over 24 years ago. When Mr. Cates remodeled the house back in 80’s there were issues on the west side of
our house. I recall that was resolved by Mr. Cates promising my mom that he was going to build a beautiful
garage in his back yard. He stated nothing but cars would be in the garage, and it would be just for the renters
of the duplex. He also said he would remove the snow on the alley way, and this would stop the amount of
cars parking on the street. I agree with the staff report from April 20,2023 on many points. I believe this
project is under the spot zoning if any. Under the Existing Land Use Designation The majority of the residential
land uses in Sugar House consist of single-family dwellings on lots typically between 5,000 and 8,000 square
feet. These low-density residential areas are interspersed with duplexes and a few multiple-family dwellings. It
is desirable to preserve and protect the dominant, single-family character of these neighborhoods by holding
the density between five and ten (5-10) dwelling units per acre. Examples of zoning districts that support this
density range are R-1/7000, R- 1/5000, R-2 and RMF-30. Sugar House Plan Policies Support and enhance the
dominant, single-family character of the existing low-density residential neighborhoods. Maintain the unique
character of older, predominantly low-density neighborhoods. Prohibit the expansion of non-residential land
uses into areas of primarily low-density dwelling units. Plan Salt Lake includes initiatives and goals to increase
housing units. With that said, the proposed amendments include developing an illegally subdivided parcel in
an existing neighborhood. The increase in density will promote a dwelling unit on the property that functions
as a rear yard with challenging access. Generally, these initiatives and goals do not support the proposed
amendments. This lot is so very small with a very challenging access, and per the goals and policy statement,
we agree that this should be denied. While part of the goals of Salt Lake City, is to increase AFFORDABLE
housing, we feel it is not in the best interest of the community. For one property owner’s request to amend all
sorts of zoning plans, licensing, city policies and county rulings to squeeze a housing project which will add, per
the request housing for one single family. Also, this block has 5 duplex units existing. And 3 more duplex units
on the block east of this block. Thank you Council members for all the work you do for our city. Jan & Dean
Thomas
8/1/2023 9:09 Peter DeWeerd 1600 E 1782 S - Please do not approve plan
amendments - D/7
Dear Sarah, We live at REDACTED and have attended meetings, and have reviewed the 61 page Staff Report
prepared by Kelsey Lindquist dated April 20, 2023. We have lived here since 2009. We are proud members of
the greater SLC community, we work hard, and we pay our taxes. In regards to: PLNPCM2022-01138
&PLNCPCM2022-01139 Map and Plan Amendment for 1782 S 1600 E: The subject property is an illegal lot
created through a non-approved subdivision . The proposed master plan amendment is not consistent with
adopted City policies, and the proposed zoning amendment does not meet the applicable factors for
consideration. I request that the city council follow the recommendations of the planning staff and not
approve the above mentioned amendments. Sincerely, Pete DeWeerd , Dina DeWeerd,
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
8/1/2023 9:12 William Brass Welcome Good morning, Welcome and congratulations. As 43 year residents of Salt Lake City and 34 year residents of
Sugar House, We look forward to your representation of the Sugar House area. You have inherited challenging
issues to the area and we appreciate your concern for the home owners of the area while we experience
exponential growth and traffic in our established neighborhoods and thoroughfares. We look forward to
meeting you at the community council meeting in August. Regards, Bill and Susan Brass
8/1/2023 9:26 Vicki Gorman 1872 S 1600 E - PLNCPM 2022-01083 and
PLNPCM 2022-01139 - D/7
Dear Council Member Young, Thank you very much for recently visiting the property in question. Your commitment to listen
to Mr. Simon Harrison and tour the proposed property development site are greatly appreciated! I hope your firsthand
experience will be able to further convey and support the concerns of our neighborhood's shared goals to oppose the
rezoning application. I am writing to share my strong opposition to changing the R 1/7000 (Single Family Residential) to SR-3
zoning (Special Development Pattern Residential) for the 1782 South 1600 East parcel. My husband and I have resided on
our property for 16 years. Our property line to west diagonally overlooks Mr. Arrasi’s planned development site. I attended
and spoke at the April 26, 2023 Planning Commission meeting and was extremely thankful when they voted to deny the
applicant’s request for rezoning. This vote was in solidarity with the Sugarhouse Community Council recommendation to
uphold the existing R 1/7000 zoning for this property. I also watched the Salt Lake City Council working session and attended
the July 18th meeting. I appreciated the thoughtful comments shared by the members. However, there was a comment
made by Ana Valdemoros (District 4) regarding the applicant’s stated desire to build a family home on this property which is
a tradition shared by many cultures wherein multiple family homes exist on a single property. To be clear, there is no
evidence that this is Mr. Arrasi’s primary motive considering he currently lives in Olympus Cove. Furthermore, the property
owners choose not to live on site but instead to rent out the entire duplex. If owning a family home and residing in this
neighborhood were the primary objectives, it seems the applicant, his mother, sister and other relatives could simply reside
in the existing duplex and no rezoning would be necessary. I also feel very strongly that granting this rezoning application
sets a wholly undesirable precedent of rezoning based on a single property owner who does not reside in the neighborhood
to possibly build multiple structures on a lot that does not have a driveway or setbacks that meet the requirements of SR-3.
As noted in several other neighbors’ comments, the dimensions of the existing alley make fire department access to the
property questionable/unfeasible and conflicts with the surrounding neighbors’ privacy and existing character of the
neighborhood. In conjunction with my neighbors who have submitted comments and attended the April 26th Planning
Commission Meeting and the Salt Lake City Council Meeting on July 18, 2023, I oppose the application for rezoning based on
lot access that does not meet fire safety codes, defiance of existing standards that support the character and historic nature
of the neighborhood as well as overcrowded land use concerns. I urge you to reject the SR-3 rezoning application and to
please support the existing R 1/7000 designation based on the information you have received here and from the
surrounding single family home residents as well as the Sugarhouse and Planning Committee Councils’ votes to deny this
rezoning application. Thank you in advance for your time and attention to my comment. Sincerely, Victoria Gorman
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
8/2/2023 14:04 Rachel Allen Concerns about bikes at Sugarhouse Park Hello! My name is Rachel Allen. My husband and I live at REDACTED. My husband is a Fire Captain for Salt Lake
City. We have a concern. We walk Sugarhouse park almost every day. In the summer and winter. Year round.
We have for years! We know the friendly faces who go at the same time as us, morning or evening. We love
this park. But this summer, it seems we are about to be run over by bikes every day! We walk on the trail
down from 1700 South along the park and 1-80 freeway and then we walk under the street and through the
Hallow. It seems there are many new bike owners who have discovered electric bikes. This is great, and I
encourage all exercise, but it has become a problem. These bike riders don’t know bike etiquette or rules.
Most often they act like we are in the wrong for walking on the path. Maybe we are? I’m not sure. Just this
summer alone I have been bumped by a bike at least 5 times. I try to walk to the extreme side. But this doesn’t
seem to help. The experienced bikers have no problem going around us, or ringing their bell, or shouting “to
the left.” But the majority of bike riders at the park seem inexperienced. Once we walk around the actual park,
there are clearly designated lanes for cars, walking and bikes. May I suggest either dividing the lanes on the
outside of the park to have one for walking, and one for bikes. This is what is often found on boardwalks along
the beach. I would like to share the path, but I think all the new people with electric bikes need some
direction. Please, walk these paths for yourselves, you will see what I am taking about. Thank you. Rachel Allen
8/2/2023 14:33 Andra Ghent FW: (EXTERNAL) Homelessness in Liberty Park Hi Darin and Andrew, Just read the piece on homelessness in Liberty Park in the SLTrib after coming back from
a run in Liberty Park. I appreciate you engaging on this issue. FWIW, I think the city’s response strikes the right
balance between making sure we have safe outdoor recreation opportunities and helping our unsheltered
residents find longer term solutions. Indeed, more citations on a person’s record ends up making it harder to
find housing down the road and seems unlikely to be a deterrent to camping. As you are surely aware, the rise
in unsheltered homelessness seems to be a nationwide problem (see Figure 5 on page 7 of attached), not a
Salt Lake City problem. I’m not sure our citizens know this though and there might be some unfair attribution
bias to SLC. I use the park almost daily. I’ve never had any issues with my safety there, even in the early hours
of the morning when I sometimes have to run alone. The cars on the way to the park are always the bigger
threat to me. A couple times I left belongings on the side of the track and they disappeared quickly but that’s
obviously on me – someone clearly needed that wind breaker more than I needed it😊 I’m *thrilled* that the
public restrooms in Liberty Park are open once again. For sure, we could use more resources to keep them
clean but I’d rather have access to something and the hygiene issues spill out to the rest of the park when we
don’t have public bathrooms. I know a lot of older runners that have to run on treadmills just because of lack
of open public bathrooms so having open bathrooms really expands who can use the parks. I’m happy people
are aware that it is much better to camp off the bike lanes on 9th. Blocked bike lanes are a safety issue. I’ve
never encountered an issue with camping on the track inside the park. Thanks again for your important work
on this issue. -- Andra Ghent Professor of Finance and Ivory-Boyer Chair in Real Estate Academic Director,
Ivory-Boyer Real Estate Center University of Utah
8/3/2023 13:35 Suzanne Stensaas Proposed limit on drive thrus Because of air quality and CO2 emissions and trying to cut back on fossil fuels I support NO drive thrus. Those
grandfathered in should not be transferred with the sale of property or business. No new ones. Pharmacies
can bring the drugs out to the car as was done during covid for everything from groceries to library books. I
would only support drive thrus for banks.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
8/4/2023 9:41 Peter Wright Ivory Homes Application for a Planned
Development at 675 North F Street
Hi Rachel, In March of 2023 you were kind enough to meet with us to review Avenues residents' concerns
with Ivory's proposals for 675 North F Street. At that time you stated a willingness to meet with us again once
Ivory had submitted new plans. They have now done so with an application for a planned development that
grossly overbuilds this property with zero public benefit. Sentiment in the Avenues is extremely strong on this
issue where residents feel they are not being listened to and that this project is being railroaded through. It
did not help that last night both Ivory and the Planning Division, at the last minute, pulled out of a scheduled
Greater Avenues Community Council meeting, leaving the many residents that turned up angry and frustrated.
It is our belief that this is something the mayor would want to be aware of. The level of emotion is such that
this issue will likely cost Mayor Mendenhall thousands of votes from Avenues residents, particularly as her
opponent has openly declared his opposition to Ivory's overly aggressive proposals. I would like to ask if you
would be so kind as to grant us a further meeting to discuss this with you, it would be in everyone's best
interests to not allow this to fester. Council Member Wharton has indicated that he remains opposed to
Ivory's plans and would appreciate being involved in the meeting. We can be available to meet anytime at your
convenience. Best Regards, Peter Wright
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
8/4/2023 9:48 Larry Perkins PLNPCM2023-00656 675 North F Street As the Treasurer of the Capitol Park HOA and as a person who has lived in close proximity to 675 North F
Street for nearly 20 years, I beg of you to Please, Please, Please honor and exercise the "Planner" portion of
your own Job Title as well as of the Department of our City Government that you are part of! Because a
central purpose of "Planning" is (1) to ensure that infrastructure is scaled to a certain level of use and
anticipated use and then (2) to permit only the intensity of use that is compatible with what has been planned
-- And Built. Ivory's proposed project on the above mentioned parcel has not dropped out of the sky into a
vacuum. Rather, one of the two "frontages" of their parcel/project is located on Capitol Park Avenue. And
Capitol Park Avenue is a privately owned and privately maintained street that was purposely built for Foothill
Zoning and not for high density zoning. Capitol Park Avenue (which is 30 feet wide from curb to curb) is MUCH
narrower than typical Salt Lake City Streets. It was built to accommodate either a church building and its (not
daily used) associated parking lot or else up to 11 residences (that was before ADU's became a prominent part
of our City's evolving housing policy .... but even considering that change, the street would need to handle no
more than 22 households at the maximum). Ivory's Project asks for MULTIPLE variances targeted to place the
vehicles of over 40 households onto that narrow, private street. However, vehicles are only one aspect of the
problems Ivory seems to want to create .... and then walk away from. Ivory has allowed Nearly no space for
guest parking associated with their 40+ households. And their 24 foot wide "double driveway" that is the sole
vehicular access for all of their residential structures save one certainly provides no place to receive or store
the piles of snow that will be generated by plowing that L-shaped access drive in the wintertime. IT IS AN
EXTREMELY SAFE BET to say that whoever plows Ivory's private roadway will want to place their snow onto
Capitol Park Drive. I know that Salt Lake City has a housing shortage and it is fair for all City residents and
neighborhoods to cooperate in addressing that issue. The Re-zoning that the City Council approved a few
months ago is a Major change for our neighborhood -- and for our infrastructure. Please do not go overboard
on that burden by allowing Ivory's proposed design with its Obvious Problems referenced above ( wwaaay
more vehicles than anticipated; guest parking forced to attempt to use our private roadway; and piles of
plowed snow to be argued about or sued over). Ivory's requested variances create actual on-the-ground
problems for us neighbors ON TOP OF those we must accept as a result of the Newly Approved Zoning. Thank
you, Larry Perkins
8/4/2023 9:52 Jen Oscarson Wasatch School Closing Hello Representative Wharton, My name is Jen Oscarson and I live at 1104 3rd Ave. Our children have gone
and do go to Wasatch Elementary and as of last night it is officially going to be on the further study list for
closures with a vote as early as November. The School Board mentioned that the City may be dictating some of
these closures and not working with the School District to development and maintain the schools. That said I
am very worried about this closure. That said can a few of us from Wasatch meet with you to discuss the City
plans for the Avenues-walk through the school closure guideline G-5 and see what can be done to preserve
this important school in our community? Thank you for your representation and hopefully support. Kindest
regards, Jen Oscarson
8/7/2023 8:12 James Ogilvie Capital improvements Willl any of the proposed improvements require recurring financial support? How will this affect following
annual budgets?
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
8/7/2023 16:20 Maha Barrani CIP My name is Maha. I'm calling because I'm interested in the CIP proposal in the green house in liberty park and
jordan park. I think it is a good idea and should keep continue funding them. Thank you and I do not need a
call back. bye
8/7/2023 16:43 Lynne Olson Support for Sugar House Drive-Through Text
Amendment
SLC Council Members: I support the proposal to prohibit inclusion of drive-through access to future
developments in the CSHBD zoning districts. The existing drive-through facilities confuse drivers and
contribute to traffic congestion in the district. The drive-through at Chick-Fil-A near 1300 East and the two
near 900 East/2100 South —Walgreen's and McDonalds—make both walking and driving in their vicinity
dangerous. Both of these locations attract their heaviest business during busy traffic periods, causing cars to
back up across adjacent driveways and sidewalks leading to other businesses. I think Sugar House's reputation
has suffered as a result. I urge you to approve the Drive-Through Text Amendment. Respectfully,
8/8/2023 9:15 Cathy King Liberty-Jordan Park Greenhouse Grants
Application ID: 418194
To the Honorable Salt Lake City Council Members, We would like to comment on the CIP grant proposal for
greenhouses at Liberty Park and Jordan Park. As community members and longtime active members and
officers of the Utah Native Plant Society, the Wasatch Rock Garden Society, the North American Rock Garden
Society and Save Our Canyons, we are committed to the use of native, drought tolerant and water-wise plants
in Salt Lake City gardens. The greenhouses are the perfect opportunity for Salt Lake City to grow and use these
water-wise plants in the city plantings, to be the leader and example to its citizens. In our continually warming
climate, change needs to be made quickly. You, as the decision-makers, need to be forward thinking. Many
species of drought tolerant and water-wise plants are difficult for gardeners to find to purchase but the city
could distribute these plants and help make them more available, especially to low income homeowners.
There are, of course, many other benefits. The historic greenhouse at Liberty Park should be restored to show
how important this historic park is. Now is the time to take control of Liberty Park, to invest in this most
important central park of Salt Lake City. Those workers who are currently working in the greenhouse deserve
decent and safe working conditions. The greenhouse at Jordan Park will serve the community on the west side
of the city which is only fair. That requires no explanation. And it would increase the capacity to grow more
water-wise plants to be used in the city gardens. This is an opportunity for the Salt Lake City Council to make a
decision that has a long term positive effect for the benefit of its citizens. Please choose to vote in favor of the
Liberty-Jordan Park Greenhouse Grants Application. We support revitalization of the Liberty Park historic
greenhouse. Respectfully, Cathy and Bill King
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
8/8/2023 9:18 Steve Starr 1/2 Northpoint Small Area Plan Dear Members of the City Council, I hope this letter finds you in good health and high spirits. I am writing as a
concerned resident of the Northpoint Small Area Plan to express my growing worries about the direction our
community is taking due to the unrestrained development that has taken place over the past few years. As a
member of this neighborhood for 20 years, I have seen firsthand how this uncontrolled expansion is negatively
impacting our way of life and safety. Firstly, I must highlight the significant consequences that have arisen due
to the rampant growth in our area. With the continuous influx of construction projects and new
developments, we have witnessed the erosion of the unique charm that once defined our neighborhood.
Green spaces and local landmarks have disappeared, replaced by faceless structures that do not harmonize
with the existing character of our community. This degradation of our environment has led to a loss of
identity, lower property values, the safety of ourselves and our families, and leaving many of us feeling
disconnected from the place we once proudly called home. Moreover, the burden of increased traffic
congestion has taken a toll on our daily lives. The influx of commercial establishments has overwhelmed our
infrastructure, leaving us residents facing difficulties commuting to work, accessing essential services, and
even jeopardizing the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. Our streets have become hazardous due to speeding
oversized construction vehicles and inadequate road maintenance, putting the lives of our small community
residents at risk. Furthermore, it is disheartening to witness how our concerns have been overlooked by the
City Council's decisions to halt any further growth and development in our area. While we understand the
importance of controlled growth, this decision has left us in a precarious situation. The sudden halt in the
decision for future development has led to stagnation. The residents who wanted to leave and that were
under contract to sell their property, which would have given them an opportunity to have a better life, are
left out here dealing with the chaos that you, the City Council approved. We now get to live with being
burdened with all the construction and development, the large construction vehicles that race down our rural
two-lane road exceeding the posted speed limit, at times forcing us to swerve to miss being hit by them. The
past decisions that were made to allow the current development have negatively impacted our property
values and decreased any potential for us to sell in the future. I implore the City Council to reevaluate their
stance on development in our area and consider adopting a more balanced approach that incorporates the
well-being and interests of the existing residents. We are the ones left living out here with the mess you have
already created.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
8/8/2023 9:18 Steve Starr 2/2 CONTINUED! Northpoint Small Area Plan The City Council wants to hold up progress in an area that is already being developed with buildings I have
personally heard them say vocal and in text messages that they want to see developers build something other
than huge warehouses. How can you tell one developer that they can’t build warehouse-type buildings, while
a 300+ acre development is currently underway for the exact same building type that you are refusing? I
encourage all of you on the City Council to visit our area for a few days and see for yourselves the headache
and struggle that we the residents have to deal with on a daily basis, then ask yourselves, if you were given an
opportunity to sell your property to a developer and move somewhere else and not have to deal with what is
happening in our area for foreseeable future. I can almost guarantee that if you were in fact dealing with what
we are dealing with you would want out as well. You are not protecting anyone out here from developers
ruining our way of life, in fact, you are doing the exact opposite of this, you are forcing us to stay and deal with
your poor decisions regarding the development already approved. Stop standing in the way of an area that is
clearly going to be developed and let us move on with our lives and not have to suffer in our area that is
already ruined. There is nothing you can do to preserve what we once had out here and there is no saving it.
As a concerned citizen of this area, I stand ready to work alongside the City Council and other relevant
stakeholders to find a viable solution that will benefit all members of our community. Town hall meetings and
open dialogues will foster trust and understanding between residents and decision-makers, ultimately leading
to more informed and equitable decisions. In conclusion, I urge the City Council to recognize the urgency of
our concerns and take swift action to rectify the detrimental effects of development in our area. I also urge
City Council members to reach out to the actual residents living in the area for their thoughts and wishes
regarding the changes happening, instead of calling on volunteers and other spokespersons to speak on behalf
of this matter to meet City Council members’ agendas. We are the ones living out here and our opinions and
thoughts should have more weight than the anti-development citizen living in the avenues of Salt Lake City!
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to witnessing positive changes that will serve us in
our small community. Sincerely, Steve L. Starr
8/8/2023 13:36 Bill Davis CIP application Liberty Wells greenhouses Dear City Council members I would like to submit a personal note in favor of this proposal. The Liberty Wells
CC has also submitted a letter in support but would like to emphasize that I am speaking not in any official
capacity. Best regards Bill Davis SLC, Utah
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
8/8/2023 13:44 Wade Olsen Sugar House Drive-Through Text Amendment After review of the proposed text amendment, Dee’s disagrees with staff’s recommendations to prohibit
future drive-through uses. Dee’s has been doing business in Sugar House for many years. From my
grandfather’s restaurants to our new offices on Wilmington Avenue, Dee’s is glad to be associated with other
businesses that currently call Sugar House their trade area. Over the years, Sugar House has been built and
rebuilt, but among other contributors, Interstate 80 and the I-15 connection, make Sugar House become one
of the most sought-after neighborhoods in the city. Dee’s supports better public transit and has pushed for the
S-Line expansion, however, Sugar House is attractive to many due to easy vehicular freeway access. Sugar
House attracts employers, locals and world visitors due to shopping, hospitality, recreation and restaurants.
While the CSHBD Purpose Statement says, “the purpose of the CSHBD Sugar House Business District is to
provide a walkable community with a transit orient, mixed use town center that can support a twenty-four
(24) hour population,” residents and visitors to Sugar House are still overwhelmingly dependent on vehicular
use. Staff’s Memorandum, dated November 9, 2022 has good insights and Dee’s agrees with the majority of
the content, however, Dee’s provides the following for consideration and discussion: • Keeping drive-throughs
and the CSHBD Purpose Statement are not wholly opposing views. • In the absence of drive-though options,
businesses will look to drive-up or quick-serve options. These options increase the parking requirements for
the area and can cause issues similar to stacking. • COVID showed the need for businesses to have alternate
sales options. • The stacking for Sugar House Chick-fil-a is not indicative of most drive-throughs. A single data
point should not lead to an, “all or nothing” policy that is difficult to reverse in the future. • As land prices
increase, drive-throughs tend to disappear. Prohibiting drive-throughs is an artificial market change that may
lead to unintended consequences. • If drive-throughs are prohibited, tax revenue may be delayed in
perpetuity for the current drive-through parcels. The current locations will become more valuable, postponing
natural redevelopment. While not the easiest process, drive-through operators, city officials, developers and
residents can create new and upgraded requirements for new high and low demand drive-through sites. Dee’s
encourages the Sugar House Chamber and the Sugar House Community Council to oppose staff
recommendations and keep drive-through options available. Thank you, Wade Olsen President, Dee's, Inc.
8/8/2023 13:45 David Alkire Sugar House Drive-Throughs This amendment would require developers to get a variance to have a drive-through in CSHBD1 and CSHBD2.
We do want banks in the neighborhood, and they seem to require drive-through serv ice these days. But there
are good and bad places for these facilities, and good and bad ways to organize them. So I agree that it should
not be a permitted use in CSHBD1 and CSHBD2. David Alkire